Previous Post
Next Post

Back in October, Frank Williams wrote a seminal piece for TTAG called Ban Everything. It was an important reminder that, well, let me put it this way . . . A cop comes across a man on his hands and knees underneath a streetlamp. “What are you doing?” he asks. “Looking for my car keys.” The cop looks around. “Where’s your car?” “Over there,” the man says gesturing at the darkness. “Why are you looking here?” “The light’s better.” Same story with gun control. Politicians and activists focus on firearms fatalities because guns are scarier than swimming pools. More singular than car accidents. More heart-tugging than heart attacks. Quick! What kills more people: ballistics gone bad or binge drinking . . .

More than 38 million U.S. adults binge drink an average of four times each month, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The agency notes that the majority of people who binge drink are not alcoholics, but the trend is alarming because of the number of serious problems that can occur when people have too much alcohol, such as car accidents, violence and sexually transmitted diseases.

The CDC reports that too much drinking results in 80,000 deaths each year in the U.S., and cost the country more than $223.5 billion in 2006. doesn’t offer a comparative analysis with firearms-related fatalities. The CDC’s funereal number crunching thingie (a.k.a., the Injury Mortality Report) puts the total number of gun-related deaths at 31,224 for 2007.

Remember: the stat includes a large percentage of gun-related suicides. Anyway, as callous as this sounds, call it good. Guns wouldn’t be effective for self-defense or hunting if they weren’t lethal, and lethality carries with it inherent risks. Besides, whatcha gonna do? Ban guns?

Prohibition didn’t saves lives. Tightening restrictions on U.S. gun ownership would have a similar non-impact. In fact, clocking crime in Chicago, LA, New York City and Washington, D.C., a compelling case can be made that less guns = more crime. More death.

If you see American firearms ownership in its proper perspective, you can see that banning guns for civilian use (the gun control advocates’ not-so-secret agenda) is as dumb as a box of rocks. The only way to evade the truth about guns is to willfully obscure the facts of the matter, or ban those who tell the truth about guns.

Go ahead. Make my day.


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Dead is dead. I fail to see how dying from a gunshot is any worse than dying in a car accident, yet automobile fatalities far outnumber gun-related fatalities.

    I don’t see anyone calling for a ban on cars.

    • Or swimming pools. Or bicycles. Or motorcycles. Or snowmobiles. Or playground equipment. Or baseball bats. Or water heaters. Or matches. Not trying to belabor the point, but you get my drift.

  2. the violence during the prohibition era is awesomely depicted on hbo’s boardwalk empire. I know it is a drama but it tried to adhere to historical accuracy as much as possible.
    they even had an example of good old American gunrunning as well this past season.

  3. Prohibition, and today’s modern equivalent, the drug war, breed violence for a lot of reasons but one of the primary ones is illegal markets don’t have any other way to settle disputes.

    If you’re in a legal market and you think you’ve been wronged in some way, there are various ways you can go about getting redress. If the other party won’t bargain, you can take the dispute public, you can sue, etc, etc. None of those are options if what you’re doing is illegal. All you have is the willingness to commit violence to get what you want.

    • All you have is the willingness to commit violence to get what you want.

      Hey, that sounds like Union Carbide.

  4. Such facts would only matter if gun control was truly about saving lives but it isn’t; for politicians it’s about power and control disguised as bleeding-heart concern, and the weak-minded saps like mikeb and his ilk fall for it.

    • True, but remember that there are always at least three sides to an argument: pro, anti, and undecided. We’re talking past the antis do we can talk to the undecideds. The antis don’t care about facts, logic, sense, and truth, but the undecideds will notice.

        • But then they’re really not participating at that point.

          Just remember that there’s an audience that’s larger than just the other side. It’s really unlikely that you’re going to convince someone like Mike. He’s not approaching this rationally. If he were, he’d be on our side already. But those who join the discussion with an open mind will see who’s arguing from the facts and who’s arguing from emotional appeals.

  5. “The one thing that’s for certain about this life is you ain’t gonna get out of it alive.”

  6. Thanks for making the point on binge drinking. I heard the 80,000 deaths per year stat on Fox News yesterday, but haven’t had a chance check into it.

  7. Ahhh…but the classic Liberal reply is that guns only use in society is to kill people. Other products are usefulland beneficial to society and have redeming value. Besides all the Liberals know that gun owners are just hidden criminals and are irresponsible. Only the Government ( who knows what is really good for you ) should have guns to protect society since all agents of the Government are always mentally balanced, well trained, honest, and are always looking out for the good of the people.

  8. Ahhh….total Government control…the rich brown gravy that is poured all over society…sort of like Brown 25 by the Uranus Corporation in the Groove Tube Movie. Remember, when you don’t know where you are, look up Uranus.

  9. There is an important difference between a government which conforms to the will of the governed and a government which attempt to impose its will on the governed.

    If the majority of a community actually wants something, then there is no need to impose it. If you have to impose something, then there is no sense in pretending you are representing the will of those affected.

    • There is an important difference between a government which conforms to the will of the governed and a government which attempt to impose its will on the governed.

      Yes. The latter is a reality while the former is a fantasy.

Comments are closed.