Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".

Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc.....

If we are talking about the gun side of things and not the school security side of things, the only real gun legislation that would go towards greatly reducing the chance of these terrible shootings is to basically not only have gun laws like the UK but then also confiscate the 300-400 million guns in the US. And Vanderbilt has a better chance of blowing out Alabama by 40 this year than that has of happening anytime soon.

Given that, it just feels like dems use these very horrifying events as a political tool and talking point. Which is disgusting imo.

And no, it's not 'the republican's fault' that we don't have UK style gun laws and that we don't go out and confiscate 400 million firearms here. It's the 'fault' of the american citizenry. Which also goes back to my opinion that democrats attempt to use these events for political gain. And if you think it isn't the fault of americans and what they want regarding guns, you aren't interpreting the polls correctly. Citing a poll that shows 68% or whatever of americans would support some useless piece of gun legislation that wouldn't do anything about these mass shootings doesn't have anything to do with the type of legislation and policy changes(ie forced gun confiscation) that it would take to decrease the likelihood of future mass shootings. And as I've said before, it also doesn't take into account the relative passion levels of the 32% that don't want even that meaningless legislation vs the 68% that supposedly do(but it isn't a defining issue for them). The bottom line is that America has absolutely no interest or appetite in UK style gun laws and policies and they certainly aren't turning in their guns, and ted cruz and other gop idiots have nothing to do with that.

I guess I haven't posted here in awhile. I'm fine lol. Just don't know what else can be said about the NIL(let's not even call it NIL since it has little to do with that in terms of how it is actually used besides the name) discussion and have been pretty busy. I've decided to split my time between Birmingham where I work in a large practice now and middle georgia where my family is, and open and try to build my own practice in middle georgia. Ultimately I'd like something that has me and 1-2 other psychs(my sister is also a psychiatrist), 3-4 psychiatric nurse practitioners(this is really how to expand net profits if clinic is full and billing is done right), and a few salaried therapists. I also want to offer things like ketamine therapy. It's going to take awhile to build and there will be some struggles and setbacks, but I think down the road I could both make a lot more money and have more
career satisfaction doing things my way. The main change is I will now control my own nurse practitioner and physician assistant slots rather than giving them up to a practice, and long term that's really the key from a financial standpoint. For now of course I'll still keep working some for current practice I'm employed by, so I'll be going back and forth each month both working in birmingham some and building something of my own.

And of course despite all the pay for play drama out there, still excited about college football coming up in just a 3+ months or a little more. I'm sure I'll post a lot more getting closer to that.

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:50:52 AM UTC-7, miande...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".
>
> Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc.....
>
> If we are talking about the gun side of things and not the school security side of things, the only real gun legislation that would go towards greatly reducing the chance of these terrible shootings is to basically not only have gun laws like the UK but then also confiscate the 300-400 million guns in the US. And Vanderbilt has a better chance of blowing out Alabama by 40 this year than that has of happening anytime soon.
>
> Given that, it just feels like dems use these very horrifying events as a political tool and talking point. Which is disgusting imo.
>
> And no, it's not 'the republican's fault' that we don't have UK style gun laws and that we don't go out and confiscate 400 million firearms here. It's the 'fault' of the american citizenry. Which also goes back to my opinion that democrats attempt to use these events for political gain. And if you think it isn't the fault of americans and what they want regarding guns, you aren't interpreting the polls correctly. Citing a poll that shows 68% or whatever of americans would support some useless piece of gun legislation that wouldn't do anything about these mass shootings doesn't have anything to do with the type of legislation and policy changes(ie forced gun confiscation) that it would take to decrease the likelihood of future mass shootings. And as I've said before, it also doesn't take into account the relative passion levels of the 32% that don't want even that meaningless legislation vs the 68% that supposedly do(but it isn't a defining issue for them). The bottom line is that America has absolutely no interest or appetite in UK style gun laws and policies and they certainly aren't turning in their guns, and ted cruz and other gop idiots have nothing to do with that.
>
> I guess I haven't posted here in awhile. I'm fine lol. Just don't know what else can be said about the NIL(let's not even call it NIL since it has little to do with that in terms of how it is actually used besides the name) discussion and have been pretty busy. I've decided to split my time between Birmingham where I work in a large practice now and middle georgia where my family is, and open and try to build my own practice in middle georgia. Ultimately I'd like something that has me and 1-2 other psychs(my sister is also a psychiatrist), 3-4 psychiatric nurse practitioners(this is really how to expand net profits if clinic is full and billing is done right), and a few salaried therapists. I also want to offer things like ketamine therapy. It's going to take awhile to build and there will be some struggles and setbacks, but I think down the road I could both make a lot more money and have more
> career satisfaction doing things my way. The main change is I will now control my own nurse practitioner and physician assistant slots rather than giving them up to a practice, and long term that's really the key from a financial standpoint. For now of course I'll still keep working some for current practice I'm employed by, so I'll be going back and forth each month both working in birmingham some and building something of my own.
>
> And of course despite all the pay for play drama out there, still excited about college football coming up in just a 3+ months or a little more. I'm sure I'll post a lot more getting closer to that.

I thought you were ded, that yor bookie kilt ya

On 5/25/2022 1:50 PM, michael anderson wrote:
> "I guess I haven't posted here in awhile. I'm fine lol."

It is agreeable that you continue to post here. I look forward to seeing
more football content.

"I've decided to split my time between Birmingham where I work in a
large practice now and middle georgia where my family is, and open and
try to build my own practice in middle georgia. Ultimately I'd like
something that has me and 1-2 other psychs(my sister is also a
psychiatrist), 3-4 psychiatric nurse practitioners(this is really how to
expand net profits if clinic is full and billing is done right), and a
few salaried therapists. I also want to offer things like ketamine
therapy. It's going to take awhile to build and there will be some
struggles and setbacks, but I think down the road I could both make a
lot more money and have more career satisfaction doing things my way."

I hope your career and financial prospects continue in a satisfactory
manner, but if it's going to be all about acquiring money and
things...that is (IMHO) too narrow a vision for someone who has
demonstrated at least some intelligence.

GrtArtiste

On 5/25/2022 3:25 PM, GrtArtiste wrote:
> On 5/25/2022 1:50 PM, michael anderson wrote:
>> "I guess I haven't posted here in awhile.  I'm fine lol."
>
> It is agreeable that you continue to post here. I look forward to seeing
> more football content.
>
> "I've decided to split my time between Birmingham where I work in a
> large practice now and middle georgia where my family is, and open and
> try to build my own practice in middle georgia.  Ultimately I'd like
> something that has me and 1-2 other psychs(my sister is also a
> psychiatrist), 3-4 psychiatric nurse practitioners(this is really how to
> expand net profits if clinic is full and billing is done right), and a
> few salaried therapists.  I also want to offer things like ketamine
> therapy.  It's going to take awhile to build and there will be some
> struggles and setbacks, but I think down the road I could both make a
> lot more money and have more  career satisfaction doing things my way."
>
> I hope your career and financial prospects continue in a satisfactory
> manner, but  if it's going to be all about acquiring money and
> things...that is (IMHO) too narrow a vision for someone who has
> demonstrated at least some intelligence.
>
> GrtArtiste
Just don't diddle your employees or make misogynistic remarks ("Rock out
with my cock out").
--
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice, there is." Ruben Goldberg

> Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".
>
> Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc.....

You're not listening to the right Democrats. "Get rid of the filibuster NOW, and bring back the assault weapons ban!" (That gets rid of one cause of this particular shooting; the "legal guns" used are now illegal.) "Pack the Supreme Court to the point where we can overturn D.C. v. Heller and ban handguns!"

> I guess I haven't posted here in awhile. I'm fine lol. Just don't know what else can be said about the NIL(let's not even call it NIL since it has little to do with that in terms of how it is actually used besides the name) discussion and have been pretty busy.

What's your take on (a) the NCAA getting rid of the conditions under which conferences can conduct conference championship games, and (b) the latest SEC idea of expanding its conference championship into a tournament of some sort (which would require an NCAA bylaws change, the same way the CFP playoff did, but that's another story)?

No, there is a specific. Give the gun humping fucks the war they want.

Because, I'm sorry mia: This guy accomplished more in his life by becoming a mass murderer and hero to the NRA than anything he could've accomplished in his life positively.

I thank God every day I am not allowed to have a gun.

Mike

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 3:07:57 PM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

> What's your take on (a) the NCAA getting rid of the conditions under which conferences can conduct conference championship games, and (b) the latest SEC idea of expanding its conference championship into a tournament of some sort (which would require an NCAA bylaws change, the same way the CFP playoff did, but that's another story)?

On-topic:

b) will render a) irrelevant. The SEC IS the Major League of College Football. No playoff of any kind survives an SEC Championship Tournament, because it is routinely recognized that all or most of the relevant teams in the country are in the SEC.

Mike

> > What's your take on (a) the NCAA getting rid of the conditions under which conferences can conduct conference championship games, and (b) the latest SEC idea of expanding its conference championship into a tournament of some sort (which would require an NCAA bylaws change, the same way the CFP playoff did, but that's another story)?

> On-topic:
> b) will render a) irrelevant. The SEC IS the Major League of College Football. No playoff of any kind survives an SEC Championship Tournament, because it is routinely recognized that all or most of the relevant teams in the country are in the SEC.

Which is the best excuse I have heard for yet (b) never happening, as the SEC would never get the votes needed to change the NCAA Bylaws.
Also, (a) applies to the SEC as well.

However, I think that if the SEC really wants a multi-team conference championship, the Big 10 and at least one other Power 5 conference will want the same thing (the Big 10 can taste the money already), which should give the idea enough votes to pass for just the Power 5 conferences - and I don't think the Why Are They Still In FBS conferences are really interested in a multi-round championship. There will still be a CFP, if for no other reason than there's always the possibility of a non-SEC team having a legitimate title contender, especially with NIL money being thrown around left and right.

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 5:46:11 PM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> > > What's your take on (a) the NCAA getting rid of the conditions under which conferences can conduct conference championship games, and (b) the latest SEC idea of expanding its conference championship into a tournament of some sort (which would require an NCAA bylaws change, the same way the CFP playoff did, but that's another story)?
>
> > On-topic:
> > b) will render a) irrelevant. The SEC IS the Major League of College Football. No playoff of any kind survives an SEC Championship Tournament, because it is routinely recognized that all or most of the relevant teams in the country are in the SEC.
> Which is the best excuse I have heard for yet (b) never happening, as the SEC would never get the votes needed to change the NCAA Bylaws.
> Also, (a) applies to the SEC as well.

Not wrong, but you operate under the assumption the NCAA survives 2-3-4 more years, etc.

> However, I think that if the SEC really wants a multi-team conference championship, the Big 10 and at least one other Power 5 conference will want the same thing (the Big 10 can taste the money already), which should give the idea enough votes to pass for just the Power 5 conferences - and I don't think the Why Are They Still In FBS conferences are really interested in a multi-round championship. There will still be a CFP, if for no other reason than there's always the possibility of a non-SEC team having a legitimate title contender, especially with NIL money being thrown around left and right.

That's about the only way it can be done now -- which is why Saban is trying to stop it.

Mike

> > > b) will render a) irrelevant. The SEC IS the Major League of College Football. No playoff of any kind survives an SEC Championship Tournament, because it is routinely recognized that all or most of the relevant teams in the country are in the SEC.
> > Which is the best excuse I have heard for yet (b) never happening, as the SEC would never get the votes needed to change the NCAA Bylaws.
> > Also, (a) applies to the SEC as well.
> Not wrong, but you operate under the assumption the NCAA survives 2-3-4 more years, etc.
The NCAA will still be around, but you do have a point: there's no guarantee that it will have anything to do with "big college football," except maybe the schools will agree to use the NCAA football rules, and even that's a little bit of a stretch (change #1: move the hash marks in line with the uprights, the way the NFL does - in fact, I'm surprised the NCAA doesn't already do this...change #2: spot-of-the-foul DPI). Still, if there is a breakaway, does the SEC still exist as a separate football entity? Is there an "SEC division" within the superleague? I don't see anywhere near all of the SEC schools leaving in a scenario like that.

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 5:07:57 PM UTC-5, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:
> > Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".
> >
> > Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc.....
> You're not listening to the right Democrats. "Get rid of the filibuster NOW, and bring back the assault weapons ban!" (That gets rid of one cause of this particular shooting; the "legal guns" used are now illegal.) "Pack the Supreme Court to the point where we can overturn D.C. v. Heller and ban handguns!"

the latter democrats(if they really exist? i doubt they are mainstream) would never get enough traction because that would result
in electoral bloodshed for the party. Again, there is *NO* desire on the part of the american people to greatly change the gun
culture we have now *in any meaningful way*. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

And I'm not making a value judgement on that in either direction. Just a statement of fact. That's why it is disgusting to see
certain liberals and democrats whine about how the nra and republicans are "standing in the way of doing something to end these
shootings"......the NRA and Ted Cruz has absolutely nothing to do with this..

> > I guess I haven't posted here in awhile. I'm fine lol. Just don't know what else can be said about the NIL(let's not even call it NIL since it has little to do with that in terms of how it is actually used besides the name) discussion and have been pretty busy.
> What's your take on (a) the NCAA getting rid of the conditions under which conferences can conduct conference championship games,

eh....mostly who cares? Conferences may continue to tinker with these things, and what we are mostly all waiting on now is to see
what sort of model the sec will move to after Oklahoma and texas join. The general consensus now is that there will be no divisions, 9 conference games, not a pod system but rather a system whereby each of the teams has 3 permanent opponents each year(so georgia for example plays auburn, florida, and one other-.... South car? tenn?) and then has 6 other conference games which means that they would play each team in the sec at least every 2 years and in 4 years would complete a home and home series with each team. You could probably get by with doing 2 'protected' games, but then that doesn't work because the numbers don't work out so smoothly. and then top two teams in the conference meet in the title games.

But conference championships are sort of losing their importance anyways.

and (b) the latest SEC idea of expanding its conference championship into a tournament of some sort (which would require an NCAA bylaws change, the same way the CFP playoff did, but that's another story)?

eh....not a serious idea. Look this is the time that people are bored and are just throwing shit out there to keep themselves and their
cronies in the news and all these bloggers and message boards need something to write about too. This is one more endless example.

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:58:48 PM UTC-7, miande...@gmail.com wrote:

> the latter democrats(if they really exist? i doubt they are mainstream) would never get enough traction because that would result
> in electoral bloodshed for the party. Again, there is *NO* desire on the part of the american people to greatly change the gun
> culture we have now *in any meaningful way*. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

Then free-fire it is. It's only a question of when -- and if this weekend and at least two major shootings-simply-to-create-panic (if not three -- the first of which correctly resulting in the guy being killed!) are any indication, it's going up.

The bottom line is simple, and I'd like to really ask you a question:

Do you really want "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" in a space where you have people who will shoot if given the chance AND know that they are dead anyway, no matter how it goes down, if you are right?

(Remembering that, because of the latter, "because they will be shot and killed" is not in play.)

Take this from an ex-celebrity stalker: The only way, at present, you can deal with preventing a mass shooting is correctly identifying those who will and KILLING THEM BEFORE THEY GET THEIR GUNS.

All it takes is one, with the material and the want-to.

> And I'm not making a value judgement on that in either direction. Just a statement of fact. That's why it is disgusting to see
> certain liberals and democrats whine about how the nra and republicans are "standing in the way of doing something to end these
> shootings"......the NRA and Ted Cruz has absolutely nothing to do with this.

I disagree, because I think there is the open-faced desire in this country, especially in the NRA camp, to get it on.

Sadly, I think we're gonna have to.

> > What's your take on (a) the NCAA getting rid of the conditions under which conferences can conduct conference championship games,
> eh....mostly who cares? Conferences may continue to tinker with these things, and what we are mostly all waiting on now is to see
> what sort of model the sec will move to after Oklahoma and texas join. The general consensus now is that there will be no divisions, 9 conference games, not a pod system but rather a system whereby each of the teams has 3 permanent opponents each year(so georgia for example plays auburn, florida, and one other-.... South car? tenn?) and then has 6 other conference games which means that they would play each team in the sec at least every 2 years and in 4 years would complete a home and home series with each team. You could probably get by with doing 2 'protected' games, but then that doesn't work because the numbers don't work out so smoothly. and then top two teams in the conference meet in the title games.

That's not really what I'm waiting for from the SEC. The SEC IS The Major League Of College Football, and they can blow up it's future anytime they feasibly want.

The SEC or Clemson has won the last seven national championships -- and, if anything, the gulf (at least SEC vs. the field) is getting wider.
> and (b) the latest SEC idea of expanding its conference championship into a tournament of some sort (which would require an NCAA bylaws change, the same way the CFP playoff did, but that's another story)?
> eh....not a serious idea. Look this is the time that people are bored and are just throwing shit out there to keep themselves and their
> cronies in the news and all these bloggers and message boards need something to write about too. This is one more endless example.

I get the idea that the SEC is actually promoting the beginnings of a full breakaway from college football.

Mike

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:50:52 AM UTC-7, miande...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".
>
> Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc.....

a) you're wrong
b) the Dems, who won't do anything, would restrict certain guns.
c) the Repubs do nothing, too, *except* say "thoughts and prayers" and "instill family values" which is so vague as to be pointless.

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 1:37:24 PM UTC-7, Eric Ramon wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:50:52 AM UTC-7, miande...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".
> >
> > Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc.....
> a) you're wrong
> b) the Dems, who won't do anything, would restrict certain guns.
> c) the Repubs do nothing, too, *except* say "thoughts and prayers" and "instill family values" which is so vague as to be pointless.

What they are saying is that if you were holy enough, your child wouldn't be in that predicament, would he/she?

Mike

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 3:37:24 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:50:52 AM UTC-7, miande...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".
> >
> > Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc.....
> a) you're wrong
> b) the Dems, who won't do anything, would restrict certain guns.

Assuming the guns they would restrict are actually the sorts of guns commonly used in these shootings(and thus
*may* have some small effect in reducing the likelihood of mass shootings......lots of ifs, mays, maybes there though) then they
'would' do something in the sense that the GOP was going to end obamacare if they ever came into power in the house, senate, presidency. Oh wait.......

right now some of the dems just say they would do something because they know they are in a position where they can't. If they actually controlled everything though, they are not going to cast *meaningful* gun control/gun restrictions votes when the american public just doesn't want those.

Again I'm not making a judgement on whether that is right or wrong. But we have almost 400 million firearms in this country. People
in this country really really really like guns. They like owning them. They like buying them. They like storing them. They like shooting them. They love their guns.....

So dems can keep talking about ted cruz or the nra or whatever. As if they are why real legislation
on gun control can't get through. I guess their consultants tell them it is a winning strategy. Who knows......it has nothing to do with anything though.

> c) the Repubs do nothing, too, *except* say "thoughts and prayers" and "instill family values" which is so vague as to be pointless.

of course it's pointless/useless. Same as what the dems do now and would do with more control.

michael anderson <mianderson79@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 3:37:24 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:50:52 AM UTC-7, miande...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just
>>> say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".
>>>
>>> Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never
>>> would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal
>>> guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc.....
>> a) you're wrong
>> b) the Dems, who won't do anything, would restrict certain guns.
>
> Assuming the guns they would restrict are actually the sorts of guns
> commonly used in these shootings(and thus
> *may* have some small effect in reducing the likelihood of mass shootings.....

You know, we do have data on this, since we actually did a sort-of
experiment. For 10 years we had a ban on assault weapons and greater than
10-capacity magazines. That period coincided with a signify decline in mass
shootings and also a more significant decline in deaths from mass
shootings. And both statistics skyrocketed when it ended.

https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/12943/is-it-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban/

“gun massacres fell 37 percent during the ban period and in the ten years
after it lapsed in 2004, they went up an alarming 183 percent.”

--
“I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,
liberal personality.” — Altie

On 5/30/2022 7:35 AM, xyzzy wrote:
> michael anderson <mianderson79@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 3:37:24 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:50:52 AM UTC-7, miande...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just
>>>> say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".
>>>>
>>>> Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never
>>>> would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal
>>>> guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc.....
>>> a) you're wrong
>>> b) the Dems, who won't do anything, would restrict certain guns.
>>
>> Assuming the guns they would restrict are actually the sorts of guns
>> commonly used in these shootings(and thus
>> *may* have some small effect in reducing the likelihood of mass shootings.....
>
> You know, we do have data on this, since we actually did a sort-of
> experiment. For 10 years we had a ban on assault weapons and greater than
> 10-capacity magazines. That period coincided with a signify decline in mass
> shootings and also a more significant decline in deaths from mass
> shootings. And both statistics skyrocketed when it ended.
>
> https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/12943/is-it-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban/
>
> “gun massacres fell 37 percent during the ban period and in the ten years
> after it lapsed in 2004, they went up an alarming 183 percent.”
>
>
>
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

--
ÄLSKAR - Fänga Dagen

Слава Україні та НАТО

Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org> wrote:
> On 5/30/2022 7:35 AM, xyzzy wrote:
>> michael anderson <mianderson79@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 3:37:24 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:50:52 AM UTC-7, miande...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Is that they either offer nothing specific or concrete but rather just
>>>>> say "enough is enough" and "more thoughts and prayers right?".
>>>>>
>>>>> Or the things they do offer in terms of specifics rarely/almost never
>>>>> would have prevented the shootings. This is another such case- legal
>>>>> guns, killer passed(or would have passed) a background check, etc.....
>>>> a) you're wrong
>>>> b) the Dems, who won't do anything, would restrict certain guns.
>>>
>>> Assuming the guns they would restrict are actually the sorts of guns
>>> commonly used in these shootings(and thus
>>> *may* have some small effect in reducing the likelihood of mass shootings.....
>>
>> You know, we do have data on this, since we actually did a sort-of
>> experiment. For 10 years we had a ban on assault weapons and greater than
>> 10-capacity magazines. That period coincided with a signify decline in mass
>> shootings and also a more significant decline in deaths from mass
>> shootings. And both statistics skyrocketed when it ended.
>>
>> https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/12943/is-it-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban/
>>
>> “gun massacres fell 37 percent during the ban period and in the ten years
>> after it lapsed in 2004, they went up an alarming 183 percent.”
>>
>>
>>
> https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

Key phrase in that fact check

Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make
definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because
the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and
large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur
only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004.”

So they are saying it was repealed just as it was starting to have a bigger
impact.

Also this article was written in 2013. A lot has, umm, unfolded since then.

--
“I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,
liberal personality.” — Altie