FBI Data Show Mass Shootings 10 Times Lower Than Media Reports

[Billy_Kinetta]

Of course.

According to a recently released report from the FBI, there were far fewer mass shootings over the past four years than were reported by the Gun Violence Archive, a private nonprofit that provides the data cited most often by the mainstream media.

FBI Data Shows Number Of Mass Shootings 10-TIMES LOWER Than Media Reports

 

[Shelzin]

Of course.

According to a recently released report from the FBI, there were far fewer mass shootings over the past four years than were reported by the Gun Violence Archive, a private nonprofit that provides the data cited most often by the mainstream media.

FBI Data Shows Number Of Mass Shootings 10-TIMES LOWER Than Media Reports

The FBI generally defines mass shootings differently than the media. I mean... that's not a surprise to those of us who actually question the news.

I like to call those people intelligent, but... That's me.

 

[Mortis]

The MSM doesn't care, as long as it plays into their narratives - "Guns are bad, so we must abolish them".

 

[TheDefiantOne]

Of course.

According to a recently released report from the FBI, there were far fewer mass shootings over the past four years than were reported by the Gun Violence Archive, a private nonprofit that provides the data cited most often by the mainstream media.

FBI Data Shows Number Of Mass Shootings 10-TIMES LOWER Than Media Reports

Tell that to the victims families over the last 4 years...much less the last 10 or 20. I'm sure they'll have some choice words for you and the FBI.

I've asked gun wonks this question time and again but never got a straight answer: since the weapon(s) of choice for mass shootings in the last 20 years were previously classified and banned by the 1994 AWB, are you setting a standard of "collateral damage" in order to keep said weapons on the open market?

 

[Shelzin]

Tell that to the victims families over the last 4 years...much less the last 10 or 20. I'm sure they'll have some choice words for you and the FBI.

Do you think they'll have to consult a dictionary first to make sure those choice words are actually correct?

 

[2aguy]

Of course.

According to a recently released report from the FBI, there were far fewer mass shootings over the past four years than were reported by the Gun Violence Archive, a private nonprofit that provides the data cited most often by the mainstream media.

FBI Data Shows Number Of Mass Shootings 10-TIMES LOWER Than Media Reports

And even then, the FBI lumps in different types of mass shootings......Mother Jones put the mass public shooting number at 10 for 2019, using the FBI definition of mass public shooting.......1 for 2020, 12 for 2018....they are a left wing, anti-gun extremists news organization......that tells you how far off these numbers can be.

 

[2aguy]

Of course.

According to a recently released report from the FBI, there were far fewer mass shootings over the past four years than were reported by the Gun Violence Archive, a private nonprofit that provides the data cited most often by the mainstream media.

FBI Data Shows Number Of Mass Shootings 10-TIMES LOWER Than Media Reports

Tell that to the victims families over the last 4 years...much less the last 10 or 20. I'm sure they'll have some choice words for you and the FBI.

I've asked gun wonks this question time and again but never got a straight answer: since the weapon(s) of choice for mass shootings in the last 20 years were previously classified and banned by the 1994 AWB, are you setting a standard of "collateral damage" in order to keep said weapons on the open market?

And you have been told over and over again the rifles were not the weapon of choice for mass public shootings or just street crime, handguns are.

You are ignorant of the basic information on this topic, you just spew emotions like a drunk frat boy spewing after a Friday night..........

And again...since you still don't understand the issue...

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowd hadn't been trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets.. 10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference? The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2) if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.



We have 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands in the U.S....



They were used for mass public shootings 4 times in 2019 killing a grand total of



41



Deer kill 200 people a year.



Ladders kill 300 people a year.



Lawn mowers kill between 90-100 people a year...



20 million, and growing, AR-15 rifles in private hands....they were used 4 times in mass public shootings...



Killed in each shooting?



7

9

22

3



US mass shootings, 1982–2021: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation



Compared to...



Luby's cafe....2 pistols.... 24 killed



Virginia Tech...2 pistols....32 killed



Virginia Beach shooting....15 killed, 2 hand guns





Fort Hood shooting....13 killed....2 hand guns...



Kerch, Russia...20 killed, 70 wounded.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun



Navy Yard shooting....12 killed, pump action shotgun



You really don't know what you are talking about.......

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Of course.

According to a recently released report from the FBI, there were far fewer mass shootings over the past four years than were reported by the Gun Violence Archive, a private nonprofit that provides the data cited most often by the mainstream media.

FBI Data Shows Number Of Mass Shootings 10-TIMES LOWER Than Media Reports

Tell that to the victims families over the last 4 years...much less the last 10 or 20. I'm sure they'll have some choice words for you and the FBI.

I've asked gun wonks this question time and again but never got a straight answer: since the weapon(s) of choice for mass shootings in the last 20 years were previously classified and banned by the 1994 AWB, are you setting a standard of "collateral damage" in order to keep said weapons on the open market?

Dont know who the hell you've been asking but handguns make up the vast majority of weapons used in mass shootings.
How about you do a little research on so called assault weapons and how many were used in murders during the ban vs the no ban years?

 

[TheDefiantOne]

Tell that to the victims families over the last 4 years...much less the last 10 or 20. I'm sure they'll have some choice words for you and the FBI.

Do you think they'll have to consult a dictionary first to make sure those choice words are actually correct?

Ahhh, the MAGA trolls of limited intelligence strikes again!

Thanks kid, with this post you've proven how perverted the gunner mentality is that seeks to trivialize and degrade the surviving family members of victims of a previously banned weapon. Carry on.

 

[2aguy]

Of course.

According to a recently released report from the FBI, there were far fewer mass shootings over the past four years than were reported by the Gun Violence Archive, a private nonprofit that provides the data cited most often by the mainstream media.

FBI Data Shows Number Of Mass Shootings 10-TIMES LOWER Than Media Reports

Tell that to the victims families over the last 4 years...much less the last 10 or 20. I'm sure they'll have some choice words for you and the FBI.

I've asked gun wonks this question time and again but never got a straight answer: since the weapon(s) of choice for mass shootings in the last 20 years were previously classified and banned by the 1994 AWB, are you setting a standard of "collateral damage" in order to keep said weapons on the open market?

Dont know who the hell you've been asking but handguns make up the vast majority of weapons used in mass shootings.
How about you do a little research on so called assault weapons and how many were used in murders during the ban vs the no ban years?

He doesn't care.......he wants them banned so it doesn't matter what the truth, facts or reality are...

 

[Shelzin]

Thanks kid, with this post you've proven how perverted the gunner mentality is that seeks to trivialize and degrade the surviving family members of victims of a previously banned weapon. Carry on.

Negative. I seek to trivialize your argument. Because... It's just not overly bright. If you don't use the FBI's definition of what a Mass Shooting is, of course when it looks into the matter they are going to find less of it.

It's just further evidence that the media does... What it does. Do the smart thing... Question it.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

Of course.

According to a recently released report from the FBI, there were far fewer mass shootings over the past four years than were reported by the Gun Violence Archive, a private nonprofit that provides the data cited most often by the mainstream media.

FBI Data Shows Number Of Mass Shootings 10-TIMES LOWER Than Media Reports

Tell that to the victims families over the last 4 years...much less the last 10 or 20. I'm sure they'll have some choice words for you and the FBI.

I've asked gun wonks this question time and again but never got a straight answer: since the weapon(s) of choice for mass shootings in the last 20 years were previously classified and banned by the 1994 AWB, are you setting a standard of "collateral damage" in order to keep said weapons on the open market?

Dont know who the hell you've been asking but handguns make up the vast majority of weapons used in mass shootings.
How about you do a little research on so called assault weapons and how many were used in murders during the ban vs the no ban years?

Seems that's a stock answer for folk of your mindset.....mind telling me how the hell that changes the FACT that the bulk of mass shootings in the last 20 years were done by weapons previously on the 1994 AWB list?

As to your last paragraph

Changes in US mass shooting deaths associated with the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban: Analysis of open-source data - PubMed

Observational, level II/IV.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Did assault weapon ban bring down mass shooting deaths?

It is one of the most controversial gun control policies: A ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines that all

www.politifact.com

Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.

www.usatoday.com

The weapons of choice designed and advertised to do EXACTLY what they did...make shooting multiple targets easier and more accurate for the average schmoe. So the question stands.... since the weapon(s) of choice for mass shootings in the last 20 years were previously classified and banned by the 1994 AWB, are you setting a standard of "collateral damage" in order to keep said weapons on the open market?

Quit stalling, and just answer the question.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

Thanks kid, with this post you've proven how perverted the gunner mentality is that seeks to trivialize and degrade the surviving family members of victims of a previously banned weapon. Carry on.

Negative. I seek to trivialize your argument. Because... It's just overly bright. If you don't use the FBI's definition of what a Mass Shooting is, of course when it looks into the matter they are going to find less of it.

It's just further evidence that the media does... What it does. Do the smart thing... Question it.

Ahh, you seek but you cannot find. Essentially using stat numbers to say "see, not so many people died because of these weapons" does little to change the raw numbers, let alone little comfort to the surviving family members.

I do question the media, the difference between you and I is that I'm not looking to defend an ideology at any cost to human life. By sheer deductive reasoning of your argument, it appears you are.

Here's how I put it to one of your like minded compadres. Perhaps you have the intellectual courage and honesty to answer the question:

FBI Data Show Mass Shootings 10 Times Lower Than Media Reports

Of course. According to a recently released report from the FBI, there were far fewer mass shootings over the past four years than were reported by the Gun Violence Archive, a private nonprofit that provides the data cited most often by the mainstream media. FBI Data Shows Number Of Mass...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Shelzin]

Ahh, you seek but you cannot find. Essentially using stat numbers to say "see, not so many people died because of these weapons" does little to change the raw numbers, let alone little comfort to the surviving family members.

I didn't use the numbers to say that.

I do question the media, the difference between you and I is that I'm not looking to defend an ideology at any cost to human life. By sheer deductive reasoning of your argument, it appears you are.

I'm ... Not sure what it is you are reading... But it's obviously not my posts.

Here's how I put it to one of your like minded compadres. Perhaps you have the intellectual courage and honesty to answer the question:

FBI Data Show Mass Shootings 10 Times Lower Than Media Reports

Of course. According to a recently released report from the FBI, there were far fewer mass shootings over the past four years than were reported by the Gun Violence Archive, a private nonprofit that provides the data cited most often by the mainstream media. FBI Data Shows Number Of Mass...

www.usmessageboard.com

Why would I? I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself. Ask nicely... I'll give you my opinion... Otherwise fuck off... *shrugs*

 

[2aguy]

Of course.

According to a recently released report from the FBI, there were far fewer mass shootings over the past four years than were reported by the Gun Violence Archive, a private nonprofit that provides the data cited most often by the mainstream media.

FBI Data Shows Number Of Mass Shootings 10-TIMES LOWER Than Media Reports

Tell that to the victims families over the last 4 years...much less the last 10 or 20. I'm sure they'll have some choice words for you and the FBI.

I've asked gun wonks this question time and again but never got a straight answer: since the weapon(s) of choice for mass shootings in the last 20 years were previously classified and banned by the 1994 AWB, are you setting a standard of "collateral damage" in order to keep said weapons on the open market?

Dont know who the hell you've been asking but handguns make up the vast majority of weapons used in mass shootings.
How about you do a little research on so called assault weapons and how many were used in murders during the ban vs the no ban years?

Seems that's a stock answer for folk of your mindset.....mind telling me how the hell that changes the FACT that the bulk of mass shootings in the last 20 years were done by weapons previously on the 1994 AWB list?

As to your last paragraph

Changes in US mass shooting deaths associated with the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban: Analysis of open-source data - PubMed

Observational, level II/IV.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Did assault weapon ban bring down mass shooting deaths?

It is one of the most controversial gun control policies: A ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines that all

www.politifact.com

Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.

www.usatoday.com

The weapons of choice designed and advertised to do EXACTLY what they did...make shooting multiple targets easier and more accurate for the average schmoe. So the question stands.... since the weapon(s) of choice for mass shootings in the last 20 years were previously classified and banned by the 1994 AWB, are you setting a standard of "collateral damage" in order to keep said weapons on the open market?

Quit stalling, and just answer the question.

Wrong...dumb ass....I showed you the facts and rifles are not used in the majority of mass public shootings.....

You just repeating the same lie over and over again does not make it true or accurate.....handguns are the weapon of choice, you dolt.

5 seconds......

Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 145 different handguns being used in 97 incidents between 1982 and May 2021. These figures are calculated from a total of 124 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 78 percent of mass shootings.

Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2024| Statista

Handguns are the most common weapons used in mass shootings in the United States. Other types of guns used in mass shootings include rifles and shotguns.

www.statista.com

 

[2aguy]

Of course.

According to a recently released report from the FBI, there were far fewer mass shootings over the past four years than were reported by the Gun Violence Archive, a private nonprofit that provides the data cited most often by the mainstream media.

FBI Data Shows Number Of Mass Shootings 10-TIMES LOWER Than Media Reports

Tell that to the victims families over the last 4 years...much less the last 10 or 20. I'm sure they'll have some choice words for you and the FBI.

I've asked gun wonks this question time and again but never got a straight answer: since the weapon(s) of choice for mass shootings in the last 20 years were previously classified and banned by the 1994 AWB, are you setting a standard of "collateral damage" in order to keep said weapons on the open market?

Dont know who the hell you've been asking but handguns make up the vast majority of weapons used in mass shootings.
How about you do a little research on so called assault weapons and how many were used in murders during the ban vs the no ban years?

Seems that's a stock answer for folk of your mindset.....mind telling me how the hell that changes the FACT that the bulk of mass shootings in the last 20 years were done by weapons previously on the 1994 AWB list?

As to your last paragraph

Changes in US mass shooting deaths associated with the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban: Analysis of open-source data - PubMed

Observational, level II/IV.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Did assault weapon ban bring down mass shooting deaths?

It is one of the most controversial gun control policies: A ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines that all

www.politifact.com

Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.

www.usatoday.com

The weapons of choice designed and advertised to do EXACTLY what they did...make shooting multiple targets easier and more accurate for the average schmoe. So the question stands.... since the weapon(s) of choice for mass shootings in the last 20 years were previously classified and banned by the 1994 AWB, are you setting a standard of "collateral damage" in order to keep said weapons on the open market?

Quit stalling, and just answer the question.

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowd hadn't been trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets.. 10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference? The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2) if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.



We have 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands in the U.S....



They were used for mass public shootings 4 times in 2019 killing a grand total of



41



Deer kill 200 people a year.



Ladders kill 300 people a year.



Lawn mowers kill between 90-100 people a year...



20 million, and growing, AR-15 rifles in private hands....they were used 4 times in mass public shootings...



Killed in each shooting?



7

9

22

3



US mass shootings, 1982–2021: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation



Compared to...



Luby's cafe....2 pistols.... 24 killed



Virginia Tech...2 pistols....32 killed



Virginia Beach shooting....15 killed, 2 hand guns





Fort Hood shooting....13 killed....2 hand guns...



Kerch, Russia...20 killed, 70 wounded.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun



Navy Yard shooting....12 killed, pump action shotgun



You really don't know what you are talking about.......

 

[2aguy]

Of course.

According to a recently released report from the FBI, there were far fewer mass shootings over the past four years than were reported by the Gun Violence Archive, a private nonprofit that provides the data cited most often by the mainstream media.

FBI Data Shows Number Of Mass Shootings 10-TIMES LOWER Than Media Reports

Tell that to the victims families over the last 4 years...much less the last 10 or 20. I'm sure they'll have some choice words for you and the FBI.

I've asked gun wonks this question time and again but never got a straight answer: since the weapon(s) of choice for mass shootings in the last 20 years were previously classified and banned by the 1994 AWB, are you setting a standard of "collateral damage" in order to keep said weapons on the open market?

Dont know who the hell you've been asking but handguns make up the vast majority of weapons used in mass shootings.
How about you do a little research on so called assault weapons and how many were used in murders during the ban vs the no ban years?

Seems that's a stock answer for folk of your mindset.....mind telling me how the hell that changes the FACT that the bulk of mass shootings in the last 20 years were done by weapons previously on the 1994 AWB list?

As to your last paragraph

Changes in US mass shooting deaths associated with the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban: Analysis of open-source data - PubMed

Observational, level II/IV.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Did assault weapon ban bring down mass shooting deaths?

It is one of the most controversial gun control policies: A ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines that all

www.politifact.com

Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.

www.usatoday.com

The weapons of choice designed and advertised to do EXACTLY what they did...make shooting multiple targets easier and more accurate for the average schmoe. So the question stands.... since the weapon(s) of choice for mass shootings in the last 20 years were previously classified and banned by the 1994 AWB, are you setting a standard of "collateral damage" in order to keep said weapons on the open market?

Quit stalling, and just answer the question.

Another 10 seconds to find this...you have seen this one, and yet you still make dumb claims about these rifles...

26% is less than 50%....that means, you doofus.....they are a minority, not a majority....you idiot.....and even then, those rifles were also used in conjunction with shotguns and pistols in most mass public shootings...which means the rifle was fucking irrelevant...

AR-15 Rifles Were Used in 26 Percent of the Last 80 Mass Shootings in America​

AR-15 Rifles Were Used in 26 Percent of the Last 80 Mass Shootings in U.S.

AR-15s were used in the Las Vegas shooting, the Parkland, Florida, shooting and Monday's shooting in Boulder, Colorado.

www.newsweek.com

 

[2aguy]

Thanks kid, with this post you've proven how perverted the gunner mentality is that seeks to trivialize and degrade the surviving family members of victims of a previously banned weapon. Carry on.

Negative. I seek to trivialize your argument. Because... It's just overly bright. If you don't use the FBI's definition of what a Mass Shooting is, of course when it looks into the matter they are going to find less of it.

It's just further evidence that the media does... What it does. Do the smart thing... Question it.

Ahh, you seek but you cannot find. Essentially using stat numbers to say "see, not so many people died because of these weapons" does little to change the raw numbers, let alone little comfort to the surviving family members.

I do question the media, the difference between you and I is that I'm not looking to defend an ideology at any cost to human life. By sheer deductive reasoning of your argument, it appears you are.

Here's how I put it to one of your like minded compadres. Perhaps you have the intellectual courage and honesty to answer the question:

FBI Data Show Mass Shootings 10 Times Lower Than Media Reports

Of course. According to a recently released report from the FBI, there were far fewer mass shootings over the past four years than were reported by the Gun Violence Archive, a private nonprofit that provides the data cited most often by the mainstream media. FBI Data Shows Number Of Mass...

www.usmessageboard.com

Dumb ass....read this, and learn something about these rifles....

C. So-Called Assault Weapons Are Rarely Used in Assaults, and Magazine Capacity Likely Makes Little Difference​

There were very few prosecutions under the federal assault weapon ban in the ten years of its existence beginning in 1994, reflecting that they were rarely used in crime in the first place. That may have been why Congress chose not to reenact the law when it expired in 2004.

The rarity of criminal misuse of the banned firearms was confirmed in a report to the National Institute of Justice by Christopher S. Koper entitled An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which noted, “AWs [assault weapons] were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles.”[62] The study saw a reduction in gun crime involving assault weapons in selected cities following enactment of the federal law.[63] This could not be attributed to the law; since all preexisting “assault weapons” were grandfathered, the quantity in civilian hands did not decrease. Koper candidly concluded:

Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs [large capacity magazines] are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.[64]

Neither the federal law nor its expiration had any effect on the homicide rate, which had been falling since almost two years before the enactment of the law and which has remained low since the law expired in 2004. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in 2013 that “Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.”[65] Moreover, according to the same study, while the banned assault weapons were mostly rifles, rifles are used in disproportionately fewer crimes: “About 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun from 1993 to 2011.”[66] Criminals are less likely to use rifles than any other firearm.[67] Indeed, from the expiration of the ban through 2018, the percentage of rifles of all kinds used in murders has steadily continued to drop: “The percentage of firearm murders with rifles was 4.8% prior to the ban starting in September 1994, 4.9% from 1995 to 2004 when the ban was in effect, and just 3.6% after that . . . .”[68] Moreover, the federal law did not define a semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine as an assault weapon unless it had two particular features, such as a pistol grip and a bayonet mount.[69] Manufacturers complied by removing one feature, such as the bayonet mount, and Americans continued to buy essentially the same rifles. Of course, crime did not fall because bayonet mounts were removed from the newly-made rifles that were otherwise identical to those that had been banned.

The Federalist Society

fedsoc.org

 

[TheDefiantOne]

Ahh, you seek but you cannot find. Essentially using stat numbers to say "see, not so many people died because of these weapons" does little to change the raw numbers, let alone little comfort to the surviving family members.

I didn't use the numbers to say that.

I do question the media, the difference between you and I is that I'm not looking to defend an ideology at any cost to human life. By sheer deductive reasoning of your argument, it appears you are.

I'm ... Not sure what it is you are reading... But it's obviously not my posts.

Here's how I put it to one of your like minded compadres. Perhaps you have the intellectual courage and honesty to answer the question:

FBI Data Show Mass Shootings 10 Times Lower Than Media Reports

Of course. According to a recently released report from the FBI, there were far fewer mass shootings over the past four years than were reported by the Gun Violence Archive, a private nonprofit that provides the data cited most often by the mainstream media. FBI Data Shows Number Of Mass...

www.usmessageboard.com

Why would I? I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself. Ask nicely... I'll give you my opinion... Otherwise fuck off... *shrugs*

1. YOU jumped on Bill Kinetta's bandwagon with some snarky remarks. If you don't know it's full content or agree with what he was saying, then next time pay attention before your fingers hit the keys.

2. See #1

3. See #1

Carry on.

 

[Shelzin]

1. YOU jumped on Bill Kinetta's bandwagon with some snarky remarks. If you don't know it's full content or agree with what he was saying, then next time pay attention before your fingers hit the keys.

2. See #1

3. See #1

Carry on.

I carried on with my original point in the second post of the thread... Which you didn't address. You are free not to... But I'm going to press my point... Just as you are trying to now with yours.

Essentially... You fucked up... But don't have the character to admit it. I don't mind.