Again, we appreciate Washington Gun Law covering our data on this. We have updated the data discussed in this post.
Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses some raw data released by the Crime Prevention Research Center which helps us better understand what drives America’s violence problem. Today we dive into the area of assault weapon bans. Many states have already enacted them and many more are on the way. Every time a state legislature proposes such a bill, they use the same justification that this will prevent mass shooting and save lives. But does any of that actually comport with the data? The answers might surprise you. So learn more and arm yourself with education today.
Washington Gun Law, “The Truth About “Assault Weapons” and Mass Shootings,” Washington Gun Law, January 18, 2024.
To that I will add…
The Assault Weapon & Assault Weapons Ban
It is a prerequisite that one must first define something before one can legislate and regulate it, and therein lies the crux of the matter. The label “assault weapon” is a rhetorical hijacked classification. The term “assault rifle” originated in Nazi Germany during World War II with the creation of the Sturmgewehr Model 44. The word sturmgewehr translates to “assault rifle”. Originating in the 1940s, an assault weapon is a magazine fed, full-auto capable, military issue, combat infantry rifle. The official Department of Defense definition of an assault weapon is a select fire rifle capable of semiautomatic operation (single round fired per each trigger pull) and fully automatic operation (multiple rounds fired per trigger pull). Civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms (machine guns) has been restricted since the National Firearms Act was passed in 1934. A political ploy by gun control activists, “assault weapon” is a fallacious classification that entered the American lexicon in the late 1980s. The highly politicized, inflammatory term “assault weapon” is an emotionally charged, misleading rhetorical favorite of left-wing ideologues, the media, anti-gun movement, gun-grabbing politicians, and lawmakers. Regardless of what sort of spin anyone attempts to put on things, civilian semiautomatic firearms such as the AR-15, are not full-auto capable, battlefield ready “weapons of war” as erroneously portrayed. The AR-15 is not a weapon of war. It has never been employed on the battlefield. As repeatedly and deliberately depicted by gun control activists, “assault weapon” is a disingenuous term for a semiautomatic civilian rifle that has the appearance, but not the functionality, of a fully automatic, military issue, combat infantry rifle. The media and journalists have specifically been advised by the Associated Press to refrain from using the terms “assault weapon” and “weapons of war”. According to the AP Stylebook, the preferred term for a rifle that fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, is a semi-automatic rifle.
Assault weapons bans specifically target firearms based on superficial characteristics rather than functionality, namely specific cosmetic features even though such features do not make a firearm functionally different or any more lethal than a firearm without such features. Appearance is irrelevant. There is no cause and effect correlation between appearance and lethality.
The 1994 U.S. Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004, defined a semiautomatic rifle as an assault weapons if it could accept a detachable magazine, and had at least two military-style features such as a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor. The list of military-style accessories also included a grenade or rocket launcher both of which were already banned. No mass public shooter has ever affixed a bayonet or employed a grenade or rocket launcher. It is not the intent of the deranged, homicidal maniac to get up close and personal with their victims. Their objective is to effectively main and kill as many people, as quickly as possible, at a safe distance, and that is simply not accomplished with a bayonet. Granted, a grenade or rocket would make a firearm more lethal and suitable for the intended purpose, but both are already banned. A threaded barrel is primarily intended for attachment of a flash suppressor, muzzle brake, or silencer (sound suppressor) which is, for all practical purposes, already banned, but movement is in the making to eliminate silencer bans. A flash suppressor diverts muzzle flash to the side to minimize loss of night vision. A muzzle brake suppresses recoil and muzzle flip for better control of a firearm. A barrel shroud enables a shooter to stabilize a firearm without risk of burning a hand. A telescoping stock allows for adjustment of a firearm to the size of the shooter. A folding stock allows for easier transport of a firearm. A deceptive wish list, the assault weapons ban was part and parcel of the gun-grabber’s thinly disguised disarmament agenda.
Although focus has primarily been on assault weapons. In mass shootings from 1998 to 2022, only 14% involved a rifle including an assault weapon, 4% involved only a shotgun, 58% involve only handguns,12% involved handgun and rifle, 9% involved handgun and shotgun, 3% involved handgun, rifle, and shotgun.
From September 1994 to September 2004, the duration of the assault weapons ban, there were 15 mass shootings. Based on indicators of the percentage of gun crimes resulting in injury or death, a Department of Justice (National Institute of Justice) study concluded that the assault weapons ban had no appreciable effect since there was no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness from assault weapons while the ban was in effect.
Mass Public Shootings
The predominant mass public shootings narrative is all too familiar. In various speeches, then president Barack Obama repeatedly regurgitated the same erroneous mantra. Here are two examples. “The one thing we do know is that we have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world.” “You don’t see murder on this kind of scale with this kind of frequency in any other advanced county on earth.” Mainstream media parrot this fallacious perception.
Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, once said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Regardless of how many times repeated, a fallacious statement is no more true than when first uttered regardless or who says it.
What is the source of this myth? Obama and others based their contention upon a flawed study by University of Alabama professor Adam Lankford. His assertion that the US has the most public mass shooters has been published in hundreds of news stories. All who have taken Lankford’s data at face value have been misled.
Unfortunately, we live in an era of narrative-driven journalism which subjugates truth to ideology. In reality, violence is not a unique product of US gun culture and there is no significant correlation between gun ownership rate and mass public shootings despite what is portrayed by the agenda-drive mainstream media.
How mass public shootings are defined varies from researcher to researcher and from study to study and that undermines the accuracy of the numbers in apple to oranges comparisons that undermines the validity of the data and corrupts the findings. The FBI’s definition of a mass public shooting is four or more persons killed in a public place, not including the shooter, not involving another crime, not involving genocide, not involving war, not involving an act of terrorism, and not involving gang related warfare.
Crime Prevention Research Center’s John Lott utilizes the FBI definition when conducting studies of mass public shootings. His studies have been peer reviewed whereas Adam Lankford’s study has not been. When findings conflict, in pursuit of the truth, scholars compare notes, data, and methodology to discern the relevance and validity of the conclusions reached. Any research that seeks to influence the public debate on mass public shootings, as Lankford’s study clearly does, should be required to make their data available so that other researchers can confirm their findings. Lankford has adamantly declined to explain his data or his methodology to anyone, including peers who have submitted a request. That constitutes academic malpractice. Apparently, Lankford’s peers agree and have discredited Lankford’s study.
Unfortunately, some studies do not account for population size citing raw numbers rather than per capita numbers. Such studies are statistically insignificant. Lott’s study on mass public shootings, comparing European countries to US and Canada from 2009 to 2015, revealed that the US ranks 11th per million people in death rate and 12th per million people in frequency. Rankings aside, admittedly the US numbers are high, but the fact of the matter remains that the US is not number one in either category contrary to what Langkford, and “lamestream” media talking heads would have you believe.
Excellent response! Thank you.