Howard Stern's Definite Political Opinion

[Morreion]

Howard Stern's Anti-Gun Control Rant: Most People Are Sheep And The Wolves Are Attacking (Real Clear Politics)

On his Wednesday radio show, Howard Stern warned against gun control, saying most people are "sheep."

"I'm so upset about Orlando and what went down, but I can't believe these people who come out afterwards and their answer to Orlando is to take away guns from the public," Stern said. "It's f*cking mind-blowing to me."


..."The terrorists all have AR-15s, they have glocks, they have every kind of pistol."

"Now what if I went up to the sheep and I said, ‘You wanna have a shot at the wolves? I’m going to give you a pistol. You can actually even the playing field with these wolves whose fangs are out — you can shoot them.’ There’s not a sheepdog for every citizen."

"The most gun-free zone on the planet is a plane. On 9/11, what did the wolves do? They said, 'This is great. We’ll just kill the sheep with boxcutters.' So they went on the plane with boxcutters and all the sheep went, ‘Baaaa.'"

"The wolves are always planning. They’ll use boxcutters. They’ll use an airplane and fly it right into a building. They don’t need AR-15s."

"I don’t like violence — I don’t like any of this stuff — but I consider myself a sheep. Most of your politicians have private security, so they’re OK. Those are sheep that are very well protected. You, on the other hand, are a sitting duck."

"I’m not for taking away people’s rights."

[Laethaka]

meanwhile, in the world of actual policy research: www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/14/for-every-gun-used-in-self-defense-six-more-are-used-to-commit-a-crime/?tid=sm_fb

"The likelihood of injury when there was a self-defense gun use (10.9%) was basically identical to the likelihood of injury when the victim took no action at all (11.0%)," Hemenway and co-author Sara J. Solnik found.

[Regolyth]

I'm going to have to agree with Stern. I'll add to that though and say that anyone with a gun needs to have proper training; otherwise it's useless (and will probably result in more danger).

Jun 18, 2016 6:52:55 GMT -5 Laethaka said:

"The likelihood of injury when there was a self-defense gun use (10.9%) was basically identical to the likelihood of injury when the victim took no action at all (11.0%)," Hemenway and co-author Sara J. Solnik found.

But...

Of course, there's a huge problem with this analysis, as with all attempts to quantify and describe self-defense gun uses: These cases are so rare that it's difficult to gather a meaningful body of data about them. And conclusions based on analyses like these are subject to a high amount of error.

I don't really trust the data on that research. Besides, think of how different the outcome of some of these mass shootings if a couple of properly trained people had been carrying.