Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill

[QUOTE=Droid101]I think this is very much a worthwhile discussion. Amendment 2 did make sense at one point, especially for a small nation without a standing military. It does not today fall on the individual citizen to protect the country from foreign invasion, and modern wars are not fought that way. We have a fantastic military that is exceptionally capable of defending the nation's shores.[/QUOTE]

That is a point I made in another thread. If your actual military has fallen I'm afraid that is it for you.

Hold on.

I'm all for shortening clips though but what is the definition of an "assault weapon"?

Also, aren't hand guns responsible for the majority of gun related deaths on top of being more easily concealed/portable, readily available, and cheaper? If so, couldn't this actually [I]cause[/I] an influx of handguns and therefore, possibly more violence on the streets?

Video for miller time:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPGBXqaF2dg[/url]

Harvard study finds that gun control is ineffective at reducing the total crime rate:

[url]http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/[/url]

While countries with lax gun laws have more gun murders, they have, on average, lower total murder rates than countries with strict gun control.

[QUOTE=bmulls]Harvard study finds that gun control is ineffective at reducing the total crime rate:

[url]http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/[/url]

While countries with lax gun laws have more gun murders, they have, on average, lower total murder rates than countries with strict gun control.[/QUOTE]
So? Gun control is about reducing crime committed with guns, not reducing the total crime rate. That's its purpose.

[QUOTE=shlver]So? Gun control is about reducing crime committed with guns, not reducing the total crime rate. That's its purpose.[/QUOTE]

How bout we put it together...less people with guns....less people have to protect themselves....easier to take advantage of....more crime.

One of the less publicizied heinous acts of the Bush Administration was letting the assault weapons ban expire. It's awesome that Feinstein is going to bring this bill back.

[QUOTE=Balla_Status]How bout we put it together...less people with guns....less people have to protect themselves....easier to take advantage of....more crime.[/QUOTE]
What's your point?
"While countries with lax gun laws have more gun murders"
That means that tighter gun control means less gun murders. That is the purpose of gun control. Your hypothesis is useless and makes unproven assumptions.

[QUOTE=shlver]What's your point?
"While countries with lax gun laws have more gun murders"
That means that tighter gun control means less gun murders. That is the purpose of gun control. Your hypothesis is useless and makes unproven assumptions.[/QUOTE]

Actually there's pretty good info that would support my hypothesis.

[QUOTE=shlver]What's your point?
"While countries with lax gun laws have more gun murders"
That means that tighter gun control means less gun murders. That is the purpose of gun control. Your hypothesis is useless and makes unproven assumptions.[/QUOTE]

Dude, a dead body is a dead body. It doesn't matter if they were killed with a gun or a knife or a chainsaw. If gun control doesn't reduce the total number of dead bodies, what is the point?

[QUOTE=Balla_Status]Actually there's pretty good info that would support my hypothesis.[/QUOTE]
Post it then.
[QUOTE]Dude, a dead body is a dead body. It doesn't matter if they were killed with a gun or a knife or a chainsaw. If gun control doesn't reduce the total number of dead bodies, what is the point?[/QUOTE]
Because guns are more effective at causing fatality.

[QUOTE=shlver]Post it then.

Because guns are more effective at causing fatality.[/QUOTE]

What? The goal here is to reduce the number of murders in the country. Harvard study finds gun control does not reduce the number of murders.

Gun control for the sake of gun control makes no sense unless it has a practical purpose. If there is no statistical advantage to it, it is not a rational course of action.

Also watch the video I posted. Since Australia banned guns they haven't had any mass murders, but the total rate of gun murder has actually gone up.

[QUOTE=bmulls]What? The goal here is to reduce the number of murders in the country.[/QUOTE]
No society can fully protect against individuals that do not buy into its values.
[QUOTE]Harvard study finds gun control does not reduce the number of murders.

Gun control for the sake of gun control makes no sense unless it has a practical purpose. If there is no statistical advantage to it, it is not a rational course of action.[/QUOTE]
You posted it yourself. Places with tighter gun control measure have a lower rate of gun homicides. That is one of the purposes of gun control. That is a statistical advantage. You have to show WHY gun laws would have an effect on the total crime rate to make a point here, not make an assumption that it would have an effect on the total crime rate.

[QUOTE=bmulls]Also watch the video I posted. Since Australia banned guns they haven't had any mass murders, but the total rate of gun murder has actually gone up.[/QUOTE]
Which is why I made a case for tighter measures of gun control, not an outright ban. I already said shotguns for stopping power and protection and hunting rifles should be allowed but heavily regulated.

[QUOTE=shlver]No society can fully protect against individuals that do not buy into its values.

You posted it yourself. Places with tighter gun control measure have a lower rate of gun homicides. That is one of the purposes of gun control. That is a statistical advantage. You have to show WHY gun laws would have an effect on the total crime rate to make a point here, not make an assumption that it would have an effect on the total crime rate.[/QUOTE]

:biggums:

You are so focused on guns here you are failing to see the bigger picture. MURDER VICTIMS, DEAD PEOPLE. BODY COUNT. At the end of the day this is what matters.

Harvard statisticians and criminologists conclude that gun control is not positively correlated with the murder rate. Gun control does not affect the bottom line, the number of people murdered every year.

There is no counter argument to be made here unless you want to dispute the study itself.

[QUOTE=bmulls]Harvard study finds that gun control is ineffective at reducing the total crime rate:

[url]http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/[/url]

While countries with lax gun laws have more gun murders, they have, on average, lower total murder rates than countries with strict gun control.[/QUOTE]


From the study page 670

[QUOTE]But the more plausible explanation for many nations having widespread gun ownership with low violence is that these nations never had high murder and violence rates and so never had occasion to enact severe anti‐gun laws. On the other hand, in nations that have experienced high and rising violent crime rates, the legislative reaction has generally been to enact increasingly severe antigun laws.

This is futile, for reducing gun ownership by the law‐abiding citizenry—the only ones who obey gun laws—does not reduce violence or murder. The result is that high crime nations that ban guns to reduce crime end up having both high crime and stringent gun laws, while it appears that low crime nations that do not significantly restrict guns continue to have low violence rates.[/QUOTE]

Problem is a blog trying to reduce a incredibly complicated study down to one page.

in the end no matter, I can safely say that a person is not walking into a school and killing 26 with his bare hands

[QUOTE=bmulls]:biggums:

You are so focused on guns here you are failing to see the bigger picture. MURDER VICTIMS, DEAD PEOPLE. BODY COUNT. At the end of the day this is what matters.[/QUOTE]
That's what gun control is. It's about guns.:lol You can't relate total crime rate and gun control if you don't show a clear, defined relationship. Especially something as intractable as societies that number in the millions.

[QUOTE]Harvard statisticians and criminologists conclude that gun control is not positively correlated with the murder rate. Gun control does not affect the bottom line, the number of people murdered every year. [/QUOTE]
That's not what gun control is trying to affect though. Gun control affects crimes committed with guns and you posted it.

[QUOTE]There is no counter argument to be made here unless you want to dispute the study itself.[/QUOTE]
Yes there is. Show a clearly, defined causal relationship between the total crime rate and gun control. You can't and the professors of that study say it as well.

[QUOTE=daily]From the study page 670



Problem is a blog trying to reduce a incredibly complicated study down to one page.

in the end no matter, I can safely say that a person is not walking into a school and killing 26 with his bare hands[/QUOTE]

Did you really just try to refute me by quoting a paragraph which begins with the declaration that gun control is futile?

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but :roll:

[QUOTE=bmulls]Also watch the video I posted. Since Australia banned guns they haven't had any mass murders, [B]but the total rate of gun murder has actually gone up[/B].[/QUOTE]
Completely FALSE!

In the decade following the new gun laws, gun homicide fell 59% and gun suicide fell 65%.

[QUOTE][url]http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-but-the-us-needs-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html[/url]

These national gun laws have proven beneficial. Research published in 2010 in the American Journal of Law and Economics found that firearm homicides, in Australia, dropped 59 per cent between 1995 and 2006. There was no offsetting increase in non-firearm-related murders. Researchers at Harvard University in 2011 revealed that in the 18 years prior to the 1996 Australian laws, there were 13 gun massacres (four or more fatalities) in Australia, resulting in 102 deaths. There have been none in that category since the Port Arthur laws.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/[/url]

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law

[QUOTE=shlver]That's what gun control is. It's about guns.:lol You can't relate total crime rate and gun control if you don't show a clear, defined relationship. Especially something as intractable as societies that number in the millions.


That's not what gun control is trying to affect though. Gun control affects crimes committed with guns and you posted it.


Yes there is. Show a clearly, defined causal relationship between the total crime rate and gun control. You can't and the professors of that study say it as well.[/QUOTE]

You can't "prove" causality. No study in the history of the world has ever "proven" causality. All you can do is look at the statistics and draw reasonable conclusions. This is statistics 101.

To make an analogy, you're trying to argue that speeding is against the law because we want people to drive slower. Why? Just because. The reality is speeding is against the law because it leads to accidents which result in injury and death. The law is designed to prevent the injury and death, not necessarily fast driving.

Get it?

[QUOTE=bmulls]Did you really just try to refute me by quoting a paragraph which begins with the declaration that gun control is futile?

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but :roll:[/QUOTE]
Read it! It basically says the problem is rooted in culture and society. However, it shows a decrease in gun murders in tighter regulated countries meaning a more effective method of committing murder(guns) is abated.

[QUOTE=D-Rose]Completely FALSE!

In the decade following the new gun laws, gun homicide fell 59% and gun suicide fell 65%.[/QUOTE]

I based that statement on the video.

After googling it, it would appear that the study you have cited was written by serious gun control advocates.

Other studies have found "no structural breaks" in the rate of homicide, or "no significant result for homicide":

[url]http://www.ssaa.org.au/capital-news/2008/2008-09-04_melbourne-uni-paper-Aust-gun-buyback.pdf[/url]
[url]http://moveleft.org/dog_ban/br_j_criminology_2006_.pdf[/url]
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/[/url]

I can't find where the video got those numbers, so I apologize if they are bogus.

[QUOTE=bmulls]You can't "prove" causality. No study in the history of the world has ever "proven" causality. All you can do is look at the statistics and draw reasonable conclusions. This is statistics 101.

To make an analogy, you're trying to argue that speeding is against the law because we want people to drive slower. Why? Just because. The reality is speeding is against the law because it leads to accidents which result in injury and death. The law is designed to prevent the injury and death, not necessarily fast driving.

Get it?[/QUOTE]
Of course you can't prove causality, but the concept of gun control in itself is to stop crimes committed with guns. Show me how it can affect total crime rate. Other than that, it's just a useless correlation and hand waving exercise.

[QUOTE=bmulls]Did you really just try to refute me by quoting a paragraph which begins with the declaration that gun control is futile?

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but :roll:[/QUOTE] :facepalm context. you have to read the first paragraph first then read the second in the context of the first.


Look I know you're upset your right to have a gun is being threatened but falling back into the cliche right wing gun sniffing nutjob isin't helping you. I'm a gun owner also but I can say you're doing nothing but a disservice to the topic with your immature sniping and in reality actually making the argument for gun control stronger. Seriously the thought of somebody like you owning gun is frightening

[QUOTE=daily]:facepalm context. you have to read the first paragraph first then read the second in the context of the first.


Look I know you're upset your right to have a gun is being threatened but falling back into the cliche right wing gun sniffing nutjob isin't helping you. I'm a gun owner also but I can say you're doing nothing but a disservice to the topic with your immature sniping and in reality actually making the argument for gun control stronger. Seriously the thought of somebody like you owning gun is frightening[/QUOTE]

The first paragraph simply explains the phenomenon, it does not change the bottom line: gun control does not positively correlate with reduced murder rates.

As for the rest...you know how you know when somebody has lost a debate? They start making personal attacks instead of addressing the issue.

[QUOTE=shlver]Of course you can't prove causality,[B]but the concept of gun control in itself is to stop crimes committed with guns.[/B] Show me how it can affect total crime rate. Other than that, it's just a useless correlation and hand waving exercise.[/QUOTE]

This is where you are wrong. The purpose of gun control is to reduce the crime rate.

We don't legislate speed limits for the sake of forcing people to drive a certain speed. We legislate speed limits to prevent the accidents and injuries caused by speeding.

We don't legislate against drunk driving for the sake of preventing people driving under the influence. We legislate against drunk driving to prevent the accidents and injuries caused by driving under the influence.

We ban people from shooting off fireworks in their backyards because we simply don't want people shooting fireworks in their backyard. We ban this because shooting fireworks off in your back yard has a high probability of causing accident or injury.

The bottom line of legislation is to reduce the body count.

[QUOTE=shlver]Of course you can't prove causality, but the concept of gun control in itself is to stop crimes committed with guns. Show me how it can affect total crime rate. Other than that, it's just a useless correlation and hand waving exercise.[/QUOTE]

That's the problem with the study. It's comparing gun control to murder rate as a whole described by all forms of murder from strangulation to stabbings and concluding that gun control doesn't reduce the number of deaths by strangulation.

Or as they cite themselves Russia has the strictest gun control but the highest murder rate but then admit that Russia has always had a high murder rate even before strict gun controls were put in place.

What they study doesn't touch on is the effects gun control has or hasn't had on murder by guns and that's what tighter controls are aimed at. You're never going to stop murder BUT you can try and stop these mass killings and limiting the choice of weaponry.

I said it before. It's amazing that migrating birds are protected more by what type of weapon and ammunition can be used to kill than humans are

[QUOTE=bmulls]This is where you are wrong. The purpose of gun control is to reduce the crime rate.

We don't legislate speed limits for the sake of forcing people to drive a certain speed. We legislate speed limits to prevent the accidents and injuries caused by speeding.

We don't legislate against drunk driving for the sake of preventing people driving under the influence. We legislate against drunk driving to prevent the accidents and injuries caused by driving under the influence.

We ban people from shooting off fireworks in their backyards because we simply don't want people shooting fireworks in their backyard. We ban this because shooting fireworks off in your back yard has a high probability of causing accident or injury.

The bottom line of legislation is to reduce the body count.[/QUOTE]
I still don't see how you come to that conclusion.
We control the distribution of guns to prevent unstable people from committing crimes or killing people with guns. Why does gun control include people that are killed by knives, blunt objects, or any other type of murder?

[QUOTE=daily]That's the problem with the study. It's comparing gun control to murder rate as a whole described by all forms of murder from strangulation to stabbings and concluding that gun control doesn't reduce the number of deaths by strangulation.

Or as they cite themselves Russia has the strictest gun control but the highest murder rate but then admit that Russia has always had a high murder rate even before strict gun controls were put in place.

What they study doesn't touch on is the effects gun control has or hasn't had on murder by guns and that's what tighter controls are aimed at. You're never going to stop murder BUT you can try and stop these mass killings and limiting the choice of weaponry.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I didn't even bother reading the study, because the problem of crime is so intractable and influenced by society and culture that gun control cannot have a significant impact on the total crime rate but you can limit a very effective tool of murder.

[QUOTE=shlver]I still don't see how you come to that conclusion.
We control the distribution of guns to prevent unstable people from committing crimes or killing people with guns. Why does gun control include people that are killed by knives, blunt objects, or any other type of murder?[/QUOTE]

Let me pose it to you this way:

If we ban guns and gun murders drop, yet the total murder rate remains unchanged, what benefit has society achieved? What is different? Are the people who are now getting stabbed or strangled somehow less dead than if they had been shot?

This is why the body count is what matters, not the murder weapon. If legislation is not going to alter the body count then all we've done is deprive responsible law abiding citizens of their guns while providing 0 net benefit to society.

And if you want to talk about culture issues, talk about the fact that the vast majority of gun murders are gang related, and the vast majority of those are committed with illegal/stolen handguns. How is gun control going to help?

Further, as tragic as these mass shootings are, they constitute a drop in the bucket with respect to the total murder rate. They are nearly insignificant in the statistical scheme of things.

If you want to significantly reduce the gun crime rate AND the total crime rate, address gang violence and the War on Drugs that fuels it.

[QUOTE=bmulls]Let me pose it to you this way:

If we ban guns and gun murders drop, yet the total murder rate remains unchanged, what benefit has society achieved? What is different? Are the people who are now getting stabbed or strangled somehow less dead than if they had been shot?

This is why the body count is what matters, not the murder weapon. If legislation is not going to alter the body count then all we've done is deprive responsible law abiding citizens of their guns while providing 0 net benefit to society.

And if you want to talk about culture issues, talk about the fact that the vast majority of gun murders are gang related, and the vast majority of those are committed with illegal/stolen handguns. How is gun control going to help?

Further, as tragic as these mass shootings are, they constitute a drop in the bucket with respect to the total murder rate. They are nearly insignificant in the statistical scheme of things.

If you want to significantly reduce the gun crime rate AND the total crime rate, address gang violence and the War on Drugs that fuels it.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter. If gun control saves one kids life it was worth it.

If you don't see that then there's nothing to say

[QUOTE=daily]It doesn't matter. If gun control saves one kids life it was worth it.

If you don't see that then there's nothing to say[/QUOTE]

Childish argument. How many lives could we save by banning alcohol, motorcycles, fast cars and boats? If we can save even 1 kids life by banning these things it must be done, right?

[QUOTE=bmulls]Childish argument. How many lives could we save by banning alcohol, motorcycles, fast cars and boats? If we can save even 1 kids life by banning these things it must be done, right?[/QUOTE]

You accuse someone of making a childish argument, then say THAT?

Alcohol, motorcycles, fast cars and boats are not designed to kill human beings.

[QUOTE=bmulls]Let me pose it to you this way:

If we ban guns and gun murders drop, yet the total murder rate remains unchanged, what benefit has society achieved? What is different? Are the people who are now getting stabbed or strangled somehow less dead than if they had been shot?

This is why the body count is what matters, not the murder weapon. If legislation is not going to alter the body count then all we've done is deprive responsible law abiding citizens of their guns while providing 0 net benefit to society.

And if you want to talk about culture issues, talk about the fact that the vast majority of gun murders are gang related, and the vast majority of those are committed with illegal/stolen handguns. How is gun control going to help?

Further, as tragic as these mass shootings are, they constitute a drop in the bucket with respect to the total murder rate. They are nearly insignificant in the statistical scheme of things.

If you want to significantly reduce the gun crime rate AND the total crime rate, address gang violence and the War on Drugs that fuels it.[/QUOTE]
That is not true. The body count and the total crime rate are two different things. Stop trying to conflate the two. The whole point of gun control is regulating a tool that is designed to kill. Using statistics and the large picture to justify less regulation so you can play with weapons is awfully selfish. Why would you not want tighter control on something as potentially as dangerous as guns?

[QUOTE=RaininThrees]You accuse someone of making a childish argument, then say THAT?

Alcohol, motorcycles, fast cars and boats are not designed to kill human beings.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, wrong.

A gun is designed to fire a projectile. Whether that projectile is aimed at a target, a deer or a human is up to the person pulling the trigger. Alcohol is designed to inebriate the user. Whether or not that person decides to get behind the wheel of a vehicle and kill an innocent person is up to them. We don't blame the alcohol for drunk driving deaths, we blame the person driving the car.

99.999% of guns will be used for target shooting and hunting. How can a gun be "designed to kill people" when it is used for that purpose less than .001% of the time?

[QUOTE=bmulls]Sorry, wrong.

A gun is designed to fire a projectile. Whether that projectile is aimed at a target, a deer or a human is up to the person pulling the trigger. Alcohol is designed to inebriate the user. Whether or not that person decides to get behind the wheel of a vehicle and kill an innocent person is up to them. We don't blame the alcohol for drunk driving deaths, we blame the person driving the car.

99.999% of guns will be used for target shooting and hunting. How can a gun be "designed to kill people" when it is used for that purpose less than .001% of the time?[/QUOTE]
No. The original purpose of a gun was to kill. Nice try though.

[QUOTE=shlver]That is not true. The body count and the total crime rate are two different things. Stop trying to conflate the two. The whole point of gun control is regulating a tool that is designed to kill. Using statistics and the large picture to justify less regulation so you can play with weapons is awfully selfish. Why would you not want tighter control on something as potentially as dangerous as guns?[/QUOTE]

Using statistics and the large picture to justify getting drunk is awfully selfish. Why would you not support prohibition on something as potentially as dangerous as alcohol?

It's not a ban on all guns. Just one that serve no purpose to the general population.

Anyways I'm done here, it's obvious no amount of logic is going to work on people who don't appreciate or enjoy hunting/target shooting. They don't care about the rights of other people because it doesn't have any affect on them or the things they enjoy. Yet when you propose banning something they do enjoy (alcohol), they unleash some of the greatest mental gymnastics imaginable to justify their position.