HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Impact of Assault Weapons...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:37 AM

Impact of Assault Weapons Ban - Illustration-





The number of shootings per year has doubled, the number of victims has tripled, and half of all mass killing have taken place since 2004.

So what happened in 2004 to mark the beginning of such a deadly period in American history? The assault weapons ban expired.



111 replies, 11541 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 111 replies Author Time Post
Reply Impact of Assault Weapons Ban - Illustration- (Original post)
Mira Jan 2013 OP
Scuba Jan 2013 #1
billh58 Jan 2013 #107
hack89 Jan 2013 #2
GeorgeGist Jan 2013 #11
hack89 Jan 2013 #13
dairydog91 Jan 2013 #22
d_r Jan 2013 #101
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #25
hack89 Jan 2013 #29
Recursion Jan 2013 #31
krispos42 Jan 2013 #80
backscatter712 Jan 2013 #90
hack89 Jan 2013 #96
backscatter712 Jan 2013 #98
hack89 Jan 2013 #99
PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #3
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #15
Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #94
99Forever Jan 2013 #4
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #6
hack89 Jan 2013 #5
krispos42 Jan 2013 #7
Robb Jan 2013 #8
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #16
Robb Jan 2013 #28
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #33
bighart Jan 2013 #108
OneMoreDemocrat Jan 2013 #110
krispos42 Jan 2013 #81
Robb Jan 2013 #82
krispos42 Jan 2013 #89
hack89 Jan 2013 #97
LAGC Jan 2013 #9
jpak Jan 2013 #19
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #20
Recursion Jan 2013 #27
Timbuk3 Jan 2013 #24
ThoughtCriminal Jan 2013 #36
LAGC Jan 2013 #38
ThoughtCriminal Jan 2013 #42
LAGC Jan 2013 #46
ThoughtCriminal Jan 2013 #56
Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #93
ThoughtCriminal Jan 2013 #102
adieu Jan 2013 #58
LAGC Jan 2013 #63
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #64
adieu Jan 2013 #66
libdem4life Jan 2013 #79
Dragonfli Jan 2013 #67
Separation Jan 2013 #10
Timbuk3 Jan 2013 #26
Separation Jan 2013 #12
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #35
Dryclean Jan 2013 #14
dairydog91 Jan 2013 #17
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #18
Separation Jan 2013 #21
KittyWampus Jan 2013 #23
In_The_Wind Jan 2013 #30
Recursion Jan 2013 #32
In_The_Wind Jan 2013 #34
Recursion Jan 2013 #37
In_The_Wind Jan 2013 #44
Recursion Jan 2013 #49
In_The_Wind Jan 2013 #51
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #52
Recursion Jan 2013 #55
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #75
Recursion Jan 2013 #77
Separation Jan 2013 #39
In_The_Wind Jan 2013 #43
Separation Jan 2013 #47
In_The_Wind Jan 2013 #53
ThoughtCriminal Jan 2013 #59
Recursion Jan 2013 #60
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #40
In_The_Wind Jan 2013 #41
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #48
In_The_Wind Jan 2013 #50
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #65
HereSince1628 Jan 2013 #45
samsingh Jan 2013 #54
Recursion Jan 2013 #62
samsingh Jan 2013 #68
Recursion Jan 2013 #69
samsingh Jan 2013 #70
Recursion Jan 2013 #71
samsingh Jan 2013 #73
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #74
samsingh Jan 2013 #85
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #88
Recursion Jan 2013 #78
DanTex Jan 2013 #91
madville Jan 2013 #57
madville Jan 2013 #61
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #72
rrneck Jan 2013 #76
libdem4life Jan 2013 #83
marions ghost Jan 2013 #84
libdem4life Jan 2013 #86
Agony Jan 2013 #87
apocalypsehow Jan 2013 #92
hack89 Jan 2013 #100
apocalypsehow Jan 2013 #104
hack89 Jan 2013 #105
apocalypsehow Jan 2013 #109
hack89 Jan 2013 #111
spanone Jan 2013 #95
bowens43 Jan 2013 #103
Go Vols Jan 2013 #106

Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:39 AM

1. Yeah, but quibble, quibble, quibble over the definition of "assault weapon".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:48 PM

107. Really. How in the

world will we ever be able stop gun violence if don't allow the NRA/Gungeoneers to "Name This Killing Machine?"

Here is a definition from a gun dealer that pretty much sums it up:

AR 15 Assault Rifles For Sale At ProGuns.com

The AR 15 can serve many functions, from military use to home security to hunting wild game. The most popular of the assault rifles, the AR 15 is perfect for any gun enthusiast looking for a well-rounded firearm
.


http://www.proguns.com/assaultrifles.asp

I guess the NRA and the Gungeon dwellers will just have to take this dealer out behind the barn and deal with him for not following the script.

Or is it just a marketing gimmick to draw in the "cold dead hands" crowd?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:42 AM

2. The fallacy of this particular argument

is that military style semi-automatic weapons were still being sold during the AWB. The manufacturers merely made minor cosmetic changes to their weapons.

California presently has a stricter AWB than the 1994 AWB - this gun is legal right now in California:



http://www.coltsmfg.com/Catalog/ColtRifles/ColtCaliforniaCompliantRifles.aspx


Connecticut has an AWB - the weapon used at Newtown was legal. It was not legally an assault weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:12 AM

11. You're ignoring the question ...

As usual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:34 AM

13. If the AWB had no impact on the sale of military style semi-automatic rifles

Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:44 AM - Edit history (1)

then just how did the AWB have an impact on mass shootings?

Manufacturing of rifles actually peaked in 1999:




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:28 AM

22. The AWB did not significantly affect what could be bought. Period.

You could buy the exact same rifles, minus a few ancillary widgets. Since widgets like telescoping stocks, bayonets, or flash suppressors never played much role in a weapon's effectiveness for a mass shooting, the weapons retained the same capabilities. If you wanted a knockoff of the military's M-16 assault rifle, you could still buy one under the ban. Lanza's own AR-15 (one such knockoff) was purchased under CT's Assault Weapons Ban, which already prevented the sale of any weapon which met the same definition of "assault weapon" used by the federal ban. His mother was able to buy it precisely because it WAS NOT an "assault weapon."

In short, trying to claim that an impotent law "caused" changes in crime rates isn't a credible argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dairydog91 (Reply #22)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:01 PM

101. are you saying we need a better ban? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:35 AM

25. but there were fewer sold and high capacity magazines were not being sold

so the fallacy in your argument is that the ban had no effect when there is no doubt that it did

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:40 AM

29. Who says fewer were sold?

there was nothing stopping people from buying weapons - AWB compliant military style semi-automatic rifles were in the stores before the ban was even in place.

Manufacturing of rifles actually peaked in 1999:




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:41 AM

31. Actually sales increased, and high capacity magazines were still sold

The high-cap magazines couldn't be manufactured or imported, but could still be sold, and were.

Military-style rifles weren't terribly popular before the ban, but immediately became very popular and are now the most commonly-sold type of rifle. Back then it was guns that look like the AK-47, but the AR-15 passed them as shooters realized it's a very good lightweight low-power rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 03:53 PM

80. near-assault-weapons were still bought and sold.

Remember, the definition of an "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic gun fed from a detachable magazine, that ALSO had more than a certain amount of secondary features.

For rifles such as an AR-15, it could have a pistol grip, or a bayonet mounting lug, but not both.

There were similar restrictions for shotguns and pistols.




The companies that made magazines went into overtime production and made as many regular-capacity magazines as they could before September 14th, 1994. Once the ban was in place, they could still legally sell the brand-new regular magazines that they had made prior to the start of the ban. Just at a premium price.


And of course, used pre-ban magazines could still be bought and sold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:21 PM

90. I did some checking...

Turns out that California's laws define an "assault weapon" as a rifle that has a detachable magazine, and one of the following features including a pistol grip, collapsible stock, flash suppressor, grenade launcher, or forward pistol grip. Since the above-pictured rifle has three of those features, if it had a detachable magazine, it'd be an illegal assault weapon.

This particular rifle probably has a device called a California Compliant Magazine release. It doesn't have a simple button you can press to eject the magazine. The magazine release is something that you have to insert a tool like a screwdriver into in order to activate it.

Actually not a bad concept - makes reloading MUUUUUUUCH slower, turning the lethality knob down a tad.

Because my PERSONAL definition of an "assault weapon" is fuzzy, but is directly related to the raw number of bullets it can fire in a specific time period, say 15 seconds. 30 bullets in 15 seconds is too many. 10 is an OK compromise. So if in California law, magazines that hold more than ten bullets are banned, and evil-baby-killing-looking rifles have to have a widget built into them that makes reloading a pain and slows it down a lot, then I'm a lot happier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #90)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 07:33 AM

96. Look at the link - "Colt California Compliant Rifles"

Under California law, the gun cannot be shorter then a certain length - this stock does not fully collapse to ensure that length is maintained.

That is not a flash suppressor - it is a muzzle compensator. It is designed to port gases in a specific direction to reduce recoil.

The "tool" used to release the magazine is the tip of a bullet - with a little practice it takes hardly any time at all. And with a $20 kit one can restore the gun to a standard magazine release when you move out of California.

http://www.calegalmags.com/-Standard-AR-15-Magazine-Release-Button-Magazine-Catch-Spring-Not-CA-Compliant_p_512.html

My point is it is a poorly written law that does nothing for public safety. Like the AWB being proposed in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #96)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:25 PM

98. And speeding laws are poorly written...

Why bother doing anything at all about speeding? After all, all you have to do to is step on the gas a little more... That's right, because breaking a law is easy, that means there shouldn't be any law at all!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #98)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:51 PM

99. We are talking about the accuracy of the OP's graphs

my only point is that the AWB did not do what people think it did and that military style semi-automatic rifles were on sale for the entire ten years. That's all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:49 AM

3. The fact that the number after the ban expired is more than twice what it was before the ban...

should cause a critical thinker to want to learn more before coming to any conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:05 AM

15. Question- How many of those killings involved assault weapons? Were there more incidents or larger

body counts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:01 PM

94. Or slower police response times

Or criminals engineering more effective rampages, i.e. Holmes choosing a confined movie theater.

