Colorado: New Gun Laws Didn't Stop the Shooting

Colorado's post-Newtown gun laws don't work, and are likely unconstitutional to boot

Colorado’s gun laws made the news last week following a shooting at Arapahoe High School in the city of Centennial. One student was injured in an 80-second attack involving five gunshots and one Molotov cocktail.

Shooter Karl Pierson then killed himself with a 12-gauge pump action shotgun that he had legally purchased (As an 18-year-old he would not have been able to legally purchase a handgun). He was reported to have been cornered by an armed deputy on the school grounds before the suicide.

Pierson exhibited no known “warning signs.” He was a debater, a track runner, strongly anti-Republican and anti-free market. There was no easy or obvious way to mark him as a person who needed to be kept away from guns. Some thought he seemed “weird” at times, he was bullied a bit, and he went to Bible study. In other words, he was just like many, many thousands of other American teenagers. Better eyes, better programs, better laws could not have prevented this particular shooting from happening. 

But, with memories of the 1999 Columbine High School murders and last year’s Aurora movie theater massacre still fresh, Pierson’s rampage has people thinking again about Colorado’s gun laws, and asking why they aren’t stronger or more effective.

The New York Times reported Sunday that 55 Colorado sheriffs do not want to enforce gun laws that went into effect this summer. The story focuses on the ban of any newly purchased magazines that hold over 15 rounds. The Times reports, “All but seven of the 62 elected sheriffs in Colorado signed on in May to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.” The article also reports that there are pockets of local sheriff resistance to new tougher gun laws in other states, from New York to California.

David Kopel, the lawyer representing the sheriffs in Cooke v. Hickenlooper, stated in a July press release:

We will argue and present evidence that [the magazine ban] violates the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. The Heller decision forbids bans on arms which are “Typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” We will show magazines of up to 20 rounds for handguns, and up to 30 rounds for rifles, are standard for many popular firearms, and thus protected under Heller.

The suit also maintains that aspects of a new law imposing background checks and fee requirements on acts as mundane as loaning a gun to a friend are also unconstitutional. You have to go through a federally licensed dealer, forcing them go through the same trouble they would go through for a sale they were profiting from, for a fee statutorily set at just $10. It's possible those doing such transfers wouldn’t be able to find a dealer willing to help them obey the law.

The lawsuit notes that trying to enforce the magazine law is an absurd burden: “The Sheriffs have limited resources and limited public funds to spend on investigations. They cannot expend those resources to conduct investigations that would be necessary to monitor compliance with the new magazine restrictions. No documentation has ever been required for the retail or private purchase of magazines, making it a practical impossibility for the Sheriffs to determine whether one of the many magazines already in existence was obtained after the effective date.” 

It’s hard to predict how the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado will take the magazine argument. A 2011 decision from the Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia upheld an even narrower magazine restriction, one that banned magazines holding over 10 rounds. The case is known as “Heller II” because it featured the same parties as the 2008 D.C. v. Heller case. Heller II challenged some of the gun regulations D.C. adopted after their total ban on handguns in the home was overturned.

The decision by Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg applies “intermediate scrutiny” (rather than the “strict scrutiny” that other constitutional rights, such as the First Amendment, receive) to the D.C. magazine statute. He claimed the magazine ban does not substantially burden the core self-defense right embedded in the Second Amendment and finds the law passes muster.

“The Government has the burden of showing there is a substantial relationship or reasonable 'fit' between, on the one hand, the prohibition on … magazines holding more than ten rounds,” Ginsburg writes, “and, on the other, its important interests in protecting police officers and controlling crime.” 

Ginsburg thought the government met that burden, essentially because larger magazines would allow mass shooters to do more damage and harm more people. Preventing that use of the high-capacity magazines is, the judge thought, a legitimate and important government interest. Mother Jones found 31 such mass-murderous uses of high-capacity magazines, out of likely 40 million in circulation.

The dissent in that case by Judge Brett Kavanaugh does not address the magazine issue, as he believed important factual questions had not been fully settled by the lower courts, specifically, whether there was a tradition of common use of larger capacity magazines. The original complaint in Cooke v. Hickenlooper argues that indeed there has been: 

Rifles with magazines larger than 15 rounds are so commonplace that many models are supplied in a standard 30-round configuration. Indeed, one such rifle is the AR-15 and its many variants, which has for years been one of the best-selling types of firearms in the United States and of which there are at least four million in the United States today. The number of other models of Modern Sporting Rifles is likewise in the millions, which are also often sold with magazines holding more than 15 rounds.

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.

  • kinnath||

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/cri.....onica.html

    Everything You Think You Know about Mass Murder Is Wrong

    In the article, titled “Mass Shootings in America: Moving Beyond Newtown,” Northeastern University criminologists James Alan Fox and Monica J. DeLateur examine existing research and data to refute 11 common assumptions about mass murder . . . .

    And, perhaps most dispiriting, the authors argue that pretty much every policy proposal intended to reduce mass shootings has been worthless

  • Paul.||

    And, perhaps most dispiriting, the authors argue that pretty much every policy proposal intended to reduce mass shootings has been worthless

    Dispiriting to whom?

  • kinnath||

    To Justin Peters, progtard anti-gun advocate.

  • kinnath||

    It was actually surprising that he covered the report at all.

  • Paul.||

    Unfortunately, to those of us who already know the effectiveness of these gun laws, it's not dispiriting at all.

  • Invisible Finger||

    It's amazing how many people STILL think prohibition works when all the evidence is to the contrary.

  • blcartwright||

    No one wants to see mass shootings, or any pointless loss of life. I reckon it's "dispiriting" to those who thought they were doing something about shootings by passing these laws.

  • ||

    It's interesting that the authors of the study cited came to that conclusion given their obvious political and cultural delusions:

    “Eliminating the risk of mass murder would involve extreme steps that we are unable or unwilling to take—abolishing the Second Amendment, achieving full employment, restoring our sense of community, and rounding up anyone who looks or acts at all suspicious,” the authors conclude. “Mass murder just may be a price we must pay for living in a society where personal freedom is so highly valued.”

    Because prohibition always works? And I never realized that the shooters' problems were because of their employment status. The people I know have a fine sense of community, I don't know what their perspective problem is. And I "like" how they think more freedom = more injustice.

    In short, with all these personal delusions on their part (why are they even in their conclusion? The paper certainly isn't about any of the things being mentioned) I'm a bit surprised that they're willing to be so honest with what the data means here. Then again, maybe it's not so surprising. I know we say things like "the mask slips", but it looks like these guys don't bother to wear any. They wear their ugliness openly and proudly, and probably look confused when people call them hideous.

  • ||

    Dammit. Let's try that again:

    It's interesting that the authors of the study cited came to that conclusion given their obvious political and cultural delusions:

    “Eliminating the risk of mass murder would involve extreme steps that we are unable or unwilling to take—abolishing the Second Amendment, achieving full employment, restoring our sense of community, and rounding up anyone who looks or acts at all suspicious,” the authors conclude. “Mass murder just may be a price we must pay for living in a society where personal freedom is so highly valued.”

    Because prohibition always works? And I never realized that the shooters' problems were because of their employment status. The people I know have a fine sense of community, I don't know what their perspective problem is. And I "like" how they think more freedom = more injustice.

    In short, with all these personal delusions on their part (why are they even in their conclusion? The paper certainly isn't about any of the things being mentioned) I'm a bit surprised that they're willing to be so honest with what the data means here. Then again, maybe it's not so surprising. I know we say things like "the mask slips", but it looks like these guys don't bother to wear any. They wear their ugliness openly and proudly, and probably look confused when people call them hideous.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Well, mass murder is extremely uncommon in Australia and Europe which have very strict gun laws, so it's not impossible. Of course, there are very unpleasant side effects to that, such as the emboldening of criminals.

  • Redmanfms||

    As usual Tulpa pulls abject bullshit out of his ass.

    Europe v. U.S.

    Of course, I'm sure if Tulpatard actually comes back and responds to this he will try to redefine what constitutes a mass murder. Fuck you Tulpa.

  • optimusratiostultum||

    mind you the European countries that do allow plenty of liberty concerning guns don't have gun violence problems, like Switzerland.

  • aed939||

    I just wanted to clarify that, while many european countries have very high income taxes, many have high guns per capita. Ranked by country:
    US#1, Switzerland #4, Finland #5, Sweden #10, Norway #11, France #12, Austria #14, Germany & Iceland #15tie.
    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....by_country

  • montana mike||

    MOAR JOBZ=NO MURDERZ

  • ||

    And I "like" how they think more freedom = more injustice.

    Personally, that came off more objectively (even somewhat libertarian) to me. The old, suggesting a (not so) simple or even real solution to a "simple" problem.

    Eliminating mass murder? No problem, just find a lamp with a genie in it and rub.

  • ||

    He was reported to have been cornered by an armed deputy on the school grounds before the suicide.

    Why the fuck do these guys quit right when someone armed shows up?

  • Paul.||

    Funny that.

  • ||

    Because they realize they made a mistake thinking it was a gun free zone.

  • Drake||

    They really hate it when their murder spree is rudely interrupted by return fire. You know how distracting that is?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    That generalization is based on what now?

    Someone armed showed up at Columbine near the beginning of the spree, and one of the shooters engaged him in a gunfight. They appear to have offed themselves later because they had bored of shooting people.

    There was also someone armed at the Gabbi Giffords shooting but he didn't consider it safe to take a shot at the perp.

    The Aurora theater shooter wandered out to his car before the cops showed up, because he was out of shotgun ammo and his AR was jammed.

  • wagnert in atlanta||

    The behavior of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department in the Columbine shooting came under severe -- and deserved -- criticism. The deputy who "engaged" Harris did so with his pistol -- at sixty yards, without putting on his prescription glasses. Harris shot back. Neither hit the other. A few minutes later, Harris popped out again and the deputy and a motorcycle cop shot at him, again without effect.

    That was it. Like Sir Robin, the cops bravely ran away. They established a perimeter, set up a command post, and made sure no one -- including injured students -- left the building. Harris and Klebold killed themselves at 12:08. At 1:09 two SWAT teams entered the school, leaving plenty of time for the injured students and teacher to bleed out. Brave Sir Robin!

    The roasting Jeffco got for that fiasco is probably why the Arapahoe High shooting lasted just 80 seconds.

  • LarryA||

    Why the fuck do these guys quit right when someone armed shows up?

    Plan A: Shoot it out with the good guy. Excellent possibility of being hit several times but not killed. (Depending on the study, 80% to 85% of people shot with a handgun survive.) That hurts a lot and can leave you hurting forever. And you'll be in prison.

    Plan B: Put your gun to your head and check out. If they're there to kill people, make news, and die, Plan B is the way to go.

  • Shawn O'L.||

    They don't. The "official report" says they commit suicide but most often they are shot by the cops. Calling it suicide makes all the accusations that will be made against the police after-the-fact go away. The parents can't sue the police for excessive force if the perpetrator "kills himself" on scene. It just saves a lot of time and money this way.

  • Drake_Burrwood||

    Because its suicide by cop for most, but by that time they realize that the cop with a handgun is going to have just as much a hard time in combat, getting a "sniper" style shot off as they have. So they give up and shoot themselves to make sure it's done right.

  • The Last American Hero||

    He was strongly anti-free market. There was no easy or obvious way to mark him as a person who needed to be kept away from guns.

    Any idea how much better would the world be if anti-free market people stayed away from guns? Come to think of it, that's my solution for world peace.

  • RightNut||

    Certainly would have saved a few million lives in the last century.

  • ArbutusJoe||

    Here's an example of the quality of his economic thinking (from the linked article): "I was wondering to all the neoclassicals and neoliberals, why isn't the market correcting itself?" he wrote. "If the invisible hand is so strong, shouldn't it be able to overpower regulations?"

    No wonder he didn't go very far in "national extemporaneous speaking at the National Qualifying Tournament" ...whatever the hell that is.

  • Paul.||

    Pierson exhibited no known “warning signs.” He was a debater, a track runner, strongly anti-Republican and anti-free market.

    This is called 'no warning signs'?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    a track runner,

    Usain Bolt-Action

  • Anomalous||

    Nice one!

  • montana mike||

    BOOM

  • montana mike||

    BOOM

  • montana mike||

    BOOM

  • montana mike||

    BOOM

  • Drake||

    But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
    You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

  • Paul.||

    its important interests in protecting police officers and controlling crime.”

    Progtards: Officer safety!

  • Drake_Burrwood||

    Hey, I'm a Security officer most of the time the only backup I'd have is if someone is CCW.

  • Paul.||

    who supports the general principle that these laws are ill-advised. Still, Cooke concluded that “The Second Amendment is vital. But so is the rule of law.”

    Wow, that could be used in just so many delicious ways. The first amendment is vital, but so is the rule of law!"

    The Constitution is vital, but so is the rule of law!

  • Libertarius||

    Classic postmodern doublethink.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    The Constitution isn't a death pact !!!!!!!!!1111

  • Curtisls87||

    Based on the pic, I'd say someone likes Ruger.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Based on the pic, I'd say someone likes Ruger.

    Two of the three revolvers are Rugers. The third is a close relative of the light little S&W I typically carry during the summer. I don't see enough detail to spot any Ruger semis.

    My all-time-favorite firearm is a Ruger, the 10/22. Other than a nylon "buffer" bolt stop pin and maybe some decent optics, I really don't see a big reason to modify it. I used one to pop a rabbit at over 150 yards this summer with iron sights.

  • Almanian!||

    The 10/22 is the Honda 50 of guns - everyone in America is required to operate one in their youth, and they're great at what they do.

    I have the one my dad bought...sometime in the very early 70's or late 60's. Still one of my favorites.

    Now - if I could find any FUCKING TWENTY TWO LONG RIFLE to put in it :)

  • Libertarius||

    It's crazy. I am itching to throw the lever on my Henry, but it's easier to buy gold than fucking .22 lrs. right now.

    I've never really heard a good reason for the shortage, but I assume they just moved all that material over into the production of the higher margin stuff that's been in crazy demand these past few years (.223 and pistol calibers).

    The ammo market is teaching us a painful lesson right now. But I can't help but think that the government has to be pushing that demand big-time, and then we get all these stories about DHS and every alphabet agency buying up millions and millions of rounds, then we hear that these stories of huge government ammo purchases are all bunk...I don't know what to make of it.

  • Sukkoi19||

    There was a recent article in American Riflemen that covered the ammo shortage. In short it is entirely the civilian market that is driving the demand and subsequent shortages. They had tracked purchasing from all the DHS agencies and the numbers were down across the board. Of course they could be lies and distractions I guess.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    There are about 275 million privately owned firearms in the US. If every gun owner buys 50 rounds for each of his guns, that's 10x the much-demonized DHS bullet order.

    And there were people buying up and hoarding thousands or tens of thousands of rounds for each of their guns.

  • ||

    Byronsammo.com has it.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Now - if I could find any FUCKING TWENTY TWO LONG RIFLE to put in it :)

    Disclaimer: Just plain dumb luck...

    My wife and I weren't communicating well one day, so we both bought a shitload of .22LR at a gun show a few months before the shortage hit.

  • LarryA||

    Careful how you word that story. You might leave the impression that .22LR is your means of communication. In California that could get you a SWAT visit.
    ;-)

  • Drake_Burrwood||

    Gloating.. that's all just Gloating.

  • Animal||

    Look on Gunbroker. Plenty of .22LR, but it ain't cheap. Demand is up, and the market is reacting precisely as it should.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Its like driving. A driver's license isn't physically needed to make a car go. Gun laws have no discernible physical effect on the operation of a firearm.

  • Rwanda Sykes||

    No but having rules around things gives you leverage to enforce said rules pertaining to the safe operation of something insanely dangerous like a car or gun, in the greater interests of society, or more specifically my interest in not getting shot or run over by idiots.

  • Shawn O'L.||

    Rwanda, you don't have a birth right to own or drive a car, you do to own a gun. The "greater interests of society" you speak of mean jack shit to me when I have a need to protect my family, self or community. Any law that prevents or diminishes my ability to do so is unconstitutional and irrelevant.

  • mtrueman||

    "Gun laws have no discernible physical effect on the operation of a firearm."

    So why obsess over gun laws? The article states:
    ' In other words, he was just like many, many thousands of other American teenagers. Better eyes, better programs, better laws could not have prevented this particular shooting from happening.'
    Surely the question we should be asking ourselves is what could have prevented this particular shooting from happening. If that's too difficult, how about what motivated the guy to do what he did? They are the questions that interest me. I don't see the use in this reflexive turn to gun laws every time something like this happens. Yet Reason does it like clock work.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    "Pierson exhibited no known “warning signs.” He was a debater..."

    No warning signs?

  • Sigivald||

    Ginsburg thought the government met that burden, essentially because larger magazines would allow mass shooters to do more damage and harm more people

    Odd that at the same time police departments are insistent that they have full-capacity magazines in their (often fully automatic) carbines, and their pistols.

    Despite that they almost never have to shoot at more than one person, and typically work in groups, and wearing body armor.

    Any logic that suggests cops have a good use for lots of bullets must apply to the general public as well - "The police are the public, and the public are the police".

  • LarryA||

    Agreed.

    Odd that at the same time police departments are insistent that they have full-capacity magazines in their (often fully automatic) carbines, and their pistols.

    "Well, the law isn't going to keep the criminals from having them, and we can't be outgunned, so..."

    Of course the cops are going to be after that criminal because he first attacked a member of the public who was "outgunned" by the limit.

  • Sigivald||

    "Brian Doherty Says Colorado's New Gun Laws Didn't Stop the Shooting"

    While it's true that Mr. Doherty says that, and what he is saying is itself true, it's a bit of an odd headline, don't you think?

    I mean, the fact of the shooting makes it obvious that it wasn't stopped (in advance, which is the only reading in context that makes any sense).

    Removing the first three words removes no accuracy - or important information - and makes it both clearer and more to the point.

  • Sigivald||

    (Sorry - that comment was meant for the H+R entry linking to this, not the article itself.)

  • ||

    I don't think the H&R entries have separate comment sections anymore.

  • Shawn O'L.||

    Because the headline is supposed to lead you to think that maybe we just need more and tougher gun laws. The left is always trying to lead you to believe what they themselves believe.

  • Shawn O'L.||

    Because the headline is supposed to lead you to think that maybe we just need more and tougher gun laws. The left is always trying to lead you to believe what they themselves believe.

  • ||

    Brian, the second page of your article has a mistake. It refers in quotes to "assault rifle", when the term in question (as shown in the linked piece that mentions it) is "assault weapon":

    As gun rights advocates have pointed out, like “assault rifle,”
  • XM||

    "Colorado's post-Newtown gun laws don't work, and are likely unconstitutional to boot"

    If you knew this, then why didn't you tell us? Why did you keep this a secret!!!

  • ||

    Sorry, it was supposed to be a surprise. Um, Happy Birthday?

  • XM||

    Worst birthday surprise EVER.

  • Peter||

    Would the public have been better served if the school resources officer who cornered the shooter had been out chasing down "high capacity magazine" owners?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Tough gun laws don't work? So tell me, how many school children were shot to death in Japan in the last 365 days? How about Australia? How about the US?

  • ZR||

    Well lets go back in time a bit more, lets say 5 years to get a more acurate picture. Japan + Australia have smaller populations so to even out countries with strong gun laws lets add a few European Countries. Lets say Germany and Norway. Thus your paramaters of School children would dead would be 88 to 16 in favor of the more strick gun control states.

  • Rwanda Sykes||

    bbbbut FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

  • ZR||

    Thats 88 in the strict gun control states vs 16 here. Of course the main argument is different (random victims in a public area) but I was responding to schoolchilren gunned down. Take away gunned down and just keep random victims and the ratio to population is close to the same. 30 in five years in Japan from mass stabbings, 22 in Australia from delibrate fires. Germany actually has shootings despite strict control laws. Norway is obvious. This still doesn't equal the population of the United States, I could take Mexico and really skew numbers. The end result is that gun laws are meaningless in these incidents and overall violence has much more to do with other factors such as the black market in drugs in this country.

  • Jackand Ace||

    16? Where do you get that number? Just without researching further...20 in Newtown, 32 in Va. Tech., and you clearly are not considering all the school children shot everyday here in places like Chicago.

  • ||

    Do school children shot in gun-free zones count in favor of restricted access to guns or against?

    Chicago is the antithesis of your argument, it is an anti-green zone.

  • Jackand Ace||

    No. There are zero tough gun laws in this country. Zero. Because the 2nd Amendment does not allow for tough gun laws. Countries like Japan and Australia start out from a different premise...you have no inherent right to a gun, but here are the laws we will pass that tell when you do have those rights.

    All the murdered children, and adults, by guns are supporting my argument, because we have so much more of them than most other countries.

  • Monty Crisco||

    Right, Countries like Japan start out from that utterly asinine right that you have no inherent right to defend yourself or your property. What a wonderful model of squalid fuedalistic history you draw from. Ask anyone who lives in Japan if a criminal can get a gun - the answer is yes, my dear progtard. It is the easiest thing in the world. But Japan has no history of civilian ownership of guns (the daimyos and shogun were another matter) and - who knew?!?! - no history of civil rights either. Or being particularly respectful of natural rights (They don't really have the concept). Fortunately, we have enshrined those natural rights, so that word-farting emotional ass-clowns like yourself cannot abridge them in the arbitrary manner you seek which would devolve us back to a situation reminiscent of feudal Japan. Namely, an entrenched elite armed to the teeth lording it over various defenseless classes of serf with no rights whatsoever.
    Fuck off, slaver.
    You exhibit the emotional thinking of a child or a typical liberal troll.
    There could be a mountain of dead kids and it would not mean I should give up my natural rights (nor would I stand on their bodies to push a political agenda, as you are doing you fucking shameless cocksucking ghoul...)

  • Jackand Ace||

    What a well thought out, mature response.

  • Monty Crisco||

    Yeah, didn't think you could make a response to that, turd. Go back to your fucking faculty lounge and talk about how tea-partiers should be rounded up and put into camps...

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The dissent in that case by Judge Brett Kavanaugh does not address the magazine issue, as he believed important factual questions had not been fully settled by the lower courts, specifically, whether there was a tradition of common use of larger capacity magazines.

    A fairly ridiculous standard, since it allows the govt to essentially freeze the level of technology of a constitutionally protected item (and in many cases, drive it back decades).

    It would be like the courts allowing the govt to ban newspapers from having websites because it wasn't a traditional activity of the press.

  • Rwanda Sykes||

    Assuming your argument is valid (am I making an ass out of you and me here?), because the laws didn't stop ONE school shooting, get rid of 'em? Because that's what the legislators said, literally, when they wrote and passed the bill; "These gun laws are infallible and perfect and will stop every single mass shooting henceforth" youtube it.

    I say we let the market take care of mass shootings.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    Good that an armed individual was there to confront him. More please…..

  • JeremyR||

    So what stopped this guy?

    An armed guard, basically.

    Yet according to the left and many libertarians, the NRA was crazy to want armed guards at schools...even though it works.

  • PaulW||

    Humanity is obsessed with their own safety. This obsession is not logical in most of its aspects.

    Only the intelligent are capable of understanding the consequences and repercussions of knee jerk reactions in regards to safety.

    It is quite sad and shows how stupid our country is as a whole. The idea that you can remove evil by removing one of its tools is ridiculous. If we follow that road, we should not only remove guns, but money, the television, the internet, speech, and everything else. Then we can genetically modify ourselves into trees so that we are incapable of harming one another. But then there is that evil wind that would blow our brothers down!

  • ||

    Then we can genetically modify ourselves into trees so that we are incapable of harming one another.

    "For the maples want more sunlight, but the oaks ignore their pleas."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4amV7__XFA

  • SteveC||

    I would like to see Reason examine the role schools in school shootings. In particular, I would like to see the correlation with school size. US schools are *much* bigger than schools in other countries. In Russia schools generally have all 10 grades under one roof, with about 100 kids per grade divided into three classes. The book/movie Carrie could not have been set in Russia.

  • Russ Davis||

    It's really simple: folk who want gun control laws are fools who want criminals to be empowered and law-abiding citizens to die, even if they're too stupid to realize it.

  • robertg222||

    A US DOJ study found lawfully owned firearms are used over 1.5 million times each year to protect a law abiding citizen and/or stop a crime. Two other studies not administered by the government found the number to be nearly twice that. So if we take the questionable '30,000 preventable gun deaths' figure touted by Millionaires Against Individual Guns, and remove the 22,000 suicides, and the 1,000 lawfully justified homicides by law abiding citizens and law enforcement, we are left with roughly 7,000 gun deaths not committed by the user. The average of the defensive gun use studies I mentioned above is 2 million lawful defensive gun uses per year. That’s roughly a 250 to 1 ratio of 'good' gun uses to 'bad' gun uses. Gun control only helps criminals.

  • gimmeasammich||

    Are you the same robertrtg from robertrtg.com? If so, thank you for supplying cheap HK parts for my build.

  • BLEEDINELL||

    "He was reported to have been cornered by an armed deputy on the school grounds before the suicide."

    This is what stops psychotic socialists from mass murder. But it's being conveniently ignored.

  • ||

    There's plenty of evidence that it's much harder to take your own life without a gun rather than with. Taking guns out of a mass shooters hands increases the likelihood *he* (overwhelmingly) will survive the mass shooting.

    Further, as is becoming increasingly clear, these mass murders plan their attacks, sometimes rather methodically. Taking the guns away from a mass murderer doesn't intrinsically prevent them from becoming a mass murderer. Evidence would strongly suggest that, even if the laws were phenomenally successful, you would convert mass murders into serial killers.

    As a side effect, you've forcibly removed the guns from the hands of people who would've otherwise committed suicide and rendered them just a little more powerless in yet another aspect of their lives (that they don't care about).

    I'm not suggesting that my heart bleeds for any of these people or that we would have fewer mass murders in exchange for a league of serial killers, but the idea that simple gun laws as applied prevent mass shootings has so many logical and empirical holes and is based on such magical thinking and blind optimism, it's unbelievable.

  • LarryA||

    Also, the three worst mass killings since the 1980s, Happy Land night club, Murrah building, and 9-11, involved no firearms.

  • optimusratiostultum||

    I'm getting tired of people defending the 2nd amendment by saying its our right to use guns for recreation or hunting. If our founding fathers thought that arms were only good for recreation they would not have put it in the constitution.

    They put the 2nd amendment in the constitution because as they looked back through history to determine what the best form of governance was they also saw the those societies where the individual people retained their own arms also retained the greatest liberty. By the way they also said "arms" not "guns" meaning they meant for the individual citizens to be able to acquire anything which the a military could employ (since a standing military is the natural enemy of a free people, this is why they also depended upon militia forces and privateers)

    "Those who beat their swords into ploughshares will plough for those who do not"
    -Thomas Jefferson

  • Shawn O'L.||

    "Pierson exhibited no known “warning signs.” He was ... strongly anti-Republican and anti-free market."

    Shouldn't that have been the first warning sign? Every mass-shooter in the past couple decades was a left-leaning socialists.

  • MaggieMansfielddva||

    uptil I saw the draft for $8854, I accept ...that...my brother was like realie earning money in their spare time online.. there brothers friend haz done this 4 only about seven months and recently paid for the depts on there home and bought a gorgeous volvo. see page
    ===========================
    WWW.HomeProfitSystem.COM/tec30
    ===========================

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