{"id":31577,"date":"2018-02-25T13:06:28","date_gmt":"2018-02-25T21:06:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=31577"},"modified":"2018-02-25T13:06:28","modified_gmt":"2018-02-25T21:06:28","slug":"why-banning-assault-weapons-makes-sense","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2018\/02\/25\/why-banning-assault-weapons-makes-sense\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Banning Assault Weapons Makes Sense"},"content":{"rendered":"

Why does banning assault weapons, like the AR-15 used by Trump supporter Nikolas Cruz in the MAGA massacre, make sense?  The obvious answer is that they are used to kill kids, to which Republicans reply, however absurd, that so are knives, fists, cars etc.  So it would be beneficial, if we could we could prove that banning such weapons is beneficial.  In fact, we can.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\"0225AssaultDeathsChart\"<\/p>\n

With the NRA continuing to watch its corporate support crumble<\/a>, it is struggling to provide responses to basic facts about the links between mass shootings and high-powered rifles.<\/p>\n

The latest round of obfuscation came Sunday, when NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch tangled with ABC\u2019s George Stephanopoulos.<\/p>\n

In her appearance, Loesch repeatedly danced around Stephanopoulos\u2019s point that, during the U.S.\u2019s decade-long ban on assault weapons, both incidents and deaths due to the weapons dropped dramatically<\/strong>. As Stephanopoulos pointed out, research from the University of Massachusetts\u2019 Louis Klarevas found that, from 1994-2004, there were only 12 incidents \u2013 about one per year \u2013 due to assault weapons, totaling some 89 deaths.<\/p>\n

In the decade following, however, both numbers spiked. From 2004-2014, there were 34 incidents involving assault weapons \u2013 and over 300 deaths… [emphasis added<\/em>]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Inserted from <Think Progress<\/a>><\/font><\/p>\n

Here’s the video<\/a>:<\/font><\/p>\n