I'm sure there are many variables glossed over if they do not support a particular narrative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:49 AM

4. But... but... but... *the precious* doesn't kill people...

... video games and movies do!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:56 AM

6. "The Precious." Kinda says it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:55 AM

5. The majority of mass shootings are committed by handguns

mass shooting = four or more deaths. The Va Tech shooter used two handguns for example.

Here is a link to mass murders in 2005 - from there you can get to every subsequent year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_murder_in_2005

Look at the US mass shootings listed - most are handguns.

And finally - CT has a very strict AWB. The gun used in Newtown was perfectly legal - it was not an assault weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:03 AM

7. And yet the overall homicide rate is down nearly 50%

The only thing we are talking about are the mass shootings, which the corporate media loves to cover for days on end.

But an extremely unlikely event is being used as an excuse for extremely drastic legislation in an attempt to affect these extremely rare events, while doing nothing to change the common events that are the bulk of murders.

This is feeling more and more like post 9/11 BushCo politics every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:11 AM

8. Down from when, my cherry-picking friend? And where?

http://www.ojp.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2011/BJS_PR-111611.pdf

HOMICIDES FALL TO LOWEST RATE IN FOUR DECADES

WASHINGTON – The nation’s homicide rate fell to 4.8 homicides per 100,000 U.S. residents in 2010,
its lowest level in four decades, the Bureau of Justice Statistics announced today. Much of the decline
was in the nation’s largest cities
, those with a population of one million or more, where the homicide
rate dropped dramatically from 35.5 homicides per 100,000 U.S. residents in 1991 to a low of 11.9 per
100,000 in 2008.

The sharp increase in homicides from the mid-1980s through the early 1990s, and much of the
subsequent decline, is attributable to gun violence by teens (age 14 to 17) and young adults (age 18 to
24). Despite the recent decline, the number of gun homicides committed by teens and young adults in
2008 remained similar to the counts of the mid-1980s.


Most murders were intraracial. From 1980 through 2008, 84 percent of white homicide victims were
murdered by whites and 93 percent of black victims were murdered by blacks. During this same period,
blacks were disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders. Blacks were six
times more likely than whites to be homicide victims and seven times more likely than whites to commit
homicide.

The number of homicides known to involve adult or juvenile gang violence has quadrupled since 1980,
increasing from about 220 homicides in 1980 to 960 homicides in 2008. From 1980 to 2008, gang
violence increased from one percent to six percent of all homicides. During this same period, gun
involvement in gang-related homicides increased from 73 percent to 92 percent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:13 AM

16. All you did is highlight that a subsection of one age group shifted.You didn't refute anything.

And it is as I suspected, the worst of the problem when it comes to gun violence is handguns.

The discussions on DU & Media are centered around mass shootings using assault weapons which are a very, very small fraction of homicides.

There is so much more involved in fixing America's violent culture.

And don't anyone dare label me as "pro-assaut weapon" because I am not.

I just loathe the inability of so many DU'ers to dig deep and really look at this issue.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:39 AM

28. Actually, that it didn't.

I was pointing out that 55% of statistics quoted in the gun regulation debate are cherry-picked; the remaining 45% are made up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:44 AM

33. Info on types of guns used in mass shootings. Interesting. Not wanting to argue with anyone

Really REALLY want to dig deeper. What is going on. Personally, I think a huge chunk of the problem is America's Institutionalized violence like poverty, lack of social services and a broken welfare state (I don't use the word welfare as a pejorative).


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #33)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:49 PM

108. This chart speaks volumes

Semi auto hand guns 68
ALL other categories of guns combined 74.

Seems to me the biggest impact would be in the semi auto hand gun category.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bighart (Reply #108)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 04:52 PM

110. Absolutely right...

 

It just seems sexier somehow to be always talking about/blaming/showing 'assault rifles'; on both sides of the argument(s).

Or so it would seem.

I bet if we have an absolute ban on the AR-15, the rate of homicide by handgun will probably remain unchanged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 04:03 PM

81. From the peak in about 1991 or so.

And our country's population is about 20% higher than in the mid-1980's, so if the absolute number of gun-related homicides remains steady while the population increases, I call that progress, because the per-capita declines by 17%.


The bulk of violent crimes comes from poverty and drug-gang activities. If you mapped out on Google Maps every single homicide in the country, there would be clusters. If you are not in or around a cluster, then your homicide rate is pretty damn low, probably approaching the European levels we compare ourselves to.

We have to stop the War on Drug, and we have to return to some kind of economic sanity. We need to cut our prison population by about 2/3rds, we need better schools, we need unions, we need to tax the rich to keep them from distorting our economy and our representative government, we need USP health insurance, we need to get out of the WTO and NAFTA, we need to break up the corporate monopolies and oligarchies, and we need cheap college.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #81)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 04:07 PM

82. A reduction in violence of 3% over 30 years is "progress"?

Really?

Also, if the bulk of violent crimes comes from gang activity, are they just really bad at it? Because they represent at most 6% of homicides, per DOJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #82)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:08 PM

89. No, you're misreading the numbers. I'm probably being unclear.

The US population in 2008 is about 6/5ths that of 1985 or so... an increase of 1/5th or 20%.


According to the article you quoted, "Despite the recent decline, the number of gun homicides committed by teens and young adults in 2008 remained similar to the counts of the mid-1980s."

If the absolute number of teen/young adult gun homicides is consistent year to year, then when the population increases to 6/5ths of 1985, the per-capita rate of such an occurrence drops to the inverse of 6/5ths...

That's 5/6ths of the 1985 per-capita rate, or a 17% drop.


That's what I was referring to.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #82)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 08:17 AM

97. The murder/manslaughter rate in 1991 was 9.8 per 100,000. It is now 4.8

In 1991 there were 24,703 murder and non-negligent manslaughter deaths. In 2010 there were 14,748.

In 1991 the violent crime rate was 758.2 per 100,000. It is now 403.6

Every category of violent crime has seen significant drops since 199.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

By every objective measure America has become a significantly safer place in the past 30 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:12 AM

9. The Virginia Tech Shooting happened in 2007.

Deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history.

No "assault weapons" involved, just two handguns with standard (not high-capacity) magazines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

Banning "assault weapons" will solve nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:18 AM

19. How many rounds in each clip? if it was more than 6, they were "high capacity"

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:21 AM

20. 10 rounds.

The AWB banned over 10 rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:38 AM

27. Cho used standard capacity magazines, IIRC 10

It's basically "the number of rounds that fit in the grip". The '94 ban was over 10, and last time I checked that's what the proposed ban does too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:32 AM

24. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:48 AM

36. The Glock had a 15 round magazine

According to your link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #36)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:56 AM

38. We could limit (even handgun) magazines to 6, but it only takes a split second to reload.

It really doesn't take much practice to get speed-reloading down to a fine art, especially with those short standard-capacity magazines.

Part of the reason Loughner fumbled with his magazine in Tucson was because it was a clumsy extended magazine which don't fit easily in the pocket or hand.

In that sense, his extended magazine may have actually saved lives by giving people an opportunity to pounce on him, whereas he may have had no malfunction at all if he was speed-reloading standard-sized mags.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #38)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:08 PM

42. Several points

1. The argument that this was not a high capacity magazine is refuted. Period.

2. Several mass shooters were stopped while reloading.

3. "Change in seconds"

http://www.parentsagainstgunviolence.com/writing-better-magazine-ban-legislation/#more-170

"Opponents of the high-capacity magazine ban will point out that smaller capacity magazines can be rapidly exchanged, and will argue that such a ban will not slow or hinder a mass shooter. Online videos show expert shooters removing an empty magazine and replacing it with a fully loaded magazine with dazzling speed. Let’s remember, though, that these videos are impressive precisely because the reloading skills depicted are remarkably rare—it takes years of practice to achieve such proficiency, and the perpetrators of most mass shootings are young men with limited experience. There are cowboy trick shooters who can operate a single-action revolver or lever-action rifle with astonishing speed—but Annie Oakley doesn’t fit the profile of a mass shooter. We’re not seeking laws to stop Wild Bill; we’re seeking laws to stop Jared Loughner."


4. There is a strong correlation between fatalities in mass shootings and fatalities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:14 PM

46. How many shooters were actually stopped while reloading though?

Seems most of the shooters only stopped when confronted by someone else with a gun, at which point most of them took the coward's way out (suicide).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #46)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:28 PM

56. At least 3 in recent years - but possibly more

http://www.parentsagainstgunviolence.com/writing-better-magazine-ban-legislation/#more-170

The 1993 LIRR shooting perpetrated by Colin Ferguson
The 1998 school shooting perpetrated by Kipland Kinkel
The 2011 Tucson shooting perpetrated by Jared Loughner.

Note that this does NOT count shooting incidents that were not categorized as "mass shooting" because the shooter was stopped before killing at least four people. One example not included in those stats is the Knoxville Church shooting in 2008 (2 fatalities):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:56 PM

93. A misleading chart

The Aurora shooter's 100-round magazine jammed and was not used.

WASHINGTON -- A federal law enforcement official says the semi-automatic assault rifle used in the deadly Colorado movie theater shooting jammed during the attack.

The official said late Saturday the rifle had a high-capacity ammunition magazine which, based on witness accounts and evidence collected at the scene, apparently jammed. The rifle's malfunction then forced the suspected shooter, James Holmes, to switch to another weapon.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/james-holmes-gun-jammed-aurora-colorado-dark-knight-shooting_n_1692690.html


That means the higher body count is not related to the size of the highest capacity magazine present.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #93)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:02 PM

102. Not at all

First - the drum didn't jam until he had fired around 30 rounds, not sure how many rounds were in the shotgun or Glock

Second even if you adjust the chart for 30 for that one incident, the correlation is still very significant for this and the other mass shootings.

Hey. Duh. More bullets = more death.

Edit Update: Glock 22 aparently has a 15 rounds magazine.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:40 PM

58. Some points

1) Banning assault weapons will solve the presumably minuscule number of assault weapons killing problem.

2) No one has advocated for banning anything. Legislation that is being proposed include requiring owners to be more responsible for their guns, including, possibly, liability insurance, frequent training, lock gun storage cases, and other requirements for responsibility. There has been no proposals for banning the sale of any particular sort of gun, AFAIK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to adieu (Reply #58)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:49 PM

63. Feinstein's bill:

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration


http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

But I don't think its going anywhere in this Congress.

If Biden's Task Force came up with some of your safety recommendations though, that would be a step in the right direction, and might actually have a chance of passage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to adieu (Reply #58)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:52 PM

64. agree with number 1

on number two, numerous members here are in favor of bans and legislation has is already being proposed to ban cosmetic features of weapons and weapons by name. AKA the new and improved assault weapons ban. I think you are wrong there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #64)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 01:26 PM

66. I was referring to the

task force headed by Joe Biden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to adieu (Reply #58)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 03:31 PM

79. And like second-hand smoke, extended responsibility for children in the home.

teeth in the "registration, re-registration, background check" areas. Higher penalties, as well.

I agree that these are far more likely to occur, and far less likely to be fall under the initial justification for colonial muskets in 2nd Amendment interpretations.

All weapons must be registered, or subject to confiscation along with other legal penalties.

Not only have I given up on banning weapons, but also in the public leadership currently available to "control" these weapons. Just bring them out in the legal light of day and charge owners for the responsibility of owning them, should they be used inappropriately.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 01:44 PM

67. Wow, you sound very proud of his accomplishment

I see you admire the skill set more than you mourn the loss of life.
Too bad he can't offer classes to his admirers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:12 AM

10. I would be interested in seeing another graph

I try to stay out of these gun threads, but this one is interesting. There is definitely an increase in the mass shootings. What I would be interested in seeing is the weapon used for those 54 shootings. As some have said pistols were used in the Virginia shooting I wonder how many were pistols/shotguns/longguns/assaultweapons. Would this mean that the gun control talk should include more than just "assault weapons"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Separation (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:37 AM

26. Worst school mass killing in US history

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:28 AM

12. I think this has some pretty good info.

Couple of things to note though, it considers a .22lr as an assault rifle. and it differs on the amount of shootings than your graph. But definitely some really good info there, at least a place to start.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Separation (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:47 AM

35. looks like most of them

have a prior history of mental illness. I think we should put more stock in background checking for that than cosmetic features ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:02 AM

14. Awesome graphic...thanks for posting.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:14 AM

17. Yet, Lanza's exact weapon would have been purchasable under the AWB.

And I mean the exact model of rifle he used (CT actually uses the exact same definition of "assault weapons" as the federal ban). Clean if off, send it back in time, and it would have been legal to manufacture and sell during the ban. Magazines would have have cost several times as much as post-2004 mags, but were still purchasable.

So, I'd be a little more cautious before diving into the old "Correlation=Causation" fallacy. Since functionally-identical (And 99% visually identical) weapons remained legal under the AWB, it's more than a little questionable to claim that it actually had much effect on the firepower available to shooters, or on mass shootings in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:15 AM

18. How many shootings involved assault weapons? Were there more incidents or larger body counts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:26 AM

21. Take a look at this

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

It breaks each shooting down, Lists the types of weapon used, fatalities, and wounded. Its a place to start. But to answer your question, they are used less than pistols, but more than shotguns or revolvers, but not combined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Separation (Reply #21)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:31 AM

23. This reaffirms my position that we need to address violence in general…not just guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:41 AM

30. I would like to see the ban on assault weapons reinstated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In_The_Wind (Reply #30)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:42 AM

32. What will that do?

I think a lot of wool is being pulled over a lot of Democrats' eyes here, unfortunately. What do you think reinstating an AWB would do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #32)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:46 AM

34. It would limit the number of bullets that can be fired rapidly.

Duh.
We have to start somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In_The_Wind (Reply #34)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:51 AM

37. No, it wouldn't. That's what we keep trying to tell you

No Assault Weapons Ban has ever banned guns based on how many bullets they can fire rapidly. They take the class of guns that can fire a lot of bullets rapidly and regulate what they can look like.

For example, under the 94 Federal ban and the current Connecticut ban, the rifle Lanza used was legal because it didn't have a bayonet lug. Under the ban Feinstein is working on, the manufacturer will have to change the shape of the grip.

It doesn't do what you think it does. It's not even that "it doesn't go far enough"; it's going at right angles to what you're trying to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #37)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:12 PM

44. Simply changing the grip will not stop the killing.

Thank you for providing me with more information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In_The_Wind (Reply #44)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:18 PM

49. Yes, I know. This is why the Assault Weapons Ban is so infuriating

If we want to make mass shootings impossible (and I question whether events that are such outliers and generally sui generis should be driving gun policy rather than the significantly more common "normal" shootings that kill orders of magnitude more kids every year), what we need to do is ban semi-automatics with detachable magazines. Not screw around with how they can look.

If the party wants to do that, I'm on board (it's not my preferred solution, but it at least does what we're trying to accomplish). But I'm incredibly frustrated that Feinstein's response again is to regulate how this class of weapons can look.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #49)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:25 PM

51. I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #49)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:26 PM

52. thank you

not my preferred solution but I think it is the only workable one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #52)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:28 PM

55. Yeah, I'm leaning towards rescheduling as Class 3 under the NFA

Possibly with an expedited licensing process for people who want to buy but not resell them; that way states who want to ban can simply refuse to give ATF the go ahead and states who want to keep them can just use their current infrastructure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #37)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 03:00 PM

75. Then what WOULD be effective?

I keep seeing people complaining about the old AWB saying it was "ineffective". Well, the main reason is that Lobbyists worked hard for compromises that would make it ineffective. Therefore, the very thing that NRA supporters complain about in the AWB was put there by NRA supporters.

I have seen lots of complaints about the former AWB (most of them invalid) but I have yet to see any real solutions being offered. "If at first you don't succeed, f*ck it."

NRA supporters should stop being part of the problem and work with the rest of us for a viable solution!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NashvilleLefty (Reply #75)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 03:14 PM

77. As I said, banning semi-automatics with detachable magazines

That's not my preferred course of action, but it actually does what you're trying to do, and I'd the party got behind it I would support it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In_The_Wind (Reply #34)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:57 AM

39. Can you tell which one of these were banned? One of these were banned, and one was legal.



?v=8CDC8CD46F4B0C0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Separation (Reply #39)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:09 PM

43. No. I cannot.

I see no reason for anyone to own a rapid fire weapon.
The law needs to be looked at and carefully changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In_The_Wind (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:16 PM

47. The larger image is the banned rifle.

It has the bayonet lug, and flash suppressor along with a pistol grip and detachable magazine which made this weapon illegal. The smaller image does not have a bayonet lug, and flash suppressor which made this gun legal.

This is why people are saying that the AWB did not work, I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Separation (Reply #47)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:27 PM

53. You've made your point.

I stand corrected.
Reinstating the old AWB will not work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Separation (Reply #39)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:41 PM

59. By "Looking"? Without the specs, no.

For all I know, one or both of them could be made by Mattel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #59)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:42 PM

60. If you assume they are both functional semi-automatics, you can tell by looking

One has the suppressor and lug, the other doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In_The_Wind (Reply #34)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:58 AM

40. no it would not

I am sorry you think that. the weapon used in Newtown would no be covered unless they seriously change it change the prior ban. and all semi-automatic rifles fire at the same rate, even if they look scary and have a pistol grip. There are millions of magazines over 10 rounds that would be grandfathered. And most mass shootings are done using handguns. Focus on mental health treatment and prescription drug use if you want to make a dent in the mass killings and suicides. I have no problem with background checks, even removal of weapons for mental health reasons after a court order. Waiting period for initial gun purchase, fine but not if you already have one. Magazine limitations, what fits in the grip of the weapon for a handgun. I could live with ten for rifles but I do not think this will help a lot. Do not like over 20 round magazines anyway as they tend to jam and it upsets the weapons balance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #40)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:07 PM

41. Ok. So we've got to revamp the law.

I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
If every gun owner had to go through the background check I went through it would help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In_The_Wind (Reply #41)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:17 PM

48. right

I have no issues on that. I also have a CCL but normally do not carry. I just wish more people would think about what would actually work and how weapons actually operate. I heard an outright LIE again on MHP this morning about buying a weapon over the internet without background checks, and they just let it fly. I have done this and had to go though the check and have the firearm shipped to an FFL for pick-up. If a vender sales a certain amount of weapons at a gunshow they also have to do a background check and have an FFL. not sure of the number but it is very low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #48)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:24 PM

50. . . .

There needs to be tighter regulations for every gun sold.
But that would be opening another can of worms.



off topic . . . I also have a TWIC.
The only thing not on file somewhere is my DNA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In_The_Wind (Reply #50)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:58 PM

65. staying off topic

Do not have TWIC but after 20 years in the military my SSN (service number) and DNA is out there and filed with the big bad governmnent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:13 PM

45. Unfortunately, the data doesn't lend itself to use of arithmetic mean

as a meaningful expression of what is usual.

There are 61 shooting events in this data set and they aren't uniformly distributed between the three time periods.

Within the small number of events in each time periods the 'average' is easily influenced by a few events with large numbers greatly distort the averages which is especially true of the 2005-2012 time frame.

I think the picture would be similar using medians, and it would be less vulnerable to criticism.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:27 PM

54. and yet, i've had people posting the exact opposite stats over the past few weeks

such as the shooting actually went down after the ban expired ????!!

i tend to believe this graph.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #54)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:43 PM

62. "Shooting" in general has been dropping pretty steadily for 20 years

Nobody's entirely sure why (see the threads on lead abatement for some arguments).

Mass shootings seem to come in clusters. We had one in the 1990s and we're having one now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #62)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:15 PM

68. why don't we call it gun deaths or injuries

to the victims, it doesn't matter whether the number of shootings have gone down

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #68)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:20 PM

69. Gun deaths and injuries are going down

All forms of violent crime are, as are most types of accidents.

We're basically safer right now than any Americans have ever been, though you wouldn't know it from the news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #69)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:22 PM

70. that's because we aren't safer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #70)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:23 PM

71. But we are. You are less likely to be murdered or die in an accident today

than Americans have been at any point in history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #71)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:29 PM

73. do you feel safe about our schools and in movie theatres?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #73)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:37 PM

74. I do.

FWIW, I don't feel particularly at risk in such places. Spree killings are such astronomically rare occurrences that to be especially fearful of them seems irrational to me. I'm generally far more concerned about the far, far more common "ordinary homicide or violent assault...but those don't commonly happen in theaters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #74)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:26 PM

85. not more irrational than stockpiling weapons to fight the government in the event

that they for some reason want to give up their 20million dollar speaking fees and instead order a takeoff of the civilian areas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #85)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 07:19 PM

88. Sure...but that wasn't the question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #73)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 03:18 PM

78. Certainly more safe than 20 years ago

Do you remember how bad crime was in the 1990s?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #69)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:36 PM

91. Correction: gun injuries are not down.

Injuries from gun assaults have actually risen quite a bit over the last decade. It is true that gun homicides are down, albeit only slightly. Part of the difference here is due to improvements in emergency medicine.

Moreover, regardless of the direction, what remains clear is that the US has far higher rates of homicide and gun violence than the rest of the industrialized world.

Here's CDC data on firearm assaults and firearm homicides over the last decade.

Assault Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000
2001 - 2011, United States
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
Disposition: All Cases


Year Number of
injuries Population Crude
Rate Age-Adjusted
Rate**
2001 41,044 284,968,955 14.40 14.11
2002 37,321 287,625,193 12.98 12.75
2003 42,505 290,107,933 14.65 14.40
2004 43,592 292,805,298 14.89 14.72
2005 50,320 295,516,599 17.03 16.92
2006 52,748 298,379,912 17.68 17.45
2007 48,676* 301,231,207 16.16 16.09
2008 56,626 304,093,966 18.62 18.57
2009 44,466 306,771,529 14.49 14.50
2010 53,738 308,745,538 17.41 17.55
2011 55,544 311,591,917 17.83 17.85


1999 - 2010, United States
Homicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: X93-X95, *U01.4


Year Number of
Deaths Population*** Crude
Rate Age-Adjusted
Rate**
1999 10,828 279,040,181 3.88 3.82
2000 10,801 281,421,906 3.84 3.79
2001 11,348 284,968,955 3.98 3.93
2002 11,829 287,625,193 4.11 4.07
2003 11,920 290,107,933 4.11 4.07
2004 11,624 292,805,298 3.97 3.94
2005 12,352 295,516,599 4.18 4.17
2006 12,791 298,379,912 4.29 4.27
2007 12,632 301,231,207 4.19 4.20
2008 12,179 304,093,966 4.01 4.03
2009 11,493 306,771,529 3.75 3.78
2010 11,078 308,745,538 3.59 3.62
Total 140,875 3,530,708,217 3.99 -

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:33 PM

57. The AWB would not have prevented any of the gun violence we have seen

In the last ten years. The same guns were for sale and high capacity magazines were still available during the ban. It was an impotent law that cost Democrats a bunch of elections and caused people to run out and add millions of more weapons to their stockpiles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madville (Reply #57)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:42 PM

61. The graph is misleading, the bans are more at fault for this graph than the weapon is

The expiration of the ban didn't really make anything more deadly available.

I will buy the idea that the enactment of the ban and then it's expiration made people panic buy and stockpile, leading to much more proliferation of assault weapon style firearms and adding to their popularity.

I would say the bans themselves have caused these weapons to become more common and more widely used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:25 PM

72. "post hoc ergo propter hoc"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 03:04 PM

76. Why do you think it more than doubled from 1982-1994? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:10 PM

83. Graphs and statistics fail at the most basic of the idea of the cost of weapon mayhem.

I have yet to see a graph or a chart of the financial costs/repercussions to the families of any one of these "statistics"...that would include the injured, as well.

And beyond a chart of the cost, including grief and emotional pain, the cost of losing a family provider, or a parent, or a child. What were the medical bills for those who died or those who lived, how many families savings were wiped out or crippling debt incurred, plans for college or vactions or home repair, the unexpected burial and funeral charges ($5,000 average) for those who died, the psychological costs of counseling, the damage to buildings, to businesses that perhaps had to close thus costing others their jobs, the jobs/income lost due to disability?

Adults may have life insurance to help with the costs, but children don't. The poor often don't. Our family was involved in a car accident with no fatalities fully covered by insurance, not at the fault of our driver, but the injuries and subsequent effects impacted and reorganized the other family members in a myriad of ways.

Statistics and facts are important...and our family's ordeal will never show up on a graph. But it's time to start including some real life faces and human beings. How does one "rate" the loss of a primary financial provider of a family vs. a small child, for instance? Or, a child who has become permanently disabled and needs a primary provider to stay at home now. The marriages...thus families...that fail in the wake of the sorrow and pain.

Much like wars, the real violence ... at the level where it is borne ... is sanitized because it is too painful and/or instructive...for the observers. But until that pain is felt, either by increased consciousness or god forbid personal experience, it can be ignored and put off.

This is neither maudlin nor obsessing...it is to hopefully influence and justify a system of gun management that is supported and participated in by those who do not posses and those who do posses weapons. To coin a phrase, it will Take A Village.

We who abhor even the owning of weapons, as do those who feel them necessary for their safety, sport, skill, food etc. must each become more honest, aware and flexible in order to compensate for the violence to society and our families. The NRA (non-profit in name only) must evolve, or be replaced by a sane organization and management entity that can see beyond their prolific balance sheet and political control. Perhaps Gabby Gifford's new organization will take hold, based on her highly personal, highly public assault and slow, painful recovery.

Even the name is outdated and refers to a time when guns were primarily for protection and hunting. The National Rifle Association, which evokes memories of Bonanza, The Rifleman, John Wayne, good guys with 6-shooters at most guns et al and would now be more appropriately updated to be referred to as the NWMDA...National Weapons(including those, of Mass Destruction) Association. More appropriate description of the newer role models for our children/society ... The Terminator, Die Hard, Rambo...good guys as glorified revenge fanatics with machine guns.

I feel certain that there are 26 more families readjusting their lives...and those of their extended families and social groups...to reasses the potential of gun violence, its causes, its remedies and its place in our society....based on exceedingly personal experience.

The conversation continues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #83)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:18 PM

84. +++++standing ovation

:kick:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #84)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:44 PM

86. Thank you. As is obvious, it's deeply personal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #83)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:53 PM

87. Thanks for writing this...

all of it.

"I feel certain that there are 26 more families readjusting their lives...and those of their extended families and social groups...to reasses the potential of gun violence, its causes, its remedies and its place in our society....based on exceedingly personal experience. "

the ripples keep widening, when they cross maybe we will do something. I hope much sooner.

Agony

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:42 PM

92. Facts for our pro-NRA "pro gun progressives"* are like garlic to a vampire: but that chart is

irrefutable.

All I've seen in this thread from that quarter is spin, spin, spin, and deflect and obfuscate. Facts are not on the "law abiding gun owners" side, and neither is history: meaning gun control is coming to America, and that means no more deadly assault rifles or 30 round magazines and, eventually, then end of the "concealed carry permit" save under the most stringent of circumstances, and for cause only.

That's right, "pro gun progressives": the day of the "Shall Issue" state is coming to an end, and in our lifetimes. Bank it.

Good OP; Kick, Rec.


*( )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #92)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:56 PM

100. So the fact that military style semi-automatic rifles were legal during the AWB is spin?

the OP says that the AWB impacted mass shootings. How is that possible when this was perfectly legal:




That is a hard, cold fact that seriously undercut's the OP's premise.

As for the rest of your rant - nice story bro. Happy to see you have an active imagination. Lets bookmark and revisit in a couple of months to reassess what has happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #100)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:31 PM

104. Facts for our pro-NRA "pro gun progressives"* are like garlic to a vampire: but that chart is

irrefutable.

All I've seen in this thread from that quarter is spin, spin, spin, and deflect and obfuscate. Facts are not on the "law abiding gun owners" side, and neither is history: meaning gun control is coming to America, and that means no more deadly assault rifles or 30 round magazines and, eventually, then end of the "concealed carry permit" save under the most stringent of circumstances, and for cause only.

That's right, "pro gun progressives": the day of the "Shall Issue" state is coming to an end, and in our lifetimes. Bank it.

Good OP; Kick, Rec.


*( )

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here yah go, "hack": since you apparently didn't read so well the first go round, I gave you a reprint. Reading slower & better is the key to understanding the written form of communication so many of us use in the modern world. Good luck on your second go round!


Edit: just like the original with (1) edit, so the reader in need of a re-read doesn't lose his place or break concentration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #104)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:36 PM

105. I skipped over the fantasy portion of your posts.

what you seem to forget is that millions of American voters have supported the expansion of gun rights at the state level - CCW being the best example. And you think they are all going to do a 180 and change their minds? That's delusional.

Pay attention. The only people making a fuss about gun control are the same people that have been fussing for the past decade. They think their moment has finally come. They are going to be disappointed. A couple of states will pass some stricter laws but that is it. You will see nothing significant at the national level for a very long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #105)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 04:45 PM

109. Ooohh...the poster still has problems with the reading portion of the reply(s). That's unfortunate.

Well, it's only one do-over per customer, but you still have the opportunity to take two cracks at it again as often as you wish. Bright side time!

You could even employ the Bookmark function the DU Admin's have thoughtfully provided, in the event you wish to take a break and get a fresh start on tackling it later in the week - tomorrow might be rushing it - so that the full measure of what has been written might fully come into focus.

All the best to you, my friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #109)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 05:16 PM

111. I enjoy silly games as well as the next guy

so goodby until next time we meet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 10:08 PM

95. k&r...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:25 PM

103. stop confusing the gun lovers with facts....

there room for reality in their world view

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mira (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:41 PM

106. Prior to 1989

there were only a handful of incidents in which two or more non-perpetrators were killed by firearms at a school .....

..... Eli Lilly introduced the very first SSRI drug PROZAC in 1987.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022170975

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread