I want to share a ‘Letter to the Editor’ I read today.
It is short, so unlike other fiskings I will post it in its entirety first before we take it apart, like baffled ASE certified mechanics looking at an atrocious home repair job. You know the ones, they just quietly mutter “What the f#&%…” over and over again as they get deeper into the problem with the car and see the previous problems that problem was built upon.
Remember also, like the title says, these people vote…
Semi automatic assault weapons should be illegal in the United States of America. All the most deadly shootings in recent US history have involved the use of high capacity machine guns. Firstly, according to everytownresearch.org, between the years of 2009 to 2020, a total of 1,363 people in the United States have been killed and 947 were wounded in a total of 240 mass shootings. For example, in these shootings the most devastating impact was when semi automatic assault weapons were used. Also, assault weapons have no purpose except to cause mass destruction. These are weapons that are meant to be used in war, not for civilian self defense. According to everytownresearch.org, 5 percent of all mass shootings deaths between 2009 and 2012 involved an assault weapon and accounted for 76 percent of injuries. This means that even though it was not in the majority of shootings, it caused the most devastating impact. In conclusion, semi automatic assault weapons should be illegal in the United States of America.
Keep in mind this was posted March 21st 2022, so current events apply.
Let’s take it apart.
Semi automatic assault weapons should be illegal in the United States of America.
Okay, bold start. I can dig it. Now back up your premise, please.
All the most deadly shootings in recent US history have involved the use of high capacity machine guns.
Aaaand you lost us. This is a blatantly false assertion with a number of problematic sources for its information. Let’s start with the claim ‘ALL’ and realize that, unless you are talking about Las Vegas and Pulse only, the premise falls apart entirely. Recall that the third deadliest shooting is still Virginia Tech, which took place with semi-automatic, capacity-limited handguns, one of which was a .22lr. (Note: This excludes .gov slayings which still far outstrip civilian ones in their scope and bodycount)
Also, ‘involved the use of high capacity machine guns’ they did not. The closest, and only by a legal change made post attack that questionably going to stand up in the long run, was Las Vegas and the bump stocks. Critical analysis of the event will tell you that the use of rapid, poorly aimed fire arguably reduced the lethality of the event, which was also set to involve explosives (confirmed far deadlier, paging Tim McVeigh) if it had proceeded as designed. Aimed shots from the distance of Mandalay Bay to the packed concert venue could have resulted in dramatically higher death tolls instead of the 411 injuries and 60 dead by gunfire that it did. In total 867 were injured in the attack, but those injuries were not all the result of gunfire, all of the mass of people trying to escape the attack injured more people than gunfire by 50.
Was it bad? Yes. Could it have been dramatically worse, even with a bolt action rifle? Absolutely, the methodology of the attack and the target produced a perfect environment to generate casualties, and we are lucky in the darkest of ways that the attacker chose unaimed spray and pray into the crowd, that once dispersed, blunted its ability to cause injury. The rate of fire was not a significant factor in the method and level of injury, the shooter position, venue design, and event crowd dispersal were assuredly the primary factors. There is no rifle, built in the last century, that doesn’t make Mandalay Bay a horror show.
However, none involved machineguns. NFA controlled items are rare participants in crime in general, to say nothing about singling out massacres, despite the assertions of the NFA to the contrary. Handguns dominate slayings and will continue to do so, regardless of murder rate rising or falling, because they are convenient.
Firstly, according to everytownresearch.org, between the years of 2009 to 2020, a total of 1,363 people in the United States have been killed and 947 were wounded in a total of 240 mass shootings.
We will skip over the obvious bias and loaded motives of everytown and the Bloomberg apparatus. Suffice to say the data is technically accurate, which is the only accuracy they need to then draw wild conclusions with their data and organize the “do something” crowd of useful idiots.
For example, the ‘letter’ points out 1,363 deaths over an 11 year period. It fails to put those deaths into any other context, even ones involving homicide. A context like there being 16,799 homicides in just 2009.
We also fail to differentiate ‘Mass Shooting’ from ‘Mass Attack in Public Space‘ which is the imagery invoked by ‘Mass Shooting’, not any given drive-by that tags 4 people. The imagery is deliberate on the part of everytown, and similar .orgs, who wish the only thing that comes to mind when the words ‘Mass Shooting’ cross the screen to be Sandy Hook, Pulse, and Las Vegas and not criminals doing crime things.
For example, in these shootings the most devastating impact was when semi automatic assault weapons were used.
This is a nonsense statement. The most devastating impact by what measure? That people died? Is there a number of deaths that make ‘most devastating’? Because in 9 of the top 11 most lethal shootings, handguns were involved. Four of them were exclusively handguns. Were these not devastating? Two of the top six most lethal mass shootings were exclusively handguns, were those not devastating? The only attack that took place exclusively with an ‘Assault Weapon’ in the top five was the fifth, by the logic implied in the statement above it should be the first and handguns should rank much lower.
But they don’t, because that is not how injury/threat matrices work. The weapon and it’s capabilities, beyond the fact that it is lethal, start to factor less and less into the overall equation and the environment, disparity of force, and population of the target location matter more. The only significant influence we could attribute is to remove repeating firearms from the equation. Not semi-auto, repeating. Every lever action, pump action, and bolt action too, anything that has the ability to remove and reload a cartridge in a remotely efficient manner.
We like to pretend the ability to reload “rapidly” increases the lethality of a situation when analysis has shown that it is the combined ability to reload at all, no effective countering violence is brought against the attacker, and the region experiencing the attack still presents valid targets per the attacker’s criteria. It was those last two factors that made Mandalay Bay so lethal.
Also, assault weapons have no purpose except to cause mass destruction.
An odd assertion considering… well… everything relevant to this assertion. Take away every defensive use, every sport, every hunt, every fun afternoon at the gun range, and that leaves personal small arms… still being the worst weapon of war for causing mass destruction.
Have you seen any other weapon? Like, any of them?
These are weapons that are meant to be used in war, not for civilian self defense.
The folk of Ukraine would like a word, as all the civilians get dragged into defending themselves from a government’s aggression. Small arms are all for civilian self defense whether on the individual level of defending one’s home from a home invader or from repelling an enemy assault from a foreign army. That is what individual small arms are for.
That is also what they are overwhelmingly used for. Every survey of defensive gun uses conducted shows an astounding number of lawful proper uses compared to total homicides. It isn’t a fraction in favor of DGU’s, it is a ratio greater than 5:1 at the absolute most pessimistic and likely around 60:1. Sixty successful defensive uses per single homicide, homicide involving any method and not just firearms. This is what cold calculus calls a highly favorable exchange rate, but that vastly oversimplifies the situations to a patently absurd level.
In short that statement is both improperly put and misunderstood. These are weapons meant for civilian self defense, including war. Recent history shows that civil status in society is the delightful exception, conflict is the norm.
According to everytownresearch.org, 5 percent of all mass shootings deaths between 2009 and 2012 involved an assault weapon and accounted for 76 percent of injuries.
That seems to be in conflict with the earlier ‘all the most deadly shootings’ statement made earlier, but this whole statement is asinine so let’s roll with it.
Only 5% of deaths during mass shootings are using these yet this should be our focus? What about the 95%? Literally a 20:1 death rate for other method of death in these mass shootings but the 1 in that equation is what needs banning?
Your math sucks.
This means that even though it was not in the majority of shootings, it caused the most devastating impact.
Did it? Would the 76% of injuries happen to be because there was an outlier event? Like.. say.. Mandalay Bay? An outlier event among outlier events, still devastating and tragic but we cannot build policy against outliers effectively without taking drastic and draconian measures. The cure worse than the disease. This also discounts the fact that it is no cure, it is snake oil. The government cannot protect you, they can merely respond to your person’s violation.
In conclusion, semi automatic assault weapons should be illegal in the United States of America.
Congratulations, this would rate about a D in most writing or critical thinking curriculum. You made a statement, failed to support it in any manner of argument/counter format that stands up under merit of scrutiny, and rely on out of context data from a known biased and partisan source to bolster the argument.
It’s trash grade critical thinking.
It’s a dumpster fire of reasoning.
It is the opinion of a voter.