Click for bigger.
A few days after the mass shooting in Connecticut, Dr. A. Charles Catania sent us a graph of the 12 deadliest mass shootings in the United States. He showed their effects cumulatively, over time, so that you could see how steep the slope has become in recent years. Since then, a number you have asked whether there is any conclusion to be drawn from the long break in points on the curve, which is to say, the long break in the list of America's deadliest shootings.
By way of an answer, Dr. Catania, a behavioral and experimental psychologist, updated his chart to show the period covered by the federal ban on assault weapons -- 1994 to 2004. He writes:
Here is a new version of my earlier graph on cumulative deaths in mass shootings. In a cumulative display, each data point always includes the total of all the previous entries. The advantage of this kind of display is that the steepness of the line gives a rate, so if one portion is fairly flat and another is fairly steep, the rate for the first part is low and the rate for the second part is high.
The graph is similar to the one I presented before, but now the added shaded area shows the automatic weapons ban. The rate was increasing (the graph was getting steeper) until the ban went into effect. Then it flattened out, but after the ban ended the rate became steeper still. If it keeps going that way, 2013 will not be a good year.
I hope others will try graphing other data for automatic weapons deaths (for example, when they are used in drive-by shootings) to see if the same effect of the ban shows up for other kinds of shooting deaths.
There is no single cause for events like these, so of course it is true that they are only one factor. But if, among multiple causes such as first-person shooter games, a culture of violence, insufficient mental health resources, etc., automatic weapons are a contributing factor, so that they are enough to drive just the occasional individual over the threshold for committing another atrocity like the one that happened in Newtown, no pleading by the gun lobby that only people kill people is acceptable.
Thanks for the new chart, Dr. Catania. (How to send us stuff.)
Leave a Comment:
Before anyone asks, it should also show the year of availability of these assault rifles which would also put in why the ban was instrumental when it was in place.
given the chart goes clear up to 2020, and the latest years seems to be 2011 or 2012 that should give you somewhat of an answer to that question.
It's curious that it seems that the number of deaths has continually risen, with or without the assault weapons ban.
This is one of those things that is so frustrating about gun laws. I keep looking at data like this, and nothing seems to make any sense.
Unfortunately this graph shows nothing due to lack of data points. Which means you can look at it and see two things: Most of us here probably see the curve as leveling off in the grey part and shooting straight up after. Others (Publicans) will see the curve going up steadily throughout, even in the grey section.
Boo to this graph, I say.
In order to understand the data, it sometimes helps to actually read the article.
its a cumulative death sum chart, so it will always increase (unless we count zombies or the "undead"). Its not showing annual death rates, so it can't decrease. The note explained that (but omitted the discussion on potential zombie / undead adjustments).
Once the assault-ban went into place: the RATE of number of deaths started to decrease. That's the important thing. Imagine if the assault ban had stayed in place: those points would have started to veer toward the zero-axis, in time.
That's what happened in Australia.
That and the 24/7 news channels inceptions started when?? Oh yeah, right about the time when these events became slightly more frequent..
Thorn, what about causality? Were there other factors that played into this? Remember, street crime tends to increase during recessions, it decreases during good economic times. From '94 to '99 we had very good economic times. How does that factor into this?
I keep looking at data like this, with simply the goal of trying to make sense of it. And sadly, none of it does. In fact, it's all rather contradictory.
Here's a state by state breakdown of gun violence in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
One would think that either the pro-gun crowd or the gun control crowd would be right about what they think. Either most of the pro-gun states would have the most deaths OR the least deaths. Either most of the gun control states would have the most deaths OR the least deaths.
But what do you actually find? A complete and total mixed bag. Nothing makes any sense. No rhyme or reason. Illinois, California, and Maryland have some of the most strict gun laws in the country. The result? They're all in the top 10 states of gun violence. Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Arizona all have some of the most lax gun laws in the country. The result? They're ALSO in the top 10 states of gun violence.
What's especially curious is that what the graph does show is called out in the article and instead of reading it, you reach the conclusion that the graph shows nothing.
But as the article said, what it shows is that the increase in mass shooting deaths, while it did not stop rising during the ban, DID slow. There is a steady increase before and after that fit together well, but the ban causes the curve to bend.
What data are you looking at when you say death continue to rise. It is a fact that not only have gun death gone down in this country, but violent crime is also lower, significantly lower. IN 2007 17,030 people were murdered in this country in the 2011 12,664 were murdered. The 60's, 70's, 80's and beginning of the 90's were the most violent decades in recent history with over 24,000 murders in 1993. The murder and violent crime rate begin to fall and by 2000 we have only 15,584 murders. Then it raises a to just over 17,000 in 2007 and falls 12,664 murders in 2011. Also, as a comparison in 1960 the there were 5.1 murders for every 100,000 people in 2010 there were 4.8 murders for every 100,000 people. In 1960 the population was over 179M with 9,110 murders. In 2010 the population was over 308M with 14,748 murders. This all according to the FBI UCR datatool. Guns are still the weapon of choice in murder in the US and it is seems the bigger the population density and the more guns you have the more murders take place. The South has the largest population density and most guns and the most murders. The South reported 44% of murders in the U.S. in 2010. That still doesn't seem to matter as the murder rate and the violent crime rate is down and is going down every year regardless of the gun laws. I am not against gun laws, but what I am against is claiming that gun violence is ever increasing when it is not. We should have sensible gun laws.
Respectfully, I agree with JR. What is the point of the graph, the assault ban or mass shootings?
Because after reading the article: out of the 12 shootings graphed only 5 used assault weapons. What do the other 7 mass shootings have to do with the assault ban, which I assumed was the point of the graph.
Ban advocates need information more credible than this.
More credible? The graph talks about Mass Shootings as related to the Assault Weapons Ban. It's not a graph of Assault Weapons in Mass Shootings. Get your head on straight.
The article and graph clearly show a change in the overall Mass Shootings during the period of the Assault Weapons Ban. Mass Shootings have occurred without using those weapons, and some still could have occurred. But the graph and article just go to demonstrate simply that a ban had an impact on the overall shootings.
Could we gain more definitive proof from having more "data points" (ie. DEATHS). But I would rather not allow more deaths just for your nit picking existing data.
John Jones, who would be best served by the graphs data? You and I, who already advocate the ban? Or those who don't?
Don't willfully misunderstand me because I disagree with this chart. I want the graph to show conclusive data. I don't think it effectively does. A gun advocate would tear this graph apart with the same "nit picking" and dismiss it.
