If you hear the name “Bloomberg,” you have every reason to believe there will be a profound anti-gun bias. After all, Michael Bloomberg has been the financial thorn in the side of the gun rights movement for years now. He’s funded a plethora of anti-gun candidates and organizations, so the name is justifiably synonymous with anti-gun bias.

However, a recent study by the Bloomberg School of Public health had some findings that are quite inconvenient for candidate Bloomberg, to say nothing of the rest of the Democratic field.

A new study from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has found that there is no evidence that “assault weapon bans” have any impact on “the incidence of fatal mass shootings.” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, named after notorious anti-Second Amendment activist billionaire Michael Bloomberg, released the results of its study last week. The study “did not find an independent association between assault weapon bans and the incidence of fatal mass shootings after controlling for the effects of bans on large-capacity magazines.”

Of course, the study wasn’t all bad news for anti-gunners.

One part of the study, in particular, did find in favor of one gun control proposal.

The study, which analyzed fatal mass shootings in 45 states between 1984 and 2017, did find that “firearm purchaser licensing laws that require an in-person application or fingerprinting are associated with an estimated 56 percent fewer fatal mass shootings in states that have them.”

Now, let’s also be clear that this is correlation, not causation. It’s impossible to determine if that percentage is because of licensing laws or because of any number of other factors that might exist in those states.

Culture can play a greater factor than many on the anti-gun side want to acknowledge.

However, since the big push from the gun control crowd is actually for assault weapon bans, this should let the wind out of their sails a bit. If they even acknowledge it, anyway. I suspect this is yet another inconvenient fact that will be completely ignored during the Democratic primary process. The candidates won’t mention it and the voters aren’t particularly likely to care.

Still, this is likely to come up during the general election, especially if Bloomberg is the candidate.

The truth is, though, there’s no reason for demonizing so-called assault weapons. They’re rarely used in crime–something that’s a much bigger threat than mass shootings–and they’re not even the preferred firearm for mass shootings. In fact, 62 percent of all mass shootings are carried out with a handgun. Another 13 percent are carried out with shotguns. In other words, three-quarters of all mass shootings don’t happen with a rifle of any kind.

Hell, even higher capacity magazines were only used in about half of all mass shootings.

So, with that in mind, just why would an assault weapon ban have much impact on mass shootings in the first place? It wouldn’t.

In other words, the Bloomberg School of Public Health’s findings in this regard shouldn’t surprise anyone. Then again, a whole lot of low-information voters out there think mass shootings almost require an AR-15 or similar rifle, so while this new data shouldn’t be surprising, it likely will be to many.