Focuspuller wrote:
(Responding to EdBPhotography...)
Why would you not agree that restricting the availability of AR-15 style weapons “would have had at least some impact”?

Just a reminder that the U.S. already has the stats on that.

The U.S. Federal Assault Weapon Ban was in place for TEN YEARS from Sept 1994 to Sept 2004.

The effort was to stop ADDITIONAL assault weapons from getting into wide distribution, along with VOLUNTARY assault weapon "buy back" offers, etc.

THE RESULTS:

"Gun massacres of six or more killed decreased by 37 percent for the decade the ban was active, then shot up 183 percent during the decade following its expiration"

...

THERE WAS A SIMILAR NUMBER OF MASS SHOOTINGS, BUT THEY WERE ABLE TO KILL SIGNIFICANTLY FEWER PEOPLE DURING THE ASSAULT WEAPON BAN.

Those are the proven, historical, FACTS.

...

Note that it did NOT affect those who already legally owned such weapons.   Just by reducing the number of NEW assault weapons that could be rapidly purchased by potential shooters, it STILL had a massive positive reduction in mass shooting deaths.

It has also been pointed out that in today's market, you would also need to consider the role of "rapid fire modification kits".

And, as always, if you have a REAL mental health check / gun purchase approval program, then that would also have a significant impact.

Focuspuller wrote:
Angry? Guilty as charged.

Blah blah blah blah blah...

Why would you not agree that restricting the availability of AR-15 style weapons “would have had at least some impact”?

And this is why I don't bother getting into a debate with an angry person. 

In essence, whatever cause, political issue, social issue, or science they hold onto has become their religion.  Their goal then is not to have a conversation; their goal is convert the non-believer to their ideology.  And when they're unsuccessful in that, they twist words, accuse, gaslight, and belittle to try and convince the audience that the other person is misguided, obtuse, and evil.

As I said before, I'm giving you MY perspective on the subject.  And that perspective comes from an insider's viewpoint, who has seen the wounds, treated the victims, and gotten the inside scoop on the investigation.  You know... the stuff the media won't show you. 

I also used an analogy to help create a picture of how the world looks from where I sit, yet you interpreted that as me looking down on people.  You don't think I've taken hard look at WHY people become victims of violent crime and HOW they responded to threats?  In all seriousness, tell me how YOU would react if someone carrying a gun broke into your home and started attacking someone you love.  What would YOU do if rioting, the collapse of society, or a civil war broke out and the enemy intended on taking over your home, which might or might not include violating the women you love?

As far as the AR-15 goes; I'll agree that it has been used more in mass shootings since the ban on ownership was lifted.  Does correlation equate to causation, though?   I mean, do you think someone who wants to shoot up a school, their workplace, or a religious institution is going to go, "Well, shoot... now that they've banned the AR-15, I guess I can't make all those people who've caused me pain in my life feel my wrath.  Might as well go back to playing World of Warcraft, I guess..."?

We can also agree that the number of people who died getting hit by cars dramatically increased once people stopped using horse-drawn wagons and buggies.  Did the automobile cause the rise?  Or was it the increased popularity of the object?

Yes, the AR-15 is modeled after a "weapon of war."  So is the Colt .45 handgun, the 9mm Beretta, the Golck 17, and M-1 Garand rifle, and a whole slew of firearms.  Hell, shotguns have been used for decades, since at least the Viet Nam War.  Should those all be banned as well? 

I get it; if this was a debate between a Christian and a pagan, the AR-15 would be your devil, anti-gun laws would be your bible, and Obama would probably be your Jesus Christ.  You want to save my soul and win me over to the Light Side of the Force.  I hate to break it to you, but that's not gonna happen; so why are we expending energy going round and round. 

Agree to disagree.  We both want to live in a safer world.  I honestly don't know how you'll be safe if you're unable to defend yourself against an armed attacker, but you do you, boo.  Personally, I've spent way more time and energy on this than I ever intended to.  I'm going to go to a movie now and enjoy the evening with my kids.  I'm sure the void won't miss my presence.

EdBPhotography wrote:
And this is why I don't bother getting into a debate with an angry person. 

In essence, whatever cause, political issue, social issue, or science they hold onto has become their religion.  Their goal then is not to have a conversation; their goal is convert the non-believer to their ideology.  And when they're unsuccessful in that, they twist words, accuse, gaslight, and belittle to try and convince the audience that the other person is misguided, obtuse, and evil.

As I said before, I'm giving you MY perspective on the subject.  And that perspective comes from an insider's viewpoint, who has seen the wounds, treated the victims, and gotten the inside scoop on the investigation.  You know... the stuff the media won't show you. 

I also used an analogy to help create a picture of how the world looks from where I sit, yet you interpreted that as me looking down on people.  You don't think I've taken hard look at WHY people become victims of violent crime and HOW they responded to threats?  In all seriousness, tell me how YOU would react if someone carrying a gun broke into your home and started attacking someone you love.  What would YOU do if rioting, the collapse of society, or a civil war broke out and the enemy intended on taking over your home, which might or might not include violating the women you love?

As far as the AR-15 goes; I'll agree that it has been used more in mass shootings since the ban on ownership was lifted.  Does correlation equate to causation, though?   I mean, do you think someone who wants to shoot up a school, their workplace, or a religious institution is going to go, "Well, shoot... now that they've banned the AR-15, I guess I can't make all those people who've caused me pain in my life feel my wrath.  Might as well go back to playing World of Warcraft, I guess..."?

We can also agree that the number of people who died getting hit by cars dramatically increased once people stopped using horse-drawn wagons and buggies.  Did the automobile cause the rise?  Or was it the increased popularity of the object?

Yes, the AR-15 is modeled after a "weapon of war."  So is the Colt .45 handgun, the 9mm Beretta, the Golck 17, and M-1 Garand rifle, and a whole slew of firearms.  Hell, shotguns have been used for decades, since at least the Viet Nam War.  Should those all be banned as well? 

I get it; if this was a debate between a Christian and a pagan, the AR-15 would be your devil, anti-gun laws would be your bible, and Obama would probably be your Jesus Christ.  You want to save my soul and win me over to the Light Side of the Force.  I hate to break it to you, but that's not gonna happen; so why are we expending energy going round and round. 

Agree to disagree.  We both want to live in a safer world.  I honestly don't know how you'll be safe if you're unable to defend yourself against an armed attacker, but you do you, boo.  Personally, I've spent way more time and energy on this than I ever intended to.  I'm going to go to a movie now and enjoy the evening with my kids.  I'm sure the void won't miss my presence.

"And this is why I don't bother getting into a debate with an angry person.  "

Yes. We know. It really rankles you when your "worldview" is questioned. In any way.

"As I said before, I'm giving you MY perspective on the subject."

And I am giving you MY perspective, which you just can't abide.

"And that perspective comes from an insider's viewpoint, who has seen the wounds, treated the victims, and gotten the inside scoop on the investigation.  You know... the stuff the media won't show you...yet you interpreted that as me looking down on people."

And still do. You insist on proving it.

"In essence, whatever cause, political issue, social issue, or science they hold onto has become their religion.  Their goal then is not to have a conversation; their goal is convert the non-believer to their ideology.  And when they're unsuccessful in that, they twist words, accuse, gaslight, and belittle to try and convince the audience that the other person is misguided, obtuse, and evil."

Wow. Do you even own a mirror?

Blah blah blah blah blah... Obama.  Got it. Wow, didnt take long . Short fuse, Sheepdog?

" I honestly don't know how you'll be safe if you're unable to defend yourself against an armed attacker, but you do you, boo.'

Thanks, 'dawg. Hate to burst your many false assumptions, 'boo, I know how precious they must be to you, but I will defend my home with the 9mm Beretta, and the  two .45 Colts I have trained to use via combat pistol training by LAPD SWAT instructor and other professionals. I'm sure its nothing compared to the armory you maintain for the end of times you are no doubt all prepped for. Even maybe hoping for.

Won't keep you. Go patrol your sector.

LightDreams wrote:

Just a reminder that the U.S. already has the stats on that.

The U.S. Federal Assault Weapon Ban was in place for TEN YEARS from Sept 1994 to Sept 2004.

The effort was to stop ADDITIONAL assault weapons from getting into wide distribution, along with VOLUNTARY assault weapon "buy back" offers, etc.

THE RESULTS:

"Gun massacres of six or more killed decreased by 37 percent for the decade the ban was active, then shot up 183 percent during the decade following its expiration"

...

THERE WAS A SIMILAR NUMBER OF MASS SHOOTINGS, BUT THEY WERE ABLE TO KILL SIGNIFICANTLY FEWER PEOPLE DURING THE ASSAULT WEAPON BAN.

Those are the proven, historical, FACTS.

...

Note that it did NOT affect those who already legally owned such weapons.   Just by reducing the number of NEW assault weapons that could be rapidly purchased by potential shooters, it STILL had a massive positive reduction in mass shooting deaths.

It has also been pointed out that in today's market, you would also need to consider the role of "rapid fire modification kits".

And, as always, if you have a REAL mental health check / gun purchase approval program, then that would also have a significant impact.

You do realize the AR-15, and AK47 could still be bought during the assault weapon ban...right?

Plus it was perfectly legal to own a pre-ban AR or AK along with the pre-ban 30 round magazines during the ban, at least in gun friendly states. I don't doubt your numbers, but I don't see a logical reason mass shooting would go down due to the Clinton ban. The guns that were used were already out there, and new ones slightly modified could still be bought. Maybe people were a lot more nuts in 2004 than they were prior to 1994?

AK's and AR's that were perfectly legal to buy during the ban.

"The AR-15 used to be illegal. President Bill Clinton’s assault weapons ban, which was in effect from 1994 to 2004, banned the AR-15 and other guns that were too similar to military-style weapons. However, this law did not prohibit Americans from owning semi-automatic weapons;1 it capped how many military features an individual gun could have. During the ban, a semi-automatic rifle like the AR-15 could legally have any one of the following features, as long as it didn’t have two or more of them: a folding stock (making the gun slightly easier to conceal), a pistol grip (making the weapon easier to hold and use), a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor (making it harder to see where shots are coming from), or a grenade launcher."

Link to the above.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gu … ly-banned/

AR that was sold during the ban. They also made them with the collapsible stock, but it may had to be pinned in the open position.



AK that was sold during the ban. Most popular was the Norinco Mak 90.

Focuspuller wrote:
Thanks, 'dawg. Hate to burst your many false assumptions, 'boo, I know how precious they must be to you, but I will defend my home with the 9mm Beretta, and the  two .45 Colts I have trained to use via combat pistol training by LAPD SWAT instructor and other professionals. I'm sure its nothing compared to the armory you maintain for the end of times you are no doubt all prepped for. Even maybe hoping for.

Won't keep you. Go patrol your sector.

So you're a gun owner.  Then what exactly are you debating about??

That's like a Toyota Camry owner telling people they shouldn't own a Ford F-150 truck.  😅

Congratulations on doing your part to add more "weapons of war" to our society.

EdBPhotography wrote:
As far as the AR-15 goes; I'll agree that it has been used more in mass shootings since the ban on ownership was lifted.  Does correlation equate to causation, though?   I mean, do you think someone who wants to shoot up a school, their workplace, or a religious institution is going to go, "Well, shoot... now that they've banned the AR-15, I guess I can't make all those people who've caused me pain in my life feel my wrath.  Might as well go back to playing World of Warcraft, I guess..."?

We can also agree that the number of people who died getting hit by cars dramatically increased once people stopped using horse-drawn wagons and buggies.  Did the automobile cause the rise?  Or was it the increased popularity of the object?

Yes, the AR-15 is modeled after a "weapon of war."  So is the Colt .45 handgun, the 9mm Beretta, the Golck 17, and M-1 Garand rifle, and a whole slew of firearms.  Hell, shotguns have been used for decades, since at least the Viet Nam War.  Should those all be banned as well?

AR15 style weapons are very popular in the US and so their use to commit crimes can be explained simply in terms of the numbers in circulation, it does not necessarily indicate a predilection for this type of weapon on the part of mass murderers.

The Colt M1911 .45 pistol, the 9mm Beretta, the Glock 17, and M-1 Garand rifle were all developed originally for military use.

Kevin Fair wrote:
You do realize the AR-15, and AK47 could still be bought during the assault weapon ban...right?

Plus it was perfectly legal to own a pre-ban AR or AK along with the pre-ban 30 round magazines during the ban, at least in gun friendly states. I don't doubt your numbers, but I don't see a logical reason mass shooting would go down due to the Clinton ban. The guns that were used were already out there, and new ones slightly modified could still be bought. Maybe people were a lot more nuts in 2004 than they were prior to 1994?

AK's and AR's that were perfectly legal to buy during the ban.

"The AR-15 used to be illegal. President Bill Clinton’s assault weapons ban, which was in effect from 1994 to 2004, banned the AR-15 and other guns that were too similar to military-style weapons. However, this law did not prohibit Americans from owning semi-automatic weapons;1 it capped how many military features an individual gun could have. During the ban, a semi-automatic rifle like the AR-15 could legally have any one of the following features, as long as it didn’t have two or more of them: a folding stock (making the gun slightly easier to conceal), a pistol grip (making the weapon easier to hold and use), a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor (making it harder to see where shots are coming from), or a grenade launcher."

I realize that you can't figure out why there was such a dramatic drop in the number of people killed during the 10 year period of the Assault Weapons Ban.

Clearly there was a reason as it was quite a dramatic drop and it was over a TEN YEAR PERIOD.  That's as statistically solid as you can get.  I.E. It was hardly a "blip" or a freak occurrence.

And as far as "Maybe people were a lot more nuts in 2004 than they were prior to 1994?" goes, remember that the NUMBER of mass shootings didn't really drop, they just were able to kill significantly fewer people.

So it can't be a "mental stability" change.  It was a "kill capability" (during the 10 year Assault Weapons Ban) change.


---


Some basic things to understand in relation to that 10 year ban (and the massive jump that occurred once again after the ban ended):

Remember that the purpose was to REDUCE the immediate / new availability of rapid-fire weapons and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" (interchangeable magazines containing 10+ bullets, 5+ bullets for some other gun categories).

Apparently, then and now, most mass shooters have purchased their guns and rapid-fire gun magazines, NEW, within the previous year of the mass shooting.  In many cases almost right before the mass shooting.

And yes, "That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date."

So, it reduced how easy it was to get new rapid-fire assault weapons and rapid ammunition loading systems, during that time.  And even with those limited reductions, it STILL had a dramatic impact on the number of people killed by mass shooting events.    As we've said earlier, the number of mass-shootings was similar, but the number of people killed was significantly less.


---


I also strongly suspect, with some of your statements, that you are honestly not aware of how many years it took before gun manufacturers (based on some later court rulings, etc) started to find loopholes that allowed them to start selling "modified" versions of the AR-15s, etc, once again.  And started offering more "alternate" weapons that weren't covered by the ban.

Don't confuse that with the idea that you it never restricted and reduced the sale of AR-15s, etc, plus a lot of other "rapid-fire" weapons.  AS WELL AS the purchase of new rapid-fire ammunition loading systems (high capacity bullet magazines, etc).  It definitely did and, based on the numbers, was quite a successful approach.


---


IN SUMMARY:

Yes, there's a REASON that these relatively minor restrictions (not touching existing gun owners, or guns that were already made before the 10 year ban, etc) had such a dramatic impact on the number of people killed during mass shootings over that 10 year period.  It worked.

Reasonable, relatively minor, restrictions (that didn't impact existing gun owners) turned out to be remarkably successful just by making it harder for mass shooters to easily purchase NEW rapid-fire weapons with high capacity bullet magazines, over that 10 year period.

LightDreams wrote:

I realize that you can't figure out why there was such a dramatic drop in the number of people killed during the 10 year period of the Assault Weapons Ban.

Clearly there was a reason as it was quite a dramatic drop and it was over a TEN YEAR PERIOD.  That's as statistically solid as you can get.  I.E. It was hardly a "blip" or a freak occurrence.

And as far as "Maybe people were a lot more nuts in 2004 than they were prior to 1994?" goes, remember that the NUMBER of mass shootings didn't really drop, they just were able to kill significantly fewer people.

So it can't be a "mental stability" change.  It was a "kill capability" (during the 10 year Assault Weapons Ban) change.


---


Some basic things to understand in relation to that 10 year ban (and the massive jump that occurred once again after the ban ended):

Remember that the purpose was to REDUCE the immediate / new availability of rapid-fire weapons and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" (interchangeable magazines containing 10+ bullets, 5+ bullets for some other gun categories).

Apparently, then and now, most mass shooters have purchased their guns and rapid-fire gun magazines, NEW, within the previous year of the mass shooting.  In many cases almost right before the mass shooting.

And yes, "That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date."

So, it reduced how easy it was to get new rapid-fire assault weapons and rapid ammunition loading systems, during that time.  And even with those limited reductions, it STILL had a dramatic impact on the number of people killed by mass shooting events.    As we've said earlier, the number of mass-shootings was similar, but the number of people killed was significantly less.


---


I also strongly suspect, with some of your statements, that you are honestly not aware of how many years it took before gun manufacturers (based on some later court rulings, etc) started to find loopholes that allowed them to start selling "modified" versions of the AR-15s, etc, once again.  And started offering more "alternate" weapons that weren't covered by the ban.

Don't confuse that with the idea that you it never restricted and reduced the sale of AR-15s, etc, plus a lot of other "rapid-fire" weapons.  AS WELL AS the purchase of new rapid-fire ammunition loading systems (high capacity bullet magazines, etc).  It definitely did and, based on the numbers, was quite a successful approach.


---


IN SUMMARY:

Yes, there's a REASON that these relatively minor restrictions (not touching existing gun owners, or guns that were already made before the 10 year ban, etc) had such a dramatic impact on the number of people killed during mass shootings over that 10 year period.  It worked.

Reasonable, relatively minor, restrictions (that didn't impact existing gun owners) turned out to be remarkably successful just by making it harder for mass shooters to easily purchase NEW rapid-fire weapons with high capacity bullet magazines, over that 10 year period.

Here's my take on it...

During the 1990s, we implemented the 3 Strikes law.  This meant felons were being sent to prison for life.  Police work was very strong back then, and, for the most part, people supported law enforcement.  The judicial system worked with the police to lock the right people up.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, 24-hour news and social media really took off.  We were bombarded with videos of the 911 attacks, followed by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Along with that came very polarizing views on both the attacks and the subsequent war.  People took to social media to express their views, which led to a lot of fighting and rising tensions.

During that same time, disrespect for Presidents increased dramatically.  Just my opinion, but I believe if we cannot respect the highest authority in this country (and, realistically, it's kind of hard to respect the candidates we've had because of their contributions to the polarization in this country), then who's left to respect?  We have two or three generations now who were raised despising the opposing party.  Why would they respect police, teachers, the elderly, or anyone else? 

Then let's look at drug usage.  Even the marijuana out there today is far more potent than it was 30 years ago.  Meth made a massive rise after crack and cocaine had their time, and so has fentanyl.  With drug usage and dealing, there typically comes violence. 

Now add to all of that the rise of popularity in gang culture.  We turned criminals into celebrities through music, videos, video games, and movies.  What was once considered a subculture within our society all of sudden became something kids aspired to introduce into their lives. 

I just don't think it can be easily summed up to one causal factor.  We have to look at changes in society, education, attitudes, etc.  In my opinion, we lack unity in this country and treat others who don't see our point of view as our enemy.  We're also bombarded with controversy and hatred through social media platforms, which are engineered to trigger our fight or flight response. 

To me, it's not really a surprise violence has increased exponentially, but I don't believe a single type of firearm is what sparked it all.  Decades ago, the Uzi and the Mac-10 were the weapon of choice.  Prior to that, in the 70s, it was revolvers.  The earliest use of the AR-15 in a mass shooting that I can remember was the Stockton school shooting in the early 80s.  This is what prompted the ban, if I remember correctly. 

I think we have to look at this subject from a much broader perspective.  Like I said before, I've been to A LOT of shootings over my career within Los Angeles County.  The vast majority of them did not include an AR-15.  In fact, those have rarely been used in the calls I've been to, which is why I used the analogy about removing cobras from a room full of vipers, rattlesnakes, asps, and any other number of venomous snakes.   The removal of one species does not negate the deadly threat of the remaining snakes; it just means you're less likely to get bitten by a cobra. 

The only way to be completely safe is to remove ALL of the snakes, but how will that ever happen if bad guys won't obey any laws we impose?

EdBPhotography wrote:
Here's my take on it...

I just don't think it can be easily summed up to one causal factor.  We have to look at changes in society, education, attitudes, etc.  In my opinion, we lack unity in this country and treat others who don't see our point of view as our enemy.  We're also bombarded with controversy and hatred through social media platforms, which are engineered to trigger our fight or flight response. 

To me, it's not really a surprise violence has increased exponentially, but I don't believe a single type of firearm is what sparked it all.  Decades ago, the Uzi and the Mac-10 were the weapon of choice.  Prior to that, in the 70s, it was revolvers.  The earliest use of the AR-15 in a mass shooting that I can remember was the Stockton school shooting in the early 80s.  This is what prompted the ban, if I remember correctly. 

I think we have to look at this subject from a much broader perspective.

You have made a number of valid points.

But we can't ignore the basics:

- The number of those killed in mass shootings was on a strong upward slope BEFORE the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.  Then it not only dropped, it dropped significantly (by 37%).

- And it wasn't a "blip", it was measured over a 10 year period (to even out the "blips").

- It wasn't a reduction in mass shootings, it was a reduction in the "kill capacity" of those mass shooting that provided the big drop.

- In the following 10 year period, the number of those killed in mass shootings, not only returned to going up, it went up by 183%.

No, I don't think it was "one weapon".   It was the entire collection of steps taken in the Assault Weapon Ban.  Including the High Capacity, Rapid Loading and Rapid Firing Ammunition systems.

There's no question that the bill worked, and it worked astonishingly well for such limited restrictions.  The numbers are absolutely clear.

But WHAT PARTS of that bill were effective, what parts were ineffective, and what sort of changes and fine-tuning should have been included, are all very valid areas of debate.

As are other, entirely separate changes in society, as you've pointed out.  Not too mention the importance of REAL medical mental screening, etc.  They are all important.

But none of that changes the proven results of that 10 year Assault Weapons Ban, as limited as the restrictions were.  It cannot be ignored as if it's just not relevant and should be ignored.  The results were just WAY too dramatic and significant.

The complete trajectory change in terms of mass shooting DEATHS (not the number of mass shootings), before, during and after that 10 year ban, are very important lessons that we can, and should, learn from.

Whatever we do, as a society, to generally reduce the number of mass shootings is great.

But the lessons of that 10 year ban were specifically to do with "Kill Capacity" (how many people could be killed and how fast).  And what a massive difference that makes to the number of people actually killed in mass shootings.

LightDreams wrote:

You have made a number of valid points.

But we can't ignore the basics:

- The number of those killed in mass shootings was on a strong upward slope BEFORE the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.  Then it not only dropped, it dropped significantly (by 37%).

- And it wasn't a "blip", it was measured over a 10 year period (to even out the "blips").

- It wasn't a reduction in mass shootings, it was a reduction in the "kill capacity" of those mass shooting that provided the big drop.

- In the following 10 year period, the number of those killed in mass shootings, not only returned to going up, it went up by 183%.

No, I don't think it was "one weapon".   It was the entire collection of steps taken in the Assault Weapon Ban.  Including the High Capacity, Rapid Loading and Rapid Firing Ammunition systems.

There's no question that the bill worked, and it worked astonishingly well for such limited restrictions.  The numbers are absolutely clear.

But WHAT PARTS of that bill were effective, what parts were ineffective, and what sort of changes and fine-tuning should have been included, are all very valid areas of debate.

As are other, entirely separate changes in society, as you've pointed out.  Not too mention the importance of REAL medical mental screening, etc.  They are all important.

But none of that changes the proven results of that 10 year Assault Weapons Ban, as limited as the restrictions were.  It cannot be ignored as if it's just not relevant and should be ignored.  The results were just WAY too dramatic and significant.

The complete trajectory change in terms of mass shooting DEATHS (not the number of mass shootings), before, during and after that 10 year ban, are very important lessons that we can, and should, learn from.

Whatever we do, as a society, to generally reduce the number of mass shootings is great.

But the lessons of that 10 year ban were specifically to do with "Kill Capacity" (how many people could be killed and how fast).  And what a massive difference that makes to the number of people actually killed in mass shootings.

I predict that with the recent popularity of switches on Glocks that allow them to rapid fire, we'll soon start seeing them used more and more in mass shootings (using the broad term, which includes gang-related homicides).  This is because they're easier to conceal and because extended magazines and drums for the handguns are available. 

Time will tell.

EdBPhotography wrote:
I predict that with the recent popularity of switches on Glocks that allow them to rapid fire, we'll soon start seeing them used more and more in mass shootings (using the broad term, which includes gang-related homicides).  This is because they're easier to conceal and because extended magazines and drums for the handguns are available. 

Time will tell.

Oh I dunno, 'Dawg. Maybe as a back-up weapon in a behind the back holster. A  rapid fire Glock  won't give you the same mag capacity and firepower of an AR-15 style rifle when you need to quickly take out a classroom full of first graders.

LightDreams wrote:
I also strongly suspect, with some of your statements, that you are honestly not aware of how many years it took before gun manufacturers (based on some later court rulings, etc) started to find loopholes that allowed them to start selling "modified" versions of the AR-15s, etc, once again.  And started offering more "alternate" weapons that weren't covered by the ban.

Don't confuse that with the idea that you it never restricted and reduced the sale of AR-15s, etc, plus a lot of other "rapid-fire" weapons.  AS WELL AS the purchase of new rapid-fire ammunition loading systems (high capacity bullet magazines, etc).  It definitely did and, based on the numbers, was quite a successful approach.

I'm well aware that as soon as gun companies heard rumors of the Clinton Ban they were already in the process of making an AR and AK that they could sell when the ban took place.

I honestly can't think of a time I couldn't buy either rifle.

Focuspuller wrote:
Oh I dunno, 'Dawg. Maybe as a back-up weapon in a behind the back holster. A  rapid fire Glock  won't give you the same mag capacity and firepower of an AR-15 style rifle when you need to quickly take out a classroom full of first graders.

Standard AR and AK magazine is 30 rounds. Glock has made 33 round magazines for many years. They originally made them for the select fire Glock 18.

https://www.glockstore.com/Glock-Factor … k-Magazine

EdBPhotography wrote:

Focuspuller wrote:

Personally, I thought that all forms of rapid fire / rapid reload / high-capacity magazine weapons (that are so easily available new), or the modification kits to make them that way, was a key part of the "hardware side" of the problem.

Specifically, those that are designed to kill as many human beings as possible, in a short period of time.

We are not talking about weapons designed for any typical self-defense scenario, or for hunting, etc.  But the ones that are a mass shooter's "dream".  Whatever form those may take.  Whether they're modified Glocks or assault weapons, or whatever the case may be.

And remember, once again, that during the 10 year Assault Weapon Ban, they didn't try and take them away from existing, law-abiding owners that already had them.  Yet the program still produced great results.

Kevin Fair wrote:
I'm well aware that as soon as gun companies heard rumors of the Clinton Ban they were already in the process of making an AR and AK that they could sell when the ban took place.

I honestly can't think of a time I couldn't buy either rifle.

I understand.  But whether you remember it being banned or not, the record is what it is.

And, yet again, the overall effectiveness of the 10 year Assault Weapons Ban was also quite clear.

What part of the ban made the biggest difference, and what parts of the ban were ineffective (you've provided some possible examples), can certainly be debated.  But not the overall bottom-line results.

A similar number of mass shooters, but they weren't able to kill as many people (37% fewer killed compared to before the 10 year ban), along with far more people killed from the mass shootings after the ban expired (a 183% increase in 10 years). 

Something worked, and it was directly related to the change in "mass kill capability" (at least that was readily available for new purchases in the local stores), during that 10 year ban timeframe.  Personally, I specifically wonder about the heavy focus on high-capacity, rapid reloading magazines and whether that aspect has been greatly underestimated?  I don't know.

But again, the overall targeted ban as a whole, warts and all, legal loopholes and all, still turned out to be remarkably effective.

Kevin Fair wrote:

Standard AR and AK magazine is 30 rounds. Glock has made 33 round magazines for many years. They originally made them for the select fire Glock 18.

https://www.glockstore.com/Glock-Factor … k-Magazine

And there are 60-round AR-15 mags and even 100-round drums. Doubt Glocks will replace them anytime soon. Shooters may not have a Uvalde - level amount of time to light up a roomful of kids.

LightDreams wrote:

I understand.  But whether you remember it being banned or not, the record is what it is.

And, yet again, the overall effectiveness of the 10 year Assault Weapons Ban was also quite clear.

What part of the ban made the biggest difference, and what parts of the ban were ineffective (you've provided some possible examples), can certainly be debated.  But not the overall bottom-line results.

A similar number of mass shooters, but they weren't able to kill as many people (37% fewer killed compared to before the 10 year ban), along with far more people killed from the mass shootings after the ban expired (a 183% increase in 10 years). 

Something worked, and it was directly related to the change in "mass kill capability" (at least that was readily available for new purchases in the local stores), during that 10 year ban timeframe.  Personally, I specifically wonder about the heavy focus on high-capacity, rapid reloading magazines and whether that aspect has been greatly underestimated?  I don't know.

But again, the overall targeted ban as a whole, warts and all, legal loopholes and all, still turned out to be remarkably effective.

Only thing I can think of is the mindset of people changed. No ban will stop someone who wants to pull off a mass shooting. The ban never stopped people from buying guns.

If a assault weapons ban could guarantee there would never be another mass shooting, I'd be first in line to turn in every gun I own...except a S&W revolver, Remington 870 WIngmaster, and my Marlin 39A 22 rifle.

The world is a messed up place when you can't go shopping, to a concert, church, or school without worrying about getting shot by some nut case.

According to this site, the most mass shootings happened in the states with the strictest gun laws.

https://www.thetrace.org/2023/10/mass-s … -how-many/

Focuspuller wrote:
(Insert Charlie Brown's teacher's voice here)

Ahh, yes; I see that now.  You're 100% correct. 

Why did I ever doubt you before?

Kevin Fair wrote:
Only thing I can think of is the mindset of people changed. No ban will stop someone who wants to pull off a mass shooting. The ban never stopped people from buying guns.

If a assault weapons ban could guarantee there would never be another mass shooting, I'd be first in line to turn in every gun I own...except a S&W revolver, Remington 870 WIngmaster, and my Marlin 39A 22 rifle.

The world is a messed up place when you can't go shopping, to a concert, church, or school without worrying about getting shot by some nut case.

According to this site, the most mass shootings happened in the states with the strictest gun laws.

https://www.thetrace.org/2023/10/mass-s … -how-many/

Addressing only the part in bold, your article does not make that statement.  To arrive at that statement you would have to apply your biases and ignore the bulk of the claims of the article, which include:

”Less and less of the United States remains untouched by mass shootings, according to GVA, which began tracking mass shootings shortly after the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre, a full year before it began tracking daily shootings. There have been 4,283 of them in the past 10 years, killing 4,298 victims and wounding at least 17,632, a first-of-its-kind analysis by The Trace of 10 full years of data shows. 

Mass shootings have more than doubled and, in all, more than 15 million Americans have now had a mass shooting in their immediate neighborhood. … More than 44 percent of mass shootings were outside of cities — in suburbs, medium and small towns, and rural areas.

Mass shootings also varied by region, just like daily gun violence. The South had the highest number of mass shootings (1,898), and the second-highest per capita rate of shootings. Though the Midwest had fewer shootings (1,135) than the South, it had a slightly higher rate per capita. The Northeast had the fewest mass shootings (584) and the second-lowest rate per capita, while the West had the lowest rate per capita (666 shootings).

The Trace analysis looked at data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Illinois had the most mass shootings over the 10-year period (435), followed by California (406), Texas (281), and Florida (251). The District of Columbia, Louisiana, Illinois, and Mississippi had the highest rates of mass shootings. Only two states — Hawaii and North Dakota — recorded no mass shootings at all over the 10-year period we analyzed.

Mass shootings have not only risen in frequency but also lethality. Incidents in which four or more people are killed, which GVA refers to as mass murders, have nearly doubled over the past decade.

Texas, a permitless carry state with no background check requirement, recorded more mass gun murders than any other state (32); California, with a population larger than Texas’, recorded 24. Just eight states experienced no mass murders from 2013 to 2022. The South had the highest rate of mass murders, followed by the Midwest. The Northeast had the lowest rate, which was one-third that of the South.

Mass shootings account for less than 5 percent of the nation’s gun violence toll. But the data suggests that over the years, daily shootings have grown to include more victims, turning what were once low-casualty incidents into mass shootings. Cassandra Crifasi, a co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions who researches mass gun violence, cited several possible reasons for this, chiefly the increasing permissiveness of gun access, a shift in firearm production that put more handguns on the market than ever before, and the development of guns that are able to accept magazines that hold a greater number of bullets.

Crifasi, who is a gun owner herself, explained that the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision, which for the first time established an individual right to gun ownership for the purpose of self-defense, “may have played a role in the production and attractiveness of handguns. And that’s related to some pretty major shifts we’ve seen in how states regulate concealed carry.” Since Heller, two dozen states have eliminated permit and training requirements to carry concealed handguns in public. 

“So you have more people in more places carrying firearms that can fire more rounds than they used to be able to,” Crifasi said. “The popularity of these firearms is going to trickle through the market regardless of whether somebody can legally acquire a gun or not.”

Garen Wintemute, the director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, who has studied gun violence for four decades, said mass shootings are increasing because “firearm violence generally is increasing.” But he also suggested that the partisan rancor and factionalism of the past decade might have played a role, too. 

That’s especially true of the increase in mass murders. In addition to the 2019 shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, where the gunman targeted Hispanic and Latino people, there was the 2022 shooting at a supermarket in a predominantly Black neighborhood in Buffalo, New York, carried out by a white supremacist; the 2015 Charleston church shooting, which also targeted Black people; the 2016 Pulse shooting, which targeted the LGBTQ+ community; and last year’s shooting at Club Q, an LGBTQ+ venue in Colorado Springs.

“We’ve become angrier and more polarized,” Wintemute said. “White supremacy, and hatred based on racialization and religious differences, has become more prominent — and the threshold for acting out that hatred has likely dropped.”

Crifasi, the Johns Hopkins researcher, pointed to policies that could reverse the trend. “Some of the research we’ve done has found that when you restrict magazine capacity, you lower both the rates of fatal mass shootings and the number of people injured,” she said. “When someone has to reload, there are more opportunities for people to intervene, and it makes it harder to harm a lot of people at once.”

In 2013, a 15-year-old in Albuquerque, New Mexico, stole his parents’ rifles and killed them and three siblings, ages 2, 5, and 9. He was sentenced to life in prison in 2019. “You see all this stuff that happens all over the country, the shootings in the schools and theaters, and then it happens right here,” a neighbor said after the killings. “It’s sad.”


Really, the entirety of the article that you cited does not support much that you have been saying except that the mindset of people have changed- largely because of right wing related hated groups and politicians. Therefore, that we are in agreement on that point, what do you propose as a solution?

https://www.thetrace.org/2023/10/mass-s … -how-many/

Kevin Fair wrote:
If a assault weapons ban could guarantee there would never be another mass shooting, I'd be first in line to turn in every gun I own...except a S&W revolver, Remington 870 WIngmaster, and my Marlin 39A 22 rifle.

But would you consider some relatively minor changes, that only affect sales of NEW rapid-fire weapons and high capacity / fast reload ammunition magazines, in exchange for a "37% drop" in people killed from mass shootings?   Existing, law abiding, gun owners wouldn't be affected, although they would be offered VOLUNTARY gun buy-back options, should they choose to take advantage of that.

And how about some real "mental health" screening, just to screen out far more, of that very small percentage, that are responsible for so many of the worst public mass shootings?

As I don't think you meant to suggest that only ZERO mass shootings would be acceptable before you'd consider making any changes...

Kevin Fair wrote:
According to this site, the most mass shootings happened in the states with the strictest gun laws.

https://www.thetrace.org/2023/10/mass-s … -how-many/

One reason for this may be that those states have incompetent authorities that rely on imposing blanket restrictions on all of their citizens instead of doing the donkey work of tackling specific problems of crime head-on. This approach is unsound, as the experience of the UK demonstrates.

rxz wrote:
A simple first step that could have been started decades ago would have been for all purchasers of firearms go through a back ground check to get a FOID card and then all purchases and transfers of ownership registered in their State. 

Would it stop all shootings?  No.  But it would have an impact.  And what kind of people think they need to have unregistered weapons?  Besides the Mexican drug cartel.

Certainly there are a lot of criminals with unregistered weapons. What are you going to do about it?

JSouthworth wrote:

One reason for this may be that those states have incompetent authorities that rely on imposing blanket restrictions on all of their citizens instead of doing the donkey work of tackling specific problems of crime head-on. This approach is unsound, as the experience of the UK demonstrates.

Maybe if you had done "the donkey work " of actually reading the article referenced BEFORE you drew a weak conclusion, you may have found that of the four most mass shootings states, 2 were the most strict re:guns and 2 were the most lax, making your "blanket" conclusion....unsound.

"The Trace analysis looked at data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Illinois had the most mass shootings over the 10-year period (435), followed by California (406), Texas (281), and Florida (251)."

And since you seem to fancy cherries:

"Texas, a permitless carry state with no background check requirement, recorded more mass gun murders than any other state (32); California, with a population larger than Texas’, recorded 24"

https://www.thetrace.org/2023/10/mass-s … -how-many/

JSouthworth wrote:
One reason for this may be that those states have incompetent authorities that rely on imposing blanket restrictions on all of their citizens instead of doing the donkey work of tackling specific problems of crime head-on. This approach is unsound, as the experience of the UK demonstrates.

There is always a temptation for police forces to do corrupt under-the-table deals with organised criminals and their lawyers in order to make their lives easier, safer and more profitable, the history of the NYPD provides some classic instances of this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Serpico

Banning ordinary citizens from carrying guns, or even advising them not to use the subway after a certain time represents an attempt to transfer the responsibility for combating crime from the police and civic authorities onto the general public, or in other words to make the ordinary citizen carry the can for the police and the criminals. So what you may need to say to them is "F**k you, we don't care if you have to shoot the drug dealers and gang members in the back of the head and dump the bodies in the river at night, your policies created most of these problems in the first place, so clean up your mess and do it in a way that doesn't inconvenience us". Whenever there is seen to be a three way conflict between your interests, the vested interests of the police and local government, and the interests of criminal elements, you need to ensure that it is resolved in your favor.

A key point is that the police and government have legal powers that the ordinary citizen lacks, and consequently the responsibility for dealing with problems of crime lies with them. If they do their job effectively, the majority of people will help them and support them.

Uniformed members of the National Guard are now present in the New York subway system;

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/c … &ei=57

This will provide a visual deterrent, where the soldiers are present. If the objective were to eliminate gang members, teams of people in plain clothes would be more effective.

JSouthworth wrote:
Banning ordinary citizens from carrying guns, or even advising them not to use the subway after a certain time represents an attempt to transfer the responsibility for combating crime from the police and civic authorities
onto the general public, or in other words to make the ordinary citizen carry the can for the police and the criminals.

Please articulate how exactly banning ordinary citizens from carrying guns represents an attempt to transfer the responsibility for combating crime to the citizenry? Please link to the information you have that identifies the times riders have been advised to avoid subway use. Once again your opinion presented as a fact remains nothing more that your opinion. I have neither the time nor the inclination to fisk the rest of what you made up.

Is The NY Subway System Safe at Night in 2024

Overall, subway crime rates are pretty low. A crime statistics analyst for the NYPD told The Guardian that the chances of being a victim on the NYC subway are one in a million.

He went on to say that the chances of winning the lottery are similar to the chances of being a victim on the subway which hopefully puts your mind at ease a bit.

JQuest wrote:
Please articulate how exactly banning ordinary citizens from carrying guns represents an attempt to transfer the responsibility for combating crime to the citizenry?

It represents an attempt to transfer the responsibility for problems of crime on to the shoulders of the general population, while at the same time making the ordinary citizen more reliant on the police for protection. This is what you might expect to see in a communist state. The police should focus their attentions on the people who are committing most of the crime, like the drug dealers, gang members, and corrupt police officers.

JSouthworth wrote:
It represents an attempt to transfer the responsibility for problems of crime on to the shoulders of the general population, while at the same time making the ordinary citizen more reliant on the police for protection. This is what you might expect to see in a communist state.

So organized societies that create police forces to enforce the laws on behalf of the people, and generally protect society, are actually "communist states"...

You honestly can't make this sh*t up!!!

---

Whatever you may think of Southy, his "grand pronouncements" are occasionally entertaining!

JQuest wrote:
Please articulate how exactly banning ordinary citizens from carrying guns represents an attempt to transfer the responsibility for combating crime to the citizenry?

JSouthworth wrote:
(disarming the citizenry) It represents an attempt to transfer the responsibility for problems of crime on to the shoulders of the general population, while at the same time making the ordinary citizen more reliant on the police for protection.

Wait, what? It makes the general population responsible for dealing with the problems of crime while simultaneously making the ordinary citizens more reliant on the police for protection? So only the disordinary citizens are in charge of taking care of "the problems of crime"? Could you at least try not to contradict yourself in the same sentence when you're making things up?

JSouthworth wrote:
This is what you might expect to see in a communist state.

That might be what you would expect to see as you're the one trying to salvage your opinion in a post that was ridiculous on it's face and that you once again dishonestly attempted to present as fact. At any rate, there are several communist states in the world, would you please identify one where the general population has been disarmed and the ordinary - disordinary citizens are now in charge of security and a strong centralized police presence is not?

JSouthworth wrote:
The police should focus their attentions on the people who are committing most of the crime, like the drug dealers, gang members, and corrupt police officers.

Under your scenario there is no need for the police to do any of this now, as the general population and the citizens (ordinary - disordinary or otherwise, you've left this all a bit fuzzy) of your fictitious communist country have been disarmed and are now in charge of their own security and the onus for combating crime now lies with them. According to your own words we could say they are in no need of the police at all. Congratulations! You have disarmed the public virtually ending gun violence while solving the problems of crime and simultaneously saving the taxpayers money by rendering the police obsolete!

JQuest wrote:
Wait, what? It makes the general population responsible for dealing with the problems of crime while simultaneously making the ordinary citizens more reliant on the police for protection?

What are the city and the police saying to you? They're saying "We're having difficulty dealing with the crime problem, so we want to ban you from carrying a gun". They're trying to make you personally responsible for the problem of crime. It doesn't make any difference whether you carry a gun, or whether you have the right to carry one, because that's simply their excuse for putting a political move on you.

They say that they can't tell good guys from bad guys. Is that because they're visually impaired? Because their intelligence work is lousy? Or is the real problem the fact that they, and their left wing colleagues with sociology degrees are no longer making any meaningful distinction between the drug dealers, the gang members, the child pornographers, the pedophiles and rapists, and you the ordinary citizen?

In the classic communist state, the well being of the individual citizen is considered an irrelevance, the only thing that matters to the authorities is their political power, so they will use all means to deflect the blame for social problems on to other people, who are then typically arrested, convicted on trumped-up charges and sent to labour camps.

JSouthworth wrote:
What are the city and the police saying to you? They're saying "We're having difficulty dealing with the crime problem, so we want to ban you from carrying a gun". They're trying to make YOU personally responsible for the problem of crime. It doesn't make any difference whether or not you carry a gun; where they're concerned, it's enough that you have the right to carry one.

In the classic communist state, the well being of the individual is considered an irrelevance, the only thing that matters to the authorities is their own political power, so they will use all means to deflect the blame for social problems on to other people, who are then typically arrested, convicted on trumped-up charges and sent to labour camps.

No matter how much you torture logic, "...we want to ban you from carrying a gun" does NOT mean, "They're trying to make YOU personally responsible for the problem of crime." Exactly the opposite, in fact. And a false premise to boot. The police are not in general lobbying for the disarming of civilians, making civilians responsible for their own safety. Police DO bring up the problem they face in firearm incidents in identifying the good guys from the bad  guys where self-appointed armed civilians (YOUR dumb solution) are involved.

And WTF is "It doesn't make any difference whether or not you carry a gun; where they're concerned, it's enough that you have the right to carry one" supposed to MEAN? The "right to carry one" you JUST SAID the police are trying to ban? Sorry, old chap, your mind is careening out of control.

And despite your quaint, sophomoric Cold War rhetoric, your "classic communist state..." looks exactly like the "classic" fascist state.

It took you less than 24 hours to derail this thread from the OP's "mass shooting" to "shooting incidents" and then on to crime in general. You continue corrupting the discussion with your personal obsessions, false assumptions, conclusions, and alien illogic.

JSouthworth wrote:
What are the city and the police saying to you? They're saying "We're having difficulty dealing with the crime problem, so we want to ban you from carrying a gun".

Please identify the law enforcement agencies that are saying that. What many are actually saying is exactly the opposite. You quoted someone but as usual you didn't attribute it. Therefore it's fair assume you just made it up to bolster your ridiculous assertions. This is all just too precious. Here you go;
Conservative New York Sherrifs Refuse To Enforce Gun Rules
Scores of Sheriffs Challenge Illinois’ New Gun Law
The sheriffs resisting Washington's new gun laws: 'I'm not going to enforce that'
You will note that those articles are about Law Enforcement agencies in the East (New York) the middle (Illinois) and the West parts of the country (Washington State). So it's a nationwide thing, not just a local one off.

JSouthworth wrote:
Or is the real problem the fact that they, and their left wing colleagues with sociology degrees are no longer making any meaningful distinction between the drug dealers, the gang members, the child pornographers, the pedophiles and rapists, and you the ordinary citizen?

Wow, just wow, more unattributed made up stuff from you. Law enforcement agencies are typically among the most conservative entities in government. Your statement fails on all counts. As for your defamation of those holding sociology degrees, that simply says far more about you (and it's not positive) than it does about anyone who has sought to better themself through higher education.

I'll refrain from commenting on your characterization of the "classic communist state" since Focuspuller has already refuted your account. I will add however that you have failed to answer any of the questions asked in regard to disarming the general populous and then making them responsible for their own safety in regard to criminal activities. I'm still also waiting for you to disclose those communist countries that have put the general population in charge of state security.

JQuest wrote:
Please identify the law enforcement agencies that are saying that. What many are actually saying is exactly the opposite.

Is it the city who are trying to ban guns? it makes no difference either way, they are trying to divest themselves of their responsibility for dealing with crime by implying that the ordinary citizens are causing the problem rather than the people who are breaking the law.

JSouthworth wrote:
Is it the city who are trying to ban guns? it makes no difference either way, they are trying to divest themselves of their responsibility for dealing with crime by implying that the ordinary citizens are causing the problem rather than the people who are breaking the law.

yeah, yeah, yeah, you keep saying that while providing absolutely zero data or evidence as to who or what is saying what you keep repeating. Additionally moving the goal posts from "law enforcement" to "the city" is intellectually weak when your talking point has just been eviscerated with links/information provided. Your argument has been completely refuted. You continue to make an argument (since refuted) with no distinction between the outright banning of all firearms which no one other than singularly focused zealots who cling to their erroneous opinions as tightly as you do to your own and discussions regarding the common sense regulation of high capacity, high velocity, high rate of fire weapons. It has been shown that law enforcement absolutely does not favor disarming average everyday citizens.

You are right in one aspect, "it makes no difference either way" because the fantasy that you continue to promulgate simply does not exist. Full stop.

JSouthworth wrote:
Is it the city who are trying to ban guns? it makes no difference either way, they are trying to divest themselves of their responsibility for dealing with crime by implying that the ordinary citizens are causing the problem rather than the people who are breaking the law.

When there is a conflict or disagreement between city hall and the police department, whether it involves policy or personalities, city hall will usually get their way eventually because (1) they are the elected authority and (2) they have contacts in business and politics, so they can usually buy favors, grease palms, whatever you want to call it. Maybe to a lesser extent if they're conspicuously left wing to the point where they alienate business interests with high taxes or by being too supportive of left wing unions.

In this instance the Supreme Court decision is pretty much the end of story as far as New York's attempt to ban guns is concerned, or so you would think. I hope so because you don't want police officers stopping commuters and searching them for weapons, that's just a stupid waste of their time.