You and I do not need to be convinced...is it too much to ask the data representing the ended lives on that graph be arranged more effectively to convince those who do?
V/r
John Jones, there is one data point in the entire assault weapons ban. If you would have even taken high school statistics you would know that you can show anything with that kind of data. Whether your argument about assault weapons is right or wrong, this graph is pointless.
"Although the federal law has been widely regarded as ineffectual, Cutiletta cited a 2004 study commissioned by President George W. Bush's Justice Department that found assault weapon use in gun crimes dropped by 17 to 72 percent in six cities during the decade. On the other hand, use of large-caliber ammunition magazines increased through the late 1990s, probably because the ban did not apply to weapons acquired before 1994, the study said."
Read more: http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Study-shows-restrictions-reduce-gun-deaths-4147699.php#ixzz2Ht1NhYkg
We don't need to ban assault weapons, we just need to restrict them like fully automatic weapons. Maybe ownership would only be allowed within the confines of a Fed regulated militia/gun club.
great idea CEMott. I agree, but the NRA doesn't. And while the NRA makes up a minority, they are as about obstructive as the T-Party. They refuse to budge on anything! It was great to hear their solution is armed guards at our schools, but who is going to pay? The NRA? Assault weapons are getting out of hand, and does it really matter anymore? Without the NRA acknowledging that they need to be part of the solution instead of the problem, I see things getting worse before they get better. So CE Mott, while you make an intelligent suggestion, we have NR followers calling on an armed guard who with towns already cutting their public servants will be required to take a policeman off the beat or reduce an English teacher or two to arm our schools and make us feel no safer and certainly not more educated. Thank you NRA for not wanting to help us with this problem with assault rifles.
The NRA has turned into a lobbyist organization for gun manufacturers, not the average hunter.
"Assault rifles" are not a problem as they are already nearly impossible to obtain even if you have a spare $20,000-$40,000 lying around. They are heavily restricted under the National Firearms Act.
This is not to be confused with "Assault weapons," which are totally different. The terms are not interchangeable--in fact, good luck finding a consistent definition of "assault weapon." Frankly, these are not a significant problem either. Dying by lightning strike is more probable than dying by an assault weapon. They simply are not--and never have been--major weapons in crime. Handguns kill 20 times more people than "assault weapons" every year. If you want to reduce gun violence, your highest priority ought to be restricting handguns.
The NRA, like all Americans who understand firearms, believes the AWB is misguided and ineffective. It is trying to fix a problem that is virtually non-existent--but horrific when it does rear its head. Is that worth demonizing millions of firearm hobbyists? Some people may think so, but I do not. That's where the disagreement lies.
I keep hoping someone on some site keeps a running tally of gun deaths since Newtown so that the pressure can build on politicians to enact laws and policies to curtail this senseless killing.
Here you go, Daisyflower.
It seems Slate has been keeping a tally. As of the time of the article, there have been 222 ADDITIONAL gun deaths since Newtown on 14 December. It is a chilling chart showing how many men women and children were killed each day. Yesterday - Christmas Day - guns killed 2 children, 1 woman and 9 men.
Excerpt -
How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?
Slate partners with @GunDeaths for an interactive, crowdsourced tally of the toll firearms have taken since Dec. 14.
By Chris Kirk and Dan Kois
Posted Tuesday, Dec. 25, 2012, at 9:00 AM ET
Read more on Slate about gun control.
Since the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, we atSlate have been wondering how many people are dying from guns in America every day.
That information is surprisingly hard to come by. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, for example, has a tally atop its website of "people shot in America." That number, though, is an estimate, based on the number of gun injuries and deaths recorded by the CDC in 2008 and 2009, the most recent years for which statistics are available. It seems shocking that when guns are in the headlines every day, there's no one attempting to create a real-time chronicle of the deaths attributable to guns in the United States.
Well, someone is. Since this summer, the anonymous creator of the Twitter feed @GunDeaths has been doing his best to compile those statistics, tweeting every reported death he can find. He was inspired, he told us in a phone interview, by the Aurora, Colo., shootings and simply wanted to call daily attention to the toll that guns take. Now Slate is partnering with @GunDeaths to create this interactive feature, "Gun Deaths in America Since Newtown."
The complete article and all the graphs are here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html
I think slate had articles on how Bushmaster has been marketed. Which is a big deal. TPM also has had some good articles on this. Unfortunately, none of which have hit the MSM. The history of the AR-15 and its derivatives and who made it and all that are an entire article by themselves. Given all that, its the road to hell just for gunmaker profits. Anybody hunt with an AR-15? Thought so.
I know several people that hunt deer and small game with an AR-15.
The AR-15 is one of the most popular rifles in the USA for a number of reasons: it's lightweight, accurate, easy to learn, versatile, and extremely customizable. If you check Bushmaster's website, most of their products are marketed for sporting purposes (hunting, competition, target shooting).
Alva, 5 massacres before the ban, only one during the ten year ban, and six since it has been lifted, what doesn't make sense?
What you don't understand (and what most people don't understand) is that while we call it an assault weapons ban, due to the way that Congress crafted the law, it was largely ineffective. In particular, it named particular models of guns, instead of naming particular capabilities. All manufacturers had to do (and they DID) was to tweak a minor part of the design and reissue the gun with a new model number. Voila! Ban defeated (and with a big plus, because gun collectors now had another model to acquire, meaning more profits for arms manufacturers and dealers).
By the end of the law, it was a mere mockery of the idea that we ever had a ban in the first place, and it was a good idea to let that particular law expire off the books.
CEMott, look at some more data on this. I'm tellin' ya, this issue is so incredibly frustrating. The pro gun side says this sort of thing will increase with gun control laws. The gun control side says just the opposite. The reality? BOTH sides are BOTH right and wrong. In other words, the actual data doesn't make any sense at all when we think in terms of the guns and gun laws.
Here is a graph of the number of mass shootings in the USA. It lists the incidents as well as the number of people who were killed. Take note that the assault weapons ban lasted from '94 to '04.
http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/Mass%20Shootings%201980-2010.jpg
What do you find? A year after the assault weapons ban went into effect, mass shootings skyrocketed. A year after the ban ended what happened? It skyrocketed again.
Here is a graph of US homicides by weapon type. Take note that handguns are by far the biggest cause of homicides.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg/800px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png
Take note that the assault weapons ban did not effect handguns at all (at least to my knowledge), and the homicide rate plummeted after '93. Also note that it began to rise again after '99.
Well what happened between '93 and '99? The economy was growing. More people had jobs. As unemployment began to rise again, so did the homicide rate.
CEMott, check this out. Sadly, these events happen a lot more frequently than this graph seems to indicate. Here's a list of just school shootings alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
5 before? Covering 6 decades. 1 during one decade. Your conclusion is like when AGW deniers say that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas or that there's too little of it to affect the temperature or that volcanos emit more than humans. It's an assertion based on prejudiced opinion of how the world should work rather than how it is.
An alternative explanation could be that mass homicides are like suicide bombers. Until the Tamil Tigers started it, it was rare and almost unheard of. The Japanese Kamikaze thing was generally viewed as a waste of skilled manpower and war materiel.
I also seem to remember that the Chinese were exporting AK-47s to Mexico where they were transhipped to the US under NAFTA. Of course the Mexicans didn't allow them to be sold in Mexico. We on the other hand......
there need to be gun "control" or gun regulation. When you won a car, you have to be a certain age, you have to do several tests, you have to have an ID and then get a drivers licence, you have to have insurance for the car and for any accidents caused by the car... Do not think it would be that hard to have something similar for gun ownership... an age, tests, gun school, and insurance for each gun... -- so like with the cars only the ones you need or want because you would have to pay insurance for each. I remember we had an old car at home, no one drove it, we could have kept it, but we sold it because we did not want to pay the insurance for it.
this is the kind of things i keep trying to tell my die hard friends and family. gun control does not necessarily mean gun ban. there is a middle ground. :)
I can't speak for every state but here in Maryland, one must be over 18 to purchase a long gun (rifle or shotgun) and over 21 to purchase a handgun or restricted weapon ("assault weapon"). These latter weapons require a waiting period, fingerprinting, police approval, and other measures. All firearm purchases require a background check.
In no case can somebody simply walk into a store, drop cash on the counter, and walk out with a gun. Legal firearm transactions simply don't work that way--not even at gunshows. The famed gunshow loophole does not exist. I can tell you that from experience as I've bought a firearm (a Swiss K31--look it up yourself) from a gunshow and it required an instant background check.
If you want to make the car analogy, the proposed assault weapons ban is akin to restricting all automobiles capable of driving over 70 miles per hour and calling every sports car or motorcycle a "highway death vehicle."
The graph should be of a rate proportional to population. Some of the increase in deaths may be due to increased population. Probably not all, but it is misleading to ignore that factor.
True. We should look at the data on a per capita basis.
A few links to look at.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#nat1970
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
Some people might ask if the death penalty had an effect on this. It appears that the states that don't have a death penalty had a lower murder rate. I suspect this has a lot less to do with the death penalty and more to do with the fact that the states that don't have a death penalty don't have as severe an issue with economic injustice, economic inequality, and poverty.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
That's completely irrelevant in this instance. This graph is specifically looking at mass-shooting deaths as a cumulative total during the dates it presents. It is not looking at total homicide rates (in fact the person who did this graph said as much in the quoted section by the blog that he'd like to see a comparison of total gun related deaths over the time period in question).
Simply put: you're reading the graph wrong.
It's kind of hard to read this graph wrong when it doesn't tell us much. There is very little data to go on. What are the definitions? Is a mass shooting 3 people or 5? Does it matter if they are related? Apparently, because the murder-suicides where a parent killed a partner and children don't appear to count. It counts one during the period '94-'04 but both Columbine and the Speed Freak Killers occurred then. And that's just off the top of my head. Waco, Ruby Ridge don't count because the perpetrators were the cops. "Going Postal" was coined sometime late in '93, according the The Oracle after 10 incidents in the previous decade (two on May 6, 1993), and that's just counting Post Office killings. Why are we restricted to the 12 deadliest? Why 12 and not, say, 15? Or 10? Would that change the curve? I don't think this graph will survive review. Even if they're onto something.
Can someone who is against a ban please tell me why people feel such a need to have these guns? I just don't get the idea behind owing one. Thanks.
Because some people live and breathe the hobby just like people do for racing cars, running marathons, skydiving, mountain climbing, etc. etc. etc. - Shooting guns, collecting guns, is a huge hobby to a lot of people, especially if you grew up around guns and shot them your whole life. As someone who grew up on 20 acres and now lives in San Francisco, I get why people don't understand assault rifle ownership. But as a liberal who loves his guns, trust me, we aren't all nuts and many of us (especially liberals) are OK with regulation. But when a majority of Americans polled want to ban semi-automatic handguns yet don't want to ban handguns in general, it makes me think most people don't really understand guns in general. It's crazy. Figure out how to REGULATE, but please don't take our assault rifles away, at least not semi-auto.
Sure thing - The guns in question are no different than a deer rifle except for they are smaller caliber (less lethal, actually) and look scary.
The point of owning one is that they are high quality, standardized and NOT FULL AUTO.
The point of opposing them is nothing more than an attempt to whittle away 2nd Amendment rights.
Note that video exists (NBC local station) of the police pulling the single "assault rifle" out of the trunk of the car in Newtown proving the shooter did NOT use it in the massacre.
Tell me again why you need a faster computer or a better cellphone, and you'll have your answer.
so you would compare the need to play better games, faster video editing, better multi-tasking, etc(computers), or a better signal, faster connection, more versatility, etc(cellphone), to making a better and faster killing machine?(guns). now dont get me wrong, even though i believe there should be more personal responsibility for gun ownership, including but not limited to federal regulation, i have absolutely no problem with ownership of firearms.....up to a point. as pointed out in another post, i think banning firearms that exceed a certain capability is a good idea. however, i dont really see the comparison of making and owning faster and better electronics with owning faster and better firearms. unless your getting the electronics solely as a hobby, which is highly unlikely.
I think it's an apt comparison. You don't need a faster laptop or cell phone, you want it. Fast is fun. You don't need a bigger or faster gun. You want one. Well, not YOU, if you think guns are killing machines. Anyway, it's moot because we both agree on regulation. It's that "up to a point" you talk about. Where do we draw the line? Because if a semi-auto AR-15 is over your line, we're going to have a hard time finding a compromise legislatively speaking. And this is a pro-regulation Democrat talking here...
Lets see the raw data instead of edited data to show a curve that spikes... over 200 cumulative deaths doesn't compute with each individual mass shooting especially the last 12. we need the raw data to make our own judgments of it, not what others edit and change around to show some steep incline, to prove their point. raw data, raw data, raw data...
I'm a daily Maddow Show watcher and certainly a liberal. That being said, this chart is pointless and useless.
