Gun Control needs to be instituted

Cite it. (You won't.)

 

That’s fair.

Here’s the short version of my bio.

I was born into an intelligent family headed by parents who chose a good environment for raising children over an environment best suited to accumulation of assets. Part of that environment involved excellent schools which I began working to pay for in about 4th grade. I continued to work to pay for quality education through University.

I also chose a profession where analysis of data is crucial. Not only does my financial livelihood depend on being correct, the lives and well-being of hundreds of animals of approximately a dozen species does as well. There is no room for conflating correlation and causation. Just because increased percentage of cattle standing in ponds is correlated with hot weather in August doesn’t mean hot weather in August is causing all cattle standing in a pond to be there. Some may be there because their body temperature is elevated due to an inflammatory response. If you don’t dig a little deeper in your observation you will miss the beginning of respiratory disease in that calf in the pond and it will die a horrible death.

I guess if success is what matters here, I was successful enough at analyzing commodity markets, disease prevention, input purchases, capital investment, etc. that I could have retired at 40. But I love my work and will likely be working at my profession the day I die.

At the end of the day however, to me all that matters is evidence. My education, social status, etc. are irrelevant here at PF. The only thing that matters is that what I post is supported by evidence.

I don’t think you are dumb. Nor do I think success in stock analysis guarantees in any way one’s opinion on firearms is correct.

Ummmm, no. It is an objective fact that self defense is not vigilantism either inside or outside the home. The Constitution and Supreme Court say so.

It is an objective fact Mexico has a firearm homicide rate 5 times that in the US.

It is an objective fact only 3% of firearm violence committed in the US involves military type rifles.

It is an objective fact two of the states (25% of total in that list) listed as national leaders in your link have firearm violence rates higher than 10 states with lower rankings than national leaders. In fact, one of the states listed as national leader has firearm violence rate approximately double that of a state listed as a national failure with few firearm restrictions.

It’s an objective fact that the firearm homicide rate in the US was about 2.5/100,000 before the sweeping firearm regulations implemented in 1968. After those regulations the firearms homicide rate skyrocketed to around 7/100,000 by the early 1990’s

Perspective doesn’t change facts. But you are likely correct on values. You are on record advocating for violating constitutionally protected rights. You call supplying demonstrably false statistics “a different perspective”.

That’s a lot to unpack. First, gun control is what you have advocated for here. I’m open to you advocating for other measures but so far you have not. I’m just taking you at your word. I have to assume you believe what you say.

And you said this:

That’s pretty clear English text. Taking gun rights away is a clear violation of the Constitution. Are you trying to backpedal a bit?

How many guns per person is too many? Do you have any evidence the number of firearms owned has any causal effect on propensity to commit firearm violence?

Automatic weapons, while not technically illegal, require full comprehensive background checks and registration with the ATF. It’s been this way since 1934. I believe to date there have been only a handful of automatic weapons used in crimes in the last few decades. Automatic weapons are not relevant to this discussion. They are statistically insignificant in total numbers and in use in violence.

It is already illegal for a felon to possess, let alone purchase a firearm. All new purchases of firearms require a background check today. Here is how we deal with people who violate the paperwork part of that background check and purchase process.

We have laws against straw purchases and lying on forms (4473). It’s 10 years prison and a $250,000 fine.

But here is how we enforce the law. By prosecuting 0.01% of offenses!

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-new...d-despite-crackdown-on-illegal-guns?_amp=true

So the laws we have now are not being enforced. How can adding new laws help if we won’t even enforce the laws against lying on forms or committing straw purchases?

Back to your Everytown cite. Illinois has the most restrictive purchasing laws in the nation, requiring a background check to get a FOID card, without which you can’t even TOUCH a firearm in a gun shop, let alone purchase. And yet their firearm violence rate exceeds many other states with far less restrictive sales. Also, Illinois has the ninth lowest rate of firearms ownership in the country!

Not only that, according to your source their rate of INCREASE in firearm violence exceeds the national average—by almost a factor of two!

https://maps.everytownresearch.org/...-2.0-042720-Illinois.pdf?akid=s191366..DhgrHs

Clearly the laws in Illinois are not working!

Most of those things have been done. Some states have done more. Some of those states still have very high firearms violence rates.

