Why 'Control' Is the Wrong Response to Deadly Attacks

Statue of LibertyBigMacSC99There's a natural desire to "make sure this never happens again" after some evil bastard or twisted loon goes on a killing spree. In the age of the regulatory state, such an effort is too-often assumed to require the passage of laws that will restrict and monitor us as we stagger our hobbled way down a carpet of red tape into the warm embrace of a safer tomorrow. But security can't be legislated. If horrific recent events, such as the Boston Marathon bombing, the Sandy Hook shooting, and even the Texas fertilizer plant explosion, demonstrate anything, it's that surrendering to more "control' is no guarantee of safety, even as it costs us liberty. In fact, in the absence of any of the controls that strike some people as oh-so-necessary, we're less likely than anybody in decades, at least, to be killed by some murderous son (or daughter) of a bitch.

Sandy Hook brought us calls for ever-more gun control — restrictions on firearms — even though none of the proposed federal laws (or the ones passed at the state level) would have prevented the crime. Both Adam Lanza and his mother had clean records, so they would have passed expanded background checks. The guns and magazines he used would have been grandfathered under proposed federal laws and even under the restrictive laws Connecticut passed. Even if banned and surrendered, those guns could have been swapped for still-legal firearms.

But even if you magically disappeared Lanza's firearms, the Tsarnaev brothers demonstrated with the Boston Marathon bombing that people can be killed, maimed and terrorized without guns, In their case, a pressure cooker, a bit of hardware and some explosives — apparently gunpowder — were all it took to kill, maim, and utterly disrupt a major metropolitan area.

The Boston bombing immediately led to more calls for control, in particular a demand by Sen. Frank Lautenberg that background checks be required to purchase gunpowder. Again, there's no reason to believe that the Tsarnaevs would have been inconvenienced by background checks. Tamerlan was arrested for domestic violence in 2009, but it's not clear he had a criminal conviction on his record to be detected by a background check, and his brother had a clean record.

In any event, the Texas fertilizer plant explosion reminded us quickly that explosives don't just come purpose-made in small containers. They exist in gardening supply shops, hardware stores and under the kitchen sink. It doesn't take very much to make common ingredients go bang — even to the point of bringing down the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City.

In Norway, a society with more "control" than our own, Anders Behring Breivik used both a fertilizer bomb and firearms to kill 77 people and injure many more. Breivik did so by studying the restrictive laws of his country, complying with them (until the day of his crime) and working around them.

Remember that retrictive laws are fixed and knowable things. The Breiviks of the world can work with them, criminals will ignore them and turn to black markets — and principled people offended by creeping legal constraints and intrusive governments will defy them and so be criminalized, for no gain in safety.

In fact, despite headline-grabbing events like Sandy Hook and the Boston bombing, we're safer by far from the threat of violence than were our parents or grandparents. Violent crime has been steadily declining for  decades. According to the FBI, "[w]hen considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2011 estimated violent crime total was 15.4 percent below the 2007 level and 15.5 percent below the 2002 level." Specifically, "[c]ompared with the 2007 rate, the murder rate declined 17.4 percent, and compared with the 2002 rate, the murder rate decreased 16.8 percent."

If you want a safer world, you already have it. But it comes along with occasional acts of mass violence that don't seem easily preventable.

And there's a cost to those proposed controls. There's a loss of liberty, of course. That's a huge and unacceptable trade-off for many of us. Along with that loss of liberty, comes greater power for those to whom we lose our liberty: police officers, politicians, bureaucrats and security-state officials. Do we really need to contemplate the myriad ways in which they abuse their power? Well ... Let's do so for a moment. There are the school security officers who beat the crap out of kids, the cops and bureaucrats who browse databases for fun and profit, the intelligence officers who, with approval from above, kidnap people and send them off to be tortured in foreign dungeons, the politicians who claim special privilege to act without scrutiny ...

Without making us safer, more control over society always seems to end up in handing people who shouldn't necessarily be trusted lots of control over us.

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.

  • A Serious Man||

    Amazing how the perception of the proper role of government has become so warped that a substantial number of people want the government to provide psychological security at the expense of liberty.

    It doesn't matter how pointless or ineffective the laws of the state are, people just want to feel like someone is protecting them.

  • tarran||

    It's basically the school model of society, with the government replacing teachers and the administration, money replacing grades and students replacing the average person.

  • Almanian!||

    Ben Franklin was right. Shocker.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Tired of me yet?

    I'm certainly tired of the radio. I've been listening to sports talk radio since I got in my car at 6 (barring at hour at the gym). I haven't heard a single thing about sports, or any of the normal hosts talking at all. It's been preempted by local news this entire time. Which I can kind of see, except there is one thing: There has been literally no new information since 6 AM. They have been on the air for at least 8 hours with no changes to anything.

    I am currently listening to a reporter getting ID by cops while trying to give a report. He's literally being IDed while live on the air.

  • ||

    WEEI had their regular hosts on this morning. Of course, John and Gerry love to talk politics anyhow, so it practically sounded like news.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Sports hub is still on news. The only thing they're really talking about is where the reporters are trying to go (and then being stopped by police).

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Felger just came on. I think I might actually be happy to hear his voice.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The Tulpa Secure Storage Act would have prevented Newtown (assuming Nancy Lanza followed it).

  • Generic Stranger||

    You are such a fucking tool, you know that?

    The more so since you're so fucking wrong. I guarantee you that Lanza would have had access to any safe. Parents typically don't deny their adult children access to their gun safes; it's counter-productive in the vast majority cases.

  • John||

    And if she would have known he was too dangerous to have access to the safe, she probably would have had him committed anyway.

  • John||

    And your act would have also gotten any number of innocent people killed by rendering the weapons of law abiding citizens worthless for home self defense.

    Why don't you do yourself and everyone else a favor and stop thinking about the subject of guns? It really seems to not be a good role for you.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Yawn. The arms would only have to be securely stored while not under the owner's control.

  • John||

    yeah because carrying around your gun, 24/7 rather than storing in an easily obtainable place like a night stand makes so much sense. What does "being under your control" even fucking mean?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    If it comes to it, you can use a handgun/shotgun to get to your safe.

    A situation requiring the use of a semiauto rifle isn't likely to arise out of the blue while you're sitting around watching TV. If we've gotten to the point where it does, well, sorry, you're going to have to keep the arm under your control.

    The amendment says there's a right to keep and bear arms. My law would merely require you to pick one. There's no right to leave arms laying around.

  • ||

    There's no right to leave arms laying around.

    Says who?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Says the Constitution.

    I see "keep" and "bear", I don't see "scatter about".

  • ||

    Says the Constitution.

    I see "keep" and "bear", I don't see "scatter about".

    It's almost like you don't even know that the Bill of Rights was never meant to be an exhaustive list, but I know you're not that stupid.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    So it's a 9th amendment inkblot right? If you're going to go in that direction there's a much higher standard of evidence.

    With 2nd amendment rights you can at least point to the black and white text.

  • ||

    Tulpa obviously isn't a wizard.

  • Generic Stranger||

    God you are a mendacious cunt.

    The Supreme Court has already ruled safe storage laws unconstitutional; they got that out of the way in Heller. And as we've already explained, it would have done absolutely nothing except get innocent people locked up. You can take your proposal and shove it up your ass.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The storage requirement that Heller struck down required that the arms be locked even when under the owner's control.

  • ||

    And as we've already explained, it would have done absolutely nothing except get innocent people locked up.

    Wrong Generic Stranger, my cousin in name only (I think... could be wrong). It would have also resulted in a boon for the producers of storage safes.

  • Almanian!||

    If it comes to it, you can use a handgun/shotgun to get to your safe.

    Maybe your safe. Not mine.

    amendment says there's a right to keep and bear arms. My law would merely require you to pick one.

    And is therefore unConstitutional - cause that document says "keep AND bear", not "keep OR bear".

    FUCK but you're a moron, tulip! Just stop ruining threads, OK? Just for today?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Leaving guns laying around isn't keeping, isn't bearing, isn't keeping and bearing, and isn't keeping or bearing. None of the combinations work.

  • ||

    How about the combination of "my rights are not fucking exhaustively listed in the Constitution, you lying shit"?

  • ||

    How is having a gun lying around your house NOT keeping a gun you stupid twat? Keeping simply means owning, maintaining, or protecting.

  • Fluffy||

    Guns on my property are by definition secure, since its illegal for anyone to come on my property and take them.

    You're promulgating a standard where I don't get to enjoy my liberty and property unless I take what you consider sufficient steps to account for the lawbreaking of others, and that's absurd. I am under no such obligation and I ain't your fucking deputy.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    This. Exactly this.

  • Zeb||

    It is keeping.

    And if I am correctly informed, Lanza's AR15 was in the safe.

  • ||

    Tulpa hasn't argued in good faith for years, and yet you idiots still engage him as if he was worth talking to. At some point, maybe you'll learn.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    And if I am correctly informed, Lanza's AR15 was in the safe.

    Still haven't seen any evidence for this claim.

  • hotsy totsy||

    What makes you think she had the guns "laying around"? Like on the kitchen counter or on top of the toilet or something? Something can be stored away but not necessarily locked up.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Leaving guns laying around isn't keeping, isn't bearing, isn't keeping and bearing, and isn't keeping or bearing. None of the combinations work.

    Nice pharisaic reasoning there.

  • jdkchem||

    There's no right to leave arms laying around.

    How biden-esque.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    What is control? On your person? In the same room? In the house? Out working in the yard?

    And no one else should be able to use the firearm to defend themselves? Take a good look through the clippings of self defense usage in any given issue of American Rifleman. I would bet at least one or more are legitimate cases of self defense by non-owners in any month.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Well, the law I was proposing would only require secure storage for semiauto rifles with higher than 1600 joules muzzle energy (just under .223's ME). Under owner control would mean that the owner must either be holding/carrying it or maintain constant visual contact if they put it down. Basically it means that if someone tries to take it you have to be in a position to stop them.

  • John||

    Well, the law I was proposing would only require secure storage for semiauto rifles with higher than 1600 joules muzzle energy (just under .223's ME).

    So you would feel better if Lanza had killed those kids with a .22 caliber pistol or a shotgun? Are you really so stupid that you think that rifles are the only dangerous weapons out there?

    I try not to believe that you are a troll. But really, no one is this stupid.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    So, are we arguing that

    (a) modern semiauto rifles confer no advantages to the shooter, or
    (b) modern semiauto rifles are a superior tool for self-defense?

    It's likely a lot fewer would have died if he were using a 10/22 rather than an AR-15. The things that make ARs better for defense also make them "better" for killing innocents.

  • John||

    No dipshit. There is only one level of dead. And just as many would have died had he been carrying a .22 buckmaster pistol with a 14 round magazine and several ready to reload. A first grader is just as dead when you shoot him in the head no matter what the caliber or velocity of the round.

    And sure an AR 15 is a more effective weapon. But so what? The weapon you use only has to kill the target. Extra effectiveness after that makes no difference.

  • Drake||

    Didn't he kill his mother with a bolt-action .22? Then set to work opening her safe?

  • Zeb||

    Didn't he kill his mother with a bolt-action .22? Then set to work opening her safe?

    Yes, that's what I have heard. So Tulpa is totally wrong.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Yes, that's what I have heard.

    Well if you heard it it must be true! Daily Caller and Alex Jones said so!

  • ||

    Why should it be a crime for someone to go take a piss while he is cleaning his gun? Under your proposed law, someone who does absolutely nothing wrong faces assault, kidnapping, and imprisonment at the hands of the state, and you think that's okay...why? I mean, for the children, I assume? And that's legitimate...why?

    The connections here are approximately as tenuous as the idea that people shouldn't be able to put whatever they want in their own bodies because the evil weed will infect the brains of children.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I was proposing a fine for the first storage offense, not jail.

    and I've never taken a piss while cleaning a firearm. It doesn't take that long.

    If you really have to go, take the bolt or trigger assembly with you into the bathroom so it's useless.

  • John||

    You are proposing making people lose all of the privacy and search and seizure rights in return for owning a weapon. In addition to that, you would like to fine people for a "crime" that is unlikely to ever cause any harm.

    Lanza is probably the first mass shooter in history who used someone else weapons your fucking moron. If it is your own weapon you plan to use to kill someone, the storage requirement doesn't make much difference does it?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You are proposing making people lose all of the privacy and search and seizure rights in return for owning a weapon.

    No, I'm not. Stop misrepresenting my position.

    Once a year, at a time of your choosing, only between the front door and the safe, and not necessarily a cop who does it, and only for a small subset of firearms.

    Lanza is probably the first mass shooter in history who used someone else weapons your fucking moron.

    Well, my main concern is not Lanza-type events, but ordinary criminal thefts. We endlessly repeat the mantra that "criminals can always get guns illegally" without actually seeing if we can stop that mantra from being true -- I'm trying to stop that.

  • John||

    Well, my main concern is not Lanza-type events, but ordinary criminal thefts.

    That almost never happen. Do you honestly believe that criminals get their weapons from burglaries rather than just buying them off the black market or legally if they don't have some legal prohibition against owning them?

    No one is this stupid. Stop trolling everyone.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Do you honestly believe that criminals get their weapons from burglaries rather than just buying them off the black market or legally if they don't have some legal prohibition against owning them?

    How do you think guns wind up on the black market? They're STOLEN.

    And I thought we were of the opinion that background checks don't matter because criminals don't buy guns legally. Has that now changed?

  • Gray Ghost||

    To be fair, there are a few school shootings where the kid(s) got a hold of his parent's guns. The horrific one in Arkansas, where the 13 yr old and 11 yr old turned the recess playground into a killing ground comes to mind.

    Still doesn't justify the law.

  • ||

    I was proposing a fine for the first storage offense, not jail.

    And what happens if you don't pay the fine?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    And what happens if you don't pay the fine?

    They cut off your legs and beat you with them.

    Just kidding. Same thing that happens if you don't pay any other fine -- are you intentionally obfuscating here?

  • ||

    No, you are. You go to fucking jail. If something is illegal, that means you think it is so bad it is worth using deadly force against someone because of it. Acting like "it's only a fine" doesn't still mean that is obfuscating.

  • Zeb||

    If you really have to go, take the bolt or trigger assembly with you into the bathroom so it's useless.

    That's just dumb, dude.

  • ||

    If you really have to go, take the bolt or trigger assembly with you into the bathroom so it's useless.

    "And only use two-ply toilet paper. And don't forget to sing the Happy Birthday song while washing your hands. And other stupid instructions that limit your ability to choose how to live your own life just so that I can make my law work."

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • MJGreen||

    Under your proposed law, someone who does absolutely nothing wrong faces assault, kidnapping, and imprisonment at the hands of the state, and you think that's okay...why?

    Because LAW AND ORDER.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    rifles with higher than 1600 joules muzzle energy

    Why are those rifle so so dangerous that they must be locked up but handguns, shotguns and others aren't?

    And how do you determine that muzzle energy? By commonly available cartridges? SAAMI standards for a given caliber? Theoretical limits? How about barrel length and rifling?

    And above all, how would the beat cop determine any of the above?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    That's a good question.

    I suppose the best method would be to write the muzzle energies into the law with the maximum among widely available loads at the time of the law's passage being used. The defense could attempt to prove that all loads available to the owner were of lower energy, or the prosecution could attempt to prove that the owner had possession of loads with higher energy.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Ok, now I know your trolling. No one can be that stupid, right?

  • Fluffy||

    This is no different from anarcho-socialists who try to claim I'm not "using" property if my hands aren't constantly on it.

    The mere act of owning a weapon constitutes "keeping" it. Even if I dress my gun in a fucking baby doll dress and throw it in the bushes in front of my house. That's my property, and I'm entitled to "keep" it and regard myself as secure in it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    And that gun is still your property if you hand it to your mentally ill criminal neighbor who says he is on his way to a school. Irrelevant.

    You are behaving in a way that makes gun crime more likely and is not necessary to preserve your own self defense rights (indeed, it is likely to make you less able to defend yourself after the gun is gone).

  • Andrew S.||

    What does that even mean?

  • ||

    The Tulpa Secure Storage Act would have prevented Newtown (assuming Nancy Lanza followed it).

    And laws against first-degree murder would have prevented it too, assuming Adam Lanza had followed them. I mean seriously.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Somebody should get on introducing that Murder reform bill.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    So your argument is that murder laws also shouldn't exist?

  • Generic Stranger||

    No, it's that criminalizing actions that directly hurt no one is pointless and infringes on people's rights for no goddamn reason.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I don't think that's what she's arguing, and I don't agree with that either.

    She's saying that my proposed law has the same weakness as murder laws do.

  • ||

    Yes, all laws have the same weakness: they must be followed. And they won't be. So all you're doing by proposing more is infringing on the freedom of people who weren't planning on doing anything wrong by causing them to jump through hoops.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    But you see, murder laws have the same problem! And yet you support those, I assume.

  • ||

    I don't support any laws, Tulpa.

