There seem to have been a lot of mass shootings lately.

On July 20, James Eagan Holmes (who is, of course, innocent until proven guilty, but is currently the only suspect) walked into the premiere of ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ in Aurora, Colo., and opened fire, killing 12 and injuring 58. Sixteen days later, seven people, including the presumed gunman, Wade Michael Page, were killed in a shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis.

This past Friday, there was news that at least 10 people were shot outside of the Empire State Building in New York City. It turns out that the gunman, Jeffrey Johnson, had been fired from his job the day before and was seeking revenge on his boss. He shot his intended victim, and was then shot and killed by police. In the process, nine innocent bystanders were struck by police bullets. None were killed and all are in recovery. While any murder is tragic, this event is not what one would typically consider a “mass shooting.” However, this did not stop people from taking to Twitter, Facebook and the traditional news media to call for tighter regulations on guns.

When it comes to gun control, I agree with most Americans – normal people should not be allowed to have machine guns that can fire hundreds of rounds in a few seconds. It is also reasonable to have background checks for people looking to purchase guns, to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill.

Unfortunately, some of the people who want greater restrictions on the firearms used in these mass shootings argue for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. This is an incredibly misguided policy that will do nothing to make America safer.

The federal assault weapons ban was signed into law by President Clinton in 1994. At first glance, it appears to be a great idea. Who would be against banning assault weapons? By their very name, it seems like “assault weapons” are clearly intended for killing large numbers of people, not for self-defense, hunting or sport.

But unfortunately, the actual law’s definition of “assault weapon” was incredibly broad and included many semi-automatic guns, which fire one bullet per pull of the trigger. A gun would be lumped under the umbrella term of “assault weapon” if it used detachable magazines and had just two characteristics from a long list of features: a folding stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or a mount for a grenade launcher.

Now, there were some good parts of that law. Most people do not think civilians should be walking around with grenade launchers. But many of the features on that list – such as the type of magazine, the shape of the grip or the ability of the stock to change sizes – are purely cosmetic and do not make it any easier to commit an assault. This law outlawed many guns purely for their appearance, rather than for their potential use in a mass shooting.

Fortunately, the assault weapons ban included a sunset provision that made it expire after 10 years. When the ban expired, there was not enough political support to re-instate it, due to many government agencies finding the ban ineffective. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a report in 2003 that found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.” The National Research Council concluded that the ban “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence.” Many independent academic papers by criminologists corroborated these conclusions.

But this has not stopped media personalities and politicians from calling for the renewal of the ban. In 2009, the Obama administration expressed its support for renewing the assault weapons ban. Calls for the ban’s renewal are a predictable part of the aftermath of any mass shooting in the country.

There are a lot of things we can do to help prevent future mass shootings in America, including changing certain laws. But reinstating the federal assault weapons ban as it was written in 1994 is a nonsensical proposal that distracts from the real issues surrounding gun violence. Let us move on, and talk about ideas that might actually work.