"Multiple people down" in active shooter situation in Aurora, Illinois - Sensationalist Headlines

No, I’m saying they should provide literally any evidence or facts supporting their arguments instead of just folding their arms and providing absolutely nothing, like what you’re doing right now. People don’t need to be a statistician to see the bleeding obvious, but ok here you go. I said we also had plenty of studies on the subject like this one, which goes into the effects of how gun related suicides and homicides were affected by the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act. Or this one which goes into the effects the assault weapons ban had on crime (or lack there of).

Not really. I'm providing arguments to explain why every gun debate thread on this forum is a sterile circlejerk. Error 403. Ditto.

I tried fixing the links. Should be all set now.

First link gives me "Your session has timed out. Please go back to the article page and click the PDF link again." Second one works, though. It's interesting, but I'm not sure how the efficiency of bans on such specific equipment relates to whether gun proliferation in general affects the death and injury rates related to violent crime, accidents and suicides. The study does mention that use of AW in crime has declined since the ban, however other LCM-using weapons have replaced them since. Furthermore, it says that most shooting incidents involve the shooter firing less than 10 rounds, suggesting that even a decrease in LCM use wouldn't affect the outcome of a majority of shootings. It makes sense that this specific ban would be rather ineffective.

I’m not sure if you’re purposely ignoring the context of what I’ve been saying but to be clear I’m strictly talking about assault weapons bans being used as a means to address all gun violence. It seems a lot like you were trying to justify the existence of those specific bans by just completely dismissing every counter argument presented against gun bans on the basis of “well it’s not a peer reviewed study”. Also every gun debate thread is a logical circlejerk because people keep proposing assault weapons bans out of ignorance and refuse to move on by seeking better solutions. It’s bleeding obvious here in the context of how beat to death the topic has been discussed on these forums and how many times sources have been cited to explain how dumb assault weapons bans are since the numbers clearly show rifles including semiautomatic rifles classified as assault weapons are used far less in gun homicides than any other weapon category, despite receiving the majority of the blame due to media coverage of mass shootings. Not sure where you’ve been the last 58 1/2 times this has been brought up. That’s the point we’ve been bringing up this entire time. It doesn’t! Virtually all of the gun control measures being pushed for in this country are rehashed versions of the assault weapons ban which does nothing to address your concerns about gun proliferation! Some of the measures from Catbarf which I suggested earlier in this thread (which you seemed to ignore) were meant to address the issue of how common it is for firearms to end up in the wrong hands.

Quit pretending I maliciously ignore the points you're making. Since I started posting in this thread, my points have always been about the flaws inherent to gun debate in this forum in general. Not about argument specific to "assault weapons" bans. If you read my posts as thoroughly as you imply I should read yours, you should be aware of this. So if you believe that I'm making the same point as you are, why are you opposing my stance? Every post I've made so far is consistent with it. And don't pretend that any and all opposition to anti-gun stances solely concern assault weapons bans. On this forum, solely bringing up a possible link between gun proliferation and lethality is enough to draw some posters' ire.

Because most of the population has bigger things on their mind like paying rent or getting enough money for food. The US is a shithole for the working class. And the people that rage at messing with anything is a very vocal minority for the country, isolating in relatively large portions of land but small populations.

Time for a recap. The very first thing I posted in the thread was a rant list of several reasons why assault weapons bans don’t have a good record of success in this country. You were then vehemently denying that any statistics I could possibly provide on the low usage of assault weapons by criminals would be a valid argument against the bans because it wasn’t a peer reviewed study. Then when I posted the study on the effects of an assault weapons ban, you play dumb and go “oh well I’m not sure how these measures are supposed to really impact gun violence”, missing the entire point of my first three posts. Now you’re backpedaling hard enough to claim “I was never trying to defend assault weapons bans” right after making every effort to dismiss everything I said about them being ineffective? Should we also provide evidence of our birth certificates to you? Because apparently you think people were born yesterday. Lmao. I think it’s perfectly reasonable for anyone to assume you’re being willfully ignorant at this point. Because as far as this thread is concerned, the only stance you presented was “all gun debates with facts and statistics are invalid unless I can no longer excuse dismiss the facts without looking dumb they are findings in a study”, until the last post you just made. Also people don’t buy the gun proliferation arguments because it’s circular logic which assumes that less strict gun laws = more guns and more guns = more violence. So basically your argument still comes down to relying upon lax gun laws leading to more crime, which we know isn’t true for some states with different circumstances. But fuck it, this argument is stupid and I’m done. I don’t feel like wasting anymore time explaining everything for people who aren’t even going to consider suggestions for better firearms legislation which doesn’t completely gut people’s gun rights. Enjoy several more years of complete inaction due to making unreasonable demands I guess.

Nope, I never said that specifically about low usage of assault weapons. I only said: To point out that, as is clearly explained in that quote, gun violence being a multiple variable problem means that you can't simply point to a single counter-example as proof that a claim is false. Notice I'm speaking in general terms, and never mention assault weapons anywhere. In the rest of my post, I clearly state that I'm talking about gun debates in general, not just AWB debates: And nowhere in the rest of my posts do I mention anything specific about assault weapons. Not sure how I can backpedal on something I never actually said. You provided actual studies about how inefficiently AWBs reduce gun violence, which is great and is how I think people should base their arguments on during any gun debate. Those studies only concern AWBs though, so if you want to prove that any measure that reduces access to guns in general doesn't reduce gun crimes, then you'll have to provide a study that actually shows that. Look, I'm sorry that you misread my post, but that doesn't mean that I maliciously ignored yours. Nor does it give you an excuse to grossly strawman my points. ...Or completely ignore my initial point without rebuking it, for that matter.