AR-15s existed long before the ban and people didn’t much care for them. They use an intermediate round which hunters consider too low-power to be humane, and I believe it’s illegal to hunt with those rounds in some states. Anybody could get one, only few people did.
So what happened? Democrats said, “You can’t have these!” and Americans, predictably, flipped out and bought tens of millions once available. Hell, I wasn’t interested until everyone was screaming BAN after Uvalde. Figured if I was ever going to get one, might as well get grandfathered in. The long-standing joke is that Democrats are the best gun salesmen of all.
Also, the media hype. Have you noticed the media salivates over “assault weapons” given the opportunity? ALL long guns, of which AR-15’s are a subset, are responsible for only 4% of the killing. Our media has beat it into our heads that the best way to kill a bunch of people is the AR-15.
There are so many other gun death related issues we should be beating the drum about. That’s another long post. :(
kandoh@reddthat.com 1 year ago
Actually, the data shows that the assault weapons ban of 1994 was associated with a decrease in mass shooting deaths and the number of incidents^[1][5][6]. During the ten-year period of the ban, there were lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception[1][5][6]. However, after the ban expired in 2004, there was an almost immediate and steep rise in mass shooting deaths^[1][5][6]. Between 2004 and 2017, the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons^[1][5][6]. It is important to note that 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^[1][5][6]. Nonetheless, the data suggests that the assault weapons ban of 1994 was associated with a decrease in mass shooting deaths and the number of incidents, while the expiration of the ban was associated with an increase in mass shooting deaths^[1][5][6].
Citations: [1] Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us - Ohio Capital Journal ohiocapitaljournal.com/…/did-the-assault-weapons-… [2] [PDF] Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban - Office of Justice Programs www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf [3] Fact-check: Did the number of mass shootings triple after the assault weapon ban ended? - Austin American-Statesman www.statesman.com/story/news/…/9941501002/ [4] Studies: Gun Massacre Deaths Dropped During Assault Weapons Ban, Increased After Expiration - Senate Judiciary Committee …senate.gov/…/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped… [5] Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us - The Conversation theconversation.com/did-the-assault-weapons-ban-o… [6] Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us - Yahoo News news.yahoo.com/did-assault-weapons-ban-1994-19310…
jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 1 year ago
Correlation from causation aside, for this to have any real significance, there would need to be a drop in mass shooting counts.
That aside, your own citation shows any change in deaths is questionable at best - it looks as if the average may have even increased, by the included graph.
It also seems to pretend that _merely banning the sales of more “assault weapons” would have nullified the impact of existing assault weapons.
Again, correlation from causation aside, for this to have any real meaning there would have to be only one changing factor… and the trend would have had to been consistent with a near-elimination of the count of events.
Can you truly think of no other changes? No, say, incredible spike in the media glorifying and sensationalizing such events, inadvertently promoting them as a means of getting violent retribution as one commits suicide?
It boils down to this: was there any direct scaling of such values with the actual count of owned “assault weapons”? Of course not.
Wow. So, you dilute the value of your own correlation by highlighting factors known to be common underlying issues, yet double-down on “suggest” and “decrease”.
Jonna@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s terrible I can only upvote you once.