How Has Heightened Gun Control Worked in Australia and Britain?

Via RealClearPolitics comes this Wall Street Journal piece by historian Joyce Lee Malcolm. She notes that both Australia and the United Kingdom have had tight restrictions on legal gun ownership for decades but have still experienced mass shootings. In the wake of a particularly grisly 1996 slaughter in Dunblane, Scotland, British authorities responded in ways now urged by American supporters of gun control. 

A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison....

Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.

In Australia, Malcolm writes, a horrific mass shooting in Tasmania just a few weeks after the Dunblane massacre led to similar legislative results.

Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms.... Between Oct. 1, 1996, and Sept. 30, 1997, the government purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 of the banned guns at a cost of $500 million.

To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%....

In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

Malcolm sums up:

Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.

Read the whole thing.

This is possibly the toughest reality to face, in the wake of a terrifying and senseless event such as the Sandy Hook shooting: That there is ultimately very little that can be done to make sure something like it doesn't happen again. Part of that is because such events are so (thankfully) rare that no system can avoid them completely. Certainly, forcing law-abiding people to give up their rights, or treating schoolkids even more like prisoners, or arming principals or teachers or posting cops outside every locker room or whatever won't do much (if anything) to accomplish the goal of a safer society.

Back in 2002, Malcolm wrote about "Gun Control's Twisted Outcome" for Reason. And in 2003, she explained how and why one of the most widely praised history books about guns in the United States - Arming America, by Michael Bellesiles, was riddled with so many errors and so much fraud that Bellesiles was fired by Emory University. For a bonus, read some of Bellesiles smug, curt dismissal of Reason's coverage of his book.

Reason.com on Sandy Hook shooting.

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

  • ||

    The issue with drawing conclusions based on stats of assaults (sexual or otherwise) is those numbers are more sensitive to reporting by victims than homicides.

    I think the larger picture is that homicide was declining before the gun measure at basically the same rate as it did after. The US saw its own decline during this same time period and it continued after the expiration of the '94 weapons laws

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Pre-gun ban Australia. Radio Birdman: Smith and Wesson Blues!

  • C. Anacreon||

    We had Xmas dinner at a friend's in San Francisco and were the only non-San Francisco/Berkeley denizens there. My apolitical wife was chatting with a stereotype Berkeley woman -- 60's, gauze clothing, long unkempt hair with grey raccoon streaks -- and the Berkleyite said something like, "I read in the New York Times that the people of Newtown are a bunch of gun nuts, so it really isn't surprising what happened. We need to ban guns now except for police."

    My wife, who perhaps had too much holiday wine -- but whose best friend grew up in Newtown -- tore the Berkelyite a new one. We practically had to pull her back from punching the hag, as she rattled off 2A facts and pointed out the places where the citizenry suffered after gun control.

    The wife and I haven't been getting along too well for awhile, but as I walked her out of the party, away from the dirty glances of the politically correct, I felt I have never loved her more.

  • ||

    I'm sorry to hear that there is discord in the Anacreon household. I hope it improves, my friend.-)

    At least Mrs. Anacreon knows freedom to protect oneself is sacrosanct and expressed, even if her courage at that time was of the liquid variety. They don't call it "truth serum" for nothing.-)

  • RightNut||

    I think allowing school officials to carry in schools would at least deter would be school massacres. One of the big reasons school shootings happen more than say, movie theater shootings is because people know the chances of meeting armed resistance is low. Changing that perception would help.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    One of the big reasons school shootings happen more than say, movie theater shootings is because people know the chances of meeting armed resistance is low.

    That's an extremely questionable statement. The school shooters in recent history have had reasons to target schools that were unrelated to their gun-free status, and one of the most "effective" mass shooters targeted a supermarket with no gun-free policy in a "constitutional carry" state.

  • R C Dean||

    I think we can safely conclude that concealed carry in no way makes mass shootings worse, and presents at least the possibility of making them better. As evidenced by the comparative body counts run up by shooters who encounter armed citizens versus those that don't. And yes, I know there were armed citizens at the AZ shooting, but I don't make policy based on single data points.

    Conversely, I think we can safely conclude that gun free zones in no way makes mass shootings better, and presents at least the possibility of making them worse, based on the body counts run up in gun free zones.

    Do mass shooters target gun free zones? Maybe, but its hard to say, given the number of apparent mass shooters stopped very early on by armed citizens in non-gun free zones.

  • John||

    I have read that the shooter in Aurora targeted that theater because it was gun free. There were showings of that movie closer to him that did allow guns.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I have read that the shooter in Aurora targeted that theater because it was gun free.

    You read someone talking out of their ass. Unless Holmes himself says this it's just conjecture.

  • John||

    If anyone knows what it means to talk out of their ass, it would be you. So you kind of have me there.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Look who's resorting to insults because he doesn't have an argument.

    If you think I'm talking out of my ass, point to it.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    ain't nobody wants to talk about your ass Tulpa

  • sloopyinca||

    I did a youtube search of "talking ass" and found this gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL9Ow7FTgsA

  • Adam.||

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/.....t/1791085/

    John Lott seems to agree with the John above.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And John Lott is talking out of his ass, as I showed below.

    The Cinemark Century was 8 minutes from Holmes' apt. It's not like he made a huge trek to get to the perfect spot for his crime. Lott's basing his conclusion on the existence of one non-GFZ theater closer to Holmes' apt and slightly farther one with a larger auditorium. That's weak sauce.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Weak sauce is still sauce, and since you are saying there is no sauce, you lose.

  • tarran||

    One thing to bear in mind: when confronted with a target full of armed men, Timothy McVeigh chose to use a couple of thousand dollars' worth of fertilizer to blow them up.

    Basically, there is no panacea.

    Ceteris paribus, gun control is marginally harmful to the spree killer problem (it creates an expanded black market for weapons to supply the secretive would be killer & disarms victims).

    The solution is to allow people the freedom to choose the tools to protect themselves and accept that the occasional bad thing happens.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And yes, I know there were armed citizens at the AZ shooting, but I don't make policy based on single data points.

    OK, though there actually weren't any armed citizens other than Loughner there... there was only the legal possibility of them being there. But, I mostly agree.

    given the number of apparent mass shooters stopped very early on by armed citizens in non-gun free zones.

    What was that you said about not making policy based on single data points?

    Look, there are simply too few mass shootings to draw many conclusions about what causes them or where they're likely to occur. Which is kind of my point... people here seem to take it as a given that the shooters choose GFZs for their rampages.

  • ||

    I'm not sure you understand when you keep saying a "single" data point, when the person you're responding to is talking about multiple incidents.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Such as? The Portland mall guy is one.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Someone listed all mass shootings since 1950 or so, found about 30 that were stopped by someone, either police or civilian, and found the civilian-stopped massacres averaged 2-3 deaths and the police-stopped massacres averaged 14 deaths. Of course I probably have the exact numbers wrong, but it was a decent sample size, and the conclusions were pretty clear.

    This was only a few weeks ago. Someone with better google-fu than me could probably find it.

  • alexdroog||

    I think this may be what you are referring to, Scarecrow:

    Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Yep, that looks like it. Thanks.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The methodology at that link is laughable. Extremely vague and in some cases totally absent source citation, haphazard throwing out of data, etc.

    And of course you would expect that shooters stopped by police are going to kill more than those stopped by non-police, since police are not likely on scene at the beginning of the shooting. A shooting stopped by police is necessarily going to be longer in duration, which biases the data.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    the civilian-stopped massacres averaged 2-3 deaths and the police-stopped massacres averaged 14 deaths.

    According to the much ballyhooed FBI definition, 2-3 deaths do not make a mass shooting.

  • Brendan||

    Maybe they were stopped before they could develop into full massacres.

    Kind of how fire extinguishers help prevent house fires, not by stopping a fully engulfed house, but by stopping small fires before they grow.

    In that sense, house fires fought with fire extinguishers might average (example only) $2000 in damage whereas house fires that are fought by the fire department might average $200000.

    Only a complete moron would claim that $2000 damage isn't really a house fire, while ignoring that the fire extinguisher gets deployed very early in the development of the fire, minimizing the damage. The fire department is called only if the fire isn't stopped in time, and they take additional time to get there, hence house fires where the FD fights it tend to be far more expensive.

    We can do the same thing with the use or personal first aid kits vs paramedic response.

  • robc||

    though there actually weren't any armed citizens other than Loughner there

    False. There was one guy carrying there, but by the time he could get in position, Loughner was already wrangled, so shooting would have been dangerous to those tackling him.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    He wasn't in the supermarket when the shooting began. And since Loughner was already neutralized by unarmed people at the time he arrived, it really didn't matter that he was armed.

  • Generic Stranger||

    The Giffords shooting doesn't really fit the mold because it was an assassination attempt, rather than a standard mass shooting. The nutjob's choice of the location was constrained by Gifford's movements rather than by other factors.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Sorry, I'm not buying that. If he merely wanted to assassinate Giffords he could have done it without shooting all those other unarmed people. And he was tackled while trying to reload after he'd already put lead in her head.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Are you purposefully dense?

    I said it wasn't a STANDARD mass shooting, because it was primarily an assassination attempt. I didn't say he wasn't attempting to take out as many people as possible, I said his choice of location was constrained by his need to target a specific individual during the rampage. Tell me how I'm wrong.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's not really known. It certainly appears that he was targeting Giffords, but we don't know for sure.

    And if we're throwing out massacres where the killer was targeting specific people or groups of people, we have to throw out Ft Hood and Va Tech too (and probably SH, as it looks like Lanza had some disputes with people at the school in the past). And there go several data points the GFZ-blamers are using.

  • Generic Stranger||

    That's not really known. It certainly appears that he was targeting Giffords, but we don't know for sure.

    Do you not even bother to make even a cursory effort to research your statements?

    Searches of their home after the killings turned up a 2007 letter from Giffords, thanking Jared Loughner for attending a 2007 event similar to Saturday's. An envelop in the same strongbox was scrawled with phrases like "die bitch" and "assassination plans have been made," Kastigar said.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/.....g.suspect/

    Seriously, it took me like a minute, tops, to find that, and most of that time was waiting for the page to load.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Fine. So we're agreeing to ignore VT and Ft Hood too?

  • Generic Stranger||

    Not so much. Yes, the locations for Ft. Hood had some connection to the reason for the shooting, but it isn't quite the same as targeting a specific politician who is not always out in the open. Cho and Hassan didn't stalk their victims until they went home, they attacked them on campus/base because he could rely on the fact that there wasn't anyone around who could challenge them. OTOH, Loughner only had so many chances to catch Giffords out in the open and without a security detail around to bother him.

  • Generic Stranger||

    *Ft. Hood and VT

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It's much more likely that they attacked the victims on campus/base because that's where they were reliably present in large numbers. If you're trying to kill large numbers of soldiers quickly, the best place to do it is at an army base, not a shopping mall. Likewise with VT students.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Sure...and that's entirely because none of them are armed. You can't kill lots of people when you're being shot at. Notice that these losers surrendered as soon as they were confronted by force. With that level of cowardice, I doubt they would have carried out their attacks if they knew there was a chance of them being shot back at.

    Also, notice, again, that Loughner didn't attack Giffords when she was at her offices, which likely did have armed guards. So, in that manner, that shooting did conform to the norm in that the shooters picked an area where they were less likely to be confronted with armed force.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Look who's moving the goal posts now. (of course no one will call you on it because you're on the majority's side)

    Armed guards != possibility of someone CCWing

  • Generic Stranger||

    Tulpa, you are beyond parody. Seriously.

    The argument is that these shitheads choose locations based on likelihood of armed resistance. CCW is merely a way to increase the chance that someone with a gun will be there to fight back. Armed guards also tend to work towards the same end, you idiot.

  • Brendan||

    That's pretty much the only shooting where the shooter chose an area that did not ban firearms as policy, or where firearms are banned by law.

    Every other place was banned by law, or by policy, and in some states, policy has the force of law.

    There's an interesting article from John Lott (spare me the BS about Rosh) where he points out that the Aurora shooter chose the one theater within a 20 minute drive that had a 'no guns' policy instead of the other 6 theaters that were closer to his house or larger.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    First off, you really should link to articles you cite. Not doing so makes it look like you're trying to fudge details. For instance, this statement:

    the other 6 theaters that were closer to his house or larger.

    is not supported by the data in Lott's article. One theater was closer to Holmes' apartment and one which was slightly further had a larger auditorium (and Lott doesn't state whether that auditorium was showing TDR at the time). For whatever reason Lott mentions the existence of others that were more than double the distance (18-20 min). An uncharitable reader would surmise that Lott is trying to throw in some red herrings.

    To summarize, it's hardly a compelling case for his choice of the theater as a GFZ. Especially when there were almost certainly tons of GFZs near his apartment that he didn't attack -- schools, post offices, the uni where he went, etc.

  • ||

    That's not the point. So what is the point?

    Risk.

    What happens in places where the potential shooter does NOT know who is carrying and who is not, but DOES know that there are armed staff in the building, said shooter will either want an easier locale, or take his chances and die much quicker when the armed staff take him out.

    It's pretty simple really. The concepts of risk are important to a mass killer. The person can't be a mass killer in an environment that might have said person full of holes before getting his/her first victim.

  • R C Dean||

    I thought I was going to have to school Tulpa point by point, but I see its been done.

    And, of course, he chooses (as do the gun controllers), to chase rabbit trails, rather than address the fundamental point:

    CCW can help make mass shootings less bad. Gun free zones can help make them worse.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I think allowing school officials to carry in schools would at least deter would be school massacres.

    Yep.
    And it creates the real possibility that future murder sprees will have fewer casualties before the murderer expires.

  • Meerkatx||

    There was an armed security guard on the Columbine campus. After firing at one of the two gun men, and receiving counter fire back at him, he went to his car and called the police.

    Having armed people on campus's throughout the country is more likely to end up with more deaths from those armed protectors over the course of a decade than from mass killers in schools.

    No hunter an answer why he needs a semi automatic or automatic assault rifle style weapon truthfully because they don't. No hand gun owner can claim they need more than a standard sized clip except they fantasize about clearing out their own house from a invasion of thieves who are all armed to the teeth.

    We don't need to eliminate guns, but we do need to be more realistic about who can sell guns, who can buy guns, what type of guns are actually needed, what type of various accessories are needed for guns.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Having armed people on campus's throughout the country is more likely to end up with more deaths from those armed protectors over the course of a decade than from mass killers in schools.

    citation needed

    No hunter an answer why he needs a semi automatic or automatic assault rifle style weapon truthfully

    because they can.

    We don't need to eliminate guns, but we do need to be more realistic about who can sell guns, who can buy guns, what type of guns are actually needed, what type of various accessories are needed for guns.

    what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" dost thou fail to comprehendo?

  • Meerkatx||

    Are you a well regulated militia?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I'm a Canadian.
    are you dumber than toast?

  • Meerkatx||

    I'm sorry, but no where did you post you were Canadian and since we're talking about American laws it stands to reason you might actually be American.

    Your insults, they are not insulting. :)

  • Cavpitalist||

    McDonald and Heller.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Are you a well regulated militia?

    You want to limit it to the militia? Fine, get rid of Selective Service. As long as the government can impress me, by fiat, into military service, I should have the right to keep and bear arms.

  • Generic Stranger||


    Are you a well regulated militia?

    Yes. Under US law, all males over the age of 18 and under the age of 45 are part of the militia.

    But more to the point, the right is reserved to the people, not to the militia. "A well regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state" is what is known as prefatory clause, and only serves to introduce the reasoning why it is important that the people (which in every other instance in the Constitution refers to the citizenry as a whole) have the right to keep and bear arms. It is NOT a limiting condition on the right, and that is how the US Supreme Court has interpreted it in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Are you a well regulated militia?

    The relevant question is "are you one of 'the people'", since that's the group whose right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed.

    Of course, every able bodied male of military age is technically part of the militia under federal law. So I'm that too.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    That there is ultimately very little that can be done to make sure something like it doesn't happen again.

    GASP.

    You may THINK that, but there are many people in this country who FEEL we can stop the countless thousands of gun massacres we endure every day if guns are simply outlawed.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    How DARE you ignore those peoples feelings!

    Racist! Homophobe! Misogynist!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Well, it appears that the SH shooting could have been prevented if Nancy Lanza didn't give her mentally troubled son access to the firearms in question and training on how to use them to maximum effect. It could just be a case of, "A mother's eyes can never see," as they say.

    I don't know that there's a legal remedy to specifically address that fact (short of an outright ban, which is bad for all sorts of other reasons). Depending on how he acquired the firearms before he shot her, it's possible that a secure storage requirement could help, but that would be fraught with problems since good storage costs $$$ and is not really available to apartment dwellers who can't drill safes into the wall/floor.

  • ||

    Tulpa, you've just solved the housing crisis.

    We simply make the second amendment apply only to homeowners.

  • R C Dean||

    Question:

    Would a requirement that you keep all of your guns in a safe "infringe" on your right to keep arms?

  • Brendan||

    Yes. You're denied your right to keep/bear arms unless you store them how they way.

    Would a requirement that you keep all your Stephen King books or Playboy mags in a safe infringe upon your 1st amendment rights?

  • Generic Stranger||

    Yes. DC's safe storage laws were one of those challenged by Heller, and the court ruled that requiring guns to be locked up at all times violates the right to have them ready for self defense.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Well, DC's law prohibited even carrying a gun in a holster while in your own home, so it really did render it impossible in practice to use a gun for SD. A law that only required secure storage when the firearm was not under the owner's immediate control might pass muster.

  • R C Dean||

    Imagine my surprise that Tulpa thinks that a requirement that you keep your arms only in a government-approved way doesn't infringe your rights.

  • John||

    I think you can be negligent with firearms just like anything else. Had Nancy Lanza not been murdered, I think the parents of the murdered kids might have had a case against her for negligence. I don't think it is too much to expect parents to keep their fucked up aspy kids who they are thinking of having committed away from their guns.

  • ||

    Hey John. I've lurked here long enough to know that your online persona is that of a blustery simpleton, but your bigotry is quite offensive, and I don't think you would consider yourself a bigot. I have a son with Aspergers who is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings you could ever meet. This constant pejorative of Aspy that you have been flinging around lately is getting old.

  • ||

    There are a number of posters here (John, Heroic Mulatto, "Merkin is back") who frequently assume that behavior they (justly or unjustly) disagree with is evidence that the offender has some sort of mental issue. Asperger's seems to be the favorite label to hurl in an attempt to "prove" there's something wrong with the person.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I asked a business partner of mine that has a child with ASD about this and his response was that yes there may be something to it.

    Kids with ASD are bullied frequently and that incidence has increased with the mainstreaming of all developmentally challenged kids into general purpose schools. Furthermore, kids with ASD often remember bullying incidents for many years without the diminishing emotional impact of most people. And that self awareness of being different can further isolate people with that condition and make their lives generally more stressful.

    Not that people with ASD are all psycho killers by any means. But it is possible , maybe even likely that they are at higher risk of acute episodes of explosive anger. And that it is something that their parents should be aware of.

  • ||

    And as a parent of a child with ASD, el escéptico disagrees with you. As a person diagnosed with ASD myself, I also disagree. Again, if this is just reduced to "shy loner with personal problems" than that's not something to do with ASD specifically anyway. And a premeditated crime like this isn't the same thing as an "acute episode of explosive anger". These aren't exactly crimes of sudden impulse. Not to mention that plenty of these mass-killers HAVEN'T had a past of being bullied.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I thought it was an interesting and honest answer from someone in that circumstance because it wasn't the knee-jerk My kid would never do that.

    Just saying.

  • ||

    That's fair. The sort of knee-jerk answer you mention is pretty common with parents. My family couldn't say I haven't had problems with temper myself. But I've never been a brooder. I can't hold a grudge very long, it just stops being important after a little bit. My emotions are easy come, easy go.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I can't hold a grudge very long, it just stops being important after a little bit. My emotions are easy come, easy go.

    I think that's pretty normal for most people.

    My friend's kid is a teen now. A couple of days ago he was really upset about something that had happened at school. Well after talking to him about it, they realized that he was remembering a bullying incident that happened 4-5 years and a couple of schools ago. And thought that maybe something like that had sent Lanza to that school, a memory of bully or abuse there when he was a kid.

    I've seen a few(but only a few) reports that he attended that school as a kid.

  • ||

    You could replace "kids with ASD" in your comment above with many different minority designations, like "black kids" and it would still be a baseless generalization. I know ASD kids with horrible tempers, and my son is an example of ASD with no temper at all. I know "average" kids with horrible tempers, and "average" kids that are quite mellow. A supposed "libertarian" should know better than most the danger of collectivizing a trait and judging that collective based on that trait. My problem is that John likes to use the term "aspy" the same way that bigots on this board would like to use "nigger" if they could get away with it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yeah except that there's a difference between and arbitrary grouping like race and a medical diagnosis.

    Maybe there's no such thing as ASP because the range of symptoms can individually be experienced by anyone.
    That would be the anti collectivist position right. Don't label anyone with anything.

    Back in the real world, it's not discriminatory to say that people with condition X are more likely to have symptoms 1, 2 & 3.

    I'm not demonizing everyone with and ASD diagnosis. The overwhelming majority aren't violent.

  • ||

    Saying "it's a medical diagnosis" doesn't make any generalization you make automatically correct. If the "1, 2 & 3" symptoms you describe, AGAIN, just boil down to "shy, introverted loner" then that's not something specific to ASD anyway, and your comments still don't make sense. Simply reiterating the same traits over and over don't make them more relevant to mass shootings.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If such a law made it difficult or impossible in practice for some people* to keep arms, then yeah, I would say it infringes. In many cases the storage requirements are used to dissuade people from buying guns in the first place. So, such laws must be viewed with a high degree of skepticism.

    * other than violent felons, mentally ill, etc, who pose a unique threat to public safety when armed.

  • R C Dean||

    such laws must be viewed with a high degree of skepticism.

    That's better, but I still think your definition of "infringe" is far too narrow.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Another beef with the mandated storage idea is the question of how do you propose to enforce it? Are the cops going to be entitled to check out your storage arrangements? Make it an administrative-type search, like the gas company checking for leaks, or a building inspector: neither of whom need a warrant?

    That said, given the absolutely gigantic loop holes in Heller, I think such an administrative search regulatory scheme would pass constitutional muster. And it wouldn't have stopped Lanza. You think a 20 year old bright kid is going to be stopped by a locked gun safe in his own house? Have kids never 'borrowed' their parents' car before? Hell, given what he ended up doing to his mom, he could have gotten access to the weapons the hit-her-with-this-wrench way.

  • Adam330||

    I'm fuzzy on the law, but I think the infraction would then have to be civil, which means they couldn't lock you up for improper storage, just fine you.

  • ||

    My guns are completely safe in my home. My home is all the safe I need.

  • Brendan||

    Don't forget this , 12 people killed, 11 injured by a single shooter using a bolt-action .22 and a double barrel shotgun. In 2010 England, this should be IMPOSSIBLE if the gun control supporters are to be believed.

  • Brendan||

    I see it got mention early on in the linked wsj article. I should probably be subject to a permit and waiting period requirement before posting on articles, you know-for the children.

  • John||

    You can kill people with a fucking sword if you know what you are doing.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Really? I thought swords were for chopping wood...

    Do we call you Captain Obvious now, John?

    Here would be a better example:

    You can kill people with a fucking pencil if you know what you're doing.

  • John||

    You can kill lots of people as in massacre them, if you know what you are doing. And killing even a single person with a knife or sword is not as easy as you think it is.

  • tarran||

    And killing even a single person with a knife or sword is not as easy as you think it is.

    A fact used to great comic effect during the sword fight in Mom and Dad save the World.

  • Generic Stranger||

    And killing even a single person with a knife or sword is not as easy as you think it is.

    Really? How easy do you think I think it is? Because I can almost guarantee you that you're wrong.

    My point is, using an obvious weapon for your example was kind of...well, obvious. No shit you can kill people with swords, that's what they were designed for, and they were one of the major weapons used for warfare up until it was supplanted by the repeating firearm, particularly for cavalry.

  • Redmanfms||

    Really? How easy do you think I think it is? Because I can almost guarantee you that you're wrong.

    I think he was arguing that, in fact, it isn't all that easy to kill somebody with an edged weapon.

    At least that's the way I read the statement.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Maybe, but he's still a bit off base. If you know nothing about anatomy and you're a physical weakling, yes it will be difficult. Combine knowledge with a bit of strength and athletic ability and things change.

    So, more accurately, it could be said that it is difficult for some people, not so difficult for others. A gun blogger by the name of Marko Kloose addressed this disparity quite well, IMO.

  • tarran||

    Having studied Aikido in my feckless youth, I have a bit of experience with sword fighting...

    1) It's very easy to injure someone with a sword regardless of one's level of expertise.

    2) It's very hard to kill someone in one thrust or slice unless one has honed one's technique through years of practice.

    3) It's very hard to win against multiple opponents unless one has honed one's technique through years of practice.

    4) It's very hard to avoid injuring oneself unless one has honed one's technique through years of practice.

    Last but not least, swinging or thrusting a sword is really, really, tiring, especially when the sword is being moved through flesh.

    Take your average guy, hand him a katana and let him loose on a kindergarten, and it's highly likely that after he kills his tenth threatening 6 year old, he'll be so tired that he'll have trouble keeping his guard up.

  • Generic Stranger||

    tarran: if you're facing other individuals who are trained, yes, it will be hard, regardless of your own skill level.

    It is not so hard when you're facing untrained, weaker opponents. I also suggest that if you take your average guy, tell him where and how to make his cut, and then let him loose on the six year olds and things will be a bit different.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Also an ambush or a surprise attack is very powerful. Even between two otherwise perfectly matched opponents.

  • R C Dean||

    As someone else who has trained with a sword, this is all true.

    There's a reason why nobody, but nobody, will choose a sword over a gun for offense or defense.

    My aikido instructor and his wife (both tippy-top ranked) told us that their first choice for dealing with any attacker was a gun.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I'm not sure why we're talking about aikido (which is an interesting martial art in its own right) when the discussion is talking about swords and their use. Iaido seems much more relevant.

    All of your points, RC and tarran, ring true, based on what I've read and the limited time I've screwed around with a (dummy) sword. It is supposed to be ridiculously easy to cut yourself when learning iaido, which is why I guess they've the very long period with bokutos, etc...before they let you try out a sharp edged weapon.

    Still, from the reports I've read, he had enough time to kill every kid in that class, whether he used an AR, my 5 shot bolt action deer rifle, a sword, or a straight razor. A closed environment, with only the killer having a weapon, only one way out, and 10 minutes before the cops showed up, was why he was able to kill so many people. Not what weapon he used, although tarran's point about how physically tiring swinging a sword (or an ax, for that matter) is a good one. Looking at the pictures, I can't see that weedy fuck having the strength to hack that many people to death, even kindergartners.

    's point

  • R C Dean||

    I'm not sure why we're talking about aikido (which is an interesting martial art in its own right) when the discussion is talking about swords and their use.

    Aikidoka train with swords and staffs. I've got, at a guess, 40 hours in with swords, and mostly what I learned is they are a lot harder to use than people seem to think, especially relative to guns.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Wow. I knew about the bo staves (and the funny pants y'all wear) but not that aikidokas also trained with swords. Well, other than how to get them out of somebody's hand via an incredibly painful wrist-lock. Or shoulder, etc...

    I wonder how long you have to train in the art before you become proficient enough to reliably disarm an attacker with an edged weapon---and not get the shit cut out of you in the process?

  • juris imprudent||

    But didn't we just get the link a day or so ago about the problem of "too long and too pointy" kitchen knives in England?

  • CE||

    The Carthaginians killed 80,000 trained Roman soldiers in a single day at Cannae using mostly swords.

  • Sam Grove||

    That's the preferred tool of mass killers in Japan.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You're not going to be able to massacre lots of people with a sword, outside of fantasy movies. People can thwart you by running away.

    Amazing how many gun proponents forget the reason that people prefer guns for SD... they make it easier to drop someone at a distance and to drop multiple people quickly.

  • Generic Stranger||

    This guy managed to kill almost as many people with a knife as the guy at Aurora did with a rifle:

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

    As did this guy:

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

    Guns are much better than knives for self defense, but don't underestimate the damage an attacker can do with a knife, particularly if his victim(s) are already at a disadvantage due to age, size, lack of strength, etc.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The second guy only killed 4 people with the knife, the rest were hit by his truck. The 8 killed by the first guy isn't that many either.

  • Generic Stranger||

    The guy in Aurora only killed 12. Now you're just being pedantic.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    But he injured 58, and he's at the low end of the death toll because his AR jammed.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Injuries suck, but they're still alive.

    The point is that mass killings can and have been accomplished with knives, something you dismissed entirely out of hand.

    Hell, there's been entire genocides carried out with machetes. If people want to kill other people, you really can't prevent it, except maybe by hardening the target.

  • Redmanfms||

    The guy in Aurora only killed 12. Now you're just being pedantic.

    Well, Tulpa is the final arbiter of what constitutes "successful" when it comes to al Queda attacks so I suppose he is being ideologically consistent by claiming that mass murder is impossible with an edged weapon and then when he is proven to be wrong (again) he denies that is actually a mass killing.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    8 people is not a mass killing.

    If you want to say that Aurora wasn't a mass killing either I'll buy that. But the only thing that kept it from being a much higher death toll was the mag jamming.

  • Generic Stranger||

    8 people is not a mass killing.

    Yes, it is the FBI defines mass murder thusly:

    Generally, mass murder was described as a number of murders (four or more) occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders.

    http://www.fbi.gov/stats-servi.....rder-1#two

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Well, I think that definition is stupid. You could kill more than four people with a dinner table.

  • Generic Stranger||

    That definition (or one very similar to it) is pretty much what everyone's been using for close to forever. But sure, it's stupid because Tulpa got caught trying to move goalposts around, as usual.

  • Redmanfms||

    That definition (or one very similar to it) is pretty much what everyone's been using for close to forever. But sure, it's stupid because Tulpa got caught trying to move goalposts around, as usual.

    Pretty much.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Then people have been using a stupid definition for close to forever. Jeez, this is the last place I expected to find argument from tradition.

    And my original post was about "massacring lots of people" not mass murder as defined by the FBI. So shove the goalpost moving accusation up your cloaca.

  • Redmanfms||

    And my original post was about "massacring lots of people" not mass murder as defined by the FBI. So shove the goalpost moving accusation up your cloaca.

    As he moves the goalpost again.

    And I bet if you walked out on the street and polled people on how many people have to be killed for it to be a mass murder, the average/median would be waaaay higher than 4.

    Goalpost shifting and argumentum ad populum.

    Fucking awesome.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    LOL. Apparently any argument that disagrees with redmanfms is "goalpost shifting".

  • Redmanfms||

    LOL. Apparently any argument that disagrees with redmanfms is "goalpost shifting".

    When it involves goalpost shifting, then yes, yes it does.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And argumentum ad populum isn't a fallacy when you're talking about meanings of phrases. Words mean what people think they mean, regardless of what the dictionary or FBI or whatever authority you want to cite has to say on the subject.

  • Redmanfms||

    And argumentum ad populum isn't a fallacy when you're talking about meanings of phrases.

    Wow.

    Words have meaning based on whatever definition Tulpa says "the people" think they mean.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And I bet if you walked out on the street and polled people on how many people have to be killed for it to be a mass murder, the average/median would be waaaay higher than 4.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Heh, that's rich coming from the guy who admonished others for conjecture upthread.

    Look, the definition for mass murder is fairly well defined and understood. If you don't understand it, that's your problem, but you can't come in here and make idiotic statements of fact and then whine when you find out that your definitions were wrong.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    My definition wasn't wrong.

  • Generic Stranger||

    So your obstinate AND obtuse. Perfect. It doesn't really get more wrong than "nobody in the history of ever agrees with you", at least when we're talking about definitions of words and phrases.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Most people would agree with me, and more importantly my argument wasn't hinged on the definition of mass murder to begin with. I was talking about swords being ineffective for killing "lots of people" in a short time. I don't know if the FBI has defined "lots of people" but feel free to quote chapter and verse if they have. I'm confident that most people would not consider 4 people to be lots.

    And that's not the same category of conjecture as saying that a specific person had a specific motivation to do something when the specific person in question has said nothing on the subject. So shove that line too.

  • Generic Stranger||

    If most people would agree with you, where is your evidence? You don't get to pull that out of your ass without anything to back it up.

    And you made your statement in the specific context of discussing mass murder. If you didn't want to be misunderstood (if that's truly what happened), perhaps you should have defined your terms further. Right now it just looks like your being a butthurt jackass because you got proved wrong.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It's in the same class as "cats meow but dogs bark". It doesn't need evidence. Do you dispute that most people would consider "lots of people" to mean more than four?

    And bullshit on having to define terms I don't use.

    Amazing that not a peep came from you when people upthread were blatantly misquoting John Lott's article to support the position you hold, but you're fixating on the definition of a term I didn't even use originally.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Do you dispute that most people would consider "lots of people" to mean more than four?

    When it comes to murder? Yes. And yes, it does fucking need evidence. You have made that claim without ANYTHING to back you up. None. Not even another commenter who agreed with you.

    Amazing that not a peep came from you when people upthread were blatantly misquoting John Lott's article to support the position you hold, but you're fixating on the definition of a term I didn't even use originally.

    Funny, I don't recall saying anything about what John Lott said one way or another. I merely objected to your representation of the Giffords shooting. Amazing how you can put words into people's mouths.

  • juris imprudent||

    Look, just because you can bore to death 4 or more people at the dinner table is no reason to move the goalposts.

  • sloopyinca||

    "Also, I think knives are a good idea. Big, fuck-off shiny ones. Ones that look like they could skin a crocodile. Knives are good, because they don't make any noise, and the less noise they make, the more likely we are to use them. Shit 'em right up. Makes it look like we're serious. Guns for show, knives for a pro."

  • Timon 19||

    Soap, is there something we should know about you?

  • Drake||

    Tulpa - It's far from easy to "drop someone at a distance" with a handgun - particularly when he is running away.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    they make it easier to drop someone at a distance and to drop multiple people quickly.

    Seven feet is probably out of range for a sword.

  • R C Dean||

    Length of sword plus length of arm plus length of stride.

    Yeah, seven feet sounds about right, maybe eight.

  • CJR||

    "People can thwart you by running away." True of guns, too. Hitting a person who is running away is hard, even for a trained shooter.

    Most of the spree shooters who have inflicted very high body counts, either selected a target that concentrated their victims, or else took active measures to keep their victims from fleeing.

  • ||

    The weapon used to murder more people than any other worldwide is the machete.

  • Almanian.||

    I thought it was government inflicted poverty.

    Learn something every day!

  • ||

    I thought it was Adam Sandler movies... I knew I read the comments here for a reason! :)

  • Redmanfms||

    I'm sure Tulpa can come up with an Olympic-gold-winning triple-flip mental gymnastics move to argue that the genocide in Rwanda/Uganda doesn't count because the primary method of execution was the machete.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You're not seriously comparing the organized violence in the Rwanda civil war to a lone nutjob trying to kill as many people as possible before the cops arrive, are you?

    It sure looks like you are.

  • Redmanfms||

    I'm not. I'm comparing it to other genocides and applying you're usual logic of "whatever doesn't fit my narrative doesn't count."

    It sure looks like you are.

    It looks that way to you because you are only capable of either, A. reading things in ways that are convenient to your potential argument, or; B. denying the statement altogether.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Genocides have nothing to do with this subject. They happen in very different sets of circumstances. Rwanda wasn't one guy running around killing people with a machete as fast as he could.

  • Redmanfms||

    Genocides have nothing to do with this subject.

    They do have to do with the subject of the above post.

    And this is you engaging in B.

    They happen in very different sets of circumstances. Rwanda wasn't one guy running around killing people with a machete as fast as he could.

    Here you are engaging in A.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So what is your point, redman? What are you comparing to what?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And the biggest genocide in history was carried out mostly with poison gas. So? It has nothing to do with lone massacrers.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And the biggest genocide in history was carried out mostly with poison gas

    Mao used poison gas? Who knew?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Wow. Mao was racist against Han Chinese? News to me.

  • sloopyinca||

    gen·o·cide
    /ˈjenəˌsīd/
    Noun
    The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

    I'm sorry, but which word implies racism?

  • Redmanfms||

    But you see, the "people" think that genocide is because of racism so your little dictionary definition doesn't matter.

    /Tulpa

    I suppose his literary deconstructionism explains why every argument he makes inevitably devolves into a goalpost shifting session and/or an argument over the definitions of words.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Argument from authority day at Reason! That's another stupid definition. Am I allowed to say that authorities can be wrong around here, or is that too subversive?

    "Homocide" means killing a person, from the Latin "homo" for person.
    "Fratricide" means killing your brother, from the Latin "fratus" for brother.
    "Uxoricide" means killing your wife, from the Latin "uxor" for wife.

    Do you know what "gens" means in Latin?

  • Redmanfms||

    Yeah, using standard definition for words and not allowing you to arbitrarily redefine them based you mystically channeling "the people" surely does count as argument from authority.

    Again, Fucking AWESOME.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Why do you think people refer to what the Hutu and Tutsi did, and Bosnian Serbs did as genocide, but not what Stalin or Napoleon did? Despite the numbers of dead.

  • Redmanfms||

    Why do you think people refer to what the Hutu and Tutsi did, and Bosnian Serbs did as genocide, but not what Stalin or Napoleon did?

    I don't know this "people" to whom you keep referring but almost everyone I've ever met include Stalin and Mao in the pantheon of genocidal madmen.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    They don't fit most of these definitions. Maybe you need to discuss genocide with more people.

  • Redmanfms||

    They don't fit most of these definitions. Maybe you need to discuss genocide with more people.

    Oh so now words have concrete meanings derived from things other than you mystically channeling "the people?" A definition of opportunity I suppose?

    You are really plastic with principle when it comes to debate it seems.

    BTW, when you take into account the fact that there were several Russian ethnic and religious minorities specifically targeted by Stalin and Mao was much the same, they do fit into your definition.

    Also, there is nothing in any of those definitions that states a genocidist cannot originate from the people whom he/she wishes to destroy.

    Also II, the Nuremberg proceedings threw in a fairly large number of people who were specifically targeted for reasons other than ethnic/religious heritage to the total death count.

  • sloopyinca||

    I always thought it meant "nation" or "people". Granted, I haven't taken Latin in over 23 years, but I didn't forget it all.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    In modern terms it meant "ethnic group". Older books usually translate it as "nation" but that's been conflated with "nation-state" in modern times.

    So genocide originally meant, and in most people's minds still means, killing an entire ethnic group or at least a large fraction thereof. AKA not what Mao did. It's likely he really didn't intend for that many people to die anyway (insert caveat about foreseeable unintended consequences here).

  • sloopyinca||

    The term "genocide" has a meaning, which I provided. You can twist the Latin all you want, but it still means what it means, and racism ain't a fucking part of the definition.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *facepalm*

    The Cultural Revolution specifically targeted minority groups in China, such as the Hui, Uyghurs, Mongols, Tibetans, Yunnanese and others.

    Learn some history, son.

  • hotsy totsy||

    I thought it was the Europeans who massacred 100 million Indians with blankets that had flu virus. NO?

  • sasob||

    100 million Indians? If you are refering to Native Americans of North America, your numbers are way, way off. The total population at any one time was much less than that.

  • ||

    "How Has Heightened Gun Control Worked in Australia and Britain?"

    I will tell you how; exactly as intended.

  • Brendan||

    Indeed. It worked very well to disarm the average law abiding people, and put them in a position to seek recourse and preventative actions only from the government

    Gun control is an end unto itself, any lives saved is incidental at best.

  • ||

    I had a talk with the sheriff in Rapides parish last week about putting cops in schools. There is already a deputy in every school in that parish and in mine, Grant.

    We havent had any school shootings so it is hard to know what might happen, but essentially here is what he said;

    "I tell those officers they have the most important job in law enforcement that there is. If someone begins shooting at the school they are to go straight in after them. No waiting for backup. Sometimes in this job you have to ante-up. "

    The sheriff's attitude is basically that if we have to lose an officer or two to save kids, then so be it. I personally am convinced that having them there would greatly decrease the number of casualties in a shooting.

  • John||

    Boy is that guy going to get an earful form the police union if that attitude ever gets out. Child safety over officer safety? Heresy I tell you. Heresy!

  • ||

    That is part of why I told the story. I should point out that the sheriff's department is not unionized and the deputies work at the sheriff's pleasure. The sheriff is elected.

  • juris imprudent||

    Typical uncivilized southerners.

  • waaminn||

    All gun control does is keep guns out of the hands of honest folk!

    www.Privacy-OT.tk

  • Shmurphy||

    At least our bots lean libertarian.

  • ||

    That is pedo-bot....and yes he does...uh...it does. It appears that pedo-bot is also learning to spell.

  • ||

    Makes sense. I'm sure Pedo-Bot's favourite shows are those kiddie educational shows.

  • John||

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/12.....d-gregory/

    Some woman named Carol Roth bitchslaps Piers Morgan on twitter.

    Read the twitter conversation at the bottom of the article.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Thanks for linking to this. Hilarious! :-P

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Thanks for linking to this. Hilarious!

    "Muskets." What an ignoramus Morgan is.
    Rifling was invented before 1500, and a practical rifle was produced by August Kotter in 1520. Rifled arms were in common use among wealthy English gentlemen by the time of Queen Anne. The so-called "Kentucky Rifle" (the American Long Rifle) was in common use by the 1740s. Hancock Taylor (died July 29, 1774), deputy surveyor of Fincastle County, VA carried an Adam Haymaker (Winchester, VA) rifle.
    The founders knew what a rifle was.

  • ||

    Australia's gun buyback certainly kept firearms out of the hands of horrible criminals who used them in their horrible criminal enterprises. Oh wait...

  • ||

    Ooops! I tell ya, those "no questions asked" gun buybacks are such a scam. It is entirely possible that those weapons were used in the commission of a violent crime, and lo and behold, a perfect way to dispose of evidence. Genius.

    Also, good afternoon for you, lass, and good morning for me!-D

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    we just had a gun buyback here.
    pistols for pixels.
    turn in a gun, get a camera.

    2nd comment gets it right:

    Strange.....the program was for pistols and mostly they got rifles.....the pistols and revolvers arre still out there......What a waste of usefull long rifles....
  • ||

    That is why handguns are illegal here: easily concealed. Long guns, not a problem. Oj! And my Binelli came in! I am excited! Too bad it's too damn cold to go to the skeet range...

