Orlando Shooting and the Tautology Of Gun Controls and Bans


Tautology: a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words; a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.

Once again there’s a mass shooting (Orlando) and once again, there are calls for stricter gun control laws or outright bans.

For the inside story on the socio-political implications of what happened—including the irony of one special, tender darling of the left (a Muslim) murdering 52 (at last count) and wounding 50 others of another special, tender darling of the left (gays)—see this by that marvelous faggot himself, Milo Yiannopoulos.

Rather than focus on their little ideo-politico dilemma, I’ll focus instead on what they chose to pass it all off: guns (again).

…Those familiar with the dietary wars will recall that one trick often used is to focus in on a single statistical variable rather than a batch of them, or all of them. For instance, if you wish to demonstrate a benefit to lowering saturated fat or cholesterol in the diet, you find a beneficial association with some bad disease, such as coronary heart disease. So, ‘reducing saturated fat and cholesterol is associated with less risk of death by heart attack.’

But what about just…death? Now, you might have an irrational fear of dying from a heart attack over, say, cancer or dementia—that’s your business—but unless you can demonstrate a benefit in all-cause mortality, you’re just shuffling diseases around and cherry picking the ones where you can make an association in order to grab headlines and a grant, since “further study is [always] required.”

And so it is in the great gun-control debates. But the astute ought to recognize that finding an association between a particular gun-control law or a ban and some reduction in shootings or death by gun is the same thing as we just saw above. Unless you can show a significant reduction in homicide in general, you’ve accomplished nothing. You’re just shuffling various means of homicide around and picking one means that offers some social or political leverage for you.

But there’s a distinction to make. In the former case, such associations don’t always hold true, even in cherry picked diseases. Depending on which group or population you study, you can find either no such association or, even an inverse (falsifying) association. But in the latter case, it stands to logical reason that if you take my guns away, I’m unlikely to kill someone…with a gun.

That’s why it’s tautological, which can be a logical fallacy. Tautologies have their place, however, the classic examples being existence exists and A is A …axiomatic, metaphysical starting points in philosophical inquiry. Not the case, here. It’s just a damn logical fallacy in the service of Leftist narrative expediency.

‘Guns have been banned and physically taken away, and that has been strongly associated with a substantial decrease in homicide by guns.’ Clever, eh?

Let me show you how.

In 1996, both the UK and Australia enacted watershed gun legislation. A ban in the UK, and a hugely costly buy-back in Australia. In the UK, homicides had run 1.1 – 1.3 per 100,000 annually since 1990. After the ban, homicides increased steadily until reaching a peak of 1.8 in 2003. By 2010, the rate had come back to “normal” at 1.1. In Australia, about the same thing.


It takes five years for an outright gun ban to take effect

Here’s a bunch of statistics and analysis, if you wish. The source is biased (who isn’t?), but at least provides sufficient data that alternate avenues of analysis are possible beyond a children’s bedtime story narrative—or that of a hopeless dilettante.

There are other things I could bring up as well, one of the larger issues being that since the gun ban in the UK, home invasion rates there have increased to levels far higher than in the US (disputes over statistics and changes in methods abound). A home invasion is when a predator or burglar breaks into your home, when you’re home. It doesn’t take a logistician to form an Occam’s Razor hypothesis or two as to why this might have come about.

For those who wish to dig deeper into actual data and analysis, here’s John Lott on the Australia gun situation, The Federalist with its leftist-hopes dashing piece, and whoa! an actual formal study, which concludes:

This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the NFA on gun deaths. Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects—that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods.

Since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, two other shooting incidents have attracted much media attention in Australia. An incident on October 21, 2002 at Monash University, in which a gunman killed two people and wounded five, prompted the National Hand- gun Buyback Act of 2003. Under this scheme that ran from July to December 2003, 70,000 handguns were removed from the community at a cost of approximately A$69 million. Another shooting on June 18, 2007, in which a lone gunman killed a man who had come to the aid of an assault victim and seriously wounded two others in Melbourne’s central business district during morning rush hour, renewed calls for tougher gun controls. Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.

…They’re saying that not only has all-homicide not been affected, but not even firearm cause in any meaningful way.

I’m not finished.

If the foregoing isn’t enough, then how about a simple analysis of gun-ownership rates against all-homicide rates? After all, I’ve kinda set the premise bar, above, so let’s have no fear and test it using available data. Cool?

The beauty of this sort of analysis is that hands down, US inhabitants have more fucking guns per person than anyone, and by wide margin. It’s more than a 1-1 ratio. Wrap your mind around that. Here’s the top 10.

Screen Shot 2016-06-14 at 1.54.18 PM

No denying we’re a bunch of gun-luvin’ mutherfuckers. And I see constantly…fucking CONSTANTLY…how Australia, a country of 23 million, bought 650,000 guns for a half billion A$ and bla bla. Try collecting 300 Million guns, morons (that’s an x461 magnitude problem for the maths challended). Try it. And there isn’t even a proportional argument to make. In australia, 650K guns amongst 23 million people equates to 1/5 of a gun per person, or one of 5 people owned a gun. In the US, either every single person owns 1.3 guns, or a lot of mutherfuckers own a fuck of a lot of guns.

I own three, currently. I had six a year ago but unloaded three of them before going to Mexico. Now I’m back, I’m looking at acquiring two more. Two I own are heirlooms that go in my cremation chamber with me…the Colt .38 snub nose revolver that was on my grandmother’s bedside table growing up, and the Ruger single-action .22 revolver I got to carry on my hip like a cowboy on hunting trips, from when I was 10 (yes, it was loaded and I could shoot shit at will).


The other is a little cheapo .380 semi-auto with a 10-round magazine (with a spare), ideal for concealed carry. In terms of what I acquire next, not being a gun nut by any means, it’s a .45 ACP and a tactical 12-guage shotgun. If I ever take up game hunting again, I’ll add a .243 rifle and scope.

So, keeping your mind in the data after my personal narcicistic diversion, given that America just overwhelms the whole rest of the world in terms of absolute number of guns and guns per capita, what about—not gun murders—all homicide?

There are 218 nations that offer statistics. Those statistics run from zero homicide to 84 per 100,000. Well, the US doesn’t hold that top spot. Honduras does, with its 6.2 guns per 100 people (US with 112 guns per 100). Here’s the top ten.

Screen Shot 2016-06-14 at 2.38.47 PM

There must be some mistake, because while #1 Honduras only has 6 guns per 100 homies, and #10 Guatemala has only 13—about 1-in-10 of America’s rate—and since more guns = more homicide, where is America?

I’ll show you.

Screen Shot 2016-06-14 at 2.47.09 PM

Yep, we’re 124 out of 218, not even in the top half. And yet, we have way, way more guns than anyone, and almost double the country in 2nd place.

What gives?

I can show you that, too. America is an enormous, prosperous, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic melting pot of a glorious, wonderful mess—so long as people are free to mess with it all. It turns out, actually, that in the most gun-nut central place—places in Texas, for example…places where they have 5-10 guns per person to make up for the ignorant and afraid leftie urbanites so we can arive at 1.2 guns per every person…there you find the homicide rates the lowest. Plano, TX, for example, has a homicide rate of about 0.4 per 100,000, which if it was a country, would come in #7th lowest, behind Iceland.

Now, compare that to various places in the US that have been under the rule of crook-criminal-Democrats for decades and have the strongest gun control legislation in the country. Here’s how some Democrat, gun-control strongholds rank amongst the top 50 deadliest gun-homicide cities in the world.

Screen Shot 2016-06-14 at 3.03.24 PM

I ask again, what gives? If these gun-controlled, Democrat-infested municipalities were countries, they’d rank about 4-7 in the world for most murderous.

There is really only one or more of three logical conclusions. From the left, democrat, gun-control sycodouche, you are dealing with ignorance, stupidity, or dishonesty. There is no other alternative, so take the pick of which you’re most comfortable with.

Finally, here’s a video by Bill Whittle from a year or so ago that basically covers this second section of the post in a 6-minute video. Great for sharing, especially for your reading-comprehension challenged democrat acquaintances.

Don’t be stupid out there. Too much of it already.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. thhq1 on June 15, 2016 at 05:37

    I inherited a 1931 s/n Colt Woodsman, like Hemingway’s. The real spare clips are expensive; aftermarket clips jam.

  2. Onlooker on June 14, 2016 at 17:56

    Yep, that lays it out pretty well. Of course they’re immune to facts. It’s all about the emotional, knee jerk response with zero critical thinking or intellectual honesty.

    One thing you didn’t touch on is that with increasing restrictions and/or bans a black market WILL develop to fill the market demand. And so all the B.S. about background checks, restrictions on various categories of people (e.g. suspected terrorists, ex-cons, etc.) won’t do fuck all to keep guns out of their hands. And so that person who wants to shoot somebody will get his gun, but at least we can say he didn’t get it legally so we can feel better about ourselves.

    And there’s no doubt in my mind that the black market in the US would be massive (bigger than it already is, of course), even if the Brits or Aussies, Swedes, or whoever haven’t developed much of one (though you can bet there is one).

    Bottom line: Prohibition doesn’t work! You’d think the idiot left would have learned that by now with the drug war. But noooooo, it’s a big huge blind spot. Emotions rule. Hoplophobia reigns.

    • Richard Nikoley on June 15, 2016 at 10:32

      “One thing you didn’t touch on is that with increasing restrictions and/or bans a black market WILL develop to fill the market demand”

      No need. It’s implicit. 300 million guns, 1.25 per person in America, all while morons talk about Ausies ponying up a half billion A$ to buy 650,000, a 1/461 proportional difference.

      I’m just glad the car registration, driver licenses, driver Ed and all that keep us safe on the roads. There have only been 19,000 deaths since last January and with any luck, by next January the total for the year will be less than 38,000.

  3. Elijah Lloy on June 15, 2016 at 17:12

    Hello Richard,

    I’ve been reading your blog for a long time now and this takes the cake. What a great, well argued piece. I’ve been lurking for the past few days now, waiting to see what you might write and you did not disappoint. Well done and please keep up the good work.

    Elijah Lloy

    • Richard Nikoley on June 15, 2016 at 17:55

      Well thank you, sir. I don’t often reply to praise comments, but that was very nice, and your first comment here.

  4. Kevin D. on June 16, 2016 at 02:43

    Well, you ignored the clear fact that guns are for killing and AR-15’s are able to shoot 3600 rounds a second. Something has to be done.

    • thhq on June 16, 2016 at 09:44

      And this far out in progressive, er left, field I’ll throw in the Indonesian paradox that could be the key to everything. The kinder, gentler Islam of Obama grew up with. In many ways this explains the new American paradigm of not calling certain people terrorists.

      I had a friend who was there post Suharto in the Peace Corps. Many statues of the Chosen One were still there. People called them the Public Erections.

    • Richard Nikoley on June 16, 2016 at 06:20

      Ha. “Clear fact.”

      There’s the tongue in cheek tell, right there.

    • thhq on June 16, 2016 at 07:13

      Poverty makes people violent.

      As Richard noted progressive enclaves like Baltimore and Detroit are where violence is nurtured. In these happy gun control places the progressive residents slaughter each other and there are no filibusters and flamboyant parades. Not even on the news.

      Progressive deconstruction is funny Franken-style mockery on SNL as farce. But as a national policy it insures that Detroit and Baltimore will be the new normal.

      “You didn’t build that”. Ha ha.

    • Richard Nikoley on June 16, 2016 at 10:11

      Well that was a damn interesting whirlwind of a read. Haven’t read anything in Taki’s in years.

      Also interesting how often Sailer’s name comes up around here over the years.

  5. Evan Eberhardt on June 16, 2016 at 15:53

    Check this out for some humor. And the last name of this ‘journalist’ seems fitting.

    • Richard Nikoley on June 16, 2016 at 17:29

      Saw that yeasterday in meme form, with his dire quote and rignt below another meme.

      “My 7-yr-old daghter shooting an AR-15.” Appropriately, she was in pink, even her ear protection.

