Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

Here is a different slant. And it sounds true, to me. And the Left, Hollywood, and NWO are all for killing more Christians and Conservatives. Along with babies and women. The left likes their women, to have penises. That would add to depopulation but we would still outnumber them. We should stop them now before more die. I have no children. If I did, I'd be at every school board meeting. Some states are beginning to close their school libraries. To get the hate America, and porn out. But the teacher's unions will hang on, as long as possible. But it's time to fire the lefties and perverts. Just my opinion. They are clearly a bad influence on others and children. And more Babylon Satire pages said in jest, are now coming true.

https://dcdailyjournal.com/general/the-truth-about-the-nashville-tragedy-the-media-wont-tell-you/

Liberty Tree

They will downplay the hate crime since it was against Christians and probably not realease the manefesto. It would be a different story if it was a rightwing person.

American Vet

LOL

Ain’t that the truth.

And you can bet that somewhere along the line they would explain how Trump was responsible.

😀😀

PeterS

How should it be played?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

As a hate crime, what else?
A tranny who hates Christians? Go figure.

woodguru

I'm pretty sure as a confused person being raised in an environment where whatever she was trying to figure out was hated...she pretty much hated bigoted christians...

Hatred begets hate

PeterS

1) You guys are the ones with all the guns. We've been trying for an assault weapon ban forever and you keep preventing it. So don't sit there and point your finger at us when you are the ones who allow this carnage to happen.

2) The majority of democrats are Christians so why would we want to see Christians...or anyone...killed with an assault weapon?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

You don't have a freaking clue what motivated Hale to commit murder Christians, you flaming hypocrite.
I mean, look at the words you use when you speak about Christians. Calling us bigots is hateful.
I wouldn't be surprised if you were hiding your praise for Hale's actions behind a facade of hate.

PeterS

Christians or those who hate her? You CC's believe that your god never "F's" up when it comes to sex assignments but we have hermaphrodites so if your god is the be-all and end-all then he fuked up. And if he screwed the pooch when it came to hermaphrodites then who's to say that he missed the mark with homosexuals and transgenders?

Don't blame transgenders if they hate you, you certainly have shown an endless amount of hatred toward them. As Woody said, "hate begets hate" and since you have no problem with the number of semi-automatic weapons transgenders buy you might do well to harden your so-called Christian schools as soon as you can. Because thanks to your CC persecution they have less to lose than you do and that's a terrible position to be in when it comes to protecting children.

PeterS

But you are bigots and your bigotry is getting people killed. That's what's hateful, not telling the truth about who you are...

PeterS

Look, she simply returned the hate that you so-called Christians showed to her. She wasn't taught by her own peers to hate so-called Christians she was taught by so-called Christians to hate them! In a world where an AR-15 can be had by anyone maybe you would do well to spread some Christian love instead of just more Satanic hate...

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Good Lord, I cannot believe how intolerant, immoral and ignorant you leftist pagans are.

I'll try again:
Source: Foundation for Economic Education

Studies Find No Evidence That Assault Weapon Bans Reduce Homicide Rates
The studies, data, and examination of the available evidence by scholars suggest that assault weapon bans or buybacks will have little if any effect on rates of violent crime and gun violence.

Mass shootings are unconscionable acts of violence and are the most acutely disturbing form of gun violence. In the wake of such tragedies, many gun control advocates lambast gun rights supporters for allowing “weapons of war” onto the streets of America and not supporting “responsible gun reform.”

The measures put forth are usually either a ban and/or mandatory buyback of "assault weapons," most of which are more accurately known as semi-automatic rifles. ("Assault weapon" is a vague term that varies state to state and can include common pistols and shotguns depending out other attachable accessories.)

While these initiatives are “common sense” to advocates, if one takes the time to examine the data and evidence, it becomes abundantly clear that gun control in this form will do little to reduce gun violence.

1. Mass shootings with assault weapons constitute a fraction of a percent of gun violence

2007 - 2017

Total homicides = 150,352
Gun homicides = 103,901
Mass shooting homicides = 495
Mass shootings involving "assault weapons" = 253

Mother Jones’s database of mass shootings, defined as shootings involving three or more fatalities, shows that between 2007 and 2017, there were 495 people murdered in such events. When breaking down those shootings by the weapons involved, it is revealed that around half of those victims (253) were murdered by a perpetrator with an assault weapon (AW), such as an AR-15.

Over the same timeframe, FBI annual crime reports show that there were 150,352 homicides in total, of which 103,901 involved firearms. This means that mass shootings involving AWs constitute 0.17 percent and 0.24 percent of all homicides and firearm homicides, respectively.

To further illuminate the relative infrequency of mass shootings with “assault weapons,” consider the fact that in 2017, some 1,590 people were murdered using knives or sharp instruments.

Over the last five years, 261 people were murdered with AWs in mass shootings (an average rate of 52 murders annually.) At such a rate, it would take over 30 years of mass shootings with AWs to produce the same number of deaths as one year’s worth of knife murders. (It would take 135 years’ worth of mass shootings with AWs to produce the 7,032 deaths that handgun homicides did in 2017.)

Consequently, even a completely effective ban/buyback of AWs would have an incredibly small impact on rates of homicide and gun violence, and then there is always the probability that people intent on committing mass violence will substitute AWs with other available firearms or methods of destruction (such as homemade explosives.)

2. Studies find no evidence assault weapon bans reduce homicide rates

There are theoretical reasons to doubt the effectiveness of a ban or buyback of assault weapons, but it also doesn’t help that real-world evidence suggests these measures fail to produce reductions in gun violence.

Between 1994 and 2004, the federal government banned the manufacture, sale, or transfer of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. A subsequent Department of Justice study found no evidence that the ban had had any effect on gun violence and stated that “should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

A recent study published this year in the Journal of General Internal Medicine examined state gun control policies and found no statistically significant relationship between assault weapon or large-capacity magazine bans and homicide rates. A Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study came to the same conclusion.

3. Australia doesn’t prove gun control works

In 1996, Australia experienced a horrific mass shooting. In response, the government implemented a mandatory buyback scheme that banned and confiscated certain types of firearms, including assault weapons.

A 2016 JAMA study on the matter found no statistically significant change in the trend of the country’s firearm homicide rate following the law’s passage. The authors also noted that the decline in firearm suicides post-ban could not clearly be attributed to gun control since non-firearm suicides fell by an even greater magnitude.

4. There is inconclusive evidence that assault weapons bans reduce mass shootings

See Graph below

Last year, the RAND Corporation released an extensive scientific analysis of available evidence on gun control measures and how they relate to various crime outcomes. Regarding the effect of assault weapons bans on mass shootings, they determined the evidence was “inconclusive.”

When former President Bill Clinton claimed the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban was associated with reduced mass shootings, Politifact rated that claim as “half-true,” noting that “the ban’s impact remains unclear.”

Using Mother Jones’s data on mass shootings, I constructed the graph you see above. Prior to the ban, on average five people were killed with assault weapons in mass shootings per year. During the ban, that number went slightly down to four. Post-ban, it rose to 22.

But mass shootings with assault weapons didn’t rise until 2012—eight years after the ban ended. In the seven years after the ban, there was only an average of four people killed in mass shootings with assault weapons per year.

Given the fact that the pre-ban period and the seven years after the ban had essentially the same rate of mass shooting deaths with assault weapons, it is hard to prove that the ban had any effect on mass shootings.

In Conclusion

The studies, data, and examination of the available evidence by scholars suggest that assault weapons bans or buybacks will have little if any effect on rates of violent crime and gun violence. There seems to be no relationship between these gun control measures and reductions in firearm homicide or suicide, and there doesn’t appear to be any clear evidence they reduce mass shootings.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

How about honestly? They have the sick bitch’s manifesto. Why aren’t they releasing it?

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Excellent facts Blade. Wasted on snowflake Pete.

PeterS

Thoughtless cut and paste will always be wasted on me.