Gun Control UK Style

.

 

I am British... Born and raised in London.


My Pearly King...

 

Now it is known for certain, beyond all reasonable doubt, that neither yourself, nor those who are cited by yourself, actually have any clue as to what they presume to speak about.

There was no prohibition on firearms in the cited time period in the united states. The only thing to be prohibited was the inclusion of certain cosmetic features, that played absolutely no part in the functionality of the firearm. What was and was not classified as a so-called "assault weapon" under the legislation was based entirely on these cosmetic features. If the features were removed by the manufacturer, the firearm in question no longer legally qualified as a so-called "assault weapon" and could be sold freely. A fixed stock instead of an adjustable stock, a muzzle break instead of a flash suppressor, a plan muzzle instead of a threaded muzzle, a change of the name of the firearm, and suddenly the AR-15 was no longer an AR-15, and could still be brought and sold, even though the mechanics of the two rifles were exactly the same.

There was no-so called "spillover" of so-called "assault weapons" into the nation of Mexico in the cited time period, as they were always available even during the decade of supposed prohibition.

 

Your "evidence isn't evidence if it disagrees with my bias" continues to be pathetic.

 

There was no federal-level prohibition on so-called "assault weapons" only on the inclusion of certain cosmetic features that did not affect the functionality of a firearm in any fashion.

Case in point, the semi-automatic rifle pictured below. It looks like an AR-15. But because it lacks a flash suppressor, a threaded muzzle, or an adjustable stock, it is not an AR-15 and was legal for sale and ownership during the period of the supposed prohibition on such firearms.

 

Let's be honest: the AWB of '94 was symbolic, nothing more. It represented the possibility of even more draconian gun control being enacted in the future; to desensitize the American public to the idea of such laws being acceptable. The gun banners pushed the law knowing it would achieve little, but expecting to be able to do more if they could just get the foot in the door. Instead, the political backlash that resulted in the '94 midterms - directly attributable to the Democrats' gun control push - drove a lot of gun banners out of office and forced the rest into hiding. It took a very long time before they made any effort to push their agenda again, and this time got essentially nowhere.

What about Mexico? You mean their catastrophically high homicide and violence rates despite their draconian gun laws? Or are you one of those actually intending to press the rhetorical nonsense that American gun laws are to blame for Mexico's failed state status?

 

The evidence mentioned shows otherwise. Even relatively minor gun control legislation has been found to have statistically significant effects.

The other fellow brought up Mexico. I was just sweet-natured enough to refer to the American-Mexican research.

 

Then what is being stated by yourself, is that even though the law in question was supposedly weakened before it was implemented, to the point it was easily bypassed by a few cosmetic changes to a firearm, yet at the same time it was still more than adequate for preventing the smuggling of specific firearms into the nation of Mexico?

The only non-evidence based concept being demonstrated, is that on the part of yourself.

 

Not in the real world, however.

 

Love how you think your bubble is the real world!

 

Considering the supposed prohibition on so-called "assault weapons" was weakened, in the words of yourself, would it be safe to conclude that such constituted "relatively minor firearm-related restrictions" overall, as it ultimately did nothing that had any meaningful impact beyond targeting certain cosmetic features and nothing else?

 

The evidence still finds significant effects. I appreciate your bubble means you haven't actually read any of it, but that's your doing.

 

Give the AWB did not actually ban anything and did nothing to restrict private access to the firearms defined under it, it is impossible to show the AWB had any effect on gun-related crime.

 

Even though none of the firearms owned prior to the implementation of the legislation were confiscated from their legal owners? Not a single firearms was ever taken from those that owned them, and the exact same firearms were still sold freely during the ten years the legislation was in play. So what significant effects were yielded during this specific time frame, that would allow for one to declare with absolute certainty that it had any affect whatsoever?

 

He knows his statement is false.
Act accordingly.

 

You're asking for repetition. We have a situation where even minor legislation created statistically significant effects. That is decidedly inconvenient. Its a bubble burster no less.

 

False. What is has is the unfounded, unproven claim that the law in question did some good. But what is not has, is actual proof showing such to be the truth. Proof in this particular case would constitute two specific things: First, photographic evidence of each and every one of the so-called "assault weapons" found in the nation of Mexico, showing that they physically match the definition laid out in the legislation. Second, accounting for each and every serial number of said firearms to demonstrate which state they were initially sold in, and the time and date on which they were sold.

Unless such was actually presented on the part of the one who made the claim, unless such was made available for everyone to see that the proof is overwhelming and undeniable, do not post further on this particular matter. In short, simple, easy to understand terms, either put up or shut up.

 

Repetition of your "evidence isn't evidence". It continues to be cretinous. Why didn't you read the paper? e.g. "Panel A of Figure II shows that there was approximately a 15% increase in combined gun sales in AZ, TX and NM as compared to a 5% rise in CA after 2004".

 

The phrase "combined firearm sales" does not translate into proof that specific firearms were trafficked into the nation of Mexico after the date in question, with any greater degree of regularity than prior to the date in question. It is all supposition and slight of hand meant to mislead and confuse the public.

Beyond that particular matter, the best that can be presented on the part of yourself is apparently the notion that the law in question had a beneficial effect on matters in the nation of Mexico. Yet there is nothing being presented that would show the same law in question had any beneficial effect on matters in the united states. Pray tell, why is that? Why can no beneficial results be pointed to in the united states, where the law was actually in effect at the time?

It is not the obligation of the united states to be concerned with how its local laws may affect foreign nations, either positively or negatively. Such matters are irrelevant and carry no weight.

 

Oh, PLEASE. EVERY study that was performed by INDEPENDENT researchers - in other words part of organizations that had no agenda either pro- nor anti-gun - found the assault weapons ban achieved absolutely nothing. There is ZERO "evidence"; just politically motivated cooked statistic crap. Your credibility - what's left of it - crumbles thoroughly by making such claims.

 

Another post truther! Is there any pro gunner on here who is well read and capable of intellectual dialogue?

(No need to answer. I fear I know the answer)

 

What did the "assault weapons ban" do?

 

Read the paper! Perhaps you can derive a genuine critique? These fellows just flounce

 

Gave the GOP control of Congress in 1994.

 

The 150k+ British fleeing the UK every year are heading to Australia, mostly.