• Tedesche@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your own source shows that mass shootings weren’t as high as they are now prior to the assault weapons ban, thus demonstrating it wasn’t repeal of the law that caused the recent uptick. If it was, we’d see a similar amount of mass shootings prior to its enactment as well.

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You still have mass shootings prior to the 2004 law. For instance, there was the University of Austin mass shooting back in the 1960s. The Columbine shooting in '99. We’ve been at this for a long time.

        In fact, the frequency of mass shootings as defined by four or more people being shot in an incident has basically been flat since 1980 was only a slight increase from about 15 to 20 shootings per year.

        It’s a big difference is media reporting.

        A Comprehensive Assessment of Deadly Mass Shootings, 1980-2018 (pg 12) https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/305090.pdf

        • Tedesche@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, but that doesn’t change my point. If it really was the law that made the difference, we would’ve seen more of an impact. Given that there are plenty of other factors contributing to mass shootings as well, I see little reason to credit the law with the prevention some people like to give it.