More Liberal tears. Banning assualt weapons & magazines doesn't lower homicide

[2aguy]

I suspect the stupid Liberals will be crying themselves to sleep. Their precious oppressive gun laws that they want doesn't lower killings.

Study: ‘Assault Weapons’ and Magazine Bans Do Not Lower Homicide Rates

A study on state-level gun control laws in the U.S. shows that bans on “high-capacity” magazines and “assault weapons” do not lower homicide rates.


The study was headed by Boston University School of Public Health’s Michael Siegel and another listed study author was Harvard gun control advocate David Hemenway.


The study, The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide and Suicide Deaths in the USA, 1991–2016: a Panel Study, isolated four states to study ten different types of gun control to see if certain gun controls were successful in reducing homicide and/or suicide rates. Via their research, they discovered that “high-capacity” magazine and “assault weapons” bans do not lower homicide rates.

That's because anybody can go outside the state line and buy it elsewhere. The laws banning weapons have to be enacted and enforced nationwide to have any impact at all.

Except...no.......Houston has a gun store on every corner, people can carry their guns everywhere, they are on the border with the Mexican Narco state with Cartel violence just across the border....and Houston has a lower gun murder rate than Chicago....that has zero gun stores and gun ranges.......

And, as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years...our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%....so you are wrong on all counts....

 

[2aguy]

Taking assault weapons and high capacity magazines does not take away your right to bear arms.

yes it does. Shut the fuck up.

.

You still have revolvers, shot guns, bolt action and lever action rifles. Are these not arms?

Already rulled on in the Heller Supreme Court decision with follow up decisions in Friedman v Highland Park and Caetano v Massachusetts........the government doesn't get to pick and choose which arms are protected...all bearable arms that are in common use for lawful purposes are protected...

 

[2aguy]

We don't care about mass shootings in this country.

But you stupid Liberals sure as hell care about taking away our Constitutional rights, even when the studies prove that it doesn't do anything to curtail crime.

Wrong.

It's conservatives who are stupid; the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of such bans - no rights are being "taken away."

Yes...they did, in Heller, Caetano, and Scalia wrote specifically on this in Friedman v Highland Park...but thanks for not knowing the law...

 

[2aguy]

The point of banning assault weapons is to deal with MASS SHOOTINGS.
'
And we had a ten year ban and it did just that

The number killed sure has increased in recent years. Each new worst mass killing is with rifles with high capacity magazines.

Wrong.....the worst was Vegas, 58 killed.....rifles....the next worse was Virginia Tech....pistols...you are wrong....

Knives kill over 1,500 people every single year, more than all guns combined in mass public shootings each year.

And the worst of all? A muslim in France used a rental truck to kill 86 people and wound 435.....

Rental trucks are the deadliest weapon....far deadlier than rifles or pistols...

 

[2aguy]

The point of banning assault weapons is to deal with MASS SHOOTINGS.
'
And we had a ten year ban and it did just that

The number killed sure has increased in recent years. Each new worst mass killing is with rifles with high capacity magazines.

And still not nearly as large as the worst mass shootings in Europe where they've had all of this stuff banned for decades

Countries with strong gun control rarely have mass shootings. When was the last mass shooting in the UK?

They rarely have mass shootings because their families haven't been destroyed as long as ours have been......that is changing.....

 

[2aguy]

We don't care about mass shootings in this country.

But you stupid Liberals sure as hell care about taking away our Constitutional rights, even when the studies prove that it doesn't do anything to curtail crime.

Taking assault weapons and high capacity magazines does not take away your right to bear arms.

You don't have the right to bear any and all arms, but you can still defend yourself, poke holes in targets and animals and have boyish dun with your beer buddies.

You are confused Moon Bat.

A judge in California said just last week that banning high capacity is a violation of the Constitution.

Banning what the Constitution says can't be infringe is only not infringing in the world of Libtards.

What else you got?

One judge, not the Supreme Court, a ruling subject to appeal, having nothing to do with an AWB.

Conservatives are as ignorant as they are stupid.

Wrong...Scalia, writing after Heller, in Friedman v Highland Park, states that AR-15 rifles, and all weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes are protected......

 

[Cellblock2429]

We don't care about mass shootings in this country.

/——/ The kind of mass shootings we care about is Progs filling mass graves. We can shoot back

 

[2aguy]

We don't care about mass shootings in this country.

But you stupid Liberals sure as hell care about taking away our Constitutional rights, even when the studies prove that it doesn't do anything to curtail crime.

I am pro-2nd Amendment. But this is another thing...we don't care about mass shootings in this country.

We care about them but not enough to curtail the Constitutional rights of 330,000,000 Americans.

Not when "mass shootings" have a relatively very small percentage of the crimes committed.

The great majority of gun crimes in this country are committed by druggies, gang bangers and street thugs mostly located in the Democrat voting big city shitholes.

Banning a rural Georgia farm family or somebody living in the suburbs of Tampa from having high capacity magazines or an AR 15 will do nothing to stop the vast majority of gun crimes in this country.

Having high capacity magazines only benefits mass killers.

Wrong...as the Judge in California points out...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...JieJ6BMiBtRS0jdYT2id4OKm6suWAzGqo1V9eoe_wL9aA

When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen’s home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe.

When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe.

Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today’s litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California’s ban covers the entire state at all times.

 

[2aguy]

The point of banning assault weapons is to deal with MASS SHOOTINGS.
'
And we had a ten year ban and it did just that

The number killed sure has increased in recent years. Each new worst mass killing is with rifles with high capacity magazines.

And still not nearly as large as the worst mass shootings in Europe where they've had all of this stuff banned for decades

Countries with strong gun control rarely have mass shootings. When was the last mass shooting in the UK?

But they still occur nonetheless. France has had multiple mass shootings over the last few years, including one that killed over 130 people. Norway had a mass shooting in which over 70 people were killed. China had an incident a few years ago at a train station where over 100 people were murders by killers brandishing machetes.

And as far as the UK, while they may not qualify as mass shootings, they've seen an uptick in gun crime and general violence overall in the past couple of years.

Bad people will find a way. You can't safety proof society no matter how hard you try. You only make it easier for people to be victims.

Gun used in Norway was a semi auto rifle with high capacity magazines. They happen rarely in countries with strong gun control.

Our homicide rate is about 4x higher than the UK...

Britain almost had 4 in the last few years, and they were only stopped by dumb luck, since the killers had the guns or access to the guns or were actually at the scene of the upcoming shooting......an escalation...getting worse...

 

[Nosmo King]

Taking assault weapons and high capacity magazines does not take away your right to bear arms.

yes it does. Shut the fuck up.

.

You still have revolvers, shot guns, bolt action and lever action rifles. Are these not arms?

Already rulled on in the Heller Supreme Court decision with follow up decisions in Friedman v Highland Park and Caetano v Massachusetts........the government doesn't get to pick and choose which arms are protected...all bearable arms that are in common use for lawful purposes are protected...

Where's your grenade launcher? Your mortar? Your claymore mines? Your .50 caliber machine gun?

Are these not arms?

 

[2aguy]

That Vegas mass shooter sure would have had a lot of trouble firing so many rounds with small
magazines...

And how many times has there been a Vegas mass shooter? Once in 240 years.

I guess we should ban all air travel since one time in American history four planes killed 3,000 of us in one day.

Actually mass shootings are happening with greater frequency

No....they aren't, they are about the same as they always were......

 

[2aguy]

Taking assault weapons and high capacity magazines does not take away your right to bear arms.

yes it does. Shut the fuck up.

.

You still have revolvers, shot guns, bolt action and lever action rifles. Are these not arms?

Already rulled on in the Heller Supreme Court decision with follow up decisions in Friedman v Highland Park and Caetano v Massachusetts........the government doesn't get to pick and choose which arms are protected...all bearable arms that are in common use for lawful purposes are protected...

Where's your grenade launcher? Your mortar? Your claymore mines? Your .50 caliber machine gun?

Are these not arms?

As Scalia stated, they are not in common use for lawful purposes.........and area effect weapons would be classified as dangerous and unusual.......

 

[2aguy]

The communist shit twinkle-toed cocksuckers want us defenseless when they start their revolution.

It will never happen as long as we have guns. We may take preemptive measures and execute every last motherfucking commie on earth.

That is a righteous endeavor.

But, we still need to get back our right to machine guns. That will be soon.

.

Mass killers appreciate your support.

Armed civilians who have their legal guns with them during mass public shootings are 94% effective at stopping the shooters and/or limiting the deaths and injuries.......the mass shooters thank you for gun free zones...which makes their attacks much safer for them.....and deadly for the unarmed victims.

 

[Nosmo King]

Taking assault weapons and high capacity magazines does not take away your right to bear arms.

yes it does. Shut the fuck up.

.

You still have revolvers, shot guns, bolt action and lever action rifles. Are these not arms?

Already rulled on in the Heller Supreme Court decision with follow up decisions in Friedman v Highland Park and Caetano v Massachusetts........the government doesn't get to pick and choose which arms are protected...all bearable arms that are in common use for lawful purposes are protected...

Where's your grenade launcher? Your mortar? Your claymore mines? Your .50 caliber machine gun?

Are these not arms?

As Scalia stated, they are not in common use for lawful purposes.........and area effect weapons would be classified as dangerous and unusual.......

Would you prefer to bear such arms?

 

[2aguy]

yes it does. Shut the fuck up.

.

You still have revolvers, shot guns, bolt action and lever action rifles. Are these not arms?

Already rulled on in the Heller Supreme Court decision with follow up decisions in Friedman v Highland Park and Caetano v Massachusetts........the government doesn't get to pick and choose which arms are protected...all bearable arms that are in common use for lawful purposes are protected...

Where's your grenade launcher? Your mortar? Your claymore mines? Your .50 caliber machine gun?

Are these not arms?

As Scalia stated, they are not in common use for lawful purposes.........and area effect weapons would be classified as dangerous and unusual.......

Would you prefer to bear such arms?

In what situation?

 

[miketx]

We don't care about mass shootings in this country.

But you stupid Liberals sure as hell care about taking away our Constitutional rights, even when the studies prove that it doesn't do anything to curtail crime.

Taking assault weapons and high capacity magazines does not take away your right to bear arms.

You don't have the right to bear any and all arms, but you can still defend yourself, poke holes in targets and animals and have boyish dun with your beer buddies.

You are a liar. The right in in the BoR's traitor. Shall not be infringed.

 

[Nosmo King]

You still have revolvers, shot guns, bolt action and lever action rifles. Are these not arms?

Already rulled on in the Heller Supreme Court decision with follow up decisions in Friedman v Highland Park and Caetano v Massachusetts........the government doesn't get to pick and choose which arms are protected...all bearable arms that are in common use for lawful purposes are protected...

Where's your grenade launcher? Your mortar? Your claymore mines? Your .50 caliber machine gun?

Are these not arms?

As Scalia stated, they are not in common use for lawful purposes.........and area effect weapons would be classified as dangerous and unusual.......

Would you prefer to bear such arms?

In what situation?

I was not raised in a fun owning home. My knowledge of fun culture comes second hand at best. I don't know why or for what purpose one must feel the necessity to be armed.

Why do you have guns, and what would you do with a grenade launcher?

 

[Nosmo King]

We don't care about mass shootings in this country.

But you stupid Liberals sure as hell care about taking away our Constitutional rights, even when the studies prove that it doesn't do anything to curtail crime.

Taking assault weapons and high capacity magazines does not take away your right to bear arms.

You don't have the right to bear any and all arms, but you can still defend yourself, poke holes in targets and animals and have boyish dun with your beer buddies.

You are a liar. The right in in the BoR's traitor. Shall not be infringed.

It seems there are hundreds, if not thousands of choices of arms to bear. Why is a semi-automatic with a high capacity clip so bloody necessary? Could you not defend your property with a shot gun or revolver?

 

[Flash]

I suspect the stupid Liberals will be crying themselves to sleep. Their precious oppressive gun laws that they want doesn't lower killings.

Study: ‘Assault Weapons’ and Magazine Bans Do Not Lower Homicide Rates

A study on state-level gun control laws in the U.S. shows that bans on “high-capacity” magazines and “assault weapons” do not lower homicide rates.


The study was headed by Boston University School of Public Health’s Michael Siegel and another listed study author was Harvard gun control advocate David Hemenway.


The study, The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide and Suicide Deaths in the USA, 1991–2016: a Panel Study, isolated four states to study ten different types of gun control to see if certain gun controls were successful in reducing homicide and/or suicide rates. Via their research, they discovered that “high-capacity” magazine and “assault weapons” bans do not lower homicide rates.

That's because anybody can go outside the state line and buy it elsewhere. The laws banning weapons have to be enacted and enforced nationwide to have any impact at all.

So you live in a country that has a Bill of Rights that says very clearly the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and assholes like you want to infringe upon the rights even when the studies say that infringement doesn't stop abuse?

Typical Libtard stupidity.

Go to New Zealand. They imposed a national ban on firearms just like you assholes want to do here. You will be real safe there. You can also kiss the ass of the Muslim and have more socialism. A Moon Bat's paradise.

 

[2aguy]

Already rulled on in the Heller Supreme Court decision with follow up decisions in Friedman v Highland Park and Caetano v Massachusetts........the government doesn't get to pick and choose which arms are protected...all bearable arms that are in common use for lawful purposes are protected...

Where's your grenade launcher? Your mortar? Your claymore mines? Your .50 caliber machine gun?

Are these not arms?

As Scalia stated, they are not in common use for lawful purposes.........and area effect weapons would be classified as dangerous and unusual.......

Would you prefer to bear such arms?

In what situation?

I was not raised in a fun owning home. My knowledge of fun culture comes second hand at best. I don't know why or for what purpose one must feel the necessity to be armed.

Why do you have guns, and what would you do with a grenade launcher?

Every day Americans are raped, robbed and murdered...do I think it will happen to me? No.....but neither did the people who were raped, robbed or murdered.

A grenade launcher? Me, I wouldn't need it until something really bad happened in this country....we aren't close to being at that point yet....but Germany went from gun control to mass murder in 20 years.....