• A dazed, befuddled Lyin' Biden LIES about the impact of the Assault Wea

    From TomS@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 24 20:43:53 2022
    He claimed that the AWB prevented mass shootings that resumed following its expiration. This is a LIE. There are many reasons for this, but the principal one is that assault weapons are rarely used in crimes - handguns are the weapons of choice.
    Criminals will, simply, use a handgun if a rifle is unavailable (and the exemptions and grandfathered weapons made them readily available anyhow). A rifle is primarily useful for a long-range target; mass shootings are done up close and personal.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Effects

    A 2017 review found that there was no evidence that ban had a significant effect on firearm homicides.[28]

    A 2014 study found no impacts on homicide rates with an assault weapon ban.[29] A 2014 book published by Oxford University Press noted that "There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives."[30][31]

    A 2013 study showed that the expiration of the FAWB in 2004 "led to immediate violence increases within areas of Mexico located close to American states where sales of assault weapons became legal. The estimated effects are sizable... the additional
    homicides stemming from the FAWB expiration represent 21% of all homicides in these municipalities during 2005 and 2006."[32]

    In 2013, Christopher S. Koper, a criminology scholar, reviewed the literature on the ban's effects and concluded that its effects on crimes committed with assault weapons were mixed due to its various loopholes. He stated that the ban did not seem to
    affect gun crime rates, and suggested that it might have been able to reduce shootings if it had been renewed in 2004.[33]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to TomS on Tue May 24 23:06:36 2022
    On 2022-05-24 8:43 p.m., TomS wrote:
    He claimed that the AWB prevented mass shootings that resumed following its expiration. This is a LIE. There are many reasons for this, but the principal one is that assault weapons are rarely used in crimes - handguns are the weapons of choice.
    Criminals will, simply, use a handgun if a rifle is unavailable (and the exemptions and grandfathered weapons made them readily available anyhow). A rifle is primarily useful for a long-range target; mass shootings are done up close and personal.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Effects

    Where is the actual quote of what he said, Sunshine?


    A 2017 review found that there was no evidence that ban had a significant effect on firearm homicides.[28]

    A 2014 study found no impacts on homicide rates with an assault weapon ban.[29] A 2014 book published by Oxford University Press noted that "There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives."[30][31]

    A 2013 study showed that the expiration of the FAWB in 2004 "led to immediate violence increases within areas of Mexico located close to American states where sales of assault weapons became legal. The estimated effects are sizable... the additional
    homicides stemming from the FAWB expiration represent 21% of all homicides in these municipalities during 2005 and 2006."[32]

    In 2013, Christopher S. Koper, a criminology scholar, reviewed the literature on the ban's effects and concluded that its effects on crimes committed with assault weapons were mixed due to its various loopholes. He stated that the ban did not seem to
    affect gun crime rates, and suggested that it might have been able to reduce shootings if it had been renewed in 2004.[33]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to TomS on Wed May 25 09:21:25 2022
    TomS wrote:

    He claimed that the AWB prevented mass shootings that resumed
    following its expiration. This is a LIE. There are many reasons for
    this, but the principal one is that assault weapons are rarely used
    in crimes - handguns are the weapons of choice. Criminals will,
    simply, use a handgun if a rifle is unavailable (and the exemptions
    and grandfathered weapons made them readily available anyhow). A
    rifle is primarily useful for a long-range target; mass shootings are
    done up close and personal.

    What an absolutely bullshit argument; an attempt to dance around the
    facts like a fairy on hot plate. Rifle usage is not "rare" in mass
    killings. They were used in 4 of the 5 most deadly mass killings.

    What's more important the number of incidents or the number of murders
    and injuries?

