Gun Control

Biden's 'Commonsense' Gun Controls Make Little Sense

The policies he favors would arbitrarily limit Second Amendment rights and threaten the industry that makes it possible to exercise them.

|

This week President Joe Biden marked the three-year anniversary of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, by urging Congress to "enact commonsense gun law reforms." The implication was that the gun controls Biden favors would prevent crimes like the Parkland massacre.

There is little reason to think that's true. The bills Biden is eager to sign would instead arbitrarily limit Second Amendment rights and threaten the viability of the industry that makes it possible to exercise them.

Biden wants to prohibit production and sale of "assault weapons" and require that current owners either surrender their firearms to the government or follow the same tax and registration requirements that apply to machine guns. Yet he concedes that the 1994 federal "assault weapon" ban, which expired in 2004, had no impact on the lethality of legal firearms.

The problem, according to Biden, was that manufacturers could comply with the law by "making minor modifications to their products—modifications that leave them just as deadly." But there is no way around that problem, since laws like these are based on "military-style" features, such as folding stocks, threaded barrels, and bayonet mounts, that have nothing to do with a weapon's destructive power.

Even if the government could eliminate all guns with those features, would-be mass shooters would have plenty of equally lethal alternatives. Several of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history were carried out with weapons that would not be covered by Biden's ban.

Biden also would ban "high-capacity magazines," which politicians generally define as magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Americans own millions of those; they are standard for many of the most popular handguns and rifles.

The rationale for the 10-round limit is that the need to switch magazines can create a "critical pause" during which a mass shooter might be overpowered or his victims might escape. But as a federal judge noted when he ruled against California's ban on "large-capacity magazines" in 2019, that restriction also can create a "lethal pause" for a crime victim "trying to defend her home and family"—a far more common situation.

Also on Biden's agenda: repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 federal law that generally protects gun manufacturers and distributors from liability for criminal uses of their products. As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) noted in 2016, exposing businesses to potentially ruinous judgments when a legally purchased firearm is used to commit a crime is a prescription for "ending gun manufacturing in America," meaning "your position is there should not be any guns in America, period."

Biden also supports background checks for nearly all gun transfers, which in practice would mean requiring the involvement of federally licensed dealers in private sales. That requirement would impose new burdens and costs on law-abiding gun owners without having any impact on run-of-the-mill criminals, who are no more likely to follow Biden's rule than they are to obey all the other laws they routinely violate.

As for mass shooters, they typically do not have criminal or psychiatric records that would disqualify them from buying guns, meaning they would pass the background checks Biden wants to expand. The Parkland shooter, for example, bought his rifle legally, which makes the invocation of his crime as a justification for expanded background checks rather puzzling.

To the extent that Biden's policy actually prevented people from buying guns, it would hurt many people who are legally barred from owning firearms even though they have never demonstrated violent tendencies. Prohibited owners include cannabis consumers, even in states where marijuana is legal; anyone with a felony record, no matter the nature of the offense or how long ago it happened; and anyone who has ever undergone involuntary psychiatric treatment, regardless of whether he was deemed a danger to others.

Biden's "commonsense" gun control prescriptions are "common" in the sense that politicians often push them. Whether they make "sense" is another matter.

© Copyright 2021 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: The Bachelor's Chris Harrison Was Canceled for Criticizing Cancel Culture

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Biden doesn’t want Americans to have guns? I am shocked!

    1. Democrats during the election: “We don’t want to ban guns, that’s a crazy conspiracy theory!”

      Democrats after the election: “Americans voted for us! That proves they want us to ban guns!”

      1. You’re being generous.

        Democrats during the election: “Hell yes we’re going to take away your guns! You only need 3 rounds to hunt geese.”

        Democrats after the election: “Americans voted for me! That proves that they want me to ban guns!”

        Reason libertarians: “How could we have known their policies would be unconstitutional and fly in the face of common sense?”

        1. Gun nuts and other disaffected clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

          1. There are more guns than people in this country. They are here to stay. And there is nothing you can do about it. 😉

            Sorry that makes you cranky, clinger.

      2. It’s the Libtardary’s way.

    2. He wants americans to have guns, just elite americans like him.

      I wonder: how many rounds does his personal security team carry? What sort of firearms do they utilize, at taxpayer expense, to protect his life? Why can’t I use the same weaponry to protect my life and the lives of my family? Doesn’t the 14th Amendment guarantee equal protection of the laws — if so, how are LEO and his security team exempted?

      1. He wants americans to have guns, just elite americans like him.

        How else is Jill going to defend herself against home invasion by stepping out onto the balcony with her side-by-side 12 ga and firing two blasts into the darkness?

        1. she shuold turn around. the REAL darkness is inside the house.

    3. America is in civil war 2.0

      The banana republic has no power and all laws are null and void.

      Good luck ladies and gentlement.

  2. Dude it’s 2021, at this point who cares about guns when you have zip ties ? Historically, you can literally almost overthrow the world’s most powerful government in a matter of hours with just zip ties. Actually, you don’t always even physically need them, just the specter of having them can be devastating. It’s like Biden doesn’t even realize how close he came to being zip tied and overthrown. It would have been like Gaddafi x1000.

    1. We need common sense zip tie laws.

      1. The black ones must be outlawed.

        For the others, there must be limits on length, and the number which can be in a bag.

    2. Bloodless coup, all zip tying… just like Jimmy Carter

    3. Assault zip ties with high capacity zips.

    4. Pssst. I have a zip tie gun.

  3. Another “don’t let Biden do what Biden promised to do during the campaign” article….

    1. Is anyone keeping a running tally yet?

  4. Keeping the schools closed would be more effective. And it’s worth it, if it saves even one child.

    1. Are you kidding? Didn’t you hear about that kid that almost shot up his entire virtual classroom by having a BB gun visible for half a second in the background of his Zoom session?

  5. If I was a libertarian, I would have done my homework on Biden’s beliefs on 2A before the election. And by Biden I mean his handlers.

    Can I get a link to the last 2A article posted here?

    1. Or the 2A beliefs of the two Democrats running for the Senate from GA…

      When did Reason mention anything about them?

        1. Hey, at least he’s not replacing his keyboard daily as a result of the TDS-spittle!

    2. “Showing 25 of 4799 results found for: gun control”
      https://reason.com/search/gun+control

    3. Sorry the more important things are stopping mean tweets and “insurrections”

  6. A lot of people really liked the Glock 19 Gen 3 when it first came out. They’d swear by it. It was a great gun.

    Once California made it one of the few decent handguns you’re allowed to buy (a version that only holds 10 rounds, mind you) I don’t think it was anybody’s first choice anymore.

    https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/certified-handguns/search

    If the only decent thing you were allowed to eat anymore were pizza, you might not want pizza anymore.

    Or maybe you’d just buy a shotgun.

    Shotguns are still perfectly legal. Go figure. They don’t want you having 15 rounds in a handgun, but a perfectly legal shotgun with four rounds of buckshot is sending 32 rounds through three layers of drywall with a longer barrel and more velocity. Why is shooting fifteen times in a row with precision out of a shorter barrel scarier than firing 32 rounds, eight at a time with far less precision

    Someone who knows how to quickly reload a shotgun is a hell of a lot more dangerous in a mass shooting scenario than someone with a 9mm handgun that fires 15 rounds.

    There are a number of reasons why we shouldn’t let progressives make our choices for us, and one of the best ones is because the choices they’ve made for us in the past are so stupid.

    1. “Someone who knows how to quickly reload a shotgun is a hell of a lot more dangerous in a mass shooting scenario than someone with a 9mm handgun that fires 15 rounds.”

      Why bother reloading? The guy who shot up the movie theater in Aurora Colorado was carrying 3 or 4 fully loaded (8 rounds) shot guns.

      1. Just like in the Matrix. Reloading isn’t necessary.

        1. What do you need?

          Guns, lots of guns.

            1. I’ll take movie quotes for $1000 Alex.

          1. Guns, and friends with guns.

    2. Someone who knows how to quickly reload a shotgun is a hell of a lot more dangerous in a mass shooting scenario than someone with a 9mm handgun that fires 15 rounds.

      Of course, if we’re talking about people knowing what they’re doing, OBL killed 3000 people in a day without a gun, Jim Jones killed 300 without a gun, and Tim McVeigh killed 170 without a gun. But then, you’d have to acknowledge that gun control is really just about people control and couldn’t play the “He’s more presidential on everything except common sense gun control.” game.

      1. And 9/11 showed us you can kill 3000 with just a box cutter, which allowed our “Dear Leaders” to funnel billions to their friends for with defense contracts so that our military could kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.
        Joe Biden, led the war cry more than once.
        Joe Fucking Biden will get us into another war. His friends are counting on it. His kid won’t serve.

        1. Biden’s kid got kicked out. It was only Daddy that saved him from going to the brig.

      2. Those guys are pikers: Cuomo’s total is somewhere between 12K and 13K.

    3. Thank goodness for Joe Biden. His big mouth, stupid ideas, authoritarian policies, EO’s compensating for ED may finally wake up America to the evil, deceitful ways the Democrats wish to subvert the Constitution.
      Subvert? Hmm! Grounds for impeachment.

    4. just get a pair of sixty or hundred round drum mags for your twelve bore. They exist, They are HEAVY when fully prepped….. but SO MUCH FUN. Not to mention expensive to feed…….

  7. By the way, people who say they care about their gun rights and failed to vote for Trump are like people who say they care about their feet but shoot at them anyway.

    1. Ah, so the hell with all the rights, just hold your nose and vote for President Bump Stock Ban?

      Hell, no! I’m done voting for a lesser evil. As I said in 2015, if you keep voting for the lesser evil, you keep incentivizing the parties to give you greater and greater evils, until you have the worst person in the country run against the 2nd worst person in the country.

      If you’ll note, the next year the most hated man in the country ran against the most hated woman in the country.

      1. No, I was concerned about all my rights, and in both elections, the Democrat was worse on ALL of them.

        1. So then the lesser of two evils.

          1. To call Trump the lesser of two evils on gun rights in comparison to Biden is the understatement of the year.

            Getting shot in the face is the lesser of two evils compared to getting slapped, and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

            1. or vice versa, you know what I meant!

              1. Dinna werry yersel’ laddie. I caught yer sarcasm font. Nice work there.

              2. For a second there, I thought I was an idiot.

            2. Yes, he’s the lesser of 2 evils on gun rights, but also over most rights. Unfortunately, he’s much, much worse on many other rights.

              Also, how’s that whole “vote for the lesser of 2 evils” thing working for you? It’s the majority strategy, so I’d say it’s responsible for the situation you see today.

              So, I’m guessing you’re happy with how things have been going, right?

              1. “much, much worse on many other rights”

                Should have said much, much too bad to vote for on other rights. I don’t know of any rights he’s much worse than Biden on. Not voting for Trump is in no way an endorsement of Biden at all.

              2. People didn’t vote for the lesser of two evils.

                Biden is by far more evil from a libertarian capitalist perspective.

                People voted for Biden because of the pandemic, the lockdowns, and the economy. That Trump made it close despite those things working against him is amazing.

                1. “People didn’t vote for the lesser of two evils.”

                  I’ll go into my John McEnroe and ask, “Are you serious”? They vote defensively in the vast majority of cases!

                  “Biden is by far more evil from a libertarian capitalist perspective.”

                  And? That doesn’t show what you want it to show.

                2. “Biden is by far more evil from a libertarian capitalist perspective.”

                  But you did vote for someone you knew to be evil. Right?

              3. “…Unfortunately, he’s much, much worse on many other rights….”

                TDS-addled shits make claims like this constantly. And NEVER provide any evidence.

      2. I guess didn’t bother to read Biden’s campaign website.

        He promised to ban assault weapons, force everyone to register those that are already in circulation, strip gun manufacturers of their protection from liability for the crimes that are committed with their guns, ban the sale of both guns and ammo online, and institute a national gun relinquishment [confiscation] program.

        Here, read it for yourself:

        https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

        Trump being the lesser of two evils doesn’t even come close. As bad as ObamaCare was, Joseph Stalin would have been far worse. I certainly wouldn’t have had to pretend that Obama was just as bad as Stalin on authoritarian socialism because of ObamaCare.

        Yes, as bad as Trump’s bumpstock ban was, Biden is far, far, far, far worse. Just because neither option was perfect, doesn’t mean one isn’t far worse than the other. If there’s another big mass shooting with Biden in office, it’ll be a miracle if we make it out the other side with something as meager as a bumpstock ban.

        1. Wait, you think I’m a 1 issue voter?

          That lesser of 2 evils voting strategy is working out well for you (and the majority of voters), right?

          Getting shot in the face is “worse” than getting shot in the liver, under most circumstances. But, in the end, you’re just as dead, it’s just that one will take longer!

        2. “Trump being the lesser of two evils doesn’t even come close”

          Realpolitik never seems to play well hereabouts. There is just too much virtue to be had.

          1. Why doesn’t anyone answer this if it’s purely about “virtue”:
            That lesser of 2 evils voting strategy is working out well for you (and the majority of voters), right?

        3. Bump stocks were designed so that untrained morons can spray un-aimed rifle projectiles rapidly in a large, wildly inaccurate pattern. You can’t claim that anyone needs such an item for defense against an intruder. It is designed to spray crowds, plain and simple. If you were actually defending yourself with it, you would miss a lot, spray your neighbors, and quickly run out of ammo in a gunfight. There is no argument for it. Only an untrained, “look at me”, butt-dart would own one, like those ghetto 30rd pistol mags that the Rapper clowns love.
          Banning such items IS sensible. If you can’t aim and shoot accurately, you should not own a firearm.

          1. The 2nd amendment isn’t just for self defense. Its there to preserve the balance of power between our government and the people.

            If the government wasnt so warlike and trying to create one large mass surveillance police I’d probably agree with you. But right now, nope, they aren’t going to constrain what rights we have left.

          2. “Bump stocks were designed so that untrained morons can spray un-aimed rifle projectiles rapidly in a large, wildly inaccurate pattern.”

            Or just fun… But mostly true.

            “You can’t claim that anyone needs such an item…”

            How does that matter? Do you need a car that can do 150 mph?

            “Banning such items IS sensible.”

            No, it isn’t. “Shall not be infringed”

          3. I disagree with every single word in your reply.
            I had three bumpstocks, and two bump trigger devices all on different rifles.
            With a red dot on top, and one day of practice, I could accurately fire three round bursts from my AK and AR and hit a man sized target at 50 yards.
            From a Scorpion 9 mm carbine, I could empty the entire 30 round magazine as the barrel slowly oscillated in an oval with every round in the chest at 50 yards.
            The exact same performance I get from my full auto 9 mm with a Lage slow fire upper.
            if you want to see accurate fire with a bumpstock, I refer you to YouTube videos with the title “the poor man’s saw”.

