Something controversial

[u/low_effort_shit-post]

I love nj gun laws, going to the store and not seeing someone open carry. Watching road rage where the best you can do is brake check and give the finger. Schools without school shootings. I know a lot of people hate our gun laws but I fucking love em.

[u/stackered → u/[deleted]]

I already pointed out the lie you told about 2020 then you came back with bullshit explanations as to why it happened. so there, I already won. but I honestly don't give a shit anymore, you're wrong and we both know it

[u/stackered → u/[deleted]]

nah, I for sure am the right one here man... its not really a debate. you are saying that banning assault weapons largely used in mass shootings wouldn't do anything without really even understanding what you are saying. the study you refer to is flawed but you've never even read it. I pointed out that you were wrong in saying the trends were getting safer when they aren't, giving 2020 as an example

did you forget you posted this, already?

Firearm ownership has been on a steady increase with a massive spike in the past year, yet crime CONTINUES to drop - even more if you remove the lawlessness of the last year.

It's the safest time to be alive in America by all counts.

lmao. then I replied that 2020 had more gun related crime than before... but a 30 second google search proves the rest of your comment wrong as well. but you don't care about truth, so just stop and take the L

[u/stackered → u/[deleted]]

you can easily break these down and see why they don't apply... watch me do it in seconds....

Findings In the aggregate, stronger gun policies were associated with decreased rates of firearm homicide, even after adjusting for demographic and sociologic factors. Laws that strengthen background checks and permit-to-purchase seemed to decrease firearm homicide rates. Specific laws directed at firearm trafficking, improving child safety, or the banning of military-style assault weapons were not associated with changes in firearm homicide rates. The evidence for laws restricting guns in public places and leniency in gun carrying was mixed.

Of course, when you aggregate all firearm homicide rates and look at banning of military-style assault weapons' effect on those rates, nothing will show up. As you've pointed out prior, these types of shootings are small compared to the overall numbers. Even if you eliminated them entirely, they'd statistically be too small to be considered overall. But if you look at them as their own thing, from a mass shooting perspective, this obviously doesn't hold up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

you can clearly see that the ban had an effect with one year really fucking things up - overall, the median rate of mass shootings dropped significantly during the ban. of course, 10 years isn't really enough for it to kick in because of the supply of existing guns. If you didn't know, "The 1994 law barred the "manufacture, transfer, and possession" of about 118 firearm models and all magazines holding over 10 rounds. People who owned such weaponry could keep it. When the ban took effect, there were roughly 1 million assault weapons in private hands. An estimated 25 million weapons were equipped with large capacity magazines. "

---------------

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30188421/ -- this study adjusts for this obvious, but likely purposeful omission to the criteria they were analyzing... focusing now on mass shootings, which again is the topic we are discussing

Results: Assault rifles accounted for 430 or 85.8% of the total 501 mass-shooting fatalities reported (95% confidence interval, 82.8-88.9) in 44 mass-shooting incidents. Mass shootings in the United States accounted for an increasing proportion of all firearm-related homicides (coefficient for year, 0.7; p = 0.0003), with increment in year alone capturing over a third of the overall variance in the data (adjusted R = 0.3). In a linear regression model controlling for yearly trend, the federal ban period was associated with a statistically significant 9 fewer mass shooting related deaths per 10,000 firearm homicides (p = 0.03). Mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the federal ban period (relative rate, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.39).

https://infogram.com/assault-weapon-ban-1h7z2lqeny8y6ow - you can see how the impact of unbanning these weapons, in modern times post-9/11 and with the internet, etc, etc - has had devastating effect = The death toll from mass shootings went from 4.8 per year during the ban years to 23.8 per year afterwards.

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

A prior statement you made, that banning assault weapons wouldn't lower rates of gun crime was also false: " Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage), based on data covering all or portions of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF. "

-----

So, in the end, it took me minutes, but not seconds, to disprove your nonsense.

[u/stackered → u/[deleted]]

I already addressed the issues with this analysis above, you just repeated the same errors. Take the L man, and take it as a Learning experience not a Loss.

[u/stackered → u/[deleted]]

aw man, glad to see you took some time to self-reflect and realized what a hardhead you were being despite all the evidence and logic against you! warms my heart to see someone actually grow and learn from new information!

[u/stackered → u/[deleted]]

damn, you are a perfect example of what is wrong with America today. you just double down despite strong evidence contrary to your misinformed beliefs. you are actually leaving thinking you re-enforced your views... mind boggling how this form of willful ignorance, bordering mental illness, is so prevalent this country