North American Arms Ranger revolver (courtesy chuckhawks.com)

Mike “The Gun Guy” continues his ascendancy within the anti-gun rights mainstream media. Writing for The New York Times, Mr. Weisser wants readers to know that some guns are more deadly than, uh, other guns. And thus deserve to be banned for civilian ownership. Like this:

But if we learned one thing from Orlando, it’s that different guns, no matter what you call them, have different degrees of lethality. A Remington Model 700 bolt-action hunting rifle is plenty lethal if Bambi is standing 300 yards downrange, but the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, wouldn’t have done much damage if he had somehow gotten a Remington 700 into the club. Yet right now we spend as much time, energy and money regulating the Remington 700 as we spend regulating a Sig-Sauer MCX, the military-style, semi-auto weapon used by Mateen. That flies in the face of common sense.

What about the lethality of handguns — which account for the majority of all firearms-related homicides? Mr. Weisser has an answer for that!

The issue should not be regulating guns per se, but regulating the lethality of guns based on how they are designed and used. From the perspective of preventing gun violence, small, concealable handguns are much more lethal than long-barreled pistols used for target shooting at a range. Semi-automatic assault-style rifles with 30-round mags are much more lethal than a semi-auto hunting rifle with a capacity of five rounds.

So Mr. Weisser wants to regulate “small concealable” handguns differently from “long barreled pistols.” I wonder where Mr.Weisser draws the line. Guns with four inch barrels and less? What about the “full-size” GLOCKs the Virginia Tech killer used to murder 32 people and injure 17 more?

Never mind. Full speed ahead!

The landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case gave Americans constitutional protection to keep a loaded handgun in their homes for self-defense. The majority opinion recognized a long-standing ‘tradition’ of handgun ownership for personal protection; but it did not define the type of handgun that might be kept in the home. Does the affirmation of the right to use a handgun for self-defense prevent government from regulating specific types of self-defense guns? Of course not.

Of course not? Of course NOT. Lest we forget the Second Amendment says nothing about caliber, weapon type or action type. Anyway, props to Mike “The Gun Guy” for not using the words “assault rifle” once. Or not.

All guns are lethal, but we won’t actually reduce gun violence unless we recognize that some guns are more lethal than others. They are more lethal because they are designed to kill people much faster than other guns or are so small they can be carried and used in furtive ways. To make a real dent in gun violence we need to regulate the process for acquiring guns, but we also have to make it easier to track and control the most lethal kinds of weapons, even when they are owned by law-abiding folks.

So, ban small guns (of some indeterminate size) and “assault weapons” and register them all! Mike wants America to sled down the slippery slope to civilian disarmament. And the Times is good with that. Cold dead hands and all that.

Recommended For You

57 Responses to Mike ‘The Gun Guy’ Weisser at The New York Times: “The Deadliest Guns Need the Most Control”

  1. We should just make shooting people illegal and it will solve the problem entirely! Oh wait….theres that damn criminal loophole again just messing every good law up.

    • +100. We could call it the homicide (loop)hole. We the people demand that murder is not just illegal, but double, triple, and just plan against the law. #if murder was illegal it might save at least one life.

      • Maybe so and interesting but for one America has urbanized and there is less traditional hunting, at least where and when I grew up

        Victories in gun rights have led to a different definition of normal growing up for younger people, many of whom wouldn’t remember the days of bans

  2. Uhm he had three hours to wreak havoc, he could have done the same amount of damage with a Remington 700, with what I assume would be less wounded and more killed if he used something like a 338

  3. It would be laughable if there weren’t so many people who thought this way–and most of them with no qualms about legislating their misinformed opinions into fact. As such, the continuing tide of “suggestions” like this are actually pretty troubling.

    • They’re called Fudds, and they do more to kill gun rights than they do “bambi”, as per this guy’s idiotic analogy.

      • Fudds are usually just stuck in their long held views of what guns are for. After all, ya don’t need 30 rounds to kill a deer. “I used to feed a family of four with a single shot 22”

        Mike TGG on the other hand is a being from the “backwardsverse” where being a “gun guy” means you promote ways to restrict gun ownership. I think due to the General Theory of Relativity that the real Mike TGG was taken from the “forwardverse” (what we call reality) to the “backwardsverse”. I am pretty sure having both in the same universe would explode all the universes.

    • I believe that is how we got Obamacare. And, at least in my state, we have had several insurance companies close their doors and go bankrupt because of it.

      Much of the legislation today is guided by “emotional IQ” — or simply emotions or a mental picture of potential bad things happening than actual facts.

      This guy it talking directly to the “emotional” progressive crowd who have no time to search for facts.

  4. Well I reply to Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser based on what he has been saying. (The dumbest people (aka Mike “The Gun Guy Weisser”) need to be shut up, and have their freedom of speech need to be regulated.
    Gee think he would like that? Loosing or having his speech regulated?

    • ^^^^ Yes … This ^^^^^^ . Distract , draw you off message with fake ‘ facts & studies ‘, Don’t Waste Your Time !!

      ====> Just because it’s several years old doesn’t make it False : ( Light Reading )

      Plan for General and Complete Disarmament – U.S. State Department Publication – 7277.

      • Um while I agree that the plan by the left is to disarm us all. However I just looked up U.S. State Department Publication – 7277. And unless I found the wrong one, it was published in 1961?

      • Well if it’s from the State Department I’m not too concerned, considering how they have manage to pretty much screw up everything they’ve tried over the last 50 years.

    • Yep, looks like they’re dusting off that old strategy again. Perhaps it won’t work as well this time around since there are so many people that own AR’s for hunting, etc. Plus more people realize if you throw that dog a bone it will come back next week looking for some rib eye steaks….

  5. “The Dumb Guy” Weisser is only going to crank up the idiocy. There’s a young Kuntzman gunning for his job as the go-to for anti-gun buffoonery.

  6. What a moron.

    The semi-autos are not more lethal. They are more efficient.

    If the guy had a double barrel shotgun and a handgun, there would be little difference in the outcome if only one person in the club was armed.

    The reason the AR platform (or any semi-auto) is attractive is that it makes one person a force to be reckoned with.

    That is the underlying reason our government doofuses fear semis with 20-30 round magazines.

    SO the downside is that one miscreant can keep well-armed SWAT at bay because of potential civilian and law enforcement casualties.

    The upside is that one person with a rifle can respond to a much larger threat to their well-being if the attackers lack resolve.

    I know – let’s make murder illegal so we wont have to worry about the bad guys…..

  7. “Carried and used in furtive ways”–like…self-defense.

    So now concealed carry is scarier than open carry? I’m confused.

  8. ” A Remington Model 700 bolt-action hunting rifle is plenty lethal if Bambi is standing 300 yards downrange, but the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, wouldn’t have done much damage if he had somehow gotten a Remington 700 into the club.”

    WTAF is this guy on about? The guy might be right, he might not be right. It doesn’t appear that other that a single security guard that anyone actually tried to oppose the shooter so I’m not thinking that reloading speed matters much when no one is trying to stop you.

    Further. 5.56 ammo tends to fly apart on impact with an object (so much so that steel core-tipped “perpetrator” rounds were introduced in Vietnam to shoot through glass and still have significant effect on the person behind it). The Remington 700 could legitimately be called a “high powered” rifle with cartridge choices ranging from 35 Whelen to 300WSM. Those bullets will not just fly apart on impact with a human being, they’ll keep going through multiple people while retaining much of their mass, especially if they’re not a hunting tip.

    On top of that the preferred platform for lethality against humans will depend entirely on the situation in which you find yourself. The Rem 700 will put accurate rounds on target at much greater ranges than will the MCX and the round will penetrate concealment such as most of a car much more easily at those ranges while retaining the ability to kill someone on the other side. It’s entirely possible that a suppressed Rem 700, or even an unsuppressed variant, would have done a hell of a lot more damage in Dallas last night than a semi-auto carbine. On top of that, there are guns that are meant for hunting that are semi-auto and will fire the same or similar rounds to the Remington he mentions.

    So yeah, I’m gonna go with “The Gun Guy” doesn’t know a damn thing about guns or shooting at anything other than paper.

    • Under the Orlando circumstances, the shooter could have done as much damage with one of Biden’s double-barrelled shotguns (with ejectors) and a bag of shells.

  9. Standard gun grabber logic. Ban big guns because they’re powerful, ban small guns because they’re concealable. Ban high-ROF guns because they facilitate indiscriminate killing, ban slower guns because individual aimed shots are more deadly at range. Ban shotshells because they spread out and ban solid bullets because they can soar way past their intended target and kill accidentally at a distance. Ban bullets that expand on impact because they do more damage, ban bullets that don’t expand because they penetrate armor better.

  10. Gun guy wants more regulation on the “more lethal” weapons?

    Fine …..why don’t we stop doing regulation/checks on the “less lethal” guns so that the “more lethal” guns have comparatively more regulation.

    Let’s move to the ultimate conclusion where no guns have any checks except a belt-fed 50cal.

    • Why would you need it for a belt-fed 50 Cal?

      It isn’t easy to conceal, transport, or operate.

      Just don’t walk in front of one that is being operated.

      Oh, that’s right, the gang bangers can use the cartridge belt to hold their pants up above their butts.

    • Perhaps Mike TGG could be the lethality test target since he brought it up. You know that stupid is hard to kill.

  11. How many times do we have to discredit this bozo before the leftist news media stops printing his BS?

    • Problem is our facts don’t matter. This “Gun Guy” is exactly who the MSM and Left want on their side. You know, because he’s a “Gun Guy.” As long as he panders to their ideology, they’ll take all they can get.

  12. Motor vehicle accident data shows two clusters of vehicles most associated with fatal accidents. Very small cars, where occupants die, and large SUVs, where the occupants of the OTHER vehicle die.

    Since small cars are death traps and big SUVs are killing machines, is he proposing higher levels of registration and operator licensure to drive them?

    Better if he can call SUVs Assault Vehicles.

  13. It gets so tiresome preaching to the choir here.
    This Dumb Guy knows what he’s saying does more harm then good.
    He is appealing to the lowest common denominator there is.
    The American public.
    Its people control and we all know that.
    Most folks knowledge of guns can fill a thimble and he knows it.
    We see it every day when a libritard talks about gun control.
    Calling a .223 a hi powered weapon?? High powered???
    We all here all know its a pretty weak round for a rifle cartridge.
    Its lethality is in its size. Its small and one can carry lots of them.
    Im just waiting for the day some idiot does something stupid with an AR15 in 22LR.
    Id love to see that referred to as a high powered gun then.

    • In 1964, the AR 15 in .223 was sold to the public as a small game rife suitable for the ranch. I believe it was called the Varminter. Sales began before the USAF tested and adopted the version with fully automatic ability. When sold to the public, all the features were identical except the full auto part. It included one 20 round magazine, which is not much different than tube fed .22 caliber rifles of the era.

  14. The purpose of the second amendment is to protect ownership of military style weapons. Sorry Mike.

  15. The guy is a racist piece of shit. He’s shy about admitting it, but he owns the National Medical Council on Gun Violence. His Advisory Board is made up with names like: Cooke, Palfrey, Hemenway, etc, etc.
    I find it deliciously ironic that he’s telling the gay community to embrace gun control because, you know, guns are dangerous. All the while he is a gun shop owner and possesses a license to carry.
    Can’t have those limp wristed gays having guns, but I will keep mine. WTF?

    Useful idiot?
    Quisling?
    Minister of Truth?

    Take your pick………

  16. Nine balls from a 12 gauge shotgun times about 7 rounds could take out about 84 people. In the panic, a shooter would have time to reload.

    Let’s ban empty wine bottles, gasoline, strips of cloth, and matches! Or propane containers and pressure cookers. Kitchen knifes, baseball bats, cookie cutters, etc.

  17. I’m glad you guys at TTAG are willing to read through this type of drivel, because I can’t even get through the first quoted paragraph before shouting out “FFS!” and quitting.

    • That is indeed the ultra-rare NAA Ranger…only 502 made. But Mike “the Anti-Gun Guy” doesn’t care. He’s a Jew that has converted to the death cult of Liberalism.

  18. Let’s just be honest; there are no ‘Fudds,’ just anti-gun gun owners. The “Rules for me, not for thee” crowd. Anyone who thinks the RKBA is about hunting is already so wildly divorced from the right side of the issue, they are no more reachable than that moron Kuntzman or criminal Clinton.

    The RKBA has nothing to do with hunting, and frankly, hunting has practically nothing to do with guns. Ban guns, ol’ “Gun Guy” here will be just happy using a bow from a stand to hunt his baited game. Because all it is, is a game, for these kinds of people.

  19. So Mr. Weisser thinks that we shouldn’t use arbitrary rules to justify the regulation of firearms, but instead use HIS arbirary rules to justify the regulation of firearms. Got it.

  20. I’m offended of the use of this stock photo for this article. An NAA limited edition Ranger. Shame!

  21. Are you SURE he isn’t Canadian? Absolutely, positively CERTAIN? Because what good old Mike is describing is almost EXACTLY what our gun laws do up here; Pistols under 4in. barrels? Prohibited…can’t have’em, nope. Over four inches are restricted, so the only place they can be used legally is at an approved range, providing you have an appropriate authorization to transport.

    Rifles? Well, those “Uber Lethal” AR’s…those are restricted too, just like the “long barrel pistols”, same rules for use. AK’s? PRO-HIB-ITED. None of those Ruskie guns in our borders, no Sir! Regardless of type, pistol, rifle, AR…no magazines with more than 10 rounds. Of course, things can’t be completely straight-forward…we can get those niftly little short barrel shotguns up here with no limitations on them, and even though Rossi clearly marks their Rand Hand boxes to say that they are “Handguns”…our Canadian Law-makers don’t subscribe to that! They are “sporting rifles”…well, actually they don’t really know WHAT they are; they don’t meet the definition of a handgun up here, they obviously aren’t “really” rifles, not a shotgun either. Not a single shot, but they aren’t semi-auto either, so we’ll just pretend they don’t exist and hope everyone just ignores them because they’re not accurate unless you put a full stock on them….and then they’re a RIFLE!!! Convenient, I think!
    You Americans have a warped view of things, thinking guns are for “self defence”. Any Canuck gun owner KNOWS that isn’t true. Rifles with bolt actions or levers are “sporting arms” Shotguns are, well, shotguns…everything else is EVIL, and you shouldn’t have it. You don’t need a gun to protect you or your loved ones; that’s what the Police are for!!!

    (For those of you who have failed to recognize it, this is some of that warped Canadian sarcasm you may have hear about, although the facts as stated are indeed true)

    • Similar situation in NZ, except we can have AKs if we spend more money on a higher class of license, and buy a stronger gun safe. Yes, you can drive to the gun range, but don’t stop at the shops on the way. And it takes time to become a pistol club member, and lots of money, and nothing with under 4″ barrel, so if you’re rich you can do what you want. The average schlub, not so much. Same as always.

  22. I have family members that think like this. They decided to do a bit of debating with me. It didn’t go well for them. They had nothing.

  23. I think the feds identified an AR-family as an “ideal decensive arm” in part because of its lethality when used decensively.

    When you are #shootingback you want all the effectiveness you can get, and since reasonable, peaceful people don’t #shootfirst, their having effective arms harms noone.

    A defensive gun use is a contest of lethal force. I want tbe good guys protecting themselves to be effective, knce it comes down to that.

    B T W, “more dangerous guns are more dangerous”-guy concludes with “so, registration” without connecting that to his premise, or explaining why registration would help with anything.

    My school day english teachers would ever have let that pass.

  24. I think the Dems want less to sled the slippery slope of disarmament than parachute down the vertical North face minus the parachute.

    It’s for the greater good right? THEIR greater good; not yours or mine.

  25. If Bob Farago was even remotely interested in the “truth” about guns, he would give me the right of reply, particularly because in his unending effort to tell his readers what he thinks they want to hear, he mis-quotes me again and again. Nowhere in this New York Times piece or anywhere else have I ever called for a ‘ban’ on guns – never said it, never implied it, never supported it. But of course words don’t matter, what matters is the agenda behind the words. So if someone says that perhaps, just perhaps ownership of certain guns requires more regulation than other types of guns, this means he wants to ‘ban’ guns. And since we ‘know’ that anyone who supports any kind of regulations on gun ownership jut wants to get rid of all guns, why bother to debate the issue of regulation at all?
    Bob – Any time you want to have an honest debate about gun laws and gun regulations, I’m willing to come down to Texas and appear at my cost in front of any audience of your choice. Saving that, why don’t you open some space on this blog and we’ll debate right here? But be advised that, either way, I won’t take responsibility for things I haven’t said. Your constant attempts to state otherwise is not only journalistically shabby but an insult to the intelligence of your own readership.

  26. There’s nothing like embracing the absolutely capricious and arbitrary nature of gun bans and running with them full stop.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *