the ban on semi-automatic assualt rifles was lifted in 2004

[tresbigdog]

the 10 years that it was in effect, 1994 - 2004, there was 1 (ONE) mass shooting, and that, as we all know was Columbine. Since the ban was lifted, 8 years ago? We have had 8

 

[Politico]

Only 8? Damn.

 

[tresbigdog]

Only 8? Damn.

compared to 1 in 10 years

 

[Bern80]

the 10 years that it was in effect, 1994 - 2004, there was 1 (ONE) mass shooting, and that, as we all know was Columbine. Since the ban was lifted, 8 years ago? We have had 8

And what you are some how concluding from this is that inanimate objects cause increases in mass shootings?

 

[eflatminor]

One mass shooting between 1994 and 2004, eh?

Lie much? Here's a few you may have missed:

1999 - Mark Barton, Atlanta, Georgia, 25 causalities
1999 - Harris/Klebold, Littleton, Colorado, 34 causalities
1998 - Kipland Kinkle, Springfield, Oregon, 29 causalities
1994 - Dean Mellburg, Fairchild, Washington, 28 causalities
1999 - Larry Ashbrook, Fort Worth, Texas, 15 causalities
1999 - Silvio Leyva, Tampa, Florida, 8 causalities
2000 - Michael McDermott, Wakefield, Mass, 7 causalities
2004 - Gale Nathan, Columbus, Ohio, 12 causalities

I stopped at 8...though there are plenty more during the period. Do you always lie like this? How sad.

Of course, we won't mention that mass killings have been on the decline for some time, with the peak being 1929. No, no...that doesn't fit your agenda.

Anyway, let's look at what else occurred after the ban ended. In the first year after the ban was lifted, murders declined 3.6%, and violent crime 1.7%. Geez, that doesn't support your argument.

Ah well, perhaps things improved DURING the ban? Nope:

Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons where models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban. Even the government agrees. According to a National Institute of Justice study:
“The weapons banned by the legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes”
“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
“The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”
“The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”

So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

 

[eflatminor]

One mass shooting between 1994 and 2004, eh?

Lie much? Here's a few you may have missed:

1999 - Mark Barton, Atlanta, Georgia, 25 causalities
1999 - Harris/Klebold, Littleton, Colorado, 34 causalities
1998 - Kipland Kinkle, Springfield, Oregon, 29 causalities
1994 - Dean Mellburg, Fairchild, Washington, 28 causalities
1999 - Larry Ashbrook, Fort Worth, Texas, 15 causalities
1999 - Silvio Leyva, Tampa, Florida, 8 causalities
2000 - Michael McDermott, Wakefield, Mass, 7 causalities
2004 - Gale Nathan, Columbus, Ohio, 12 causalities

I stopped at 8...though there are plenty more during the period. Do you always lie like this? How sad.

Of course, we won't mention that mass killings have been on the decline for some time, with the peak being 1929. No, no...that doesn't fit your agenda.

Anyway, let's look at what else occurred after the ban ended. In the first year after the ban was lifted, murders declined 3.6%, and violent crime 1.7%. Geez, that doesn't support your argument.

Ah well, perhaps things improved DURING the ban? Nope:

Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons where models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban. Even the government agrees. According to a National Institute of Justice study:
“The weapons banned by the legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes”
“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
“The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”
“The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”

So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

No snappy comebacks? How sad...

 

[JKVegas]

Why do you NEED the guns?

1) To protect yourself from crime?

How many times have you been a victim? Unless you are a courier of valuables, or incredibly oblivious to your surroundings, it's not very likely you will be the victim of ANY crime. If you're a regular middle-class guy like me, you probably don't own much of anything anyone would want to steal, and if you don't go around hassling others, I doubt anyone would want to assault you.

Everyone in the Old West was armed, and crime occured anyway. So did murders.

2) I need protection from the tyranical government

I can name many examples of people who were armed and ended up losing large in a confrontation with the government.

The Confederate States of America had ARMIES. They LOST.

This evil, tyranical government you speak of never bothers me. I haven't even talked to an on-duty cop for 25 years, except to wait on them where I work. What are you DOING that I'm not which requires them to pester you so much?

If 4 Federal agents came to your house because you did something illegal, it's more than likely you'd be carried out in handcuffs. If you turned firearms on them, you'd leave in a body bag. I guess you have the satisfaction, tho, of threatening THEIR lives.

The only people who feel they NEED guns are the ones who wish to use them out of some ridiculous fetish that it makes them more manly, or they live in some fantasy world that having one would make any diference.

Now, where's the cursing little dimwit who will call me some profane name, because he thinks it makes him Internet Tough Guy World Champion?

 

[Valerie]

One mass shooting between 1994 and 2004, eh?

Lie much? Here's a few you may have missed:

1999 - Mark Barton, Atlanta, Georgia, 25 causalities
1999 - Harris/Klebold, Littleton, Colorado, 34 causalities
1998 - Kipland Kinkle, Springfield, Oregon, 29 causalities
1994 - Dean Mellburg, Fairchild, Washington, 28 causalities
1999 - Larry Ashbrook, Fort Worth, Texas, 15 causalities
1999 - Silvio Leyva, Tampa, Florida, 8 causalities
2000 - Michael McDermott, Wakefield, Mass, 7 causalities
2004 - Gale Nathan, Columbus, Ohio, 12 causalities

I stopped at 8...though there are plenty more during the period. Do you always lie like this? How sad.

Of course, we won't mention that mass killings have been on the decline for some time, with the peak being 1929. No, no...that doesn't fit your agenda.

Anyway, let's look at what else occurred after the ban ended. In the first year after the ban was lifted, murders declined 3.6%, and violent crime 1.7%. Geez, that doesn't support your argument.

Ah well, perhaps things improved DURING the ban? Nope:

Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons where models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban. Even the government agrees. According to a National Institute of Justice study:
“The weapons banned by the legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes”
“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
“The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”
“The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”

So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

No snappy comebacks? How sad...

There are many many many factors which effect various crime rates in different periods of time. Do you have stats on which weapons were used in the mass murder events you listed in that time period? Pity there was a grandfather clause which kept some of those guns out there. Then there are the gun manufacturers and sellers who played semantic games with gun features to weasel around the rules so they could keep their cash flow going. Also a pity there was a sunset provision which allowed the ban to expire unless acted upon by Congress and pity our leaders did nothing at that time to keep the ban in place. At that time, the Nancy Lanzas of the world ran to buy one "just in case". So, when people claim "the ban didn't work" I just shake my head...

 

[eflatminor]

One mass shooting between 1994 and 2004, eh?

Lie much? Here's a few you may have missed:

1999 - Mark Barton, Atlanta, Georgia, 25 causalities
1999 - Harris/Klebold, Littleton, Colorado, 34 causalities
1998 - Kipland Kinkle, Springfield, Oregon, 29 causalities
1994 - Dean Mellburg, Fairchild, Washington, 28 causalities
1999 - Larry Ashbrook, Fort Worth, Texas, 15 causalities
1999 - Silvio Leyva, Tampa, Florida, 8 causalities
2000 - Michael McDermott, Wakefield, Mass, 7 causalities
2004 - Gale Nathan, Columbus, Ohio, 12 causalities

I stopped at 8...though there are plenty more during the period. Do you always lie like this? How sad.

Of course, we won't mention that mass killings have been on the decline for some time, with the peak being 1929. No, no...that doesn't fit your agenda.

Anyway, let's look at what else occurred after the ban ended. In the first year after the ban was lifted, murders declined 3.6%, and violent crime 1.7%. Geez, that doesn't support your argument.

Ah well, perhaps things improved DURING the ban? Nope:

Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons where models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban. Even the government agrees. According to a National Institute of Justice study:
“The weapons banned by the legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes”
“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
“The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”
“The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”

So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

No snappy comebacks? How sad...

There are many many many factors which effect various crime rates in different periods of time. Do you have stats on which weapons were used in the mass murder events you listed in that time period? Pity there was a grandfather clause which kept some of those guns out there. Then there are the gun manufacturers and sellers who played semantic games with gun features to weasel around the rules so they could keep their cash flow going. Also a pity there was a sunset provision which allowed the ban to expire unless acted upon by Congress and pity our leaders did nothing at that time to keep the ban in place. At that time, the Nancy Lanzas of the world ran to buy one "just in case". So, when people claim "the ban didn't work" I just shake my head...

So...you've got NOTHING to refute the overwhelming statistics that support the idea that the so called "assault weapons" ban was a complete and utter failure. Not a thing...other than a "head shake". Well that's just pathetic.

But please, now that you've decided you know what's best for everyone else, please, tell us exactly what gun control measure will keep crazy motherfuckers and dumb criminal thugs from using firearms in the commission of a crime?

The floor is yours...

 

[tresbigdog]

One mass shooting between 1994 and 2004, eh?

Lie much? Here's a few you may have missed:

1999 - Mark Barton, Atlanta, Georgia, 25 causalities
1999 - Harris/Klebold, Littleton, Colorado, 34 causalities
1998 - Kipland Kinkle, Springfield, Oregon, 29 causalities
1994 - Dean Mellburg, Fairchild, Washington, 28 causalities
1999 - Larry Ashbrook, Fort Worth, Texas, 15 causalities
1999 - Silvio Leyva, Tampa, Florida, 8 causalities
2000 - Michael McDermott, Wakefield, Mass, 7 causalities
2004 - Gale Nathan, Columbus, Ohio, 12 causalities

I stopped at 8...though there are plenty more during the period. Do you always lie like this? How sad.

Of course, we won't mention that mass killings have been on the decline for some time, with the peak being 1929. No, no...that doesn't fit your agenda.

Anyway, let's look at what else occurred after the ban ended. In the first year after the ban was lifted, murders declined 3.6%, and violent crime 1.7%. Geez, that doesn't support your argument.

Ah well, perhaps things improved DURING the ban? Nope:

Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons where models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban. Even the government agrees. According to a National Institute of Justice study:
“The weapons banned by the legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes”
“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
“The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”
“The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”

So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

No snappy comebacks? How sad...

sorry, I was at this place I go to every day...its called WORK

 

[tresbigdog]

One mass shooting between 1994 and 2004, eh?

Lie much? Here's a few you may have missed:

1999 - Mark Barton, Atlanta, Georgia, 25 causalities
1999 - Harris/Klebold, Littleton, Colorado, 34 causalities
1998 - Kipland Kinkle, Springfield, Oregon, 29 causalities
1994 - Dean Mellburg, Fairchild, Washington, 28 causalities
1999 - Larry Ashbrook, Fort Worth, Texas, 15 causalities
1999 - Silvio Leyva, Tampa, Florida, 8 causalities
2000 - Michael McDermott, Wakefield, Mass, 7 causalities
2004 - Gale Nathan, Columbus, Ohio, 12 causalities

I stopped at 8...though there are plenty more during the period. Do you always lie like this? How sad.

Of course, we won't mention that mass killings have been on the decline for some time, with the peak being 1929. No, no...that doesn't fit your agenda.

Anyway, let's look at what else occurred after the ban ended. In the first year after the ban was lifted, murders declined 3.6%, and violent crime 1.7%. Geez, that doesn't support your argument.

Ah well, perhaps things improved DURING the ban? Nope:

Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons where models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban. Even the government agrees. According to a National Institute of Justice study:
“The weapons banned by the legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes”
“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
“The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”
“The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”

So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

liar? Thats kind of harsh, that implies I intentionally made this up to force some agenda down the throats of total strangers that I have never met. Actually, that info was given to me via a website I visited while at work. I now see that it was incorrect information. I made a mistake, it happens from time to time

 

[eflatminor]

One mass shooting between 1994 and 2004, eh?

Lie much? Here's a few you may have missed:

1999 - Mark Barton, Atlanta, Georgia, 25 causalities
1999 - Harris/Klebold, Littleton, Colorado, 34 causalities
1998 - Kipland Kinkle, Springfield, Oregon, 29 causalities
1994 - Dean Mellburg, Fairchild, Washington, 28 causalities
1999 - Larry Ashbrook, Fort Worth, Texas, 15 causalities
1999 - Silvio Leyva, Tampa, Florida, 8 causalities
2000 - Michael McDermott, Wakefield, Mass, 7 causalities
2004 - Gale Nathan, Columbus, Ohio, 12 causalities

I stopped at 8...though there are plenty more during the period. Do you always lie like this? How sad.

Of course, we won't mention that mass killings have been on the decline for some time, with the peak being 1929. No, no...that doesn't fit your agenda.

Anyway, let's look at what else occurred after the ban ended. In the first year after the ban was lifted, murders declined 3.6%, and violent crime 1.7%. Geez, that doesn't support your argument.

Ah well, perhaps things improved DURING the ban? Nope:

Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons where models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban. Even the government agrees. According to a National Institute of Justice study:
“The weapons banned by the legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes”
“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
“The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”
“The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”

So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

liar? Thats kind of harsh, that implies I intentionally made this up to force some agenda down the throats of total strangers that I have never met. Actually, that info was given to me via a website I visited while at work. I now see that it was incorrect information. I made a mistake, it happens from time to time

You're right, I should not have called you that. Mea culpa.

Rep coming your way.

 

[squeeze berry]

Why do you NEED the guns?

1) To protect yourself from crime?

How many times have you been a victim? Unless you are a courier of valuables, or incredibly oblivious to your surroundings, it's not very likely you will be the victim of ANY crime. If you're a regular middle-class guy like me, you probably don't own much of anything anyone would want to steal, and if you don't go around hassling others, I doubt anyone would want to assault you.

Everyone in the Old West was armed, and crime occured anyway. So did murders.

2) I need protection from the tyranical government

I can name many examples of people who were armed and ended up losing large in a confrontation with the government.

The Confederate States of America had ARMIES. They LOST.

This evil, tyranical government you speak of never bothers me. I haven't even talked to an on-duty cop for 25 years, except to wait on them where I work. What are you DOING that I'm not which requires them to pester you so much?

If 4 Federal agents came to your house because you did something illegal, it's more than likely you'd be carried out in handcuffs. If you turned firearms on them, you'd leave in a body bag. I guess you have the satisfaction, tho, of threatening THEIR lives.

The only people who feel they NEED guns are the ones who wish to use them out of some ridiculous fetish that it makes them more manly, or they live in some fantasy world that having one would make any diference.

Now, where's the cursing little dimwit who will call me some profane name, because he thinks it makes him Internet Tough Guy World Champion?

simply wanting a gun is reason enough

 

[tresbigdog]

One mass shooting between 1994 and 2004, eh?

Lie much? Here's a few you may have missed:

1999 - Mark Barton, Atlanta, Georgia, 25 causalities
1999 - Harris/Klebold, Littleton, Colorado, 34 causalities
1998 - Kipland Kinkle, Springfield, Oregon, 29 causalities
1994 - Dean Mellburg, Fairchild, Washington, 28 causalities
1999 - Larry Ashbrook, Fort Worth, Texas, 15 causalities
1999 - Silvio Leyva, Tampa, Florida, 8 causalities
2000 - Michael McDermott, Wakefield, Mass, 7 causalities
2004 - Gale Nathan, Columbus, Ohio, 12 causalities

I stopped at 8...though there are plenty more during the period. Do you always lie like this? How sad.

Of course, we won't mention that mass killings have been on the decline for some time, with the peak being 1929. No, no...that doesn't fit your agenda.

Anyway, let's look at what else occurred after the ban ended. In the first year after the ban was lifted, murders declined 3.6%, and violent crime 1.7%. Geez, that doesn't support your argument.

Ah well, perhaps things improved DURING the ban? Nope:

Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons where models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban. Even the government agrees. According to a National Institute of Justice study:
“The weapons banned by the legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes”
“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
“The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.”
“The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.”

So, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

liar? Thats kind of harsh, that implies I intentionally made this up to force some agenda down the throats of total strangers that I have never met. Actually, that info was given to me via a website I visited while at work. I now see that it was incorrect information. I made a mistake, it happens from time to time

You're right, I should not have called you that. Mea culpa.

Rep coming your way.

no biggie man, I normally fact check the crap out of stuff, but being at work made it a little difficult

 

[Valerie]

No snappy comebacks? How sad...

There are many many many factors which effect various crime rates in different periods of time. Do you have stats on which weapons were used in the mass murder events you listed in that time period? Pity there was a grandfather clause which kept some of those guns out there. Then there are the gun manufacturers and sellers who played semantic games with gun features to weasel around the rules so they could keep their cash flow going. Also a pity there was a sunset provision which allowed the ban to expire unless acted upon by Congress and pity our leaders did nothing at that time to keep the ban in place. At that time, the Nancy Lanzas of the world ran to buy one "just in case". So, when people claim "the ban didn't work" I just shake my head...

So...you've got NOTHING to refute the overwhelming statistics that support the idea that the so called "assault weapons" ban was a complete and utter failure. Not a thing...other than a "head shake". Well that's just pathetic.

But please, now that you've decided you know what's best for everyone else, please, tell us exactly what gun control measure will keep crazy motherfuckers and dumb criminal thugs from using firearms in the commission of a crime?

The floor is yours...

If you think what you've posted is proof of anything that's pretty pathetic...

 

[eflatminor]

There are many many many factors which effect various crime rates in different periods of time. Do you have stats on which weapons were used in the mass murder events you listed in that time period? Pity there was a grandfather clause which kept some of those guns out there. Then there are the gun manufacturers and sellers who played semantic games with gun features to weasel around the rules so they could keep their cash flow going. Also a pity there was a sunset provision which allowed the ban to expire unless acted upon by Congress and pity our leaders did nothing at that time to keep the ban in place. At that time, the Nancy Lanzas of the world ran to buy one "just in case". So, when people claim "the ban didn't work" I just shake my head...

So...you've got NOTHING to refute the overwhelming statistics that support the idea that the so called "assault weapons" ban was a complete and utter failure. Not a thing...other than a "head shake". Well that's just pathetic.

But please, now that you've decided you know what's best for everyone else, please, tell us exactly what gun control measure will keep crazy motherfuckers and dumb criminal thugs from using firearms in the commission of a crime?

The floor is yours...

If you think what you've posted is proof of anything that's pretty pathetic...

That's a hell of case you've made there...

One more time, we're all awaiting your input on this question: Tell us exactly what gun control measure will keep crazy motherfuckers and dumb criminal thugs from using firearms in the commission of a crime?

 

[Valerie]

So...you've got NOTHING to refute the overwhelming statistics that support the idea that the so called "assault weapons" ban was a complete and utter failure. Not a thing...other than a "head shake". Well that's just pathetic.

But please, now that you've decided you know what's best for everyone else, please, tell us exactly what gun control measure will keep crazy motherfuckers and dumb criminal thugs from using firearms in the commission of a crime?

The floor is yours...

If you think what you've posted is proof of anything that's pretty pathetic...

That's a hell of case you've made there...

One more time, we're all awaiting your input on this question: Tell us exactly what gun control measure will keep crazy motherfuckers and dumb criminal thugs from using firearms in the commission of a crime?

No doubt there will always be thugs and crazy people which is all the more reason not to give them easy access to assault weapons if at all possible... Why are you so against banning assault weapons?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Define assault weapons. Here we go again.

 

[tresbigdog]

Im in NO way or shape an expert on guns, I have very very little knowledge of them, in fact. Id say a ban on semi-automatic assualt weapons would be a start. I think the real restrictions need to be put on dealers, especially gun shows that dont always background check. Maybe a yearly psych test on gun owners to maintain that they are still fit to own weapons. Since the overall consensus is that mental health needs to be dealt with, I dont anticipate many owners being opposed to this

 

[Valerie]

Define assault weapons. Here we go again.

Indeed...

What features make a gun into an assault weapon?

Some assault weapon features, like pistol grips, second handgrips, or barrel shrouds, make the gun easier to hold with two hands. This allows the shooter to spray an area with bullets without taking careful aim, and to control the gun without getting burned as the barrel heats up. Others, like detachable magazines, make it easier to maintain a high rate of fire for an extended period of time. Still others, like flash suppressors, allow the shooter to conceal his position. These features, most of which were specifically designed for the military, are unnecessary for hunting or target shooting.



What is the federal assault weapon ban?

In 1994, after a string of mass killings committed by criminals with assault weapons, Congress passed a law banning certain assault weapons. The 1994 law named 19 specific models, and also banned "copies or duplicates" of those models. In addition, the law outlawed guns that have two or more specified assault weapon features. Guns that were legally possessed before the effective date of the law remain legal.



What is the "sunset clause"?

The 1994 assault weapons ban included a "sunset clause" providing that the law would be automatically repealed on September 13, 2004. President Bush professed support for renewing the ban, but refused to lobby Congress to pass new legislation. When Congress failed to act to extend the ban, assault weapons again became legal under the provisons of federal law.





During the time of the 1994-2004 ban, I heard that criminals were still able to commit crimes with assault weapons. How was that possible?

The 1994 law includes several loopholes that unscrupulous gun makers and dealers exploited to continue making and selling assault weapons that Congress intended to ban. As a result, many assault weapons remained available.

Some gun companies made inconsequential design changes (like moving a screw or replacing a flash suppressor with a "muzzle brake") and gave the gun a new name. The new name got the gun off of the prohibited list, and the minor change arguably put it out of reach of the law's "copies or duplicates" language. For example, the banned TEC-9 became the legal AB-10.

Also, some gun companies copied assault weapons that were originally made by other manufacturers. For example, Bushmaster's XM15 was a copy of the banned Colt AR-15, with one minor design change. Functionally equivalent in all relevant respects to its banned cousin, the XM15, like innumerable other AR-15 variants, remained legal. The DC-area sniper allegedly used a new Bushmaster XM15 to shoot 13 victims, killing 10.

Finally, because the 1994 law allowed the continued ownership and sale of "pre-ban" assault weapons, those weapons remained available.

Assault Weapons FAQ - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence