Anti-gun side of "debate" riddled with factual errors

Anti-gun side of "debate" riddled with factual errors

I don’t expect people to understand the nature of so-called gun crime as a general rule. After all, it’s a complex topic and few people have all that much interest in it anyway.


That’s fine. It really is.

But it becomes a problem when you’re someone who is debating gun control on a Newsweek podcast.

Luckily, Newsweek transcribed the sides of the debate and published them, which means we get to take a look at the anti-gun argument. In particular, I’m going to break the second paragraph down. You’ll see why I’m doing that in a moment.

I’m just focusing on the second paragraph to illustrate just how many falsehoods can be slammed into a relatively short period of time.

The courts don’t say that you can’t regulate the kinds of weapons that people have under the First Amendment. We’ve had court backing for all sorts of limitations on the sorts of weapons that people have. I mean, you can’t have a bazooka, you can’t have a hydrogen bomb, and for a period of years you couldn’t, have one of these assault weapons.

OK, first, I’m going to assume the mention of the First Amendment was just a slip-up because, well, that’s really the only way that sentence makes any sense.

Now, about the court backing all these limitations…yes. The courts have held there are some limitations that are warranted. For over a decade, the test has been “dangerous and unusual” weapons. That covers bazookas and hydrogen bombs.

However, there has never actually been a total ban on what we would term “assault weapons.” Even during the days of the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, AR-15s were still available and easily purchased. They lacked a few features that such guns can have today, but they were still obviously AR-15s.


Further, the fact that the courts of the past upheld bans on such weapons is also largely irrelevant now. After the Bruen decision, the legal landscape on guns has changed. Significantly. It’s unlikely that such restrictions, particularly on so-called assault weapons, will survive, much to the chagrin of anti-gunners everywhere.

So, there’s no conflict between the second amendment and the legislatures saying, “hey, there’s some kind of weapons that are just too crazy and too dangerous to put in the hands of civilians”

Again, that might have been true before Bruen. Afterward, well, that’s going to change and we’ve already seen that with the Fifth Circuit overturning the federal bump stock ban and a West Virginia federal court overturning a ban on guns with serial numbers removed.

If you think AR-15s are going to survive while obliterated serial numbers didn’t, you’ve got another thing coming.

Let’s talk about how those guns end up in the hands illegally of citizens who use them for bad purposes. What happens in the vast majority cases is they are bought legally in states where they’re freely open to be sold. They come to my home state of Louisiana, they buy a whole bunch of guns in the Walmart, and then truck them up to other places where there are laws and sell them. So, while it’s illegal for them to end up there, the fact that guns are so readily available in so many parts of our country make it very difficult regulate those controls effectively state by state.


That’s a nice story. It’s also wrong.

Oh, that kind of thing happens, but it’s not the “vast majority of cases.” For example, on Thursday, I reported on a study from Everytown. Buried in the study, we learned that Everytown found that over the five years span they looked at, fewer than 10 percent of all guns used in crime were purchased with the intent to be trafficked.

Now, I’m not a mathematician or anything–I’m not overly great at anything beyond basic math–but the last time I checked, less than 10 percent wasn’t the “vast majority of cases.”

See, this is a lie that anti-gunners like to tell themselves so they can feel good about what they’ve accomplished. They don’t have to admit that their efforts accomplished nothing, they can just blame it on states that haven’t done anything.

Yet the numbers don’t actually support that claim, and those aren’t my numbers. Everytown for Gun Safety isn’t exactly a pro-gun group, yet these are the numbers I found in their study.

My God, you’ve got so many guns, people are shooting each other all the time. We need get those guns out of those people’s hands. We shouldn’t make it easier, or more plentiful, or more powerful, or expand the people who can get it, or eliminate the background checks, or all the sensible gun safety regulations that I wish my gun lover friends would join me in.


Except, as we’ve already noted, fewer than 10 percent were purchased with the intention of trafficking them. Most of those were bought from gun stores, where they underwent background checks. So why would more background checks actually do anything?

They won’t.

Yet this is a salve that anti-gunners like to use, again, to make them feel better for their failures. It’s not that their policies don’t work, they just aren’t doing enough.

The reason this individual’s “gun lover friends” won’t join them is because we know that they’re essentially talking nonsense.

Now, this has run on long enough, and as promised, I only tackled the second paragraph here. With this many things actually wrong in just one paragraph, how can you take anything this person asserts as being true? They’re simply not providing accurate information, yet they’re predicting their anti-gun push based on these inaccuracies.

Just something to think about.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member