Common Sense Gun Control

[houndawg]

I’m not sure the ban did “nothing”. And while there’s no silver bullet, a cultural shift away from the fetishism of violence is part of the solution.

As for other countries, don’t let imperfect comparisons be the enemy of the good.

Look it up the data and objectively study it. Break it down by who, when , how, and why. Then get back to me. Statistically speaking, the assault weapon ban did nothing. There are plenty of comparisons between states that have different gun restrictions and those that do not. One can easily do a cross comparison, normalize the factors and look at the results. But that does not sell advertisement, nor does it get the particular bases worked up.

Truth of the matter is that the last two shootings (Buffalo and Uvalde), the shooter passed all background checks and had a clean psychiatric records. "Expanding" background checks would have done nothing to stop them.

Imperfect comparisons result in imperfect conclusions that unless studied in that light, results in false correlations

getting shot with an AR is not the same as getting shot with a 9mm

[kalm]

I’m not sure the ban did “nothing”. And while there’s no silver bullet, a cultural shift away from the fetishism of violence is part of the solution.

As for other countries, don’t let imperfect comparisons be the enemy of the good.

Look it up the data and objectively study it. Break it down by who, when , how, and why. Then get back to me. Statistically speaking, the assault weapon ban did nothing. There are plenty of comparisons between states that have different gun restrictions and those that do not. One can easily do a cross comparison, normalize the factors and look at the results. But that does not sell advertisement, nor does it get the particular bases worked up.

Truth of the matter is that the last two shootings (Buffalo and Uvalde), the shooter passed all background checks and had a clean psychiatric records. "Expanding" background checks would have done nothing to stop them.

Imperfect comparisons result in imperfect conclusions that unless studied in that light, results in false correlations

We also don’t know about the shootings that won’t or haven’t happened through various mitigating factors. You’re still letting the perfect be the enemy of the good via cherry picking. It’s a little bit of it all. Gun culture, violent culture, mental health, availability of guns. There are too many guns to significantly reduce the number. But we can do better.

[kalm]

[houndawg]

Look it up the data and objectively study it. Break it down by who, when , how, and why. Then get back to me. Statistically speaking, the assault weapon ban did nothing. There are plenty of comparisons between states that have different gun restrictions and those that do not. One can easily do a cross comparison, normalize the factors and look at the results. But that does not sell advertisement, nor does it get the particular bases worked up.

Truth of the matter is that the last two shootings (Buffalo and Uvalde), the shooter passed all background checks and had a clean psychiatric records. "Expanding" background checks would have done nothing to stop them.

Imperfect comparisons result in imperfect conclusions that unless studied in that light, results in false correlations

We also don’t know about the shootings that won’t or haven’t happened through various mitigating factors. You’re still letting the perfect be the enemy of the good via cherry picking. It’s a little bit of it all. Gun culture, violent culture, mental health, availability of guns. There are too many guns to significantly reduce the number. But we can do better.

Not because he wants to, because its just the place you get forced into when you're trying to defend the indefensible, which he seems to to have some strange compulsion to keep trying

[BDKJMU]

What is the criteria? 1 shot? Multiple? 1 killed? Multiple? Police shootings? On school property? Off school property but the roundbd(s) hit someone on school property? Your #s are BS without a link, Chizzang.

The criteria is that it was a shooting at a school. It doesn't take marksmanship into account.

Not a lot of action until after WW2 when you started seeing alot more semi-autos on the market, a few decades before Columbine.

Population growth and resultant crowding are very likely big contributors too, in keeping with the results of Calhoun's experiments on population density.

More people. More high-capacity weapons. More deaths.

Link, or your stats are BS..

[BDKJMU]

I’m not sure the ban did “nothing”. And while there’s no silver bullet, a cultural shift away from the fetishism of violence is part of the solution.

As for other countries, don’t let imperfect comparisons be the enemy of the good.

Look it up the data and objectively study it. Break it down by who, when , how, and why. Then get back to me. Statistically speaking, the assault weapon ban did nothing. There are plenty of comparisons between states that have different gun restrictions and those that do not. One can easily do a cross comparison, normalize the factors and look at the results. But that does not sell advertisement, nor does it get the particular bases worked up.

Truth of the matter is that the last two shootings (Buffalo and Uvalde), the shooter passed all background checks and had a clean psychiatric records. "Expanding" background checks would have done nothing to stop them.

Imperfect comparisons result in imperfect conclusions that unless studied in that light, results in false correlations

Agreed with most of what you stated but the Buffalo shooter had been involuntarily brought in for mental health evaluation thr year prior..

[BDKJMU]

Look it up the data and objectively study it. Break it down by who, when , how, and why. Then get back to me. Statistically speaking, the assault weapon ban did nothing. There are plenty of comparisons between states that have different gun restrictions and those that do not. One can easily do a cross comparison, normalize the factors and look at the results. But that does not sell advertisement, nor does it get the particular bases worked up.

Truth of the matter is that the last two shootings (Buffalo and Uvalde), the shooter passed all background checks and had a clean psychiatric records. "Expanding" background checks would have done nothing to stop them.

Imperfect comparisons result in imperfect conclusions that unless studied in that light, results in false correlations

getting shot with an AR is not the same as getting shot with a 9mm

In 2020, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available, according to the FBI. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (36%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as “type not stated.”

In other words, in those 64% of cases where the weapon is stated, its about 92% handguns, 5% rifles (everything from MSRs to bolt action & pump), 2% shotguns..
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... n-the-u-s/

Just like liberals focusing on 3% of black homicide victims (by police, mostly justified) and ignoring the 90% (black on black).

[UNI88]

What is common sense gun control?

There is a limit to how far we can go in infringing upon a right to bear arms. So while bans/registries might get the liberal base all riled up, are they realistic?

Securing the schools sounds great but can we do it without turning them into prisons? Where will the funding come from? Will conservatives put their money where their mouth is and support tax increases to make it possible?

Why don't states act as laboratories trying different methods to see what works? A conservative state like Texas could focus on securing schools while a more liberal state like New York could focus on gun restrictions that might pass Constitutional muster.

Rather than talking in my way or the highway absolutes, why won't our politicians try to find solutions that are agreeable to enough on both sides to pass?

[Winterborn]

Look it up the data and objectively study it. Break it down by who, when , how, and why. Then get back to me. Statistically speaking, the assault weapon ban did nothing. There are plenty of comparisons between states that have different gun restrictions and those that do not. One can easily do a cross comparison, normalize the factors and look at the results. But that does not sell advertisement, nor does it get the particular bases worked up.

Truth of the matter is that the last two shootings (Buffalo and Uvalde), the shooter passed all background checks and had a clean psychiatric records. "Expanding" background checks would have done nothing to stop them.

Imperfect comparisons result in imperfect conclusions that unless studied in that light, results in false correlations

We also don’t know about the shootings that won’t or haven’t happened through various mitigating factors. You’re still letting the perfect be the enemy of the good via cherry picking. It’s a little bit of it all. Gun culture, violent culture, mental health, availability of guns. There are too many guns to significantly reduce the number. But we can do better.

Your first point is valid and all the more reason to look at the data from the past to see what works and didn't work.

As for me cherry picking data, it is not my fault that the data does not support your claims. There has only been 13 mass school shootings since 1966 and while I agree one is too many, I am not wiling to throw out the baby with the bath water (add more restrictions on the 2nd amendment that have not been proven to work).

If you want to discuss all of the gun violence, then that is a different topic and one I am happy to have. As you are correct, that is a complex topic and there is no one solution. As long as that solution does not put the over 81 million American gun owners under undo burden and violate the 2nd Amendment, I am open to any solution that has a proven track record. Right now most everything suggested by the Dems will do nothing to stop the current topic of mass school shootings (nor a good part of gun violence). I am all for a stricter enforcement of current gun laws, but I am not a fan of "feel good" measures that will only accomplish being a hindrance to people who want to lawfully own a firearm.

My "do better" is enforce the current laws. How many shootings have been because current data sharing has not been done or the government has messed up the paperwork under current laws?

[Winterborn]

What is common sense gun control?

There is a limit to how far we can go in infringing upon a right to bear arms. So while bans/registries might get the liberal base all riled up, are they realistic?

Securing the schools sounds great but can we do it without turning them into prisons? Where will the funding come from? Will conservatives put their money where their mouth is and support tax increases to make it possible?

Why don't states act as laboratories trying different methods to see what works? A conservative state like Texas could focus on securing schools while a more liberal state like New York could focus on gun restrictions that might pass Constitutional muster.

Rather than talking in my way or the highway absolutes, why won't our politicians try to find solutions that are agreeable to enough on both sides to pass?

The definition of common sense is as varied as the people in this country. Mine is different than yours, which is different than AZ's, which is different than Klam's. Starting with that premise is flawed and shows a lack of foresight or willing to compromise. There are 50 states in this Union, all with different gun laws and some that have been on the books for decades. We also have National laws that have come and gone for reference. The FBI keeps very good records of all the gun related violence. The comparisons are there if people are truly honest about looking at all the data.

Bans/registries are a non-starter across the board and both sides know this. But they are good are getting people on both sides of the isle excited. Hence why we are at this point as it evokes a Pavloian response at this point for both sides. And that is all they want because it gives the politicians a place to point the finger at come re-election time.

All good points and questions otherwise.

[Baldy]

We also don’t know about the shootings that won’t or haven’t happened through various mitigating factors. You’re still letting the perfect be the enemy of the good via cherry picking. It’s a little bit of it all. Gun culture, violent culture, mental health, availability of guns. There are too many guns to significantly reduce the number. But we can do better.

Your first point is valid and all the more reason to look at the data from the past to see what works and didn't work.

As for me cherry picking data, it is not my fault that the data does not support your claims. There has only been 13 mass school shootings since 1966 and while I agree one is too many, I am not wiling to throw out the baby with the bath water (add more restrictions on the 2nd amendment that have not been proven to work).

If you want to discuss all of the gun violence, then that is a different topic and one I am happy to have. As you are correct, that is a complex topic and there is no one solution. As long as that solution does not put the over 81 million American gun owners under undo burden and violate the 2nd Amendment, I am open to any solution that has a proven track record. Right now most everything suggested by the Dems will do nothing to stop the current topic of mass school shootings (nor a good part of gun violence). I am all for a stricter enforcement of current gun laws, but I am not a fan of "feel good" measures that will only accomplish being a hindrance to people who want to lawfully own a firearm.

My "do better" is enforce the current laws. How many shootings have been because current data sharing has not been done or the government has messed up the paperwork under current laws?

My guess...that's their plan.

Implement ineffective restrictions that feel and sound 'good' but will only burden legal safe gun owners so that when it happens again, they will be able to enact even more stringent burdensome ineffective restrictions.

[houndawg]

What is common sense gun control?

There is a limit to how far we can go in infringing upon a right to bear arms. So while bans/registries might get the liberal base all riled up, are they realistic?

Securing the schools sounds great but can we do it without turning them into prisons? Where will the funding come from? Will conservatives put their money where their mouth is and support tax increases to make it possible?

Why don't states act as laboratories trying different methods to see what works? A conservative state like Texas could focus on securing schools while a more liberal state like New York could focus on gun restrictions that might pass Constitutional muster.

Rather than talking in my way or the highway absolutes, why won't our politicians try to find solutions that are agreeable to enough on both sides to pass?

The definition of common sense is as varied as the people in this country. Mine is different than yours, which is different than AZ's, which is different than Klam's. Starting with that premise is flawed and shows a lack of foresight or willing to compromise. There are 50 states in this Union, all with different gun laws and some that have been on the books for decades. We also have National laws that have come and gone for reference. The FBI keeps very good records of all the gun related violence. The comparisons are there if people are truly honest about looking at all the data.

Bans/registries are a non-starter across the board and both sides know this. But they are good are getting people on both sides of the isle excited. Hence why we are at this point as it evokes a Pavloian response at this point for both sides. And that is all they want because it gives the politicians a place to point the finger at come re-election time.

All good points and questions otherwise.

Divide and conquer, bidniz as usual.

[UNI88]

What is common sense gun control?

There is a limit to how far we can go in infringing upon a right to bear arms. So while bans/registries might get the liberal base all riled up, are they realistic?

Securing the schools sounds great but can we do it without turning them into prisons? Where will the funding come from? Will conservatives put their money where their mouth is and support tax increases to make it possible?

Why don't states act as laboratories trying different methods to see what works? A conservative state like Texas could focus on securing schools while a more liberal state like New York could focus on gun restrictions that might pass Constitutional muster.

Rather than talking in my way or the highway absolutes, why won't our politicians try to find solutions that are agreeable to enough on both sides to pass?

The definition of common sense is as varied as the people in this country. Mine is different than yours, which is different than AZ's, which is different than Klam's. Starting with that premise is flawed and shows a lack of foresight or willing to compromise. There are 50 states in this Union, all with different gun laws and some that have been on the books for decades. We also have National laws that have come and gone for reference. The FBI keeps very good records of all the gun related violence. The comparisons are there if people are truly honest about looking at all the data.

Bans/registries are a non-starter across the board and both sides know this. But they are good are getting people on both sides of the isle excited. Hence why we are at this point as it evokes a Pavloian response at this point for both sides. And that is all they want because it gives the politicians a place to point the finger at come re-election time.

All good points and questions otherwise.

I don't think either side is using common sense, regardless of what it is to them. They're both more interested in sticking to their talking points than actually trying to make things better. As you and others have mentioned, putting a concerted effort and funding toward making sure existing laws and processes are followed would be a huge step forward.

As far as bans are concerned, there appears to be an acceptable line for infringement, where is it? Why is it ok to ban private ownership of RPGs and bazookas but not automatics?

[Winterborn]

The definition of common sense is as varied as the people in this country. Mine is different than yours, which is different than AZ's, which is different than Klam's. Starting with that premise is flawed and shows a lack of foresight or willing to compromise. There are 50 states in this Union, all with different gun laws and some that have been on the books for decades. We also have National laws that have come and gone for reference. The FBI keeps very good records of all the gun related violence. The comparisons are there if people are truly honest about looking at all the data.

Bans/registries are a non-starter across the board and both sides know this. But they are good are getting people on both sides of the isle excited. Hence why we are at this point as it evokes a Pavloian response at this point for both sides. And that is all they want because it gives the politicians a place to point the finger at come re-election time.

All good points and questions otherwise.

I don't think either side is using common sense, regardless of what it is to them. They're both more interested in sticking to their talking points than actually trying to make things better. As you and others have mentioned, putting a concerted effort and funding toward making sure existing laws and processes are followed would be a huge step forward.

As far as bans are concerned, there appears to be an acceptable line for infringement, where is it? Why is it ok to ban private ownership of RPGs and bazookas but not automatics?

Well I fall into a much different point than most on this. I do not think there should be any ban on private military weapons outside of nuclear/biological/chemical weapons (basically WMD's). I am all for making a tiered system (for anything fully automatic and up) for ownership and responsibilities/punishment must reflect those levels of ownership. I.E. that if a RPG that one owns is stolen and used in a bank robbery, you as the former owner are held responsible (with the punishments that go along with it) for the use of said weapon.

And technically that system exists currently I believe. Just need to be corporation. (Though I could be wrong as I have not looked too much into this as a fully automatic weapons i.e. belt fed are well outside of my price range and I could never afford the ammo I would use target practicing).

[Ibanez]

I don't think either side is using common sense, regardless of what it is to them. They're both more interested in sticking to their talking points than actually trying to make things better. As you and others have mentioned, putting a concerted effort and funding toward making sure existing laws and processes are followed would be a huge step forward.

As far as bans are concerned, there appears to be an acceptable line for infringement, where is it? Why is it ok to ban private ownership of RPGs and bazookas but not automatics?

Well I fall into a much different point than most on this. I do not think there should be any ban on private military weapons outside of nuclear/biological/chemical weapons (basically WMD's). I am all for making a tiered system (for anything fully automatic and up) for ownership and responsibilities/punishment must reflect those levels of ownership. I.E. that if a RPG that one owns is stolen and used in a bank robbery, you as the former owner are held responsible (with the punishments that go along with it) for the use of said weapon.

And technically that system exists currently I believe. Just need to be corporation. (Though I could be wrong as I have not looked too much into this as a fully automatic weapons i.e. belt fed are well outside of my price range and I could never afford the ammo I would use target practicing).

I want an armored HMMWV with a CROWS system.

[BDKJMU]

What is common sense gun control?

There is a limit to how far we can go in infringing upon a right to bear arms. So while bans/registries might get the liberal base all riled up, are they realistic?

Securing the schools sounds great but can we do it without turning them into prisons? Where will the funding come from? Will conservatives put their money where their mouth is and support tax increases to make it possible?

Why don't states act as laboratories trying different methods to see what works? A conservative state like Texas could focus on securing schools while a more liberal state like New York could focus on gun restrictions that might pass Constitutional muster.

Rather than talking in my way or the highway absolutes, why won't our politicians try to find solutions that are agreeable to enough on both sides to pass?

A majority of schools I beleive have an SRO. Yeah would cost $$ to fund the ones that don’t.

Having one inlocked entrance with an SRO/armed security not going to cost a lot- many/majority? schools already have that.

Not propping open doors that should remain locked cost zero.

Keeping classroom doors locked cost zero unless you go lecars or passcode.

The $54 billion gave Ukraine would have funded A Lot of school security..

[BDKJMU]

The definition of common sense is as varied as the people in this country. Mine is different than yours, which is different than AZ's, which is different than Klam's. Starting with that premise is flawed and shows a lack of foresight or willing to compromise. There are 50 states in this Union, all with different gun laws and some that have been on the books for decades. We also have National laws that have come and gone for reference. The FBI keeps very good records of all the gun related violence. The comparisons are there if people are truly honest about looking at all the data.

Bans/registries are a non-starter across the board and both sides know this. But they are good are getting people on both sides of the isle excited. Hence why we are at this point as it evokes a Pavloian response at this point for both sides. And that is all they want because it gives the politicians a place to point the finger at come re-election time.

All good points and questions otherwise.

I don't think either side is using common sense, regardless of what it is to them. They're both more interested in sticking to their talking points than actually trying to make things better. As you and others have mentioned, putting a concerted effort and funding toward making sure existing laws and processes are followed would be a huge step forward.

As far as bans are concerned, there appears to be an acceptable line for infringement, where is it? Why is it ok to ban private ownership of RPGs and bazookas but not automatics?

WTF Are you talking about Automatics are banned post 1986. And pre ban have to have go through a full proctological with the ATF, along with tax stamp.

[GannonFan]

What is common sense gun control?

There is a limit to how far we can go in infringing upon a right to bear arms. So while bans/registries might get the liberal base all riled up, are they realistic?

Securing the schools sounds great but can we do it without turning them into prisons? Where will the funding come from? Will conservatives put their money where their mouth is and support tax increases to make it possible?

Why don't states act as laboratories trying different methods to see what works? A conservative state like Texas could focus on securing schools while a more liberal state like New York could focus on gun restrictions that might pass Constitutional muster.

Rather than talking in my way or the highway absolutes, why won't our politicians try to find solutions that are agreeable to enough on both sides to pass?

A majority of schools I beleive have an SRO. Yeah would coat $$ to fund the ones that don’t.

Having one inlocked entrance with an SRO/armed security not going to cost a lot- many/majority? schools already have that.

Not propping open doors that should remain locked cost zero.

Keeping classroom doors locked cost zero unless you go lecars or passcode.

The $54 billion gave Ukraine would have funded A Lot of school security..

A majority have an SRO? I'd like to see that data. Just in my own neck of the woods (SE PA) the schools I know of mostly don't have a dedicated SRO. Some may share one, but that's one person for multiple buildings. Only the high schools routinely have one or more SRO, and I'm not even sure they are armed (the ones in the non-high school buildings are not).

[UNI88]

What is common sense gun control?

There is a limit to how far we can go in infringing upon a right to bear arms. So while bans/registries might get the liberal base all riled up, are they realistic?

Securing the schools sounds great but can we do it without turning them into prisons? Where will the funding come from? Will conservatives put their money where their mouth is and support tax increases to make it possible?

Why don't states act as laboratories trying different methods to see what works? A conservative state like Texas could focus on securing schools while a more liberal state like New York could focus on gun restrictions that might pass Constitutional muster.

Rather than talking in my way or the highway absolutes, why won't our politicians try to find solutions that are agreeable to enough on both sides to pass?

Most schools have a SRO. Yeah would coat $$ to fund the ones that don’t.

Having one inlocked entrance with an SRO/armed security not going to cost a lot- many/majority? schools already have that.

Not propping open doors that should remain locked cost zero.

Keeping classroom doors locked cost zero unless you go lecars or passcode.

The $54 billion gave Ukraine would have funded A Lot of school security..

Most schools have a SRO. Yeah would coat $$ to fund the ones that don’t. Agree with Ganny, most schools in my experience don't have an SRO.

Having one unlocked entrance isn't that difficult. All of the schools that I worked at either had that or locked all entrances and required visitors to buzz in. Doesn't mean that someone couldn't forcibly take a passcard and gain entrance but it would help.

Not propping open doors that should remain locked sounds great but it's going to happen occasionally unless you have an alarm on all doors. Classrooms get stuffy, teachers open doors. It's human nature and it's an indictment of society that we need to prevent them from doing that.

Keeping classroom doors locked cost zero unless you go passcards or passcode. Feasible but a little bit of PITA for teachers to have to unlock doors when bringing elementary classes back from lunch, recess, etc. Could be problematic for substitutes who don't have the card/code.

What about overcrowded schools with temporary classrooms outside of the building (trailers)? Students and the school itself are extremely vulnerable when transitioning in and out. How will the construction to make sure every student is taught in the secure building be funded?

...

Better mental health care is needed and requires funding as well but Republicans seem to be vehemently opposed to additional healthcare funding. Maybe if Trump had actually delivered on his promised yugely improved Obamacare replacement ...

[houndawg]

What is common sense gun control?

There is a limit to how far we can go in infringing upon a right to bear arms. So while bans/registries might get the liberal base all riled up, are they realistic?

Securing the schools sounds great but can we do it without turning them into prisons? Where will the funding come from? Will conservatives put their money where their mouth is and support tax increases to make it possible?

Why don't states act as laboratories trying different methods to see what works? A conservative state like Texas could focus on securing schools while a more liberal state like New York could focus on gun restrictions that might pass Constitutional muster.

Rather than talking in my way or the highway absolutes, why won't our politicians try to find solutions that are agreeable to enough on both sides to pass?

A majority of schools I beleive have an SRO. Yeah would coat $$ to fund the ones that don’t.

Having one inlocked entrance with an SRO/armed security not going to cost a lot- many/majority? schools already have that.

Not propping open doors that should remain locked cost zero.

Keeping classroom doors locked cost zero unless you go lecars or passcode.

The $54 billion gave Ukraine would have funded A Lot of school security..

As if schools would have seen a penny of that money.

fucking pinhead.

[UNI88]

I don't think either side is using common sense, regardless of what it is to them. They're both more interested in sticking to their talking points than actually trying to make things better. As you and others have mentioned, putting a concerted effort and funding toward making sure existing laws and processes are followed would be a huge step forward.

As far as bans are concerned, there appears to be an acceptable line for infringement, where is it? Why is it ok to ban private ownership of RPGs and bazookas but not automatics?

WTF Are you talking about Automatics are banned post 1986. And pre ban have to have go through a full proctological with the ATF, along with tax stamp.

I don't know WTF I'm talking about. I have a life that doesn't revolve around guns. Modifies but doesn't substantially change the original question, how is a ban on automatics, not an infringement?

Based on the current makeup of the SCOTUS, how long before gun advocates mount a legal challenge to the ban?

[kalm]

A majority of schools I beleive have an SRO. Yeah would coat $$ to fund the ones that don’t.

Having one inlocked entrance with an SRO/armed security not going to cost a lot- many/majority? schools already have that.

Not propping open doors that should remain locked cost zero.

Keeping classroom doors locked cost zero unless you go lecars or passcode.

The $54 billion gave Ukraine would have funded A Lot of school security..

As if schools would have seen a penny of that money.

fucking pinhead.

We couldn’t afford to stop the spread of fascism or raising taxes , but hey! Fucking safer schools!

[JohnStOnge]

Here is an abstract of an abstract of a study concluding mass shooting deaths were lower during the "assault weapons" ban:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30188421/

Conclusion: Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004.

There is also this statement:

Assault rifles accounted for 430 or 85.8% of the total 501 mass-shooting fatalities...

As for what "assault rifles" are, I think it's safe to say that they are whatever was banned by the ban.

So that's the deal. Mass shooting deaths are a small percentage of total homicides. But if you are looking at mass shooting deaths, "assault rifles" are obviously a factor.

[JohnStOnge]

Now back to overall homicides. Yesterday and today I looked at the data on civilian gun ownership rates at https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country, data on how developed each country is at https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... -countries, and data on total homicide rates at https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country.

There is not sufficient evidence to say that, when all countries are considered, that more civilian owned firearms is associated with higher homicide rates. There IS sufficient evidence to say that more development is associated with lower homicide rates. Also, there is still not sufficient evidence to say civilian gun ownership rate is a factor even if you control for development.

I also tried looking at whether there is sufficient evidence to say gun ownership is a factor if you just look at G20 countries. There isn't.

The ONE thing is that, if you ONLY look at the G7, there is a highly significant correlation (>99.99% confidence) that, among the G7, more civilian gun ownership is associated with higher homicide rate). That's kind of remarkable to get that high a confidence level with only 6 pairs (data not available for UK).

But it should be noted that the United States is rated 76 of 196 in homicide rate at https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country. It's got a homicide rate of 4.96 per 100,000. It'd be nice if it was better than that. But, to put that into context, the top rate is 52.02. Gun control advocates should not be acting as though this is the most dangerous place to live in the world.

[BDKJMU]

WTF Are you talking about Automatics are banned post 1986. And pre ban have to have go through a full proctological with the ATF, along with tax stamp.

I don't know WTF I'm talking about. I have a life that doesn't revolve around guns. Modifies but doesn't substantially change the original question, how is a ban on automatics, not an infringement?

Based on the current makeup of the SCOTUS, how long before gun advocates mount a legal challenge to the ban?

You don’t have to have a life that revolves around guns to know that fully automatics have long been banned. I’ve seen countless times libs (not saying you’re a lib) saying we need to ban automatics, along with assault rifles, machine guns, and I just

I think it is an infringement.

I have no idea if a challenge would be mounted that reached SCOTUS, or if it would be successfull.