An inconvenient study.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Yeah well alot of crap was passed in the 90s.

So it gets included.

ASB and the Brady Handgun Prevention Act.

That did nothing to stop Columbine.

And yet I somehow support regulation?

Lame.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: neo96

Because we are all far more alike, than what you want to give credit to!

No were not.

If all those first world nations had democrats and republicans and the same political bullsnip, and the same ethnic groups.

Then a comparison might be made.

But they don't.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yeah well alot of crap was passed in the 90s.

So it gets included.

ASB and the Brady Handgun Prevention Act.

That did nothing to stop Columbine.

And yet I somehow support regulation?

Lame.

So you have shown that there was an increase in gun legislation in the 90s since when school shootings have decreased.

It's your own argument in the OP.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I see someone still ignoring the hell out of 2004.

And the current year is 2018.

I get that the school shootings are down but the dumbing down of school kids to the point that they do not have enough sense to count read or write may not have been the best choice to achieve the goal. jk

in all seriousness though we are getting dumber in usa schools.

the stats prove it to be so. if i am reading them right

public education is now a mental illness treated directly by big pharma

The 90s!

Tell me again why I should support regulation that's clearly unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

en.wikipedia.org...

And another one:

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.

en.wikipedia.org...

Kids are safer today.

They don't have a guy named CLinton snipping all over their civil liberty/constitutional rights.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: neo96

Because we are all far more alike, than what you want to give credit to!

No were not.

If all those first world nations had democrats and republicans and the same political bullsnip, and the same ethnic groups.

Then a comparison might be made.

But they don't.

Yeah ok big fella... Other first world nations all have a unified utopia for a political system and the left & right don't even exist... Also, our immigrants come from some perfect little fantasy land, not the same brutal 3rd world nations, which the US immigrants originate from.

If you say so...

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I do say so.

Never been one to look at others to define my self worth.

Geesuz this isn't high school.

originally posted by: neo96
The 90s!

Tell me again why I should support regulation that's clearly unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

en.wikipedia.org...

And another one:

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.

en.wikipedia.org...

Kids are safer today.

They don't have a guy named CLinton snipping all over their civil liberty/constitutional rights.

And both acts were amended and the main provisions remain in place. And as a result the kids are safer.

This is terrible news! If what you say is true then bicycles and swimming pools must be banned!! Cyclists and swimmers are killing the kids and they should be ashamed.

a reply to: ScepticScot

And as a result the kids are safer.

Well then no new laws.

Be nice if some people actually bothered to read.

However, the overall Brady statute was upheld and state and local law enforcement officials remained free to conduct background checks ifthey so chose

OPTIONAL.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScepticScot

And as a result the kids are safer.

Well then no new laws.

You still have more school shootings than the rest of the developed world. Since you have demonstrated that gun control works in the US maybe you need a bit more?

originally posted by: neo96
Be nice if some people actually bothered to read.

However, the overall Brady statute was upheld and state and local law enforcement officials remained free to conduct background checks ifthey so chose

OPTIONAL.

What the bit about the main provisions being upheld?

a reply to: ScepticScot

What about it?

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officialsto perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.The Court determined that this provision violated both the concept of federalism and that of the unitary executive.

It's unconstitutional, and they don't give one rats behind about it. So they still violate that piece of paper.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScepticScot

And as a result the kids are safer.

Well then no new laws.

You still have more school shootings than the rest of the developed world. Since you have demonstrated that gun control works in the US maybe you need a bit more?

So we need more unconsitutional laws that clearly don't work.

Is that it?

One more time.

I don't give a flying eff what the rest of the world does.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScepticScot

What about it?

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officialsto perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.The Court determined that this provision violated both the concept of federalism and that of the unitary executive.

It's unconstitutional, and they don't give one rats behind about it. So they still violate that piece of paper.

So the majority of the act remained in place and even these checks can still take place at state level.

Still looks like gun control works then by your measure of school shootings.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScepticScot

And as a result the kids are safer.

Well then no new laws.

You still have more school shootings than the rest of the developed world. Since you have demonstrated that gun control works in the US maybe you need a bit more?

So we need more unconsitutional laws that clearly don't work.

Is that it?

One more time.

I don't give a flying eff what the rest of the world does.

Only by your chosen measure they seem to work.

Maybe if you and others did give a flying eff you might have less dead school children.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So the majority of the act remained in place and even these checks can still take place at state level. Still looks like gun control works then by your measure of school shootings.

IF they chose.

They chose to break the law the 10th, also the 14th, but hey never mind all that.

No it doesn't.

Lanza killed his mother.

Cruz passed that background check.

So tell me again how they work?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Maybe if you and others did give a flying eff you might have less dead school children.

Well they actually have to get to school.

See abortion.