Article from Reason by Jacob Sullum.
Yesterday Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who wrote the federal “assault weapon” ban that expired in 2004 and in recent years has been pushing a new, broader version of that law, asked Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to explain why he concluded that such legislation is unconstitutional. After Kavanaugh recapped his reasoning (more on that in a minute), Feinstein replied, “How do you reconcile what you’ve just said with the hundreds of school shootings using assault weapons that have taken place in recent history?”
Feinstein’s response was striking for two reasons. First, there have been nothing like “hundreds of school shootings using assault weapons,” whether you look at “recent history” or go back half a century. Second, the shootings are irrelevant to the question of whether banning so-called assault weapons is consistent with the Second Amendment.
According to a database maintained by Mother Jones, there have been 101 “indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker” since 1982. A Washington Post tally published last October, based on the FBI’s definition of mass murder, identified “154 shootings in which four or more people were killed” since 1966. Only a small share of these attacks—16 of 101 in the Mother Jones database—occurred at schools, including universities. Just six of those 16 school attacks involved “assault weapons,” which account for about a quarter of the firearms used by mass shooters, most of which are handguns.
Even if Feinstein had in mind a broader definition of school shooting, it is hard to see how she could get to “hundreds” involving “assault weapons.” By her own count, 385 people were killed with “assault weapons” from 2004 through 2011 (which is about 0.5 percent of gun homicides during that period), and the vast majority of those murders did not occur in schools. If we assume that something like 16 percent of them did (in line with the Mother Jones numbers), that would be 60 or so murders involving “assault weapons” at schools over eight years, and the number of separate incidents would be even lower. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Feinstein was just making shit up when she referred to “hundreds of school shootings using assault weapons that have taken place in recent history.”
Read the entire article at Reason.
Image Credit: By KAZ Vorpal (Flickr: Declaration of Independence, with Firearm) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
IS THIS THE SAME DIANE WHO’S DRIVER FOR 30 YEARS IS A CHINESE SPY?
IS THIS THE SAME DIANE WHO’S HUSBAND GOT A … SOLE SOURCE … NO BID … CONTRACT WITH THE POST OFFICE
THAT GUARANTEES THEM AT LEAST … AT LEAST A PROFIT OF … $ 1,100,000,000.00 THATS BILLION
TALK ABOUT CORRUPT AND A TRAITOR ON TOP.
The question from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is rather an absurdity, as Kavanaugh has already stated his perspective of upholding the law. the question presumes that Kavanaugh will function as an activist judge, making up law to address world events. Sadly, Feinstein is becoming senile.
When politicians deliberately lie they should be ignored and shunned by every type of media and their colleagues. Luring has become an accepted practice by the politicians and becoming so by the public. Sad that we tolerate it.
ll the evidence proves that gun control adds to the rate of violent crime so the gun control advocates lie.
Why do democrats want more violent crime?
You need to remember that Feinstein is mental, and even worse, an idiot!