2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,968
- 52,237
- 2,290
Anti-gunners are out lying about these rifles again......
Again....2018... 12 public mass shootings. 93 killed....
Knives are used to murder over 1,500 people every year...
Lawn mowers kill over 75 people a year,
Cars over 38,000
Bees, Wasps and dogs? More than mass shooters every single year...
Afraid of Snakes? Wasps and Dogs Are Deadlier
Of the 1,610 people killed in encounters with animals between 2008 and 2015,
478 were killed by hornets, wasps and bees,
and 272 by dogs, according to a study published in Wilderness & Environmental Medicine. Snakes, spiders and scorpions were responsible for 99 deaths over the eight years.
A Suspiciously Selective, Logically Shaky Analysis of Mass Shooting Data Claims the Federal 'Assault Weapon' Ban 'Really Did Work'
Contrary to Donohue and Boulouta's implication, neither rate of fire nor the capacity to accept detachable magazines distinguished the guns covered by the 1994 law from the guns that remained legal. In any case, the numbers do not suggest that the ban had much of an impact on the weapons used by mass shooters.
By my count, guns covered by the ban were used in six out of 16 mass shootings (38 percent) in the decade before it was enacted, compared to five out of 15 (33 percent) while it was in effect.
Even leaving aside the functional similarity between banned and legal guns, it seems clear that the slight change in the mix of weapons cannot explain the 23 percent drop in fatalities, especially since the two deadliest pre-ban mass shootings, accounting for nearly a third of the fatalities during that 10-year period, were carried out with ordinary handguns.
What about after the ban expired? In the subsequent decade, there was indeed a big increase in mass shootings and fatalities caused by them. Based on the Mother Jonestally, there were 36 mass shootings with nearly 300 fatalities. Is that because "assault weapons" were easier to get? Again, the numbers suggest otherwise.
Guns that would have been covered by the 1994 ban—or, in at least one case, would be covered by the revised version that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the original ban, has introduced—were used in seven of those attacks, or 19 percent. In other words, "assault weapons" were less commonly used in mass shootings after the ban than they were during it.
Donohue and Boulouta claim that the expiration of the federal ban "permitt[ed] the gun industry to flood the market with increasingly powerful weapons that allow for faster killing." But so-called assault weapons are no "faster" or more "powerful" than functionally similar guns that do not fall into that arbitrary category.
They fire the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity. The causal mechanism that Donohue and Boulouta have in mind is therefore rather mysterious, since banning "assault weapons," even if it made all of them disappear overnight, would leave mass shooters with plenty of equally deadly alternatives.
Again....2018... 12 public mass shootings. 93 killed....
Knives are used to murder over 1,500 people every year...
Lawn mowers kill over 75 people a year,
Cars over 38,000
Bees, Wasps and dogs? More than mass shooters every single year...
Afraid of Snakes? Wasps and Dogs Are Deadlier
Of the 1,610 people killed in encounters with animals between 2008 and 2015,
478 were killed by hornets, wasps and bees,
and 272 by dogs, according to a study published in Wilderness & Environmental Medicine. Snakes, spiders and scorpions were responsible for 99 deaths over the eight years.
A Suspiciously Selective, Logically Shaky Analysis of Mass Shooting Data Claims the Federal 'Assault Weapon' Ban 'Really Did Work'
Contrary to Donohue and Boulouta's implication, neither rate of fire nor the capacity to accept detachable magazines distinguished the guns covered by the 1994 law from the guns that remained legal. In any case, the numbers do not suggest that the ban had much of an impact on the weapons used by mass shooters.
By my count, guns covered by the ban were used in six out of 16 mass shootings (38 percent) in the decade before it was enacted, compared to five out of 15 (33 percent) while it was in effect.
Even leaving aside the functional similarity between banned and legal guns, it seems clear that the slight change in the mix of weapons cannot explain the 23 percent drop in fatalities, especially since the two deadliest pre-ban mass shootings, accounting for nearly a third of the fatalities during that 10-year period, were carried out with ordinary handguns.
What about after the ban expired? In the subsequent decade, there was indeed a big increase in mass shootings and fatalities caused by them. Based on the Mother Jonestally, there were 36 mass shootings with nearly 300 fatalities. Is that because "assault weapons" were easier to get? Again, the numbers suggest otherwise.
Guns that would have been covered by the 1994 ban—or, in at least one case, would be covered by the revised version that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the original ban, has introduced—were used in seven of those attacks, or 19 percent. In other words, "assault weapons" were less commonly used in mass shootings after the ban than they were during it.
Donohue and Boulouta claim that the expiration of the federal ban "permitt[ed] the gun industry to flood the market with increasingly powerful weapons that allow for faster killing." But so-called assault weapons are no "faster" or more "powerful" than functionally similar guns that do not fall into that arbitrary category.
They fire the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity. The causal mechanism that Donohue and Boulouta have in mind is therefore rather mysterious, since banning "assault weapons," even if it made all of them disappear overnight, would leave mass shooters with plenty of equally deadly alternatives.
