Gun Control

New York Daily News Proposes New Definition of 'Assault Weapon'

|

Earlier today, I discussed proposals to broaden the definition of assault weapon, an arbitrary category of firearms prohibited based on military-style features that have little or no functional significance in the context of violent crime. New York Daily News reporter Douglas Feiden suggests one option for the new legislation that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has promised: Feiden defines "assault weapons" as "flesh-piercing, fast-firing, killing machines." There is another term for that kind of weapon: a gun.

Feiden also claims that "military-style assault weapons" are "favored by spree killers like the gunman in Newtown, Conn." He overlooks the point that the rifle used by Adam Lanza to kill 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday was not, legally speaking, an "assault weapon," because otherwise it would have been banned under Connecticut law. In any event, the gun nuts at Mother Jones report that mass shooters are far more likely to use semiautomatic handguns than "assault weapons," which by their count were used in about one-third of mass gun homicides since 1982. Those handguns, of course, would fit the new definition of assault weapon proposed by Feiden, since they 1) pierce flesh, 2) fire just as fast as the guns currently classified as "assault weapons," and 3) kill people.

NEXT: Groups Upset About Unrelated Spending in Sandy Aid Bill

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. Since weapons are used to assault people, isn’t the term “assault weapon” a bit redundant? Kinda like “friendly fire” or “honest truth.”

    It’s like words don’t mean anything anymore.

    1. In a word, yes, too often they don’t.

    2. a kind of doublespeak?

      1. Redundaspeak?

    3. In theory, “assault rifles” were designed to be low-caliber, fast-firing weapons suitable for close range assault tactics, as opposed to slow-firing, high-powered bolt actions rifles that were standard issue in most armies until the mid-1940s.

      “Assault weapon” is whatever looks scary.

      1. You’re forgetting the intermediate “battle rifle” which was fast-firing but retained the large higher-powered 7.62mm round. The West found them too heavy but recently many special ops units have returned to battle rifles as the 5.56mm ARs lack the punch they desire.

        Either way even the military rarely uses a full automatic weapon as its general issue rifle. Too much waste as even trained soldiers rarely hit with more than 1/3 of their fired shots.

        But you are right…it’s all based on looks to those who are ignorant of the facts.

      2. My understanding (which may be completely wrong) is that “assault rifles” were supposed to perform in the role of semi-auto battle rifles with a secondary capability of functioning as light machine guns for very brief moments

        1. Well, Timrek has the right definition of “battle rifle”, which usually encompasses magazine fed, selective-fire weapons chambered in a full-power cartridge like the 7.62×51.

          “Assault rifles” are supposed to simultaneously allow riflemen to engage, in semi-auto, at decent range (Up to 500-600m) while still being small and easy to handle in close quarters. Basically, the idea is that they can function as an all-purpose weapon. They usually are chambered for the same round as the squad LMGs (E.g., the 5.56mm in the M16 and M249), but most assault rifles aren’t heavy duty enough to take sustained heavy auto or burst fire.

    4. “Friendly fire” is redundant?

    5. “friendly fire” is an oxymoron, not redundant…because it AIN’T so friendly…

  2. He overlooks the point that the rifle used by Adam Lanza to kill 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday was not, legally speaking, an “assault weapon,”

    Not to mention that the rifle was actually used to kill exactly no one.

    Unless that part of the story has changed, too.

    1. Think they’ve changed their minds on that. Now, it’s that he killed almost every one with the rifle, and shot himself with one of the pistols. Which makes more sense, in a ghoulish way. It’s hard to kill everyone you shoot with a handgun, absent a Soviet/Nazi-execution chamber set up. Much easier to do it with a long gun, either rifle or shotgun.

      1. I think the Virginia tech shooter (Cho Seung Hee) used 4 handguns to kill 30 plus people. He just walked around the campus shooting everyone is sight.

        Which is why I don’t understand the fuss about the Chinese man who stabbed 20 kids (as an illustration that guns make killing easier). If a man can make an effort to stab 20 kids without apparently being stopped, then who’s gonna stop a guy with 2,3 handguns?

        Yeah, those Chinese kids are alive, but that just means the assailant messed up. If you really wanted them dead, he could have just slit everyone’s throat. Lanza wanted those kids dead, he shot them multiple times.

        1. You don’t even need a knife. What he the guy in China had say a sledge hammer?

        2. Wasn’t Cho using a 9mm and a .22 rimfire?

          1. He used a glock and Walther P22. Which means nothing to me, because I don’t know anything about guns. They look like handguns. They’re legal, I assume.

            1. The P22, unsurprisingly, fires the .22 LR cartridge.

              1. Boy, was my face red when I bought the wrong ammo for the Glock 22.

                1. I searched everywhere for a Glock Fowty, but in vain.

      2. Do they still have him wearing a “bullet-proof vest” (their words)? The media widely reported the same about the Aurora shooter, and it turned out that the kid had on an “urban assault vest” made of nylon.

        Naturally, the usual hoplophobic media suspects couldn’t be bothered to print corrections, the consequence of which is that uninformed rubes like Costas take to the airwaves announcing that CCP citizens wouldn’t make a difference against spree killers clad in “body armor.” Given the astonishing incompetence among the media and police in reporting this case, I have serious doubts that the CT kid was wearing kevlar.

        As in the Zimmerman case, the reaction to this shooting has become a perfect storm of shameless partisanship, ignorance, and widespread misinformation.

      3. He didn’t kill everyone he shot – not right away, anyway. Also, I can’t imagine it’s that hard to kill six-year-olds with anything.

      4. I’d think a classroom of six-year-olds would be close to an execution chamber set-up.

      5. I thought they found the rifle in the car? Was that wrong, or are they saying he went in, shot everyone with the rifle, went back out and put his rifle in the car, went back in and then shot himself with a handgun?

        1. The current story is that there was a shotgun left in the car. The AR15 was used to kill all the people in the school, while the Glock was used to kill himself. The Sig was apparently just along for the ride.

  3. So I don’t think there’s been enough standing on the corpses of dead children. We need more. I’m sure the media will continue to provide.

    These fucking gun grabbing statist scum showed their true faces again. They will never rest, never let it lie, no matter how many times they get their asses handed to them or how much the Supreme Court tells them to go fuck themselves. The instant they think they have a tragedy (which for them is an opportunity) with which they can force through gun control, they blow their load. These people want to control others so badly that dead children makes them incredibly excited. That’s who we’re dealing with.

    1. “So I don’t think there’s been enough standing on the corpses of dead children. We need more. I’m sure the media will continue to provide.

      These fucking gun grabbing statist scum showed their true faces again. They will never rest, never let it lie, no matter how many times they get their asses handed to them or how much the Supreme Court tells them to go fuck themselves. The instant they think they have a tragedy (which for them is an opportunity) with which they can force through gun control, they blow their load. These people want to control others so badly that dead children makes them incredibly excited. That’s who we’re dealing with.”

      ill have to save this for the next time theres an article about a cop misbehaving. maybe ill just send it to dunphy.

      1. Awwww, that is so cute. One commenter has a crush on another commenter. Dunphy’s married to Morgan Fairchild, but he just might give you a chance if you keep at it, champ!

        Don’t let these meanies stop you from pursuing your man.

        I think it’s absolutely adorable how you’ve even adopted dunphy’s anti-shift key commenting style.

        1. I just kind assumed it was a moron who didn’t know anything about proper capitalization or what apostrophes are for.

          1. That’s because you don’t understand love.

          2. Loki| 12.17.12 @ 6:27PM |#

            I just kind assumed it was a moron who didn’t know anything about proper capitalization or what apostrophes are for.

            everyone knows that the purpose of apostrophes and capitalization are to give people another thing to feel smug about. theyre like priuses for people who are too cool for priuses.

            1. Apostriarchy!

              1. the apostriarch is to apostriachy as the anarch is to anarchy.

        2. Dunphy’s married to Morgan Fairchild? I’m surprised he opted to turn down the dozens of offers for NSA sex he receives from actresses and supermodels every day. More time to focus on his sideline cancer research, I guess.

          1. “Look, yes, I have banged hundreds of broads, internationally, but know this: I wrap my rascal TWO times ’cause I like it to be joyless and without sensation, as a way of punishing supermodels.”

        3. Champ? He’s more like a chump if he believes anything dunphy has to say. Oh, you meant that ironically.

        4. oh stop it you, your too kind.

    2. The thing that galls me is that these people are a large part of the fucking problem, with their “gun free zones” etc.

      Why would it be so shocking to allow teachers, janitors, school admin, etc., to carry in school? Nobody seems to have a problem with armed guards for trivial things like money, for Christ’s sake, but when it comes to protecting kids oh nooo… we’re the crazy ones.

      Fuck them.

