IMG_20140524_140306

I’ve been inundated by emails in the last couple days asking for me to straighten out an article from Mother Jones titled “10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down.” The premise of the piece is simple: paint gun owners as paranoid idiots, and make gun control activists feel superior because their violent opponents don’t have a firm grasp on reality. But the piece does the exact opposite — it proves that Mother Jones and their associated gun control cheerleaders don’t care about facts. They don’t care about the truth. They just hate gun owners. So, let’s take a look . . .

Myth #1: They’re coming for your guns.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it’s clear there’s no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you’ll rest easy knowing that America’s roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.

There are two blatant lies here, and I want to address both. But first, did you notice that not-so-subtle positive re-enforcement of the common stereotype liberals have of gun owners? It’s the word “fantasize.” Gun owners and NRA members in particular are constantly described by the opposition as paranoid anti-government traitors who simply want to overthrow the United States. As if you needed further proof, the lack of a neutral tone in this opening statement lets you know that this won’t be a fair and balanced reporting — this is propaganda.

Blatant lie #1 is the statement that no one in Washington is proposing national confiscation of firearms. In fact, let me just leave this here:

Back when that interview was recorded, civilian disarmament fever was in its ascendancy. The gun control activists could do no wrong, and just about any law they wanted to pass would have been A-OK with the American public. In the last couple decades, that reality has been turned on its head. Gun control is no longer a golden ticket to re-election even for Democrats, and even the mention of the word “confiscation” sends people running for the doors. So while we haven’t heard the proposition publicly, you can bet your bottom dollar that it’s still part of the discussion.

Confiscation is a word that is so carefully avoided by the gun control activists in congress that you’d think it was choreographed. But make no mistake, while the word may be absent the meaning is very much there. When President Barack Obama said the words “Weapons of war have no place on our streets, in our schools, or threatening our law enforcement officers,” how do you think he meant to remove those ‘weapons of war’?

The original form of Dianne Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban floated back in 2013 had no grandfather clause and no sale permitted of the now banned firearms — the covered firearms would be illegal after the owner’s death and required to be turned in to the government for destruction. Gun control activists were listening when Charelton Heston said you can have his guns when you take them from his cold dead hands, and they’re willing to wait.

Blatant lie #2: that’s not the real issue. The statement isn’t “they’re coming for your guns,” it’s “they want to take your guns.” Door-to-door confiscation is no longer an option, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have other ideas derived from their confiscatory impotence. Like confiscating upon death, requiring your kids to turn them in or become felons. Kicking down doors and removing firearms is so last century — why put state employees in danger when they can force law abiding citizens to do all the work?

Myth #2: Guns don’t kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements. Update: A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state’s gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.

News flash: alligator-related death rates tend to be higher in states that have more alligators. Automotive fatalities are higher among people who own cars. Drowning tends to happen more to those people who swim. And 100% of Americans who’ve eaten mashed potatoes will die. Gun-related deaths are more likely when there are more guns? And there’s a direct correlation between gun ownership and gun-related fatalities? That sounds perfectly reasonable and logical to me.

Things start to go off the rails when MJ starts making the jump from correlation to causation. Apparently no one at Mother Jones passed their high school statistics class, so I’ll lay it out for them: just because two sets of numbers appear to be correlated does not mean they are linked in any way. For example, I could tell you that the murder rate in Washington D.C and the average peanut butter consumption per resident are correlated, but that doesn’t mean that eating peanut butter causes murders.

The problem with poorly researched studies like the ones MJ uses to back up their “facts” is that it’s often hard to do a point by point rebuttal and make any headway in a debate. So rather than point out the specific errors, I’m just going to use one chart and disprove the entire premise of Mother Jones’ assertion.

HomicideCompare

People kill people with guns, but that happens less often every single year. If Mother Jones’ assertion that guns are the cause of these deaths, then with the influx of millions of new guns and gun owners in the last few years the murder rate should have skyrocketed. But despite all those new potential murderers (to MJ’s mind, at least), the murder rate continues to drop.

The mere existence of a firearm doesn’t increase the probability of a murder being committed. Firearms are not magical talismans of evil, no matter how Mother Jones wants to twist the facts to look that way.

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

The problem with claiming that zero mass shootings have been stopped by armed civilians is just that: they were stopped. There’s no weeks-long media feeding frenzy when a mass shooting doesn’t happen. But I can definitely present some examples in just the past couple of years where a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun.

Clackamas Town Center: An armed individual, obviously attempting to commit a mass shooting, was confronted by a person with a concealed carry license. After seeing a gun being drawn on him, the shooter immediately deviated from his course and killed himself in an adjacent hallway.

Arapahoe High School: A student armed with a shotgun and multiple incendiary devices, shot one person in the face and was attempting to kill more people when an armed school resource officer confronted him. The attacker then killed himself.

Those are just the two most high profile cases in recent history — a news story that doesn’t happen is hard to find, so we never seem to hear about those. Even when they happen, the actual chain of events are still often hard to prove.

It boils down to this: the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Police officer, concealed carry holder, school resource officer…it doesn’t matter. Any armed opposition is effective. So, yeah, Mother Jones lied again. Not surprising.

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Uh, what’s wrong with that? People who don’t own a gun can’t kill themselves with a gun. That seems like a pretty common sense thing to me, but apparently MJ believes that this proves guns are dangerous. Question to Mother Jones: does the accidental death rate increase in households with firearms? That would be newsworthy and an actually effective argument if it were true. But it isn’t.

Firearms-related accidental deaths are so statistically insignificant that even if we were to outlaw all firearms and confiscate every single one, we wouldn’t notice a difference. In fact, I have this graph to prove it:

AccidentDeathOverall

To me, that’s reason enough to chuck Mother Jones’ assertion that people would be safer without a gun in their home. Nevertheless, I need to go for the kill (metaphorically speaking, of course) on this one.

The underlying concept is that more guns = more accidental deaths. Gun ownership has been rising for decades and there’s been a spike in gun sales since 2008, so there should be more firearms-related fatalities, right? At least, that would be the case if Mother Jones’ hypothesis were correct. Unfortunately…

AccidentDeathGunLine

Accidental deaths are on the decline. Even with a boom in firearms sales, there are fewer and fewer firearms-related accidental deaths. QED, having a gun in the house does not necessarily put you at a greater risk for killing yourself.

As for the statement that defensive gun uses are outweighed by murders and other crimes involving guns, Mother Jones doesn’t seem inclined to cite their sources for that statistic. They just link to another long-outdated study (this one from 1998) that uses long-since debunked methodology and figures. Even the Violence Policy Center puts the number of defensive gun uses in the United States at over 50,000 per year, which doesn’t even come close to matching the numbers that MJ apparently snatched out of thin air.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Bullshit. Oh, sorry. Balderdash.

Mother Jones arrived at their conclusion about people being killed in arguments versus citizens stopping a crime by using the number of justifiable homicides as a stand-in for defensive gun uses. The best “defensive gun use” situation is one where everyone walks away uninjured. Something that happens every day in this country.

Mother Jones would have you believe that every valid DGU must end with a justifiable homicide — someone pulling the trigger and dying — but a gun is just as (maybe more) effective as a behavior modification tool if the attacker stops and flees without ever needing to fire a shot. Mother Jones either doesn’t think those bloodless DGU’s “count” or they’re just too damn lazy to look into the facts and figures any further. Either way, their analysis is sloppy and misleading.

The reality is that (conservatively speaking) somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 defensive gun uses happen in the United States every year. That’s compared to fewer than 14,000 murders annually. How many more murders (by any means) would have happened without those DGUs? I’d say we’re on the right side of that ratio.

As for the point about Philadelphia citizens being more likely to be killed if they carry a gun…gang bangers anyone? Not everyone who carries a gun is a law abiding citizen. Gang violence is responsible for between 48% and 90% of violent crimes (depending on where you are), so it makes sense that a gang banger is more likely to be killed than an average citizen. If the majority of gun-related murders are gang-on-gang violence, and gang members carry illegal guns, that will inflate the probability of being assaulted or murdered while carrying a gun.

Notice that MJ and the study didn’t specify CHL holders — it only focused on people who carry a gun. There was no distinction between legal and illegal carry. Add in the fact that a single study from a single city does not necessarily mean that the same conditions apply nationwide. More sloppy statistics and misleading statements.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman’s chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

Mother Jones apparently believes that women are weaker than men and inherently less capable of defending themselves. That’s a pretty sexist position for them to take if you ask me.

The main issue I have with these numbers is that it’s another case of MJ seeing even the glimmer of correlation between two numbers and jumping all over it, screaming and shouting that it’s undeniable proof that guns cause crime and women are being victimized unfairly by evil gun-owning men.

Myth #8: “Vicious, violent video games” deserve more blame than guns.
Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what’s up with Japan?

Actually, gotta agree with this one. LaPierre was off his rocker when he made that suggestion. Blind squirrels, acorns and all that.

Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they’re owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
• About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

Let me illustrate how MJ and other organizations arrive at this “shrinking number” nonsense for gun ownership. The numbers are based on a phone survey conducted by calling the landline in people’s homes and asking if they own any guns.

Do you see the problem there?

(A) Landine phones are going the way of the dodo. Almost no one in my generation pays for one in their home, and a shrinking number of the older generation are doing the same. Cell phones are the new way to communicate, and those aren’t included in the polls.

(B) How would you feel if you received a call from a random stranger claiming to be from a polling agency and asking how much jewelry you have in your home? Or how much cash you carry around? Or if you leave your back door unlocked at night? This is especially frightening if you realize that land-line phone numbers all have an address associated with them. Is it really a polling agency calling or a burglar doing some recon work before stealing all your stuff? How can you tell the difference?

I just don’t trust those numbers. What I do trust are the ever-increasing numbers of people showing up at shooting ranges and the constant growth in the firearms industry. Solid figures that represent actual growth, not just conjecture. And anyway, since the MJ article came out, even Gallup has seen a uptick in those numbers.

guns-in-household-550

So, in fact, that entire statement is now null and void. A lie, if you will. Gun ownership is indeed on the rise.

Myth #10: We don’t need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.
Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
• Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don’t require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn’t pass a background check.
• 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal “straw” buyers.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has not had a permanent director for 6 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.

It is already a crime to sell a gun to a felon. It is already a crime to use a gun to commit a crime. It is already a crime for a felon to posses a firearm. I really don’t see any room for improvement — you’re just making already illegal things more illegal-er.

Mother Jones’ statement that enforcement isn’t an issue is ridiculous. Apparently in their fantasy world, the simple act of taping a “no guns allowed” sign on the door of that Newtown Elementary School would have stopped Adam Lanza cold and saved 26 lives. Except there was a no guns allowed sign, and a federal law prohibiting guns on that school property, and Lanza broke both of those laws without blinking an eye.

Adding one more piece of paper to an already mile-high stack isn’t going to stop criminals. Making something illegal-er isn’t the answer. It never has been. The only thing that stops crime is direct intervention — getting your hands dirty and doing the leg work. MJ wants to believe that if we just pass one more law then everyone will suddenly become perfect law-abiding citizens. If that were the case, I wouldn’t be offered cocaine or prostitutes freely and openly on my jaunts through New York City.

Criminals exist. There is evil in the world. Mother Jones’ statements follow the same simplistic “logic” we see time and again from gun control activists, namely that every criminal is just a naturally good person who was tempted by the evil demonic powers of a handgun. But it just ain’t so.

Recommended For You

232 Responses to Debunking Mother Jones’ ’10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down’

    • I agree!

      On another note:

      “Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
      Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0”

      What intellectual dishonesty. How about mentioning how many of those shootings occurred in places where citizens were denied the right to keep and bear arms. Truly hateable drivel. Shame on Mother Jones. Hack journalism at its worst.

      • Ann Coulter debunked this one. To qualify as a mass shooting, 4 or more people have to be shot. Therefore every single mass shooting that has been stopped before the fourth person is shot does not count as a “mass shooting”. Also, when the shooter takes his own life, which is how many of these events end, they don’t coun’t as being stopped by an armed citizen even though that was the deciding factor in the shooter offing himself. So in most cases of mass shootings, they occurr where no one was able to get to a gun in time to stop the shooter before killing 4 or more.

        • So Santa Barbara was not a mass shooting! Hooray, the antis must be happy since they want fewer or no mass shootings!

        • M.A. In Santa Barbara, only 3 people were killed with a gun, but many more were wounded. I think the number was 11 people wounded by gun shots (poor memory). The UCSB shooting was a Mass SHOOTING.

        • Ann Coulter is a Nazi in a mini skirt. Nobody with a brain pays any attention to hat hateful loon.

        • daniel says:
          November 3, 2014 at 16:38

          Ann Coulter is a Nazi in a mini skirt

          Ann Coulter would kick your ass. LOL

          Nobody with a brain pays any attention to hat hateful loon.

          Listen here, you slimy, little Jewish supremacist, Hasbara(t) weasel: “Nobody with a brain pays any attention” to loons like YOU and YOUR mindless, worthless, infantile, venomous dribble.

        • And then, if 4 or more people were murdered but it was stopped by a CCW holder before it got worse, the grabbers say “the CCW holder failed to stop the massacre”.

        • They could try that.. but that would blow up in their faces since that still would bring public attention to the lives saved by the CCW holder.. which they do not want.. they want higher body counts instead since that furthers their BS cause.

      • Also, I get really tired of hearing this 40% number, so a while back I looked it up and broke it down:

        Myth 10: “Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don’t require background checks.”

        ^This should say, “40% of all guns were acquired without a background check… in 1993 before the Brady Bill was enacted (actually the survey said 36% but what do numbers really matter to grabbers) with survey data from 1989.” Also, some (around 24%) of those guns were acquired by inheritance, family gifts, and raffles/giveaways. Of those 36%, only around 11.5% were from unknown sellers and only 4% without a check at gun shows.

        So, around 1993 (21 years ago!), 15.5% of guns sold were without a background check from “unknown sellers.” The “unknown sellers” number now is said to be much lower, under 1 – 4% total, depending on who you believe.

      • I read that one and thought the same thing….Well DUH…The law prevented anyone at the school from legally carrying a gun there in the first place.

        So OF COURSE many of the shootings that occur aren’t stopped by “law abiding citizens,” it’s because they can’t, (no gun, no way to stop the shooter).

        And I like how MJ thinks that plopping percentages in their statements some how makes them 100% true.

        Hmm…I can play this game too: 69% of all people in the United States hate the color green.
        See? It’s true! There’s a percentage in front of it!

        • What comes to mind here is the old phrase, “4 out of 5 statistics are made up on the spot.” Oddly, I wouldn’t have a hard time believing it, particularly in the agitprop industry.

        • Even if they were stopped the probably wouldn’t be counted because now that law abiding citizen broke the law to carry there.

          Wait. Did I just imply someone could carry a gun into a gun free zone? Sorry my bad, go on about your business.

        • True.. but that is hardly the point. Gun control does not prevent the mass shooters from being armed.. it only prevents the good guys from being armed. So therefore instead of thinking that “Actually about 40% of mass shootings are stopped by UNARMED civilians.” Try thinking of how many more could have been stopped by armed civilians if the idiotic laws did not prevent them from being armed?

          Not to mention such stopping of evil acts could be done faster with less damage inflicted by the lunatic / criminal in the first place which is the goal is it not? Nothing will ever stop all such incidents from happening.. so logically it is best to prepare ourselves accordingly in order to deal with such events instead of making idiot laws that prevent such preparation while those pushing for such laws continue to have their heads up their asses.. and insist WE abide by their irrational fears.

      • RF — you need to use this site’s study. One problem with the standard definition of spree killing is that it sets a minimum of 4 dead. This guy looks at all killings of strangers by strangers which were stopped by yet another stranger — ie, no families, no running out of ammo, no revenge groups where the killer finished his mission and shot himself or left, but real spree killings which somebody else stopped. Spoiler alert: almost all of such spree killers who were stopped by a civilian with a gun were stopped before they reached 4 dead, and that is why so many hoplophobes get away with saying civilians don’t stop spree killings, police do.

        http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

        • In figuress I have been seeing lately, they say that when the police terminate an active shooter situation the death toll, including the shooter is 14. When a legally armed citizen terminates the event, the death toll average is 2.

      • Well that one’s pretty easy any way. It’s pretty well documented that the Clackamas Oregon mall shooting was stopped by a lone concealed carrier who drew on the shooter, just before the shooter ran off and shot himself in the head when he realized the futility of his situation.

        …which is exactly why you NEVER hear of the Clackamas Mall incident any longer.

    • I concur.. very well written!

      As for those wanting to see the evils of gun control and confiscation in action try this for starters from this side of the border:

      bulletin.rightsandfreedoms.org/download/

      Get issues 116 and 117 read the two part article by Todd Brown.

    • Debunking this article: “The CDC conducted gun violence research in the 1980s and 1990s, but it abruptly ended in 1996 when the National Rifle Association lobbied Congress to cut the CDC’s budget the exact amount it had allocated to gun violence research.” (ABC News article)

      In short, the CDC hasn’t been doing gun violence research since 1996. So how can the data run to 2010?

      Seems there are liars out there — but who are they?

      • CDC did a gun study within the last few years.
        Google it.
        It didn’t get much ink because it showed approx. 2 Million DGU’s and Obama didn’t like the results.

        • I found the CDC report. Thank you. Guess the CDC continued the research without specific Congressional funding. Unfortunately it does not include data on injuries from guns, and with modern medicine, much can be done to keep people from dying from gunshot wounds.

          However, I went to the CDC’s supplemental mortality breakdown for firearms deaths and found the data actually says that the rate of death was unchanged for both sexes from all origins from 1999 to 2010. However, interestingly, while the rate decreased for both Hispanics and Blacks, the mortality rate for whites of both sexes from firearms actually INCREASED, from 9.3 in 1999 to 10.2 in 2010. Actual data tells interesting things.

        • The “modern medicine” argument doesn’t really hold much weight either when you look at aggravated assault data. Aggravated assaults are also down drastically in the last 2 decades, following similar trends of other violent crime (like homicide).

        • Where does the “aggravated assault” data come from? How reliable is it? Is there a central clearing house for it nationwide? Does the CDC collect it? I don’t believe they do because that has been opposed by the NRA for years. So where do you get your information from? Data that isn’t collected leaves what’s left as not very reliable.

        • It’s good that you are asking questions Ellen, but you are asking them from people on a gun blog. You are obviously suspicious of our view. Nevertheless, you are asking questions, so instead of giving you a link, let me help you in your quest for data by asking a few questions of my own. Why would the Centers for Disease Control track crime statistics? What other government agency, possibly a law enforcement agency, would track that raw data? I applaud your quest for answers and have no doubt that you will be able to find the crime report data without a link by someone of which you are suspicious.

        • The CDC tracks illnesses, not just deaths, of various causes. It seems to me that it would be very useful if they were to also collect injury data as well as deaths from firearms. Such data could also help identify where the incidents of shooting are the greatest, and where they are lowest (is it, in fact, where more people carry guns?), who is getting shot (are there really so many children getting killed or injured by guns?–or is it that the ones killed are given sensational publicity);are firearms deaths, in fact, occurring primarily in poor neighborhoods, or is that just someone’s idea that’s gotten perpetuated over time and the media. Is there, in fact, a correlation between certain kinds of firearms regulations and reduction in gun violence? Or is that just something people like to argue about? It would provide the actual data, not that based on newspaper reporting and sensationalism.

          The data could be used then in designing programs that actually work in reducing gun violence, accidental deaths to children, etc.. Programs would then not need to be just based on emotions, or on someone’s opinion, or racial bias, but on facts, and could be designed to actually work to reduce gun violence.

          I guess I really don’t understand why the NRA opposes collection of such data. It makes no sense to remain ignorant. And it would seem to me to be in their interest to have actual data out there to defend their stand on guns. It makes me think they must be afraid of actual data.

        • You asked, “Where does the “aggravated assault” data come from? How reliable is it? Is there a central clearing house for it nationwide? Does the CDC collect it? I don’t believe they do because that has been opposed by the NRA for years. So where do you get your information from? Data that isn’t collected leaves what’s left as not very reliable.”

          I offered you a way to look into the raw data that would answer your above questions. You apparently already know that the FBI tracks this crime data (including aggravated assaults) in the Uniform Crime Report but you somehow don’t like that it’s collected, analyzed, and distributed by a law enforcement agency? Is this a personal preference? This is a fundamental problem in debating gun control vs gun rights policy. There are too many barriers to effective communication. Reading your response, we’re apparently not even having the same conversation.

        • When people have different information, they have different opinions or ideas. I believe we have become so polarized in this country that people seldom actually communicate–unless it is with those who believe exactly as they do.. Most people don’t want to even consider that their information might be inadequate, incomplete, or just plain wrong, and get their information from just one or two major news sources– usually those that agree with their ideas.

          I have always been interested in facts, wherever they may lead. I only wish that more people were. But it seems that most people become entrenched in their viewpoints to the point of religious belief and are unwilling to even consider other viewpoints, or discuss issues with those who see things differently. That goes for both gun owners and those who want gun control.

          I am not opposed to gun ownership. I have a degree in wildlife management, and use of guns in hunting to manage wildlife populations is part of good management. I am also not opposed to someone who has had good firearms training in owning a gun. You said this is a “Gun” blog. I suggest that there is a need for those who believe in their right to own guns of any kind (even assault weapons that didn’t exist at the time the Bill of Rights was written) to start taking some responsibility for coming up with some ideas beyond “more guns” to deal with the increasing problem of mass shootings. (That reeks of religious belief.)

          But first , everyone needs to have their facts straight and unbiased (and that includes Mother Jones.) If gun owners don’t even talk reasonably with those who want some kind of control, or come up with some creative ideas of their own about how to address the problem of mass shootings, how are the conflicts and problems ever going to be resolved? I have appreciated the information on data sources I’ve gotten from you and from this site. If gun owners will stop just talking (and listening) only among themselves, perhaps the whole dialog would change and we could come up with solutions instead of more polarization. Being entrenched with one viewpoint based on one perspective or set of information will never solve anything.

        • “When people have different information, they have different opinions or ideas. I believe we have become so polarized in this country that people seldom actually communicate–unless it is with those who believe exactly as they do.. Most people don’t want to even consider that their information might be inadequate, incomplete, or just plain wrong, and get their information from just one or two major news sources– usually those that agree with their ideas. I’ve always been interested in facts, wherever they may lead. I only wish that more people were. But it seems that most people become entrenched in their viewpoints to the point of religious belief and are unwilling to even consider other viewpoints, or discuss issues with those who see things differently. That goes for both gun owners and those who want gun control.”

          I agree with that.

          “I am not opposed to gun ownership. I have a degree in wildlife management, and use of guns in hunting to manage wildlife populations is part of good management.”

          I don’t hunt. I am also in a connected field of work to yours.

          “I am also not opposed to someone who has had good firearms training in owning a gun.”

          This is where the debate usually gets a bit nasty because my question is always the same; what is good training and who gets to decide the requirements?

          “You said this is a “Gun” blog. I suggest that there is a need for those who believe in their right to own guns of any kind (even assault weapons that didn’t exist at the time the Bill of Rights was written)…”

          Do you think that the people who ratified the Constitution and adopted the BoR didn’t understand technological advancement (especially in the field of small arms: Google “Girandoni Air Rifle, Puckle Gun, Cookson Repeater, Lorenzoni Flintlock Repeating Pistol, Belton Flintlock, Kalthoff Repeater,” and many more)? The quest for semi-auto arms dates back to at least the early 1500’s. Put another way, even if we were to accept that the founders where naive to technological advancement, do you think that the 1st Amendment is only protected in the form of ink and the printing press? Are we not free to engage in unpopular speech online and on the airwaves of radio, television, and satellite?

          “…to start taking some responsibility…”

          We take responsibility for ourselves because we realize that in many situations we are the first responders. That is why we choose to carry firearms to protect those we love.

          “… for coming up with some ideas beyond “more guns” to deal with the increasing problem of mass shootings.”

          Let’s put aside the mass shootings are increasing and the “legal gun owners are responsible for them” narratives for a second and go off some other hypotheticals. Tomorrow, magically, semi-auto rifles and 11+ round mags are banned and somehow vanish from existence. Universal Background Checks are put into place and I just accept that I can’t let my father handle my shotgun when we go out and shoot clays for fun. When (and I mean when) the next mass shooting happens and the killer(s) are using guns that are used for hunting (ex: Naval Yard Shooting, Maryland Mall, Arapahoe High School) and conform to the ban on “assault weapons” (ex: Columbine, Virginia Tech, Layafette, Isla Vista), what then will be the answer. Will those that currently advocate for bans on certain firearms because they look scary and hold over an arbitrary number of rounds just shrug and say “we did our best”? We went down this road after Columbine when the shooters used 10 round magazines and firearms that didn’t meet the “assault weapons” definition and there were calls for more gun control. We have seen this in New York City where citizens have recently received registration rejections from the NYPD because their shotgun holds more than 5 rounds and there are calls for still more gun control. We have recently seen California go after and confiscate people’s firearms for having a misdemeanor drug possession offense from the 1970’s and there are calls for more gun control. In short, we that research the facts could cite many more example because there are those in pro gun control states that have been down that road and have been made criminals by legislative fiat. We are demonized as “at fault” when a mass shooting happens, but somehow the mass shootings that get stopped (before they become mass shootings) by lawfully armed citizens “never happen” in the eyes of gun control advocates.

          Furthermore, what will be the next item on which we gun owners should compromise without anything in return? What is the gun control side willing to give in return for their taking? Being that licensed concealed carriers have been deemed 5 to 10 times more law abiding than law enforcement in several state level statistics, would gun control advocates be willing to accept national concealed carry reciprocity? I generally know the answer from those I have proposed this to on Slate and the Daily Kos.

          ” (That reeks of religious belief.)”

          I’m not religious, but what seems like a more religious belief(s) (as in an article of faith) to you:

          Option A: UBC’s are mandatory, “assault weapons” are banned as well as 11+ round magazines since 1994 (no sunset of the original ban): The Sandy Hook shooter uses the two handguns (with 10 round magazines) he had on him and the shotgun (found in the trunk of his car) to murder his mother and the same amount of children and adults before committing suicide.

          Option B: The aforementioned murderer decides he can’t use an AR15 and decides to live in peace and harmony with the world.

          Option C: A School Resource Officer or armed faculty kills the murderer before he can carry out his plans of murdering innocent children and adults.

          Option D: Just one more (precrime) law will fix everything. And if that law doesn’t work, then we’ll just add one more law (due process be damned because guns).

          “But first , everyone needs to have their facts straight and unbiased (and that includes Mother Jones.)”

          I agree, which is why I don’t think the CDC should advocate gun control policy. They have a strong bias to overcome when claiming to conduct unbiased research.

          “If gun owners don’t even talk reasonably with those who want some kind of control, or come up with some creative ideas of their own about how to address the problem of mass shootings, how are the conflicts and problems ever going to be resolved?”

          This could just as easily read: “If gun control advocates don’t even talk reasonably with those who want to retain their rights, or come up with some creative ideas of their own about how to address the problem of mass shootings, how are the conflicts and problems ever going to be resolved?” In reality, there have been several ideas from the pro gun side that the gun control side will not accept. From increased funding for School Resource Officers, arming trained teachers (much like we armed pilots after 9/11), to addressing the actual issues of why these people do what they do. Do SSRI’s play a role? Does the fame (infamy) that the media is happy to dole out play a role? etc. The gun control side keeps coming up with suggestions that wouldn’t have stopped or changed the outcomes of the event they are holding up as the reasons for said restrictions. How can you expect those of us that see that rather large discrepancy as anything other than mendacious policy advocacy?

          “I have appreciated the information on data sources I’ve gotten from you and from this site.”

          I appreciate the conversation and I hope I am not coming off as confrontational, but just trying to continue the conversation.

          “If gun owners will stop just talking (and listening) only among themselves, perhaps the whole dialog would change and we could come up with solutions instead of more polarization.”

          I could say the same thing about gun control advocates (and I do on many left-leaning websites that don’t ban me for asking questions or debating ideas). I also converse with them in person as my family is mostly anti-gun as well as most of my wife’s colleagues. I find that I am always willing to hear the other side, but they are not willing to hear anything that goes against their preconceived notions. Kind of like a religion.

          “Being entrenched with one viewpoint based on one perspective or set of information will never solve anything.”

          I agree and I am glad you are willing to look at other perspectives in a civil manner. I look forward to your response.

        • Now you have become defensive and have put words in my mouth I never said, and are assuming my beliefs, which you clearly do not know or care to know. I see no purpose in continuing this discussion as it is clear that whatever connection might have been possible you have closed off with your assumptions. (They say that “Assume makes an ass out of you and me”). You have assumed that I am one of those who “want to take your guns away”, as a solution to everything, which I am not.. I just don’t understand why those who advocate strongly for free and unfettered ownership of all guns cannot seem to think that there might be solutions to gun violence that might not even involve changing gun laws. I find that pathetic.

          I will not communicate further in this blog as it would be a waste of my time. I have more important things to do than listen to the rantings of an obviously closed mind. Save yourself the trouble of answering as I won’t be following the discussion any longer and will no longer be notified of responses.

        • It’s unfortunate that you feel that way. Maybe you should re-read your post and my response in their entirety to better comprehend why you have become so defensive and upset.

        • ” I just don’t understand why those who advocate strongly for free and unfettered ownership of all guns cannot seem to think that there might be solutions to gun violence that might not even involve changing gun laws. I find that pathetic.”

          You just don;’t understand that there is no such thing as “gun violence”.. you are focusing on the inanimate object… not the actual problem(s).

          Seriously.. give your head a shake and look at the actual problem(s) instead of the inanimate object.

          Or does your lack of logic blame spoons for making people fat as well?

      • Feinstien, Bloomberg, Cukier, peters,… etc etc etc.. all with their own anti-gun agenda while crying “think of the children!!!!!” and yet not giving a rats ass that people die.. only how they die.. since to do otherwise would not help their agenda.

        • Without mention of the 94.4% mass murder via firearm “Where” question.
          Gun free zones suck. No one has ever offered me a free firearm in any of those places… They just want total citizen disarmament.

  1. *ring ring* “Hi, thanks for calling Mother Jones!”

    Hello, I’d like to write a factual article for your site involving firearms and self-defense.

    “I’m sorry, you have use confused with another website.” *click*

  2. Another time a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy was during a school shooting in Pearl, MS when the Assistant Principle stopped the killer with a handgun that he (the Principle) had in his vehicle.

    • It was a handgun that the assistant principal had to lock in his car and park his car off of school grounds (gun-free school zone and all). Then when the shooting started he had to run to his vehicle, retrieve his handgun (possibly from a locked safe and load it), then return to the school, find the shooter, and confront him.

    • And that private university in VA around the same time as the VA Tech shooting.
      And that megachurch in CO five or six years ago.

  3. This is very good, but I hate caving so much on the DGU per year number. The low-end that I have seen is 118,000 from the crime victim survey, which everyone who isn’t ridiculously biased admits is way low. And if I recall correctly, Cook and Ludwig — two very pro-gun control academics — put the number as high as 1.5 million when they challenged Gary Kleck’s number of 2.5 million. Even the CDC once published a figure of around 440,000 home robberies being stopped by firearms each year.

    • Yeah, the under 100,000 estimates are highly suspect. There was one study done in ’97 that put it in that ballpark, and several around the same time period that put it over 1,000,000.

      Methodology is everything in survey data.

  4. Well said, Nick~

    At some point many decades ago I rifled(ha.) a Mother Jones while perusing a periodical aisle in a bookstore. I put it down before I soiled my hands. Haven’t picked up another one since.

    • Also, I can’t help but feel like they ran damn near the exact same article at least once a year prior?
      And I always get a little laugh about the ATF Director thing. Yeah, because having a permanent paper-pusher was what was keeping us from the edge of anarchy up until five years ago. That must be why it looks like Thunderdome outside my house.

  5. That is fantastic, they used a pun. What is next? Proper journalism? Nah, that will take a couple of years (Read: their lifetimes).

  6. Excellent analysis, Nick. I would have shortened it a bit:

    “Mother Jones is a progressive, leftist publication. They hate the 2nd amendment and gun ownership, so they lie about it continuously.”

    • Mother Jones today is an embarrassment even to progressive leftists.

      George Orwell, a democratic socialist, said “That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

      Karl Marx said “the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition… Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”

    • Here you go:

      Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
      Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
      • Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
      • In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

      • Fact check: There’s no statistically valid way MJ could know that. I mean, 75% of all statistics are simply made up on the spot.

        And of course the data on concealed carriers conveniently ignores the fact that your CCW permit holder is less likely to commit a crime than a police officer.

        And what’s wrong with 7-10% more burglars ventilated by homeowners? Sounds like a good way to discourage home invasions to me.

        • And I believe the statistic is actually an increase in justifiable homicides, an important distinction they don’t care to make. This means the actual homicide number could be up, it could be unchanged, or it could be down, but the number that are now ruled justifiable increases because of the removal of the duty to retreat.

      • Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.

        That doesn’t make sense. All they’re saying is that if you have a Texas CHL then you’re more likely to be sentenced. I would wager that is true, too, in fact I think there is something in the Texas CHL laws (or it may just be the unspoken rule) that basically says you’re more apt to get your ass handed to you by a judge if you abuse your privilege to carry.

        Nevermind the fact that they’re bringing up Texas CHL holders and ignoring that nice little diddy about how a CHL holder is 14 times LESS likely to commit any crime in the first place.

        But it wouldn’t be propaganda if they picked out the favorable facts (or even true ones) now would it?

        • You mean a web site like MJ would cherry pick facts to fit their agenda?

          No, not them.

          The media never does that.

  7. It is another example of projection; for a Liberal/progressive. They are constantly showing how a person without a long violent criminal history; essentially a disturbed but otherwise law abiding citizen; snaps and goes on a murder spree.

    And so far; the ones that we have seen; have been of the liberal bent; (under line bent). As what’s his name in Santa Barbara showed himself to be; again.

  8. Notice how in #7, it says “if HE has access to a gun”? Because as we all know, women who own guns are physically incapable of actually, you know, using them. So any guns they own will simply be used by abusive partners to kill them. Unbelievably sexist.

    • I just noticed that. What a load of male-supremacist crap!

      I’d like to know if there has ever been ONE report of an armed woman being raped, EVER!

  9. “In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.”

    Apparently Mother Jones thinks that guns only work for self-defense if you’re attacked by a stranger of the opposite gender. Tip for the ladies out there: if your husband or boyfriend is trying to kill you, shoot the bastard.

    “A woman’s chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.”

    What happens to her chances if she has access to her own gun?

    • On the domestic violence aspect: One thing I’ve noticed in my line of work (I do a lot of family law) is that the women who are married to or living with abusive men with guns typically don’t have access to the husband/boyfriend’s guns. He typically has them locked away where she can’t get to them (doubtless because he knows that if she could get to them, that would equalize the odds, and he doesn’t want that of course.) And often times he controls the purse strings and/or the car keys, and otherwise makes it so that she can’t go out and buy her own things, including her own firearms.

      (Also, of course, not all domestic violence is male against female, but that’s another topic.)

      • Oh, I know that abusers use all kinds of methods to control their victims, and it really isn’t as simplistic as my earlier comment painted it, but Mother Jones’ implication just rubbed me the wrong way. Do they really think any of those women who were shot by husbands or boyfriends would be A-OK if those guys hadn’t had guns? That the gun is what made them abusive shitheads? Plenty of women (and men) are stabbed or beaten to death by domestic partners – guns are most definitely not the problem in those relationships.

  10. Great article, Nick. I’m emailing out links.

    So far, I only see one possible typo. I think you meant “cell” instead of “call”. (emphasis mine)

    (A) Land-line phones are going the way of the dinosaur. Almost no one in my generation pays for one in their home, and a shrinking number of the older generation are doing the same. Call phones are the new way to communicate, and those aren’t included in the polls.

  11. So. Wyoming, having the highest per capita reported rate of gun ownership, is apparently also a mecca for gun-related homicides? Wow, I haven’t noticed blood running in the streets here (other than the alleged drunk driver who mowed down a cyclist yesterday morning). Of course, MJ didn’t mention that Wyoming’s overall homicide rate is also substantially lower than the national average. http://trib.com/news/local/casper/wyoming-s-homicide-rate-returns-to-recent-average/article_90ed0976-9707-5693-918d-ebf3568d3c51.html

    Also, I agree with Nick that MJ’s attitude toward women and firearms seems awfully sexist. To be sure, an average sized guy is going to be bigger and have more upper body strength than an average sized gal, but to me that’s all the more reason for women to be armed. Equalizer, yanno.

    Also, regarding Texas CHL holders, don’t Texas CHL statistics show that CHL holders commit crimes at a far lower rate than the public at large?

  12. Great article Nick, thank you. Also, that CDC report about causes of death was EXCELLENT. For a while, I’ve been casually searching for hard facts on the percentage of murders that are either gang-related or drug cartel-related (since most Western European countries don’t have those issues, it’s an excellent counter-point to the typical “look at Europe!” we see from the antis). I knew the number was high (via information that shows that this is actually a very non-violent country, with small pockets of extreme violence in inner cities), but it’s good to have hard facts from the best possible authority on the matter.

    Do you realize how significant that statistic is for our cause? We should trumpet it from the rooftops, because it means that if we could wave a magic wand and get rid of street gangs, we’d have one of the lowest murder rates in the world, even lower than most western European countries, despite our “easy access to guns”.

    • The magic wand you speak of would consist of:

      Step 2. Ending the War on Drugs
      Step 3. Prison & sentencing reform (enabled by Step 2, IE unclogging the glut caused by the War on Drugs). Basically locking people up who are actually dangerous and NOT LETTING THEM OUT until they are reformed or dead. The removal of the WoD glut would allow prison funding to be channeled into intra-prison programs to actually address the underlying causes of recidivism.

      Notice I skipped Step 1, which would be to pump unicorn farts into the halls of Congress so that the powerful effects might cause our politicians to start addressing these core issues. But unicorns don’t exist, so we’re hosed.

  13. Not to be too “critical”, but I find your take-down lacking in a few areas. Namely, for Myth #10 you don’t refute their statistics or question their sources. I know, the 40% myth has been debunked here time and time again, so us regulars know it is baloney. But many don’t, and since it has been so thoroughly discredited it should be fairly easy to include in your take-down.

    Also for Myth #7, you didn’t repeat the assertion from earlier that of course houses with guns in them have a higher incidence of domestic violence involving guns, but the rate of domestic violence itself is unchanged. I would focus on anything where the antis mention “…with a gun” and use that as a red flag to compare to the same crime category without a gun.

    Yeah, I’m nitpicking, overall the take-down is good but I just think you left some holes so don’t take my criticism as something to be COMMENT MODERATED. I ‘m also not surprised to see Mother Jones hasn’t gained any editorial integrity since I browsed their pages for years as a Whole Foods employee either. Oh, and way to throw WLP under the bus for his video game comment, that one still makes my head spin. Sit down Gramps, and read this pamphlet on Alzheimer’s while I find a good home for you.

    • Yeah, but sometimes I feel like Nemo’s dad trying to talk to the whale when I debate the gun control crowd. They just don’t speak the same language. Show them a graph and it just doesn’t register.

      If only we could train infants to speak…that might work, Little Babby Bobby telling them to stop pushing gun control, for the children…

  14. Excellent rebuttal, well researched and keen. Unfortunately it won’t ever affect the blue masses but it might well bring some independent thinkers into the fold.

    A recent thought about concealed carry. My local liquor store (due to bizarre laws in my county) lays just across the Ohio border in West Virginia, City of Huntington. Huntington has a poverty rate approaching 30% and an unemployment rate over 25%. It’s a miniature Detroit waiting to happen and the crime rate is high.

    I’m there almost every day for my daily cigarettes and beer ( I know, so last century and so unhealthy). I wear a suit 5 days a week for my job, and I always carry a gun. In conversations with the clerks, they are all either gun nuts like me or else at least advocates for gun rights. We’ve had very many interesting conversations about guns, gun rights and related things.

    What’s surprising about this is that they report shoplifting, theft, abusive behavior and physical altercations down precipitously in the last several months. It’s a rough place, surrounded by stupid people doing stupid things. There are many homeless, many addicts and many lawless people in the neighborhood and I’d be well advised to stay away from there but it’s close and it’s convenient.

    What’s strange is that the clerk’s report my being there immediately calms the crazies, disrupts those who are argumentative and causes a cessation of crime of all types, because the resident trouble makers have seen my suit, caught on that I’m armed, and assumed I’m a police officer of some sort. My carry, responsible demeanor and presence is a crime deterrent.

    Imagine if this caught on, if the regular patrons of businesses were seen by those who most need it as a deterrence to criminal behavior. We might end up with a polite society with less theft, less abuse, less assault and less generally irritating behavior.

    A thought from today: A clerk told me that the man he was telling to leave because he was barred from business there for stealing liquor had adamantly argued and made threats in the past when being told the same. He left when I walked in the store today and the clerk says that it has to be because he knows (from talking to his wasted and criminal friends) that I’m armed, and I’ll back the clerk up.

    Do the clerks use me? You bet they do, their bared from being armed by their employer (the previous owner allowed employees to carry). They like to use me as a big stick to make the more recalcitrant ‘customers’ go away. Does this put me at risk? Of course it does, but I’ll accept it. Does this mean that a gun carrier makes for a more lawful and polite society? It certainly does at that place.

    There is a disconnect where many people fail to account for the fact that intoxicated, insane, broken people exist and that these will cause trouble. They also respond to the idea that acting out their intoxicated, depraved and insane ideas in front of someone who has the power to kill them is a bad idea.

    I think that is a good idea, that the intoxicated, insane and broken people don’t act out against the rest of us. Maybe I’m a bully, or an asshole, but it seems to me that if the fact of my being armed makes the worst behaving people in that community behave better, more armed people is a great idea.

  15. Lemme get this straight… So a good guy stops a shooting before it starts and it doesn’t count – since it’s not recorded as a mass shooting. On the flip side a good guy stops a shooting in progress where 4 people have been shot but he/she is not credited with stopping it since there are now 4 victims. If I understand MJ’s construct here… that stat will never be anything but zero. Am I missing something?

    • I’ve had that very same discussion with anti-gun types too and that is the line they push. To say that it is dishonest is an understatement.

  16. There was an attempted mass shooting at a church in Colorado, too. It was stopped by a chick with a gun. You necer hear about the success stories, only the tragedies. Sickening.

    • I went on a trip with a couple who attend that CO church where the incident occurred. I’m pretty sure the armed woman who resolved the issue was Israeli (where they wisely require military service/training for all their men and women). From what this couple told me, as the incident started everyone was running away from the assailant and she was the sole person running toward him. She had the tool and resolve to stop him. Definitely proud of her actions that demonstrate “bad guys with guns” are indeed only stopped by “good guys with guns” — regardless whether man/woman. Furthermore, think of how much more destruction would have likely happened had she NOT been there.

        • I didn’t say when it happened, just that it did. local news coverage is all it got as far as normal or internet news outlets. Blogs spread it further than the press did. BTW: No charges filed: justifiable homicide. The world and Ft. Smith, AR moves on as usual less one crazed would-be killer.

  17. “Gang on gang violence is responsible for 80% of all murders in the United States, so it makes sense that a gang banger is more likely to be killed than an average citizen.”

    Went to the link, and I am not seeing any data regarding the percentage of homicides that were gang related. Can you please provide a page number?

  18. “It is already a crime to sell a gun to a felon. It is already a crime to use a gun to commit a crime. It is already a crime for a felon to posses a firearm. I really don’t see any room for improvement — you’re just making already illegal things more illegal er.”

    I say stuff like this ALL THE TIME.

    • “namely that every criminal is just a naturally good person who was tempted by the evil demonic powers of a handgun into committing a crime”

      They don’t even believe that. I mean we’re all a hair’s breadth from snapping at any moment and becoming mass murdering spree shooters. So we can’t be all that good.

  19. I would jump into the MJ comments section — but the people there are just in childish-name-calling mode.

    Firstly — if you do no count DGUs — or count them improperly — then you will have (purposely) bad data. The “By US State” data is fraudulent and the real [FBI] data is here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

    click on top right to sort by lowest per 100K. VT is on par with Canada and Scandinavia.

    The bit about Gallup and fewer gun owners is obviously an issue of the legitimacy of phone surveys — ie they do not work for any issue where people may not admit to something. (or hang up)

    ~200M guns have been sold since NICS started — it is *economically* IMPOSSIBLE that a small number of Americans are doing all the buying. Things like hunting may be declining — but at my 2 gun clubs — most people DO NOT hunt.

    What the MJ article shows is how much guns are an entrenched “Culture War” issue that is detached from positions that MJ readers “should” take. MJ is critical of our government and institutions and agencies like the N$A, C1A and Pentagon. If many gun issues revolve around how much one “trusts his government” — then why would MJ NOT be on the side of armed civilians?

    The fact that the MJ position makes NO sense (*FOR THEM*) shows AN OPPORTUNITY for the 2A crowd to re-frame the debate.

    • I did a simple linear regression using your data per state for gun murders and the demographics of the United States:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Breakdown_by_state

      Came up with an R-srq of .00 for Hispanic/Latino, .26 for white, and .65 for Black. What does this tell us? Well if you make a scatter plot with a line of best fit using the last demographic (.65) it looks very similar to the one Mother Jones has in “Myth #2”. But of course this is racist and must be dismissed immediately.

  20. Just like the other “statistics” quoted my the Mother Jones spinmeisters, the statistics for violence against women conflate women in normal relationships with the statistics for young women with gangbanger boyfriends shot by other gang members. All of these people are “acquainted”, but they bear no relation to the husbands and boyfriends people picture when MJ makes their claims.

    • We can debate the percentage all day long, but anyone who thinks that gangs aren’t responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in this country is living in a dream land.

      • Probably. But Nick failed on debunking that one. Need something to support even 51% to claim majority but it isn’t in the link he provides.

        Until TTAG fixes #6 and adds in #3, this article can’t be used for refuting the MJ article since we’re already granting #8. Adding the other mass shooting stops would help too.

        • The Huff article only accounts for 1800 gang related homicides for 2011. I find this hard to swallow since Chicago had ~400 homicides alone for that year (probably not all gang related though…) and Detroit was not far behind.

          This little gem for Wikipedia… “According to a 2007 analysis, Detroit officials noted that about 65 to 70 percent of homicides in the city were confined to a narcotics catalyst” I’ve seen similar figures for Baltimore as well.

          Perhaps the counter argument needs to researched and reframed to gang/drug/repeat offender activity instead – basically gun users that weren’t allowed in the first place.

      • And anyone who thinks that gangs aren’t the direct result of Anslinger’s and Nixon’s insane War on (some) Drugs is simply not paying attention.

        • True, and I think it goes hand in hand with disarming the People. They are made weaker in fighting organized crime and corruption because their RKBA is infringed. Organized crime dramatically increased during prohibition and we still see the effects of that flavor of gang corruption in politics today. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was a very bad turning point in our history. Adding insult to injury, 1968 saw the Gun Control Act on the heels of assassinations and civil unrest. Of course, a balance to criminal activity is the armed individual. Our government has a history of upsetting that balance and the People have a history of rolling over for it.

          The “War on Drugs” and the war on the RKBA both need to stop. I believe that they are connected as far as government is concerned.

  21. “Myth #8: “Vicious, violent video games” deserve more blame than guns.
    Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what’s up with Japan?

    Actually, gotta agree with this one. LaPierre was off his rocker when he made that suggestion. Anyway, blind squirrels and acorns.”

    Well it’s also next to impossible to own a gun in Japan so their gun crime is quite low. Shocker.

      • Right. Japan does not share a border with Mexico and have to deal with Cartel Drug Wars. Yeah they got the Yukuza but the 8-9-3 gang is pretty small potatoes compared to Cartels.

      • I agree. I have spent time in Japan. Their crime is different. That entire country is different. It wouldn’t kill us to learn a thing or two from the Japanese. They’re a squared away people in a lot of ways. In exchange we can teach them what liberty is and maybe tone down the rampant ethnocentrism/master race nonsense that is so engrained in their culture that it’s still taught in public schools. Sure, not using those words, but it’s there if you look for it. Hell, there are restaurants that actually bar non-Japanese from service. I mean it… they have a signs posted. Think about what would happen today if you were a restaurant owner and you posted a sign that said “NO (insert race here) ALLOWED.” In America. You would be crucified.

        That having been said, my original statement is still accurate. It’s kind of tough to have a rate of high gun violence when guns are exceedingly rare. Even if there was a shift towards more violent crime (it can happen to any society), there wouldn’t be more gun crime because there are no guns.

    • Exactly. And look at Japan’s rates and methods of suicide. Taking guns out of the equation does not prevent suicides it only reduces the number of suicides by firearms.

      • Actually, the number of homicides in Japan is pretty high, it’s just done with other tools, and is also very often hidden in the suicide or “death by accident” statistics.

  22. “Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.”

    Sorry, but ME carrying a gun for SELF-defense makes me safer. I don’t care what statistics you provide for general homicide rates, they don’t apply to an individual.

  23. the only people who read Mother Jones are those already inclined to believe their garbage. nuff said.

  24. Great, and chock full of truth as always, but it doesn’t matter. We’ll all agree with it, the antis won’t read it, and so the wheel will still turn.

    I’m not saying we shouldn’t counter these lies. I’m just saying don’t count on it changing any anti’s minds. Undecideds, maybe, but not antis. They aren’t antis due to their intelligence, comprehension, and rationality, and all the facts and logic in the world won’t turn them into decent human begins.

  25. What’s wrong with almost all of Mother Jones’s point is that they care only about crimes committed with guns. You can see it in the statistics about gun violence/gun ownership, in the assertion that a woman is more likely to be shot by an acquaintance rather than a stranger, etc. etc. They don’t care if a woman is murdered, they only care if a gun was used.

  26. “Mother Jones” 1960s leftover marxist potheads. ANYTHING they think has no relevance forget/ignore then.

  27. “Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
    Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
    • Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5”

    Fact: An armed citizen has a better chance of stopping a mass shooting than a “gun free zone” sign.
    • All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.

    • I put that second part in there because I thought it to be as arbitrary as Mother Jones’ second part.

      • MJ is Old Left. They won’t be around much longer. The people they believe they’re appealing to are dying off, day by day. They seem incapable of making the change. They’re you Grandma’s wringer washer out in a shed somewhere on the property.

  28. There is a huge flaw with Mother Jones’ reporting of Myth #9 — percent of homes with firearms. We already know that relatively few women own firearms. We also know that many more women are single/divorced and live alone in their homes today compared with 1973. Therefore, it is no surprise that a few percent fewer homes have firearms today compared to 1973. Thus the fact that fewer homes have firearms today than yesteryear doesn’t mean what they think it means.

  29. I haven’t had a land line in 14 years. I know my cell carrier sells my number. I have NEVER done a phone survey in my 60 years. Skewed numbers indeed. BTW who actually reads Mother Jones???

    • Yeah. No land line here, either. Since the breathtakingly expensive Qwest in NM. I’m making a couple hundred bucks a month, and the phone bill was nearly $200.

      And the myth was the “breakup” of Ma Bell was “great for the phone customer”!

      I am the son of a lifetime Bell employee (Chesapeake and Potomac), and was over a DECADE before the breakup of Ma Bell benefited most customers.

      Meantime, mon, BEEG PROFIT-TAKING!

      • My TracFone was $9.95 + tax, and minutes run about an average of $10.00/month.

        There was never any real reason to make the first phone company a government-enforced monopoly.

      • Ya know Qwest really didn’t want to provide service at all in NM… Not enough people for the area of land they had to cover. (Obviously Albuquerque and Santa Fe have enough people, but when you start talking San Hon, Roswell, Hatch, etc. and the surrounding areas…)

  30. Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
    ——————————————————————————–

    Number of super mass shootings (Defined as 50 or more killed) stopped by armed law enforcement in the past 30 years: 0

    That’s because law enforcement has been able to stop the killings before the number 50 has been reached to qualify as a super mass shooting.

    Armed civilians when present at a potential mass shooting have 100% of the time so far stopped the attack before the level of mass shooting, defined as 5 or more killed, has been reached.

    Only morons could consider it a failure to prevent people from being killed. It’s not as if an armed civilian is responding to the attack. If they are present when the attack begins, the number of killed is kept very low, because of the presence and frankly dedication of those armed civilians.

  31. I had to do the same thing when a friend posted a link to this garbage “list”. So I came up with a generally unbiased analysis. typically, I’d work some more pro-gun stuff into it, but I tried to stay away from opinionated stuff so the anti-gun folk would potentially still read it. Here it is:

    1))) I don’t think many people believe that there are immediate plans to confiscate everyone’s guns; that would be ridiculous. However, confiscation letters (requesting surrendering of firearms) have been sent to Connecticut and New York gun owners regarding [previously legally-owned] firearms that have recently been made illegal. In New York City for example, they recently made it illegal to own firearms that can hold over five rounds; these firearms must now be surrendered. Additionally, particular politicians have specifically mentioned confiscation goals.
    2))) Every society is different, and guns obviously aren’t the only variable that affects murder rates. There are countries with very low gun ownership that have significantly higher OR lower crime rates. I think that this correlative statistical information is virtually inapplicable to both sides of the argument.
    3))) Again, this is correlative data, and there are similar 1-value statistics that support the pro-gun side as well. These statistics are useless and subjective [for both sides].
    4))) There have been mass shootings stopped by armed civilians. Here are a few examples: The New Life Church shooting and the Clackamas Town Center shooting. Regarding the second figure- again, they picked out a 1-value statistic that supports their claim. Its very easy to find statistics that support both sides. (ie 50% of these shootings end in death of the perpetrator, which is likely at the hands of an armed security officer).
    5))) Obviously firearms are dangerous to the unfamiliar and irresponsible. A gun in the home does make you safer from an intruder, and proper storage and training will minimize risk. Again, the rest is 1-value correlative statistics.
    6))) Yet again, they have managed to find some random statistics that they can use to support their claim. Again, there are equally-accessible statistics that support the opposing viewpoint.
    7))) They state the pro-gun claim that “guns make women safer” and then cite statistics regarding MALE gun ownership. The pro-gun claim refers to FEMALE gun ownership, which they do not address.
    8))) I agree with this one. No one attribute of a society is to blame for gun violence. Its a combination of many attributes, because there are exceptions to EVERY rule (ie there are locations with high gun ownership and very low crime, and vice versa).
    9))) The american population is growing. Yes, the percentage of gun-owning Americans has declined through the last few decades, but the NUMBER of gun owners has obviously increased, contrary to their [math-inept] claim. 50% of Americans in 1973 = 106M, 35% of Americans in 2013 = 111M. Number of gun owners is clearly increasing.
    10))) I think with this one they lost track of their claim…… They claim that enforcing existing laws is NOT enough, but then they provide evidence that people widely disregard certain laws, which directly contradicts their claim. In order to support what they are saying, they should have provided evidence that the existing laws are followed, and that these laws are not enough. REGARDING THE OFTEN-CITED 40% STATISTIC: This data is from 1994, BEFORE background checks were legally required for in-store purchases. Of course 40% were purchased without BC’s. I’m surprised it wasn’t higher. Clearly, this 20-year-old statistic does not apply to today’s situation in which you cannot legally buy a firearm from a store without a background check.

    • A strange thing, “belief”. People will refuse to believe that which they don’t want to believe.

      The result can be a shock, and involve a lot of mourning and grief.

  32. “Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0”

    Inconvenient fact…the Police are armed civilians.

  33. Excellent article. Really were several eye-opening figures in there for me, especially the DGU figure- that is truly awesome. So guns not only save the lives of those who are carrying them, but on many occasions they save the lives of the people who are trying to do them harm as well.

  34. All you need to know is that THEY LIE. EVERY TIME. ALWAYS.

    They are not acquainted with the truth. EVER. They have no use for truth. THEY’RE LIARS!!!

  35. The Volvo drivers could get to work on real problems–like wealth inequality–but flogging culture-war issues is just so damn easy.

    • Free markets cause “wealth inequality,” true, but the use of that term is very deceptive.

      If you’re talking about nothing but the number of dollars a person has, then yes, the range from lowest to highest is less in a redistributionist system than the range from lowest to highest in a Free Market system. The thing is, they don’t tell you where on the range of redistributionist vs. free market spectrum you are.

      Under the redistributionists, net worth might range from 2 – 5 shekels, a difference of 3. And the wealthiest have a value of 5 shekels. (of course, this totally ignores the ruling class, which are up there in the 1000 shekel range). But in a Free Market system, the ranges go from 10 shekels at the bottom to maybe 100 at the top. Yeah, the gap’s a lot bigger, but the people at the lowest end of the gap are still doing FIVE TIMES BETTER than they would do under redistributionism. Plus the bonus that the Free Market doesn’t need the 1000-shekel planner!

      And nobody stays in one place for very long anyway.

      If you try to enforce “equality,” you always – ALWAYS end up with everyone equally poor. No one has yet figured out how to sustain a redistributionist system, because it is physically impossible. It’s like trying to build a perpetual-motion machine.

      • CENTRAL BANKING policies of: asset-inflation, financialization (deindustrialization), dollar debasement, Wall St bailouts, interest rate suppression, support of financial leverage and many issues — makes said institutions responsible for 100% of *inappropriate* wealth inequality.

        (Someone please explain to me WHY The Federal Reserve is not the target of total outrage from The Left?)

    • The primary problem isn’t wealth inequity. The real problem is power inequity. The rights of the People have been infringed. Once that’s corrected by a return to constitutional governance everything else has a chance to sort itself out properly.

  36. Good article but it just reinforces the fact that the argument will never be won because it’s not about facts and data anymore than it’s about safety. At the core of the anti’s are the grabbers and all the grabbers want is our guns. They aren’t anti’s because they are ultimately pro-gun but only for the elite.

  37. The hyperlinked reference in “Gang on gang violence is responsible for 80% of all murders in the United States, so it makes sense that a gang banger is more likely to be killed than an average citizen” doesn’t show that 80 percent of murders are gang on gang violence. Please clarify where that statistic is from.

  38. There is a very unpopular statistic regarding gun violence that I’m going to share. Whenever I mention this to most people, they come unglued and start throwing out insults and accusations, I’m going to say it anyway, and let’s see if this gets deleted.

    The number one determining factor for whether a neighborhood, town, city, state, or country will have a high rate of violence(particularly gun violence) is whether or not it has a sizable minority population. The ten most dangerous cities in the US also have majority non-white populations. Some, like Detroit, New Orleans, and Memphis are overwhelmingly black. Others, like LA and NYC have large black and Hispanic populations. But none of them have majority white populations.

    No, majority white cities are on another list—the ten safest cities in America.

    The media goes nuts when some demented white person shoots some people, but all the mass shootings in recorded history don’t equal one year’s worth of black-on-black, brown-on-brown, black-on-white, or brown-on-white murders.

    Gun crime is overwhelmingly a minority issue, but our society is so kowtowed by the fear of being called RACIST that it can’t even be discussed. And that’s sad.

      • Sorry, but that doesn’t give them liberty to become rampant, unrepentant murderers. You can’t blame the war on drugs for some ghetto thug who decides to rob a convenience store and shoot the clerk.The war on drugs didn’t make that young dreadlocked man just recently shoot the cabbie for “not listening to him”. The “war on drugs” has nothing do do with one gang shooting up another gang. It’s not the police doing the shooting—-it’s gangsters shooting gangsters and innocent bystanders. Why? The war on drugs doesn’t force them to conduct their business in such a manner. Why can’t they get together, divide up territories, and do business without all the shooting and nonsense?

        The Mafia doesn’t do business like that. Sure, there’s killing, but at the height of Capone’s Chicagoland, the murders were nothing like modern day Chiraq. Why?

        If gun crimes committed by blacks and browns are removed from the equation, America’s gun crime rate plummets to a European level.

        Why are blacks and browns so prone to violence?

        • The Mafia doesn’t do business like that. Sure, there’s killing, but at the height of Capone’s Chicagoland, the murders were nothing like modern day Chiraq. Why?

          The individual right to keep and bear arms has never been so infringed and blanket infringements so readily accepted by the public as we see today. Some do not understand that they have a natural right to self-defense and that bearing arms is usually an effective means. Undoubtedly, many have bought into the lies of “gun violence” and are not taking responsibility for their own safety.

    • How freely can members of those communities lawfully exercise their individual RKBA? How many are educated about their individual right to keep and bear arms? Nobody wants to live in high crime. I propose that they are either prevented from being lawfully armed, unaware of the necessity and utility that they be at all times armed, or both.

      • I’d wager that most of the victims of violent crime in those areas are also involved in nefarious activity, and are likely ineligible to legally purchase and carry firearms.

        • Let’s get right down to the meat of it, shall we? If an individual isn’t in lawful, legal custody (this includes being under legal guardianship) then the right to keep and bear arms ought not be infringed. Do you believe that the infringements (including those culturally self-imposed) lead to a culture of more or less crime? In other words, which fosters more crime in our country; a region where individuals are mostly disarmed or a region where people can freely be armed? If you believe the latter then you have no problem with people in Chicago being armed, even the non-whites, right? My contention is that it’s not a matter of genetics but rather it is a matter of tyranny and cultural pressures that perpetuate that tyranny. What are your thoughts?

    • Every last “debunk” contains hilariously bad fallacious arguments, thus nothing gets debunked. I mean the false analogy to alligators has to be one of the most uneducated things I’ve read from Conservatives. The reason for this is that there is no logical argument for guns. You can not debunk something that is not fallacious and the FBI studies etc that MotherJones used are not fallacious in the slightest. There is no way to do what you’re trying to do. Sucks, I know but it is what it is.

  39. I had to read this three times, I swear:
    Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
    Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
    • A woman’s chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
    • One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

    Where in those “factcheck” bullet points are the women who are NOT victims being addressed? Where are the women who are the ones with the gun in their hands?
    They are the ones who ARE safer, not the ones who become victims of a MAN with a gun. Sheesh. I want to just smack this misogynist pig (MJ) who attempts to pass himself off as being anything else, and the ones who actually believe him deserve a good shoulder shake to wake them up from their mass hypnosis, as that can be the ONLY reason so many would fall for this blatant propaganda.

  40. He fails utterly and completely in his attempt to show a woman isn’t safer with a gun, since all his points say is that men who are intent on harming women with a gun are successful against them if they’re not armed.

  41. Statistics don’t lie but Statisticians do.
    If you don’t like the numbers then change the format and you can make anything look how you want it. The United Way is famous for playing with the numbers so it always looks like they are a raging success!

  42. I recently returned from a three year company transfer in Australia. Before I left I was pro 2A. Since living in a country with almost no guns and very strong gun laws I have changed my mind. I felt safer there with no guns and believe the USA would be a better place to live with out them.

    • You may well feel differently when you enter your senior years. You also might feel differently if you were a petite young woman who faced a lot of unwanted attention.

      Even in Australia, where guns are now rare, do you think for a moment that NO criminals have them? How might you have felt if you were ever contronted by one? Who, then, has the upper hand?

      While I’ve carried in Michigan for the better part of two decades and have owned guns since I was a pre-teen, I’ve never been shot, nor have I ever felt the need to think about my weapon. I’d say that I’ve been every bit as safe as you were in Australia, even though I’ve worked in and around Detroit for my entire career. And that is the thing: you never need a gun until you absolutely NEED a gun, and at that point you need it more than anything in the world. Here, I stand a fighting chance. In Australia… not so much. Having a choice is a good thing.

      • I actually live about 25 miles from Detroit. My brother who has a CWP and carries where ever he goes was held up at gun point near the MGM casino. He said that he had absolutely no chance to pull his weapon because the robber had his weapon drawn and pointed. Blowing, he told me, the myth that you can protect your self if you are armed.

        • I’ve worked in and around Detroit for my entire career. I’ve also carried during most of it. Your lone story proves nothing, except that a bad guy got the drop on him and his weapon didn’t help. That’s because it’s only a single part of what is supposed to be an overall strategy; the AAAs: Awareness, Avoidance and Action. That he let someone get the drop on him tells me that a few things went wrong beforehand. First, he didn’t notice trouble coming until it was too late. Secondly, if he did see the guy, he either ignored any warning signs (a.k.a. “didn’t listen to his gut”) or didn’t take a defensive posture, which you should always do when dealing with a person you don’t know. Lastly, he had no plan for what to do once he found himself confronted by an armed attacker. The trouble wasn’t with the gun. The trouble was either with his training or his lack of applying it properly. I could counter your story with several from friends I know of personally that had a far different outcome.

          And for those who say, “It never happens,” I’d point you to the running list I’ve kept up on my Facebook page:
          https://www.facebook.com/DJStuCrew/posts/562471960443325?
          Note all of the recent stories out of Detroit. Also consider the attitude of Police Chief Craig, recently featured on the cover of the NRA’s “America’s First Freedom,” who advocates for citizens getting armed and trained.

        • So many of us have successfully used our sidearms defensively that your brother’s dramatic instance data point doesn’t disprove or prove anything, really.

    • Aussie here ah my friend you might have felt safer but that was in your mind , guy got his THROAT SLIT at the local train station this year , the police response was to tell the public to get a safety whistle to blow presumably while being murdered? my friend at the bar was beaten near death at the same location , and to correct a number of my yankie friends , Australia has MORE guns than before the new laws in 1996 we just can’t USE them for self defense.
      The national fire arms law NFA states you can not own a firearm for self defense.
      The banned guns are any semi auto rifle or shotgun, you can have standard not compact pistols , bolt action rifles up to .50 , over under side by side shotguns and lever action rifles/shotguns.
      It is hell living here anyone who defends themselves is charged with assault , my friend is being charged with assault for fighting shoplifters in his store after being attacked.
      There is to many examples to list so I will list all weapons and toys that are now banned in Australia as a warning not to give an inch on these issues even on BB guns.
      licensing and wall safes are required for air pistols , air rifles , paintball guns.
      Airsoft is banned airsoft guns are considered ” air rifle machine guns ” under the NFA 3 years prison for owning one.
      Crossbows are illegal 3 years in jail for owning one, the only weapons we are allowed is bows and knives but wait.
      carrying knives is illegal exept for storemen self defense is not a legal reason.
      karambits double edged blades ” flick knifes ” daggers are illegal.
      baseball bats cannot be carried in your car unless you are going to a game .
      power tools are considered weapons so is body armour.
      WE LIVE IN FEAR IT’S NOT WHAT THEY TELL YOU WE DON’T GO OUT AT NIGHT.
      I still carry a knife illegally and it has saved my bacon twice this year , all the crims have weapons, the police are a joke don”t end up like us PLEASE!!!!

  43. To everyone reading this thread (and hopefully this) – if you were trying to convert someone over to something you believe, you want to win them over.

    You’re not going to convert an atheist to becoming Christian by handing them a Bible and saying – “Here! Read this!”

    Pointing Anti-Gun people at mother jones to TTAG (this article) is NOT going to change their minds. You might as well send them to FOX news. They will instantly dismiss anything you say because its a TTAG link.

    Some/Most – you may never change their minds. But you’re shooting yourself in the foot when you link to this article.

    Just a friendly thought

    • It’s no skin off my nose one way or the other whatever somebody believes. The reason I share what I believe is that it is working so well for me, and has been shown to work so well for others, that I want to share the wealth! I want to share the Joy that erupts when one discovers one’s own Free Will inside oneself. And then explore the playground of human possibility while.relating freely as peers.

  44. And yet, as a gun owner myself, I’d feel much more comfortable if it was much harder for people to get their hands on guns and if weapons like the AR15 were banned.

    • With all due respect… This isn’t about what one feels; comfort or otherwise. It’s about what is necessary to the security of a free state. It’s about the natural right of the individual to be able to defend one’s self by way of arms. It’s about deterrence and defense against of crime and tyranny. The history and data back up shall not be infringed. If you feel more comfortable with government infringing upon the individual right to keep and bear arms then, perhaps, a different and less free nation somewhere else would be more to your liking.

    • I would agree on a couple of improvements:
      (1) NICS check for all incl. private transfers – but without cost to the inquirer
      (2) Safety course before acquisition of firearms – but without cost to the gun owner
      (3) Use of force training / certification before issuing concealed carry permits – but without cost to the …
      (4) Gun Free Zone revamp. Anyone can declare gun free zones, but they have to enforce it via security checkpoints, similar to court houses – the point is: people who disarm going in can be reasonably certain no one else enters with a weapon. All other gun free zones are “target rich zones” and should be abolished.
      (5) Streamline NFA and AOW rules. What’s the point of people building AR15 pistols with buffer tubes and SB15 arm braces that are legal pistols but being used like SBRs, while others put a meager folding stock (NFA item) or a fore-grip (AOW) and go to jail, if they don’t register and pay 200$ tax stamp ? Does not make much sense.
      (6) Don’t ban any type of weapon, just put appropriate prerequisites for owning them

  45. Myth #7 – please note that none of the “correlations” relate to women with firearms, just to attackers with access to firearms while attacking women.

    • Thank you IMHO, I was about to mention that. As a woman I felt particularly insulted by that “Myth”. What Mother Jones ACTUALLY said was that I am more likely to be killed if my ATTACKER (abuser?) has a gun – AND I DON’T.

      No thank you. I have already used my gun to protect myself. But of course since I never actually FIRED it, and certainly did not KILL either of the two men who were intent on harming me, that doesn’t count to people of the MJ ilk.

      I guess I would have been much safer against two men, each twice my size, if I had been unarmed, eh? o_O

      • It’s a good thing you were armed then. Hopefully you will never need to do such again.. but always better to have it and not need it!

        Up here in canuckistan you not only would be arrested but face mandatory prison time for such actions.. defend your 2nd!

        • I agree completely, and I am VERY glad I was armed. I would rather have a gun and never, ever need it, than not have it when I do need it.

          I don’t remember the book, but I remember this line from it (more or less): “You never need a weapon – until you REALLY need a weapon. And then it’s too late.”

        • @ Jeni

          Indeed.. pls msg me via youtube etc.. you can find me as kindanyume. I’m sure much of the info I have you will find of value despite my being in canuckistan (and vice versa)

          (if I posted an email here it would be spammed to hell)

          Oh and btw.. irrc that is from John Lott

        • @ Jeni

          LOL I understand.. do yourself a favor and get this: https://lastpass.com/

          Takes a lil getting used to at first but overall very easy for almost anyone to use and it’s actually SECURE 🙂

          Free version works perfectly fine in Firefox and Chrome (Please tell me you are not using the POS IE still)

  46. Wait a minute… MJ “debunked” number 10 (“We don’t need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.”) by pointing out cases where people were breaking existing gun laws? Somehow that doesn’t make sense to me. It would appear that MJ is saying that the answer to people not following the law is to pass more laws instead of punishing them for not following the law. That’s pretty astounding logic, there…

  47. I think it’s MJ myth #2 – it links to this page, with the claim that the data came from the CDC. http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000/

    Read the fine print. They include legal justifiable shootings in their list of “gun homicides.” I suppose it’s technically true, but an officer involved shooting or a homeowner protecting her children is a lot different from a gangbanger killing a toddler with a stray bullet. It’s deceptive to include that, and you’d only do it to support an agenda.

    I know, I’m preaching to the choir.

    • Aye, and not only do those numbers include “Legal intervention involving firearm discharge” but “Intentional self-harm by firearm”.

    • Indeed you are.. but it is still important to point out. That and this sort of deceptive / “creative” truth telling by MJ and anti’s in general is very common and they absolutely despise when those lies are exposed. (A classic is when WLP ripped Peters to shreds in a debate in the UK)

  48. Didn’t “Mother Jones” herself pass out rifles and encourage coal miners to carry weapons during the “Coal Wars” in West Virginia? You’d think a magazine would at least know the history of the person they name themselves after…

  49. Well in response to your first counter, I am a liberal myself. In implying that liberals universally embrace a stereotype of gun owners you are enforcing a stereotype that conservatives have of liberals. I am a life long liberal and admittedly most liberals today don’t understand the original concepts of liberalism and individual rights but I try to work from within to change that. Again I am a liberal and support the right to bear arms much more stringently than many conservatives.

    • That makes you a “classical liberal” or a “libertarian” not a “LIberal”

      Huge difference with modern parties regardless of the US or here in canuckistan

    • That would be me right there. I’m very liberal in much the same ways our Democratic Party is today. I support Marriage Equality, and I am very pro-choice. I support a strong working class with workers rights being at the forefront of my issues. Very Pro-Union. But the myth both sides of politics push is that there are only two types of people, and they divide those people up down one red and blue line. Or Politicians believe that you elected them BECAUSE of ALL Of their issues…. I call bullshit on that. Guns aren’t a blue vs red issue, Democrat vs Republican… it blows past party lines.

      I simply wish that more Democrats impressed upon their congressmen the need to protect the Second Amendment. “I want strong labor laws… but I also want the protections of the Second Amendment.”

  50. Myth #9 – Also, something people might not make an account of: (Sorry[not sorry], this is the liberal gun owner in me…) The middle class has been shrinking since about the time that those numbers were published. Guns aren’t a cheap hobby. When the guys at the top decided it was time to shift our economic structure away from stakeholder policy, more towards shareholder (Trickle-Down Economics) policy, things like busting Unions, paying poor wages, eliminating benefits and the like, as well as a mass exodus of companies moving their manufacturing operations overseas… the Middle Class started to shrink. The people who owned guns previously, likely sold theirs to make the ends meet for another month. Newer people introduced into the Market were less likely to purchase one because they weren’t able to afford it.

  51. “But first, did you notice that not-so-subtle positive re-enforcement of the common stereotype liberals have of gun owners? It’s the word “fantasize.” Gun owners and NRA members in particular are constantly described by the opposition as paranoid anti-government traitors who simply want to overthrow the United States.”

    No, just paranoid believers in “confiscation” conspiracy theories that will never happen.

    • Confiscation is not a theory.. it’s history.. please learn your history before speaking on such in the future. (Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc etc.. )

      • When are you ever going to realize you’re fighting a losing battle? You have this page bookmarked to give your misinformed and ignorant input on everyone’s comment. Mother Jones is backed by SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS that are PEER REVIEWED. The author of this response is based on no scientific evidence, fallacies, and childish retorts.

  52. Your statements about “Myth #5” are intellectually dishonest. It’s not “debunking” anything to point out that duh, non-gun-owners have fewer accidental shootings. That’s called “confirmation.”

    This kind of sloppy reasoning shows you guilty of the same thing you are claiming MJ is doing.

  53. “The problem with claiming that zero mass shootings have been stopped by armed civilians is just that: they were stopped.”

    Its not even just that. Its that Mother Jones is flat out LYING. I know of at least one mass shooting that was stopped by an armed civilian, because it happened at a high school a few miles away from mine, while I was still in high school: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

    Now i dont know how Mother Jones does their math, but im pretty sure 1997 was less than 30 years ago.

    • Mother Jones does not use “math” they purport statistics that have been cherry picked and twisted to suit what they want instead of the cold hard reality.

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B355YrtCMAAKciF.jpg:large

      @kindanyume
      goo.gl/2DHh0x @GenActCda @CGCguncontrol #DemandControl #guncontrol #cdnpoli #GCFAIL #Proofiness The twisting of stats like cukier does.. this article explains their “math” and the intentional false “proof” they present.. while it deals with rape stats it is the exact same BS as those like cukier try with gun control lunacy.

  54. The one purported fact that I felt you didn’t really address in a meaningful way was the one about women being more likely to be killed. You said “Mother Jones apparently believes that women are weaker than men and inherently less capable of defending themselves. That’s a pretty sexist position for them to take if you ask me.” Why is that sexist? No one is saying that women can’t defend themselves in many situations, but you can’t deny that women aren’t as tall, and often aren’t as strong as men. Because of that, they are simply factually more vulnerable than men. I’m a very strong woman, but I’m still not as strong as many men. It’s not sexist to point out that their are practical physical differences between men and women. The you go on to simply say that Mother Jones is just drawing conclusions again, but you don’t go into any detail. The information they list in that bullet point (pun intended), seems pretty damning to me.

    • Nicely said and the fact that you pointed out that simple fact has nothing to do with sexism. It has to do with reality regardless of the sex of whomever says such.

      It is also good to point out for those women that are always yelling etc about men abusing them and that are anti-gun that they are in effect self defeating since anyone with a CCW has an equalizer available.. especially of value for women whom are attacked / raped etc. Of course they hate when we point out that fact since it does not help their agenda.

      • It’s not just CCW. That is only one method of carry. It’s time for people who respect rights to think about how words might be dividing us. Using “CCW” in place of “armed” is, IMHO, an example of that unnecessary verbal demarcation.

        • I agree it’s not just CCW (ATC here in canuckistan which sadly is legal but effectively unobtainium as any of you south of the border that come to canuckstan should know) but I was in a hurry with the wife bitching for me to come and drive the car.. so I kinda shortened my reply LOL

          PS: Irony,.. we have a friend in Ohio by the Name of John (In Columbus) LMAO

        • LOL Indeed.. something like the old q.. “hey do you know Joe from Canada?” 🙂

  55. You didn’t debunk #7. And that one is important. I know too many people who think that, and if it’s not true I need proof.

  56. I carry a gun for self defense but have no intention to use it myself. If I am ever accosted I am going to give the gun to my assailant then attack him since statistics show he is far more likely to injure himself with it than me.

  57. Are you all seriously trying to point score about this issue? Fact is if there were no guns there’d be no gun murders and no mass shootings. It doesn’t take more than half a brain to figure out the closer you can get to zero guns on the street the more the numbers of gun deaths go down. You can debate the stats but the overwhelming evidence, and I stress OVERWHELMING, says this statement is a fact. Stop trying to defend the indefensible and accept there’s a problem, then decide if you want to do anything about it. That doesn’t necessarily mean losing your right to own a gun, but I bet it eventually will if gun owners don’t try to get involved in finding a solution that works for everyone.

    • /facepalm

      Right off the bat there is no such thing as “gun deaths” or “gun murders” unless you are talking about the destruction of an actual firearm. A firearm is merely an inanimate tool.

      We don’t call a drunk driving incident a “drunk car” do we? So stop blaming the TOOL!!!!!

      Focus on the actual problem for once.

      Oh and no mass shootings.. well China has a total BAN on firearms for the civilians…. yet there was several mass stabbings in the last few years alone… yep.. that worked wonderfully..

      Get your head out of your ass.

  58. Myth #5 you state that there has been a rise in Gun sales since 2008, then you also state the more guns that are out there, the more Murders and gun related incidences there will be. However on this article you showed a graph of homicides year by year with just gun related homicides year by year in red, and even with the “spike” in amount of guns being sold, for some reason at exactly 2008, gun related homicides begin to taper off. Now homicides in general have tapered, but the percentage of gun related homicides remains about the same. But if there was a lot more guns purchased recently, wouldn’t there be a higher percentage of gun related homicides? Hm. Also another thing. How can there be no issue at the NRA convention with thousands of people with guns there, but not a single incident occurred there? I mean with 70 thousand guns there, don’t you think the chance of one going
    Off was imminent? Oh yeah that’s right because guns can’t just fire themselves. This article is complete bullshit and opinionated so much it can’t be taken as a reliable source for anything in any way

    • “This article is complete bullshit and opinionated so much it can’t be taken as a reliable source for anything in any way”

      Correction.. the article on MJ’s is BS not this article which shows with facts and figures instead of myths and lies that the MJ article to be BS

      • PS I agree with your post otherwise.. I tried to edit but my browser crashed.. so it was too late to add in my correction was for any others whom read what you said and took such out of context etc.. (anti’s love to do that)

  59. This debunking is pure horse shit. The 10 myths are backed by citing the source for the facts and figures given. The bullshit article above has no citing’s to back any of their so-called facts.

    • LOL @ the obvious TROLL

      The original is debunked since all it cites is flawed studies that have been disproved and all of their sources are from BIASED sources.

      if you want to see how the idiots like MJ get their info (as well as other anti-gun orgs) read and learn from this example:

      http://goo.gl/JdDDe5
      The Proofiness of the Politically Correct Rape

  60. Greetings,

    Just a comment from across the pond…

    One of the things that doesn’t make sense to me, and perhaps others this side of the pond, is the oft-cited demand that teachers/faculty staff be armed – nevermind that legal carry be allowed – in schools/colleges as a means of preventing the proverbial mass-shooting.

    When I was at school (in Ireland), the school doors were locked when the school-day started – indeed, half-an-hour after the doors were locked, the school gates were locked as well.

    No-one could simply walk into school anytime of the day.

    Even glass doors were the reinforced types – with wire mesh within the glass – and they were double-doors: an outer pair and an inner pair.

    Once the school gates were locked, if you were that late for school, you missed the whole day and your parents would be informed. Needless to say, that would only happen once! In fact, just being late when the doors were locked would mean you’d have to ring the doorbell to be allowed in – again, you’d be in trouble with the Dean – and your parents would have to explain why they hadn’t made sure you got to school on time.

    However, I digress…

    My main point is: why aren’t school/college doors locked at the start of the day preventing any Tom, Dick or Harry entering the premises, with or without weapons?

    There’d be little or no need for anyone to be armed on site – except for security personnel, if thought necessary.

    Kindest regards,

    James

    • Quite a few schools already lock most of the doors.. but that alone is not a way to stop a lunatic I hope you realize.. from what you have described schools in Ireland are more like kids prisons. That is a failing strategy since it is essentially giving up your freedoms and the bad guys win right there.

      The idea if arming teachers and/or allowing CCW for older students (college etc) is far more realistic.. It’s not a matter of “lets be safe by locking kids up in a box and call it “gun free”. it’s a matter of the lunatic / criminals knowing they face resistance which is the last thing they want.

      Ultimately as the old saying goes the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The latter of which is what the former is very afraid of… hence why the vast majority of such attacks end with the bad guy killing themselves once confronted by armed opposition.

      Remember a firearm is merely an inanimate tool.. how it is used is what matters and no idiotic legislation aiming at controlling the inanimate tool will ever stop the lunatics. Gun control is a proven failure.

      Not to mention the aspect again of the contrast of what you describe vs real freedom. Freedom i never free. There are those of us (myself included) that have stood in harms way to protect others from the bad guys… that is how freedom is defended and the kids are kept safe.. not by locking yourself in a box and hoping the bad guy can’t get in or that he/she would somehow follow a ‘gun free zone” law yet is perfectly willing to commit murder.

      • Greetings,

        Thank you, Glenn, for your reply.

        You have inferred the wrong idea if you think of Irish schools as “kids’ prisons”. In Ireland, schools are responsible for children’s safety, that is why the schools are secured to protect from intruders – or pupils leaving the grounds and. perhaps, coming to harm. It’s just a normal precaution – there’s nothing draconian about it.

        Like a lot of people this side of the Atlantic, I think that Columbine and others might not have happened – or, at least, would have had a earlier alert/different outcome – if doors were secured. Breaking or shooting the glass/doors would have alerted those inside that something was amiss. If there were SROs (armed) they could have called the police and dealt with the situation earlier, before the two shooters had made any headway, and certainly before they managed to kill anyone. As you say, if they’d been confronted earlier, they may have fled or shot themselves, sad as that may be. Were I in charge of a school or college there, I’d have armed SROs/security personnel with locked security doors and CCTV at entrances to monitor who is attempting entry, as a means to manage risk – which is really what it’s all about. Teachers and pupils could then concentrate on for what they’re there: education.

        Also, as you say, some schools over there lock their doors. That is a positive step. As a example, burglars tend to prefer easy access – doors/windows unlocked, no alarm system, no dogs that might raise the alarm and/or attack. They seek an easy target.

        Understand. despite my being on this side of the Atlantic, I’m not against guns per se – both sides of my family are military – nor am I against civilians “carrying” on their property in America: although, if I were in America myself, I would be concerned at the thought of any Tom, Dick or Harry wandering the streets with weapons.

        Having said that, there is one group of people to whom I’d issue CCW permits – honourably discharged Vets and ex-LEA personnel: they have the training and experience of using weapons under fire – also, they’ve successfully passed psych evaluations to join in the first place and on a on-going basis throughout their careers in the military/LEA.

        This would not be a “sheepdog” scenario, where they’re there to protect others, any more than those with driving licences are expected to chauffeur everyone else about. Rather, it would be a case of whom would you most trust with a weapon on the streets? Honourably discharged Vets/LEA personnel or the “just some guy”/average citizen with a CCW permit/gun and no experience of real shoot-out situations?

        Thanks again for your reply – I trust I haven’t bored you to tears with mine…!

        Kindest regards,

        James

        • Hello James,

          No problem at all.

          The schools here are also responsible for keeping the kids safe but that does not = locking them in or out if they are late. I went to school as did basically everyone else here.. all the doors were unlocked (until close of course) and there was never a problem. I even carried my own gun to and from school and no one batted an eye. I could walk through town with a rifle or a pistol as a kid and no one blinked. I never felt unsafe due to lunatics etc etc etc… nor did anyone automatically assume I or any of the many others I went to school with were lunatics simply because we had firearms.

          The idea of locking the doors etc is simply an irrational reaction to fear of the “bad guy” instead of a proactive stance that will actively discourage and help prevent incidents such as Columbine. Of which there was an armed guard but one armed guard is nothing compared to the majority of the faculty and/or students being armed. Big change in the odds there for “Mr. bad guy.” If it’s only one armed guard that is effectively a joke. Even if the lunatic does not plan accordingly for that one guy who’s to say the guy is not taking a crap at the time the bad guy arrives? etc etc etc.

          Fact is with Columbine & others (École Polytechnique) if the cops had gotten off their asses and stormed the building it would have been over much faster.. but they sat around being cowards instead. If the young men in École Polytechnique had stormed the lunatic instead of meekly walking out leaving the women alone it would have been over far faster. If even just one of the students at École Polytechnique at that time had a CCW permit etc.. presto.. end game for the bad guy would be the odds.

          Remember locked doors only keep honest people out.. and lunatics are not that easily dissuaded.

          It is true that criminals prefer unlocked doors windows etc… of course since it is easier.. very much the same as they are all in favor of “gun control” since again that makes it easier for them. They certainly do not obey the law for obvious reasons… but the law abiding do and that puts society at a disadvantage from the start vs the bad guys.

          ” if I were in America myself, I would be concerned at the thought of any Tom, Dick or Harry wandering the streets with weapons.” <– ask yourself why? are you afraid everyone walking down the street is randomly out to kill you? What if they all carry pocket knives as I do all the time? Maybe they all will stab you?

          Simply put that is an irrational fear that only harms us all. Fact is the bad guys will be armed regardless and no one can know whom every single bad guy is. That is cold hard reality.. so instead of working from the presumption of guilt as your above quoted position is based try instead the basic premise that has made modern society even possible. Basic trust until proven untrustworthy. Just because someone has a gun does not = bad guy. You don;t assume "bad guy" when you see a cop with a gun do you? Yet there are corrupt cops aka bad guys.

          Your idea of judgement on CCW again is faulty Since not only have there been a higher % of rash incidents with ex-mil than otherwise you again are basing such on the presumption of guilt. I'm a well trained martial arts fighter. I don't need a gun to kill someone if I really wanted to.. Yet by your standard if we stopped there I would not get a CCW.. irony there being I'm ex-USAF as well and suddenly I'd somehow magically be trusted by you? That makes no sense ultimately. I have been working with firearms since I was 6 (a very long time ago) and I have yet to ever shoot anyone.

          Yet some dumb punk gets a gun and kills someone that was denied a CCW since they are not "to your standards" instead of being able to defend themselves or others.. again you loose the fight by default before it even begins.

          BTW Stats show that LEO's typically have less accurate fire under stress than target shooters w/no law enforcement training… so in essence you are more likely to get shot by a LEO by accident than by the tom, dick or harry walking down the street.

          Remember it's not about controlling the inanimate object.. it's about criminal control. If all of the resources wasted on the lunacy of 'gun control' were instead put into that aspect alone something of actual value might be done instead of causing the harm it has done and still does.

          Oh and btw I'm Canadian.. with our moronic gun control laws and all.. which have wasted BILLIONS on gun control instead of actually doing anything good.

        • Greetings,

          Apologies for not getting back to you, Glenn – Life! (“Oh no – he’s back!”)

          We’re, of course, judging things from our own cultural perspectives.

          In Europe, where most don’t carry weapons or see the need to do so, carrying a weapon (to feel safe) is seen as indicating an irrational fear of others (ie, the person is seen as “having issues”, and/or even mental health problems), and more often indicates that the person is up-to-no-good.

          In America, with it’s historical prevalence of guns, it isn’t.

          This may help clarify my comment that, were I in America, I would not feel comfortable with any Tom, Dick, or Harry wandering round with a gun.

          My reference to the “average citizen” not being familiar with guns was clearly from the perspective of Europe – in America, it would be the norm for the average citizen to be familiar with, and not fazed by, someone with a gun.

          The pro- and anti-gun lobbies in America both want law-abiding citizens to be safe – they just differ on how to go about it. The above difference between European and American cultural perspectives perhaps explains the divide better in America between the two lobbies!?

          Certainly, preventing weapons falling into the wrong hands is the key – the problem is doing this in practice without curtailing what’s seen as “my freedom”.

          Preventing those with criminal records from buying guns needs SICS/NICS, and any loopholes being addressed. The argument by the NRA, and others, that these don’t work, therefore they should be shelved, is a fallacious one – criminals don’t buy guns through dealers because they can’t: the fact that they are forced to get them through illegal channels is not a argument against such restrictions.

          I think there’s a difference between close-quarter and distance-weapons and whether one should be more concerned or not.

          Clearly, it’s not irrational to be concerned about someone with a gun (or bow) as, being distance-weapons, you’re not safe being farther away from someone with such.

          If someone waves a close-quarter-weapon at you from a distance, you wouldn’t be as concerned.

          My indication that I “trusted” armed forces or LEA personnel with guns is based solely on the fact that they had to pass psychological evaluations to join in the first place, and undergo regular evaluations whilst members of such forces/agencies. Again, the average citizen doesn’t.

          [As an aside, I think the so-called “War on Drugs”, and the more recent “War on Terror”, which has resulted in LEAs being militarized, has changed LEAs’ perspectives for the worse: rather than seeing their role as “serve and protect”, they’re inclined to see citizens as the (potential) “enemy”. Their attitude is tending towards that of armed forces entering a foreign city where the populace is seen as a potential, if not actual, threat.]

          In Europe, secure entry points (doors and windows) are the norm as a means of protecting one’s self and family – in America, it’s the possession of a weapon at home that’s seen as a priority, rather than investing in more secure doors and windows.

          But in a land where guns are the norm, the difference is secure entry points – it gives the homeowner more time to get their weapon, which may be stored in a locked safe, etc.

          I was astonished to read that 85% of home invasions in America are through the front door: in Europe, this would be unheard of, since it’s the most secure entry point – burglars tend to enter through windows. [Our front door is one-and-a-half inches of solid wood (railway sleepers bolted together) with bolts, chains, and a mortice lock – anyone trying to kick that in would need a hip replacement! And the back door is almost as thick with three bolts and a mortice lock. Our house was built back in 1864 with two-foot thick walls – they knew how to build houses in those days!]

          Canadian, eh? I have relatives there – in Toronto and … Manitoba?! (don’t recall where my married cousin moved).

          Kindest regards,

          James

  61. What the anti-gun crowd will not remind the rest of the public about when they call for banning ownership of military assault weapons is that all firearms are military style assault weapons. That is why the S&W Model 10, 6 shot 38 Special revolver also carries the designation S&W M&P (Military and Police). I own a 12 gauge, double barrel muzzle loader, the same as those issued to both Confederate and Union troops during the civil war in 1861-65. A friend owns a Remington Model 700 bolt action rifle chambered in 300 Winchester Magnum with a scope mounted on it. Not something that looks like a military but functions differently, for example AR-15 verses M-16, but is the exact same model as the military sniper assault rifle.

    So when someone says they want to ban civilian ownership of “military style” assault weapons to make us safer. First try to get them to describe an assault weapon. Remember, naming a particular model does not describe anything, for example, describe a tree, Live Oak.

    Here is a good one. Fired from the shoulder, military caliber, detachable magazine, pistol grip, synthetic stocks, can accept a scope over iron sights and other accessories and will fire as quickly as I can pull the trigger. Sounds pretty bad right? I just described the Remington model 7400.

    If someone sounds off about how civilians should not be allowed to own fully automatic weapons have them research when was the last time any crime was committed with a legally owned full auto weapon. If they try to say full auto weapons are not currently legal have them Google “Knob Creek Annual Full Auto Shoot”.

    I could continue but I have better things to do. Have a Merry Christmas and I hope you get a brick of .22LR for Christmas.

  62. I am for gun control; however this does NOT mean that I would suggest or advocate the government people’s guns en mass. I am not a big proponent of the average citizen owning an automatic weapon with the capacity for many rounds of ammunition, but that is not why I am writing this response.
    The issue I have is with those who are completely against gun control in any way, shape or form. First of all, why would someone object to having to wait a few days or a week after purchasing a firearm to be able to legally claim it and have it in their home. If someone came into a store where I was in charge and was adamant about being able for forego a background check and being able to take possession of the weapon immediately, my first thought would be to wonder what the reason that he or she wanted to purchase this weapon. Hypothetically, if someone was being threatened by a group or an individual, presumably, there would be a police report or some evidence to give some sort of evidence to support this. In that case, perhaps there could be an exclusion as I do understand that police protection is far from being 100% reliable, which brings me to my second and most important thing I take issue with.
    In this country, while the right to own and drive a car is not specifically covered in a constitutional amendment, an individual who desires these rights has to prove that they are capable of safely operating said vehicle and are aware of and understand the laws and ordinances that govern how we drive. Why are there not similar rules regarding ownership and use of a firearm? There are frequent accidents caused by improper storage, maintenance or operation of a firearm. What possible reason could there be for not having legislation to make it necessary for anyone desiring to purchase and own a firearm to take a class (or test if someone has already had training) to insure that they understand how to effectively and safely operate, maintain and store the weapon, as well as being aware of federal, state and municipal legislation and rules regarding same? It probably wouldn’t eliminate the many tragedies that occur regularly, but it is logical to presume that it would greatly reduce them.
    One last point I would like to make is that there should be laws governing the mental and/or physical condition of someone publicly armed with and using this type of weapon. I don’t understand deriving pleasure from hunting, but I cannot condemn it in good conscience as I do eat meat; however, I strongly believe that anyone carrying a loaded weapon for use in a public area should be in the same condition as someone legally operating a motor vehicle. In other words, they should not be intoxicated by alcohol or drugs to the point they cannot make sane and logical decisions and/or have the physical ability to safely and legally use the firearm. This, to me, is common sense.

  63. Can you please cite the sources for the charts, and other things stated as facts. I cannot find the charts you have here on the CDC website. The Mother Jones article at least cites their sources.

  64. “Mother Jones apparently believes that women are weaker than men and inherently less capable of defending themselves. That’s a pretty sexist position for them to take if you ask me.”

    Haha, I love it. Men are innately stronger than woman. It is fact. Mother Jones is backed by peer-reviewed journals. Where are your sources?

  65. This is the dumbest shit I’ve ever read, honestly. Your retorts are things a child would say. You lack any evidence to back your claims. It’s just fallacy after fallacy as well. How many straw man arguments are you going to pull? For myth #5 you attempt to compare ALL accidental deaths to accidental firearm deaths. The topic is firearm deaths here. The comparison is useless. How about you compare accidental firearm deaths to that of other countries. Maybe that will get your cogs turning.

  66. wow, a site for knuckle-dragging, insecure, tiny-minded misanthropes. complete with “writers” who actually completed journalism 101, and can cherry-pick with the best of them.

    you’re a bunch of ignorant, selfish fucks, and i hope you all die at the end of a gun barrel. the sooner the better.

  67. The first two myths that were debunked, the information used is itself debunkable. So, I doubt any sane person would claim the first two were debunked. That means probably the rest are not fully debunked either. So, I would call this an epic fail.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *