2nd amendment supporters

Can you cite your source, please? You can't just say shit and expect people to believe you. Although that tactic seems to be working for many Americans.

The only legit source I could find on that was this:

"In 1994 and 1996, Congress also passed changes to the Gun Control Act making it a federal crime in certain
situations for domestic abusers to possess guns." from http://www.justice.gov/usao/gan/documents/federallaws.pdf

Is that the one you are referring to?

 

I think he was referring to the Gun Control Act of 1968. Though even that doesn't really support the claims he was making (ie taking weapons away).

 

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

My bad it happened in 1994
and yeah the guns were obtained illegally by the students who did columbine. I am sorry I think that you would be able to remember parts of history without me needing to recite a source YouFreeMe, ya know cause it was kind of....ALL OVER THE NEWS

 

SO according to that, a bolt action shotgun, because it has a detachable magazine...is an assault weapon... if it holds 6 rounds?

 

Still doesn't support your claim that they were "taken away".

Regardless, the 1994 ban was a joke and it was shown to have no measurable effect on gun crime in the United States. It was a waste of time and paper.

 

No measureable effect is an exaggeration, it's efficacy was rather mixed. Essentially crimes committed by assault weapons decreased (effective), but it was made up for with crimes by other types of guns (ineffective).

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

 

Would "no real effect" have been better?

Decreased from minimal to even more minimal. According to the National Research Council in 2004 "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."

Also, according to the National Institute of Justice in 2004: "Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading"

In other words, the ban went after weapons that were used very, very rarely in regards to crime. Those guns did, however, look really really scary. Reason enough I suppose.

 

Well I'm pretty sure the gun ban of 1996 wasn't ALL OVER THE NEWS. Because you posted misinformation. And while the guns may have been obtained illegally by the students who "did Columbine" there WAS an armed guard in the school.

"As a CNN report describes, Gardner was eating lunch when he got a call from a custodian that he was needed in the school’s back parking lot. A few minutes later, he encountered Harris and the two exchanged gunfire. Harris was not hit and ran back inside the school. At that point, “Gardner called for additional units to respond to the south parking lot of Columbine High School. … While he was on the radio calling for assistance, five other Jefferson County deputies already were on their way, arriving only minutes after the first report of a ‘female down’ at Columbine High School.” Later, Gardner saw Harris again, through a broken window. Once again, he fired. Once again, he didn’t hit him."

I mentioned this earlier in the thread. This is one of many examples of why I'm not sure more guns would be the solution. Especially when acts of gun violence are premeditated, like the ones at Columbine and Virgina Tech. Armed guards in both of these places didn't seem to help the situation; having a gun is not always a match for the element of surprise afforded by a premeditated act.

And you can't say "Maelstrom....there was a gun control act in 1996...they did take them away...columbine happened....learn your facts "

That isn't exactly a perfectly logical deduction.

 

Except that none of those quotes actually seem to be based on the data available after the ban. "...gun violence outcomes would be very small..." Would be? So they didn't look at the evidence already available? Seems like you may have left out the important parts of the quote.

"Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement." "Likely." Once again, are they looking at the actual data or not?

Why not provide the actual sources instead of cherry picking quotes?

 

Sorry, that was a typo on my part. Should have read 2004 and not 1994. Again, sorry. I'll fix it.

Both were written in 2004. Cherry picking? Would you rather I have copied and pasted the entirety of the reports? Be a little realistic.

Source 1: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=96

Source 2: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

 

I remembered wrong, human error, I corrected myself, now get over yourself ^_^

 

Well obviously links are fine, I should think that would be self evident. My issue was that the quotes you provided seemed to be more talking about a prognostication in regards to renewing the ban, as opposed to the efficacy the ban actually had while still in place. It was tough to tell since they didn't have any context.

Thanks for providing the links. Interestingly, particularly the second link, they're essentially the same source I provided (Koper). (Well the link I provided was an analysis of Koper, anyway.)

"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."

I think we simply disagree on what makes a ban 'worth it'. If it would contribute to a 'small reduction in shootings', I think that would be at least a small success and worthy of renewal.

 

lol sorry wrong thread , but I do like that we are being civil once again in this thread

 

Agreed that we, well, disagree. The use of such weapons in violent crime was negligible prior to the ban and remains negligible after its expiration. That said, I don't think the point of the ban was to reduce crime at all. It was simply a way of caving to those who, in my opinion, let emotion dictate their stance and not logic.

 

I can't argue that. Seems to be the norm in politics.

 

Sig and I disagree on a number of issues. Fortunately we have yet to fix bayonets. :sunny:

 

speaking about bayonets, and laws on fixed bayonets....

What if its on a sporterized rifle, and its one of the ones that you can fold downward so its not sticking, its folded by the side of the barrel. Would this count as a fixed bayonet

 

Under that ban, yes. Rifles couldn't even have a bayonet lug.

 

That's kind of silly. So I could carry a bayonet around but just couldn't affix it to a rifle?