dustryder

so then it would or would not be addressed?  and how would it be addressed now that the assault weapons aren't an issue anymore?  is there anyway to deal with the 70 without banning yet more guns?

assuming you aren't being pedantic, when people refer to that they are talking about banning semi automatic weapons since they make up a majority of firearms.  Yes if one gun existed then in the strictest sense it wouldn't be a total ban, but I have never said or even eluded to, that it would be a complete ban.

Sure. Think of most tame semi-automatic handgun you can think of. Then think of all the ways in which you could extend this gun to make it more lethal. Imagine those extensions are banned. The resulting gun, despite being a semi-automatic gun will not be banned.

hmm ok well let's say instead of all 24, there was oh I dunno 22 less, and just 2 assault weapons mass murders in 37 years, would it be ok to stop banning stuff at that point?

you continue dancing around it, but all roads lead to a gun ban, that's the whole point, you start small, then add, then add as you said,  then until for all practical purposes it's a gun ban.

 Your focus on less than half a percent, yet seemingly ignoring 99.7% of the deaths isn't logical to me, thus you are in an emotion position.

To have any noticeable, appreciable difference on something that small isn't possible statically.

This plan has nothing to do with saving lives obviously, the figures prove that well enough, otherwise the focus would be on the 75% part of the problem.

Let's say through the perfect scenario that those 24 mass shootings from assault rifles disappears, you'd be satisfied and the rest, 70, are acceptable?  If not how do you plan to address the 70 left over? 

there's been a strong objection to the ban since it was first ever talked about LOL

go for it

which is?

then why not ban the weapon used to kill the most people per year?  Are people only killed in numbers of 4 or more only worthy of protection and consideration for intervention?

"The NRA estimates ->

<-

my math might be a little off but really doesn't change the context

do you see why I don't think this ban is actually based in reality?

that's not possible, what I think could be a defining factor is something you mentioned before, capacity, since all guns can kill, one of the links I posted I think or I read somewhere talked about how many rounds people were actually shot with, I seem to recall the average was 1.  It's not like the majority of victims are shot 3 or more times generally.

well it's a right, you have to change minds to enforce your subjective legitimate use.  Though you could define what you think is legitimate.

sure, ok, what's the number of mass shootings that tolerable?  How about murders per year while we are at it, what's the number that's acceptable?

yes, how many mass murders per year is an acceptable number to stop adding guns to the list?  Let's say mass murders go down but the murder rate goes up, add more guns to the list?  pretty difficult to draw lines isn't it.

fine we'll play your game, which guns can't cause death?  I think what you are actually talking about is some unprovable percentage if you are shot by x you have a y chance of surviving.  If you compare ballistics as a criteria you'll want to ban most hand guns.

rather subjective don't you think?  who decides what a legitimate use is?

there is no constitutional right to a box.

"There have been a total of 816 deaths in mass killings… since 1982."

If someone calls a Muslim a terrorist, the Muslim could demand proof.  If their religion is cited as evidence for terrorism, the muslim could accuse the perpretrator of moving the goalposts since most muslims don't commit terrorism.  From there, they could have a debate on whether or not Islam is a religion of peace.  Then both parties learn something.  So free speech is helpful, even when applied to the KKK because it allows both parties to learn about the other.  Both people get more informed as a result of free exchange of ideas.

What is the difference between free speech and harassment in a political context?

If whatever the majority says is what the laws should be, then http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/ states that most Americans support hate speech legalization.  So this means that the KKK are allowed to hate on the blacks, that Westboro is allowed to hate on the LGBT community and so on.  They should be allowed to do this.  This is America.

Banning Muslims and advocating for the banning of Muslims saves lives because it prevents terror attacks in the US

This so called harassment is just pro life free speech.  If you ban that, you might as well ban all pro lifers.

It's free speech.

so now you are back to banning all guns, roger

I have yet to hear of an example, so until then I believe this isn't possible as I've stated before.  Unless you just want me to take it on faith?

ok so i'll ask again, which guns aren't capable of causing death?  seems rather binary to me, either they can or can't, which ones can't?

but you don't really know what that group would be other than the ones that look scary since there's no other real logical reason to ban something that is rarely used compared to same functioning guns.  Of the few mass murders caused why your definition of an "assault weapon" which of those could have had the same results has a handgun been used, Pulse Night Club comes to mind.  People trapped in a building are easy and close targets, the weapon doesn't really matter even to someone not trained, like Virginia Tech.

yes you want time to see if it works, I know, take it on faith is just another way of saying it.  No thanks.

that's why I called it a farce and something to placate the liberals, you're catching on.

I said way back your argument isn't logical, but a ban on all semi-auto would be, now you've finally figured it out.  The selective banning of things rarely used is rather stupid isn't it.

selective measuring yes it sure is, but it fails when don't as a yearly comparison or raw numbers over that time period.  The attempt to draw some kind of conclusion that assault weapons kill more people per mass murder isn't really possible.  the 2 mass murders mentioned about for example.  There's no way to know if the assault weapon was replaced with something else, like even a handgun what the results would be.  I believe you said Las Vegas was an anomaly which it was. 

Banning something rarely used makes no sense, still.

