Rittenhouse, the proof is in the pudding....

[Revoltingest]

Assault rifle is more frightening than assault weapon how?

An AR-15 is neither.

Analogy time....
Would it be incorrect labeling to call any gun
regulation "fascism"? Of course not.
We shouldn't be histrionic in any labeling.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those that do not know the difference tend to be deathly afraid of all guns. Those that know the difference know that an the term "assault weapon" is tied to a piece of failed feel good legislation.

Why would you call it "failed"? The evidence for the impact of the ban, while not absolutely conclusive, is positive:

Duwe found that the lowest 10-year average in mass shooting rates was between 1996-2005, which roughly corresponds with the ban period. But Duwe notes that that “aligns with broader trends observed for crime and violence in the United States.” In other words, it’s hard to know how much the assault weapons ban may have affected mass shootings during that time.

While the incidence rate was higher pre-ban than post-ban, the number of victims killed and shot — the severity of mass public shootings — has increased dramatically in the post-ban period, after 2004, Duwe found.

“The growing number of highly lethal mass public shootings raises several important questions,” Duwe wrote. “Perhaps most notably, why have they become more deadly since the mid-2000s? Is this effect a result of the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004? Or is it a result of other changes in gun policy?”

Although he poses these questions, Duwe does not offer a definitive conclusion about the impact of the assault weapons ban.

And other findings suggest that broader legislation focused on large capacity magazines generally could be effective:

Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”

FactChecking Biden's Claim that Assault Weapons Ban Worked - FactCheck.org

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep so I'm still wondering why someone mistakenly saying assault rifle is more frightening then them saying correctly assault weapon. Just curious as to his thought process. I don't think we use either term in Australia, just semi auto or fully auto.

Terminology matters.
I recommend some reading on the matter.
See post #252.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fully automatic vs. semiautomatic. Much scarier.

Skip forward to the 48 second mark:

Expensive hobby, eh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would you call it "failed"? The evidence for the impact of the ban, while not absolutely conclusive, is positive:



And other findings suggest that broader legislation focused on large capacity magazines generally could be effective:


FactChecking Biden's Claim that Assault Weapons Ban Worked - FactCheck.org

The ban in reality did nothing. The lower rates of overall deaths appears to be more due to economics than a law that tried to ban a gun because it looks bad. I would be happy to have limitations on magazine size. And I would like to see more stringent enforcement of existing laws on who can sell what. Right now it is far too easy to become a gun dealer in the US.

I am not against gun control laws. I am against ineffective gun control laws.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Expensive hobby, eh.

Extremely. If you go to the minigun clips I will think that they went through over a grand in ammo.

 

[Revoltingest]

Extremely. If you go to the minigun clips I will think that they went through over a grand in ammo.

Almost as spendy as collecting antique engines.

 

[Shadow11]

If it was a black teenager with a AR-15 patrolling the streets and he shot 2 white guys the same way do you think it would of turned out the same?

 

[Revoltingest]

If it was a black teenager with a AR-15 patrolling the streets and he shot 2 white guys the same way do you think it would of turned out the same?

I speculate there'd be no BLM protests over it
at all....except in support of the shooter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it was a black teenager with a AR-15 patrolling the streets and he shot 2 white guys the same way do you think it would of turned out the same?

For your analogy to work you should have said "black guys".

I do not think that it would have turned out the same way since there would not have been the enormous political and emotional pressure to over charge the black teenager. Rittenhouse was innocent of the charges brought against him. He got off because they went too far when they charged him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The ban in reality did nothing. The lower rates of overall deaths appears to be more due to economics than a law that tried to ban a gun because it looks bad.

I guess we should feel honoured to benefit from your insight, seeing how the actual experts haven't been able to come to such a firm conclusion.

The consensus is that:

- deaths by firearms covered by the "assault weapon" ban went down during the ban.
- deaths due to firearms covered by the ban have risen dramatically since the ban.
- other factors have been effecting firearm death rates over this period, so it's hard to tease out the effect of the assault weapon ban specifically.

Not exactly a solid foundation for your claim that the ban "did nothing."

I would be happy to have limitations on magazine size. And I would like to see more stringent enforcement of existing laws on who can sell what. Right now it is far too easy to become a gun dealer in the US.

I am not against gun control laws. I am against ineffective gun control laws.

And you've jumped to the conclusion that the assault weapons ban was ineffective.

Sounds like you're against any gun control laws that have a realistic chance of getting enacted in the US right now.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess we should feel honoured to benefit from your insight, seeing how the actual experts haven't been able to come to such a firm conclusion.

The consensus is that:

- deaths by firearms covered by the "assault weapon" ban went down during the ban.
- deaths due to firearms covered by the ban have risen dramatically since the ban.
- other factors have been effecting firearm death rates over this period, so it's hard to tease out the effect of the assault weapon ban specifically.

Not exactly a solid foundation for your claim that the ban "did nothing."

And you've jumped to the conclusion that the assault weapons ban was ineffective.

Sounds like you're against any gun control laws that have a realistic chance of getting enacted in the US right now.

It's hard to vet the statistics you claim but don't offer.

I'm skeptical because the "assault weapons ban" didn't
ban any assault weapons (which were regulated by
earlier legislation). Moreover, affected weapons saw
an increase in manufacture & sales leading up to it.
Ref...
Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia

 

[Shaul]

If it was a black teenager with a AR-15 patrolling the streets and he shot 2 white guys the same way do you think it would of turned out the same?

You do know that Rittenhouse didn’t shoot any blacks, right? The people who attacked him and that he shot were all whites.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I speculate there'd be no BLM protests over it
at all....except in support of the shooter.

That's too much speculation considering how broad the negative generalization is. BLM is a massive movement consisting of millions of supporters at this point, but we haven't seen any shootings or support for them from BLM yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess we should feel honoured to benefit from your insight, seeing how the actual experts haven't been able to come to such a firm conclusion.

The consensus is that:

- deaths by firearms covered by the "assault weapon" ban went down during the ban.
- deaths due to firearms covered by the ban have risen dramatically since the ban.
- other factors have been effecting firearm death rates over this period, so it's hard to tease out the effect of the assault weapon ban specifically.

Not exactly a solid foundation for your claim that the ban "did nothing."

And you've jumped to the conclusion that the assault weapons ban was ineffective.

Sounds like you're against any gun control laws that have a realistic chance of getting enacted in the US right now.

Of course if one particular weapon is banned the deaths by that weapon will drop. That is a fact that can be refuted by a simple "So what?". To claim that the ban did anything one would need to prove that deaths went down due to the law. And no one seems to be able to support that. In other words, it did nothing.

If you ban yellow painted guns the number of deaths by yellow painted guns will go down. The question will remain, " Did deaths go down?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course if one particular weapon is banned the deaths by that weapon will drop. That is a fact that can be refuted by a simple "So what?". To claim that the ban did anything one would need to prove that deaths went down due to the law. And no one seems to be able to support that. In other words, it did nothing.

If you ban yellow painted guns the number of deaths by yellow painted guns will go down. The question will remain, " Did deaths go down?"

And deaths did go down. They also rose dramatically after the ban was lifted.

The only question is how much of this was because of the ban and how much was other factors.

... which is why it's good that you're here to say that it was all because of other factors and not at all because of the ban, since we would never have known this by only listening to the experts in the field.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's too much speculation considering how broad the negative generalization is. BLM is a massive movement consisting of millions of supporters at this point, but we haven't seen any shootings or support for them from BLM yet.

I disagree. BLM hasn't been very interested in deaths
of whites, Indians, or Asians at the hands of cops.
So a black shooter who killed attacking whites in self
defense would (IMO) have BLM approval.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I disagree. BLM hasn't been very interested in deaths
of whites, Indians, or Asians at the hands of cops.
So a black shooter who killed attacking whites in self
defense would (IMO) have BLM approval.

Focusing more on Black deaths at the hands of cops doesn't mean they support police-caused deaths of other ethnicities.

I focus more on political issues in the Arab world than I do those in the U.S., but here we are talking about a domestic affair of the U.S. without any problem.

 

[wellwisher]

The problem is banning weapons will not stop the criminals from getting guns. Heroine, for example, is highly banned in the US, but it is readily available on the black market. The problem of addiction has become worse than ever even though banning heroine prevents honest people. The reason is prohibitions create tax free black market monopolies who give donations to politicians.

Criminals tend to side with the Democrat party and the liberal theology. Defense lawyers, who protect criminals donate heavily to the Democrats party. If you do the math, banning guns will allow only Democrats; criminals, to own guns via the black market.

Luckily the founding fathers made owning a gun a right for all citizens so they can defend themselves from criminal elements. The young man who shot three Democrat criminals in self defense was based on this freedom. If the ban had been in effect, only the Democrat rioters would be allowed to have guns via the black market monopoly created by the Democrat led Government.

 

[Revoltingest]

Focusing more on Black deaths at the hands of cops doesn't mean they support police-caused deaths of other ethnicities.

That doesn't reflect my intent.
It's that they (BLM) don't notice or care much about
deaths of non-black people. If they did, some names
would be more well known....
Daniel Shaver
Justine Damond
Dennis Tuttle
Rhogena Nicholas

I focus more on political issues in the Arab world than I do those in the U.S., but here we are talking about a domestic affair of the U.S. without any problem.

OK.