The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Had Little Or No Effect On Gun Crime

[mg]

"Koper, who is currently an associate professor in the Department of
Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University, provided this
summary:

Koper, Jan. 14: What we found in these studies was that the ban had
mixed effects in reducing crimes with the banned weaponry due to
various exemptions that were written into the law. And as a result,
the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was
in effect. But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have
modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period.

That the law did not have much of an impact on overall gun crime came
as little surprise, Koper said. For one, assault weapons were used in
only 2 percent of gun crimes before the ban. And second, existing
weapons were grandfathered, meaning there were an estimated 1.5
million pre-ban assault weapons and 25 million to 50 million
large-capacity magazines still in the U.S.

“So obviously, these grandfathering provisions had major implications
for how the effects of the law would unfold over time,” Koper said.

The study found “clear indications that the use of assault weapons in
crime did decline after the ban went into effect” and that assault
weapons were becoming rarer as the years passed (this is the part of
the study Feinstein seized on). But, he said, the reduction in the use
of assault weapons was “offset through at least the late 1990s by
steady or rising use of other semi-automatics equipped with
large-capacity magazines.”

And here is the part that LaPierre highlights:

Koper, Jan 14: In general we found, really, very, very little
evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal
or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we
concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime
during the years it was in effect.

But Koper went on to say that an assault weapons ban “could
potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings” if
allowed to remain in place for a longer time frame.

Koper, Jan. 14: 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."
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/




-------------------------------
I don't hate on "both sides" to
feel superior. I could feel
superior on either side. I hate
"both sides" to show them that
there are more than two sides.
? T.J. Kirk

[El Castor]

Post by mg
"Koper, who is currently an associate professor in the Department of
Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University, provided this
Koper, Jan. 14: What we found in these studies was that the ban had
mixed effects in reducing crimes with the banned weaponry due to
various exemptions that were written into the law. And as a result,
the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was
in effect. But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have
modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period.
That the law did not have much of an impact on overall gun crime came
as little surprise, Koper said. For one, assault weapons were used in
only 2 percent of gun crimes before the ban. And second, existing
weapons were grandfathered, meaning there were an estimated 1.5
million pre-ban assault weapons and 25 million to 50 million
large-capacity magazines still in the U.S.
“So obviously, these grandfathering provisions had major implications
for how the effects of the law would unfold over time,” Koper said.
The study found “clear indications that the use of assault weapons in
crime did decline after the ban went into effect” and that assault
weapons were becoming rarer as the years passed (this is the part of
the study Feinstein seized on). But, he said, the reduction in the use
of assault weapons was “offset through at least the late 1990s by
steady or rising use of other semi-automatics equipped with
large-capacity magazines.”
Koper, Jan 14: In general we found, really, very, very little
evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal
or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we
concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime
during the years it was in effect.
But Koper went on to say that an assault weapons ban “could
potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings” if
allowed to remain in place for a longer time frame.
Koper, Jan. 14: 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."
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

Small reductions would become large if sale and posession were banned,
and severe penaties imposed if used in connection with the commission
of a crime. In any event, I think it's obvious that the "it wouldn't
work" argument is just an excuse to prevent or delay a ban. It's like
saying, why ban murder -- people will still kill each other.

[me]

And people do murder each other. Drugs have been banned for a long time but are still traded and used. Same with prostitution. Consider this: why do we have a military? Is it prevent other national governments from stealing a nation? Why not ban bombs and tanks in the military?

What is decreed illegal for people can be legal for government. Prohibition made the alcohol business a crime and created a black market for alcohol before government exploited that industry for taxes. Gambling was decreed a crime until government found it profitable. States are starting to legalize (and tax) production and trade of marijuana. It is illegal for people to print money yet the government does it at will. Can some clever bureaucrat devise a way to tax forgery? Illegal surveillance of Americans by the ‘security’ apparatus has been growing. Much of what the CIA does violates foreign laws.

Looting is illegal everywhere outside of government.
http://www.endit.info/Solutions.shtml
http://www.endit.info/PoliceState.shtml

[El Castor]

Post by me
And people do murder each other. Drugs have been banned for a long time but are still traded and used. Same with prostitution. Consider this: why do we have a military? Is it prevent other national governments from stealing a nation? Why not ban bombs and tanks in the military?
What is decreed illegal for people can be legal for government. Prohibition made the alcohol business a crime and created a black market for alcohol before government exploited that industry for taxes. Gambling was decreed a crime until government found it profitable. States are starting to legalize (and tax) production and trade of marijuana. It is illegal for people to print money yet the government does it at will. Can some clever bureaucrat devise a way to tax forgery? Illegal surveillance of Americans by the ‘security’ apparatus has been growing. Much of what the CIA does violates foreign laws.
Looting is illegal everywhere outside of government.
http://www.endit.info/Solutions.shtml
http://www.endit.info/PoliceState.shtml

But, make sale or posession of an automatic weapon punishable by 10
mandatory years in a federal penetentiary, and criminals might be
forced to switch to six shooters. The cops would like that because
they would still be armed with automatics. Anyhow, I can see the need
for guns by homeowners unfortunate enough to live in bad areas of
cities like our local Oakland and Richmond, to name a few, but
wouldn't shotguns and revolvers be enough? BTW, a retired cop relative
tell me that converting some semi-auto handguns to full auto is very
easy.

Pictures of a couple of semi-auto owners.

Loading Image...
Loading Image...

Brings tears to my eyes when I think of the trauma that taking their
guns away would cause. Black guns matter!!

[me]

Do you suppose they have a permit for those?

[El Castor]

Post by me
Do you suppose they have a permit for those?

If they faced real prison time for posession, maybe they would revert
to a revolver or a big knife? Sorry, but I don't buy the "why bother"
argument.

[me]

They face prison time -serious prison time - for killing. Yet killing continues. Guns don’t kill. People do. Possession is not harmful. Why criminalize it? Cops possess guns. Some cops kill people. Would you blame guns for that?

[El Castor]

They face prison time -serious prison time - for killing. Yet killing continues. Guns don’t kill. People do. Possession is not harmful. Why criminalize it? Cops possess guns. Some cops kill people. Would you blame guns for that?

Murder is illegal, and "yet killing continues". Why criminalize
murder? I would suggest that by criminalizing murder, we have less of
it. I certainly don't support a complete ban on guns, but we do
currently ban certain kinds of guns.

Do you support a ban on machine guns and fully automatic rifles and
pistols? Should I be able to buy a 50 caliber machine gun at the local
gun store?
https://www.military.com/equipment/m2-50-caliber-machine-gun

[me]

I have no problem with you buying a machine gun or tank. I would have a serious problem if you use it to commit a crime. Tanks don’t kill people - people kill people. Ban killers.

[El Castor]

I have no problem with you buying a machine gun or tank. I would have a serious problem if you use it to commit a crime. Tanks don’t kill people - people kill people. Ban killers.

Grenades, too? Poison gas? Flame thrower? I bet you would also be OK
if I could buy heroin off the shelf in the local super market. Right?
Ah, libertarianism makes life so simple!

[mg]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:16:21 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
"Koper, who is currently an associate professor in the Department of
Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University, provided this
Koper, Jan. 14: What we found in these studies was that the ban had
mixed effects in reducing crimes with the banned weaponry due to
various exemptions that were written into the law. And as a result,
the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was
in effect. But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have
modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period.
That the law did not have much of an impact on overall gun crime came
as little surprise, Koper said. For one, assault weapons were used in
only 2 percent of gun crimes before the ban. And second, existing
weapons were grandfathered, meaning there were an estimated 1.5
million pre-ban assault weapons and 25 million to 50 million
large-capacity magazines still in the U.S.
“So obviously, these grandfathering provisions had major implications
for how the effects of the law would unfold over time,” Koper said.
The study found “clear indications that the use of assault weapons in
crime did decline after the ban went into effect” and that assault
weapons were becoming rarer as the years passed (this is the part of
the study Feinstein seized on). But, he said, the reduction in the use
of assault weapons was “offset through at least the late 1990s by
steady or rising use of other semi-automatics equipped with
large-capacity magazines.”
Koper, Jan 14: In general we found, really, very, very little
evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal
or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we
concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime
during the years it was in effect.
But Koper went on to say that an assault weapons ban “could
potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings” if
allowed to remain in place for a longer time frame.
Koper, Jan. 14: 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."
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

Small reductions would become large if sale and posession were banned,
and severe penaties imposed if used in connection with the commission
of a crime.

I don't see any reason to believe that they would ever become large
scale because criminals don't use a lot of semi-automatic weapons,
anyway.

However, based on your hypothetical that possession would be banned
immediately and based on your hypothetical that there would be severe
penalties, I do think there would be a significant reduction in mass
shooting casualties, especially if combined with techniques to
"harden" soft targets, like schools, for instance.

But then that's like saying if we had some ham we could have some ham
and eggs, if we had some eggs, and if wishes were fishes, we would all
have a fry because there's no reason to believe that those
hypotheticals that you mentioned would ever become anything more than
a pipe dream.

Post by El Castor
In any event, I think it's obvious that the "it wouldn't
work" argument is just an excuse to prevent or delay a ban.

Now, what are you doing? Are you doing the psychological mumbo jumbo
thing instead of discussing the actual issues?

The reason that I'm saying that it probably won't work is because of
the reasons the author provided and you apparently agreed with.

Post by El Castor
It's like
saying, why ban murder -- people will still kill each other.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:38:59 -0600, mg <***@none.nl> wrote:


They're just pussyfooting around because the great majority
in congress is terrified of the NRA. If they got off their butts
and really tried to do something, maybe they'd have better
results, but they're just a bunch of wimps so the situation is
hopeless at present.

Somebody, perhaps H.L.Mencken, said something like
"Every time I feel that congress can't get any worse, it proves
me wrong."

Post by mg
"Koper, who is currently an associate professor in the Department of
Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University, provided this
Koper, Jan. 14: What we found in these studies was that the ban had
mixed effects in reducing crimes with the banned weaponry due to
various exemptions that were written into the law. And as a result,
the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was
in effect. But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have
modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period.
That the law did not have much of an impact on overall gun crime came
as little surprise, Koper said. For one, assault weapons were used in
only 2 percent of gun crimes before the ban. And second, existing
weapons were grandfathered, meaning there were an estimated 1.5
million pre-ban assault weapons and 25 million to 50 million
large-capacity magazines still in the U.S.
“So obviously, these grandfathering provisions had major implications
for how the effects of the law would unfold over time,” Koper said.
The study found “clear indications that the use of assault weapons in
crime did decline after the ban went into effect” and that assault
weapons were becoming rarer as the years passed (this is the part of
the study Feinstein seized on). But, he said, the reduction in the use
of assault weapons was “offset through at least the late 1990s by
steady or rising use of other semi-automatics equipped with
large-capacity magazines.”
Koper, Jan 14: In general we found, really, very, very little
evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal
or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we
concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime
during the years it was in effect.
But Koper went on to say that an assault weapons ban “could
potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings” if
allowed to remain in place for a longer time frame.
Koper, Jan. 14: 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."
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/
-------------------------------
I don't hate on "both sides" to
feel superior. I could feel
superior on either side. I hate
"both sides" to show them that
there are more than two sides.
? T.J. Kirk

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
They're just pussyfooting around because the great majority
in congress is terrified of the NRA. If they got off their butts
and really tried to do something, maybe they'd have better
results, but they're just a bunch of wimps so the situation is
hopeless at present.
Somebody, perhaps H.L.Mencken, said something like
"Every time I feel that congress can't get any worse, it proves
me wrong."

There are at least two reasons why an effective assault weapon ban law
cannot be passed by anybody, anywhere -- not by the federal government
and not by a state government. To be effective, an assault gun ban
needs at least two elements, as Jeff pointed out:

1. The immediate confiscation and removal of those kinds of guns from
all owners of those weapons.

2. Severe Penalties for violating the law.

In regard to #2, it simply cannot be done. It just isn't going to
happen. Believing that it would ever happen is like believing in the
tooth fairy.

The reason it won't happen is because many, if not most, Democrats
probably oppose it and most all black leaders definitely, absolutely
oppose it. The reason that black leaders oppose it is because they
have already been burned by punitive crime laws they feel were
prejudicial to blacks such as Reagan's Anti-Drug Abuse Acts, and
Lyndon Johnson's Safe Streets Act of 1968, and Bill Clinton's 1994
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

In regard to #1, if a comprehensive assault ban bill ever was to pass,
it would undoubtedly be on a very close vote, and if it included a
provision to remove every assault weapon from all owners in the United
States, people would probably attack congress with pitch forks, not to
mention that it might cost the government about $100 billion to buy
them all and then destroy them. As a result, I doubt if there's has
ever been any suggestion, by anybody, to confiscate these weapons.
Instead the plan has always been to allow people who already own them
to keep them.

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
"Koper, who is currently an associate professor in the Department of
Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University, provided this
Koper, Jan. 14: What we found in these studies was that the ban had
mixed effects in reducing crimes with the banned weaponry due to
various exemptions that were written into the law. And as a result,
the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was
in effect. But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have
modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period.
That the law did not have much of an impact on overall gun crime came
as little surprise, Koper said. For one, assault weapons were used in
only 2 percent of gun crimes before the ban. And second, existing
weapons were grandfathered, meaning there were an estimated 1.5
million pre-ban assault weapons and 25 million to 50 million
large-capacity magazines still in the U.S.
“So obviously, these grandfathering provisions had major implications
for how the effects of the law would unfold over time,” Koper said.
The study found “clear indications that the use of assault weapons in
crime did decline after the ban went into effect” and that assault
weapons were becoming rarer as the years passed (this is the part of
the study Feinstein seized on). But, he said, the reduction in the use
of assault weapons was “offset through at least the late 1990s by
steady or rising use of other semi-automatics equipped with
large-capacity magazines.”
Koper, Jan 14: In general we found, really, very, very little
evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal
or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we
concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime
during the years it was in effect.
But Koper went on to say that an assault weapons ban “could
potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings” if
allowed to remain in place for a longer time frame.
Koper, Jan. 14: 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."
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/
-------------------------------
I don't hate on "both sides" to
feel superior. I could feel
superior on either side. I hate
"both sides" to show them that
there are more than two sides.
? T.J. Kirk

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin
They're just pussyfooting around because the great majority
in congress is terrified of the NRA. If they got off their butts
and really tried to do something, maybe they'd have better
results, but they're just a bunch of wimps so the situation is
hopeless at present.
Somebody, perhaps H.L.Mencken, said something like
"Every time I feel that congress can't get any worse, it proves
me wrong."

There are at least two reasons why an effective assault weapon ban law
cannot be passed by anybody, anywhere -- not by the federal government
and not by a state government. To be effective, an assault gun ban
1. The immediate confiscation and removal of those kinds of guns from
all owners of those weapons.
2. Severe Penalties for violating the law.
In regard to #2, it simply cannot be done. It just isn't going to
happen. Believing that it would ever happen is like believing in the
tooth fairy.

Certainly not with Republicans in control.

Post by mg
The reason it won't happen is because many, if not most, Democrats
probably oppose it and most all black leaders definitely, absolutely
oppose it. The reason that black leaders oppose it is because they
have already been burned by punitive crime laws they feel were
prejudicial to blacks such as Reagan's Anti-Drug Abuse Acts, and
Lyndon Johnson's Safe Streets Act of 1968, and Bill Clinton's 1994
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

The times they are a'changin'

Post by mg
In regard to #1, if a comprehensive assault ban bill ever was to pass,
it would undoubtedly be on a very close vote, and if it included a
provision to remove every assault weapon from all owners in the United
States, people would probably attack congress with pitch forks, not to
mention that it might cost the government about $100 billion to buy
them all and then destroy them. As a result, I doubt if there's has
ever been any suggestion, by anybody, to confiscate these weapons.
Instead the plan has always been to allow people who already own them
to keep them.

We could accomplish something by just not
allowing any "MORE" to be sold to civilians.
I suppose the ones that exist could still be
sold at gun shows, but at least the raw
numbers of them wouldn't be increasing much.

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
"Koper, who is currently an associate professor in the Department of
Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University, provided this
Koper, Jan. 14: What we found in these studies was that the ban had
mixed effects in reducing crimes with the banned weaponry due to
various exemptions that were written into the law. And as a result,
the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was
in effect. But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have
modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period.

We've had very limited, almost nonexistent, control. With that
factor, what Koper says is true, but only with that factor. The
NRA would like to say that factor is inevitable, but it's only
inevitable because of the NRA, and we can cripple their power
if we really want to.

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
That the law did not have much of an impact on overall gun crime came
as little surprise, Koper said. For one, assault weapons were used in
only 2 percent of gun crimes before the ban. And second, existing
weapons were grandfathered, meaning there were an estimated 1.5
million pre-ban assault weapons and 25 million to 50 million
large-capacity magazines still in the U.S.

Those 2% account for a lot more than 2% per gun, if you've
been following the news lately.

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
“So obviously, these grandfathering provisions had major implications
for how the effects of the law would unfold over time,” Koper said.
The study found “clear indications that the use of assault weapons in
crime did decline after the ban went into effect” and that assault
weapons were becoming rarer as the years passed (this is the part of
the study Feinstein seized on). But, he said, the reduction in the use
of assault weapons was “offset through at least the late 1990s by
steady or rising use of other semi-automatics equipped with
large-capacity magazines.”

Koper is perhaps a toady for the NRA. Why would it
be inevitable that only "certain kinds" of assault weapons
be banned, instead of ALL of them? The police and the
military need them, but they can be forbidden for
ordinary folks, with jail time for any violation, if we
really had the guts to do it that is, which we DON'T - YET.
I have absolutely no interest in anything
LaPierre has to say.

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
Koper, Jan 14: In general we found, really, very, very little
evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal
or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we
concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime
during the years it was in effect.
But Koper went on to say that an assault weapons ban “could
potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings” if
allowed to remain in place for a longer time frame.
Koper, Jan. 14: 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."
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/
-------------------------------
I don't hate on "both sides" to
feel superior. I could feel
superior on either side. I hate
"both sides" to show them that
there are more than two sides.
? T.J. Kirk

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin
They're just pussyfooting around because the great majority
in congress is terrified of the NRA. If they got off their butts
and really tried to do something, maybe they'd have better
results, but they're just a bunch of wimps so the situation is
hopeless at present.
Somebody, perhaps H.L.Mencken, said something like
"Every time I feel that congress can't get any worse, it proves
me wrong."

There are at least two reasons why an effective assault weapon ban law
cannot be passed by anybody, anywhere -- not by the federal government
and not by a state government. To be effective, an assault gun ban
1. The immediate confiscation and removal of those kinds of guns from
all owners of those weapons.
2. Severe Penalties for violating the law.
In regard to #2, it simply cannot be done. It just isn't going to
happen. Believing that it would ever happen is like believing in the
tooth fairy.

Certainly not with Republicans in control.

Black leaders typically oppose severe penalties for violating gun
laws:

"Chicago has been criticized for comparatively light sentencing
guidelines for those found illegally in possession of a firearm. . .
Rahm Emanuel has unsuccessfully pushed the Illinois General Assembly
for tougher sentencing guidelines for gun possession. Legislation was
opposed by African American legislators who felt it would unfairly
target blacks . . ."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago

Democrats, who support severe penalties, would lose the black vote (or
blacks would probably just stay home).
https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-whichhillary/index.html

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
The reason it won't happen is because many, if not most, Democrats
probably oppose it and most all black leaders definitely, absolutely
oppose it. The reason that black leaders oppose it is because they
have already been burned by punitive crime laws they feel were
prejudicial to blacks such as Reagan's Anti-Drug Abuse Acts, and
Lyndon Johnson's Safe Streets Act of 1968, and Bill Clinton's 1994
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

The times they are a'changin'

Post by mg
In regard to #1, if a comprehensive assault ban bill ever was to pass,
it would undoubtedly be on a very close vote, and if it included a
provision to remove every assault weapon from all owners in the United
States, people would probably attack congress with pitch forks, not to
mention that it might cost the government about $100 billion to buy
them all and then destroy them. As a result, I doubt if there's has
ever been any suggestion, by anybody, to confiscate these weapons.
Instead the plan has always been to allow people who already own them
to keep them.

We could accomplish something by just not
allowing any "MORE" to be sold to civilians.
I suppose the ones that exist could still be
sold at gun shows, but at least the raw
numbers of them wouldn't be increasing much.

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
"Koper, who is currently an associate professor in the Department of
Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University, provided this
Koper, Jan. 14: What we found in these studies was that the ban had
mixed effects in reducing crimes with the banned weaponry due to
various exemptions that were written into the law. And as a result,
the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was
in effect. But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have
modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period.

We've had very limited, almost nonexistent, control. With that
factor, what Koper says is true, but only with that factor. The
NRA would like to say that factor is inevitable, but it's only
inevitable because of the NRA, and we can cripple their power
if we really want to.

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
That the law did not have much of an impact on overall gun crime came
as little surprise, Koper said. For one, assault weapons were used in
only 2 percent of gun crimes before the ban. And second, existing
weapons were grandfathered, meaning there were an estimated 1.5
million pre-ban assault weapons and 25 million to 50 million
large-capacity magazines still in the U.S.

Those 2% account for a lot more than 2% per gun, if you've
been following the news lately.

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
“So obviously, these grandfathering provisions had major implications
for how the effects of the law would unfold over time,” Koper said.
The study found “clear indications that the use of assault weapons in
crime did decline after the ban went into effect” and that assault
weapons were becoming rarer as the years passed (this is the part of
the study Feinstein seized on). But, he said, the reduction in the use
of assault weapons was “offset through at least the late 1990s by
steady or rising use of other semi-automatics equipped with
large-capacity magazines.”

Koper is perhaps a toady for the NRA. Why would it
be inevitable that only "certain kinds" of assault weapons
be banned, instead of ALL of them? The police and the
military need them, but they can be forbidden for
ordinary folks, with jail time for any violation, if we
really had the guts to do it that is, which we DON'T - YET.
I have absolutely no interest in anything
LaPierre has to say.

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
Koper, Jan 14: In general we found, really, very, very little
evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal
or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we
concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime
during the years it was in effect.
But Koper went on to say that an assault weapons ban “could
potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings” if
allowed to remain in place for a longer time frame.
Koper, Jan. 14: 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."
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/
-------------------------------
I don't hate on "both sides" to
feel superior. I could feel
superior on either side. I hate
"both sides" to show them that
there are more than two sides.
? T.J. Kirk

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 11:32:25 -0600, mg <***@none.nl> wrote:
<snip>

Post by mg
Black leaders typically oppose severe penalties for violating gun

I can believe that, but it doesn't change the fact that
it's the Republicans in congress who support and are
supported by the NRA.

Post by mg
"Chicago has been criticized for comparatively light sentencing
guidelines for those found illegally in possession of a firearm. . .
Rahm Emanuel has unsuccessfully pushed the Illinois General Assembly
for tougher sentencing guidelines for gun possession. Legislation was
opposed by African American legislators who felt it would unfairly
target blacks . . ."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
Democrats, who support severe penalties, would lose the black vote (or
blacks would probably just stay home).
https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-whichhillary/index.html

Too bad Rahm Immanuel didn't succeed, but the
opposition was too strong. And I don't mean the
black opposition. Black opposition may have been
loud but it probably has nothing like the power of
the (white) Republican gun-totin' opposition.


-----------


It's all over the news here lately of two (white)
cops shooting an unarmed black man. The black
man didn't stop when told, and pointed something
at them that seemed to them to be a gun but
which was actually a cell phone camera. The
cops had been chasing this guy because he had
been serially breaking car windows day arter day,
causing thousands of dollars damage every day
in order to steal ones or tens of dollars of loot.
The guy does have a criminal record. His
grandmother was on TV crying her eyes out about
"my baby", but assuming the cops had the right
guy, I say "Good riddance to bad rubbish". I say
that as somebody who's had a window smashed twice
for robbery (netting binoculars in the glove compartment once, and
nothing the other). I've
also had my front and back car windows smashed
in just for vandalism. I would guess (although I
wasn't there) that was by a guy with a crowbar
riding in the back of a truck that was passing by.
If I'd been there and had an AK47 myself, I'd like
to have taken him out and the guy driving the
truck too, though if the cops caught them,
nothing would happen, but if the cops caught
me I'd be doing life in prison.

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
Black leaders typically oppose severe penalties for violating gun

I can believe that, but it doesn't change the fact that
it's the Republicans in congress who support and are
supported by the NRA.

Post by mg
"Chicago has been criticized for comparatively light sentencing
guidelines for those found illegally in possession of a firearm. . .
Rahm Emanuel has unsuccessfully pushed the Illinois General Assembly
for tougher sentencing guidelines for gun possession. Legislation was
opposed by African American legislators who felt it would unfairly
target blacks . . ."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
Democrats, who support severe penalties, would lose the black vote (or
blacks would probably just stay home).
https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-whichhillary/index.html

Too bad Rahm Immanuel didn't succeed, but the
opposition was too strong. And I don't mean the
black opposition. Black opposition may have been
loud but it probably has nothing like the power of
the (white) Republican gun-totin' opposition.
-----------
It's all over the news here lately of two (white)
cops shooting an unarmed black man. The black
man didn't stop when told, and pointed something
at them that seemed to them to be a gun but
which was actually a cell phone camera. The
cops had been chasing this guy because he had
been serially breaking car windows day arter day,
causing thousands of dollars damage every day
in order to steal ones or tens of dollars of loot.
The guy does have a criminal record. His
grandmother was on TV crying her eyes out about
"my baby", but assuming the cops had the right
guy, I say "Good riddance to bad rubbish". I say
that as somebody who's had a window smashed twice
for robbery (netting binoculars in the glove compartment once, and
nothing the other). I've
also had my front and back car windows smashed
in just for vandalism. I would guess (although I
wasn't there) that was by a guy with a crowbar
riding in the back of a truck that was passing by.
If I'd been there and had an AK47 myself, I'd like
to have taken him out and the guy driving the
truck too, though if the cops caught them,
nothing would happen, but if the cops caught
me I'd be doing life in prison.

It all seems so logical. If you don't like drinking alcohol, pass a
law against drinking. If you don't like drug abuse, pass a law against
drug abuse. If you don't like murder, or stealing, or reckless
driving, or adultery, pass a law and if you don't like mass shootings,
pass a law against semi-automatic guns. It just all seems so logical,
but it doesn't seem to work very well.

My daughter has a friend whose son had his throat cut at school about
a year ago. The kid survived, but I never did ask her if there was
going to be any permanent injury, like with his voice box, or anything
like that. The truth is that I don't really want to know.

Things like that just never used to happen in Utah County and now they
do.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 3/30/2018 1:00 AM, mg wrote:

{snip}

Post by mg
It all seems so logical. If you don't like drinking alcohol, pass a
law against drinking. If you don't like drug abuse, pass a law against
drug abuse. If you don't like murder, or stealing, or reckless
driving, or adultery, pass a law and if you don't like mass shootings,
pass a law against semi-automatic guns. It just all seems so logical,
but it doesn't seem to work very well.

Sure, some laws work better than others, but it seems you are
categorically rejecting proscription laws because they don't work. So,
murder laws don't work very well and we'd be no worse off not having
them. Really?

[me]

Laws actually can have the effect of encouraging anarchy. Surely you can find examples.

[mg]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:22:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

Post by mg
It all seems so logical. If you don't like drinking alcohol, pass a
law against drinking. If you don't like drug abuse, pass a law against
drug abuse. If you don't like murder, or stealing, or reckless
driving, or adultery, pass a law and if you don't like mass shootings,
pass a law against semi-automatic guns. It just all seems so logical,
but it doesn't seem to work very well.

Sure, some laws work better than others, but it seems you are
categorically rejecting proscription laws because they don't work. So,
murder laws don't work very well and we'd be no worse off not having
them. Really?

Actually, the point that I was trying to make was one that I've tried
to make before and that is that simply passing laws doesn't solve the
problem. In order to work, laws have to have stiff penalties combined
with high criminal capture rates. For instance, one of the problems
that they evidently have in Chicago is short prison sentences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago

As another example, the reason gun control laws don't have a high
degree of success is because of the minimal punishments imposed on
violators. For example, in the recent Maryland school shooting, there
is no penalty for the father, who didn't insure that his teenage son
couldn't gain access to it.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:22:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

Post by mg
It all seems so logical. If you don't like drinking alcohol, pass a
law against drinking. If you don't like drug abuse, pass a law against
drug abuse. If you don't like murder, or stealing, or reckless
driving, or adultery, pass a law and if you don't like mass shootings,
pass a law against semi-automatic guns. It just all seems so logical,
but it doesn't seem to work very well.

Sure, some laws work better than others, but it seems you are
categorically rejecting proscription laws because they don't work. So,
murder laws don't work very well and we'd be no worse off not having
them. Really?

Actually, the point that I was trying to make was one that I've tried
to make before and that is that simply passing laws doesn't solve the
problem. In order to work, laws have to have stiff penalties combined
with high criminal capture rates. For instance, one of the problems
that they evidently have in Chicago is short prison sentences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
As another example, the reason gun control laws don't have a high
degree of success is because of the minimal punishments imposed on
violators. For example, in the recent Maryland school shooting, there
is no penalty for the father, who didn't insure that his teenage son
couldn't gain access to it.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

OK. So perhaps more stringent gun laws are needed?

[mg]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:00:58 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:22:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

Post by mg
It all seems so logical. If you don't like drinking alcohol, pass a
law against drinking. If you don't like drug abuse, pass a law against
drug abuse. If you don't like murder, or stealing, or reckless
driving, or adultery, pass a law and if you don't like mass shootings,
pass a law against semi-automatic guns. It just all seems so logical,
but it doesn't seem to work very well.

Sure, some laws work better than others, but it seems you are
categorically rejecting proscription laws because they don't work. So,
murder laws don't work very well and we'd be no worse off not having
them. Really?

Actually, the point that I was trying to make was one that I've tried
to make before and that is that simply passing laws doesn't solve the
problem. In order to work, laws have to have stiff penalties combined
with high criminal capture rates. For instance, one of the problems
that they evidently have in Chicago is short prison sentences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
As another example, the reason gun control laws don't have a high
degree of success is because of the minimal punishments imposed on
violators. For example, in the recent Maryland school shooting, there
is no penalty for the father, who didn't insure that his teenage son
couldn't gain access to it.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

OK. So perhaps more stringent gun laws are needed?

I suppose it depends on word definitions, but I would say that
Maryland, for instance, has some of the most stringent gun laws in the
country, but with very lenient penalties for violation. For instance,
with the Maryland high school shooting there was no penalty for the
father providing access for his 17-year-old son to his semi-automatic
gun, with a large clip:

"Jen Pauliukonis, president of the group Marylanders to Prevent Gun
Violence, said the case highlights the issue of child access to
firearms. She pointed to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service
and Department of Education that found that 68 percent of school
shooters used a gun from their own home or a relative’s home. . . .

Maryland law prohibits a person from leaving a loaded firearm
somewhere that the person knew or should have known that an
unsupervised child under age 16 could gain access to it. Violators
face a misdemeanor charge and a fine of up to $1,000.

In the Great Mills shooting, however, Rollins was 17.

Pauliukonis said the state law has a “gap” when it comes to older
teens."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:00:58 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:22:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

Post by mg
It all seems so logical. If you don't like drinking alcohol, pass a
law against drinking. If you don't like drug abuse, pass a law against
drug abuse. If you don't like murder, or stealing, or reckless
driving, or adultery, pass a law and if you don't like mass shootings,
pass a law against semi-automatic guns. It just all seems so logical,
but it doesn't seem to work very well.

Sure, some laws work better than others, but it seems you are
categorically rejecting proscription laws because they don't work. So,
murder laws don't work very well and we'd be no worse off not having
them. Really?

Actually, the point that I was trying to make was one that I've tried
to make before and that is that simply passing laws doesn't solve the
problem. In order to work, laws have to have stiff penalties combined
with high criminal capture rates. For instance, one of the problems
that they evidently have in Chicago is short prison sentences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
As another example, the reason gun control laws don't have a high
degree of success is because of the minimal punishments imposed on
violators. For example, in the recent Maryland school shooting, there
is no penalty for the father, who didn't insure that his teenage son
couldn't gain access to it.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

OK. So perhaps more stringent gun laws are needed?

I suppose it depends on word definitions, but I would say that
Maryland, for instance, has some of the most stringent gun laws in the
country, but with very lenient penalties for violation. For instance,
with the Maryland high school shooting there was no penalty for the
father providing access for his 17-year-old son to his semi-automatic
"Jen Pauliukonis, president of the group Marylanders to Prevent Gun
Violence, said the case highlights the issue of child access to
firearms. She pointed to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service
and Department of Education that found that 68 percent of school
shooters used a gun from their own home or a relative’s home. . . .
Maryland law prohibits a person from leaving a loaded firearm
somewhere that the person knew or should have known that an
unsupervised child under age 16 could gain access to it. Violators
face a misdemeanor charge and a fine of up to $1,000.
In the Great Mills shooting, however, Rollins was 17.
Pauliukonis said the state law has a “gap” when it comes to older
teens."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

[Emily]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

[mg]

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

[El Castor]

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

Good answer -- and also, a system that allows the sale of assault
rifles to teenagers and schizophrenics.

[Emily]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 20:57:43 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

Good answer -- and also, a system that allows the sale of assault
rifles to teenagers and schizophrenics.

I'll assume that the average gun store clerk could probably determine
if the prospective buyer were a teenager, particularly if they
bothered to require some form of proof, but the crazies are a much
more difficult problem. Not all of them have been diagnosed and
possibly treated by an actual psychiatrist, and even they would likely
be protected by laws that supposedly keep medical information private.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 20:57:43 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

Good answer -- and also, a system that allows the sale of assault
rifles to teenagers and schizophrenics.

I'll assume that the average gun store clerk could probably determine
if the prospective buyer were a teenager, particularly if they
bothered to require some form of proof, but the crazies are a much
more difficult problem. Not all of them have been diagnosed and
possibly treated by an actual psychiatrist, and even they would likely
be protected by laws that supposedly keep medical information private.

And maybe they have "narcissistic personality disorder"
like that guy in Norway, so that other people's lives mean
nothing to them except as a way of making a statement
by murdering them. The only thing of any significance
at all to them is their own skins and/or their own ideas.
That American Muslim who murdered 49 people in a night
club in Florida would be one of those too, and the guy
who murdered 70 people from his high-up hotel room
after a rock concert in Las Vegas.

[El Castor]

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 20:57:43 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

Good answer -- and also, a system that allows the sale of assault
rifles to teenagers and schizophrenics.

I'll assume that the average gun store clerk could probably determine
if the prospective buyer were a teenager, particularly if they
bothered to require some form of proof,

Nothing to determine. The law in most states allows 18 and over to buy
an assault rifle. Last I checked eighteens and nineteens are
teenagers. (-8

Post by Emily
but the crazies are a much
more difficult problem. Not all of them have been diagnosed and
possibly treated by an actual psychiatrist, and even they would likely
be protected by laws that supposedly keep medical information private.

That is a problem -- one that most likely can only be solved by
banning sales of assault rifles to everyone. Why do civilians need
assault rifles anyhow? Not for deer hunting. Wyatt Earp's six shooter
or shotgun will protect the house. So what is the big deal?

[mg]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 11:59:06 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 20:57:43 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

Good answer -- and also, a system that allows the sale of assault
rifles to teenagers and schizophrenics.

I'll assume that the average gun store clerk could probably determine
if the prospective buyer were a teenager, particularly if they
bothered to require some form of proof,

Nothing to determine. The law in most states allows 18 and over to buy
an assault rifle. Last I checked eighteens and nineteens are
teenagers. (-8

Post by Emily
but the crazies are a much
more difficult problem. Not all of them have been diagnosed and
possibly treated by an actual psychiatrist, and even they would likely
be protected by laws that supposedly keep medical information private.

That is a problem -- one that most likely can only be solved by
banning sales of assault rifles to everyone. Why do civilians need
assault rifles anyhow? Not for deer hunting. Wyatt Earp's six shooter
or shotgun will protect the house. So what is the big deal?

The big deal is that there is a lot of evidence that indicates assault
weapons bans don't work. In fact, that's the title of this thread. And
that's what happened with the recent school shooting in Maryland, for
instance.

When the government imposes a phony solution to the mass shooting
problem, two things happen:

1. People continue to die.

2. Citizens lose some of their freedom for a bureaucratic pipe dream
that doesn't work.

[Emily]

Post by mg
The big deal is that there is a lot of evidence that indicates assault
weapons bans don't work. In fact, that's the title of this thread. And
that's what happened with the recent school shooting in Maryland, for
instance.

That was a different thing, a rejected boyfriend trying to kill his
ex- or hoped to be girlfriend. He used a 9 mm, I think it was, but
definitely not an assault weapon or AR-15.

Post by mg
When the government imposes a phony solution to the mass shooting
1. People continue to die.
2. Citizens lose some of their freedom for a bureaucratic pipe dream
that doesn't work.

I suspect that it will take at least another couple of centuries
before humans make significant progress at actually being superior to
"wild" animals. My imagination fails at any kind of picture of what
that might look like.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by Emily

Post by mg
The big deal is that there is a lot of evidence that indicates assault
weapons bans don't work. In fact, that's the title of this thread. And
that's what happened with the recent school shooting in Maryland, for
instance.

That was a different thing, a rejected boyfriend trying to kill his
ex- or hoped to be girlfriend. He used a 9 mm, I think it was, but
definitely not an assault weapon or AR-15.

Post by mg
When the government imposes a phony solution to the mass shooting
1. People continue to die.
2. Citizens lose some of their freedom for a bureaucratic pipe dream
that doesn't work.

I suspect that it will take at least another couple of centuries
before humans make significant progress at actually being superior to
"wild" animals. My imagination fails at any kind of picture of what
that might look like.

There are going to be more mass shootings where
tens and hundreds - maybe thousands - of innocent
people are kilt. That seems to be the way we're
heading. Nobody has the power, and not enough
even have the will, to stop it. I hope one of them
takes out LaPierre and the entire upper echelon,
of the NRA. That might take a bomb, but bombs
are coming. And lots more people flying jumbo
jets filled with passengers into mountains or
skyscrapers.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by Emily

Post by mg
The big deal is that there is a lot of evidence that indicates assault
weapons bans don't work. In fact, that's the title of this thread. And
that's what happened with the recent school shooting in Maryland, for
instance.

That was a different thing, a rejected boyfriend trying to kill his
ex- or hoped to be girlfriend. He used a 9 mm, I think it was, but
definitely not an assault weapon or AR-15.

Post by mg
When the government imposes a phony solution to the mass shooting
1. People continue to die.
2. Citizens lose some of their freedom for a bureaucratic pipe dream
that doesn't work.

I suspect that it will take at least another couple of centuries
before humans make significant progress at actually being superior to
"wild" animals. My imagination fails at any kind of picture of what
that might look like.

There are going to be more mass shootings where
tens and hundreds - maybe thousands - of innocent
people are kilt. That seems to be the way we're
heading. Nobody has the power, and not enough
even have the will, to stop it. I hope one of them
takes out LaPierre and the entire upper echelon,
of the NRA. That might take a bomb, but bombs
are coming. And lots more people flying jumbo
jets filled with passengers into mountains or
skyscrapers.

I hope that you start reading Pinker's new book, *Enlightenment Now*
soon. Definitely gives a refreshingly more optimistic view of the world.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by Emily

Post by mg
The big deal is that there is a lot of evidence that indicates assault
weapons bans don't work. In fact, that's the title of this thread. And
that's what happened with the recent school shooting in Maryland, for
instance.

That was a different thing, a rejected boyfriend trying to kill his
ex- or hoped to be girlfriend. He used a 9 mm, I think it was, but
definitely not an assault weapon or AR-15.

Post by mg
When the government imposes a phony solution to the mass shooting
1. People continue to die.
2. Citizens lose some of their freedom for a bureaucratic pipe dream
that doesn't work.

I suspect that it will take at least another couple of centuries
before humans make significant progress at actually being superior to
"wild" animals. My imagination fails at any kind of picture of what
that might look like.

There are going to be more mass shootings where
tens and hundreds - maybe thousands - of innocent
people are kilt. That seems to be the way we're
heading. Nobody has the power, and not enough
even have the will, to stop it. I hope one of them
takes out LaPierre and the entire upper echelon,
of the NRA. That might take a bomb, but bombs
are coming. And lots more people flying jumbo
jets filled with passengers into mountains or
skyscrapers.

I hope that you start reading Pinker's new book, *Enlightenment Now*
soon. Definitely gives a refreshingly more optimistic view of the world.

It hasn't arrived yet, but although I like Pinker a lot,
I'm not as hopeful for the future as he is.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by Emily

Post by mg
The big deal is that there is a lot of evidence that indicates assault
weapons bans don't work. In fact, that's the title of this thread. And
that's what happened with the recent school shooting in Maryland, for
instance.

That was a different thing, a rejected boyfriend trying to kill his
ex- or hoped to be girlfriend. He used a 9 mm, I think it was, but
definitely not an assault weapon or AR-15.

Post by mg
When the government imposes a phony solution to the mass shooting
1. People continue to die.
2. Citizens lose some of their freedom for a bureaucratic pipe dream
that doesn't work.

I suspect that it will take at least another couple of centuries
before humans make significant progress at actually being superior to
"wild" animals. My imagination fails at any kind of picture of what
that might look like.

There are going to be more mass shootings where
tens and hundreds - maybe thousands - of innocent
people are kilt. That seems to be the way we're
heading. Nobody has the power, and not enough
even have the will, to stop it. I hope one of them
takes out LaPierre and the entire upper echelon,
of the NRA. That might take a bomb, but bombs
are coming. And lots more people flying jumbo
jets filled with passengers into mountains or
skyscrapers.

I hope that you start reading Pinker's new book, *Enlightenment Now*
soon. Definitely gives a refreshingly more optimistic view of the world.

It hasn't arrived yet, but although I like Pinker a lot,
I'm not as hopeful for the future as he is.

He addresses this head-on in the first few chapters outlining our
vulnerability to bad news. I believe that this is especially true for
seniors who seem to easily fall into "isn't it awful" discussions.
Unfortunately, this is made worse by a tendency of the media to report
bad news. "If it bleeds, it leads" is a pretty descriptive way of
explaining their motive.

Interestingly, a number of the news reporters on MSNBC have started
including a short "good news" segment at the end of their reporting.
These include recognition of people who have made significant
contributions to our society. I hope that they continue that practice.
PBS also has a weekly "Brief but Spectacular" segment that I find
uplifting. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/brief/

Not much in a world where the public seems more interested in bad news,
but it is encouraging.

Pinker asks us to consider what would be reported if news reports
occurred only once every 50 years. What would they choose to report?
Possibly the overall reduction in violence? Maybe the improvements in
health care? Most of what we agonize over on a day to day, even moment
to moment, emphasis on "breaking news" would fade from importance in
Pinker's view.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by Emily

Post by mg
The big deal is that there is a lot of evidence that indicates assault
weapons bans don't work. In fact, that's the title of this thread. And
that's what happened with the recent school shooting in Maryland, for
instance.

That was a different thing, a rejected boyfriend trying to kill his
ex- or hoped to be girlfriend. He used a 9 mm, I think it was, but
definitely not an assault weapon or AR-15.

Post by mg
When the government imposes a phony solution to the mass shooting
1. People continue to die.
2. Citizens lose some of their freedom for a bureaucratic pipe dream
that doesn't work.

I suspect that it will take at least another couple of centuries
before humans make significant progress at actually being superior to
"wild" animals. My imagination fails at any kind of picture of what
that might look like.

There are going to be more mass shootings where
tens and hundreds - maybe thousands - of innocent
people are kilt. That seems to be the way we're
heading. Nobody has the power, and not enough
even have the will, to stop it. I hope one of them
takes out LaPierre and the entire upper echelon,
of the NRA. That might take a bomb, but bombs
are coming. And lots more people flying jumbo
jets filled with passengers into mountains or
skyscrapers.

I hope that you start reading Pinker's new book, *Enlightenment Now*
soon. Definitely gives a refreshingly more optimistic view of the world.

It hasn't arrived yet, but although I like Pinker a lot,
I'm not as hopeful for the future as he is.

He addresses this head-on in the first few chapters outlining our
vulnerability to bad news. I believe that this is especially true for
seniors who seem to easily fall into "isn't it awful" discussions.
Unfortunately, this is made worse by a tendency of the media to report
bad news. "If it bleeds, it leads" is a pretty descriptive way of
explaining their motive.
Interestingly, a number of the news reporters on MSNBC have started
including a short "good news" segment at the end of their reporting.
These include recognition of people who have made significant
contributions to our society. I hope that they continue that practice.
PBS also has a weekly "Brief but Spectacular" segment that I find
uplifting. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/brief/

Psychological manipulation. I prefer my comfortable
cave of curmudgeonry.

Post by islander
Not much in a world where the public seems more interested in bad news,
but it is encouraging.
Pinker asks us to consider what would be reported if news reports
occurred only once every 50 years. What would they choose to report?
Possibly the overall reduction in violence? Maybe the improvements in
health care? Most of what we agonize over on a day to day, even moment
to moment, emphasis on "breaking news" would fade from importance in
Pinker's view.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by Emily

Post by mg
The big deal is that there is a lot of evidence that indicates assault
weapons bans don't work. In fact, that's the title of this thread. And
that's what happened with the recent school shooting in Maryland, for
instance.

That was a different thing, a rejected boyfriend trying to kill his
ex- or hoped to be girlfriend. He used a 9 mm, I think it was, but
definitely not an assault weapon or AR-15.

Post by mg
When the government imposes a phony solution to the mass shooting
1. People continue to die.
2. Citizens lose some of their freedom for a bureaucratic pipe dream
that doesn't work.

I suspect that it will take at least another couple of centuries
before humans make significant progress at actually being superior to
"wild" animals. My imagination fails at any kind of picture of what
that might look like.

There are going to be more mass shootings where
tens and hundreds - maybe thousands - of innocent
people are kilt. That seems to be the way we're
heading. Nobody has the power, and not enough
even have the will, to stop it. I hope one of them
takes out LaPierre and the entire upper echelon,
of the NRA. That might take a bomb, but bombs
are coming. And lots more people flying jumbo
jets filled with passengers into mountains or
skyscrapers.

I hope that you start reading Pinker's new book, *Enlightenment Now*
soon. Definitely gives a refreshingly more optimistic view of the world.

It hasn't arrived yet, but although I like Pinker a lot,
I'm not as hopeful for the future as he is.

He addresses this head-on in the first few chapters outlining our
vulnerability to bad news. I believe that this is especially true for
seniors who seem to easily fall into "isn't it awful" discussions.
Unfortunately, this is made worse by a tendency of the media to report
bad news. "If it bleeds, it leads" is a pretty descriptive way of
explaining their motive.
Interestingly, a number of the news reporters on MSNBC have started
including a short "good news" segment at the end of their reporting.
These include recognition of people who have made significant
contributions to our society. I hope that they continue that practice.
PBS also has a weekly "Brief but Spectacular" segment that I find
uplifting. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/brief/

Psychological manipulation. I prefer my comfortable
cave of curmudgeonry.

Psychological manipulation? Really? Another conspiracy?
I doubt it.

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Not much in a world where the public seems more interested in bad news,
but it is encouraging.
Pinker asks us to consider what would be reported if news reports
occurred only once every 50 years. What would they choose to report?
Possibly the overall reduction in violence? Maybe the improvements in
health care? Most of what we agonize over on a day to day, even moment
to moment, emphasis on "breaking news" would fade from importance in
Pinker's view.

[rumpelstiltskin]

<snip>

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Interestingly, a number of the news reporters on MSNBC have started
including a short "good news" segment at the end of their reporting.
These include recognition of people who have made significant
contributions to our society. I hope that they continue that practice.
PBS also has a weekly "Brief but Spectacular" segment that I find
uplifting. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/brief/

Psychological manipulation. I prefer my comfortable
cave of curmudgeonry.

Psychological manipulation? Really? Another conspiracy?
I doubt it.

I'm instantly tired of the supercilious "really". This
"discussion" has gone on too long.

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander
Not much in a world where the public seems more interested in bad news,
but it is encouraging.
Pinker asks us to consider what would be reported if news reports
occurred only once every 50 years. What would they choose to report?
Possibly the overall reduction in violence? Maybe the improvements in
health care? Most of what we agonize over on a day to day, even moment
to moment, emphasis on "breaking news" would fade from importance in
Pinker's view.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
I'm instantly tired of the supercilious "really". This
"discussion" has gone on too long.

Oh dear! Sorry that you have taken offense. Frankly, I'm worried about
you. Your views have become pretty extreme, well beyond that of a
curmudgeon, at least in my view.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 16:25:38 -0600, mg <***@none.nl> wrote:
<snip>

Post by mg
The big deal is that there is a lot of evidence that indicates assault
weapons bans don't work. In fact, that's the title of this thread. And
that's what happened with the recent school shooting in Maryland, for
instance.

Australia.

Post by mg
When the government imposes a phony solution to the mass shooting
1. People continue to die.
2. Citizens lose some of their freedom for a bureaucratic pipe dream
that doesn't work.

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
The big deal is that there is a lot of evidence that indicates assault
weapons bans don't work. In fact, that's the title of this thread. And
that's what happened with the recent school shooting in Maryland, for
instance.

Australia.

Australia had a mandatory gun buyback program, an idea that's
political suicide in the US, and there is reason to believe that the
program didn't work, anyway:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
When the government imposes a phony solution to the mass shooting
1. People continue to die.
2. Citizens lose some of their freedom for a bureaucratic pipe dream
that doesn't work.

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 11:59:06 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 20:57:43 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

Good answer -- and also, a system that allows the sale of assault
rifles to teenagers and schizophrenics.

I'll assume that the average gun store clerk could probably determine
if the prospective buyer were a teenager, particularly if they
bothered to require some form of proof,

Nothing to determine. The law in most states allows 18 and over to buy
an assault rifle. Last I checked eighteens and nineteens are
teenagers. (-8

Post by Emily
but the crazies are a much
more difficult problem. Not all of them have been diagnosed and
possibly treated by an actual psychiatrist, and even they would likely
be protected by laws that supposedly keep medical information private.

That is a problem -- one that most likely can only be solved by
banning sales of assault rifles to everyone. Why do civilians need
assault rifles anyhow? Not for deer hunting. Wyatt Earp's six shooter
or shotgun will protect the house. So what is the big deal?

The big deal is that there is a lot of evidence that indicates assault
weapons bans don't work. In fact, that's the title of this thread. And
that's what happened with the recent school shooting in Maryland, for
instance.
When the government imposes a phony solution to the mass shooting
1. People continue to die.
2. Citizens lose some of their freedom for a bureaucratic pipe dream
that doesn't work.

Sez you -- but it worked in Australia -- at least the Australians
think so. To quote a study published by the Journal of the American
Medical Association ... "In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13
mass shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass
shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths
accelerated."

As for the loss of freedom. I'm no bleeding heart liberal, and I
believe that the availability of guns to protect the individual, the
household and hunt game, is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
But, even that requires some regulation based on mental condition,
criminal conviction, and age. You can't buy a 50 caliber machine gun.
Why should you be able to buy other obviously military weapons? The
answer is you shouldn't, but the gun culture of our society would
never stand for it. That is the real problem. "It wouldn't work" is
just an excuse. It would take time, and would never be 100% effective,
but of course it would work.

"Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in
Australia, 1979-2013"
"Question What happened to the trend in firearm deaths after
Australia introduced extensive gun law reform in 1996, including a ban
on semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns?
Findings In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass
shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass
shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths
accelerated.
Meaning Implementation of a ban on rapid-fire firearms was associated
with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362

[mg]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 01:16:02 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 11:59:06 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 20:57:43 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

Good answer -- and also, a system that allows the sale of assault
rifles to teenagers and schizophrenics.

I'll assume that the average gun store clerk could probably determine
if the prospective buyer were a teenager, particularly if they
bothered to require some form of proof,

Nothing to determine. The law in most states allows 18 and over to buy
an assault rifle. Last I checked eighteens and nineteens are
teenagers. (-8

Post by Emily
but the crazies are a much
more difficult problem. Not all of them have been diagnosed and
possibly treated by an actual psychiatrist, and even they would likely
be protected by laws that supposedly keep medical information private.

That is a problem -- one that most likely can only be solved by
banning sales of assault rifles to everyone. Why do civilians need
assault rifles anyhow? Not for deer hunting. Wyatt Earp's six shooter
or shotgun will protect the house. So what is the big deal?

The big deal is that there is a lot of evidence that indicates assault
weapons bans don't work. In fact, that's the title of this thread. And
that's what happened with the recent school shooting in Maryland, for
instance.
When the government imposes a phony solution to the mass shooting
1. People continue to die.
2. Citizens lose some of their freedom for a bureaucratic pipe dream
that doesn't work.

Sez you

Not sez me. Sez the study that I quoted.

Post by El Castor
-- but it worked in Australia

The Australian Law included a mandatory buyback, an idea that's
suicide for politicians in the US, and besides that it didn't work,
anyway, least not according to this study:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854

Post by El Castor
-- at least the Australians
think so. To quote a study published by the Journal of the American
Medical Association ... "In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13
mass shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass
shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths
accelerated."
As for the loss of freedom. I'm no bleeding heart liberal, and I
believe that the availability of guns to protect the individual, the
household and hunt game, is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
But, even that requires some regulation based on mental condition,
criminal conviction, and age. You can't buy a 50 caliber machine gun.
Why should you be able to buy other obviously military weapons? The
answer is you shouldn't, but the gun culture of our society would
never stand for it. That is the real problem. "It wouldn't work" is
just an excuse. It would take time, and would never be 100% effective,
but of course it would work.
"Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in
Australia, 1979-2013"
"Question What happened to the trend in firearm deaths after
Australia introduced extensive gun law reform in 1996, including a ban
on semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns?
Findings In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass
shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass
shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths
accelerated.
Meaning Implementation of a ban on rapid-fire firearms was associated
with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362

[Emily]

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.

And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

[mg]

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.
And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service and Department
of Education, 68 percent of school shooters used a gun from their own
home or a relative’s home.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf

And that was the case in the recent Maryland school shooting,
incidentally. In that case, the shooter used his dad's gun. As an
interesting precursor to that, btw, in 2012, in the state of Newtown,
Connecticut, Adam Lanza took some of his mother's guns and put 4
bullets in her head and then fatally shot 20 children between 6 and 7
years old, as well as six adult staff members.

[Emily]

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.
And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service and Department
of Education, 68 percent of school shooters used a gun from their own
home or a relative’s home.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf
And that was the case in the recent Maryland school shooting,
incidentally. In that case, the shooter used his dad's gun. As an
interesting precursor to that, btw, in 2012, in the state of Newtown,
Connecticut, Adam Lanza took some of his mother's guns and put 4
bullets in her head and then fatally shot 20 children between 6 and 7
years old, as well as six adult staff members.

I've always thought it was a damned shame that he didn't shoot her
AFTER he shot all those children so she'd know what he'd done. He was
obviously crazier than a bedbug and she thought that getting him
interested in guns and shooting together was a fine idea.

[mg]

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.
And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service and Department
of Education, 68 percent of school shooters used a gun from their own
home or a relative’s home.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf
And that was the case in the recent Maryland school shooting,
incidentally. In that case, the shooter used his dad's gun. As an
interesting precursor to that, btw, in 2012, in the state of Newtown,
Connecticut, Adam Lanza took some of his mother's guns and put 4
bullets in her head and then fatally shot 20 children between 6 and 7
years old, as well as six adult staff members.

I've always thought it was a damned shame that he didn't shoot her
AFTER he shot all those children so she'd know what he'd done. He was
obviously crazier than a bedbug and she thought that getting him
interested in guns and shooting together was a fine idea.

Mothers sometimes think with their hearts, instead of their heads.

Adam Lanza was suffering from severe mental illness which is a common
thread for mass shootings.

[El Castor]

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.
And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service and Department
of Education, 68 percent of school shooters used a gun from their own
home or a relative’s home.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf
And that was the case in the recent Maryland school shooting,
incidentally. In that case, the shooter used his dad's gun. As an
interesting precursor to that, btw, in 2012, in the state of Newtown,
Connecticut, Adam Lanza took some of his mother's guns and put 4
bullets in her head and then fatally shot 20 children between 6 and 7
years old, as well as six adult staff members.

I've always thought it was a damned shame that he didn't shoot her
AFTER he shot all those children so she'd know what he'd done. He was
obviously crazier than a bedbug and she thought that getting him
interested in guns and shooting together was a fine idea.

Mothers sometimes think with their hearts, instead of their heads.
Adam Lanza was suffering from severe mental illness which is a common
thread for mass shootings.

Another common thread is semi-automatic weapons -- or in the case of
Las Vegas, fully automatic. Potential victims lack the patience to
stand around and wait for their executioner to reload.

[mg]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 02:25:40 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.
And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service and Department
of Education, 68 percent of school shooters used a gun from their own
home or a relative’s home.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf
And that was the case in the recent Maryland school shooting,
incidentally. In that case, the shooter used his dad's gun. As an
interesting precursor to that, btw, in 2012, in the state of Newtown,
Connecticut, Adam Lanza took some of his mother's guns and put 4
bullets in her head and then fatally shot 20 children between 6 and 7
years old, as well as six adult staff members.

I've always thought it was a damned shame that he didn't shoot her
AFTER he shot all those children so she'd know what he'd done. He was
obviously crazier than a bedbug and she thought that getting him
interested in guns and shooting together was a fine idea.

Mothers sometimes think with their hearts, instead of their heads.
Adam Lanza was suffering from severe mental illness which is a common
thread for mass shootings.

Another common thread is semi-automatic weapons -- or in the case of
Las Vegas, fully automatic. Potential victims lack the patience to
stand around and wait for their executioner to reload.

That's why we need a multi-pronged strategy against mass shootings
instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket and especially a
basket that's already been proven not to work.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 02:25:40 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.
And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service and Department
of Education, 68 percent of school shooters used a gun from their own
home or a relative’s home.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf
And that was the case in the recent Maryland school shooting,
incidentally. In that case, the shooter used his dad's gun. As an
interesting precursor to that, btw, in 2012, in the state of Newtown,
Connecticut, Adam Lanza took some of his mother's guns and put 4
bullets in her head and then fatally shot 20 children between 6 and 7
years old, as well as six adult staff members.

I've always thought it was a damned shame that he didn't shoot her
AFTER he shot all those children so she'd know what he'd done. He was
obviously crazier than a bedbug and she thought that getting him
interested in guns and shooting together was a fine idea.

Mothers sometimes think with their hearts, instead of their heads.
Adam Lanza was suffering from severe mental illness which is a common
thread for mass shootings.

Another common thread is semi-automatic weapons -- or in the case of
Las Vegas, fully automatic. Potential victims lack the patience to
stand around and wait for their executioner to reload.

That's why we need a multi-pronged strategy against mass shootings
instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket and especially a
basket that's already been proven not to work.

Let's get rid of the basket with the conspicuously
exploding eggs first though. It's kind of silly IMV
to put that off because it doesn't completely take
care of all the problems. That single thing would
take care of a very disproportionate share of
problems.

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 02:25:40 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.
And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service and Department
of Education, 68 percent of school shooters used a gun from their own
home or a relative’s home.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf
And that was the case in the recent Maryland school shooting,
incidentally. In that case, the shooter used his dad's gun. As an
interesting precursor to that, btw, in 2012, in the state of Newtown,
Connecticut, Adam Lanza took some of his mother's guns and put 4
bullets in her head and then fatally shot 20 children between 6 and 7
years old, as well as six adult staff members.

I've always thought it was a damned shame that he didn't shoot her
AFTER he shot all those children so she'd know what he'd done. He was
obviously crazier than a bedbug and she thought that getting him
interested in guns and shooting together was a fine idea.

Mothers sometimes think with their hearts, instead of their heads.
Adam Lanza was suffering from severe mental illness which is a common
thread for mass shootings.

Another common thread is semi-automatic weapons -- or in the case of
Las Vegas, fully automatic. Potential victims lack the patience to
stand around and wait for their executioner to reload.

That's why we need a multi-pronged strategy against mass shootings
instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket and especially a
basket that's already been proven not to work.

Let's get rid of the basket with the conspicuously
exploding eggs first though. It's kind of silly IMV
to put that off because it doesn't completely take
care of all the problems. That single thing would
take care of a very disproportionate share of
problems.

That's the thing, though. what the report says is:

"In general we found, really, very, very little evidence, almost none,
that gun violence was becoming any less lethal or any less injurious
during this time frame. So on balance, we concluded that the ban had
not had a discernible impact on gun crime during the years it was in
effect."

What that means to me is that a false solution is much more dangerous
than no solution at all because it can result, and has resulted in the
continued killing of people over many years, or many decades simply
because people believe that's a solution when it isn't.

Ask yourself, for instance, why the recent school shooting in Maryland
occurred even though Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in
the country and has a ban on semi-automatic weapons.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 15:50:14 -0600, mg <***@none.nl> wrote:
<snip>

Post by mg
Ask yourself, for instance, why the recent school shooting in Maryland
occurred even though Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in
the country and has a ban on semi-automatic weapons.

Doesn't do much good if you can bring them in from Virginia.

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
Ask yourself, for instance, why the recent school shooting in Maryland
occurred even though Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in
the country and has a ban on semi-automatic weapons.

Doesn't do much good if you can bring them in from Virginia.

That's a good guess, but the gun was totally legal.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
Ask yourself, for instance, why the recent school shooting in Maryland
occurred even though Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in
the country and has a ban on semi-automatic weapons.

Doesn't do much good if you can bring them in from Virginia.

That's a good guess, but the gun was totally legal.

And that's the problem.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
Ask yourself, for instance, why the recent school shooting in Maryland
occurred even though Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in
the country and has a ban on semi-automatic weapons.

Doesn't do much good if you can bring them in from Virginia.

That's a good guess, but the gun was totally legal.

And that's the problem.

P.S. I hadn't heard of a mass shooting in Maryland, but I
assumed you were talking about one. When I looked though,
the only thing I saw was about Stephon Clark who was shot
with a fusillade of bullets by the police after (it seems)
repeatedly breaking into cars at night to steal whatever he
could, causing expense to the victims usually far above the
value that anything was stolen. That's not a "mass
shooting" though it is a lot of bullets shot at one guy, if it's
what your talking about. As to the police having automatic
weapons, they should, IMV, because even though there's
going to be a renegade cop sometimes who goes berserk,
for the most part lots of power for the police, moderated
of course by voting and by the judicial system, is best for
society as a whole, assuming we still have a generally
lawful society and not a "police state".

As to Stephon Clark, if he really was habitually
breaking car windows to steal whatever he could, I have
no sympathy for him, and I think the police acted
properly.

---

If every kook can get his hands on a weapon that can
kill 50 or 100 people quickly, then we're just going to
see more of that. It seems to be happening almost
every other month nowadays.

[Emily]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
P.S. I hadn't heard of a mass shooting in Maryland, but I
assumed you were talking about one. When I looked though,
the only thing I saw was about Stephon Clark who was shot
with a fusillade of bullets by the police after (it seems)
repeatedly breaking into cars at night to steal whatever he
could, causing expense to the victims usually far above the
value that anything was stolen. That's not a "mass
shooting" though it is a lot of bullets shot at one guy, if it's
what your talking about.

The shooting in Maryland was a lovesick high school kid who took his
Daddy's 9 mm and shot the object of his love and one other person.

Stephon Clark was the guy in Sacramento who was in his grandmother's
back yard with his cell phone and was gunned down for no good reason
by two stupid cops. He was not the guy breaking car windows and even
if he were execution by cop is neither legal nor appropriate for that
kind of crime. He was shot six times in the back and once in the
side, no doubt as his body moved after being shot six times in the
back.

I wish you'd read "Rise of the Warrior Cop" by Radley Balko. Then you
could move on to his latest "The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist:
A True Story of Injustice in the American South". I wish everyone
would read them.

Post by rumpelstiltskin
As to the police having automatic
weapons, they should, IMV, because even though there's
going to be a renegade cop sometimes who goes berserk,
for the most part lots of power for the police, moderated
of course by voting and by the judicial system, is best for
society as a whole, assuming we still have a generally
lawful society and not a "police state".

I, on the other hand, believe that most cops in most places in this
country should probably not be armed at all unless you want to count a
night stick as being armed.

Post by rumpelstiltskin
As to Stephon Clark, if he really was habitually
breaking car windows to steal whatever he could, I have
no sympathy for him, and I think the police acted
properly.

I don't believe he'd ever broken a law before. He was apparently a
nice young black guy, in a stable marriage, with two children. The
police acted as far from properly as possible.

Post by rumpelstiltskin
If every kook can get his hands on a weapon that can
kill 50 or 100 people quickly, then we're just going to
see more of that. It seems to be happening almost
every other month nowadays.

Change "kook" to "cop" and I'd agree with you.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by Emily

Post by rumpelstiltskin
P.S. I hadn't heard of a mass shooting in Maryland, but I
assumed you were talking about one. When I looked though,
the only thing I saw was about Stephon Clark who was shot
with a fusillade of bullets by the police after (it seems)
repeatedly breaking into cars at night to steal whatever he
could, causing expense to the victims usually far above the
value that anything was stolen. That's not a "mass
shooting" though it is a lot of bullets shot at one guy, if it's
what your talking about.

The shooting in Maryland was a lovesick high school kid who took his
Daddy's 9 mm and shot the object of his love and one other person.
Stephon Clark was the guy in Sacramento who was in his grandmother's
back yard with his cell phone and was gunned down for no good reason
by two stupid cops. He was not the guy breaking car windows and even
if he were execution by cop is neither legal nor appropriate for that
kind of crime. He was shot six times in the back and once in the
side, no doubt as his body moved after being shot six times in the
back.

You're assuming that the guy in his back yard was not the guy
who had been breaking into cars. I'll wait for further developments
if there are any, but my guess is that the police did get the right
guy. In the TV mini-videos I've seen (taken by helicopter or drone?)
he seemed to be scrambling to avoid detection.

Post by Emily
I wish you'd read "Rise of the Warrior Cop" by Radley Balko. Then you
A True Story of Injustice in the American South". I wish everyone
would read them.

Post by rumpelstiltskin
As to the police having automatic
weapons, they should, IMV, because even though there's
going to be a renegade cop sometimes who goes berserk,
for the most part lots of power for the police, moderated
of course by voting and by the judicial system, is best for
society as a whole, assuming we still have a generally
lawful society and not a "police state".

I, on the other hand, believe that most cops in most places in this
country should probably not be armed at all unless you want to count a
night stick as being armed.

Post by rumpelstiltskin
As to Stephon Clark, if he really was habitually
breaking car windows to steal whatever he could, I have
no sympathy for him, and I think the police acted
properly.

I don't believe he'd ever broken a law before. He was apparently a
nice young black guy, in a stable marriage, with two children. The
police acted as far from properly as possible.

I don't think that's correct. I heard on TV that he had
a long arrest record, and his grandmother said that he
was trying to turn his life around. That would be
typical grandmotherly love and hope if he was actually
breaking into cars at night without her knowing about it.

Post by Emily
http://www.kcra.com/article/who-was-stephon-clark/19635231

Post by rumpelstiltskin
If every kook can get his hands on a weapon that can
kill 50 or 100 people quickly, then we're just going to
see more of that. It seems to be happening almost
every other month nowadays.

Change "kook" to "cop" and I'd agree with you.

I think we have to have cops with automatic rifles
as long as there are criminals with automatic rifles.

[Emily]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by Emily
Stephon Clark was the guy in Sacramento who was in his grandmother's
back yard with his cell phone and was gunned down for no good reason
by two stupid cops. He was not the guy breaking car windows and even
if he were execution by cop is neither legal nor appropriate for that
kind of crime. He was shot six times in the back and once in the
side, no doubt as his body moved after being shot six times in the
back.

You're assuming that the guy in his back yard was not the guy
who had been breaking into cars. I'll wait for further developments
if there are any, but my guess is that the police did get the right
guy. In the TV mini-videos I've seen (taken by helicopter or drone?)
he seemed to be scrambling to avoid detection.

So you feel that being shot six times in the back by cops is proper
punishment for breaking into parked cars? For what other crimes do
you feel execution by cop is appropriate? Spitting on the street?
Playing your radio too loud? Failing to move your garbage can from
curbside within a certain period of time?

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by Emily
I wish you'd read "Rise of the Warrior Cop" by Radley Balko. Then you
A True Story of Injustice in the American South". I wish everyone
would read them.

Post by rumpelstiltskin
As to the police having automatic
weapons, they should, IMV, because even though there's
going to be a renegade cop sometimes who goes berserk,
for the most part lots of power for the police, moderated
of course by voting and by the judicial system, is best for
society as a whole, assuming we still have a generally
lawful society and not a "police state".

If you'd read the two books suggested above, I believe you'd better
understand the cops v. citizens situation. No matter how
inappropriately cops act, including murdering citizens, it's almost
unheard of for one of them to be punished in any way. They always
seem to be in fear for their lives which apparently excuses any action
they take, no matter how inappropriate.

Do you remember Tamir Rice? He was the 14 year old boy playing with a
cap pistol or some other lookalike toy, in a park, when the cops
screeched to a halt and shot him dead within two seconds. The cop who
shot him had been fired from another police department that would not
have recommended his being hired, if the Cleveland police department
had bothered to check, but of course they didn't. What punishment did
the cop get? He was fired.

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by Emily
I, on the other hand, believe that most cops in most places in this
country should probably not be armed at all unless you want to count a
night stick as being armed.

Post by rumpelstiltskin
As to Stephon Clark, if he really was habitually
breaking car windows to steal whatever he could, I have
no sympathy for him, and I think the police acted
properly.

I don't believe he'd ever broken a law before. He was apparently a
nice young black guy, in a stable marriage, with two children. The
police acted as far from properly as possible.

I don't think that's correct. I heard on TV that he had
a long arrest record, and his grandmother said that he
was trying to turn his life around. That would be
typical grandmotherly love and hope if he was actually
breaking into cars at night without her knowing about it.

Post by Emily
http://www.kcra.com/article/who-was-stephon-clark/19635231

OK, I stand corrected on his history, but it didn't contain anything
bad enough to be shot for.

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by Emily

Post by rumpelstiltskin
If every kook can get his hands on a weapon that can
kill 50 or 100 people quickly, then we're just going to
see more of that. It seems to be happening almost
every other month nowadays.

Change "kook" to "cop" and I'd agree with you.

I think we have to have cops with automatic rifles
as long as there are criminals with automatic rifles.

Other than the obviously mentally ill men who've murdered large
numbers of people at one time, how many instances of criminals using
automatic rifles are you aware of? I would also point out that none
of those mass killers was stopped by automatic rifles in the hands of
police. The two Muslims who killed sixteen people in San Bernardino
may have been killed by automatic rifles, but that was after they'd
shot those people and fled the scene.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by Emily

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by Emily
Stephon Clark was the guy in Sacramento who was in his grandmother's
back yard with his cell phone and was gunned down for no good reason
by two stupid cops. He was not the guy breaking car windows and even
if he were execution by cop is neither legal nor appropriate for that
kind of crime. He was shot six times in the back and once in the
side, no doubt as his body moved after being shot six times in the
back.

You're assuming that the guy in his back yard was not the guy
who had been breaking into cars. I'll wait for further developments
if there are any, but my guess is that the police did get the right
guy. In the TV mini-videos I've seen (taken by helicopter or drone?)
he seemed to be scrambling to avoid detection.

So you feel that being shot six times in the back by cops is proper
punishment for breaking into parked cars? For what other crimes do
you feel execution by cop is appropriate? Spitting on the street?
Playing your radio too loud? Failing to move your garbage can from
curbside within a certain period of time?

He was holding a cellphone, pointing it at them, and it was
night. That was after he'd evaded them and (I think) tried to
run away after the cops told him to stop.

<snip>

[JackPineSavage]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by Emily

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by Emily
Stephon Clark was the guy in Sacramento who was in his grandmother's
back yard with his cell phone and was gunned down for no good reason
by two stupid cops. He was not the guy breaking car windows and even
if he were execution by cop is neither legal nor appropriate for that
kind of crime. He was shot six times in the back and once in the
side, no doubt as his body moved after being shot six times in the
back.

You're assuming that the guy in his back yard was not the guy
who had been breaking into cars. I'll wait for further developments
if there are any, but my guess is that the police did get the right
guy. In the TV mini-videos I've seen (taken by helicopter or drone?)
he seemed to be scrambling to avoid detection.

So you feel that being shot six times in the back by cops is proper
punishment for breaking into parked cars? For what other crimes do
you feel execution by cop is appropriate? Spitting on the street?
Playing your radio too loud? Failing to move your garbage can from
curbside within a certain period of time?

He was holding a cellphone, pointing it at them, and it was
night. That was after he'd evaded them and (I think) tried to
run away after the cops told him to stop.
<snip>

Correct.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by JackPineSavage

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by Emily

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by Emily
Stephon Clark was the guy in Sacramento who was in his grandmother's
back yard with his cell phone and was gunned down for no good reason
by two stupid cops. He was not the guy breaking car windows and even
if he were execution by cop is neither legal nor appropriate for that
kind of crime. He was shot six times in the back and once in the
side, no doubt as his body moved after being shot six times in the
back.

You're assuming that the guy in his back yard was not the guy
who had been breaking into cars. I'll wait for further developments
if there are any, but my guess is that the police did get the right
guy. In the TV mini-videos I've seen (taken by helicopter or drone?)
he seemed to be scrambling to avoid detection.

So you feel that being shot six times in the back by cops is proper
punishment for breaking into parked cars? For what other crimes do
you feel execution by cop is appropriate? Spitting on the street?
Playing your radio too loud? Failing to move your garbage can from
curbside within a certain period of time?

He was holding a cellphone, pointing it at them, and it was
night. That was after he'd evaded them and (I think) tried to
run away after the cops told him to stop.
<snip>

Correct.

If that's all correct, then it's not surprising that at night
the cops would think something pointed at them by
somebody who had just tried to evade them was a gun,
and they had every right to shoot. When the cops tell
you to stop, even if you don't think you've done anything
wrong, STOP!

[JackPineSavage]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by JackPineSavage

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by Emily

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by Emily
Stephon Clark was the guy in Sacramento who was in his grandmother's
back yard with his cell phone and was gunned down for no good reason
by two stupid cops. He was not the guy breaking car windows and even
if he were execution by cop is neither legal nor appropriate for that
kind of crime. He was shot six times in the back and once in the
side, no doubt as his body moved after being shot six times in the
back.

You're assuming that the guy in his back yard was not the guy
who had been breaking into cars. I'll wait for further developments
if there are any, but my guess is that the police did get the right
guy. In the TV mini-videos I've seen (taken by helicopter or drone?)
he seemed to be scrambling to avoid detection.

So you feel that being shot six times in the back by cops is proper
punishment for breaking into parked cars? For what other crimes do
you feel execution by cop is appropriate? Spitting on the street?
Playing your radio too loud? Failing to move your garbage can from
curbside within a certain period of time?

He was holding a cellphone, pointing it at them, and it was
night. That was after he'd evaded them and (I think) tried to
run away after the cops told him to stop.
<snip>

Correct.

If that's all correct, then it's not surprising that at night
the cops would think something pointed at them by
somebody who had just tried to evade them was a gun,
and they had every right to shoot. When the cops tell
you to stop, even if you don't think you've done anything
wrong, STOP!

Agreed.

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
Ask yourself, for instance, why the recent school shooting in Maryland
occurred even though Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in
the country and has a ban on semi-automatic weapons.

Doesn't do much good if you can bring them in from Virginia.

That's a good guess, but the gun was totally legal.

And that's the problem.

P.S. I hadn't heard of a mass shooting in Maryland, but I
assumed you were talking about one. When I looked though,
the only thing I saw was about Stephon Clark who was shot
with a fusillade of bullets by the police after (it seems)
repeatedly breaking into cars at night to steal whatever he
could, causing expense to the victims usually far above the
value that anything was stolen. That's not a "mass
shooting" though it is a lot of bullets shot at one guy, if it's
what your talking about. As to the police having automatic
weapons, they should, IMV, because even though there's
going to be a renegade cop sometimes who goes berserk,
for the most part lots of power for the police, moderated
of course by voting and by the judicial system, is best for
society as a whole, assuming we still have a generally
lawful society and not a "police state".
As to Stephon Clark, if he really was habitually
breaking car windows to steal whatever he could, I have
no sympathy for him, and I think the police acted
properly.
---
If every kook can get his hands on a weapon that can
kill 50 or 100 people quickly, then we're just going to
see more of that. It seems to be happening almost
every other month nowadays.

It wasn't actually a mass shooting, it was a school shooting on March
20th, but the shooter only shot a couple of people.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

Maryland, along with 7 other states has some of the strictest gun laws
in the country and I think they're probably very similar to the
Weapons Ban of 1994 and Obama's proposed gun control act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_legislation_in_the_United_States

The problem, however, with the Maryland law, and the Weapons Ban of
1994, and all the rest of them is probably that, although the laws are
very strict, they have no teeth in them and they have a couple of huge
loopholes. The Maryland law, for instance, prohibits a person from
leaving a loaded firearm somewhere that the person knew or should have
known that an unsupervised child under age 16 could gain access to it.
Violators, however, only face a little slap on the wrist and a
misdemeanor charge and a fine of up to $1,000 and if the person is
over 16, there is no punishment at all! Sixty-eight percent of school
shooters, btw, use a gun from their own home or a relative’s home.

So, the bottom line to all of this is that an assault weapons ban
isn't effective if it grandfathers in the current owners and allows
them to keep their guns and it isn't effective if there's no serious
punishment for giving someone else access to the gun.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

It's all just one big sham by politicians to give the appearance that
they are doing something about all the people being slaughtered when
they really aren't.




---------------------------
Within any important issue,
there are always aspects no
one wishes to discuss.
-- George Orwell

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
Ask yourself, for instance, why the recent school shooting in Maryland
occurred even though Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in
the country and has a ban on semi-automatic weapons.

Doesn't do much good if you can bring them in from Virginia.

True, but the weapon used in the Maryland school shooting was not
banned. Maryland bans assault rifles like the AR-15 and assault pistols
like the MP5. In any case, this does not appear to be in any way
similar to the mass killings that utilize assault weapons. It seems to
me that the least that we can do to minimize the damage of mass killings
is to ban assault weapons. This won't stop kids whose lover rejects
them, but it would be an improvement over the current situation.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
Ask yourself, for instance, why the recent school shooting in Maryland
occurred even though Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in
the country and has a ban on semi-automatic weapons.

Doesn't do much good if you can bring them in from Virginia.

True, but the weapon used in the Maryland school shooting was not
banned. Maryland bans assault rifles like the AR-15 and assault pistols
like the MP5. In any case, this does not appear to be in any way
similar to the mass killings that utilize assault weapons. It seems to
me that the least that we can do to minimize the damage of mass killings
is to ban assault weapons. This won't stop kids whose lover rejects
them, but it would be an improvement over the current situation.

There have been so many school shootings I couldn't keep
track of them. I take it this is the one that mg was talking
about, after googling for it:
https://tinyurl.com/y8szv66m

If so, that was "only" two students shot, not one of the
more massive shooting cases as in Florida lately.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
Ask yourself, for instance, why the recent school shooting in Maryland
occurred even though Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in
the country and has a ban on semi-automatic weapons.

Doesn't do much good if you can bring them in from Virginia.

True, but the weapon used in the Maryland school shooting was not
banned. Maryland bans assault rifles like the AR-15 and assault pistols
like the MP5. In any case, this does not appear to be in any way
similar to the mass killings that utilize assault weapons. It seems to
me that the least that we can do to minimize the damage of mass killings
is to ban assault weapons. This won't stop kids whose lover rejects
them, but it would be an improvement over the current situation.

There have been so many school shootings I couldn't keep
track of them. I take it this is the one that mg was talking
https://tinyurl.com/y8szv66m
If so, that was "only" two students shot, not one of the
more massive shooting cases as in Florida lately.

Correct and while tragic, is not relevant to an argument against banning
assault weapons.

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 02:25:40 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.
And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service and Department
of Education, 68 percent of school shooters used a gun from their own
home or a relative’s home.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf
And that was the case in the recent Maryland school shooting,
incidentally. In that case, the shooter used his dad's gun. As an
interesting precursor to that, btw, in 2012, in the state of Newtown,
Connecticut, Adam Lanza took some of his mother's guns and put 4
bullets in her head and then fatally shot 20 children between 6 and 7
years old, as well as six adult staff members.

I've always thought it was a damned shame that he didn't shoot her
AFTER he shot all those children so she'd know what he'd done. He was
obviously crazier than a bedbug and she thought that getting him
interested in guns and shooting together was a fine idea.

Mothers sometimes think with their hearts, instead of their heads.
Adam Lanza was suffering from severe mental illness which is a common
thread for mass shootings.

Another common thread is semi-automatic weapons -- or in the case of
Las Vegas, fully automatic. Potential victims lack the patience to
stand around and wait for their executioner to reload.

That's why we need a multi-pronged strategy against mass shootings
instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket and especially a
basket that's already been proven not to work.

I am 100% in favor of a multi-pronged strategy, but is one of your
prongs a ban (with teeth) on semi-automatic weapons?

BTW ... I have the uneasy feeling that your "proven not to work"
argument is just an excuse for not supporting a ban on
semi-automatics. If you are opposed to banning semi-automatics, be a
man, fess up, and tell us the real reason.

Once again ...
"July 19, 2016
Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in
Australia, 1979-2013
Simon Chapman, PhD1; Philip Alpers1; Michael Jones, PhD2
Author Affiliations Article Information
1School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
2Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney,
Australia"
"Key Points
Question What happened to the trend in firearm deaths after Australia
introduced extensive gun law reform in 1996, including a ban on
semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns?
Findings In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass
shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass
shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths
accelerated.
Meaning Implementation of a ban on rapid-fire firearms was associated
with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362
BTW -- JAMA is the Journal of The American Medical Association

[mg]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 14:16:08 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 02:25:40 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.
And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service and Department
of Education, 68 percent of school shooters used a gun from their own
home or a relative’s home.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf
And that was the case in the recent Maryland school shooting,
incidentally. In that case, the shooter used his dad's gun. As an
interesting precursor to that, btw, in 2012, in the state of Newtown,
Connecticut, Adam Lanza took some of his mother's guns and put 4
bullets in her head and then fatally shot 20 children between 6 and 7
years old, as well as six adult staff members.

I've always thought it was a damned shame that he didn't shoot her
AFTER he shot all those children so she'd know what he'd done. He was
obviously crazier than a bedbug and she thought that getting him
interested in guns and shooting together was a fine idea.

Mothers sometimes think with their hearts, instead of their heads.
Adam Lanza was suffering from severe mental illness which is a common
thread for mass shootings.

Another common thread is semi-automatic weapons -- or in the case of
Las Vegas, fully automatic. Potential victims lack the patience to
stand around and wait for their executioner to reload.

That's why we need a multi-pronged strategy against mass shootings
instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket and especially a
basket that's already been proven not to work.

I am 100% in favor of a multi-pronged strategy, but is one of your
prongs a ban (with teeth) on semi-automatic weapons?

I am totally in favor of that. How can anyone not be in favor of
something that will save so many lives and prevent so much pain and
suffering, but there's no reason to believe that it will ever happen.

A law with teeth in it (and no grand fathering) is a pipe dream with
no basis in reality. It's a total fairy tale. It's not worth
discussing except on an abstract, theoretical, hypothetical basis. No
one should waste time discussing it until an actual proposal is made.

Incidentally, what sort of penalties would you be in favor of for a
parent who failed to prevent a child from gaining possession of one of
his guns? I'm thinking 6 months in jail for each person wounded and a
year in jail for each person killed.

BTW, I already provided a reference that disputes those Australian
results and you ignored it, so I don't see any sense in discussing it
again and besides that, the Australian law had a mandatory, buy-back
component.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854

Post by El Castor
BTW ... I have the uneasy feeling that your "proven not to work"
argument is just an excuse for not supporting a ban on
semi-automatics. If you are opposed to banning semi-automatics, be a
man, fess up, and tell us the real reason.
Once again ...
"July 19, 2016
Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in
Australia, 1979-2013
Simon Chapman, PhD1; Philip Alpers1; Michael Jones, PhD2
Author Affiliations Article Information
1School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
2Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney,
Australia"
"Key Points
Question What happened to the trend in firearm deaths after Australia
introduced extensive gun law reform in 1996, including a ban on
semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns?
Findings In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass
shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass
shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths
accelerated.
Meaning Implementation of a ban on rapid-fire firearms was associated
with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362
BTW -- JAMA is the Journal of The American Medical Association

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 14:16:08 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 02:25:40 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.
And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service and Department
of Education, 68 percent of school shooters used a gun from their own
home or a relative’s home.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf
And that was the case in the recent Maryland school shooting,
incidentally. In that case, the shooter used his dad's gun. As an
interesting precursor to that, btw, in 2012, in the state of Newtown,
Connecticut, Adam Lanza took some of his mother's guns and put 4
bullets in her head and then fatally shot 20 children between 6 and 7
years old, as well as six adult staff members.

