SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Bloomberg School of Public Health: No Evidence ‘Assault Weapon’ Bans Reduce Mass Shootings
A new study from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has found that there is no evidence that “assault weapon bans” have any impact on “the incidence of fatal mass shootings.”
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, named after notorious anti-Second Amendment activist billionaire Michael Bloomberg, released the results of its study last week.
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.”
The study, which analyzed fatal mass shootings in 45 states between 1984 and 2017, did find that “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.”
Bloomberg, who is running for president as a Democrat, has a history of trying to destroy Second Amendment rights. His anti-gun organization, Everytown for Gun Safety, has a history of using misleading or outright false statistics manufactured by gun control groups that he has financially backs to assist in his efforts.
The most recent example happened during the Super Bowl when Bloomberg aired a one-minute commercial that was full of false information.
The emotional ad claimed in writing: “2,900 CHILDREN DIE FROM GUN VIOLENCE EVERY YEAR.”
The claim from Bloomberg was categorically false at the cited number included adults and counted suicides as examples of gun violence.
Reason Magazine reported:
According to to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FactCheck.org notes, the average number of firearm-related deaths involving Americans 17 or younger from 2013 through 2017 (the period used by Everytown for Gun Safety) was about 1,500, roughly half the number cited by Bloomberg. Furthermore, nearly two-fifths of those deaths were suicides, meaning the number of minors killed each year by “gun violence,” as that term is usually understood, is about 73 percent smaller than the figure cited in Bloomberg’s ad.
The Daily Wire highlighted Bloomberg’s views on guns in an extensive profile piece on him last September:
Bloomberg’s anti-gun advocacy is perhaps the single most defining issue of his recent private citizen activism — and perhaps the single most defining issue of his 2020 presidential bid. He is very closely affiliated with and has helped fund Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action, which are both groups deeply hostile to Second Amendment rights. He also co-founded Mayors Against Illegal Guns while he was mayor of New York City. Bloomberg supports “universal” background checks, which often serve as a rhetorical euphemism for the government serving as an intermediary in all private firearms transfers. Bloomberg believes that every gun owner should need a permit before making a gun purchase. He supports a ban on the undefinable sub-class of firearms referred to as so-called “assault weapons” — a line of thought that, if taken to its logical conclusion, could lead to the banning of all semi-automatic firearms in America.
In addition to promulgating false information about guns, Bloomberg has also repeatedly displayed ignorance on the issue, both on how guns operate and on what gun laws exist.
Bloomberg told Rolling Stone in 2014 that he did not know whether a minor was allowed to own a rifle, and later claimed that anyone who owns a gun is “pretty stupid.”
In a 2012 interview with ABC News, Bloomberg demonstrated that he does not know basics when it comes to guns, including what the difference between a semi-automatic and fully-automatic firearm is.
Democrat presidential candidate billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who spends tens of millions of dollars pushing for extreme gun control laws, demonstrates that he knows literally nothing about firearms.pic.twitter.com/SCjpNdQm6h
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra)
(Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 21 2020, @05:22PM (4 children)
Damn, man! That sounds pretty reasonable, to be honest!!
Oh yeah. We already have the background checks. I did one last summer, actually. I hadn't purchased a new weapon in half of forever, and I was somewhat hesitant to submit to a background check. Aside from being a minor pain in the ass, and wasting a little more than an hour, it wasn't bad. I walked out of the store with a cheap, general purpose little semi-automatic .22 rifle. When one of those idjit candidates starts running their mouths about "universal background checks", keep in mind that WE ALREADY HAVE THAT!!! The idjit candidate who is running his mouth is trying to appeal to the low-information voter. Don't be that low-information voter!
21 to purchase a weapon? Hmmmmm. I might go along with that. I don't like it, but I might go along with that. Of course, hunting age is 13 in most states that I know of. And, I've heard of people taking their pre-teens out hunting. So, the kid can't purchase a weapon, but Mom and Dad can give him one, right? With proper training, and proper restrictions on storage, etc. So, basically, there is little change by changing the purchase age to 21.
Anecdotally, I purchased my first new deer rifle at age 15. I walked into the sporting goods shop, on the town square, downtown New Castle, Pa. I pointed at the Winchester in the rack, told the man I wanted to look at it, and he handed it to me. Check the chamber, work the action a couple times, aimed at a spot on the ceiling, hefted the thing up and down, and counted out the $75 on the sticker. The man put the rifle back in the gunrack, did a sales ticket, and told me that I could have my deer rifle as soon as an adult came back to approve of the purchase. I was a bit miffed, but, no point in arguing. I came back later that afternoon, and walked out of the store with my brand new deer rifle. No background check, beyond having an adult vouch for me, to the satisfaction of the store owner.
Again, I don't much like the age of 21. 18 is legally an adult, in this country, for all purposes other than alcohol, and now guns? Phht. Still, raising the legal age to purchase won't really impact anyone really badly. Mom, Dad, a preacher, or whoever can make the purchase, and they 18, 19, or 20 year old can use the firearm just like it was his. It IS his!
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 21 2020, @05:40PM (1 child)
How about we trade?
Lower the drinking age to 18 and raise the gun age to 21?
All I know is that high-school kids have proven themselves untrustworthy with thes weapons unsupervised. Hunting and stuff with parental supervision seems fine by me.
I inherited my grandpa's .22 when I was 12. My parents taught me how to use it responsibly and I did hunter's safety and all that fun stuff. And when it wasn't in use they kept it in.....well... their closet hehe. Maybe locked up would've been better but you get the gist...
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday February 22 2020, @12:31AM
Lower the drinking age to 18 and raise the gun age to 21?
Great! As long as you raise the driving age to 25... [rochester.edu]
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @08:09PM (1 child)
I'm okay with both the legal age to buy a gun and to buy alcohol being 18. As for background checks, I support them but think the amount of background checking should depend on type of gun you're trying to purchase. Perhaps if you're going to increase the level of scrutiny in background checks, it is done for guns with features that make them more likely to be used in a mass shooting. The level of scrutiny would be greater if you're buying an AR-15 versus a bolt action deer rifle. Or if you're going to raise the legal age for buying guns, do so for guns like the AR-15 but leave it 18 for guns like bolt action deer rifles. There are a wide range of guns, many of which are poor choices for use in mass shootings. It just doesn't make sense why the background checks are the same for all of them. The Clinton-era assault weapons ban defined the term based on guns with two or more features from a list of features that could make the gun more useful in mass shootings. It seems logical that more through background checks could be done just when people purchase those types of guns. And I'd be okay with raising the legal age to 21 just for purchasing just those types of guns. Would that be a reasonable compromise?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 22 2020, @12:20AM
I hope you've read down through all the other comments by now. The weapons most likely to be used in mass shootings are not those "scary" weapons with military-like asthetics, but common pistols. The media commonly mis-identifies the weapon in a mass shooting as an AR style weapon, when the weapon's only resemblance to an AR is that it has a blunt end, and a pointy end.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.