    Say, how's the weather there? We got a warm spell! It's a balmy 0C. Aren't you jealous?-D

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    It warmed up to -12 today, which is the Normal for this time of year.

    Car update? needs a new alternator.
    brutal, because it's never just the alternator. something else will go wrong within a month.

  • ||

    I see your car is merely mopey and depressed at this point. Is your car more Emo or Goth?

    I also see you survived Boxing Day. Good on ya!

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    My car is carefree

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    1,700 firearms and 13,000 rounds? Not even 8 rounds for each? Pitiful.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    13,000 rounds/1,700 firearms is fewer than 8 rounds for each. Pitiful.

  • ||

    To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%....

    According to Australia's version of the FBI [PDF], both homicides and homicides by gun have continued to decline since AUS implemented gun control, but neither one terribly much. Of course, when ~50 people are killed by gun crime in a year, and that declines to ~34, you're dealing with a very small sample size.

  • John||

    according to your link homocides stayed right around 300 per year not 54.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Yeah, but it matters to them that they were pushed out windows instead.

  • ||

    Buy-back programs are dreamed up by morons who invariably get conned out of their cash with junk guns.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Unfortunately, every once in a while the morons are the ones turning in the guns. There have been examples of Purdeys and other high-end firearms ending up at these buy backs. In some cases the police end up "rescuing" them, in others they're smelted down.

  • ||

    Yes, I know but I blocked it out. Thanks for reminding me...made me tear up.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    The height of gun buy-back stupidity: The Leica Telephoto Assembly Rifle.

  • Sevo||

    Guessing that the ones in the news photos are not "representative" of the haul.

  • Almanian.||

    "So, how's that gun control workin' out...."

    Like it always does. Fuck, people are stupid. The US continues to draw ever closer to "no more liberty than a lot of other places", which has always been its attraction to me. Oh well...

  • CE||

    Why not? We already have the biggest and most expensive government in the history of humanity.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Pro tip:
    want better ads?
    go to bornrich.com

    /not a bot

  • WestIndianAK||

    I wonder how Malcolm would reconcile her analysis of the Australian case with this report? http://jeffsachs.org/wp-conten.....eforms.pdf

  • Sevo||

    Link won't open.

  • ||

    It opens for me. It's a pdf, maybe that's part of the problem for you?

  • ||

  • ||

    Meanwhile, in UKR, it's a real blast...

    This a big deal, as this type of stuff is unheard in UKR.

  • ||

    Body snatching in UKR??? I swear, I had nothing to do with this!

    Warty, however, has professed an admiration for Slavic wimminz...

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    being of a community that is of that descent myself, they do tend to be hot when young.

  • ||

    I was wondering why you took an interest in my recent expatriation, not that I am complaining. Yes, the wimminz are quite stunning, and The Babooshka Gene appears delayed in UKR wimminz than Russkaja zhenshhina.

    I chat with the cashier at the cafe where I eat my breakfast every morning while in Donets'k. Sharp gal. She checks the exchange rates every morning and makes change for all the major currencies accepted (UAH, EUR, USD), and does most of the calculation in her head. Has not been beaten with an ugly stick either, I might add.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    you flirt!

    My parents were born near Zaporizhzhya

  • ||

    Huh. That's about 200 kliks west of me.

    Oh, I don't flirt-flirt. She asks me about medical stuff. The point I was trying to make is, in the States, when you give cashiers actual money, they tend to look at you like they have three heads.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    UKR is always homeland for me!

    Do the cashiers in UKR get to sit down? I love that about Europe.

  • ||

    Oh yes, they sit on tall stools and she wears a smock. In fact, there was a ruckus yesterday morning, as some youngsters (college age) came in and demanded menus in Ukrainian and, being in Donets'k, they are printed only in Russian. So they pitched a fit when the devushka refused to speak Ukrainian. The language divide is more pronounced than what I was led to believe initially.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I'm well versed in the divide. I had a Ukranian coworker on the Russian language side.

    We in Canada prefer to settle differences by eating.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    Very funny, HM.-D

    I will have you know I can flirt very well!

  • R C Dean||

    Oh, I don't flirt-flirt.

    Smart. Play the long game; the payoff is always better.

  • ||

    Err, "...like you have three heads."

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I also noticed my beloved BVB Dortumund will be playing Shakhtar Donetsk in the Champions League.

  • ||

    Yes, and they will destroy your beloved BVB Dortumund. Shakhtar plays...dirty.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • Generic Stranger||

    Probably my favorite part:

    Man: Tell me about this kale salad.

    Server: Kale is good for you. And it’s very versatile.

    Man: Does it taste good?

    Server: (Pause) Blueberries are also very good for you. They have something called “antioxidents” in them.

    God, I fucking hate kale.

  • ||

    Hilarious! The only thing it's missing is artisinal mayo.-D

    Server (laughing again): While we do make all of our pasta in-house using an ancient type of flour used by the Etruscans, we do NOT serve “pasta primavera.” I’m sorry. I can’t stop laughing. Seriously, this has never happened before.

    The smug. At this point, I probably would have slapped the smirk off the waiter's face.

  • R C Dean||

    I have no hesitation about walking out of restaurants if the service is bad. Generally, the manager makes an appearance before I get to the car. I never go back, then or ever, but I am always happy to share my views before I drive off.

    And being laughed at and condescended to by the server is bad service.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Happiness is Forgetting to close your window before a blizzard!

  • ||

    HA! That exact thing happened to folks in Kiev earlier this month. How many people have frozen to death in your neck of the woods? Reportedly, we have lost about 40 people (most homeless and transients) or so due to the ginormous blizzard that hit.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    No deaths on the Canadian side yet, as far as I have seen on the news.

  • T o n y||

    Um what about a plain statistic showing gun-related deaths in these countries? Something accounts for the US having exponentially higher numbers of gun-related deaths. It could be our terrible morals. Or maybe our high gun proliferation.

  • ||

    Unlike the gun-proliferation in these gun controlled countries, which didn't drop significantly. Oh I'm sorry, you didn't actually bother to read anything this site's posted about gun control in other nations, have you?

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