Guns, Abortion, Taxes and Green Energy: R v. D

[Rye Catcher]

The issue of guns, as well as abortion, taxes and Green Energy Systems are all wedge issues, the Republican Party is reactionary, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters to gain power.

The Democratic Party is progressive, looking forward to the future, not the past. They know that guns kill innocent people every day, and our country has the most mass shootings of innocent people than any other developed nation.

The fact is, "shall not be infringed" is framed by ARMS. Not guns, per se. The Republicans,, solely to gain votes at the expense of horrific events, allowed the Brady Bill*** to sunset.

Of course this bill has loop holes, it was a start.

*** Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia.

Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us​

Analysis of the 10 years in which the US banned sales of assault weapons shows that it correlates with a drop in mass shooting deaths – a trend that reversed as soon as the ban expired.

theconversation.com

In the latter of the links above are some examples that ARMS are weapons solely for War:

A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:

If the reader got this far, please open the link and see the chart that is posted after the colon in the last paragraph above.

 

[Darkwind]

The issue of guns, as well as abortion, taxes and Green Energy Systems are all wedge issues, the Republican Party is reactionary, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters to gain power.

The Democratic Party is progressive, looking forward to the future, not the past. They know that guns kill innocent people every day, and our country has the most mass shootings of innocent people than any other developed nation.

The fact is, "shall not be infringed" is framed by ARMS. Not guns, per se. The Republicans,, solely to gain votes at the expense of horrific events, allowed the Brady Bill*** to sunset.

Of course this bill has loop holes, it was a start.

*** Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia.

Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us​

Analysis of the 10 years in which the US banned sales of assault weapons shows that it correlates with a drop in mass shooting deaths – a trend that reversed as soon as the ban expired.

theconversation.com

In the latter of the links above are some examples that ARMS are weapons solely for War:

A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:

If the reader got this far, please open the link and see the chart that is posted after the colon in the last paragraph above.

You should get busy arresting those guns if they are out there killing innocent people.

 

[Votto]

May I make the suggestion to change the name of the department of tobacco and firearms to the department of tobacco and abortion with Green energy?

It could save some time.

 

[Rye Catcher]

You should get busy arresting those guns if they are out there killing innocent people.

Did you read the OP and the Links? Your comment is off topic.

 

[Rye Catcher]

More from the link:

Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us

Analysis of the 10 years in which the US banned sales of assault weapons shows that it correlates with a drop in mass shooting deaths – a trend that reversed as soon as the ban expired.

theconversation.com

Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:

Do experts have something to add to public debate?​

We think so


Before the 1994 ban:

From 1981 – the earliest year in our analysis – to the rollout of the assault weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of deaths in mass shootings in which an assault rifle was used was lower than it is today.

Yet in this earlier period, mass shooting deaths were steadily rising. Indeed, high-profile mass shootings involving assault rifles – such as the killing of five children in Stockton, California, in 1989 and a 1993 San Francisco office attack that left eight victims dead – provided the impetus behind a push for a prohibition on some types of gun.

During the 1994-2004 ban:

In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.

From 2004 onward:

The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.

Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2004 and 2017 – the last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons.

Saving hundreds of lives​

We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from mass shootings was also down, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related fatalities per 10,000 shooting deaths.

This cannot be rebutted, no hard, probative evidence has ever been posted on any forum on the USMB.

 

[Flash]

More from the link:

Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us

Analysis of the 10 years in which the US banned sales of assault weapons shows that it correlates with a drop in mass shooting deaths – a trend that reversed as soon as the ban expired.

theconversation.com

Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:

Do experts have something to add to public debate?​

We think so


Before the 1994 ban:

From 1981 – the earliest year in our analysis – to the rollout of the assault weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of deaths in mass shootings in which an assault rifle was used was lower than it is today.

Yet in this earlier period, mass shooting deaths were steadily rising. Indeed, high-profile mass shootings involving assault rifles – such as the killing of five children in Stockton, California, in 1989 and a 1993 San Francisco office attack that left eight victims dead – provided the impetus behind a push for a prohibition on some types of gun.

During the 1994-2004 ban:

In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.

From 2004 onward:

The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.

Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2004 and 2017 – the last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons.

Saving hundreds of lives​

We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from mass shootings was also down, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related fatalities per 10,000 shooting deaths.

This cannot be rebutted, no hard, probative evidence has ever been posted on any forum on the USMB.

You can cry all the Liberal tears you want Moon Bat.

In today's ruling the Constitutional right of Americans to keep and bear arms was protected.

The Legislatures must now use a Constitutional right standard for gun laws.

The laws restricting where gun can be carried must be very limited.

Modern firearms are protected under the Second Amendment.

Nobody gives a shit if you don't like it.

Stop your whining. You stupid Moon Bats lost this one and that is a good thing for the country. Liberty was protected. Suck it up Buttercup.

 

[Flash]

The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public."

Justice Tomahawk Thomas

 

[TNHarley]

The Democratic Party is progressive,

The right word is "regressive"
You perverted dumbfucks are trying to take us back to the 13th century.

 

[Darkwind]

Did you read the OP and the Links? Your comment is off topic.

When your only conclusion is that guns are killing innocent Americans, I won't waste My time.

 

[whitehall]

That damned stodgy old Constitution keeps getting in the way of the democrat party agenda and wouldn't you know, the Supreme Court relies on the Constitution to determine issues. Sorry democrats.

 

[Rye Catcher]

You can cry all the Liberal tears you want Moon Bat.

In today's ruling the Constitutional right of Americans to keep and bear arms was protected.

The Legislatures must now use a Constitutional right standard for gun laws.

The laws restricting where gun can be carried must be very limited.

Modern firearms are protected under the Second Amendment.

Nobody gives a shit if you don't like it.

Stop your whining. You stupid Moon Bats lost this one and that is a good thing for the country. Liberty was protected. Suck it up Buttercup.

I'm not whining; I posted a rational essay that you didn't read and concluded I'm a moon bat. That conclusion is proof that your ignorance is willful, and in this issue, guns, you are putting more guns into the environment and the outcome will be seen on the national news more mass murders.

Six members of the Supreme Court are culpable (i.e. culpable means: deserving blame.) and that has been put into the minds of everyone who ever lost a child by gunfire, and traumatized tens of thousands ++ school aged children and grandchildren and the parents. Already the number of Lawyers have gone through what thomas wrote and have already put together for the America Citizens evidence that more guns will result in more deaths.

Why not allow each state to pass gun controls as well as Mayors also. Not only is this decision dangerous, it is another stab into the heart of democracy. This SC has gone beyond the pale making legislation to effect the lives of all Americans.

 

[progressive hunter]

I'm not whining; I posted a rational essay that you didn't read and concluded I'm a moon bat. That conclusion is proof that your ignorance is willful, and in this issue, guns, you are putting more guns into the environment and the outcome will be seen on the national news more mass murders.

Six members of the Supreme Court are culpable (i.e. culpable means: deserving blame.) and that has been put into the minds of everyone who ever lost a child by gunfire, and traumatized tens of thousands ++ school aged children and grandchildren and the parents. Already the number of Lawyers have gone through what thomas wrote and have already put together for the America Citizens evidence that more guns will result in more deaths.

Why not allow each state to pass gun controls as well as Mayors also. Not only is this decision dangerous, it is another stab into the heart of democracy. This SC has gone beyond the pale making legislation to effect the lives of all Americans.

you are a moonbat and its a right so states nor mayors have a say in it,,
and we are a constitutional republic not a democracy,, thats why you dont understand your POV is irrelevant,,

 

[Flash]

Looks like the Democrat assholes in Commie California are fucked.

CA ATTORNEY GENERAL: "California similarly requires applicants for licenses to carry firearms in public to show 'good cause,' and is likely unconstitutional under Bruen." Attorney General Bonta Affirms His Support for Commonsense Gun Laws in Response to Supreme Court Decision on New York’s Conceal and Carry Laws

Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) June 23, 2022

 

[Meister]

You should get busy arresting those guns if they are out there killing innocent people.

If we got the guns out of the hands of the criminals, the guns will stop shooting people.
It's the criminals and not the guns. These laws are for taking the guns from the everyday American
and not the criminals.

 

[Meister]

Did you read the OP and the Links? Your comment is off topic.

His response is on topic.
You stated this, Rye....
" They know that guns kill innocent people every day"

 

[Rye Catcher]

If we got the guns out of the hands of the criminals, the guns will stop shooting people.
It's the criminals and not the guns. These laws are for taking the guns from the everyday American
and not the criminals.

Do you know how many shooters into a crowd, killing at least four innocent people, in schools, in theaters, in restaurants, etc. had a criminal record, and how many had never before ever arrested?

How many everyday American kills more than four people at one time, or four people over days, weeks or months?

 

[Rye Catcher]

His response is on topic.
You stated this, Rye....
" They know that guns kill innocent people every day"

"You should get busy arresting those guns if they are out there killing innocent people."

This is subjective, and given all posted above one sentence is cherry picked I find to be absurd., That said by the time I or anyone hears a shooting it would be over before I would be able to arrest those with guns, and any arrest I made would be a citizen arrest; I haven't been on the job since 6 PM on Dec 31, 2005.

 

[Meister]

"You should get busy arresting those guns if they are out there killing innocent people."

This is subjective, and given all posted above one sentence is cherry picked I find to be absurd., That said by the time I or anyone hears a shooting it would be over before I would be able to arrest those with guns, and any arrest I made would be a citizen arrest; I haven't been on the job since 6 PM on Dec 31, 2005.

It's the criminals, Rye, not the guns.
Your damn laws just put a Burdon on the people you don't have to worry about, and does
nothing to stymie the criminals. sheesh

 

[Meister]

Do you know how many shooters into a crowd, killing at least four innocent people, in schools, in theaters, in restaurants, etc. had a criminal record, and how many had never before ever arrested?

How many everyday American kills more than four people at one time, or four people over days, weeks or months?

I call you out on your bullshit, Rye.
everyday Americans don't shoot into crowds and kill more than 4 people at one time.
CRIMINALS do that. I'm sure you one of those that are all for the drip, drip, drip with implementing
laws to force EVERY DAY AMERICANS to give up their guns.
You frisco crowd are all the same IMO.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Why not allow each state to pass gun controls as well as Mayors also.

While we're at it, why don't we allow states and cities to pass laws with regard to what religions we are allowed to practice or believe in, and what opinions we are allowed to express?