SUM of Fatalities | SUM of Wounded | SUM of Total victims | Sum of Fatalities prior to Assault Weapons Ban | Sum of Wounded Prior to Assault Weapons Ban | Sum of Total Victims Prior to Assault Weapons Ban | 12 years | ||
1982 | 8 | 3 | 11 | Prior | 161 | 185 | 346 | |
1984 | 28 | 20 | 48 | Prior | ||||
1986 | 15 | 6 | 21 | Prior | ||||
1987 | 6 | 14 | 20 | Prior | ||||
1988 | 7 | 4 | 11 | Prior | ||||
1989 | 15 | 41 | 56 | Prior | ||||
1990 | 10 | 4 | 14 | Prior | ||||
1991 | 35 | 26 | 61 | Prior | ||||
1992 | 9 | 10 | 19 | Prior | ||||
1993 | 23 | 34 | 57 | Prior | ||||
1994 | 5 | 23 | 28 | Enacted September 13, 1994 | Sum of Fatalities during Assault Weapons Ban | Sum of Wounded during Assault Weapons Ban | Sum of Total Victims during Assault Weapons Ban | 10 years |
1995 | 6 | 0 | 6 | During | 101 | 108 | 209 | |
1996 | 6 | 1 | 7 | During | ||||
1997 | 9 | 5 | 14 | During | ||||
1998 | 14 | 36 | 50 | During | ||||
1999 | 42 | 47 | 89 | During | ||||
2000 | 7 | 0 | 7 | During | ||||
2001 | 5 | 4 | 9 | During | ||||
2003 | 7 | 8 | 15 | During | ||||
2004 | 5 | 7 | 12 | Expired September 13, 2004 | Sum of Fatalities since expiration of Assault Weapons Ban | Sum of Wounded since expiration of Assault Weapons Ban | Sum of Total Victims since expiration of Assault Weapons Ban | 12 years |
2005 | 17 | 9 | 26 | After | 406 | 354 | 760 | |
2006 | 21 | 7 | 28 | After | ||||
2007 | 54 | 32 | 86 | After | ||||
2008 | 18 | 24 | 42 | After | ||||
2009 | 39 | 38 | 77 | After | ||||
2010 | 9 | 2 | 11 | After | ||||
2011 | 19 | 21 | 40 | After | ||||
2012 | 72 | 68 | 140 | After | ||||
2013 | 35 | 13 | 48 | After | ||||
2014 | 18 | 28 | 46 | After | ||||
2015 | 46 | 43 | 89 | After | ||||
2016 | 58 | 69 | 127 | After | ||||
Grand Total | 668 | 647 | 1315 |
I'm not going to assert that a one variable equation is the only difference in these numbers. I'm not going to pretend that there are not deeper societal problems that contribute. But when I just look at the numbers, I think an assault weapon ban can only be viewed as a step in the right direction.
When one group (gun owners) has the power to force their will on the entire nation with this kind of data indicating a real threat to public safety, something is significantly out of balance.
Look at the data. Here is a link to the full data set: Mother Jones Mass Shootings Database
If the data moves you as it does me, contact your senators and congressman. Silence is acceptance.
And for me, this is unacceptable.
So, given everything that's happened over the years, and the data you've got here, there "may" be a slight difference between the date ranges, and as an auditor, I'm trained to look at risk and vulnerabilities. If the ability for bad people to kill is increased because of the ease of access, then cutting off that access helps minimize risk and reduce a vulnerability. However, I would also argue that if bad people want to kill they will always find a way. The unfortunate event in Orlando would have happened if the killer wasn't able to get a weapon legally. He would have borrowed, stolen, gotten something off the streets, or found another option, such as explosives. Also, look at what happened in Paris. The latest issue was a knife, and they have the strictest gun laws in Europe.
ReplyDeleteMy point is simple. I'm always in favor of minimizing risk and reducing vulnerability, but we have to look at everything as a whole, including root causes. There's simply a LOT more to this than the availability of assault weapons.
Thanks for posting this.
So, given everything that's happened over the years, and the data you've got here, there "may" be a slight difference between the date ranges, and as an auditor, I'm trained to look at risk and vulnerabilities. If the ability for bad people to kill is increased because of the ease of access, then cutting off that access helps minimize risk and reduce a vulnerability. However, I would also argue that if bad people want to kill they will always find a way. The unfortunate event in Orlando would have happened if the killer wasn't able to get a weapon legally. He would have borrowed, stolen, gotten something off the streets, or found another option, such as explosives. Also, look at what happened in Paris. The latest issue was a knife, and they have the strictest gun laws in Europe.
ReplyDeleteMy point is simple. I'm always in favor of minimizing risk and reducing vulnerability, but we have to look at everything as a whole, including root causes. There's simply a LOT more to this than the availability of assault weapons.
Thanks for posting this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOriginal comment deleted to fix a typo. I couldn't figure out another way to edit.
DeleteI agree, this is a complex issue, and has many factors that could be addressed. I guess my biggest struggle is why these weapons exist and are owned by citizens at all. They are killing machines. And yes, the bad people will find lawless ways to achieve their goals, but I would like to make it more difficult for them. And I'm sick at heart that this nation continues to do nothing in the face of the increasing carnage.