02-15-2018, 02:56 PM
(02-15-2018, 01:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: with population taken into account, they weren't as rare as you'd think.
The 30's had 1 shooting for every 14 million people and the 40's had 1 for every 18 million people compared to the 2000's where it was 1 for every 10 million people.
50s-60s saw lows while the 80s-90s saw highs. Some might blame the access of semi automatic weapons. There have been more since the ban expired, but the number during the ban mirrored those before it, so that might not be the best argument.
I assume you're talking about mass shootings, without your source it's difficult to tell. Within that, what criteria are they using to determine a mass shooting? As for the "assault weapons" ban, every ounce of empirical data showed it had zero effect on gun related crime. As Matt alluded to earlier, and we have discussed, there's a lot more going on than access to firearms.
I won't deny, and no one should, that allowing civilian gun ownership on the scale permitted by the Constitution is going to result in gun related crime. The question is, does the freedom outweigh the cost of said freedom? We could save a lot of lives by making the maximum speed limit 40 mph, are people willing to do that?
