No, there was not a drop in “mass shooting deaths” because of an “assault weapons ban” in the 1990s. And banning these rifles again will not stop shootings.
Let’s say you’re a moron. Or let’s say you’re a former Clinton cabinet member and current Berkley professor. But I repeat myself.
After the shooting at Club Q in Colorado Springs, Robert B Reich immediately put this up on his Twitter feed:
Researchers have estimated that if we still had a federal assault weapons ban, we would see 70% fewer mass shooting deaths. S-E-V-E-N-T-Y PERCENT. Reinstating it should be a no-brainer.
Now one thing I am very meticulous about in my writings, if I say so myself, is sources. If you’ve read my stuff, I have links to studies, online publications, etc., where you can judge for yourself my assertions. Granted, Twitter is not a verifiable or “peer reviewed” source, and this is a space for one to spout one’s opinion.
I do have an issue with is Mr. Reich is he seems to expect people to read his stuff and swallow it whole. His intellectual arrogance is what makes people despise higher education faculty, the 4th Estate, etc.
A simple search will find facts of mass shootings. Mass shootings are defined as those where 4 or more people are shot (not necessarily killed) in one incident. From the National Institute of Justice:
Notably, most individuals who engaged in mass shootings used handguns (77.2%), and 25.1% used assault rifles in the commission of their crimes. Of the known mass shooting cases (32.5% of cases could not be confirmed), 77% of those who engaged in mass shootings purchased at least some of their guns legally, while illegal purchases were made by 13% of those committing mass shootings. In cases involving K-12 school shootings, over 80% of individuals who engaged in shootings stole guns from family members.
BTY, the shooting at the Wal-Mart in Chesapeake VA was not committed with a rifle, but with a pistol purchased that day. Granted, they, like Bobby Reich here, don’t define what an assault weapon is, so I started with a Web search and I found a two-decade old reference from the OJP:
The paper defines an “assault weapon” as a “civilian, semiautomatic version of a military weapon.” Generally, the characteristics of an assault weapon make firearms more lethal, more accurate, and/or less conspicuous when used.
Well, what does the Encyclopedia Britannica say about assault weapons:
assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Because they are light and portable yet still able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 feet (300–500 metres), assault rifles have replaced the high-powered bolt-action and semiautomatic rifles of the World War II era as the standard infantry weapon of modern armies…
I’ve said countless times over the years, I’ve carried both a Ruger Mini-14 and a Bushmaster M4 (an AR-15 type rifle with a collapsing stock) as patrol rifles. Both fire .223 ammunition and both have “high capacity” magazines (I carry seven 30 round magazines). Furthermore both are semi-automatic, i.e., you must pull the trigger every time you want to fire one round, as opposed to automatic, where once your squeeze and hold the trigger, the rifle will fire rounds until you release the trigger, run out of bullets, or the rifle jams.
Ruger Mini-14 Source Ruger.com
AR-15 Source: Small Wars Journal M-16 Source
M-16A1 Source Encyclopedia Britannia
So, compare the AR-15/M4 and Mini-14 to an M-16. All three fire .223 (or 5.56mm) all three have “high capacity magazines,” but only the M-16 A1 has full auto (M-16 A2 has burst fire of 3 rounds). Otherwise the AR-15/M4 and the M-16 similarities are cosmetic, not functional. The Mini-14 looks nothing like the AR-15 or M-16, although it functions like the AR-15/M4.
Another lie put out by many politicians and other ignorant sources is the AR-15 is a “weapon of war” or a “military weapon” in civilian hands. I then ask people this one question: Which army in the world uses the AR-15? I get no answer, and in internet searches, I find no explanation. I have no doubt some guerrilla groups use them, but no nation’s armed forces that I can find uses it.
Back to what Mr. Reich put out on Twitter, a flat statement that the “assault weapons” ban reduced mass shootings from the middle of the Clinton years till 2004. A Department of Justice report published in July 2004 shows limited effect of the “assault weapons” ban. In summary:
The Ban’s Success in Reducing Criminal Use of the Banned Guns and Magazines Has Been Mixed
• Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs declined by 17% to 72% across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage), based on data covering all or portions of the 1995-2003 post-ban period. This is consistent with patterns found in national data on guns recovered by police and reported to ATF.
• The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.
• However, the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs in jurisdictions studied (Baltimore, Milwaukee, Louisville, and Anchorage). The failure to reduce LCM use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines, which has been enhanced by recent imports.
To review, three-fourths of the times there is a mass shooting, the shooter uses a pistol, not a rifle. There is no documentation that the “assault weapon” ban significantly affected crime reduction in the 1990s (as opposed to 3 Strikes You’re Out, mandatory five years for use of a firearm, fielding more cops). The facts are Mr. Reich put out an unsubstantiated statement. I’ll be generous and give him the benefit of the doubt he’s just ignorant of the facts. As a Berkley professor, that is very believable. But either way, it’s false, and it shows, he and the propagandists on his side of this issue are not to be taken seriously.
Michael A. Thiac is a retired Army intelligence officer, with over 23 years experience, including serving in the Republic of Korea, Japan, and the Middle East. He is also a retired police patrol sergeant, with over 22 years’ service, and over ten year’s experience in field training of newly assigned officers. He has been published at The American Thinker, PoliceOne.com, and on his personal blog, A Cop’s Watch.
Opinions expressed are his alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of current or former employers
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
Parler: https://parler.com/AFNNUSA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
But what the left does fully understand is the repetitive and continuous use of the sound bite. They, and their loyal minions in the mainstream media make sure everyone who even briefly pays attention to what they spew out, is stuck inside their shallow, thoughtless brains. That is the only truth concerning the term assault weapons, which has always been a misnomer concerning AR 15s and Ruger minis, and all the other associated weapons the left cries about.
The sound bite is what the younger crowd is so hypnotized over, when you run across a younger than millennial type person. The rest who follow along with what Orwell predicted, so long ago, I completely gave up on.
Another tool the left is using, when reporting nonsense, nowadays, is the “online expert”, or the “Online Safety Expert”, when it comes down to raw censorship online, now more so than those worn out “Fact Checkers” who were always a product of the Media Matters types, and the idiots at Snopes, who got it wrong more than right, or just played the subterfuge game when giving their two cents, that no one ever asked for, except the all powerful media.
For us to have irrefutable data about weapons used in crime, still the best is Dr. John Lott. https://crimeresearch.org/
I kinda liked that Ruger AC556, myself, as far as full autos go.
Thank you for the Dr Lott link. And you are dead on, the “expert” or “fact checker” is just another tool to convince useful idiots there need to give up their guns (but we need them)…or wear a diaper (but we don’t)…or get on a bus (but we need to use a limo and private jet)…”
There is a range not too far from home with fully auto A-4s, and one of these days I will have to give it a try. Haven’t fired full auto since a rifle range at Ft Carson CO in 1991.
Have a great week!
Have fun! I’ve been able to shoot several full autos at ranges and lower 40s. Ingram MAC 10-suppressed, UZI, M16, but not the 3 shot select fire, and they are all awesome and have their place in our hands, if we chose to use them as armament. And I believe that will come to pass, in the not too distant future. All those claims by the gun control crowd are completely false. They just want to keep their monopoly and moratorium imposed on us.
The Supreme Court will kill the NFA outright. Just a matter of time. The Bruen decision almost guarantees it.
The only reason I don’t own one of those guns is because of that terrible unconstitutional act.
Just think, if granny could shoot one… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–K3X6rptE4