Outrage Is Not an Argument

Politicians should resist demands to do something about guns in response to the Aurora massacre.

Hours after last Friday's massacre in Aurora, Colorado, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg demanded that the two major parties' presidential candidates explain how they plan to prevent such senseless outbursts of violence. "No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them concretely," Bloomberg said in a radio interview. "What are they going to do about guns?"

Whether you accept the premise that something must be done about guns, of course, might be influenced by where you stand on the Second Amendment and where you stand on guns. But according to Bloomberg, even people who object to gun control on practical or constitutional grounds are morally obliged to support it. Such arrogant illogic may help explain why public support for new gun restrictions has been falling for two decades.

Consider how the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reacted to news that a man had shot 70 people, 12 of them fatally, at a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises. "This tragedy is another grim reminder that guns are the enablers of mass killers and that our nation pays an unacceptable price for our failure to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people," said the group's president, Dan Gross. "We are outraged."

But outrage is no substitute for rational argument, and the response urged by the Brady Campaign—a petition demanding that Congress keep guns away from "convicted felons," "convicted domestic abusers," "terrorists," and "people found to be dangerously mentally ill"—had nothing to do with what happened in Aurora. As far as we know, James Holmes, the 24-year-old former neuroscience graduate student arrested for the murders, has no criminal record, no links to terrorist groups, and no psychiatric history that would have disqualified him from owning guns.

Similarly, a New York Times story regretted that Holmes was "unhindered by federal background checks" when he bought ammunition online. Since he passed background checks to buy his pistols, shotgun, and rifle, why would a background check for ammunition have stopped him?

Other gun control advocates focused on the AR-15 rifle used by Holmes, a civilian, semi-automatic version of the M-16. Depending on the details of its design, it might have been covered by the federal "assault weapon" ban that expired in 2004. But such legislation targets guns based mainly on their military appearance, as opposed to features that make a practical difference in the commission of crimes (a purpose for which they are rarely used). It is hard to see how the presence or absence of a bayonet mount, a threaded barrel, or a collapsible stock, for instance, matters much for a man shooting unarmed moviegoers in a darkened theater.  

Holmes also had large-capacity magazines: one holding 100 rounds for the rifle (which reportedly jammed) and one holding 40 rounds for his .40-caliber Glock pistol. But reinstating the federal ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, as recommended by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), would have no impact on a determined killer, since millions of larger magazines are already in circulation. Even if all of them disappeared tomorrow, switching magazines (or weapons) takes just a few seconds—probably not a crucial consideration when no one is shooting back.

Instead of restricting guns, magazines, or ammunition for everyone, why not focus on the tiny percentage of buyers who will use them to commit mass murder? Because there is no reliable way to identify those people before the fact. As Vasilis Pozios, a Detroit psychiatrist who specializes in risk assessment, recently conceded to USA Today, "We're just not good at predicting who does this."

Peter Ahearn, a former FBI agent, made the same point in an interview with the Associated Press. "There's nothing you can do to predict that type of crime," he said. "There's no way you can prevent it."

That message is not reassuring, popular, or politically useful. It just happens to be true.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist. Follow him on Twitter.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The operative word in gun control is control. Whether politicians want to control violence or want to use the specter of violence to gain more control, power is the ultimate goal.

    As for general public gun control advocates, they are operating on their feelings as opposed to critical analysis. The heart routinely makes bad decisions.

  • ||

    Fist, that is it in a nutshell. Excellent condensation.

    As for putting a stop to events like this; I worked for years with severely mentally ill people, both civil commitments and forensics. The general public has no idea just how crazy some of those people are. I can think of a dozen people off hand who would do just the same as Holmes did and feel they were doing the right thing.

    One in particular is a chemist who was caught planning to do so with home-made bombs. After he was committed and on a secure forensics unit, he was caught again stealing and hoarding various chemicals ( cleaning supplies and fertilizers) to make another bomb. He liked the staff, but he was going to blow them up anyway.

    Stop them? Aint gonna happen Bloomburg.

  • fish||

    I worked for years with severely mentally ill people...

    So you know Mayor Bloomberg personally then?

  • Whiterun Guard||

    The heart routinely makes bad decisions.

    That's why I had mine replaced with pure concentrated evil.

  • Rasilio||

    Yeah well evil is pretty well known for making dumb decisions too. Just a suggestion but you might want to check out this list before you get into trouble...

    http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Well I was going to replace it with a carnitas burrito from Chipotle, but I ate it instead, and pure concentrated evil was all I had handy. Story of my life, my feeble willpower always leads me down the wrong path.

  • Rasilio||

    Mmmmm Chipotle, expecting anyone to resist their savory charms is rather a bit much, especially if it is a Carnitas Burrito with Verde Sauce.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Moes is WAY better than Chipotle.

  • Ghost of Billy Mays||

    Hi, Billy Mays here with another fantastic product. If you're like other Americans, you love to eat Chipotle but you hate all those terrible bloodstains in your underwear. Well now there's a product that can clean even bloodstains caused by Chipotle right off your underwear. Chipotlaway!

  • Restoras||

    A+. Well said.

  • GrizzlyAdam||

    Gun control = people control. And good luck with that.

  • Xenocles||

    What am I going to do about guns? "More of them" sounds like something.

  • Drake||

    Practice. Lots of practice.

  • some guy||

    A few days ago someone here invoked Switzerland as a model for what should be done. I don't like the idea of forcing citizens to own and train with rifles, but they sure as hell should stop discouraging it!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Make gun safety and use part of the high school curriculum. Then pass a uniuversal poll tax with an offsetting credit for families that purchase guns.

  • some guy||

    Ah yes, I forget that we can use penaltaxes for anything now that SCOTUS amended the Constitution.

  • Adam330||

    A law requiring (some) citizens to own a gun (or musket) actually has roots in the founding era- Militia Act of 1792

  • Mizchief||

    Yep, Kennesaw, GA has this on the books still.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    My mountain-California high school had a gun club. Lucky Seniors drove to school in pickup trucks with gun racks, and brought their rifles to school on gun club day. As far as I know the school never has had, to this day, a problem with gun violence, although I don't know if they still have a gun club, and if not, when they gave it up. But my experience at that school convinced me that making gun ownership and use common, and even boring, is a better approach than prohibiting it and giving it the sex appeal of taboo.

  • JD the elder||

    Amen about common and boring as opposed to taboo. Sometimes I read European news sites, and there are always a few commenters raving about how Americans are gun-obsessed, and it's because of deep psycho-sexual dysfunction that Americans own guns, and America needs to grow up and realize civilized nations don't let people own guns, and obviously everyone in America lives in daily fear of getting shot, blah blah blah. And when I read that what I think is, "Actually, the one who sounds obsessed with guns is you..."

  • ||

    I think it has a lot to do with feudalism in Europe and the lack of it in America.

