Contact information

MidTide Media 123 Pleasant St Suite 300. Marblehead, MA 01945.

Assault weapons get a lot of attention when the United States debates gun policy. One might think that they’re responsible for a lot of death in the country.

We pulled together the data from the FBI to see how assault weapons compare to other forms of homicide in the US.

Something to consider: given how few people die each year from assault weapons (despite 4 million or so floating around the country), why is so much focus put on banning them? Is there a perfectly good reason to focus here, or should that effort go towards other violence prevention projects?

Do you feel strongly about the Assault Weapons Ban? What are your emotions tied to?

Has seeing this data changed your feelings? Let us know what you think!

Tags:, , ,

70 Comments

  • Michel Stango, March 5, 2015 @ 4:23 pm Reply

    This is something I’ve never really understood, we do have a lot of gun violence, more then Canada despite how many guns per capita they have and yet we’re about on par with gun violence in Mexico; despite them having very few ways to obtain a gun.

  • Jack Jester-Weinstein, March 5, 2015 @ 4:59 pm Reply

    I’ll propose two reasons why the left is fixating on regulating assault weapons.

    First, while assault weapons are responsible for very few deaths, they’re associated with the most horrifying instances of gun crime — the mass shootings, the Auroras and Sandy Hooks. This association makes them seemingly a different and more sinister breed from the kind of gun that you own for fun or self-defense, and can help explain the instinct to ban them.

    Second, obviously there’s stiff opposition to any effort to regulate guns in the US. Because assault weapons are such a niche category, and because they’re more powerful than is necessary for hunting or sport shooting (ie for the hobbies for which people feel a rightful need for guns), it seems to provoke less opposition than, say, regulating hunting rifles; on this narrow subset of gun control, the left may be able mobilize enough supporters to have a chance at actually passing regulation. So specifically banning assault weapons seems to be a matter of opportunity more than ideology.

    A cynic would say that it’s a tactic to appease the liberal base on gun control, without actually controlling the vast majority of guns; I suspect the Democratic strategists are hoping to start gaining traction on gun regulation, and that once the nation gets used to an assault weapon ban they could move on to bigger targets.

    Does this sound reasonable?

    • Erik Fogg, March 5, 2015 @ 7:51 pm Reply

      I think it is all totally reasonable–especially the last point about it being strategic.

      My only objection is that I think assault weapons are not more powerful–they just have cosmetic differences (flash suppressor, folding stock, pistol grip). Same caliber, muzzle velocity, and semi-automatic fire rate. I believe they’re in no way more dangerous than a semi-auto hunting rifle?

      Good opportunity for a post on "people working with different facts in debate!"

  • Benjamin Long, March 5, 2015 @ 5:45 pm Reply

    The worst part is how the now expired assault weapons ban was really just a ban on scarry looking guns. The functional parts were never banned. Now they go after high cap magazines and the like, an increasingly futile policy with the advent of the maker movement – magazines are pretty easy to manufacture, especially if you start with modification to an existing lowcap mag.

    For the most part, it’s probably just political theatre fueled by fear mongering that keeps the conversation alive.

    I for one hold that personal defense and hunting aren’t even the reason we have the second amendment, they’re just side benfits. National defense and the final check on government are. We’ve seen the statistics on guns per person in this country. Can you imagine a foreign power attempting to invade? Assume they best our military and start an occupation, our country is huge and well armed, it’s a nightmare for an unpopular occupation force.

    • Erik Fogg, March 5, 2015 @ 8:17 pm Reply

      Probably the scariest thing for any gun control measure (I think there’s substantial evidence that most people don’t want just anyone to get guns) is that you can now 3D print your own–and they work:

      http://mashable.com/2014/11/06/bullets-3d-printed-gun/

      I just can’t imagine an effective policy against this that doesn’t require tracking everyone’s activity so tightly that every torrent of every 3D-gun CAD model gets a flag for arrest.

  • Daniel Hawkins, March 5, 2015 @ 8:03 pm Reply

    I agree with Jack about the motivations at play. The perceived excessive nature of assault weapons makes them an easy target for a ban, and their potential to do harm is actually much greater than that of handguns (if assault weapon ownership were as prevalent as that of handguns, homicides by assault weapon might outpace homicides by handgun).

    After seeing this data from 2011 (the ban expired in 2004), I think the opportunity cost of focusing on this narrow issue is too great. That said, I’m not sure which "other violence prevention projects" are politically feasible. Does anyone have suggestions?

    I suppose it was inevitable that we would talk about the Second Amendment… For better or worse, the amendment was intended to protect the individual citizen’s right to keep and bear any arms that might be used in a citizens’ militia, which would certainly include assault weapons. These days, I think it would also include tanks and drones, which is why I think the amendment is antiquated and does more harm than good; no citizens’ militia could survive the US military, but I think we can all agree that gun homicides and accidents are a Bad Thing. The amendment has nothing to do with personal defense against criminals or hunting, but those are the only practical purposes left for personally owned firearms. On the subject of potential occupation, our government should have weapons caches and contingency plans that involve guerrilla warfare, but we don’t all need to keep and bear arms for that to work.

    • Erik Fogg, March 5, 2015 @ 8:14 pm Reply

      I really like the focus here.

      The Jeffersonian idea (not that his thoughts are gospel) was certainly that part of the 2nd Amendment was "anti-tyranny," and probably some of the value there is deterrence (like the mere existence of the FDIC means it’s unlikely to ever actually be used).

      Something I often think about regarding the citizen’s militia is indeed whether it would be effective, but I’d lean towards "yes," if there was a mass-enough uprising. The US military would have a heck of a time trying to put down the whole thing at once–if nothing, we’ve learned from the past 40 years that asymmetric warfare can be effective. The question, I think, is of "will:" if significant parts of the army defected and joined the uprising, suppression would be tough. Even if not, the army would have to be hugely destructive (like in Syria) to keep a lid on things.

      So while the citizenry would certainly be outgunned, it might not get squished if the US army isn’t totally united and willing to flatten a whole lot of towns to get it done. Whatcha think?

      • Daniel Hawkins, March 5, 2015 @ 11:47 pm Reply

        The point about deterrence is an interesting one, but couldn’t the bearing of arms also create the opposite effect? It’s easier for a government to justify violent action against a heavily armed "militia" (which would quickly be labeled a "terrorist organization") than an unarmed assembly, making it less likely that other governments would get involved to help us out.

        You make a good point about the effectiveness of asymmetric warfare, but have we seen it be effective in achieving anything beyond prolonged instability? Has a flourishing democracy risen out of such efforts during the last half-century? This one isn’t rhetorical — I really don’t know, so I’m asking you fine people.

        • Daniel Kane, March 6, 2015 @ 12:03 am Reply

          Why apply this only to militia? People get shot by police who are worried that they may be wielding firearms. Might this situation be improved if fewer civilians owned guns (or at least concealable guns)?

  • Amos Meeks, March 6, 2015 @ 4:39 pm Reply

    Do you have statistics on the homicide rates by weapon type? That seems much more relevant than raw numbers, since if the rate of homicides per assault weapon is much higher than handguns, then banning assault weapons may be a way to get more bang for your buck (or less bang, as the case may be…)

    I think the focus on assault weapons also relates to what’s pointed out in the "toxoplasma of rage" blog post (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/). Basically that it’s more about identity politics than actual useful politics. Supporting assault weapon access is a great way to show that you identify with the pro-guns camp, and being against it is a great way to show that you’re in the other camp, so it’s a great way to display identity politics.

    • Erik Fogg, March 10, 2015 @ 2:48 am Reply

      One of the challenges I’ll keep throwing out to the team is "I think Google can give a lot of these answers" and I really want to crowdsource some of the data-hunting 🙂

      But for now: 4MM assault weapons, maybe about 150MM handguns.

      So the rates would be abouuuuut:
      0.0000125 homicides per assault weapon
      0.0000417 homicides per pistol

      So a factor of about 3x murder rate per pistol out there, I think.

  • Scott Garland, March 7, 2015 @ 5:47 pm Reply

    Greetings All,
    Thanks for the post Erik and thank you for the thought provoking replies. I took time to read this line of discussion and I had a few thoughts and counter thoughts.

    First to the Second,
    It is always dangerous and difficult to look into constitutional amendments when we look back through history and try to apply the intent of our forefathers to modern time. So I will try to stay clear of that conversation; although, I think that careful evaluation of the intent vs. application in modern would be an amazing set of discussions to read.

    When I look at the attempts and intention to ban Assault Weapons I can’t help but ask why?

    Yes, they look scary! They are black and sleek and wreak of menace. That is in the design, and an effective psychological impact their threat. They are designed to speak the language of violence.

    I absolutely disagree with the earlier statement that they are more powerful than traditional hunting or “other use” long rifle.
    They in fact less powerful than many many hunting rifles. The AR15 uses 5.56 / .223 bullet. that is roughly equivalent to a.22. We used those simple .22 in boy scouts or summer camp for target practice and are not intended to hunt game much larger than a squirrel. I will concede that the cartridge is larger (more gunpowder means I can throws that rock faster). Again this is a design feature. With the evolution of warfare weapons have increasingly been required to be a force multiplier. That is a tool that increases the single soldiers ability to inflict immediate and collateral damage or demand an increase of enemy resources. Assault weapons are simplistic in operation, and use a lower caliber round that inflicts debilitating damage rather than kill. The purpose behind this thinking is that one injured soldier will require two carry him/ her off the field of battle, Transportation resources, medical treatment resources and has the wonderfully effective benefit of physiological damage to the fellow soldiers around the poor bastard that just got maimed for his country.

    When we look into the purposes behind the weapon we can begin to see some of the reasons we might want to ban these weapons from public proliferation. Almost anyone can use it because they are reliable, simple to maintain, aim and shoot. They breed fear through sight and sound and impact. They are an instrument of control. Intended to control action of your enemy, but perhaps even more effective at controlling untrained civilian populations.

    They are attempting to ban a weapon designed to limit the enemy’s ability to function “normally” during conflict, They are banning you from having the ability to invoke fear and control. And, they are ensuring that civilization need not live under that umbrella of fear.

    Looking beyond the window dressing of banning these big scary weapons, is, I think the key to understanding why its such a hot topic item in politics.
    They are by statistically used less in homicide that hands and fists. They are expensive. They are not the best nor most versatile hunting tool. They are a tool of fear and control and war and they are intended to hurt and disable.
    Politicians cant say to the public, you cant have these for these reasons but we can. So they say you cant have them because (insert emotional argument here)!

    what we should ask is what are these weapons intended for and do we need them in the hands of people?

    • Erik Fogg, March 10, 2015 @ 2:44 am Reply

      Scott I think this is a really great insight and great challenge, definitely. (I wish I had time to take on all of these in depth but I just want to say I really enjoyed reading it.)

  • Chris McAdam, March 10, 2015 @ 3:51 pm Reply

    Despite never owning a gun, I fully accept the second amendment is part of the constitution and should be unrestricted. "Shall not be abridged" is fairly direct, IMO.

    The assault weapon debate largely comes down to people trying to argue about the meaning of the second amendment. If one can restrict access to some types of guns (both sides of the debate seem to see this) it opens the door to other kinds of restrictions down the road.

    I feel the same way about abortion access (No, this is not an attempt to debate the topic; it is a simple comparison) I fully recognize the right to choose is constitutionally protected, and should not be abridged. Those arguing (on both sides of that issue) also see that getting some restrictions in place can open the door to others down the road.

    Both of these issues, the restriction itself (as I see it) is not the issue, so much as whether any restrictions are placed on the activity.

    • Erik Fogg, March 10, 2015 @ 6:16 pm Reply

      Ooh! I like the internal consistency in this and I have a question:

      How do you think we define/differentiate "arms" from stuff like tanks/bombs/etc? (You might support having those, or believe that the 2nd Amendment should be altered to exclude those so that we can interpret it in a consistent way, or something else.) I’ve always noodled on that "how to properly define ‘arms’ in the modern age" question. Wondered if you had any input.

      • Chris McAdam, March 11, 2015 @ 12:16 am Reply

        I have a view I think is consistent. You weren’t allowed private cannons, to the best of my knowledge, so large scale weaponry isn’t covered by the second amendment. If that turns out to be wrong, and the founders thought cannon WERE covered, I will revise my view on that.

        Assuming that’s the case, it is ok to restrict missiles and tanks and other non-personal weapons.

    • Daniel Kane, March 10, 2015 @ 6:37 pm Reply

      Chris – all-or-nothing consistency is rarely a good idea. If you really think that abortion should be all-or-nothing, then you should either believe that it is never OK, or you believe that it is acceptable to kill your 5-year-old child. And while it is hard to argue that the second amendment is consistent with outright bans on firearm ownership, you would have to be crazy to allow private citizens to attempt to acquire nuclear weapons without any regulation.

      • Erik Fogg, March 10, 2015 @ 7:08 pm Reply

        I’d just like to take a moment to encourage a lot of curiosity here. Chris may have some very good principles in tow that allow him to say "based on the following principles, no restrictions," so that restrictions exist outside of those principles, as opposed to just having a trade-off.

        An example might be: "abortions should always be allowed given that the fetus is not yet alive and is a biological parasite," which would rule out 5-year-olds. It lets us discuss the principles at play. So I encourage being open to what Chris has to say on the matter 🙂

        • Daniel Kane, March 10, 2015 @ 10:42 pm Reply

          OK then. Chris- do you believe that private citizens should be allowed to amass a nuclear arsenal? If not, where do you draw the line?

          • Chris McAdam, March 11, 2015 @ 12:19 am

            I do not believe the second amendment covered cannon; so by extension large pieces of military hardware are also exempt (if that’s wrong, I will revise my view)

            As far as abortion goes, life surely begins at birth, at which point there is no "abortion" there is killing a human being, which is against the law. a five year old is not a fetus

          • Daniel Kane, March 11, 2015 @ 4:10 am

            I don’t think these lines are as clear cut as you seem to claim that they are.

            Where exactly would you draw the line for "large" pieces of military hardware? High powered rifles? Bazookas? Tanks? Grenades? I could probably come up with a bigger list if I knew more military hardware. Is there a clear-cut division as to what’s allowable and what’s not.

            Also, vis-a-vis abortion (not to start a quagmire by continuing to discuss the issue), I think it’s pretty clear that even an unfertilized egg is alive (i.e. made of living cells). The cutoff for when it’s considered "killing a human being" should probably be based on some measure of neural development. The only clear reason for making birth the division (other than it being a clear but arbitrary cutoff) is that after birth adoption becomes a much more viable alternative than it was before.

          • Chris McAdam, March 11, 2015 @ 1:02 pm

            I think the line is fairly clear. Big weapons designed to be used/maintained by multiple soldiers, and personal weapons. Again, if history shows that isn’t the case, I shall retract. So tanks are military weapons, and so are howitzers. Missile launchers, bazookas. Things that shoot bullets, that an individual can manage all on their own, those are protected.

            Birth is not arbitrary at all. You have shown conclusively that there is a distinct, individual life form, fully surviving without any particular person needed to support it, You can freeze fertilized ovum indefinitely They are obviously not human beings. Human beings have rights. Potential human beings may also be determined to have rights but those rights are secondary to actual human beings..

          • Erik Fogg, March 11, 2015 @ 2:50 pm

            You guys are both doing a great job keeping this respectful and in a sense of sharing rather than fighting–it’s a great example for the rest of the community.

            Probably this sub-thread has run itself out, so I won’t beat it too hard, but for Chris: on birth I think you’re maybe getting a bit over-assertive–that is, not leaving the space that Dan may have a good point and seeking some elaboration to see some of the underlying differences in your assumptions.

            I think one of the really cool things about "defining birth" is that if we’re able to put aside our emotions/morality (which both of you do really well), we can approach it as a question of science/philosophy and have these really interesting, dispassionate discussions where we explore some of the assumptions we have in this sticky question.

            For another time, though 🙂

          • Daniel Kane, March 11, 2015 @ 5:02 pm

            [Huh, next level replies don’t work (perhaps so that the indentation doesn’t become absurd) so I can’t actually reply to Chris’ last post like I would want to]

            For weapons- so if I designed a tank meant to be maintained and operated by an individual, that would make it acceptable for private citizens to own?

            On abortion- The "can survive without support from a particular human being" is interesting and relates somewhat to the conclusion I had about why birth is a reasonable divider. On the other hand, it still has some strange properties. For example, if it were technically feasible (which I imagine it might actually be) to transplant a fetus to another womb, this would eliminate the need for support from any particular person.

          • Erik Fogg, March 11, 2015 @ 5:20 pm

            This is definitely going to become another blog post!

          • Chris McAdam, March 13, 2015 @ 1:14 pm

            This will confuse people if we keep it up. Replying to the post 18 hours ago:
            Grenades etc : Not bullets, not shot from a gun. Not protected (Prev Cannon caveat)
            Surgery is not handing an infant to a baby sitter. Tying a thing to your blood stream, and having its life be directly linked to you continuing to breathe is not the same as hiring a nanny. To put it another way, a man can care for an infant. A man cannot have a fetus implanted in them.

            An artificial uterus allows for the granting of a potential human rights, as no individual human is potentially harmed by granting the fetus rights. It still leaves the fetus wholly dependant on the technology, and so long as it is, it isn’t demonstrating it is a human being.To save time, someone kept alive via life support with no chance of improving (or no functioning brain) isn’t human any more. A fetus will become human, someone in that situation used to be human. I fully realize some people will differ with one or both of those views.

          • Daniel Kane, March 13, 2015 @ 6:19 pm

            (Replying to Chis’s post from 4 hours ago)
            I feel that this bullets shot from a gun guideline is pretty specific to today’s setup and does not readily generalize across technological changes, nor does it really account for the function of the weapon. It seems like this guideline would protect machine guns but not tazers or pepper spray. It also seems like it would disallow lazer weapons of any kind even if they were comparable in operation to modern firearms.
            Also, technological progress goes both ways. Today’s firearms are not all that comparable to the weapons used in the revolutionary war. I mean sure, the second amendment should support your rights to own muzzle-loading muskets but…

          • Chris McAdam, March 12, 2015 @ 2:03 pm

            To answer Dan :
            Tanks are derived from cannon. See previous comments; not personal weapons. Even if you manage to fully automate one, it comes from technology not protected, as opposed to assault rifles, which derive from technology that was (previous caveat about cannons still in place)

            Abortion : If transplant is possible, it would still be dependant on one specific person. And it still isn’t (under my own definition; yours may vary) a human being yet. I will surely consider, should such an advance be made, that the father be allowed to pay for this procedure instead of an abortion, should he wish the pregnancy to continue and the mother not (assuming no additional medical risk). Or should the artificial uterus (per Bujold) be developed. Those considerations are about the father’s interest being less in conflict, though, not the fetus suddenly being promoted to human being.

          • Daniel Kane, March 12, 2015 @ 6:56 pm

            Chris- still trying to figure out where you draw your boundaries.
            For weapons: What about grenades, bazookas or massively oversized firearms. If tomorrow I started manufacturing a lazer weapon, how would you determine whether it was a lazer rifle or a lazer canon?

            For abortion: I’m still not sure how this fits with "fully surviving without any particular person needing to support it". With fetus transplants, it would no longer require the support of any particular person (you could for example at probably great inconvenience swap it daily around a dozen different wombs). It still needs somebody to support it in order to survive, but 1-year-olds also need this kind of support. I’m also not clear how you think your criteria interacts with an artificial uterus. It seems to me that this would free it of needing the support of any human.

          • Chris McAdam, March 14, 2015 @ 12:59 pm

            Mobius replying. Perhaps we should continue this privately…..

            Non-lethal force isn’t "arms" so tazers, pepper spray, etc, isn’t covered one way or the other by the second amendment, to my understanding. They should be encouraged as an option, of course.

            In the far off future, where sci fi fans have summer homes, when blasters and stunners replace guns, they will (as personal weapons) be derivative of them, and covered by them. Shooting energy, plasma, or lead (or plastic at lethal velocities) it is all derived from that flint lock musket.

            I say this (again) as someone who has never shot or owned a gun, and likely never will.

  • sa gaming, May 30, 2021 @ 10:38 pm Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on on that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • address, June 26, 2021 @ 3:27 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Info on that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • exchange online hosting, June 26, 2021 @ 9:45 pm Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Information to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • lenovo sunucu teknik servis, June 28, 2021 @ 2:34 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • carpet cleaning st albans, July 5, 2021 @ 5:30 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More Information here to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • benelli supernova tactical, July 17, 2021 @ 3:05 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More here to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • omega replica planet ocean gmt height, November 12, 2021 @ 4:23 pm Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More here on that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • dispensary security, November 22, 2021 @ 12:53 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Here you will find 5817 more Information on that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • playsbo, January 7, 2022 @ 12:08 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More on to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • ตรวจหวยวันนี้, January 29, 2022 @ 12:35 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Here you will find 24636 more Info on that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • ล่องเรือเจ้าพระยา, May 1, 2022 @ 11:20 pm Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • dump cvv forum, July 15, 2022 @ 8:06 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Information on that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • Best Selling American Gun Brand, September 20, 2022 @ 1:46 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More Information here to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • wirral logs for sale, September 26, 2022 @ 7:32 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More here on that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • แอพเงินด่วน, October 26, 2022 @ 9:14 pm Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Information on that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • sbobet, October 29, 2022 @ 2:07 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More Info here on that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • earn passive income, November 4, 2022 @ 11:42 pm Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on on that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • free married hookup app, December 9, 2022 @ 10:52 pm Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Information to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • sbobet, January 6, 2023 @ 7:43 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Info on that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • best porn videos, January 23, 2023 @ 11:33 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More Information here to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • Dragon Tiger in Pokermatch, February 7, 2023 @ 3:17 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] There you can find 70126 additional Information on that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • Aller voir, February 10, 2023 @ 8:27 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] There you can find 51858 more Info to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • Fabarm Semi Auto Shotguns For Sale, February 10, 2023 @ 11:17 pm Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More Info here to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • additional hints, February 24, 2023 @ 1:41 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Information to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • blog, March 13, 2023 @ 9:56 pm Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More Info here to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • gun stores, May 12, 2023 @ 8:48 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on on that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • Asbestos Abatement Laguna Woods, May 13, 2023 @ 5:42 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Information to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • togel macau, August 12, 2023 @ 9:45 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Information to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • ป้ายโฆษณา, August 30, 2023 @ 12:28 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More on to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • muha carts, September 15, 2023 @ 12:23 pm Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • เซเว่นพอต, October 1, 2023 @ 12:23 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More on to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • แทงหวย, October 2, 2023 @ 12:17 am Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Find More Info here to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • meditation music, October 7, 2023 @ 9:12 pm Reply

    meditation music

  • relaxing piano, October 10, 2023 @ 12:51 pm Reply

    relaxing piano

  • shroom bars, October 20, 2023 @ 8:36 pm Reply

    … [Trackback]

    […] Read More on to that Topic: reconsidermedia.com/the-curious-focus-on-assault-weapons-in-america/ […]

  • sleep meditation, November 24, 2023 @ 12:04 am Reply

    sleep meditation

  • piano jazz music, December 1, 2023 @ 7:57 pm Reply

    piano jazz music

  • soothing relaxation, December 4, 2023 @ 6:14 pm Reply

    soothing relaxation

  • jazz instrumental, December 29, 2023 @ 7:13 pm Reply

    jazz instrumental

  • relax everyday, January 6, 2024 @ 3:07 am Reply

    relax everyday

Leave a Reply

Is the US Corporate Tax System Fair?

How Well Does American Protective Spending Align with Danger to Americans?