And, yet again, it is unclear what lawmakers can do to prevent the next one. Just weeks ago, the Senate passed a gun-control bill that Chris Murphy described as “the most significant piece of anti-gun violence legislation in nearly 30 years.” Today, posturing as if nothing has been done recently, Democrats are asking for more. But what, exactly, does that mean? A red-flag law? Illinois already has one. A permitting system for the purchase and ownership of guns? Illinois has that, too. “Universal” background checks? That’s already Illinois law. What about “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines? Highland Park has banned both since 2013. Concealed carry? That was prohibited at the parade under an Illinois law that renders it illegal to carry firearms at “any public gathering held pursuant to a license issued by any governmental body.” Straw purchasing? That’s already illegal, and, besides, the gun was obtained legally.
So Highland Park already had a municipal ban on assault rifles. Guns in general are illegal under Illinois law at any parade or public event. Illinois has a registry, red flag laws, universal background checks. They require gun owners to go through a permitting system.
Oh and for reference... mass shooting is also illegal under Illinois law.So apparently this particular gunman was not willing to actually follow any of the laws in play here? Funny how a mass murder has so little respect for a weapons ban at parades or apparently no respect for the assault weapons ban in the actual city he was in at the time. Almost as if criminals are not willing to follow laws?
63 comments:
Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 reduce mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us
Published: June 9, 2022 at 1:43 p.m. ET
By
Michael J. Klein
The risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active.
First things first look at what I posted.
We should ban military style weapons, semiautomatic weapons with large capacity magazines. Even a buy back nation wide volunteer system.
Second, raise the age to 21.
Red flag laws nation wide.
Gun show background checks.
A nation wide database on both criminal records or mental illness symptoms.
The number of gun violence decreased between 1994 and 2004.
We have the worst history of gun violence in the civilized π
The National Reviue is another anti Federalist program.
Doing nothing is wrong
Yep, Illinois had it all.
And add on it Biden's Shiney New Gun Laws.
And there it is, safety for all.
Biden Utopia.
Oh wait, Alky wants more laws.
Roger, who funds the fair dust and unicorn facts " buy back"?
My AR -15 is for sale "$2,100"..
Deal?
Every single law was in play...
says Ch.
No, the most important one was not. The one that makes rapid fire weapons totally illegal for all citizens.
Guns | Gallup Topic
Jun 23, 2022 — Americans' 52% support for stricter gun laws is the lowest since 2014"
The risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active.
Jamie, you live in Illinois.
You don't have an "assault weapons law" currently on your books?
Please , do clarify.
Oh wait. I misspoke. I now realize it should be a nation wide ban to be effective.
Voting age and draft age too?
"raise the age to 21." ALKY
How would
"Oh wait. I misspoke. I now realize it should be a nation wide ban to be effective." Jamie
Has stopped the Illinois shooter?
No, the most important one was not. The one that makes rapid fire weapons totally illegal for all citizens.
What a fucking idiot
200,000,000 semi autos including handguns
Stupid old man
Is Anony talking to himself?
Rev. You could debate and answer my questions, after all you live in Illinois.
The Coming Red Wave Might Be a Red Mirage
July 6, 2022 at 2:44 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 124 Comments
There have now been 9 generic congressional ballot polls since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and their average shows Democrats leading by 45.4% to 43.7% lead or 1.7 percentage points.
If you take out the Rasmussen polls, Democrats hold a 2.5 percentage point lead.
Looking at this data, Simon Rosenberg concludes the race has shifted 4 to 5 percentage points towards the Democrats in just a couple of...
To be continued---
Jamie, you live in Illinois.
You don't have an "assault weapons law" currently on your books?
Please , do clarify.
The constant inability of Rev. Jamie to debate is noted.
" rapid fire weapons totally illegal"
Are you saying a ban on "semiautomatic "
Rifle and pistols?
Looks to me like Anony answered his own question @3:03: "Oh wait."
As for me, I already made clear at 2:58 that the ban should be total for ALL citizens in ALL states.
(Sounds to me like he was just agreeing with me.)
Interesting...
