Gun Control

No, Cory Booker, There Isn't a Study Showing That Licensing Gun Owners Cuts Gun Violence by 40 Percent

A flawed study continues to be repeated as if it proves something about the efficacy of gun permit laws.

|

In 2015, a group of researchers published a study in the American Journal of Public Health that was hyped in the press as having proved that instituting new, tougher permitting laws for gun owners in Connecticut cut gun homicide rates by 40 percent.

It was a very questionable study, for reasons summed up below. At the end of an article pointing out the study's problems, I predicted that

to a certain class of consumers of news and commentary, thanks to this study and the press it received, it is already a settled fact that "science has proven that tougher background checks reduce gun homicides by 40 percent."

No doubt raised about the study, either here or elsewhere, will likely dislodge that "knowledge." In which case, the study has achieved its goal whether or not its results are replicable or rigorously proved.

Last night, at the first Democratic candidate debate for the 2020 campaign, Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) proved my prophecy correct when he said, "If you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to buy and own a firearm. And not everybody in this field agrees with that, but in states like Connecticut that did that, they saw 40 percent drops in gun violence and 15 percent drops in suicides."

Booker is wrong (even if we kindly translate his looser "violence" into the study's actual focus on homicides) and so is the study that gave him that 40 percent figure. The study, as I previously explained, "purports to show that a 1995 tightening in Connecticut's gun permit laws led to a 40 percent reduction in gun homicides over the next decade," resulting in "nearly 300 fewer gun homicides."

The law in question, known as a "permit-to-purchase law," as explained in a press release on the study, "requires all prospective handgun purchasers to apply for a permit in person with the local police regardless of whether the seller of the handgun is a licensed dealer or private seller. It also raised the handgun purchasing age from 18 to 21 years and required prospective purchasers to complete at least eight hours of approved handgun safety training." Here's a site explaining Connecticut's permit process.

Yes, Connecticut's murder rate fell after the law passed, though the state's gun murder rate had already fallen 29 percent in the two years before the law was enacted, matching trends nationwide. Indeed, murder rates have been falling even in those states without any sort of permit-to-purchase laws, as can be seen in this chart from page 19 of the study:

The chart also shows that the study's authors simply guessed about what Connecticut's gun homicide rate would have been if the law had not passed. They did this by creating a "synthetic Connecticut" which is 72 percent neighboring Rhode Island. For reasons the authors do not speculate on, Rhode Island saw an unusual rise in gun homicides in the decade following Connecticut passing its permit law.

The authors lumped the two states together for analytical purposes based solely on the fact that the two states had similar gun homicide rates in the past. But what's really interesting here, and what the study's authors did not examine, is not that Connecticut's rate fell (which was in keeping with national trends anyway), but that Rhode Island's rate started to rise.

As I wrote back in 2015:

The rise in murder rates in synthetic-Connecticut begins in 1997; if you look at Rhode Island, its main component, we see in the raw CDC numbers…that the actual raw number of "extra" murders from that year through 2005 in Rhode Island amount to 52….[Thus] the entire edifice of their result is based on the fact that in Rhode Island over the course of eight years, 52 people made the decision to murder, and the study presumes that because of past patterns, a proportional number of people in Connecticut would also, for some reason, have made the decision to murder over those years minus the laws. You can decide if that seems irrefutably true to you.

There are other big problems with the study. For example, if researchers are going to declare that there was a major effect on homicides because of permit laws, they should know something about how extensively or effectively the laws are being enforced to be sure that it is reasonable to conclude that such laws are having such a powerful effect. Yet this study, like nearly all studies of gun laws, does not even attempt to do that.

Another big problem with the study is that it arbitrarily cut off its data analysis at 10 years for no reason connected to the data available or to the effect that was being studied. As I pointed out at the time of the study's release:

Six of the eight years since 2005 for which CDC had data show Connecticut with a higher real gun homicide rate than 2005, the year that the authors chose to stop. If they had gone out to 2006, the reduction in rates in real Connecticut from 1995 to 2006 is cut to 12 percent.

From 2005 to 2006, Connecticut's gun homicide rate went up 38 percent, from 2.05 to 2.84. Rhode Island—again, the bulk of their synthetic Connecticut—saw its rate go down 5 percent in that year, from 1.83 to 1.73.

If you look at the CDC gun homicide data from 2005 to 2012, you see Connecticut's rate going up 66 percent, from 2.05 to 3.41, and Rhode Island's going down 20 percent, from 1.83 to 1.45.

In other words, the oft-quoted 40 percent figure only came about because the study's authors arbitrarily focused on this 10 year stretch. Had the authors studied an extra couple of years past 2005, their results would be less impressive to gun control advocates and thus less headline-grabbing.

Regrettably, Cory Booker's repetition of a highly dubious figure from a highly dubious study will strike many viewers as true. The fact that the media's ostensible "fact checkers" seem unaware of the problem doesn't help either.

NEXT: The One Great Moment From Last Night's Democratic Debate—and the One From Tonight's

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I can’t believe this “study” is still being taken seriously. Well, actually, I can. And that is the sad part. Hell, some idiots still take Kellermann as “fact.”

    1. People like Booker don’t care if the study is flawed or the conclusions are bogus. They play to the fact that most people won’t go look up the study for themselves, they’ll just take him at his word. You get enough people repeating the very questionable conclusions of this study, it becomes a fact in the public mind.

    2. Well, 97% of Scientists agree with it, so….

      1. Assuming that note is not sarcasm… which “Scientists?” If it is sarcasm (which I suspect). Well then, 🙂

    3. “though the state’s gun murder rate had already fallen 29 percent in the two years before the law was enacted, ”

      Maybe you could repeat their methodology and find that NOT enacting a gun law reduced the murder rate by 29%.

      1. Actually, in Oregon, over the same decade, the rate went down by 48%, with no new gun laws. In fact, except for shall-issue CC permits, there weren’t any State regulations at all.

  2. I can’t believe that a presidential candidate would quote bogus statistics in order to lie to people. Someone, hurry and alert the elders.

  3. “…the study has achieved its goal whether or not its results are replicable or rigorously proved.”

    That is what passes for “true” and even “settled science” and you have to be idiotic, hateful, or crazy to question it.

    Sad part is that it’s good enough for much of the electorate who will never bother to read much beyond headlines, sound bytes, and get their “news” from The Daily Show.

    1. “”and you have to be idiotic, hateful, or crazy to question it. “‘

      They fail to understand that questioning it is what science does.

      1. Ocasio-Cortez: “Facts Don’t Matter When You’re ‘Morally Right”

        1. Facts don’t matter when you’re politically Left.

  4. notgonnabepresidentanyway.

    1. I’m thinking the adults will finally put an end to the party and make the children go to bed, and Biden will be the nominee. Of course the wokes will be all butt hurt yet again and pitch a collective fit once they realize they will not get all the free candy they demand.

      1. >>>wokes will be all butt hurt yet again

        cute how those lighting everything on fire in 1968 are now the Ruling Elite Class and have to herd their own cats.

        1. Its totes cool now because they inflated the administrative state, allowed a major ballooning of licensing laws, increased the strictness of various zoning laws, increased the powers of HOAs and inflated the cost of college all in the name of protecting their asset values.

          All the things they fought for in the 60s… right?

      2. I actually suspect that the Democrat Party panjandrums have written off 2020. They’re letting the inmates run the asylum…so that the people threatening the inner-party status quo will break themselves on Trump (and each-other).

        1. I like it; the media melt down in itself would almost be worth it. I think the country can survive another 4 of orange man bad, but then he [actually McConnel and the Federalist Society] will have filled a significant proportion of the federal judiciary, and at least a total of 3 on the USSC before it’s over. Any swamp draining [my personal favorite wet dream is shutting down the Department of Education and leaving it to the States to manage their schools] would be laganiappe.

          1. If my vote for President in the general election mattered (alas, it does not, I live in California) and the Senate looked safe for the Republicans, a Biden v. Trump race would be a difficult decision for me as Trump is more dangerous in short term while Biden is more dangerous in the long term largely due to the Judiciary (and esp. the Supreme Court).

            However, every other front runner on the Democrat debate stage is more dangerous than Trump in both the short and long term.

            The Democrats are shooting themselves in both feet and keep firing thinking that will make things better. It seems that they will be finding themselves painfully balancing on the stumps of the legs by November 2020. Trump’s ads write themselves — there’s enough in just the first round of debates to create a full complement of campaign ads against all the front runners except Biden — and there’s many more debates to add fodder and likely much more running off the cliff to the left like Wile E. Coyote unawares that they actually have already run off the edge.

            Just as Obama and Clinton were the best salesmen for guns, most of the Democratic party candidates are the best salesmen for Trump. I wish they understood this.

            I look forward to seeing some path leading to a time when, again, both the Republican and Democratic candidates are not caricatures of characters in some dystopian novel. I fear that is not 2020.

        2. “I actually suspect that the Democrat Party panjandrums have written off 2020. They’re letting the inmates run the asylum…so that the people threatening the inner-party status quo will break themselves on Trump (and each-other).”

          And who’s waiting in the wings?
          They don’t have anything but inmates

          1. That’s a good question. I assume that there are still some relatively sane democrats at the state level who could come in after all of these retards get smacked down. That’s the optimistic scenario.
            The less optimistic is that people will go for one of the retards and we will have to deal with someone actually trying to implement their retarded policies.
            Who knows? I certainly don’t.

      3. The adults (if there are any left) in the Democratic Party should put the “wokes” over their knees and give them a sound reason for feeling but-hurt.

  5. Flawed studies are part of their “common sense” approach.

    1. Common core?

      1. If common core was applied to English studies, would it be spelled like cc ooo mm n r e?

        1. It would be in pictures. See common core math.

  6. In my own “study,” conducted in the last ten minutes, my “control” state showed a drop in homicide-involving-firearm rates from 2.91/100,000 to 1.49/100,000 (48% drop) over the same decade, without any new State gun laws at all. Hell, with almost no gun laws or restrictions of any kind at all. I therefore must conclude that NOT requiring gun licenses, permits, and eight hours of safety training is an effective way to drastically lower the homicide rate.

    Statistics from the CDC/WISQARS

    1. I’ve run a few of my own like that, and invariably it comes up calling bullshit on such flawed studies [it only takes a few minutes with some reliable raw data]; now the hard part is getting anyone to actually heed the “facts” vs. “the narrative” and not affirming that you refute “settled” science and must hate children. As in this particular example, where “the study has achieved its goal whether or not its results are replicable or rigorously proved.” Remember when you are fighting the good fight against gun violence, climate change, human trafficking, or any kind of social injustice “Facts Don’t Matter When You’re Morally Right.” So go ahead and make up the numbers and pull data out of your ass, it’s for the common good, and anyone who faults you is just icky.

      1. Yep. I would like to blame such “willful ignorance” on “public education,” excepting I am a product of that. Hell, I am a product of California-style public education. Perhaps that demonstrates the efficacy of…. hmm…

    2. You were only able to find a 48% drop because you did not normalize the data. If you had, you would find at least a 40% increase in gun deaths everywhere they have failed to pass common-sense reforms. Normalizing consists of doing whatever it takes to get your number to 40% because people will not be overly alarmed by an increase smaller than 40%.

      Oh, and you should have found that 40 polar bears were killed with handguns in Vermont. It is crazy that you didn’t look at the effect on polar bears.

      1. Those were not polar bears. They were black bears. Are you not woke to “black bears matter?” 🙂

        1. “”Are you not woke to “black bears matter?””

          Somewhere there is a grizzly bear that thinks you’re a racist.

          1. 🙂 No doubt. Not to mention honey bears, or, for that matter, koala bears. It matters not that the latter is actually not a bear, because… because…. something.

            1. If the koala chooses to identify as a bear, who are you to say that it can’t?

              1. How did I JUST KNOW that someone would bring that up? 🙂

                1. Mr. Magoo could have seen that coming.

                  1. LOL 🙂

            2. That makes for a sad panda.
              Too black for the polar bears, too white for black bears.
              Poor little pandas

              1. Is that why they have such a hard time reproducing?

          2. They killed all the Grizzly bears in Cali, so I think Cali might be really racist.

        2. black bears matter

          Are you kidding me? Black bears are the most common. They have no intersectional value. White is black in the bear world, and white and black (giant pandas) are the rarest bears.

          1. But of course. And, perhaps most revealing, is that polar bears have black skin. Who do they think they are fooling? 🙂

            1. Old man winter?

  7. ¡Science!

    1. Thomas Dolby was a one hit wonder, Miss Sakamoto.

  8. […] That analogy is not the slam dunk Booker seems to think it is, especially since state government’s routinely treat driving on public roads as a “privilege,” whereas gun ownership is a constitutional right. Nor is it a credible response to the point that Todd raised, since it would apply only to future gun purchases. And as Brian Doherty notes, the evidence that requiring licenses to buy firearms reduces gun violence, to which Booker alluded, is unpersuasive. […]

    1. “…And as Brian Doherty notes, the evidence that requiring licenses to buy firearms reduces gun violence, to which Booker alluded, is unpersuasive…” “unpersuasive?” You are too kind 🙂

  9. […] That analogy is not the slam dunk Booker seems to think it is, especially since state government’s routinely treat driving on public roads as a “privilege,” whereas gun ownership is a constitutional right. Nor is it a credible response to the point that Todd raised, since it would apply only to future gun purchases. And as Brian Doherty notes, the evidence that requiring licenses to buy firearms reduces gun violence, to which Booker alluded, is unpersuasive. […]

  10. How cute, you actually think he cares if it’s true.

    I’ve been debating gun controllers for decades as a political activist. The ordinary guy on the street? He cares if it’s true. The guys at Booker’s level? They don’t care one bit, they probably already know it’s all BS.

  11. There would be easier study to conduct by comparing the numbers of killings by licensed gun owners verses those who are not licensed. Very few of the murders that occur are by committed by licensed gun owners and even less that used the weapons in committing other form of gun crimes.

    1. That might be interesting, excepting that most States don’t have “licenses” per se. Maybe more useful would be to define the category as “legally possessed” vs “illegally possessed.” Of course, that would only prove that that percentage who illegally possess firearms (such as those with violent criminal histories), AND who also use them in a crime, won’t abide by the law. And this is something we already know. Criminals don’t, as a rule, get their firearms from legitimate sources, so why would they bother getting a license? Also, methinks a car-jacker is probably not over-concerned about having a valid driver’s license.

  12. […] But the Dems want to ban guns. And they lie to do it. […]

  13. There are, however, studies that show a link between race and crime. And IQ too, but I wonder if that’s verboten here or not.

    Speaking of frames of reference, has anyone ever wondered why RI had a nearly 1000% increase in violent crime from 1960 up until this supposed miracle gun control? Or why CT had literally a 2000% increase in violent crime in the same time period? Asking for a friend.

    1. Probably because the US as a whole saw increased violent crime over the same time period, concentrated in decaying urban centers, which is really all Connecticut has anymore.

    2. As far as IQ, well, as a professional educator (retired), I question all “IQ” tests.

      As far as the “race” thing, well, let’s just say that it depends a whole lot on where one lives. A WHOLE lot. I did a bit of research a couple of years, and it was quite revealing re one particular group. Let me just hmm, summarize, by saying that absent an inner-city, gang-related environment, said group seems to be very, very peaceful.

      1. If you’re talking about the group I think you are, you’re wrong. Their rural crime rates in the US are sky high still, and their native lands have some of the highest crime rates in the world… This is the case everywhere they are on earth.

        Likewise, Asians are always the lowest crime group everywhere they are on earth. IQ is not a perfect measure of intelligence, but it’s good enough. The correlation between IQ and crime is actually what normalizes crime levels between races. Blacks, whites, Asians, etc of similar IQs commit crimes at almost identical rates… The thing is the % of those groups at the lower IQ levels that indicate criminal behavior are dramatically different.

        1. The group’s crime rate is not high in all rural areas. Most places, yep. But the fact that it isn’t consistent is very telling. I will explain in more detail and establish a parameter or two, and please note that I am dealing with homicides. The homicide rate is a pretty fair indicator of the overall violent crime rate:

          (I did this survey about three years ago.) Firstly: about 90% of homicides are “intra-racial.” That is, blacks kill blacks, whites kill whites, etc. It varies very slightly between groups, but it is right about 90%

          Since WISQARS doesn’t do anything for rural stats, I decided to take rural States, and correlate the race of the victims of homicide with the overall rate. To do this, because of the relatively small populations involved I needed to use multiple States. I also used an eighteen-year period. This gave me a total population well in excess of 1/2 million. Statistically, this is very good. I chose States with traditionally low homicide rates: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, and North Dakota, IIRC. (I actually had these numbers on my last computer, but I lost it in a house fire). In short, using the aggregate homicide figures for those States over the last eighteen years, this population should have seen somewhere between 35 and 45 homicides. I had to recheck because I was, well, rather surprised. The total number of homicides in this group was, zero. Not one.
          I did not expect that. Whenever I see inconsistencies, such as inconsistencies in the basic data concerning the effectiveness of gun-control laws, it raises a red flag. There are other factors at work besides what might seem to be the “obvious.”

          1. I don’t deny there are other factors… I don’t think anybody would claim that is the case. Of course all kinds of things from employment opportunities, to having a strong community in your local area, raised in a 2 parent household, etc etc etc will change things…

            But at the end of the day, with most types of crime, IQ covers most of the difference in outcomes. Likewise, differing IQ scores between ethnicities basically normalizes crime rates between races almost perfectly. It’s always good to dig deeper and figure out nuances, but there are no nuances that are big enough to trump the correlation between IQ and criminality overall.

            1. One problem still exists, however: the debate over race and IQ is far, far from “settled.” And that is an understating. Indeed, the efficacy and usefulness of such tests are still not accepted by many. In comparison, the statement by those who claim that the world is going to end in 30 years due to climate change is “settled,”

              You are free, of course, to take whichever side you choose (and there are actually well more than two sides). At the very least, it makes for lively discussion, and I appreciate your civility. But, consider this: if homicide/violent crime rates reflect intelligence, or anything else of value, then women should be running everything. Women, including non-white women, are one hell of a lot more “peaceable” than white men, at least statistically. You have a good day! 🙂

              1. Well, you won’t ever see it because it’s been a few days… But a couple things.

                People who say IQ doesn’t measure something useful are idiots. 100%. Nobody claims IQ measures all forms of intelligence, let alone other traits that make people useful or desirable. What it measures pretty damn decently though is what people might call “book smarts.” It does a good enough job of this to be HIGHLY useful. Almost every positive trait in the universe correlates to high IQ, and all the bad ones to low. Divorce rates, crime, income, etc.

                So whatever it measures IS important.

                As for the race and IQ thing… It basically IS settled science… But because it has a VERY politically incorrect outcome based on the science, people deny it.

                Studies have shown individual IQ is from 50-80% inherited directly from your parents. Most studies show 60-70% range. In other words, even at the 50% low end, one would have to create a world where all non whites/Asians had EVERY advantage offered by “nurture,” and whites/Asians got NONE of those benefits, and you’d STILL have a big enough gap to have measurable differences in outcomes. But that will never happen in the real world, which means the IQ gaps will probably remain pretty consistent.

                Studies have shown that once you get above basically not starving to death, the benefits from positive “nurture” type things don’t do a lot. This is why blacks in America have average IQs ~15 points higher than many countries in Africa, but the gap has barely narrowed compared to whites in America over decades.

                Bottom line is if one believes in science and evolution at all, one must accept that the logical starting position is that different groups separated by 10s of thousands of years of evolution would develop differences in them… Which we obviously have. Every study ever done shows gaps, and we see the exact outcomes one would assume from these gaps being real in outcomes.

                So with 100% of the science pointing one way, and the only argument on the other side being “But it can’t be true, that would mean we’re not all 100 identical!” which one do you believe? I’m gonna go with science.

                Bear in mind, none of this is to say that any group isn’t HUMAN, and deserving of being given basic respect as human beings etc. People deserve to be treated fairly. Also, there is plenty of overlap between groups. But to deny that there is a real and persistent difference at the statistical level… It’s utter nonsense.

                If you simply accept the science, it explains half of the supposedly impossible to explain differences in outcomes all over the world. It solves many of the great mysteries we rack our heads over. Genetic research is only going to reinforce this shit too, mark my words.

    3. The increase in crime, especially violent crime, which started in the mid-sixties, and didn’t start decreasing until the early nineties, was about 90% due to the “baby boom.” Lots more people in the “high-risk to commit a crime” age group started, well, reaching that age.

      As the baby-boomers started getting older and “aging out” of that group, crime started decreasing. An incredibly similar pattern of crime increasing and decreasing, (during pretty much the same time period), can be seen by looking at stats from England, Canada, Switzerland, Australia, Norway, and Sweden. I haven’t had time to check the rest… lol

      1. The baby boom still wasn’t all of it though, from things I have read in the past.

        There are a lot of things, including that, which may have all added a little fuel to the fire. All the lead in the environment is a semi legit thing. There was a lot of tumult with employment. Etc etc etc.

        Also, I think there is some serious merit in a few reasons for why it started dropping, other than the potential partial causes subsiding. Abortion going industrial scale, disproportionately with poor people who typically commit crimes. Given the links between poverty/low IQ and crime, it makes sense.

        And seriously, assholish as it may be, and expensive as it may be… I think it’s pretty clear if you lock shit tons of trouble makers up in prison for extremely long periods of time, it makes perfect sense that crime will go down. We did that. People who argue this isn’t true are morons. Imagine if you simply executed everybody who ever got caught stealing anything worth over $50, and ditto for a fuck ton of other crimes. Soon there would be very few criminals alive to commit any crimes. The true argument about criminal justice reform is striking the right balance between protecting society at large, costs, and fairness for the criminals who commit minorish crimes.

        1. “The baby boom still wasn’t all of it though, from things I have read in the past. ” Correct. Which is why I said “90%.” It might even be 80%. I do think that Roe v Wade probably had an effect. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to compare stats internationally on that because most of Western Europe was going through the same liberalization of abortion as was the US during much of that time period. But yeah, I think it did have an effect.

          And, certainly, there are also economic factors. Also, not every area suffers the same: as another poster mentioned, the rotting from the inside of cities like Detroit has a measurable effect on the overall homicide rate, yet little direct effect on those not living in Detroit. As they say: it’s complicated. 🙂

          1. Yup. Complicated indeed. It could all just be the fluoride in the water too! It legitimately does make people more docile, and it’s a widely known conspiracy theory. I never bothered to check about what dosages make you a pansy though, so it’s probably nothin’!

            1. Yeah, I did some research on fluoride a while back. While I don’t necessarily support the mandated fluoridation of water, there a lots of crazy things out there, like the theory that the Nazi’s used it to make people more “passive” and “accepting of authority.” Since around 97% to 98% of continental Europeans do NOT have their water fluoridated, we certainly cannot blame their low homicide rates on that. Or maybe we can? 🙂

  14. They invented a synthetic control group?

    That is a creative way to run a study. You get to pick your own data.

    1. I used stats professionally in my line of work (I am now retired). Although I am no statistician, I can surely spot when things are being twisted.

      Stats are great, but I still remember, printed in the cover leaf of my first statistics text book, the following: “There are lies, big lies, and statistics.” (or something like that).

  15. How much consideration did the study give to Kristallhacht gun laws?

  16. I had a really scary thought last night talking with my family about the current gaggle of Dems. Hillary is going to come back from the dead (like the litch she is) and enter in about 4 months.

    The really scary part – she is better than any of the current gaggle and I freaking hate her.

    1. I dunno about better… I mean Biden is saner, and slightly less viscerally disgusting. A few of the non important ones also seem more likable… But they’re all insane.

  17. Whenever you read a column at Reason, just remember the Liberaltarians who write here would happily vote for Booker as long as those icky deplorables who actually believe in borders lose.

  18. Gun crime is purely about the presence of blacks and mestizos. It’s as simple as that.

    Don’t say “Hispanic” as it unfairly lumps in Criollos from Spain with genetically low IQ and violent Aztecs and Mayans.

  19. […] advance his proposals, he’s making some claims that aren’t nearly as backed up as he’d like to […]

  20. Last night, at the first Democratic candidate debate for the 2020 campaign, Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) proved my prophecy correct when he said, “If you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to buy and own a firearm.

    False analogy.

    a license is not required to buy or own a car.

    In fact, no jurisdiction in the U.S. prohibits those convicted of DUI-related manslaughter from buying or owning a car.

    1. And no jurisdiction requires “good reason” to buy one. Or imposes a waiting period. Or bans cars with cosmetic features like red paint, spoilers, or lightning decals. And none limit maximum speed because “No one needs to drop more than 85 mph”

  21. The country is free, people can use guns without being banned, this is very insecure for everyone. http://outlook-entrar.net/

  22. Driving is not a right enumerated in the Constitution. End of discussion.

  23. […] enough in their gun control proposals. Keep in the mind, Cory Booker wants to require licensing (based on faulty “research”) and Eric Swalwell wants to confiscate semi-automatic rifles. Lopez’s rationale is that none of […]

  24. […] Take gun control, for example. Any regular reader of this website knows that gun control doesn’t save lives and that, in fact, it makes everyday citizens less safe. But, if you believe anti-gun Presidential candidates like Cory Booker, then you would be believing an outright lie about the effectiveness of gun control. On June 27, 2019 Brian Doherty wrote, […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.