Mass Shootings

Washington Post Fact Checker Calls Obama's Statement About 'Gun Laws' and 'Gun Deaths' Misleading

Talking about mass shootings, the president cited data on suicides.

|

White House

Responding to last week's massacre at a community college in Oregon, President Obama said "we know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths," which according to him means "the notion that gun laws don't work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals will still get their guns, is not borne out by the evidence." Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler gives that statement "two pinnochios," signifying "significant omissions and/or exaggerations." Here's why.

According to the White House, Obama's claim was based on National Journal chart published in August under the headline "The States With the Most Gun Laws See the Fewest Gun-Related Deaths" and the subhead "but there's little appetite to talk about more restrictions." As I noted at the time, that chart included suicides, which account for three-fifths of gun-related deaths in the United States, twice as many as homicides do. You can argue that suicides should be included because gun restrictions might affect them (although Kessler notes that the evidence on that score is equivocal). But in the context of preventing mass shootings, which is what Obama was discussing, it is clearly misleading to cite the association between "gun laws" and "gun deaths" that consist mostly of suicides.

Kessler finds, as I did, that focusing on homicides can have a big impact on a state's ranking:

Alaska, ranked 50th on the National Journal list, moved up to 25th place. Utah, 31st on the list, jumped to 8th place. Hawaii remains in 1st place, but the top six now include Vermont, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Iowa and Maine. Indeed, half of the 10 states with the lowest gun-death rates turn out to be states with less-restrictive gun laws.

Meanwhile, Maryland—a more urban state—fell from 15th place to 45th, even though it has very tough gun laws. Illinois dropped from 11th place to 38th, and New York fell from 3rd to 15th.

National Journal did look at homicides separately, but only with reference to three specific policies regarding carry permits, self-defense, and background checks. Amazingly, those charts omitted the states with the fewest homicides—all of which have relatively permissive gun laws—because they "had too few homicides in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate." By not performing an overall analysis focusing on homicides and by skewing the presentation of data in the ancillary charts, National Journal seemed to be bending over backward to reach the conclusion announced in its headline, including the false implication that correlation proves causation.

"This is a classic situation in which a politician bases a statement on a study, but then exaggerate[s] the conclusions to justify a policy," Kessler writes. "It also lacks context because the results change, sometimes dramatically, when suicides are removed from the gun deaths. While gun suicides are certainly a serious issue— and account for more than 60 percent of gun deaths—the evidence is mixed on whether restricting gun purchases would affect the overall suicide rate. In any case, the president's policy proposals are aimed at mass shootings, not suicides." 

[via Hans Bader]

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.

126 responses to “Washington Post Fact Checker Calls Obama's Statement About 'Gun Laws' and 'Gun Deaths' Misleading

  1. So, it looks like WaPo rediscovered some integrity. [pauses for audience laughter] Seriously, folks, they’re just looking to curry favor with his annointed replacement.

    1. Well, I don’t know much about the paper in general, but they do feature Balko and Volokh.

      1. It’s improving, not that that’s saying much about a newspaper that once admittedly let Bishop Harry Jackson dictate its news coverage.

  2. You’re not excoriating Obama hard enough, Jacob. Must be a cocktail party coming up.

  3. Gun grabbers are liars.

    Water is wet.

    1. I also hear that grass is actually green. I’ll pause here to let that sink in… Also – brace yourself – the sky is blue! I know, right!!!!!!! WUT!!!!!

    2. I have Kevlar shocked faces for everyone to wear.

    3. Be careful – this is Glenn Kessler saying Obama isn’t being truthful on the matter. If Glenn Kessler tells you water is wet you’d better start rethinking everything you thought you knew about water and wetness and the meaning of the word ‘is’.

  4. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you to learn that the Chocolate Nixon is a dishonest asshole. Shocked! /sarc

  5. Does a person who wants to commit suicide go to the store and buy a gun to do it?

    Or do they do it with a gun already in the house?

    In other words, do they do it with one of the 320 million guns already in private hands that none of the new gun laws Obama and Hillary want will affect in the slightest bit?

    All hail dishonesty!

