Posted on 12/29/2023 9:41:06 AM PST by marktwain
In mid-October of 2023, Judge Benitez, in a powerful ruling, took longtime activist Professor Donohue to task in Miller v Becerra.
John J. Donohue III is a lawyer and economist who has published numerous papers. Many of those papers were statistical studies about guns and crime. He is a professor at Stanford Law School. Some of his prominent papers dispute the findings of John Lott, who found an increase in the issuance of carry permits led to a decrease in homicides.
Professor Donohue’s findings have also been disputed. His analysis focuses on state-level statistics, while John Lott’s analysis uses finer-grained county-level statistics.
Professor Donohue submitted a supplemental declaration to the court in support of Becerra and the State of California. Unlike his articles about concealed carry, there is no esoteric mathematics involving state-level synthetic controls.
From Miller v Becerra, page 69:
John J. Donohue is a professor of law. His supplemental declaration is not particularly helpful. For example, professor Donohue describes a 2018 medical study published on the Jama Network Open about 511 gunshot victims in Boston. He opines that study “applies directly to bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Yet the study noted that only one of the 511 victims studied was shot with a rifle caliber round (7.62 x 39 mm.) Why the study applies directly to bans on “assault weapons,” as professor Donohue opines, is not at all obvious. Handgun wounds were the main point of the study. Professor Donohue also opines that the dangers of weapons like the AR-15 will outpace any legitimate crime-reducing benefit the firearms provide, citing the 2017 Sutherland Springs Baptist Church shooting.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
The lawyer/professor submitted deliberate false or misleading statements to the Court, was he referred by the court to the BAR association for Disbarment? And WHY NOT, HE LIED TO THE COURT
Professor Donohue is a communist.
The push for banning “assault weapons” is clearly because the anti-gun Leftists do not want citizens to have the same weapons as the constabulary up to and including Federal agents. They seem perfectly fine with citizens owning a six shot revolver. That platform is never mentioned in any unconstitutional legislation they push forward.
Explain this to me. 7.62 x 39 mm is not the only rifle caliber round. Was it just the only rifle-caliber round in the entire study?
Probably because it the standard round for an AR15, kind of a puny round to begin with when compared to my 30.06’s
"The two primary calibers for small arms that are NATO standards are the 5.56 x 45mm and the 7.62 x 51mm and they have their civilian equivalents. The 5.56 x 45mm is the .223 Remington while the civilian form of the 7.62 x 51mm is the .308 Winchester, and though they share cartridge dimensions they are not necessarily the same."
NATO Military Cartridge Ammunition VS Civilian Ammo; Measuring Free Bore, Pressure & More
The 7.62 x 51 mm NATO round is close to the 7.62 x 39mm. The NATO round kills commies, so the good professor is against it.
7.62 x 39 mm is used by AK-47, iirc.
Most urban gunshot wounds are from pistols.
Out of all the shootings in the study, only one was committed with a rifle; all the rest used handguns. (Nevertheless the “good” professor cites this study as a reason to ban AWs, e.g. the AR-15 which was used in ZERO of the shootings.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.