      1. and when its a teacher or janitor that shoots up the school? i dont think you are thinking that solution through.

        i can think of a few teachers that would make me very uncomfortable if they had a gun.

        1. And when it’s a police officer who beats up his girlfriend? I don’t think you are thinking that objection through.

          Seriously, Zack, don’t visit a RTC state.

        2. When was the last time someone with a concealed permit went on a rampage?

          If someone is going to go on a rampage, why bother with the permit?

          That’s like saying a gun free zone will prevent murder because someone intent on murder will be deterred by fear of punishment for bringing a gun into a gun free zone.

          Idiocy.

          1. “And when it’s a police officer who beats up his girlfriend? I don’t think you are thinking that objection through.” – rich

            so they way to stop people from getting beat up is to give everyone a bat?

            “Seriously, Zack, don’t visit a RTC state.” – rich

            why?

            “When was the last time someone with a concealed permit went on a rampage?”- sarc

            not really sure where this is relevant.

            “If someone is going to go on a rampage, why bother with the permit?”-sarc

            i cant think of a reason, but again i dont think i said anything about this, so how is it relevant again?

            “That’s like saying a gun free zone will prevent murder because someone intent on murder will be deterred by fear of punishment for bringing a gun into a gun free zone.”-sarc

            thats not at all like saying that. my point is that i think just saying well if more people like teachers and janitors had guns nothing would ever go wrong again is at best a stupid argument. im not arguing for more gun control, but really this shooter couldnt walk into a class and shoot the teacher before she realizes whats going on and then finish off the kids as he pleases? i think they easily could, and arming the teacher just adds one more potential mass shooter, it doesnt really stop the other ones.

            1. again im not favor of more gun control, but how does a few more people with guns stop this from happening better than real gun control?i say real, because saying that allowing the sell and manufacture and ownership of guns is gun control because you cant wave it around in a starbucks is pretty dishonest. and then when thats not enough its proof that “gun control” clearly doesnt work. gun control has not been tried in the U.S., not that it should be.

              1. “Real” gun control is like “real” drug control.

                Those who are determined to put their hands on contraband will find it.

                how does a few more people with guns stop this from happening better than real gun control?

                A few more people with guns might shoot the determined person who finds a way around contraband laws for the purpose of committing greater crimes.

            2. “When was the last time someone with a concealed permit went on a rampage?”- sarc

              not really sure where this is relevant.

              Uh, perhaps it is relevant to your comment about a janitor or teacher (presumably with a concealed permit) shooting up a school.

              “If someone is going to go on a rampage, why bother with the permit?”-sarc

              i cant think of a reason, but again i dont think i said anything about this, so how is it relevant again?

              The subject is gun control. Gun control comes in the form of magical rules that people are supposed to adhere to because doing so prevents them from committing more heinous acts.

              You are approaching Tony derpville.

              1. “”Real” gun control is like “real” drug control.
                Those who are determined to put their hands on contraband will find it.”-sarc

                guess we should legalize murder and rape then. im for less gun and drug control but thats like one of the worst arguments for either.

                “how does a few more people with guns stop this from happening better than real gun control?
                A few more people with guns might shoot the determined person who finds a way around contraband laws for the purpose of committing greater crimes.” – sarc

                yes they always can magically find there way around draconian levels of restrictions but they cant figure out how to kill a bunch of people if there were a few more gun holders. like my example above whats to stop him from entering the classroom and shooting the teacher before she realizes what is going on, and then finishing off the kids?

                “Uh, perhaps it is relevant to your comment about a janitor or teacher (presumably with a concealed permit) shooting up a school.”-sarc

                not really. permits arent relevant in this example. nor is how many permit holders under current law have shot people.

                1. “The subject is gun control. Gun control comes in the form of magical rules that people are supposed to adhere to because doing so prevents them from committing more heinous acts.”

                  were talking about spree shootings and peoples “arguments” about how to fix them. someone said that if teachers and janitors had guns there wouldnt be any more spree shootings, i pointed out that this a shaky argument at best. the whole second sentence is of course a silly strawman, as i dont think anyone is seriously arguing that point, at least im not.

      2. The thing that galls me is that these people are a large part of the fucking problem, with their “gun free zones” etc.

        They care about The Children so much that they are willing to do anything to keep from protecting them.

      3. Exposing children to the sight of a gun in the loving environment of their schools will warp their widdle minds. That’s why you don’t do it.

    3. “These people want to control others so badly that dead children makes them incredibly excited. That’s who we’re dealing with.”

      mhmm, and libertarians want to sell them into slavery to our corporate overlords and pollute our air and water while pissing on homeless people.

      i mean isnt it just maybe possible that they actually are horrified and really do believe that real gun control could reduce the amount of these incidents?

      also im sure youll come up with some reason why using cop violence to push your agenda is way different than what the liberals are doing with this incident.

      1. You’re utterly incoherent, but don’t let that stop you. I can’t tell if you’re accusing me of being a cop-fellator, or if you’re just extremely retarded. I guess it could be both.

        1. Oh come on! You’d fellate a cop if he was cute!

          1. I really can’t deny this.

            1. my point is that for all your mock outrage, im pretty sure you have at some point used a drone strike or a cop shooting a dog as a means of pushing for smaller government.

              if you have never done this then i fully apologize to you and instead direct my criticism to anyone who has done the things i accused you of doing.

              1. There’s a huge fucking difference between using an outlier to deny freedom and using the actions of the government to limit the actions the government is allowed to do.

                Come on, it’s like you’re not even trying.

                1. “There’s a huge fucking difference between using an outlier to deny freedom and using the actions of the government to limit the actions the government is allowed to do.”

                  perhaps in some context thats true, but not if your complaint is that people are using tragedy as a way of pushing their agenda. in that case there’s not a difference.

      2. “i mean isnt it just maybe possible that they actually are horrified and really do believe that real gun control could reduce the amount of these incidents?”

        This is possible, but only if they had failed to look at any evidence or considered the situation. Which is entirely possible given who we’re dealing with.

        1. Some people really do believe that legislation* is magic, and it is legislation that prevents people from doing things that society frowns upon, no the fact that we are social animals and as such most of us conform to societal norms regardless of words written on paper.
          Therefore more magical incantations on law tomes will magically stop bad people from deviating from societal norms because, well, legislation is magic!

          *notice I said legislation instead of law. Here’s an interesting (in my opinion) discussion of the subject by Don Boudreaux, economics professor of George Mason University and cafehayek.com

          1. You should ask them why the various statutes against murder were so inadequate if legislation is just code for magical incantation.

            1. I’ve known plenty of liberals who will freely admit that legislation is the only thing that has prevented them from killing people.

              They have no morality outside “might makes right,” and with government being the last word in violence, it is the object of their worship.

              1. Oh, stop that, liberals don’t want to kill people!

                They want an all powerful government to do it for them.

              2. I had a friend who made that argument. He was so upset with his wife and two children one evening it was fortunate that he didn’t own a gun. I told him he was only lying to himself. If he really wanted to kill them he had at least two wicked looking butcher’s knives to choose from. He said that would have been too messy. I called him an idiot told him thanks for the warning. I’ll be sure to be armed anytime I’m around him.

          2. Some people really do believe that legislation* is magic

            It is! Just look at the perfect examples. They passed prohibition and there was no more booze or drinking.

            They passed draconian drug laws and, presto!, no more drugs or drug users.

            See how wrong your thinking is?

            1. “It is! Just look at the perfect examples. They passed prohibition and there was no more booze or drinking.

              They passed draconian drug laws and, presto!, no more drugs or drug users.

              See how wrong your thinking is?”

              i guess we might as well legalize murder and rape while were at it, since those things still happen too.

              at to the rest of the posts after adams, i only see strawmen, ad hominems, and unfounded generalizations. oh and fun little anecdotes that are probably bullshit.

              1. Except drinking alcohol or consuming drugs does not hurt anybody but the person doing the act. Rape hurts someone else. Owning a gun alone does not hurt anybody. Choosing to shoot someone with it hurts somebody which is why it is illegal unless justified as defence.

                You are comparing 2 different things to make your silly argument.

                1. “Except drinking alcohol or consuming drugs does not hurt anybody but the person doing the act. Rape hurts someone else. Owning a gun alone does not hurt anybody. Choosing to shoot someone with it hurts somebody which is why it is illegal unless justified as defence.

                  You are comparing 2 different things to make your silly argument.”

                  not even close

                  he said that people will still get guns if they are illegal, and that they will still get drugs if they are illegal, so might as well not make them illegal. this argument absolutely justifies legalizing murder and rape.

                  your doing a different argument(a much more reasonable one, even though you didnt understand what the above comments were about).

          3. Forgot the linky.

            Don’s talk

      3. Are they horrified? No. Do they want you to be horrified? Yes. If you’re scared, you’ll be more apt to surrender your rights. (see: PATRIOT Act)

        1. Are they horrified? No.

          i think most of them are, im sure there are exceptions but i think most people, even liberals, are upset when a bunch of little kids get shot.

    4. Yeppers…they orgasm every time something like this happens.

  4. Feiden defines “assault weapons” as “flesh-piercing, fast-firing, killing machines.”

    This definition applies to at last one regular H&R commenter.

    1. It’s true, Warty has absolutely no staying power. He’s basically a hair trigger.

      1. He told me you’re a one-pump-chump.

        1. That’s a lie! I can last an entire minute! Sometimes!

  5. I just heard a radio commercial for a divorce lawyer named Steve Smith.

    http://www.downeastlawyers.com/

    Suddenly it all makes sense.

    1. Weird, I know another Steve Smith from Downeast Maine who is a libertarian involved in law enforcement. Different guy, though.

      1. a libertarian involved in law enforcement

        I find it difficult to believe that someone who believes in the non-aggression principle would seek a career in being a government aggressor.

        1. Yeah, trust me, I don’t get it either. Still, it is what it is.

          1. Sounds dishonest to me. I wouldn’t trust the guy. Sounds like a confidence man.

        2. Since libertarianism is not anarchism, it’s conceivable that a libertarian could identify certain core functions of government that are acceptable to carry out. Police do a lot of things these days but in principle they still protect people and bring legitimate criminals to justice.

          1. An individual in the career of law enforcement is tasked with enforcing laws that are blatantly immoral by any libertarian standard, and must do so because it is their job.

            If you still believe that police protect people and bring criminals to justice, I doubt you have ever been the victim of a crime. I have. They don’t care.

            1. I know cops who joined for good reasons, and I know cops who joined because their dads were cops, they were one concussion away from being declared retarded, and they had to rely on the legacy.*

              *Okay, that was just one guy. He once showed a mutual friend his service piece – shot a lamp in his apartment.

    2. He looks like a typical jarhead nasty piece of humanity.

    3. I saw a brand of tea in the store called “Steven Smith’s” – one of the varieties was named for Mao, though.

      1. It’s even “artisan” and from Portland! How perfect. The Mao Feng Shui has nothing to do with Mao, though.

        You can hate them instead because they are inconsistent in their choice of Chinese transliteration systems.

        1. Pinyin came along the same time as the Chinese economic reform and limited markets. The hippies who make the tea probably hate it for that.

          1. Well then they should at least have the principles to hate it full-time.

        2. Thanks for the clarification. I am always looking for good tea, and that had put them on the blacklist.

          1. Sure thing. I haven’t ever had it, of course, so I have no idea how it is. I recently discovered Verdant Tea (online only) and it is AMAZING btw.

            1. I’ll check it out.

            2. I’ll check it out.

          2. My wife stands by the Stash brand.

            1. Stash is definitely the best thing available at my grocery store. And I have yet to top their Earl Grey anywhere.

              1. Just poked around and she also has Twinings brand English Breakfast and Lady Grey in the cupboard.

              2. I found Twinnings Earl Grey to be the best…but only the Twinnings I got in England. The same stuff here just isnt the same.

          3. King Cole.

            It used to come in gauze bags, but no longer (sadly). You can still get it loose leaf.

          4. Harney‘s. Go. Go now. You won’t be sorry. Their Earl Grey Supreme is the best I’ve ever had, by a mile.

        3. Feng Shui is Chinese for “big scam”.

  6. Hey you know who else refered to “assault rifles”?

    No seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

  7. Feiden defines “assault weapons” as “flesh-piercing, fast-firing, killing machines.”

    No, that’s the definition of a drone in relation to Pakistani children.

    For guns I prefer kinetic armored projectile launching apparatus, or KAPLA!

    1. +1 Mel Gibson

    2. For guns I prefer kinetic armored projectile launching apparatus, or KAPLA

      Please tell me the Klingon joke was intentional.

      1. Oh God please yes.

        On the other side we have Petulant and Terrified Arms-Haters.

        1. Heh.

          Funny enough, “petulant and terrified arms-hater” is pretty much the meaning of toDSaH (one who is concerned about being rescued/saved).

      2. Please tell me the Klingon joke was intentional.

        HISlaH.

        1. maj!

      3. Star Trek jokes are a dish best served cold.

        1. Frackin’ nerds

  8. In some ways, the AWB was pretty brilliant. Find a list of useless features that scary looking guns have in common, fetishize them, lead the libs to waste their energy banning those particular features, then keep using our guns like civilized people. When handgun bans and such were floating around, a 10 year ban on cosmetic features was a best case scenario.

    1. Agreed. If they could remove that ban on manufacturing new magazines, I’d be amenable to a redo of the old AWB simply because it was such a magnificently impotent piece of legislation, yet it absorbed so much political energy.

    2. High capacity mags aren’t cosmetic.

      1. No, but they could be stockpiled before the ban and sold for a premium while the ban was in effect, thus generating delicious profit.

    3. I agree. AWB was brilliant.

  9. Feiden defines “assault weapons” as “flesh-piercing, fast-firing, killing machines.” There is another term for that kind of weapon: a gun.

    Depending on how one defines “fast firing” that definition could include bows and arrows as well. What a cockstain.

    1. “flesh-piercing”
      That accounts for every firearm in human history, not to mention nail guns, drill guns, tasers, knitting needles, and various kinky toys.

      1. lol, if they weren’t flesh piercing, what use would they be? Isn’t that why we have paintballs?

    2. It also begs the question of what is a “killing machine.”

      1. A drone?

        1. A T-800…. 🙂

          1. The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy.

        2. A nail gun.

      2. According to Colbert, this means we should ban bears too.

        1. Listen, and understand. That bear is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

          1. I like you, Episiarch. I’ll kill you last.

            1. Episiarch: Can you tell me what this is all about?

              Hugh: Yeah, a guy I trusted for years wants me dead.

              Episiarch: That’s understandable. I’ve only known you for five minutes and I want you dead, too.

          2. Most paranoid delusions are intricate, but yours is brilliant!

            1. So Hugh is crazy?

              1. In technical terms…he’s a loon.

          3. Listen, and understand. That bear is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with

            Bears are proglodytes?

      3. That would be my car. It’s got everything. Like driving power, big fat tires and everything.

  10. Senator Feinstein,

    If “assault weapons” are meant for the military, then why do police departments get to use them?

    1. Her bill will be *gold*, Jerry.

  11. “flesh-piercing, fast-firing, killing machines”

    The joke’s on Feiden! Obviously he meant to write “*armor*-piercing”.

    1. Rich| 12.17.12 @ 6:05PM |#

      “flesh-piercing, fast-firing, killing machines”

      well, at least my disintegration ray gun is still in the clear. No piercing at all! just evaporates all the water in the human body, and leaves a funny skin & bone sack left over (we use them for pinatas)

  12. There is another term for that kind of weapon: a gun.

    And that’s what they’d like banned.

  13. Again, how did the 1994 “assault weapons” ban help the Columbine students in 1999?

    1. It helped Klebold and Harris go unchallenged.

      1. One man’s gun free zone is another man’s target rich environment.

      2. Not sure the AWB is what prevented school kids from arming themselves.

        1. Maybe you people never went to high school, but what if you thought about the implications of arming potentially all high school students for more than a second?

          1. THREE CHEERS FOR THE KING OF THE DERPS!

            HIP HIP HOORAY!
            HIP HIP HOORAY!
            HIP HIP HOORAY!

          2. Syphilis acting up again, Tony?

          3. Unlike you, many of us didn’t go to high school in the ghetto, you piece of shit.

          4. I used keep a 12 gauge in my car in high-school during dove season. But it was a pump and not “a high powered assault weapon” so I doubt it could have done much harm.

            1. I didn’t have a gun in high school. But I live in Alabama, and I could definitely believe that at least 5 cars in the parking lot had a gun of some sort in them. Yet, no school shooting. What gives?

              1. I live in Tennessee and I pretty much assume that most people around me are packing. In inter-city Memphis or Nashville, a school shooter would have a good chance of being neutralized by another student. In the rural areas, a gun is never far away.

              2. I’m in North Al. Recently a kid in Arab got expelled for having a shotgun in the car at the high school. He’d been hunting in the morning. It was bullshit, but I don’t think they pressed charges. Shit, you would think rural AL would be immune from this bullshit.

          5. I went to high school in rural Indiana. I had friends who carried guns (in backpacks) in school. Probably half of the cars and every single pickup truck in the parking lot had a gun inside. No shootings.

            But you, being Tony, will always find a reason to poop your pants. Do you like the warmth or the squishy sensation?

            1. Do you like the warmth or the squishy sensation?

              No, Spaces likes the smell.

          6. Maybe you people never went to high school, but what if you thought about the implications of arming potentially all high school students for more than a second?

            I am extremely pissed at myself for answering the idiot.

            Tony: I used to bring my deer rifle to high school during hunting season. Dozens of my friends did, too. We all refrained from killing our friends. It’s possible, despite liberal myth to the contrary.

            … Hobbit

            1. Okay so you all went to high school in the middle of nowhere.

              I’ve long said gun regulations should be made to fit the environment. I went to a large affluent school in suburbia, and believe me the only safe way for things to be would be for all guns to be banned from the premises.

              I say let cities make their own reasonable gun policies and Bumfucksville Alabama make its own.

              1. As late as the 1960s, there were high schools in New York City that had rifle teams, so no, Tony, it’s not just “the middle of nowhere”. But hey, nice way to casually dismiss everyone and everything that doesn’t fit your narrative.

    2. It ensured that they could not purchase a magazine-fed rifle that had BOTH a pistol grip and a flash suppressor. After all, the type of flash a rifle makes when you’re using it to shoot unarmed people at point-blank range is highly relevant.

  14. The movie “After….” sucks donkey dick. Horrid. Irritating jiggle cam. Lots of WTF? Sucks

  15. You wanna make America safer. Ban Diane Feinstein.

  16. Okay, I promise this is the last one for today. Slate Double X writer describes how guns seduce women into feeling empowered, and that the Connecticut shooting convinced her that women need to disarm themselves.

    1. Wow. She really, really does not like herself. I’d pity her if I had any pity for idiots.

      1. It is cute how she projects her own admitted penis envy issues onto any other woman who is comfortable with guns. She grew up in Iran, presumably a contributing factor in said penis envy.

    2. There are so many things I could say about why that article sucks and I dislike its writer, but I will choose just one: she says that women are “9 percent” less likely to own a gun than men, based on a recent poll, when they are actually “9 percentage points” less likely.

      And if you make that mistake, I no longer have to listen to anything you say.

      1. Cue “LOL math is hard” Barbie.

    3. Slate Double X writer describes how guns seduce women into feeling empowered

      Wouldn’t want that now would we? No, women should be meak little victims, totally reliant on some nice strong police MAN to rescue them instead of bothering with defending themselves. Sheesh.

      1. Obama’s embiggened heart alone provides the strength for these brave, independent women to make it through the day.

      2. You mean a nice strong policeman to tape off the scene and investigate their murder.

  17. New York Daily News Proposes New Definition of ‘Assault Weapon’

    Why not? It already is what they say it is at any given moment anyways, being that they made it up and all.

    1. That’s exactly right. 90% of their arguments are semantics. Unfortunately people buy into it.

  18. OT: Fuck the goddamned pop up ads. Is anyone else getting those? Ever since the webathon ended I’ve been getting annoying pop-ups. Is reason that broke?

    1. Check for spyware?

    2. loki-

      Firefox + “NoScript“.

  19. here’s an idea.

    Couldn’t the school hire a security guard (not a cop) and put badge-access locks on the doors, like my workplace?

    No need for an assault weapons ban, or profiling of the mentally ill. Just take the same basic security precautions that most corporations do on the doors.

    1. It does seem rather a simple answer.

      But then again, the simple answer to 9/11 style attacks was locking the cockpit door, and look how we handled one.

    2. I’m sorry but how does that idea help them ban guns?

  20. Ok, I am going way out into taboo territory here, but I can’t resist. Feinstein really has a punchable face. It’s really not cool for guys to punch a woman, so please, if there are any female Reasonoids here willing to punch this old bag in the face???

    1. Hyperion, violations of the NAP should really be gender-neutral.

      1. I’ll punch Hyperion in the face if he asks nicely. I’m that generous.

        1. As long as you would also punch me in the face if I asked nicely. Which I’m not.

          1. I would never not punch you in the face if you asked, nicole. You know that. Just like I would never not give NutraSweet a Charlie horse whether he asked or not. I’m that generous.

        2. I’m level 18 on Borderlands now, asshole, you best beware of my shooting prowess.

          1. I beat the base game a couple of weeks back and am now awaiting the inevitable and much-desired Handsome Barrack mod. Holder can be the dragon.

            1. I’ve been practically begging for an FPS/RPG hybrid like Fallout 3 where we have Mutant Congress Critters instead of the typical radiated mutants. They all run around screeching ‘MOARRRR REVENUEEEE’, right before you vaporize them.

              But I am always told that it can’t be done…

              1. Considering where FO3 takes place, one can easily assume that the super mutants are ex-congresscritters and feral ghouls are ex-47%ers.

      2. Why can’t really punchable faces be excluded from the NAP. We need a vote here…

        1. There’s always the question, “At what point does you not getting plastic surgery violate the NAP?”

          1. When in addition to being fugly you are a statist asshole who wants to force your stupidity onto everyone else?

        2. I don’t see how the NAP applies. Anyone who punches Feinstein can reasonably be presumed to have done so in self-defense.

          1. I was sick the day NAP was agreed to so I’ll do it.

    2. Feinstein really has a punchable face. It’s really not cool for guys to punch a woman

      You could always hate-fuck her.

      *shrugs*

      Jus’ sayin’

      1. I will let you do it. I can’t hog all of the fun, you know.

        1. You better pay for my tequila, at least.

          1. (hands HM some mescaline)

            1. Shit, it turned her into this.

      2. “You could always hate-fuck her.”

        Now who deserves to be punched in the face. Seriously, Diane Feinstein? *barf*

    3. And what the hell is going on with her thumbs? Those look more like crocodile hands than human hands.

  21. So if they paint pink, it’s all good, right?

  22. Feiden defines “assault weapons” as “flesh-piercing, fast-firing, killing machines.” There is another term for that kind of weapon: a gun.

    And another term for a gun is a flesh-piercing, fast-firing killing machine. It’s important we not treat machines as magical objects.

    If they weren’t efficient killing machines, they wouldn’t be very useful in self-defense. So it only makes sense to claim that a greater proliferation of killing machines makes us safer if the criminals out-arm the law-abiding. In such a scenario everyone should be for tighter gun control, at least in theory, however impractical the effort may be.

    We have to draw a line somewhere. Not a single one of you is in favor of unlimited access to any possible type of weapon. Sorry, the nature of the weapons that exist today makes for an entirely different reality than in the Founders’ day. There is no specific optimal line on the spectrum of weapons by power, but we all draw one somewhere. That kind of situation should make compromise easy.

    1. . Not a single one of you is in favor of unlimited access to any possible type of weapon

      Says who?

      Sorry, the nature of the weapons that exist today makes for an entirely different reality than in the Founders’ day.

      And the nature of radio, television and the Internet makes for an entirely different reality concerning the 1st Amendment as well. But you’d probably be all for a law that bans negative speech against your beloved Obama, wouldn’t you, you mealy-mouthed, lickspittle?

      1. Re: Heroic Mulatto,

        But you’d probably be all for a law that bans negative speech against your beloved Obama, wouldn’t you, you mealy-mouthed, lickspittle?

        I am sure he would prefer to fend off a corn-fed, gay-hating homeboy, who’s about to rape him, by fanning his hands in front of him rather than using one of these beauties.

        And I bet than, while being violently raped from behind, he will still feel a happy trooper because he did not use a hated “efficient killing machine” to defend his virtue.

        So be it. I do promise never to use my weapon to defend his ass, in deference to his Statist principles.

      2. Radios and televisions aren’t killing machines.

    2. What if I said:

      “The nature of radicalized Islamic religion that exists today makes for an entirely different reality than in the Founders’ day.”

      1. You’d be wrong. 😛

        To the shores of Tripoli….

    3. “Not a single one of you is in favor of unlimited access to any possible type of weapon.”

      Leave it to the minarchists around here not to school your resident sockpuppet in the ways of anarcho-capitalism. Shame, shame.

    4. The only type of weapon I can think of that I don’t think people should be allowed to use are nuclear weapons because of their indiscriminate nature.

      But, unlike a lot of the gun control advocates, my morality would prohibit their use by governments as well.

      1. My morality “prohibits” shooting kids in school, but that doesn’t mean it prevents it.

    5. And Tony leaps onto the pile of dead children to sock puppet for his masters. Who woulda thunk it?

      1. Whoever runs that sock puppet has no soul. You can look into the eyes of the editorial pics and figure out who runs him. They’ll be the dead ones.

        1. You really think Reason staff have that much time on their hands?

          Maybe an intern got the job after teh Jacket realized how many more page views Reason got with troll action.

    6. Re: Tony,

      If they weren’t efficient killing machines, they wouldn’t be very useful in self-defense.

      You can ask any woman that successfully scared off an assailant with an efficient killing machine.

      So it only makes sense to claim that a greater proliferation of killing machines makes us safer if the criminals out-arm the law-abiding.

      You mean criminals would drive tanks, all of a sudden?

      It is clear that there are things you do not know and ignore, Tony, and one of those things is precisely the nature of firearms. It is a fact that heavy weapons may be more lethal than handguns but they’re also very unwieldy, heavy and difficult to conceal. Most criminal prefer handguns precisely for that reason, whereas homeowners have successfully defended their homes with shotguns. There IS a reason why shootings with rifles and other long weapons are very rare.

      Sorry, the nature of the weapons that exist today makes for an entirely different reality than in the Founders’ day.

      Ah! How quaint: The “The First Amendment Was Written Back When People Used Quills” argument!

      Isn’t Tony so cute when he says things like that?

    7. The only line is in the amount of trust you put in people. At the end of the day, every physical weapon, from a BB gun to a nuke, is under the control of a small number of people. You’d better hope the guys who control the nukes and drones and smallpox don’t go bad, or you’re fucked.

  23. Lefties have already managed to re-define marriage with the slight majority of the country, so I don’t see this as a big deal.

    1. …Bayless?

  24. In any event, the gun nuts at Mother Jones report that mass shooters are far more likely to use semiautomatic handguns than “assault weapons,”

    Please don’t give them any more bright ideas…

    .. because next thing you know, these legislators will go ahead and ban even lowly blowguns (!!) like they do in California, Massachusetts and D.C.

    Blowguns, man. Give me a break!

    1. Someone explain to me why switchblades were ever banned.

      1. Because they could be.

  25. Feiden defines “assault weapons” as “flesh-piercing, fast-firing, killing machines.” There is another term for that kind of weapon: a gun.

    Yes! Yes! I can get behind a ban using this definition. To test any model of firearm to see if it is an “Assault Weapon” place the firearm in a clear, sealed box and observe it for some period of time. Five minutes, three hours, thirty days – whatever. If, after the time period has expired, the firearm has pierced flesh, fired fast, and killed anybody that model goes on the list.

    Works for me.

  26. Here’s another idea, straight out of the Nozick handbook.

    A) Make gun owners liable for any harm their weapon causes, either accidentally, or through an unlawful use.

    B) Require gun owners to carry liability insurance that covers the cost of damages paid to anyone harmed by the gun.

    C) Let the insurance companies decide who to cover.

    1. Hmm. It seems someone else had this idea first:

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/jo…..un-deaths/

    2. “HazelMeade| 12.17.12 @ 8:41PM |#

      A) Make gun owners liable for any harm their weapon causes, either accidentally, or through an unlawful use.”

      Ahem.. in what kind of chemically induced dream world do you ever imagine that gun owners are NOT liable for their actions?

      “B) Require gun owners to carry liability insurance that covers the cost of damages paid to anyone harmed by the gun.”

      OK, anybody harmed by “the gun” and not the gun’s operator. I’m good with that.

      1. Well, right. You have to take into consideration the possibility that the gun could get stolen. Which would make the owner responsible for keeping it in a secure place. If you leave your gun lying around and someone steals it and uses it in a crime, then you are liable.
        Duh.

        1. Yeah, let’s let insurance companies define our second amendment rights, great idea. It’ll make watching your wife and kids being raped during a home invasion that much better when you know protection is behind only 6 redundant locks and bio-barriers.

          Welcome to libertopia.

          1. Amazing how so many of the dogmatic an-cap “solutions” actually make things worse.

            1. I don’t think increased liability exposure for firearms owners is technically an-cap.

            2. That’s not an ancap solution at all if you somehow require insurance to own a gun.

              Nozick is good as a sort of popular, gentle intro to libertarian minarchy (NOT anarchy; he actually argued against it) but he fails in being systematic about it. I’m not as anti-Nozick as some others, but I think his work ends up being a disservice if you really want to argue for radical solutions, since so much of his stuff fails first principles (of free will and property).

              His whole argument for being liable for “risk” and using that as a basis to preemptively restrict people is a total non-starter.

              1. No, it’s not an anarcho-capitalist solution. It’s a libertarian one.

                You internalize the costs imposed by creating the risk by assigning them back to the originator, and then you let the market work it out. If the premiums are too high to pay for the insurance cost of owning a gun, that means there’s a high risk of you (or someone else) taking that gun and using it in a crime. That either means you’re too unstable or irresponsible to have a gun.

                If there’s a low risk, then the insurance should be cheap and owning a gun is no problem.
                You could even extend this principle to all weapons. You could legalize owning a tank if the person owning it was willing to pay for the insurance.

                1. The gun owner whose property was stolen isn’t the originator of the risk, the person who stole them is.

                  Otherwise, should we assign liability to the parents of the person who committed the crime with the gun since they obviously didn’t raise him right? What about his teachers, who didn’t alert the authorities when he showed signs of antisocial behavior in school? What about his neighbors and friends, who clearly weren’t keeping a close enough eye on him?

                  1. The gun owner created a risk by creating the potential for the guns to be stolen. A risk which can be substantially reduced by keeping the guns in a safe and secure location.

                    I don’t see why this is controversial at all. It’s exactly what the NRA advises people to do.

                    The NRA isn’t out there saying you should keep your gun on the coffee table in case a burglar breaks into your house during dinner.

                    1. The gun owner created a risk by creating the potential for the guns to be stolen. A risk which can be substantially reduced by keeping the guns in a safe and secure location.

                      By virtue of owning them? Are you fucking delusional?

                      I don’t see why this is controversial at all. It’s exactly what the NRA advises people to do.

                      1. Who fucking cares what the NRA advises about anything? They aren’t anymore representative of the firearms owning community than Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson are of the black community.

                      2. The NRA actually doesn’t advise people to buy additional insurance to protect themselves from suit brought because of the actions of a criminal. They advise buying insurance to indemnify the owner should he, himself shoot an intruder or to provide replacement should they be stolen.

                      The NRA isn’t out there saying you should keep your gun on the coffee table in case a burglar breaks into your house during dinner.

                      Again, nobody really cares what the NRA says.

                    2. The gun owner created a risk by creating the potential for the guns to be stolen.

                      There would have been a potential for the guns to be stolen even if the current owner didn’t own them. They existed before he or she bought them, so they could have been stolen from the gun store, or from a different buyer.

                2. You could legalize owning a tank if the person owning it was willing to pay for the insurance.

                  Tanks are legal numbnuts.

                  You internalize the costs imposed by creating the risk by assigning them back to the originator…

                  Bullshit.

                  Owners of automobiles are not liable for actions of criminals should their vehicles be stolen and used in the commission of a crime.

                  1. Owners of automobiles are not liable for actions of criminals should their vehicles be stolen and used in the commission of a crime.

                    That’s a decent point, but I think that the car, by itself, doesn’t enable the crime very much, especially since there are so many cars available that the criminals could steal. A gun, however, enables criminal activity much more, and thus is a lot more “risky” to own than a car.

                    By analogy, obviously, you wouldn’t sue the owner of a t-shirt if the shirt was stolen and used as a mask. Because the shirt is a relatively trivial factor in the commission of a crime.

                    The gun makes a big difference though.

                    1. the car, by itself, doesn’t enable the crime very much, especially since there are so many cars available that the criminals could steal. A gun, however, enables criminal activity much more, and thus is a lot more “risky” to own than a car.

                      More crimes involve cars than guns. And there are a lot of guns available too, no?

                    2. But crimes that involve guns tend to have higher costs. The gun does the worst (most expensive) damage. The gun causes the actual wounds and deaths, which require the most expensive medical treatment and the largest damage awards. The car just enables the escape (unless it’s used to deliberately run someone over, but that’s also a small factor in the risk calculation).

                    3. But crimes that involve guns tend to have higher costs. The gun does the worst (most expensive) damage. The gun causes the actual wounds and deaths, which require the most expensive medical treatment and the largest damage awards. The car just enables the escape (unless it’s used to deliberately run someone over, but that’s also a small factor in the risk calculation).

                      Citation please.

                    4. A gun, however, enables criminal activity much more, and thus is a lot more “risky” to own than a car.

                      Cite?

                      The gun makes a big difference though.

                      Why not add knives to the list of things requiring insurance indemnification?

                      A car is hardly trivial when it’s used as the weapon or in the getaway.

                    5. Knives don’t impose as great a risk of death or serious injury as guns.

                      You could require liability insurance for knives, but on a per-knife basis the premiums would be so small as to be meaningless.

                    6. You could require liability insurance for knives, but on a per-knife basis the premiums would be so small as to be meaningless.

                      Why do we even need the insurance companies? Hazel has already figured out all the premiums beforehand.

                      Hint: if your plan is letting the market decide, you can’t assume you know what the market will decide to justify the plan.

                    7. Why do we even need the insurance companies? Hazel has already figured out all the premiums beforehand.

                      Seriously? I don’t need an insurance adjuster to tell me that knives are low risk. I’ve owned plenty of them, and I know what the probability of getting stabbed with them is.

                    8. I’ve owned plenty of guns and no one has ever been hurt by them, either.

                    9. Besides, what you are proposing isn’t at all a “market” solution at all.

                      What you are proposing is essentially Obamacare for gun owners.

                    10. No, ObamaCare requires you to get insurance to cover harms to YOURSELF. It’s more like auto-insurance. You only have to get insurance to cover the risks you impose upon OTHERS.

                    11. Now you’re just being obtuse.

                      Requiring the purchase of a product by government fiat IS NOT LIBERTARIAN, nor is it a market solution.

                      I’m not required to have auto-insurance merely by act of possessing an automobile.

                    12. I refer you to Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick, Chapter 4: Prohibition, Compensation, and Risk.

                      Unless now you’re going to declare Nozick a heritic who has nothing to do with libertarianism.

                    13. Unless now you’re going to declare Nozick a heritic who has nothing to do with libertarianism.

                      Answer downthread.

                    14. This is how a libertarian argues from authority.

                    15. I’m not arguing from authority. I’m making the same argument Nozick makes while pointing out that Nozick is a libertarian.

                    16. I’m making the same argument Nozick makes while pointing out that Nozick is a libertarian.

                      Which is precisely what an appeal to authority is.

                      Jesus, you are fucking stupid.

          2. It’s up to you to decide if you want to pay more on your insurance to have the gun more accessible. Nobody’s forcing you to do anything but carry enough ensurance to cover damages. Which premiums will depend on your likelihood, as determined by people who are trained to calculate risk, of actually losing track of the gun or doing damage with it.

            Imagine, holding people responsible for the risks they impose on others.

            1. Imagine, holding people responsible for the risks they impose on others.

              You want victims of crime to pay for the later crimes of the perpetrator, all for the sin of having the gall to arm themselves within their rights. Not only that, you’re fucking glib about it. Fuck man.

              I can argue with the gun grabbers all day, because they don’t represent me, but those that claim to be liberty lovers bringing this shit, I wouldn’t give ’em the steam off of my piss.

              Fucking Fudd, you probably think guns are for fucking hunting.

              1. I think that gun owners should be held partially liable if the gun gets stolen and is used to commit a crime.

                Do you really believe that if you leave a loaded gun lying around on your coffee table, and your deranged nephew takes it and goes and kills a bunch of people, that you aren’t in any way responsible for that?

                1. Like I said, I’d be receptive to some sort of criminal or civil liability for grossly negligent firearm storage.

                  But you’re advocating for penalties even for responsible gun owners who make a reasonable effort to secure their firearms.

                  1. Like I said, I’d be receptive to some sort of criminal or civil liability for grossly negligent firearm storage.

                    Ummm, you do realize who would be defining “grossly negligent firearm storage” don’t you.

                    If you think it’s such a great idea, then call up your insurance company and ask what such coverage would cost. I’m sure they’ll sell you something to ease your conscious. Leave me, and the millions of other firearms owners, out of your guy’s little scheme.

                    1. I’d think leaving loaded guns laying around unattended in plain view is pretty negligent.

                      It would be tough setting a dividing line, I agree. It would also be tough to enforce.

                  2. Is a very small component of your overall insurance premium considered a “penalty”?

                    I’m just saying let the market handle the exact calculation of the risk. You’d obviously have competition amoung insurers for lower insurance premiums, which should lead insurers to calculate risk as accurately as possible, and if the risk of having a gun stolen is low, then it should cost very little.

                    1. But Hazel, you’re not just “letting the market decide”. Your assignment of liability to the gun owner is not a market action, it’s imposed by fiat.

                    2. But Hazel, you’re not just “letting the market decide”. Your assignment of liability to the gun owner is not a market action, it’s imposed by fiat.

                      How about we let the civil courts decide where the liability lies. Common law style.

                    3. Common law != the market.

                      Common law gave us asset forfeiture, executive privilege, and alloidal title.

                    4. I’m just saying let the market…

                      How you gonna do it without the state making it so?

                      Why not skip the middle-man, let the ATF do it and just admit your gun grabbing ways?

                    5. Why not skip the middle-man, let the ATF do it and just admit your gun grabbing ways?

                      Did you miss my comment up-thread about letting people own tanks?

                    6. Did you miss my comment up-thread about letting people own tanks?

                      Nope, but I don’t pay much heed to obfuscation.

                2. No more responsible than if junior takes the car for a joyride and plows into a crowd of people.

            2. Imagine, holding people responsible for the risks they impose on others.

              Explain how I’m imposing risk on others by owning a gun.

              It’s not like I’m dumping dihydrogen monoxide into the river.

              1. Explain how I’m imposing risk on others by owning a gun.

                Lots of ways. You could have a mental breakdown and kill someone with the gun. You could be a person with a violent streak who loses control and shoots someone. You could use it to commit a crime. You could have the gun accidentally go off and harm someone. The gun could be stolen.

                Depending on who you are, the probability of any of these things happen is going to vary. The insurance company would then have the job of calculating the likelihood and the costs associated with any of those things and setting premiums accordingly.
                For instance, an ex-felon with a history of mental illness could still get a gun, but he’d have to pay a lot more in premiums than a 50 year old woman with no criminal record.

                1. And if the insurance companies won’t insure you?

                  1. Then you’re obviously too insane, criminal, or irresponsible to own one.

                    1. Then you’re obviously too insane, criminal, or irresponsible to own one.

                      Citation please.

                    2. Then you’re obviously too insane, criminal, or irresponsible to own one.

                      Citation please.

                      The fact that no insurance company will sell you insurance IS the citation, dimwit.

                    3. The fact that no insurance company will sell you insurance IS the citation, dimwit.

                      I guess you know exactly who the insurance companies would decide to insure and their decision would perfectly represent who shouldn’t own a gun, enemy of liberty.

                    4. I guess you know exactly who the insurance companies would decide to insure and their decision would perfectly represent who shouldn’t own a gun, enemy of liberty.

                      I expect the insurance companies to do an excellent job calculating exactly who is less risky to insure than the price they can afford to pay in premiums, and to sell insurance to everyone they can make a profit off of.

                    5. We have to pass it to find out what’s in it?

                2. You could have a mental breakdown and kill someone with the gun. You could be a person with a violent streak who loses control and shoots someone. You could use it to commit a crime. You could have the gun accidentally go off and harm someone.

                  In each of those cases you’d be liable under current law, both criminally and civilly. So those are red herrings. What you’re proposing that’s new is the possibility of holding people whose guns are stolen liable, regardless of how they secured the guns.

                  For instance, an ex-felon with a history of mental illness could still get a gun, but he’d have to pay a lot more in premiums than a 50 year old woman with no criminal record.

                  It’s extremely unlikely that any insurance company would offer a policy for mentally ill people. And if they did the premium would be so high that only the mentally ill felon son of Bill Gates would be able to get a gun.

                  1. It’s extremely unlikely that any insurance company would offer a policy for mentally ill people. And if they did the premium would be so high that only the mentally ill felon son of Bill Gates would be able to get a gun.

                    Precisely. This is a feature, not a bug.

                    1. Your hate for the 2nd amendment is palpable.

                    2. Your IQ isn’t.

                    3. Never claimed to be smarter than any other, but you can’t honestly accuse me of being an enemy to liberty.

                    4. This is a feature, not a bug.

                      How is it a feature? A mentally ill felon can’t (legally) get a gun under the current system either. You’re not proposing anything that improves upon the current situation from the POV of liberty OR public safety.

                    5. A mentally ill felon might be able to get a gun, depending on how the insurance companies calculate his risk, and how much his premiums cost.

                      The ones that are considered high-risk couldn’t get guns (unless they could afford it). The low risk ones could.

                      Not all felonies are violent. Not all mental illnesses tend to cause people to behave violently.

                      A depressed dope-smuggler could probably obtain a gun without too much trouble. A rapist or a murderer or a schizophrenic probably couldn’t.

                    6. Congratulations, HM, you’ve just devised a plan that makes stealing guns a lot more attractive.

                    7. If you’re really worried about it, why not start a fund to buy the liability insurance on behalf of felons and schizophrenics.

                    8. Hazel’s plan is actually quite genius. It allows him to propose something way worse than DiFi would ever think of selling to the public, but under the guise of the “free market”.

                      I guess if you read enough books tin-pot tyranny can look like freedom. I would hate to be that confused.

                    9. It allows him to propose something way worse than DiFi would ever think of selling to the public, but under the guise of the “free market”.

                      Well, nobody can question Robert Novick’s authority on matters free market and libertarian.

                      After all, proposing a scheme in which people are required to purchase insurance to exercise liberty could never be seen as anything other than libertarian…….

                    10. What you don’t want to be held responsible for being a victim of theft? Freeloader.

                    11. I’m amazed by the number of people arguing they should have no responsibility whatsoever for securing their weapons against theft, proudly declaring they keep a loaded gun under the pillow and if someone steals it and kills someone with it, that’s not their problem.

        2. There’s no way to secure a gun, or anything for that matter, that makes thievery impossible.

          I do think a gun owner has a moral obligation to secure their arms as well as they can afford to do.

          1. So? The small risk that still exists of having it stolen, is what makes it a non-zero premium on your insurance policy. Big deal.

            If you’ve had guns stolen in the past, your premiums go up. Big deal.

            1. People that can’t afford insurance should just let the bad men do whatever they want. Close your eyes and think of Christmas, trash, self defense is for those of us with good credit.

              Should one be held liable if a scumbag steals a new yankee candle from their house and beats a lady to death with it?

            2. How about this, some fuck rapes a kid with HIV, then rapes someone else and gives them the disease. Should we hold the kid liable?

              In Hazel’s world we do, because victims of crime are responsible for what their perpetrators do.

              What a sick fucking world.

              1. Owning a gun is a voluntary choice. Getting HIV isn’t.
                People are liable for the consequences of their voluntary choices.

                And you can reduce the risk of having a gun stolen by not leaving it lying around. And in any case, it’s just a slightly higher insurance premium. Which is going to be lower if you keep your gun secured.

                It’s a perfect market-based incentive for gun-owners to keep their guns in a safe place.

                1. Getting HIV isn’t.

                  That’s news to me.

                  What about the new yankee candle?

                  It’s a perfect market-based incentive for gun-owners to keep their guns in a safe place.

                  My guns are in a safe place. Leaning up against my nightstand. Oh wait, you mean from all possible thieves and negligence. I guess I could turn them in to the government, or if your “market based” to State Farm. That would satisfy the “libertarian: gun grabbers.

                  I love so-called libertarians who think turning over our rights to an insurance company are some superior to the government.

                  If you don’t like citizens arming themselves just be fucking honest about it. Stop this bullshit political theorizing about how to take away people’s rights with non-government forces. Performing a lot of mental gymnastics to argue for an outcome doesn’t change the outcome you advocate for.

                  1. Don’t worry, GBN, the insurance company will drop by to inspect your firearm storage habits every once in a while to give you some tips.

                  2. Getting HIV isn’t.

                    That’s news to me.

                    Oh dear god, a homophobe. That wasc predictable.

                    1. Oh dear god, a homophobe. That wasc predictable.

                      Fuck you, dishonest piece of shit.

                      Keep hiding behind insurance companies and lies, motherfucker. It’s all you got.

                    2. You Hazelphobe.

                2. And you can reduce the risk of having a gun stolen by not leaving it lying around.

                  If you live in an apartment where you can’t drill into the walls or floors to secure a gun safe, you’re pretty much going to have to leave it laying around. Out of sight, unloaded and action-locked, hopefully, but those aren’t much to prevent thievery.

                  And of course the people who are going to have the highest premiums are the ones who live in high-crime areas. You know, the people most likely to need a gun for SD and least able to afford extra insurance.

                  1. If you live in an apartment where you can’t drill into the walls or floors to secure a gun safe, you’re pretty much going to have to leave it laying around. Out of sight, unloaded and action-locked, hopefully, but those aren’t much to prevent thievery.

                    You’ve never heard of a box with a padlock on it?
                    How about closets?

                    1. You’ve never heard of a box with a padlock on it? How about closets?

                      Those are easily compromised. If the burglar has time they’re going to rifle through the closets and a gun (particularly a shotgun or rifle) is going to stick out like a sore thumb. The box with a padlock is guaranteed to be picked up and taken away as it clearly contains something valuable.

                      Any trigger locks or action locks or missing bolts can be dealt with back at the burglar’s pad.

                      Those ideas are better than nothing, but are going to result in sky-high insurance premiums.

            3. If you’ve had guns stolen in the past, your premiums go up. Big deal.

              I don’t think you understand how premiums work. Ask a male driver below 25 years old with no accidents what his insurance premiums look like.

              1. NO NO you’re wrong. It’s MARKET BASED. HA!

                1. NO NO you’re wrong. It’s MARKET BASED. HA!

                  Just like Obamacare is a “market” solution.

                  I don’t know if Meade is just stupid or he’s shining us on, but what he is proposing could in NO WAY be confused as libertarian, nor could a LAW requiring the purchase of insurance be mistaken as a “free market” solution.

                  1. It’s exactly what Robert Nozick argues for in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which I have actually read, unlike you.

                    1. Whoopty-shit, you read Nozick.

                      I’m not usually in favor of libertarian purity rules, but if he actually argues for MANDATING purchase of a product through government fiat, then I feel safe in saying he’s not much of a libertarian or free marketeer.

                    2. He’s not. Guns scare him, but he wants to remain pure so he creates schemes like mentioned above.

                      It’s what smart people do.

                    3. I believe HM is a she.

                2. What, so you think auto-insurance companies shouldn’t be allowed to charge 25 year old males more than 50 year old female?

                  1. No, my point was that you can be totally innocent of any wrongdoing or negligence and still get socked with high premiums. Contrary to your talk about how your premiums will only be high if you leave guns laying around on your coffee table.

                    1. Well, you’re always saying that guns aren’t that risky and there isn’t that big a risk of them being stolen, but now you are arguing that the risk of having a gun stolen is so high that the insurance premiums would be impossible for anyone to afford. Which is it?

                      I’m of the mind that the NRA is right and owning a gun is relatively low risk if you keep it locked up as advised. There are special cases designed for that kind of thing. How many guns are there in America? And what percentage of them are ever used in a crime? Also I think the risk-of-theft part of the premium would be small compared to the risk-of-yourself-shooting-someone part.

                      Anyway, you could let the civil courts sort out exactly how much to hold a gun owner liable for if the gun gets stolen. Depending on what the jury thinks, the amount of the damages paid by the gun owner could be a small fraction of the total liability.

                    2. Anyway, you could let the civil courts sort out exactly how much to hold a gun owner liable for if the gun gets stolen. Depending on what the jury thinks, the amount of the damages paid by the gun owner could be a small fraction of the total liability.

                      Fuck off slaver, full stop.

                    3. Yeah, liability is slavery!!!
                      Freedom means never being held financially responsible for anything I do!

                    4. Freedom means never being held financially responsible for anything I do!

                      You’re proposing that we be held financially liable for WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO, you disingenuous twat.

                    5. I’m proposing you be held financially liable if you are irresponsible and leave your gun unsecured and some asshole steals it and uses it to kill people.

                      Not FULLY liable for the entire damages of the crime, but partisally liable, for being an irresponsible gun owner who let his gun get stolen.

                    6. The risk of having a gun stolen is small, but the potential for liability in your system if it is stolen is huge. I suggest you read a book on statistical estimation before you embarrass yourself further.

                    7. I’ve read plenty of books on statistical estimation. I have a Ph.D. in electrical engineering.

                      Do you realize that your are tacitly admitting (or claiming) that gun ownership imposes massive costs upon other people in society?
                      If the liability cost is that enormous it can only come from one source – damages to others caused by guns.

                    8. Do you realize that your are tacitly admitting (or claiming) that gun ownership imposes massive costs upon other people in society?

                      Which has precisely what bearing on liberty?

                    9. Which has precisely what bearing on liberty?

                      Well dammit, he’s got a phd in tinkering so you better just listen to what he says.

                    10. Do you realize that your are tacitly admitting (or claiming) that gun ownership imposes massive costs upon other people in society?
                      Which has precisely what bearing on liberty?

                      You are free to do whatever you want as long as you assume responsibility for the costs it imposes on others.
                      Your right to own a gun ends where my right not to get shot begins. If you want to do something that puts me at risk of being shot, then you must compensate me. The straightforward way of doing this is by holding you liable if I get shot and then requiring that you carry enough insurance to cover the damages.

                    11. Your right to own a gun ends where my right not to get shot begins.

                      But I didn’t shoot you in your scheme you moron.

                      You still haven’t explained how exactly government mandates for purchase of an insurance product is “free market” or libertarian, other than using a pathetic appeal to authority.

                      What your patently anti-liberty insurance scam…scheme will ACTUALLY do is deny the people who need firearms for personal defense the most access to them by pricing them out of the market, through a mix of onerous storage requirements and high insurance premiums.

                      Though I’m sure you see the disarmament of poor people as a feature and not a bug.

                    12. You’re not using your knowledge of estimation if you’re claiming that low probability of theft means low premiums. Premiums are (mostly) based on expected value of covered losses, which depends not only on probability of losses but on severity of losses if they occur.

                      Do you realize that your are tacitly admitting (or claiming) that gun ownership imposes massive costs upon other people in society?

                      No, I’m saying that if we impose by fiat your artificial system of holding gun owners liable for the damages others do with their guns, then gun owners are risking heavy liability.

                      If we held parents financially liable for crimes their adult children commit, parenting would be a very high-risk choice in life. That doesn’t mean that having kids imposes massive costs on the rest of society.

                    13. If we held parents financially liable for crimes their adult children commit…

                      Don’t give him ideas.

                      Jesus.

                    14. We should hold electrical engineers liable for damage caused by electricity.

                      I know someone’s got to be liable for the fact someone fashioned my clothes into a laundry bunny because they were left in the dryer while I was arguing with HM.

                    15. Because you have a phd in mathematics you should of been able to calculate the odds that you would have been tied up arguing online and neglected your clothes.

                      Furthermore, if a someone breaks into your home tonight and steals you wrinkled clothes for a job interview tomorrow, you should be held liable for their unemployed status and any crimes a consequence thereof.

                    16. We should hold electrical engineers liable for damage caused by electricity.

                      if I design and sell a product that electrocutes people then, yeah, I’m liable.

                    17. if I design and sell a product that electrocutes people then, yeah, I’m liable.

                      Which isn’t the same as claiming that people who own firearms expose you to risk of being shot by criminals by mere fact that they own firearms.

                      It truly amazes me that you truly cannot understand just how horrific what you are proposing really is. It just isn’t sinking in.

                      You want to make a third party financially responsible for the actions of another because he himself was a victim of the very same criminal.

                    18. You’re not using your knowledge of estimation if you’re claiming that low probability of theft means low premiums. Premiums are (mostly) based on expected value of covered losses, which depends not only on probability of losses but on severity of losses if they occur.

                      Lets do some math.
                      Lets say the average damage award due to an unlwfull killing is $10,000,000, of which $1,000,000 (to be very generous) is paid by the gun owner.
                      There were 12,000 homicide deaths in the the USA last year. There are about 600,000 guns stolen each year, out of around 310 million guns total.
                      Even if we assume all 12,000 murders were commited using stolen guns, that’s a probability of 2% that if your gun is stolen it will be used to commit a murder in that year. Meanwhile the probability of a gun being stolen in a given year is roughly 0.2%. So for each gun the probability of it being stolen and used in a crime is 0.004 %.
                      That puts the average annual murder-due-to-stolen-gun premium at around $40 a year. Of course that fails to distinguish between variances in rates depending on how securely you keep your guns, and it doesn’t take into account the possibility that the gun could be used to commit multiple murders in one year, but that’s the rough math.

                      Is $40/year per gun really an outrageous sum? I’m even being generous in the number I think the civil jury would charge a gun owner, and I’m being conservative by assuming all murders are commited with stolen guns.

                    19. You could also calculate similar number of other violent crimes , but there the damages would be much smaller.
                      Even if it turns out the premium comes out to be $100/year, that’s not a ridiculous number.

                    20. Note: I’m calculating the premium on an annual basis using annual gun statistics, but the gun might be used in future years to commit murder. However, that would also reduce the statistical probability of the stolen gun being used to commit a murder that year. (And Some murders were commited using guns stolen during previous years). So it cancels out.

    3. So if I’m burglarized, and the burglars break into my gun safe, then use the guns inside to commit crimes, I’m liable for their actions.

      (c) also seems to be implying that insurance companies are, in effect, deciding who is allowed to own guns.

      I could see some type of requirement that people secure their guns to the greatest degree they can afford, but this is going to far. We don’t even have these standards for vehicle owners.

      1. You would be at least partially liable for their actions. Obviously the burglars would have more liability than you do. The amount of damages would be determined by the courts, as it generally is in civil lawsuits.
        Your only cost, of course, is the price of paying the insurance premiums, which would vary depending on how securely you keep your guns.

    4. Yeah, I’m not cool with any of that.

  27. Many of the colonial militia took their own weapons to fight with which more often than not had rifled barrels, not the smoothbore muskets issued to troops of the day.

    A rifled barrel gave them a decided advantage over their opponents in that they were much more accurate. The reason why the British issued Brown Bess musket did not even have sights was because sights on a musket were useless since the ball bouncing out of the muzzle was likely to go just about any direction.

    The founding fathers knew plenty about advancing firearms technology and thus wrote “arms” rather than “muskets” or “rifles”. It is a general term meant to apply to current military weapons regardless of changing technology. You have to be willfully ignorant to miss this point.

    Funny that the first amendment states “press” specifically but nobody has any doubts that the meaning should be extended to cover ASCII based verbiage.

  28. In case you were wondering what a “prepper” is, Salon is ready to answer your question with their usual objective rigor.

    Statements aside, preppers undoubtedly attract a fringe element. The APN site talks often and explicitly about “The End of the World As We Know It,” which it refer to as TEOTWAWKI. And judging from the abundance of videos and blogs of self-identified preppers arming themselves while touting conspiracies about government, financial collapse and the apocalypse, it’s clear this isn’t strictly a peaceful movement of people hoarding canned goods.

    […]

    It is difficult to say what, if any, role Nancy Lanza’s worldview played in her son’s murderous rampage last Friday. But as a public portrait of this fractured movement emerges, it’s fair to wonder if a culture increasingly equating safety and self-reliance with self-arming will see more of this kind of tragedy.

    1. Preppers, like libertarians, must be marginalized by every person who has invested their lives in the fact belief that the system, as it is, is indefinitely viable.

      Preppers think the collapse will happen tomorrow, libertarians know it’ll happen someday.

      1. It’s likely to be a long slow descent rather than a collapse. And you can’t really prep for a long slow descent.

        1. It’s likely to be a long slow descent rather than a collapse. And you can’t really prep for a long slow descent.

          That’s what I meant. Rome didn’t collapse in a day.

          1. No way. It all ended one day in 476 just like they taught me. (sarc)

        2. And you can’t really prep for a long slow descent.

          Oh?

        3. And you can’t really prep for a long slow descent.

          That’s news for those of us who are doing it…….

          1. Tulpa must be separating “disaster preps” from homesteading.

            1. Yes, those are very different animals.

              I’m not going to dump my career doing something I’m good at and go out and become a farmer, which I’m not good at.

      2. ROADZ!!!

        Gerald Childs
        MONDAY, DEC 17, 2012 05:25 PM EST
        Overall, it’s just a dangerous fantasy that stands in the way of people doing the collective planning that is the only way to save lives in times of disaster. Humans have known this since the beginning of recorded history – it’s the only reason there is any recorded history.

        It’s responsible to keep a disaster kit and some canned goods in event of a natural or other disaster. It is not responsible to promote paranoid and factually wrong doctrines that suggest that any household can sustain itself in today’s world, where we are all linked by cable, pipe and road. You might very well notice that the people pandering the hardest to “preppers” are swindlers selling fake super-tonics and marked-up gold coins.

    2. I thought preppers were those 80s teens who wore argyle sweaters.

  29. Morriftown, December 14 1788
    Mifter Adams:

    Given the late massacre in Bofton of folk ill prepared to return the Shots of King George’s murderous Dragoons, and our infant Republic’s many Defeats at the hands of the Despot’s well-ordered Hessian militia, methinks we have a Duty to amend the prospective Constitution.

    Of what use can keeping & bearing Arms be if many merely posefs themselves of single-shotted Mufketry ? Better the new Constitution fhould compel every Man, Woman & Child to bear Arms proper to repelling Assault, viz, the thirty-shotted Puckel Gun the mere sight of which would compel the bloody Lobfterbacks and Barbaree pyrates to flee our shores.

    Quakers may quail at thif, lest naughty Schoolchildren efcape Chastisement by training Ordnance at their Preceptors, but sober Physicians say the infant Casualties from Teachers shooting back would be small compared to the lofs of Life from serving Lunch in the publick Schools.

    So let us amend the Constitution to assure every Citizen departs the Cradle for the School-Room bearing a Puckel-Gun, and thus able to deter hif Neighbor.

    Confident that almighty Providence hath inspired thif Anti-Bullying amendment as a Gift to Hif preterite Sheep, I remain Sir,

    Your moft humble & Ob’nt Servant

    Gouverneur Morrif

    1. I don’t know what this was meant to be, but I like it.

      1. I don’t know what this was meant to be, but I like it.

        It wasn’t very encouraging the way I read it.

        1. I’ve come to the point in life where I just like to laugh.

    2. A thoufand internetf to you.

  30. The fuck does she have against Legolas?

  31. “flesh-piercing, fast-firing, killing machines.”

    So I won’t have to license my trebuchet?

  32. The hipster on foodstamps, a psychiatrist’s analysis.

    I figured someone here would enjoy this article.

  33. Sometimes dude you jsut gotta roll with it man!

    http://www.PrivacyRules.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.