Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Democrats Introduce Gun-Grabbing Bill

—

by

Bob Rayner
in ,

from The Republican Standard 

Along with the attempt to codify abortion, there is another radical bill being proposed by Democrats in Virginia.

An assault-weapons ban has been filed by Fairfax-area Delegate Dan Helmer in the House and Charlotteville-area Senator Craig Deeds.

HB 2 seeks to “make it a Class 1 misdemeanor for anyone to import, sell, manufacture, purchase, possess, transport or transfer an assault firearm.”

The Bill’s text defines an assault weapons ban as “a semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material with anfixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds.”

Helmer also carried a similar bill in the 2023 legislative session.

Republished with permission from The Republican Standard.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

165 responses to “Democrats Introduce Gun-Grabbing Bill”

  1. Bob X from Texas Avatar
    Bob X from Texas

    All the Israelis attacked by Ham Ass wished they had fully automatic assault killing machines with electric chain saw bayonets. People in rural areas have a police response time of 30-60 minutes. How many times can a bad guy hit you in the head with a hammer in 10 minutes?

    1. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      Hindsight.

      Following Terrorist Attack, Israel Relaxes Gun Laws and Arms Civilians

      https://www.nraila.org/articles/20231016/following-terrorist-attack-israel-relaxes-gun-laws-and-arms-civilians

  2. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    But remember…the only thing that matters in Virginia is the “right” to kill a baby.
    This is what happens when you fail to address moral relativism head on and hope you can just be quiet.
    Even Slick Willie had to say “safe, legal and rare.”
    Call the Democrats evil, because they are. Fight like you want to win, not like you don’t want people to be mean to you at the club.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Yep, Bacon’s Rebellion posts three columns in a row on three issues that should have been Republican points of attack in the election — guns, climate insanity, minimum wage — but were ignored as the consultants tested an abortion “compromise” that turned out only pro-abortion Democrats. Reminding the voters what was coming on gun control might have turned out the young men to balance all the young women seeking to kill their unborn children. Likewise the threat to their trucks.

      The current Republican leadership does not appear educable.

      1. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        Stupid party moniker has been well-earned!

      2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        They suck. Dump Anderson and his entire entourage.

      3. Not Today Avatar
        Not Today

        Your mistake is in thinking the gen pop agrees with you. It doesn’t. Most folks are unimpressed by ammosexuals parading about with assault rifles and pistols on display. That you put trucks and ‘unborn children’ on the same plane is telling. Women and trucks=chattel.

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          Your mistake is in thinking the gen pop agrees with you

          Absolutely, positively, not true.

          No matter what biased and slanted polls you come up with, the majority of the people in this country do not want to see guns banned.

          1. Not Today Avatar
            Not Today

            No where did I say GUNS BANNED. There is absolutely, unequivocally, nationwide support for restricting widespread access to assault rifles.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            yep. But the gun folks will convert that to “ban all guns” everytime!

          3. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            The legislation proposes a ban.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            ban all guns?

          5. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            The legislation proposes a ban. That is what we are discussing.

  3. Walter Hadlock Avatar
    Walter Hadlock

    The wording in the proposed bill mentioned in this article includes “possess”. Good luck in collecting all rifles currently in the possession of Virginians. The same goes for high capacity magazines.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I seriously doubt that the authors of the bill anticipate anyone collecting the described weapons. However, if one we walks around with one of those weapons, he could be charged with a misdemeanor.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        If forbidding possession becomes the law what makes you think that public officials charged with enforcing the law will not enforce it? Possession is possession whether in public or private.

      2. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        Why would you support passage of a law that you assume will not be enforced? If it won’t be enforced, why pass it in the first place?

        Also RE: However, if one walks around with one of those weapons, he could be charged with a misdemeanor.

        How will the authorities be able to tell when a particular firearm was manufactured without detaining the owner?

        You would not approve of police officers using stop-and-frisk-like procedures to harass a person based only on a suspicion that said person might be violating the law, would you?

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          You raise a good point about knowing when the weapon was manufactured. I would like to know the rationale of applying the prohibition only to weapons manufactured after July 1, 2024 (except for those under 21 years old). I suspect it was put in to try to preempt objections relating to making illegal weapons that were legal in the past. Nevertheless, that limitation pretty much undercuts the intent to get these weapons off the street. The provision is confusing and would make the provision hard to enforce. I would drop that limitation and make the possession of any weapon so defined a felony, whenever it was manufactured.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Because you can’t retroactively make someone a felon.

            Even the 1994 “AWB” only impacted firearms from the date it was passed forward.

            That is unless you’re advocating for firearm confiscation. You’re however, going to need a Constitutional Amendment for that bridge.

          2. kls Avatar
            kls

            AND that so called law did nothing to decrease crime nor killing…. WOW

          3. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I would drop that limitation and make the possession of any weapon so defined a felony, whenever it was manufactured.

            Why? Such a law would not have prevented the UVA shooting last year (although enforcement of existing laws could have done so).

            Such a law would not have prevented the Va Tech shooting in 2007 (although enforcement of existing laws could have done so).

            The US Justice Department’s own reports on the 1994 federal assault weapons ban show that it was virtually ineffectual. Why would one in Virginia be any different?

            Here is a quote from a 1999 DOJ report: There were several reasons to expect, at best, a modest ban effect on criminal gun injuries and deaths. First, studies before the ban generally found that between less than 1 and 8 percent of gun crimes involved assault weapons, depending on the specific definition and data source used.

            Yet, despite all the evidence showing that the path you advocate would do nothing to reduce so-called “gun violence”, you apparently have absolutely no qualms about making me and tens of thousands of other law abiding Virginians felons virtually over night.

            I ask again – why?

            Wouldn’t it be better to enforce the gun laws we already have before adding new and ineffective ones?

            EDITED: 11/27/2023 – 1446

            PS – “These weapons” are not typically on “the street”. They are typically in law-abiding citizens’ gun cabinets.

          4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            I agree that existing gun laws should be enforced. I would make it illegal to possess assault weapons (however defined) because:

            1. the only purpose of those weapons is to kill or wound a lot of people in a short amount of time. (I have never heard of anyone hunting deer with an assault weapon.)

            2. They kill very efficiently. In 2021, only three percent of murders were committed by rifles (which includes assault rifles), yet in 2020, 706 people died in mass shootings (no statistics on those seriously injured in those incidents). https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

          5. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            1) the only purpose of those weapons is to kill or wound a lot of people in a short amount of time.

            Not true. I will set aside your insulting and disingenuous implication that I, as a law abiding citizen, own an AR-15 so that I may “kill or wound a lot of people in a short amount of time”, and address the facts. The definition of an “assault firearm” in the proposed legislation includes the AR-15. Tens of thousands of people use these rifles for hunting all over the United States. The AR-15 was designed and marketed to be used as a sporting rifle, primarily for varmint hunting (ground hogs, prairie dogs, coyotes, etc.). The fact that the military adopted the select-fire version of it as a weapon of war is a testament to its good design, its durability, and its versatility.

            2) The three to five percent figure for rifles still holds. Also, not all mass shootings are committed with what you would call an “assault weapon”. Regular old semi-automatic handguns are still the most popular murder weapon in the world, even in mass shootings.

            Finally, when you say “however defined” in relation to “assault weapons” you reveal your true intent. A “floating” or “evolving” definition for “assault” weapons is exactly what those who would ban all guns want and need in order to reach their goal.
            Make no mistake, if they are allowed to continually modify that definition, then even single-action muzzle-loading revolvers will eventually be added to the list.

            Some gun-banners in Virginia are already trying to call a lever action .410 gauge shotgun an “assault firearm”.

          6. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            1) the only purpose of those weapons is to kill or wound a lot of people in a short amount of time.

            Not true. I will set aside your insulting and disingenuous implication that I, as a law abiding citizen, own an AR-15 so that I may “kill or wound a lot of people in a short amount of time”, and address the facts. The definition of an “assault firearm” in the proposed legislation includes the AR-15. Tens of thousands of people use these rifles for hunting all over the United States. The AR-15 was designed and marketed to be used as a sporting rifle, primarily for varmint hunting (ground hogs, prairie dogs, coyotes, etc.). The fact that the military adopted the select-fire version of it as a weapon of war is a testament to its good design, its durability, and its versatility.

            2) The three to five percent figure for rifles still holds. Also, not all mass shootings are committed with what you would call an “assault weapon”. Regular old handguns are still the most popular murder weapon in the world, even in mass shootings.

            Finally, when you say “however defined” in relation to “assault weapons” you reveal your true intent. A “floating” or “evolving” definition for “assault” weapons is exactly what those who would ban all guns want and need in order to reach their goal.
            Make no mistake, if they are allowed to continually modify that definition, then even single-action muzzle-loading revolvers will eventually be added to the list.

            Case in point:
            Currently, the gun-banners in Virginia are trying to classify a lever action .410 gauge shotgun an “assault firearm”.

          7. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Here is the Virginia democrats’ idea of an “assault firearm”:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/591198a3dcce959424f5b22ea5e9c591a2dc2c0ffdcd6c4aa8a6d169f27f94e6.jpg

            GForce GFLVR-24 – .410 Gauge Lever Action Shotgun

          8. kls Avatar
            kls

            The original Clinton Assault Weapon Ban included the Model 1860 Henry Repeating Rifle …. used in the War Between the States… made famous by Kevin Costner in Dances With Wolves when he shots the buffalo.

          9. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            The price tag on Henry’s now a days is outrageous. 45-70 is making a big comeback.

          10. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Mr. Hall-Sizemore,

            “the only purpose of those weapons is to kill or wound a lot of people in a short amount of time.”

            You are a victim of deliberate deception. All models of rifles kill fewer people per year than knives, blunt objects or hands and feet.

            “I have never heard of anyone hunting deer with an assault weapon.”

            The guns you refer to as “assault weapons,” are indeed used for hunting, as well as many other legal purposes including sporting events and self defense. You should not make judgements based on what you have “heard.”

            And for the record, the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting anyway.

            The “mass shooting” numbers you cited are deliberately deceptive. If you look at the actual incidents, you will see that most are gang related shootings and other shootings with handguns, not rifles of any type.

            “The Gun Violence Archive, an online database of gun violence incidents in the U.S., defines mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people are shot, even if no one was killed.”

            Look for yourself at the link below.

            https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?year=2021

          11. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            We’ve tried banning “assault weapons” and the impact was studied by the Department of Justice. The conclusion:

            “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”

            Perpetrators just chose a different weapon, with no measurable difference in outcome.

            https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/updated-assessment-federal-assault-weapons-ban-impacts-gun-markets

          12. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            so here’s a question.

