Guns

Biden's Gun Schemes Illustrate the Foolishness of Firearms Regulations

Rules range from absurd to appalling without respect for civil liberties or basic logic.

|

As expected, the Biden administration released proposed new rules for pistol braces and model legislation for "red flag" laws that make it easier to confiscate privately owned firearms. Also as expected, the proposals are ludicrous. On the one hand, they are pointless and nitpicky rules that are ultimately unenforceable, and on the other hand they are dangerous end-runs around due process that threaten fundamental rights. Taken together, they illustrate the unserious nature of gun regulations which are crafted more to appeal to political audiences than to achieve positive results.

The silliness inherent in this sort of rulemaking is apparent from the Department of Justice's announcement of "a notice of proposed rulemaking that makes clear that when individuals use accessories to convert pistols into short-barreled rifles, they must comply with the heightened regulations on those dangerous and easily concealable weapons."

For those new to this controversy, stabilizing braces were developed to help disabled veterans more accurately shoot pistols (usually those built around AR-15 receivers) one-handed. The "problem" is that many resemble shoulder stocks and can be used in that role. By no means does an attachment that lets a pistol be fired from the shoulder make it especially "dangerous and easily concealable." Instead, it makes it less concealable since it has a brace sticking off the back. Braces do render pistols more accurate, which could be interpreted as dangerous if you're upset by shooters hitting where they aim.

But a pistol that can be fired from the shoulder is arguably a short-barreled rifle under the National Firearms Act (NFA), and subject to special restrictions, taxes, and registration requirements that don't apply to regular pistols or regular rifles, but do apply to (among other weapons) rifles with barrels shorter than 16 inches. These regulations are not evidence that short-barreled rifles are particularly dangerous, but that, like many laws, the NFA is thoroughly idiotic.

Braces have been treated as legal devices for years but have recently been targeted by the sort of people who see advantage in pretending that a firearm with a buttstock and a short barrel is more "dangerous and easily concealable" than stock-less pistols and long-barreled rifles. In compliance with White House direction, proposed rules from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) would impose new requirements to determine if braced pistols achieve Great Pumpkin-level sincerity, or are super-dangerous and concealable short-barreled rifles in disguise.

Among other tests, the rule would set the maximum length of a pistol at 26 inches (because 27 inches is super-dangerous and concealable). These tests add up to a four-point assessment, ranging from "1 point: Minor Indicator (the weapon could be fired from the shoulder)" to "4 points: Decisive Indicator (the weapon is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder)" with four points the ultimate sign that a firearm crosses the line into very naughty territory indeed.

The ATF estimates that between 3 million and 7 million braces owned by at least 1.4 million individuals will be affected should the new rules be adopted and proposes four possible scenarios in response. Owners could: surrender firearms with attached braces to the ATF for disposal, convert firearms into long-barreled rifles, apply for NFA registration so that the supposedly "dangerous and easily concealable" firearms are taxed and registered, or remove or alter affected braces.

A fourth scenario, and probably the most popular, will be for owners to ignore the ATF rules, keep their braced pistols, and even continue to attach braces to pistols purchased in the future. This would certainly defy official intent but, given the arbitrary and shifting nature of the rules, it's difficult to imagine anybody feeling an obligation to comply beyond a desire to avoid legal trouble.

But foolish stabilizer brace rules affect mostly disabled shooters and fanciers of a particular type of firearm. Red flag laws affect potentially any gun owner by allowing for property seizures and confrontations with law enforcement without due process.

Red flag laws "make it easier for states to craft 'extreme risk protection orders' authorizing courts to temporarily bar people in crisis from accessing firearms," insists the Department of Justice. "By allowing family members or law enforcement to intervene and to petition for these orders before warning signs turn into tragedy, 'extreme risk protection orders' can save lives."

Maybe such orders "can save lives"—all sorts of restrictions on personal liberty theoretically "can save lives" if that's your only criteria. But the model legislation proposed by the Biden administration requires same-day issuance of orders that "prohibit the respondent from possessing, using, purchasing, manufacturing, or otherwise receiving a firearm" with a hearing to be held only after the fact. That certainly deprives those affected of their rights without due process of any sort before cops show up on their doorsteps to search the premises and confiscate property.

Respondents would be allowed to file a motion to terminate an order only once during the period that it is in effect, and "shall have the burden of proving, by the same standard of proof required for issuance of such an order, that he or she does not pose a" risk.

"[W]e are deeply concerned about its breadth, its impact on civil liberties, and the precedent it sets for the use of coercive measures against individuals not because they are alleged to have committed any crime, but because somebody believes they might, someday, commit one," the ACLU of Rhode Island objected in 2018 to legislation very similar to the Biden administration's model law.

California's red flag law, signed in 2019 by Gov. Gavin Newsom, "poses a significant threat to civil liberties" because it allowed people to seek seizure orders without giving gun owners an opportunity to object, that state's ACLU similarly protested.

Rhode Island's ACLU warns that red flag laws could be used to penalize people for "overblown political rhetoric" and others warn they can be wielded vindictively by personal enemies and by opponents of gun ownership. That danger is illustrated by the misuse of similar non-adversarial systems: Colorado's Safe2Tell tip system has been abused in exactly that way, with bogus reports of school threats sending police to innocent kids' homes.

"Intentionally making false reports is not a good use of school, law enforcement or Safe2Tell time," the system prominently warns in an acknowledgement that it has been weaponized by malicious users.

Red flag laws don't allow for anonymous tips, but they still put gun owners on the receiving end of property seizures and searches without an opportunity to contest complaints, whether legitimate, overblown, or ill-intentioned.

Unfortunately, this is the face of firearms regulation in 21st-century America. Rules range from absurd to appalling and are crafted to please gun-phobes without respect for civil liberties or basic logic. We should expect more such rule-making as officials have grown accustomed to using their power to reward friends and punish enemies.

NEXT: Autopsy of a Crime Lab

Guns Joe Biden Second Amendment BATF Firearms Crimes Regulation Red Flag Laws

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.

Please to post comments

152 responses to “Biden's Gun Schemes Illustrate the Foolishness of Firearms Regulations

  1. Joe Biden is a dope. Also a dupe. And a puppet, a senile old fool who has never had an original thought in his life, an idiot who doesn’t realize he was installed as a figurehead Senator by the banking industry, a fat-headed, loud-mouthed, thin-skinned, egotistical bloviating pedophile who I strongly suspect is a wife-beater as well.

    1. Change my mind

      (you’re going to need a bigger sign)

      1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. I basically make about $8,000-$12,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 10-13 hours a week from home. I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it copy below web…. Visit Here

      1. HEY REASON MODS!

        Why is this “Brason Tay” character still around and spamming daily? I’ve been flagging his spam for months, and you guys never ban his account? Do you fuckers even care?

        1. Better this way than the other way around. It’s a rare gem of a website where they keep their moderation to a minimum. Even though I’m sometimes nasty about the writers, I really appreciate it the way it is.

          1. Just don’t post more than once on an article with an embedded link they you might just find your post terminally “awaiting moderation”. If you just paste in the webpage however it’s much safer. Apparently only bots use proper html tags.

            1. Any post with more than one link gets “awaiting mod’n”, and gets none.
              Simply re-post with one link per post.

              1. Understood, but since all spam seems to only link once, what exactly is the point of this rule of 2 or more links automatically requires moderation?

        2. Besides, if you click on their handle, they might be “legit-ish”. A wildly unsuccessful youtube channel. Sad, but possibly not a bot.

        3. Jeez, you insult the authors and editors whose columns you read for free. While I share your lament, I just mute them, as writers and editors have writing and editing to do.
          IMHO, you’d do yourself a favor reading Dale Carnegie’s best seller. For libertarians, the carrot is a better incentive than a stick, and the only moral choice for motivating people, unless you work in the government then a stick is appropriate when dealing with people who’ve initiated force against others.

          1. Sometimes the authors and editors are arguing points which amount to 2 + 2 = 5 (when analyzed against libertarian philosophy) – there is honestly no way to explain how wrong someone is in that situation by using nothing by positive thoughts to motivate them to do better next time.

    2. He also is looking mighty orange these days. You left out useless high school jock and bullying self-important blowhard with zero skills other than DC panhandling. AKA schmoozing & grifting while lying big. He is a perfect example of why one should not respect people simply for holding a position, or pretending to do a job for a long time. The same is true for many of the career politicians. Leahy, Pelosi, Menendez, Schumer. And on the right side of the aisle as well.

    3. You forgot that he’s a Pencil-Necked Geek too.

    4. plagiarist!

    5. Name-calling generally means one doesn’t have a valid argument, and tends to be the exact opposite of Reason.

      1. thank you.

      2. I agree, but I see Jerryskids’ post as venting more than an argument. And I’d also prefer less venting and insults. But it seems these days, we’re only free to vent anonymously because the liberals are very much into political retaliation against their opponents, especially the ones that speak up, leading us to the public spiral of silence for conservatives. People have lost their jobs for speaking up. So people vent here, and I can relate.

        1. People like Tony, Jeffy, etc. are dishonest, sophist, sea lioning shitweasels. And they repeat the same discredited arguments in every thread. They don’t deserve civility. That’s why there are so many insults. They need a a beat down. Not a debate.

        2. True, I’ve already had one attempt to get me fired over a comment someone didn’t like. Fortunately HR just dropped by to notify me of the attempt, and assure me we weren’t that sort of company.

      3. “Name-calling generally means one doesn’t have a valid argument, and tends to be the exact opposite of Reason.”

        If you know the person you are calling a lefty asshole *is* a lefty asshole, and his ‘argument’ has been refuted 90 times already, there is no reason to avoid pointing out that the person is a lefty asshole.

    6. In other words, we’re getting more malarky from the self described no malarky administration.
      It’s almost funny, Biden’s page joebiden.com/gunsafety promising to end gun violence, where he touts his 1993 and 1994 gun legislation to do that. Joe is essentially admitting he’s been working on it for decades, and gun violence is worse than ever, especially in Democrat run cities. It’s more of the same policies yielding the same lousy results.

      1. …gun violence is worse than ever…

        No it’s not. It’s lower that it was in the 90s and the 70s were worse than the 90s.

