Pages

Dec 22, 2012

A Fact Challenged Democrat

In the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, we find this gem:
Sen. Mark Begich, who earlier this week released a statement calling for more mental health support, said he’s not interested in new gun laws. The Alaska Democrat said the previous assault weapons ban has proved to be inconsequential in reducing gun violence.
Seriously?

Note the drop following the previous ban in 1994, and the slow creep up since its expiry in 2004:

 Then there is this from Sam Wang on mass shootings:
Be sure to read the link to understand that if you change the bar from five shootings to four for a "mass shooting," you will end up with a more benign result.

2 comments:

Bretta said...

What do you mean, "end up with a more benign result?" That if you change the bar from five to four the line flattens and doesn't appear to be such a drastic, dramatic change after the ban?

It doesn't refer to that in the article, so what link goes to that sentence?

However, my children went to high school here when Mayor Begich initiated the Police-Officers-In-School program. I can't describe how delightful it is to have armed surveillance of good kids in their Nazi Compound. I mean school.

That teaches children they are living in a police state, a militia camp; it is definitely not security.

No way could those officers respond to a tragedy like Sandy Hook or Columbine, the campus was just too huge. Armed guards are not a deterrent.

Shripathi Kamath said...

Yes, a more benign result, as the link notes at the end, is that the ban had no effect on mass shootings according to some. So if you define mass shootings as four or more, then the graph shows no real change. But call five or more, and you get a different picture. The point being you have to pay care to the definition the "pundit" on TV is using.