    • Richard Nikoley on June 16, 2016 at 18:11

      Kuntzman ought go fire a 12-gauge shotgun next.

      That’ll put the fear of Yahweh in him.

      Did me; then again, I was 5 or 6 first time I shot one.

  6. lpdbw on June 16, 2016 at 19:11
  7. From_Europe on June 18, 2016 at 04:21

    Interesting. I liked reading a reasoned piece on the issue, using some data, from the American gun-owning perspective.

    There must be other factors at stake, though. From the same Wikipedia article, most Western and Southern European countries have quite low homicide rates (positions 170-200 on the same chart). Some of these countries have low gun ownership rates, some have higher. So, there must be other (more important, maybe) factors influencing the homicide rate.

    Which factors, in your opinion, lead to a low homicide rate in general?

    I have to point out that I do not think there is a correlation your text seem to imply: that low gun ownership rates imply a higher rate of home invasions. In fact, the countries I am most familiar with have low gun ownership rates and home invasions are very rare, except for older people who live in isolated places (and those people tend to have guns and nobody finds that odd). Again, I think there are cultural, historical and even logistic factors (type of houses, type of passive security, population distribution) at stake and the issue is really very complicated.

    (On the interest of disclosure, I am from a Western European country where gun ownership is low and controls have existed for a long time. Also, English is not my first language. Thirdly, I do not own a gun myself and do not feel the need to, but if I did, you bet I would get good, frequent training to use it. Just like I do not own a strong dog with a strong bite, but if I did, both the dog and I would be trained: I to command and the dog to act or stop acting on command).

    • Richard Nikoley on June 18, 2016 at 09:09


      The problem I have essentially is that freedom is messy. In my talk at AHS11 I asked, “so what happens in an anarchy?” EVERYTHING happens. ( )

      Just as everything happens any system with any modicum of freedom. People seem to think that they can enjoy increasing levels of risk-free or risk-mitigated safety without trading away freedom and liberty.

      They can’t. The only thing that happens is this, from 7,401 rules and regulations in 1976 to 169,593 by 2009:

      And still, everything that can happen, does happen. Government is a myth, nothing more than a club and network for the Nomenclatura and politically connected.

      America has about 357 Millon guns amongst a population of 312 Millon. In total, there are 32,000 deaths per year from firearms, 60% being suicide. Stripping out small numbers of both accidents (under 1,000) and justified shootings (just over 1,000), leaves 33% that are homicides. But 80% of the homicides are from inner-city, gang related activities (to which drug laws likely contribute a great deal), and all of them are cities that have been in the hands of leftist, socialist, gun-grabbing democrats for decades. Every single one.

      We’re left with about 1,700 homicides in a population of 312 million that are predators preying on innocents. That’s 0.00000544871795 or .00054%. And this is what everyone’s all up in arms about? Compare that to the estimated 210,000 – 400,000 that dies each years from preventable medical errors.,_Evidence_based_Estimate_of_Patient_Harms.2.aspx

      In conclusion, I don’t think anyone “needs” to do anything but strike every single gun ban from every single law book, including the prohibition-era banning of fully-automatic weapons in 1934. Anyone who truly wants a fully-auto weapon can already easily get one, or modify a semi-auto.

  8. Diane on June 19, 2016 at 03:06

    I came here for the diet info, am hanging out for the politics. Good to find a friendly! I’m sitting here like, “Yes. YES! EXACTLY!” Keep up the good work!

  9. […] those with reading comprehension skills, the post and comments are here: Orlando Shooting and the Tautology Of Gun Controls and Bans. A follow-on, here: Gersh Kuntzman Is Getting Everything He […]

  10. Boxster on July 10, 2016 at 08:46

    Richard, you have no clue as to who I am. But you can call me names, as that shows your character. And you haven’t refuted any of the FACTS from the FBI, CDC or Dept. of Justice. So, the animal is free to blab about untruths and made up BS.

    • Richard Nikoley on July 10, 2016 at 09:20

      Well, you’re finally right about two things. I don’t know who you are and I can call you names. Congratulations. That really shores up your lying.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow by Email8k