Gun Restrictions Have Always Bred Defiance, Black Markets

For reasons of their own, most people, in many countries, defy anti-gun laws

(Page 7 of 7)

That said, the underlying point of all of this evidence of extremely well-armed scofflaws around the world is this: the scofflaws’ motivations don’t matter; agreement with their reasoning doesn’t matter; sharing or even respecting their values is entirely irrelevant. All that matters is that, from one country to the next, across barriers of language and culture, government officials in even the most benign, stable democracies that have attempted to disarm their subjects, or to limit the weapons available for legal ownership, or even to do no more than track gun owners and register guns, have run into overwhelming resistance. Mass defiance has crippled registration programs, hobbled confiscations schemes and made a mockery of licensing programs.

Given a choice between complying with restrictions on firearms ownership and defying the law, a clear majority of people in most jurisdictions have chosen rebellion. The tighter the law, the more obvious the rebellion, to the point that the vast majority of firearms in civilian hands in Europe are owned outside the law.

If history is any judge, that’s probably a good thing. But even if you don’t agree, this is a world in which civilians are well-armed, and intent on staying that way.

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.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Is that one of those novelty cigarette lighters?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Tuccille,

    Congratulations on your best piece ever.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Yeah. Good one 2Chili.

  • Pi Guy||

    Agreed. Great post.

  • shamalam||

    Agreed. Excellent work, Tucille. Makes me happy that I bought a kindle copy of your, "High Desert Barbecue".

  • SweatingGin||

    Screw it, just for this post I'm buying high desert BBQ.

    Braver than me to admit illegal ownership ( even briefly)

  • Bill||

    What is your address, sir? Just for the records, you see.

  • Monty Crisco||

    True dat yo...

  • Concerned Citizen||

    In today's Columbus fish wrap David Kessler referenced research done by David Barker on mass shootings involving armed victims vs unarmed victims. When a citizen shoots back, the average death toll is 2.3. When the victims obey the "gun free zone" signs, the average death toll is 14.29.

  • Brutus||

    Yes, but we're learning that the latter were much more civilized in their slaughter. Shooting back is barbaric.

  • ||

    JD, the first rule of illegal gun club is that you do not talk about illegal gun club.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Yeah....I hope he's no longer in NYC, or he's just painted a big target on his back.

  • ||

    I believe he lives in Arizona now, where the gun would be perfectly legal.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Ah. So he transported an illegal firearm across state lines? Now it's a Federal matter.

    Get 'im boys!!!

  • Henry||

    Not just legal in Arizona, but we actually have occasional traffic checkpoints to make sure you own one. Solves our illegal immigration problem over the California border.

  • Sevo||

    Hey, just put up a sign that guns are legal. The average CA regressive will faint at the thought and never get to the border.

  • BarryD||

    I like that idea. Unlike the signs at the Mexican border that proclaim:

    GUNS ILLEGAL IN MEXICO
    U-turn to USA 1/2 mile

    we should have signs that read:

    GUNS ARE VERY LEGAL IN IDAHO
    Open season on carjackers. No limit.

    and the like.

  • Monty Crisco||

    Well, if America would just LEARN from Mexico's enlightened example and just prohibit private ownership of ALL guns, then we could finally ELIMINATE these mass shootings and no one would ever be a victim of gun crime ever again.

    Because no one dies of it in Mexico, right?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Such a measure would prove corrective and salutary in a city filled with immigrants and evil communications, floating from the shores of Italy...

    I don't care how many dago, guinea, wop, greaseball goombahs come out of the woodwork! None of you are getting a gun permit!

  • Ken Shultz||

    In regards to how few people comply with registration, given the number of unregistered guns out there, it's amazing what a small percentage of the guns in the dark are actually used in crime. It must be a very small percentage.

    Incidentally, where I used to live in LA, between Compton and Inglewood, on New Years, it was a tradition in the community to "shoot in the New Year". To hear so much automatic gunfire all at once, you'd have to be in battle. I would say most of my neighbors had an AK-47.

  • Ken Shultz||

    In regards to keeping governments hesitant about abusing their armed citizenry, that's the real reason for the Second Amendment.

    I don't think we even need to look at Nazi Germany for examples. The recently overthrown dictatorships of North Africa once enjoyed popular support when they overthrew the vestiges of colonialism. Once all that changed...

    When the peaceful protestors of Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya kept protesting after prayers on Fridays, despite the snipers taking out protestors regularly, I don' think the protestors were consciously emulating Gandhi and MLK so much as they had no other means to resist.

    Come to think of it, the people who won the civil rights struggle in the South and the Indians who won their independence from the British, they weren't exactly well armed either. I'm a big believer in peaceful protest, but if I ever feel it necessary to subject myself to such abuse, I'd rather it were by choice.

    ...rather than becasue I'm powerless to do anything else.

  • croaker||

    The reason why MLK was so successful is that he had Malcolm X in the background waving a shotgun.

  • SDN||

    The reason Ghandi and MLK were successful is that they were confronting non-totalitarian and Anglo-Saxon law-based governments. Their track record if confronting a Mao or Saddam would have been far less effective.

    Also, if you read the actual accounts as opposed to Leftist propaganda, even the "non-violent" civil-rights activists kept guns in the home. See Condaleeza Rice's account of her father and his neighbors forming a militia to keep the Klan out of their neighborhoods... and that it worked.

  • BillCa||

    Southern Blacks formed a group called The Deacons For Defense who armed themselves with guns to protect civil rights protesters. The Southern, segregationist Democrat machines that operated through the south had used police dogs, water hoses and riot cops on the protesters until the Deacons showed up (dressed in slacks & ties mostly) carrying shotguns, rifles and pistols. There were enough of them that a confrontation would certainly become a public bloodbath. Abuses by authorities declined dramatically.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Mass defiance has crippled registration programs, hobbled confiscations schemes and made a mockery of licensing programs.

    But it makes politicians look like they're Doing Something.

  • juris imprudent||

    And when Doing Something doesn't work, the politicians (and their idiot admirers) will say that we didn't do it hard enough (see War on Drugs).

  • Monty Crisco||

    And see the stimulus... and Obamacare...and taxes.. and ANY UTOPIAN LAW THE STATISTS IMPOSE!!!!

    Failure of government automatically justifies... MORE GOVERNMENT!!!

  • Bardas Phocas||

    I liked this DIY project someone posted here a few days ago - making a AK out of a shovel:
    http://www.northeastshooters.c.....mi-warning!

  • ||

    This is awesome, thanks. I'm saving this.

  • Sevo||

    "New York City’s peculiar breed of middlemen known as “expediters” to get the permit processed."

    Sam: Marty, you need a fixer to take care of your problem.
    Marty: Sam, did you say "vixen"?
    Sam: No. A FIXER. He knows people who can take care of problems like yours and you just pay him a little money to make the problem go away.
    Marty: Still sounds like a vixen to me...

  • Pi Guy||

    "I'm Winston Wolf. I solve problems."

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    3d printing may make gun control obsolete.

  • Generic Stranger||

    It's always been obsolete. 3D printing, eventually, may make it easier, but as Too-chilly has pointed out, you can manufacture modern firearms out of scrap metal in the back of a mud hut.

    Modern CNC machine mills have made it even easier, and they aren't that much more expensive than a 3d printer. And the easiest types of firearms to make with such devices are open bolt, fully automatic submachine guns like Stens or grease guns.

    Smuggling them is even easier than smuggling drugs. Dogs can't detect them like they can drugs; just bury them in a box of scrap metal or machine parts and they're undetectable unless you search every single crate.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I have little doubt that there will be laws passed to control the distribution and use of 3D printers.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's a frightening new technology.

    People can do whatever they want with it!

  • Killazontherun||

  • 21044||

    It's been a few years now (ban was still on), but I used to coach lacrosse with a guy that was a supervisor level BATF for the No. VA/Washington Beltway area. While he was a bit of an *sshole, as you might expect, he was candid about his contempt for the "assault weapons" ban. I asked him about some of the stuff the gun control advocates yap on about.

    He told me there was no organized smuggling of guns, except for NYC, though those smuggled guns were stolen not legally purchased. He also told me that the majority of guns used in crimes originated as stolen items.

    As far as fully-automatic weapons, he told me that they rarely ever encountered them. When they did find fully-auto weapons, they were either illegal "war trophies" not used in any crime except for possession of an unlicensed full-auto weapon and illegally - unsafely and unreliably - converted semi-auto weapons.

    The pols know the truth, they just don't want to let that get in the way of their agenda.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The whole point of the assault weapons and large clips bans is to create a slippery slope.

    The organized gun grabbers know full well that those bans will do jack shit but sound reasonable to ignorant hoplophobes. So get them in law and when the next inevitable tragedy happens use it to justify ramping up the bans. Rinse & repeat a few times until you convince enough people that only an outright ban and confiscation will keep people safe.

  • ||

    But there's one thing you underestimate JD, and that's how America will quickly support comprehensive gun control once they see all the celebrities who support it!

  • Redmanfms||

    I don't know, the stuff in the comments section isn't the usual YouTube brand of amazing asshatery. Most of the calls for gun bans (at least at the time I read through the comments) come from foreigners.

    Gives me a little hope.

    I do purely love the message in the video though, "Demand a plan NOW!! Before it is TOO LATE!! We can DO BETTER!! Enough!! Enough!! Enough!!" Yeah, legislating out of emotion is such a wise and reasoned plan for action. And fucking progs lecture everyone else that THEY are the adults in the room.

  • ||

    That, and we're being told to embrace gun control by a group of wealthy acctors that can, in any event, afford to hire their own private security.

    Also, how weird is it see Ron Swanson calling for gun control? You disappoint me, Offerman.

  • ||

    Also, how weird is it see Ron Swanson calling for gun control? You disappoint me, Offerman.

    It's called acting. Did you think there are actual actors who are anything like Ron Swanson in real life?

  • ||

    Anything like? Sure. Just like? Probably not.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The tighter the law, the more obvious the rebellion, to the point that the vast majority of firearms in civilian hands in Europe are owned outside the law.

    If history is any judge, that’s probably a good thing. But even if you don’t agree, this is a world in which civilians are well-armed, and intent on staying that way."

    We should go back and look at what drove the militia movement in the 90s, again.

    Bill Clinton campaigned on gun control. Then there was Ruby Ridge. Then there was Waco. Then Clinton pushed through the Brady Bill. Then he pushed through the Assault Weapons Ban.

    Not coincidentally, the militia movement continued to gain momentum. Then there was the Oklahoma City bombing.

    The Oklahoma City bombing put an end to the momentum of the militia movement, but we didn't hear about gun control for a long time, either.

    It's true that people quietly defy bans and registration.

    It's also true that when the laws become too tight, the rebellion can become not just obvious, but painfully so.

  • SIV||

    Ruby Ridge preceded Clinton. It occurred under the executive order "assault weapon" import ban presidency of George H W Bush.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Thank you.

  • Ken Shultz||

    ...thanks in regards to Ruby Ridge date, especially.

    In regards to the assault weapons ban, I was talking about this:

    "One year after signing the Brady Law, White House lobbying also played a role in the passage of the 1994 Crime Bill, which included the assault weapons ban. The law banned certain semi-automatic firearms with two or more specific design features, and also prohibited the manufacture of ammunition magazines that held over ten rounds.[9]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.....eapons_ban

  • SIV||

    I just like to remind people the "first" assault weapons ban was an executive order by Bush I. We lost all of those cool Chinese guns that were considered "low quality" when they were available and later judged to be of a very high quality (Norinco 1911s and .308 M-14 style carbines, Polytech AKs etc.

    Oddly enough (heh), Republican firearms enthusiasts sometimes have a big memory hole on our first AWB and that it was done by executive order. The day Bush signed it was the day I joined the NRA.

  • croaker||

    NRA:Republicans Battered wife:Spouse

  • ||

    Comment: Incoherence Amusing commenter: Silly-silly.

  • Cloudbuster||

    It was one of the main reasons I didn't vote for the first Bush's relection.

  • Lina Inverse||

    The government's attempted show trial of its living victims at Ruby Ridge happened in 1993 and that, especially the acquittals or very nearly so got attention. It settled the civil lawsuit against it with the Weavers in 1995 paying out low seven figures.

  • ||

    Speaking strictly theoretically and hypothetically, how might a person not particularly trusting of the direction the current criminal gang running government acquire a full-auto rifle without running afoul of said authorities?

    Craigslist?

  • ||

    I believe weapons sales are not allowed on Craigslist. Not even bows and arrows. I suspect you need to know a guy who knows a guy.

  • bmp1701||

    A guy who knows a guy.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Are you self-identifying?

  • Pi Guy||

    It's sort of a Kevin Bacon thing: we all know a guy who knows a guy. We need only figure out who the guy and the other guy are.

  • ||

    Actually you just have to figure out who the first guy is. That guy already knows the other guy.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Mmmmmmm. Bacon.

  • Killazontherun||

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    What? I don't... Why?

    Well I hope you and your little friends had fun making this, Killaz. But please, just keep it to Facebook.

  • Killazontherun||

    You kept talking about bacon, thought you wanted some.

    Plus, not my friends, by sheer coincidence they were all on the contract sent to me through proxy.

  • Killazontherun||

    Lol pbuh, still can't believe you clicked that link. I searched for 'Wicked Games' Bacon bacon. Discovered those idiots.

  • Virginian||

    Obviously I oppose the NFA, the GCA, and the Hughes Amendment, but full auto when it comes to small arms is kind of a niche feature, when you're talking about actual combat use. Obviously a full on medium or heavy machine gun is very useful (Take care of Ma Deuce, she'll take care of you), but when it comes to rifles, a select fire M16 isn't a great leap in lethality over a civilian AR that only has semiauto.

    From what I've read most soldiers keep their weapons on semi. Which makes sense. Even the best shots have trouble keeping long bursts on target.

  • ||

    Exactly. It's always seemed to me that long bursts are most effective at offering cover fire.

  • ||

    That depends on your choice of weapons.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5t7zrmJuPw

  • ||

    From what I've read most soldiers keep their weapons on semi.

    My understanding is that the default for soldiers is 3 round auto bursts -- enough bullets in the burst to make sure you take down your target, not so many bullets that the rifle recoil takes you off target.

    So, an actual machine gun rather than a semi-auto would be better if the 2nd Amendment hadn't been unconstitutionally gutted by government judges ruling in favor of the government.

  • BillCa||

    The current military weapons usually have a 3-4 round burst mode, either with or without a 4th position for full rock 'n roll mode. The burst mode allows multiple rapid hits on a target to ensure he's stopped while conserving ammo.

    I've always thought full-auto guns were rather self-limiting. Given that today a 20-round box of 5.56mm ammo costs about $10 or more, shooting a machine gun becomes frightfully expensive. Figure anywhere from $50-$100 per minute including magazine changes. An M2 .50 BMG, at $3 per round costs over $2,000 per minute to run. Few can afford such an expensive pastime.

  • Chris Mallory||

    Local "Nickel News", or what ever they call them in your area, classified ad papers. Usually free outside stores. They normally allow firearms ads.

  • Patriot||

    Exactly. Criminals could get their hands on guns as easily as they could on drugs now.

  • Drake||

    Full-Auto is very overrated until you get to belt-fed machine guns.

    As the prayer says = "It's the hits that count".

  • Sevo||

    Drake| 12.22.12 @ 6:26PM |#
    "Full-Auto is very overrated until you get to belt-fed machine guns."

    Always handy to have some rounds left if you miss the first time.

  • wingnutx||

    Backpage allows weapons sales.

    Craigslist does not. You get flagged almost instantly.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Buy a really good, legal, auto-loading rifle. Practice with it. If the time comes when rebellion is necessary, the thoughtful government will provide you with a fullybautomatic rifle by sending a mouth-breathing moron with one into your neighborhood.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    It has always been my understanding that this was what a protest was meant to signify; that here is a group of people outside your gate, angry and defiant and armed. They will glady burst through your doors and kill you if you continue to go about your business as if their thoughts had no meaning.

    All of these protest laws and gun control laws have made protests meaningless.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    JD Tuccille counters anti gun hysteria with pro gun hysteria.!!!

  • Ted S.||

    Oh dear, it's our resident yokeltarian again. ;-)

  • ||

    Please, Zaytsev doesn't fit into any neat categories like that. You've heard of Peak Retard, right? Well Zaytsev was one of the PIONEERS of Peak Retard.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Excellent article.

    I'll add that Americans don't have to look to Europe for tyrannical governments but back in time, right here in America. Specifically the Jim Crow south circa 1880-1965. The first step was to outlaw gun ownership by blacks and seize their weapons. Then tyrannize them, primarily via organized non governmental violence with legitimate authorities either turning a blind eye or actively, subvertly participating.

    So the actual American experience of the value of 2nd amendment rights and remedies is not fighting the army or whatever other strawman progs build, but rather in defending against para military pseudo private tyranny, even dissuading it in the first place by raising the cost of those tactics.

  • Nihixul||

    Has anyone else had problems with the display of this article? Parts seem missing or fragmented.

  • ||

    There was one sentence that seemed to indicate something got excised. The article seemed to flow well enough that I don't think much got fubared by the server squirrels.

  • KWebb||

    I think I'm missing some block quotes.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I noticed it's missing a picture of Lobster Girl.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Yeah, there were a couple of areas where he was quoting somebody that didn't show up, and one where the quote (which was an image file, for some reason) wasn't in-line with the text.

  • KBronson||

    The United States free of Occupation? What was the military reoccupation and imposition of military rule in the South from 1867 to 1877 if not an occupation? Make no mistake about it, that period inculcated in the minds of southerners the necessity of private arms for personal and community security far more than is generally recognized.

  • waaminn||

    That makes a ll kinds of crazy sen se dude.

    www.AnonDo.tk

  • Patriot||

    After many comments, many stories, I have concluded that reason is essentially a "cultural liberal" magazine. They constantly confuse not liking something with wanting to ban. Unless you're totally okay with homosexuality, drug use, and sexual libertinism, you're a "collectivist." If you think that the traditional family, one man, one woman, raising a child together, is the superior system for raising children, you're a "collectivist." If you wonder why most single mothers vote Democrat, you're also a collectivist. Of course, they seem to think that sexual libertinism could survive a libertarian world. In reality, either traditional morality would come back, or socialism would come back. The reason is simple. A single mother, with no education,(most single mothers have no education) no family other than her own single mother, could not afford to raise a child herself. She would need either welfare or subsidized daycare, which can be almost as expensive. Which gives her two choices. Option one is to keep her legs closed until she finds a man who will dedicate himself to her, provide resources for her in a traditional family. Option two is to vote for socialism. As long as we have a culture that does not promote option one, option two will predominate.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Option one is to keep her legs closed until she finds a man who will dedicate himself to her, provide resources for her in a traditional family."

    You're talking about problems that have noting to do with government.

    Seriously, if there's any problem that requires less government involvement than women who don't keep their legs closed, then I don't know what it is.

    I'm trying to imagine what the government solution to that is. Meanwhile...

    If you're gonna use the government to try to get women to keep their legs closed, what are you gonna do next? Use the government to try to stop the birds from flying south for the winter?

  • SIV||

    Ken

    Trolls have discovered that "the other C-word" gets quite a rise out of some regular commenters and are now attempting to ply their trade with a crude paleo-lib/paleo-con persona.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Patriot is just American trolling under a new handle.

  • Ken Shultz||

    SIV,

    He's trying to use the government to prevent me from getting laid.

    That merits a response, damn it!

    I promise you, there is no more important issue than opposing those who would use the government to try to stop me from getting any...

    If he keeps it up, I'm gonna spend the holidays trolling salsa bars and make anchor babies in protest!

  • Generic Stranger||

    This is why there are no female libertarians. :P

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm gonna start a website so Latin women can get in touch with me.

    anchorbaby.com

  • Almanian.||

    *applauds*

  • Monty Crisco||

    Why the FUCK did I not think of this?!?!?!?

  • ||

    Uh Ken, I hate to break it to you, but that sites already taken. And it's really stupid.

  • Patriot||

    Did I say I wanted a government solution?

  • Patriot||

    "If you're gonna use the government to try to get women to keep their legs closed, what are you gonna do next? Use the government to try to stop the birds from flying south for the winter?"
    Even if I did intend to "use the government to try to get women to keep their legs closed,"(I don't) this would still be the one of the stupidest comments I've ever seen.

  • ||

    Don't insult your own comments like that, Pat, you'll lose hope. Come one, cheer up.

  • Cloudbuster||

    "Seriously, if there's any problem that requires less government involvement than women who don't keep their legs closed, then I don't know what it is."

    "I'm trying to imagine what the government solution to that is. Meanwhile..."

    Government-issued knee-belts! Mandatory!

  • Lina Inverse||

    Come on. The people will not let children starve. I don't know of any other realistic options for handling this between the two Patriot mentions.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Welfare for people who aren't old or disabled is a relatively new phenomenon. I don't believe it existed in this country prior to the 1960s.

    Mass starvation was not a problem. If there's a problem with moral hazard, then the solution is to get rid of the perverse incentives.

    Young women have had unwanted pregnancies for thousands of years of human history, and mass starvation is not the inevitable alternative to government welfare programs.

  • ||

    Welfare for people who aren't old or disabled did exist prior to the 1960s. It was handled by state and local governments and varied widely from place to place.

    What changed in the 1960s was that the almost total takeover of welfare programs by the federal government that FDR began in the 1930s by taking over welfare for the elderly and disabled by establishing Social Security was completed.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Going back to a state program would be better than what we have now.

    Regardless, the solution to welfare isn't to use the government to make women keep their legs closed. And socialism isn't the solution to anything.

    The solution to the result of perverse incentives is to cut the perverse incentives.

  • Patriot||

    The problem is that you can't just "cut the perverse incentives." The single mothers have just as much of a vote as you do. You have to convince them option 1 is a better option.

  • Sevo||

    Patriot| 12.22.12 @ 6:35PM |#
    ..."You have to convince them option 1 is a better option."

    And this is accomplished with pixie dust. Works every damn time!
    What an ignoramus...

  • Patriot||

    Hey Sevo, you think that you were born with all your ideas programmed into your DNA? Of course not, that would be raciss.

  • Sevo||

    Patriot| 12.22.12 @ 7:43PM |#
    "Hey Sevo, you think that you were born with all your ideas programmed into your DNA? Of course not, that would be raciss."

    Anyone care to give me a hand here? I'm sure there is some understandable statement buried in there somewhere, but damned if I can find it.

  • Patriot||

    I have to spell everything out for you, don't I? You act like convincing people to support the kind of family that everyone on the planet at any time but now had is an impossible task. I am pointing out that we can and should change the CULTURE.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Actually, there are far more married people and single people out there than single mothers. You don't seem to have any sense of proportion.

    And there isn't anything about receiving food stamps that makes single mothers especially wretched--as far as parasites go anyway. They might actually be some of the last people I'd kick off the dole.

    I'd start with superfluous government employees--if they make more in annual salary than the average single mother receives on welfare? Then they're a bigger drain on society than single mothers.

    Do you have any idea how much it costs to educate people's children? Not just the children of single mothers--I'm talking about the kids who go to public schools from two parent families, too. Why are we paying to educate people's children when public schools often cost more per pupil than private schools, and private schools often offer a higher quality education?

    I'm so sick of listening to people who send their kids to public schools, finance their educations through the government, whose whole retirement plan consists of Social Security and Medicare--complain about single mothers on food stamps? Food stamps ain't right, but that may be the least of our problems.

    You want to do things to help single mothers get off the dole? Stop persecuting the immigrants who come here trying to offer them things like cheap daycare. It's hard to go to work when daycare is so damn expensive.

  • Patriot||

    How would working people afford private school? And working people contribute to social security. But single mothers deserve their money more than they do? It would be even harder to work if third world immigrants reduce wages to third world levels.

  • Sevo||

    Patriot| 12.22.12 @ 7:45PM |#
    ..."It would be even harder to work if third world immigrants reduce wages to third world levels."

    OK, folks, we're getting close. Let's give Patriot a bit more rope, and s/he'll start ragging on brown ans yellow folks!

  • Patriot||

    I don't have a problem with Asian immigration. I have a problem with NAM immigration.

  • Sevo||

    Patriot| 12.22.12 @ 7:51PM |#
    "I don't have a problem with Asian immigration. I have a problem with NAM immigration."

    So Patriot isn't catholic in his/her bigotry; it's very focused. Good to see; the diagnosis is getting more clear.

  • Patriot||

    I'm a dude. You can stop that now.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Patriot,

    You know what your problem appears to be? You seem to want to blame other people for your problems. Take responsibility for your own life.

    If you can't compete with immigrants, most of whom have no more than an 8th grade education and many of whom can't speak English? Then that isn't the fault of immigrants. Whatever the problem is, it's got something to do with you.

    Blaming other people for your own shortcomings and expecting the government to do something to fix it, you know what that is?

    It's un-American. If you can't compete with uneducated immigrants who can't speak English, for God's sake, get into a 12 step program!

  • Patriot||

    Typical, a stupid personal attack. Immigrants don't "out-compete" by being geniuses. They "out-compete," by working at third world wages. I don't want this to be the third world. By the way, I'm a scientist who doesn't need a "12 step program." Idiot.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you're a scientist, then why do you feel threatened by immigrants who, by American standards, are generally uneducated?

  • Patriot||

    Because unlike you guys I care about more than my personal finances. I never said I felt threatened by immigrant labor competition. I care about the American people. The immigrants are threatening to me personally in the fact that they drive up prices and environmental damage and vote for socialism.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "They drive up prices and environmental damage and vote for socialism."

    I might understand the socialism angle, but drive up prices for what?

    Environmental damage?

    Are you talking about littering?

    P.S. You're not a scientist.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "How would working people afford private school?"

    Did you hear what I said about private school be more affordable per pupil than public school?

    The question you should be asking is, "How can working people afford public school?"

    "And working people contribute to social security."

    Yeah, but if you didn't save anything for your own retirement, and just count on other people to make the pyramid scheme solvent someday, then you're part of the problem.

    I'm not responsible for funding your retirement any more than I'm responsible for some single mother's food stamps.

    "It would be even harder to work if third world immigrants reduce wages to third world levels"

    I can't think of two groups of people who benefit from immigrant labor more than single mothers who need cheap daycare and elderly people who need someone to mow their lawns.

    And if cheap labor is harmful to living standards and economic growth, then China must have had the slowest growing economy in the world over the past 15 years, and their living standards must be plunging.

  • Chris Mallory||

    The single mothers and elderly can't afford to hire the 3rd world savages.

    China's cheap labor is bringing it's people up. They started as dirt farmers.

    The hordes of 3rd world savages invading the United States are driving our wages and standards of living down.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The single mothers and elderly can't afford to hire the 3rd world savages."

    Your racism is appalling, and you're completely wrong on the facts.

    Lots of single working moms use immigrants for childcare. If you think all single working moms are wealthy, then you just must be completely disconnected from the rest of society.

  • Patriot||

    @Shultz
    Your first sentence is typical shit. You're second sentence should read "lot's of single working moms use government money to pay immigrants for childcare." You're third sentence is probably a very long typo. Or so you'll say when you read it out loud.

  • Ken Shultz||

    No.

    Actually, I know women from all walks of life who use immigrants for child care.

    I knew a receptionist that used one.

    Lots of immigrant women will watch your little kids for cheap.

    That's why the immigrants come here. It isn't for the welfare. They come here for work. And watching kids is one of the things they do.

    That's why I wish Mexico would accept three lazy unemployed Americans for every uneducated Mexican we let into the country. We'd win on both sides of that deal! We'd get rid of a bunch of entitled, lazy slobs, and we'd get a bunch of people who are willing to work their asses off, too!

    Win/Win

  • Patriot||

    "And if cheap labor is harmful to living standards and economic growth, then China must have had the slowest growing economy in the world over the past 15 years, and their living standards must be plunging."
    I'd much rather be a worker in China than America.(sarcasm)

  • ||

    You do realize that cheap labor in the presence of competition keeps prices of goods and services low, allowing the poor to purchase necessities and have money left over that increases their standard of living, right?

    You do understand basic economics, right, and aren't completely ignorant making it up to fit your agenda?

    ..er, maybe not.

  • Patriot||

    @Ayn Rand guy, do you know that Ayn Rand's chosen successor endorsed immigration restriction? Back to your point, suppose I have a farm that can produce 8,000 oranges. There are 8,000 people in a nation. I double the amount of people to 16,000. Does the price of one orange go up or down? Do wages go up or down? If a worker makes half as much money and pays half as much for oranges, no harm done, right? Except for the workers who have no money. They starve. Boo hoo. Of course in practice the farmer would recognize he could get more out of hiring part time workers, this is could be the model. So as each worker does equivalent work, they each a get an equivalent share of the oranges, half as much as they used to get. Can more oranges be produced? Only if more land, more oil, more of everything it takes to produce the oranges is produced, and twice as much of it. That is based on a flawed view of the natural world as a land of never ending resources and a false view of NAM immigrants as proto-innovators and people with IQs higher than 89, the Hispanic average.

  • ||

    Well, I guess that clears that up. You are completely ignorant.

    The economy isn't a zero sum game. Get an education.

    BTW, I truly couldn't give a shit what Ayn Rand's successor endorsed about anything as I'm NOT an "Ayn Rand guy".

  • Patriot||

    Alright, what do NAM immigrants contribute to a nation other than cheap labor? Nothing. Do we have a shortage of cheap labor? No, we don't. So what do they add. What do they add in the Orange farm example? Answer the question.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What is "NAM"?

  • Bill||

    Northern Asian Mulatto?

    Non-American?

    North American?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Nothing. Do we have a shortage of cheap labor? No, we don't. So what do they add.

    Votes for socialists.

  • ||

    Fuck you, you racist pig. Your average Mexican works 3 times harder than your average American. They actually produce wealth. I had a roof redone several years back. The contractor employed Mexican labor. These guys were there before I got up and were still there when I was eating dinner. 110 degrees F. On the roof all day.

    What do they add? They do three times the work for half the wages. That LOWERS the price of oranges, idiot!

    Question answered!

    Stick with science. Economics isn't your forte.

  • Patriot||

    Three times the work at half the wages doesn't lead to more production of oranges unless you can increase the production of land and oil with more NAM labor. You can't. It does lead to the farm owner saving money. And those Mexican laborers have to eat, that leads to more demand for oranges. Simple supply and demand. If NAMs can't increase the supply of oranges, but they raise the demand for them, what happens to the price. So you can't employ Mexican labor to redo your roof. National tragedy. You'll have to either pay Americans to do the work or get off your ass and do it yourself. And why is it unreasonable that in a civilized first world nation we don't work all day in 110 degree temperatures? Get a fucking air conditioner.

  • ||

    You are a complete idiot.

    If they work 3x harder for half the wages the farmer can accomplish the same work for 1/6th the cost. If there is another orange farmer nearby (competition), the price comes down due to reduced overhead.

    That means I have money left over after buying my oranges. With it I buy a cordless drill, which makes my life easier (increases my standard of living).

    More people living here doesn't increase demand. You think that orange farmer isn't catering to Mexican demand anyway? It doesn't matter where they live.

    I'm beginning to doubt you're a scientist. If you can't grasp simple supply and demand, I doubt you are a very good one.

  • Patriot||

    "If they work 3x harder for half the wages the farmer can accomplish the same work for 1/6th the cost."
    That is very moronic and one doesn't need to be a scientist to see it. How does Mexicans working harder for shit wages save you on fertilizer, gas, water, or any of the other non-labor parts of running a farm? It saves on labor, and only on labor. Those laborers have to eat.

  • ||

    Did I ever say it saved on anything but labor?

    Labor is a HUGE percentage of the cost of a product.

    AGAIN, and I'll type slow, so you can understand it. Those laborers need to eat regardless of where they work. It's a global economy, idiot. They eat US food if they live and work in the US AND they eat US food if they live and work in Mexico. The Demand doesn't change.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You are completely ignorant."

    She claims to be a scientist.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I'd much rather be a worker in China than America."

    I'd much rather have China's growth rate than our anemic one.

    Regardless, cheap labor isn't bad for the economy like cheap oil isn't bad for the economy.

    Labor is a resource, you know?

    Having to pay more for the same labor does not make the economy grow. It makes people cut back on their spending. Having to pay more for the same labor intensive products doesn't make for a higher standard of living--highers standards of living come from having to pay less for labor intensive products.

    Seriously. Nobody ever went broke because their costs went down.

  • Patriot||

    "I'd much rather have China's growth rate than our anemic one."
    If we did create heaven on earth, wouldn't it have a pretty low, 0 percent economic growth rate? Cheap labor and oil are not analogous. Bring cheap labor into a place and prices rise. Bring oil into a place and prices decrease. Labor is people. Oil is not. See my Orange farm example.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Cheap labor and oil are not analogous. Bring cheap labor into a place and prices rise. Bring oil into a place and prices decrease. Labor is people. Oil is not. See my Orange farm example."

    What are you talking about?

    Bring cheap labor into a place and prices rise--why?! Who believes this?

    Where does this weird theory come from?

  • ||

    The genius "scientist" cannot grasp the simple principles of supply and demand.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The genius "scientist" cannot grasp the simple principles of supply and demand."

    Having problems with the idea that paying less for stuff is good for our standard of living, too.

    I guess technology must be awful for our standard of living, too, since it tends to make better things cost less.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Ken Shultz| 12.23.12 @ 12:12AM |

    What are you talking about?

    Bring cheap labor into a place and prices rise--why?! Who believes this?

    Where does this weird theory come from?

    Let me try to tighten up his point for him.

    In the regulated economy that the US has today increasing the supply of labor will result in a lower clearing price for all labor but will not be translated into lower prices or increased production because or anti competitive regulations and labor idling transfer payments.

    And those same factors will result in the increased demand of the new residents causing price inflation for marketed goods and rationing of government services.

    It's the disconnect between an ideal free market and the highly regulated one that we actually have.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "will not be translated into lower prices or increased production because or anti competitive regulations and labor idling transfer payments"

    In the case of illegal immigrants, the labor is being sold almost directly to the consumer. A ton of it goes to services people wouldn't be able to afford otherwise--like child care, elderly care, lawn care, etc. And even the stuff that does go to a consumer through a business tends to happen in restaurants--which is about as close to the consumer as you can get while still working for a customer through a business.

    These cost savings are about as direct to consumers as they can be.

    "It's the disconnect between an ideal free market and the highly regulated one that we actually have."

    I'm not willing to wait until an ideal free market magically appears before I can benefit from lower labor costs. I just take advantage of them now.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    A ton of it goes to services people wouldn't be able to afford otherwise--like child care, elderly care, lawn care, etc.

    It's a stereotype that those are the only areas that illegal immigrants find employment. You didn't say it but you implied it.

    And even the stuff that does go to a consumer through a business tends to happen in restaurants--which is about as close to the consumer as you can get while still working for a customer through a business.

    That's true but irrelevant. The point is that with restricted competition businesses will be under no pressure to pass the cost saving on in the form of lower prices, but instead take them as increased profits.

    The overall situation in CA supports the positions that I outlined above. CA's unemployment rate has been higher than the national average every month for the last 20 years. That's amazingly fucked up considering our history for 1848-1990.

    And CA has a high cost of living. In fact there are a number of economic studies demonstrating a link between high rates of immigration and increased real estate prices.

    Furthermore, the demand for government services is outstripping supply leading to various forms of rationing. In education, public safety, health & welfare etc. And that's in the face of increased government spending and high taxes.

    If your going to say that government has created that fucked up situation, well yes exactly, that's the point isn't it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    ***Not sure where this went originally.
    It's the 2nd part of my reply to Ken 1:13am***

    I'm not willing to wait until an ideal free market magically appears before I can benefit from lower labor costs

    Yes, i understand your point but you should be honest enough to admit that it is not universally benevolent and that their is push back from it. It's a great situation if you are a consumer of low skilled labor and not great if your primary source of income is selling your own low skilled labor. It's also not great if you're a net tax payer or if you rely on government services. And it's also not great if you don't have assets in the face of the high cost of living.

  • Chris Mallory||

    If private school is important, then the working people make sacrifices. I send my daughter to private school. The tuition is less than a monthly car payment. So I am driving a 14 year old truck and spending the "new truck" money on her school.

  • Ken Shultz||

    And you're paying property taxes on top of that tuition--either on your own home or through higher rent--so that other people's kids can go to school without paying any tuition.

    It ain't right.

    And those other people sending their kids to public schools on your dime really aren't substantially different from single mothers taking food stamps.

    There's just a stigma associated with food stamps, and there isn't with sending your kids to public schools.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Is anyone else here disturbed that "Chris Mallory" has a daughter?

    I mean you know, you just know, that he's molesting the shit out of her.

  • Patriot||

    @Mullato, Can you give me an example of a time when someone on the other side i.e, Chris, me, American, UnionBuiltOhioRoads, V.G., or even Tony, has said something like that about you or someone on your side? And please fucking explain your name.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    There are "sides" now?

  • juris imprudent||

    Oh, poor Patriot - giving away that he is really a TEAM player.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Can you give me an example of a time when someone on the other side i.e, Chris, me, American, UnionBuiltOhioRoads, V.G., or even Tony,

    Don't include me with that group.

    I'm in the middle

  • Patriot||

    Sorry, I included you because of your support of immigration restriction.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It is funny that having Milton Freidman's position that

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It is funny that having Milton Freidman's position that unrestricted immigration is incompatible with a welfare-regulatory state makes me a devil around here.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That people disagree with you, sometimes passionately, makes you think that you're seen as a "devil"?

    Don't sell yourself short. The true "devils" are those who try to glom onto a good-faith argument about immigration with their White supremacy nonsense.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Thanx.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "And please fucking explain your name."

    You don't want to go there.

    He says unbelievably insulting shit to everybody, and then gets all bent out of shape when people (naturally) assume he's being racist towards Barack Obama.

    This was another example--not the worst I've seen.

    He claims to be a Trinidadian of mixed ancestry.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's right, Ken, get chummy with the frothing-at-the-mouth White supremacist.

    First of all, I only insult, racists, like Patriot or anti-Semites, like you. Of course, you're so self-centered that you probably think that you are "everybody". Textbook autism.

    Secondly, And it's only a "natural" assumption to uneducated buffoons, such as yourself, who don't comprehend the educated wit behind a twist on a literary trope. I guess they don't cover 19th Century American literature in whatever 2-year clown college, you went to.

    Heroic Mulatto was my internet handle before 2008, and it shall continue to be, despite what mouth-breathers such as you think.

  • Patriot||

    I know what the Tragic mulatto was. Was I really the first person, upon reading of a "mulatto," to assume that it was racist? So you're really black? Who'd a thought. Anyway, It's not racist to not want to live in a third world society. Or maybe it is. I'm not a cosmo so I really don't care. I do believe in what the evidence says about racial gaps.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Accusing a stranger of molesting their own daughter is disgraceful.

    And if that weren't enough, Hit & Run has been sued for less than that.

    But it's not the worst you've said. Is that normal behavior where you come from?

    You make libertarians look like idiots by accusing strangers of molesting their children; shit all over Hit & Run after they ask us not to say stupid shit like that--and then lash out at people who point out your disgusting behavior?

    Did your family act that way at home? Is your mother proud of what you write here? Do you think your behavior is normal? Is it normal where you come from?

  • ||

    Really, HM? Autism is the cause of people disagreeing with you in a certain way? You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, so shut up you ignorant dumbass. You keep bringing this retarded ad-hominem bullshit into this, and it just makes you look stupid.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I'm not willing to wait until an ideal free market magically appears before I can benefit from lower labor costs

    Yes, i understand your point but you should be honest enough to admit that it is not universally benevolent and that their is push back from it. It's a great situation if you are a consumer of low skilled labor and not great if your primary source of income is selling your own low skilled labor. It's also not great if you're a net tax payer or if you rely on government services. And it's also not great if you don't have assets in the face of the high cost of living.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You should be honest enough to admit that it is not universally benevolent and that their is push back from it. It's a great situation if you are a consumer of low skilled labor and not great if your primary source of income is selling your own low skilled labor."

    When I was right out of high school, I competed for construction jobs with illegal immigrants. Sometimes I was the only English speaking laborer on the site. Even then, being able to speak English was not a liability. And I when I went to school, an option that really wasn't open to them because of their lack of high school education, I left them in the dust.

    People who absolutely cannot compete with uneducated immigrants are generally people with felonies on their records and people with substance abuse problems. For people with substance abuse problems, competition from illegal immigrants might be the best thing for them. Not being able to get so fucked up all the time because you have to go to work in the morning is not the worst trade off anybody's ever been asked to make.

    "It's also not great if you're a net tax payer or if you rely on government services."

    As a libertarian, I'd like to see less government services. And I don't see why we can't slash those across the board.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    People who absolutely cannot compete with uneducated immigrants are generally people with felonies on their records and people with substance abuse problems.

    It's not a question of absolutes.

    It's an observation that increasing the supply of something without increasing the demand will result in a lower clearing price.

    In this specific case unskilled labor,
    with demand being limited by government regulation.

    With the added bonus that the idled labor is supported at taxpayer expense.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    As a libertarian, I'd like to see less government services. And I don't see why we can't slash those across the board.

    As would I, but the reality is that increased immigration, in the current environment, makes that less feasible politically.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I'm so sick of listening to people who send their kids to public schools, finance their educations through the government, whose whole retirement plan consists of Social Security and Medicare--complain about single mothers on food stamps?

    A lot of those people complaining are paying for their kid's public school education whether their kids go to public schools or not.

    And so many people would not depend on Social Security for retirement if they weren't stealing 15% of their income to begin with.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Oh we're all getting ripped off...

    That doesn't mean I'm responsible for financing your retirement.

    Somebody ripped a bungee cord off of my bike. How you wanna reimburse me--by PayPal or by check?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Let's put it this way.

    If you were part of a criminal gang that stole my money, I'd feel entirely entitled to take it back. Even if that meant the gang went out and stole more from someone else.

  • Patriot||

    Although in a perfect world school would be entirely private, I don't think that we should abolish public schools just yet. Many people simply cannot afford them, I'm talking about the single mothers here. Kids not being in school means kids who have no opportunity to advance in life, and instead will simply run around and cause trouble. I think we need capitalism, but we also need what makes capitalism possible, that is, opportunity.

  • Sevo||

    OK, folks, put 'em together for that laugh-smith Patriot!

    Patriot| 12.22.12 @ 9:37PM |#
    ..."I think we need capitalism, but we also need what makes capitalism possible, that is, opportunity."

    Why, that's great! How about that comedic talent Patriot?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I think we need capitalism, but we also need what makes capitalism possible, that is, opportunity.

    Capitalism Free markets and economic liberty increase opportunity.

    Not the other way around.

  • Patriot||

    They increase economic opportunity for the children of the useful to society. How can a single mother making 20,000/year who has no help from government put her kids in school. Even if she could afford it, why would she want to. I know many lower class people even though I'm upper class. They aren't going to spare 400$/month to send their kid to school. They need their beer money.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    How can a single mother making 20,000/year who has no help from government put her kids in school. Even if she could afford it, why would she want to. I know many lower class people even though I'm upper class. They aren't going to spare 400$/month to send their kid to school.

    Are we talking about libertopia here or the real world America?

    In libertopia, a single mom wouldn't have to put her kids in school if she didn't want to. And it wouldn't matter all that much whether she did or not because there would be more opportunity at every turn. More opportunity to work and learn on the job, more opportunity for people to get educated at their own pace and to the extent that suited their needs.

    Seriously dude, in America today we force poor people to send kids to schools that don't want to go. So we just warehouse them and let them ruin opportunities for other people.

    Then we make employment contingent on otherwise worthless educational credentials, in the name of fairnness of course.

    With the result of creating permanent social classes.

    But that's supposed to be more humane than creating a flexible environment because of kkkorpurashuns or something.

  • Patriot||

    The problem with that is that it would certainly create permanent social classes. The poor would not be able to afford the opportunity to have their kids become rich. I'm not one of those people who says that poor kids are proto-entrepenures who just need government money and are who are victims of tests that are "culturally biased." Most of them are too stupid, genetically and culturally, to succeed in this world. So why do I then support schooling for these people? Some reasons are selfish. I'd rather have them warehoused in government schools then out on the street causing trouble. In addition I understand that unless we give these people the illusion of opportunity, they will vote for socialism. In addition, there are some cases of poor kids who are indeed intelligent. I want these kids to be given the opportunity to succeed. This is still America, in libertopia there would not be these problems. I believe that for libertopia to succeed humanity will have to have gone through some kind of eugenics program, I'm talking a voluntary thing here, in order to get rid of the unintelligent.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The problem with that is that it would certainly create permanent social classes. The poor would not be able to afford the opportunity to have their kids become rich.

    Yep, you're right. In that world there's no way a penniless young immigrant could become a billionaire

    Oh wait a minute.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    But...but...Carnegie was a Northern Uberman! Obviously the lesser rac...oh, wait.

  • Patriot||

    Don't see how a Korean billionaire proves your point about radical race equality.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's because you're willfully ignorant about the subject. Besides my point isn't about "radical race equality". How can I ascribe the concept of "equality" to something that doesn't exist?

  • Patriot||

    Race doesn't exist? Classic cosmatarian crap. I guess the billionaire you sighted has a last name of "Jin Sook & Do Won Chang" rather than "Jose Rodriguez" because of...Why?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Patriot||

    Yeah, he did that himself. Government monopolies had nothing to do with it. And he was a Mexican, dammit. He wasn't Arab.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Race doesn't exist

    Well, Mr. Scientist, can you give me a definition of "race" that is

    a.) Falsifiable?
    b.) Consilient?

    Remember the 1500 character limit now.

  • Patriot||

    The 1500 char limit does make it difficult. Oh well. Race is a biological reality. There is great genetic difference in the genotypes between the races. The white and black races diverged about 45,000 years ago, the white and oriental races diverged about 20,000 years ago, and the oriental and native American races diverged about 15,000 years ago. The races are different in a large range of traits, for skeleton structure to brain size. All that could be easily proven false. As for intelligence, the different races and the Jews have been found to have the following IQ scores, blacks 85, hispanics, 89, whites, 103, Asians, 106, and Jews 115, source, Charles Murray, the Bell Curve. Could culture influence that? Certainly, although with equalists like you that is also racist. However, a series of studies examining adoption have concluded that adopted children are closer to their biological parents then to their adopted parents. Twin studies have exmained the influence of genes and the environment. I have asked many times cosmos like the "Mullato"(how is that name not racist?) why these gaps exist. I've never gotten an answer.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Race is a biological reality. There is great genetic difference in the genotypes between the races.

    See, there is where you are incorrect. Race is a sociological reality. What you are describing are clines. The problem is that people like you want to impose a 19th century racial classification upon human clines. That's as silly as trying to fit the table of elements into the Classical classification of air-fire-water-earth.

    As for Murray, even he admits that psychometrics have advanced since he published the Bell Curve. The fact is, there is no scientific consensus, and I'm speaking from within the field, that a singular-g exists, or even g itself.

    Could culture influence that? Certainly, although with equalists like you that is also racist.

    Ha! You don't know me very well. I am a complete cultural pluralist and supremacist. That is, not all cultures are equally good and some are superior to others. However, of the ones that work, there is no one-size-fits-all culture, so I cannot say there is a "best" culture for all time.

    I have asked many times cosmos like the "Mullato"(how is that name not racist?)

    When it's making fun of racism and racial classification, especially from the point of view of a multi-ethnic person like me.

  • Patriot||

    DNA tests are "19th century racial classification?" It's good to know you're a "cultural pluralist and supremacist." Because apparently when I make cultural arguments I'm a "collectivist."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    DNA tests are "19th century racial classification?"

    No. The concept of White/Black/Asian/Amerindian is 19th century racial classification that many people are trying to force the much more complex genetic clines into, and then trying to make overly broad statements about groups of people.

    Because apparently when I make cultural arguments I'm a "collectivist."

    Nope. Culture matters, and culture is part of individual experience. You take Joe American a second after he was born and move him to Pakistan, there is a good chance that Joe, now, Yusuf al-Amriki will think it's perfectly acceptable to immolate someone because they allegedly desecrated a Koran.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Wasn't this settled in Trading Places?

  • juris imprudent||

    Race is a biological reality.

    Who the fuck let lonewacko back?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Patriot| 12.22.12 @ 11:28PM |#

    ... radical race equality.

    What is that phrase supposed to mean?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Heroic Mulatto| 12.22.12 @ 11:05PM

    But...but...Carnegie was a Northern Uberman! Obviously the lesser rac...

    The really funny part about that is that the welfare state has turned people in Scotland into slugs.

    It's an equal opportunity destroyer.

  • Patriot||

    True, I think the welfare state certainly needs to be cut down to size, including public schools. We don't need world-class football stadiums or 15 student classes or teachers who make 80 grand a year.

  • Patriot||

    The opportunity would certainly be stacked. I don't like the idea that, if born to a poor family, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to study calculus in high school.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Who says that you wouldn't?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I'm not one of those people who says that poor kids are proto-entrepenures who just need government money and are who are victims of tests that are "culturally biased."

    On that we agree. I think that it's idiotic that some people think immigrants are immune to the corrosive effects of our welfare-regulatory state.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I believe that for libertopia to succeed humanity will have to have gone through some kind of eugenics program, I'm talking a voluntary thing here, in order to get rid of the unintelligent.

    That just fucking stupid.

    The so called smart people in America are the ones pushing socialism and destroying liberty in the names of fairness, safety and the environment.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    By "intelligent" he means, "people that agree with me". I seriously doubt American/Patriot/Slappy! is a 6' 5" model of health himself, with a family history completely free of genetic disorders, and perfect eyesight.

  • Patriot||

    "The so called smart people in America are the ones pushing socialism and destroying liberty in the names of fairness, safety and the environment."
    True, the smart in America have done stupid things. But are we really to believe that people of double digit IQs are capable of running a modern capitalist economy? And without the unintelligent, there would be no reason for the welfare state.

  • ||

    Hence the beauty of the free market. NOBODY is required to "run" it.

  • Patriot||

    "Hence the beauty of the free market. NOBODY is required to "run" it."
    Yep, the airplane invented itself.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The government instructed the Wright Brothers to invent the airplane?

    Are you high?

  • juris imprudent||

    I've had more intelligent conversations with people tripping balls on acid than Patriot here can manage.

  • ||

    Let me quote you:

    But are we really to believe that people of double digit IQs are capable of running a modern capitalist economy?

    You equate "running" an economy to inventing an airplane?

    Providing goods and services makes you a participant in the economy (you are a wealth creator), you are certainly not "running" it.

  • Patriot||

    I am the CEO of corporation that has about 4,000 workers, twenty different buildings, and makes millions in revenue. I don't run that corporation, though. I'm just providing my services to the market. Makes perfect sense.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Running a business isn't running the economy.

    If it was, I'd have prevented QE.

  • Patriot||

    I guess "run" might be the wrong word. There must be some word for those people, the inventors and the CEOs, who make a lot of money managing large numbers of workers and amounts of capital. The point is that Jose "I can add fractions!" isn't going to be able to do it.

  • Redmanfms||

    The point is that Jose "I can add fractions!" isn't going to be able to do it.

    Unholy Hell you are a racist asshole.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The point is that Jose "I can add fractions!" isn't going to be able to do it.

    There are smart and dumb people in every country and of every race. If your point is that we have an overabundance of low skilled workers and don't need more then you should say that without injecting race into.

    If you are saying that people of certain nationalities are inherently and universally inferior or stupid - well that's just fucking racist.

  • ||

    If you are saying that people of certain nationalities are inherently and universally inferior or stupid - well that's just fucking racist.

    I had no idea there was this much variation. But...

    Avg IQ by nationality

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Patriot||

    " A test of 108 9-15-year olds in Barbados, of 50 13–16-year olds in Colombia, of 104 5–17-year olds in Ecuador, of 129 6–12-year olds in Egypt, and of 48 10–14-year olds in Equatorial Guinea, all were taken as measures of national IQ."
    There is nothing inherently wrong with that. They don't give IQ tests to four years olds for nothing.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    There is nothing inherently wrong with that. They don't give IQ tests to four years olds for nothing.

    You've taken a stats class, right?
    How about a course in quantitative research in the social sciences?
    You've heard of a little thing called "sample size", right?

  • ||

    Are there other studies. Everything I find seems to be based on the same data?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Are there other studies. Everything I find seems to be based on the same data?

    Yes. If it wasn't 1:00 AM here, I'd pull up some articles from the ERIC database, but I'm about to go to sleep.

  • ||

    g-night.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Thanks. I'm out of here. Keep up the good fight y'all.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Indeed, the current academic conversation around global IQ variation revolves around environmental factors, such as the rate of childhood infectious disease or pre and post-natal nutrition.

    Of course, hereditarians screech that attention paid to environmental factors proves that there is some sort of conspiracy in keeping their views out of the academy.

  • ||

    So it's where you live, not your race. That was my point, if you check the thread, VGZ said:

    If you are saying that people of certain nationalities are inherently and universally inferior or stupid - well that's just fucking racist.

    (emphasis mine)

    Nationality, not race.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    1) IQ is a horribly flawed measure of intelligence.

    2) I wrote if you believe that people of certain nationalities are inherently and universally inferior or stupid By which I meant that even if the average IQ measures real intelligence that the intelligence of individuals will fall on a bell curve with the result that every nationality will have some (a lot) people that are smarter than the US average.

    Patriot's point is only valid if everyone from country X is mentally retarded.

  • Patriot||

    "certain nationalities are inherently and universally inferior or stupid"
    No, not inherently. Well, maybe, on average. The Hispanic average IQ is 89. Besides considering we are becoming a majority minority country, we might as well start using Jose. The refusal to use NAM names by those of us capable of articulating writing is just another example of cultural imperialism.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep, the airplane invented itself.

    The average IQ of residents of the US in 1903 was lower than it is today and lower than it is for the average immigrant.

    Which

    a) Doesn't mean much since it's a horribly flawed metric.

    I've had immigrant employees with a grade school education that were smart enough to diagnose and repair complicated machinery and I've also had college student interns that couldn't figure out how to work a coffee machine on their own (no joke).

    b) The airplane wasn't invented by average Americans or even an average American.

  • Patriot||

    "The airplane wasn't invented by average Americans or even an average American."
    Exactly. My point was that intelligence matters.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Hence the beauty of the free market. NOBODY is required to "run" it.

    Exactly.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But are we really to believe that people of double digit IQs are capable of running a modern capitalist economy?

    I do believe that we're running that experiment now with Obama, Giethner and Bernanke.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm all in favor of means testing.

    I wouldn't get rid of schools for kids who can't afford it, either. ...just like I wouldn't deny food stamps to kids who really need them.

    OR, rather, I should say, I'd lay off half the slackers working for the federal government first. Food stamps are part of the problem--but we need to keep things in proportion. And in terms of proportion, food stamps are way down the list.

  • SDN||

    The other thing that changed is that states were forced to stop exercising the "pauper's oath" which forced you to give up the ability to vote bigger bennies if you wanted a hand-out.

  • Patriot||

    Mass starvation has resulted, usually when unplanned single pregnicies happened. Unless the woman had a large family to help her, she would die. A woman could not take care of herself and her child alone before the 1900s. It would be simply impossible.

  • Sevo||

    OK, folks, we got the start of a stand-up act working right here:

    Patriot| 12.22.12 @ 6:33PM |#
    "Mass starvation has resulted, usually when unplanned single pregnicies happened."

    Patriot really posted that. I didn't modify the comment in any way whatsoever. S/he really posted those exact words.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, give these people enough rope and they'll make fools of themselves with it.

  • Henry||

    If the majority of people will not let children starve, then government intervention is unnecessary.

    If the majority of people will let children starve, then government intervention is undemocratic.

    Either way, tax-funded welfare is unjustifiable.

  • Patriot||

    "If the majority of people will let children starve, then government intervention is undemocratic."
    Firstly, since when was something being "democratic" important? This is the problem with libertarianism. It would rather let children starve then take away any of someones precious investment income. And it is impossible.

  • Almanian.||

    Nice false choice there, Mary

  • Patriot||

    Henry was the one with the false choice.

  • Sevo||

    Patriot| 12.22.12 @ 8:58PM |#
    "Henry was the one with the false choice."

    Why do you bother to lie when anyone can look up-thread a comment or two and find out that you are lying?
    Are you hoping all the scroll keys in the world fail? How stupid are you?

  • Patriot||

    Henry implied that letting children starve would be a better alternative.

  • Sevo||

    Patriot| 12.22.12 @ 9:59PM |#
    "Henry implied that letting children starve would be a better alternative."

    There are, in almost any sizable city, community colleges which offer reading comprehension courses for little or no cost.
    You should find one.

  • Henry||

    False on several points.

    First off, whether being "democratic" is important to libertarians is beside the point -- those who make the arguments in favor of tax-funded welfare claim it's important to them, and the conflict exposes their hypocrisy.

    Second, the claim that libertarians are not in favor of feeding starving children by institutionalized theft by the government is not equivalent to libertarians being in favor of feeding starving children. Believe it or not, there are sources of food other than governments. Out here, we call them supermarkets, and we make regular use of them to feed starving children. Perhaps you should try it -- the experience may open up whole new worlds for you.

  • Henry||

    Sorry, typo:

    the claim that libertarians are not in favor of feeding starving children by institutionalized theft by the government is not equivalent to libertarians NOT being in favor of feeding starving children.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    If the majority of people will not let children starve, then government intervention is unnecessary.

    And is it a problem when a majority of people are willing to spend your money so that kids don't starve?

    Because that's where we're at and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

  • Henry||

    I can't tell if you are agreeing with me a disagreeing with me. When a majority of the people spend MY money so that kids don't starve, it's invariable through the conduit of an interventionist government… which is what I said.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I'm disagreeing with your original maxim,

    If the majority of people will not let children starve, then government intervention is unnecessary.

    If the majority of people will let children starve, then government intervention is undemocratic.

    by introducing a third alternative where a majority of people are willing to spend your money, not their own, to prevent children from starving.

  • ||

    He's talking about the motivations behind government intervention. If the people in your example are willing to let children starve absent government intervention, then it's just a rephrasing of the second possibility, "If the majority of people will let children starve, then government intervention is undemocratic." If it were truly important to them they'd use their own money. If they don't, it discredits the claimed intention. And if they aren't willing to let children starve, then they're part of the first possibility.

  • Agammamon||

    Hey look - a sockpuppet.

  • Ted S.||

    Come on. The people will not let children starve.

    That's because we prefer them succulent, and not all tough and gristly.

  • Sevo||

    I *like* children. Medium rare.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I smell man flesh.

  • Sevo||

    Patriot| 12.22.12 @ 3:56PM |#
    "After many comments, many stories, I have concluded that reason is essentially a "cultural liberal" magazine"

    Yeah, well, you're an idiot, so your opinions are NWS.

  • ||

    Well, you ARE a collectivist Patriot.

    Your argument is no different from the leftiest progressive. When people make bad decisions we all pay, so people cant be allowed to make their own decisions. You just want different TOP. MEN. than they do.

  • Patriot||

    Anything to back up this statement? Once again, a cosmo confuses not liking something with wanting to ban it.

  • RBS||

    "This is the problem with libertarianism. It would rather let children starve then take away any of someones precious investment income. "

    Your words.

  • Patriot||

    My point was that that isn't going to win an election. You have to have an alternative to letting children starve.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    What's wrong with private charity?

    Besides, no one has died of starvation in America for more that one hundred years. Even during the depths of the great depression with 25% unemployment and mass internal migration no one was starving to death.

  • Redmanfms||

    Even during the depths of the great depression with 25% unemployment and mass internal migration no one was starving to death.

    Ehhhh......

    I'm really not entirely sure that's true. Granted, it wasn't a mass famine with millions dead like Ukraine, but a Hell of a lot of people went hungry. My grandmother knew people who died of hunger-related illnesses during the Depression.


    One could argue that the NRA attempts at price-fixing and artificial inflation by having farmers leave grain unreaped and pour milk out had a pretty profound effect on food availability though.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Gee, ya think.

    At one point, the government ordered more than a million hogs to be slaughtered and left to rot.

    Think that raised prices for the hungry people your granma knew?

  • Redmanfms||

    Gee, ya think.

    Why be an asshat when I was pointing out that it was government action rather than inaction that was likely the root cause of hunger?

    Or do you get testy because you don't like being corrected when you are in error like a petulant child?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    When was I corrected?

    Do you have any statistics on death caused by starvation or malnutrion?

  • Redmanfms||

    I've never made a concerted study of the matter because honestly I don't really care. A cursory search of the Goggle-webs brings up mostly anecdotal stuff (and Pravda, but I don't buy those stats and would never quote it as a source even if they were plausible).

    Part of the problem with statistics on deaths is that most people don't actually die from hunger, they die from illness that was compounded by malnutrition. Much like AIDS.

    Here is an anecdote:

    President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.


    I do find it amusing that you essentially agreed with my premise (in your own childish manner) after insisting that "no one has died of starvation in America for more that one hundred years." Of course, without citation.

  • Redmanfms||

    Damn it, link didn't show:

    University of Houston site.

  • Redmanfms||

    From the Library of Congress:

    Although few starved, hunger and malnutrition affected many.
  • VG Zaytsev||

    "No one" was clearly hyperbole on my part. I'm sure that at least one person died of starvation in the US even during the boomingest boom years.

    But starvation has not been a widespread problem in the US for generations, not even during the depression. And certainly not today when poor people are more obese than the not poor people.

  • ||

    VG can't get testy, he's physically incapable of it.

  • Sevo||

    Patriot| 12.22.12 @ 7:49PM |#
    "You have to have an alternative to letting children starve."

    Yes. Why do you ask?

  • Patriot||

    I'd like to hear it. Oh yes, "private charity." Works so well in Africa.

  • Sevo||

    Well, the effort on the stand-up act isn't going too well:

    Patriot| 12.22.12 @ 10:01PM |#
    "I'd like to hear it. Oh yes, "private charity." Works so well in Africa."

    Yeah, comparing what's done in almost any place to "Africa" won't get the laughs.
    Anyone reckon Patriot knows that Africa is a continent? I'm guessing Patriot is checking google right now to *find* Africa.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    In the modern world, famines in Africa and everywhere else are caused by 'government policies' (which can be nothing more than the local warlord seizing all the food for his private army and dependents).

    Natural famines happened in the 14th century but not the 20th.

  • Sevo||

    "Natural famines happened in the 14th century"

    Not sure famines occurred then absent gov't or church market distortion. Any cite?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I was think specifically of the local famines at the start of the little ice age.

    http://www.ancientdestructions.....a-famines/

    That were caused by environmental change combined with populuations living closer to subsistence levels, lack of technological adaptability and poor transportation.

    But yeah, now that you mention it, governments were undoubtedly a major factor that historians have largely ignored.

  • Sevo||

    VG Zaytsev| 12.22.12 @ 10:35PM |#
    "I was think specifically of the local famines at the start of the little ice age.
    http://www.ancientdestructions.....a-famines/
    That were caused by environmental change combined with populuations living closer to subsistence levels, lack of technological adaptability and poor transportation."
    Can't gripe about that; ag tech was pretty crude at that time.

    "But yeah, now that you mention it, governments were undoubtedly a major factor that historians have largely ignored."
    I'll have to find the link (maybe someone else knows where it is), but it's pretty clear that famines post-19th-century were artifacts of government activity. Stalin's USSR and Mao's China are the obvious examples.
    No, Patriot, they weren't caused by un-wed mothers.

  • Patriot||

    Don't say "environment," that's a dirty word. Everything bad is caused by gummamint, evil gummamint. As for un-wed mothers, they don't cause famines. They cause their one children to die, unless they have brothers or cousins to take care of them.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Don't say "environment," that's a dirty word. Everything bad is caused by gummamint, evil gummamint.

    I thought everything bad traced back to fertile dumb sluts.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    ...but it's pretty clear that famines post-19th-century were artifacts of government activity.

    Undoubtedly.

  • Patriot||

    Even when the food does get there, the people keep reproducing so damn much they only make the situation worse. It's a behavioral problem there too, and it's much the same. Women can't keep their legs closed.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Phrased more entertainingly than Malthus, but just as wrong.

  • Patriot||

    If we had kept reproducing at the level we had at that time, we would have experienced many Malthusian catastrophes by now. Malthus promoted certain policies, birth control was among them, as well as innovation to increase productivity. Where they have not followed his advice, starvation has occurred.

  • Redmanfms||

    I'd like to hear it. Oh yes, "private charity." Works so well in Africa.

    Charity feeds a far more people than statist attempts to control production, like is seen in places like Zimbabwe and Zambia. But I'm sure you'll argue that their Top Men < America's Top Men because they're "3rd World Savages," right?

  • Patriot||

    "But I'm sure you'll argue that their Top Men < America's Top Men because they're "3rd World Savages," right?"
    Of course not. Yesterday our local democrat party leader executed 10 villagers in retribution for "disrespect."

  • Redmanfms||

    Of course not. Yesterday our local democrat party leader executed 10 villagers in retribution for "disrespect."

    White (?) Top Men Darkie Top Men.

    Really, that's what you're going with?

  • Redmanfms||

    Should have a greater than symbol.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yesterday our local democrat party leader executed 10 villagers in retribution for "disrespect."

    Was Jake Tapper on of them?

  • ||

    I wonder how many villagers overseas were killed by our Dear Leaders Drones of Enlightenment™ yesterday?

  • Henry||

    That's absurd. The entire premise of libertarianism is that one can disfavor something without reflexively forcibly banning it. If any group consistently conflates these two options, it is the progressives.

  • Sevo||

    Henry| 12.22.12 @ 6:22PM |#
    "That's absurd."

    Yeah, well, it's patriot. For full eye-roll retard, just wait'll s/he gets going on der untermensch.

  • Patriot||

    Just witness how my comments about not liking sexual libertinism are confused with wanting to ban it. Progressiveness is a low bar.

  • Sevo||

    Patriot| 12.22.12 @ 6:37PM |#
    "Just witness how my comments about not liking sexual libertinism are confused with wanting to ban it"

    Yeah, it's a bitch when people figure out what you really want, isn't it?

  • Chris Mallory||

    You forgot Food Trucks. Cosmotarians love them some Food Trucks.

  • ||

    Trucks made of food are awesome, like gingerbread houses. Speaking of gingerbread, we're running out around here. Most of them left town when Christmas season rolled around.

  • ||

    I get it but this article will make no difference whatsoever to the gun grabbers. They already know everything in this article and they are fine with it.

    Anyone who thinks gun grabbers are mistaken but well intentioned would be wrong. They are not well intentioned at all. They already know that there would be lots of black market guns. They already know that violent crime would skyrocket. They already know that mass shootings are more deadly in gun free zones. Every word they say in debate regarding the effects of gun ownership/ gun restriction is disingenuous.

    They have one goal and one goal only and it has been stated here at H&R astutely many times; To have a disarmed and helpless population that they can lord it over.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think they're just lashing out at rednecks.

    I think they see it as an issue like abortion or gay marriage.

    They think the cultural conservatives support gun rights, so they're against it.

    They have the same reasons to oppose gun rights as Tony--which is to say it isn't about reasons. It's about lashing out at cultural conservatives.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Anyone who thinks gun grabbers are mistaken but well intentioned would be wrong. They are not well intentioned at all. They already know that there would be lots of black market guns. They already know that violent crime would skyrocket. Every word they say in debate regarding the effects of gun ownership/ gun restriction is disingenuous.

    That is true of the true believing gun grabbers. But they are a very small part or the population. The much larger group that they depend on to enforce their desires are ignorant hoplophobes. And those people are educable. I've had a number of people that aren't gun owners (as far as I know) say in discussion this past week that the only way to prevent a shooting like Sandy Hook is to have people with guns on scene. People were reaching that conclusion on there own, before LaPierre's speech yesterday. And that sentiment drives the grabber insane, even if it's cast as police officers on scene.

    So articles like this can do a lot of good.

  • ||

    You are right. I am just extra cynical today.

  • juris imprudent||

    The holidays tend to do that to me too.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    They have one goal and one goal only and it has been stated here at H&R astutely many times; To have a disarmed and helpless population that they can lord it over.

    Indeed, they know from history that wealth redistribution is much harder with an armed populace.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Breaking: Hugo Chavez on life support.

  • Ken Shultz||

    LOL

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's about time we got some good news.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    It's a Christmas miracle!!

  • ||

    This cheers me up a little.

  • ||

    Hmmm wondering if I can make a wish-list of other names I would like to see that reported about.

  • ||

    My top five:
    Michael Moore (kept alive by state of the art technology offered by an evil for-profit corporation), Elizabeth Warren, Fidel Castro, Sean Penn, and any of the numerous scumbag cops that get paid administrative leave for shooting unarmed people/dogs.

  • Killazontherun||

    Keeping it domestic, the list of those who need career destroying with no rebound things to happen to them, war profiteer Diane Feinstein, publicity whore and megafascist Chuck Schumer, back stabber John McCain, tyrannical hypocrite Mike Bloomberg, and Angela Lansbury for going through my wallet afterwards. Bitch.

  • ||

    Damn. Now Sean Penn is going to have to find a new dick to suck.

  • IceTrey||

    Damn, you got an AK for $300? BTW, it's an AKM. The AK-47 hasn't been made for over 50 years.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think AK-47 is like "kleenex".

  • Sevo||

    Pretty sure it was last made in 1947.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The Chinese are making Type 56s to this day.

  • ||

    Holy shit, The Huffington Post is going full-retard on the gun issue. Apparently we're experiencing and unprecedented epidemic of violence as our streets run red with blood.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

  • Sevo||

    A Serious Man| 12.22.12 @ 4:55PM |#
    "Holy shit, The Huffington Post is going full-retard on the gun issue."

    The SF Chron managed to squeeze one article into the front page that wasn't whoring gun control over the oh, so valuable dead kids!

  • ||

    OK, I was cheered a bit by the Chavez news and now you have bummed me out. I was stupid enough to click on your link.

    My god they are pulling out all of the stops to whip up emotional hysteria.

  • RBS||

    Yeah, it looks like every shooting with more than one victim will be reported as "mass" shooting for the foreseeable future.

  • Sevo||

    RBS| 12.22.12 @ 5:48PM |#
    "Yeah, it looks like every shooting with more than one victim will be reported as "mass" shooting for the foreseeable future."

    Except for drones; they're really harmless to the right people. They only kill kids who deserve to die. Code Pink is certain of

  • RBS||

    You're right, I should have added that caveat.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    35,361 comments.
    WTF???

  • juris imprudent||

    Anon-bot is beta testing the next release there.

  • Henry||

    Is text missing from this article? On page 5, where it says:

    "Summing up the prospects for banning handguns in his book, Can Gun Control Work?, he wrote:"

    …the text that follows doesn't look like anything that person wrote about handguns, it looks like a continuation of the article by the author about his AK47 rifle purchase.

  • Jumbie||

    I've had problems with missing bits of the article. The NY Times quote about immigrants is missing after the colon and so are two other quotes that were meant to come after colons.

    Welch needs to fire the person whose lack of editing skills led to this.

    Tucille: GREAT ARTICLE. You are the first person I've seen give a bitchslap rebuttal to the Australian weapons ban argument. Next time someone says to me, "Australia banned 'assault' weapons and they've had no more spree shootings, I'll ask what that really means considering that 80% of the 'assault' weapons are still in private hands.

  • Sevo||

    "Australia banned 'assault' weapons and they've had no more spree shootings,"

    And they haven't had any since the Ipad was introduced!
    Pretty sure it was the Ipads that made the difference, and I've got as much data to prove it as they do.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Stop using that logic stuff! The U.S. has advanced beyond that; now feelings are how we decide everything! It's more civilized!

    Besides, everybody knows that logic is a tool of patriarchal racist oppression. And don't use no funny talk like post hoc ergo propter hoc! That's elitist!

  • juris imprudent||

    now feelings are how we decide everything! It's more civilized!

    Yes, you asked for it.

  • Ted S.||

    Welch needs to fire the person whose lack of editing skills led to this.

    Perhaps this explains why they got rid of Lucy. :-(

  • Jordan||

    Statistically speaking, Australia wouldn't have had any more spree shootings anyway, even if laws hadn't changed.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Your guns ARE legal in NYC. Local ordinances don't trump the second amendment.

    -jcr

  • Alice Bowie||

    Supreme Court has ruled countless of times that gun regulations are NOT violations of the second amendment.

    Please, we in NYC are A-OK with stiff gun laws.

    I'm from Washington Heights, were the murder rate and violent crime rate has DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY since STOP and FRISK.

    The Local thugs are scared to cross the street with a gun in their pocket.

    Just 20years ago, my cousin would wear his 45 like a piece of jewelry...not anymore. And the place is much safer.

  • ||

    [NYC] has roughly 37,000 licensed handgun owners and about 21,000 rifle and shotgun licenses, the running guesstimate of illegal firearms stands at two million, give or take a bit.

    Apparently a few of your fellow residents disagree.

  • Alice Bowie||

    The good thing is that these guns are not carried around regularly.

    I actually don't have a problem with everyone (including convicted felons) from having a gun at home. And, if i was shah, i would allow having a gun at home for protection.

    However, I'm happy with the fact that walking around with a loaded gun in your pocket will get you an easy 1-3 years on the Rock.

  • Almanian.||

    So's that pickpocket behind you

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    So, you believe I have a right to self-defense if I stay hidden at home, but if I step outside my rights evaporate?

    Including my 4th Amendment rights, apparently, since you like "stop and frisk".

    Your feelings trump all!

  • Generic Stranger||

    Supreme Court has ruled countless of times that gun regulations are NOT violations of the second amendment.

    They have ruled that SOME regulations are not violations. They have yet to elucidate any further, except to say that outright banning them is right out.

    I think the Sullivan law will eventually be found to be a violation of the 2nd amendment as well as a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th. It's simply too arbitrary and too damn expensive. Some kind of licensing regime may survive (though it shouldn't, any more than requiring a license for owning a printing press would pass muster under the 1st amendment), but it will be necessarily inexpensive and will be shall issue instead of may issue...if you're rich and connected.

  • Nephilium||

    Just in case any of you haven't run across this yet:

    An Opinion on Gun Control

    Another well written piece.

  • ||

    This was incredible. It goes well with the sociologist's post about gun violence.

  • Killazontherun||

    Is this the grabbers going full retard article you referred to above, A Serious Man?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....22773.html

    We should not wait for our elected officials, in President Obama's good words, "to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics." We should do our share. One way to proceed is to mark our homes, apartments and condos, with a "gun free" sign. Parents should notify their friends that they would be reluctant to send their child over for a play date unless the home was safe from guns. Residential communities should pass rules that ban bringing guns onto their premises, clearly marking them as gun free.

    Anyone who puts up such signs will become an ambassador for gun control, because they are sure to be challenged by gun advocates to explain their anti-gun positions.

    The temptation to earn my living in a most unlibertarian, disrespectful of property without even having to become a puplically employed parasite way grows greater by the day. At some point it becomes immoral not to rob them.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Some of the comments are pretty good though:

    ""One way to proceed is to mark our homes, apartments and condos, with a "gun free" sign." To such people thank you. I appreciate the fact that you are willing to divert possible criminals from my home, to your own. Such noble sacrifice should be applauded. So few people are willing to put the lives of their families on the line, by encouraging armed criminals to invade their home, that Mr. Etzioni should be congratulated. Sadly, I'm more self-centered. I don't want armed criminals figuring out that my house is a safe target for them. I may put up an "armed response" sign even if I don't own guns. Clearly I'm not as selfless as Etzioni. BTW: Anyone know his address, it would be interesting to see if he follows through with his own advice or not? I would also suggest, that in the spirit of his message that he move his home, just in case he's in an area with low crime where such a sign is likely to be meaningless."

  • ||

    If actually put up their "rob me" signs, and then get robbed, they might think twice about their gun control stance. I'm likely giving them too much credit for thinking, though.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    If actually put up their "rob me" signs, and then get robbed, they might think twice about their gun control stance. I'm likely giving them too much credit for thinking, though.

    It would only be proof to them that they didn't legislate hard enough.

  • ||

    Wow that's grade A stupid. And I don't think you need to rob them personally. There are plenty of criminals out there who would take advantage of a giant ass sign saying "Gun free home" or its equivalent "Please rob me".

    But I was referrring to the front page where literally half the page was a series of links to shootings. You know, because the statistics showing that violent crime is down and America is much safer can be drowned out by big scary headlines.

  • Sevo||

    Pretty sure we all remember someone sticking a "KICK ME" sign on someone's back when we were in high school.
    Well, Mr. Etzioni has volunteered to wear one without anyone helping him, and while it's enjoyable to laugh at his stupidity, I wonder when some lefty is going to call him on child endangerment for including his kids.

  • SIV||

    Amitai Etzioni? The only thing worse than cosmotarians and communists is communitarians. I really really fucking hate those guys

  • ||

    "One way to proceed is to mark our homes, apartments and condos, with a "gun free" sign."

    *Jaw Drops and....speechless*

    "Anyone who puts up such signs will become an ambassador for gun control..."

    Why yes, yes they will. But not for the reasons you think, nor will their ambassadorship have the effect you intend.

  • dantheserene||

    Like being an ambassador in Benghazi, perhaps?

  • Generic Stranger||

    That HAS to be satire, a case of Poe's Law striking good and hard.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Tell u guys the truth. As liberal as I am, I don't think these gun laws would really help stop that incident last week.

    If you only allow COPS and GOVERNMENT people to have guns, what's to stop one of their retarded son/daughter from killing daddy, taking the gun, and killing a bunch of people?

    I have thought about it logically. Somebody has to have a gun. And if somebody has to have a gun, this situation will always happen.

    We can't have a society where no one has a gun.

    So no, gun laws will not stop that incident last week. But stiff gun laws do stop murders and violence. I've seen it in NYC.

  • ||

    Murders and violent crime have gone down nationally, so you can make no claims at all that it's a result of gun control laws.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I actually know FOR A FACT in NYC.

    Believe me, many people I knew back then would carry guns everywhere and way more people got shot.

    The HIT still exists. The HIT MAN is not out of Business in NYC. But the transporting of drugs for the last 20years has to be done WEAPON FREE or else a 1-3yr sentence can easily turn into 10years for drugs like cocaine, for example.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Please let me repeat that I ONLY know for NYC in the hood and not the rest of the country.

  • ||

    Your astounding knowledge of causality is breathtaking.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Thank you.

  • Hollywood||

  • Sevo||

    MS, are you surprised Alice didn't quite get it?

  • ||

    Not in the least.

  • juris imprudent||

    I don't know, that almost reveals a Cesar-like grasp of trolling.

  • Sevo||

    juris imprudent| 12.22.12 @ 9:20PM |#
    "I don't know, that almost reveals a Cesar-like grasp of trolling."

    Possible, but Alice has been around where for quite a while and has yet to suggest any 'ironic' sentiments at all.
    Seems that was a sincere and abysmally ignorant statement

  • ||

    Innocently ignorant.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Alice is definately a sockpuppet. It admitted it a few months back.

  • Redmanfms||

    Cite?

    Or are we just supposed to take your meaningless anecdotes at face value?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I doubt I ever would have gone to the black market to purchase an illegal assault weapon

    You didn't. You may have purchased a semi-auto rifle over the black market, but you didn't purchase an "assault weapon."

    It's time to retake the language back. How is it that we ever let those who don't know shit about weapons to dictate the terminology?

    You bought a modern sporting rifle, not an assault weapon. Because outside of military gear, there is no such thing.

  • Almanian.||

    Well done, JD.

    Fuck the pole lease, fuck the federal gummint...my state's better and the township gummint might as well not exist at this point (FEATURE, not a bug!), so I'll leave them out of it.. But I'm buying more guns, not standing with a pat hand, as long as those asshole keep coming after them. Even rhetorically.

    Makes it easier to overcome/avoid being without any when they run out of words and the inevitable clampdown is attenpted.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Why do the British so fucking hate Americans owning guns?

    /snide remark

  • Sevo||

    Agile Cyborg| 12.22.12 @ 9:02PM |#
    "Why do the British so fucking hate Americans owning guns?"

    Because they secretly wish the rebels would have crossed the ocean and kicked the monarchy into the channel.
    By now, England might have been prosperous! Instead, they got that socialist mess they have.

  • dantheserene||

    They have gone so far from their roots. It is really sad to see British "justice" in action.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • Sevo||

    Gonna link this once more:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch_p.....e=youtu.be
    Yes, it is a scripted Euro get-together, but you hear that music? Did *any* gov't agency *ever* accomplish the expression of human triumph and exuberance found here?
    Listen in shame, lefties...

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Another reason to hate CNN.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I dunno. The historical St. Nick was a hard dude. He was a straight up bare-knuckle boxer with a cauliflower ear and a broken nose.

  • Killazontherun||

    St. Nick's done more for the wee ones of the world than to simply command his elven hive to build Tonka trucks. According to one fable, Nicholas met an innkeeper who butchered three kids and pickled them during a famine so he could try to pass them off as ham. After God's cosmic prodding led Nicholas to their corpses, he prayed to divinely stitch their little salty dismembered bodies back together.

    We're not saying that you should build a trio of barfy gherkin golems on Christmas Eve instead of gingerbread men ... actually, fuck it, that's exactly what we're saying. And if you won't do that, at least don some Vlasic-soaked rags and dress up as St. Nick's jaunty archnemesis "The Cannibal Hotelier" to spook the neighborhood carolers with some briny pranks.

  • Boisfeuras||

    Excellent article, J.D.

  • Paul Revere||

    In 2011, 9,878 people were killed by drunk drivers and approximately 350,000 were injured in America.

    For 2011 the FBI reports murders for ALL of America:

    323 with rifles - Assault Rifles reported here
    496 with blunt objects - hammers, clubs, golf clubs
    728 with fists
    1,692 with knives

    How come I don't hear the cry for a prohibition of alcohol?

    Oops - been there and done that and it was repealed.

    Same with trying to ban the 2nd Amendment.

    You will have a better chance with bans on hammers....

  • NorEastern||

    Again you post incomplete data. You are missing 90% of the statistics on gun homicides. If you are going to be comparing gun deaths to drunk driving you should also include gun accidents and probably gun suicides. An obvious attempt to misinform.

    I have posted this information on several different forums after you cut and pasted that garbage. Please clean it up.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I can see a case being made for including accidental shootings, but not suicides.

    The suicide rate in the US is moderate by international standards, in line with Canada's and much lower than Japan's and Sweden's.

  • Alfred Black||

    The author seems to be suggesting that it is impractical or impossible to ban firearms' ownership, as some people will go ahead and own them secretly -- leading to lots of gun violence anyway. The truth is that anytime a society prohibits an action, there will be violators. So what? it may still be worth doing. Applying the author's selfsame logic to drugs, for example, would lead society to promptly abandon the war on drugs entirely (which would have the effect of shutting down many criminal organizations) as well as to abandon police efforts to enforce morality such as prostitution, loan sharking, even speeding! Otherwise, note that US citizens own about half the world's civil guns, have the highest death rates from guns in the world and more people in jail than any other country including China country which has a vastly larger population. Hmmm.

  • Redmanfms||

    Applying the author's selfsame logic to drugs, for example, would lead society to promptly abandon the war on drugs entirely (which would have the effect of shutting down many criminal organizations) as well as to abandon police efforts to enforce morality such as prostitution, loan sharking, even speeding!

    Boy, you really don't know where you are, do you?

    Otherwise, note that US citizens own about half the world's civil guns...

    Whoopty-shit.

    ...have the highest death rates from guns in the world...

    Not even close to being true.

    ...and more people in jail than any other country including China country which has a vastly larger population.

    Yeah, the number of people incarcerated is totally because of how lax our gun control laws are. Clearly, the solution to our incarceration rate woes is to make an even larger group of people instant criminals.....

    Hmmm.

    Yes, hmmm.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Alfred Black,

    The truth is that anytime a society prohibits an action, there will be violators. So what? it may still be worth doing.


    Unless it isn't.

    Applying the author's selfsame logic to drugs,


    But, you don't, you just list a series of possible consequences from drug legalization. In fact, comparing the two (gun banning and drug banning) makes the case for gun control that much weaker.

    Otherwise [sic], note that US citizens own about half the world's civil guns, have the highest death rates from guns in the world


    Mexico has very LOW civilian gun possession (if one assumes the very strict Mexican anti-gun laws are actually effective) yet gun deaths per year is quite high compared to the number of guns available.

    U.S. citizens and residents have around 300 million guns in possession currently yet the number of deaths by purposeful shooting or accidental shooting is much lower in proportion to gun ownership than in most countries except, maybe, Japan.

  • doctorfixit||

    The black market has always been an invaluable resource against government-manipulated central control of the economy. So much so that I consider illegal aliens as allies in the struggle for freedom against totalitarian socialism . They enjoy a thriving black market that allows them to have a much higher standard of living than if they used the government-controlled market.

  • CZmacure||

    "That raises interesting questions about why mere citizens who make such purchases get sent to prison, while government agents acting far outside their jurisdiction get a free pass."

    It's not just his agents who are getting a "free pass". By arranging for these felonious straw man purchases, and not reporting them to the federal authorities, Bloomberg has committed at least one federal felony.

    18 USC § 4 - Misprision of felony "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

    3 years in the federal stir without a team of unarmed bodyguards to protect him just might change Hizzoner's views on gun control.

  • Ralfy||

    Citizens buy more weapons to defy governments. Governments buy small arms and even more powerful armaments to control citizens. Various criminal groups worldwide buy almost similar to prey on citizens. The arms industry profits from all three.

  • DMont||

    Thank you for having the balls to write this article. As an Italian American who grew up in NYC, it really hit home. I've been sending this around to friends, and would like to be able to cite the DOJ source for this passage:
    "In a city that, as I write, has roughly 37,000 licensed handgun owners and about 21,000 rifle and shotgun licenses, the running guesstimate of illegal firearms stands at two million, give or take a bit. That’s the number the U.S. Department of Justice has used in its official publications in recent years."
    It seems the hyperlink is to a password protected section of reason.com. I'd love to be able to use that information in debates, but am loathe to state anything without a primary source. Thanks!

  • bobnieder||

    Excellent article. Politicians intent upon enacting draconian bans need to pay close attention -- the more outrageous the demands, the less likely coompliance becomes. Until you reach the vanishing point, and passive resistance becomes outright defiance, and with good reason. The wisdom of making the second amendment rights sacrosanct, shows the founding fathers to have a firmer grasp on reality than the recent crop of anti-gun pols -- what a shock!

  • Sbobet||

    So many black market, especially on colombia

  • BillCa||

    A well written and researched article.
    There is a worldwide recognition that possessing a gun gives one a measure of independence and most especially, at least a CHANCE at staying alive when the government turns rogue.

    The long standing NRA position of the "slippery slope" was proven this year in California. Only the Governor's veto of SB-375 stopped a statewide ban on nearly every semi-automatic firearm. Gun control lobby groups expressed their disappointment that this "common sense" measure failed, putting to rest any question that they would willingly ban at least 1/2 of legal guns. At the same time this puts the label of "lie" to their claims that they don't want to ban guns, or take anyone's guns away, or that the NRA simply "gins up fear" of bans or confiscations.

    I dare say that, in the U.S., not too many people keep live artillery munitions around their homes or cached under their tool sheds. The reason is simple to understand. The utility of such an item is far outweighed by the penalty of caught. The benefits of having a handgun or an illegal "assault weapon" - either of which may be used to defend against intruders or possible civil unrest - probably outweighs the penalty of being caught, for many people. I'm sure many would rather spend 3 years in jail to ensure the survival of their family. This is, I think, the primary reason for their "civil disobedience" to registration and confiscation laws.

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