Jacob Sullum Debates Gun Control With Robert Wright

Today I did a Bloggingheads.tv discussion/debate about gun control with Robert Wright in which he got me to admit that I also oppose drug control. OK, he did not really have to twist my arm on either score, but it was a lively exchange with a smart guy who understands that "assault weapon" bans are bogus but whose idea of serious gun control—which he argues would be constitutional, though politically impossible—seems designed to irritate fans of the Second Amendment. Thrill as he presses me on Stinger missile bans! Stand aghast as I ask him why police should have guns the rest of us are not allowed to have! Applaud as I tell him that I never really use my "large-capacity ammunition feeding devices," but I'll be damned if I'm going to turn them in after the Wright Bill passes! Wonder why I am licking my lips so much! 

Go here to see the segments that Bob chose to highlight, including "Why Jacob opposes gun control" and "Could any law have prevented this tragedy?"

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.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Poor Mr Wright is a victim of the political spectrum. "You're pro-gun, so you must be anti-drug!"

  • silent v||

    I thought libertarians = guns and pot was pretty well understood even by those who are barely paying attention to American politics.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    This guy sounds like his research consisted of reading a USA Today article about the shooting and skimming the introduction to the Wikipedia article on the Second Amendment. You can see him squinting at a screen in front of him to read the amendment.

  • ||

    No. He sounds like he's unlearned fucking retard with a penchant for spewing self-righteous, self-affirming moralistic bullshit. Fuck him sideways.

  • Coeus||

    No. He sounds like he's unlearned fucking retard with a penchant for spewing self-righteous, self-affirming moralistic bullshit.

    I believe the term is "pundit".

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep, he's a big time senior "editor" at The Atlantic.

  • Coeus||

    I'm still wondering how the fuck they hired Conor Friedersdorf there. You'd think they'd realize how bad he makes the rest of them look.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    The Atlantic has/had a good article (for the mainstream left) on gun control this issue. By Jeffrey Goldberg, whoever.

  • Brandon||

    he got me to admit that I also oppose drug control

    What an asshole.

  • RBS||

    Who?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Oh my god, I'm already infuriated 1:11 into the video.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Wait'll you get to the part where he wants to send people to prison for owning high-cap magazines.

  • Brandybuck||

    High capacity magazines are line big gulps. Banning them doesn't make you shoot less, it just makes you carry more mags.

    Liberal imagining how a rampager thinks: "Oh! My ten round clip is empty! I guess I'll go home now..."

  • mustard||

    Every time you have to clip on a new clip to the gun is a chance for the victim to tackle you.

  • ||

    A_L_E_R_T -- Peak Retard attained. -- A_L_E_R_T

  • iggy||

    Further proof that people who want to ban guns have never actually seen them.

  • ||

    I'm sure mustard can type something even dumber, so we're not at Peak Retard yet.

  • Paul.||

    No, we're at peak mus-tard...

  • RBS||

    clip on a new clip? So fucking stupid...

  • ||

    Eat shit, slavemaker.

  • Coeus||

    Every time you have to clip on a new clip to the gun is a chance for the victim to tackle you.

    You are welcome to come to Texas and give that a try. In a perfectly controlled test, of course. I'll even pit you against my friend with Cerebral palsy who shoots. Instead of shooting you, he just gets to hit you in the nads with the gun butt after he reloads an empty magazine.

    You game? Got some vacation time coming up?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Every time you have to clip on a new clip to the gun is a chance for the victim to tackle you.

    Megan, is that you?

  • T o n y||

    Okay so how about we keep banning things until it's physically burdensome for anyone to kill multiple tens of people in a matter of seconds.

  • Coeus||

    Okay so how about we keep banning things until it's physically burdensome for anyone to kill multiple tens of people in a matter of seconds.

    So then, guns, knives, diesel, fertilizer and lighters? Oh, don't forget bleach and ammonia cleaners as well.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    kill multiple tens of people in a matter of seconds.

    Wait, what?

  • Coeus||

    He didn't say how many seconds. But you can kill 20 with a knife in under a minute, no problem.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I saw a turd roll out the bottom of your pants leg. Did you poopy your pants again, Tony?

  • Paul.||

    Okay so how about we keep banning things until it's physically burdensome for anyone to kill multiple tens of people in a matter of seconds.

    Like knives.

  • T o n y||

    Because knives are totally as easy to deploy for mass murder as semiautomatic guns.

  • Coeus||

    Because knives are totally as easy to deploy for mass murder as semiautomatic guns.

    Yup.

  • Contrarian P||

    As I recall box cutters worked pretty damn well one September.

  • Sernylan||

    "Okay so how about we keep banning things until it's physically burdensome for anyone to kill multiple tens of people in a matter of seconds."

    Shall we start with cars and trucks? Or just skip ahead to carbon monoxide and radon? How about just banning people.. in general, cause all murder begins with people + intent, right? You have the mind of a child.

  • General Butt Naked||

    You have the mind of a child.

    Yup, that sounds like Tony.

  • Sernylan||

    "Okay so how about we keep banning things until it's physically burdensome for anyone to kill multiple tens of people in a matter of seconds."

    Shall we start with cars and trucks? Or just skip ahead to carbon monoxide and radon? How about just banning people.. in general, cause all murder begins with people + intent, right? You have the mind of a child.

  • free2booze||

    Does banning high cap mags really solve anything? A handgun magazine isn't exactly high tech. It's a metal box with piece of plastic and a spring. How hard would it be to modify a 10 rd magazine, and make it a 30 rd magazine?

  • Coeus||

    Not to mention, there's always this option.

  • free2booze||

    Billy Connolly is awesome!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Wait'll you get to the part where he wants to send people to prison for owning high-cap magazines.

    Yeah, I don't get that obsession of proglodytes. Like forcing psycho killet to reload 10 times instead of 6 (or whatever) is going to accomplish anything

  • ||

    If it's already infuriating Tulpy-Poo I had better not even try watching it.

  • robc||

    That was my thought too.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I got about ten minutes in, fast forwarded, watched another minute or two and turned it off.

    Sullum, why are you even engaging this twat? Do you enjoy sparring with retards?

    Jesus.

  • Corneliusm||

    If you don't engage them, they'll continue to run their mouths uncontested.

    They do have readership, sadly.

  • General Butt Naked||

    You're right.

    *hangs head*

    Debate away, Sullum.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Unfortunately, the readership probably thinks Wright kicked Sullum's butt.

  • fish||

    Did they already take it down? I'm getting a "server not found" message.

  • silent v||

    I can't see the video: server not found.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So Wright doesn't know what year Heller was decided in, or what the assault weapons ban covered, and thinks that making something illegal doesn't allow the government to search your house when they think you have it.

    And yet he arrogates the privilege of hosting a debate about gun control.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I like the part about the drug war. Does he expect us to believe that police don't come guns a blazin' into people's homes for a couple of pot plants?

    If ever someone was in need of a Balko nut-punch (patent pending).

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Well, in theory they need a tip from someone who's been in your house to do that. But that's not hard to get.

  • General Butt Naked||

    See the gun thing could be worse.

    Bought an AR pre-ban? (they most likely have your name)

    Haven't exchanged for your new 10rd mag? (your name isn't coming up)

    SWAT time.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The only thing is, they'd have to justify to the judge who approves the warrant how they got your name. And it's illegal for them to keep records of non-restricted weapons (ie, not SBS or full auto). So even if they do (illegally) do so, they can't get a warrant based on it.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Dude, go on PAFOA and see how many people, after they tell a state trooper that they are carrying, get their guns taken away to compare SN# to the non-existent registry. And if your gun was bought in another state or before the non-existent registry they fucking keep it. Now get it back citizen. Sometimes it disappears, sometimes you nee a lawyer.

    After all we've seen in the drug war your faith in the justice system is remarkable.

  • General Butt Naked||

    An aside:

    This is why we fight the drug war. For the drug warriors it was never about drugs; it was about getting inside the home and minds of the citizens. That's why we fight it. Today it's heroin, tomorrow it's 30 rd mags, then it's unapproved books and thoughts. They'll go from one hysteria to another until you lay bare and powerless before them, fucking believe that.

