I Am For Gun Control

Cherry-picked? What key element of data is missing? Please tell us. The paper states multiple times, assault weapons are rarely used in crimes. They also state that the effectiveness of the Assault weapon\'s ban is unknown. Nothing drives a point home like a \"definite maybe!\"

Attempting to defeat a null hypothesis requires some concrete evidence to back it up - otherwise the opposite outcome is achieved. If you cannot prove it was effective, it therefore was ineffective. And really, if truly had been effective, the data would obviously show it. BTW - since the assault weapons\' ban expired in 2003, violent gun crime, including homicide is down from previous years. This is a downward trend that began prior to the assault weapons\' ban and has continued beyond it. The answer lies not with banning guns. The answer lies within understanding why we live in such a violent society.

Koper, Jan. 14: The grandfathering provisions in the law meant that the effects of the law would occur only very gradually over time. It seems that those effects were still unfolding when the ban was lifted, and indeed they may not have been fully realized for several more years into the future even if the ban had been extended in 2004.

The evidence is too limited for any firm projections, but it does suggest that long term restrictions on these guns and magazines could potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings.

Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”
That kind of guarded language may not make for great sound bites for either side in the gun debate, but it more accurately reflects Koper’s findings and conclusion.

This is differant than your conclusion, BSS.

My conclusion is that this article doesn\'t prove that the assault weapons ban from 1994 - 2003 was effective. Where does Koper prove anything with references to such bold statements as \"may help reduce\" and \"a small reduction in shootings\"? They don\'t even begin to define what effective is, and come up with any sort of quantitative measure as what it should be.

I agree with the point above, the evidence is too limited. And that\'s because the weapons are rarely used in crimes.

Think about how this would actually unfold if assault weapons were banned again. Based on current projections from FBI statistics, and the logic Koper applies, maybe, about 50 people out of about 8500 who will be murdered with guns, won\'t be killed by an assault weapon. That doesn\'t mean they won\'t be murdered with a gun, just not with an assault weapon.

Project that out. That really doesn\'t do much reduce gun crime. Then there will be more grumbling on the left, blaming large capacity magazines available for non-assault weapons. But wait, no one can have a 30 round clip anymore. What\'s the problem. Oh...it\'s now the 10 round clips. We need to ban those too, like they did in NY. Still not getting the murder rate down low enough...let\'s ban all semi-automatic weapons, and anything with an insertable magazine. The only thing allowed will be allowed are revolvers, shotguns, and bolt action rifles. Probably half of the gun murders in America are committed with revolvers and shotguns. Where does the insanity around banning guns end? With a complete revocation of the 2nd Amendment?

If gun control laws are so great, why do we have so many of them? If gun control works so well, why do cities such as Chicago, New Orleans, Wash DC - places with the strictest gun laws also have the highest gun crime rate?

Honestly, I feel sometimes like no one ever does any root cause analysis on the issue of homicide in this country. And that\'s not just with guns - thousand of people are murdered with knives, blunt objects, strangulation, suffocation, and arson - and in each of the cases I\'ve just listed, more people are killed annually with those objects than are killed with assault weapons.

It\'s a cultural issue, and it needs a cultural solution. We\'ve already learned that trying to take away the guns will not reduce the violence.

Yes I am prepared to kill to protect my property and most importantly my family. Only if need be. It's better to have a gun and not need it then not have a gun and need it

It's not legal to kill someone to "protect your property". It is only legal to kill someone if you can prove you felt your life or that of another was under serious threat. Can you see the difference?

That's why we have "Stand Your Ground Laws" and the Castle Doctrine where I live.

Great phobic attitude there.Over here in the UK we prefer getting the Police to sort out criminals.....not leave it to testosterone fueled cowboys. Would you use your guns against the Police or the FBI or the National Guard?

Oh...you\'re from the UK. Sorry, I thought you were an American. Two very different cultures Mikey. Where you live, the murder rate is very low - before and after gun control. Where I live, the murder rate is rather high, and home invasions are real. Of course, when your life is in jeopardy, and seconds count, the police are only several minutes away. While it\'s highly unlikely I\'d ever have to use my guns in self defense, I\'m glad I have them just in case.

Since you are a Brit, your opinion doesn\'t matter here as you can\'t vote.

Ironic though, isn\'t it? How it was the tyranny of the British gov\'t. that led to the 2nd Amendment to begin with.

Anyhow, I\'m done with this post. You can have the last word. Despite our differences, I wish you well. For you and your family: live long, prosper and be safe.

If I lived in the USA I would own a gun myself...probably a small handgun.