Assault Weapon Ban Would Have Virtually No Impact on Gun Murders

http://www.BeginnerTriathlete.com/BT-Gun-Threads-Have-No-Impact-on-Anything/

How do you make a sarcastic url font?

DanielG - 2013-02-20 4:27 PM http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/justice-memo-assault-weapon... Well, isn't that interesting.

Well, duh.. You don't have to be a Rocket Surgeon to reach that conclusion.  It's just simple common sense.

Thanks!

I think it's been obvious that none of this has to do with "what works" because nothing will work. 

I propose for every gun you turn in, you get a walkie talkie...  Turn in two guns?  Two walkie Talkies.

It worked in ET - the result was the same.  He phoned home.

mr2tony - 2013-02-20 4:00 PM

DanielG - 2013-02-20 3:27 PM http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/justice-memo-assault-weapon... Well, isn't that interesting.

It cites the ``weakness of the ban'' as a contributing factor for its failure. It says that ALONG WITH a buyback program and elimination of exemptions, a ban may reduce gun violence (note: it says `violence,' not `homicides'). ``Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.'' It advocates for a gun registry and continuous checks, which was proven in three studies to reduce domestic violence.

And in case you missed where it said it a few times... that will never happen.

I think we need to differentiate between targeted murders and random murders. If person A want's to kill person B, not having a gun will not matter. Poison, knifes, cars, heck even a running belt will do.Thus, not having an assault weapon will not matter.

However, if someone walks into a preschool or university with a knife, it would be more difficult (although not impossible) for the casualties to mount. I know that I would not stand a chance against an assault weapon, but could try to disarm a person with a knife.

So we need to make a distinction. While banning assault weapons might not have an effect on murders, do you think it might lessen the effects of the next hypothetical assault on a school/movie theater/public place? I don't think it will prevent it, but it might make it less severe.

You don't stand a chance against a revolver... so, what's the difference?

True. Maybe the amount of casualties at the end? I am not sure, but it would be interesting for someone in the law enforcement community to chime in an give us his/her opinion. Would an attack on a school or similar venue with a gun vs. assault weapon have a significant different number of victims?

I keep coming back to the numbers, and the call for a rational, sensible discussion on "gun control" measures.  The focus in Washington, at least how they are selling proposed gun control measures to the American people, is based upon proposed "assualt weapons" bans.

The argument espoused is that an assualt weapons ban will lead to a decrease in the amount of "gun violence" and therefore is needed to stem the amount of gun violence.

The issue of defining an "assualt weapon" aside, the rationality of this argument seems stretched to me.

The "gun violence" statistics clearly indicate that assualt weapons contribute only a fraction of a percentage of gun violence deaths.  One number I heard was that of all of the gun violence deaths only approximately 1% are attributable to long guns/rifles and of that 1% of that 1% is attributable to assualt weapons.

So even as recently as yesterday, when the VP espoused the anti- assualt weapon rhetoric, I am left with scratching my head why the pro-gun control side is focusing on an instrument that accounts for only 1% of 1% of gun violence deaths?

Sandy Hook was done with handguns.

Other than body style, there is ZERO difference between an assault rifle and your average 9mm handgun.

Assault rifles are not the issue they are being played up to be.

In the big picture what does it matter? West Virginia didn't have one. He had a pistol.

Obviously it matters to the ones still alive... but these events are not about a person dying. They are about some sick twisted individual that for what ever reason wants to inflict a senseless violent act on the public. If one of your loved ones died in a senseless violent act, would it really matter to you the ones that lived. Would you still not wish they were one of the ones that did?

Sandy Hook had 600 kids... yours was one of 24 out of 600. West Virginia had an entire campus.. yours was one of 30 out of 2000. Aurora was a whole movie theater.. What 500? Yours was one of 12 out of 500.

So then we get rid of assault weapons... would it matter if a guy wanted to inflict a senseless act of violence with gasoline? A propane bottle? How about beach and ammonia in a ventilation duct? Pipe bombs are easy to make... how about we just lob a few of those in a target rich vulnerable crowd. There are a lot of ways to inflict violence on a mass of people.

DanielG - 2013-02-20 4:27 PM http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/justice-memo-assault-weapon... Well, isn't that interesting.

What's interesting? That some obscure "independent media site" is tapping in on controversy to drive up hit counts? Not really.

Sorry, had to lighten the mood a little...

http://imgur.com/a/euuhL

Oh snap, he really is a lefty! I literally had no idea.

Hmmm... interesting.

The common denominator appears to be.... HUMANS.

Who woulda thunk it?

Good point. New law: Assault Humans are illegal.

Fixed the problem.

Here in Flint very few assult weapons are used.  Mostly bangers with stolen pistols.  I believe again this year 2012 we are the most violent city per cap according to the Feds.

Across the country very few are used.  Only 300 odd deaths by rifles in 2012.  And "assault rifles" are a subset of rifle.  It's barely a blip on the map of gun deaths.

It's like trying to solve the debt problem by cutting programs by a few percent... oh wait...I'm seeing a trend...