The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

The question is too generic for me. Lots of places are public.

The question is too generic for me. Lots of places are public.

In discussing this topic with some of my gun-loving friends, I have maintained that all concealed carry laws should be replaced with open carry laws.

While the Constitution guarantees you the right to be an asshole, it doesn't guarantee that everyone else in society should be forced to conduct business with you.  If you want to walk around armed, then everyone around you should be aware of this fact.  Polite society can use social pressure to reduce gun proliferation.

Notably, this should cut down on the incidents involving cowards who intentionally start altercations, knowing that they can pull out their sidearm and shoot up the place if their supremacy is questioned.

Generic? Public is anywhere not private. So yes, lots of places are public.

Oh, you can own a gun and not be an asshole.

But these guys?  Asshole central.

Oh, you can own a gun and not be an asshole.

But these guys?  Asshole central.

(https://chrishernandezauthor.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/449x497xscreen-shot-2014-05-20-at-8-33-33-am-png-pagespeed-ic-ptz7eyu-yt.jpg)
(https://chrishernandezauthor.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/rgz_open_carry_07.jpg?w=500&h=367)
(https://chrishernandezauthor.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/475x356xopen-carry-texas-at-chipotle-courtesy-breitbart-com_-pagespeed-ic_-iqkjndmzhi.jpg)
(https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Texas-Jack-in-the-Box-open-carry-demo-courtesy-dailykos.com_.jpg)

And the people displaying these weapons of war

What makes any of those weapons, "weapons of war"? How are they different from any other semi automatic firearm? What makes a semi automatic hunting rifle just a rifle? What makes an AR 15 a so called "assault weapon"? What's the functional difference?

Agree 100% .. ban all semi-automatic weapons

ball and musket are the only arms allowed by the 2nd amendment .. i'm an Originalist !!!

Woo hoo!! Then computers, TVs and phones are not protected under the first amendment! Only the good ole printing presses and in person will be protected under the freedom of speech. People free to worship religions around in 1776 as well.

Agree 100% .. ban all semi-automatic weapons

ball and musket are the only arms allowed by the 2nd amendment .. i'm an Originalist !!!

This is actually what they all mean. They say ban "assault weapons". They say ban "weapons of war". But that's just the 1st step in their plan. They really want all guns banned even though they say they don't. Even though they say they don't want to take your guns. Yes, they actually do. They just want to do it ever so slowly so you don't even notice. One small step at a time.

I'll give you credit Fau, if nothing else, at least you're honest about your intentions, no matter how misguided. Your idea lives 150% in fantasy land. There are 300-350 million firearms in the country and they aren't going anywhere. So your common sense gun legislation, makes no sense. Your political career wouldn't last too long.

I agree with your gun assessment but disagree with Fau's career. hahaha Just because a politician's idea doesn't actually make sense in the real world it doesn't mean they won't be successful. People vote for what they like to hear ... both red and blue. 

Darn right we should ban them all.  Because if there is one thing that murderers do, it is obey the law.  That is why there are never any shootings in "Gun Free Zones".

But I'm also not naive enough to think that banning semi automatics is going to even put a dent in the number of crimes committed with them.

"Some people will still break this law, therefore why have it at all" is not a convincing argument.  In your own example, you imply that gun murders will happen anyway... so why does that mean that guns should be legal, but not murder?  After all, criminals won't follow the law anyway.
It has worked pretty well in every other country that has tried it.  In the specific case of the US, the onerous regulations on fully-automatic firearms has almost completely eliminated all crime committed with them.

But I am willing to be proven wrong!  So let's try [strike]banning[/strike] heavily regulating semi-autos and see.

So now you don't want to ban "assault weapons" or "weapons of war". You want to ban all semi autos. If you can't see how preposterous and unrealistic that idea is then you don't even need to be in the discussion.

"Some people will still break this law, therefore why have it at all" is not a convincing argument.  In your own example, you imply that gun murders will happen anyway... so why does that mean that guns should be legal, but not murder?  After all, criminals won't follow the law anyway.
It has worked pretty well in every other country that has tried it.  In the specific case of the US, the onerous regulations on fully-automatic firearms has almost completely eliminated all crime committed with them.

But I am willing to be proven wrong!  So let's try banning heavily regulating semi-autos and see.

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.  According to an article in the Chicago Tribune Sept. 18, 2019, 1,998 people have been shot so far this year in Chicago.

I just try to be realistic in knowing that until the ultra violent mentality of our society changes (a change that won't happen in any of our lifetimes, if ever), an out of control gun violence problem will be prevalent in this country.

Chicago is 10 minutes from the state of Indiana, which has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation.  So it matters much less how strict the gun laws in Chicago are, because you can drive a short way to IN and stock up.  This is why we need federal regulations.

We aren't anywhere close to Columbia but they don't have issues getting cocaine into the country through Mexico. The funny thing is everyone admits prohibition was a lost cause and that we can't keep drugs, which aren't legal anywhere, out of of our most secured places in our country like jails ... but somehow magically guns are going to disappear when you take them from law abiding citizens? That's so dumb on so many levels.

Until you can show how you are going to remove and keep guns out of the hands of criminals there isn't even a basis for starting an argument about making guns illegal for law abiding citizens.

 Let's deal in fixing problems with realistic approaches instead of attention getting "talking points" that will never get off the ground.  

Everybody knows that.. don''t for a second think that it's ignorance of where chicago is that keeps people bringing this same stupid point up over and over and over and over. it's a deliberate attempt to mislead and obfuscate the argument.

I am somewhat of a centric when it comes to guns, I think.

Guns are a money problem.  Money prevents common sense reform and ultimately hurts everyone.

Guns probably need incremental change, see what works -- you can't stop it, but you can limit it, make it harder, slow it down, lower the body count when it happens, give more power to police than the public, etc.

However, the money put up against candidates of either side that tries to do that makes it almost impossible.  So, that results in huge swing solutions, where you see people trying to ban things.  ...what else can you do?  It's reactionary because the system isn't working as intended and we're forced to use major legislation and huge political capital to get it done.

We aren't anywhere close to Columbia but they don't have issues getting cocaine into the country through Mexico.

Until you can show how you are going to remove and keep guns out of the hands of criminals there isn't even a basis for starting an argument about making guns illegal for law abiding citizens.

Similarly, we can't prevent all drunk driving, yet the response to that fact is never, "Guess we might as well repeal all DUI laws!  LET FREEDOM RING"

No law has 100% effectiveness, and it's silly to insist that it should. But given that strict gun regulations have worked in every other Western nation, I think it's worth trying... say, for a couple of decades... and seeing if it can work here.  If America is truly a uniquely violent nation and it doesn't end up working, we'll have to figure out something else.

However, most of the time when people insist that it wouldn't work, they also insist that we shouldn't try anyway because even if it did work, it's wrong (in which case, whether or not it would work is effectively immaterial).  I suspect that is the case here.

Taking guns away from people who did not break the law is like taking cars from everyone because of the number of DUI deaths ... which is much larger anyway.

What it sounds like is you are saying is we don't know that it will work but we have try something.

For me, the bottom line is that if our hope lies in gun legislation, there is no hope.  There has been outrage and demands from the public and political grandstanding after every single mass shooting since Columbine.  Actually since way before that, but for recency and relevancy to the age of most of us here on this site, I will start with Columbine.  Christ, look back to the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in 2012.  26 people including 20 little 6 and 7 year olds were shot and killed by Adam Lanza.  They were practically babies.  And TWENTY of them were murdered.  I thought that would certainly be the "incident" that actually got Congress to move and make meaningful gun legislation.  Both Dems and Repubs in Congress were up there blustering about it all.  But talk is cheap.  What did they actually do about it?  Not a thing.  Well, Obama ordered that government offices fly their flags at half mast and set up a "task force" to look into it.  Wheeeee, that sure saved a lot of future lives.  To be fair, a handful of states did pass some relatively meaningless legislation, all pretty much impotent.  In 2013, Congress voted on both the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" and the "Manchin Toomey Amendment" to expand background checks.  This was right on the heels of the Sandy Hook Shooting when both parties of Congress were yelling about gun legislation.  Neither of those bills passed Congress.  They were voted down.  Guys, if Congress wasn't willing to do anything after 20 FIRST GRADERS were mowed down, do you really think that Congress is EVER going to pass any meaningful gun legislation?  And that is why I keep ranting here about the futility of putting your hopes in changing laws.  I'm sickened by the gun violence too, but hoping that lawmakers are going to make everything better is just as crazy as the religious people thinking that praying is going to fix things.  Nothing is going to change until our society changes and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but our society isn't going to change.  Gun violence, be it mass shootings or individual shootings are not going away and they are probably not going to even decrease.  It is great to be hopeful, but not when it flies in the face of being realistic.  Sorry to be such an f'ing Debbie Downer here, but we have to be honest with ourselves about facts and reality.

I just shake my head when I hear someone say that the answer to stopping/reducing gun violence is to make sure more people are armed...

Taking away guns is like cutting off all dicks

I just shake my head when I hear someone say that the answer to stopping/reducing gun violence is to make sure more people are armed...

I like what New Zealand did in the wake of the mass shootings there in March. A couple of days later...no more guns. Lovely. The Second Amendment is so antiquated and so out of date and touch with the world that we live in today, that it needs an overhaul. I have a right to bear arms. Tanks are arms, grenades are arms, F-A18 are arms... It almost seems like if you don't have 18 or so firearms of varying power and caliber you're not an Amurican.  Why do people think that they need so much firepower? I get wanting something for home protection. I get that some people rely on hunting in some locations as a means of feeding themselves, but nobody needs, or should be allowed, to have their own personal armories. if the citizenry have more firepower than the police, then that's a problem. It only seems to be an Amurican problem.

A lot of these hypothetical situations aren't fair.

If there's an active shooter in a school and I could put guns in the hands of teachers to protect their rooms, then yes, I'm all for it.

But I think that the trade-off of having armed people and guns on a campus 24/7 when there isn't an active shooter would greatly GREATLY increase the amount of incidents where people lose their shit and pop off.  This doesn't even account for accidents, mistaken identity, suicides, etc.

---


In terms of the founding fathers argument, I pretty much dismiss that immediately.  Technology has changed where the government is several orders of magnitude more power than its citizens.  The idea that you'd be physically protecting your property from your government with an actual weapon is ludicrous.  They would missile your house off the map.

As an immigrant, that about encapsulates the american obsession with guns right there.

Why do we protect our money in the banks with armed guards?

Because if the police or the government ever become corrupt, citizens can defend themselves and start a new government.   That's what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the second amendment.

No, the founding fathers did not incorporate violent armed rebellion into the Constitution.  Violent armed rebellion is 100% illegal and unconstitutional.  We know this because some traitors in the South who really liked slavery already tried it.

Everyday that you go in public  places like the mall or grocery store you are already passing probably hundreds of people carrying concealed weapons. Accidents happen by nature of the word but the fear of people having guns isn't rationale. There are 2 million concealed permit holders in the state of Florida alone. I'd bet there are hundreds of thousands more carrying illegally. Accidents are rare.

If it were up to you and yours, we would stand around all day arguing about what the definition of "assault weapon" (or "clip," or "silencer," or even "ban") is.  That's the only solution you guys ever offer: run out the clock with pedantry about terminology.

So if it makes it easier to end the interminable discussion about "assault weapons" where you show a picture of a Glock with binoculars and a broom handle taped to it and ask, "So is this an assault weapon?  Is it?  Huh?", I propose that we further regulate (not "ban," because I've already went multiple rounds of this time-wasting game arguing about what the word ban means) all semi-automatic firearms.

Chicago is 10 minutes from the state of Indiana, which has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation.  So it matters much less how strict the gun laws in Chicago are, because you can drive a short way to IN and stock up.  This is why we need federal regulations.

Hell, at least you're being somewhat honest in your approach when you say you want to regulate ALL semi auto firearms. However, you're not being honest about the odds of that happening.

We already have federal regulations. What you say is not even close to accurate. You can't just drive to another state and "stock up".

I'm sure you know as well as I do that the odds of what can happen are directly influenced by what people discuss (i.e. "the Overton Window").  I mean, how certain are you today that single-payer healthcare will never arrive on the shores of America... as certain as you were 20 years ago?

I'm sure you also know that background check regulations apply to sales from FFL dealers, and that no background check is required at all for a transaction between private parties (e.g. at a gun show).   So in practice, IL residents can buy guns in IN, because the IN seller has no legal requirement to check the state of residence of the buyer.

Because if the police or the government ever become corrupt, citizens can defend themselves and start a new government.   That's what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the second amendment.

Glad you get it then because that's why our forefathers put it in there in the first place. We value our freedom because we know how easy it is to lose it and how hard it was to get in the first place.

I will say it is very similar to God from a Christian's perspective. God allows free will and the freedom to choose. This means bad people get the same freedoms as non bad people. You can follow God's will or choose not to. Unfortunately in that freedom there is a negative effect on God's people while here on earth. Bad people take advantage, rob, rape and kill good people all the time because of this freedom. In the same way because we as a country have freedoms to protect ourselves that gives bad people an opportunity to hurt innocents. It the times we live in people are "victims" of someone else making them be bad instead of "accountable".  It's gotten so bad we blame guns instead of the people and the system that caused/allowed it. We need to look into what is causing or allowing these people to do harm and not at trying to punish innocent people for the actions of others.

To that effect, i would propose that every gun sale is registered, and that if a gun is used in a crime, in addition to the person committing the crime being responsible, the person that originally bought the gun also be criminally responsible for the crime due to negligence. You sold your gun under the table and someone shot someone .. you go to jail. You got your guns stolen from home and that gun gets used to murder kindergartners then you go to jail as well. You shoulda kept it in a safe. If your kid gets a hold of your gun and shoots someone .. you go to jail .. you shoulda kept it in a safe.  I agree with you CF .. lets have some personal responsibility and accountability about guns.

^^^ I have to wonder... When you go back and read your own words, do you ever think "Maybe no one will notice how ridiculous my words actually are?"

^^^ I have to wonder... When you go back and read your own words, do you ever think "Maybe no one will notice how ridiculous my words actually are?"

100% completely without a shadow of a doubt wrong.. you could not be more wrong in your statement. That is not what they had in mind, in fact the concept of individual gun ownership right doesn't even come about until after the civil war.

You have no clue what concepts came up or when.

Your car got stolen and was involved in a fiery school bus crash which killed 30 children and the bus driver. YOU GO TO JAIL. Your gas grill got stolen and the thief used it to host a Super Bowl party for 50 retarded invalid children. The grill blows up and they all die. YOU GO TO JAIL. The weird kid on Ritalin down the street who rarely leaves the house steals your "As Seen on TV" Ginsu steak knives and proceeds to go to a daycare center and stabs 25 toddlers to death. YOU GO TO JAIL.

The problem with your argument is that any inanimate object can kill people. An AR15 is no more dangerous than a steak knife or an automobile. They all take a deliberate conscience actions to kill someone, whether by mistake or not.

If you pour someone a drink and they go onto kill someone while driving drunk.. you can go to jail.

what happened to personal responsibility and accountability? if you want a gun .. be responsible for it

If you pour someone a drink and they go onto kill someone while driving drunk.. you can go to jail.

Two problems with that. No one that matters is seriously discussing banning/regulating ALL semi auto firearms. Anyone who does will never be elected.

Firearms transferred across state lines must be transferred through a FFL holder before a purchaser/friend could take possession.

So you're saying that if a thief steals my Beretta and kills someone it's my fault? They steal and kill and it's my fault?

Other than reading the founding father's thoughts about the place of militias and arms in their own writings, i have no idea .. you're right.

Except that's not what we are talking about.  We are talking about a Chicago resident transporting themselves across the IN state line to buy a gun, in person, from another private party (which requires no background check and therefore, no verification of IN residency), at which point they can transport themselves and their new guns back across the state line.  So there is no "transfer of ownership across state lines," and the statute you cited is inapplicable.

This works because of the lax gun laws in the state of Indiana, which allow a private party to sell a gun without performing a background check to verify (among other things) the state of residency of the buyer.  This is not the case in, say, IL.

TITLE 27--ALCOHOL, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND FIREARMS

CHAPTER II--BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

PART 478_COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION--Table of Contents

Subpart C_Administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 478.29 Out-of-State acquisition of firearms by nonlicensees.

No person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer,
licensed dealer, or licensed collector, shall transport into or receive
in the State where the person resides (or if a corporation or other
business entity, where it maintains a place of business) any firearm
purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State:
Provided, That the provisions of this section:
(a) Shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by
bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of
residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that
State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such
firearm in that State,
(b) Shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a rifle or
shotgun obtained from a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer,
licensed dealer, or licensed collector in a State other than the
transferee's State of residence in an over-the-counter transaction at
the licensee's premises obtained in conformity with the provisions of
Sec. 478.96(c) and
(c) Shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm
obtained in conformity with the provisions of Sec. Sec. 478.30 and
478.97.

[T.D. ATF-270, 53 FR 10493, Mar. 31, 1988]

§ 478.30 Out-of-State disposition of firearms by nonlicensees.

No nonlicensee shall transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any other nonlicensee, who the
transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business
entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides: Provided, That the provisions of this section:

(a) shall not apply to the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm
to, or any acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm
under the laws of the State of his residence; and

(b) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.



478.97 - Loan or rental of firearms.(a) A licensee may lend or rent a firearm to any person for temporary use off the premises of the licensee for lawful sporting purposes: Provided, That the delivery of the firearm to such person is not prohibited by ? 478.99(b) or ? 478.99(c), the licensee complies with the requirements of ? 478.102, and the licensee records such loan or rental in the records required to be kept by him under Subpart H of this part.

(b) A club, association, or similar organization temporarily furnishing firearms (whether by loan, rental, or otherwise) to participants in a skeet, trap, target, or similar shooting activity for use at the time and place such activity is held does not, unattended by other circumstances, cause such club, association, or similar organization to be engaged in the business of a dealer in firearms or as engaging in firearms transactions. Therefore, licensing and recordkeeping requirements contained in this part pertaining to firearms transactions would not apply to this temporary furnishing of firearms for use on premises on which such an activity is conducted.

[T.D. ATF-415, 63 FR 58278, Oct. 29, 1998]

Wrong, a firearm purchased face to face by someone from another state has to be transferred through a FFL.

That is irrelevant in a transaction between private parties in IN, because there is no requirement for the seller to verify the state of residence of the buyer!  There is no requirement for background checks in IN for transactions between private buyers.

It's like you're saying that felons are not allowed to buy firearms; without a background check requirement, there's no way to know who is and isn't a felon, so you can sell to anyone.

Surely you've heard of this "gun show loophole" before?

You are correct, there is no state requirement for background  checks for private party sales between two residents of the state.

Wrong.  In Indiana, there is no state OR FEDERAL requirement for background checks between ANY private parties, so there is no way to know what state your buyer is from, and therefore no way to enforce any restrictions on private party purchases from out-of-state buyers.

More to the point: a resident of Chicago can travel 10 minutes to the state of Indiana, and in a transaction in which the seller fulfills all legal obligations, buy as many guns as he pleases, then transport those guns back to Chicago and commit crimes.  Your choice to emphasize that (say) an armed robber also violated laws about transporting guns over state lines is... irrelevant?  As you like to say, criminals don't obey the law.

Sec. 478.29 Out-of-State acquisition of firearms by nonlicensees.

No person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer,
licensed dealer, or licensed collector, shall transport into or receive
in the State where the person resides (or if a corporation or other
business entity, where it maintains a place of business) any firearm
purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State

Sec. 478.29 Out-of-State acquisition of firearms by nonlicensees.

No person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer,
licensed dealer, or licensed collector, shall transport into or receive
in the State where the person resides (or if a corporation or other
business entity, where it maintains a place of business) any firearm
purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State

The point of contention here is that law-abiding gun sellers in Indiana are facilitating gun crime in Chicago, due to Indiana's lax gun laws.  That is why Chicago gun regulations aren't working.

If either a) there was a mechanism to legally enforce the regulation of sales to out-of-state private buyers, or b) there was a mechanism to enforce the regulation of transporting guns across state lines, then your points about the federal code would be relevant.  But a law with no valid enforcement mechanism is no law at all.

The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban would be a nice start.  Adding mandatory federal background checks for EVERY gun sale would also help.

Most studies including official government findings conclude that the 94 AWB didn't have much effect, if any at all. The main factor is that so called "assault weapons" and rifles in general only account for a very small percentage of over all homicides.

Also, as noted many times in the past. "Assault weapon" is a made up term used to describe a weapon with certain cosmetic features.

Now, on to the mandatory federal background checks. You're still going to run into the same problem you have with the federal law I posted. How are you going to enforce it? If criminals are breaking the federal laws already, why would they not break the new law?

The weapons previously regulated in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban are used frequently in mass shootings.

I have no interest in the "So tell me what an assault weapon is?" game.  The definitions are in the law, and that law is what I propose re-enacting.  Unless you're claiming that no one could figure out what was covered under that law...?

Simple: LEOs are dispatched to gun shows in IN (and across the country).  If private sellers are selling guns to buyers without getting a background check, sellers are arrested on the spot.

Again, you're missing the point. Most studies including official government findings conclude that the 94 AWB didn't have much effect, if any at all.

However, if you're going to propose banning something. At least be able to discuss why said item is going to be banned.

Gun shows are only a small percentage of private sales nationwide.

How are you going to enforce all the non gun show sales? The answer is that you can't. Two people meet at a Walmart parking lot, in a park, or at a gas station and exchange money for merchandise. Just like an illegal drug deal. The fact is that most laws rely on citizens following the law.

Let me guess: total coincidence that those stats all drop precipitously in 1994.  Maybe it was the Democrats' crime bill!

I know you really want to make this discussion all about the definition of what an "assault weapon" is, but I'm not playing.  Congress already answered this question a quarter-century ago.

Then that sounds like a great place to start!  Best to start with a law that is simply and easily enforced first, before trying to enact any complicated and difficult ones.
Sounds like you think laws are a waste of time.  Criminals will just break them anyway!  I'm sure you are also for open borders, right?

As I've already said, my immediate goal is to end the practice of legal sellers making it easy for criminals to acquire guns.  Baby steps.

Those stats have nothing to do with "assault weapons" or "mass shootings". Those are total stats. "Assault weapons" and "mass shootings" make up a very small percentage of total overall firearm deaths. You're being obtuse and playing numbers games. However, many of your cherry picked stats continued to drop after the 94 AWB ended. Which actually proves that the numbers were dropping with or without the flawed 94 AWB legislation. Thanks for proving my point
 
We all know the liberal definition of "assault weapon". I just want to know how defining something based mostly on cosmetic features makes it more dangerous? It's not because you don't want to discuss it. It's because you can't discuss it. Because it's so ludicrous, silly, and retarded that there is no rational answer you can give without making yourself look stupid. That's why no common sense gun legislation has been passed in Congress. Because banning something based on how it looks isn't common sense. It's pure non sense. 

You want universal background checks on ALL private sales. How is that easy to enforce? You can send law enforcement to every gun show in the country. However, as noted earlier, gun shows are only a small percentage of face to face private sales nationwide. How are you going to enforce the vast majority of private party sales that happen outside of gun shows?  Or do you want background checks on private party sales at gun shows only? Please enlighten me because you're not explaining yourself very well.

So.... can you explain why those numbers started falling around 1994?

So.... can you explain why those numbers started falling around 1994?