Johns Hopkins Study Shows "Assault Weapon" Bans Ineffective

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!

    • Register Log in
    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,818
    Sun City West, AZ
    I guess no more grants from Bloomberg...he must have paid good money for that study and didn't get what he wanted. No refunds!

    The should be presented to the MGA...not that they will pay any attention.
     
    Bob A

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,887
    Apparently the study team didn't get the memo. It's their job to make the evidence, not to search for it.
     
    M

    Markpixs

    Active Member
    Apr 23, 2011
    193
    NOVA
    Did you follow the link to the study, not sure I’d cite from it too much - “Firearm purchaser licensing laws that require an in-person application or fingerprinting are associated with an estimated 56 percent fewer fatal mass shootings in states that have them, according to a new study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.” And “The researchers also found evidence that laws banning large-capacity magazines, defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, were associated with significant reductions in the rate of fatal mass shootings with four or more fatalities and the number killed in those shootings.”
     
    J

    JerseyMike

    Active Member
    Dec 16, 2019
    437
    Germantown
    The brietbart blog post cited by OP doesn’t provide the context and the omission is important.

    “In addition, the study did not find an independent association between assault weapon bans and the incidence of fatal mass shootings after controlling for the effects of bans on large-capacity magazines.”

    The study found that magazine capacity restrictions lead to lower instances of mass shootings. So, if you quote the study to argue AWB are arbitrary because they ban features that aren’t shown to have any impact on mass shootings, be ready for a response that the study found magazine capacity does. It would have been of much more benefit for the blog author to break that down, unfortunately they did not.

    The summary provided isn’t that long, I’d give it a quick read
    https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-rel...aws-linked-to-fewer-fatal-mass-shootings.html

    Tread carefully when dealing with this study in the future. If anyone has a source that has broke down the magazine capacity and licensing findings in detail I’d love to read it!
     
    J

    JerseyMike

    Active Member
    Dec 16, 2019
    437
    Germantown
    2nd=Good+Substantial said:
    I did note that they played games with the data. Such as excluding states with adverse data such as Illinois.
    Click to expand...

    Yeh, but I want to know more about that to be able to form a coherent counter argument. What licensing criteria was selected and why was Illinois excluded (rationale from those conducting the study). That would be very helpful in attacking the finding regarding licensing. It’s possible that licensing actually does cut down on straw purchases, but are straw purchases connected to mass shootings? I would seriously question that conclusion if it was made in the study.

    “The study did not find significant associations between the incidence of fatal mass shootings and concealed carry laws...”

    This may be obvious to us, but I hope MSI can get the details for this and incorporate it in a public policy argument for any future briefing.
     
    fidelity

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    2nd=Good+Substantial said:
    I did note that they played games with the data. Such as excluding states with adverse data such as Illinois.
    Click to expand...
    Data selectivity is an important issue as is what they classify as a mass shooting. In Virginia Tech, one of the two handguns used was limited to 10 rds per mag. In the Navy Yard shooting, a pump action shotgun with limited mag capacity was used. In the Parkland High School shooting with an AR-15, only 10-rd mags (a boatload of them) were used. More than 10 people killed in each of these tragedies.

    Obviously, in the Las Vegas shooting, the loser brought 30+ firearms. It's not like mag capacity would have limited him. And even if the entire US banned sales of mags of greater than 10 rds capacity, this pos had the ability to pay whatever the cost would be on the black market to get them - if capacity was critical to him. So would a middle income loser similarly putting 2 years in the planning (or a collection of losers like those involved in the Bataclan theatre massacre in France).

    Even for a shooter not putting much planning into it, like the Parkland shooter, they would go with the 10 rd mags as the more significant parameter is getting a high concentration of victims in restricted space. It's the inability to defend themselves or evacuate/escape that puts them in danger.
     
    E.Shell

    E.Shell

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 5, 2007
    10,306
    Mid-Merlind
    This is about the second or third time it has has been proven that there is no correlation, but don't let the facts confuse you, it's NOT about the facts. If we are to be a successful third-world country, we need to be disarmed, driven into poverty and deprived of the rest of our rights. What is confusing here?
     
    L

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,723
    I’ll probably get around to reading it. What might be worse is if they used the standard methodology of just looking at states that have said laws vs ones that don’t.

    Usually the way to tinker with the study is throwing out certain states (which this one did) or not looking at the before and after effects of the passage of said laws.

    When it comes down to it, mass shootings even in the US are pretty uncommon, so it doesn’t take much to screw the results massively.
     
    R

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    Markpixs said:
    Did you follow the link to the study, not sure I’d cite from it too much - “Firearm purchaser licensing laws that require an in-person application or fingerprinting are associated with an estimated 56 percent fewer fatal mass shootings in states that have them, according to a new study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.” And “The researchers also found evidence that laws banning large-capacity magazines, defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, were associated with significant reductions in the rate of fatal mass shootings with four or more fatalities and the number killed in those shootings.”
    Click to expand...

    Yeah well in the stages with more mass shootings there are also more single person shootings as well. And moreover the cross state dataset is so small as to be open to all kinds of problems. There are federally states in there with no mag restrictions and no assault rifle bans that have ZERO mass shootings.

    I would rather go with the much more sober an accurate work by the NYTimes which showed the vast majority of mass shootings are criminal on criminal.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Gun Commander Training Maryland

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,342
    Messages
    7,277,816
    Members
    33,437
    Latest member
    Mantis

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom