MSNBC Gun Poll blows up in their face

[Spider-Dan]

Oh, I agree that among the many laws that armed criminals in Chicago (who buy guns in IN) are breaking, one of them is the federal law regulating transport of weapons across state lines.  That's not my point of contention.

My point of contention is as follows:

1) It is entirely legal for private sellers in IN to sell to a buyer without checking what state they are from
2) There is no practical legal mechanism to prevent guns from being transported across the state line from IN to IL
3) Both of the above facts combine to make it easy for criminals to acquire guns in IN for use in the commission of crimes in Chicago, regardless of whatever gun regulations may exist in IL

If either a) there was a mechanism to legally enforce the regulation of sales to out-of-state private buyers, or b) there was a mechanism to enforce the regulation of transporting guns across state lines, then your points about the federal code would be relevant.  But a law with no valid enforcement mechanism is no law at all.

[pondwater]

If either a) there was a mechanism to legally enforce the regulation of sales to out-of-state private buyers, or b) there was a mechanism to enforce the regulation of transporting guns across state lines, then your points about the federal code would be relevant.  But a law with no valid enforcement mechanism is no law at all.

Sorry, this thread got lost in the shuffle. Anyhow, what's your Utopian mechanism to reduce Chicago gun violence? 

[Spider-Dan]

The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban would be a nice start.  Adding mandatory federal background checks for EVERY gun sale would also help.

[pondwater]

The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban would be a nice start.  Adding mandatory federal background checks for EVERY gun sale would also help.

Most studies including official government findings conclude that the 94 AWB didn't have much effect, if any at all. The main factor is that so called "assault weapons" and rifles in general only account for a very small percentage of over all homicides. There simply isn't a big enough pool of victims to reduce effectively.

Also, as noted many times in the past. "Assault weapon" is a made up term used to describe a weapon with certain cosmetic features. In other words, they look scary. An AR15 is no more dangerous than any other semi auto firearm. And if your reply is going to be, "but I want to ban all semi autos." Save your breath, we all know that's a non starter and won't happen.

Now, on to the mandatory federal background checks. You're still going to run into the same problem you have with the federal law I posted. How are you going to enforce it? If criminals are breaking the federal laws already, why would they not break the new law? How exactly are you going to enforce it?

[Spider-Dan]

Most studies including official government findings conclude that the 94 AWB didn't have much effect, if any at all. The main factor is that so called "assault weapons" and rifles in general only account for a very small percentage of over all homicides.

The weapons previously regulated in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban are used frequently in mass shootings.

Also, as noted many times in the past. "Assault weapon" is a made up term used to describe a weapon with certain cosmetic features.

I have no interest in the "So tell me what an assault weapon is?" game.  The definitions are in the law, and that law is what I propose re-enacting.  Unless you're claiming that no one could figure out what was covered under that law...?

Now, on to the mandatory federal background checks. You're still going to run into the same problem you have with the federal law I posted. How are you going to enforce it? If criminals are breaking the federal laws already, why would they not break the new law?

Simple: LEOs are dispatched to gun shows in IN (and across the country).  If private sellers are selling guns to buyers without getting a background check, sellers are arrested on the spot.

As I keep repeatedly saying, the problem I am talking about is not that criminals are breaking laws.  The problem is that sellers are legally putting guns in the hands of criminals.  End the ability for law-abiding sellers to funnel guns into the hands of criminals, and you make it harder for criminals to get guns.

I mean, do you think that legalization of marijuana in WA, OR, CA, NV, and CO has an effect on the availability of illegal marijuana in ID and UT?  By your logic, the answer should be "no."

[pondwater]

The weapons previously regulated in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban are used frequently in mass shootings.

Again, you're missing the point. Most studies including official government findings conclude that the 94 AWB didn't have much effect, if any at all.

I have no interest in the "So tell me what an assault weapon is?" game.  The definitions are in the law, and that law is what I propose re-enacting.  Unless you're claiming that no one could figure out what was covered under that law...?

I didn't think you would. However, if you're going to propose banning something. At least be able to discuss why said item is going to be banned. Why can't you address why cosmetic features are a focal point of the definition of an "assault weapon"? Should we ban sports cars that are cosmetically similar to race cars that aren't street legal?

Simple: LEOs are dispatched to gun shows in IN (and across the country).  If private sellers are selling guns to buyers without getting a background check, sellers are arrested on the spot.

Gun shows are only a small percentage of private sales nationwide. How are you going to enforce all the non gun show sales? The answer is that you can't. Two people meet at a Walmart parking lot, in a park, or at a gas station and exchange money for merchandise. Just like an illegal drug deal. The fact is that most laws rely on citizens following the law. For the vast majority of laws only a very small percentage of law breakers are ever caught. '94 AWB already didn't work. And your universal background check isn't going to work. Chicago's problem isn't law abiding citizens of a neighboring state. Chicago's problem is it's own criminal citizens that they don't seem to want to deal with. There are plenty of states that don't have background checks on private sales, but also don't have the violent crime problem that Chicago has.

[Spider-Dan]

Again, you're missing the point. Most studies including official government findings conclude that the 94 AWB didn't have much effect, if any at all.

Nah.





Let me guess: total coincidence that those stats all drop precipitously in 1994.  Maybe it was the Democrats' crime bill!

However, if you're going to propose banning something. At least be able to discuss why said item is going to be banned.

I know you really want to make this discussion all about the definition of what an "assault weapon" is, but I'm not playing.  Congress already answered this question a quarter-century ago.

Gun shows are only a small percentage of private sales nationwide.

Then that sounds like a great place to start!  Best to start with a law that is simply and easily enforced first, before trying to enact any complicated and difficult ones.

How are you going to enforce all the non gun show sales? The answer is that you can't. Two people meet at a Walmart parking lot, in a park, or at a gas station and exchange money for merchandise. Just like an illegal drug deal. The fact is that most laws rely on citizens following the law.

Sounds like you think laws are a waste of time.  Criminals will just break them anyway!  I'm sure you are also for open borders, right?

As I've already said, my immediate goal is to end the practice of legal sellers making it easy for criminals to acquire guns.  Baby steps.

[pondwater]

Let me guess: total coincidence that those stats all drop precipitously in 1994.  Maybe it was the Democrats' crime bill!

Those stats have nothing to do with "assault weapons" or "mass shootings". Those are total stats. "Assault weapons" and "mass shootings" make up a very small percentage of total overall firearm deaths. You're being obtuse and playing numbers games. However, many of your cherry picked stats continued to drop after the 94 AWB ended. Which actually proves that the numbers were dropping with or without the flawed 94 AWB legislation. Thanks for proving my point

I know you really want to make this discussion all about the definition of what an "assault weapon" is, but I'm not playing.  Congress already answered this question a quarter-century ago.

We all know the liberal definition of "assault weapon". I just want to know how defining something based mostly on cosmetic features makes it more dangerous? It's not because you don't want to discuss it. It's because you can't discuss it. Because it's so ludicrous, silly, and retarded that there is no rational answer you can give without making yourself look stupid. That's why no common sense gun legislation has been passed in Congress. Because banning something based on how it looks isn't common sense. It's pure non sense. 

Then that sounds like a great place to start!  Best to start with a law that is simply and easily enforced first, before trying to enact any complicated and difficult ones.
Sounds like you think laws are a waste of time.  Criminals will just break them anyway!  I'm sure you are also for open borders, right?

As I've already said, my immediate goal is to end the practice of legal sellers making it easy for criminals to acquire guns.  Baby steps.

You want universal background checks on ALL private sales. How is that easy to enforce? You can send law enforcement to every gun show in the country. However, as noted earlier, gun shows are only a small percentage of face to face private sales nationwide. How are you going to enforce the vast majority of private party sales that happen outside of gun shows?  Or do you want background checks on private party sales at gun shows only? Please enlighten me because you're not explaining yourself very well.

[Cathal]

Those stats have nothing to do with "assault weapons" or "mass shootings". Those are total stats. "Assault weapons" and "mass shootings" make up a very small percentage of total overall firearm deaths. You're being obtuse and playing numbers games. However, many of your cherry picked stats continued to drop after the 94 AWB ended. Which actually proves that the numbers were dropping with or without the flawed 94 AWB legislation. Thanks for proving my point
 
We all know the liberal definition of "assault weapon". I just want to know how defining something based mostly on cosmetic features makes it more dangerous? It's not because you don't want to discuss it. It's because you can't discuss it. Because it's so ludicrous, silly, and retarded that there is no rational answer you can give without making yourself look stupid. That's why no common sense gun legislation has been passed in Congress. Because banning something based on how it looks isn't common sense. It's pure non sense. 

You want universal background checks on ALL private sales. How is that easy to enforce? You can send law enforcement to every gun show in the country. However, as noted earlier, gun shows are only a small percentage of face to face private sales nationwide. How are you going to enforce the vast majority of private party sales that happen outside of gun shows?  Or do you want background checks on private party sales at gun shows only? Please enlighten me because you're not explaining yourself very well.

So.... can you explain why those numbers started falling around 1994?

[Dave Gray]

So.... can you explain why those numbers started falling around 1994?

According to a book I read called Freakonomics, one that I would highly recommend, the answer is "abortion".  It became legal in 1973.  Those that are likely to commit violent crimes are more statistically likely to come from broken homes, poor socio-economic conditions, or from unwanted parents.  After Roe v. Wade, the number of children born into these circumstances dropped, which means that there were fewer likely criminals coming of age around 1994.

And while you might argue that they are correlated, but not causal, the book shows similar trends about 20 years later in other countries, as well as the reverse, where violent crimes take a sharp uptake about 20 years after abortion is outlawed.

[pondwater]

So.... can you explain why those numbers started falling around 1994?

I don't need to. Those numbers have nothing to do with "assault weapons" or "mass shootings". A drop in total firearm deaths is totally different from a drop in mass shooting and/or assault weapon deaths. Since "assault weapons" and/or "mass shootings" make up a statistically very small percentage of total firearm deaths represented in those graphs, those graphs aren't relevant to this conversation
 

A 2019 study found that the ban accounted for a 0.1% reduction in total firearm homicide rates due to the reduction in mass-shootings' contribution to total homicides during the 10 years that the assault weapon ban was in effect.

Something that would be better explained is why those numbers continued to drop after the AWB ended. If Spider claims that the AWB caused the numbers to drop back in 94, then logic would dictate that those numbers would reverse themselves and rise after the AWB ended in 2004. They didn't, they kept dropping. Simply because pistol grips, bayonet mounts, and grenade launchers aren't something you see used in mass shootings. When is the last time you saw a mass shooter using a bayonet or grenade launcher to kill people? Ummmmm, like never. That's why Spider doesn't want to discuss how "assault weapons" are defined. Because it's all a retarded scam and he knows it. He's just blindly following the far lefts agenda whether it makes any sense or not.

[CF DolFan]

Lol ... Dave Chappell probably summarized it better than anyone IMO. “I don't get mad at 'em, don't hate on 'em," he said. "Man, it's not that serious. The First Amendment is first for a reason. Second Amendment is just in case the First one doesn't work out”