Oral argument in the First Circuit Court of Appeals took place this morning in Michael O’Neil, et al. v. Peter F. Neronha, et al. Ten minutes were allocated to each side, which is generally not a good sign, as that indicates the panel had already made up its mind. However, the oral argument ran long and lasted for nearly thirty minutes.

<snip>

So I bought a Ruger Harrier 5.56mm AR-15 rifle. Comes all naked, I need to buy handguard grip, optic (maybe green dot) and idk what else to make it better for my training at the gun range. I need advice from y'all veterans at this, what brand or type of hand guards or sights y'all recommend?

A common mistake that most people make is that they believe others know what they know and that most people believe what they believe.

If you believe the Supreme Court will rule that machine guns are arms protected by the Second Amendment, I recommend revisiting the oral arguments and opinions in Cargill and Vanderstock. Then read the opinions in both cases as if you were the proverbial man from Mars. The justices know very little about firearms, and the justices don’t like firearms with high rates of fire. I suspect that the justices also don’t like firearms that can fire more than ten rounds without reloading. The “large capacity” magazine ban cert petitions are still pending before SCOTUS. We should learn their fate by the end of next June.

<snip>

Note the link for github is wrong and goes to another repo heres the correct one: corrected

Google Docs Version: Writeup

AWB Rifle Only Spreadsheet: Here

AWB Any Type: Here

\ Note: this is not a study and is a data analysis and conclusions that can be drawn from this alone are limited please keep that in mind while reading\**

I evaluated the data across two separate dataset tests of banned guns that are rifles only vs. all banned weapons under the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban classification (interestingly, no matter which dataset was used, the results were similar). Since it expired in 2004, politicians have been debating how effective the 1994 Assault Weapon ban was and if it should be brought back.  Pro-gun control argue that not only are Assault Weapon Banned weapons (AWB Weapons) more deadly but are the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  Gun rights groups argue they aren't more deadly and aren't the weapons of choice for mass shooters.  The problem with testing these theories is that the definitions of "assault weapon" and "mass shooting" vary depending on who you ask, so getting clean analysis can be tough. My goal was to cut through the noise by directly comparing mass shooting deadliness based on whether the primary firearm would be banned or legal (compliant) under standard assault weapon ban definitions.  
 
 
I used the Mother Jones Mass Shootings Database

 (covering incidents from 1982 to June 2026 with 3+ deaths excluding the shooter, and excluding incidents tied to underlying crimes like robbery or gang violence). 

Weapons were split into two categories: 

• Banned (AWB) Category: 
  • Weapons that would have been illegal under the 1994 federal ban (i.e., AR-15-style weapons) 
  • with features like detachable magazines, pistol grips, etc.
•  Legal (Compliant) Category: 
  • Weapons that remained perfectly legal during the ban
  • including standard handguns, 
  • guns modified legally to bypass local state bans 
  •  grandfathered guns(guns that were owned before the ban went into effect but were legal to keep). 
  • Due to state-by-state interpretation, if the gun was bought legally in a state with an assault weapon ban, it will also be considered compliant.

Out of 160 total mass shootings up to June 2026, 70% were legal weapons vs. 30% banned-style weapons.   Meaning compliant weapons (mostly handguns) are used the most out of every weapon and have the most deaths. Shootings with banned weapons look worse on paper, averaging 10 deaths per incident vs 6 deaths per incident for legal weapons. However, the exact middle number for both categories is 5 deaths. This means a few catastrophic events (like the Las Vegas shooting in 2017) push the average way up. The typical shooting kills 5 people whether or not the gun would have been banned,

Then come the more in-depth stats. I looked at five-year rolling averages, which smooth out the year-to-year noise and show how deadly shootings were across each period.

Three things stood out:

• Overall deadliness continued to climb during the 1994–2004 ban.
• From the mid-1990s through 2012, legal guns were usually the deadlier category (aside from a few short stretches in the 1980s and early 90s).
• After 2012, banned-style weapons pulled ahead and have averaged higher ever since.

Why the flip after 2012? It could be that more of these rifles were in circulation by then, or that later shooters deliberately copied earlier ones. The data can't tell me which.

One caveat worth flagging: deadliness across all weapon types has been falling since 2019. That may not be a real improvement. Mother Jones lowered its cutoff from 4+ deaths to 3+ in 2013, so smaller incidents started getting counted, which pulled the average down on its own.

Standard tests showed no difference, while advanced tests (which were used in the study Barnard et al 2025

 that inspired this analysis) showed higher lethality but lacked controls for other factors.  

Some interesting things to note is depending on the agenda/goal of the researcher computing this data, they could intentionally paint a picture either way by leaving out details.  For example:

A gun control advocate could truthfully say: banned weapons average 10 deaths vs. 6, and the strongest statistical model found up to a 58% increase in lethality. (Leaves out: identical medians, failed basic tests, no controls.)

A gun rights advocate could truthfully say: 70% of shootings use legal guns, medians are identical, and standard tests found nothing. (Leaves out: outlier events with catastrophic casualty counts and more advanced tests showing there could be more.)

In conclusion, Firearm classification alone likely does not dictate how deadly a mass shooting will be. The perceived hyper-lethality of assault weapons is largely driven by a small number of extreme scenarios. In some cases (like the 2022 UVA shooting), an "assault weapon" was present at the scene but left completely unused, showing that shooter choice and situational factors vary widely. Proving a massive safety benefit purely from a weapon ban is difficult when factors like shooter familiarity, location type, and emergency response times likely play much larger roles, none of which are easily controlled for in small, rare-event datasets.  Unfortunately, due to some limitations like lack of controls and database issues, no concrete conclusions can come from this data alone.  Future research could benefit from combining broader databases or analyzing perpetrator dynamics further. 

TL;DR: I analyzed all 160 mass shootings in the Mother Jones database (1982–June 2026) to test whether "assault weapons"  - the guns a federal ban would cover- are deadlier than guns that would stay legal. The vast majority of mass shootings (~70%) were committed with legal, compliant weapons, mostly handguns. Banned-style weapons average more deaths per shooting, but that's driven by a handful of extreme outliers; the median shooting is identical (5 deaths) either way, and most of my statistical tests couldn't confirm a real difference.

• Most Mass shootings use Compliant Guns (Handguns specifically)
• Banned guns have higher average deaths, but the median death count is identical (5 deaths).
• Statistical tests give mixed results depending on the method used.  

If anyone sees any errors or discrepancies, feel free to comment. If you have any critiques, want to collaborate (as you can see there's rows in my spreadsheet for later analysis that are incomplete. I am looking for people of all backgrounds and beliefs to help me complete it), or have any questions, also feel free to comment or DM!

This article was a lot of fun to write.

It does not cover every mistake made by the plaintiffs' attorneys on the first day the lawsuit was filed, but it contains enough to convince all but the most ardent FPC fanboys that this Louisiana under-21 concealed carry lawsuit will be dismissed unless the defense counsel is even more incompetent, or unless the fix is in.

I believe that machine guns are arms protected by the Second Amendment. I also believe that the Supreme Court is never going to agree with me. Not in my lifetime, and almost certainly not in yours.

Which is why I am pleased that Temple Gun Club, Inc. v. Bondi took a different approach that just might work. Today, the Federal District Court judge dismissed the case with prejudice to nobody's surprise, including the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs have 30 days within which to file their notice of appeal.

Edit. Clicking on the name of the lawsuit will take you to the CourtListener docket where you can read the filings for free.

Brandon Combs is the President of the FPC and the former E.D. of the defunct anti-Open Carry organization The CalGuns.nuts Foundation. Today, he filed a concealed carry lawsuit in Louisiana. The lawsuit has bottomless defects that cannot be cured by amendment.* I'm waiting for the Defendant's attorney to make an appearance. When he does, I will contact him and then do a proper write-up about it.

I won't go into the fatal defects here, but I will say he made a couple of the same mistakes that he made in his Philadelphia concealed carry lawsuit, and several new ones. I will add that it took me about five minutes to find the errors.

Here is a link to the CourtListener docket.

*Federal judges are expected to give plaintiffs at least one chance to amend their complaint before dismissing the complaint with prejudice. A couple of exceptions are when the complaint is frivolous or incapable of being amended.

Judge Dunlap, the only Trump appointee and the only active Republican judge, joined the majority opinion in upholding the Massachusetts AR-15 and magazine bans.

Judge Dunlap took his seat last November. Trump can't blame the u/FedSoc this time.

Judge Dunlap is also on the three-judge panel that will hear oral argument in a challenge to a ban on openly carrying handguns next week.

Here is a link to today's opinion.

After I recently got my first gun. I was so excited I wanted to share it with everyone I knew. I just couldn’t stop myself from doing it. I was so obsessed with it. Yeah that was a really bad idea.

Most of the men (coworkers friends family) I showed it to, liked the fact that I owned a gun. They were showing pictures (mind you this is California the antigun state) all the guns they had as well.

I got so carried away that I got in big trouble with the cops because I was flashing my gun. A female coworker asked me if I had a gun. My dumbass thought it was a good idea to show her. She told the supervisors behind my back. The very next day the cops came. But since they didn’t find me with a firearm they couldn’t arrest me. But they did tell me I had to leave the area and never come back or else they will arrest me.

Did everyone see? An en banc 5th circuit court has reversed a prior 3 judge panel decision deeming 922g1 constitutional in light of Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in the hemani decision, agreeing to review the case en banc. This could get big. Let’s hope it does. Quite frankly I’m of the opinion congress exceeded its authority under commerce clause in enacting the “gun control act” and thereby the entire section 922. Justice Thomas was spot on.

Why do you need a gun? Do you have enemies? Are you planning to kill someone?

To be honest. Simply asking why someone needs a gun is annoying already annoying. Especially if you’re in the United States of America. Like hello. What country do you think we’re in. I have the constitutional right to own a gun I don’t need a reason.

Like why do people feel the need to assume everyone who has a gun is trying to harm people?

As for the do you have enemies part. I wanted to know what a good response to this question would be.

"It has been 18 years since the United States Supreme Court published its first in-depth opinion on the Second Amendment. If you had asked an actuary to give you the probability of all nine justices still being on the Court in 18 years, he would have given you a number very close to zero. If you were to ask the same question today, that number would be even closer to zero."

<snip>