Note the "In the United States" 3 of the 5 worst school shootings were in Germany with strict gun laws.
Note that the guy in CT did NOT use an "Assault weapon".. there is video of the Police pulling the rifle out of the trunk of the car with NBC news commentary. It's readily available on YouTube.
Ugh where are you getting any of that information? The graph specifically goes over US killings. You said 3 of the 5. There are 12 listed for this year and all 12 are in the US.
Go watch the video. It's easy to find if you look for it, complete with NBC local news reporters giving a play by play.
I wasn't asking about the video. Go back and read my comment again. I asked where you got the 3 out of the 5 worst shootings "in the US" were in Germany. The graph does not cover shootings in Germany so where are you getting this argument from?
Let me be more clear - Being that 3 of the 5 deadliest school shootings WORLDWIDE took place in Germany (hence not on the chart), the answer to stopping violence is not gun control (because Germany has very strict laws) and/or g.c. doesn't prevent or limit this kind of malice. I got the info from John Lott, I'm sure it's not difficult to find.
The worst school violence EVER in the U.S. was in the 1920's and the bad guy used dynamite.
VA Tech used handguns, the guy in CT used handguns. He could've used revolvers when there was a situation where he had a ton of time and no opposition.
The graph is pointless because it can never stay even or go down as it is "Cumulative"...
Yeah, umm... not so much on the car trunk video "evidence." Adam Lanza used a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle during his rampage through Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, firing dozens of high-velocity rounds as he killed 20 children and six adults, authorities said Sunday.
Ugh yeah if the cumulative rate begins to decrease the graph would go down. What you don't seem to understand is that the graph is looking at it from a year-to-year basis. You're reading the graph wrong =P. A lot of people posting here are, apparently.
Lanza used a Bushmaster to carry out his shootings. I don't know what you're referring to in the video.
It's a red herring to talk about other instances of mass murder. We already collectively ban dynamite and other issues except under strict licensing and fines. That's not a valid argument.
As for the argument about Germany: You're incorrect. John Lott is a gun advocate and someone who has a biased perspective on this issue. Why you would trust him for evidence is a mystery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/20/the-worst-mass-shootings-of-the-past-50-years/
But more importantly this is a strawman. No one is proposing that if you pass an assault weapons ban that this will automatically stop all incidents of mass murders. You're deliberately pushing the argument of your opposition to an extreme that your opposition is not claiming. No one stated that they could get the death rate to 0 just from an assault weapons ban: in fact the person who made this graph specifically states that he is under the belief that it will take a culmination of events. But furthermore the frequency of mass shootings in Germany is far less than that of the US which is the proposition being given by those in favor of the assault weapons ban. People are saying that they want to ban these weapons from general public use because when you look at other nations as compared to ours the frequency with which mass shootings happens is far less. That is the argument being given to you. If you disagree fine, but you need to actually disagree against the argument being given and not a fake argument that only exists in your head.
Remember preventative treatment of something does not equate to saying that something will never happen. It means you're reducing the statistical likelihood of it happening. Think of it this way: when you go to the doctor to get your physical you aren't doing that because you have a medical problem at the time you're seeing the doctor. You're doing that because the doctor can detect problems early on and then treat those problems before they develop into a serious medical condition. This is known as "preventative medicine." Does this mean you won't ever develop cancer or some other serious medical issue despite the frequency of your checkups? No. But it does mean that when taken as a representation of the whole your likelihood of developing cancer goes wayy down.
Bushmaster WAS used in Connecticut. Original reports were wrong that it was in the car. Shotgun was in the car. That's how you got 5 - 11 rounds per child. And the AR-15 used the same ammo that is built to maim and kill. Low mass high velocity. hits a body it pretty much tears things up.
For those skeptics who whine that the solution is not as simple as a gun regulation, and have nothing to suggest. For those pseudo intellectuals who lecture you on the complexity of the world; implying that the profound causes must be analysed before any action can be taken. For those who want to disarm the government first. For all the above here is a graph to analyse
I suggest stop naming the bad guys in 24/7 news coverage.
For those of us who wanted the link...?
The top 3 mass shootings listed on the chart didn't use assault weapons. They used handguns and a shotgun. Of the top 12 shootings listed only 5 used assault weapons. Based on those 2 facts I would say that a ban on assault weapons may not do as much good as people think when it comes to stopping mass shootings.
I read that long about the 70s-80s the gun industry's heretofore primary customers, the hunters, were declining in numbers, and so it needed more customers to bolster and shore up sales. OK. Cue the propaganda dept, I mean the marketing and PR dept... and the engineers. So you need to protect yourself from all that rampant crime out there like Willie Horton and his ilk. And , of course, it is our constitutional rights, you know - says it right in the 2nd amendment. So put all together , we get more guns, more types of guns, bigger and more lethal and productive guns, to handle this manufactured need. follow the money.
FINE. I guess I'll give my 2 pennies and maybe a nickel.
So here's how I am. I like guns, seriously, I don't own a gun, but I would like to own one. I would like to own an SKS, an AK, a Mosin Nagant all from ww2, and a browning HP.
But that's mostly for ww2 historical value, and for fun shooting, I mean, theyre 60 year old guns. But since I'm a science guy, let's stop and take a look at things rationally. Even though I wouldn't want to let my guns go, I can't deny giving my own rational thoughts.
FIRST OF ALL. What is a gun? It is a weapon. A weapon for what? A weapon which was designed to mame and or kill. Do you know why we made the M16 with 5.56mm? It was designed specifically to mame, so that when we went to war, the enemy wouldnt 'die' instantly, but rather be mamed, so that they would be forced to waste time and resources carrying and taking care of their wounded, filling up hospitals.
As much as I like to have my historical value and fun, I realize what my tools really are. (mind you this is very different from the ignorant who attempt to use cars killing people as an example.)
Secondly. The Constitution "with a capital C," was adopted September 17, 1787. In the 1700's, weapons were single shot & flintlock. That is what they wrote the 'Right to ber ye arms' on. Mind you, very different from me being able to drop 6 hand guns 2 rifles and several hundred rounds of ammo from under my trench coat, at 2,000 feet per second, over several hundred yards, with Black Talon and Golden Sabre hollow point and or FMJ.
Lastly. How good are you at the Constitution? You know what the founding fathers gave us? They gave us something vital. We call it an amendment. Do you know why we have amendments? BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT THE COUNTRY WOULD CHANGE. They knew technology would be different, they knew the people would be different, they knew weapons would be different, they knew politics would be different, they knew the world would be different. There are people alive today who have witnessed the world TRIPLE IN POPULATION.
To give you an example of exponential technological advancement, learn Moore's Law. Moore's law is the observation that over the history of computing software, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years. Amazing.
Do I believe we should completely get rid of guns? OF COURSE @!$%#ING NOT.
Do I believe we should have more guns? LOL DONT MAKE ME LAUGH.
Do I believe we need better regulations on who can buy guns and how?
Wait what the @!$%# we're not already doing this? The @!$%# is this 2012? It is? Never would have guessed.
Italy threw scientists into jail for man slaughter for not predicting an earthquake, India supports rapists. Damn American, I thought you were more modernized than this. Japan is looking better all the time..
There were also Cannons in 1791... And a majority of folks unwilling to let themselves be pushed around by their government... Both have fallen out of fashion it seems.
My understanding of the development of the .556/.223 round (to the layman, these are the same thing. .556 NATO is literally the same thing as the .223 round. They just have two different names.
Anyway, my understanding of the development of that round was not that it was good at maiming people. But it had a lot more to do with making a round that was lightweight and easy for soldiers to carry, would travel far distances when shot, and be effective on the battlefield.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#History
Felix, good point on the Amendment Clause. I argued this very point when the NRA was attacking people for speaking about gun regulations. The only problem is that there is no consensus on what needs to be done to balance gun ownership with a safer country. To amend the Constitution, you would need to have good evidence to show how it will help.
We are not there yet, but if the NRA and other gun enthusiast keep blocking the conversation and/or what solutions we can do with simple regulation, I think the country will get there eventually. It just may take a few more years of helplessly watching the mass shooting continue.
A regression would show that the curve is exponential and that the number of deaths will follow that curve; and, while it appears the ban slowed the number of deaths, it did not drastically alter the curve itself. In short, one can conclude that the embedded base of assault weapons is large enough that a ban in sale or even manufacture of assault weapons is not sufficient. What is needed is a ban on the sale, manufacture AND possession of assault weapons, coupled with a buy-back system to get these weapons out of the hands of all but the military.
stephanie, people want what the military has, not only are these guns easier to learn and protect a home with, they are easy to train with. they have multiple uses, home defense, hunting (yes you CAN hunt with them), target range shooting (some people like to do that instead of bowling) these are NOT auto fire machine guns like the military has, they are semi auto. I'm totally a liberal, and only will ever vote democrat, but I'll defend this 2nd amendment until i quit breathing. It is our RIGHT and Duty as a free people to have a gun to protect ourselves and our country, and our fellow countrymen. Should they change how we are able to get these guns (yes) put in more checks and balances for the proper ownership of a firearm (of any type, minus full auto weapons) make people have full psychological studies done and if they're mentally sick, do not allow them to get a firearm until they have been cleared by 2 doctors as not sick any longer, or back to a sound state of mind. Also have a mandatory 2 week training course, 4 hours per day 5 days per week, for a total of 20 hours 10 classroom / 10 on the shooting range. Make it mandatory to have ongoing training every year for 5 hours after the initial 20 hours. Then also make it mandatory to have annual psych screenings, to keep their firearm. if you fail the psych screening or fail to get your training in for that year, then the police will come take your firearm until you complete these requirements successfully, then pay a small fee to get your firearm back from the police. also must have your fire arm registered with county sheriff, and city police, and state police.
sorry for the long winded statement, and bad spacing
You do not have a "duty" to protect your country or your neighbor. That is a "right" that you're assuming. You are not called upon to have a weapon at your availability in the US and the 2nd Amendment doesn't state this anywhere. The 2nd Amendment specifically applies to that of militias and our current militia system is that of the National Guard. Unless you are a member of the National Guard the armament being referred to in the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to you, nor indeed, does the 2nd Amendment grant you as a private citizen any special privileges.
But I do like that at the very least you're offering solutions to the issue instead of just throwing out a bunch of fallacies and stupid statements. So I give you credit for the gist of your statement: I am merely correcting the 2nd Amendment assertion since that is not factually accurate. I agree pretty much with everything else you stated otherwise.
The SCOTUS has determined that the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right, not the right of the individual States to each have an armed force -- the Militia was, at the time, every able-bodied free male within a given age-range, to be mustered much in the same way as a posse, in order to deal with immediate threats both foreign and domestic (say, a British incursion, rampant criminal activity, Indian raid, a slave-uprising, or an out-of-control Government).
"Well-regulated", in the context of the 2nd, in all likelihood, doesn't mean "beaten over the head and neutered by regulations", but "disciplined and well-trained".
Wow.. The Courts would seem to disagree with you. Heller, McDonald, and recently Moore vs Illinois. The rulings all state that the the 2nd amendment provides a right to all us citizens to keep & bare arms. Guns are arms, keeping means to posses, and bare is to posses outside the home.
Disagree all you want but you must respect it. I disagree with paying taxes, but I respect the law requiring me to.
I would guess that most people weighing in on this do not even know what makes a rifle of the "assault" type. It is merely cosmetic. They look scary therefore they must be. The may ban assult rifles, but the truth is there are other traditional looking rifles capable of doing ALL the same things that won't be part of it because perception is based on the cosmetics.
The militias applied to the first born son of a family unless that family had 1 child in which case the father would participate in the militia, it was a minuteman group (not a posse), and it was scheduled for regular training per year. In order to belong to that militia you had to be male, white, and a landowner. It was not applied to everyone in the population nor was it intended to.
No. There is absolutely zero precedence for the idea that you have a right to kill police, military, or other government officials simply because you disagree with them. The Constitution itself states that this is an act of sedition and is to be punished by expulsion or execution. This is just a made up fantasy that the right wing likes to pretend existed, but does not. You are correct that they needed the militias to fight off domestic governments, but you are incorrect as to what that meant. The militias were used to stop the British. At NO point in time were they used to stop the US government nor were they ever meant to. George Washington himself made sure of this (ya know, those pesky founding fathers you're referring to).
The 2nd Amendment was referring to armament- as in military grade weapons, armor, and vehicles (in this case specifically boats that were otherwise commonly used for pirating)- and was not referring to personal weapons. At no point in time did people consider basic guns like shotguns, hunting rifles, and pistols to be "arms" until modern society came along and decided that they were. Over 80% of the population at the time the US Constitution was written possessed firearms and zero pieces of legislation were proposed or in consideration that would have limited any accessibility to weapons by the US government or state governments. So the 2nd Amendment was to address an issue no one thought would be necessary, that wasn't relevant to every day life, to ban weapons that did not exist? Yeah, no. It existed to give cover for militia groups practicing with things like primitive explosives, formation lines, canons, and certain types of boats that were otherwise illegal.
