Darkhorse wrote:The only thing in that nut shell are nuts that think banning any type of weapon will change a thing!
How can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that banning something won't change anything ...... until you've banned it?
A 2004 Justice Department study on the effectiveness of a federal ban on assault weapons from 1994 to 2003 concluded that the law didn’t have much impact. (Even on school shootings: the Columbine massacre took place during 1999, when the law was in effect.)
Now we have demonstrable evidence that if you try to lead from behind, eventually the guys up front will stop looking back for instructions.
Government-coerced expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no place in a free country
Buzz wrote:Slick has ignored this. Even though i've said over and over the ban won't change anything.
I am aware of the report, but it DID state that there was some positive effect(not a whole lot) and as I keep saying, the goal of current proposals is to have a small effect.
Pudfark wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 11:15 am
I live in Texas....you live in America.
Buzz wrote:Actually, it did have an effect. There's a shit load more assault guns on the streets now.
are you suggesting that is the effect of cancelling the ban? If so, perhaps you are right.....hence the need to reinstate it. This shit didn't happen until after the ban had been lifted, huh?
Pudfark wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 11:15 am
I live in Texas....you live in America.