Walter Kirn Wants You To Surrender Your Gun Rights To Appear "Reasonable"

Over at The New Republic, Walter Kirn (author of Up in the Air, among other works) penned an essay on guns that is alternately informative, touching, self-contradictory and craven. He's a good writer, so he's up to the challenge of jamming all that, however unfortunately, into one piece. His take is that guns are fun, useful and empowering, but that owning them is somehow transformative, and that giving in to some of the proposed gun restrictions, no matter how pointless, will make gun owners look "civilized" and "reasonable" to non-owners.

At one point, Kirn describes gun owners as "a loose fraternity of people who feel embattled and defensive and are primally eager to win allies." There may be some truth in that description, but it seems just as apt a take on Kirn himself. Despite a life-long familiarity with firearms, from a childhood Iver Johnson .410 shotgun to a .38 revolver he owns now, Kirn goes to pains to assure his readers that he's not like other gun owners who might consider him a "traitor and a weakling." Those others include an Army captain friend (probably former friend, after this) who he paints as a bit off because of his fear that the U.S. government is becoming more authoritarian. "PTSD," cautions Kirn. When you own guns, "[y]ou start to entertain scenarios that might not occur to you if you didn't shoot."

Kirn also describes defending himself and his kids with a .22 pistol, but then warns that "[s]tatistics on the dangers guns pose to the health of their owners and those who live with them suggest that I'd be safer selling my guns than reserving them for Tombstone II." Nevermind that nobody bothers attributing those statistics anymore because they all seem to come from the much-debunked Arthur Kellerman, who has revised downward his own claims about the risks of owning a gun, and is largely responsible for the controversy over whether the Centers for Disease Control ought to be allowed anywhere near research on firearms, given a politicized history when dealing with the topic.

That's right, Kirn defended his family with a gun, but warns others against doing the same, based on bogus data. But he was hired just last year for this gig, and may be "eager to win allies."

Kirn is clearly aware of just how arbitrary and bizarre firearms laws can be, having been coached on their intricacies in the course of a concealed-carry class.

It's flattering being recruited into an ethos of responsibility. It makes you want to walk the line. It also reminds you how arbitrary some lines are. Cross the wrong state border with your gun or wake up one morning to new legislation or a new presidential executive order, and suddenly you're the bad guy, not the good guy. No wonder some gun owners seem so touchy; they feel, at some level, like criminals in waiting.

And yet ... He goes on to embrace that arbitrariness, and the delusions and falsehoods behind it. "Will there be fewer murders with tighter gun laws—the modest laws that might actually materialize rather than the grand ones that probably won't but will surely rev up the rhetoric and the hoarding—or only fewer or smaller massacres?" But what makes him think there will be "fewer murders" or "fewer massacres" just because we've drawn more arbitrary lines? Why wouldn't there be no change? Or even more murders?

The specific arbitrary line that Kirn embraces is one that would be drawn around "the cult of maximum firepower that draws harder-boiled folks to stores and gun shows to handle Bushmasters and similar weapons with death-dealing, quasi-military designs." Kirn doesn't even address the almost non-existent usage of these guns in crime, that the Congressional Research Service reports (PDF) a survey of prisoners who had been armed during their crimes found "less than 2%, used, carried, or possessed a semiautomatic assault weapon or machine gun." What matters to Kirn is that "[h]orror and panic themselves are forms of violence, and diminishing them, restricting their dimensions, is itself a civilizing act."

But "horror and panic" are subjective and often irrational reactions. Kirn's "civilizing act" boils down to nothing more than appeasing the mob with a gesture of surrender so that "the gun-owning community can demonstrate precisely the sort of reasonable public-mindedness of which some believe it to be incapable."

Gun owners shouldn't object, continues Kirn, because "assault rifles are functionally similar to ordinary semi-automatic rifles, differing chiefly in their sinister cosmetics, not in their underlying ballistics. This being the case, what will be lost by giving them up?"

It's all about appearances, you see. About looking "civilized" so that nobody can call you a "nut job" as a former girlfriend once called Kirn when she saw a few loose cartridges in his desk.

Eager to win allies, indeed.

Walter Kirn describes gun owners as "a loose fraternity of people who feel embattled and defensive" and proceeds to justify their feelings. But as a writer as well as a gun owner, would he be so willing to surrender free speech rights if those, too were embattled? Actually, he might. The word "rights" is evoked only twice in his essay — rather dismissively, both times. But the lack of "reasonable public-mindedness" Kirn says gun opponents attribute to gun owners might also be described as principle. Gun owners stand on their rights in the belief that freedom shouldn't be surrendered without very good reason.

An argument that gun owners should give ground for the sake of appearances doesn't come off as good reason.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • BakedPenguin||

    "eager to win allies."

    Good luck with that.

  • Rich||

    When you own guns, [says Kim] "[y]ou start to entertain scenarios that might not occur to you if you didn't shoot."

    So what? If you *don't* shoot you entertain scenarios that might not occur to you if you owned guns.

    What is Kim's point, anyway?

  • Rich||

    *Kirn*

  • Hyperion||

    Kim is his first name. He took a girls name so as not to offend anyone with maleness.

  • nicole||

    My dad has kicked more than one person's ass for saying Kim is a girl's name.

  • Hyperion||

    I once worked with a guy named Kim. I wondered why he had a girls name.

    But aren't you glad that your dad didn't name you Larry, Nicole?

  • nicole||

    I am more glad he didn't name me Angharad, which was his actual choice.

  • Hyperion||

    You could have just shortened that to Angie.

  • fish||

    I am more glad he didn't name me Angharad

    He makes a habit of using the "Boggle" cube to pick his childrens names?

  • nicole||

    It's Welsh, and he likes Maureen O'Hara.

  • T||

    Can't be Welsh. Too many vowels.

  • ||

    nicole is a girl's name?!?

  • Hyperion||

    Except for when you pronounce it, 'Nikolai'.

  • Brett L||

    I wondered why he had a girls name.

    Maybe his father was a Kipling fan.

  • Cavpitalist||

    He's not Korean, then?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    His point is that appearances are more important than reality and that he is spineless.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    When they came for your sinister guns, you did nothing....

  • Hyperion||

    When they came for your sinister guns, you did nothing....

    And then when they came for my 32 oz sodas, I had nothing left to shoot them with...

  • Lord Humungus||

    I don't even own a gun* but I certainly don't mind that others do. What imaginary "camp" does that - according to Kirn - put me in?

    * I have gone shooting on several occasions and enjoyed doing it, but the sport never called out to me. I already waste enough $$$ with my current hobbies.

  • $park¥||

    Same here. A friend of mine has a collection and we go out in the woods from time to time and blow off some rounds.

  • Enough About Palin||

    "we go out in the woods from time to time and blow off some rounds"

    Do you also shoot the guns?

  • SugarFree||

    Hey-o!

  • ||

    ZING

  • $park¥||

    Do you also shoot the guns?

    What do you think gets us in the mood to blow off some rounds?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I don't get it.

  • Cavpitalist||

    Try to smile more, make yourself more available.

  • T||

    Feign interest in whatever she's nattering about.

  • Virginian||

    What's this moron talking about. I've got 100 million allies, and they all have guns.

  • BakedPenguin||

    "Walter Kirn? How many divisions does he have?"

  • R C Dean||

    Walter Kirn can go fuck himself. I'm not giving up my guns to make friends with people I have no use for.

  • Killazontherun||

    A woman damaged his fragile ego on one occasion, we must help him make amends with the shallow minded, signifying their social status over all else, denizens of Team Blue civilized folk. It's what a bro does for another bro.

  • NeonCat||

    Can't we just send him pictures of attractive women with scary looking guns? Shouldn't that be what a bro does for another bro?

  • Killazontherun||

    He works for TNR. The other editors will laugh at him for his childish immaturity and unrealistic expectations of what a woman should look like. Accept the fugface, droopy torpedoes and bad skin because that is the life of a straight, white male editor of the TNR.

  • Trespassers W||

    Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. -- AR

    You go ahead and appear "civilized" and "reasonable" to others who couldn't give a rat's ass about your well-being.

    I'm going to be civilized and reasonable and worry about my own well-being.

  • ||

    Yeah, what libertarian wants to look civilized and reasonable to our Lords and Masters? When they look at the American people I want them to see something terrifying.

  • croaker||

    I want them to require multiple changes of bloomers.

  • ||

    Now this seems like a dude who wants to make sure he is still invited to cocktail parties.

    It's unfortunate for him that he doesn't realize that being spineless is far worse than being mislabeled as a nutjob. Personally, I feel one should just aim for asshole.

  • $park¥||

    I'll just bet you aim for asshole quite a lot, NTTAWWT.

  • ||

    I'm not going to deny it.