    1. I don’t see why a person who wanted to kill himself wouldn’t go buy a gun if it were easy to do so and he didn’t already have one available. It’s likely to be the best option available.

      1. If you want to commit suicide and dont’ have a gun, there are plenty of better options than plunking down $600 for a handgun. Throwing yourself off a roof, for one. Hanging is cheap. Stepping in front of a truck. Why go through the process and the waiting period? When you want to kill yourself, you wanna do it now!

        1. If you are concerned about the cost of your suicide, you must not have a high degree of confidence in your success.

          1. Back in highschool, I had a great great uncle commit suicide on his death bed because otherwise he was going to die near Christmas and he didn’t want to ruin that holiday for his sister, my great-grandmother (their mother’s death left a permanent mark on Thanksgiving for her). While most suicides are stupid and selfish, not all of them are, sometimes they are about minimizing harm to loved ones.

        2. Do you have access to a roof high enough to guarantee you will die and not just end up maimed? Stepping in front of a truck is a terrible idea and extremely unreliable. You could end up much worse off than when you started. There may also be annoying logistics involved in hanging.

          If you want to kill yourself, you can wait to do it right, and you don’t care if it costs some money as long as you have money at all.

          1. I’ll tell you what does work. Try to cross a highway at night in dark clothes.

        3. Or just start berating cops. Maybe go for one of their guns if they’re not taking the bait.

        4. . . . plunking down $600 for a handgun.

          Wow, where the heck are you buying your handguns.

          $250 or less will get you a decent used pistol in a suitable caliber.

          And check this out.

          http://tinyurl.com/o22ufp7

          http://tinyurl.com/oynhweq

      2. There have been a few suicides at the local gun range in Orlando. People rent a gun and then shoot themselves in the head. I quit going to that range.

        1. Too many pikers who can’t afford their own guns?

          1. Tourist. Every time I went there would be a group of people who barely spoke English wanting to shoot a gun for the first time.

            1. I thought the Florida tradition was to shoot the tourists, or are they out of season?

              1. In Orlando, they’re in protected habitat sponsored by The Mouse. Nobody fucks with The Disney.

        2. Ever go to the SCGAA range?

          Those indoor ranges wreak havoc on my contacts ….

          Not to mention the murderous tourists.

          1. I use to go to oak ridge and orange something gun range. They opened a new one by millenia but I haven’t been yet.

            1. “orange something gun range” – the one on Forsyth?

              Need to do a Commentariat Gunshine State Shoot ’em up Meat-up:

              1. Outdoor plinking range in late October AM weather
              2. Local micro-brau for afternoon refreshments
              3. Close the evening at Mons

              Mebbe even throw in a black bear/Burmese python/gator/manatee/Skunk Ape hunt.

              1. Yup. Forsyth. I’m game for some Orlando Brewing Blonde Ale.

        3. That’s happened twice at my range. They won’t rent you a gun if you are alone.

      3. You rent a gun at a shooting range.

  6. Amazingly, those charts omitted the states with the fewest homicides?all of which have relatively permissive gun laws?because they “had too few homicides in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate.”

    Too few to calculate, so let’s exclude them altogether? That makes perfect sense.

    These charts should somehow include cities within these states, which may have an additional layer of gun laws, and compare them with counterparts in other states.

    1. How many times do we have to do Morton Grove, Il vs. Forsyth, GA?

      1. Kennesaw, GA is what you meant, I am pretty sure.

        Fun fact: The town was named for Kennesaw Mountain Landis.

        (Note: this fact is not true)

        1. Yes, Kennesaw, thank you.

          Had Forsyth on the brain from an earlier post.

  7. It’s almost as if gun grabbers are mendacious fuckwits.

    1. My thoughts too.

      In any case, the president’s policy proposals are aimed at mass shootings, not suicides.”

      No they’re not. Stop lying.

      1. Yeah I’m pretty sure his policy proposals are aimed at disarming the public. Mass shootings are just a useful rhetorical tool.

  8. speaking of liars

    Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate
    …It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

    “Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”….

    1. …Dr Evans is an expert in Fourier analysis and digital signal processing, with a PhD, and two Masters degrees from Stanford University in electrical engineering, a Bachelor of Engineering (for which he won the University medal), Bachelor of Science, and Masters in Applied Maths from the University of Sydney….

      1. Well, I suppose this is a less violent form of suicide than a gun, but it is suicide none the less. My guess is Dr. Evans doesn’t last 2 weeks under the backlash and screams of “settled science.”

        1. It will be dismissed for being funded by the conservative government in Australia.

          1. Something about kangeroo fuckers with “heads full of zombie”…

            1. Where women glow and men plunder?

              Where the beer does flow and men chunder?

          2. Wait, it’s government funded? That’s greatness. I know they’ll try to cry conservatives, but this gets rid of the main argument that people try to use against science that doesn’t lock step with the consensus.

            1. I have no idea if it’s government funded. It wouldn’t surprise me given the current government. But do you think that will matter? They’ll claim ties to the conservative government regardless. It’s hated among academia (not without some good reasons).

              The current government in Australia has been scaling back basic research funding in favor of more applied research (which I’m actually against, as it amounts to a subsidy to favored industries; there are at least classical liberal, if not libertarian, arguments for public funding of basic research but not really for applied industry research). They also are famously anti-AGW.

              1. If you argue a anti-AGW government funding results in anti-AGW research, then the corollary pro-AGW government funding results in pro-AGW research becomes harder to argue against in a convincing way to the non-converted. To argue against this funding source is to plant the seeds of doubt for your own funding source.

    2. “Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate”

      Problem is, it’s not a “debate”.
      It’s bleevers vs. those of no faith, and the bleevers did not come to their faith by reason, so they are not going to be reasoned out of it.

      1. “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.” –Jonathan Swift

      2. Well, he’s an electrical engineer so what does he know about climate change? Although it is odd that I keep hearing 92, 97, 98% of “all scientists” agree with the settled science with no qualifier as to what sorts of scientists and when you bring up all the other types of scientists they say “well, we mean scientists with a relevant background”. Point out the huge number of scientists with relevant backgrounds who haven’t expressed an opinion on the matter and it changes to “well, we mean the scientists who have expresssed an opinion”. Point out that some of these scientists have actually studied the matter and expressed an opinion that there’s not enough evidence to reach a conclusion either way and then it’s “well, we mean all the scientists who agree the science is settled agree that the science is settled”. Well no duh. But given all the scientists who haven’t expressed an opinion I would suggest the default position on that is that their opinion is there isn’t enough evidence to reach a firm conclusion, the science is not settled.

        1. Those numbers are basically for climate scientists that agree that 1) the Earth is warming and 2) man-made CO2 emissions are major cause. For which there is strong evidence. Those numbers drop significantly when you start asking people about their confidence in the long-term predictions.

          1. You were right up until your second point. You have to substitute ‘some’ for ‘major.’

    3. So just read the article and the comments. Apparently this guy has been a skeptic for a while, and that’s as far as the believers are willing to read. They don’t know enough to argue the facts, so he’s a skeptic and therefore he’s wrong. He’s apparently making a series of blog posts about his research while waiting on the peer review for his two papers if you are interested in what specifically he is saying.

      1. He’s arguing against the use of partials in the model, but Navier-Stokes is a set of PDEs.

        He’s barking up the wrong tree.

        1. I really can’t say. I’ve got enough mathematical background that with enough research and patience I could probably understand the debate and maybe even comment, but I haven’t done the research. More commenting on how in a normal debate this would be the time the opposite would be linking to people who have shot down these arguments already (the solar argument has been around long enough someone should have addressed it by now), but instead it’s just a bunch of you are on the opposite side so anything you say is invalid.

          1. “but instead it’s just a bunch of you are on the opposite side so anything you say is invalid.”

            And that is the first clue that real science is not involved. Real scientists are okay with having their assumptions challenged by new evidence, experiments that show something else, etc. If they were not, we’d still be told that the “consensus” is on a geocentric solar system, or that light waves move through “the ether.”

            It seems increasingly obvious that AGW is mostly a postmodern secular form of organized religion. I say “mostly” because some of its proponents are more like disingenuous Marxists who promote the typical “urgent fixes to prevent climate change” (as if PREVENTING that were even possible!) as a way to smash free markets and impose top-down central planning.

    4. Last night’s Jeopardy had a question about naming the gas that is causing man made global warming.

      1. “What is ‘bullshit’, Alex.”

  9. dishonesty among gun-grabbers. Better get my shocked face ready.

  10. Obo lies! Film when we have several hours to spare.

  11. The easiest way to reduce the number of gun-related suicides is to allow people to buy drugs that can peacefully and painlessly end their life. I am sure people concerned about gun deaths will be proposing this common sense solution very soon.

    1. And the easiest way to reduce the number of gun-related homicides is to end the War on Drugs. I’m sure they’ll be proposing that common sense solution as well.

      1. Yep. A lot is made of the high gun ownership rate in America, and I agree that is part of the reason we have more gun deaths. It’s just numbers. But it would be interesting to see how gun deaths vary from country to country when you compare it to gang activity, policing practices, and their influence on black markets.

      2. Not likely judging by this control freak’s comment…

        Michele Guindani
        9:31 AM EDT
        Gun deaths or gun violence. What a picky distinction. Anyway, you miss the point. The chart reports “gun deaths” and basically proves the president is right in saying that there are too many guns in this country. Permissible laws allow people to ease their way to death, also by suicide. Would anyone be as permissible with drug use who harm only those who take them?

        1. Has he even heard of libertarians????

        2. Would anyone be as permissible with drug use who harm only those who take them?

          Great, another person who believes he has the right to control what I do with my own body. And I’ll bet he’s one of those un-self-aware asshats with the “Keep your laws off my body!” sticker on his car.

  12. Listen, you gun nut assholes, why do you keep saying gun bans don’t work all you ever talk about is banning gay sex, gay marriage etc.? Huh? And, if you’re so fucking smart, why would a state issued id prevent voter fraud but not guns? Voting is such a peaceful activity, but every angry young white man in this country can by a gun.

    1. I think you’ve accidentally typed “www.reason.com” where you meant to type “www.gop.org” into your browser URL window.

      1. I hear that there are now cheap sarcasm detectors on the market.

    2. that was funny. and mostly coherent. thanks!

      1. It’s a combination of various Occupy Democrats memes, mostly coherent is generous.

        1. Grade inflation: not just for K-12 anymore!

    3. marriage,*

    4. gun-nut*

      (Or, I suppose, gun/nut, but that is very different and I don’t think what you mean.)

    5. Addendum:

      You’ll ban books to protect the kids but assault weapons!

      1. Name one book a libertarian would ban. Just one. I dare ya!

        You obviously have ZERO idea what libertarians are all about. Maybe if you read this site a bit instead of just logging in to spew your bullshit based on what your leaders/betters tell you “libertarian” means, you might actually learn something.

        1. I think he was being sarcastic.

          1. His name is Inigo DuBois, RBS killed his father…

            1. Sorry, my sarcasm meter is broken today.

    6. Voting is such a peaceful activity

      The fuck it is.

  13. OT

    My Dad and I have a ranging coming up. He’s bringing three revolvers. What’s with old guys and revolvers?

    1. My best friend’s granddad used to only carry big revolvers.

      1. Did he make 90,000.00 a day on the internet so he could bUy a nwe Lancia?

    2. Russian Roulette is too easy to win with semi-automatics.

    3. Before my grandad died he told me the extra weight kept his hand from shaking like it normally did. Plus the single action trigger was easier for him to pull.

    4. Because there is something cool about a revolver. It says “I only need 6* bullets to win.”

      *Or 8 or whatever, but you get the point.

      1. If you’ve got six bullets in your six-shooter, you are being quite bold with your gun safety practices.

        Leave an empty under the hammer, is what I was taught.

        1. That was when they made revolvers with the firing pin in the hammer.

          Modern ones have a transfer bar system that is supposed to eliminate accidental discharge.

        2. Leave an empty under the hammer, is what I was taught.

          Not applicable with modern revolvers—anything after the 80s, really—with a means for blocking the firing pin unless the trigger’s pulled. I’d love a Smith K-38 or Combat Masterpiece—they’re supposed to be stupidly accurate and fun to shoot—and I’d feel fine carrying it with all chambers loaded.

          Very applicable for old, usually single-action, revolvers without transfer bars or other things of that ilk. One memorable products liability case involved a guy with a Freedom Arms Model 83 revolver, in .454 Casull, who had a loaded cartridge under the hammer. He went horseback riding through brush, the hammer lifted up, crashed down, and he had a giant hole in his leg. IIRC, he either lost the leg or his life.

        3. Leave an empty under the hammer, is what I was taught.

          Not applicable with modern revolvers—anything after the 80s, really—with a means for blocking the firing pin unless the trigger’s pulled. I’d love a Smith K-38 or Combat Masterpiece—they’re supposed to be stupidly accurate and fun to shoot—and I’d feel fine carrying it with all chambers loaded.

          Very applicable for old, usually single-action, revolvers without transfer bars or other things of that ilk. One memorable products liability case involved a guy with a Freedom Arms Model 83 revolver, in .454 Casull, who had a loaded cartridge under the hammer. He went horseback riding through brush, the hammer lifted up, crashed down, and he had a giant hole in his leg. IIRC, he either lost the leg or his life.

          1. Do I win any Internets for having a double tap in a gun thread?

            1. Nope, just extra scrutiny from the feds.

    5. I absolutely love my wife’s Smith and Wesson 686. It’s just fun to shoot, esp in single-action mode. Trigerr is like buttah.

      Yeah, racking off 17 rounds quickly with my Glock is also fun – but wheel guns have their place.

      *re-holsters Colt single action that is also fun as hell*

    6. There is dependability with a revolver, like with nothing else.

    7. “What’s with old guys and revolvers?”

      They are more reliable, easier to master, and they can chamber more powerful rounds. Thats what.

      -from an old guy who has many revolvers but carries a 1911

  14. My experience when talking to the more rank and file gun haters (educated Chicago and Boston residents) is that they truly don’t know what the fck they are talking about. They are afraid of guns and truly think they will spontaneously discharge whenever you look at them.

    “Why do you need a lethal gun? Why not a taser?”

    If a taser could fire 20 rounds through dry wall and guarantee incapacitation, I’d be all over it.

    The downside is that you’d probably have 100,000 taserings a year and a couple thousand “accidental” deaths as a result.

    1. The downside is that you’d probably have 100,000 taserings a year and a couple thousand “accidental” deaths as a result.

      Shit, not a week would go by without a story of some drunk idiots taseing each other for the lulz with some dumbass accidentally dieing. Followed by hyperventilating morons screaming about how “no one needs 50,000 volts!”

      1. http://www.craveonline.com/cul…..sport-ever

        Taserball. Brilliant.

        1. That’s not cool, Butters. You don’t shoot a guy in the dick.

          1. You said that there was too much competition among existing steak sauces.

  15. My understanding is that Obama and Hillary want to move to a system similar to Australia’s, where they went to a restrictive gun law regime after a mass shooting.

    The University of Melbourne’s Melbourne Institute did a study of the effects of those laws.

    “The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996, where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.

    —-Abstract, Melbourne Institute Working Paper No. 17/08

    (Bold all mine)

    http://tinyurl.com/q87e26a

    In addition to these studies, someone should mention that using the government to violate the Constitutional rights of individual gun owners who have never committed a crime merits more than just statistical, utilitarian considerations. Using the government to violate the rights of the innocent is the very definition of injustice.

      1. Also, Australia’s news is being dominated right now by a story about a radicalized 15-year old who randomly murdered a Chinese businessman with a handgun.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..youth.html

        Nobody’s sure exactly how he got the gun yet, but however the kid got the gun, it was in spite of their gun control laws. That we know for certain.

        1. Tim Blair’s blog has some hilarious posts about proggy Aussie writers trying furiously to deny that a shooting by a guy wearing robes and shouting “Allah!” has anything to do with Islam, with much chin-stroking about what his motivation could possible have been.

        2. It says he’s a Kurd. I thought those guys liked us?

          1. It was the gun that did it.

  16. WaPo misleads by calling Obama’s statements “misleading”; they were lies.

  17. What about gun deaths from police shootings? Are those counted in that statistic, too?

    1. I don’t know why they’d include justified police shootings, and aren’t all police shootings justified by definition?

      1. I wouldn’t put it past them. I mean, they shamefully include suicides in the context of “gun violence,” which they know the public interprets as the unlawful killing of another.

        1. That’s why they call them “gun deaths“.

          Look up the scandal surrounding the “No More Names” bus tour. Names of gun victims were read aloud over a PA system to inspire action on more gun-control. Except the list was complete, and it became obvious that suicides, including those of high profile mass murderers, and criminals shot by police and in self defense were listed.

  18. Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler gives that statement “two pinnochios,” signifying “significant omissions and/or exaggerations.”

    But why this morbid attachment or devotion to facts when there’s a bigger truth that must be pointed out to the unthinking peasants?

    The bigger truth is that guns are… bad, and thus must be taken from the dead and cold hands of the rubes and yokels and erased from this Earth. Only then will humanity reach Nirvana.

    After a few billion deaths, of course… and the indoctrination of the rest. Easy peasey.

  19. I like how the anti-gun lobby trots out their comparison between America’s “gun homicide” rate compared to the Civilized World, without ever noting homicides over all.

    1. The US Machete Homicide Rate is only 1/1000th that of Africa. So we’ve got that going for us.

    2. Do they trot out “gun homicide” numbers? Or just “gun death” numbers? I see a lot of the latter, but not the former.

  20. In other news, Democratic Senator commits a false dichotomy fallacy.

    Democratic Senator Accuses Congress of Endorsing Mass Murderers By Not Passing Gun Control Legislation

    Democrat Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut accused Congress of “quietly endorsing?mass murders” by not passing gun control legislation Monday on “MSNBC Live.”

    I’ve said for a long time I think Congress is effectively quietly endorsing these mass murders because people who are having their minds unhinged,

    Yep. If you’re against A, then you have to be for B.

    Either you’re with us, or against us!

  21. He was misleading? Oh, noooooo, said it aint so? He has been so truthful on everything else, he must have mispoke, or taken out of context.

  22. He should make the White House a gun free zone, put up some signs. He must be all worried that there are people carrying guns around, within plain sight of his wife and daughters. He needs to keep them same and take all guns out of the White House.

  23. I plugged in the state data given in the WaPo article into a spreadsheet, and ran a statistical test on it (ANOVA). There was no significant relationship between the states with and without many gun laws, and the non-suicide gun death rate. None.
    You would think it would be easy for the newspaper to do a quick and easy statistical test on the data.

  24. Obama is ignoring Switzerland – a major advanced nation – with virtually no gun control. The low Swiss violent crime and gun violence indeed do prove that lack of gun laws work extremely well.

    So his statement “the notion that gun laws don’t work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals will still get their guns, is not borne out by the evidence.” is actually a complete lie – five pinnochios.

    Obama and the rest of the gun-control nuts confuse being Tough on Crime with being Tough on Guns. But they are completely opposite. Being Tough on Guns is actually Soft on Crime – because it disarms law-abiding citizens while leaving only criminals (who, by definition, don’t obey the law) with guns.

    Umpqua was a gun-free zone, that’s why so many died. So was Sandy Hook, and Fort Hood, and Columbine, and …

  25. If you look at violent crime which includes all murders, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, rather than just gun deaths, you’ll find that FBI statistics prove it’s been decreasing for decades. Violent crime has been coming down for years while the number of guns has been going up. Coincidence?

    Now that Britain enforces a near-total ban on guns, the UK Telegraph reports that: “The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to the European Commission.” see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..urope.html

    If you compare the Violent Crime Rate – violent crimes per 100,000 people which eliminates differences in population – then gun-free Britain’s rate of around 2,000 is close to five times America’s rate of around 400. The latest FBI 2014 statistics show US violent crime rate is now 360, down yet again from last year…

  26. The routine is often known described as Bait and Switch, isn’t it?

  27. Responding to last week’s massacre at a community college in Oregon, President Obama said “we know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths,” which according to him means “the notion that gun laws don’t work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals will still get their guns, is not borne out by the evidence.” Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler gives that statement “two pinnochios,” signifying “significant omissions and/or exaggerations.”

    Only “two pinnochios”, talk of being damned with faint praise.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.