Sandy Hook School Shooting

3 Reasons Why Failed Gun Control Laws Would Have Changed Nothing

|

After the failure of Senate legislation to expand background checks for gun purchases, President Obama told the press,

"I've heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory," Obama said. "My question is: A victory for who? A victory for what? All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check."

Obama called the defeat a "shameful day" for America. In those sentiments, he was joined by shooting victim and former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), who said

"The U.S. Senate decided to do the unthinkable about gun violence — nothing at all," Giffords wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "It's clear to me that if members of the U.S. Senate refuse to change the laws to reduce gun violence, then we need to change the members of the U.S. Senate."

Such reactions are understandable but misplaced. Whatever else you can say about the bipartisan bill authored by Sen. Joe Machin (D-W.V.) and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), the plain fact is that it would have little to no impact on future mass shootings or other gun-related crime. The legislation would have made more gun transfers subject to the federal database that lists prohibited purchasers and would have expanded the categories of people subject to rejection. A call by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to reinstate a ban on so-called assault weapons also failed, causing the Golden State lawmaker to say"The despair and the dismay of families standing out there whose safety we need to protect, and we don't do it." Feinstein had implored her Senate colleagues to "show some guts" by voting for her legislation.

But there are at least three reasons why the Manchin-Toomey bill—along with other recenty failed attempts to limit magazine capacities and ban assault weapons—would do little or nothing to reduce gun violence or prevent the next mass shooting. The reasons include:

 1. Criminals—including mass shooters—don't buy their guns legally. As Jacob Sullum recently pointed out, surveys of inmates found that they overwhelmingly get their guns either illegally or by other means that won't be affected by any new laws:

Three sources accounted for almost nine out of 10 crime guns: "friends or family" (40 percent), "the street" (38 percent), and theft (10 percent). It is hard to see how any notional background check requirement, even one applying to all private transfers, can reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on these sources. As usual with gun control, the attempt to enforce such a requirement would impose costs and uncertain legal risks on law-abiding gun owners while leaving criminals free to go about their business.

For all the anxiety caused by so-called gun-show loophole, through which private sales at gun shows are not necessarily subject to background checks, just 2 percent of inmates said they got their guns that way.

2. The last assault weapons ban had no clear effect on gun-related violence. A 2004 study for the National Institute of Justice at the Dept. of Justice concluded that the assault weapons ban, which also regulated "large-capacity magazines" (LCMs), that lasted from 1994-2003 did not have an easily observed impact on gun crime. Gun-violence rates did decline over that period, but the researchers wrote, "we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence." That's because such weapons were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. As important, the authors wrote that were an assault weapons ban reinstated, "the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement." 

3. Gun-related violence and overall violent crime is declining. Tragedies such as the Newtown shooting last December provoke a strong emotional reaction. That's understandable and we need to pay attention to the fears, anxieties, and pain such horrific events cause. But it's also imperative that we don't legislate out of panic of raw emotions—that sort of thing leads to, say, the internment of Japanese-American citizens during World War II and the passage of The Patriot Act.

Indeed, the first point of discussion regarding gun control should be the large trends of the past 20 years—a period in which most states have greatly liberalized their gun laws and the Supreme Court has made decisions strengthening Second Amendment rights for individuals to own and bear arms. Far from unleashing a torrent of gun-related violence, the opposite has occurred:

In 1992…the violent crime rate per 100,000 residents was 758. In 2012, it was 386Between 2000 and 2009 (the latest year for which I could easily find data) use of firearms in violent crime had decreased from a rate of 2.4 per 1,000 to 1.4 per 1,000.

And surely it matters that there is no evidence that mass shootings are on the rise in recent years. They are always terrifying and appalling but they are also rare.

Contemporary politics is in many ways mostly symbolic: Laws are passed less to effect real change than to "signal" that we care or to "show" what sort of country we are. As with the powerfully emotional responses to the mass killing of schoolkids—or the horror of terrorist bombs exploding at the Boston Marathon—this is totally understandable. But it's simply no basis for effective laws that will actually make us safer or better off.

Advertisement

NEXT: Bangladeshi Migrants Working on Greek Farm Injured in Shooting

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.

  1. Silly. Everyone knows that in the absence of guns, criminals would have no way of committing mass murder. What are they going to do, make bombs out of pressure cookers? Yeah, right!

    1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job Ive had. Last Monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 9 months ago and practically straight away started making more than $83 per hour. I work through this link, http://www.g00.me/Work

  2. Wasn’t somebody trying to tell us the Haranguer-in-Chief isn’t really interested in gun control, and this is all just political theater, just a day or two ago?

    1. People have been trotting out the “you can’t judge Obama by his words or his actions, but by what I personally feel he truly believes” line for a real long time now.

      1. Yeah, it’s basically a way for them to reconcile him doing the same shit that Bush did so they don’t feel like hypocrites.

      2. Our gnostic in cheif

  3. Why didn’t they propose mandatory home schooling? IF IT SAVES THE LIFE OF JUST ONE CHILD WOULDN’T IT BE WORTH IT?

    1. Excellent idea, Fist.

      And we could provide a tutor for every household. Think of the JOBS!

      1. imagine the accountability.

    2. Not to mention that it would dramatically cut down on bullying incidents.

      As you said, FOR THE KIDS!

  4. Non-irrational supporters of these universal background check laws will admit they might be virtually useless in preventing another Newtown – however, the laws should be passed if it results in even one
    less tragedy. One may counter that someone who can’t get a gun – say because of a youthful crime committed thirty years ago – may die because he or she couldn’t obtain a weapon. Since no one can predict
    either event, the emotional argument to “save the children” will be very powerful. Is the most powerful counterargument likely to be
    that “those who may need psychiatric care will not longer seek it because of fear their doctor may turn them in?”

    1. Sophie. I can see what your saying… Cheryl`s storry is impressive… on tuesday I bought a brand new Toyota from having made $7650 this-last/month and-more than, 10-k last-month. it’s certainly my favourite-job I’ve ever done. I started this six months/ago and right away startad bringin home over $81 per-hour. I use this here great link wow65.com
      (Go to site and open “Home” for details)

  5. I have actually had gun control proponents actually argue that the fact that they are ignorant about firearms actually makes them more qualified to opine on the issue.

    1. My reaction would have been “HAHAetc.! ***gasp*** HAHAetc.!”

    2. I’m guessing the logic there is that they exist outside any “gun culture”? While I think there’s value in outside opinions, there is a difference between that and outright, willful ignorance on a topic.

      1. That is basically it. If you learn about firearms and know what a hollow-point bullet actually does or what is the difference between semi-automatic and full automatic than you are some type of bloodthirsty caveman, but if you refuse to ever learn about guns then you can maintain your purity.

        I have wondered that maybe that is why they are determined to remain so ignorant. Maybe they are worried they might end up liking guns. I have read a few articles about “America’s Obsession With Guns” where sometimes you get an honest reporter who not only attends a gun show, but actually speaks with gun owners and *gasp* even tries out shooting and you know what most of them say? They actually enjoyed the experience and they are uncomfortable with that. Sort of like a violently homophobic man who stumbles across some gay porno and finds out that it gives him an erection.

        1. “Sort of like a violently homophobic man who stumbles across some gay porno and finds out that it gives him an erection.”

          There are a few studies that prove this is the exact truth:

          http://www.psychologytoday.com…..-male-porn

          The man can lie, but the penis cannot.

          1. The man can lie, but the penis cannot.

            This doesn’t help me at all. How do I know if I am a homophobe or gay?

        2. They’re primitives. They see guns as evil, as taboo. Intrinsically so. Knowing about them makes you less pure, less clean.

          You might as well try to get a member of the Spanish Inquisition to read Jewish or Islamic holy books.

      1. I supposed Nick also shouldn’t have been allowed to then immediately say:

        And yet the idea of armed self-defense is a totally different matter and I also realize that many people live out in the sticks or even in urban neighborhoods where the police aren’t a realistic option when trouble comes a-calling. I know people for whom owning a shotgun is no different than owning a tennis racket and hunting is a family affair more revered than holiday dinners. I don’t see any reason why law-abiding people should have to explain to anyone why they want a semi-automatic gun or a magazine that holds 10 bullets instead of seven.

        Nah, COSMOTARIANZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!! is much easier.

        1. He can’t let a good tragedy go to waste, Sparkles. It’s the Mid-Morning of the Long Knives, all the enemies of Yokeltarianism must be dealt a swift blow.

          1. In fairness Sugar Free, the Jacket deserves to be kicked in the head for that one. Maybe if Reason doesn’t like being called leftists who like to smoke dope, they should stop giving their critics ammunition.

            1. Seems to me the only people accusing reason and it’s editors of being leftists are right wingers such as yourself.

              1. grr, wrong its.

              2. And again, if they don’t like it, perhaps they should stop staying stupid shit like Hitler really didn’t disarm everyone, just the Jews.

                That is the point. If you want to say that is an unfair criticism, fine. But you might want to do so in a thread that doesn’t include the Editor and Chief saying something only an idiot lefty would believe.

                1. And again, if they don’t like it, perhaps they should stop staying stupid shit like Hitler really didn’t disarm everyone, just the Jews.

                  I think it’s more likely they don’t give a flying fuck what right wingers believe. But I could be wrong.

                  1. But they seem to care deeply what leftwingers think. So I am thinking that makes the criticism valid. Again, they can be who they like. But they really can’t complain when people point that out. Right?

                  2. Nick is just another one of Ann Coulter’s metrosexual progtard friends, like Bill Maher.

                2. But you might want to do so in a thread that doesn’t include the Editor and Chief saying something only an idiot lefty would believe.

                  A thread kicked off by SIV waving a bloody shirt from an completely different argument.

                  But it’s Christmas for the yokels. They’ve got 3 dead bodies to fuck and 170 injured to stand on. SIV is not about to let that tragedy go to waste.

                  1. Life is tough when you say stupid shit Sugar Free. That statement was so offensively stupid, the Jacket deserves to have it shoved in his face every so often.

                  2. It’s not a different argument. Nick Gillespie is a weak sister on the 2nd Amendment who doesn’t believe in a natural right to self defense.

                    I was responding to his purely consequentialist/utilitarian defense of gun rights.

                    1. Nick Gillespie is a weak sister on the 2nd Amendment who doesn’t believe in a natural right to self defense.

                      Wait, what?

                      You know what, never mind. I can see the knot in your panties creeping up.

            2. In fairness Sugar Free, the Jacket deserves to be kicked in the head for that one.

              Yep. That was one of the dumber things I’ve ever read from a Reason staffer. Personally, I think Nick needs to do a lot more reading about the issue, and leave the gun writing to Doherty and Tucille.

              I don’t see the grand cosmotarian conspiracy, I just see someone who thinks he’s making a clever point, but actually isn’t. The whole point of the Waffengesetz was to make owning weapons subject to governmental permission slips. Once a gun license is in existence, then it becomes a privilege for good little boys and girls, not a right that all people are entitled to.

        2. Too bad he started off with the strawman. I’m unaware of anyone arguing that Hitler took away everyone’s guns.

          It just HAPPENS that the same groups he took away guns from wound up in the death camps. Maybe Feinstein’s disfavored groups like non-police and non-elite-bodyguards will follow that pattern.

          1. Why Tulpa, I didn’t know you were a Yokeltarian too. I thought your intellect was above all that nonsense.

  6. “The U.S. Senate decided to do the unthinkable about gun violence ? nothing at all,”

    Thank Christ!

  7. “The U.S. Senate decided to do the unthinkable about [insert ‘problem’ here] ? nothing at all.”

    Sorry, Gabby, it is eminently thinkable that doing nothing, especially about a ‘problem’, is always an option.

  8. Once Again, ACLU Shows Why Its Name Is Ironic


    A Washington state florist who refused to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding has been sued by the American Civil Liberties Union, in the second legal action accusing the vendor of discrimination.

    Florist Barronelle Stutzman already faced a consumer protection lawsuit over the incident filed against her last week by state Attorney General Bob Ferguson. She maintained her Christian beliefs prevented her from selling the flowers for the same-sex wedding, according to court papers.

    The plaintiffs in the latest lawsuit filed on Thursday are Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, who are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state.

    1. But, but, but the SSM folks said that incidents like that would never happen, and that anyone who suggested such a thing was engaging in hyperbole!

      1. So, what you’re saying is…

        We need to repeal the Civil Rights Act?

        1. Sorry, I know I should ignore him, but sometimes I just can’t help myself.

          1. Well at least you beat me to it. Glad I hit refresh before starting my comment.

    2. But Reason tells me this kind of thing will never happen. We have civil liberties organizations to prevent this.

      And fuck the ACLU. Worthless as tits on a boar.

      1. Freedom of contract is not a “real” freedom, I guess.

        1. No is not to the ACLU, just like commercial speech isn’t real speech and the 2nd Amendment isn’t a real Amendment.

          People think the ACLU does good because they occasionally support a worthy cause. But in fact they do tremendous harm. By occasionally supporting a legitimate cause, they gain credibility when they attack other legitimate causes.

          1. At least the ACLU is never guilty of “pro-gun hysteria”.

          2. And yet Reason rips on the National Rifle Association for fighting only for gun rights and not for the entire bill of rights, while giving the American Civil Liberties Union a pass.

            1. The NRA gets ripped for being no true Scotsman. But the ACLU gets a pass for any number of appalling views.

          3. just like commercial speech isn’t real speech

            Except the ACLU supports the CU decision.

            1. But Citizens United is political speech not commercial speech.

      2. How does an ACLU lawyer count to ten?

        3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

        1. No, leave out 9. That’s the most libertarian one of all.

    3. When will the ACLU actually defend the liberties of entrepreneurs?

  9. On the radio they were interviewing douchebag Senator Angus King, and he at least admitted that the bill would not have prevented a mass shooting. But he then went on to say he wanted to make it as difficult as possible to buy guns so as to prevent the tens of thousands of other murders that happen every year. While he didn’t say he supported full registration and subsequent confiscation, you just know he was thinking it.

    1. Did he really say “tens of thousands of murders”? Hyperbole much?

      1. Thirty thousand iirc.

        1. Only if you count 20,000 suicides as murders.

    2. he wanted to make it as difficult as possible to buy guns


      I-N-F-R-I-N-G-E!!!!!!!

    3. So basically he’s admitting to arguing in bad faith?

    4. But he then went on to say he wanted to make it as difficult as possible to buy guns so as to prevent the tens of thousands of other murders that happen every year.

      I wonder if he applies this same logic to car purchases, given how many people are killed in those things every year.

      IF IT SAVES JUST ONE LIFE IT’S WORTH IT

  10. The Dems and their progressive GOP collaborators have been doing everything they can to stimulate the already booming US firearms industry. Well done.

  11. When this bill was introduced last week, I called Sen. Toomey’s office (he’s one of my senators). One of the questions I specifically asked was how any portion of this bill would prevent another mass murder. When his staff admitted it wouldn’t, I asked why, then, they were pushing this bill. His answer was filled with platitudes like ‘reduce gun violence’ and ‘protect society from it’s most dangerous elements’.

    I’ve lost a lot of enthusiasm for Toomey from this fiasco.

    1. ^This. I wonder if he’s contracted Beltway Disease.

    2. Toomy needs to be shown the door. Fuck him. If he will support gun control, what is the point of having him in the Senate? Better to have a Dem who as at least honest about his desire to screw you.

      1. ^THIS^

        If PA GOP voters can’t primary his ass let the Dem win.

        1. I really hope there is a bloodbath in the Senate over this. I don’t care about the brain deads from place like New York. I want to see that asshole centrists who think anything “bi partisan” is like crack. Let them all lose and stand as a warning to the rest.

          1. Rest assured that 90% will be reelected.

        2. Yeah, you’ll love Allyson Schwartz (or someone like her) in the Senate instead of Toomey. Having many of your natural constituents mad at you may just push
          Toomey back their way when the next piece of Obama b.s. makes its way to the floor. At least one can hope.

          1. creech FTW. Libertarians apparently have zero, or possibly less, political sense.

          2. No. Supporting gun control and getting away with it, will just make Toomey think that it is okay to sign onto the next bullshit bipartisan compromise. Fuck him. Let Swartz or whoever win. If they do, Toomey is at fault. He is the one who left people no choice but to vote him out. I am willing to live with six years of just another nut liberal in the Senate for the benefit of Republicans getting the message that if you so much as touch gun control your political career is over.

            1. PA isn’t UT/KY/TX, John. You can’t win or keep statewide office here by taking an absolutist right-wing stance.

              Toomey is in real trouble in 2016 due to the demographics (ie, Philly taking over the entire state) and cannot afford to piss off moderates. You’d be living with a permanent nut liberal in the Senate, not six years.

              1. You can win if you take an absolutist stance on the 2nd Amendment. And I hope he is in trouble. Anyone who wants to compromise on gun rights has no right to hold office, end of story.

                1. You can win if you take an absolutist stance on the 2nd Amendment.

                  No, you can’t. Not in this state.

              2. Philly taking over the entire state

                Maybe it’s time to let Philly become a permanent part of New Jersey.

                For all the crying that liberals do about red states having too much influence in the Senate, you never hear them bitch about dysfunctional urban shitholes disproportionatly influencing state politics.

                1. For all the crying that liberals do about red states having too much influence in the Senate, you never hear them bitch about dysfunctional urban shitholes disproportionatly influencing state politics.

                  Correct. Every time there’s an idea floated to make the Senate more “representative” by breaking up states into smaller pieces closer to being equal in population, the big-city bosses say no way because it would reduce their power.

                  1. wasn’t there a CATO paper saying you guys need like 200 states or something? I’d be cool with that…so much more competition

              3. But, you also cannot win in PA by attacking gun rights. WAAAY too many clingers.

                1. Which Toomey didn’t do.

                  No one who could legally possess/own a gun under existing law would be prevented from possessing/owning a gun under the T-M compromise.

      2. He’s against the AWB, universal background checks, and magazine limits. How the FUCK is he as bad as an anti-gun Democrat?

        John, you’d fit right in with the morons on PAFOA, who again flamed me for suggesting alienating Toomey over this minor shit will backfire if he writes off gun owners as a lost cause when the next mass shooting happens.

        1. All of the “exceptions” that Toomey wanted in this bill will become loopholes after the next shooting. I don’t care how bad the person who replaces him. We have other liberals in the Senate. The point is that every remaining Republican must know that any compromise on gun control is a political death sentence. I don’t care what he does or how much he grovels, no gun owner in PA should ever vote for him under any conditions. If the PA can’t come up with a primary opponent for him, that is their problem.

          1. I’ll remind you the next time NYS troopers arrest someone for staying overnight in a hotel with an un-permitted handgun on a journey from IN to VT.

            1. you are assuming NY would have not just ignored that law. And further, there is no way that law would have stayed in effect. It would have been good until the next gun control wave when Toomey or someone like him agreed to “close that loophole” as a compromise. I would be willing to compromise if doing so would end the desire for gun control. But it won’t. They will never stop. And every compromise leads to another one further down the road. Don’t you get that?

              1. Slippery slope fallacy FTL.

                Big difference between making possession of a gun illegal (as closing the “loophole” would do) and requiring background checks. The background checks expansion only enforces existing law, something the NRA supposedly favors.

                And replacing Toomey with Schwartz or Kane certainly makes real gun control legislation far more likely to pass, far more than any “momentum” from this compromise would.

                1. It is not a slippery slope dipshit. It is you not understanding what “compromise” means. A compromise ends a dispute. That means both sides drop the issue. But the gun banners will never drop the issue. So there can never be a compromise with them. What should be a compromise ends up being just a retreat to be revisited in the future. And not understanding that is why people like Toomey and you are fools.

                  And you need to get over it. Toomy’s career is over. He will never survive a primary challenge in 2016. Why he decided to end his career over this, I don’t know. But he did.

                  1. This isn’t a compromise. In a compromise, both sides get something. You want a compromise? Start with something like allowing 50 state shall issue CCW, with testing requirements/background checks, in exchange for whatever mag bans and private sale prohibitions (which is what these amendments amount to). That’s a compromise.

                    But this? This is giving a mugger $5 when he’s asking for your wallet, and letting him get away to do it again tomorrow.

                    Besides, if Philly really is taking over PA, then trying to keep the seat GOP seems to be a doomed action anyway. And if it’s doomed, why weaken your party’s position on this issue and thereby embolden some waffling Senator in a more up-for-grabs state?

                  2. Yeah, when you are dealing with “progressives” there is no compromise, just ask the smokers: They went from being kicked off of airplanes, to getting ticketed for smoking in their owns cars in some areas.

                    Thats the mistake libertarians make with the “slippery slope is a logical fallacy” shit…it isn’t, the progs simply see a compromise and one more step to their utopia, then its on to the next, and the next, and next….into infinity

    3. It was a compromise. Toomey got the expansion to interstate travel gun rights and legal penalties for ATFers constructing a gun registry that he wanted, and Manchin got the extra background checks he wanted. Next time someone gets arrested by NYS troopers for staying overnight in Syracuse with a handgun they don’t have a permit for, traveling between IN and VT, I’ll remind you of how wonderful you thought it was that this bill was defeated.

      Jesus Christ, no wonder you people have zero influence on any public policy.

      1. It was a sell out. The background checks would have made nearly anyone who sold a gun a criminal and subject to liability. And all of those things he got back would have stayed in effect right up until they became loopholes to be closed after the next high profile shooting. Any compromise just set the precedent that expanding gun control is the proper reaction after a high profile shooting. Toomey was either a fool or a sellout. Either way his career must end. He is a piece of shit. And I plan to send money to the next person that runs against him.

        1. The background checks would have made nearly anyone who sold a gun a criminal and subject to liability.

          False. How are you coming up with this bull?

          And I plan to send money to the next person that runs against him.

          I’m sure Allyson Schwartz/Kathleen Kane will be happy to accept your contribution. Look them up and despair.

        2. “Any compromise just set the precedent that expanding gun control is the proper reaction after a high profile shooting.”

          ^This

          1. Right, much better to stuff the Senate with more liberals a la Allyson Schwartz.

            Amazingly, the passage of the AWB in 1994 didn’t force us to adopt ever-stricter gun control after that, yet y’all are arguing the mild compromise that Toomey made will?

            1. You seem sad that more gun control measures were not passed. Maybe you could head on over to Mother Jones and find some sob sisters to whine with. Tell them about all the mean cosmotarians and their insistence on keeping their 2nd amendment rights.

              Jesus.

              And for one so fucking arrogant about your political acumen, the above comment shows the signs of a barely functioning moron. The bill in ’94 didn’t lead to anything more because of the backlash that led to the republican takeover, but you want to argue that by refusing to compromise we’re gonna have some super-liberal backlash over this.

              Also, you keep talking about a staunch 2nd amendment supporter not being able to win in PA; guess what genius, up until about 5 months ago both of our senators were staunch 2nd supporters. You can’t even remember how toomey got his fucking seat. Which was financing and calling out RINOs. He won his seat doing exactly what the pro-2nd people are calling for now, but that somehow will never work in Tulpa-land.

              Anyone called a cosmotarian by an urban, gun-grabbing university professor should wear it as a badge of fucking armor.

  12. An FYI to all the progressives out there, the Japanese-American internment camps were not the result of an act of Congress, but issued by your other Dear Leader, FDR.

    1. You’re talking about people who believe white racists from Alabama infected those brave African-American fighter pilots with syphilis.

      1. If I had a nickel for every history major who thinks Strom Thurmond was a Republican when he filibustered the civil rights bills and ran for prez on a segregation platform….

  13. Three sources accounted for almost nine out of 10 crime guns:

    So this is the 90% figure I keep seeing thrown around this week?

    …Oh, it’s not? OK then.

  14. Last night, I couldn’t resist having a peek at Rachel Maddow’s show, to see her reaction to the gun control vote. It was everything I could have hoped for. Moral outrage, bitter recrimination and accusations of nefarious heartlessness; the only thing missing from her infantile tantrum were the uncontrollable sobbing and baby-bottle throwing.

    1. Yes. The tears have been so yummy from the fallout.

      1. Do you have a link to the episode or at least clip online? I regret not being at home in time to enjoy her fit.

  15. How’s the weather up there on your cross, Tulpa?

    Do you need a cookie, or box of juice?

  16. If you think Richard`s story is nice, , four weaks-ago my mom basically also made $4739 grafting a 20 hour week in their apartment and they’re best friend’s mom`s neighbour done this for 8-months and got a cheque for over $4739 part-time on their computer. the instructions from this site http://www.wow65.com
    (Go to site and open “Home” for details)

  17. In 1992…the violent crime rate per 100,000 residents was 758. In 2012, it was 386. Between 2000 and 2009 (the latest year for which I could easily find data) use of firearms in violent crime had decreased from a rate of 2.4 per 1,000 to 1.4 per 1,000.

    The gun grabbers also use these statistics to show that we have a higher rate of gun crimes than any other developed nation (even though murders are on the decline). My question is: IF the prevalence of guns is the problem; IF more guns = more deaths, instead of measuring gun crimes per 100,000 people, shouldn’t the relevant statistic be the number of gun crimes/100,000 guns? How many gun related homicides happened in the U.S. and the U.K. per 100,000 guns?

  18. Let me get this straight (FBI Stats):

    1992 – 255,000,000 Americans and 23,760 murders
    2011 – 312,000,000 Americans and 14,612 murders

    That’s 57 million more Americans and 9,148 fewer murders 20 years later.

    In the past 14 years (1999 – 2012) Americans have bought 156,000,000 more guns (background checks done)

    And Americans need more gun control?

    We need to buy more guns is what the data tells us??…

    For 2012 in USA:
    Total murders: 12,664
    Firearm murders 8,583 68%
    Handguns: 6,220 49%
    Rifles: 323 (Assault Weapons in this category) 2.3%
    Shotguns: 356 2.8%
    Unknown type: 1,684
    Knives: 1,694 13.4%
    Blunt Objects: 1,659 13.1% (Baseball bats, etc)
    Fists, hands, feet: 728 5.8%

    Baseball bats are used more than “Assault Weapons”

    In the USA since 1980, an average of 9.2 people per year have died as the result of mass shootings.

    On the average, lightening kills 54 Americans a year.

    You stand 6 times the chance of being killed by lightening than of being killed in a mass shooting.

    6 times.

    I don’t see Demo?Rats consumed with stopping lightening strikes?..

    Americans need to simply buy more guns to get the violent crime rates down???..

    Hello – anybody home???

    1. Great post PerryM. I always enjoy your no nonsense “stats” when you post on various blogs, especially since they are from the DOJ and can not be refuted as biased. That really pisses liberals off!

      1. Thanks – the truth always hurts the cause of Liberalism….

  19. The one statistic I didn’t see in the post with all the statistics below is how many of the gun violence was caused by members of the NRA. The other statistic that would be useful is how many of the owners who have 30 plus bullets in their clips have those guns because they want to be ready to fight tyranny when it comes, especially liberal tyranny.

    There are some gun owners, perhaps many, who are ready to easily turn their backs on Democracy and to find justice with their guns. Shouldn’t we really be concerned about these people? Perhaps the people who are so willing to turn their backs on Democracy are the ones we should say should not have the right to bear arms.

    1. As far as I know, there is no reliable source that has any data on the illegal use of firearms by NRA members. If there was, the numbers would be so small, that they would be statistically useless.

      There are many reasons why I may choose to load 30 rounds of ammunition in one of my magazines,but those reasons are not important. The fact that the law allows me to do so, is the only thing that matters. There is no reason to change that law simply to make anyone “feel good”!

      Last. Do not forget that America is not a true Democracy. It is a democratic republic, and that prevents a small majority from running roughshod over a large minority. If America was a true Democracy, there would be no Obamacare, no SSM,etc; but the Keystone pipeline would have been built years ago.

      Be careful what you wish for. History tells us that slight majorities change often!

      1. Chaos you beat me to the reply. lotsoluck you seem to forget, or ignore, that the 2A is in place for self defense from all sources- including the government. While millions of Americans enjoy target shooting and hunting that is not why the founders put it in place. They were also able to choose to place limits on arms and chose not to. The “muskets” frequently pointed to by gun grabbers were in actuality “rifles” which outperformed the muskets used by the British forces. The US arms were the best weapons available in the world and the drafters knew exactly what the people were armed with. This is why the Constitution deals with private artillery and a private navy in the clause concerning letters of marque and reprisal.

  20. Nick, you succeed in making some highly arguable points, but you leave me wondering what exactly it is you are trying to say. Do you advocate stronger gun control laws? Are you saying that we need to go much further than universal background checks, limiting severely the kinds of weapons, and amounts of ammunition one can buy? A registry of all purchases? Mandatory minimums for violations? Or, are you saying the opposite? A few shot up school kids is a small price to pay for everyone’s Constitutional right to be their own army and police? I mean, it seems like you have some strong views, but you lack the fortitude to say exactly what it is your trying to say.

    C’mon Nick, don’t leave me in suspenders!

  21. Gun-control doesn’t work:

    1) Criminals, including mass shooters, don’t buy their guns legally.
    a. 40% come from friends of family
    b. 38% the street
    c. 10% theft
    d. 2% get their guns from gun shows

    2) The 1994-2003 Assault Weapons Ban had NO impact on gun crime in a 2004 National Institute of Justice report. Limiting scary looking rifles and 30 round magazines had no impact on gun crime; maybe in cartoons but not in the real world.

    3) Gun-related violence and overall violent crime has declined in half since statistics started by the FBI in 1993. During that time 165 million more guns were bought by Americans resulting in fewer violent crimes.

    The statistics clearly show that Americans buying more guns reduces the overall crime rate over the long run across America.

    So do your part and buy guns to protect your family………..

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.