No Pinocchios

WaPo‘s Fact Checker gets one right when he awards no Pinocchios to Marco Rubio for his statement that none of the recent “mass shootings” would have been prevented by any of the current or currently proposed gun laws.

Gun-control advocates often point to the experience in other countries that have enacted gun laws that heavily restrict gun ownership; as we have shown, quantitative measures of cross-comparative crime statistics, especially where the crime is not consistently defined (i.e., “mass shooting”), usually end up being apples-to-oranges comparisons. It is possible that some gun-control proposals, such as a ban on large-capacity magazines, would reduce the number of dead in a future shooting, though the evidence for that is heavily disputed. But Rubio was speaking in the past, about specific incidents. He earns a rare Geppetto Checkmark.

Read the whole thing.

4 thoughts on “No Pinocchios

    • Gun control is very important.

      Don’t believe what you see in the movies. If you need to keep both hands on your gun to maintain control, do it!

  1. I don’t understand why the government just doesn’t make it illegal to shoot someone, except under extenuating circumstances like self defense.

    It seems to me that a common-sense law like that would solve everything. After all, nobody would ignore a law, would they?

Leave a Reply