Studies Find No Evidence That Assault Weapon Bans Reduce Homicide Rates
- Thread starter biggreydogs
- Start date
You're suggesting that this kid would have been able to kill as many people with a knife as the AR-15 which is absurd. How about the Las Vegas shooter - same number of dead? JFC
That is a core belief in libertarianism that spans from the laissez faire capitalist libertarians to the socialist libertarians.
This kid just bought his guns when he turned 18. Even with all of the legally owned firearms currently in our country, how would he have gotten his hands on an assault rifle if even just a month ago it had been made illegal for him to own one? He would either have to steal one, which would require him to know someone has one to steal from and would have presented an opportunity to him to get caught doing that crime first. Or he has to know someone who has one and would give it to him. Considering that there is a good chance that he had mental sanity issues, even had he known someone who owned an assault rifle, would he have been able to get them to give it to him? Especially if we made people vicariously liable if they gave a gun to someone who could not legally own one?
Sorry, but saying that since there are so many guns already in our country, any bans will be ineffective is nonsense. Would new laws guarantee this doesn't happen? Of course not. Could they decrease the overall number of incidences? Of course.
Last edited:
Perfect is the enemy of good. Reduction is good. Lots of people are lazy and or unwilling to do the work. Sure, someone deadset on killing a bunch of people will eventually find a way. But that's not the mindset of all people who kill with guns.
There are an estimated 400 million guns in the U.S. How long do you think it will take us to work through those before we see a reduction in crime?
Self-defense guy vs. an assault rifle shooter. The rifle shooter wins that contest 100% of the time. Self defense LOL
Congrats, you bought a Total Gym and now you're a message board Chuck Norris.
Yeah. It is that demographic that's most troubling. L
Lets figure out something that allows the responsible 18 year old farm boy to go pheasant hunting with his dad legally while somehow keeping maniacs like the kid we saw in Texas from acquiring without questions the day after his birthday.
What a great (and fair) idea. Penalize legal, responsible citizens, who simply want to protect themselves, for the actions of criminals and for whom the legal and responsible gun owners don't control or even know. This a particularly good idea in an environment of increasing crime rates and a political left who is advocating for defunding the police.
I don’t believe in the market as much as them, but I do agree with staying out of it as much as possible.
Laws only reduce the availability of guns to law abiding citizens.
You point is proven by the kids actions. There was no one stopping him from getting an illegal gun. He chose to wait until it was easy for him to get the gun, when he turned 18. So as a society, we allowed this kid easy access to the guns he used on little kids. Had this kid not been allowed to get the guns legally, he probably would have never done anything. You put candy in front of a kid, and they're going to eat it.
That's not true and this kid is an example. If there was a law in place he never would have gotten the guns.
Legally, he wouldn’t have gotten the gun. Illegally, getting a gun is as easy as getting illegal drugs.
Again, if you can't just walk into a gun store and buy a gun to go kill someone with like most mass murderers do then it makes it much harder and you're going to have to commit other crimes ahead of time before you can get to the mass murder stage.
Again, research says most mass shootings are by men between 18 and 21 and they have very little firearm training. So make it illegal for them to own a semi-automatic weapon of any kind until 21. Sure, they could steal one (Which is where safe storage laws become important) but they have to be able to pull that off first, OR know where to buy one illegally without getting caught. Could they do those. Sure, does it make it much more difficult? Yes.
Also, could they still kill a bunch of people like Columbine with shotguns and regular handguns? Yes, but we're giving people a much more fighting chance. If it's got to reload that shotgun, that's time for people to run, to be tackled. For him to drop the shells and fumble the entire thing, etc...
Sure, a well trained soldier can reload a revolver as fast as a magazine, and can pump shotgun shells in like nobodies business. But that's not the demographic of 90% of school shooters.
This study is propaganda.
They say a single study for example that could find no significant correlation between the assault rifle banned in Australia and decreased deaths, but failed to mention that there has not been a single mass shooting in Australia since the band was enacted in 1997. Just because they can’t control for all variables to make a definitive conclusion doesn’t mean that there is a significant difference in safety in Australia before the assault rifles were banned and a major gun buyback program was enacted, although that was not studied specifically in this particular study.
People just rely on totally biased summaries of limited studies and the cherry pick data and they fit it into their own bullshit ideology.
it is absolutely true that the more limited guns are, the safer a country is in the developed world.
Here is a summary of the conclusions directly from the study that the libertarian think tanks “study” summarizes in a totally biased and cherry picked manner, also omitting the most obvious benefit of the assault rifle ban: NO MORE MASS SHOOTINGS IN (NOW) 25 YEARS!
and because most people don’t understand how research works and how science functions, they are easily manipulated by ideologically motivated and corporate funded think tanks like this BS organization the OP cites, Maybe to make himself feel better that innocent people keep getting mowed down by military style weapons That have absolutely no place in civilized society.
“Conclusions and Relevance Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms.
They say a single study for example that could find no significant correlation between the assault rifle banned in Australia and decreased deaths, but failed to mention that there has not been a single mass shooting in Australia since the band was enacted in 1997. Just because they can’t control for all variables to make a definitive conclusion doesn’t mean that there is a significant difference in safety in Australia before the assault rifles were banned and a major gun buyback program was enacted, although that was not studied specifically in this particular study.
People just rely on totally biased summaries of limited studies and the cherry pick data and they fit it into their own bullshit ideology.
it is absolutely true that the more limited guns are, the safer a country is in the developed world.
Here is a summary of the conclusions directly from the study that the libertarian think tanks “study” summarizes in a totally biased and cherry picked manner, also omitting the most obvious benefit of the assault rifle ban: NO MORE MASS SHOOTINGS IN (NOW) 25 YEARS!
and because most people don’t understand how research works and how science functions, they are easily manipulated by ideologically motivated and corporate funded think tanks like this BS organization the OP cites, Maybe to make himself feel better that innocent people keep getting mowed down by military style weapons That have absolutely no place in civilized society.
“Conclusions and Relevance Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms.
Obviously we aren’t dealing with our mental health issues. But we also aren’t dealing with our gun fetish either. Both need to be tackled in a meaningful way.
- Tax payer funded mental healthcare facilities.
- More resources for identifying mentally ill people and getting them the help they need before they can hurt people.
- More rigorous background checks as well as mandatory firearm safety training. 100 hours? 200 hours? Weed the idiots who can’t be trusted with guns out.
- Make gun manufacturers potentially liable for homicides.
- Make ammo prohibitively expensive.
- ban and criminalize the possession of magazines holding more than 6 rounds. (If you’ve passed a 100 hour firearm training, you don’t need more than 6 bullets to defend your home.)
These are the kind of things a society that truly prioritizes the safety of children over deadly toys would do.
So do we care about children’s safety more than toys?
Can you send that as a note to my wife. According to her I never make any good points. lol
Totally false and totally delusional and totally dishonest and totally despicable.
This is total bullshit. I know a bunch of people who could get me weed. A few of them could get me harder drugs if I wanted. I don’t know a single person who could get me an illegal weapon and wouldn’t have the slightest idea where to even begin to look.
It’s not like you can pull up Google and ask them to give you the name, telephone number and address of your local black market arms dealer.
It's as if every person who does a mass shooting is some hardened member of an illegal inner city gang, connected to massive drug rings and has easy access to a pipeline of smuggled weapons and not some disgruntled guy who's mad that some girl turned him down and has decided children must die as a result so he leaves his Mom's basement, buys a gun, and shoots a school up.
But if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them and if we bend on the gun control issue just a bit, they [the libtards] will take our guns away. You know the old
This is always appropriate for this thread.
Virgil- The Left
The Mob - The Right
I'm of this thought as well, but only in response to that ridiculous proposition. Many viable and reasonable solutions have been provided.
Making the purchase age 21 - does not "punish the safe responsible gun owner"
Establishing 30-day waiting periods for ALL guns - does not "punish the safe responsible gun owner"
Establishing universal background checks - does not "punish the safe responsible gun owner"
Closing gun show loopholes - does not "punish the safe responsible gun owner"
A few of the aforementioned may inconvenience some, but if an inconvenience isn't worth a child's life, well, EFF YOU!
Last edited:
I don't think that's hard. I wasn't able to purchase a gun, but I "owned" a few as a 12-year old. I used them under the supervision of my parents, but I sure as hell wasn't able to purchase them on my own. And as I stated in the other thread, me taking a shotgun to school isn't going to enable me to kill 19 people. If I'm perfect, I kill 5 then I'm taken down during the cumbersome reload.
Now, yes there are magazine fed shotguns. I'm sorry, but I'm a-okay with limiting the capacity sizes of those things too. I figured out how to quail & dove hunt without needing to pump 20 bird shot rounds in the air, others can too.
Again, if firing off 20 rounds of bird shot in succession is more important than a kids life, then EFF YOU!
If reasonable gun laws like background checks are enacted is enough to stop just one school shooting, then I am onboard. We won’t stop them all, but efforts should be being made by our government to stop them.
