LOL some findings from the anti-gun crowds demanded CDC investigation into gun violence, doesnt help their case much tbh. [quote]* According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program, between 2007 and 2011, over 600,000 people reported facing an assailant armed with a gun. * According to the FBI, 3% of firearm assaults known to police result in a death. * According to a Pew Survey, “the vast majority of gun owners say that having a gun makes them feel safer. And far more today than in 1999 cite protection – rather than hunting and other activities – as the main reason for why they own guns” (Pew Research Center, 2013) * Four studies have been done showing that crime victims who actively used a gun to defend themselves had lower rates of injury than crime victims who did not use guns to defend themselves - Kleck 1988; Kleck and DeLone 1993; Tark and Kleck 2004; and Southwick 2000. * Defensive gun use is a fact but it is difficult to count accurately. * The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) has estimated that there are between 60,000 and 105,000 DGUs per year. Between the years 1992 and 1994, the NCVS reported there were in total 116,000 DGUs. * Kleck and Gertz (1995) estimated the annual occurrence of DGUs to be around 2.5 million per year. * The CDC report made no effort to reconcile the differing estimates of DGUs, except to note that the estimate provided by the Kleck group was larger by an order of magnitude than the estimate arising from the NCVS. The CDC report noted that the estimate of DGU provided by the Kleck group is twice again as large as the estimate of the Dept. of Justice that there are 1.3 million crimes committed with a gun in the USA every year. * According to the CDC report: “The 2005 National Research Council study found no persuasive evidence from available studies that passage of right to carry laws decrease or increase violent crime. ”[/quote]

If I wanted an automatic weapon, I could just talk with some less than nice people, shell out a few hundred bucks, and walk away with an auto-enabled AK47. Making it illegal will just mean than no one who obeys the law can own one, and it's too late to ban them so they don't leak into the grey/black markets. (Fortunately I live in a state where, for about $600, I can get an automatic weapon permit).

The first ban absolutely had a positive effect. Of course that was back in the 20's... Nowadays? Its hard to say. The AR-15 design is certainly the gun of choice for the rampage shooter. In the last 5 shootings, its been in 3 or 4 of them. That said, people are more likely to be killed by MULTIPLE lightening strikes than be killed in a mass shooting. To my knowledge we have yet to attempt to ban lightening storms... What I would like to see is a study on why a certain type of individual does a rampage shooting, and then see what steps we can do at a societal level to prevent that. When someone flips out, they hurt people. A firearm just allows them to hurt more, and more fatally. Rather than mitigate the damage, I'd like to go to the cause and solve the problem. If you live in near a river that floods, you can waterproof your house (the equivalent of banning assault weapons) or you can build a dam by the river (solving rampage incidents). Though, I would also like a dial back in the rhetoric on both sides of the debate. When Sandy Hook happened it seemed like there was a race between the NRA and Congressional Democrats as to who could say the dumbest thing quickest. I don't remember who won, if it was the "Arm everybody" or "Ban everything" camp, as if it made a difference.

err merh gerd, its gonna go on a rampage, gotta ban it.

A TO THE K TO THE 4 TO THE 7 LITTLE DEVILS DON'T GO TO HEAVEN

Lol

Banning "assault weapons" makes about as much sense as banning cars with spoilers.

ITT: Massive amounts of bias and butthurt

You know why an "assault weapons"* ban won't work? Because most shooting happen when gangs shoot each other with handguns. *- put in quotes because it doesn't accurately describe firearms.

Focusing on guns is a superficial answer to a much more fundamental problem, but it agrees with politics so politicians push it. As the saying goes, where there is a will there is a way, so banning guns wouldn't stop the really determined and messed up people. Further, historically in the US, banning things has had very much not the effect that was desired, i.e. Prohibition and the War on Drugs.

Well, one major event happened, so clearly laws need to change. Why try to help those with mental health issues, when we can take weapons away from those who did nothing wrong?

Not to mention that even using the phrase "assault weapons" with a straight face labels one as an idiot.

I wish politicians would quit trying to solve everything with laws.

No.