    In a feudal society the nobility (including the small nobility, which was barely above the richer city burghers economically, if at all) justified their exalted social status by arrogating to themselves the right and duty of being the martial, weapon-bearing class of society, even in peacetime. Most of society was expressly forbidden to posses or carry around weapons. I think the 2nd Amendment in the US was partially motivated by this: nothing makes inequality as open and effective than a ban on weapons for some (large) class of people.

  • ||

    (cont.)

    In (most of) Europe the move toward equality went the other direction: theoretically no one has the right to own and carry (personal) weapons, one has to have a special dispensation (police or self-defense because of large values carried etc.). Which somewhat conserved the feudal situation: those on top of the societal pyramid, with wealth and power (and/or with connection to those) could get weapons permits with relative ease, while the great unwashed masses were kept in their old weaponless state.

    Totalitarian states of course were especially keen on disarming the general populace; in Communist countries, even hunting (which implied the possession of long guns and ammo kept in one's home) was the pastime of the powerful, the influential -- and the politically trusted.

    I think this historical background has a lot to do with Europeans' dislike of Americans' personal ownership of "arms".

  • Hyperion||

    Or, they are still pissed because for the last couple of hundred years, we have either been kicking the shit out of them, or saving them from someone else who was kicking the shit out of them. Eurotrash, a huge embarrassment for us white folk in the more westerly regions of the 3rd rock.

  • ||

    I keep hoping the family of one of the victims of the colorado shooting will sue the theater company for not allowing CCL holders to bring their guns into the theater.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Main problem is that Libertarianism is the ONLY political philosophy that admits that tragedies are just going to happen.

    There is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Take away guns, you build bombs. Stop building bombs, you use lawn tools like in Mehico. Take away lawn tools, you use machetes.

    Humans have an infinite capacity to deal damage to each other, and NOTHING is ever going to stop that. We always lose because we admit that up front.

    Every other political philosophy pretends like they can stop them if only the right restraints and controls are put in place (or, in the case of anarchists, they'll apparently just stop happening because everyone will spontaneously 'evolve'* into some kind of non-aggressive human who doesn't do anything harmful for some reason...I've never really gotten it, but then again no one's ever really tried to explain it to me).

    *I know.

  • sarcasmic||

    You mean humanity is not some amorphous clay waiting to be molded into perfection if only the right people are given enough power?

    Oh no!

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Top. Men. at the potter's wheel, if you will.

  • Drake||

    Almost makes you think that humans evolved from pack-hunters who became the dominant species through their ability to make and use weapons.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Speak for yourself. I have razor-sharp claws and venomous fangs.

  • R C Dean||

    Another lawyer? This place is crawling with them.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    (or, in the case of anarchists, they'll apparently just stop happening because everyone will spontaneously 'evolve'* into some kind of non-aggressive human who doesn't do anything harmful for some reason...I've never really gotten it, but then again no one's ever really tried to explain it to me)

    Careful, you're liable to get splinters punching that strawman.

  • Joe R.||

    +1

    Also,

    I've never really gotten it, but then again no one's ever really tried to explain it to me I've never bothered to read anything about it

    FIFH

    Bryan Caplan has an excellent FAQ. I hear if you Google it, you can comb through the search results and find it.

  • some guy||

    There is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Take away guns, you build bombs. Stop building bombs, you use lawn tools like in Mehico. Take away lawn tools, you use machetes.

    The main argument used againt this is that guns allow people to kill more in a single event. Its hard to kill 12 and wound 50+ when all you've got is a machete. (A Japanese dude managed a similar feat with a sword, but I chalk that up to the docility of the Japanese people rather than the effectiveness of the weapon.)

    So how do we counter this argument? Back when Giffords was shot, there were several armed people in the crowd, but none of them fired because of the crowd and confusion. The theatre shooting probably would have played out similarly even if others in the theatre were armed. I can't imagine trying to identify the active shooter in a dark, smoky, crowded theatre.

    So, again, how do we counter the "guns allow crazy people to do more killing" argument? It is a valid argument. All I can think of is that we should value our freedom over the slightly increased chance of being murdered. Anyone got a better argument?

  • WTF||

    That is the answer - we do not give up our freedom in the vain hope of slightly reducing an already very small risk, anymore that we would give up cars to reduce our even greater risk of dying in a car crash. There is no such thing as the perfectly safe society, and turning the country into a prison camp to try to achieve the impossible is idiotic.

  • sarcasmic||

    So, again, how do we counter the "guns allow crazy people to do more killing" argument?

    Someone intent upon killing people is not going to choose a weapon other than a gun because some law says he's not supposed to have a gun.

    It is a valid argument.

    No it's not. It is based upon the premise that the proper application of the law will prevent this person from getting their paws on a gun or get them to choose something other than a gun.

    That premise is false, and any argument based upon a false premise is a fallacy.

  • some guy||

    No it's not. It is based upon the premise that the proper application of the law will prevent this person from getting their paws on a gun or get them to choose something other than a gun.

    That premise is false, and any argument based upon a false premise is a fallacy.

    No. It is based upon the premise that proper legislation and application of that legislation will make it less likely that a given crazy person will use a gun in a mass murder attempt. This is an accurate premise. Such legislation would be difficult to implement in the US due to the current high density of guns here and the predictable resistance many people would have to giving up their guns. But difficult isn't the same as impossible. Legislation could be crafted to drastically reduce the number of guns in the US. It would be expensive and it would take time, but it could be done. In the end you could never completely eliminate access to guns. But that isn't the point. The argument isn't that we could completely prevent incidences of mass murder, only that we can reduce their frequency.

    (In case it isn't clear from what I said in my previous post, I'm against any such legislation. I'm just playing devil's advocate and arguing from the opposite side of this issue.)

  • sarcasmic||

    The only reason there isn't a thriving black market for guns is that they are relatively easy to legally acquire.

    Make them difficult or impossible to legally acquire, and a black market will quickly fill the void.

    Just like drugs.

    Sure a crazy person will be less likely to get a gun on a whim, but such laws won't have any effect on someone who is determined.

    Most incidents of mass-murder are planned out well in advance, giving the person plenty of time to find a black market gun.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Legislation could be crafted to drastically reduce the number of guns in the US. It would be expensive and it would take time, but it could be done.

    The government doesn't have the rightful authority to "drastically reduce" my guns. But leaving that aside (as they don't really care about that), consider the history:

    Prohibition of alcohol: failure
    Prohibition of some drugs: failure

    Why would guns be different?

  • sarcasmic||

    Why would guns be different?

    Intentions, man. Intentions.

  • DEG||

    It is based upon the premise that proper legislation and application of that legislation will make it less likely that a given crazy person will use a gun in a mass murder attempt.

    Uncertainty of outcome. Saying taking action x makes any result "less likely" is begging the question.

  • some guy||

    How is this begging the question?

    "Staying indoors during a storm makes getting wet less likely". Still begging the question?

  • DEG||

    A storm is not a person; it doesn't have a will of its own.

  • DEG||

    Let me elaborate.

    Sure a storm could rip off the roof of your house and would get wet. However, it is less likely that you would get wet. A storm is not a person. It has no will. It is not a rational actor. You can make predictions about an outcome with respect to something without the ability to act.

    On the other hand, saying legislation makes some thing less likely is begging the question. You assumed that the rational actors affected by the legislation will obey it and won't find ways around it. Since a rational actor can act based on whatever motivations or desires the actor wants, making predictions is impossible, even of the "less likely" variety. Though people will still try and they might even be correct. I prefer to call them guesses as I think that's a more accurate name. If you need a concrete example, consider the results of the Drug War and attempts to crack down on drug dealing.

  • DEG||

    I forgot about this blog post from Golden State Liberty:

    http://www.goldenstateliberty......liefs.html

    You're talking consequentialism (ends justify the means, the means being reducing the likelihood a crazy person will use firearms to kill lots of people), and this is a pretty good take down of consequentialism as a way of justifying actions.

  • Mizchief||

    The entire argument of taking away guns to reduce the scale of the attack is invalid unless you can be reasonably sure that the gun won't be replaced with a more dangerous weapon.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    If I recall, the Dark Knight killer set off a gas canister or two before he opened fire. So what if it wasn't tear gas, but zyklon or other poison gas? How would gun control help then?

  • ant1sthenes||

    You would think a neuroscientist could put together something more deadly.

  • Rasilio||

    Wound 12 and kill 50 with no access to a gun?

    Trivial

    Use a car and plow into a crowded outdoor location, keep running down people as long as you can

    Use a homemade Claymore or two in that same theatre

    Bow and Arrow, sure it takes more practice to get profficient enough with it to carry out your plan but on the plus side the lack of noise in that theatre would mean you could probably kill 5 or 6 before people generally noticed what was going on.

    Also yeah a Machette or Sword would work quite nicely, especially if you had some training in how to use it in a combat situation (really easy to get either througha a Karate studio or the Society for Creative Anarchronism's). Works even better if you combine the bow with the sword, kill as many as you can with the sword and then when no one is close to you any longer break out the bow.

    Arson, n'uff said really.

    That is at least 5 ways and none of them more than marginally more complex than using a gun

  • some guy||

    How many cases can you cite of people using a car or a bow or an edged weapon to kill more than a few people? How often do people attempt mass murder with these weapons and fail because it is difficult to do? None of these methods is anywhere near as easy as using a gun.

    Homemade bombs require a great deal of research and skill.

    Arson? Please. Fire is much easier to escape than a firearm.

    Again. I'm not saying getting rid of guns will completely eliminate mass murder. I'm just saying it will reduce the number and severity of mass murder events (at great cost to our individual freedom).

  • AZ||

    But the "severity of mass murder events" is a cherry-picked false goal; these situations are extreme outliers. The bulk of murder is not mass murder, and addressing that outlier could make ordinary murders and severe assaults even more frequent by restricting self-defense and its deterrent effects.

  • T o n y||

    Would you be OK accepting the outcomes of a study determining whether gun proliferation causes or prevents more deaths?

  • fish||

    Go the fuck back to English Composition 1 loser!

  • cw||

    Would you be OK with a study, Tony, if it went the way you don't want it to?

  • T o n y||

    I'd be overjoyed to learn that unlimited access to guns doesn't increase gun deaths. We could all have our way!

  • AZ||

    Oh, we'd track "gun deaths?" Dishonest metrics lead to dishonest conclusions.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It's people who go past their internal limiting switches and commit acts of violence, not the instruments they use.

    All guns, knives, bows and arrows, and other weapons (including objects that aren't designed to BE weapons; e.g., baseball bats, cast-iron cookware, et cetera) could be banned - and people would *still* get murdered.

    That's what leftists don't get, or don't *want* to get.

  • ||

    Pretty sure we've already done those studies. In fact Chicago seems to still be in the discovery phase of "What happens when you take normal citizen's guns away?".

  • Loki||

    How often do people attempt mass murder with these weapons and fail because it is difficult to do?

    Don't know how often, but if I had to guess I'd assume that before guns were invented these would have been the weapons of choice for mass murderers. As for the difficulty, it's really not as hard as you might think. Especially given that most people now have never even seen a sword up close (except maybe in a museum) and even fewer would have any clue how to defend themselves against a sword weilding maniac.

  • fish||

    Well if you believe the narrative a handful of Saudis brought down an airliner and a chunk of the Pentagram using nothing more than box cutters....As far as auto related mass killings I can only think of one off hand.

    Check out Priscilla Ford.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Ford

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    George Russell Weller drove his car through the Santa Monica Farmer's Market, killing 10 and injuring 63. It was supposedly not an intentional act of violence. I was watching the news reports as it unfolded. The news reported the driver's name within about 20 minutes of the tragedy. A quick search on the internet, and I got his home phone number. I left a really vile voicemail on his home phone.

  • fish||

    Yeah I had forgotten about this one! Yet another, albeit spectacular, case of "Old man behind the wheel syndrome".

  • ||

    Racist!

  • JD the elder||

    "Fire is much easier to escape than a firearm"? Maybe you should tell that to the 87 people who were killed in the Happy Land arson, or the 97 victims of the Dupont Plaza Hotel arson, or the 37 victims of the Blue Bird Cafe arson.

  • Rasilio||

    Off the top of my head, none, however that is because firearms are relatively easy to get and people tend to use the tools available to them.

    That said in nearly all of these mass killing cases it was an event planned for weeks to months in advance meaning that if the killer for whatever reason could not acquire a firearm there were other options available and at worst learning how to be profficient with a bow or sword or both or to make homemade bombs or come up with some othet method would have delayed him a few months to a year at most, they would not have prevented the event and are unlikely to have cut down on the body count.

  • R C Dean||

    So, again, how do we counter the "guns allow crazy people to do more killing" argument?

    That argument proves too much - it requires the complete eradication of guns from society, because a crazy person bent on shooting up the joint is going to get guns as long as there are guns around to be got.

    Ask them if they favor a three-step plan:

    (1) The closure and seizure of the inventory of every gun store in the country.

    (2) House to house searches and seizures of guns from every single person in the United States.

    (3) The disarming of the police.

  • R C Dean||

    IOW, there is no marginal gain from half-measures. We are dealing with extreme outliers, only extreme measures will make a difference.

  • Mizchief||

    You forgot
    (4) Disarming all US military bases
    (5) Complete lock down of the border to preven gun imports or
    (6) Repeat steps 1-4 with every nation on the planet.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Wait, shouldn't step 6 come before step 4?

