4 Awful Reactions to Sandy Hook School Shooting - And Thoughts on a Better Response

(Page 3 of 6)

2. Michael Moore: "killer... used an assault weapon called The Bushmaster."

Michael Moore is no stranger to bombastic, offensive statements. Who can forget (despite trying really, really hard) when he denounced the butterfly ballot fiasco in Palm Beach, Florida during the 2000 presidential election as the final act of Kristallnacht?

No one has made more money off of bashing George W. Bush so it wasn't surprising that Oscar-winning documentarion tweeted this:

In addition to his two handguns, the killer in CT this morning used an assault rifle called The Bushmaster.

And in case you didn't get his wry, humorous intent, he followed up with this retweet of a comment by a follower in Australia:

@MMFlint I didn't know you guys named your guns after presidents. How cute

Cute is one word for it.

Moore, of course, made the film Bowling for Columbine, which was named for one of the most notorious mass shootings in memory and tried to explore why America had always been more violent than other countries - even ones such as Canada and Switzerland that have similar or higher rates of gun ownership. As Reason's Brian Doherty noted, Moore was enough of a truth teller in his documentary to acknowledge he didn't really know:

Except for one scene - in which Our Hero himself apparently pressures Kmart into promising to phase out ammunition sales - Moore offers no suggestions for how to make America a less depressing place. He raises many of the obvious explanations for the high number of American shooting deaths - our violent history, our violent pop culture, the presence of so many weapons - and then debunks them all. Bowling for Columbine does not make a pro-gun control case. It is more existential nightmare than political document.

(To read this article as a single page, click here.)

Next: We need to ban guns that are already illegal...

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.

  • SIV||

    Can't they find a damn picture of the killer that isn't 7 years old and makes him look like everybody's emotionally troubled young nephew or cousin? This smacks of the Trayvon narrative framing.

    Also,I've been repeatedly "scolded" by several people for suggesting responsibility lies with the killer rather than our lack of mental health funding and too strict civil commitment procedures. I can't recall seeing so much sympathy for a profoundly malevolent individual before. Acknowledging the existence of evil is now somewhere between politically incorrect and socially irresponsible.

  • ||

    I must note that directly ties into the left-wing conciet that people can be programmed, with the proper amount of coercion, to be 'better' and that thus there must always be something the all-knowing Leviathan could have done to stop this. These people just hate acknowledging the fact that they are powerless in this instance, it goes against everything they believe.

  • sloopyinca||

    Hey, A Serious Man, what happened to our earlier comments?

  • ||

    I think they only posted the Hit and Run teaser for the article at first, so our comments were deleted when they removed it and linked again to the main article.

  • SIV||

    There was no article at first. It was an unsigned teaser with no links to the multi-page Gillespie piece.

  • ||

    The Jacket runs Reason like the God of the Old Testament: vengeful and arbitrary.

  • sloopyinca||

    God should run mayor of Chicago.

  • Ted S.||

    I think there's a word missing here.

  • Ted S.||

    They were vacated like a slew of An Ohio State University's football victories?

  • sloopyinca||

    You're a soulless bastard.

  • sloopyinca||

    Probably a fucking ginger as well.

  • Ted S.||

    I almost hope Reason Sophia develops a genetic mutation that turns her into a ginger. ;-)

  • AlmightyJB||

    I love red head heads.

  • Ted S.||

    Well, I'm white, so I have no rhythm. But I do have the blues.

    Oh, and I've got brown hair. I'm not a ginger at all, thank you very much.

  • ||

    What victories?

  • mbaird||

    "directly ties into the left-wing conciet that people can be programmed, with the proper amount of coercion"

    And your thought process is any better?

    We own guns because of binary views of the world such as yours.

  • ||

    Also,I've been repeatedly "scolded" by several people for suggesting responsibility lies with the killer rather than our lack of mental health funding and too strict civil commitment procedures.

    Slippery slope. Don't give those fuckers an inch. The second you agree with them they have gained ground.

    Proper response:

    No, fuck you, the killer is completely responsible for his actions.

  • sloopyinca||

    Agreed. Then tell them you think they're crazy for thinking that and under the system they want, that would be enough to have them committed for a mental health evaluation.

  • ||

    Right, we're goinbg to start subjecting people with Asperger Syndrome to mental health evaluations?

    Why not depression and anxiety?
    Maybe doctors should be required to report all their patients with high blood pressure or hypertension to the police, and have them drug in for questioning. Just in case they might flip out and shoot up a pre-school.

  • Ted S.||

    Roman Polanski and Jerry Sandusky could only molest one child at a time. Bequeathing children a world with less liberty and doing so through appeals to emotion harms an entire generation of children in one fell swoop.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yes, of course. But assigning blame after the fact doesn't bring the children and others back to life.

    I'm against loosening the requirements for unpersoning weird people (which is essentially what the leftists and moderates are proposing now) but repeating moralistic doctrine isn't going to win this debate.

  • Sarah Conner||

    The initial assigning of blame argument is always brought forth by the statists. Shutting that argument down is the first thing you have to do, and re-assigning blame to the perpetrator of the act is what is suggested here.

    If you can't appeal to reason, and you can't appeal to morality, what is left to appeal to in these clovers?

  • Brutus||

    By saying the killer is responsible, you thereby defeat the argument that control of the inanimate object is necessary. Since that is the entire political point made by the gun control crowd, blaming the killer will never be done.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Not quite. There's no need to blame an inanimate object to ban it. No one blames C-4 for being explosive, but they ban/restrict it anyway.

  • sloopyinca||

    "Hello apple? I'd like to introduce you to orange."

    Explosives =/= arms. One is enshrined in the Constitution and one is not. That's all the difference you need.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    4/9 of SCOTUS thinks the 2nd is meaningless anyway. Thanks to those who voted for Obama and those who didn't vote for Romney, we can expect that to go to 5 or 6 out of 9 pretty soon.

  • ||

    2 out of those 4 justices were appointed by TEAM RED..

  • mbaird||

    The beauty of the free markets is the wisdom of the crowds aggregating their decisions to pick a winner. The beauty of Democracy is the wisdom of the crowd aggregating their decisions on how they want to orient society. But then again I suppose since the "others" one they are just plain idiots because they are not informed.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Explosives =/= arms.

    "Arms" is an incredibly broad term, you moron.

  • mbaird||

    I think I have heard this argument from both sides of the binary thinkers.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Also,I've been repeatedly "scolded" by several people for suggesting responsibility lies with the killer rather than our lack of mental health funding and too strict civil commitment procedures.

    If it was anything like your performance on the thread last night, you were being scolded for thinking assigning moral blame solves the problem. Come up with a way to prevent this from happening or make an argument as to why we can't, or why proposed remedies would make things worse.

  • SIV||

    It doesn't "solve the problem". It explains concisely "why it happened".

    The proposed solutions are a mixture of people advancing agendas or trying to remove responsibility from the killer.

    Had Lanza been captured alive I expect he would elicit much less sympathy.

  • robc||

    make an argument as to why we can't

    Because sick fuckers will always exist.

  • DJK||

    Meh. Allow all the teachers to carry guns in schools (openly or concealed). I kind of like the open carry idea. It would teach students that guns are around, responsible people have them, private citizens have them, etc.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Also,I've been repeatedly "scolded" by several people for suggesting responsibility lies with the killer

    Individual responsibility? The horror!

  • sloopyinca||

    Those kids? You didn't kill them.

    /President Obama

  • ||

    Nice!

  • Hopfiend||

    Wow, but I see what you did there.

  • SIV||

    I almost want to scream: Society and Our Nation didn't shoot Mom in the face, drive to it's primary school alma mater and deliberately, methodically and precisely* slaughter it's former psychologist, 5 other faculty members, and 20 perfectly innocent small children. Adam Lanza did.

    (*Note how there are almost no non-fatal injuries)

  • Ted S.||

    Society doesn't abuse apostrophes, either. :-p

  • SIV||

    its'


    Fuck Society

  • Generic Stranger||

    its, being a possessive noun like "his" or "her", does not require an apostrophe at all.

    /grammar nazi

  • SIV||

    Noted.

  • Killazontherun||

    I've learned over the years apostrophes are pretty damn tough. They can handle the abuse and sometimes they even demand it.

  • SIV||

    British greengrocers don't know the concept of "limit's" or "safeword's"

  • Brutus||

  • ||

    It's just the crux of the biscuit.

  • sloopyinca||

    "Never let a tragedy go to waste."

    /Every asshole ever

  • RBS||

    Via Facebook:

    I know all of those who are posting about hugging or wanting to hug the little ones in their lives are being earnest and well-intentioned (and I've got five awesome nephews and a niece I feel the same way about) ... but let's also realize that doing so isn't actually fixing anything or making a tragedy like this less likely to happen next time. It's time to start talking about what will.

  • sloopyinca||

    My response would be: You're right. It's time to talk about letting teachers, administrators and security officers exercise their Second Amendment rights so psychopaths like this guy will think twice before going in and/or would be shot dead around the time they come out of the first office.

  • Ted S.||

    I care about the children because I want them to grow up in a world whrere they learn it's a terrible idea to use demonization, bullying, and shouting down those you disagree with to get what you want.

    If you want to teach children by your actions that those are acceptable tactics, you're sending them a terrible lesson.

  • sloopyinca||

    If you want to teach children by your actions that those are acceptable tactics, you're sending them a terrible lesson.

    Why is this in response to what I said? How am I approving any of those things by what I said?

  • Ted S.||

    I didn't intend it that way. My comment was basically what my response to the Facebook people would be, if I did the Facebook thing and gave a crap about having Facebook non-enemies.

    It wasn't supposed to be a response to you, or a suggestion that you don't care about the children.

  • sloopyinca||

    Got it. You threw me off for a minute there.

  • Sarah Conner||

    I like that. Few "friends" on FB are friends. At best they are non-enemies. Cool.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Eh, I'm more of a well-wisher in that I don't wish you any specific harm."

  • wheelock||

    Dropped my facebook account today for exactly this reason. That shit is a mob. My favorite are these big long screeds about "gun control now dammmit!" and then "dont even try and debate me now either or I'll de-friend you" Why the fuck are you posting that shit then you twit?

  • T o n y||

    And if this facile, ridiculous, and patently dangerous "solution" proves to be as facile, ridiculous, and dangerous as it sounds, do you have an alternative?

  • sloopyinca||

    In what way does it sound facile, ridiculous and patently dangerous? Do you have statistics that show teachers, administrators and security officers are inherently dangerous? And if so, why do you support their unions so much when they are a danger to kids?

    Or are the kids themselves dangerous? And if so, why do you support a public school system that compels their attendance when they are a danger to their peers and educators?

    Please show your work with links to support your claims.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It is because he says so /liberal stoopid

  • iggy||

    Tony has never provided evidence for any belief he has. It's sort of his thing.

  • ||

    Feelings are evidence, and the plural of feelings is "STOP RESISTING!"

  • T o n y||

    People are overwhelmingly more likely to shoot themselves or their loved ones than armed intruders in the presence of guns. You Google the statistics, they are not in your favor. Rambo fantasies are not evidence--the evidence shows that the more guns, the more innocent people die, period.

  • ||

    There are about 200,000,000 guns in the US. Every year 15,000 or so people off themselves with one of them. So you have a 0.00075 percent chance of killing yourself with your own weapon every year. Those sound like pretty good odds.

  • sloopyinca||

    Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of those people intentionally off themselves because it's a quick death. The number of people that accidentally off themselves in America with a gun is closer to about 1,000-2,000 a year.

    BTW, 3x as many people in America die because of the flu than by all forms of homicide annually. Link.

  • sloopyinca||

    Suicide shouldn't be included in the math. Someone shoots him/herself because it is a quick death.

    And intruders still shoot more people than family members do accidentally in America.

    Evidence also shows that the more cars there are, the more innocent people die.

    As usual your arguments are full of twisted logic.

  • Redmanfms||

    Well, labeling schools "gun-free zones" by federal diktat was clearly facile, ridiculous and patently dangerous, so do you have an alternative?

  • Brutus||

    I live in Kirkwood, MO, scene of another mass shooting a few years ago, in our City Hall. Charles "Cookie" Thornton murdered five, wounded two others before getting killed himself.

    The sign with a pistol and a line through it it still on the door of City Hall. It didn't seem to keep Cookie out.

  • ||

    Other than reversing 130+ years of post-modernist "philosophy" overnight, there ARE no solutions that wouldn't violate somebody's rights.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's not a plausible solution.

    First, most grade school teachers are not the type to pack heat to begin with. I hope you're not saying we should require it, because forcing someone who doesn't want a gun to use it is insanity, outside a war zone at least.

    Second, the likelihood of one of the kids getting ahold of the gun somehow, while remote, is orders of magnitude higher than that of encountering and successfully neutralizing a school shooter.

    Third, the shooter would probably target the adult first upon entering a classroom (which they usually do anyway).

    Fourth, crazy/dogged people aren't deterred by the prospect of being killed. Especially when you consider how often they off themselves when it's over.

    Fifth, the scene of any mass shooting is going to be a mess if several people are armed. For instance, if you walk into a situation where two people are shooting at each other, how do you know which one is the aggressor?

  • Xenocles||

    They might not be deterred by the prospect of being killed, but I would think that they're trying to cause a big spectacle and would like the best chance of maximizing their success. It's like robbing a bank because that's where the money is - you do a rampage in a soft area because that's where the victims are.

  • sloopyinca||

    First, I said "letting", not requiring.

    Second, the likelihood of a kid getting git and using it is as remote as what happened yesterday. And I can think of no occasion when it's happened and I'm sure there have been teachers that packed heat pre-"Gun-Free Zone" bullshit in schools.

    Third, if they do anyway, wouldn't it be nice to give that adult an opportunity to arm him/herself and potentially end the attack or at least cause the shooter to seek another target?

    Fourth, then why do they tend to only go into places where guns are forbidden when they want to go berzerk? You don't see them attacking gun ranges, do you? There's a reason for that.

    Fifth, so your solution is to ensure that an unarmed person walks into a situation where there is only one easily-identifiable shooter, but unfortunately that shooter is able to kill at will? I'd rather be able to walk into a shootout and determine who the aggressor is (it's probably the fucker shooting the kids) and decide what to do from there. It sure as hell beats being an unarmed target.

  • ||

    "Letting" teachers pack heat (or encouraging or whatever anyone wants to call it) is an idea that worries me.

    Just recalling the incident in New York in August this year when police shot 9 innocent bystanders to kill one perp.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012.....e-gunfire/

    These were trained police officers but they had never had to fire upon anyone before. I'm just imagining an untrained or under trained teacher, scared out of his/her wits, firing willy- nilly in a classroom full of children. Would it make a bad situation worse? I don't know. But arming teachers, or allowing them to arm themselves in the class, based on the information on this article, seems an unwarranted policy change.

    And your fourth point doesn't account for the fact that a mass murderer seeking fame/validation/attention or whatever non-sense they are looking for wouldn't get as much media attention attempting to shoot a bunch of adults at a shooting range as they would targeting innocent children. These killers may be crazy but I think they are savvy enough (unfortunately) to understand the difference.

    But I agree on the second point. If they allow guns on the person of the teacher in the classroom, I seriously doubt the children would find the means to access those guns.

  • Whahappan?||

    Keep in mind, untermensch don't have qualified (de facto absolute) immunity from indiscriminate, negligent shooting. The NYPD were untrained/undertrained, scared out of their wits, firing wily-nily in a crowded street precisely because they are unaccountable. Most "civilians" are much more careful when shooting in such a situation because they are much more accountable for their actions.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If they allow guns on the person of the teacher in the classroom, I seriously doubt the children would find the means to access those guns.

    Like I said, it's a remote possibility, but much more likely than successful neutralization of a school shooter. What if the teacher forgets the gun in the bathroom stall? What if the teacher collapses with a heart attack or stroke during class? I went through the same thought process when deciding not to break the gun-free rules at my current workplace. Even though I'm fully capable of keeping it concealed, and given the neighborhood I'm traveling through it would be nice to have with me, the likelihood of there being a bomb threat, or I pass out from heat stroke, or something else where somehow my bag gets searched, is MUCH higher than me being the lynchpin that neutralizes a shooter. And getting caught with a gun at work would pretty much end my career.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Fourth, then why do they tend to only go into places where guns are forbidden when they want to go berzerk? You don't see them attacking gun ranges, do you? There's a reason for that.

    The Safeway that Loughner attacked wasn't a gun free zone. The Ft Hood and Va Tech shootings occurred where they occurred for specific reasons unrelated to their gun free zone nature. Given how much the Aurora guy tied his attack to the Dark Night Rises movie it's likely the (unenforceable) gun free nature of the theater had nothing to do with his choice.

    In this case, we don't know why the guy chose the school yet.

    Fifth, so your solution is to ensure that an unarmed person walks into a situation where there is only one easily-identifiable shooter, but unfortunately that shooter is able to kill at will?

    That's not my solution; my (partial) solution is to secure the school better. Shootings aren't the only thing to worry about happening at a school if random adults can walk in at will. My point in the third and fifth para is that even if everything in the "arm everyone" plan works, and you have a good guy/gal engaged in a firefight with the bad guy/gal with a bunch of kids on the floor around them, you still have more problems in that the good guys might start shooting each other because of mistaken identity.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Shootings aren't the only thing to worry about happening at a school if random adults can walk in at will.


    Yeah, there is sexual assault.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    It's time to start talking about what will.


    The most effective, and least restrictive, solution is to conduct mental health screenings, and either involuntary internment or euthanasia of those who fail.

    Would our safety be worth sacrificing the rights of those who would fail these screenings?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Don't know if this has already been posted, but even if it has it bares repeating:

    Congressman Jerry Nadler was asked whether the Newtown tragedy could be the turning point in many Democrats’ longstanding struggle to enact stronger gun laws.

    “I think we will be there if the president exploits it, and otherwise we’ll go on to the next” incident, Mr. Nadler said.
  • Cytotoxic||

    HOLY FUCKING

  • sloopyinca||

    You're surprised? The mask always slips when shit like this attack happens.

  • Cytotoxic||

    There used to be some effort at hiding it.

  • sloopyinca||

    Really?

    After Loughner it was the same shit. After McVeigh it was "shut down all militia groups and monitor farm supply stores". After Columbine it was "trigger locks for all guns". After Waco it was "stop all non-mainstream religious groups".

    This exploitation, or rather attempted exploitation, goes back at least two decades. I'm sure it goes back farther. Hell, after Reagan got shot, the entire Brady Campaign took off and immediately called for strict gun control, so more like close to 30 years.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Good point. Guess I haven't been around long enough.

  • Redmanfms||

    Hell, after Reagan got shot, the entire Brady Campaign took off and immediately called for strict gun control, so more like close to 30 years.

    Much, much longer than that.

    NFA 1934 was a direct result of the sensationalism of the "motorized bandits," though they interestingly didn't propose doubling the price of cars (which is precisely what the tax stamp did in 1934).

    GCA 1968 was pushed through because of the assassinations of various heroes of the Left during the '60s, but particularly the murders of King and RFK.

  • Brutus||

    Fucking Bloomberg was thumping the tub for more gun control before the kids' corposes had cooled. What a jizz bucket.

  • CKAinRedStateUSA||

    C'mon. Try being non-obscene and minimally articulate.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Freudian Slips, the only form of honesty the Left Wing knows.

  • Hopfiend||

    At least he's being honest. Now you know for sure that he's a crap bag.

  • Rhywun||

    We already knew, but... yeah.

  • sloopyinca||

    What's the over/under on days for Obama to come out with some "Executive Order" circumventing the Constitution and setting rigid guidelines on handgun purchases? My guess is it's gonna come on the 21st and he'll call it something like a "Christmas Present for America's Children" or some other such bullshit.

  • SIV||

    He could ban imports of any firearm by executive order. The ATF can,at his urging, change some regulations administratively. I'm not sure what all else can be done but I'm sure they are working on it.

    I'm much more concerned by the attempt of seemingly everyone across the political and cultural spectrum to lay the responsibility on anything and everything other than the killer.

  • sloopyinca||

    Oh, he can get the FBI and ATF to take several days to answer requests on all background checks. That's my big fear. And since they have almost everybody's medical records, they can request they be reviewed for mental illness prior to sending their response.

