Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Gun Control Lies

In New York City, you can't even wield a fake gun on TV... unless you're making anti-gun propaganda.

My town, New York City, enforces rigid gun laws. Police refused to assign me a gun permit. The law doesn't even let me hold a fake gun on TV to demonstrate something. 

But New York politicians are so eager to vilify gun ownership that they granted an exception to the anti-gun group States United to Prevent Gun Violence. New York allowed States United to set up a fake gun store, where cameras filmed potential gun customers being spoofed by an actor pretending to be a gun-seller. 

"This a nine millimeter semi-automatic. It's a very handy gun. It's easy to use," he says. "You can carry it in a purse like that gal from Wal-Mart. Her two-year-old son reaches into her pocketbook, pulls it out, shoots her. Dead, gone, no Mom!"

States United then made that footage into an anti-gun public service announcement. "Over 60 percent of Americans think owning a gun will make them safer. In fact, owning a gun increases the risk of homicide, suicide and unintentional death," says the video.

It's a powerful message. But it's a lie, says John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He says that gun control advocates lie all the time.

Lott acknowledges the tragedies. Sometimes a gun in the home is used in a homicide or suicide, or leads to accidental death, but he adds, "It also makes it easier for people to defend themselves—women and the elderly in particular."

Lott says, "Every place in the world that's tried to ban guns... has seen big increases in murder rates. You'd think at least one time, some place, when they banned guns, murder rates would go down. But that hasn't been the case."

I pushed back: what about people harming themselves?

"There are lots of different ways for people to commit suicide," Lott said, and researchers have looked at how those tragedies are affected by access to guns. "We find that people commit suicide in other ways if they don't have guns."

What about accidents? Lott replies that accidental shooting deaths are relatively rare: "about 500 a year." That sounds bad, but about 400 Americans are killed by overdosing on acetaminophen each year (most of them suicides), and almost as many Americans drown in swimming pools. 

"It would be nice if it was zero (but) consider that 120 million Americans own guns," Lott says. 

Often those guns are used to prevent crime. The homeowner pulls out the gun and the attacker flees. No one knows how often this happens because these prevented crimes don't become news and don't get reported to the government, but an estimate from the Violence Policy Center suggests crimes may be prevented by guns tens of thousands of times per year.

Add politics to the mix and the anti-gun statistics get even more misleading. Gang members in their late teens or early adulthood killing each other get called "children." Fights between gangs near schools get called school "mass shootings."

The number of mass shootings in America has been roughly level over the past 40 years, but The New York Times still runs headlines like, "FBI Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000." That headline is absolutely true, but only because they deceitfully picked the year 2000 as their start point, and that was a year with unusually few mass shootings. It's as if the paper wants to make it seem as if mass shootings are always on the rise, even as crime keeps going down.

It all helps stoke paranoia about guns. Some people respond by calling for more controls. Others, fearing the government may ban gun sales, respond by buying more weapons. The number of people holding permits to carry concealed weapons has skyrocketed to 12.8 million, up from 4.6 million just before President Obama took office. Since 40 percent of American households now own guns, anyone who wants to take them away will have a fight on his hands. 

Has the increased gun ownership and carrying of guns led to more violence? Not at all. "Violent crime across the board has plummeted," says Lott. "In 1991, the murder rate was about 9.8 (people) per 100,000. (Now) it's down to about 4.2."

I can't convince my friends in New York City, but it's just a fact: More guns—less crime.

COPYRIGHT 2015 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

Photo Credit: Youth Radio/flickr

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Stossel doesn't understand that when you ban something, it's banned. People can't have it or else people with guns come to take it away.

  • Thymirus||

    I can't wait for Fallout 4'. I'll build a massive militia base and continuously fuck up the goons the federal government's remnants sends.

  • Dr Fallout||

    I concur.

  • Catatafish & Woodchips||

    +1 plasma caster

  • Jay Dubya||

    fallout is the bees knees. the mutated, radioactive, giant bees knees.

  • Seamus||

    That's right. As in the case, for example, of drugs. We passed some laws to ban them, and we've hardly had any problems with them since.

  • Adans smith||

    And the ban on alcohol is working well,also.

  • MichaelL||

    Ban on alcohol, where? Adults can choose to kill themselves with it, any time they want! So far as underage drinking, you are right! A ban does not stop that! Or anything else in the category of "prohibited"!

  • epsilon given||

    The ban was so effective, the country decided to retire it after only a few years; no one has been drinking alcohol since. Further research is needed to determine why the ban on drugs, murder, and mayhem haven't all worked as well as the ban on alcohol.

  • Floyd R Turbo (American)||

    No they don't. Chicago is chock full of illegal guns and the cops never do anything about it...

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    The second amendment was enacted to protect citizens from a Tyrannical Government, hense the reason why this regime is so anxious to strip away this god-given freedom.

  • Lorenzo Valla||

    I don't personally like guns, but I have read Lott's research and the evidence and analysis is persuasive IMO.

  • Adans smith||

    If you have never smelled fresh gun fire oner a duck blind in the morning you don't know what your missing.And the dog work and fresh game for dinner,With wine or a good stout or porter of course.

  • Mark6||

    I don't need romancing so you can skip the wine and dinner stuff. Just give the smell of freshly ignited gunpowder!

  • Adans smith||

    Hey,you need a good meal and drink after.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Napalm works for me.

  • Reverend Draco||

    I much prefer swords and axes, for that "personal touch."

    That being said. . . I know how to use a gun; I got my basic safety certificate, and have yet to miss what I'm aiming at.

    The 2nd isn't just about firearms - it's also about swords and axes and spears and nunchaku and atlatl and crossbows and. . .

    And - no, there's nothing like the smell of gunfire. . .

  • SimonJester||

    LV -- and this, I think, is the essence of libertarianism. I dont like guns, I don't want one, but I want you to have one. I've never visited a sex worker bur support decriminalization of sex work 100%. Same with drugs -- I don't participate but I still want it legal.

  • rudehost||

    Of course. Libertarians see politics through a lens of what is ethical for government to do. Everyone else sees it as a tool in which to force their version of utopia on everyone else. Progressives and socons have an advanced stage of that disease.

  • LarryA||

    Libertarians see politics through a lens of what is ethical for government to do.

    It has nothing to do with ethics. Governments don't have ethics, just like they don't have rights. "Governments draw their just powers from the consent of the governed." People have rights, and hopefully ethics.

    Libertarianism is simply practical politics. The power I give government to do unto others will be used to do unto me. I don't want government to take away my guns, therefore I don't give it the power to take away your whatever.

    Every time government gets to the point of lining the true-believer statists up against the wall it's like, "What? No way! This Can't Be Happening To Me!" And statist government always gets to that point.

  • Floyd R Turbo (American)||

    You don't like guns and hookers? - You're probably gay..

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    My wife is not a big fan either, but once she repeatedly hit the center target, a big smile came to her face, whereupon the instructor stated "now you know what real gun control means".
    She may not be happy with firearms in the house, but when the SHTF, watch out, she'll hit her mark every time.

  • bvandyke||

    Just had a thought or epiphany is you will .

    Might all of the bogus claim about the increase in mass shootings actually be causing more people to want guns? Media is making people less safe, police only help after the fact, so it how to you feel safer? Get a gun. Maybe control nuts out to be preaching how safe we are now instead.

    I love guns. Don't have them to feel safer (I don't feel unsafe), have them because I like shooting them.

  • bvandyke||

    ....epiphany if you will.

    Lack of sleep is a killer.

  • ||

    Lack of sleep is a killer.

    We must not rest until we ban no sleep! #SomnolentLivesMatter

  • Cloudbuster||

    Government-mandated sleep-monitoring! It's for the children!

  • plusafdotcom||

    For The Common Good!

  • Reverend Draco||

    For The Common Core!

  • ||

    I have a friend that owns a gun store. I stopped by to see her a few days ago. She was exhausted. She was selling guns as fast as she could fill out the paperwork. The theater shooting in Lafayette has caused a huge surge in gun sales.

  • ||

    "Every place in the world that's tried to ban guns... has seen big increases in murder rates."

    Not in Canada it has.

  • Seamus||

    Or Australia.

  • RT Deco||

    Actually, the number of homicide incidents in Australia increased from its value in the mid-1990's when Australia's gun confiscation ... er "gun buyback" program went into effect, peaking in 2002. It then dropped substantially over the next couple of years returning to the general trend it had been going on since the early 1990's and even earlier.

    Other than a spike in homicides just after gun-control legislation was passed, Australia's gun policies seem to have had almost no effect on homicide incidents.

    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    Australia's gun policies seem to have had almost no effect on getting rid of guns...

    "Gun ownership rises 10 per cent across NSW"

    Gun ownership has surged 10 per cent in NSW in the past five years, with one gun now registered for every nine residents.
    Alarmingly, in 22 of the state's 600 postcodes, registered guns outnumber people.

    This includes four postcodes where guns outnumber people two to one.
  • Knarf Yenrab!||

    Alarmingly, the seatbelt-to-car ratio of the United States has almost doubled over the past two generations.

    Are Americans inviting more automotive accidents, are they paranoid seatbelt clingers, or is it both?

  • RT Deco||

    If only the US could give Detroit to Canada.

  • Paul.||

    And increase Canada's minority population 10x? No thank you!

  • Adans smith||

    Then again you have a small population,spread out,and your all whimps,so,there's that'

  • Tionico||

    but gins are not BANNED i Canada, though it IS difficult for normal garden veriety Canucks to own handguns. VERY restricted. Long guns, while there was a charade of ineffective and larfely ignored long gun registration (thankfully now ended) have always been "ownable" and rather common. Generally, Canadians are more peaceful than we Yanks.. might be in part because most of the "gun deaths" in the US are in socialise welfare-supported inner cities, of which Canada has few, and of a rather different flavour. Canada never did have much of a murder problem.

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    - "Not in Canada it has."

    No you did.

  • ||

    "He says that gun control advocates lie all the time."

    No shit. They don't just tell lies in service of their cause, they lie about what their cause is as well.

    "I don't care about crime. I just want to get the guns."
    - Senator Howard Metzenbaum.

    "If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."
    -U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

  • Mark6||

    Henry just explained the Second Amendment!

  • Adans smith||

    He's to stupid to get it.

  • SimonJester||

    Hees 2 stoopid too gedit.

    FIFY.

  • bvandyke||

    I explained this to a friend of mine over the weekend. He doesn't like guns and was using the typical gun control argument that no one needs a gun that can fire more than one bullet about every minute like back when the constitution was written.

    I said the 2nd was put in because the founders wanted to provide a way for the people to take back the country when the government got out of hand (just as they did). If the people are un-armed then they have no defense form a tyrannical government. Being that he really doesn't like our current government he actually understood this. He is a libertarian at heart but just doesn't realize it.

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    Even better, offer to give him a Kentucky rifle and all the black powder and musket balls he wants. You'll take a kitchen knife...or a claw hammer...or a rock....or...

    Then see how well he can defend himself against your close quarters attack.

  • Reverend Draco||

    And the 1st only applies to hand-operated printing presses and quill pens.
    It also doesn't cover Mormonism or Scientology - those religions didn't exist at the time of the Founding (not that that's a bad thing =P).

  • the original jack||

    van... I disagree with your "take back" view of the 2nd Amendment. I explain it in this essay.

    "The Second Amendment as a Prophylactic"

    http://jack-burton.hubpages.com/hub/Prophylactic

  • 2tiredofit||

    There seems to be a lot of similarities with anti-gun as there is with anti-tobacco. Cherry pick the numbers and try to scare the crap out of the majority all under the guise of "its better for you". Some things never get old and some people never learn.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The thing is, reasonable issues tend to become Crusades, and when they do reason and facts are cast aside. The temperance movement started out trying to get people to drunk less, which considering the records I've read about per capita consumption of hard liquor seems perfectly reasonable. Over time it morphed into Prohibition. In the 1960's - as now - there were real causes for concern about the environment, and at the start the Movement did a great deal of good. But it became a Crusade, and now it is a serious threat to life and liberty worldwide. When the Surgeon General's report came out in 1964, publicizing the information therein only made sense; smoking is a vice and people should be aware of the costs. But anti-tobacco agitation he's become a Crusade, and lies are so much more exciting than facts.

    The Gun Control Crusade is founded on thin air; the second amendment (as read by anyone literate, instead of lawyerly) makes pretty much any gun control law unconstitutional. Because it is based on a false premise in the first place, it became a Crusade almost instantly.

    Basically, anyone who is promoting gun control who is NOT proposing to amend the Constitution to do so is necessarily a liar. So it's no surprise that pretty much every argument they make is a lie.

  • Lorenzo Valla||

    it's commonplace to mix facts and opinions and state the entire statement as a fact.

    gun crime is a problem (fact) and guns should be controlled to stop these crimes (unsubstantiated opinion).

    the more reasonable statement should be: gun crime is a problem, so we should find a way to decrease these crimes.

  • RT Deco||

    gun crime is a problem (fact) and guns criminials should be controlled locked up or executed to stop these crimes (unsubstantiated opinion).

    There ... fixed it.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Which is fine, if the State can be trusted to imprison and execute the right people….

    Ooops.

  • SimonJester||

    Also, let's make sure you definition of "crime" is right. What I consider crime is very different than what the US has made illegal, so let's not be so hasty with "broke a law? Slammer for you, fuckwad."

  • nrprise||

    Agreed. Many gun laws now are a good example of being self-fulfilling of progressive's stereo-types of gun owners: there is no such thing as a law-abiding gun owner.

    They make laws that make ANY behavior outside of an extremely narrow set of permitted behaviors a "crime". Then they get to point out how so few gun owners are "law-abiding".

    Take, for instance, many of the newest UBC laws: Many responsible behaviors, like storing a few firearms in a friend's safe while leaving a home vacant (when burglaries are most likely to occur), is a crime unless the gun-owner has paid (and sometimes waited) for government permission to do so. When responsible behaviors are criminalized by a law, there's a problem with the law.

  • Lorenzo Valla||

    No, you lied by deliberately distorting the truth. There are lots of crimes, and some of them are committed with guns, so shame on you for refusing to acknowledge that reality.

    If you want people to accept the reasonable use of guns, you have to be honest about the problems that gun crimes present. Absent that, your comments are easily dismissed and you thus undermine the position you attempt to support.

  • nrprise||

    Another part of the problem is the language used. It's subtle but it's important.

    "gun crime is a problem (fact)"

    I could agree with that statement but I would also agree with "non-gun crime is a problem".

    Therefore, in reality "crime is a problem (fact)"

    Simply attaching the word "gun" to problems to make the gun out AS the problem is dishonest.

    It gets even worse when using nebulous phrases like "gun violence". Most gun-control groups lump ALL death or harm related to guns into their "gun violence" stats. They often even include lawful police and defensive uses to pad their stats.

    They also ALWAYS lump in accidents. Accidents are tragic but we don't call accidents by other means "violence". When someone is harmed in a car accident, do we call that "vehicle violence"? What about drowning deaths (which takes far more childrens' lives than guns do)? Do we call accidental drownings "pool violence".

    They also ALWAYS lump in suicides because it's by far the largest number of deaths where guns are used (2/3 of gun deaths are suicides). Again, I think suicide is quite tragic but again we don't call suicides by other means "violence". No one calls suicide by overdose "pill violence". No one calls suicide by cutting "knife violence". No one calls suicide by jumping from a tall structure "gravity violence" or "falling violence".

    When gun-control advocates use such misleading language to hype their own stats, it should tell you something very important about their honesty.

  • GregMax||

    Honesty ain't got nothin' to do with it.

  • ||

    Another part of the problem is the language used. It's subtle but it's important.

    It is the loose-thinking way of the Left;
    gun violence
    social justice
    crony capitalism
    income inequality.

  • Mindyourbusiness||

    ^ This. I've found that a good rule of thumb to determine someone's politics is to check what modifiers they use, "social" being one of the best indicators.

  • Lorenzo Valla||

    fail

  • Chip Woodier||

    "The temperance movement started out trying to get people to drunk less, which considering the records I've read about per capita consumption of hard liquor seems perfectly reasonable. Over time it morphed into Prohibition."

    That's because advocacy groups, once they achieve their original goals, suddenly find they have no reason to exist. They end up moving the goalpost, thus extending their leader's hold on power. We saw the same thing with MADD.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Or they shift to another problem, like the March of Dimes.

  • Tionico||

    true enough. It mostly all comes down to the penchant for man to control other men, whether they (the controlled) need it or like it or not. Years after the War for Independence had been fought and won, a man who had been in his 20s and on the Commons at Lexington under Captain Parker was asked why they were all out there that morning. Was it the tea tax Nae, I never drank the stuff, I don't think many ever paid it anyway. How about the Stamp Act? Was that it? Nope. I never saw one, I don't think they ever sold many of them. Mostly that was ignored. Well, then, what WAS it, WHY were you all out there? Well, they had a mind to tell us how we should live, and we had a mind that they wouldn't.

    Simple enough, and prroof that ntot much has changed.

  • GregMax||

    My rights are not subject to other people's approval. If I have to ask permission to exercise a right . . . it's a privilege.
    But many people drawn to government are inherently interested in controlling others, not serving or protecting them. The more they act like rights are privileges, the more they use fear to manipulate sheep into actually believing their rights are given them by government, the more we slip into tyranny. And really, that's where this is probably headed. There are generations of Americans who believe their rights come from government and that government can create jobs - and by extension prosperity. Gun ownership is the most regulated and infringed upon right in the US, and our economy is in the shitty state it's in because of too much government regulation.

  • Adans smith||

    Government is what we do together to decide who to fuck over.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Government is the crimes we choose to commit that we have to get our neighbors to help with because we are too weak to commit them on our own.

    Yes, the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet. Why do you ask?

  • Adans smith||

    It's afternoon somewhere,nod,nod,wink wink.

  • Paul.||

    My rights are not subject to other people's approval. If I have to ask permission to exercise a right . . . it's a privilege.

    I KNEW marriage was a privilege!

  • DenverJ||

    I like guns. They are fun, and theoretically a shield against tyranny.
    But come on, Stossel, you're doing the same thing with your stats that you accuse gun control advocates of doing.
    1991 is not "just before President Obama took office".
    Crime rates have been dropping dramatically for decades, while the surge in gun ownership and concealed carry is fairly new.
    There are many theories for the large drop in crime in the last few decades, but the rise in gun ownership is probably not the cause.

  • ||

    There are many theories for the large drop in crime in the last few decades, but the rise in gun ownership is probably not the cause.

    You inferred this. He said gun ownership is up since before Obama took office. Then, in a separate paragraph, he pointed out that gun ownership has gone up since 1991 while crime has concomitantly dropped. He claimed/showed all of this under the assertion that guns don't cause *more* violence.

    He, rather honestly/accurately, says no one knows for sure the number of crimes prevented by gun ownership and asserts it is in the thousands. Nowhere does he definitively say more guns lead to less crime. I don't believe that to be unintentional.

  • BearOdinson||

    Crime rates have been dropping dramatically for decades-- Stossel was quoting Lott in referring to the drop in homicide rates comparing 1991 to today (a couple of decades)

    while the surge in gun ownership and concealed carry is fairly new.-- Stossel referred to the increase in CCW permits since before Obama became POTUS (fairly new)

    His point was that crime has been dropping for quite awhile, and even after a surge in CCW permits and gun ownership, the crime rate is still way down.

    He wasn't trying to say that increases in gun ownership caused less crime. He is however showing that these increases didn't lead to an INCREASE in crime.

  • DenverJ||

    Well, that's what I get for commenting before the morning caffeine kicks in.

  • plusafdotcom||

    Which one of the Freakonomics books pointed out that decreases in crime seem to correlate with the increased availability of contraceptives a decade or two EARLIER?

    Just sayin'.....
    :)

  • Agammamon||

    States United to Prevent Gun Violence.

    'SUP G?

  • bvandyke||

    ^1

    Laughed my a$$ off.

  • Akira||

    Nobody wants to take your guns away, yet the president and other anti-gun politicians constantly speak of the need to "get assault weapons off the streets".

    Asking for an ID to vote is a racist plot to exclude minorities from the democratic process, but the three-ring circus of hoops you have to jump through to buy a gun in some states is not only not racist, but a wonderful system that should be a model for federal gun policy.

    Cops are racist, murderous criminals, yet they're also highly trained, level-headed professionals who can and should be trusted with a monopoly on guns.

  • Lürking McNewgüy||

    are you being serious?

  • Akira||

    I was pointing out how progressives appear to believe certain things (the first parts of the sentences) but they chuck those beliefs right out the window when it comes to gun control (the second parts of the sentences).

  • Brendan||

    Be careful. When you stare into a brain full of monkeys juggling squirrels who are juggling knives, that brain stares back.


    I too love the inherent, and wholly unresolvable contradictions of progressive beliefs.


    Inside of the voter ID:firearm purchase disconnect, there's also the issue of some states charging up to $25 per background check (Nevada).


    NYC would make the worst Jim Crow laws blush when it comes to their abuse of gun owners. From what I've gathered, the charge $229.75 for a rifle/shotgun permit to merely possess rifles/shotguns or $429.75 for a handgun license.

  • Brendan||

    For a pistol, you need:
    -a $429.75 license just to have it at home (I read time frames of 4-8 months)

    -a purchase authorization form to buy (time frames of 3-6 weeks) that you have to pick up in person 9a-12p M-F

    -after purchase you have 72 hours to go to 1PP and have them register your gun between 12p-2p M-F

    -You can only visit specific ranges to shoot

    -need a special authorization card to transport out of the 5 boroughs for hunting

    -An affidavit from anyone else in your house over 18.

    -A custodian for your guns in the event of your death

    -To purchase a handgun within 30 days of license issuance or you have to return the license (you get an authorization form with a new license).

    -Have a safe if they wish to own more then 4 handguns, proof is required in the form of a bill of sale and two color pictures of the safe (one open, one closed). This threshold applies to all guns in a household, even with multiple licensees. Two roomates with 2 guns each will require a safe if either wants to buy a 3rd gun.

    -Have to return an 'unused' purchase authorization form within 10 days of expiration or you can lose your handgun license.

  • syzito2525||

    Registration so the government will know who owns what.Makes it easy to control you and turns you into a subject instead of a citizen. NYC is just another arm pit for Marxism.

  • blcartwright||

    hows about, you can only vote by showing your handgun registration card?

  • LarryA||

    An anti-gun baker can post a sign and ban anyone exercising RKBA from his "private premises," but has to make any cake topping they demand because it's a "public accommodation."

  • ||

    Nobody wants to take your guns away, yet the president and other anti-gun politicians constantly speak of the need to "get assault weapons off the streets".
    ...
    Cops are racist, murderous criminals, yet they're also highly trained, level-headed professionals who can and should be trusted with a monopoly on guns.

    Oh, yes. It's definitely mouth on/brain off when it comes to gun control in and around Chicago;
    "McCarthy, reciting the criminal histories of several of the suspects in this weekend's violence, noted gang members face tougher consequences for losing their guns from their gangs than from authorities."

    I wish I could find a full transcript, because it was just as mind-blowing from an economic standpoint as it was from a firearm ownership one.; simultaneously acknowledging that illegal guns are so hard to come by that gang members would rather die fighting police than lose a gun and, at the same time, stating that the only way to control gun violence would be to enact gun control measures that carry a 1-to-1 threat of violence with gangs.

  • Stephdumas||

    I wonder if those anti-gun New York City politicians practice what they preach or if they practice the way of Leland Yee, a Californian senator anti-gun activist who was caught in a illegal gun traffic?
    www.nraila.org
    http://gunssavelives.net

  • Stephdumas||

    Note then Leland Yee wasn't the only one caught. Anti-gun activist David Malik was arrested last February for possesion of gun and ammo.

    The plotline of the anime Gunsmith Cats where a anti-gun senator candidate and doing gun traffic is where the reality reach the fiction or life imitate art. Check the clip before Youtube pulls it. https://youtu.be/SyIdjTfSCvI?t=23m51s

  • The Elite Elite||

    Guns for me, but not for thee.

  • Brendan||

    Some gun control supporters only read what they want as they want.

    I spent some time raising my blood pressure and marvelling at the density of a commenter on the LVRJ forums who simply cannot understand that 3 days and 3 business days are the same thing and doesn't believe that the FBI and ATF share information about delayed denials.
    http://www.reviewjournal.com/o.....2175482339

  • Brendan||

    3 days and 3 business days are NOT the same thing

    Fixed.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Every place in the world that's tried to ban guns... has seen big increases in murder rates."

    Also, all those "civilized" Europeans and their gun bans? Turns out that while they have about 100 more assaults for every 1 more homicide the US has. When guns are outlawed, thugs can terrorize anyone they want.

    http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/faq-on-violence

  • plusafdotcom||

    http://mallardfillmore.com/comics/august-4-2015/ and the august 5 strip, too...

    perfect!

  • The Elite Elite||

    If you like your guns, you can keep your guns, as long as they don't have high capacity magazines, look scary and intimidating, have full auto fire, or can in any way be a halfway decent defense against a government agent. So, you don't really need anything more powerful than, say a slingshot.

  • HolgerDanske||

    I don't think the banners would stop at slingshots, given the countries they are trying to emulate.

    Denmark has a ban on those awful assault slingshots. Along with crossbows, pocket knives you can open with one hand, bb guns in calibers larger than .177, and a multitude of other scary things.

    Owning one of those items could cost you 90 days in jail and a hefty fine there.

  • Akira||

    "If you like your guns, you can keep your guns, as long as they don't have high capacity magazines, look scary and intimidating, have full auto fire"

    ... And they aren't too big, or too small. And you paid a special firearm tax and a 50% tax on any ammo. And you've gone through the proper channels to get your permit. And you've passed the psychological evaluation. And you've convinced your chief law enforcement officer that you have a legitimate need for said firearm. And it's not one of those .50 BMG firearms that can shoot down jetliners. And you keep it unloaded and locked in a safe. And...

    /gun banner

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.online-jobs9.com

  • plusafdotcom||

    From my special collection, just for you...

    http://www.plusaf.com/linkedin.....retard.jpg

  • GregMax||

    The entire "transfer" process is completely unconstitutional, but fytw is the basic response of those in government.
    To transfer a firearm you must - show valid ID, answer 12 (?) questions the "no" answer to most would disqualify you from the transfer, swear under penalty of perjury (5th), the transfer form includes name, address, make, model and serial number of the firearm, and a fee to process the check.
    Then the forms (BATF property!!) are required to be kept indefinitely by the FFL even after the store goes out of business. It is a defacto gun registration scheme. Anytime it wants the BATF can demand all those transfer forms copied and delivered to them - boom, a data base of all guns.
    California requires transfers within the state to be processed. If this were applied nationally you would be compelled to demonstrate who you sold your gun to (private property transfer).
    All of this is based on the interstate commerce clause (because transfers intra-state are not federal authority) and the notion that there is a compelling social justification for the government to infringe upon your 2nd amendment rights. It's all a load of shit but the fools who live in this country are mostly ignoramuses when it comes to the concept of serfdom and liberty.
    But DON'T ASK FOR ID TO VOTE!

  • GregMax||

    If the Feds want to do checks for citizens who are adjudicated to have forfeited their 2nd amendment right - adjudicated mentally ill and a danger to others, and people who are convicted of violent crimes - then fine. But no firearm data, no keeping records, just "disqualified" or "not disqualified". End of issue.

  • JayWye||

    the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
    it's about the people retaining the ability to "alter or to abolish" a government gone bad,as written in the Declaration of Independence.
    the Founders had just overthrown their own incumbent government (Britain) by FORCE OF ARMS,and recognized that it might have to be done again in the future,thus the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment protecting the People's right to keep and bear arms.
    The American Revolution BEGAN when the Brits moved to confiscate arms at Concord.
    the people (in militia) responded with privately owned arms.

    Constitutional attorney Stewart Rhodes will explain The Second Amendment for you.

    ..."The whole point of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military capacity of the American people - to preserve the ability of the people, who are the militia, to provide for their own security as individuals, as neighborhoods, towns, counties, and states, during any emergency, man-made or natural; to preserve the military capacity of the American people to resist tyranny and violations of their rights by oath breakers within government; and to preserve the military capacity of the people to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, including those oath breaking domestic enemies within government. "

  • bvandyke||

    ^All the way up-

    Copying this to my FB feed - First update on it in months.

  • thelma567||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
    www.jobnet10.com

  • Duncan20903||

    Well I wish I had kept the link but within the last two weeks I saw a ranking of States based on their residents risk of being victims of violent crime. Vermont came in as the second safest. If you're unfamiliar with Vermont's gun laws it might be because they have almost none. It's legal to own a silencer in Vermont. Upon release from prison a felon can stop at the gun store and buy up all the stock presuming that he has the money. Yes, Federal law would make those acts Federal crimes but to the best of my knowledge there isn't another State in the Union that doesn't criminalize those acts under the State criminal code.

    I grew up in Virginia. Back during the crack cocaine brouhaha in the early 1990s the pundits and reps from the DC Government blamed Virginia's "lax" gun laws for the gun violence in the District. I never did see anyone bother to explain why Virginia guns caused violence in the District but not in Virginia.

    In 1991 DC (population 598,000) murders peaked at 482.
    In Virginia (population 6,286,000) murders also peaked in 1991 at 583.
    http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
    http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vacrime.htm

  • Brendan||

    Might not be the same link, but this one is useful:
    LINK

    At least in 2010, VT had a firearm homicide RATE lower than Canada and any state in the US.

    Interesting to see that even states like UT, ID, WY, WV, SD had lower rates than MA. Of the usual suspects, only HI was lower than nearly all. NY, NJ, IL, MD, CA, were all mixed in with states that have much better laws.
    OR and NV are both lower than CA, which was right between TN and NM
    MD is among the worst and right between SC and MO. DC beats the 2nd (LA) by double.

  • Rockabilly||

    All gun control is totalitarian

  • AZindependent||

    It's actually a lie to say that gun control doesn't ever reduce the murder rate. In Australia:

    Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University performed a study and found that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.

    Also, the end 'conclusion' is very misleading. While the overall number of guns has gone up, gun ownership rates (% of households with guns, % of citizens who own a gun) have both declined in the past several decades. So by the article's logic this 'proves' that lower gun ownership rates does reduce the violent crime rate (since few people with firearms would ever wield more than one at once, and thus it's the # of people who own that really matters, not that one guy owns 1000 guys).

    Nothing lies like statistics and half truths. I'm not saying guns are bad, or that we should limit ownership, but please don't lie to make your point.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I think New Zealand had similar drops in crime without the totalitarian laws.

  • AZindependent||

    Actually not true. Check out this graph, from New Zealand: http://www.stuff.co.nz/nationa.....generation

    Crime rates rose slightly from 1996 through 2008 (the period covered by the graph) for most all types of violent crime.

  • syzito2525||

    Article explains why "all" Democrats need to be removed from office and never elected again. NYC is nothing more than a Marxist city.

  • rebekah567||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
    www.jobnet10.com

  • john3141||

    The argument that only police should carry firearms. After all, they are entrusted with the protection of law-abiding citizens. If guns are banned then no one who intends to use one to commit a crime will be able to obtain one. Furthermore, only the police, the advocates contend should be allowed to respond with deadly force to a shooter or potential shooter.

    This thinking is as specious as it is pernicious. When a mass shooting occurs, if no one law abiding is already armed then there is no protection against a shooting of this type. Moreover, if it is unknown who, at any given moment, is armed then someone planning a mass killing with a firearm will be far less likely to commit the act in the first place knowing there is a strong possibility that the he himself could be shot dead.

    Secondly, unless, by pure chance an armed police officer happens to be in the vicinity of a shooting and can kill the shooter before the illegal killings, then unarmed innocents will die in the absence of real protection. But logic dictates that police arrive after the crime, not before. Unless there is a police omnipresence. But anyone who values their freedom doesn't want to live in a police state.

    Finally, assuming all firearms were banned criminals would still get them. Heroin, Meth, etc. are illegal but anyone who wants to buy those drugs can still get them.

    So, the only way to have a reasonable chance of surviving a shooting is to already be armed yourself.

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.online-jobs9.com

  • Alan@.4||

    Interesting if true, however where is the connection between the claim you make and the subject under discussion, assuming that there is a connection..

  • dp215||

    I am a gun owner but I question some of the facts presented here. Tough gun control laws can lower gun violence - look at Connecticut. http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/.....cide-drop/ And Australia banned assault weapons resulting in complete elimination of mass shootings and big drop in homicide.( I realize that not all the stats support this - Missouri actually had higher homicide rates after gun control.) And while there has been a general decline in violence in the US, the tough gun law states have seen a steeper decline than the weak gun law states.

    Finally, gun violence should be measured on a per capital basis - if you do that, the ten most violent states are primarily red states and the ten least violent states are primarily blue states. http://politicsthatwork.com/gr.....s-by-state This includes suicides. For gun homicides, the top three states are red and the bottom three are blue.

  • epsilon given||

    It's been a while since I have looked at the specifics of these statistics, so I cannot comment on them, but there are a couple of observations I would like to make.

    First, the claim that "there has been no mass shooting in Australia since guns have been banned" is specious at best. When I looked at mass murder in Australia, there was an average of about one mass murder event every 14 years, give or take--and not all of them were shootings. It's been almost twenty years since Australia has passed their gun law; they haven't had a mass shooting, but they *have* had a mass murder event. (I cannot recall how that event was carried out, but it wasn't with guns.)

    Mass murder events are so rare, it's pointless to try to prevent them by gun laws.

    Second, that Connecticut study you site is deeply flawed. It constructs an "Alternative Connecticut" by cherry-picking statistics from surrounding states, and then concludes that Connecticut was better off with the law. It ignores drops that occurred in surrounding states despite less stringent gun laws.

  • epsilon given||

    (cont.) Third, I agree that gun violence should be measured on a per capita basis. But you ignore total murder rates and suicides at your peril as well. Indeed, you are just as dead if you decided to slit your wrists, poison yourself, hang yourself, or throw yourself on train tracks, as you are if you blew your brains out with a gun. When you include *all* suicides, many of these statistical differences become a wash at best.

    And please if suicide matters, let's address potential causes rather than focus on the instruments. There are too many ways to commit suicide to focus on one single method!

  • Alan@.4||

    Mr. Stossel observed, according to this article, "I can't convince my friends in New York City, but it's just a fact: More guns—less crime." One can't teach a jackass to use a slide rule either, which doesn't reduce the virtue of the slide rule.

  • BlueCollarCritic||

    Gun control laws have nothing to do with curbing gun related violence. They are simply a tool to move the ownership of guns by any legal citizen to no one owning a gun save for those approved by the government.

    If the government was even the tiniest bit truthful about this they would be pressing for enforcement of existing gun laws in addition to seeking any further restrictions of gun ownership.

    When government acts outside its constitutional authority then SayNo2Gov .

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online