Joe Biden had an arsenal of guns in his house as of 2018

[Nostra]

meaner gene assault weapon?

 

[M14 Shooter]

A 2019 DiMaggio et al. study looked at mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 and found that mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period, and that the ban was associated with a 0.1% reduction in total firearm homicide fatalities due to the reduction in mass-shootings' contribution to total homicides.[29]

Fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the 1994 AWB and the statistics you claim.
Chump.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Balogna. Cuts mass shootings. and overall rates slowly.

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.
Chump.

 

[francoHFW]

You tell me. You are the one obsessed with a militia.

And yes, the SC has ruled that I am correct and you are full of shit.

Regulation is not a problem, says supreme court zzzzzzzz

 

[francoHFW]

Fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc
You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the 1994 AWB and the statistics you claim.
Chump.

Brainwashed dupe...A 2019 DiMaggio et al. study looked at mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 and found that mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period, and that the ban was associated with a 0.1% reduction in total firearm homicide fatalities due to the reduction in mass-shootings' contribution to total homicides.[29]

 

[M14 Shooter]

So where is this well regulated militia anyway?

The Supreme Court has already ruled on all this - and, 2 decades ago, rendered your question meaningless.
Chump.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Regulation is not a problem, says supreme court

Unnecessary and ineffective regulations, are.
Says the Supreme Court.
Chump.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Brainwashed dupe...A 2019 DiMaggio et al. study looked at mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 and found that mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period, and that the ban was associated with a 0.1% reduction in total firearm homicide fatalities due to the reduction in mass-shootings' contribution to total homicides.[29]

It does not matter how many times you repeat your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy - it remains a post hoc fallacy.
You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the 1994 AWB and the statistics you claim.
Chump.

 

[BluesLegend]

People people people, Democrats are total phonies.

 

[Nostra]

Crime was already going down, and a number of factors contributed to that decline..

The Complex History of the Controversial 1994 Crime Bill​

A political compromise, the crime bill contributed to both the crime decline and mass incarceration. But not in the way that people might think.
Like most political compromises, the crime bill did some good and some bad. It contributed to both the crime decline and mass incarceration. But not in the way that people might think.

First, the good: Though the crime bill was not responsible for the entire drop in crime, it likely helped — not by locking people up, but by putting more cops on the street, studies show. It provided funding for 100,000 new police officers and $14 billion in grants for community-oriented policing, for example. From 1990 to 1999, the number of police officers rose 28 percent, from 699,000 to 899,000, partly funded by the crime bill.

Research also indicates smarter policing tactics, like the ones funded by the bill, and social and economic factors — like an aging population and decreased alcohol consumption — played a role in the crime decline as well.

Crime had already started declining before the bill passed. From 1991 to 1994, crime dropped 10 percent and violence decreased by 5 percent. From 1994 to 2000, crime fell an additional 23 percent, with violent crime dropping by almost 30 percent. All of the above contributed to the fall.

Then there’s the bad: Although incarceration was already rising steadily before the crime bill, several of its provisions helped increase incarceration even further. Nevertheless, this increase had little impact on America’s subsequent drop in crime.

From 1970 to 1994, the rate of imprisonment exploded 400 percent, to 387 per 100,000 people. From 1994 to 2009, imprisonment continued to rise, doubling.

The crime bill contributed to this increase in incarceration. First, it banned 19 types of semiautomatic assault weapons, authorized the death penalty for dozens of existing and new federal crimes, and instituted a federal “three strikes and you’re out” provision.

But those facets were far less pernicious than how the crime bill influenced states to increase their prison rolls. The bill granted states $12.5 billion to build prisons if they passed “truth-in-sentencing” (TIS) laws, which required inmates to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences.

A 2002 Urban Institute study found that between 1995 and 1999, nine states adopted TIS laws for the first time, and another 21 states changed their TIS laws to comply with the crime bill’s requirements and then apply for funding. By 1999, a total of 42 states had such laws on the books, sustaining an increase in imprisonment.

The crime bill, however, was just the most high-profile legislation to increase the number of people behind bars. On their own, states passed three-strikes laws, enacted mandatory minimums, eliminated parole, and removed judicial discretion in sentencing. By dangling bonus dollars, the crime bill encouraged states to remain on their tough-on-crime course.

The Complex History of the Controversial 1994 Crime Bill

A political compromise, the crime bill contributed to both the crime decline and mass incarceration. But not in the way that people might think.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Complex History of the Controversial 1994 Crime Bill​

Proof the 1994 AWB, while in effect or after its sunset, had no effect on shootings, mass or otherwise:

 

[francoHFW]

Crime was already going down, and a number of factors contributed to that decline..

The Complex History of the Controversial 1994 Crime Bill​

A political compromise, the crime bill contributed to both the crime decline and mass incarceration. But not in the way that people might think.
Like most political compromises, the crime bill did some good and some bad. It contributed to both the crime decline and mass incarceration. But not in the way that people might think.

First, the good: Though the crime bill was not responsible for the entire drop in crime, it likely helped — not by locking people up, but by putting more cops on the street, studies show. It provided funding for 100,000 new police officers and $14 billion in grants for community-oriented policing, for example. From 1990 to 1999, the number of police officers rose 28 percent, from 699,000 to 899,000, partly funded by the crime bill.

Research also indicates smarter policing tactics, like the ones funded by the bill, and social and economic factors — like an aging population and decreased alcohol consumption — played a role in the crime decline as well.

Crime had already started declining before the bill passed. From 1991 to 1994, crime dropped 10 percent and violence decreased by 5 percent. From 1994 to 2000, crime fell an additional 23 percent, with violent crime dropping by almost 30 percent. All of the above contributed to the fall.

Then there’s the bad: Although incarceration was already rising steadily before the crime bill, several of its provisions helped increase incarceration even further. Nevertheless, this increase had little impact on America’s subsequent drop in crime.

From 1970 to 1994, the rate of imprisonment exploded 400 percent, to 387 per 100,000 people. From 1994 to 2009, imprisonment continued to rise, doubling.

The crime bill contributed to this increase in incarceration. First, it banned 19 types of semiautomatic assault weapons, authorized the death penalty for dozens of existing and new federal crimes, and instituted a federal “three strikes and you’re out” provision.

But those facets were far less pernicious than how the crime bill influenced states to increase their prison rolls. The bill granted states $12.5 billion to build prisons if they passed “truth-in-sentencing” (TIS) laws, which required inmates to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences.

A 2002 Urban Institute study found that between 1995 and 1999, nine states adopted TIS laws for the first time, and another 21 states changed their TIS laws to comply with the crime bill’s requirements and then apply for funding. By 1999, a total of 42 states had such laws on the books, sustaining an increase in imprisonment.

The crime bill, however, was just the most high-profile legislation to increase the number of people behind bars. On their own, states passed three-strikes laws, enacted mandatory minimums, eliminated parole, and removed judicial discretion in sentencing. By dangling bonus dollars, the crime bill encouraged states to remain on their tough-on-crime course.

The Complex History of the Controversial 1994 Crime Bill

A political compromise, the crime bill contributed to both the crime decline and mass incarceration. But not in the way that people might think.

www.brennancenter.org

The ban an assault weapons was all about mass shootings which were cut by 70%. Do you need a diagram for God's sake?

A 2019 DiMaggio et al. study looked at mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 and found that mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period, and that the ban was associated with a 0.1% reduction in total firearm homicide fatalities due to the reduction in mass-shootings' contribution to total homicides.[29]

 

[Batcat]

Why does anyone need five guns? Who is he planning to kill?

Different firearms are used for different purposes.

You don’t normally go hunting a moose with a .22 rifle but you might hunt squirrels. You don’t easily conceal a rifle in your pants but a light weight .38 snub nosed revolver can be an excellent concealed carry firearm for legitimate self defense.

A 12 gauge double barreled coach gun may be a poor choice for hunting rabbit but an excelled choose for home defense.

Plus many shooters have no plans to ever kill anything. They just merely enjoy target shooting and punching holes in paper. Some enjoy competing against others in a large variety of shooting sports most of which require specially designed firearms to complete successfully.

Sone shooters are also collectors who buy firearms as an investment. Such firearms are normally never shot to preserve their value.

For example here is an example of a small collection of firearms.

.22 cal rifle

.308 cal rifle

12 gauge coach gun

.22 caliber pistol

.38 snub nosed revolver for concealed carry

9mm pistol

Colt Commemorative collectors’ firearm

 

[Nostra]

The ban an assault weapons was all about mass shootings which were cut by 70%. Do you need a diagram for God's sake?

A 2019 DiMaggio et al. study looked at mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 and found that mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period, and that the ban was associated with a 0.1% reduction in total firearm homicide fatalities due to the reduction in mass-shootings' contribution to total homicides.[29]

They never connect the two with any data. My link goes into detail on the several variables having to do with the overall drop in crime during that period, not just mass shooting fatalities.

 

[francoHFW]

They never connect the two with any data. My link goes into detail on the several variables having to do with the overall drop in crime during that period, not just mass shooting fatalities.

Mass shooters are nuts and only do gun stores...Military style seems to set them off too....Overall crime didn't go down 70%...

 

[francoHFW]

They never connect the two with any data. My link goes into detail on the several variables having to do with the overall drop in crime during that period, not just mass shooting fatalities.

The ban is all about mass shootings. Background checks are for overall rates...

 

[otto105]

Wow! The First Crackhead's laptop continues to spill interesting secrets.

This is a text message exchange between Hunter and his dead brother's wife, who he was banging at the time. She's the one who disposed of Hunter's illegal handgun in a public trash can near an elementary school, from which it disappeared and has never been found.

This is the white-trashiest family in America.

LOL

What kind of guns were they?

 

[basquebromance]

"Joe Biden had an arsenal of guns in his house as of 2018"

so?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The ban an assault weapons was all about mass shootings which were cut by 70%. Do you need a diagram for God's sake?
A 2019 DiMaggio et al. study looked at mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 and found that mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period, and that the ban was associated with a 0.1% reduction in total firearm homicide fatalities due to the reduction in mass-shootings' contribution to total homicides.[29]

It does not matter how many times you repeat your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy - it remains a post hoc fallacy.
You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the 1994 AWB and the statistics you claim.
Chump.

 

[Nostra]

The ban is all about mass shootings. Background checks are for overall rates...

Explain how a background check at a guns store would cause burglaries, rapes, etc to drop.

This should be good.