doesn't have much practical merit and the bans haven't shown any significant effect in preventing mass shootings. is there any proof that they even work? >> there is absolutely proof that these restrictions do work. so i find that factual inaccuracy to be really disappointing to hear. certainly it is important that we have an intelligent and thoughtful conversation about how we define what is appropriate for civilian use for self-defense. i think the irony of this situation is that if you look at the judge's opinion, he talks about these weapons being appropriate both for the battlefield and for home defense. and i just want to pause for a second and mention how absurd that is of a statement, that the same weapon being appropriate for the battlefield and home defense certainly doesn't speak to it not being an assault weapon. so certainly we can have a conversation about these weapons and whether they're appropriate for civilian use. on top of that, there is a fair number of studies that show that assault weapon restrictions,