I read the article, and chose my language accordingly (“had been on a terrorist watch list”).
Frank Chiaramonte
1

You are making perception errors here. I am not looking at specific instances rather at statistical trends. If you do not look at statistic anomalies the violent crime rate was unaffected by the ban. The gun crime rate was unaffected by the ban. Would you make FAA regulations based on what model of plane the 9/11 hijackers used? Perhaps. That sort of logic might appeal to someone who has never flown a plane and has no idea how they work. If you look at the total data the ’94 ban did not work.

This is the reason there is no informed discussion of gun law in this country. Only one side of the debate is informed. ‘Uzi type gun’ does not mean anything. It’s like saying you are using a ‘Hewlett Packard type computer’ to type here. For instance the Aurora shooter did not use an Assault Rifle. They are all but illegal here.

Sure people have made their minds up. But only some of those people are sufficiently knowledgeable and interested to vote on it.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.