Why ban the guns that kill the least amount of people, and ignore the ones that kill the most?

[MadDAsHell]

Assault weapon/mass shooting deaths make the most headlines, but their numbers pale in comparison to single victim handgun murders. Why are we letting our psyche/emotions/fear rule our political actions instead of 1) our ability to do math and 2) our sincere desire to save the most lives we can?

In 2013, 11,000+ people were murdered with guns in non-mass shootings (80% of which were handguns).

137 died in mass shootings (most of which were probably perpetrated with a combination of handguns and assault weapons).

We also know that the 1994 assault weapons ban had almost no impact on gun violence, as little assault weapons violence was being committed by legal owners anyway (and illegal owners weren't going to change their behavior due to a ban), and handgun violence (already responsible for the vast majority of gun violence) continued at the same pace.

All gun deaths are tragic, but there are, at a minimum, probably 7,000 more lives we can save by moving on handguns. The NRA is going to fight it no matter what we do; why are we taking the cowardly, least impactful approach YET AGAIN???

This is so damn frustrating.

[NobodyHere]

1. How do we know the AWB was a failure?

The number gun homicides dropped by thousands after the passage of the bill.

[anoNY42]

5. Can you point to anything in the AWB

that might have led to fewer handgun deaths?

[Warpy]

12. The increase when the ban was overturned was in mass murder

I'll say it again until it sinks in: MASS MURDER. Those increased when those damned things hit the streets again.

Those guns are useless for anything else.

What I would propose is that ranges that are willing to provide Fort Knox security be allowed to rent them to enthusiasts for a day's range shooting. That way their fans can feel all powerful and manly and the guns will be off the street.

I'd love to see semi auto guns banned, including pistols. Semi auto pistols increase the carnage around here.

[NickB79]

17. "Those things" never left the gun stores or streets during the 1990's

Because things like this were perfectly legal to buy during the 1994 AWB.



Tens of millions of them were sold while Bill Clinton was president, all perfectly legal, because the 1994 AWB was a flawed piece of legislation from the start that focused almost entirely on cosmetic features instead of functionality. The only good point in it was the high-capacity magazine restriction, and even that grandfathered in existing magazines bigger than 10 rounds.

[anoNY42]

18. This makes no sense

The AWB did not outlaw the existing guns, just the manufacture of new ones. Thus, the guns had never really left "the streets".

[hack89]

33. Adam Lanza's rifle was legal to buy during the first AWB

hell - it was legal to buy under CT's much stronger AWB.

The AWB was not an actual ban in any sense of the word. It certainly did not reduce the number of semi-automatic rifles.

[Press Virginia]

6. hand guns and knives weren't addressed by the AWB

but the murder rate for those weapons dropped during the same time period.

and the rate for "other guns" had been dropping prior to the AWB passage

[TeddyR]

9. Most people involved think it was a failure

Here's an excerpt from a piece in the Guardian on Monday discussing the AWB:

The loophole-ridden 1994 federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, produced no clear evidence of reducing gun violence. An in-depth evaluation of the law concluded that the impact of even a more comprehensive ban would be “small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement”.

That was not a surprise to anyone who had been paying attention. In the early 1990s, even some gun control advocates criticized the push for an assault weapon ban as a “distraction” with little crime-fighting benefit. But the ban generated intense, visceral reactions from the public. A former Democratic staffer who helped craft the assault weapon ban said he had hoped passing it would give Democrats the political momentum they needed to pass the drier, more technical gun laws that might actually save more lives.

Instead, the push for a political victory backfired. President Bill Clinton later blamed the assault weapon ban for the 1994 midterm victories that allowed Republicans to take over both houses of Congress. Many prominent gun control groups have since moved away from an assault ban – “through hard, bitter experience”, said Matt Bennett, a gun policy expert who advised Sandy Hook Promise.

Democrats know the research behind the ban. While a ban on high-capacity magazines could help some, the assault weapons ban “does nothing”, a former senior Obama administration official said last year.

Despite this, the ban has remained a moral litmus test for Democratic politicians.

Obama endorsed the assault weapon ban after Sandy Hook. Behind the scenes, the ban got little political support from the White House in 2013. Instead, the administration focused its energy on expanding background checks. When it came to the assault weapon ban, “We did the bare minimum,” the official said. “We would have pushed a lot harder if we had believed in it.”

Link - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/20/gun-control-orlando-attack-newtown-mass-shooting

[Hoyt]

14. Failure, maybe, because it didn't go far enough or long enough. That can be corrected.

[TeddyR]

15. Perhaps

I was simply responding to the question about what made people think it was a failure. And the idea that he proposed AWB isn't going to make any more difference seems sound.

[leveymg]

2. Good idea. Why not move against both semi-auto handguns and rifles?

It's not either/or.

[anoNY42]

3. Furthermore,

It is much harder to have an accidental shooting with a rifle than with a handgun. Children have a harder time lifting a rifle (even a plastic AR-15), and it is difficult to point it at yourself and pull the trigger accidentally.

The one advantage to going after rifles like the AR-15 is that they tend to be loaded with larger magazines and thus a person can cause more damage with fewer reloads. However, the real way to combat this is to restrict magazine size. If someone says "there are a billion 30 round AR magazines out there, no way we can collect them", just keep in mind that most law-abiding owners will turn them in, since large mags really are not needed (especially if they get to keep their rifles).

[Hoyt]

4. One step at a time, semi-auto pistols next. An AWB will force many gun stores/shows to shut down

because those damn weapons are fueling the gun market, and have been for years.

[bighart]

29. Would love to read more:

"An AWB will force many gun stores/shows to shut down because those damn weapons are fueling the gun market, and have been for years"

What is your information source?

[Just reading posts]

7. Handgun ownership is Constitutionally protected, as per the Heller decision.

They can be regulated, but not made illegal to own.

[metroins]

8. Low Hanging Fruit

These gun debates are ridiculous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and injuries annually.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.[1][6]

33,000 gun deaths, 2/3rds are suicide, 1/3rd are homicide. Congress decides to ignore our suicide epidemic and go after the homicide...OK that's fine.

According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,897 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,404 of those attributed to handguns.[8]

70% of firearm-homicides are by handguns...Congress decides to ignore that as well....

I'm not going to finish this post because it would take too much time, but handguns and suicides just aren't sexy. If you go after suicide, you have to talk about mental health and that's scary, if you go after handguns then you have to discuss gang violence or domestic violence and those are huge problems to fix.

So Congress decides to focus on the less than 1% of gun deaths because it's low hanging fruit and easy to tackle.

Terrorists are bad, "assault weapons" are scary, Americans are dumb.

[MadDAsHell]

10. That's what it feels like. What will score us a political win, not what will help us save lives...nt

[bighart]

30. That certainly seems to be the driver

behind at least a lot of the politicians actions on this.

[scscholar]

11. Gun deaths were greatly reduced from 1994 until now...

so that proves it worked. Clinton did a great thing for us.

[TeddyR]

16. Except everyone who actually

Analyzed the impact agrees that the AWB made no difference. See above excerpt from the Guardian story.

[MadDAsHell]

21. Can you clarify the data source that backs up that claim? nt

[hack89]

34. Adam Lanza's rifle was legal under the first AWB

hell - it was legal to buy under CT's much stronger AWB.

The AWB was not an actual ban in any sense of the word. It certainly did not reduce the number of semi-automatic rifles.

[jmg257]

39. Crime bill with mass incarceration - woo hoo.

[ileus]

13. Emotion...

[B2G]

19. I would like to know which of these homicides

were the end result of an illegally obtained gun, versus one that the perpetrator legally owned to commit the murder.

But I can't find any good stats on that.

It's an important question.

[MadDAsHell]

35. I think most non-mass shooting murders (the vast majority of gun deaths) are illegal guns...

Most mass shooting murders are with legal guns.

So again, I'm not making an argument that assault weapons should be legal, but what's the point of focusing our resources on making illegal a type of gun that is used in only a fraction of gun deaths, while completely ignoring a type of gun which is used in the vast majority of gun deaths? It also, frankly, doesn't bode well for the impact of an assault weapons ban that the majority of gun deaths are caused by weapons which are already, technically, banned (at least the illegal way in which the person obtained it is).

This is Joe Scar so take it with a grain of salt, but it is Politifact...http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/

[B2G]

36. So if the vast majority of gun deaths are done with illegally obtained guns

What will making it illegal to possess them accomplish?

[mwrguy]

20. OP is right! We need to ban handguns as well.

Turn them all in.

[Just reading posts]

22. And yet we're never going to.

Turn them all in.

No. Now what?

[Nevernose]

23. That's an easy one:

Don't confiscate handguns. Just ban the sale or transfer of new semiautomatic handguns.

[Just reading posts]

24. Also not going to happen.

[LanternWaste]

27. We are all prophets of our own biases, and read the futures which best validate our desires...

We are all prophets of our own biases, and read the futures which best validate our desires... regardless of accuracy.

[Just reading posts]

37. My biases (and I certainly have them) aside, I find the prospect of the US Congress outlawing

the sale and transfer (let alone ownership) of semiautomatic handguns so improbable that its likelihood approaches nil.

We'll see who's right in the long run.

[pansypoo53219]

25. 2nd amendment fundamentalism.

america can't move past the past.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. You have to create a climate for gun control

So you start small and escalate over time

[maxsolomon]

31. The slippery slope is precisely what Absolutists object to

Registration and Licensing - all at once. It will take decades to get to that point. Licensing requirements should include yearly participation in the Militia.

Preferably spending all day marching up and down the square:

&feature=youtu.be

[Hekate]

28. Why have the ACA when we should have held out for 100% free coverage?

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

[MadDAsHell]

32. That's a fair point, but wouldn't the "good" be preventing 80% of deaths, not 20%?

Again, why go for the least impactful thing we can do?

It reeks of cowardice, incompetence, laziness, or all 3.

[HereSince1628]

38. For similar reasons to why the mentally ill are targeted for greater and greater surveillance

The mentally ill are associated with about 4% of social violence, but 40% of the stories that make it to television associate violence and mental illness. I think it's actually higher than that for television 'drama' and 'cop' shows.

It' a matter of perception. Perception that is largely based on the choices of television producers.

It's also true that most "mass-shootings" are located in urban areas. So it's not surprising that people living in urban vs ex-urban spaces have a different sense of what the problem is, and what needs to be done for their protection.