      3. Hell, no! I’m done voting for a lesser evil.

        Then you’re done voting…period. Anyone who actually wants to hold public office (politicians) is “evil” to one extent or the other, so you might as well just sit every election out. Your argument is and always has been one that is only valid in a fantasyland that only exists in your imagination.

        1. Strategies:

          1. To be fair, I voted for Jorgensen, but wouldn’t have done so if she could have won (protest vote). I’m different from most, so I don’t expect people to do that like I do. I consider them all evils, except the guy who said “I’ll send everyone home on day 1”.

          2. Now, if you want to sort politicians into a Utilitarian “good” or “evil”, based on if they make things worse or better, I won’t blame you too much. You at least make sense. The best way I’ve figured of measuring that is to figure out if they’ll make government bigger or smaller. The best way to do that is to figure out what they spend (the libertarian adage, “F you, cut spending”).

          Now, in that case, Jorgensen would have been a “good”, and everyone else would have been an “evil”.

          That being said, either of my “fantasyland” strategies have not been attempted by the majority. The “vote for the lesser of 2 evils” strategy has been tried for the last several decades by the vast majority. Has that been going well or not?

          1. That being said, either of my “fantasyland” strategies have not been attempted by the majority.

            Largely because those strategies are pointless, and no 3rd party has put forth a candidate that wasn’t either bat shit crazy or a complete oaf.

            The “vote for the lesser of 2 evils” strategy has been tried for the last several decades by the vast majority. Has that been going well or not?

            It’s not a “strategy”. It’s acting in way that recognizes reality. Your “protest vote” combined with the handful of those from others who share your views…and have done so for many election cycles…has done exactly nothing to reduce the dominance of U.S. politics by the 2 major parties. Nothing. So when it’s time to vote you can either try to minimize the evil (government is, after all, just a necessary evil from the standpoint of personal liberty) or you can piss away your vote on what has been proven time and time again to be an exercise in futility.

            1. I voted for her but it was not at all a protest vote. I voted for the candidate whose views most closely reflected my own.

            2. “It’s not a “strategy”. It’s acting in way that recognizes reality.”

              Reality is overrated. It has gotten us one crappy government after another.

            3. “Largely because those strategies are pointless”

              When everyone else does stupid things, we should all do stupid things too? How does that make anything change?

              “has done exactly nothing to reduce the dominance of U.S. politics by the 2 major parties”

              Probably. But, if enough people do what I’m doing, it will. Also, I haven’t soiled my robes like so very many “realists” (defeatists) have.

              “So when it’s time to vote you can either try to minimize the evil or you can piss away your vote on what has been proven time and time again to be an exercise in futility.”

              I note you didn’t answer my question about whether it was going well or not. So, which strategy is an exercise in futility again?

              “government is, after all, just a necessary evil from the standpoint of personal liberty”

              It is an intolerable one, yes. The term “necessary”, at this point, is only used by tyrants and those who defend them!

      4. The problem with not voting for the lesser evil is that there isn’t a non-evil choice available to vote for.

        1. If evil is relative, every fucking choice you make is for what you, individually, consider the “less” evil.

          Hamburgers are “less evil” than hotdogs.

          Planes are “less evil” than trains.

          … and don’t even get me started on Chocolate and Vanilla …

        2. “Between two evils I pick the one I haven’t tried yet”
          Mae West

        3. Anyone who runs on the “I’ll send them home on day 1” is not an evil.

          If you use Utilitarian calculation to determine “evil”, then anyone who would shrink government (spend less) is not an evil. No Rs or Ds that have made it to the general election for POTUS have qualified since… Eisenhower, maybe?

    2. “people who say they care about their gun rights and failed to vote for Trump are like people who say they care about their feet but shoot at them anyway.”

      Better to aim for the toes than the ankles.

      Or you could just not shoot yourself at all.

      Don’t see the point anyway. Some people still haven’t got the message that the election is over.

  8. “Anyone who supports Qanon or Trump is insane and needs treatment under medicare for all, and must be denied self defense rights.” That’s Biden’s agenda. If you want to fight, then follow me and my follows, and get to it. Or keep shouting at each other in your echo chamber and make pathetic excuses for why you keep losing, up to you.

    1. Nobody is going to join you.

    2. ^Speaking of someone who needs treatment^

  9. Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the primary goal of the gun-grabbers is to reduce crime and violence* rather than to disarm the law-abiding citizenry, at what point are they willing to accept that their assumption that more laws against gun violence equals less gun violence is mistaken and their laws and their policy of more laws aren’t working? Is there any such point? You see how long it’s taken to get people to question the same exact premise in the War on Drugs and how much it’s cost us and continues to cost us, and now we’re going to stick our dicks right back in a hornet’s nest on the premise that it’s a different hornet’s nest so maybe we’ll get a magic pony this time?

    *Reduce crime and violence among white people at least – as we all know, colored people are all violent sub-literate animals who just can’t control themselves when they get hopped up on the crack cocaine and go off on their rape orgies, it’s their culture. And you’re a fucking racist if you expect them to behave any differently.

    1. “at what point are they willing to accept that their assumption that more laws against gun violence equals less gun violence is mistaken and their laws and their policy of more laws aren’t working? Is there any such point?”

      Never. There is no such point. They cannot be reasoned with.

    2. “at what point are they willing to accept that their assumption that more laws against gun violence equals less gun violence is mistaken and their laws and their policy of more laws aren’t working? ”

      Your question cannot be answered because the assumption on which it is premised is false

    3. I pretty much surrendered any altruistic intentions the government might have had after they passed the “Patriot” Act only to rename it to the “Freedom” Act after they were caught.

  10. “But as a federal judge noted when he ruled against California’s ban on “large-capacity magazines” in 2019, that restriction also can create a “lethal pause” for a crime victim “trying to defend her home and family”—a far more common situation.

    What exactly is he saying is “far more common”? I don’t find it hard to believe that people use guns to defend themselves in their homes more often than “mass shootings” on the scale of Parkland occur.* The Las Vegas incident, Parkland, Sandy Hook, and Pulse nightclub did all involve semi-automatic weapons where the capacity of the magazines likely had an impact on the number of people killed. One that is further in the past and less remembered was Virginia Tech, when a mentally ill student killed 32 people before killing himself. He used a 9mm Glock 19 with a 15 round magazine and a Walther P22 .22 with a 10 round magazine. Those kinds of events do seem pretty rare, but how often do people really defend themselves with a gun in their home? Are there reliable statistics on this?

    Debating whether a 10-round limit would save lives or cost them is just seems likely to have too many variables to ever settle.

    *Events like Parkland are “mass shootings” in the sense that an individual has decided to kill a large number of people. Usually, the person is disturbed or motivated by extremism of some sort (also in Florida, the Pulse shooting). I am distinguishing these from what sometimes get lumped in with statistics as more common criminal events like robberies or gang-related drive-bys that happen to have 4 or more victims. However, the distinction between crazed or extremist individuals killing many people vs. more ordinary criminals killing many people may be just an issue of perception, not a distinction that should matter for policy.

    1. Hidden here and there, but you really have to dig.
      Google will first return the data from gun control groups that it is very rarely the full story. Those groups usually only count the cases where the homeowner actually kills the criminal. Cases where the presence of a gun causes the criminal to flee are rarely counted as “using a gun for defense”; it ruins the narrative. Also sometimes counted, sometimes not is wounding the criminal, or just discharging the weapon without hitting the criminal (warning shot).

      1. In the overwhelming majority of cases where guns are used for self-defense, no shots are ever fired.

        Obviously these incidents are difficult to count, but that doesn’t mean they never happen.

        Then there’s the deterrent effect. Twice in the last four years I have been physically attacked while walking my dog near my office. I am nearly six and a half feet tall, and I don’t carry a gun, because it’s kind of a hassle (we are in kind of a shitty part of town, though the river is pretty). Meanwhile, my colleague, a 5’3″ Mexican woman, always openly carries a Glock on her hip during her walks around here. She has never been molested. This is a (widespread) defensive use of guns that will never appear in studies.

      2. For the argument that the lethal pause happens more often in home defense situations, you’d need statistics on how many home defense scenarios a person unloads a full magazine and needs to reload. I’d guess that is a pretty rare occurrence in self defense cases, maybe even more rare than mass shootings where the criminals are emptying a full magazine.

        It is a nonsensical claim that is impossible to be backed up by data.

        1. maybe even more rare than mass shootings where the criminals are emptying a full magazine.

          Like Lanza (the Newtown nut job), who changed mags well before they were empty. At VATech, the capacity of the magazines was essentially irrelevant, as the shooter carried a pillow case full of loaded standard-capacity mags, and was able to swap them out at his leisure because his victims were all disarmed and rendered helpless and unable to fight back.

      3. Cases where the presence of a gun causes the criminal to flee…

        Or at least his getaway accomplice….

        https://twitter.com/TRHLofficial/status/1361652802104274947?fbclid=IwAR0NjTu60Ov_F7XqQFMycy6arYmCS7bYGwaaoKw1jxI3sTQrTxlD2SeDBsE

    2. “Are there reliable statistics on this?”

      Gary Kleck is, I believe, the first person to do a proper survey specifically designed to get data on the number of Defensive Gun Uses (DGU) in the US. Here is a one-liner to remember:
      “…at least 21 consecutive professionally conducted national surveys have yielded estimates [the number of DGUs] in 1-3 million range [annually].”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck#Defensive_gun_use_research_and_debate

      There have been several articles about Kleck’s work. In the same WIKI article: “In 1993, Kleck won the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology for his book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Aldine de Gruyter, 1991). He has testified before Congress and state legislatures on gun control proposals. His research was cited in the Supreme Court’s landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which struck down the D.C. handgun ban and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

      1. One can also read any of several books by Kleck on the subject. You can find most of them at your local library (if it is open)

    3. …that restriction also can create a “lethal pause” for a crime victim “trying to defend her home and family”

      Tyranny being the crime the 2A was designed to prevent.

    4. The NRA is the only organization I know of that even tries to track defensive uses of guns and even they can only get anecdotal reports. Nevertheless, they publish those anecdotal reports in their monthly newsletters and apparently have little trouble finding a dozen each month to fill the page.

      Does that reach the level of “reliable statistics”? Clearly not. Yet even that limited data is more than sufficient to say that defensive use is much more common than Parkland-style events.

    5. At work, so I don’t have time to Google the info, but FBI statistics for years have counted approximately 1 million uses of guns for self defense every year.

      As other have said in this thread, “use of a gun in self defense” usually means a good guy shows a bad guy that he has a gun and is willing to use it, then the bad guy goes away. Most defensive uses of guns involve zero shots being fired.

  11. BUT HE’S SO MODERATE!!!

    AND DOESN’T EVEN DO MEAN TWEETS!!!

  12. Memo to America: We told you so.

    1. Send a copy to Jake, also. In fact, rub his face in it.

  13. Just for the record:
    “Shall NOT be infringed” (emphasis added)
    Put it this way; would this be “common sense” if you had to go through those hoops to vote?

    1. That’s my suggestion. The R’s (not that they can be counted on to have spines) need to spike this by amending the bills to include these requirements in order to register to vote.

      1. I’ve argued many times that I’d like to see welfare applicants subjected to the same battery of events that CCW applicants are subjected to.

        Like having to fill out an invasive questionnaire that asks about their criminal background, their citizenship, their current physical address, their mental health status, etc. with potential federal felony charges should one choose to lie on the form. Like having to be fingerprinted and subjected to wants and warrants and criminal background check. Like having some bureaucrat get to decide whether your reasons for applying are “not good enough” even thought they fully comply with all requirements. Like having to show not one but two forms of ID, with at least one proving citizenship and one proving local residency. Like having to sit for yet another picture ID to be made. Like having to pay non-trivial fees throughout the process and to renew to application every few years.

        After all, if all of the above is not a problem for a right supposedly protected by the Constitution and the words “shall not be infringed”, then it should be no problem for welfare applicants, right?

        At least the picture ID resulting from the process would be valid for voting!

    2. On a tangential note regarding s230 and legal protections for firearms manufacturers; “shall not be infringed” vs. “Congress shall make no law”. Even if courts generated and enforced red flag laws de rigueur, it would be an infringement. If they did the same for free speech, it doesn’t run afoul of the literal interpretation of the Constitution. That’s not to say I want the courts abrogating free speech but to point out that s230 is a violation of the Constitution every bit as much as red flag laws are and the idea that gun manufacturers shouldn’t receive protection if social media companies can’t receive it is a fantastic papering over the actual text of the Constitution/BOR. And this sets aside the fact that all 3 branches of government have vowed to end gun manufacturing and sales by any means necessary while, for free speech, the group that wants to control speech/end free speech is the one that wrote and passed s230 to ward off shadowy internet boogeymen.

  14. I wonder if this has anything to do with the new fences and all the armed troops in the Capital?

    1. Expect a push to be made for a Capitol Defense Force separate from the military soon.

    2. YES it is the reason they are still there they want to get this out there fast while the blood trail is still hot from teh Jan 6th insurection which will be remembered for ever as America’s war on itself and gun control will end the war

      1. “America’s war on itself and gun control will end the war”

        While starting a new, much more violent one.

        The great irony of this whole thing is that if you’re concerned about gun violence there’s not a whole lot you could do to cause more gun violence than implement legislation like this.

  15. Actually, they make perfect sense if the plan is to incrementally phase out all gun ownership.

    1. Yes; meanwhile Biden and Company are just giving their voters what they want, by “doing something.” But this is by no means the end. As criminals continue being criminals and homicide rates [which have dramatically fallen nation wide over the past 2-3 decades, the exceptions being inner city areas] do not decline, “more” will have to be done. Look to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand for examples.
      There is nothing “common sense” about any of this legislation, but incrementally it is “a place to start.”

      1. When the gun ban in Oz happened there were estimates about the total number of guns in Oz (like they claim that there are three hundred million guns in the US; plus the 40,000,000+ guns sold in 2020) but around five percent of the estimated guns in Oz were turned in; same for the other two countries. The joke in Oz at the time was once the gun ban was announced there was a run on WD40 and garbage bags so you could spray your gun with WD40, put it in a garbage bag, and bury it.

        For extra credit Google “I lost my guns in a tragic boating accident”.

        1. Of course any such law, to the extent people ignore it, will largely be unenforceable. But I enjoy shooting my various AR platforms, and I don’t want to have to bury the sons of bitches in Obama tubes.

          And just because the government cannot manage a blanket enforcement, don’t think it won’t be used against you individually.

        2. I lost all 3 of my guns in separate, tragic boating accidents.

          You think I would have learned after the first boating mishap.

  16. The only way we can keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to make them as hard to get as cocaine, which is outlawed in every country in the world.

    Oh, wait . . .

    Don’t get up, I’ll see my own way out . . .

    1. The only way we can keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to make them as hard to get as cocaine, which is outlawed in every country in the world.

      One of Chicago’s former police chiefs (Gary McCarthy) said this (worse actually) and spelled it out rather obliviously.
      Paraphrasing: Guns are so valuable in Chicago that gangs will kill members who lose guns. So, rather than throw down a gun, they will/would get in gun fights with police. The solution was to make the penalty for law-abiding citizens who lose a legally-owned firearm equally as harsh so that guns don’t fall into these gang memebers’ hands in the first place.

      Not paraphrasing: We should kill legal gun owners who lose a firearm because that’s what the gangs would do.

      1. I recall that interview with Snyder on NPR [2015, when I still deigned to listen to that agenda driven and government [public funds] supported organization.

        I recall he want on to say that some repeat criminals were continually arrested for illegal gun possession [along with whatever other crime they were committing] and were back on the streets within 24-48 hours. This cycle would continue, as much as 40 or more times, until the felon was finally killed by another criminal.

        When Snyder and Emmanuel proposed legislation to IL congress for mandatory sentencing for illegal gun possession, a “coalition of Black and Latino legislators” thwarted this effort, on the ground that it was “a recipe to lock up more Blacks and Latinos” [Chicago Tribune, October, 2015].

        So nothing is going to be done about crime where it occurs, but law abiding people like me are the easier target.

      2. As you note, that’s not even close to being the most stupid thing McCarthy has said in his capacity as a lead cop (and he’s actually done far worse). He’s a thoroughly corrupt asshole with the IQ of a potato.

  17. Nothing Biden says makes sense.

    Because Biden has dementia.

    From last night’s CNN “town hall.”

    “It’s one thing to have the vaccine, which we didn’t have when we came into office, but a vaccinator, how do you get the vaccine into someone’s arm?”

    (emphasis added)

    1. Which is funny on two levels.

      “Well you see Joe you stick the pointy end here and then you push on the thingy on the other end”

  18. Also on Biden’s agenda: repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 federal law that generally protects gun manufacturers and distributors from liability for criminal uses of their products. As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) noted in 2016, exposing businesses to potentially ruinous judgments when a legally purchased firearm is used to commit a crime is a prescription for “ending gun manufacturing in America,” meaning “your position is there should not be any guns in America, period.”

    I’m just wondering who pays or absorbs the damages now for criminal uses of guns? How do we afford guns now? Is the liability for gun crime currently on those better able to pay it?

    If redistributing liability as per the legislation eliminates the gun business, why doesn’t no-fault insurance eliminate the motor vehicle business? It may not be justice, but it seems driving has survived no-fault insurance in states that had it.

    1. I live in a “no fault” State; we pay for it with significant insurance premiums which, by law, you have to have if you want to drive a car.

      I don’t seen anyone doing that for the gun industry; the costs of being held liable for criminal misuse of your product could only be passed on to consumers, rendering their products unaffordable. The very clear intent of this is to bankrupt the gun manufacturers.

      1. But how does society afford guns now? Somebody pays the cost of crimes with guns. Is gun ownership concentrated in so few that they couldn’t afford collectively bearing the cost that’s already borne by crime victims and/or criminals? Where is the math off?

        1. But how does society afford guns now?

          Your premise is shot through with bad logic. Society isn’t a checkbook. How does a Ponzi Scheme make money?

          1. Society may not be a checkbook, but society certainly includes checkbooks.

            Ponzi schemes aggregate money from the many to the few. Insurance does the same thing, yet people knowingly pay for the service of paying a little extra on average to reduce risk.

        2. The person who commits the crime pays for it

          1. No, usually they don’t have enough money as individuals to do that. So either the crime victim or their own health insurance pays for the damages. If we can afford it that way, I’m sure we could afford it by paying thru the gun makers.

      2. Is it about moral hazard? If there were no-fault insurance required for gun ownership, would there be a vast increase in gun crime because the civil liability would be shared, even though criminal penalties would still apply?

        1. so you are saying you want people to have insurance to pay for the crimes of others? I didn’t shoot anyone so why should i have to pay for someone else who does that makes no sense. this is separate from someone hitting my car and leaving the scene or even if i dent my own car. Please elaborate.

          1. No, I’m not saying that’s a good thing. I’m just saying that if the worst happens, it still won’t eliminate the gun business.

            1. Liability insurance for individual gun owners which could be handled by insurance is not the same thing as unlimited direct liability for gun manufacturers.

              What do you imagine would happen to the auto industry if people could directly sue Ford, GM or Chrysler every time a drunk driver injured someone? Do you imagine that this actually happens now?

              That, people directly suing the auto manufacturers over drunk driving, is what would be the equivalent to the lawsuits people were trying to bring against the gun manufacturers that triggered the passage of the PLCAA.

              1. What do you imagine would happen to the auto industry if people could directly sue Ford, GM or Chrysler every time a drunk driver injured someone? Do you imagine that this actually happens now?

                That, people directly suing the auto manufacturers over drunk driving, is what would be the equivalent to the lawsuits people were trying to bring against the gun manufacturers that triggered the passage of the PLCAA.

                And, again, even this is underselling the disparity. Imagine a state’s AG saying “There are too may drunk driving deaths.” and filing suit against Ford on behalf of the state. Now imagine state and national law makers cheering his bold move. Now imagine, when his lawsuit fails, he leans on the banks to disclose a national automobile advocacy group’s financial records and to stop doing business with them.

                I’d prefer we didn’t need S230 or the PLCAA, but the PLCAA is an overt legislative response to defend Americans’ rights against unconstitutional action by state agents whereas S230 is an unconstitutional legislative response to boogeymen who were going to ruin free speech on the internet by thinking, believing, and saying the wrong things.

                1. “And, again, even this is underselling the disparity. ”

                  Agreed, but I have only so much time and there’s only so much you can put in one comment.

                2. Don’t for get car control advocacy groups arguing for “common sense car control” like large (passenger) capacity vehicle bans and pundits arguing that only the government should own motor vehicles.

              2. Individuals would pay a little more for cars, and a little less for car insurance. Not economically efficient, not justice, but not the end of the business.

        2. Being a law abiding citizen, I have a concealed carry permit; I also purchased an insurance policy that would provide me with legal representation in the event I had to resort to deadly force [I call this the “nuclear option” and only to be used in face of immanent and serious harm]; does that produce a “moral hazard” whereby I feel less restricted to pull a gun on somebody?

          When the MSM became aware of these products [because the NRA starting selling it] it was called “murder insurance.” For one, it will not provide coverage in the event you committed a crime; and time has borne out the absurdity of this claim; justifiable uses of firearms has never increased because someone has this coverage; in fact, nationwide, gun homicides have dropped precipitously in the US over the past 2-3 decades; this in spite of the vast expansion of States that provide for concealed and Constitutional carry [no permit required]; the vast incidents of gun crimes occur where it has always occurred, in inner city areas [such as South Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis, Detroit, Memphis, et al] that are rife with drugs, gangs, poverty, lack of social cohesion, and pretty much all run by Democrats.

          The “cost” of this violence, primarily in such areas, is of course borne out by health care, police departments, and State budgets [in my experience in health care, lack of insurance often accompanies traumas in general]. But the cost is largely confined to these 30 or so metropolitan areas.

          Interestingly, if you were to take out a few of these places, the “gun violence” rate in the US would resemble that of France or Germany. The number of homicides in Chicago in 2020, for instance, exceeded that of 46 States in total.

        3. Wait, are you saying you think criminals will have gun insurance?

          Because they won’t.

          Only law abiding people will.

          1. But how does society afford uninsured criminal gun owners now?

            1. The same way society has afforded to handle ALL criminals whether they decide to use a gun or not.

    2. Oh my God. If you commit a crime with a gun there are legal penalties. WTF else are you talking about?

    3. I think you are confusing two different talking points. Eliminating the PLCAA is a separate policy goal from requiring insurance for gun owners

      Basically it would be like holding suing Ford anytime someone drove a car drunk

      1. But Ford purchasers could easily afford that. You don’t think gun purchasers could as well?

    4. We can afford guns now, because most of the people being killed are criminals, so gun deaths on average save money, not cost it.

      BPD analysis uncovers revealing information about murder victims, suspects

      “The Police Department’s analysis of the backgrounds of suspects is also revealing, showing 81.4% of suspects had prior records, 60.5% had previous drug arrests, 44.2% have been arrested for gun crimes and 12.8% were prior homicide suspects.”

      It’s mostly criminals killing other criminals, if you’re a law abiding citizen you’re pretty safe, and being made safer than otherwise by most of the murders.

    5. You are rehashing a really stupid analogy. No fault insurance pays for the victim’s injuries regardless of who was at fault in an accident. No fault insurance does not pay when the injury was intentionally inflicted. In other words, if you fall asleep at the wheel, it pays but if you intentionally run them down, it doesn’t.

      “Insurance” imposed on gun owners would help those few people who are injured as a result of gun accidents but those folks are (almost always) already covered under the gun owner’s homeowners or other insurance. It would do nothing whatsoever to help the victims of criminal gun violence.

      Note, by the way, that even in the auto context, no-fault insurance is a crashing failure. Residents of states that require it pay far higher insurance rates than those in states that don’t require it. While less dramatic, there is also evidence that drivers in no-fault states are actually less safe than drivers in other states.

      1. You are rehashing a really stupid analogy.

        That’s true of most tactics in the gun control standard playbook.

      2. But it hasn’t killed car sales, has it?

        These predictions of putting gun makers out of business by making them pay the damages even for criminal use of guns are exaggerated. Cigarets are still a business even with their liability. It’s just shuffling the costs around, so the total amount the average person pays is the same.

        You get put out of business only if your sector is so narrow that the costs are borne by too few to support them.

        We could look at the numbers even more simply by just figuring one side: crime itself. Crime just imposes costs by some people on others; it hasn’t put society out of business yet! If the costs of crime are already being redistributed without society’s going out of business, what makes you think one more step of redistribution of costs would end the business? Crime will go on, and business in general will go on, regardless.

        1. Cigarette companies aren’t being held liable for the illegal use of their products. Neither are car companies nor their law-abiding customers. None of your hypotheticals are remotely like what you are proposing to be levied against gun companies. You’re not even comparing apples and oranges – you’re trying to make us compare apples and shovels. It’s stupid and pointless.

          The costs of crime are borne by society as a whole because crime itself is a society-wide problem. You want to put the entire burden of that society-wide problem on one small sub-population and then pretend that it won’t crush that sub-population. It’s the same logic that says we can increase taxes on “the rich” indefinitely and believe that those people won’t leave or just give up. It’s either astonishingly ignorant of basic human behavior or disingenuous.

          1. Tthey’re not like what is being proposed (not by me; I’m just describing it) in that sense, but they’re of the same magnitude. I’m just looking at its likely effect on the business, and I don’t think the effect on the gun business would be nearly as great as the cigaret business.

            You’re assuming gun purchasers to be a small sub-population, but from everything I’ve seen they’re even greater these days than the cigaret-purchasing population. If they were a small sub-population, then the costs could crush them, but they’re not.

            1. No, they are not remotely “of the same magnitude”. The social costs of harm from legal (that is, defensive) uses of guns are multiple orders of magnitude less than the social costs of harm from criminal gun violence. And neither are anywhere near the ratio of costs of either cigarettes or auto accidents. You are not making a good-faith argument.

        2. perverse adjective

          per·​verse | \ (ˌ)pər-ˈvərs , ˈpər-ˌvərs \
          Definition of perverse
          1a: turned away from what is right or good : CORRUPT
          b: IMPROPER, INCORRECT
          c: contrary to the evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law
          perverse verdict
          2a: obstinate in opposing what is right, reasonable, or accepted : WRONGHEADED
          b: arising from or indicative of stubbornness or obstinacy
          3: marked by peevishness or petulance : CRANKY
          4: marked by perversion

        3. By your standard, computer companies should be sued out of existence because some people use them to commit crimes.

  19. Yes, Jacob, Biden wants to take your guns. But really, is that a high price to pay for returning to normalcy? At least he doesn’t tweet mean things while he’s usurping your right to armed self defense.

    1. He can’t tweet; he is too fucking incoherent.

  20. Most people can’t articulate what they think “common sense” itself even means.

    1. It is a politically expedient term, that pretty much means whatever the user and his audience wants it to mean. And how can you possibly disagree with something that is “reasonable and common sense?”

      1. Ever try asking a gun control proponent to think of a policy they wouldn’t consider “common sense” or one they think would go too far and violate the 2A? They can’t do it

    2. It means, “I don’t have to provide specific defenses for my ridiculously vague bullshit because it’s commonsense….duh!”

  21. To demonstrate how moderate he is, Biden withdrew the “shoot them in the legs” requirement from his anti-2A bill.

  22. Democrats will be SHOCKED when the war on guns turns out to be racist.

    1. It will be if it ever comes to the point of actually directing “gun control” at actual crimes.

      The rare mass shooting gets the press; and this is largely where the focus is, all the while conflating the “numbers” with urban gang violence and suicides. But the homicides in Democratic havens like Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore and others will remain unabated.

      1. But who could possibly forsee this? I’m sure that Sheriff Bubba from Iowa is gonna turn in his cousin just as quick as them city cops!

      2. Are you really unaware that gun control in the USA was racist from it’s very beginning?

        1. Not unaware at all; but not at all sure I see what your point is.

  23. The solution is simple and it has been available since the founding of our nation. An amendment to remove the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures and must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. It’s that simple.

    Why doesn’t Biden and the Leftists try doing it the legal and moral way instead of the illegal and fascist way?

    1. “… may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures and must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. It’s that simple.”

      Rhetorical question? Much simpler to do this the New Zealand or Canadian way.

      1. Even New Zealand might not have actually accomplished much doing it “the New Zealand way”. 56k total guns turned in out of somewhere over 1 million, and from the look of the collection bins, most look to be vintage rifles from WW1 and WW2 with some pump-action shotguns and a handlful of “assault weapons” mixed in.

        https://www.npr.org/2019/12/21/790466492/new-zealanders-hand-in-more-than-50-000-weapons-as-the-countrys-buyback-program-

        1. Yup. Supposedly the initial buy back is now being regarded as a rehearsal for a second, more well-rehearsed buy back. That it isn’t working, much less shouldn’t be done, on a literal island nation (and is therefore completely unenforceable/unattainable in a place like Chicago) doesn’t seem to occur to them.

      2. This ain’t New Zealand or Canada pilgrim.

        1. I’d like to think it would never be, but trust in our government would be the first step in that direction.

    2. Because you’re right to a firearm does not actually come from the 2nd amendment.

      1. Get out of here troll. Go read the Constitution.

        1. How about this – you point to the part of the Constitution where it says either the government or the Constitution grants you rights.

          I’ll wait.

          Because the Constitution doesn’t do that. Its sets limits on what government can do and specifies what government *must* do. The rights? They’re ALL yours. All of them. Even the ones not listed anywhere. You still have those. Unlist the right to self-defense and you still have the right to self-defense. Because the right to self-defense comes from being a person, not from the Constitution nor from government.

          1. I agree that man/government don’t grant rights but they do try to limit and restrict them. That’s the problem — people who want to restrict the rights of others and it would be much harder to practice my inalienable right to self-defense if people like President Biden keep trying to limit what is available to me to exercise that God-given right.

        2. Go read the Constitution.

          I think that’s the point. Self defense is a natural right. The Constitution doesn’t bestow these rights, it recognizes them as inalienable.

          1. “The Constitution doesn’t bestow these rights, it recognizes them as inalienable.”

            Change that and they will indeed change the country. Which is precisely what Democrats want to do. And why we need something better than the [only other] option of Republicans.

        3. You own Ag an apology, you failed to comprehend what he wrote.

          NO rights are granted by the Constitution — they are only RECOGNIZED as BEING rights, which existed prior to any document.

      2. The right itself doesn’t originate from 2A. If we’re going to try to maintain the pretense of being a “country of laws”, then that piece of text does prohibit the government from infringing on that right, though.

  24. Biden and his handlers believe most gun owners are Republicans, and so feel draconian gun laws are a handy way to punish people for having voted the “wrong” way. The whole debate would be different if gun ownership was perceived as being more bipartisan.

    1. It used to be, but with the progression of the great divide in the US, it’s all one side or another. With that 50.1% beats 49.9, and fuck the losers.

  25. I feel like a defiant M-Fer, andI think I’ll get a bumper sticker that says: ‘Firearms are for Lovers’ or Lennon’s immortal ‘Happiness is a warm gun’

    1. Might be ok. But if Karen also sees you driving without wearing a covid mask the cops are getting called.

  26. Biden’s “commonsense” gun control prescriptions are “common” in the sense that authoritarians remove guns from the people to eliminate the ability of the people to wrest control back from the authoritarian state.

  27. I remember way back in the day when all we worried about was the President banning bumpstocks.

    Good times.

    I wonder whatever happened to that guy?

  28. Like the senate trial, this is going nowhere. Dead on arrival.

    1. You are likely correct; 50.1% isn’t much of a mandate, no matter how often Schumer bellows about changing the country with one vote. But we are at a point where it has become such a zero sum game that the opposing team may just ram through whatever they can by the slimmest margin because the twain never meets any more.

      The Republicans, in my view, did well to fill every last vacancy on the federal courts because they were perfectly in their right to do so [and I happen to agree with most of the choices]; however, Democrats will likely exhibit the same behavior because they couldn’t care less what anyone who didn’t vote for them thinks.

  29. I don’t see HR 127 being adopted as is, but it IS a long list of proposals that you’d have to watch out for being snuck into the usual “must pass” omnibus bills nobody is given time to read before voting on.

    Most likely Biden is going to ban import of a lot of firearms, present law gives him the ability to do that by declaring that they don’t have any “sporting purpose”.

    And he’s clearly starting Operation Choke Point back up, so expect a lot of firearms companies having trouble with banks.

  30. The point of of an assault weapons ban is not to reduce deaths, since rifles of all sorts account for vanishingly small proportion of gun violence and still leaves effective alternatives available, it’s to establish the principle that you can ban the guns based upon arbitrary designations. Once you do that you just wave the “assault” magic transformation wand on more guns next year.

    Saying you only want to ban “weapons of war” is good rhetoric, just note that nearly every gun owned by Americans today was recently used in war

    Soldiers use pump-action shotguns in Afghanistan. Snipers literally use hunting rifles. AR-15 is only today’s temporary goal post.

    By the “weapons of war” measure, the sky is the limit. After all, even muskets were used to kill British Redcoats.

    1. End all wars and then no one will be using weapons of war. Simple.

  31. Biden is trying to overthrow the 1st and 2nd amendment, and Reason is worried about common sense.
    Reason, libertarians with no common sense!
    Reason, Woke libertarians with no common sense!
    Reason, Socialist libertarians with no common sense!
    Reason, Dictatorship Supporting libertarians with no common sense!

  32. One thing nobody seems to ever mention is that guns kill less that 1% of the total people that die in the US every year. Wouldn’t it make more sense to worry about saving the other 99% instead?

  33. Biden’s ‘Commonsense’ Gun Controls Make Little Sense

    Quite to the contrary. It makes a lot of sense to those on the left. One reason those on the left will not be subject to the scrutiny of a close examination. Another reason that it makes sense is that those who use guns (to commit crimes such as robbery) will not beheld accountable for the use of the gun in the commission of the crime. Now the person who wants to be law abiding but who cannot get a permit to buy a weapon gets a weapon (gun) and is caught with even though not nor has used in in the commission of a crime will go to prison for that possession of the weapon. Yet the criminal who uses an unregistered weapon to commit a robbery will have the gun charged dropped and will not have to serve time for it. Why not make those who use these weapons to commit crimes pay for the crime of having an unlawful weapon in his presence while committing another crime. But no that will not happen.

  34. I believe you have to weigh the value of Libertarianism versus Utilitarianism. Personal freedoms are important, but so is the good of society. My opinion is nobody needs an AK-47, it’s value is killing people and killing people is not in the best interest of society. We need to find a middle ground.

    1. An early state court wrote that “the arms the right to keep which is secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority.”

      Granted for individual self defense one does not need to carry an AR15 with a 30 round magazine at all times, but then the second amendment is not only about individual self defense. We have the right to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves, families, homes, state, and country.

      Current law draws a bright line at fully automatic /machine guns. Those require expensive permits to own. To extend the heavy permitting requirements to semi-auto versions of military firearms defeats one purpose of the second amendment which was to have the citizens familiar with military weaponry and capable of defending their liberties against those in power. This was the widely accepted view of the second amendment espoused in such wide ranging early state court cases as Aymette vs TN and Nunn vs GA. Aymette was a narrow decision focusing on the citizens owning arms for collective defense while Nunn espoused a far broader and more individualistic view, but they agreed as to ownership of military style arms.

      Biden’s claim that “weapons of war have no place in our communities” may be his heartfelt opinion, but laws designed to remove military style firearms from the general public fly in the face of the second amendment.

    2. Your opinion of what other people need is worth precisely nothing. Claims that the things you want just happen to coincide with “the good of society” is that same claim made by tyrants everywhere.

      Here’s the middle ground. Inanimate objects don’t kill people. Guns (of all types) should be available to whoever can afford them. Punish those who use them to hurt people.

    3. “…My opinion is nobody needs an AK-47,..”

      I don’t care about some slaver’s opinion. Fuck off and die.

    4. Please back up your assertion that “killing people is not in the best interest of society.”

    5. We need an AK-47 because people like you believe we don’t. And will use force to impose that and other beliefs.

    6. On the subject of “need:”
      need
      /nēd/
      verb
      require (something) because it is essential or very important.
      “I need help now”
      Similar:
      require, be in need of, stand in need of, have need of, be in want of, be crying out for, be desperate for, entail, involve, necessary, required, called for, essential, requisite, compulsory, obligatory
      mandatory

      In economics, a need is something needed to survive while a want is something that people desire to have, that they may, or may not, be able to obtain. The terms wants and needs are used in today’s economy, and not always accurately

      So given the lexical and economic definitions of the term “need,” there are quite a few items that would not make that list. Alcohol is inherently problematic, and accounts for costs of addiction and loss of health and life [government tried banning that too, by the way; didn’t work out so well]. Cell phones, often the source of distracted driving and accidents, are not truly “needed” by most people. Television, fast cars, boats…the list of things one may not “need” can be virtually endless.

      And you do not get to decide any of this for me.

  35. the need to switch magazines can create a “critical pause” during which a mass shooter might be overpowered or his victims might escape

    MIGHT. But just about as often the “high capacity” magazines, often prepped with cheap ammo, fail to feed sometime during their run to empty. In most mass shootings when the perp was able to be taken out, astute First Defenders were aware of those FTF events and whilst the perp was attempting to clear and proceed, they were able to take out the perp, ending the massacre.

    The scary thing about “elliminating” the standard capacity magazines is that we defenders will not have the correct tools for our defense against multiple attackers, or one well concealed and determined. Further, if bad guys find their preffered tools are no longer available as currently so, there are other worse and more lethal/destructive methods of perpetrating mass murder at will. I won’t mention any specific ones let someone think I’m planning or inciting. I do well remember the New York clown who rented a Home Depot Chevrolet pickup and used it to kill some eight innocents on a bikeway nearby. What, will they now demand background checks (the perp would have passed as his record was clean), maybe put speed governors on Home Depot pickups, oh, wait, he was only going maybe 20 mph when he began to clobber the victims. Oh well…. until evil no longer lurks in the heart of man, such things will continue. My real beef is this: WHY do they want to make me a defenseless sitting duck against such?
    The ONLY answer that tags all the data points is they want to be able to disarm ALL of us so they no longer get any pushback when they begin to work their plans for total control. Easy to understand

    1. Full-size magazines encourage “spray and pray,” while smaller magazines encourage actually selecting targets, aiming and HITTING.

      1. Got a binary trigger, simulates auto fire [at about 300 rounds per minute]; beyond the second or third shot, I am not often on target.
        I’d practice more but really want to preserve my stock.

  36. As to background checks,, they are only as useful as the data in the NICS system. The Parkland murderer had committed at least FOUR felony level crimes, for NONE OF WHICH he was ever indicted. He’d been restrained, on paper at least, from entering that school property because of one of his felony crimes, uncharged. At least TWO of the school resource officers watched him walking onto campus, KNeW who he was, AND that he was carrying a case just like what is commonly used to hold an AR 15 rifle with multiple charged magazines, all neatly organised inside it. Andthey did.. precisely NOTHING. The creep who shot some 26 people at the Sutherland Springs CHurch in Texas had also committed a few felonies,PLUS got a dishonourable discharge from the Air Force BECAUSE of those felonies, another “disabing” event. Two different Air Force desk jockeys were too busy doing more fun things than to report these events, past TWO occasions that SHOULD haev triggered that information being sent to NICS database. Most folks do not remember HOW that shooting was stopped.. it was a neighbour who went and got HIS AR 15 rifle, much like the one used in the crimes, fired one round, wounding the perp, who gave up his persuit and left the area, ending the massacre.

    So there we have two AR rifles, two different men owning them, one used to murder the other to save lives. The murderer would NOT have complied with a turn in or destroy order, the neighbur most likely would have done. So the toll next time will keep going higher until… the cops get there and take forever to assess, plan, deploy, plan some more, and maybe try and take him out with a beanbag round or tazer. Meanwhile he continues to shoot the churchgoers.
    Nope. Let the neighbour dontinue to be armed. Deal definitively with those perpetrating evil.

  37. Poor commies at unreason. They think el presidente biden is in charge.

    America is in civil war 2.0 because democrats started this one too.

    Defend yourself against banana republic tyranny and the commies who peddle propaganda.

  38. Guns! Guns! Gunsgunsgunsgusn!!! Moargunsgusngunsguns!!!

    You can never, ever, never, ever, never have too many gunsgunsgunsguns!!!

    Gunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsguns!!!

  39. Come on Reason. Biden’s common sense gun control is an unconstitutional assault on our second amendment rights.
    Start telling the truth instead of sugar coated lies..

  40. But how will I attach my bayonet without a proper mount?

  41. Biden’s proposals make abundant sense. We have one of the highest homicide rates on the planet. Our obsession with guns has made this country more violent and less safe, and certain irresponsible people have hidden behind a select part of the Second Amendment for far too long in an attempt to justify this dangerous situation.
    It is LONG PAST time for the militia to become “well regulated” as the Second Amendment provides for. The gun manufacturers and the NRA–which is nothing more than a bankrupt lobbying organization–have conveniently ignored this part of the Second Amendment for far too long. Time to obey the ENTIRE law, not just selected parts.

    1. Fuck off and die, slaver.

    2. “Well regulated” = trained and equipped to a regular standard.

      In other words, the Second Amendment says that the militia should have the same weapons as the regular army.

      Unfortunately, you hoplophobes only obey selected parts of the law, and even then only when forced to.

    3. My state has a lower violent crime rate than Canada or Great Britain. Many times lower than gun banning District of Columbia. We have a high gun ownership rate. And are constitutional carry. More guns. Less violent crime.

    4. Two important questions:

      Where are all these crimes happening ?

      What sorts of weapons are being used to commit these homicides?

      Clue: homicide rates across the US have dropped dramatically over the past 30 years, except in specific areas where violence fueled by gangs, drugs, and lack of social cohesion.

      No, eviscerating my rights, and the rights of legally responsible gun owners [literally 99.9%] will do NO THING to reduce crime or gun deaths. It’s just an easy trope for fools like yourself to glom onto, because you really don’t want to tackle the real problem.

  42. As hard as Sullum worked to get Biden elected, I find it hard to see this as anything more than crocodile tears and an (unsuccessful) attempt to regain some credibility.

    1. Why can’t they be credible like the guy who dressed up in a moose costume to try to overthrow the US.

  43. IF these science deniers would simply review available facts and data, reducing crime and death is no more complicated than banning guns from anyone that would have voted for Biden.
    Molon Labe, Joe. My side didn’t burn any cities and rack up damages nationwide that exceeded natural disasters.
    Naturally, liberalism is a disaster.

  44. “The Parkland shooter, for example, bought his rifle legally, which makes the invocation of his crime as a justification for expanded background checks rather puzzling.” The only puzzling thing is that you don’t understand the left wants only government and the “right” people to have guns, and they will say or do anything to accomplish that. But keep writing articles about the 10 great libertarian things Biden can do, go nite-nite and dream of unicorns, idiots.

Please to post comments