    There are a lot of ways he can fuck with the system. And I'm sure he's got an entire legal team poring over his options as we speak.

  • Generic Stranger||

    I'm not sure about that. I believe that the use of NICS is federal law, and I'd imagine there is something specific about how and why a delay on an answer back can be made.

    Also, if they delay longer than, IIRC, three days, the gun shop can go ahead and sell the gun.

  • sloopyinca||

    IIRC, three days, the gun shop can go ahead and sell the gun.

    True. Unfortunately, that's not a law but is an executive act going back to Bush I. The executive order can be changed easily enough to say 3 days, 6 days or whatever. And no way in hell a leftist Senate sides with the House to create a law.

    Team Red dumbasses have always supported their guys making all sorts of Executive Orders that carry the weight of law when they have control of the WH. That's about to bite them in the ass more than they could ever imagine.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Oh, he can get the FBI and ATF to take several days to answer requests on all background checks.

    Which would have accomplished jack shit wrt these murders as the psychos first crimes were killing his mom and stealing her guns.

  • sloopyinca||

    It's not about preventing violence. It's about disarming the populus so the government can impose their will more easily.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    ^ This is your brain on doctrinaire libertarianism.

    It doesn't matter who's responsible. What people are asking about is if/how it can be prevented. If your response is "blame the killer" you make us look like harebrained idiots.

  • sloopyinca||

    Bullshit, Tulpa. The proggie assholes are pointing their finger at the NRA and saying they are responsible for this and all other incidents like it. It's not about prevention to them, because prevention doesn't put a face to these type of crimes. Affixing blame, on the other hand, gives them a chance to say, "look at these guys. They're responsible. And they support gun rights."

    They started the blame game. IMO, the only way to fight it is to keep pointing a finger at the responsible party: the asshole that pulled the trigger.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    A few people on the fringes are doing that. They've been doing it for a long time and griping about their statements on H+R isn't going to do squat about it.

    The problem is going to be the statist moderates who (understandably) want to prevent these things from happening and need to be informed of why some proposed solutions will do more harm than good.

  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah, but the truth, which is "you can't completely keep this kind of thing from happening in a free society", is a non-starter with them. They believe in Top Men and their ability to stop anything they set their mind to stopping. What they fail to realize is that they must give up not only their freedom, but must also take mine away to accomplish their goals. And there are some of us that value freedom more than an illusory sense of security.

  • AZ||

    Exactly.
    Preventative measures inherently sacrifice everyone's liberty. If they're talking about preventative measures, they're already on the road to totalitarianism.

  • AZ||

    Exactly.
    Preventative measures inherently sacrifice everyone's liberty. If they're talking about preventative measures, they're already on the road to totalitarianism.

  • ||

    x2

  • Sam Grove||

    "you can't completely keep this kind of thing from happening in a free society"

    You can't even keep this kind of thing from happening in an unfree society.

  • ||

    You can't even keep this kind of thing from happening in an unfree society.

    There's no violent crime in Cuba or North Korea man!

  • sloopyinca||

    Cuba and North Korea are violent crime!

    Oh, BTW, did any of you see where Cuba is going to start an income tax?

  • Cytotoxic||

    The problem is going to be the statist moderates

    We are well aware of the problems of moderate statist Tulpa. We've had you around long enough.

  • Hopfiend||

    Sorry bro, they aren't on the fringes. NRA is a bogeyman. Nobody stops to think that perhaps there are good people who support the work the NRA does and that those people care about children and everyone else as much as the handwringing blue teamers.

    They have sold the horseshit that they have a corner on the compassion market.

    NEWSFLASH: Plain speech is compassionate.

  • ||

    We could prevent 30,000 deaths every year by not allowing people to drive. Why don't we have a conversation about that first?

    We could prevent up to 600,000 deaths every year by making people eat healthy and exercise. Why don't we have a conversation about that first?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I didn't propose any conversations about anything.

    If you want to explain why banning/restricting guns more would do more harm than good, go for it. I will agree with you.

    Repeating the tautology that "the killer is responsible" is no substitute for that.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It is essential for that.

  • kwais||

    Good point Tulpa.
    "Blaming" someone solves nothing.

  • SIV||

    Shifting blame or collectively assuming it doesn't either. Is that a better alternative?

    Please let me know when y'all solve this whole evil thing.

  • RBS||

    WTF, why are people fighting SIV on this?

  • sloopyinca||

    Look who's fighting him and you'll have your answer.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    What do you have against kwais?

  • SIV||

    Because I'm abso-fucking-lutely right, as usual.

  • ||

    Good point Tulpa.
    "Blaming" someone solves nothing.

    There IS NO SOLUTION!

    How do you protect against the irrational without eliminating freedom? Letting them shift blame from the responsible party is a precursor to them attempting to restrict those on whom they've inappropriately laid blame. Allowing their misdirection is helping their cause.

    The shooter and the shooter alone killed those kids.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    They don't need to place blame on gun owners (and most commentators and persons in power are not). All they need to do is say that children's lives are more important than your going to the range or hunting.

    And if we're stomping our feet saying "it's the shooter's fault!" over and over again, and not rebutting their proposed solutions, we lose. Period.

  • sloopyinca||

    And if we're stomping our feet saying "it's the shooter's fault!" over and over again, and not rebutting their proposed solutions, we lose. Period.

    If you destroy their premise, their solution falls apart on its own. I would rather destroy their premise and thereby their credibility at the same time. That way, nobody even listens to their "solution" since the "problem" they bring up (which is society is to blame) doesn't exist.

  • ||

    God Tulpa, I swear to Christ, you argue for the sake of arguing.

    YOU are giving them a podium by entertaining their bullshit. As soon as you give them credibility, they gain a foot hold and the war is lost man. They will whittle you down a piece at a time. (It is the one thing the left is good at.)

    NO, fuck you, the killer is completely responsible for his actions.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    How am I giving them a fucking podium? I said I agree with you about the responsibility, but it's a minor point. It doesn't win the argument.

    95% of the people who are now going to seriously consider supporting gun control already agree with you that the killer is solely responsible. You guys are shadow boxing.

  • sloopyinca||

    but it's a minor point.

    See, that's where I and a lot of others think you're wrong. Blaming someone or something other than the shooter is the basis for their entire argument. If you take that away from them, they have no point to make because they have no scapegoat/enemy to point the finger at.

    Think of it as a snake. and the head of their snake is that the shooter is not the only reason this happened. Cut off the head and the body dies.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Bull. You think that all the people who favored gun control back in 1990 (which was a large majority of Americans) thought that shooters weren't responsible for their crimes?

    This will work just about as well as the plan to make the Republicans become more libertarian by letting BO win.

  • sloopyinca||

    There were pretty mixed results on the gun control question back in 1990 as well as through today. And if you recall correctly, the late 80's and early 90's was really the start of the "blame society" movement for the actions of individuals. Just look back on the withcraft, death metal, video games, movies, etc specials on TV trying to find what makes people do bad things. You didn't see those types of shows until the idiots who grew up in the 60's started having high school-aged kids that were fuckups. When that happened, the generation that never grasped the concept of personal responsibility had to find a scapegoat for the fact that some people just fucking snap.

    Shit, they're by and large controlling our government today. Look at all of their "solutions" to everything. Rarely does one of them propose any solution where the individual is responsible for him/herself?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    There's always been a moral panic as long as there's been a mass media. Anarchists, marijuana, cocaine, masturbation, women wearing pants, communists, men shaving their faces, women working outside the home, Elvis' hips, jazz, etc.

    Now we have social media and texting and child molesters. The 80s/90s weren't unique.

  • sloopyinca||

    They weren't unique, but they were a sea change in how America dealt with people who malfunctioned. Prior to that, the focus was on why the person went berzerk. Starting in the late 80's, that changed to focusing on how society failed them.

    I don't know how old you are, but I can tell you from experience that there was a big change when the Baby Boomers, who were the first generation with a "society is the solution" outlook, had children that were turning into adults.

  • ||

    How am I giving them a fucking podium?

    Listen, I'm going to say this once. I'll use small words and type slowly.

    Allowing them to blame the system rather than placing blame where it belongs, with the shooter (which was the genesis of this thread) gives credence to their claim that this is a fixable problem. It is not.

    To win this argument you must discredit their premise.

    I cannot state it any clearer than that.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's not their premise (aside from a few loony lefties). Their premise is that banning/restricting guns will prevent gun crimes. The placement of blame has zilch to do with it.

    Our task is to explain why that either won't happen or will lead to bigger problems.

    Eventus Stultorum Magister.

  • ||

    And if we're stomping our feet saying "it's the shooter's fault!" over and over again, and not rebutting their proposed solutions, we lose. Period.

    Just out of curiosity, what do you propose?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I've already proposed that we argue that worse things will happen if we enact stricter gun control.

  • ||

    I've already proposed that we argue that worse things will happen if we enact stricter gun control.

    Well NO SHIT SHERLOCK! That point is so completely obvious it's not worth arguing.

    And what do you think the left will do moron?

    "And now that you've acknowledged we need to do something...let's compromise. We'll split the difference and get rid of half your rights."

    We need to laugh at their proposals. We need to treat it as the complete fucking nonsense it is. Giving these idiots the time of day gives them hope we'll compromise. Two thirds of the country is on our side, the courts are on our side. We have nothing to defend. The only way they have a leg to stand on is if we give it to them by "having a discussion about sensible gun control." I say...LET'S NOT!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I think you seriously overestimate how much influence die-hard 2nd amendment supporters have. We haven't had 2/3 of the country on our side for very long, and that can easily flip back if the MSM et al take advantage of events such as this and we look like insensitive bastards. As far as the courts go, as I warned the Romney opponents all fucking summer and fall, the courts can easily turn Heller and McDonald (among other pro-liberty decisions of the Roberts court) into dead letters once Kennedy and Scalia get replaced by BO. And he won't replace them with Ginsburgs, he'll replace them with Kagans.

  • robc||

    All they need to do is say that children's lives are more important than your going to the range or hunting.

    They are wrong.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's cute. Do me a favor and don't call any talk shows claiming to be a libertarian when you say that.

  • ||

    That's cute. Do me a favor and don't call any talk shows claiming to be a libertarian when you say that.

    Why not? It's true.

    That's EXACTLY the problem with you Republicans. You are completely unprincipled. You think it's better to play their game than call it like it is.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If you really believe that you're a sick puppy. Valuing your range time more than a kid's life isn't principled, it's psychotic.

    I don't think either of you really think that, it's just a cute thing to say and you haven't thought through the implications. I hope.

  • ||

    No, asshole. I really mean it. I wouldn't trade our liberty for all the kids in America.

    2A has nothing to do with hunting or range shooting moron. It's about having the capability to protect yourself from an out of control government.

    But you fucking Republicans have proven time and again that you are more than happy to trade liberty for false security. Well, FUCK YOU. NO!

    You think living in a free nation is free? If you want liberty, you occasionally pay the price. Sometimes schools get shot up by psychos. Sometimes you must defend that which you think despicable (flag burning). Sometimes assholes crash planes into buildings. But all these things are a small price to pay for living in a free nation.

    Do I think we should punish the offenders? You bet. Off with their heads. But I'm not going to cower and change my way of life because of their actions. I'm not going to live in fear. And I'm certainly not going to trade my liberty for some false sense of security.

    You're kind of a sniveling, Republican, cowardly, pig aren't you Tulpa?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I don't care what kind of gun collection you have... you're not going to be able to fight the US govt. The 2A as bulwark against tyranny is a nice idea, and certainly was in the minds of the people who wrote it in 1789, but that particular purpose has been made obsolete by events. The Whiskey Rebellion had a chance because the feds really didn't have any weapons that civilians didn't have too. Today, forget it. What you're rightly demanding access to are called "small arms" in modern parlance for a reason.

    I agree for the most part about trading liberty for security. And I have no intention of giving ground on gun rights. But the way you present things matters, and the way you're presenting your position here would turn off most 2012 American brains.

    Most Americans in 2012 are not libertarians. They will not willingly trade dead kids for abstract liberty. Make peace with that fact, and adjust your rhetoric accordingly, because THEY decide what happens in this country, not you and I.

  • ||

    I don't care what kind of gun collection you have... you're not going to be able to fight the US govt. The 2A as bulwark against tyranny is a nice idea, and certainly was in the minds of the people who wrote it in 1789, but that particular purpose has been made obsolete by events. The Whiskey Rebellion had a chance because the feds really didn't have any weapons that civilians didn't have too. Today, forget it. What you're rightly demanding access to are called "small arms" in modern parlance for a reason.

    You don't quite get it do you?

    The only time I (or I hope anyone) would rise up against the government, is after the government took an unconstitutional action. The oath you take when entering the military is to support and defend the Constitution, NOT support and defend the federal government.

    I just spent 20+ years in the AF. That oath isn't taken lightly, at least not by the officers. In a perfect world, the entire military would be on OUR side. In reality, there would be some kind of split (probably dependent on the issue and how the Constitution was violated). It's a fairly safe bet the US military will NOT open up on the civilian population when the said population has a legitimate constitutional grievance.

    I agree for the most part about trading liberty for security.

    Once you start entertaining the notion of trading liberty for security...it's not long until you do.

  • ant1sthenes||

    You don't have to fight the U.S. government, you just to hurt it and provoke it into destroying itself. The U.S. is powerful, but also kind of insane.

  • Xenocles||

    "I don't care what kind of gun collection you have... you're not going to be able to fight the US govt. "

    And yet we're still in Afghanistan.

  • MrBombastic||

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
    ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

  • Ted S.||

    Francisco wants to bequeath the children a world in which they have liberty. Therefore, he cares much more about the children than the people who want to destroy liberty allegedly for the children.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "Blaming" 'society' or whatnot is and always will be the path to totalitarianism. Blaming the objectively guilty is the only way to prevent this.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Says the guy who blames al Qaeda when we kill innocent women and children civilians in Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, etc.

  • Cytotoxic||

    HAHAHAHA OH GOD I saw that coming hours ago. Little Tulpa can't think of a real argument or point to make so BOMBING BROWN BABIES. Christ you are pathetic.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I've already made my argument in response to others. Now I'm pointing out your rank hypocrisy on these matters ... something which you have no response for, apparently.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Yeah, and the courts defer to the legislative branch to pass a remedy first.

  • sloopyinca||

    Not sure about that. If they do what I said I think they'll do, somebody in a conservative federal district will get standing pretty quick and the court will take it up on an emergency basis.

    My guess: he enacts very obstructive executive orders. A district court stays the order. An appeals court reinstates them. The SC hears it in the spring.

  • sloopyinca||

    For the few of you that took Nevada in the Reason Hit & Run College Bowl Pick-Em, things are looking pretty good.

    Oh, well Arizona finally got on the board. My hope is somewhat restored.

  • sloopyinca||

    Holy shit. That stadium they're playing in looks about as big as some high school stadiums I've seen in SW Ohio.

    Pathetic.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Where are they playing?

  • sloopyinca||

    Albuquerque, NM. What a sad reward for a mediocre season: being forced to go to Albuquerque and play in front of 10k people at 11 am on a Saturday when everybody is out Xmas shopping.

  • Ted S.||

    And yet unlike some schools they get a bowl game.

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    The Buckeyes played Penn State in the Inelegibowl and won big, So shut up!

  • sloopyinca||

    Who is your team, Ted? Is it the University of The Southeastern Conference? Or is it some other team that didn't go undefeated this year?

  • RBS||

    Hahaha, U of SEC. So fans of teams not named Alabama, Auburn, Florida or LSU.

  • wareagle||

    I am an Auburn fan and can assure you no bowl game is involved.

  • RBS||

    I was referring to fans of schools not named acting like the BCS Championships belong to them.

  • Ted S.||

    I went to an Ivy League school, so I have no dog in the 1-A fight.

  • AuH2O||

    Hey, afterwords, they can look forward to grabbing a bite at Frontiers and being shot in the back by a cop!

    Maybe picking up a whore or some smack by 98th and Central.

  • AuH2O||

    Dude, I've seen that stadium. My folks live in Albuquerque.

    It is truly a pathetic shithole, and their football team SUCKS.

  • sloopyinca||

    Who plays there? Albuquerque High School? Or is there a local 1-AA school?

  • AuH2O||

    UNM Lobos.

  • EJ||

    The stadium isn't that bad. It holds maybe 48k. The Lobos had more wins with year than the last three combined! Bob Davie is the new coach this year.

  • sloopyinca||

    Arizona back in the game. Looks like DickRod has finally found a team he might be able to beat at the end of the season.

  • ||

    38-28 Nevada

  • ||

    But the most interesting part of the game is on the sidelines:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....f-zq8hEdJ8

  • sloopyinca||

    Typical DickRod team. The man is an awful manager of his players and has no concept of class or discipline.

  • GrizzlyAdam||

    Why is this article 6 pages? Reason web people, the Internet has a thing called "infinite scroll", and it's really easy to use. Stop fishing for page views and ad impressions.

  • Sarah Conner||

    Infinite scroll sucks.

  • tarran||

    My most proggie friends just unfriended me after I pointed out reflex knee-jerk reactions got us the patriot act and that turning schools into fortresses where only teachers/staff and cops were allowed would be counterproductive.

    Oh noes, where am I going to get my lolcats pictures now?

  • sloopyinca||

    You're better off.

    Serious question: why would a reasonable person use FB for anything other than as a reminder for birthdays of people you really don't care for anymore and a way to reconnect with chicks you knew in high school to see if they're still attractive?

  • RBS||

    Facebook is for me at this point is for baby pictures and looking up chicks I knew.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    As a wise man once said,

    Warty| 10.15.12 @ 9:46PM

    Anyone who uses Facebook for anything but stalking sluts is a complete moron.
  • Ted S.||

    I didn't know Warty and Tulpa were the same poster.

  • Ted S.||

    Well, there are businesses that use it as a sort of free advertising.

  • iggy||

    I know a guy who actually posted on Facebook 'How can all of you gun nuts sit around thinking it's okay for you guys to let children die just so you can have guns around your house for shits and giggles.'

    The guy's a huge drinker, so I responded 'How can you sit around thinking it's okay for kids to die from drunk drivers just so you can get a little buzz?'

    That's the thing about prohibitionists. They always want to prohibit the things YOU like to do. The things they like to do are sacrosanct.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Nice.

    On the flip side, I've been arguing with some socon asshole on a gun forum I frequent for the past hour or so about whether or not video games are what's to blame. Fucking nanny-state assholes.

  • iggy||

    That's especially terrible, because of the fact that he himself is so anti-prohibition when it comes to guns.

    Then again, all the liberals I know who argue in favor of gun control acknowledge that prohibition and the War on Drugs are miserable failures. But if we just prohibit this one last thing, I'm sure it will be different!

  • Generic Stranger||

    That's especially terrible, because of the fact that he himself is so anti-prohibition when it comes to guns.

    Yup. I and several other guys have been trying to drill that particular contradiction into his brain, but he just doesn't fucking get it. That kind of cognitive dissonance is freaking weird.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Yup. I and several other guys have been trying to drill that particular contradiction into his brain, but he just doesn't fucking get it. That kind of cognitive dissonance is freaking weird.


    A ban on violent video games is slightly more defensible than a ban on guns in one way.

    Those who would enforce a ban on violent video games would not be allowed to play them either on duty or off duty.

  • sloopyinca||

    Those who would enforce a ban on violent video games would not be allowed to play them either on duty or off duty.**

    **Except for our valiant drone pilots.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The UAV is the funnest part of BF:BC2 but I am sorely dissapointed by the lack of enemy weddings/funerals.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Operating drones is not playing a video game.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Liberals aren't against drug prohibition. They just want fought differently. Less tuffai more 'reprogramming;.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Facebook is a good way of organizing events but there are other ways of doing that now that are really much more efficient.

  • Hyperion||

    That's why I deleted my facebook account a long time ago. Facebook is a magnet for idiots.

    When some of these progressives wind up in the gulag because of the tyrannical government that they wanted so badly, they will blame it on Republicans, and cry for someone to save them. But there won't be anyone to save them, because no one will be armed, except for the oppressors.

    Progressives are nothing but the most pathetic and most ignorant in our society, and they really do deserve such an end as I desrible in the previous paragraph. The problem is, the rest of us will go down with them.

  • sloopyinca||

    "From my cold dead fingers"

    /me, and I hope you

  • Hyperion||

    Count me in

  • Cytotoxic||

    Me too. Well I have to get one first.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    A finger? I can give you one of those.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yoink. Thanks, I guess.

  • ||

    Careful Cyto. Tulpa has an unusual preoccupation with DRE's.

  • ||

    When some of these progressives wind up in the gulag because of the tyrannical government that they wanted so badly, they will blame it on Republicans, and cry for someone to save them.

    The OWS morons have already been pulling this stunt.

  • Brutus||

    Best OWS pic I saw was one of a line of OWS idiots clashing with a line of riot-clad cops. Caption on the OWSers: "Demanding more government" Caption on the cops: "More government"

  • Hopfiend||

    A guy in my FB feed who is otherwise a reasonable individual actually argued for a strict federal ban on illegal weapons.

    That'll workout well.

  • sloopyinca||

    He wants a federal ban on illegal weapons?

    Tell him that two negatives make a positive and that would actually make them legal. See if smoke starts coming out of his ears.

  • ||

    Jeez, Google News search NRA and you'll see that the left is even more paranoid about them they are about the Kochtopus. Salon called them a "lobby for criminals" and their commentators were all pretty much unanimous that "gun nuts" are responsible for violence in the country.

  • sloopyinca||

    Ask them if "gun nuts" are responsible for the violence in Mexico, where guns are largely illegal.

  • Michael Ejercito||



    Ask them if "gun nuts" are responsible for the violence in Mexico, where guns are largely illegal.


    Better yet, ask them if gun nuts are responsible for the shooting death of Kenneth Chamberlain, or the massacre at Panjwai, Kandahar, Afghanistan.

    I suspect they tolerate some gun nuts.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Are you kidding? Gun nuts are responsible for making it easy for cartels to smuggle guns across the border to defeat Mexico's sane gun laws. And fried chicken too.

  • JW||

    Ask them who they voted for president.

    Seriously, I know that sound like a broken record on this, but hypocrisy and cognitive disconnect on the left is bugging the shit out of me.

  • Hyperion||

    But outside of a few fringe and totally wacked sites like Salon of Huffpo, the comments everywhere are, I would estimate about 70-80% pro 2nd amendment.

    There is not enough support for strict gun control in this country to pass anything in congress. No way congress even touches this. The big O is on his own here and there is going to be real trouble if he tries denying citizens their 2nd amendment rights.

    My response to the progs, fuck no, no more gun control, period. Go back to your whining for more free shit or just STFU.

  • ||

    Let's not forget Slate:

    There are so many millions of people in this country that are irresponsible in things like taking care of the children they have or pets they have among other things. Just take a trip to your local animal shelter or animal rescue group and see how swamped they are with animals because of irresponsible owners. You think these same people can be responsible for owning a gun, dream on.

    All of this irresponsibility is why this country is in dire need of more rules, regulations and laws and the strict enforcement of them. We have reached the tipping point of needing to be protected from ourselves.

  • iggy||

    Why did we not need to be protected from ourselves in the 1950s? Why was the murder rate lower with less strict gun control?

    It's almost like we've become less capable as human beings since the state started babying us.

  • RBS||

    "It's almost like we've become less capable as human beings since the state started babying us."

    I think that's the point.

  • Hyperion||

    I was talking to someone the other day and taxation was brought up. I can't remember exactly how that came up. The guy is very intelligent but also very brainwashed by liberal academia.

    He told me that a study shows that the countries who pay the highest taxes are the happiest because everyone is taken care of.

    I asked him if he thinks all adults need other adults to take care of them and if he doesn't think that able adults shold be taking care of themselves, and if he doesn't think that Europes financial crisis might be a result of too many people thinking that they need to be taken care of cradle to grave.

    No answer, just a curious kind of stare for a moment, and subject changed.

    People like this believe what they want to believe, it is often if not almost always fanciful and having no basis in reality. And no amount of logic or facts are going to convince them otherwise. They are like a brainwashed cult and everything government is their salvation.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep.

    It's really pathetic.

  • AZ||

    It's the never-ending proggie feedback loop.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I seriously hope they stop having children. Liberals tend to have fewer or no kids. It's the only way.

  • SIV||

    If they were only content with practicing "voluntary"-eugenics.

  • Raven Nation||

    I'm NOT making excuses for this (or any other) shooter. I agree with all the comments above. But I wonder of the 24/7 news coverage of these events doesn't push some people. It's, like, free promotion for nut jobs.

    Oh, and the other thing that pisses me off is calling this a "tragedy." A tragedy is when you're walking through the park and you get struck by lightning. This is a mass murder, a crime.

  • iggy||

    I think your post about the use of 'tragedy' when it's a murder also exemplifies one of the things that bothers me about that Slate article.

    "There are so many millions of people in this country that are irresponsible in things like taking care of the children they have or pets they have among other things...All of this irresponsibility is why this country is in dire need of more rules, regulations and laws and the strict enforcement of them."

    He uses the word irresponsibility, as if the shooting were some kind of accident. He did not shoot 26 people out of irresponsibility.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    They're not mutually exclusive. Are you saying 9/11 wasn't a tragedy?

  • sloopyinca||

    I've never once referred to 9/11 as a "tragedy." It's always been a terrorist attack in my book.

  • Raven Nation||

    @ Tulpa. I understand your point, and to an extent agree with you. But, language can be important particularly in what kind of response it elicits. A tragedy of a 30 year old mother-of-two dying from cancer is not the same as a tragedy of a school shooting. For those close to the victims, it is the same thing obviously but for everyone else, I'm not so sure.

    I think part of it, is that emphasizing tragedy implies a random event for which no one was responsible. And, no, I'm not suggesting we control speech or anything, just making the point.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Tragedy is a drama, usually based on human folly or evil.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yes, we need the solons in Congress to prescribe our way of life.

  • Hyperion||

    I know people like this. The problem with them, when you dig a little deeper, is that they don't want these rules for themselves, they want them for those other other people, the irresponsible ones, because unlike the other people, they are special and enlightened, so this oppression and control they prescribe won't affect them, only the unenlightened masses.

    This is how proglodytes really think, their level of naivete is stunning.

  • ||

    We have reached the tipping point of needing to be protected from ourselves.

    There's that fucking "we" again.

  • XM||

    I love how the left bends their obtuse "don't paint everyone with a broad stroke / don't generalize" rule when it suits them.

    If I said these irresponsible pet owners must have also abandoned their kids and lived on welfare, well, they would call me a racist. Or something.

    The freaks on the left would howl in protest if Socons used occasions like this to promote or "impose" family values, even though all of these shooters were loners growing distant from their families. Kelly Thomas was homeless guy whose parents gave up on him. But owning guns, that's just straight up irresponsible.

  • ||

    Statists have only one real principle: say whatever is necessary to give more power to the state.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I kind of hope Obama picks a fight on gun control and blows a bunch of political capital on it and fails. All the better for the debt ceiling fight.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    pretty much unanimous that "gun nuts" are responsible for violence in the country.

    Since violence has been decreasing for over a decade, isn't that a sign that the gun nuts are getting better?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    When you're a collectivist, you can't help but see people as some part of collective.

    This guy used a gun to kill innocent children. I use one to kill deer. We're all the same.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    If anything, you're worse, because the POOR DEFENSELESS ANIMALSESES CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES!

  • Calion||

    "That's because too many people understand what mourning entails"? What's that supposed to mean?

  • Raven Nation||

    Yeah, I saw that. Assuming it was some kind of typo e.g. "not too many people understand."

  • RBS||

    One of the worst responses I've heard is people comparing Sandy Hook to the stabbing thing in China yesterday. Apparently if the Gun Industry wasn't so powerful in this country then the children would have only been maimed by a knife wielding madman. Of course this fails to take into consideration the motivation behind each person's decision to go crazy.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yes. If only we made it illegal for anyone except government agents and soldiers to have guns, we could be like the PRC.

  • RBS||

    "we could be like the PRC."

    You might be on to something...

  • Michael Ejercito||



    Yes. If only we made it illegal for anyone except government agents and soldiers to have guns, we could be like the PRC.


    The Panjwai massacre must have been a hoax.

    No way a soldier would massacre kids. Soldiers would never do that.

  • Xenocles||

    The kids were just being liberated. It's right there in the name.

  • Hyperion||

    Look RBS, you apparently need a history lesson. No people were ever killed before guns were invented, let alone mass slaughters, and... oh wait...

  • RBS||

    I know right? That's another thing the irritates me. So many people lack any sort of historical perspective.

  • Hyperion||

    Progs have their own history that they made up, to go along with the rest of their reality that they make up.

  • SAL||

    Also,I've been repeatedly "scolded" by several people for suggesting responsibility lies with the killer rather than our lack of mental health funding and too strict civil commitment procedures. I can't recall seeing so much sympathy for a profoundly malevolent individual before. Acknowledging the existence of evil is now somewhere between politically incorrect and socially irresponsible.

    while I completely agree that the blame ultimately lies with the murderer (as anyone that believes in free will has to), I think it's a legitimate question to ask why that kind of seemingly randomic mass murder of innocents happens much more often in the U.S. than in other places. I live in Brazil, one of the most violent countries in the world, where people are also allowed to own firearms (at home); strangely, the rate of registered firearms is about 10 times lower than America's (why don't people try to defend themselves?), the number of unregistered firearms on the hands of criminals is huge, yet the number of those apparently randomic rampage killings seems to be much lower (Brazil's population is about 2/3 of America's).

  • sloopyinca||

    Maybe it's because we live in a society where people are taught they are not responsible for their own actions, and that detachment lends to the creation of nutjobs whose "griefer" mindset (erroneously) tells them that since society has failed or wronged them in some great way, that maybe its time to pay society back.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Apparently armchair psychological speculation isn't just for the left anymore.

  • sloopyinca||

    What's that supposed to mean? Of course it's armchair psychological speculation.

    What? Am I not allowed to try and make sense of this? Should I just accept whatever story the talking head psychologists on the TV networks give me?

    What the fuck, dude?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    No, you should be a skeptic. Especially when it comes to things that you want to believe.

  • sloopyinca||

    I am a skeptic, moron. That's why I developed my own theory for why these things happen as opposed to swallowing the story I'm fed by the talking heads on either side of the issue.

  • RBS||

    Oh good, this thread is about to get Tulpafied.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    But why is your own theory immune to skepticism?

  • sloopyinca||

    It's not. But I'm not the one giving people shit for conjecturing on what happened. You've apparently chosen to accept that duty today.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If not me, who.

    If not now, when.

  • ||

    No one. We don't need your pointless whining about speculation as if you have any idea what you're talking about.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Okay Tulpa, make a point. Go right ahead.

  • SAL||

    well, it seems to me that Brazilians are much worse in that regard, victim syndrome is a national sport.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It is odd that flopping is considered perfectly sportsmanlike in most of the world these days, with North America being a notable exception.

  • sloopyinca||

  • Auric Demonocles||

    They have started fining that...

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Flopping happens in American sports but it's condemned. Notice "worst" in the video title.

    In Europe and South America, soccer floppers (and cheaters -- see "Hand of God goal") are praised.

  • Timon 19||

    In Europe and South America, "your" flopper is just engaging in gamesmanship, but "their" flopper is evil incarnate. Except maybe Portugal. Take a stroll around YouTube. You're going to find compilations everywhere highlighting "awful" dives.

    This is pretty much just like North America.

    And almost everyone except for Argies of a certain age condemns the shit out of Maradona SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of that goal.

    In other words, Tulpy-poo, you're full of shit.

  • sloopyinca||

    Engaging Tulpa in a sports conversation is like talking to Terry Schiavo about bicycle racing.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Seriously Timon? Does flopping occur at equal rates in FIFA vs. MSL soccer?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    MLS, I mean.

  • sloopyinca||

    The MLS is a member league of FIFA.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Sorry, I guess I meant European/South American soccer leagues. I'm a bit fuzzy as I'm not a soccer person and am not used to sports leagues having pretentions of world dominance.

  • sloopyinca||

    So basically you make a claim about soccer leagues and the perceptions of diving in them and then proceed to tell us you're not a soccer person and don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

    If only this formula were followed more often.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I don't know the details of the organizational structure. I have watched enough soccer (mostly unwillingly) and been exposed to a lot of soccer talk (again unwillingly) to notice the difference in the leagues.

  • Mickey Rat||

    So you don't pay attention to the NFL, NBA, or MLB?

  • Timon 19||

    There are degrees of diving in different leagues across the world. There is PLENTY of diving in MLS. Maybe not as much in a whole week of games as a typical single match involving Christiano Ronaldo, but it's there.

    Clint Dempsey, the current best player in the US National Team pool, the BPL's fourth leading scorer last year, current Tottenham player and general tough-as-fuck badass ALSO dives quite a bit, probably more than any US National Team player ever.

    On the other hand, Michael Bradley, probably the best midfielder in the pool who has played most of his recent career in Serie A (the Italian National Diving League) NEVER dives ever, despite being surrounded by a slew of bad influences.

    Dempsey, the bigger diver, started his career in MLS. Bradley never touched MLS and has spent all his professional career in Europe. No diving.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'll take a random "mass shooting" once a year over a bunch of small shootings every day.

  • iggy||

    Agree with Tulpa. Russia has very few 'mass' shootings, yet their murder rate is 3 times what ours is. America has a lot of high profile shootings, but realistically we aren't as violent as people are led to believe.

  • SAL||

    are you saying they're necessarily linked? A country can't have a low murder rate and a low number of randomic mass shootings?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's possible, but it's not true of Brazil or Russia or the US (or Norway).

  • SAL||

    well I suppose that Germany and Japan both have significantly lower rates of murder and of mass shootings than the U.S.

  • sloopyinca||

    Maybe in the last 70 years, but we're still playing catch-up to those two.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    It's cultural.

  • SAL||

    sure, but what element of American culture leads to such a higher number of mass shootings?

  • Hyperion||

    Stress and a government that continues to meddle more and more in peoples lives every day.

    We have so many laws here that no one knows that they all are or that half of them even exist. Every day you are very likely doing something illegal, since everything is illegal.

  • Cytotoxic||

    That's a bit of a stretch.

  • iggy||

    Yeah, I'm sure America is the only country with an intrusive government.

    This is the problem with speculation. People speculate about the motives of a shooter based on whatever it is that annoys them personally. I hate government as much as anyone, but I seriously doubt the guy was overwhelmed by regulations and decided to take out a room of school children.

  • SAL||

    fair enough, sociological speculation isn't hard science, but making out (some) reasons why America has much higher levels of mass shootings than other countries is the first step to address the problem (and I don't mean the government here). Unless you think there's no problem in the first place.

  • iggy||

    We certainly have strangely high levels of mass shootings. However, no one will ever be able to figure out why since any discussion about it inexorably ends with the speaker deciding that the shooter was driven to kill by whatever it is that the speaker coincidentally also happens to hate.

    We don't like government, so people here speculate that it was too much government in some way. People who don't like guns blame guns. People who don't like video games speculate that the kid would have been a Rhodes Scholar had Mass Effect not gotten its grubby paws on him.

    When people start trying to figure out what caused someone to shoot, you end up learning a hell of a lot about the speculator, but very little about the shooter. That's the problem I have with the whole thing. It's self-obsession masquerading as a policy discussion.

  • Hopfiend||

    Saw a "great" story quoting a "school security expert" bemoaning the elimination of Fed school security funding (read, a rent seeker with dollar signs in his eyes after yesterday).

    He has it all figured out and will tell you for about 7 figures.

  • Hyperion||

    My wife and I have a condo in Recife and we go there often.

    Talking to one gun owner that I know there, it is very difficult for anyone to obtain a gun legally and nearly impossible to conceal carry. As I understand it, they have some of the strictest gun control laws on the planet. Apparently, it doesn't work since you have people riding around on scooters hijcaking cars, and 7 year olds robbing defenseless shop owners. This is at least true in the NE, and I assume it's the same everywhere.

    When criminals know that no non-criminals have guns, crime is going to soar. If it is easy to get a gun in Brazil to defend yourself, then I suggest that you folks start arming and defending yourself from all of the crime. The crime rate will plummet.

    I would say that you are not seeing these particular type of crimes in Brazil where people just go bezerk and just start shooting randomly into crowds, is because people there are generally much happier and stress free. People are very stressed here and they just crack sometimes, IMHO.

    Crime aside, I love Brazil and I feel much freer there than I do here.

  • SAL||

    I'm from Sao Paulo (and I live here), I don't actually know the procedures to get a gun, but I'm certain it must be a long and bureaucratic process; I didn't even know conceal carry was sometimes allowed. Brazilian's apparently prefer a defensive approach (walls, electric fences, bullet-proof cars if you're rich) and I was quite amazed a few years ago when the majority rejected a ban on firearms in referendum. I completely agree that if law-abiding owned more guns, crime would go down.

    However I'm not sure that people are happier and more stress free in Sao Paulo than in Newtown, Connecticut, for example. I've been to the U.S. (California) once and I felt exactly the same as you do in Recife - then again I was doing tourism, so I suppose it isn't a fair comparison.

  • SAL||

    *law-abiding citizens

  • Hyperion||

    My daughter-in-law lives in Sao Paulo. I have never been there. I've been to Brasilia, Salvador, and Rio, and in a lot of places in Bahia and Pernambuco.

    To me, people seem happier there. I am talking Recife of course, not having spent any serious time anywhere else in the country. The people I know there work hard, but they also work hard to enjoy themselves in their free time and they just do not seem to be stressed and always worrying the way folks do here. They just seem like they would score way higher on the happiness index than we would here in the USA.

    Maybe it's just the culture, the importance of strong family ties, the climate, I dunno, but it's something...

  • SAL||

    It's true that Brazilians consistently score higher on happiness indices despite everything. But life in Sao Paulo isn't for the faint of heart, I can tell you that!

  • Hyperion||

    I wouldn't live there, because it's just to big and congested. Like NYC, no way, it's not for me.

  • sloopyinca||

    Is Basque popular down there? I live in the Central Valley of California, and I always wondered how the Portuguese immigrants to here got so heavily identified with Basque cuisine here since the Basque people aren't Portuguese. Curious if they transported it to Brasil as well.

  • SAL||

    I don't think so; personally I've never tried Basque cuisine in my life. Although Sao Paulo is so big that probably you can find it somewhere.

  • SAL||

    In fact Sao Paulo had massive immigration of Italians, so I guess it's the most popular cuisine after the Brazilian one. Japanese also came in high numbers and their cuisine is pretty popular too.

  • sloopyinca||

    Basque food is bizarre. Banjos and I have concluded that a Basque restaurant tells every employee to bring something in that day and they just serve it to the customers one item at a time until they say to stop.

    Last time we went, we got (in this order and one at a time):
    Cabbage soup
    Olives and cheese
    French Fries
    Pickled beef tongue
    Mixed veggies
    Mussels
    Yellow rice and red beans
    Veal
    Chocolate creme pie
    Sorbet

  • SAL||

    well now that you described it I see some similarities; the typical daily Brazilian dish is white rice, red beans, meat/chicken and some vegetables/salad. French Fries are pretty common too. And Brazilians usually don't mind mixing disparate things, so much so that most people have lunch in self-service restaurants where you pay by weight. Basically people mix everything they like, from rice to pasta to French Fries.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    I read that the shooter had to defeat the school's new security system to get inside. The big objection to a proliferation of firearms that I always hear is that it is too easy for some nut (or a person who snaps) to pick up a gun and start shooting people. But the Newtown massacre was anything but easy. I think the type of gun control aimed at stopping spur of the moment crimes of passion would do little, if anything, to prevent another tragedy like yesterday's.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I think the type of gun control aimed at stopping spur of the moment crimes of passion would do little, if anything, to prevent another tragedy like yesterday's.

    Of course it would do little to nothing. But stopping tragedies like yesterday's isn't the point. That's just the excuse to get the Gun Control™ train rolling again at full steam.

  • sloopyinca||

    ^^This^^

    Lone crazy fucks like Adam Lanza don't scare the gun control crowd nearly as much as a determined opponent to a corrupt, thieving government do.

    They want gun control because of people like you and me, not because of people like the shooter.

  • Hyperion||

    I think they want gun control because it is an absolute necessity in acheiving their perfect utopian society. To acheive their goals, all of their ideaology has to be forced onto everyone, and most people won't accept their insanity willingly.

    There could be a rebellion if they keep pushing it. And I believe we are getting close to a breaking point.

    Without guns, no rebellion is possible.

    This is not about protecting the chilren. It never is, it's about control.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    No rebellion is possible as it is, without mass defections from the military that bring their equipment with them (which would render the civilians' possession of arms insignificant).

    Otherwise it's a bunch of random guys running around with AR-15s (at best) vs the US armed forces. Good luck with that.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Oh come on. Occam's razor says that they're just lazy thinkers whose response to scary or unfamiliar things is to ban them.

  • sloopyinca||

    Occam's Razor says that a very well-organized movement that regularly disseminates propaganda, utilizes fear-mongering and intimidation to accomplish a goal is full of "lazy thinkers"?

    Jeez, Tulpa. I never thought you were the type that could be so easily fooled.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The "gun control crowd" doesn't fit that at all. It's supremely disorganized and ineffective.

    If you're talking about NYPD or ATF, that's closer to the truth (though I still think lazy thinking is the root cause of their animosity -- doggedness does not require clear thinking).

  • mad libertarian guy||

    They won't remember his name once the media blitz dies, nor how many were killed. Ask any of them about the CO theater shootings and you will see that. The only one they remember is Loughner, and that's because he was initially tied with the TP and the fact that it was a member of Team BLUE who was shot, that they MUST remember his name.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I suppose you can name all the ATF supervisors involved in Fast + Furious? Otherwise, by your logic, that means you are not really sincere in your outrage about it, but had some shady ulterior motive.

  • sloopyinca||

    Well, we can only name a few since the names of the several have been buried by the administration through transfers and/or terminations.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Such as? And no fair googling.

  • sloopyinca||

    David Voth and Ken Melton are the two names I can recall most clearly. And both were immediately moved and made unavailable for Congressional hearings. Of course, Holder ordered the program and was always in the know, but the rest of the names are hidden behind the wall of Executive Privilege.

  • sloopyinca||

    I just googled it: It was Melson, not Melton.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That "security system" sounds like a joke. You have to ring the doorbell to get buzzed in, and then you are "required" to immediately report to the main office. The buzzing part is probably easy to circumvent -- just claim to be a parent or relative of a kid there who needs to talk to someone in the office.

    Unless they have some physical barrier separating the entrance and main office from the rest of the school, the requirement to report is meaningless in a case like this.

  • XM||

    I worked as a English tutor / teacher for a few years. In most cases, you can't enter the school premises unless you go through the front office, every the school is locked down (to escape student escape)

    At one school I had to sign my name and time on the visitor's log every day even though I was hired by the district to tutor Asian kids. I had to wear a photo ID badge. On my first day an employee escorted me to the classroom. Pretty much the same deal in every school I taught at.

    It astounds me that the guy (apparently) was buzzed in and just walked into a room of his choice. No aides, playground monitors, or other personnel saw a 20 year old carrying a big bag (I'm guessing he concealed his weapons) wandering around campus? I guess there is ONE benefit to LAUSD schools. Cop cars and big iron gates everywhere there.

  • sloopyinca||

    The current narrative says he busted the glass and entered the office area, so he wasn't buzzed in. And open campuses give greater opportunity for security than school "buildings". I'm pretty sure this was a building-type of school.

  • ||

    Nevada just broke the record for most first downs in a bowl game.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    While I was getting my haircut it was still the first half. It looked like the game was going to be all offense all around.

  • sloopyinca||

    It still might. DickRod may get his guys to make a game of it yet. They were down 21-0 8 minutes into the game and tied it up by the end of the 1st quarter.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm wrong. It was mid 2nd quarter when they tied it up.*

    *That was to preempt Tulpa from looking it up just to argue with me.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Looks like I'm having a good effect.

  • AuH2O||

    Your main effect is to stink up the place with your stinky cunt, Tulpa.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "We all know taking everybody's guns away won't really fix anything, but that's no reason not to give it a try."

  • ||

    45-28 Nevada

    Arizona D shits the bed

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It is interesting to see some leftists complaining that the gun industry is preventing us from having our "discussion" on gun control, when the gun control discussers are the best gun salesmen in the universe. If Ruger didn't dump a million or so into pro-Obama PACs they're crazy.

    Between the holiday shoppers and the gun ban anticipators, I wouldn't be surprised if the line at our local Gander Mountain stretches around the block.

  • Harvard||

    Can only speak for myself, as I made my shopping list after hearing the weepy eyed prez promise "action".
    Current order is 6 lbs of various powders, 500 bullets in various calibres and 2k primers.
    Be quick, Midway shows most primers "out of stock" as does Graf. Shop early and try to get your powders and primers from the same supplier so you pay the "haz-mat charge" vig to the government only once.

  • AuH2O||

    Roger Goodell is furiously masturbating to the Arizona-Nevada game. Its exactly what he'd like to see the NFL become in 10 years.

  • sloopyinca||

    Roger Goodell is furiously masturbating to the Arizona-Nevada game. Its exactly what he'd like to see the NFL become in 10 years days.

    FIFY!

  • AuH2O||

    Fixing it for me is just another example of your patriarchal, Ohioan ways, sloop!

    YOU HAVE A DAUGHTER NOW, MAN, DAMN IT!

  • AuH2O||

    To rub it in:

    A DAUGHTER WHO MAY ONE DAY SAY, "DAD, I LOVE OHIO STATE, BUT MICHIGAN HAS A MUCH BETTER MEDICAL SCHOOL SO I WANT TO GO THERE!"

  • Auric Demonocles||

    "ALSO, I MET THIS HUNKY OLDER COP FROM WASHINGTON STATE AND WE'RE HAVING A BABY!"

  • sloopyinca||

    I don't know which one of you two assholes I hate worse now.

  • AuH2O||

    "AND LOOK WHAT I BROUGHT HOME FOR YOU FROM SCHOOL! MY FRIEND CHAD TAUGHT ME TO MAKE IT! IT'S CALLED ARTISANAL MAYONNAISE AND ITS DELICIOUS!"

  • sloopyinca||

    OK, I'm actually fine with that, although I already taught her how to make mayonnaise.

    And for effect, the guy's name should have been Hunter or Josh.

  • Hopfiend||

    This shit is funny. Until my daughter is HS age. And then I will not be laughing.

  • sloopyinca||

    What a fucked up, but funny, commercial on the football game. Dude pushes an old lady with a walker coming out of a burning building to grab a hoodie.

    WTF is Gildan thinking?

  • RBS||

    Was that dude played by Jason Alexander?

  • AuH2O||

    "Now let that young adult male money pour in! Cha-ching, Bowl Game Bitches!"

  • sticks||

    I think this the worst reaction I've seen.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/ph.....rgartners/

  • sloopyinca||

    At least the overwhelming majority of commentators give him the shit he deserves.

  • sticks||

    That did raise my spirit a little.

  • iggy||

    When the War on Drugs ends, I really hope a nutjob right winger writes an article about a teenager overdosing that says 'LEFTWINGERS GET WHAT THEY WANT! OVERDOSING TEENAGERS!'

    At least then leftists would get their own garbage thrown back at them.

  • RBS||

    That's definitely up there with most disgusting/over the top.

  • sloopyinca||

    Fuck. I'm about to start the Reason Hit & Run College Bowl Pick-Em 0-1. Fortunately, so are most of you.

  • AuH2O||

    And I realize that I continue to have too much self-respect to even force myself to care about the Beef O' Brady Bowl.

    BTW, I would like to thank the bowls for making the perfect case for the playoffs and the meaninglessness of the regular season.

  • A Mathematician||

    To read this article as a single page, click here.

    Fucking finally

  • sloopyinca||

    The Fighting DickRods score! Now all they need to do is convert the 4th and 15 onside kick and score again to win!

    (See how stupid that would look if the NFL goes down that road? No thanks!)

  • RBS||

    When the NFL eliminates kickoffs how will there be onside kicks?

  • sloopyinca||

    Some people have proposed replacing the kickoff with a 4th and 15 from the 35 yard line. That will cause most teams to punt, but they can go for it if they want (so they will have a chance like an onside kick).

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Which is a stupid proposal because the odds of gaining 15 yards on a normal play from scrimmage are much better than recovering an onside kick.

  • sloopyinca||

    True, but it's about "player safety," not fairness.

    Of course, waivers would make the entire thing go away. The NFL is just playing CYA to cut down on future lawsuits.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The proposal that was floated would give the team that had just scored the ball on a 4th and 15. So they would just have to gain 15 yards to retain the ball rather than onside kicking.

  • AuH2O||

    Holy shit, Nevada could fuck the pooch on this.

  • AuH2O||

    And it looks like they will!

  • sloopyinca||

    The DickRods are down to the 3! hahahahahahahahaha.

  • sloopyinca||

    Touchdown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    This is hilarious. Fuck you chumps that took Nevada.

  • sloopyinca||

    Chumps:
    Manbot
    Raven Nation
    Whiterun Guards
    Phrygians Mushroom Caps

  • Raven Nation||

    WTF? That may be the most incompetent ending to a football game since Leon Lett. Damn it! I had a upset over most of the pool.

  • sloopyinca||

    ^^Chump^^

    You didn't see that coming? I was never worried.

  • Raven Nation||

    Umm, no of course you weren't (avoids looking at earlier posts by sloopy). And, one call doesn't make a game but that pass interference on the 2nd last drive was "interesting."

  • sloopyinca||

    Oh, you saw those? Well, uh, I was just kidding. Yeah, that's the ticket. It was all just a joke.

    And yes, that PI call was a surprise. The receiver was just jogging and made no play at getting through the defender to the ball. Calling a moving pick would have been more appropriate, but this isn't basketball.

  • AuH2O||

    And Nevada burned their timeout trying to block an extra point

  • sloopyinca||

    And the crowd of 10,000 fans goes wild!

  • Raven Nation||

    Of course, the only reason I even cared about this game was the pool. So thanks, I think.

  • AuH2O||

    Welp, time for me to go see The Hobbit. If the NFL ever starts looking like this shit, I'm quitting it and choosing a Rugby Team (non-International). Any suggestions/league to follow suggestions?

  • sloopyinca||

    Natal Sharks.

    Don't even think about it. Just jump on board and be done with it.

  • sloopyinca||

  • Auric Demonocles||

    It was nice of you to include one for John.

  • sloopyinca||

    Oh snap, that's pretty funn......hey, wait a minute. I'm still mad at you for your dunphy comment earlier.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Who said it was dunphy? Maybe I'm planning on moving to Washington in 18 years.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    And change jobs...

  • sloopyinca||

    Oh, well in that case...FUCK YOU, FUTURE PIG!

    I keed! I keed!

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Don't you want more libertarians in the family, continuing on the great tradition of being united via HnR?

  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah, sure. But I'd rather find a libertarian girl for my son. I want my daughter to join a convent...like every father.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Why must you stand in the way of the great libertarian selective breeding program?

  • sloopyinca||

    Because I don't want anybody sticking their dick in any of my kids!

  • Cytotoxic||

    Just stop watching sports.

  • Raven Nation||

    As for leagues, follow Super Rugby: NZ, Australia, Sth. Africa regional sides. That's the league the Sharks play in. Much better than those pussies in Europe.

  • AuH2O||

    What Pro 12 team should I go for?

  • sloopyinca||

    Does anybody here raise ducks? I have an OT question if so.

    We have a female that is laying eggs daily, but she's just getting raped almost non-stop from several of our males. There's one that tries to protect her, like he's her pimp, but he isn't always good with his pimp hand. It's gotten so bad that her feathers on the back of her head and on her back are wearing thin. She looks traumatized.

    Any ideas for a solution? I'm thinking of thinning our flock by a few birds.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Your story made my day. It should be archived. Sorry can't help you.

  • Xenocles||

    If I lived nearby I'd totally be in the market for a slaughtered and prepared one.

    We are moving to Monterey next year - what's the yield on duck eggs and the maintenance required relative to hens?

  • sloopyinca||

    Depends on the breed. You can get Khaki Campbells, Muscovies or White Layers and get an egg a day for much of the year. Pekings and Indian Runners will typically produce less. And the eggs are big and have much richer yolks.

    As far as keeping them, it depends on what type you keep. We have a mix of Mallards, Rouens and Muscovies. Compared to our hens, they require about the same amount of time but in different ways. With the ducks, it's less about the house and food and more about keeping water fresh and available at all times. They're great foragers and will sleep outside most of the time. But since it's so hot here in the summer, monitoring the watering troughs is pretty important. Just get 250 gal waterers and floats and you're fine. But, they love to get in the chicken coop and swim in their water too, and that causes it to get all muddy.

    They're all good to have together, as we have around 30 chickens, 25 ducks and 3 Guineas. And a hen is going broody, so we should have aquite a few more chickens in the spring.

    I think we'll also be adding some Partridges and Pheasant to our flock this spring in addition to about 20 (mostly wild breed) turkeys. So if any of you CA reasonoids want a specific breed of turkey for Thanksgiving, let us know and we'll raise it for you.

  • ||

    Damn, Sloopy, you have my utmost respect for raising turkeys. Those bastards crap like nothing else on earth.

  • Xenocles||

    Thanks. We'd just be going for a backyard setup, so I'm not sure how feasible even the hen would be. It sounds like you have a fair amount of space.

  • sloopyinca||

    If that's the case, get some Leghorns (if you want the eggs) and Cornish Crosses (if you want the meat. The Leghorns will give you an egg a day and only need an average of 10 SF per bird. And clip their wings or else they'll roost up in the trees and that can piss off nosy assholes who will likely call Code Enforcement. The Cornish crosses you don't need to clip their wings as they'll be too fat to fly within a few weeks and will way upwards of 10 lbs in just 3 months. They are awesome meat birds but are lazy and dumb as fuck.

    My advice: get three hens, which is enough for an omelet every morning. They will require little space and you can build a coop that takes up less than 10 SF.

  • Xenocles||

    Cool, thanks. We might want to take you up on that turkey offer - where are you at?

  • sloopyinca||

    20 minutes east of Visalia. And we'd be more than happy to.

  • sloopyinca||

    Find a bird you like and pick it out. We're going to be ordering them in the early spring and they'll be ready for Thanksgiving.

    I'll probably order a nice mix, but I want to eat a Black Spanish or Blue Slate sometime because I want to eat something "rare" or endangered.

  • Xenocles||

    Sent you an email.

  • ||

    Sounds like it's time for a drake roast!

  • An0nB0t||

    Hate to start with a stupid question, but what's your hen/drake ratio? If you've got five males and one female, it's time to sharpen your hatchet or put an ad up on Craigslist.

  • sloopyinca||

    I think it's pretty high. Maybe 3/1. I'm afraid you're right.*

    *Actually, I'm looking forward to eating some tasty duck meat. It's not me that was resisting the slaughter because "they're all so cute".

  • SIV||

    I used to keep mallard ducks If you get more drakes than hens one of 'em is going to be takin' it up the cloaca.

  • sloopyinca||

    "the cloaca"

    I would keep referring to it as "the business hole" and Kara and my older kids would tell me there were terms for it. Once they looked it up and realized everything they do is done out the one business hole, they let me continue calling it that.

  • ||

    "the cloaca"

    The correct term is "assgina", of course. -)))

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    NTTAWTT

  • Banjos||

    You can slaughter any animal I have not named.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You should have another auction to name the ducks.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Just tell the male ducks that they alone are to blame for their rapes, not duck society. I've heard that works at preventing atrocities.

  • sloopyinca||

    In the drakes' defense, the hens do tend to strut around and shake their tail feathers quite a bit.

  • Xenocles||

    I've read that pretty much all duck sex is rape. I don't even think it was a duck feminist writing that - apparently the female defense is a labyrinthine reproductive tract and the males counter with a highly articulated and almost prehensile penis.

  • SIV||

    Ducks have a much richer and robust rape culture than do us poor bipedal primates.

  • ||

    They have nothing on the "noble" dolphin. Such randy creatures!

    Also of note...

    Here's something you probably don't know about Flipper: he has retractable penis. And if that's not cool enough, here's something else: his penis is prehensile. And it swivels. In fact, a male dolphin can use his penis to explore objects just like a hand.

    Male dolphins also have a very strong sex drive. It can mate many, many times in a day. Now here's the bad news: male dolphins aren't that much of a stud. The average time to ejaculation? 12 seconds.

    Another hushed-up fact is that male dolphins have a ravenous sexual appetite: they often try to hump inanimate objects and even other animals like sea turtles. When a pack of male dolphins happen upon a female, often times they will attempt to force her to mate.They have nothing on the "noble" dolphin...

    Be gland you aren't a honeybee, SIV...

  • General Butt Naked||

    If it's legitimate rape, the duck's body has ways of shutting that down. I'm a doctor.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And of course sloopy refuses to provide birth control for his ducks, because he's a backwards, patriarchical pro-egger.

  • American||

    Shut up sloopy.

  • sloopyinca||

    I've got it! I have a solution to the entire mess.

    Hire half of the public to monitor the other half. Each person has their own monitor. That monitor, as a government LEO, has the ability to electroshock their charge when they do something wrong. If they speed, they can send a mild shock until they slow down. If they are robbing someone, they can be incapacitated until their mark gets away and police show up. If they go nutso like this guy, they can be stopped before they hit school grounds.

    Also, put GPS trackers in every gun (we did it with F&F). If a gun enters a "gun-free zone," that zone goes on lockdown and a sleeping gas and sonic alarm is emitted to incapacitate everyone in the zone until the authorities arrive and search everyone.

    The way I see it, it'll cost just a little less than the stimulus and HSR projects combined. And it'll solve unemployment!

  • ||

    Perfect! Do I get to monitor any of my exes?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Actually, something similar to this has been done in certain prison-like environments before. You pair up the inmates (preferably with someone they don't know from before) and whenever one of them breaks a rule, in addition to the rulebreaker being punished, their partner also gets punished.

  • sloopyinca||

    I bet you're a big Rutger Hauer fan.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Are you comparing marriage to prison? Damn! You better hope you know who doesn't see this or you'll be sleeping with the mallards tonight. (don't drop the soap in the duck pond)

  • sloopyinca||

    They're not married in that movie. It's a unisex prison, you stupid twat.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Not knowing the plot of an awful movie makes me a stupid twat? Look in the mirror and behold a vulva.

  • sloopyinca||

    Lighten up, Francis.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You're supposed to give me a Snickers bar, and then I transform from Gilbert Gottfried to the lovable Tulpa you all know and love.

    Except you're not because I am lovable. And capable. the way I am.

  • Xenocles||

    You're so popular around here I think many would offer your a Snickers on the hopes that you're allergic to peanuts.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You'd be surprised how many complimentary emails I get from commenters who are very contentious with me on the blog. I'm not here to make friends or sell NikeSneakersHalfOff.

  • Xenocles||

    I kid.

  • Ted S.||

    Heavens no. There are a lot of other things that make you a stupid twat.

  • sloopyinca||

    Police officer violently beats college student celebrating after a basketball game. He gets zero days in jail and PoliceOne finds a way to bitch about it.

    Sorry, but since discussing senseless violence is the order of the day, I thought it apt.

  • Xenocles||

    His lawyer was heard calling the sentence an outrage. I agreed.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Stop. Reading. Police One.

  • sloopyinca||

    A very interesting debate among police officers on whether or not teachers should be trained by police firearms instructors. A wide range of responses as you would imagine.

    A good read especially by P1 standards.

  • RBS||

    I remember when I was in HS one of the night security guards (I went to boarding school) asked the administration if he should take out the shooter if something like Colombine ever happened. A bunch of the faculty, the young ones fresh out of college/grad school thought the guy was crazy.

  • JeremyR||

    Teachers? I dunno. I've known too many teachers to think they should be armed.

    But maybe the janitors? Maintenance guys? They tend to be more blue collar people and in my mind, more likely to be familiar with firearms, and more responsible in general.

  • BoscoH||

    Train the willing and able. Don't train panty-wastes. Even at an elementary school, there are a handful of teachers that can keep their shit together when stuff gets thick. Let them volunteer for this. I'm good with that.

  • Robert||

    I didn't do it, but I don't have a good alibi.

  • sloopyinca||

    OT: Dammit, the "Best of Both Worlds" episodes were bullshit. Locutus doesn't even talk or have the mannerisms of a Borg. And how come the Borg talks about "assimilating their culture" and are referring only about earth when there are several species on the ship: Human, Betazed, Klingon, and I'm sure several others.

    What a crock.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Oh, a few more months in the collective and JLP would have had a perfect California accent like the rest of the Borg.

    Imagine how annoying the Borg would be if they all had different accents. They probably assign cubes with that in mind. A redneck Borg cube, a jive Borg cube, a Spanglish Borg cube, etc.

  • Xenocles||

    English actually makes sense as the Borg language, because it's pretty much the Borg of languages.

  • sloopyinca||

    Actually, I think Korean or Chinese would be the perfect Borg language. They're the most Borg-like of human cultures.

  • Xenocles||

    Sure, but I'm getting at English's tendency to pick up a ton of loan words and its hodge-podge syntax.

  • sloopyinca||

    We need our own Henry Higgins (Heroic Mulatto) to show up and clear up this debate.

  • Sevo||

    That'd be 'Enry 'Iggins, just so's ya know.

  • ||

    Sure, but I'm getting at English's tendency to pick up a ton of loan words and its hodge-podge syntax.

    Other languages do incorporate English cognates (direct appropriation of word's spelling and meaning) into their languages, and both Russian and Ukrainian are no exception. This is also true of recently adopted verbs into each, and especially Russian as these verbs are highly predictable to conjugate without sliding stress (a noted aggravation when learning to speak Russian, especially the masculine genitive case.)

    English absorbs words from other languages and either gives them a new meaning outright or applies the word to a cultural equivalent, which may or not be a slang or colloquial usage and allows for such a large diction lexicon.

    The reasons I think English is Borg:

    1) The articles "a", "an", and "the" and hardly any word gender declination.

    2) The almost nonexistent use of a case system, leading to an almost non-existent use of impersonal constructions (these are employed heavily by languages that use a strong case system, like Russian and Ukrainian, as each has six and seven cases respectively).

    3) There is an exception to almost every grammar rule, most of which seem highly arbitrary.

    4) The English language is highly idiomatic and colloquial.

    5) "Verbing" - free form use of gerunds and participles.

  • ||

    More on impersonal constructions.

    Oh, I also forgot to mention English handles prepositions much differently than most other languages (again, lack of a case system. It's impossible to end a sentence with a preposition in either Russian or Ukrainian and be understood) and dependent clauses can be thrown about with reckless abandon with usually little degradation of context and meaning, also impossible in the aformentioned Slavic languages.

  • Ted S.||

    Oh, there are languages with case systems that end sentences with prepositions (such as Finnish). They just call the words postpositions.

  • XM||

    Before I condemn you for making an insensitive remark, what the heck is a borg?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Sounds Swedish.

  • Xenocles||

    Is anyone else reading this new Cato biography, "Rome's Last Citizen?" It's quite good, despite the mild attempt by the authors to wag their fingers at modern pols for their obstructionism (like Cato's).

  • Sevo||

    Is anyone else bothered by that photo of a cattle-call of kids lining up behind some LEO?
    I mean, are the kids incapable of walking or running for that matter if they aren't hand-in-hand?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    They're making sure none of them get lost along the way. We're talking about really young kids with people running around all over the place.

    It's the same thing we did on field trips to museums, etc, when I was in the early grades.

  • ||

    when I was in the early grades.

    Last year?

  • ||

    Sorry, couldn't pass it up.

  • Sevo||

  • sloopyinca||

    They probably are at that age after they went through a chaotic and traumatic experience like that. It actually makes perfect sense to me for accountability purposes.

    Now, when I saw the adults being led through the mall in Oregon like that the other day, I thought as you're thinking now.

  • Sevo||

    Prolly 'get off my lawn' syndrome. Old farts who were in Kindergarten in the dark ages not only walked to and from school up-hill through 8' snow-drifts, but did so during deer season when you had to duck.

  • Ted S.||

    My grandfather went to school with MC Escher. For him, the walk really was uphill both ways.

  • SIV||

    At Columbine they brought them all out at gunpoint.

  • Almanian.||

    Went to the gun range and sent a lot of brass downrange.

    Then to Elderly Instruments and played a shitload of guitars - I need a hollowbody for my collection. Settled on a lovely maroon ES335. Adding a Bigsby tailpiece and we're all set.

    That was my tribute to the Conn survivors. Life goes on for the living. And you can have my guns when...prying...dead hands...etc.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I went to the range and sent ZERO *lead* downrange.

    The range I usually go to is a state gameland one, and for all the times I've been there I have seen ONE fucking person. Today there were like 20 motherfuckers. Fuckin' slackjaws. I left, cause you can't do any fun stuff there with the Johnny-Know-It-Alls, Safety Sallys, and fat fucks that need to check their target every ten minutes but take a goddamn hour to walk 100yds. FUCK!!!

    I'm going to the Pittsburgh range next week.

    Got some of my dad's guns to clean though, that'll have to be my fix, I guess. (winchester 94, and a ruger 10/22 tacticool)

    Oh yeah, I didn't get to try db's patent pending gangster cant shooting method. db, I WILL shoot this week.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I did make some thai-ghost pepper beef jerky last night. It was ready this morning and made a wonderful breakfast.

    The grocery store has been having real good deals on the old crappy meat. Got a 2 pound london broil for my jerky for 8 bucks. That's a goodly amount of atomic jerky.

  • Hyperion||

    Sounds good. Wifey cooked a shrimp dish today with azeite de dende and thai peppers. I almost atest myself to death. Now working on drankin myself to death. Life is good, even with the tyrants in DC trying to turn it all to gray, it's still good for now.

  • General Butt Naked||

    What were you shootin' today?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    fat fucks that need to check their target every ten minutes but take a goddamn hour to walk 100yds.

    Maybe you should loan them some binoculars?

    I just got a 30-06 Marlin XL7 for a sweetheart deal back in Oct, and foolishly went to my club range to sight it in on the day before the first day of deer season and it was packed. Never having shot a high powered rifle before I was all over the map with it. Like 10 MOA at best. I don't think my shooting bags were big enough, and the fact I was using a red dot probably didn't help. (it doesn't have irons and no friggin way I'm spending $100+ on a decent scope for a rifle I'll probably never use away from the range)

  • General Butt Naked||

    I don't know why people can't put up a bunch of little targets and see if they hit them through THEIR FUCKING SCOPE.

    Yeah, so when we pulled up and I saw the 3 guys at about 400lbs each, we hightailed it out of there. One of the guys was walking back to the bench and looked like he was gonna die.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oh, and good shit on the 30.06, but buy a damn scope for it. If you're ever a member of a place with a loooong range you'll have a blast with it.

    At least get some iron sights.

    I'm going later in the week and gonna take my dad's 30-30. I get to borrow it and some ammo if I dissemble it and clean it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The rear sight I could probably figure something DIY for, but I'd need a gunsmith to install the front sight. I'm a mathematician instead of a physicist because I break most things I touch. I don't trust myself to tap a hole the way it should be tapped. This rifle (which I got for $150, never fired) is beginning to look like a money pit.

  • ||

    I'm a mathematician instead of a physicist because I break most things I touch. I don't trust myself to tap a hole the way it should be tapped.

    Ah, this explains your dating histoire and your fondness for peanut butter. Good thing you aren't anywhere near surgical equipment and patients...

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    My malpractice insurance rates would look like the federal deficit.

  • ||

    Heh. All peanut butter jesting aside, you did ask why I would high tail it to the land of famines, radiation, and lately a metric tonne of snow (Boy, I'm glad I got out of Kiev when I did!), this and this should shed some light on the subject.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Maybe if I paid a fatty to lie down on the benchrest and let me stick the butt against their... well, butt... that would help minimize the recoil so I can get the thing sighted in properly.

  • db||

    How is the red dot mounted?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    On the weaver rail. It's mostly my fault for not having much rifle experience.

  • db||

    Tulpa, don't know if you are still reading this but you can get some decent quality scopes for not much over $100. BSA had decent ones, and a great replacement policy (they may not be the sturdiest scopes ever but in my experience if you break one they'll replace it no questions asked for $10 S&H.

  • Harvard||

    Um, Tulsa, read more. While pouring over various texts attempt to find an intelligent description for the term "high powered rifle". While you're at it, search "assault rifle". See if you can find anything meaningful about the descriptions that is based on fact rather than emotion.

    Oh, and don't shoot yer foot off.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    By high powered rifle, I'm distinguishing 30-06 and similar from the .22 rifles I've shot for years.

    Compared to a .50 BMG it's not high powered, but I'm talking in relative terms.

    I agree that "assault rifle" is ill-defined.

  • db||

    Is that the Warrendale range? That one sucks. I stopped going there 11 years ago when some assholes on the handgun range opened fire while I was walking back from my 100 yd rifle target. Plus the state game lands don't allow more than 3 rounds in a rifle mag at a time. And forget automatic weapons, although I didn't own any machineguns at that time.

  • DEG||

    Plus the state game lands don't allow more than 3 rounds in a rifle mag at a time

    They still have that stupid rule?

  • Sevo||

    OK, screaming "UP WITH WHICH I WILL NOT PUT!" statement.
    Wiki is on another whiny 'Please give us dough, since we're too damn dumb to run ads' campaign. Yeah, Wiki, you got a good site. At worst it's a starter to find real info. Thanks, I like it.
    Now go sell some damn adds and stop claiming some moral 'neutrality' since people post lies for free.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    They have a point when it comes to ads influencing the editing process. If you don't like their policies, maybe you should take your information searches elsewhere. To that other free, gigantic compendium of human knowledge.

  • ||

    Would that be RC Dean or SugarFree?

  • Brian from Texas||

    I find all these commentators repugnant but Huckabee's comments probably piss me off the most. What he's pretty much saying is that God is so petty that he'd punish innocent children for a school policy that is beyond their control.

  • ant1sthenes||

    I think he's saying that if the killer was regularly exposed to Jesus talk, he'd be a kind, noble lunatic. Offensively stupid, but not the same.

  • ||

    Problem is that it would probably take a near total ban on handguns to actually do anything about these mass shootings.
    But would we really want to go that far?

    There are lots of ways in which we could eliminate certain types of crime or accidents by imposing draconian law inforcement. But we don't want to live in a police state.

    The risk of people doing thing like this is just one of the inherent costs of freedom. If you're going to live in a free society, amoung free people, then you are going to have to accept that other people's freedom does create risks for yourself, and yours does for them.

    We would all be a lot safer in a police state, but we've made a choice that we'd rather have the risks of being a free people along with the rewards.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    This is a correct argument. But not a winning one, unfortunately.

    If you tell 2012 US Americans that dead American kids in Connecticut is the price of freedom (as opposed to dead Pakistani kids) they will say fuck freedom.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    How many people in America would support warrantless searches and heavy-handed military occupation of our cities?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    We had much stricter handgun control in the past without those things.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Yes, we did, and we also had high murder rates in cities with stricter handgun controls.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Freedom isn't just for fun, it saves lives. Crime kills kids. Tyranny kills kids. Hell, our own government is already killing American kids.

  • ||

    Actually I don't think so. I think gun control will continue to be a losing issue.

    This isn't going to change the political calculus very much. I know the gun control advocates think it should. But it won't.

  • MJGreen||

    Except people generally aren't safer in a police state. The politically favored groups may be, for a time.

  • MJGreen||

    I've been too busy today to look at any more inane online comments... jeez, there are some doosies out there. A bunch of people calling the NRA cowardly for saying they will wait until the facts come in, and not "admitting that their work allows this kind of stuff to happen." Of course, the more facts that come in, the more that gun control looks to be completely irrelevant in this case.

    People are fucking stupid. And high emotions make it a thousand times worse.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Also, I'm curious. How do the people who are insisting "the killers alone are responsible for their killing" feel about Fast + Furious? By that logic, BO, Holder, and anyone else involved in the gunrunning operation bear absolutely no responsibility for the murders and other crimes in which those guns were used by the cartels.

    In fact, if you combine purist second amendment belief in no restrictions on firearm sales, combined with open borders, the entire scandal evaporates. ATF was simply not enforcing laws that libertarians consider illegitimate! Right?

  • db||

    Tulpa, that's a vast oversimplification. ATF was not "not enforcing a law" in that case, it was actively breaking several. In addition, the situation in no way approximated an open borders/no firearm regs state. It preferentially amd exclusively provided firearms to known iolent organizations.

  • nikea||

    commentators, and pundits who will never let a lack of knowledge or http://www.cheapbeatsbydreonau.com/ expertise stand in the way of making grand pronouncements.

  • aed939||

    Rivera's reaction makes the best sense. Whenever you have a gun-free zone, there should be minimum security requirements. It does not have to be police officers or private security. It can be several teachers and/or parents that are carrying--either open or concealed.

  • Xeynon||

    I love my freedom and like the second amendment as much as the next libertarian.

    But this is a case where absolutist libertarian ideology fails. The freedom of gun owners to be free of the hassle of going through background checks to make sure they're not psychos or violent fanatics, or a training/licensing process to make sure that they know what they're doing, has some value. But it is not worth twenty dead six-year olds. Adam Lanza carried out this atrocity, so yes, he is solely to blame. But it's a fact that had he been prevented from obtaining a high-powered assault rifle there would likely be at least a dozen young children still alive today who no longer are. It is worth investigating what kind of policy might prevent unbalanced or psychopathic people from obtaining the capacity to inflict this kind of slaughter, even such a policy would impinge somewhat on personal freedom. We don't allow minors to purchase chainsaws or motorists to drive drunk and those are uncontroversial with most libertarians I know - why would this be different? I agree with what I suspect will be the majority of you that most of the policies liberals are proposing are seriously flawed, but we need to think about this problem.

    20 dead kids /=/ something you can just shrug your shoulders at and say "in a free society, shit happens". Sorry.

  • ||

    In a free society, shit happens.

    *shrugs shoulders*

    That wasn't so hard, was it?

  • Xeynon||

    If you really think that, then I don't think people who accuse you of being an irresponsible ideologue whose ideas don't merit respect or serious consideration in debate are off-base.

  • ||

    I do think it. This is EXACTLY how the left gets us to forsake our principles. They play on your emotions.

    So let me ask yo a few questions X.

    a. Would it be different if it was 26 adults? If so, why?

    b. What do you propose? And how would you implement your proposal?

  • Xeynon||

    I am not making my judgment based on emotion. I am considering the limitations of my own principles. No principle is paramount in 100% of situations and "individual liberty matters above all" is no exception. I think we should preserve it in every case we can, but there are clearly some cases in which other priorities supersede it. Keeping mentally ill people and fanatics from obtaining high-powered weapons is a pretty high priority. If it can be accomplished, I'd like it to be done in a way that impinges as little as possible on the rights of others, and of course there is a point at which the deprivation of the liberty of others outweighs the safety benefits to the public. But I think we are still pretty far from that point.

  • Xeynon||

    In answer to your questions.

    1.)The cold-blooded butchery of twenty adults is a horrendous crime. But the cold-blooded butchery of twenty small children *is* different. For one, adults have a rational understanding of danger and death. They can act to minimize their risk in a situation in which they come under fire. Small children do not understand the finality of it. Secondly, adults have already fulfilled at least some of their lifetime potential. Children cut down at the age of six are being deprived of a lot more of life.

  • Xeynon||

    2.)I'd propose making sure that each school has at least one staff member responsible for school security, and not just in a nominal sense - this person would have training for dealing with emergencies such as a shooter invading the school, and would carry a weapon and be trained in how to use it. I do think that part of the reason that schools are such inviting targets to these wackos is that they are soft targets, and if they knew that there was someone around who could thwart a violent attacker it might dissuade them from targeting schools.

    I would require a licensing regime of some sort to purchase firearms. This doesn't have to be a big government bureaucracy - in fact I don't want it to be. The NRA likes to talk about responsible gun ownership - how about they set up a safety training and licensing regimen and offer certifications to would-be gun owners who complete it and prove themselves competent and responsible? Retailers could require proof of such a certification before they sold a gun to a would-be customer. Voila, a more responsible and well-trained group of gun owners without any state interference whatsoever.

  • Xeynon||

    Lastly, I'd require that people who want to buy something like an assault weapon demonstrate that they are psychologically fit to own one, the same way people have to prove they're not narcoleptics before they can buy a car. If you have a history of schizophrenia, violent behavior, or the like, sorry, you're out. Again, this doesn't necessarily require a lot of state involvement - if it were possible to sue gun retailers for selling weapons to people who hadn't demonstrated psychological integrity and later used the weapon in a violent crime, the same way it's possible to sue bar owners who continue to serve already intoxicated patrons who later kill someone in a car wreck after leaving the bar, retailers would police themselves.

    None of these ideas are perfect, I acknowledge. But they're at least a start. We really need to come up with some ideas that address this problem from the libertarian right, because it IS a problem, and if we don't, the shootings will continue, to the point that the left's (flawed) ideas are implemented instead.

  • General Butt Naked||

    We really need to come up with some ideas that address this problem from the libertarian right, because it IS a problem, and if we don't, the shootings will continue, to the point that the left's (flawed) ideas are implemented instead.

    What you're advocating is the left's flawed ideas, Mr. High-Powered Dumbass.

  • Xeynon||

    No, the left advocates having the government decide who can and can't open a weapon, and/or the confiscation of weapons already in private hands, depending on which variety of leftist you're talking about.

    I'm trying to find a way to improve gun safety outcomes without getting the government involved. See the difference?

    And you're really helping your case with the ad hominems. You expect me to take you seriously when all you do is spew vacuous slogans and call people names?

  • Xeynon||

    Also, since when does the left advocate having a trained shooter on staff at schools? Last I checked that was the official position of the LIBERTARIAN PARTY.

  • ||

    the same way people have to prove they're not narcoleptics before they can buy a car.

    Really?

  • Xeynon||

    Sorry, before they can *drive* a car. Yes , many states require that people demonstrate that they have not had any symptoms of narcolepsy for a certain period before they're allowed to drive.

  • ||

    The cold-blooded butchery of twenty adults is a horrendous crime. But the cold-blooded butchery of twenty small children *is* different...Secondly, adults have already fulfilled at least some of their lifetime potential. Children cut down at the age of six are being deprived of a lot more of life.

    Somebody should say it, so I will. Children do not have more right to live than adults. I do not value the life of a child any more than that of an adult. In fact, when looked at objectively, the child contributes less and would be worth less.

    Your argument is NOTHING but emotion. You value kids more because they are cute an innocent.

    Regardless, the age of the victims has NO bearing on the legitimacy of your claim.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Keeping mentally ill people and fanatics from obtaining high-powered weapons is a pretty high priority.

    That's easy, just amend the constitution, have the police round up every gun and gun owner, and subject them to psychological tests. If they pass they can access their guns at police controlled ranges for target shooting.

  • Xeynon||

    Nice strawman.

    I acknowledged that things can go to the point where the balance tips. Police state measures would obviously qualify.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Anything other than police state measures are mere theater. There are enough stripped lowers and 30 round magazines out there to last a few generations of maniacs, unless you take them away you've done nothing, dumbass.

  • Xeynon||

    You've got a point there - weapons already in circulation are something that can't be gotten at without police state measures. I don't want to go after those.

    But these guns and ammo are already largely in the hands of responsible private owners, who have no incentive to hand them over to any schmo who asks for them. I doubt that they'd be as easy to obtain for the prospective school shooters of the world as the stocks at Walmart are.

    And can we can it with the insults? Charming as I find your debating style, we're adults here, not middle-schoolers. If you think my ideas are stupid, that's fine - explain why. I can take it, I'm a big boy, and I'll listen. But insults are just a waste of time.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Dude, I am a middle-schooler, fart-knocker.

    But these guns and ammo are already largely in the hands of responsible private owners, who have no incentive to hand them over to any schmo who asks for them.

    Yes, but they could be stolen, like what happened in Sandy Hook.

    Not only that but, if there is a ban the price on such objects will go up dramatically enticing responsible owners to sell their mags, lowers, and other gear. Hell, I know guys with 50 p-mags, if the price went up to $80 piece they'd probably sell a bunch to finance a motorcycle, or something.

  • ||

    I don't want to debate it. Eliminating liberty for the illusion of safety is not open for debate.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Yup.

    Thank you.

  • Xeynon||

    This is a slogan, not a serious idea.

    TOTAL safety is of course an illusion, and one I agree with you the left frequently falls prey to.

    TOTAL liberty is also an illusion. Society has already deprived the individual of some forms of liberty, e.g. the liberty to build chemical weapons in your back yard, and with good reason.

    But there are degrees of safety, and degrees of liberty. Some gun laws may very well make us more safe at a minimal cost to liberty.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Some gun laws may very well make us more safe at a minimal cost to liberty.

    Can you quantify that.

  • Xeynon||

    Has to be done on a case by case basis.

    But let's say you have to present a certification of mental health before being allowed to buy an assault rifle. You can still buy the rifle, you can still own it, you can still use it, you just have to show that you're not psychotic before you do so. Pretty minimal imposition on your liberty.

    The inability of someone like James Holmes to present such a certificate results in his inability to obtain a weapon with which he murders a dozen people. Pretty maximal safety outcome, at least for the people who aren't murdered.

    Tell me why that's a trade-off that isn't worth making.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Do you know how hard it is to obtain an assault rifle, already? Your scheme does nothing for pump shotguns, sport ARs, pistols, hunting rifles, gas bombs, cars, machetes...

    Why do you hate the children?

  • Xeynon||

    That was just an example. The reason I chose assault rifles is that they have a far higher rate of fire than shotguns, pistols, hunting rifles, etc. and hence are much easier to carry out mass slaughters with. But if you want to require it of people buying pistols too, fine - it would've stopped Jared Lee Loughner.

    As for how hard it is now, if James Holmes, the guy who was undergoing psychiatric treatment and suspected of being mentally ill, was able to purchase one - it obviously wasn't hard enough, was it?

  • ||

    An assault rifle fires as fast as you can pull the trigger, just like a handgun and most hunting rifles.

  • General Butt Naked||

    An assault rifle fires as fast as you can pull the trigger, just like a handgun and most hunting rifles.

    Don't fall into his trap of redefining words. An assault rifle is a rifle of intermediate cartridge with a selector switch for full auto, semi auto, and 3-round bursts.

    An assault weapon is a nonsense term given to scary black firearms.

  • ||

    Good point.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Most people talking to psychiatrists aren't mentally ill.

    So a rape victim talking to a therapist in the years following a violent attack or someone talking through an abusive childhood/marriage, to you, is not of sound mental health?

  • Xeynon||

    There's a difference between talking to a psychiatrist for depression or post-rape trauma or whatnot and being treated by a psychiatrist because you're certifiably crazy, just as there's a difference between being treated by the doctor for a cold and being treated by the doctor for bubonic plague.

    I'm not saying having been to therapy should disqualify someone from buying a gun. Just being treated for schizophrenia, dissociative personality disorders, or other similarly severe conditions.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Therapy sessions are confidential, therefor it all looks the same to anyone outside of the patient/counselor relationship. Are you advocating the end of doctor/patient confidentially?

    Your simple, cheap, liberty saving methods get worse by the minute.

  • General Butt Naked||

    The inability of someone like James Holmes to present such a certificate results in his inability to obtain a weapon with which he murders a dozen people.

    Why do you assume he wouldn't be able to obtain one? He's a smart dude, and could probably trick some standardized mental health exam with ease.

    Besides, 99.9% of murderers are perfectly sane. Why don't you care about their victims? Or are you just advocating more rights deprivation through theater without a quantifiable increase in security?

  • ||

    And who certifies the guy who gives out the mental health certificates? Mental "health" in not a quantifiable thing, especially if you're trying to catch psychopaths who are notoriously good at faking normal emotional states. All this does is punish people who have not and will not do anything wrong, while giving society a very false sense of security. This approach will do nothing at all to prevent lunatics from killing people, but it will make it more difficult for non-lunatics to exercise their rights, while at the same time creating another make-work agency for bureaucrats. To sum up, taxes go up, liberty goes down, and safety is unchanged.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Yup, not only is mental health not quantifiable, it's plastic.

  • Xeynon||

    Mental health may not be quantifiable, but things like schizophrenia are fairly easily diagnosed and pretty hard to convincingly hide. We're not talking about psychopaths here - you're right, they're hard to catch. But several people around Holmes, laypeople, were concerned that he might be mentally ill and a danger to those around him. I highly doubt he'd have been able to fool the type of professional who'd be able to certify mental health, e.g. a trained psychiatrist/psychologist.

  • ||

    If he were considered a danger to himself or others before he shot up that movie theater he could have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, well away from any weapons. There were people he knew who thought he was off kilter, but they clearly didn't think he was that off until after his atrocity.

  • Xeynon||

    There are degrees of concern. Until he shot up the movie theater it wasn't CLEAR that he was a danger. But there were people who were concerned he might be.

  • General Butt Naked||

    You do realize that if you're concerned about a person's mental state and they own firearms there are legal ways of disarming them that are presently available.

    Thing is, after something happens the concern trolls come out of the woodwork and mention how worried they were. They weren't worried enough to call the police, though.

    I highly doubt he'd have been able to fool the type of professional who'd be able to certify mental health, e.g. a trained psychiatrist/psychologist.

    First of all, he would, it's very easy. Shit, do you know how long it'd take for guides to pop up on the internet on how to beat the firearm interview. Secondly, I thought we were going to do this without a big bureaucracy and tax burden? But now we've got a army of trained psychiatrists out there doing interviews for every rifle license. Would theses sessions be confidential?

  • ||

    you just have to show that you're not psychotic before you do so.

    Jesus Christ on the cross. You do realize that we all display traits associated with mental illness. Many NORMAL people have many of these traits and NEVER hurt anyone. I'm ex military and live in Montana. Is that enough to disqualify me?

    And for the love of Zod...HE STOLE THE FUCKING GUNS!

    You are the epitome of Team politics.

    "Dear god, they hurt a chilrenz, we MUST do something...even if it's wrong!"

    Sorry pal, count me out!

  • Xeynon||

    As I said, the fact that he stole the guns means that this particular case might not have been prevented, but others would have.

    There is a difference between "showing a few signs of what could be considered mental illness" and having schizophrenia/being totally dissociated with reality/etc. If you do not realize this I doubt you've ever been around mentally ill people.

    If you're ex-military you no doubt have training with firearms, and if you live in Montana you very well might be a hunter. You come from a place where guns are a part of life and that's great. I am not trying to take your guns away. You can have as many as you want. I just don't want some crazy who doesn't handle guns as responsibly as you do getting his hands on them, coming into my kid's school and shooting the place up. My rights matter too.

    And team politics? You don't know me, but if you did you'd know I'm a registered independent who votes Libertarian, sometimes Republican if the Republican candidate isn't a socon. But by all means, indulge in the same form of silly pigeonholing the Democrats and Republicans do if it pleases you.

  • General Butt Naked||

    You can have as many as you want.

    We just have to submit to a yearly, intensive, non-confidential with a highly trained government psychiatrist.

    No thank you.

  • sloopyinca||

    If you're ex-military you no doubt have training with firearms, and if you live in Montana you very well might be a hunter. You come from a place where guns are a part of life and that's great. I am not trying to take your guns away.

    So the person from the south side of Chicago that has never been in the military should not have the same freedoms?

    I just don't want some crazy who doesn't handle guns as responsibly as you do getting his hands on them, coming into my kid's school and shooting the place up.

    Define "responsibly" and how will you be able to determine that before they are allowed to exercise their 2A right?

    My rights matter too.

    Only until they infringe on mine, asshole. Oh, and what right of yours is being taken away when the 2A is being administered to the letter of the Constitution?

  • Xeynon||

    So the person from the south side of Chicago that has never been in the military should not have the same freedoms?

    Didn't say that. If they know what they're doing I've got no problem with them owning a gun.

    Oh, and what right of yours is being taken away when the 2A is being administered to the letter of the Constitution?

    None. But when somebody shoots up a public place and kills innocent people, they are being deprived of their right to protection from arbitrary Hobbesian violence - which I think is a right even more basic than those enunciated in the constitution. Government is a compromise between complete individual liberty and collective security, and didn't originate with the US constitution.

  • sloopyinca||

    Didn't say that. If they know what they're doing I've got no problem with them owning a gun.

    You specifically noted where he was from. Perhaps I misread what you said.

    Government is a compromise between complete individual liberty and collective security, and didn't originate with the US constitution.

    Neither did natural rights. Self defense and the right to bear arms is a natural right.

  • ||

    There have been a lot of gun control advocates around here the last few days screaming to ban everything now, so forgive us if our patience has worn a bit thin.

    I think it's great that you want to find a way to stop things like this from happening while protecting gun rights at the same time. However, your proposed solution doesn't accomplish that. Instead it puts up barriers for healthy people, creates a miasma of political grandstanding about the nature of mental health, and doesn't prevent any given lunatic from acquiring a weapon.

    There are already mechanisms in place to sequester dangerously unbalanced people from the rest of society. Those mechanisms can't possibly guarantee that people like James Holmes or Adam Lanza will be discovered to be dangerous before they commit an atrocity. Hamstringing the rest of us "just in case" is not conducive to living in a free society.

  • Xeynon||

    Thanks for at least acknowledging I'm not a screaming left winger, and being civil throughout the dialog. You have definitely pointed out some problems I had not considered and forced me to think a bit more deeply about this (as I said elsewhere I came to seek criticism of half-formed ideas and see if I can't develop them into better ones).

  • sloopyinca||

    But let's say you have to present a certification of mental health before being allowed to buy an assault rifle. You can still buy the rifle, you can still own it, you can still use it, you just have to show that you're not psychotic before you do so. Pretty minimal imposition on your liberty.

    Thanks for giving us a near-textbook definition of the word infringe. I was afraid one of us would have to remind you that that word is part of the 2A.

  • Xeynon||

    Complete literalism on the second amendment is a losing argument, and you ought to know it.

    Unless you're willing to argue that private citizens should be allowed to carry around rocket launchers, hand grenades, flame throwers, etc. anywhere they go, equip their cars with missiles or turret-mounted machine guns, or build a nuclear bomb in their garage, you've already tacitly conceded that some infringements on the right to bear arms are okay.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Unless you're willing to argue...

    You've wandered into unfamiliar territory if you think that's an impossibility.

  • sloopyinca||

    Owning rocket launchers, hand grenades, flame throwers, etc. anywhere they go, equip their cars with missiles or turret-mounted machine guns, should not be a crime. Using them to deprive another person of their liberty should be.

    nuclear bomb

    I've said elsewhere that I don't look at explosives the same way I do arms, and I would put them in a different category. Of course you have no idea what I or anybody else believe here but are really good at making blanket statements about us and our beliefs.

  • Xeynon||

    Since this is a libertarian website it seems like I may make some assumptions safely. I probably agree with you on 80-90% of issues after all.

    But anyway... very few people believe the 2nd Amendment covers flame throwers or rocket launchers (or fully automatic machine guns, for that matter). Private ownership of those weapons is illegal, and that is controversial neither politically nor legally.

    I'll give you credit for ideological integrity, but you're waaaaay out of the mainstream here. Suffice it to say, most people are okay with some infringements on the right to bear arms.

    As for explosives, may I ask why you consider them a separate category? They are weapons are they not? If we want to play constitutional literalist, at the time the constitution was written muskets which required loading the explosive charge manually were the norm. It seems odd to suggest the Founding Fathers meant to say the government can't restrict your right to own a gun, but can restrict your right to own the gunpowder which makes it useful as more than a fancy and poorly balanced club.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Private ownership of flame throwers, and automatic weapons isn't illegal.

    Do you always just make shit up, and then frame an argument around it?

  • Xeynon||

    Some fully automatic weapons are completely illegal under federal law, and all of them, even if they are legal, are highly regulated. They are all illegal in many states. Flamethrowers are also illegal in several states. No one is seriously arguing against these bans and/or regulations. Statement stands.

  • sloopyinca||

    No one is seriously arguing against these bans and/or regulations.

    I am. They're idiotic.

  • Xeynon||

    Okay. You are. But you are in a VERY small minority.

  • sloopyinca||

    An explosive charge necessary to project a bullet is not the same as a bomb. I've always considered them to be different, as I think some people on here do as well. I only speak for myself, so I won't try putting words into anybody else's mouth, which you may want to consider doing some time in the near future.

    Either way, you're moving the goalposts trying to shift the conversation. We were talking about further restricting purchases of what even the vast majority of Americans view as legal firearms.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The inability of someone like James Holmes to present such a certificate results in his inability to obtain a weapon with which he murders a dozen people. Pretty maximal safety outcome, at least for the people who aren't murdered.


    How about we forcibly euthanise the mentally ill instead? If they are euthanised, they can not get guns. And it would be a much lesser burden on freedom than your proposals, because only the mentally disturbed would be euthanised.

    Would that sacrifice of freedom be worth it?

  • Xeynon||

    Are you incapable of responding to a reasonable argument with something other than a ridiculous strawman?

    Proving that you are competent to own and operate a dangerous object which could pose a threat to the public safety is not a grievous imposition on your freedom. And it is certainly not tantamount to being forced to live in a totalitarian state. Come up with a better rebuttal.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I doubt very much that you're anything close to libertarian if you believe that yearly, invasive, non-confidential examination by a highly trained government psychiatrist just to own a rifle, isn't an infringement upon liberty.

  • Xeynon||

    When did I say that I wanted yearly, invasive, non-controversial examinations by government psychiatrists?

    I suggested a one-time, pre-purchase examination by a private psychiatrist that would not disclose any confidential information about patient health (it would just be a certificate that said "this person is to the best of my professional knowledge free of schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, or any other dangerous psychiatric disorder).

    Seems you like making shit up even more than you like thinking I do.

  • sloopyinca||

    Good thing people never develop schizophrenia or other psychiatric disorders later in life. I'm sorry but as soon as your plan got implemented, I'd be willing to bet the people in charge would be clamoring for regular "recertification" on a regular basis.

    Not to mention, who certifies the certifiers? The government? Are they subject to a malpractice lawsuit by a victim's family if they misdiagnose as sane and that person kills someone? How do they maintain doctor/patient confidentiality? If a person is visiting a psychiatrist, what would keep them from visiting another for their "sanity certificate"? How do you expect a psychiatrist to make an assessment of sanity on a person they have only met once?

    Your potential "solution" does nothing to improve safety and diminishes privacy rights while increasing civil liability cases against doctors that are forced to assess a person they have little to no knowledge of.

  • Michael Ejercito||



    Are you incapable of responding to a reasonable argument with something other than a ridiculous strawman?


    How is that ridiculous?

    If persons are mentally incompetent to own a dangerous object, how will you stop them from obtaining the dangerous object aside from euthanising them?

  • Xeynon||

    Because I'm not arguing that there is any law that is 100% guaranteed to prevent such an outcome (as indeed only euthanising them all could). Only that some laws may make it less likely.

    You are implying that anyone who favors an idea that mitigates the problem at a small cost to personal liberty should necessarily also favor an idea which would solve it but only at a huge cost to personal liberty. Which is a ridiculous distortion of your opponent's argument that is easier to do away with, i.e., a strawman.

  • sloopyinca||

    Only that some laws may make it less likely.

    Outlawing cars for people leaving restaurants would make it less likely kids get killed by a drunk driver. Do you support such restrictions, even though drunk driving is already illegal? Imposing further restrictions on gun ownership when the actions we are discussing are already illegal is very much the same thing.

  • Xeynon||

    No. But I don't have any problem with preventing people who can't drive safely due to medical conditions, old age, etc. from driving. That's the analogy.

  • sloopyinca||

    Again we're back to arbitrary standards. But again, I'll repeat that the right to drive was not enshrined in the Constitution.*

    *By the way, one only needs a license to drive on public roads. Your rules for guns would apply to them keeping or bearing them on private property as well, which is even more restrictive than taking away a narcoleptic's drivers license.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    You are implying that anyone who favors an idea that mitigates the problem at a small cost to personal liberty should necessarily also favor an idea which would solve it but only at a huge cost to personal liberty


    It would be less restrictive, as the only people euthanised under the idea I discussed would be those with mental disorders.

  • ||

    But it's a fact that had he been prevented from obtaining a high-powered assault rifle there would likely be at least a dozen young children still alive today who no longer are.

    He obtained those weapons by stealing them, so no waiting periods or background checks would have changed the outcome one iota.

  • Xeynon||

    Fair point. In this particular case many of the laws under consideration wouldn't have helped.

    They would have stopped Aurora though. So in some cases they'd matter.

  • ||

    Fair point. In this particular case many of the laws under consideration wouldn't have helped.

    They would have stopped Aurora though. So in some cases they'd matter.

    So what you're sayin' is...your "solutions" aren't solutions at all. They will "cut down" on the number of incidents...

    ...but incidents will continue to occur, allowing others to argue for further diminishing our rights. And YOU, MY FRIEND, set the precedent.

  • General Butt Naked||

    obtaining a high-powered assault rifle

    An assault rifle is of intermediate power by fucking definition. It also has a selector switch, but don't let that stop you from talking out of your ass.

  • Xeynon||

    OK, so I used inaccurate terminology. Replace that phrase with "Bushmaster rifle".

    How does your semantic quibbling in any way refute the logic of what I said?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Ummm, because it's almost impossible to obtain an assault rifle.

  • Xeynon||

    Again, the fact that James fricking Holmes, the mental patient with the crazy red hair, bought one over the counter indicates that it's really not.

  • General Butt Naked||

    No he didn't.

    You can't even get your terms/story straight and you want to make new laws infringing innocent people's liberty. Wow.

  • Xeynon||

    If the rifle Holmes purchased, which was a .233 semi-automatic AR-15 rifle, is not technically an "assault" rifle I will concede the point. I'm not an expert on these guns so I may be wrong.

    However, I stand by my argument that a guy who pretty obviously should have been flagged as a risk was allowed to purchase extremely deadly weapons, and that people died as a result.

  • sloopyinca||

    However, I stand by my argument that a guy who pretty obviously should have been flagged as a risk was allowed to purchase extremely deadly weapons, and that people died as a result.

    People didn't die because he wasn't flagged as a risk. People died because he walked into that theater and started shooting them. Plenty of people that should be "flagged" under your criteria go through their lives without ever hurting anybody. And I'd reckon a lot of them own arms.

    And where were you saying he should have been "flagged" before he went berzerk? Oh yeah, you were silent, just like every person that knew him. Hindsight is 20/20, dipshit. Nobody came forward before his crime spree.

  • Xeynon||

    If he had been flagged as a risk, he would have been allowed to go about his life, he just wouldn't have been allowed to purchase a semi-automatic rifle. Without that rifle, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many people as he did. Pretty simple logic.

    And before he went berserk, I didn't know he existed. So what the eff are you talking about?

    Also, I said to one of the other commenters - appending insults at the end of your replies doesn't make your argument more persuasive. It just makes you look childish.

  • sloopyinca||

    And before he went berserk, I didn't know he existed. So what the eff are you talking about?

    I'm talking about the fact that plenty of people did know him. And not a single one of them said he should have been flagged until after he went haywire. So your little theory is so much bullshit in this case.

    Also, I said to one of the other commenters - appending insults at the end of your replies doesn't make your argument more persuasive. It just makes you look childish.

    If you're planning on spending much time here you're gonna need to grow a little thicker skin and stop being such a pussy when someone calls you names. If I had a nickel for every time someone called me a disparaging name on here, I'd have a shitload of nickels.

  • Xeynon||

    If you're planning on spending much time here you're gonna need to grow a little thicker skin and stop being such a pussy when someone calls you names. If I had a nickel for every time someone called me a disparaging name on here, I'd have a shitload of nickels.

    Oh don't worry, I'm not too sensitive about that stuff. If I were I wouldn't still be here. In fact, in a weird way I kind of like it - the fact that the Reason comment section is so ornery is one of the things I like about it. It's liberals who think everyone deserves to go through life without getting their feelings hurt. Calling it out as childish is more my way of responding in kind and pointing out that invective has been substituted for what I consider a good argument than anything (I'm not much one for insults).

  • ||

    Sloopy...

    You are a disparaging name.

  • sloopyinca||

    It's a fair cop.

  • Xeynon||

    As for Holmes - when I say "he should have been flagged", I don't mean people who knew him in everyday life should have said "that guy's crazy and needs to be locked up" - I mean, he shouldn't have been allowed to walk into a store and without demonstrating his competence or mental fitness to own and operate one be allowed to purchase a semi-auto rifle.

  • ||

    And yet you've provided mo mechanism for doing so that wouldn't cause more harm than it prevents.

  • sloopyinca||

    So should we also have to get a mental health expert's OK before we are able to exercise free speech, or to go to a church of our choosing? How about we get checked off annually so a cop can't just enter our house without a warrant?

    Fuck you and your schemes where we have to prove ourselves to some authority figure before exercising rights granted to us by our creator (or natural rights, if you will).

  • Xeynon||

    No. Incompetently exercising your free speech or right to worship or be free from warrantless searches doesn't imperil other people (except in limited cases such as the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater scenario, which is, and should be, illegal).

    Incompetently exercising the right to bear arms clearly does pose a threat to other people. Most gun owners exercise it completely competently - proving that they can do so shouldn't be a problem.

  • ||

    Yelling "fire" in a theater is not illegal.

  • Xeynon||

    Not if there really is a fire. But in most places there are laws against dangerous, false speech which are accepted as constitutional. This is a meaningless nitpick.

  • sloopyinca||

    Incompetently exercising the right to bear arms clearly does pose a threat to other people. Most gun owners exercise it completely competently - proving that they can do so shouldn't be a problem.

    More people incompetently exercise their right to keep and bear arms on a daily basis than you could ever imagine. None of the perpetrators of these crimes "incompetently" exercised their rights. One of them didn't have the right to the guns he used (Lanza) and the other used them competently but illegally.

    Competency has nothing to do with legality, you nitwit. Both of these killers broke existing laws to commit their acts. And one of them broke laws just to obtain the guns he used. The only thing that could have prevented those guns from being used is if his mother was denied her constitutional rights arbitrarily.

  • Xeynon||

    By "competency" I do not mean "knows how to operate a weapon to fulfill its intended purpose of shooting at and hitting a target". I mean "knows how to exercise one's right to keep and bear arms without depriving others of their rights to life, liberty, etc.". Clearly both Holmes and Lanza fail on that count. Every individual has rights, but those rights are forfeit if they impose on the rights of other individuals.

    I am perfectly fine with depriving somebody too mentally ill to know that shooting up a theater, school, etc. full of innocent people is wrong of their right to bear arms. My right to not get shot while I'm watching a movie or my kid's right to go to school without being shot supersedes their right to own a gun which they can't use responsibly, sorry.

    If you are a responsible gun owner, I have no interest in depriving you of your rights.. Buy and shoot as many guns as you like. I see why you'd be hostile to someone trying to deprive you of your rights. But I don't see why you're intent on protecting the rights of people like James Holmes to buy guns.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'll put this in caps so you'll maybe get it: LANZA DID NOT OBTAIN HIS GUNS LEGALLY. HE STOLE THEM.

    He doesn't even belong in this argument of who should be able to legally obtain arms. As far as Holmes, there's no real evidence that he would have been diagnosed as mentally ill prior to his crime spree. He went through his life without a single person recommending him for involuntary commitment. It's unlikely he wouldn't have been able to pass a mental health exam to buy guns.

  • Xeynon||

    I didn't mention Lanza in the above post. I've already acknowledged that he's a special case and that any but the most draconian laws wouldn't have prevented this particular crime (although he was apparently foiled in his attempt to buy another rifle prior to the crime, which may have made it worse). You're shouting at the wall.

    With Holmes, we don't know that he would have been diagnosed as mentally ill. true. But he was being treated by a psychiatrist, was apparently exhibiting symptoms of schizophrenia, and had shared a notebook with said psychiatrist detailing his plans to go on a violent rampage. If that psychiatrist had been asked whether she thought letting him buy a gun was a good idea, I'm betting she would have said HELL NO. You have to be really, visibly off your rocker to be committed involuntarily.

  • sloopyinca||

    I didn't mention Lanza in the above post.

    And I quote:

    By "competency" I do not mean "knows how to operate a weapon to fulfill its intended purpose of shooting at and hitting a target". I mean "knows how to exercise one's right to keep and bear arms without depriving others of their rights to life, liberty, etc.". Clearly both Holmes and Lanza fail on that count.

    You have to be really, visibly off your rocker to be committed involuntarily.

    Tell that to Brandon Raub who was involuntarily committed for "evaluation" based on a couple of Facebook posts.

  • Xeynon||

    Alright, I misspoke there. What I meant was that I did not that argue that a competency test would have prevented Lanza's crime.

  • Ted S.||

    No. Incompetently exercising your free speech or right to worship or be free from warrantless searches doesn't imperil other people

    And yet look at how many assholes tried to blame Benghazi on some guy exercising his free speech rights.

  • ||

    If he had been flagged as a risk, he would have been allowed to go about his life, he just wouldn't have been allowed to purchase a semi-automatic rifle. Without that rifle, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many people as he did. Pretty simple logic.

    Actually, it's pretty faulty logic. You think purchasing a weapon is the only way to obtain one?

    And when your "solution" fails to prevent the next shooting, there will be a cry for stricter laws (read cry for less liberty).

    X, don't you understand you are playing RIGHT INTO THEIR HANDS? Left-wing Americans are the masters of bringing about incremental change. The trick is to draw the line up front and not give an inch. Sticking to our principles 100% of the time is the only way to avoid the slippery slope.

  • Xeynon||

    Purchasing a weapon is not the only way to obtain one, obviously (Lanza proves that). But it is the easiest and most readily available.

    If there is a cry for laws that go too far, or that won't accomplish anything, I will oppose them (I have already taken a beating on Facebook over the past few days for pointing out that many of the gun control laws liberal people I know are crying out for are either flawed and won't make a difference, or require gross violations of constitutional rights).

    As for left-wingers being masters of incremental change, I gotta disagree. If that were the case, we'd have full-blown Marxism by now, given that under Nixon the top tax bracket was 90% and we had wage and price controls and we are a far more right-wing country economically now (though not right enough in my and presumably your opinion). Principles are important, but I think being willing to adjust if there is evidence adjustment can produce better outcomes is also important.

  • Redmanfms||

    If he had been flagged as a risk, he would have been allowed to go about his life, he just wouldn't have been allowed to purchase a semi-automatic rifle.

    Flagged by whom and under what criteria?

    Without that rifle, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many people as he did. Pretty simple logic.

    He could have killed more with a moving truck and fertilizer.

    I suspect he could have killed just as many with a pick-up by driving through the crowd as they exited.

    Your "simple logic" falls flat under 30 seconds of scrutiny.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I stand by my argument that a guy who pretty obviously should have been flagged as a risk

    Why? Because a couple of people claimed that they were concerned after the fact? Or that he may have sought counseling, which the nature of can't be ascertained without doing away with patient confidentiality?

    And no, the rifle he used wasn't technically an assault rifle, it plain wasn't. You don't know which terms you're using, the current laws, or just about anything else concerning firearms but endeavor to infringe upon my liberty in such matters. You are the poster child for the feel good, do nothing legislation brought upon by fear and ignorance that is the bane of this nation.

  • Xeynon||

    If someone wants to buy a semi-automatic rifle, I'm fine with them having to sacrifice medical confidentiality to do so. As I've said elsewhere, we already do this in other areas (must be certified non-narcoleptic to fly a plane, drive a car, etc.)

    As for the laws, you are splitting hairs. Forget about semantics. Whether the rifle Holmes used was or wasn't an assault rifle doesn't really matter - my argument stands up just as well if I substitute "semi-automatic rifle" for "assault rifle" which, having been corrected, I have done.

    And I'm not a feel good, do nothinger - I only want to explore and implement ideas which would actually WORK (and I agree many of them won't). I just don't value personal liberty so highly that I'm willing to accept a higher number of people is necessary dying just to preserve a small sliver of it.

  • sloopyinca||

    As I've said elsewhere, we already do this in other areas (must be certified non-narcoleptic to fly a plane, drive a car, etc.)

    Which Constitutional Amendment guarantees either one of those rights again? I must not have your updated copy.

    And I'm not a feel good, do nothinger - I only want to explore and implement ideas which would actually WORK (and I agree many of them won't).

    In that case, I wish you were a do-nothinger.

    I just don't value personal liberty so highly that I'm willing to accept a higher number of people is necessary dying just to preserve a small sliver of it.

    Define "high number". We live in a nation with over 300 million people.

  • Xeynon||

    Which Constitutional Amendment guarantees either one of those rights again? I must not have your updated copy.

    The Constitution does specify a "well-regulated" militia. Seems to me I could make a fair argument that making sure the people with the guns are mentally sound and competent with their firearms counts as regulating well.

  • sloopyinca||

    The Constitution does specify a "well-regulated" militia.

    Do you know what the word "regulated" meant when it was written?

    Seems to me I could make a fair argument that making sure the people with the guns are mentally sound and competent with their firearms counts as regulating well.

    Except that the rest of the text says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

  • Xeynon||

    Yeah, I know. My point was not that that the second amendment actually allows gun control. It was that it's possible to parse what it means in different ways. It was written 225 years ago by a bunch of people who lived in a pre-modern society, and the referents of almost every term in the text of that amendment have altered so radically that textual literalism is of only so much value.

    Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, et. al. were brilliant men but nobody thinks they had the case of a citizen wielding a shoulder-mounted guided rocket launcher while driving a tank down the street in mind when they spelled out the right to bear arms.

  • ||

    I think they had exactly that in mind. For the most part, the British were defeated with the arms the populace privately owned. And that included cannons.

  • Xeynon||

    Oh, I agree. I've no doubt that they meant cannons as well as muskets. What they didn't mean is modern weapons they had no way of anticipating would ever exist.

  • ||

    Why not? The cannon was the most destructive weapon of war at the time.

  • sloopyinca||

    Do you also believe the founding fathers did not believe the 1st Amendment extended free speech to typewriters or the internet? Or that people would be free to practice Mormonism or be 7th Day Adventists?

    How about the 4th Amendment? Should it not apply to electronic files, automobiles or other "papers and effects" they had no way of anticipating would ever exist?

    Jeez, your selective reading of natural rights is absurd, arbitrary and against the entire spirit of individual liberty.

  • Xeynon||

    Not sure what happened to my initial reply to this...

    In short, the FF are not infallible authorities on freedom. They were okey-dokey with slavery, for instance.

    As for the other freedoms you enumerate, censorship of electronic media poses the same sort of threat to modern society as censorship of newspapers posed to 18th century society, persecution of Mormons would pose the same sort of threat to persecution of 18th century Catholics, and warrantless digital searches are the same sort of threat to individuals as warrantless physical searches were in the 18th century. Modern weapons are far more threatening to social order than 18th century weapons were, a principle which is both legally and jurisprudentially uncontroversial (napalm, machine guns, land mines, rocket launchers, tanks, etc. are illegal for private citizens to own). We're not arguing about drawing a new line here, we're arguing about slightly shifting one that has already been drawn.

  • sloopyinca||

    So, some rights they meant to transfer to modern technology but others they didn't? That's absurd. They put a mechanism in the Constitution whereby it could be changed. If people want to overturn or modify 2A rights, they are free to follow the proscribed method. Same goes for the 1A and 4A Rights.

    Modern weapons are far more threatening to social order than 18th century weapons were,

    [Citation Required]

    (napalm, machine guns, land mines, rocket launchers, tanks, etc. are illegal for private citizens to own)

    I know more than one person that legally owns machine guns and have personally been in a (legally) privately-owned tank. Hell you can buy one yourself tomorrow if you have the money.

  • Xeynon||

    [Citation Required]

    Do I need a citation to prove that a Corvette is faster than a horse and buggy too? A machine gun firing explosive ammunition can mow down a hundred people or more in a minute. A musket can be reloaded and fired (inaccurately) maybe twice in a minute. Absent some very weird circumstances, a lone gunman armed with a musket does not possess nearly the same ability to inflict massive loss of life as a lone gunman armed with an M16.

    I know more than one person that legally owns machine guns and have personally been in a (legally) privately-owned tank.

    Conceded that in some places in the US at least, you can legally own (some kinds) of machine guns, and you can legally own a tank (though can you legally purchase ammo for it? Honest question). In other places in the US however both are illegal under state or municipal laws, and challenges to these laws either haven't been launched or haven't been successful. And even where it is legal, it is heavily, heavily, heavily regulated, to the point that it definitely qualifies as "infringement" under any definition I'd care to give (and I'm guessing any you'd care to give as well). Nobody's had any success trying to overturn these bans/restrictions, either legislatively or in court on 2nd Amendment grounds. Hence my point that they are not politically or jurisprudentially controversial is proven even if heavily restricted ownership is actually legal in some jurisdictions.

  • sloopyinca||

    A Corvette vs a horse and buggy? It depends if the Corvette is running or not. And neither the lone gunman armed with the musket or machine gun has the ability ti inflict as much massive loss of life as the guy with a van full of fertilizer, ammonia and Dinitrogen Hydroxide (all legal).

    On to the tanks and artillery since it's legal to make reloads I don't know how one could be kept from owning ammunition they made. Purchasing it may be entirely different.

    Nobody's had any success trying to overturn these bans/restrictions, either legislatively or in court on 2nd Amendment grounds.

    When was the last time anybody tried to? Because nobody has brought a case doesn't mean they have lost. It just means people haven't pushed the issue.

    And you need to look deeper into those "heavy" restrictions. In much of the US they're not as heavy or thorough as you think they are.

  • Xeynon||

    Fair point on the fertilizer bomb. Those are three fairly innocuous chemicals in and of themselves and it is only in combination that they are extremely dangerous. I know laws have been considered (and I believe in some places passed) which require the recording and reporting to law enforcement of large purchases of each of those substances to make sure they are not being made in concert with the intent of building a bomb... honestly, such laws are a sticky wicket. On principle I find them offensive but if they prevent another OKC or WTC bombing they are another case where I may be willing to compromise somewhat.

  • sloopyinca||

    You are you so eager to give up my rights as well as yours? If you want to call the police every time you buy large quantities of those products (not that large quantities are needed to build a rather deadly bomb), then do so. But don't make me tell the authorities every time I buy something that is perfectly legal.

  • SIV||

    Why are you arguing with it?

    Since this is a libertarian website it seems like I may make some assumptions safely. I probably agree with you on 80-90% of issues after all.

    No it doesn't. This should have raised a HUGE ignore flag. This one should sound familiar by now too.

    I think we should grandfather in the old puppets and voluntarily agree to ignore new trolls/griefers/sockpuppets

  • Xeynon||

    For Chrissake, someone who disagrees with you on an issue is not a "troll/griefer/sock poppet". It's someone who disagrees with you, and in this case to your knowledge on only one issue.

    Is your capacity moral reasoning so stunted that you are incapable of recognizing that reasonable people can disagree? And do you prefer an echo chamber?

  • ||

    And do you prefer an echo chamber?

    No but you cannot be reasoned with. You have defeated your own arguments repetitively and yet you continue to argue the same points.

    Bottom line:

    These acts CANNOT be prevented. Attempting to do so diminishes individual liberty, emboldens those who would take more and provides no return on investment.

  • Xeynon||

    I realize you believe that, but... before I acknowledge you're right you are going to have prove that:

    A.)These acts cannot be prevented, at least to a degree (the liberals have a point that other countries where guns are less prevalent don't seem to have nearly as many of them).

    B.)Trying to prevent them emboldens people who want to take greater liberty (already demonstrated the fallacy of the "slippery slope to leftism" argument wrt economics, but if you want an example pertaining to gun ownership there's the assault weapons ban that rather than leading to subsequent handgun or shotgun bans, was repealed).

    C.)All gun safety measures fail to provide ANY return on investment (this is empirically false).

  • General Butt Naked||

    I only want to explore and implement ideas which would actually WORK (and I agree many of them won't). I just don't value personal liberty so highly that I'm willing to accept a higher number of people is necessary dying just to preserve a small sliver of it.

    So you want to enact laws and when they don't work enact more laws, while claiming liberty is preserved and safety increased?

    Yeah, that's pretty much what feel-good concern trolls do.

  • Xeynon||

    NO.

    Laws don't always work. They don't always achieve the goals they are intended to achieve. And when they don't, it's usually because they were ill-conceived to begin with, not because they "didn't go far enough".

    But some laws do work. And those are worth considering.

    Aren't you guys always talking about the stupidity of the "Team Red vs. Team Blue" dynamic? Just because I disagree with you on this one issue does not make me a liberal.

  • General Butt Naked||

    And when they don't, it's usually because they were ill-conceived to begin with, not because they "didn't go far enough".

    What you advocate is ill-conceived. You have little technical knowledge of the thing you seek to regulate. You can't quantify the good, if any, that would come from your suggestions, and indeed I haven't heard how you would specifically implement your poorly thought out scheme.

    Not only that, but you have the arrogance to suggest that with the system we have and the population we have no actual negative unintended consequences would result from your amorphous legislation.

  • Xeynon||

    What I am advocating is only a starting point. Rough ideas, as it were. I readily acknowledge that ALL of the things I have suggested would need revision, and I acknowledge that many legitimate criticisms and concerns have been raised. I have also acknowledged your superior knowledge of firearms on more than one occasion. How is any of that arrogant?

    Can't quantify the good because many of these ideas have not been road-tested, at least in the US. But it's worth giving some ideas a shot, and if they don't work, we can always dump them.

    As for unintended consequences - there are always unintended consequences in life. But as the "there's no proof!" sword cuts both ways - just as I can't prove some of my ideas will work, you can't prove that the unintended consequences you fear will actually come to pass. So we're even on that score.

  • General Butt Naked||

    How about we try all the ideas! Something will help, liberty be damned!

    Yay, big-government libertarianism!

  • Xeynon||

    Some functions of government are actually useful. Put down your Ayn Rand novel and read some real libertarian philosophy, my friend.

  • ||

    I just don't value personal liberty so highly that I'm willing to accept a higher number of people is necessary dying just to preserve a small sliver of it.

    One thing you're going to have to learn about libertarians is that we value liberty first and foremost. Until you can make the case that we should give up liberty for safety, all other arguments will fail.

  • Xeynon||

    I am a libertarian myself (though obviously not quite as hardened as you guys/girls) so I am aware of that. But believe me, I am getting a reminding. :)

  • General Butt Naked||

    I am a libertarian myself...

    Words, like "libertarian" and "assault rifle" don't mean whatever you think they should mean.

  • Xeynon||

    Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, eh?

    Have fun with that. If you define "libertarian" as "agrees with me 100% of all issues", then by your definition you will find there is precisely one libertarian in the world, you.

  • General Butt Naked||

    "I'm a marxist libertarian that believes in strict gun control and the death penalty for illegal drugs!"

    "Umm, that's not really what a libertarian is."

    "AARRRGGUP, DID Y'ALLZ SEE DAT. HE SCOTSMAN FALLACIED AT ME!one!"

    Yeah, you go on with your gun controlling libertarian self.

  • Xeynon||

    For someone who obviously takes pride in his (99% sure you are a "he", but if I am wrong I apologize) ability to argue, you sure do like your meaningless rhetorical tricks a lot. The Scotsman was a sharp blow, but comboing a truly magnificent strawman with a third grade insult as your followup? Brilliant.

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    I am not sure what your views on other issues might be, but you aren't exactly exuding libertarianism with your posts.

    You can't repeatedly state opinions that are at odds with libertarianism and claim it is your core belief. You might still be influenced by libertarianism, but you aren't a libertarian if you say things like people who buy common and harmless materials should be flagged because together they might make a weapon.

    It's like saying you are for gay rights, but sodomy should be illegal.

  • sloopyinca||

    But it's a fact that had he been prevented from obtaining a high-powered assault rifle there would likely be at least a dozen young children still alive today who no longer are.

    Yeah, and he was prevented from obtaining one through legal channels. He resorted to stealing one from his mother, which last I checked was a crime.

  • Xeynon||

    Fair point. It wouldn't have prevented Lanza from carrying out his attack.

    However, an armed and trained staff member at the school might have stopped him before he killed so many people. Redundancy works.

  • sloopyinca||

    Yep, and many of us in this very thread have stated that allowing people on staff to exercise their 2A rights on campus may have stopped or slowed down this attack.

    Imagine that: increasing gun rights would have had a potentially better impact than further restricting them. I'm glad you've finally seen the light. You're welcome.

  • Xeynon||

    sloopyinca, I said that I was in favor of allowing trained school security staff to carry weapons much, much earlier in the argument. Always have thought that was a good idea. You and I agree on that, you haven't enlightened me.

    I'm just willing to entertain the possibility that there are other ideas that might also work, and that (targeted, limited, empirically demonstrably effective) gun control measures might be among them.

  • sloopyinca||

    Oh, I didn't see that. Perhaps my eyes were clouded with all of the control (read: limiting) measures you have also proposed that I didn't see the one thing you mentioned, even if it's 24 hours after we already brought it up, that could have actually had a positive impact without infringing on a constitutional right.

    Do you not see that it is better to come up with solutions that increase liberty and potentially increase security than solutions that definitely decrease liberty and potentially increase security? Seriously, man. What kind of 80-90% libertarian are you?

  • Xeynon||

    I prefer solutions that increase liberty. But sometimes such solutions are not possible. As I said earlier, if the decrease in liberty is small and relatively inconsequential, and the increase is security is large, I will consider the tradeoff.

    What kind of libertarian am I? A practical one.

  • sloopyinca||

    A solution that decreases liberty is no solution at all.

    What kind of libertarian am I? A practical one I'm not one.

    FIFY!

  • Xeynon||

    That's an absolute statement, and almost every absolute statement is untenable. The world is a complex place and maintaining a peaceful society is a complex challenge. Guess what? Locking up Geoffrey Dahmer, John Muhammad, James Holmes, etc. decreased liberty. Someone who really thinks it therefore wasn't a valid solution to the problem that these men posed a danger to society because they were violent killers is too effing stupid to be reasoned with.

    If being libertarian requires being a blind stupid ideologue, then by all means disqualify me from the club. I'm not going to get butthurt about not being an idiot.

  • ||

    You're making a logical mistake here. Those guys violated the liberty of others, and were locked up as punishment for their crimes. What you're proposing is that all of us should be locked up until we can prove that we're sane enough to be granted rights by the government. It's completely backwards.

  • sloopyinca||

    Guess what? Locking up Geoffrey Dahmer, John Muhammad, James Holmes, etc. decreased liberty.

    Really? You're going down this road? Those men were locked up as punishment for breaking laws that deprived others of their natural rights. They didn't "pose a danger to society," they acted against the rights of other individuals. There's a big difference.

    What you propose diminishes liberty for arbitrary reasons ans against people who have committed no crime. Saying I am equating that to locking up Jeffrey Dahmer is disingenuous and/or idiotic.

    If being libertarian requires being a blind stupid ideologue, then by all means disqualify me from the club. I'm not going to get butthurt about not being an idiot.

    Poor baby. Taking a principled stand against an arbitrary infringement on the rights of people that have never broken a law is being an ideologue now? Well then call me, and many others on here, an ideologue.

  • Xeynon||

    Those men were locked up as punishment for breaking laws that deprived others of their natural rights.

    They were locked up for committing crimes, yes. Excluding Dahmer, who's already dead, one of the reasons they won't be released as other people who've committed homicide sometimes are is that it has been determined that they would pose a threat to society if they were. Inmates are routinely denied parole because they are deemed too dangerous to release, as are dangerous mental patients. These people are being punished for crimes they haven't committed, and may not commit, are they not?

    As for what I propose, "lessening the likelihood of mass shootings like Newtown, Aurora, and Tuscon" (assuming that can be accomplished - I am willing to acknowledge it may prove impossible, and if so abandon my commitment to these positions) - well, that isn't exactly arbitrary. And allowing someone to exercise their rights, but requiring that they demonstrate competence and regard for public safety beforehand, doesn't equate to "infringement" in my book.

    And yes, you are an ideologue. I admire the purity of your position in a way. But I think you fail to acknowledge the fact that individual liberty is not the only principle that matters in ordering society, even if it is one of the most important.

  • ||

    When an inmate is denied parole, that means ho won't be released early. Once his sentence is up, they have no choice but to release him.

  • sloopyinca||

    But I think you fail to acknowledge the fact that individual liberty is not the only principle that matters in ordering society, even if it is one of the most important.

    Without individual liberty society is but a form of slavery. There is no principle more important than individual liberty.

  • Xeynon||

    That's a bit dogmatic.

    There is social harmony. And norms that govern interactions between individuals. And collective safety. And so on. I think individual liberty is certainly extremely important, but there are cases in which it is less important than one of these others. And I'll leave it at that.

  • sloopyinca||

    There is social harmony. And norms that govern interactions between individuals. And collective safety. And so on. I think individual liberty is certainly extremely important, but there are cases in which it is less important than one of these others. And I'll leave it at that.

    Individual liberty is much more important than all of the other concepts, but is in no way mutually exclusive of them. Take collective safety. I have no issue with groups of people paying for collective security to protect private property rights and individual liberty from those that would take it from them.

    As far as "social harmony" and "norms that govern interactions," as far as I'm concerned, those are nothing more than a society imposing their will against a minority. For example, a person that smokes pot in the privacy of their own home will be arrested for breaking the "social harmony". Whose liberty have they infringed upon? Or if someone chose to walk around near an abortion clinic carrying pictures of dead fetuses but not impeding traffic. They get arrested for breaking the "norms that govern interactions" even though they are not forcing anyone to interact with them.

    I've given you an example of both concepts you say can outweigh individual liberty. Can you give me an example to counter either of them?

  • Xeynon||

    Pot and bans on abortion protests are both horrible examples. Not going to attempt to defend either of those.

    But here are two I will give you.

    Social harmony: Respecting publicly held spaces. As an individual I have the right to listen to heavy metal music at loud volumes or run a smelting operation. But my individual rights do not extend to the point that I am entitled to blare loud music late at night in a quiet residential neighborhood, or to dispose of waste from my smelting operation by dispersing toxic smoke into the sky and pouring acid into the rivers.

    Norms that govern interaction: Business transactions. Certain minimum rules are necessary to make sure that economic exchanges are conducted fairly. It is justifiably illegal, for example, to print counterfeit money and then use it to pay someone else for goods or services they have rendered you, even though an individual has the right to use a printing press. Similarly the court system. If two landowners have a dispute over where the line between their property is one of them cannot exercise his individual right to build on his property until he has settled the other's claim that it is not in fact his property.

    I do think in many cases (hate speech laws, protest restrictions, drug laws, etc.) these principles are misapplied. But they are still valid in some cases.

  • sloopyinca||

    Private property rights do not allow you to pollute another's property. Under a liberty-focused system, that waste disposal would be illegal as well. As to the music, that is a gray area. Would a protester be able to protest at night on a city sidewalk? Would they be able to on private property with the owner's consent? If they're not trespassing, how are they infringing on someone else's right? Your property values are not more important than my private property rights, so if I want to play music on my property, that's my right. You are free to build a barrier on your property to block the noise.

    Your counterfeit money argument holds no water. The printer is already committing fraud by passing it off as something it is not. The argument between landowners is one area where our legal system is needed...to establish and protect private property rights. That is one of the few responsibilities of the government IMO, and it would certainly exist under my ideal form of limited government. It's no "social norm" that liberty-focused people would disagree with, that's for sure.

    Your examples suck, man.

  • sloopyinca||

    They were locked up for committing crimes, yes. Excluding Dahmer, who's already dead, one of the reasons they won't be released as other people who've committed homicide sometimes are is that it has been determined that they would pose a threat to society if they were. Inmates are routinely denied parole because they are deemed too dangerous to release, as are dangerous mental patients. These people are being punished for crimes they haven't committed, and may not commit, are they not?

    Whatever the reason for denying parole, the condemned is still not being forced to spend more time in prison that he/she was sentenced to. They are merely being made to continue serving the sentence they were imprisoned for.

    Not granting early release =/= keeping someone in prison after a sentence is completed.

  • Xeynon||

    Fair point on parole, but it is still the case that prison sentences are not imposed and carried solely on the basis of crimes someone has committed, but also crimes they may commit in the future.

    And what of institutionalization? Violently psychotic people are routinely committed to high-security mental hospitals rather than sent to prison, for indefinite periods, and they too go unreleased because they pose a threat to society.

  • ||

    It is absolutely, unequivocally illegal for a court to sentence someone for crimes they have not yet committed. If you get arrested for not paying a speeding ticket, they can't lock you up indefinitely because you might commit vehicular manslaughter some day.

  • sloopyinca||

    And allowing someone to exercise their rights, but requiring that they demonstrate competence and regard for public safety beforehand, doesn't equate to "infringement" in my book.

    Not allowing someone to exercise their rights until they meet the state's arbitrary qualifications is the textbook definition of "infringement". Look up poll tax, Jim Crow or any other number of arbitrary qualifications the government tried to impose on people before they were allowed to exercise natural rights. Your proposal belongs on the ash heap of society with the rest of them.

  • Xeynon||

    Alright, I gotta get out of here, so this is going to my last set of replies, but...

    You and I define "arbitrary" differently. Things like skin color on which the poll tax, Jim Crow, etc. were based on skin color which I would agree are arbitrary. Competence at operating a deadly weapon reliably, I do not think is arbitrary.

    But even before that, you have misunderstood my position badly if you think I'm arguing for necessarily having the state determine what competence is. I'd allow it if were the only other option. But if you look back at my very first thread in this post I advocated that groups like the NRA be the ones who offer safety training and certification. And for the right of private citizens to bring suit against each other in civil court being the mechanism by which unvetted gun sales are discouraged. You can dismiss both ideas if you like but neither is a call for more government - rather for better policing among the citizenry itself. More government is a choice of last resort.

  • sloopyinca||

    Goodbye. You'll be missed.

  • Xeynon||

    Haha. I assume you are being sarcastic but I still take it as a compliment.

    I actually came to this thread to float these ideas largely because I wanted to hear some sharp criticisms that made me think through the issues more carefully and while there have been some replies I think are vacuous or simplistic y'all have also offered some trenchant and intelligent critiques. Sincere thanks for that.

  • ||

    X, your intellectual problem is you're a bit muddy on what all these things are. You thought assault rifles were something they aren't. You thought the current laws applied in ways they don't. You thought there were laws for things that aren't illegal. You misunderstand how incarceration works. It's not just semantics. Little things like that add up, and without a solid grasp of why things work the way they do now, your proposed solutions are doomed to have consequences you never intended. You'll figure it out once you question your assumptions more aggressively.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    But it's a fact that had he been prevented from obtaining a high-powered assault rifle there would likely be at least a dozen young children still alive today who no longer are.


    and how would you have prevented him from obtaining a high-powered assault rifle?

  • XM||

    I heard he left the "Bushmaster" in the car. Also, he tried to purchase guns at a Sporting goods store, and couldn't wait 14 days for the application to be approved.

    If true, then he killed the kids mostly with handguns, or guns that were legally purchased, which sort of makes the gun control issue a moot point. Cho Seung Hee killed 30 plus people with 4 handguns.

    In that kind of closed environment, talking about the caliber of the gun seems like splitting hair.

  • ||

    The initial report was that the Bushmaster was in his trunk, but I've since read that it was the weapon he used for the bulk of the killings.

  • Philo||

    The media is invarably focused on the very marginal affect of possible gun control laws. They almost ignore, excpet for some very nebulous commentary, the consequences of the public enetertainment of pain and cruelty that pays their salaries. I wonder if by some odd twist of fate news outlets were owned by gun companies, that public commentary would be as protective of the 2nd amendment as it is of the first.

  • Romulus Augustus||

    Where's the concern about our weepy president continuing drone attacks on children, wedding parties, and whatever other "collateral
    damage" happens to be in first or second tap range?

  • sloopyinca||

    ^^Racist^^

    /Chony

  • Skip||

    I'm sure Michael Moore's sympathy and respect for old people extends to the ones who are members of the Tea Party. /sarcasm

  • SIV||

    That's George W. Bushmaster to you, commie.

    Are y'all feeding the sockpuppets again?

  • ||

    Unless you are going to start systematically discriminating against people with disorders as amorphous as Asperger Symdrome, there is no way that background checks would have prevented any of this, as this kid does not seem to have had any prior police record.

    It seems that all of our recent incidents were carried out by people who psychiatric disorders, but you can't legally discriminate against people with psychiatric disorders unless they have already been (a) disagnosed, and (b) displayed a history of violence.

  • SIV||

    You would have to discriminate against anyone who shares a household with an ass-burger.

    It seems that all of our recent incidents were carried out by people who psychiatric disorders

    That is a common and unproven assumption.

    IIRC, a psych disorder diagnosis in no way disqualifies firearms ownership, or even carry permits. There has to be an incidence of involuntary commitment.

    You can voluntarily vacation at the rubber ranch, get discharged, and go buy a gun.

  • rswanker||

    Hi,

    Your article promises "Next: The reality of gun violence and how to deal with it..." but I don't see anything about the "how to deal with it" part. I'm truly interested in a libertarian response to this that helps reduce such horrible tragedies. The end of this article, like others I've seen, simply discusses stats about how violence is down, etc. All true, but, not an answer to the problem: how do we keep troubled people from murdering 18 little kids?

    Again, just a productive criticism of how the article is labeled, and a desire to hear a positive libertarian solution to this problem.

  • Redmanfms||

    Crazy people do crazy things.

    Permitting teachers to carry firearms if they so choose wouldn't eliminate these events, but they would decrease the severity.

  • sloopyinca||

    Roethlisberger, you stupid motherfucker.

  • sloopyinca||

    Be prepared to see more of this happening in the future.

    Looks like thoughtcrime to me unless they have credible and physical evidence. And if they had it, I think they'd have said so.

  • sloopyinca||

    Remember the story where cops picked up a drunk driver that could barely stand (BAC 3x the legal limit), and rather than take him in (because it was close to the end of shift), they dropped him off at a Taco Bell with no way to get home and the guy ended up getting run over and killed?

    The first officer has been found guilty and fined $20. That's right...$20.

  • ||

    The fuck? I understand not charging the guy with a DUI, but why leave him at Taco Bell instead of taking him home?

    I'm not sure I think the cops are culpable here. Let's say it's you and I out drinking instead, and I drop you off at Taco Bell for whatever reason. If you get hit by a car, is that my fault for not taking you home?

  • sloopyinca||

    No, but you are not under orders to arrest all drunk drivers. Also if they didn't want to arrest him, then they had no right to take him somewhere else. Once they took him into possession, they were responsible for his well-being.

    That said, I think this guy shouldn't have been charged and/or fined. He never got close to the "detainee". The other cops should bear responsibility for the man since they took him away from his only mode of transportation and (knowingly-they were laughing about him being wasted on their dashcam) left him abandoned in an incapacitated state of mind.

  • ||

    Yeah, OK, I agree with that. If they apprehend the guy, even if the don't arrest him, knowing he's incapacitated, they have the responsibility of dropping him off somewhere presumably safe. The parking lot of a restaurant is not that place.

  • sloopyinca||

    Right. You leave him with his car, or if you take him into custody, then you take him home or you take him in. Dropping him in an unfamiliar place with a diminished mental capacity should not be an option.

  • Tejicano||

    Why is this discussion about "assault weapons" anyway?

    All the news references I have seen about where the rifle was found state it was in the car. If that is the case then he did not use it in the school shooting spree. Since the only other weapons he had were handguns then there is no reason why this discussion needs to be about “assault weapons”.

    Of course the media and the usual lefty suspects need to keep the focus on that but I hope the above fact starts to sink in for most of America pretty soon.

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    I have seen reports stating both that it was left in the car and that the Bushmaster was used in the majority of the killings...

    That is sort of why all the politicization of this case is pissing me off. We don't even know all the facts yet, but every dipshit is piping in with their own 2 cents.

  • sloopyinca||

    Obama interrupting the football game to grandstand on this situation.

    This is gonna be his gun control pitch. You wait and see.

  • sloopyinca||

    "The first responders are coming"

    ...yeah, right after the shooting ended.

    Let teachers, administrators and other employees exercise their 2A rights and these situations end with less innocent bloodshed.

  • sloopyinca||

    Motherfucker! He's pitching gun control at a memorial service. What a craven cocksucker.

    Tell you what, asshole. There have been more reports of innocents being killed by American drones in Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan in the past four years than there have been in the US since you took office, you prick.

  • ||

    Hey now! The president is a top man. All those kids he killed with those drones got what they deserved.

  • sloopyinca||

    I can only say that I hope AirForceOne explodes in a fireball on his way back to DC tonight.

  • sloopyinca||

    I honestly hope this man does not survive his second term. He wants to kill liberty and for that he deserves to die a traitor's death.

  • sloopyinca||

    Quoting Jesus Christ as if they're his words? Just a craven, sick narcissist the likes of which are rarely seen outside the borders of North Korea, Cuba or the old days of the Soviet Union.

  • effinayright||

    Michael Moore is a dumbass. "Bushmaster" is the name of the company that makes the weapon in question. It predates Bush's presidency.

    The word "bushmaster" refers to a large Amazonian snake; a snake appears in Bushmaster's logo.

    Someone has written: "Saying the firearm caused the victims' death is like saying a fork is responsible for making Michael Moore an enormous tub of guts."

  • sloopyinca||

    Why are you voluntarily watching Michael Moore?

  • Agile Cyborg||

    For the same reason I voluntarily watch documentaries on genocide. It is ideal to be informed of the nightmarish and senseless.

  • sloopyinca||

    What's worse, Obama's craven, self-absorbed speech or Chris Collinsworth's pathetic play-by-play?

  • attractions guide||

    This is so terrible, the guy who shooted students dead is deserve to execute by shooting.

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    The guy who did it is way ahead of you.

  • GregMax||

    You're all gonna be bitches in the socialist gulag!
    Think about it.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Nah, the socialist gulag is slowly becoming relegated to the constipated hussy with her baggie-lined finger trying to fish out tight turds from the pooper. That's modern day socialism. Quit fucking lying below the poop fling.

  • mbaird||

    And this level of maturity is truly helping make the case for more gun ownership.

  • mbaird||

    When will the arms race end?

    The arms race with the Federal government was over decades ago with M1 tanks, F-21 Raptors, spy satellites, Predator's, etc.

    Does this mean Iran has the right to build nuclear weapons because they fear the US? When does the arms race end?

  • mbaird||

    Pardon me but I am going to stoop to the same level. Where in the FUCK are all you second amendment supports when it comes to the seventh amendment being attacked by conservatives and the US Chamber of Commerce. My guess is that one takes money and the other does not. My guess is that when it requires money to support a particular amendment conservatives run to the hills. We under fund our justice system. We place more restriction on the common to seek justice out his back door. We place more restrictions on local communities to orient society as they see fit.

    The seventh amendment is constantly attacked with Federal preemption laws and Federal restrictions to control the "conservative mythologized hype" of frivolous lawsuits.

    So until conservative get serious with the rest amendments I cannot take their passion for the constitution seriously.

  • mbaird||

    I am going to go to the gutter like some have gone in this message thread.

    Let's thank all twenty children for paying the ultimate price so that grown men can play with their guns so that they can message the fear sitting deep inside their Amygdala. In fact I think we should build a memorial that says, "They died so that grown men can play with their guns and stair fear in the face of right wing conspiracy theories flooding the internet these days."

  • ||

    One of the many reasons we are unable to successfully address the problem of mass shootings and overall gun violence is cynicism. This crisis is often treated like some kind of parlour game empowers writers/bloggers to nitpick minor inaccuracies and hold them up as " 4 awful reactions". For example, Murdoch used the term "automatic" to refer to the weapons used at Sandy Hook and the Port Moresby Gun Ban. The technically correct term would have been "auto loading". The popularized form of that term is "semi automatic".

    The important point is that Murdoch advocated removing a type of weapon which is capable of rapid rates of fire as a solution. That type of ban was enacted in "Oz" within 15 days of the Moresby massacre. Since that time (1996), there have been ZERO mass shootings in Australia. That was his point. Lets discuss THAT.

    Lets advance the debate, not trivialize it. The NRA already fulfills that role. By the way, There was an armed, active duty police officer at Columbine H.S before, during and after the shootings. Within 4 minutes of the first shoots, 5 more armed police arrived. They were unable to immediately halt the assault due to the superior firepower of the shooters and their use of bullet resistant garments and, most importantly, the element of surprise achieved.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement