“A study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that semi-automatic assault rifles were used in only about 25 percent of such U.S. incidents from 2000 to 2017. The rest of the time, firearms including handguns, rifles and shotguns were the weapon of choice.

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines an active shooter event as “a situation in which an individual is actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined or populated area.” The researchers used FBI data on 248 U.S. shootings, as well as legal filings and media reports, to determine what weapons were used. The study may raise questions about whether calls to restrict only semi-automatics in the wake of such attacks are missing the bigger picture, one in which other weapons are used three times as often—albeit with less carnage.” – Bloomberg in Fortune, Assault Rifles are Linked to Only 25% of ‘Active Shooter’ Events)

1. This article admits the data points were not robust. Indeed, one can easily find data on “mass shootings” (another term to describe “active shooter”, a term not existent until relatively recently). I have calculated “mass shootings” all the way back to the Whitman episode. The average number of deaths is 11.5 (or so) per year. Rounded off, 25% of the deaths ascribed to semi-auto long guns would be 3/yr. That, my friends is a literal holocaust ! (yeah, right)

When evaluating statistics, percentages will warp your understanding, every time. It is important, critical to know how statistics are derived. Learned along time ago how silly “statistics” can be: A small town newspaper headline screamed, “Unemployment rises 50% !” The town actually was a retirement haven, having only two residents holding jobs. One of the employed retired. Thus a 50% jump in unemployment in a single day.

Whenever presented “statistics”, the first response (favorable or not) should be, “Says who?)

• When they give you the percentage – the truth is in the number. When they give you the number – the truth is in the percentage.

• “When they give you the percentage – the truth is in the number. When they give you the number – the truth is in the percentage.”

Thanks. Going to keep that one.

• Semi(1) auto(2) assault(3) rifle(4)

I get the rifle part. You know, not being a pistol and all. But is it semi-auto or auto-assault or assault-rifle.

So can get more money selling my 10/22 advertised as an assault rifle or as a Fudd’s squirrel hunter? Or maybe both. Hey it’s a floor wax and a dessert topping!

• Im with you on that one, and to expell all the illegal mexicans from America thats rediculious, lets get rid of the blacks first…

2. JAMA has to keep evil firearms on the front page to distract Americans from the fact that healthcare “professionals” kill over 1,000 Americans every day, on average.

• Let’s not bring the competency of “medical professionals” into an argument based upon “studies and findings” being utilized by “medical professionals”.

3. … other weapons are used three times as often—albeit with less carnage.

As I have stated on this forum before, a spree killer can simply load a lever-action rifle chambered in .44 Magnum with eight cartridges containing 305 grain hardcast lead bullets. Each bullet will EASILY pass through and kill three adults. That means a spree killer can EASILY murder 24 adults in about 10 seconds without reloading — using a 150 year-old lever-action rifle design. And if that same spree killer carries a second lever-action rifle, he/she can nearly double that number.

Banning whatever firearm a spree killer uses to murder people is a losing game of whack-a-mole. Rather than trying to anticipate and ban every possible method that a spree killer has or could use, we should be focusing our limited resources on being able to respond to spree killers and mitigate their acts.

• I’ve been saying the same thing to my hoplophobic friends about the lowly shotgun. My M590A1 when loaded with #4 buck has a capacity of 288 projectiles. And yet it’s not besmirched with the prefix “assault,” never mind that the pump gun cut its teeth during WWI cutting down krauts by the bushel. Any gun of defensive utility, which is ANY repeating firearm can be use to commit mass murder. If the anti-gun types were intellectually honest they’d offer a full throated endorsement of the Australian model, not just in result but the process…that whole confiscation part.

• I read an article a while back about how the Kaiser insisted that the trench guns were ‘illegal’ (as if all the other rules of warfare weren’t thrown out by the Germans) and threatened to execute enemy soldiers on sight if the were caught with a shotgun. I don’t think they ever followed through on the threat, but it was enough for the military to scrub any photos of them in use on the battlefield, and to this day it’s just about impossible to find one. I’m not sure how effective they were, but apparently enough to get the Kaiser’s attention.

• Lol. Shotguns were barbaric, but the use of the Maxim Meat Grinder and chemical warfare were just A OK.

• Gov. For what they were intended for the ww1 shotguns were very effective. Semi auto carbines and sub guns were in the future. Which left ww1 soldiers with long, heavy rifles and pistols for use in trenches. A very confined space. The rifles worked very well for trench to trench fighting. But once you got into the same trench as your enemy they lacked compactness.

A short, rapid fire shotgun was the bees knees in the interior fighting in a trench.

Pistols were also worth their weight in gold and were much more common than the issue amount allowed by regs.

• RR, you forgot gimpy armed.

JWM, I don’t suppose 9 pellets of 00 was any less effective a hundred years ago than it is today. I suppose the alternatives were bayonets or pistols. And there probably wasn’t a whole lot of time to stop and take a well aimed shot once you went over the top anyway.. Rifles would have been great while you were in the trench and the ememy was crossing no man’s land, but we’re basically big heavy speers once you shared a trench with the enemy. The surprising thing is that apparently nobody else thought of it before we entered the war.

• “My M590A1 when loaded with #4 buck has a capacity of 288 projectiles. And yet it’s not adorned with the prefix “assault,” ”

Didn’t pull up the documents, but I seem to remember the Calif and Feinstein laws declare any semi-auto weapon with a pistol style grip is an assault weapon by default (making semi-auto pistols assault weapons as well).

Unless, of course, ….

• @Sam I Am Last year I purchased a VZ2008 out of spite. I have skin in the skin in the scary black rifle game as well.

• “Last year I purchased a VZ2008 out of spite. I have skin in the skin in the scary black rifle game as well.”

Good news.

Since I like my .22 plinker pistol, thinking about buying a .22x fully semi-automatic thingy with a clipazine that goes up in the back thousands of times a minute.

4. Here’s a heavily researched fact for the fascist, anti-gunners; I don’t care how many people die at the hands of criminals using firearms. I’m never peacefully giving up my firearms. PERIOD!! Forced confiscation will only lead to a sharp increase in their statistics.

5. Scary black rifles were just supposed to be their nose in the tent, the low hanging fruit with which the civilian disarmament complex could use to scare people. Now that some are realizing that they aren’t especially dangerous as compared to other guns I wonder how this’ll influence the “debate.”

If this realization spreads, is this better or worse for we supporters of the RTKBA? My inner cynic says the latter.

• It’s worse, as their choreographed demonization has turned to ALL “fully semi-automatic” firearms. Somewhere, in someone, just in the last year, a lightbulb went off and then thought it a good idea to start floating the trial balloon of banning all semi-autos. Now, calls for broad bans are starting to appear with more regularity.
Now, IMO, hopefully more passive, moderate gun owners, who surely own semi-auto handguns, but perhaps don’t own modern sporting rifles, will finally see these anti-gunners for what they are…… bonafide domestic enemies with fascist tendencies and are repulsed by our Bill of Rights.

• @TrueBornSonofLiberty Yup, you’re probably right. After all, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence used to be called National Coalition to Ban Handguns.

• This was always “phase two” of the plan. “Phase One” was to convince people that “assault weapons” were extraordinarily dangerous and ban them. The next step is to flip the narrative 180 degrees and point out all these other firearms that are really no different from the ones that were banned, in order to ban them.

• Australia bans semi-autos and pumps and so will the US next year. Several million fudds will be devastated when their hunting guns are confiscated. Buy stock in NEF, only single shot weapons will be allowed until the total ban arrives a few years later.

• Your comment is delusional. There’s a distinction between what efforts the anti gun left will pursue and what they’ll accomplish. There’s no way we’ll see a ban “next year”. We may see a concerted effort, but it won’t materialize. Certainly not with the remaking of the federal judiciary and specifically with the addition of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (hopefully). Semi automatic is the very definition of “in common use”. You can almost say they are “exclusively used”. All this means is that it is extremely likely that during the tenure of this court (10-20 years), we will see these questions laid to rest, once and for all, with the unequivocal establishment of precedent. If as a nation, we are fortunate enough to see the passing of Ginsberg in the next 24 months, (and we retain the senate- which also appears likely), then we will see these questions answered more rapidly. If for no other reason, Trumps election will prove to be the most consequential victory, in the realm of gun rights, in the last 80 years. We would be having an entirely different discussion had the filthy hatchet wound won.

6. Since the guns we’re trying to ban are rarely used in crimes, just banning them is only a start…

Just…wow.
I think I’m going to ask my GP if he’s an AMA member, and asking him for a referral to somebody who isn’t if he answers in the affirmative.

• Bet you he is not. Only 30 percent are, most are university docs, residents, and med students. (No real world experience, or they get the membership for free as part of their job)

In the real world most of us think the AMA has long since passed its expiration date. But I also feel that way about the AAP ever since they supported Obama care.

Buncha socialists and/or communists.

• I agree totally with the above. I don’t know anybody at work that admits to being a member of AMA. American College of Surgeons just sent out a questionnaire feeling out whether members are on board with ACS advocating for gun control. I told them if they start doing that I will quit ACS.

• Shouldn’t that be DR. Captain Insano? Or DR. Insano? I knew a Psychiatrist last name of Strange is that you? 😉

• @Matt(Tx), LOL no I’m a surgeon. I grew up in Alvin but I’ve been in Oklahoma for the last eight years. I do like Dr Strangelove, though.

7. Gee when will these MD types call for banning large vehicles? Poison? McDonald’s? Knives? Dirty air? THEMSELVES?!? Physician-ban thyself😄

• There are posters(pwrserge) here who on one hand pretend to preach gun rights while on the other hand state the medical profession should have 100% control over an individuals decision making…..

• “Doctors kill more people than guns…”

Actually remarked to brother-in-law (BIL) that same statement, with facts from CDC. BIL stated that people “need” to get medical attention, but no one “needs” a gun. BIL pointed out that when people need to see the doctors, they understand the potential risks, and willingly choose to take the chance. However….no one chooses to take the chance of being slaughtered by a crazed gun owner, and should not be forced to accept the risk. “The risk” only exists outside the crime-ridden areas because “normal” people do not voluntarily go into bad neighborhoods, and good neighborhoods should be free of the fear of being shot.

BIL’s logic is actually faultless, if one temporarily adopts the liberal/leftist mindset to see the world through their eyes.

• If “seeing the world through their eyes” means self-delusion and shaky arguments, I guess. He sounds like he’s comparing an outside negative event (getting shot) to the response that someone would have to an outside event (going to the doctor). The more appropriate comparisons would be between getting shot and getting sick, as both events are usually imposed on a person without expectation or consent, and between choosing to go to the doctor and choosing to carry a gun, as both are responses to the possibility of an outside threat. From there, I think he’d have a hard time justifying his bias if you put the relative success rates of going to the doctor and defensive firearm use next to each other.

Also, tell him that crime-ridden areas are racist, and that he needs to check his “normal” and “good neighborhood” privilege. The results should be pretty entertaining.

• “The results should be pretty entertaining.”

They always are. Have to be cautious not to overdo it, lest he catch on.

8. Ok so elitist, white-privileged socialists want to disarm law-abiding citizens while at the same time flooding the country with violent criminals, especially violent criminals from countries far more violent than our own, then go very easy on criminals who actually commit gun crimes. Draw your own conclusions.

• Watched her on 60 minutes say that.
” Mr and Mrs America turn them all in”
While she carries everywhere and her chimes spy driver has a Glock.

9. 100% of spree killings are done by criminal whack-jobs, while some% are stopped by would-be victims who are also armed. So, let’s take more guns away from the victims.

Do I have that right?

• Also they’re whacked out on SSRI’s and MAOI’s, you know the one’s so called medical professionals prescribe; the meds given to children that go on to shoot up schools.

• “Remember. They are not coming after your guns.”

WE came *damn* close to that happening, just 2 years ago.

Scalia and Kennedy being replaced with the likes of a Sonia Sotomayor or Elana Kagan would have doomed gun rights.

An AWB would have been ruled explicitly constitutional, and the ‘logic’ would have been something along the lines of “the unique threat that weapons with detachable magazines present to the public”.

‘Heller’ would eventually be overturned, and the Progressives would use the ‘Dred Scott’ model to do so, citing that it would be the “morally responsible thing to do” and “in the interest of public safety”.

Thank God Trump ran against the HildaBeast. Against *any* other candidate she would have likely won.

For the time being, God continues to bless this country.

10. “Semi-Auto ‘Assault’ Rifle Restrictions Might Not Be Enough”

That’s correct,civilan disarmament proponents have always wanted them all,rite down to slingshots and straws with spit wads.

11. All this focus on short range, high capacity rifles is “end of your nose” thinking. They haven’t gotten around to long range (1000+ yds) scoped rifles yet, but I guarantee they will.

• The anti gun groups will label anything with an optic sight a “sniper rifle”.

It has already been tried by Gun Control Australia but even the politicians and police thought that was a step far. For a group that calls foul on the “power of the gun lobby” they have a lot of journalists on speed-dial for a sound bite.

• ” They haven’t gotten around to long range (1000+ yds) scoped rifles yet, but I guarantee they will.”

That’s going to be a hard sell to make. Grandpa’s scoped hunting rifle is the epitome of a hunting gun.

What should terrify the Leftists is that we, the lowly citizens, could overthrow this government, using nothing more than single-shot .308 scoped rifles. And shotguns with slugs. Armor is useless for head shots.

With those, we could seize enough military weapons to tip the balance our way.

It would be *costly*, but we *could* do it.

And afterwards, the stories could be told around the camp fires about the second civil war…

12. Medical ‘professionals’ kill 300,000 people per year. Rifles of all types were used to kill 400 people last year.

The AMA better get it’s own house in order first.

• That does not include the fact that physicians kill hundreds of thousands of viable humans a year in unnecessary abortions (procedures performed for mere lifestyle preferences, not because the pregnancy was the result of a crime and/or medically dangerous). On top of that, these vile statist hypocrites want to lecture law abiding firearm owners about the relatively few deaths attributed to guns while they ignore truly significant sources of morbidity/mortality such as automobiles, obesity, alcohol, drugs, and governments (history’s all time biggest mass murderers)? Physician, heal thyself!

13. As a pediatric subspecialty physician who is also a Christian, a conservative, and a POTG, I am saddened to see organizations like AMA and AAP putting forth political ideologies as if they were scientific. I am a member (fellow) of the AAP, but I renew this annually only because there are specific, professional benefits/requirements related to being a fellow that I would not have if I let my fellow status lapse (mostly related to continuing education, which is mandatory for my career). I am not an AMA member and would never become one. I despise the negative stances AAP has taken on gun ownership, as well as transgender issues in children. Such issues assault our cultural norms and the essence of humanity, IMHO. Thank you to my fellow POTG for being consistent 2A supporters and for seeing through the crap that our MSM keeps putting out daily! Keep up the great work, people!

14. They could say there were 10,000 deaths a year attributed to semi-auto rifles a year any you and I both know a million people in this country and 500 million worldwide would believe it. And no matter what evidence you produced to prove otherwise 90% of those people would still believe it. They’re pandering to the lowest common denominator folks. The only downside is, those who believe the lies produced by the Liberals are low IQ voters that believe anything they see or hear an MSNBC, CNN, and all the other Alphabet news services. There should be at the very least an IQ test to vote. Because the ignorant’s vote counts just as much as the well informed. Fortunately in 2014 and 2016 the informed outnumbered the low IQ voters, I’m not so sure that’s still true in 2018. Lots of Boomers have died off, and many more Millennials now vote.