Why is there such a drastic spike in the middle of the established time frame, that is higher than at any time prior, and for a number of years after the established time frame?
Yep. But, aside from that shotgun,vthere are also rifles, some with limited capacities (I.e., SMLE, M1) with cartridges capable of penetrating multiple victims if they are packed in a group, where a 8-10 rd mag is capable of the same.
Winchester 1907 is not a shotgun, its a rifle chambered first in .35SLW then, when that proved sorta whimpy, .351winchester magnum. The SMLE in a mad minute can fire about 30 rounds in 60 seconds. That's half the fire rate specified in the post I responded to, hence why I did not include it.
They're counting the wounded in the Las Vegas shooting in that graph, which includes people who got sprained ankles running away.
Yep, I concede the mistake... I was fixated on a gun I had just repaired for a client, an 1897 pump shotgun, capable of rapid slam fire, which loaded with 12g buck and the right distance could send enough projectiles down range to wound the specified number of 21 victims in the time frame. I Referenced the SMLE (sporterized versions often available in Brit colonies) not only for the rate of fire (20 round mags were issued and could be changed rapidly, but were unpopular because the interfered with prone fire and raised body profile when shooting prone), but the point was certain rounds, like the .303 or the M1’s .30.06, using military jacketed rounds, could penetrate more than one victim, meaning, in a crowd, meaning rifles of 8-10 rounds could be used to wound 21 people in 30 seconds. In considering, that a single round can wound more than one victim, a couple things to note, even in examining the forensics of the LV victims, many were struck after bullets (from the relatively anemic .223/5.56) passed through the first victim struck. Then, consider, Lyudmila Pavlichenko, the famed Soviet female sniper describes how in the battle on the outskirts of Moscow in WWII, she’d sometimes take time try to line up her shots to take out more than one of the enemy per shot to minimize her exposure and minimize the chance of revealing location. In executions, the Japanese, using their 6.5 Arisakas, would sometimes line up 2 or three to be executed with each round. So, we know it’s not only possible, but a used tactic. So, my point, is 21 victims doesn’t necessarily mean 21 shots are needed.
Not relevant to the question. There is a significant spike in the ten year time frame during which so-called "assault weapons" were supposedly prohibited. The spike is higher than in any year prior to the ten year period, and higher than at any period in the seven years after the time period.
Ah the action the germans declared a "weapon of mass destruction" the use of which was a crime against humanity........... while they used mustard gas in ww1. Threatened to summarily execute any american soldier caught with one. Our response was humorous. They used to clear whole trenches with those things. Never seen a 20 rounder for the SMLE and the mad minute stat comes from 10 round mags fed with 5 round stripper clips. The SMLE would be capable with multiple 10 round mags or a 20 and a 10 etc. It just wasn't how they let the soldiers issued the weapon work the weapon so there are no stats for it. FFS the early models had a magazine interrupt so you had to load individual rounds until given a whistle command to mad minute with a magazine capable of being detached but they only gave you the one and it was CHAINED to the ****ing rifle so you have to load the damn thing with 5 round strippers. TWICE.
I once had a MKII SMLE, confiscated from my Granda’s Cache with two full bandeliers of era 5 rd chargers (two to a pouch) along with original steel jacketed cartridges (never used them... used later .303), and the bayonet with seaboard, that he claimed was taken from a Brit in 1916 in the lesser known Belfast part of the fight. Mag was chained originally, de chained by me. The chain was to prevent loss of a mag that would make the piece pretty much useless for combat. That rifle was in great mechanical shape... stock-was eh. Had thoughts of restocking (1/2 size forgrip) but was torn because of the gun’s providence. Had smoothest bolt of any I have ever used, except a few straight bolts I have used. Trigger wasn’t the best though. Was heavy, forward heavy. Now in a museum in Belfast, though displayed as example of Brit arms, not one used by the Rebels. One of those guns I owned I wish I hadn’t parted with. As you note, charging was from 5rd clip rds, RNA’s pressed in (there was a speed trick to it as my Granda showed me), but was, counter intuitively, but even loading two clips into mag, was almost as than the M1’s single enblok clip with the M1 I owned, trick there too to avoid mashing your thumb. The 1897 I worked on recently (stock repair and bluing...though against my advice for the vintage value) for a client still functioned smoothly. I had thoughts of shooting it & trying the slam fire function, but, crunched for time, didn’t get the chance. As for the 20rd mags, Google for those, and Google for the pouches (prob another reason they weren’t popular).
Well hell, those Kiwis's are flaunting the law. I think the gubmint should mount some gattling guns on police cars and get to mowing down those that harber those nasty weapons. Do your job pooleece.
In the mean time violent crime most of which involves firearms from 1993 and 2017 is down by either 49% or 74% depending on whose data is being used. But cherry pick what you want to post to support your false narrative. As for the Assault Weapons ban explain which one of these rifles is a Assault Rifle and why was it banned and the other wasn't banned?
The GCA's as always. They refuse to accept the cause of violence and continue to blame the symptom, which of course will never solve the problem, in fact it will only make it worse.
Depends on how you define “violent crime” as to whether it involves the use of a firearm or not. If they left a loophole it may explain the spike in deaths at the centre of the ban
Mommmeee! How many presents didn’t Santa leave under the treee? Just about as much sense as the question you are asking
Because weapons of mass destruction do not include any firearms. "The U.S. military refers to WMD as: Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon. Also called WMD."
The so-called "loophole" would be attempting to define specific firearms based on purely cosmetic features, while not addressing the functionality of the firearm itself. Remove all of the defining visual and physical features that makes an AR-15 so iconic, and it will still remain a semi-automatic firearm so long as the method of operation remains unchanged. Even changing the style of the internal parts would not stop it from being a semi-automatic firearm. Ultimately the problem at hand in these discussions is the simple fact those who seek to prohibit the ownership of semi-automatic firearms are not able to come out and state such outright, as it is political suicide to take such a step. They try and create a workaround by going after certain cosmetic features in a hope to affect the firearms they are attached to without directly going after the firearms, but those who design and produce firearms will simply reconfigure the design to remove the targeted features and change the name, but the heart and functionality of the firearm will remain the same. The only way to address the issue is for certain politicians to be open, honest, and upfront about a desire to remove semi-automatic firearms from the equation in their entirety. But they will not take such a stance because they are cowardly, and ultimately care more about their own employment and holding of office, rather than trying to care about the lives of their voting constituents. So long as they seek reelection above all else, they will never care about anything else, regardless of what message they try to sell to the public.