        In either event, gun violence is not worse than ever – that’s a lie told to people to get bad laws/regulations like this one through without any resistance.

    7. Braindead Biden is too far gone to even do that.
      He just sits in his chair shitting his pants and waiting for Dr. Jill to change his diaper.
      Biden is an embarrassment to all Americans and has made the nation a laughing stock to the rest of the world.
      God help us….if there is a God.
      Please,please, someone get him out of the Oval Office and into a home for the mentally feeble.

  2. The U.S. campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq. The Trump administration also invoked it to justify its conflict with the Islamic State, but asserted authorization to address threats in “Syria or elsewhere” as well more detail open this link…….VISIT HERE.

  3. For starters, most healthy people want a job that satisfies their needs, but a job without a social support system can set … Selected Works Cited from Internet.more detail open this link…….VISIT HERE.

  4. Record High ACA Enrollment At 31 Million Americans

    https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20210607.367870/full/

    The Democrats ObamaCare is imploding. Massive subsidy payments to their pet insurance companies has stopped. Dems should call me to fix!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 13, 2017

    Hehehehe.

    Did the Orange Shitstain ever get anything right?

    1. Oh that’s right, the person who introduced me to this website — the one who told me you repeatedly guaranteed a Jeb Bush nomination — also told me you were the comment section’s leading defender of Obamacare. Defended it even more vigorously than Tony, in fact. Good to see you’re still a fan of Obama’s defining achievement.

      #LibertariansForObamacare

    2. Operation Warp Speed comes to mind. Trump was not a great Potus, but you are a biased asshat.

      1. Biased Asshat. The virtue ideal of the 21st century.

    3. Fuck off asswipe leftie

    4. 15% enrollment is definitely a success for a government program.

    5. Let’s see: Sarah Palin’s Buttplug commenting on a gun rights article, chance of being OT: 99.9999999%

      And, oh look: OT.

    6. He should have achieved more. Like putting treasonous pedophiles, like you, to death. That would have greatly thinned the ranks of progs.

  5. “Rules range from absurd to appalling without respect for civil liberties or basic logic.”

    Uh, J.D., you do know Biden is a democrat, right?

    1. You say that as if you think that Democrats are in favor of civil liberties or basic logic.

  6. Walking through a door and turning left might get you killed, while turning right might not.
    We need a law against walking through a door and turning left.
    It should have a points system of some sort.

    1. Also, doorstops need to be tightly regulated.

      1. Especially those sprooooiiingy ones. Nasty nasty booby traps.

    2. Depends on whether you turn left enough to satisfy the leftists.

  7. But hey, no mean tweets.

    1. THATS SOOO IMPORTANT THO!

  8. they illustrate the unserious nature of gun regulations* which are crafted more to appeal to political audiences than to achieve positive results.

    *also economics, foreign policy, taxation, domestic agenda…you name it, it fits here.

  9. ‘Maybe such orders “can save lives”—all sorts of restrictions on personal liberty theoretically “can save lives” if that’s your only criteria.’

    No, the only criteria in modern American politics is feelings. If laws can enhance desired feelings among core constituencies, then they are right, just, and essential. Judging laws on actual objective effects, or on constitutional compliance, is old-fashioned white male privilege.

  10. Is Biden imitating Issac from The Love Boat in that picture?

  11. Are we expecting logical gun policy from those that demonstrate over and over they know nothing about guns? From the belief that a dropped handgun will spin and fire on the ground, to believing one gun should be banned because of how it looks while giving another with the same function a pass because it does not look scary.

  12. “But we need these laws so they can keep us safe from the street thug and the gangbanger.”

    The same political; tribe supporting these laws have no interest in punishing street thugs and gangbangers.

    http://ethicsalarms.com/2021/06/05/san-franciscos-hard-lesson-in-unethical-ethics/

  13. I will take exception with the assertion that most of those using braces do so for disabilities. Sure, that was one of the original uses, and the proposed regulations appear to disregard that they are probably illegal under The ADA (as a reasonable accommodation to a disability). But the reality, as far as I can tell, is that in many cases, they are just a way to get around ATF SBR rules. I bought a short barreled AR pistol, with just a naked buffer tube out the back (perfectly legal under the new rules) and ultimately added a pistol brace, to make it more comfortable and easier to shoot. Love the gun. It’s the perfect truck gun, with the right ammo, capable of taking down both brown bear and wolves that we have in the county. And, yes, works well for home defense, when we live in a big city the other half the year. It’s 8” shorter than the typical 16” barrel AR-15, which makes it much more maneuverable inside our house.

    Part of what is not mentioned is that one of the problems with AR pistols is that they cannot legally have an ergonomic front grip. This would make shooting accurately easier. Add the vertical foregrip, and they magically become an SBR.

    1. Hand stops, at least up till now, are still legal on an AR “pistol.” I have the smallest I can find on my 300 BLK pistol with brace.

      Much of the regulations are indeed “magical” and have about as much connection to reality.

      1. Ditto here, except my hand stop is not minimal. I’ve got a 7.5” barrel on mine, haven’t gotten tp shoot it as much as i would like, because .300 BLK dried up about the time I bought it last summer. It started with a bare buffer tube, that I replaced with an adjustable brace shortly thereafter.

    2. Adding a vertical foregrip to a pistol does not make it an SBR, it becomes an AOW. Look on the bright side, AOW stamps are $5 instead of $200. Of course the downside is that there is no difference between a poll tax and a NFA stamp, both are blatantly unconstitutional.

      1. Thanks. $5 isnt bad. Does it require the same process as SBRs?

      2. That AOW $5 stamp of for Transfers. It’s still $200 for making one

    3. “I will take exception with the assertion that most of those using braces do so for disabilities.”

      Nothing personal, but seriously Bruce; So What?
      Is it really such a big deal that some use the ‘gray areas’ of a law to do something that? The basis of U.S. law is that unless something is specifically and particularly ‘outlawed’ it’s legal and the people don’t have to seek goobermint permission.

    4. If I remember correctly, a bare buffer tube could still fail this new criteria test (the criteria includes stuff like overall gun weight, length, sight adjustment or lack thereof). Even if you manage to get under the 4 points with a bare buffer tube (and you might not) he ATF reserved the right to just declare a gun to be an SBR even if it didn’t rack up the points but they felt there was an effort to circumvent the ATF rulemaking.

  14. Progresses control the government and are actively disarming US citizens while they refuse to take responsibility for the defense of their lives from aggressive violence, and, in many cases, encourage that violence.

    That’s how abusers work.

    1. It takes the same ATF Form 1 process but it’s $200 to make an AOW. The $5 is for Transferring them.

  15. The prohibition of “short barreled rifles” in NFA is just completely useless and whimsical. I would like to hear Biden (or Schumer, or Durbin) explain how it has any usefulness in practice. But, of course, no one in the Fourth Estate will ask them to, as the allegedly “objective” Fourth Estate has been in the Tank for gun control for most of a century.

    1. Au contraire. You do realize that a rifle with a 15 7/8” barrel is exponentially more dangerous than one with a legal 16” barrel and must be heavily regulated and taxed, right? Besides, as Slow Joe says, all you need is two blasts from a shotgun.

      1. As long as it isn’t two blasts from a Shockwave with an overall length over 26″ because over 26″ is too long for a handgun. Of course it’s a “firearm” and not a handgun but I have to believe the intent is to also get rid of things that aren’t handguns or long guns regardless of how extremely rare their use in crime actually is.

      2. But your shotgun sure better have barrels 18 inches or longer. (Yeah, that’s in the same law.)

        1. I prefer one with a choke so the maximum amount of projectiles is focused more closely.
          yecchh…all those squishy body parts everywhere.

  16. Biden’s Schemes Illustrate the Foolishness of Woke Democrats

    1. Is that supposed to be haiku or something? If so, +1000.

  17. Rifled barrels make firearms more accurate too. Is that next?

    1. Franklin Armory Reformation anyone? Technically not “rifled” more of a linear tongue and groove thing going on.

  18. The interesting thing about “red flag” laws is that their proponents only envision them being used against people they hate, “gun nuts”, “rednecks”, “Magatards”, etc. They might be in for a bit of a shock.

    Bear in mind that the government doesn’t know if you own a gun or not. So if some bloody-minded person pulls one of these on you and you tell the cops at the door “but I don’t own any guns” do you think the cops will take that at face value and just leave? Um, no. They’ll likely pull your house apart making sure you don’t have any guns hidden anywhere.
    Of course in some places they might choose to SWAT your ass. After all, so far as they know you’re a crazy person with guns. A judge signed a paper saying so.

    1. I came across a quote a few years ago, “that which you empower a government to do unto others, will inevitably be done unto you.”

      I don’t know the origin but is certainly has not been a lesson learned for those clamoring for more laws.

      1. Strange; I just googled the phrase and it took me to a comment I made on this site in 2016 [story about S. Africa and hate speech laws], I shit you not; guess I can take credit for it?

  19. They need to be careful. If they put pistols and home-made, no-serial guns on the same level as automatic weapons, the people who will ignore the laws banning wrist braces or “ghost guns” are more likely to ignore the other arbitrary gun bans.

    When the penalty is the same for having a pistol brace or a home-made semi-auto, people will start to realize how easy it is to create home-made FULL autos.

    1. Just add it to your usual three felonies a day, as it becomes increasingly inflated and meaningless.

    2. Yes. I’ve argued for years that the only reason there isn’t more of a black market for full autos is that, outside of the movies, they’re not that useful. They are hard to control and waste a lot of ammo. But if any semi-auto will need to be NFA registered, and not doing so is a crime, screw it, add a burst selector. Why not?

  20. Yeah!! Gun regulation is foolish. We must regulate cars, voting, cosmetology, etc. etc. more than guns.

    1. LOL, because you need to pass a background check to buy a car at a dealership or vote. I can legally buy any car from anyone anywhere in the US. Can’t legally do that with a handgun period full stop. Heck, when I had a condo I voted for things in the HOA by mail and in person at the monthly meetings, nowhere near as difficult as buying a gun.

      I can’t speak to cosmetology because I’m not into the whole cosmic-astral plane thingy but using clearly stupid regulations as an argument for regulating something else more stupidly doesn’t seem like a logical or particularly convincing argument.

      1. Guns kill tens of thousands of Americans each year, a phenomenon that does not exist at all in countries with strict gun regulations. That’s why they should be regulated. All the death.

        1. Stupidity kills thousands of fucking lefty ignoramuses every year; we can all hope this steaming pile of shit is next!

        2. Pesticide poisoning, hanging, yeontan, and other things kill tens of thousands of South Koreans and they have strict gun regulations. Why aren’t you pressing for strict regulations on pesticides, rope and yeontan? Might as well nip it in the bud before those become a problem in the US like they are in South Korea. As you say – “all the death”.

          It’s a pity that life is the leading cause of death. It isn’t like anyone is getting out alive.

          1. Okay so why are you whining about your tax rate all the time?

            1. You’re the one who whines about tax rates.

        3. LOL, your claim that nobody gets killed by guns in Mexico or Venezuela is so obviously false it’s literally laughable. Maybe you should check their gun regulations. FYD.

        4. No Tony, guns are a tool. They don’t kill anyone by themselves. So funds don’t kill people. Democrats do. Murders are almost exclusively committed by people that are, identify with, or support the things you do. Like your terrorists friends in antifa and BLM who spent the last year, assaulting, raping, terrorizing and murdering Americans.

          People who believe and act as you and your friends do are one of the most important reasons for the 2nd amendment.

        5. Doctors are the third leading cause of death in America, is your doctor regulated?

          Maybe if they quit practicing we wouldn’t hafta worry so much

        6. Yes, Tony, people die every year from guns. Roughly half or so are suicides, and those would mostly happen regardless. Most of the rest are by criminals, who don’t buy their guns directly through FFLs. Someone else may (illegally) be a straw purchaser, or the guns may be stolen. Which leaves a handful every year bought completely illegally, and used illegally to kill someone. Out of 40 million or so legally purchased guns over the last year, a de minimis number are illegally used to illegally kill someone.

          But then many more people die from car wrecks, and driving while drunk. Driving, and esp drunk, is not an en8merated fundamental right. Gun ownership is.

          1. No the suicides would not happen regardless. I realize that guns are an especially efficient killing machine only when you’re talking out of one side of your mouth, but it happens to be true.

            One day we will see the number of car deaths as an equally horrifying thing we tolerated for convenience. Except guns don’t really do anything for anyone. It’s just a fetish at this point.

            1. What is an inefficient instrument of suicide is a long gun, like the “assault weapons” that Democrats so desperately want to ban. That is because the barrel length makes putting it in your mouth and pulling the trigger problematic in most cases. Maybe with your big toe. And impossible if you want to shoot yourself in the temple. But the toe trick doesnt work reliably, which is a problem, because going through the rest of your life as a vegitable is not what is usually the result attemped by those attempting suicide.

              The reality, of course, is the same problem with guns used in crimes – they are almost always handguns. Handguns can easily be put in your mouth, and the trigger pulled, or pointed at your temple when shooting yourself. You don’t need to use your big toe, etc. Of course, the new proposed laws and rules are not aimed at handguns, but long guns.

              And your claim that guns dont do anything positive is equally ludicrous – because the presence of guns dissuades many more people every year from shooting them, than die from non suicidal legally unjudtified shootings.

              And you

            2. Let me add the saying that an armed society is a polite society. Turns out there is a correlation between severity of gun control, and non suicidal gun deaths. In places, like here in MT, where most every house outside Missoula has guns, people very rarely try to commit violent gun related crimes. People dont try to rob convenience stores st gunpoint, etc, because they are unlikely to survivevit.

        7. “Guns kill tens of thousands of Americans each year, a phenomenon that does not exist at all in countries with strict gun regulations”

          That’s so much bullshit it’s hysterical.
          Are you actually that stupid you believe that bullshit, or do you think everyone else here is that stupid and you can get away with it ?

          I simply give you Mexico.

          Now, go play with your fellow juvenile intellects elsewhere.

        8. “…., tens of thousands….”?

          Bullshit.

        9. Evidencef please.Exaggeration does not become you.
          Guns do not kill people anymore than cars do.
          People kill people and it’s not in the tens of thousands like you wish it were.

    2. Yep. We know for absolute certain that setting the speed limit for automobiles at 5 MPH would save a minimum of 30,000 lives per year here in the USA. That would be an easy first step . After you accomplish that one we might talk about the potential number of lives potentially saved by reducing the size of handgun magazines or adding a stock to a pistol. When we work as hard to preserve the right to keep and bear arms as we do to preserve the right to vote, I’ll shut up.

    3. “Yeah!! Gun regulation is foolish. We must regulate cars, voting, cosmetology, etc. etc. more than guns.”

      This is what you get when 10 year-olds get access to the key board. Did your mommy tell you that was clever?

      1. The analogy to cars is apt given gun control advocates argue they are saving lives, car control advocates could argue the same thing (and not be 10 year-olds).

        & if not, why not given cars kills many, many more (4-5 times gun deaths) people that guns – if the goal is to “save life” it seems working on those things that kill lots of people first and moving onto things that don’t kill as many later, after all the big problems have been solved.

  21. The safest nation on earth is Japan, which once was awash in guns
    and had a gun murder rate nearly as high as the US (Us gun murder rate is over 90% higher than the other 34 advanced nations). It began enacting restirictive gun laws, now among the most restrictive in the world, and gradually so that you hardly notice, it reduced gun and gun murders by about 2% a year: 50 years later it had reduced gun ownership by 99% and gun murders by 99.9% (and overall murders by 80%.

    Did it destroy civil liberties? Not at all: today, the libertarian Cato Institute ranks Japan as the 11th more free nation in the world, far ahead of the US (17th).

    So Japan has virtually eliminated gun violence And is one the freest nations on earth. Since 9/11, the US had had over 700,000 gun deaths while Japan has had 170. Let that sink in.

    Let’s look at the UK, which is tied at 17th with the US for freedom, according to Cato. The UK has very strict gun laws and despite haivng just as many foreign born, just as many in poverty, it has a 99% lower gun murder rate, as gun possession is relatively rare, unless you are a farmer who has a shotgun. Since 9/11, the UK has had about 170 gun deaths. Handguns, as in Japan (which are used in most gun murders) are extremely rare.
    How about another nation with 99% lower gun murder rates? South Korea, a high income nation, ranks 26th in the Cato 2020 freedom rankings…..and has very strict gun laws: Only about 1 in 400 citizens owns a gun; there are only 35,000 privately owned rifles and 1758 handguns…there are 138,000 licensed gunowners in a nation of 60 million. Even toy guns are outlawed (tho South Korea manufactuers them to sell to other stupid countries).
    In 2019, there were 10 gun deaths (homicide, suicide, and accidental)…10!!!!
    That is a 99.9% lower rate than the US, where there were nearly 20,000. There is about 1 gun death per 500,000 people. In the US there are about 40,000 gun deaths a year, with about 60 per 500,000 people.

    So there are the three safest nations one freer than the US, one tied and one slightly less free, with 99.9% lower gun murder rates. But what about overall murder rates.
    US: 5.7 per 100K1
    Japan; 0.26 per 100K
    UK: 1,2 per 100k
    South Korea; 0.6 per 100K

    In 2018, South Korea has 309 homicides (10 total gun deaths)
    and the UK had 809 (the most in 10 years…with an average of about 700 with about 30 by gun) and Japan had 334 homicides (9 by gun).
    The US had about 40,000, with over 2/3 by gun.

    Draw your own conclusions about freedom and gun violence.

    1. Fuck off, slaver.

    2. Homicide rates generally trend with median age. Comparing three countries that have far older median ages than the US really isn’t indicative of anything. In contrast Japan has only recently gotten its suicide rate down anywhere near the US which has unfortunately been trending upward in the past few years.

      Playing the “lets compare countries with completely different demographics and cultures with each other” is literally comparing apples to oranges and I’m certain that you know it since you use the misleading “40,000 gun deaths” 2/3 of which are suicides. Let’s draw conclusions. You’re intentionally conflating homicides with suicides (which isn’t illegal in any US state) and comparing US gun deaths with other countries homicides while ignoring the suicide rates – which in South Korea is far higher than the US.

      Let’s be honest, most homicides are highly localized to certain cities and neighborhoods in the US. Those cities and neighborhoods also have much lower median ages than the rest of the US. A fact that’s probably not completely coincidental. But go ahead and lie, mostly to yourself, to draw your own conclusions but know that it will probably play better in the echo chamber of your own “there’s an evil gun cabal” conspiracy theorists.

      1. + Well said

    3. Fuck off, slaver.

    4. That’s all bullshit. For example, gun homicide stats are compiled based on very different criteria in the UK. If their is no criminal conviction for a gun death, it isn’t included in the numbers. So their stats are artificially low compared to the US. And TheLomdim area is a notoriously violent cesspool. Especially the assaults and murders committed by Islamic immigrants.

      So again, you’re crafting propaganda, not an honest analysis of the subject matter.

    5. Since 9/11, the US had had over 700,000 gun deaths….

      That’s incorrect. That number is at least 100K too large and you’re talking over 20 years. Over that same time period cars related deaths 1.6 million.

  22. All the tens of thousands of dead people each year really illustrates the foolishness of dumbfuck redneck kneejerk gun fetishism.

    1. Doesn’t Roe v Wade give about half of those tens of thousands of dead people who commit suicide to choose to use a bullet instead of exsanguination, hanging, poison, opioid OD, etc.?

      1. Only a psychopathic propaganda addict could think that tens of thousands of suicides was just fine.

        1. Fuck off, slaver

        2. I never said it was fine. I’d rather people not commit suicide but the choice is theirs and I’d also point out that suicide isn’t illegal in any state.

          Furthermore, countries like South Korea have far higher suicide rates than the US. You seem to be the fetishist concerning yourself only with the means of suicide. I don’t believe I have any right to force people who opt for suicide to remain alive and that’s especially true when it comes to using violence to prevent suicide since it seems counterproductive.

          Maybe you need to check your authoritarian tendencies at the door. They certainly won’t help anyone contemplating suicide.

          1. You’re engaging a steaming pile of lefty shit who shows up here for the pleasure of stirring the pot.
            His IQ is not going to warm your house, his honesty is right up that with that lying POS Obo. Insult him, inform him he is a piece of shit; do not bother attempting to engage shitstain.

            1. Thanks for the heads up but I’m not actually engaging Tony the Troll. I’m attempting to make sure that blatant lies are refuted with real facts. When anyone talks of “tens of thousands” of “gun deaths” they can only be talking about suicides since it’s an unusual year when there are even tens of thousands of homicides much less homicides with a firearm. The thing is the casual reader just passing through might just buy into the bullshit folk like Tony spews forth because it “seems real” since that’s what so many political hacks regurgitate.

              Short version, I’m not speaking to Tony but through Tony. He, she, it, they, whatevs, use fingernails on the chalkboard to advance their screed and it necessitates rational refutation to counter it. It’s like that Coalbert guy on latenight TV. People tune in for the laughs but buy into the fingernails on chalkboard bullshit.

              1. “…I’m attempting to make sure that blatant lies are refuted with real facts…”

                you’ll get my applause for that.

          2. Are guns an especially efficient killing machine or not?

            1. They are not. Edged weapons are far more efficient at killing as are explosives. Likewise many poisons and radiologically active substances are at least equally efficient if not more so. Fire is also equally effective and can be more so if the circumstances are right.

              To my knowledge neither Timothy McVeigh nor Shoko Asahara ever shot anyone.

              I know, you’ll cry that I didn’t name a machine specifically but they are all tools and don’t need to be machines to be effective. If you specifically need a machine a drone with a claymore mine strapped to the bottom is probably more effective at killing random targets.

              1. Oh wait, maybe you’ll be dumb enough to say something like “if knives and swords are so much more efficient at killing, why doesn’t the military use those instead of guns?” The obvious answer is that guns are much safer because you aren’t forced to get up close and personal.

                1. It’s pretty safe anymore. Remember a few years back when those Muslim scumbags in London cut off that soldier’s head with a machete in front of dozens of witnesses in broad daylight? They all stood around recoding it in their phones instead of trying to stop them.

                  A good guy with a gun could have stopped them easily. Like the kind of people who are in conservatives run states. Not the people, who inhabit blue states, like Tony.

                  1. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the guys cutting his head off were armed with AKs. Pretty sure a good guy with a gun is just another body. The machete was used for dramatic effect rathe than effeciency.

                    1. Assuming we’re talking of the Lee Rigby murder, they had a single revolver.

        3. Suicidal people use what’s handy. Like you should. Pills, a razor, or even ingestion of a bottle of drain cleaner. Pick one and go with it. Let’s hope you’re successful.

          1. It’s amazing to me that you’re defending maximum gun proliferation in the United States by pointing out all the dead people.

            1. Trolling isn’t your strong suit, is it?
              All you accomplish is getting muted.
              And I bet that cuts into your pay per post.

            2. And once again you missed the point. Suicides aren’t real gun deaths. They would be substituted with some other method. As would many gun crimes.

              Guns aren’t the problem. Democrats are. Like you. So much blood on your hands Tony.

              1. “substituted with some other method. As would many gun crimes.”

                And that’s the really scary bit. If mass killers changed it up and went for explosives or aerosolized poisons instead of guns I’m certain the death tolls would be far higher and it’s highly likely the perpetrator would survive to commit further atrocities.

                The only thing that saved lives in most bombing incidents is they only planned one at a time whether it be Oklahoma City or the Boston Marathon bombing. Heck, a properly planned attack would make 9/11 look like a play date on a scale that could never be done with a firearm. As unfortunate as it is, that’s the reality no politician wants to admit.

          2. Most suicides that don’t involve a gun fail.

            1. I don’t think that’s true, but I’ll check your notes – citation please

        4. Faggot, he didn’t say that. Stop lying. He’s saying the method is not the point.

        5. Where is your evidence and statistics?
          Or did you just make them up?

    2. Fuck off, slaver.

    3. All the tens of thousands of dead people are largely the victims of progressives. Guns are incidental.

      1. The tens of thousands dead are actually from car accidents.
        Some of them from the Covid kill shots.

    4. lol – (say this to yourself in the whiniest voice possible) I’m Tony and I’m going to just kick and scream until someone pays attention. Whether I’m right or wrong is meaningless.

  23. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily .. ASDThis is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…Visit Here

  24. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily .. DF This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…Visit Here

  25. So, while all y’all argue over gun control, we continue to die in the streets at the hands of strangers. There was just a series of deaths on a local highway in my vicinity, the highway I use to visit my in-laws. I now wear an ID bracelet every time I leave the house. It has my name and the phone numbers of my next of kin so they can be notified if I am shot dead in the streets by a stranger. Sure, most gun deaths are suicides. These deaths are swatted aside like flies by those addicted to guns. Face it, we live in a culture in which these sorts of occurrences are just irritants to you folk who claim guns should not be controlled.

    1. control…..guns….

      You’re indicating you believe that guns have moral agency, like they have a power to make things happen, don’t you?

      That’s the medieval superstition from where the Deodand laws came from.

      1. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But guns make it REALLY easy.

        1. But guns make it REALLY easy.

          Untrue, though it depends upon what you mean by “really easy”, but there are better ways to kill lots of people than to try and shoot them (which at distance >50m is difficult without training & even then people might need to be shot more than once, etc, etc, etc).

    2. Gun control only effects law abiding citizens. And you don’t need to be controlling anything.

  26. Red flag laws are unconstitutional. Infringing the right to keep and bear arms is clear. In addition, you cannot be deprived of life, liberty or PROPERTY without due process of law and that means at the very least, a hearing before a judge at which you can be represented by an attorney or speak in you own defense. This is NOT like the issuance of an arrest warrant in response to a crime as there has been no crime; this is in essence ’pre-crime’ a la Minority Report. We do not live in a movie: we live in the real world which has a Constitution. If this goes through, I see liberal using the voter roles to dime out every Republican as some unbalanced person on the verge of a melt down.

  27. “Without respect for civil liberties”

    Well, duh! Since the point is precisely to infringe a civil liberty, why would you expect civil liberties to be respected?

  28. Seems stupid for red flag laws to focus on guns instead of people. If someone is a verifiable danger to themselves or others are their victims likely to feel grateful they were killed or maimed by a chain-saw, knife, bat, Buick or rather than a gun?

    I’m not saying I favor any red-flag laws, but if they are going to exist, they should focus on preventing mayhem, not making the crazy person’s decision on what to use a little simpler.

    Not to mention it wouldn’t even keep them from using a gun, just from using a gun they had handy. How many shootings have we read about where the perp used someone else’s gun(s)?

    Guns aren’t psychotics, people are.

    1. The gun control movement isn’t concerned about suicide, nor are they precisely concerned about murder, as such. (I’m speaking of the leadership here, not the useful idiots.)

      What they’re concerned about are revolt and assassination.

      The fact that the American people are heavily armed places very real limits on what the government can get away with. They don’t like that.

      1. Really? You think that our currently armed populace would be any more than a speedbump if our government turned on us? Good luck shooting down that F-18 with your AR.

        1. You really haven’t thought about this, have you?

          Good luck ruling a country you can’t walk around in without getting shot, using a military whose supply lines start with the people you’re bombing.

      2. You nailed it .
        That’s exactly what they fear.
        A revolt. One that’s going to occur sooner or later. However it won;t be from the guns that sends them off, it will be the miles of hemp rope and lamp posts.

  29. There’s one final factor that overrides nearly every absurdity in the arcane mish-mash of the brace proposal’s rules and justifications. The modularity and easy assembly of the AR platform components ensures that a firearm could be transitioned from “compliant” to “non-compliant” in minutes, if not seconds. If certain features really made any difference in criminal misuse, someone with bad intent could arrange those changes immediately before they acted. As with most gun control proposals, actual effectiveness doesn’t seem to be a consideration.

    1. The thin edge of the wedge, that’s all the current proposals are. Once you’ve started a crack, you can keep hammering the wedge in deeper and deeper, but you have to start with that thin edge.

  30. Great Article Sir Jee ! I am big fan of your writing skill and Regular visit to your Blog.
    I am also a Blogger, I am from Uttar Pradesh and I write & share Articles about Uttar Pradesh Government Scheme on my Blog UPYojana
    Recently I have Published UP Labour Card Status Check on My blog. So if you are interested to Check UP Ration Card List You can checkout my blog/website.

  31. This article does little more than complain. What do you propose instead? Unregulated firearms? We’re starting to see more and more routine disputes tend to turn deadly when one or more of those arguing have a gun. This trend is only going to increase as bullies with guns bank on the fact that most people either won’t pull their gun or won’t use it if they do.

  32. At the beginning of thos article, the author references at the fact that buttstock are used by handicap people…but the ATF proposed ruled would not affect this use of buttstock. Iy mainly wants to crack down the use of Buttstocks to help conseal at weapon in the preparation of a crime.
    “This proposed rule would not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock.”
    atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces
    I am not a fan at all of people infringing on the Second Amendment, but in this case the logic is clear, ban buttstock as is done already with cut-off or sawed-off barrels on shot guns which are illegal to own safe with a special permit.

  33. Anybody who seriously believes extra gun laws are needed to protect the public, needs to spend a weekend in Chicago or Portland or Seattle or Atlanta.
    Last weekend in Chicago, more than 58 people were shot and 7 were fatal. This was the results of gang violence and not systemic racism as Mayor Lightfoot would claim.
    Creating more gun laws would simply do nothing to prevent this. In fact it would only prevent people from becoming victims.
    It makes no difference to the criminals/street gangs who obtain guns illegally. Only to law abiding people who use them to defend themselves which is the case in more than 2 million times a year.
    That’s right. Americans have defended themselves and prevented themselves from becoming victims more than 2 million times every year. They stopped home invasions, car jackings and other various crimes, possibly from being murdered themselves.
    Of course we can only guess as to what the liberals actually wish to achieve.

Comments are closed.