Do mass shootings lead to liberalized gun laws?

It seems so, at least in Republican-controlled states:

There have been dozens of high-profile mass shootings in recent decades. This paper presents three main findings about the impact of mass shootings on gun policy. First, mass shootings evoke large policy responses. A single mass shooting leads to a 15% increase in the number of firearm bills introduced within a state in the year after a mass shooting. This effect increases with the extent of media coverage. Second, mass shootings account for a small portion of all gun deaths, but have an outsized influence relative to other homicides. Third, when looking at bills that were actually enacted into law, the impact of mass shootings depends on the party in power. The annual number of laws that loosen gun restrictions doubles in the year following a mass shooting in states with Republican-controlled legislatures. We find no significant effect of mass shootings on laws enacted when there is a Democrat-controlled legislature, nor do we find a significant effect of mass shootings on the enactment of laws that tighten gun restrictions.

That is the abstract of a new NBER working paper by Michael Luca, Deepak Malhotra, and Christopher Poliquin.

Comments

A single mass shooting leads to a 15% increase in the number of firearm bills introduced within a state in the year after a mass shooting. This effect increases with the extent of media coverage.

Who'd a guessed it?

I wonder if that 15% is the same in states controlled by dems and the GOP?

as if arbitration matters.

Respond

Add Comment

Dave, read the paper. It clearly states.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

That's because government is nothing more than a choice among evils. The less government the better.

There already are 9,000+ gun laws. They are not enforced.

Here's why mass shootings keep happening. It's the crazy talk: proposing punishments of 50,000,000 innocent, law-abiding Americans every time a crazy or criminal shoots a gun.

Here's some more crazy talk for you, stuff we might imagine happening in a different world. (a) It ought to be legal for businesses, home owners and other residents, schools and government agencies, etc. to ban gun carriers from entering their stores, offices, etc. PRIVATE PROPERTY! (b) it should also be legal for businesses, etc., to put restrictions of various kinds on gun carriers -- require people with weapons on their property to wear bright yellow vests labeled "GUN" in 12" letters, or buzzers sounding off at 30 sec intervals, for instance. PRIVATE PROPERTY AGAIN. (c) It ought to be totally legal to express distaste for gun carrying. Drink in a bar with a gun on your hip, for example, and you cannot treat insults from other customers as "fighting words." What you say in return, however, can be treated as provocation. WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE, A***OLE. (d) Television and movie studios should feel encouraged to make gun carriers figures of fun, chronic screw-ups and social retards, etc. LAUGH IT UP, BUDDY.

Guess what -- none of these impairs your 2nd Amendment right to own a gun and carry it in public, none places limits on how many guns you own or makes you pay any fee for gun owning. My suspicion is none of these would even require passage of new laws in most states. Of course, I also suspect they'd drive millions of gun owners berserk -- in particular the short-tempered idiots who shouldn't be carrying guns.

You miss the obvious.

My private property rights trumps your gun rights.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Nice shot, mike. +5 internet points.

How much does "internet referee" pay?

Was the interview process arduous?

You also miss the obvious. Like Mike, you're not seeing "things."

I do okay.

And yes, it's a tough gig to get.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Businesses and other owners already can, and do, ban carrying firearms on their property regardless of what permits an individual holds.

Congratulations.

Pretty much every public venue in Israel has metal detectors. So it’s not unprecedented.

Shameless plug:

Mandate every gun purchase aside from revolvers/shotguns be signed off by three tax paying citizens in good legal standing who personally vouch for the mental wellbeing and responsibility of the would be owner.

That would probably reduce firearm homicides by 40%, firearm suicides by 50%, and mass shootings almost entirely.

And also not restrict gun ownership, even the “scary” guns like ARs, for law abiding folks like DtB.

Everyone wins. Let civil society take ownership of the problem. Who’s going to sign off on the weird kid in class? Who’s going to sign off on the prepper with the disturbed son?

But the gun nuts can always form a chain of vouchers to make sure all their buddies get their arsenals. I imagine the shooters in Pittsburgh, El Paso, etc all knew at least 3 tax-payers who probably agreed with their motives.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

They ought to have them. If they are going to hinder the ability of their patrons to defend themselves then shouldn't they be liable to protect them as a whole? Or perhaps, rightly, those of us who are concerned about security should not shop there, and those who believe that a policy or a sign will keep them safe can continue to do so.

Why should businesses pay for metal detectors, private security, cameras, etc, when those things have nothing to do with the business. This is a tax and regulation on top of all the others that get piled on. No wonder businesses are getting fed up. Good on Walmart and Kroger.

Well, I'm told that gun owners ought to be forced to purchase insurance in order to exercise their Constitutional rights, and no one seems to be worried about that being a "tax and regulation".

Of course, if Walmart and Kroger didn't want to incur the expense of security for their customers, then perhaps they ought to allow their customers to provide security for themselves.

On the other hand, there was a rather vigorous discussion on this blog a few days ago about how self-checkout lanes are an example of the businesses forcing the customer to do unpaid work for them, so perhaps the same holds true for expecting customers to defend themselves?

A few armed customers tends to scare away the unarmed majority of customers. The status quo is just bad business.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Do mass shootings lead to liberalized gun laws?

Not in Britain: it was a government in panic, chivvied on by a dishonest opposition, that took away our right to own pistols. It happened in the wake of a couple of murder sprees by nutcases obviously copy-catting from American examples. Almost nobody owned legal pistols, but those target shooters who did were understandably upset at the demise of their sport.

I sold my rifle decades ago but have been told I'd easily get a licence to own a rifle again because I have no criminal record, have access to a gun range where I can shoot, and have a safe place to store it. I understand that I'd get a shotgun certificate (I'm assuming that the jargon hasn't changed) even more easily.

From time to time I read hysterical Americans claiming that nobody in Britain is allowed to own a gun: I can't tell whether they are liars or ignoramuses.

London is now awash with murder by stabbing. London is also enjoying a boom in Chinese tourism. I can confidently assert that this is a classic case of correlation not implying causation. It ain't the Chinese who are the problem.

How many children are killed in their beds in drive by knifings?

Sad fact: per CNBS TV News NYC channel 2, year-to-date August 2019, 35 American children died when their care-givers/parents left them in hot cars. If that is an normal statistic, hot cars and incompetent parents kill many more children than knives or guns. If you identify as a child a 15 year-old gang-banger, street soldier with a gun, you can affect the statistic.

But the conservatives, GOP, are not demanding deregulation of automakers, but instead we have the announcement of all automakers, except Tesla, agreeing to some "costly mandate", "liberty stealing" fix to stop kids being left in cars.

Tesla probably didn't agree because they have implemented "dog mode" which is its solution to all the dogs killed/harmed in hot cars, and likely understands Tesla owners enable dog mode when leaving their kid in the car while shopping. The Tesla monitors its environment and calls its owner when something is concerning.

On guns, innovators have come up with tech fixes for prlblems like "he was reaching for the police officers gun so I had to shoot him" by designing the gun so it can only be fired by the rightful owner. But those fixes are opposed by the NRA and GOP because they clearly want stolen guns to be used to kill.

No way will the second amendment liberty of gun thieves be abridged.

Seriously, we all (all of us) have locks on our triggers and actions (you wouldn't understand).

We don't need you telling us what we must have on our guns, or anything else.

Dems propose first gun confiscation since 1775 - Lexington and Concord.

". . . the NRA [and me - I am the NRA] and GOP want stolen guns to be used to kill." Let's see. You typed it so its libel.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Yes, because we can only stop hot car deaths or gun deaths, not both.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

How are you gonna get rid of the grey squirrels without guns.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I think what this really says is that Democrats have cracked down on the objects themselves as far as they think they can go at the state level, and won't go much further in light of compliance rates so low they won't publish them (read: naked civil disobedience) and for fear of getting challenged up to SCOTUS, because that would mean rolling the dice and maybe it blows up in your face (as the NYSRPA case very well could). Without the votes to impose blue-state restrictions on the entire country in Congress, there's not a lot they can practically do about people owning particular firearms as individual state governments without confiscation by force. Even in the deepest blue states, there's not a lot of stomach for that because of the potential to go sideways in a flash. I think this is why you have seen a pivot to background checks and selective due process denial (which are more or less moving forward at the blue-state level) rather than simple bans.

Republicans have far more room to maneuver.

All gun laws are unconstitutional.

There are 50,000,000 gun owners. That's a lot of voters.

Outside the soviet socialist republics like CA, NY, NJ, this spucatum tauri is not mentioned from six or eight months before election day.

In January 2103, in knee-jerk reaction to the Sandy Hook school horror, NYS enacted its SAFE Act, which "outlawed" assault rifles (flawed definition) and by statute prohibited tracking compliance with the unenforceable, unconstitutional law. Similar law in CT resulted in estimated 20% compliance meaning several hundred thousand CT residents are not felons, for owning arms in line with the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

When you type sentences like: "All gun laws are unconstitutional." you should realize that it disqualifies you from being treated as anything other than a total moron. Everything you type after that is ignored or laughed at. Maybe that's your goal, if so, well done.

Glad I brightened your day.

Yes, and?

Review 230 years US History with Americans' right to bear arms not infringed.

Read the Federalist Papers.

Read the Second Amendment.

More Notes From The Education Apocalypse.

Nobody gonna take ur precious, hun. Simmer down.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"Shall not be infringed"

Why do we take them away from prisoners?

Prisoners, or ex-cons?

You will find that prisoners don't have many inalienable rights, such as a right to privacy, free speech, or assembly.

But why in fact to we take guns away from ex-cons? If we don't trust them to use guns properly, then why are they out of prison in the first place?

Of course I should mention that I'm in favor of summary executions for any number of violent crimes so perhaps my view on the matter is unorthodox.

Summary executions? Thats nice

Look, you can't let felons have guns or vote, but you don't want to keep them in prison where they apparently belong. What's a guy to do?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

If the overwhelming membership of the NRA were non-white and the news was repoting heavily on the Black Panthers for Self Defense openly carrying AR-15s with large magazines shadowing the police in their communities, do you think the GOP would still be promoting more gun sales, and more guns everywhere?

The problem is the GOP authored 14th Amendment that requires whites be subject to the same laws they pass targeting non-whites.

Amanpour reran an interview this week reminding me of Metzler's "Dying of Whiteness", which makes the case I make. The GOP, conservatives, pursue laws and ideas with passions, often anger, the only makes them angrier as the GOP succeeds in passing laws in the GOP controlled parts of the US.

The GOP has greatly increased white ownership of guns since Reagan signed a GOP law to take guns from blacks, which the evil ACLU required apply to white people. Half of all gun deaths are suicides so the GOP has increased white suicides. (Other methods aren't as successful, require more effort and planning, thus more preventable.)

On guns and many other issues, the GOP has won based on whites supporting laws targeting non-whites, but these laws hurt more whites, and overwhelmingly white GOP areas have become angrier at their objective decline economically and socially in well-being.

The GOP has succeeded in getting whites to support being made worse off by blaming liberals, Democrats, who are generally better off.

Conservatives have sold whites on the virtue of being made worse off because it will prevent non-whites from becoming better off.

Except, there are large areas where non-whites are becoming better off, where non-whites migrate to, as well as the best of the whites, so while not in control of the majority of the land area, nor in control of national policy, liberals, progressives, diverse populations "win" in the various marketplaces. Products, services, jobs, well-being, opportunity, incomes.

And the irony is the white conservative elites don't live in the areas they create by their policies.

Meanwhile, IRL Democrats blamed Trump for Baltimore instead of the decades of Dem incompetence and corruption.

Respond

Add Comment

Excellent comment. I've long believed that the championing of gun ownership among downscale whites is intended to drive up the suicide rate. Sort of a "Final Solution" for the unnecessariat. From the standpoint of today's GOP it's a win-win-win: increased profits for gun manufacturers, more Republican electoral victories, and you don't have to pay welfare benefits to dead people. Only in America!

All the gun nutters believe they're going to "defend freedom" and fight off some imagined tyrannical government a la Red Dawn using their armory of stockpiled weapons. In reality, what really happens is that they lose their jobs, blame it on their lack of gumption, and use the guns on themselves and their families.

Everything is going according to plan.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The psychology of this is not so hard to understand. I have a niece who was present at the shooting at the concert in Las Vegas. Upon returning home to rural California, she went to gun shooting school and got a license and a pistol for her purse, and is now a pistol-packin mamma. It is a way of dealing with the fear. I know, I know.... but...

If people just had one pistol each for defense and to deal with their fears, we'd be a lot better off than the status quo.

But you understand that the actual death toll increases..

Tons of data along these lines, but here's one for new owners:

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/46/12162

Oh, and in case anyone here is still pushing the "arm teachers" meme:

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20190816/first-graders-had-access-to-gun-meant-to-prevent-school-violence

Of course. We told you.

Anyone who actually knows anything about guns and crime will view that pnas article with extreme suspicion. Almost certainly bad data/methodology.

Really? Why don't you find a nice solid article that says the opposite, that having a gun increases real, and not emotional, security.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death

Assuming gun ownership is random is just awful statistics. So, expected from a non SSC reader I guess. You should check it out, it leans towards your politics but introduces rigor.

People buy guns to commit suicide, congrats it’s more dangerous.

Child deaths from gun accidents a year : 73
Child deaths from bicycle accidents a year : 100

Child injuries resulting in ER visits from bicycles: 254,000 a year
Child injuries resulting from firearms: < 8,000

It seems the logical solution is to outlaw bicycles.

Or, we can pretend suicide isn’t a choice and something that happens randomly.

Shocker, guns don’t make suicidal people less successful in ending their lives. For those that believe in actual freedom, the right to quit life is the ultimate arbiter of a free people. I shudder at the thought of an administration that forces people to live to enforce their agenda.

Handwaving, and no model for increased safety.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Owning a firearm only increases emotional security, but enacting arbitrary restrictions on guns and posting a bunch of gun-free zone signs increases real security?

Arbitrary? Something like 88% of registered voters support universal background checks. That's hardly arbitrary. That's tying access to available data.

The NRA and the Republicans have managed to block a whole series of simple and pragmatic solutions supported by a majority of Americans.

Points for simplicity and common sense, +5 internet points

Respond

Add Comment

Something like 88% of registered voters support laws to restrict offensive speech. That's hardly arbitrary.

So, we should ...?

Respond

Add Comment

Enacting a regulation that would have stopped perhaps one of the mass shootings so far this year (the vast majority of shooters either showing a clean background check or passing due to the simple failure of the process) just because a bunch of people support it is the definition of arbitrary.

But hey, at least it would make you not feel like you have to check under your bed for the NRA before you go to sleep at night. That's something, right?

Respond

Add Comment

Background checks are highly likely to reveal if the subject has ever previously engaged in a mass shooting so they should certainly be required.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Texas is number one!!

In mass shootings.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/01/opinion/odessa-texas-shooting.html

The 2018 projected (TX state gov) population was 29,366,479. Year-to-date 2019, 29,366,450 Texans were not shot in mass shootings.

National Crisis! Estimated that 334,999,971 Americans were not shot in mass shootings. National Crisis!!!

So you are saying just 29 Texans were involved in mass shootings? Odessa had 28 people injured or killed and El Paso had 50 people injured or killed. That's already 78 people and we haven't even added the other shootings in Dallas, Sutherland Springs, etc. And that's all just for the month of August and just Texas. I think you are the innumerate one here.

For the sake of laziness, let's be wildly charitable to your argument and say that 1,000 Texans rather than 29 have been involved in mass shootings this year. Congratulations, you've increased the percentage of Texans involved in mass shootings this year from 0.00001% to 0.003%.

We can do this for the nation as a whole if you like, but others already have, putting the odds of you becoming a victim of a mass shooting at anywhere from 1 in 11,000 to 1 in 692,000.

Seems a good reason to confiscate all 10 million, I think the term of art now is "assault-style rifles", based on (again wildly charitable) 300 of them being used for mass shootings.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

bullshit!
according to this source there were almost twice as many mass shootings in california 1982-2019 than in texas
https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-state/

Wrong. You are looking at a period beginning in 1982

If you go to the source of the data, Mother Jones database, you will see
that Texas is number 1. It also tracks fatalities and injuries. California had three deaths in 2019 and Texas 29

Here is the link: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/3/

"Mother Jones database"

Pravda not available any more?

Are you part of the disinformation campaign? Mother Jones lists its sources, including the deep state FBI.

You have no sources.

Lying leftist rag lists "sources".

Maybe its accurate but if you want to convince, get a less biased source.

Facts are facts. You can see the sources in what I have posted. Perhaps you choose not to believe the facts because you do not like the source, even though the source shows how the data was gathered. Or, perhaps you do not like the facts, and are trying to discredit them because of the source.

Mother Jones has a Christmas issue.

Do you believe in Christmas?

I'm glad you have internet access in Belarus - you are unintentionally amusing.

How are your neuroscience chops? Up to date?

Do you believe that humans adopt values and beliefs based on logical reasoning?

Do you think clever disputation changes minds?

Your comments make no sense. And, I am proudly an American. An American lawyer in fact.

Crawl back in your hole.

EdR is looking for his mouse. He is lost without his little friend.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

otoh
looking at 1982 -2019 mass shooting data is not "wrong"
it is the largest data set available and it is free

Sort of like how the only reasonable starting date to use when determining deaths due to terrorism is September 12, 2001

sept 12, 2001
that's the narrative public radio methodology!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I feel like this is just a feature of any federalist system, and doesn't have to do specifically with guns. I suspect when mass shootings occur, chatter about new laws at the federal level happens, and states with conservatives in office pass laws to preempt or counteract pending federal legislation. Whenever big controversial national news happens, localities act to preempt federal action, whether real or not.

Some examples from the other side of the aisle: blue states passing their own climate laws as a reaction to the Trump administration, sanctuary cities adopting policies to undermine federal immigration policy, and states like NY or VA further liberalizing their abortion laws in the shadow of a Supreme Court that seems to be moving to the right. I'll point out that all of these things (climate, abortion & the Supreme Court, and immigration) are probably the US media's three most publicized topics outside of mass shootings.

Respond

Add Comment

We need gun owners to suck on their steel pipes.

That is less crazy than the typical gun hysterics seeping from the left.

Respond

Add Comment

I suspect this idea will have roughly the same compliance rate as the NY SAFE Act.

Gun nuts in Montana seem to have a suicide rate. Maybe the idea will spread. The other solution is feed then fentanyl and put them in rural camps. they are incurable sexual deviants. They suffer castration anxiety, and that is such a disgusting mental condition the shrinks won't have anything do do with them.

Non-gun nits in NYC also have a suicide rate.

Respond

Add Comment

Montana lies within the Case-Deaton suicide belt. Something else is going on, and it isn't about guns. Pills, jumps, and deliberate car crashes will do the job if guns aren't available.

Your comment is incredibly hateful and devoid of any compassion for the suffering of those mostly men.

Are you a psychopath?

God takes care of those who take care of themselves. Those that don't deserve their eternal damnation. Suicide is an ungodly sin.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

meanwhile
just because the fuckwit mayor of chicago (u.chicago law $6o,000/anum) is too afraid & incompetent to talk about chicago gang related gun violence it doesn't mean she gets to tell everbody else
in the country not to talk about it!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/09/04/lori-lightfoot-ted-cruz-gun-control-chicago-violence/

doesn't

"But the claim parroted by everyone from then-candidate Donald Trump to former White House press secretary Sarah Sanders that Chicago has the toughest gun laws" …. the idea that "everyone" is uniform even though "Chicago" is provincial cancels out any moral angst

chicago politicians have applicable gun laws & they mostly know who the gang shooters/illegal gun owners are but they are apparently unwilling to go after their guns
they prefer to go after chicken sandwiches

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Do we care about the significantly larger numbers of people killed by (usually illegal) pistols in inner cities? What are we doing to protect them?

Respond

Add Comment

El Paso is larger than Baltimore. After the recent mass shooting, El Paso was up to 40 gun murders, Baltimore had 200.

Maryland has all the gun regs most liberals support, yet 5 times more gun murders occur than in "Wild West" Texas.

Maybe its culture, not guns.

You are talking about two different things there, which of course you know.

The gangland inner city murder rate is awful, but it's mostly criminals killing other criminals. Not entirely of course.

When a white nutjob (yes they are always white in the type of shooting here) picks up an automatic or three and goes on a killing spree in Odessa or El Paso or Las Vegas or Newtown, it's a completely different event in kind. Mass casualties of innocents.

The solutions to each problem are very different, and neither is completely soluble. But there are common sense regulations of firearms and who is allowed to purchase and carry those that we could implement today, if the nutjobs weren't nutjobs.

We aren't talking gun confiscation (some are, they are as nutty as Dick the Butcher). But here we are anyway.

"automatic" false

"common sense" says who

"We aren't talking gun confiscation" O'Rourke and Castro , at least, among presidential candidates are. Soon it will be liberal orthodoxy.

Thee are criminals in El Paso I assume, yet the murder rate is still 1/5 of Baltimore.

Culture, not guns.

...but not among gun nuts. Maybe someday your fever will break.

O'Rourke and Castro: citation needed. Also, neither one is a threat to be president. It's already far left orthodoxy (except Bernie, who comes from a hunting state), but as I said those nuts are as crazy as Dick the Butcher, and you probably shouldn't get your panties in a wad about them.

Again, comparing apples to oranges. Mass shootings are a different problem than gang violence.

Culture OF guns. Need to change the culture to one that respects guns and carefully regulates their use.

This is probably a good time to mention that Democratic front-runner Gropin' Joe Biden thinks we should ban all magazines that hold multiple bullets.

Works for us. But I think a functional definition would be better. For example, if police officers can fire a gun more than 3 times in 5 seconds then the police officer gets $100 and the gun gets banned. Have a big gun buyback of all those weapons and destroy them like in Australia. But I understand there might be some resistance to this approach in the US, despite that being a rate of up to 36 rounds a minute.

That brings up an interesting question: if the government buys guns, would it pass a background check? History of violent acts, major psychiatric issues, aggressive attitude towards other people... I think it's in our best interest to keep the government away from anything it can use to hurt itself or others.

That why one state sawed them in half in front of people when they brought them in, just so there would be no question about what was happening to the firearms. (Personally, I think they should have been sold to the United States, but that's just me thinking about the bottom line.)

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

For those of you following along at home, extrajudicial killings of blacks = acceptable

Why do you do that? No one said that, implied it, or meant it. And it's completely off topic (the topic being the stupidity of comparing inner city violence to mass shootings on a one to one basis)

Two different things, both not good. Different solutions. Comparing them is counterproductive, and your comment is idiotic.

You're the one rationalizing it, not me. And why wouldn't you compare them on a one-to-one basis? I suppose you think the lives lost in inner-city shootings are worth less. Probably three-fifths as much, judging by your comment.

Tell you what, why don't you look up what percentage of gun deaths are due to mass shootings, or the actual odds that you are going to be killed in a mass shooting, then get back to us. That is if you aren't too busy cheering on the deaths of urban youths.

See, I can type lying bullshit on the internet too.

You can't pin that on me, it could have been any Shark Lasers.

Hit that one right out of the park, +10 internet points

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I assume you are smart enough to stay out of parts of Baltimore or Chicago to avoid the risk of gun violence.

Are you smart enough to stay away from WalMart?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Many normal people assume that the leftists are out to get guns to eliminate resistance to their agenda. While this is undoubtedly true on the part of the elites, the fact is that the inability to comprehend the need for self-defense is a hallmark of r-selection.

We've all seen what rabbits in a meadow do when a hawk swoops down to take one. They run away but in five minutes are back munching on grass like nothing happened.

That's the essence of the leftist mindset. It's not about safety or the children or anything except keeping on munching.

I bet that word salad sounded really smart in your head while you typed it.

This seems to be a common response of yours, to assume that because you didn't understand something, no one else did.

Let me put it this way, you aren't qualified to determine what people do and do not need to secure themselves and their loved ones when you share in the leftist pathology.

No need to be qualified, it is spelled out in the Constitution. The necessity of a regulated militia for our security, a right actually.

The actual words are in the Second, it is specifies a very defined requirement to organize in a manner that insures security. The may mean taking a bunch of NRA deviants and put them into fentanyl camps for life, so be it.

NRA castratti may not like it, but those words give us the right to hunt down and jail anyone with an assault rifle who is not compliant with a regulated militia. as long as those words are there, we will hunt them down and feed them fentanyl.

Of course the easiest way to determine the meaning of the words "a well-regulated Militia" would be to look at contemporary laws restricting gun ownership in post-revolutionary America, of which of course, there were none.

I'm afraid your death camp fantasies will have to wait for another day.

Better double up your ammo and get ready.

Respond

Add Comment

Why do you support the terrorists right to guns? Enabling terrorism is treason.

Hear hear!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The US Constitution was made to be deliberately difficult to amend, but not impossible. The Second Amendment can be ignored or side-stepped if it is too difficult to amend. The discussion that keeps repeating has not gone anywhere and will not go anywhere. (It is basically clickbait).
The remote possibility of being a victim of a mass random nutjob white guy with a macho firearm is the price you pay for your freedoms to take drugs and sleep on the street in San Francisco (the rest of the world is jealous of your freedoms, as one of your previous Presidents said).

Respond

Add Comment

White man less responsible than black man. Bad black shoot other black. But bad white shoot everybody with assault rifles.

Respond

Add Comment

We have mass shootings every day in Chicago. This is the fruit of the progressive, liberal, welfare state that manufactures poor, ignorant and violent people. WORK is a four-letter word in the welfare state. After 50 years and trillions of dollars, you would think supporters of the welfare state would give up. But they just double-down. More taxes will solve everything, And the band played on. Where do all these violent people come from? Can anyone answer. Or are we not supposed to ask?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment