I won't argue with those who say engaging in social science debate is giving the other side credibility - that if we debate the numbers, then number matter. This suit does not say that the numbers matter, but the courts have disagreed. You fight to win, and to the extent they look at the numbers we might as well show them for the farce they are. If anything, it creates some interesting on-the-record results.Bans on “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines” have proved wholly ineffective. Defendants’ experts admit the evidence does not show that the Maryland ban on commonly possessed firearms and magazines will reduce firearm crime in general, or even reduce the criminal use of the banned firearms and magazines. As was noted by Dr. Daniel Webster during his deposition, he was the only expert to submit testimony in favor of the Act (Dep. of Daniel Webster, Ex. 18 at 113:11-14), and his testimony that actually was directed at the issues in this case was limited to a single paragraph based on Dr. Christopher Koper’s work. (Testimony of Daniel Webster on SB 281, Ex. 29 at 5.) Dr. Webster has done no original work of his own to study the effectiveness of bans on assault weapons or large capacity magazines.
Dr. Koper, one of the Defendants’ experts, analyzed the impact of the decade-long federal assault weapons and large capacity magazines ban and stated in his published work: “There is not a clear rationale for expecting the ban to reduce assaults and robberies with guns.” (Decl. of Christopher Koper, Defendants’ Exhibit 7, Ex. B at 81.) This statement was confirmed by Dr. Koper at his deposition, where he admitted that he “cannot conclude to a reasonable degree of probability that the federal ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines reduced crimes related to guns.” (Dep. of Christopher Koper, Ex. 20 at 83:1-12, 96:4-8.) He also confirmed the ban “didn’t reduce the number of deaths or injuries caused by guns either....” (Id. at 96:9-11.) He also admitted that he is not aware of any expert who has studied the impact of the federal ban and has come to a different conclusion. (Id. at 95:1-6.) He admitted that “there has not been a clear decline in the use of [Assault Rifles]” in crime as a result of the federal assault weapon ban. (Decl. of Christopher Koper, Defendants’ Exhibit 7, Ex. B at 2.) Moreover, the federal ban did not cause a decline in the criminal use of magazines with more than ten rounds. (Id.) Finally, he admitted that “[t]here has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence” as a result of the federal ban. (Dep. of Christopher Koper, Ex. 20 at 94:11-14.) With respect to prior state-level bans such as Maryland’s challenged here, he stated that the available studies suggest “state-level AW bans have not reduced crime.” (Decl. of Christopher Koper, Defendants’ Exhibit 7, Ex. B at 81, n. 95; Dep. of Christopher Koper, Ex. 20 at 84:21-85:5.)
Based on the social science evidence, Dr. Koper admitted that he would not expect a ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines to reduce the number of firearm-related assaults and robberies, firearm-related home invasions, or firearms assaults on police officers. (Dep. of Christopher Koper, Ex. 20 at 84:13-16.) He admitted that, even if you were to ban all assault weapons, you could not assume there would be no more mass shootings (id. at 129:1-7); and he could not state to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that an assault weapon ban will reduce the number of mass shootings (id. at 131:4-11). He agreed that “one has to be cautious” evaluating the “very small numbers” of mass shooting related to assault weapons (id. at 126:6-9), and that “it’s not fair to say that other firearms with large capacity magazines are used in a higher share of mass public shootings” (id. at 121:16-122:1). He admitted that law enforcement officers are more likely to be killed by a handgun, a shotgun or in a car accident than by an assault weapon. (Id. at 128:8-18.)
Dr. Koper cannot state to a reasonable degree of scientific probability that the challenged Maryland law will reduce the number of crimes committed with assault weapons and other firearms with large capacity magazines; that the challenged Maryland law will reduce the number of shots fired in gun crimes; that the challenged Maryland law will reduce the number of gunshot victims in gun crimes; that the challenged Maryland law will reduce the number of wounds per gunshot victim; that the challenged Maryland law will reduce the lethality of gunshot injuries when they do occur; or that the challenged Maryland law will reduce the substantial societal costs that flow from shootings.
To my knowledge, this is the first brief of a major case that took on the so-called social-science used by the anti-rights crowd. Take a look at this and then go find out who Dr. Koper is - he is the man behind the numbers used by Dr. Webb (Hopkins), who is the man behind a lot of the social-science BS we've seen courts bite into the last few years.
Koper admits that basically everything used by gun controllers regarding social science data on assault weapons is bupkus. And this is the first time Dr. Koper has ever been deposed on this matter. This is the first time someone has challenged these guys under oath. The results are interesting when you are under oath:
I won't argue with those who say engaging in social science debate is giving the other side credibility - that if we debate the numbers, then number matter. This suit does not say that the numbers matter, but the courts have disagreed. You fight to win, and to the extent they look at the numbers we might as well show them for the farce they are. If anything, it creates some interesting on-the-record results.
I could go on. Take a look at the admissions of the MSP Superintendent, the chief of the Firearms Branch and the Chief of Baltimore Police and see what they say about the AR-15: they agree it is "common", if not the most common rifle being sold in the state and the nation. And how the FBI lays waste to the arguments that it is "exceptionally dangerous".
I could go on, but you got 97 pages to read...
To my knowledge, this is the first brief of a major case that took on the so-called social-science used by the anti-rights crowd. Take a look at this and then go find out who Dr. Koper is - he is the man behind the numbers used by Dr. Webb (Hopkins), who is the man behind a lot of the social-science BS we've seen courts bite into the last few years.
Koper admits that basically everything used by gun controllers regarding social science data on assault weapons is bupkus. And this is the first time Dr. Koper has ever been deposed on this matter. This is the first time someone has challenged these guys under oath. The results are interesting when you are under oath:
I won't argue with those who say engaging in social science debate is giving the other side credibility - that if we debate the numbers, then number matter. This suit does not say that the numbers matter, but the courts have disagreed. You fight to win, and to the extent they look at the numbers we might as well show them for the farce they are. If anything, it creates some interesting on-the-record results.
I could go on. Take a look at the admissions of the MSP Superintendent, the chief of the Firearms Branch and the Chief of Baltimore Police and see what they say about the AR-15: they agree it is "common", if not the most common rifle being sold in the state and the nation. And how the FBI lays waste to the arguments that it is "exceptionally dangerous".
I could go on, but you got 97 pages to read...
Can we get someone who is very conversant on the filing to attend and raise questions at the 'Annapolis Book Festival' at The Key School on Apr 5th where Webster (along with Emily Miller) is a panelist on "Who Has the Right to Bear Arms" ?