Crime study: Handguns, not ‘assault rifles,’ used in most mass shootings


Freddy’s Note:
Here is yet another new study that debunks every single thing the anti-gun crowd has been saying for years.  We are winning against the anti-gun crowd because of two reasons. 1-Everything they say is lies and slander. 2-They are obsessed lunatics that do not live in reality. It is easy to beat people who are delusional.

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner

Media hype about mass shootings in America has fostered a myth that the killings are on the rise and that an assault weapon ban, expanded background checks and greater attention to the mentally ill will curb a rampaging epidemic, according to an authoritative and exhaustive study by a noted criminologist.

Instead, according to James Alan Fox, author and criminology professor at Northeastern University, mass shootings have remained stagnant over 34 years, averaging 20 a year, and few were committed by the type of berserk psychos portrayed by the media.

“Public discourse is grounded in myth and misunderstanding about the nature of the offense and those who perpetrate it,” he writes in the journal “Homicide Studies.” He added: “Without minimizing the pain and suffering of the hundreds of those who have been victimized in recent attacks, the facts clearly say that there has been no increase in mass shootings and certainly no epidemic.”

The study debunks several proposals aired from President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Democrats after the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting aimed at stopping mass killings. While he said any plan is worth trying, he concluded that short of abolishing the Second Amendment, there is little that can be done.

“Mass murder just may be a price we pay for living in a society where personal freedom is so highly valued,” he wrote in the study coauthored Northeastern criminology student Monica DeLateur.

They reviewed years of mass shootings and found that most shooters are not the crazed killers pictured on TV: Most are seeking revenge and practice their crime, like the two Columbine, Colo., killers.

“The rarest form of mass murder is the completely random attack,” said the study, “Mass Shootings in America: Moving Beyond Newtown.”

He addressed 10 myths fostered by the press. Key among them:

— Mass shootings are not on the rise. He used FBI statistics and found they have long averaged in the 20s per year, rarely going over 25.

— Video games do not play a role. The study found no link between video games and expanded violence, and blamed the media and lawmakers for using the entertainment industry as a “convenient scapegoat.”

— Profiling will not help catch killers before they act. The study found that most are white and about 30 years old, characteristics that “are fairly prevalent in the general society.”

— Expanded background checks will not stop killers from getting guns. The study cites a study from former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns that in 93 recent mass shootings, the gun buyers didn’t have a criminal or mental health record. “People cannot be denied their Second Amendment rights just because they look strange or act in an odd manner,” wrote Fox and DeLateur.

— An assault weapons ban would not work. They found that the typical weapon used is a pistol, not an “assault weapon” like the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle. Assault weapons were used in 24.6 percent of mass shootings, handguns in 47.9 percent. And limiting the size of magazines weapons can carry wouldn’t help, they said, because any ban would impact new sales and “there is an ample supply of large capacity magazines already in circulation.”

No Gun Allowed Sign Failed to Keep Customers Safe


Freddy” Note:

I always chuck when I hear people complaining about No FireArms Allowed Signs, or laws that will restrict fire arms from certain places.

The reason for this is because in my state. Business, and even Cities and Towns are not allowed to set fire arms policies. The State Legislature is the sole authority and they have only passed a law saying “No Guns at the State House”. That law itself was not in existence, until he Open Carry Crowd had a huge protest involving Open carry inside the State House.  I blame the “Open Carry” extremists for that law. So in my State, you can’t carry in the State House, Court Building, and Inside the post office.  The moronic obsessed bitches of the Mother’s Demand Action aren’t going to get any traction in this state.  Business and bars can’t restrict fire arms.  Here is a case below of what  happens when a business restricts fire arms.

From Mississippi Gun News:

On Friday January 10, 2014 a man was shot outside a convenience store in Jackson, MS.

The victim was taken to a local hospital with a gun shot to his leg.

It’s interesting to note the “No Firearms” sign displayed on the window of the store.

Attorney David Butts of Tupelo, MS had this to say on the Facebook page of Firearms Freedom Day;

“A report of a shooting outside a convenience store in Jackson today, which had a “no firearms” sign posted at the entrance, brings to mind one obvious observation and one not so obvious question. First, it is obvious that criminals have no regard whatsoever for “no firearms” signs and that, in fact, the presence of such a sign may even encourage a criminal to enter a business to commit a criminal act (robbery, etc.) since, presumably, no one (except possibly the business owner) would have a firearm.
The not-so-obvious question is “what is the responsibility of the business owner to protect his/her customers if they post a ‘no firearms’ sign at their place of business?”

It is already the law in MS that a business owner must exercise “reasonable care” to protect a customer from injury. One sees this a lot in “slip and fall” cases (wet floors, owner has duty to warn of danger).

But what about the situation where a customer, legally armed, either openly or with a concealed carry permit, disarms themselves to do business in the “no firearms” business and is injured or killed by some gun-wielding thug intent on committing a crime? What does the owner’s duty of “reasonable care” to protect the customer mean in those circumstances?

There have already been several cases in MS where business owners have been held responsible for injuries to their patrons or residents where they failed to provided adequate security (for robbery, rape, assault, etc.). In the case in Jackson, the shooting occurred outside the place of business, but what if it had happened inside? And what if the person who was shot had disarmed themselves because of the sign in order to go in and do business? It may be just a matter of time before just such a case happens. Just my guess, but at a minimum business owners who post such “no firearms” signs may be put to the expense of metal detectors and/or armed guards inside their places of business. More cost which is usually passed on to the customer. IMHO