Nothing worse than to have "day after" Trump tweeting after a tragedy like this. If the supposed answer is to "turn everyone in" before something like this happens because of "signs", then nothing will be stopped from happening EVER. That would only stop very few cases and be considered lucky. The real fact is Congress won't act to do anything about this no matter how bad it gets. They won't ban these guns. They are the real killers.
FBI was tipped off about Cruz 5 months ago: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/nikolas-cruz-fbi-warned/index.html
I don't know how this shooting happened, it was a gun free zone. The "proof" was the results of the 1994 assault weapons ban and they are just common sense. Assault weapons are only used in a small fraction of incidents of gun violence so the potential benefit is small to begin with. What the 1994 ban showed us was that even in those small fraction of gun violence incidents that would have used assault rifles, they just used a different type of firearm and did the same thing. For example, the Columbine school shooting happened in the middle of an assault weapons ban....didn't didn't make the victims any less dead. To directly quote the study "There has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury."
Another mass shooting with AR-15. That's probably 7 of the last 7? But hey, it has nothing to do with these weapon
To be fair, that's pretty bad statistical work. There's thousands of factors that are in play here. Which is why I can quickly google and find articles that say: - the assault weapons ban was effective - the assault weapons ban wasn't effective - the assault weapons ban had mixed effectiveness you have mental health, demographics, socioeconomic issues, yada, yada, yada, yada. It'd be great if we could truly have a true scientific analysis of this with apple to apples control groups, etc. Unfortunately we can't. Which is why sometimes you just have to use common sense. It's the same thing with advanced basketball stats. They're all great and useful to have, but sometimes you just have to use the eye test. Banning assault weapons on their own will have some, but not problem solving impacts. Banning assault weapons + large capacity magazine weapons will have more, but not problem solving impacts. Banning gun ownership all together will have a lot more, but not problem solving impacts (as pro gun folk will quickly point out... the criminals will still have guns, how we will protect ourselves!!) But common sense will tell you that America isn't so unique relative to the many many other first world countries, democracies, where folks have high quality of life, live a long time, and have comprehensive gun ownership bans and much much much much lower gun deaths and mass shooting casualties. I'm not sure why we think we're unique in this regard, but apparently we do.
So is it your opinion that the dead would be less dead if they were shot with a different weapon? Is that really your argument? Or is it that it wouldn't have been a school shooting if the guy had used a different weapon?
an AR-15 was used in the texas church shooting, the las vegas shooting, the orlando night club, Sandy Hook and now this.
It's called 30 round magazines. You can put them in semi-automatic closed bolt rifles. They make it easier to inflict mass casualties. If I need to explain why, then I really don't know what to say.
Sure, you can seek out spin one way or the other, but what I quoted was the official study that was done to determine the effectiveness of the assault weapons ban. Not some spin from a special interest group. This is equivalent to saying "ignore the facts, trust your gut" and it's pretty terrible advice most of the time. Maybe that's what your "gut" tells you, but when in practice the bans proved to be ineffective and the "ban gun ownership" talk is a non starter because it directly violates the constitution. Hell even banning handguns is a non starter, and that's what is used in the vast majority of gun violence incidents. Common sense would tell you that America is fairly unique relative to other countries that never had the gun violence culture to begin with before bans went into effect so it's not really all that relevant to the situation here. Also trying to say that more guns equals a higher murder rate isn't really true when you look at countries like Norway that have the 8th most guns per capita in their country (30 guns per 100 citizens) and one of the lowest murder rates in the world (0.56 per 100,000 residents). Gun violence has a lot more to do with culture than it does the number of guns available.
More importantly, it's the weapon of choice in the doomsday fantasy where the patriotic few must take to the woods, rise up against a tyrannical government and successfully wage a liberation war against the mightiest military force the world has ever known. The well-regulated militia of "real Americans" preserving liberty against trillions of dollars worth of military equipment. Truly a fair fight and one worthy of preserving unlimited to access to semi-automatic weaponry at the expense of hundreds of civilian lives. To these fanatics, the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of children, teenagers and concert-goers.
Statistically that hasn't proven to be true. A person equipped with a pair of .45's and multiple magazines, all of which would be easier to carry and conceal than an AR, could easily kill 17 people in a crowd. That's why the study done to show the effectiveness of the assault weapons ban showed that it was ineffective. People just used different weapons and achieved the same or very similar results.
Not according to the study done on the effectiveness of the assault weapons ban. The near elimination of assault weapons violence did nothing to change the lethality of gun violence. With an assault weapons ban you'd just have to pick a new boogie man.
