On behalf of over 300,000 of our supporters and activists across the nation, CFIF has written the following…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
CFIF to U.S. Senate: On Drug Prices, Say "NO" to Mandatory Inflation Rebate Proposals

On behalf of over 300,000 of our supporters and activists across the nation, CFIF has written the following letter opposing any use of Mandatory Inflation Rebate Proposals when it comes to the issue of addressing drug prices:

We believe that market-oriented solutions offer the optimal solution, and resolutely oppose any use of mandatory inflation rebate proposals – which would unfairly penalize a drug’s manufacturer with higher taxes whenever that drug’s price rises faster than inflation - that will make matters worse, not better. Among other defects, such a government-imposed penalty would undermine Medicare Part D’s current structure, which uses market-based competition to mitigate drug costs. Part D currently works via privately-negotiated rebates, meaning that no specific price…[more]

July 15, 2019 • 02:48 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
2nd Amendment Restrictionists Don’t Possess the Moral High Ground Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, February 21 2019
Beyond their false smugness, however, it doesn’t help that Second Amendment opponents get almost all of the relevant facts in the debate flatly wrong.

Of all the defective characteristics that define Second Amendment restrictionists, the most detestable might be their false sense of moral superiority. 

In their minds, those who defend the right to keep and bear arms must be selfish, bloodthirsty brutes, whereas they presume to claim the righteous high ground. 

But quite the contrary, their crusade is the immoral one, not to mention the intellectually groundless one. 

That’s because human beings possess a natural, inherent right of self-defense, whether against common criminal assault or tyrannical government.  Our Founding Fathers drafted and ratified the Second Amendment precisely for that reason, and gun control advocates seek to curtail that natural right. 

Examining the relevant numbers places this debate in its proper perspective.  Each year in America, firearms are used for defensive purposes between 500,000 and 3 million times.  Those aren’t numbers concocted by Second Amendment advocates.  That’s according to the federal government’s own Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which in 2012 commenced a review on gun violence at the direction of Barack Obama.  He probably didn’t like what they found: 

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies…  Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.” 

So even accepting the lowest estimate for purposes of argument, that means 500,000 defensive uses per year on average.  By comparison, approximately 11,000 murders by firearm occur in the United States each year. 

Accordingly, even by the most conservative official estimates, firearms are used for defensive purposes at least fifty times more often than they’re used to commit homicide. 

Second Amendment opponents would reduce Americans’ ability to use firearms for defensive purposes, which hardly constitutes a righteous cause. 

Beyond their false smugness, however, it doesn’t help that Second Amendment opponents get almost all of the relevant facts in the debate flatly wrong. 

Start with their false perspective of gun violence in America.  Even to the extent that gun control advocates acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, their ignorant presumption is that the result has been a comparatively high murder rate in America. 

But that’s simply false. 

The worldwide murder rate stands at approximately 11 homicides per 100,000 people.  The U.S. rate stands far below that number, at approximately 4 per 100,000, or one-third the global rate.  Our rate approximates the European and Canadian average of between 2 and 4 per 100,000 people, which is very low compared to the rest of the world. 

But let’s examine the murder rate in nations that prohibit firearm possession, which anti-gun extremists seek to emulate.  Brazil, Mexico and Russia provide examples of nations with large populations that ban legal gun ownership, and they suffer murder rates of 26 per 100,000, 24 per 100,000 and 14 per 100,000, respectively.  All are far higher than the U.S. 

In contrast, Switzerland maintains the world’s second-highest gun possession rate behind the U.S., and its murder rate is almost nonexistent. 

Moreover, stark numbers over the past two decades in the U.S. refute the lazy myth that the prevalence of guns in America leads to a higher homicide rate.  In 1993, there were approximately 0.94 guns per person in the U.S., according to the CDC and Congressional Research Service.  Twenty years later, that number rose to 1.45 per person in 2014, a 56% increase. 

But during that same period, the U.S. gun homicide rate plummeted from 7.0 per 100,000 to 3.6 per 100,000, a decrease of 50%. 

Accordingly, the straightforward, official government data presents an irrefutable picture. 

The U.S. murder rate has been cut in half even while the rate of gun possession has increased by over half, and firearms are used for defensive purposes at least fifty times more often than they are to commit homicide.  Additionally, the U.S. experiences a low murder rate compared with the rest of the world, not a comparatively high one. 

Those who would restrict firearms possession would thereby curtail Americans’ inherent, natural right to defend themselves and their property.  For that reason alone, they cannot be allowed to claim the moral high ground that they seem to think is theirs. 

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following was the longest-serving U.S. Secretary of State?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"[A]s ICE prepared to conduct a nationwide operation, Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi held a press conference to instruct those who have violated our nation's laws on how they can evade federal law enforcement. How they can evade the law. How what ICE is doing is un-American and they need to resist.Are you kidding me?The Speaker of the House, a lawmaker for decades, is instructing those who…[more]
 
 
—Thomas Homan, Former Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
— Thomas Homan, Former Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
 
Liberty Poll   

Do the "politics of personal destruction," now rampant across the political spectrum and amplified by the media, make you more or less inclined to personally participate in political activity?