Interesting Story on Black Gun Ownership
In the Huffington Post, not usually a source of positive views on guns.
In the Huffington Post, not usually a source of positive views on guns.
Given the arbitrariness of federal criteria for gun ownership, the public safety benefits of background checks are dubious.
The reaction has shifted to fixing the government's flawed background check system.
The bill dramatically liberalizes concealed carry laws nationwide.
Putting yourself on a registry of people who engage in activities, or own goods, that are even mildly controversial makes you vulnerable to abusive officials.
Citing state law, Honolulu's police chief tells them to turn in their guns.
The legislation mostly reminds federal agencies to follow the laws already on the books.
In a politically polarized America, gun control is destined to be obeyed primarily by its advocates.
A false sense of security is worse than no sense of security at all.
Hint: It's the same way you should talk to them about kidnapping.
A 2014 animal cruelty charge prevented the Texas church shooter from obtaining a concealed handgun license.
We have to do something about mass shootings. This is something. Therefore, we must do this. Or something.
The New York Times columnist's irrelevant gun control proposals are now accompanied by snazzy graphics.
Politicians have too much faith in background checks and extreme vetting as defenses against terrorism and mass shootings.
Nick Gillespie talks with National Review's Robert VerBruggen about the Texas church shooting.
His conviction for domestic violence legally disqualified him from buying guns.
So, too, have the politicians who said they really, really wanted a ban on the firearm accessory.
Rights are theoretical unless you can defend them.
Robert Bork, majority rule, and District of Columbia v. Heller
The ATF has no legal authority to restrict the controversial firearm accessory.
The leader of the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus explains why prohibiting the suddenly notorious gun accessories is rash and dangerous.
America needs a completely different approach based on building multiple defense lines.
Current owners of newly prohibited devices could go to prison for keeping them.
The bill, sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats, would ban much more than just bump stocks.
The video hosting website falls prey to a hysteria.
If you strip away legal protections for rights valued by millions of Americans, you're just going to make them angry to no good end.
Prohibiting the accessory used by Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock will require new legislation.
Confirmation bias is one of the great obstacles to making the practical case for liberty.
The device's ineffectiveness and unpopularity make it an easy sacrifice.
It'll eviscerate not just the Second Amendment, but much of the Constitution
The misguided call to "repeal the Second Amendment."
A response to New York Times columnist Bret Stephens and his call to "repeal the Second Amendment."
Get your bump stocks while you can.
Reason's Jacob Sullum talks about making effective policy in the wake of tragedy.
Gun control advocates don't seem to realize they are making the case against their push.
If only politicians were so open to contradiction by reality.
The Las Vegas attack does not strengthen the case for all the usual gun control ideas.
The accessories, which are legal and widely available, sacrifice accuracy for speed.
Don't combine an authoritarian president with a disarmed populace.
Anti-gun activists are pushing for a crackdown in the wake of the Vegas shooting. That's understandable but wrong.
Laws aren't the solution you're looking for to crimes like the massacre in Las Vegas.
Reason's Nick Gillespie, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Matt Welch on the Las Vegas shooting, Trump's Twitter rage at Puerto Rico, and the Jones Act.
As usual, the policies pushed in response to a mass shooting have little or nothing to do with it.
The president offered condolences, federal law enforcement assistance.
Resist "grotesque urge to immediately transform all human tragedies into a political agenda."
The vote confirms a split that invites the Supreme Court to settle the issue.
Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.
Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks