Open Carry

[DocMcCoy]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Lol

You forgot to include the rest of the quote from the study

Ill add it here for you

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, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related fatalities per 10,000 shooting deaths.

Taking population trends into account, a model we created based on this data suggests that had the federal assault weapons ban been in place throughout the whole period of our study – that is, from 1981 through 2017 – it may have prevented 314 of the 448 mass shooting deaths that occurred during the years in which there was no ban.

And this almost certainly underestimates the total number of lives that could be saved. For our study, we chose only to include mass shooting incidents that were reported and agreed upon by all three of our selected data sources: the Los Angeles Times, Stanford University, and Mother Jones magazine.

Furthermore, for uniformity, we also chose to use the strict federal definition of an assault weapon – which may not include the entire spectrum of what many people may now consider to be assault weapons.

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.

Nonetheless, according to our study, President Biden’s claim that the rate of mass shootings during the period of the assault weapons ban “went down” only for it to rise again after the law was allowed to expire in 2004 holds true.

But please, should me any study, that even suggests a possible correlation between tyranny, MGs, or their use in self defense

Yes that is exactly the part you’ve already quoted multiple times. And it means absolutely NOTHING . Garbage in garbage out.

Chasing the rare events, that do almost nothing to combat gun deaths. That is the point.

Why? So far the best you’ve come up with is because people shouldn’t have them?

 

[UscGhost]

Yes that is exactly the part you’ve already quoted multiple times. And it means absolutely NOTHING . Garbage in garbage out.

Chasing the rare events, that do almost nothing to combat gun deaths. That is the point.

Why? So far the best you’ve come up with is because people shouldn’t have them?

Kinda funny though.

Your argument now is that MGs arent the problem, because they overshadowed by all of the other regular gun violence.

So then why not ban all guns?

Then you say, oh, because they are overshadowed by deaths by alcohol

Meanwhile ..no even remotely compelling reasons to allow MGs

 

[UscGhost]

https://publichealth.jmir.org/2024/1/e62952/PDF

Public Mass Shootings: Counterfactual Trend Analysis of the
Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Alex Lars Lundberg1
, PhD; James Alan Fox2
, PhD; Hassan Mohammad1
, BA; Maryann Mason1
, PhD; Doreen
Salina3
, PhD; David Victorson4
, PhD; Ruben Parra-Cardona5
, PhD; Lori Ann Post1
, PhD
1Buehler Center for Health Policy & Economics, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States
2Criminology, Law and Public Policy, Northeastern University, New York, NY, United States
3Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University, , Chicago, IL, United StatesUnited States
4Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States
5
Steve Hicks School of Social Work, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States
Corresponding Author:
Alex Lars Lundberg, PhD
Buehler Center for Health Policy & Economics
Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University
9-933 Rubloff Building, 420 E Superior St
Chicago, IL, 60611
United States
Phone: 1 312-503-4559
Email: [email protected]
Abstract
Background: Assault weapon and large-capacity magazine bans are potential tools for policy makers to prevent public mass
shootings. However, the efficacy of these bans is a continual source of debate. In an earlier study, we estimated the impact
of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB) on the number of public mass shooting events in the United States. This study
provides an updated assessment with 3 additional years of firearm surveillance data to characterize the longer-term effects.
Objective: This study aims to estimate the impact of the FAWB on trends in public mass shootings from 1966 to 2022.
Methods: We used linear regression to estimate the impact of the FAWB on the 4-year simple moving average of annual
public mass shootings, defined by events with 4 or more deaths in 24 hours, not including the perpetrator. The study period
spans 1966 to 2022. The model includes indicator variables for both the FAWB period (1995‐2004) and the period after its
removal (2005‐2022). These indicators were interacted with a linear time trend. Estimates were controlled for the national
homicide rate. After estimation, the model provided counterfactual estimates of public mass shootings if the FAWB was never
imposed and if the FAWB remained in place.
Results: The overall upward trajectory in the number of public mass shootings substantially fell while the FAWB was in
place. These trends are specific to events in which the perpetrator used an assault weapon or large-capacity magazine. Point
estimates suggest the FAWB prevented up to 5 public mass shootings while the ban was active. A continuation of the FAWB
and large-capacity magazine ban would have prevented up to 38 public mass shootings, but the CIs become wider as time
moves further away from the period of the FAWB.
Conclusions: The FAWB, which included a ban on large-capacity magazines, was associated with fewer public mass shooting
events, fatalities, and nonfatal gun injuries. Gun control legislation is an important public health tool in the prevention of public
mass shootings.
JMIR Public Health Surveill 2024;10:e6

 

[DocMcCoy]

Kinda funny though.

Your argument now is that MGs arent the problem, because they overshadowed by all of the other regular gun violence.

So then why not ban all guns?

Then you say, oh, because they are overshadowed by deaths by alcohol

Meanwhile ..no even remotely compelling reasons to allow MGs

Statistically they aren’t the problem. That is correct.

Well we all know that’s the end goal (ban all guns). But again, why does the focus have to be on banning anything, functional bans were no different from statistical noise and random chance when they were in place in terms of reducing gun deaths. That is a fact. Then in a broader sense, if the focus is preventable deaths, why are you all in on guns?

Stop chasing interventions that won’t do anything to combat the problem. Seems addressing mental health, and doing a better job keeping guns out of the hands of people who want to use them illegally might be worth a shot.

The problem is it’s a right spelled out in the constitution. Which means you don’t need a compelling reason to exercise it. You definitely need a compelling reason to infringe it. I’d imagine you would agree regarding any other amendment or inherent right?

Let’s assume the AWB was proven effective in reducing gun violence (it wasn’t). Let’s assume a ban would not only ever mass shooting mass shooting, but every death caused by an ar15 (it wouldn’t). That gets you in the absolute BEST case a 2% reduction in gun deaths. No, I don't think we should limit any freedom for an effect size that can’t be differentiated from statistical noise. Try something else and quit blowing smoke up our backsides.

 

[pgg]

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, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related fatalities per 10,000 shooting deaths.

had the federal assault weapons ban been in place throughout the whole period of our study – that is, from 1981 through 2017 – it may have prevented 314 of the 448 mass shooting deaths that occurred during the years in which there was no ban.

And there it is - you're chasing a vanishingly small, theoretical, benefit at the expense of a very large infringement upon a constitutionally enumerated civil right.

A reduction of 314 deaths in a 36 year period?!? Really?

I'd bet 8 deaths per year is dwarfed by freak skateboarding accidents.

Your entire goal is irrationally driven by sensationalized media coverage of rare events.

 

[UscGhost]

Statistically they aren’t the problem. That is correct.

Well we all know that’s the end goal (ban all guns). But again, why does the focus have to be on banning anything, functional bans were no different from statistical noise and random chance when they were in place in terms of reducing gun deaths. That is a fact. Then in a broader sense, if the focus is preventable deaths, why are you all in on guns?

Stop chasing interventions that won’t do anything to combat the problem. Seems addressing mental health, and doing a better job keeping guns out of the hands of people who want to use them illegally might be worth a shot.

The problem is it’s a right spelled out in the constitution. Which means you don’t need a compelling reason to exercise it. You definitely need a compelling reason to infringe it. I’d imagine you would agree regarding any other amendment or inherent right?

Let’s assume the AWB was proven effective in reducing gun violence (it wasn’t). Let’s assume a ban would not only ever mass shooting mass shooting, but every death caused by an ar15 (it wouldn’t). That gets you in the absolute BEST case a 2% reduction in gun deaths. No, I don't think we should limit any freedom for an effect size that can’t be differentiated from statistical noise. Try something else and quit blowing smoke up our backsides.

Wasnt proven effective? Studies clearly suggest otherwise.

But i will let RAND know that YOU dont think it did

 

[pgg]

Machine guns are a side topic to the overall issue of gun control. I'm glad to see you took the bait so enthusiastically, even while you mostly dodged the point (which was to find out if there were any compromises you'd be willing to make in exchange for more gun control). 🙂


I brought them up specifically because they're an outstanding example of something that was a 100+ year media-sensationalized, yet objectively irrelevant, "problem".

The means by which they were regulated in 1934 is an outstanding example of the racist and classist roots of gun control - the NFA left them easily available to the wealthy, but out of reach for ordinary people.

The means by which the registry was closed in 1986 (a last minute voice vote on an amendment that wasn't even counted and is widely acknowledged to have likely not had a majority!) is an outstanding example of the kind of deceptive maneuvers gun control advocates pull to get their bans passed.

Machine guns are an outstanding example of the overall ignorance gun control advocates have concerning how guns work and what makes them effective. They are less accurate and waste ammunition. Their effectiveness for the military is due to their use in squad+ sized tactics as suppresisve fire.

Apart from the Las Vegas mass shooting, there really aren't any notable uses of a machine gun in a a random mass shooting. (And that was a bump stock, not a MG.) if you're in a gangland shootout, you should hope the other guy has illegally modified his Glock to be fully automatic, because he'll be out of ammo without hitting anything in less than a second.

You didn't answer my M16 history question so I'll just give you the answer: the US military replaced the M16A1 with the M16A2 in order to remove the fully automatic mode in favor of 3-round burst. This was because even trained soldiers and Marines were much less accurate and effective when using them as machine guns.

I've spent a lot of time on military training ranges with Marines and they typically aren't even permitted to use the burst setting because they can't hit anything after the first shot.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Wasnt proven effective? Studies clearly suggest otherwise.

But i will let RAND know that YOU dont think it did

Suggest or prove? They same studies also suggest any correlation could be due to random chance.

There is not a single study that proves the AWB was effective. Not one. I don’t know why you are hell bent on making the data say something it doesn’t. I understand to a degree why the average anti gun person would, but not a rational and objective physician that understands statistics.

 

[UscGhost]

And there it is - you're chasing a vanishingly small, theoretical, benefit at the expense of a very large infringement upon a constitutionally enumerated civil right.

A reduction of 314 deaths in a 36 year period?!? Really?

I'd bet 8 deaths per year is dwarfed by freak skateboarding accidents.

Your entire goal is irrationally driven by sensationalized media coverage of rare events.

Machine guns are a side topic to the overall issue of gun control. I'm glad to see you took the bait so enthusiastically, even while you mostly dodged the point (which was to find out if there were any compromises you'd be willing to make in exchange for more gun control). 🙂


I brought them up specifically because they're an outstanding example of something that was a 100+ year media-sensationalized, yet objectively irrelevant, "problem".

The means by which they were regulated in 1934 is an outstanding example of the racist and classist roots of gun control - the NFA left them easily available to the wealthy, but out of reach for ordinary people.

The means by which the registry was closed in 1986 (a last minute voice vote on an amendment that wasn't even counted and is widely acknowledged to have likely not had a majority!) is an outstanding example of the kind of deceptive maneuvers gun control advocates pull to get their bans passed.

Machine guns are an outstanding example of the overall ignorance gun control advocates have concerning how guns work and what makes them effective. They are less accurate and waste ammunition. Their effectiveness for the military is due to their use in squad+ sized tactics as suppresisve fire.

Apart from the Las Vegas mass shooting, there really aren't any notable uses of a machine gun in a a random mass shooting. (And that was a bump stock, not a MG.) if you're in a gangland shootout, you should hope the other guy has illegally modified his Glock to be fully automatic, because he'll be out of ammo without hitting anything in less than a second.

You didn't answer my M16 history question so I'll just give you the answer: the US military replaced the M16A1 with the M16A2 in order to remove the fully automatic mode in favor of 3-round burst. This was because even trained soldiers and Marines were much less accurate and effective when using them as machine guns.

I've spent a lot of time on military training ranges with Marines and they typically aren't even permitted to use the burst setting because they can't hit anything after the first shot.

Hardly.

A Tommy gun was already extremely expensive. $200. So it was predominantly purchased by law enforcement and wealthy gangsters. The average joe wasnt wasting their money on it. So no, they werent suddenly out of reach for poor people..poor people weren't reaching for them at all

In terms of their use...if machine guns werent useful then they wouldn't have been used by criminals and law enforcement at that time for those related purposes..and needed a public supported ban.

Public supported..they got eliminated.

But so far, your only justification offered for why you need them..is somehow that they arent that useful for killing because they are inaccurate??

But it just goes to show that gun lovers have no reap justifications for owning these guns, other than they want to pew pew things

Compromises for gun control is illogical. Its like asking to remove airbags in exchange for better seatbelts..

Machine guns are not protected under the Second Amendment because courts have determined they are "dangerous and unusual" weapons not in "common use" for lawful purposes, making their possession outside the scope of the amendment. While the Second Amendment protects "bearable arms," the Supreme Court's rulings allow for restrictions on weapons that don't have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" and are instead dangerous or useful for criminal activities, like fully automatic firearms.