            What IF full auto machine guns were also legal and as easily available as other weapons?

            Would they become more popular than the semi-auto ARs and similar?

            Would any changes in how we sell weapons to the known mentallly-ill be an issue?

            In other words, does the lethality of the weapon play into any of this?

            If we made available far more lethal weapons than are now available, would that change anything?

          13. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            1) I would purchase a Thompson submachine gun – or a replica at the very least.

            2) No.

            3) An issue with what?

            4) I’m not sure what you mean by “lethality”. But it is easier to fire well-aimed and accurate shots from a non-fully-automatic firearm than from a fully automatic firearm.

            5) What do you have in mind?

          14. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            It’s along the lines of weapons that are even more lethal than current, i.e. capable of killing even greater numbers of people in shorter amounts of time.

            does not matter if they “spray” or are not “accurate” if they are to be used in places where people are congregating..

            killers don’t care how “effective” they are, just than they can kill as many as they can get to.

            would the availability of full auto to all gun purchasers including those who are mentally ill than we don’t stop… cause anyone to rethink how we now manage/restrict such weapons?

            Bonus question:

            when we say 2A “arms”, is there a definition or how is such a definition decided?

          15. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            We’ve already been though this multiple times. It is obvious that “arms” as used in the 2nd Amendment includes firearms.

            As far as “weapons that are even more lethal than current” I still don’t know what you are talking about.

            Continued speculation about what would happen if fully automatic firearms were once again made readily available to the general public is idiotic. That ship sailed in 1934 and it’s not coming back no matter who is on the supreme court.

          16. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            We’ve already been though this multiple times. It is obvious that “arms” as used in the 2nd Amendment includes firearms.

            As far as “weapons that are even more lethal than current” I still don’t know what you are talking about.

            Continued speculation about what would happen if fully automatic firearms were once again made readily available to the general public is idiotic. That ship sailed in 1934 and it’s not coming back no matter who is on the supreme court.

          17. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            You don’t know of weapons that are more “lethal” than currently allowed?

            re: 1934 – was that POTUS determination of “arms” or some other unelected?

          18. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            National Firearms Act of 1934.

            POTUS? POTUS does not have, and never has had, the power to decide what types of firearms we may own, no matter what Joe Biden thinks.

            Weapons that are more lethal than currently allowed? Yes, I can think of many. An F-14 Tomcat comes to mind, as does the battleship Missouri. But they are irrelevant to attempts to ban so-called “assault firearms”, which is the subject of the legislation under discussion.

            PS – In my opinion, if you are not familiar with the National Firearms Act of 1934 then you really should not be discussing gun laws on a public forum.

          19. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            National Firearms Act of 1934.

            POTUS? POTUS does not have, and never has had, the power to decide what types of firearms we may own, no matter what Joe Biden thinks.

            Weapons that are more lethal than currently allowed? Yes, I can think of many. An F-14 Tomcat comes to mind, as does the battleship Missouri. But they are irrelevant to attempts to ban so-called “assault firearms”, which is the subject of the legislation under discussion.

            PS – In my opinion, if you are not familiar with the National Firearms Act of 1934 then you really should not be discussing gun laws on a public forum.

          20. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I thought POTUS determined what “arms” meant in the text of the Constitution , no?

            handheld weapons … more lethal than currently allowed…

            who decides that? Who decides what is or is not allowed?

          21. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I thought POTUS determined what “arms” meant in the text of the Constitution , no?

            No.

            SCOTUS can, I suppose, but the president has no say in the matter whatsoever.

          22. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            well, unless POTUS has folks working for him that can decide…

            just seems like when it says “arms”, it can be wide open to what that means…

            and someone has to decide based on some interpretation … when some weapon
            is designed and manufactured and intended to be sold…

          23. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            The supreme court decides what the constitution means, not the president.

            Didn’t you learn that in school?

            I know democrats have a tyrannical, totalitarian bent, especially when it comes to ideas they do not like, but I had no idea they actually thought the president of the United States is all-powerful.

          24. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            do they do that for “arms” or does some other entity decide?

          25. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            The supreme court decides what the constitution means.

          26. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            That was sort of why we long ago traded a King for a President and why Washington quit after two terms wasn’t it?

          27. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            say for bump stocks… who decided initially ?

          28. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            A bump stock is not a firearm.

          29. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            so who decided it was not legal inititially?

          30. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Someone at ATF. But again, a bump stock is not a firearm.

          31. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Nor likely is an 80% receiver.

            Much to the Bribem administrations chagrin the Court has been clear that Executive actions must have a direct connection to the underlying Congressional legislation in addition to complying with the Constitution. Looks like we will be seeing more of that. Interesting system of government we’ve got here. It really is in some ways self correcting.

          32. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            That was sort of why we long ago traded a King for a President and why Washington quit after two terms wasn’t it?

          33. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Seems the current court cases on bump stocks and braces are about to demonstrate the limits of executive over reach.

          34. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            The brace is DOA and I believe it has been for about. The bump stick should also be DOA, the BATFE thinks they can reverse their previous decisions and enact law, that’s a big nogo.

          35. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Birds and people in upper stories would have more to fear with a full auto weapon than anyone in front of me.

          36. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            That’s what they make cans and comps for 🙂

          37. kls Avatar
            kls

            WHY does pretty much every law enforcement patrol vehicle have such a deadly destructive firearm? Esp. when cops miss the intended target about 80% of the time? jus sayin……or askin…..

          38. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            The truth is, semi-automatic rifles are an effective means of self defensive.

          39. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            They shouldn’t and in many other countries, they don’t …

          40. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            (I have never heard of anyone hunting deer with an assault weapon.)

            Correct. They (.223 rifles) are prohibited in most states for big game hunting. That is because they are not powerful enough to reliably kill deer.

            Whereas the military prefers to wound soldiers because that takes more soldiers off line to care for wounded than waiting until after the battle to pick up the dead.

            “In 2021, only three percent of murders were committed by rifles (which includes assault rifles), yet in 2020, 706 people died in mass shootings”

            Again I believe you are correct both in the percentage of murders committed using rifles, and the total number of murders committed in mass shootings.

            Where you go astray is that the overwhelming majority of those killed in mass shootings were killed using hand guns, not rifles of any kind.

            Your equating apples and oranges fallacy is showing.

          41. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Not to mention that “assault” is a verb as is hunt. People hunt with rifles and if he believes the .223 (5.56 NATO) are powerful, don’t tell him about the 30-06 or .308 (7.62 NATO).

            The standard (Government) to test body armor rating is leftover 30-06 black tip AP rounds from WWII.

      3. John Harvie Avatar
        John Harvie

        Maybe a felony charge would be even better.

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          No, it would not be.

      4. kls Avatar
        kls

        These are firearms. Weapons are used to kill people – like a Bic Pen used in self defense. The VAST MAJORITY of firearms have NEVER killed a person…

  4. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    Not to be picky but it’s Creigh Deeds, not Craig.

  5. WayneS Avatar
    WayneS

    This is amusing to me.

    For instance, what does this mean: the capacity to accept a magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip ?

    1. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      AR-15 pistol or Ruger PC Charger.

      https://ruger.com/products/pcCharger/models.html

    2. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      Broomhandle Mauser from the 1890s?

      Don’tya suppose that is directed at AR style pistols? You know, the ones those evil braces fit. Who’da guessed that pistols had teeth that needed to be straightened?

      1. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        Do you think this definition could be “expanded” to include magazines that extend beyond/below the “pistol grip”

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          If I were in favor of the proposed law I’d certainly argue for that. Probably get you into court over what “extend beyond” means. Is far enough to grab the mag or seat it mean “extend beyond”? Or, does it mean “extend beyond” at any time? All magazines “extend beyond” while they are in the process of being inserted or extracted.

          I’ve always thought that mags that stuck out of grips looked sort of silly. They seem to be more statements of attitude than anything else. If someone wants a pistol that holds more rounds, get one with a taller or fatter grip. It’s a twofer with more space for fingers for better control as well as higher capacity,

          1. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I’ve always thought that mags that stuck out of grips looked sort of silly.

            Agreed.

    3. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      It appears the term magazine well, is beyond their understanding.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        There’s an old saying “Well, a deep subject for a shallow mind”.

      2. kls Avatar
        kls

        not just magazine

  6. Nathan Avatar
    Nathan

    I believe this is the proposed legislation.

    A. As used in this section, an “assault firearm” means the same as that term is defined in ง 18.2-308.2:2 except that it includes such firearms manufactured before July 1, 2024.

    https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+ful+HB2

    Here’s what I found within 18.2-308.2:2

    “Assault firearm” means any semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol which expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock.

    https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/18.2-308.2:2/

    I could get smaller magazines, but does “designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer” mean any gun with a threaded barrel? As far as I am concerned, mine was designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a flash suppressor, not a “silencer.”

    Does anyone know how this proposed legislation would impact gun owners who have guns with threaded barrels?

    1. Nathan Avatar
      Nathan

      A bit confusing to me because the proposed legislation also changes 18.2-308.2:2 to the following.

      “Assault firearm” means any:

      1. A semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol which that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds;

      2. A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one of the following characteristics: (i) a folding, telescoping, or collapsible stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle; (iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (iv) a grenade launcher; (v) a flare launcher; (vi) a sound suppressor; (vii) a flash suppressor; (viii) a muzzle brake; (ix) a muzzle compensator; (x) a threaded barrel capable of accepting (a) a sound suppressor, (b) a flash suppressor, (c) a muzzle brake, or (d) a muzzle compensator; or (xi) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (x);

      3. A semi-automatic center-fire pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one of the following characteristics: (i) a folding, telescoping, or collapsible stock; (ii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (iii) the capacity to accept a magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (iv) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the pistol with the non-trigger hand without being burned; (v) a threaded barrel capable of accepting (a) a sound suppressor, (b) a flash suppressor, (c) a barrel extender, or (d) a forward handgrip; or (vi) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (v);

      4. A semi-automatic shotgun that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has one of the following characteristics: (i) a folding, telescoping, or collapsible stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the shotgun; (iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; (iv) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds; or (v) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (iv); or

      5. A shotgun with a magazine that will hold more than seven rounds of the shortest ammunition for which it is chambered.

      An “assault firearm” does not include any firearm that is an antique firearm, has been rendered permanently inoperable, is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action, or was manufactured before July 1, 2024.

      https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+ful+HB2

    2. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      The “before July 1, 2024” wording pertains to the definition of an “assault firearm” for those under the age of 21.

      The proposed legislation is confusing. It is also poorly worded and poorly thought out.

      It would result in two different definitions of “assault firearm” in Virginia, which in my opinion is proof positive that an “assault firearm” is actually ‘anything anti-gun radicals say it is’.

      1. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        I replied to my own comment with the updated language for “assault firearm.”

        This is a hot mess!

        What would actually help, is for prosecutors and judges to get felony convictions and sentences for people like Christopher Jones (UVA shooter).

        Christopher Jones gun crime history:

        2018 – Jones attempted to buy a handgun that was rejected for being underage

        February 2021 – Arrested with stolen gun. Police also report finding Jones driving with a “burnt marijuana” smell coming from the car.

        June 2021 – Convicted of “illegal possession of a concealed firearm.”

        July 2021 – Jones attempted to buy a rifle and was rejected for failing a background check one month after he was found guilty of illegal possession of a concealed weapon

        2022 – Jones successfully purchased guns immediately after his 12-month suspended jail sentence ended for that concealed weapons charge.

        November 13, 2022 – Jones commits a mass shooting at the University of Virginia

        https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/virginia/alleged-uva-shooter-christopher-darnell-jones-gun-possession-history-university-of-virginia/65-3f8c1766-c711-4628-8d5f-c823e587650c

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          July 2021 – Jones attempted to buy a rifle and was rejected for failing a background check one month after he was found guilty of illegal possession of a concealed weapon

          In Virginia, lying or making a false statement on a criminal history form when attempting to purchase a firearm is a Class 5 felony, punishable by up to 10 years of imprisonment (lying on the form is also a federal offense).

          But Mr. Jones was not charged with anything at the time he lied on the background check form. I wonder why?

          This is yet another gun law that the Commonwealth (and the feds) fails to enforce, while at the same time asking for more and stricter gun laws to limit the rights of law abiding citizens.

          1. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            “Another gun law that the Commonwealth (and the feds) fails to enforce, while at the same time asking for more gun and stricter laws to limit the rights of law abiding citizens.”

            That’s exactly my point.

            The Democrats SAY they want to stop these shootings, but when you look at what would have actually helped, they are doing the exact opposite. No follow-up when crimes are committed, soft on crime prosecutions, suspended sentences, etc.

            The UVA shooting and Mr. Jones history is a case study in why liberals are the problem.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “The UVA shooting and Mr. Jones history is a case study in why liberals are the problem”

            You think there is a difference in how such laws are enforced in conservative areas?

          3. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Can’t enforce gun laws without law enforcement.

            So tell me, who supported “Defund the police” and who opposed it?

            “Similarly, in the three polls with breakdowns by party, Democrats on average supported the “defund the police” movement 50 percent to 34 percent, and Republicans on average opposed it 84 percent to 11 percent. Granted, only about a quarter of Democrats “strongly” supported it, per Morning Consult/Politico and Reuters/Ipsos, but three-quarters of Republicans “strongly” opposed it.”

            https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-like-the-ideas-behind-defunding-the-police-more-than-the-slogan-itself/

          4. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I think existing gun laws are consistently unenforced or underenforced throughout the Commonwealth and the country.

            That is an excellent reason for opposing new gun laws. We have not even tried to determine whether actually enforcing our existing laws will reduce crime.

            One thing is certain, though – if, on November 12, 2022, Christopher Darnell Jones had been serving a 5-10 year prison sentence for falsifying his 2021 background check documents, he would not have been able to kill and injure anyone at UVA.

          5. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Makes me wonder if UVa’s refusal to release the AG’s report on Jones is to prevent disclosure of their failure to deal with either reports that he was armed on campus or his increasingly severe mental health issues.

          6. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Can’t enforce gun laws without law enforcement.

            So tell me, who supported “Defund the police” and who opposed it?

            “Similarly, in the three polls with breakdowns by party, Democrats on average supported the “defund the police” movement 50 percent to 34 percent, and Republicans on average opposed it 84 percent to 11 percent. Granted, only about a quarter of Democrats “strongly” supported it, per Morning Consult/Politico and Reuters/Ipsos, but three-quarters of Republicans “strongly” opposed it.”

            https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-like-the-ideas-behind-defunding-the-police-more-than-the-slogan-itself/

          7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Again, are you trying to say that gun laws are enforced differently in Conservative areas than they are in Liberal ones? There are probably actual stats to look at…

    3. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      Depends on how the mfr marketed it to infer design intent? Is that a silencer on your barrel or are you just happy to see me?

    4. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      Depends on how the mfr marketed it to infer design intent? Is that a silencer on your barrel or are you just happy to see me?

      1. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        “Is that a silencer on your barrel or are you just happy to see me?”

        I’m not following. I don’t own any silencers (suppressors).

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          It’s an old Mae West reference related to more organic packing.

        2. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          It’s an old Mae West reference related to more organic packing. 🙂

          1. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Okay. I get it now.

    5. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      18.2-308.2.2 defines that it calls “assault weapons”. That legislation appears to only apply to guns used in crimes.

      The proposed legislation differs in that it appears to prohibit possession of guns so defined. Thus it would prohibit possession of guns equipped with with large magazines, threaded barrels or folding stocks.

      I’m preaching to the choir, but what the law proposes is to criminalize guns that look like “assault weapons”. They are not actually assault weapons.

  7. Turbocohen Avatar
    Turbocohen

    NAZI’s disarmed my relatives during WW2 before they killed them and Virginia Democrats are merely repeating history. All socialists are the same and my AR-15 is a personal defense weapon. The second amendment was written to protect the first and to defend citizens against tyranny.

    1. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      I worked with a guy whose parents came from eastern Europe. Their story was that the Nazis first stop in towns they occupied was the town hall to get the gun registration lists. They then went from door to door confiscating guns specifically identified by owner, model and serial number.

      1. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        Registration lists. The ultimate goal of tyrannical “progressives” everywhere.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          I’d call it the penultimate goal with the ultimate goal of disarming citizens. We’ve come a long way from “the shot heard around the world” at Lexington and Concord.

          1. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Good point. My mistake.

          2. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Not a mistake, lists could be the ultimate goal, and disarmament simply what they’re used for.

            I don’t often get to use penultimate, so it was a nice opportunity:)

          3. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I love “penultimate”.

            I first learned heard it used many (50?) years ago when I started watching/listening to British motor racing announcers – “the penultimate lap of the race” – and some of them still use it today.

          4. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I love “penultimate”.

            I first learned it/heard it used many (50?) years ago when I started watching/listening to British motor racing announcers – “the penultimate lap of the race” – and some of them still use it today.

  8. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    Violates Bruen.

    1. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      Indeed it does. Heller, also.

      The AR-15 is the single most popular rifle in the history of this country. It easily meets any standard based on “in common use”.

      1. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        And it was a civilian hunting rifle before it was adopted for military use:

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3ffb81df8565008a468cfda1f55f0b7328be04fb4b642cf1c3a1584564a9dd93.jpg

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          Nice you’ve kept the link to that old ad. Be interesting if there was one around from the Armalite days. Too many people misunderstand what AR stands for.

          1. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Did you notice the price? $189.50.

            Although it was 1963/64.

          2. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Did you notice the price? $189.50.

            Although it was 1963/64.

          3. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Not hard to move the decimal point on that price these days if you like bells and whistles.

            OTOH, that was not long after I bought my first car, a ’50 Chevrolet, for twenty five bucks. Also in those days a CMP ’03-A3 Springfield in very good condition with a 2 groove barrel was about twelve bucks and came delivered to the door complete with traces of cosmoline. Excellent was less than a ten buck upgrade.

            They were bigger dollars back then.

          4. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Here is a photo of a 1969 ad for Armalite’s AR-180.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b9926c1644dec765f09e7aa939d469a566da37d2aef5c51fb257a0845197e4c8.jpg

          5. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Here is a photo of a 1969 Armalite ad for their AR-180.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b9926c1644dec765f09e7aa939d469a566da37d2aef5c51fb257a0845197e4c8.jpg

            You won’t find any old Armalite AR-15 adverts. They did not release it on the commercial market prior to selling the patent to Colt in 1959.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            how about this one? Can it be obtained?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2fafd9a5503069449ede8865e3c8d457bcf3aa37f71d603c98eac77d4d8ce0b2.png

          7. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            As long as it was manufactured and imported prior to 1986, yes it can be obtained. It cannot be obtained easily or cheaply, however.

            The AK-47 is a select fire rifle (i.e. capable of fully automatic fire).
            It is consdiered a machine gun by the federal government and the Commonwealth of Virginia. It cannot be obtained without the buyer being issued a federal permit after passing an extensive background check and paying a hefty tax. The rifle would also need to be registered with the state police (Virginia).

            It would also be incredibly expensive to purchase – perhaps $12,000 to $15,000.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            so that “extensive background check” would preclude the mentally ill?

            so my question is what if the AK-47 was NOT more restricted than other weaponry like the AR?

            Would would-be mass killers be even more effective at slaughtering folks if they could
            get their hands on an AK-47?

          9. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Of course. Being adjudicated mentally ill makes one a “prohibited person” regarding the purchase of any firearm. It’s item 21.g. on ATF Form 4473:

            g. Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

            If you answer yes to that question then you are ineligible to purchase a firearm. Falsely answering “no” would make you subject to both federal and state prosecution, and a sentence of up to ten years in federal and/or state prison (IF we were enforcing our existing gun laws, that is).

            I do not know where you got the idea that it is legal to sell guns to people who have been found to be mentally ill.

            I already answered your other speculative questions, but I will add the following: Since rifles of all kinds are used in only about 3% of murders committed with firearms, why would the availability of AK-47s make any difference at all to a murderer.

          10. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Of course. Being adjudicated mentally ill makes one a “prohibited person” regarding the purchase of any firearm. It’s item 21.g. on ATF Form 4473:

            g. Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

            If you answer yes to that question then you are ineligible to purchase a firearm. Falsely answering “no” would make you subject to both federal and state prosecution, and a sentence of up to ten years in federal and/or state prison (IF we were enforcing our existing gun laws, that is).

            I do not know where you got the idea that it is legal to sell guns to people who have been found to be mentally ill.

            I already answered your other speculative questions, but I will add the following: Since rifles of all kinds are used in only about 3% of murders committed with firearms, why would the availability of AK-47s make any difference at all to a murderer.

          11. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            where I got that idea? 😉 how many mass killers have been found to be that way AFTER the fact?

            I mean, almost by definition, a mass killer has some issues along those lines, no?

            isn’t that THE problem? Crazy but not so crazy they don’t know to lie to get the weapons?

          12. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Are you suggesting we violate people’s 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights?

          13. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            where did you get that idea?

          14. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            You can also go through the arduous process of becoming a dealer with an SOT designation.

            You can make sample select fire items for a client (i.e. Government or Law Enforcement).

            However, the odds of you commit a crime after you paid $100,000+ to get that are highly unlikely, but I doubt he understands that either.

          15. Drive-by Commentator Avatar
            Drive-by Commentator

            The AK-47 is for sale for well under $1,000 dollars. It’s not legal to sell the select-fire version because that makes it an automatic weapon.

            https://www.guns.com/firearms/ak-47-rifles

          16. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Wow! Do they do something to the full-auto version that make it a select fire weapon?

            Can whatever they do be “undone” by the buyers after purchase?

          17. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Ahh the IRA’s favorite weapon, the short stroke gas piston cousin of the AR-15.

        2. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          If you have any of those originals around, I will gladly buy them for full price – $189.50.

        3. kls Avatar
          kls

          Wait – according to the Dems ‘AR’ stands for Assault Rifle…. are they wrong [again, as always]?

          1. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I know. It’s hard to believe they could be wrong about anything, but alas it is true…

    2. Not Today Avatar
      Not Today

      Irrelevant. SCOTUS is already backing away from both Bruen and Heller in the face of a documented, violent domestic abuser seeking guns to use against both his intimate partner and innocent civilians. Misogyny and gun violence walk hand in hand.

      1. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        Violent criminals and violence walk hand in hand.

        SCOTUS is not “backing away” from the most important elements of Bruen or Heller, which include the standards for deciding when the keeping and bearing of various different firearms may, or may not, be restricted. That is what Mr. Kiser was referring to.

        I am 100% in favor of finding a constitutional way to keep violent criminals, including domestic abusers, from owning, possessing, and using firearms. So are about 99.9% of all the gun owners I know.

        1. John Harvie Avatar
          John Harvie

          Absolutely. I can’t understand why the firebrands on this site can’t see that.

          1. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            As far as opposing gun bans is concerned, I am one of the firebrands on this site.

            😉

          2. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            As far as opposing gun bans is concerned, I am one of the firebrands on this site.

            😉

          3. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            I’ll second that amendment.

        2. Not Today Avatar
          Not Today

          Right, so you favor banning access to some weapons just like the majority of Americans. Got it.

          1. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I am in favor of banning certain people, not certain guns.

  9. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Because rolling rocks uphill is sooooo satisfying.

    1. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      A pretty good analogy. The people who continually and repeatedly try to ban guns are a lot like Sisyphus – clever and persistent, but also supercilious, conceited, and immoral.

  10. Nathan Avatar
    Nathan

    The most relevant category of shootings where a ban on “assault weapons” would presumably reduce deaths is what the FBI labels “active shooter incidents.” A close examination of these incidents reveals that public perception is quite at odds with the facts.

    1. The vast majority of active shooter incidents involve handguns.
    2. More than half active shooting incidents with rifles, also include a handgun or shotgun.

    Summary of 61 active shooting incidents in 2021

    Handgun(s) only – 41
    Rifle(s) – 5
    Rifle and Handgun – 5
    Rifle and Shotgun – 1
    Shotgun – 2
    Handgun and Shotgun – 1
    Gun used not disclosed – 5

    (Looks like I missed one but am too lazy to recount)

    Taken from:

    Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2021

    The FBI has designated 61 shootings in 2021 as active shooter incidents. The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.

    https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2021-052422.pdf/view

    1. kls Avatar
      kls

      Maybe just outlaw crazy people since they commit MOST of the crimes of this nature after telling people they are going to do it.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        The first step is to stop electing them to make laws.

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          Well played, sir!

    2. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      Also, the FBI does not officially recognize this fact, but more than 90% of active shooter incidents occur in “gun free zones” – that is, areas or locations where possession of a firearm is prohibited.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        like on airliners? 😉

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          No. More like schools, college campuses, nightclubs and concert venues.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            and not in courts and not in stadiums nor at a lot of events… where guns are “banned”!

          2. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Whatever you say.

            https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/friday-night-lights-fire-high-school-football-games-are-blitzed-gun-vi-rcna103642

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            no, just observations. I’m largely ignorant about much of it. There are places where guns
            are truly “banned” and gun crimes in those places are rare. When is the last time someone
            fired a gun on an airliner or in a court? Point is… you can designate a gun-free zone but it
            doesn’t mean much unless you really enforce it. Some gun-free zones are not really intended
            to actually stop gun use but rather increase the penalty for illegal use, “enhanced” penalties.

            But where guns are actually banned and it’s actually enforced, it’s largely EFFECTIVE.

            AND… I’ve not seen much in the way of court challenges to the “right to bear arms” in
            those places where they are banned… so it must pass legal muster… no?

          4. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            There are places where guns are truly “banned” and gun crimes in those places are rare.

            Where? What places?

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            airlines? courts? even at sports events…. state fair? etc?
            no?

          6. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            You miss the point.

            The overwhelming majority of places where guns are prohibited have no means of ensuring compliance OR protecting the people who have been disarmed by the ban.

            The end result is that responsible, law abiding people will comply, criminals and mass murderers won’t, and everyone there is a sitting duck.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            “gun free zone” is sorta like a “drug free zone”. Neither are really enforced unless a crime
            is committed and it leads to additional charges.

            In other places where guns are prohibited, they are strictly enforced AND they ARE effective.

            Technology is now making this far easier and cheaper to do.

            but the whole idea of whether enforcement is “serious” or not gets into things like speeding, or shoplifting or dozens, hundreds of things that are illegal and they continue no matter if there
            is enforcement. Law abiding will do their thing as you say and criminals will do their thing.

            It does not lead to doing away with laws or other “crime free” zones, etc….

            I’m 100% in favor of technology being used to enforce “gun free” buildings and other venues,
            no question. I don’t want them on airplanes or in courts, or in schools, or voting precincts or
            hospitals, you name it, no more than I want folks with other deadly weapons in those places.

          8. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Ever watched this scene from the Matrix?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBK3DH0jTmQ

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            no… what’s it about?

            I see guns the same way I see drunk driver, speeders, red light runners, etc.

            I have no problem what-so-ever with general rules that we know get broken and
            enhanced technologies to gather more of the miscreants.

            I am NOT of the opinion that folks with guns make a store safer for us nor do
            I subscribe to the “good man with a gun” concept…

            If we say no guns in schools (or courts, or airplanes or DMV, etc) – Do it. Put the technology there and rip new butts
            for those that violate it.

          10. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I see guns the same way I see drunk driver, speeders, red light runners, etc.

            Thank you. you finally admitted it. You see gun owners as criminals.

            Pitiful, judgmental and disingenuous, but at least honest.

            The fact is, gun possession by a law abiding citizen is a passive act – it is not inherently dangerous nor does it harm anyone.

            Speeding, drunk driving and running red lights are not passive acts. They are inherently dangerous.

          11. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            no… what’s it about?

            I see guns the same way I see drunk driver, speeders, red light runners, etc.

            I have no problem what-so-ever with general rules that we know get broken and
            enhanced technologies to gather more of the miscreants.

            I am NOT of the opinion that folks with guns make a store safer for us nor do
            I subscribe to the “good man with a gun” concept…

            If we say no guns in schools – Do it. Put the technology there and rip new butts
            for those that violent it.

          12. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            I see guns the same way I see drunk driver, speeders, red light runners, etc.

            Thank you. you finally admitted it. You see gun owners as criminals.

            Pitiful, judgmental and disingenuous, but at least honest.

            The fact is, gun possession by a law abiding citizen is a passive act – it is not inherently dangerous nor does it harm anyone.

            Speeding, drunk driving and running red lights are not passive acts. They are inherently dangerous.

          13. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            https://cmlawfirm.com/fulton-county-courthouse-shooting-10-years-later-the-confluence-of-unfortunate-events-which-you-may-not-have-known-about-by-william-t-mitchell/

          14. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            rare though.. much more effective enforcement of a “Ban” in general. I can be done.

          15. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            It can be done? Where? At schools?

            Do you have any idea how much it costs to enforce the ban on guns in courthouses?

          16. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            or at the airports? technology at schools now? cost coming down?
            yes. sure. even at stadiums now…. right?

          17. John Harvie Avatar
            John Harvie

            Do you?

          18. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            I went to the link and found this:

            “On the date of the incident, the 6’4″, 200-pound Nichols was escorted to the courtroom holding cell by one female deputy who was half his size and almost twice his age. Nichols assaulted her and stole her weapon.”

            This is VERY important.

            I go to the range a lot and over the years have helped law enforcement officers prepare for their annual firearm qualification. What an education!

            One young lady who also served in a courthouse as armed security weighed about 120, knew almost nothing about how to use her weapon, and barely had the strength to draw and fire it.

        2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          And Trump rallies…?

      2. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        Both true and important!

        FBI data is the gold standard, yet is painfully lacking in many respects. I would asses the problem in two broad categories.

        1. The FBI doesn’t seek to collect some relevant information that is critical to having a complete understanding.

        2. Some jurisdictions don’t comply fully with FBI requests for data.

        Both areas are quite fixable, but would require changes at the national level.

        The collecting of all relevant information should be part of a much needed FBI reform.

        The missing data would be the easiest to fix. States with incomplete data should lose federal funding. That would bring about complete compliance in a hurry.

    3. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      In addition to handguns being the overwhelming weapon of choice, by no means were all of the rifles semi auto ugly guns. Half or less were.

      An analysis of high profile mass shootings from the 1960s on, roughly from the Texas tower through recent events, found that they were mostly suicides who took others with them. That is horrifying in itself, and another indicator that the issue is the human being, not the choice of gun used.

      https://www.theviolenceproject.org/key-findings/

      1. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        The link was interesting. Thanks.

        Several things lacking there, however.

        The most glaring omission was the role of past shootings inspiring future ones. I think Columbine was instrumental in bringing planned mass shootings into our collective consciousness as a means gaining fame or calling attention to perceived grievances.

        I did, however, find this at your link.

        “Mass shooters have many grievances, but shootings motivated by hate and fame-seeking have increased since 2015.”

        The news media and social media play a huge role. Potential shooters are essentially schooled in how and what to do by the media.

        Then there’s this:

        “Most mass shootings are committed using handguns, but assault weapons are over-represented in these cases compared to other forms of gun violence.”

        I believe media portrayals of “assault weapons” having an almost mystical killing power has played a significant role in their use by mass shooters.

        In short, instead of helping, our news media and social media are inspiring and fueling the mass shooting phenomena.

Leave a Reply

Read More