Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 102,916
- 84,638
- 3,645
The study found the following:https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ce-assault-weapon-bans-reduce-mass-shootings/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.”
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?
- "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."
Which is a reference to other findings:
- "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, according to a new study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health."
And:
-" The researchers also found evidence that laws banning large-capacity magazines, defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, were associated with significant reductions in the rate of fatal mass shootings with four or more fatalities and the number killed in those shootings. "