Facts that prove incontrovertibly that the 1994 AWB was a failure:

[481]

For those wishing to inform their legislators about the false security that reinstatement of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban offers, I have compiled a list of all the deaths (excluding the shooters) that occured in school shootings after the enactment of the Federal 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.


Feb. 2, 1996 Moses Lake, Wa. Two students and one teacher killed. (3)

Feb. 19, 1997 Bethel, Ak. Principal and one student killed. (2)

Oct. 1, 1997 Pearl, Ms. Two students killed. (2)

Dec. 1, 1997 West Paducah, Ky. Three students killed. (3)

Mar. 24, 1998 Jonesboro, Ar. Four students and one teacher killed. (5)

Apr. 24, 1998 Edinboro, Pa. One teacher, John Gillette, killed. (1)

May 19, 1998 Fayetteville, Tn. One student killed. (1)

May 21, 1998 Springfield, Or. Two students killed. (2)

Apr. 20, 1999 Littleton, Co. Twelve students and one teacher killed. (13)

Nov. 19, 1999 Deming, N.M. One student killed. (1)

Feb. 29, 2000 Mount Morris Township, Mi. One student killed. (1)

Mar. 10, 2000 Savannah, Ga. Two students killed. (2)

May 26, 2000 Lake Worth, Fl. One teacher killed. (1)

Jan. 17, 2001 Baltimore, Md. One student killed. (1)

Mar. 5, 2001 Santee, Ca. Two students killed. (2)

Mar. 30, 2001 Gary, In. One student killed. (1)

Oct. 28, 2002 Tucson, Az. Three professors killed. (3)

Apr. 14, 2003 New Orleans, La. One student killed. (1)

Apr. 24, 2003 Red Lion, Pa. One principal killed. (1)

Sept. 24, 2003 Cold Spring, Mn. Two students killed. (2)

That's a total of 48 people- men, women and mostly children, WHOSE DEATHS WERE NOT PREVENTED by the existence of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.


A duplicate of the Federal 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, currently in place on the Connecticut law books, also DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO PREVENT THE SLAUGHTER OF 26 INNOCENTS- meaning that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban has failed to prevent a total of 74 deaths during its tenure.

Please feel free to "cut and paste" this for use in your communications to our legislators- after all, it's their mess- rub their noses in it when and where appropriate in a "polite" and "non-threatening" manner of course...

Above all else, don't give up. The proposed reinstatement of the 94 AWB isn't by any stretch of the imagination a "done deal".

God Bless!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Sorry, but your proof is poor at best. No law claims to stop crime. The 1994 AWB was hoped to prevent such crime, but no claim was made that it would put an end to end.

Interestingly, in several of the examples you noted, firearms not included under the AWB were used. If we follow that logic, then the AWB must have prevented the use of banned guns from being used, huh? So in continuing that logic, if the AWB prevented banned guns from being used, then banning all guns would keep guns from being used. Now, you have your claim turned completely around to show that the AWB worked just fine, not perfectly, but certainly having influence.

Of course, it wasn't the ban that did anything. In the school shootings, most of the guns used were guns simply taken from home, commmonly being hunting rifles, shotguns, .22s of all sorts, revolvers, and semi-auto handguns (some of which were covered, some not).

If you go on the premise that if a law is broken that it is a failure, then all laws are failures.

 

[481]

Sorry, but your proof is poor at best. No law claims to stop crime. The 1994 AWB was hoped to prevent such crime, but no claim was made that it would put an end to end.

Interestingly, in several of the examples you noted, firearms not included under the AWB were used. If we follow that logic, then the AWB must have prevented the use of banned guns from being used, huh? So in continuing that logic, if the AWB prevented banned guns from being used, then banning all guns would keep guns from being used. Now, you have your claim turned completely around to show that the AWB worked just fine, not perfectly, but certainly having influence.

Sorry, but your extremely convoluted logic fails to negate the argument presented. My argument still stands.

If you go on the premise that if a law is broken that it is a failure, then all laws are failures.

Laws have never been the answer. That's the trademark of the anti-gun movement- "attack" the instrument, not the actor.

 

[Hapworth]

Sorry, but your extremely convoluted logic fails to negate the argument presented. My argument still stands.

I'm sorry to say -- because I'd like your point to correct and final -- but Double Naught Spy showed accurately that your argument and its evidence is open to multiple interpretations, some of which serve the opposite of what you claim.

Furthermore, your assertion can't account for what may have happened if the '94 AWB never went into effect; there might have been even more mass shootings but were prevented by the ban. Personally, I don't think so, but since its an unknowable, you can't with any intellectual honesty definitively say that the occurrence of mass shootings during the ban is proof it didn't work; it might be proof of how much worse things could have been without it.

Laws have never been the answer. That's the trademark of the anti-gun movement- "attack" the instrument, not the actor.

With all due respect, if laws are never the answer, why by our forefathers' decree are we a nation of them?

What's unfortunate here is that you attack a fellow enthusiast and compare him to an anti simply because he pointed to the limitations of your evidence and analysis of it.

 

[481]

I'm sorry to say -- because I'd like your point to correct and final -- but Double Naught Spy showed accurately that your argument and its evidence is open to multiple interpretations, some of which serve the opposite of what you claim.

Furthermore, your assertion can't account for what may have happened if the '94 AWB never went into effect; there might have been even more mass shootings but were prevented by the ban. Personally, I don't think so, but since its an unknowable, you can't with any intellectual honesty definitively say that the occurrence of mass shootings during the ban is proof it didn't work; it might be proof of how much worse things could have been without it.

With all due respect, if laws are never the answer, why by our forefathers' decree are we a nation of them?

What's unfortunate here is that you attack a fellow enthusiast and compare him to an anti simply because he pointed to the limitations of your evidence and analysis of it.

Grow up.

I attacked no one, so lay off with the false accusations.

The anti-gunners are claiming that reinstatement of the 94AWB is the answer and that it will stop the school shootings and that simply isn't true. School shootings occurred when it was the law of the land- it simply is not the answer and WILL NOT prevent them.

 

[Hapworth]

Grow up.

I attacked no one, so lay off with the false accusations.

The anti-gunners are claiming that reinstatement of the 94AWB is the answer and that it will stop the school shootings and that simply isn't true. School shootings occurred when it was the law of the land- it simply is not the answer and WILL NOT prevent them.

You were politely disagreed with; your reply is something lesser. Perhaps you can speak to the points raised?

DNS defended laws and you compared that to the approach of an anti -- that's an attack.

I agree that an AWB won't make mass shootings a thing of the past, but the core of your evidence of that is that mass shootings occurred during the last AWB; in essence, you say that because a law is broken it's proof it doesn't work, and that's entirely too simple an assessment.

 

[481]

You were politely disagreed with; your reply is something lesser. Perhaps you can speak to the points raised?

DNS defended laws and you compared that to the approach of an anti -- that's an attack.

Not it is not. It was a comparison. Clearly you are intent on misrepresenting me as attacking someone when I have done no such thing.

If you cannot refrain from personal attacks via misrepresentation, there is no point in dealing with you.

Off you go.

 

[Onmilo]

Tim McVeigh didn't use a gun...

 

[Hapworth]

Not it is not. It was a comparison.

Yes, a negative comparison to a group you're hostile to, hence an attack. If you mean what you say, you should stand up for it; if you don't, retract it.

As it stands, you're simply avoiding replying to the points raised in response to assertions you made.

 

[481]

Yes, a negative comparison to a group you're hostile to, hence an attack. If you mean what you say, you should stand up for it; if you don't, retract it.

As it stands, you're simply avoiding replying to the points raised in response to assertions you made.

Nope, ignoring trolls doesn't require answering their provocations.

Off you go.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Sorry, but your extremely convoluted logic fails to negate the argument presented. My argument still stands.

Okay, where does it say that the 1994 AWB would stop school shootings?

I do find it amusing that I used your same correlation logic to argue against your claims and when the same logic is used from a different perspective, you consider it to be convoluted.

 

[481]

Okay, where does it say that the 1994 AWB would stop school shootings?

"It" never said that "it" would and neither did I.

Having offered it up as a solution to the recent school shootings, Obama & Co. (Feinstein, Schumer, Pelosi, etc.) seem to believe that it will do just that- otherwise they'd not have offered it.

Watch the news, man. BHO recently tasked Biden with pursuing its reinstatement and Feinstein and Pelosi have been clear that they believe that the AWB will have that effect.

 

[gc70]

For those wishing to inform their legislators about the false security that reinstatement of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban offers, I have compiled a list of all the deaths (excluding the shooters) that occured in school shootings after the enactment of the Federal 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

While you have collected some good data, 481, legislators tend to be more responsive to voter opinions than data about an issue.

The future of our gun rights does not depend on the logical superiority of our position, but on showing legislators that more voters side with us than with our opponents.

 

[Hapworth]

Nope, ignoring trolls doesn't require answering their provocations.

Off you go.

You don't understand what a troll is or what provocations are.

You made assertions. Questions about them were raised. That's what legitimate discussion about complicated subjects is all about. Perhaps you could manage a response germane to the subject you raised.

 

[481]

You don't understand what a troll is...

Sure I do. Your display here is a fine example of the behavior.

 

[481]

While you have collected some good data, 481, legislators tend to be more responsive to voter opinions than data about an issue.

The future of our gun rights does not depend on the logical superiority of our position, but on showing legislators that more voters side with us than with our opponents.

Thanks gc70. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you- facts or logical superiority seem to matter very little to our legislators these days.

 

[Hapworth]

Sure I do. Your display here is a fine example of the behavior.

It's unfortunate you equate trolling with legitimate questions raised or perspectives shared -- questions and perspectives you remain unable or unwilling to respond to.

You do the cause no good when you wither under the simplest criticism or broadened analysis of the issues at hand; rather than discourse you opt for name-calling and diversion which plays right into the antis agenda.

Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that when we discuss our own position together here, probe it for weaknesses and challenge assumptions, the end product is a stronger position and a more savvy understanding of how to present and defend it.

The people who will successfully make the case against the latest encroachment on the Second Amendment will have quite a few more facts, understanding of the nuances, anticipation of where the attacks will come from and why, and an ability to unflinchingly answer the questions and the criticisms.

Apparently that's not you.

 

[481]

It's unfortunate you equate trolling with legitimate questions raised or perspectives shared -- questions and perspectives you remain unable or unwilling to respond to.

You do the cause no good when you wither under the simplest criticism or broadened analysis of the issues at hand; rather than discourse you opt for name-calling and diversion which plays right into the antis agenda.

Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that when we discuss our own position together here, probe it for weaknesses and challenge assumptions, the end product is a stronger position and a more savvy understanding of how to present and defend it.

The people who will successfully make the case against the latest encroachment on the Second Amendment will have quite a few more facts, understanding of the nuances, anticipation of where the attacks will come from and why, and an ability to unflinchingly answer the questions and the criticisms.

Apparently that's not you.

Yes, what would we do without you.

Stop trolling.

 

[Hapworth]

I see, "troll" is just a word you use in frustration -- correct application is irrelevant.

I'm just going to use a smiley; when you see it in this thread it will remind you that you still haven't adequately addressed salient points raised and questions posed to the topic you started.

 

[481]

I see, "troll" is just a word you use in frustration -- correct application is irrelevant.

I'm just going to use a smiley; when you see it in this thread it will remind you that you still haven't adequately addressed salient points raised and questions posed to the topic you started.

Do your parents know that you are on the computer?

 

[wideym]

The problem with facts of any kind is that one side or the other will just make up facts to support their argument, expecially the anti-gun crowd. You can list all the school or mass shootings that happened while the AWB was in effect and the anti's will just say "But the AWB stopped hundreds of mass shooting, you just don't hear about them because they were stopped because the killer couldn't get and assualt weapon." or the AWB was circumvented by crafty gun people and a new AWB will leave no loopholes. (They love the catchphrase "loophole")

It's kinda like Socialist and Communist of today who say "Socialism (Communism) are the best goverment for the world, it just hasen't be done the right way, yet."

 

[Hapworth]

Do your parents know that you are on the computer?

Still waiting for you to get back on the topic you started.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The problem with facts of any kind is that one side or the other will just make up facts to support their argument, expecially the anti-gun crowd.

Actually, this is true with both sides. Pro gun people like Lott have equated with More Gun = Less Crime and that simply isn't true. Less Guns = Less Crime isn't true either, but both sides make their claims. Crime rates change separate from the issue of gun presence, but both sides claim some sort of direct correlation between guns and crime, either for or against.

 

[481]

Actually, this is true with both sides. Pro gun people like Lott have equated with More Gun = Less Crime and that simply isn't true. Less Guns = Less Crime isn't true either, but both sides make their claims. Crime rates change separate from the issue of gun presence, but both sides claim some sort of direct correlation between guns and crime, either for or against.

Yeah, I can see how it works both ways, DNS. Interpretation of the data is going to be dependent upon the end-user's intent.

The point that I am making is just what you've said; the anti-gun mob (Obama, Pelosi, Feinstein, Reid, Schumer, VPC, ASHA, etc.) is making the simplistic claim that reinstatement of the AWB will bring about an end to the school shootings when in fact school shootings- many, many of them- occurred during the law's reign as is evidenced by the data above.

Actually, the data above is slightly misleading since I've only included shootings in which there were fatalities- add to the number above the shootings in which there were casualties only and the number doubles.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Remember that the very premise you present that the numbers represent a "failure" of the AWB is also used to advance the notion that the ban did not go far enough and should have been supported with confiscation as well.