Assault Weapon Ban

Dianne Feinstein Touts Research Claiming the Assault Weapon Ban Reduced Mass Shootings

How to make an assault weapon ban look effective: include handgun murders

|

After an AR-15 rifle was used to murder 17 people at a high school in Florida, politicians have been eager to consider a new ban on the AR-15 and similar weapons.

Twitter

Some of the research they're relying on comes from Louis Klarevas, author of the book Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) showed President Donald Trump a chart derived from Klarevas' work this week when leaders gathered to think about how to restrict our Second Amendment rights. The chart purported to show the effectiveness of the 1994–2004 ban on the sale and manufacture of such weapons in reducing "gun massacres."

Prior to this, no one even on the pro-gun-control side ever thought that ban had much effect on anything at all, mostly because of the vanishingly small amount of times such weapons are ever used to harm another human being. As Jon Stokes ably explains at the Los Angeles Times, Klarevas and Feinstein are able to insist that the ban produced "a remarkable 37% decline in mass shooting fatalities" only by ignoring the fact that both before or after the ban, such weapons are hardly used to kill anyone. "Klarevas and his allies are taking an apparent drop in fatalities from what are mostly handgun shootings (again, pre-ban as well as post) and attributing this lowered body count to the 1994 legislation," Stokes explains.

Klarevas also cherry-picked to get an apparently impressive result from the assault weapon ban by adopting an unusual definition of "mass shooting." If he had "chosen the most widely accepted threshold for categorizing a shooting as a 'mass shooting'—four fatalities, as opposed to Klarevas' higher threshold of six—the 1994 to 2004 drop in fatalities disappears entirely. Had Klarevas chosen a 'mass shooting' threshold of five fatalities instead of six, then the dramatic pause he notes in mass shootings between 1994 to 1999 would disappear too."

As I explained in my Reason feature "You Know Less Than You Think About Guns," the available data about gun laws often involve whole numbers too small for social science to bring to bear anything like accurate or reproducible knowledge. This is especially true when it involves the sort of rifles that can be used for mass shootings but in reality hardly ever are. (They are certainly not necessary for high-casualty shooting events. In the highest-fatality campus shooting, at Virginia Tech in 2007, the killer used pistols.)

In Klarevas' graph, Stokes explains, "five mass shootings…took place with 'assault weapons' in the decade before the ban, and three…took place during its tenure. These numbers are far too small for any sort of statistical inference, especially if you're trying to build a case for banning tens of millions of legally owned rifles."

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.

221 responses to “Dianne Feinstein Touts Research Claiming the Assault Weapon Ban Reduced Mass Shootings

  1. Anything Feinstein says should be taken as if it you hear something from a liar.

    In other words, skepticism is your friend when Feinstein talks.

    1. Anything any politician says should be taken as if it you hear something from a liar.

      FTFY

    2. In other words, skepticism is your friend when Feinstein talks.

      Is she as bad as YOU — the teat-sucking socialist … DEMANDING your entitlements?

      loveconstitution1789|2.8.18 @ 3:08PM|#

      My retired father loves politics and we often discuss the nature of things.
      I cannot get him to openly discuss social security and medicare reform with cuts. He is just hoping to check out before our debt crushes the USA. Its selfish as shit.

      Alt-Right TROLL says more crushing debt is okay .. ONLY if it lines HIS pocket!
      loveconstitution (sic) Insults HIS OWN FATHER, “selfish as shit” … but DEFENDS his own sucking at the gummint teat! (OMG)

      HIS NON-STOP TROLLING claims that a multi-trillion debt increase (tax cut) is “giving my own money back ” …FROM WHERE TROLL?

      What kind of “fiscal conservative” DENIES federal debt is stealing from our future … from his own children?

      HE WOULD CUT HIS FATHER’S BENEFITS .. AND STEAL FROM HIS OWN KIDS … TO ENRICH HIMSELF, BECAUSE … HE’S “ENTITLED.”

      The NEW Entitlement Mentality. The Alt-Right, self-righteous goobers of today’s GOP.

      Left – Right = Zero

      1. Shhh shhhh…

        *turns of lights* *turns on soft classical music*

        It’s gonna be ooooooo kaaay.

      2. Still haven’t gotten your meds adjusted, have you?

        -jcr

        1. We libertarians began standing up to authoritarians and bullies in the 1960s. We’ve been beaten, kicked, assaulted … even killed for it. Yet, we persist.

          After all these decades, why do you people think online bullying can silence us? (Even though Reason has named you as Site Enforcers?)

          1. You are many things, but a libertarian is not one of them.

            1. Indeed not.

              1. Now up to FOUR bullies

                We libertarians began standing up to authoritarians and bullies in the 1960s. We’ve been beaten, kicked, assaulted … even killed for it. Yet, we persist.

                After all these decades, why do you people think online bullying can silence us? (Even though Reason has named you as Site Enforcers?)

                1. Sorry, I agree, you are not a libertarian, Hihn. You once made the claim that Canada murdered people by reducing Health Care subsidies. If ever a non-libertarian thing was said, that was it.

                  1. Yeah, dumfuck goober, this LIBERTARIAN dared to prove that government health care KILLS PEOPLE … because politicians will always cut benefits before the increasing taxes .. and that Reason , Gillespie and Welch LIED that Canada made major spending cuts to their Medicare with no problems.

                    Their Medicare was then declared “an unconstitutional threat to human life,” citing all the Canadians dying on waiting list of a year or more. And forced by a court order to restore the cuts.

                    I CONFESS SAYING THAT POLITICIANS WILL ALWAYS KILL PEOPLE, IN GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE … BECAUSE IT’S SAFER TO CUT BENEFITS THEN TO INCREASE TAXES.

                    If ever a non-libertarian thing was said, that was it.

                    The pain will go away soon, from having your bullshit jammed up your ass … right-wing goober.

                    YES, Medicaid spending should NOT be cut — which DEFIES free market OUTCOMES.
                    Libertarians — real ones — have ALWAYS said we should instead TRANSITION back to the voluntary charities and hospitals that provided UNIVERSAL TREATMENT FOR THE UNINSURED, regardless of income.

                    That’s too complex for goobers snarling. “JUST REPEAL IT.”
                    THINK. (snort)
                    Americans have ALWAYS been wiling to pay for treating the uninsured. If progressives are the only ones claiming to do so … THEY WILL CONTINUE KICKING OUR ASS. Consent of the governed. Will of the People. Ayn Rand

                    Anything else?

                2. Let the record show that disagreement now accounts for 75% of all bullying.

          2. Dude, get some competent professional help. You don’t have to be this way.

            -jcr

            1. Dude, get some competent professional help. You don’t have to be this way.

              What did I say to launch MORE bullying?

              We libertarians began standing up to authoritarians and bullies in the 1960s. We’ve been beaten, kicked, assaulted … even killed for it. Yet, we persist.

              After all these decades, why do you people think online bullying can silence us? (Even though Reason has named you as Site Enforcers?)

              He’s punishing me for calling out his LIES and ASSAULTS Here … as the PROVEN PUNK now stalks me down the entire page.

              I VIOLATED HIS SAFE SPACE!

              Stalker A person who harasses or persecutes someone with unwanted and obsessive attention

              psychopath
              1. A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.
              2. The Authoritarian Left
              3. The Authoritarian Right

              As libertarians have known for nearly a half-century: Right – Left = Zero.
              True Beleebers in BOTH tribes, seeking to impose their values by government force. Or by verbal aggression, shouting down all opposing views … triggered snowflakeS both onllne and on campus.

              1. “Hey, you look like you have malaria, maybe see a doctor,” is an example of bullying? Or is it because you seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking mental illness should carry a stigma? Seriously, seek help. Get to a mental health professional.

              2. Michael, you wrote, “True Beleebers in BOTH tribes, seeking to impose their values by government force. ”

                So do you advocating implementing your gun-control values by government force?

              3. How are you being bullied exactly? Seems like you painting a target on your back and then bitching about it when someone shoots you in it.

                And I’m a sociopath, not a psychopath.

          3. Michael, any time anyone disagrees with you or exposes your nonsense, somehow or another it is bullying. You say you are a libertarian but you constantly (incoherently) attack the basis of libertarianism – absolute inalienable rights – and advocating for the prosecution of the peaceable possession or sale of firearms.

            Really, Michael, how are your positions any different than a liberal, say, a light regulation liberal, not classical liberal? You seem to like all the liberal positions including gun-control/prohibitive regulation, except maybe some elements of their regulatory policy. Don’t you think you would be much happier amongst liberals than libertarians? Don’t you think it would be more accurate to describe yourself as a light regulation, not-too-high-tax liberal rather than a libertarian?

          4. After all these decades, why do you people think online bullying can silence us?

            Why would we want to silence you? You are representative of the Libertarian party of yore, and your conduct serves as a daily reminder of why it failed: you’re rude, ignorant, intolerant, and utterly irrational.

      3. Idk how you read that and conclude that lc1789 was “demanding entitlements”. Your a dishonest a-hole with the reading comprehension of a toddler.

        1. Which part confuses the goober?

          1) Are YOU too fucking STOOPID to know that government deficits are a tax on our children.

          2) Fucking STOOPID enough to WHINE that borrowing over TWO TRILLION DOLLARS FROM YOUR CHILDREN is giving you your own money back?”

          3) Do YOU say you’re ENTITLED to a tax cut … paid by your children

          Are YOU another PHONY CONSERVATARD?

          Would YOU piss and moan about our “crushing debt” … while demanding benefit cuts for your own father ,… and stealing from your own children … TO LINE YOUR OWN POCKETS with over $2 trillion MORE “crushing debt” … because YOU ARE ENTITLED?

          Welcome to Trumpland Uber Alles!

          1. and stealing from your own children … TO LINE YOUR OWN POCKETS

            Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are theft: they forcibly take massive amounts of contributions, use that money for crony capitalism and buying votes for Democrats, and later give people a poor return on investment. LC’s father is very much entitled to taking back as much of that stolen money as possible. That’s not “lining his pockets”, it’s recovering at least some of what was stolen from him (and the majority of male income earners).

            Are YOU too fucking STOOPID to know that government deficits are a tax on our children.

            They are not. But even if they were, LC’s father probably isn’t responsible for them, since as an older male, he likely made a net contribution to reducing those deficits through taxes and his lifetime earnings.

            Hihn, you’re basically saying “hey, we have stolen from this guy already, let’s steal some more from him for the children“. It’s easy to see why your brand of “Libertarianism” failed so badly.

      4. Michael – off-topic.

    3. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…

      Read more here…….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

  2. This one weird trick can make the 2nd amendment go away.

    1. The P-Hackers Guide to Getting Ride of That Pesky Bill of Rights.

  3. Power mad senile old bat.

    1. Which one?

        1. Neither of these guys showed any aggression to you, you fake-ass, sock-proliferating, senile, hypocritical, self-aggrandizing, trolling fuck stick.

  4. “‘Statistical inference’?! Those are *people*, not statistics!”

    1. There are very many of them, doesn’t that make it a tragedy?

      1. Aren’t very many of them. (stupid lack of proof reading)

  5. Can we please get a Feinstein / Warren ticket so that the male Patriarchy is finally brought down and freedom loving progressive idealism, mixed with the ancestral wisdom of our oppressed Native American forebearers, can finally liberate our nation from the yoke that crushes its spirit?

    1. I’m in! lmao

  6. A study showing that the world would be a better place if only the government violated our rights is missing a key component–qualitative considerations.

    Utilitarians have never been able to adequately account for qualitative considerations, and yet there really aren’t any quantified conclusions without any qualitative components.

    More safety is always better, isn’t it?

    Well, I once worked in a lock down psychiatric hospital, and being put in a straight jacket and thrown in a rubber room may be the safest place on earth. It’s also horrifying. It may be quantitatively more dangerous to walk around in the outside world, but what about the qualitative considerations of being straight jacketed and locked up in a rubber room?

    I ride my motorcycle to work everyday because it makes my life qualitatively more enjoyable even if it’s statistically less safe. Before we point out problems in Feinstein’s quantitative methodology, let’s make sure she understands the big picture. Dianne Feinstein has no reasonable basis to assume that she can make qualitative choices on my behalf that are anywhere close to my own personal preferences.

    That’s one reason why markets are better than bureaucrats–because each of us can represent our own qualitative preferences in markets. That’s why freedom is better than government imposing Dianne Feinstein’s personal preferences on the rest of us, too.

    1. Ken, I got a new car this year and was shocked at how the saleswoman was excited to show me all the safety features as if the cost is worth the supposed increase in safety.

      Sure modern cars are more safe than 1950 Chryslers, but at some point its all just a means to keep vehicles prices inflated and avoiding giving customers what they really want: luxury, gas mileage, and low price.

      I guess you don’t really consider that we might have reached peak safety in the USA, except for maybe heart disease. That goes back to what you said about quality of life. Some people just want to eat food that tastes good to them even if it kills them.

      1. giving customers what they really want: luxury, gas mileage, and low price

        But the Crown Victoria has been discontinued. (mileage is a variable thing; with very low insurance on a 13 year old car, and without car payments, I can afford a 20 MPG boat made of “real keep me safe in a wreck” steel)

        1. The Crown Victoria was discontinued because it could not reach the mandated minimum mileage standards imposed by the Feds. Compare the amount of plastic in a car today to one 10 years ago and you see the problem. Look at cars 20,30, even 40 years ago and the problem is obvious. Everything in new cars is cheaper and lighter because it is the only way to achieve the insane Caf? standards imposed by the Feds. Do you really think we will have luxury and 38 mpg?

      2. If you look at cars in the 70s and 80s, cars today are actually less safe. The insane Caf? standards imposed by the Feds have forced companies to use lighter steel and more plastic. As a result, crashes that people would have survived unharmed or with minor injuries, now either kill them or cause major injuries. Laws such as mandatory seatbelt laws and child safety seats have been much more effective than any design changes.

    2. Well, I once worked in a lock down psychiatric hospital

      If you were WORKING there (heh heh) … then why such a psycho analogy?

      1. Cyber bullying.

    3. Good post, Ken.

  7. Some people got all bent out of shape earlier today because I suggested that if the Democrats weren’t so dedicated to impeaching Trump regardless of the facts of his case, maybe he wouldn’t be doing some of the silly things he’s doing right now regarding video games, etc.

    They thought that if I explained Trump’s behavior, that somehow equated to justifying him going after video games–which is ridiculous.

    Here I’m going with the same kind of cause/effect relationship. I’m old enough to remember when people owning AR-15s was practically unheard of. Now they’re among the best selling rifles in America. Do you know why so many people have and buy AR-15s?

    Anybody who knows anything about guns knows that there’s a run on AR-15s every time someone like Dianne Feinstein or someone else targets them. Hardly anybody seemed to want an AR-15 before Dianne Feinstein and company started trying to ban them. If it weren’t for Dianne Feinstein’s big, stupid mouth, average Americans might not even know what an AR-15 was–much less that they wanted to own one.

    1. The average American still doesn’t know what an AR-15 is. See: AR=Assault Rifle, Fires 1 BILLION rounds per second, is dangerous because of telescopic stocks, can literally be mounted with nuclear warheads, etc.

      1. Why so childish?

        1. Sadly, he’s not exaggerating all that much.

          Michael Moore, for example, said the ammo used in the Orlando shooting “is banned by Geneva Convention. It enters the body, spins & explodes.”

          The New York Times reported that the semi-auto AR-15 can fire eight rounds per second. Alan Grayson upped this to “700 times per minute”.

          etc., etc.

          1. ANOTHER brainwashed gun goober. Precious snowflake,

            The NY Times report was NOT on a semi-auto — sucker — but on an auto with a bump stock. The firing rate is based on actual video sound tracks that you can count for yourself. Compare several weapons the same way, including a full machine gun.

            Left – Right = Zero
            Both over-populated with goobers eager to be brainwashed, huddled together in the warm comfort of their tribal caves. MSNBC and Fox/Bretbart = Pravda-Right and Pravda-Left

            ,

          2. The point was that people who know nothing about an AR-15–except that the Democrats want to ban it–seem to want to buy one for that reason.

            Before they tried to ban it, hardly anyone seems to have known they wanted one.

            They aren’t especially good at what most people want guns for. You can’t carry them concealed. A shotgun or a semiautomatic pistol is probably better in close quarters for home defense.

            Before 1989, when the Democrats started really coming out big against “assault weapons”, hardly anybody seems to have wanted one. Nowadays, they’re among the best selling guns if not the be selling gun. Why the change?

            I suspect a lot of it has to do with the free publicity they’ve received courtesy of those who try to ban them–like Feinstein.

            B-movies that no one knew they wanted to see otherwise used to be advertised as “banned in Boston”.

            Every heard of the Streisand Effect, where trying to suppress something has the effect of making it public knowledge?

            I think that’s what we’re looking at here.

            Before 1989, I remember the gun control debate being dominated by discussions about concealed carry and handguns–as if people walking around with handguns were so frightening and dangerous. The emphasis seems to have changed dramatically with the attempts to ban “assault weapons” and AR-15s. I suspect it led directly to the proliferation of AR-15 ownership. It often happens that people don’t know they want something until the government tries to ban it.

            1. Of course, I’m not saying that Dianne Feinstein is responsible for all the innocent people and children who have been murdered with AR-15s since she and fellow “assault weapon” banning enthusiasts gave them so much free publicity.

              . . . because it’s wrong to blame people who’ve never misused a gun for the actions of murderers and mass shooters, isn’t it.

            2. The point was …

              PROVEN a lie.

              1. How many children have died because of your persistent railing against “assault weapons”, Mike?

                1. Punish me for calling you out as a liar. Now to your bullshit question (smirk)

                  Do YOU have a child or grandchild in an American classroom?
                  Inconvenient facts (fully documented)

                  Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute ? not even Life — WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what “unalienable” means

                  Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
                  Per 100,000 population
                  5.3 United States
                  3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
                  1.7 Canada
                  0.9 UK

                  FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
                  Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years … We had 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
                  Mass Shootings Per year
                  UK = 0.2 per year
                  US = 69.3 per year = 3,100% higher
                  Are those YOUR values on “sanctity of human life?”

                  Have you ever considered that you MIGHT just be manipulated? Just a little? How would you even know — deep in your tribal cave.

                  (NOT advocating gun grabs, just calling out the bullshitters)

                  Left – Right = Zero

                  1. “Current homicide rates (Latest available, UN)” –
                    5.3% United States
                    3.0% Europe and Asia (each)
                    1.7% Canada
                    0.9% UK”

                    Michael, you lie. Read your own reference – U.S. 4.88. Also gun-loving Switzerland 0.69 and gun-loving Czech Republic 0.75. Some inconvenient facts, huh, Mike?

                    “Mass Shootings Per year
                    UK = 0.2 per year
                    US = 69.3 per year = 31,000% higher”

                    Another lie. I haven’t heard of 69 mass shootings last year. The media would cover it if they happened.

                  2. “FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years”

                    There were only two before that, hardly statistically significant.

                    The U.K. effectively outlawed handguns and most firearms in their Firearms Amendment Act of 1997. After that, their intentional homicide rate skyrocketed for 8 years after that, See p.17 of 118.

                    However, UK homicides did decrease from 2006 on, now close to pre-gun-ban levels. And why is that? It’s likely explained by a large increase in prison population beginning around 2005 after a few years of decline, and also earlier (See p.3 of 48).

                    If gun-control was so effective, there would not have been such an increase in homicide when it was instituted in the U.K.

                  3. Have you ever considered that you MIGHT just be manipulated?

                    Yes, and you are trying to manipulate people with bad statistics.

                    Left – Right = Zero

                    Hihn = totalitarian leftism hiding behind a pretense of Libertarianism

                  4. Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
                    Per 100,000 population
                    5.3 United States
                    3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
                    1.7 Canada
                    0.9 UK

                    Intentional Homicide Rate among non-Hispanic white Americans: 2.5.

                    Intentional Homicide Rate among black Americans: 19.4

                    The cause of high homicide rates in the US is found in the culture, single parent households, lack of parental supervision, perceived economic hopelessness, and race baiting/divisive politics; for historical and political reasons, this is strongly correlated with racial categories.

                    Furthermore, crime rates among legal gun owners are even lower. And homicide in the UK (and its other colonies) has always been lower; that has nothing to do with gun ownership.

                    The idea that banning guns or reducing legal gun ownership will reduce homicide rates is ludicrously out of touch with reality.

                  5. “Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute ? not even Life — WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what “unalienable” means”

                    Um, no that is not what “unalienable” means. “Unalienable” means that the right cannot be taken away. Period. As Justice Black put it: “Congress shall make no law means Congress shall make no law”.

                    Try again. On second thought, don’t bother.

        2. Fuck off, Hihn

  8. “Anybody who knows anything about guns knows that there’s a run on AR-15s every time someone like Dianne Feinstein or someone else targets them. ”

    There’s a run on all sorts of firearms whenever whenever it looks like the politicians might be gaining traction in banning them.

    But that’s not the only dynamic that ever caused a surge in demand for a particular firearm.

    After the movie “Dirty Harry” came out, everybody wanted a .44 magnum.

    1. I’m sure that’s true; however, the impact on AR-15s (and 30 round magazines) are famous for spiking in the wake of mass shootings.

      It’s hard to find historical data on sales, but you can find numbers on manufacturing.

      Here’s an analysis of spot prices on gunbroker dot com for AR-15s over the course of a mass shooting and Obama’s public comments on the subject.

      Some of these guns tripled in value over the course a week.

      https://imgur.com/a/YJ782

      That’s about available supply dropping, drawing more AR-15s out of the attic for sale, and then supply dropping some more as people continue to bid them up, right?

  9. I have a good graph from the sixties that I made for a statistics class. It shows an almost perfect correlation between the sale of ice cream and the number of reported rapes.
    Back then, I suggested that it might be because both are related to warmer weather.
    Today Ms. Feinstein would arrest all ice cream sellers as rapists.
    But then – California.

    1. Silly, the ice cream comes after the rape.

      1. You lack imagination – – – –

    2. I think the relationship between a spike in the demand for “assault weapons” and politicians threatening to ban them is more robust than the theoretical relationship between ice cream and rape.

      Correlation doesn’t always equal causation, but other things being equal, if the demand for something merely stays the same and the government shuts down supply, we expect people to rush out and buy them.

      It’s like the demand for bottled water and generators ahead of a hurricane. If the spike in demand for those things is highly correlated with the approach of a hurricane, that certainly isn’t evidence that there is no cause and effect relationship there, is it?

    3. I also like extrapolation.

      1. Yeah, his was just as silly. Thanks!

        1. You illustrate again: the feeble minded are easily amused.

  10. Reason continues its escape from individual liberty toward … the alt-right and its intellectual founder, Ron Paul

    Do YOU have a child or grandchild in an American classroom?

    Inconvenient facts (fully documented) (ignore the screeching guntards)

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute ? not even Life — WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what “unalienable” means

    Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
    Per 100,000 population
    5.3 United States
    3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7 Canada
    0.9 UK

    Have you ever considered that you MIGHT just be manipulated? Even a little? How would you know?

    FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
    Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years … We had 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 3,100% higher
    Are those YOUR values on “sanctity of human life?”

    Inconvenient questions:

    In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

    And if teachers are armed, who will be shot first? duh

    (NOT advocating gun grabs, just calling out the bullshit)

    Left – Right = Zero

    1. “FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years”

      Run the number including all mass killings regardless of weapon and see if you get the same result.

      Gun control won’t save any lives if murders simply switch to other weapons. A murder victim is just as dead whether killed with a gun, a knife, a vehicle or a bomb.

      1. Run the number including all mass killings regardless of weapon and see if you get the same result.

        You missed Intentional Homicide Rates, even in boldface!. Too “inconvenient” for memorized excuses and soundbites? But thanks. You could not have proven my point any better!

        1. He was referring to the claim about mass shootings, which is not supported by your figure for intentional homicide rates.

          I would suspect that the rate of mass murder and lethality of mass murder is in fact higher in the United States compared to other countries but the data you link doesn’t speak directly to that.

          Not attacking, just clarifying what Matt seemed to be saying.

        2. “You missed Intentional Homicide Rates, even in boldface!.”

          I didn’t miss it.

          1. It just has absolutely nothing to do with your claims about mass shootings in particular (which even in the US are a vanishingly small percentage of the over-all murder rate.

          2. If you insist I comment on it, there is absolutely nothing in the intentional homicide numbers that proves that the availability of guns has anything to do with the over all difference. To even get close to a hint that guns might be a causal factor, you would have to remove all gun deaths from the numbers.

          Only if the difference in the total murder rate is greater that the difference in gun excluded murder rates would you have anything approaching a valid point.

          If the difference between the US and the UK for total murder rates is similar or smaller than the difference in gun excluded murder rates than most likely the difference in total murder rates are caused by cultural differences other than the availability of guns.

          1. Who proves documented proof?
            Who does not?

            1. Don’t lev the conservative bastards grind you down,

              1. Illegitimi non carborundum!

                1. We both agree with Nolan!

                  1. You mean you agree with yourself? Look everyone, the lying troll agrees with his sock! How cute!

        3. U.K. intentional homicide rate skyrocketed for 8 years after their handgun ban in ’97. See p.17 of 118.

          However, UK homicides did decrease from 2006 on, now close to pre-gun-ban levels. And why is that? It’s likely explained by a large increase in prison population beginning around 2005 after a few years of decline, and also earlier (See p.3 of 48).

          Please note that the U.K. incarceration rate increased even as the homicide rate was decreasing, proving that incarceration drove the rate down. Otherwise, the incarceration rate would decrease along with homicides or criminality, since less crimes would mean less offenders, hence less incarcerated.

          If gun-control was so effective, there would not have been such an increase in homicide when it was instituted in the U.K.

      2. As we are seeing in Britain today with the wave of killings by knife. But let’s not confuse Brer Michael with anything that might require thought and reflection.

    2. 69.3 per year is misleading. You are cooking the average by taking a short time horizon.

      The correct way would be to take the absolute number from 1996 to today and average that.

      It will still be a large number, granted, but will be more accurate.

    3. You have to explain how the right to own a gun is competing with the right to life. You be never done that. I have guns in my home, they’ve never interfered with anyone’s right to life.

      The same arguments could be made for many things which have the potential for irresponsible use. Which of these would you have government ban to reduce death rates? Cars? Alcohol? Swimming pools? Cheeseburgers? Cigarettes?

      1. This was exactly my contention with his line of argumentation (in previous threads).

      2. You have to explain how the right to own a gun is competing with the right to life.

        ALL rights can compete.

        I have guns in my home, they’ve never interfered with anyone’s right to life.You’ve confused a right with a gun. Kinda like confusing a house with property rights.

        The same arguments could be made for many things which have the potential for irresponsible use.

        Doesn’t mean they’d make sense. Do you deny that no right can be absolute?

        Which of these would you have government ban to reduce death rates? Cars? Alcohol? Swimming pools? Cheeseburgers? Cigarettes?

        I even put it in boldface: “(NOT advocating gun grabs, just calling out the bullshit)”

        Again

        Inconvenient questions:

        In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

        And if teachers are armed, who will be shot first?

        What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict? Which prevails? Who decides? And why?
        (You need not know the answers. Merely acknowledge a genuine conflict when two absolute rights are competing)

        1. Correction (quote vs response)

          I have guns in my home, they’ve never interfered with anyone’s right to life.

          You’ve confused a right with a gun. Kinda like confusing a house with property rights.

        2. My contention is that the right to own guns is not in conflict with the right to life. In fact they often are complimentary rights. Your whole argument is baseless.

          We as a society have given up rights in order to make gun ownership safer. Just like we’ve conceded liberty to implement speed limits in the attempt to improve safety for society as a whole. Just like we’ve implemented BAC limits. Do bad things still happen? Yes of course there are bad people in the world who decide to abuse their rights and others are harmed. So? Should society cede all liberty for the false promises of more security? I say no. Only statists would say yes.

          What specifically would you, Michael Hihn, have society do to solve mass shootings? You’ve laid out coherent policy ideas on your website, do so here or move on.

          1. I should correct… My contention is that the right to own guns is not necessarily in conflict with the right to life.

            1. I should correct.

              It’s spelled r-e-t-r-a-c-t

          2. do so here or move on.I won’t kiss your ass, either.

            1. Repost

              do so here or move on.

              We libertarians began standing up to authoritarians and bullies in the 1960s. We’ve been beaten, kicked, assaulted … even killed for it. Yet, we persist..

              After all these decades, why do you people think online bullying can silence us? (Even though Reason has named you a Site Enforcer?)

            2. So you have no solution, neither do I. That’s the reality of life. There is no solution to every tragedy. It’s a fallacy to think that there is, or that there even has to be. It’s a bigger fallacy (and a statist position) to believe that government can institute any unpopular limits on liberty by force. Certainly history has taught us that governments can’t prohibit that which has sufficient demand that people will break the law to obtain. (Guns, drugs, alcohol, and freedom of association to name just a few)

              “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. ”
              – Benjamin Franklin

              1. So you have no solution, neither do I.

                I REJECTED YOUR FUCKING THREAT.

                Do you hear me NOW>

          3. Your turn, Leo

            Inconvenient questions:

            1) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

            2) And if teachers are armed, who will be shot first?

            1. 1. Guns are uncommon in those places? I dont know the answer honestly, I assume this is the reason. It’s irrelevant to a population where guns are quite common though. That’s a reality that isn’t going to change.

              2. I’ve never thought it would be a good idea to put guns in the hands of teachers. That’s likely a recipe for disaster, needlessly turning our schools into war zones. Teachers are likely to overreact and shoot first. Hell even trained policemen have a less than stellar track record on shooting defenseless people.

              1. Also, I won’t kiss your ass either.

                1. do so here or move on

                  I won’t kiss your ass, either.

                  Also, I won’t kiss your ass either.

                  I never asked YOU to, thug.
                  And I DEFIED your orders. (sneer)

              2. 1) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

                Guns are uncommon in those places? I dont know the answer honestly, I assume this is the reason

                Why and how?

                It’s irrelevant to a population where guns are quite common though. That’s a reality that isn’t going to change.

                Not sure when, but It wll hit like a wave .. as did marriage equality. For how long can 3.4% of voters rule America, based on mostly lies and fallacies?

                I’ve never thought it would be a good idea to put guns in the hands of teachers.

                I see this question is inconvenient also, since you totally evaded it..

            2. “In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol”

              Send them to Mexico and see how long they’d last.

            3. Your turn Mr. Hihn. I answered your questions an hour ago, answer mine:

              1) How is the individual right to own a gun in conflict to the right to life as you claim? I own a gun, yet you’ve managed to live (for example).

              2) What is to be done with regards to mass shootings, and how should such a thing be implemented?

              We anxiously await your answers!

              1. I answered your questions an hour ago

                You had no idea on the first one.

                Your “response” on teachers was several lines of … words ,..that never came close to addressing what was asked.

                1. Cowardly evasion.

                  I answered your questions. I obviously don’t know the answers because I’ve been given a failing grade.

                  Answer my questions or at least attempt to. What should be done? You seem to be the expert, if you have a solution to mass shootings it seems like a moral imperative to let the world know!

                  1. How many people have to die until Hihn will share with us how to stop gun violence?

                    1. How many times will Leo bully me .. like ordering me off the web site if I don’t accept his rules

                      do so here or move on.

                      The bullying started with that.

                    2. So, no answers from, just more trolling from him and his Nolan sock

                    3. We’re waiting for answers, dude. Anyone who takes you to task is a bully in your eyes.

            4. 1) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

              Tradition. They have armed backup units always ready. Norway has in fact armed its officers.

              2) And if teachers are armed, who will be shot first?

              The perpetrator. Israel proves the NRA’s arguments.

          4. “My contention is that the right to own guns is not in conflict with the right to life”

            And you are correct.

            All rights are negative liberties. There is never any “conflict” between any of them.

            The right to life means the government is not supposed to kill you without due process and no one else is supposed to kill you except in cases of self defense. If someone kills you with a gun, that is the only person who has violated your right to life – not some guy living 2,000 miles away who happens to own the same kind of gun that the murderer used.

            That guy exercising his absolute right to own a gun has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that someone else used one to violate your right to life. There is no such thing as a “collective” responsibility for crime – or anything else.

            There is also no such thing as affirmative duty so the gun owner who committed no crime with his gun has no duty to give it up merely because a bunch of other people claim that him doing would reduce crime. His only duty regarding crime is to personally refrain from committing one. His absolute right own guns remains undiminished.

            1. No one has an affirmative right to impose on anyone else to give up their absolute negative right to own guns on the (unproven ) theory that doing so would reduce his chance of getting killed just as no one who is suffering from an expensive medical condition that he cannot afford to pay for has an affirmative right to violate the absolute private property rights of others by forcing them to assist in keeping him alive by taking their money to pay for his treatment. The right to life does not include a right or force the assistance of others in keeping you alive.

              There is no such thing as affirmative rights precisely because they impose affirmative burdens on others and violate their rights. Actual rights (negative liberties) impose no burdens on anyone else and there is no “conflict” between them.

              1. Be careful Gilbert. You’re about to get yelled at in bold face type. Ad hominems are likely to start flying, and strawmen are being set up as we speak. You might even get to read the definition of stalking and/or bulllying.

                Hihn can’t possibly explain his only contention in this arguement, that the existence of a gun (and my right to possess one) is somehow in conflict with his right to live. Yet somehow, I have a gun, and he (at least theoretically) is a live human being. The evidence is right there in front of him, but he claims it’s a conflict.

                1. BUT HE LEARNEDED IT IN HIGHSCHROOL!!!!!

                2. Leo’s infantile fallacy was demolished in the same Heller decision he lies about.

                  Heller ESTABLISHED gun ownership as an individual right … while SIMULTANEOUSLY confirming NO protection for weapons not in common use at the time or ratification.

                  Leo REFUSES to accept that he’s confusing HIS gun with the RIGHT (which is NOT absolute)
                  It’s the RIGHT which costs people their lives — the severity of which I have PROVEN so many times,

                  But the goober smugly claims victory .. awash in the glow of the other goobers who also cannot think.

                  1. Non-sequitur, Michael. You’re confusing constitutional or legal rights with human individual inalienable rights. The court may or may not protect inalienable individual rights but those rights exist morally, regardless if recognized or protected by government.

                3. “Hihn can’t possibly explain his only contention in this arguement, that the existence of a gun (and my right to possess one) is somehow in conflict with his right to live. Yet somehow, I have a gun, and he (at least theoretically) is a live human being. The evidence is right there in front of him, but he claims it’s a conflict.”

                  Yup.

                  As I said all rights are negative liberties and there is no conflict between them.

                  People who claim otherwise are making up non-existent affirmative rights and collective responsibilities.

                  The right to life does not include a right to impose anything on anyone (or everyone) under the theory that it might reduce the probability of a person getting killed. There is no such thing as an affirmative to keep anyone else alive. The only duty is to refrain from killing them yourself. As long as you do that, your right to keep and bear arms is absolute.

                  That is all.

                  1. As I said all rights are negative liberties and there is no conflict between them.

                    It’s true because he said so!
                    (It’s bullshit, not the law of our land and ridiculed by even Ayn Rand)

                    1. “It’s true because he said so!”

                      It’s true because it’s true.

                      There is not a single affirmative right enumerated anywhere in the text of the Constitution.
                      They are all negative liberties.

                      And by the way don’t bother trying to claim that the provision of being provided an attorney when the government arrests somebody constitutes an affirmative right. It’s not. It’s merely a mechanism that provides a check on the government’s power to infringe on the negative right to liberty.

                      And don’t bother trying to claim the 9th Amendment confers any affirmative rights either. Anything that imposes an affirmative burden on someone else cannot be a right. Anything that proclaims there is a “right” to get some material good or service free is not a right. Rights are universal. If one has a right to get something “free” then so does absolutely everyone else and that is economically impossible as there is no such thing as anything that can be “free” for everyone.

                      “(It’s bullshit, not the law of our land and ridiculed by even Ayn Rand)”

                      There are lots of laws the land” that are authoritarian and unconstitutional – like civil asset forfeiture laws. You continual repetition of the phrase demonstrates that YOU are one who is authoritarian and anti-freedom contrary to your continual prattling otherwise.

                    2. Oh and anything Ayn Rand said has nothing to do with it.

                    3. She invented the concept.

                      And you EVADED the issue again, your Rothbardian bullshit it NOT the law of the land, so who are you to impose your authoritarian theories in defiance of the governed — as Rothbard taught you.

                      THINK, goober. If not will of the people and consent of the governed .. WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE WHICH IS NOT AUTHORITARIAN? Or more diversions?

                      If you REFUSE to accept the structures of America — while SUCKING off our liberty and prosperity … then LEAVE … like the boat people of Cuba and Vietnam,… instead of being such a whiny pussy.

                    4. “She invented the concept.:

                      The concept of individual freedom existed long before she was born.

                      “And you EVADED the issue again, your Rothbardian bullshit it NOT the law of the land, so who are you to impose your authoritarian theories in defiance of the governed — as Rothbard taught you.”

                      I never said anything about Rothbard or anyone else. He didn’t invent the idea of individual freedom either.

                      Your nonsense is really comical – simultaneously claiming “the law of the land” supports your view and accusing me of having “authoritarian theories”. Government is force and nothing but force. More government force is inherently more authoritarian and that is exactly what you are advocating.

                      You claim to be a libertarian and not an authoritarian but you cannot come up with any justification for what you advocate based on actual libertarian principles.

                      “If you REFUSE to accept the structures of America — while SUCKING off our liberty and prosperity … then LEAVE … like the boat people of Cuba and Vietnam,… instead of being such a whiny pussy.”

                      LOL

                      You aren’t any authority on what the “structures of America” are to begin with and of course you aren’t the least bit capable of proving that I’m sucking off of anything about it. And again you are peddling authoritarianism while claiming to be anti-authoritarian,

                      In short, you are a liar.

                4. GOOBERS LIe

                  The evidence is right there in front of him, but he claims it’s a conflict.

                  (snort) Where? (

            2. All rights are negative liberties. There is never any “conflict” between any of them

              Rothbardian babble is not the law of the land — created mostly to “justify:” his authoritarian mentality .. thus totally crushed by Ayn Rand.

              Lotsa words – no credence.

              1. “Rothbardian babble is not the law of the land — created mostly to “justify:” his authoritarian mentality .. thus totally crushed by Ayn Rand.

                Lotsa words – no credence.”

                Translation: you cannot refute what I said.

                1. He jammed it up your ass!
                  So did Ayn Rand.
                  And now, me/

                  1. You can’t refute it either.

                    1. You FAIL to show that your bullshit is NOT the Law of the Land.
                      Called out. FAIL.

                      None are so blind as those who refuse to see,

                  2. Person who uses Dave Nolan’s name, sounds like you shoved it up your own ass.

        3. Michael wrote, ‘I even put it in boldface: “(NOT advocating gun grabs, just calling out the bullshit)”‘

          So exactly what ARE you advocating? You don’t call out any bullshit, rather post all these bullshit anti-gun talking points, bad-mouth anyone who disagrees calling them “goobers”, “guntards”. So why are you here?

    4. And if teachers are armed, who will be shot first?

      So far, the answer is, “Nobody.”

      There are lots of schools with faculty carry; all of Utah, large programs in Ohio and Colorado, 1 out of every 7 school districts in Texas. There were even a couple of districts considering it in California, but their Legislature prohibited on-campus carry.*

      But so far, no school mass murderer has attacked any school with armed faculty.

      (I’m sure it’s just a coincidence, right?)

      * Rule of thumb: Any time the California Legislature does something, it’s safer to do the opposite.

      1. And if teachers are armed, who will be shot first?

        So far, the answer is, “Nobody.”

        Umm, that you know of. (I should have said KNOWN to be armed, or even THOUGHT to be)

        But so far, no school mass murderer has attacked any school with armed faculty.

        Bullshit, since nobody knows.

        (I’m sure it’s just a coincidence, right?)

        A horribly inept bluff

        * Rule of thumb: Any time the California Legislature does something, it’s safer to do the opposite.

        As libertarians have known for nearly a half-century: Right – Left = Zero.
        True Beleebers in BOTH tribes, seeking to impose their values by government force. Or by verbal aggression, shouting down all opposing views, triggered snowflake both onllne and on campus.

        In all of human history, there have been only two functions of government. To impose one set of values by force. Or to defend individual liberty for all (tolerance) Which of those do YOU support?

    5. Crime Research Comparing Murder Rates Across Countries

      Try this, Hihn. Much less bullshit than what you get from Salon.

      1. In 2014, the worst 2 percent of counties accounted for 51 percent of the murders. 5 percent of counties account for 68 percent of the murders. Yet, even within these counties with all these murders, there are large areas without any murders.

        How much you wanna bet that these are the most gun-controlled areas of the country on average too?

        Also, combined with our other relatively low crime rates, there is no safer place on earth than the USA as long as you stay out of a few liberal shitholes.

        1. Totally non-responsive babble. Typical winger whining.

      2. Hihn posted data with links to original source data.
        You posted data with links to an NRA affiliate … which used the identical source — does shows more countries — bit fails to refute a single point.

        So he made a monkey out of you.

        If you think he’s a liberal say so. I love it when any libertarian publicly humiliates one of you mindless right-wingers.

        1. An NRA affiliate? Proof please.

      3. Calling me a liberal?

        Too stupid to know your NRA affiliate site …
        1) Used the SAME data source
        2) FAILED to refute anything I said.

        I included the subtotals so everyone could see how TOTALLY full of shit you goobers are,
        FACT: I included data for the US, Canada and the UK, PLUS all of Asia, PLUS all of Europe..

        You really think Australia, the Arctic and Antarctica would change the outcome?
        THIS IS RIDICULE

        Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
        Per 100,000 population
        5.3 United States
        3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
        1.7 Canada
        1.0 Australia … MORE bad news – added to satisfy TLBD’s demands (lol)
        0.9 UK

        1. “Current homicide rates (Latest available, UN)” –
          5.3% United States
          3.0% Europe and Asia (each)
          1.7% Canada
          0.9% UK”

          Read your own reference – U.S. 4.88. Also gun-loving Switzerland 0.69 and gun-loving Czech Republic 0.75. Some inconvenient facts, huh, Mike?

    6. the alt-right and its intellectual founder, Ron Paul

      WTF?

      That’s scientology-level loopy right there.

      -jcr

      1. A cult follower!

        Why do you stand with Ron Paul, Orval Faubus and the KKK .. believing states can have powers which have never been delegated? And we have NO defense from their abuse?

        When he says “rogue judges” overturned DOMA. he claims — like the Klan — that we have NO defense from state government. He DEFIES separation of powers, checks and balances, THREE co-equal branches … LIES about the 10A and REJECTS the 9A. The IDENTICAL “principle” stated by Orval Faubus to mobilize his state militia against 9 black kids.

        The MORAL SLIME brags of sponsoring bill that would have FORBIDDEN SCOTUS from hearing appeals to DOMA — fucking fags would be first group denied constitutional protection since then damn ni**ers.

        Like Ron Paul, and the KKK., do YOU believe fundamental rights are NOT unalienable .. NOT inherent to mankind .. NOT protected by the Constitution … that Natural Law is a statist plot ,,, You believe POWER is superior to RIGHTS, because Ron Paul says so … and, like Ron, you lie about the Tenth amendment, which is SEVERELY limited by the Ninth.

        The Ninth Amendment forbids ALL levels of government to deny or disparage ANY fundamental right.

        “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

        Tell us WHAT those “other” rights are … not listed in the Constitution .. forbidden to ALL levels of gummint.

        Anything else?

        1. “Tell us WHAT those “other” rights are … not listed in the Constitution .. forbidden to ALL levels of gummint.”

          Whatever they are – not a single one of them is an affirmative right.

    7. “Current homicide rates (Latest available, UN)” –
      5.3% United States
      3.0% Europe and Asia (each)
      1.7% Canada
      0.9% UK
      Have you ever considered that you MIGHT just be manipulated? Even a little? How would you know?”

      Michael, you lie, you’re trying to manipulate. Read your own reference – U.S. 4.88. Also gun-loving Switzerland 0.69 and gun-loving Czech Republic 0.75. Some inconvenient facts, huh, Mike?

      “Mass Shootings Per year
      UK = 0.2 per year
      US = 69.3 per year = 31,000% higher”

      Another lie. I haven’t heard of 69 mass shootings last year. The media would cover it if they happened.

    8. Have you ever considered that you MIGHT just be manipulated? Even a little? How would you know?

      I have! You are trying to manipulate me with bad data.

  11. *You have never done that…

    Sorry not sure what happened there

    1. I explained how your comment was not relevant.

      Anything else?

      1. Why do you even debate on libertarian sites when you are obviously anti personal liberty? Just wondering. If you hate freedom so much why hang out with and debate people that do? Or you must me a troll.

        1. A troll is exactly what he is.

          1. But not an aggressor … on a libertarian web site … where Non-Aggression is a core principle

            1. Words are not violence. The NAP doesn’t prevent people saying mean things you. Please grow up.

              1. (boldface in self-defense of aggression)

                Words are not violence

                SHAME ON YOU
                I did NOT say “violence.” .
                .
                1) Why do ALL your thugs deny VERBAL aggression. Are they illiterate?
                2) Perhaps, but mostly because they deploy it to punish opposing views — with bullying — when their “safe zone is violated. Precious snowflakes of the right.
                3) Here, to justify his own aggression — with typical self-righteous arrogance

                Aggression The action or an act of attacking without provocation

                Verbal Aggressiveness …A personality trait that predisposes persons to attack the self-concepts of other people instead of, or in addition to, their positions on topics of communication … Verbal aggressiveness is thought to be mainly a destructive form of communication

                Cyberbullying The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

                psychopath A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.

                Please grow up

                Anything else, aggressor?

                (sneer)

                1. I wonder when this clown’s going to get a cease & desist letter from Kellogg’s for giving Froot Loops a bad name.

                  -jcr

                2. “Anything else, aggressor?

                  (sneer)”

                  Sounds like verbal aggression to me.

                3. Aggression The action or an act of attacking without provocation

                  Since you verbally provoke, people verbally retaliate. Hence, that is not aggression by your own definition.

                  psychopath A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.

                  Applies perfectly to you, Mr. Hihn.

            2. LOL

              The only thing that counts as aggression is physical violence or explicit threat of the same.

        2. Why do you even debate on libertarian sites when you are obviously anti personal liberty?

          In what way? I see him defending the most fundamental principle of individual liberty. That all unalienable rights are absolute. Thus, neither can be superior to the other, when they’re in conflict. And when there are such conflicts, thugs and authoritarians — both left and right — SCREECH to impose their own preferred right as superior to the other, by government force.

          The self-righteous assholes defend their contempt and/or ignorance of individual liberty by WHINING stuff like you just did. The proof of your moral hypocrisy is that you launch personal aggression .. while claiming to defend liberty … as you SHIT ON the Non-Aggression Principle.

          It’s been over 40 years since my namesake called out your ilk with.
          Conservatives want government out of your wallet but into your bedroom.
          Liberals want government out of your bedroom but into your wallet.
          Left – Right = Zero
          Left and Right are obsolete.

          Fuck off, slaver. Your time has expired.

        3. Why do you even debate on libertarian sites when you are obviously anti personal liberty?

          Instead iof a personal assault — which is NOT pro-liberty … why not just show everyone that Leo’s comment WAS relevant? (lol) Your FAILURE to do so is a victory for both myself and the cause of liberty.

          The American Revolution for individual liberty was NOT won by gasbags.
          Anything else?

          1. Dude, you ARE arguing against personal liberty. Don’t piss on our heads and say it’s raining.

  12. David Nolan = Michael Hihn sock, in case it wasn’t obvious.

    As is “John Galt Is Back”, if/when he shows up.

    1. If TWO people say you’re an asshole then they can only be one person and a sockpuppet, says the precious snowflake..

      1. No one else in this comment section combines “repetitive use of the phrase Left – Right = Zero” and “constant allusions to their opponent being sexual assaulted”.

        1. Dumbfuck goober reveals his IGNORANCE of libertarianism!

          “Left – Right = Zero” has been a libertarian slogan for nearly 50 years — originated by David Nolan (Or derived by his attacks on left and right BOTH being obsolete) Used repeatedly by pro-liberty libertarians — as opposed to anti-gummint libs — to call out right-wing goobers as being no better than progtards.

          Are you ALSO ignorant of the Nolan Chart is? WSPQ?

          Thanks for REVEALING you’re just another right-wing thug.

          1. Combines, I said. And I’ve never heard anyone else use it on this website.

            And the assorted anti-immigration commenters I’ve gotten into knock-down drag-out arguments with here will be very amused- or bemused- to learn that I’ve been a secret alt-righter this whole time.

            1. Combines, I said. And I’ve never heard anyone else use it on this website.

              DIVERSION

              And the assorted anti-immigration commenters I’ve gotten into knock-down drag-out arguments with here will be very amused- or bemused- to learn that I’ve been a secret alt-righter this whole time.

              Another lie!

              They NEVER stop,

              1. Telcontar the Wanderer | 3.3.18 @ 6:48PM | #

                No one else in this comment section combines “repetitive use of the phrase Left – Right = Zero” and “constant allusions to their opponent being sexual assaulted”.

                1. constant allusions to their opponent being sexual assaulted

                  ANOTHER lie!

                  Now the aggressor is also a stalker.,
                  They NEVER stop.

                  1. ANOTHER lie!

                    Supported argument:

                    Michael Hihn | 3.3.18 @ 4:04PM | #

                    The pain will go away soon, from having your bullshit jammed up your ass … right-wing goober.

                    David Nolan | 3.3.18 @ 3:02PM | #

                    He jammed it up your ass!

                    1. Goober … called out as a liar … REVERSES his lie … now s claims “jam it up (anyone’s) ass” is NOT a colloquialisms for crushing someones lies or stupidity.(like jam it down one’s throat)

                      YOU’VE NOW GONE BEYOND PATHETIC

                      STOP STALKING ME, AGGRESSOR, AND HUMILIATING YOURSELF

                    2. It is obviously and self-evidently an allusion to sexual assault, and it has absolutely no place in any discussion.

                  2. If anyone is an aggressor or a bully, Michael, it is you.

              2. Another lie!

                They NEVER stop,

                Hello?

                Azathoth?

                Buybuydandavis?

                Elias Fakaname/Last of the Shitlords?

                Mark22?

                Any of you passing by? If you are, please vouch to Mr. Hihn that I am, in fact, a notorious open-borders SJW cuck. Thank you.

                1. (boldface in defense of serial aggression by a liar, a bully and now a stalker)

                  …to learn that I’ve been a secret alt-righter this whole time.

                  OMFG … Another PSYCHO LIE Now followed by COWARDLY DIVERSION

                  at I am, in fact, a notorious open-borders SJW cuck. Thank you.

                  DIVERSION.. From your called-out lie — “alt-righter” — WHICH I EVEN DID BOLDFACE FOR RETARDS. Why do you PERSIST in NON-STOP self-humiliation?

                  HOW MANY TIMES MUST YOUR ASSAULTS BLOW UP IN YOUR PUSS?

                  STOP …… STALKING ….ME …. BULLY

                  1. You called me a “right-wing thug”.

                    I used “alt-righter” as a synonym for “right-wing thug”.

                    I then called on the various actual right-wingers in the comment section to confirm I am not, in fact, a “right-wing thug/alt-righter”, based on the arguments I’ve gotten into with them.

                    I don’t even get what you’re accusing me of lying about.

                    1. ADMITS LIE — WHEN CALLED OUT!

                      You called me a “right-wing thug”.
                      I used “alt-righter” as a synonym for “right-wing thug”

                      So NOW you’re STUPID .. equating the two. … PLUS, dipwad … your “argument” applies to the alt-right (open borders)

                      AND WHY INVENT A NEW PHRASE AT ALL? … AND DENY DOING SO TWICE? … YOU’VE ALSO ADMITTED BEING FULL OF SHIT ON “constant allusions to their opponent being sexual assaulted ”

                      TOTALLY PATHETIC … STOP HUMILIATING YOURSELF. CRAWL INTO A GUTTER AND LICK YOUR WOUNDS.

                      AND STOP STALKING ME

                    2. I didn’t invent the term “alt-righter”, and it is a synonym for “right-wing thug”.

                      And the alt-right hates immigrants.

                  2. STOP …… STALKING ….ME …. BULLY

                    Responding to your unhinged ravings on a comment thread is neither stalking nor bullying, you pathetic little pussy.

                    -jcr

          2. Michael wrote, “…Dumbfuck goober reveals his IGNORANCE..”

            Verbal aggression, bullying.

            1. Bruce D, if you think you have even the slightest chance of getting through to him, you don’t know him at all.

              I don’t even know why I bothered reponding to him as much as I did. You might as well try to reason with a marmot on PCP.

    2. Yes it is obvious.

  13. Do YOU have a child or grandchild in an American classroom?
    Inconvenient facts (fully documented)

    Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute ? not even Life — WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what “unalienable” means

    Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
    Per 100,000 population
    5.3 United States
    3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7 Canada
    0.9 UK

    FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
    Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years … We had 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 3,100% higher
    Are those YOUR values on “sanctity of human life?”

    Have you ever considered that you MIGHT just be manipulated? Just a little? How would you even know in your tribal cave?

    Inconvenient questions:

    1) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did?

    2) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

    3) if teachers are armed, who will be shot first?

    (NOT advocating gun grabs, just calling out the bullshit)

    Left – Right = Zero

    1. “Do YOU have a child or grandchild in an American classroom?”

      An irrelevant question since there is no such thing as a collective responsibility for the welfare of children – or anyone else.

      Children are the responsibility of their parents and no one else except those who have been specifically hired (and paid) to do so such as law enforcement employees.

    2. “Current homicide rates (Latest available, UN)” –
      5.3% United States
      3.0% Europe and Asia (each)
      1.7% Canada
      0.9% UK”

      Michael, you lie. Read your own reference – U.S. 4.88. Also gun-loving Switzerland 0.69 and gun-loving Czech Republic 0.75. Some inconvenient facts, huh, Mike?

      “Mass Shootings Per year
      UK = 0.2 per year
      US = 69.3 per year = 31,000% higher”

      Another lie. I haven’t heard of 69 mass shootings last year. The media would cover it if they happened.

    3. “FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years”

      There were only two before that, hardly statistically significant.

      The U.K. effectively outlawed handguns and most firearms in their Firearms Amendment Act of 1997. After that, their intentional homicide rate skyrocketed for 8 years after that, See p.17 of 118.

      However, UK homicides did decrease from 2006 on, now close to pre-gun-ban levels. And why is that? It’s likely explained by a large increase in prison population beginning around 2005 after a few years of decline, and also earlier (See p.3 of 48). Please note that the U.K. incarceration rate increased even as the homicide rate was decreasing, proving that incarceration drove the rate down. Otherwise, the incarceration rate would decrease with homicides or criminality, since less crimes would mean less offenders hence less incarcerated.

      If gun-control was so effective, there would not have been such an increase in homicide when it was instituted in the U.K.

    4. Michael writes, “Do YOU have a child or grandchild in an American classroom?
      Inconvenient facts (fully documented)”

      I teach at junior colleges. The best way to ensure my students’ and my security and safety is for me to have a gun.

      Michael writes, ‘Gun rights ate NOT absolute, because NO rights are absolute ? not even Life — WHEN they are conflicting or competing. THAT is what “unalienable” means’.

      That’s jibberish. Authentic rights rationally understood do not conflict. “unalienable” means “NOT absolute”? That’s incoherent and contradictory.

      Michael wrote, ‘(NOT advocating gun grabs, just calling out the bullshit)’

      You mean spewing bullshit. If you’re not advocating gun grabs, exactly what are you advocating?

    5. Michael wrote, ”
      1) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did?”

      Because one can be beaten or stabbed to death and because criminals will still get guns. And because the government could become tyrannical, especially if people adopt your jibberish, “…NO rights are absolute ? not even Life…” proves that even liberals such as you would commit a holocaust.

      “2) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?”

      “3) if teachers are armed, who will be shot first?”

      No one will be shot. The potential perpetrators will be deterred.

      Israel proves the NRA’s arguments

      Because they have armed backup nad because it is tradition. Maybe also because they’re stupid.

      1. “2) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?”

        Because they have armed backup and because it is tradition. Maybe also because they’re stupid.

  14. FineSwine, still a goddamned liar: film at 11.

    -jcr

    1. Authoritarian Right was “trggered” … by UNDENIABLE facts … from OFFiCIAL sources … so shoots the messenger … to punish dissent … like all authoritarians and dictators .. and like campus snowflakes.

      We libertarians began standing up to authoritarians and bullies in the 1960s. We’ve been beaten, kicked, assaulted … even killed for it. Yet, we persist.

      After all these decades of defying PHYSICAL aggression., why do you think we can be silences by online bullying from whiny pussies?

      (sneer)

      1. You learned how to copy and paste? I’m sure your caretakers in the white jackets must be *so* proud.

        -jcr

        1. OMG ,… now the bully … TOTALLY HUMILIATED by the facts he DENIED ….

          now sneers that I copied and pasted those documented facts and links … and THAT’S why he LIED about them, in his first verbal ASSAULT!

          I plead guilty of NOT being a bellowing blowhard.

          Which is worse?
          a) Copying and pasting MY OWN WORDS and DOCUMENTED FACTS
          b) Multiple verbal ASSAULTS by a PROVEN LIAR?

          (pees pants laughing at you)

          1. pees pants

            Be sure to mention that when your family has you committed. There’s medication for that, too.

            -jcr

      2. “We libertarians began standing up to authoritarians and bullies in the 1960s”

        Says the guy who wants to enact more authoritarian gun control laws.

  15. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do. Clik This Link….

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homework5.com

  16. The statistics are irrelevant, as are the comparisons to other countries.

    Here is the only issue:
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Repeal it or accept it.

    1. “The statistics are irrelevant, as are the comparisons to other countries”

      And the so-called “studies’ and comparisons are generally cooked up to support the pre-determined conclusions of whoever is paying for them.

  17. The little jew c*nt fineswine is fine little stein! To bad this post feminist half wit doesn’t realize just how easy it to convert ANY firearm into a FULLY automatic! LMAO!

    1. Oh, that’s not even remotely enough asterisks to make this inoffensive, dude.

  18. I love talking to myself. It’s like masturbating with words.

  19. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do. Clik This Link….

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homework5.com

  20. Columbine happened 5 years into the ban. If gun bans and restrictive gun laws are so effective, why does California has California had twice as many mass shootings as Texas since 1980 with three of them being after they imposed their most restrictive laws? Gun grabbers do not understand or want to accept that by definition criminals break the law so more laws will not stop them. Many gang bangers caught with pistols are under 21 which means they have committed a federal crime by simply being in possession of a gun. The stark reality is laws are only effective when enforced and the Federal government rarely enforces them. In 2013, the FBI forwarded to Holder’s DOJ the names of almost 300,000 people prohibited from buying a gun, many were felons. It is a federal crime for a person barred from owning a gun to even ATTEMPT to buy one. The crime carries a $10,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison. From this list of almost 300,000, Holder’s DOJ prosecuted 16 people. There is your problem, folks. …

    1. Because the USA is hardly a country just a dysfunctional family of states with different ideas, that’s why state gun restrictions do not work. California borders Arizona where

      “Arizona gun control laws are among the least-restrictive in the United States. Arizona law states that any person 21 years or older, who is not a prohibited possessor, may carry a weapon openly or concealed without the need for a license.”

  21. Can someone explain to me the need for semi automatic rifles?

    They would only be used for hunting if you are a shitty hunter.

    Nobody is going use them to “Rise UP” and take out the corrupt government, that boat has passed.

    Zombie apocalypse’s are scientifically impossible so no need there.

    For post civilisation wasteland maybe but I don’t think the founding fathers took that into consideration.

    1. You may want to look up something called Hayek’s “knowledge problem”. It explains most of the errors in your comment.

      You think SARs are useless for hunting because you think hunting is shooting Bambi ’cause he has a nice rack. But subsistence hunting and crop protection are at least as important to rural economies, and “sportsmanship” has no place in either. Feral pigs do 100s of millions of $ in damage to crops, to say nothing of raccoons, bobcats, dogs, coyotes, etc., and a poor family getting meat doesn’t care about playing fair with the local deer population.

      You think that armed rebellion is a thing of the past because I’ll bet anything you get your news from sources that are so busy talking about Trump’s latest hangnail that they’ve completely neglected to mention what’s happening in Venezuela, and dozens of other countries around the world. There is no such thing as “consolidated democracy”.

      And you think survivalism is about zombies because you don’t know any real preppers, who are actually more worried about surviving a few months of anarchy in the event of a limited nuclear exchange between Trump and Kim Jong Un or another Depression. Both of which are sadly credible possibilities.

      An SAR only provides a minor advantage in all those situations, of course. But that applies just as much to an AR-15 going up against, say, a truck in a mass killing.

    2. Can someone explain to me the need for semi automatic rifles?

      Probably not. I find that anyone who uses the “nobody needs” argument cannot be persuaded, because they are measuring against what they perceive their own needs to be. Any need I might state, no matter how urgent, will be dismissed because it doesn’t match up with your needs.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.