Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Aim1, Feb 25, 2018.
IIRC, a recent FBI study indicated the assault weapon ban didn't help a thing. Murder rates were on a downward trend during the ban, but the trend had started before the ban had been enacted.
Steponallofus did a lot of conflating and Ms. Loesch ought to have been better prepared.
Homicides did decline during the AWB, leveling off after the AWB, and then declining again to their present levels. From the available data, it would be very difficult to support the notion that the AWB accomplished anything. The AWB just banned certain cosmetic features. It's hard to imagine how that would affect crime rates.
The DOJ did publish a report at the end of the AWB (required by the enabling legislation), and was unable to establish any beneficial effect. "Too soon to tell."
I would no more credit anything from "thinkprogress" than I would from the neo-Nazi National Vanguard or the NAMBLA newsletter.
From the article:
“In her appearance, Loesch repeatedly danced around Stephanopoulos’s point that, during the U.S.’s decade-long ban on assault weapons, both incidents and deaths due to the weapons dropped dramatically. As Stephanopoulos pointed out, research from the University of Massachusetts’ Louis Klarevas found that, from 1994-2004, there were only 12 incidents – about one per year – due to assault weapons, totaling some 89 deaths.
In the decade following, however, both numbers spiked. From 2004-2014, there were 34 incidents involving assault weapons – and over 300 deaths.“
The ban was against nothing more than cosmetic features of the machines, so whatever statistical variances there were in the before/during/after were attributable to some other factors.
Even congress saw fit to let it sunset, which says a lot about its ineffectiveness.
These media sources are usually biased one way or the other.
Even if the figures changed during and after the AWB, it does not change the fact that criminals can get guns and do not follow laws. So what's their point??? Are they saying that somehow badguys couldn't get AR's during the AWB?
Check and mate.
As Mark Twain said "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics". Without knowing what 'incidents' are included it's impossible to lend much validity to the statistics the ever moderate Mr. Stephanopoulos brought up. Have seen that the USA has more 'gun deaths' than other countries...but they include suicides, police shootings, accidents...ect. which really shouldn't be included in 'crime' statistics and are just there to pad the numbers because an agenda is being pursued.
Not surprising. Having a TOTAL MORON like Loesch as a NRA spokesman is asking for trouble. She is a publicity seeker looking for the bigger prize.
Your point, Berettaprofessor? You were trying to say ... what? .... when you twice quoted Cayce Charles' post?
Inquiring minds want to know.
She's normally quite expressive about her opinions, and is hardly a moron. I haven't seen the tv interview, and either the article was highly biased, or Ms. Loesch was caught unprepared by the tv host.
As a former statistics teacher, I couldn't help notice how they cherry picked their data. Why do they lump 2004-2014? Might it be that the mass shootings jumped up beginning with 2008 when Obama took office? If so, that runs contrary to their narrative. Could this be propaganda masquerading as research? Without the raw data and vetting by other professionals in the field, there's no way to know.
The NRA's in trouble. Doesn't matter who their spokesperson is. The worm has turned. I'm not sure it's the NRA's responsibility to come up with any answers but people want to vilify someone. What easier target than an organization that is trying to turn back the tide of anti-gun legislation. People clearly want more gun control because they feel that legislation is at least trying to address the problem.
Just about everyone here knows it isn't going to change anything. The AR's and AK's will come from somewhere just like any firearm any criminal uses to commit a crime.
Another big problem I see looming is patrol officers not wanting to engage a shooter with a semi auto rifle. That's going to take a lot of cajones, especially if you don't have the fire power or tactical training. That's more akin to a military operation than anything else, especially if the shooter has military training. Just to refresh everyone's memory here.
It's pretty tough to prepare for something like that.
This problem of domestic terrorism is somewhat similar to the 9/11 attack, it's just coming from a different place with fewer casualties. Trying to legislate this away would be like congress trying to legislate radical Islamic terrorism away. Everyone knew that wasn't going to work because flying aircraft into buildings was already illegal and the planes didn't fly themselves into those buildings. Something needed to be done pronto.
The solution was databases and a whole new department (DHS) designed to combat the threat. My name happened to be in one of those databases ( no criminal record and a natural born citizen) but I still had to jump thru hoops with delays to board a plane.
That's what it's going to take in this situation. A lot more tax dollars at the local level and a whole new approach to identifying these would be shooters with prompt investigations, firearm seizures , arrests and data into a new NCIC database. Maybe some legislation not aimed at the entire population of rifle purchasers but aimed at people who express a desire to shoot up schools or carry out other domestic terrorist attacks. I'm not seeing anyone addressing that, just a lot of AR owners or potential buyers being thrown under the bus.
The NRA has made these points but nobody is listening and they won't until it becomes clear that regulating rifles and magazines isn't the answer. People are just that stupid.
We are talking in the general context about school shootings and what will make a difference right?
"Assault weapons" are the de facto standard long arm for *every* gun use, lawful, unlawful, hunting, competition, miltary.
So, they claim that statistically, an item in extremely and increasingly common use, is becoming increasingly common in a subset of crimes? Well no duh.
Fact is, firearm & other homicides are down near record lows (but for the contributions of a handful of antigun strongholds), and firearm accidents are at record lows & still falling. Mass shootings, in fact all long-gun shootings, are still too vanishingly uncommon to conflate withbbroad statistics analysis, but IIRC aren't hugely different from other eras (including the ban years), unless the criteria for 'mass' or 'school' shootings is greatly broadened.
It's an accurate, but highly misleading data point, which is why Dana had a hard time refuting it out of hand. 'Dancing' around a question is another dishonest term, since a statistic figure itself is not a 'question'
I sincerely doubt that we'll see another AWB come out of this.
Police will always have an image problem if they're portrayed as hunkering down behind cars during a shooting. The fact is police, with handguns, have taken out shooters armed with evil black rifles before....it's really more about tactics and strategies than the gun itself.
While I agree Ms. Loesch ought to have been more articulate, other pundits have responded appropriatly.
IMHO, we're not anywhere near as bad off as you suggest....but Ms. Loesch does need a refresher course.
What is failed to be mentioned by Stephanopolus is the fact that after the AWB sunsetted the extreme amount of "assault weapons" (their term not mine) that was purchased in the subsequent years would have no doubt skewed the data towards a higher prevalence of "assault weapons" used in homicides. I can only imagine that a graph on revolver purchases (or other AWB safe firearms) as compared to semi-auto purchases after the AWB would have painted a drastic picture of why they were seeing an uptick (if this is true) in "assault weapon" use % in homicides. DUH
Maybe you would like to try your hand at it?
Easy to criticize setting at home on your computer.
I didn't see George coming up with any plan other than another AWB that didn't work.
Nope, he just wanted to skewer the NRA.
I once knew an administrator who said before you start tearing down someones program you probably should have some fresh ideas of your own to contribute. SOS from the media, different day.
She's certainly better than Wayne LaPierre with his bad comb-over.
It's interesting how we let the mainstream media steer the discussion. From Wikipedia's list of mass shootings over the past 70 years - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States - I count a total of 453 fatalities (including the perpetrators).
In 2017, Chicago recorded 650 murders.
Which is the bigger problem?
And that's just Chicago. When you add in the other cities with similar problems it's no contest. But you'll never hear that from our "free press".
Exactly. The AR-type wasn't even that popular prior to 1994, despite having been available for civilian purchase for four decades. The "AWB" became, by its results, a ten-year product preview, and subsequent attempts to excoriate it have driven it into an unprecedented level of popularity and demand, more of an unintended marketing campaign than a solution to any problem.
A more accurate statement would be to count the number of mass shootings in which an AR-type is used relative to the number in current lawful circulation than simply to say "AR-involved violence is on the rise."
Quoting the numbers in post five, as provided by Stephanopoulis, shows almost a tri-fold increase in incidents of the type being discussed. I'd bet that the number of AR-types in circulation (and the number of "whining young losers" of the type perpetrating these incidents) has increased by ten-fold or more.
In a completely prepared speech she said this: "Many in legacy media love mass shootings. You guys love it. Now, I'm not saying that you love the tragedy. But I am saying that you love the ratings. Crying white mothers are ratings gold to you and many in the legacy media."
That does absolutely nothing to help the NRA brand and a lot to damage it. I don't think it is a coincidence that other companies started dropping their NRA affiliations after that completely stupid statement.
And yet the statement is factual...ratings are up, parents are crying, and mass media is clearly excitedly taking every advantage
Separate names with a comma.