The section about transferable machine guns leaves out the most important reason these weapons aren't used in more crimes: they cost at least $10k to acquire. The much maligned AR-15 can be had for $500. A shitty Hi-Point 9mm can be had for a third of that.

It seems like the author can't help but include a red herring about hollow-point bullets, magazine capacities, and the much-maligned AR-15 (the most popular modern sporting rifle sold in the US). He does later admit that Liberals overemphasize banning 'assault weapons' instead of more effective interventions, but undercuts this point by admitting that he still has it out for the AR-15.

Notably missing from this mish-mash of good and bad proposals is any sort of economic analysis of the causes of (white, rural) suicide or (black, urban) homicide. However, that might engender accusations of racism, classism, and other forms of Liberal intolerance, and distract from the

All in all, his central thesis that we need to come to terms with the reality that there will continue to be 400m privately-owned firearms in the US is key to having a more productive national conversation about reducing gun violence.