• "Well written, well researched, and the thesis put forth is well argued.... Woods has opened up an area of historical analysis that should invite further study."
    -Journal of American History

  • "During these times that challenge our freedoms there is no one more qualified to make U.S. history relevant to the fight against big government than Thomas Woods."
    -Barry Goldwater Jr.
    Former Member of Congress

  • "I strongly recommend Woods's work."
    -The Honorable Ron Paul,
    U.S. House of Representatives

  • "Written with great clarity and fluency, making the complex philosophical and theological concepts approachable."
    -Journal of American Studies

  • "A must-read."
    -Barron's

  • "An excellent reading source for anyone interested in financial markets, and much more so for anyone interested in learning about capitalism without all the misinterpretations being thrown about in the financial media."
    -Asia Times

  • "Provocative, well-written, and deserves to be read."
    -Catholic Historical Review

  • "An engaging and important contribution to scholarship on the history of American Catholicism."
    -Journal of the Historical Society

  • "Woods and [co-author Kevin] Gutzman appeal to both left and right in this constitutionalist jeremiad…. The authors' exegeses of the Constitution and court decisions, heavy on original intent arguments, are lucid and telling."
    -Publishers Weekly

  • "A marvelous read. Every chapter taught me something new and unexpected."
    -Tom Bethell, senior editor,
    The American Spectator

  • "The hottest book today is Meltdown, by my friend Tom Woods."
    -Judge Andrew Napolitano, senior judicial analyst,
    FOX News Channel

  • "Should be required reading."
    -Economic Affairs (London)

  • "Woods, one of the best classical liberal [libertarian] scholars of his generation, has once more placed us in his debt with this lucid and tightly argued book."
    -David Gordon, The Mises Review

  • "Tom Woods is one of my dearest allies in the struggle against wrong-headed and dangerous economic policy."
    -Peter Schiff

Ben Swann on Gun Control and Crime

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • Anonymous

    Ben Swan for President! That was a masterful dismantling of the limey fraud CNN talking head.

  • anon

    I commend Piers for providing a platform for the other side to come on his show and share their views, unlike other networks and anchors. Though I don’t agree with Piers, I don’t think Piers is as rude as many on the so-called right or libertarians are making him out to be. I think Piers is open to hearing solutions from those that advocate gun ownership, and making clear that he is for gun ownership of pistols and other guns, but just not the kind involved in the massacres. And Piers is sincere in knowing and understanding those for gun ownership – and he was trying to draw this out in his interviewees.

    Prior to Piers/Jones debate, I don’t think most people or the right or even going on the nat’l platform and saying their reasons was protection from tyranny, which they saw as could be coming. For libertarians that is now, while far right repubs believe it will be in next ’50 – 100 years’.

    And no, Piers is not a globalist or scumbag in my opinion. Piers is voicing the opinion of many dems and even republicans.

    Notice how Ben Shapiro kept saying the “left” and Piers was mystified as to why he keeps using that “left” term in a gun control debate. And repub leadership are certainly not joining in on this debate or defending themselves much or any. Does everyone that is ok with gun right ownership have to be on the right or transfer over to the other side?

    Hence, useful idiots like Shapiro become tools for establishment to draw such sharp, bitter divisions with fellow americans.

    And notice how Shapiro made a pt to say he is not in the same category as alex jones. Most republicans would echo what Shapiro said about rp republicans – that they are unwanted in their party as they just don’t belong there, perhaps meaning go find another home.

  • Franklin

    “I think Piers is open to hearing solutions from those that advocate gun ownership, and making clear that he is for gun ownership of pistols and other guns, but just not the kind involved in the massacres…”

    How open minded of him. So if I blow away six children in 15 seconds with a Glock hardly larger than my hand, it’s acceptable to him?
    Piers gets no points. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And as far as allowing opposing opinions, big deal; almost all cable talking heads play the same game.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1499581369 Chuck Ellinger

    I have heard Piers Morgan say that people had a right to self defense, and that he wasn’t talking about non-”assault weapon” firearms. But he has also implied that right only applied to someone’s home by qualifying his support for self defense, so I don’t think he is just supporting violating our rights to own semi-auto rifles.

    And Piers Morgan is not against drawing “sharp, bitter divisions.” Morgan said to Larry Pratt: “You’re an unbelievably stupid man, aren’t you?” Now to Morgan’s defense, Pratt did goad him. But Morgan relinquished some of his *authority* (as an irresponsible journalist/pundit who quotes incorrect *facts*) by loosing control of his emotions.

    I also like that he has invited those from the other side of the debate, but he needs to get his facts straight and check his emotions to have credibility.

  • Anonymous

    According to this article, Swann’s stats are wrong.

    http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

    It appears that he lifted his data wholesale from a story in the Daily Mail, without checking it. The gist of the article can be summarized with this quote from it:

    “The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a ‘violent crime’ as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

    The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all ‘crimes against the person,’ including simple assaults, all robberies, and all ‘sexual offenses,’ as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and ‘forcible rapes.’

    When you look at how this changes the meaning of ‘violent crime,’ it becomes clear how misleading it is to compare rates of violent crime in the US and the UK. You’re simply comparing two different sets of crimes.

    …Due to fundamental differences in how crime is recorded and categorized, it’s impossible to compute exactly what the British violent crime rate would be if it were calculated the way the FBI does it, but if we must compare the two, my best estimate would be something like 776 violent crimes per 100,000 people. While this is still substantially higher than the rate in the United States, it’s nowhere near the 2,034 cited by Swann and the Mail.

    …At best, Swaan is giving gun enthusiasts bad reasons to support the Second Amendment when perfectly good reasons are already available.”

    Perfectly good reasons it links to:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-case-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/
    http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun
    http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-i-still-support-right-bear-arms
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvWzQDHn900

  • Anonymous

    Good article. But even in it, the best comparison he could find still showed higher violent crime in the UK compared with the U.S. The basic argument Swann was making/showing is still essentially correct, that gun ownership has not been shown to increase violent crime or homicide rates, and further that violent crime and homicides in the U.S. has been going down even as the assault weapons ban sunset and gun ownership has gone up, and as states have passed conceal and carry laws.