Gun Control

Sympathy for Barbara Boxer: Why Shouldn't Gun Law Advocates Declare Victory?

|

California Sen. Barbara Boxer earned a lot of incredulous "who the hell is she kidding?" responses last week for saying to reporters, after 14 people were murdered in San Bernardino, California, with weapons that were partially legally obtained (but entirely illegally used): "Sensible gun laws work. We've proven it in California."

The Blaze collects many examples of thinking the senator must have gone mad.

Let's think about the implications for a minute before joining the chorus of jeers. Anyone opposed to more stringent gun control than already exists would agree in principle that it's not absurd to believe one can have sensible gun laws that work (as well as gun laws can be expected to work) and still have people commit horrible murders with guns.

Boxer unsurprisingly followed up with the idea that California laws alone are "not enough" and "that is why we need national laws." She seemed to be trying to say that if all the country had California's laws, things would be better. Since the guns used to commit the San Bernardino murders were purchased in-state, even if illegally transferred, nationalizing California's laws would have had no effect on this tragedy. That is the usual situation when people talk about toughening gun laws in reaction to tragedies caused by people using guns.

Boxer's statement would have been a more meaningful "gotcha" against someone who is against expanding gun laws, the sort of supposedly callous thing you can expect from someone who doesn't believe in an Arcadia of a world with zero gun violence, brought to us by sensible but tough gun laws.

Whether Boxer meant it that way or not, it was interesting to hear a gun controller of her stature simultaneously seem to believe that gun laws can be sensible and work and that people could nevertheless still murder people with guns. It's the kind of truth-gaffe that gets all the more abuse for how true it is.

Boxer's comment and the mockery storm it riled up made me re-wonder something I've often wondered contemplating trends in gun violence in America over the past couple of decades: why don't gun control advocates just declare victory?

After all, they won their greatest national legislative victory, the Brady Law instituting national background checks on gun purchases from federally licensed dealers, which became law in 1993.

And what do you know? CDC figures for firearm homicide rates per 100,000 plummeted since then from 7.0 to 2013's 3.5. That's a cut in half in fatal firearm violence, in just 20 years after imposing what gun controllers saw as a smart, necessary law.

But they never crow about it. It's rare they even acknowledge that good news even exists. And the good news continues even in this alleged age of gun violence epidemics; from 2010 to 2014, the FBI's Uniform Crime Report figures show gun homicides down in total numbers by over 8 percent, with reductions in the total number of gun murders ever year except from 2011 to 2012.

Human reality is a complicated, multicausal thing. Despite that correlation between new law and amazing policy result, which is very true, the consensus of the social scientists who look into such things is that, at least as of 2003 (after which most of the positive effects of fall in gun violence had already happened) the Brady Law didn't really seem to have much to do with it.

However, lack of a solid and unimpeachable link between a law or a prospective law and a positive outcome doesn't tend to stop most gun control folk from lauding any old proposed law they consider tough. But this is one they don't seem to want to take credit for.

And what of California specifically, the state Boxer was talking about, one with much tougher gun laws (which I detailed in broad overview here)?

California has done even better in the past decade, at least with homicides, both total and gun homicides. This is just as people who believe in tougher gun laws might have predicted. From 2005 to 2014, total homicides went down 33 percent in California. Homicides committed with guns went down slightly more, by 36 percent. And those are whole numbers, so would look even better compared to population. (Nationally, CDC gun homicide rates per 100,000 went down from 4.2 in 2005 to 3.5 in 2013, only around a 16 percent drop.) The total number of homicides in California went down every year in that interval, except from 2011 to 2012.

It could easily become a quotable factoid that "California, with its tougher-than-average gun laws, outperformed the rest of the nation in gun homicide reductions by 20 percentage points, over 100 percent."

Now, we have no reason to believe the laws caused this outcome, but gun control people often credit gun laws with effects that they have no good reason to believe the laws actually caused.

How can we be pretty sure the gun laws didn't have a ton of independent causative power? While this is an issue that could benefit from some more rigorous regression analysis, we can note off the top of our heads that total violent crime rates also went down 25 percent from 2005-14 in California, property crimes went down 26 percent over that period, and even arson went down 45 percent, which indicates a whole lot of things are feeding into crime declines in the state than gun laws. (That doesn't preclude the idea that perhaps the laws had some positive effect on gun homicides. To the extent California gun laws keep guns out of the hands of the law abiding or prevent them from carrying them, they also impose costs that are rarely accounted for in gun social science, in terms of crime, personal safety, and liberty.) One would also want to compare various other states with similar and different gun laws to see how their gun murder numbers have done in the same period to be more sure what the laws did or didn't do.

Still, a simple factoid could be declared by a Boxer or anyone else: California has tougher gun laws than the nation at large, and what do you know? It has also had better gun violence reduction results. I don't consider California's current set of gun laws to be entirely rational or defensible in terms of safety or liberty. But it would be easy, for those who think laws reliably shape outcomes with guns, to take that rhetorical tack, either in California or nationally.

For those who like gun laws that make things easier on gun owners, they can look to the simple huge advances in citizens legally able to carry in public that also accompanied our amazing reductions in gun murders over the past couple of decades. Again, this is not rigorous social science, but it does tell us that massive increases in public carry of weapons can accompany gun crime reduction.

That gun controllers almost never try to declare that kind of good news, and Boxer was mocked for seeming to suggest it even casually, is likely a sign that they wish and hope that gun laws can achieve results they cannot actually be expected to achieve; or that the controllers won't be happy until civilian gun ownership is just banned. (Which also wouldn't end gun violence in America.)

But gun controllers do always seem to want to push further, treating past good results as irrelevant, even, as the New York Times did this weekend, going so far as to call for complete bans on (nearly completely irrelevant to gun violence) classes of weapons, including confiscations.

In other words, rather than look soberly at progress already made and think hard about exactly how much gun laws could realistically be expected to make things significantly better than they already are, they'd prefer to pursue a likely useless and even malign fantasy that would create a world where there are goodness knows how many more grenades tossed into babies' cribs and men shot dead like dogs by the side of the road.

Why? Because in a world of that kind of confiscatory gun control, the generally harmless (if left alone) contraband our militarized police would need to be rooting out in our homes and car trunks actually are potentially dangerous weapons.

Given those horrible costs of a serious gun control regime that includes confiscation, it is worth asking every time someone into gun control asks for more and more laws, chasing likely smaller and smaller possible gains: why don't gun controllers ever consider declaring victory?

Advertisement

NEXT: Man harshly criticizes judge, another judge restricts his speech about the first judge (and restricts his gun possession)

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’m still not clear if the rifles were CA legal or not. Aren’t they supposed to have some kind of lock on the magazine-well to make it a pain in the ass to change mags?

    And if a friend bought them for the couple and didn’t legally transfer them in CA, isn’t that also illegal?

    1. What I read is that a friend gave them the hand guns that they used. Not the rifles. And anyway, I’m pretty sure that pipe bombs are illegal in CA and they didn’t seem to care much about that. Is there really any reason at all to think that they wouldn’t have obtained the weapons regardless of whether they’re legal or not? Because I’m having a really hard time believing that people who were making illegal explosives to kill people with give a shit about any laws at all.

    2. A Bullet button. You have to use the tip of a .223 round because you can’t do it with your finger.

      They purchased guns with bullet buttons and removed them. It takes about 2 minutes, and yes, it’s a felony

      1. Because people planning a mass slaughter are totally going to make their guns slower to reload, if that’s against the law.

      2. That’s terrible! They broke the LAW?
        [flops on to fainting couch and weeps]

    3. AFAICT, the rifles were purchased by a friend who checked himself into a mental hospital the day of the attack, and so we’re not sure if they were “sold” illegally or just “borrowed.” http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli…..no-n475696

      And as Playa said, they’d monkeyed with the bullet buttons, and a few reports I saw said they’d even tried to convert one rifle to be capable of fully automatic fire, which is also a felony.

      1. Cali law on straw purchases has no leeway for borrowing; unless some un-reported licensed dealer was involved in the move from him to Farook, he absolutely broke Cali law.

        1. California law does allow for “the infrequent loan of firearms between persons who are personally known to each other for any lawful purpose, if the loan does not exceed 30 days in duration”, and in the case of handguns the recipient needs to have an HSC.

  2. why don’t gun control advocates just declare victory?

    Because victory means a totally disarmed society.

    1. Well not totally disarmed. Guns are just peachy as long as they are issued to soldiers of the state for either foreign combat or local occupation. Also they make fine gifts to carefully vetted foreign freedom fighters who definitely probably won’t turn around and use them on the US someday.

      1. I consider government to be separate from society. After all, government is in the business of coercion and initiating violence, neither of which are things anyone in polite society uses to get their way.

      2. careful on taking shots at the freedom fighters. You’ll be accused of Trump-supporting yokeltarianism.

    2. And they have said as much. The latest NYT front page editorial is the most recent proof of this.

      The problem is that they’re so shifty, the moment you point out that their goal is to confiscate all weapons, the Marxians accuse you or I of promoting paranoid conspiracy theories. “Wha?? Me? NO! Of course I don’t want to take your guns! You’re crazy! I am a HUGE second amendment fan. No, I just want sensible gun control; you know, disarm people but not the state. Oh! Did I say that out loud?”

      1. Yep. They want “common sense gun control,” but it never ends. First this restriction and then that restriction. The only logical conclusion is total confiscation. Yet to say so would be honest, and as we all know the first rule of leftism is to never be honest.

        1. BO’s standard for getting a gun is – as he has SAID REPEATEDLY- “not making it impossible”. “WE don’t want to make it impossible for you to get a gun, just make it so the wrong people can’t get them…”
          Not exactly refreshing to know that my natural right will be just short of “impossible” to exercise.
          What if we could apply that to the other amendments ?
          “Well, we don’t want to make it impossible for you to express yourself, but we want it so that the WRONG PEOPLE can’t express themselves…”

          Sounds great, doesn’t it? Liberal fascism at its finest…

          1. Because you can’t tell who the “wrong people” are, the only way to be sure that the “wrong people” don’t get guns is to ban them for everyone. Common sense. Duh.

      2. Stephen King wants to take away your semi-automatic weapons and let you keep your fully automatic ones.

  3. why don’t gun controllers ever consider declaring victory?

    “Because,” said the scorpion, as the dying frog and it were sinking into the water, “that is what I do.”

  4. Boxeris not mad. Incredibly stupid, but not mad.

    1. Biden at least has clinically verifiable brain damage.

      What’s Boxer’s excuse?

      1. She rose to her level of maximum incompetence.

  5. why don’t gun controllers ever consider declaring victory?

    Is it just simple TEAM politics? It is a fundraising drive, similar to the way the other TEAM is constantly fighting against legalized abortion? The difference is that a majority of America is in favor of the Second Amendment, so gun control efforts crumble in the face of reality (at least outside of the Northeast or California).

    1. this. All of this is meaningless astroturf for fundraising in presidential election season. Gun control and the environment sell with the dem. donor class and rile up the base and it distracts them from how terrible Hillary is.

      1. Gun control is the proggie’s version of outlawing abortion.

        Its the perfect wedge issue for them. Raises a ton of money, turns out some voters, and that makes the fact that they will never, ever get their way a feature, not a bug.

    2. Gun control in CA isn’t popular outside SF and LA Metro areas.

      And in those areas, gun control is only popular as long as it’s for the lower and middle classes.

  6. Right after the NAACP, MADD, and NOW declare victory and disband.

  7. “That’s the spirit of the assault-weapon ban community ? it is a good thing to pass laws that don’t work because it shows you really care. Pat yourself on the back quickly because you’ve just chased other Americans ? people who fear that this is an early step in a march against their Second Amendment rights ? to their local gun dealer to buy what they think you want to ban.”
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/opi…..ate-result

    The Chron’s token non-commie.

    1. Saunders seems to understand cause/effect and incentives.

  8. the Boxer wing got what it wanted and the results were self-evident. In their minds, the only obvious conclusion is to plow further.

  9. From the same link:
    ” On Saturday, a New York Times front-page editorial opined likewise. The editorial noted that European bans have not stopped terrorist attacks, “But at least those countries are trying.”

    Yep, we’re DOING SOMETHING! They’re not even trying to hide is any more.

  10. Mildly OT: Kevin Williamson discusses what a terrible idea incorporating terrorism watch-lists into gun control law would be.

    Conservatives are naturally inclined to indulge the police, but the fact is that the run of them are specimens of what you get when you take the same lazy unionized public-teat-suckling lumps over at the DMV and put guns on their hips and tell them that they are “at war” with the people they serve. Our intelligence guys aren’t in the main Blackford Oakes or James Bond: They’re drones compiling Excel reports until their pensions kick in. That cow-eyed young TSA gate agent with the “GANGSTER” neck tattoo grabbing your nozzle at the airport isn’t the best and brightest, and the guy he works for only has to be one step up. The distance between the guy staring dumbly into your traveler-sized tube of shaving cream and the guy making policy about staring dumbly into traveler-sized tubes of shaving cream is about 300 points on the SAT.

    The murdering woman in San Bernardino was traveling the world on a Pakistani passport and had spent a great deal of time in Saudi Arabia before all but announcing her intentions on Facebook with her public declaration of allegiance to the Islamic State. That loon didn’t make it onto anybody’s no-fly list, but we’re giving the hairy eyeball to guys from Wauwatosa, Wisc., writing biographies of Dick Cheney. Well-done, Secret Agent Jackass, here’s a new decoder ring.

    1. Ugh. You messed up the link. Here is the proper link. Don’t let it happen again.

      1. No, I got the link right. I linked back to my post about Kevin Williamson’s post.

        *preens*

      2. There seems to be an epidemic of this link pantsing going around lately.

  11. why don’t gun controllers ever consider declaring victory?

    I think we all know the answer to that: their definiition of “victory” has nothing to do with guns, everything to do with taking something away from the sorts of people who don’t want that something taken away. Resisting them only solidifies in their mind the righteousness of their cause. It’s the same whether it’s guns or global warming or gold – you have something and we are going to take it from you just to prove to you that we can. You will love Big Brother.

    1. 14 people killed by terrorists with guns in the state with the toughest gun control laws. Victory!

      1. Nobody except the police shot back, victory!

        1. After everyone else was already dead. Victory!

  12. Wait – whenever I bring up Chicago’s murder rate, I’m told that this doesn’t invalidate the argument for gun control because those guns are trafficked from Indiana.

    In that case, why aren’t there guns being trafficked from Arizona into California? Or from Oregon into California? The parts of Oregon bordering California are actually the most heavily armed parts of Oregon, so it should be a piece of cake to straw purchase guns on the Oregon/California border and then drive south.

    So when the homicide rate drops they say it’s because of gun control and when the homicide rate doesn’t drop it’s because of trafficking which inexplicably does not take place in the parts of the country where the homicide rate dropped. It’s a worldview built to never be refuted.

    1. Just one rule of the left that you need to know to understand this. That rule is that the facts always fit the narrative, no matter what, or you just change the facts to fit the narrative. See global warming for other reference, or 97% of something.

      1. I, for one, am impressed at the new lightweight material being used to manufacture goal posts. That explains the ease with which they’re moved, doesn’t it?

        1. Carbon nano fiber goalposts, not just for football.

  13. You know, I can’t quite come up with a solid theory on this. But there is obviously something wrong with these old leftists. They seem to go quite mad at some point. Look at Pelosi, Waxman, Reid, and a host of these other old leftists fucks.

    The only thing that I can even come up with is that back when they were actually ‘liberals’ in some sense of the word, you know hippies raging against ‘the man’, that they just did too much acid. The acid must have a delayed effect that first of all turns a liberal into some sort of commie and then they go completely fucking insane years later.

  14. They purchased guns with bullet buttons and removed them. It takes about 2 minutes, and yes, it’s a felony

    So… quicker mag changes = “full auto conversion”?

    1. I’m sure they hesitated and thought long about removing those before they did it. While they were sitting in their room full of illegal explosives.

    2. I imagine there are laws against tampering with mandated “safety devices.”

      1. Really? *scrubs something icky off mattress tag*

      2. I remember back in the 80s after they first started mandating catalytic converters on new cars. A lot of people, the first thing they would do is remove them so they could still burn the cheaper leaded gasoline. I also remember people removing pretty much all type of safety devices from pretty much anything they could be removed from.

        The good ol days.

  15. If they declared “victory”, they’d have to stop yelling and claiming the moral high ground, and that is something they absolutely do not want to do. It’s how the outrage machine works: once you’ve declared that something is THE WORST PROBLEM EVER, you can’t back down, because you would lose rhetorical power. So things have to stay permanently bad.

    1. So you’re saying that it’s still going to be getting warmer 10-15 years from now when we start settling into another maunder minimum and everyone is freezing their ass off because it’s colder? I look forward to seeing Bailey’s charts showing the downtrend. Then he’ll just be another denier along with the rest of us.

  16. Appeals court affirms cannibal-cop acquittal:

    “We are loathe to give the government the power to punish us for our thoughts and not our actions. That includes the power to criminalize an individual’s expression of sexual fantasies, no matter how perverse or disturbing. Fantasizing about committing a crime, even a crime of violence against a real person whom you know, is not a crime. […] While the Government might promise that it would not prosecute an individual for checking Facebook at work, we are not at liberty to take prosecutors at their word in such matters.”

    Fist made a joke about faster internet speeds in other countries, which is something we hear from lefties all the time: America is losing the telecommunications race with its rivals because we do not nationalize data infrastructure or invest a great deal of public money. Which may be true, as far as it goes, but on the other hand many of the countries (especially the Asian countries) topping the bandwidth lists either explicitly censor and surveil internet access or enforce hate speech laws. Where else outside the United States do you see such a stance against censorship and giving government license to prosecute expression rather than action?

  17. Some of the people arguing for gun control are the same people who are arguing that Muslims who have never committed a crime shouldn’t be held responsible for the crimes of other Muslims who commit terrorism.

    That it’s wrong to violate the rights of gun owning Americans who have never broken the law just because other people used guns to commit a crime is an excellent argument, but for some reason, that kind of logic only seems to matter to progressives when they’re talking about races, nationalities, and religions they like.

    1. Abusus non tollit usum.

  18. BTW I had read that they converted one to full auto? Was it actually used that way?

  19. Incidentally, I was in Vegas a few days ago, and I went to this restaurant Playa Manhattan told me about called “Chipotle”. He was right–it was fantastic!

    Anyway, this was off the Strip. I was sitting there eating, and these three Bloods came in wearing just black and red, which wouldn’t be particularly interesting in that neighborhood, but what was interesting was that they were all open carrying. They got in line, and then these cops came into the restaurant for lunch and got in line right behind them. That’s when the most amazing thing happened…

    Absolutely nothing.

    Everybody ordered their food, sat down, and started eating.

    It’s like you can’t expect anybody to live up the stereotypes anymore!

  20. Why haven’t they declared victory? Because they won’t have victory until nobody (except cops) shoots anyone else with guns. Which won’t happen, so they will always be just on the cusp of victory, if not for those meddling obstructionists.

    1. They can’t declare victory because guns can still be bought legally.

      Never let a crisis go to waste is rule #1.

      Rule #2 is that you should never let a crisis end until you’ve achieved total victory.

      Victory isn’t ending gun violence. Victory is outlawing guns.

  21. Incidentally, they’re panting for a Supreme Court to overruled McDonald v. Chicago and say the states don’t have to obey the 2nd Amendment.

    By back to the intent of the 14th amendment – that it at minimum requires state to obey the first 8 amendments – we could certainly reduce the possibility of that happening. McDonald is more vulnerable to being overturned so long as the courts get to pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states.

    But incorporating the first 8 amendments in their entirety…that would only benefit criminal cops! /derp

    1. By *going* back to the intent…

  22. Somebody hit me the other day with the fact that there are more than 350 mass shootings this year in the U.S. I found this website.

    http://shootingtracker.com/wik…..gs_in_2015

    I don’t have the time to go through the articles at the bottom one by one and see, but I’d be interested in what percentage of them were drug related or related to gangs fighting over distribution territory.

    It would be an interesting statistic to see how many of those mass shootings wouldn’t have happened were it not for the drug war. Gangs and drug dealers would presumably have access to guns even if they were illegal. If you want to cut down on the number of mass shootings in this country, maybe getting rid of the black market in drugs would make a significant dent in the problem.

    1. That’s been thoroughly debunked, Ken. Its the usual moving-the-goalposts trick:

      A 2014 study on mass shootings used the same criterion (four or more deaths), and the FBI employed the same standard in 2005 to define “mass murder.”

      ShootingTracker.com, however, is based upon a different definition of mass shooting, one that (in keeping with the literal meaning of “shooting”) is based upon the total number of people shot (i.e., wounded or killed by gunfire) in a single incident rather than solely the number of victims killed

      http://www.snopes.com/351-mass-shootings/

      1. I appreciate lies, damn lies, and statistics.

        What percentage of them are drug or gang related? Even if the people anti-gun people are doing the counting, is at third of them? Half? Three quarters?

        Take out the gangbangers and the drug dealers (which wouldn’t disappear with or without gun control), and I bet there’s a lot less “mass shootings” in this country however they define that.

        1. Obviously. The root of most of our crime is Prohibition of one sort or another. Remove that, and there is very little worth killing over.

          1. Then why aren’t we talking about the drug war rather than banning guns–which isn’t even the root cause of the problem?

            Even the main anti-drug guy here at Reason is writing pieces about gun statistics rather than ending the drug war.

            Every one of these damn politicians that’s calling for an end to mass shootings and still supports prohibition should be called out.

            “Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) does not support a push to fully legalize marijuana in California, an initiative she will share the ballot with this fall. As we reported earlier, California voters will decide whether to legalize — and tax — marijuana. The state already allows for medicinal marijuana use.

            I asked Boxer’s campaign her position. Campaign manager Rose Kapolczynski issued a statement detailing the senator’s stance on the measure, which qualified for the ballot last week.

            Senator Boxer does not support this initiative because she shares the concerns of police chiefs, sheriffs and other law enforcement officials that this measure could lead to an increase in crime, vehicle accidents and higher costs for local law enforcement agencies”

            http://talkingpointsmemo.com/d…..-marijuana

            How disgraceful is that?

            1. Progs haven’t made that connection yet. People buy guns because they feel unsafe and they feel unsafe because of drug violence.

        2. There would be, at minimum, around 283 fewer. That is the number of ‘mass shootings’ in which the identity of the shooter is unknown. An examination of these reveals they are mostly gang related in one form or another.

          Additionally, when using the Shooting tracker, one discovers that the vast majority of mass shootings are committed by minorities.

          Remove those two things and the US has very few mass shootings.

          1. Additionally, when using the Shooting tracker, one discovers that the vast majority of mass shootings are committed by minorities.

            Which is why race is left out of the analysis by Everytown for Gun Safety and not tracked in Shooting Tracker’s database.

            My analysis of the 2013 data showed that blacks and Asians were overrepresented and whites and Hispanics underrepresented.

            Most dramatically, immigrants were underrepresented by between 1/2 and 1/3.

    2. Last year, I did the math for 2013 for shootings where 4 or more people were killed by someone else from that database (I used GVA’s criteria to reduce the dataset to something manageable). There were something like 120.

      The majority are shootings where a man shoots his estranged girlfriend/wife/ex-wife plus some combination of their kids and the girlfriend/wife/ex-wife’s new boyfriend (he then often commits suicide). I didn’t calculate the percentage but Everytown for Gun Safety says it’s 57% and that sounds right. Nearly 100% of the suspect was caught in this case (and had a history of DV and run-ins with the law).

      The next big chunk of murders were indeed drug related. I’d guess around 35-40%. In most of these cases no shooter was found (28% of the total cases). The news stories I found talked about a hit by a rival gang where 4-6 people killed.

      A small percentage were your big scary mass public shootings involving random people that made all the news stations.

  23. Brian, you assume she believes what she says.

  24. I asked some of my more liberal friends what it is they’d be willing to give up in a comprimise for stricter gun control nationally. Not a one was able to think of a single issue they’d be willing to actually compromise with a conservative or Republican on in exchange for that person supporting some form of stricter gun control. I don’t know if, were I a GOP Congressperson, I’d be willing to support some sort of stricter national background check or stripping more rights from people on the no-fly list in exchange for, say defunding Planned Parenthood, Voter ID, repealing Obamacare, etc. But I do know that there is no chance I’d support any gun control measure without getting something very good in return. For the GOP the status quo on gun control is perfectly fine. This puts progressives into a terrible bind because there is nothing they’re willing to compromise on to peel off GOP support, and that’s even assuming a GOP politician would be willing to trust them to follow-through on a compromise.

    1. I asked some of my more liberal friends what it is they’d be willing to give up in a compromise for stricter gun control nationally. They just laughed and said there ain’t nothing gonna make them give up their guns and anybody that comes for their guns had better bring a ton of firepower. But then my more liberal friends may not be quite as liberal as your more liberal friends. They might not even be as liberal as some of your more redneck friends.

  25. The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States..

    Second Amendment foes lying about gun control – The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal self-defense.Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government. Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.

    No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media prostitutes tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..

    American Thinker

    1. These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family. Ask the six million Jewws, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazzi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.

      Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved. The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population. Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.

      Will we stand our ground, maintaining our constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights, fighting those who would enslave us?

      American Thinker

  26. Per FBI data, in 1993 CA’s rate of “murder and non-negligent homicide” stood at 13.1 / 100K. Here in TX (you know, one of those “gun-crazy” states with insanely “lax” gun laws) that rate was 11.9. The rate for the U.S. as a whole was 9.5.

    In other words, CA’s murder rate was ~27.5% higher than the national average, and ~10.1% higher than that in TX.

    As of 2012 (the last year of data available via the FBI UCR online data-building tool) CA’s murder rate had fallen to 5.0, for a decrease of 61.8%. In that same year TX’s murder rate had fallen to 4.4, or a decrease of ~63%. The overall U.S. rate fell to 4.7…a ~50.5% improvement.

    Over the course of that period of time CA’s gun-control laws have become stricter, while those in TX have remained fairly loose (we have no AWB, you can own NFA items, etc), and even become less so (concealed carry was legalized in 1995, the number of privately owned firearms has dramatically increased, etc). And yet TX’s murder rate has not only remained lower than CA’s, it has declined at a greater rate than CA’s, to the point that TX’s murder rate is ~6.4% below the national average, while CA’s is ~6.4% above the national average.

    Even more dramatic is that CA’s murder rate exceeds TX’s by an even wider margin now, with the former being ~15.9% higher than the latter.

    Yeah, that all just screams “success” for CA’s tighter gun-control laws.

    1. Single years are data points.
      Over multiple years there are ups and downs with TX sometimes being a tick or two higher and CA being a tick or two higher.

      Which really just says “gun control” or lack thereof really makes no difference.

  27. The senator wouldn’t recognize a “sensible gun law”, if it walked up and shook her hand, and kissed her on both cheeks. Other than that, do not believe that I know of or remember a “sensible gun law” being proposed, except in Pennsylvania. It was a “mandatory penalties law”, which unfortunately has gone entirely or largely unenforced.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.