What's new

Johns Hopkins Study: No Evidence ‘Assault Weapon’ Bans Reduce Mass Shootings

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
25,722
Reaction score
2,438
Points
275
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
A study released by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health declares there is no evidence “assault weapon” bans lead to a lower “incidence of fatal mass shootings.”

The push for an “assault weapons” ban is central to the Democrats’ gun control agenda nationally and is front and center for Democrats at the state level in places like Arizona and Virginia.

According to the Johns Hopkins study, researchers”did not find an independent association between assault weapon bans and the incidence of fatal mass shootings.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ce-assault-weapon-bans-reduce-mass-shootings/
I guess the VA Democrats have their "study" - eh?

Everyone - including those who support these bans - already knew this, of course, as 'assault weapons' bans do nothing to reduce access to 'assault weapons' - people still have access to existing weapons as well as new weapons that are modified to not fall under the ban.

And so, you must ask yourself:
Why do people who know bans on 'assault weapons' do not, will not, and can not affect the incidence of mass shootings, still support said bans?
 

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
45,496
Reaction score
9,062
Points
2,060
Mass shootings are singular events. General restrictions laid against a law-abiding public do nothing to prevent singular events.
 

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
43,742
Reaction score
3,917
Points
1,845
but you don't support stop and frisk, which is all this is
“After each horrible mass shooting, there are always policy debates on how they can be prevented,” says lead author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and Bloomberg Professor of American Health in Violence Prevention. “One side often calls for expanding background checks to private purchasers, and the other usually calls for fewer restrictions on civilian gun carrying. Our findings indicate that neither of those prescriptions are associated with lower rates of fatal mass shootings. What does appear to work to reduce mass shootings are licensing laws and laws banning large-capacity magazines.”
from the report.

------------------------------------------------
I have no issue with stop and frisk, but the cops got carried away as usual, and concentrated on the blacks and Hispanics.
 
OP
M14 Shooter

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
25,722
Reaction score
2,438
Points
275
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
:21:

Researchers did claim licensing requirements like those in Connecticut help reduce the number of mass shootings, but their study omitted the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School in which 26 were killed at the school and another victim was killed in a private home.

In other words, a study which claims licensing reduces instances of mass shootings omitted one of the most often cited mass shootings in U.S. history, even though that shooting occurred in a licensing state.

Moreover, John Hopkins’ criteria for licensing laws allowed them to bypass Illinois which, in turn, allowed them to sidestep the never ending gun crime of Chicago.

But the study was clear there is no evidence tying “assault weapons” to a lower incidence of mass shootings.


So... where's your point?
 

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
43,742
Reaction score
3,917
Points
1,845
:21:

Researchers did claim licensing requirements like those in Connecticut help reduce the number of mass shootings, but their study omitted the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School in which 26 were killed at the school and another victim was killed in a private home.

In other words, a study which claims licensing reduces instances of mass shootings omitted one of the most often cited mass shootings in U.S. history, even though that shooting occurred in a licensing state.

Moreover, John Hopkins’ criteria for licensing laws allowed them to bypass Illinois which, in turn, allowed them to sidestep the never ending gun crime of Chicago.

But the study was clear there is no evidence tying “assault weapons” to a lower incidence of mass shootings.


So... where's your point?
It never said what type of weapon, but only talked about large capacity magazines.
 

tyroneweaver

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2012
Messages
18,918
Reaction score
2,954
Points
280
Location
Burley, Idaho
but you don't support stop and frisk, which is all this is
“After each horrible mass shooting, there are always policy debates on how they can be prevented,” says lead author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and Bloomberg Professor of American Health in Violence Prevention. “One side often calls for expanding background checks to private purchasers, and the other usually calls for fewer restrictions on civilian gun carrying. Our findings indicate that neither of those prescriptions are associated with lower rates of fatal mass shootings. What does appear to work to reduce mass shootings are licensing laws and laws banning large-capacity magazines.”
from the report.

------------------------------------------------
I have no issue with stop and frisk, but the cops got carried away as usual, and concentrated on the blacks and Hispanics.
stop and frisk reduces gun crimes. That's a fairly simple solution
 

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
43,742
Reaction score
3,917
Points
1,845
I want to know where it says assault weapons??

------------------------------------------ from the report:

In their analyses, researchers identified 604 mass shootings involving four or more victim fatalities; a total of 2,976 victims were killed in these incidents. Approximately 28 percent (842) of victim fatalities were from domestic-related shootings, 61 percent (2,057) were from non-domestic related shootings, and it was unclear among the remaining 11 percent (77) of victims whether the shooting was domestic-related. Most mass shootings had four to six victim fatalities.
 
OP
M14 Shooter

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
25,722
Reaction score
2,438
Points
275
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
:21:

Researchers did claim licensing requirements like those in Connecticut help reduce the number of mass shootings, but their study omitted the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School in which 26 were killed at the school and another victim was killed in a private home.

In other words, a study which claims licensing reduces instances of mass shootings omitted one of the most often cited mass shootings in U.S. history, even though that shooting occurred in a licensing state.

Moreover, John Hopkins’ criteria for licensing laws allowed them to bypass Illinois which, in turn, allowed them to sidestep the never ending gun crime of Chicago.

But the study was clear there is no evidence tying “assault weapons” to a lower incidence of mass shootings.


So... where's your point?
It never said what type of weapon, but only talked about large capacity magazines.
It says "assault weapon" all over it.

So... again... where;'s your point?
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
78,111
Reaction score
14,580
Points
2,180

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
78,111
Reaction score
14,580
Points
2,180
but you don't support stop and frisk, which is all this is
“After each horrible mass shooting, there are always policy debates on how they can be prevented,” says lead author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and Bloomberg Professor of American Health in Violence Prevention. “One side often calls for expanding background checks to private purchasers, and the other usually calls for fewer restrictions on civilian gun carrying. Our findings indicate that neither of those prescriptions are associated with lower rates of fatal mass shootings. What does appear to work to reduce mass shootings are licensing laws and laws banning large-capacity magazines.”
from the report.

------------------------------------------------
I have no issue with stop and frisk, but the cops got carried away as usual, and concentrated on the blacks and Hispanics.

You mean except for actual research which shows that magazine capacity has no bearing on mass public shootings...you mean other than that...right?

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

I.

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

==========
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
78,111
Reaction score
14,580
Points
2,180

Yeah.....again, not so much...

Doctors are Wrong about Firearm Effectiveness in Mass Shootings - HANDWAVING FREAKOUTERY



If you’re treating one patient at a time, and you see two patients, one with a handgun wound and another with a rifle wound, you’re obviously going to think that rifles are worse, and they’re the obvious choice to commit a mass shooting, and such. But those doctors aren’t thinking about the engagement itself.

Actual Engagements
The Sandy Hook shooter fired 154 shots in five minutes. The Parkland shooter fired 150 shots in seven minutes. Neither shooter engaged another armed opponent, where reload times would have mattered. Either shooting could have transpired just as easily with a 10 round magazine as a 30 round magazine. In fact, the Parkland shooter used a blend of both 10 and 30 round magazines. (see footnote) The limitation on both instances was not fire rate, nor reload time, nor in fact range. The limitation was how many rounds the shooter could fit in their school backpack.

If either shooter had chosen a standard police sidearm as their implement instead of the dreaded AR-15, they would have been able to fire over 100 extra rounds before the shooting ended, wounding and potentially killing many more people in the process.

Not only that, a handgun is concealable. Nobody would see the shooter coming. Nobody would know who the shooter even was, if he decided to stash his weapons back in his backpack. He could walk right past the police, goof off for a while at the periphery of the chaos, and go shoot someplace else up later.

Which is similar to what happened at Virginia Tech.

At 7:15 AM the shooter kills his RA and his RA’s girlfriend. Walks out.

At 8 AM, he relaxes, reloads, gets read for the next shooting.

At 9 AM the shooter goes to the post office, mails out Ye Olde Manifesto of Crazy Garbage.

At 9:45 AM the shooter chains the doors shut to Norris Hall, rampages for 9 minutes, shooting 47 people, killing 30, gets confronted by police, shoots himself.

The VT shooter carried 17 mags. He used a Walther P22 and a Glock 19. Splitting the mags up and back-figuring the number of rounds he carried, it’s quite likely he was up in the 250 round range, like my graph speculates above. And because his guns were concealable, he could have concealed them again, left the scene of that crime, and then done it a third time somewhere else. Maybe another building on campus. Maybe a different campus. Or the nearest Walmart.

Using pistols, the VT shooter killed almost twice as many people as at Parkland. He killed half again as many people as Sandy Hook, and the Sandy Hook victims were literally children. Little kids. This idea doctors have that AR-15s make mass shooting incidents magically more deadly than pistols is fundamentally, scientifically, and self-evidently wrong. It is a lie.

I understand why they think it. They think it because they see one patient on a gurney, and not a building full of wounded and dying people laying there for tens of minutes waiting for emergency response to arrive. They think it because the 30 dead ones at Virginia Tech didn’t even make it in to ER. They think it because they’ve never loaded up a backpack full of mags.

But You Can’t Write That
I’ve been holding back on this topic for a while, because I have some fear that a mass shooter will read this article and get ideas about how to better kill people. That’s a real ethical conundrum as a writer. But in the end, not writing it is worse. Here’s why.

Presuming you could somehow magically evaporate all semiautomatic rifles in the country, which you can’t, you wouldn’t make mass shootings less deadly anyway. You’d literally be funneling mass shooters into more effective weapons for the horrible thing they’ve decided to do. Casualty rates for mass shootings would go up instead of down, if the gun control people got their way.

No mass shooter is sitting at home saying, “Boy, you know, I’d love to go shoot up a school today if I only had an AR-15 rifle, but unfortunately all I have access to is this crumby Glock 19 so I guess I’ll play X-Box instead.” The entire idea is asinine. Mass shooters aren’t choosing the AR-15 rifle because it’s better at mass shootings. They’re choosing it because they’re idiots. If they weren’t idiots, they wouldn’t be mass shooters.

The few mass shooters who choose AR-15s for intellectual reasons, are doing so purely because of the way the media will cover the shooting. This was the case in New Zealand. As an American, I’m allowed the freedom to read that nitwit’s manifesto, and he stated that explicitly.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
78,111
Reaction score
14,580
Points
2,180
I want to know where it says assault weapons??

------------------------------------------ from the report:

In their analyses, researchers identified 604 mass shootings involving four or more victim fatalities; a total of 2,976 victims were killed in these incidents. Approximately 28 percent (842) of victim fatalities were from domestic-related shootings, 61 percent (2,057) were from non-domestic related shootings, and it was unclear among the remaining 11 percent (77) of victims whether the shooting was domestic-related. Most mass shootings had four to six victim fatalities.

And they are mixing mass public shootings with other shootings........a typical, anti-gun tactic.......

In reality...mass public shootings...

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Mass public shootings by year.....

2019....10

2018... 12

2017: 11 ( 5 according to the old standard)

2016....6

2015....4 ( obama's new standard....7)

2014....2 (4)

2013....5

2012....7

2011....3

2010....1

2009....4

2008....3

2007....4

2006....3

2005...2

2004....1

2003...1

2002 not listed so more than likely 0

2001....1

2000....1

1999....5

1998...3

1997....2

1996....1

1995...1

1994...1

1993...4

1992...2

1991...3

1990...1

1989...2

1988....1

1987...1

1986...1

1985... not listed so probably 0

1984...2

1983...not listed so probably 0

1982...1
US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation


Rental Truck in Nice, France, 86 murdered in 5 minutes...

Total number murdered in mass public shootings by year...

Lawn mower deaths every year.... more than 75
(
https://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2007/0419-lawn-mowers.php)
2019....73
2018.....93
2017........117
2016......71
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf


Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013....38,851

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013...29,001

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...30,208
Accidental drowning.....3,391
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames.....2,760
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
78,111
Reaction score
14,580
Points
2,180
but you don't support stop and frisk, which is all this is
“After each horrible mass shooting, there are always policy debates on how they can be prevented,” says lead author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and Bloomberg Professor of American Health in Violence Prevention. “One side often calls for expanding background checks to private purchasers, and the other usually calls for fewer restrictions on civilian gun carrying. Our findings indicate that neither of those prescriptions are associated with lower rates of fatal mass shootings. What does appear to work to reduce mass shootings are licensing laws and laws banning large-capacity magazines.”
from the report.

------------------------------------------------
I have no issue with stop and frisk, but the cops got carried away as usual, and concentrated on the blacks and Hispanics.

They were trying to save Black and Hispanic lives since the majority of gun crime kills Black and Hispanic young males.........
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
78,111
Reaction score
14,580
Points
2,180
:21:

Researchers did claim licensing requirements like those in Connecticut help reduce the number of mass shootings, but their study omitted the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School in which 26 were killed at the school and another victim was killed in a private home.

In other words, a study which claims licensing reduces instances of mass shootings omitted one of the most often cited mass shootings in U.S. history, even though that shooting occurred in a licensing state.

Moreover, John Hopkins’ criteria for licensing laws allowed them to bypass Illinois which, in turn, allowed them to sidestep the never ending gun crime of Chicago.

But the study was clear there is no evidence tying “assault weapons” to a lower incidence of mass shootings.


So... where's your point?

They also did not include the Aurora Theater shooting, and the Sutherland Springs shooting....

Firearm Purchaser Licensing Laws Linked to Fewer Fatal Mass Shootings

Due to voluntary reporting policies, the FBI’s database did not include several high-profile mass shootings, including the 2012 Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting, 2012 Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting, and the 2017 Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting. The researchers addressed these gaps by using data from Stanford University’s Stanford Mass Shootings in America database and the Gun Violence Archive to identify 33 additional fatal mass shootings.



And then used the Gun Violence Archive......a biased, anti-gun source to fill in that data.....where they call any shooting a mass public shooting, even between gang members over dice games and girlfriends....which is not what the public understands to be a mass public shooting...

So they are lying...again...

This is why you can't trust anti-gun extremists........they have to lie in order to push their agenda...

The reason they left those shootings out? Because the shooters got their guns legally, or stole the gun, in the case of Sandy Hook..........which means they would have had a license for the gun....and still done the shooting....

And in all 3 shootings, magazine capacity had no bearing on the results.......and magazine capacity has no bearing on mass public shootings since the targets are gun free zones.......

And the shooters
 

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
43,742
Reaction score
3,917
Points
1,845
:21:

Researchers did claim licensing requirements like those in Connecticut help reduce the number of mass shootings, but their study omitted the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School in which 26 were killed at the school and another victim was killed in a private home.

In other words, a study which claims licensing reduces instances of mass shootings omitted one of the most often cited mass shootings in U.S. history, even though that shooting occurred in a licensing state.

Moreover, John Hopkins’ criteria for licensing laws allowed them to bypass Illinois which, in turn, allowed them to sidestep the never ending gun crime of Chicago.

But the study was clear there is no evidence tying “assault weapons” to a lower incidence of mass shootings.


So... where's your point?

They also did not include the Aurora Theater shooting, and the Sutherland Springs shooting....

Firearm Purchaser Licensing Laws Linked to Fewer Fatal Mass Shootings

Due to voluntary reporting policies, the FBI’s database did not include several high-profile mass shootings, including the 2012 Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting, 2012 Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting, and the 2017 Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting. The researchers addressed these gaps by using data from Stanford University’s Stanford Mass Shootings in America database and the Gun Violence Archive to identify 33 additional fatal mass shootings.



And then used the Gun Violence Archive......a biased, anti-gun source to fill in that data.....where they call any shooting a mass public shooting, even between gang members over dice games and girlfriends....which is not what the public understands to be a mass public shooting...

So they are lying...again...

This is why you can't trust anti-gun extremists........they have to lie in order to push their agenda...

The reason they left those shootings out? Because the shooters got their guns legally, or stole the gun, in the case of Sandy Hook..........which means they would have had a license for the gun....and still done the shooting....

And in all 3 shootings, magazine capacity had no bearing on the results.......and magazine capacity has no bearing on mass public shootings since the targets are gun free zones.......

And the shooters
and they never mentioned assault weapons, only Briebart did.:) One should never trust an article from Breibart.
 

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
43,742
Reaction score
3,917
Points
1,845
but you don't support stop and frisk, which is all this is
“After each horrible mass shooting, there are always policy debates on how they can be prevented,” says lead author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and Bloomberg Professor of American Health in Violence Prevention. “One side often calls for expanding background checks to private purchasers, and the other usually calls for fewer restrictions on civilian gun carrying. Our findings indicate that neither of those prescriptions are associated with lower rates of fatal mass shootings. What does appear to work to reduce mass shootings are licensing laws and laws banning large-capacity magazines.”
from the report.

------------------------------------------------
I have no issue with stop and frisk, but the cops got carried away as usual, and concentrated on the blacks and Hispanics.

They were trying to save Black and Hispanic lives since the majority of gun crime kills Black and Hispanic young males.........
I realize that, but it seemed like they didn't stop and frisk many white men, and white men carry guns.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top