Shooting in Southern California

[Amarok]

Lol that's even less doable then banning guns . Not to mention far more oppressive .


So you think a specific gun needs to be used in a crime to ban it ?

Yes, absolutely, if we want the bans/buybacks to produce a reduction in crime.  Every state has a tracker for this stuff, I've linked it before.  If we wanted to get rid of crimes overwhelmingly committed with a specific firearm then we would have to deal specifically with that firearm.  Banning guns no one uses does jack shit to that.  The reason for this is simple..but perhaps not intuitive to people unfamiliar with guns.  Not all guns are well suited to crime.    Expensive guns, and difficult to conceal guns...are very very thin on the ground in crime stats.


Even in the category of mass shootings...handguns are overwhelmingly the issue.

When dems passed the brady bil, for examle...l..it did absolutely nothing, and the doj had no interest in continuing with it since it produced no effect.  They picked the wrong guns - and they would have known that, if they looked at the data that they themselves had the government collect.  Maybe they did look at it, and they did know that..but for whatever eldritch reason they persisted anyway.

-and here we are.

That was it, that was their chance.  They fucking blew it, and the gun control debate was lost the moment that a school got shot up and we did nothing.  Dems will never pass functional gun control legislation because they aren;t trying to do so, they;re pandering to their base in contradiction to facts..like common trumpers.

---

"Hey, Steve, I've noticed an unusually large amount of people are getting shot by 9mm pb...let's ban bowtie pasta - everybody hates bowtie pasta!"  -and before you say "what a ridiculous comparison"..consider this..a bowtie pasta ban would have worked just as well as the brady bill.  I'll just leave you with a quote from a study done on the bill as an ar...

because the banned guns and magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders, even the maximum theoretically achievable preventive effect of the ban on gun murders is almost certainly too small to detect statistically with only one year of post-ban crime data

The hope, ofc, was that with more years....the effect (if there was one) might cross the threshold of detectability!  Holy fucking shitballs........and as it just so happens, it never did.

---

If they spent more time controlling the nutballs - they would make a dent in the number off incidents. It is doable.

Is it...-you're one of the nutballs I'm referring to-.  Somebody points out that a shitload of people are getting shot and your first impulse is to blurt out the name Nancy Pelosi and then waffle around over some bullshit about "inflated data", lol....?

So tell me, how would you like to be controlled?  How do we keep -that- from influencing the ballot?

Your first part is right .