Gun Control

Does 'Common Sense Gun Safety Legislation' Make Sense As a Response to the El Paso and Dayton Shootings?

The familiar proposals would do little or nothing to prevent attacks like these.


Hours after a gunman killed 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso on Sunday, Rep. Veronica Escobar (D–Texas), whose district includes that city, implored "all of us who have the power to end this horror" to "come together" and "once and for all address the gun violence epidemic that plagues our nation." Other prominent Democrats, including several presidential contenders, likewise reacted to the attack in El Paso and a mass shooting that killed nine people in Dayton, Ohio, early the following morning by calling for "urgent action" to approve "common sense gun safety legislation."

The elements of that legislation are mostly window dressing that would do little or nothing to prevent attacks like these. The most frequently mentioned policy, "universal background checks," is plainly irrelevant to these particular crimes, since both the El Paso shooter and the Dayton shooter purchased their weapons legally, meaning they did not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records. Nor do the vast majority of mass shooters, who either passed background checks or could have. Neither requiring background checks for private transfers nor creating "strong background checks," as President Donald Trump has proposed (perhaps referring to the same policy), would make a difference in such cases.

Democrats also reiterated their support for a federal ban on "assault weapons," and the conservative New York Post editorial page agreed. That policy is at least superficially more relevant, since both of the rifles used in these two attacks would qualify for that label. The El Paso shooter seems to have used a WASR-10 rifle, a civilian, semi-automatic version of the AK-47, while the Dayton shooter used an AM-15, a semi-automatic rifle made by Anderson Manufacturing that's similar to the Colt AR-15.

The focus on such "military-style" rifles is puzzling for a few reasons. In 2017 all rifles combined—only a subset of which would qualify as "assault weapons"— accounted for just 5 percent of gun homicides where the type of firearm was specified, while handguns accounted for 89 percent. Handguns are also the kind of firearm chosen by most mass shooters (whose crimes, it is worth remembering, account for just 1 percent of gun homicides).

Even if Congress passed a new ban on "assault weapons," more than 16 million would remain in circulation, according to an estimate by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. That's an ample supply for the tiny minority of murderers who prefer them. But even if Congress could make those guns disappear—say, by confiscating them through a mandatory "buyback" program, as Rep. Eric Swalwell (D–Calif.) proposed during his short-lived presidential campaign—it would not have a noticeable impact on the frequency or lethality of mass shootings.

Consider the rifle used in El Paso. Judging from security camera images, it had a fixed stock, which is OK under the latest version of the proposed federal "assault weapon" ban, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.). The pistol grip would have to go, and so probably would the "upper handguard," which seems to qualify as a forbidden "barrel shroud." But you would still be left with a weapon that fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle energy.

One "common-sense" gun control policy that might have practical significance in the context of a mass shooting is a limit on the size of magazines. Feinstein's bill, for example, would ban "large capacity ammunition feeding devices," defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds (such as the magazines used in El Paso and Dayton, but also the magazines that come standard with many kinds of rifles and handguns). As with the "assault weapon" ban, that provision would leave millions of newly illegal products in circulation. But if it made magazines that hold more than 10 rounds more expensive and harder to come by, it could theoretically encourage some mass shooters to use 10-round magazines, which would force them to switch magazines more frequently.

Since it takes just a few seconds to switch magazines, it's not clear how often this constraint would make a difference in attacks on unarmed people. But we can't rule out the possibility that it would occasionally help victims escape or resist. By the same token, however, a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds can make a crucial difference for people using guns to defend themselves against attacks, especially when they are confronted by multiple armed assailants.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez emphasized that point, citing actual incidents, when he ruled last March that California's 10-round magazine limit is inconsistent with the Second Amendment right to armed self-defense. "California's law prohibiting acquisition and possession of magazines able to hold any more than 10 rounds places a severe restriction on the core right of self-defense of the home such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny," he said.

Writing in The New York Times, SUNY Cortland political scientist Robert Spitzer calls that conclusion "startling," "suspect," and "downright strange." Yet it hardly seems strange to point out that the ability to fire more than 10 rounds without switching magazines can be important in self-defense—a point that current and retired police officers make every time they demand exemptions from laws like California's. Indeed, the case for banning "large capacity" magazines hinges on the same observation as the case against banning them: A few seconds can be the difference between life and death.

NEXT: A 79-Year-Old Woman Receives a Jail Sentence for Feeding Stray Cats

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    All gun control is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. It violates the right of the People to keep and bear Arms.

    All Armaments - pistols, rifles, automatic weapons, cannons, ships, tanks, swords, knives, grenades, bombs, nukes, all associated parts and ammo, and any future Arms ever created.

    1. The Second clearly does not apply to 'unit' or arsenal weapons (eg artillery, tanks, ships, etc - that require two or more people to operate in the context of an actual organized militia). It applies to personal issue weapons as was understood in the first legislation re this issue in 1792.

      Anyone who thinks the 2nd actually prohibits Congress from even identifying what an organized militia is and how it works - when it is a specifically enumerated responsibility. What a fucking nutjob you clowns have become.

      1. Unfortunately, JFree is but a distant acquaintance to that skill known a "reading":

        "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

        1. “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

          It's hard to be more clear and unambiguous than that. And yet somehow the would-be tyrants have found a way to make it seem murky as a pond after a heavy rain.

          1. There is no ignorance to match willful ignorance.

          2. define "the people"

            it is rule for freemen with a common bond, not a random assortment of suburbanites and shopping malls

            1. The same people when "the right of the people" has been defined as individual rights of individual people.
              You really should study Supreme Court cases so you can stop inserting your foot into your mouth.

        2. Have to disagree. JFree appears to be able to read as well as copy however he/she/it has a definite comprehension issue. Not surprising as that is quite common with Progressives.

      2. Your claims just dont have any support from the US Constitution as my claim does.

        Operating tanks dont require more than one person. Some tanks do some dont. A single sailor can operate a ship. A single person can operate "military style crew-serviced weapons".

        I will look forward to collecting your tears after two weeks when no gun control happens after these shootings. Added to my collection of your tears once Trump gets re-elected will top off my tear barrels.

        1. In fact it's getting easier and easier for one person to operate more and more complex machinery as automation gets better and better.

        2. you people are so fucking predictable. You think that anyone who calls you all a bunch of morons is calling for gun control.

          I am not calling for gun control. I am simply asserting that you assholes are a bunch of fucking morons

          1. "I am not calling for gun control. I am simply asserting that you assholes are a bunch of fucking morons"

            Coming from a fucking lefty ignoramus such as you, that is easily ignored.
            Fuck off, slaver.

          2. what we need is moron control

          3. Hey, your speech is HATEFUL & INTOLERANT.....Please leave that to us "Assholes that are a bunch of Morons!"

        3. Operating tanks dont require more than one person.

          Private individuals can own tanks without regard to the number of crewman as long as the guns are either less than .50 cal., load from the muzzle, or both. A whole host of APC-type vehicles fielded in the last century is fully legal for private citizens to own (assuming proper decommission).

          1. While we’re at it, don’t forget about aircraft.

            Peruse the FAA register and you’ll find a number of fighter/attack aircraft owned by individuals.

            1. Saw that article about the refurbished Spitfire taking a trip around the world. Very cool.

              I think with the more modern military planes they take out the radar and weapons stuff but you can buy lots of different ones.

              I think one of the big concerns with planes and vehicles in current use is they don’t want some other government getting ahold of one.

              1. L-39s are very popular and still in service with some air forces.

                Pilot at my local airfield has 2 Sea Harriers.

                Many commonly owned semi-automatic rifles are de-militarized; just like these aircraft.

          2. Guy was selling some sweet, custom milled stainless steel cannons the other day at the gun show. About 3 feet long. Less then 2K. Was tempting...

          3. Ah, individuals can own a tank or other armored vehicle with fully operational cannon, simply by following the requirements of Title 2 of the Gun Control Act of 1968 which annexed the original National Firearms Act of 1934.

        4. Arguing about tanks, artillery and other large weapons is a fool's errand. There were many cannon in private hands during the revolution because they needed them. However, that is not the case today so this part of the debate is stupid. The only question is do we as citizens have the right to self defense of any sort. The Founders considered self defense to be a natural right and therefore one not needing to be specifically defined. In addition, they did not have police forces to manage crime as we know them today. However, the real issue is just this point, police. The true debate is over the role of police today. Gun control zealots insist you do not need a firearm to protect yourself because we have police. The only problem is police may occasionally deter crime by their presence, but in reality all police do is investigate crime. They cannot respond until AFTER a crime is committed, therefore making the protection claim irrelevant because it is a lie. The simple truth is you do not get to decide how I protect myself.

      3. It applies to personal issue weapons as was understood in the first legislation re this issue in 1792.

        This is multiply incorrect. Most notably, neither the NFA nor the GCA nor other federal legislation has prevented private individuals from owning crew- or unit-operated muzzle-loading cannons, howitzers, or mortars. Explosive munitions are regulated, but the weapons and projectile munitions are not.

        You use the term 'personal issue' but the weapons protected were, in large portion, not issued. A good number of rifles, cannons, and naval vessels were held by private citizens and state militias and were relinquished to various private sources (whom you assert couldn't own them) after the Treaty Of Paris was signed.

        The fact that you say 'personal issue' and seem broadly uninformed on the facts of the matter make it seem like you really want to look like you know what you're talking about even though you don't.

        1. neither the NFA nor the GCA nor other federal legislation has prevented private individuals from owning crew- or unit-operated muzzle-loading cannons, howitzers, or mortars.

          There is a HUGE fucking difference between legislation that allows for the ownership of those weapons with registration and the payment of a tax vs a 2nd amendment right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

          A difference that would become manifest in one nanosecond if congress were to pass legislation requiring a tax on ammo or guns. As was manifest in 1792 when the militia act required the purchase of muskets/etc with the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes

          And you are being a weeny re my use of the phrase 'personal issue'. you know exactly what I meant by that

          1. Fuck off JFree.

            If you cannot pay the 2nd Amendment "tax" you suggest then you cannot own the weapon.

            A sales tax that covers all products and services you purchase is one thing. That kind of tax does not seek to get rid of guns.

          2. There is a HUGE fucking difference between legislation that allows for the ownership of those weapons with registration and the payment of a tax vs a 2nd amendment right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

            You (probably deliberately) misunderstand the situation. There is no legislation that 'allows for the ownership'. The ownership is naturally allowed and there is no (federal) legislation that prevents it.

            As was manifest in 1792 when the militia act required the purchase of muskets/etc with the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes

            First, the specific act doesn't say 'purchase' it says 'providing himself with the arms'. Second, I don't know what 'exempted from ... the payment of taxes' means in your language, but in ours it means the militiamen providing himself with arms was exempted from tax on those arms.

            Of course, all of this is your happy bullshit tap dance to avoid the fact that you are and were patently and unequivocally wrong about crew-operated weapons.

            And you are being a weeny re my use of the phrase ‘personal issue’. you know exactly what I meant by that

            No, I meant what I said. You don't know what you're talking about and the more you abuse both the letter and spirit of the law as well as historical fact and record, the more it demonstrates you to be mendaciously stupid rather than just ignorant.

            At this point, your seemingly willful misinterpretations of facts and plain English stinks atrociously of Michael Hihn's mental instability.

            1. You (probably deliberately) misunderstand the situation.

              No you are deliberately misunderstanding my comment. Just because the US allows private ownership of the US' surplus/obsolete/decommissioned weapons does not mean that ownership is protected under the 2ndA.

              But at least now I'm beginning to understand WHY you people are so off-base re the 2ndA. You clowns LOVE a standing army. It gives you access to a whole ton of old battleships, tanks, fighter jets, etc that is far 'cooler' techwise than some mere Rambo-looking 'assault rifle'. And because you love that weaponry which would not be at all available in the same numbers absent a standing army, you can't even remotely comprehend that one of the purposes of the 2ndA was to prevent a standing army. Which of course is why you also support what a standing army DOES - which is to use that weaponry in support of imperial goals. As long, of course, as its being used to oppress the furriners not you.

              1. Just give up. After reviewing this entire series of threads, your continual foot in mouth is becoming very exhausting. I suggest excusing yourself from the Internet entirely until at least your reading comprehension is up to par.

              2. There are many decommissioned military vehicles and weapons in private hands. The problem is when they are sold, they are usually stripped down so they are simple the mechanical components. Anyone can buy a tank but you cannot get one with a working gun. It looks like a tank but does not operate as one.

          3. IIUC there is also SCOTUS decisions when it comes to taxes and infringing on Constitutional Rights. Or have you already forgotten that the gov't cannot place a tax on voting, aka poll tax?

      4. Become? They've been nuts for a long time now.

        1. Kill yourself Kiddie Raper

      5. Nope. You have that completely backwards and wrong.

        The 2nd amendment prohibits any federal laws that might infringe on the ability of state militias to arm themselves.

        So it most certainly prohibits federal regulations on tanks, bombs, nukes or ANYTHING that a State might use to protect itself by way of its militia. Of course the civil war changed the facts on the ground and it would be the states, not individuals, who had standing in court.

        The personal right to self defense lies in the 14th. So states could regulate arms, but not in a way that targets blacks. And all gun control implicitly targets young black men.

        1. That may in theory be true. Except that the 2ndA was never argued in any court case until Miller - by which time we already had a standing army and 'state militia' had long before ceased to be relevant. And pre-civil war - or even pre-Dick Act - states themselves had a far more effective way to prevent the feds from creating a standing army that could run all over the states, ie - just simply don't fund one.

          And the reality is that the earliest version of the 2ndA make it pretty clear that the focus was individual not state. To wit, the version passed by the House - A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

          That last clause can ONLY apply to individuals - but was (along with the definition of militia) - stripped out of the 2A by the Senate.


    3. There is some historical evidence for your position; that private individuals regularly owned armed merchant ships, for example. OTOH< one might reasonably argue that "keep AND BEAR" strongly implies that the "arms" in question must be operable by a single person, which would leave out a lot (including the M60 machine gun, silly Hollywood action movies notwithstanding).

      In any case, casual observation of the political scene clearly shows that "Common sense Gun Control" is code for "Let us trash one of your specifically enumerated Constitutional Rights, so that eviscerating the rest of them will be easier, later"

      1. Technically speaking, an individual can easily operate an M-60 machine gun. The issue is "bearing" the weight of the ammunition not the actual operation of the firearm.

  2. "Since it takes just a few seconds to switch magazines, it's not clear how often this constraint would make a difference in attacks on unarmed people."

    During my time in the US Navy, we were trained with our .45 handgun to load a magazine, empty that magazine into the target and reload another and repeat. We were measured both on accuracy and time elapsed. If a military member can train themselves to exchange magazines, so can a civilian. As a matter of fact, look at old war footage. Often times one magazine was affixed to another so shooter would only have to remove, flip, replace. Magazine size is utterly meaningless.

    1. No it's not. There is a chance to make a mistake not every mass shooter (or any shooter) is well trained. Plus there was that guy who got caught shooting a congress women when dropping his clip while reloading.

      1. No it’s not.

        Your refusal and anecdote is antithetic and/or counterfactual and the Wikipedia entry is a clear post-hoc reconstruction of a hazy incident. First, Loughner used a larger magazine and only killed 6 people. He had roughly as many or more rounds at his disposal as either the Dayton or El Paso shooters and killed fewer people. Second, depending on which witness you hear from in his apprehension, it's not clear whether his gun jammed and then he went to reload or if he went to reload, succeeded, and then his gun jammed and/or where he was in the process when he was interrupted. The specific gun was notorious for failure to feed malfunctions with the specific magazines.

        This isn't to diminish the bravery of his opponents, just that it could just as easily stand as a counterfactual to the notion that 'larger magazines reduce error' as much as for it.

      2. Define well trained? Changing a magazine is not a difficult procedure to master. A day on the range will give most people enough experience to do it rather quickly. I don't even remember practicing it much in basic. The showed us how to do it and expected us to be able to do it on our own.

        1. Hell, one doesn't even need to be on a range to practice changing magazines.

    2. Taping two magazines together is one of those things that troops do which aren't really that great an idea. There are far too many ways the tape can screw up a magazine, and the upside down magazine can get bashed into things, bending the lip and rendering it useless just when you're counting on it.

  3. the 10 round magazine limit had no impact on the shooter in Gilroy where magazines are limited to ten rounds.

    1. The gun itself was illegal in California, but bought in Nevada.

      You probably think that the fact that people can cross state lines freely makes these laws impotent. And you'd be right. That's why the feds need to be involved. Thanks for making the case.

      1. actually that gun is still legal in california what made it illegal was crossing the state line with it and not informing the state of california which now happens all the time with ammo since the state requires background checks for ammo as well

        1. There's a difference between a gun regulation being impotent and being inherently impotent.

          It's healthcare all over again. It works all over the world. Thankfully for them America is largely bordered by water so we can't export our carnage quite as much as one can from state to state.

          1. We don't have to export our carnage. The rest of the world does a pretty good job of committing carnage on their own.


      2. The shooters in Columbine used only 10-round magazines, because the national Assault Weapon Ban was in place at the time. The Stoneman Douglas shooter used only 10-round magazines, likely because he was emulating the Columbine shooters.

        I fail to see how regulating magazine size is going to save lives, when the limit hasn't so far.

      3. The 9th and 10th amendment wants to speak to you on the validity of federal gun control laws.

      4. ""You probably think that the fact that people can cross state lines freely makes these laws impotent.""

        Replace "state lines" with "border" and discuss.

        1. You think you've made a point, but people like him want to end national sovereignty as a concept, so...

      5. Come to think of it, the Feds already made machine guns illegal, yet that didn't seem to be enough to stop the North Hollywood shootout from happening.

      6. We should thank Tony for making the case that criminals do not obey laws!

        Hell, CA can't even stop its residents from defecating in the streets; causing all sorts of health & environmental issues.

  4. It makes perfect sense if your goal is to slowly erode the individual right to self defense.

    1. And let's be honest: that is the end-game goal of people like De Blasio, Buttigieg, Swalwell, etc. These people really think that buybacks work and then cite the UK and Australia as examples, likely because they know as much about gun crime in those countries as they do about guns in general -- which is to say that they don't know anything.

      In the UK, knife violence is out of control and they're now requiring IDs for buying cleaning chemicals because miscreants have started using things like muriatic acid. Meanwhile, innocent and law-abiding citizens have zero personal protection against assailants. Furthermore, spree killings with guns occurred even after the 1988 gun ban on semi-automatic and other "military-style" firearms. After the 1996 Dunblane Massacre, where a man killed 16 children and teacher, handguns were added to the prohibited category. Problem solved, right? Nope. In 2010 a man killed 12 people and injured 11, using a .22 rifle and a double-barrel shotgun, both which he had permits for. Also of note: in February of this year, the BBC reported that gun crimes in four counties were the highest they've been in a decade.

      Australia's own gov't released a study in 2016 stating that they estimate only 20% of firearms restricted by the 1996 NFA were ever turned in. In June of this year, a man killed 4 people and injured one using an illegally owned shotgun. (the suspect was recently released from prison and exempt from owning firearms) One only need to look at Wikipedia's "Timeline of major crimes in Australia" to see that gun violence is still a problem in Australia. An inconvenient fact that the USA's gun control advocates blissfully ignore.

      The reality is that the genie is out of the bottle, when it comes to firearms. There is no realistic way to completely remove them from the populace and moving the goal posts on firearms only criminalizes law-abiding citizens and giving the upper hand to criminals. I wish I knew of an answer that would preserve the USA citizenry's rights to self-defense and to hunt and still be able to prevent or massively reduce gun crime, but I don't really know if there is such a thing, especially with the 2nd Amendment. Politicians who say that they prevent or massively curb gun crime with buybacks, universal background checks and assault weapon bans are lying to the public, just like they're lying about how single-payer health care won't result in heavy taxation on the middle class.

  5. Why is America the only place where this happens?

    1. What makes you think America is the only place where this happens?

    2. Why is America the only place where this happens"

      its not, in the rest of the world they run over and kill 84 people or China they stab and kill 50 people or in Japan they burn down a building killing 36 people in Rawanda they chop up a 100,000 etc...... At least in America i have the right to try to defend myself from such people since clearly the government can't or won't your choice.

    3. Does it, though?

      Stossel suggests otherwise:

      And he suggests this by looking at actual data.

  6. Writing in The New York Times, SUNY Cortland political scientist Robert Spitzer calls that conclusion "startling," "suspect," and "downright strange."

    I am sure logic can seem a strange creature confronting someone in that particular bubble.

  7. Enactment of gun laws would be easy. Figuring out what to do about the mentality ill shooters is the hard part. Guess which path will be taken.

    1. Nah. Once we ban guns, the mentally ill shooters will just become mentally ill stabbers, bombers, arsonists and truckers that run into crowds; mass murderers have proven that these methods can be just as effective (if not more so!) than guns to kill lots of people.

      But they won't be gun deaths, so everything will be just fine. Yay!

      1. Let's be real: there will still be mentally ill shooters because there is no way to rid the world of guns. Even if Eric Swalwell could snap his fingers and disappear all firearms in the USA (or nuke all gun owners), guns would be imported from Mexico or other countries. Even if you disappear all guns from the entire planet, people can and will make their own. CNC milling devices make that an even easier and more accessible possibility for the masses.

        1. Yup. CA already has a large problem with ghost guns, especially 1911 knock-offs, from places like the Philippines.

  8. "all of us who have the power to end this horror" to "come together" and "once and for all address the gun violence epidemic that plagues our nation."

    Yes, because you certainly can't kill a lot of people by other methods like bombs, vans, and by lighting a fucking building on fire. This belief that you can stop people's murderous rage by merely making it more difficult for people to obtain a certain tool is disgusting, pernicious, and conceited.
    Screw you, you slimy piece of garbage.

  9. "Does 'Common Sense Gun Safety Legislation' Make Sense As a Response to the El Paso and Dayton Shootings?"

    Of course not; just as "universal background checks" or "common sense gun control" serve as talking points and sound bytes. These tragedies provide momentum and an opportunity to "do something" and politicians, depending upon their constituency, want to sound like they are on board and "doing something." Hell, the average American has no idea how these weapons function nor how any proposed legislation would actually change any thing.

    1. For a politician the absolute WORST thing he/she can say is.....
      "I have no fucking idea how to solve this problem..."
      That's why they give us this...."Common Sense blah blah" BS.....

    2. There will never be a "common sense" solution, since there is no common sense of a gun problem to be "solved". The phrase "common sense" means something, and anti-gun people don't get that. Hence their confusion. If my sense of your problem is non-existent, we share no sense of it in common. My tool of self-defense is not a problem in my world. That is true for millions upon millions of non-murderers who are not buying this anti- 2A bullshit.

  10. "California's law prohibiting acquisition and possession of magazines able to hold any more than 10 rounds places a severe restriction on the core right of self-defense..."

    If that's true then limiting magazines would place a severe restriction on the ability of mass murders to commit mass murder.

    1. And yet kill they do, with 10 round magazines. Cho had two pistols at VA Tech; a Glock 19 with 15 round magazine, and a Walther P-22, a small caliber pistol with a 10 round magazine. How many did he kill that day?

      And I along with literally 999 other gun owners out of a thousand, am safe, legal, and have no mens rea. And yet for the .001% we must all collectively agree to an increasingly eroding version of our rights. And when "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines are banned, those with malice aforethought will continue to kill like Cho, Alexis [Remington Pump Shotgun, 5 round capacity] and the majority of others who use handguns and shotguns more often than not, "more" will have to be done; right?

      1. Cruz (parkland FL shooter) also used 10 rounders.

    2. "If that’s true then limiting magazines would place a severe restriction on the ability of mass murders to commit mass murder."

      How about if we require a fixed magazine that has to have the cartridges loaded by hand? Specifically, a "10-round magazine, loaded with 5-round charger clips"
      Oh, wait. The first Mad Minute record was set by Sergeant Major Jesse Wallingford in 1908, scoring 36 hits on a 48 inch target at 300 yards.
      That is starting with only 5 rounds in the 10 round magazine. 4 reloads included in the one minute required for 36 AIMED rounds.

    3. Assuming mass murderers care about gun laws...


    4. British mad minute anyone?

  11. If Democrats really wanted to get anywhere with their proposals they would list them and then say "If these are enacted into law we will not ask for any more gun control laws".
    I'm not opposed to background checks, assault rifle bans and some of the other things they want to enact, but I know damn well that when these actions don't deters shooters they'll start proposing even more draconian solutions.

    1. See my above just above.

      One of the reasons I oppose concessions on weapons, by the way. Today's "assault rifle" is tomorrows revolver, pump shotgun, bolt action rifle...Australia is their model.

    2. If Democrats really wanted to get anywhere with their proposals they would list them and then say “If these are enacted into law we will not ask for any more gun control laws”.

      I do not understand this statement. Democrats, civic and religious leaders have said over and over again that they do not wish to ban firearms. There is an understanding and acceptance that people wish to have firearms for hunting and recreational target shooting. There is also an understanding that people in remote area (long police response times) may wish firearms for personal protection. What more do you want people to say to allow some reasonable rules for the purchase and use of firearms???

      1. Tell us where it ends before it begins.

        In 1934 it was paying a tax to own MGs, SBRs, SBSs, suppressors, and DDs. In 1986 it was paying tax to own MGs that already existed, but no new ones could be registered. In 1994 it was no scary looking semi-autos. In 2018 it was no bumpstocks.

        If you can't tell me NOW what your limit to "common sense" is, its because you're being mendacious, trying to incrementally destroy people's rights.

        The slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy if you watch it happen in real-time...

        1. I am sorry I can not really answer your question because I expect that firearms technology will advance and that may necessitate changes to rules and regulations. As you noted in 1934 you could own a machine gun. But compare that 1934 MG to the semiautomatic weapons of today. While the 1934 MG was a devastating weapon in its day, I don't hear a big push for people to buy SA version of those weapons.

          But here are the things I personally would suggest:
          1. Background checks on all gun purchases, store, shows, or private. Also background check for gift purchases. I don't want grandpa deciding if his grandson should get a gun, I want the kids background checked.
          2. Waiting period for any gun. Twenty-four hours for hunting rifles and shotguns. Minimum 72 hours for pistols.
          3. No public purchase of military style rifles. Shooting ranges can purchase them in SA and A styles, but they have to remain on the range. If you want to shoot an AK style weapon go to a range, but not in public.
          4. Red flag laws that are enforced. If you are deemed a threat to yourself or others you must turn in your firearms. And if you don't they will be confiscated. This would include a hearing within 72 hours to confirm the confiscation order. Also you can apply for relief from the order in 90 days and after that every 180 days.
          5. No public ownership of magazines over 10 rounds. As with item 3, you can have larger magazines on a range, but only on the range.

          1. You can't answer my question because your entire goal is to ultimately take them all. You're unwilling to say when you'll stop. You will never be satisfied.

            A machine gun from 1934 can fire Full-auto, a semi-auto from today cannot, its a BIG difference.

            1. You want universal background checks? Make the NICS accessible to ALL citizens at zero cost. There's ZERO reason I (or anyone else) should be FORCED to pay a THIRD PARTY so that I can sell my property legally. And if "gun safety" is so important, you can pay to subsidize the system so we can use it. If you did this RIGHT now, I'd be willing to bet at least 50% of all private sales would be checked in NICS without any additional regulatory requirement to do so. Gang bangers wouldn't follow the law no matter what you did.

            2. Why should there be a waiting period for anyone who already owns a weapon in any of those classes? Why different time periods? Why those time periods? Does it take longer to "cool off" if you were going to shoot someone with a Glock instead of an SKS?

            3. I challenge you to find a weapon that's for sale today that isn't "military style" or based on an operating system that was designed SPECIFICALLY for military needs. They're ALL military style, some are just more modern. What makes them "military style?" Do I get to have a Mosin Nagant or a Mauser 98K? Those are bolt-actions with non-detachable magazines but they were LITERALLY the primary weapon for the two largest armies in Europe.

            4. This is going to be abused from day one. It will also result in the deaths of a LOT of innocent people and a LOT of cops. Enjoy.

            5. Why 10? Why not 11? Why not 5? Good luck confiscating all of the ones currently in circulation...and preventing guys with machine shops and 3D printers from making more...and preventing people who work at ranges from loaning them out or selling them after they've been deemed "inoperable" and supposed to be destroyed.

            1. You will note in my initial response I said that many people, myself included, accept guns for hunting, target practice and self defense. Yet you conclude that I want to take away all guns. It appears there is no common ground and finding any is a fruitless exercise. Am I right here?

  12. "once and for all address the gun violence epidemic that plagues our nation."

    Only legal option: repeal the second amendment.

    If you aren't working on that, you are lying about safety, and just want to disarm law abiding citizens.
    The only reason for a politician to want to disarm law abiding citizens is that they plan to abolish freedom.

  13. I will gladly defend your right to free speech even if you use it against me. I will not however extend you the same courtesy on guns.

    1. When the government says the latter they quickly renege on the former

      1. I didn't see you speak out when a gun store posted pictures of congresswomen on a billboard. If you refuse to take your responsibility for owning a gun seriously you will lose that right.

        1. I thought you defended the right to free speech, do gun store owners not have a first amendment right to criticize politicians?

          1. Wow you are making my point. I can't defend your gun rights if you refuse to use them responsibly. Nor would anyone else.

            1. And you are making mine, you are essentially saying gun owners must give up their right to free speech, because you consider it "irresponsible" when they express opinions you don't like

              1. I never said the government should prohibit the billboard. Either you didn't read my comment or you don't understand the basic 'right to free speech'. Either way this confirms that there must be limits on gun rights.

                1. Either way this confirms that there must be limits on gun rights.

                  Maybe yes, and maybe no... name a current politician (and group) you trust to draft these "limits on gun rights".

                2. I still fail to see why this means that we must put limits on gun rights: where in the Constitution does it say that we can only be free to express our political opinions if we don't own a gun store?

            2. How is expressing your opinion that certain politicians are "idiots" the epitome of abusing gun rights?

              Last I checked, if a person owning guns wanted to use guns irresponsibly, they have to point their guns at people and pull the trigger. Saying nasty things about people you don't like is *not* on the same level as this.

        2. That's because calling someone and idiot is free speech, even when gun store owners do it. The billboard didn't said "need to be shot" or anything of the sort.

          While you're here complaining, I don't remember seeing you complaining about "punch a nazi" (when the left considers virtually everyone to the right of HIllary Clinton to be nazis) or Cory Booker's "get up in the face" or Maxine Waters “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

          Or when Tim Kaine called for Democrats to “fight in the streets against Trump.” (Kaine’s 24-year-old son Linwood Kaine was charged in May with “fleeing police on foot, concealing his identity in a public place, and obstructing legal process,” after a masked group he was with threw smoke bombs into a pro-Trump rally in Minneapolis, Minnesota in March.)

          Or Atty Gen Loretta Lynch said "They’ve marched, they’ve bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again..."

          Or CNN man-on-the-street: “If we don’t fight, then who will fight for us? People had to die for your freedom where we’re at today. We can’t just do rallies, we have to fight back. There will be casualties on both sides. There will be because people have to die to make a change in this world. Trump, enough with your racism."

          1. Are we still doing no civility until dems are elected?

          2. I have no problem with incivility but I have always spoken out against 'punch a nazi'. If you publicly call people 'idiot' and put their faces on a billboard advertising your gun store, then this is clear incitement. It is irresponsible even if it is protected free speech. I support gun rights but your refusal to do minimal self-policing confirms that there must be limits.

            1. So you're saying that because people who support gun rights won't punish a gun store owner for expressing an opinion that the gun store owner has every right to express, that it's up to government to silence this person?

              Whatever happened to the First Amendment?

            2. Then I guess we have to lock up Bernie and AOC and Nancy and Chuckie. Bernie incited Hodgkinson. AOC incited the guy who assaulted the ICE facility recently, and Nancy and Chuckie incited the attacks on trump supporters.

              This is how the game is played, right?

  14. Repealing the second amendment is the only legal option for any kind of constitutional 'gun control'.

    1. It may make it politically possible, but it still wouldn't be constitutional. Article 1 Section 8 doesn't grant Congress the authority to pass gun control laws.

      Granted, that hasn't stopped them before.

      1. Technically, once you pass an Amendment, it becomes Constitutional by definition. The actual wording of the Amenedment would have the same weight as the rest of the Constitution, so it could in fact grant Congress the right to pass gun control laws if it was written to say that.

        1. No, it wouldn't make laws Constitutional. It would merely make the Constitution null and void. The only legitimate purpose of a government is to protect the rights of individuals. Once that government no longer does that, it's illegitimate, and it's appropriate to remove it, and replace it with one that *will* protect the rights of individuals.

          Including the right to keep and bear arms!

        2. The point being, simply repealing the 2A only strips the people of an enumerated protection of their right to keep and bear arms.

          However, the Constitution is an INCLUSIVE list of Federal powers. Repealing the 2A does not inherently grant the Federal govt to power to create/enforce firearms laws (since firearms regulation is NOT a Constitutionally enumerated power of ANY Federal branch).

    2. That's not what the Supreme Court said.

    3. But, first that would assume that the B.O.R (and federal government) grants someone an amendable, revocable privilege (as it sure as hell isn't a right, at that point) rather that outlining the fed's clearly written responsibility to safeguard and defend that person's right, as mandated in it's founding charter.

  15. "once and for all address the gun violence epidemic that plagues our nation."

    "Hey, you -- gun violence epidemic! Why TF are you plaguing our nation?"

  16. Can we finally admit that our grand experiment in de-institutionalizing the mentally ill has been a colossal failure?

    1. Speaking of which, on another post, it looks like Hihn is back. Guess he did all the time in the bug house that they could tolerate and let him loose again.

    2. We could institutionalize the mentally ill and imprison the sane but criminally motivated.

      Or, as the left wants to do, try to run the larger society as an over regulated loony bin or maximum security prison, and do away with the need for isolated institutes and prisons.

  17. I love all this faux outrage that we have insane mass murderers in America.

    The so-called “libertarian” who basically runs this so-called “libertarian” outfit openly fantasizes about murdering everyone who he philosophically disagrees with, and he proudly and publicly advocates for the same. And we’re supposed to believe he’s a sane believer in freedom and individual human rights!

  18. In 2017 all rifles combined—only a subset of which would qualify as "assault weapons"— accounted for just 5 percent of gun homicides

    Damn your racist statistics to hell! We need to ban something!!


    1. The vast majority of homicides in the hood, where most young men of color die, is committed with handguns by other black males.

      My racist moment for the day, you're welcome.

      1. If the whites let them out of the hood, would the whites suddenly find a reason to restrict handguns?

        1. ""If the whites let them out of the hood, would the whites suddenly find a reason to restrict handguns?""

          They might, but then someone might create an organization to defend their right to guns. Perhaps they could call it something like a National Rifle Association or something.

          But hey, lets make sure registration takes places so the whites will know who has a gun.

          1. You do know what the 2nd Amendment militias were meant to protect us from, right? That's right. Slave revolts.

            The NRA would be an empty ballroom with tumbleweeds rolling around if the blacks were perceived as better armed than the whites.

            1. I don't think Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island were afraid of slave revolts, yet they were among the States who demanded a Second Amendment.

              And the NRA was founded after the Civil War to train people in marksmanship, and some of the first chapters in the South were founded by Blacks to counter the attempts by a certain Democratic institution (often abbreviated as KKK) to be terrorized.

              To claim that the NRA is uncomfortable with blacks owning guns is an insult to the founders of the organization, and to the very members to this day; and it's particularly insulting to people like Colion Noir who to this day speak on behalf of the NRA, and who defend gun rights in general.

              Go away, racist KKK Democrat wannabe.

              1. Do you seriously believe your own bullshit? Democrats were abandoned by the white racial grievance crowd in the fucking 60s. Because the Democrats who didn't live in the South had the audacity to demand a modicum of equal rights for black people. Get new material. Jesus. Are those racist Southern Democrats still there, or are they not electing far-right theocrats who molest little girls down there?

                1. Yeah! Those Virginia governors are repulbi...wait a sec..

                  1. Sometimes all I can do is blink in disbelief. Who are you trying to convince of what? Yourself of bullshit?

                    Virginia is a blue-ish state now, thanks to sprawl from DC. Did you not know that?

                    1. So, I should convince myself that the current, KKK hood-wearing, blackface performing Democratic Virginia governor is a Republican?

                2. Yeah.. it's not like northern (D) politicians would be so cynical as to incentivize of disenfranchised blacks to move to large northern cities with the promise of freedom and equality, in order to shore up voting numbers, only to contain them out of sight in crime infested ghettos with predatory and destructive welfare schemes, and locking them out of better employment opportunities with oppressive, cumbersome union requirements and petty bureaucracy..

                  1. Those gullible blacks!

                    Not like those rational philosopher wizards of conservatism who think Jesus had a pet dinosaur.

                3. For a party that allegedly was abandoned by the white racial grievance crowd in the 60's, they still have an awful large number of racists. But it's easy to forgive them, because they are Democrats.

                  And I'm sick and tired of the "but they swapped parties in the 60's" crap. If you look at the Republican Party platform before the 60's, and the Republican Party platform after the 60's, there isn't much of a change. Similarly for the Democrats. Yet somehow we're supposed to magically believe that racist Democrats became racist Republicans -- and that civil-rights-minded Republicans became civil-rights-minded Democrats -- but left their policies in their respective parties behind!

                  It is you who needs to get new material.

              2. Back in the 1960s NRA gave a gun club charter to Rob Williams of Monroe, Union County, North Carolina, so he could arm and organize black WWII and Korean War vets as a black guard against the KKK. At that TRB in the liberal magazine The New Republic attacked NRA for supplying director of civilian marksmanship guns and ammo to Williams (who TRB labeled a black nationalist) and for supplying .22 ammunition to marksmanship club members in Harlem.

            2. Revolts, period. The first instance of a USA militia quelling insurrection was the Whiskey Rebellion, which were white people who didn't want to pay taxes.

              To paraphrase your favorite line, "do you really believe your own bullshit?"

            3. Hey look, its "The Revisionist History Hour" hosted by Tony!

              Next episode: "THe PaRtIEs SwiTCheD"

        2. “If the whites let them out of the hood”? Ummmm, ok.

          Why does someone so obsessed with collective guilt and grievance bother with a website like this?



  19. 'Common Sense Gun Safety Legislation' = Gun confiscation.
    Even Heller Keller can see this.

  20. Reason. Practically Panglossian about climate change.

    An Onion parody of pessimism when it comes to mass murder.

  21. This is one of the few policy positions remaining where Reason is still reasonable.

  22. >>>"once and for all address the gun violence epidemic that plagues our nation."

    universal gun dispense might even the tables.

  23. Can someone put a leash on Tulpa and affix him to an armoire or something out of reach of his janky speed?

  24. "A well-regulated militia" is probably an organized militia, don't you think?

    Being necessary for the security of a free state would suggest that the authors of 2A were concerned about the security of STATES.

    "The right of the people" in 2A is collective. Notice that in 5A it is "persons" when they mean individual.

    "Keep and bear". Not buy, sell or own. Keep and bear, according the needs of the free state, in accordance with their regulations of the militia. Usually kept in an armory. Usually "bear" when called upon to do so (muster calls, conscription, etc.)

    2A could easily have been written like 1A: "Congress shall make no law respecting the regulation of firearms, or prohibiting the free exchange thereof; or abridging the freedom of hunting, or of self-defense; or the right of the people privately to maintain armories, and to overthrow the Government for a redress of grievances."

    But they didn't. They wrote "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    It was written this way because to the anti-federalists for whom the Bill of Rights was incorporated, regulating the militia , protecting the state, and keeping and bearing arms were all the same thing. Regulation was part of keeping and bearing, not opposed to it, because a well-regulated militia made the state secure. 2A is actually agnostic, in its original form, to individual rights.

    It does not say congress shall make no law. It says that the right to keep and bear arms to protect the state shall not be infringed.

    1. The people is the same the people in the other amendments, or are you suggesting the first and fourth amendments only protect the states?

      1. Thank you for asking.

        The Fourth Amendment also refers to "persons", twice, which refers to individuals.

        The First Amendment, not to shock you or anything, but yes. The original intent was that "Congress shall make no law..." meaning the federal congress. There was no intent at the beginning to protect individuals from State action, although many state constitutions had their own freedom of speech clauses.

        None of the Bill of Rights was even considered to protect individuals until the Civil Rights Amendments of 1868, i.e., 13A and 14A. That changed everything (albeit slowly, in increments). We take "individual rights for granted now" but it really is the result of incorporation doctrine in the post civil war era. This is not even controversial among legal scholars -- chose your favorite originalist, such as Scalia, Thomas, Bork, etc. they have all written about this at length.

        1. You just proved you are don't know the Constitution well. The 14th Amendment incorporated the Constitutional privileges and immunities of citizens to the states. Prior to that they only applied to the US Government.
          If you read the Constitution, you will see a careful separation of the use of State and People. They are not synonyms. State is used when the power/limit is applied to the States. People refers to individuals.

          1. Rat,

            No. Incorportation doctrine is based on due process under 14A, not privileges and immunities. That's Con Law 101.

            I never claimed that the state and the people are synonymous. They are obviously not. That does not mean that "the people" means individuals.

            Notice that the due process clause of 14A refers to persons, not the people (and P&I refers to citizens).

            The Constitution refers to the people, persons, and to citizens. "People" is a pluraity, i.e., a democratic expression of will. Read the Bill of Rights. Throughout, the word "people" is used to describe collective action (peacably assemble, petition, etc.). Where individuals are referred to they are persons, or "the accused," and so on.

