12-31- 2018 update: The truth about 'assault weapons' and mass shootings un the US

This is an update from my previously updated post from September 2018, found below, to include the entirety of 2018:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-weapons-and-mass-shootings-un-the-us.541933/

-According to Mother Jones (link below), from 1982 thru 2018, 'assault weapons' accounted for 378 mass shooting deaths; handguns accounted for 427 such deaths.
This works out to 10.21 and 11.54 deaths per year, respectively.

-The 378 total deaths by 'assault weapons' in mass shootings 1982-2018 represent 42.95% of total deaths in mass shootings; handguns represent 48.52%

-10.21 deaths/year in mass shootings with ‘assault weapons’ represents 0.06699% of all murders
-10.21 deaths /year in mass shootings with ‘assault weapons’ represents 0.09608% of all firearm-related murders

In addition:
-1982-2018, there were 16 mass school shootings of all kinds, resulting in 142 deaths for an average of 3.83 deaths per year.
-73 of these deaths, 51.41%, involved the use of an ‘assault weapon’, for an average of 1.97 deaths per year.

And so, with tens of millions of 'assault weapons' in the US, slightly over 10 people per year are murdered with an ‘assault weapon’; these murders represent <0.1% of all firearm related murders.
Thus, further proof there is no sound argument, practically or constitutionally, for banning 'assault weapons'.


Source:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
In compiling this information from the MJ spreadsheet, I was as inclusive as I could be - for instance, some events involved the use of a Mini-14/30 and M1 carbine which are not necessarily 'assault weapons' while others included the TEC-9 and MAC-11, which are oversized handguns rather than rifles. I included them in the total.

 

I appreciate your good work and analysis. Keep it up. Facts every now and then shed a little light on an otherwise very heated debate.

Bear in mind that "assault weapon" is in the mind of the beholder. To Sen. Feinstein, for example, it was any weapon that looked ugly. So if there ever is an assault weapon ban the next step would be to simply define every gun as an assault weapon.

 

That's why I was inclusive as possible, based on the data available.

 

Weren't "assault weapons banned from 1994 to 2004? If so would that effect the figures? According to your source haven't deaths from mass shootings each year increased significantly lately? If so would all of those lower death rates in the 80's and 90's effect your averages? According to your figures wouldn't the Los Veges shooting alone be enough to spread your average of 10.2 deaths for 5 years if no more deaths occurred using "assault weapons" during that five year span?

 

Allow me to summarize the 1994 AWB.
Feel free to explain how said ban affected anything.

Define "lately".

 

FACTS don't matter per Nancy Pelosi

 

Here's an interesting tidbit:
% of mass shooting deaths attributed to 'assault weapons'
1982-1993: 40%
1994-2003: 46.5%
2004-2014: 24.3% (Note how this compares to the AWB era)
2015-2018: 64.1%

 

I hope you take this as just trying to help with your data.

Deadliest mass shootings since 1949:
#1 2017 58 Las Vegas
#2 2016 50 Orlando

Does not change your 64.1% figure, just gives a little light.

Definition of mass shootings vary. Maybe it would be a good idea to report based on different definitions?
Would be interesting to use this one, but only in addition to one of the others.
Act of violence—excluding gang killings, domestic violence, or terrorist acts sponsored by an organization—in which a gunman kills at least four victims.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map/
They should stick to either 4 or 3. Using both as they did is not good for comparison.
Prior to 2013 - Defined mass shooting as 4 or more victims.
2013+ - Lowered to 3 or more victims

Reason for change from 4 to 3:
https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ265/PLAW-112publ265.pdf
‘‘(I) the term ‘mass killings’ means 3 or more
killings in a single incident; and
‘‘(II) the term ‘place of public use’ has the meaning
given that term under section 2332f(e)(6) of title 18,
United States Code.’’.

place of public use
(6)“place of public use” means those parts of any building, land, street, waterway, or other location that are accessible or open to members of the public, whether continuously, periodically, or occasionally, and encompasses any commercial, business, cultural, historical, educational, religious, governmental, entertainment, recreational, or similar place that is so accessible or open to the public;
Source
18 USC § 2332f(e)(6)

 

How so?
In terms of the number of people killed, these are 6th and 8th deviation events.

Mother Jones is an anti-gun organization - I use their information because they are likely to skew it to their purpose.
It may be that they changed the definition to suit their purpose; if so, it only makes my argument stronger.

 

I was not debating anything you said and I do apologize if you took it that way. I saw you as someone trying their best to give good data. My only intention was to help, and maybe I shouldn't have..

When trying to account for the dramatic rise in deaths in recent years and trying to answer why, I thought the two events I mentioned factor into that. It does not change data you mentioned at all.

I was shocked at the increase in the deaths from 40%-24%-64%. While looking for answers I noticed the two deadliest shootings occurred during the last short time period. How people decide what that means is up to them. In my view those two events are outliers. If you were to remove those events which involve 108 deaths, I suspect it would dramatically impact the 64% figure. I am not at all saying that should be done. Just wanted to point out a possible explanation that one or two events have an impact on that number.

I thought it was important to define mass shooting. There are many definitions out there and organizations tend to use the one that best serves their purpose. Mother Jones did change their definition and I provided a link to that. Using two different numbers for the same data set is wrong. They explain their reason for the change. I provided a separate link where congress defined the term in 2013.

 

The truth is that most all gun deaths in the US are due to handguns, period. Rifles and shotguns are a trivial minority.

 

I appreciate your effort.

Well, yes - but those to events that created the rise were absurd outliers. They skew the short-term "increase over last year" results, but have little to no effect on the overall picture.

 

And deaths in "mass shootings", especially those committed with 'assault weapons' are an -absurdly- trivial minority.