Welcome to MGO's Internet Discussion Forums…Please Consider Becoming a Dues-Paying Member of the ORG…Click >>>>>HERE<<<<< for more info…………****DONATIONS**** can also be made toward MGO's Legal Defense Fund and/or MGO's Forums >>>>>HERE<<<<<

Firearms Legal Protection

Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Mask free in the gunshine state!
    Posts
    20,586

    No Evidence ‘Assault Weapon’ Bans Reduce Mass Shootings

    Johns Hopkins Study: No Evidence ‘Assault Weapon’ Bans Reduce Mass Shootings


    Mario Tama/Getty

    By AWR Hawkins
    Breitbart
    February 18th. 2020

    A study released by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health declares there is no evidence “assault weapon” bans lead to a lower “incidence of fatal mass shootings.”

    The push for an “assault weapons” ban is central to the Democrats’ gun control agenda nationally and is front and center for Democrats at the state level in places like Arizona and Virginia.

    According to the Johns Hopkins study, researchers”did not find an independent association between assault weapon bans and the incidence of fatal mass shootings.”

    Researchers did claim licensing requirements like those in Connecticut help reduce the number of mass shootings, but their study omitted the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School in which 26 were killed at the school and another victim was killed in a private home.

    In other words, a study which claims licensing reduces instances of mass shootings omitted one of the most often cited mass shootings in U.S. history, even though that shooting occurred in a licensing state.

    Moreover, John Hopkins’ criteria for licensing laws allowed them to bypass Illinois which, in turn, allowed them to sidestep the never ending gun crime of Chicago.

    But the study was clear there is no evidence tying “assault weapons” to a lower incidence of mass shootings.

  2. #2
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Livingston Co.
    Posts
    19,770
    Any studies show that background checks actually do any good?
    How many people that had background checks & passed still do dumb things with guns & shoot themselves and others?
    How many gun owners that never had a background check have never used a gun to rob or kill anyone?

  3. #3
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    1,493
    Yeah, and there's no evidence Liz Warren is part American Indian, but she is. It's all about what you can get the weak minded to believe.

  4. #4
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Merrill
    Posts
    4,930
    Quote Originally Posted by fatskater View Post
    Yeah, and there's no evidence Liz Warren is part American Indian, but she is. It's all about what you can get the weak minded to believe.
    A DNA test proved she might be a tiny bit Mexican. That's close enough to run with.

  5. #5
    MGO Member kryl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    SE Oakland County
    Posts
    1,652
    Isn’t a DNA test saying that Mexican is a race like saying American or Canadian is a race?

  6. #6
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Merrill
    Posts
    4,930
    Quote Originally Posted by kryl View Post
    Isn’t a DNA test saying that Mexican is a race like saying American or Canadian is a race?
    I think more specifically it was native Mexican, not just "Mexican"

  7. #7
    MGO Member kryl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    SE Oakland County
    Posts
    1,652
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfy View Post
    I think more specifically it was native Mexican, not just "Mexican"
    I see. Like Mayan or Aztec then? Maybe Apache?

  8. #8
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    22,562
    Quote Originally Posted by kryl View Post
    I see. Like Mayan or Aztec then? Maybe Apache?
    Or maybe even Hopi, Navajo, Pueblo, or Zuni. There were may different groups that inhabited the southern regions along what is now Mexico.

    But what she had previously claimed was Cherokee. The Cherokee where southeastern tribes. and they got moved by the government to the "Indian Territories" in Oklahoma sometime in the early 1800's.


    Life Member, NRA, Lapeer County Sportsmen's Club Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. Opinions expressed are not representative of any organization to which I may belong, and are solely mine. Any natural person or legal entity reading this post accepts all responsibility for any actions undertaken by that person or entity, based upon what they perceived was contained in this post, and shall hold harmless this poster, his antecedents, and descendants, in perpetuity.

  9. #9
    MGO Member kryl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    SE Oakland County
    Posts
    1,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundballer View Post
    Or maybe even Hopi, Navajo, Pueblo, or Zuni. There were may different groups that inhabited the southern regions along what is now Mexico.

    But what she had previously claimed was Cherokee. The Cherokee where southeastern tribes. and they got moved by the government to the "Indian Territories" in Oklahoma sometime in the early 1800's.
    That figures. Thanks for the information.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
only search Michigan Gun Owners Forums
MGO's Facebook MGO's Twitter