The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Guns Kill People, and Tyrants with Gun Monopolies Kill the Most
In the long term, disarmament often leads to mass murder by government.
My forthcoming article in the Gonzaga Journal of International Law examines the comparative risks of too little gun control and too much gun control. Here's the abstract:
What are the relative risks of a nation having too many guns compared to the risks of the nation having too few guns? Comparing and contrasting Europe and the United States during the twentieth century, the article finds that the United States might have suffered up to three-quarters of million excess firearms homicide over the course of the century—based on certain assumptions made to maximize the highest possible figure. In contrast, during the twentieth century Europe suffered 87 million excess homicides against civilians by mass-murdering tyrannical governments. The article suggests that Americans should not be complacent that they have some perpetual immunity to being subjected to tyranny. The historical record shows that governments planning mass murder work assiduously to disarm their intended victims. While victim resistance cannot necessarily overthrow a tyrannical regime, resistance does save many lives.
Part I describes tensions in some treaties, declarations, and other legal documents from the United Nations and the European Union. On the one hand, they recognize the legitimacy of resistance to tyranny and genocide; on the other hand, the UN and EU gun control programs seem to make armed resistance nearly impossible.
Part II contrasts homicide data for the United States and Europe during the twentieth century. First, data about homicides from ordinary crimes are examined. Based on certain (incorrect) assumptions that bias the figure upward, if the U.S. had the same gun homicide rate as Europe's, there might have been 745,000 fewer deaths in America during the twentieth century.
Next, Part II looks more broadly at homicide, to include homicides perpetrated by governments, such as communist or fascist regimes. In Europe in the twentieth century, states murdered about 87.1 million people. Globally, governments murdered well over 200 million people. The figure does not include combat deaths from wars.
As Part III explains, totalitarian governments are the most likely to perpetrate mass murder. The Part argues against the complacent belief that any nation, including the United States, is immune from the dangers of being taken over by a murderous government. The historical record indicates that risks are very broad. Globally, only eight nations maintained democratic self-government for the entire twentieth century. The refusal of many Republicans in 2020 and many Democrats in 2016 to accept the presidential election results is one of many signs that American democracy is presently in peril.
Part IV shows that governments intent on mass murder prioritize victim disarmament because they consider it to be a serious impediment to mass murder and tyrannical rule.
Finally, Part V examines the efficacy of citizen arms against mass murdering governments. Citizen arms are most effective as deterrents. However, even without changing the regime, armed resistance can accomplish much and save many lives, as the twentieth century shows. Examples include Jewish resistance to the Nazis, Armenian and Assyrian resistance to the Ottoman Empire, Tibetan resistance to Chinese Communist invasion, and the Nuban resistance to the Sudanese regime.
The Conclusion suggests that the UN and EU should adopt a more balanced gun control policy, recognizing the value of citizen arms in protecting the public from tyranny and mass murder.
The article does not argue for or against particular gun control laws, other than gun registration; as the article shows, gun registration often facilitates gun confiscation.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Among the reasons I am confident a mainstream backlash will put a tiny leash on America's gun nuts are (1) the gun nuts' decision to hitch their political wagon to the losing side of the culture war and the wrong side of history, (2) the continuing economic and human decay of the can't-keep-up backwaters in which gun nuts tend to reside, (3) the relatively predictable demographic changes that doom right-wing political aspirations and relevance over the medium to long term; and (4) this .
I hope the predictable backlash against gun nuttery does not overrun a right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home . . . but if it does, gun nuts will have only themselves to blame.
Carry on, clingers. So far and so long as your betters permit, that is.
400 million guns in Amurica say you're wrong, "Reverend"
I know, "Reverend" you carried a M-17 when you were an Air Force SEAL-Beret in the 85th Airborne, won a Lilac Heart and a Platinum Star....
That number is old. It's closer to 700 million today.
The consequential number is that of right-wing voters. That number decreases daily as old Republicans die off and are replaced in our electorate and society by younger, better, less bigoted, more modern, less conservative Americans. That natural course is the American way.
See you down the road a piece, culture war casualties.
Lol
https://katu.com/news/local/gun-sales-find-new-market-women-minorities-and-liberals
We should be grateful Mr. Kopel takes time from his war with Satan to illuminate issues at the Volokh Conspiracy.
(I imagine Mr. Kopel has some interesting stories to share about his similar battles with Darth Vader, the Grinch, Hans Gruber, and the Big Bad Wolf.)
Rev. What is your law subject?
Being a Cunning Linguist
Artie was the one who convinced Honest Abe to free the gays -- don't blaspheme him!
I have proposed the hard to do but valid dose-response curve. The lawyer has to adopt it to judge all remedies. All remedies do not work at a too low a dose. All remedies are toxic at too high a dose.
The most powerful poison in the world when diluted has 700+ medical benefits. Is botulinum a poison or a miracle cure? Water is a helpful nutrient. If you drink more than your kidneys put out, the water has to go inside the cells. Swollen brain cells get crushed against the skull. One goes into a coma, has convulsions, and dies. Is water essential to life or a poison.
I do not think the working out of this curve is optional for legal remedies. Subjecting defendants to carelessly defined, quack rules or toxic rules violates Fifth Amendment Procedural Due Process rights.
A dozen executions a year is a waste of time, and lawyer quackery. It is for the racket of the capital punishment appellate business. Kill a million people a year, and the nation is too scared to thrive. Right now, 100000 people are overdosing, yet crime is not disappearing in a natural experiment. The overdose rate will be a factor in the crime rate since addicts commit 200 crimes a year. Crime has updated with 100 million internet crimes. The lawyer profession has not.
David Kopel seems to have an intuitive notion of the dose response curve here.
"...the comparative risks of too little gun control and too much gun control."
"While victim resistance cannot necessarily overthrow a tyrannical regime, resistance does save many lives."
The cause of all slaughter, of all victimization, of all holocausts is one thing. Weakness.
The Jews would not have been expected to take on the Wehrmacht, or the Gestapo. They did not have to. They should have killed, first, the entire families of the 20 oligarchs that put the Nazis in power. Many were easy to reach in the United States. Then kill the hierarchy of the Nazi Party. Everyone can be reached. This should be the military doctrine of the US. The problem is that it does not require great government procurement for a war of attrition. We have to rid ourselves of the lawyers immunizing these criminals, and then rid ourselves of our oligarchs driving large, expensive wars for their own enrichment via undue government influence.
There is likely a marked underestimate of the murder rate. There are 100000 missing person reports that are unresolved each year. The drop in crime is likely to be phony propaganda to justify attacks on the already lenient and failed justice system.
Do you realize how dumb the clinger crap is?
The Rev is a gun grabber and a groomer.
I never understood why people don't just mute him, David, and Queenie.
Yeah, it's far more peaceful around here without the Behar, QA, and LTG spamfest. For some reason Artie's yammerings come across as more pitifully amusing (and not written to invite responses, so it's easier not to get sucked in).
You may be right as a matter of unfolding change. Yet Europe, no doubt your glowing model of a destination, has had mass murderous regimes in living memory.
Anyone, and there are a lot of them, who assumes such a low gun world is inherently stable long-term has absolutely no historical evidence to feel confident about it, and oodles of reasons not to be confident about it.
So you can be right, and goodbye freedom. You probably won't live long enough to see guns ended, and almost certainly not the collapse.
Your great grand kids who see freedok slip away will thank you, though.
Again, this isn't disasterbation. This is history repeated over and over.
You understand that building a society on the agreement not to go around murdering each other indefinitely hasn't been tried before, right? Today's Europe, Canada, and sundry other non-US democracies are the first time. So I'm not sure how we're supposed to come up with historical evidence, but given how much misery the US way of doing things creates, I'm happy to take my chances.
Tell you what: Maybe if Europe manages to go 100 years without any more genocidal wars, we might give their approach some consideration?
What is entirely speculative on the part of you and Prof. Kopel is the theory that the presence of huge numbers of guns in the hands of the European populace would have prevented those genocidal wars. It's an interesting idea, though, and a lot better of an argument against gun control than the ridiculous mental illness trope.
I thought mental illness was more of a gun controller argument. You know, silly pseudo-Freudian insinuations, that sort of thing? I think your average gun controller is a bit too emotional, actually gets mad if you suggest they try reasoning about costs and benefits, but they're not crazy.
It is notable that a person who reads Japanese comic books for her/its intellectual stimulation is telling us how to live our lives.
And it's even more risible that this moron is telling us that demographic changes will alter the gun crime situation in a positive way. Americans don't have a gun crime problem, we have a black gun crime problem. Homocide rates among whites in America are consistent or lower than homocide rates in the rest of the civilized world (and Asian Americans lower the rate even more). Importing more folks from the 'developing world' will make the crime rate worse (unless they're all Japanese).
Ms. Kirkland's stupidity is also manifest in her/its claim that there is a 'right side to history'. She/it is always carping about the irrationality of religious folks, yet is apparently completely unaware of her/its own faith in the irrational notion that 'history' has a direction. One of the central features of modern science is its rejection of teleological explanations, so it's odd that Ms. Kirkland relies on such an outdated concept. But, then again, I doubt that she/it understands it.
"It is notable that a person who reads Japanese comic books for her/its intellectual stimulation is telling us how to live our lives."
I not only have never read a Japanese comic book but also believe I have never purchased or read the entirety of any comic book.
Other than that, great comment, you bigoted, obsolete, right-wing culture war victim!
No comic books?
Explains alot
I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you (not literally, but if you don't read comic books, don't expect you've ever consumated (with a woman) I mean seen the original "Top Gun"
Notice that, like all of her/its contributions, Ms. Kirkland's post consists of name-calling and nothing else.
What exactly was bigoted in my reply (that is, if you actually know what the word means and are not using it merely as a metaphor for stomping your feet and crying to your mommy)?
Get a life, you cretinous incel.
You'd do well to remember the Clinton Doctrine as applied to the Serbs in 1999.
This is why the Democrat Federal Class is pushing so hard with its rhetoric and hoaxes for civilian disarmament.
They want to mass murder Patriots and Normals.
If I operated a blog that attracted comments and commenters such as this, I would engage in serious introspection and change my ways.
But for the Volokh Conspirators, this is enough to get them totally stoked for more futile culture warring.
Meanwhile, the deans at UCLA, Georgetown, and a few other schools respond to the misappropriation and diminution of their institutional franchises by scouring the horizon for any glimmer of hope that a Volokh Conspirator might leave the faculty.
If "If's and Buts" were Candy and Nuts, what a feast we would have! My "Better"?? like Sleepy Joe's Drug Addict son, or his (not a) "Doctor" First Lady?? Or do you mean Pete Booty-Judge and his Wife and their slave children? "Danang Dick"(I'll give him credit, he is a Dick" Blumenthal and his Stolen Valor? And yeah, I'll dig up Ted Kennedy's moldering Corpse (who killed more peoples with his Oldsmobile than Dick Chaney did with a Shotgun, which is saying something) so you can (redact) him,
Frank
Rev. You are a denier. There is no talking to a denier. The discussion is not in good faith. Only one remedy to a denier.
"They want to mass murder Patriots and Normals."
You're safe.
"You're safe. So just give me your guns. Nothing bad will happen to you, I promise."
"In the long term, disarmament often leads to mass murder by government." For certain types of "leaders", and certain approaches to government, this is a feature, not a bug. Indeed, it appears to be part of the underlying philosophy of Rev. Kirkland's religion.
The Congregation Of Exalted Reason recognizes a right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home.
The Congregation fears this right might be overrun by the liberal-libertarian mainstream backlash against gun nuttery.
If that occurs . . . perhaps only members of the Congregation will have guns!
You mean the "Congress" because they're in mortal danger of their "Betters" (see what I did there?) putting their "Klinger" shoes on their desks. (Speaking of Drunk Speaker Husbands, how IS Mr. Nancy Pelosi doing in beating his (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, Drunk Driving Rap?)
There are plenty of examples of Western democracies with strict gun control laws. Zero of them have led to mass murder by the government.
"The refusal of many Republicans in 2020 and many Democrats in 2016 to accept the presidential election results"
If Hillary Clinton supporters stormed the Capitol in 2016 I must have been watching MSNBC because I totally missed it.
Not a student of history, are you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument#:~:text=In%20early%201930s%20Germany%2C%20few,party%20members%20and%20the%20military.
I'm sure Captain Crisis would say that Nazi Germany wasn't a Western "Democracy" because once they got elected as a minority party, they staged a coup and cancelled elections.
But that's kind of the point, isn't it? What is a democracy today might not be one tomorrow.
It was an unstable democracy, under the yoke of foreign powers, that lasted only 12 years.
The long lasting ones (except for us) voluntarily disarmed decades ago and I don't see any mass murdering going on do you?
Tell us more about switzerland's disarmament...
Switzerland has a higher rate of gun ownership than the US. But all Swiss men must serve in the armed forces, which means all are trained in the proper use and storage of guns. After men have served in the military, they're allowed to buy and keep their weapons, which accounts for a high percentage of the gun ownership. And sales of firearms are carefully regulated: Anyone who has been convicted a crime, is addicted to alcohol or drugs, or who, in the view of local police, "express[es] a violent or dangerous attitude," isn't allowed to buy a gun. https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2.
Finland has a long common border with Russia, which invaded Finland without good cause less than a century ago, and which just invaded another of its neighbors.
Interesting that you use "rate of gun ownership" as your metric, and not total number of guns per person, which is much higher in the US than in Switzerland. I've also read that the number of people with access to at least one gun is higher in the US than in Switzerland.
Well, the total number of guns per person in American is on account of Americans having more disposable income, and a lot more opportunities to hunt. The US is actually number 1 in median disposable income.
Firearms are a classic luxury good, of course a country with more disposable income has more.
See what happens when the income tax becomes less progressive!
Finland & Switzerland have high levels of gun ownership (relative to the world).
Australia gave up their guns and they were only on house arrest for two years!
Utopia!
Have you considered the possibility that it was unstable and not long-lasting precisely because the Nazis knew there would be no armed resistance to their rise to tyrannical power?
I think the Nazis were not long lasting because their military aggression left them over-extended and drew military responses. If they'd stuck to being oppressive at home, they'd have lasted as long as the USSR or communist China.
Yes - but captcrisis was talking about the Weimar Republic not lasting long, not the Nazis.
Yes, I'm sure the Weimar republic would still be around if only the SA had been able to buy as many machine guns as they liked!
You raise an interesting point. Even if German jews, roma, etc. didn't arm themselves for self defense, maybe the SA could have killed off a good chunk of the SS during the Night of the Long Knives.
They might not have, but that's a non sequitur to what I Posted as a rebuttal to the false claim that "...of Western democracies with strict gun control laws. Zero of them have led to mass murder by the government."
I'd expect a Dutchman , of all people, to know that, but then again, you don't seem to know much about anything...
Where you been Capt(ain)??
With the "Replacement" going on (heard it on NPR so it must (not) be true) what's "Western" about our "Democracy"??
Jamaica is one example.
"...the article finds that the United States might have suffered up to three-quarters of million excess firearms homicide over the course of the century—based on certain assumptions made to maximize the highest possible figure. In contrast, during the twentieth century Europe suffered 87 million excess homicides against civilians by mass-murdering tyrannical governments."
[emphasis mine]
Interesting that they call out an assumption used to maximize the figure on one hand and then blithely ignore their own assumption on the other by using "Europe", a broad area which included Soviet and post-soviet authoritarian governments like the former Yugoslavia, to compare to gun ownership under Western democratic countries.
If defeating your own government with its tanks, planes, and mortars is the goal, you're going to need tanks, planes, and mortars and not a bunch of yahoos with semi-automatic AR-15s.
If you don't think in a civil war situation that large numbers of active military, reserves, and national guard units, who happen to have planes, thanks, and mortars would not defect to the side of the people, you're fooling yourself. It may start with AR-15's but it will end with M1A2's, F-18's and everything in between on both sides.
That kind of thinking is the reason you can’t cut it anywhere other that the uneducated, shambling, dying, deplorable backwaters of America. You live in ignorant, superstitious, knuckle-dragging America because that is the only place left in America for a bigoted hayseed.
Doesn't this argue in favor of the "well regulated militia" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, though?
I'm not sure why we have these discussions as if total disarmament and gun free-for-all are the only options. People are approvingly citing Switzerland and Finland as examples of countries with high gun ownership, but they also have fairly robust licensing and training regimes.
I mean, we could mandate universal firearms trainings in high school.
Perhaps a class taken every junior year that introduced every student to the AR-15 and Glock 19. Taught them how to shoot both, how to handle them safely, disassemble and reassemble, took them onto a firing range for a series off lessons in accuracy.
Those "second amendment people" wouldn't have any problem with training like this. They'd likely approve wholeheartedly.
That would be perfectly in keeping with the original intent of the 2nd amendment and the militia clauses. And not terribly far from what things were like for my generation: I took a gun safety course in my junior year in HS, back in the 70's.
Mind, it was mostly aimed at making sure we didn't screw up while deer hunting.
That's one approach. Training seems good. Switzerland and Finland both have compulsory military service, so presumably even more robust training than you're talking about.
But both Switzerland and Finland also have significantly more regulation on the guns themselves. Switzerland requires a (shall issue) permit for most gun purchases; Finland requires guns be registered. Both generally require a permit to carry a gun in public.
I'm open to the argument that even though guns result in lots of extra deaths it's "worth it" for various reasons, just like with cars or (for a much smaller value of "lots") swimming pools. But in these other areas we generally use sensible regulations to try to minimize the number of deaths while retaining the benefits, rather than (roughly) saying "cars are good, therefore we shouldn't have airbags or license plates or driver's licenses".
I think you have to consider that gun owners can tolerate a rather higher level of regulation, especially if it's rational regulation, on the part of a government they KNOW isn't out to disarm them. From such a government you know it's just normal bureaucratic nonsense, not malign intent, at work.
Yeah so give me all of the laws confiscating all the guns in the US. I'll accept any that passed one house of congress or any state legislature.
So if semi automatic rifles are no big deal, why the over the top rhetoric?
Do planes & mortars occupy territory to control it? Are you hand waving away the destruction of neighborhoods using such methods?
The Taliban did pretty well with a fuck you and a bunch of Russian guns
Kopel's continued access to the VC bodes ill. It attracts audience and comments which mimic the arrogance and incompetencies of Kopel's remarks.
Surely the VC could find some source of pro-gun expertise who would not besmirch his arguments with pretense to multiple fields of expertise he is not trained in, by making assertions so grandiose that the most expert practitioners in those fields would shrink from attempting them.
This is a blog by and for gun nuts.
This is a blog for misfits, bigots, and un-American hypocrites.
It is a white, male, right-wing blog for people who love to use vile racial slurs and fantasize about violence against the American mainstream.
It is a blog for disaffected, delusional, desperate movement conservatives whose stale, ugly ideas have made them losers in the American culture war.
It is a blog for grievance-consumed white nationalists who just can’t abide all of this damned progress, reason, science, inclusiveness, and modernity.
This is a blog that embraces and supports traitors like John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark, authoritarian assholes like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, and disgraced, obsolete losers such as former Judge Kozinski.
For the sake of the children of the fans and operators of this blog, I hope racism, autism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, belligerent ignorance, superstition-laced gullibility, and un-American beliefs are not hereditary or contagious.
Stephen. I know that 1L erased what you learned in high school. It was as tragic as a TBI in a preventable crash. 1L is as bad an injury resulting in a month in a come. You have to relearn so much. So, understand, I hate to bring up critical thinking to a lawyer.
Your personal remarks commit the Fallacy of Irrelevance. Even a judge would rejoinder you if made in a tribunal.
Your emotional reaction to various shootings violates the Exception Fallacy. 165 million owners of 400 million guns got through today safely.
I do not know your law subject, but if it the criminal law, it is in utter failure. You lawyers streeted these deranged shooters. You are 100% responsible for 100% of rampage murders. That is a fact, not a personal insult.
I want you to buy a used textbook of critical thinking, and rehab from the devastation of 1L. Slowly relearn to think again.
Here for your convenience. Try to get through this book:
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1954392974/reasonmagazinea-20/
Kopel has been posting here at all the Volokh iterations since near the beginning. Here's a sample post from 2008: https://volokh.com/posts/1214520563.shtml
I don't think you've been around here near that long Lathrrop, or maybe you just weren't near as loopy back then.
Kazinski — I have been commenting on the VC since before WaPo. My take on Kopel's expertise to opine with authority on the subject matter he undertakes remains unchanged.
How about you Kazinski? Do you suppose there exists a historian anywhere in the world competent to analyze historical and cultural issues throughout the western world, during eras stretching approximately from 1066 to yesterday?
Edmund Morgan was one of the greatest historians who ever lived. During a career which included enough published work to earn him approximately 3 full professorships at Harvard or Yale (where he was Sterling Professor of History), he mastered a historical record spanning England and the United States, from the late 16th century to approximately the revolutionary era. Morgan taught history, first at Brown, then mostly at Yale, from the 1940s to the late 1980s. The depth and breadth of the historical recored mastered by Morgan astonished his colleagues. You finish a great book like, American Slavery, American Freedom with the conviction that Morgan commanded so much context that more had to be left out than could be crammed in.
If you could somehow imagine a historian notably greater than Morgan, then to be an expert on everything he pretends, Kopel would have to be about twice that guy. Remarkably, Kopel would have achieved that staggering distinction without benefit of any formal training in history to speak of, and while escaping all notice from historical colleagues.
Lathrop you don't seem to have even the remotest idea about how academic scholarship works.
I hope you aren't trying to say Morgan didn't tackle any weighty subjects until he was a full professor and his reputation made.
He started publishing and researching difficult and weighty subjects when he was in grad school, and made his reputation when he was in his 30's and 40's.
If people waited until they were at the top of their profession before taking on difficult problems, then they'd never get to the top.
You are right about Morgan. Is there some point about Kopel?
Indeed he has.
And he has about three posts that he recycles endlessly.
This is one of them.
You may not like what he does, but he does it well:
"His Heller amicus brief for a law coalition of law enforcement organizations and district attorneys was cited four times in the Court’s Heller opinions. His brief in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) was cited by Justice Alito’s plurality opinion, and twice by Justice Stevens’ dissent."
Kazinski, for what it is worth, searches for Kopel's name in either of those decisions turn up no results. Perhaps his views contributed to amicus briefs, in which we may presume his influence? But how do you get from that to implication that Kopel is personally recognized or influential before the Supreme Court? Eugene Volokh gets cited by name. Kopel does not.
Presume his influence?
He is credited as the author of the brief.
I fail to see why VC needs a source of gun law expertise who doesn't annoy gun controllers such as yourself. Kopel is an established expert in this particular field.
An established expert in this particular field? Bellmore, look at the OP. Tell me, how many fields requiring expertise do you see touched on? Seems like just to write the abstract Kopel would need advanced degrees in at least public health, statistics, political science, and history. Later on we get international law, the ostensible subject.
Yes, he's an established, widely published expert in this particular topic. It's literally his specialty.
Which particular topic Bellmore? International Law? He is publishing in a journal of international law.
Is it public health? Kopel above says this: "What are the relative risks of a nation having too many guns compared to the risks of the nation having too few guns?" Only with an intention to do enormous epidemiological research would Kopel be able to do justice to a topic like that. He would need other approaches too, of course. He would have to be a team of advanced degreed researchers to answer those questions. I doubt he even knows that.
Statistics? Same as above. I am not going to run through them all.
He is far less qualified as a historian than Bellesiles, whom you delight to castigate, and who was rightly kicked out of the historical profession. Which is no skin off Kopel's nose, because he does not really pretend to practice history. Unlike Bellsiles, Kopel reports for his credibility to no other members of the historical profession, and none of them much care what he says. It is not possible for Kopel to damage himself professionally by making historical errors.
Political science? Please.
Kopel is an established, widely published purveyor of pro-gun bullshit. And you lap it up. The only way Kopel could get into professional trouble of any kind would be if folks like you stopped lapping it up. Which is to say that Kopel does not live by professional standards, but instead by the standards of a huckster. Buy his product and he prospers. That is his standard, and more to the point, the standard of those who pay for his work.
"He is far less qualified as a historian than Bellesiles, whom you delight to castigate"
Sure Bellesiles needed impressive skills as a historian to fabricate his research.
I'm sure Mengale had mad skills as a doctor too.
When you're praising a known liar as a source of reliable information it's time to put down the bong.
Maybe you misunderstood me, you need a high level of skill as a historian to be able to fabricate your research convincingly enough to tell such an outrageous lie and have it pass muster long enough to win the awards it did.
Nah, you just need to be telling a lie your fellow historians really like.
"Outrageous lie."
I want to be clear. I am not defending Bellesiles, who was rightly disgraced as a historian for fabricating evidence. Which, of course, meant that he could not prove the historical thesis he presented.
Now I ask you, Kazinski, can you prove the opposite? Can you prove that the Bellesiles thesis was an outrageous lie, as you say? I think that view is commonplace among pro-gun advocates. Bellmore, for instance, supposes it. I have never seen any proof of that, nor even a respectable attempt to show the Bellsiles thesis was actually wrong—as opposed to unsupported, except by evidence Bellesiles lied about.
Reason I ask is I found it striking during the Bellesiles controversy to learn that Edmund Morgan had contributed his name in praise of Bellesiles' book. That shocked me, at first. But on reflection, understanding that Morgan had better personal mastery than anyone else of the records from that place and time, I took it to mean Morgan probably found nothing jarring or contrary to the record in the Bellesiles thesis.
Historians, of course, are not like physicist experimentalists. Absent pointed controversy, a historical reviewer is not customarily obliged to check every source, and rework all the research, in support of any particular historical thesis. A figure like Morgan is presumed to be a fair judge of the appropriateness of history on offer which touches on places and records with which the historian is expertly acquainted. And Morgan saw the Bellsiles book, and he did not object.
I take that to mean Morgan was unsurprised by the Bellsiles thesis, because he was reasonably convinced on the basis of what Morgan knew of the relevant record—which was squarely within Morgan's expertise—that the Bellesiles thesis fit the historical facts viewed broadly. And of course, he knew there was no other historical work to the contrary. As far as I know, there still isn't any. Do you know otherwise?
" Absent pointed controversy, a historical reviewer is not customarily obliged to check every source, and rework all the research, in support of any particular historical thesis."
And this is the damnable lie behind Emory's inquiry into Arming America, of historians' claims to have been taken in by his fabricated sources. The fabricated sources were noticed AFTER we knew he was engaged in fraud!
Clayton Cramer goes over this in detail.
The first clue that he was a fraud was that he was altering the words of historical documents, and taking fragments of them out of context to give a misleading impression. The fabricated probate records were only discovered afterwards.
Emory focused on those like a laser, to give the impression that they couldn't have known he was a fraud without extensive research. When you could actually tell from just an educated layman's acquaintance with relevant materials.
who would not besmirch his arguments with pretense to multiple fields of expertise he is not trained in, by making assertions so grandiose that the most expert practitioners in those fields would shrink from attempting them.
But, enough about you.
Arrogance? Have you no self-awareness at all? The people who (1) want to tell you how to live your life (in the most minute aspects), (2) want to tell you want you can and can't say, and (3) want to take away your guns -- aren't they, just a little bit, arrogant?!
Grinberg, I am troubled, literally kept awake, by the self-awareness of having killed a lot of game with guns. From experience, I know what happens. Do you? I am troubled by the thought of a 9-year-old child, huddled among mutilated dead and dying classmates, whispering into a cell-phone to her parent, waiting for that fate to become her own, while pleading for help which will not come.
It will not come because of cowardice. Not only the completely understandable and expectable cowardice of first responders on scene, who do not want to die—who have families of their own to think about. Not even the degrading, shameful cowardice of politicians with power to help, but who refuse to use it. But also, and most especially the cowardice of people like you. People so frightened they arm themselves against no threat more substantive than their own fear. People so fearful that not even merely deadly arms suffice. People, like you, so craven that only insistence on the most efficiently lethal personal arms ever created will do, and then only until something worse comes along. Against a backdrop of the mass murder of children, cowardice like that looks despicable. Even you should be aware of that.
You’re quite the windbag.
Cavanaugh, I will be succinct. What do you suppose a nine-year-old with half her skull shot away looks like to another nine-year-old who is pleading hopelessly on the phone with her mom to get help?
What about you?
What would a comment from you look like, and how pleasantly short would it be, Stephen, if you omitted the numerous fallacies you rely upon?
Give it a try. Strip out your appeal to emotion nonsense and your ad hominem remarks, and let's see the actual substance of what you have to say on a topic of which you claim to be so knowledgeable.
Grinberg, I am troubled
That much has always been obvious. Seek professional help for it.
" Have you no self-awareness at all? The people who (1) want to tell you how to live your life (in the most minute aspects), (2) want to tell you want you can and can't say, and (3) want to take away your guns -- aren't they, just a little bit, arrogant?! "
Where
(1) equals "Libertarians For Statist Womb Management," "Libertarians For The Drug War," "Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladyparts Clinics," "Libertarians For Government Gay-Bashing," "Libertarians For Florida's Muzzling Of Teacher To Flatter Racists And Superstitious Gay-Haters," and other core elements of a white, male, right-wing authoritarian blog's
(2) is the Volokh Conspiracy, which repeated imposes partisan, hypocritical, viewpoint-driven censorship at its blog, and is ostentatiously rethinking its approach to internet censorship in obedient congruence with the right-wing party line
and
(3) anyone who isn't a gun absolutist, by the standards preferred by the disaffected, antisocial gun nuts who operate and frequent this white, male, obsolete, right-wing blog.
Which makes me wonder: Is the NRA trying to prove the main thesis of this post wrong? Why else would they push unerringly for changes in the law that are going to increase the number of gun deaths?
And, if so, why would they? Because it's clearly bonkers. We don't need tens of thousands of annual gun deaths to prove that civilian gun ownership leads to more deaths, rather than fewer. Kopel's very own article already does that, because it (implicitly) accepts that variation in European gun ownership didn't prevent anyone from being disarmed, and that having a nice big ocean between yourself and the nearest dictator is very convenient.
Tl;dr, you're all crazy.
"And, if so, why would they? Because it's clearly bonkers. We don't need tens of thousands of annual gun deaths to prove that civilian gun ownership leads to more deaths, rather than fewer."
Depends on your timeframe. More deaths in the short term. Far less in the long term. Think of it like "insurance".
"Fewer." - Stannis Baratheon
Not so much, "insurance." More like tossing kids into the volcano to assure prosperity.
"Why else would they push unerringly for changes in the law that are going to increase the number of gun deaths?"
That would be a reasonable question if the premise were remotely true, which it isn't.
In disarmed, peaceful Europe at least one border has been changed by force every generation or so since the dawn of civilization. It’s happening again right now.
Maybe they could use a few more guns.
And it’s not great, but ultimately it doesn’t matter how many gun deaths we have relative to them because unlike them we have that pesky 2nd amendment. Just like here we can’t go to prison for things we say, unlike in sophisticated Europe Sometimes it sucks, but freedom is really messy.
More Guns, Less Gun Violence
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/
LOL.
1) Show the same version for gun deaths rather than gun homicides.
2) Now show what was going in with murder rates in, e.g., Europe or (more notably, since they passed their gun law in 1996) Australia at the same time.
Why are total gun deaths the relevant metric when we're talking about 'gun violence'? Gun violence suggests someone shooting other people, not themself.
Gun homicides are a very different thing than non-homicide gun deaths. The arguments for or against gun ownership to one are not remotely the same as for the other, and combining the two is a meaningless exercise.
What makes it especially hilarious is that this is coming from the political faction that typically supports euthanasia. Which is apparently only a right if you get somebody else to do it for you?
No, it is only a right if you're uncurably sick and suffering, which is not true for most suicides.
Say what? If I simply want to kill myself, for whatever reason, I don't have that right? I need to ask your permission? Or the State's? Where do you Fascists come from?
Suicide is a right, full stop. You don't need a reason.
(It'd be better if people didn't kill themselves, and it's sad when it happens. But it's not governments job to forcepeople to make better choices, and neither is it mine.)
You clearly do not understand the concept of a "right", which is just exactly that YOU decide whether you want to do it, not somebody else.
"Why are total gun deaths the relevant metric when we're talking about 'gun violence'? Gun violence suggests someone shooting other people, not themself."
Shooting yourself seems pretty violent. Regardless, seems like a reasonable goal to want to reduce deaths, just like when we put fences on the Golden Gate Bridge or whatever.
To Brett's point about supporting euthanasia, I'll first observe that all of these "you are a hypocrite because you believe two opposite things" generally applies to people who hold the contrary two beliefs as well. If you think euthanasia is bad, why not care about how easy guns make it to kill yourself? Second, support for euthanasia is generally associated with a thoughtful decision-making process, not a spur-of-the-moment decision. Most people who try to kill themselves (and fail) regret it; using a gun makes it a lot more likely that you'll succeed.
I personally think euthanasia is pretty bad, mostly due to the, ahem, slippery slope involved. Where governments are heavily involved in health care, it seems to drop the voluntary part pretty quickly, and involve a lot of coercion.
Suicide at least retains the voluntary component. The issue there is that suicide, while *sometimes* rational, (People suffering from extremely unpleasant terminal illnesses, for instance.) is usually a result of a treatable case of depression. Clearly it would be better if the depression were treated.
The reason I think suicide with a gun is not a good basis for gun control is that people who commit suicide with guns are typically really determined to die, and so you'd expect a near 100% substitution effect.
Really, taking away means as an approach to suicide prevention sucks, we should concentrate on taking away motive. It's better for everybody involved, being suicidally depressed is no picnic, even if you don't end up killing yourself, I can tell you that from personal experience. Desperately wanting to die is a living hell.
Gun deaths includes suicides - which are irrelevant to this discussion because other data shows that while gun availability is correlated with using guns to commit suicide, it has no correlation with the total suicide rate. That is, people who want to commit suicide do so because of mental health issues and will find a way regardless of whether guns are available or not.
The next big bucket of "gun deaths" are a direct result of our self-destructive "war on drugs" and are really not a function of gun policy either.
Gun availability is causally associated with higher suicide rate. There's tons of evidence on this:
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-availability-suicide.html
Notably, the association between purchasing a gun and suicide is only strong for the first gun you purchase, and is only very high for a short while after you purchase it. Which is to say, it exists because of people who intend to commit suicide buying a gun. NOT due to owning a gun causing people to commit suicide. The report itself notes that factor.
There remains a residual association between firearms ownership and suicide caused by the fact that somebody committing suicide with a gun conclusively proves they had a gun, and even other approaches to suicide can end up with your gun ownership being objectively verified. While you can overlook a large percentage of gun owners who don't commit suicide, on account of not having searched their houses.
So you get a correlation just out of undercounting gun ownership among non-suicides.
Can you point at a data point that support this idea? Many of the studies I've seen control for this stuff and show correlations of gun ownership over much longer periods of time than a few weeks. In fact, gun ownership by anyone in a household increases the risk of suicide by the rest of the household as well, which is a pretty compelling data point against your hypothesis.
I'm sure that the behavior you're describing is true for some people, but think there's a strong body of evidence indicating that more access to guns makes it more likely that someone will successfully kill themselves. The Rand page I linked below has a really good discussion of the data and I think it's fairly balanced in the studies it includes and identification of the limitations of the data and remaining unknowns.
"Many of the studies I've seen control for this stuff and show correlations of gun ownership over much longer periods of time than a few weeks."
Well, yeah. You think depression is something that strikes like lightning, and then is over? People can suffer under it for years and years. But the numbers I've seen show a very high peak in the weeks after the first gun purchase, about a hundred times higher than before the purchase for a few weeks, and then dropping rapidly.
It doesn't drop to the same level as non-owners, of course, but why would you expect it to? There would have to be some fraction of people buy guns to commit suicide, and then put it off for a long while.
But the important point is that the correlation is with your FIRST gun purchase. You'll find no studies showing the SECOND purchase increases risk.
If guns were themselves the source of risk, why wouldn't the second gun increase risk, too? Makes perfect sense if the causality runs the other way, though.
That is, people who want to commit suicide do so because of mental health issues and will find a way regardless of whether guns are available or not.
Do you overlook a problem with that reasoning? Take two populations, A and B. A has higher gun prevalence, and a higher gun suicide rate. B has lower gun prevalence, and a lower gun suicide rate. But per capita, B numbers an equal number of suicides as A. If I understand your reasoning, that is what you expect, right?
Now consider. Guns are reckoned the most deadly means by which to attempt suicide. Apply that knowledge to both cases, A and B. It tells you that there must have been more suicide attempts in population B than in population A. No other explanation would deliver equal suicides, given that the means used in population A is more efficient than the means used in population B.
Given that, you have proof that any equal-population samples which deliver equal numbers of suicides, despite unequal gun use, are not equally suicide prone. To get an equal number of suicides from a population using a less efficient suicide method, there must be more suicide attempts per capita. Thus, population B, which is more suicide prone, has experienced reduced suicides, despite more attempts, because of lower gun prevalence.
Martinned — From a gun merchant's strictly commercial standpoint the low prevalence of gun ownership in, for instance, New York City, is a giant opportunity. But to fully mobilize it requires an end to residents' complacency that they do not need a gun to defend themselves. More gun violence in New York City is all upside for a gun merchant.
Guns don't kill people. Gunshot wounds kill people.
Actually it's the hypovolemia from bleeding and/or Brain Stem Injury that leads to Cardiac arrest and death.
You'd make a good coroner. They do anything they can to avoid controversy, avoid being pulled in to a murder investigation. The immediate cause of death is usually cardiac arrest. Someone could be shot in the face, dropped into a vat of boiling acid, or crushed by a steamroller, and under cause of death the typical coroner will still write "cardiac arrest".
Actually, that would be a "Death by Misadventure"
or with the JFK Assassination (Mr. Oswald in the Depository with a 6.5mm Carcano)
"Damn Good Shooting"
that's some Medical Examiner's Humor
Frank
Is the CA9 en banc order in Duncan v Bonta still being stayed pending cert review? Or was cert denied (or granted) and I missed it?
The petition for certiorari is still pending. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1194.html
Thanks!
The refusal of many Republicans in 2020 and many Democrats in 2016 to accept the presidential election results is one of many signs that American democracy is presently in peril.
A very dishonest comparison. Only one of the two parties has made not accepting the results of a presidential election a core belief. Only one party’s failure to accept that result led to an attempted armed coup.
75% of Democrats refuse to accept the results of the 2016 election.
66% of Democrats still refuse to accept the results of the 2000 election.
45% - a plurality - of Democrats refuse to accept the results of the 2004 election.
Supermajority beliefs persisting over decades is about as close as you can get to a "core belief".
Also, what armed coup? Are you referring to the unarmed riot that killed no one and threatened no government?
Bullshit.
Tell us again how you feel about the 2000 election. Did Bush "steal" it in Florida?
No., Though voter suppression helped. But WTF difference does it make? It's a moronic comparison.
Of course. The ever present ever mystical "Voter Suppression" that only appears when Democrats seem to lose.
Well, YouGov is a good place to start when looking for political polls. Gallup, Pew, and Rasmussen are others. It's easy to find polls if you actually try, rather than stick your fingers in your ears.
For the 2016 election, YouGov polls right after the election show that only 43% of Democrats were willing to accept Trump's victory as legitimate - and that's before the Russia Hoax got into swing. By 2018, YouGov was showing that 65% of Democrats believed that Russia hacked the vote totals to elect Trump. In 2020, a Rasmussen poll showed that 77% of Democrats believed that, while in April 2022, 86% of Democrats believed that Trump only won because of illegal actions by the Russians.
For the 2000 election, it's actually worse than I remembered - While a 2008 Gallup poll showed that 61% of Democrats believed that Bush did not win the 2000 election, the polls from earlier were far worse.
Harris - 89% Gore had more votes
CBS - 83% Gore had more votes
Newsweek - 56% Bush not elected
WashPo - 66% Bush not legitimate
Reuters did not differentiate between Democrat and Republican respondents, but had a total of 47% that said Bush was not the legitimate president. Since Republicans in other polls were 95% or so supportive of Bush, you can get a good estimate of what the Democrats thought.
The 2004 election was the "Diebold steals Ohio" election, a conspiracy that is still ongoing. 43% of Democrats in a YouGov poll in 2016 responded that Kerry would have won except for Diebold voting machines.
Go spew your propaganda elsewhere, jackass.
Well actually couple of unarmed protestors were killed by police.
But you really upset some libs with this post. Ha
Leftist storytellers consider your facts unwelcome.
If he wants to be believed, maybe he should provide a citation, not just bare numbers.
Just saying "Google it" is the same as a citation. I learned that today.
First, he didn't do that.
Second, when giving specific numbers, Google doesn't work.
Third for Veritas being debunked? Examples are thick on the ground (you admit this, but call all the examples lies)
I did Google anyhow. Found nothing about 75% of Dems not accepting the 2016 election. Smells like bullshit.
Maybe he's just using your logic Sarcastro. You do stuff like Toranth did all the time. It's practically your MO.
No, I don't. I regularly post sources, and don't pull numbers out of my ass.
Most importantly, even if I did what you describe, that's not a defense of Toranth.
Disagreeing with you does not make me a liar. You often call me a liar, but never post proof. Like you did with DMN for linking to an article rather than excerpting it.
That kind of posting really makes you look like a clown.
Oh, I'm going to call supreme horseshit on this one, my friend. I have routinely invited you to do that (more so back in the day when I thought you were actually here to debate in good faith) and I cannot recall a single instance where you did so. So please do continue with your tall tale about "regularly."
"I regularly post souces"
...Scans thread for Sarcastro's name. Doesn't observe any sources posted... But does remember Sarcastro saying he's "too lazy" to post links and people should just google it.
As for DMN.....he's a joke who can't admit when he's wrong. For example....
AL: Pfizer doesn't manufacturer OTCs anymore.
DMN: Nuh uh! You're a stupid head! They make Advil!
AL: Not anymore. Pfizer sold off their OTC business. Here are the links.
DMN: Doesn't matter. Here's a picture of an advil bottle that says Pfizer is the manufacturer. See you're wrong!
AL: That picture is a few years old. Here's an updated picture.
DMN:
Sounds like a real moment of triumph for you, Armchair. You should savor that one.
Hahahaha, oh, God, that's funny.
Sarcastro, you can't even be bothered to look up data before you 'cite' it, much less provide sources.
How many blacks are in the military, Sarcastro?
Yes, it was the Democratic Party.
Well it wasn’t a coup and no one was armed. But yea right on!
Giving up your right to self defense is basically saying 'I trust the government forever'.
This American gun exceptionalism is quite telling.
I like a lot of America's rights regime, but I don't go around declaring other countries without it tyrannical hellscapes.
No, they're not all tyrannical hellscapes. They just have a deplorably high risk of becoming such.
Sweden about to become a tyranny.
You're being ridiculous.
So, you're not just going with "It can't happen here!", you're actually going with "It can't happen there, or there, or there, either!"?
You're the one being ridiculous. Governments that AREN'T tyrannies are the exception, historically.
Don't exclude the middle.
You said 'unacceptably high risk' and when I disagreed with that, you insisted I must think 'no risk.'
This was a pretty obvious sleight of hand.
Trying to watch this Joke of a "Select" Committee, they're already running almost an hour late, are they on "Colored Peoples Time"?
Oof. Because colored people are slow or something? All of them or just some? What about all the great black sprinters over the years? In that context seems like Colored People’s Time goes a helluva lot quicker than White Folk Time.
Nobody ever said Black Peoples can't run fast (never understood "Standing Fast", you're just standing there) especially when they've just stolen something.
JFC. What's wrong with you?
Seems like a good one to just mute, no?
Long ago. He's either in bad faith, or a psycho.
Prof. Volokh thanks you for that reference to Blacks, Mr. Drackman, because it means he can wait a bit longer before publishing a vile racial slur again -- you have done it for him, although that one is not the Volokh Conspiracy racial slur of choice.
(When you stop publishing a vile racial slur regularly -- about every three weeks, for the past year or two -- Volokh Conspirators, I will stop pointing out just how bigoted this white, male, right-wing blog has become.)
If any Volokh Conspirator wishes to contest my assertion concerning the remarkable frequency at which this white, male blog publishes a vile racial slur, let's hear it. Anybody want to defend this blog's record on this issue?
I recommend you just be quiet and take it like . . . well, like the kind of people who continue to regularly use vile racial slurs in modern America.
You'll go blind replying to yourself so much "Reverend"
I got to see better Americans stomp conservatives in the culture war.
I am content.
Is this Jerry Sandusky??? (Probably not, despite his crimes, JS had a record of sucess)
What have you succeeded in, except for giving generations of children nightmares? (I know you disturb me, and you've never fondled me, as far as you remember (it was the 60's, who remembers?) or admits...
Frank "Reverend!!!! don't make me "Suck the Lollipop again!"
The refusal of many Republicans in 2020 and many Democrats in 2016 to accept the presidential election results is one of many signs that American democracy is presently in peril.
This comparison is just idiotic. There is a very real threat to American democracy, but it is coming from the right. Period.
There is no comparison, none, with complaints from some Democrats about 2016 and the continuing stream of lies, absurd claims, ridiculous lawsuits, and general wild disinformation from the Trumpists. And that's before you get to Jan. 6. And before you get to where so many GOP candidates are touting those lies.
January 6th? When Federal Officer Michael Bird shot an unarmed Female Veteran? When's he gonna be charged?
"When's he gonna be charged?"
Never. And, why should he be charged? Terrorist shot in the commission of a terrorist act.
I think you mean "Criminal" but then you'd be talking about the Kid in Ferguson, Floyd George, whoever the current "Shot while Driving Black* (*and attempting to kill police officer) "-of the- week is.... Where I come from, we don't consider "The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." "Terrorism"
And what was she "Armed" with? her Courage?
Seems I read that in the Constitution somewhere,
"I think you mean "Criminal" "
Yes, Mengele, she was a criminal as well as a terrorist.
"The right of the people peaceably to assemble"
She was not engaged in peaceable assembly. She was part of a terrorist mob trying to break into a barricaded hall, The Speaker's Lobby.
"And what was she "Armed" with? her Courage?"
Who said she was armed?
"Seems I read that in the Constitution somewhere,"
You must be reading some other constitution. There is no right to violent insurrection in ours.
Wow, so you're for shooting like 99% of the "BLM" protesters in 2020, and you're calling ME a "race-ist"?? I'll let my little buddy tell you what you are,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VvibQFYp6k
I don't think you mean what you think you mean, but then again, you're a Dog.
Frank
"I don't think you mean what you think you mean, but then again, you're a Dog. "
What you think and reality don't have much to do with each other, Mengele.
And, what's up with your wont to randomly capitalize?
it's cause Engrish is a foreign language to me, like with Latka in "Taxi", kapeeche??
and "Wazzzzzzzzzzuppppppppppp" with your random underscores, forgetting to space, and calling yourself "the Dog" are you saying you're the only Dog? is "Dog" short for something else, like Charlamagne "Tha God"??? (pretty sure he's black even if he didn't vote for Sleepy) and don't tell him he spelled "Charlemagne" wrong, unless you enjoy getting Bee-otch Slapped (not by me, but CTG looks like someone who knows how to dish out a good BS)
Frank
You shouldn't compare yourself to Kaufman, Mengele, Kaufman was funny.
"not by me, but CTG looks like someone who knows how to dish out a good BS"
Don't sell yourself short, Mengele, you're pretty good dishing out BS.
What is more important is that it is utterly dishonest.
What credibility does Kopel hope to have for anything he says when writes shit like this?
No comparison. You’re delusional
Gor four years, I have heard "Russian collusion" from the Demicrats.
I don't give a ff what you "hear."
You and your allies are the biggest threat to US democracy since the Civil War.
Actually there is a comparison of J6 vs BLM
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/09/09/realclearinvestigations_jan_6-blm_comparison_database_791370.html#!
Yea the comparison is idiotic. So stop being an idiot.
Then do something fat mouth.
Man up or shut up you mewling excuse for a human.
He is counting WW I and WW II as gun deaths.
This is not a reputable article.
Of course it is. Granted, not every death in the World Wars was from a gunshot wound, but the ratio of deaths between those wars and gun homicides is so stark that hardly refutes the point.
Averaged over time, your own government is a bigger threat to your life than your fellow citizens. And only fatuous idiots really believe "it can't happen here".
WW I and WW II would not have been stopped by more guns.
Not only didn't you read the linked article, you didn't even read the summary above, did you? Combatant deaths were excluded from the analysis. And, yes, having guns dramatically reduced civilian deaths specifically including during WW I and II.
Folks in the French Resistance would probably tell you that more guns reduced civilian deaths because they increased Nazi deaths.
bevis — No, they would not. They would tell you that their own use of guns sharply increased civilian deaths, in the form of 10-1 or 100-1 Nazi reprisals. And the more cold blooded members of the resistance would have told you they used that deliberately, to provoke reprisals, and keep civilians anti-German. Same in the Balkans, by the way. And elsewhere.
No, the French citizenry didn’t need reprisals to keep being anti-Nazi. It’s not as if long term general oppression by the Germans made the French grow fond of them, reprisals or not.
Dead Nazis didn’t harm anyone else, reprisals or otherwise. And you’re ignoring the fact that the Resistance contributed to shortening the time that the Germans had in Western Europe to commit their atrocities. And ignoring all of the downed Allied pilots shepherded to safety by those people with guns. Hard to argue that it would have been better for France without the armed Resistance.
I suppose you’re a fan of the Bobby Knight/Clayton Williams “relax and enjoy it” attitude toward rape, huh?
Reasonable people know that the people responsible for civilians being massacred by Nazis were... the Nazis.
Lathrop, on the other hand, eagerly tries to excuse them. He writes as if the French people should have gone full Nazi to avoid further abuses -- classic "blame the victim" logic.
Except that the French government had disarmed their populace in the mid 1930s, just a couple years before they were conquered by Germany.
Are they any less dead?
Could someone have brought them back to life if they gathered all seven dragon balls and summonrd ShenRon.
No he isn't:
"Next, Part II looks more broadly at homicide, to include homicides perpetrated by governments, such as communist or fascist regimes. In Europe in the twentieth century, states murdered about 87.1 million people. Globally, governments murdered well over 200 million people. The figure does not include combat deaths from wars."
"He is counting WWI and WWII as gun deaths. This is not a reputable article."
You didn't read the article then. Heck, you didn't even read the abstract to the article, which says,
"In Europe in the twentieth century, states murdered about 87.1 million people. Globally, governments murdered well over 200 million people. The figure does not include combat deaths from wars."
This is the very reason I'm a gun owner. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing."; Doesn't this imply that good men have an obligation to be capable of doing something?
I find guns somewhat interesting from an engineering perspective, (I'm a mechanical engineer.) but hobby robotics is more interesting. I'm an indifferent hunter, deer hunting for me mostly involved long periods sitting watching nature; I'd really rather be fishing. I target shoot a bit, just to maintain minimal proficiency, but it's not like it thrills me.
I bought my first gun because of political ideology, and a study of history, and the exact point Kopel raises. The right to keep and bear arms is the canary in the government's coal mine.
I have a few. None of them would be particularly useful to feed myself. Well, I suppose the shotgun could with the proper load, but the AK couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with huge arrows and a giant X pained on it. I just have no use for living an "active outdoor lifestyle". I just can't ever see myself sitting in the woods, soaking wet and freezing my ass off. Hell, even the pistols are so large the very idea of carrying them around concealed is laughable. Everything we have is for the sole purpose of putting a large hole in anyone who comes through our door uninvited.
If you can't hit the broad side of a barn with an AK, says more about your (lack) of shooting skills (and judgement, why would you be shooting at a barn?) than the accuracy of an AK. I agree, hunting's not for me, problem is, now a days, it won't be just one "Somebody" who comes through your door in the Riots after "45" or Disanto wins in 24", it'll be a bunch, with guns of their own,
like Ronaldus Maximus said, "Trust but Verify"(with a bigger gun than the other guy)
Frank
So not only are you racist, but you're deranged too. Well done.
A multifarious asshole indeed.
Mr. Drackman is the one who is at home at this white, male, bigot-friendly blog.
This is a blog for multifarious assholes.
I defer to the expert in Assholes
Better deranged than delusional, you're the one assuming the "Somebodies" will be of a particular race. I'll shoot anyone I have to (legally, of course) no matter their race, color, or creed (what's a creed anyway?)
You do realize the old cheap, stamped receiver Romanian knock off AK variant called WASR-10 was known if anything for it's wild inaccuracy?
can you give some examples from your own experience??
of course not, because, how can I be delicate,
"You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
WASR not accurate, want to bet I couldn't hit (not kill you, that'd be Ill-legal at Bushwood) at 100 yards?
Hey, If I miss, you get to shoot at me,
Oh Yeah, My real name is Aaron Burr VI
When Accuracy matters that's what the Dan Wesson Competition .357 is for. The AK was bought on a whim back in the early 90's when talk first started about a potential AWB. Really I blew it about 9 years ago when the Comcast service guy offered me $2000 cash on the spot for it, I should have taken it and got something decent, and no, that would not be an AR. Not a big fan of .223. Many will disagree but I think in general its an underpowered round. As you said I prefer a round with much better stopping power, like .308. If I were forced into the AR platform I think the AR-10 is a far more sensible choice.
If I were sticking with the AK, a Dragunov chambered in 7.62×54 is a far better choice, at least it has range.
Personally though for home defense, I think it's hard to beat a 12 gauge loaded with 00 Buck, though that leaves you working in far closer quarters than I would find comfortable.
You are using the wrong method on the barn. The approved method is shoot first, then take note where the holes group tightly, and paint a target around the group. Mark Twain noted that.
Love it.
Bellmore and Currentsitguy example a point I make repeatedly. Most pro-gun advocates are pretty clearly folks with little or no practical experience using guns to kill. They go to gun ranges, or practice informally, study up reading Guns and Ammo, and pronounce themselves experts—or at least the superiors of would-be gun controllers.
They never notice that a different gun-using demographic—roughly defined by extensive military combat experience first and foremost, but also defined by thousands of hours hunting game with guns—is far less complacent about gun expertise. That group is mostly wary to accept the notion that increased gun prevalence will deliver public safety. Experience has taught them to know better.
Actual experience carrying guns with an expectation that they will be used at any moment to actually kill, teaches far more chastened expectations, about prowess, gun capabilities, and the prevalence of danger in the vicinity of gun users. From formal gun indoctrination you get basics like muzzle discipline, keeping your finger off the trigger, and making sure of your target. All that makes you confident.
I never want to go hunting with someone confident. I want to go hunting with someone who while carrying a loaded gun has at least twice lost his footing so uncontrollably that he utterly lost control of the gun. The first fall is important to shock the novice out of his complacence that he is so good it would never happen. The second fall is necessary to prove it is inevitably going to happen again. That is the moment you stop being a damned fool about guns, and recognize that just having them around comes with an irreducible component of deadly risk.
My guess is that on average it probably takes at least a thousand hours of gun carrying under conditions of bad footing, low light, cold, unexpected distractions, dehydration, and fatigue, to fall down like that twice. Put challenges like that together with the notion that you must maintain the implacable alertness necessary to respond promptly to an unexpected demand to kill, and you get the beginning of the mental conditioning it takes to appreciate what it means to keep and use guns. I don't see much of that mentality in most of the pro-gun comments on this blog.
"and pronounce themselves experts—or at least the superiors of would-be gun controllers."
In my experience it's remarkably easy to be more expert about guns than your average gun controller. Complete ignorance, if you were aware of it, would suffice, since gun controllers typically have achieved negative expertise.
"That group is mostly wary to accept the notion that increased gun prevalence will deliver public safety."
Assertion not supported by evidence. As per usual.
I would never, ever proclaim myself an expert. I know all the safety protocols and follow them religiously. I am a very good shot at distance, though I'll be the 1st to say my wife can whoop my ass. I can empty a semi-auto pistol into center mass at the normal distance one would need to use such a weapon within a few seconds and maintain a nice, tight grouping, though I'm never likely to execute the Mozambique Drill. At the same time I'm never going to shoot myself or someone around me by accident or out of stupidity. I am competent, but by no means an expert.
At the same time I'm never going to shoot myself or someone around me by accident or out of stupidity.
That, right there, is the dangerous presumptuousness of inexperience. That is the attitude which people with extensive practical gun experience—as opposed to mere programmed training—learn to fear. You have declared yourself infallible, and did not even notice you did it. And not only personally infallible, but immune from the unexpected or uncontrollable free agency of others.
Why do you suppose that in military combat friendly fire casualties are so common, and so resistant to prevention? Nothing more to it than accidents and stupidity? Can you think of any reason to suppose that civilian gun use is not likewise vulnerable to dangerous happenstance, fearful mis-response, or other accidents of circumstance?
In no other part of your day-to-day life are you immune from the unexpected, no matter how carefully you manage your attention. Why would you think your gun use would be any different?
Headline is a true statement.
Give me a counter example
Leftists approve of tyrants doing stuff like that though. Or they pretend it didn’t happen.
Sometimes they make up a story about how it’s America's fault. Not that they’re anti-American or anything though.
Meh ... they were mostly European white people -- they LITERALLY killed George Floyd!
Screw them!
/Artie, Sarc and self-haters et al
"disarmament often leads to mass murder by government"
About as false a statement as I've ever seen on this blog, and that beats some very stiff competition.
It should have read "disarmament usually precedes mass murder by government"
"The Conclusion suggests that the UN and EU should adopt a more balanced gun control policy"
You just couldn't help yourself, could you?
I'm not as concerned about a tyrannical government taking over if we lose all the guns, although that is becoming more and more of an issue as the democrat party continues its power grabs. I am more concerned about the effect it will have on safety and crime, especially in urban areas.
For those of you who forgot, we tried the whole "ban guns" thing back in the 70's and 80's. All it did was empower criminals in knowing that the government was effectively disarming their victims. There is no coincidence that as conceal carry and firearm ownership increased the crime rate, especially in cities, began to tank. Sure, it is not that simple, but it is a big part.
Criminals don't care if it is against the law to carry a gun and the police are now probably half or less effective then what they were back during the first gun bans. That is spelling a recipe for disaster. It took about 1 month after the "defund the police" scheme blew up in everyone's face. How long do you think it will take for the new gun ban to do the same?
Stop Making Sense!!! (HT D. Byrne)
I'd like to trust that I don't need a gun to protect myself from the government.
But how can I trust a government that wants to ignore the constitution so they can take my guns?
That's quite a self-licking logic you got there.
That's what I mean by the canary in the government's coal mine.
The Constitution, whether you like it or not, actually does guarantee a right to keep and bear arms. A government in America, which attempts to disarm Americans without first repealing the 2nd amendment has categorically proven its utter contempt for the Constitution that constituted it. It has proven its contempt for the rule of law.
A foreign government without such a constitutional guarantee might attempt such disarmament without being utterly lawless. (The odds aren't great, IMO, but it's at least possible.) That can never be the case here.
So the very fact that the government tries to disarm us proves we would be mistaken to comply.
This is a democracy. It's we who would be disarming us. Most democracies happily did that years ago. And they're safer, happier.
No, it's not a democracy! It's a constitutional republic. Why do people keep saying its a democracy when it isn't?
A democracy is three foxes and a chicken taking a vote on what to eat for dinner.
In a constitutional republic, the chicken would have a right to life.
"We" can't disarm our fellow citizens here. Period.
No, they’re not. Those happy people suffer from violent border changing fights every generation or so. And they can be out in prison for wrongspeech, something I’m guessing you’d support as well, at least for those with whom you disagree.
And you continue to completely ignore the fact that gun ownership of some kind is an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights. So we can’t disarm ourselves, happily or unhappily.
Not that "democracy as self-rule" idiocy again!
No, it wouldn't be "we" disarming "us". It would be some of us disarming others of us.
Actually, it wouldn't even be that. It would be "rulers selected by some of us", disarming others of us.
And, notice, your reply completely ignores the argument.
The Constitution, as it presently exists, prohibits your proposal to disarm the populace. It does so explicitly and clearly. Denying this doesn't make that amendment go away, it just establishes that you're a goddamn liar.
Now, if the people went through the process of amending that protection away, and THEN voted to disarm all the people who'd voted against being disarmed, that would be consistent with the rule of law, and the willingness to actually follow formal procedure would be slightly reassuring, it would at least open the possibility, however unlikely, that a tyranny wasn't impending.
But, who's proposing doing that? Nobody. The actual proposal is to just run roughshod over an explicit constitutional guarantee. And we're supposed to trust people who are willing to do that?
Why would you expect that? Because you think we're drooling morons?
We are a republic.
“ This is a democracy. It's we who would be disarming us. Most democracies happily did that years ago. And they're safer, happier.”
We have a procedure to eliminate constitutional rights. That procedure is to amend the constitution. The 2A was ratified by super majority vote. Flouting it by simple majority is anti-democratic.
Sure we are a democracy, but a republic. That means you have to follow the rule of law.
Get the 2/3 of the House and Senate to propose an amendment, get the 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
But don't think you can ignore the constitution and get compliance.
Kaz's argument boils down to: 'I'd be okay with taking my gun except that a government who wants to take my gun is not a government I am okay with taking my guns'
Which is a lot of words for just an ipse dixit. It's circular as all hell.
And as usual your argument of 'if the government does stuff I think is against the Constitution, it hates the rule of law' is not a policy argument or a Constitutional argument or a rights argument, it's just a statement of your usual hubris regarding your own opinions.
Which Constitution-supporting party should we elect to govern us? The one that shits all over the first and second amendments, or the one that shits all over the first and sixth? And both of them shit all over 4, 5 and 10.
So please tell us how Kazinski’s point about trusting a government that ignored our rights any time it suits those in power?
Tell us how it’s wrong.
It's not even wrong; it's logically fallacious.
'Because I think this is an important liberty.' Which is a fine reason to support something! But then he dressed it up in a tautology pretending that's not what he believes.
My issue is with the argument, not the thesis. I believe the 2nd and 9th and the history of our republic all suggest an individual right to self defense that includes bearing arms. The exact contours of that right are not super clear to me, but they're certainly not no regs and they're certainly not a complete bad/confiscation.
The Supremes have taken a course on the 1st that is pretty close to reasonable - a handful of very well defined exceptions. That is the correct path, the government should not be able to take away protections given by the founders just because they want to or it’s politically expedient. Even if dead children or terrorists or drug dealers are involved.
Unfortunately at least half or our political establishment would love to gut #2, both have screwed #4, and a bipartisan SC signed off on the ridiculous practice of civil asset forfeiture so as to punch a huge hole in #5.
Meanwhile the political branches are doing everything they can to work around the first because instead of debating ideas it’s easier to just shut your opponents up.
I say this myself: People keep trying to shoehorn every right into the 1st amendment, because it's the only part of the Bill of Rights the courts take remotely seriously.
Yes, what I want is for guns to be treated like printing presses. That's the bottom line.
From my cold dead hands works for me. And my CNN-assault pistol is concealable. Concealed means concealed.
Thanks Prof. Volokh for having Dave Kopel here. Perhaps invite John R. Lott, Jr.
I know my way around a gun, but have never felt the desire nor need to own one. If I ever do, it will be because of a failure of government, either failure to provide basic policing to the point where I need a gun for self-defense, or an attempt to confiscate all guns, which any thinking person will understand is a prelude to tyranny.
The key point to understand, regarding that latter rationale for gun ownership, is that it's too late to obtain a fire extinguisher after your home catches fire.
But that's what you're proposing: Waiting until the government makes a serious effort to take guns away, before getting one, is like waiting until the fire to get the fire extinguisher. It's like buckling your seat belt when the collision happens.
It's too late.
Nicole Simpson/Ron Goldman/Ennis Cosby thought the same thing (murdered barely 5 miles apart) murdered in Beverly Hills??? are you crazy??? I know, she should have said "Wait OJ, put that knife away, come back after I've found a gun store, picked a gun, got the state required training/background check"
Anyone watch The Insurrection Show last night? One major political party (with a few renegades from the other side) is putting the other major political party on trial. Great stuff!
Why do Democrats want to take our guns? Because they're contemplating mass murder? Probably not. Because they want to impose a tyranny on us? Yes! The entire "liberal" / "progressive" worldview is all about imposing a (supposedly benevolent) tyranny on people.
They see no limit to the extent to which the government can interfere with people. There are two dimensions to this:
1. The government can make you do anything (e.g., eat broccoli).
2. The government can do anything to you.
If you won't go along with "your betters'" schemes, you're being "socially irresponsible," and they (benevolently!) get to "correct" you (for the greater good!).
"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters"
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/10/slippery-slope-arguments-in-history-the-supreme-court-in-the-flag-salute-case/
Who wants to "coercively eliminate dissent" today? Why, it's the same people who are clamoring to take away our guns! What a coincidence!
In "liberals'" and "progressives'" worldview, the key word is coercion.
This will all be very important should the time ever come when anybody anywhere ever begins advocating for “disarmament.”
It’s just a lot of toe-picking until then though.
statist would-be tyrant: "Give me your guns!"
freedom-loving citizen: "Go fuck yourself!" (racks shotgun)
statist would-be tyrant: "Nobody wanted to take your guns in the first place!"
Oh, what great "freedom" we have when we're forced to carry weapons to go about our daily lives. How joyous we must be to have so much freedom that those communist Europeans could only dream of....
Repeal the second. Give the power to the states to decide what they want their weapon laws to be. It shouldn't be a given any dumbass can go get a weapon with zero training considering we seem to have forgotten all about "well regulated militia" and what that ACTUALLY meant back in that time (hint- it was not every dumbass having a weapon- it was more akin to the national guard for each state.)
Hint: You don't know what you're talking about regarding 'well-regulated.'
Cavanaugh — "Well-regulated militia," was founder-speak for, "under military discipline." That is not a close question, by the way. It takes motivated ignorance of the historical record to contradict it.
You’re being forced to carry a weapon? Damn, that’s awful.
Even here in gun lovin’ Texas they don’t force us to carry, or even own. I’ve never done either.
You need to find a new place to live.
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.
Next they'll be saying we can't Keep and Arm Bears!!!!!!!!!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/sloth-bear-kills-and-eats-couple-in-very-unusual-attack/ar-AAYjs9l?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9e7e16c1a9f0438d898cb8f3cd322329
Just to show even smiling incompent Despots can kill, (remind you of a current "Get a Shotgun"!! POTUS??)
Jimmuh Cartuh, when he wasn't fighting off "Killer Rabbits" with a paddle (Google it) Shot his Neighbor's Cat, and not by accident either, heck, I'll let Jimmuh tell it....
5/13/90
To Sybil,
Lamentably, I killed your cat while trying just to sting it. It was crouched, as usual, under one of our bird feeders & I fired from some distance with bird shot. It may ease your grief somewhat to know that the cat was buried properly with a prayer & that I’ll be glad to get you another of your choice.
I called & came by your house several times. We will be in the Dominican Republic until Thursday. I’ll see you then.
Love, Jimmy
Frank "Never killed any Cats, and wouldn't admit it if I had"
Weapons of war.
Let's talk about this, about this phrase, that is used almost exclusively by those who want to ban certain types of guns.
The Second Amendment is about weapons of war! It is about the citizenry - you and me - being able to turn up to serve in times of domestic war with the weapon that is commonly in use by the military. A weapon of war. I assert that the NFA infringed upon this, outlawing fully automatic weapons, or "selective fire" weapons, which are characteristic of the standard service arm in use since about 1959, with the M14, but also previously, in WWII, with the M3, a.k.a., "grease gun," the Thompson submachine gun, a.k.a., the Chicago typewriter, adopted in 1938 by the US military.
So, all of this stuff about hunting and target shooting and sport shooting and yes, even self protection, has nothing to do with the 2nd. Weapons of war does!
Don't forget the M-2 Carbine, which is merely an M-1 with a different disconnector, a selector, selector spring, trigger housing, stock, slide, bolt, disconnector trip lever, and safety, whoo!!!!
It'll rock and roll at 750rpm (see great "Heartbreak Ridge" clip below, which ironically is set in 1983)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2-iBv5Z3sY
Take it the next step, ThePublius, and you arrive at the likely-historically-accurate conclusion that except for militia use, your right to keep and bear arms for other purposes, including self-defense, was left to the states to protect. Meaning that states today can regulate guns as they please, so long as they leave the militia right in place. I do think that is what the Constitution was intended to mean, and I remain fine with that. How about you?
We know you hate Heller, McDonald and Caetano, but your choice is to shut up and deal with it or hitch up your Big Boy Pants and get your revolution on.
You included the statement:
"There, the losing candidate and [Clinton]
supporters made utterly false claims that the election had been stolen." And supported it with this article.
But in the article when Clinton said "stolen" she was talking about Russia's well documented and verified pro-Trump interference.
Perhaps you can call using "stolen" hyperbole, but there's a pretty large disconnect between your statement and the citation you used to back it.
In fact, the only citation I found that fit the definition of Democrats believing false conspiracies about 2016 was Russia changing votes on machines, but even then I'm not sure the 50% of Democrats who agreed believed that it changed the outcome (ie, stole the election).
I don't really know about the other evidence you cited, but the fact those parts were so misleading gives me serious reservations about the rest.
Got the Sleepy Joe Disease?
I know 0-16' was so long ago (Man(!) remember when Sleepy was such an unviable Candidate he wouldn't even run (Yeah, right he was so in mourning from his Navy Veteran Son Hunter's Death)
You know who's win was "Stolen"?? Bernies, let's see we had the Clinton Cam-pain (emphasis on "Pain") have plants to ask Bernie which Sin O' Gogue he went to (If he says, he's a Jew, if he doesn't go he's an Atheist) BTW what Church does Hilary Rodman go to??
Debates scheduled for the smallest TV Audiences so nobody notices HR's facial droop, apraxia, aphasia, Oh, and women think she's a B-word,
I know, Trump said "Russia, if you're listening...."
of course the rest was asking them to release Hilary Rodman's Anti-Semitic e-mails, which was so dumb of Trump, because anyone could have just logged on to Podesta's email with the password of "Password" (I prefer, "IMACOCKSUCKER69" because anyone who'll type that has to be really dedicated)
Frank
So, she DID say "stolen", and your basis for claiming she didn't claim the election was stolen was that she didn't mean it when she actually said it?
"Stolen" ultimately means for something to be acquired unjustly.
So yes, Clinton's claim that Russian interference changed the outcome in 2016 amounts to a "stolen" election is a pretty defensible usage.
As is the statement that the GOP "stole" a seat on the SCOTUS through their differing standards for filling the seats belonging to Scalia and RBG.
It's a pretty standard usage of the English language.
No, a foreign nation that's always messing about in our elections, (You think they started in 2016?) spending a fraction of a percent of our own native spending on lame memes is not plausibly "stealing" an election.
Regardless of whether you think Russian interference was sufficient to affect the outcome, or if it's fair to then call that election "stolen".
The fact is it is clearly not an "utterly false claim" as the article frames it.
Bigoted gun nuts -- whether they live in a hut in the sticks or teach at a legitimate law school -- are among my favorite culture war casualties.
Open wider, clingers.
Your problem is that they/we are not dead yet, and you and your emasculated poofters are much more likely to truckle at the sign of danger than actual real human beings. So, dream on monkey boy/girl/it, and continue to work at the DMV and rub off to Japanese Manga at night. You are a pitiful speciman of a human being.
I am not familiar with Japanese manga, but it sounds like you are, so maybe that is what you were doing when you were not graduating from law school, not building successful careers, and not stomping right-wingers' ugly, stale preferences in the culture war, as some of your betters have done.
The Volokh Conspiracy is proud to have you as a fan, though; you are precisely the target audience here.
"Reverend"
how can you type such riveting prose when you're buggering little boys?
I mean, you still are buggering little boys, aren't you?
Especially with that little inconvenience of Probation hanging over your (bobbing) head?
Or are you a Jim Morrison "Back door Man"???
Hey (Man!) I won't tell, unless someone makes it worth my while
Frank "Stop talking to me, wierdo"
The lesson that I take from this is to not let tyrants take power. The gun rights supporters want to have guns because they think that is how to prevent tyrants from taking over, but by the time guns would be the solution, it is far too late. Upholding rights to Free Speech, a Free Press, and the right to vote is far more effective at keeping tyrants out of power than guns.
If we are going to play the correlation equals causation game, there is more evidence that speaking English avoids tyranny than there is for unrestricted gun ownership.
I’ll resist the urge to ask if that and the one below is the best you can come up with because it’s you and this and that are, in fact, the best you can come up with.
Somebody remind me what year this is. Quickly!
Oh, absolutely. Keep posting random context-free quotations (most of which so far I’m guessing came from the assault weapons discussions of the early 1990s) until you find anything that indicates any actual effort to “disarmament” by anyone. In fact, don’t stop until you do.
Dude, an armed populace is literally what the human race had for most of human history. (At least if you include in "armed" the kinds of shovels and pickaxes that peasants used to go to war.) Who's confused about what is normal, exactly?
People on the left constantly say they want to ban guns like they do in Europe. Why are you such a liar?
When they feel like they are losing an argument or don't have the political power, then these exact same people will say "Ok, just common sense gun laws. One step at a time. Oh and I here's a totally made up term "assault weapons" that means nothing objectively, let's start with that too."
What we're concerned about is that they'll make owning guns a hassle to the maximum politically survivable degree.
This reduces the number of gun owners in the next generation.
Which increases the maximum politically survivable degree of hassle.
Which still further reduces the number of gun owners.
If they can keep that dynamic going for 2-3 generations, we drop below the threshold where, even with all of us being single issue voters, they can then completely ignore our opinions, and go for the total ban.
They were actually doing pretty well in this gradual approach, only the over-reached in the 90's, and caused a backlash that set them back a few decades. Right now we're trying to keep them from resuming the long term strategy.
A year that comes after the voters kicked a bunch of people talking like that out of Congress, and the rest of them who thought that way mostly learned to stop saying the quiet part out loud.
His name's "Robert Francis" like that douche-bag character in "Mad Men"
She's got a point, if Dan White didn't have his Police revolver Harvey Milk would have lived!!!! (for a few more years, until he got the Hiv-ie)
I hope you had fun finding quotes from mostly randos, most of which are 3 decades old, and all of which did not make it into the Democratic platform.
You sure did prove some anecdotes in service of a thesis that needs a lot more than anecdotes!
"Me or your lying eyes" has become the left's standard approach to anybody pointing out they're lying about anything. They just brazen it out.
*constantly*
*people on the left*
Hilarious. What a loser.
"Summary: Australia’s 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) banned several types of firearms and resulted in the government buying hundreds of thousands of the banned weapons from their owners. Studies examining the effect of removing so many weapons from the community have found that homicides, suicides, and mass shootings were less common after the NFA was implemented, although such incidents were declining prior to 1996. The strongest evidence is consistent with the claim that the NFA caused reductions in firearm suicides, mass shootings, and female homicide victimization. However, there is also evidence that raises questions about whether, for at least firearm suicides, those changes can be attributed to the NFA or to other factors that influenced rates of these outcomes around the time the NFA was implemented."
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html
Why are you against European-style gun regulations, Sarcastr0? Are you some kind of right wing gun nut?
Was that before or after he wore the Snoopy helmet and rode around on a Tank with a 120mm main gun, two 7.62mm Machine guns, one 50 caliber one, plus I think the driver has an M16, and they all carry semiautomatic pistols.
Whatever, secessionist.
mad_kalak, do you perceive America as a tyranny? If you do, what short of anarchy would suit you?
mad_kalak, you know that slippery slope principle you keep invoking, which makes you fear tyranny without your guns? That passage by Hobbes was inspired by experience during the reign of Charles I, plus maybe a bit of your style of slippery slope thinking.
Which is remarkable, because Hobbes was an apologist for Charles I. But like everyone in England, Hobbes had a kind of tyranny of neglect as his defining experience of government, and Hobbes was determined to found a theory of government on experience, not on theory. The general point is that when Hobbes described it, he did so because it had happened, but maybe not to the maximum extent he judged possible. Kind of like you, maybe.
Eliminating the right to keep & bear arms would be tyranny. Eliminating freedom of speech would be tyranny. Disqualifying opponents from running (as they do in Russia) would be tyranny.
Democrats are trying to do all of these things.