Fact

WinterBorn said:
That is hardly what he is saying.

Can anyone show any real difference the previous "assault rifle" ban made? Can anyone show a positive effect of that ban?
Click to expand...
Yes, it created a market for assault rifles where none had existed before.

Personally I think the assault rifle ban and limiting clip size are bad ideas because as laws they don't work and create a market for these items, where none had existed before, which is counterproductive.

I am for universal back ground checks. The technology is available, it would help to some degree in preventing some criminals from obtaining weapons but where it would really help would be in prosecuting felons who are in illegal posession of firearms or attempt to do so.

One of the disconnects that I see in many rural gun enthusiast is the problems we have with guns in urban environments. It's not a good thing when urban thugs and gangs are better armed than law enforcement. These are not good people out to protect your rights. They're criminals out to do bad and it's a frustrating situation.
 
WinterBorn said:
So we restrict what people (even if its only 4%) want and already possess, but if crime doesn't increase and its not detrimental, you think it is all well and good? Bigger bureacracy and expense for no reason, but as long as crime doesn't increase it is a good gun law?

Violent crime rates have been dropping for a few decades.
Click to expand...

Your persistent argument is that the effect of the previous ban was negligible. But was it even around long enough to make a difference? I think not, and several experts agree with me. Many changes to laws don't result in immediacy, and this is one of them. Over time, as the weapons would become more and more scarce, their numbers would grow lower, making "mass" situations of murder less likely, which is what they're known for.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

The Ban’s Success in Reducing Criminal Use of the Banned Guns and Magazines Has Been Mixed

Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage), based on data covering all or portions of the 1995-2003 post-ban period.

This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.

The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use ofassault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles(ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimeswith these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to thenned AR models.

However, the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs in jurisdictions studied (Baltimore, Milwaukee, Louislle, and Anchorage). The failure to reduce LCM use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines, which has been enhanced by recent imports
Click to expand...

Naturally, that's just a part of the study but it affirms my point. It also points out the tactics used by gun manufacturers to skirt the law by producing slightly different automatic weapons to bypass it, so obviously changes are needed.

I need to point out, however, the study also agrees somewhat with your points, too.

Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.
Click to expand...

Obviously, it can assumed that a well-constructed bipartisan ban could have positive effects over a long period of time. It just takes intelligent people to sit down and fabricate it.
 
Howey said:
"Mob rule" is the term the right uses when they don't get their way. When they do get their way it's called "The people speak."
Click to expand...
agreed. what's the point? I'm not the 'right', despite your idiocy to believe otherwise. If 96% said abortion needed to be a capital crime, would you then tell congress to listen to the people?
 
Howey said:
So if a majority of American people support it, it shouldn't be passed because there's no proof of the positive effect of the previous ban twenty years ago?
Click to expand...

So if the majority of people thought gay marriage should be banned, that would be ok with you for Congress to pass a bill banning gay marriage?
 
Superfreak said:
So if the majority of people thought gay marriage should be banned, that would be ok with you for Congress to pass a bill banning gay marriage?
Click to expand...

See SF, I thought of exactly this when I read through this thread yesterday. I just didn't take the time to type it as I am sure it will have no effect. Someone yesterday made a post about calling it "mob rule" when something you oppose has majority support but that is exactly what the checks and balances are put in place for and what makes this country unique. we can't have a ban on abortions, we can't prevent gays from marrying and others can't have total gun control (the bogus "background check expansion" just being another step in that direction) just because it has majority support.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
'shall not be infringed'. having to submit to a government authorized list of who can and cannot exercise a fundamental right is infringement, therefore it's not 'equal'.
Click to expand...

And everyone purchasing a gun has to do a background check.

Equal treatment. If you're eligible to have a gun, no right is "infringed".
 
Howey said:
1. No poll done this year ... shows less than a majority to reinstate a federal ban on assault weapons. - Dianne Feinstein

2. Congress has spent 66 of the first 100 days of this term in recess. - John Barrow

3. A "wide majority of NRA households ... supported this legislation" on gun background checks. - Barack Obama

4. A bipartisan background check amendment "outlawed any (gun) registry. - Barack Obama

5. "The NRA used to support expanded background checks." - Barack Obama

6. Polls show that Americans "overwhelmingly" support "expanding background checks." - Gabby Giffords

So why won't Congress listen to the people???

Source
Click to expand...
Because Democrats are so loud and obnoxious.
 
Howey said:
So if a majority of American people support it, it shouldn't be passed because there's no proof of the positive effect of the previous ban twenty years ago?
Click to expand...


Exactly.....and we have a representative democracy to prevent rule by plain majority.....its what protects the minorities in this great country.
 
Howey said:
Your persistent argument is that the effect of the previous ban was negligible. But was it even around long enough to make a difference? I think not, and several experts agree with me. Many changes to laws don't result in immediacy, and this is one of them. Over time, as the weapons would become more and more scarce, their numbers would grow lower, making "mass" situations of murder less likely, which is what they're known for.

Naturally, that's just a part of the study but it affirms my point. It also points out the tactics used by gun manufacturers to skirt the law by producing slightly different automatic weapons to bypass it, so obviously changes are needed.I need to point out, however, the study also agrees somewhat with your points, too.



Obviously, it can assumed that a well-constructed bipartisan ban could have positive effects over a long period of time. It just takes intelligent people to sit down and fabricate it.
Click to expand...

The ban was around for 10 years and produced no discernible change in the crime rates. It was a waste of time and a PR campaign.

When you say "...producing slightly different automatic weapons to bypass it." you show your ignorance of weapons or show the kind of misleading propaganda that has caused the slant. No one produced slightly different automatic weapons. An automatic weapon is a machine gun. Those are strictly regulated and have been since the 1930s.

The assault rifle ban based its restrictions on cosmetic issues like bayonet mounts and flash suppressors. The manufacturers either had models without those features or added models without those features so they could still sell a rifle. They were not bypassing the law, they were conforming to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top