The presidential contenders hyped the "epidemic" of gun violence and the threat posed by school shootings while perpetuating myths about "assault weapons," background checks, and the Second Amendment.
Although San Francisco's supervisors urged city officials to punish contractors with ties to this "domestic terrorist organization," they say they did not really mean it.
The presidential contender says the 1994 ban made mass shootings less lethal, even though the guns it tolerated were "just as deadly."
Someone should tell Beto who did the killing at Kent State.
The Texas senator wants to beef up a background check system that unjustly and irrationally deprives people of their rights.
It would not do much to protect public safety, but it would magnify the injustice of existing restrictions on gun ownership.
Official responses to these extremely rare crimes are grossly disproportionate in light of the risk they actually pose.
The presidential contender conspicuously fails to explain the legal basis for her plan to impose new restrictions by executive fiat.
The "assault weapons" that the presidential contender wants to confiscate are not especially deadly, but the symbolism of that policy is poisonous.
Advocating for gun control is no longer enough. On Thursday night, the Democratic presidential candidates promised gun confiscation.
The bill would make the criteria for federal grants loose enough to accommodate even the worst "red flag" laws.
Going beyond criticism, the resolution would punish the NRA and its supporters by cutting off contractors with ties to the group.
Who are the good guys? Who are the bad guys? Who knows? Do something!
The Supreme Court has said the First Amendment protects government contractors against termination based on their political views.
The law's impact on weapon choice cannot plausibly account for reductions or increases in fatalities.
The policy is unenforceable and poorly tailored to the problem it is meant to address.
Before you ask how many Americans will give up their guns, ask how many cops will even try to take them.
If you disagree with these politicians about gun control, they think, you might as well join the KKK.
A growing number of prominent Democrats want owners of "assault weapons" to surrender them to the government. History says most people will ignore any such law.
Debating "mandatory buy-backs," Afghanistan withdrawal, and back-to-school week on the Reason Podcast.
When it comes to deciding who should keep their Second Amendment rights, the deck is stacked against gun owners.
Facing his district for the first time since going independent, the libertarian congressman preaches legislative process and constitutional principle to an audience thirsty for gun fixes.
The gun control group's new policy proposal is radical, intersectional, and deeply contradictory.
Only if you assume they would have happened in the absence of gun confiscation orders.
The Democratic presidential contender suggests that "racist threats or anti-immigrant manifestos" could justify federal gun confiscation orders.
The five Democrats warn that the Court may have to be "restructured" if it keeps making decisions they don't like.
If your neighbor were unbalanced, armed to the teeth and busy posting social-media messages about how much he hates you, you'd certainly support measures to disarm him. But you'd feel more secure if he didn't hate you in the first place.
The nation's leading scholar of mass shootings explains how media coverage of horrific events such as El Paso and Dayton stoke unwarranted fear and anxiety.
"The Second Amendment is not a suicide pact," the senator says, while glossing over the due process issues raised by gun confiscation orders.
The presidential contender nevertheless insists the law reduced mass shooting deaths.
If "the notion that we can identify mass killers before they act" is a "fiction," the conventional policy responses to mass shootings are unlikely to be effective.
It's foolish for media outlets to imply that laws which were signed in May and June were passed in relation to the tragic shooting in El Paso.
Here is how the states with "red flag" laws fail to protect the constitutional rights of gun owners.
What’s next for the Second Amendment at SCOTUS?
The Trump-endorsed response to mass shootings gives due process short shrift.
Deflections, generational conflict, and misleading data abound.
Because psychiatrists are terrible at predicting violent behavior, the wider net would catch lots of harmless people.
Plus: the budget deal, GOP retirements, and the latest front in the trade war.
The familiar proposals would do little or nothing to prevent attacks like these.
The president offers the worst of both worlds.
Plus: the trouble with "national conservatism," the decline of the mortgage interest deduction, and more...
The presidential contender feels no need to defend the policies he favors, because "we all know" they are "the right thing to do."
The retired Supreme Court justice has died at 99.
As of last week, only around 700 weapons had been turned over.
The new law says that someone buying a semi-automatic rifle has to be at least 21, pass a stricter background check, take a safety training course, and complete a 10-day waiting period.
The plaintiffs say manufacturers broke the law by producing rifles that were compatible with accessories that facilitate rapid firing.
None of the participants in last night's debate had a credible answer to the question of what should be done about the hundreds of millions of guns that Americans already own.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
