Nicker on 1/3/2018 at 02:59
Apparently my prayer that Americans pray more has been answered, in spades.
[video=youtube;uSMUEM6dhl8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSMUEM6dhl8[/video]
What could go wrong with gun crazy holy-rollers wearing bullet crowns?
The power of Christ compels you!! Brrrrrrrrrrrrt!
catbarf on 1/3/2018 at 03:14
It's really not though. The link you just provided is pretty clear:
Quote:
Koper, Jan. 14: The grandfathering provisions in the law meant that the effects of the law would occur only very gradually over time. It seems that those effects were still unfolding when the ban was lifted, and indeed they may not have been fully realized for several more years into the future even if the ban had been extended in 2004.
The evidence is too limited for any firm projections, but it does suggest that long term restrictions on these guns and magazines could potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings.
Quote:
Koper, Jan. 14: So, using that as a very tentative guide, that's high enough to suggest that eliminating or greatly reducing crimes with these magazines could produce a small reduction in shootings, likely something less than 5 percent.
There was no measurable effect during the period the ban was in place, and only speculation that it might have produced a
small reduction in violence if left in place for a longer period of time. 'Maybe if we pass this and wait twenty years, we might see some minor impact' is not a solution to our problem.
And that's leaving aside that the report also shows how easy assault weapon bans are to circumvent, something the gun community now has two decades of experience in, as well as modern modular firearms design that makes it easy to do. See: Assault weapon ban compliant AR-15 I posted on page 4.
LarryG on 1/3/2018 at 04:29
Huh? What part of "The evidence is too limited for any firm projections" is unclear?
catbarf on 1/3/2018 at 13:35
The part where you post a study saying 'yeah, it didn't do anything during the 10 years it was on the books, but we can't firmly project what it would have done if we kept it longer' as a refutation to 'it didn't do anything during the 10 years it was on the books'.
Whether it may have had some long term effect or not, the fact is that it had no discernible effect during the decade it was in effect, which was the claim made.
The short-term effect is the most relevant factor when we're trying to address an epidemic of mass shootings that can't wait 15 or 20 years to see what happens.
Tony_Tarantula on 1/3/2018 at 14:21
While I support the idea of keeping guns away from crazy people, keep in mind that the policy will be implemented by an administration that got its platform from a talk show host best known for authoring the book "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder".
No way this could go wrong.....
LarryG on 1/3/2018 at 15:35
Quote Posted by catbarf
The part where you post a study saying 'yeah, it didn't do anything during the 10 years it was on the books, but we can't firmly project what it would have done if we kept it longer' as a refutation to 'it didn't do anything during the 10 years it was on the books'.
Whether it may have had some long term effect or not, the fact is that it had no discernible effect during the decade it was in effect, which was the claim made.
The short-term effect is the most relevant factor when we're trying to address an epidemic of mass shootings that can't wait 15 or 20 years to see what happens.
I guess you missed this in reading the article:
Quote:
The final report concluded the ban's success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”
Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime,” largely because the law's grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004.
What that is saying is that after studying the issues, they were unable to determine one way or another whether or not banning assault weapons worked. Let me say this another way, the studies were inconclusive. They could not conclude that the ban worked and they could not conclude that it didn't. And they could not predict how well any future ban might work because the specific details of such a hypothetical ban (such as grandfathering of existing weapons) are unknown and those unknowns could greatly impact the ban's short and long term effectiveness. In other words, the jury is still out.
Starker on 1/3/2018 at 16:30
He's just talk. He wouldn't dare go against the NRA.
Trance on 1/3/2018 at 16:56
Is this more of that 4D chess?