I've always thought it was a damned shame that he didn't shoot her
AFTER he shot all those children so she'd know what he'd done. He was
obviously crazier than a bedbug and she thought that getting him
interested in guns and shooting together was a fine idea.

Mothers sometimes think with their hearts, instead of their heads.
Adam Lanza was suffering from severe mental illness which is a common
thread for mass shootings.

Another common thread is semi-automatic weapons -- or in the case of
Las Vegas, fully automatic. Potential victims lack the patience to
stand around and wait for their executioner to reload.

That's why we need a multi-pronged strategy against mass shootings
instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket and especially a
basket that's already been proven not to work.

I am 100% in favor of a multi-pronged strategy, but is one of your
prongs a ban (with teeth) on semi-automatic weapons?

I am totally in favor of that. How can anyone not be in favor of
something that will save so many lives and prevent so much pain and
suffering, but there's no reason to believe that it will ever happen.
A law with teeth in it (and no grand fathering) is a pipe dream with
no basis in reality. It's a total fairy tale. It's not worth
discussing except on an abstract, theoretical, hypothetical basis. No
one should waste time discussing it until an actual proposal is made.
Incidentally, what sort of penalties would you be in favor of for a
parent who failed to prevent a child from gaining possession of one of
his guns? I'm thinking 6 months in jail for each person wounded and a
year in jail for each person killed.

OK with me -- maybe harsher would be preferable, but a ban on
semi-automatic sale and possession would be even more important. Five
years for possession? Ten years for sale?

Post by mg
BTW, I already provided a reference that disputes those Australian
results and you ignored it, so I don't see any sense in discussing it
again and besides that, the Australian law had a mandatory, buy-back
component.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854

That study you referenced has been criticized, as perhaps the study I
referenced. In the end, that isn't the point. And what you and I
believe outside this group is not important. Of course a
semi-automatic ban would be next to impossible to get through
congress, but I was interested in what you yourself would like to see
happen -- not what you believe could or would happen.

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
BTW ... I have the uneasy feeling that your "proven not to work"
argument is just an excuse for not supporting a ban on
semi-automatics. If you are opposed to banning semi-automatics, be a
man, fess up, and tell us the real reason.
Once again ...
"July 19, 2016
Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in
Australia, 1979-2013
Simon Chapman, PhD1; Philip Alpers1; Michael Jones, PhD2
Author Affiliations Article Information
1School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
2Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney,
Australia"
"Key Points
Question What happened to the trend in firearm deaths after Australia
introduced extensive gun law reform in 1996, including a ban on
semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns?
Findings In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass
shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass
shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths
accelerated.
Meaning Implementation of a ban on rapid-fire firearms was associated
with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362
BTW -- JAMA is the Journal of The American Medical Association

[mg]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 23:21:26 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 14:16:08 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 02:25:40 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.
And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service and Department
of Education, 68 percent of school shooters used a gun from their own
home or a relative’s home.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf
And that was the case in the recent Maryland school shooting,
incidentally. In that case, the shooter used his dad's gun. As an
interesting precursor to that, btw, in 2012, in the state of Newtown,
Connecticut, Adam Lanza took some of his mother's guns and put 4
bullets in her head and then fatally shot 20 children between 6 and 7
years old, as well as six adult staff members.

I've always thought it was a damned shame that he didn't shoot her
AFTER he shot all those children so she'd know what he'd done. He was
obviously crazier than a bedbug and she thought that getting him
interested in guns and shooting together was a fine idea.

Mothers sometimes think with their hearts, instead of their heads.
Adam Lanza was suffering from severe mental illness which is a common
thread for mass shootings.

Another common thread is semi-automatic weapons -- or in the case of
Las Vegas, fully automatic. Potential victims lack the patience to
stand around and wait for their executioner to reload.

That's why we need a multi-pronged strategy against mass shootings
instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket and especially a
basket that's already been proven not to work.

I am 100% in favor of a multi-pronged strategy, but is one of your
prongs a ban (with teeth) on semi-automatic weapons?

I am totally in favor of that. How can anyone not be in favor of
something that will save so many lives and prevent so much pain and
suffering, but there's no reason to believe that it will ever happen.
A law with teeth in it (and no grand fathering) is a pipe dream with
no basis in reality. It's a total fairy tale. It's not worth
discussing except on an abstract, theoretical, hypothetical basis. No
one should waste time discussing it until an actual proposal is made.
Incidentally, what sort of penalties would you be in favor of for a
parent who failed to prevent a child from gaining possession of one of
his guns? I'm thinking 6 months in jail for each person wounded and a
year in jail for each person killed.

OK with me -- maybe harsher would be preferable, but a ban on
semi-automatic sale and possession would be even more important. Five
years for possession? Ten years for sale?

Post by mg
BTW, I already provided a reference that disputes those Australian
results and you ignored it, so I don't see any sense in discussing it
again and besides that, the Australian law had a mandatory, buy-back
component.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854

That study you referenced has been criticized, as perhaps the study I
referenced. In the end, that isn't the point. And what you and I
believe outside this group is not important. Of course a
semi-automatic ban would be next to impossible to get through
congress, but I was interested in what you yourself would like to see
happen -- not what you believe could or would happen.

I'm totally in favor of anything that would actually work and I'm
opposed to anything that is just a sham conjured up by politicians to
make people think that they are trying to solve the problem.

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
BTW ... I have the uneasy feeling that your "proven not to work"
argument is just an excuse for not supporting a ban on
semi-automatics. If you are opposed to banning semi-automatics, be a
man, fess up, and tell us the real reason.
Once again ...
"July 19, 2016
Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in
Australia, 1979-2013
Simon Chapman, PhD1; Philip Alpers1; Michael Jones, PhD2
Author Affiliations Article Information
1School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
2Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney,
Australia"
"Key Points
Question What happened to the trend in firearm deaths after Australia
introduced extensive gun law reform in 1996, including a ban on
semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns?
Findings In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass
shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass
shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths
accelerated.
Meaning Implementation of a ban on rapid-fire firearms was associated
with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362
BTW -- JAMA is the Journal of The American Medical Association

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 23:21:26 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 14:16:08 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 02:25:40 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.
And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service and Department
of Education, 68 percent of school shooters used a gun from their own
home or a relative’s home.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf
And that was the case in the recent Maryland school shooting,
incidentally. In that case, the shooter used his dad's gun. As an
interesting precursor to that, btw, in 2012, in the state of Newtown,
Connecticut, Adam Lanza took some of his mother's guns and put 4
bullets in her head and then fatally shot 20 children between 6 and 7
years old, as well as six adult staff members.

I've always thought it was a damned shame that he didn't shoot her
AFTER he shot all those children so she'd know what he'd done. He was
obviously crazier than a bedbug and she thought that getting him
interested in guns and shooting together was a fine idea.

Mothers sometimes think with their hearts, instead of their heads.
Adam Lanza was suffering from severe mental illness which is a common
thread for mass shootings.

Another common thread is semi-automatic weapons -- or in the case of
Las Vegas, fully automatic. Potential victims lack the patience to
stand around and wait for their executioner to reload.

That's why we need a multi-pronged strategy against mass shootings
instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket and especially a
basket that's already been proven not to work.

I am 100% in favor of a multi-pronged strategy, but is one of your
prongs a ban (with teeth) on semi-automatic weapons?

I am totally in favor of that. How can anyone not be in favor of
something that will save so many lives and prevent so much pain and
suffering, but there's no reason to believe that it will ever happen.
A law with teeth in it (and no grand fathering) is a pipe dream with
no basis in reality. It's a total fairy tale. It's not worth
discussing except on an abstract, theoretical, hypothetical basis. No
one should waste time discussing it until an actual proposal is made.
Incidentally, what sort of penalties would you be in favor of for a
parent who failed to prevent a child from gaining possession of one of
his guns? I'm thinking 6 months in jail for each person wounded and a
year in jail for each person killed.

OK with me -- maybe harsher would be preferable, but a ban on
semi-automatic sale and possession would be even more important. Five
years for possession? Ten years for sale?

Post by mg
BTW, I already provided a reference that disputes those Australian
results and you ignored it, so I don't see any sense in discussing it
again and besides that, the Australian law had a mandatory, buy-back
component.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854

That study you referenced has been criticized, as perhaps the study I
referenced. In the end, that isn't the point. And what you and I
believe outside this group is not important. Of course a
semi-automatic ban would be next to impossible to get through
congress, but I was interested in what you yourself would like to see
happen -- not what you believe could or would happen.

I'm totally in favor of anything that would actually work and I'm
opposed to anything that is just a sham conjured up by politicians to
make people think that they are trying to solve the problem.

A ban on sale, would keep them out of the gun shops and shows. That
alone would be better than nothing. However, opposition to a
semi-automatic ban because it "wouldn't work" has the smell about it
of a deliberate excuse to do nothing -- the obvious goal being to not
get rid of them.

Post by mg

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
BTW ... I have the uneasy feeling that your "proven not to work"
argument is just an excuse for not supporting a ban on
semi-automatics. If you are opposed to banning semi-automatics, be a
man, fess up, and tell us the real reason.
Once again ...
"July 19, 2016
Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in
Australia, 1979-2013
Simon Chapman, PhD1; Philip Alpers1; Michael Jones, PhD2
Author Affiliations Article Information
1School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
2Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney,
Australia"
"Key Points
Question What happened to the trend in firearm deaths after Australia
introduced extensive gun law reform in 1996, including a ban on
semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns?
Findings In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass
shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass
shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths
accelerated.
Meaning Implementation of a ban on rapid-fire firearms was associated
with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362
BTW -- JAMA is the Journal of The American Medical Association

[mg]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 17:08:07 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 23:21:26 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 14:16:08 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 02:25:40 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.
And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service and Department
of Education, 68 percent of school shooters used a gun from their own
home or a relative’s home.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf
And that was the case in the recent Maryland school shooting,
incidentally. In that case, the shooter used his dad's gun. As an
interesting precursor to that, btw, in 2012, in the state of Newtown,
Connecticut, Adam Lanza took some of his mother's guns and put 4
bullets in her head and then fatally shot 20 children between 6 and 7
years old, as well as six adult staff members.

I've always thought it was a damned shame that he didn't shoot her
AFTER he shot all those children so she'd know what he'd done. He was
obviously crazier than a bedbug and she thought that getting him
interested in guns and shooting together was a fine idea.

Mothers sometimes think with their hearts, instead of their heads.
Adam Lanza was suffering from severe mental illness which is a common
thread for mass shootings.

Another common thread is semi-automatic weapons -- or in the case of
Las Vegas, fully automatic. Potential victims lack the patience to
stand around and wait for their executioner to reload.

That's why we need a multi-pronged strategy against mass shootings
instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket and especially a
basket that's already been proven not to work.

I am 100% in favor of a multi-pronged strategy, but is one of your
prongs a ban (with teeth) on semi-automatic weapons?

I am totally in favor of that. How can anyone not be in favor of
something that will save so many lives and prevent so much pain and
suffering, but there's no reason to believe that it will ever happen.
A law with teeth in it (and no grand fathering) is a pipe dream with
no basis in reality. It's a total fairy tale. It's not worth
discussing except on an abstract, theoretical, hypothetical basis. No
one should waste time discussing it until an actual proposal is made.
Incidentally, what sort of penalties would you be in favor of for a
parent who failed to prevent a child from gaining possession of one of
his guns? I'm thinking 6 months in jail for each person wounded and a
year in jail for each person killed.

OK with me -- maybe harsher would be preferable, but a ban on
semi-automatic sale and possession would be even more important. Five
years for possession? Ten years for sale?

Post by mg
BTW, I already provided a reference that disputes those Australian
results and you ignored it, so I don't see any sense in discussing it
again and besides that, the Australian law had a mandatory, buy-back
component.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854

That study you referenced has been criticized, as perhaps the study I
referenced. In the end, that isn't the point. And what you and I
believe outside this group is not important. Of course a
semi-automatic ban would be next to impossible to get through
congress, but I was interested in what you yourself would like to see
happen -- not what you believe could or would happen.

I'm totally in favor of anything that would actually work and I'm
opposed to anything that is just a sham conjured up by politicians to
make people think that they are trying to solve the problem.

A ban on sale, would keep them out of the gun shops and shows. That
alone would be better than nothing. However, opposition to a
semi-automatic ban because it "wouldn't work" has the smell about it
of a deliberate excuse to do nothing -- the obvious goal being to not
get rid of them.

Why in the world would you want to do the 1994 ban over again when it
didn't work?! The 1994 Ban obviously would have had a ban on sales.
Maryland has a ban on sales and they just had a school shooting.
Wasn't it Albert Einstein who said that insanity was doing the same
thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Why not
try something that does work for a change to save the lives of the
children?

I keep saying the same thing over and over again and it doesn't seem
to take. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban had little or no effect on gun
crime because of the problem of grandfathering and the lack of strict
prison sentences for violators. Here's an excerpt, once again, from
the report:

"Koper, Jan 14: In general we found, really, very, very little
evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal
or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we
concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime
during the years it was in effect."

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
BTW ... I have the uneasy feeling that your "proven not to work"
argument is just an excuse for not supporting a ban on
semi-automatics. If you are opposed to banning semi-automatics, be a
man, fess up, and tell us the real reason.
Once again ...
"July 19, 2016
Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in
Australia, 1979-2013
Simon Chapman, PhD1; Philip Alpers1; Michael Jones, PhD2
Author Affiliations Article Information
1School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
2Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney,
Australia"
"Key Points
Question What happened to the trend in firearm deaths after Australia
introduced extensive gun law reform in 1996, including a ban on
semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns?
Findings In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass
shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass
shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths
accelerated.
Meaning Implementation of a ban on rapid-fire firearms was associated
with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362
BTW -- JAMA is the Journal of The American Medical Association

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 20:23:32 -0600, mg <***@none.nl> wrote:
<snip>

Post by mg
I keep saying the same thing over and over again and it doesn't seem
to take. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban had little or no effect on gun
crime because of the problem of grandfathering and the lack of strict
prison sentences for violators. Here's an excerpt, once again, from

You right above said why you think it didn't work. Take care
of those gaping holes and maybe it will work better. The NRA
will fight hard to avoid closing those loopholes though, and
then say "See? It didn't work."

There may or may not be much difference between guy
crime between then and now, but there sure do seem to
be a heckuva lot more mass murders these days, with
automatic weapons because that's the only way to commit
mass murder, except by planting a nuke (which hasn't
been done yet) or by sabotaging a jet liner or flying it into
a mountain (which has been done, repeatedly).

Post by mg
"Koper, Jan 14: In general we found, really, very, very little
evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal
or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we
concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime
during the years it was in effect."

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
I keep saying the same thing over and over again and it doesn't seem
to take. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban had little or no effect on gun
crime because of the problem of grandfathering and the lack of strict
prison sentences for violators. Here's an excerpt, once again, from

You right above said why you think it didn't work. Take care
of those gaping holes and maybe it will work better. The NRA
will fight hard to avoid closing those loopholes though, and
then say "See? It didn't work."

Black people and the NRA, and the Democrats, and probably the
Republicans, or at least the Tea Party don't like mandatory
confiscation of guns, and strict punishment for violations, and the
Republicans, in general, don't like any gun control laws in general.
So, right now it doesn't look like it's anytime in the near future, or
anytime in our lifetimes to get even a gun control law passed with
loopholes, let alone one passed without loopholes. If it did someday,
somehow manage to get passed, though, I think that there's a very good
chance that it would eventually be killed just like the prohibition
law was killed and the 1994 Weapons ban was killed.

In the meantime, though, while this charade plays out, over a period
of decades, people, including children, are continuing to die.

Post by rumpelstiltskin
There may or may not be much difference between guy
crime between then and now, but there sure do seem to
be a heckuva lot more mass murders these days, with
automatic weapons because that's the only way to commit
mass murder, except by planting a nuke (which hasn't
been done yet) or by sabotaging a jet liner or flying it into
a mountain (which has been done, repeatedly).

That might be true and it would be interesting to see some numbers on
it, or, if I had the ambition I could do some more research, but in
any case following the gun ban route could take decades and in the
meantime I would like to see something else being done right now --
TODAY. So, that we're not putting all of our eggs in one basket and
then waiting decades to see if they survive.

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
"Koper, Jan 14: In general we found, really, very, very little
evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal
or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we
concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime
during the years it was in effect."

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
I keep saying the same thing over and over again and it doesn't seem
to take. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban had little or no effect on gun
crime because of the problem of grandfathering and the lack of strict
prison sentences for violators. Here's an excerpt, once again, from

You right above said why you think it didn't work. Take care
of those gaping holes and maybe it will work better. The NRA
will fight hard to avoid closing those loopholes though, and
then say "See? It didn't work."

Black people and the NRA, and the Democrats, and probably the
Republicans, or at least the Tea Party don't like mandatory
confiscation of guns, and strict punishment for violations, and the
Republicans, in general, don't like any gun control laws in general.
So, right now it doesn't look like it's anytime in the near future, or
anytime in our lifetimes to get even a gun control law passed with
loopholes, let alone one passed without loopholes. If it did someday,
somehow manage to get passed, though, I think that there's a very good
chance that it would eventually be killed just like the prohibition
law was killed and the 1994 Weapons ban was killed.

I'm a yoo-ruh-pee-on so I don't have those hangups. I feel
sorry for you Americans, who have to put up with the NRA.
Oh, wait, I live here too! I forgot about that.

Post by mg
In the meantime, though, while this charade plays out, over a period
of decades, people, including children, are continuing to die.

Of course there was that sicko in Norway, who managed to
get his hands on automatic weapons. It's rare there, though,
but it's getting to be almost an everyday event in the USA.

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin
There may or may not be much difference between guy
crime between then and now, but there sure do seem to
be a heckuva lot more mass murders these days, with
automatic weapons because that's the only way to commit
mass murder, except by planting a nuke (which hasn't
been done yet) or by sabotaging a jet liner or flying it into
a mountain (which has been done, repeatedly).

That might be true and it would be interesting to see some numbers on
it, or, if I had the ambition I could do some more research, but in
any case following the gun ban route could take decades and in the
meantime I would like to see something else being done right now --
TODAY. So, that we're not putting all of our eggs in one basket and
then waiting decades to see if they survive.

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
"Koper, Jan 14: In general we found, really, very, very little
evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal
or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we
concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime
during the years it was in effect."

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 17:08:07 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 23:21:26 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 14:16:08 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 02:25:40 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.
And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service and Department
of Education, 68 percent of school shooters used a gun from their own
home or a relative’s home.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf
And that was the case in the recent Maryland school shooting,
incidentally. In that case, the shooter used his dad's gun. As an
interesting precursor to that, btw, in 2012, in the state of Newtown,
Connecticut, Adam Lanza took some of his mother's guns and put 4
bullets in her head and then fatally shot 20 children between 6 and 7
years old, as well as six adult staff members.

I've always thought it was a damned shame that he didn't shoot her
AFTER he shot all those children so she'd know what he'd done. He was
obviously crazier than a bedbug and she thought that getting him
interested in guns and shooting together was a fine idea.

Mothers sometimes think with their hearts, instead of their heads.
Adam Lanza was suffering from severe mental illness which is a common
thread for mass shootings.

Another common thread is semi-automatic weapons -- or in the case of
Las Vegas, fully automatic. Potential victims lack the patience to
stand around and wait for their executioner to reload.

That's why we need a multi-pronged strategy against mass shootings
instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket and especially a
basket that's already been proven not to work.

I am 100% in favor of a multi-pronged strategy, but is one of your
prongs a ban (with teeth) on semi-automatic weapons?

I am totally in favor of that. How can anyone not be in favor of
something that will save so many lives and prevent so much pain and
suffering, but there's no reason to believe that it will ever happen.
A law with teeth in it (and no grand fathering) is a pipe dream with
no basis in reality. It's a total fairy tale. It's not worth
discussing except on an abstract, theoretical, hypothetical basis. No
one should waste time discussing it until an actual proposal is made.
Incidentally, what sort of penalties would you be in favor of for a
parent who failed to prevent a child from gaining possession of one of
his guns? I'm thinking 6 months in jail for each person wounded and a
year in jail for each person killed.

OK with me -- maybe harsher would be preferable, but a ban on
semi-automatic sale and possession would be even more important. Five
years for possession? Ten years for sale?

Post by mg
BTW, I already provided a reference that disputes those Australian
results and you ignored it, so I don't see any sense in discussing it
again and besides that, the Australian law had a mandatory, buy-back
component.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854

That study you referenced has been criticized, as perhaps the study I
referenced. In the end, that isn't the point. And what you and I
believe outside this group is not important. Of course a
semi-automatic ban would be next to impossible to get through
congress, but I was interested in what you yourself would like to see
happen -- not what you believe could or would happen.

I'm totally in favor of anything that would actually work and I'm
opposed to anything that is just a sham conjured up by politicians to
make people think that they are trying to solve the problem.

A ban on sale, would keep them out of the gun shops and shows. That
alone would be better than nothing. However, opposition to a
semi-automatic ban because it "wouldn't work" has the smell about it
of a deliberate excuse to do nothing -- the obvious goal being to not
get rid of them.

Why in the world would you want to do the 1994 ban over again when it
didn't work?! The 1994 Ban obviously would have had a ban on sales.
Maryland has a ban on sales and they just had a school shooting.
Wasn't it Albert Einstein who said that insanity was doing the same
thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Why not
try something that does work for a change to save the lives of the
children?

State bans really are useless -- or close to it. How far from the
state line does the average person live? The ban should be national.

Post by mg
I keep saying the same thing over and over again and it doesn't seem
to take. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban had little or no effect on gun
crime because of the problem of grandfathering and the lack of strict
prison sentences for violators. Here's an excerpt, once again, from
"Koper, Jan 14: In general we found, really, very, very little
evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal
or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we
concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime
during the years it was in effect."

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
BTW ... I have the uneasy feeling that your "proven not to work"
argument is just an excuse for not supporting a ban on
semi-automatics. If you are opposed to banning semi-automatics, be a
man, fess up, and tell us the real reason.
Once again ...
"July 19, 2016
Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in
Australia, 1979-2013
Simon Chapman, PhD1; Philip Alpers1; Michael Jones, PhD2
Author Affiliations Article Information
1School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
2Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney,
Australia"
"Key Points
Question What happened to the trend in firearm deaths after Australia
introduced extensive gun law reform in 1996, including a ban on
semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns?
Findings In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass
shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass
shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths
accelerated.
Meaning Implementation of a ban on rapid-fire firearms was associated
with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362
BTW -- JAMA is the Journal of The American Medical Association

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 17:08:07 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 23:21:26 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 14:16:08 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 02:25:40 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.
And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service and Department
of Education, 68 percent of school shooters used a gun from their own
home or a relative’s home.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf
And that was the case in the recent Maryland school shooting,
incidentally. In that case, the shooter used his dad's gun. As an
interesting precursor to that, btw, in 2012, in the state of Newtown,
Connecticut, Adam Lanza took some of his mother's guns and put 4
bullets in her head and then fatally shot 20 children between 6 and 7
years old, as well as six adult staff members.

I've always thought it was a damned shame that he didn't shoot her
AFTER he shot all those children so she'd know what he'd done. He was
obviously crazier than a bedbug and she thought that getting him
interested in guns and shooting together was a fine idea.

Mothers sometimes think with their hearts, instead of their heads.
Adam Lanza was suffering from severe mental illness which is a common
thread for mass shootings.

Another common thread is semi-automatic weapons -- or in the case of
Las Vegas, fully automatic. Potential victims lack the patience to
stand around and wait for their executioner to reload.

That's why we need a multi-pronged strategy against mass shootings
instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket and especially a
basket that's already been proven not to work.

I am 100% in favor of a multi-pronged strategy, but is one of your
prongs a ban (with teeth) on semi-automatic weapons?

I am totally in favor of that. How can anyone not be in favor of
something that will save so many lives and prevent so much pain and
suffering, but there's no reason to believe that it will ever happen.
A law with teeth in it (and no grand fathering) is a pipe dream with
no basis in reality. It's a total fairy tale. It's not worth
discussing except on an abstract, theoretical, hypothetical basis. No
one should waste time discussing it until an actual proposal is made.
Incidentally, what sort of penalties would you be in favor of for a
parent who failed to prevent a child from gaining possession of one of
his guns? I'm thinking 6 months in jail for each person wounded and a
year in jail for each person killed.

OK with me -- maybe harsher would be preferable, but a ban on
semi-automatic sale and possession would be even more important. Five
years for possession? Ten years for sale?

Post by mg
BTW, I already provided a reference that disputes those Australian
results and you ignored it, so I don't see any sense in discussing it
again and besides that, the Australian law had a mandatory, buy-back
component.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854

That study you referenced has been criticized, as perhaps the study I
referenced. In the end, that isn't the point. And what you and I
believe outside this group is not important. Of course a
semi-automatic ban would be next to impossible to get through
congress, but I was interested in what you yourself would like to see
happen -- not what you believe could or would happen.

I'm totally in favor of anything that would actually work and I'm
opposed to anything that is just a sham conjured up by politicians to
make people think that they are trying to solve the problem.

A ban on sale, would keep them out of the gun shops and shows. That
alone would be better than nothing. However, opposition to a
semi-automatic ban because it "wouldn't work" has the smell about it
of a deliberate excuse to do nothing -- the obvious goal being to not
get rid of them.

Why in the world would you want to do the 1994 ban over again when it
didn't work?! The 1994 Ban obviously would have had a ban on sales.
Maryland has a ban on sales and they just had a school shooting.
Wasn't it Albert Einstein who said that insanity was doing the same
thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Why not
try something that does work for a change to save the lives of the
children?

State bans really are useless -- or close to it. How far from the
state line does the average person live? The ban should be national.

What is the justification for owning an assault weapon anyway? The
principle of the thing? They are essentially not well suited for
hunting if one wants to honor that questionable "sport." They are not
the best choice of weapon if one wants to protect against home invasion
and definitely not useful for concealed carry if one wants protection
outside the home. Are there people who actually think that they need
them to protect themselves against attacking hordes?

Get rid of the damn things - entirely. They are much too dangerous to
trust leaving them in the hands of the public.

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
I keep saying the same thing over and over again and it doesn't seem
to take. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban had little or no effect on gun
crime because of the problem of grandfathering and the lack of strict
prison sentences for violators. Here's an excerpt, once again, from
"Koper, Jan 14: In general we found, really, very, very little
evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal
or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we
concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime
during the years it was in effect."

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
BTW ... I have the uneasy feeling that your "proven not to work"
argument is just an excuse for not supporting a ban on
semi-automatics. If you are opposed to banning semi-automatics, be a
man, fess up, and tell us the real reason.
Once again ...
"July 19, 2016
Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in
Australia, 1979-2013
Simon Chapman, PhD1; Philip Alpers1; Michael Jones, PhD2
Author Affiliations Article Information
1School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
2Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney,
Australia"
"Key Points
Question What happened to the trend in firearm deaths after Australia
introduced extensive gun law reform in 1996, including a ban on
semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns?
Findings In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass
shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass
shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths
accelerated.
Meaning Implementation of a ban on rapid-fire firearms was associated
with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362
BTW -- JAMA is the Journal of The American Medical Association

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 17:08:07 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 23:21:26 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 14:16:08 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 02:25:40 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.
And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

According to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service and Department
of Education, 68 percent of school shooters used a gun from their own
home or a relative’s home.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf
And that was the case in the recent Maryland school shooting,
incidentally. In that case, the shooter used his dad's gun. As an
interesting precursor to that, btw, in 2012, in the state of Newtown,
Connecticut, Adam Lanza took some of his mother's guns and put 4
bullets in her head and then fatally shot 20 children between 6 and 7
years old, as well as six adult staff members.

I've always thought it was a damned shame that he didn't shoot her
AFTER he shot all those children so she'd know what he'd done. He was
obviously crazier than a bedbug and she thought that getting him
interested in guns and shooting together was a fine idea.

Mothers sometimes think with their hearts, instead of their heads.
Adam Lanza was suffering from severe mental illness which is a common
thread for mass shootings.

Another common thread is semi-automatic weapons -- or in the case of
Las Vegas, fully automatic. Potential victims lack the patience to
stand around and wait for their executioner to reload.

That's why we need a multi-pronged strategy against mass shootings
instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket and especially a
basket that's already been proven not to work.

I am 100% in favor of a multi-pronged strategy, but is one of your
prongs a ban (with teeth) on semi-automatic weapons?

I am totally in favor of that. How can anyone not be in favor of
something that will save so many lives and prevent so much pain and
suffering, but there's no reason to believe that it will ever happen.
A law with teeth in it (and no grand fathering) is a pipe dream with
no basis in reality. It's a total fairy tale. It's not worth
discussing except on an abstract, theoretical, hypothetical basis. No
one should waste time discussing it until an actual proposal is made.
Incidentally, what sort of penalties would you be in favor of for a
parent who failed to prevent a child from gaining possession of one of
his guns? I'm thinking 6 months in jail for each person wounded and a
year in jail for each person killed.

OK with me -- maybe harsher would be preferable, but a ban on
semi-automatic sale and possession would be even more important. Five
years for possession? Ten years for sale?

Post by mg
BTW, I already provided a reference that disputes those Australian
results and you ignored it, so I don't see any sense in discussing it
again and besides that, the Australian law had a mandatory, buy-back
component.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854

That study you referenced has been criticized, as perhaps the study I
referenced. In the end, that isn't the point. And what you and I
believe outside this group is not important. Of course a
semi-automatic ban would be next to impossible to get through
congress, but I was interested in what you yourself would like to see
happen -- not what you believe could or would happen.

I'm totally in favor of anything that would actually work and I'm
opposed to anything that is just a sham conjured up by politicians to
make people think that they are trying to solve the problem.

A ban on sale, would keep them out of the gun shops and shows. That
alone would be better than nothing. However, opposition to a
semi-automatic ban because it "wouldn't work" has the smell about it
of a deliberate excuse to do nothing -- the obvious goal being to not
get rid of them.

Why in the world would you want to do the 1994 ban over again when it
didn't work?! The 1994 Ban obviously would have had a ban on sales.
Maryland has a ban on sales and they just had a school shooting.
Wasn't it Albert Einstein who said that insanity was doing the same
thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Why not
try something that does work for a change to save the lives of the
children?

State bans really are useless -- or close to it. How far from the
state line does the average person live? The ban should be national.

What is the justification for owning an assault weapon anyway? The
principle of the thing? They are essentially not well suited for
hunting if one wants to honor that questionable "sport." They are not
the best choice of weapon if one wants to protect against home invasion
and definitely not useful for concealed carry if one wants protection
outside the home. Are there people who actually think that they need
them to protect themselves against attacking hordes?
Get rid of the damn things - entirely. They are much too dangerous to
trust leaving them in the hands of the public.

Well, yes.

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
I keep saying the same thing over and over again and it doesn't seem
to take. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban had little or no effect on gun
crime because of the problem of grandfathering and the lack of strict
prison sentences for violators. Here's an excerpt, once again, from
"Koper, Jan 14: In general we found, really, very, very little
evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal
or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we
concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime
during the years it was in effect."

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by El Castor

Post by mg

Post by El Castor
BTW ... I have the uneasy feeling that your "proven not to work"
argument is just an excuse for not supporting a ban on
semi-automatics. If you are opposed to banning semi-automatics, be a
man, fess up, and tell us the real reason.
Once again ...
"July 19, 2016
Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in
Australia, 1979-2013
Simon Chapman, PhD1; Philip Alpers1; Michael Jones, PhD2
Author Affiliations Article Information
1School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
2Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney,
Australia"
"Key Points
Question What happened to the trend in firearm deaths after Australia
introduced extensive gun law reform in 1996, including a ban on
semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns?
Findings In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass
shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass
shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths
accelerated.
Meaning Implementation of a ban on rapid-fire firearms was associated
with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362
BTW -- JAMA is the Journal of The American Medical Association

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.
And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

I don't think she was either, nor was the guy's father who
seemed on TV to be happy that his son was waging war
against infidels. He likely brought his son up that way.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by Emily

Post by mg

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor
So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

Which of the more infamous shooters, the ones who killed lots of
people at one time in the last few decades, do you think would have
been deterred by harsher penalties?

It's not the shooters who should be deterred, as much as it is the
parents who should be deterred by the prospect of spending years in
prison if they don't lock up their guns and someone uses them to kill
people.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'd be far more
horrified by the fact that my child killed a bunch of innocent people
than I would by having to spend a long time in prison.
And I assume that locking up the parents wouldn't be automatic, but
rather the possible result of a trial. They just found the Pulse
nightclub shooter's wife not guilty. Do you think she actually was
ignorant of his plans? I don't.

I don't think she was either, nor was the guy's father who
seemed on TV to be happy that his son was waging war
against infidels. He likely brought his son up that way.

We seem to have lost sight of the reason for banning assault weapons,
specifically the capability of killing a lot of people in a short period
of time. This is independent of the venue. There are lots of ways that
people can kill each other, but these particular weapons seem to have no
other purpose than to kill a lot of people. For that reason and for no
other, they should be banned - not just prevented from being sold, but
banned entirely.

[mg]

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:00:58 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:22:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

Post by mg
It all seems so logical. If you don't like drinking alcohol, pass a
law against drinking. If you don't like drug abuse, pass a law against
drug abuse. If you don't like murder, or stealing, or reckless
driving, or adultery, pass a law and if you don't like mass shootings,
pass a law against semi-automatic guns. It just all seems so logical,
but it doesn't seem to work very well.

Sure, some laws work better than others, but it seems you are
categorically rejecting proscription laws because they don't work. So,
murder laws don't work very well and we'd be no worse off not having
them. Really?

Actually, the point that I was trying to make was one that I've tried
to make before and that is that simply passing laws doesn't solve the
problem. In order to work, laws have to have stiff penalties combined
with high criminal capture rates. For instance, one of the problems
that they evidently have in Chicago is short prison sentences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
As another example, the reason gun control laws don't have a high
degree of success is because of the minimal punishments imposed on
violators. For example, in the recent Maryland school shooting, there
is no penalty for the father, who didn't insure that his teenage son
couldn't gain access to it.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

OK. So perhaps more stringent gun laws are needed?

I suppose it depends on word definitions, but I would say that
Maryland, for instance, has some of the most stringent gun laws in the
country, but with very lenient penalties for violation. For instance,
with the Maryland high school shooting there was no penalty for the
father providing access for his 17-year-old son to his semi-automatic
"Jen Pauliukonis, president of the group Marylanders to Prevent Gun
Violence, said the case highlights the issue of child access to
firearms. She pointed to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service
and Department of Education that found that 68 percent of school
shooters used a gun from their own home or a relative’s home. . . .
Maryland law prohibits a person from leaving a loaded firearm
somewhere that the person knew or should have known that an
unsupervised child under age 16 could gain access to it. Violators
face a misdemeanor charge and a fine of up to $1,000.
In the Great Mills shooting, however, Rollins was 17.
Pauliukonis said the state law has a “gap” when it comes to older
teens."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

We need severe penalties for violation of gun laws and, if we outlaw
semi-automatic weapons and large gun clips, we are going to have to
remove them from every one in the country who has them -- no grand
fathering.

I don't know how well outlawing "assault weapons" will work to reduce
mass shootings, but without the two elements listed above, the law
would just be a cruel joke played on a gullible public by the
politicians who allowed the killing of America's children to continue,
while the American people fell for the charade hook, line, and sinker.

[El Castor]

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:00:58 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:22:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

Post by mg
It all seems so logical. If you don't like drinking alcohol, pass a
law against drinking. If you don't like drug abuse, pass a law against
drug abuse. If you don't like murder, or stealing, or reckless
driving, or adultery, pass a law and if you don't like mass shootings,
pass a law against semi-automatic guns. It just all seems so logical,
but it doesn't seem to work very well.

Sure, some laws work better than others, but it seems you are
categorically rejecting proscription laws because they don't work. So,
murder laws don't work very well and we'd be no worse off not having
them. Really?

Actually, the point that I was trying to make was one that I've tried
to make before and that is that simply passing laws doesn't solve the
problem. In order to work, laws have to have stiff penalties combined
with high criminal capture rates. For instance, one of the problems
that they evidently have in Chicago is short prison sentences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
As another example, the reason gun control laws don't have a high
degree of success is because of the minimal punishments imposed on
violators. For example, in the recent Maryland school shooting, there
is no penalty for the father, who didn't insure that his teenage son
couldn't gain access to it.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

OK. So perhaps more stringent gun laws are needed?

I suppose it depends on word definitions, but I would say that
Maryland, for instance, has some of the most stringent gun laws in the
country, but with very lenient penalties for violation. For instance,
with the Maryland high school shooting there was no penalty for the
father providing access for his 17-year-old son to his semi-automatic
"Jen Pauliukonis, president of the group Marylanders to Prevent Gun
Violence, said the case highlights the issue of child access to
firearms. She pointed to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service
and Department of Education that found that 68 percent of school
shooters used a gun from their own home or a relative’s home. . . .
Maryland law prohibits a person from leaving a loaded firearm
somewhere that the person knew or should have known that an
unsupervised child under age 16 could gain access to it. Violators
face a misdemeanor charge and a fine of up to $1,000.
In the Great Mills shooting, however, Rollins was 17.
Pauliukonis said the state law has a “gap” when it comes to older
teens."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

We need severe penalties for violation of gun laws and, if we outlaw
semi-automatic weapons and large gun clips, we are going to have to
remove them from every one in the country who has them -- no grand
fathering.
I don't know how well outlawing "assault weapons" will work to reduce
mass shootings, but without the two elements listed above, the law
would just be a cruel joke played on a gullible public by the
politicians who allowed the killing of America's children to continue,
while the American people fell for the charade hook, line, and sinker.

20 years ago, in the wake of a typical US type mass shooting by a loan
loon armed with semi-automatic weapons, Australia banned the
importation, sale, and possession of semi-automatic weapons. They
cleaned up most of the outstanding weapons with a gun buy-back
program. Australians consider it to be a huge success.

"Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up.
Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get
along and legislate. As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one
in the past 22 years." ...
"Gun violence in general declined over the following two decades to a
nearly unimaginable degree. In 2014, the latest year for which final
statistics are available, Australia’s murder rate fell to less than 1
killing per 100,000 people—a murder rate one-fifth the size of
America’s. Just 32 of those homicides—in a nation of 24 million
people—were committed with guns. By comparison, more than 500 people
were shot dead last year in the city of Chicago alone. (Chicago has
about 2.7 million residents.) Perhaps most remarkable is what happened
with gun suicides in Australia in the wake of the post-Port Arthur
firearm legislation. They dropped by some 80 percent, according to one
analysis.""
http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/

Australia isn't the US. It is hard to imagine that a similar gun ban
could be implemented here, and would work as well, but if it was up to
me ... (-8

BTW, before posting stories that the crime rate in Australia is up
since the gun ban, those stories are not true.

"Claim -- Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have
increased substantially since the government there instituted a gun
buy-back program in 1997."
"Rating -- False"
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/australian-guns/

[mg]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 00:55:41 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:00:58 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:22:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

Post by mg
It all seems so logical. If you don't like drinking alcohol, pass a
law against drinking. If you don't like drug abuse, pass a law against
drug abuse. If you don't like murder, or stealing, or reckless
driving, or adultery, pass a law and if you don't like mass shootings,
pass a law against semi-automatic guns. It just all seems so logical,
but it doesn't seem to work very well.

Sure, some laws work better than others, but it seems you are
categorically rejecting proscription laws because they don't work. So,
murder laws don't work very well and we'd be no worse off not having
them. Really?

Actually, the point that I was trying to make was one that I've tried
to make before and that is that simply passing laws doesn't solve the
problem. In order to work, laws have to have stiff penalties combined
with high criminal capture rates. For instance, one of the problems
that they evidently have in Chicago is short prison sentences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
As another example, the reason gun control laws don't have a high
degree of success is because of the minimal punishments imposed on
violators. For example, in the recent Maryland school shooting, there
is no penalty for the father, who didn't insure that his teenage son
couldn't gain access to it.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

OK. So perhaps more stringent gun laws are needed?

I suppose it depends on word definitions, but I would say that
Maryland, for instance, has some of the most stringent gun laws in the
country, but with very lenient penalties for violation. For instance,
with the Maryland high school shooting there was no penalty for the
father providing access for his 17-year-old son to his semi-automatic
"Jen Pauliukonis, president of the group Marylanders to Prevent Gun
Violence, said the case highlights the issue of child access to
firearms. She pointed to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service
and Department of Education that found that 68 percent of school
shooters used a gun from their own home or a relative’s home. . . .
Maryland law prohibits a person from leaving a loaded firearm
somewhere that the person knew or should have known that an
unsupervised child under age 16 could gain access to it. Violators
face a misdemeanor charge and a fine of up to $1,000.
In the Great Mills shooting, however, Rollins was 17.
Pauliukonis said the state law has a “gap” when it comes to older
teens."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

We need severe penalties for violation of gun laws and, if we outlaw
semi-automatic weapons and large gun clips, we are going to have to
remove them from every one in the country who has them -- no grand
fathering.
I don't know how well outlawing "assault weapons" will work to reduce
mass shootings, but without the two elements listed above, the law
would just be a cruel joke played on a gullible public by the
politicians who allowed the killing of America's children to continue,
while the American people fell for the charade hook, line, and sinker.

20 years ago, in the wake of a typical US type mass shooting by a loan
loon armed with semi-automatic weapons, Australia banned the
importation, sale, and possession of semi-automatic weapons. They
cleaned up most of the outstanding weapons with a gun buy-back
program. Australians consider it to be a huge success.
"Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up.
Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get
along and legislate. As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one
in the past 22 years." ...
"Gun violence in general declined over the following two decades to a
nearly unimaginable degree. In 2014, the latest year for which final
statistics are available, Australia’s murder rate fell to less than 1
killing per 100,000 people—a murder rate one-fifth the size of
America’s. Just 32 of those homicides—in a nation of 24 million
people—were committed with guns. By comparison, more than 500 people
were shot dead last year in the city of Chicago alone. (Chicago has
about 2.7 million residents.) Perhaps most remarkable is what happened
with gun suicides in Australia in the wake of the post-Port Arthur
firearm legislation. They dropped by some 80 percent, according to one
analysis.""
http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/
Australia isn't the US. It is hard to imagine that a similar gun ban
could be implemented here, and would work as well, but if it was up to
me ... (-8
BTW, before posting stories that the crime rate in Australia is up
since the gun ban, those stories are not true.
"Claim -- Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have
increased substantially since the government there instituted a gun
buy-back program in 1997."
"Rating -- False"
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/australian-guns/

One problem with gun control is that it won't work without aggressive
enforcement and strict penalties and no grand father clause. All of
the illegal, or most all of the illegal weapons have to be
confiscated, with a buy-back program, for instance, and destroyed.

One catch-22 with all this, though, is that prohibition, especially
gun prohibition, is very unpopular. So, the more aggressive the
enforcement is and the stricter the penalties are the more likely it
is that the law will simply be repealed when the direction of the
political winds change.

Another problem is that it simply doesn't make sense for the US to put
all of its eggs in one basket when it comes to trying to protect our
children. Gun control, if it works, would be good, but in the meantime
we should employ some other approaches liked hardening soft targets
like schools, for instance.

In regard to the question of gun control in Australia and whether or
not it worked, it depends on who you ask. According to the study
described at the following website, it didn't:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854




---------------------------
I have been struck again
and again by how important
measurement is to improving
the human condition.
-- Bill Gates

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 00:55:41 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:00:58 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:22:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

Post by mg
It all seems so logical. If you don't like drinking alcohol, pass a
law against drinking. If you don't like drug abuse, pass a law against
drug abuse. If you don't like murder, or stealing, or reckless
driving, or adultery, pass a law and if you don't like mass shootings,
pass a law against semi-automatic guns. It just all seems so logical,
but it doesn't seem to work very well.

Sure, some laws work better than others, but it seems you are
categorically rejecting proscription laws because they don't work. So,
murder laws don't work very well and we'd be no worse off not having
them. Really?

Actually, the point that I was trying to make was one that I've tried
to make before and that is that simply passing laws doesn't solve the
problem. In order to work, laws have to have stiff penalties combined
with high criminal capture rates. For instance, one of the problems
that they evidently have in Chicago is short prison sentences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
As another example, the reason gun control laws don't have a high
degree of success is because of the minimal punishments imposed on
violators. For example, in the recent Maryland school shooting, there
is no penalty for the father, who didn't insure that his teenage son
couldn't gain access to it.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

OK. So perhaps more stringent gun laws are needed?

I suppose it depends on word definitions, but I would say that
Maryland, for instance, has some of the most stringent gun laws in the
country, but with very lenient penalties for violation. For instance,
with the Maryland high school shooting there was no penalty for the
father providing access for his 17-year-old son to his semi-automatic
"Jen Pauliukonis, president of the group Marylanders to Prevent Gun
Violence, said the case highlights the issue of child access to
firearms. She pointed to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service
and Department of Education that found that 68 percent of school
shooters used a gun from their own home or a relative’s home. . . .
Maryland law prohibits a person from leaving a loaded firearm
somewhere that the person knew or should have known that an
unsupervised child under age 16 could gain access to it. Violators
face a misdemeanor charge and a fine of up to $1,000.
In the Great Mills shooting, however, Rollins was 17.
Pauliukonis said the state law has a “gap” when it comes to older
teens."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

We need severe penalties for violation of gun laws and, if we outlaw
semi-automatic weapons and large gun clips, we are going to have to
remove them from every one in the country who has them -- no grand
fathering.
I don't know how well outlawing "assault weapons" will work to reduce
mass shootings, but without the two elements listed above, the law
would just be a cruel joke played on a gullible public by the
politicians who allowed the killing of America's children to continue,
while the American people fell for the charade hook, line, and sinker.

20 years ago, in the wake of a typical US type mass shooting by a loan
loon armed with semi-automatic weapons, Australia banned the
importation, sale, and possession of semi-automatic weapons. They
cleaned up most of the outstanding weapons with a gun buy-back
program. Australians consider it to be a huge success.
"Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up.
Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get
along and legislate. As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one
in the past 22 years." ...
"Gun violence in general declined over the following two decades to a
nearly unimaginable degree. In 2014, the latest year for which final
statistics are available, Australia’s murder rate fell to less than 1
killing per 100,000 people—a murder rate one-fifth the size of
America’s. Just 32 of those homicides—in a nation of 24 million
people—were committed with guns. By comparison, more than 500 people
were shot dead last year in the city of Chicago alone. (Chicago has
about 2.7 million residents.) Perhaps most remarkable is what happened
with gun suicides in Australia in the wake of the post-Port Arthur
firearm legislation. They dropped by some 80 percent, according to one
analysis.""
http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/
Australia isn't the US. It is hard to imagine that a similar gun ban
could be implemented here, and would work as well, but if it was up to
me ... (-8
BTW, before posting stories that the crime rate in Australia is up
since the gun ban, those stories are not true.
"Claim -- Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have
increased substantially since the government there instituted a gun
buy-back program in 1997."
"Rating -- False"
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/australian-guns/

One problem with gun control is that it won't work without aggressive
enforcement and strict penalties and no grand father clause. All of
the illegal, or most all of the illegal weapons have to be
confiscated, with a buy-back program, for instance, and destroyed.
One catch-22 with all this, though, is that prohibition, especially
gun prohibition, is very unpopular. So, the more aggressive the
enforcement is and the stricter the penalties are the more likely it
is that the law will simply be repealed when the direction of the
political winds change.
Another problem is that it simply doesn't make sense for the US to put
all of its eggs in one basket when it comes to trying to protect our
children. Gun control, if it works, would be good, but in the meantime
we should employ some other approaches liked hardening soft targets
like schools, for instance.
In regard to the question of gun control in Australia and whether or
not it worked, it depends on who you ask. According to the study
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854

After a million or two people get killed, maybe the public
will change its mind. Until then, just keep drinking and
watching reruns of "That 70's Show" on TV, which I'm
doing now myself except for the drinking.

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 00:55:41 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:00:58 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:22:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

Post by mg
It all seems so logical. If you don't like drinking alcohol, pass a
law against drinking. If you don't like drug abuse, pass a law against
drug abuse. If you don't like murder, or stealing, or reckless
driving, or adultery, pass a law and if you don't like mass shootings,
pass a law against semi-automatic guns. It just all seems so logical,
but it doesn't seem to work very well.

Sure, some laws work better than others, but it seems you are
categorically rejecting proscription laws because they don't work. So,
murder laws don't work very well and we'd be no worse off not having
them. Really?

Actually, the point that I was trying to make was one that I've tried
to make before and that is that simply passing laws doesn't solve the
problem. In order to work, laws have to have stiff penalties combined
with high criminal capture rates. For instance, one of the problems
that they evidently have in Chicago is short prison sentences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
As another example, the reason gun control laws don't have a high
degree of success is because of the minimal punishments imposed on
violators. For example, in the recent Maryland school shooting, there
is no penalty for the father, who didn't insure that his teenage son
couldn't gain access to it.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

OK. So perhaps more stringent gun laws are needed?

I suppose it depends on word definitions, but I would say that
Maryland, for instance, has some of the most stringent gun laws in the
country, but with very lenient penalties for violation. For instance,
with the Maryland high school shooting there was no penalty for the
father providing access for his 17-year-old son to his semi-automatic
"Jen Pauliukonis, president of the group Marylanders to Prevent Gun
Violence, said the case highlights the issue of child access to
firearms. She pointed to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service
and Department of Education that found that 68 percent of school
shooters used a gun from their own home or a relative’s home. . . .
Maryland law prohibits a person from leaving a loaded firearm
somewhere that the person knew or should have known that an
unsupervised child under age 16 could gain access to it. Violators
face a misdemeanor charge and a fine of up to $1,000.
In the Great Mills shooting, however, Rollins was 17.
Pauliukonis said the state law has a “gap” when it comes to older
teens."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

We need severe penalties for violation of gun laws and, if we outlaw
semi-automatic weapons and large gun clips, we are going to have to
remove them from every one in the country who has them -- no grand
fathering.
I don't know how well outlawing "assault weapons" will work to reduce
mass shootings, but without the two elements listed above, the law
would just be a cruel joke played on a gullible public by the
politicians who allowed the killing of America's children to continue,
while the American people fell for the charade hook, line, and sinker.

20 years ago, in the wake of a typical US type mass shooting by a loan
loon armed with semi-automatic weapons, Australia banned the
importation, sale, and possession of semi-automatic weapons. They
cleaned up most of the outstanding weapons with a gun buy-back
program. Australians consider it to be a huge success.
"Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up.
Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get
along and legislate. As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one
in the past 22 years." ...
"Gun violence in general declined over the following two decades to a
nearly unimaginable degree. In 2014, the latest year for which final
statistics are available, Australia’s murder rate fell to less than 1
killing per 100,000 people—a murder rate one-fifth the size of
America’s. Just 32 of those homicides—in a nation of 24 million
people—were committed with guns. By comparison, more than 500 people
were shot dead last year in the city of Chicago alone. (Chicago has
about 2.7 million residents.) Perhaps most remarkable is what happened
with gun suicides in Australia in the wake of the post-Port Arthur
firearm legislation. They dropped by some 80 percent, according to one
analysis.""
http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/
Australia isn't the US. It is hard to imagine that a similar gun ban
could be implemented here, and would work as well, but if it was up to
me ... (-8
BTW, before posting stories that the crime rate in Australia is up
since the gun ban, those stories are not true.
"Claim -- Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have
increased substantially since the government there instituted a gun
buy-back program in 1997."
"Rating -- False"
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/australian-guns/

One problem with gun control is that it won't work without aggressive
enforcement and strict penalties and no grand father clause. All of
the illegal, or most all of the illegal weapons have to be
confiscated, with a buy-back program, for instance, and destroyed.
One catch-22 with all this, though, is that prohibition, especially
gun prohibition, is very unpopular. So, the more aggressive the
enforcement is and the stricter the penalties are the more likely it
is that the law will simply be repealed when the direction of the
political winds change.
Another problem is that it simply doesn't make sense for the US to put
all of its eggs in one basket when it comes to trying to protect our
children. Gun control, if it works, would be good, but in the meantime
we should employ some other approaches liked hardening soft targets
like schools, for instance.
In regard to the question of gun control in Australia and whether or
not it worked, it depends on who you ask. According to the study
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854

After a million or two people get killed, maybe the public
will change its mind. Until then, just keep drinking and
watching reruns of "That 70's Show" on TV, which I'm
doing now myself except for the drinking.

I've never drank very much at all, in my life -- mostly a few beers
out of the cooler chest in days gone by when we were camping up in the
mountains and a glass of wine every now and then.

Actually, it's funny that you should mention drinking, though, because
I was just thinking the other day that maybe I ought to get a good
bottle of wine and maybe have just one small glass per day just for
the helluvit.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 00:55:41 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:00:58 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:22:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

Post by mg
It all seems so logical. If you don't like drinking alcohol, pass a
law against drinking. If you don't like drug abuse, pass a law against
drug abuse. If you don't like murder, or stealing, or reckless
driving, or adultery, pass a law and if you don't like mass shootings,
pass a law against semi-automatic guns. It just all seems so logical,
but it doesn't seem to work very well.

Sure, some laws work better than others, but it seems you are
categorically rejecting proscription laws because they don't work. So,
murder laws don't work very well and we'd be no worse off not having
them. Really?

Actually, the point that I was trying to make was one that I've tried
to make before and that is that simply passing laws doesn't solve the
problem. In order to work, laws have to have stiff penalties combined
with high criminal capture rates. For instance, one of the problems
that they evidently have in Chicago is short prison sentences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
As another example, the reason gun control laws don't have a high
degree of success is because of the minimal punishments imposed on
violators. For example, in the recent Maryland school shooting, there
is no penalty for the father, who didn't insure that his teenage son
couldn't gain access to it.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

OK. So perhaps more stringent gun laws are needed?

I suppose it depends on word definitions, but I would say that
Maryland, for instance, has some of the most stringent gun laws in the
country, but with very lenient penalties for violation. For instance,
with the Maryland high school shooting there was no penalty for the
father providing access for his 17-year-old son to his semi-automatic
"Jen Pauliukonis, president of the group Marylanders to Prevent Gun
Violence, said the case highlights the issue of child access to
firearms. She pointed to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service
and Department of Education that found that 68 percent of school
shooters used a gun from their own home or a relative’s home. . . .
Maryland law prohibits a person from leaving a loaded firearm
somewhere that the person knew or should have known that an
unsupervised child under age 16 could gain access to it. Violators
face a misdemeanor charge and a fine of up to $1,000.
In the Great Mills shooting, however, Rollins was 17.
Pauliukonis said the state law has a “gap” when it comes to older
teens."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

We need severe penalties for violation of gun laws and, if we outlaw
semi-automatic weapons and large gun clips, we are going to have to
remove them from every one in the country who has them -- no grand
fathering.
I don't know how well outlawing "assault weapons" will work to reduce
mass shootings, but without the two elements listed above, the law
would just be a cruel joke played on a gullible public by the
politicians who allowed the killing of America's children to continue,
while the American people fell for the charade hook, line, and sinker.

20 years ago, in the wake of a typical US type mass shooting by a loan
loon armed with semi-automatic weapons, Australia banned the
importation, sale, and possession of semi-automatic weapons. They
cleaned up most of the outstanding weapons with a gun buy-back
program. Australians consider it to be a huge success.
"Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up.
Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get
along and legislate. As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one
in the past 22 years." ...
"Gun violence in general declined over the following two decades to a
nearly unimaginable degree. In 2014, the latest year for which final
statistics are available, Australia’s murder rate fell to less than 1
killing per 100,000 people—a murder rate one-fifth the size of
America’s. Just 32 of those homicides—in a nation of 24 million
people—were committed with guns. By comparison, more than 500 people
were shot dead last year in the city of Chicago alone. (Chicago has
about 2.7 million residents.) Perhaps most remarkable is what happened
with gun suicides in Australia in the wake of the post-Port Arthur
firearm legislation. They dropped by some 80 percent, according to one
analysis.""
http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/
Australia isn't the US. It is hard to imagine that a similar gun ban
could be implemented here, and would work as well, but if it was up to
me ... (-8
BTW, before posting stories that the crime rate in Australia is up
since the gun ban, those stories are not true.
"Claim -- Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have
increased substantially since the government there instituted a gun
buy-back program in 1997."
"Rating -- False"
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/australian-guns/

One problem with gun control is that it won't work without aggressive
enforcement and strict penalties and no grand father clause. All of
the illegal, or most all of the illegal weapons have to be
confiscated, with a buy-back program, for instance, and destroyed.
One catch-22 with all this, though, is that prohibition, especially
gun prohibition, is very unpopular. So, the more aggressive the
enforcement is and the stricter the penalties are the more likely it
is that the law will simply be repealed when the direction of the
political winds change.
Another problem is that it simply doesn't make sense for the US to put
all of its eggs in one basket when it comes to trying to protect our
children. Gun control, if it works, would be good, but in the meantime
we should employ some other approaches liked hardening soft targets
like schools, for instance.
In regard to the question of gun control in Australia and whether or
not it worked, it depends on who you ask. According to the study
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854

After a million or two people get killed, maybe the public
will change its mind. Until then, just keep drinking and
watching reruns of "That 70's Show" on TV, which I'm
doing now myself except for the drinking.

I've never drank very much at all, in my life -- mostly a few beers
out of the cooler chest in days gone by when we were camping up in the
mountains and a glass of wine every now and then.
Actually, it's funny that you should mention drinking, though, because
I was just thinking the other day that maybe I ought to get a good
bottle of wine and maybe have just one small glass per day just for
the helluvit.

I don't like beer, I like whiskey. two or three times a week
I'll have an ounce of whiskey in hot chocolate or by itself.
Matter of fact I'll get me a shot right now and settle in to
watch TV and fall asleep.

I've only been drunk four or five times in my life, and I only
once had a hangover, which was the day after I drank tequila
on the assurance of a friend who plied me with tequila all
evening and assured me that tequila doesn't cause hangovers.

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 00:55:41 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:00:58 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:22:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

Post by mg
It all seems so logical. If you don't like drinking alcohol, pass a
law against drinking. If you don't like drug abuse, pass a law against
drug abuse. If you don't like murder, or stealing, or reckless
driving, or adultery, pass a law and if you don't like mass shootings,
pass a law against semi-automatic guns. It just all seems so logical,
but it doesn't seem to work very well.

Sure, some laws work better than others, but it seems you are
categorically rejecting proscription laws because they don't work. So,
murder laws don't work very well and we'd be no worse off not having
them. Really?

Actually, the point that I was trying to make was one that I've tried
to make before and that is that simply passing laws doesn't solve the
problem. In order to work, laws have to have stiff penalties combined
with high criminal capture rates. For instance, one of the problems
that they evidently have in Chicago is short prison sentences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
As another example, the reason gun control laws don't have a high
degree of success is because of the minimal punishments imposed on
violators. For example, in the recent Maryland school shooting, there
is no penalty for the father, who didn't insure that his teenage son
couldn't gain access to it.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

OK. So perhaps more stringent gun laws are needed?

I suppose it depends on word definitions, but I would say that
Maryland, for instance, has some of the most stringent gun laws in the
country, but with very lenient penalties for violation. For instance,
with the Maryland high school shooting there was no penalty for the
father providing access for his 17-year-old son to his semi-automatic
"Jen Pauliukonis, president of the group Marylanders to Prevent Gun
Violence, said the case highlights the issue of child access to
firearms. She pointed to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service
and Department of Education that found that 68 percent of school
shooters used a gun from their own home or a relative’s home. . . .
Maryland law prohibits a person from leaving a loaded firearm
somewhere that the person knew or should have known that an
unsupervised child under age 16 could gain access to it. Violators
face a misdemeanor charge and a fine of up to $1,000.
In the Great Mills shooting, however, Rollins was 17.
Pauliukonis said the state law has a “gap” when it comes to older
teens."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

We need severe penalties for violation of gun laws and, if we outlaw
semi-automatic weapons and large gun clips, we are going to have to
remove them from every one in the country who has them -- no grand
fathering.
I don't know how well outlawing "assault weapons" will work to reduce
mass shootings, but without the two elements listed above, the law
would just be a cruel joke played on a gullible public by the
politicians who allowed the killing of America's children to continue,
while the American people fell for the charade hook, line, and sinker.

20 years ago, in the wake of a typical US type mass shooting by a loan
loon armed with semi-automatic weapons, Australia banned the
importation, sale, and possession of semi-automatic weapons. They
cleaned up most of the outstanding weapons with a gun buy-back
program. Australians consider it to be a huge success.
"Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up.
Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get
along and legislate. As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one
in the past 22 years." ...
"Gun violence in general declined over the following two decades to a
nearly unimaginable degree. In 2014, the latest year for which final
statistics are available, Australia’s murder rate fell to less than 1
killing per 100,000 people—a murder rate one-fifth the size of
America’s. Just 32 of those homicides—in a nation of 24 million
people—were committed with guns. By comparison, more than 500 people
were shot dead last year in the city of Chicago alone. (Chicago has
about 2.7 million residents.) Perhaps most remarkable is what happened
with gun suicides in Australia in the wake of the post-Port Arthur
firearm legislation. They dropped by some 80 percent, according to one
analysis.""
http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/
Australia isn't the US. It is hard to imagine that a similar gun ban
could be implemented here, and would work as well, but if it was up to
me ... (-8
BTW, before posting stories that the crime rate in Australia is up
since the gun ban, those stories are not true.
"Claim -- Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have
increased substantially since the government there instituted a gun
buy-back program in 1997."
"Rating -- False"
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/australian-guns/

One problem with gun control is that it won't work without aggressive
enforcement and strict penalties and no grand father clause. All of
the illegal, or most all of the illegal weapons have to be
confiscated, with a buy-back program, for instance, and destroyed.
One catch-22 with all this, though, is that prohibition, especially
gun prohibition, is very unpopular. So, the more aggressive the
enforcement is and the stricter the penalties are the more likely it
is that the law will simply be repealed when the direction of the
political winds change.
Another problem is that it simply doesn't make sense for the US to put
all of its eggs in one basket when it comes to trying to protect our
children. Gun control, if it works, would be good, but in the meantime
we should employ some other approaches liked hardening soft targets
like schools, for instance.
In regard to the question of gun control in Australia and whether or
not it worked, it depends on who you ask. According to the study
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854

After a million or two people get killed, maybe the public
will change its mind. Until then, just keep drinking and
watching reruns of "That 70's Show" on TV, which I'm
doing now myself except for the drinking.

I've never drank very much at all, in my life -- mostly a few beers
out of the cooler chest in days gone by when we were camping up in the
mountains and a glass of wine every now and then.
Actually, it's funny that you should mention drinking, though, because
I was just thinking the other day that maybe I ought to get a good
bottle of wine and maybe have just one small glass per day just for
the helluvit.

I don't like beer, I like whiskey. two or three times a week
I'll have an ounce of whiskey in hot chocolate or by itself.
Matter of fact I'll get me a shot right now and settle in to
watch TV and fall asleep.
I've only been drunk four or five times in my life, and I only
once had a hangover, which was the day after I drank tequila
on the assurance of a friend who plied me with tequila all
evening and assured me that tequila doesn't cause hangovers.

Actually, I don't like beer, either, but when you're up in the
mountains camping and sometimes you're soaking wet with sweat because
you're working so hard trying to have a lot of fun, beer is good just
because it's cold.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 00:55:41 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:00:58 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:22:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

Post by mg
It all seems so logical. If you don't like drinking alcohol, pass a
law against drinking. If you don't like drug abuse, pass a law against
drug abuse. If you don't like murder, or stealing, or reckless
driving, or adultery, pass a law and if you don't like mass shootings,
pass a law against semi-automatic guns. It just all seems so logical,
but it doesn't seem to work very well.

Sure, some laws work better than others, but it seems you are
categorically rejecting proscription laws because they don't work. So,
murder laws don't work very well and we'd be no worse off not having
them. Really?

Actually, the point that I was trying to make was one that I've tried
to make before and that is that simply passing laws doesn't solve the
problem. In order to work, laws have to have stiff penalties combined
with high criminal capture rates. For instance, one of the problems
that they evidently have in Chicago is short prison sentences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
As another example, the reason gun control laws don't have a high
degree of success is because of the minimal punishments imposed on
violators. For example, in the recent Maryland school shooting, there
is no penalty for the father, who didn't insure that his teenage son
couldn't gain access to it.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

OK. So perhaps more stringent gun laws are needed?

I suppose it depends on word definitions, but I would say that
Maryland, for instance, has some of the most stringent gun laws in the
country, but with very lenient penalties for violation. For instance,
with the Maryland high school shooting there was no penalty for the
father providing access for his 17-year-old son to his semi-automatic
"Jen Pauliukonis, president of the group Marylanders to Prevent Gun
Violence, said the case highlights the issue of child access to
firearms. She pointed to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service
and Department of Education that found that 68 percent of school
shooters used a gun from their own home or a relative’s home. . . .
Maryland law prohibits a person from leaving a loaded firearm
somewhere that the person knew or should have known that an
unsupervised child under age 16 could gain access to it. Violators
face a misdemeanor charge and a fine of up to $1,000.
In the Great Mills shooting, however, Rollins was 17.
Pauliukonis said the state law has a “gap” when it comes to older
teens."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

We need severe penalties for violation of gun laws and, if we outlaw
semi-automatic weapons and large gun clips, we are going to have to
remove them from every one in the country who has them -- no grand
fathering.
I don't know how well outlawing "assault weapons" will work to reduce
mass shootings, but without the two elements listed above, the law
would just be a cruel joke played on a gullible public by the
politicians who allowed the killing of America's children to continue,
while the American people fell for the charade hook, line, and sinker.

20 years ago, in the wake of a typical US type mass shooting by a loan
loon armed with semi-automatic weapons, Australia banned the
importation, sale, and possession of semi-automatic weapons. They
cleaned up most of the outstanding weapons with a gun buy-back
program. Australians consider it to be a huge success.
"Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up.
Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get
along and legislate. As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one
in the past 22 years." ...
"Gun violence in general declined over the following two decades to a
nearly unimaginable degree. In 2014, the latest year for which final
statistics are available, Australia’s murder rate fell to less than 1
killing per 100,000 people—a murder rate one-fifth the size of
America’s. Just 32 of those homicides—in a nation of 24 million
people—were committed with guns. By comparison, more than 500 people
were shot dead last year in the city of Chicago alone. (Chicago has
about 2.7 million residents.) Perhaps most remarkable is what happened
with gun suicides in Australia in the wake of the post-Port Arthur
firearm legislation. They dropped by some 80 percent, according to one
analysis.""
http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/
Australia isn't the US. It is hard to imagine that a similar gun ban
could be implemented here, and would work as well, but if it was up to
me ... (-8
BTW, before posting stories that the crime rate in Australia is up
since the gun ban, those stories are not true.
"Claim -- Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have
increased substantially since the government there instituted a gun
buy-back program in 1997."
"Rating -- False"
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/australian-guns/

One problem with gun control is that it won't work without aggressive
enforcement and strict penalties and no grand father clause. All of
the illegal, or most all of the illegal weapons have to be
confiscated, with a buy-back program, for instance, and destroyed.
One catch-22 with all this, though, is that prohibition, especially
gun prohibition, is very unpopular. So, the more aggressive the
enforcement is and the stricter the penalties are the more likely it
is that the law will simply be repealed when the direction of the
political winds change.
Another problem is that it simply doesn't make sense for the US to put
all of its eggs in one basket when it comes to trying to protect our
children. Gun control, if it works, would be good, but in the meantime
we should employ some other approaches liked hardening soft targets
like schools, for instance.
In regard to the question of gun control in Australia and whether or
not it worked, it depends on who you ask. According to the study
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854

After a million or two people get killed, maybe the public
will change its mind. Until then, just keep drinking and
watching reruns of "That 70's Show" on TV, which I'm
doing now myself except for the drinking.

I've never drank very much at all, in my life -- mostly a few beers
out of the cooler chest in days gone by when we were camping up in the
mountains and a glass of wine every now and then.
Actually, it's funny that you should mention drinking, though, because
I was just thinking the other day that maybe I ought to get a good
bottle of wine and maybe have just one small glass per day just for
the helluvit.

I don't like beer, I like whiskey. two or three times a week
I'll have an ounce of whiskey in hot chocolate or by itself.
Matter of fact I'll get me a shot right now and settle in to
watch TV and fall asleep.
I've only been drunk four or five times in my life, and I only
once had a hangover, which was the day after I drank tequila
on the assurance of a friend who plied me with tequila all
evening and assured me that tequila doesn't cause hangovers.

Actually, I don't like beer, either, but when you're up in the
mountains camping and sometimes you're soaking wet with sweat because
you're working so hard trying to have a lot of fun, beer is good just
because it's cold.

Diet ginger ale is just as cold, and at least for myself it's
more refreshing. Lately I've been drinking a lot more ice
water than before, which cuts down a lot on shopping
trips mostly to buy and schlep 15 two-liter bottles of
ginger ale. That's not the reason I'm drinking more ice
water, I'm drinking it because I'm liking it better than
I used to.

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 00:55:41 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:00:58 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:22:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

Post by mg
It all seems so logical. If you don't like drinking alcohol, pass a
law against drinking. If you don't like drug abuse, pass a law against
drug abuse. If you don't like murder, or stealing, or reckless
driving, or adultery, pass a law and if you don't like mass shootings,
pass a law against semi-automatic guns. It just all seems so logical,
but it doesn't seem to work very well.

Sure, some laws work better than others, but it seems you are
categorically rejecting proscription laws because they don't work. So,
murder laws don't work very well and we'd be no worse off not having
them. Really?

Actually, the point that I was trying to make was one that I've tried
to make before and that is that simply passing laws doesn't solve the
problem. In order to work, laws have to have stiff penalties combined
with high criminal capture rates. For instance, one of the problems
that they evidently have in Chicago is short prison sentences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
As another example, the reason gun control laws don't have a high
degree of success is because of the minimal punishments imposed on
violators. For example, in the recent Maryland school shooting, there
is no penalty for the father, who didn't insure that his teenage son
couldn't gain access to it.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

OK. So perhaps more stringent gun laws are needed?

I suppose it depends on word definitions, but I would say that
Maryland, for instance, has some of the most stringent gun laws in the
country, but with very lenient penalties for violation. For instance,
with the Maryland high school shooting there was no penalty for the
father providing access for his 17-year-old son to his semi-automatic
"Jen Pauliukonis, president of the group Marylanders to Prevent Gun
Violence, said the case highlights the issue of child access to
firearms. She pointed to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service
and Department of Education that found that 68 percent of school
shooters used a gun from their own home or a relative’s home. . . .
Maryland law prohibits a person from leaving a loaded firearm
somewhere that the person knew or should have known that an
unsupervised child under age 16 could gain access to it. Violators
face a misdemeanor charge and a fine of up to $1,000.
In the Great Mills shooting, however, Rollins was 17.
Pauliukonis said the state law has a “gap” when it comes to older
teens."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

We need severe penalties for violation of gun laws and, if we outlaw
semi-automatic weapons and large gun clips, we are going to have to
remove them from every one in the country who has them -- no grand
fathering.
I don't know how well outlawing "assault weapons" will work to reduce
mass shootings, but without the two elements listed above, the law
would just be a cruel joke played on a gullible public by the
politicians who allowed the killing of America's children to continue,
while the American people fell for the charade hook, line, and sinker.

20 years ago, in the wake of a typical US type mass shooting by a loan
loon armed with semi-automatic weapons, Australia banned the
importation, sale, and possession of semi-automatic weapons. They
cleaned up most of the outstanding weapons with a gun buy-back
program. Australians consider it to be a huge success.
"Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up.
Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get
along and legislate. As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one
in the past 22 years." ...
"Gun violence in general declined over the following two decades to a
nearly unimaginable degree. In 2014, the latest year for which final
statistics are available, Australia’s murder rate fell to less than 1
killing per 100,000 people—a murder rate one-fifth the size of
America’s. Just 32 of those homicides—in a nation of 24 million
people—were committed with guns. By comparison, more than 500 people
were shot dead last year in the city of Chicago alone. (Chicago has
about 2.7 million residents.) Perhaps most remarkable is what happened
with gun suicides in Australia in the wake of the post-Port Arthur
firearm legislation. They dropped by some 80 percent, according to one
analysis.""
http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/
Australia isn't the US. It is hard to imagine that a similar gun ban
could be implemented here, and would work as well, but if it was up to
me ... (-8
BTW, before posting stories that the crime rate in Australia is up
since the gun ban, those stories are not true.
"Claim -- Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have
increased substantially since the government there instituted a gun
buy-back program in 1997."
"Rating -- False"
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/australian-guns/

One problem with gun control is that it won't work without aggressive
enforcement and strict penalties and no grand father clause. All of
the illegal, or most all of the illegal weapons have to be
confiscated, with a buy-back program, for instance, and destroyed.
One catch-22 with all this, though, is that prohibition, especially
gun prohibition, is very unpopular. So, the more aggressive the
enforcement is and the stricter the penalties are the more likely it
is that the law will simply be repealed when the direction of the
political winds change.
Another problem is that it simply doesn't make sense for the US to put
all of its eggs in one basket when it comes to trying to protect our
children. Gun control, if it works, would be good, but in the meantime
we should employ some other approaches liked hardening soft targets
like schools, for instance.
In regard to the question of gun control in Australia and whether or
not it worked, it depends on who you ask. According to the study
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854

After a million or two people get killed, maybe the public
will change its mind. Until then, just keep drinking and
watching reruns of "That 70's Show" on TV, which I'm
doing now myself except for the drinking.

I've never drank very much at all, in my life -- mostly a few beers
out of the cooler chest in days gone by when we were camping up in the
mountains and a glass of wine every now and then.
Actually, it's funny that you should mention drinking, though, because
I was just thinking the other day that maybe I ought to get a good
bottle of wine and maybe have just one small glass per day just for
the helluvit.

I don't like beer, I like whiskey. two or three times a week
I'll have an ounce of whiskey in hot chocolate or by itself.
Matter of fact I'll get me a shot right now and settle in to
watch TV and fall asleep.
I've only been drunk four or five times in my life, and I only
once had a hangover, which was the day after I drank tequila
on the assurance of a friend who plied me with tequila all
evening and assured me that tequila doesn't cause hangovers.

Actually, I don't like beer, either, but when you're up in the
mountains camping and sometimes you're soaking wet with sweat because
you're working so hard trying to have a lot of fun, beer is good just
because it's cold.

Diet ginger ale is just as cold, and at least for myself it's
more refreshing. Lately I've been drinking a lot more ice
water than before, which cuts down a lot on shopping
trips mostly to buy and schlep 15 two-liter bottles of
ginger ale. That's not the reason I'm drinking more ice
water, I'm drinking it because I'm liking it better than
I used to.

I've been drinking ice water since I retired in 2001; I always have a
small glass of ice tea and a large glass of ice water on by desk at
all times, winter and summer. Lately, in the last 6 months or so, I've
cut my ice-tea drinking down to just a relatively few sips, though,
because I'm starting to worry about my kidneys after drinking coffee
at the steel plant all day long for 20 years.

[rumpelstiltskin]

<snip>

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Diet ginger ale is just as cold, and at least for myself it's
more refreshing. Lately I've been drinking a lot more ice
water than before, which cuts down a lot on shopping
trips mostly to buy and schlep 15 two-liter bottles of
ginger ale. That's not the reason I'm drinking more ice
water, I'm drinking it because I'm liking it better than
I used to.

I've been drinking ice water since I retired in 2001; I always have a
small glass of ice tea and a large glass of ice water on by desk at
all times, winter and summer. Lately, in the last 6 months or so, I've
cut my ice-tea drinking down to just a relatively few sips, though,
because I'm starting to worry about my kidneys after drinking coffee
at the steel plant all day long for 20 years.

Curiously enough, I just got home a few minutes ago and
I have a glass of water, half drunk now, in front of me at
the moment. I'm also frying up ground beef with
Worcestershire sauce in the kitchen while I'm typing here
in the bedroom, which I intend to mix with half an onion I
already diced up and with some instant mashed potatoes.
So I can't claim to be a "healthful" eater. I'm trying to
cut back on salt, but I'll have to add some because nothing
like that tastes good without at least a little salt.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Diet ginger ale is just as cold, and at least for myself it's
more refreshing.

My wife really likes Reeds Diet Extra Ginger Beer and she is pretty
picky about what she drinks. Don't know if you can get it in your region.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Diet ginger ale is just as cold, and at least for myself it's
more refreshing.

My wife really likes Reeds Diet Extra Ginger Beer and she is pretty
picky about what she drinks. Don't know if you can get it in your region.

I don't look for beer. My son buys beer, and it's often hanging
around between visits, but I'm never tempted to try it.

[islander]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Diet ginger ale is just as cold, and at least for myself it's
more refreshing.

My wife really likes Reeds Diet Extra Ginger Beer and she is pretty
picky about what she drinks. Don't know if you can get it in your region.

I don't look for beer. My son buys beer, and it's often hanging
around between visits, but I'm never tempted to try it.

Ginger beer is ginger ale. It is not an alcoholic beverage.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Diet ginger ale is just as cold, and at least for myself it's
more refreshing.

My wife really likes Reeds Diet Extra Ginger Beer and she is pretty
picky about what she drinks. Don't know if you can get it in your region.

I don't look for beer. My son buys beer, and it's often hanging
around between visits, but I'm never tempted to try it.

Ginger beer is ginger ale. It is not an alcoholic beverage.

Oh. I guess that shows how much I know about beer!
I like ginger ale, but I've been switching to ice water
because it's just as refreshing, and I don't have to keep
driving to the supermarket to buy more.

I remember hearing about ginger beer from when
I was in England, no more than 6 years old, but I
never realized it wasn't beer.

---

I have to move my car at least once a week anyway,
to deprive the meter whores of the pleasure of pasting
my car with a $76 ticket for being parked in a street-
cleaning zone on a street-cleaning day. That's what I
did on Monday. When I got back, there was, thanks
be to Jesus, a spot across the street right in front of
my house, in a no-parking Thursday zone. So I
parked there although I didn't have much in groceries,
just three plastibottles of Acai juice, one carton of
heavy cream, a two-pack of olive oil that will probably
last me two years, and a package of pastrami. If it
hadn't been for street-cleaning, I wouldn't have
bothered, but since I had to move my car anyway,
I figured I might as well go to Costco. Very often I
go to the supermarket only because I have to move
my car anyway. Last car-check time I had to drive
my car 100 miles down the East Bay then back up
the West bay, just because the *&(# computer
didn't have enough data. That must have been
because a couple of months earlier I couldn't start
my car, because the battery connection had somehow
failed. I just whacked the batter a couple of times
and the car started, but because of that the damned
computer got reset. I normally drive much less than
a thousand miles a year, so that unnecessary
excursion around the bay, so as to pass the "smog
check", had me pouring more smog into the
atmosphere than I normally add in two or three
months. The irony was not lost on me, but you
can't fight the bureaucracy. If they say "jump"
you'd better jump, or you'll regret not doing it.

I've mentioned before that of San Francisco
openly admits that it jacks up the cost of street
cleaning tickets because they're a major source of
revenue. That's not at all an admirable practice
IMV, but most cities do it now, and at least San
Francisco has been honest enough to admit it.

I'm addicted to Acai juice now, so I would
have had to go to the supermarket later this
week anyway. I was down to one plastibottle
and I buy three at a time. Maybe I should jack
that up to five at a time, but I have to drive to
the supermarket every week anyway, because
of the street-parking tickets.

As usual when I have to repark my car on a
Monday or Thursday, I listen for the street
cleaning truck to go by, then I leap down the
stairs like Nureyev and run to my car to try
to get into a parking space on my block before
they all fill up again, which happens really fast.

The Nureyev analogy comes from a time a
couple of friends had lunch with him in New York,
in a second-floor restaurant. As they left, he
leaped down the whole flight of stairs in two
bounds, just showing-off.

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by Emily
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 14:00:22 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:00:58 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by mg
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:22:05 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}

Post by mg
It all seems so logical. If you don't like drinking alcohol, pass a
law against drinking. If you don't like drug abuse, pass a law against
drug abuse. If you don't like murder, or stealing, or reckless
driving, or adultery, pass a law and if you don't like mass shootings,
pass a law against semi-automatic guns. It just all seems so logical,
but it doesn't seem to work very well.

Sure, some laws work better than others, but it seems you are
categorically rejecting proscription laws because they don't work. So,
murder laws don't work very well and we'd be no worse off not having
them. Really?

Actually, the point that I was trying to make was one that I've tried
to make before and that is that simply passing laws doesn't solve the
problem. In order to work, laws have to have stiff penalties combined
with high criminal capture rates. For instance, one of the problems
that they evidently have in Chicago is short prison sentences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
As another example, the reason gun control laws don't have a high
degree of success is because of the minimal punishments imposed on
violators. For example, in the recent Maryland school shooting, there
is no penalty for the father, who didn't insure that his teenage son
couldn't gain access to it.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

OK. So perhaps more stringent gun laws are needed?

I suppose it depends on word definitions, but I would say that
Maryland, for instance, has some of the most stringent gun laws in the
country, but with very lenient penalties for violation. For instance,
with the Maryland high school shooting there was no penalty for the
father providing access for his 17-year-old son to his semi-automatic
"Jen Pauliukonis, president of the group Marylanders to Prevent Gun
Violence, said the case highlights the issue of child access to
firearms. She pointed to a 2004 report from the U.S. Secret Service
and Department of Education that found that 68 percent of school
shooters used a gun from their own home or a relative’s home. . . .
Maryland law prohibits a person from leaving a loaded firearm
somewhere that the person knew or should have known that an
unsupervised child under age 16 could gain access to it. Violators
face a misdemeanor charge and a fine of up to $1,000.
In the Great Mills shooting, however, Rollins was 17.
Pauliukonis said the state law has a “gap” when it comes to older
teens."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-great-mills-wednesday-20180321-story.html

So, you agree that gun laws would be more effective if we had more
severe penalties, and actually applied those penalties? OK, I can
agree with that.

We need severe penalties for violation of gun laws and, if we outlaw
semi-automatic weapons and large gun clips, we are going to have to
remove them from every one in the country who has them -- no grand
fathering.
I don't know how well outlawing "assault weapons" will work to reduce
mass shootings, but without the two elements listed above, the law
would just be a cruel joke played on a gullible public by the
politicians who allowed the killing of America's children to continue,
while the American people fell for the charade hook, line, and sinker.

20 years ago, in the wake of a typical US type mass shooting by a loan
loon armed with semi-automatic weapons, Australia banned the
importation, sale, and possession of semi-automatic weapons. They
cleaned up most of the outstanding weapons with a gun buy-back
program. Australians consider it to be a huge success.
"Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up.
Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get
along and legislate. As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one
in the past 22 years." ...
"Gun violence in general declined over the following two decades to a
nearly unimaginable degree. In 2014, the latest year for which final
statistics are available, Australia’s murder rate fell to less than 1
killing per 100,000 people—a murder rate one-fifth the size of
America’s. Just 32 of those homicides—in a nation of 24 million
people—were committed with guns. By comparison, more than 500 people
were shot dead last year in the city of Chicago alone. (Chicago has
about 2.7 million residents.) Perhaps most remarkable is what happened
with gun suicides in Australia in the wake of the post-Port Arthur
firearm legislation. They dropped by some 80 percent, according to one
analysis.""
http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/
Australia isn't the US. It is hard to imagine that a similar gun ban
could be implemented here, and would work as well, but if it was up to
me ... (-8
BTW, before posting stories that the crime rate in Australia is up
since the gun ban, those stories are not true.
"Claim -- Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have
increased substantially since the government there instituted a gun
buy-back program in 1997."
"Rating -- False"
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/australian-guns/

On the wake of the Parkland shootings, a new poll indicates that a
majority of 70% of Americans favor stricter laws on assault weapons,
that is 87% of Democrats and 52% of Republicans. While this is not
actually about *banning* these weapons, perhaps the time is right to
implement an outright ban.
http://www.businessinsider.com/assault-weapons-ban-poll-gun-reform-2018-2

It is looking like the most effective way to get this to happen is for
the public to organize to vote against anyone who is opposed to such a
ban.

[DGW]

Post by mg
Koper, Jan 14: In general we found, really, very, very little
evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal
or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we
concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime
during the years it was in effect.

It's like saying we put a ban on motorcycles, but it had "little impact"
on overall accident rates. Duh!

"Little impact" is an obvious outcome. Just more troll drivel from
LaPierre's NRA.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com