Richard Ebeling on why armed self-defense is essential in a free society.
As a friend once explained to me, “I carry a gun because I can’t carry a cop.”
Americans who call for stricter and stricter gun control know that getting rid of rifles will do little or nothing for the nation’s homicide rate. Their calls for more restrictive gun laws are part of a larger strategy to outlaw gun ownership altogether.
Voice of Capitalism
Our weekly email newsletter.
We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe anytime.
Are you very afraid? 3D-printed guns are coming. "Virtually undetectable!" shrieked CNN. "This changes the safety of Americans forever!" shrieked MSNBC. Does it? Six years ago, a company called Defense Distributed posted blueprints for 3D-printed guns on the web. The...
How many lives are saved each year through the use of firearms
Last week Rep. Nancy Pelosi warned President Donald Trump that if he declared an "emergency" to build a wall, "think what a president with different values can present... Why don't you declare (the epidemic of gun violence in America) an emergency, Mr. President? I...
“What about the beneficial effect of gun ownership?”
Organizing and signing online petitions against gun manufacturers may be emotionally gratifying but will not end gun violence.
Dr Andrew Bernstein establishes the practical case for upholding the right to bear arms and validates the moral right of honest persons to own guns. Guns, in the hands of honest, trained persons, save innocent lives.
The fatal fallacy of gun control laws in general is the assumption that such laws actually control guns. Criminals who disobey other laws are not likely to be stopped by gun control laws. What such laws actually do is increase the number of disarmed and defenseless victims.
None of the things proposed by president Obama is likely to reduce gun violence.
Academics who don’t toe the leftist line get attacked and lose their jobs.
What might have happened if a few of the 1,500 concert attendees in Paris’ Bataclan theater had guns?
After every tragic shooting, liberals and progressives call for more gun laws. They exploit American ignorance as to why the Framers gave us Second Amendment protections.
A disarmed population makes crime a safer occupation and street violence a safer sport.
Gun control zealots are almost always people who are lenient toward criminals, while they are determined to crack down on law-abiding citizens who want to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones.
Do you want to live in a world where a violent criminal knows that all the nonviolent, noncriminals out there are disarmed?
I can’t convince my friends in New York City, but it’s just a fact: More guns — less crime.
The following are some statements by the Founding Fathers. You tell me which one of them suggests that they gave us the Second Amendment for deer and duck hunting and protection against criminals.
The vast majority of people who own guns for their own self-protection are in no way responsible for a criminal, terrorizing person’s choice to harm others.
The great bulk of the studies show that gun control laws do not in fact control guns. On net balance, they do not save lives but cost lives.
The New York Post reports that New York doctors are “treating ObamaCare like the plague,” according to a new survey. See? I told you so. A poll conducted by the New York State Medical Society finds that 44 percent of MDs said they are not participating in the nation’s...
Why — at a time in our history when guns were readily available, when a person could just walk into a store or order a gun through the mail, when there were no FBI background checks, no waiting periods, no licensing requirements — was there not the frequency and kind of gun violence that we sometimes see today, when access to guns is more restricted?
So many of the issues of our time — or perhaps any time — hinge on whether one considers the full context, or only one element of it.