1) I have addressed your point about crime being related to social factors. You on the other hand, do not address that argument. I have addressed your argument in its entirity.
2) I do not have any intentional lack of information or facts. I read studies from authors whose bias exists on both sides of the argument. In terms of opinion pieces. at this point over 9 out of 10 are either journalistic or anti-gun. I do not shield myself from information that challenges my opinion.
3) You have not addressed my criticism that the AWB was not, nor will be effective because assault rifles are not what you think they are. You have not presented any counter to:
* Military style ammo is not as effective at killing as self-defense, hunting, or shotgun ammo (that's not bird shot).
* Assault rifles have been used in multiple spree shootings, yielding less deaths than pistols.
* A high rate of fire reduces such degraded accuracy that less people get hit.
* Assault rifles are used exceptionally rarely in crime.
4) You brought up the NRA in response to what I was saying, instead of responding directly to my argument. That is called a Strawman Fallacy. Pointing this is out is NOT a Strawman Fallacy.
5) I throw in technical jargon because don't you think it is important to understand the issue that you are forming an opinion on? I do not do it to talk down to you...but in an effort to educate.
6) I did not link to the Think Progress or the Wikipedia sources as proof of what I was saying. I went back and looked at it in context. 'norThen I thought I should look into the trends and not on anecdotal examples. So I used the time line Think Progress recently published as well as the list created by Wikipedia.  My findings (since 1984):'
Let me clarify why I linked to them:
I created a database of spree shootings to see what patterns emerged. As a means of eliminating bias, I used lists of spree shooters compiled by others rather than compile one on my own. That way I could not be accused of intentionally leaving out a spree shooter because of my bias. I then looked at what guns were used in these shootings and how many people were killed and wounded.
7) The use of assault rifles in spree shootings are not going up. Actually, since the expiration of the assault rifle ban the number of assault rifles used in spree shootings has dropped...percipitously. Check it out:
According to the Wikipedia list there were 6 shootings before the 1994 AWB went into effect. Of these:
3 (50%) used an assault rifle.
1 (17%) used an assault rifle exclusively.
5 (83%) used a pistol.
3 (50%) used a pistol exclusively.
According the the Wikipedia list and the Think Progress, there were 5 spree shootings during this time.
2 (40%) used an assault rifle.
3 (60%) used firearms covered by the 1994 AWB.
*(NOTE: The Columbine shooters used a rifle, but not an assault rifle. However, the pistols they used were covered under the AWB so I had to create another category).
4 (80%) used a pistol.
2 (40%) used a pistol exclusively.
According to the Think Progress list, there have been 24 shootings.
6 (25%) used an assault rifle.
20 (83%) used a pistol.
12 (50%) used a pistol exclusively.
A) The time frame covered is 29 years. For the first 20 years, the number of spree shootings was relatively constant and similar (1984-1993 and 1994-2004). However, in the 9 years since the AWB expired shootings have increased four-fold.
B) Along with the increase in events (spree shootings); the incidence of assault rifles being used have actually decreased by roughly 20%.
C) Assault rifle usage was not concentrated or skewed towards the later part of the 2005-2013 time frame. Instead, they were spread out fairly equally across the time period: 2007 (2), 2009 (1), 2011 (1), 2012 (2).
So your assertion that these guns are increasingly used in spree shootings is not valid. In fact, their frequency of use has decreased in the nine years following the 1994 AWB.
8) Your PopSci source does not say what you think it is, nor does it contradict a thing I've said. Here's some quotes from the article:
"A study published today in JAMA Internal Medicine found that more firearm laws are in fact associated with fewer firearm deaths, although ." (Emphasis mine)
"However, the researchers didn't make any ground-breaking pronouncement about the relationship between gun laws and gun violence, warning that the study was "ecological and cross-sectional and .'"
This includes all gun deaths including homicide and suicide. The two are totally different things. Furthermore, there are many scholarly, scientific studies in the field of psychology that show that the presence or lack of presence of a firearm does not effect the rate of suicides.
In the end, remember correlation does not mean causation (as your source says). That's why I do not deny a correlation, just the science is actually pretty clear that gun laws are not a causal factor of crime. Education, economic opportunity, and belonging to a disadvantaged ethnic group are causal factors.
9) Dude, I am looking at all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. This entire time I've been speaking to the following parts of the puzzle:
* Educational differences leading to some groups more at-risk than others for a life of crime and gangs.
* Economic inequality.
* Racial inequality.
* The prison system being something that perpetuates crime rather than reducing it.
* Guns and what types are used.
There is science out there that supports this worldview; however you dismiss that science out of hand.
10) Since 2004, it has become easier to buy a type of firearm that is very rarely used in crime or in spree shootings. In the following 9 years, use of guns like the AR-15 have not spiked. Gun violence has not become worse. There has been no serious threats that you have demonstrated to the public safety.