Gun-Ignorant liberals falsely attribute otherworldly destructive powers to the AR-15, saying its lethality is unmatched by any other weapon known to mankind. The reality is AR’s generally fire a .22 caliber round, which is on the low end of the stopping-power spectrum. The Washington Post just figured out that the bigger the caliber the more lethal the round and that can only mean one thing: Gun-hating liberals will now be clamoring for a large-caliber handgun ban. Why does anyone need a .44 magnum that was designed for Dirty Harry movies and not the streets?
Here’s something that took the WaPo by surprise:
A new study published in the journal JAMA Network Open underscores an often overlooked factor in gun-policy debates: When it comes to lethality, not all guns are created equal.
Analyzing data on hundreds of shootings in Boston from 2010 to 2014, Anthony Braga of Northeastern University and Philip J. Cook of Duke University found that on a bullet-per-bullet basis, shootings committed with a large-caliber firearm are much more likely to result in a fatality than those with a smaller-caliber gun. Caliber is a measure of the diameter of the bullets fired by a particular gun.
What? Is this some kind of witchcraft? Larger caliber weapons are more lethal than smaller caliber weapons? Who ever heard of such a thing? Next they are going to try to tell us that cars with bigger engines are faster than ones with small engines.
Now get ready for this foreshadowing:
“The implication,” they write, “is that if the medium- and large-caliber guns had been replaced with small caliber (assuming everything else unchanged) the result would have been a 39.5% reduction in gun homicides” in Boston during the study period.
Some guns are simply manufactured to be more lethal than others. It suggests that identical shooters with identical intent would kill fewer people if they had access only to less powerful firearms.
So yeah, they are coming for large-caliber weapons next. Banning big scary hand cannons will be the next big talking point with anti-gunners like The Brady Campaign, Moms Demand Action, and Gabby Giffords.
There was however some additional information in this report that anti-gun kooks will conveniently disregard:
The study analyzed data on 221 gun homicides and 1,012 nonfatal shootings that happened in Boston between 2010 and 2014. On first glance, the numbers provided a confirmation of the depressing demographics of shooting cases: “Most gunshot victims and survivors were young minority men with prior court arraignments,” Braga and Cook found. “Most attacks occurred in circumstances where gangs or drugs played an important role.” Most occurred outdoors in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
So almost every single shooting was committed by criminals against other criminals engaged in gang and drug trafficking activity? I’m just spitballing here, but maybe the problem isn’t legal gun ownership. Perhaps a more productive area to explore other than banning law-abiding citizens from owning guns would be to target the criminals responsible for nearly 100% of the violence.