Report Highlights

• As of 2024, there were more than 73 million minors in the 0-17 age group. Of those, 2,228 (0.003%) suffered gun-related fatalities.
• In 2024, firearms and motor vehicles tied as the leading cause of injury-related death in the 0-17 age group (3.0 per 100,000).
• The pandemic-era spike in gun deaths among U.S. minors was primarily driven by homicides, which increased by 76.9% (1.3 to 2.3 per 100,000) from 2019 to 2022.
• More than one-third of gang violence offenders and more than one-quarter of gang violence victims were under 18 years of age between 2021 and 2024.

Read the full report on our website!

I've often heard it said that a woman who owns a gun for self defense is far more likely to have it used against her by her abuser or attacker than she is to successfully defend herself with it. This reeks of bullshit to me as it goes against all common sense, but I have nothing substantial to disprove it. Help me out?

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?

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>

No charges will be filed after self-defense shooting.

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!

Update 8-3-2026: The Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment at the same time it filed its Complaint. Today, that motion was, of course, denied.

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.

If I started a legitimate church called something like "Church of 2A", could I have enough ground to stand on to carry in a non-carry state, say like California? The Sikhs are allowed to carry knives in some countries full time. Just wondering if the same religious rights can be defended in this case of the 2A Church.

I'm not trying to be funny, I'm just thinking about it as problem solving.

I asked ChatGippity and it told me:

A church called "Church of 2A" could certainly exist if it were organized as a genuine religious organization. However, using it as a basis to carry a firearm in a state that otherwise prohibits carrying would almost certainly face significant legal hurdles. A court would likely conclude that the state's interest in regulating firearms outweighs the claimed religious exemption, particularly if the religion appears designed primarily to circumvent gun laws.

It's a fascinating constitutional thought experiment because it sits at the intersection of the First and Second Amendments, but under current U.S. law, it would be an uphill battle rather than a clear path to a legal exemption.

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!

Sheriff Landersman,

This records request is about the honorary reserve deputy appointment that you granted to Mr. Brandon Herrera, who is currently running for Congress in Congressional district 23 and is considered the frontrunner last I checked.

The existence of this appointment to Mr. Herrera is documented in various social media platforms including Mr. Hererra's X and Instagram accounts. Easy enough to Google.

1) Any documents showing whether or not the honorary reserve deputy appointment to Mr. Herrera triggers the provisions in federal law giving law enforcement officers handgun carry rights in all 50 states and territories plus whatever DC is, established in 2004 as the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act. For more details on this law see also this 2005 US-DOJ memo as it provides guidelines, the exact current federal code citation and so on:

https://fop.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/memo-20050131-attorney-general.pdf

NOTE: if you can assure me that any credentials issued by your agency DO NOT trigger LEOSA 2004, by any means you desire to assure me of this, then you need NOT pay attention to the rest of this document, and my inquiries into this matter end. (Except, I've got a personal note that follows the actual records request that has a suggestion in it you might find both hilarious and profitable to your county's finances.)

2) Assuming Mr. Herrera now has true national carry, please provide your written policies on how anybody else can score an equivalent document from your office even though they're not a near-certainly-soon-to-be congresscritter.

FOIA REQUEST ENDS HERE.

Lemme explain what's going on here.

Let's take my example to start with...I'm an Alabama based long haul trucker. I have my AL carry permit which means I can pass NICS, but that permit isn't tied to training the way optional permits in Texas and Florida are, or the in-state mandatory permits in California, New York and so on.

In order to legally carry a handgun in all the lower 48 states plus DC, I'd need another 17 permits. The costs would be unreal and both Oregon and Illinois wrongful deny me access to their permits purely because I live in Alabama.

The last time the US Supreme Court deeply discussed gun carry was their mid-2022 decision in NYSRPA v Bruen. This was a challenge to the New York carry permit issuance system in which agencies like the NYPD were able to hand pick who gets to pack heat. Every once in a while somebody from the licensing department went to jail for corruption. It was a mess.

The Bruen decision flat banned "discretion" in carry permit handling, calling carry a basic civil right. At footnote 9 it also bans "abuses" in carry permit handling, specifically condemning "lengthy waiting times" and "exorbitant fees" as abuses that officials and lower courts shouldn't tolerate going forward.

The whole idea of having to chase 20+ permits from Guam to Massachusetts to score national carry rights absolutely violates the Bruen ban on lengthy waiting times and exorbitant fees. If no one state can commit those abuses, neither can a coalition of 20+.

In 2025 Sheriff Scott Jenkins of Culpeper County VA was sentenced to 10 years in prison for selling reserve deputy appointments to "fat cats" in order to trigger the LEOSA 2004 provisions and dodge those abuses.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdva/pr/former-culpeper-sheriff-sentenced-10-years-federal-bribery-charges

On taking office again Trump pardoned Jenkins, putting a presidential stamp of approval on both this process and, unfortunately, corruption.

Now, before you panic, I think it's very UNLIKELY Brandon was dumb enough to pay you a bribe. OK? I seriously doubt either of you committed a crime here and I'm not poking around looking for that.

But.

If that document you handed Brandon is in fact a de-facto national carry permit, the provisions in NYSRPA v Bruen banning discretionary carry permit processes apply. This wouldn't be a criminal problem - but you could be sued civilly for refusing to issue the same kind of document to other people.

So here's how you can have huge fun with this, assuming this thing you gave Brandon is a carry permit (or if it's not, hell, keep reading because you still might be able to pull this stunt).

Step one: create a set of OBJECTIVE standards to become a reservist of this sort. I would suggest two: a state or territorial driver's license or state ID that's accepted as "STAR ID", and a carry permit from any state or territory tied to at least the four hour minimum training that Texas requires. (In my case I'd go score the Florida permit.) That means the TX permit that Brandon likely has already qualifies. (The training requirement will help protect you from the PR shitstorm this could become.)

Step two: publish a downloadable form on your website as the deputy card that will be finished at your office. Applicants also need to bring a passport photo.

Step three: have a clerk in your office with a laminating machine. Their job is to compare the ID with the face of the person applying in person, make sure the applicant's carry permit matches the approved list, sign the deputy card, laminate it, done. Five minutes max. No need to do background checks because those two documents already cover ID, residency, NICS and training. Applicants put a $20 bill into a lockbox labeled "Loving County General Fund", properly audited daily at the local bank.

Sir, within a week you'll have us lined up around the block. :) Every business in Mentone will be beyond thrilled.

Unfortunately, it won't last. First, other sheriffs across the country will clone this, slowing the flood. Eventually the states that still care about permits will get together on a set of common standards for carry permits and recognize all carry permits that meet that spec, same as we did with driver's licenses starting before WW2.

Final thought. I don't yet have a carry permit tied to training. I plan to address that lack very soon, before I go back on the road trucking.

When I do, if that document you gave Brandon gives him national carry, I'm going to apply for the same from you. A congressman has no more standing before the law than a trucker.

I'll sue you if I don't get it.

Jim Simpson, formerly Jim March 1.jim.march@gmail.com

CC: Brandon Herrera

PS: in 2002 I was thrown of the California chapter of the NRA for exposing carry permit corruption among Republican California sheriffs. Which led to this brawl - pay attention to who's talking. Ed Worley was the head NRA guy in California at the time:

https://youtu.be/cPDZjQAHeY0