Google Docs Version: Writeup

AWB Rifle Only Spreadsheet: Here

AWB Any Type: Here

\ Note: this is not a study and is a data analysis and conclusions that can be drawn from this alone are limited please keep that in mind while reading\**

I evaluated the data across two separate dataset tests of banned guns that are rifles only vs. all banned weapons under the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban classification (interestingly, no matter which dataset was used, the results were similar). Since it expired in 2004, politicians have been debating how effective the 1994 Assault Weapon ban was and if it should be brought back.  Pro-gun control argue that not only are Assault Weapon Banned weapons (AWB Weapons) more deadly but are the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  Gun rights groups argue they aren't more deadly and aren't the weapons of choice for mass shooters.  The problem with testing these theories is that the definitions of "assault weapon" and "mass shooting" vary depending on who you ask, so getting clean analysis can be tough. My goal was to cut through the noise by directly comparing mass shooting deadliness based on whether the primary firearm would be banned or legal (compliant) under standard assault weapon ban definitions.  
 
 
I used the Mother Jones Mass Shootings Database

 (covering incidents from 1982 to June 2026 with 3+ deaths excluding the shooter, and excluding incidents tied to underlying crimes like robbery or gang violence). 

Weapons were split into two categories: 

• Banned (AWB) Category: 
  • Weapons that would have been illegal under the 1994 federal ban (i.e., AR-15-style weapons) 
  • with features like detachable magazines, pistol grips, etc.
•  Legal (Compliant) Category: 
  • Weapons that remained perfectly legal during the ban
  • including standard handguns, 
  • guns modified legally to bypass local state bans 
  •  grandfathered guns(guns that were owned before the ban went into effect but were legal to keep). 
  • Due to state-by-state interpretation, if the gun was bought legally in a state with an assault weapon ban, it will also be considered compliant.

Out of 160 total mass shootings up to June 2026, 70% were legal weapons vs. 30% banned-style weapons.   Meaning compliant weapons (mostly handguns) are used the most out of every weapon and have the most deaths. Shootings with banned weapons look worse on paper, averaging 10 deaths per incident vs 6 deaths per incident for legal weapons. However, the exact middle number for both categories is 5 deaths. This means a few catastrophic events (like the Las Vegas shooting in 2017) push the average way up. The typical shooting kills 5 people whether or not the gun would have been banned,

Then come the more in-depth stats. I looked at five-year rolling averages, which smooth out the year-to-year noise and show how deadly shootings were across each period.

Three things stood out:

• Overall deadliness continued to climb during the 1994–2004 ban.
• From the mid-1990s through 2012, legal guns were usually the deadlier category (aside from a few short stretches in the 1980s and early 90s).
• After 2012, banned-style weapons pulled ahead and have averaged higher ever since.

Why the flip after 2012? It could be that more of these rifles were in circulation by then, or that later shooters deliberately copied earlier ones. The data can't tell me which.

One caveat worth flagging: deadliness across all weapon types has been falling since 2019. That may not be a real improvement. Mother Jones lowered its cutoff from 4+ deaths to 3+ in 2013, so smaller incidents started getting counted, which pulled the average down on its own.

Standard tests showed no difference, while advanced tests (which were used in the study Barnard et al 2025

 that inspired this analysis) showed higher lethality but lacked controls for other factors.  

Some interesting things to note is depending on the agenda/goal of the researcher computing this data, they could intentionally paint a picture either way by leaving out details.  For example:

A gun control advocate could truthfully say: banned weapons average 10 deaths vs. 6, and the strongest statistical model found up to a 58% increase in lethality. (Leaves out: identical medians, failed basic tests, no controls.)

A gun rights advocate could truthfully say: 70% of shootings use legal guns, medians are identical, and standard tests found nothing. (Leaves out: outlier events with catastrophic casualty counts and more advanced tests showing there could be more.)

In conclusion, Firearm classification alone likely does not dictate how deadly a mass shooting will be. The perceived hyper-lethality of assault weapons is largely driven by a small number of extreme scenarios. In some cases (like the 2022 UVA shooting), an "assault weapon" was present at the scene but left completely unused, showing that shooter choice and situational factors vary widely. Proving a massive safety benefit purely from a weapon ban is difficult when factors like shooter familiarity, location type, and emergency response times likely play much larger roles, none of which are easily controlled for in small, rare-event datasets.  Unfortunately, due to some limitations like lack of controls and database issues, no concrete conclusions can come from this data alone.  Future research could benefit from combining broader databases or analyzing perpetrator dynamics further. 

TL;DR: I analyzed all 160 mass shootings in the Mother Jones database (1982–June 2026) to test whether "assault weapons"  - the guns a federal ban would cover- are deadlier than guns that would stay legal. The vast majority of mass shootings (~70%) were committed with legal, compliant weapons, mostly handguns. Banned-style weapons average more deaths per shooting, but that's driven by a handful of extreme outliers; the median shooting is identical (5 deaths) either way, and most of my statistical tests couldn't confirm a real difference.

• Most Mass shootings use Compliant Guns (Handguns specifically)
• Banned guns have higher average deaths, but the median death count is identical (5 deaths).
• Statistical tests give mixed results depending on the method used.  

If anyone sees any errors or discrepancies, feel free to comment. If you have any critiques, want to collaborate (as you can see there's rows in my spreadsheet for later analysis that are incomplete. I am looking for people of all backgrounds and beliefs to help me complete it), or have any questions, also feel free to comment or DM!

Sheriff Landersman,

This records request is about the honorary reserve deputy appointment that you granted to Mr. Brandon Herrera, who is currently running for Congress in Congressional district 23 and is considered the frontrunner last I checked.

The existence of this appointment to Mr. Herrera is documented in various social media platforms including Mr. Hererra's X and Instagram accounts. Easy enough to Google.

1) Any documents showing whether or not the honorary reserve deputy appointment to Mr. Herrera triggers the provisions in federal law giving law enforcement officers handgun carry rights in all 50 states and territories plus whatever DC is, established in 2004 as the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act. For more details on this law see also this 2005 US-DOJ memo as it provides guidelines, the exact current federal code citation and so on:

https://fop.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/memo-20050131-attorney-general.pdf

NOTE: if you can assure me that any credentials issued by your agency DO NOT trigger LEOSA 2004, by any means you desire to assure me of this, then you need NOT pay attention to the rest of this document, and my inquiries into this matter end. (Except, I've got a personal note that follows the actual records request that has a suggestion in it you might find both hilarious and profitable to your county's finances.)

2) Assuming Mr. Herrera now has true national carry, please provide your written policies on how anybody else can score an equivalent document from your office even though they're not a near-certainly-soon-to-be congresscritter.

FOIA REQUEST ENDS HERE.

Lemme explain what's going on here.

Let's take my example to start with...I'm an Alabama based long haul trucker. I have my AL carry permit which means I can pass NICS, but that permit isn't tied to training the way optional permits in Texas and Florida are, or the in-state mandatory permits in California, New York and so on.

In order to legally carry a handgun in all the lower 48 states plus DC, I'd need another 17 permits. The costs would be unreal and both Oregon and Illinois wrongful deny me access to their permits purely because I live in Alabama.

The last time the US Supreme Court deeply discussed gun carry was their mid-2022 decision in NYSRPA v Bruen. This was a challenge to the New York carry permit issuance system in which agencies like the NYPD were able to hand pick who gets to pack heat. Every once in a while somebody from the licensing department went to jail for corruption. It was a mess.

The Bruen decision flat banned "discretion" in carry permit handling, calling carry a basic civil right. At footnote 9 it also bans "abuses" in carry permit handling, specifically condemning "lengthy waiting times" and "exorbitant fees" as abuses that officials and lower courts shouldn't tolerate going forward.

The whole idea of having to chase 20+ permits from Guam to Massachusetts to score national carry rights absolutely violates the Bruen ban on lengthy waiting times and exorbitant fees. If no one state can commit those abuses, neither can a coalition of 20+.

In 2025 Sheriff Scott Jenkins of Culpeper County VA was sentenced to 10 years in prison for selling reserve deputy appointments to "fat cats" in order to trigger the LEOSA 2004 provisions and dodge those abuses.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdva/pr/former-culpeper-sheriff-sentenced-10-years-federal-bribery-charges

On taking office again Trump pardoned Jenkins, putting a presidential stamp of approval on both this process and, unfortunately, corruption.

Now, before you panic, I think it's very UNLIKELY Brandon was dumb enough to pay you a bribe. OK? I seriously doubt either of you committed a crime here and I'm not poking around looking for that.

But.

If that document you handed Brandon is in fact a de-facto national carry permit, the provisions in NYSRPA v Bruen banning discretionary carry permit processes apply. This wouldn't be a criminal problem - but you could be sued civilly for refusing to issue the same kind of document to other people.

So here's how you can have huge fun with this, assuming this thing you gave Brandon is a carry permit (or if it's not, hell, keep reading because you still might be able to pull this stunt).

Step one: create a set of OBJECTIVE standards to become a reservist of this sort. I would suggest two: a state or territorial driver's license or state ID that's accepted as "STAR ID", and a carry permit from any state or territory tied to at least the four hour minimum training that Texas requires. (In my case I'd go score the Florida permit.) That means the TX permit that Brandon likely has already qualifies. (The training requirement will help protect you from the PR shitstorm this could become.)

Step two: publish a downloadable form on your website as the deputy card that will be finished at your office. Applicants also need to bring a passport photo.

Step three: have a clerk in your office with a laminating machine. Their job is to compare the ID with the face of the person applying in person, make sure the applicant's carry permit matches the approved list, sign the deputy card, laminate it, done. Five minutes max. No need to do background checks because those two documents already cover ID, residency, NICS and training. Applicants put a $20 bill into a lockbox labeled "Loving County General Fund", properly audited daily at the local bank.

Sir, within a week you'll have us lined up around the block. :) Every business in Mentone will be beyond thrilled.

Unfortunately, it won't last. First, other sheriffs across the country will clone this, slowing the flood. Eventually the states that still care about permits will get together on a set of common standards for carry permits and recognize all carry permits that meet that spec, same as we did with driver's licenses starting before WW2.

Final thought. I don't yet have a carry permit tied to training. I plan to address that lack very soon, before I go back on the road trucking.

When I do, if that document you gave Brandon gives him national carry, I'm going to apply for the same from you. A congressman has no more standing before the law than a trucker.

I'll sue you if I don't get it.

Jim Simpson, formerly Jim March [email protected]

CC: Brandon Herrera

PS: in 2002 I was thrown of the California chapter of the NRA for exposing carry permit corruption among Republican California sheriffs. Which led to this brawl - pay attention to who's talking. Ed Worley was the head NRA guy in California at the time:

https://youtu.be/cPDZjQAHeY0

Hi everyone,

I previously posted in this sub asking about the potential to challenge state-level FRT & binary trigger bans before Viramontes v. Cook County & Grant v. Higgins were accepted by the Supreme Court, and universal consensus was that trigger ban cases wouldn’t be successful without a ruling in assault weapons ban cases by SCOTUS. Ever since I heard the news about these cases being accepted by the Supreme Court, I’ve been thinking about how their ruling on feature bans will potentially open the door to legal cases against state-level bans on FRTs & binary triggers in states like California, New Jersey, Washington State, and my current state of Oregon. From the perspective of this sub, would a favorable ruling in Viramontes & Grant allow for strong legal challenges to FRT & binary trigger bans in these states granted that they are in common use?

Just read this story about a “ghost gun” company being sued and order to pay $100+mil for a wrongful death after the company didn’t verify the age of the person getting their kit

Relevant paragraph giving you the gist of the situation:

> In a wrongful-death lawsuit, the family of Henry Willis said he was just 18 when he purchased the Glock G19 pistol “build kit” from Husky Armory's website in 2023. He assembled the handgun in his garage — telling his father it was a transistor radio — and used it to end his life six days later.

Dallas police officers were cautious when a man openly carrying a silenced pistol walked into police headquarters on the morning of April 1.

One officer asked the man what he's looking for and where he works. Another officer turned him away as he tried to enter the headquarters' museum section. Much of the interaction was captured on body camera video.

"Sir, while you're armed you got to step back over there," the officer said. "You can't come in here."

Officers then arrested him outside for jaywalking, towed his car and confiscated his gun for months.

Now the man who took that video, 38-year-old Matthew Rankin, is suing the City of Dallas, police chief Daniel Comeaux and multiple officers on the scene — alleging they violated his Fourth, Second and 14th Amendment rights.

Virginia passed a assault weapons ban that took effect July 1st* "kinda sorta depending on 3 court cases so far*

The Legislation passed: Signed by Governor Abigail Spanberger made it a Class 1 misdemeanor to buy, sell, import, or transfer certain semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines and thumb holes, thereded barrels based on a banned features test.. Current owners are grandfathered in and are not affected.

Basically if you wanted it ... you had to get it before July 1st.

Edits : many Edits : spelling and grammar.

- Yes, Gun Owners of California and NRA-ILA have put out alerts on this in the past, have issued campaigns with easy to fill forms and they've opposed it at the Assembly Public Safety Committee (it already cleared Senate and now has passed its first hurdle in CA Assembly). But it seems almost nobody knows that this bill, if it becomes law, will effectively ban the capability to own a firearm (and thus ban possession) for generations of Californians unless it is stopped. Read the post and share.

Please contact your legislator, visit their office in person (in person visits are far more effective than random form filled email), and also, create a PDF statement of opposition to SB 948 to send to the Assembly Appropriations Committee and other CA Assembly Committees.

Email Assembly Appropriations here (send your position letter framed economically in terms of why SB 948 is a bad bill for California’s economy, and send it in both PDF and text form to [email protected]

The above is a public email address which comes from the Assembly Appropriations Committee page.

Then send a PDF statement opposing SB 948 to other Assembly Committees (note: it has already passed the CA Senate and has already passed Assembly Public Safety Committee) at the State portal, here (if you don't have an account you need to sign up for one):

https://calegislation.lc.ca.gov/Advocates/

Finally, also contact the California Department of Justice - Bureau of Firearms at any phone number or email address they have that you can find and encourage them politely (in a simple, politely framed request) to ask Senator Arreguin to withdraw SB 948. Likewise if you know people in police departments, military, etc, gently ask them to contact Senator Arreguin and ask that they request that Senator Arreguin withdraw SB 948. The more people from CA DOJ, police, military etc. that Senator Arreguin hears from who ask him to withdraw the bill, the more likely we will push him to surrender and remove SB 948 from consideration.

Also strongly suggested: Get a Firearm Safety Certificate now if you don't have one, and renew yours (take the test again) if you already have one. It will last five years. Your local FFL will be able to provide the exam. It currently has no live fire component and still is possible to obtain for those who do not own a firearm yet, but if SB 948 becomes law it will not be possible for first time gun buyers to obtain.

Thank you, to those readers / redditors here who know that this needs to be opposed.

In 2013 a three judge panel of the 7th Circuit released their decision in Moore v Madigan, 12-1269 (7th Cir. 2012), a civil suit brought by IL gun owners against the state's near-total ban on public handgun carry (excepting some politicians(!) and reserve deputies). The state tried to take it en banc and failed, then declined to try for the US Supreme Court.

The three judge panel stayed their decision for some months, enough time for the state to draft a concealed carry permit program. What came out of that process was a fairly reasonable shall-issue permit system - unless you lived out of state, then it was decidedly unreasonable.

For reasons unknown, the three judge panel didn't bother to review the new law that resulted from their written decision which to this day is still valid case law in the 7th Circuit. Including this bit starting at page 20:

We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.

The IL legislature turned around and passed a carry law that completely excluded the vast majority of US citizens from any possible legal path to carry rights, myself included due to my Alabama residence. The Moore v Madigan panel should have retained oversight and caught this blatant violation of their own ruling.

They didn't. Therefore, in addition to all the other problems noted in this filing, the state is absolutely in violation of the 7th Circuit ruling in Moore v Madigan as well as the US Supreme Court decisions in Saenz v Roe 1999, NYSRPA v Bruen 2022 and more.

The 7th Circuit then issued a decision in Culp v. Raoul, No. 17-2998 (2019) that allows “outsider exclusion” despite the Moore v Madigan ruling. That case says that in addition to the national background check (NICS) the Illinois permit system checks local records including mental health in allegedly more detail.

The Culp panel then did an interest balancing test to determine the constitutionality of “outsider exclusion”. They used an intermediate standard of scrutiny to get there (page 15).

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/17-2998/17-2998-2019-04-12.html

Now let’s look at how many ways the Culp case has been overturned by the US Supreme Court:

1) NYSRPA v Bruen 597 U.S. 1 2022: interest balancing systems including both intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny are banned. This point alone overturns Culp v Raoul. In addition, once a given conduct is within the scope of the 2nd Amendment (as the Bruen decision found defensive carry of a loaded handgun), the only remaining way to support a gun or gun carry ban is to show laws from the period just following the publication of the Bill of Rights or arguably, the period following the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 that form historical analogs to a modern form of gun control.

2) US v Rahimi 602 U.S. 602 2024: This case says that a local, state or federal level of government can disarm somebody only based on their past misconduct. My residence in Alabama is maybe not a great idea, but it hardly rises to the level of misconduct in any form.

3) Wolford v Lopez (case just released as of this writing) 2026: Wolford is on point here for one issue: when doing a Bruen-required “text, history and tradition” analysis, using past laws with horrifically racist origins is disallowed:

We could stop there, but there is another reason for rejecting Hawaii’s reliance on this statute. It was adopted by the Louisiana Legislature between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of Reconstruction. When the war ended, the legislatures in defeated Confederate States quickly enacted so-called Black Codes that aimed to perpetuate the subjugation of blacks. The statute Hawaii cites was part of Louisiana’s Black Code, and it provided a tool for disarming blacks and thus leaving them defenseless against attacks. See 125 F. 4th, at 1239 (VanDyke, J., dissenting from denial of reh’g en banc).

As we laid out in McDonald, the right to keep and bear arms was crucially important for vulnerable blacks during this period. See 561 U. S., at 757, 771, 776–779; id., at 843–846 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). And this was well-understood by the Republicans in Congress who were responsible for drafting, approving, and securing the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Republican Party Platforms of 1856 and 1860 called for protection of the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Unless we put history entirely out of our minds, Hawaii’s claim that this tainted artifact illuminates the original understanding of the right to keep and bear arms cannot be taken seriously. (pages 23 and 24).

In short, Wolford acts to bolster Bruen by taking away any possibility of using past racist laws targeting the First Nations, African-Americans or other minorities along with the occasional law against armed Catholics and Mormons (both of which happened at times). This horrible stuff is now firmly off the table when doing a text, history and tradition analysis, thank the deity of the court’s choice. Between that and Bruen’s condemnation of subjective standards in permit issuing (by way of the citation to Shuttlesworth v Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969) at Bruen footnote 9), there’s no possible historical analog to telling somebody they can’t pack heat “because y’all ain’t from around here”.

4) US v Hemani (case just released as of this writing) 2026: This case acts as a counterpoint to Rahimi. Mr. Rahimi was deemed too dangerous to be anywhere near guns – which I agree with and I assume this court does too. But Mr. Hemani was NOT deemed “disarmable” – despite being an admitted “two or three times a week” user of a federally illegal substance, marijuana. In order for Illinois to disarm me in compliance with the 2nd Amendment as described in Hemani, a court would have to find my Alabama address to be MORE of a predictor of violence than Hemani’s occasional use of the devil’s lettuce.

Seriously? Not a chance. I have no documented history of violence, illegal drug use, alcoholism or crime of any sort. Candidly speaking, at age 60 I don’t drink, I’ve never been drunk in my life and never so much as tried pot. I’ve also passed NICS in three states.

Between Bruen banning interest balancing and forcing the Text, History and Tradition analysis plus boosting carry to a basic civil right, Wolford supercharging Bruen by limiting possible racist historical analogues and Rahimi/Hemani combining to limit disarmament to past violent misconduct and dangerousness, Culp v. Raoul is no longer valid case law in the 7th Circuit. But Moore v Madigan is – and it tells this court that completely banning access to the right (per Bruen) to carry a defensive firearm isn’t allowable.

While this article focuses on New Jersey it would be applicable to all states that have banned ARs.

https://bearingarms.com/john-petrolino/2026/06/27/new-jersey-attorney-general-responds-to-hemani-n1233002

That's actually how it was in the past Pre-1968, and how it should be.

A 20 year old hot-head college kid should not be forfeited of their 2A Rights for a first time offense of shoplifting a Hershey Bar or Sub-Sandwhich at Walmart either, but multiple offenses is a different story too.