  • Killazontherun||

    With the right combination of lube, you can't even tell the difference.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Dude, who are you sleeping with?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    He works for TNR. He probably wants to make it past the editors.

    And appear "civilized".

    He probably thinks Volts are stupid but drives one anyway.

  • ||

    I wonder if he could get me in to TNR to pitch my idea for a blog that reviews Kirk/Spock slash fic and has long essays on the superiority/inferiority of various Mountain Dew flavors. I just need a chance!

  • Killazontherun||

    Could you also compare different scents of Axe body deodorant. My current can is getting empty. Something for late Winter/early signs of Spring.

  • ||

    Don't be absurd, alan. As Axe commercials show us, all Axe scents will draw super hot chicks like flies and they'll start pawing and groping you just because, well, AXE. There's no difference; all their scents do this. In fact, I had sex with a supermodel walking into work this morning because I was wearing Axe. True story.

  • Killazontherun||

    Supermodels hang out in Seattle? Did she get lost on her way home to Vancouver?

  • Hyperion||

    Supermodels hang out in Seattle? Did she get lost on her way home to Vancouver?

    Has anyone even noticed that a fairly large percentage of the wimins in downtown Seatlle have amazing legs, especially calves? It must be all that walking up and down those hills in heels, to get from the office to Starbucks.

  • Enough About Palin||

    So how is Mark Vanderloo doing these days?

  • ||

    Well, he was just fine this mornin...HEY!

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I had sex with a supermodel walking into work this morning because I was wearing Axe.

    WRONG! There is only one supermodel in Seattle, and she is married to Dunphy. They met at a Van Halen concert after Dunphy stepped in on guitar to help Eddie out with the difficult parts.

  • SugarFree||

    They met at a Van Halen concert after Dunphy stepped in on guitar to help Eddie out with the difficult parts.

    Goddammit! Will you people stop with this shit? It's not funny.

    Everyone knows that he played all the instruments at that concert and sang and did the lighting cues and the entire security for the concert. Stop diminishing his god-like accomplishments!

  • Randian||

    also Morgan Fairchild

  • Zeb||

    No surfing? Lame.

  • Gray Ghost||

    needs more power lifting.

    /hth

  • AlmightyJB||

    Axe smells like bug spray.

  • BuSab Agent||

    ^this^

  • Hyperion||

    Your only challenge here is how to toss some good Obama boot licking into an article about Mountain Dew.

    Give it a try and we will judge your skill level.

  • ||

    Mountain Dew Red is like Obama; a sweet explosion in your mouth that energizes you and lifts you up. You just can't suck down enough of it.

  • Brett L||

    Nah. Too overt for the "civil" folk at TNR. They like to pretend that blowjobs are for whores and those who utilize them. Unless you're gay. Then its perfectly fine to give or receive.

  • nicole||

    Now this seems like a dude who wants to make sure he is still invited to cocktail parties.

    No question at all about this. I think it's actually a little bit interesting. Him and Sam Harris are among the only "culturally blue team" types I have seen really write about this stuff at this point, and Harris obviously doesn't care too much about pissing people off (and there are plenty of cocktail partygoers who would be pissed off by Harris). Kirn is like...there but for the grace of God go I or something.

  • ||

    Uh, it's "Sam Harris and he", nicole. Why did you make me go pedantic on you? It's your fault! You made me do it!

  • nicole||

    Sadly, I almost changed the wording to that, and I was like, "Fuck this, it sounds totally stilted and this is a message board." I also said "like."

  • ||

    This is why I can never respect you, nicole.

  • nicole||

    Well as long as this is the reason.

  • ||

    A sentence fragment?!? Are you trying to make me angry?

  • nicole||

    The only response I can think of that would be worse would be answering with only an emoticon. And I can't do that. I may be worse than Hitler, but I'm not that bad. ;)

  • ||

    8-O

  • Randian||

    \(^o^)/

  • ||

    Well that and after what Warty did to you....

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Well, yeah, but being mislabeled a nutjob is FUN!

  • Jeff||

    How did arbitrarily banning shit ever become the "reasonable" position?

  • Jeff||

    Horror and panic themselves are forms of violence, and diminishing them, restricting their dimensions, is itself a civilizing act.

    In other words, the government and the media are violent, and resisting their desire to whip you into a panic is a civilizing act.

    I know that's not what he meant, but he inadvertently stumbled onto something there.

  • R C Dean||

    Horror and panic themselves are forms of violence,

    No, actually, they are not. They can be a reaction to violence, and can lead to violence, but they are not in any way a form of violence.

  • Lennay Kekua||

    Isn't a likelihood of causing horror and panic among reasonable people the definition of a threat?

  • SugarFree||

    Reasonable people are ones who can understand the 2nd Amendment.

  • Hyperion||

    his fear that the U.S. government is becoming more authoritarian

    Anyone who doesn't 'know' that the U.S. government is becoming more authoritarian has their head buried in the sand.

  • Brett L||

    I am not reasonable. Never claimed to be. I try to be logical and consistent, but I have never had any use for reasonable. Reasonable is for people who can't stand having people not agree with them.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I disagree

  • Brett L||

    Oh, God, Scruffy. I'll change my position! Please agree with me!

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I knew you were civilized

  • Jeff||

    Now you're being Reasonable™!

  • Hyperion||

    All of this disagreeing is so uncivil.

    Isn't it easier to just wait for your enlightened masters to come to a conclusion and then get down to some agreeing and good ol boot licking fun.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    And now we enjoy the COCKTAILS!

  • Zeb||

    I think "reasonable" used to mean logical and consistent, but now it seems to mean something else, I guess.

  • ||

    "Reasonable" now means "give up all your principles, compromise, and most of all, agree to agree with me".

  • rts||

    Progressives are masters of molding language.

  • Hyperion||

    Yes, and if the molding doesn't work, they'll pass some laws. See Sweden.

  • sarcasmic||

    A reasonable person is someone who agrees with liberals.

    Tolerant people don't have to tolerate unreasonable people.

    If you disagree then you are unreasonable, and not to be tolerated or included.

    You can tell a tolerant and inclusive person by the fact that they are surrounded only be reasonable people.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I got vertigo just reading that.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    That's what I was thinking, Zeb. I consider myself to be reasonable because I use reason and logic to determine my beliefs and philosophy. But apparently, using reason is no longer reasonable.

  • Brett L||

    Reasonable has always meant open to persuasion by argument. The assumption by the author is that his is so irrefutable only those who aren't open to persuasion will continue to disagree with him. So I guess if you can find consistency flaws in my position or give me a strong logical reason for changing, I am reasonable. Appeals to emotion/authority/ad hom are unlikely to sway me, so I appear unreasonable to most people and have just gone ahead and accepted the "unreasonable" label.

  • sarcasmic||

    Appeals to emotion/authority/ad hom are unlikely to sway me

    Those things are debate winners for liberals.

  • SugarFree||

    He has made the mistake many irrational people fall into. He thinks he doesn't have to present an argument because the conclusions he has arrived at are self-evident. By thinking that--along with believing himself to be rational--his opinions move from the subjective to the objective--the only conclusions a person employing reason could possibly arrive at.

  • T||

    I find self-evident usually means "it is evident to myself".

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    ...Or "self deluded"

  • sarcasmic||

    the only conclusions a person employing reason could possibly arrive at.

    Since when did lefties employ reason?

  • Brett L||

    That's where Kirn steals the base.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Oh I dunno, I like Reasonable (PBUH!), but it's more for people who can't stand sifting through troll shit.

    Re the TNR article, I don't get his point. Would he have been happier w/o the .22 pistol and been mugged in front of his two children? The article just seems like distilled Fudd-ism. Which is fine, but don't then try to determine what I am allowed to shoot.

  • ||

    Am I a troglodyte cause I still use Firefox and therefore can't use Reasonable?

  • SugarFree||

    and that giving in to some of the proposed gun restrictions, no matter how pointless, will make gun owners look "civilized" and "reasonable" to non-owners.

    He seems to be laboring under the delusion that a few "pointless" restrictions are all they want. What they want is an unarmed populace. Period. The current restrictions being proposed are not the end game, they are the opening moves.

  • ||

    What a wiener. Please do give up your guns, pussy. We wouldn't want anyone to think mean things about you.

  • SugarFree||

    Those others include an Army captain friend (probably former friend, after this) who he paints as a bit off because of his fear that the U.S. government is becoming more authoritarian.

    Psst. Your friend is right.

  • Killazontherun||

    He should do some research on the history of his own rag. From the start they supported authoritarianism built on a disdain and desire to control 'murka's rabble rousing natives at home and warmongering abroad to do the same to other populations.

  • Killazontherun||

    disdain forand desire to control 'murka's rabble rousing natives

  • sarcasmic||

    But we have a government of, by, and for the people!

    Ever heard of "We the people"?

    That means that government is us and we are the government!

    How can government be authoritarian if we are government?

    We being authoritarian over ourselves? That doesn't make sense!

    So obviously the argument that 'government is becoming more authoritarian' must be wrong since the premise that 'we are government' is so obviously correct!

  • Hyperion||

    I am still curious if TNR has comments. I am afraid to look, really. Maybe I don't even want to know.

  • SugarFree||

    They aren't too bad. Mostly people writing a long string of nonsense because they think it fools people into believing they are smart. Like TNR itself.

  • ||

    “ 'Unstated is that this piece is that nothing described here would be lost or even altered by anything in the gun bill.' Important point, wandreycer. The fear that rules those whose nervous systems have become conditioned to the recoil of a rifle is the same fear that controls drug addicts when their supply is threatened. They don't think about anything but getting the next fix. To addicts, talking about restrictions of any kind panics them, no matter how mild and sensible those restrictions are. P.S. I sure am getting tired of the Facebook/Twitter pop-ups that interfere with my typing when I'm commenting."

  • ||

    That's stupider than I could have ever hoped for. Thank you for wading into the swamp to retrieve that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The observation that I am statistically more likely endanger myself or my family with a gun than to defend us with it is just another example of the left trying to impose a top-down world view on a bottom-up world.

    You could cite similar statistics on the likelihood of dying on a bike--which really isn't applicable to my situation. Do those stats include 20 year-olds who buy a 650 straight out of their MSF class? I'm not one of those. Half of motorcycle fatalities include people who are riding under the influence--I ain't one of those either. I'm also not somebody who rides between lanes on the freeway when traffic is going over 30 mph, etc., etc.

    This bullshit about how I'm more likely to hurt myself or my family assumes that I'm somehow average--I'm not. Statistically, my business was likely to fail. Statistically, my investments were likely to perform no better than a random walk. Statistics is what the left projects on society from their imaginary perch above us in an attempt to convince us that our individual rights--along with our individual efforts--are are all futile.

    Even if their statistics were accurate, probability is not causality. What happens to me is result of my individual choices--not someone else's statistics.

  • nicole||

    Statistics is what the left projects on society from their imaginary perch above us in an attempt to convince us that our individual rights--along with our individual efforts--are are all futile.

    There are lots of other confounding factors you don't mention, but this is an excellent point.

  • Gray Ghost||

    The observation that I am statistically more likely endanger myself or my family with a gun than to defend us with it is just another example of the left trying to impose a top-down world view on a bottom-up world.

    And the observation is horseshit. Go look at the numbers for robbery in the U.S. and compare them to the number of accidental firearms deaths. Robbery, even robbery within a residence, crushes the number of accidental firearms deaths. When I last did a back of the envelope look at the numbers it was something like 100x more likely to be caught in a robbery of your residence than have an unintentional firearms fatality.

    My thoughts on the case of 'if his observation was correct' mirrors Ken's.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Statistics is what the left projects on society from their imaginary perch above us in an attempt to convince us that our individual rights--along with our individual efforts--are are all futile."

    Incidentally, this is derived directly from the most basic socialist assumptions. It's tied to the assumption that people should only be free to do things that are a net benefit to everyone.

    Nothing speaks more directly to the most basic assumptions of latent socialists like the statement, "I am not here for your benefit". It makes them angry to hear you say it. But their assumption that I only exist for their benefit is effectively indefensible.

  • Hyperion||

    We're all in this together. There is no 'I', or 'We' in 'Us'.

    Now, do what 'I' say.

  • sarcasmic||

    To a socialist "the public" means everyone but you.

    So you are free to do only things that benefit them, but it doesn't go both ways.

  • AZ||

    There is no "appearing reasonable" to the gun controllers, because their argument is not based on reason.

    Why else would they demand the "national conversation" only in the immediate, emotional wake of tragic outliers? Why do they trot out victims, and edit things to maximize the emotional impact of that victimhood?

    On top of that, there's the culture war aspect of gun control, another reason that trying to appear "reasonable" is impossible. It's not "reasonableness", it's appeasement to emotions.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Exactly. we already agreed to the background checks in gun stores. Does that not make us "reasonable"? Being reasonable means giving them everything they want.

  • sarcasmic||

    Being reasonable means giving them everything they want.

    Yup.

  • AlmightyJB||

    How about the ""horror and panic" that gun grabbers cause when they want to ban our guns? Shouldn't they be "reasonable" and drop the demands that everyone seems to agree are meaningless in order to show us that they are "civilized"?

  • AlmightyJB||

    It would be a lot more honest if the wrote legislation that just simply banned the sale and manufacture of grenade launchers, Flash Suppressors and bayonet lugs instead of banning so-called "assault weapons" because once you sepearate the accessories from the guns themselves then you have to have a conversation about the those instead of just waving around scary guns. The Flash Suppressor is innoculas, no one has been bayoneted in the US outside of a battle like probably ever, and the "grenade" launchers which are 37mm are not capable of firing actual grenades which are 40mm (unless you illegally manufacture a 37mm grenade in which case you could illegally manufacture the launcher as well).

  • sarcasmic||

    Waving around scary guns triggers an emotional reaction.

    They don't want a conversation. They want emotion.

    Emotion passes laws, not conversation.

  • sarcasmic||

    Did I say "triggers"? Uh oh. Incendiary rhetoric! Aaauuuggh!

  • AlmightyJB||

    I don't think the AW ban is going anywhere. I think we may see magazine capacity limits though. I'm assuming 10 again.

  • Paul.||

    Centers for Disease Control ought to be allowed anywhere near research on firearms, given a politicized history when dealing with the topic.

    Time for an oldie but a goodie:

    http://thewidenet.blogspot.com.....liars.html

    It's a sad fact that a gun in the home increases the chances of a completed suicide by 500 percent; almost every month in this state, a child is killed accidentally by a gun.[emphasis mine]


    According to the Centers for Disease Control, using their database search tool (found at: http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/n.....10_sy.html ), between the years of 1999 and 2003, fifteen children ranging in ages from the very generous and liberal age range 0 to 20 were unintentionally killed by a firearm. Had Fascitelli’s alarming statistic been even remotely close to true, that number would have been around 120 children, or eight times the CDC figure.
    [...]
    In the spirit of honesty, one will note that “suicide” is placed as a subcategory of ‘violence-related’ on the CDC website. While I find this curious, it’s reasonable to assume that this creates a kind of easy out for misreporting or categorizing of suicide by violence.
  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, take out the 18-20 year olds and your "children" numbers drop like a rock.

  • Paul.||

    Yeah, but notice how liberal I was in doing the calculation. I included "kids" up to 20, just to throw Hand Gun Control a friggin' bone, and the numbers still came out WAY lower than theirs. Because gun controllers are, almost to the last, liars. It's a puzzlement.

  • sarcasmic||

    Remove gang related violence from and the numbers almost disappear.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    They're talking about accidental deaths, so I'm not sure that would make much difference.

    The homocide rates are where raising the threshold age really inflates the numbers.

  • Paul.||

    But that's the problem, they mix both unintentional and intentional as 'violence' related. It's bullshit all the way down.

  • Pudgeboy||

    The left always produces fake 'scientific' studies that just happen to prove 'scientifically' what they want people to believe. Then, the media repeats it until it's accepted as some kind of fact.

    A newer, bigger, better study will be out soon proving that guns and gun owners are more dangerous than anyone previously thought. Wait for it; it's coming.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    For sure. This was talked about earlier when Obama and his prog army suddenly got the hots for more "gun research." Of course the only purpose for these studies will be to discredit gun owners. Any other findings will be buried.

  • sarcasmic||

    Or, if the studies instead show that gun ownership does indeed result in less crime, future studies will be made illegal.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And then anyone who questions the conclusions of said study because it doesn't jibe with common sense is accused of being anti-science and ignorant.

    My favorite is the claim that owning a gun makes you more likely to commit suicide with it than defend yourself with it. This is of course patently absurd -- under no circumstances am I, for example, ever going to commit suicide with any of my guns (or any other implement), so there's no way that's true of me. It makes two mistakes, first the conflation of correlation with causation (some people buy guns for the express purpose of committing suicide) and assuming independence of underlying variables (Everyone is not the average person).

  • GILMORE||

    I'm not reading his @()#&*$ article. From this summary, it strikes me as "BEND OVER - ITS NOT SO BAD AFTER THE FIRST TIME"

  • Paul.||

    They'll be gentle. They wanna make that shit feel special.

  • Mr. Weebles||

    Perhaps I'm a bit slow, so let me know if I have this right ...

    This douchenozzle wants me to give up shooting sports and sell all my guns just so I can make some people I don't know (and don't want to know, to be honest) feel better?

    Yeah, that ain't gonna fucking happen.

  • waaminn||

    Sometimes dude you just have to runn with it man!

    www.Im-Anon.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement