Tucker Carlson’s Interview With A Lib Gun-Grabber Demonstrates Why We Can’t Take Any Of Them Seriously

Chris Cuomo has decided that proper gun vocabulary is for chumps. It’s nothing more than a “distraction.”

Don’t be fooled. It matters. Liberals use terms they don’t understand to write laws about guns they don’t understand, then mass shootings continue to happen and liberals stand around and wonder why their grand agenda didn’t work.

Their answers won’t stop mass shootings. This is what happens when we let liberals continue to own the narrative and talk about things they don’t understand.

Anyone remember this? Remember when Tucker Carlson asked Rep. Carolyn McCarthy about her assault weapons ban? And remember how he asked her SPECIFICALLY about the gun features it would restrict, and she admitted she didn’t even know what those features did?

CARLSON: I read the legislation and it said that it would regulate “barrel shrouds.” What’s a barrel shroud and why should we regulate that?

MCCARTHY:The guns that were chosen back in those days were basically the guns that most gangs and criminals were using to kill our police officers. I’m not saying it was the best bill, but that was they could get out at that particular time.

CARLSON: Ok. Do you know what a barrel shroud is?

MCCARTHY: I actually don’t know what a barrel shroud is. I think it’s the shoulder thing that goes up.”

Did you hear that? “…it’s the shoulder thing that goes up.”

WTH?!

It was in her legislation, and she DIDN’T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT WAS. The same thing is happening today. Liberals don’t know what they want to ban or why they want to ban it. They spout off about cosmetic features of guns– cosmetic features that make them look OMG SO SCARY. Then they sit around and wonder why we can’t take them seriously. They have no idea what they’re talking about. Restricting “scary looking” cosmetic features won’t protect our children, but hey. It’ll make liberals feel good. It’ll make them feeeeeeeeel like they’re doing something. And that’s what matters, right? How they feeeeeeeeel?

I adore how The Federalist put this.

If the cosmetic features used to define an “assault weapon” in the 1994 law strike you as really stupid ways to define an “assault weapon,” it’s because the 1994 law was a stupid law with stupid definitions written by stupid people. And not only was it a stupid law, it was a stupid law that didn’t even accomplish its stated goal. How do we know? Because today, more than a decade after the law’s expiration, the number of people murdered by rifles is 36 percent lower than it was during the last full year the assault weapons ban was in effect.

The law expired in September of 2004, making 2003 the last full calendar year in which the law was in effect. According to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) crime statistics, 390 people were murdered with rifles in 2003, making rifles the weapon of choice in 2.7 percent of murders that year. But in 2014, more than a decade after these vile weapons of war flooded American streets, the number of rifle murders surely skyrocketed, right?

Not so much. Quite the opposite. In 2014, the most recent year for which detailed FBI data are available, rifles were used in 248 murders. And not only are rifles used in far fewer murders over a decade following the expiration of the 1994 gun ban, they’re also used in a smaller percentage of homicides. In 2003, when the gun ban was in full effect, rifles were used in nearly 3 percent of murders. In 2014, they were used in barely 2 percent.

That’s the exact opposite of what gun banners said should happen. After the assault weapons ban, guns were supposed to flood the streets and just start killing people. Crime was supposed to skyrocket. But that’s not what happened. Yes, Americans bought a ton of rifles after the law expired, but rather than going up, the number of homicides in which rifles were used drastically fell. There were way more guns, but way less crime.

I rest my case. Words matter. We need to stop allowing Democrats to own the narrative. They don’t know what they’re talking about, and that’s precisely why their “solutions” never work.