SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Runaway1956 (2926)
(email not shown publicly)
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
Howard wrote “that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
Journal of Runaway1956 (2926)
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: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 21 2020, @04:37PM (5 children)
Remember all the mass shootings that happened back in the 90's when we had an assault weapons ban.
Nope, me neither!
There is some evidence it had an effect on mass shootings, but it's a bit mixed. [wikipedia.org]
I don't actually support an assault weapons ban. I think the purchase age should be raised to 21 for high capacity high power rifles and there should be background checks.
(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.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @04:43PM (15 children)
Too lazy to grab the link myself because people are seriously getting post-fact now a days. But I can give the cliff notes. Weapon of choice for mass shootings? Pistols. The vast majority of mass shootings are done using cheap little pistols. The "assault rifle" scare is nothing but political propaganda. Of all deaths per year something like 300 are attributable to rifles - in the ballpark of 9000% more due to pistols.
I think this issue is designed to be intentionally decisive because they know by focusing on rifles they (1) scare people who know nothing about guns or stats and (2) target people are disproportionately lawful owners. Makes idiots think there's a rifle crime spree going on, and makes people in the know think the government is conspiring to take away arms used in, statistically, the most lawful fashion there is.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 21 2020, @04:54PM (11 children)
This is true, 81% of mass shootings since 2009 used a handgun
However, when an 'assault rifle' is used six times as many people end up getting shot.
Mass Shootings in America - 2009 to 2020 [everytownresearch.org] (I chose this time period specifically because it's after the assault weapons ban expired)
The true culprit behind the increase in victims is the high capacity magazine, and not the fact that it's an assault rifle. When pistols with a high capacity are used the victim count goes up as well.
And that's actually the point the Bloomberg study is trying to make. If we regulate the high capacity magazines we don't need to ban assault rifles.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @05:16PM (6 children)
That site you linked to is juking their stats, HARD. They define a mass shooting as being 4+ people being shot *AND KILLED*. It's not a mass shooting if 20 people are shot and 3 are killed...? Come on. They're using that specific data point to create lies by cherry picking a sample, instead of actually doing statistics. They're also playing similarly fast and loose with their categories. The Colorado movie theater shooter [wikipedia.org] showed "dangerous warning signs"? What exactly were they? Being weird? He had been working on his phd and had even received a grant from the National Institute of Health, all his weapons were purchased legally and at dealers so he had to pass background checks, he had 0 past criminal history, etc.
Here [fbi.gov] are the FBI crime tables. They provide a mostly bias free survey of what gun crime in the US looks like.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 21 2020, @05:36PM (1 child)
The Colorado movie theater shooter did trigger some warnings.
1. His psychologist remarked on his instability, and if memory serves correctly, commented on that fact to some authority official - which was ignored.
2. He was prescribed anti-depressants and other drugs - always a warning sign.
3. "Weird" isn't a crime. I suspect that 75% or more of Soylentils are weird in at least a couple of ways. I mean, come on, man - Aristarchus, Buzzard, 'Zumi, me, and all of those IRC users on #soylent who plot global domination? Yeah, 75% or more. But "weird" is something of a warning signal.
Virtually all of the mass shooters have displayed warning signs, which were ignored by people in authority, even when people went to the trouble of reporting them. The Las Vegas shooter seems to have come out of nowhere, but the Cruz kid in Florida had been reported to the FBI, FFS!! Boston bombers had been reported to the FBI by no less than Russia's intel community!
"Hey, Bob, you have a couple terrorists up in Boston, who went for terror training in our of our backwoods districts."
"Well, that's really interesting, Ivan. But, we're not going to take your word for it, because we don't trust Russians!"
A few months later, KABOOM!! KABOOM!!
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 21 2020, @06:49PM
6 Red Flags That Foreshadowed The Aurora Tragedy [businessinsider.com]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 21 2020, @05:52PM (3 children)
There's no official definition of a mass shooting so for tracking trends you do need to define the term in some objective manner. 4+ people dead seems pretty reasonable to me. The FBI defines a mass killing as 3+ people dead.
Seems like if they wanted to play games they'd use 3+ so it'd increase the numbers...
If that's such a great link why don't you use it to tell us what percentage of mass shootings used rifles? Be sure to define the term mass shooting first, though!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @08:51PM
Different AC but I find it humorous that this started started off by mentioning with the statistics, but apparently not knowing what they were. The oldest official measure of these sorts of events is "mass killings," which was originally defined as the killing of 4+ until the IAVCA redefined it in 2012 as 3+ killings. In order to keep statistics consistent and comparable, most groups still use the 4+ definition in research by looking at the report for actual victims for flagged "mass killings."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 22 2020, @02:16PM
Do you not see what you did? They did it intentionally, I'm not sure if you did. You just swapped from mass shooting, which is what everybody discusses, the "mass killings." They did the 4+ KILLED (instead of shot) to juke their stats. It's surprisingly hard to kill people, even with a gun. You need to be trained, proficient, and obviously very determined. So they are intentionally biasing their sample to a certain group of people, instead of just looking at mass shootings.
The Uniform Crime Reports include incidents of multiple homicide. For instance in 2017 there were a total of 1,733 [fbi.gov] multiple homicides. Considering there were a total of 403 homicides where a rifle was used, it's safe to say that rifles make up a negligible chunk. To give that figure some context, 1,591 people were killed with pointy things, 467 were killed with blunt things, and 696 people were beat to death with hands/fist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 22 2020, @02:25PM
To put this another way, imagine you banned 100% of rifles and you cast a magic spell to make them all disappear.
You would notice literally ZERO change in weapon homicides per year. The 300-400 killed by rifles per year is literally less (far less) than the normal statistical swings in pistol homicides. By contrast you would have just dealt a crippling blow primarily to the millions of people that use rifles for hunting, collecting, marksmanship, and self defense.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @06:57PM (2 children)
All rifles, including obsolete wooden stock ones, killed less than 300 last year.
This is less than fists and feet, less than sharp objects like knives, and less than doctors with bad handwriting.
Doctors with bad handwriting killed about 7000 last year. If we want to save lives, it'd be better to focus on something that matters.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday February 22 2020, @12:31PM (1 child)
Long before I knew her a my wife's birth-control prescription was misread by a pharmacist as a prescription for a fertility drug. Fortunately no pregnancy.
Subsequently she became a doctor.
She took a calligraphy course. But she still typed her prescriptions.
-- hendrik
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday February 22 2020, @09:34PM
Probably why even the schools gave up on cursive writing.
Some of those prescriptions were real pieces of art. Picasso and Calder could never compare.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Sunday February 23 2020, @04:10PM
I was shooting IPSC during the high capacity magazine ban. One of the shooters put it like this.
The difference it makes is [releases drop-free mag from gun while grabbing replacement from belt and slapping it in place, in ~0.5sec] that much.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @04:59PM (2 children)
The liberal equivalent of abortion wedge issue.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 21 2020, @05:03PM (1 child)
It gets a big "meh" from a lot of us moderates....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @07:13PM
Exactly, which is why Runaway should stop freaking out! Guns aren't going anywhere, but the MSM sure likes to squawk about it.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @04:45PM (17 children)
You gonna stop promoting these shitty corporate "democrats" and just realize Sanders is the best hope for the US having a promising future?
With how Trump has steadily tested the waters for what levels of dictatorship he can get away with, and with a corrupt AG controlling the DOJ we are in a very dangerous time. The GOP has intentionally left our elections insecure, etc. etc. etc.
You should be way more pissed off at the GOP right now than anything else. Vote Sanders 2020, the Independent Democrat not beholden to corporate interests. No one is coming for your guns, and you have way more liberal support for the 2nd amendment than you think.
(Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 21 2020, @05:06PM (12 children)
Yeah Runaway! Stop supporting Democrats so much!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 21 2020, @05:38PM (11 children)
OK, if you and AC both say so.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(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.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 21 2020, @06:14PM (3 children)
Hey now, I like Sanders but let's not lie about his policies.
He supports an assault weapons ban and a 3d printed gun ban. [berniesanders.com]
I'm still going to vote for him. Because I'm not a child who thinks that everyone who doesn't agree with me 100% is capital-E Evil.
But being honest is how we differentiate ourselves from the Trumpers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 21 2020, @06:28PM (2 children)
I can see how that was misleading, I didn't mean to imply gun control isn't a part of his platform, which is why I said there are many liberal 2A supporters. There is very little chance of Sanders implementing either of those policies.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 21 2020, @06:39PM (1 child)
Ah, thanks for the clarification, I definitely agree with that.
And, frankly, I'm supporting candidates for Congress that are going to make it more difficult for him to achieve those policies.
So long as we have a few checks and balances left in 2021 we'll be fine!
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday February 22 2020, @01:19AM
There's no way we're going to get someone that has no bad policies, because they all have bad policies.
The traditional american coping device is to elect a president of one party, and a congress of a different party. This isn't without danger - it can result in the worst of both worlds rather than the best - but it seems to be the only hope we have. Let Sanders set the general tone, but make him work with a congress that isn't willing to give up the second amendment.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday February 21 2020, @06:33PM (4 children)
Please, resident ammosexuals, explain to us again the difference between automatic, semi-automatic, kinetic and gas-piston, linear accelerated, matchlock, rimfire, pneumatic, and nerf guns. Thank you. May your weapon assault you!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 21 2020, @06:41PM (1 child)
So, all in one go, you want to compare apples and oranges, to pears and persimmons, to celery and asparagus? Choose one pair, and maybe someone will help you to understand. Then, maybe another pair.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 22 2020, @12:42AM
Once again proving, Runaway don't do sarcasm. It flies right over his head.
Drax the Runaway. Not quite the same ring to it.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 21 2020, @06:47PM (1 child)
One squeeze, lotsa bullets.
One squeeze, one bullet.
That better be a fucking trebuchet
railgun
missing fingers and eyeballs
hemorrhoids
the reason OSHA doesn't let you clean your clothes with the air hose
what I'm packing
You're welcome.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday February 22 2020, @12:40AM
Do you have a CC permit for that nerf gun, or do you wear it outside your pants, for all the world to see"? [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday February 21 2020, @07:03PM (1 child)
I'll try to stay out of the crossfire.
But when the exterminator comes, you won't see the *whites of their eyes*. You will simply cease to exist in this universe.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 22 2020, @08:39AM
That is why Second Amendment proponents need to argue more for their right to Stinger and Patriot missiles. If they really wanted to quell your rebellion, they're going to do it with some good ol' fashioned Shock and Awe.