Consider other possibilities, for example, maybe the assault weapons ban was not in place long enough to have an effect, maybe it wasn't enforced strongly enough, or maybe it needed to be done differently. It is still a double edged sword because someone who is anti gun rights can use the same fact (gun control didn't work) but arrive at an opposite conclusion.

10 years wasn't long enough? 

Laws are enacted to 'protect the people' are implemented to have an immediate or near future effect; 10 years is not near future. In those 10 years, hundreds, if not thousands of lives should have been saved; they weren't. Criminals still killed individuals, and it did nothing to reduce crime. In fact, it was only after the 'assault weapon' ban that we do see significant drops in crime within the same span of time that the law was implemented.

10 years wasn't long enough? 

Laws are enacted to 'protect the people' are implemented to have an immediate or near future effect; 10 years is not near future. In those 10 years, hundreds, if not thousands of lives should have been saved; they weren't. Criminals still killed individuals, and it did nothing to reduce crime. In fact, it was only after the 'assault weapon' ban that we do see significant drops in crime within the same span of time that the law was implemented.

The argument could certainly be made that 10 years wasn't long enough. Obviously just because you ban the firearms doesn't mean the existing supply will just disappear. It would take time for the existing supply to be taken off the street. They might even argue that the drop in crime following the repeal was just a delayed effect of the ban. I doubt it but I wouldn't have anything to immediately disprove that theory.

The basic point I am making is that a conclusion is being drawn when multiple possible conclusions still exist. We cannot claim a single solid conclusion from the fact at hand, it wouldn't be a scientifically valid argument.

So you're saying 10 years is not long enough for a valid study ?
You just threw out 98% of the studies ever done on anything. 
 

The 10 years for the 2004-2014 Assault Weapons Ban was not even a "study".  It was the IMPLEMENTATION of an AWB which the authors had been trying to ram through Congress for over two decades after their handgun bans failed to pass.

That means, instead of a statistical sample of various locations and groups, you have THE ENTIRE NATION and EVERY SINGLE GUN OWNER and EVERY SINGLE REAL LIFE CRIME to include in your reports.

The reports are not forecasts, but actual results.  This is more concrete and demonstrable than ANY study could ever be.  You are evaluating actual results, not a bunch of extrapolations and polling surveys.

To me, you could not ask for a better population of "study" data than this.  Arguing these 10 years was insufficient to have any effect is totally ridiculous.  It perfectly illustrated this one important fact above all others:  in violent crimes involving guns, the type of gun used is incidental.  Look at ACTUAL crimes and the ACTUAL guns used.  AR-15 style weapons have always been limited to a small percentage of crimes.  Even though an event like Sandy Hook may result in 20+ deaths, that represents ONE criminal using ONE AR-15 in ONE event.

Had there been 20+ incidents of 20+ criminals using 20+ AR-15s, maybe then we would see a need for another AWB.

So you're saying 10 years is not long enough for a valid study ?
You just threw out 98% of the studies ever done on anything. 
 

I am saying that there remains too many open variables to make any sort of solid conclusion.  Correlation does not equal causation.

I prefer to avoid this argument because it can be flipped and used against us.

I am not saying that 10 years is not enough, I am saying that is one possible angle they might claim. I also mentioned other possible angles they could claim in an attempt to use our own point against us. The variables make it inconclusive as to whether gun control works. The fact that the AWB did not have an impact just leaves a fork in the road. Either it just cannot work, or it wasn't done right. And you cannot just use one type of gun control to show all gun control will fail because gun control legislation can exist in very different forms. As is rightly pointed out, very few murders are done with assault rifles but their reply would be the gun control was poorly designed as it targeted the wrong firearm and then try to ban all pistols. It is a slippery circumstantial argument. It is weak scientifically speaking and can be turned against us so I hesitate to use it. It is data that does have its place in the whole picture but we shouldn't present it as something it isn't.

Imagine you want to put out a fire so you pour a little water on it but the fire remains unchanged. I could point to your attempts and say "see, water doesn't work at fighting fire."  You on the other hand would rightly point out that the conclusion is premature. You would tell me maybe we just needed more water or maybe the way the water was applied made it ineffective, etc.

