• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A test case on banning firearms

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
There a lot of back and forth on guns. Some are about the law others about practical concerns.

I suggest we do an experiment do demonstrate the potential effectiveness of a ban on more powerful fire arms.

Let’s make drugs illegal. And when 1/3 of the states don’t have an illegal drug problem we the gun owners of the USA will give serious thought to the effectiveness of a gun ban.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
That went well didn't it? :p

If we had not criminalized, vilified and had actually regulated drug usage the problems we have would likely be minimal compared to today.

That would be hard to prove either way, but as we can’t seem to keep them out of the hands of criminals in prison I have my doubts about the criminals getting disarmed.
 

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
That would be hard to prove either way, but as we can’t seem to keep them out of the hands of criminals in prison I have my doubts about the criminals getting disarmed.
Maybe if we locked up less people for drugs? Also, I don't believe in banning guns or that we can ever totally eliminate crime. We sure could use alternatives right now. Nothing we're doing seems to be working right, with drugs, crime or guns.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
There a lot of back and forth on guns. Some are about the law others about practical concerns.

I suggest we do an experiment do demonstrate the potential effectiveness of a ban on more powerful fire arms.

Let’s make drugs illegal. And when 1/3 of the states don’t have an illegal drug problem we the gun owners of the USA will give serious thought to the effectiveness of a gun ban.
Well I agree that you equating the absurd gun fetish with drug addiction is appropriate. Do you think you can ween gun fanatics off their fetish with guns? Maybe give them drugs?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Well I agree that you equating the absurd gun fetish with drug addiction is appropriate. Do you think you can ween gun fanatics off their fetish with guns? Maybe give them drugs?

A person with a clue what he is talking about
wouldnt discredit himself with " fetish" even
once let alone twice. Or was it " fanatic"?

You got "absurd" half right, check the mirror.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
A person with a clue what he is talking about
wouldnt discredit himself with " fetish" even
once let alone twice. Or was it " fanatic"?
Silly talk.
You're not assuming this is a serious thread, are you?
 

Suave

Simulated character
There a lot of back and forth on guns. Some are about the law others about practical concerns.

I suggest we do an experiment do demonstrate the potential effectiveness of a ban on more powerful fire arms.

Let’s make drugs illegal. And when 1/3 of the states don’t have an illegal drug problem we the gun owners of the USA will give serious thought to the effectiveness of a gun ban.

A federal assault weapon ban was highly effective in reducing public mass shootings, reports a new Northwestern Medicine study just published in a pre-print. "

"The study found the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB) — that included a ban on large capacity magazines (limiting the number and caliber of bullets) — from 1994 to 2004 — resulted in a significant decrease in public mass shootings, number of gun deaths and number of gun injuries.

The study leveraged the passage and expiration of the FAWB to estimate the number of mass shootings that were prevented during the ban, as well as the number of shootings that would have been prevented had the ban remained in place.

The study authors estimate the ban prevented 10 public mass shootings during the decade it was in place, before it was allowed to expire. FAWB would have prevented 30 public mass shootings that killed 339 people and injured an additional 1,139 people, the authors said.

The political climate at the time the FAWB was passed required a sunset clause in order to get the bill passed.

The study was published in a pre-print and is considered preliminary until accepted by a journal.

“As society searches for effective policies to prevent the next mass shooting, we must consider the overwhelming evidence that bans on assault weapons and/or large capacity magazines work,” said lead author Lori Post, director of the Buehler Center for Health Policy and Economics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

Previous studies on FAWB only evaluated if it resulted in fewer gun deaths and injuries.

The Northwestern study is the first to look at the impact of the gun control policy on the number of mass shooting events, not number of people killed or injured. It also is the first to measure how many mass shootings were prevented when the FAWB was in place, as well as how many could have been prevented if the legislation was never sun setted.

“It does not result in fewer other types of gun deaths and injuries, such as domestic homicides. You only need one bullet to commit suicide, kill your wife or kill somebody else. But when you are just looking at mass shootings, it is super effective,” Post said.

Access to assault weapons, which have rapid fire capacity and gun cartridges that hold lots of bullets, are directly related to mass shootings.

“The purchase of the assault weapon is often the final step in the preparation and execution of a mass shooting,” Post said. “The shooter from Colorado bought his assault weapon and ammunition one week before the mass shooting.”

Every year, 50,000 people die from a gun injury, however, less than 1% of the cases are mass shootings, defined as four or more fatalities in a single setting in a public space. But mass shootings have a tremendous toll on American mental health. Other studies have found significant associations between mass shootings and child anxiety, with particularly high anxiety levels close to the mass shooting event. Other studies have found that nearly one-third of adults avoid certain public places due to mass shootings.

Now that the election and COVID-19 are receding from the news cycle, Post expects more mass shootings to occur.

“The previous news cycles sucked the oxygen out of mass shooters as they are looking to be newsworthy, Post said. “Now there is room on the national agenda for mass shooters.”

The study demonstrates the utility of public health surveillance on gun violence. Surveillance informs policy on whether a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines reduces public mass shootings.

Public mass shootings are a significant public health problem that require ongoing systematic surveillance to test and inform policies that combat gun injuries. While there is widespread agreement that something needs to be done to stop public mass shootings, exactly which policies that entails varies, such as the prohibition of assault weapons and large capacity magazines, are still being debated.

Next Post and colleagues plan to explore the mental health of shooters. Most shooters are pegged as mentally ill when in reality mass shootings require lots of planning, premeditation, forethought and fantasizing when we can clearly identify antisocial behavior such as narcissism and psychopathy. These are personality disorders, not mental illness, she said.

Maryann Mason, an associate professor of emergency medicine at Feinberg, is a co-author of the paper."

Assault weapon ban significantly reduces mass shooting - Northwestern Now[/QUOTE]
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Banning drugs reduces the likelihood of successful healing and sobriety. I'm all for keeping hard drugs banned in large quantities but people are more likely to seek and get help when possession won't get them thrown into for profit prisons designed to milk the drug industry for more money than the dealers are getting. Countries which deal with drug crisis as a medical epidemic, not a criminal one, have greater reform and lower relapse.

There is no equivalent consideration for "powerful firearm" ownership.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
A federal assault weapon ban was highly effective in reducing public mass shootings, reports a new Northwestern Medicine study just published in a pre-print. "

"The study found the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB) — that included a ban on large capacity magazines (limiting the number and caliber of bullets) — from 1994 to 2004 — resulted in a significant decrease in public mass shootings, number of gun deaths and number of gun injuries.

The study leveraged the passage and expiration of the FAWB to estimate the number of mass shootings that were prevented during the ban, as well as the number of shootings that would have been prevented had the ban remained in place.

The study authors estimate the ban prevented 10 public mass shootings during the decade it was in place, before it was allowed to expire. FAWB would have prevented 30 public mass shootings that killed 339 people and injured an additional 1,139 people, the authors said.

The political climate at the time the FAWB was passed required a sunset clause in order to get the bill passed.

The study was published in a pre-print and is considered preliminary until accepted by a journal.

“As society searches for effective policies to prevent the next mass shooting, we must consider the overwhelming evidence that bans on assault weapons and/or large capacity magazines work,” said lead author Lori Post, director of the Buehler Center for Health Policy and Economics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

Previous studies on FAWB only evaluated if it resulted in fewer gun deaths and injuries.

The Northwestern study is the first to look at the impact of the gun control policy on the number of mass shooting events, not number of people killed or injured. It also is the first to measure how many mass shootings were prevented when the FAWB was in place, as well as how many could have been prevented if the legislation was never sun setted.

“It does not result in fewer other types of gun deaths and injuries, such as domestic homicides. You only need one bullet to commit suicide, kill your wife or kill somebody else. But when you are just looking at mass shootings, it is super effective,” Post said.

Access to assault weapons, which have rapid fire capacity and gun cartridges that hold lots of bullets, are directly related to mass shootings.

“The purchase of the assault weapon is often the final step in the preparation and execution of a mass shooting,” Post said. “The shooter from Colorado bought his assault weapon and ammunition one week before the mass shooting.”

Every year, 50,000 people die from a gun injury, however, less than 1% of the cases are mass shootings, defined as four or more fatalities in a single setting in a public space. But mass shootings have a tremendous toll on American mental health. Other studies have found significant associations between mass shootings and child anxiety, with particularly high anxiety levels close to the mass shooting event. Other studies have found that nearly one-third of adults avoid certain public places due to mass shootings.

Now that the election and COVID-19 are receding from the news cycle, Post expects more mass shootings to occur.

“The previous news cycles sucked the oxygen out of mass shooters as they are looking to be newsworthy, Post said. “Now there is room on the national agenda for mass shooters.”

The study demonstrates the utility of public health surveillance on gun violence. Surveillance informs policy on whether a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines reduces public mass shootings.

Public mass shootings are a significant public health problem that require ongoing systematic surveillance to test and inform policies that combat gun injuries. While there is widespread agreement that something needs to be done to stop public mass shootings, exactly which policies that entails varies, such as the prohibition of assault weapons and large capacity magazines, are still being debated.

Next Post and colleagues plan to explore the mental health of shooters. Most shooters are pegged as mentally ill when in reality mass shootings require lots of planning, premeditation, forethought and fantasizing when we can clearly identify antisocial behavior such as narcissism and psychopathy. These are personality disorders, not mental illness, she said.

Maryann Mason, an associate professor of emergency medicine at Feinberg, is a co-author of the paper."

Assault weapon ban significantly reduces mass shooting - Northwestern Now
[/QUOTE]
And what does this have to do with the issue at hand?
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
Maybe if we locked up less people for drugs? Also, I don't believe in banning guns or that we can ever totally eliminate crime. We sure could use alternatives right now. Nothing we're doing seems to be working right, with drugs, crime or guns.
Stable families works great. Low rates of crime, addiction pretty much every social problem is minimized by it.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Stable families works great. Low rates of crime, addiction pretty much every social problem is minimized by it.
I'm all for doing things to help curate stable families. Like address widespread poverty, repeated housing crisis, damage from venture capitalist lobbying, the hyperinflation cost of living without wages keeping pace, the growing amount of hours expected in a workweek, the worst healthcare system for a wealthy country by far, etc etc.

But I wouldn't give something like napalm or an AR 15 to a stable family either, no matter how much they think their upstanding social behavior has earned them freedom to access it. Some things don't have a good reason to be in circulation. Honestly there are more better reasons (like previously mentioned) to keep hard drugs legal, at least in small quantities for a specific purpose.

Highly regulated, you might say.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
I'm all for doing things to help curate stable families. Like address widespread poverty, repeated housing crisis, damage from venture capitalist lobbying, the hyperinflation cost of living without wages keeping pace, the growing amount of hours expected in a workweek, the worst healthcare system for a wealthy country by far, etc etc.

But I wouldn't give something like napalm or an AR 15 to a stable family either, no matter how much they think their upstanding social behavior has earned them freedom to access it. Some things don't have a good reason to be in circulation. Honestly there are more better reasons (like previously mentioned) to keep hard drugs legal, at least in small quantities for a specific purpose.

Highly regulated, you might say.
Well this is America and others wrongs don’t trump my rights.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
In other words, social engineering and regulation. Authoritarianism. Interesting.
Little to no government involvement. The only things I’ve seen suggested from government that likely would help would be a two tier divorce law. No kids= no fault. With minor kids= fault divorce only due to the massive harm done to the kids.

Mostly we use education, awareness and a bit of social pressure to encourage better behavior.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Little to no government involvement. The only things I’ve seen suggested from government that likely would help would be a two tier divorce law. No kids= no fault. With minor kids= fault divorce only due to the massive harm done to the kids.

Mostly we use education, awareness and a bit of social pressure to encourage better behavior.
This is so short sighted, in my opinion. Like 'abstinence only sex' supporters going all surprised Pikachu faces when their states get the highest unwanted pregnancies and sti.
It's a band-aid over a faucet of very real economic crisis effecting families, not just absent morality thumpers.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
This is so short sighted, in my opinion. Like 'abstinence only sex' supporters going all surprised Pikachu faces when their states get the highest unwanted pregnancies and sti.
It's a band-aid over a faucet of very real economic crisis effecting families, not just absent morality thumpers.
Really what factor is more predictive of economic problems, crime, child abuse and other major social issues?
 
Top