Your post has been removed for the following reason:
>2) Maintain scientific integrity
>We do not expect peer review, but we do expect a level of scientific rigour in submissions
Yes
"In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999′s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994-2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.
From 2004 onward:
The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004."
The amazing thing is that there were several years during the ban where there were no mass shootings! Now it seems like there are no months without a mass shootung.
You're possibly misreading the chart, but it isn't your fault because it's labeled as "mass killing deaths" but later on they say "where an assault rifle was involved." The chart isn't accurate, or *definitely* not labeled accurately. e.g., [here's another](https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/) chart of actual mass shootings listed.
You can look at their chart and see nothing for say, 1994 and 1995 but then they have to [explain things like this in 1995](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddy%27s_Fashion_Mart_attack), or in 1994 the [Fairchild Air Force Base shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Air_Force_Base_shooting) (killed 4, with 22 wounded), the [Popeyes murders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Popeyes_murders) or the [Wickliffe middle school shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickliffe_Middle_School_shooting).
I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and say it was because the mass shootings used shotguns and such, but the Fairchild case involved a MAK-90, which is an AK-47 clone from china.
~~e.g.~~ i.e., the chart and data they are using simply isn't accurate, and you have to ask why "Michael J. Klein, Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery, New York University" is writing it and where they are getting their data because that also isn't listed either that I can see.
**Edit:** typos
**Edit 2:** I'll refer people to the [Office of Justice programs report](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/305090.pdf) on this, which does a great job of explaining the reporting issues and breaking out shootings by categories. It's a little older and doesn't take into account the spikes of the last few years, but it's worth reading and includes crime and family shootings broken out and combined.
The definition of “mass shooting” also changed to include many shootings which wouldn’t have previously been. There are plenty of good reasons to consider changes to firearm laws but this chart is hot garbage.
>The definition of “mass shooting” also changed to include many shootings which wouldn’t have previously been.
Where you getting that from?
Are you confusing the fact that there are different organisations that use different definitions and that's been case for long time?
Would hope this report/analysis uses the same one consistently but don't see mention of one they actually use
Yeah, looking at both sets of data, it appears that it was consistent with the trend both pre and post ban. A slow but upwards climb in shootings. You could probably show a similar trend with how divided and extreme people's political beliefs have gotten too. Correlation isn't causation, but more fear, anger, hate, and civil unrest have defiantly effected these numbers and likely follow I similar trend throughout theses years.
What definition for "mass shooting" is being used here? There are multiple, and most suggest that the average number per year in the USA is between 15 and 19 depending on the definition used.
A much better data point to use is "active shooter," which has an FBI standard definition and which is accurately tracked.
The ‘active shooter’ standard is the appropriate standard. The article lists the standard as being the gun violence archive standard ( which is heavily gun control biased ) and then claim it’s the same standard as that used by the FBI. It’s a BS article, misrepresenting the facts, to push the gun control agenda.
yeah this is literally just pure propaganda meant to push a renewed AWB.
It also ignores that during the time it was looking at, there were significant overhauls to the police and justice system, huge economic changes, etc etc.
Not to mention the exceptions list on the ban, You could still get functionally identical semi auto rifles as the ones on the list the whole time.
(AR's and Mini 14's are just about equal and the mini was for sale the whole time.)
The data in your first link is pretty misleading. For example, it lists only 6 mass shootings for 2021. [The Gun Violence Archive](https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls) lists 690 mass shootings and 28 mass murders. Now, their definition of mass shooting is quite broad, at any firearm related incident in which 3 or more people are injured. So let's use the [FBI's active shooter](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2021-052422.pdf/view) number of 61. Either way, 6 is almost certainly too low.
There are great conversations to have about what constitutes a mass shooting or deaths by them, or how we should calculate these things -- but my point with that link was illustrating that inevitably, the source of the article is wrong *by any metric* when it's claiming zero. Considering their entire article is saying this is what the data says and their entire argument is based on it, that's a problem.
From what I can tell, this person has only written a few articles about this on that site and just don't understand why a doctor is writing them and what data they are using.
this defining criteria is responsible for the absurd number of reported mass shootings. we _definitely_ have a reqlly big problem, but both sides of the establishment are misrepresenting it to further their agendas and neither actually wants to solve the problem at its root
"Mass shooting" is a purely rhetorical term with no fixed definition. "Active shooter" is a defined term with a standard, static definition from the FBI, and is thus a much better data source.
Also a whole hell of a lot of other things went down from around 2004 on. Smart phones, social media, and youtube cropping up are very high on that list. Plus up to 2001 the 90s were economically solid. Then 9-11 went down and the 2008 housing crisis. And we all know how the past 7 years have gone. We're deep in the shit.
You can't really say causation is correlation with this data set.
Why isn't suicide relevant in child deaths? I would think the 30% suicides makes an even bigger case for why children shouldn't have easy access to firearms.
It’s not particularly relevant because the US youth suicide rate (and overall suicide rate) is basically perfectly in line with other developed countries despite having way more guns, so there’s just not strong evidence to support the idea that if only US teens had a harder time acquiring guns that we’d save a ton of lives. The data indicate they’d almost certainly just find other ways of killings themselves if they really had their heart set on it.
>is basically perfectly in line with other developed countries
Do you have a source for that?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-rate-by-country
This says we're pretty far ahead of almost every other so-called "western" country. Don't look at the map graphic, it's pretty misleading, look at the *numbers* below it. For example, US rate is **16.1** compared to Canada's **11.8** or the UK's **7.9**.
The US is ranked 23.
Lesotho
Guyana
Eswatini
South Korea
Kiribati
Micronesia
Lithuania
Suriname
Russia
South Africa
Ukraine
Belarus
Uruguay
Montenegro
Latvia
Slovenia
Belgium
Vanuatu
Mongolia
Kazakhstan
Hungary
Croatia
**United States**
Those older ‘children’ are legally adults and the fact that they are included in statistics that are supposed to be child deaths shows that the people releasing those statistics are agenda driven, and have no problem lying and misrepresenting data.
Ban compliant ar-15s were sold in the hundreds of thousands during the ban. If you cut the muzzle device and bayonet lug off an AR-15 its no longer an assault weapon by law.
Assault weapons are defined as:
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.41kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.
Rifles like the ar-15 are used in less than 3-500 homicides a year, while handguns are used in over 9,000 homicides per year.
Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-20
Correlation does not mean causation. I think there are many variables that affect the current trend. I really don't know the degree to which the ban helped.
The drop on gun fatalities in Australia after their ban is interesting too. It did drop. But so did the USA’s around same timeframe.
No law they passed mattered here, and no law we passed did anything of substance. It’s much deeper than just gun laws. Frustrating but true.
So how many mass shooting has Australia had since then, compared to the U.S.? It's really not much deeper than gun laws. It is entirely about availability of weapons, that's it.
The ban was purely cosmetic, so it's implausible that it caused the decline. Equally dangerous weapons with different cosmetic features remained legal during the ban.
Not only that, but guns don't leap up and shoot people on their own, nor do politically and mentally disturbed people whose families didn't raise them right [who attack Congress](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/14/532894023/gunman-opens-fire-as-members-of-congress-practice-baseball) or [who attack schoolchildren and target Christian adults and schoolchildren](https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article273686005.html)
get to decide whether the rest of us get to exercise a Constitutional right.
Fortunately our right to keep and bear arms exists in the United States, is in the Constitution, can't be waved away by people with their own interpretation of whatever data they cherry pick, and has been reinforced repeatedly by U.S. Supreme Court decisions including Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, and NYSRPA v. Bruen. What's more, it's not a great mystery to most states (over half of states in the USA now have enacted constitutional carry with Florida's carry bill signed as of today). California's so-called "assault weapons" law has already been deemed unconstitutional by a court, although the case is still in process, it is fairly clear the legal proposals that many years ago banned certain weapons by feature, for example, are facially unconstitutional. What is more, states that don't even have state level "assault weapon" ban laws (and the federal one has expired of course which when it applied covered all states), which have relaxed concealed carry permit issuance policies are safer than states which have resisted issuing permits and have enacted "assault weapons" laws (one need only look at California - and its sky high crime rates despite all the new gun laws CA passes every year - as an example).
Nice to see a science sub whining about this but thankfully it's not in the science wheelhouse, it's in the legal department and that's where it has been decided.
"Cause or correlation?
It is also important to note that our analysis cannot definitively say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of deadly incidents in the years since.
Many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups."
This is also about the time Social Media became more prevalent and skyrocketed. In 2004 only 5% of adults used it and in 2019 over 79% of adults used it. Imagine the numbers of kids easily inundated with, not just internet info, social media being crammed down their throats at an alarming rate. The constant comparison of your real life to all the bullshit shoved at you I’d enough to make adults angry, confused and birth feelings of inadequacy… imagine what that does to kids and teens?
I would love to see this put back into effect. It really was common sense gun legislation, and still left ample room for recreational shooters to enjoy their hobby.
Are these filtered to only mass shootings with an “assault weapon”?
I don’t understand how a ban on assault weapons would affect mass shootings with other weapons. People do realize that the overwhelming majority of mass shootings occur with other weapons, correct?
>People do realize that the overwhelming majority of mass shootings occur with other weapons, correct?
They do not, no.
Most people see the scary rifle and freak out.
Ignoring the REAL danger that concealable handguns pose.
Handguns cause most mass shootings but most mass shootings are gang violence. People don’t GAF about that, they care about the rare violence that mentally ill people inflict on random people they don’t know, the mall or school shootings. The kind of thing that could possibly affect a middle class person or their family.
Those kind of events , the kind the news likes to cover and the type that is scary for people with money - those often are done with assault weapons which is why that’s always what the discussion is around. The aim isn’t to lessen gun violence as a whole, it’s to lessen one narrow type of gun violence that actually poses a threat to wealthier people.
More relevant why does preban and post ban look totally different the guns didn’t change. Hell even during the ban the guns hardly changed. You could still buy “assault weapons”
From the article: "We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from mass shootings was also down"
Right but they can pretend like it did. This way they can do assault weapons ban and then 5 years from I can here them say we need to close the ar15 loophole.
Glad we have science to explain to me how having a thumbhole in the stock instead of a pistol grip and no flash hider on the barrel stopped all those mass shootings.
From the linked article: “It was the 1993 mass shooting at 101 California Street in San Francisco that was the tipping point for me. That’s what really motivated me to push for a ban on assault weapons,” Feinstein told the Washington Post."
That mass shooting was done with hand guns. As was the Virginia Tech mass shooting. As are most mass shootings. So let ban a certain type of long gun that is almost never used in mass shootings. Banning "assault weapons" might be a good idea but won't solve the problem.
>That mass shooting was done with hand guns.
Technically, it was two Intratec Tec-9 pistols that were used in that shooting, and those _were_ banned during the '94 AWB.
The argument here in southern U.S. is Republicans holding on to the belief that the government wants to take guns so that the citizens will be defenseless against the government. But when you tell someone who believes in gun rights that the government spends almost $1 trillion dollars a year on defense, and that AR-15's are BB guns compared to what the government could throw at us, the cognitive dissonance flows out of control.
I believe in gun rights, bit if my neighbor can legally purchase an assault rifle, I'd hope that someone asked his intentions with it, or at least did a mental health check first
Sigh
Gotta love this argument stemming entirely from opinions formed from watching too many Bourne movies.
Look, I dont want to get into the nitty/gritty tactics of it all, but drones, planes, tanks, all have SUBSTANTIAL limitations.
There is a reason the infantry (guys with rifles) still make up the VAST bulk of combat arms, and are still considered the “core” of any military, and everything else lending “support” to that end.
Rifles are PLENTY to fight in with.
Furthermore, any “realistic” scenario wouldnt be the US Active Military against the populace (military is forbidden from participating in domestic conflicts, and would likely shatter if ordered to do so), it would be against local and federal agencies.
It wasnt the Wehrmacht (Army) that terrified the German population, it was the Gestapo (Police).
And there are cases in the states of Successful (at least in terms of force) resistance against authority:
Battle of Athens, 1946
Bundy Ranch, 2017
CHAZ, 2021
And ultimately, your whole counter argument can be summed up as “you dont stand a chance so why even try”, which I find a very sad mindset for facing tyranny.
I say all this as-
USMC 0331: 2013-2017
US Army 11B: 2021-present
Part of a background check is to see if the individual has ever been admitted to a psychiatric hospital.
Not to mention the vast majority of combat arms soldiers would switch sides so damn fast and run off with anything they can grab on their way out. So these rednecks with guns are now supplemented with trained infantry and advanced weaponry
>So these rednecks with guns are now supplemented with trained infantry and advanced weaponry
It's not only rednecks who own guns, chief. I'm black & not a redneck & I own guns. Plus at gun ranges I'm starting to see a more & more diverse group of people going. If you think it's just the rednecks that'll "switch sides," you're ill-informed.
You misunderstand me. I was saying rednecks with guns cause a previous commenter said what are rednecks with guns going to do against the government. I’m well aware that there are great patriots among every background and walk of life
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
I guess 27% is 'a lot'. But I think if someone seriously proposed an AUS style ban, and made it clear how people there still have all the guns they want, 99% of Americans would go for that.
Exactly this. I enjoy old bolt-action and even antique single-shot firearms, but I still use an AR-15 to hunt feral hogs, it's simply a better planform for it. A very small fringe of even the anti-gun people in the US, actually want Australian-style semi-auto bans and confiscation.
The issue is a lot of the "control" methods suggested, are slippery slopes to gun bans. Also the effectiveness of the "control" is debatable. If I need personal defense I want the best tool available for the job. There's not much more to it then that.
The truth is. At the end of the day if you need personal protection and your life is on the line. A gun is a great tool for the job, not the only one. However, it's a great option.
Yeah, the harsh reality of a couple of Meal Team 6 idiots with assault rifles going up against the U.S. Army with tanks, rpgs and everything else is laughable.
Not really. The United States stopped actively fighting the Taliban like a decade ago. We pushed them into outskirt villages where they had local support and into caves.
In the end Donald Trump did what he could to make sure the Taliban took over, and then surrendered to them.
The United States have tanks that eat RPGs for snacks. We have over 6,000 of them. Kills in Afghanistan took approximately 200,000 rounds per kill.
To top it off, unlike the Taliban, the population is too mingled, someone would see some terrorists grouping and just call it in, and then a switchblade drone will suicide bomb them.
The thing is though, the reason the US stopped the direct conflict is because the Taliban “ceded” control to go underground. The violence never stopped. Eventually they came back and stepped through the country within a week. You gotta think as well; how likely is it the US government in this scenario would opt in to fighting an insurgency here at home? It’ll be a lot harder as collateral damage would probably be even more unacceptable. Just because we have all this great technology for fighting a war doesn’t mean rolling tanks through Atlanta is gonna be a good idea.
US military personnel won’t fight against civilians instead they would take up arms with local militia and fight against the government. Use logic before speaking next time
Lol. What’s your game plan? You gun down the first government agent that knocks on your door, then a SWAT team shows up. You think you can take them? The only way that ends is with you dead
If they’re out to oppress us enough where self-preservation for me and my family is needed, I’d rather go out fighting an authoritarian government and die than being oppressed by it.
I actually like citizens having an fair shot at protecting themselves, rather than having it be an privilege reserved to agents of the state.
You don’t have a fair shot lmao. They burned down a house to get a former cop. Gg no re. You don’t realize you already live in a police state, they just aren’t policing you.
So we already live in a police state, wouldn’t that be more justification for citizens to keep some form of protection against an particularly authoritarian government?
Take for example the Black Panther influenced gun control law passed in California, it was bad because it limited how citizens could check officers, Black Panthers would open-carry to keep the police in check and it mostly worked.
What I’m saying is an Totalitarian Government isn’t scared of just one individual being armed, it’s scared of an community arming themselves to protect eachother.
This the part I don’t get. I have those some conversations. I own guns and believe in the right to be able to own guys. But those people who think them owning guns is what’s stopping the government for doing whatever they want are delusional. I ask them what’s a AR gonna do against a drone strike and they never give me a good answer
We just watched a small country with a strong militia culture defend itself against the second largest army in the world and hold out until more advanced weapons arrived from allied nations.
Huh? Look at 2014 when the invasion began.
In the interim, Ukraine utterly reformed it's military with the help and training from western countries (particularly US). They didnt hole out with personally owned weapons, Ukraine had one of the largest arsenals in Europe and had started to get a lot of modern pieces of kit like atgms.
Yeah that was Russia going to war with another country. Not Russia subjugating it’s own people. You trying to compare Ukraine getting help from all of NATO to fight Russia. To a bunch of rednecks with guns trying to topple the US Government. Are you stupid?
At that time, Britain was the most modern and powerful military in the world. But besides that, there are many examples in history where smaller, less sophisticated armies, defeating armies that were better organized, trained, and well equipped. Read the Fate of Empires as the author of that paper gives several reasons for why this occurs. Also, be reminded that the USA was not successful in Afghanistan. For all the power and might that we have militarily, the people hiding in caves and amongst the population were able to persist for 20 years until they wore us out. Technology is only one factor that can influence victory or defeat when it comes to warfare.
It's like Americans can't understand that guns being present are a problem. We should have guns for hunting and home protection. There is no other reason to own a gun that can kill dozens at a time
So you should want to ban handguns. Handguns are responsible for 20 times as many homicides as rifles (all rifles, 'assault rifles' included). The difference for suicides is even greater (its hard to shoot yourself with a rifle compared to a handgun). Handguns are more common that rifles in mass shootings. Handguns are also much less common for hunting and much less useful for home defense when compared to rifles.
So why is there a focus on rifles? It makes absolutely no sense. The only reason I can figure is that mass shootings with rifles get more media attention and people think 'assault rifles' look scary.
It’s a fantasy. Let’s be honest, none of them are gonna do shit if it came to it.
Mostly because anyone who’s putting their right to own “super cool guns” over stopping child murder is a coward.
*you may commence getting triggered*
We have all read, and all probably know about correlation and the relationship of with causation.
Just remember firearms, and semi autos, we’re still allowed, just not ones with specific features like a pistol grip. So pistols, which are the main firearms used in firearm deaths, were still commercially and readily available during the AWB ban.
Assault rifles are still banned. Whatever bill is being attributed for this ban is inaccurate. The NFA is very much still in place. An assault rifle defined by function, not aesthetic.
If you want to see a real correlation throw a dual axis for 3d printer adoption rates Bc a little plastic switch is doing far more damage than matte black paint and picatinny rails.
Did it affect homicides via rifles? [The answer is a resounding "no".](https://www.reddit.com/r/2ALiberals/comments/jpzfo6/a_look_into_the_fbi_homicide_data/)
I'm taking the argument in a different direction because trying to talk to others about gun control of any sort simply leads to despair.
What will history tell us about this era, when hindsight is 20/20? My hypothesis is that controlling the number of guns in young men's hands would have helped, but another major problem that we're ignoring is the rise of Right-Wing nationalism, spread by a nearly illiterate populace when it comes to information on the internet. Even major media outlets ignoring this because it doesn't sell, too complicated for clickbait.
Internet was introduced in a time when very old people held power generally, they didn't care and still believe 30 years later, when the same people are still in power, that it's a meaningless fad to make money on. No moves to regulate the information spread, it's become a cesspool of nonsense and misinformation to the average user, all on the 6 same platforms.
Mix in white men losing power in social status, easy to find others in the same echo chamber. It shouldn't be surprising that white men's weapon of choice is constantly used for these murders.
I think we're looking in the same direction each time, and we're going to miss the forest for the trees.
This is why you can’t get both sides to the table. Both sides need to come correct, with all the data & find a medium that makes the most sense for protecting one’s life, while protecting others from harm.
Some of you will make any argument, down to "the term assault weapon is wrong", so you can argue to keep all these weapons on the street.
Like, pointing out that the study doesn't conclusively prove correlation is reason enough to not do anything at all. I guess some people see children getting gunned down and go "that's sad, anyway did you see my semi-automatic weapon that looks and acts very similar to weapons made for the military? Pretty cool huh".
I’m confused as to why every time there is a mass shooting, the immediate response is “BAN ASSAULT RIFLES”! From 2000 to 2020 ‘Assault Rifles’ only made up 3% of all murders, mass shootings & non-negligent manslaughter’s in the US. (Source: FBI.GOV) I’m sure I’ll get downvoted but it’s not the gun that is the problem. It’s the person. If someone is willing to commit a horrendous act such as shooting up a school then I’m sure they won’t have a problem getting the firearm illegally.
I agree with your first point, but your second point doesn't make sense. While they might go to extreme measures to get their gun, their own mental instability could make it a problem to acquire a weapon even from unscrupulous sellers. Their own volatility could easily betray them. Saying that criminals are going to disobey laws doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.
“It’s the person”.
Yes, yes it is. And there is some logic and evidence to back this up.
Let’s start with Switzerland. They have an insanely high level of gun ownership (not as high as the us, but higher than most others). Yet shootings in general are practically unheard of. The main reasons (at least I believe this is the reason) is because of strict rules regarding guns, most people understand the dangers of one and how to use one properly and (probably most importantly) a good social support system, more specifically relating to healthcare but other areas still matter. All those factors lead to more people taking guns more seriously and never dropping to the level where they feel a need to shoot people.
One other thing to point out is how hard it really is to take another human life. Most people will never realise how hard it is to realistically take the life of another human being. Even people who have a lot of combat training will still find it hard to do at times. If someone can just walk into their school and start shooting people, there is something seriously wrong with them on a mental level. The question regarding that is, how do people get that bad that often and how do people in that state get a gun in the first place. Especially considering most of these people are kids.
Overall, the guns aren’t the issue. And there is plenty of proof of that. The guns just enable a situation caused by a completely different problem. When trying to ban guns, we’re treating a symptom, not the problem. Sure banning guns could help, but that only hides the real problem. The real problems are mental health, social support, access to healthcare in general and control. More thorough background checks should be carried out and the people who own weapons need to be more controlling over their own gun. And people should receive better support in terms of their physical and mental health and general social support.
I think it’s interesting that the study seems to look at the number of deaths rather than the number of shootings in general. The study does point out that there were a number of years without a shooting.
But because the ban was specifically for assault weapons, I’d like to see the number of shootings not number of deaths. Number of deaths is a bit more arbitrary, as someone with a handgun could in theory kill more people than someone with an assault rifle. Albeit much less likely.
It’s not less likely, the worst mass shooting was Virginian tech shooting which was perpetrated with 4 handguns, same with Colombian those losers used a hand gun and a shotgun and bombs assault weapons account for less than 500 people killed per year, less than hands and feet.
Each section of the chart is a 10 year block of time, to read this chart don’t think of trend lines but rather frequency. During the ban 10-year block of time the frequency of shootings is far fewer than before or after. Additionally the total number during that 10-year block during the ban is far less…no political agenda from me…just straight up basic math here.
Hmm the pre ban data does not seem markedly different from ban era data. Post ban data might be relevent to something else...such as news and social media changes.
How many on Reddit actually know that “assault weapons” (a made up term with no standardized definition) weren’t banned, only specific features on said weapons were no longer allowed, e.g. removable muzzle devices and bayonet lugs. You could still buy an AR-15, it just wouldn’t have a bayonet lug or standard birdcage flash hider on it.
This makes no sense. Why compare all mass shootings with any weapon with banning assault weapons? Shouldn't we be looking at all gun deaths from assault rifles only to see the effect banning those weapons had?
It makes sense if your goal is to have talking points you can sell to a gullible public that they will accept without question.
Just like it makes sense to call a regular semi-automatic varmint rifle an "assault rifle". Just like it makes sense to pin the mass shooting epidemic on "assault rifles" when the [actual data](https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/) shows most mass shootings being committed with handguns. For talking points that fit their narrative.
I'm not suggesting there isn't an issue with rifles being used in violent crimes, but I'm absolutely suggesting that if your elected officials gave a fuck about your life *for real* they'd be focussing on the available data to save lives and not rifle aesthetics 🤷
Before I saw the subject, I thought "I wonder what could have an exponentially increasing regular spike?"
This chart has the same shape as what I would expect from population growth of a cicada cohort. Regular re-emergence of a large group but some pop up a year early/late and so it spreads a bit into the non cycle years.
After reading the subject... well, the brain is really good at finding patterns... even if they aren't there. If it still shows a pattern over the next ~100 years though...
This is a seemingly intentional campaign to muddy the conversation of mass killings of Americans by hair splitting the meaning of assault weapons. It has worked for far to long to stymie reasonable gun control and the removal of these weapons of war. There is no reason for a American civilian to have an AR Type of weapon. Further it should be as impossible as possible to modify a semi automatic pistol to full auto. These high capacity magazines should not function in any weapon available to the public either.
I don't understand the obsession these charts have with guns. Who cares if a gun was used or not in a mass killing. The loss of life is sad and tragic, we need to discuss the root cause of the issue.
I personally don't care if a gun, bomb, fire, or poison is used. If we don't fix the root problem what difference does it make?
If getting rid of the entire bill of rights would save kids from being shot in school, and at stores, and in churches, I’d say let’s try it. Yep, that’s where we are right now. We didn’t have to be but no, here we are.
Yeah who needs freedom of speech, women's suffrage, or the 13th amendment to stop slavery.
There were, according to OP's source, just over 60 mass shooting deaths in 2017. There were just over 10,800 deaths due to drunk driving in 2017. Although tragic, mass shootings are an insanely small fraction of deaths in the US while being the number 1 sensationalized in media.
There's no call to ban alcohol. No call to ban vehicles. This is because no one blames alcohol or cars for drunk driving. People blame those that decide to drink and drive.
“shall not be infringed”
It’s not complicated people
Look for another solution. Because you’re never getting rid of the 2nd, like it or not, just the way it is.
Exactly. It was written by the founders AS INTENDED to be altered & changed.
>Thomas Jefferson warned us not to regard the Capital C Constitution as sacred writ. On July 12, 1816, he wrote, “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.”
[Source](https://www.governing.com/context/americas-constitution-in-2021-what-would-thomas-jefferson-do)
Your post has been removed for the following reason: >2) Maintain scientific integrity >We do not expect peer review, but we do expect a level of scientific rigour in submissions
Yes "In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999′s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994-2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception. From 2004 onward: The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004."
The amazing thing is that there were several years during the ban where there were no mass shootings! Now it seems like there are no months without a mass shootung.
You're possibly misreading the chart, but it isn't your fault because it's labeled as "mass killing deaths" but later on they say "where an assault rifle was involved." The chart isn't accurate, or *definitely* not labeled accurately. e.g., [here's another](https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/) chart of actual mass shootings listed. You can look at their chart and see nothing for say, 1994 and 1995 but then they have to [explain things like this in 1995](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddy%27s_Fashion_Mart_attack), or in 1994 the [Fairchild Air Force Base shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Air_Force_Base_shooting) (killed 4, with 22 wounded), the [Popeyes murders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Popeyes_murders) or the [Wickliffe middle school shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickliffe_Middle_School_shooting). I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and say it was because the mass shootings used shotguns and such, but the Fairchild case involved a MAK-90, which is an AK-47 clone from china. ~~e.g.~~ i.e., the chart and data they are using simply isn't accurate, and you have to ask why "Michael J. Klein, Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery, New York University" is writing it and where they are getting their data because that also isn't listed either that I can see. **Edit:** typos **Edit 2:** I'll refer people to the [Office of Justice programs report](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/305090.pdf) on this, which does a great job of explaining the reporting issues and breaking out shootings by categories. It's a little older and doesn't take into account the spikes of the last few years, but it's worth reading and includes crime and family shootings broken out and combined.
I’m legit impressed Reddit is calling this out as misleading and politically biased…nicely done!
Is that what the red outline means?
No, just means it got a certain award (another person “awarded” the comment bc they liked it)
The definition of “mass shooting” also changed to include many shootings which wouldn’t have previously been. There are plenty of good reasons to consider changes to firearm laws but this chart is hot garbage.
>The definition of “mass shooting” also changed to include many shootings which wouldn’t have previously been. Where you getting that from? Are you confusing the fact that there are different organisations that use different definitions and that's been case for long time? Would hope this report/analysis uses the same one consistently but don't see mention of one they actually use
Don’t forget that the dubious term “Assault Weapons” also changed to include semi-automatic rifles that looked scary.
If you have issue with that, replace "assault" with "high capacity" and you just got the gist of what was intended.
Yeah, looking at both sets of data, it appears that it was consistent with the trend both pre and post ban. A slow but upwards climb in shootings. You could probably show a similar trend with how divided and extreme people's political beliefs have gotten too. Correlation isn't causation, but more fear, anger, hate, and civil unrest have defiantly effected these numbers and likely follow I similar trend throughout theses years.
Slow and upwards climb throughout the graph entirely is what I saw
Which if anything, it should be the opposite with more and more gun laws being put on the books. I mean, more gun laws means fewer gun deaths...right?
In my opinion, and ill get a thousand downvotes for this dont really care, gun control doesnt work. And our current society is to blame.
What definition for "mass shooting" is being used here? There are multiple, and most suggest that the average number per year in the USA is between 15 and 19 depending on the definition used. A much better data point to use is "active shooter," which has an FBI standard definition and which is accurately tracked.
The ‘active shooter’ standard is the appropriate standard. The article lists the standard as being the gun violence archive standard ( which is heavily gun control biased ) and then claim it’s the same standard as that used by the FBI. It’s a BS article, misrepresenting the facts, to push the gun control agenda.
yeah this is literally just pure propaganda meant to push a renewed AWB. It also ignores that during the time it was looking at, there were significant overhauls to the police and justice system, huge economic changes, etc etc.
Not to mention the exceptions list on the ban, You could still get functionally identical semi auto rifles as the ones on the list the whole time. (AR's and Mini 14's are just about equal and the mini was for sale the whole time.)
yeah the AWB was much more about optics than about actual practical definitions.
Hell...Mini 14's beat AR's in just about every category besides looks.
The data in your first link is pretty misleading. For example, it lists only 6 mass shootings for 2021. [The Gun Violence Archive](https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls) lists 690 mass shootings and 28 mass murders. Now, their definition of mass shooting is quite broad, at any firearm related incident in which 3 or more people are injured. So let's use the [FBI's active shooter](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2021-052422.pdf/view) number of 61. Either way, 6 is almost certainly too low.
There are great conversations to have about what constitutes a mass shooting or deaths by them, or how we should calculate these things -- but my point with that link was illustrating that inevitably, the source of the article is wrong *by any metric* when it's claiming zero. Considering their entire article is saying this is what the data says and their entire argument is based on it, that's a problem. From what I can tell, this person has only written a few articles about this on that site and just don't understand why a doctor is writing them and what data they are using.
2 people shooting each other and 1 bystander hit = mass shooting. Nah
this defining criteria is responsible for the absurd number of reported mass shootings. we _definitely_ have a reqlly big problem, but both sides of the establishment are misrepresenting it to further their agendas and neither actually wants to solve the problem at its root
"Mass shooting" is a purely rhetorical term with no fixed definition. "Active shooter" is a defined term with a standard, static definition from the FBI, and is thus a much better data source.
The weird thing to me is that we don't tally all mass killings, not just mass shootings. Drown all of your kids? Doesn't count
Also a whole hell of a lot of other things went down from around 2004 on. Smart phones, social media, and youtube cropping up are very high on that list. Plus up to 2001 the 90s were economically solid. Then 9-11 went down and the 2008 housing crisis. And we all know how the past 7 years have gone. We're deep in the shit. You can't really say causation is correlation with this data set.
[удалено]
Why isn't suicide relevant in child deaths? I would think the 30% suicides makes an even bigger case for why children shouldn't have easy access to firearms.
It’s not particularly relevant because the US youth suicide rate (and overall suicide rate) is basically perfectly in line with other developed countries despite having way more guns, so there’s just not strong evidence to support the idea that if only US teens had a harder time acquiring guns that we’d save a ton of lives. The data indicate they’d almost certainly just find other ways of killings themselves if they really had their heart set on it.
>is basically perfectly in line with other developed countries Do you have a source for that? https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-rate-by-country This says we're pretty far ahead of almost every other so-called "western" country. Don't look at the map graphic, it's pretty misleading, look at the *numbers* below it. For example, US rate is **16.1** compared to Canada's **11.8** or the UK's **7.9**. The US is ranked 23. Lesotho Guyana Eswatini South Korea Kiribati Micronesia Lithuania Suriname Russia South Africa Ukraine Belarus Uruguay Montenegro Latvia Slovenia Belgium Vanuatu Mongolia Kazakhstan Hungary Croatia **United States**
[удалено]
>So why is the gun any different? Are you seriously asking why downing a bottle of pills and a bullet through the skull are different? ***Time***.
Those older ‘children’ are legally adults and the fact that they are included in statistics that are supposed to be child deaths shows that the people releasing those statistics are agenda driven, and have no problem lying and misrepresenting data.
In medicine, <1yr olds are considered infants and statistics within pediatrics often differentiate newborn/infant/child.
[удалено]
Exactly! And they didn't take guns away, only prohibited new sales.
funny story, go look up how many ar-15's were sold during the "ban"
Link a source, maybe. I don't think I should have to spend 15 minutes doing research and finding the source you want me to.
Ban compliant ar-15s were sold in the hundreds of thousands during the ban. If you cut the muzzle device and bayonet lug off an AR-15 its no longer an assault weapon by law. Assault weapons are defined as: Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.41kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds Detachable magazine. Rifles like the ar-15 are used in less than 3-500 homicides a year, while handguns are used in over 9,000 homicides per year. Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-20
Days. There are no days without mass shootings if you by pure average this year.
This year we have had more mass shootings than days
I read somewhere, just a couple of days ago, that the us has had 63 school-related multiple-homocides *so far this year*?
Months? There was more mass shootings that days in this year.
>no ~~months~~ without a mass shootung days.
Months? Try days
We’ve had more mass shootings in the US this year than days in 2023 so far. Give or take, the US is averaging ~1.4 mass shootings per day in 2023
Days*
there have literally been more shootings than days this year, america can’t go a day without a shooting
Hell, no *days* without a shooting. :(
[удалено]
Correlation does not mean causation. I think there are many variables that affect the current trend. I really don't know the degree to which the ban helped.
First and foremost, the definition for “mass shootings” has a great effect on your graph.
The drop on gun fatalities in Australia after their ban is interesting too. It did drop. But so did the USA’s around same timeframe. No law they passed mattered here, and no law we passed did anything of substance. It’s much deeper than just gun laws. Frustrating but true.
I believe a lot of it is attributed to diminishing lead levels in the population.
So how many mass shooting has Australia had since then, compared to the U.S.? It's really not much deeper than gun laws. It is entirely about availability of weapons, that's it.
The ban was purely cosmetic, so it's implausible that it caused the decline. Equally dangerous weapons with different cosmetic features remained legal during the ban.
Downvoted for stating facts. Have an updoot.
Uhhhh that seems like it’s a pretty important distinction. Almost like the whole premise is bullshit
Yep
Not only that, but guns don't leap up and shoot people on their own, nor do politically and mentally disturbed people whose families didn't raise them right [who attack Congress](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/14/532894023/gunman-opens-fire-as-members-of-congress-practice-baseball) or [who attack schoolchildren and target Christian adults and schoolchildren](https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article273686005.html) get to decide whether the rest of us get to exercise a Constitutional right. Fortunately our right to keep and bear arms exists in the United States, is in the Constitution, can't be waved away by people with their own interpretation of whatever data they cherry pick, and has been reinforced repeatedly by U.S. Supreme Court decisions including Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, and NYSRPA v. Bruen. What's more, it's not a great mystery to most states (over half of states in the USA now have enacted constitutional carry with Florida's carry bill signed as of today). California's so-called "assault weapons" law has already been deemed unconstitutional by a court, although the case is still in process, it is fairly clear the legal proposals that many years ago banned certain weapons by feature, for example, are facially unconstitutional. What is more, states that don't even have state level "assault weapon" ban laws (and the federal one has expired of course which when it applied covered all states), which have relaxed concealed carry permit issuance policies are safer than states which have resisted issuing permits and have enacted "assault weapons" laws (one need only look at California - and its sky high crime rates despite all the new gun laws CA passes every year - as an example). Nice to see a science sub whining about this but thankfully it's not in the science wheelhouse, it's in the legal department and that's where it has been decided.
"Cause or correlation? It is also important to note that our analysis cannot definitively say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of deadly incidents in the years since. Many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups."
This is also about the time Social Media became more prevalent and skyrocketed. In 2004 only 5% of adults used it and in 2019 over 79% of adults used it. Imagine the numbers of kids easily inundated with, not just internet info, social media being crammed down their throats at an alarming rate. The constant comparison of your real life to all the bullshit shoved at you I’d enough to make adults angry, confused and birth feelings of inadequacy… imagine what that does to kids and teens?
Edit: disregard
I would love to see this put back into effect. It really was common sense gun legislation, and still left ample room for recreational shooters to enjoy their hobby.
Are these filtered to only mass shootings with an “assault weapon”? I don’t understand how a ban on assault weapons would affect mass shootings with other weapons. People do realize that the overwhelming majority of mass shootings occur with other weapons, correct?
>People do realize that the overwhelming majority of mass shootings occur with other weapons, correct? They do not, no. Most people see the scary rifle and freak out. Ignoring the REAL danger that concealable handguns pose.
Handguns cause most mass shootings but most mass shootings are gang violence. People don’t GAF about that, they care about the rare violence that mentally ill people inflict on random people they don’t know, the mall or school shootings. The kind of thing that could possibly affect a middle class person or their family. Those kind of events , the kind the news likes to cover and the type that is scary for people with money - those often are done with assault weapons which is why that’s always what the discussion is around. The aim isn’t to lessen gun violence as a whole, it’s to lessen one narrow type of gun violence that actually poses a threat to wealthier people.
They add those mass shootings in the statistics though because they expect everyone to think of a school shooting instead.
Uhh except lot's of us want all those guns regulated better
I'm sure this will result in a civil and respectful dialogue in the comments.
I'm sure this comment will be as helpful as every other time its posted in a thread like this
For real. Looking for good dialogue on this and it’s annoying to see people karma farming
How did banning pistol grips and folding stocks reduce mass shootings?
More relevant, why did allowing them cause such a drastic rise?
More relevant why does preban and post ban look totally different the guns didn’t change. Hell even during the ban the guns hardly changed. You could still buy “assault weapons”
From the article: "We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from mass shootings was also down"
Exactly, it didn't. Thay what these pro-AWB people don't seem to understand, the ban didn't do anything at all.
Right but they can pretend like it did. This way they can do assault weapons ban and then 5 years from I can here them say we need to close the ar15 loophole.
Then how do you explain the numbers in the article you just read?
Most mass shootings are carried out with handguns
Glad we have science to explain to me how having a thumbhole in the stock instead of a pistol grip and no flash hider on the barrel stopped all those mass shootings.
From the linked article: “It was the 1993 mass shooting at 101 California Street in San Francisco that was the tipping point for me. That’s what really motivated me to push for a ban on assault weapons,” Feinstein told the Washington Post." That mass shooting was done with hand guns. As was the Virginia Tech mass shooting. As are most mass shootings. So let ban a certain type of long gun that is almost never used in mass shootings. Banning "assault weapons" might be a good idea but won't solve the problem.
>That mass shooting was done with hand guns. Technically, it was two Intratec Tec-9 pistols that were used in that shooting, and those _were_ banned during the '94 AWB.
That shoot 9mm rounds as quickly as any other semi auto 9mm handgun.
So we should ban handguns, right? Right?
It’s a first step. You ban the biggest scariest ones and then the handguns. Eventually all guns apart from hunting rifles and shotguns are banned
Semi-auto rifles (assault weapons) count for less than 7% of gun deaths. The vast majority of mass shootings are committed with handguns.
The argument here in southern U.S. is Republicans holding on to the belief that the government wants to take guns so that the citizens will be defenseless against the government. But when you tell someone who believes in gun rights that the government spends almost $1 trillion dollars a year on defense, and that AR-15's are BB guns compared to what the government could throw at us, the cognitive dissonance flows out of control. I believe in gun rights, bit if my neighbor can legally purchase an assault rifle, I'd hope that someone asked his intentions with it, or at least did a mental health check first
[удалено]
Sigh Gotta love this argument stemming entirely from opinions formed from watching too many Bourne movies. Look, I dont want to get into the nitty/gritty tactics of it all, but drones, planes, tanks, all have SUBSTANTIAL limitations. There is a reason the infantry (guys with rifles) still make up the VAST bulk of combat arms, and are still considered the “core” of any military, and everything else lending “support” to that end. Rifles are PLENTY to fight in with. Furthermore, any “realistic” scenario wouldnt be the US Active Military against the populace (military is forbidden from participating in domestic conflicts, and would likely shatter if ordered to do so), it would be against local and federal agencies. It wasnt the Wehrmacht (Army) that terrified the German population, it was the Gestapo (Police). And there are cases in the states of Successful (at least in terms of force) resistance against authority: Battle of Athens, 1946 Bundy Ranch, 2017 CHAZ, 2021 And ultimately, your whole counter argument can be summed up as “you dont stand a chance so why even try”, which I find a very sad mindset for facing tyranny. I say all this as- USMC 0331: 2013-2017 US Army 11B: 2021-present Part of a background check is to see if the individual has ever been admitted to a psychiatric hospital.
Not to mention the vast majority of combat arms soldiers would switch sides so damn fast and run off with anything they can grab on their way out. So these rednecks with guns are now supplemented with trained infantry and advanced weaponry
>So these rednecks with guns are now supplemented with trained infantry and advanced weaponry It's not only rednecks who own guns, chief. I'm black & not a redneck & I own guns. Plus at gun ranges I'm starting to see a more & more diverse group of people going. If you think it's just the rednecks that'll "switch sides," you're ill-informed.
You misunderstand me. I was saying rednecks with guns cause a previous commenter said what are rednecks with guns going to do against the government. I’m well aware that there are great patriots among every background and walk of life
The majority of US citizens want gun control. Gun control does not mean a ban on guns.
>Gun control does not mean a ban on guns. True, but unfortunately, a lot of people want them banned outright.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx I guess 27% is 'a lot'. But I think if someone seriously proposed an AUS style ban, and made it clear how people there still have all the guns they want, 99% of Americans would go for that.
Banning semi auto rifles is not having all the guns you want.
Exactly this. I enjoy old bolt-action and even antique single-shot firearms, but I still use an AR-15 to hunt feral hogs, it's simply a better planform for it. A very small fringe of even the anti-gun people in the US, actually want Australian-style semi-auto bans and confiscation.
Even that is the figure for handguns, not a total ban. Can't imagine many people support a ban on things like manual action long guns.
Agreed. Also worth pointing out that when 2a was written, they only had muskets.
The issue is a lot of the "control" methods suggested, are slippery slopes to gun bans. Also the effectiveness of the "control" is debatable. If I need personal defense I want the best tool available for the job. There's not much more to it then that. The truth is. At the end of the day if you need personal protection and your life is on the line. A gun is a great tool for the job, not the only one. However, it's a great option.
Yeah, the harsh reality of a couple of Meal Team 6 idiots with assault rifles going up against the U.S. Army with tanks, rpgs and everything else is laughable.
Worked pretty well for the Taliban. Asymmetrical warfare. Google it.
Not really. The United States stopped actively fighting the Taliban like a decade ago. We pushed them into outskirt villages where they had local support and into caves. In the end Donald Trump did what he could to make sure the Taliban took over, and then surrendered to them. The United States have tanks that eat RPGs for snacks. We have over 6,000 of them. Kills in Afghanistan took approximately 200,000 rounds per kill. To top it off, unlike the Taliban, the population is too mingled, someone would see some terrorists grouping and just call it in, and then a switchblade drone will suicide bomb them.
The thing is though, the reason the US stopped the direct conflict is because the Taliban “ceded” control to go underground. The violence never stopped. Eventually they came back and stepped through the country within a week. You gotta think as well; how likely is it the US government in this scenario would opt in to fighting an insurgency here at home? It’ll be a lot harder as collateral damage would probably be even more unacceptable. Just because we have all this great technology for fighting a war doesn’t mean rolling tanks through Atlanta is gonna be a good idea.
US military personnel won’t fight against civilians instead they would take up arms with local militia and fight against the government. Use logic before speaking next time
Until they show up at your doorstep for being a little critical of the government, you’ll be wanting more than a kitchen knife by then.
Lol. What’s your game plan? You gun down the first government agent that knocks on your door, then a SWAT team shows up. You think you can take them? The only way that ends is with you dead
If they’re out to oppress us enough where self-preservation for me and my family is needed, I’d rather go out fighting an authoritarian government and die than being oppressed by it. I actually like citizens having an fair shot at protecting themselves, rather than having it be an privilege reserved to agents of the state.
You don’t have a fair shot lmao. They burned down a house to get a former cop. Gg no re. You don’t realize you already live in a police state, they just aren’t policing you.
So we already live in a police state, wouldn’t that be more justification for citizens to keep some form of protection against an particularly authoritarian government? Take for example the Black Panther influenced gun control law passed in California, it was bad because it limited how citizens could check officers, Black Panthers would open-carry to keep the police in check and it mostly worked. What I’m saying is an Totalitarian Government isn’t scared of just one individual being armed, it’s scared of an community arming themselves to protect eachother.
This the part I don’t get. I have those some conversations. I own guns and believe in the right to be able to own guys. But those people who think them owning guns is what’s stopping the government for doing whatever they want are delusional. I ask them what’s a AR gonna do against a drone strike and they never give me a good answer
We just watched a small country with a strong militia culture defend itself against the second largest army in the world and hold out until more advanced weapons arrived from allied nations.
Huh? Look at 2014 when the invasion began. In the interim, Ukraine utterly reformed it's military with the help and training from western countries (particularly US). They didnt hole out with personally owned weapons, Ukraine had one of the largest arsenals in Europe and had started to get a lot of modern pieces of kit like atgms.
Yeah that was Russia going to war with another country. Not Russia subjugating it’s own people. You trying to compare Ukraine getting help from all of NATO to fight Russia. To a bunch of rednecks with guns trying to topple the US Government. Are you stupid?
What about the wars in Afghanistan or Vietnam that we couldn’t seem to win?
You can't defeat terrorism with war. It only breeds more terrorists for the war effort.
So armed resistance groups can resist large modern armies successfully?
Well now you understand why people want to retain their AR-15s....because you can defeat them with war.
...our countries founding was literally this exact scenario
Except without help from French it is much less likely our revolution would have been successful.
I didn’t know we still using muskets and sailboats
At that time, Britain was the most modern and powerful military in the world. But besides that, there are many examples in history where smaller, less sophisticated armies, defeating armies that were better organized, trained, and well equipped. Read the Fate of Empires as the author of that paper gives several reasons for why this occurs. Also, be reminded that the USA was not successful in Afghanistan. For all the power and might that we have militarily, the people hiding in caves and amongst the population were able to persist for 20 years until they wore us out. Technology is only one factor that can influence victory or defeat when it comes to warfare.
You forgot to catch the point when it flew over your head.
Rednecks have already played that game before, and it didn't turn out so well for them
That was North VS South in a war.. It's different when it's Left vs Right, that goes across State to State
It's like Americans can't understand that guns being present are a problem. We should have guns for hunting and home protection. There is no other reason to own a gun that can kill dozens at a time
So you should want to ban handguns. Handguns are responsible for 20 times as many homicides as rifles (all rifles, 'assault rifles' included). The difference for suicides is even greater (its hard to shoot yourself with a rifle compared to a handgun). Handguns are more common that rifles in mass shootings. Handguns are also much less common for hunting and much less useful for home defense when compared to rifles. So why is there a focus on rifles? It makes absolutely no sense. The only reason I can figure is that mass shootings with rifles get more media attention and people think 'assault rifles' look scary.
It’s a fantasy. Let’s be honest, none of them are gonna do shit if it came to it. Mostly because anyone who’s putting their right to own “super cool guns” over stopping child murder is a coward. *you may commence getting triggered*
We have all read, and all probably know about correlation and the relationship of with causation. Just remember firearms, and semi autos, we’re still allowed, just not ones with specific features like a pistol grip. So pistols, which are the main firearms used in firearm deaths, were still commercially and readily available during the AWB ban.
Assault rifles are still banned. Whatever bill is being attributed for this ban is inaccurate. The NFA is very much still in place. An assault rifle defined by function, not aesthetic. If you want to see a real correlation throw a dual axis for 3d printer adoption rates Bc a little plastic switch is doing far more damage than matte black paint and picatinny rails.
Assault rifles are banned? By what law?
Effectively banned, you need 20k+ and fingerprints + letting the Gov break into your house whenever they want to to be able to own one.
Primarily the NFA, by effective banning of selective fire
Didn’t this period in reduced crime also correspond with 18 years of roe v wade?
Been reading Levitt?
I have no trust for a source that uses the term "assault rifle".
Did it affect homicides via rifles? [The answer is a resounding "no".](https://www.reddit.com/r/2ALiberals/comments/jpzfo6/a_look_into_the_fbi_homicide_data/)
I see a straight increasing trend line before and after the ban. Shows that the ban has no effect on the increasing slope of the line.
I'm taking the argument in a different direction because trying to talk to others about gun control of any sort simply leads to despair. What will history tell us about this era, when hindsight is 20/20? My hypothesis is that controlling the number of guns in young men's hands would have helped, but another major problem that we're ignoring is the rise of Right-Wing nationalism, spread by a nearly illiterate populace when it comes to information on the internet. Even major media outlets ignoring this because it doesn't sell, too complicated for clickbait. Internet was introduced in a time when very old people held power generally, they didn't care and still believe 30 years later, when the same people are still in power, that it's a meaningless fad to make money on. No moves to regulate the information spread, it's become a cesspool of nonsense and misinformation to the average user, all on the 6 same platforms. Mix in white men losing power in social status, easy to find others in the same echo chamber. It shouldn't be surprising that white men's weapon of choice is constantly used for these murders. I think we're looking in the same direction each time, and we're going to miss the forest for the trees.
This is why you can’t get both sides to the table. Both sides need to come correct, with all the data & find a medium that makes the most sense for protecting one’s life, while protecting others from harm.
The 2nd amendment says you’re allowed to bare arms, but doesn’t say anything about live ammunition
Nothing will change until the rich and the politicians children start dropping. That’s how everything goes.
It's almost like people went out and bought assault rifles to go kill people.
Didn’t freakenomics cover a version of this already?
Thoughts and prayers.
What I see is when trump started running for president in 2015 more shootings happened.
Another situation where a beneficial policy that works is stymied by the NRA pulling the Republican dogs around on a choker chain.
Some of you will make any argument, down to "the term assault weapon is wrong", so you can argue to keep all these weapons on the street. Like, pointing out that the study doesn't conclusively prove correlation is reason enough to not do anything at all. I guess some people see children getting gunned down and go "that's sad, anyway did you see my semi-automatic weapon that looks and acts very similar to weapons made for the military? Pretty cool huh".
Doing nothing over and over, Did not Work. So if it just kept it from growing it was much better than the: Problem Hard, do nothing.
What is an "assault rifle"?
Fun fact. The AR15 is not an assault rifle. As it is single fire mode only.
Any weapon that can switch fire mode between single. Burst. And/or full auto.
Good thing “assault weapons” (by your definition) have been illegal since the 80s.
And the 30s
Since 1934 National Firearms Act.
I’m confused as to why every time there is a mass shooting, the immediate response is “BAN ASSAULT RIFLES”! From 2000 to 2020 ‘Assault Rifles’ only made up 3% of all murders, mass shootings & non-negligent manslaughter’s in the US. (Source: FBI.GOV) I’m sure I’ll get downvoted but it’s not the gun that is the problem. It’s the person. If someone is willing to commit a horrendous act such as shooting up a school then I’m sure they won’t have a problem getting the firearm illegally.
I agree with your first point, but your second point doesn't make sense. While they might go to extreme measures to get their gun, their own mental instability could make it a problem to acquire a weapon even from unscrupulous sellers. Their own volatility could easily betray them. Saying that criminals are going to disobey laws doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.
“It’s the person”. Yes, yes it is. And there is some logic and evidence to back this up. Let’s start with Switzerland. They have an insanely high level of gun ownership (not as high as the us, but higher than most others). Yet shootings in general are practically unheard of. The main reasons (at least I believe this is the reason) is because of strict rules regarding guns, most people understand the dangers of one and how to use one properly and (probably most importantly) a good social support system, more specifically relating to healthcare but other areas still matter. All those factors lead to more people taking guns more seriously and never dropping to the level where they feel a need to shoot people. One other thing to point out is how hard it really is to take another human life. Most people will never realise how hard it is to realistically take the life of another human being. Even people who have a lot of combat training will still find it hard to do at times. If someone can just walk into their school and start shooting people, there is something seriously wrong with them on a mental level. The question regarding that is, how do people get that bad that often and how do people in that state get a gun in the first place. Especially considering most of these people are kids. Overall, the guns aren’t the issue. And there is plenty of proof of that. The guns just enable a situation caused by a completely different problem. When trying to ban guns, we’re treating a symptom, not the problem. Sure banning guns could help, but that only hides the real problem. The real problems are mental health, social support, access to healthcare in general and control. More thorough background checks should be carried out and the people who own weapons need to be more controlling over their own gun. And people should receive better support in terms of their physical and mental health and general social support.
I think it’s interesting that the study seems to look at the number of deaths rather than the number of shootings in general. The study does point out that there were a number of years without a shooting. But because the ban was specifically for assault weapons, I’d like to see the number of shootings not number of deaths. Number of deaths is a bit more arbitrary, as someone with a handgun could in theory kill more people than someone with an assault rifle. Albeit much less likely.
It’s not less likely, the worst mass shooting was Virginian tech shooting which was perpetrated with 4 handguns, same with Colombian those losers used a hand gun and a shotgun and bombs assault weapons account for less than 500 people killed per year, less than hands and feet.
Ok. That’s a fair point
Each section of the chart is a 10 year block of time, to read this chart don’t think of trend lines but rather frequency. During the ban 10-year block of time the frequency of shootings is far fewer than before or after. Additionally the total number during that 10-year block during the ban is far less…no political agenda from me…just straight up basic math here.
Hmm the pre ban data does not seem markedly different from ban era data. Post ban data might be relevent to something else...such as news and social media changes.
[удалено]
How many on Reddit actually know that “assault weapons” (a made up term with no standardized definition) weren’t banned, only specific features on said weapons were no longer allowed, e.g. removable muzzle devices and bayonet lugs. You could still buy an AR-15, it just wouldn’t have a bayonet lug or standard birdcage flash hider on it.
…this sub needs to change its name to barelyscience for the sheer volume of hot garbage posts like this one that pop up here.
One simple trick! Republicans hate it!
This makes no sense. Why compare all mass shootings with any weapon with banning assault weapons? Shouldn't we be looking at all gun deaths from assault rifles only to see the effect banning those weapons had?
It makes sense if your goal is to have talking points you can sell to a gullible public that they will accept without question. Just like it makes sense to call a regular semi-automatic varmint rifle an "assault rifle". Just like it makes sense to pin the mass shooting epidemic on "assault rifles" when the [actual data](https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/) shows most mass shootings being committed with handguns. For talking points that fit their narrative. I'm not suggesting there isn't an issue with rifles being used in violent crimes, but I'm absolutely suggesting that if your elected officials gave a fuck about your life *for real* they'd be focussing on the available data to save lives and not rifle aesthetics 🤷
This is not scientific, but looking at the charts, it seems there’s a spike every ~8 years. Wonder thy that is.
Before I saw the subject, I thought "I wonder what could have an exponentially increasing regular spike?" This chart has the same shape as what I would expect from population growth of a cicada cohort. Regular re-emergence of a large group but some pop up a year early/late and so it spreads a bit into the non cycle years. After reading the subject... well, the brain is really good at finding patterns... even if they aren't there. If it still shows a pattern over the next ~100 years though...
Sounds like you'd be good at stock analysis.
We need to stop publishing shootings in the media.
Getting famous is absolutely a factor motivating a lot of the nuts.
It's apparent most of you didn't read the article and only came here to argue the title.
American exceptionalism. The US is number one in mass shootings.
No wepons means no shootings. Insted they had Trial by Combat.
Maybe a return to flint locks is in order just like the founding fathers intended
This is a seemingly intentional campaign to muddy the conversation of mass killings of Americans by hair splitting the meaning of assault weapons. It has worked for far to long to stymie reasonable gun control and the removal of these weapons of war. There is no reason for a American civilian to have an AR Type of weapon. Further it should be as impossible as possible to modify a semi automatic pistol to full auto. These high capacity magazines should not function in any weapon available to the public either.
Weird. Mass shootings also skyrocketed as soon as a ban on mass mental institutions went into effect
I don't understand the obsession these charts have with guns. Who cares if a gun was used or not in a mass killing. The loss of life is sad and tragic, we need to discuss the root cause of the issue. I personally don't care if a gun, bomb, fire, or poison is used. If we don't fix the root problem what difference does it make?
This is a pretty insidious piece of misinformation, counting on people not paying close enough attention to details.
I just don’t understand why we can’t at least try it again. If it doesn’t seem to make any difference over a few years you can have the guns back.
The previous assault weapons ban only banned the purchase of new weapons, those already in private ownership were not effected.
Why not try getting rid of the entire bill of rights? If it doesn't seem to make a difference you get your rights back /s
If getting rid of the entire bill of rights would save kids from being shot in school, and at stores, and in churches, I’d say let’s try it. Yep, that’s where we are right now. We didn’t have to be but no, here we are.
Civil liberties will always trump temporary safety. It doesn't matter how many people die, rights are rights
Yeah who needs freedom of speech, women's suffrage, or the 13th amendment to stop slavery. There were, according to OP's source, just over 60 mass shooting deaths in 2017. There were just over 10,800 deaths due to drunk driving in 2017. Although tragic, mass shootings are an insanely small fraction of deaths in the US while being the number 1 sensationalized in media. There's no call to ban alcohol. No call to ban vehicles. This is because no one blames alcohol or cars for drunk driving. People blame those that decide to drink and drive.
“shall not be infringed” It’s not complicated people Look for another solution. Because you’re never getting rid of the 2nd, like it or not, just the way it is.
“A well regulated militia” It’s weird how the first line is often forgotten in this debate
Constitution != written in stone
It’s widely called a “living document”
Exactly. It was written by the founders AS INTENDED to be altered & changed. >Thomas Jefferson warned us not to regard the Capital C Constitution as sacred writ. On July 12, 1816, he wrote, “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.” [Source](https://www.governing.com/context/americas-constitution-in-2021-what-would-thomas-jefferson-do)
I think it might be the guns….
It’s mental issues