Guns

A New Case Gives the Supreme Court a Chance To Defend Gun Rights

It's likely that soon, almost all Americans will be legally able to carry guns.

|

Would carrying a gun make you feel safer?

Robert Nash and Brandon Koch thought so. But the state of New York denied them gun permits, saying they hadn't demonstrated a "special need."

Why did they have to prove such a "need"? The Supreme Court ruled more than 10 years ago that all Americans have a right to keep and bear arms, no matter where they live.

"Many other courts have thumbed their nose at that Supreme Court ruling," Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation tells me. He's excited that the Supreme Court will soon rule on Nash and Koch's lawsuit over New York's law.

I understand Nash and Koch's frustration. I once tried to get a carry permit in New York.

First, I had to read 60 pages of instructions about irrelevant things like "metal knuckle knives" and "kung fu stars," fill out a confusing 17-page form, get it notarized, and then go in person to police headquarters.

There they fingerprinted me, demanded reasons why I should be allowed to have a gun, and charged me $430.

I heard nothing from them for half a year. Then they wrote me saying that my application was "denied."

I called to ask if I could appeal. They said I could try again if I could prove that "special need" to carry a gun. After years of confronting crooks on TV, I actually do have a special need for self-protection. I showed the cops threats on my life.

Not good enough, said the NYC permit department. They turned me down again.

Apparently, my mistake was not bribing the cops. Later it was revealed that the police in the permit department were giving out permits for money.

Scams like that thrive whenever politicians impose too many restrictions on people's freedom. In parts of California, people got gun permits if they donated to a sheriff's campaign.

It's one more reason why Gottlieb is excited about this new Supreme Court case. Court watchers predict his side will win, especially because there are now more originalist judges on the court.

That means it's likely that soon, almost all Americans will be legally able to carry guns.

Some people say that will be terrible.

"Women are less safe!" says professor Lisa Moore of the University of Texas on TV. "Every vulnerable population—LGBT people, students of color—has more to fear!"

But then why are 58 percent of new gun owners Blacks, and 40 percent women?

"An awful lot of women bought a firearm to protect themselves and feel a whole lot safer!" says Gottlieb. "Eight hundred thousand times a year, a person uses a firearm to protect themselves. If you call 911, the police usually get there after the crime is over.

Over the last decades, most states liberalized their gun laws. More allow concealed carry. Gun control advocates predicted that would lead to an epidemic of shootings.

The opposite happened. As concealed carry was legalized, violent crime went down. Especially telling, crime dropped in each state right after the law was changed.

Gottlieb says that's because "an armed society is a polite society."

As a reporter who attended only liberal schools and worked in liberal newsrooms, I'd been taught that more guns means more violence. Even after interviewing violent criminals in prison and hearing many say that what they feared most was "not the police" but that the person being robbed "might be armed," I still believed that more guns meant more crime.

Only when I started researching gun crime and studying the data did it become clear that most of my anti-gun assumptions were wrong.

More guns really does mean less crime.

COPYRIGHT 2021 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

NEXT: Congress Votes To Kick Confederate Statues Out of the Capitol

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. Well let’s hope so, but without Scalia driving the issue I am skeptical.

    1. The only thing they will approve is the bribing system currently in place.

      1. Making money online more than 15OOO$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

        1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid inds the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

          See……………VISIT HERE

    2. A lot of people are concerned about them narrowing the scope of the question, but I think its a good sign they intend to strike down may-issue, but want to do it in the narrowest way possible

      And yeah, NY and CA and other states will still make sure its too expensive for most people to get a permit, but a step in the right direction is a step in the right direction

      1. yeah i have little doubt places like the People’s Taxpublic of New Jersey will resist as much as possible.

        “Oh of course we shall issue your permit, right after you fulfill the 150,000 hour training requirement’

      2. I mean, really, it’s probably for the best if only the *right* class of people are allowed to be armed. We wouldn’t want those filthy poors to be permitted to defend themselves…

    3. I am creating an honest wage from home 1900 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year gone i used to be unemployed during an atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis. I used to be endowed witdsdsdsh these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody,

      Here is where I started……….Visit Here

  2. Gottlieb says that’s because “an armed society is a polite society.”

    No, it’s because criminals are lazy, not stupid. The risk-reward analysis is quite different when the potential victim is armed.

    1. “No, it’s because criminals are lazy, not suicidal.” FTFY

    2. “An armed society is a polite society” – RA Heinlein

  3. Are there racial disparities in the permit process?

    1. It has been explained to me, carefully, that any process which requires ID or other types of paperwork processes are discriminatory due to minorities’ general lack of ability to navigate public life. Therefore, any ID or background check requirements for weapons carry or acquisition in general are… racist.

      *drops microphone*

      1. Well phrased!

        We could save a lot of time and ink (well, bits), by just making this a boilerplate stamp.

      2. I’m going to be shamelessly stealing this, thanks!

      3. Keep in mind that pursuant to FEDERAL law, you have to show photo ID to purchase a firearm. If it is unreasonable and racist to expect certain communities to possess photo IDs to vote, it is equally unreasonable and racist to expect the same of people buying guns.

    2. That was one of the reasons for having a “good moral character” requirement for permits in the first place

  4. Daddy Reynolds gon’ get his black rifle in a few weeks.

    1. Nice. I just built one from an 80% lower with some friends with tools and knowledge.

      1. Nice. I built mine alone because I didn’t need my friends for it. It’s not that hard.

        1. Don’t lie. You built it by yourself because you don’t have any friends, same as the rest of us.

          1. The AR platform was made to be built, by non professionals. Pick you lower, LPK, upper, upper parts, barrel, nut, gas block, and bcg and just assemble. You tube is rife with DIY videos.

          2. LOL oh well uhm haha

          3. Hey! I resemble that remark…

        2. It’s not hard, but sometimes nice to have someone to show you how not to fuck up your tools.

          1. I’m hell on punches.

          2. That’s what she said.

          3. If I pay extra can I have someone fuck up my tool?

            1. You pay them to go home afterward.

    2. Grats. What caliber?

      1. Look at the time stamp of your post. Look at my name. This is a sign. What else do you need to know? SAY MY NAME! SAY. MY. NAME.

          1. Pfft, that’s my underpowered grandpa with the inaccurate, imperialist name… Really, I am taking this quite personally. I look much better these days.

        1. I was responding to DRP. Get your eyes checked.

  5. With Roberts on the court you know this will not go well.

    1. Barrett, Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas {Roberts} Kagan Sotomayor, Breyer

      We know how 7 of them will vote, and forget Roberts; I am more concerned about Kavanaugh. I think the confirmation process did something to him.

  6. they will probably push it aside like they did with the CDC rentals rules. I am not hopeful

  7. Gasp! What’s next down this horrible slippery slope? People expecting to be able to freely express their opinions? What is this world coming to?

  8. 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.

    We the People that founded this nation didn’t GIVE them Nazi’s (def; National Socialists) the *power* over us to sustain their monopoly on Gun-Force.

    STOP the Nazi’s (i.e. National Socialism/ There is NO USA without a U.S. Constitution). The [WE] foundation must be resisted.

  9. But the state of New York denied them gun permits, saying they hadn’t demonstrated a “special need.”

    I break into people’s houses and I fear that the homeowner may attack me if I’m not suitably armed.

    *APPLICATION APPROVED!!!*

    1. You work for SWAT?

    2. Funny?

      [I don’t have any idea what Sarcasmic wrote because I muted his stupid ass; I advise all others to do likewise.

      1. I encourage trolls who talk about people instead of what they say to must me.

        If your only argument is “You think…… and you said…. because you….you….you…you….” then I’m just not interested.

        1. *mute* stupid autocorrect. I don’t want Sevo pissing on my leg.

      2. Yeah, it was actually a pretty good one.

      3. Sarcastic asked, “You work for SWAT?”

  10. It’s likely that soon, almost all Americans will be legally able to carry guns.

    Americans are legally able to carry guns already. The question is what is going to happen to elected officials who knowingly violate the constitution.

    1. Oh, that’s easy. They’ll continue to be protected by Americans carrying guns.

    2. This elected officials will get qualified immunity.

  11. Always nice to see actual libertarian published at Reason, just wish the article was a little more detail heavy about the case pending with SCOTUS.

  12. Carrying a gun doesn’t make you safer, even if it makes you feel safer.

    The gnat-sized manchild needs to complete his slogan: “Facts don’t care about your feelings, they care about MY feelings.”

    1. Carrying a gun without training isn’t a good idea. But there are plenty of classes available through the NRA at local gun clubs. With proper skills and training there’s no good excuse to prevent someone from carrying.

      1. I think by now, after 2020, there is some odd agreement across party lines in the moderate core of society that having guns around is kind of a good idea. I am having delicious visions about characters like the Rev struggling with bouts of cognitive dissonance trying to reason this out of existence.

        1. I can see an argument for extra caution in densely populated areas. Cops routinely shoot bystanders, but they get away with it because they’re cops. Just a thought.

          1. Extra caution means extra training, not prohibition. Those same densely populated areas are the areas where the need for self defense is statistically greatest.

            1. When did I say prohibition?

    2. Carrying a gun Wearing a mask doesn’t make you safer, even if it makes you feel safer.

      1. It makes other people safer, though I understand that caring about other people is a concept that doesn’t compute in these parts.

        Which is concerning considering you’re demanding so much extra freedom from social consequences.

        1. “It makes other people safer”

          I think that’s been debunked. Though I gave up tracking the CDCs inconsistencies a while ago.

          1. Wearing a mask does indeed make other people feel safer. If you’re wearing a mask, they feel it’s safe to assume you’re a sheep like the rest of them and there’s no danger you might do or say something disagreeable. Like saying, “I sometimes wish I’d voted for Donald Trump”.

            1. I do stuff like that in public when I’m anonymous. The silence tends to be glorious. Sometimes they also get butthurt. At least I think so. Hard to see faces these days with all the CDC burkas worn by everyone.

        2. Carrying does indeed make it more likely that someone will die at the hands of the cops, even if they protect themselves from a criminal.

          Cops will show up and yell “Gun! Gun! Gun!” as they murder our hero while the villain sneaks away.

          1. You are using rare incidents to derive a rule. Yesterday you told me about math and measurements. Kind of odd.

          2. Or youre not entirely serious. Forgot your name for a moment. Maybe i should get coffee

        3. “caring about other people” — That’s rich coming from those who compulsively want to point Gov-Guns at them.

          1. He only does that because he loves us.

        4. The states with the three lowest violent crime rates happen to be constitutional carry states. According the the most recent (2019) FBI data. And their average is less than 20% of that of the District of Columbia.

    3. Typical leftist who can’t see the bigger picture and selectively ignores stats when they are unpleasant. Their general presence makes you safer. Period.

      1. No they don’t. They make you more likely to get your head blown off.

        1. In Tony’s autistic leftist caricature of society, that doesn’t take into account basic biological realities like self preservation instincts or deterrents.

            1. Yes, you prefer data. Some data is more equal than other data. That’s why you prefer it.

              1. Since I did myself a favor several weeks ago I muted these ass hats, but I can pretty much tell you what they are posting; we should sacrifice any degree of our freedom, individuality, and rights if it serves to make others feel better [and think they are safer]; it’s all about “sending the right message.”

                And when you point out facts [as did John Stossel] that in spite of the Casandra like warnings of civil society descending into a “Wild West” status if people were permitted to carry weapons, it never has [and crime in fact went down every where except in Blue enclaves this past Summer] they deflect, change the subject, and revert to “well what about Trump, huh?”

                This is because they are fucking wet brained idiots.

                1. Sounds like you just put down the first edition of “The Concise Manual of Tony”. He is currently busy telling us why his ‘scientific’ sources are better than ours and why his bias is definitely the right kind of bias.

                  1. He was talking about me as well. He thinks I’m a leftist because I don’t like Trump. Apparently that’s the full extent of his knowledge, and all he needs to know.

              2. Just data is enough.

                If you insist on maximum gun liberty, you need to explain why the outcomes of that are better for society than the outcome of 30,000 people per year not dying.

                1. Wanna get car accidents down to 0? Ban all cars. Can’t though. Because cars have an important place in a free society. You agree. So do guns. You disagree here, arbitrarily. Doesn’t change the reality of it though. Checkmate.

                  Ban cars because of drunk drivers? Dumb. 99% and more of all responsible drivers would disagree. Treat drivers like adults. Apply to guns. Treat responsible gun owners like adults. Checkmate again.

                2. Tony uses this time after time. Over half that number are suicides, which would most often be done some other way. Most of the rest involve illegally obtained guns used in crimes, such as drive by shootings.

            2. The data exists. The problem is that you judge the data based upon the source. If you don’t like the source then you will say the facts are wrong.

              1. It’s not that my sources happen to be more reliable than yours, it’s that I chose a side specifically because it values reliable sources more than yours.

                1. Nice roundabout way to admit your bias and rationalize it too. It’s like a clear, in vitro lecture on rhetorical mechanics. I admire you.

                2. Here it is:

                  Criminals by definition do not follow the law.

                  That’s it.

                  So all gun control does is disarm honest people.

                  How does that make us safer?

                  1. Common sense argumentation facing a lefty. Hmm…

                    CITE?!

                  2. People aren’t criminals. People are people.

                    1. LOL dumb. People aren’t cooks. People are people. LMAO, lost lefty

    4. Even if what you say is supported as a general claim by statistics, the specific claim is certainly false in many cases. Guns do make people safer sometimes. And there are many, many cases of firearms making people safer that are never reported because it never got to the point of someone getting shot. The presence of guns is a significant deterrent to crime.

  13. Black Guns Matter.

    1. ++

      Gun control is racist in its roots and elitist all the way.

  14. “San Jose Will Force Gun Owners to Cover Costs of Gun Violence After Mass Shooting”

    Taxing firearms to offset the cost of mass shootings. Yeah, right.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/san-jose-will-force-gun-owners-to-cover-costs-of-gun-violence-after-mass-shooting/ar-AALCRRc?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

    1. Don’t you remember that day the ‘Firearms’ of every gun owner grew legs and jumped off the shelf and went on a mass shooting spree….. 🙂

      Someone hasn’t seen the movie Maximum Overdrive.. lol…
      DNC ‘facts’ are derived from Hollywood entertainment; just ask Tony.

      1. Maximum overdrive is awesome. And ironically, it didn’t seem to assign particular relevance to guns being as prevalent as many household appliances or more. I wonder why… Wait… what brain did that move come from again…? Guy lives in Maine… His twitter’s filled with biased, elitist drivel… oh.

        1. *that movie come from again

        2. Also, no, that gas dispenser was not an electronic device.

        3. Maine is a constitutional carry state and has the lowest violent crime rate in the nation. Mr. King is an exceptional author and does a lot of good things for Bangor. But many here do not share his political or social views.

          1. I think King is pretty riddled with plot holes and don’t like him that much because of it. But to each his own. Max Overdrive is probably attesting to his general intelligence. And that doesn’t look good to me outside of the paper realm.

    2. Translated: “San Jose City Council Votes For Expensive Court Loss”

      1. Murdock v. PA, 1942.
        Dead out of the gate.

    3. Its illegal to tax or charge a fee for a right. but legalities never stopped them before

  15. I have no faith that the Supremes are going to vote to expand gun rights, they may have figured Heller was far enough for the pendulum to swing and now it’s time to start walking that one back.

    That being said, I’ll believe the government is serious about getting a grip on gun violence the day they disarm the Secret Service, the FBI, and the Department of Agriculture.

  16. So, only “special needs” people can own and bear arms? That might not have the outcome the bureaucrats intend…

    1. Some special needs people. Quadriplegics can have no arms.

  17. Why are you guys using rational arguments to fight against gun control based on facts?
    The point of gun control is to disarm the citizens so they can be more properly oppressed and not fight back.
    You can talk about crime going down, terrorist being stopped, all that is meaningless.
    They ratchet up gun control until the end result is a completely disarmed citizenry.
    Wait till you see what kind of laws the Democrats will pass when no one has a gun to fight back

  18. If the right is one of every US citizen, then no state can deny any citizen, resident or not, the exercise of that right in their state.
    So, not only will the may-issue states have to go shall-issue (and, no, they can’t be notably more expensive than any other state, nor their existing “may-issue” costs, or they’d be sued); every state will also have to offer either reciprocity on their own internal terms (unlikely), or, they will have to offer non-resident permits at essentially the same terms as their resident permits (due to Equal Protection).

    Coast to Coast carry for those willing to pay the extra few hundred bucks.

    1. you don’t have to pay to use a driver license in other states and you can’t charge a fee or a tax to use a right protected by the constitution no matter what state you are in. that said it won’t stop them from charging

  19. What does the Pew Pew Research Center say about this?

  20. More originalist bullshit. All you white guys complaining about how bad you’ve got it. In plain english fuck off.

    1. How about in plain ebonics?

    2. Indeed. In plain English, fuck off, Brooklyn. Hie thy peasant arse back to thine shithole.

  21. I’ll go with Thomas, Gorsuch, & Barrett in the minority, likely Alito as well. Roberts & Kavanaugh once again play political odds v. evens and join the liberal trio in interpreting the meaning of bear to be subject to the subjective regional authorities desired meaning.

    Ridiculous restrictions upheld.

    1. thats my thinking they will do that so as not to make any real decisions

  22. God made man, Sam Colt made them equal.

  23. Stossel does and has done so much good work; fully acknowledging that, it would be very useful to both the debate and the culture if he and many others understood that guns are important to Americans in many more ways than crime and defense against crime.

    The first purpose of the Second Amendment is too often overlooked, fostering a liberty of mind and action necessary in the individual citizens of a free republic.

    In a deeply American sense every time that an American must interact with his government is a failure of that government.

    ” A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

    1. You gonna volunteer to be one of the 30,000 gun deaths per year in furtherance of this bit of wit and wisdom, or are you going to insist that other people take on that glorious sacrifice?

      1. Because people that kill themselves with guns wouldn’t find another means. If you stay away from gang activity and leave abusive relationships as soon as they start, you’re in good shape.

        1. As a matter of numerical fact, you’e wrong. People who attempt suicide with guns tend to succeed more often than those who attempt suicide by other means, something they tend to go on to regret.

          The whole reason you like guns is because they are such efficient killing machines, no?

          These are tens of thousands of deaths by a means that causes almost no deaths in similarly situation democracies. You are advocating for these deaths, no matter what else you think you are advocating for, as an appropriate sacrifice. I am humbly suggesting you should thus have to explain yourself, with facts.

          1. “Gun control is not about the gun, it’s about the control.”

            This ubiquitous line in the gun debate is used too seldom in the suicide sub-part of the gun debate, because it is there utterly definitive of the debate. The controllers seek to control not the gun or gun rights; but to control the most basic of rights how, where, and when people chose to live or end their lives – this may be the controllers’ ultimate tyranny.

            The controllers’ tyranny denies these people their most basic right. They deny them to make and the easy and appropriate means to carry out their choice under this right – the best few pills from their pharmacy or nurse.

            When the controllers’ tyranny of denying them their most basic right forces some of these people, in shear desperation, to improvise by corrupting their vital tool, their gun, – the gun smithed for the sustenance of life via hunting, the enjoyment of life via sports, and in extremis adapted to the defense of life – to suicide; the controllers seek, yet, more tyrannical control by denying them their next most basic rights.

        2. Because people that kill themselves with guns wouldn’t find another means.

          The facts on suicide attempts by method

          The availability of a gun increases the odds that someone will be successful in attempting suicide. That is incontrovertible. Statistics are also clear that having a gun in the home makes all kinds of other death more likely. Compared to the ability to defend oneself, guns just seem more dangerous to have around for all kinds of other reasons.

          1. Here is an article that goes through the research on these other risks.

              1. The Trace? The organ of Little Mikey Bloomberg’s gun control organization? Bwa ha ha ha ha ha!
                I’ll see you and raise you a much less biased source:
                http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-policy-info/availability-of-guns/

          2. So you are suggesting that suicide by gun is the only for of suicide? If not, then you are just posting a strawman.
            The rest of your post is just wishy washy stuff.
            If you don’t want a gun in your house because you believe you will kill yourself with it, then you probably shouldn’t have access to them and should consider being institutionalized.
            Don’t care what you think seems. If they are scary to you, don’t get one. If you are worried about intentional self harm, seek professional help immediately.

          3. If that were accurate I should have died years ago.

            Guns are dangerous, deadly. And mistakes made with them are totally unforgiving.

            That is why there are fundamental rules of safety:

            1. All guns are loaded [doesn’t matter what you think] all the time
            Treat them accordingly
            2. Never ever point a gun at anything that you do not want to destroy or kill.
            3. Do not touch the trigger until you are on target.
            4. Be aware of everything that is beyond your target; houses, roads, etc.

            Adhere to these and accidental shootings do not happen. I make the decision to own guns, and it is my responsibility to be safe and responsible with them. You do not get to make that decision for me.

          4. as a libertarian i don’t care if someone wants to commit suicide. its there body their choice as long as they don’t involve others in their actions. And if a person is to commit suicide i would appreciate they use the most efficient method so that we don’t have to support those who fail with medical cost the rest of their lives.

  24. The only guns I own that have possibly killed other humans all came from socialist countries where they had been issued to government military and police. Facts.

    1. You should definitely get one in an American gun shop so you have one made for free people in a free country, friend. A historical gun is awesome, but consider balancing that with something modern.

      1. I have modern ones too. But none of them have possibly ended another human’s life. Just ones from countries that Tony revered fall into that category.

  25. Stossel starts by asking, “Would carrying a gun make you feel safer?”

    That isn’t the only question to ask surrounding gun rights, though. You should also ask, “Would lots of other people carrying guns make you feel safer?”

    Hitting the news today is yet another Florida man story. In that case, a Black family (husband, wife, and two kids under the age of 12) were threatened by a passenger of another car, who allegedly waved his gun at them for some perceived driving slight, reportedly yelling, “I will kill you n***s!” (Surveillance video backs up some of the claims of the alleged victims.)

    In another only in Florida event, a former police captain may finally face trial for killing a man in a Wesley Chapel movie theater in Jan. 2014 after arguing over the other man texting during movie previews. The retired police captain failed in his attempt to claim “Stand Your Ground” years ago, because he felt that his life was threatened by the other man. (I don’t have a link handy, but I had watched the surveillance video of that incident years ago.) It was absolutely absurd to argue any kind of self defense when that retired officer pulled out his gun from behind his back and shot the guy after he threw popcorn at him from at least a dozen feet away. Why this guy still hasn’t been tried is beyond me.

    Are incidents like these just the price we are supposed to pay for the right to carry a gun ourselves? We may be confident that we would never misuse our right to own and carry a gun, but how many people getting killed by trigger-happy assholes is acceptable for us to have that right? How many suicides of people that might have found help if not for easy access to an almost certain way to succeed in a suicide attempt? How many accidents? How many domestic violence murders?

    I wonder if the data is even available, given the resistance of gun rights supporters to even collecting and analyzing the information, but we should at least know how often people actually defend themselves with a gun compared to how often legal gun owners kill themselves or someone innocent, whether by accident or in a fit of rage. If we are going to ask whether we would feel safer carrying a gun, we should know what the price of that security really is before we answer it.

    1. Just move to gun-free Washington DC. The safest place in the nation. You can wonder about all sorts of things with fear of guns or committing suicide by gun. Cheers.

    2. Where I live most of us own guns; we never shoot at one another.

      Crime such as you describe is much more likely depending upon where you live. That is your choice.

      Some people drive like assholes; I am not giving up my right to modern transportation. Some idiots text on their phones while driving and kill others. I am not going to give up my right to a mobile phone. A number of children die from drowning every year; I am not going to give up my right to own a pool or put a pond in my yard. Some people join criminal motorcycle gangs [aka the “1%;” I am not giving up my right to associate with other people with similar interests. Some persons, a true minority of gun owners [another “1%”], misuse weapons for criminal purposes. I am not going to give up my right to own a gun.

      1. Crime such as you describe is much more likely depending upon where you live. That is your choice.

        Wesley Chapel, Florida is hardly a high crime, high poverty community. It is a exurban type area with a mixture of higher priced housing developments, retirees, and others that commute to the more densely populated parts of the Tampa Bay metro area. That a retired police captain would shoot a guy he was arguing with in a movie theater has absolutely nothing to do with what kind of area people choose to live in. Neither does the racist road rage incident I described.

        Where I live most of us own guns; we never shoot at one another.

        Good for you. The widow of the man murdered by the retired cop and his fatherless kids aren’t so lucky.

        Some people drive like assholes; I am not giving up my right to modern transportation.

        Do you accept that you and other people should have to demonstrate that they can drive a vehicle safely before getting a license to drive? That they can have that license taken away if they later show that they can no longer drive safely?

        If you answer yes, then you accept that the ability to drive a motor vehicle is conditional on the safety of other people. You accept that regulations for public safety are part of the deal. If we treated driving a car like gun rights supporters want gun ownership to work, you wouldn’t need a license to drive. Any adult could just go buy a car and start driving as soon as they could afford one. And their right to drive generally couldn’t be taken from them until after they’d caused harm to someone.

        1. Do you accept that you and other people should have to demonstrate that they can use a dildo safely before being allowed to go fuck themselves?

          If you answer yes, then you accept that the ability to spew Marxist bullshit is conditional on the tolerance of your audience. You accept that espousing core tenants of the deadliest ideology in the history of human civilization will be met with the derision and scorn it properly deserves rather than a bullet in your head, which is the standard reactions from Marxists whenever and wherever they have gained control.

    3. “You should also ask, “Would lots of other people carrying guns make you feel safer?”
      I’ve rarely felt safer than strolling through an NRA convention hall. But if that’s not to your taste, “healing spaces” are available elsewhere that come equipped with puppies and coloring books.

  26. Responding directly to John Stossel,

    I understand Nash and Koch’s frustration. I once tried to get a carry permit in New York.

    First, I had to read 60 pages of instructions about irrelevant things like “metal knuckle knives” and “kung fu stars,” fill out a confusing 17-page form, get it notarized, and then go in person to police headquarters.

    Would the NYC carry permit have allowed you to carry concealed weapons other than firearms? If so, then it isn’t irrelevant to know what weapons would be allowed and what wouldn’t. What else was in those 60 pages that you felt was “irrelevant”? Carrying a gun is a major responsibility. What would be the right number of pages for informing someone of the rights and responsibilities of carrying a deadly weapon? What in the form was “confusing”?

    Apparently, my mistake was not bribing the cops. Later it was revealed that the police in the permit department were giving out permits for money.

    That’s a serious accusation. You should be specific about how you came about this information rather than use the passive voice, saying, “it was revealed” that police were taking bribes to give out permits. Who revealed it? How does that person know that this was happening? You are a journalist. You should know better than to make an accusation like that without any supporting facts.

    1. Stossel is a lying, crying bitch. Gun ranting is the least of his rhetorical libertarian bullshit.

      1. Did Stossel block you from sending him any more dick-pics? You sound more bitter than the typical lefty.

    2. The three states with the lowest violent crime rates in the US are all constitutional carry. So the required number of pages is zero.

    3. Seriously, you’re disputing THAT point? It was all over the news a few years ago.

      Ex-cop: NYPD gun license division was a bribery machine

      “A former city cop spilled his guts Tuesday, telling Manhattan jurors about years worth of bribes he and his fellow officers received for doling out gun permits — everything from cash, prostitutes and expensive watches to baseball memorabilia and exotic vacations.”

      Just on general principles, you should be a bit reluctant to dispute a big city government being corrupt, without first checking for yourself. But it’s got to be particularly embarrassing to be this way about a notorious corruption case.

      1. Seriously, you’re disputing THAT point? It was all over the news a few years ago.

        Yet I’d never heard of it. Stossel obviously had, as he lives in New York and pays attention to that kind of thing for a living. Would it have killed him to link to an article about it like you did? Am I supposed to Goggle everything he presents as fact myself? He’s making the claims, the burden of proof is on him. So, no, I am not embarrassed to have missed this “notorious” corruption case.

        Besides, how does it bolster his claims that there was corruption in this office, anyway? That these corrupt officials were taking bribes to give permits to people that shouldn’t have had them tells us that Stossel should have been allowed to carry? That’s not a logical conclusion to draw from that.

        1. “Am I supposed to Goggle everything he presents as fact myself?”

          Before writing that much prose calling it out? Yeah, might not be a terrible idea.

          1. Before writing that much prose calling it out? Yeah, might not be a terrible idea.

            It also might not have been a terrible idea for Stossel to have linked to what he was talking about instead of assuming every reader would know. Once I saw Brett’s link and quote about the specific case of people in that office having been proven to be taking bribes, I can see what Stossel meant. But without that knowledge, I misinterpreted what he wrote as an accusation rather than a reference to a proven case.

            How much of my confusion is my fault versus his isn’t important anyway. Any answer to my other question? What does it actually say about gun rights that the process in NYC was corrupted by bad individuals?

            That also wasn’t the only issue with Stossel’s article not providing enough detail either, as I’ve said in other comments.

    4. Only when I started researching gun crime and studying the data did it become clear that most of my anti-gun assumptions were wrong.

      More guns really does mean less crime.

      How does this square with crime data comparisons between the United States and countries like the United Kingdom that have very strict gun ownership laws and far fewer guns in civilian hands?

      You say that every state that approved concealed carry in recent years saw their crime rate drop right afterwards, but you don’t link to that data or even list which states did this for us to check the data ourselves. You only link the overall violent crime rate in the whole U.S. between 1990 and 2019.

      Your assertions about the data also don’t match what I find when I look. (Here is an example). You should provide more details of the data you are using to reach your conclusions.

      Besides which, the assertion that an “armed society is a polite society” doesn’t seem to work when I can easily find instances of people being shot and killed by someone over some trivial argument they just had. A lot of people carrying guns might just make it more likely that someone’s momentary rage turns into murder rather than them storming off and never seeing the target of their rage again.

      1. First off, the “comparisons” are usually bullshit because they compare “gun crime,” which is cooking the books by pre-biasing the results. If thugs are murdering citizens with knives and blunt instruments because they know they will not be encountering any serious armed resistance, all that shows up as “zero crime” on the comparison.

        If you did a “gun crime” analysis, the entire Hutu/Tutsi genocide campaign would show up as barely having happened.

        http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-policy-info/guns-in-other-countries/

  27. “Women are less safe!” says professor Lisa Moore of the University of Texas on TV. “Every vulnerable population—LGBT people, students of color—has more to fear!”
    ——–
    Which is why we have sayings like “Armed Gays Don’t Get Bashed” or “Armed Blacks Don’t Get Lynched.”

  28. While any enhancement and clarification affirming 2A rights is welcome, the bigger issue in NY is the “Safe” Act. When will we get a holding on the restrictive rules arbitrarily classifying guns as “assault weapons”? Believe me, even if the court affirms carry rights, states like NY will classify everything other than a six-shooter as an assault weapon and limit you to seven rounds. The left is craven, but they are also resourceful.

  29. If you don’t think Roberts and Kavanagh are going to neuter this thing and issue a narrow, technical decision that resolves almost nothing, you’re crazy.

  30. I haven’t done a full 180 or anything, but my conversion from, “the 2nd amendment is obsolete!” to being mostly a gun rights supporter is almost entirely due to hearing the gun control crowd keep shouting things that just aren’t true.

Please to post comments