This is why we need to stop being such douchebags about gun violence research

[Barrister]

I found it pretty chilling that a fellow on a FBI watchlist, a wifebeater with a nutjob father, could legally buy a fairly impressive weapon so easily 

Even Trump seems to agree http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36540388

He wasn't actually on the watchlist at the time.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Eh, I somewhat agree with berkut, somewhat agree with derspiess. There's no good reason to block studies, information is always good.

I would genuinely like to know why GSWs are becoming more lethal, because as a pretty gun savvy guy I'm not aware of any technological changes in the past 20 years that would cause this. It makes me wonder (and again, as berk points out, we have no data) that shooters may be more lethal in intent these days. I.e. they're may be some cultural reasons they're making sure they finish the job for sure, but I don't know why that would be.

In terms of lethality size of the bullet and composition of it are the largest factors, and the most deadly rounds aren't anything new--high caliber hollow point, they make big holes and break up inside the body and do horrific damage. Probably the most lethal round widely available at least at 25 yard range or so would probably be 00 buckshot, and that's 100 year old technology.

Most newer/exotic rounds are more about weird use cases, armor piercing stuff, etc. But those can actually be less lethal against a target not wearing armor.

I will say that as a gun owner who would be fine with more restrictions, every AWB ban that's been proposed since Newtown, and the one in effect from '94-2004 are stupid and will do little to prevent gun deaths. Plus they focus on something that in aggregate doesn't matter. The gun debate we do focus more on spectacle than reality. There's some 33,000 odd gun deaths a year, the vast majority are suicides (20,000), and I think the vast majority of those are with handguns. I think of the 8000 or so homicides, most of those are with handguns too. Rifles are responsible for I believe less than 1k fatalities a year, and only a subset of those fatalities is ascribed to "semiautomatic scary-makes Dianne Feinstein cry" type guns affected by proposed AWBs.

As for being on a FBI watchlist, the reality is he wasn't. He was in a database sometimes called a watchlist, but it's easy to get on that--and there's no due process at all. I'd be very hesitant to infringe on someone's rights because of the result of a process that involves no due process. To be honest both things they investigated him for were nonsense. He made some dumb statements and got looked at in 2013 and he basically admitted he was mad and said something stupid. Then in I think 2014 he said he knew a guy who was a suicide bomber in Syria. They investigated and found while he had had contact with him, it was extremely minimal. I'm not really sure what the FBI was supposed to do at that point, none of the things mentioned are criminal, or would even warrant charges. He wasn't even on the no-fly list.

On the other side, he was a licensed security guard and had gone through a lot of hoops for that purposes, and even worked as an armed guard at a courthouse. I think there was little ability or reasonable way to stop Mateen without some draconian measures (like blanket deep surveillance of any "angry Muslims") that itself would raise serious constitutional concerns.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I should mention there is some data out there. CDC is banned from doing studies, but the DOJ has done a few and the FBI's UCR is informative as well. FWIW in 2004 when the AWB expired the DOJ did a study on it and concluded it essentially prevented no crime, and said the most effective part of the ban was the restriction on high capacity magazines--but even then they noted they "expect" the difference between 10 and 30 round magazines might represent no more than a 5% difference in number of fatalities in a mass shooting event.

Plus, as has been mentioned, 30 round magazines were not illegal at all (so they weren't like crystal meth.) The AWB just prohibited manufacturers from making them "for the civilian market", any produced before 1994 were still legal to buy/sell/possess. If state law allowed (and some did not and still do not.)

[Josquius]

It's pretty obvious that gun control reduces gun crime. Absolute no brainer.

I'm actually pretty hopeful for the future on this issue. In light of Sander's recent success it is really clear that America is changing. Who would have thought 5 years ago that a socialist would be able to put such a good showing in the US?
Give it a decade or two and views on gun control across a majority should have similarly became far more moderate.

[derspiess]

Right. It is "pretty easy" so we should, of course and obviously, make it continue to be "pretty easy" forever and ever. Indeed, we should make it even easier.

The expiration of the ban didn't change how you buy them.  It just changed the way they were labeled.  It was stupid.

E:  Or maybe not: https://www.massfirearmsshop.com/preban-usgi-ar15-round-magazine-p-3925.html  They still list them as pre-ban even.

In states that have enacted their own Assault Weapons Bans, like Massachusetts, pre-ban magazines and pre-ban scary looking rifles with flash hiders and bayonet lugs are legal to own.  So you kind of need to label them pre-ban there so people know it's legal for them to have them.

[garbon]

but even then they noted they "expect" the difference between 10 and 30 round magazines might represent no more than a 5% difference in number of fatalities in a mass shooting event.

Well 5% is not exactly insignificant when we are talking about human lives...

[derspiess]

It's pretty obvious that gun control reduces gun crime. Absolute no brainer.

I'd say the Assault Weapons Ban had no noticeable effect on crime.  All it really did was outlaw aesthetic features-- unless drive-by bayonetings were a big problem prior to 1994.

[Valmy]

It's pretty obvious that gun control reduces gun crime. Absolute no brainer.

I'd say the Assault Weapons Ban had no noticeable effect on crime.  All it really did was outlaw aesthetic features-- unless drive-by bayonetings were a big problem prior to 1994.

A mass bayonetting would be pretty old school.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It's pretty obvious that gun control reduces gun crime. Absolute no brainer.

I'm actually pretty hopeful for the future on this issue. In light of Sander's recent success it is really clear that America is changing. Who would have thought 5 years ago that a socialist would be able to put such a good showing in the US?
Give it a decade or two and views on gun control across a majority should have similarly became far more moderate.

Only gun control that reduces gun numbers, which neither the 1994 AWB or any subsequently proposed ones have. Australia took action after Port Arthur, with all the states agreeing on a unified gun control regime, and they had a huge national buyback in which like 650,000 guns were purchased by the government. Every few years since then they've had amnesties as well, where hold outs could surrender the guns they held onto illegal without penalty.

[OttoVonBismarck]

but even then they noted they "expect" the difference between 10 and 30 round magazines might represent no more than a 5% difference in number of fatalities in a mass shooting event.

Well 5% is not exactly insignificant when we are talking about human lives...

Eh, at societal scale "5% of mass shooting fatalities" is pretty much nothing. How many people die in a "mass shooting" each year? It's estimated we might have 5% less deaths of that number.

Edit: You can't just use "human lives" to justify everything. If every car in America was required to have an ignition interlock device (like drunks get after they have too many DUIs) I bet we'd save thousands of lives a year. But there's a cost to that as well (the cost of the device) and the hassle, to people who have not actually ever driven drunk and may view it as an unfair imposition.

[Valmy]

We are not going to have effective gun control without a Constitutional amendment. The Gun lobby knows this so like hell do they want possibly persuasive gun violence research out there being funded by US tax dollars.

[garbon]

but even then they noted they "expect" the difference between 10 and 30 round magazines might represent no more than a 5% difference in number of fatalities in a mass shooting event.

Well 5% is not exactly insignificant when we are talking about human lives...

Eh, at societal scale "5% of mass shooting fatalities" is pretty much nothing. How many people die in a "mass shooting" each year? It's estimated we might have 5% less deaths of that number.

But what's the downside of eliminating said deaths (apart from expenditure of political capital)? Or from the flipside, hardly seems like we are gaining much by keeping with those 5% of deaths from mass shootings.

[Barrister]

but even then they noted they "expect" the difference between 10 and 30 round magazines might represent no more than a 5% difference in number of fatalities in a mass shooting event.

Well 5% is not exactly insignificant when we are talking about human lives...

Eh, at societal scale "5% of mass shooting fatalities" is pretty much nothing. How many people die in a "mass shooting" each year? It's estimated we might have 5% less deaths of that number.

Edit: You can't just use "human lives" to justify everything. If every car in America was required to have an ignition interlock device (like drunks get after they have too many DUIs) I bet we'd save thousands of lives a year. But there's a cost to that as well (the cost of the device) and the hassle, to people who have not actually ever driven drunk and may view it as an unfair imposition.

There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people.  A 5% reduction means 24 people aren't dead.  That sounds pretty good to me.

[frunk]

I think it's likely that the reason for the number and severity of gunshot wounds increasing is precisely because medical technology is improving.  People usually don't shoot someone to injure, they want to kill them.  If the victim manages to stay alive then it didn't work, and so the perpetrator is going to resort to stronger methods next time.

[MadBurgerMaker]

In states that have enacted their own Assault Weapons Bans, like Massachusetts, pre-ban magazines and pre-ban scary looking rifles with flash hiders and bayonet lugs are legal to own.  So you kind of need to label them pre-ban there so people know it's legal for them to have them.

I don't think California allows these things at all, or at least not without some huge license.  I think I'd have to remove some stuff (grenade launcher and bayonet) from my SKS to make it legal over there, even though that has zero effect on anything unless I wanted to perform a bayonet charge or get nailed by ATF for trying to buy NATO rifle grenades.