Judge lifted assault weapons ban days before mass shooting

[Flash]

Judge lifted Boulder assault weapons ban days before mass shooting at city grocery store

Mass shooting suspect Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa bought an AR-556 pistol 4 days after the judge ruled against the ban.

www.axios.com

Well...that is a shocker...huh? Duh!

So, you actually believe that the shooter was actually waiting for the ban to be lifted so he could got out and kill people?

Is that what you are saying? That is just the dumbest thing I think I have read today.

it's as good an excuse as any for the fruitcake. Hit motives have yet to be assertained. I think an entire board of shrinks may figure it out sooner or later.

That is why Jim blaming a gun ban being lift is so stupid. The guy could get the banned weapon from anywhere and with nuts or terrorists, they are going to get the guns, legally or illegal and use them. So blaming a judge for lifting the ban as the cause is absolutely moronic at best and very ignorant.

There is a better chance that he legally purchased the gun right after the Judge tossed Ban just out of symantics. That put the idea in his sick little mind and made the tool readily available on just about every street corner. There is a good chance that the Judges Public Ruling had a lot to do with his decision. Of course, in his pudding mind, the output was scrambled.

It was against the law to open carry into a store is was against the law to discharge a gun in the store. It was against the law to discharge a gun with intent to cause bodily harm, it was against the law for him to murder. But somehow you believe he would not obtain a gun illegally because it was against the law. That doesn’t make any sense.

Just keep making excuses. And the slaughter will continue.

No excuses, he lived in Denver he could have bought an automatic legally in Denver, outside of Boulder. You are making crap up. I just am stating how illogical your silly theory is. You want to ban guns, fine but I’m not letting you lie about why people kill or their motive when it is so clear you don’t know. Peddle your lies elsewhere.

The number of rounds per load was limited. That kept the body count down. You still don't get it and I am tired of you.

I shoot an AR almost every week at a range.

Unless I am shooting my Class III M-16 I mostly use 10 round magazines. Easier to shoot from the bench and I can keep better account of the rounds I shoot.

The difference in time to change out the magazines in minimal. With just a tiny bit of practice most people can do a two second change out.

Having a law restricting magazines will not change anything but it will significantly infringe upon our Constitutional rights.

OTOH, a guy with a 3D printer knocking out printed glock, AR, and AK mags in his spare room and selling them is going to have a nice little side hustle.

There are several hundred million high (standard) cap magazines in this country.

If the filthy government manages to ban them there will be plenty of them around for many decades to come.

I know if that happens my hundreds of magazines will probably be lost in a tragic boating accident.

If there is a ban and the Courts don't overturn it then it is time for the Patriots to [Godfather] "take to the mattresses"[/Godfather].

 

[freyasman]

Judge lifted Boulder assault weapons ban days before mass shooting at city grocery store

Mass shooting suspect Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa bought an AR-556 pistol 4 days after the judge ruled against the ban.

www.axios.com

Well...that is a shocker...huh? Duh!

define what an assault weapon IS?

Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions but usually includes semi-automatic firearms chambered for centerfire ammunition with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud.

None of those things makes the weapon anymore deadly than hunting rifles. The loons are just throwing shit out and you idiots lap it up.

Just keep insulting. Yah, that'll work.

To be fair, telling us we can't be trusted with our own property despite all evidence to the contrary is pretty insulting.
As is lying about the ulterior motives and ultimate goals of people who advocate for gun control.


So don't cry about how we respond to your insulting behavior, okay? It's a bitch move.

 

[freyasman]

For all the talk and Internet Machismo.....

The right to keep and bear arms will hinge on whether or not patriots are willing to defend that right.....at all costs (or not)

Maybe.

I don't recall seeing weed smokers rise up in violent revolution and yet, that shit is becoming legal just about everywhere in the US.


So I don't really know how this is going to go.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Seems to me, the law would have prevented the massacre.

And how would it have done that, TDS Lord?

Do you not know, Jim?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Judge lifted Boulder assault weapons ban days before mass shooting at city grocery store

Mass shooting suspect Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa bought an AR-556 pistol 4 days after the judge ruled against the ban.

www.axios.com

Well...that is a shocker...huh? Duh!

define what an assault weapon IS?

Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions but usually includes semi-automatic firearms chambered for centerfire ammunition with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud.

None of those things makes the weapon anymore deadly than hunting rifles. The loons are just throwing shit out and you idiots lap it up.

Just keep insulting. Yah, that'll work.

If you believe the stupid shit that the left is peddling about firearms and feel insulted when someone who knows better calls you out, then you deserve it.

 

[freyasman]

Judge lifted Boulder assault weapons ban days before mass shooting at city grocery store

Mass shooting suspect Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa bought an AR-556 pistol 4 days after the judge ruled against the ban.

www.axios.com

Well...that is a shocker...huh? Duh!

So, you actually believe that the shooter was actually waiting for the ban to be lifted so he could got out and kill people?

Is that what you are saying? That is just the dumbest thing I think I have read today.

it's as good an excuse as any for the fruitcake. Hit motives have yet to be assertained. I think an entire board of shrinks may figure it out sooner or later.

That is why Jim blaming a gun ban being lift is so stupid. The guy could get the banned weapon from anywhere and with nuts or terrorists, they are going to get the guns, legally or illegal and use them. So blaming a judge for lifting the ban as the cause is absolutely moronic at best and very ignorant.

There is a better chance that he legally purchased the gun right after the Judge tossed Ban just out of symantics. That put the idea in his sick little mind and made the tool readily available on just about every street corner. There is a good chance that the Judges Public Ruling had a lot to do with his decision. Of course, in his pudding mind, the output was scrambled.

It was against the law to open carry into a store is was against the law to discharge a gun in the store. It was against the law to discharge a gun with intent to cause bodily harm, it was against the law for him to murder. But somehow you believe he would not obtain a gun illegally because it was against the law. That doesn’t make any sense.

Just keep making excuses. And the slaughter will continue.

No excuses, he lived in Denver he could have bought an automatic legally in Denver, outside of Boulder. You are making crap up. I just am stating how illogical your silly theory is. You want to ban guns, fine but I’m not letting you lie about why people kill or their motive when it is so clear you don’t know. Peddle your lies elsewhere.

The number of rounds per load was limited. That kept the body count down. You still don't get it and I am tired of you.

I shoot an AR almost every week at a range.

Unless I am shooting my Class III M-16 I mostly use 10 round magazines. Easier to shoot from the bench and I can keep better account of the rounds I shoot.

The difference in time to change out the magazines in minimal. With just a tiny bit of practice most people can do a two second change out.

Having a law restricting magazines will not change anything but it will significantly infringe upon our Constitutional rights.

OTOH, a guy with a 3D printer knocking out printed glock, AR, and AK mags in his spare room and selling them is going to have a nice little side hustle.

There are several hundred million high (standard) cap magazines in this country.

If the filthy government manages to ban them there will be plenty of them around for many decades to come.

I know if that happens my hundreds of magazines will probably be lost in a tragic boating accident.

If there is a ban and the Courts don't overturn it then it is time for the Patriots to [Godfather] "take to the mattresses"[/Godfather].

An opinion on gun control | Monster Hunter Nation
From the link;

"Finally, let’s look at the logistical ramifications of another magazine ban. The AWB banned the production of all magazines over ten rounds except those marked for military or law enforcement use, and it was a felony to possess those.

Over the ten years of the ban, we never ran out. Not even close. Magazines are cheap and basic. Most of them are pieces of sheet metal with some wire. That’s it. Magazines are considered disposable so most gun people accumulate a ton of them. All it did was make magazines more expensive, ticked off law abiding citizens, and didn’t so much as inconvenience a single criminal.

Meanwhile, bad guys didn’t run out either. And if they did, like I said, they are cheap and basic, so you just get or make more. If you can cook meth, you can make a functioning magazine. My old company designed a rifle magazine once, and I’m no engineer. I paid a CAD guy, spent $20,000 and churned out several thousand 20 round Saiga .308 mags. This could’ve been done out of my garage.

Ten years. No difference. Meanwhile, we had bad guys turning up all the time committing crimes, and guess what was marked on the mags found in their guns? MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY. Because once again, if you’re already breaking a bunch of laws, they can only hang you once. Criminals simply don’t care.

Once the AWB timed out, because every politician involved looked at the mess which had been passed in the heat of the moment, the fact it did nothing, and the fact that every single one of them from a red state would lose their job if they voted for a new one, it expired and went away. Immediately every single gun person in America went out and bought a couple guns which had been banned and a bucket of new magazines, because nothing makes an American want to do something more than telling them they can’t. We’ve been stocking up ever since. If the last ban did literally nothing at all over a decade, and since then we’ve purchased another hundred million magazines since then, another ban will do even less. (except just make the law abiding that much angrier, and I’ll get to that below).

I bought $600 worth of magazines for my competition pistol this morning. I’ve already got a shelf full for my rifles. Gun and magazine sales skyrocket every time a democrat politician starts to vulture in on a tragedy. I don’t know if many of you realize this, but Barack Obama is personally responsible for more gun sales, and especially first time gun purchases, than anyone in history. When I owned my gun store, we had a picture of him on the wall and a caption beneath it which said SALESMAN OF THE YEAR.

So you can ban this stuff, but it won’t actually do anything to the crimes you want to stop. Unless you think you can confiscate them all, but I’ll talk about confiscation later."

 

[2aguy]

Judge lifted Boulder assault weapons ban days before mass shooting at city grocery store

Mass shooting suspect Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa bought an AR-556 pistol 4 days after the judge ruled against the ban.

www.axios.com

Well...that is a shocker...huh? Duh!

Thanks Jim - Saw this last night & ya beat me to it. This insane clown bought his badass gun 6 days before the massacre. There is nothing unconstitutional about a state deciding to stop selling assault weapons. This is settled law from Heller. Therefore he had no right to overturn it. He's got blood on his hands and this judge needs to step down immediately.

It is not settled law from Heller, you lying piece of shit......

Heller specifically states...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


Scalia then goes on to further explain Heller in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park...you doofus...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
-----

Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

 

[2aguy]

From what I heard reported on CNN, the man purchased a pistol after the lift. not the weapon he used. They stated with slight honesty though certanly not elaborating, they didn't know when the man gained access to the AR-15 which he used. Suggesting without openly stating, that this means it was obtained some time before this lift, or, even illegally.

So sir, it was purchased legally 6 days before his massacre.

he used a rifle and killed 10


He could have bought a pump action shotgun that holds 7 shells.....and killed 12...like the black guy who shot up the Navy Yard.....


So....he could have bought a 5 shot, pump action shotgun.......the type of gun used in Kerch, Russia to murder 20 people and wound 70....with the local police station 100 yards away...

Or he could have purchased a 9 mm pistol and a .22 caliber pistol and murdered 32 people.....like the guy at Virigina Tech..

Nothing about that rifle makes it special for mass public shootings, you dumb ass...

 

[2aguy]

Judge lifted Boulder assault weapons ban days before mass shooting at city grocery store

Mass shooting suspect Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa bought an AR-556 pistol 4 days after the judge ruled against the ban.

www.axios.com

Well...that is a shocker...huh? Duh!

define what an assault weapon IS?

Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions but usually includes semi-automatic firearms chambered for centerfire ammunition with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud.

Oh for Gods sake.

You've heard that lie on CNN so many times you actually believe it now
And yet, you've never held or fired a gun. Pathetic

Funny thing is that it's pukes like you who are getting pummeled and murdered by your beloved violent criminals in your Democrat strongholds every day. I guess you like it.

Pew 2020 - 82% of US voters want UBCs including gun show and online sales by unlicensed dealers. This was among the low numbers reported by other reputable pollsters. Saw several others as high as 90%. You people are literally on the wrong side of every issue.

Those 82% have no idea why asshole like you are pushing Universal Background checks...if they did, they wouldn't agree to them......they don't know that background checks are ignored by criminals because they either use straw buyers, who can pass any background check, or they steal the guns....which avoids any background check.

If those 82% were told the truth....that shit for brains like you only want universal background checks so you can then demand gun registration...which you want so when you ban and confiscate guns, they can't be hidden from you.....they wouldn't support what you want..

But you never tell them the truth...so what they answer on polls is fucking meaningless...

 

[2aguy]

The founding fathers never imagined the militarization of weapons that we see today. And the GOPQ uses fear of a complete outlaw of guns to build terror among gun owners. I have many guns, and I am not stupid enough to believe the state would take away any of my guns.

Other countries in the world cannot believe that the US allows weapons such as the assault weapons on the street. Unfortunately, the GOPQ...aka Taliban of the United States would rather see massacres of innocent civilians than a law that would actually curtail the weapons of war.

The Taliban of the US says...."THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE ALL YOUR GUNS AWAY!" Just another GOPQ lie.

They aren't "Assault" weapons you lying asshole.....the AR-15 is nothing more than a regular rifle, it fires the same way as any other semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun, including revolvers.....which is why the AR-15 is the Trojan Horse for morons like you...

You know if you can stampede enough uninformed Americans to allow you to ban the AR-15, you can come back and demand every other semi-automatic rifle, pistol, shotgun and revolvers can also be banned, since they all work the same way.....

 

[2aguy]

The founding fathers never imagined the militarization of weapons that we see today. And the GOPQ uses fear of a complete outlaw of guns to build terror among gun owners. I have many guns, and I am not stupid enough to believe the state would take away any of my guns.

Other countries in the world cannot believe that the US allows weapons such as the assault weapons on the street. Unfortunately, the GOPQ...aka Taliban of the United States would rather see massacres of innocent civilians than a law that would actually curtail the weapons of war.

The Taliban of the US says...."THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE ALL YOUR GUNS AWAY!" Just another GOPQ lie.

Shit head....in the Founders time they all had military rifles....you idiot.

 

[2aguy]

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/boulder-shooting-happened-days-after-colorado-overturned-key-gun-control-n1261897?icid=msd_topgrid



The Boulder law, in addition to banning high-capacity magazines, outlawed certain types of firearms characterized as “assault weapons.” Although the weapon described by Boulder police in their arrest warrant affidavit was not a conventional assault rifle, it would have likely been illegal to purchase and possess in Boulder under the following provision of that local law:

“All semi-automatic center-fire pistols that have any of the following characteristics: Have the capacity to accept a magazine other than in the pistol grip.”

Clearly, from a photo of the weapon as described in the police affidavit, it has the look and functionality of an assault-style weapon, and it appears to violate the now defunct Boulder law. According to the affidavit, the suspect purchased and possessed his weapon on March 16 — just a few days after a state court judge allowed possession of such a weapon in Boulder.

Seems to me, the law would have prevented the massacre. The judge needs to be investigated and possibly recalled.

Dear shithead......

The guy used this rifle and murdered 10 people.

He could have walked into the same gun store and purchased ...........


A 7 shot pump action shotgun....used to murder 12 people at the Navy Yard.

A 5 shot, pump action shotgun...used to murder 20 people and wound 70 in Kerch, Russia, 100 yards from the local police station.

2 pistols...one 9mm, one .22 caliber 10 round magazine...to murder 32 people like the guy at Virginia Tech...

2 pistols...9mm....to murder 24 people...at Luby's Cafe......

You dumb ass....

 

[2aguy]

Dude, now you're just being goofy. Mandatory fully auto guns for every kook and criminal in the country? That's idiotic.
More Guns = More Death No two ways around it but perhaps that is what you long for?

Mexico has a lot fewer guns owners and and a lot more gun murders than the U.S. Your "more guns = more death" doesn't hold water.

The counties on the Mexican side of the border have higher rates of murder than the counties on the Texas side of the border........Mexico has extreme gun control, Texas does not....

10,235 people murdered with guns in all of the U.S.

37,259 murdered in Mexico......

 

[2aguy]

Dude, now you're just being goofy. Mandatory fully auto guns for every kook and criminal in the country? That's idiotic.
More Guns = More Death No two ways around it but perhaps that is what you long for?

Mexico has a lot fewer guns owners and and a lot more gun murders than the U.S. Your "more guns = more death" doesn't hold water.

Yes it does actually -

Homicide

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review) Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor f…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

You ain’t stoppin crime either loon

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

More firearms do not keep people safe, hard numbers show. Why do so many Americans believe the opposite?

www.scientificamerican.com

Yeah...sorry, anti-gun extremists lie ..........

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

https://crimeresearch.org/2020/10/n...n-issuing-permits-because-of-the-coronavirus/


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

1. Compared to most of Europe, the United States is relatively violent — but that remains true even if you completely eliminate U.S. gun violence from the equation.

Broadly speaking, it’s true that the United States is more violent than Europe. In 2017, most of the countries that comprise the European Union had homicide rates of around 1 per 100,000. In the same year, the U.S. homicide rate was just over 5 per 100,000. And it’s true that guns are used in most American homicides. So, if the United States were to adopt European-style gun control, these murders wouldn’t happen and Americans would enjoy European-style homicide rates — right?
In fact, the reality is much more complicated. Let’s start with the observation that, in 2017, the United States’ non-firearm homicide rate was about double the total homicide rates (including firearm homicides) of most European Union countries. In other words, even if we completely remove America’s gun violence from the equation — an utterly unrealistic hypothetical, no matter what gun policies the U.S. adopts — we see the United States is still significantly more violent than Europe. The United States’ gun violence is a symptom of underlying sociological factors that drive other forms of violence as well — guns and permissive gun policy are not themselves an independent “cause” of violence. The fact that American criminals clearly prefer guns over other weapons, and are able to get them, should not be mistaken for the notion that guns, of their own accord, somehow “beget” criminals.
So it’s probably fair to say that, compared to Europe, the United States does have a violence problem — but this violence problem is clearly not reducible to “guns” or “gun control.”

That observation does not eliminate the possibility that gun control could at least help to ameliorate violence in the United States. However, elsewhere in this piece, we’ll see that there’s little reason to think that’s the case.

In short, a dramatic liberalization of gun policy and attitudes toward guns, accompanied by a surge in gun ownership (especially of the types of weapons politicians today are most ready to demonize), has been correlated with an equally dramatic decrease in violence.

----
3. The U.S. is not especially violent in a broad global context.

Let’s return to international comparisons.

Again, it’s true that the United States has much less restrictive gun laws, and a much higher homicide rate, than, say, the U.K. or Japan. But that’s only half of the story: The U.S. also has much less restrictive gun laws than all of the countries that are more violent.

Our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, serve to illustrate this phenomenon perfectly. Both countries have much more restrictive gun laws than those of the U.S. In 2017, Canada had a homicide rate of almost 2 per 100,00 — a bit higher than most European countries, but significantly lower than the U.S. homicide rate of 5 per 100,000. However, Mexico’s 2017 homicide rate was much higher at a whopping 25 per 100,000.

What’s responsible for Canada’s relative peace and Mexico’s relative violence? That’s a complicated question far beyond the scope of this piece. What we can say for certain, though, is that “guns” and “gun laws” are not the fundamental answer. If it were that simple, the United States — with by far the most guns and the most permissive gun laws of the three — would be the most violent, with Canada (a country with more permissive gun laws and twice as many guns per capita as Mexico) close behind, and Mexico as the most peaceful of three.

In reality, not only is Mexico more violent than the U.S. and Canada, it’s more violent by an enormous degree. Once again, we see that “guns” and “gun control” (or the lack thereof) fail to explain differences in observed levels of violence.

---Do the areas of the U.S. with the highest rates of violence also have the most permissive gun laws? No. The magazine Guns and Ammo ranked each state by the gun-friendliness of its laws — the farther down the list (that is, the higher the value of its rank number) that a state is, the more restrictive its gun policies are. In the chart below, each state has been plotted according to its 2018 gun-friendliness rank and its 2018 homicide rate. (The far outlier is Washington, DC.)

-----
Some gun control proponents have argued that differences in state/local gun control are mostly meaningless because it’s easy for people to simply import guns from other jurisdictions: guns remain readily available pretty much everywhere, despite state or municipal gun controls. Therefore, national-level gun control is needed to meaningfully curb violence.

It’s true that, for those willing to break laws, guns are readily available everywhere in the United States, despite varying degrees of gun control in different jurisdictions. But if it were true that national-level gun control would result in uniformly low levels of gun violence, then we should expect to see a uniformly high level of violence within the existing (relatively) permissive framework. Instead, we observe Louisiana, with a homicide rate five times higher than that observed in Utah — my very gun-friendly home state. The argument that national-level gun control would resolve the apparent disconnect between gun control and violence fails.

The extreme unevenness of violence within the United States casts further doubt upon the narrative that said violence is a gun policy problem.

Do the areas of the U.S. with the highest rates of violence also have the most permissive gun laws? No. The magazine Guns and Ammo ranked each state by the gun-friendliness of its laws — the farther down the list (that is, the higher the value of its rank number) that a state is, the more restrictive its gun policies are. In the chart below, each state has been plotted according to its 2018 gun-friendliness rank and its 2018 homicide rate. (The far outlier is Washington, DC.)
------

As you can see, there’s no correlation at all between gun-friendly laws and homicide rates. While the Guns & Ammo rankings are of course subjective and prone to dispute, they would need to be wildly off base in order to even introduce the possibility of statistically significant correlation.

 

[2aguy]

Dude, now you're just being goofy. Mandatory fully auto guns for every kook and criminal in the country? That's idiotic.
More Guns = More Death No two ways around it but perhaps that is what you long for?

Mexico has a lot fewer guns owners and and a lot more gun murders than the U.S. Your "more guns = more death" doesn't hold water.

Yes it does actually -

Homicide

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review) Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor f…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

You ain’t stoppin crime either loon

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

More firearms do not keep people safe, hard numbers show. Why do so many Americans believe the opposite?

www.scientificamerican.com

Wrong....

New Study Finds Firearms Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides

But what jumps out at you when you read Fleegler’s article is that the decrease in fatalities that he documents relates almost exclusively to suicides. What his study really shows is that strict gun laws have little or no impact on gun homicides:

Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate (absolute rate difference, 6.25 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) and a lower firearm homicide rate (absolute rate difference, 0.40 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95).

 

[2aguy]

Dude, now you're just being goofy. Mandatory fully auto guns for every kook and criminal in the country? That's idiotic.
More Guns = More Death No two ways around it but perhaps that is what you long for?

Mexico has a lot fewer guns owners and and a lot more gun murders than the U.S. Your "more guns = more death" doesn't hold water.

Yes it does actually -

Homicide

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review) Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor f…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

You ain’t stoppin crime either loon

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

More firearms do not keep people safe, hard numbers show. Why do so many Americans believe the opposite?

www.scientificamerican.com

Mexico's murder rate is 6x higher (4.96 vs. 29.07) than the U.S. Their gun ownership rate is 10x (12.9 vs 120.5) lower. Your information doesn't match reality.

Stats can only be based on first world developed countries. Otherwise apples & pears.
Please actually READ my links .. THEN comment.

Why is that? Are people in third world countries inferior? Incapable of meeting the same standards?...lmao

C'mon Wild Bill. We both know that large swaths of Mexico are lawless hellholes ruled by murderous drug cartels.
And you want to compare their gun violence to ours?

Yeah....because, you lying shithead....you guys say that more guns = more gun crime.......no other factors when you want to use that for gun control....

America has more guns, and less gun crime than Mexico......they can't control their criminals...that is what drives their gun murder, not guns. Our democrat party controlled cities do not control their criminals which is why they have high gun murder rates...

Criminal control is the issue, not law abiding people who own guns for self defense, sport and competition....

That is why you guys are lying assholes.......you know the problem is democrats releasing criminals, but you just want to ban guns.

 

[2aguy]

Judge lifted Boulder assault weapons ban days before mass shooting at city grocery store

Mass shooting suspect Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa bought an AR-556 pistol 4 days after the judge ruled against the ban.

www.axios.com

Well...that is a shocker...huh? Duh!

So, you actually believe that the shooter was actually waiting for the ban to be lifted so he could got out and kill people?

Is that what you are saying? That is just the dumbest thing I think I have read today.

it's as good an excuse as any for the fruitcake. Hit motives have yet to be assertained. I think an entire board of shrinks may figure it out sooner or later.

That is why Jim blaming a gun ban being lift is so stupid. The guy could get the banned weapon from anywhere and with nuts or terrorists, they are going to get the guns, legally or illegal and use them. So blaming a judge for lifting the ban as the cause is absolutely moronic at best and very ignorant.

There is a better chance that he legally purchased the gun right after the Judge tossed Ban just out of symantics. That put the idea in his sick little mind and made the tool readily available on just about every street corner. There is a good chance that the Judges Public Ruling had a lot to do with his decision. Of course, in his pudding mind, the output was scrambled.

Moron........he could have bought that rifle at anytime.....from any other place in the state....making the Boulder gun ban stupid, and the lifting of that ban irrelevant...

He used a rifle and killed 10 people....

He could have walked into any Boulder gun store and purchased......

A 7 shot, pump action shotgun.....and murdered 12, not 10 people, like the Navy Yard shooter...

A 5 shot, pump action shotgun.....and murdered 20 people and wounded 70, like the Kerch, Russia shooter...with the local police station 100 yards away....


He could have purchased 9mm pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine and murdered 32 people like the Virginia tech shooter...

He could have purchased 2, 9mm pistols and murdered 24 people, like the Luby's cafe shooter....

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

 

[2aguy]

Judge lifted Boulder assault weapons ban days before mass shooting at city grocery store

Mass shooting suspect Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa bought an AR-556 pistol 4 days after the judge ruled against the ban.

www.axios.com

Well...that is a shocker...huh? Duh!

So, you actually believe that the shooter was actually waiting for the ban to be lifted so he could got out and kill people?

Is that what you are saying? That is just the dumbest thing I think I have read today.

it's as good an excuse as any for the fruitcake. Hit motives have yet to be assertained. I think an entire board of shrinks may figure it out sooner or later.

That is why Jim blaming a gun ban being lift is so stupid. The guy could get the banned weapon from anywhere and with nuts or terrorists, they are going to get the guns, legally or illegal and use them. So blaming a judge for lifting the ban as the cause is absolutely moronic at best and very ignorant.

There is a better chance that he legally purchased the gun right after the Judge tossed Ban just out of symantics. That put the idea in his sick little mind and made the tool readily available on just about every street corner. There is a good chance that the Judges Public Ruling had a lot to do with his decision. Of course, in his pudding mind, the output was scrambled.

It was against the law to open carry into a store is was against the law to discharge a gun in the store. It was against the law to discharge a gun with intent to cause bodily harm, it was against the law for him to murder. But somehow you believe he would not obtain a gun illegally because it was against the law. That doesn’t make any sense.

Just keep making excuses. And the slaughter will continue.

No excuses, he lived in Denver he could have bought an automatic legally in Denver, outside of Boulder. You are making crap up. I just am stating how illogical your silly theory is. You want to ban guns, fine but I’m not letting you lie about why people kill or their motive when it is so clear you don’t know. Peddle your lies elsewhere.

The number of rounds per load was limited. That kept the body count down. You still don't get it and I am tired of you.

Magazine limits do not lower the body count....you have been shown the research into this, and you ignore it...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

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

-----

 

[2aguy]

Judge lifted Boulder assault weapons ban days before mass shooting at city grocery store

Mass shooting suspect Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa bought an AR-556 pistol 4 days after the judge ruled against the ban.

www.axios.com

Well...that is a shocker...huh? Duh!

So, you actually believe that the shooter was actually waiting for the ban to be lifted so he could got out and kill people?

Is that what you are saying? That is just the dumbest thing I think I have read today.

it's as good an excuse as any for the fruitcake. Hit motives have yet to be assertained. I think an entire board of shrinks may figure it out sooner or later.

That is why Jim blaming a gun ban being lift is so stupid. The guy could get the banned weapon from anywhere and with nuts or terrorists, they are going to get the guns, legally or illegal and use them. So blaming a judge for lifting the ban as the cause is absolutely moronic at best and very ignorant.

There is a better chance that he legally purchased the gun right after the Judge tossed Ban just out of symantics. That put the idea in his sick little mind and made the tool readily available on just about every street corner. There is a good chance that the Judges Public Ruling had a lot to do with his decision. Of course, in his pudding mind, the output was scrambled.

It was against the law to open carry into a store is was against the law to discharge a gun in the store. It was against the law to discharge a gun with intent to cause bodily harm, it was against the law for him to murder. But somehow you believe he would not obtain a gun illegally because it was against the law. That doesn’t make any sense.

Just keep making excuses. And the slaughter will continue.

No excuses, he lived in Denver he could have bought an automatic legally in Denver, outside of Boulder. You are making crap up. I just am stating how illogical your silly theory is. You want to ban guns, fine but I’m not letting you lie about why people kill or their motive when it is so clear you don’t know. Peddle your lies elsewhere.

The number of rounds per load was limited. That kept the body count down. You still don't get it and I am tired of you.

You are an idiot...

The number of bullets in a magazine has no bearing on how many are killed.....target choice, gun free zones.....and how long it takes before someone shoots back at the attacker are the only things that matter....

he could have bought that rifle at anytime.....from any other place in the state....making the Boulder gun ban stupid, and the lifting of that ban irrelevant...

He used a rifle and killed 10 people....and if he had less than 15 rounds? You doofus?

He could have walked into any Boulder gun store and purchased......

A 7 shot, pump action shotgun.....and murdered 12, not 10 people, like the Navy Yard shooter...

A 5 shot, pump action shotgun.....and murdered 20 people and wounded 70, like the Kerch, Russia shooter...with the local police station 100 yards away....


He could have purchased 9mm pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine and murdered 32 people like the Virginia tech shooter...

He could have purchased 2, 9mm pistols and murdered 24 people, like the Luby's cafe shooter....

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

 

[Papageorgio]

Judge lifted Boulder assault weapons ban days before mass shooting at city grocery store

Mass shooting suspect Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa bought an AR-556 pistol 4 days after the judge ruled against the ban.

www.axios.com

Well...that is a shocker...huh? Duh!

So, you actually believe that the shooter was actually waiting for the ban to be lifted so he could got out and kill people?

Is that what you are saying? That is just the dumbest thing I think I have read today.

it's as good an excuse as any for the fruitcake. Hit motives have yet to be assertained. I think an entire board of shrinks may figure it out sooner or later.

That is why Jim blaming a gun ban being lift is so stupid. The guy could get the banned weapon from anywhere and with nuts or terrorists, they are going to get the guns, legally or illegal and use them. So blaming a judge for lifting the ban as the cause is absolutely moronic at best and very ignorant.

There is a better chance that he legally purchased the gun right after the Judge tossed Ban just out of symantics. That put the idea in his sick little mind and made the tool readily available on just about every street corner. There is a good chance that the Judges Public Ruling had a lot to do with his decision. Of course, in his pudding mind, the output was scrambled.

It was against the law to open carry into a store is was against the law to discharge a gun in the store. It was against the law to discharge a gun with intent to cause bodily harm, it was against the law for him to murder. But somehow you believe he would not obtain a gun illegally because it was against the law. That doesn’t make any sense.

Just keep making excuses. And the slaughter will continue.

No excuses, he lived in Denver he could have bought an automatic legally in Denver, outside of Boulder. You are making crap up. I just am stating how illogical your silly theory is. You want to ban guns, fine but I’m not letting you lie about why people kill or their motive when it is so clear you don’t know. Peddle your lies elsewhere.

The number of rounds per load was limited. That kept the body count down. You still don't get it and I am tired of you.

You are an idiot...

The number of bullets in a magazine has no bearing on how many are killed.....target choice, gun free zones.....and how long it takes before someone shoots back at the attacker are the only things that matter....

he could have bought that rifle at anytime.....from any other place in the state....making the Boulder gun ban stupid, and the lifting of that ban irrelevant...

He used a rifle and killed 10 people....and if he had less than 15 rounds? You doofus?

He could have walked into any Boulder gun store and purchased......

A 7 shot, pump action shotgun.....and murdered 12, not 10 people, like the Navy Yard shooter...

A 5 shot, pump action shotgun.....and murdered 20 people and wounded 70, like the Kerch, Russia shooter...with the local police station 100 yards away....


He could have purchased 9mm pistol, and a .22 caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine and murdered 32 people like the Virginia tech shooter...

He could have purchased 2, 9mm pistols and murdered 24 people, like the Luby's cafe shooter....

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

Logic goes right out the door when left wing nuts get on the subject of guns. Vrenn would rather push a false narrative to take guns away from others than be truthful and work n real solutions to.a problem. I don’t get the whole narrative, it’s what makes them feel better than solve a problem.