After the National Guard and the US Army were established the 2nd Amendment became defunct. The court cases you're referring to have been an overture of the precedent in gun laws that existed until the 2000's. These are recent gun rulings given down by our court that has, had a precedent of overturning long-standing law to be more inclined with conservative principles. For the record you're also misstating those court cases:
In the case of DC vs. Heller the Supreme Court, for the first time in US history, overthrew all of the legal precedent and instead stated that the 2nd Amendment did pertain to an individual. This was the first time the SCOTUS had ruled this way and it overturned every other single SCOTUS ruling on gun control regulation.
McDonald vs Chicago had nothing to do with establishing personal ownership of weapons for the individual. That ruling had to do with whether or not the 14th amendment counted as a state enclave that the previous overture ruling of DC vs. Heller had left vague.
Moore Vs. Madigan had to do with whether or not states could ban concealed carry. It was determined that they cannot, but it can be left up to state officials to determine what requirements can be met. This, again, was addressing a vagueness open by the SCOTUS in Heller because Heller did not address to what extent the state would be considered OK to regulate and what extent would be considered and infringement. Both of these latter two cases established boundaries that the 1st case did not address. They aren't examples upholding the idea of the 2nd Amendment for personal use per say.
What am I disagreeing with and what am I not respecting?
You do realize these are the same thing, yeah?
You are correct in Moore being about concealed carry. However, in the ruling judge posner references the S.A as the reason the ban is unconstitutional. If that does not apply to the Average citizen due to having a national guard as you say, then how is th s.a. Relevant in this case. The point is that these cases, although not specifically about the SA, the reaffirmed it as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
Be careful sagoth. Disagree with Cartoon and he'll call you a racist.
It was referencing the ruling made In DC vs. Heller. I stated this in my post. Please read better. It did not reaffirm the 2nd Amendment in the way that you're thinking. It reaffirmed the ruling as given by the same supreme court- DC vs. Heller. These 2 rulings- I am stating- do not support your position. They support DC vs. Heller which does support your position, but that ruling is a ruling that defies all 200+ years of US history and directly defies over 2 dozen SCOTUS rulings before it. It is likely that future SCOTUS rulings will overturn this because it was passed purely along ideological lines and hasn't stood up to criticisms by judicial and constitutional scholars.
I am curious AR- why did you choose to address Moore vs. Madigan instead of refuting the point which was that CD vs. Heller was a break from precedent? If it's a break from precedent and all other held beliefs at the time then, at the very least, you would be conceding that when the founders created the US Constitution they intended it to only apply to the militias. Granted this is what most scholars think: the 2nd Amendment became defunct after the inception of a long standing US Army and the National Guard. In which case the ruling of Moore vs. Madigan is only significant because it, essentially, dismisses the idea that a militia is necessary. Although that, in and of itself, leads to other judicial quandaries because the National Guard also declares it's authority of existence from- you guessed it- the 2nd Amendment =P. So I guess it's really: do you believe there should be a National Guard and thus the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover personal ownership OR do you believe that the 2nd Amendment covers personal ownership and thus doesn't apply to the National Guard and thus there is no constitutional premise for the National Guard.
For the record in either situation you don't need an express amendment for either the individual assertion of gun ownership or for the existence of the National Guard. In the former case that's constituted under property and personal protection rights; in the latter that's constituted under the mandate of national protection. But it is curious that you wouldn't see that.
Sorry, I can stay awake through your droning post. It is nothing but the same old garbage. You pick what supports your thinking, discount anyone else's opinion that does not Line up with yours,
And conveniently, skip over facts that others present because they don't support your babble.
Bottom line, guns are here, they are not going anywhere. Ban whatever you want but we as a country can not keep drugs/illegals out of our country now. Anything that is banned will be smuggled and the bad guys will get what they want (crafty little buggers) and something like Sandy Hook will happen again. Evil exists in this world that will never change.
What facts have I skipped over? What have I discounted that you brought up that was a non-fallacious argument or wasn't factually inaccurate? You do understand what the concept of a debate is yeah? That means you disagree with people who present a position that does not hold to your perspective on the issue. You are doing the same thing with me by making this response post.
Drugs and "illegals" have nothing to do with this conversation. That would be a red herring (changing the subject to something unrrelated). Sorry man, but look these things up if you're going to accuse me of lying or not hearing another perspective. I am willing to hear any argument you have that meets the basic standard of a coherent statement. Telling me that we can't ban drugs so how can we ban guns doesn't tell me anything. How are guns and drugs alike? Are there cultural similarities, distribution similarities, manufacturing similarities, historical similarities? How are you getting that these 2 are related? You didn't explain that: you just assert it to be true. Don't get mad at me for not taking what you say as gospel without you proving it to be correct. And by the way if I'm factually incorrect then why not present me with facts that support your position and not mine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-j-charles/hollow-impact-moore-madigan_b_2285608.html
There I showed mine- please debunk or provide the counter point with yours.
Yet again the word "automatic" is being used. C'mon people, please use proper terminology.
look at the gap before Obama got elected. it's obvious that his election is as much or more a cause for the rise as the assault weapons ban expiring.
and just btw "assault weapons" is really just a PC name for scary looking rifles. no troops will ever go into actual combat with them.
Not true. AK-47 IS an assault rifle. Its all over the world, there are more knockoffs than ever. Same with M-16 or the M-4 upgrade. Its just that military is trained to fire in 3 shot bursts. Spray and pray is for amateurs. You're trained to aim and fire on your target. You expect lots of bad guys you want a larger clip. There was a big stink recently with troops in Afghanistan (as usual) buying stuff off the shelf that was better than issued. 30 round clip that didn't jam in use was a godsend. Brass tried to ban it, lasted less than a week.
Can I point one thing out. It has been irritating me for a while. You mean magazine. A magazine is a device that holds rounds and FEEDS them into the gun. A clip is a device used to aid in loading a magazine. Everyone is saying clip in the news and everywhere, just. Pet peeve.
I read that long about the 70s-80s the gun industry's heretofore primary customers, the hunters, were declining in numbers, and so it needed more customers to bolster and shore up sales. OK. Cue the propaganda dept, I mean the marketing and PR dept... and the engineers. So you need to protect yourself from all that rampant crime out there like Willie Horton and his ilk. And , of course, it is our constitutional rights, you know - says it right in the 2nd amendment. So put all together , we get more guns, more types of guns, bigger and more lethal and productive guns, to handle this manufactured need. follow the money.
All guns should be banned. Simple, laws were written by men for another time period, you need new ones.
Can't guns be used for self defense?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3jURuXjjJ8
Self defense, the way the right uses that other set of laws written by men for another time period, the Bible?
On another issue, I have found this one fascinating. You probably heard all of the hullabaloo over a suburban NY Paper, publishing a map from a FOIA request as to who has permits for a gun, and where they live. The gun nuts were all up in arms, saying this endangers people's lives. The criminals now know where the guns are, and some have started to publish where the newspaper's reporters and editors live. It got me thinking. How did this endanger anybody? I thought the default gun nut position is that people have guns in there house to protect themselves, and that if you have a gun, you don't have to rely on the police, and thus you are protected and no danger. So these are the safe people. No threat, unless you are totally abandoning that argument. Why would the criminals go to the house where they know the guns are. That would be dangerous not to the gun owner, but the criminal, who in theory would get shot by the gun wielding homeowner. The gun nuts don't have a good answer for that. They then say that the criminals will target these houses to steal the guns. If you have your weapons in a proper gun safe, then there is no threat of your guns being stolen. If you don't, well, Ms. Lanza did not have her's apparently in a gun safe, and we all know what happened there. Just more BS hypocrisy from the gun nut crowd. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/25/new-york-journal-news-gun-owners-westchester-rockland-counties_n_2362530.html
First of all. Classifying anyone that owns a gun as a "gun nut" shows your ignorance, however I will respond. Most pro gun people will concede that having a gun does not make you impervious to being hurt, killed, etc. what it does do is level the playing field if someone attacks you with a deadly weapon. If I am attacked with no defense, chances of survival are much less than if I have a weapon and can fight back. It is not a guarantee but gives me a chance much greater than without. As for people not wanting their names public, it's not all about someone breaking in after seeing it. Many of those people and their families also began getting harassed by anti gun people for the mere fact that they owned it. I don't blame them for not wanting it public. Would you want your info publish regardless of the reason? The other side is that most people do not take any/all their firearms when they leave there house. Therefore, a criminal wanting fire power has a list of all the houses that have them and could wait until the house is empty then enter and steal all the guns and now they are part of the problem.
I have read that Conn. still has an assault weapons ban. Is that true?
It's somewhat irrelevant. Crime is not localized and people need to stop thinking that comparisons between states on the issue of crime tells us exact information. There is relevant information to be gathered from comparing states, but everyone has to remember that information has to be taken with a grain of salt in that whatever is happening there is not entirely localized. This is the same stupidity as arguing that one state is economically better than another state because of Republican policies or Democratic policies. While states can do some things to improve the economy in within their boarders, most of what hinders or helps an economy happens at the national level. The rest is just governors trying to get more ploy for re-election and/or higher office bids. If a type of gun is outlawed in one state that does not prevent people from going to another state and purchasing the very same kind of gun and then taking it back to their state.
It isn't irrelevant. We are talking about reinstituting the assualt weapons ban, but everybody says Mrs. Lanza's Bushmaster was owned legally in Connecticut which retained the assault weapons ban. Where is the connection between reinstituting the assault weapons ban and the killings in NewTown? What I am saying is that reinstituting the assault weapons ban wouldn't have saved a single child.
Restricting magazine size might have, but that is a different measure.
Why don't we start looking for connections between the problem and the solutions we are proposing. In this instance, as warm and fuzzy as the simple reinstitution of the assault weapons ban might make us feel, it really isn't the solution to the problem.
Did you even read my comment???
Connecticut banning assault rifles doesn't mean @!$%# when people can drive to another state nearby and purchase those guns. For the record in the state of Connecticut it's not illegal to purchase an assault rifle in another state and then bring it back to CT. The assault weapons ban also did not apply to weapons purchased between 1993 and 2002 as long as the weapon was purchased legally. Connecticut also does not prohibit the selling of assault weapons during gun shows or other special events: it is only illegal to possess or sell the guns defined as assault rifles from a gun shop during any normal time of year. And then it's only illegal to possess those guns if you haven't notified your local police department.
It may very well be that an assault rifle ban nationally would not have prevented this incident, but you are basing that in a hypothetical. A hypothetical is not fact: it is a postulation of what you suppose would have happened given certain, utopic conditions. You can no more postulate that this is true than I can postulate that if the ban had been nationally implemented it would've prevented the event. All we can do is look at the facts and circumstances of what lead to the event and then make decisions on the basis of that information.
Right, but you're conveniently leaving out that we'd be instating this at the national level and allowing no state exceptions from the rule.
The article wasn't making this argument. The article was discussing the frequency of killings, including the NewTown massacre, with that of the assault weapons ban. It's simply looking at the frequency of the mass shootings when compared before and after- that is all.
Sorry, that should read the frequency of mass-shootings.
Ron, I don't think it is. Not 100% positive, but I'm pretty sure Connecticut doesn't have any laws on what guns you can or can't buy.
Alva, CT is one of 7 states with an assault weapon ban. Assault weapon is a legal term that varies with jurisdiction. Lanza's weapon is illegal in CA
What kinds of firearms were used in each of the mass shootings listed in the chart? Were they all semi-automatic rifles, or were pistols also used?
No there were different weapons used. It lists it in the article:
12 deadliest mass shootings
I didn't think semi-auto rifles were used in all those killings. Where is the causal connection link between the assault weapons ban and the chart. You can't draw the conclusion Benen is advancing from the data provided, and I don't care how ugly the chart looks.
I can make a great argument for banning all guns, but given Heller and what I know about American public opinion, such an argument has zero chance of winning the day. What I can't argue is that we will stop future NewTowns by banning assault weapons. Nobody can.
Again magazine capacity is a different issue, and one where a change might help some, but that isn't the old assault weapons ban.
No one is arguing this so why would you even put that out there?
These two arguments are direct contradictions of each other. So somehow you're concluding that if you had banned/limited the ammunition you would've prevented the massacre, but if you had banned/limited the weaponry it wouldn't have prevented the massacre? That doesn't make any damn sense.
It is a fair point to state that the assault rifle itself wasn't used in all of these killings and therefore the ban in and of itself wouldn't prevent all mass-shootings. But since the person who presented this chart stated that there would be more needed than just the assault weapons ban I don't know who you're arguing this point against. There is a clear correlation between availability and the instances of these shootings. But correlation does not equate to causality and as far as I know nobody has claimed that the existence of assault weapons causes mass shootings.
What I think people are arguing is that if you ban assault weapons there will be somewhat of an effect on the overall total of mass shootings. But there may be other reasons at work as to why that is (psychological, social, economical, etc.). I do not know, however, that you have to argue causality in order to necessitate the ban. If those other elements are in effect and they are then changed by the assault rifle then at the least you're getting somewhere. I would agree though that taken as an individual ban it is meaningless. More would have to be done than just an assault weapons ban and proposing just an assault weapons ban would not be a good argument. Luckily no one- including the blog author and the person who made this graph- made that argument.
But I will meet you half way here and agree that if we don't want to go the route of banning the weapon itself then maybe we should target ammunition. Maybe put a limit on how much ammo people can buy or tax the ammo to a point that it makes it economically difficult for people to purchase it. I personally think that would help as a combination of other measures, but in and of itself I could make the same argument about ammunition as you're making about the rifle. This is because I know people who cast and mold their own bullets. I know that most people do not and it would, at the very least, work to restrict at least some people who otherwise might've engaged in the act. But my concern is that it would start an underground market of people selling cheaper bullets than what you can legally buy. That may not be the case, however, it is just my own personal concern.
Ron, handguns are what are used most often with firearm homicides. I suspect that mass shootings probably follow the same lines. People almost never use tactical rifles like an AR-15 or an AK-47 for crimes.
This is probably just a matter of convenience. It's a whole lot easier to conceal a hand gun than a rifle.
Given the 5 to 7 ratio of assault weapons to non-assault weapons used in this graph, it is logical that mass shootings would still occur with frequency even if the assault weapon ban was back in place.
A return of the assault weapons ban would be a start. But only a start.
I'm pretty much in agreement with you NMC. I'm of the opinion that it's going to take a multi-step solution that will cross many borders in terms of public policy. We likely have to look at everything from healthcare, to gun sales, to registration laws, to trafficking laws, to tracking regulations with both the federal and state governments, education, and income solutions.
That said it is absolutely unacceptable for people to present me with the dichotomy as "well maybe we'll do a little of what needs to be done" and "if you make any changes it's tyranny and you're anti-freedom and a communist!" I am so sick of this false dichotomy between one reactionary extreme (Republicans) and one moderate left that won't stand up for 100% of what it believes (Democrats). If 20 things are broken in your home you can't fix 5 and then say your house is now "fixed." Not fixing anything is unacceptable to me and so is just fixing 5 (half-assed solution) and then calling it quits. I just wish the majority of the "pro gun" side had the common sense to start talking rationally and not in hyperbole, lies, logical fallacies, contradictions, or incoherent rants about rights. And I wish Democrats had the audacity to call everyone out who does as much each and every time until the right stops so we can finally have a real conversation.
all but 1 of those shooting occured in "gun free zones"--now, that DOESN'T mean we necessarily have to arm teachers or have armed guards at school--just remove the 'no guns" signs--let people think that there just might be the same incidence of gun ownership that might occur naturally at other venues--like grocery stores--pool halls etc
Malls, grocery stores, department stores, and schools are targeted because they are contained areas where many people will be. The fact that it's "gun free" has absolutely nothing to do with where these attacks took place. None of the incidents listed in the blog post were incidents in which the killer stated that his decision to act there was based on there not being guns. All of these killers targeted those locations for personal reasons and because it was a closed area where you were guaranteed to have lots of people at any given time. You're confusing the fact that school is in session 5 times a week during regular business hours with the idea that schools are being specifically targeted because they are "gun free zones."
So of the 12, 3 were "assault weapons" and that includes Columbine (during the AWB)... They even correctly noted that no "Assault weapon" was used in CT.
The killers are normally killed or commit suicide so they do not comment. Gun stores are normally occupied with people 5-6 days a week and no shootings occur there..Malls and other locations are often posted as "gun free" zones as well
Daniel there are armed security guards and often police or off duty cops who work at malls and other buildings. All department stores require their LD officers to be armed. Only an idiot would assume there aren't guns in a mall or a department store or a grocery store. Oh and even some malls sell weapons including the mall down the street from me. You are making a connection that does not exist in the real world.
I am talking about the killers who survived, information that was gathered before the shooting took place, and other evidence that was revealed to the public. In none of these cases was there any evidence to support your belief that they chose these locations because they had signs saying "gun free." In order for you to make that assertion you have to have proof of your claim and there isn't any available.
7 of the massacres would not have been prevented if an assault weapons ban had been in place; 5 of the massacres would have. The argument has been that an assault weapons ban would reduce the likelihood of these incidents. What is your point?
a connection that does not exist in "your world" if there is no connection then why did the aurora shooter pass 5 movie theaters all closer to his house. All showing the same movie, and one that was larger than the one he went to. One reason, the one he went to was the only one in the area that banned guns.
All of the movie theaters ban guns in Colorado that I know of. I can tell that you're not familiar with Aurora because there are only 2 movie theaters in the entire city. . AMC and Century. I mean I GUESS you could count the 2 dinner movie theaters- but of course that would still only leave 4 in the entire city. What you meant to say was that he chose the theater that was 5 miles away from his apartment which was a part of the shopping mall for the city. And, as I stated before, there were armed security guards at that mall (there are at almost all malls across the US). That didn't stop him from committing the attack and he has never stated that it was a considered possibility. Again this is grasping for a correlation that doesn't actually exist.
Believe what you will, your ideas are not going to be changed by anyone. Also, you will never convince me that legislating more gun control will affect anyone other than law abiding people. The criminal that wants one will find one and if you believe that a federal ban will mean that they will no longer be in our streets, you are mistaken. This country has a history of creating a thriving black market for anything that is banned.
Good day sir as this will be my last post to you. Arguing here is just that, arguing, you nor I will ever change our opinions.
Alright man if that's how you feel.
For the record I'm still waiting for you to tell me where I stated that I believe the assault rifle ban is a good idea or a bad idea. Up to this point I've been arguing the skeptics position. If you can't prove that your position is correct then I'm not going to believe you. I am ambivalent about the ban: I think we can only reduce gun violence through multiple steps and an assault weapons ban might be one of those contingents, but I'm not certain of that. If you can't handle people challenging your views then yeah I'd suggest you don't talk to people who either are skeptics or opposed to your view.