- Messages
- 1,241
- Reactions
- 1,577
The 1994-2004 Assault Weapon Ban. We all know it didn't work. At best the research papers that studies teh impact came to inconclusive results. Even the major gun-control groups a few years ago admitted as much.
But that changed recently from a 2016 book by Louis Klarevas titled "Rampage Nation". In it, he claims a 40% reduction in mass shootings because of the ban. And a 200% increase afterwards. A nice sound bite, and about the only real leg the current movement has to stand on. (will save Australia and UK for another day). There are a couple articles that touch on the flaws of Mr. Klarevas book already, but I thought I would add one (IMO) very important point, with Klarevas own data to support it: Non-assault weapon mass shootings had the same pattern.
The data works out like this (per Klarevas own data and definitions)
Pre ban decade: 19 total mass shootings (5 with assault weapons, 14 without)
AWB decade: 12 total (3 AWs, 9 without AWs)
Post ban decade: 34 total (9 AWs, 25 without AWs).
Looking at the (very small sample set) of AW's used, we find the 40% reduction, and 200% increase.
None-AW's? a 36% decrease, and 178% increase.
If the theory were true, the non-AW's should have stayed the same.
But they didn't. At best (being generous here) it is.... inconclusive.
The book is one huge example of "Correlation doesn't equal causation". Especially when the evidence is generated by the author themselves. He either ignored it, or was too blinded to see it.
But that changed recently from a 2016 book by Louis Klarevas titled "Rampage Nation". In it, he claims a 40% reduction in mass shootings because of the ban. And a 200% increase afterwards. A nice sound bite, and about the only real leg the current movement has to stand on. (will save Australia and UK for another day). There are a couple articles that touch on the flaws of Mr. Klarevas book already, but I thought I would add one (IMO) very important point, with Klarevas own data to support it: Non-assault weapon mass shootings had the same pattern.
The data works out like this (per Klarevas own data and definitions)
Pre ban decade: 19 total mass shootings (5 with assault weapons, 14 without)
AWB decade: 12 total (3 AWs, 9 without AWs)
Post ban decade: 34 total (9 AWs, 25 without AWs).
Looking at the (very small sample set) of AW's used, we find the 40% reduction, and 200% increase.
None-AW's? a 36% decrease, and 178% increase.
If the theory were true, the non-AW's should have stayed the same.
But they didn't. At best (being generous here) it is.... inconclusive.
The book is one huge example of "Correlation doesn't equal causation". Especially when the evidence is generated by the author themselves. He either ignored it, or was too blinded to see it.
