Gun Control

Gun Rights Advocates Don't Just Want Guns in Order to Kill Criminals (Believe it Or Not!)

A much-hyped new Violence Policy Center study grossly misses the point about guns' value in self-defense.

|

The Washington Post and (alas, because they are a very valuable resource for cool culture and tech reporting minus their desire to weigh in on the rights-restriction side of gun policy) Boing Boing, among I'm sure many others, are quite excited to report about a new study from the Violence Policy Center which finds:

In 2012, across the nation there were only 259 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR). That same year, there were 8,342 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2012, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 32 criminal homicides.

This kind of misdirection works on people craving a new one-liner to support their anti-Second Amendment preconceptions, but it's an almost absurdly bad and besides-the-point argument.

Believe it or not, guns can and do help ensure personal safety or at least provide an insurance policy of sorts toward the time one might want or need to ensure your or your family's personal safety even if you don't actually plug some human varmint dead. 

Certain anti-gun folk seem to sincerely believe that the only reason Second Amendment advocates want to have a gun, or want other people to have the right to have a gun, is because guns are so great at killing people; that a gun not used to kill someone isn't really worth having. But it isn't true.

Please see my detailed survey from March of the existing arguments over the "defensive use of guns" question. As politically contentious as it is, and as unamenable to objectively unquestionable answers, it is one still debated hotly.

But we have plenty of reason to believe that Americans use a gun in the service of deterring a crime or potential crime over 2 million times a year. That does not require killing someone with the gun—about three-fourths of the time the gun does not need to be fired much less kill to deter. That should be blindingly obvious  to anyone not looking for some new "scientific" excuse to disarm Americans. Despite the Post's wonkblog declaring it so, using a gun in self-defense does not equal killing someone with it.

NEXT: Texas Decriminalizes Truancy

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. I can think of a good reason to own guns: they’re fun to shoot!

    1. What if science proved that criminals had 5 times as much fun with guns as peaceful citizens do?

      1. As long as they’re shooting at targets instead of people, let them have their fun.

      2. What if science proved that criminals had 5 times as much fun with guns as peaceful citizens do?

        “Then we’ve got to get as many guns in the hands of criminals as we can!” – Strict Utilitarian

        1. Then I need five guns to keep up with the criminals.

          (Although 3 gun competitions appear to provide the proper level of enjoyment.)

      3. Once gun ownership is outlawed, all gun owners will be criminals anyway, so what’s the difference?

      4. Then it would be referred to as settled science. Based on a poll of self-interested scientists.

    2. They also can be used to obtain food. Just remember before killing that bison that you can only carry about 100 lbs back to the wagon anyway.

      1. And ridding your yard of pesky rodents. Soon as an ejector spring arrives in the mail, I’ve got a .22 or two for a certain chipmunk that keeps digging holes in my driveway.

        1. Chipmunk? Use high velocity hollow points and film the explosion.

          1. .22 bird shot. Hard to find, harder to substitute.

        2. If chipmunks are digging holes in it, I’m having trouble defining it as a ‘driveway’.

          1. They’re actually rodentlike woodchippermunks. Big rotating steel teeth.

          2. It’s dirt. Chipmunks dig in dirt.

      2. You still have a duty to kill every bison, deer, antelope, rabbit, and squirrel that wanders into your vicinity.

        1. They’re comin’ right for us!

      3. That’s why you brought the wagon, silly .

      4. And.. Joanie has dysentary..

      5. Never mind that you’re 5 person family will either die of cholera or crossing the Big Blue. Just don’t take the Wasatch

      6. Never mind that you’re 5 person family will either die of cholera or crossing the Big Blue. Just don’t take the Wasatch

    3. Did you decide which Ruger you want?

      1. No. The only Mark III they had was a Mark III / 45, so they both had the 1911 grip angle. I want to handle one with the Luger grip angle before making a decision.

        1. Mark II is best mark.

      2. Dude. CZ75 Compact – shit – any CZ75, and a Kadet Conversion kit.

        /CZ fanboi.

        1. I’m debating between the Ruger Mark III and the Ruger 22/45. All I want is an accurate plinking pistol here. If I get a semi for carrying, it will probably be a S&W.

          1. My obsessions aside, you’re right to be sensitive to the ergonomics. They can make or break the enjoyment of practice.

            I persevered for months with a range of Glocks and it wasn’t until I picked up a PPQ, at which point I came to that realization.

            1. When I hold something with the 1911 grip (60 degrees) I have to consciously tilt it back a bit when I aim. It naturally aims low. That’s why I’m thinking the Luger grip (70 degrees) might be better for my German wrists. That extra ten degrees should have it naturally pointing where I want it to point. We’ll see.

              1. My wrists are 1/4 German, 3/4 Scots-Irish. How should I calculate the proper grip angle?

                (Seriously, my Smith 25-5 works pretty well, wrist ethnicity aside.)

        2. Igor speaks the truth. A CZ-75 of any flavor tastes better than the rest. I carry a CZ-75 Compact.

          For larger threats, I prefer to rely on the CZ-550 American Safari version in .416 Rigby. It’ll chip any critter I encounter in the woods.

          1. I like wheel guns. If they misfire, you just move on to the next chamber. No jams.

  2. Nothing put out by the Violence Policy Center deserves the name “study”. “Mendacious bullshit” would be more accurate.

  3. I feel like I deserve a hat tip for this one, too… but not sure if this is the article I sent into 24/7…. hmmm, considering the humiliation that Scott wreaked on me last time, I would say I DO deserve a hat tip, if only HONORARY…

    1. YEP! Checked it. FUCK, Dougherty, WHERE THE FUCK IS MY HAT TIP?!?! I SENT THIS IN THREE FUCKING DAYS AGO……

      Man, you guys are some stingy fucks…..

  4. “In 2012, across the nation there were only 259 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR).”

    I’m confused – isn’t this a good thing? I mean, we don’t want people engaging in the extrajudicial killing of criminals if not absolutely necessary. Doesn’t this also completely contradict the left’s argument regarding Stand Your Ground Laws, namely that SYG laws result in the mass and unpunished murder of black men because you can just randomly shoot black people, claim SYG, and get away with it?

    So this not only doesn’t contradict arguments in favor of defensive gun use, it actually obliterates all of the left-wing talking points regarding Stand Your Ground.

    1. I mean, we don’t want people engaging in the extrajudicial killing of criminals if not absolutely necessary.

      Why not? Seriously. Unless the person has drugs in their pocket, they’re likely going to be in and out of the system before you can say “Boo,” and they know it. So getting caught isn’t much of a deterrent. Perhaps if it was commonplace for robbers and such to get shot, then maybe they’d think twice before committing crimes.

      1. Sure, if you believe it’s a good idea to give people the death penalty for petty theft. I happen to think it’s not.

        1. All crimes come with a potential death penalty. Ask Eric Garner. Oh, you can’t. The difference here being if it’s death by cop or death by homeowner.

          1. That is silly misdirection and irrelevant to the original point.

            Unless the person has drugs in their pocket, they’re likely going to be in and out of the system before you can say “Boo,” and they know it.

            Uh really? Reason has covered the excessively long incarceration of those who commit petty crimes for a long time.

            1. Reason has covered the excessively long incarceration of those who commit petty crimes for a long time.

              That depends on where you live, and it makes for news because it’s not necessarily the norm. Round here there’s a revolving door for petty criminals. The same idiots get caught and released over and over and over. Obviously the “justice” system is not a deterrent.

          2. That’s such a ridiculously irrelevant point that there’s almost no reason to respond to it.

            1. That’s such a ridiculously irrelevant point that there’s almost no reason to respond to it.

              Welcome to ‘talking with Sarc’. Next week we’ll go into ‘half-assed history and sarc’s use of it in his DOOOOMMMM talking points’.

            2. I’m not talking about executing people who surrender after being confronted. That’s murder. But I really don’t have much of a problem with killing criminals who are harming someone’s life, liberty or property, and refuse to surrender when confronted by an armed citizen. That’s a pretty rare thing anyway, since most of the time the criminal will surrender. But if they don’t…

          3. Yes, that’s true, but is it right?

          4. One of the great tragedies in Eric Garner’s murder is that there was nobody on hand with a gun to intervene and save his life.

            -jcr

        2. I believe that if someone accosts me on the street for my wallet, they have already decided in their mind that my life and/or health is worth less to them than my wallet. Therefore I feel quite justified in deciding the opposite.

          I believe that if someone breaks intomy house in the middle of the night, they have compounded that same valuation of my life and property with the additional aspect that I do not know who they are or what they are doing, it is dark, there are other people present, and I have no compunction about terminating the threat by whatever means necessary.

          I believe that if someone threatens me with a gun, or a bank teller, or anyone else, it doesn’t matter whether that gun is really a finger in a pocket, a bb gun, a water gun, or a real-but-unlloaded real gun. They have still made the decision that my life and/or health are of elss value to them than my property, and I am entirely justified in making the reverse evaluation.

          1. “I believe that if someone accosts me on the street for my wallet, they have already decided in their mind that my life and/or health is worth less to them than my wallet. Therefore I feel quite justified in deciding the opposite.”

            If someone picks your pocket you should not shoot them in the face.

            “I believe that if someone breaks intomy house in the middle of the night, they have compounded that same valuation of my life and property with the additional aspect that I do not know who they are or what they are doing, it is dark, there are other people present, and I have no compunction about terminating the threat by whatever means necessary.”

            If someone breaks into your house and you’re threatened you’re absolutely justified in shooting them in self defense. Which is of course different from mild, petty theft.

            “I believe that if someone threatens me with a gun, or a bank teller, or anyone else, it doesn’t matter whether that gun is really a finger in a pocket, a bb gun, a water gun, or a real-but-unlloaded real gun. ”

            Well now you’re talking about actual threats to your safety whereas I was talking about petty crimes. They’re not the same thing.

            1. If someone picks your pocket you should not shoot them in the face.

              They’ve already violated the non-aggression principle by robbing someone. The philosophical merits and extent of force in response to that sort of aggression can certainly be debated, but if a robber ends up getting his head blown off (or even just wounded) by the robbee, well that’s the breaks. I’m certainly not going to weep for someone who effectively Darwin’ed themselves by stealing from an armed individual.

              1. I look at it this way if someone robs me of anything then they are robbing me of money and money puts food on my table for me to eat. Without money there is no food and i die therefore by extension theft is murder thus giving me the right to defend myself with whatever means available and if that method is a gun then so be it.

            2. Jackass, do you read? If someone points a gun at me, if they stick a gun in my back or my face, or use their finger to pretend to point a pocket gun at me — they have just announced, to me, that they want me to think my life means less to them than whatever unknown value is in my wallet.

              I am absolutely justified in turning that proposition around, to decide that their life is worth less to me than what I know is in my wallet.

              They can start the game of guessing the value of my wallet and my life, but they don’t get to suddenly assert a vow of saintly helplessness when I play by the same rule.

          2. That’s fair enough and it is difficult to know where to draw the line. I am tempted to say that anyone who has so thoroughly violated my rights has given me the right to execute them, but I am not sure about making this into law for practical reasons.

          3. I would be plenty pissed if someone threatened me with a bank teller.

        3. Sure, if you believe it’s a good idea to give people the death penalty for petty theft. I happen to think it’s not.

          That’s a good argument for not shooting a home invader that you were already able to subdue and tie up. But as long as they pose an active threat lethal force could be justified.

      2. we don’t want people engaging in the extrajudicial killing of criminals if not absolutely necessary.

        We can always bury em in Sarc’s “driveway”. It keeps the reported numbers down for the FBI.

    2. It gets even better when they go on to talk about property crimes.

      “According to the NCVS, looking at the total number of self-protective behaviors undertaken by victims of attempted or completed property crime for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, in only 0.1 percent of these instances had the intended victim in resistance to a criminal threatened or attacked with a firearm.”

      Now, the footnote says “For “property crime” the NCVS measures household burglary, motor vehicle theft as well as property theft.”

      Since over 75% of burglaries happen in daytime when people are working they’re counting tens of thousands of cases where no one was present during the crime. Likewise, auto thieves are rarely caught in the act by owners as it often takes them less than 60 seconds to steal a car.

      Besides which, the FBI’s definition of “property crime” includes crimes in which neither force nor the threat of force was used against the victim. Thus, in most of these crimes the use of a firearm might be considered inappropriate or even illegal.

      Sounds like our citizens are doing it right.

  5. Can someone tell police departments that too? Based on how many news stories keep popping up of police killing people for “aggressive movements”, etc. one would think that killing people at the drop of a hat is the only way to use a gun.

  6. When it comes to self-defense, arguments about the statistics are utterly beside the point. The existence of any right is not negated because a segment of society abuses it. The right to self-defense would exist even if VPC’s stats were correct.

    1. Well, their stats are correct, it’s just that their stats are irrelevant because there is no evidence that stricter gun control would have any impact on homicide rates. Homicide rates have fallen substantially in this country since 1992 as gun control laws have actually gotten looser, particularly carry laws. Moreover, if you actually look at graphs that show homicide rates of every country against the homicide rates of those countries, you see there’s no correlation at all between gun ownership and homicide. The US has tons of guns and a low murder rate; Central and South American countries have far fewer guns and vastly higher murder rates.

      For that matter, I’m willing to bet rural areas have far higher gun ownership rates than urban areas yet somehow farmers avoid shooting each other.

      1. The research in this area is notoriously murky and often agenda-driven, of course, but what seems to be true is that more guns means more gun deaths. The US has average rates of violence and aggression, but extremely higher murder rates than other developed countries. It also has by far more guns.

        All this means is that, as advertised and as swept under the rug by this article, guns seem indeed to be especially efficient means of killing.

        1. What’s true for you, Tony, may not be true for other people.

        2. what seems to be true is that more guns means more gun deaths.

          That’s a lie contradicted by the non-correlation between the number of guns in America and the murder rate over time. You lose again dipshit.

        3. If you are truly interested in reducing gun homicides all you have to do is end the war on drugs and decriminalize possession.

          But I don’t think that’s what you are really interested in, Tony.

        4. Ha ha

          [citation needed] More research shows more guns = less crime than the opposite. You want to upend the consensus (and I know how much you live the consensus in other areas), then you provide the citations.

        5. Tony,

          I’d like to hear your response to this: http://www.truthrevolt.org/vid…..ne-bullet.

          1. I doubt very much that you’d actually like to hear his response to your SF’d link.

            1. Here’s the link again.

              http://www.truthrevolt.org/vid…..one-bullet

        6. but what seems to be true is that more guns means more gun deaths.

          If only we could test this hypothesis. How about this, Tony. If the number of Gun Deaths increases with the number of guns in the population, that would probably indicate you are right.

          On the other hand, if the number of guns has increased in this country, but the number of gun deaths has decreased, wouldn’t that invalidate your hypothesis?

          1. Nothing invalidates Tony’s hypotheses!!!

        7. “All this means is that, as advertised and as swept under the rug by this article, guns seem indeed to be especially efficient means of killing.”

          I should HOPE so!! Fuck do you think I am shelling out all that money for?

        8. Brazil has a zero gun policy yet 50,000 gun murders a year. That gun control sure is working well for them.

          1. Brazil isn’t a “developed” country so that doesn’t fall under Obama’s definition. Or Pakistan.

            1. Wash DC has a virtual gun ban and is the least safe place (by state, territory, or district) in this country. The safest place has constitutional carry.

        9. Tony

          The safest state in the union has been constitutional carry for many years. M safer than the UK. DC, which basically has a ban on personal ownerahip of firearms, is the least safe place in this country.

      2. “there is no evidence that stricter gun control would have any impact on homicide rates.”

        Yes there is. We already know that homicides will go up dramatically.

      3. When I say that their statistics are not correct, I should have said that their interpretation isn’t correct. As the article notes it’s not correct to measure the effectiveness of firearms in self-defense by only looking at justifiable homicides.

  7. Certain anti-gun folk seem to sincerely believe that the only reason Second Amendment advocates want to have a gun, or want other people to have the right to have a gun, is because guns are so great at killing people. that a gun not used to kill someone isn’t really worth having.

    It’s called projection, and they are projecting their belief, on all of us, that if they have a weapon, they will end up using it in a fit of pique. So fuck them.

    1. “..a gun not used to kill someone isn’t really worth having.”

      I could swear I’ve heard this sort of screed before, somewhere..

      General Sline: When we commissioned the Schmectel Corporation to research this precise event sequence scenario, it was determined that the continual stockpiling and development of our nuclear arsenal was becoming self-defeating. A weapon unused is a useless weapon.

      Ahh, yes.. that’s it..

    2. Not just pique. Many of them would like to kill anyone who substantially disagrees with them politically.

  8. So pony up the statistics on how many times the presence of a gun prevented a violent crime. If you don’t have any, then you don’t get to make up claims about that alleged phenomenon. All we know is that the presence of guns leads to stupendously far more murders than self-defense homicides. All I ask is that you defend your policy belief with respect to gun liberty by acknowledging the statistics and saying that the number of deaths it causes is a worthy price. Stop being children and pretending like facts you don’t like aren’t there in order not to have to think remotely deeply about the subject.

    1. *snort*

      Tony lecturing on thinking deeply? That’s a laugh!

    2. The statistics are discussed at length in the linked story in this sentence in the post: “Please see my detailed survey from March of the existing arguments over the “defensive use of guns” question.”

      1. Save the whales, Save the seals, save yor breath.. He’s totally uninterested in statistics that fall outside of his conformation bias.. and the words in your post has waaay too many syllables for him to digest.. Next time, just scrawl a summary picture in crayon to placate him.

      2. Save the whales, Save the seals, save yor breath.. He’s totally uninterested in statistics that fall outside of his conformation bias.. and the words in your post has waaay too many syllables for him to digest.. Next time, just scrawl a summary picture in crayon to placate him.

      3. Save the whales, Save the seals, save yor breath.. He’s totally uninterested in statistics that fall outside of his conformation bias.. and the words in your post has waaay too many syllables for him to digest.. Next time, just scrawl a summary picture in crayon to placate him.

      4. Save the whales, Save the seals, save yor breath.. He’s totally uninterested in statistics that fall outside of his conformation bias.. and the words in your post has waaay too many syllables for him to digest.. Next time, just scrawl a summary picture in crayon to placate him.

      5. Save the whales, Save the seals, save yor breath.. He’s totally uninterested in statistics that fall outside of his conformation bias.. and the words in your post has waaay too many syllables for him to digest.. Next time, just scrawl a summary picture in crayon to placate him.

      6. Save the whales, Save the seals, save yor breath.. He’s totally uninterested in statistics that fall outside of his conformation bias.. and the words in your post has waaay too many syllables for him to digest.. Next time, just scrawl a summary picture in crayon to placate him.

      7. Save the whales, Save the seals, save yor breath.. He’s totally uninterested in statistics that fall outside of his conformation bias.. and the words in your post has waaay too many syllables for him to digest.. Next time, just scrawl a summary picture in crayon to placate him.

        1. Holy shit, those squirrels are angry with you.

          1. It’s because they know he’s unarmed.

          2. They’re related to sarcasmic’s chipmunks. 😉

        2. Dude, 7x? Is that a squirrel record?

          1. High capacity squirrel. Founding Fathers would have been agast!

    3. But, don’t you have to tally up all of the people who, with gun control, would be hurt or killed die because they couldn’t defend themselves, before you can say that gun control is worth the price?

      And, unless you want or need to defend yourself from guns, then gun control isn’t going to effect you. So, isn’t the price being paid by someone other than you?

