[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Jazzman: Not asking this facetiously, but what questions do you feel still need to be asked?

There was a ban on assault weapons that included a reduction in magazine capacities to less than 10 rounds. Subsequent to the ban’s sunset, groups as diverse as the National Institute of Justice (NIJ, the research arm of the Department of Justice), the CDC and the National Research Council, all issued reports on the effectiveness of the ban. Nearly universally, it was held to not have worked, largely because those weapons deemed as “assault weapons” are infrequently used in gun murders. Also, reduced capacity magazines did not negatively impact gun murder rates, either.

There has also been similar reportage on universal background checks, which found that due to strawman purchases (47%) and theft (26%), the efficacy of such checks would be reduced. Implementing a universal background check that solely focused on minimizing strawman purchases was held to be of benefit, but hugely costly and cumbersome.

Coming so shortly on the heels of the Newtown strategy, the president’s push for gun control was political theater (especially with his pervasive use of either children or first responders at his various speaking venues), combined with opportunism. Obama is a skilled orator and campaigner and undoubtedly struck while the iron was hot. If anything demonstrates the sheer muscle of the NRA, it was this Senate vote.[/quote]

Isn’t the assault weapon ban argument related to the mass killings arena, and not the general debate on gun murders?

If background checks are hugely expensive, what are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? My understanding is these wars were fought to protect the American people.

I believe (maybe naively) the President actually wants to do something to prevent gun violence. The theatrics seem to be on both sides, but the pro-gun lobby is going for the Oscar.

As my post above points out, a major obstacle would appear to be that research into the whole gun issue was banned by law. Much of the debate therefore is vulnerable to bias, and you are never quite sure who to believe. To me, the overwhelming number of anti-gun reports align more readily with conventional wisdom. The pro-gun lobby seems to have been very active in presenting facts (or otherwise) that support their argument. I am hard pressed to take them seriously, especially since we know how much ($$$) is at stake.

Look, death is an unpleasant business, and if you don’t believe so, society has no place for you. Minimizing death is the calling, and the quickest, most effective start in that direction is reducing access to deadly weapons. I would be very suspicious of any ‘impartial’ research that would purport to prove otherwise. The other more complex causes such as socio-economic should be tackled, but will take longer.

It’s regrettable the issue has become politicized.