True enough, although when one is on the increase in that context it is at least worthy of remark.

If the level of drunk driving deaths is not acceptable, but is falling...

Is the similar level of gun deaths (even by your uncaring omission of suicide and accident) also unacceptable? And is it even less acceptable that it is rising rather than falling?

no blown gasket from me,
both are unacceptable, both should be improved upon. You have never heard me claim we should not tighten/enforce existing gun laws, you never heard me say we had no room for new gun laws either, Nope, I simply stated the suggested ban is foolish and ineffectual.

Even if the last time there was an assault weapons ban, gun deaths fell at a faster rate than the prevailing trend in crime, and since then gun deaths have started to increase despite no real rise in overall crime?

Anyway, I guess the question is which is more of a concern? Surely the one with the upwatds trend in dead Americans would be more worrying than the one with the downwards trend?

Sure, we can still do more to increase the reduction in drunk driving deaths, but what would you actually support to reverse the increase in gun deaths?

But gun deaths attributed to assault weapons is near nil, the ban would have relatively no affect. As has been the case before and would continue to be. All these examples yet assault weapons are a drop in the bucket, statistically nothing to speak of.

Here's an idea that worked to lessen drunk driving as well as tobacco use, we stopped having these things shown on television. You do not see smoking or drinking for the most part, why allow such senseless gun play in TV and movies? If it's freedom of speech, well why allow limits on smoking? Why accept the limit on free speech for tobacco but not for guns?
We do have answers that few are willing to accept that fall short of actual bans.

GMTom wrote:But gun deaths attributed to assault weapons is near nil, the ban would have relatively no affect. As has been the case before and would continue to be. All these examples yet assault weapons are a drop in the bucket, statistically nothing to speak of.

So what is your explanation of the fall in the 1990s, and subsequent rise?

There is not just the banning, there is the messaging that it sends, and also to an extent the de-escalation of potential conflict generally.

Here's an idea that worked to lessen drunk driving as well as tobacco use, we stopped having these things shown on television. You do not see smoking or drinking for the most part, why allow such senseless gun play in TV and movies? If it's freedom of speech, well why allow limits on smoking? Why accept the limit on free speech for tobacco but not for guns?
We do have answers that few are willing to accept that fall short of actual bans.

Got no problem with that as part of the solution. Not sure on it's own it would do a lot, but as part of a solution it's not a bad suggestion.

Of course, while smoking rarely appears any more, and drinking less than it used to (but frankly I see quite a bit in US shows and movies so not sure where you get the idea it's gone away almost completely), there are also the contexts around them - social disapproval of smoking, and drinking and driving, are very important in reducing their prevalence.

what is YOUR explanation? (the two stats do not match well in the least, pretty clearly non-related)
assault weapons clearly play no part, why the insistence they have any part whatsoever?
assault weapons have had little part in the overwhelming number of gun crimes before the ban, they had little part during the ban, they had little part after the ban. Yet you want us to think this assault weapon ban played a role?
...Maybe it's global warming? Global warming stats also have nothing to do with the gun statistics so why not claim they do???

fyi, you will see plenty of beer commercials here, you will NEVER see anyone actually drinking the product! I am not certain of the tv show laws but have a feeling they too may be quite similar, you see people at a bar, drinks in hand, but do we actually see them drink? I think it is legal to show, but we seldom do because the networks simply cave. (movies are quite different)

GMTom wrote:what is YOUR explanation? (the two stats do not match well in the least, pretty clearly non-related)

Please show us graphic data to show this non-relation, a total lack of correlation.

Should be easy to do. DF provided already a graph showing the trend in gun homicides. Place on that graph when the Assault weapons ban came into force.

Try and find the trend for the past 7 years (DF's graph only goes up to 2005) as well.

My explanation, is that while homicide rates fell generally as part of the downward trend in overall crime (the one that Sass noted has been noticed across many countries), the reduction in gun homicides was faster once the Assault Weapons ban came into force than the overall crime trend.

While you may claim there can't be any relation between additional restrictions on assault weapon ownership and deaths from guns, I think it's perhaps slightly more likely than a link to climate, don;t you?

Remember, of course, that current stats are what is being used by pro-gun lobbyists to show low assault weapon use. However, that doesn't speak for the late 90s.

Similarly, since then the market has changed, in reaction to the ban (even though it was repealed) so that guns that are very close to assault status are not quite (such as some of the AR-15 versions that have been used in recent mass murders and attempts).

But the other side to it is that restrictions also hit criminals making life a bit harder - if agencies are after illegal weapons, that includes not only any banned weapon, but weapons illegally held.

Tom, assault weapons have a recent history, where they have shown to be particularly destructive in mass shootings... surely that evidence is all that is required to understand that they need to be singled out.
Bazookas are outlawed. Because their massive destructive power is understood. Not because hundreds of civilians died from bazooka shells in the past...

Banning weapons of mass destruction should not be dependent on the historical carnage but the logical deduction that the weapons destructive potential is too great a risk. Unfortunately, that conclusion was not arrived at, and the former ban of assault weapons was lifted. Since then I can think of Colorado and Sandy Hook....I'm sure there are others.

What justification is there for civilians owning and keeping at home a bazooka? What justification can there be be for the assault weapons? If bazookas can be "banned" without a history why not assault weapons which do have a history.?

The Texas Bell Tower Shooting had 14 people killed and 32 people wounded and he did not use an assault weapon. Should we do away with bell towers because of this shooting? The strategic advantage of a bell tower is huge, the carnage from such an advantage can not be ignored and history has shown this to be dangerous! The "potential" is there.

What justification is there for a person to own an assault weapon?
well this is where you are attempting to use your personal reasoning and rationale isn't it? Who are YOU to decide what will suffice? Just about every handgun made any more is a semiautomatic, this ban you suggest would allow handguns that can be concealed but the rifle should be banned simply because it's scary looking!
Call for a ban on handguns, let's see how that goes for you...

The ban on assault weapons showed no additional decline in deaths, when it was rescinded, there was no rise in deaths, that shows no correlation.

Tom, as before, please can you show figures to back up that last set of assertions.

It's not another 'assumption' is it?

tom

The Texas Bell Tower Shooting had 14 people killed and 32 people wounded and he did not use an assault weapon. Should we do away with bell towers because of this shooting? The strategic advantage of a bell tower is huge, the carnage from such an advantage can not be ignored and history has shown this to be dangerous! The "potential" is there.

The Tower became an advantageous position for a sniper. But didn't become dangerous until someone with a rifle entered the tower. By itself the tower was not a threat and hadn't been since it was built.
. Moreover, a man with a rifle bent on an act of madness does not require a tower, when he has a rifle. Or worse, a semi automatic rifle or gun.. So you tell me. What element in the equation actually creates the dangerous situation?
Without the rifle, what was he going to do? Throw rocks from the tower?

What justification is there for a person to own an assault weapon?
well this is where you are attempting to use your personal reasoning and rationale isn't it?

No, I was actually asking for your reasoning.
I'm sure you have some sound logic that makes as much sense as your Texas Tower example.

numbers to back up my last set of assertions?
..I'm looking at your chart!

the only "assertion" made was your guess that maybe the very slight and very recent uptick years after the ban ended was possibly due to the end of the ban that had been ended for several years. Yet how many murders are committed with assault rifles? Please point to that statistic being alarmingly high, again, hand gun crimes of all sorts are out of hand but the ban being requested is on assault rifles and thems not the problem.

ok, thanks for playing.
The man had a RIFLE, it was not an "assault rifle" it was not a modern day hand gun that can shoot semiautomatically. So why the ban on assault rifles? It could have been worse with one, it could have been less if the tower was not there, you want to claim assault rifles are bad but hand guns are not? Nope, they fire the same way, they have similar damage (hand guns are usually more damaging in fact) and hand guns can be concealed, but no, you harp about assault rifles being banned while semiautomatic hand guns are legal!? We all know you want no handguns at all, that is your agenda, that is the first step you and other liberals make. Please drop this rifle issue and get to the real facts, semiautomatic handguns and all handguns for that matter are what you want banned and the rifles are hardly an issue in the least!

Its step one, an "achievable" gain you want to first get before the next small step and then the next, banning assault rifles does nothing and you know it!

my reasoning for owning an assault rifle by the way...
if semiautomatic handguns are legal (and they most certainly are, few can be found that are not) then it is simply ones choice of what they are comfortable with. Aiming a rifle is easier for many, less chance of it going missing, maybe a bigger intimidation effect on a crook, doesn't really matter what reason I think, it is up to the individual isn't it?

and fyi
all this hype over assault weapons, it really is hype
the ATF definition of an assault weapon:
a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

* a folding or telescoping stock
* a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
* a bayonet mount
* a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
* a grenade launcher

it's all about how it LOOKS, scary rifles are banned, what the heck good does that do?
If you want your hand guns banned then say so, do something about that, but this nonsense about assault rifle bans is just pandering to a stupid public in your goal to get to no hand guns.

So why the ban on assault rifles?

Sandy Hook Elementary is justification enough.
Add in the Colorado Movie theatre and the evidence is that they are extraordinarily powerful, deadly weapons of mass destruction that should not be in civilians hands.

Your point about all semi-automatics is understood. But the point you making is really not aimed at contradicting a ban of assault weapons but rather is a likely argument for expanding the ban to all semi automatic weapons. You get that right?