Attention, gun control supporters:

[eflatminor]

You cut & pasted all kinds of crap that I deleted in this reply, because I asked you for proposals, not pablum. What remains above are the 5 proposals of the Million Moms.

Let's have a look...

1) The reinstatement of the ban on assault weapons and related magazines. These weapons are clearly not the weapons of choice for hunters.

The AWB didn't do a damned thing to stop gun violence, as the vast majority of it comes from handguns, not rifles. Also, the 2nd Amendment doesn't have a thing to do with hunting, and trying to say it does is fucking dishonest.

Fail.

2) Closed gun-show loopholes that encourage private gun sales without background checks, a basic procedure that every purchaser should undergo.

According to Federal statistics, less than 2% of criminals obtain weapons from gun shows. What do you really think this will accomplish, other than forcing private citizens into performing law enforcement duties. Are you required to see a buyer's driver's license or proof of insurance when you sell a used car?

Fail.

3) A common sense approach to how much ammunition can be purchased. Fertilizer and Sudafed purchases are limited; ammunition should be as well.

Limiting quantities of ammunition will have only one effect, forcing law-abiding citizens to pay higher prices for their ammo. When you can't buy in bulk you are forced to pay retail, and who the fuck do you think you are to tell me I can't fire off 1,000 rounds of ammo in a weekend?

And tell us exactly how this little jewel would reduce gun violence, anyway?

Fail.

4) Boundaries on the scope of concealed weapons laws at the state level.

Tell me something, have ANY of these deranged shooters been holders of concealed carry permits? ANY of them? In a word? NO. What possible effect will the restriction of CCW rights have on gun violence? In a word? NOTHING.

Fail.

5) Improve mental health awareness and access.

Finally, at the bottom of the list, is an idea that might have some merit. I don't want nutbags to get guns any more than you do, but until these nutbags are identified there is not much we can do.

If you have other proposals, please take the time to list them and I'll address them individually.

A Justice Department study on the federal assault weapons ban, which was law for 10 years found “Gun murders declined 10.3 percent in states without preexisting assault weapons bans.” 10.3 percent. Another study by the Justice Department in 2004 concluded “If the ban is lifted, gun and magazine manufacturers may reintroduce assault weapons models and large capacity magazines, perhaps in substantial numbers.”

Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96.pdf

An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban 1994-2003.pdf

What's the matter, did the Mayors Against Illegal Guns use word that are too big for you? Their proposals are much more detailed and backed by research. But what the One Million Moms for Gun Control lay out is basic common sense, no matter how much you throw a tantrum. And I am pretty sure that resembles what is going to happen...deal with it.

Christ man, did you even read your links? They completely discredit the idea that gun bans keep firearms from the hands of criminals!

From your links:
"There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs"
"The failure to reduce LCM use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines"
"...the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime"
"...we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence."

Further, the "study" that covered the entire term of the ban only includes 5 cities. Why so selective I wonder? Even with that kind of cherry picking, the study still concludes: "The Ban’s Success in Reducing Criminal Use of the Banned Guns and Magazines Has Been Mixed"

What a glowing endorsement!

And by the way, YOU FUCKING LIED in your conclusion when you stated:

A Justice Department study on the federal assault weapons ban, which was law for 10 years found “Gun murders declined 10.3 percent in states without preexisting assault weapons bans.”

Fucking liar!!! That quote came from the study done in 1995, NOT during the 10 year period of the ban. Lie much???

Further, “assault weapons” traces were minimal before the ban (due to their infrequent use in crimes), so any change enters the realm of statistical irrelevancy.

Bottom line, you've FAILED to produce any evidence that criminals are prevented in any way from obtaining banned firearms and magazines.

So, any chance you'll actually address the point here and tell us how limiting law abiding citizens access to firearms makes a damn bit of difference to criminals???

Not holding my breath...

p.s. Neg'd for lying!

This jackass blatantly LIES...and neg's me for pointing out the lie! There you go folks, the mindset of the progressive in full display.

