Gun Control

Are the Democrats Right That We Are Seeing an 'Epidemic of Gun Violence'?

The rhetoric may not be accurate, but it is definitely useful.

|

Criticism of President Donald Trump's response to the COVID-19 epidemic has figured prominently at the Democratic National Convention this week. But last night the party shifted its focus to a different sort of epidemic.

The actress Kerry Washington, the evening's M.C., introduced the topic at the beginning of the program, saying "90 percent of Americans support common-sense gun laws, because we need to do more to address the epidemic of gun violence." A convention video continued the theme. "Long before this pandemic, our country has been suffering from an epidemic of gun violence," a Florida gun control supporter identified as "Maria W." says, describing murder by firearm as a "public health crisis."

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden uses similar rhetoric. "Joe Biden knows that gun violence is a public health epidemic," his campaign website says, introducing "The Biden Plan to End Our Gun Violence Epidemic." This year's Democratic platform likewise talks about "ending the epidemic of gun violence."

Leaving aside the question of whether the "common-sense gun laws" Biden favors would actually have a meaningful impact, is it accurate to describe gun violence in the United States as an "epidemic"? Obviously not in any literal sense, since gun violence is not caused by an infectious microorganism that spreads from person to person. Figuratively, however, the term epidemic implies a problem that is escalating and out of control, which is true of gun violence only if you focus on a narrow slice of the data.

According to the FBI's numbers, total homicides in the United States fell from 24,700 in 1991 to a low of 14,164 in 2014—a 43 percent drop. The homicide rate fell even more dramatically, from 9.8 per 100,000 in 1991 to 4.4 per 100,000 in 2014—a 55 percent drop. Homicides rose in 2015 and 2016, then fell in 2017 and 2018, when the rate was 5 per 100,000, up 14 percent from 2014. The FBI has not published final data for 2019 yet, but preliminary numbers for the first half of the year indicate that homicides fell by 7.4 percent.

The trends for murders committed with firearms are slightly different because the type of weapon used varies over time. Gun homicides fell from a peak of 17,075 in 1993 to a low of 7,803 in 2014—a 54 percent drop. The number rose in 2015, 2016, and 2017, then fell in 2018, when it was 32 percent higher than in 2014 but still 40 percent lower than the 1993 total. The gun homicide rate in 2018 was about 3.1 per 100,000, half the 1993 rate.

As Philip Bump noted in The Washington Post last year, most Americans are not aware of this dramatic decline in gun homicides. In a 2019 Marist poll, 59 percent of respondents believed "the per capita gun murder rate in the U.S." was higher than it was 25 years earlier, while 23 percent thought it was "about the same." Just 12 percent knew that the rate had fallen, while 6 percent were not sure.

That misperception probably has a lot to do with news coverage of mass public shootings, which account for less than 1 percent of gun homicides. But all the talk about a gun violence "epidemic" reinforces the false impression that we are seeing historically high levels of murders committed with firearms.

The Democrats might argue that three consecutive years of rising gun homicides (followed by a drop) constitute an epidemic, even if the rate remains historically low. But they were already talking about an "epidemic" of gun violence in 2016, when the most recent FBI data indicated no trend that could justify that description even by the most generous definition.

Exaggerating a problem is a time-honored technique to build support for the policies you favor. It creates a sense of urgency that encourages voters to overlook those policies' shortcomings, such as the irrelevance of "assault weapon" bans and the inability of "universal background checks" to affect the gun sources that criminals typically use.

At the same time, describing gun violence as an epidemic—the same framing that has generated myriad dubious studies of this criminological topic in medical and public health journals—applies a pseudoscientific veneer to proposals whose merits depend on value judgments as well as uncertain predictions about the practical consequences of "common-sense" gun controls. Such rhetoric also slants the debate by suggesting that deadly violence is a disease that can best be controlled by attacking the vectors of transmission—i.e., guns and bullets. It may not be accurate to talk about gun violence this way, but it is definitely useful.

Advertisement

NEXT: Democratic Party Platform Calls for 'Reining In' Qualified Immunity. Why Not Eliminate It?

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. So does that mean you are opposed to new, common-sense gun laws? How can any intelligent person take that position?

    They are COMMON SENSE gun laws! You must want people to die!

    1. If you show me a new gun law that I agree is “common-sense” I’ll support it.

      It’s absolutely useless to talk about it in generalities.

      1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

        Here’s what I do…..>>…..> Click here

        1. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now.BAI I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is

          what I do………………Money90

      2. End drug prohibition.

      3. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now.BAI I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is…….….COPY HERE====►►Money90

        1. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now.BAI I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is….…copy here CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS

      4. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…HGb after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier……….….COPY HERE====►►Money90

    2. Honestly, I’d be all for common sense gun control laws. Maybe there’s something we can do that would reduce the number of guns getting into the hands of criminals that also doesn’t infringe too much on gun rights. But part of common sense is to stop doing something when it clearly doesn’t work, and that would apply to most gun control laws already on the books. After all, if we already have gun control laws and we’re experiencing an epidemic of gun violence, perhaps those gun control laws aren’t helping.

      So any real common sense gun control law would have to include repealing a current gun control law that isn’t working. Otherwise it’s not common sense at all.

      1. Most studies and data have seemed to show that the majority of violent criminals obtain their firearms through illegal channels.

        Maybe we could enact a law that prohibits anyone from violating any additional laws as part of or in preparation for any criminal act? After all, it’s possible that someone might be willing to violate one or two laws, but nobody would be so audacious as to violate three…

        1. I basically make about $12,000-$18,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it .CPo This is what I’ve been doing old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 10-13 hours a week from home……..

          ===========► Click here

      2. You completely missed the point.
        Gun Control laws are not intended to stop crime, combat terrorism, or support any of the other supposed goals.

        Gun control is to disarm the citizens.
        Only then can they be properly oppressed.

    3. A common sense gun law would be one that mandates all government records pertaining to private firearms ownership are permanently destroyed, and mandates 10 year federal prison sentences for any government official who attempts to start collecting those records again.

      I mean, we have literal Hitler in the White House right now. Do you want him to know if you have weapons?

      1. I mean, we have literal Hitler in the White House right now. Do you want him to know if you have weapons?
        One reason I haven’t applied for CCW. I don’t trust my state.

        1. Why would you ask your government if you can carry a gun? Just put it in your pocket.

    4. One reason that approval for the most common slate of “common sense” gun control laws is at 90% is that probably half of those people are aware that most of the proposed “new laws” on that list are already on the books, and most of the rest (such as requiring “universal” background checks for all private sales) are fundamentally dependent on voluntary compliance and are otherwise almost impossible to enforce.

      The problem with the term “common sense” is that it’s highly subjective and often used as a smokescreen, similarly to when the term “fair share” is used to sell increases to marginal tax rates.

      1. Detection really is the weak point in any attempt to detect straw purchases or unlawful private party sales. The last time the government had any notice of what I did with my firearms was when I purchased them. How do they know if I still have possession of them? Well, they don’t. My state has no reporting requirements for private party firearm sales by design.

        That said, gun control really only seems to flare up when you have a mass shooting. But most firearms used in such incidents were legally purchased by the killers or another member of their immediate household. And mass shootings are only a very small fraction of overall firearm deaths.

        Seems as if there is a huge disconnect between perception and reality.

    5. Your comment was hysterical.

  2. To be fair, there’s lots of anecdotal evidence that 2020 gun violence rates have skyrocketed in Portland, Minneapolis, Seattle, Oakland, etc.

    Increased background checks on firearm purchases and assault weapon bans will surely solve all those cities’ problems…

    1. Don’t forget the ban on bayonet lugs. It must have had a significant impact on gun violence.

      1. at least there’s no uptick in bayonet violence

        1. How can we know that when we don’t have the CDC tracking stats on bayonet attacks?

          1. We’re going to need a new Bureau of Bayonets for this. The ATF and CDC have too much on their plate.

            1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job.MNa Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website.

              This is what I do……, Click here

          2. Have we checked any of the militias on the left? One might have slipped off during formation.

        2. The last US led bayonet charge was during the Korean War. The US Army doesn’t even reach bayonet training in basic anymore (the Marine Corps still does, not because bayonets are useful in battle but because it teaches aggression). They are worried about something the US military basically has abandoned as a tool of war.
          On the other hand some British Marines did successfully launch a bayonet charge during the Iraq war, clearing a trench of insurgents. But they didn’t have to use their bayonets as the charge alone was enough to make the enemy flee. Actually, even during the hay day of muzzle loaders, bayonet charges were designed to cause the enemy to lose their nerve and break. Historical records indicate very few actual wounds from bayonets. People are much more afraid of getting stabbed than shot.

          1. It has been said that only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun. Maybe the Iraqis had heard this saying and realized those British Marines were crazy and it was better to just run away from them.

  3. Just make the guns wear masks to flatten the curve. QED.

    1. My ammunition already wears jackets. Is that not enough?

      1. Mandatory suppressors if you’re going to be within 6 ft. of someone.

        1. Suppressor or not, they aren’t going to like the sound of 7.62x54R at that distance.

          1. Just tell them it was made by communists, they’ll come around.

            1. The ammunition maybe. The rifle was made by Westinghouse USA.

  4. Just like Fast n Furious, if there’s no gun violence epidemic the Democrats will make sure to create one so they can then react to it.

    Just look at their platform, they fully intend to cause more gun violence than this country has seen since the Civil War.

    1. Just look at their platform, they fully intend to cause more gun violence than this country has seen since the Civil War.

      … because they intend to start a second civil war.

  5. Are these people nuts? The “Epidemic of gun violence” had the USA on par with 1969, so the epidemic is receding.

    Whenever the left uses their Orwellian skills and says “gun violence” look at them as if they were stupid, and they are, and ask them to tell you the difference of that from knifing, bludgeoning or fisticuffs.

    Gun control is like a game of Clue; the butler did it the pantry with a candelabra.

    1. Or, better yet, ask them why a suicide should be lumped in with murders.

      1. then ask if the COVID shutdowns have increased or decrease suicidal and homicidal tendencies.

      2. Because dead is dead, for one. For two, it’s known that people who survive suicide attempts frequently regret it, so making it more difficult to successfully suicide yourself saves lives. Give people a chance to reconsider; leave them with options that don’t blow their skulls apart.

        1. You’ve posted that blather several times before. Have you yet read even one of the cross-jurisdictional studies that show gun control completely uncorrelated with either the rate of suicide attempts or suicide successes? People who want to hurt themselves are depressed and/or mentally ill. That’s a serious problem. But the data shows that when you take away one means of suicide, they find others.

          If you really care about suicides, go do something to treat the problem. Volunteer at a call center or a shelter. Adopt a child and give him/her a better start in life. But stop this transparent attempt to exploit suicide tragedies for your gun control fantasies.

          1. The best thing for the layman to do is take QPR training. Question, persuade and refer. It has been documented to decrease suicides. It teaches you to recognize suicidal symptoms and to question appropriately. The first thing you learn is that it is a myth that asking someone if they want to commit suicide is going to put that idea in their head. We need to get over the taboo of using the word suicide. You should be direct, but empathetic in your questioning.
            I serve on a veterans coalition, and my universities farm stress management Committee, both are attempting to deal with growing suicide rates in veterans and farmers. We also have to stop thinking of suicide as a teenage problem, because one of the largest groups of suicides right now are white, middle class males in their 40s and 50s.

          2. Rand Corp has a study that somewhat agrees with the assertion that suicidal individuals will turn to other means when firearms are unavailable. However, they conclude that the rate at which people actually turn to other means is poorly understood.

            They do conclude that waiting periods and child access prevention laws have been found to reduce suicide attempts and deaths. But studies for almost every other form of gun control were inconclusive or flawed.

            So the determination to enact gun control in the name of preventing suicide, save for some specific means, is premature at best or politically manipulative at worst.

            https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/suicide.html

          3. Either guns are especially deadly weapons or they’re of no special use for self-defense. Why not satisfy everyone and switch up to nooses or pills? Too cumbersome? Too uncertain and outcome? Guns tend to be final. That’s the point of guns.

            But the important point is that high rates of suicide is a public health problem same as murder. I don’t think you want government to ignore it even if there is some measure of choice in the mix.

            1. Actually a lot of people fuck it attempting suicide using guns. They end up as vegetables or paraplegics. Most people tend to stick the gun under their chin, which isn’t particularly lethal but does fuck up your cognitive abilities.

            2. Way to miss the point, Tony. Nooses are equally certain, fast and final as a means of committing suicide. Nooses are rather a lot less effective as defensive weapons.

              High suicide rates are a public health problem – that has no connection whatsoever to gun control.

              1. It takes time and effort to make and use a noose. Why they’re ineffective for self defense is the important difference. Gun suicide can be a more rash action with near certain outcomes.

            3. But the important point is that high rates of suicide is a public health problem same as murder.

              But solving that problem is not the same as trying to solve the “gun violence” problem, which, when we’re referring to people hurting others with firearms, is primarily an issue with gang members shooting each other or innocent people, not themselves.

              They’re completely different problems that happen to share one small similarity. That similarity is not the thing to focus on when attempting to solve those completely separate problems.

              Speaking as someone who just passed the two year mark of their original planned suicide (04 Aug 2018), and who is a hug firearms enthusiast, and whose plan did not involve any firearms at all specifically so Sarah Brady couldn’t use my death as a hammer to destroy something I love, allow me to reassure you that firearms are not necessary to a suicide.

              1. Of course they’re not necessary, just efficient. That’s why there is a quasi-religious obsession with them by some Americans: their proficiency at killing animals and humans. So to the extent that they proliferate in society, logic suggests that successful murder and suicide will be higher, and the data agrees with common sense.

                As a public health metric both suicide and murder are important to measure and study. Mental healthcare is important to policy around suicide as well as gun availability. Or we can talk about the stats of overall gun death as they relate to the context of a gun discussion. I can think of only very specific policy reasons to focus on moral culpability.

                1. Actually murder rates do not correlate to gun ownership. Here are the top ten countries in the world for gun ownership along with their global ranking for murder rates:

                  Ownership Murder ranking
                  1 USA 109
                  2 Yemen 110
                  3 Switzerland 195
                  4 Finland 141
                  5 Serbia 170
                  6 Cyprus 150
                  7 Saudi Arabia 178
                  8 Uruguay 97
                  9 Sweden 179
                  10 Norway 197

            4. “”But the important point is that high rates of suicide is a public health problem same as murder.””

              Thinking murder is a health problem and not a criminal problem says a lot.

              1. Indeed. It says that your mind functions as agent-focused and hierarchical, like a typical conservative. It’s why when conservatives are in power we get policy focused on punishing people for moral infractions instead of policy focused on solving problems.

                What is a “criminal problem”? An unexplained epidemic of badness people? Serious people assume that crime will increase or decrease as a result of environmental realities, and then focus on adjusting those to correct for problems.

          4. Tony foesnf Carr about anything but winning. He’s like Kirkland, but not quite as homicidal.

            1. He’s like Kirkland, but not quite as homicidal.

              Or rapey.

  6. All sorts of violence has escalated since the lockdowns. What the hell did anyone expect? You can’t tell people, especially young adults, to stay cooped up and stand away from everybody and throw them out of work, and then expect meek compliance and civility.

    People just don’t work like that any more then economies.

  7. The Democrats are really going to be pushing this ignorant rhetoric through the election. They understand that if they succeed in taking power and start trying to enact half the drivel they are promoting during the DNC, THERE WILL BE GUN VIOLENCE.

  8. Wow, so the Dems are running on a platform of gun control at the same time they’re demanding that the police be abolished. Wonderful.

    1. I know they can’t win nationally with that platform, but I really hope they win a few municipalities just so we can say “I told you so.”

      1. They’re already implementing this agenda in some cities they rule, and it’s already in “I told you so” territory. I can’t imagine the true believers will learn anything from this, but they will be great fodder for Trump campaign ads.

      2. Um, they won Chicago almost a century ago and have had super harsh gun laws for decades so…..

        No shit, I just looked this up, the last Republican mayor of Chicago left office in 1931.

        1. The Chicago City Council is comprised of 46 Democrats and 4 Independents. As far as I could tell, the last Republican on the council was back in 1975.

        2. and he’s still voting. but he votes for Democrats now.

    2. Seems consistently anti-shooting-people to me.

      1. Seems like the government wants a monopoly on shooting people (and getting away with it) to me.

        1. Have you looked at the homicide rates in Chicago, Seattle and Portland lately? Seems like it’s more pro-shooting people.

        2. A monopoly on shooting people is precisely the point of having a government. You don’t get to shoot someone without legal permission. Self-defense is a measured exception to the monopoly on force that, if misused, submits itself all the same to that monopoly.

          1. Every tyrant in history agrees with you.

            1. And every small-d democrat. Almost literally everyone except anarchists.

              1. Just funny how the first thing tyrants do when gaining power is disarm the populace. Trying to protect them, I guess.

  9. 90% of Americans support oxygen and overeating. that is all.

    1. I should have known you were pro oxygen breather. Breathing the shit of pond scum isn’t the only thing you have in common with Hitler!

      1. until they can upload my brain I’m a ventilator.

  10. I blame violent video games for the reduction in homicides. More young people kept off the streets, with a safer outlet for aggression.

  11. I would have to say YES to the question ‘Is the US Seeing an ‘Epidemic of Gun Violence’? But I must clarify that question and the answer. There are parts of the nations that is seeing an EPIDEMIC of GUN VIOLENCE but not all of the US. The part of the US seeing this epidemic of gun violence, as strange as it may seem is the parts of the country that has the strictest gun control laws! These areas are the areas that are primarily under DEMOCRAT control either on the state or the city level and in most cases both the state and the local. But the areas that have this epidemic is the areas where the politicians have allowed the BLM demonstrators to go from demonstrating to rioting, looting and burning and even killing people. The places where the police were told to stand down and not interfere with the rioters there are an increase of gun violence. This is also the reason that gun sales have skyrocketed since the pandemic started and George Floyd’s death and the police have been prevented from doing their jobs. These are the areas where the residents know that the police will not be able to answer a 911 call. This has been proven in places like Portland and Seattle where there about 60 calls a night that the police cannot answer This In states where the politicians that has not happened. Take Texas for example the cities where the democrats are in political control and have been for a few years the gun violence and other violence have gotten worse. But in other areas of the state where there is the backing of the police by the politicians and people that is not the case.
    Now I have just read and heard that residents of places like Portland, Seattle, Minanoplas, Chicago, NYC and maybe Baltimore the people are afraid to speak out against BLM (?) demonstrators, afraid for their lives.
    It is the lawlessness that has taken hold of these cities where gun violence has greatly increased.

  12. Democrats seem fixated on the person with evil intentions who might want to buy a gun, but won’t be able to thanks to their genius laws. Meanwhile there are those who actually HAVE used guns and harmed people. And what do Democrats do with these people? They release them from prison, that’s what.

    1. the felons they want to release are reformed, and needed to vote for them. the hypothetical felons they are worried about are right wing mass shooters, who commit a very small percentage of all shootings.

      1. Not nearly as small a percentage as those committed by Antifa, and what do you want government to do about them?

        1. Punish them for criminal activity when they commit it the same as any right winger who commits criminal activity. Gee, does that hurt your feelings?

          1. No. So all we need to do is proportion our attention to the one that is actually murdering people at such a rate that the FBI has been paying attention to them for decades. Right wing extremism, which you at least flirt with, is a problem for a society. It is watched because it should be watched, just like Muslim terrorists.

            1. Bullshit. And I don’t flirt at all with right wing extremist, it just seems that way to you because you are so blindly tribalist.

            2. So what is that rate Tony? Can you cite it? What’s the proportion of street gangs in your data?

              1. Just google it. I’m sure we agree as loyal Bushpigs that street crime is totally different from terrorism. That we don’t throw white rightwingers identified as terrorists into lawless nightmares like Gitmo must be a mere oversight.

  13. Their smug support for banning high capacity magazine was “your need for defense against multiple invaders is less important than preventing someone to shoot multiple people more easily”.

    Well, after seeing deranged democrats refuse to stop riots that drag on for 80 days, most Americans probably thought they could use all the ammo and guns they can get.

    The democrats don’t have an iota of intellectual integrity and honesty. Watch how they deride and simplify the rising violence in their city as “gun violence” as if it was a singular epidemic that had nothing to do with their hostility to police and general inability to control their streets. Gun violence isn’t spiking in red states where people could buy guns like candy (supposedly).

    Jenny Durkin sided with peaceful protesters then urged council members to boot Sawant as soon as he encouraged protests near her home.

    1. not to mention Prohibition 2, The Sequel, i.e. The War on Drugs, with the same gangland violence Prohibition 1 engendered.

    2. “…..as soon as he encouraged…….”

      Sawant’s a chick. Or something. Easy mistake to make. All the sex appeal of a 60 year old dude in bike spandex with all the feminine charm of a shrieking vulture. Just awful.

  14. The Dems are all about “common sense gun SAFETY” legislation. Who could oppose that? Don’t you want guns to be safe? Because they apparently go off a lot on their own. You read about it all the time when someone with a gun who just wanted to scare somebody reports that “the gun went off” and accidentally killed the guy. So many tragic accidents like that. Common sense and safety. We all want that.

    1. Because they apparently go off a lot on their own.
      I did witness this once when, during operator maintenance, the sear for a M-60 was put in backwards. They put a belt in, closed the cover, pulled the charging handle back, and we had a runaway.

  15. Having the tenth highest gun deaths per capital in the world is nothing to brag about. I’d rather be like our peers in the civilized world on this than rated with countries with extensive drug cartel problems. Some of us think the entire point of politics is to offer solutions so that we are not a shithole country. Others think their right to own an arsenal trumps those considerations. May the less sociopathic nutbag side win.

    1. I know this is a troll, but you realize that we have extensive drug cartel problems, right? How is banning guns going to fix a drug problem?

      1. Sure, de-shitholing the US is a big project.

        1. .000000021/10

          1. Good to see you back!

        2. “Sure, de-shitholing the US is a big project.”

          You could help by leaving.

    2. I love how liberals toggle between “how dare you refer to El Salvador/Haiti/Somalia as s-hole countries” and “I would NEVER want to be compared with those countries.”

      1. Haha. So many contradictions. It’s a wonder they don’t forget how to breathe.

      2. Do you guys realize that you have totally substituted having policy ideas or even policy critiques with seeking out instances of perceived hypocrisy so you can say neener neener? Just think about it.

    3. “Some of us think the entire point of politics is to offer solutions.”

      In one fell swoop, I just figured out why almost every opinion you have is wrong. You think politics is about something other than racketeering, creating a monopoly on violence and enforcing the aesthetic preferences of the rich and powerful. I have a toddler that thinks the exact same thing.

      1. It can be those things, most easily achieved when laissez-faire, pro-capital, low-accountability policy is in place. Your explanation for why your political system is the one that doesn’t come with corruption despite every door being open to corruption is literally “Because I say so.”

        1. I often forget how incredibly responsive to the citizens governments are that have more power than our government has. Hell, N Korea must be doing something right, right? I mean their citizens CRY when their leaders die.

    4. The U.S. has extensive problems with cartels.

    5. Having the tenth highest gun deaths per capital in the world is nothing to brag about.

      I dunno, it’s pretty good considering we’re #1 for per capita firearm ownership by a factor of what, a hundred or so?

    6. US murder ranking in the world has varied between 96th and 116th over the last ten years. Not my idea of a crisis.

  16. Well we had what is a bad case of the flu this year and they nearly destroyed the economy. So I can fully expect the democrats to call this an epidemic so they can confiscate firearms. Because yes they mean to do it. It’s already been stated directly.

    And will they start with black gangs? Oh no they will start where it is easiest.

    1. Gun control advocates are perfectly aware that one major source of gun violence is gangs. The hope is that making guns more difficult to acquire will help that problem as much as it will stop right wingers from shooting up churches.

      And let’s be honest, if only the blacks had guns, the 2nd amendment would long be a distant memory.

      1. Exactly, just like if the people pouring across the Rio Grande voted conservative and joined the NRA, “the wall” would’ve been built 30 years ago, and much higher.

      2. So because other people use guns in a bad way, my rights have to be restricted.

        Does that apply to all rights, or only the ones you don’t like?

        1. Of course. We treat cars, and for that matter car seats for babies, the exact same way.

          1. So, we should shut down pornography, violent media, etc, right?

            You’re hitting Moral Majority levels now, son.

      3. I concede that “The hope [of gun controllers] is that making guns more difficult to acquire will help”. What boggles the mind is the overwhelming evidence that it does not help and has never helped anywhere or at anytime in history. People willing to do bad things with guns are willing to do bad things to get guns. Prohibition works precisely nowhere.

        It’s the magical thinking of a 5 year old who thinks that if he just wishes hard enough it might become real.

        1. Prohibition never works 100%, but it works to some degree. Banned things are scarcer then unbanned things. At least that’s the most resonant assumption before demonstrated otherwise. Not a lot of lead in water nowadays (except where government isn’t as powerful as the corporations that want to pollute with it).

          1. You mean Flint where the government sold the rights to a company so they could make more money?

            I’m shocked — SHOCKED — that a government doesn’t care that much about its citizenry.

          2. That is not true at all.
            Drugs are banned in prisons.
            Yet There are drugs freely available inside prisons.
            A place where everyone who enters is searched, cell phones are prohibited, and outside contact is prevented.
            Prohibition stops nothing

      4. Interesting, by the way, that you claim racist support for the Second Amendment while ignoring the extensive history of gun control as a primary tool used to keep blacks powerless and controllable.

        Gun control has deeply racist roots. Not only are you perpetuating them, you are celebrating them.

        1. I do not doubt white Americans’ willingness to sacrifice consistency and to leave no stone unturned in finding policy to oppress black people.

          Understand that it’s not that gun proliferation necessarily means white people get to shoot more black people. Not at all. It means the fantasy that they will be able to shoot a black person is the advertising campaign they fell victim to.

      5. Look up the reason behind the first gun control laws. They were passed to keep freed slaves from owning guns to defend themselves. And what group was formed in part to help insure freed slaves could own firearms? Ding ding ding, the NRA.
        In fact, the first use of the so called militia clause, that the 2A only applies to militias was used by the State of Arkansas to defend a law that forbid blacks, Indians and immigrants from owning a gun. The gun control laws of the 1960s and 1970s were a direct reaction to people like the Black Panthers parading with open carry. Almost every single gun control law has it’s roots in keeping blacks, other minorities and poor people from owning guns. Yeah, gun right advocates aren’t the racist. Remember the gentleman in the landmark McDonald case, what color was his skin? Or yeah he was black and he wanted to own a gun for self defense but the state of Illinois banned him from. Also several studies on shall issue states and those requiring a firearms ID card show a drastic disparity in who gets permission. It almost entirely rich, white people who are allowed to purchase in those states. There have been several cases of single mothers, who have escaped abusive relationships, denied a CCW or FID, who were subsequently murdered by the ex-lovers. And a good number of them were minorities. So despite showing a valid reason for needing a gun, they were denied while rich white people are almost always given permission in Illinois and California and New York.

        1. You guys are so close to getting it. It’s just like, answer your own questions and you’ll be there. Why is gun control policy used to oppress black people? And why can’t that me the same reason for promoting gun rights for white people?

    2. “And will they start with black gangs? Oh no they will start where it is easiest.”

      Come, come. There are few things in this world that are easier than putting a black man into an American prison.

      1. They go for black law-abiding citizens instead.

      2. So you support gun control so you have another reason to jail black people? Seems fairly racist to me.

        1. “Seems fairly racist to me.”

          Hardly surprising. I think if you have a gun you should try to control it. If you are not able to, someone else should control it for you.

          1. So you admit you’re a racist who thinks blacks can’t control guns?

          2. My “control” of my firearms is just fine. So you’re going to let me not be subject to any of these laws? Neat!

  17. Confiscating weapons from peaceful people: violence and hypocrisy.

  18. Did Biden give a shout out to Cleveland last night?

  19. Guns are not contagious. So there can be no epidemic.

    The most common sense approach to shootings by bad people is to legalize drugs, sex, and rock and roll.
    Get folks so stoned, tired, or busy dancing there will not be time for violence.

    1. Carrot and stick. Set up a program where guns and ammo can be traded for sex, drugs and video games.

      1. Since I don’t do drugs, listen to country and rockabilly, and am married for 20 years to a woman with a high sex drive, you won’t ever get my guns. And if you come to my house to get them, I lost them in a boating accident, prove otherwise.

        1. Money then. Who in this ever changing world in which we live in doesn’t love it?

          1. I don’t love money. As long as I have enough to feed my family, pay bills and have bit left over to spend on my ranch, go hunting and fishing, I’m fine. Never wanted to be rich.

            1. Please be sure to vote!

  20. All I’m asking for is common sense Democrat control.

    1. If you’re saying we need to arbitrarily remove their features until we feel better, I’m listening.

      1. “High Capacity Mouths”, “Statism Lugs”, “Shoulder Things That Go Up”. Democrats are clearly in need of defeaturing.

        1. “Shoulder Things That Go Up”

          You refer to the extreme shrug, accompanying the phrase “but the plan was correct, I can’t figure out why it didn’t work! (again)”

    2. Sevo can help you with that.

  21. Not surprised to see the “public heath issue” button pushed.

    After all we’ve had 6 months of “public heath” used to ban, mandate, restrict, and manage everything from attire choices to business operations in whatever manner they wanted to at any time. I would be shocked if they didn’t try it as an end run around constitutional issues regarding firearms and self defense.

  22. Democrats should be safe, legal and rare.

    1. Two out of three? I have doubts about that legal part – – – – – – – – – –

  23. This is an article:

    Criminologists who have looked at the big rise in street homicides in Seattle and other cities are struggling to explain it. Some speculate it’s pandemic restlessness or despair. Others suggest police could be “depolicing,” or, alternatively, a growing lack of trust in police might be leading to more vigilante action on the streets. Still others have blamed rapidly rising gun sales, with more guns equaling more shootings, they argue.

    But whatever the cause, it’s the potential solutions, such as community-based mentoring programs like MUST, that are right now struggling in the pandemic. MUST reports it has a $100,000 hole in its already modest $300,000 yearly budget.

    “Struggling to explain it”.

    1. I know it’s not a joke for the people that have to live through this, but I can’t stop laughing. Maybe they’ll vote for someone competent this November.

      1. Seattle Times did an article a couple of years ago “struggling to explain” why the rat population in Seattle had skyrocketed.

        They did another article ‘struggling to explain’ why the number of speeding tickets written by Seattle PD had dropped to nearly zero. (This one’s a little more obscure for people not here: It’s because the last time a Seattle driver was able to get UP to the speed limit was probably 1998.)

        1. Definitely can’t get up to speed on I-5 from about 7 am to 7 pm from the Canada border until you get south of main gate Ft. Lewis.

        2. They’re also “struggling to explain” why huge taxpayer investments in public transit boondoggles has not resulted in more speeding tickets.

    2. It was the 28th homicide this year, matching the number for all of last year. We’re only in August.

      I know I shouldn’t laugh at this but, my God, Chicago had 33 homicides *in August*.

      1. No, it’s definitely worth pointing out. And Chicago has stricter firearm laws than Seattle does, which because they’re under the umbrella of the state are very relaxed as written.

      2. Well, two thirds of August anyway.

  24. Gun violence is only an epidemic to the mobs of rioters, looters and vandals. Without guns, who protects your property when the police are ordered to stand down?

    1. Guns don’t stop buildings and cars from burning.

      1. Buildings and cars don’t burn themselves. Guns could stop the people burning the cars and buildings.

        1. “Guns could stop the people burning the cars and buildings.”

          Or they could just stop you. There’s always a downside when gun play enters the picture.

          1. Mobs armed with Molotov cocktails rarely have countersnipers in place.

            There we go. It’s not a “sniper rifle”. It’s an “arsonist extinguisher”.

      2. So?

  25. [90 percent of Americans support common-sense gun laws,]
    If 90 percent of Americans supported ANY law, no matter how useless or stupid, Congress would drop everything else to pass it. The fact that the “common-sense gun laws” have not passed is necessary and sufficient proof that their support isn’t even 55 percent, much less 90.
    Plus, the “common-sense gun laws” aren’t passing in the vast majority of state legislatures, either. Instead, the trend in most states is to *reduce* gun control. We now have more than twice as many states where no-license carry is the rule, than states where licenses are discriminatory.
    The real truth is that “common-sense gun laws” aren’t passing because majorities of pro-gun voters are electing majorities of pro-gun representatives who vote against them.

    1. The question in the poll they quote it from was do you support background checks, which most gun owners know already exist. And really aren’t that onerous. We’d love them to be gone but overall it takes less than an hour to pass the background check most of the time. Usually under 15 minutes.

      1. Fuck, the only people who seem unaware of background checks are lefties who were stunned that they couldn’t walk into a store and walk out with a gun a few months ago.

        You know, you never hear of anybody denied the chance to buy a gun ever being punished for, apparently, trying to illegally buy a gun. Any idea why?

    2. If 90 percent of Americans supported ANY law, no matter how useless or stupid, Congress would drop everything else to pass it.

      Politician lies on camera, news at… oh, wait. That’s not news.

  26. NO!!! 90% of Americans DO NOT support common sense gun legislation. Do you know why? Because the message to the rioters from the democrats is: we hear you. If you hear the authoritarian Marxists that are rioting, there is NO WAY that people are giving up guns or supporting any changes to laws. I’m not a gun owner. Don’t really like the things. I few months ago, I would have softly supported magazine limits and increase regulation on semi-automatics, even though the typical lies from the left about banning the already banned automatic weapons annoyed me. No more. Heck, I might even buy a gun myself now. If you’re going to give a platform to militant rioters, you will never get my vote or support.

  27. Well, of course we all want common-sense gun laws – you shouldn’t be allowed to sell fully automatic rifles to drunk children, for example, you should be forced to wait until they sober up – but the problem is that pretty much every gun law I’ve ever seen and can ever imagine is stupid as hell. The fact is that gun laws are one of those intractable problems – you can’t expect to make legislation that criminals are going to follow and law-abiding citizens are free to ignore. But it’s simply not in a politicians nature to say there’s nothing we can do, they wouldn’t be a politician if they didn’t promise you that there’s not a problem in the world that can’t be fixed by a liberal application of more government.

    1. Define “drunk”.

      1. BAC over .16%

      2. Unable to place money on the counter?

  28. Yes, with homicide rates many times higher than any other wealthy country and gun homicides 10’s of times, even 100’s of times higher than civilized countries, we have a epidemic of gun violence. Nearly 85% of the children dying worldwide of gun violence are in the US. But we are only 4.5% of the world’s population. And it is not getting better for children. Rates of death from firearms among ages 14 to 17 are now 22.5% higher than motor vehicle-related death rates. In the U.S., middle and high school age children are now more likely to die as the result of a firearm injury than from any other single cause of death. We have a very, very serious problem. The fact that it is not as horrific as it was in 1993 doesn’t excuse the needless slaughter we endure. A slaughter that is completely foreign to civilized countries.

    1. Have you heard of Brazil?

      Jamaica?

      Mexico?

      Russia?

    2. First, any cites to back your bullshit percentages seem to be missing, and then any cites suggesting a possible connection between gun ownership and your bullshit claims also seems to have gone missing.
      So let’s rely on occam’s razor and figure that
      You.
      Are.
      Full.
      Of.
      Shit.
      Suggestion: Go live in one of those countries you so admire and make this one better.

    3. The most reliable correlate of a country’s murder rate is not gun ownership, it is its demography. Take a look at the ranking of the world’s most murderous countries (easily found on www). Then reflect on the demography of those countries and compare with the so-called “civilized” countries you refer to. Over the last ten years the USA has ranked between 96th and 116th in world homicide ratings.

  29. Gun nuts are among my favorite culture war casualties.

    Elections have consequences . . . for gun nuts, those consequences will be unpleasant.

    Carry on, clingers . . . but just so long and so far as better Americans permit.

    1. Asshole bigots are the scum of the earth.

    2. Haha. Take a nap, old man.

    3. What are they going to do they don’t use guns?

    4. Elections have consequences . . . for gun nuts, those consequences will be unpleasant.

      I actually strongly agree. Another civil war will be extremely unpleasant. Thoguh it’s not going to be so just for “gun nuts”, you statist pigfucker.

  30. Sales of ammo have doubled or tripled over last year.

    I forecast a dramatic increase in homicide once people stop buying ammo and start using it.

    1. I foresee a lot of holes in paper targets. That probably doesn’t get you off though.

    2. Just like you forecast a dramatic increase in homicides when Ohio loosened their gun licensing laws? Or when you forecast that homicides would increase following the spike in gun sales after every other announced gun control threat? Doesn’t it ever strike you as odd that the “blood in the streets” predictions never come true? That contrary to your predictions, violent crime continues it’s multi-year downward trend? Does it even occur to you that maybe you’re not that good a forecaster?

  31. Every month I am earning online more than $8650 by doing a very simply online job from my home. By doing this in my part time I was able to save enough to buy me a new car in just a few months. This is so freaking easy that everyone should try it..check my site
    .

  32. Meanwhile, millions of gun owners did not shoot anyone today, never have and never will.

  33. Gun violence is the go-to-term for grabbers and confiscators. It’s brilliant for public relations and incendiary to owners of firearms. Nobody says, “That gun is violent.” Literate persons say, “That person is violent.” Violence is a quality that applies to people and actions, not objects. The term is wrong in many ways, but psychologically, it is powerful.

    Although use of the term is clever, democrats cannot grasp the fact that criminals don’t ask government’s permission to use or even possess a firearm. Nevertheless, “gun violence” has become a mainstay of the democrat flimflam because it narrows the focus to fit the objective. The objective of course is to disarm the American public. Think about it. Have you ever heard the term “gun gentleness” used by a politician or anyone else?

    No? Then ask yourself why the democrat party doesn’t focus on just violence instead of gun violence. Fact is they’re after guns, not violence. They couldn’t care less about the entire field of violence because it commingles criminals with peaceable, lawful citizens and deflects from their intended focus on peaceable, lawful citizens.

    Democrats hope to transform arms owners into dependents. Once they’re dependent on the government, democrats will choose which of them they’ll allow to own arms. Unfortunately, that privilege will be reserved for party bosses.

    Democrats want citizens to believe making the U.S. safer for criminals will make it safer for their victims. Ask yourself, do you believe being disarmed makes you safer? What kind of political leader would disarm his people while howling about the peril they face?

    1. “criminals don’t ask government’s permission to use or even possess a firearm”

      As long as non criminals feel the need to seek government permission to buy or use firearms, then gun control (from dems or reps) is a no brainer. Depend on it.

    2. The fact that they call it ‘gun violence’ indicates how they think.

  34. I’m extremely pleased to uncover this website. I need to to thank you for one time,just for this wonderful read!! Regard. used cars for sale

  35. STAY HOME AND STARTING WORK AT HOME EASILY… MORE AND MORE EARNING DAILY BY JUST FOLLOW THESE STEPS, I am a student and i work daily on this site and earn money..HERE? <a HERE? Read More

  36. The solution is to end drug prohibition.

  37. “As Philip Bump noted in The Washington Post last year, most Americans are not aware of this dramatic decline in gun homicides.”

    And yet, strangely enough, he still works for the Post.

  38. Washington D.C. – population around 700,000 – 2020 firearms homicides 106.

    Northern Virginia – population around 2.2 million – 2020 firearms homicides 9.

    It’s always good to know the epidemic hotspots.

    1. Well, I think everyone knows that Washington DC has far more lax gun laws than Northern VA.

      1. Bwahaha!

  39. Making Cash more than $15k to $18k consistently just by doing basic online work. I have gotten $18376 a month ago just by working on the web. Its a simple and basic occupation to do from home and its profit are greatly improved than customary office work. Each individual can join this activity now just by pursue this link……..go to this site home media tech tab for more detail support your hear Here══════❥❥❥❥Check my site.

  40. I would entertain a gun control proposal if the authors would state firmly that, once enacted, they (the proponents) would never argue for more gun control, ever.
    Too often though, they give away their game by prefacing their suggestions with the phrase ‘a good first step would be…’

    I don’t want to hear your ‘first step’ or even your ‘second step.’

    I want to hear that last step.

    1. The last step is to acknowledge what “shall not be infringed” means.

      If you want to stop 2A conversations about “common sense”, ask if the gun grabber would be OK with applying the same restrictions to voting, or to all other items in the bill of rights.
      No speeches without a CCP.
      No going to church without a CCP.
      No gathering in groups with a CCP.
      No voting without a CCP.
      No protection from searches without a CCP.
      Not being able to remain silent without a CCP.
      Etc.
      Changes the conversation immediately.

      1. But, of course, never changes their mind.

        “That’s different!”

  41. It’s mission creep like turning gun violence into an “epidemic” that bloated and distracted the CDC from being able to properly respond to (and have the respectability to command attention for) the COVID actual epidemic.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.