  • Mizchief||

    You would require step 5 or 6

  • Eric||

    I've been trying to rationalize why civilians need access to high capacity magazines. We accept limits on our 2nd Amendment rights when it comes to certain arms: anti-air and anti-vehicle ordinance for example. So why not accept a comprimise: Assualt Weapons OK / High Capacity Magazines Not OK. That way nut job du jour has to reload multiple times giving bystanders an opportunity to jump him.

  • Rasilio||

    Not necessarily. Smaller clips are less likely to jam and if you practice at it you can get your reload time down to under 2 seconds.

    It is true there is no *need* for high capacity clips but there also is not harm from them and similarly there is no need to allow games like GTA which can provide rudimentary firearms combat training to the public either so why don't we just ban those while we are at it.

  • JasonI||

    I actually do not accept those limits to the 2nd Amendment. If the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us from a government gone wrong than I should be able to own what they do.

  • Eric||

    The problem is that the authors of the bill of rights could not have anticipated nuclear weapons, or even stinger missiles. In order to gain parity with today's military, civilians would need unfettered access to shit that I'm happy they can't get. Imagine the implications of a determined psychopath with a shoulder fired AA missile. Constitutional absolutism is not an acceptable solution in this case.

  • Rasilio||

    But again, a nutjob who REALLY wants to use a AA missile can get one. There are thousands of them available on the global black market thanks to Afghanistan and if that doesn't work then frankly a home electronics kit from Radio Shack and a few model Rocketry pieces and it wouldn't be terribly difficult to cobble together a missile capable of taking down an airliner.

  • Harvard||

    [The problem is that the authors of the bill of rights could not have anticipated nuclear weapons, or even stinger missiles.]

    Who's to say they didn't anticipate? It's clear to even the casual reader of the writings of the time that the 2nd Amendment was intended as a check on government, not a solution to an empty dinner pot or a bump in the night.

  • Mizchief||

    I agree in principal, but I think the compromise is that local police departments (even city police) backed by a volunteer citizen force should be allowed theses weapons, not individuals. If the true intention is to protect against a federal govt. gone mad, this would be much more effective than a single armed nut anyway.

  • Eric||

    Good point. Perhaps the "well regulated militia" clause provides a solution. If you want access to something heavier than a rifle, you'll need to join the local militia...maybe the way the Swiss do it.

  • JD the elder||

    "I've been trying to rationalize why civilians need access to high capacity magazines."

    Defending yourself from a mob. Does that happen very often? No. Does it happen sometimes? Yes, yes it does.

  • ||

    I personally don't own any guns, but I do not accept any limits on my rights. 2nd or otherwise.

  • Bee Tagger||

    in the case of anarchists, they'll apparently just stop happening because everyone will spontaneously 'evolve'* into some kind of non-aggressive human who doesn't do anything harmful for some reason

    Or they don't think government is the best tool for dealing with aggressive human. Seems like we're presented with evidence of this daily around here.

  • Loki||

    It's almost like they have this naive belief that "they can make people better".

  • juris imprudent||

    Ironic how poorly that turns out for the people they give badges to.

  • ||

    That's exactly right. People just don't want to hear that there's simply nothing you can do to eliminate human suffering. All you can do is make the conditions of the world such that people can thrive on their own through trade and are less incentivized to commit acts of violence such as these. That is the libertarian argument, but people stop listening the second you say it, because people want to believe that you can completely prevent these things from ever happening. You just can't. In fact, granting gun possession only to the "benevolent" hands of a few is more likely to lead to even worse acts of violence on a much grander scale.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    That turd is blocking the poster. What's it say, Guns Against Illegal Mayors?

  • Joe R.||

    I like it when the very name of the group brings out the question begging. At that point, I guess you can make any argument you want.

  • wef||

    Consider how the Brady Campaign to Prevent [government] Violence reacted to news that [the thug state] had [killed 76, 20 of them children], at a [massacre at Waco]. "This tragedy is another grim reminder that [governments] are the enablers of mass killers and that our nation pays an unacceptable price for our failure to keep [government] out of the hands of dangerous people," said the group's president, Dan Gross. "We are outraged."

  • WTF||

    If only.

  • General Butt Naked||

    It is hard to see how the presence or absence of a bayonet mount, a threaded barrel, or a collapsible stock, for instance, matters much for a man shooting unarmed moviegoers in a darkened theater.

    Don't forget about murder barrel shrouds.

  • sarcasmic||

    You know who else was able to stir up emotions after a crisis in order to gain more power?

  • WTF||

    Barack Obama?

  • Rich||

    The Incredible Hulk?

  • WTF||

    FDR?

  • some guy||

    George Bush?

  • some guy||

    Every politician, emporer, king, warlord, chieftan and patriarch in history?

  • WTF||

    ^winnah!

  • sarcasmic||

    yup

  • sloopyinca||

    LeBron James?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Rom Emmanuel

  • Longtorso||

    The Price of Gun Control
    ...Tell a gun owner that he cannot be trusted to own a firearm—particularly if you are an urban pundit with no experience around guns—and what he hears is an insult. Add to this that the bulk of the gun-buying public is made up of middle-aged white men with less than a college degree, and now you’re insulting a population already rubbed raw by decades of stagnant wages.

    The harm we’ve done by messing with law-abiding Americans’ guns is significant. In 2010, I drove 11,000 miles around the United States talking to gun guys (for a book, to be published in the spring, that grew out of an article I wrote for this magazine), and I met many working guys, including plumbers, parks workers, nurses—natural Democrats in any other age—who wouldn’t listen to anything the Democratic party has to say because of its institutional hostility to guns. I’d argue that we’ve sacrificed generations of progress on health care, women’s and workers’ rights, and climate change by reflexively returning, at times like these, to an ill-informed call to ban firearms, and we haven’t gotten anything tangible in return. ...

  • ||

    Dan Baum is wasting his breath. The left wont hear him acknowledging that they routinely step on their own dicks.
    Anyway, I dont want them to hear him, it is just too much fun to watch.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Carville is telling dems to STFU about gun control.

  • Longtorso||

    Give up on it or be quiet about it? Two different things.

  • fish||

    It's always "just be quiet about it" until we are firmly back in power.

  • R C Dean||

    I’d argue that we’ve sacrificed generations of progress on health care, women’s and workers’ rights, and climate change by reflexively returning, at times like these, to an ill-informed call to ban firearms, and we haven’t gotten anything tangible in return

    He sees a dark cloud, I see a silver linig.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    "He sees a dark cloud, I see a silver linimg."

    Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Why is it that "social progress" for some always involves some other group of people giving up more of their time, property, or rights? Employing the term "progress" seems like the kind of abuse of the English language, which Orwell would readily recognize.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I met many working guys, including plumbers, parks workers, nurses—natural Democrats in any other age . . .

    The fuck is this guy yammering on about? A plumber or a nurse is "supposed" to be a democrat. How the fuck does that work?

  • ||

    Don't you know, the Republican Party is composed entirely of rich white corporate executives.

  • box_man||

    According to MADD, everyday 28 people die from drunk driving crashes. More than were killed in the Aurora shooting. By that definition sane people with booze are way more deadly than wackos with guns. Perhaps we should outlaw sanity and booze and give everyone guns. We'd be much safer.

  • ant1sthenes||

    A couple of days after the shooting, 14 people died in a single truck crash (higher than the death toll in Aurora, though there were fewer injured). I don't see anyone asking what we can do to stop people from abusing trucks. Although one could argue that the victims brought it on themselves, unlike the theater.

  • ||

    I don't see anyone asking what we can do to stop people from abusing trucks

    Deportation?

  • ant1sthenes||

    But that would just be enforcing laws on the books, which I think gun-rights folk prefer to new regulations.

  • Rich||

    "What are they going to do about guns?"

    Nothing is always an option.

  • Bean Counter||

    "Nothing" is NEVER an option to a politician. If he does nothing and the problem goes away, it reveals how unnecessary he and his programs are. If he does nothing and the problem worsens, he reveals that he's not the answer to the problem. And that's not even counting the opportunity cost... because, you know, 'never let a crisis go to waste.'

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) - James Holmes, the alleged gunman in the recent theater shooting that left 12 dead in Aurora, Colo., was previously awarded a $26,000 federal grant."

    $26,000 can get you quite a bit of ammo.

    http://washington.cbslocal.com.....of-health/

  • Jerry on the road||

    "If you got a shooting, you didn't build that."

  • some guy||

  • WTF||

    Chris Christie comments on Bloomberg.

  • ||

    That photo makes Christie look comically rotund. Yikes, his belt is around his solar plexus.

    He is dead right. I imagine his distaste for Bloomburg runs deep considering Bloomburg's war on fatties.

  • mr simple||

    Actual comment heard at work:
    If limits can be placed on my rights under the first amendment, I'm curious as to why the 2nd amendment is more sacred.

    Begging the question much? It kills me that he just accepts the government can limit his rights.

  • sloopyinca||

    Wait till he hears about the USAPATRIOT Act and it's effect on the 4th Amendment Rights he used to enjoy.

    Question: how soon before they start telling us we have to quarter ATF or FBI Agents? They're not military, after all.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Well, they already made the telecoms set a side a little spy closet for them.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Does he need to pass a criminal background check to start up a blog? What a tard.

  • Jackand Ace||

    "Politicians should resist demands to do something about guns in response to the Aurora massacre."

    OK, how about doing something about guns based on the opinion of the American public, as evidenced by a poll taken by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

    http://www.mayorsagainstillega.....4-2012.pdf

    In it there are quite a few suggestions even supported by NRA members.
    How about one we can all agree on, prohibiting people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns. Right now, they can do it.

    This poll was taken before Aurora, so that event is not reflected in the results.

  • fish||

    Jack and Ass..

    Something we can all agree on? Yeah curtailing a civil right based on the contents of a list that is arbitrarily composed and can't be challenged due to "security" concerns....no way a greasy Chicago pol...cough Rahm Emanuel.....Barack Obama...cough would ever abuse anything like this.

    Try again Mary.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Ah, fish...good one. So you approve those on the terrorist watch list for having free and easy access to guns. Wouldn't want to "curtail" their civil rights until we get a watch list the fish approves of.
    Or would you also want to just do away with the terrorist watch list? Lets not have any precautions whatsoever, eh?

  • fish||

    Such a scared little girl.

    Lets see the terrorist watch list hasn't prevented a single act of terrorism (Not legal to provide that information to the rabble) but has prevented people from going to antiwar demonstrations and various and sundry activities that the state might not approve.

    Here is a link to one successful "No-Fly-List/Terror Watch list catch.

    http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/.....es-toddler

  • Jackand Ace||

    Huh?

  • fish||

    C'mon Mary you can still read can't you?

    Do I want to do away with the Terrorist...err I mean Toddler Watch List?

    Yes....yes I do!

  • Jordan||

    Yes, do away with the watch list. Taking away someone's guns because they are on that list is taking away their guns without due process. How about we start imprisoning people on the list without trial? You okay with that?

  • Jackand Ace||

    No. But I am OK with keeping guns out of the hands of potential terrorists, just like most NRA members. Guess your not.

  • fish||

    What's a potential terrorist?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Those on the Terrorist Watch List.

  • fish||

    What happens when you turn up on the list?

  • Jackand Ace||

    You get your name taken off the list if it was placed there improperly, and then you go and purchase the guns you want. Maybe you had to wait a couple of extra weeks to buy those guns. Sorry.

  • Jordan||

    And if you can't get your name off the list (which is what usually happens)?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Then that is because the FBI has decided that there still is something in your past that deems you as a potential terrorist. Sorry, that may keep you from buying a gun. There are about 400K people on the list, of which about 8,000 are Americans. Obviously you, fish and the ACLU disagree with me. I'm Ok with it.

  • Jordan||

    Well if you (erroneously) assume it's just that easy, then I don't see why you don't have a problem with imprisoning people who are on the list. They can just get themselves removed from it. Maybe they had to sit in prison for 2 weeks. Big deal.

  • Jackand Ace||

    C'mon, Jordan. Be serious here. Would I need to explain to you the difference between sitting in prison or being denied the right to purchase a gun?

  • fish||

    It's not just the difference between sitting in prison and buying a gun you nitwit. You can't fly! Maybe in the future when Americans are even more chickenshit you can't travel at all without state approval! Don't say it can't happen here!

  • Jackand Ace||

    Jordan made the comparison, not me. Your making a huge leap to all Americans not being allowed to travel freely to limits on those who have had convictions in terrorist related activity, or who are members of terrorist organizations.
    8,000 Americans are on the watch list. Thats it. And there is recourse if you are there improperly.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Hey, fish and Jordan, I have a question for you two. I am just curious about this.
    Do either of you agree with the voter identification laws that are being passed around the country? Just curious.

  • fish||

    So we're done talking about Terrorist Watch Lists?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Nah. But from your answer I would be willing to guess that you support them...let me know if I am wrong.
    But if so, explain to me how both voting and owning a gun are constitutional rights, yet you are against the government making it difficult to own a gun but for making it difficult to vote?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Just want to see if you are consistent in keeping the government from interfering with constitutionally protected rights.

  • Jordan||

    Yes, you would have to explain the difference because in both cases the government is depriving you of your Constitutional rights. Due process is always required in order for that to occur.

    Also, "because the FBI said so" doesn't cut it. If they are so infallible, then it should be easy for them to win in court. But of course they are hilariously inept. You realize there are children on the terrorist watch list, right?

  • Rasilio||

    Hey dumbass, did you know that it was already a requirement to pass a background check which requires you to positively prove your identity by showing... wait for it...

    a government issued identity card.

    So if you agree that this is not an imposition on your consitutionally guaranteed 2nd amendment rights why would you consider it to be an imposition on your right to vote?

  • The Fatman||

    You do know that Ted (Liberal Lion of the the Senate) Kennedy was on that list right. He got off of it because he is a senator, and a Kennedy. No such luck for the "Little People".

  • Jackand Ace||

    Fair enough, Jordan. You are consistent. Both are constitutionally protected rights. Government limitations on one would then be just as onerous if placed on the other.
    As far as children on the list...yes I know there have been people (adults too) that have been placed there in error. And they have been taken off, and some have remained on. And the FBI has said that they should have stayed on. But there is a process, and quite honestly, that is a small price to pay in order to keep weapons out of terrorists hands. Again, 8,000 Americans are on it.
    Everyone screamed after 9/11 about intelligence failures, and now that there has been some attempt to correct that, there is screaming about erosion of freedom. Tough to keep everyone happy.

  • Mizchief||

    Remind me again how many guns were used in the most deadly terrorist attacks in US history.

    If you don't mind paying a "small price" for non-effective protection. I've got a great paperweight here that is guaranteed to protect you from tiger attacks. $5 shipped. You know it works when your not eaten by tigers.

  • Mizchief||

    Here is an idea. IF we think someone is really a terrorist, why not arrest them instead of putting them on some list to limit their actions and movements. Problem is many of these people have done nothing wrong but are being "watched" due to some arbitrary factors like where they were born, who their family is etc.

    This is the same lazy ass approach we take to sex offenders. "Hey this guy is a danger to the public, but not so much that we need to keep him in jail, lets' just make sure he has to drive to the school to find his next victim instead of walking there"

  • ant1sthenes||

    "How about one we can all agree on, prohibiting people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns."

    How about we deny people on the terrorist watchlist the right to vote or speak? Oh wait, there's that pesky due process thing. Well, as Eric Holder says, due process doesn't mean judicial process.

  • Jackand Ace||

    No, their voting or speaking does not kill me. Their weapons will.

  • Tagalog||

    One thing that could be done about guns being used to kill people in "gun-free zones:" eliminate gun-free zones and permit EVERYONE to carry guns in them.

    Then when a guy decides to shoot up a movie theater, he'll be cut in half by the return fire after he fires a round or two.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's not about actually being safe. It's about feeling safe.

    Gun-free zone proponents feel scared around guns.
    They feel scared being in a room where someone might have a gun.

    After all, guns are scary!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Because guns jump right out of holsters when you least expect them and start shooting the place up with no help from their carriers at all.

  • sarcasmic||

    No, not quite.

    Guns are magic. They cause people to use them.
    The only thing stronger than gun magic is government training magic.
    That's why there's no need to be scared of the police. They are trained in government sorcery to safely wield guns without succumbing to their magic.

  • Tagalog||

    Especially for terrorists trying to hijack airplanes filled with gun-wielding passengers.

  • Bilbo||

    Does that moon bat crazy mayor Bloomberg still have his armed escorts? Of course he does, he needs to stfu

  • T o n y||

    It is absurd to suggest that the founders would have interpreted the right to bear arms as license to completely ignore public safety when it comes to the proliferation of firearms and access to large-capacity magazines. The NRA has, by the sheer force of slippery-slope paranoia, made it so that guns are less regulated than children's toys. And contrary to claims above, the only weapons that are potentially as destructive (with as little effort in deployment) are things like bombs--which raises the question, do you guys advocate legal possession of IEDs?

    Gun possession rights should be limited to what is necessary for self-defense, and the weapons this guy was able to get a hold of with no background checks over the Internet go far beyond that.

    Arguments that the 2nd Amendment is a right to armed treason are ridiculous, on at least two counts. One, the constitution does specifically treats treason, and not kindly. Two, by that logic we should all have access to nukes, since the government has those. Since nobody but an insane person would argue that we have a right to own a nuke, immediately it's clear there's a line to be drawn somewhere. People who draw it at a different place than you are not freedom hating tyrants. Perhaps they're just concerned for public safety a little more and redneck vigilante fantasies a little less.

  • GrizzlyAdam||

    Nice parody!

  • NeonCat||

    No, he's serious. Because he CARES. No one CARES as much as Tony.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    He only CARES about people who will vote for his Team.

  • R C Dean||

    Its the fact-free nature of it, combined with utter ignorance, that really makes it worthwhile.

  • Loki||

    "Facts" are for thinking adults, not overgrown kidults.

  • sarcasmic||

    Who needs facts when you have feelings?

  • Loki||

    He didn't buy the guns over the internet, he bought them at local gun shops. At least get the basic facts of the crime right before spewing your mental diarrhea all over the thread.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    And even if he DID buy the gun over the internet, he still had to go through the background check at a local gun shop BEFORE he could take possession of it. They don't just send online bought guns to the house like a book from Amazon. Guns bought online are shipped to FFL holders at a local gun shop, then transferred to buyers after a background check just as if they had picked the gun up off of the shelf from said local gun shop.

  • cw||

    We know, Tony. Only the government should be able to have the capacity to subdue others, only non-government citizens can commit treason, our experts know better, blah blah blah.

  • T o n y||

    I prefer people legitimately elected to have authority over me and not paranoid idiots I never voted for. The definition of a government is the thing with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

  • sarcasmic||

    The definition of a government is the thing with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

    ftfy

    Just because the force is being used by government doesn't make it legitimate.

  • sarcasmic||

    I can think of several legitimately elected world leaders who systematically exterminated millions of people.

    By your definition their use of force was legitimate.

  • cw||

    Paranoid idiots can be legitimately elected.

    So should our rights be eroded if the majority says so?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I prefer people legitimately elected to have authority over me and not paranoid idiots I never voted for.

    So legislators who you didn't vote for, the ones who routinely block knee jerk, shit my pants because there are GUNZ legislation, aren't legitimate? Because we have the gun laws we do have because of legitimately elected officials, dumb fuck.

  • Mizchief||

    I hope for your sake that if your ever in a situation where your life is in danger that one of your beloved bureaucrats are close enough to protect your cowardly ass.

  • fish||

    Don't you have some frosh pole to smoke instead of wasting peoples time here?

  • aelhues||

    I've always thought childrens toys were too highly regulated!

  • Rasilio||

    Actually it is not absurd as modern concepts of "public safety" did not exist, nor did would the founders have considered guns a public safety threat to the extent that they did exist.

    Next I beg to differ both bows and swords are actually as or more lethal than even modern firearms, they reason they went out of use is because a firearm was deadlier at range, so a bowman or swordman against a rifleman was not contest, however against unarmed opponents, especially in close quarters the sword is actually the superior weapon because it is much more effective at defending youself from counterattack and frankly is much more letal. You also still have not dealt with the use of an automobile as a weapon, something which can easily be as or more deadly than the firearm, is more ubiquitous, and requires even less skill to employ.

    You show your true lack of understanding in the final sentence of your first paragraph. Drugs are illegal, yet that stops no one. Killing people is illegal, yet that did not prevent this attack, regardless of my views on whethere people should be allowed to possess IED's the fact is if someone wants them they will acquire them, outlawing it does not matter. You cannot stop mass murders by outlawing guns and you are highly unlikely to even reduce the body count from them if you try, however liberal gun laws that put a few people in the situation to shoot back will in at least some cases kill the shooter before he has a chance to rack up a high body count.

  • Jordan||

    Yes, it is clearly absurd to think that a group of people who had just used firearms, including the most powerful weapons available at the time: cannons, to commit treason would have wanted citizens to be able to arm themselves against the government.

  • JD the elder||

    "guns are less regulated than children's toys"

    It's true. I remember when I went to buy a Stretch Armstrong, and was told I had to have a state permit, go through a background check, and register Stretch with the police.

  • Mainer2||

    You remember Stretch Armstrong.
    Elder, indeed you are.

  • Rasilio||

    Oh yes, I should also note.

    By far the most lethal weapon he had in his possession that day was the shotgun.

    Assuming it was a 12 Gague then each round would have sent 9 - 12 .32 - .38 calibre projectiles downrange, At 50 yards those would have spread such that they were spread into an area approximately 5 foot in diameter giving a very high probability of striking 2 - 3 targets with each shot and some of them would have been struck by multiple bullets.

    Yes, that AR 15 with it's large ammo capacity looks cool and all so that is what everyone focuses on, but the shotgun, often correctly held up as the perfect home defense weapon is by far the deadlier option in a close quarters situation such as this.

    Why are shotguns so good at self defense.

    Well they are primarily short range weapons whose bullets are unlikely to penetrate walls and kill people on the other side due to their relatively low muzzel velocity but because of the spread of the shot one need not be an expert marksman to be effective with one plus they have the advantage of creating a very loud report which can unnerve an intruder AND is guaranteed to draw attention from outside parties plus there are a plethora of non lethal and less lethal round options available.

    They just also happen to be perfect for someone wanting to go on a killing spree and generating the highest body count possible.

  • ant1sthenes||

    "The NRA has, by the sheer force of slippery-slope paranoia, made it so that guns are less regulated than children's toys."

    I'm pretty sure votes and speech are also less regulated than children's toys. For some reason, we're more leery about the government placing restrictions on the rights that are most essential for restraining the government than we are about restrictions on frivolous shit.

  • Toom Tabard||

    The one thing you fail to acknowledge Tony is that the individual in question had already passed the background checks required for the weapons purchases so the ammunition was not even questioned. Bad approach...

  • Ron||

    Maybe somebody can answer this question.
    Besides the guns there was a lot of noise,from the news, about his apartment and car being booby trapped with what appeared to be explosives. I have not heard a another word about that anywhere, were they actual explosives or just a diversion from a crazy guy? If they were explosives then all the gun laws in the world would be of no use since home made explosive area already illegal.

  • T o n y||

    So why shouldn't homemade explosives be legal?

  • NeonCat||

    They should be. This country has gone to hell since the good old days when you could go to the hardware store and buy some dynamite for busting stumps or rocks, or buy formularies and chemicals for making your own explosives.

  • Zair||

    Or be able to blow up pop bottles with dry ice in the woods without having to worry about being arrested.

  • Loki||

    Technically they already are, or at least the ingredients are. The explosives Jim Holmes wired his apartment with were homemade, probably out of common materials. That's kind of what homemade means - the explosives are made at home out of common, perfectly legal household chemicals. For example:

    1) Diesel fuel and Ammonium Nitrate (fertilizer): any farmer in America probably has enough of this stuff in their barn to blow up a large building.

    2) Bleach, Potassium Chloride (often found at health food stores as a salt substitute), and kerosene can be used to make a plastic explosive similar to C4.

    3) Estes solid rocket motors (commonly found at hobby stores) and a steel or aluminum pipe plus a 9V battery and something to use as a remote trigger (like a cell phone).

    4) Gasoline and frozen orange juice concentrate (they weren't just making that up in Fight Club).

    5) Just about any flammable liquid or gas in a pressure vessel.

    We're practically surrounded stuff that be made into other stuff that goes boom, yet somehow shit's not constantly getting blown up.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    How about one we can all agree on, prohibiting people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.

    Top Men FTW!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    paranoid idiots I never voted for.

    Like Bloomberg?

  • T o n y||

    Touche.

  • AlgerHiss||

    The best mass killers in the world are no doubt radical Islamics: And I don’t think they even know what a firearm is.

    Go here for a daily update on these killers:

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    You’ll be lucky to find any mention of a gun.

  • RangFooo||

    lol, I never thought about it liek that before.

    www.Anon-Tips.tk

  • Robert||

    Why don't they quit stalling and make murder illegal already?

  • T o n y||

    Just went to my hometown newspaper and saw a story about a 3-year-old who got a hold of her parents' gun and shot herself.

    There's one for the accidental death column. How about one of you guys offer up, say, two examples of deaths prevented because of gun possession.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    How about you admit that these kinds of deaths are rare, and post some stories about how a young child got hold of a kitchen knife or a bottle of household cleaner and harmed/killed themselves accidentally?

  • T o n y||

    New England Journal of Medicine study:

    Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than an intruder.

    FBI report:

    For every justifiable handgun homicide, there are 50 handgun murders.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    *yawn*

    Getting rid of guns won't prevent all deaths, Tony. It will just make it easier for one or both Teams to institute martial law.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Notice how he bypassed answering my other question, folks.

  • T o n y||

    The difference between household cleaners and guns is that the latter's sole purpose is to kill human beings. We can't create a risk-free world, but if we're going to go in the direction of unfettered access to human-killing machines, it might pay to know exactly the price we're paying for that "freedom."

  • Jordan||

    The vast majority of gun owners will never use a gun against another human being. Hunting and target shooting are by far the most common uses of firearms.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Children are the result of filthy breeders, Tony. Given your hatred for breeders, it's amazing you give a shit about their offspring.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I'd argue that the most common use is to buy one, shoot it some, then put it away and very rarely look at it again.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tony would welcome martial law.

    Authority makes him feel all gooey inside. The more the better.

  • JasonI||

    Tony that New England Journal study is flawed. Of the 43 people killed with their own gun 37 of them where suicides.

    If you wan't I can put numbers together and leave out details to make it look like Gun ownership will give me a magical unicorn and let me shoot rainbows out of my ass but I don't think that moves this conversation any farther forward.

  • Jordan||

    Far more children drown in swimming pools every year.

  • The Fatman||

    The Kellerman study, really? He himself has admitted that his methodology was flawed and that "study" is useless.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than an intruder.

    That's a trumped up stat.

    The real question is how many guns kept in the home for defense never kill anyone at all v how many kill family members. Any other comparison is apples v oranges.

  • JasonI||

    How about Sarah McKinley http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....86096.html

    and Samuel Williamson http://www.gainesville.com/art.....ernet-Cafe

    Just to name two.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Seriously, folks... how many people believe it is possible to engineer a nigh-perfect, virtually harm/death-free society - and to which Team do they belong?

  • T o n y||

    As usual you are incapable of understanding that there are gray areas in the world.

    How about we just ask NRA members?

    * 74 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
    * 68 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
    * 63 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.
    * 75 percent of NRA members believe that concealed carry permits should be granted only to those applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Yeah, keep calling me stupid, you fucking prick. Pile up more lies. Karma will catch up with your ass one day.

  • sarcasmic||

    Sorry, but karma doesn't exist.

    Liars and cheaters live long and prosperous lives on the backs of those of us who are stupid enough to be honest.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Oh, it happens. I've seen bad shit happen to people who perpetrate it.

    Sometimes takes decades, but it's worth the wait.

  • sarcasmic||

    Bad shit happens to everyone.

    Karma implies a cause and effect between doing bad shit and having bad shit happen to you.

    That relationship does not exist.

  • T o n y||

    Who is trying to create a "virtually harm/death-free society"? Nobody. You always do this strawman crap. Anyone advocating for social welfare must want a world totally free of struggle. Anyone advocating for some gun control must want a police state. I am not calling you stupid, I'm saying you seem to be incapable of appreciating that there are middle grounds in this world. I for one find it fascinating.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I said you and your ilk are *trying* to get there, not that you'd succeed.

    How many more fucking gun laws do we need, anyway? And at what price?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    BTW, when people in power want "some more" power, they really mean "ALL the power".

    That goes for 99% of those in both Teams.

    Power corrupts. Until we find a way to prevent any abuses of power - as well as preventing nigh-total control of the populace - we're going to be struggling with that "middle ground" you claim to want.

  • T o n y||

    By your logic anyone wanting gun possession rights must want to nuke the entire planet. Guns are a form of power, and power inevitably corrupts, right? Or are you a typical libertarian, only finding corrupt power in elected officials?

  • Harvard||

    Odd, inasmuch as a gun is supposedly a phallic symbol, that you don't have one handy that fits in your ass.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    Tony's statistics only support the case that the NRA is not a principled supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but just one more special interest group, whose members lobby for their own hobby with an "i've got mine" mindset. I'm not saying that they are, mind you. Just that the argument has been made and Tony's evidence seems to support it.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'm not a member, nor do I own a gun, but I'd trust the NRA over the Brady freaks any day.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I am a gun owner, but I'm not a member of the NRA because I find them to be authority, law-n-order fellating organization that only has the interest of a niche of gun owners as a priority.

    If you want an organization that stands up for the RIGHT of all Americans to own guns without any of the authority fetishizing BS, stick with the 2AF.

  • Ron||

    What does conceal carry have to do with this killer he never applied for any of those and he never would.

  • Mizchief||

    What bothers me about banning guns, is that no one thinks about is what criminals will do to replace the guns legal guns they buy now. (assuming that someone set on commiting a crime decides to obey the gun laws to begin with)

    First thing that will happen is an increase of unregulated black market sales for what will probably be more dangerous weapons like AK-47's

    Assuming you could stop all black-market guns, do you really think criminals will resort to knives and bats? They will more likely turn to homemade explosives which will cause more death and destruction than a gun.

  • The Fatman||

    Not really. You will just get a whole bunch of guys churning out guns from their home shops. I know at least 4 guys that could make a modern firearm from scratch. Hell the Afghans are making AK's with equipment from the friggin middle ages.

  • Paul.||

    Re: the poster bloomberg is standing in front of.

    I'd like to meet the group of Mayors who are for illegal guns.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I had a whole host of shit, but it was marked as spam.

    Long story short: you have no clue what you're talking about.
    http://bit.ly/NXNTeS
    http://bit.ly/NXNIjS

    Shotguns will blow not only through one wall, but multiple of them. And you do need to aim with them. They don't spread nearly as much as you think.

    Some conclusions:

    00 Buck penetrates 4 walls with ease. It is a great "Stopping" round, but there is a price to pay.

    Until someone invents a "Phaser" like on Star Trek, anything that will stop a bad guy, will also penetrate several walls.
    Once again, please notice the size of the entrance spreads....2 1/2" to 3 1/2". Therefore, anyone that says, "With a shotgun, you don't even have to aim. Just point it in the general area of the bad guy, and you can't miss", does not know what they are talking about.

    You can very easily miss with a shotgun. You must aim to hit your target.
  • mad libertarian guy||

    This was supposed to be in reply to Rasilio at 11.22.

    Fucking squirrels.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Box o Truth is a blast. His findings (and others too) on how certain .223 rounds penetrate less through drywall etc, than many handgun bullets, was very eye-opening.

    Surprised you got the quote marks through the spam filter.

  • Rasilio||

    First I said "unlikely to" not that they couldn't. In a typical home defense situation you are looking at a buckshot projectile traveling 10 yards or so, passing through a barrier (wall, window or door) then continuing on another 30 or 40 yards and passing through a 2nd barrier and still retaining enough energy to kill. Yes it certainly can happen, but it is less likely that with a .308 and probably even a .223.

    Second, I never said you didn't have to aim, I said you didn't have to be a marksman to be effective with it. Even a spread of 3 inches gives you a far higher chance of hitting a target than the 1/3rd to 1/4 inch wide trajectory of a normal bullet so a shot which is a clean miss with a rifle is a clear hit with the shotgun and a grazing wound becomes multiple simultaneous hits. Doesn't mean you don't have to aim, just means you don't have to be particularly good at it to still hit your target.

    Finally you seem to be completely ignoring the while bit about there being less lethal round options available with the shotgun.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    The fact is that are not "unlikely" to pass through walls. It is almost certain that they will; every time. And not everyone lives in a situation where a shot would pass through one wall then travel for a football field. Some of us have to worry about what happens to a projectile 3 or 4 rooms later. If you live in an apartment/condo this is especially true.

    Less lethal options are not options. If I was looking for less lethal, I'd opt for a taser or pepper spray. If I'm shooting a gun in my home, I shooting to kill. It's very simple. I'm not trying to scare him off; I'm trying to make sure that he is to be buried by his family in a couple of days.

    Read the evidence: a .223 is probably the best round that one can use in home defense if penetration is a primary concern. And even it still passes through multiple walls.

    The fact is simple: if you're shooting something that is capable of putting a man down it is going to pass through walls. Several of them in most cases.

  • Mr. Soul||

    Mayor's Against Illegal Guns??? I thought they were merely undocumented.

  • ||

    Nice.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement