About the author

Stuart Silverstein is assistant editor at FairWarning.

9 comments to “Advocates Duel Over Who’s Winning Gun Control Battle in the States”

  1. Billy

    If you don’t think protecting yourself and family is a major right go to Canada or the Queen

  2. Lee Cruse

    “The Law Center, relying on more comprehensive fatality figures from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, – See more at: http://www.fairwarning.org/2015/01/advocates-duel-whos-winning-gun-control-battle-states/#comments

    This statement is a lie and misleading. The CDC does not make a distinction between justified use of a weapon vs criminal use of a weapon. So, all of the good uses of a gun are grouped as “bad”. Now, we all know that when a good guy uses a gun to stop a violent criminal act that the action is good and necessary. In fact the use of a gun to stop a violent criminal action takes place millions of times every year.

    11 million crimes a year stopped by a gun based on Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey
    http://extranosalley.com/?p=12875

  3. steve

    58% is not a wide margin

  4. jack burton

    Folks, it’s not that hard to look at actual reality instead of the fantasy going on in many people’s heads.

    Dozens of states allow 18 and up to carry legal handguns and no one… NO ONE… can point to any study that shows that the 18 – 21 age group has a worse track record with that responsibility and right than any other age group.

    These anti-freedom people make the most outrageous, lying claims and so-called journalists just pass them on like the gospel truth with no attempt at verification or correction.

  5. Kirk Parker

    Please stop being dishonest-by-omission!

    The WA State initiative did not require background checks on purchases only, but also on very vaguely defined “transfers”–though somehow, this additional restriction did not find it’s way into any of the ads in favor of the measure, nor even into the ballot title!

  6. jimg9x21

    As is usually the case this article was written by someone that has a preconceived idea about the subject and slants the article his way.
    The only “win” you can give the gun control crowd was Washington State but it took three billionaires to support the effort and then they only got the liberal Seattle area (which represents 60% of the voters in the state) to go along with an extremely poorly written law.
    Gun control folks lost all the governorships that were up for grabs including every southern one. They lost more ground in the House, completely lost the Senate and most of the state legislatures moved more to the right. How do you compare that to one “bought” election? It also strikes me funny that the very thing gun control folks have complained about for years, NRA big money, is exactly what got them the one win in Washington.
    Mr. Webster needs to find another line of work as “gun policy expert” sure isn’t his forte. For his information, we give a 19 year old the keys to the car but I don’t hear him calling for a repeal of that law. We also give these young people firearms to protect our country but deny them a beer or the means to protect themselves and their families here in the US. This makes perfect sense to the professor; maybe a refresher course in logic would be appropriate.
    The author should also get his facts straight. The Santa Barbara tragedy indeed had six people killed but three of them were not shot, two were stabbed and one was hit by a car. Compare that to a weekend in Chicago week after week and that California tragedy pales in comparison. California already has some of the strictest gun control measures in the country and they did nothing to prevent a mentally deranged person from mayhem. In fact California’s violent crime rate hasn’t exactly taking a plunge with the advent of all their gun control laws so what was the real point of passing them?
    The author also seems to support the current move to deny people their civil rights without due process. A mere suggestion by an acquaintance or family member to the police is enough to have your rights curtailed. If this is allowed to stand, how long do you think it will take before we deny other rights to people that we “know” are crazy?
    Seems we have just another gun control promotion without benefit of logic or facts.

  7. Navy Davey

    If guns were taken from all participants in any war zone, then gun deaths would go down.
    That would please the anti-gunners like the gun control group the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
    Civilian areas similarly?
    Are both desirable?
    What about self-protection of family and friends and the less strong?
    What about that 2nd Amendment that does not grant a right but merely states that self protection is a right?
    I have personally been attacked for insufficient cause more than once in my life and have fought back a few times, to good effect. I’d sure like to be able to protect mine with a firearm if the situation demanded it, and if others would not, OK with that, but don’t tell me I cannot. In the name of humanity, I demand my rights, all of them!

  8. Doug Baldwin

    I have to like the quote in the piece from Daniel Webster, though it is a harsh truth. On point with that reality were reviews today of the gigantic weekend success of American Sniper, laden with comments that Warner Bros had reached out to a wide range of groups in its successful marketing, including vets of course. But not to gun enthusiasts, even though the Sniper’s widow once gave an impassioned pro gun speech to the NRA and the Sniper himself was writing a book on 10 guns that changed American history — a nifty idea from exactly the right person. That book was surely going to be a winner. The Sniper was a remarkable man, an admirable man, a cool guy, and yet, somehow, something about his end is a complex irony from many angles, which also connects to Silverstein’s excellent overview here.

  9. Bill Inaz

    ““I just really question how prudent it is to allow 19-year-olds to carry concealed handguns around. We don’t even let 19-year-olds drink a beer legally.””

    We sure send them off to other countries to be maimed and die for nothing though.

    You’re old enough to kill but not for votin”**

    **P. F. Sloan

Leave a comment