states with stricter gun control have fewer mass shootings

Are you purposefully being this dense?  Pistol grip is one of the things that makes an "assault weapon" an assault weapon, you don't really seem to know what you are even talking about lol  It's one of the characteristics on the wiki lol  wow

oohhh you mean all the things I listed isn't want is needed but your one idea of a ban is, gotcha.

To add to that, having a solution to guns doesn't exclude a solution to the people. Obviously, having both would be ideal. However addressing guns is likely to be more effective. Ultimately with people, there is an element of randomness. With guns, if you don't have a gun, you just cannot shoot it.

They both are the problem. However from my perspective, it's easier to put guns out of the reach of the mentally deranged than to prevent the mentally deranged from committing a crime in the first place. Just because, while it's easy to arrest someone who has already committed a crime,I don't believe you can actually arrest someone who hasn't and you just think will. Are you supposed to detain every weird person with benign intentions? Finally, at a fundamental level, the victims of drugs and guns are different. Ultimately, no one is forcing you to put illicit substances in your body, and regardless there are many help programs for those who do. However victims of gun crime have no choice in the matter.

correlation is not evidence it's conjecture, you have NO evidence, just hypothesis.

No, you should act on it for what it is. It is preliminary data that shows promising results. It is evidence that can lead to further evidences and data. The alternative is not acting on it. In which case the deaths from mass shooting will continue unabated.

No you're right. There isn't a lot of data. However the best way to move forwards is to take these preliminary results and apply them to further laws and see what pops up and then study those results further. What the incorrect thing to do is dismiss these results and sit on your hands.

Which points did you make against my stats that I wasn't able to counter? I believe we ended things with you arguing that reduced fatality numbers could be explained by better medical technologies/more trauma centers and me asking for evidence of this which you did not provide.

I believe you also said something about a period of lowered mass shootings after the banning period? Of course you didn't provide evidence for this either. But how does this relate to the efficacy of the ban itself anyway?

Dismissing something because you claim it's a fallacy is a fallacy. Perhaps you can explain to me how banning guns commonly used in mass shootings to inflict a greater number of casualties is not a causative link for a decreased number of deaths per shooting?

And even if we were to dismiss this as a case of correlation does not imply causation. it doesn't mean it should be dismissed. Do you think scientists who get promising preliminary results immediately trash the study just because it might not be causative link? No, they make refinements and improvements.

I've repeatedly said felons and criminals shouldn't have guns, laws regarding anything related should be consistently enforced with increased punishments, that's gun control, controlling criminals not getting guns and severely punishing them when they do, or anyone who commits a crime with a gun.  

I need you to think for a bit and try reading behind the lines even if I haven't explicitly said so. If you are completely clueless about guns and are an average joe bloggs, like many people are, is it easier to legally buy a gun from a gun shop, or illegally buy a gun from the black market.

Ok. If I understand it correctly, it's a cosmetic feature that is a common characteristic found on guns classed as assault weapons. But I've already stated the main thing I care about is the killing potential of a gun. If a pistol grip is irrelevant in this regard, I would not include it in the list of specifications for an assault weapon. Is this what you wished to hear? 

Laws should definitely be enforced absolutely. However this is punishing criminals after the fact which is not gun control. It doesn't prevent or reduce the impact of such events from concurring in the first place, which is the point of gun control

a felon can't purchase a gun legally, so they would have to purchase it on the black market.  But somehow you seem to think if you stop law abiding citizens from purchases it's some kind of trickle down effect that there won't be a black market supply which is absurd.

it's like pulling teeth with you, just come out and admit you want to ban all semi automatic guns.

you want to stop or reduce "mass murders" which has an arbitrary number of 4, therefore ANY gun that can hold 4 or more bullets must be banned.  Which in all practical purposes voids the 2a.

your claim that you want to ban "assault rifles" is either a deception or ignorance, you want to ban virtually all guns that hold 4 or more bullets to prevent or reduce mass shootings, which mass shootings is your primary focus.

you just don't understand human ingenuity and the creativity they will devise to circumvent laws, synthetic drugs is a pretty good example, some of which were only made illegal long after they were created.

laws are meant to deter behavior, that's all they can do, hence my premise the problem is people, not objects.  If the deterrent isn't adequate or working it needs to change.  If you are familiar with Star Trek Next Generation, they came across a planet with no crime, why?  because breaking any law carried the death penalty, as one character said why would anyone break the law knowing the punishment was death?  I'm not suggesting that way of life but I hope you see the point.  Risk/reward, pros/cons there's also a saying, if you can't do the time don't do the crime.  Laws and punishment have become to lax, prisons too soft, free tv etc  So rather than dealing with those issues you want to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.  That's where the opposition to such ideas comes from, if you can see all this in context of the bigger picture.

Pistols carry between 7-18.

If mass shooters wished to kill as many people as possible, they would use fully automatic firearms.  

You've hit the wall in terms of such laws.

So what is your solution for these cases? 

why do citizens need an AR-15 or similar type of gun?

I don't care for frivolous rights that can only do harm

is this a right that citizens need to have?

how about 20 rounds?  would you agree to just 2 more?

not if they are smart, spray and pray doesn't even work well in video games, you can't aim a machine gun accurately.  Sure they are awesome in movies but real life, not even close and I'm telling you this as someone who's used a bump fire stock a couple of times.

you mean except for the felons caught trying to purchase guns right?  there's no wall there since they are rarely prosecuted.  I could go one, but that example should suffice.

allowing trained and lawful citizens to carry firearms to protect themselves and others.  When a criminal has a gun who do you call, another person with a gun.  All these mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones right?  Even the one on the military base, that area was a gun free zone.

what better deterrent than thinking the would be victim is armed?  plenty of examples when a shooter is shot back at they run or give up.

it's none of your business what I own and there is no "needs" test for the 2a

the right to protect myself and my family isn't frivolous, it would be if I didn't have the proper tools to do it with though.  Everyone has the right to go to Mars, what good is that since it's not possible?  same idea.

you are having a difficult timing defining on what you wanted banned so you have to keep expanding the list aka gun ban, let's say the ar-15 is banned, what is to stop someone from making something kind of similar but calling it the "cute and fuzzy bunny" gun, it's not an ar-15 so it's not banned right?  Either you chase your tail and ban things as them come out, which there are probably millions of combinations etc or you ban guns.  

1. Create an exhaustive list of firearms and features deemed as assault weapons. If the Clinton list wasn't sufficient, then I'd add onto that list. I'd also close up the "cosmetic feature" loophole or whatever

Ensure that there is input from multiple experts to ensure that this list is both exhaustive and reasonable.

I have no idea. A study on maximal allowed rounds would certainly need to be performed however. Personally my gut feeling is that even 18 for a pistol is too many but if the study shows otherwise I certainly wouldn't have any objections.

executed better, I agree. Every law should be executed in the most effective and complete way possible.

Does this "run or give up" behaviour apply to mass shooters?

I get the feeling that mass shooters have knowingly already discarded their own life from the moment they pull the first shot.

That said, what is the proper tool for defending yourself and your family? Is a semi-automatic pistol with lets say a 10 round capacity sufficient or do you need an AR-15?

the evidence remains murky and depends on how researchers define "gun-free"

He calls "gun-restricting zones" as places where civilians can’t carry guns, yet armed security is routinely present

you haven't countered the points that they made. You've ignored them,

I'm confused because you want to ban ar-15 in part because it can hold 30 rounds, you know some states put a limit on how many a magazine can hold right?  if the were restricted to 18 would that be ok then?  if not why not?

there's no way to tell, if they hadn't returned fire perhaps they would have been a mass murderer, there's no way to tell.  We can't count the mass murders that never happened.

how many have been killed vs caught?  I wouldn't count on the muslim mass murders because that was a religious thing like the suicide bombers but they used guns.

there is no test, the questions you have asked have been asked many times and answered I suggest you research it rather than take my word for it.

btw police don't have full auto, the right is to bear ordinary common weapons like semi-auto.

the bump stock is useless and the ban a laughable farce to placate irrational liberals.

since it's my life, my family how about you leave that choice up to me, rather than you making that choice for me?  Or are you suggesting the government turn totalitarian/fascist?

ah yes those "experts" because they don't have personal and political agendas LOL

that's bs, it's where you aren't allowed to have a gun, stupidly simple

that's just being pedantic.