  • ||

    Wow. That statement is such a turn-on to a fellow anarchist... if only I weren't married and Nicole had no standards.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Get in line, man.

    I dunno what kind of standards Nikki has if she's willing to let Warty kidnap her, though.

  • ||

    I had yet to read down-thread when the topic of anal porn had been discussed extensively. I feel like such a prude. Would my inclusion of my recommendation of turning said porn/documentary into a squirt flick and suggesting that the fluid involved be Santorum return my credibility?

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Only if you can show the artistic merit of squirting santorum.

    Squirting Santorum. Hey, Jesse, how would that do as a gay porn?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I don't support any laws, Tulpa.

    So why the hell were you bringing up murder laws and acting as if they were legitimate a few minutes before?

    If I didn't know better I'd think you were arguing dishonestly.

  • Generic Stranger||

    It has the same weakness that every law does. It cannot prevent ANYTHING, it can only punish after the fact.

    Murder laws are legitimate because murder is an actual harm. Laws requiring "safe" storage are illegitimate because not storing a gun in a safe isn't an actual harm to anyone.

  • A Serious Man||

    Can you really not see the difference between murder laws and a safe mandate?

    No one is hurt when you don't follow a safe mandate law. It is difficult to enforce without an unacceptable loss of privacy and liberty. Ergo it's a stupid law.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    No one is hurt when you don't follow a safe mandate law.

    Here's where your average leftie loses us. They see no difference between direct and indirect harm. The actions of an individual are not discernible from the risk to the collective.

  • Zeb||

    They see no difference between direct and indirect harm.

    Well, then it's the lefties' fault for not launching a fascist dictatorship and seizing all privately owned weapons.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    No one is hurt when you don't follow a safe mandate law.

    No one is hurt when a guy puts a blindfold on in the middle of a park and spins around shooting bullets in random directions he can't see, either.

    That behavior is likely to lead to people being hurt, though. Just like leaving your gun laying around to be stolen.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    No one is hurt when a guy puts a blindfold on in the middle of a park and spins around shooting bullets in random directions he can't see, either.

    Holy fuck, you really are retarded, aren't you?

  • A Serious Man||

    Her argument is that telling someone to do something doesn't mean they will, at least not without ludicrous amounts of control.

    Bye-bye Fourth Amendment if in Tulpa Land owning a gun means a cop must inspect your house to see if it has a safe.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The law I was talking about would require that you allow an LEO (not necessarily from your jurisdiction) or an FFL into your house once a year at a time of your choosing, to inspect the storage and NOTHING ELSE.

    So long as you remember to move the bongs and grow-ops out of the path between the front door and the safe once a fucking year, you don't have anything to worry about. Or you could use an FFL if you're cagey about a cop.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    I have to give up my Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights in order to exercise my Second Amendment rights?

    How about a blanket waiver of all the rest if I want to exercise my First Amendment rights? That would be totally legal in Tulpaland, right? No free speech for criminals. And if you're not a criminal, there's no problem.

  • ||

    No, he's against free speech for incarcerated noncriminals as well. Check out this morning's thread about the kid with the gun tshirt getting arrested for disrupting the educational process.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Your proposed law has already been ruled unconstitutional, would severely inconvenience and criminalize innocent people, and would do absolutely, positively NOTHING. Fuck off, slaver.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Your proposed law has already been ruled unconstitutional

    Nope. The law that was struck down did not allow people to have ANY unlocked gun EVEN under their immediate control. My law only applies to a small subset of guns and allows people to have unlocked/unsecured guns under their immediate control.

  • A Serious Man||

    The law I was talking about would require that you allow an LEO (not necessarily from your jurisdiction) or an FFL into your house once a year at a time of your choosing, to inspect the storage and NOTHING ELSE.

    Bahahahahahaha. Sure, no cop would ever use the opportunity to enter your home to bust you for some minor infraction of an unjust law.

    How retarded are you? It's SOP for cops to break down your door and shoot your dogs with the flimsiest of probable cause.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    "Oh, you chose a FFL? Well, I'm just here to make sure he does his job correctly and to provide for his safety when entering an armed residence. I'm not doing the inspection."

    /police officer in Tulpaland

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    And any evidence discovered by the officer would be thrown out due to being the fruit of an illegal search.

  • Jack the Reaper||

    I like this idea. As an FFL holder, I could charge $50-$100 for this annual inspection. I could be rolling in the dough! STIMULUS!!!!

    But seriously, fuck off slaver.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Jack, do you charge 50-100 bucks for a firearms transfer? No? Why?

    Oh yeah, this thing called the market.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Last time I had to make use of one, the FFL transfer fee was $35. And that was only for them to physically receive the gun, and then file some paperwork.

    If that same FFL holder had to take time out of his day to physically go to people's homes, inspect something, and then fill out and file the proper paperwork, that would certainly fetch $50-$100 dollars.

  • ||

    The law I was talking about would require that you allow an LEO (not necessarily from your jurisdiction) or an FFL into your house once a year at a time of your choosing, to inspect the storage and NOTHING ELSE.

    Are you fucking kidding me? There is no way in hell you are serious with this shit.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    What I want to know is how you think that mandating an FFL enter my house once a year to inspect my property is NOT a violation of the 4th?

    Just because the FFL holder is not directly employed by the government, he's there to inspect something FOR the government. Thusly, making him an agent of the government.

    I'll be good goddamed if ANYONE is coming in my house without permission or a warrant.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    If you don't like it, don't get a semiauto rifle with ME larger than 1600 joules.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Yep, retarded. Plain and simple.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    So what you're saying, is that if I want my full 2nd amendment right, I have to let a government agent into my house.

    If I want my full 4th amendment rights, I have to give up part of my 2nd.

    FULL. ON. RETARD.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Govt has a compelling public safety interest in making sure criminals don't have access to stolen guns, and this is a narrowly tailored means by which we can satisfy that interest. Seems to satisfy strict scrutiny test to me.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    What the hell strict scrutiny test are you talking about??

    According to my scrutiny, it would violate either my 2nd or 4th amendment right, and not in some small way, either.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    The law I was talking about would require that you allow an LEO (not necessarily from your jurisdiction) or an FFL into your house once a year at a time of your choosing, to inspect the storage and NOTHING ELSE.

    Given the plain view doctrine, go fuck yourself.

  • ||

    go fuck yourself

    Now you've figured out what to say when things get Tulpical.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    Jesus, the asshole is getting as bad as Tony.

  • Harvard||

    [would require that you allow an LEO (not necessarily from your jurisdiction) or an FFL into your house once a year at a time of your choosing, to inspect the storage and NOTHING ELSE.]

    The very reason the 2nd exists and should/actually does ensure personal ownership of firearms, grenades, stinger missles and M1 Abrams.

  • ||

    Well, as an anarchist, I don't think any laws should exist.

    More relevantly, I don't think any laws will actually prevent the behavior they seek to stop if there is someone who wishes to carry out that behavior more than they care about the consequences. And there will always be such a person.

  • ||

    Well, as an anarchist, I don't think any laws should exist.

    Yeah but you're also stupid*, so there's that to consider.

    *cite: you profess to enjoy living in Chicago

  • ||

    Now JJ, when have I ever professed to enjoy living?

  • ||

    ...touche', salesman.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    So you're saying you are into necrophiliac anal?

  • ||

    It's best right after they expunge their bowels at the moment of death.

  • A Serious Man||

    Nicole: So hot she can literally give a corpse a hard-on.

  • ||

    This is why there are no female libertarians.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Because of nicole? Is she trying to hoard us all for herself or something?

  • Zeb||

    Only anarchists.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    "Anal Anarchy"

    Hey Nicole, wanna shoot a documentary/porn about anarchy? Catchy name, huh?

  • ||

    John Stagliano already has a trademark on that title, INMIS. I think he's up to volume 7 in the series by now.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Dammit. I'm not as clever as I thought.

    I'm guessing his work is more a documentary on anal, though.

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHA

    Oh, Juli Ashton. Memories of the days of downloading 28.8Kbs porn from FTP servers.

  • Loki||

    Huh, I wonder why there's no plot synopsis on the IMDB link? /sarc

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Plot synopsis: buttsecks, buttsecks, and more buttsecks. Oh yeah, they say a few lines of dialog in there too.

  • ||

    That's an excellent name. So excellent it's already been done. TWICE.

  • ||

    Honestly, I'm shocked that Evil Angel doesn't have a series by that name.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Really surprised that second one is lesbian porn. I'd think that name would more lend itself to guy on guy porn.

  • ||

    I'd think that name would more lend itself to guy on guy porn.

    Right? I'd think Triga with their British Scally Lads series would be ideal for that. Do it '80s and punk rock. Or possibly one of Cazzo's '90s German titles and make it post apocalyptic and gas-maskey.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    I'm gonna have to trust you on this one. I really don't know anything about gay porn producers/actors.

    I suppose it could be a bisexual porn where everyone gets fucked in the ass.

  • ||

    That's fine, I have enough knowledge on the topic for the both of us.

    I suppose it could be a bisexual porn where everyone gets fucked in the ass.

    Even better, it could be straight pegging porn. The anarchy could refer to the overturning of heteronormative social convention vis a vis anal!

  • ||

    The anarchy could refer to the overturning of heteronormative social convention vis a vis anal!

    And...this is eerily connected to what I just suggested.

    I think we're on our way to creating art, guys.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Art, yeah, that's why I wanna make this film.. yeah, that's it.

    Now we just need a way to tie anal to anarchy.

  • ||

    a documentary/porn about anarchy

    I just want to note that, while I'm not sure exactly what this would look like (other than perhaps a non-Commie version of this), it sounds fucking awesome.

  • ||

    An "uncut" version of the film has been released, titled The Revolution Is My Boyfriend, edited by the gay pornographic film company Cazzo Film including erotic scenes edited out in the original version.

    How funny that Cazzo should come up more than once today.

  • Loki||

    Nikki makes the sign of a tsp| 4.19.13 @ 2:22PM |#

    The Tulpa Secure Storage Act would have prevented Newtown (assuming Nancy Lanza followed it).

    And laws against first-degree murder would have prevented it too, assuming Adam Lanza had followed them. I mean seriously...

    Tulpa (LAOL-VA)| 4.19.13 @ 2:26PM |#

    So your argument is that murder laws also shouldn't exist?

    AHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! I've never seen a finer example of someone completely missing a point in my 35 years of life. HOLY SHIT. But thanks for the laugh, that was good.

  • wareagle||

    well, there's the problem...not nearly enough laws against murder. We must act now.*

    *pick a member of Congress

  • ||

    No teenager ever got into a locked liquor cabinet/gun locker/porn stash. Ever.

  • Gray Ghost||

    ^This, essentially. And in those cases, the kid wasn't willing to snuff his parents to get at the booze or the car.

    Your proposed law wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook, nor any of the other mass shootings of the last 5 years, but it would be a damned near unprecedented violation of personal privacy. This is a reasonable compromise? I can't think of another situation where the cops can go through your house once a year. Maybe if you have an ultra-hazardous business there like a fireworks factory? Even FFLs have the right to have the BATFE guy examine their books off-site.

    Madness.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The safe makes it less likely to be stolen, not impossible.

    Sort of like carrying a gun makes it less likely that you'll be killed by an attacker, not impossible.

    If you have a problem with a solution that falls short of perfection, you must therefore conclude that guns are useless for self-defense.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    I conclude that you're a fucking jackass who should go play in traffic.

  • Jordan||

    (assuming Nancy Lanza followed it).

    DEEEEERRRRRPPPP

  • Loki||

    The Tulpa Secure Storage Act would have prevented Newtown (assuming Nancy Lanza followed it).

    1) No it wouldn't, Adam Lanza shot his mother a bolt action .22 and then broke into her safe where the AR15 was stored.

    2) If you really are so stupid that you think your law is such a great idea, I suggest you run for congress and then introduce it there (you'd probably fit in perfectly with all the other mouth breathing congress-tards). Until then, do the rest of us a favor and STFU.

  • Loki||

    *with a bolt-action

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    No it wouldn't, Adam Lanza shot his mother a bolt action .22 and then broke into her safe where the AR15 was stored.

    Cite? And no, links to Prison Planet theories don't count.

  • Loki||

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/03.....rs-murder/

    A Savage Mark II .22 caliber rifle is a magazine fed bolt action rifle. This would be considered a “beginners rifle” or a rifle used for small game hunting. The .22 rimfire cartridge is at the lowest end of the power spectrum for firearms...

    The Savage Mark II is the rifle Adam Lanza used to kill his mother, although this is not overtly stated in the police report.

    According to “Page 2 Affidavit and Application” paragraph 6, the search warrant states, “The white female sustained an apparent gunshot wound to her forehead. Investigators located a rifle on the floor near the bed.”

    The Savage Mark II was found with “3 live rounds and 1 spent cartridge” according to the search warrant...

    Or is the dailycaller a "Prison Planet theory," whatever the fuck that means.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Dailycaller is pretty close. If it's "not overtly stated in the police report", I'm curious what the source of DC's claim is?

    I don't see anything there about him breaking into a safe, which would seem to be the most important part of your claim.

  • UnCivilServant||

    The Tulpa Secure Storage Act would have prevented Newtown

    How would locking up Tulpa have helped? Other than reducing nonsensical commentary?

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    How would locking up Tulpa have helped? Other than reducing nonsensical commentary?

    Tulpa's insane ramblings are actually the primary cause of people snapping and going on a killing spree. We must lock him up. For the children.

  • ||

    I actually made a facebook post yesterday calling on people to join me in pushing legislation to require extensive background checks for the sale of things like gun powder, pressure cookers, and toy batteries. Apparently it wasn't as over the top as I thought it was. People might not think I was being sarcastic.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Well, Lautenberg already introduced a bill requiring background checks for gunpowder. It's hard to parody reality these days.

  • LarryA||

    Lautenberg's handler needs to tell him that gunpowder is 7th century technology. Everyone who watches Star Trek knows how to take three very common dry substances and mix them in the right proportions. That's it. No cooking, distilling, or other "complicated" techniques. Ordinary people have been making the stuff for 1400 years.

  • Gray Ghost||

    You might see the first one actually come to pass, Alan. That it's another way of hampering people's ability to use firearms would be a bonus for our current crop of politicians.

  • sloopyinca||

    You better be careful with FB posts like that. Some asshole from Congress might come after you for IP infringement.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I'm recommending background checks to buy gasoline and propane. For God's sake, think of what could happen!

  • Invisible Finger||

    Apparently they don;t even bother doing background checks on public school teachers.

    And if they DO, they're a complete waste of time and money. Which I think is the entire point of wanting the fucking things.

  • DK||

    Chuck Grassley doing his inner-Rahm:

    While we don't yet know the immigration status of the people who have terrorized the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out, it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system.

    How can individuals evade authorities and plan such attacks on our soil?

    Maybe our first push towards nanotechnology should be implanting nanobots that transmit our thoughts to our guardian overlords, eh, Chuck?

    How can we beef up security checks on people who wish to enter the U.S.?

    They were here for ten years, Chuck. At least one was a US citizen.

    How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?

    How about not giving benefits at all?

  • Rich||

    How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?

    Uh, Universal Background Checks?

  • sloopyinca||

    Name me the last government that expanded freedoms after its initial formation. We're arguably the freest country on the planet and we've curtailed individual rights since day 1.

    Control, and the expansion thereof, is the norm for governments and hierarchies since the dawn of time. The only way that will change is for them to kick people like us* off this fucking rock.

    *Tony, PB and Tulpa excluded

  • A Serious Man||

    Apparently gay sex and abortion are the only freedoms that matter.

    Everything else is just the good government being gracious and allowing you more freedom than you deserve.

  • sloopyinca||

    And notice the expansion of one of those happens at the expense of another human being.

    As for gay sex, I'll grant you there has been a slight increase in state-sanctioned freedom there.

  • John||

    You can't ignore the huge progress the country made in race relations. If you are a black man born in 1930, you are a hell of a lot more free today than you were the day you were born. Outside of that, sex is really the only area of life where we are more free today than we were fifty years ago.

  • sloopyinca||

    The race thing is more due to judicial activism as opposed to legislation.

  • John||

    Some legislation too. But regardless, the government stopped oppressing an entire class of people.

  • ||

    Congrats sloopy, you're well on your way to being a functional anarchist.

  • A Serious Man||

    As for gay sex, I'll grant you there has been a slight increase in state-sanctioned freedom there.

    Which is what makes Tony so bizarre. Remember how he admitted that it was okay for the state to beat gay people if the people voted for it and wanted it that way?

  • wareagle||

    if the "people" said it was okay for the state to shit in Tony's bed every day, Tony would be okay with it. There is no talking with that sort of blind follower; he makes the Moonies look like free thinkers.

  • Loki||

    if the "people" said it was okay for the state to shit in Tony's bed every day, Tony would be okay with it.

    He'd most likely be more than just OK with it. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a scat fetish.

  • Tim||

    But we "have" to do "something".

  • Almanian!||

    The children. Won't you think of them?

    *pans to roomful of teh childrenz sitting mournfully around Sarah McLachlan*

  • John||

    We're arguably the freest country on the planet and we've curtailed individual rights since day 1.

    Only if you ignore ending slavery for several million citizens.

  • sloopyinca||

    OK, I forgot slavery as well.

  • wareagle||

    and women gained the right to vote.

    --enter joke here about how this may or may not have been the wisest idea followed by requisite response of "this is why there are no libertarian women --

  • John||

    But the right to vote, while important is not a freedom. You can have the right to vote and still not be free.

  • wareagle||

    it's still an individual right that was extended to a previously excluded class of people. And since we don't have Soviet-style elections, this group had some say in the matter.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Please make yup your mind if the individual right mattered or if the group bloc mattered.

    Women's temperance groups wielded a lot of power for a membership that had no right to vote individually.

    Whatever value the individual right to vote had, its meaning beyond a locality of 50K or less is nothing but symbolic.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    There are a shitload of things you're free to do now in America that you would have been jailed or lynched for in 1789.

  • np||

    You need to read Russel's A Renegade History of the United States to see how life was not as you imagined it to be back then. Bohemianism and libertinism was quite alive back then in the early days in Philadelphia, even more flagrantly displayed than now.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Link doesn't work

  • John||

    And adultery used to be a crime. Cohabitation with someone you were not married to was a crime in many jurisdictions that was enforced right up until the 1960s. And lets not forget interracial marriage was a crime in many states.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Freedoms have been expanded for blacks, gays, women etc. I know what you mean, and I basically agree with you, but it has not all been downhill.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Looks like I'm late to the party.

  • ||

    Are you late to the party in your capacity as savior, or commenter?

  • np||

    I dunno. Freedom's been chopped up thousands of different ways so it's impossible to judge in aggregate terms. +2 in area A, accompanied by -3 in B, then later +1 in C, and -2 in D, etc.

    This applies to comparisons in with other countries as well. So it depends on your own value scale. As a result, some people take the PT route to maximize their freedoms.

    I do agree that the amount of government control overall has increased though.

  • wareagle||

    When all you have is a hammer..... And so goes the political class. All it knows is more laws that expand govt control, often under the guise of making us safe. Come on, JD, we've seen this movie before.

  • A Serious Man||

    But J.D., without CONTROL you'd have KAOS win!

  • Pro Libertate||

    We need the Cones of Silence for this discussion, Chief.

  • ||

    It is a bit pathetic they've let this guy get away for so long.

  • Kurbster||

    and the government wants you to give these same people a monopoly on lethal force

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Sad thing was flipping around talk radio today and listening to TEAM RED talking about how this provious we need to crack down on immigration in exactly the same way TEAM BLUE is talking about cracking down on gun owners after Newtown, with absolutely no hint of recognition.

  • John||

    No crackdown on immigration would have stopped this. There was nothing in these guys' background that would have told you they were going to become radicals some day. They became radicals after they entered the country.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    That's my point. Cracking down on immigrants because of these two makes as much sense as cracking down on gun owners because of Adam Lanza. You'd think that after three months of arguing against gun control, they'd at least notice the rather ironic nature of turning around and using the exact same argument with the word "guns" replaced by "muslims". But not even a hint.

    I'm really starting to think that most people are really just well trained parrots. They have no clue what the sounds they make mean, they just know they get a cracker when they make them.

  • John||

    Most people just don't think it through. These guys became radicals. So did Joseph Padia and John Walker Lindh. I don't the the fact they were immigrants is what caused it. If they had been radicals when they came here, then I could see where this points to an immigration problem. Why are we letting such people in is a legitimate question.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Why are we letting such people in is a legitimate question.

    John Walker Lindh was born in the US to Catholic parents. Were we supposed to wall off his mom's vagina or something?

  • John||

    You miss the point. Why are we letting such people into the country, is only a legitimate question if the radical in question was radical when he got here. So it was after say 9-11. Why the hell did no one bother to check on these clowns when they were staying past their student VISAs and how did people like Atta, who we knew was a radical, get in the country.

    But in this case, immigration is not the issue.

  • Invisible Finger||

    He didn't miss the point. You fucked up your example and are pretending it doesn't matter. A mistake like that sounds exactly like that hyphenated goof's proposal on MSNBC.

  • JSebastian||

    Immigration IS the issue. Had these bombers not immigrated, they would not have been here, thus could not have committed the bombing.

  • JSebastian||

    And what Americans did John Walker Lindh murder on US soil?

  • JSebastian||

    That's no point at all. We don't need any muslims in America. Foreigners don't have any right to come here. Its not at all the same situation as gun control. Banning Muslim immigration harms no American. Banning all immigration harms no American, and in fact will positively benefit most if not all Americans.

  • ||

    Vigilance is important - citizens reporting suspicious activity, keeping your eyes open, etc. but the reality is (as I think most Reasonoids understand), you can't legislate away the ability of people to commit these horrid acts. You can curtail all sorts of freedom in the attempt to do so, but you will still be left with people having the ability to cause mass carnage. I'm so fiercely proud to be an American and we enjoy such wonderful freedoms, we should and do get pissed when politicians try to pass kneejerk gun control and other such legislation because of the crisis of the day. We need to retain the freedoms that are part of what make us special.

  • Kurbster||

    what a load of crap. Why isnt your heart pouring out over all the dead innocent iraqis that were blown up this week?

    Ah, that's right....you're american, and they're not. Being proud of being an american is collectivism

  • John||

    What the???

  • Harvard||

    [I'm so fiercely proud to be an American ]

    An admitted brash statement serving as yet another reason a psychological test would/should disqualify you for the position of policeman that you wish you were.

  • John||

    http://nationalreview.com/arti.....corruption

    Interesting point. Since the government is already spending about as much as it can spend, it is a lot harder to get things through the Congress. In the past Harry Reid just could have busted out the pork wallet and bought off hesitant Democrats. Now he can't. There is no more money to throw around. So, Senators are a lot more skittish about voting for unpopular bills.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "pork wallet"

    aka silk purse, i.e., what you can't make out of a sow's ear (the sow's ear being the budget, or something)

  • ||

    no more money to throw around

    I didn't RTFA, but the Senate Democrat's own budget refutes this.

    And I think they are right...at least as far as there is plenty of money to throw around...until the debt implosion. All it takes is political will to create more debt.

  • John||

    No more earmarks. All of the money is going to entitlements which are set by law and can't be channeled to one jurisdiction. They are just not building things like big labs or big post offices or military installations or other sort of classic pork like they used to.

    Remember, to pay someone off, you have to give them something they are not otherwise getting. So a huge budget makes it even harder to pay people off since they are already getting a lot of shit. It is the wiggle room to give extra goodies that allows you to pay people off. And that is gone.

  • ||

    My glimmer of hope here is that the intellectual stick-up-their-assers who dominate Cambridge will look at this and say "I can't think of a single fucking thing that would have prevented this", particularly with so many of them coming out of the woodwork singing the praises of this kid.

    In a way, this is the best possible circumstances. Not a crazy shut-in. Not a just-of-the-boat towelhead. Not a paranoid knuckle dragging militia-man.

    The kid next door. The one you partied with. Drank with. Wrestled with. The kid who spent about $200 on basic supplies to put together a deadly weapon.

    Fuck you, statists. And fuck you, kid.

  • Tman||

    I've noticed that the leftist friends of mine who would normally take this as an opportunity to call for us to DO SOMETHING have actually been pretty quiet. The majority of them seem to have come to the conclusion that there really is nothing anyone can do to stop a bunch of scumbags like these two.

    Of course if you ask them to apply that same way of thinking to the Adam Lanza's of the world the can't seem to bridge the two, despite the same logic in place.

    This is the best definition of the liberal illogical mindset I've seen in a while.

  • John||

    They are only saying that because the scumbags turned out not to be from one of their disfavored groups. If the bombers had turned out to be tax protestors or anti-abortion people or militia types, I bet your lefty friends would have plenty of ideas about what could be done about it.

  • Tman||

    Yep. I just had that argument a few minutes ago.

    The liberal completely agreed that if it had been a tea partier then it would prove that we need more gun laws.

    You can't make this shit up.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    These guys are caucasians - literal caucasians - and they're probably religious fundamentalists.

    There, that wasn't so hard, was it? Right-wing conservative fundamentalist caucasians - they're almost as bad as Souther Baptists!

  • Almanian!||

    Worse, because they hid themselves among the leftopians in Massholechussets.

    Bastards! the Baptists are usually RIGHT THERE, in your face (thinking Westboro, e.g.)

  • A Serious Man||

    Get with the program Tman. Adam and Nancy Lanza represent the scourge of gun owners and their paranoia.

    The abortionist in Philly and these two guys are all the result of Republican/Teabagging obstructionism to abortion rights and xenophobia against foreigners.

    //Tomorrow's HuffPost commentary

  • Almanian!||

    IT'S AS THOUGH YOU CAN SEE THE FUTURE!!!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Leaving guns laying around isn't keeping, isn't bearing, isn't keeping and bearing, and isn't keeping or bearing. None of the combinations work.

    Holy shit you're retarded.

    Being up there on that cross has caused oxygen deprivation, I guess.

    I keep my .45 on a shelf. It's lying there now.

  • John||

    But some criminal could break into your house and steal it Brooks. Don't you know that is how criminals get guns?

    Wow, Warty is right. Tulpa is a troll. Really more of a troll than Shreek. Shreek is just retarded and crazy. Tulpa knows better and just comes on here to fuck with people.

  • ||

    At this point, the only thing Tulpa has left to do in order to become FULL JOE is to threaten to punch SugarFree in the face.

  • Trespassers W||

    In Tulpa's defense, he probably wouldn't need to find a step ladder first.

  • ||

    Isn't he fat, though? I seem to remember him saying he's fat.

  • Loki||

    Isn't he fat, though? I seem to remember him saying he's fat.

    I think I might have found a pic. You just thought that was Ben Stiller in a fat suit.

  • SugarFree||

    I would deserve it for not respecting his mad debate skillz.

  • ||

    I heard they are now searching door-to-door in Watertown for the bomber. Is there just a giant probable cause blanket over the entire city of Boston now?

  • Almanian!||

    all your house are belong to us

  • Auric Demonocles||

    They've been searching door to door since I woke up at 6. I think they are officially 'getting permission' from the residents?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Exigent circumstances, hot pursuit, etc.

  • Fluffy||

    I think the guy was wounded in the shoot out and has crawled somewhere and died. They can't find him because he's no longer trying to flee.

  • ||

    It's all bushes' fault.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    This might actually be a useful time to have police dogs.

  • ||

    Except twenty different houses would be "alerted" at the same time in different parts of the city.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Tulpa is a troll.

    Tulpa is a martyr.

    I shouted out,
    Who killed Tulpa?
    When after all,
    it was you and me.

    That's right. if you voted for Gary Johnson (or didn't vote for Romney), YOU NAILED TULPA TO THAT CROSS.

    I hope you're happy, now.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    I still think we need to get those bumper stickers printed up.

    "fuck you, I voted for Gary Johnson"

  • kilroy||

    And I have plenty more nails.

  • forestgombosi39||

    If you think Richard`s story is nice, , four weaks-ago my mom basically also made $4739 grafting a 20 hour week in their apartment and they're best friend's mom`s neighbour done this for 8-months and got a cheque for over $4739 part-time on their computer. the instructions from this site http://www.wow65.com
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement