So-Called 'Assault Weapon' Propaganda Is Repetitive - Literally

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Here's an article popping up in the Yahoo News rotation this morning - Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us

Here's the same article, from the same outfit, dated 8 June 2022 - Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us

It notes that...

...In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows...

So, it was a 2019 'study' which formed the basis of a 2022 article which was repeated, verbatim, but listed as a 1/1/23 publication. You will further note...

...In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception...

The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004...

We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from mass shootings was also down, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related fatalities per 10,000 shooting deaths...

I guess the 'evidence' is so clear that repetitiveness is justified - right? Oh, wait...

...It is also important to note that our analysis cannot definitively say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of deadly incidents in the years since.

Many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups.

Nonetheless, according to our study, President Biden’s claim that the rate of mass shootings during the period of the assault weapons ban “went down” only for it to rise again after the law was allowed to expire in 2004 holds true...

Okay. So, if you follow Joe's mantra of choosing 'truth' over 'facts'...



Then you don't have to account for 'inconvenient' facts and you get to simply push 'inconvenient (ahem) truths' which support your agenda, call it 'science,' and demand compliance; labeling those who push such facts as purveyors of misinformation, terrorists, etc.?!?!

And this from a surgeon and assistant professor; i.e., a 'medical professional/expert?'

I don't know about you, but such... felgercarb... makes me question everything else we're being told is 'fact' by the media, the politicians, experts, and... Maybe that is actually the overarching agenda? Don't question. Don't think. Just obey and comply?

[Silence Dogood]

Happy 2023. New year, same old horse manure.

I trust someone will soon post the data that refutes the yahoo study but even if the anti-gunners’ “facts” were correct—which they are not—how would one explain this statistic when a non-AW semi is functionally identical to a semi defined as an AW?

There is literally no causal relationship between crime and any particular weapon-type that supports gun-grabbing. Criminals gonna crime. Period.

[nate76239]

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Yep.

The effects of repetition frequency on the illusory truth effect

Or, more succinctly...

[L84CABO]

I. Don't. Give. An. Eff.

The data could factually and conclusively prove that the AWB decreased mass shootings by 100%...or 1000%. I don't care. My rights are NON NEGOTIABLE. And they damn sure aren't predicated on what some leftist hack says is the right or wrong data point on some stupid study somewhere.

Do not fall for the BS trap of debating statistics with anti-gunners. It makes them thing that our rights are negotiable...they are NOT...and that if they can just point to the right data point on some study somewhere, they can then crap all over the Constitution as they wish.

They do NOT get to take our guns. Not pistols. Not rifles. And damn sure not so called "assault weapons." Not now. NOT EVER.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I. Don't. Give. An. Eff.

The data could factually and conclusively prove that the AWB decreased mass shootings by 100%...or 1000%. I don't care. My rights are NON NEGOTIABLE. And they damn sure aren't predicated on what some leftist hack says is the right or wrong data point on some stupid study somewhere.

Do not fall for the BS trap of debating statistics with anti-gunners. It makes them thing that our rights are negotiable...they are NOT...and that if they can just point to the right data point on some study somewhere, they can then crap all over the Constitution as they wish.

They do NOT get to take our guns. Not pistols. Not rifles. And damn sure not so called "assault weapons." Not now. NOT EVER.

Your post kinda sidesteps the point while making another point and that other point is the point.

As I opined in the OP, it doesn't seem to be so much about 'the statistics' or 'facts.' It's about Biden's (or, more accurately, the Left's) insistence on 'truth' (more precisely, "their truth") being held more important than facts. Thus... Maybe that is actually the overarching agenda? Don't question. Don't think. Just obey and comply?

They aren't looking to 'negotiate' either. They simply want what they want and we are to comply/obey... or else.

Remember, they have their own understanding/interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and we saw it on full display with the dissent in Heller. We see it continuing to be displayed in the 'resistance,' right down to States openly resisting or, in effect, completely ignoring SCOTUS rulings they disagree with. To the Left, their view is not negotiable or subject to review, especially judicial review and actual facts are just so much fiddle-faddle.

Unfortunately, Heller was a 5-4 decision and while we, ostensibly, have a friendlier balance on SCOTUS now, it is suggestive of how the Left intends to proceed. In a sense, we've already seen this with SB 1327 and the Benetiz ruling, providing a permanent injunction against part of that new law. As I explained a few minutes ago in the 2022 SB 1327 Hertzberg - Firearms: private rights of action (SB8-like Private Suits) thread...

I guess these guys didn’t get the memo.

It’s dead

According to the article... not quite...

...On Dec. 19, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego nixed one part of SB 1327 on constitutional grounds: the "fee-shifting" provision that would have saddled gun-industry litigants with all or part of the court costs from any suit challenging the state's gun controls, even if they prevailed in court. The state attorney general's office had refused to defend it, having argued that the Texas fee-shifting provision on which it was based was unconstitutional.

After Benitez handed down his ruling, Newsom issued a statement saying the judge had "confirmed" that the Texas law was unconstitutional too.

The rest of SB 1327 remains in effect, including the private right of action. Officials with National Shooting Sports Foundation and the California Rifle and Pistol Assn. said they are waiting to see how the law is used and had no plans to challenge it preemptively...

There's a bit more background in this 16 December article... Federal judge to block part of California gun law modeled after Texas abortion ban. It's not so much about "guns" and is more about "abortion;" i.e., the law was intended to use the Right and their support for guns to undermine the anti-abortion ruling in Texas. In other words, it was never about 'fee shifting' related to firearms lawsuits. It was about getting such 'fee shifting' declared unconstitutional so as to challenge the Texas abortion law...

...“The Supreme Court has held that litigation to protect rights is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment,” Vandevelde said. He said a law that threatens a plaintiff with massive legal bills unless they win every single one of their claims appears to be an effort to chill First Amendment-protected free speech rights.

“It’s especially odious if aimed at people taking a particular viewpoint, if the only targets are people advocating one position,” he said. That’s known as “viewpoint discrimination,” Vandevelde explained, and it could be argued that a fee-shifting provision only targeting one group, like gun rights organizations or abortion advocates, meets the criteria...

This 20 December piece is a bit more explicit... Federal judge strikes down California's 'fee-shifting' gun control scheme, which echoed Texas abortion law...

...The Texas measure makes abortions illegal after a fetal heartbeat can be detected and permits private citizens to sue abortion providers or anyone else who assists in a woman's procurement of abortion for $10,000. This fee-shifting mechanism was designed to protect the 2021 law from judicial review to circumvent the Supreme Court's old abortion precedent in Roe v. Wade. The high court has since overturned that precedent, permitting states to restrict, or liberalize, abortion.

Newsom called on the California legislature to enact a similar law for guns days after the Supreme Court ruled than the Texas heartbeat law could remain in effect following a legal challenge.

California's gun law also creates a private right-of-action for citizens to sue gun manufactures who make "assault weapons and ghost guns" for $10,000. Newsom described the law as virtually identical to the Texas provisions, but Benitez wrote that "California's law goes even further." He observed that the gun control statute denies a prevailing plaintiff attorneys fees. Further, Benitez emphasized that only the California measure "applies to laws affecting a clearly enumerated constitutional right set forth in our nation's founding documents."

"Whether these distinctions are enough to save the Texas law fee-shifting provision from judicial scrutiny remains to be seen," Benitez wrote. "And although it would be tempting to comment on it, the Texas law is not before this Court for determination."

The judge's order is likely to set up a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the outcome Newsom desired. The governor's office called it "hypocritical" to block the state's gun law while permitting the Texas abortion measure to stand...

Even if Newsom's (the Left's) intent doesn't come to fruition in regard to the Texas law with regard to abortion and the California law with regard to guns, it still means a fight to fully deal with the ramifications of the Right being used by the Left to fight the Right. Worse. It provides a clue as to where we're headed if the Left ever regains a majority on SCOTUS in that, to their way of thinking, if Roe v. Wade can be overturned, then so can Heller, in that while we see a difference, they don't as they view abortion as a Constitutionally-protected right and see the 2nd Amendment as providing protections for a collective, not an individual, right.

[TKM]

This is called the big lie.

It can not be countered by truth of any size.

[DentonandSasquatchShow]

I don't know about you, but such... felgercarb... makes me question everything else we're being told is 'fact' by the media, the politicians, experts

Nice placement of the word felgercarb Apollo. But seriously, you still believe ANY of those people?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Nice placement of the word felgercarb Apollo. But seriously, you still believe ANY of those people?

I believe some of them are sincere in their intent.

I believe many of them have an agenda they are subservient to, one way or another.

I believe (and have from the beginning) that there is a certain amount of legitimacy to the concerns regarding the actual illness. However, I also believe that very little of what we've been told is based in actual Science. Instead, it is my considered belief that much of what is pushed is based on something else.

I believe that the trick has been and continues to be sorting out what nuggets of truth are hidden in the mix-mashed messaging to believe.

[M76]

the demogoebbels party

[ja308]

Every story from the democrat press should be dismissed.

[johncage]

that's by design, if you repeat something enough times, people will start to believe. this is a tried and true method. the right should learn information warfare and stop "being the bigger man" like a cuck

[IVC]

Statistics establish correlation and correlation is not a scientific methodology. The authors could've correlated their mass shooting numbers (not even getting into what those numbers really are) to ANY law or event from 1994. For example, imagine this headline: "Mass shootings drop significantly in 1994 because Republicans gained control of the Senate." Mathematically, it's the same argument - take some numbers (statistics) and pick an event to make it appear as if it's causally connected. They can validate their methodology by comparing to the states that KEPT the AW ban and they could validate it every time a state changes the AW laws. But they don't do that because they don't care at all about the correct model and theory, they are happy with supporting the narrative.

Either way, not only are the AWBs going away, but we'll have solid court rulings that will take future AWBs off the policy table. The time has come where we don't have to engage this rhetoric anymore, we don't have to discuss it, we don't have to show them why they are wrong, it will simply not be an option anymore and they'll have to move on to something else.

[TKM]

My buddy, Mike, was Frankie Laines UPS guy. One fine day he had a whole truck full of crap, important documents, for Mr. Laine. Once he got it all unloaded and stacked in the garage Mr. Laines housekeeper/COS approached him and said Mr. Laine appreciated all of the hard work and wanted him to have a little something.

A cassette tape of his greatest hits.

Mike drove an SRT10. I don't believe it had a cassette deck.

[SharedShots]

Because it works.

Notice how the gun control advocates all talk about the same thing -mostly - safety. kids, violence and so on -to anyone that will listen. Say, rinse,repeat

Notice how 2nd/A advocates all talk about the same thing - mostly - they are stupid, they don't know the law, they are (fill in the blank) - to the choir. Say, rinse, repeat but then resist any change.

If you had to pick a strategy (forget who uses it) to reach a goal and one worked better than the other, which would you choose?

Before you answer yourself, think about this: losing 10 of something and getting 6 back isn't winning 6, it's losing 4. Celebrate the getting back of the 6 but never fool yourself into some feel good participation trophy that anything was won. It's not some defeatism, it's a call to do something better.





.