            In the US there are only netagive rights. So the Bill of Rights originally applied to restrict federal action only (as you seem to say). Under 14A due process, the Bill of Rights could be applied to restrict state governments. But it was not automatic, it required over a century of piecemeal litigation.

    2. If the Founding Fathers wanted to protect the right of States to create militias, why didn't they say "the right of the States, to raise militias, shall not be infringed"?

      But they didn't. Indeed, shortly after Congress came into session, they organized the militia as every able-bodied male from the ages of 16 to 45. It seems to me that they expected every male to be able, and even have the right, to own guns.

      1. Because they meant the people of the state, as a plural expression of democratic will, not the right of the state itself.

    3. The meaning of "well-regulated" at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment is not the same meaning as today.
      At the time, "regulate" meant "to hold to a standard," not "to restrict or suppress or control."
      That's why the British troops were called "The Regulars." They were held to a higher standard of conformity. Each British Regular was expected to have regulation equipment and uniform.
      Our American rebels were requested to bring their own equipment and uniforms as we attempted to meet the high regulation of the British.

      1. Even after the war American militia were expected to provide their own weapons.
        Second Militia Act of 1792
        That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

      2. You can't hold a militia to a standard of any kind without supressing and controlling people who do not meet the standard. The word regulate meant the same thing then as now.

        Militias required people to follow rules.

        As a side note, I find it interesting the people here seem to be ok with conscription in a militia -- i.e., the regulation of people -- but not regulation of arms.

        Or are you telling me this militia stuff was always 100% voluntary?

      3. The meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment
        From: Brian T. Halonen

        The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

        1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

        1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

        1812: “The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

        1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

        1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

        1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

        The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

        BTW: don't forget about having a "well-regulated" bowel movement. 😉

    4. No.

      The 2A says the the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does NOT say under what conditions.

    5. Read the writings of the men who wrote it and you will discover everything you are attempting to argue is wrong. All of the first 10 amendments are a restriction on the power of the Federal government. If states wished to regulate guns, then that was okay, but not the Federal government. None of the rights are collective unless a state decides and its own residents agree. This prevented one state from dictating how others were to live and work.

  25. I'm surprised that the Silicon Valley brain slugs let 'Reason' run pro-gun articles. Must be a false-flag operation.

  26. Why are politicians such pussies about taking away guns? I mean people don’t get upset when cities ban E-cigs, fireworks, and there are still some dry counties out there that ban the sale of booze. Berkeley is even banning gas appliances. Do we now need constitutional amendments to protect the right to own things other than guns?

    1. Yes, we probably do need amendments to protect these things. Apparently the 9th and 10th Amendments weren't good enough!

  27. Blah blah blah -more reasons we CAN'T do anything with absolute not suggestion on what to do.

    I guess we're all just accepting senseless massacres as a part of life now.

    1. Works for the VA and most of the War on Poverty.

    2. Senseless massacres were always a part of human life.
      Just look back at Genghis Khan's raids across most of Asia.
      Or the Viking raiders.
      Fact of the matter is (and Reason keeps reminding us of this), we live in remarkably peaceful times. Let us not forget this and rush to crack down on innocent, law-abiding gun owners.

    3. Well Kiddie Raper, her friends have created a culture in which personal responsibility and morality are anathema, and barely exist. Plus all you progtards are sociopathic anywhere.

      Your kind really are to blame.

    4. People aren't demonizing the AMA or the FDA because doctors and nurses ACCIDENTALLY kill between 210,000-400,000 people per year (you know, basically 20-40x as many people as are murdered with guns every year)...I'm not seeing a real robust lobbying effort to prevent the THIRD leading cause of death in the USA.

      I guess we're just accepting senseless incompetence on the part of LICENSED medical professionals as a part of life now.

  28. The most serious difficulty with "common sense" gun control is the measurement problem. Measures now proposed may have a marginal effect on gun violence, but how would we ever know? The effects of a program can only be measured if the effects are large. With respect to incremental changes, however, here is the problem: if gun violence goes down, one can argue that we need even stricter laws, because such laws seem to be working. If gun violence goes up or remains constant, one can argue that we need even stricter laws to show progress.

    1. There were few gun laws until the 1970s and mass shootings were practically unheard of. The problem goes far beyond guns, but it’s easier to blame a single thing than address a very complex problem.

      1. This is not correct. There have always been gun laws, right back to the very beginning.

        I refer you to an article "GUN LAW HISTORY IN THE UNITED STATES AND SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS" by Robert J. Spitzer.


        1. How does the existence of gun laws contradict the claim that there were far fewer gun laws then than now?

          Indeed, back in 1970, it wasn't uncommon for students to carry their rifles on the subways of New York City to take them to school, so they could participate in shooting competitions. Yet now all of that is unheard of, but school shootings aren't....

          1. You went from "few" (meaning not many) to "fewer" (meaningly only at least one less than "equal") pretty fast.

            The sheer number is irrelevant unless you look at the substance of the laws. Some gun laws add rather than restrict freedom.

            NYC is an interesting example as I've lived there for the last 20 years. In the 70s, it was a much more dangerous city. Now, with some of the strictest gun control laws in nation, it is also one of the safest cities. (I understand that this does not automatically mean causation -- but it does show that gun control does not make cities more dangerous).

        2. But they were always on a state level as they should be now. Each state would be able to restrict guns as it sees fit because the state government is directly answerable to the residents within in it. Federal laws are the problem for me. It is insane that politicians in NY, CA and other urban areas get to mandate what someone living in a rural area is permitted to own and how they are allowed to defend themselves. There are many area in rural Texas when the only law enforcement is the county sheriff and when you call, it may take 30-45 minutes for them to arrive if they happen to be on the other side of the county. The entire world is not like every big city where police are seconds away. Laws written from a very limited view (urban) of the world is why so many Federal gun laws are worthless.

  29. In 2018, crime rates in the 30 largest U.S. cities declined for the second straight year, reaching near-record lows.

  30. Common sense legislation is the reasonable response to everything. If you can't afford a college education or your medical treatments, if you don't have a good job or a nice place to live, if you want other people to behave as you want them to behave or want them to stop trying to make you behave as they want you to behave, government is there to solve your problems. Like Santa Claus, government is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful and exists merely to serve your wishes. Right now I wish I had a tuna salad on rye and why's the government taking so damn long to bring me my sandwich? I'd hate to think I might have to fix my own sandwich and my own problems.

  31. People need to possess guns both for personal safety and to have the ability to form militias to oppose corrupt governments.

    We don’t need untrained undisciplined retards unloading on innocent people.

    Requiring people to pass licencing requirements to weed out untrained undisciplined retards who couldn’t be trusted in a well organized militia doesn’t violate the intent of the second amendment.

    Any real common sense law needs to address the fact that people who are well trained, disciplined and rational, meeting the the requirements of a militia, can and should possess and carry personal firearms of all types.

    Their “militia ready” status demonstrated by their crime free records and demonstration of situational training readiness.

    Be prepared for the number of legal gun owners to actually increase, while the retards and criminals are disarmed.

    1. Good thing licensing laws could never be abused.

      1. Guns can also be abused. That is why we are having this discussion. There is no such thing as a perfect solution when you have to share the planet with other people. Compromise is how we live together.

        1. If you're incapable of comprehending the distinction between a few fruitcakes abusing their rights and privileges, and the regulatory state abusing its powers, there's no use talking to you.

    2. I'm always in favor of more training.

      However, how much training do you need before you could be considered "safe"? Is it 4 hours? 8? 160?

      The more training you require for owning a gun, the more difficult it is for using that gun.

      Having said that, I sincerely doubt that our gun violence problem is the result of a lack of training. How much training do you really think will be effective to stop gang members from murdering people over turf, to stop depressed people from committing suicide, and to stop crazy people from killing others?

      Considering that there are somewhere between 400 million and 600 million guns in circulation, and an estimated half of households have these guns, but we only have about 30,000 gun deaths per year (the vast majority of which are suicides and murder), I somehow doubt training is really all that essential to make us safer.

      Requiring training is just one more "common sense" law that is far more likely to eat away at our rights, than to do anything meaningful about our violence problems.

      1. More training could make determined killers more lethal.
        Some of these shooters were actually quite bad at shooting, especially the one in Santa Barbara who easily missed several short-range targets.

      2. Training and discipline, the latter demonstrated by criminal record checks.

        Commit a crime and lose your right to gun use for a few years.

        Part of training is testing. Even psychological testing. Like police checking criminal history psychologists could check internet communication history as half these retards leave a pretty clear trail.

        1. You do realize if you commit a felony, any felony you are barred by Federal law from possessing a firearm, period, yes? There is no losing the right for a few years. The prohibition is permanent, unless you are pardoned.

    3. Any real common sense law needs to address the fact that people who are well trained, disciplined and rational, meeting the the requirements of a militia, can and should possess and carry personal firearms of all types.

      Mandatory carry. I could see an argument for that - as a member of society that protects and defends you, you have a duty to protect and defend that society. The Swiss used to believe that sort of thing and isn't Switzerland one of those good socialist countries we're supposed to emulate?

      At least I could see an argument for making that argument - the left makes unreasonable demands on individual liberty, make unreasonable demands right back.

    4. Look at the licensing requirements favored by gun control advocates past and present: they are more like defacto prohibition. Like Chicago requiring training before you are eligible to own a gun or get a license to carry, but making sure private gun ranges are zoned out of existence. Or the NYC residence license: you can't take the gun out of the city to a shooting range even if you have a private residence out side the city. Reasonable control to people predisposed to prohibition is de facto prohibition. Always some Catch-22.

      They are seldom comparable to licensing of drivers, boaters, pilots, ham radio operators -- you name any reasonable control system.

      1. Licensing proposals all have one common trait. They granted the government the ability to decide who has a gun based on the "need" of the person for protection. As has happened in California, NY, Chicago, MA, NJ and other blue states with strict laws, the only people the government views as needing a gun are the wealthy, politicians and politically connected. The common person is left to fend for themselves without any protection and if they do defend themselves are often charged with a felony.

    5. Licensing as you present means possession of a gun is not a right but a privilege to be determined by the government which is in complete contrast to the intent of the 2nd amendment. It is not up to me to prove to the government why I need a gun, it is up to the government to prove why I cannot have one. This is no different that our protection when arrested. It is not my responsibility to prove I am innocent but the government's responsibility to prove I am guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

  32. If you run across anybody who insists on more gun control, ask them this:
    "Would you punish all blacks for the crimes of a few blacks?"
    "No, of course not."
    "Well, why would you punish all gun owners for the crimes of a few gun owners?"
    "It's not a punishment."
    "Okay, would you register all blacks for the crimes of a few blacks?"

    1. Between probation, parole, and offender registries, we're getting close to Black Registration.

    2. Or:

      Imagine a world in which Donald Trump is President and cops are racist.

      Now imagine a world in which Donald Trump is President, cops are racist, and the American public is unarmed.

      1. There were no racist cops before Donald Trump, and impeaching Trump will remove racist cops from the ranks?

        Who was president when Tamir Rice and Andy Lopez were shot for playing with toy guns?

        1. To be sure there were racist cops before DT.

          The point here, is that if DT is a brutal fascist, and racist cops are rampant.. is this the time you’d disarm the American public?

      2. To be clear, you are arguing that minorities need to shoot cops every now and then? Or do I misread you?

  33. A couple of clarifications

    The pistol grip would have to go, and so probably would the "upper handguard," which seems to qualify as a forbidden "barrel shroud.
    The "upper handguard" is not a thing on the AK. A barrel shroud is basically a heat shield that you could theoretically hold, but it is not part of the standard stock of the weapon. It's basically there to prevent you from burning yourself on a hot barrel and that's it. It always made me wonder why this was included in the original AWB to begin with.

    "Since it takes just a few seconds to switch magazines, it's not clear how often this constraint would make a difference in attacks on unarmed people. "
    I can train you within a few hours to change a magazine in approx 0.5 5o 1 second.

  34. What's missing in this discussion is the fact that it's high time we acknowledge that Americans are the worst people in the world. The proof is obvious, and accords with bedrock, indisputible conservative principles.

    As we all know, guns don't kill people, people kill people. So the huge carnage from the 31 mass shootings in American this year has nothing whatsoever to do with the greater availability of guns here than in other countries. It can only be explained by the fact that Americans are worse than foreigners.

    The answer isn't fewer guns, but more guns: "The answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," right?

    Look, El Paso, Texas is in a state that encourages open carry, concealed carry, and campus carry gun rights. It believes in freedom, in other words. The killer walked into a Walmart and it's likely there were many people packing. That didn't stop the massacre. Why? Because either the gun-toting shoppers were cowards, or there didn't happen to be any around when the blood-letting started.

    The answer? Simple. Obvious: All Texans over 18 year old should be required to carry loaded guns and should be required to shoot-to-kill in cases where they're in the presence of a mass shooter. Problem solved.

    Lefties will howl, of course, but they're cowards, and there's no better solution out there.

    1. Why? Because either the gun-toting shoppers were cowards, or there didn’t happen to be any around when the blood-letting started.

      Or, they simply took a more nuanced .. "practical" approach..

      1. ^ That guy did a great thing and saved a lot of people.

    2. Yours is a moronic argument. Even those who were carrying reacted as would any normal person. They froze when the shooting started. It takes a 1-3 seconds for your brain to process what is happening and react. I do not know where the shooting occurred in the store but if it was in the front checkout, shooting without clearly verifying your target is not only irresponsible, it is criminal. Until you are in the same situation, calling anyone a coward is both childish and incredibly ignorant.

      1. The latest data I could find indicates that there are only a few thousand CHL holders within a 10 mile radius of that particular WalMart. El Paso seems to be very low density in terms of permit holders to overall population. It's entirely likely that the one guy carrying was the only one in the place at that time.

  35. I love these threads because conservatives get to let out their inner Malcom X railing against RACIST gun laws!?! Then on every other issue racism just isn’t a big deal. So let’s keep this BLM rally going! NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!!

    1. Take you meds and fuck off back to the looney-bin you escaped from.

      1. Fight the power!! Gun laws are RACIST!!!


  36. I can load 10 rounds into a fixed magazine on a SKS from a stripper clip in about 2 seconds. So much for your magazine theory nonsense which also displays the author's ignorance yet is writing about it!
    "Well regulated militia" cannot be US military or police who are gvernment employees but most likely the sheriff who is elected by the citizens. "Regulated" is infringing -so it should be clear now to those who need explanation.
    How about letting citizens defend themselves and punish the lawbreakers? That is the only solution although violence will never be stopped. Why do we have to pay to exercise our Rights? That is an infringement as well. Police feel and have convinced the country they belong there but are not in the Constitution. They have unlimited power and high-tech "tools" but are slow to use cameras plus are keen to hide the evidence just as district attorneys are, which we do not need either.

  37. Nothing in this comment thread addresses what I see as the problem here. The problem is not guns. The problem is mentally or emotionally disturbed people with guns, who then go on to use them. That El Paso murderer and the Dayton murderer will no doubt be found to have mental/emotional issues. Give it time, and it will all come out. Which leads me to my main point: There has to be a minimally disruptive way to remove guns from this subset of people that won't threaten the civil rights of the rest of us.

    2A is clear, and SCOTUS has helpfully clarified for us in recent years: 2A is an individual right. That is the problem I have with 'gun control' regulations. Invariably, they are overly broad when we need much more precision.

    Could we not try some very limited in scale Red Flag laws, where mentally/emotionally disturbed people are identified (by a mental health professional? Family?), their firearms removed, and then have them subject to regular judicial review to determine whether their condition has been alleviated? Yes, there are many sticky issues there (how do you know that depression has abated, what is the timeframe for periodic review, etc).

    I don't want to compromise our individual liberties, but we have a problem here: Mentally/emotionally disturbed people with guns who then go on to murder people with them. This has happened repeatedly. We have to find a way to address that in a manner that does not compromise the 2A rights of the rest of us.

    As I read the comments from the 'ideological purists', I cannot help but wonder what world they live in, and what history they have read. I am quite sure the Founders never intended someone clearly disturbed to have guns. In fact, it is probably not mentioned at all because it is so common-sense. As in....Duh! You don't give guns to mentally/emotionally disturbed people. Seems pretty straightforward and obvious to me. Evidently, not so obvious to the purists.

    To the ideological purists, I have a simple challenge: What is your alternative? If the alternative is to do nothing, then I think you should clearly state that. Meaning, in your desire to leave the 2A crown jewel untouched, you are perfectly Ok with issuing guns to mentally disturbed people who can then use them to murder others, and that is just the price we need to pay as a society to guarantee our 2A rights. Go ahead, own the logical consequences of your 'pure' ideology.

    I think that 'pure' position presents a moral and ethical dilemma, personally.

    1. Substitute 1A for 2A, possession of cameras and video recorders for guns, child pornography for spree shooters.
      How much restriction should we accept in the name of a greater good?

      How much restriction on legal sources of means would actually affect bad behavior by persons with motive and intent?

      The last DoJ NIJ prison inmate survey I downloaded on sources of guns cited by inmates whose last crime involved carrying or using a gun was less than 12% commercial sources (gun dealers, pawnshops, gun shows) and over 88% family, friend, thieves, burglars, fences, black market -- 25% were drug/street dealers notorious for not following commercial laws.

      The 1991 survey was 21% regulated sources, 79% unregulated sources.

      1. Naaman...That IS the big question. How much restriction should we accept? I wish I had a magical answer for you. Sadly, I don't. Life is like that...a series of imperfect trade-offs.

        I would add: How long is that restriction, what conditions remove the restriction, and what is the oversight process?

        The problem is pretty clear: Mentally/Emotionally disturbed people acquire guns and then go on to kill innocent people.

  38. The shooter was a slave to a false narrative.

    When anyone refuses to review any evidence of truth or accept that evidence when it is irrefutable, their mind is unwell.

    The shooter refused to accept the irrefutable logic that his victims didn’t deserve to die and instead chose a false narrative that he was attached to.

  39. Gun control doesn't work for Chicago. shows the real numbers of gun control. Its political comedy...

    Gun control also doesn't work for Canada... This story also proves that.

  40. What the author misses is that laws establish and speak to our beliefs about what is and what is not acceptable. We are in a downward spiral with regard to gun violence and mass murder. Will any particular law stop this? It is difficult to say and easy to point to where a law would fail. Anyone driving down the road will see people exceeding the speed limit or rolling through stop signs. But we don't get rid of traffic rules. There is an expectation that they are to be obeyed and most people comply. I believe that some common sense gun reforms, including mandatory background checks, well defined red flag laws, waiting periods for purchase, limits on military style weapons, and limits on ammunition magazines, are needed. Would they stop the next shooting? We can't tell. They would start to show that we are tired of the horror and the inaction? This should have been done after the Sandy Hook shooting.

    1. Voluntary private gun sale background checks in Tennessee run $30. The UBCs in other states run $55 to $65.

      Virginia State Police were running private sales federal NICS background checks at gun shows for $3 or $5 for the seller and buyer; gun dealers in Tennessee charge $10 for state TICS and federal NICS background checks on store sales, $30 for private party transactions which include NCIC on the used gun.

      In my opinion, the $55 to $65 fee for a UBC is set high as a punitive sin tax to discourage or punish private sales. Honestly, it only discourages private sales with a background check.

      "Common sense gun safety" is just a cover for gun prohibitionists pushing the same-o same-o.

      1. Considering most guns (that are worth a damn) cost hundreds to thousands of dollars, I don't think a $65 fee is that big of a deal. If that's breaking your bank, then perhaps you should prioritize fixing your finances before acquiring arms.

        1. If the government requires an action for you to exercise a right*, the service should be accessible to EVERYONE eligible and provided AT COST. Anything else is, in effect, the equivalent of a poll tax.

          *Anything required BEFORE a right is exercised effectively makes it a privilege anyway.

  41. Crime is done by a person with motive or intent exploiting opportunities and utilizing means to do the crime.

    Common sense crime control is based on
    _ identifying persons expressing motive or intent,
    _ providing security aimed to deny opportunity to act.

    The focus on means as a symbolic scapegoat is voodoo criminology.

    Restricting the means when the means is owned by millions who have no criminal motive or intent to misuse that means tends (a) create black markets in the means, and (b) to take resources away from programs aimed at identifying bad guys or providing security. Demonizing defenders of the hated means seldomn pays off politically in the long term.

    The ineffectual but expensive ballistic fingerprint databases on legally sold firearms in New York State and Maryland were repealed as were the Canadian and New Zealand national registries of rifles and shotguns. Those were sold to the public as common sense crime control but did not stand the test of time. Canada could have for the cost of 17 years of the national long gun registry had paid for an additional 2,000 police officers (salary, training, benefits).

  42. OK, having thought about it further, I've lost considerable faith in Trump's ability to win at 12-D chess. Any President who wasn't truly cucked would've picked up the microphone, said "Juàrez", and dropped the mic.

    This single shooting will double El Paso's historically low murder rate. Meanwhile, Cuidad Juàrez averages 100 shooting deaths a month, year-over-year for nearly a decade.

    I keep hearing Mexicans, as in Mexican citizens living in Mexico, on places like NPR saying the US needs to do more to control guns and terrorism and/or that the Mexican government should sue over this event. Fuck. That. Noise.

    1. Trump may not be great at 12-D chess, but he's a pro when it comes to underwater, upside-down Hungry Hungry Hippos.

  43. If it was "common sense", there would be universal agreement and it would already be implemented

  44. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $30h – $72h…how? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

    Heres what I’ve been doing… ,,,


  45. But, but, but.... We have to do something, ANYTHING! Since that always works out so well.

  46. "Legislation" = threatening to shoot people with guns.
    Nothing is so contagious as example; and we never do any great good or evil which does not produce its like. ~ Francois de la Rochefoucauld (1613-1680)

  47. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i'm my non-public boss. that is what I do...... HERE ☛

  48. There are some who read the second amendment as stating that, because we need an armed force to keep us free, the people should also be armed, against that very force.
    Whether you believe that, or not, I believe it, whether written in the constitution or not.

  49. I don't think lessening killings is the point of gun control. The point of gun control is to rev up the mob for political purposes. And, more lately, to get some money from Bloomberg.

  50. every proposal for "common sense gun laws" all have the same key concepts. Punishing those who have broken no laws, stripping them of their rights, granting more power to the government and placating people whop either want an all powerful, centralized government or those too stupid to grasp they are being manipulated and lied to about the so called dangers posed by guns in private hands.

  51. The 2nd amendment shares one common trait with the 1st and 3-9. The limit the power of the Federal government to infringe on the rights of the individual. Even the 10th is a limitation on Federal power because it makes it clear, the states are were the actual power of government lies. The core problem with this debate is a fundamental lack of understanding about the perception of states prior to the civil war. If you read the newspaper articles, letters and essays from prominent people,and other important documents, you realize each state viewed itself as an independent nation and as a group the "United - States" were small countries working together for the common good. However, today southerners are often attacked by those on the left as "traitors" because states in the south seceded. However, a number of northern newspapers of the day argued this was their right and it was wrong for Lincoln to send the Federal army into Virginia. My point is just that if you fail to understand the original view of this country, it is impossible to understand the intent of the 10 original amendments.

  52. at the federal level, you only need to do a background check when buying a gun from a dealer. Private sales have no requirment. About 10 states have added requirements that all gun purchases require background checks.

    The result is that criminals simply drive one state over, buy a gun with no paperwork and a fistful of dollars, and drive back.

    California found that 60% of guns used in crimes came from otu of state. Chicago was the same: 60%. New York: 75%.

    States with the weakest gun laws are the biggest exporter of guns to criminals in the nation.

    Background checks arent working because a criminal can avoid them by going for a drive.

    Universal background checks at the federal level would cut criminals off from their easist source of guns.

  53. TV ADS=========_
    Start now making easy coins on line at home. start making greater $500 each day by way of working on-line at home. i’ve obtained $18528 ultimate month from this clean home based totally task. This process is realy wonderful and offers me extraordinary component time profits each day. anybody can now makes extra earnings online easily by way of simply follow instructions in this below given site……



  54. "Yet it hardly seems strange to point out that the ability to fire more than 10 rounds without switching magazines can be important in self-defense—a point that current and retired police officers make every time they demand exemptions from laws like California's."

    All these "exemption" laws are unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution (Article XIV, Clause 1).

    It effectively creates a "super citizen" to which laws do not apply.

    Quod erat demonstrandum

    “Where rights secured by The Constitution are involved, there can be no rule or law making legislation which would abrogate or abolish them.”
    –Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436

    “If ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ is to have any force, the people must have a right to acquire the very firearms they are entitled to keep and to bear. One cannot truly enjoy a constitutionally protected right when the state is permitted to snuff out the means by which he exercises it.”
    –Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

    “The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.”
    –‘People vs. Zerillo’, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927 (1922)

    “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”
    –‘Wilson v. State’, 33 Ark. 557, 34 Am. Rep. 52 (1878)

    “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.”
    –‘Nunn vs. State’, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.