warmonger1981 wrote:She sucks. Lets make murder a crime then we dont have to ban guns. Oh... it already is a crime to kill. Looks like criminals dont follow the law. Go figure. I would of never thought.
This is the absurdity of what she is suggesting tgd. I get their arguments but soooo many laws are broken when these mass shooting sprees take place, taking rights away from citizens is not the answer. You're an anarchist yourself are you not?
You guys are missing the point.
(1) Tragedy happens - indirect culprits include, but are not limited to: gun manufacturers/owners, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals and mental health generally, school security, media glorification of past massacres.
(2) People call for change related to the above indirect culprits. The calls for change are, by and large, emotional in nature and reactionary.
(3) One of these changes involve re-implementing the Assault Weapons Ban.
If you're a politician (or me), the question is what do you do? Do you support the Assault Weapons Ban? If so, how vocally? Do you come out against the Assault Weapons Ban? If so, how vocally?
My answer is that you remain indifferent with respect to the Assault Weapons Ban while simultaneously trumpeting the rights of gun owners. You make concessions on certain issues, like this Assault Weapons Ban, and stuff like the "gun show loophole" while pressing for better school security or better mental health options (or none of the above, in my case). You look like a hero on both sides and you understand that the Assault Weapons Ban is largely ineffective in both what it purports to do and what the NRA says it will do. What the NRA Says it Will Do
The NRA's first basic argument is that the Assault Weapons Ban infringes upon individuals' Second Amendment rights. This basic argument assumes that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms (rather than being a collective right for a group of individuals to form a militia). Let's ignore that. The second thing this argument assumes is that there is no basis for denying an ultimate right to bear arms. There is no precedent for that. There are bans on bazookas, for example. Additionally, other rights are similarly limited (e.g. you cannot cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater; you can't look at kiddie porn).
The NRA's second argument is that not being able to carry around the banned weapons will make you subject to criminal attacks and you will lack the ability to defend yourself (call these the Youtube video arguments that what's-his-name puts up all the time).
Take a look at the wiki article on the old Assault Weapons Ban. The term "assault weapon" is defined as semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic.
The ban is on semi-automatic weapons that possess the cosmetic (COSMETIC!) features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic. In other words, if a semi-automatic weapon looks like an automatic weapon, it is banned. There is a list of features which make a semi-automatic weapon look like an automatic weapon. For example, the following gun was banned: a semi-automatic rifle able to accept detachable magazines with a bayonet mount and grenade launcher. Take off the bayonet mount, the grenade launcher, and don't have the rifle accept detachable magazines and you have a legal weapon. The NRA called the law ineffective because the ban was cosmetic.
I would note that fully automatic assault rifles are already banned (and have been banned since like the 1940s). What Supporters Say it Will Do
Supporters of the Assault Weapons Ban believe that the law will succeed in reducing general gun violence and specifically the gun violence associated with mass killings. Let's ignore that mass killings occur in countries with bans on all guns. Let's also ignore that, pursuant to Ms. Maddow's speech above, the Sandy Hook guy could have killed less children had the Assault Weapons Ban been in effect (in other words, he would have killed 20 instead of 50, or whatever). Maybe that will be part of the new Assault Weapons Ban (the limit on the rounds per magazine), but the guy could have killed 20 people with two clips... still a massacre (sorry Rachel).
So was the original Assault Weapons Ban effective in reducing general gun violence and mass killings?
The Violence Policy Center, an organization committed to advancing gun control, called the Clinton-signed law ineffective because the ban was cosmetic. Hey, they agreed with the NRA on that!
The CDC did not find sufficient evidence to determine if the original Assault Weapons Ban was effective.
A research report from the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania submitted to the DOJ found that if the ban was renewed, its effecton gun violence would likeyly be small and perhaps too small for reliable measurement because rifles in general are rarely used in gun crimes (more on that later).
But there is good news - the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence did some research that showed that in the five year period before enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban, assault weapons named in the ban
constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law's enactment, however, these assault weapons made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF traced to crime. I highlighted the words to focus on. A spokesman for the ATF stated that he could not vouch for the validity of the report; probably because people just used guns that weren't banned (or took off their grenade launcher and bayonet mount).
From 1994 through 2013 (excluding Sandy Hook), there were 26 mass homicide incidents accounting for 403 deaths or injuries. Of those homicide incidents, 7 occured in the years the Assault Weapons Ban was in effect.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ra ... :_Americas
Finally, I would note the following homicide statistics... at the peak of each weapon, the following number of homicides occurred:
- Handguns (not banned by the Assault Weapons Ban) - approximately 14,000 homicides in 1993
- Knives (not banned by the Assault Weapons Ban) - approximately 4,000 homicides in 1982
- Other guns (some of which are banned by the Assault Weapons Ban, but only cosmetically) - approximately 3,500 in 1980
- Other methods (not banned by the Assault Weapons Ban) - approximately 3,500 in 2001
- Blunt objects (not banned by the Assault Weapons Ban) - approximately 1,000 in 1989
In sum, both sides are stupid.