Open/Close Menu وکیل | مشاوره رایگان | وکالت | وکیل آنلاین

We have already talked about how President Biden will continue to work Repeat the same incorrect sentences On the prohibition of weapons during the adoption of the Second Amendment. However, he also reiterated another suspicious claim this weekend. The remarks received considerable coverage after the president appeared to have aimed 9mm rifles for possible legal bans, saying “high-caliber weapons” such as 9mm handguns should not be needed and told the public that “A .22 caliber bullet will go inside. The lungs, and we can probably get it out – we might be able to get it out and save lives. A 9 mm bullet removes the lungs from the body. Critics have dismissed the claim, but such statements can be dismissed as part of a sarcastic rhetoric about gun rights and gun control. However, he made a separate factual claim about the history of the ban on previous offensive weapons that is more dubious.

In addition to repetition (for The second time in two daysBiden falsely claimed that some weapons were banned in the passage of the Second Amendment, claiming that the “prohibition of offensive weapons in the 1990s” significantly reduced massacres. ” She before He made the statement in favor of a gun ban.

Others have proposed a previous ban to show that such a law has already been passed in Congress and can be re-enacted. The president referred to the 1994 Law on the Protection of Public Safety and the Use of Recreational Firearms or the Federal Prohibition of Assault Weapons (AWB) in the Violent Crime Control and Enforcement Act. The law also prohibits the manufacture of some semi-automatic firearms for civilian use. As some high-capacity ammunition casings. The 10-year ban was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994, but expired on September 13, 2004.

This was before the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own a firearm. District of Columbia v. Heller In 2008. This law was not challenged in any major litigation under the Second Amendment.

Leaving aside the constitutional challenges, the president’s true claim is far from the truth. In fact, there is no evidence that the ban has a significant impact on gun violence, and most studies even question its impact on mass shootings. It seems to have decreased during this period and increased after the period. However, the claim of cause and effect has never been well established.

Support for this claim can be based on a Study 2019 The Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery found that “mass murder killings in the United States declined during the years of the Federal Offensive Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004.” However, the authors said that the reduction was purely “observational” and that the law was clearly not the reason for the reduction in shootings and deaths.

A Rand study found such claimsInconclusive” while The National Institute of Justice noted:

A number of factors – including the fact that banned weapons and magazines were rarely used to commit murder in the country, limited access to data on weapons, other components of the 1994 Crime Control Act, and government and local initiatives implemented. “At the same time, it posed challenges in recognizing the effects of this ban.”

Even The Washington Post noted Part of the problem is that the ban on offensive weapons has only existed for 10 years, and there are relatively few mass shootings a year, which makes it difficult to fully assess its impact. The post only says that some studies show that this law has been “effective”.

2020 study published in Criminology and Public Policy He found that “the ban on offensive weapons had no clear effect on the occurrence of mass shootings or the deaths of victims of mass shootings.” “Most mass shootings do not involve assault rifles, but many involve the use of rifles,” the study noted. [large caliber magazines]”

آ Study of the Ministry of Justice 2004 There was little support for these cause-and-effect claims.

The obvious problem with this claim is that mass shooting is statistically rare. It is very difficult to relate the reduction to the law, especially with the abundance of weapons available and the fact that many of the shootings do not involve AR-15s or similar models.

Although it is difficult to discuss, it can be argued that the same number of casualties with the use of semi-automatic rifles probably occurred in Uvalde, Texas.

This does not mean that we should not have this argument. However, we must work from a real basis in policy-making and the constitutional basis for reform.

Write a comment:


Your email address will not be published.