Buried: Father at Newton Meeting who does not want more gun laws

[Spoonman]

The number of homicides dropped ~50% from the early 1990's until the assault weapons ban was lifted. Since it was lifted it has continued to drop at a much lower rate, ~13%.

It is very difficult finding reliable homicide data separated by weapon. The best I can find is total homicides from the FBI. Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics

How do you still not understand the difference between a rate and a raw number? You can't compare states when one has more people than the other, you need to use the rate when comparing states. Do you have anything that proves that the drop in homicides is due to the increase in guns?

except for the fact that from 1999 to 2005 they rose.

now again we have more than double the guns, we have a larger population, we have more people with guns, we have way more deadly assault weapons. all growth numbers. but we have one decline, the number of homicides by guns. yea, just like states that have more people and more guns would logically have an higher number of incidents - your argument - we should see the same corresponding numbers nationally where we have more guns, and more people. but we don't we see less incidents. your little proportions argument is blown out of the water

But the decrease from 1993 to 1999 was magnitudes greater than the decrease from 2005 to current. Maybe neither decrease had anything to do with the ban or lifting of the ban. I'm not the one stating that the ban being in place definitely led to a decrease like you are doing post ban. Also, there was no assault weapons ban in the 80's or 90's when murders skyrocketed.

Again, I've never called for a ban on guns but there just isn't a correlation between state weapons laws and murders. If more guns led to fewer murders, why does Louisiana continually lead the country in murder rate? They have the most lax gun laws in the country.

and as you claim, because of the gun ban. if that was true, when the ban was lifted and the market flooded with deadly assault weapons they should have gone back up. but they didn't. again, your argument holds no merit. what you claim to be the reason for the drop did not show a reversal when it was lifted.

 

[AceRothstein]

except for the fact that from 1999 to 2005 they rose.

now again we have more than double the guns, we have a larger population, we have more people with guns, we have way more deadly assault weapons. all growth numbers. but we have one decline, the number of homicides by guns. yea, just like states that have more people and more guns would logically have an higher number of incidents - your argument - we should see the same corresponding numbers nationally where we have more guns, and more people. but we don't we see less incidents. your little proportions argument is blown out of the water

But the decrease from 1993 to 1999 was magnitudes greater than the decrease from 2005 to current. Maybe neither decrease had anything to do with the ban or lifting of the ban. I'm not the one stating that the ban being in place definitely led to a decrease like you are doing post ban. Also, there was no assault weapons ban in the 80's or 90's when murders skyrocketed.

Again, I've never called for a ban on guns but there just isn't a correlation between state weapons laws and murders. If more guns led to fewer murders, why does Louisiana continually lead the country in murder rate? They have the most lax gun laws in the country.

and as you claim, because of the gun ban. if that was true, when the ban was lifted and the market flooded with deadly assault weapons they should have gone back up. but they didn't. again, your argument holds no merit. what you claim to be the reason for the drop did not show a reversal when it was lifted.

Sure it has merit as the initial decrease after the ban was greater than the decrease after the ban was lifted. You don't know if the numbers will continue to decrease as they have over the last few years as well. If it does increase, can I then claim the lifting of the ban has led to an increase in murders? Of course not.

 

[Spoonman]

But the decrease from 1993 to 1999 was magnitudes greater than the decrease from 2005 to current. Maybe neither decrease had anything to do with the ban or lifting of the ban. I'm not the one stating that the ban being in place definitely led to a decrease like you are doing post ban. Also, there was no assault weapons ban in the 80's or 90's when murders skyrocketed.

Again, I've never called for a ban on guns but there just isn't a correlation between state weapons laws and murders. If more guns led to fewer murders, why does Louisiana continually lead the country in murder rate? They have the most lax gun laws in the country.

and as you claim, because of the gun ban. if that was true, when the ban was lifted and the market flooded with deadly assault weapons they should have gone back up. but they didn't. again, your argument holds no merit. what you claim to be the reason for the drop did not show a reversal when it was lifted.

Sure it has merit as the initial decrease after the ban was greater than the decrease after the ban was lifted. You don't know if the numbers will continue to decrease as they have over the last few years as well. If it does increase, can I then claim the lifting of the ban has led to an increase in murders? Of course not.

no, if the ban had merit lifting the ban would have seen a rise in gun murders. but that didn't happen. put a pot of water on a flame and it boils, take it off and it cools down, it doesn't continue to boil. flame.heat is the cause of boiling. if the ban was the cause of gun violence to decrease it would have increased when the ban was lifted. but it didn't. and why, because the ban had no effect

 

[AceRothstein]

and as you claim, because of the gun ban. if that was true, when the ban was lifted and the market flooded with deadly assault weapons they should have gone back up. but they didn't. again, your argument holds no merit. what you claim to be the reason for the drop did not show a reversal when it was lifted.

Sure it has merit as the initial decrease after the ban was greater than the decrease after the ban was lifted. You don't know if the numbers will continue to decrease as they have over the last few years as well. If it does increase, can I then claim the lifting of the ban has led to an increase in murders? Of course not.

no, if the ban had merit lifting the ban would have seen a rise in gun murders. but that didn't happen. put a pot of water on a flame and it boils, take it off and it cools down, it doesn't continue to boil. flame.heat is the cause of boiling. if the ban was the cause of gun violence to decrease it would have increased when the ban was lifted. but it didn't. and why, because the ban had no effect

You keep saying the ban had no effect but that just isn't true.

Year Murders
1993 24,526
1994 23,326 (Assault Weapons Ban passed)
1995 21,606
1996 19,645
1997 18,208
1998 16,974
1999 15,522 (33% decrease from the year the ban took place to low point.)
2000 15,586
2001 16,037
2002 16,229
2003 16,528
2004 16,148 (Assault Weapons Ban lapsed)
2005 16,740
2006 17,030 (Murders actually increased for the first two years)
2007 16,929
2008 16,442
2009 15,399
2010 14,748 (9% decrease from the year the ban lapsed to current.)

Why did the ban have such a greater effect than the lapsing of the ban? And while you argue that there was an increase towards the later years of the ban, sure just looks like it leveled out to me. Once again, you don't know if the number will continue to decrease. If it goes up, can I then blame there being no Assault Weapons Ban as the reason?

 

[Spoonman]

Sure it has merit as the initial decrease after the ban was greater than the decrease after the ban was lifted. You don't know if the numbers will continue to decrease as they have over the last few years as well. If it does increase, can I then claim the lifting of the ban has led to an increase in murders? Of course not.

no, if the ban had merit lifting the ban would have seen a rise in gun murders. but that didn't happen. put a pot of water on a flame and it boils, take it off and it cools down, it doesn't continue to boil. flame.heat is the cause of boiling. if the ban was the cause of gun violence to decrease it would have increased when the ban was lifted. but it didn't. and why, because the ban had no effect

You keep saying the ban had no effect but that just isn't true.

Year Murders
1993 24,526
1994 23,326 (Assault Weapons Ban passed)
1995 21,606
1996 19,645
1997 18,208
1998 16,974
1999 15,522 (33% decrease from the year the ban took place to low point.)
2000 15,586
2001 16,037
2002 16,229
2003 16,528
2004 16,148 (Assault Weapons Ban lapsed)
2005 16,740
2006 17,030 (Murders actually increased for the first two years)
2007 16,929
2008 16,442
2009 15,399
2010 14,748 (9% decrease from the year the ban lapsed to current.)

Why did the ban have such a greater effect than the lapsing of the ban? And while you argue that there was an increase towards the later years of the ban, sure just looks like it leveled out to me. Once again, you don't know if the number will continue to decrease. If it goes up, can I then blame there being no Assault Weapons Ban as the reason?

and there goes mr apples and oranges again. you do know the 24,000 muders in 1993 were total murders, not murders with a gun. can you not post a pertinent fact? whats with all the spin dude. oh yea, i know, your arguments hold no merit

 

[AceRothstein]

no, if the ban had merit lifting the ban would have seen a rise in gun murders. but that didn't happen. put a pot of water on a flame and it boils, take it off and it cools down, it doesn't continue to boil. flame.heat is the cause of boiling. if the ban was the cause of gun violence to decrease it would have increased when the ban was lifted. but it didn't. and why, because the ban had no effect

You keep saying the ban had no effect but that just isn't true.

Year Murders
1993 24,526
1994 23,326 (Assault Weapons Ban passed)
1995 21,606
1996 19,645
1997 18,208
1998 16,974
1999 15,522 (33% decrease from the year the ban took place to low point.)
2000 15,586
2001 16,037
2002 16,229
2003 16,528
2004 16,148 (Assault Weapons Ban lapsed)
2005 16,740
2006 17,030 (Murders actually increased for the first two years)
2007 16,929
2008 16,442
2009 15,399
2010 14,748 (9% decrease from the year the ban lapsed to current.)

Why did the ban have such a greater effect than the lapsing of the ban? And while you argue that there was an increase towards the later years of the ban, sure just looks like it leveled out to me. Once again, you don't know if the number will continue to decrease. If it goes up, can I then blame there being no Assault Weapons Ban as the reason?

and there goes mr apples and oranges again. you do know the 24,000 muders in 1993 were total murders, not murders with a gun. can you not post a pertinent fact? whats with all the spin dude. oh yea, i know, your arguments hold no merit

No spin, this information isn't broken down everywhere by types of murder. Please share your secret source where murders are broken down by weapon by year smart guy. I find it difficult to believe that weapons used in murders have changed much over the last 20 years.

And why specifically would gun murders decrease because of the assault weapons ban lapsing?

 

[Spoonman]

You keep saying the ban had no effect but that just isn't true.

Year Murders
1993 24,526
1994 23,326 (Assault Weapons Ban passed)
1995 21,606
1996 19,645
1997 18,208
1998 16,974
1999 15,522 (33% decrease from the year the ban took place to low point.)
2000 15,586
2001 16,037
2002 16,229
2003 16,528
2004 16,148 (Assault Weapons Ban lapsed)
2005 16,740
2006 17,030 (Murders actually increased for the first two years)
2007 16,929
2008 16,442
2009 15,399
2010 14,748 (9% decrease from the year the ban lapsed to current.)

Why did the ban have such a greater effect than the lapsing of the ban? And while you argue that there was an increase towards the later years of the ban, sure just looks like it leveled out to me. Once again, you don't know if the number will continue to decrease. If it goes up, can I then blame there being no Assault Weapons Ban as the reason?

and there goes mr apples and oranges again. you do know the 24,000 muders in 1993 were total murders, not murders with a gun. can you not post a pertinent fact? whats with all the spin dude. oh yea, i know, your arguments hold no merit

No spin, this information isn't broken down everywhere by types of murder. Please share your secret source where murders are broken down by weapon by year smart guy. I find it difficult to believe that weapons used in murders have changed much over the last 20 years.

And why specifically would gun murders decrease because of the assault weapons ban lapsing?

once again dude, those are total homicides, not gun. post some relative numbers, frigging spin doctors

 

[AceRothstein]

and there goes mr apples and oranges again. you do know the 24,000 muders in 1993 were total murders, not murders with a gun. can you not post a pertinent fact? whats with all the spin dude. oh yea, i know, your arguments hold no merit

No spin, this information isn't broken down everywhere by types of murder. Please share your secret source where murders are broken down by weapon by year smart guy. I find it difficult to believe that weapons used in murders have changed much over the last 20 years.

And why specifically would gun murders decrease because of the assault weapons ban lapsing?

once again dude, those are total homicides, not gun. post some relative numbers, frigging spin doctors

No spin here, can't find anywhere that breaks down murders by year by weapon. Again, if you have a source, please share it.

I'd also like to know why this is even relevant. Murder is murder. If your logic is that more weapons being available is a deterrent to commit crime, shouldn't it drop across the board?

 

[Dubya]

That is very true, though some of the changes I have proposed like universal renewable registration and a data base of ballistics tests on all rifled firearms aren't things generally proposed. In fact, I haven't heard anyone else propose doing that.

Yes cause a file with the serial number and a ballistic test will stop criminals.

Brilliant. Ever think if you are the only one thinking something your idea may very well be more fucked than you think ?

I wasn't the idiot claiming no changes could keep guns out of the hands of criminals, so I thought up changes that would. To a gun nut, any change is fucked, but I'm not a gun nut. Having citizens take a hour or so a year to prove they still have their guns will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and protect those citizens. Guns with ballistics tests already done will discourage someone using that gun to shoot someone. Having a safer world would mean less guns around and less suicides, which are easy to do with guns, because guns can easily kill. It wouldn't be a perfect country, like not having the citizens having guns at all or very limited, but it would reduce the amount of deaths by guns.

 

[Spoonman]

No spin, this information isn't broken down everywhere by types of murder. Please share your secret source where murders are broken down by weapon by year smart guy. I find it difficult to believe that weapons used in murders have changed much over the last 20 years.

And why specifically would gun murders decrease because of the assault weapons ban lapsing?

once again dude, those are total homicides, not gun. post some relative numbers, frigging spin doctors

No spin here, can't find anywhere that breaks down murders by year by weapon. Again, if you have a source, please share it.

I'd also like to know why this is even relevant. Murder is murder. If your logic is that more weapons being available is a deterrent to commit crime, shouldn't it drop across the board?

lol, so you can't find any facts so you substitute ones that aren't relevent to your argument. smooth move. no wonder no one takes you seriously. murder isn't murder, not when you are saying a ban on a specific insturment is a result of murders by that instrument being reduced. gun bans do not and have not reduced murders by guns.

 

[AceRothstein]

once again dude, those are total homicides, not gun. post some relative numbers, frigging spin doctors

No spin here, can't find anywhere that breaks down murders by year by weapon. Again, if you have a source, please share it.

I'd also like to know why this is even relevant. Murder is murder. If your logic is that more weapons being available is a deterrent to commit crime, shouldn't it drop across the board?

lol, so you can't find any facts so you substitute ones that aren't relevent to your argument. smooth move. no wonder no one takes you seriously. murder isn't murder, not when you are saying a ban on a specific insturment is a result of murders by that instrument being reduced. gun bans do not and have not reduced murders by guns.

You are the one who brought up the AWB lapsing leading to a decrease in murders but haven't provided ANY statistics. NOTHING from you in this entire thread to back up your claims. At least I'm trying. And you have the balls to say nobody takes me seriously, you are a fucking joke.

So the decrease of 8,000 murders per year from 1993 to 1999 were all stabbings and beatings? Right.....

 

[Spoonman]

No spin here, can't find anywhere that breaks down murders by year by weapon. Again, if you have a source, please share it.

I'd also like to know why this is even relevant. Murder is murder. If your logic is that more weapons being available is a deterrent to commit crime, shouldn't it drop across the board?

lol, so you can't find any facts so you substitute ones that aren't relevent to your argument. smooth move. no wonder no one takes you seriously. murder isn't murder, not when you are saying a ban on a specific insturment is a result of murders by that instrument being reduced. gun bans do not and have not reduced murders by guns.

You are the one who brought up the AWB lapsing leading to a decrease in murders but haven't provided ANY statistics. NOTHING from you in this entire thread to back up your claims. At least I'm trying. And you have the balls to say nobody takes me seriously, you are a fucking joke.

So the decrease of 8,000 murders per year from 1993 to 1999 were all stabbings and beatings? Right.....

see, you don't even know what they were from, you even admit it. yet you use the numbers as your facts. which is why to are a joke, i am stating that murders with a firearm, get it WITH A FIREARM, I'm being specific here, have reduced since the gun ban has dropped. and they have dropped with the number of guns doubling and deadly assault weapons being added into the mix.

 

[AceRothstein]

lol, so you can't find any facts so you substitute ones that aren't relevent to your argument. smooth move. no wonder no one takes you seriously. murder isn't murder, not when you are saying a ban on a specific insturment is a result of murders by that instrument being reduced. gun bans do not and have not reduced murders by guns.

You are the one who brought up the AWB lapsing leading to a decrease in murders but haven't provided ANY statistics. NOTHING from you in this entire thread to back up your claims. At least I'm trying. And you have the balls to say nobody takes me seriously, you are a fucking joke.

So the decrease of 8,000 murders per year from 1993 to 1999 were all stabbings and beatings? Right.....

see, you don't even know what they were from, you even admit it. yet you use the numbers as your facts. which is why to are a joke, i am stating that murders with a firearm, get it WITH A FIREARM, I'm being specific here, have reduced since the gun ban has dropped. and they have dropped with the number of guns doubling and deadly assault weapons being added into the mix.

Show us WHERE you are getting your stats from, you haven't done so yet. Prove you aren't making them up. Until you do so, we'll assume you are full of shit.

 

[Spoonman]

You are the one who brought up the AWB lapsing leading to a decrease in murders but haven't provided ANY statistics. NOTHING from you in this entire thread to back up your claims. At least I'm trying. And you have the balls to say nobody takes me seriously, you are a fucking joke.

So the decrease of 8,000 murders per year from 1993 to 1999 were all stabbings and beatings? Right.....

see, you don't even know what they were from, you even admit it. yet you use the numbers as your facts. which is why to are a joke, i am stating that murders with a firearm, get it WITH A FIREARM, I'm being specific here, have reduced since the gun ban has dropped. and they have dropped with the number of guns doubling and deadly assault weapons being added into the mix.

Show us WHERE you are getting your stats from, you haven't done so yet. Prove you aren't making them up. Until you do so, we'll assume you are full of shit.

so since you haven;t show us any stats we can assume you are full of shit too?

 

[AceRothstein]

see, you don't even know what they were from, you even admit it. yet you use the numbers as your facts. which is why to are a joke, i am stating that murders with a firearm, get it WITH A FIREARM, I'm being specific here, have reduced since the gun ban has dropped. and they have dropped with the number of guns doubling and deadly assault weapons being added into the mix.

Show us WHERE you are getting your stats from, you haven't done so yet. Prove you aren't making them up. Until you do so, we'll assume you are full of shit.

so since you haven;t show us any stats we can assume you are full of shit too?

If you want to look like an idiot, you can assume I am full of shit. I've already posted the link where I am pulling my stats from. Do try to keep up.

The number of homicides dropped ~50% from the early 1990's until the assault weapons ban was lifted. Since it was lifted it has continued to drop at a much lower rate, ~13%.

It is very difficult finding reliable homicide data separated by weapon. The best I can find is total homicides from the FBI. Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics

How do you still not understand the difference between a rate and a raw number? You can't compare states when one has more people than the other, you need to use the rate when comparing states. Do you have anything that proves that the drop in homicides is due to the increase in guns?

 

[Spoonman]

Show us WHERE you are getting your stats from, you haven't done so yet. Prove you aren't making them up. Until you do so, we'll assume you are full of shit.

so since you haven;t show us any stats we can assume you are full of shit too?

If you want to look like an idiot, you can assume I am full of shit. I've already posted the link where I am pulling my stats from. Do try to keep up.

The number of homicides dropped ~50% from the early 1990's until the assault weapons ban was lifted. Since it was lifted it has continued to drop at a much lower rate, ~13%.

It is very difficult finding reliable homicide data separated by weapon. The best I can find is total homicides from the FBI. Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics

How do you still not understand the difference between a rate and a raw number? You can't compare states when one has more people than the other, you need to use the rate when comparing states. Do you have anything that proves that the drop in homicides is due to the increase in guns?

you're pulling data that has nothing to do with murders by gun. we are talking about a gun ban here. what difference does it make if the muder rated drops if the rate where guns are used doesn't drop? people die from alll kinds of things. cancer, heart attacks. lets say you cure cancer, people will still die from heart attacks. the logic you are using says see the death rate has gone down, therefor curing cancer reduced death by heart attack. the fact is, the gun ban did not reduce gun deaths. however since the gun ban was lifted, deaths by guns only, has continued to drop

 

[AceRothstein]

so since you haven;t show us any stats we can assume you are full of shit too?

If you want to look like an idiot, you can assume I am full of shit. I've already posted the link where I am pulling my stats from. Do try to keep up.

The number of homicides dropped ~50% from the early 1990's until the assault weapons ban was lifted. Since it was lifted it has continued to drop at a much lower rate, ~13%.

It is very difficult finding reliable homicide data separated by weapon. The best I can find is total homicides from the FBI. Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics

How do you still not understand the difference between a rate and a raw number? You can't compare states when one has more people than the other, you need to use the rate when comparing states. Do you have anything that proves that the drop in homicides is due to the increase in guns?

you're pulling data that has nothing to do with murders by gun. we are talking about a gun ban here. what difference does it make if the muder rated drops if the rate where guns are used doesn't drop? people die from alll kinds of things. cancer, heart attacks. lets say you cure cancer, people will still die from heart attacks. the logic you are using says see the death rate has gone down, therefor curing cancer reduced death by heart attack. the fact is, the gun ban did not reduce gun deaths. however since the gun ban was lifted, deaths by guns only, has continued to drop

Here's some data for you on gun related homicides. You'll actually have to go to the link and do a little work which may be difficult for you. The data below is direct from the report for the year listed except for 1994, that is from the 1995 report.

FBI ? Uniform Crime Reports

1994 - 15,463 (Year the AWB went into effect.)
2004 - 9,326 (Year the AWB lapsed.)
2011 - 8,583 (Last full year of data.)

You tell me when we've had the larger decrease. Again, where is your data?

 

[Spoonman]

If you want to look like an idiot, you can assume I am full of shit. I've already posted the link where I am pulling my stats from. Do try to keep up.

you're pulling data that has nothing to do with murders by gun. we are talking about a gun ban here. what difference does it make if the muder rated drops if the rate where guns are used doesn't drop? people die from alll kinds of things. cancer, heart attacks. lets say you cure cancer, people will still die from heart attacks. the logic you are using says see the death rate has gone down, therefor curing cancer reduced death by heart attack. the fact is, the gun ban did not reduce gun deaths. however since the gun ban was lifted, deaths by guns only, has continued to drop

Here's some data for you on gun related homicides. You'll actually have to go to the link and do a little work which may be difficult for you. The data below is direct from the report for the year listed.

FBI ? Uniform Crime Reports

1994 - 15,463 (Year the AWB went into effect.)
2004 - 9,326 (Year the AWB lapsed.)
2011 - 8,583 (Last full year of data.)

You tell me when we've had the larger decrease. Again, where is your data?

which proves my point. ending the gun ban showed no increase in gun deaths at all. thank you. you have just proven obama and his gun proposal are totally off base and will not solve the problem. see i knew if i pushed your buttons long enough you would actually post exactly what i wanted you too. see the facts speak for themselves. allowing people to own deadly assault style weapos does not increase the rate of homicides. gun deaths continue to go down.

now the fact still remains that the areas with the toughest gun laws have the highest rate of gun deaths. gun laws do not work

 

[Dubya]

If you want to look like an idiot, you can assume I am full of shit. I've already posted the link where I am pulling my stats from. Do try to keep up.

you're pulling data that has nothing to do with murders by gun. we are talking about a gun ban here. what difference does it make if the muder rated drops if the rate where guns are used doesn't drop? people die from alll kinds of things. cancer, heart attacks. lets say you cure cancer, people will still die from heart attacks. the logic you are using says see the death rate has gone down, therefor curing cancer reduced death by heart attack. the fact is, the gun ban did not reduce gun deaths. however since the gun ban was lifted, deaths by guns only, has continued to drop

Here's some data for you on gun related homicides. You'll actually have to go to the link and do a little work which may be difficult for you. The data below is direct from the report for the year listed except for 1994, that is from the 1995 report.

FBI ? Uniform Crime Reports

1994 - 15,463 (Year the AWB went into effect.)
2004 - 9,326 (Year the AWB lapsed.)
2011 - 8,583 (Last full year of data.)

You tell me when we've had the larger decrease. Again, where is your data?

Here are stats just on homicides and it has the causes of the homicides:

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

The countries where the people don't have guns have low homicide rates.

 

[AceRothstein]

you're pulling data that has nothing to do with murders by gun. we are talking about a gun ban here. what difference does it make if the muder rated drops if the rate where guns are used doesn't drop? people die from alll kinds of things. cancer, heart attacks. lets say you cure cancer, people will still die from heart attacks. the logic you are using says see the death rate has gone down, therefor curing cancer reduced death by heart attack. the fact is, the gun ban did not reduce gun deaths. however since the gun ban was lifted, deaths by guns only, has continued to drop

Here's some data for you on gun related homicides. You'll actually have to go to the link and do a little work which may be difficult for you. The data below is direct from the report for the year listed.

FBI ? Uniform Crime Reports

1994 - 15,463 (Year the AWB went into effect.)
2004 - 9,326 (Year the AWB lapsed.)
2011 - 8,583 (Last full year of data.)

You tell me when we've had the larger decrease. Again, where is your data?

which proves my point. ending the gun ban showed no increase in gun deaths at all. thank you. you have just proven obama and his gun proposal are totally off base and will not solve the problem. see i knew if i pushed your buttons long enough you would actually post exactly what i wanted you too. see the facts speak for themselves. allowing people to own deadly assault style weapos does not increase the rate of homicides. gun deaths continue to go down.

now the fact still remains that the areas with the toughest gun laws have the highest rate of gun deaths. gun laws do not work

Wrong and wrong.

The rate of gun homicides decreased drastically during the AWB. It continued to decrease after the AWB lapsed but at a much lower rate. The data is right in front of your face and you are arguing against it. You are either up there with bigreb as one of the dumbest posters on this board or you are being obtuse.

Why does Louisiana have the highest rate of gun deaths in the country with the most lax gun laws? You still haven't answered that one.