What kinds of guns shouldn’t be bought? Guns that are used in the most violent acts or ones used in the fewest violent acts?

The CAUSE must be determined before meaningful action can be taken. Obviously the laws in Illinois are not having the effect you believe laws have.

It sounds like most of the laws you want already exist. I’m still confused by your comments on violation of rights—you’ve posited two very different beliefs.

Sleep for a couple hours!

 

Excellent observations!

People have figured out how to kill each in large numbers before guns were even invented and they'll figure out ways to kill each other in large numbers if all guns were to disappear.

Those who doubt that need only look at the deadliest mass killing in recent American history(1) and the deadliest school mass killing ever (2).
Both are evidence that homicides are likely to be deadlier when determined mass killers turn to crude but more lethal WMDs such as home made bombs, Molotov cocktails, Anthrax and other deadly Bio - Chem agents.

The crude but deadliest mass killing of its type in modern American history (1) only required an easily acquired one dollar's worth of gasoline to kill 87 people, far more than any "assault weapon".

Since criminals, by definition, don't obey laws, passing even more cheap and easy, feel-good-do-nothing gun control laws may even cause America's homicide rate increase as determined killers turn to much deadlier crude but effective WMDs.

Thanks,



(1) "Happy Land fire"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

EXCERPT "González went to an Amoco gas station, then returned to the establishment with a plastic container with $1 worth of gasoline.[2][4] He spread the fuel at the base of a staircase, the only access into the club, and then ignited the gasoline.[5]

Eighty-seven people died in the resulting fire."CONTINUED


(2). "The 1927 Bombing That Remains America’s Deadliest School Massacre"

"Ninety years ago, a school in Bath, Michigan was rigged with explosives in a brutal act that stunned the town"

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...chool-massacre-180963355/#KSipwm4IUrIbB9uc.99

EXCERPTS "In the end 44 people died, 38 of them students. It wasn’t the first bombing in the country’s history—at least eight were killed during the Haymarket Square rally in Chicago in 1886, and 30 when a bomb exploded in Manhattan in 1920. But none had been so deadly as this, or affected so many children."CONTINUED

 

First of all, let me say that I actually appreciate and laud the fact that you are "actually debating" the issue. You are the first person that has done that in the time I have been here. It becomes very difficult to continue a debate when the other side is not debating and simply orating their own points of view and not keying on data and statistics, which I have found to be "overwhelmingly lacking" on this political board. In fact, I have come to believe this political board is more of a haven for Republicans than a debate board.

Ummmm, no. It is an objective fact that self defense is not vigilantism either inside or outside the home. The Constitution and Supreme Court say so.

I do apologize if I did not make myself totally clear as far as the "vigilantism" comments. I was trying to address the issue of arming teachers and having armed defendants at schools as a solution to the mass killings in schools and used vigilantism as a way to express the idea of it being wrong. Nonetheless, I did not actually get deep into defining what I meant and what is correct and what is not. When you are getting bombarded by opinions from orators, it is a waste of time to try to explain things in detail because it falls on deaf ears.

It is an objective fact Mexico has a firearm homicide rate 5 times that in the US.

I made it a point after the first couple of misunderstandings to point out that I was basing the U.S. gun problem as being #1 in the world that it was a comparison with other countries that are in the same category as the U.S. Mexico (and many South American countries) have huge drug cartel problems and no gun controls in place and therefore those countries will (by nature) have higher rates and cannot be compared to the U.S. in any way. the UK. France, Germany, and even nations like China can be compared to the U.S. Among those, we are the outlier. We should not be comparing those countries with U.S. (regarding gun problems) because the situations are totally different.

It is an objective fact only 3% of firearm violence committed in the US involves military type rifles.

I have no idea why you mention this as it means little to me. Bottom line is that our death rate by GUNS is way too much, compared to other countries of our ilk.

It is an objective fact two of the states (25% of total in that list) listed as national leaders in your link have firearm violence rates higher than 10 states with lower rankings than national leaders. In fact, one of the states listed as national leader has firearm violence rate approximately double that of a state listed as a national failure with few firearm restrictions.

I am sure that in checking anything in great detail, there will be errors in the statistics. Nonetheless, the problem with gun related deaths is not in the details but in the overall problem. When you get to fine tuning solutions, those errors/exceptions can be addressed. Nonetheless, we are not at the level where much is being done about the overall problem and what needs to occur is to get both parties to agree that there is a problem and that it must be addressed. Right now and to the Republicans, the amount of gun deaths being seen in the U.S. is NOT a problem. That needs to change first before any details get addressed.

It’s an objective fact that the firearm homicide rate in the US was about 2.5/100,000 before the sweeping firearm regulations implemented in 1968. After those regulations the firearms homicide rate skyrocketed to around 7/100,000 by the early 1990’s

Once again, nothing is ever perfect and or a solution. Nonetheless, talking about it is the first step. The Republicans are not even talking about the problem. They are basically trying to ignore it as there is a cost involved and they have no interest in addressing the costs (and when I say cost, I don't necessarily mean money).

Perspective doesn’t change facts. But you are likely correct on values. You are on record advocating for violating constitutionally protected rights. You call supplying demonstrably false statistics “a different perspective”.

My statement on that was more from frustration in trying to make the point that gun deaths have to be addressed. I do not believe that we need to violate constitutional rights. I do believe we need to amend them as things are totally different now than in 1776. As such, you need to revise the meaning of what I said and the reasons for saying it.


That’s a lot to unpack. First, gun control is what you have advocated for here. I’m open to you advocating for other measures but so far you have not. I’m just taking you at your word. I have to assume you believe what you say.

And you said this:

That’s pretty clear English text. Taking gun rights away is a clear violation of the Constitution. Are you trying to backpedal a bit?

Not backpedal but clarify. The statement was said in frustration but was not meant as you believe

How many guns per person is too many? Do you have any evidence the number of firearms owned has any causal effect on propensity to commit firearm violence?

I have no clear answer to "how many" is the right number. I just know that in the U.S., our citizens have more guns per person than in any other country in the world. That, in an of itself, is telling of a problem.

Automatic weapons, while not technically illegal, require full comprehensive background checks and registration with the ATF. It’s been this way since 1934. I believe to date there have been only a handful of automatic weapons used in crimes in the last few decades. Automatic weapons are not relevant to this discussion. They are statistically insignificant in total numbers and in use in violence.

It is already illegal for a felon to possess, let alone purchase a firearm. All new purchases of firearms require a background check today. Here is how we deal with people who violate the paperwork part of that background check and purchase process.

We have laws against straw purchases and lying on forms (4473). It’s 10 years prison and a $250,000 fine.

But here is how we enforce the law. By prosecuting 0.01% of offenses!

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-new...d-despite-crackdown-on-illegal-guns?_amp=true

In spite of all that, we have a gun deaths problem. Our mass killings rate is beyond anyone else in the world and it is a huge problem that needs to be addressed

So the laws we have now are not being enforced. How can adding new laws help if we won’t even enforce the laws against lying on forms or committing straw purchases?

That is a completely different problem that needs to be addressed. In my opinion, the U.S. is on a strong downward path that will only be solved by a major catastrophe occurring that forces everyone to work together. Right now, we are a nation that is splitting apart at the seams and it has been happening for the past 30 years.

Back to your Everytown cite. Illinois has the most restrictive purchasing laws in the nation, requiring a background check to get a FOID card, without which you can’t even TOUCH a firearm in a gun shop, let alone purchase. And yet their firearm violence rate exceeds many other states with far less restrictive sales. Also, Illinois has the ninth lowest rate of firearms ownership in the country!

Not only that, according to your source their rate of INCREASE in firearm violence exceeds the national average—by almost a factor of two!

https://maps.everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Every-State-Fact-Sheet-2.0-042720-Illinois.pdf?akid=s191366..

Clearly the laws in Illinois are not working!

Again, this is a detail and not the overall problem.

Most of those things have been done. Some states have done more. Some of those states still have very high firearms violence rates.

What kinds of guns shouldn’t be bought? Guns that are used in the most violent acts or ones used in the fewest violent acts?

The CAUSE must be determined before meaningful action can be taken. Obviously the laws in Illinois are not having the effect you believe laws have.

Key word is "meaningful". Nonetheless, doing nothing because the details are not all that clear means that the problem will never be addressed. We need everyone to agree first that a problem exists. The Republicans do not think there is a problem.

It sounds like most of the laws you want already exist. I’m still confused by your comments on violation of rights—you’ve posited two very different beliefs.

We need to work together (Democrats and Republicans) before things actually begin to work

Sleep for a couple hours!

I did sleep well last night. I have to be rested this week as this is a major and pivotal week for the stock market. CAT reports earnings tomorrow, the Fed announces their rate decision on Wednesday and also the ISM Index report comes out. On Thursday evening, AAPL, AMZN, and GOOGL report earnings and on Friday the Jobs Report comes out. This market is going to pivot on these reports.

[/QUOTE]

 

when we cut through all the obfuscation and cherry picking-several undeniable facts remain:

1) the group with the highest rate and legal usage of firearms has a low per capita rate of firearms violence. The major ethnic group with the lowest rate of legal gun ownership has the highest rate of gun violence

2) the addition of 100 million more firearms-a large number of which are semi auto rifles and handguns-all capable of accepting "high capacity" magazines-in the last 30 years was not an impetus for higher rates of gun violence. In fact the opposite happened. Most states implementing SHALL issue or constitutional carry laws did not result in increased rates of gun violence

3) All Semi auto rifles combined-which includes 22 rimfire rifles-are used in less murders each year than beatings, and are implicated in less murders in years than drug overdoses kill in 12 months

 

Even temporarily, how would you go about taking the gun rights from the law-abiding?

How would you proceed to confiscate the guns, the privately owned property, of over a hundred million people? Would this even be possible to take their guns without using force, Lucky1knows? Our government cannot deprive its citizens of their Fifth amendment rights.

14th Amendment: Simplified Summary, Text & Impact - HISTORY

There goes the theory that it is our citizens who are being unlawful. How do you reconcile our government abridging rights as afforded by the US Constitution? When you see a government storm in and confiscate guns from the public, abridge the protected rights of their citizens, there is no longer a democracy but a dictatorship in place. Is this what you really want to see happen?

On to my next point. I will ask you, Lucky1knows, why you assumed taking away gun rights would mean less deaths? How so? Provide your statistical information that proves it. Unless one assumes that it is the law-abiding doing the killings, your statement makes no sense.

Sourced in next paragraph. Now tell us by using your stats, why would it make sense to disarm them in light of the information quoted below?

The Latest Crime News Provides Evidence in Favor of Armed Citizens (dailysignal.com)

Do you even realize how many violent deaths are prevented, stopped by those who are self-defending, or armed legitimately with guns?
I know how you love your stats. So go ahead and dispute the stats and commentary in the source posted below. Use the interactive chart provided within the link. I've followed your criteria and have provided stats and sourcing. Let's see if you'll actually get back to me or brush it off as a nothing burger.

Data Visualization | Defensive Gun Uses in the U.S. | The Heritage Foundation

 

The reason why we never get a sensible answer is that crime control is only a facade that gun banners throw out to serve as a distraction for their real goals

 

When one reads between the lines, it's clear as crystal, that's what the tyrants want. They'll strip the public of their Constitutional rights, stomp out rights, delete those segments that protect rights, so they can say to the public, "see people, we know better than YOU as to what you really need".

 

Once again, you have been disinformed. Here again is the Inconvenient Truth:

“LONDON -- A surge of stabbings in London was blamed Monday for the city overtaking New York's monthly murder tally for the first time in modern history. Fifteen people were murdered in London during February, compared to 14 in New York, according to police figures.
The British capital also suffered 22 fatal stabbings and shootings in March, higher than the 21 in New York. There have been 10 fatal stabbings in London in the last 19 days, following on from the 80 fatal stabbings recorded in the city last year.”
CBS NEWS, WORLD, London's murder rate surpasses New York's for 1st time ever, APRIL 3, 2018.

Attacking a black American civil rights martyr as a "right-wing racist", is IMO, shameful.

White "liberals" could learn a lot from Malcolm X.

“Since I learned the truth in Mecca, my dearest friends have come to include all kinds — some Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, and even atheists! I have friends who are called capitalists, Socialists, and Communists! Some of my friends are moderates, conservatives, extremists — some are even Uncle Toms! My friends today are black, brown, red, yellow, and white!

I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it's for or against. I'm a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."
NEW YORK TIMES, Missing Pages From Malcolm X’s Autobiography, By Jennifer Schuessler, July 26, 2018,
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/books/malcolm-x-book-auction.html

Racist Left Authoritarianism has become a serious threat to liberty, but I think most liberals will be able to snap out of it as the Inconvenient Truth becomes too obvious to ignore. I am optimistic that the still thinking left will eventually reject disinformation and embrace the truth. It has happened before.

 

The dictionary challenged are probably inevitably also Inconvenient Truth challenged.

The Inconvenient Truth: Gun Control Kills, and Gun Free Zones = Killing Zones.

 

National Socialism can produce economic expansion especially in the collapsed economies of Germany, Russia, China and Vietnam.
The USA has proved that capitalism without the tyrants and totalitarianism is far more productive.

“The new continent had become a refuge, an 'asylum* and a
meeting ground of the poor; there had arisen a new race of men,
'united by the silken bands of mild government' and living under
conditions of *a pleasing uniformity' from which 'absolute
poverty worse than death had been banished. Yet Crevecceur,
from whom this is quoted, was radically opposed to the American
Revolution, which he saw as a kind of conspiracy of 'great
personages' against 'the common ranks of men'. 6
Not the American Revolution and its preoccupation with the
establishment of a new body politic, a new form of government, but
America, the 'new continent', the American, a 'new man', 'the
lovely equality', in Jefferson's words, 'which the poor enjoy with
the rich', revolutionized the spirit of men, first in Europe and
then all over the world - and this to such an extent that from
the later stages of the French Revolution up to the revolutions
of our own time it appeared to revolutionary men more important
to change the fabric of society, as it had been changed in America
prior to its Revolution, than to change the structure of the political realm.”
ON REVOLUTION, Hannnah Arendt, Penguin Classics, NY, NY, 2006., The Meaning of Revolution 25

 

That may be true but is only true because there are people that want to kill and have the ability to buy a gun. If they didn't have a gun to begin with, it would be unlikely that they would go on a killing spree.

Here is a database that shows that 6-8 mass killings per year is the NORMAL average. In 2022, there were 504 mass killing events, of which 80% were done with guns.

The guy that runs the database (James Alan Fox, professor of criminology, law and public policy at Northeastern) has stated the following: "he supports many gun control initiatives, including background checks and raising the age of gun ownership. He argues that those measures would lead to fewer mass shootings; additionally, he says, limiting the capacity of magazines would reduce casualties at mass shootings".

 

The Inconvenient Truth is very well documented.

1. “In 1997-98, there were just over 4,900 recorded crimes in England and Wales involving the use of guns, other than air weapons. The figure had climbed to 7,362 for the year ending April 2001. Home Office sources have indicated privately that 2001-02 statistics will show an increase along the same lines as previous years. A regional breakdown of the figures show that gun crime is overwhelmingly an inner-city phenomenon. In 2001-02 guns were used to kill 73 people, half of them in London or Manchester.”
THE INDEPENDENT, 8,000 a year: serious gun crime ***doubles*** under Labour, By Andy McSmith and Sophie Goodchild, 05 January 2003. (*** mine)
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=366560

2. “Gun Free Britain: Nearly 10,000 ‘Gun Crimes’ Committed in One Year,” by Kurt Zindulka, Breitbart, February 14, 2020:

The number of gun crimes committed in the United Kingdom has increased by 27 per cent in five years and the number of firearms seized has quadrupled, despite the country having some of the strictest gun control laws in the world.

Figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that 9,787 crimes were committed with firearms in the year leading to March of 2019. The number of offences has risen by four per cent over the previous year and twenty-seven per cent in five years, the latest statistics available show.
JIHAD WATCH, Gun-free UK: Almost 10,000 gun crimes in a year, with help from Muslim migrants, BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS, FEB 15, 2020.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/02/...imes-in-a-year-with-help-from-muslim-migrants

3. “The crime rate in England and Wales is the highest in the industrialised world, an international study has found.”
THE INDEPENDENT (UK), England has worst crime rate in the West, By Jason Bennetto, Crime Correspondent, 2/23/2001.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...has-worst-crime-rate-in-the-west-5365902.html

4. “The survey, which asked 34,000 people in 17 countries about their
experience of crime, divides the nations into three groups. England and
Wales are in the worst group, along with Australia, the Netherlands and
Sweden. America—which although way up the murder league is quite moderate
in other sorts of crime—is in the middle, with Scotland, Denmark and
France. Among the most crime-free countries are Finland, Switzerland and
Japan.” The Economist, A nation of criminals, 2/22/01.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2001/02/22/a-nation-of

5. "England and Wales have the highest crime rate among the world's leading economies, according to a new report by the United Nations.
The survey, which is likely to prove embarrassing to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary. shows that people are more likely to be mugged, burgled, robbed or assaulted here than in America, Germany, Russia, South Africa or any other of the world's 20 largest nations. Only the Dominican Republic, New Zealand and Finland have higher crime rates than England and Wales. According to the comparison of international crime statistics produced by the UN's Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention..."
THE TELEGRAPH, David Bamber, England has worst crime rate in world, By David Bamber, 1/12/2002.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1414855/England-has-worst-crime-rate-in-world.html

Should we believe you over the UK press admitting the obvious truth for all the decades since the 96 gun ban?

 

Yes, it is true that Gun Control Kills and Gun Free Zones are Killing Zones because criminals will always be able to easily obtain guns regardless of any gun control measure.

“The men managed to produce lethal firearms from scratch
Sentencing, Judge Susan Tapping said the operation was "of the gravest possible seriousness".
She said: "Creating firearms like this had only one objective and that was to be sold to criminal customers who wished to use them with live ammunition.”
BBC, Men jailed over UK's 'first' gun factory in Hailsham unit, Published, 8 May 2019.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-48202765

 

FALSE and you know it. .

 

Yes. For us, Free Markets, Free Choices, and Self Rule are clearly the right system.

 

And we don't sacrifice and give up our protected rights for anyone.

 

Anyone demanding you give up your rights so that they have more power over you is clearly not someone to yield to.

 

Truth? I am sorry you are having trouble dealing with reality. Your statement that crime “surged” after ‘96 gun ban is clearly false. BTW the murder rates (since you brought it up) for 2018: New York 289 and London 135.

If a person thinks their race is superior and another race is evil, if they think Jews and homosexuals are evil, if they think the races should be separated and not mixed you are either talking to a klanner or a member of the Nation of Islam. Mr X may have seen the light after he left NOI, but cherry picking his statements while a member is disingenuous and he was wrong.

 

White liberals attack and invalidate civil rights leaders and wonder why so many black Americans voted for Trump. Amazing.

Read more carefully. The truth, however inconvenient, will always more persuasive than Utopian fantasies.

THE INDEPENDENT, "Crime rates soar as Straw calls for police to resume stop-and-search,", By Jason Bennetto, Crime Correspondent, 1/19/2000.

Predictably, crime surged after the 96 gun ban.

 

“We can ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in this country once again. I got that done when I was a senator. It passed. It was the law for the longest time. And it brought down these mass killings. We should do it again.”
— President Joe Biden, in remarks on the shootings in Boulder, Colo., March 23, 2021

It really didn't bring down the mass killing numbers in any significant way.

Biden: We Should Ban ‘Assault Weapons,’ ‘High-Capacity’ Magazines Again – Gunpowder Magazine

 

More guns does not equal more deaths and less guns does not equal less deaths.

Remove guns, reduce death? Not according to a Harvard study.

Harvard study concludes that gun control does not prevent murders, other violent crime (foac-pac.org)

 

control freaks want to ban weapons that are the best commonly available tools to prevent a control freak dictatorship. Crime control has nothing to do with the leftist move to ban AR 15s. My advice-every patriotic American should buy at least one AR and plenty of ammo

 

The 1994 AWB had zero effect on mass, or any other - shootings - during or after the ban -because the ban did nothing to reduce access to 'assault weapons' and its expiration did nothing to increase access to 'assault weapons'.

 

Other than to pander to left-wingers and hysterical twits who wanted SOMETHING TO BE DONE-the main purpose of the ban was to desensitize people to more pervasive gun banning schemes.