No Statistical Threshold

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Armed Self-Defense Belongs in the Public Record

The CDC’s correction does not establish an exact annual count or mean every defensive gun use saved a life. It does restore a fuller account of research on Americans using firearms for protection.

Government agencies should not bury that evidence because it makes gun bans harder to sell.

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. That right does not depend on Gun Violence Archive’s bogus research or whether armed self-defense complicates the next gun-control campaign.

Shall not be infringed has no statistical threshold.

Duncan Johnson
October 8, 2026
CDC Corrects Defensive Gun Use Estimates After Anti-Gun Push

Emphasis in the original.

The article reenforces what we already knew. The anti-gun groups are opposed to the First Amendment too. The truth interferes with their agenda. All Falsehoods Have a Price and the price for their lies has been paid for with the lives of people who would have been able to save themselves had they not been legally prevented from using the best tools available to defend themselves.

“Shall not be infringed has no statistical threshold.”

I like that.

Share

5 thoughts on “No Statistical Threshold”

  1. My understanding is that FBI records already show some fraction of defensive gun use.
    However, the right answer can be found in Prof. John Lott’s “More guns, less crime” which studies the question in detail. He pointed out that most defensive gun use does not result in official records, and that the good guy involved in those cases is generally hesitant to supply any information for fear of government persecution. Especially at the time that work was created, and still today in anti-freedom jurisdictions, that’s a well founded fear.
    In other words, while there are some government records they dramatically undercount the reality and always will.

    And besides, as you pointed out, RKBA has a principled Constitutional basis; it should not be necessary to justify it by a “utilitarian” argument — though as Lott showed, the utilitarian argument is quite strong.

    • As a counterpoint, Masaad Ayoob advocates that any defensive gun use be reported, even if no shots are fired. The reasoning is that bad guys make false reports about the the incidents and if they have seen your gun, they might be able to describe it, lending credibility to the false report. Since none of use come with Good Guy labels, he advocates winning the race to 911 which is an important data point in police efforts to sort out what happened. The ubiquity of surveliance cameras is another factor.

      • Also, the ubiquity of surveillance cameras and the changes in behavior due to their presence is a big factor in the cooling of Leftists’ ardor for body cams on all cops. Because a body camera is a functionally objective onbserver, both the police and the potential perp modify their behavior. The cop is more likely to act less agressively toward the perp, and the perp is less likely to overtly resist, since the camera will show he initiated the violence.
        To me that’s a plus for everyone involved.

        • Even though citizens seldom wear body cams, they should always assume that they are being filmed. Think about how many videos from how many angles showed Kyle Rittenhouse. I think this is why he was acquitted. So know the law and stay within it.

  2. Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » YEP. THE SECOND AMENDMENT KEEPS THE FIRST:  No Statistical Threshold. The article reenforces wh

Comments are closed.