Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Spectral]

I fail to see the great benefit the United States would gain from a ban on "assault weapons".

[semaphore]

And we totally need yet another thread on this.

[Xeones]

Cool another thread. And I for one really wouldn't support the same law given that from my understanding it didn't actually ban all semi-automatic weapons.

[Riidii]

Aren't "assault weapons" used in like a miniscule percentage of gun crime?

[MossMonster]

The research declared the Act that banned such weapons improved nothing hence it was overturned. Molon Labe

[drwelfare]

Aren't "assault weapons" used in like a miniscule percentage of gun crime?

Yes, feel good legislation.

[obdigore]

The research declared the Act that banned such weapons improved nothing hence it was overturned. Molon Labe

No. There was no research and the Act was not overturned, it had a 10 year sunset provision. Iirc it was never even challenged after being passed.

[Twotonsteak]

I fail to see the great benefit the United States would gain from a ban on "assault weapons".

That's rather amusing. Because Clinton's on administration couldn't find a single benefit from the ban either. According to the numbers they had the ban made no difference at all. That's why Clinton never renewed it.

But that's OK. I'm sure an Assault Weapon ban will stop all those mentally ill people. I'm sure they won't use another gun, or a hammer, or a knife, or a car, or an IED they built with plans off the internet. Or, hey, maybe they'll just buy the assault weapons illegally the same way all criminals with a record illegally buy their guns?

I mean, hey, let's just look at Chicago. They have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. I'm sure their gun-related crimes have dropped. Oh, wait, they haven't. In fact Chicago also has one of the highest gun-related crime rates.

Yup. I can sure see how an Assault Weapons ban will help.

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 12:57 AM ----------

Aren't "assault weapons" used in like a miniscule percentage of gun crime?

Roughly 4%, as I recall. I may be off by a percent or two.

The concept of a ban is really just politics for Washington. Obama knows that no real Republican would support it. And he thinks he can get enough support from the American public that if he manages to do anything, he'll end up looking good.

[Riidii]

No. There was no research and the Act was not overturned, it had a 10 year sunset provision. Iirc it was never even challenged after being passed.

Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence," noting "that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness." A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."

In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes. That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.

Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans. The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban. Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent. Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime." A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of the report.

Ya, so in a nutshell, nothing happened.

[obdigore]

Ya, so in a nutshell, nothing happened.

Correct, the ban was neither inclusive enough, nor for a long enough time period to realistically have any effect.

[nyc81991]

The main issue is that the people who are going to use guns to kill other people will still get them. They will just have to get them illegally.

It's a lot like drugs. Sure, They are illegal but kids in highschool actually have a easier time getting marijuana than alcohol (which is legal).

[Riidii]

Correct, the ban was neither inclusive enough, nor for a long enough time period to realistically have any effect.

I don't know, 10 years is pretty solid.

What do you mean by not inclusive enough? It seemed very thorough to me.

[obdigore]

I don't know, 10 years is pretty solid.

What do you mean by not inclusive enough? It seemed very thorough to me.

Did you even read what you quoted?

[PizzaSHARK]

Did you even read what you quoted?

Can we all just agree to tell the NRA to get bent so that we can actually, finally develop some reliable data to base decisions off of?

[obdigore]

Can we all just agree to tell the NRA to get bent so that we can actually, finally develop some reliable data to base decisions off of?

I can't imagine anyone reasonable that thinks the NRA stopping the CDC from investigating the causes of gun violence is a good thing. The NRA don't represent gun owners, they represent gun manufacturers.

[rboa]

.... Who needs that 90-100 round magazine for a gun for hunting? You don't even need it for sport shooting. After the first couple of shots in full auto you won't be on target anyway. http://www.gunclips.net/ar1590rdgunmag.html Who needs one? With it that readily available how is that stopping some nut from buying one?

Nobody needs a 100 round magazine for these things either:
- washing the car
- brushing their teeth
- making coffee

The second ammendment is not about having a gun for hunting. It is about being able to protect themselves from harm by criminals or the GOVERNMENT. Just think for a moment about how many people were killed by their own government in the past 100 years.

[Riidii]

Did you even read what you quoted?

Yes.

How could the ban be more inclusive? And why should it be longer than 10 years if literally nothing happened in those 10 years?

I could see extending the duration if there were any measurable effect. But since there wasn't...

[obdigore]

Yes.

How could the ban be more inclusive? And why should it be longer than 10 years if literally nothing happened in those 10 years?

I could see extending the duration if there were any measurable effect.

That is just what they said. Assault Rifles were used for ~5% of crime

"in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime."

So it seems that those banned suddenly were used less in crime, shockingly.

Meanwhile another study that said there no significant evidence that it did anything (due to the rarity of weapons banned used for crime and the national trend of crime going down) also concluded

it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.

[Riidii]

That is just what they said. Assault Rifles were used for ~5% of crime

So it seems that those banned suddenly were used less in crime, shockingly.

Meanwhile another study that said there no significant evidence that it did anything (due to the rarity of weapons banned used for crime and the national trend of crime going down) also concluded

This goes back to my original point.

Almost no one uses these guns for crimes. So of course a "ban" would be ineffective.

[Wells]

This goes back to my original point.

Almost no one uses these guns for crimes. So of course a "ban" would be ineffective.

I don't particularly get these claims. I mean no one is saying "ban these to solve crime!". They're saying "these things are more dangerous than their legitimate use warrants". I mean its not like a ton of people are killed with fertilizer bombs every year but we monitor the shit out of fertilizer.