Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Guns

The Largest-Ever Survey of American Gun Owners Finds That Defensive Use of Firearms Is Common

The results also confirm that "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines are widely used for lawful purposes.

Jacob Sullum | 9.9.2022 5:05 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
A federal judge ruled that 18-to-20-year-olds have a constitutional right to buy handguns. | Jiri Hera/Dreamstime
(Jiri Hera/Dreamstime)

The largest and most comprehensive survey of American gun owners ever conducted suggests that they use firearms in self-defense about 1.7 million times a year. It also confirms that AR-15-style rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, frequent targets of gun control legislation, are in common use for lawful purposes, which the Supreme Court has said is the test for arms covered by the Second Amendment.

The online survey, which was conducted by Centiment in February and March of 2021, was based on a representative sample of about 54,000 adults, 16,708 of whom were gun owners. Georgetown University political economist William English, who commissioned the survey as part of a book project, presents its major findings in a recent paper available on the Social Science Research Network.

The overall adult gun ownership rate estimated by the survey, 32 percent, is consistent with recent research by Gallup and the Pew Research Center. So is the finding that the rate varies across racial and ethnic groups: It was about 25 percent among African Americans, 28 percent among Hispanics, 19 percent among Asians, and 34 percent among whites. Men accounted for about 58 percent of gun owners.

Because of the unusually large sample, the survey was able to produce state-specific estimates that are apt to be more reliable than previous estimates. Gun ownership rates ranged from about 16 percent in Massachusetts and Hawaii to more than 50 percent in Idaho and West Virginia.

The survey results indicate that Americans own some 415 million firearms, including 171 million handguns, 146 million rifles, and 98 million shotguns. About 30 percent of respondents reported that they had ever owned AR-15s or similar rifles, which are classified as "assault weapons" under several state laws and a proposed federal ban. Such legislation also commonly imposes a limit on magazine capacity, typically 10 rounds. Nearly half of the respondents (48 percent) said they had ever owned  magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Those results underline the practical challenges that legislators face when they try to eliminate "assault weapons" or "large capacity" magazines. The survey suggests that up to 44 million AR-15-style rifles and up to 542 million magazines with capacities exceeding 10 rounds are already in circulation.

Those are upper-bound estimates, since people who reported that they ever owned such rifles or magazines may have subsequently sold them. But even allowing for some double counting, these numbers suggest how unrealistic it is to suppose that bans will have a significant impact on criminal use of the targeted products. At the same time, widespread ownership of those products by law-abiding Americans makes the bans vulnerable to constitutional challenges.

Two-thirds of the respondents who reported owning AR-15-style rifles said they used them for recreational target shooting, while half mentioned hunting and a third mentioned competitive shooting. Sixty-two percent said they used such rifles for home defense, and 35 percent cited defense outside the home. Yet politicians who want to ban these rifles insist they are good for nothing but mass murder.

Owners of "large capacity" magazines likewise cited a variety of lawful uses. Recreational target shooting (64 percent) was the most common, followed by home defense (62 percent), hunting (47 percent), defense outside the home (42 percent), and competitive shooting (27 percent).

Politicians who favor a 10-round limit argue that no one except for criminals and police officers really needs a larger magazine. Yet respondents described various situations, based on their personal experiences, where "it would have been useful for defensive purposes to have a firearm with a magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds." These ranged from muggings and home invasions by multiple attackers to encounters with wild animals.

Maybe these gun owners were wrong to think the ability to fire more than 10 rounds without reloading was important in those situations. But judging from the responses that English quotes, they had cogent reasons for believing that. Bans on "large capacity" magazines routinely exempt current and retired police officers, on the theory that they are especially likely to face threats (such as multiple assailants) that may require more than 10 rounds. It strains credulity to suggest that ordinary citizens never face such threats, and this survey provides further reason to doubt that assumption.

Thirty-one percent of the gun owners said they had used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on multiple occasions. As in previous research, the vast majority of such incidents (82 percent) did not involve firing a gun, let alone injuring or killing an attacker. In more than four-fifths of the cases, respondents reported that brandishing or mentioning a firearm was enough to eliminate the threat.

That reality helps explain the wide divergence in estimates of defensive gun uses. The self-reports of gun owners may not be entirely reliable, since they could be exaggerated, mistaken, or dishonest. But limiting the analysis to cases in which an attacker was wounded or killed, or to incidents that were covered by newspapers or reported to the police, is bound to overlook much more common encounters with less dramatic outcomes.

About half of the defensive gun uses identified by the survey involved more than one assailant. Four-fifths occurred inside the gun owner's home or on his property, while 9 percent happened in a public place and 3 percent happened at work. The most commonly used firearms were handguns (66 percent), followed by shotguns (21 percent) and rifles (13 percent).

Based on the number of incidents that gun owners reported, English estimates that "guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year." That number does not include cases where people defended themselves with guns owned by others, which could help explain why English's figure is lower than a previous estimate by Florida State University criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Based on a 1993 telephone survey with a substantially smaller sample, Kleck and Gertz put the annual number at more than 2 million.

Although less than one in 10 of the defensive gun uses identified by English's survey happened in public places, most of the respondents (56 percent) said they had carried handguns for self-defense. More than a third (35 percent) said they did so "sometimes," "often," or "always or almost always." About the same percentage reported that they had wanted to carry handguns in circumstances where local rules prohibited it.

At the time of the survey, the ability to legally carry handguns in public varied widely across jurisdictions. Some states had highly restrictive laws that gave local officials wide discretion to reject carry permit applications, a policy that the Supreme Court recently deemed unconstitutional. Even after that ruling, some states plan to enforce licensing requirements and/or location restrictions that make it difficult for residents to carry handguns for self-defense. Depending on your perspective, the results of this survey demonstrate either the wisdom or the injustice of that strategy.

English's survey also asked about incidents in which respondents believed that the visible presence of a gun had neutralized a potentially violent threat. He says that category would include, for example, "a situation in which a combative customer calmed down after noticing that shop owner had a handgun on his or her hip, or a situation in which a trespasser cooperatively left a property when questioned by a landowner who had a rifle slung over his or her shoulder, or a situation in which a friend showed up with a firearm to help [defuse] a dangerous situation."

Nearly a third of gun owners reported such incidents, and some said they had witnessed them more than once. English says the results imply "approximately 1.5 million incidents per year [in] which the presence of a firearm deterred crime." That estimate, of course, depends on the respondents' subjective impressions, so it is probably less reliable than the estimate of explicit defensive uses, which itself is open to the usual questions about the accuracy of respondents' interpretations and recollections. But even taken with the appropriate measure of salt, the results suggest that competing studies may grossly underestimate the defensive value of guns.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children Warns About Unsafe 'Back-to-Schooling'

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason.

GunsGun RightsSecond AmendmentGun Controlfirearms policyfirearms regulationFirearms LawAssault Weapon Ban
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (90)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Idaho Bob   3 years ago

    "The online survey, which was conducted by Centiment in February and March of 2021, was based on a representative sample of about 54,000 adults, 16,708 of whom were gun owners."

    While the results of this survey are favorable to my personal biases, this is complete utter bullshit. As soon as I read "online poll" I opted out.

    1. Fat Mike's Drug Habit   3 years ago

      While this is true, you'd also never get a real answer from gun owners in anything but a completely anonymous format. If you tried to do this in person or in any way that the gun owner might feel like they could be identified they most they'd admit to is that they may have once owned firearms but they were all lost in a tragic boating accident.

      There's really no good way to collect this kind of data at this point. Gun owners have absolutely no incentive to be honest about any of this, there's nothing to gain. There is something to lose though, so why even bother participating?

      1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

        Tragic ice fishing hut fire took all of my guns

      2. voluntaryist   3 years ago

        My father-in-law is a minority who proudly displays a large sign at his front door: "I don't call 911" with a picture of a gun. In fifty years his house has not been broken into, despite other break-ins.
        The news is full of reports of crime victims, crime skyrocketing, and not once does it report self-defense. If MSM was accurate news, we are to believe that almost no one is physically or psychologically capable of self-defense. This is the lie that is promoted by simply editing.

      3. RedPilledConservative   3 years ago

        That's my opinion as well - why would I tell a complete stranger over the phone about weapons - I may or may not have. It's none of their dam business for one, I could be giving away a tactical advantage, and I could be letting someone know they should break in here to find things of particular interest to criminals! Where is the upside for me to participate in such a poll?

    2. rivankylo   3 years ago

      Great

    3. tkamenick   3 years ago

      You might be confusing a "poll" (anybody can click on a link and take it) with a "survey" (individual surveys are sent out to respondents, who answer the questions online). There's not much of a difference between the latter and making phone calls to random people and recording their answers.

  2. Unicorn Abattoir   3 years ago

    AR-15s are not good for defense because every time you fire one. a deer literally explodes.

    /Schmoe Friday

    1. Eeyore   3 years ago

      You just have to point one at a bear and it's lungs explode.

      1. Unicorn Abattoir   3 years ago

        But seriously, if you shoot a deer with an AR-15 there are venison scraps in a radius of 50 yards.

        1. Eeyore   3 years ago

          Are they fully cooked? Because now I'm hungry thinking about it.

      2. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

        That’s why bears hide in trunks.

        1. Unicorn Abattoir   3 years ago

          I know of one bear that kept stealing picnic baskets. A total recidivist, but the forest rangers kept letting him go.

          1. JesseAz   3 years ago

            https://reason.com/podcast/2021/10/25/freedom-responsibility-and-coronavirus-policy/comments=true#comment-9176512

            1. JesseAz   3 years ago

              Whoops. Left out ? When I fixed it.

              https://reason.com/podcast/2021/10/25/freedom-responsibility-and-coronavirus-policy/?comments=true#comment-9176512

              1. Unicorn Abattoir   3 years ago

                That's peak chemjeff.

                1. rivankylo   3 years ago

                  Sad

                2. m40195971   3 years ago

                  With the benefit of hindsight, he was wrong, but it was clever.

                  1. Its_Not_Inevitable   3 years ago

                    It's fairytale land. Might as well ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Or what if a bullfrog had wings. Would it bump it's butt?

                    1. kevrob   3 years ago

                      Back when I was a believer, the angels/pinheaf answer was as many as ghod wants.

              2. Dariush   3 years ago

                That can’t be fucking real.

                My man Jeff drives around with Conan O’Brien’s Masturbating Bear in his trunk. Deep fucking thoughts. No wonder he hates you so much. He posts garbage like that and you roast his stupid ass lol.

          2. Utkonos   3 years ago

            I know of one bear that kept stealing picnic baskets. A total recidivist, but the forest rangers kept letting him go.
            Well, that’s THEIR boo-boo!!

            1. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

              Yeah but he was smarter than the average bear.

        2. JesseAz   3 years ago

          Stop shooting at cars.

    2. mad.casual   3 years ago

      What if I'm defending myself from the deer? Or suffering a dietary deficiency of 'sploded deer?

      1. Unicorn Abattoir   3 years ago

        You can't defend yourself from deer without an F-15.

        1. Eeyore   3 years ago

          Or a nuclear weapon.

  3. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

    I ran the numbers a few years ago and came to the simple conclusion that even if every serious firearm injury were inflicted by a different person, people who used a gun for defensive purposes outnumbered attackers quite heavily.

    1. m40195971   3 years ago

      Yet, you presented no data or arithmetic in your comment.

  4. Adans smith   3 years ago

    Been there twice, once with a shot gun and once with my Browning Buck Mark. Out numbered both times i never had to fire a shot.

    1. Spiritus Mundi   3 years ago

      Only one for me. Pulled my shirt off my cc and put my hand on it. Situation resolved itself instantly and peacefully.

      1. jimc5499   3 years ago

        Once it was enough for me to shift my jacket to show a holstered pistol. The people with me never knew I did it.

        1. Bruce Hayden   3 years ago

          We had gang banger crews hanging around outside the local Walmart/McDonalds by our last house. I would occasionally get a couple pairs of eyes tracking me. I would stare back for a little bit, while printing the gun, and that was it. They knew that I knew that they were watching me, and I knew that they knew that I was armed and watching them. On to easier targets. Happened multiple times.

          I didn’t mind the neighborhood, though the patrons at that Walmart were an interesting mix. Saw more morbid obesity in there than at any other time in my life (except maybe when my wife had back surgery in a hospital that specialized in bariatric surgery). She, who rarely went out, didn’t like it, and esp the police lighting up everyone’s backyard with spotlights from their choppers every weekend. So, we moved across PHX, and are right next to NW Scottsdale, where the only time I really go armed is when I am walking our small dog, and that is four our local pack of 4 coyotes.

          1. Quo Usque Tandem   3 years ago

            If you're going to carry, commit to carrying. Where I live coyotes and the odd rabid animal are about the only risks I can expect, but you really never know when you're going to need it; or as they say, better to have it and not need it and need it and not have it.

            Other than that I just avoid going to places where I would expect to need it, though there have been a couple of unavoidable times where I really felt the need.

  5. Agammamon   3 years ago

    "Those are upper-bound estimates, since people who reported that they ever owned such rifles or magazines may have subsequently sold them"

    Uh, wat? No. That's not how numbers work.

    That might be an upper limit on *those who were surveyed* - but no one asked me (or, I bet, more than about 1 percent of the country and, based on the 'I've never owned a magazine with more than 10 rounds' number, mostly Californians and New Yorkers).

    1. defaultdotxbe   3 years ago

      You might want to look up the word "estimates" in the dictionary.

  6. Use the Schwartz   3 years ago

    I think any survey numbers will be severely undercounted.

    Anecdotally, I would never answer a poll about guns truthfully. I know none of my friends would either - anonymous or not

  7. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

    Nobody needs three types of self-defense.

  8. Longtobefree   3 years ago

    "sample of about 54,000 adults, 16,708 of whom were gun owners."

    There is no way in a free country with our second amendment that anyone should know that second number.

  9. VULGAR MADMAN   3 years ago

    I really like the Beretta in the pic.

    1. Spiritus Mundi   3 years ago

      Too heavy

      1. VULGAR MADMAN   3 years ago

        Bro, do you even lift?

    2. docduracoat   3 years ago

      U.S. Army used Beretta 92 fs for a while.
      A gun with a safety is ergonomically better to have the safety mounted on the frame, not on the slide like this model.
      And the safety is better set up so down is the fire position.
      Then the natural action is to pull the gun out of the holster and sweep the safety from the horizontal to the down position.

      1. VULGAR MADMAN   3 years ago

        It’s double action. Just leave the safety off.

      2. defaultdotxbe   3 years ago

        While I also prefer a frame-mounted safety (when a safety is needed) I've found the same "thumb sweep" motion can be used to flick a slide-mounted safety forward/up, or a frame-mounted safety down.

      3. Quo Usque Tandem   3 years ago

        Taurus PT 92; exact same weapon [yeah, I know it's a "Taurus"] but the safety is on the frame.

  10. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   3 years ago

    Benny Hill rides again!
    And the tank does have a gun, and it's keeping it, so it's not entirely off-topic.
    A friend sent the link.

  11. Quo Usque Tandem   3 years ago

    Fuck Joe “Are deer wearing kevlar now?” Biden.

  12. Spiritus Mundi   3 years ago

    How can Sullum be so good on the 2A but so bad on everything else.

    1. JesseAz   3 years ago

      One disagreement with leftist policies will get you hired as a leftitarian at reason.

    2. Truthteller1   3 years ago

      He does a good job with drugs and vaping too.

  13. Brian   3 years ago

    Remember when Robert LaVoy Finicum was gunned down by the FBI?

    If you’re opposed to guns because gun violence is a tragedy, then that was tragedy.

    You know how many people were like, “Woohoo! He had it coming, that uppity right winger?”

    And that’s how you know it’s not about how horrible gun violence is. It’s about authoritarianism, and taking away the ability of people to resist the government.

    The same people insist it’s impossible to resist the government. Funny how the people who hate gun violence, the people who think government guns can’t be resisted, and the people who love government all line up.

  14. Eric Owens   3 years ago

    Did the survey ask whether NFA items would be in common use were there no NFA that predisposes them to currently not be?

  15. jimc5499   3 years ago

    I'd be curious what their criteria is for "defensive use"?

    1. Spinach Chin   3 years ago

      There's a link to the full research paper in the post...

  16. IceTrey   3 years ago

    All my AR mags only hold ten rounds, of 458 SOCOM!

  17. voluntaryist   3 years ago

    There is no rational defense for a few people to be picked at random to use guns in a violent manner, and the rest to be denied.
    There is plenty of evidence that an armed elite with special privileges is a bad idea, creating classes and class warfare. The existence of nobility and serfs, of slaves and masters, was rejected in America over 200+ years ago. It has crept back and is now advocated by progressive liberals, along with the denial of all rights.

    1. m40195971   3 years ago

      Even thousands of years ago, with everyone having access only to fists, rocks, and sticks, humanity still stratified itself by class and engaged in wars. There will always be an elite and an underclass, leaders and followers. It’s just how we are built.

      1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

        Since you bring up history, let's examine it a bit. For most of European history, one of the privileges free men had was the right to bear arms. In fact, not only was it a privilege but often required by law. It was only in the 20th century that western countries began curbing this right. So, historically speaking, the defining characteristic of freedom has been the right to bear arms.

        1. flag58   3 years ago

          For most of European history being a "free man" meant owning property. Which eliminated most of the population.

          1. Stephen Lathrop   3 years ago

            A fact apparently unknown to the entire class of gun-advocate/gun-researchers.

          2. Its_Not_Inevitable   3 years ago

            So now that everyone can own guns it's a bad thing? Only the "right" people should have the guns? The State, amiright?

      2. Zeb   3 years ago

        That is true. But guns were pretty revolutionary in allowing non-elites to effectively defend themselves. Before guns were common and effective, one had to train extensively and continuously to be able to effectively operate the best weapons of the times (swords, bow and arrow, etc.).

        1. kevrob   3 years ago

          Many a infantryman went into battle armed with a billhook or pike.

  18. SRG   3 years ago

    Now that we have some initial research supporting the use of guns, perhaps those GOP cowards in Congress will permit the funding of research into gun violence. As we all realised, unless we were pathologically stupid, the GOP opposition to funding such research was the fear that it might show results they didn't like. This research should have assuaged their fears, while it might encourage moderate Democrats to have a more open mind towards 2A.

    1. Liberty_Belle   3 years ago

      I honestly think neither side wants an actual answer. As long as it is ambiguous , either side can claim anything they want. Once a definitive answer is had, then they actually have to do something about it.

      1. SRG   3 years ago

        Yup. And the political leadership of both main parties probably don't want to have to deal with supporters of theirs who will outright reject any research that doesn't agree, facts be damned.

    2. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

      It'll be like most other government funded research, politically driven. Which is exactly what you want, not actual evidence but political theater.

      1. SRG   3 years ago

        What I would think more likely is that the research itself would be fine, but the government would suppress its publication if they didn't like its findings.

        1. RedPilledConservative   3 years ago

          " ... but the government would suppress its publication if they didn't like its findings. ... "

          They already did that ...

          “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

    3. EISTAU Gree-Vance   3 years ago

      “….funding of research…”

      Lol. How much ya need, man? I mean, how can we be sure of anything without funding?

      1. SRG   3 years ago

        how can we be sure of anything without funding?

        Well, in many situations we lack confidence in outcomes absent research, and - I know this will blow your mind with the vastness of the discovery - research isn't free.

        The US funds research on matters of national or public interest. If you don't approve of government funding in general, by all means say so. That's certainly a legitimate position on this site.

    4. Its_Not_Inevitable   3 years ago

      Doesn't matter what any "research" says. YOU do not have the right to take MY gun.

    5. Quo Usque Tandem   3 years ago

      The Dickey Amendment came about because the CDC was using the funds for anti gun advocacy. They can still do research, it just has to be objective, not biased.

      1. RedPilledConservative   3 years ago

        but then the data is often suppressed:

        “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

  19. TJJ2000   3 years ago

    The people who want to take GUNS away from other people are also the very same people who LOVE using Gov-Guns for everything. It's not that they don't like GUNS (actually they are in LOVE with them and the dictations/threats they can do) it's that they don't like you having any tool that might counter their Gov-GUN-Love.

    More simply put.. Armed Criminals don't like people having guns to defend themselves.

  20. sarcasmic   3 years ago

    The author voted for Biden. Even if he said he didn't, he did. Because everyone at Reason is a hardcore leftist.
    So fuck this guy and everything he says. He as a person is wrong, therefore everything he says is wrong.

    1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

      Give it a fucking rest, symph.

      1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

        Dude... I ain't no symph. Brass has class, not those silly string instruments.

    2. Dariush   3 years ago

      Was that necessary?

  21. petermarnus   3 years ago

    Thanks for sharing.
    If you need customized usb then contact us.

  22. questioner7   3 years ago

    "48 percent) said they had ever owned magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds" -- how many have actually _used_ them (shot them) defensively in situations where shooting more than 10 rounds made a difference?

    1. RedPilledConservative   3 years ago

      I cannot say how many per se - regarding your question - but I have seen many youtube videos of home invasions with multiple invaders - repelled by one homeowner who fired many rounds.

      Telling a homeowner they are required by law to be at a tactical disadvantage to multiple unlawful invaders is asinine!

  23. LarryA   3 years ago

    "Men accounted for about 58 percent of gun owners."

    So guess who owns the other 42 percent. (It isn't the trans folks.)
    So much for the "old white men" theme.

  24. The Jeffersonian   3 years ago

    Doers ANYONE ever get taken in by your scam?

  25. m40195971   3 years ago

    I once clicked by mistake, with blurry eyes and a tired mind. My browser caught it and blocked the results as a scam.

    My guess is that if the scammer gets just 0.001% of viewers of the ad to click on it, and 0.001% of those to bite the hook, then it’s worth the $500 they’ve invested on a budget computer running a simple script on dozens of webpages each day.

  26. avedavid   3 years ago

    I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (oaf-02) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
    .
    ---------->>>

  27. Truthteller1   3 years ago

    Put the reply button on the right side just like the rest of the internet

  28. avedavid   3 years ago

    I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (oaf-0a3) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
    .
    ---------->>> https://dollarprofits99.blogspot.com/

  29. kevrob   3 years ago

    Libertarians should place it neither to the right, nor the left!

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Trump Wants Harvard To Hand Over Info on Over 10,000 International Students

Autumn Billings | 7.10.2025 5:18 PM

The People Who Wrecked N.Y. Schools Love Zohran Mamdani

Matt Welch | 7.10.2025 5:03 PM

The Department of Homeland Security Says Trump's Immigration Enforcers Are on a Mission From God

Jacob Sullum | 7.10.2025 3:15 PM

Trump's 50 Percent Copper Tariff Will Drive Up Prices for Tech, Homes, Military Equipment, and More

Eric Boehm | 7.10.2025 2:30 PM

Did the Secret Service Surveil James Comey Without a Warrant After '86 47' Post?

Joe Lancaster | 7.10.2025 2:00 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!