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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @05:45PM (10 children)
So say we all! Fuck off, Runaway! Just quit the clicky-bait NRA talking point propaganda journals!
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 21 2020, @05:57PM (9 children)
NOTE: I am pretty certain that I have never posted an NRA article on SN, or on any other site. I don't very much like the NRA, and I certainly don't like the apparent corruption being exposed inside of the NRA in recent years. I could list a number of things I really don't like about the NRA, but I'll just summarize with, "There's too damned much faggotry going on there!"
There are, literally, dozens of alternate non-profit organizations doing the good work today that the NRA did in decades past. The NRA's failure to do that work is the reason so many of them exist today, and the reason that so many are growing so fast.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @06:28PM (3 children)
Sure, but what about this?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 21 2020, @06:36PM (2 children)
That ain't mine, Buttmunch. If it were, you would link to it.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @06:47PM (1 child)
Cannot, Runaway, you used your real name, and NRA serial number, in the letter. Not gonna dox you, bro!
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 22 2020, @02:03AM
LOL. If it weren't illegal (and, y'know, if you weren't obviously joking) I'd say do it. His opsec is utter shit anyway of course, but still :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @06:46PM (4 children)
I know you hate PC shit, but there really are a lot of ways to insult someone without using homophobic slurs.
So, who is your current top candidate for 2020?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 21 2020, @07:11PM (3 children)
My top candidate? I think it was Tulsi Gabbard. Of the remaining crowd, probably Bernie. But, "THE" top candidate is Trump. The dems are doing all they can to ensure that Trump wins again. No way are any of the D hopefuls going to beat the incumbent. The single most likely to beat Trump would be Bernie, and one of the females - Pocahontas, or Gabbard. That other whats-her-name won't do him any good.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @07:23PM (2 children)
So you will vote Sanders, Warren, or Gabbard over Trump? The incumbent is often heavily favored, but I want you to be very clear about whether you will vote for Trump. Saying he is THE top candidate makes things a little uncertain, and I think it is also incorrect. He barely won 2016 against HRC and his first term did him no favors.
Do I have it correct? You will vote for Sanders/Warren/Gabbard over Trump?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 22 2020, @12:23AM (1 child)
I didn't vote for Trump the first time, LOL! I'm not going to vote for him this time, either. If Gabbard is on a ticket, I'll probably vote for her. If Gabbard is not in the mix, I'll probably do what I did last election. Vote 3rd party. Libertarian party being the closest to getting federal funding just like the D's and R's, they are the party to vote for.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Booga1 on Saturday February 22 2020, @12:41PM
I am of similar opinion. My state hasn't supported anything but Democrats in almost 40 years and isn't likely to change any time soon. So it doesn't really matter if I vote Republican or Democrat. My choice is to vote for the third party candidate that pushes for ideals I would like to see adopted, this way I can at least have a hope of getting the attention of the Democrats.
A lot of people say voting third party is throwing your vote away. I don't believe that is true at all. Throwing your vote in with the sea of other votes for the most popular candidate means your vote reaffirms that party's positions. If you want something to change, you need to tell them someone else got that vote.