I am saying that there remains too many open variables to make any sort of solid conclusion.  Correlation does not equal causation.

I prefer to avoid this argument because it can be flipped and used against us.

I am not saying that 10 years is not enough, I am saying that is one possible angle they might claim. I also mentioned other possible angles they could claim in an attempt to use our own point against us. The variables make it inconclusive as to whether gun control works. The fact that the AWB did not have an impact just leaves a fork in the road. Either it just cannot work, or it wasn't done right. And you cannot just use one type of gun control to show all gun control will fail because gun control legislation can exist in very different forms. As is rightly pointed out, very few murders are done with assault rifles but their reply would be the gun control was poorly designed as it targeted the wrong firearm and then try to ban all pistols. It is a slippery circumstantial argument. It is weak scientifically speaking and can be turned against us so I hesitate to use it. It is data that does have its place in the whole picture but we shouldn't present it as something it isn't.

Imagine you want to put out a fire so you pour a little water on it but the fire remains unchanged. I could point to your attempts and say "see, water doesn't work at fighting fire."  You on the other hand would rightly point out that the conclusion is premature. You would tell me maybe we just needed more water or maybe the way the water was applied made it ineffective, etc.

Here we go again with the "gun-grabber whisperer."  Are you truly that in tune with the anti's, or do you simply think that way yourself?  I believe it's the latter.  (I'm not saying this, but  others might ...)

Here we go again with the "gun-grabber whisperer."  Are you truly that in tune with the anti's, or do you simply think that way yourself?  I believe it's the latter.  (I'm not saying this, but  others might ...)

I truly think it's greg

He has multiple accounts.

He has multiple accounts.

That's a violation of forum policy.

If that is true, where are the MODS?

They have access to the IP addresses.

 

The Assault Weapons Ban had no effect because criminals rarely use so called "assault weapons" when committing crimes.

10 years or 100, it wouldn't have had an effect because it never addressed the problem.
More people, even before the ban, were killed with blunt objects and knives than with rifles of ANY type. The point of the ban was moot before the ink was dry.

Criminals are the problem and they, by nature, don't follow the law.

You can't force criminals into compliance by writing laws that only effect the law abiding citizens. That is idiocy.

Gun control is like castrating yourself because your neighbors have too many kids.

Here we go again with the "gun-grabber whisperer."  Are you truly that in tune with the anti's, or do you simply think that way yourself?  I believe it's the latter.  (I'm not saying this, but  others might ...)

It benefits you to know your opponent. Not everyone will use the same thought process as you or arrive at the same conclusions given the same information. Failing to realize that is shooting yourself in the foot.

The Assault Weapons Ban had no effect because criminals rarely use so called "assault weapons" when committing crimes.

10 years or 100, it wouldn't have had an effect because it never addressed the problem.
More people, even before the ban, were killed with blunt objects and knives than with rifles of ANY type. The point of the ban was moot before the ink was dry.

Criminals are the problem and they, by nature, don't follow the law.

You can't force criminals into compliance by writing laws that only effect the law abiding citizens. That is idiocy.

Gun control is like castrating yourself because your neighbors have too many kids.

I don't think anyone passed the ban because they thought criminals would listen. I think they passed the ban believing it would be harder for criminals to get the guns.
Thought process: AW (assault weapons) become illegal = fewer AW made = fewer AW sold = fewer stolen = fewer in the hands of criminals = fewer crimes involving AW. Their argument will likely be that because there were already lots of AW in circulation, banning new ones only didn't take away the ones already in the country, thus no change. That doesn't mean this is actually the reason there was no effect but it is hard to disprove this as a possibility.

Of course their focus was poor because as you point out, these assault weapons were not commonly used in crimes. But their answer might just be that instead of assault weapons they should have targeted handguns or all guns.  They will use your own argument to say that the gun control didn't work because they did it wrong and if they could try again they would get a different result by changing the focus.

I am not sure why anyone is even discussing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban?

This incident occurred in California which has in effect the Assault Weapons Ban of 1989. Which BTW forced me to take my AR-15 and drive over to Arizona to sell it because I sure as hell wasn't going to turn it to the Gestapo. And I want all of you to know the BIG LIE that went on while the left was trying to garner support for this weapons ban. And that was we were going to be able to keep of grandfathered in AR-15's. Turns out after the bill passed that in order to keep our AR-15's we had to register them. Guess they forgot to tell us this? Also, 30 round magazines were grandfathered in as well. As long as they were manufactured prior to 1989. Well, guess what? The left caught on that NO ONE DATE STAMPS THEIR MAGAZINES!!! Along came the addition to the 1989 act with the 1999 act. Now just the act of buying and bringing in a rebuild kit for high capacity magazines is illegal. And some cities passed mere possession of high cap mags a crime.

All of this and more are currently in effect and were in full effect when this crime was committed. These laws are much more strict than the Federal laws that were not even in effect at the time of the crime. So I go back and wonder why any one is even discussing something so inconsequential to the subject matter? Did we go off topic again? 

Mom says he's a good boy
http://news.yahoo.com/latest-fbi-searches-california-lake-near-massacre-212429462.html

I don't think anyone passed the ban because they thought criminals would listen. I think they passed the ban believing it would be harder for criminals to get the guns.
Thought process: AW (assault weapons) become illegal = fewer AW made = fewer AW sold = fewer stolen = fewer in the hands of criminals = fewer crimes involving AW. Their argument will likely be that because there were already lots of AW in circulation, banning new ones only didn't take away the ones already in the country, thus no change. That doesn't mean this is actually the reason there was no effect but it is hard to disprove this as a possibility.

Of course their focus was poor because as you point out, these assault weapons were not commonly used in crimes. But their answer might just be that instead of assault weapons they should have targeted handguns or all guns.  They will use your own argument to say that the gun control didn't work because they did it wrong and if they could try again they would get a different result by changing the focus.

You give politicians too much credit.

Politicians listen to special interest groups.

Special interest groups failed to have handguns banned (they tried).

Special interest groups went after the next most common guns after handguns:  the AR-15 and similar rifles.  They did this because:  (1) they new they could paint them as weapons of war and confuse the ignorant non-gun-owners, and (2) the AR-15 represented the moet popular, most widely owned rifle over any other type in the US.

Special interest groups then created a campaign to ban these "Assault Weapons" with no other goal than to take as many firearms away from Americans as they could.

Special interest groups sold the Assault Weapons ban to law makers after a shooting (emotional reaction -- never let a good tragedy go to waste).

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

Efforts to create restrictions on assault weapons at the federal government level intensified in 1989 after 5 children and a teacher were shot and five children killed in Stockton, Calif. using a semi-automatic copy of an AK-47 assault rifle. The July 1993 101 California Street shooting also contributed to passage of the ban. The shooter killed eight people and wounded six. Two of the three firearms he used were TEC-9 semi-automatic handguns with Hellfire triggers. The ban tried to address public concerns about mass shootings by restricting firearms that met the criteria for what it defined as a "semiautomatic assault weapon," as well as magazines that met the criteria for what it defined as a "large capacity ammunition feeding device."

It benefits you to know your opponent. Not everyone will use the same thought process as you or arrive at the same conclusions given the same information. Failing to realize that is shooting yourself in the foot.

Most of us on here already know everything there is to know about our opponent .....

... and he sounds exactly like you!

Most of us on here already know everything there is to know about our opponent .....

... and he sounds exactly like you!

The difference between you and me is that I can be objective. You tend to assume the narrative that most fits what you want.

How the U.S. reacts to a mass shooting...

The difference between you and me is that I can be objective. You tend to assume the narrative that most fits what you want.

You're posts not objective.

Objectivity is based on facts, while subjectivity is based on opinion.

The facts proved that the assault weapons ban did not work, yet you are making excuses as to how it didn't have enough time, which is your opinion.