I looked at the "study" in 37 years there were 44 mass shootings they used, then all the talked about is number killed rather than how many of the 44 an assault weapon was actually used, unless I missed it, which is possible, if so let me know where to look.  but if you look at my link, just skim it you'll see how many mass murders the weapon of choice is a semi handgun.  if a list exists from 1981-1998 I'm sure the ratio really won't change statically.

no you have to justify infringing on rights.

because you are saying it's not a ban on all semi auto

um yeah it is either something is lethal or has a reasonable ability to be so or it doesn't, which guns currently in existence aren't lethal?  none.

yes, a semi auto ban, there ya go, you keep admitting to it yet don't seem to realize it.

there's already a limit "shall not be infringed"

you chose the word  "adaptable"  that's not a limiting word and isn't a definition nor a defining factor.

I've said this before but perhaps not in a way that it needed to be or obvious enough.  there are subsets of gun, not semi-automatic guns, semi-automatic as I said refers to every gun that function by what is defined as semi-auto, one shot per pull of the trigger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm

you could include revolvers in that definition as well

I'm not sure how I can tell you in the kindest way this makes no sense and you don't know enough about the topic, which isn't an insult there are plenty of things I don't know much or enough about.  There is NOTHING, not one thing, zero, nadda, no thing that can be added, extended to a gun to make it more lethal, the bullet is the lethal part.  With that said a bullet that doesn't hit doesn't kill.  So if you think things can be added to increase accuracy or something like that is pure fantasy to think it would make any real statistical difference.  If it were that easy the military would be using it.  The military seem to function just fine with standard iron sights, no forward pistol grip and the other cosmetics do not effect the accuracy or legality of the gun.  This is political b.s. that you shouldn't fall for.  This is why people refuse to talk about the subject in general, the false information and ignorance.

that's true on paper, but to reduce the number that already exist to see any measurable effect would require as I said a military/police state going from house to house.  Just like last ban, when it's announced and or talked about, manufacturing goes up as do sales.

well I thought I had already, but I've been in many threads like this and it all repeats so here you go.

Just as religious freedom exists in the country, ideological freedom should exist as well.  Should I be allowed to call a Muslim a terrorist?  I should because it is free speech and in the mind of the speaker, it is defense of a nation.  Who cares if it's racist if it saves lives?  Terrorism kills.  I don't agree with the people who want to ban Muslims, but they believe that Muslims are motivated by the Quran.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/manitoba-bubble-zone-law-would-ban-pro-life-harassment-that-doesnt-even-exi states that Manitoba has 150 meters of buffer room that prohibits pro life speech.  When the concept of hate speech gets implemented, anything can be classified as hate speech.

If you want to be mean to people because of their race, that's something you should be allowed to do.  They can hate you for it, but you should be allowed to do it.

No one should get punished for speaking what they believe.

I've asked you several times about which guns, ammo, cosmetics etc and either you gave a vague answer or didn't know.

because some take magazines, even ones made during WWII

because of bullet capacity, this is the argument after all right?  a semi auto handgun can hold as many or more rounds than a semi auto rifle.  As many of these studies have said the number of misses is pretty high even by train police, more so for the psycho mass murderer.  What ever effectiveness difference you think there might be is inconsequential to someone not trained in either one and the stats show that pretty well.  While an AR-15 might be the best for home defense that is a total different environment and situation than a psycho mass murderer has in mind.

again look at the study, how many shots are actually fired.  this is an exercise in futility.

we will never see that in our live times, more effective things can be done immediately if the focus was on them, rather than this wishful thinking.

that's not how you described it, nor is it possible.

Ensure that there is input from multiple experts to ensure that this list is both exhaustive and reasonable.

sure like existing laws and punishments, sounds good to me, hey here's a thought I've mentioned in other threads on similar topics.  As you may or may not know, crimes are public knowledge in some states and it might be all federal ones are but I can't recall.  Some states have searchable data bases as well.  Why not make that the standard for all states and federal crimes that would prohibit someone from purchasing a gun?  Any responsible gun owner would never want to sell their gun to someone who can't legally have one.  Why not remove the hurdles so they can easily find this information out before the sale?  Essentially make a public version of the NICS check.  Employeers do background checks, lots of entities do, why not let individuals, given the data bases that already exist?  mind you the data bases I've examined are terrible, but they could hire a couple of high school kids to fix them up and make they very useful.  Make it as easy as possible for people to do the right thing and a majority of them will.

The lethality of a gun of course. (all actual guns are lethal fyi)

A study would have to be performed to determine the exact defining criteria, but of the legal weapons available, only semi-automatics are likely to fill this criteria.  (there is no difference between platforms, semi auto describes function and nothing more)

Well we know that pistols are less effective than rifles. So in this case, we need only block the features related to pistols that allow them to be as effective as rifles and high-end pistols (that's subjective and depends on the individual, why does law enforcement almost exclusively carry handguns then, shouldn't they be using the best tool?)(it's not something that can really be determined because it's also situational)

Finally, ensure that this definition is adaptable for the removal and addition of gun.  (this sounds opened to me and perfect for the slippery slope argument)

hence why I say you want a gun ban for all practical purposes but won't admit it for whatever reason.

sure such a generic term can be changed to mean anything, include practically anything a.k.a. gun ban.  I get it, not sure why you don't they are your own words after all.

basically, as you said the potential of guns that can shoot semi automatically has the potential to injure and or kill people in a shorter period of time based on the ammunition capacity.  Since the bullet is what actually injures and kills, the more shot the greater the chance of injuring and death.  To call for an a.w. ban is a farce and illogical as I have stated since all semi autos function the same way and can hold as many as 50-100 rounds, including handguns. If magazines could magically be made to only old 10 rounds then the platform used, ar-15, ak-47 etc is irrelevant.

