20 Children Killed in Connecticut, Other Things Nobody Is Paying Much Attention To: P.M. Links

|

  • A young man is suspected of killing 6 adults and 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. He was initially identified as Ryan Lanza and his body found among the dead. The media is, of course, awash in early speculation about what happened and engaging in irresponsible behavior like linking to a Facebook page of a guy named Ryan Lanza who wasn't the same person. Also, the shooter might not even be Ryan Lanza. Media outlets are now indicating that the shooter is his younger brother, Adam.

  • In China, a knife-wielding man slashed 22 children at an elementary school there today. The details and extent of the injuries were not reported.
  • GOP Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal wants to allow over-the-counter sales of birth control pills to help eliminate the argument that the Republican Party hates contraceptives
  • Ron Paul supporters played a significant role in the Occupy movement, at least among those who understood how the 1 percent benefited from government largesse.
  • Western countries rejected a United Nations treaty over management of the Internet because it gave too much authority to repressive governmental regimes (even more repressive than those of the Western countries).
  • Medicaid costs are big problems in trying to balance state budgets, which doesn't bode well for efforts to expand coverage.

Have a news tip for us? Send it to: 24_7@reason.com.

The updated Reason app for Apple and Android now includes Reason 24/7!

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content

NEXT: Pro-Union Activist Threatens Michigan Governor

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.

  1. The media is, of course, awash in early speculation about what happened…

    Tragetunity!

  2. killing 6 adults and 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

    I thought it was 8 adults and 18 children. TYPICAL LIBERAL MEDIA DISTORING THE FACTS ALREADY!!!1!!1

  3. GOP Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal wants to allow over-the-counter sales of birth control pills to help eliminate the argument that the Republican Party hates contraceptives.

    He also plans to gay marry a hispanic, for the same reason.

    1. The GOP could run a gay, atheist, Mexican whose moto was I spith on Hesus. and they would still be tagged with the biggotry brush.

      1. They’re not progressive fuckheads, which means their judgment and motivations are intrinsically malevolent and incorrect.

        That gay, atheistic, Mexican Republican probably just hates himself and can’t bring himself to admit the righteous cause of the great Left!

        1. I’ve actually had conversations like this:

          “All people of a particular identity group believe a certain thing.”

          “No, they don’t. In fact, most of those whom I know don’t.”

          “Let me speculate as to their motivations and as to how they’re giving up their identity.”

          1. Sounds like any Reason article about liberals.

            1. “Sounds like any Reason article about liberals.”

              nice try joe, thats a fallacy.

              libertariana tu quoque – the fallacy of witnessing a libertarian being hypocritical

        2. Are you trying to tell me, then that RGIII really is a real black man? BUt I was told that since he’s a Republican, he can’t possibly be black.

          1. It’s only racism if a filthy Rethuglicant says it. Otherwise, it’s insightful sociopolitical commentary upon the state of contemporary America.

            1. So he’s not a “house nigger?” He isn’t a “cornball brother?” Is that what you mean to tell me?

          2. All real brothers down with the struggle think exactly the same things at all times.

            1. To espn’s credit they did suspend him.

      2. Yeah, the Southern strategy has long legs.

        1. Too bad you don’t! ZING!!!

          (because you’re short)

      3. The GOP could run a gay, atheist, Mexican whose moto was I spith on Hesus. and they would still be tagged with the biggotry brush.

        Pffft, just another Uncle Aunt Juan.

        1. Pffft, just another Uncle Aunt Juan.

          Tia Juan.

  4. All the usual scum are reveling in this. Fucking ghouls.

    1. Garbage in, garbage out.

  5. Gojira,

    In a thread from a couple weeks ago you mentioned trying to play Star Trek: Birth of the Federation.

    There is a free fan made “updated” version of that at http://www.startreksupremacy.com/

    It’s basically the same Master of Orion clone as the old game, only it doesn’t have the massive memory leak. It also plays nicer with modern Windows versions.

    1. Cool!

  6. Ron Paul supporters played a significant role in the Occupy movement, at least among those who understood how the 1 percent benefited from government largesse.

    Neither group apparently fully understanding the other and definitely having different remedies for the situation.

    1. I met Occupy people who were convinced that Ron Paul was an ardent environmentalist.

      I shit you not.

      1. I’d argue that he’s a conservationist, which is good, but not an environmentalist. Which is also good.

  7. The media is, of course, awash in early speculation about what happened and engaging in irresponsible behavior like linking to a Facebook page of a guy named Ryan Lanza who wasn’t the same person. Also, the shooter might not even be Ryan Lanza. Media outlets are now indicating that the shooter is his younger brother, Adam.

    This actually lends me more respect for the way the Jovan Belcher story broke. There was a good 5-6 hours after news of a Chiefs player killing himself before any significant details like the name or position came out. I still think it was too soon, and was upset with the way new information would leak out every 20-30 minutes, while still “protecting” the identity for the sake of the families.

    Damn, and I thought my anthropology degree was useless. I should’ve gotten a journalism degree and learned how to fact-check NOTHING.

    1. Why the flying fuck would that cheer anybody up?

      1. See every comment thread in which the cops raid a house and shoot someone, or even a dog. (Note: I wrote “some of you”)

        1. They were serving a search warrant on a violent criminal, and they weren’t even using a SWAT team. None of it should be cheering anybody up.

          1. They were part of a SWAT team serving a search (not arrest) warrant and the other occupant of the house hasn’t yet been charged with a crime. No drug seizures have been announced. We don’t even know if they had the “right house”.

        2. Yeah, uh-huh, no. We oppose BAD cops doing BAD things to GOOD people. When GOOD cops are killed doing GOOD things to BAD people… well, I mean, do I even need to say it? I probably do, since the fact that you posted this in the first place tells me that you don’t understand the distinction… we aren’t in favor of that happening, no.

    2. Fuck off, scum.

    3. Believe it or not, there ARE good cops out there. Save the hate for the ones who have proved they deserve it.

      With that said, however:
      http://tinyurl.com/bw23ue7

      1. Anyone who has spent more than two minutes talking to a cop is a potential narc and therefore worthy of suspicion.

  8. “GOP Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal wants to allow over-the-counter sales of birth control pills to help eliminate the argument that the Republican Party hates contraceptives

    Actually this could be a brilliant political move for the Republicans to pull.

    They could be able to position themselves as championing easier access to birth control while simultaneously eliminating the concern that religious organizations have with paying for the Birty Control of their employees because Insurance does not generally cover OTC medications

    1. They are not going to do it. They are not called the stupid party for nothing.

    2. That is absolutely brilliant from a messaging standpoint and legitimately enhances liberty.

      Which is why the GOP will fight it tooth and nail.

      1. Which is why the GOP will fight it tooth and nail.

        Without a doubt.

      2. Jindal had them at hello. They’ll do this thing. Catholics + women + pharmaceuticals + doctors + Jindal is less white than Obama = jackpot.

    3. It still wouldn’t fly for the Sandra Flukes of the world.

      I agree that OTC BC is the best route. But OTC doesn’t involve someone else paying for it, and that’s a non-starter for our feminist horde.

  9. Honestly. I could go for Daily Fail links. What a shit day.

  10. A two-gallon garden sprayer, full of gasoline and pumped up with a lot of pressure. And a single match. You still get a dead teacher and 18 dead kids in a classroom.

    Evil bastards do evil things. There are many tools they can use to accomplish their evil deeds.

    1. Any murderer could get into a car and kill countless people with it. Let’s just fucking ban everything and put ourselves into chemically induced comas. It’s the only way to be sure we’re all safe and sound.

      1. I kind of came to the conclusion today that every time there is a tragedy involving guns, I will explain to people how I could accomplish the same atrocity with off-the-shelf products available to anyone with a litte bit of cash.

        1. The rational thought ship has sailed over the horizon. We’re into brown-shirt territory, so watch who you say that to.

          1. I’ll be saying it with my gun on my hip, loaded and visible to all would-be aggressors. Fuck with me now, Brownshirt, and see what happens.

            1. Hope you’re not a White Hispanic.

              1. I’m a heavily tattooed, tall, wide Russian-American. I’m practically a neo-Nazi!

              2. For the Census I am, but for voting purposes, apparently I’m not. I didn’t see an Hispanic breakdown for Gary Johnson supporters in my county when I checked to see how many votes he got.

                1. Those are based on exit polls, so if you didn’t get asked, your vote doesn’t matter to them. You’re part of the margin of error.

      2. The only way we can truly be safe is if were dead. Nobody can hurt you when your dead. Nation suicide FTW!!!!!

        “Its the only way to be sure”

    2. A two-gallon garden sprayer, full of gasoline and pumped up with a lot of pressure. And a single match. You still get a dead teacher and 18 dead kids in a classroom.

      And I’m guessing you’d have one “extra crispy” maniac as well.

      1. The shooter in this case did not survive either.

    3. As someone pointed out, we’ve probably lost more children in schoolbus crashes than school shootings, so it isn’t objectively about saving lives.

  11. An establishment whose visitors are prohibited from possessing firearms is massacred by a psychopath with a firearm, and the supposedly logical remedy is to prohibit firearms? Mother of God. Are these mind-fuckingly retarded assholes ever going to realize or admit that they’re wrong?

    1. The answer is “no”.

      Anything else I can help you with?

    2. Michael Shermer suggested on twitter that the 2nd amendment only applied to muskets. I asked him if that meant that the 1st doesn’t protect the internet.

      So far, no response.

      1. Oh, that was you. Nice feed; I’m following now.

        1. Nice feed; I’m following now.

          She’s behind you! Look out!

      2. I’m skeptical. Hyuk hyuk hyuk.

      3. If he has any integrity, he’ll shut up and fuck off. If he doesn’t, except a quasi-incoherent, retarded tirade about NRA conspiracies to conquer Einhelm.

      4. Franklin Harris ?@grandmofhelsing
        If you want to kill a bunch of kids without starting a political debate, use a drone.
        Expand

        *clap clap clap clap clap*

        1. Agreed, that’s the best thing I think anyone will write about the CT tragedy.

          1. Except the brilliant journalistic behemoths at MSNBC, who’ll surely write many fantastic and insightful articles about how guns drink the blood of innocent minority children as they sleep in their working-class beds.

          2. Didn’t we used to have a Franklin Harris who’d comment here from time to time?

            1. Same guy, I believe. He’s of a libertarian bent and follows many of the usual suspects on twitter, which is where I know him from.

        2. “Drone and drone! What is drone?!”

          That was beyond excellent, Mr. Harris.

        3. Oh, and I’m completely stealing that.

        4. I’d like to see this photo caption in a New York paper:

          Mayor Gives Speech Demanding Gun Control While Heavily Armed Security Detail Looks On.

          1. The “Onion” would sue for copyright infringement.

        5. That only works for people who happen to be president while also being a democrat.

    3. If only the principal was packing.

      This could not possibly go wrong.

  12. Afro Hair Studio wins fight over cutting ‘white men’s hair’

    The owner of a Vancouver hair salon has won a bitter tenancy dispute in which he claimed a landlord attempted to make him promise not to cut “white men’s hair.”

    The landlord tried to change the contract so as to protect another business (a barber) in the same building.

    Protectionism: OK for governments, not so much for landlords, I guess.

    (Mostly I’m posting this because I get a kick out of the name Afro Hair Studio).

  13. “Ron Paul supporters played a significant role in the Occupy movement, at least among those who understood how the 1 percent benefited from government largesse.”

    Those were the blue republicans….I hope. And why is Reason constantly trying to convince us that OWS is “good”? And exactly how does the so called “1%” benefit from government “largesse” when its really the “47%” they leaches off of big government. Remember when you Reason hipsters attacked Romney over his “47%” remark, but constantly made excuses and arguments for the “libertarian”(bullshit) OWS.

    I have to say, I have only met a few RP supporters that are genuinely small government libertarians/conservatives.

    1. How does it feel to be so retarded?

        1. 😛

    2. Hipster Reason writers, not those who are down here.

    3. Remember when you Reason hipsters attacked Romney over his “47%” remark, but constantly made excuses and arguments for the “libertarian”(bullshit) OWS.

      You have a very different experience with Reason than I do. Because you seem to have gotten it completely backward. Like, absolutely incorrect.

      1. You obviously have never read any Doherty article.

        1. Everybody from me to the several one-time posters the site got around that time shat mountains onto the Occutards.

          1. Hahahaha, UBOR calling out Doherty. You would know how retarded this is if you read anything he’s actually written.

            1. Hmmmm, so I guess “Ron Paul: Man of the Left” means nothing to you?

              1. I guess it means nothing to you, since it’s mainly about how he was ignored by them despite sharing things they supposedly value.

              2. You didn’t read past the headline did you?

                1. Are you replying to me? Because I was talking to UBOR.

                  1. No, I was replying to UBOR.

            2. Isn’t everything Doherty wrote nothing but a plug for some book he wrote?

        2. Doherty, is that the guy who wrote a book or something about Ron Paul?

  14. As if we needed more proof that Jezebel lives in a universe outside of our reality:

    Yoko Ono’s Cover of Katy Perry’s ‘Firework’ Is the Best Thing Ever

    I am not being hyperbolic when I say that Yoko Ono’s performance of Katy Perry’s “Firework” is my favorite thing in the entire world. Such spirit! Such whimsy! Maybe if we beg enough, she’ll cover the entire Katy Perry catalog.

    1. No thanks. I can open the window and listen to cats screaming any time.

    2. This has got to be epic trolling.

  15. Jezebel’s reasoned response: Fuck you, Guns

    1. Fuck you, NRA. You guys are fucking murderers.

      Good thinking there, girls.

      1. Fuck you, NRA. You guys are fucking murderers.

        Huh. I wonder who the harpies voted for in the presidential election?

        1. Not Romney. He would have done-murdered a bunch of children or something.

          1. He would have triple tapped instead of double tapped. The monster.

          2. Not Romney. He would have done-murdered a bunch of children or something.

            We call that “compassionate bombing.”

      2. Ladies why don’t you just ring up STEVE SMITH right now for an evening of rapey merriment!

    2. At least twenty-seven people including twenty little kids were massacred today at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, according to the most recent reports. As of now, it’s the second-deadliest shooting in U.S. history. How could such a thing happen? Easily: Because we refuse to talk about gun control in this country.

      I’m certainly glad to see that Jezebel isn’t politicizing this.

      1. Not only are they politicizing it but they don’t think it is being politicized hard enough:

        Fuck you, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, for saying that “today is not that day” to discuss gun control. The only acceptable explanation for that statement is that you got cut off from saying, “because yesterday was.”

      2. respect doesn’t mean shit to the dozens of families who just lost their little kids and loved ones. Respect them by starting the conversation right now. Start it tonight.

        Fuck you with a sharpened, disease ridden stake, you loathsome cunt. You have NO IDEA what opinions these family members hold on gun control, or if they own guns. For people who are so obsessed over male appropriation of various aspects of society, they certainly are willing to appropriate other peoples’ tragedies and ability to express themselves when it comes to their own political causes.

        1. ^ That is pretty much the most accurate Jezebel comment I have ever read

          1. I’m sure it will be removed post-haste.

            1. Because to the Left, “discussion” is fine so long as they’re the only ones talking and the conclusion is foreordained.

              1. Because to the Left, “discussion” is fine so long as they’re the only ones talking and the conclusion is foreordained.

                For the right too, but this is spot on.

      3. Because we refuse to talk about gun control in this country.

        I know they’re Jezzies, but I wish they’d grow some balls and say “you” when they mean you. Implying that “we” don’t talk about gun control is just absurd.

        1. Implying that “we” don’t talk about it is absurd. When they say “talk” about gun control what they really mean is pass overtly statist legislation to keep icky rednecks from getting their guns.

      4. I thought Jezebel was against reproduction and for Aborting infants?

        1. They are….but they have hobby causes as well.

      5. We talk about gun control non-fucking-stop. What they mean when they say “we never talk about gun control” is that they always lose, and there are still enough people with enough respect for freedom, at least on that front.

      6. The Right is blathering about how taking the 10 commandments out of schools caused this to happen.

        1. Dog bites man, joe. They say the same thing about hurricanes.

          1. Never mind the Victorian Era’s unprecedented church attendance levels and yet they had plenty of deaths and destruction from plenty of hurricanes.

    3. This is Fuck You Week, Jezebel’s first annual week of desperate emotional cleansing and unhinged psychic purging. And yeah, considering what happened today, we feel weird about it ? but still. It’s relevant.

      Oh, well if Jezebel says it’s bad, I’d guess we better listen.

      1. Also, I’m pretty sure every week at Jezebel is a week of desperate emotional cleansing and unhinged psychic purging.

        1. Also, I’m pretty sure every week post at Jezebel is a week post of desperate emotional cleansing and unhinged psychic purging.

        2. This one is particularly bad. They have to go over to their sister’s house either this week for haunukah or in two weeks for Xmas, and watch their parents shower love on a bunch of undeserving snot factories while her sister and brother-in-law get all the compliments on their nice, normal lives. For some, their only hope is that daddy passes out before he tells them to shut the fuck up and quit being a raging bitch.

          1. They HAVE to go? Boo fucking hoo. If someone agrees to come over to my place it had damn well better be because they expect to have a good time here. If they’re going to show up and whine the whole time we’d all be happier if they stayed the fuck away in the first place. How hard is it to just say no?

          2. Somehow, I think you pegged Jezzie holidays exactly.

      2. Also, I’m pretty sure every week at Jezebel is a week of desperate emotional cleansing and unhinged psychic purging.

        1. Not entirely accurate…..really only about 11 days a month! It is however monthly!

    4. Prohibitionist cuntstains attain a new badge — Ultimate Retard Level 9,000.

    5. I just went to my gun cabinet for comment. My guns don’t care what the Jezzies say.

      1. Bravo, sir! I went to the .308 and 12 ga. concealed near the front door and did likewise.

  16. Republicans keep getting sensible suggestions like weakening IP protection and making birth control otc. And yet these are shot down by the party elite every fucking time.

    Seriously, who’s sucking the party elite’s dick to make such dumb moves?

    1. Sounds the like party elite are doing the sucking.

  17. Fuck You, Rape Culture

    Fuck you, rapists. You were all over the fucking place in 2012, to the point where Barack Obama had to explain to Jay Leno that “rape is rape,” in case there was any confusion. Repeat: the president of our country had to make time to appear on national television and reiterate that rape is always a crime[…]

    Still confused? Here’s an alphabetical list of the rape-related insanity we’ve had to put up with in 2012.

    I submit this article as proof that “rape culture” is the most incoherent thing outside of a Yoko Ono performance.

    1. I tried to explain it to my bf a couple nights ago…it was…not successful.

      1. You grasp this rape culture thing? Please try to mansplain it to me, too.

        1. No, you know that thing people say about how you don’t know if you really understand something until you try to explain it to someone else? Yeah. I can’t help at all.

      2. STOP FEMSPLAINING US!

        1. STOP FEMSPLAINING US!

          Please. That’s shit’s sticky and nasty!

      3. You have to explain it to him after he rapes you. Context, yo.

      4. Your boyfriend didn’t grasp the concept of rape culture? OMG! That’s ipso facto evidence that you’re in danger of being raped by him…at any moment!!!

        1. Oh, well what with intoxicated people not being able to give consent and all, I most definitely am. As he is by me.

          1. I have two words for you: Chastity belts. It’s the only answer.

          2. Oh, well what with intoxicated people not being able to give consent and all, I most definitely am. As he is by me.

            Pics or it didn’t happen.

            1. You know, audio clips enhance any photographic presentation…

        2. Your boyfriend didn’t grasp the concept of rape culture? OMG! That’s ipso facto evidence that you’re in danger of being raped by him…at any moment!!!

          No. It means that she’s being raped every moment they are together, or that he is thinking about her.

      5. You should mansplain to him that disagreeing with feminists leads to sarcastic comments about feminism leads to sarcastic comments about some women leads to disrespect of feminism leads to disrespect of some women leads to sarcastic comments about all women leads to disrespect of all women leads to endorsing violence against women leads to violence against women leads to domestic abuse leads to RAPE.

        Or something like that.

        1. That was actually a really good femsplanation, Trouser.

          1. Seconded. They probably have that up on a wall somewhere at NOW headquarters.

          2. Trouser has grokked feminism.

    2. I was vaguely curious about what the hell they were talking about, but they went all meta with their ABC’s of rape culture links, and I didn’t want to read 26 Jezebel articles.

    3. Gawker is the fucking modern Komsomol. I used to love Gizmodo and Jalopnik but they can’t even post car or tech news without some kind of leftist babble.

      1. Yep. Deadspin too.

    4. That article did not mention anything about Penn State. If there was anything close to a rape culture, Penn State would be

  18. It’s interesting how gun control advocates are going off the rails on this. They’re not making their normal “reasonable restrictions” arguments. It’s full on “end ownership of guns” and “there is no discussion of gun control in this country.” That’s funny, I seem to recall discussion of gun control in this country as far back as I can remember. They do not want to have a principled discussion. They do not want to make deals or to even attempt to negotiate. They accuse all gun owners of being murderers, paint us with a broad brush as violent troglodytes, and fail to understand the irony involved in their desire to send the might of the state crashing down on tens of millions of people’s lives because we own guns.

    I hope for rationality in the world, and am continually disappointed.

    1. there is no discussion of gun control in this country

      I LOVE that one. It’s been discussed to death, but they make believe that none of those discussions have ever happened because none of those discussions ended with them winning the argument.

      1. “I LOVE that one. It’s been discussed to death, but they make believe that none of those discussions have ever happened because none of those discussions ended with them winning the argument.”

        And this is no less than the FOURTH FUCKING TIME THIS YEAR (and I’m probably being conservative in my estimate) that the Left have oppurtinized a tragedy to kick off demands for gun prohibition by insisting we don’t talk about gun control anymore.

        Guess they learned a long time ago that truth is not determined by course of action, but by how many times you say something.

    2. After the election, I don’t think many leftists feel they need to compromise anymore. We see a similar attitude with the conversation about Federal spending and taxation.

      I don’t think this will end well. I am as concerned about the future of living in this country as I have been for a long time. I don’t remember things being this heated—I wasn’t around for the initial desegregation fights—or the mood before being so, “FYTW.”

      The kids aren’t even cold yet and these assholes are still waving the bloody shirt to make a political point. Just disgusting.

      1. You saw how they reacted the Michigan RTW vote.

        They’re like the Witch King in Minas Tirith. THIS IS MY HOUR!!!

    3. The conversation we are not having in this country is banning public schools. That would end school shootings more effectively than gun control.

  19. Redskins QB Robert Griffin III not black enough for one ESPN commentator:

    “He’s not real. Okay, he’s black, he kind of does the thing, but he’s not really down with the cause.”

    Surprisingly, ESPN has suspended the guy.

    http://www.foxnews.com/sports/…..e-fiancee/

    1. We all know RG3’s got a white girl, and he may or may not be Republican (waiting for his voting records to be released), so he’s got that going for him.

  20. Montreal is thinking of passing a law requiring all dogs to be bilingual:

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/si…..51154.html

    1. Canadians are odd, but French Canadians are just delightfully bonkers.

      1. The alienation quote is still great.

    2. In an inadvertently hilarious interview with the station, LaDouce (who was deadly serious) says he was inspired to propose the law after a dog began licking his face and did not respond to French commands.
      “Our alienation from each other was absolute,” LaDouce said.

      Holy shit, that’s the best thing I’ve heard all day.

      1. I look forward to the canine version any day now, with a Quebecois byline:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M7ibPk37_U

    3. If you follow links to the, uh, source, it takes you to CBC’s “This is That” section, which is satire.

      This Is That is a current affairs program that doesn’t just talk about the issues, it fabricates them.

      1. You’d think LaDouche (spelling corrected) would have tipped people off.

      2. “This Is That” is the greatest program on the CBC. Even better than “The Debaters”

        1. Afganada dude.

    4. It’s that massive influx of French immigrants you see, they never assimilated and it’s ruined Canada. All of Canada’s socialist tendencies can be tied to them. They’ve drug down the upstanding British-descended freedom lovers with their French opinionated culture and refusal to give it up. Their saving grace is that they didn’t mix with the British, which would have brought down Canada even further. We can’t let the same thing happen here!

  21. So after what happened today, do any of you fucks want to defend the right to own bladed weapons?

    1. If I were you, I’d work on defending my right to own a brain that could clearly be better used by someone else.

    2. I think you mean “braded weapons.”

    3. Shouldn’t you be gently caressing the cock of the Communist Party?

      1. He can multitask.

    4. Well, I see what you did there, even if no one else appreciates it.

      1. I appreciated it, quite funny.

      2. I appreciated it. Well played.

        1. I appreciated it. Well played.

          THIS

  22. Early reviews for Django Unchained are in, and it’s looking good!

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/…..op_critics

    1. Good to hear.

      1. Good to hear.

        Me too. I’ve been dreading the day Tarantino makes a misstep, but that day is apparently not yet upon us. I can’t wait to see this movie.

        1. Didn’t you see Death Proof?

        2. Death Proof?

          1. Death Proof?

            While I think Death Proof is the least of Tarantino’s works, I still liked it and though it was well done. Not nearly as much fun as Planet Terror, of course.

            1. Planet Terror was fun, but Death Proof just made me itch. Spent the entire time scratching and squirming, and eventually wanting it to be put out of its misery.

        3. Jackie Brown could have been much better though it didn’t outright suck like Death Proof.

          1. Jackie Brown is very good but way too long.

            1. Pretty much agree. A tighter movie is about all I would ask for with Jackie Brown.

    2. In other news, The Hobbit’s retarded 48-frame presentation completely and utterly fucked it up for me. I’m waiting for the Blu-ray release to render final judgment, because I couldn’t concentrate on anything in theater.

