Gun Confiscation image Reference March 2019

[Reverse chronological order]

 

 

 


 

Advertisements

Gun Confiscation Reference March 2019

[Reverse chronological order]

 

 

 


 

The list of Leftists demanding gun confiscation – Updated to Sep 2018

 

Once again proving that the Liberty grabber claim that ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’ is a lie.

Leftists Lie about their obvious goal of gun confiscation to get people to accept the unlawful control over their private property that will lead to gun confiscation. They do this by denying that they are demanding gun confiscation while demanding gun confiscation. These lists are important in that they clearly illustrate that these denials are just bold-faced Lies.

Simply ordering gun owners to turn over their property is the easiest form of confiscation. This is facilitated with lists of gun owners gleaned from Intergalactic Background Checks [Enhanced, Universal, etc.] or registration. This is why the Leftist Liberty grabbers obsess over these critical steps to their final solution for the gun problem. Please note that this is an abridged list since there are numerous euphemisms for confiscation such as bans based on the use of open-ended phrases [“Military Style” or “Assault Weapons”].

May 2018

Esquire: Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns

Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress

April 2018

Observer: Is It Time to Repeal the Second Amendment?

Vox: Why an assault weapons ban can’t address America’s gun problem

Miami Herald Repeal the Second Amendment — it’s not a crazy idea

Emma González [March for our Lives]: Removing the assault and semi-automatic weapons from our Civilian society, instituting thorough background checks and mandatory waiting periods (and raising the buying age and banning the production of high-capacity magazines) are the ways to stop shootings in America.

March 2018

Paste Magazine: Repeal the Second Amendment, Idiots

USA Today: Repealing the Second Amendment isn’t easy but it’s what March for Our Lives students need

New York Times – John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

The Charlotte News: Ban military-style assault weapons for the sake of our children

Vox: What no politician wants to admit about gun control “taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners”

NAACP President OPINION: Gun Safety Is about Freedom [Australian style gun confiscation – making gun owners an offer they can’t refuse ]

February 2018

Maine Voices: It’s time for a gun abolition movement

We need to stand up to the NRA and push for what is so desperately needed: a complete ban on firearms.

Mercury News – Eugene Robinson

Robinson: Arming teachers is absurd — ban military-style assault rifles

PSMag: Repeal the Second Amendment Already

The Star: Want to end gun violence Mr. President? Get rid of guns

La Times: No one becomes a mass shooter without a mass-shooting gun

It’s Too Late. You’ve Lost Your Guns.

Democrat and Chronicle: Let’s repeal the Second Amendment

New York Times -To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment

November 2017

Splinter news: BAN GUNS

Redhawks Online: Guns must go

Boston Globe: Hand over your weapons

News-Press – USA Today Editorial Board: Renew ban on military-style assault weapons

October 2017

Dan Pfeiffer: What to Bring to the Gun Fight [national gun registry, Tracking and limiting purchases of ammunition and a national gun buyback program]

Eugene Robinson: Gun control should include buyback program like Australia’s

Washington Post: President Trump, end this ‘American carnage’.
[Members of The Washington Post Editorial Board]

The Week: Ban guns

New York Times: The Cancer in the Constitution

New Boston Post-Connecticut Professor: Repeal the Second Amendment

The New York Times: Repeal the Second Amendment

Plan A Magazine: Ban Guns. Amend the Constitution.

(CNN) Sachs: Ban semiautomatic assault weapons and save lives

Forget about ‘gun control,’ let’s repeal the Second Amendment

Prospect magazine: Dear America: it’s time to grow up and ban guns

August 2017

Mike the gun guy [A Magazine With News and Notes From Both Sides About Guns.]

What Guns To Be Safe? Get Rid Of The Guns.

December 2016

Huffington Post: Domestic Disarmament, Not ‘Gun Control’

June 2016

Rolling Stone: Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

Washington Post – Eugene Robinson: Assault weapons must be banned in America

January 2016

W. Kamau Bell [CNN]: I want Obama to take away your guns

Huffington post: Can’t We Just Put the Damn Guns Down?

Anderson Cooper:”Speaking only for myself, watching Obama get repeatedly accused of wanting to take people’s guns away makes me sort of wish he’d just do something to earn that accusation. May as well!”

The Daily Beast: President Obama Isn’t Taking People’s Guns—But Maybe He Should.

December 2015

New Republic: It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.

The New York Times: End the Gun Epidemic in America [First Front Page Editorial In 95 Years]

This editorial published on A1 in the Dec. 5 edition of The New York Times. It is the first time an editorial has appeared on the front page since 1920.

Salon: The Second Amendment must go: We ban lawn darts. It’s time to ban guns

November 2015

The Daily Beast: Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away

October 2015

Hillary Clinton: “In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program.”…..“I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level”

Vox: Becoming a gun-free society would be hard. But we should still try.

Daily Kos: Effective Gun Control – A National Semi-Auto Ban

Washington Post: A gun-free society

Baltimore Sun: Repeal the Second Amendment

Obama: “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”

September 2015

Grieving mom of two slain sons: Get rid of the guns!

January 2015

Tallahassee Democrat – Stop the insanity: Ban guns

June 2014

Obama: A couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it — we’re not seeing that again. And basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws.

May 2014

La Times: You say gun control doesn’t work? Fine. Let’s ban guns altogether.

April 2013

Huffington Post: Gun Control? We Need Domestic Disarmament

February 2013

America Magazine: Repeal the Second Amendment

January 2013

New York Times: [John Howard] I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too.

Vanity Fair – Kurt Eichenwald: Let’s Repeal the Second Amendment

December 2012

Daily Kos: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Detroit Metro Times: Ban all guns, now

Opinionator – New York Times: Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough

House Dem: ‘Turn in your guns’

Huffington Post: It’s Not About the Constitution [Getting rid of the Second Amendment]

Eugene Robinson: First, Get Rid of the Guns

Economist The gun control that works: no guns

July 2012

Huffington Post: Get Rid of the Damn Guns

Mar 2012

Yes conservatives, we want to take away your guns…

February 2011

Arizona Daily Star: Reinstate ban on military-style assault weapons

April 2007

Salon: Repeal the Second Amendment

December 1993

La Times – Taming the Monster: Get Rid of the Guns : More firearms won’t make America safer–they will only accelerate and intensify the heartache and bloodshed

Originally published on the NOQ Report

 

Gun Confiscation Image Reference May 2018

May 2018
[Reverse chronological order]
May 18, 2018
Esquire: Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a20747292/nra-guns-take-them-away/

May 3, 2018
Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/03/ban-assault-weapons-buy-them-back-prosecute-offenders-column/570590002/


Gun Confiscation Reference May 2018

May 2018
[Reverse chronological order]
May 18, 2018
Esquire: Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a20747292/nra-guns-take-them-away/

May 3, 2018
Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/03/ban-assault-weapons-buy-them-back-prosecute-offenders-column/570590002/


 Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns
Young people of America are now expecting to witness gun violence in their schools. It doesn’t have to be that way.
By Dave Holmes May 18, 2018

Anyway, I just wanted to drop you a line and let you know that I now actually do want to take your guns.

All of your guns.

Right now.

All along, there have been opportunities for sensible, incremental changes. This year alone, we could have banned the manufacture of bump stocks, which turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic ones. We could have raised the minimum age for gun ownership from 18 to 21, or instate a national minimum age for long-gun ownership. We haven’t, largely because you have bought our government.

What you have done is double down. What you’ve done is convince your members that the occasional school shooting, the odd literal slaughter of innocents, is an unfortunate but inevitable quirk of American life, a thing that is necessary to preserve freedom. You have taken to our television screens to tell us that the world is an apocalyptic hellscape, and that the only way to be safe from gun violence is to stock our homes with guns.

You pushed legislation that cut funding from the Centers for Disease Control for research on gun safety in America. Research that might conclude that fewer guns would mean fewer gun deaths, which leaves us with…no meaningful research on gun violence in America. Our ongoing studies on car safety have made cars, roads and highways safer—not without risk, but safer—yet no comparable studies can be done on guns.

Here’s what you get for that.

The young people of America are now expecting to witness gun violence in their schools. They are sitting in trigonometry waiting for the other shoe to drop, except the shoe can shoot 400 rounds a minute. That’s the result of all your hard work. There’s your prize. Stand up and take it!

This morning, as an active shooter situation unfolded in his town, this guy decided to show up on the scene with a MAGA hat, a full-size American flag and a pistol on his hip, to…I guess attempt to be a hero? This is what your relentless fear-mongering gets us all: an adult human being taking a gun to a school to be helpful.
..
So now I’m angry. Now I’m finished trying to reason with you. So now I, a guy who was ambivalent about guns just a few years ago, want to take your guns away. All of them. I want to take them all and melt them down and shape them into a giant sphere and then push it at you so you have to run away from it like Indiana Jones for the rest of your lives. I want Ted Nugent to roam the halls of his gunless house, sighing wearily until he dies. I want to end this thing once and for all, so that all of you who have prioritized the sale of guns over the lives of children have to sit quietly and think about what you’ve done. God help me, I want to take all of your guns out of your hands, by myself, right now.

It won’t happen, of course. So let’s meet in the middle. Let’s meet at…literally anything.

It’s happening. We tried it your way, and it really did not work. The ground is shifting. Get ready.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a20747292/nra-guns-take-them-away/

Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress
Eric Swalwell May 3, 2018

Nonetheless, we can give ourselves and our children the chance these victims never had. We can finally act to remove weapons designed for war from our streets, once and for all.

Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.

Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.

There’s something new and different about the surviving Parkland high schoolers’ demands. They dismiss the moral equivalence we’ve made for far too long regarding the Second Amendment. I’ve been guilty of it myself, telling constituents and reporters that “we can protect the Second Amendment and protect lives.”

The Parkland teens have taught us there is no right more important than every student’s right to come home after class. The right to live is supreme over any other.

Our courts haven’t found a constitutional right to have assault weapons, anyway. When the Supreme Court held in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that this right “is not unlimited” and is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Australia got it right. After a man used military-style weapons to kill 35 people in April 1996, that nation adopted strict new measures and bought back 643,726 newly illegal rifles and shotguns at market value. The cost — an estimated $230 million in U.S. dollars at the time — was funded by a temporary 0.2% tax levy on national health insurance.

America won’t get off that cheaply. Gun ownership runs so deep that we don’t even know how many military-style semiautomatic rifles are in U.S. civilian hands.

Based on manufacturing figures and other indirect data, there could be 15 million assault weapons out there. If we offer $200 to buy back each weapon — as many local governments have — then it would cost about $3 billion; at $1,000 each, the cost would be about $15 billion.

It’s no small sum. But let’s put it in context.

The federal government is spending an estimated $4 trillion this year; $15 billion would be 0.375% of that, not that we must spend it all in one year.

Meanwhile, the GOP’s tax “reform” — a giveaway to corporations and the rich that threw comparatively meager scraps to working families — is projected to increase the national debt by $1.9 trillion over the next decade.

What is it worth to American taxpayers to not see our families, friends and neighbors cut down in a hail of gunfire? Consider this an investment in averting carnage and heartache and loss.

America has a deadly problem, a problem other developed nations have avoided or addressed. Some say we’re already too far gone to take corrective action, but we cannot have a defeatist attitude about this. Fixing our problem requires boldness and will be costly, but the cost of letting it fester will be far higher — for our wallets, and for our souls.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/03/ban-assault-weapons-buy-them-back-prosecute-offenders-column/570590002/

 

Gun Confiscation Image Reference April 2018

April 2018
[Reverse chronological order]
April 4, 2018
Observer: Is It Time to Repeal the Second Amendment?
Is It Time to Repeal the Second Amendment?

Apr 3, 2018
Vox: Why an assault weapons ban can’t address America’s gun problem
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/3/17174160/assault-weapons-ban-research-study

April 02, 2018
Miami Herald Repeal the Second Amendment — it’s not a crazy idea
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article207762909.html

April 22, 2018
Emma González [March for our Lives]: Removing the assault and semi-automatic weapons from our Civilian society
https://mobile.twitter.com/Emma4Change/status/988036115579002881


Apr 3, 2018
Vox: Why an assault weapons ban can’t address America’s gun problem
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/3/17174160/assault-weapons-ban-research-study


Other Items:
April 18 2018
What if all guns disappeared?
Take the politics out of it. By the numbers, what would we gain – and lose – if all firearms suddenly were wiped off the face of the planet?
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180417-what-would-happen-if-all-guns-disappeared



Other Items:

What if all guns disappeared?
Take the politics out of it. By the numbers, what would we gain – and lose – if all firearms suddenly were wiped off the face of the planet?
By Rachel Nuwer
18 April 2018

But what would happen if that debate was suddenly and irrevocably put to rest – because there were no guns at all? What if all firearms in the world suddenly disappeared with no way to get them back?

Guns obviously cannot just magically vanish. But this thought experiment allows us to remove politics from the equation and rationally consider what we could gain – and lose – should we ever actually decide to have fewer guns around.

The most obvious effect of such a disappearance is simple: no gun deaths. Approximately 500,000 people around the world are killed by guns each year. In terms of developed countries, the biggest losses are in the US, where citizens own 300 to 350 million guns in total. There, gun homicide rates are more than 25 times higher than the combined rate of other high-income nations.

No more guns would likewise mean safer conditions for police, Miller adds. More than half of the people killed by police in 2016 were armed, and many were exchanging fire with officers when they were shot.

Guns were used in just 10% of terror attacks but accounted for 55% of deaths

Deadly mass attacks by domestic terrorists also would decline. A 2017 study of more than 2,800 attacks in the US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand revealed that guns are by far the most lethal way to kill as many people as possible – even more than explosives or vehicular strikes. Guns were used in just 10% of attacks but accounted for 55% of deaths. In the US, terrorists also prefer guns: out of 16 lethal terrorism-associated attacks since 9/11, all but two involved firearms.

Improbable peace

History shows that violence is ingrained in human nature, however, and guns are by no means a prerequisite for conflict. “Think of the Rwandan genocide,” says David Yamane, a professor of sociology at Wake Forest University in North Carolina. “There was tremendous violence, much without firearms.”

Even when we take the thought experiment to its extreme and imagine all guns disappearing off the face of the Earth, war and civil strife would continue. But rather than revert to more primitive weaponry like spears, swords or bows and arrows, modern nations would likely shift to other forms of killing, including explosives, tanks, missiles and chemical and biological weapons. (Nuclear war, however, would likely remain unappealing given its extreme destructiveness, Gabor says.)

There would likely be a modest net economic gain if guns disappeared

In fact, there would likely be a modest net economic gain if guns disappeared. Gun death and injury-related expenses add up to direct losses of around $10.7 billion (£7 billion) per year, and more than $200 billion (£140 billion) when other factors are taken into account. “In the US, if you look at all the financial costs of gun violence, it’s not just direct medical costs and rehabilitation for people who are shot, but costs to the justice system and lost income of victims, and even quality of life costs,” Gabor says.

Many would be able to breathe easier with guns no longer in the picture, but some gun owners would experience the opposite effect and feel more vulnerable without their weapons. “There are people in the defensive gun world who arm themselves against others – whether that’s larger people, people with knives or others with guns – to equalise the situation,” Yamane says. Removing guns “would definitely leave people who are potential victims of violence unable to defend themselves against stronger, more forceful attackers,” he says.

Removing guns would leave people who are potential victims of violence unable to defend themselves against stronger, more forceful attackers – David Yamane
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180417-what-would-happen-if-all-guns-disappeared

Gun Confiscation Reference April 2018

April 2018
[Reverse chronological order]
April 4, 2018
Observer: Is It Time to Repeal the Second Amendment?
Is It Time to Repeal the Second Amendment?

Apr 3, 2018
Vox: Why an assault weapons ban can’t address America’s gun problem
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/3/17174160/assault-weapons-ban-research-study

April 02, 2018
Miami Herald Repeal the Second Amendment — it’s not a crazy idea
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article207762909.html

April 22, 2018
Emma González [March for our Lives]: Removing the assault and semi-automatic weapons from our Civilian society
https://mobile.twitter.com/Emma4Change/status/988036115579002881


Other Items:
April 18 2018
What if all guns disappeared?
Take the politics out of it. By the numbers, what would we gain – and lose – if all firearms suddenly were wiped off the face of the planet?
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180417-what-would-happen-if-all-guns-disappeared


Is It Time to Repeal the Second Amendment?
By Donald Scarinci • 04/04/18
While the marches and rallies across the nation demanding stronger gun control laws have increased in the wake of the tragic Parkland shooting, they will not amount to much without petitioning for a constitutional amendment.

The protests will achieve legislative reaction in some states like New Jersey. Unfortunately, state laws can provide only mere tweaks to the bigger problem of gun ownership in heavily populated areas. The sole way to solve the problem is to repeal the Second Amendment.

Without federal constitutional protection, states would be free to decide for themselves what restrictions, if any, to place on gun ownership. Less populated states would be free to have liberal gun ownership, including the right to carry. More populated states would be free to create more rigid restrictions on gun ownership and even ban guns completely.

Abolishing the Second Amendment

Most recently, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens lent his support to the repeal of the Second Amendment.

“[D]emonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment,” Justice Stevens wrote in The New York Times. “Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment… Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”
http://observer.com/2018/04/second-amendment-gun-control-new-jersey/

Why an assault weapons ban can’t address America’s gun problem
There’s not much empirical weight behind the ban, although experts say it could reduce mass shooting deaths.
By German Lopez@germanrlopez Apr 3, 2018

The assault weapons ban is one of the top policy proposals from March for Our Lives and other gun control advocates. But it’s also one of the gun control measures with the least supportive evidence behind it.

The typical argument for the ban: Weapons of war have no place in American communities. These high-velocity, high-capacity weapons are particularly deadly, even more so than other semiautomatic firearms such as handguns. They have also been used disproportionately in mass shootings. And they aren’t needed for hunting or self-defense. So they should be banned altogether.

All these claims have a certain intuitive sense behind them. What they don’t have, however, is a whole lot of empirical evidence, based on my discussions with gun policy experts and researchers. Studies on assault weapons bans have generally ranged from inconclusive to unfavorable toward a ban.

That doesn’t mean an assault weapons ban would have absolutely no effect. Consider the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas. In that case, the gunman parked himself on the 32nd floor of a hotel near a country music concert and fired indiscriminately into the crowd with assault weapons — which were also retooled with bump stocks to mimic the firepower of machine guns. He killed 58 people and injured hundreds.

Bump stock or not, it stands to reason that the shooting would have been much less lethal if the shooter didn’t use an assault weapon and used, say, a more conventional handgun instead. The bullets would have had shorter range, and those that hit would have had lower velocity and therefore caused less damage. In a shooting with such a high casualty count, that could’ve translated to potentially hundreds of injuries averted — although the shooter also could have changed his approach without access to assault weapons.

Still, it’s worth putting this in context: This kind of violence is already relatively infrequent. Mass shooting deaths make up less than 4 percent of gun homicides in the US, while shootings with rifles, including assault weapons, make up less than 3 percent. So pushing assault weapons out of circulation wouldn’t have a big impact on overall gun violence in America, even if it has an outsize impact on some particularly awful tragedies.

These are just some of the complications that limit an assault weapons ban’s effectiveness. So while the policy may seem intuitive, there isn’t much evidence to support it — and in a world with limited political capital for gun reforms, those gaps in the research need to be taken seriously.
Previous bans had no significant effect on gun crime

The most cited review of the evidence is a 2013 analysis by researcher Christopher Koper on the effect of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, which lawmakers let expire in 2004.

The analysis concluded, “The ban did not appear to affect gun crime during the time it was in effect, but some evidence suggests it may have modestly reduced gunshot victimizations had it remained in place for a longer period.”

That was partially, Koper wrote, because the 1994 ban was riddled with loopholes.

To understand why, consider a surprisingly tricky question in this discussion: What is an assault weapon, and how do you define it? For lawmakers, these questions have posed a challenge over the years.

People might have a vision of an assault weapon in their heads — say, a semiautomatic rifle like an AR-15 — but defining what makes that an assault weapon can be difficult. Is it that it’s semiautomatic? Well, there are semiautomatic handguns and hunting rifles too. Is it the high velocity and long range? Traditional hunting rifles can also have those features. Is it the pistol grip? That offers an easy way around the law then — if someone could just remove a pistol grip, then it’s no longer an illegal assault weapon.

Ultimately, the 1994 ban settled on a definition of assault weapons that included, among other features, “pistol grips on rifles, flash hiders, folding rifle stocks, threaded barrels for attaching silencers, and the ability to accept ammunition magazines holding large numbers of bullets,” as well as some specific guns by name and “copies or duplicates” of them, Koper wrote. That captured some handguns, on top of the rifles that people might typically think of as assault weapons.

But the ban was still easily bypassed, Koper noted: “Relatively cosmetic changes, such as removing a flash hider or bayonet mount, were thus sufficient to transform a banned weapon into a legal substitute. In this sense, the law is perhaps best understood not as a gun ban but as a law that restricted weapon accessories.” Gun manufacturers took advantage of this, producing modified versions of previous weapons to make them legal — blowing a big hole in the law.
A young boy fires an AR-15 at a shooting range. A young boy fires an AR-15 at a shooting range. Ryan Houston via Getty Images

Plus, guns made and owned prior to the ban were grandfathered in, making them legal to own and transfer. That comprised at least 1.5 million assault weapons in the US at the start of the ban, according to Koper.

This gets into another tricky aspect of banning assault weapons: Do past guns get to stay around, or are there efforts to take those out of circulation through, for instance, a buyback program or a mandatory registration-and-tax scheme (similar to current laws for automatic weapons)? The 1994 ban took the former approach, but March for Our Lives has called for the latter with a new ban.

The 1994 ban was also attached to a ban on high-capacity magazines that carried more than 10 rounds, which Koper suggested was arguably the law’s “most important provision.” That’s in part because this ban also affected the firearms that weren’t covered by the assault weapons ban, so it could affect a much broader level of gun violence. Indeed, a study from February by Koper suggested that high-capacity magazines may be involved more often in typical shooting deaths than previously thought.

But at the end of the day, Koper found that the 1994 ban had no significant effect on gun crime — although it may have had some modest effects if it had been allowed to stay around for longer and over time pushed more assault weapons and high-capacity magazines out of circulation.

Koper’s analysis had two big gaps: It didn’t look at the 1994 ban’s effect on mass shootings, and it didn’t analyze state laws.

For that, the best review of the evidence is an extensive report by the RAND Corporation released in March, which looked at US studies on gun control, including assault weapons bans at the state level.

Here, too, the news is not good for an assault weapons ban. RAND found that the available studies were often contradictory. Focusing specifically on the most rigorous studies, RAND found the evidence for bans’ effects on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines on mass shootings and violent crime in general to be “inconclusive.”

“None of [the studies] provided what we considered to be any kind of conclusive evidence,” Andrew Morral, the head of RAND’s gun policy initiative, told me.

“The studies are pretty weak,” Morral said. “Also, a lot of these bans have been pretty weak” — noting many of the same loopholes that the Koper analysis did.

But what if an assault weapons ban wasn’t weak — and really took these guns out of circulation? The US could, for example, follow Australia’s lead and ban a much broader category of semiautomatic rifles and institute a mandatory buyback program — basically, a firearm confiscation scheme. Would that have a significant effect?
A ban would have little effect on overall gun violence but maybe some on mass shootings

Experts said that even a more effective ban on assault weapons likely wouldn’t have much of an impact on overall gun violence in the US.

That’s because only a small percentage of overall gun violence involves assault weapons, with the great majority of firearm homicides involving more conventional handguns. And Morral said there’s no reason to believe an assault weapons ban would have any effect on suicides, which have in recent years made up around 60 percent of all gun deaths.

In a country with so many gun deaths, cutting even a percentage point or two of overall gun deaths could still save hundreds of lives a year. But in terms of addressing America’s overall gun problem, it just wouldn’t have a big impact.

Still, experts said that an assault weapons ban may have a significant effect on the lethality of mass shootings.

Assault weapons’ “functionality is really most relevant in the context of a public mass shooting,” Daniel Webster, the director at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, told me.

The research still isn’t good in this area, in large part because there is no single accepted database for tracking mass shootings and what weapons they involve. But there are some analyses that can be drawn on.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/3/17174160/assault-weapons-ban-research-study

Repeal the Second Amendment — it’s not a crazy idea
By Christopher M. Norwood April 02, 2018
Gun control will never get around the Second Amendment. We can dance around it like Muhammad Ali, perhaps jab at it with policy like Sugar Ray. But we will never Tyson TKO gun control without amending — or completely repealing the Second Amendment so that individual states can determine for themselves how to regulate personal gun use.

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens agrees. He recently challenged young activists to take it a step further and, “Seek more effective and more lasting reform … demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”

We’ve never held an Article V Constitution Convention. Why not a Constitutional Convention to discuss gun control among other proposed changes? I think individual states in today’s world should decide this issues. Shootings kill more than 36,000 Americans each year; every day, there is a average of 96 deaths and 222 injuries by gun violence. Of all firearm homicides in the world, 82 percent occur in the United States. African-American children have the highest rates of firearm mortality overall; they are 10 times more likely to be killed by guns in a country where African-Americans make up 14 percent of the population.

Florida should be leading an effort for a U.S. Constitutional Convention. The country is under assault because Democrats and reasonable Republicans will not address racially charged appeals with big ideas that bring people together. But big ideas win elections.

Christopher M. Norwood, J.D. is spokesman for the Democratic Black Caucus of Florida and a Democratic Executive Committee member for Miami-Dade County.
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article207762909.html

April 22, 2018
Emma González [March for our Lives]: Removing the assault and semi-automatic weapons from our Civilian society
https://mobile.twitter.com/Emma4Change/status/988036115579002881


Other Items:

What if all guns disappeared?
Take the politics out of it. By the numbers, what would we gain – and lose – if all firearms suddenly were wiped off the face of the planet?
By Rachel Nuwer
18 April 2018

But what would happen if that debate was suddenly and irrevocably put to rest – because there were no guns at all? What if all firearms in the world suddenly disappeared with no way to get them back?

Guns obviously cannot just magically vanish. But this thought experiment allows us to remove politics from the equation and rationally consider what we could gain – and lose – should we ever actually decide to have fewer guns around.

The most obvious effect of such a disappearance is simple: no gun deaths. Approximately 500,000 people around the world are killed by guns each year. In terms of developed countries, the biggest losses are in the US, where citizens own 300 to 350 million guns in total. There, gun homicide rates are more than 25 times higher than the combined rate of other high-income nations.

No more guns would likewise mean safer conditions for police, Miller adds. More than half of the people killed by police in 2016 were armed, and many were exchanging fire with officers when they were shot.

Guns were used in just 10% of terror attacks but accounted for 55% of deaths

Deadly mass attacks by domestic terrorists also would decline. A 2017 study of more than 2,800 attacks in the US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand revealed that guns are by far the most lethal way to kill as many people as possible – even more than explosives or vehicular strikes. Guns were used in just 10% of attacks but accounted for 55% of deaths. In the US, terrorists also prefer guns: out of 16 lethal terrorism-associated attacks since 9/11, all but two involved firearms.

Improbable peace

History shows that violence is ingrained in human nature, however, and guns are by no means a prerequisite for conflict. “Think of the Rwandan genocide,” says David Yamane, a professor of sociology at Wake Forest University in North Carolina. “There was tremendous violence, much without firearms.”

Even when we take the thought experiment to its extreme and imagine all guns disappearing off the face of the Earth, war and civil strife would continue. But rather than revert to more primitive weaponry like spears, swords or bows and arrows, modern nations would likely shift to other forms of killing, including explosives, tanks, missiles and chemical and biological weapons. (Nuclear war, however, would likely remain unappealing given its extreme destructiveness, Gabor says.)

There would likely be a modest net economic gain if guns disappeared

In fact, there would likely be a modest net economic gain if guns disappeared. Gun death and injury-related expenses add up to direct losses of around $10.7 billion (£7 billion) per year, and more than $200 billion (£140 billion) when other factors are taken into account. “In the US, if you look at all the financial costs of gun violence, it’s not just direct medical costs and rehabilitation for people who are shot, but costs to the justice system and lost income of victims, and even quality of life costs,” Gabor says.

Many would be able to breathe easier with guns no longer in the picture, but some gun owners would experience the opposite effect and feel more vulnerable without their weapons. “There are people in the defensive gun world who arm themselves against others – whether that’s larger people, people with knives or others with guns – to equalise the situation,” Yamane says. Removing guns “would definitely leave people who are potential victims of violence unable to defend themselves against stronger, more forceful attackers,” he says.

Removing guns would leave people who are potential victims of violence unable to defend themselves against stronger, more forceful attackers – David Yamane
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180417-what-would-happen-if-all-guns-disappeared