As is your call to ban those rifles.

planned mass murderers would opt for another available tool, whether legal or not, large capacity magazine whether legal or not since they will be available either already in existence, grandfathered, modified low capacity magazines, 3d printed or other homemade magazines.

thinks you can't account for

"Experts believe numerous factors contributed to the recent drop in these and other crimes, including changing drug markets, a strong economy, better policing, and higher incarceration rates, among others"

I'm not sure if you were trying to be slick, but wording such a ban so it would be changed to include other and future weapons, leaving it vague, practically undefined and open ended is the slippery slope pro 2a people talk about.  It's a tactic to avoid calling for what is really intended an out right ban on all semi auto guns if not all guns period, not a very good tactic but one often tried.

"how many homicides and injuries involving AWs and LCMs could be prevented if offenders were forced to substitute other guns and magazines? In what percentage of gun attacks does the ability to fire more than ten rounds without reloading affect the number of wounded victims or

determine the difference between a fatal and non-fatal attack? Do other AW features (such as flash hiders and pistol grips on rifles) have demonstrable effects on the outcomes of gun attacks? Studies of gun attacks could draw upon police incident reports, forensic examinations of recovered guns and magazines, and medical and law enforcement data on wounded victims."

Many Americans believe that Muslims are a threat to the west(http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/09/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/).  By punishing these people with jail for preaching "hate speech", you are basically preaching one party rule on at least some ideologies.

If I were to say something pro life, would it be hate speech/harassment towards women who have had abortions?

If so, then what is free speech?  Only the stuff you agree with?  If so that seems very similar to tyranny.

Would being anti gun be anti women/sexist since guns do statistically reduce rape?

How do you propose on punishing people who say hate speech?

which guns can only kill 5 or less? 

I'm really trying to understand how you think this will work, but again it can't so long as there are guns that hold 5 or more rounds and can be easily reloaded.  You seem to think not having something readily available to these people they will give up on their plan, when in fact most were planned, so why wouldn't that plan include a similar weapon that is available like a handgun, other semi auto gun, pump shot gun, semi auto shotgun or lever action rifles?

This is why your selective ban of assault rifles is illogical when it's so easy to accomplish the same result with a different tool that's not banned..

You do know the Las Vegas scum bag was very wealthy right?   

something so important, yes I want to review the specifics myself which don't seem to exist, your claim of "because experts say so" isn't adequate for me, you are basically asking everyone to take it on faith that these experts aren't biased and the study wasn't manipulated.  Studies have been found to be inaccurate and flawed after they were readily accepted, what you have is a 2 legged stool.  I don't have to prove the study is wrong, flawed whatever because one hasn't been pretested to examine.  And without allowing people to examine what you call proof, you are just on a religious crusade of faith.

how many guns in private hands is a small enough number to prevent them from falling in the wrong hands? 

most of the mass shooting were planned that shouldn't be in dispute, explain how not having access to an assault weapon, yet still having assess to other semi automatic rifles, pistols or other rapid fire guns would stop these plans. using a hammer to put in a screw, while not ideal still get's the job done.

So if we were to play this definition out consistently, then me saying we shouldn't allow Muslims into the country in order to reduce terrorism, which is an ideology that many people have, would be hate speech.  If sex/gender is a protected group, then would me being pro life be classified as a hate crime?  Would being pro choice be a hate crime because it is threatening to the fetus?  Would saying something anti gun be hate speech since guns do reduce rape?

Unless you can come to a definition of hate speech that is respectful to everyone who peacefully preaches what they believe, then hate speech should count as free speech.

I think you can preach whatever you want as long as it's peaceful.

What counts as hate speech?

that link gives no data anyone can verify, so it's useless. it's from New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.

which is a hugely liberal anti gun state so you'll pardon my skepticism without any actual proof, real stats and numbers

your "logic" is based on the assumption that the ban worked, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

People cannot shoot people with guns if they do not possess a gun.

If there are fewer guns available, there are fewer guns to shoot

If more guns leave a system than enter the system, over time the system will have fewer guns

in  fact practically all other types can be used for mass murders.  Logic would be banning any guns capable of killing 4 or more people before having to 

reload.  

I'm not willing to take your opinion on faith.

This isn't even to mention the social cost of having illegal Mexicans in your country. Hispanics tend to vote in favour of 2nd/3rd World policies, such as the banning of "hate speech", and having a bigger government with more services (i.e. freebies) (http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/28/political-ideology-in-america-by-race/).

We are going round in circles.  Show me a link to the actual study with details, I want to see the specific data myself, number killed, weapon used etc.  This is what your whole argument hinges on  though you say the data is weak which I interpret as it anecdotal at best, thus it's meaningless as a reason to restrict my rights and to ban the best weapon for home defense. 

https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=01586154-201901000-00002 gives a bit of data into actual assault rifle use

the study you present specifically talks about  fatalities, with more trauma centers, better technology in medicine etc the chances of survival is much higher in the time period of the ban vs the time prior to it.  Regardless if it had any effect during that time period, the time frame of a 7 year stretch were the rate was lower than the lowest year of the ban proves it isn't need any longer, at the very least.  If you look at the time periods there's something else going on that no one wants to see otherwise after the ban expired the rate should have gone up.  Years after it expired the rate was at all time lows but no one want to look at that or see why.  When the rate was the lowest how come it wasn't studied to see what was working and what was going right so they could do more of that?  Why not reflect back to those years to learn why the rates where so low compared to rest?  Wouldn't that be far more productive than to talk of bans again?  The rates speak for themselves, why ignore them?

Which trauma centers? Which technologies? How has the treatment of physical trauma wounds changed over those periods of time? By this logic, even if there are more mass shootings in the years after the ban, shouldn't there be on average less fatalities per mass shooting event?

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. Are people still getting shot by assault weapons in mass shootings? If the answer is yes, then the ban is obviously still warranted. Because there are still mass shootings in which people are getting shot by assault weapons. That the overall rate decreased is entirely irrelevant. The only relevant thing is to examine why the overall rate decreased and to see how a ban might interact with those other factors to further bring those rates lower.

I personally don't know what period you are talking about. But obviously, if there was such a period I would certainly be interested. That said, one good reason if it exists but isn't talked about might be because that there are so many myriad factors that can effect something. Determining a single factor is a herculean task. However bans are a relatively easy and direct implementation. And more importantly, preliminary results suggested that the ban was working. 

good as it should have been, I was talking about security measureS for schools but your tunnel vision only lets you see the word 'ban'.  You totally ignored the portion of locked doors and other security measures that don't need approval, which in many cases haven't been done,  still!

I've asked you for specifics which you haven't or can't provide but rather left it open ended that any gun could be added to the list and criteria expanded to fit that gun, that's a gun ban.  You have yet to establish and defining lines with any rational reasons.

why would it be difficult for a non criminal to buy a gun?  LOL dang you need to search this stuff yourself, this hand holding is getting tiresome.  Only NONcriminals can buy a gun from a gun store, yet criminals get guns and easily on the black market, this has been common knowledge just like the ease of getting illegal drugs, I'm not sure what bubble you live in but that's the reality for the majority of the world.  I suggest you study up on the original and digital "silk road" and if you think it's totally gone away you need to learn a lot more about the world.

not based in reality but as soon as they develop magic wands, sure.

you mean when the banned all alcohol?  I fail to see the similarities between all and only specific things being banned.

if you had rights you wouldn't want your rights to be experimented on, because then they are no longer rights, I don't fault you for not understanding this concept but rather it's a symptom of where ever you live.  animals don't know their in a zoo either.

it's been debunked let it go.

If you claim something, then the onus is on you to prove it. Before you said that the results could've been distorted due to better physical trauma technologies and more trauma centres. Then the onus is on you to show which trauma technologies and which trauma centres. Then, argue that those factors did indeed have a statistically relevant impact on the study. If you claim that the stats were cherry picked and manipulated, the onus is on you to show which stats and how.

since they absorb heat, where does that heat go?  oh into the surrounding environment, isn't that global warming?

yeah?  they prevented locked school doors, metal detectors and guards?  can you give one example where and why a pro patriot would do and have the power to prevent those things.

no just waiting for you to admit you want to either ban all guns or all semi automatics, perhaps you haven't come to that realization yourself yet, I hope you do soon.

Maybe you don't understand what a magazine is or how it works, it's literally a plastic box with a spring in it which is why they are so easy to 3d print.  Now do you know what a lower receiver is?  that's the part of the gun that makes a gun a gun, it has the serial numbers stamped on it and is what the background check is for.  You can purchase just the receiver and assemble the rest of the gun from parts.  These can also be milled with a cnc machine or even a hand held router with a jig.  I refer you back to your favorite search engine and look up a video where a guy melts down aluminum cans and pours them into a mold and makes an ar-15 receiver.  Then I would tell you to look up how to make an ak-47 receiver because all it is, is bend sheet metal with holes drilled into the right places.  Congratulations you've expanded the black market for guns.  

You say it's easy to get a gun but have never tried to.

If those mass murders who used a so called assault weapon couldn't get one legally how do you know they wouldn't have gotten one illegally or used a hand gun with similar results?  Ah, you don't and couldn't possibly know.  Therefore this claim that a ban reduces these crimes is impossible to prove and the stats clearly demonstrate it's not true anyway.

These preliminary results you cling to, don't exist in reality, just cherry picking stats and manipulation.

I agree something needs to be done and we should try, but we need to do things that can happen quickly and efficiently, the most outcome for the least resistance.  And if we look at history none of these things or a very few have been tried, which begs the question, why?

There was a school shooting before Newtown and yet not much was done to address school security.  What measures have been put in place after the school in Florida?  Lots of ideas talked about and tossed about but what has actually been implemented?  And yet the cries to ban guns, more laws blah blah blah this is why i believe there's ulterior motives to these bans.  if it was truly about saving lives so many useful things should have and would have been done many years ago, and yet......  Can you understand the skepticism people have and why?

anyway Jeffery Dahmer didn't use a gun that's why my focus isn't really on the tool use but rather the individual, society at large.

so now we agree that  the ar-15 is the best tool for home defense especially for those who aren't that skilled with firearms in general.  That should settle the question as to why someone would want one and wouldn't a handgun be better.

You feel 18 rounds is too many but don't really explain why or what arbitrary number is enough. 

Even though a handgun could accept a 30 round even a 50 round magazine you aren't suggesting on banning those, even though as the fbi says the likely hood of over penetration from a handgun is much greater than the ar-15.

Other non semi auto rifles and pistols can still be shot rapidly.  Yes somehow you think banning a certain type of gun which can't really be defined wouldn't still allow someone to use something else to accomplish their goal.  If you look at this very close you'll see what this is, is a brace for a handgun, yes you actually put a handgun inside it.  

Now picture that 50 round drum sticking of out and you'll probably have nightmares for a week.

1. Create an exhaustive list of firearms and features deemed as assault weapons. If the Clinton list wasn't sufficient, then I'd add onto that list. I'd also close up the "cosmetic feature" loophole or whatever

The wikipedia definition of assault weapons seems reasonable. Extend this definition to include other firearms not commonly described as assault weapons, but have multiple features in common with assault weapons. Ensure that there is input from multiple experts to ensure that this list is both exhaustive and reasonable. Finally, ensure that this definition is adaptable for the removal and addition of gun.

the reality is any kind of ban or confiscation would take either a huge about of police and military operations to go from house to house or probably more years than either one of us will be on this earth.

You haven't addressed the overall mechanism of how my policies would work.

I don't think there is a instantaneous magic bullet solution to guns in America. Apparently you are under the impression that I think my policies will give instant results. You are wrong. I think any solution will take years. And this is simply because of how ingrained guns are in American culture. 

Apart from the initial buyback amnesty period, my idea revolves around the slow removal of assault weapons from circulation over time. If you ban the manufacture, import and public selling of assault weapons, alongside the other policies, hopefully there will be more assault weapons leaving the system than there are entering. 

If you do not possess a gun, you cannot shoot it. If you decrease the amount of guns available, there are less guns to shoot. If the amount of a particular item going into a system falls below the amount of a particular item going out of a system, there will be a continuous decrease of that item in the system. These are fundamental principals which I certainly hope you don't dispute. 

I'm confused because you want to ban ar-15 in part because it can hold 30 rounds, you know some states put a limit on how many a magazine can hold right?  if the were restricted to 18 would that be ok then?  if not why not?

there's no way to tell, if they hadn't returned fire perhaps they would have been a mass murderer, there's no way to tell.  We can't count the mass murders that never happened.

how many have been killed vs caught?  I wouldn't count on the muslim mass murders because that was a religious thing like the suicide bombers but they used guns.

there is no test, the questions you have asked have been asked many times and answered I suggest you research it rather than take my word for it.

btw police don't have full auto, the right is to bear ordinary common weapons like semi-auto.

the bump stock is useless and the ban a laughable farce to placate irrational liberals.

since it's my life, my family how about you leave that choice up to me, rather than you making that choice for me?  Or are you suggesting the government turn totalitarian/fascist?

ah yes those "experts" because they don't have personal and political agendas LOL

that's bs, it's where you aren't allowed to have a gun, stupidly simple

that's just being pedantic.

I've already disagreed with your opinions, the whole correlation thing.

watch that one at the very least and tell me how you disagree with him, or perhaps if you don't disagree with him.  it should be very educational for you I think.  It was for me.

I agree we are kind of all over the place because it's a complex topic imo and you bounce back a forth a bit between an ar-15 and ak-47, btw ak-47 aren't that easy to shoot imo, not my favorite by any means.

how about 20 rounds?  would you agree to just 2 more?

not if they are smart, spray and pray doesn't even work well in video games, you can't aim a machine gun accurately.  Sure they are awesome in movies but real life, not even close and I'm telling you this as someone who's used a bump fire stock a couple of times.

you mean except for the felons caught trying to purchase guns right?  there's no wall there since they are rarely prosecuted.  I could go one, but that example should suffice.

allowing trained and lawful citizens to carry firearms to protect themselves and others.  When a criminal has a gun who do you call, another person with a gun.  All these mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones right?  Even the one on the military base, that area was a gun free zone.

what better deterrent than thinking the would be victim is armed?  plenty of examples when a shooter is shot back at they run or give up.

it's none of your business what I own and there is no "needs" test for the 2a

the right to protect myself and my family isn't frivolous, it would be if I didn't have the proper tools to do it with though.  Everyone has the right to go to Mars, what good is that since it's not possible?  same idea.

you are having a difficult timing defining on what you wanted banned so you have to keep expanding the list aka gun ban, let's say the ar-15 is banned, what is to stop someone from making something kind of similar but calling it the "cute and fuzzy bunny" gun, it's not an ar-15 so it's not banned right?  Either you chase your tail and ban things as them come out, which there are probably millions of combinations etc or you ban guns.  

1. Create an exhaustive list of firearms and features deemed as assault weapons. If the Clinton list wasn't sufficient, then I'd add onto that list. I'd also close up the "cosmetic feature" loophole or whatever

Ensure that there is input from multiple experts to ensure that this list is both exhaustive and reasonable.

a felon can't purchase a gun legally, so they would have to purchase it on the black market.  But somehow you seem to think if you stop law abiding citizens from purchases it's some kind of trickle down effect that there won't be a black market supply which is absurd.

it's like pulling teeth with you, just come out and admit you want to ban all semi automatic guns.

you want to stop or reduce "mass murders" which has an arbitrary number of 4, therefore ANY gun that can hold 4 or more bullets must be banned.  Which in all practical purposes voids the 2a.

your claim that you want to ban "assault rifles" is either a deception or ignorance, you want to ban virtually all guns that hold 4 or more bullets to prevent or reduce mass shootings, which mass shootings is your primary focus.

