What's always missing in the "gun debate"

[nat4900]

Right on cue, the nebulous term "common sense" gets invoked....As though you moonbats have any of it at all, let alone a corner on the market.

View attachment 279427

It's shocking tyranny didn't take over when machine guns became heavily regulated. Come back to reality kid.

It's shocking that you're too much of a partisan fuck to recognize that the gun grabbers didn't stop there.

But why didn't tyranny take over? Oh my God, they regulated machine guns! Tyranny must have taken us over.

I read somewhere that one of the primary reason why machine guns were finally banned in 1934, was because of the fear that "dark" people could also buy them...... Racism???..........lol

 

[Brain357]

It's shocking tyranny didn't take over when machine guns became heavily regulated. Come back to reality kid.

Legal purchases of machine guns are regulated but we have no idea how many illegal machine guns are being manufactured and purchased.

Probably not many given they rarely show up in crime. But the nuts now act like tyranny will take over if we have any new regulations on semi auto rifles. Well why didn't tyranny take over when we had machine gun regulations? Guns aren't stopping tyranny, we have checks and balances in our government that do that.

In fact we have no idea how many machine guns are out there and I don't believe many machine guns were used in crimes before they were regulated. I'm not a gun enthusiast, but I before I give up any of may freedoms I want to see real evidence that something of importance will be gained from it and so far no one has been able to make a case that any of these regulations on gun ownership will stop mass shootings or even appreciatively reduce violent crime.

Crime sure dropped after the Brady bill. The proof is all around you. The gun lobby just finds new ways to fool people.

"The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told an audience in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking."

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Again, there is no evidence any of these regulations will stop mass shootings of reduce violent crime.

Brady Bill 1993
Homicide rate 1992: 9.3
Homicide rate 2000: 5.5

Yeah looks like homicide dropped.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Legal purchases of machine guns are regulated but we have no idea how many illegal machine guns are being manufactured and purchased.

Probably not many given they rarely show up in crime. But the nuts now act like tyranny will take over if we have any new regulations on semi auto rifles. Well why didn't tyranny take over when we had machine gun regulations? Guns aren't stopping tyranny, we have checks and balances in our government that do that.

In fact we have no idea how many machine guns are out there and I don't believe many machine guns were used in crimes before they were regulated. I'm not a gun enthusiast, but I before I give up any of may freedoms I want to see real evidence that something of importance will be gained from it and so far no one has been able to make a case that any of these regulations on gun ownership will stop mass shootings or even appreciatively reduce violent crime.

Crime sure dropped after the Brady bill. The proof is all around you. The gun lobby just finds new ways to fool people.

"The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told an audience in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking."

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Again, there is no evidence any of these regulations will stop mass shootings of reduce violent crime.

Brady Bill 1993
Homicide rate 1992: 9.3
Homicide rate 2000: 5.5

Yeah looks like homicide dropped.

Well the NYT has also claimed it had no effect, so what is your source?

 

[Brain357]

Probably not many given they rarely show up in crime. But the nuts now act like tyranny will take over if we have any new regulations on semi auto rifles. Well why didn't tyranny take over when we had machine gun regulations? Guns aren't stopping tyranny, we have checks and balances in our government that do that.

In fact we have no idea how many machine guns are out there and I don't believe many machine guns were used in crimes before they were regulated. I'm not a gun enthusiast, but I before I give up any of may freedoms I want to see real evidence that something of importance will be gained from it and so far no one has been able to make a case that any of these regulations on gun ownership will stop mass shootings or even appreciatively reduce violent crime.

Crime sure dropped after the Brady bill. The proof is all around you. The gun lobby just finds new ways to fool people.

"The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told an audience in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking."

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Again, there is no evidence any of these regulations will stop mass shootings of reduce violent crime.

Brady Bill 1993
Homicide rate 1992: 9.3
Homicide rate 2000: 5.5

Yeah looks like homicide dropped.

Well the NYT has also claimed it had no effect, so what is your source?

Look at the numbers. Crime was going up and then took a swift turn right after the brady bill?

 

[toomuchtime_]

In fact we have no idea how many machine guns are out there and I don't believe many machine guns were used in crimes before they were regulated. I'm not a gun enthusiast, but I before I give up any of may freedoms I want to see real evidence that something of importance will be gained from it and so far no one has been able to make a case that any of these regulations on gun ownership will stop mass shootings or even appreciatively reduce violent crime.

Crime sure dropped after the Brady bill. The proof is all around you. The gun lobby just finds new ways to fool people.

"The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told an audience in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking."

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Again, there is no evidence any of these regulations will stop mass shootings of reduce violent crime.

Brady Bill 1993
Homicide rate 1992: 9.3
Homicide rate 2000: 5.5

Yeah looks like homicide dropped.

Well the NYT has also claimed it had no effect, so what is your source?

Look at the numbers. Crime was going up and then took a swift turn right after the brady bill?

So why don't you want to tell us what your source is?

 

[nat4900]

It's shocking tyranny didn't take over when machine guns became heavily regulated. Come back to reality kid.

Legal purchases of machine guns are regulated but we have no idea how many illegal machine guns are being manufactured and purchased.

Probably not many given they rarely show up in crime. But the nuts now act like tyranny will take over if we have any new regulations on semi auto rifles. Well why didn't tyranny take over when we had machine gun regulations? Guns aren't stopping tyranny, we have checks and balances in our government that do that.

In fact we have no idea how many machine guns are out there and I don't believe many machine guns were used in crimes before they were regulated. I'm not a gun enthusiast, but I before I give up any of may freedoms I want to see real evidence that something of importance will be gained from it and so far no one has been able to make a case that any of these regulations on gun ownership will stop mass shootings or even appreciatively reduce violent crime.

Crime sure dropped after the Brady bill. The proof is all around you. The gun lobby just finds new ways to fool people.

"The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told an audience in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking."

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Again, there is no evidence any of these regulations will stop mass shootings of reduce violent crime.

MORON, read your own fucking citations instead of just the title".......From the article

........The real problem is the law's "gaping barn door" for unregulated sales, mainly at gun shows, but no one knows how many guns are bought with false IDs or exchanged privately, to say nothing of those being stolen.......

 

[Brain357]

Crime sure dropped after the Brady bill. The proof is all around you. The gun lobby just finds new ways to fool people.

"The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told an audience in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking."

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Again, there is no evidence any of these regulations will stop mass shootings of reduce violent crime.

Brady Bill 1993
Homicide rate 1992: 9.3
Homicide rate 2000: 5.5

Yeah looks like homicide dropped.

Well the NYT has also claimed it had no effect, so what is your source?

Look at the numbers. Crime was going up and then took a swift turn right after the brady bill?

So why don't you want to tell us what your source is?

Source for what? Those are homicide numbers, you can look them up if you doubt.

 

[Oddball]

"The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told an audience in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking."

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Again, there is no evidence any of these regulations will stop mass shootings of reduce violent crime.

Brady Bill 1993
Homicide rate 1992: 9.3
Homicide rate 2000: 5.5

Yeah looks like homicide dropped.

Well the NYT has also claimed it had no effect, so what is your source?

Look at the numbers. Crime was going up and then took a swift turn right after the brady bill?

So why don't you want to tell us what your source is?

Source for what? Those are homicide numbers, you can look them up if you doubt.

That's not how it works, Gomer....You back up your claims...You don't get to play Yogi Berra and say "you can look it up".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In fact we have no idea how many machine guns are out there and I don't believe many machine guns were used in crimes before they were regulated. I'm not a gun enthusiast, but I before I give up any of may freedoms I want to see real evidence that something of importance will be gained from it and so far no one has been able to make a case that any of these regulations on gun ownership will stop mass shootings or even appreciatively reduce violent crime.

Crime sure dropped after the Brady bill. The proof is all around you. The gun lobby just finds new ways to fool people.

"The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told an audience in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking."

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Again, there is no evidence any of these regulations will stop mass shootings of reduce violent crime.

Brady Bill 1993
Homicide rate 1992: 9.3
Homicide rate 2000: 5.5

Yeah looks like homicide dropped.

Well the NYT has also claimed it had no effect, so what is your source?

Look at the numbers. Crime was going up and then took a swift turn right after the brady bill?

Never happened. Crime was going down before and after the bill.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Legal purchases of machine guns are regulated but we have no idea how many illegal machine guns are being manufactured and purchased.

Probably not many given they rarely show up in crime. But the nuts now act like tyranny will take over if we have any new regulations on semi auto rifles. Well why didn't tyranny take over when we had machine gun regulations? Guns aren't stopping tyranny, we have checks and balances in our government that do that.

In fact we have no idea how many machine guns are out there and I don't believe many machine guns were used in crimes before they were regulated. I'm not a gun enthusiast, but I before I give up any of may freedoms I want to see real evidence that something of importance will be gained from it and so far no one has been able to make a case that any of these regulations on gun ownership will stop mass shootings or even appreciatively reduce violent crime.

Crime sure dropped after the Brady bill. The proof is all around you. The gun lobby just finds new ways to fool people.

"The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told an audience in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking."

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Again, there is no evidence any of these regulations will stop mass shootings of reduce violent crime.

MORON, read your own fucking citations instead of just the title".......From the article

........The real problem is the law's "gaping barn door" for unregulated sales, mainly at gun shows, but no one knows how many guns are bought with false IDs or exchanged privately, to say nothing of those being stolen.......

Again, there is no clear evidence that any regulation will stop mass shootings or reduce violent crime. Seth Ator, the Odessa shooter failed a background check and bought an illegally manufactured gun. Ther eis every reason to suspect that if you make it difficult for a wannabe mass shooter or a violent criminal to buy a gun legally, they will find an illegal source to buy it from.

 

[Oddball]

Right on cue, the nebulous term "common sense" gets invoked....As though you moonbats have any of it at all, let alone a corner on the market.

View attachment 279427

It's shocking tyranny didn't take over when machine guns became heavily regulated. Come back to reality kid.

It's shocking that you're too much of a partisan fuck to recognize that the gun grabbers didn't stop there.

But why didn't tyranny take over? Oh my God, they regulated machine guns! Tyranny must have taken us over.

Beside the point....The committed liberoidal never stops when they get what they want today....It's always on to the next encroachment....But you're too intellectually dishonest to see the facts for what they are.

 

[22lcidw]

Right on cue, the nebulous term "common sense" gets invoked....As though you moonbats have any of it at all, let alone a corner on the market.

View attachment 279427

It's shocking tyranny didn't take over when machine guns became heavily regulated. Come back to reality kid.

It's shocking that you're too much of a partisan fuck to recognize that the gun grabbers didn't stop there.

But why didn't tyranny take over? Oh my God, they regulated machine guns! Tyranny must have taken us over.

I read somewhere that one of the primary reason why machine guns were finally banned in 1934, was because of the fear that "dark" people could also buy them...... Racism???..........lol

Progs controlled D.C. 73 senators and 310 Reps or so with a globalist inspired President.

 

[Oddball]

Right on cue, the nebulous term "common sense" gets invoked....As though you moonbats have any of it at all, let alone a corner on the market.

View attachment 279427

It's shocking tyranny didn't take over when machine guns became heavily regulated. Come back to reality kid.

It's shocking that you're too much of a partisan fuck to recognize that the gun grabbers didn't stop there.

But why didn't tyranny take over? Oh my God, they regulated machine guns! Tyranny must have taken us over.

I read somewhere that one of the primary reason why machine guns were finally banned in 1934, was because of the fear that "dark" people could also buy them...... Racism???..........lol

Dark people didn't have the money to buy them in the 30's.

You didn't think that the gnat is going to let the facts get in the way of a good race baiting, dida?

 

[Brain357]

Brady Bill 1993
Homicide rate 1992: 9.3
Homicide rate 2000: 5.5

Yeah looks like homicide dropped.

Well the NYT has also claimed it had no effect, so what is your source?

Look at the numbers. Crime was going up and then took a swift turn right after the brady bill?

So why don't you want to tell us what your source is?

Source for what? Those are homicide numbers, you can look them up if you doubt.

That's not how it works, Gomer....You back up your claims...You don't get to play Yogi Berra and say "you can look it up".

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2017

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What's always missing in the gun debate is common sense.

On one extreme side of the issue, you have gun-nuts who keep on "thinking" that virtually ANY gun legislation to curb the mass shootings is tantamount to giving up their weapons to fight off the U.S. government armed forces......Yep, insanity personified.

On the other extreme side of the issue, you now have someone like Beto demanding that citizens turn in their assault rifles (AR-15 and other war military style war rifles) or face the stigma of becoming an outlaw.

What is missing in the above debate is an understanding of even recent history.

In the mid 1930's, we DID ban the sale of machine guns and short-barreled rifles, etc. mostly based on the rationale that such weapons were NOT for the hunter and sportsman....The use of such weaponry was regarded as nefarious....and the law makers were then correct.

Ask yourself WHY we don't readily sell RPG rifles?......After all, if the mental rationale of most gun owners is to be allowed to buy military weapons to ward off the federal government assault on their liberty, an RPG rifle or machine gun would certainly be handy, don't you think???

“…the mental rationale of most gun owners is to be allowed to buy military weapons to ward off the federal government assault on their liberty…”

Not most, actually – some, mostly conservatives.

And of course their ‘rationale’ is wrong and devoid of merit.

There is nothing in Second Amendment case law in support of insurrectionist dogma – the Second Amendment doesn’t authorize the violent overthrow through force of arms of a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

Indeed, there’s nothing in the Constitution as to the criteria of ‘tyranny,’ and nothing in the Constitution abridging the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process.

 

[Brain357]

Crime sure dropped after the Brady bill. The proof is all around you. The gun lobby just finds new ways to fool people.

"The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told an audience in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking."

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Again, there is no evidence any of these regulations will stop mass shootings of reduce violent crime.

Brady Bill 1993
Homicide rate 1992: 9.3
Homicide rate 2000: 5.5

Yeah looks like homicide dropped.

Well the NYT has also claimed it had no effect, so what is your source?

Look at the numbers. Crime was going up and then took a swift turn right after the brady bill?

Never happened. Crime was going down before and after the bill.

View attachment 279489

It sure went down after.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What's always missing in the gun debate is common sense.

On one extreme side of the issue, you have gun-nuts who keep on "thinking" that virtually ANY gun legislation to curb the mass shootings is tantamount to giving up their weapons to fight off the U.S. government armed forces......Yep, insanity personified.

On the other extreme side of the issue, you now have someone like Beto demanding that citizens turn in their assault rifles (AR-15 and other war military style war rifles) or face the stigma of becoming an outlaw.

What is missing in the above debate is an understanding of even recent history.

In the mid 1930's, we DID ban the sale of machine guns and short-barreled rifles, etc. mostly based on the rationale that such weapons were NOT for the hunter and sportsman....The use of such weaponry was regarded as nefarious....and the law makers were then correct.

Ask yourself WHY we don't readily sell RPG rifles?......After all, if the mental rationale of most gun owners is to be allowed to buy military weapons to ward off the federal government assault on their liberty, an RPG rifle or machine gun would certainly be handy, don't you think???

I'll tell you what's missing
Anti-gunners lack of comprehension on the understanding of the Second Amendment
And their honesty gun control is gun confiscation
The supreme court ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Well the NYT has also claimed it had no effect, so what is your source?

Look at the numbers. Crime was going up and then took a swift turn right after the brady bill?

So why don't you want to tell us what your source is?

Source for what? Those are homicide numbers, you can look them up if you doubt.

That's not how it works, Gomer....You back up your claims...You don't get to play Yogi Berra and say "you can look it up".

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2017

lol I'm sure this wasn't your original source, but if you looked at the numbers violent crimes were much lower and then spiked for a few years in the early 1990's, so the long term trend was already down. This is why the article I posted stated that the Brady law did nothing.

 

[The Purge]

]

 

[toomuchtime_]

"The Brady Bill, the most important piece of federal gun control legislation in recent decades, has had no statistically discernable effect on reducing gun deaths, according to a study by Philip J. Cook, a Duke University professor of public policy, economics and sociology. "The Brady Bill seems to have been a failure," Cook told an audience in Caplin Pavilion on March 11. "But that doesn't mean gun control is doomed to failure."

Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues. Elected in 2001 to the prestigious Institute of Medicine, Cook is also known for his work on alcohol problems. In a 1981 study, he demonstrated that alcohol taxes have a direct effect on reducing drinking."

Study Shows Brady Bill Had No Impact on Gun Homicides

Again, there is no evidence any of these regulations will stop mass shootings of reduce violent crime.

Brady Bill 1993
Homicide rate 1992: 9.3
Homicide rate 2000: 5.5

Yeah looks like homicide dropped.

Well the NYT has also claimed it had no effect, so what is your source?

Look at the numbers. Crime was going up and then took a swift turn right after the brady bill?

Never happened. Crime was going down before and after the bill.

View attachment 279489

It sure went down after.

And a few years before it was even lower, so we don't know why violent crime spiked and we don't know why it dropped.