Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[AR-15s]]>

Newsweek fact-checks mass shooting claim

by Leave a Comment

Anytime we experience a mass shooting, we start to hear a lot of people slinging statistics around on the internet. This phenomenon is worse on social media, particularly Twitter.

Recently, someone claimed that mass shootings were 43 percent lower during the era of the assault weapon ban.

And Newsweek, of all places, decided to fact-check the claim.

A tweet posted by activist Mohamad Safa on February 15, 2023, which has been viewed more than 128,000 times, said: “Do you know that in 1994 Bill Clinton banned assault weapons and mass shooting deaths dropped by 43%, in 2004 the ban expire [sic] and mass shooting deaths shot up by 239%.”

…

The source of the claim on Twitter appears to be University of Massachusetts researcher Louis Klarevas, who found that compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of people dying from mass shootings fell by 43 percent, and increased 239 percent 10 years after.

However, as Klarevas told The WashingtonPost, he only assessed “high fatality” mass shootings and “did not have comprehensive data of mass shootings that resulted in less than 6 killed.”

The Post was also provided with analysis that suggested per capita incidence of gun deaths did dip during the period. However, this data did not assess assault weapons in particular and, as mentioned in the article, there are other issues with it too.

As Klaveras stated, he had only counted shootings where the number of deaths was six or more. The definition of a mass shooting is contentious but one metric regularly cited is any shooting where four or more victims had died.

Looking only at statistics involving six or more victims would, in theory, narrow the number of incidents recorded.

It should also be noted that the Post’s analysis that gun deaths per capita dropped isn’t shocking. We know that homicide rates were dropping before the assault weapon ban, dropped during, and continued dropping afterward, right up until the last few years, really.

That suggests that the assault weapon ban played almost no role in that reduction.

Newsweek also noted that Klaveras’s data only shows a correlation, not causation. That’s an important point here, because, as noted, other data show very different things.

In fact, other studies have shown mass shootings really didn’t drop during the era of the assault weapon ban, especially compared to what we saw beforehand.

But activists tout Klaveras and his research for one very simple reason. It’s because they like the conclusion. Who cares how he defines the criteria so long as the narrative is advanced? What does it matter so long as his research can be used to advance the gun control cause?

Further, even if mass shooting fatalities are up, there are some points that aren’t in the research.

For example, what many might term the era of the mass shooting didn’t start until 1999, curing the assault weapon ban, when Columbine happened. It wasn’t the first mass shooting, but that has been argued to be when the trend in mass shootings really got going. So it stands to reason that as mass shootings continue, such killers might claim still more lives after the assault weapon ban than before it.

So yeah, I’m not exactly swayed by the argument.

Supposed expert claims AR-15 can cut a person in half

by Leave a Comment

Some people claim the AR-15 is useless for self-defense. While I tend to prefer other options for most purposes, I’ve always disagreed about the weapon being “useless” in any way. There are just other options that fit my skillset and needs for most things.

I still have one, though.

However, perhaps one argument for having an AR-15 for self-defense purposes is that of deterrence. After all, we’ve heard some amazing stories of just how deadly these weapons are.

Now, thanks to Kostas Moros, we have one more:

That’s right. A single round can cut a man in twain. (Yes, I wrote it that way because I always wanted to seriously talk about cutting a person “in twain.” Sue me.)

And, as the late-night infomercial guy says, wait, there’s more.

And in this one, it seems the author, retired Col. Craig A. Tucker, argues that his pistol was for defensive use rather than his M-4 which was for offensive use.

Never mind the fact that when a base is attacked, troops use their M-4s, not their pistols. Apparently, defensive operations still count as offensive operations. Look, it doesn’t have to make sense. We’re just the peons who have silly ideas about owning dangerous weapons of war. What would we know?

Obviously, Twitter took to dunking on the colonel.

However, the truth of the matter is that whatever Tucker tried to claim is nothing more than fantasy, it’s the “I was in the military so I actually know guns” when no, that’s not necessarily the case. I was in the military, but most of my weapons knowledge came from before or after my time in uniform, not during.

The same is true for a lot of others who served but now try to advance the ideas of gun control.

The truth of the matter is that the 5.56 round doesn’t do that kind of damage. It’s a fantasy gun control advocates have developed in their minds to warrant the banning of such weapons. Yet it’s worth noting that the reason such a round isn’t permitted for deer hunting isn’t that it’s too deadly but because it’s too weak. It may not cleanly kill an animal, thus allowing them to suffer for a long time before dying, often after traveling miles and making recovery of the kill difficult.

Of course, there is a rebuttal to Tucker’s bizarre claims about the AR-15.

The terrifying thing, though, is that such a rebuttal report was even needed. Honestly, on the face of things, this is a claim so bizarre that it shouldn’t even be taken seriously. After all, if that were the case, where’s the footage of enemy soldiers torn in two or decapitated by a single round from an American troop?

After all, after two decades of warfare, the American military shot a lot of people with 5.56, with weapons similar enough to the AR-15 for our purposes here. Where’s the evidence supporting such a claim?

Simply put, all such evidence exists within Tucker’s head.

At the end of the day, though, this is the kind of misinformation we will continue to see and see held up as authoritative. It’s nothing of the sort.

But it is comedy gold, so we at least have that.

80 percent of Texans think gun rights only for some adults

by Leave a Comment

The battle over gun rights isn’t going away anytime soon. Part of the issue is that many think retaining any degree of one’s gun rights means their rights haven’t been infringed upon.

That’s part of why restrictions on handgun ownership for those under the age of 21 have been allowed to stand. Those law-abiding adults could still buy shotguns and rifles, after all, so they could still defend themselves.

But a recent poll in Texas suggests that 80 percent of folks in the state are fine with treating some law-abiding adults as if they’re convicted felons.

Well, that’s not how it’s framed, mind you, but that’s pretty much how it boils down.

Eighty percent of  Texans support legislation raising the age requirement to purchase an assault rifle (such as an AR-15) from 18 to 21, according to a survey from the University of Houston’s Hobby School of Public Affairs.

Increasing the age for assault rifle purchases is one of many legislative priorities for Texas Democratic lawmakers and gun reform advocates following a slew of mass shootings across the nation and the state in recent years. Heightened gun control measures polled favorably among those polled in UH’s survey on 2023 legislative issues.

According to the survey, 90 percent of Texans also supported banning the possession or purchase of a gun by anyone with a restraining order for domestic violence, and 86 percent of Texans supported requiring a criminal background check for gun purchases. Eighty-three percent of those surveyed supported red flag laws, which allow authorities to confiscate the firearms of individuals deemed by a court to be a danger to themselves or others. Sixty-three percent of Texans supported legislation that would ban the sale of high-capacity magazines.

We’ve talked in the past about polling data that suggests most support background checks. I mean, sure, but gun buyers already undergo background checks. The polls don’t differentiate between what currently exists and some new measure, so at least some of that support is for the status quo.

Honestly, most of these measures we’ve talked about, but this idea that people under the age of 21 are some subset of the citizenry is a big problem for me. It’s like they’re almost adults, but not quite.

As it stands, they can take on student loan debt with no parental input, enlist in the military, live on their own, own a car, vote for our leaders, and a host of other things. Why are they prohibited from buying yet another kind of firearm?

People in this age group are already prevented from owning handguns, yet we have countless criminals in this demographic being arrested for various crimes with them.

So what good does inhibiting their gun rights actually do? What legitimate purpose does this serve?

Some will claim it’ll reduce mass shootings, but since most mass shootings are carried out with handguns, I once again find an issue with this claim.

And this is Texas, where people are supposed to be pro-gun.

Clearly, it’s “rules for thee but not for me” with some folks in the Lone Star State, unfortunately.

SHORT Act introduced to counter ATF pistol brace ban

by Leave a Comment

Short-barrel rifles and shotguns don’t really serve any function on the list of NFA devices. It’s far too easy to circumvent the law–sawed-off shotguns, anyone?–and it does nothing but drive the cost up for shorter weapons that might benefit smaller shooters or those looking for a better home-defense firearm.

That’s where the recently introduced SHORT Act comes into play.

Introduced on Tuesday, the bill seeks to remove these shorter long guns from the NFA registry.

WASHINGTON – Sens. John Kennedy (R-La.) and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) today introduced the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act to undo the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) federal registry for firearms with stabilizing braces by clarifying that short-barreled rifles cannot be further regulated.

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) introduced the bill in the House of Representatives.

“The Biden administration is going to keep looking for ways to penalize law-abiding gunowners unless Congress makes their rights clear. A brace that countless disabled Americans use to exercise their Second Amendment rights should not be regulated by unelected anti-gun bureaucrats, and this bill would force the Biden ATF to stop devising new restrictions for legal firearms,” said Kennedy.

“Finalization of this pistol brace rule represents the worst fears of gun owners across the country. The SHORT Act will protect Americans from the anti-2nd Amendment gun registry that the ATF is abusing the National Firearms Act to create. This Congress, I challenge my colleagues in both chambers to make protecting Americans’ 2nd Amendment Rights a priority and sign onto this legislation that will stop the ATF’s pistol brace rule in its tracks,” said Marshall.

“Congress cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the Biden Administration’s weaponization of the NFA and ongoing assault on Americans’ Second Amendment freedoms. In the face of President Biden’s unconstitutional tactics and backdoor gun control, the SHORT Act provides a permanent solution to combat the unlawful Pistol Brace Rule and protect Americans’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I’m proud to reintroduce this legislation with Senator Marshall and lead the fight on behalf of all law-abiding gun owners across our great nation against the Biden Administration’s latest gun-grabbing measure,” said Clyde.

Kennedy is also introducing a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to prevent the Biden administration’s ATF from enforcing a new pistol brace rule that would turn law-abiding gun owners into felons.

Under this rule, gun owners could face up to 10 years in jail and thousands of dollars in fines if they fail to register pistols with stabilizing braces with the ATF. If gun owners do not register their firearms, they would have to destroy the firearm, surrender their firearm to the ATF, or remove the brace in such a way that it cannot be reattached.

“The Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act will repeal elements of the archaic National Firearms Act, which the Biden ATF is using to justify their pistol ban and “amnesty registration” plan—a policy change that affects millions of law-abiding gun owners and does nothing to curb rising crime. GOA is proud to support the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Act, which will protect millions of gun owners, halt these anti-gun infringements, and restore liberty,” said Gun Owners of America’s Director of Federal Affairs Aidan Johnston.

“The NRA is proud to stand with Sen. Marshall and support the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act. Given the ATF’s most recent assault on the Second Amendment, this important legislation will protect the right of law-abiding Americans to choose the firearm that best suits their needs while eliminating an outdated and onerous taxing and registration scheme. If passed, American gun owners will no longer have to fear the unconstitutional and arbitrary reinterpretations of the law by unelected, anti-gun bureaucrats,” said Jason Ouimet, Executive Director for NRA Institute for Federal Affairs.

Sens. John Boozman (R-Ark.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Mike Risch (R-Idaho), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), John Thune (R-S.D.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) are also original cosponsors of this bill.

Basically, the SHORT Act removes the ability for the ATF to regulate pistol braces because these would no longer be NFA items in the first place.

After all, even under the ATF’s ruling, you can still put a pistol brace on a full-size AR-15 or similar rifle. It’s just about the fact that they decided putting one on a pistol made it a short-barreled rifle.

So, the SHORT Act removes that for good.

Gun Owners of America wasted no time in supporting this measure, either.

Aidan Johnston, GOA’s Director of Federal Affairs said in a statement, “The Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act will repeal elements of the archaic National Firearms Act, which the Biden ATF is using to justify their pistol ban and ‘amnesty registration’ plan — a policy change that affects millions of law-abiding gun owners and does nothing to curb rising crime. GOA is proud to support the SHORT Act, which will protect millions of gun owners, halt these anti-gun infringements, and restore liberty. GOA is grateful to Rep. Clyde and Senator Marshall for leading this No Compromise legislation to restore long-lost Second Amendment rights.”

Look, I get that some people will freak out over the idea of short-barrel rifles and shotguns being sold over the counter, but we have to remember that this law actually does nothing. The vast majority of criminals who wants a firearm that’s shorter than the law allows will just make one. Shotguns are inexpensive and easy to modify, as just one example.

But on the same token, as I mentioned earlier, they’re incredibly useful for anyone who is looking for something a little easier to wield inside the confines of their home. You can do it with a full-size rifle, but you shouldn’t have to.

So the SHORT Act is a good thing.

Realistically, though, don’t get your hopes up. While Republicans control the House, they don’t control either the Senate or the White House. As a result, it’s highly unlikely we’ll see this go much of anywhere.