    It was never about drugs, and it ain't about the guns.

  • Sernylan||

    This^ +1. Look at the TSA's mission creep as a prime example. You’re now free to be humiliated at bus and train terminals as well as airports. After Kent state, using the national guard to cow citizens lost its appeal, so through the “War on drugz™© and the “War on terror™©, a community based, hyper militarized police force (fealty to the fed through various grants/loans)is just as, if not more effective at crushing your will to resist the whims of the ever expanding government.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    their guns taken away to compare SN# to the non-existent registry

    PA State Police keep a registry of handguns which is legal. (you might say unconstitutional, but that's something to deal with in the future perhaps) That's why you have to fill out two forms when buying a handgun here.

    Long guns like AR-15s are not registered.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It should be noted however that all transfers of handguns in Pennsylvania are required to go through the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) and as such the Pennsylvania State Police keep a "Sales Database" of all handguns purchased within the Commonwealth. While almost any casual observer can see that this database clearly violates the spirit of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.4 (Registration of firearms), in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with the Pennsylvania State Police that because the database is not a complete record of all handgun ownership (as people bringing handguns into the state do not have to register them), it does not.
  • General Butt Naked||

    It's not a registry and should have no legal consequence for gun owners, in law. In fact, it is used to confiscate arms every day.

    I don't know if you're disagreeing or what. My point is they don't need a "registry" to take your shit, and won't need one to throw you in jail. Do you actually think the courts are going to rule for "felonious illegal weapons owners" over officer safety and the children?

  • Ted S.||

    The only thing is, they'd have to justify to the judge who approves the warrant how they got your name.

    [Insert Kasper Gutman laugh here]

    That's not a very high hurdle to surmount.

  • flye||

    Or from a dog who can smell inside your house without going inside. (Assuming I'm right that the SC will not call shenanigans on that.)

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Well, in theory they need a tip from someone who's who claims to have been in your house to do that.

    FIFY

  • waaminn||

    Sounds like a pretty solid plan to me dude, I like it. Wow.

    www.PrivacyUSA.tk

  • Generic Stranger||

    Fuck off pedobot.

  • Coeus||

    Nobody gets his edgy sense of humor.

  • Sevo||

    "Connecticut congressman lashes out at Rick Perry, ‘fantasy of testosterone-laden individuals who have blood on their hands’"
    -------------
    "He ridiculed Perry’s contention that teachers with permits to carry concealed weapons should be allowed to do so in schools, calling it a “pernicious argument’’ in a nation already “awash in guns.’’"

    See, it just can't work! Everybody knows that so there's no reason to respond honestly! So I can just poison the well! Sleazy politicos...
    http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05el.....rick-perry

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I prefer blood laden individuals who have testosterone on their hands.

  • ||

    A Democratic politician from New England is a fucktarded imbecile; weather at 10.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I suppose Wright would be OK with the government making iPhones illegal, and having iPhone owners turn in their phones to the government to be replaced with rotary phones.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Tulpa, the people who wrote the 1st Amendment could never have conceived of the iPhone. You don't have a right to do anything that wasn't possible in the late 18th Century.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And if I have a bunch of 12 round magazines for a gun whose manufacturer doesn't exist anymore, is the government going to manufacture 10 round magazines for that gun?

  • Paul.||

    No, they're going to SWAT you and remove the 12 round magazines.

  • The_Choctaw||

    I really think this point is ignored by a lot of people. The second amendment was written when it took like 2 minutes to reload a bulky unconcealable rifle that would inaccurately shoot a metal ball a few hundred yards.

    If the second amendment were better written it would say "the right of the people to bear single-shot inaccurate bulky rifles that are very inaccurate and take a ridiculous time to reload shall not be infringed". They weren't talking about mac-10's and you know it.

    Laws are sometimes updated/changed when technology changes radically from when they were written. See: telecommunications.

  • Sevo||

    ^
    Sarc?
    Stupidity?

  • RBS||

    I think stupid, this guy keeps popping up on 2A threads spouting the same nonsense.

  • Professor Booty||

    Stupidity.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yes, I think it's one of White Indian's personalities. One of the dumber ones.

  • iggy||

    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

    -- George Washington

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that these founders were not only talking about bulky muskets. Every quote from them is pretty straightforward.

  • iggy||

    By the way, this is the shithead whose twitter lauded the union thug who punched a fox news reporter. The idea that he should be lecturing us about violence is laughable, considering that he's a violent psychotic.

  • The_Choctaw||

    Oh god it was so sweet though. Have you seen the video?!

  • RBS||

    " I saw you get pounded by that union guy, you little douche, it was awesome, wish I could've done it myself. Go suck koch."

    So he's a violent, cowardly retard.

  • iggy||

    Yeah, he's the sort of guy who WISHES he had the balls to punch people who disagree with him. He has delusions of being violent, but he's too much of a pussy so all he can do is applaud when someone does it for him.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    If Washington could have hadmy new sidearm,* he'd fucking give me his weight in gold. Could you imagine his reaction if someone told him that he was restricted to having firearms from the late 16th Century?

    *FN FNX-45 Tactical in black. I also got the Trijicon RMR RM05 Dual Illuminated red dot to sit on the slide.

  • ||

    Benighted hoplophobe, or malicious prohibitionist? You decide!

  • Sevo||

    Naah. Common lefty ignoramus. Let's not presume exotics where none is indicated.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Naah. Common lefty ignoramus. "

    Sooo . . . beknighted hoplophobe AND malicious prohibitionist?

  • fish||

    How dare you endanger me with your new fangled internet communicatin, internet firsty amendment!

  • ||

    Laws are sometimes updated/changed when technology changes radically from when they were written.

    And the constitution has a mechanism built right in to change it. Is that too hard for you?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Damn your quick fingers Scientist.

    Even using "mechanism"!

  • General Butt Naked||

    If they wanted to write it like that they would have written it that way. If you wanted it abolished, or amended, then change the constitution. There is a mechanism for doing so but it takes awhile, so you better get started.

  • ||

    Jinx!

  • General Butt Naked||

    I owe no man a Coke!

  • Sevo||

    "If the second amendment were better written it would say "the right of the people to bear single-shot inaccurate bulky rifles that are very inaccurate and take a ridiculous time to reload shall not be infringed""

    Nope.
    If it were better written, it would say "keep your stinking hands off of any gun owned by a citizen! This means YOU, asshole!"

    And if the Constitution were better written, it would start with a similae comment bout the freedoms of the citizenry in general.
    And asshole like Choctaw would have to admit they were simply power-hungry idiots.

  • ||

    If the first amendment was better written it would say "Congress shall make no law respecting Christianity or Judaism, prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom to make pamphlets on a printing press and give speeches in squares..."

  • ||

    Papyrus!

  • Coeus||

    I really think this point is ignored by a lot of people. The second amendment was written when it took like 2 minutes to reload a bulky unconcealable rifle that would inaccurately shoot a metal ball a few hundred yards.

    Read the Federalist papers you uniformed yokel.

  • Coeus||

    uninformed I mean. But if the jacket fits...

  • KDN||

    Laws are sometimes updated/changed when technology changes radically from when they were written. See: telecommunications.

    As someone that used to work in Telecom, I'm just going to tell you that this was a terrible example. Not only is the law basically never updated despite huge advances in the industry, whenever the FCC gets around to doing so they always seem to make things worse for everyone involved but the FCC.

  • XM||

    And despite such imperfections, the muskets were the dominant weapons of their time. That's why the white men had no problem wiping out the Indians and the confederates, or whoever.

    Why didn't they write the second amendment as "you shall have the right to bear swords and daggers, but not firearms, for if you do, dangerous posses will form and raid our towns and shoot our innocents"?

    Were private citizens back then allowed to collect cannons and gun boats filled with pirates?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The confederates were white men... that was kind of the point.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    OK, no way I'm listening to this ignorant prick for 40 minutes.

  • karovda||

    (at 11:48) Wright: Well a semi-autmatic you can fire faster than a revolver.

    Has he ever fired a gun?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    He probably heard someone else talking about the difference in reloading times and garbled it.

  • Sevo||

    You're too kind. He's a raging idiot.

  • Raven Nation||

    I see USA Today's headline today equated Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, and - wait for it - Fort Hood!

  • Paul.||

    Yet no one is equating Sandy Hook to a Pakistani wedding. Interesting...

  • ||

    Ebony Messiah is faultless in his every thought. Criticize him not, O Loyal Serf, for he hath deemed the Holy Droning a sacred and indomitable task.

  • Gus||

    It only matters if the victims are white.

    Connecticut doesn't have shit on Chicago when it comes to school children killing and maiming
    62 School Age Children Murdered in Chicago So Far This Year


    http://crimeinchicago.blogspot.....icago.html

  • Gus||

    ^^^^^446 School Age Children Shot in Chicago so Far This Year

  • General Butt Naked||

    An 18 year-old man is a school child?

  • fish||

    C'mon GBN it's Chicago! He could still be in 5th grade!

  • Jordan||

    Well, technically still a school-aged... er, person, since most people turn 18 before they graduate. Calling them children is stupid though.

  • shamalam||

    He's still on mom's health insurance for another eight years...

  • Mr Whipple||

    So, he starts by presenting the "Constitutional" argument? I suppose he thinks that the state grants rights. Does he also think that the police protects these rights? Does he think the police protect people from violence? Is he an asshole?

  • ||

    I'm going to go with "mendacious statist twat".

  • Gus||

    Yes
    Yes
    Tes

  • fish||

    So who is this asshole? I know who Sullum is....is this guy just a yutz with a webcam and shelves full of books he hasn't read?

  • iggy||

    He writes for the Atlantic. That should be all you need to know.

  • TomD||

    He founded and runs Bloggingheads.tv, which has been a pretty prominent player in the online political sphere for several years now.

    I disagree with Wright on probably every issue on earth beyond "hominids need air and food to live," but dismissing him as just a yutz with a webcam is pretty clueless, I've gotta say.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    He was totally unprepared for this "debate". It's not that I disagree with him, it's that he seems unfamiliar with basic facts and the basic parameters of the debate over this issue. Maybe he's a smart guy but you couldn't tell from this video.

  • TomD||

    I agree, and I think Sullum totally owned him here.

    But I think it's fair to see the broader context here: As the proprietor of the site, Wright's role is often more of a discussion facilitator than strictly a debater. Yes, he brings his lefty framing to the thing, but it's more for generating an informative back-and-forth than to actually dominate his opponents and "win."

    He was pretty fair to Sullum here, I think, and even graciously conceded a key point near the end.

  • SIV||

    Hats off to Wright for the best ever Bloggingheads.tv where Jonah Goldberg made Will Wilkinson stutter throughout the entire debate until young Will wet himself and began crying.

    How much are those Tuvalu domain names anyway?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    According to Wikipedia, Tuvalu only gets $4M a year from those domains. What a rip off.

  • SIV||

  • iggy||

    Jesus. Wilkinson is totally insufferable. He used the phrase 'Galbrathian dirigiste.'

    Someone needs to tell Wilkinson that the purpose of big words and a strong vocabulary is to more effectively and more eloquently get your point across. If you're using a large vocabulary in a way that is totally inscrutable to the average person, then you're not doing it right.

  • Sevo||

    Problem is that dirigisme should be better known; it defines a specific 'socialism' or crony cap.
    Sort of like fabianism should have more currency and be recognized as the disease it is.

  • TomD||

    Thanks for the heads-up. I just watched the whole Wilkinson-Goldberg episode.

    I disagree with your assessment that Wilkinson wet himself. I thought it was an enlightening discussion, though I still think the whole "liberaltarian" project was doomed by definition.

    Also, I remain mystified why the left (and some libertarians) demonize Goldberg as some sort of mindless, blustering cross between Sean Hannity and Ted Nugent. He's cogent, lucid, and smart. I certainly don't agree with him on everything, but it's clear that he values philosophy and first principles, and it's not like he's just some dumb bloviating hack. He's pretty sympathetic to libertarianism, even.

  • SIV||

    lol

    I disagree with your assessment that Wilkinson wet himself.

    Maybe Will just stuttered, cried and spilled a glass of water on himself.

    I certainly don't agree with Goldberg on everything but he earned a seat in heaven for Liberal Fascism. I don't get the libertarian hate for Jonah. He is extremely smart and has a much better understanding and respect for libertarianism and, let's just call it zero-statism, than almost any other conservative and more than a few self-professed min/an-archists.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Except for the fact that he's a raging Israel-worshiping, Arab-hating-unless-we-own-their-dictator, foreign-country-invading, military-spending-us-into-oblivion, civil-liberty-denying, water-boarding, indefinitely-detaining neocon fuck.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Other than that, I guess he's pretty cool.

  • Paul.||

    which he argues would be constitutional, though politically impossible—seems designed to irritate fans of the Second Amendment.

    Sorta like banning speech irritates fans of the First Amendment.

  • RBS||

    Sounds like he also set out to irritate fans reasoned, well informed debate.

  • Benjamin||

    Yes, sounds like an asshole.

    Btw, did anyone read the comments section from that atlantic article? There were, surprisingly, several good points made against those asinine proposals. One commenter was using material from Volokh. Maybe the entire world isn't insane.

  • GILMORE||

    Maybe the entire world isn't insane.

    quick! go read NYT comments before its too late! trust me...

  • Hugh Akston||

    I love how he takes the stock-standard prohibitionist argument that the only thing that prevents an avalanche of machine-gun-toting rampages is the ban on machine guns.

  • Paul.||

    And yet a gun control argument I read yesterday bemoaned how easy it is to convert these Bushmaster Instruments of Death into "Machine Guns".

    Also, side note, this morning on NPR, there was complaint that the reason the NRA was such an effective advocacy group was because there was no cost to their advocacy, whereas environmental advocacy groups, the ones who do good works advocate policies which have economic costs. It just isn't fair. Letting people be free doesn't cost them money! But making them mitigate soil erosion is expensive!

  • ||

    I also heard a guy on NPR this morning talking about "assault weapons like the Bushmaster used..."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I got that nickname in college. Shut up!

  • General Butt Naked||

    Wow, this guy has no idea on the law, precedent, what he wants to ban, but he does want to make people felons just because.

    What a fucking bootlicking authoritarian.

  • GILMORE||

    in which he got me to admit that I also oppose drug control.

    ... Jacob Sullum: Control Racist

  • Paul.||

    I just can't figure out what Jacob has against control.

  • ||

    The restriction of firearms begets defenselessness, directly encourages the commission of violence by the malignant tumors -- including unstable mental defectives -- among us, and exponentially worsens massacres when they occur.

    Not only are hoplophobic prohibitionists fundamentally immoral, they're also clueless. What a bunch of exploitative fucking imbeciles.

  • iggy||

    Did anyone read the article this douche wrote that Sullum linked to? He says we should ban all guns that hold more than six bullets and we should make detachable magazines illegal. He says this is okay because who would ever need more than six bullets for self defense?

    Yeah, it's not like there have been situations where trained policemen miss a dozen times before hitting their target. Apparently this guy has never even been near a gun, since he seems to think your average person on the street would never miss six times. Especially if they're frightened, which they undoubtedly would be if they need to use a gun in self-defense.

  • Paul.||

    Apparently this guy has never even been near a gun, since he seems to think your average person on the street would never miss six times.

    I think it's well established that the people who wish to ban the right of self defense have never been near a gun.

  • Seanin||

    Robert Wright is a gun owner. He said on his blog.

  • ||

    Why stop at 6? Everyone knows we should follow Barney Fife's example and keep only one bullet. In our pockets.

  • iggy||

    http://gothamist.com/2012/08/2.....ding_c.php

    How about the time NYPD officers accidentally shot 9 civilians? They fired 16 shots. 9 of them missed. They were shooting 8 feet away, are trained police officers and had a clear line of sight.

    But apparently anyone with a gun should be able to take down an opponent easily within six shots.

  • ||

    Or several opponents...

  • ||

    Or several civilians...

  • VG Zaytsev||

    How about the time NYPD officers accidentally shot 9 civilians? They fired 16 shots. 9 of them missed.

    He's ok with the cops having larger "clips", presumably because he knows what poor marksmen they are.

  • mustard||

    "Yeah, it's not like there have been situations where trained policemen miss a dozen times before hitting their target."

    Police, including policewomen which you don't believe in apparently, would have any gun they need to do their job. It's not something you need to worry about. So stop it with the straw men.

  • iggy||

    What's your point? Policemen is commonly used, even if it's not politically correct. I'm not saying anything negative about police officers. I'm pointing out that it's very easy to miss, and that you can easily miss six times.

    I'm directly countering an argument made by the person in this video. Explain to me where the strawman is, idiot.

  • mustard||

    The part where you said police need more than six shots. But police would have as many shots as they want under the new laws we're proposing. AKA strawman.

  • ||

    Obtuse, thy name is mustard.

  • ||

    A persistent vegetative state sounds more like it.

  • iggy||

    No. I said nothing about that. My point was that TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS, who clearly spend a good amount of time at the range, frequently miss a large number of shots.

    Therefore, a random person defending himself with a firearm could likewise miss six shots, and be left defenseless under the law that Wright is proposing. You are so stupid that you're arguing with a point I didn't make.

    Huh, almost like you're arguing with a strawman.

  • ||

    mustard, you're the worst sockpuppet ever.

  • Corneliusm||

    Or a very good troll.

  • RBS||

    Strawman is just a term he saw somewhere, he doesn't actually know what it is.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Whoosh

  • ||

    You've got a problem there, because what you're doing is searching through the logic and the facts of the matter to try to understand what the asshole is saying. That's pointless -- because he's a fucking moron whose arguments have no logical or factual basis.

    He's another run-of-the-mill proto-pinko.

  • Paul.||

    So since "even NRA members of Congress" are open to banning High Cap mags, should I pick up a few more 13 rounders for my Springfield XD? Because 13 .45 slugs is pimp...

  • ||

    Bullshit. A few months from now, as the Brady Campaign and its tumorous outgrowths are bitching about a lack of prohibition, everybody's slowly going to back off the hoplophobic bandwagon again, at least until another insane fuck perpetrates an attack.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Okay, just go back from some xmas shopping and went to 2 sporting goods stores: Cabela's and Dunham's.

    They were out of everything, phone ringing off the hook, lines of people asking for "the two-two-threes" and harried clerks explaining that yes, they were out of everything, and no, they did not know when the truck was coming in and no, they couldn't hold anything and yes, the ARs will be gone within a half-hour of their arrival. Many panicking white people.

    Pheewww. Good thing, I just needed some gifts.

  • ||

    Well, shit. And I was just thinking a mini-14 with a 20 shot clip would be a good hunting gun for my 10-year old son.

  • General Butt Naked||

    After the 10/22 the mini-14 was the first rifle I shot. Great gun, I really like them.

  • Corneliusm||

    I'm hoping that after the DiFi bill dies a wimpering death in the House (fingers crossed- don't fail me again, repubs...), the overabundance of ARs in the marketplace would allow me to pick up an M&P-15 or other halfway decent at least a couple hundred below MSRP.

    It would be like 2009 all over again.

  • General Butt Naked||

    My hope is that a lot of dudes spent the kid's college fund on ARs and magazines and once this shit dies down the wife will want a sell off. I'm gonna enter the AR parts market in about March, before tax refund season, but when bills from christmas are really a pain.

    Never, ever ever ever...

    EVER buy in a panic.

    You should look into building an AR, if you have the tools it is way cheaper to get a excellent custom gun. Not that the M&P isn't a good gun, it is.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Wow. There might even be people willing to put up with the schmucks at Anthony Attitude & Arms if it's gotten that bad.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I *almost* went there.

    Hell, I was on Lebanon Church Road, and didn't go; even for shits and giggles. Says a lot about their business.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Haha, we might have passed each other while I was going to Gander.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I was at Gander, I said Cabelas, but I get 'em mixed up. When were you there? I was there 6-7 pm and it was packed. They had one remington camo AR left for $1200.

    You weren't the guy who ordered a gun and it wasn't there? He was pretty pissed.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    No, I slipped in and out without talking to anyone, around 12pm. The guys at the gun counter were tearing their hair out because the PA instant check system was down and they were getting busy signals.

  • mustard||

    Tell me how it's fair that the NRA has representatin in Congress but the people of DC don't.

  • ||

    Are you mentally retarded?

  • General Butt Naked||

    If the people of DeeCee want a rep they can buy one just like gun owners have.

  • iggy||

    I was directly countering an argument made by the person in this video, and he claimed I was arguing with a strawman and called me a sexist for using the word 'policemen.'

    He's retarded.

  • Sevo||

    "He's retarded."
    Naah. Willfully ignorant.

  • ||

    mustard, you're the worst sockpuppet ever.

  • Killazontherun||

    He knows.

  • Killazontherun||

    Reposting because some of you, and you know who you are, have given up on the evening links by this time:

    Press goes off script at Obama's gun control speech and Q&A today, NYT commetariat miffed they would ask about trivial matters like the fiscal cliff and Benghazi.

    http://mediadecoder.blogs.nyti.....criticism/

    Examples:

    If the shooting had taken place in Bethesda, would these reporters be so eager to change the subject?

    I had the same reaction... The press corp sounded like a bunch of white men worried about their wallets more than the lives of 6 and 7 year old children or the need to leash the NRA and rid America of assault weapons on our so-called civilized soil. Glad to see I'm not the only one who noticed that.

    I watched the speech and the subsequent press conference, and have to say I was also rather appalled at the crassness of the press, to skip over the topic at hand to try to get to the 'juicy' topic of the controversy between President Obama and John Boehner.

    Absolutely disgraceful! Like watching the Media cavalierly flip the channel to something easier to discuss. The President should have refused to answer that first Fiscal Cliff question and firmly suggested that those financial questions be addressed on a different day at a different press conference.

  • TomD||

    http://mediadecoder.blogs.nyti.....criticism/

    This is certainly a series of symbols that appears to be a web address, but it is not, alas, a working link.

  • Killazontherun||

  • RBS||

    How dare they question The One! These people are just disgusting.

  • TomD||

    The press corp sounded like a bunch of white men worried about their wallets more than the lives of 6 and 7 year old children

    This right here -- this smug, needling sanctimoniousness -- is the nub of our whole political problem right now. These "progressives" are fucking puritans, and we need to start calling them out on it. Constantly. They're self-righteous witch-hunters.

    Everything is a goddamned Frank Capra movie to these motherfuckers. Everything is some cliched morality play about Evil White Guys trampling on the innocent and oppressed for the purpose of... who even knows what the goddamned "purpose" is supposed to be at this point.

    It's just, "I care about other human beings, and I'm special because of it, and I'm even more special because I presume to have identified a set of people who don't care the way I do."

    This crap has infected our culture for the past half century. It's always been with us to one extent or another -- puritans obviously aren't new -- but it's the absolute hallmark of American society now. It's a fucking virus now.

  • ||

    Tom makes an excellent point. The other aspect to what he describes is that the puritans have also all banded together as a political TEAM which, besides having their own mendaciousness, they now are required by the TEAM to be blind to the rest of TEAM's mendaciousness. So someone whose real hobby horse is guns has to give murderdoning a pass, and so on. Because of TEAM.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I've spent some time thinking about this and am totally befuddled, to quote the good doctor.

    Is it by historical accident that the left and right believe the mish-mash of things they do? What does gay marriage have to do with gun control? What do low taxes have to do with foreign adventurism?

    There is no consistency, it's a just a bunch of unrelated bullshit beliefs that are joined not logically, but by party leaders' insistence on a agreed upon 'platform'.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    50 years ago, the Democrats supported racial segregation and the Repubicans supported legal contraception.

    It's just a coincidence at any given time what the parties believe in. The Dems have a much more unwieldly coalition, but it's held together with the promise of free shit.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And 15 years ago, it was the Republicans who were railing against spaying on US citizens and getting involved in wars overseas.

  • PapayaSF||

    In the '20s Democrats were pro free trade because it made things cheaper for the working man, and Republicans wanted tariffs to protect factory owners.

  • ||

    This is the way I look at it (just kind of a working theory).

    There are people out there who, after looking at themselves, feel that people need to be made to do good things. Since they themselves won't give to charity, they assume no one else will, and that everyone should be forced to instead. This is TEAM BLUE. If you examine most of what really drives them, it is founded on a belief that everyone is like them. Good needs to be made to happen because otherwise it won't happen.

    Then there is TEAM RED, which is the people who feel they need to be forced to not do things they consider to be bad. Have homosexual tendencies? That's bad, pass a law not allowing me to give in to them, and others as well. Want to visit a prostitute or do drugs? These things are bad and I and everyone else need to be forced not to do them.

    So both are reacting to what they themselves are like and are projecting it on everyone else. This is why the two TEAMs are such mirror images of one another; because they're extrememly similar except for the subtle difference of one wanting to force "good" deeds and the other wanting to force stop of the "bad" ones.

    All the other planks in their respective platforms come from being the opposite of the other TEAM. TEAM BLUE doesn't give a shit about gay marriage. They give a shit that TEAM RED hates it. And so on.

    Anyway, that's my theory.

  • ||

    I like this.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Or maybe people are just lazy thinkers and latch on to whatever team their parents were on, or for the more rebellious, latch on to the opposite team from their parents. For the most part this is what happens with everything from religion to soft drink choice, so it's very Occam positive.

  • TomD||

    This is why the two TEAMs are such mirror images of one another; because they're extrememly similar except for the subtle difference of one wanting to force "good" deeds and the other wanting to force stop of the "bad" ones.

    You're right. The common thread here, of course, is people seeking to steer the behavior of other people, via force.

    That's democracy for you. Which is why democracy sucks.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    I'm borrowing this.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Just steal it, he doesn't believe in intellectual property rights anyways.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    Yes, but I do!

  • ||

    But I don't, so take all you wish.

  • Sevo||

    "Is it by historical accident that the left and right believe the mish-mash of things they do? What does gay marriage have to do with gun control? What do low taxes have to do with foreign adventurism?"

    I have no answer, and to add to the question, you can trace 'isolationism' as it was popular with righties and lefties over time.
    It is a very interesting question, but the answers will likely come from a poly-sci major, which will make them immediately suspect.
    MNG has (thankfully) left the room; that constant sophistry was tiring.

  • Coeus||

    Is it by historical accident that the left and right believe the mish-mash of things they do?

    It is by design. I don't want get all conspiracy nut here (but I'm gonna) but this is the best form of shared power between the banking/military industrial complex and the party bosses that could exist. By picking random culture issues with no ideological connection, team voting is facilitated as the only way low information voters (ie, the vast majority) can feel true to their selves while actually accomplishing nothing but the consolidation of power of the ruling class.

    Whether this was fallen upon by accident or design, the utility of it is easily recognized by the parasites in washington and their patrons.

  • Coeus||

    Whether this was initially fallen upon by accident or design, the utility of it is easily recognized by the parasites in washington and their patrons.

    Left out a key word there.

  • ||

    I suspect it's tradition. Many of the people who immigrated to North America back in the day were fleeing religious persecution. They were also the people who pioneered large swatch of the country, so they had religion and guns and a sense of self-reliance to pass on to their children. Over the years their political opponents were naturally people who took opposite views on some or all of those things for a wide variety of reasons. TEAM BLUE has never been as cohesive as TEAM RED, but they've banded together due to their common enemy. That's my theory anyway.

  • ||

    Also, what Epi said above.

  • Coeus||

    Epi's giving a rationalization. Granted, it's the same one the voters use, and there's a large amount of truth to it, but it's a rationalization none-the-less.

    It doesn't address why the platforms have almost switched over the last few decades, but you still see most of the same people voting for the same teams they used to.

  • General Butt Naked||

    It doesn't address why the platforms have almost switched over the last few decades, but you still see most of the same people voting for the same teams they used to.

    I think that if you take 'control over others' as the first philosophical principle then the platforms are meaningless. If you believe that there is a first principle and a sort of consistency, that is.

    The idea is attractive, but I am not convinced that there is any sort of ideological cohesion. I'd say it's about 3 parts accident of history, 2 parts psychology, and 3 parts hating whatever the other team is doing presently.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Well, that's the point. Probably 80% of both parties are just there out of habit. It's like Yankees fans and Red Sox fans, "rooting for laundry" as Seinfeld so eloquently put it. Noninterventionism, federalism, etc are like Johnny Damon and Kevin Youkilis.

    Meanwhile, the real movers and shakers just grab on to whichever vehicle seems more likely to give them power. The Democrats were moribund outside the south 100 years ago, so the union bosses saw an opportunity to get a pet party and the rest is history. Urban areas became heavily Dem, and black leaders in the rust belt saw an opportunity. The civil rights movement was full of Marxists anyway who were not welcome in the GOP. The tension between the northern blacks and the southern segregationists finally split the Dems in the 1960s, and the segregationists saw an opportunity to get power in the badly battered post-Goldwater GOP. And that leads us roughly to where we are now.

  • Redmanfms||

    Read some Jonathan Swift.

    As any state of political affairs reaches stability it necessarily becomes absurdist.

    Ideological inconsistency isn't anything new and given how idiotic and invested in political theatre the electorate is it isn't likely to ever go away.

    The really sad thing is that much like the characters in Swift's allegories, the people who are putting on the theatre are well aware of what a farcical enterprise it is and don't care. American politicians used to kill each other over their disagreements (which were seemingly rather petty by today's standards of discourse). The fact that the asshats in Washington are so chummy, polite, and deferential to one another is proof of their mendacity.

    Whores and charletons, the lot of them.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    GBN, you would do well to read "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt, a book I have mentioned on these comments before. You will then understand why the policies of the left and right coalesce the way they do.

  • ||

    This sounds exactly right. I will start calling leftist fucks on this in the unlikely event that I deign to talk to their stupid asses in real life.

  • nicole||

    The press corp sounded like a bunch of white men worried about their wallets

    How about this part:

    Only (white) men don't care about dead children; i.e., at least some women do, and women are the only ones who do; therefore men are assholes and women are nice (but god forbid you suggest that women care more about the domestic sphere than men do in any other context).

    Only (white) men care about their wallets; i.e., women don't give a shit about anything to do with money because MATH IS HARD (but god forbid you suggest that women aren't interested in such hard, important issues in any other context).

    Hateful bullshit.

  • Sevo||

    "Only (white) men care about their wallets; i.e., women don't give a shit about anything to do with money because MATH IS HARD (but god forbid you suggest that women aren't interested in such hard, important issues in any other context).
    Hateful bullshit."

    In the event, I had an appointment with a female MD today. That woman was conversant in statistics far in excess of my knowledge.
    We did not discuss politics, but I'd bet she would be equally disdainful of such twaddle.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Because that never would've happened to any other US President, would it?

  • Sevo||

    From the thread on dangerous toys; never heard of it before:

    Russell| 12.19.12 @ 6:54PM |#
    "It is a tribute to American exceptionalism that a disgruntled school board member used dyanamite wrapped in matchbooks to level one wing of the Bath Michigan Consolidated School in 1927.
    Attack type School bombing, mass murder, murder-suicide, suicide truck bombing, arson & uxoricide
    Weapon(s) Dynamite, pyrotol, firebombs, club
    Deaths 45 (38 children, 2 teachers, 4 other adults and the bomber)
    Injured 58
    Perpetrator Andrew P. Kehoe
    Motive Revenge for defeat in local election; personal and financial stress"

    Is Choctaw gonna argue that matchbooks be outlawed?

  • ||

    Choctaw's conclusions are hellishly unsound in every conceivable way. He doesn't have to be consistent.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You can't put a label on Choctaw.

  • ||

    Nobody puts The Choctaw in a corner!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Shows how bad my Latin has degraded, but I had no idea what uxoricide was until looking it up.

  • Sevo||

    For you amusement, folks, we have that noted entertainer MUSTARD to give you laughs this evening! OK, folks, let's put 'em together for MUSTARD!

    mustard| 12.19.12 @ 7:51PM |#
    "Tell me how it's fair that the NRA has representatin in Congress but the people of DC don't."

    How about that! Isn't s/he a laugh riot! What an act! Please, no tomotos...

  • iggy||

    I would give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that was a joke, but given the stupidity of everything else he's posted I can only assume he's being serious.

  • ||

    "Tomoto"? That one of them Japaenease thingamajugs? This is America! Go home to Japanland, you Nazi!

  • Sevo||

    "Tomoto"?
    Mumble, mumble, damn no 'edit function, mumble, mumble...
    And happy holidays to you, too.

  • Ted S.||

    I say tomato,
    You say tomoto....

  • ||

    I'm thinking about getting into reloading, specifically a Dillon RL550B. The only time I've ever used a re-loader was a college buddy's, 20 years ago, so I don't recall all the ins and outs, but I do remember it was just fun to do. Do any of you reloaders have any advice you care to offer?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Don't blow yourself up.

  • ||

    That's useful advice and all, but I was hoping for something more along the lines of "primers from company X suck" or "you'll hate yourself if you don't opt for the low powder sensor."

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I don't actually reload. I do have a press and a die set for 9mm, but never actually bothered to learn.

  • ||

    Don't shoot yourself at sea and stumble upon a private beach as you wash up on the shore. You'll get sued for trespassing, and your belief in natural rights will have been cataclysmically obliterated.

  • db||

    Look carefully at the Dillon 650. You might find that you wish you had got one instead of the 550B.

  • ||

    Just watched some videos. I like the case feeder and auto indexing feature on the 650.

  • CJR||

    The Dillon 550 is a great choice for a first reloading machine.

    I've had best luck with US manufacture primers. Currently working my way through 20k of Winchester Small Pistol primers with no complaints.

    Seat the bullet and apply the crimp in separate stations. I've never had adequate consistency with a combined seat/crimp die.

    If anything goes wrong with a semi-progressive or progressive loader, clear off the shellplate completely and start over from scratch. The risk of an accidental double-charge isn't worth trying to salvage the components.

    Buy a case gauge and use it.

  • ||

    Just the sort of thing I needed. Thanks!

  • OldMexican||

    Re: The_Choctaw,

    I really think this point is ignored by a lot of people. The second amendment was written when it took like 2 minutes to reload a bulky unconcealable rifle that would inaccurately shoot a metal ball a few hundred yards.


    It is a point ignored because it is meaningless. It can be said as well that it was written when a long bowman could place 10 arrows in the air.

    The point of the amendment was to protect an already-existing right, which is the right to armed self-defense, and that includes from slingshots to guns to teeth, shards of glass, baseball bats, swords, hand grenades, etc.

    Laws are sometimes updated/changed when technology changes radically from when they were written. See: telecommunications.


    If laws need to be "updated" every time technology changes, then they were not good laws. Such things as "Do Not Steal," "Do Not Murder," "Do Not Rape" do not need any sort of updating as the truth of the evil nature of these crimes is self-evident.

  • OldMexican||

    10 arrows in the air in one minute.

  • ||

    If I were the leader of the NRA, I'd immediately begin a massive, loud media campaign in praise and celebration of the Second Amendment, and the centerpiece would be a series of galleries showcasing children with guns.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Martial rape and abortion have changed under those laws.

  • Generic Stranger||

    It's not like there were any repeating firearms at the time or anything...

  • Killazontherun||

    From the former entry:

    Puckle demonstrated two versions of the basic design: one, intended for use against Christian enemies, fired conventional round bullets, while the second variant, designed to be used against the Muslim Turks, fired square bullets. The square bullets were invented in part by Kyle Tunis and were considered to be more damaging. They would, according to the patent, convince the Turks of the "benefits of Christian civilization." The square bullets, however, were discontinued due to their unpredictable flight pattern.

    Are we using the right shaped ammo for our murderdroning?

  • Sevo||

    What shape are the drones?

  • Coeus||

    If form follows function:

    8==)

  • Killazontherun||

    It is the shape of things to come.

  • Coeus||

    It is the shape of things to come.

    Badumcha

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Hint: they're not shaped like vaginas.

    And don't give me that aerodynamics claptrap. Fluid mechanics is the province of dead white patriarchal males.

  • Sevo||

    "And don't give me that aerodynamics claptrap"

    First lesson in ballistic physics; aero don't count.
    Neck a 30-06 cartridge and load a .222. Drop and shoot one at the same time, they both hit the ground at the same time.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    So spitzer bullets don't travel further? Drag is insignificant?

    Just because a feather and a rock hammer hit the moon at the same time doesn't mean you can throw a feather as far as a rock hammer on earth.

    ... Hobbit

  • db||

    Folks, I need a little help with some gun statistics. I was just confronted with someone saying something I've never heard before, and neither of us could cite stats for our positions. We agreed to source them if possible.

    I asserted that firearms ownership has increased in the U.S. while violent crime as a whole and gun related crime in particular have gone down. I did not assert a causal relationship, but argued that the decrease in crime should negate any argument that more guns or access to guns cause crime.

    They asserted that they had read contradictory statistics to my own; that while the total number of firearms in the U.S. has increased, fewer people own them and those people are merely buying more guns per person.

    Can anyone help me cite my position (I have found some data at justfacts.com ( http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#[8] ) which partly back me up. Also, Gun Control on Trial but Brian Doherty states on Page 79 that "Forty to fifty percent of American households have guns" and on Page 89 that "From 1946 to 2004 , while per capita gun ownership increased nearly 150 percent in the United States, the murder rate decreased 17 percent."

    Can anyone cite stats that show that the number of gun owners has gone up while the crime rates have gone down? Also I'm interested in data on the broadening demographics of gun owners and the shift from mainly hunting firearms to more semiauto military style guns. In my anecdotal experience, that is a trend.

  • ||

  • Generic Stranger||

    I question the accuracy of these statistics. There are a lot of gun owners who will flat out either not answer any questions about if they have firearms or not or they will just straight up lie. Gun owners tend to be extremely suspicious, for various reasons (registration and possible theft being the main ones) of any strangers asking about their guns.

  • Sevo||

    "Gun owners tend to be extremely suspicious, for various reasons (registration and possible theft being the main ones) of any strangers asking about their guns."

    IOWs, gun owners tend to be fairly realistic about responding to random questions.
    I can tell you that living in SF, that 'realism' hits a bit higher on the rev range.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Sometimes, I've heard, people acquire guns through "unconventional" means, to stay out of sight of the government. I would suggest that whatever number of gun owners you find, add an extra 15-20 percent on top of that.

  • Graphite||

    This was actually a plotline in an episode of Breaking Bad, where Walter White buys an unregistered revolver in a hotel room from a dealer played by Jim Beaver. He tries, unsuccessfully, to convinced Walt to "bear his arms within the confines of the law."

  • General Butt Naked||

    Here's a bunch of stuff.

    It's a good start. Goes to '10 and their citations should get you whatever you want.

    Dang, I wish I had more time, I'd get you a fuckload of shit.

    Oh yeah, went to the range and it was crowded as all get out, so I didn't get to try your patented db gansta lean cant method. I will make it to the range before xmas break is over. I have to dammit!

  • db||

    I hope you do. Do you ever go to the monthly Poofa shoots down at Pitcairn-Monroeville? I have a friend who does but I've never made it down.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I hope you do. Do you ever go to the monthly Poofa shoots down at Pitcairn-Monroeville? I have a friend who does but I've never made it down.

    I want to, but never have the time. I can't make it to the range when I make the schedule let alone someone else. Hell, it's the only thing I really like to do and I go, maybe, once a month. I have heard that the shoots there are fun and it's a good club to join.

  • iggy||

    Your friend's point seems to be valid. Number of gun owners hasn't increased. However, gun ownership has gone up and down independent of the murder rate, so the point still stands that there isn't a correlation.

  • db||

    Unfortunately, the JustFacts data don't show a trend, which is what I wanted. heller's data above seems to show that I was incorrect and that gun ownership is not rising; only the number of guns in private hands is rising, and that would imply more guns per owner, not more owners.

  • iggy||

    It should be noted that all of that is based on self-reporting. I'd like to see what percentage of crimes are committed with a legal vs. an illegal firearm, and what the estimated number of illegal guns in circulation is.

  • Coeus||

    heller's data above seems to show that I was incorrect and that gun ownership is not rising;

    That's correct. He has a point. But it is correlated with increased concealed carry access. In other words, even if ownership has gone down, criminals are more likely to encounter an armed citizen anyway.

  • ||

    Here's gun ownership and homicide rate plotted on the same chart. Note that the data is zoomed in.

    http://oi50.tinypic.com/2cyi6tk.jpg

  • db||

    Yeah I did the same thing in Excel. Thanks though!

  • Cdr Lytton||

    The chart highlights the questionable stats of gun ownership-- 10% more of the population became gun owners in one year (2003-04)? Really? And 5% gave up guns the next year?

  • ||

    Actually the data is a little spotty. It sometimes skips a year or two.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The number of LEGAL gun owners is irrelevant. The grabbers' argument is based on the supposition that more guns means more crime, as those guns can be stolen. Most non-suicide gun crimes are not committed by the legal owner of the gun.

  • nicole||

    db, I happened to see this earlier today. While the share of households reporting gun ownership had been falling for several years, it spiked in 2011, according to Gallup. Too early, of course, to say whether this is any kind of trend.

    It might also be worth looking into average household size a few decades ago and now; I know it has dropped as divorce/single parenthood have become more prevalent. That is to say, even if somewhat fewer households report gun ownership, lower average household size means more individuals live in households with guns.

    But I don't see how your argument doesn't stand regardless, if perhaps in modified form: there are more guns in private hands, unquestionably, and violent crime rates have gone down.

  • A Mathematician||

    Shouldn't equal protection allow me to use any weapon that military service members are allowed to use?

  • ||

    Yes.

  • SIV||

    Derp!...Derp!...Derp!

    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY ! because it stifles COLLECTIVISM.

    nothing suits power so well as extreme individualism

  • np||

    All sorts of leftists are using this opportunity to let their inner statist out, more so than usual.

    Proof that until we have completely totalitarian proglodyte society, we will never hit peak retard.

  • Sevo||

    And welcome MUSTARD back for even MORE laughs this evening!

    mustard| 12.19.12 @ 7:54PM |#
    "Police, including policewomen which you don't believe in apparently, would have any gun they need to do their job. It's not something you need to worry about. So stop it with the straw men."

    Isn't s/he GREAT! Put 'em together for MUSTARD!

  • Killazontherun||

    OT, but still more relevant than mustard, how is this even possible? She is not even the slightest bit attractive in this picture. That face looks like she is in labor.

    http://celebslam.celebuzz.com/.....eup-02.jpg

  • ||

    Even hot chicks will grab the newspaper from the driveway with sweatpants and no makeup.

  • Killazontherun||

    I live with a hot chick. Never looks that bad waking up. She didn't look that bad in labor.

  • Killazontherun||

    Plus, no excuses. This is unforgivable.

  • ||

    Hell, man it ain't that bad. She's clearly been caught in mid-expression, so give her a pass on this one.

  • Killazontherun||

    No excuse. No pass. It is her job which she is handsomely paid to remain perfect, to maintain an image, and never to be caught looking like this. I would be surprised if she hasn't been rimmed out by whomever she is under contract for this horrible incident.

    The good news, she'll be under a lot of pressure to make up for it with on scene nudity. So far she has not had to go that route given she has maintained the cute girl next door image up until now, but this fuck up gives hand to the studios to make her do nude scenes.

  • Killazontherun||

    It occurred to me. I think I know the vehicle of he rehabilitation nudity. They will need to create a contrast. A shower scene with Lena Dunham on Epi's favorite show. This is not good news at all. But I'll still watch.

  • Render Unto Caesar||

    Ever shot guns with high capacity magazines... on WEED?

  • Hyperion||

    on WEED? Really?

  • Render Unto Caesar||

    Half Baked reference.

  • Coeus||

    John Stewart's best work.

  • Coeus||

    Ever shot guns with high capacity magazines... on WEED?

    Yes. Wanna make something of it?

  • Hyperion||

    I've done it on beer.

  • Coeus||

    I've done it on beer.

    As have I. But when it's just a few, it actually works as a neurostimulant. You're a better shot.

  • Hyperion||

    I agree. Same with playing FPS games. I am quite better after the first few beers, even up to six, after which I start getting more trigger happy, but also much more inaccurate.

  • Killazontherun||

    Beer is good for relaxation, I always play a little buzzed, bourbon is good for work. Helps you maintain a productive edge and not be jumpy at the same time.

  • Render Unto Caesar||

    I personally prefer to climb aboard the H train at work, but that's just me.

  • Render Unto Caesar||

    Sounds like fun. Can't say I have, though.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Miguel Bloombito:

    Uno Ringo to que rule todos all,
    Uno Ringo to que findo them,
    Uno Ringo to bringo todos all
    Y en el darko stop y frisko them
  • Hyperion||

    WTF? Is that some type of illiterate Espanol?

    Eu nao entender nenhuma dessa merda.

  • Ted S.||

    Aqui es uno Ringo.

  • Hyperion||

    I bet that Ringo couldn't speak Spanish worth a fuck either, if his singing is any indication of his lingual skills.

  • John||

    Instapundit linked to someone today who pegged this bullshit. When people say things like “don’t let this moment pass without acting on gun control,” what they’re really saying is our arguments are so unpersuasive that they can only succeed when people aren’t thinking clearly.

    That sums up Wright here. What an ignorant fuckwad. But he makes up for it by being completely smug despite having no decernable grasp of the facts or issues involved. I ask again, how do these losers end up with soap boxes?

  • Sevo||

    "what they’re really saying is our arguments are so unpersuasive that they can only succeed when people aren’t thinking clearly."

    We'd rather you didn't really think about what we're proposing.
    If there are problems with our logic, we hope you can be persuaded to ignore them.
    We are the righteous, and now is the time to act!
    Just agree with me and shut up!
    Everywhere and always, an appeal to emotion.

  • Hyperion||

    For me it's very easy to understand how that works so well. I know too many people who are very prone to knee-jerk reactions to everything. They seem totally incapable of stopping to logically ponder on a situation no matter how many times their own knee-jerk reactions wound up smacking them right in the face.

    The liberals are a lost cause. There should be no concessions with them at all. My only debate with them will be to tell them how stupid they are, and fuck no to whatever they want.

    See what 100+ years of debating and making compromises with these idiots has gotten us? Fuck them all to hell.

  • John||

    http://www.slate.com/articles/.....s_don.html

    Jesus H. Christ these people are stupid. Get a lode of this.

    There’s a singular exception to this general advancement: guns. Research shows that it’s possible to make safer firearms. There are a slew of sensible technologies that gunmakers could add to their products that might prevent hundreds or thousands of deaths per year. One area of active research is known as the “smart gun”—a trigger-identification system that prevents a gun from being fired by anyone other than its authorized user. (James Bond carries one in Skyfall.)

    Because apparently

    all guns used in crimes are stolen
    no one could ever hack such a system
    and saving "hundreds of lives" in a population of 300 million is so worth sticking a useless piece of expensive technology on every weapon in America.

    Why is it that every liberal is completely fucking brain dead?

  • John||

    I mean it worked in a James Bond movie, so clearly the technology is fool proof.

  • Killazontherun||

    You are right. You would not even have to know even rudimentary hacking to remove the controls that interfere with what is still a mechanical device.

  • Hyperion||

    Do you value your fingers, man?

    I had people I work with to tell me they are against retina recognition technology because they saw a film in which the villan cut out eyeballs to gain access to retina recognition secured systems. And they were dead serious.

  • Coeus||

    Why is it that every liberal is completely fucking brain dead?

    This one is actually smart on their part. If you have to cut off someone's thumb when you steal their gun, fewer people will want to own one.

  • Randian||

    When your argument relies on Bond gadgetry, it's time to step away from the keyboard.

  • Hyperion||

    Liberals believe everything they see on TV or in movies. Why do you think so many of them thought about suicide after they saw a movie of some blue people who don't exist having their big tree shot down by evil corporations with missles?

    These people do not live in reality. And they are making laws that all of us are supposed to live by? We stop dealing with these idiots at all, or we are totally fucked as a species.

  • Virginian||

    Seriously.

    Movies are not fucking real. Guess what guys, that person voted for Obama. Everyone who liked their comment voted for Obama. All these people think they are smarter then you who did not vote for Obama.

    My advice is to start drinking heavily.

  • JeremyR||

    They're not braid dead, they just have a magical belief in government.

    If they ban something, it will never happen again.

    Well, except abortion. Somehow they grok that there will be a black market trade there if it's illegal, but they can't seem to extend it to guns

  • Coeus||

    Well, except abortion. Somehow they grok that there will be a black market trade there if it's illegal, but they can't seem to extend it to guns

    And how they realize that regulations lead to restricted access of abortion, but they don't believe it in any other sphere.

    And lest you think abortion is the only issue they're like this, remember that they realize that increasing taxes on something will lead to less of it (like smoking). Except business investment. Investment is magic, or something.

  • PapayaSF||

    "Weighing benefits against costs is the way most people make decisions — and the way most businesses make decisions, if they want to stay in business. Only in government is any benefit, however small, considered to be worth any cost, however large." —Thomas Sowell

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    BUT THE CONSTITUTION IS OLD!!!! it's so outdate you know.

  • Hyperion||

    That's right! That's why every other country on earth has since come up with something that works better and has resulted in a better standard of living and better civil rights for all of it's citizens, and no one wants to come here anymore, and ..... ummm... never mind...

  • Alice Bowie||

    Well here's my take:

    To we give everyone M16s as libertarians and others suggest so that no one shoot each other?

    Or do we make an effort to make sure it is difficult to get guns altogether?

    Let's say we give everyone an M16 or whatever they want as their is no practical way of stopping guns in the US without turning into Singapore. Can you imagine the apprehension process? Libertarians today complain about the militarization of the police. That would actually be not necessary if we got rid of the guns. It would be double if we didn't.

    I'm a softee. I'm all for getting rid of guns. We can do it. Unfortunately, I don't think one can do in a liberal society. It has to be a police state like singapore.

    The question is, can we continue to be liberal America or should be turn into Singapore?

  • Sevo||

    Alice Bowie| 12.19.12 @ 11:26PM |#
    "Well here's my take:
    To we give everyone M16s as libertarians and others suggest so that no one shoot each other?
    Or do we make an effort to make sure it is difficult to get guns altogether?"

    Gee, Alice. How long did it take for you to come up with a sort of a classic 'false dichotomy'?
    Put another way, did you get a passing score on the 7th grade end of year exam? If so, how did you cheat and not get caught?

  • Sevo||

    Shorter:
    You're an ignoramus.
    Is that understandable, ignoramus?

  • R C Dean||

    To we give everyone M16s as libertarians and others suggest

    Heavens, no. Why would libertarians ever support giving, at taxpayer expense, anything to anybody?

    do we make an effort to make sure it is difficult to get guns altogether

    No, again.

    Let me offer a third option:

    LEAVE PEOPLE THE FUCK ALONE UNLESS AND UNTIL THEY VIOLATE SOMEONE'S RIGHTS.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Who is this "we" you are referring to?

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    youtube.com/watch?v=FKT4a-RMT5o

  • Coeus||

    Wapo gives three Pinocchios to a incontrovertibly true statement about concealed carry laws. So many fact checkers do not understand what the word "fact" means.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Incontrovertibly true is pushing it. The statement is probably too broad. "every" is an awfully strong word.

    However, three pinnochios is supposed to be reserved for "Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions" according to their scale, so merely going a bit overboard speaking in absolutes doesn't qualify.

  • robc||

    By their own standard, seems like a 1 pinocchio for exaggeration.

  • Coeus||

    Incontrovertibly true is pushing it. The statement is probably too broad. "every" is an awfully strong word.

    Do you know of a state that has passed concealed carry and hasn't had a reduction in crime? Cause if there was, you'd figure they might mention it in their brilliant take-down.

  • Sevo||

    OldMexican| 12.19.12 @ 8:18PM |#
    -----
    Re: The_Choctaw,
    I really think this point is ignored by a lot of people. The second amendment was written when it took like 2 minutes to reload a bulky unconcealable rifle that would inaccurately shoot a metal ball a few hundred yards.
    -----
    "It is a point ignored because it is meaningless."

    For those who can tolerate true ignorance, you can go here:
    Well, shucks. Seems the Chron 'disappeared' it. It was someone signing with a woman's name claiming the Constitution did not "grant" us the "right" to own weapons any more than the Constitution "granted" us the "right" to own an automobile.
    I'm really sorry the paper 'disappeared' that; the paper was ignorant enough to put it on the dead-tree issue, but maybe someone pointed out how stupid it was? Maybe those running the Chron web site ( http://www.sfgate.com/ ) are hopeless ignoramuses and flat lost it? Let's face it, they're not paying the highest market rate for nose-pickers to keep that site working.
    Hey, shithead! I'd bet they'd hire your sorry ass!

  • Graphite||

    Hey Sevo, do the SF Hit & Runners ever get together for drinks? It's lonely being libertarian in this town sometimes, it would be fun to get together & discuss the guns we own in a loud & raucous manner within earshot of the lefty patrons.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    It seems more and more lately, I've been running into people who declare themselves libertarian. One couple were Lew Rockwell types. Another guy just went hunting, and realized he liked guns. One other chap was pissed at the delays and costs to his business due the strikes the ILWU were conducting here at Port of Long Beach. I met all four folks at my neighborhood bar, in the past three months. Maybe you should just start talking more frankly with the people you meet daily?

  • Coeus||

    met all four folks at my neighborhood bar, in the past three months. Maybe you should just start talking more frankly with the people you meet daily?

    Personally, I try not to do it in bars (politics drives the wimmins off) but in other areas, I have about a 3 to 1 rate. For every 3 people who get pissed off when I force them to focus on their cognitive dissonance, I get one convert.

  • Graphite||

    Don't get me wrong, I have a small group of friends-who-are-also-Objectivists I hang out (and even go shooting) with quite a bit. But we tend to avoid the subject of politics when we're together because we know we're just going to agree on about 98% of everything.

  • waaminn||

    Sounds like a pretty good plan to me dude.
    www.usa-privacy.tk

  • Tejicano||

    Every time that I see America getting hustled into another one of these gun bans it feels like I am reading one of those Snoopy cartoons where Charlie Brown thinks THIS TIME Lucy is really going to hold the ball and let him kick it.

    They never get that it is just one more increment towards their actual goal and does nothing else.

  • Proprietist||

    The relevancy of gun control ended anyway when they built an operable gun with a 3-D printer.

  • sam the man||

    You would think this guy would have done his research on libertarianism.

  • Spacer||

    Wow, what a squirmer. It's interesting that so many people push oppressive laws based on "I don't understand..."

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