What happened to the assault weapons ban

[dasein]

I went to the UK for awhile where they have banned guns. Things are pretty civil. They don't get reports like this:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-graphic-violence-documents-article-1.1560456

There are more pale-skinned people in Ireland, a place where they drink lots of Guiness, yet the skin cancer rate is lower. So by the above quality of reasoning, Guiness must prevent skin cancer.

 

[Vantagepoint34]

You mean I should go in a small town with an assault rifle and a chain of bullets around my torso? shall I also wear a tank top and put a hair band on my forehead?

How does it relate to the fact that a group of d1ckheads believe that a visible gun that look military should be banned while a more powerfull and easy to hide gun is perfectly fine?
So if I get a minivulcan but I paint it pink with baloons around, it should be ok right? it doesnt look military.

Wtf your arguments seems to come from an episode of twin peeks or the outer limits.

Forget it! I'm starting a bookstore.

 

[Vantagepoint34]

The problem is you are biased due to constant media reporting.

Time spent in the UK versus all of the media mongering over guns in the US? No wonder you come out biased.

Besides, the Harvard Study includes Europe.

My study includes a study done by what happened to the economy in the 20's. Do you want me to share that one with you?:crackup:

 

[TheException]

Danger is 100% right

Also.....since when do criminals(like mass shooters) obey laws? What makes you think a ban on assault weapons will prevent them from obtaining them? An assault weapons ban would only take the gun out of responsible gun owners....

 

[Beardme321]

Danger is 100% right

Also.....since when do criminals(like mass shooters) obey laws? What makes you think a ban on assault weapons will prevent them from obtaining them? An assault weapons ban would only take the gun out of responsible gun owners....

I like this point of view.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Speaking of bans, it's only because of the drug "ban" that the cartels have money to buy those guns.

80% of US gun homicides are gang-related. They get their gun money from the illegal drug trade, too, and they typically kill each other over turf disputes. The point of having turf is to control the illegal drug market in that area. Turf is money.

If we want people to stop killing each other, the best way to do that would be to take away their reason to fight in the first place, as well as the lucrative business that pays for everything.

 

[Vantagepoint34]

Speaking of bans, it's only because of the drug "ban" that the cartels have money to buy those guns.

80% of US gun homicides are gang-related. They get their gun money from the illegal drug trade, too, and they typically kill each other over turf disputes. The point of having turf is to control the illegal drug market in that area. Turf is money.

If we want people to stop killing each other, the best way to do that would be to take away their reason to fight in the first place, as well as the lucrative business that pays for everything.

You support Colorado's stance on illegal substances?

 

[Bible_Belt]

I don't think legalizing cocaine, heroin, and meth (3 of the biggest moneymakers for the cartels) is the solution either.

It worked in Portugal.

 

[user43770]

According to the records of the FBI, overall homicides have gone down drastically since the 1990s (coincidentally, right around the time the assault weapons ban was implemented):

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html

Coincidentally, right around the time that concealed carry laws were being instituted around the country.

 

[Drumbum2000]

It worked in Portugal.

I thought Portugal was a Socialist empire. I must be mistaken.

 

[Married Buried]

You support Colorado's stance on illegal substances?

Hell yes. When can that freedom spread eastword? I'm saving up money for some legal weed. Time to get a fake Colorado ID? I bet that business is booming.

There are more pale-skinned people in Ireland, a place where they drink lots of Guiness, yet the skin cancer rate is lower. So by the above quality of reasoning, Guiness must prevent skin cancer.

The COPS in London don't even carry guns. There was not a shooting in the 3 weeks I was there.

 

[Bible_Belt]

you’ll see that illicit drug use actually increased from 7.8% to 12% during decriminalization.

No, I'll see a statistic. They are not the same thing as facts. The first thing to wonder about a statistic is how accurate it is. You look for intervening variables that may have been responsible for the results. If you are comparing survey responses from a time when they put drug users in jail, then the survey participants are going to be have been much less forthcoming as compared to having little or no punishment. They are also going to put a lot more effort into not getting caught in the first place when the punishment is jail and not therapy.

Other statistics point to it having been a success. HIV dropped dramatically, so did Hepatitis. There were fewer street corpses of dead junkies. Teen drug use dropped. Police and court system workload was reduced as well. There is a pattern of at least minor social improvements. It may be a short-lived experiment, anyway, as the EU is threatening to make them cut their drug treatment funding in the name of "fiscal austerity."

 

[Bible_Belt]

The people who collected the data acknowledged that getting accurate information about drug use is notoriously difficult, because they're good scientists and are always looking for intervening variables that can lead to bad conclusions.

http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2010_Caitlin_211621_1.pdf

The information we have presented adds to the current literature on the impacts of decriminalization. It disconfirms the hypothesis that decriminalization necessarily leads to increases in the most harmful forms of drug use. While small increases in drug use were reported by Portuguese adults, the regional context of this trend suggests that they were not produced solely by the 2001 decriminalization. We would argue that they are less important than the major reductions seen in opiate-related deaths and infections, as well as reductions in young people’s drug use.

 

[user43770]

Wishful thinking by the pro-gun lobby. If you look at my studies, they will show that murders committed by assault weapons went down when the ban was implemented, and that they went up again after the ban expired and was not renewed. If the decrease had been due to concealed carry laws, then that decrease would have continued since concealed carry laws had not been repealed.

From the Pennsylvania study you referenced:

“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence,” said the unreleased NIJ report, written by Christopher Koper, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

You clearly only looked at Senator Feinstein's interpretation of the study. She's an anti-gun liberal.

The last time there was a gun debate here you linked to a bogus anti-gun website.

 

[Bible_Belt]

and in this report, you can see

I can see you're quoting the Office of National Drug Control Policy on drugs, lol. That's like quoting Obama on Obamacare.

And on top of all this, Portugal is becoming today what Amsterdam's coffee houses were in the 1990s: a gateway for organized criminals to traffic harder drugs to the rest of Europe. This is the REAL reason why the rest of the European Union is pressuring Portugal to end its failed decriminalization program.

Ahh yes, a vast left-wing conspiracy it is indeed. And it make perfect sense that the EU is going after drug treatment program funding first, right? Those clinics must all be run by the mafia!

 

[user43770]

The problem here is that you focused on the details of the study and neglected the most important finding:

“In sum, this examination of the Assault Weapon ban’s impact on gun prices and production suggests that there has likely been a sustained reduction in criminal use of Assault Weapons since the ban.”

Of course anti-gun politicians are going to use a study that finds that more guns = more homicides. To expect anything else would be totally irresponsible. But I guess you’re just going to ignore all of the studies I provided which show how increased regulation of firearms lead to fewer deaths, because they were also cited by people who are trying to save lives. Regardless, all of my quotes - including the one of the University of Pennsylvania study - were from the study itself and not from any politicians.

I cited a Harvard study that was referenced by an anti-gun website. Again, of course anti-gun advocates are going to use studies that support their argument. You don’t seriously expect an anti-gun website to NOT reference a scientific study which finds that more guns cause more death do you.

No, they're going to use portions of studies that support their claims. Apparently, the NRA uses the same study (Koper) to prove their argument.

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/1-30-13LaPierreTestimony.pdf


And as for more guns = more homicides, none of these studies account for homicides committed in self-defense. They never do.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The Office of National Drug Policy...is tasked with finding the best way to solve the drug problem, even if that means decriminalization or legalization.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. I thought their job was to use tax dollars to make those 30-second comedy skits they put in with the TV commercials.Because of YOU, all right? I learned it by watching you!!!

 

[Vantagepoint34]

I can see you're quoting the Office of National Drug Control Policy on drugs, lol. That's like quoting Obama on Obamacare.



Ahh yes, a vast left-wing conspiracy it is indeed. And it make perfect sense that the EU is going after drug treatment program funding first, right? Those clinics must all be run by the mafia!

:woo: Yes secret societies like Mondelari are coming for you haha J/K. In other news the North Freezes. While Taylord is on the loose.

 

[Vantagepoint34]

Are you going to complain that you can't have a reasoned discussion with me because I just proved that your study is (a) based on false statistics and (b) not even a Harvard study as you have claimed it is throughout this entire thread?

Again let me summarize my previous post for you:

I DEMONSTRATED HOW THE AUTHORS OF YOUR STUDY FALSIFIED THE STATISTICS THEY USED IN THEIR ANALYSIS.

THEREFORE, YOUR STUDY IS WORTHLESS GARBAGE. IT IS NOT EVEN WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON.

And I told you why I ignored most of your comments: it's because they're all based on this one study which is a laughing stock in academic circles because the authors falsified the statistics they used in their analysis.

I can't believe you entirely ignored the fact that I proved your study's authors lied, and then you're still wondering why I'm not responding to the conclusion you have adopted from this study. And instead of even acknowledging the fact that your authors lied, you try to switch the subject and claim that I have been hurting your feelings. Unbelievable.

Do you have any independent polls supporting your facts Brad? I think this would clear up your situation. Be right back going to my bbq in my backyard.

Anyways back to my studies during the time of Prohibition. Where Alcohol was banned. What did we get out of it. We repealed it twice. Then brought it back. Created a couple of enemies in the process. And begging two grand wars while it was going on. Anyone want to repute that one.

 

[Vantagepoint34]

Danger, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your study, which you have been referring to as a Harvard study, is not even a Harvard study.

It is a laughing stock because its authors actually falsified the statistics involved in its analysis.

And yet you are still arguing here. You are just copying and pasting your previous posts, using the conclusion of a study which has been falsified, as I have demonstrated.

All your ridiculous attempts to be an expert statistician and discuss variables is most amusing, as you have absolutely NO ABILITY WHATSOEVER to tell what makes one study good and another bad: You cannot even tell that your study was not a Harvard study, even though you have been calling it one during this entire thread.

I'm sorry to say this to you bro I love our debates but the fact that you still even keep coming back here to argue over and over again is the ultimate in pathetic.

Would a study from Oxford be enough for you? Or should I grab one from Holland. To prove you otherwise.