For years, an expert statistician has led the liberal call for gun control with a nationwide campaign for tighter gun laws and stricter policies. However, shortly after the mass shooting in Las Vegas, the expert reviewed her research and shockingly dropped a 3-word bombshell on leftists using the atrocity to demand gun control.
Each time a devout jihadist, deranged mass murderer, or evil political activist carries out a deadly attack, liberals automatically seize the opportunity to politicize the tragedy. In their push for what would ultimately be a complete repeal of the Second Amendment, they play upon fearful and outraged Americans’ emotions to attack law-abiding gun owners and the NRA. Incredibly, one such gun control advocate came forward after modern America’s deadliest mass shooting to deliver a surprising message that her left-leaning followers are having a hard time swallowing.
Expert statistician Leah Libresco always took an emotion-driven, liberal approach to firearms, believing whole-heartedly that creating tougher laws on gun ownership, sales, and production would subsequently reduce and eventually eradicate gun violence. She even adopted Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric, demonizing the National Rifle Association for “blocking common-sense gun-control reforms” that would ban so-called “assault weapons” and reduce the use of silencers and magazine sizes. Incredibly, just hours after the mass shooting in Las Vegas, she had an announcement for those melodramatically demanding gun control.
In an article for The Washington Post, Libresco revealed that after 3 months of analyzing gun laws in Britain and Australia that leftists are attempting to apply in the U.S., the statistician was shocked to discover that restrictions are “ineffective at best” to reduce gun violence. Libresco, who once championed gun control, took to Facebook on October 3 to share her findings and admit that she had been on the wrong side of the Second-Amendment debate and can no longer stand with liberals on the issue.
“I was all for banning silencers, assault weapons, etc., until I researched gun deaths for FiveThirtyEight. Now, I’m frustrated by the number of ‘commonsense’ solutions sold to me that are ineffective at best, incoherent at worst (there’s no such thing as an ‘assault rifle’). Pitching simple bans eclipses the solutions that matter more: sustained search for and outreach to people at risk (including the potential suicides comprising 2/3 of all American gun deaths),” she posted.
Libresco, a former writer for data journalism site FiveThirtyEight, explained that after fervently studying strict gun laws in both Britain and Australia in order to prove that such restriction would work in the U.S., statistics proved that “neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun-related crime” as a result of passing tough legislation in response to such travesties.
“Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans,” she wrote.
Furthermore, Libresco focused her studies on one of the left’s favorite claims, determining that alleged “assault weapons” are a myth of ignorant anti-gun activists in the push for gun control.
“When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an ‘assault weapon.’ It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.”
Much to her surprise, Libresco also found that silencers, which have become a hot topic of debate in the wake of mass shootings, have been exaggerated by both Hollywood and the political left. She explained that silencers only slightly muffle the sound of gunfire for the shooter but don’t actually make it dangerously quiet. In fact, she admitted that with a silencer, an AR-15 still sounds “about as loud as a jackhammer.”
Additionally, Libresco concluded that limiting magazine size would be “meaningless” since practiced shooters could easily change out magazines quickly during a mass shooting.
Libresco ended her article by reminding readers that two-thirds of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides, which no restriction could prevent. A further 1 in 5 gun deaths was mostly young men aged 15 to 34 being killed in homicides by other young men mostly due to gang and street violence. Finally, only 1,700 women are murdered by gun violence per year, most of which were the result of domestic violence. As such, deaths due to mass shootings account for only a tiny percentage of firearm-related deaths. Still, politicians and their liberal supporters continue to use this tiny minority to peddle their gun policies.
Libresco found that instead of going after firearms and their law-abiding owners, a better solution to reduce gun violence and deaths would be to focus on suicide prevention and intervention, as most gun-related deaths occur at the hands of such troubled victims.
Although Libresco determined that tighter restrictions on guns have no positive effect on overall gun violence, she admits that she is still wary of firearms and doesn’t want to own one anytime soon. Her response in the face of undeniable proof shows that emotions are a powerful killer of logic. Undoubtedly, this is why liberals play upon them in an effort to promote their political policies.