you just don't understand human ingenuity and the creativity they will devise to circumvent laws, synthetic drugs is a pretty good example, some of which were only made illegal long after they were created.

laws are meant to deter behavior, that's all they can do, hence my premise the problem is people, not objects.  If the deterrent isn't adequate or working it needs to change.  If you are familiar with Star Trek Next Generation, they came across a planet with no crime, why?  because breaking any law carried the death penalty, as one character said why would anyone break the law knowing the punishment was death?  I'm not suggesting that way of life but I hope you see the point.  Risk/reward, pros/cons there's also a saying, if you can't do the time don't do the crime.  Laws and punishment have become to lax, prisons too soft, free tv etc  So rather than dealing with those issues you want to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.  That's where the opposition to such ideas comes from, if you can see all this in context of the bigger picture.

Are you purposefully being this dense?  Pistol grip is one of the things that makes an "assault weapon" an assault weapon, you don't really seem to know what you are even talking about lol  It's one of the characteristics on the wiki lol  wow

oohhh you mean all the things I listed isn't want is needed but your one idea of a ban is, gotcha.

To add to that, having a solution to guns doesn't exclude a solution to the people. Obviously, having both would be ideal. However addressing guns is likely to be more effective. Ultimately with people, there is an element of randomness. With guns, if you don't have a gun, you just cannot shoot it.

They both are the problem. However from my perspective, it's easier to put guns out of the reach of the mentally deranged than to prevent the mentally deranged from committing a crime in the first place. Just because, while it's easy to arrest someone who has already committed a crime,I don't believe you can actually arrest someone who hasn't and you just think will. Are you supposed to detain every weird person with benign intentions? Finally, at a fundamental level, the victims of drugs and guns are different. Ultimately, no one is forcing you to put illicit substances in your body, and regardless there are many help programs for those who do. However victims of gun crime have no choice in the matter.

correlation is not evidence it's conjecture, you have NO evidence, just hypothesis.

No, you should act on it for what it is. It is preliminary data that shows promising results. It is evidence that can lead to further evidences and data. The alternative is not acting on it. In which case the deaths from mass shooting will continue unabated.

No you're right. There isn't a lot of data. However the best way to move forwards is to take these preliminary results and apply them to further laws and see what pops up and then study those results further. What the incorrect thing to do is dismiss these results and sit on your hands.

Which points did you make against my stats that I wasn't able to counter? I believe we ended things with you arguing that reduced fatality numbers could be explained by better medical technologies/more trauma centers and me asking for evidence of this which you did not provide.

I believe you also said something about a period of lowered mass shootings after the banning period? Of course you didn't provide evidence for this either. But how does this relate to the efficacy of the ban itself anyway?

Dismissing something because you claim it's a fallacy is a fallacy. Perhaps you can explain to me how banning guns commonly used in mass shootings to inflict a greater number of casualties is not a causative link for a decreased number of deaths per shooting?

And even if we were to dismiss this as a case of correlation does not imply causation. it doesn't mean it should be dismissed. Do you think scientists who get promising preliminary results immediately trash the study just because it might not be causative link? No, they make refinements and improvements.

I've repeatedly said felons and criminals shouldn't have guns, laws regarding anything related should be consistently enforced with increased punishments, that's gun control, controlling criminals not getting guns and severely punishing them when they do, or anyone who commits a crime with a gun.  

What is your point with a bunch of quotes.  Your going to like what I'm going to say next.

If we banned guns and tasers instead were advertised and encouraged as a means of self defense, then both sides win.  The left gets to decrease the homicide rate.  The right gets undisputed protection that no one wants to take away.  The NRA benefits because a taser costs more the a gun, so they would make more money.  Automatic tasers can protect against multiple people.

I've asked you many times for specifics, you said the wiki, it's hard to take you seriously when you are so vague and evasive.  The wiki IS the context you referenced and I quoted, nothing dishonest about it.  That was the answer I got when I asked you what an assault weapon was.

keep being evasive, if you can't keep up with what you say that's your short coming.

you want to ban weapons with pistol grips etc but can't give any logical reason why other than it makes a gun look scary, your emotions control your judgement and that's why you fail on logic and constantly ignore my logic tests to you.

I mean.. are you arguing that assault weapons cannot kill people at a faster rate than weapons that aren't classed as assault weapons? Ultimately that's what I'm interested in and not the aesthetics.

LOL you are such a hypocrite.  I've stated multiple times I care about all murders, you are selectively outraged about mass shootings, talk about dishonest, either you care about people being murder or your don't.  You clearly don't but only as much as it supports your desire for gun bans, otherwise those single and non gun murders are irrelevant to you.

anyway this is pointless due to you now answering simple questions, trying to evade and unable to make any logic reasoning for the things I ask, your only evidence is the ban and talk about mass murders though the over all number of murders is so much higher than mass murders, it's pretty sick selective outrage when you only want to address the rare mass murders instead of all murders.

yep wiki "The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions"  solid definition to be sure lol

I've asked you the same questions many times that you ignore

what difference does a pistol grip on a rifle make?  you think this is science some how so what's the science say about pistol grips and other cosmetics?

you are actually talking about a gun ban, basically doing away with the 2a again from the wiki " the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess one or more other features."

show me how the scientist have proven how many mass shootings the ban stopped.

then show me how mass shootings happened because there was no ban.

then I want to know how someone with a registered gun is prevented from committing a mass shooting.

perhaps, but we shouldn't act on it as if it is fact either which is the point to this "theory" it has not been proven thus our disagreement.  Laws shouldn't be made on no evidence theories.  I get you don't understand the freedoms the U.S. has and with that comes some negatives just like everything in life.  In theory hateful speech is harmful (whatever that means) but censoring speech, compelled speech isn't constitutional but something you have to accept in a free society.  Often those in a gilded cage don't realize they are still in a cage, think about that for a moment, that's the problem when people who don't understand and appreciate the concept of freedom with regards to living in and being a citizen of the U.S.

that's the problem isn't it, what's the definition of an assault weapon?  It's actually a full auto machine gun which are already heavily regulated and extremely expensive.  This is what happens when people use abstract words and are free and loose with definitions.  What's the cosmetic feature loop hole?

2,4 makes the 2a null and void

so you'd send people with guns to take by force including at gun point, lethal force to take these registered guns or ones not turned in but discovered some how and then put those people in jail for whatever time period.  Having an illegal gun is a felony and probably a 10 sentence.  Starting to sound like nazi Germany.

all firearms are sold with trigger locks fyi

You don't think people are the problem?  Do you think a normal average people are murderers or mass murderers?  What kind of mental state do you think it takes to be a murderer, normal? abnormal/disturbed?  Do you think anyone in their sane mind would murder another generally speaking?  Of the mass murderers how many would you consider sane and normal?  I'm not talking about insanity defense which is something different.

What % of mass murders are planned out rather than heat of the moment actions?  I'd say about 100%.  Do normal sane people plan out mass murders?  I don't think so, but if you do please explain.

They both are the problem. However from my perspective, it's easier to put guns out of the reach of the mentally deranged than to prevent the mentally deranged from committing a crime in the first place. Just because, while it's easy to arrest someone who has already committed a crime,I don't believe you can actually arrest someone who hasn't and you just think will. Are you supposed to detain every weird person with benign intentions? Finally, at a fundamental level, the victims of drugs and guns are different. Ultimately, no one is forcing you to put illicit substances in your body, and regardless there are many help programs for those who do. However victims of gun crime have no choice in the matter.

there's a lot more things as well but it's very difficult to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them if we don't enforce laws, that's one of the first steps as evidenced by the felons failing the background check and a never prosecuted for it.

I presented the stats to you using your links, they speak for themselves you choose not to listen.  

With regards to the ban Correlation does not imply causation it's logical fallacy.

it was/is pointless

repealing the 2a would keep the guns out of law abiding citizen's hands

because as I have stated criminals don't follow laws, that's what makes them criminals.

Then there's the black market that will expand at a huge rate, diy guns, 3d printers.

Many drugs are illegal, yes?  Does that stop people from dying from them?  No.

think of something illegal where you live, now how difficult would it be for you to get if it you really wanted it?

so which one kills more people overdoses or guns?  not even close is it, yet the war on drugs has been a huge failure imo.  Are drugs the problem?  Do they creep into people's homes and while they are sleeping get into their bodies?  Or is it the people who use drugs are the problem?  Same point for guns.

you didn't answer this the first time so I'll ask again

what are the specifics of this ban you propose, how would that work?

stop manufacturing or importing ak-47s and wait for those already in circulation rust or break, would take 1000 years or more.

What about those already owned by people?  Would you send people with guns to their homes to confiscate their ak-47s?  What if they won't give them up?  Would you be ok for those people with guns you've sent to use their guns?  How long should people be put in prison for not surrendering their ak-47s?

Trying to stop gun violence with gun violence doesn't seem logical to me.

what guns fell under the ban were no different than the ones that could still be purchased except for cosmetic features, like pistol grips, folding stocks, barrel shrouds etc  The state of NY has done the same thing.  As I said an ar-15 is the same as a ruger mini 14 except for cosmetics mostly, they are both semi auto, magazine fed and shoot the exact same round.  I don't want to convince you so I'd rather you look this stuff up on your own and come to your own conclusion if what I say is accurate, if you don't think it is please ask and I'll try to clarify.

the Ruger 10/22 is a .22 rimfire rifle, not considered 'high powered' but can still kill, look at up and all the after market stocks you can drop it into, the actual trigger, barrel etc all the same, just different cosmetics.  then you'll see what i'm talking about

countless videos prove that is not correct, they are targeted because the look scary, when present with a mini 14, most people say those are ok and yet they are the same except for the cosmetics.

here watch this and you'll get a better idea of where I'm coming from and why https://youtu.be/L5CxUZp5VZA

should this be banned?  if so why? ok fine I won't do the gotcha thing again, it's a pellet gun, not even a fire arm, but sure does look scary am I right?

look up a bullet comparison chart, an AR-15 is a .223 and an Ak-47 is 7.62x39  popular hunting rounds are a .308, 30-30 and 30-06, also check out a 12 gauge shot gun slug and 00 buck shot.

ALL semi autos work the same way, pistols, rifles, shotguns it doesn't matter the mechanics are the same.

the study you present specifically talks about  fatalities, with more trauma centers, better technology in medicine etc the chances of survival is much higher in the time period of the ban vs the time prior to it. 

Regardless if it had any effect during that time period, the time frame of a 7 year stretch were the rate was lower than the lowest year of the ban proves it isn't need any longer, at the very least.

If you look at the time periods there's something else going on that no one wants to see otherwise after the ban expired the rate should have gone up.  Years after it expired the rate was at all time lows but no one want to look at that or see why.  When the rate was the lowest how come it wasn't studied to see what was working and what was going right so they could do more of that?  Why not reflect back to those years to learn why the rates where so low compared to rest?  Wouldn't that be far more productive than to talk of bans again?  The rates speak for themselves, why ignore them?

It's about (general gun laws and homicide).  If you want to focus in on how to prevent mass shootings, I say let the teachers be armed if they have legal guns.  If advertised on a school that they allow their teachers to be armed, that would scare would be shooters from killing people.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm states that around 320,000 people were robbed in 2017.  A majority of these had multiple robbers.  Home Alone had 2 robbers.  Mean girls I think was the title had 3 robbers.  Robbers get into packs.

A handgun can maybe deal with 1 robber.  But not 2 robbers who are armed.  You shoot on of them in self defense, the other robber shoots you in retaliation.

I think I have argued why numerous times.

Tell me how you or anyone could possibly know the number of mass shootings with an "assault rifle" wouldn't have gone down anyway w/o any ban at all?  The numbers fluctuate greatly when comparing certain years.

If we further break down the years both Mother Jones and the Washington Postuse, the statistics remain similar. From 1982 to 1994 (12 years), there were 19 shootings, an average of 1.5 shootings a year.

From September 1994 to September 2004—the duration of the Assault Weapons Ban—there were 15 mass shootings over 10 years; again, an average of 1.5 a year. 

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/the-assault-weapons-ban-did-it-curtail-mass-shootings/?agreed=1

how many of the mass murders were actually committed by someone using an assault rifle, funny can't seem to find the actual specifics, they claim mass murders may have gone down, but don't specifically say mass murders by assault rifle.  Can you find actual specifics as to what weapon was used, because I can't.

Yes.  However, homicide in general is my measurement for how effective gun laws are.  Not every murder victim is someone that dies from a mass shooting.  Most people that get murdered don't get murdered in a mass shooting.  If AK 47s save lives, then they are worth having around.  If they do kill too many people, then they should be banned.

-Aliens that have the technological capability to come to Earth probably have defense/attacking technology far better then humans.  A rocket launcher wouldn't be effective.

-No one else owns a rocket launcher.  Other people own guns.  Just as it is a good idea for the US to have nukes because other countries have nukes.  If the US removed our nukes, we would get nuked.  If you remove AK 47s from law abiding citizens, how can they defend themselves against a crowd of robbers?  Anyone can get robbed.

-There is not enough credible proof that aliens even abduct humans.  There is evidence that people get robbed.

Protection against multiple people.  What other firearm can be used for this purpose?

No one out of me, you, or dustryder wants to ban all guns.  Dustryder wants to ban AK 47s.  That I think is all.  I don't know his/her full position on guns.

Isn't protection a basic human right?

look, this has been tried and it did NOTHING!!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), officially the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law, which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as "large capacity."

study, by the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, found no significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders.

I think AK 47s do provide protection against multiple people.  How can this be accomplished with any other gun?  A pistol only fires one shot at a time and won't do you much good against a crowd of invaders, all armed.

I give no credibility to other countries because there is no logical comparison.  The U.S. doesn't have hate speech laws because freedom of speech is a fundamental right protected, and other rights which other countries don't have, by the U.S. constitution and bill of rights, as one of many examples of differences.

It doesn't seem you are looking at the big picture.  Yearly murders is my priority.  One mass shooting of 50 is less important to me than 1000 murders per year.  This concern or outrage of single rare events boggles the mind when far more 1 and 2 murders add up to so much more per year than these anomalies as you put it.

This term "mass shooting" is a scare tactic which should be obvious.  Recently this crazy man killed is pregnant wife and his 2 children, so 4 people, mass murder?  Not really since they were all related and it was contained to that one instance and family.  He didn't use a gun, don't you want to stop nuts like that?  I do.

Reducing the amount of murders is admirable, focusing on how someone is murdered is far from admirable.  And you are specifically talking about mass shootings.  You can have a mass murder but without it being a mass shooting.

How do you propose to do that?  A house to house search and confiscation by people WITH guns?  How do you stop the black market given the videos I posted and 3d printing?  If getting rid of guns is so easy why can't they get them away from criminals?  How many illegal guns are on the streets?  No one could possibly know.  If all manufacturing stopped today, how long would it take for all the guns to eventually break and or be taken away from criminals?  few thousand years?  maybe more?

What about the police and military?  their guns get stolen, what do you do about that?  How do you stop guns coming in over the Mexican border?

if you didn't watch or understand the video of the murders per 100k it explains that if you actually look at the specific data, murders are mostly narrowed to a small number of counties in the U.S.  This is why general sweeping idea such as yours are illogical.  If you want to address murders look and where they are happening, that seems to be a pretty painfully obvious first step, and yet that doesn't really happen.

Chicago has been the poster city for murders, in fact they keep weekend totals.  What's been tried to address that?  They did have a ban which didn't help, but that's pretty much it.  

You seemed to selectively ignore facts like the assault weapons ban did nothing to affect crime rates or that people are murdered by other ways than guns.

It doesn't appear we have any real common ground.  While I want solutions to stop murders, you seem to have tunnel vision for "mass gun murders" which makes no sense at all to me.