      1. Hey, I’m curious about why that is. Did the screen appear to be flickering or something?

        1. This confuses me. I would think that a higher frame rate would reduce any problems like that, sort of how 60hz florescent lighting gives people headaches but 120hz doesn’t.

          1. Yeah, that’s why I’m asking. I’d think 48 frames would be easier on the eyes, not harder.

          2. Our eyes read celluloid where the image slides to the next one with a degree of fluidity, technically an interpolation between images occurs. Whereas, with digital each image is rebuilt per frame. 48 frames per second is below the rate that looks smooth to first person shooter players. Tourney pros for Quake Arena demand around 200.

            That may not explain what is occurring here though. Is the projection digital? I’m not familiar with the tech they are using.

            1. Of course it doesn’t. The “regular” framerate is 24 FPS.

              1. If the projection is digital it would explain the difference. Interpolated 24 fps is much smoother on the eyeball than digitally rendered 48 fps (I build rasterizers, this is a professional opinion).

                1. “(I build rasterizers, this is a professional opinion).”

                  appeal to authority, – fps denier.

        2. Everything was unnaturally accelerated to the point it literally gave me a headache, heavily distracted from details on-screen, and made it feel (as Karl described perfectly below) like some shitty History Channel documentary on a midget rebellion in 1st-century Germania.

          Fuck that stupid shit.

        3. It’s weird how I saw this problem coming. I always thought a lot of movies looked weird on high-def, like it wasn’t a movie. The 48-fps is making the movie look to real. Ironically, it makes the props look really fake. The most important part of art is only showing what needs to be shown. Too much detail detracts from the point and even negates it.

      2. In other news, The Hobbit’s retarded 48-frame presentation completely and utterly fucked it up for me.

        When it comes to movies, 24p is where it’s at; anything else gives the movie that soap opera look. I intend to see it in the theater (despite the lukewarm reviews), but I’ll be glad when I get it on Blu-ray, as the machine will downscale it to 24p.

        1. Some theaters are showing it at the normal speed (24, or slightly lower), and I just saw a small preview of it at that speed, and it’s just a completely different movie. My ticket purchase was a complete waste of money. I’ll have to find a place screening it at 24 frames, I guess, and rewatch it.

          1. Some theaters are showing it at the normal speed (24, or slightly lower), and I just saw a small preview of it at that speed, and it’s just a completely different movie.

            Didn’t know that! I’ll have to see if I can find out which theaters in my city are showing it in 24p.

            I’m glad you said something.

        2. As for the movie itself (that awful, bitching-inducing frame rate aside), I thought it was consistently very good, but not on the same level as Jackson’s last trilogy.

          1. Man, this year has had so much movie dissapointment.

            1. Jackson just drags it too much. With the Rings trilogy, he dragged it very skilfully, and even the mundane filler worked well, but he’s really pushed the limits too far this time. It’s good, and I’m sure the second and third movies are going to be a great treat, but it’s not going to be another LOTR.

              1. Well the LOTR books are WAY longer than The Hobbit, so dragging wasn’t necessary.

      3. 3D sucks ass. All of it. Every time I see a 3D movie I hate myself for doing it again. Th last was John Carter. Such a fucking distraction I still can’t tell you what happened.

        Are they offering a 2D version in theaters?

        1. Yep. And I only saw the 3D variant because the friend I went to see it with, an “OH LORD THESE EFFECTS ARE, LIKE, AWESOMELY RAD” college girl, convinced me too. I sweat to Christ — never again.

          1. *to

          2. I swear, too, but sweating’s good, too.

        2. Another reason to hate Avatar as if you needed it.

          1. I walked out of Avatar about 25 minutes before it ended. I literally couldn’t take any more of its shit. It’s the first time ever I’ve walked out of a movie.

            1. *Applause*

            2. Similarly, I’ve only walked out of three movies in my life, and all of them ended up winning Best-Picture Oscars. Titanic, American Beauty and Forrest Gump. All presumptuous and whiny pieces of shit.

            3. The only movie I ever walked out of was Highlander 2. Five hundred years ago on the planet Zeist WTF!

  23. How about all those who want to round up guns volunteer to be the ones doing the rounding up? Go knock on doors in the worst areas of Detroit or tool around the remote parts of Montana and politely ask
    to be shown where all the weapons are.

    1. An oppressive mob going door-to-door and attempting to confiscate arms would meet just and righteous violent resistance. Let the fuckers try.

      1. An oppressive mob going door-to-door and attempting to confiscate arms would meet just and righteous violent resistance. Let the fuckers try.

        Violent resistance down in the trenches, full-scale jury rebellion in the courts.

        Any campaign of physical confiscation would be dead on arrival.

        1. Violent resistance down in the trenches, full-scale jury rebellion in the courts.

          And that’s would it would get real ugly. And all of the violence will have been perpetrated by the government.

  24. So who else is experiencing the strange popup windows anytime you click for the first time within the reason web site? Each time I load a page here, the very first click (whether on text, picture, or whitespace) causes a popunder window to open, going to one of several different sites? This is really really bad internet etiquette.

    1. Yes, I got it, and I have some blockers.

      1. I have sent an e-mail to Nick about it.

    2. I’m getting it too (intermittently) in Chrome and Safari/iOS. Hey guys, what’s the deal with making me feel like it’s 2001?

  25. Why I’m a feminist.

    Does this mean I should be a feminist too? Cause I get worse than this everytime I go to Austin (by both male and female).

    1. I didn’t make it all the way through, but…I just can’t even…

      1. I understand. It’s very traumatic. I should have included a trigger warning.

      2. …summon up the will to care about this bitch’s first world problems?

        1. My god man, show some sympathy. Someone poked that poor woman in the boob when she was 12. This is why there are no female libertarians.

          1. *slow clap*

            Congrats on proving her point. Our society blames victims.

            Women can’t be libertarians? Sorry, I didn’t realize a desire for body autonomy was counter to a desire for less government control and more personal liberties.

            Someone once said “Your freedom to swing your fist ends when your fist contacts my face.”

            Crazy to think the same think should apply in sexual situations as well. Totally anti-libertarian of me and other women.

            1. Also, she voted for Gary Johnson.

              But again, she couldn’t possibly be a libertarian because she’s a woman who disagree with you!

              http://virginconfessions20s.bl…..t-how.html

            2. Brita filter for sarcasm is leaky.

  26. (Tried to post this a few minutes ago and it never appeared. If it double-posts, my apologies.)

    I let my NRA membership lapse a while back, and it occurs to me that this may be a good time to renew it. OR should I instead go for one of the other orgs like GOA or 2nd Amendment Foundation? What say you all?

    1. NRA are sorta squishy but they are very,very effective.

      1. Yeah. GOA’s better on their positions, but they’re too small. The NRA is powerful enough to make a difference.

        1. One of the most important factors for a movement’s success is the correct amount of disunity. The ‘fringes’ just make the main movement more able to attack. It’s like triangulation. This is how Sierra Club and Greenpeace and all the other cogs of the Green Machine work.

          1. On the other hand, one of the few encouraging things I saw today on Twitter was that everyone knew “who to blame” (NRA), while none of them actually knew who was “on their side” (Brady). I actually saw people saying that.

            And it didn’t make them think for one second that perhaps they were actually outnumbered in their views.

            1. You know that great quote about how all it takes is a vocal minority to set brush fires to people’s mind for the cause of freedom to prevail? Same shit applies to hoplophobes. They’re pretty vocal.

        2. The problem with GOA is

          1) They don’t really do anything, except
          2) They spend an inordinate amount of time bitching about the NRA, which is probably why they don’t get shit done.

          SAF is probably the most effective organization for pushing gun rights through the courts (they’re responsible for basically every single major RKBA ruling), while the NRA is better at dealing with the legislatures.

          1. The NRA did spearhead an important court case involving gun confiscation in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

            And their concerns about the dangers of Heller were well-founded. If Kennedy got up on the wrong side of the bed that morning, or the conservatives insisted on a strong decision, we would have had a precedent-setting decision saying 2A was meaningless.

    2. I have been very disappointed in NRA because of:

      1. Their opposition to efforts to relax NFA regulations
      2. Their complicity in drafting several federal gun control laws
      3. Their foot dragging in the “assault weapons” ban repeal efforts
      4. Their hostility to the Heller case until it looked like it was going to be won, and their subsequent attempt to take credit for the result.

      That said, I am tempted to renew my membership as a symbolic gesture (I’d like to see membership in all pro-firearms rights organizations swell in response to calls for increased gun regulation) as well as redouble my giving to other such orgs.

      1. The NRA is effective politically and legislatively. The 2nd Amendment Foundation has had great success in the courts.

        I would recommend anyone concerned with their rights to see if you have an effective state-level organization like GeorgiaCarry.org that works to protect and reclaim your rights in the statehouse and the state courts.

      2. Like SIV says.

        Check out PAFOA. They have a pretty good forum too. If you sign up let me know, and I’ll quit lurking there and sign up too.

        1. I’m on PAFOA, but I haven’t visited there in a long time.

    3. I let my NRA membership lapse a while back, and it occurs to me that this may be a good time to renew it. OR should I instead go for one of the other orgs like GOA or 2nd Amendment Foundation? What say you all?

      The NRA loves their Socons and Neocons, but like SIV said, they’re effective. Best bet, if you can swing it, is to join both.

  27. Hilarious exchange about financial abortion.

    If it links right it should be all the comments you see.

    1. Why “of course”?

      1. Cause there wasn’t a NSFW tag.

    2. Policeone comments are nauseating as ever.

      As an aside, I went to PoliceOne and read some of the subscriber comments regarding today’s shootings. Without exception they recognize that gun laws would have done nothing to prevent this, that the school being a gun-free zone didn’t stop the killer, and that opportunistic politicians are going to dance in blood of these kids and use this tragedy to further their sick agenda. Many were also on board with arming teachers.

      Maybe I’m wrong, but I take some comfort in what I read there.

      1. Odd. Usually they’re evenly split on gun laws. Mostly along rural vs city lines.

        1. Odd. Usually they’re evenly split on gun laws. Mostly along rural vs city lines.

          I ran across a survey of the rank-and-file officers of some southern California PD a few years ago. May or may not have been LAPD. Anyway, they queried officers as to their thoughts on gun control. Overwhelmingly, the respondents were supportive of gun rights, including CCW by non-LEOs. I recall even the CCW questions had like 85% support. Imma try to dig that survey up.

          But yeah, rank-and-file cops, as a whole, are very pro-RKBA.

          1. I think cops realize now that CCW actually means fewer dangerous situations that they have to get involved in, as opposed to more which is the gunbanner “logic”. The higher-up cops in blue areas have to suck up to Team Blue to have hopes of getting/keeping sheriff or commissioner jobs or getting into politics.

            1. We shouldn’t dismiss, even if only a partial rationalization, for cops to support RTBA is the fact that part of the reason why they are cops is because they love guns.

              1. Most of the cops I’ve conversed with aren’t “gun guys” and really know fuck-all about guns.

                It’s entirely possible that the people who make up law enforcement aren’t some dog-shooting monolith of fascist groupthink…..

      2. Arming teachers seems at first glance like a reasonable move, but then as my daughter pointed out, would you want any of the public school teachers you’ve personally met armed? So on second thought, maybe not so good of an idea. We should just ban public schools.

  28. ?”I’m a libertarian who believes in freedom, but even I have had it with guns. Too many nutters & psychopaths. The time for gun control is now.” —Michael Shermer

    I think this actually is a better argument for increased access and support for mental health services. Just saying. I wonder why the discussion always goes to gun control first, rather than “what can we do to reduce the number of crazy, angry people?”

    1. Fuck Shermer. Is he one of those ‘sceptics’ who now goes whole hog on CAGW?

      1. Most self-proclaimed “skeptics” are anything but.

        1. Hey!!!

          1. How do you feel about second-hand smoke?

            1. I’m for it!

    2. I’m a libertarian who believes in freedom,…

      No, Shermer, you’re not.

    3. Hey, what about that Norweigan dude? Tell me again how their gun control laws stack up to ours.

      1. Norway’s gun laws aren’t as bad as many would think. They’re about 1/2 way between here and, say, France or England.

  29. Ron Paul supporters played a significant role in the Occupy movement, at least among those who understood how the 1 percent benefited from government largesse.

    So about 1%? Maybe?

    1. Any role Ronulans played in OWS formation is to their discredit.

  30. No child left behind.

    GWINNETT COUNTY, Ga. ? The father of a severely disabled Gwinnett high school student is questioning the district’s curriculum and grading policy.
    Although Wes DeWeese’s 18-year-old son, Jared, cannot speak words, walk, read or write, he received outstanding scores in courses including algebra, biology and world history.

    “My wife and I were pretty astounded. Glad he’s getting 90s and 100s. But he can’t do any of these. He has the mental capacity of a 6-month-old,” DeWeese said.

    DeWeese contacted Channel 2’s Tom Regan because he believes the transcript and grades give a distorted and misleading record of his son’s abilities and cognitive skills.

    “This basically is telling me they’re giving them scores of 100 because this reflects on the overall schools. There’s no way Jared can do algebra. I don’t think people in Jared’s case should be graded on anything like this. It should be on the skills set forth, goals the parents set with the teachers,” DeWeese said.

    1. I don’t think people in Jared’s case should be graded on anything like this. It should be on the skills set forth, goals the parents set with the teachers,” DeWeese said.

      Ummm…that is what those grades are based on. I think DeWeese needs to look more carefully at his son’s IEP.

      1. There were no goals in algebra he could possibly have met. Even if you use the lowest standards, he still has to solve for x at some point.

        1. The kid can be enrolled in a class called “algebra” which uses a highly modified curriculum that contains no algebra whatsoever.

          1. Which is why the article said:

            DeWeese contacted Channel 2’s Tom Regan because he believes the transcript and grades give a distorted and misleading record of his son’s abilities and cognitive skills.

          2. Where I come from we call that “fraud”.

    2. Nice. “My son’s an idiot (in the old literal meaning) how the fuck is he passing algebra?”

      I like this guy.

    3. But he can’t do any of these. He has the mental capacity of a 6-month-old

      His teachers are just getting on his good side for when they have to work with him.

    4. Well, here’s part of the problem:

      “Schools have to offer access to regular education courses for students with significant cognitive disabilities. We take those courses you see other students taking and we adapt those courses so students with significant cognitive disabilities can have access to those courses,” Gwinnett School District Spokeswoman Sloan Roach said.”

      What purpose does it serve to have a kid who is this severely mentally disabled be required to take regular school courses? If this is true of what the state requires, teachers and I kind of sympathise with the adminstrators, they are in a no-win situation here.

  31. Congresswoman Says She Will Embarrass Obama on Gun Control
    In the wake of the deadly Connecticut school shooting, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy said she has warned the White House “the gloves are off” if President Obama fails to act on the issue.

    Rep. Jerrold Nadler Calls for a “War” With the NRA
    New York Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler called for a “war” on the National Rifle Association in light of the mass shooting in Connecticut today in an interview with Salon, saying the gun lobby group is the “enabler of mass murderers.”

    you know a torrent of this is coming…

    1. The mask is off.

      1. Just take a quick peek around Facebook.

        1. No think you!

        2. I have multitudes of friends (mostly women no less) criticizing the media coverage and blaming it on either the way news glorifies mass killers or on gun-free zones.

          Facebook isn’t so awful if your friends list only contains… actual friends.

    2. Congresswoman Says She Will Embarrass Obama on Gun Control

      I’m sure she will.

      the gun lobby group

      Interesting, the ACLU is never called a lobby group.

      1. That’s the new spin, at least for the past coupla years.

        The NRA isn’t a citizens group, ’cause gosh dangit there is no way that many winggunnutz are out there: it’s a industry lobbying group funded by firearm corporations and the koch brothers, or something.

        I love watching the left go apoplectic on gun control. It’s amusing. They just can’t grasp that most Americans are pro-2nd, “I don’t even know one person with a gun!”

        1. Just like I didn’t know anyone 15 years ago who was gay.

          1. You must have been lonely.

            1. Where I was 15 years ago, gays probably would have been beaten to a pulp. My point is that people don’t volunteer things that could be “trouble”, just like gun owners don’t tend to blather to people about their guns unless they’re known to be cool.

              1. My point is that people don’t volunteer things that could be “trouble”, just like gun owners don’t tend to blather to people about their guns unless they’re known to be cool.

                Agreed. The only indication that I may give others that I own a gun is that I’m a known hunter. I’m not ashamed of it and will talk about it with anyone willing to listen. I’d like to think that I might be a good example to non gun owners who might otherwise be anti-gun. But in times like this it doesn’t fucking matter. The left gives no indication that the 2A is not a law or an excess of the citizenry, but an inalienable RIGHT which isn’t under negotiation.

                If anything is going to spark a rash of gun sales, it’s knee-jerk reactions like this from the left. Gun owning Americans everywhere are wondering just how soon until the next big gun control legislation is going to drop, and will seek to beat it.

        2. I only know one person without at least one gun, and yeah she voted for Obama.

  32. I’m sure this was already posted in the morning links, but it deserves one more go-round.

    Candice Swanepoel asks “Does this make my ass look big?”

    1. This should tide me over until the gf gets home from dinner with her friends. Thanks.

      1. I have something better, one of the best photos of the year from the always great “Nightlife” galleries from The Local (Sweden):

        http://www.thelocal.se/gallery/nightlife/2722/2/

        SFW, barely.

    2. Stunning. But a couple of shots have that “somebody farted something nasty!” face.

  33. Maybe I missed it:
    “President Barack Obama has proposed saving more than $4 trillion over the next decade”
    IOWs, a promise he won’t keep shooting up if he gets one more hit, right? Well:
    “The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that without a deal to curb annual budget deficits now exceeding $1 trillion, the government’s cumulative debt will climb by an additional $10 trillion over the coming decade.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/business…..119220.php
    Maybe someone in the MSM is going to start calling him on his bullshit?

    1. “The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that without a deal to curb annual budget deficits now exceeding $1 trillion, the government’s cumulative debt will climb by an additional $10 trillion over the coming decade.”

      Funny how it’s bad enough with the current CBO projections, since a today I was just reading this:

      But does anyone remember how utterly flawed CBO projections are? These guys never, ever get it right. Ever.

      In January 2001, for example, the CBO projected a cumulative budget surplus of $5.6 trillion over the next ten years (from 2002-2011). That same 10-year period actually ended up being a deficit of $6.1 trillion? an error of $11.7 trillion. This is more than the size of the entire US economy at the time they made the prediction. Oops.

      The following year, post-9/11, the 2002-2011 projection was still off by $7.7 trillion. They further presumed that the US federal debt would be $1.27 trillion by the end of 2012. They were only off by a factor of 10. No biggie.

      The real key is preventing the enormous $16.4 trillion debt the government owes from growing faster than the now $15.8 trillion U.S. economy.

      The big picture: Unfunded Liabilities vs President’s Tax Hike

      1. That’s not the CBO’s fault. They have to assume no changes to existing law. Spending was ramped up every year during the Bush administration and now the BO administration too.

        1. Yes, it is. The asinine assumptions the CBO is required to make means their reports are slways flawed. Having to pretend the CBO numbers are real because they are “official” and “non-partsan” has a huge distortion effect on the debate over fiscal politics. It is one of the bases for treating tax rate cuts the same as spending. The sooner the CBO can be discredited as a source, the better.

          Now , that’s not necessarily the fault of the people running the numbers for the CBO. They don’t choose what asumptions they have to work with.

  34. Fuck you Republicans. We don’t want cheaper and more accessible birth control. We want to jump through government mandated hoops so we can get it for free.

    1. I like the comments where they all get mad at the concept that women should be prepared for the consequences of having sex. One says “Mmkay, pumpkin.”
      How is it that this site is half about how sex with men is rape, and the other half is that women should be able to have sex with any man anytime she likes and not have any repercussions?

      Another commenter says the consequences of sex shouldn’t be on her shoulders, no, rather there “should have adequate social, family, government and employment support to raise their children.”

      1. Modern feminism, is, at it’s root, the fight against acknowledging female agency.

  35. This is a topic I’ve been thinking about for a long time, and it is generally anathema to my thinking to apply some sort of test to gun ownership rights. However, what say you all on the topic of mental health tests?

    My objections:
    1. Self defense and the right to be armed are natural rights, not to be subject to any test.
    2. Potential abuse of the definitions of “mental health” in the process to deny arbitrarily people’s rights
    3. Registration records (which admittedly are kept anyway via ATF Forms 4473)
    4. Potential for too-frequently-repeated tests, making firearms ownership too onerous for many
    5. Potential for increased monetary cost of firearms ownership

    Potential pluses (if a system could be made to work):
    1. Reduction (by how much? for how long?) of mass killings via firearms
    2… ?

    Giving way on this will never solve the gun control problem for gun owners, and it would likely have a very minimal impact on crime, even on shocking events such as today’s.

    Any discussion?

    1. It has the power to be abused. For example, membership in a militia might be enough for a judge to declare someone mentally unstable.

      1. There is huge potential for abuse here, I agree. I’m looking for arguments against. This is one of the ones that is least likely to stick with liberals and statists, but may work well with more moderate folks if it’s not phrased in paranoid terms.

        1. Argument for the right: Obama will take say the desire to own a gun is prima facie evidence that you’re too unstable to own one.

          Argument fot the left: The next republican administration will say that not being a Christian is evidence that you’re too unstable to procreate or engage in free speech or receive welfare or …

          Neither side will accept “it’s none of the government’s business” as an argument.

          1. That’s sad and also probably true.

    2. As a pragmatist, #2 is the biggest problem for me. You can’t design an objective mental health test.

      Plus most of these shooters wouldn’t have seemed dangerously mentally ill a year before their rampages. (Loughner is a possible exception, though without hindsight it would have been hard to distinguish him from the average harmless weirdo.) People just snap. If you’re looking for any potential for snapping in a person you’re going to deny way too many people the ability to arm themselves.

      1. This is why I think it’s a non-starter practically. You can’t test tens of millions of people frequently enough to accomplish this without absurd expense, objectivity of the test completely aside.

      2. There is an easy way to distinguish crazy from mass murderer:

        The killers are evil.

        1. That’s not an easy way.

        2. There is an easy way to distinguish crazy from mass murderer:

          The killers are evil.

          How do you test for evil?

          1. Bring back trial by ordeal.

            1. A whole hell of a lot more people in the U.S. are gonna float this time around.

          2. By actions. How else?

            1. It’s a little late at that point, no?

              1. Yes. But it is an absolutely foolproof test.

                It would have worked in the case of Amy Bishop though. Who, for some reason, doesn’t make the lists of mass shooters the media is tossing around even though they include perpetrators with lower body counts.

                1. doesn’t make the lists of mass shooters the media is tossing around

                  Neither does Anders Breivik, probably because his attack occurred in gun control paradise.

            2. What actions?

              What the shooter did yesterday was, undeniably evil. What actions did he do prior that were relatively harmless but also evil that wwuld justify taking his rights away?

              1. We don’t know. My point is that you can hold people responsible for their actions.

                1. We can’t hold this guy responsible for his actions, since he killed himself.

                2. We can’t hold this guy responsible for his actions, since he killed himself.

          3. ask them?

            1. “When someone asks you if you’re a god, you say YES!”

          4. Don’t you watch “Most Evil”? There is a scale!

    3. The problem is, many normal people display traits found in the whack jobs, but never harm anyone. Are we going to discriminate based upon the potential that something bad MIGHT happen?

      AND

      Perhaps more importantly, if we begin the screening and it is marginally effective or not at all, you will open the argument to tighten the criteria. Over time, it gets tighter and tighter…slippery slope.

      1. All these are good arguments against. We need to have these arguments so as not to be caught flat-footed when confronted by the gun controllers.

    4. Absolutely unacceptable and ineffective.

      “Anybody who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian.”

      And for those who aren’t unstable enough to be noticed before their breakdowns and subsequent killing sprees, how would testing be effective anyway?

      It’s a complete, total, absolute no from me.

      1. I’m in your camp, RPA, but we have to consider why and what the best arguments against it are. Remember, not everyone in the country buys into the concept of natural rights, and must be convinced in other ways. If we don’t convince them, the other side will.

        1. If you’re talking about those people honest enough to change their minds when presented with a convincing argument, I totally agree, and I think it would be pretty easy to illustrate how their position’s wrong in this particular case.

          But don’t forget that many of these people are dogmatic, authoritarian, disingenuous, hoplophobic assholes — the sort of people you can’t convince.

          1. But we have to work on the ones who can be convinced. Gun rights in this country have come too far to let something like this random horrific event condemn tens of millions of law abiding citizens to disarmament.

            1. +100.

            2. Disarmament will not happen. Not yet at least, and not without some VERY ugly violence. Very ugly violence that lasts for a LONG time.

      2. I have lefty friends who occasionally make noises about mandating a license before having kids, to certify that you’ll be a good parent and all. It’s absurd on it’s face. Are they going to force women to have an abortion if they get knocked up before filling out the proper paperwork?

        Any kind of mental health test for becoming a parent or owning a firearm will be subject to absurd political machinations. It’s not only wrong, it’s completely unworkable.

        1. You could do it with mandatory birth control or reversible sterilization at the onset of puberty.

          1. And what happens if you forget to take your birth control pill?

            1. They would install a surgical apparatus holding your ova in place with MAGNETS.

              1. Buckyballs!

          2. Not at all and I’m not advocating this but

            You could rule that all newborns are wards of the state and the mother has to petition for custody. If she doesn’t get it then the kid goes to immediate adoption with no parental rights for the birth mother.

            1. That’s either dystopian science fiction -or- the USA in 10 years. Time will tell.

            2. Removing children from the custody of teenage mothers (forcefully) was not uncommon in our own past.

              Such policies were the cause of a near running segment on Unsolved Mysteries of adults looking for their birthmothers and vice versa.

              1. If only there was some kind of formal relationship men and women could enter into before having children, with mutual obligations of support for each other and the children, so as to reduce concerns about the children becoming wards of the state.

    5. In the case of the mall and, to some extent, the theater shooting, it seems that the perp’s inexperience with firearms helped mitigate the damage he could do. Similarly to terrorists, they go way overboard with the melodrama of their attacks at the “expense” of effectiveness. Just like AQ seems obsessed with attacking airplanes even though those are by far the hardest targets post 9/11 (and probably before, too), most of the nutjobs go for an “assault weapon” (yes, yes, I know) with the biggest magazine possible, even though it’s likely to be hard to operate without practice. Both the theater guy and the mall guy got foiled by jams.

      We don’t know the details of this incident yet, but another issue with the theater was lack of security with the exit door being openable without an emergency.

      1. In this case, Tupla, it appears the guy didn’t use an “assault rifle” at all, but two handguns. A Bushmaster rifle (presumably an AR variant) was found in the car he used to drive to the school, but he didn’t use it in the shooting, reportedly (see my link below).

        1. A Bushmaster rifle (presumably an AR variant) was found in the car he used to drive to the school, but he didn’t use it in the shooting, reportedly (see my link below).

          But it could have heard the gunshots of its brethren and jumped from the back seat by itself and start firing at any innocent children trying to escape.

    6. Your one plus is a BIG assumption.

      Also, no due process, no fucking test. How about a mental health test to go to church, or write a book, or hire a lawyer to defend yourself.

      And, would the people doing these crimes pass a test anyways?

      Any liberal that wants a mental health test to own a gun should be asked if there should be an IQ test to get access to birth control. Or how about a fucking poll test?

      Fuck my motherfucking goat ass, people have lost their goddamn minds.

      1. Dude. Chill. I’m trying to start a discussion whereby we develop arguments against mental health tests.

        1. Are you trying to have a blogwide conversations on mental health tests?

          1. Perhaps. It’s something I’ve been considering re: firearms ownership for some time, and now’s as good a time as any to start a discussion here among the sane.

          2. AAARARARAARAGHAGA!!!!

            *head explodes*

            1. You fail the mental health test. Report to your local meth lab for disarmament.

    7. I’m a 2nd Amendment absolutist. Federal restrictions on who could own a firearm (based on status) basically didn’t exist until the 1968 Gun Control Act.

  36. http://trib.com/news/local/cas…..4c900.html

    A gunman retreated from a Casper nail salon last week after realizing one of its customers was packing heat.

    Police say about 5:30 p.m. on Dec. 3, a man walked into Modern Nails at 2645 E. Second St. and asked a female employee if she wanted to buy some diamonds. The man walked toward the front desk area and the woman replied that she had no money to buy diamonds.

    A witness said the man then reached into his coat pocket and began to take out a silver-colored pistol.

    At that moment, a woman who was getting her nails done reached into her purse and got her own firearm. Police say the man never fully raised the gun and left the building after seeing the customer had her weapon out.

    The man is described as black, early 40s, more than 6-foot-4, about 250 pounds and very muscular. A witness said he was well-dressed and wearing light-colored slacks.

    1. Nail gun?

      1. TROLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

      2. Disregard all verbiage above the link as it was necessary to get the post past the spam filter.

        Link

        1. past, PAST, PAST, PAST… goddammit!

          EDIT FUNCTIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!

          1. Read it wrong. Fuck it. Gnight!

            1. Of course, all of this could have been prevented if there was no fucking spam filter.

  37. Found a cite stating the mother was the registered owner of all three firearms found at the site:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-20…..g-27-dead/

    It notes that the Bushmaster rifle was found in the mother’s car, which the son drove to the school, but that it evidently wasn’t used in the massacre. So, assault weapons ban would not have affected this…

    I’m still confused…I thought possession of semiautomatic rifles was illegal in CT. Maybe her rifle was grandfathered, or I’m incorrect in my reading of CT law.

    1. Depends on the rifle. The state maintains a list of specifically prohibited ones.

      1. Well, I guess it could be a Bushmaster bullpup rifle (whatever they’re called–I can’t remember).

        I do know that one can own a machinegun legally in CT only if the semiautomatic function is disabled. This is why some people buying machineguns are upset to find that the “semi” selector position doesn’t work. Chances are in this case that the gun was once registered to a CT resident.

  38. http://godfatherpolitics.com/8…..neligible/

    Over the past year, both before and since the elections, there have been a number of court cases challenging Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility. Most of the cases have been dismissed by judges for reasons that are not truly legitimate, but many feel they were dismissed to avoid the political ramifications.

    Just last week I wrote about a case that was filed in Florida, that not only challenged Obama’s eligibility, but stated that he was a direct threat to the safety and security of the United States. That case has yet to be heard.

    Yet another case filed in Alabama may present one of the best chances of producing a ruling against Obama. In this case, Hugh McInnish and others have filed suit against Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman for failure to properly verify the eligibility of Barack Obama. The case points out that the state constitution requires the Secretary of State to verify a candidate’s eligibility and that Chapman failed to accurately verify Obama’s eligibility.

  39. The Derp is getting louder:

    The people who fight and lobby and legislate to make guns regularly available are complicit in the murder of those children

    1. I blame society, which makes all of us responsible.

    2. The people who fight and lobby and legislate to make guns regularly available are complicit in the murder of those children[.]

      Said the person who almost certainly pulled the proverbial lever for Obama and His Drones.

  40. Re: the questions about how to convince fence-sitters on this, I really think that simply pointing to the fact that it’s our right is counterproductive. As we’ve seen so often, the BoR is just a piece of paper and becomes meaningless if the people don’t hold the govt’s feet to the fire over it. You can buy a little bit of time with the courts enforcing rights, but eventually the statists elected by apathetic people will replace all the judges and then you wind up with a situation like we have with the omnipotent commerce clause being accepted doctrine. We have to give people a REASON to hold the feet to the fire.

    Bringing up the necessity of guns for armed rebellion against tyranny is probably also not a good thing. So we’re left with self-defense, gunsports, and hunting, and the latter two are going to be met with outrage that you would put them ahead of children’s lives.

    1. I’ve always been partial to:

      “Fine, come on over and try to take ’em.”

      1. John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.

      2. To my mind, the best argument is that, even if a gun ban is effective in getting guns out of criminals — as the EU gun bans have mostly done, for instance — all you’ve accomplished is lowering the level of weapons technology. And what effect does that have? It places a higher premium on physical strength, fighting skills, and general ruthlessness in confrontations between criminals and their victims. Guess which side’s going to benefit from that change?

        While carrying a firearm certainly doesn’t make one invincible, the pasty IT worker who carries a gun at least has a chance of defending himself successfully when confronted by a hardened criminal with a gun. The same probably doesn’t hold true if both are armed with knives, and certainly doesn’t hold true if you go full blown UK and ban all defensive weapons, so that the confrontation becomes an unarmed one.

        1. Bloomberg is demanding action from Obama. It would be nice to see a reporter ask him at his publicity conference how successful he has been at keeping drug smuggling out of his city. Will he blame the lax drug laws of Virginia when defending his inability to do so?

          1. elected officials, like most folks, seek comfortable ground when faced with tough questions. For them, the answer is always to pass more laws. Virtually every mass shooting in recent times has involved an unbalanced person.

            The age of early 20’s is usually when schizophrenia sets in, triggered by something stressful in the person’s life. No law stops that.

        2. the pasty IT worker who carries a gun at least has a chance of defending himself successfully when confronted by a hardened criminal with a gun. The same probably doesn’t hold true if both are armed with knives, and certainly doesn’t hold true if you go full blown UK and ban all defensive weapons, so that the confrontation becomes an unarmed one.

          Was that a swipe at me? Cause I’ll have you know, I’m proficient in my ancestral martial art of “Fukyu”. Though it’s mostly just spitting and headbutting.

    2. I just point out that it doesn’t actually make us safer. No one’s ever bothered refuting me when I mention that gun control doesn’t decrease violence in the nation where it’s implemented. Go look at the troll’s responses on the other article about this.

      I asked repeatedly ‘Tell me what country has had lower rates of violence attributable to gun control’ and by and large they just ignored me. When they ignore you, I’m pretty sure that means they have no answer.

      1. you’re wasting time on folks who want simplistic answers when simple ones will do. Guy starts day by shooting mother in the face, then going to her place of work and killing two dozen more. No legislation stops that.

        The common thread in all the mass shootings is a male with either documented or suspected mental health issues. It’s not about guns, it’s not about violence in the culture; it’s about crazy, and there are no laws that stop that. Evil things occasionally happen.

        1. easier access to guns makes it easier for this to happen.

          1. bullshit. The guns were legal. So were ALL the weapons involved in ALL of these shootings, including the one the mall guy in Oregon stole. Crazy people do crazy things.

            The only people whom gun laws would affect are people who abide by laws that prohibit murder and mayhem. Try thinking beyond the talking point.

            1. exactly. they were readily available to the crazy people.

              1. Also, most of these guns are readily available in Canada. Yet Canada has far fewer mass shootings. Huh. It’s almost like the primary factor in shootings is related to something other than guns.

              2. exactly. they were readily available to the crazy people.

                more people will die this weekend from traffic accidents involving otherwise sane people who drink too much at office holiday parties and then drive. Thus far, no one is calling for a ban on alcohol, holiday parties, or vehicles. Try harder.

                This shooter grabbed his mom’s guns; the mall guy stole a weapon.

              3. Could we ban crazy people?

          2. Yes, it might make it easier for this SPECIFIC crime to happen. But this isn’t the only crime that happens. This is another case of Bastiat’s seen versus unseen. Legitimate criminals will never have trouble getting weapons, and an unarmed populace could very well be more susceptible to violence IN THE AGGREGATE. That’s what people need to understand.

            They say ‘this one guy likely couldn’t have committed this one crime’ but they fail to acknowledge that gun laws impact all of society, not just this guy and not just this crime.

        2. Female school shooters are not unheard of.

          1. true but most of these folks are male, they are in a certain age range, and there is either a documented mental health history or suspicion of trouble.

    3. Ugh, I hate putting on my pragmatism hat to discuss absolute rights like self-defense:

      Show them the overall violent crime rate in the UK, especially home invasions.

      Make them consider the practicality of even confiscation – millions will be missed, a black market will arise, and guns will only be in the hands of the outlaws; when there are huge black markets and outlaws with a huge advantage in weaponry over the citizens, we become Mexican border states.

      Also, don’t forget to explain the actual state of firearms legislation, whether that’s the NICS check with every purchase, the GCA scheme for automatics and suppressors (and the closing of the auto registry in 86), that the “gun show loophole” is about private sales and there’s often laws against private sales to prohibited persons anyways (no official NICS check, but I need to see a permit to carry or permit to purchase before I would sell a handgun to someone, the Permit to Carry lasts 1 year and includes a NICS check), and that AWBs were about things that looked scary (especially mention bayonet lugs given the “bayonets” bit from the debates) and maybe provided de minimis ergonomic improvements.

      To be cont’d.

      1. Cont’d
        Finally, personalize it for them. If they’re being dumb creatures of emotion, ask why they want to take your guns specifically, since you’re an upstanding citizen who deserves his right to self defense (ugh, typing deserves with respect to a right also stung). Try to get them to the range so that they can appreciate that guns are just steel, wood, and/or plastic, instead of soul-corrupting death magic, and pick a good range so they see a crowd of other upstanding people handling firearms with proper respect for safety.

        1. While you’re at it, try to get a Hindu to hold a hamburger and a Muslim to sniff pork chops.

          I once handed an anti-gun colleague my “Americas 1st Freedom” magazine, opened to the “Armed Citizen” page with successful self-defense news reports on it. He started reading but once he realized it was an NRA magazine, he dropped it back onto the table and walked away with his hands visibly shaking.

          1. Your first comment seemed to be directed to the fence-sitter, not the Hindu-hamburger analogy.

  41. To those suggesting banning handguns in response, they tried that in the UK & it had no effect apart from stopping it ever happening again.

    1. and now the only people with guns in the UK are people who ignore most other laws. There is a reason that among the first things despots do is to ban private ownership of guns.

      1. And now England has a higher overall crime rate than America. Again, you’re making this argument based on nothing but mass shootings, while ignoring virtually all other crime. Like the fact that knife gangs in England now have a totally unarmed populace at their mercy.

        http://www.independent.co.uk/n…..92255.html

        1. From what I read several years ago, gun crime rates are also up, they were just really low in the first place (before the bans).

          1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2…..drop-crime

            According to the Guardian, they’re back to about pre-ban levels of gun crime, after an initial increase after the ban, but knife crime is still up substantially.

            Their overall crime is lower now than it was in the late ’90s, but the United States’ crime rate has fallen far more over the same period of time. I’d never argue that gun control increases crime, since there really isn’t much evidence, but I don’t think you can possibly argue that it decreases crime based on available evidence.

    2. Where “it” refers to gun crime, not crime in general. UK has higher rates of violent crime than the US.

      1. but kids in schools are safe, no?

        1. Hey, do you want to argue with any of our points, or just throw out one sentence answers without providing evidence?

        2. The higher rate of violent crime also applies to kids in schools.

    3. Also, by ‘never happened again’ do you mean in the whole two years since 2010?

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

    4. “stopping it ever happening again”

      What is “it”, specifically, and did this “it” happen there in the first place?
      Guns are a mere tool, there are a million cultural factors (many of which you probably like) that are much more a cause of that tragedy.

  42. Any of you xians want a copy of the Queen Jame’s Bible?. Hot off the presses. Get ’em while they last.

    1. And lo, God did look up on the world, and behold that it was *fabulous.*

  43. You win. The only answer is to arm the teachers.

  44. Australia had a lot of guns. Right-wing government tried a modest buy-back 10 years ago. It reduced homicides by 60%.

    1. “Because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding isn’t statistically significant.”

      It’s in the fucking article, man. I will agree that a lack of guns may reduce suicides because fewer people are willing to slit their wrists than pull a trigger, but your argument is hardly significant given that the study itself says it isn’t statistically significant.

      It’s also one study on one country. Try harder.

      1. I’ve yet to see stats that more guns makes us safer.

        1. Using your standards for correlation and causation (which appear to be virtually nonexistant), it appears it has done so in the US. See my post @10:PM.

        2. Except your own stats don’t even say what you claim they say. The papers quoted in that article either don’t support the articles assertion or, in the case of the second study I quoted below, contradict it.

          So your own article says there’s been no effect.

    2. Except the homicide rate in the United States has fallen a similar amount over the same time period (9.5/100,000 in 1993 to 4.8 in 2010), while at the same time the number of firearms owned has gone UP. Way up. So, basically, your argument holds no water.

    3. This guy really sucks.

      “Another paper (pdf) by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi, looks at the firearm death rates in Australia over time and found no “structural breaks” associated with the law.”

      That’s from a second paper quoted in the WaPo article. According to the second paper:

      “Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there
      also does not appear to be any substitution effects ? that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods.”

      So the second paper quoted in that article unequivocally says firearm buybacks had no impact, and the first paper hedges by saying it isn’t statistically significant. This is why we read articles before posting them, Gunther.

  45. Genius Jindal, genius

  46. Have any of these yahoos calling for stricter gun control ever seen a little film called “Serenity”?

    1. Firefly fans are the new Trekkies.

      Just stop. For your own good.

      Especially as the director/creator is as left wing as they come.

      1. Didn’t Joss lament that Mal turned out to be a prototypical libertarian?

  47. Vermont and New Hampshire have among the most lax gun laws in the country, and they have the two lowest gun homicide rates in the country. Also, even if you took out all murders by gun, and assumed that there would be no extra murders from banning guns or that no one would be able to get a gun, our national murder rate is still higher than most of the countries gun control advocates compare us to

    1. Steven Pinker would say this is because Vermont and people from New Hampshire are New Englanders and white.

        1. Who gives a shit? It’s fucking Vermont.

      1. I don’t think it’s race, it’s cultural. I don’t think there is a lot of violence in rural black areas, either.

        But you pack a bunch of poor people in tiny areas, encourage them to have a different culture than the rest of the country (rather than assimilate), you’re going to get a lot of violence.

        1. Like the flak that RGIII took from that doofus on ESPN for not being black enough.

          Successful blacks often get attacked for their success, if they don’t act like thugs (or clowns.)

          That’s not racism, that’s a culture problem.

        2. I think you’re right, but part of the problem is that race and culture are often talked about, even academically, as if they’re they’re one and the same. And there is truth to that because some culture is distinctive to race because that is how people decide to socialize.

        3. The Irish had this from the 1850’s to 1900’s.

          what changed?

          1. what changed?

            Nothing, Irish ghettos were violent places.

            There is a reason police wagons are called paddy wagons.

  48. Apparently nobody gives a fuck about the kids in China?

    1. Meh. They would have just grown up to take our jobs anyway.

      1. Apparently none of them died, which according to twitter means gun control works dammit.

  49. Sad, if just ONE person in that school had been ARMED, they could have saved many lives. NEVER leave home unarmed!

    http://www.Matters-Anon.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.