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]homicides stemming from the FAWB expiration represent 21% of all homicides in these municipalities during 2005 and 2006."[32]
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
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 toaffect gun crime rates, and suggested that it might have been able to reduce shootings if it had been renewed in 2004.[33]
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.
On 2022-05-24 8:43 p.m., TomS wrote: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.
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.
homicides stemming from the FAWB expiration represent 21% of all homicides in these municipalities during 2005 and 2006."[32]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#EffectsWhere 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
affect gun crime rates, and suggested that it might have been able to reduce shootings if it had been renewed in 2004.[33]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
TomS wrote:
He claimed that the AWB prevented mass shootings that resumedWhat an absolutely bullshit argument; an attempt to dance around the
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.
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!
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 resumedWhere is the actual quote of what he said, Sunshine?
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]
Hey Fool, his "talk" (really rambling nonsense) was WIDELY covered on
ALL networks - I AM NOT going to spoon feed you the news.
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 resumedWhat an absolutely bullshit argument; an attempt to dance around
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.
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.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 491 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 87:26:52 |
| Calls: | 9,679 |
| Files: | 13,722 |
| Messages: | 6,173,722 |