And Now Bloomberg Contradicts

The whole narrative that gun-free zones are where shooters intent on mayhem select the location of their deprivations.

It's Johns Hopkins, but Bloomberg paid his money to work their mouths like a puppet.  Check behind the researchers, see if don't see Bloomberg's arm shoved up back there.

He uses this study to establish a polar opposite narrative.  I guess out side was getting across to folks.

Gun violence will go up not down, "Probably, experts say." Here is the link to the report.  

Then, "Most laws allowing civilians to bring guns on college campuses are relatively new, and there have been no studies to assess their effects directly. "  You don't say?

"concluding that neither 'gun-free' zones nor right-to-carry gun laws appear to affect mass shootings in public spaces."  Oh?  where do you get that?

"Proponents of right-to-carry laws that make it legal for individuals to carry firearms, both on and off college campuses, often blame mass shootings on 'gun-free zones' and argue that arming more civilians can deter or stop mass shootings.  The best available evidence, however, does not support these claims."  You said there was no evidence

They do say of the 111 mass shootings since 1966, only 13 were in a "truly gun free zone".  So now we have something to argue against.  I bet I can think of mass shootings off the top of my head and get more that 13.  I wonder how they define their truly?

"Rather than deter gun violence, the most recent and most rigorous research on right-to-carry laws suggests that the laws are associated with increased violence with guns,"  Again, citation needed.  That's a pretty big claim, and will require some pretty big backup

When folks cite Johns Hopkins be sure to correct them, "You mean Mike Bloomberg says, not Hopkins."  Because that is true.