      1. Sure, and getting reliable data on that would be just as difficult, the problem Brian acknowledges in the earlier article. One thing is pretty clear: we have very high rates of gun ownership and very high rates of homicide relative to other wealthy countries. If your narrative were true then something else must explain our homicide rate, which includes lots of gun homicide. Of course for any variable I can think of (poverty rate, education access, etc.) there is a liberal solution and a libertarian approach that would make things worse.

        1. America does not have high rates of homicide relative to other countries aside from a few dysfunctional Dem-dominated urban shitholes.

          1. Yes it does. We easily the worst of all the wealthy nations, unless you want to include Mexico.

            Careful with the code words, unless you’d like to spell out exactly what you guys mean in this debate, such as self-defense for whom and against whom?

            1. See my comment below Tony. America’s problems are cultural and have nothing to do with firearm ownership rates.

              1. We’re culturally more homicidal? But I just said that we are only average when it comes to violence and aggression rates. It’s just that we have lots of machines lying around that make it easy to turn violence and aggression into murder.

                1. Re: Tony,

                  We’re culturally more homicidal?

                  Well, I don’t know about you per se (Marxians do have an insatiable blood lust…) but most of the time deaths by handgun happen because of turf wars between gang members, suicides and people who can’t control themselves. Other gun deaths are deemed justifiable, meaning a robber or an attacker earned his wings.

                2. It’s just that we have lots of machines lying around that make it easy to turn violence and aggression into murder.

                  What part of “no correlation between gun ownership rates and gun homicide rates” don’t you understand?

            2. Re: Tony,

              Yes it does. We easily the worst of all the wealthy nations, unless you want to include Mexico.

              Excellent example, Tony. Mexico has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world, which make Chicago or DC a gun-owners paradise in comparison. By your own measure, Mexico should be a peaceful Eden.

              Careful with the code words, unless you’d like to spell out exactly what you guys mean in this debate, such as self-defense for whom and against whom?

              Against attackers. Who else?

            3. Careful with the code words, unless you’d like to spell out exactly what you guys mean in this debate, such as self-defense for whom and against whom?

              He wasn’t using “code words”. The high rates of homicides we have are largely due to young African-American males, who happen to live in “dysfunctional Dem-dominated urban shitholes”. Gun control is going to do nothing to fix that; after all, many of those people already can’t own guns legally due to prior convictions.

              Yes it does. We easily the worst of all the wealthy nations, unless you want to include Mexico.

              East Germany had very low homicide rates; low homicide rates are not necessarily a mark of distinction, since they often coincide with totalitarian and oppressive regimes.

              1. Wonder what North Korea’s gun murder rates are…

                1. Murder rate for free citizens or justified homicide by the government?
                  (it’s a trick question)

            4. Why are we limiting ourselves to “wealthy” nations? Is it because people in poor countries are inherently more violent than those in wealthy countries, so that including poor countries skews the results? Because if that’s the case, congratulations, you’ve just made the case for targeting (bad choice of words, I know) gun control on poor people.

        2. Funny, how much all that gun crime happens in the inner city.

          Those progressive, democrat city types apparently just can’t stop shooting each other over stuff. I guess it’s due to the heightened awareness of the interconnectivity of all things.

          1. I think we all know how this debate would go if it were only “city” types open carrying and agitating for maximum gun proliferation. I think the 2nd Amendment would take on an entirely different interpretation.

            As usual libertarians are bitching about problems they help cause. We all get angry over unarmed black men being shot by cops. But then cops have to assume everyone is armed, because the NRA and their political supporters have managed to turn lobbying and advertising for gun vendors into a sacred right being protected.

            The concept of an arms race is easy to understand. But with gun-nut rhetoric, somehow magically the principles of an arms race don’t apply when we’re actually talking about arms.

            1. As usual libertarians are bitching about problems they help cause. We all get angry over unarmed black men being shot by cops. But then cops have to assume everyone is armed, because the NRA and their political supporters have managed to turn lobbying and advertising for gun vendors into a sacred right being protected.

              No, cops have to assume criminals are armed because guns are really easy to make. It doesn’t matter how much you outlaw them, just like drugs, people who want them get them. Outlawing guns only gets law abiding citizens into trouble, and those you don’t have to worry about in the first place.

            2. I think we all know how this debate would go if it were only “city” types open carrying and agitating for maximum gun proliferation.

              I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say. Anyway, aren’t you above entertaining hypotheticals?

              The people using the guns in the city to commit these crimes don’t seem to give two shits about gun control, and I think I understand why.

              But then cops have to assume everyone is armed, because the NRA and their political supporters have managed to turn lobbying and advertising for gun vendors into a sacred right being protected.

              There goes the racism narrative.

              Sounds like a good reason for minimizing police/citizen interactions. I’d go for that, rather than preventing people from engaging in self-defense just so cops can feel safer while they go about enforcing bullshit, which is hardly a noble goal for society. Again, instead of fixing problems, let’s pretend to fix problems while we ignore problems.

              The concept of an arms race is easy to understand. But with gun-nut rhetoric, somehow magically the principles of an arms race don’t apply when we’re actually talking about arms.

              Self-defense isn’t an arms race. However, it’s quite telling how you bring up irrational big government exercises and pretend it has something to do with people being just too damn free.

              1. “There goes the racism narrative.”

                It’s interesting to note than in Florida, a full one-third of the invocations of stand-your-ground laws are by black people. Double the percentage of Florida’s black population.

            3. See you guys? Tony has proved – proved! – that cop violence is the fault of libertarians. I bet y’all didn’t even know “logic” could be tortured that far.

            4. Considering that
              A) Persons with permits are not the types of people to attract LEO attention. (Arrest rates of people with CCWs are stupendously low,)

              B) Usually less than 5% of eligible adults get their permits

              That is a ridiculous assertion.

            5. Re: Tony,

              As usual libertarians are bitching about problems they help cause.

              Ah, so it is our fault now.

              But then cops have to assume everyone is armed

              Your statement would be an acceptance that cops are incompetent if they make such an assumption always.

              The concept of an arms race is easy to understand.

              Facile arguments are normally easily understood by the feeble-minded.

              But with gun-nut rhetoric, somehow magically the principles of an arms race don’t apply when we’re actually talking about arms.

              I don’t know what you understand as the “principles” of an arms race, but the fact that people have pistols does not an arms-race make.

            6. But then cops have to assume everyone is armed, because the NRA and their political supporters have managed to turn lobbying and advertising for gun vendors into a sacred right being protected.

              Typical mendacious shitlibbery. Was Eric Garner armed with a gun? Was Kelly Thomas? Was Walter Scott? Was James Boyd?

              1. It’s just so easy to get a carry permit in NYC that cops have no choice but to assume everyone is armed with a pistol.

            7. I think we all know how this debate would go if it were only “city” types open carrying and agitating for maximum gun proliferation. I think the 2nd Amendment would take on an entirely different interpretation.

              Indeed. And when freedmen started carrying guns around after the Civil War, the non-yet-reconstructed Southern states enacted laws aimed at restricting their right to keep and bear arms. Which is one of the reasons Congress enacted the 14th amendment, aimed at ensuring that states couldn’t infringe that right any more than Congress could. Also, when scary Negroes openly carried long guns to the State Capitol in Sacramento back during Reagan’s term as governor, the Legislature fell all over itself to enact the Mulford Act to ban open carry. It’s truly amazing how the gun grabbers try to ignore the racist heritage of gun control.

        3. Oh look. There’s no correlation between firearm ownership rates and gun homicide rates… It’s almost as if there is a cultural/rule-of-law component to gun homicide rates.

        4. bullshit.

          I am thinking of the UK. Homicides are up dramatically since they disarmed their populace. England used to have one or two murders per year in the middle of the last century and gun ownership was fairly common. Now the place is a cesspool of violence and crime. Criminals operate with impunity and gun crimes are common.

          Now tell me that it isn’t the gun confiscation that caused that, but the large numbers of immigrants that caused that to happen and you will be correct.

          It is almost as if guns aren’t responsible, people are.

          Still, all of this is irrelevant . The Second amendment isn’t there because of crime or hunting.

        5. “…there is a liberal solution and a libertarian approach that would make things worse.”

          These are some of those “facts” that Tony likes to throw around. What a mendacious little prick.

        6. Perhaps we have an issue with gun violence in a certain small number of zip codes corresponding to a certain racial make up?

          But saying that the black homicide rate is 6-7 times the white homicide rate is exactly the same thing as shouting “nigger, nigger, nigger!” and setting fire to a black church full of preschoolers.

        7. “relative to other wealthy countries”

          Are you trying to exclude the evidence which contradicts your point? Do poor countries have higher rates of violence? (even where they have very strict gun laws) Do poor areas of this rich country have higher rates of violence than the not poor areas? Perhaps it’s not the presence of guns, but something about being poor (and maybe wanting other people’s stuff) that makes people desire weapons to commit violence, even when those weapons are banned and presumably hard to find.

    4. All we know is that the presence of guns leads to stupendously far more murders than self-defense homicides.

      1) That’s a lie. 2) Pretty sure it’s not homicide if it’s in self-defense.

      1. Legitimate cases of killing in self-defense are counted as homicides.

        That’s not for any overt political reasoning. Its more of a general definition. Killing of one human by another.

        People often use the terms murder and homicide interchangeably but they are not the same thing.

        1. Thanks good to know.

        2. This is one point to understand about UK murder statistics. They only report murders in a conviction for the crime of murder is obtained. All other killings – where the charges were plead down or the murderer wasn’t caught – are not counted in their statistics.

    5. We hear all the time that old phrase “if it saves just one life” in justification for all sorts of nannying statist bullshittery.

      We need the right to carry guns, because there’s solid proof right there that in 2012, up to (and maybe more than) 259 innocent lives were saved precisely because a law abiding citizen was carrying.

      1. If it saves one life, we must ban all guns… How about that?

        1. It’s just as retarded in print as it is in spoken word! Remarkable!

        2. You know what’s fun to speculate about? How this ban gets enforced.

          1. Isn’t that convenient. You know what’s kind of terrifying to contemplate? When civilization collapses, what happens to the places with the most guns per capita? Obviously they will be the most peaceful, right?

            1. Uh, probably. Even if you’re going to argue that every single gun owner would immediately go full berserker and start killing with impunity… wouldn’t they go after the unarmed communities first?

              Your problem, Tony, is that you assume that every other human being is just as much a moral midget as you are yourself, kept from harming others only by the threat of violence from some (arbitrary) authority. That is really, really sad.

            2. When civilization collapses, all the people living where gun control was heavy will just hold hands and start singing Kumbayah.

            3. They pretty much are right now, so… yes?

            4. When civilization collapses here’s what happens when you have no guns:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfflB3Uj5Qk

          2. Tony doesn’t have to speculate, he knows exactly how it gets enforced: By jack booted thugs marching through the streets and taking care of anyone that doesn’t think as he thinks. All while he felates the assholes in the boots.

            That is his expressly stated hope.

        3. Beyond, faggot.

          1. Meant to say “begone, faggot” to Tony. But the autocorrect is a pretty accurate description of Tony.

        4. Just get to work on repealing the Second Amendment. It’s just that simple.

        5. Tony

          Without having a loaded Ruger SP101 .357 magnum revolver (.38 +P+) on my nightstand my wife would possibly be dead now. I’m counting rhat sa saving one life.

          Fuck off slaver. Fuck off in a progressive, union-operated woodchipper.

    6. So pony up the statistics on how many times the presence of a gun prevented a violent crime.

      whatever happened to “If it saves just one life”? Why can’t a single instance of a gun saving a life end the discussion about this? I mean, it supposed to end the discussion of just about everything else, so why not gun control?

      We can show that guns have saved just one life. The gun controllers cannot show that gun control has ever saved a life.

      1. It seems that it does end the discussion.

        Apparently, if guns are used more often in crimes than self-defense, then that’s all you need to know that guns should be banned, and the burden of proof is on people who would like to defend themselves to prove that their self-defense is best for everyone.

        Meanwhile, people who have no interest in defending themselves, and love blindly assuming that government and regulations will protect them from everything, pat themselves on the back for right thinking and trying to make the world a better place, conveniently at no cost to themselves.

        1. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but one of the singular hallmarks of bien pensant thinking is signaling at zero cost to themselves, and fuck anyone else it might cost. It’s very noble of them, dontchaknow.

    7. There are anywhere between 97,000 and 3 million Defensive Gun Uses annually in the US.

      p14

      C. The Frequency of Defensive Gun Use
      There have been 13 major surveys regarding the
      frequency of defensive gun use (DGU) in the modern
      United States. The surveys range from a low of
      760,000 annually to a high of three million. The more
      recent studies are much more methodologically
      sophisticated. See App. 1-3.
      In contrast, much lower annual estimates come
      from the National Crime Victimization Survey
      (NCVS), a poll using in-person home interviews
      conducted by the Census Bureau in conjunction with
      the Department of Justice. The NCVS for 1992-2005

      would suggest about 97,000 DGUs annually, with
      75,000 DGUs in 2005, the last year for which data are
      available. See App. 4-6.

      1. You won’t get a response. Tony is allergic to data.

    8. Re: Tony,

      So pony up the statistics on how many times the presence of a gun prevented a violent crime.

      Pony up the statistics that the presence of seat belts have prevented a death.

      And I don’t need statistics to understand that wearing a seat belt is always the better choice than not wearing. It is the same with a gun: the better option is to have one when required to defend my life rather than not.

      All I ask is that you defend your policy belief with respect to gun liberty

      The defense of gun ownership rests on the defense of property right (the right to own a gun) and the right to protect one’s life.

      saying that the number of deaths it causes is a worthy price.

      Forget the loaded language, you mendacious fool. Guns don’t cause deaths, just like knives don’t cause deaths. What causes deaths are the actions of humans (either purposeful or by accident) and diseases.

      1. And I don’t need statistics to understand that wearing a seat belt is always the better choice than not wearing. It is the same with a gun: the better option is to have one when required to defend my life rather than not.

        You actually do, because what they say is that the presence of a gun in your house means it is more likely that you’re going to get shot than if you didn’t have one. And I don’t mean by an intruder. And I don’t see why you’d ignore stats on seat belts either. They have been known to cause harm too. But for your edification the CDC estimates that seat belts saved 255,000 lives between 1975 and 2008.

        Guns don’t cause deaths, just like knives don’t cause deaths.

        They play some causal role, surely. The whole point is that it is easier to kill others and oneself with a gun than with other weapons. If that weren’t the case, then why get so bent out of shape about needing them for self-defense? A knife would work just as fine, and good luck banning those!

        1. You actually do, because what they say is that the presence of a gun in your house means it is more likely that you’re going to get shot than if you didn’t have one. And I don’t mean by an intruder.

          Yes, and that’s my choice to make, not yours or Congresses.

          And I don’t see why you’d ignore stats on seat belts either. They have been known to cause harm too. But for your edification the CDC estimates that seat belts saved 255,000 lives between 1975 and 2008.

          And, again, that should be my choice to make, not yours.

          The whole point is that it is easier to kill others and oneself with a gun than with other weapons.

          The whole point of guns is that they allow the weak stand up to the strong. They equalize the physical disparities between men and women, for example.

          A knife would work just as fine, and good luck banning those!

          Knives are increasingly being banned.

          1. Knives are increasingly being banned.

            Freddie Gray died because he supposedly had an illegal knife. Does Tony even read the articles here?

            1. Freddie Gray died because he supposedly had an illegal knife. Does Tony even read the articles here?

              Tony would argue that it proves his point: If you own a weapon, it’s much more likely to lead to your injury or death than to offer you any protection. (Cf. “another marijuana-related death,” on SNL’s “X-Police.”)

          2. The whole point of guns is that they allow the weak stand up to the strong.

            Yes, as long as we are talking about correlation, it is quite relevant that throughout history, the rise of weapons that take away the advantage of a well equipped and trained strongman has correlated with the rise of liberty.

            From the advent of the Welsh Longbowman to the modern firearm, a despot’s ability to hire a couple well armed strongmen has steadily decreased. That despot could oppress people, and their lack of money and training meant they could not fight back. As soon as a poorly trained peasant with a flintlock could end an armored knight, leaders steadily gave more rights to those peasants.

            1. Re: Overt,

              From the advent of the Welsh Longbowman to the modern firearm, a despot’s ability to hire a couple well armed strongmen has steadily decreased.

              I think you already figured out that the anti-gun Marxians are quite reactionary. Like Tony says below, they are deadly afraid of a free people (“extreme freedom”, Tony calls it).

        2. Re: Tony,

          You actually do, because what they say is that the presence of a gun in your house means it is more likely that you’re going to get shot than if you didn’t have one.

          There are 300 million guns. Of course there has to be at least ONE instance where having a gun means A person will get shot, by accident. Just like having kitchen knives increases my chance of slicing my finger while julienning carrots or having a pool means my chance of DROWNING in one increases. In other words, it is a meaningless statistic.

          And I don’t mean by an intruder.

          I don’t care what you mean. I don’t have a gun to shoot myself with it just like I don’t have a fire extinguisher because I think I am going to spontaneously combust.

          And I don’t see why you’d ignore stats on seat belts either.

          I don’t, but I don’t see them outside their proper context either.

          But for your edification the CDC estimates that seat belts saved 255,000 lives between 1975 and 2008.

          And so have guns. In fact, recently one saved the life of a Detroit woman who was attacked by four burglars armed with guns.

        3. Re: Tony,

          They play some causal role, surely.

          You think guns and knives will themselves on people?

          The whole point is that it is easier to kill others and oneself with a gun than with other weapons.

          Actually, that is not true. You have to be a good shot to kill with a gun. Guns are not easy to use without constant training. Instead, you can easily sever arteries with a knife without much training.

          A knife would work just as fine, and good luck banning those!

          Never say never. Little Marxians are nothing if not hard-headed.

        4. And I don’t see why you’d ignore stats on seat belts either. They have been known to cause harm too.

          You actually have a reliable source to verify this, not just hearsay?

          http://www.politifact.com/rhod…..-because-/

    9. So pony up the statistics on how many times the presence of a gun prevented a violent crime.

      Why? I don’t care how many violent crimes guns prevent or what national homicide statistics are. I don’t own a gun, I don’t like guns, and I’m not planning on ever getting one. Gun rights aren’t about utility or improving society, they are about liberty.

      However, while your utilitarian arguments for gun control are irrelevant to me and others, you seem to believe them. That’s why it’s worth pointing out to you that your utilitarian arguments don’t work: there is no conclusive evidence that gun control results in lower homicide rates.

    10. Here are some old stats
      83,000 per year 25 years ago.

      “On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
      firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of
      the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent
      crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor
      vehicle theft.”

      http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

  9. Certain anti-gun folk seem to sincerely believe that the only reason Second Amendment advocates want to have a gun, or want other people to have the right to have a gun, is because guns are so great at killing people;

    Okey doke. So the majority of cops who never fire their service weapons should also be disarmed, yes?

    1. (I should have said “never fire their service weapons in the line of duty/on the beat/on the clock”. Lots of them fire their service weapons for fun or training.)

    1. He should after he signed a 2-year moratorium on fracking into law. Idiot.

      1. Jeeze – I thought the dude was a Republican and therefore an enviro-rapist!

        1. Blue state NE Republican. Believe it or not the state GOP largely supported that law and saw it as some kind of ‘victory’ for fracking because it would ‘legalize’ it after the moratorium ends. Stupid party.

          1. He’s dying of cancer.

            1. Maybe dying is premature, but it doesn’t sound good.

            2. Can’t find that anywhere in the news.

              1. He’s literally still at the podium making the announcement.

            3. Non-hodgkins is highly treatable, IIRC.

  10. The party of science, ladies and gentlemen.

  11. While we’re on the subject of mass shootings, have you guys ever heard of the Hartford Distributors Shooting? (it has a Wikipedia page, but the commenting system won’t let me post a “word” over 50 characters)

    Somehow, I’ve never heard of that one. It must not have been given very extensive coverage, for some reason or another.

    1. Yes, I remember that one.

    2. Remember the school shooting that produced the Boomtown Rats’ biggest hit? Me neither.

      1. Remember how progressives fell all over themselves to describe the Seattle Jewish Federation mass shooting as anything but Islamic terrorism?

        1. I find it fascinating what the public as a whole remembers and what we/they forget.

          Remember Paducah? Nobody ever talks about that one (or the one from I Don’t Like Mondays). Why is Columbine remembered so well, but not others? I don’t really expect an answer – it’s just me pondering.

          1. Remember Paducah?

            I remember the fact that Stephen King is a giant pussy.

            1. So did Catcher in the Rye go out of print after Lennon? King is, indeed, a pussy.

              1. Salinger went out of print after Catcher, Kristen.

                1. Franny and Zooey?

                  1. Short stories and/or anthologies don’t count.

            2. Stephen King’s a typical northeastern shitlib who’s lived around small-town whites for so long he thinks that’s the de facto mode for society. He’s not willing to think outside his very insular, provincial worldview.

  12. In 2012, across the nation there were only 259 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR). That same year, there were 8,342 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR

    So clearly, those 259 people should have been murdered on the slight chance a handful of those 8,342 murders might not have happened.

    Because utilitarianism.

    1. I wonder how many weren’t reported to the FBI.

      I wonder how many defensive shootings resulted in injury, but not death.

      I wonder how many times just the knowledge that they faced a gun brought the criminal activity to an end?

      1. I wonder how often criminals intentionally target people who they suspect don’t own guns in the first place, so that self-defense isn’t even a possibility in the outcome.

        1. Testing this is easy.

          Find some dedicated gun control fans, and get them to post “Gun Free Zone” signs on their front lawns, like they have at schools, churches etc.

          Start collecting data for a few years.

          1. I mean, if they have a shred of integrity, they’d volunteer. Right? Right?!?

            AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            1. I almost think posting ‘Gun Free Zone’ sign on private property would act as a deterrent.

              Maybe if you had a ‘No Guns’ sticker in your car window or a ‘Guns kill’ bumper sticker or something maybe.

              Otherwise, the sign might as well say, “This is not a trap.” at the bottom.

        2. More seriously, any *rational* criminal would target victims who are less likely to carry. It’s just one of the many factors they’ll take into consideration when they select their targets.

          Now, there are probably a lot of irrational criminals around, but again, gun ownership tends to gnaw away at their population all the time.

          1. That’s why break-ins frequently happen during the day.

            Almost every break-in I ever recall reading about in the far west Chicago suburbs occurred during the day.

            Garages and cars were the night time targets.

      2. You also have to wonder how many people consider committing a violent crime, but give up on it out of fear of being shot by an armed citizen.

  13. Why can’t we all just agree that guns are scary and should be banned?

    1. Animism for the win! In fact, let’s be animists about everything!

        1. As much as I enjoy their music, their love for Chasey Lain seemed overblown to me.

          1. Like you wouldn’t eat her ass.

            1. I never said I wouldn’t, dumbass.

        2. This is the real Bloodhound Gang, you whippersnappers!!

  14. How to lie with stats — in almost every time a gun is used to defend someone, shots are never fired. Just brandishing it is good enough.

    1. Very often when a person is shot, a hole is put in them.

      1. ^^Deep thinker^^

  15. Gun Grabbers have a hard time with me; they trot out their latest talking points, and I say;

    “Hold it. We know, because the debates on the Constitution and Bill of Rights are as well documented as any momentous moment in history, that the Second Amendment was written and passed expressly to ensure that the common citizen had unhindered, legal access to military grade weapons. That is not up for debate. So, given that, and the broad language of the Amendment, when do you propose to start trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment to nullify the Second Amendment, and make any for of Gun Control Constitutional?”

    At that point they either stare at me while the crickets chirp, or trot out various specious arguments about the Second Amendment not really meaning that, or the Constitution being a LIving Document.

    “Look; the Constitution has a procedure for Amending the Constitution built into it. If you don’t like something that is enshrined in the Constitution or any subsequent Amendments, you have a perfect right to propose another Amendment. What you DON’T have a right to do is try to duck around it. Idiots with guns may kill a lot of people every year, but governments that thought they had the right to do what they damn well pleased murdered a minimum of a hundred million people in the 20th Century. I am far more worried about a Government that will not obey its own laws and limitations than I am about psychotics with guns.”

    1. Coda:

      At which juncture they usually accuse me of being a Gun Nut, so I (figuratively) kick their legs out from under them; “I don’t own a gun.”

    2. I was really disappointed when reading Bill Bryson’s book Made in America that he is one of the many ignoramuses that think the 2A means people can be armed once they’re in the military, but not in civilian life.

      1. That’s so obviously not what was ever intended, nor has it ever been the law. Of course, Bryson lived in the UK for a long time, so maybe he’s just confused.

        1. It’s completely ridiculous, too. Of course soldiers, even drafted/conscripted ones, even ones in state militias, will be armed. They didn’t need to stick that in the Bill of Rights. That’s literally the dumbest interpretation of the 2A in existence, and the fact that it persists gets my goat.

      2. Considering the actual history of personal gun ownership in the military, this is a laughable canard. Soldiers don’t keep their arms and they only bear them with permission.

  16. Some 20-odd years ago I was driving home after dark with my one year old son in a car seat. It was raining and visibility was bad. I came to an intersection and had to stop. There was a car in front of me and one behind me. I was boxed in temporarily.

    Without warning a man began yanking on the passenger door handle and banging his fist on the window right by my son’s head. He was screaming profanities and demanding that I open the door. I could not move the car to escape so I took the S&W 586 that was tucked between the console and the seat, reached across the car and tapped the barrel on the window. The man disappeared. I think he must have dropped to the ground and crawled away because I could not see him anywhere despite looking out all the windows and mirrors etc.

    If I had not had that gun would my son, or myself, be in the world today? What argument does anyone think they can make that will convince me I should disarm and be at the mercy of feral scum like that? Given the behavior of this government, what argument can convince me.

    Good luck with that shit.
    Also, fuck Tony. Goddamn fascist.

    1. Heartwarming. Not being sarcastic.

    2. I have a 586 myself. It’s a fine weapon, plus it does look quite intimidating.

    3. And Tony would rather you and your one year old son die than you be able to defend yourself with a gun. Literally.

  17. What also bothers me about gun arguments is that people do this arithmetic where they just argue about are more people saved/killed by legal guns, blah, blah, blah.

    The problem is, that doesn’t actually matter. There are all sorts of legal items that kill far more people than guns but that do not save any lives whatsoever. If you walked up to some Manhattan liberal who opposes guns and said ‘you should no longer be allowed to have a cocktail after work because every year tens of thousands of people die from alcohol abuse or drunk driving’ they’d still oppose banning alcohol because they like alcohol. Well then, why isn’t my justification that we should keep guns legal because I like guns not equally valid? The guns I like kill fewer people than the booze the Manhattan liberal likes, but he doesn’t seem to lie awake at night howling at the inhumanity of people dying from liver cirrhosis.

    So why does the lives saved/destroyed by an item only get discussed regarding guns, but never regarding anything else? More children drown in swimming pools every year than are killed by accidental gun discharges and to my knowledge no one’s ever used a pool to save his life. Why shouldn’t pools be banned using the same logic as guns?

    1. Hell, booze is actually far more heavily linked to crime than guns are. According to the National Council on Alcoholism, 36% of everyone in prison was drinking at the time they committed their offense. Also:

      “FACT: Alcohol is a factor in 40% of all violent crimes today

      About 3 million violent crimes occur each year in which victims perceive the offender to have been drinking. Crimes include: rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault. About two-thirds of violent crimes are characterized as simple assaults.

      Based on victim reports, alcohol use by the offender was a factor in:

      37% of rapes and sexual assaults
      15% of robberies
      27% of aggravated assaults, and
      25% of simple assaults”

      Put your money where your mouths are, progressives, and start advocating that we bring back prohibition. Or do you think it’s okay that 40% of rape victims were sexually assaulted because of booze? Why are you pro-rape?

      1. Like I said in an earlier thread, I bring this shit up to leftists every single time and they have no logical, empirical retort. Because the facts are clear–alcohol kills more people than guns, and by a rather large margin. It causes more obvious, visible macro-social and personal dysfunctions than guns. A heavy drinker is a lot more likely to kill or hurt someone than I am with my Ruger GP100. But even the most dogmatic shitlib knows that Prohibition was a complete and utter failure, and led to the growth of an organized crime syndicate that took about 60 years to effectively neuter after the 21st Amendment passed. Just think how long it would take for the civic dysfunction from inner-city gangs to disappear if the Drug War ever ended.

        The fact that guns are such a white whale for progressives, in the face of such obvious facts, says a lot about their love of government force against individual rights.

    2. Why isn’t Irish (and AC for that matter) writing for Reason?

      1. How do you know they aren’t.

        PROTIP: Irish is really ENB in drag.

        1. Great, now I am turned on.

        2. If I were ENB in drag would I have complimented Nicole that one time?

          Please. I will never say anything nice about Nicole.

        3. Irish is really ENB in drag.

          No. This is Irish

          reason won’t hire him because he has no thumbs.

          1. And no genitals it seems.

            1. I didn’t want to say it.

      2. Irish has not yet found his way to the end of the cosmotarian rainbow. You see, at the end of the cosmotarian rainbow, Nick Gillespie sprinkles magic unicornian dust (which comes from a magic libertarian unicorn who is down who loves feminine cocktails) on a perspective writer, and then the perspective writer magically pens articles for Reason.

        Someone Irish will get there; I have faith.

        1. I am the worst at typing and multi-tasking.

      3. The Jacket hasn’t decided if it wants to jump hosts yet.

    3. Well, it’s ultilitarian calculus in action.

      You measure society’s success by numbers, because all things that look the same, have the same value.

      A violent career criminal has the same social value as a productive member of society, *except* when he is cossetted and insulated from the consequences of his actions, he actually becomes more valuable, because his support (and the implicit violence he can bring to bear ) is guaranteed to the men who saved him from the gallows.

      Thus, a criminal is more valuable to these people than a law abiding citizen.

  18. A crime prevented is a crime unreported.
    Unless the kid stealing your snow tires out of your garage is dumb enough to call the sheriff and accuse you of “brandishing”.

    1. This a gazillion times. A friend who lives in the suburbs of Indianapolis came home after buying groceries. After the first trip, she comes back out from his apartment and discovers an individual pulling her golf clubs out of the car. My friend pulls out her pistol and says, “Put my clubs down and go away.” The dude does. End of story. No crime, no report.

      1. er her apartment…not enough coffee.

  19. One of my prog friends were talking about how horrible the NRA is to suggest people should be armed in church.

    I responded, the shooter reloaded 5 times, and no one was in a position to defend themself

    Prog: Yeah but we shouldn’t live in a society where we need a gun to defend ourselves. We need to understand and correct the reasons why people want to do that.

    Holy Shit

    1. Their logic is that we should just hope bad things wouldn’t happen and should take no actual measures to protect ourselves.

      It’s the same logic that results in them claiming that giving good advice to women on how to avoid sexual assault is ‘victim blaming.’

      1. I recall a story about a feminist getting upset that some dudes had invented a fingernail polish which changes color in the presence of a date-rape drug. The idea was not to take drinks from guys who offer you date-rapey drinks. The feminist was angry because we shouldn’t have to live in a society which needed such precautions: “That’s not the world I want to live in.”

        Well, who other than a rapist *wants* to live in a rapey world? If you find a world more to your taste, get in your spaceship and go there. Don’t get mad at people who try to mitigate the bad things in the world we actually live in.

        1. (disclaimer: I’m not saying the inflated rape statistics are true, just that rape exists)
          (disclaimers are fun, I’ve encountered less straw-manning since I began obsessively posting obvious disclaimers)

          1. (I’m just worried that one day I’ll slip up, for example, saying that some politician is a Democrat and failing to follow up with a disclaimer that I’m not saying I support Democrats.)

          2. Who was it that posted a disclaimer after everyone of his idiotic posts? Dondero?

            1. IIRC, his disclaimer was a general claim that any reply to him would be lies and insults.

              I disavow certain viewpoints in advance of them coming up.

              I know it’s annoying.

              That’s my point.

    2. We don’t need to cure AIDS, we need to understand the reasons why people share needles.

      1. We don’t need to cure cancer, we need to understand the reasons why cells replicate!

    3. There are a surprising number of people out there who hate the idea of personal responsibility so much that they’re effectively allergic to it. They desperately want to not have to worry about taking care of themselves, their safety, planning for the future, anything. This is why they so eagerly and willingly give up their freedoms to the government if it promises to take care of them. They just want to be happy slaves.

    4. And to think, the progs have the gall to call us “utopian”!

    5. Say we make it normal for people to carry guns into church (and schools while we’re at it). Should innocent people in churches and schools start dying at higher rates, then will you own up to the fact that the presence of guns alone increase people’s risk of death?

      1. Same argument when Florida became the first CC state, when Texas followed, and every state after that — we are going to have a bloodbath in the streets, drivers will shoot others in road rage, it will be shootout at the OK Corrall.

        Except it didn’t happen

      2. If people repealed or opened up concealed carry in certain places, and crime and killings went down, would you concede that guns are super-awesome?

        1. So these are the only objects in the universe that, when you increase their number and availability, become overall less effective at their intended function?

          If you could demonstrate a direct causal relationship between increased gun ownership and decreased gun deaths, I’d be confused but would cheer you on. That doesn’t mean the notion of expecting churchgoers and schoolchildren to take a gun with them isn’t as absurd as it sounds, or would sound to someone not licking up every drip of NRA propaganda. I guess that’s what happens when propaganda succeeds at its goal so completely: the new arguments start getting truly absurd, but its victims become no less willing to absorb it as true.

          1. If you could demonstrate a direct causal relationship between increased gun ownership and decreased gun deaths, I’d be confused but would cheer you on.

            I guess you answered your own question about simply counting killed people, then.

            For someone who thinks that aggression is a great way to solve social problems, you seem very willing to go with the logic that guns kill people, that’s bad, so guns are bad.

            Just people with guns, right? Government’s obviously don’t count.

            Shouldn’t you be down with the idea that, sometimes, it’s actually best if someone in a situation gets hurt, or threatened to get hurt? That that’s the whole point of self-defense?

            By your logic, it’s bad when someone actually uses a gun to defend themselves from a rapist. Because the gun killed, and that’s what guns do, so the killing has gone up.

            1. I really just can’t abide this gun control nonsense.

              We have a criminal justice system that’s totally screwed up. It’s violent. It injects violence into society. It disproportionately effects black people, one of your own favored victim groups. It’s an example of completely inept, irresponsible government.

              And, what are the great social engineer’s plans for fixing that?

              Nothing. Because their politicians are too damn beholden to police unions, and you socialist peons are too in love with the government to admit that it’s crazy. So, instead of holding the government actually responsible and accountable for it’s bullshit, you blame the NRA. As if that’s going to reform the criminal justice system. Not to mention that the criminal justice system does a piss poor job of protecting people in the first place. The Supreme Court has ruled on this: the government has no responsibility to adequate protect you. They can completely drop the ball on responding to an emergency, and it’s OK.

              So, not only are you guys completely unwilling to even address the criminal justice system and take responsibility for it, but you want to disarm citizens from protecting themselves, and rely solely on it, this batshit crazy system that you refuse to take responsibility for?

              You guys can go fuck off. Clean up your own shit before you start fixing everyone else to solve your own problems.

          2. Re: Tony,

            If you could demonstrate a direct causal relationship between increased gun ownership and decreased gun deaths, I’d be confused but would cheer you on.

            Your confusion would be surprising, considering that a criminal population that knows its intended target is armed would see its personal RISK level go up. Unless these criminals suddenly turned into robots, then their RISK AVERSION would at least deter them from pursuing their criminal activities against those armed individuals (for the meager results they could obtain) and concentrate on something with more reward and less risk, like contraband.

            That doesn’t mean the notion of expecting churchgoers and schoolchildren to take a gun with them isn’t as absurd as it sounds

            It isn’t absurd ?plus nobody is talking about arming children. Why wouldn’t church-goers have a weapon with themselves? At least be consistent and ask black-belts to leave their hands at home lest they start giving everybody Judo-chops at the drop of a hat, if you worry that church-goers are ESPECIALLY SUSCEPTIBLE to becoming violent, like YOU just suggested: “Should innocent people in churches and schools start dying at higher rates…”

          3. “So these are the only objects in the universe that, when you increase their number and availability, become overall less effective at their intended function?”

            I think atomic bombs are in the same category.

          4. You could have just typed “No”. It would have been much shorter.

          5. people are more likely to attack someone else when they think nothing bad will happen to themselves as a result. an armed society is a polite society.

          6. Can you demonstrate that any unjustified domestic homicide wouldn’t have been a baseball bat, fire axe, rat poison, anti-freeze dosing related death in the absence of a fire arm?

            Do only deaths by firearms count in your world?

            While we’re at it, can you offer any rational explanation for the juxtaposition between the rise in firearm ownership and the decline in gun deaths?

            Deflect. Distract. Sent. (D)

            1. Sent = Deny

              …stupid autocorrect.

      3. Re: Tony,

        Say we make it normal for people to carry guns into church (and schools while we’re at it). Should innocent people in churches and schools start dying at higher rates,

        Of what? A disease?

        Oh, you think people would immediately start shooting themselves once they have a weapon in hand. What a way to project my friend!

        You seem never to ask yourself why is it that there are NO shootings in gun shows. But I guess church goers and students are such a rowdy and uncontrollable bunch, we need to keep ’em disarmed! Right?

        1. To be fair, every gun show I have gone to politely asks the attendees to not bring sidearms, but you’d think that there would have been at LEAST one reenactment of Reservoir Dogs.

          1. That’s all about reducing the potential for negligent discharges, not because they are worried about some asshole intentionally trying to kill people.

            Holstered guns are safe. Its when they are handled that negligent discharges can occur.

        2. Never been to a Pentacostal church, have you? 🙂

          1. But I guess church goers and students are such a rowdy and uncontrollable bunch, we need to keep ’em disarmed! Right?

            Sorry. That should have been: never been to a Pentacostal church, have you, OldMexican? 🙂

      4. “Say we make it

        The only one talking about forcing people to do anything is you. I am not part of your “we”

      5. There was a pastor on Hannity’s radio show yesterday who said he knows of 5 or 6 people in his congregation who carry while at church. He hopes nothing ever happens, but will be grateful that there are people in place to defend everyone else from harm.

  20. Some gun rights advocates, like myself, don’t want guns at all. Personally, I find guns dangerous and unnecessary for self-defense, and I don’t hunt.

    I just don’t want government engage in a “war on guns” the same way it has engaged in a “war on drugs”. The only way to make guns unavailable is effectively to outlaw private metalworking and casting suspicion on anybody who buys drills, lathes, and other standard shop equipment. We have seen the same thing happen with chemistry, where buying any kind of lab equipment or common chemicals may single you out for special government scrutiny.

    1. Hell, the pilot of MH370 was raked over the coals simply because he had a flight sim on his computer. I was thinking “holy shit – how many millions of people have flight sims of varying degrees of sophistication?”

    2. There ya go – you can support gun rights, and be grateful that there are law-abiding gun-owners in your community who make criminals nervous, without being a gun-collecting shooty guy oneself.

      1. I haven’t owned a gun since I was a kid.

    3. ^ Boom. Another great point. The War on Drugs has been an abysmal failure, so let’s do the exact same thing with firearms! Hoozah!

    4. While the problems of a black market would probably manifest in the US given the ubiquity of guns, the difference is guns are not addictive substances, and countries that don’t have large numbers of people with gun fetishes don’t seem to have a problem keeping guns from being ubiquitous (unlike drugs–which can only be eliminated by truly draconian measures). And, of course, ending the drug war pairs legalization with regulation to make drug use safer.

      But really, what would the black market problem be? Too many people getting shot up in the illicit gun trade?

      1. “But really, what would the black market problem be? Too many people getting shot up in the illicit gun trade?”

        Yes. The exact same problems that have occurred with methamphetamine restrictions, etc.

        And as for this:

        “unlike drugs–which can only be eliminated by truly draconian measures”

        You must have missed this part of his post:

        “The only way to make guns unavailable is effectively to outlaw private metalworking and casting suspicion on anybody who buys drills, lathes, and other standard shop equipment.”

        It would require immensely draconian measures. I could make guns in my basement. How would the government stop me? There’s actually be less evidence I’m making guns down there then there’d be evidence if I were cooking meth, since gun construction doesn’t require specialized chemicals that can be traced, so how do you propose clamping down on such practices without the immensely draconian measures you profess to oppose?

        1. I’d say replacing large-scale gun manufacturing and easy access with basement metalworking would be a vast improvement.

          1. And you’d be wrong, for the same reason replacing large scale booze manufacturing with backyard whiskey stills was not ‘a vast improvement’ and resulted in the American crime rate tripling during the 1920s.

            The people who might commit terrible crimes would still get guns, so there’s no actual benefit to having fewer guns in circulation if the firearms end up with gangs anyway. All that would happen is 55 year old gun collecters and people who go to the range would no longer be able to do that, while gang bangers and white supremacists would buy illegal firearms out of the back of vans.

            1. If prohibition is any indication, the 55 year old gun collectors and recreational shooters would turn to the gang bangers and white supremacists to buy guns and find places where they can shoot them.

              The restrictionist argument hinges on a version of America that doesn’t exist.

            2. I think an all-or-nothing approach is obviously flawed, since guns are here to stay, and I’m not so zealous on this issue that I’d favor putting the boot down on gun hobbyists.

              To stick with the analogy, which I still think is not exact, how about we start applying liability to anyone who directly or through negligence allows a gun to get into the hands of someone who later commits violence with it? Just as we often do with a bartender who serves an obviously drunk person who is going to drive (and that scenario doesn’t even contain any malicious intent).

              1. how about we start applying liability to anyone who directly or through negligence allows a gun to get into the hands of someone who later commits violence with it?

                How are they supposed to know that someone is going to commit a crime? Or are we focusing the discussion on psychics and clairvoyants?

                1. Tony’s favorite movie is Gattaca.

                  He doesn’t care that Chasey Lain isn’t in it.

                2. That’s the risk you take when you give someone a gun who hasn’t gone through the proper strict registration channels that we’d also have.

                  1. You know, I stand corrected.

                    Clearly, you’re just a few steps away from solving major problems with that one.

                  2. Maybe we should start jailing parents if their kids commit crimes, unless their household and parenting skills were audited by the government before they reproduced.

                    Hey, that’s the risk you take when you bring a child into this world without having gone through the proper strict registration channels.

                  3. You mean the risks Dylann’s father ran when he knowingly, illegally purchased a firearm for his son who he knew would have failed his 4473 application?

                    That kind of risk? Damn. There ought to be a law or something! Maybe something like up to 10 years in the Big Rapey House and $250,000 fine?

                    Sounds like a grand idea. That’ll stop it happening.

                    1. He reportedly bought the gun himself with birthday money, which meant filling out the correct form and passing a background check.

              2. And in that last paragraph you demonstrate your utter ignorance of the subject.

                Most states have very specific laws covering a legal gun owner’s responsibility when you sell, or have your firearm stolen. If I have a gun stolen in CT, I have three days to notify the police.

                Failure to do so attracts severe penalties, and even in making that declaration, I am still in the crosshairs if it’s used in the commission of a violent crime.

              3. how about we start applying liability to anyone who directly or through negligence allows a gun to get into the hands of someone who later commits violence with it?

                Because that’s evil and a violation of individual rights.

          2. Would you, Tony?

            This is about a hoplophobe who went out and built himself a fully functional “Assault rifle” for about the same price it would have cost him to buy a good-quality production gun. Of course, his second and subsequent ones would have been very much cheaper.

            For a member of the ‘reality based community’, you have a pretty tenuous grasp of what is possible with ‘basement metalworking’. It’s so simple that the only reason a large number of people haven’t turned into “ghost gunsmiths” is that it’s still more effort than going out and buying one made by someone else.

            Change the incentives and you’ll fine lots of people decide to master the art. You want a society *FULL* of semi-competent armorers? Along with the inevitable development of new models that have things on the end that go up, “silencers”, stabby-stabby things on the front?

            The one thing it *won’t* encourage is lower levels of gun ownership. At least in yours and my lifetime.

            1. Don’t forget that, as was the case with bootleggers, the product they produced would also frequently be defective and therefore dangerous. Imagine guns with ‘safeties’ that don’t actually work, for just one example.

              1. They will all be made with exquisitely fashioned decockers and a DA/SA action, because the ultimate safety is keeping your booger hook off the trigger until you’re ready.

            2. I don’t know how I get into defending gun bans. That might be a good idea, but it would require decades of work. As always, I’m arguing against libertarian (and NRA in this case) extremism. Alcohol is still strictly regulated. It’s illegal to give it to a kid. Maybe we haven’t struck the exact right balance, but the answer to any such question is usually not maximum liberty or maximum control.

              I still don’t buy the analogy. You can get real manufactured guns if you really want them more easily than learning a whole craft and doing the work of making them. In places where guns are more strictly controlled, there often is simply no gun culture, no desire for them. In other places with a gun culture and even lots of guns, strong regulations keep violence down. Again, all I’m arguing against is the radical extremism of the maximum liberty argument, and chastising those who make it for pretending that guns aren’t machines designed to kill people and in fact don’t effect the killing people except magically in self-defense.

              1. Re: Tony,

                I don’t know how I get into defending gun bans.

                Because you’re evil. That’s why.

                That might be a good idea, but it would require decades of work.

                It took the Soviets just a year. Of course, the killing REALLY started after all the guns were taken, but I guess it is one thing at a time, right Tony?

                Again, all I’m arguing against is the radical extremism of the maximum liberty argument,

                Indeed, a free people is the stuff of nightmares for you. I do feel pity, because you’re pathetic. Oh, and evil. A pathetic, evil little Marxian.

              2. In places where guns are more strictly controlled, there often is simply no gun culture, no desire for them.

                Do you believe that people modified their desires by the signaling of the state?

                The same state that you guys claim always reflects the desires and will of the people?

                Perhaps you’ve stumbled on the idea that people who don’t like guns don’t mind gun control.

                Shocking.

              3. So, because you understand that you cannot be trusted with “maximum liberty” because you need the state to direct your efforts and the minutiae of your pitiful existence, we must be held to the same standards.

                It must really chap your ass, realizing that there are so many poppies taller than you.

                1. Re: Igor,

                  So, because you understand that you cannot be trusted with “maximum liberty” […] we must be held to the same standards.

                  You can conclude either of two things from what Tony argues: Either he can’t be trusted with freedom and thinks everybody else is like him, or he does not trust ANYONE ELSE with freedom and thus wants the government to limit OUR liberties so he can have peace of mind. Of course if he accepts the first case, the conclusion we can draw is that he’s delusional and paranoid. In the second instance, he’s just another stupid narcissist.

              4. Alcohol is still strictly regulated.

                Not really. Alcohol causes more deaths, but you don’t need a background check to buy it. There’s certain limits on private brewing, you need a license to sell it, you need to be 21 to buy it or consume it, and you can’t drink more than a certain amount and drive. But that’s it. Especially in left-wing urban areas, guns are regulated far more than alcohol.

              5. As always, I’m arguing against libertarian (and NRA in this case) extremism.

                As always, you don’t have a consistent or coherent position, and instead are putting up one strawman after another.

                In places where guns are more strictly controlled, there often is simply no gun culture, no desire for them

                Sure, there are plenty of places where government indoctrination has created a culture of nearly unquestioning submission to government authority. Hopefully, the US will never turn into such a place.

                In other places with a gun culture and even lots of guns, strong regulations keep violence down

                There is no evidence that “strong regulations” of guns keep violence down. For example, Germany had low murder rates before they had effective gun control, and the introduction of strong gun control changed nothing.

                What you really want has nothing to do with gun control; you want citizens to surrender more and more autonomy to the state because that’s how you believe a society should be organized. All the policies you advocate are driven by that overriding vision of society.

      2. Sigh.

        I get so tired of hearing this bullshit.

        We’re just a few gun control laws and healthcare laws away from being Sweden. It’s really just that simple.

        1. It’s not simple, and frankly on the gun issue I don’t see much recourse except to admit defeat (congratulations, permanently high gun violence rates, way to go!). I wonder if the NRA might take its trophy and go home, or if it hasn’t actually started trying to sell guns to kindergartners and declare it a constitutional duty.

          The optimist in me says that America used to be the country that did big things, and all we need to do to become that again is slay the zombie corpse of Ronald Reagan once and for all.

          1. (congratulations, permanently high gun violence rates, way to go!).

            Dishonesty.

            Gun violence rates are at all time lows.

            Why single out gun violence? Why not just violence? Take all the guns and violent crime goes through the roof.

            But then, you don’t really care about violent crime, do you?

          2. The optimist in me says that America used to be the country that did big things, and all we need to do to become that again is slay the zombie corpse of Ronald Reagan once and for all.

            “Big things” = putting Japs in camps, the Tuskegee experiment, The Great (Government-made) Depression, McCarthyism, etc

            1. Shush. You’re giving Tony a boner.

          3. Yes Tony the future is an NRA boot/shoulder stock stamping on your fucking face FOREVER. Get used to it, because soon, that shoulder stock and everything else it’s attached to will be 3-D printed.

            1. Sounds like we need to find a way to make Americans into less paranoid, ridiculous gun fetishists, don’t you think?

              1. Since the same paranoia drives people to government solutions, good luck with that.

              2. Re: Tony,

                Sounds like we need to find a way to make Americans into less paranoid, ridiculous gun fetishists

                Let’s start with finding a way to make little Marxians less paranoid, ridiculous control-fetishists. At that moment, the gun-fetish THEY think exists will suddenly disappear into the annals of woolly beliefs.

              3. “Sounds like we need to find a way to make Americans into less paranoid”

                Soo.. how many times were you shot and/or murdered today? How about in the last year? More importantly, would forsaking a constitutionally protected right have saved you from those paranoid, ridiculous gun fetishists?

              4. Not at all. I prefer my fellow Americans to be more paranoid about government and more gun friendly.

                I mean, from Tuskegee to Nixon to Snowden to Obama’s drone killings, a lot of what used to be considered “paranoia” has turned out to be quite justified in retrospect. You have to be totally naive to want Americans to be less paranoid about government.

              5. “…we need to find a way to make Americans…”

                Tony, in all his glory. A true defender of liberty.

          4. It’s not simple, and frankly on the gun issue I don’t see much recourse except to admit defeat (congratulations, permanently high gun violence rates, way to go!). I wonder if the NRA might take its trophy and go home, or if it hasn’t actually started trying to sell guns to kindergartners and declare it a constitutional duty.

            As long as yourbig solution to crime and violence is blaming the NRA, I’m not going to be too hopeful that you’re about to solve problems like crime and the criminal justice system, upon which you expect me to completely rely on for protection.

          5. congratulations, permanently high gun violence rates, way to go!

            The high homicide rates in the US have nothing to do with gun ownership.

            The optimist in me says that America used to be the country that did big things,

            You mean like developing the atom and hydrogen bombs, financing the Robber Barons, fighting the Vietnam war, creating environmentally destructive and economically useless projects like the Hoover dam, implementing great eugenics programs, and wasting vast amounts of money on a useless manned space program? Yes, you’re right: America used to do big things, and the optimist in me hopes that we will not repeat those mistakes.

          6. God you are such an asshole, Tony.

            USA = FAR AND AWAY the highest rate of gun ownership in the world- 90 guns for every 100 people!! Second best Serbia doesn’t even come close!

            Gun violence? Specifically murder? Not so much:
            #1- Honduras
            #2 El Salvador
            #3 Jamaica

            We are way down at number 28. Gosh, it is easy living in a bubble.

            http://www.theguardian.com/new…..world-list

            Asshole.

      3. Re: Tony,

        and countries that don’t have large numbers of people with gun fetishes don’t seem to have a problem keeping guns from being ubiquitous

        You would be surprised how much you DON’T know about gun ownership in other countries, especially those you think are “modern.”

        But really, what would the black market problem be?

        Oh, exactly what you want (or little red Marxians want): a disarmed population threatened by a criminal element catered by a willing black market.

      4. But really, what would the black market problem be? Too many people getting shot up in the illicit gun trade?

        The problem is, as I explained, that (1) gun control is ineffective in reducing homicides, and (2) implementing gun control will massively increase police intrusions into people’s lives.

        and countries that don’t have large numbers of people with gun fetishes don’t seem to have a problem keeping guns from being ubiquitous

        The ease and confidence with which you present your ignorant prejudices as facts is just amazing.

  21. Gun control is what you learn at the gun range.

    Disarming citizens under threat of violence is *citizen* control.

  22. Yeah but we shouldn’t live in a society where we need a gun to defend ourselves.

    True enough I suppose.
    We shouldn’t live in a society where federal prosecutors can criminalize speech at the behest of thin skinned crazy judges and issue gag orders in an attempt to prevent anyone from knowing about their petty tyranny.
    Get on that, somebody.

  23. ‘In 2012, across the nation there were only 259 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR). That same year, there were 8,342 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2012, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 32 criminal homicides.’

    Am I supposed to care about shit like this? This is not a utilitarian argument.

    1. Every political argument is a utilitarian one.

      1. For you.

  24. Gun control group bloodlust knows no bounds.

    In order for gun rights supporters to make our/their cases, we need to make sure to kill in any self-defense scenario. I guess deescalation, restraint, etc. have no place.

    1. I guess deescalation, restraint, etc. have no place.

      /flips through police handbook

      Nope.

  25. It occurs to me to add that arguing about all this is pointless. The progressives do not want to ban guns to save lives or to lower crime. As discussed earlier today they want the power of the mob. They want people to be defenseless so that they can have boots more easily placed on their necks.

    That is what it boils down to. No good argument for gun control can be made. Every argument they make is fairly easy to demolish. In the end they don’t care and most will blurt out in frustration what they really want.

    Remember this guy?

    “I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.” – Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D ? OH)

    It is easy to google up thousands of quotes like that one, and worse.

    1. Re: Chipper Gore,

      As discussed earlier today they want the power of the mob. They want people to be defenseless so that they can have boots more easily placed on their necks.

      The stated intentions of the little Marxians always sound noble because they have the ability to hide their true intentions. However, history serves as a witness to their treachery.

  26. Once again Tony is mendacity on parade.

    Jeez, isn’t there some organization we can turn to for a better group of trolls?

  27. But we have plenty of reason to believe that Americans use a gun in the service of deterring a crime or potential crime over 2 million times a year. That does not require killing someone with the gun?about three-fourths of the time the gun does not need to be fired much less kill to deter.

    Indeed, the mere expression “Go away or I’ll fill you with lead!” is enough to deter a would-be burglar already-stressed by fear (of being caught or being hurt). But only if the general knowledge is that the population has an easy access to firearms.

    Wherever gun restrictions are applied, criminals have a greater confidence in the fact that most of their intended victims will most likely NOT be armed (see the Chicago v. MacDonald case) and thus criminality will be much more pernicious ?just like in Chicago, DC, etc.

  28. By the way, isn’t it interesting the way little Marxians tend to believe in weapon animism?

    Tony: “They [guns or knives] play some causal role, surely.”

  29. They’re very careful, as usual with liberals, to gerrymander the statistics. The Georgia women who shot an intruder several times when he was trying to break into the crawl space she and her kids were hiding in (this was in late 2012, when the Newtown gun control push was starting) only wounded him, so this and many similar cases are ignored. And all the people who merely brandished a gun in self-defense and persuaded an intruder to retreat are similar ignored in these statistics. And one suspects that “justifiable homicide” only includes those cases in which justification was proven (which is actually the reverse of how the legal system operates, making it even likelier that liberals would massage the evidence that way). They also carefully ignore how many of the criminal homicides are committed by criminals in support of their criminal enterprises. But facts be damned, it’s the agenda that counts.

  30. “There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic and self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun control advocates.”
    http://gu.com/p/3ctmv/sbl

  31. The facts don’t matter. Whatever the liberals feel trumps everything. Just so they feel secure in their own world, they are willing to sacrifice the lives of others.

    If they feel only the politicians they worship should have armed guards, and your family aren’t as important as “top men” then that’s all that counts.

    They’ve learned through history, the only way to control people is to make them as weak as possible. That is why they advocate disarmament, as they cannot control those who are armed.

    They do the same with their economic policies. Make the poor dependent upon the politicians through currency debauchery, taxation, fines and fee’s, then offer them free stuff paid for by other people’s money to buy their votes while blaming the “free market” and “profit”. Meanwhile, they profit from people’s misery. They turn their hundred thousand dollar salaries into millions. But profit for everyone else is bad!

  32. I call these “Cold Body Surveys”.

  33. Are there any statistics on how often guns are used to defend people against government agents?

    My understanding is that the primary reason for the 2nd amendment was to allow people to have some defense against oppression by the government. If that’s the case, how is that working out?

  34. Most modern security systems are equally if note more effective at fighting and deterring crime (front yard/window signs, alarms, video cameras) with automatic alerts to local police departments and officers who go through extensive regular repeated training on how and when to use and not use a firearm and to resist the urge to be alarmed in surprising situations and use a weapon unnecessarily. There is a peaceful alternative to avoiding this tiresome, nauseating debate which is meant only to enrich the same industrial military complex and weapons dealer barons who pimp all of our government officials, democrats and republicans alike, into fighting unconstitutional wars. Cut them off already.

    1. Most retailers have security systems, surveillance cameras and some have hired guards… All banks do. How’s that working out for them?

      Does your security decal follow you around on the streets or in your car?

      Is some ADT security sticker going to abate a rapist?

    2. local police departments and officers who go through extensive regular repeated training on how and when to use and not use a firearm and to resist the urge to be alarmed in surprising situations and use a weapon unnecessarily

      This is sarcasm, right?

      It must be.

    3. Right, like here:
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..41038.html
      or here
      http://bearingarms.com/really-…..e-invader/

  35. This will be the down fall to the greatest country on the planet. too many leaches think they are entitled to other peoples earnings. ????? http://www.Workweb40.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.