    Show me the numbers of killed and injured by weapon type used in mass
    killings and the average number of victims for each weapon type used in
    mass killings.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Amos P (transgender nymshifter)
    Jerry C. (same attention seeking nymshifter)
    Michael P. (transgender nymshifter)
    Felicity (transgender nymshifter)
    George R (transgender nymshifter)
    Irving S (transgender nymshifter)
    Enjoy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From TomS@21:1/5 to Alan on Wed May 25 18:10:27 2022
    On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:06:39 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
    On 2022-05-24 8:43 p.m., TomS wrote:
    He claimed that the AWB prevented mass shootings that resumed following its expiration. This is a LIE. There are many reasons for this, but the principal one is that assault weapons are rarely used in crimes - handguns are the weapons of choice.
    Criminals will, simply, use a handgun if a rifle is unavailable (and the exemptions and grandfathered weapons made them readily available anyhow). A rifle is primarily useful for a long-range target; mass shootings are done up close and personal.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Effects
    Where is the actual quote of what he said, Sunshine?

    A 2017 review found that there was no evidence that ban had a significant effect on firearm homicides.[28]

    A 2014 study found no impacts on homicide rates with an assault weapon ban.[29] A 2014 book published by Oxford University Press noted that "There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved lives."[30][31]

    A 2013 study showed that the expiration of the FAWB in 2004 "led to immediate violence increases within areas of Mexico located close to American states where sales of assault weapons became legal. The estimated effects are sizable... the additional
    homicides stemming from the FAWB expiration represent 21% of all homicides in these municipalities during 2005 and 2006."[32]

    In 2013, Christopher S. Koper, a criminology scholar, reviewed the literature on the ban's effects and concluded that its effects on crimes committed with assault weapons were mixed due to its various loopholes. He stated that the ban did not seem to
    affect gun crime rates, and suggested that it might have been able to reduce shootings if it had been renewed in 2004.[33]

    Hey Fool, his "talk" (really rambling nonsense) was WIDELY covered on ALL networks - I AM NOT going to spoon feed you the news.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From TomS@21:1/5 to Bigbird on Wed May 25 18:13:51 2022
    On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 2:21:27 AM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:
    TomS wrote:

    He claimed that the AWB prevented mass shootings that resumed
    following its expiration. This is a LIE. There are many reasons for
    this, but the principal one is that assault weapons are rarely used
    in crimes - handguns are the weapons of choice. Criminals will,
    simply, use a handgun if a rifle is unavailable (and the exemptions
    and grandfathered weapons made them readily available anyhow). A
    rifle is primarily useful for a long-range target; mass shootings are
    done up close and personal.
    What an absolutely bullshit argument; an attempt to dance around the
    facts like a fairy on hot plate. Rifle usage is not "rare" in mass
    killings. They were used in 4 of the 5 most deadly mass killings.

    What's more important the number of incidents or the number of murders
    and injuries?

    Show me the numbers of killed and injured by weapon type used in mass killings and the average number of victims for each weapon type used in
    mass killings.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Amos P (transgender nymshifter)
    Jerry C. (same attention seeking nymshifter)
    Michael P. (transgender nymshifter)
    Felicity (transgender nymshifter)
    George R (transgender nymshifter)
    Irving S (transgender nymshifter)
    Enjoy!

    Off your meds again, BirdBrain? Rifles are used in about 2% of all homicides, a pretty small number. Most are committed with handguns. If you libtards got your total way and ALL rifles of ANY sort were confiscated mass murderers would, simply, use
    handguns. Also, the law abiding public would be deprived of one means of protecting themselves, which means that crimes against them, including murder, would increase.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to TomS on Wed May 25 18:37:39 2022
    On 2022-05-25 6:10 p.m., TomS wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:06:39 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
    On 2022-05-24 8:43 p.m., TomS wrote:
    He claimed that the AWB prevented mass shootings that resumed
    following its expiration. This is a LIE. There are many reasons
    for this, but the principal one is that assault weapons are
    rarely used in crimes - handguns are the weapons of choice.
    Criminals will, simply, use a handgun if a rifle is unavailable
    (and the exemptions and grandfathered weapons made them readily
    available anyhow). A rifle is primarily useful for a long-range
    target; mass shootings are done up close and personal.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Effects


    Where is the actual quote of what he said, Sunshine?

    A 2017 review found that there was no evidence that ban had a
    significant effect on firearm homicides.[28]

    A 2014 study found no impacts on homicide rates with an assault
    weapon ban.[29] A 2014 book published by Oxford University Press
    noted that "There is no compelling evidence that [the ban] saved
    lives."[30][31]

    A 2013 study showed that the expiration of the FAWB in 2004 "led
    to immediate violence increases within areas of Mexico located
    close to American states where sales of assault weapons became
    legal. The estimated effects are sizable... the additional
    homicides stemming from the FAWB expiration represent 21% of all
    homicides in these municipalities during 2005 and 2006."[32]

    In 2013, Christopher S. Koper, a criminology scholar, reviewed
    the literature on the ban's effects and concluded that its
    effects on crimes committed with assault weapons were mixed due
    to its various loopholes. He stated that the ban did not seem to
    affect gun crime rates, and suggested that it might have been
    able to reduce shootings if it had been renewed in 2004.[33]

    Hey Fool, his "talk" (really rambling nonsense) was WIDELY covered on
    ALL networks - I AM NOT going to spoon feed you the news.


    Once again, you expect others support their claims...

    ...but won't do the same.

    Got it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bigbird@21:1/5 to TomS on Thu May 26 10:56:16 2022
    TomS wrote:

    On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 2:21:27 AM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:
    TomS wrote:

    He claimed that the AWB prevented mass shootings that resumed
    following its expiration. This is a LIE. There are many reasons
    for this, but the principal one is that assault weapons are
    rarely used in crimes - handguns are the weapons of choice.
    Criminals will, simply, use a handgun if a rifle is unavailable
    (and the exemptions and grandfathered weapons made them readily
    available anyhow). A rifle is primarily useful for a long-range
    target; mass shootings are done up close and personal.
    What an absolutely bullshit argument; an attempt to dance around
    the facts like a fairy on hot plate. Rifle usage is not "rare" in
    mass killings. They were used in 4 of the 5 most deadly mass
    killings.

    What's more important the number of incidents or the number of
    murders and injuries?

    Show me the numbers of killed and injured by weapon type used in
    mass killings and the average number of victims for each weapon
    type used in mass killings.

    --
    Bozo bin
    Amos P (transgender nymshifter)
    Jerry C. (same attention seeking nymshifter)
    Michael P. (transgender nymshifter)
    Felicity (transgender nymshifter)
    George R (transgender nymshifter)
    Irving S (transgender nymshifter)
    Enjoy!

    Off your meds again, BirdBrain? Rifles are used in about 2% of all
    homicides, a pretty small number. Most are committed with handguns.

    Meds, huh. Why if your meds are working are you unable to even attempt
    to reply to my enquires.

    You are only able to repeat the same bullshit non-answer that has
    already been dismissed.

    If you libtards

    "you libtards" FFS

    If only you paedophiles would stop abusing children.

    got your total way and ALL rifles of ANY sort were
    confiscated mass murderers would, simply, use handguns.

    ...less people would die. How many deaths/injuries in the ten worst
    mass killings with a handgun vs ten worst with rifle?

    Another question you don't have the courage to answer... coward; prove
    me wrong and answer, pussy.

    It's not an endgame... it's just the most obvious first step that there
    is no reason to object to. Clearly you are unable to make an argument.

    Face it, Americans and guns has proven a disastrous mix. You simply
    don't have the temperament and mental stability to have the widespread
    gun ownership you claim as a constitutional right.

    It's like giving children matches.

    Also, the law
    abiding public would be deprived of one means of protecting
    themselves, which means that crimes against them, including murder,
    would increase.

    More guns = more murders.

    That kid was a "law abiding public" until he killed 19 kids with the
    guns you put in his hands.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)