 

[Bfgrn]

A Justice Department study on the federal assault weapons ban, which was law for 10 years found “Gun murders declined 10.3 percent in states without preexisting assault weapons bans.” 10.3 percent. Another study by the Justice Department in 2004 concluded “If the ban is lifted, gun and magazine manufacturers may reintroduce assault weapons models and large capacity magazines, perhaps in substantial numbers.”

Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96.pdf

An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban 1994-2003.pdf

What's the matter, did the Mayors Against Illegal Guns use word that are too big for you? Their proposals are much more detailed and backed by research. But what the One Million Moms for Gun Control lay out is basic common sense, no matter how much you throw a tantrum. And I am pretty sure that resembles what is going to happen...deal with it.

Christ man, did you even read your links? They completely discredit the idea that gun bans keep firearms from the hands of criminals!

From your links:
"There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs"
"The failure to reduce LCM use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines"
"...the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime"
"...we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence."

Further, the "study" that covered the entire term of the ban only includes 5 cities. Why so selective I wonder? Even with that kind of cherry picking, the study still concludes: "The Ban’s Success in Reducing Criminal Use of the Banned Guns and Magazines Has Been Mixed"

What a glowing endorsement!

And by the way, YOU FUCKING LIED in your conclusion when you stated:

A Justice Department study on the federal assault weapons ban, which was law for 10 years found “Gun murders declined 10.3 percent in states without preexisting assault weapons bans.”

Fucking liar!!! That quote came from the study done in 1995, NOT during the 10 year period of the ban. Lie much???

Further, “assault weapons” traces were minimal before the ban (due to their infrequent use in crimes), so any change enters the realm of statistical irrelevancy.

Bottom line, you've FAILED to produce any evidence that criminals are prevented in any way from obtaining banned firearms and magazines.

So, any chance you'll actually address the point here and tell us how limiting law abiding citizens access to firearms makes a damn bit of difference to criminals???

Not holding my breath...

p.s. Neg'd for lying!

This jackass blatantly LIES...and neg's me for pointing out the lie! There you go folks, the mindset of the progressive in full display.

I never neg anyone for what they say, I only send a neg back, when I receive one.

Now, you had a tantrum, emoted, sent me a neg and called me a liar. Now you are going to double down. BUT, did I lie, or are you just too obtuse to read and comprehend?

Let's break it down, OK?

"A Justice Department study on the federal assault weapons ban"

A true statement. They did 2 studies, a short term and a long term study.

"which was law for 10 years"

Another true statement.

found “Gun murders declined 10.3 percent in states without preexisting assault weapons bans.” 10.3 percent.

Another true statement.

"Another study by the Justice Department in 2004 concluded"

This line is a qualifier. "Another study in 2004" That tells anyone reading the paragraph that the preceding information came from the short term study. (Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96)

SO, tell me Einstein, HOW could the information from a study (Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96) possibly provide information during the 10 year period of the ban?

I expect a pos rep and an apology.

 

[squeeze berry]

The American people won't settle for nothing being done.

If you gun rights absolutists have no alternative viable plan to respond to the problem, you are asking the American people to do nothing.

They won't. They will restrict gun ownership, even if it's mostly symbolic.

Doing nothing is the only plan that is DOA.

gun owners are American people too.

sometimes you libs forget things like that

 

[The Rabbi]

Christ man, did you even read your links? They completely discredit the idea that gun bans keep firearms from the hands of criminals!

From your links:
"There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs"
"The failure to reduce LCM use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines"
"...the ban has not yet reduced the use of LCMs in crime"
"...we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence."

Further, the "study" that covered the entire term of the ban only includes 5 cities. Why so selective I wonder? Even with that kind of cherry picking, the study still concludes: "The Ban’s Success in Reducing Criminal Use of the Banned Guns and Magazines Has Been Mixed"

What a glowing endorsement!

And by the way, YOU FUCKING LIED in your conclusion when you stated:


Fucking liar!!! That quote came from the study done in 1995, NOT during the 10 year period of the ban. Lie much???

Further, “assault weapons” traces were minimal before the ban (due to their infrequent use in crimes), so any change enters the realm of statistical irrelevancy.

Bottom line, you've FAILED to produce any evidence that criminals are prevented in any way from obtaining banned firearms and magazines.

So, any chance you'll actually address the point here and tell us how limiting law abiding citizens access to firearms makes a damn bit of difference to criminals???

Not holding my breath...

p.s. Neg'd for lying!

This jackass blatantly LIES...and neg's me for pointing out the lie! There you go folks, the mindset of the progressive in full display.

I never neg anyone for what they say, I only send a neg back, when I receive one.

Now, you had a tantrum, emoted, sent me a neg and called me a liar. Now you are going to double down. BUT, did I lie, or are you just too obtuse to read and comprehend?

Let's break it down, OK?

"A Justice Department study on the federal assault weapons ban"

A true statement. They did 2 studies, a short term and a long term study.

"which was law for 10 years"

Another true statement.

found “Gun murders declined 10.3 percent in states without preexisting assault weapons bans.” 10.3 percent.

Another true statement.

"Another study by the Justice Department in 2004 concluded"

This line is a qualifier. "Another study in 2004" That tells anyone reading the paragraph that the preceding information came from the short term study. (Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96)

SO, tell me Einstein, HOW could the information from a study (Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96) possibly provide information during the 10 year period of the ban?

I expect a pos rep and an apology.

Actually they didnt conclude any such thing. Your reading ability sucks. as do you. The only pos you get is the result of your HIV test.

 

[Bfgrn]

This jackass blatantly LIES...and neg's me for pointing out the lie! There you go folks, the mindset of the progressive in full display.

I never neg anyone for what they say, I only send a neg back, when I receive one.

Now, you had a tantrum, emoted, sent me a neg and called me a liar. Now you are going to double down. BUT, did I lie, or are you just too obtuse to read and comprehend?

Let's break it down, OK?

"A Justice Department study on the federal assault weapons ban"

A true statement. They did 2 studies, a short term and a long term study.

"which was law for 10 years"

Another true statement.

found “Gun murders declined 10.3 percent in states without preexisting assault weapons bans.” 10.3 percent.

Another true statement.

"Another study by the Justice Department in 2004 concluded"

This line is a qualifier. "Another study in 2004" That tells anyone reading the paragraph that the preceding information came from the short term study. (Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96)

SO, tell me Einstein, HOW could the information from a study (Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96) possibly provide information during the 10 year period of the ban?

I expect a pos rep and an apology.

Actually they didnt conclude any such thing. Your reading ability sucks. as do you. The only pos you get is the result of your HIV test.

They certainly did.

Title: Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96
Heading: CONSEQUENCES OF ASSAULT WEAPONS USE
Location: 4th paragraph

Rabbi, the modern day Einstein of deductive reasoning...

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."
The Rabbi

 

[The Rabbi]

A number of factors—including the fact
that the banned weapons and magazines
were rarely used to commit murders in
this country, the limited availability of
data on the weapons, other components of
the Crime Control Act of 1994, and State
and local initiatives implemented at the
same time—posed challenges in discerning
the effects of the ban. The ban appears
to have had clear short-term effects
on the gun market, some of which were
unintended consequences: production of
the banned weapons increased before the
law took effect, and prices fell afterward.
This suggests that the weapons became
more available generally, but they must
have become less accessible to criminals
because there was at least a short-term
decrease in criminal use of the banned
weapons.

You mean this? Really? Note how they mention that the weapons banned were not typically ones used in crimes. Note the word "must", which means they are trying to make a causal connection out of a temporal one. Lots of things could account for the decrease in crime over that time.

You are the world's least critical thinker. And that's giving you credit for thinking, which I suspect you lack. Anything with the right combination of words spells proof to you.

And yes, people are unemployed for 2 years because they have incentives to be unemployed. Learn some basic Econ and get back to me, genius.

 

[daveman]

If you'd PROPOSE something reasonable and moderate we might get somewhere, but laws that have no effect except on the law-abiding are neither reasonable or moderate.

I have some really bad news for ya...you and daveman and the rest of the slippery slope, chicken littles are being abandoned...by NRA members and the American people.

It exposes you for what you are.

Unlike you leftists, I don't need to be in a crowd of like-minded people to feel secure. I don't need a consensus to base my views on.

Can't you think for yourself? The evidence suggests "no".

And your refusal to acknowledge this post confirms.

 

[Bfgrn]

A number of factors—including the fact
that the banned weapons and magazines
were rarely used to commit murders in
this country, the limited availability of
data on the weapons, other components of
the Crime Control Act of 1994, and State
and local initiatives implemented at the
same time—posed challenges in discerning
the effects of the ban. The ban appears
to have had clear short-term effects
on the gun market, some of which were
unintended consequences: production of
the banned weapons increased before the
law took effect, and prices fell afterward.
This suggests that the weapons became
more available generally, but they must
have become less accessible to criminals
because there was at least a short-term
decrease in criminal use of the banned
weapons.

You mean this? Really? Note how they mention that the weapons banned were not typically ones used in crimes. Note the word "must", which means they are trying to make a causal connection out of a temporal one. Lots of things could account for the decrease in crime over that time.

You are the world's least critical thinker. And that's giving you credit for thinking, which I suspect you lack. Anything with the right combination of words spells proof to you.

And yes, people are unemployed for 2 years because they have incentives to be unemployed. Learn some basic Econ and get back to me, genius.

Critical thinking? You?? Seriously??? Anyone who actually read those reports and came away with your dogmatic, doctrinaire one sided take is either ignorant, or such a Monica Lewinsky for the 'job creator class' that you can't get discern because of your focus to want to suck some CEO's dick. There are plenty of facts given in those reports why the ban was less effective than it could have been and SHOULD have been.

Did the law have too many exclusions, loopholes and work-arounds because of heavy pressure from lobbyists when the bill was ultimately watered down?

Did weapon manufacturers operate under the spirit of the law, or did they seek to find ways around the law?

Did you just skip over it because it doesn't fit your dogma?

 

[Rinata]

If criminals do not obey the law why would you make it easy for them to have access to firearms???

Because criminals do not obey the law, no law makes it harder or easier for them to have access to firearms. They get them regardless.

More importantly, why would you seek to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantages against the crazies and criminals that don't care about your laws and regulations? Now THAT'S insane.

We need gun control laws to stop straw purchases, corrupt licensed gun dealers, and un licensed street dealers. This is how criminals get guns. Stolen guns are at the bottom of the list of ways criminals get their hands on a firearm.

I don't see how any of this would put law abiding citizens at risk.

 

[Meister]

If criminals do not obey the law why would you make it easy for them to have access to firearms???

Because criminals do not obey the law, no law makes it harder or easier for them to have access to firearms. They get them regardless.

More importantly, why would you seek to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantages against the crazies and criminals that don't care about your laws and regulations? Now THAT'S insane.

We need gun control laws to stop straw purchases, corrupt licensed gun dealers, and un licensed street dealers. This is how criminals get guns. Stolen guns are at the bottom of the list of ways criminals get their hands on a firearm.

I don't see how any of this would put law abiding citizens at risk.

I'm sure there are laws on the book that already cover these crimes, Rinata.

 

[daveman]

Because criminals do not obey the law, no law makes it harder or easier for them to have access to firearms. They get them regardless.

More importantly, why would you seek to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantages against the crazies and criminals that don't care about your laws and regulations? Now THAT'S insane.

We need gun control laws to stop straw purchases, corrupt licensed gun dealers, and un licensed street dealers. This is how criminals get guns. Stolen guns are at the bottom of the list of ways criminals get their hands on a firearm.

I don't see how any of this would put law abiding citizens at risk.

I'm sure there are laws on the book that already cover these crimes, Rinata.

But we need MORE! The criminals will obey them! Promise!

 

[daveman]

Stolen guns are at the bottom of the list of ways criminals get their hands on a firearm.

Wrong.

 

[eflatminor]

Stolen guns are at the bottom of the list of ways criminals get their hands on a firearm.

Wrong.

Facts aren't important silly rabbit. This is about what FEELS right...

 

[GuyPinestra]

If criminals do not obey the law why would you make it easy for them to have access to firearms???

Because criminals do not obey the law, no law makes it harder or easier for them to have access to firearms. They get them regardless.

More importantly, why would you seek to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantages against the crazies and criminals that don't care about your laws and regulations? Now THAT'S insane.

We need gun control laws to stop straw purchases, corrupt licensed gun dealers, and un licensed street dealers. This is how criminals get guns. Stolen guns are at the bottom of the list of ways criminals get their hands on a firearm.

I don't see how any of this would put law abiding citizens at risk.

You've already GOT them but you libs won't ENFORCE them. Start locking some people up instead of slapping them on the wrist. How many times will you do-gooders let these pricks out on parole or probation before you FINALLY get a clue?

 

[The Rabbi]

Because criminals do not obey the law, no law makes it harder or easier for them to have access to firearms. They get them regardless.

More importantly, why would you seek to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantages against the crazies and criminals that don't care about your laws and regulations? Now THAT'S insane.

We need gun control laws to stop straw purchases, corrupt licensed gun dealers, and un licensed street dealers. This is how criminals get guns. Stolen guns are at the bottom of the list of ways criminals get their hands on a firearm.

I don't see how any of this would put law abiding citizens at risk.

You've already GOT them but you libs won't ENFORCE them. Start locking some people up instead of slapping them on the wrist. How many times will you do-gooders let these pricks out on parole or probation before you FINALLY get a clue?

We already have laws against straw purchases, corrupt gun dealers (whoever they are) and unlicensed street dealers.
Criminals get their guns from other criminals, who usually steal them. What law would prevent that?

 

[daveman]

Stolen guns are at the bottom of the list of ways criminals get their hands on a firearm.

Wrong.

Facts aren't important silly rabbit. This is about what FEELS right...

Indeed. The left is driven solely by emotion.

Now watch Rinata get all emotional about this post.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Rinata]

Because criminals do not obey the law, no law makes it harder or easier for them to have access to firearms. They get them regardless.

More importantly, why would you seek to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantages against the crazies and criminals that don't care about your laws and regulations? Now THAT'S insane.

We need gun control laws to stop straw purchases, corrupt licensed gun dealers, and un licensed street dealers. This is how criminals get guns. Stolen guns are at the bottom of the list of ways criminals get their hands on a firearm.

I don't see how any of this would put law abiding citizens at risk.

I'm sure there are laws on the book that already cover these crimes, Rinata.

They are not good enough, Meister. Maybe the ATF needs to start cracking down.

 

[The Rabbi]

We need gun control laws to stop straw purchases, corrupt licensed gun dealers, and un licensed street dealers. This is how criminals get guns. Stolen guns are at the bottom of the list of ways criminals get their hands on a firearm.

I don't see how any of this would put law abiding citizens at risk.

I'm sure there are laws on the book that already cover these crimes, Rinata.

They are not good enough, Meister. Maybe the ATF needs to start cracking down.

So do you want the gov't to pass more laws that the ATF won't enforce, or do you want the ATF to enforce the existing laws, which is what pro gun people are already saying?

Damn you're stupid, s0n.

 

[Rinata]

Stolen guns are at the bottom of the list of ways criminals get their hands on a firearm.

Wrong.

Facts aren't important silly rabbit. This is about what FEELS right...

You two are just another Laurel and Hardy.

frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS