Should Anyone Accused of a Crime Lose His Second Amendment Rights?
The New York Times complains that Robert Dear owned guns despite "run-ins with the law."
The New York Times complains that Robert Dear owned guns despite "run-ins with the law."
Ted Cruz's sad attempt to talk transgender smack when asked about Planned Parenthood killer.
"Enough is enough" is not a policy.
Three dead, 12 injured in biggest abortion-clinic attack in years.
Expect new calls for gun control from mayors, Hillary Clinton.
About that National Journal gun chart…
An expanded requirement would be ineffective, unjust, and unenforceable.
Clinton wants to make gun manufacturers financially liable for misuse of their products and require background checks for all gun transfers.
Would losing the 2nd Amendment be more 'devastating' than losing innocent lives?
Guns - and the Second Amendment - won't just disappear.
The New York Times, in a not-so-subtle slam against gun rights, says he did.
Like the president, the presumptive Democratic nominee assumes we can identify mass shooters before they strike.
What happened to gun control from 2000 to 2012? Funny you should ask...
Talking about mass shootings, the president cited data on suicides.
More background checks, more assault weapon bans, more suits against gun makers and sellers, and expanding group of people to whom gun ownership bans apply.
How would the government enforce a limit on the number of firearms people may possess?
Their profile is shared by many people who never kill anyone.
The only defender guaranteed to be present at any attack against you is you.
Obama's talk of common-sense gun safety laws don't seem to apply to this tragedy.
Oregon shooting, Planned Parenthood, Iran nukes, plus Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson!
Any attempt to stop would-be murderers from buying guns is bound to be overinclusive, underinclusive, or both.
How can we know simple gun safety laws would help when we know nothing about circumstances of how the killer got the gun?
A psychiatrist argues that "a vast majority of these tragedies" could be prevented by more aggressive mental health interventions.
One criminologist's reaction: "This report should calm the fears that many people have that these numbers are out of control."
The dragnet would ensnare many harmless people without having a significant impact on gun violence.
The urge to "do something" after the Charleston church attack inspires half-baked proposals.
Why "common-sense gun safety reforms" would not have "prevented what happened in Charleston."
On what appears to be his website: "We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet."
Comments cater to religious conservatives without supporting a federal role in solutions.
Why the Charleston church massacre isn't likely to lead to stricter gun laws
Why do the numbers appear to be going up? Because previous shootings have been underreported.
A new bottle for some old data
Decoding a new crime study
A criminologist criticizes a popular school security measure.
And why people think mass shootings are more common than they actually are
A year later, Newtown's legislative legacy is far less dramatic than it might have been.
Making sense of the competing statistics
The social construction of a mass shooting epidemic
There's no guarantee new regulations will prevent another tragedy.
Zero tolerance for 1990s television.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! 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 thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks