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[2][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[3][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[4][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[5][5][6].
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
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.
However, after the ban expired in 2004, there was an almost immediate and steep rise in mass shooting deaths.
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.
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
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”.
In order to judge the effectiveness of the assault weapons ban, we need to look at if the usage of the banned weapons themselves decreased in mass shootings. If mass shootings dropped by half, but the banned weapons only compromised a third of the shootings prior to the ban, then clearly there is much more at play.
As is most mass shootings are committed using handguns, not rifles. Even on the higher-end of causalities, handguns comprise about 50 percent of the biggest mass shootings. (Incidents like Orlando and Virginia Tech were committed entirely with handguns, Ar-15s aren’t actually advantageous in most shooting incidents, it’s purely aesthetic).
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[2][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[3][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[4][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[5][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 https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/06/15/did-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-1994-bring-down-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-data-tells-us/ [2] [PDF] Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban - Office of Justice Programs https://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 https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2022/06/01/fact-check-did-mass-shootings-triple-after-assault-weapon-ban-ended/9941501002/ [4] Studies: Gun Massacre Deaths Dropped During Assault Weapons Ban, Increased After Expiration - Senate Judiciary Committee https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration [5] Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us - The Conversation https://theconversation.com/did-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-1994-bring-down-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-data-tells-us-184430 [6] Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us - Yahoo News https://news.yahoo.com/did-assault-weapons-ban-1994-193107345.html
1 ↩︎
1 ↩︎
1 ↩︎
1 ↩︎
1 ↩︎
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”.
It’s terrible I can only upvote you once.
deleted by creator
In order to judge the effectiveness of the assault weapons ban, we need to look at if the usage of the banned weapons themselves decreased in mass shootings. If mass shootings dropped by half, but the banned weapons only compromised a third of the shootings prior to the ban, then clearly there is much more at play.
As is most mass shootings are committed using handguns, not rifles. Even on the higher-end of causalities, handguns comprise about 50 percent of the biggest mass shootings. (Incidents like Orlando and Virginia Tech were committed entirely with handguns, Ar-15s aren’t actually advantageous in most shooting incidents, it’s purely aesthetic).