You gather up all the statistics for the past thirty years in a database. You note each murder accomplished by a automatic rifle. At the end of your data product...you find that ban on automatic rifles back in 1980...would have saved around .05 of one percent of all the people killed by guns over the thirty year period.
You can use the logic that saving just one person....would amount to something, and I’d give you that credit. But after that point...might I suggest a different database search?
What if you deducted Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Maine from your database? Suddenly the kill ratio really perks up...surging several points higher. Then I deduct all rural areas from the statistical database. Suddenly it’s a tremendous number of deaths....mostly all in urban areas. Wonder why? Drug usage maybe?
I don’t think libs realize how many guns there actually are in the U.S. Even if they somehow managed to confiscate every handgun and “assault” rifle, that would still leave many millions of hunting rifles and shotguns. Do the morons not believe that a crazed killer would simply purchase several shotguns, saw off the barrels to hide under a jacket, and slaughter a lot of people? In fact, Holmes did use a shotgun in his murderous attack. So now they’ve got to confiscate ALL!!! firearms. In which case (and it’s happened before) a crazed killer will simply buy some very long sharp knives, and kill a bunch of people. I guess we’d have to outlaw knives after something like that.