How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[Feynman Lives!]

Can we call it significant, since it had no significant effect on crime?

Of course it didn't! That was not the purpose!

 

[RF667799]

Of course it didn't! That was not the purpose!

*He stridently objected that the purpose was anything other than to inconvenience peaceful people.*

 

[JMB1911A1]

Of course it didn't! That was not the purpose!

Then what was the purpose. Enlighten us.

 

[jaeger19]

1988?

Reauthorized under Biden.

I did have that one in my research. But that looks to me just like a funding bill. There is nothing actually NEW. It doesn't add any significant new legislation.

Try again.

Biden was not President in 1988

But he was when
Congress has reauthorized the Undetectable Firearms Act, a decades-old law aimed at preventing people from sneaking guns through security checkpoints at schools, airports, concerts, and other public spaces.

The act will remain in force until 2031 under a provision passed as part of a bipartisan spending package signed by President Joe Biden on March 9 to avert a partial government shutdown.

Gun control laws by the states are not federal laws.

But they ARE gun control laws and illustrate perfectly my premise which is that we are focused on gun control and not on things like mental health.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Then what was the purpose. Enlighten us.

To save lives!

"Crime" means robbery, rape, ... sleeping with a porn star and using campaign funds to keep her silent.... Things like that. It was not the purpose of the Assault Weapons ban to have a " significant effect on crime", which the poster (and maybe you) appears to have just discovered..

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Reauthorized under Biden.

Reauthorizing legislation that ALREADY exists is OBVIOUSLY not what I mean by "passing a significant piece of legislation"

Anyway... don't let this attempt to change the topic distract you from the fact that you are still researching and trying to find anything you can question about ANY of my proposals in the OP.

 

[jaeger19]

Reauthorizing legislation that ALREADY exists is OBVIOUSLY not what I mean by "passing a significant piece of legislation"

Anyway... don't let this attempt to change the topic distract you from the fact that you are still researching and trying to find anything you can question about ANY of my proposals in the OP.

Of course it is . Would you have preferred it expired?
And passage of the bipartison safer communities act.

Biden signs gun safety bill into law​

President Biden on Saturday signed into law the first major gun safety legislation passed by Congress in nearly 30 years.
The signing comes just over a month after the mass shooting at a Texas elementary school killed 19 children and two adults. That attack came 10 days after a racist mass shooting at a Buffalo, N.Y., supermarket killed 10 Black people.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/25/1107626030/biden-signs-gun-safety-law

 

[JMB1911A1]

To save lives!

And it did no such thing. The 1994 AWB had no effect on saving lives. It was just a way to infringe on rights.

Following the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Congress mandated a study on the impact of the law. A 6.7% reduction in homicide rate was found but the result was not statistically significant.

A 2017 review on the effects of firearm laws on homicides found that limited data from 4 studies published regarding the Federal Assault Weapons Ban did not provide significant evidence that the ban was associated with a decrease on overall firearm homicides.

A 2020 RAND Corporation review of five studies regarding the effects of state assault weapon bans on violent crime concluded that there is inconclusive evidence of an effect on total homicides and firearm homicides.

A 2014 study found no impacts on homicide rates with an assault weapon ban. A 2014 book published by Oxford University Press noted that "There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives.”

And we know it was designed to infringe upon our rights due to the very words of the evil Democrat behind it.

"Crime" means robbery, rape, ... sleeping with a porn star and using campaign funds to keep her silent.... Things like that. It was not the purpose of the Assault Weapons ban to have a " significant effect on crime", which the poster (and maybe you) appears to have just discovered..

 

[RF667799]

To save lives!

"Crime" means robbery, rape, ... sleeping with a porn star and using campaign funds to keep her silent.... Things like that. It was not the purpose of the Assault Weapons ban to have a " significant effect on crime", which the poster (and maybe you) appears to have just discovered..

Crime also includes murder. You now argue that the purpose wasn't to have a significant effect on murder.

So what lives were going to be saved, if the purpose wasn't to significantly affect murder?

Sometimes I think the NRA is paying you to splash your stupid arguments across website discussion forums.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

And it did no such thing.

It most certainly did, as peer-reviewed studies like this one have shown.

But clearly you don't need a study to know that mass shootings with assault weapons skyrocketed after the ban expired. But it is a great talking point, isn't it! Sorry it doesn't work!

A 6.7% reduction in homicide rate was found but the result was not statistically significant.

It most certainly would have been significant for the families of that 6.7%

A 2014 book published by Oxford University Press noted that...

Oh! It's in a book! Then it HAS to be true....

You provide a link to a webpage that tells us what the Oxford University or other organizations ARE. Not to the study as published in a peer-reviewed publication. Like I did.

 

[RF667799]

And it did no such thing. The 1994 AWB had no effect on saving lives. It was just a way to infringe on rights.

Following the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Congress mandated a study on the impact of the law. A 6.7% reduction in homicide rate was found but the result was not statistically significant.

A 2017 review on the effects of firearm laws on homicides found that limited data from 4 studies published regarding the Federal Assault Weapons Ban did not provide significant evidence that the ban was associated with a decrease on overall firearm homicides.

A 2020 RAND Corporation review of five studies regarding the effects of state assault weapon bans on violent crime concluded that there is inconclusive evidence of an effect on total homicides and firearm homicides.

A 2014 study found no impacts on homicide rates with an assault weapon ban. A 2014 book published by Oxford University Press noted that "There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives.”

And we know it was designed to infringe upon our rights due to the very words of the evil Democrat behind it.

I've yet to see anyone explain how banning some nomenclature, some pistol grips, and some flash suppressors amounted to a mechanism that would save lives.

 

[RF667799]

It most certainly did, as peer-reviewed studies like this one have shown.

But clearly you don't need a study to know that mass shootings with assault weapons skyrocketed after the ban expired. But it is a great talking point, isn't it! Sorry it doesn't work!

Since the same rifles were available both before, during, and after the ban; how did the ban affect mass murders?

BTW, the conclusion in the study you linked doesn't go out on the causation limb you guys like to pretend exists.

It most certainly would have been significant for the families of that 6.7%

There's no causal link, so it is irrelevant what those families might have thought.

 

[RF667799]

It most certainly did, as peer-reviewed studies like this one have shown.

But clearly you don't need a study to know that mass shootings with assault weapons skyrocketed after the ban expired. But it is a great talking point, isn't it! Sorry it doesn't work!



It most certainly would have been significant for the families of that 6.7%


Oh! It's in a book! Then it HAS to be true....

You provide a link to a webpage that explain what the Oxford University or other organizations ARE. Not to the study as published in a peer-reviewed publication. Like I did.

Your study didn't conclude that any lives were save. The authors did do a little speculation, but then walked it right back in their conclusion.

 

[JMB1911A1]

It most certainly did, as peer-reviewed studies like this one have shown.

But clearly you don't need a study to know that mass shootings with assault weapons skyrocketed after the ban expired. But it is a great talking point, isn't it! Sorry it doesn't work!

More lies. “Mass shootings” as defined by the gun control lobby are almost always down with handguns. Rifle, all rifles, not just the made up definition of “assault weapons” account for less deaths than hands and feet every year.

It most certainly would have been significant for the families of that 6.7%


Oh! It's in a book! Then it HAS to be true....

You provide a link to a webpage that tells us what the Oxford University or other organizations ARE. Not to the study as published in a peer-reviewed publication. Like I did.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Your study didn't conclude that any lives were save. The authors did do a little speculation, but then walked it right back in their conclusion.

Well, of gun control property didn’t lie, they would have nothing to write (or post).

 

[Feynman Lives!]

More lies. “Mass shootings” as defined by the gun control lobby are almost always down with handguns.

If you intend to convince me to favor banning hand guns, I'm all in! But this thread says "without firing a single shot". Which is a bit of an ironic way of saying "without ruffling too many feathers". Banning hand guns would ruffle A LOT of feathers. So we do what we can!

 

[JMB1911A1]

If you intend to convince me to favor banning hand guns, I'm all in! But this thread says "without firing a single shot". Which is a bit of an ironic way of saying "without ruffling too many feathers". Banning hand guns would ruffle A LOT of feathers. So we do what we can!

So, you want ineffective measure that only infringe on people’s rights and don’t want to take the effort to try to do the things that you consider too hard. Is that correct?

 

[CLAX1911]

If you intend to convince me to favor banning hand guns, I'm all in! But this thread says "without firing a single shot". Which is a bit of an ironic way of saying "without ruffling too many feathers". Banning hand guns would ruffle A LOT of feathers. So we do what we can!

Sieg heil

 

[Feynman Lives!]

So, you want ineffective measure that only...

That's your challenge. Provide arguments that show they are ineffective. I have been waiting for somebody to take even ONE of my proposals, and give it their best shot. So far, nobody has been able to. Not that I'm putting too much hope, but maybe you can be the one to find one you can rebut.

If you want to ADD to my proposals, be my guest. But what you see in the OP are my proposals. Feel free to open your own thread if you want to ban ALL guns and tell us how you would do it.

 

[JMB1911A1]

That's your challenge. Provide arguments that show they are ineffective. I have been waiting for somebody to take even ONE of my proposals, and give it their best shot. So far, nobody has been able to. Not that I'm putting too much hope, but maybe you can be the one to find one you can rebut.

If you want to ADD to my proposals, be my guest. But what you see in the OP are my proposals. Feel free to open your own thread if you want to ban ALL guns and tell us how you would do it.

Every single one of your "proposals" has been shot down as ineffective or just plain wrong. For example, there is no such thing as "cop killer bullets" so how would you ban them?

BTW, even Justice Kagan agrees that AR-15s are in common use in the US. Won't be long till a SCOTUS case reinforces that and you won't be able to realize your dream of banning modern sporting rifles.

Smith and Wesson v Mexico. 9-0 decision. Page 13:

"Finally, Mexico’s allegations about the manufacturers’ “design and marketing decisions” add nothing of conse- quence. Brief for Respondent 23. As noted above, Mexico here focuses on the manufacturers’ production of “military style” assault weapons, among which it includes AR–15 rifles, AK–47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles. See supra, at 6; App. to Pet. for Cert. 121a. But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. (The AR–15 is the most popular rifle in the country. See T. Gross, How the AR–15 Became the Bestselling Rifle in the U. S., NPR (Apr. 20, 2023.) The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexi- can cartel members like those guns too."

 

[RF667799]

If you intend to convince me to favor banning hand guns, I'm all in! But this thread says "without firing a single shot". Which is a bit of an ironic way of saying "without ruffling too many feathers". Banning hand guns would ruffle A LOT of feathers. So we do what we can!

Of course it would "ruffle the feathers" of a lot of people you might normally view as political allies. Banning AR-15 rifles on the other hand? Why they're just the stereotypical equipment of unwashed rednecks. They're politically safe to attack, from your perspective.

I've noted this for years.

And uh...so much for "Save lives at any cost". I knew that was a lie.

 

[RF667799]

That's your challenge. Provide arguments that show they are ineffective. I have been waiting for somebody to take even ONE of my proposals, and give it their best shot. So far, nobody has been able to. Not that I'm putting too much hope, but maybe you can be the one to find one you can rebut.

If you want to ADD to my proposals, be my guest. But what you see in the OP are my proposals. Feel free to open your own thread if you want to ban ALL guns and tell us how you would do it.

What are your proposals supposed to be effective at? You've admitted the title of your thread is a joke, not a mission statement.

 

[CLAX1911]

What are your proposals supposed to be effective at?

Establishing dictatorship.

You've admitted the title of your thread is a joke, not a mission statement.

 

[rahl]

If you intend to convince me to favor banning hand guns, I'm all in! But this thread says "without firing a single shot". Which is a bit of an ironic way of saying "without ruffling too many feathers". Banning hand guns would ruffle A LOT of feathers. So we do what we can!

You can’t do anything. It’s not possible to ban any firearm in common use. The Supreme Court has already told you this.

 

[rahl]

That's your challenge. Provide arguments that show they are ineffective. I have been waiting for somebody to take even ONE of my proposals, and give it their best shot. So far, nobody has been able to.

You understand the from keeps a written record right? So when you lie like this, it’s ****ing hilarious.

Not that I'm putting too much hope, but maybe you can be the one to find one you can rebut.

If you want to ADD to my proposals, be my guest. But what you see in the OP are my proposals. Feel free to open your own thread if you want to ban ALL guns and tell us how you would do it.