Because overall gun violence did not change during the assault weapons ban which is why it was largely left to expire. Again, the problem with the "mass shooting" statistic is that there are very few of them and few overall die out of the totals that die from gun violence...
So you might have 10,000 murder with guns one year...
and then 11000 the next...
But the first year had 60 people die in mass shootings...
then 30 people die in mass shootings the next...
Which year is preferable?
Don’t forget semiauto shotguns. I prefer my pump action, there’s something chilling when you chamber that round
Majority Disapproves of Supreme Court Abortion Decision
July 6, 2022 at 4:06 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 8 Comments
A new Pew Research poll finds
57% of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court’s sweeping decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including
43% who strongly disapprove.
41% approve of the court’s decision, including
25% who strongly approve.
BLUE WAVE SHAPING UP?
ANGRY PEOPLE VOTE.
Exactly Cali.
870 Remmington pump
"So you might have..."
SAYS CH, MAKING UP STATISTICS.
James can't debate me, he said * I trick him*.
No, CHT, is just talking over Jamie's head.
The USSC has just Affirmed and defended the 2nd Amendment.
Reverend...
Look at the first graph!
http://coldheartedtruthblog.blogspot.com/2022/07/harvard-poll-lots-of-bad-news-for.html
Supreme Court allows the carrying of firearms in public in major victory for gun rights groups. The ruling expands upon a 2008 decision that said the Second Amendment safeguards a person's right to possess firearms at home for self-protection.Jun 23, 2022
π€£NO CHARGE Electric police cars struggling to reach emergencies without running out of powerπ€£
Do NOT READ the following, says the NRA:
____
Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us
Michael J. Klein, Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery, New York University
The Clinton-era ban on assault weapons ushered in a period of fewer mass shooting deaths.
A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:
Before the 1994 ban:
From 1981 – the earliest year in our analysis – to the rollout of the assault weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of deaths in mass shootings in which an assault rifle was used was lower than it is today.
Yet in this earlier period, mass shooting deaths were steadily rising. Indeed, high-profile mass shootings involving assault rifles – such as the killing of five children in Stockton, California, in 1989 and a 1993 San Francisco office attack that left eight victims dead – provided the impetus behind a push for a prohibition on some types of gun.
During the 1994-2004 ban:
In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.
From 2004 onward:
The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.
Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2004 and 2017 – the last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons.
Saving hundreds of lives
We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from mass shootings was also down, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related fatalities per 10,000 shooting deaths.
Taking population trends into account, a model we created based on this data suggests that had the federal assault weapons ban been in place throughout the whole period of our study – that is, from 1981 through 2017 – it may have prevented 314 of the 448 mass shooting deaths that occurred during the years in which there was no ban.
And this almost certainly underestimates the total number of lives that could be saved. For our study, we chose only to include mass shooting incidents that were reported and agreed upon by all three of our selected data sources: the Los Angeles Times, Stanford University, and Mother Jones magazine.
Furthermore, for uniformity, we also chose to use the strict federal definition of an assault weapon – which may not include the entire spectrum of what many people may now consider to be assault weapons.
Cause or correlation?
It is also important to note that our analysis cannot definitively say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of deadly incidents in the years since.
Many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups.
Nonetheless, according to our study, President Biden’s claim that the rate of mass shootings during the period of the assault weapons ban “went down” only for it to rise again after the law was allowed to expire in 2004 HOLDS TRUE.
As the U.S. looks toward a solution to the country’s epidemic of mass shootings, it is difficult to say conclusively that reinstating the assault weapons ban would have a profound impact, especially given the growth in sales in the 18 years in which Americans have been allowed to purchase and stockpile such weapons. But given that many of the high-profile mass shooters in recent years purchased their weapons less than one year before committing their acts, THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT IT MIGHT.
I think the Reverend doesn't understand how few of the overall gun murders have nothing to do with "mass shootings".
According to statistics... if you add up the number of mass shootings where 10 or more people died...
You have 30 of them since 1949...
Many years you have zero mass shooting where a dead toll is over 10 deaths.
But to put it in perspective
https://time.com/4965022/deadliest-mass-shooting-us-history/
2021 - 30 killed
2020 - 9 killed
2019 - 74 killed
2018 - 80 killed
2017 - 117 killed
2016 - 71 killed
2015 - 46 killed
2014 - 17 killed
etc...
When you are looking at 10,000 gun deaths a year and the worst year shows that about 1% of those overall deaths were from mass shootings...
Using these sorts of numbers for any sort of gauge surrounding gun violence makes no sense.
From this one could make the argument that Trump reduced mass shootings because his first year there was 117 and his last there was only 9 killed.
Would the Reverend like to give credit to Trump for that... or admit that the statistic seems almost random?
THIS IS THE FIRST HALF OF THE ARTICLE AT 3:36 THAT APPEARED BEFORE CH'S COWARDLY SPAM CENSORSHIP CUT IT OFF:
Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us
Michael J. Klein, Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery, New York University
June 8, 2022·
The Clinton-era ban on assault weapons ushered in a period of fewer mass shooting deaths.
_______
A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:
Before the 1994 ban:
From 1981 – the earliest year in our analysis – to the rollout of the assault weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of deaths in mass shootings in which an assault rifle was used was lower than it is today.
Yet in this earlier period, mass shooting deaths were steadily rising. Indeed, high-profile mass shootings involving assault rifles – such as the killing of five children in Stockton, California, in 1989 and a 1993 San Francisco office attack that left eight victims dead – provided the impetus behind a push for a prohibition on some types of gun.
[AS ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD EXPECT.]
During the 1994-2004 ban:
In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.
Well Said.
"
C.H. TruthJuly 6, 2022 at 3:36 PM
I think the Reverend doesn't understand....
https://www.npr.org/2016/06/30/484215890/prohibition-era-gang-violence-spurred-congress-to-pass-first-gun-law
Here you can read about why machine guns were made illegal to own, and the effect THAT had.
https://www.npr.org/2016/06/30/484215890/prohibition-era-gang-violence-spurred-congress-to-pass-first-gun-law
above you can read about why machine guns were made illegal to own, and the effect THAT had.
ch pretends not to understand
https://www.npr.org/2016/06/30/484215890/prohibition-era-gang-violence-spurred-congress-to-pass-first-gun-law
above you can read about why machine guns were made illegal to own, and the effect THAT had.
Ch is the one who pretends not to understand
Blogger C.H. Truth said...
I think the Reverend doesn't understand how few of the overall gun murders have nothing to do with "mass shootings".
What as sorry excuse for a human being trump has made you!!!!! How few is such a crass observation that everythimg else you advocate is dependent on numbers.....what if the few included your 2 spawn or your child wife????? Would everything trump that you stand for remain?????? Very sad indeed....no different than defending a baker who refuses to bake......sad, guns now have more rights that women or kids in schools doncha think enough already and that America has no need for AR type weapons in the publics had and the BS argument that there are 200 million autos in circulation just shows how dangerous we have become!!!!
The Reverend obviously doesn't understand...
Since he simply repeated himself again with the same substance.
My argument (and the argument made by many) is that any gun law should bring down overall gun violence...
Since "mass shootings" make up less than 1% of our overall gun violence... even if you completely eliminated it, it would not make a dent in overall gun violence.
Now if you had a particular subset of gun violence that accounted for 50% of overall gun violence... then enacting something to curb that would make sense. But when one particular shooting can completely alter the statistics for this particular subset... then that statistic is simply going to be more random than anything.
In fact, it could have nothing to do with anything.
Otherwise... We could suggest that Biden is a loser and responsible for massive increases in Mass shootings....
Since there was only 9 killed in 2020.
2021 had an increase of over 300% from 2020.
This year looks like it will be even larger?
What should be blamed for this?
Biden... since he is President?
this awesome! When a dozen angry democrats in klan hoods you just might need all 30 rounds
A great deal π
InfoWars’ Alex Jones Wants Marjorie Taylor-Greene to Run in 2024, Tells Her She’s ‘Smarter’ Than Trump: ‘Get the New World Order Off My Back!’
I guess Ch thinks it's not important that a single gunman can go up in a highrise hotel or onto the roof of any building or into any school or place of worship or business and with an assault style weapon intended for killing people put to death numerous citizens including school children at a single swoop.
I mean, that might not makea much of a dent in "overall gun violence" but it sure would make parents feel better about sending their children to schools or participating in patriotic parades and joining in other community events involving gatherings of people.
But God forbid that the gun industry might have to forego the least amount of some of its profits merely to save innocent lives of our citizens and children.
Illinois state police, who issue gun owners’ licenses, said Crimo applied for a license in December 2019, when he was 19. His father sponsored his application, and he purchased the semi-automatic rifles in 2020, according to Covelli.
In all, police said, he purchased five firearms, which were recovered by officers at his father’s home. He purchased four of the guns while he was under 21 and bought a fifth after his birthday last year.
The revelations about his gun purchases offered just the latest example of young men who were able to obtain guns and carry out massacres in recent months despite glaring warning signs about their mental health and inclination to violence.
Ch is against any gun control laws
To put it succinctly, when the current president is spending all his time obsessing over the former guy, that current president is losing. Biden may not perceive much these days given his mental decline, but he knows enough to know he’s been an abject failure. With no accomplishments to talk about, all he has left is making awkward, false mentions of Donald Trump. And my happy cow π
And look, while I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, it’s still sad to watch a guy crumble like this. He can barely speak, his jokes make no sense, and he’s been reduced to squinting at a teleprompter, just hoping to get through another event. Someone should really step in and stop this elder abuse.
The former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone is expected to testify to the House January 6 select committee on Friday after reaching an agreement over the scope of his cooperation with a subpoena compelling his testimony, according to a source familiar with the matter.
The testimony from Cipollone is expected to be a transcribed interview and recorded on camera, the source said, and the former top White House lawyer is expected to only answer questions on a narrow subset of topics and conversations with the former president.
Among the topics Cipollone could discuss include how he told Donald Trump that pressuring Mike Pence, the vice-president, to refuse to certify Joe Biden’s election win was unlawful, and Trump’s plot to coerce the justice department into falsely saying the 2020 election was corrupt.
Trump’s White House counsel Pat Cipollone agrees to testify to January 6 panel – as it happened
The closed-door deposition, to that end, could amount to a chance for the panel to corroborate testimony by the former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who testified that Cipollone repeatedly warned that Trump’s ideas to overturn the 2020 election violated the law.
Hutchinson, according to her public testimony at a special hearing last week, was told by Cipollone that “we’re going to be charged with every crime imaginable” if Trump went to the Capitol that day as he pressured Congress to not certify Biden’s win.
A citizen is a hero π
With the nation reeling from a holiday weekend marred by deadly shootings, including the massacre at an Independence Day parade in Highland Park, Ill., police in Richmond, Va., say they thwarted a planned attack on July 4 after receiving a tip that led to multiple arrests and the seizure of firearms.
At a press conference on Wednesday afternoon, Richmond Police Chief Gerald Smith said a “hero citizen” overheard a conversation about a mass shooting being planned for the city’s Fourth of July celebration and called police.
The tip led to an investigation by police, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. A subsequent search of a home in Richmond led to the seizure of two assault rifles, a handgun and 223 rounds of ammunition and the arrests of two men.
Julio Alvarado-Dubon was taken into custody Friday and charged with being a non-U.S. citizen in possession of a firearm, Smith said. A second man, Rolman Balacarcel, was placed under surveillance and taken into custody on Tuesday. He is facing the same charge.
Wow
I guess Ch thinks it's not important that a single gunman can go up in a highrise hotel or onto the roof of any building or into any school or place of worship or business and with an assault style weapon intended for killing people put to death numerous citizens including school children at a single swoop.
When between 25-30 people are shot and killed every day in America...
The manner in which they are shot is not my major concern.
I would prefer to attack the problem by addressing where the VAST MAJORITY of those killing occur?
Wouldn't you agree that addressing the 99% plus of shootings is a better avenue of attack, then spending all your time worrying about the few that are killed in one particular manner?
Two illegal immigrants, 52-year-old Julio Alvarado-Dubon and 38-year-old Rolman Balacarcel, were arrested and charged with being a non-U.S. citizens in possession of a gun after police uncovered a plot that the duo planned a mass shooting at Richmond's July 4 celebration Monday.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/potential-richmond-july-4-mass-shooters-charged-noncitizens-possession-firearm-police-say
But another gun law will work, eh Ally?
Nuf said
According to New York Times reporter Luke Broadwater, the January 6 select committee’s next hearing — which is scheduled for Tuesday, July 12 — will “reveal its findings about the connections between former President Donald J. Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election and the domestic violent extremist groups that helped to organize the siege on Congress.”
Democrats grooming your elementary school children (except pedo, never slipped one by the goalie)
A Washington state school board director who owns a sex shop is making headlines after announcing she will teach sex education classes for children as young as 9 on topics such as “sexual anatomy for pleasure” and “safer sex practices for all kinds of sexual activities.”
“The class for 9- to 12-year-olds is an introduction to topics related to relationships, puberty, bodies, and sexuality. We focus on what makes healthy vs. unhealthy friendships and romantic relationships, the science of how puberty works, consent and personal boundaries, defining ‘sex’, and discussing why people may or may not choose to engage in sexual activities,” Jenn Mason, owner of sex shop WinkWink in Bellingham and school board director for the Bellingham School District, told KTTH radio host Jason Rantz.
DeSantis signed legislation to limit what schools, colleges and workplaces can teach about race and identity, while promulgating teacher training wrongly claiming that the Founders didn’t really want separation of church and state. He also signed legislation that would give the state greater control over what is taught in universities under the guise of promoting viewpoint “diversity.” He is even threatening to investigate parents who take their kids to drag shows.
In short, DeSantis is engaged in one of the most alarming assaults on free speech and academic freedom since the dark days of McCarthyism in the 1950s, when Nixon rose to power. His actions may not be as blatant as inciting a mob to attack Congress, but his record reveals a troubling pattern of authoritarianism and vindictiveness that would be extremely dangerous in the Oval Office.
Just because DeSantis is smarter than Trump doesn’t mean that he is any less dangerous. In fact, he might be an even bigger threat for that very reason.
Max Boot is complete correct π
DeSantis signed legislation to limit what schools, colleges and workplaces can teach about race and identity
Roger...
Unless your "workplaces" have preschoolers, Kindergarteners, or first-third graders working there...
The Florida law has no effect on them?
Curious Roger...
Can you name a single workplace in American that employs children under the age of 9?
"But another gun law will work, eh Ally?" CALI
Exactly, Illinois checked ✔ all the liberal gun law boxes.
Biden newest Shiney Gun Laws are in place ✔ and they all failed.
Wrong Rev. , a machine gun is legal to own.
Alky's State Failures
"Sacramento mass shooting came days after Newsom signed two more gun lawsCalifornia Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two new gun bills targeting ghost guns and gun marketing three days before a mass shooting in Sacramento".
New laws did mothing.
No, I checked and now I see that it's almost impossible legally to own a machine gun, so Rev. was right.
I have been saying this for months now.
Reagan lawyer: Republicans expanding ‘slow-motion coup’ as they try to ‘repeal the 20th century’
Bob Brigham
July 06, 2022
Reagan White House Solicitor General Charles Fried explained how Republicans are conducting a "slow-motion coup" during a Wednesday appearance on MSNBC.
"Our next guest was four years old when he fled Czechoslovakia with his family in 1939 to escape Nazi terror," MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell reported. "Twenty-two years later, he became a Harvard Law professor."
O'Donnell noted that now-Justice Samuel Alito worked for Fried and he testified at John Roberts confirmation that the nominee was "too smart a lawyer to overturn Roe vs. Wade."
O'Donnell noted a November op-ed Fried wrote for The New York Times titled, "I Once Urged the Supreme Court to Overturn Roe. I’ve Changed My Mind."
"To overturn Roe now would be an act of constitutional vandalism — not conservative, but reactionary," Fried wrote.
O'Donnell put an email on-screen that Fried sent to his producer.
"Unions, religion, second amendment, abortion, campaign finance, gerrymandering, regulation of elections. All this is an attempt in the last ten years or so to repeal the 20th century," he wrote. "The greatest threat next term: the 'independent legislature clause' case from North Carolina which would produce a slow-motion coup d'Γ©tat."
Post a Comment