Assault Weapon Ban

Joe Biden Concedes the 'Assault Weapon' Ban He Wants To Revive Had No Impact on the Lethality of Legal Guns

The presidential contender nevertheless insists the law reduced mass shooting deaths.


Joe Biden, who just a few years ago was still bragging about "the 1994 Biden Crime Bill," has since had second thoughts about aspects of that law, including its expansion of mandatory minimums and crimes subject to the death penalty. But the former Democratic senator and vice president, who is the leading contender for his party's 2020 presidential nomination, is still proud of the ban on "assault weapons" that was also included in that law, and he tries to explain why in a New York Times op-ed piece published yesterday.

Even while conceding that the "assault weapon" ban left lots of equally lethal firearms on the market, Biden argues that it made mass shootings less common. "From 1994 to 2004, the years when assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were banned, there were fewer mass shootings," he writes, citing a study reported in The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery last January. But that is not what the researchers, led by New York University epidemiologist Charles DiMaggio, actually found.

Drawing on three databases of mass shootings (maintained by Mother Jones, the Los Angeles Times, and researchers at Stanford University), DiMaggio focused on shootings that killed at least four people, the definition used by the FBI. "In a linear regression model controlling for yearly trend, the federal ban period was associated with a statistically significant 9 fewer mass shooting-related deaths per 10,000 firearm homicides," they reported. "Mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the federal ban period."

The study, in other words, looked not at the number of mass shootings, as Biden claims, but the number of mass-shooting deaths as a share of all firearm homicides. The difference in total fatalities during the period when the ban was in effect amounted to 15 fewer deaths over a decade, or 1.5 a year on average, including mass shootings that did not involve weapons covered by the ban. That's based on a comparison of deaths from 1981 through 1993 to deaths from 1994 through 2004, the year the ban expired. Leaving aside the fact that the pre-ban period is two years longer than the ban period, "the drop of 15 mass shooting deaths from before the ban to during it is a slender difference on which to base firm conclusions," as Jon Greenberg notes in a recent Politifact analysis,

DiMaggio et al. concede that "no observational epidemiologic study can answer the question whether the 1994 US federal assault ban was causally related to preventing mass-shooting homicides." Furthermore, DiMaggio told Greenberg it's not clear that the rate of mass shooting deaths (per 100,000 Americans) fell during the ban period. "There is some evidence they actually declined—or at least didn't continue to increase during the period of the ban," he said.

Greenberg also quoted RAND economist Rosanna Stewart, who wrote a 2018 analysis concluding that the results of two earlier studies looking at the impact of the "assault weapon" ban on mass shootings were "inconclusive." Stewart is still unconvinced. "I don't think [DiMaggio's] methods are well-suited for determining the causal impact of the assault weapons ban," she told Greenberg.

Mass shootings are very rare events; between 1981 and 2017, the period covered by DiMaggio et al.'s study, there were just 44, or an average of about one a year, that met their criteria. Furthermore, the numbers related to these crimes are highly volatile; in 2017, for example, a single incident, the massacre in Las Vegas, accounted for 60 percent of deaths in mass shootings that killed four or more people. That volatility makes correlations with a single policy difficult to identify and interpret.

The causal mechanism imagined by Biden is even harder to figure out. He describes "assault weapons" as "military-style firearms designed to fire rapidly." But they do not fire any faster than any other semi-automatic. He also says "shootings committed with assault weapons kill more people than shootings with other types of guns." While it's true that "assault weapons" figure disproportionately in the deadliest shootings, it does not follow that eliminating them would make shootings less deadly.

Most mass shootings, including three of the 10 deadliest since 1949, do not involve "assault weapons." Going further down the list of deadliest shootings, the next 17 (some of which are tied in their rank) include 11 that involved only handguns and/or shotguns. If all the firearms in the arbitrary "assault weapon" category disappeared overnight, there would still be plenty of equally deadly alternatives.

Biden actually concedes this point, saying he favors a modified "assault weapon" ban that would "stop gun manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor modifications to their products—modifications that leave them just as deadly." Biden thus admits that the 1994 ban, the one he credits with reducing the frequency of mass shootings and the deaths caused by them, drew distinctions that had no practical significance, since the guns that remained legal were "just as deadly."

Biden is right. Under the 1994 ban, removing "military-style" features such as folding stocks, flash suppressors, or bayonet mounts transformed forbidden "assault weapons" into legal firearms, even though the compliant models fired the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity as the ones targeted by the law. But that is also true of the new, supposedly improved "assault weapon" ban sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.), who wrote the 1994 ban. Feinstein has fiddled with the list of military-style features (omitting bayonet mounts while adding barrel shrouds, for instance), and any one of them would now be sufficient to make a rifle illegal, whereas two were required under the 1994 law. But the problem identified by Biden remains: Removing these forbidden features results in a gun that is "just as deadly."

It's not clear how Biden thinks he can solve that problem, since focusing on functionally significant features such as rate of fire, ammunition, and muzzle velocity or muzzle energy would result in a ban that covers many commonly owned firearms that were not heretofore considered "assault weapons" (and are in fact specifically exempted by Feinstein's new bill). Nor is it clear what Biden plans to do about the 16 million or so "assault weapons" that are already in circulation. He mentions "a buyback program to get as many assault weapons off our streets as possible as quickly as possible." But unless that "buyback" is mandatory (i.e., a form of compensated confiscation), it will have no impact on people who like their guns and want to keep them. And judging from past experience in the United States and other countries, a ban that includes current possession would be honored mostly in the breach.

Biden cites a 2019 poll, conducted immediately after the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, that found 70 percent of voters, including 54 percent of Republicans, either "strongly" or "somewhat" supported "banning assault-style weapons." But since 1996, according to Gallup, support for a ban on "semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles" has ebbed and flowed, falling from a high of 59 percent in 2000 to a low of 36 percent in 2016 before rebounding to 48 percent in 2017 and falling to 40 percent last October. Data from the Reason-Rupe Public Opinion Survey (sponsored by the Reason Foundation, which publishes this website) indicate that support for such legislation is especially high among people who don't understand what it would do. While Biden is trying hard to perpetuate such confusion, his own arguments unintentionally provide some clarity.

[This post has been revised to correct the number of mass shootings that killed four or more people during the period covered by DiMaggio et al.'s study.]

NEXT: Hong Kong Cops Beat and Blind Protesters As PRC Sends Trucks and Tanks to the Border

Assault Weapon Ban Joe Biden Gun Control Mass Shootings Gun Rights Second Amendment Election 2020

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.

Please to post comments

121 responses to “Joe Biden Concedes the 'Assault Weapon' Ban He Wants To Revive Had No Impact on the Lethality of Legal Guns

  1. “While Biden is trying hard to perpetuate such confusion, his own arguments unintentionally provide some clarity.”

    But he talked, personally, with survivors of the Parkland shooting, as Vice President! So, he KNOWS. Or he remembers. Or he thinks he remembers. Or something.

    1. Reason is trying to confuse us with facts instead of the truth.

      1. All these past decades I was under the impression that statements are FACTS only if they are true …. when did it officially change?

    2. Those poor kids can do just as well as white kids if they only have the chance.

    3. “But he talked, personally, with survivors of the Parkland shooting…”

      Did he take that opportunity to sniff the girls’ hair and massage their shoulders?

        1. He remembers that, vividly.

      1. How many times did Biden fly with Epstein? Asking for a friend.

        1. Epstein is dead, so, yeah, what difference at this point does it make?

          1. Sarcasm?

            1. Yep. You should get that sarcometer recalibrated.

              I thought I’d get bonus points for working in the subtle Clinton dig.

              1. Long week last week. I am the county agriculture and 4H extension Agent and fair just ended. Sarc meter isn’t up to par today. I thought it was a reference to Hillary after thinking on it

              2. +100 points

      2. I thought he spoke personally only to the victims.

  2. Joe Biden also says that poor kids can do just as well as white kids, the truth is more important than the facts, and that he was Vice President when the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School occurred. Joe says a lot of things. Very little of it has any connection to reality.

    1. In other words, Old Joe is a political hack.

    2. poor kids can do just as well as white kids


      1. That is what he said last week, in so many words.

        1. But it was a long day and he was tired. – the NYT

      2. ESPECIALLY if they are poor white kids!

  3. A casual relationship with causal relationships is sometimes necessary to advance a rung toward the ultimate goal.

  4. Joe Biden will never be President.

    This guy thought he was President during the Parkland, FL school shooting.

    Biden still generalizes that poor kids are Black.

  5. how many genders are there, Joe? lol

    1. that little cunt showcased such a large amount of what is wrong with the democrat party in a single interaction.

      Not everything mind you, but she was the personification of so much bad their party represents

      1. was beautiful.

  6. Firearms even ‘Assault Weapon’ in the hands of a person who is not criminal will not be harmful to the general public. Back grounds that says a person has not background of criminal activities would go a long way to elemental murders. But the practice of DAs pleading illegal gun charges down to a much lesser crime is causing more people to be killed.

    1. We already have background checks for criminal records.

    2. elemental murders

      Luckily those only happen periodically.

      1. death by polonium popular.

      2. This comment wins Au for the internet today.

        1. Maybe Curly was just on her periodic.

  7. There are, what, 13 million “assault style rifles” already in America?
    How many do you think will be left after law abiding citizens are asked to turn them in? How many will, unfortunately, be at the bottom of some lake due to boating accidents? How many dead cops will result from trying to confiscate rifles from 2nd amendment zealots?

    1. Look at Australia’s results. No change. Largely inoperable weapons turned in.

  8. People who wish to preserve reasonable gun rights — the right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home, for example — should be among those working hardest to develop a system that works.

    Can gun absolutism survive in an America that is more diverse, more tolerant, more city-centered, and less religious? Reasonable gun advocates should be the gun nuts’ most intense opponents.

    1. I’ll support reasonable gun control as soon as the Democrats do

    2. We just need reasonable control, as determined by retards like you.

      Can gun absolutism survive in an America that is more diverse, more tolerant, more city-centered, and less religious?

      Yeah because black people living in cities would never need a gun. My God you are a racist. That kind of disgusting “we must keep the black man disarmed” thinking has no place in 21st Century America. Go back to the 60s you toothless red neck fuck.

      1. Should we tell him the fastest growing group of new gun owners tend to be women, minorities and the LGBT community?

      2. A war on guns might be the one government policy that will do a better job of putting young black men in jail than the war on drugs. Explains Artie’s enthusiasm.

      3. Give him some credit. At least he didn’t try to say that guns are for hunting. He got almost all the way to the real intent to the Second Amendment. Maybe we’re wearing him down.

    3. And your definition of “reasonable” is? And what is this definition based on?

      For many of us, it would be a lot easier to not be an “absolutist” if you fuckers wouldn’t keep moving the goalposts. Today’s “reasonable” is tomorrow’s “loophole”.

      Gun owners have already made many compromises. Sounds to me like it’s your turn now.

      1. To progressives compromise = capitulation by others. There has been little compromise because gun owners haven’t gotten anything in return other than keeping a little bit to their freedom (until the next round).

        1. I remember when the Brady Bill was passed and signed into law. Before Slick Willy’s signature had dried on the paper the Democrats were drawing up “Brady 2”, crowing that the Brady Bill was “just the beginning”. Only the debacle of the 1994 midterms (fueled in large part by the Brady Bill and the “assault weapons” ban) stopped them.

          1. They ridicule the slippery slope but their actions show that this is a very real concept.

        2. I was having a discussion with a progressive who wanted single payer health care with no private insurance and wanted it now. I explained that was a problem because some people didn’t want to buy their health insurance from the government. His “compromise” suggestion was to phase in single payer and ban private insurance in ten different age groups, one per year, until we had single payer and no private insurance in ten years. So, basically, he gets what he wants, what anyone else wants doesn’t matter, but he has to wait a little longer than he’d like.

          1. They actually believe this is compromise.

    4. We have a system that works. It’s pretty simple, really. Butt out until and unless a person commits a crime and is convicted in accordance with all the protections of due process OR is determined to be mentally incompetent by medical authorities under judicial oversight, again with all the protections of due process.

      Will that system prevent all bad things from happening? Of course not. But it stops the serious ones without unfairly infringing on the rights and protections of the vastly larger number of legal and safe users.

    5. Reasonable gun advocates

      Look at 2A and reason that the government is already very much in violation of the constitution under the current gun control regime and would be in even further violation under laws being proposed by ant-freedom, hoplophobes.

      1. That’s part of their dishonesty. They pretend that there are no gun control laws in existence now and that “guns are less regulated than children’s toys” or “it’s easier to buy a book than to buy a gun”.

        1. Oops, I meant “easier to buy a gun than buy a book”

          1. You don’t need a background check to get an abortion.

      2. +1000

    6. Everything you just said was completely wrong – Luke Skywalker…

  9. Joe Biden: 2020’s Version of Hillary Clinton

    1. He’s just as inevitable, yes.


    1. Others demanded a total prohibition on, as Ms Higgs puts it, “anything with a penis”.

      “The men thing got complicated,” Ms Bloch says.

      “There was a move to ban male children after the age of six, or pre-puberty. I didn’t agree with that but some people felt strongly about it.”

      These Feminist Socialist shitholes are self-correcting. Without penises, all the women die without children to take over. Land goes to state.

    2. Joe Biden say: “Asian porn stars who fight on set with no winner result in hen tie.”

    3. I worked most of my life in female dominated industries, and women fight more often then men. They also tend to backstab and hold grudges for much longer.

      1. I can’t imagine what a viper pit that place must have been.

        1. Indeed. Early in the article it talked about being naked without men “leering”. The article also mentioned they were mostly lesbian. So, does that mean that men and women ARE different? But, I thought gender differences were socialized, not genetic.
          Would these women be TERFs now?

          1. And lesbians don’t leer at other women?

            1. They leer and sneer. Especially in canada…

              1. So Hihn is a lesbian from Canada? Nooooo.

    4. “Female utopia” = An island made up of fat, ugly and angry lesbians.

    5. A world without men. That’s interesting.

      With MGTOW, the ladies might get their way. Nah, men and women will find each other, we didn’t get 7 billion humans on the planet without some commingling.

  10. These pro-anti gun control ‘debates’ that pop up every post-shooting are like political manna from heaven. What better way to rile up your own political base and convince them that you are the only thing standing between [pick your good] and [pick your evil]. And since it’s guaranteed to occur again in a few months, it’s created a Pavlovian slobbering conditioning of the public. Once the news hits of another one, we no longer even really need the pols to start opining in order to start slobbering and drooling and barking the way they want.

  11. ROFL, Jesus Christ, look at that picture. The poor bastard practically looks like a decaying corpse that’s something still standing up in defiance of all logic.

    I’m calling it right now: there’s no way this creep is going to win the nomination when the actual votes are cast. He’s simply mentally and physically too old and unfit to be the president at this point, and everyone is quickly realizing it.

    1. It’s only a matter of time before he takes his penis out in public during a fit of confusion and then it’s all over.

      Just like Hillary did…

  12. Here’s a reasonable compromise on the gun control debate – require a gun license just like a driver’s license. I don’t really see how this is a huge conflict with the Second Amendment since it does mention “a well-regulated militia” and it’s hard to see how somebody who doesn’t know anything about guns can be a useful part of a well-regulated militia.

    Acquiring a gun license would be a relatively simple affair, you go down to the local gun licensing office and take a written test on gun safety and gun operation, then you go out back to the shooting range and demonstrate that you know how to safely and effectively use a gun.

    Of course, just like a driver’s license, gun licenses will be on a “shall issue” basis, there’s no background check and gun licenses are reciprocal all throughout the US. Maybe, just as separate endorsements for motorcycles and vehicles over 26,000 lbs GVWR, you might require separate endorsements for handguns and long guns, but that’s about it.

    That seems reasonable to me, before you can buy a gun you have to demonstrate that you know how to use it safely and effectively. What’s Joe Biden’s definition of “reasonable”? Because I’d bet, like most leftist thought on such things such as “fair” and “just” and so on, it’s an outcome-based definition. You can’t know beforehand what’s fair and just and reasonable, you have to wait to see what the final score on the game is before you can decide whether or not it was a fair game. So “reasonable” gun laws are “whatever it takes”, it’s a moving target. A goal-post shaped target.

    1. That would be reasonable except for one problem, getting a gun license would accomplish nothing except telling the government who to go after the day the tide turns and they do try and ban guns. No thanks.

      I don’t have to have a license to exercise any other right. Why should owning a gun be any different. You get a license for things that are privileges not for things that are rights.

      1. nothing except telling the government who to go after the day the tide turns and they do try and ban guns

        Defacto registration, indeed.

      2. I don’t have to have a license to exercise any other right.

        You can vote without registering to do so?

        1. 18 states plus D.C. have automatic voter registration. So yes.

      3. “getting a gun license would accomplish nothing except telling the government who to go after the day the tide turns”

        Licensing of rights is not good, that much is true. Gun licensing included.

        The funny phrasing is the “day the tide turns”. I cant tell you how many times I hear phrases like this. I shoot a lot, we (a few friends that are also military) do 3 gun competitions and tactical drills. We are in excellent physical shape, and damn good shots. Our professions are such that we need to have quick thinking and decision making skills. ..and we probably represent the top 1% of people that are in any kind of shape for “the day the tide turns”…there ain’t too many

        The majority of those I see at the range are obese, smokers, couldn’t run a mile to save their life, and they clamor for the day “when the tide turns” when the govt comes for their guns.

        The secret they dont know is, they don’t stand a fucking chance if the “tide turns” and would be absolutely obliterated. There are such a small number of people that are actually in physical and mental shape for this kind of engagement, so the thought of it is actually very laughable.

        I still want them to have their guns, if they want. I just don’t want them to be delusional about reality.

        1. Those guys know that a 4 minute mile wont do any good when the government nukes the gun owners.

        2. I have seen a number of “fat, smokers” who can jump up the steepest of the Bitterroots to find elk or mountain goats.

          1. Hump not jump

    2. require a gun license just like a driver’s license

      Do you have a license for your internet post?

    3. “…require a gun license just like a driver’s license. “

      Pop quiz: which of these activities is specifically mentioned in a constitutional amendment with the phrase “shall not be infringed”?

      A) Driving a car
      B) Bearing arms

    4. the “well regulated militia” is referencing how the militia is formed and comports itself which is covered in the constitution itself. You don’t regulate the guns the militia uses

      1. also we don’t have to have a license to exercise any other rights like voting or going to church

        1. Also again in California you do have to take a 30 point test every two years to buy any gun but it has stopped no one. its a stupid easy test but some do fail and then they get a gun illegally

        2. Patience, grasshopper. Everything in due time.

      2. I have determined from my research that “A well regulated militia” references only the training of the officers chosen by the State to lead it. The militia has always been properly defined as citizens bearing their own arms and ammunition sufficient to defend their own rights, and their fellow citizens when called upon. Unless Alexander Hamilton is not considered a contemporary source for the writing of the 2A.

        …but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
        -Federalist Paper 29 (emphasis added)

    5. The fate of citizens who did nothing wrong under socialism.

      The reported number of kulaks and their relatives who died in labor colonies from 1932–1940 was 389,521. Former kulaks and their families made up the majority of victims of the Great Purge of the late 1930s, with 669,929 arrested and 376,202 executed.[28]

      Can someone ask Joe what ratio between guns and acreage will be used to determine who the kulaks of the Gun Purge are going to be? Gun confiscation is inevitable to facilitate the collectivization required to meet the quotas established by the Green New Deal. Not gonna store all that solar and wind power without batteries and nobody is going to volunteer to work in the lithium mines.

      At least the determining factor won’t be the number of cows you own. They will have already shot the cows first. To save the planet.

    6. “” require a gun license just like a driver’s license. “”

      Lets try driver’s license for voting first.

      Not that I’m a fan of that because I don’t think you need to show ID to participate in constitutionally protected freedoms. But it seems some people only understand that concept when you apply it to a right they like.

    7. The problem with the comparison is no one uses a gun daily. Cars are used constantly and therefore a constant threat for accident and injury. Requiring a “gun license” means the police and government have the power to deny a person the ability to exercise a fundamental right in the Constitution. There is no right to own or drive a car. This proposal is always presented as some “rational compromise” but in reality the two issues are apples and oranges.

      1. There is no right to own or drive a car.

        There is no right to own a car? You want to rethink that? The right to ownership of the fruits of our own labor seems like one of those ‘inalienable’ thingies.

        1. You can own the car, but driving it on the public roads is considered a privilege. If it wasn’t, they couldn’t require you to get a license to do it or take away your license without significant due process.

          1. Too bad government’s “consideration” has nothing to do with whether something is a right.

            Also, according to the “popularity doctrine” espoused in Heller, driving ought to be a protected right since it’s (far and away) the most common exercise of the court-recognized right to locomotion.

    8. Gun License? Sure. Right after the requirement for Speech License.

      (I know, I know, the hard core progs are already going there.)

    9. I don’t think the ‘reasonable’ part of anything relates to guns per se. The ‘reasonable’ part relates to how to reduce the % of angry/resentful/alienated young men or how to reduce those traits from manifesting or channel them into a different direction.

      and that’s not about ‘mental illness’ either. That’s just BS by people who usually also think the solution is just lock them (who doesn’t really matter much) up – which is pretty much the default MO for Americans now.

      My only idea really is to restore a form of local militia service (which does not = conscription). Not for purposes of getting a gun license but for purposes of restoring a sense of social cohesion and purpose and to channel testosterone productively. That’s the one element that distinguishes other high gun ownership (by that I mean % of households who own guns not guns/peeps) low-violence countries (Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Serbia, Cyprus) from us.

      1. According to the guy on the $10 bill, you got it backwards.

        Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. – Federalist Paper 29 (again)

        The purpose of such assembly would not be to identify the people with guns, but to identify those without.

        But, then again, the National Guard was created specifically to replace the need for such assemblies.

        What the National Guard was not created to do was supplant an individual’s responsibility to protect themselves. So what you should be advocating is volunteer police service to obtain a gun license. But first, you should read up on what Hamilton thought of POSSE COMITATUS (hint, he referred to it in all caps, which can’t be good).

        1. I’m not talking about trying to re-create some 18th century version of a militia. That failed. And we have a standing army and that killed off a purely military militia and that standing army is not gonna disappear without a major mindset change in Americans. Nor do I give a fuck about reinforcing the existing psychoses of gun culture in this country.

          I’m talking about tweaking what Finland and Switzerland do today. Where that service is viewed as a major way their communities deal with search and rescue, natural/environmental disasters, medical/epidemic stuff, civil engineering and the stuff that in the army is ‘civil affairs’, civil protection (which would include self-protection and violence assessment), logistics, AND military. The professional entities that do that stuff now would develop the training (basic then unit then specialty) and see that pool as both their recruiting pool and their ‘extra hands’ when they have to ramp up to deal with something. Gun training would be part of some of those – but it would just be normalized and functional for that. Not some goal in itself and NOTHING to do with putting the 2A on some pedestal. Otherwise that service has almost nothing to do with gun ownership.

          But one of the goals of that – for the teens say 16 on – would be to reduce the narcissism and alienation that results when they have no idea where they are going to ‘fit in’ to their community when they grow up. That’s not taught in school or ‘workplace’ – and in fact those traits can easily be reinforced in those two places cuz bullying/harassment/isolation/etc. The lack of being able to see that opportunity is what turns that narcissism and alienation into anger/resentment/vengeance that in turn leads some to go on a spree.

          That notion of public service is the one thing that is very different when talking to gunowners in some of those countries (and prob the others) v the US. And I suspect that’s the reason guns aren’t used for violence there.

          1. And when I say ‘extra hands’ don’t think of that as some way to turn this into military conscription either. Except for some of the specialist training, I would see this entirely as local/state level.

    10. Common sense free speech control! You must go down the the local 1st Amendment office and take an IQ and morals test, in order to get a license to use free speech. We don’t need all these idiots saying dumb shit.

  13. Is “Geriatric Joe” too on-point for a Trump nickname for him?

  14. The people already buy the concept that it’s absurd for rapid-fire explody things with large magazines to be common personal accessories in public spaces. Anyone with half a fucking ounce of basic sanity understands that.

    Preventing mass shootings is the policy goal under question.

    Want to prevent the more numerous forms of gun deaths? No? You want to prevent neither mass shootings nor the more numerous forms of gun deaths?

    Thanks for the help! Freedom! *kazoo*

    1. “You want to prevent neither mass shootings nor the more numerous forms of gun deaths?”

      I’m actually against the war on drugs, and the second reason for that is all the gun deaths caused by it, so yes, I want to prevent them.

      I wasn’t aware of rapid fire grenade launchers with any size magazines, but you have me intrigued.

      1. Many bullets explode. They explode human tissue. That’s the point of bullets.

        1. No they don’t explode, other than a few rare exceptions. Many are designed to expand rapidly, but they don’t explode. Bullets are designed to penetrate. Learn the difference moron.

        2. Tony your ignorance is showing, in a rather hilarious fashion.

          I participated in a “3 Gun” event last Sunday; AR’s and “high capacity” magazines everywhere, and not one bullet exploded. Nor did any rifle jump up of it’s own accord and kill any one.

  15. The basic problem with all of these laws is firearms violations are a low priority crime for police. With all the other crime they must address, busting someone for illegally possessing a gun is a waste of time and resources. 90% of the time, dropping illegal firearm possession charges is a ploy to get a guilty plea. By dropping the felony firearm charge, the person loses the enhancement and therefore their sentence is shorter. Democrats know all this is crap but they depend on ignorance of public and sadly they usually win.

  16. “‘The people already buy the concept that it’s absurd for rapid-fire explody things with large magazines to be common personal accessories in public spaces. Anyone with half a fucking ounce of basic sanity understands that.

    Preventing mass shootings is the policy goal under question.””

    Except the majority of mass shootings are not cause by rapid-fire explody things with large magazines. Why focus your attention on the outliers if ending them is your goal?

    1. The entire point of my post was to address this very issue.

      1. If you really want to make a reduction in mass shooting, don’t go after the outliers. Go after the bulk.

        1. You lunatics won’t let us!

          1. Bullshit, nothing proposed would go after the bulk, unless you want to ban handgun, which the USSC already shot down as unconstitutional.

          2. Of you want to attack the mental health issue all you have to do is get O’Connor v Donaldson overturned. Good luck on that one.

  17. “The assault gun ban,” = gun confiscation from all law-abiding citizens.

    1. +10

  18. If all these proposals are so “reasonable” why must gun control zealots always lie about the current laws? They lie about buying guns at gun shows as if no background checks are ever made when the truth us 99% of guns sold are by licensed dealers who must conduct background checks. They claim the majority of dealers at gun shows are unlicensed but fail to mention, they are not selling guns but shooting accessories like holsters, scopes, etc. They claim you can purchase a gun from an online retailer without a background check but never admit any gun must be shipped to a FFL who conducts the background check before releasing the weapon. They talk about people buying guns in one state and taking them to another which is a federal crime (arms trafficking) which they never mention. So I ask again, if these proposals are so reasonable, why must they always lie?

    1. They consider people who own guns as “gun nuts”. There is nothing reasonable going to come out of it if you don’t respect the members of the opposite team. They want the gun nuts to surrender in total.

      Remember when they were saying they didn’t want confiscation, but now are supporting confiscation via red flag laws.

  19. “We only failed because we didn’t go far enough! Utopia is just a few more laws away.”

    I knew where Biden was headed about two sentences in. And “compensated confiscation?” I call that “theft.”

    Maybe this will be the proverbial straw, but it’s too bad we didn’t see this level of concerted resistance to the rape of the 4th Amendment, like when the NSA abuses came to light (…and kept on coming and coming.) The Left paid great lip service, but only because double- and triple-minorities were occasionally affected by FBI entrapment. And the Right cheered it on because it would only affect alleged terrorists.

    How about now? Who could have seen this coming?

  20. I guess it depends on what you mean by “mass”. One victim – certainly not. Two? Um. Probably not. Three? I’ll have to think about three. Four? OK. Four is mass. Well then if four is mass why do you have to think about three? Well OK, three is mass, probably. But three is only one up from two which is probably not mass. And two is only one up from one, which is certainly not mass………… Um. Can we talk about something else?

  21. My 6th grade teacher told us many times that “Figures never lie, but liars figure.” It’s stuck with me ever since, especially whenever somebody with an ax to grind or an agenda, trots out data.

Comments are closed.