I've already disagreed with your opinions, the whole correlation thing.

watch that one at the very least and tell me how you disagree with him, or perhaps if you don't disagree with him.  it should be very educational for you I think.  It was for me.

I agree we are kind of all over the place because it's a complex topic imo and you bounce back a forth a bit between an ar-15 and ak-47, btw ak-47 aren't that easy to shoot imo, not my favorite by any means.

What he doesn't say is how the comparatively least effective gun, a pistol objectively performs when not comparing it to other guns. 

In serial killing, the USA with a staggering figure of 2743 serial killers stays at the top position. This figure is approximately 19 times more than the number of serial killers in England. In the USA, the serial killers are of all races like White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native Americans.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-that-have-produced-the-most-serial-killers.html

The most common method adopted by these serial killers in the US is bombing, strangulation, poisoning, and stabbing.

As a disturbed childhood is quite common in the profile of such killers, it is important to make sure every child is receiving love and care from his or her caregivers at home.

Until Klarevas came along, virtually all researchers had concluded that it was impossible to discern what, if any, positive effect the ban’s prohibition of rifles with “military-style features” had on crime or mass shooting incidents. 

a ProPublica investigationreported in 2014, gun control experts said there was no evidence it saved lives.

But there's a serious flaw in Klarevas' result: There are few actual "assault weapons" of any type in his dataset, either pre- or post-ban.I say “apparent” drop in fatalities because, as Klarevas admits in a footnote, if you use the most widely accepted threshold for categorizing a shooting as a “mass shooting” — four fatalities, as opposed to Klarevas’ higher threshold of six — the 1994 to 2004 drop in fatalities disappears entirely.

five mass shootings that took place with “assault weapons” in the decade before the ban, and three that took place during its tenure. These numbers are far too small for any sort of statistical inference, especially if you're trying to build a case for banning tens of millions of legally owned rifles.

so you think if there were millions of bump stocks in circulation that mass shooters wouldn't be more likely to use one? 

why do you think mass shooters dont turn their guns into automatics, or use bump stocks?

don't you think many of them would use one if you offered them one before the attack?

anyway Jeffery Dahmer didn't use a gun that's why my focus isn't really on the tool use but rather the individual, society at large.

so now we agree that  the ar-15 is the best tool for home defense especially for those who aren't that skilled with firearms in general.  That should settle the question as to why someone would want one and wouldn't a handgun be better.

You feel 18 rounds is too many but don't really explain why or what arbitrary number is enough. 

Even though a handgun could accept a 30 round even a 50 round magazine you aren't suggesting on banning those, even though as the fbi says the likely hood of over penetration from a handgun is much greater than the ar-15.

Other non semi auto rifles and pistols can still be shot rapidly.  Yes somehow you think banning a certain type of gun which can't really be defined wouldn't still allow someone to use something else to accomplish their goal.  If you look at this very close you'll see what this is, is a brace for a handgun, yes you actually put a handgun inside it.  

Now picture that 50 round drum sticking of out and you'll probably have nightmares for a week.

1. Create an exhaustive list of firearms and features deemed as assault weapons. If the Clinton list wasn't sufficient, then I'd add onto that list. I'd also close up the "cosmetic feature" loophole or whatever

The wikipedia definition of assault weapons seems reasonable. Extend this definition to include other firearms not commonly described as assault weapons, but have multiple features in common with assault weapons. Ensure that there is input from multiple experts to ensure that this list is both exhaustive and reasonable. Finally, ensure that this definition is adaptable for the removal and addition of gun.

the reality is any kind of ban or confiscation would take either a huge about of police and military operations to go from house to house or probably more years than either one of us will be on this earth.

You haven't addressed the overall mechanism of how my policies would work.

I don't think there is a instantaneous magic bullet solution to guns in America. Apparently you are under the impression that I think my policies will give instant results. You are wrong. I think any solution will take years. And this is simply because of how ingrained guns are in American culture. 

Apart from the initial buyback amnesty period, my idea revolves around the slow removal of assault weapons from circulation over time. If you ban the manufacture, import and public selling of assault weapons, alongside the other policies, hopefully there will be more assault weapons leaving the system than there are entering. 

If you do not possess a gun, you cannot shoot it. If you decrease the amount of guns available, there are less guns to shoot. If the amount of a particular item going into a system falls below the amount of a particular item going out of a system, there will be a continuous decrease of that item in the system. These are fundamental principals which I certainly hope you don't dispute. 

I agree something needs to be done and we should try, but we need to do things that can happen quickly and efficiently, the most outcome for the least resistance.  And if we look at history none of these things or a very few have been tried, which begs the question, why?

There was a school shooting before Newtown and yet not much was done to address school security.  What measures have been put in place after the school in Florida?  Lots of ideas talked about and tossed about but what has actually been implemented?  And yet the cries to ban guns, more laws blah blah blah this is why i believe there's ulterior motives to these bans.  if it was truly about saving lives so many useful things should have and would have been done many years ago, and yet......  Can you understand the skepticism people have and why?

But I do believe the second amendment people have prevented these proposals for the most part.

Is there something you are misunderstanding about the adaptability of a ban list?

yeah?  they prevented locked school doors, metal detectors and guards?  can you give one example where and why a pro patriot would do and have the power to prevent those things.

no just waiting for you to admit you want to either ban all guns or all semi automatics, perhaps you haven't come to that realization yourself yet, I hope you do soon.

Maybe you don't understand what a magazine is or how it works, it's literally a plastic box with a spring in it which is why they are so easy to 3d print.  Now do you know what a lower receiver is?  that's the part of the gun that makes a gun a gun, it has the serial numbers stamped on it and is what the background check is for.  You can purchase just the receiver and assemble the rest of the gun from parts.  These can also be milled with a cnc machine or even a hand held router with a jig.  I refer you back to your favorite search engine and look up a video where a guy melts down aluminum cans and pours them into a mold and makes an ar-15 receiver.  Then I would tell you to look up how to make an ak-47 receiver because all it is, is bend sheet metal with holes drilled into the right places.  Congratulations you've expanded the black market for guns.  

You say it's easy to get a gun but have never tried to.

If those mass murders who used a so called assault weapon couldn't get one legally how do you know they wouldn't have gotten one illegally or used a hand gun with similar results?  Ah, you don't and couldn't possibly know.  Therefore this claim that a ban reduces these crimes is impossible to prove and the stats clearly demonstrate it's not true anyway.

These preliminary results you cling to, don't exist in reality, just cherry picking stats and manipulation.

I do believe Dianne Feinstein's latest iteration of an assault weapons ban was blocked? 

Again, not at all. Your own video shows that there are practical differences between the types of semi-automatics. Such differences are the defining lines on what should and should not be banned.

I said that for the average person it's easier to purchase a gun from a store than to acquire one from the black market. Is this something you dispute?

We have a logically sound way of dealing with guns.

It's similar in concept to the prohibition which was effective in many ways.

But you don't wish for this method to be tested. 

previous successful bans.

How do we know if it won't work if we haven't tested it? Because I can tell you one thing. What doesn't work is ignoring a problem.

good as it should have been, I was talking about security measureS for schools but your tunnel vision only lets you see the word 'ban'.  You totally ignored the portion of locked doors and other security measures that don't need approval, which in many cases haven't been done,  still!

I've asked you for specifics which you haven't or can't provide but rather left it open ended that any gun could be added to the list and criteria expanded to fit that gun, that's a gun ban.  You have yet to establish and defining lines with any rational reasons.

why would it be difficult for a non criminal to buy a gun?  LOL dang you need to search this stuff yourself, this hand holding is getting tiresome.  Only NONcriminals can buy a gun from a gun store, yet criminals get guns and easily on the black market, this has been common knowledge just like the ease of getting illegal drugs, I'm not sure what bubble you live in but that's the reality for the majority of the world.  I suggest you study up on the original and digital "silk road" and if you think it's totally gone away you need to learn a lot more about the world.

not based in reality but as soon as they develop magic wands, sure.

you mean when the banned all alcohol?  I fail to see the similarities between all and only specific things being banned.

if you had rights you wouldn't want your rights to be experimented on, because then they are no longer rights, I don't fault you for not understanding this concept but rather it's a symptom of where ever you live.  animals don't know their in a zoo either.

it's been debunked let it go.

If you claim something, then the onus is on you to prove it. Before you said that the results could've been distorted due to better physical trauma technologies and more trauma centres. Then the onus is on you to show which trauma technologies and which trauma centres. Then, argue that those factors did indeed have a statistically relevant impact on the study. If you claim that the stats were cherry picked and manipulated, the onus is on you to show which stats and how.

We are going round in circles.  Show me a link to the actual study with details, I want to see the specific data myself, number killed, weapon used etc.  This is what your whole argument hinges on  though you say the data is weak which I interpret as it anecdotal at best, thus it's meaningless as a reason to restrict my rights and to ban the best weapon for home defense. 

https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=01586154-201901000-00002 gives a bit of data into actual assault rifle use

the study you present specifically talks about  fatalities, with more trauma centers, better technology in medicine etc the chances of survival is much higher in the time period of the ban vs the time prior to it.  Regardless if it had any effect during that time period, the time frame of a 7 year stretch were the rate was lower than the lowest year of the ban proves it isn't need any longer, at the very least.  If you look at the time periods there's something else going on that no one wants to see otherwise after the ban expired the rate should have gone up.  Years after it expired the rate was at all time lows but no one want to look at that or see why.  When the rate was the lowest how come it wasn't studied to see what was working and what was going right so they could do more of that?  Why not reflect back to those years to learn why the rates where so low compared to rest?  Wouldn't that be far more productive than to talk of bans again?  The rates speak for themselves, why ignore them?

Which trauma centers? Which technologies? How has the treatment of physical trauma wounds changed over those periods of time? By this logic, even if there are more mass shootings in the years after the ban, shouldn't there be on average less fatalities per mass shooting event?

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. Are people still getting shot by assault weapons in mass shootings? If the answer is yes, then the ban is obviously still warranted. Because there are still mass shootings in which people are getting shot by assault weapons. That the overall rate decreased is entirely irrelevant. The only relevant thing is to examine why the overall rate decreased and to see how a ban might interact with those other factors to further bring those rates lower.

I personally don't know what period you are talking about. But obviously, if there was such a period I would certainly be interested. That said, one good reason if it exists but isn't talked about might be because that there are so many myriad factors that can effect something. Determining a single factor is a herculean task. However bans are a relatively easy and direct implementation. And more importantly, preliminary results suggested that the ban was working. 

that link gives no data anyone can verify, so it's useless. it's from New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.

which is a hugely liberal anti gun state so you'll pardon my skepticism without any actual proof, real stats and numbers

your "logic" is based on the assumption that the ban worked, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

People cannot shoot people with guns if they do not possess a gun.

If there are fewer guns available, there are fewer guns to shoot

If more guns leave a system than enter the system, over time the system will have fewer guns

in  fact practically all other types can be used for mass murders.  Logic would be banning any guns capable of killing 4 or more people before having to 

reload.  

I'm not willing to take your opinion on faith.