Why does banning assault weapons, like the AR-15 used by Trump supporter Nikolas Cruz in the MAGA massacre, make sense? The obvious answer is that they are used to kill kids, to which Republicans reply, however absurd, that so are knives, fists, cars etc. So it would be beneficial, if we could we could prove that banning such weapons is beneficial. In fact, we can.
With the NRA continuing to watch its corporate support crumble, it is struggling to provide responses to basic facts about the links between mass shootings and high-powered rifles.
The latest round of obfuscation came Sunday, when NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch tangled with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.
In her appearance, Loesch repeatedly danced around Stephanopoulos’s point that, during the U.S.’s decade-long ban on assault weapons, both incidents and deaths due to the weapons dropped dramatically. As Stephanopoulos pointed out, research from the University of Massachusetts’ Louis Klarevas found that, from 1994-2004, there were only 12 incidents – about one per year – due to assault weapons, totaling some 89 deaths.
In the decade following, however, both numbers spiked. From 2004-2014, there were 34 incidents involving assault weapons – and over 300 deaths… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Think Progress>
Here’s the video:
There’s nothing the NRA won’t do to obfuscate for their Republican masters, but these facts don’t lie.
RESIST THE REPUBLICAN REICH!!
8 Responses to “Why Banning Assault Weapons Makes Sense”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I personally find it helpful to remember that the Second amendment was worded the way it was specifically to protect the Southern States’ use of slave patrols. Of course AR-15’s and similar weapons did not exist at the time, but if they had, I don’t see them wanting to use that type of weapon. They would have been risking damaging the “property” of the landowners whose “property” they were charged with returning. Those “servants” would never have been the same again. Landowners would not have been happy campers.
Germany, Australia, UK, and Japan have gun control. We would do well to learn from them, and to protect our populace. We are in crisis mode here. Something has got to be done to counter these unnecessary deaths!! Mass shootings in the US: Sadly, there have been 1,624 in 1,870 days
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/oct/02/america-mass-shootings-gun-violence
Outlawing private ownership of military-grade weapons does not in any way impinge on the right to keep and bear arms. Can a private citizen own a bazooka, or a grenade launcher, or a tank, etc.? I have no problem with responsible people owning pistols or shotguns or rifles – but there’s no need to arm yourself like another Rambo.
You mean I can’t have a nuke?
?
WTH? I couldn’t catch all of Dana Loesch’s last statement but it sounded something like France had a higher death rate [from mass shootings?] in one year than the two administrations of Barak Obama combined. As France has strict gun laws, like all EU countries, she must be referring to the terrorist attack in Paris, where ISIS terrorists killed 130 people by bombing, but most of them with Russian AKS assault rifles, which they had smuggled in from some Baltic state or East-European country where they are still used in the military. Not only did Loesch pull some fake numbers from her a$$, she actually proves George Stephanopoulos point: the death rate, as she calls it, goes up in any country when (illegal) assault weapons are used. Pathetic.
Her statement has as much value as saying that America has the two airlines with the worst safety records are United Airlines and American Airlines, because they had four planes crash in one single day, three of them into buildings.
I caught that too, but knew that there was no way it could be true.
Thanks all! OGIM Hugs! ?
Lona, you are spot on with Loesch’s comment at the end of the interview. She did indeed say “… France had a higher death rate [from mass shootings?] in one year than the two administrations of Barak Obama combined”. What she does not say is the context for her claim. My first reaction to her statement was that she is mixing apples and oranges, and is purposely lying and deceiving people with her claims. France does have strict gun laws, but those deaths come at the hands of foreign terrorists, not a disgruntled, mentally ill domestic terrorist and former student like Cruz.
This from Wikipedia about the Charlie Hebdo attack and subsequent related attacks in France in January 2015:
Loesch, and the NRA as it is today, are despicable purveyors of lies and death. There is absolutely no need for the general public to have access to military style weapons like the AR-15.
Canada has strict weapons laws also. Despite that, there have been a couple of mass shootings
From the National Observer:
Albeit, these stats are for firearms murders, not just assault weapons murders, the numbers are frightening. I wonder what the founding fathers would say about the 2nd amendment now, how it has become almost a religion unto itself. Personally, I think they must me rolling in their graves!
I read a report that Wayne LaPierre is lashing out at Drumpf for his comments on bump stocks and increasing background checks. So, will any of Drumpf’s proposals, inadequate as they are, come to fruition? Or will he just ignore what he said? I think the latter.