constitution_gunLast week a story about NY states’ SAFE Act appeared on NPR. The story focuses on gun owners refusing to comply with the hastily passed and unconstitutional law.

The story was unremarkable but the comments below it were pure gold.

There is a great back and forth between two people in particular, “w8ofwater” who attempts to comment using talking points from Everytown/Mayors/Moms and the rebuttal by “oakspar777” who clearly has great knowledge of our Second Amendment and issues which are frequently mentioned during discourse of this nature.

We strongly encourage any of our regular readers to take note of the facts presented by “oakspar777” as he is right on point

Please note: to make the argument more salient we have edited some comments out, we also make a few notes marked by bold type.

Michael Clifford: If cities and states can decide which federal laws they will obey/enforce why shouldn’t citizens have the same freedom to ignore state and city laws. Remember ‘of the people, for the people’.

w8ofwater: Oh drop the u-2’s. It’s morally repugnant in a school teacher to justify law-breaking with false equivalents. Louisiana has the country’s weakest gun laws, the highest gun homicide rate—9.4 per 100,000 residents–and that gun violence costs each Louisiana resident $1,333 a year.

GOAL: We have no idea what the “school teacher” mention is about here

oakspar77777: What is morally repugnant is pretending that gun homicide is a different issue than homicide – because it implies that homicide is okay, just so long as the tool used is not a gun.

Al K: Note elsewhere how they always pair “gun” and “violence”. Very effective psyops. Pavlov’s Dog. Ask anybody you know what is the first thing that comes to mind when they hear the word “gun” or “violence”. Even the pro-gun people will blurt out the politically correct reply. Just do a search on “gun violence”, “auto violence”, “knife violence” and see which one generates the most hits.

w8ofwater: Again, what is morally repugnant is your ideological attempt to whitewash gun violence, in order to preserve some fantasy of “American exceptionalism”. The only thing exceptional about your posturing in front of the mirror in your Minuteman costumes is the affront to Christian values and civilized humanity. Or is the costume a Condfederate uniform in your case.

GOAL: Note the immediate personal attack, not unusual for those who wish to restrict freedom and enact gun prohibition.

oakspar77777: Crime, violence, and homicide are at 50 year lows. That is fact. You are crying that the sky is falling and something must be done, but in the general absence, repeal, and sunset of gun control – along with massive expansion of firearm freedom and freedom of carry, our crime rates, violence rates, and homicide rates have plunged.

This comment was deleted. (guessing this was w8ofwater)

oakspar77777: We don’t need for the 50 year low to be because of the increase in guns and carry laws and the repeal, removal, and sun-setting of gun control. Even if you do not agree with Lott’s arguments that “more guns, less crime” you cannot argue with the truth that more guns has not resulted in more crime. If crime rates remain flat or improve while gun ownership and carry increases, then there is no justification for gun control.

Freedom is the default standard in America. The burden of proof is on you to prove that gun control works (something no study ever has been able to prove – as gun control has never been shown to cause a reduction in crime, violence, or homicide)

Correlation does not prove causation, but a lack of correlation does disprove causation.

GOAL: ^one of the best comments ever made in an argument of this nature.

w8ofwater: Lott is nothing but an economist whose modelling methods are best left to predicting weather patterns. His NRA-funded “studies” have been repeatedly repudiated by peers for failing to control for any influence other factor than liberalization of gun laws, showing only correlation and coincidence devoid of causation, and ignoring equivalent crime rate reductions where firearm regulations increase or remain unchanged. More guns mean more gun crime, PERIOD.


(1) Lott’s modeling shows clear correlation. That does not prove causation, but does disprove the opposite causation. When there are more guns but less crime, that does not mean that more guns are the cause of less crime, but it does prove that more guns does not cause more crime.

(2) How many times have I had to call you out for statements like your last one “More guns mean more gun crime, PERIOD.”?

NO ONE CARES if more guns mean a higher percent gun crime, if the overall rate of crime, violence, and homicide remain unchanged.

If I could offer society a reduction of murders of 20%, but of the 80% of murders that still occur, 15% more of them would be by guns instead of knives, EVERYONE (except for you) would see that as a GOOD thing.

Only you, being willing to be deceptive in the name of your agenda, would pretend that a murder victim is somehow happier being stabbed instead of shot to death.

More guns does not mean more crime, period. That is established fact. That more guns changes the MEANS, but not the quantity of crime, violence, and homicide is irrelevant.

GOAL:^ This x1000

BuddyBizarre: False. Vermont has the fewest gun laws (about 2/3rds of a 2 column page) yet is always 49th or 50th in murder rate.

Eric J: If New Orleans 27.7 per 100,000 was not included, Louisiana’s rate would drop to a far more reasonable rate.

w8ofwater: A firearm that doesn’t kill is a defective firearm.

XNavyNuke: Then 99.9% of privately firearms that haven’t killed anyone are defective?

Francesco Copliani: They should enact some commonsense gun laws in New Orleans, then they would be safe and darn near violence free, like Chicago and Washington DC.

Randy Smith: Exactly which “common sense laws” ( which from a liberal standpoint is ludicrous) do they not already have in place down there ? can you name even one

XNavyNuke: I think that was sarcasm

MEVr: W8, When you compare same region same demographics states — like real non biased sociologists do — those with the least gun laws have the lowest homicide. Look at same region same demographic Virginia and Maryland. Maryland has about double the murder rate.

w8ofwater: No they don’t. Seven of the 10 states with the most firearm deaths in 2013 have enacted stand your ground laws. In fact, none of the states with the most gun violence require permits to purchase rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Gun owners are also not required to register their weapons in any of these states. Meanwhile, many of the states with the least gun violence

require a permit or other form of identification to buy a gun.

oakspar77777: Again, you convolute crime, violence, homicide, and suicide with “gun” crime, violence, homicide, and suicide. No one cares the rate a MEANS of a tragedy occurs, they care that it occurs, and never has removing a means to a tragedy been shown to change the rate of tragedy, because the CAUSE remains. If your wife or child is in a room with a large, violent, and evil man it does not matter what he has – he will victimize them with a gun, a knife, or his bare hands. Obsessing over the means, rather than the cause, and the rate of use of a tool, rather than the rate of the act is nothing but a deceitful obfuscation.

GOAL: As of our last reading there were no more replies from “w8ofwater” who apparently tucked tail and ran. Great job “oakspar” whoever you are!

How to argue the Second Amendment.