More Guns Less Crime, STOP THE BUMP STOCK BAN Trojan Horse


Scott Adams says it is irrational to show what happens after gun laws are passed in either direction, and says talking about Chicago murder rates with strict gun laws is useless unless you compare Chicago 2017 with gun laws in 2017 vs. Chicago without gun laws in 2017.

BUT you can get close to comparing Chicago 2017 with gun control versus Chicago in 2017 without gun control, by reviewing the collection of numerous studies compiled by John Lott in his book. The title sums up the inescapable conclusion of what DID happen in a great number of cities and states. These studies compare the numbers of crimes, controlled for the other usual factors, in given places, in the months and years before the passing of must-issue concealed carry laws, and after the law went into effect. The title: “More Guns, Less Crime”.

Culture has an influence too, but one can also claim that a culture more given to violence, even gun violence –as political over-lord control freaks like to talk about– makes the need for the right to bear arms even greater.

And note, it’s the right to bear arms, not keep them at home.


Scott Adams says that the “slippery slope” argument is “nonsense”, that “every decision stands on its own, and it should”. But the Slippery Slope argument does NOT argue otherwise. In the context of the discussions in the USA especially (and everywhere), the Slippery Slope argument IS INDEED an argument that is relevant to making decisions on these things.

Rationally speaking, in the real world, Scott Adams concedes it is a very tiny number of people that have been killed using bump stocks.

Suzanna Hupp even made the point to the Congress that the Congress had been acting in exactly the way the Slippery Slope argument predicts. Gun Owners of America make a very rational point that a bump stock ban is a Trojan horse for much more:

Just because Thomas Jefferson went outside his authority to do the Louisiana Purchase is no justification for any executive orders. Some of Trump’s executive orders, such as rolling back unauthorized subsidies that Obama waved into being is no reason to do it. No matter whether it’s popular, or because lawyers.



%d bloggers like this: