It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo
Any idea why mass causality shootings just happened to drop during the ban?
I didn't say there was zero fluctuation, I said there was little to no statistical impact. If you look at the years leading up to the ban, there weren't that many incidents to begin with, and there weren't that many casualties to begin with.
In the 12 years leading up to the ban, there were two years with zero incidents. There were seven years that totaled more than 20 casualties. In the ten years the ban was in place, there were zero years with no incidents at all, and the biggest school shooting in history (until VT, which was done with two handguns and thus wouldn't have been stopped by the AWB anyway) took place squarely in the middle of the ban. That was in the year following the second biggest school shooting up to that point.
So...yes, there was a small, statistically insignificant change in incidents, but the ban sure as hell wasn't the cure people try to make it out to be.
I'm not making it out to be a cure-all. Was the UT Tower shooting not a greater (casualty) event then Columbine.
I'm not the best at math, but I'm pretty positive 1966 isn't in the "twelve years leading up to the ban."
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: DBCowboy
Because when you ban guns, magically, people who wanted to kill suddenly don't want to kill any more.
If Gun Control worked.
Chicago would be Mayberry.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Flanker86
Any so-called "background check" are illegal and unconstitutional, as they cannot cover subjects that the EU uses under MKULTRA effect and under the effect of other neurological weapons that induce violent behavior.
It is illegal.
And a thing they would not stand for the first and voting.
But since it's boom sticks they care not.
Lanza stole the one he used.
Cruz went through the background check and bought it legally.
There is no catch in place for what a person might do.
originally posted by: testingtesting
Robot drones patroling schools.
Or ed-209 type robots or automated defence turrets in each classroom.
My bet is it will happen in 5 years.
Funny that the murder rate actually dropped after Chicago passed their first piece of gun legislation.
Does Chicago have the strictest gun laws in the country? It did after Mayor Jane Byrne pushed through the ban on firearms not already registered with Chicago police in March 1982. The city’s ban lasted until 2010, when the Supreme Court struck it down by a majority vote of 5-4. Two years later, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago struck down as unconstitutional the state’s ban on carrying concealed firearms. In 2013, the General Assembly passed a law making Illinois the last state to grant its residents the right to concealed carry. Right now, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco have stricter gun laws on the books, experts say.
originally posted by: howtonhawky
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Flanker86
Any so-called "background check" are illegal and unconstitutional, as they cannot cover subjects that the EU uses under MKULTRA effect and under the effect of other neurological weapons that induce violent behavior.
It is illegal.
And a thing they would not stand for the first and voting.
But since it's boom sticks they care not.
Lanza stole the one he used.
Cruz went through the background check and bought it legally.
There is no catch in place for what a person might do.
It looks as if again the background nics system failed cause cruz was in a mental health place among other problems.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo
So you're worried about semantics rather than the actual point?
That's all you needed to say. Enjoy your time getting lost in the weeds. Columbine was the biggest school shooting in the dataset I was working with. No worries though, I'll make the correction.
I think the way to start your question would not be "you do" but rather do you. Yes i am aware of what you dribble. How is your input relevant?
originally posted by: Shamrock6
originally posted by: howtonhawky
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Flanker86
Any so-called "background check" are illegal and unconstitutional, as they cannot cover subjects that the EU uses under MKULTRA effect and under the effect of other neurological weapons that induce violent behavior.
It is illegal.
And a thing they would not stand for the first and voting.
But since it's boom sticks they care not.
Lanza stole the one he used.
Cruz went through the background check and bought it legally.
There is no catch in place for what a person might do.
It looks as if again the background nics system failed cause cruz was in a mental health place among other problems.
You do understand that simply receiving mental health services is not a prohibiting factor to gun ownership, right?
You do understand that there's a whole legal process that has to be gone through to have somebody declared mentally unfit, and if that process isn't done then you don't show up in a background search as being prohibited from purchasing a firearm?
originally posted by: skunkape23
Letting kids spend hours playing video games where the main goal is to blow away as many as possible mixed with a coctail of pharmaceutical drugs could be a factor.
Just speculating.
A lack of education in gun safety could also be a factor.
originally posted by: howtonhawky
I think the way to start your question would not be "you do" but rather do you. Yes i am aware of what you dribble. How is your input relevant?
originally posted by: Shamrock6
originally posted by: howtonhawky
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Flanker86
Any so-called "background check" are illegal and unconstitutional, as they cannot cover subjects that the EU uses under MKULTRA effect and under the effect of other neurological weapons that induce violent behavior.
It is illegal.
And a thing they would not stand for the first and voting.
But since it's boom sticks they care not.
Lanza stole the one he used.
Cruz went through the background check and bought it legally.
There is no catch in place for what a person might do.
It looks as if again the background nics system failed cause cruz was in a mental health place among other problems.
You do understand that simply receiving mental health services is not a prohibiting factor to gun ownership, right?
You do understand that there's a whole legal process that has to be gone through to have somebody declared mentally unfit, and if that process isn't done then you don't show up in a background search as being prohibited from purchasing a firearm?
originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo
So you're worried about semantics rather than the actual point?
That's all you needed to say. Enjoy your time getting lost in the weeds. Columbine was the biggest school shooting in the dataset I was working with. No worries though, I'll make the correction.
I'm not worried. But here's a data set, there were more school shootings in 1978 than in 1999 (the year of Columbine).
It's all just pin pointed data and really means nothing without context.
The fact is that the top 34 shootings where 8 people or more were killed, only 2 occurred during the AW Ban. This isn't arguable, it's just raw numbers. The most destructive of the most destructive, and only TWO of those happened during the AW Ban.
That's all I was stating. Not twisting anything. Just showing numbers.
-The 12 on that list that occurred PRIOR to the ban averaged 13.08 deaths per event.
-During the ban there was an average of 12.5 deaths per event
-The 20 that occurred AFTER the ban averaged 17.45 deaths per event.
What weapons were used in the upper echelon of those shootings:
Vegas - Assault Weapon
Orlando - Assault Weapon
VT - Handguns, no assault weapon
Sandy Hook - Assault Weapon
Sutherland Springs - Assault Weapon
Obviously banning Assault Weapons wouldn't 100% curtail this, but it's probably a reasonable and logical start. Truth be told, I already lost family friends in the Sutherland Springs (my in laws live outside of Sutherland Springs and their friends went to that church) shooting so it's extremely unlikely this will ever effect me again. Banning these weapons won't bring those people back, and it's not full proof in stopping the next attack.
It's funny that even though I'm in favor of the AW Ban happening again, I can completely understand that it won't stop what's happening completely. It seems like something like the Vegas shooting wouldn't have occurred, but who knows. I'm sure the people at the Concert would have preferred being shot at with Handguns and Bolt Action Rifles as opposed to what they got.
You seem adamant that banning AW's won't do a thing. That's just a little weird to me. Again, I can understand that you could be right, but it seems like you can't concede that I may also be right.