testtest

Johns Hopkins Study Finds No Evidence that “Assault Weapons” Bans Reduce Mass Shootings

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tactical-Reviews

Tactical-Reviews

Master Class
Founding Member
sk04z.jpg


;)

Bloomberg will immediately withdraw funding for this School of Public Health.
 
But but but the leaders of the party say that banning those scary black guns that hold 50 clips will ensure that no one will ever die from a firearm again.

I have the winning lottery numbers that I would like to sell to the people who believe that.
 
Last edited:
Tactical-Reviews said:
But wait, this can't be right.

bongino.com

Johns Hopkins Study Finds No Evidence that "Assault Weapons" Bans Reduce Mass Shootings – Dan Bongino

A recent study by Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health found no evidence that an “assault weapon” ban would reduce mass shootings. Breitbart points out that the study “did not find an independent association between assault weapon bans and the incidence of fatal mass shootings.”...
bongino.com bongino.com
Click to expand...
People have a tendency to do things based on “feels over reals,” as I like to say. I am a clinical pharmacist at a large hospital health network. I round and see patients with the physicians and residents, where I then recommend medications and/or labs/imaging based on their diagnosis. In my experience, people like to do things (prescribe medications) that makes them personally “feel” better, but is not based on actual “real” evidence. I joke with the residents and ask them why they want to give this patient a certain medication, and when they don’t have evidence to back it up, I say: “ahh, feels over reals, huh?” This same concept applies to people who propose certain firearm restrictions/laws. I will always listen to to an argument on either side of the fence, whether it is firearms or medicine, but only if you have evidence to back it up. I am not closed minded, but I won’t waste my time on non-sense arguments.
 
Last edited:
LicensedToPill said:
People have a tendency to do things based on “feels over reals,” as I like to say. I am a clinical pharmacist at a large hospital health network. I round and see patients with the physicians and residents, where I then recommend medications and/or labs/imaging based on their diagnosis. In my experience, people like to do things (prescribe medications) that makes them personally “feel” better, but is not based on actual “real” evidence. I joke with the residents and ask them why they want to give this patient a certain medication, and when they don’t have evidence to back it up, I say: “ahh, feels over reals, huh?” This same concept applies to people who propose certain firearm restrictions/laws. I will always listen to to an argument on either side of the fence, whether it is firearms or medicine, but only if you have evidence to back it up. I am not closed minded, but I won’t waste my time on non-sense arguments.
Click to expand...
Well said sir.
 
Problem is, the left can’t or won’t read it, if they do, it can’t be correct, it has to be some sort of collusion........
 
BET7 said:
Another article that same the same about the AR15 ban.

www.gunsamerica.com

Bloomberg-Funded Study Finds that 'Assault Weapon' Bans Don’t Stop Mass Shootings

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has found that bans on semi-automatic firearms commonly referred to as “assault weapons” have no effect on fatal mass murders.
www.gunsamerica.com www.gunsamerica.com
Click to expand...
Here comes the spin: Since banning "assault" weapons will have no effect we should ban them all, meaning all guns.

What are the odds someone will see it spun that way? I say it has a 99% chance.
 
Last edited:
The Left has broadened the term "assault" weapons to anything they don't like, besides MSRs.
 
Grifter said:
Here comes the spin: Since banning "assault" weapons will have no effect we should ban them all, meaning all guns.

What are the odds someone will see it spun that way? I say it has a 99% chance.
Click to expand...
I absolutely hate politics. I’m not a fan of arguing politics with people because it never ends well. Everyone always has to be correct in their thoughts and/or opinions. I will be honest with all of you awesome people, I am neither a democrat or republican; I’m actually registered as an independent. I can agree with those on different sides of the fence on different issues. The problem with politics is every argument has to be either all or nothing, no matter how a person truly feels about a topic or matter. You have to defend your party. Compromising, or meeting part way, means you “lost” the battle. This is why things never get accomplished in politics, and gun control will be a never ending cluster. As George Washington once said, “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
 
LicensedToPill said:
I absolutely hate politics. I’m not a fan of arguing politics with people because it never ends well. Everyone always has to be correct in their thoughts and/or opinions. I will be honest with all of you awesome people, I am neither a democrat or republican; I’m actually registered as an independent. I can agree with those on different sides of the fence on different issues. The problem with politics is every argument has to be either all or nothing, no matter how a person truly feels about a topic or matter. You have to defend your party. Compromising, or meeting part way, means you “lost” the battle. This is why things never get accomplished in politics, and gun control will be a never ending cluster. As George Washington once said, “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you sir. We have lost the ability to see the other side. I consider myself a conservative, not a Republican.

I have friends that are liberal, but as much as I try to see their side, I don't see it reciprocated.

I sometimes wonder if people see the world because they have a specific idea of it in their mind and nothing is going to change it.
 
Grifter said:
I completely agree with you sir. We have lost the ability to see the other side. I consider myself a conservative, not a Republican.

I have friends that are liberal, but as much as I try to see their side, I don't see it reciprocated.

I sometimes wonder if people see the world because they have a specific idea of it in their mind and nothing is going to change it.
Click to expand...
It’s terrible. I have friends that assume I’m liberal...maybe because there are some things where I may lean more liberal on? They are obviously unaware there are other issue where I’m more conservative. But, they will say to me: “you’re liberal and you like guns?! I don’t understand.” I really try not to get into it...I don’t even explain my position as an independent, but all I say is that “I didn’t know it was illegal to be liberal and not like guns/carry.“ They usually don’t say much after that, but the point being is people just think you have to be completely leaning towards one side or they other, and that’s it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top