Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, August 06, 2019

BACKGROUND: A federal assault weapons ban has been proposed as a way to reduce mass shootings in the United States. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 made the manufacture and civilian use of a defined set of automatic and semiautomatic weapons and large capacity magazines illegal. The ban expired in 2004. The period from 1994 to 2004 serves as a single-arm pre-post observational study to assess the effectiveness of this policy intervention. METHODS: Mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 were obtained from three well-documented, referenced, and open-source sets of data, based on media reports. We calculated the yearly rates of mass shooting fatalities as a proportion of total firearm homicide deaths and per US population. We compared the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period to non-ban periods, using simple linear regression models for rates and a Poison model for counts with a year variable to control for trend. The relative effects of the ban period were estimated with odds ratios.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

RESULTS:

Assault rifles accounted for 430 or 85.8% of the total 501 mass-shooting fatalities reported (95% confidence interval, 82.8-88.9) in 44 mass-shooting incidents. Mass shootings in the United States accounted for an increasing proportion of all firearm-related homicides (coefficient for year, 0.7; p = 0.0003), with increment in year alone capturing over a third of the overall variance in the data (adjusted R = 0.3). In a linear regression model controlling for yearly trend, the federal ban period was associated with a statistically significant 9 fewer mass shooting related deaths per 10,000 firearm homicides (p = 0.03). Mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the federal ban period (relative rate, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.39). CONCLUSION:

Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:

Observational, level II/IV.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 made the manufacture and civilian use of a defined set of automatic and semiautomatic weapons and large capacity magazines illegal."

Wrong. Completely wrong. It segmented the market and you could buy, own, and use semi-auto carbines and high cap magazines. The proliferation of the AR style onto the market is due to patent expiration, which greatly expanded supply while dropping prices. Over 100 companies spun up in a short period of time. The manufacturing part of the "ban" doesn't effect them because all they do is remove the flash supressor, add 4" of barrel, make it a fixed stock instead of collapsible. That's it. That's a Clinton-AWB compliant carbine. Those are cosmetic changes, they don't effect the function at all.

#1 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-06 12:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

They went to all that work and based their research on an erroneous assumption. Sucks to be them.

#2 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-08-06 01:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

None of that reflects the hate that many people have today. WTF is the point of comparing apples to sour grapefruit?

#3 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-08-06 05:29 PM | Reply

Democrats need to promote a ban on all semi-automatics and external magazines of any size.

#4 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-06 05:35 PM | Reply

None of that reflects the hate that many people have today. WTF is the point of comparing apples to sour grapefruit?

Posted by Sniper at 2019-08-06 05:29 PM | Reply

That's not sour grapefruit that you're tasting.

#5 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-08-06 05:36 PM | Reply

None of that reflects the hate that many people have today. WTF is the point of comparing apples to sour grapefruit?

#3 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Sour grapefruit shouldn't be given easy access to assault weapons.

#6 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2019-08-06 06:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Joe Biden is coming for your assault weapons - www.foxnews.com

But as Sitz pointed out, it's going to have to go much farther than just being cosmetic attachments.

#7 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-06 06:07 PM | Reply

"Mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the federal ban period (relative rate, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.39)."

I see none of the gun lovers have attempted to deny these results.
I'd prefer mass-shooting fatalities to be 100% less likely, but 70% is a good start.
Let's bring back the Clinton cosmetic AWB, it seemed dot have real results.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-06 06:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#8 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

So then you agree with me that Democrats need to go for the touchdown on this issue instead of field goals?

#9 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-06 06:50 PM | Reply

"So then you agree with me that Democrats need to go for the touchdown on this issue instead of field goals?"

Unlike you, my politics aren't built around making the good the enemy of the perfect.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-06 06:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"The mass shootings will continue in the pursuit of less evil" -Snoofy

#11 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-06 06:54 PM | Reply

cosmetic attachments.

If flash hiders and collapsible stocks are merely cosmetic why does the military waste money on them?

#12 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-08-06 07:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The mass shootings will continue in the pursuit of less evil" -Snoofy

Again, incorrect.

They'll continue in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-06 07:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"So then you agree with me that Democrats need to go for the touchdown on this issue instead of field goals?"

This is an issue that transcends politics, and until people like you are willing to let it transcend politics, nothing is going to change.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-06 07:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The mass shootings will continue in the pursuit of snark" -Snoofy

#15 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-06 07:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Let's bring back the Clinton cosmetic AWB, it seemed dot have real results.

#8 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-08-06 06:46 PM | REPLY

It's not a full cosmetic ban. You get to have 1 cosmetic accessory. Otherwise, identical carbines.

#16 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-06 08:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

If flash hiders and collapsible stocks are merely cosmetic why does the military waste money on them?

#12 | POSTED BY REDIAL AT 2019-08-06 07:28 PM | REPLY

The military uses a bayonet lug. Collapsible stocks save money by fitting a wider range of soldiers. Using a 16" barrel instead of 20" saves manufacturing costs at scale.

Why does the military standard model have a carrying handle when it actually makes the rifle worse compared to a milled flat top receiver? It's cheaper.

Why does the military use inferior bolt carrier groups compared to competition grade materials? It's cheaper.

#17 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-06 09:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

For fun, lets do the exact same correlation as the AWB period, but lets widen the date range.

Mass killings were at their lowest when you could buy heavy machine guns and anti-tank weapons by mail order out of the back of magazines. Clearly, we need to go back to this paradigm for safety. The stats are the stats.

#18 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-06 09:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Interesting, let's see those numbers please.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-06 10:03 PM | Reply

But as Sitz pointed out, it's going to have to go much farther than just being cosmetic attachments.

#7 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Knowledgeable people have been saying this for years.

And every time they're accused of being idiots arguing semantics by people who just want to do anything to say they did something.

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-06 11:09 PM | Reply

#20 Do you support a ban on semi-automatic weapons?

#21 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-06 11:15 PM | Reply

#20 Do you support a ban on semi-automatic weapons?

Across the board? No.

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-06 11:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I am currently in Scotland on vacation. I got into an interesting discussion with some locals in a pub last night. They are dumbfounded by our inability to regulate guns. And they are blown away at how easy it is for a 21 year old kid to get his hands on a semi automatic weapon. All I could do was agree with them. What was I going to do? Argue the nuances of American law? Argue the nuances of the actual design and mechanics of automatic weapons? Simply put, no matter what intellectual gymnastics that gun proponents wish to do, the bottom line is that people on the street simply should not have access to such weaponry.

#23 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-08-07 05:45 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

Cars are dangerous. They kill many times the number that guns do. Sure, they have been made safer through regulations. They still kill and the regulations don't fully address the real problem: Speed kills. A universal speed limit of 35 mph would vastly reduce traffic deaths. No one has a right to high-speed travel.

#24 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-08-07 07:54 AM | Reply

"Democrats need to promote a ban on all semi-automatics and external magazines of any size."

Joke needs to stop telling us Dems what to do and start telling his own party what to do, but he won't, because they won't listen.

"Simply put, no matter what intellectual gymnastics that gun proponents wish to do, the bottom line is that people on the street simply should not have access to such weaponry."

Exactly true but the idiots in this country will never listen to wisdom like that.

"Why does the military standard model have a carrying handle when it actually makes the rifle worse compared to a milled flat top receiver? It's cheaper."

Why does any normal person even wonder about that?

Get a life.

#25 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-07 08:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why does any normal person even wonder about that?

#25 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2019-08-07 08:18 AM | REPLY

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is a combat support agency in the United States Department of Defense, with more than 26,000 civilian and military personnel throughout the world. Located in 48 states and 28 countries, DLA provides supplies to the military services and supports their acquisition of weapons, fuel, repair parts, and other materials. The agency also disposes of excess or unusable equipment through various programs.

#26 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-07 08:25 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Like I said, why does any normal person even wonder about such things.
Do get a life.
Your last post demonstrates clearly that you have too much time on your hands to worry about such idiotic nonsense.

#27 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-07 08:42 AM | Reply

I got a life, I don't work for them anymore.

I'm sorry people knowing things makes you feel that way.

#28 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-07 08:44 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

--A universal speed limit of 35 mph would vastly reduce traffic deaths. No one has a right to high-speed travel.

That's right. We could save tens of thousands of lives and even more crippling injuries every year. People who want to drive at 70 mph are pro-death.

#29 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-07 09:04 AM | Reply

#1 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Actually that is correct. "The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 made the manufacture and civilian use of a defined set of automatic and semiautomatic weapons and large capacity magazines illegal."

I remember this pretty well. It didn't make owning them illegal if you owned it prior to the ban but it did make transferring them illegal unless you were turning them in to LE. And it definitely made buying a new one illegal. If you had one it was yours. You could use one if you owned it as well. I don't remember for sure but I believe the magazines were outright outlawed - possession was illegal as there is no way to trace them and when they were manufactured or sold.

AR style weapons were pretty popular PRIOR to the ban. I knew quite a few people with them during the ban, it's nothing like now though. The number exploded after the ban (just like many other types like AK-47 knock offs). The AR did so because there are so many manufacturers who have had contracts with the government to make them for the military as well as the fact former servicemen and women knew them. Patents didn't have a lot to do with it. Some sport shooters I know like well made versions for their accuracy. It's also a flexible design that is easy to "customize".

#30 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-08-07 09:06 AM | Reply

#27 some people prefer to make informed choices, not emotion-driven regurgitations of what they've heard.

#31 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-07 09:10 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"That's right. We could save tens of thousands of lives and even more crippling injuries every year. People who want to drive at 70 mph are pro-death."

One big difference between guns and autos, autos transport people and things to places they need to or want to go. Guns just kill people. That you can't see the difference isn't surprising cuz you only see what you want to see. Delusional, get back on your meds.

#32 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-07 09:11 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#24 | Posted by visitor_

What a terrible whataboutism. Cars are not designed for killing. Automobiles are designed for transportation. Guns on the other hand in particular military style weapons are designed for that very purpose. Guns are designed as a weapon and that is all they are.

#33 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-08-07 09:12 AM | Reply

I don't remember for sure but I believe the magazines were outright outlawed - possession was illegal

#30 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE AT 2019-08-07 09:06 AM | FLAG:

High caps and drum mags were readily available the entire time. The gear for the North Hollywood shootout was bought at a gun show using a straw purchaser during the "AWB".

#34 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-07 09:14 AM | Reply

Then the AKs were modified from AWB-compliant carbines (easy, not many accessories on AKs) to fully automatic that has been illegal since 1968 when the laws were made to crack down on scary black militants.

#35 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-07 09:17 AM | Reply

People remember that shootout right? I remember watching it live. Those guys had 4 converted Assault Rifles, a Battle Rifle, with 2000 rounds of ammo. It doesn't go down as a mass shooting because the only people that died were the robbers.

#36 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-07 09:25 AM | Reply

#36 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Frankly how could you forget it. I remember seeing it but not live and several programs about it. I helped drive the militarization of LE around the country.

#37 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-08-07 09:55 AM | Reply

*It not I

#38 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-08-07 09:56 AM | Reply

"Cars are dangerous. They kill many times the number that guns do. Sure, they have been made safer through regulations. They still kill and the regulations don't fully address the real problem: Speed kills. A universal speed limit of 35 mph would vastly reduce traffic deaths. No one has a right to high-speed travel."

And if you were to ban the sale of alcohol or the use of cell phones, the number of casualties related to the improper use of vehicles would plummet.

#39 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-07 09:59 AM | Reply

"They are dumbfounded by our inability to regulate guns. And they are blown away at how easy it is for a 21 year old kid to get his hands on a semi automatic weapon."

I work with FVEY partners all the time. Generally, the one thing they really liked about the US was the access to firearms that their home countries lacked.

They thought we were crazy for not adopting their healthcare systems, but made it a point to go shoot big guns any time they came to the US.

#40 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-07 10:01 AM | Reply

Sour grapefruit shouldn't be given easy access to assault weapons.
#6 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar

They are not der. How many left wing crazies have legal guns?

#41 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-08-07 10:07 AM | Reply

"One big difference between guns and autos, autos transport people and things to places they need to or want to go. Guns just kill people. That you can't see the difference isn't surprising cuz you only see what you want to see. Delusional, get back on your meds."

The bigger difference is that the right to keep and bear arms is ensconced in the second amendment of the constitution.

There is no similar protection provided for private ownership or access to vehicles.

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-07 10:12 AM | Reply

"Mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the federal ban period (relative rate, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.39)."
I see none of the gun lovers have attempted to deny these results.
I'd prefer mass-shooting fatalities to be 100% less likely, but 70% is a good start.
Let's bring back the Clinton cosmetic AWB, it seemed dot have real results.
#8 | Posted by snoofy

I guess you did not read #3. The American culture has changed quite a bit since 1994. There are a lot more people that have a burning hate in their body today than then. The period between 2000 and 2016 in the USA has had a drastic change filled with despair and hate.

#43 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-08-07 10:12 AM | Reply

"What a terrible whataboutism."

If only because one is protected by the constitution, the other is not.

I own guns. They have never killed anyone.

Are they defective?

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-07 10:14 AM | Reply

Also worth mentioning that vechiles have a defininte advantage over vehicles when it comes to mass casualty attacks. 86 killed in the Nice attack, with another 458 injured.

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-07 10:19 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Speed kills, I thought this all about saving lives.

#46 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-08-07 10:52 AM | Reply

Democrats need to promote a ban on all semi-automatics and external magazines of any size.
#4 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-06 05:35 PM |

Why would they not propose a handgun ban when it is still the most prevalent weapon used in mass shootings at an almost 3:1 ratio?
www.statista.com

#47 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-07 01:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

And if you were to ban the sale of alcohol or the use of cell phones, the number of casualties related to the improper use of vehicles would plummet.
#39 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-07 09:59 AM

Wow, welcome to the gun control debate.
You're trying to look for underlying causes of the fatalities when everyone else keeps screaming to just ban the damn automobile.

#48 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-07 01:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Republicans don't care about science. They won't let a little thing like "reality" interrupt their gun fetishization.

#49 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-07 01:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Most gun fatalities come from handguns.
Most mass shootings are from handguns.
That's why the new important metric is fatalities from mass shootings, even though more people die from bludgeoning than all forms of rifles (semiauto or otherwise) year over year.

This is about infringing on the rights of law abiding white males in any way possible. The silence surrounding the actual data speaks for itself.

#50 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019-08-07 01:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Why would they not propose a handgun ban
#47 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

As a compromise.

I would propose banning semi-auto handguns and exempt revolvers.

#51 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-07 01:33 PM | Reply

"I would propose banning semi-auto handguns and exempt revolvers."

You can get some sick revolvers...magazine-fed pistols are generally of low caliber.

I used to carry a .454 up in Griz country...it would stop a Griz. I've heard it would stop a water buffalo if need be.

#52 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-07 01:36 PM | Reply

"You're trying to look for underlying causes of the fatalities when everyone else keeps screaming to just ban the damn automobile."

To be fair, I absolutely believed that if you banned the sale of all guns and forcibly confiscated all of those in private hands, the number of what we generally refer to as "mass shootings" would decline.

I think violent crime would skyrocket though. Gun laws also serve as OSHA for criminals...ensuring that they don't have a peer counterpart that could stand against them.

There would still be mass shootings...they would just occur in the course of robberies or other criminal activity, as opposed to some worthless loser killing people because they had no friends or no one liked them. Or the White supremacist who had nothing else to hand their hat on other than skin color.

#53 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-07 01:52 PM | Reply

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What does the Constitution say about how the militia shall be used?

CONGRESS (not the president) shall have the power to:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To recap the 2nd amendment is not about fighting the government, it is about creating a force to SUPPRESS people who would fight the government, (insurrection)

#54 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-08-07 01:56 PM | Reply

"To recap the 2nd amendment is not about fighting the government, it is about creating a force to SUPPRESS people who would fight the government, (insurrection)"

OK.

What's your point?

The 2nd amendment doesn't provide for the right for the militia to keep and bear arms, it's the right of "the people."

And "the people" are explicitly mentioned elsewhere as well. When the founders mentioned "the people" in those amendments, did they really mean "the well regulated militia?"

In legal context, words have meaning.

#55 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-07 02:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The 2nd amendment doesn't provide for the right for the militia to keep and bear arms, it's the right of "the people."
And "the people" are explicitly mentioned elsewhere as well. When the founders mentioned "the people" in those amendments, did they really mean "the well regulated militia?"
In legal context, words have meaning.

#55 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2019-08-07 02:35 PM | REPLY

The people ARE the Militia. Your side has to stop pretending the first half of the sentence does not exist

It gives people the right to bear arms for the purpose of having a well regulated militia Which article 1 Section 8 explicitly says can be called upon to put down insurrection. The act of owning a gun means you are a member of the militia and have a duty to protect the government from insurrection. There is nothing in the Constitution that states or implies that gun ownership is for the purpose of opposing the government

#56 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-08-07 05:05 PM | Reply

And "the people" are explicitly mentioned elsewhere as well. When the founders mentioned "the people" in those amendments, did they really mean "the well regulated militia?"
In legal context, words have meaning.

#55 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2019-08-07 02:35 PM

Yes they do and the first half of the 2nd amendment contains some very important words that modify the words in the 2nd half. The right to bear arms is for the purpose of having a well regulated militia which is not referenced in those other amendments so there is no reason to talk about the militia in the context of those amendments. In fact that proves my point. The other rights are given to all the people while the right to bear arms is directly attached to the militia

#57 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-08-07 05:10 PM | Reply

People who exercise their right to bear arms are the militia. They are also still part of "the people" and included in all the other rights. What words don't you understand?

#58 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-08-07 05:14 PM | Reply

2004 was also about the time very very violent video games were coming out

#59 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-08-07 06:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"2004 was also about the time very very violent video games were coming out"

I guess that explains why there have been so many mass shootings in Canada, Europe, and Korea since 2004.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-07 06:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So it is new gun buyers who commit these crimes. Maybe a five year waiting period would work. No gun grabbing needed.

#61 | Posted by jdmeth at 2019-08-07 06:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"So it is new gun buyers who commit these crimes."

^
I think you might be on to something.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-07 06:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-------- are crazy people:

'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

#63 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-08-07 06:51 PM | Reply

as opposed to some worthless loser killing people because they had no friends or no one liked them. Or the White supremacist who had nothing else to hand their hat on other than skin color.

I'm pretty sure that the press releasing names and manifestos of these jackholes has lead to a direct increase of mass shootings. I mean if you are a worthless looser what better way to get your 15 min of fame.

Quit publishing their names, quit publishing their manifestos just report it as "today there was another mass shooting by some worthless looser they probably had a stupid reason" end of the part about the shooter.

#64 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-08-07 07:05 PM | Reply

"Quit publishing their names, quit publishing their manifestos"

Unfortunately, America jumped that shark when the FBI convinced major newspapers to publish the Unabomber manifesto.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-07 07:06 PM | Reply

But I agree with you, making the killers be the story leads to copycats.

It's eerily similar to that trend where a kid kills themselves, and their classmates makes t-shirts to commemorate the dead... then one of those kids kills themselves, so they can be famous and be on the next t-shirt. But with this the goal is to get the high score.

Then again, we don't go on this soul-searching quest to parse the lives and understand the reasoning of people who commit gang violence, and it still persists.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-07 07:10 PM | Reply

I would propose banning semi-auto handguns and exempt revolvers.

#51 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2019-08-07 01:33 PM | REPLY

Revolvers come in single and double action. Double action is 1 pull, 1 shot. With commonly available speed loaders, rates of fire up to 2 per second, sustained, are possible.

#67 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-07 08:04 PM | Reply

I've seen 12 shots in under 3 seconds from a 6 shot revolver. Then there's the older revolvers that just use big cylinders and get 12 shots.

Revolvers are a can of worms to open and you'll be surprised at what you find.

#68 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-07 08:08 PM | Reply

I have a LeMat in my collection. It's what the Man in Black on HBO's Westworld used. It's 9 revolver shots, and the center of the cylinder is a shotgun shell. It's single action but it's good for 4 per second if you practice.

#69 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-07 08:10 PM | Reply

As awesome as your ninja gun skills sounds, Sitz, I suspect most nutter mass shooters would likely be too jacked to fire too many rounds with a revolver before he's tackled and disarmed. Even if he manages to reload, he's probably not going to kill 2 dozen people. maybe the first 2 or 3? wound 2-3? It's a better chance for victims than spraying 100 rounds nonstop.

Wouldn't you agree?

#70 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-07 08:41 PM | Reply

No. This has been studied and mass shooters simply carried more firearms to compensate. I know what your intention is, but I know what the real output is, and I'm saying you're not going to get what you think you're going to get.

#71 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-07 09:03 PM | Reply

Not to mention practical implementation problems. Experts peg confiscation with a body count at civil war levels. "Mandatory buyback" compliance is abysmal and outside of high density counties, Sheriff's are not going to enforce it.

#72 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-07 09:05 PM | Reply

And of course the intersectional issue. If you implement a handgun ban in an institutionally racist society, minorities bear the overwhelming brunt of the good intentions. There's a Stewey Griffin quote for that "Here's to the black man! Thanks for takin' it all in stride!".

#73 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-07 09:08 PM | Reply

"If you implement a handgun ban in an institutionally racist society, minorities bear the overwhelming brunt of the good intentions."

That's not a change, that's the way it is right now.

I also am not quite feeling the "good intentions."
The handgun ban I am most familiar with is D.C.'s, which died from Heller.
The intent and impact of that ban was to allow the cops to throw additional gun charges at ---------ers.
That's not good intentions. That's malice towards gangs.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-07 09:18 PM | Reply

That's not a change, that's the way it is right now.

#74 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-08-07 09:18 PM | REPLY

It's an acceleration. It's okay, everybody not white is used to it. I hear there's even camps now to put all these offenders in.

#75 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-07 09:22 PM | Reply

- That's malice towards gangs.

That's not a bad thing. But I'm sure it's just a lead-in to your charge of racism.

Everything with you is a lead-in to racism.

#76 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-07 09:26 PM | Reply

"This has been studied and mass shooters simply carried more firearms to compensate."

That alone is an improvement. You're discounting that shooters have been incapacitated during magazine changes. You're also ignoring the raison d'être for large magazines is to sustain fire for longer periods of time, since reloading is always a time of vulnerability.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-07 09:29 PM | Reply

"It's an acceleration. It's okay, everybody not white is used to it."

But it's also a deceleration of handgun violence, as handguns become less prevalent in the communities they shoot so much.

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-07 09:30 PM | Reply

"Cars are dangerous. They kill many times the number that guns do. Sure, they have been made safer through regulations. They still kill and the regulations don't fully address the real problem: Speed kills. A universal speed limit of 35 mph would vastly reduce traffic deaths. No one has a right to high-speed travel.
#24 | POSTED BY VISITOR_"

Funny how literally no country has the speed limit you call safe, because even you can see it's stupid.

Yet every other modern country has some manner of gun control, but you're so stupid you can't see that it works.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-07 09:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

But it's also a deceleration of handgun violence, as handguns become less prevalent in the communities they shoot so much.

#78 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-08-07 09:30 PM | FLAG:

Well, no. Prohibition is still on. The vast, overwhelming majority of violence still happens. The vast, overwhelming majority of handgun violence that is only 1 or 2 shots still happens. Science says it doesn't change mass shootings they just bring more guns and it does not change the outcome. Didn't ignore anything, large magazines are actually a jamming liability which is why you want a 30 round mag which is the actual standard for the AR-15.

#80 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-07 09:37 PM | Reply

Remember the Colorado theater shooter? Double drum. It failed.

#81 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-07 09:38 PM | Reply

High caps is what people who can't afford mil-spec buy.

#82 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-07 09:38 PM | Reply

I've always thought they should make cars more like bumper cars.

#83 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-07 09:39 PM | Reply

"large magazines are actually a jamming liability which is why you want a 30 round mag which is the actual standard for the AR-15."

Correct, but it's also why I want a 10 round limit, so that the person has to reload twice to fire 30 shots. making him (or her) more vulnerable two times instead of zero times while firing 30 shots.

I actually think five is better than ten, for the same reasons, but there is a point where it becomes silly.

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-07 09:42 PM | Reply

If you really want to make it painstakingly slow just ban external magazines. So that way after 10 shots you have to individually load the next 10 rounds into the gun. Would suck at the range that is for sure.

#85 | Posted by byrdman at 2019-08-07 09:46 PM | Reply

#75
The old stripper clips. I have an old SKS that uses those.

#86 | Posted by willowby at 2019-08-07 10:02 PM | Reply

"If you really want to make it painstakingly slow just ban external magazines."

I doubt that will fly.

On a grand scale I support the kind of restrictions that are not compatible with the Second Amendment, but that's not what we're talking about here.

This is really all just an exercise to find out what it takes for guys like you to say your safe word.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-07 10:25 PM | Reply

As awesome as your ninja gun skills sounds, Sitz, I suspect most nutter mass shooters would likely be too jacked to fire too many rounds with a revolver before he's tackled and disarmed. Even if he manages to reload, he's probably not going to kill 2 dozen people. maybe the first 2 or 3? wound 2-3? It's a better chance for victims than spraying 100 rounds nonstop.

Wouldn't you agree?

#70 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Another main difference between pistols and ARs or AKs is that the bullets that fire from AR-15's and such fire at a much higher velocity and tumble rather than spin. They can pulverize a 3" bone and create large cavities internally. The internal shock waves are strong enough to cause large arteries to burst.

#88 | Posted by americanunity at 2019-08-07 10:27 PM | Reply

Someone can survive a pistol shot. An AR or AK can cause such massive internal injuries that your chances of survival are decreased exponentially.

#89 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-07 10:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

...fire at a much higher velocity and tumble rather than spin.

The reality is they just have a lot more power. A soft nosed or hollow point large caliber rifle bullet will do much the same damage with much lower velocity. Trouble with that is, they are heavier and so is the ammo. You also need to be able to hit something with it, so just blasting rounds in the general direction of the enemy is not very effective.

The 5.56/.223 and the M-16 and it's clones were designed so the average person could be somewhat effective in combat with minimal training. Perfect choice for today's manifesto authors in public places.

#90 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-08-07 10:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The 2nd Amendment is obsolete! We (with very few exceptions out of 330,000,000 people) no longer need protection from wild animals, "savage natives", or British/French soldiers. We no longer have slave patrols or the need to suppress slave rebellions. We have (effectively) a standing army, though it has to be re-authorized every two years, to protect us from foreign invasion. Having this kind of firepower in civilian society is a danger with no redeeming social value ("shooting is fun" is not a redeeming social value). Nobody uses AR-type weapons for hunting, at least nobody who is a "sportsman". So the COST is high, and the BENEFIT is what?

Slavery was also originally constitutionally protected. When the 13th Amendment was ratified, the requirement for slave patrols became invalid. And if you think your weapons are going to protect you from the government, ask David Koresh how that worked out in Waco.

#91 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-08-08 09:00 AM | Reply

I don't know anybody named David, but I know a guy named Charlie who isn't that impressed by the US military.

#92 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-08 09:41 AM | Reply

www2.law.ucla.edu

That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

If the State calls upon the citizens to come to their aid and the enemy of the State is heavily armed, it'll help if the citizens are heavily armed.

How do you defend a State if the weapons your enemy has is illegal for you to have?

#93 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-08 10:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How do you defend the "state" if the "enemy" has helicopters, stealth bombers and fighters, tanks, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons? With your AR-15?

#94 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-08-08 11:44 AM | Reply

Yes, and everything you can get your hands on.

#95 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-08 11:51 AM | Reply

2004 was also about the time very very violent video games were coming out

Posted by Maverick at 2019-08-07 06:04 PM | Reply | Funny 2

HA!

1973 - Maze War

1976 - Death Race

1993 - Mortal Kombat

1998 - Half Life

1997 - GoldenEye 007

#96 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-08-08 12:24 PM | Reply

How do you defend a State if the weapons your enemy has is illegal for you to have?

#93 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-

Get serious about the militia concept and this isn't much of a concern.

Until then, when asked for "ideas" to modify culture, my first is that the general citizenry never has 100 round mags and other obvious instruments of instant carnage. Make it illegal, make it contemptible; make people who desire such things shunned in polite company. That's a cultural change of the sort we can use.

#97 | Posted by Zed at 2019-08-08 02:09 PM | Reply

"The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!"

It was also never true to begin with.
A well-regulated militia is simply not necessary for the security of a free state.
We rely on uniformed law enforcement for security, not civilians who take up arms.

Why aren't right-wingers clamoring we get rid of police and save taxpayers billions, if the militia provides necessary security?
Because they know it doesn't.

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-08 02:17 PM | Reply

"How do you defend the "state" if the "enemy" has helicopters, stealth bombers and fighters, tanks, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons? With your AR-15?"

Afghan peasants have done it over and over again...to the world's greatest superpowers. Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and Now the US.

And they're doing it with far less sophisticated weapons than AR-15s. When the Mujahedeen first began attacking the Soviet troops, they were doing so with Lee Enfield rifles their great, great, great grandparents had taken off the bodies of dead British Soldiers.

#99 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-08-08 02:36 PM | Reply

Another main difference between pistols and ARs or AKs is that the bullets that fire from AR-15's and such fire at a much higher velocity and tumble rather than spin.

#88 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY AT 2019-08-07 10:27 PM | REPLY

AU, the bullets spin. If they did not, they would not stabilize in flight and you could never hit anything with them, and they would not retain energy downrange. That's why they have rifled barrels and are not smooth bores. They're 400 yard weapons. They're the little sibling of Battle Rifles that are good to 1000 yards. Carbines hit harder than most pistols, but are much weaker than rifles that function identically.

#100 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-08 02:49 PM | Reply

What that article was trying to get across is that intermediate carbine bullets bounce around inside people and do a lot more damage than pistols. This is absolutely true. Rifle bullets are even more deadly. Note the one that bounced around inside JFK, from a rifle designed in 1895.

#101 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-08 02:52 PM | Reply

SITZ

You're right. I was thinking of this I saw some time ago:

Early AR-15 and M-16 were designed to use 55 grain bullets and purposely spun a rate that was somewhat low. This allowed the round to destabilise quickly, beginning to tumble within inches after entering a body. This tumbling action causes the round to slow down, transferring energy to the target.

#102 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-08 03:32 PM | Reply

But there's no dispute ARs and AKs cause much more internal damage than standard rifles or pistols.

#103 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-08 03:33 PM | Reply

Someone can survive a pistol shot. An AR or AK can cause such massive internal injuries that your chances of survival are decreased exponentially.

#89 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-07 10:28 PM | Reply | Flag:
| Funny: 1 (AVIGDORE)

Why does AVIGDORE think that's funny? It's what any trauma physician whose actually works on victims says.

Learn something, fool:

What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns

They weren't the first mass-shooting victims the Florida radiologist saw -- but their wounds were radically different.

As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read "gunshot wound." I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the United States for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.

In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair -- and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal.

MORE:

www.theatlantic.com


#104 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-08 03:57 PM | Reply

But there's no dispute ARs and AKs cause much more internal damage than standard rifles or pistols.

#103 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY AT 2019-08-08 03:33 PM | REPLY

No, people hit with full size rifle bullets don't usually make it to surgery.

#105 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-08 04:58 PM | Reply

#105 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Point taken. The last mass shooting with a bolt action rifle I can find was the UT clock tower shooter in the 1960's. It took him 90 minutes to claim his victims. It took the Dayton shooter 30 seconds to kill and injure dozens before he was gunned down.

We didn't have constant mass shootings on this scale until the NRA and gun manufacturers joined forces to put ARs and AKs in the hands of civilians. They don't even want thorough background checks on purchasers. How sick is that?

#106 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-08 05:19 PM | Reply

My state needs to require cartridges to have so little powder that the bullets have the muzzle velocity of a BB gun. Want to have a mass bruising? knock yourself out.

#107 | Posted by dibblda at 2019-08-08 10:09 PM | Reply

If the State calls upon the citizens to come to their aid and the enemy of the State is heavily armed, it'll help if the citizens are heavily armed.
How do you defend a State if the weapons your enemy has is illegal for you to have?

#93 | POSTED BY PETROUS AT 2019-08-08 10:50 AM | REPLY |

If the enemy has managed to overwhelm our army, navy, and air force and put tanks on American soil you think you and your hunting buddies are going to save the world? Get real.

#108 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-08-09 11:34 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort