NRA Fights Anti-Gun Hysteria With Pro-Gun Hysteria


Today the National Rifle Association broke its silence on the Sandy Hook massacre, and its strategy seems to be fighting anti-gun hysteria with pro-gun hysteria. The statement delivered by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, which is liberally sprinkled with italics and exclamation points, features passages like this:

When it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family—our children—we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!

The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters—people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them. They walk among us every day. And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn't planning his attack on a school he's already identified at this very moment?

How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame—from a national media machine that rewards them with the wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave—while provoking others to try to make their mark? A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation's refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?

Not exactly the voice of calm reason. LaPierre evidently wants people to panic, as long as they stampede in the direction he prefers. Yet the fact remains that mass shootings of any kind, let alone mass shootings at schools, are rare events, and we should be cautious about making any major policy changes in an effort to reduce an already tiny risk. I don't know what LaPierre means by "an active national database of the mentally ill," and I'm not sure he does either. But since there is no indication that Adam Lanza was ever declared mentally incompetent or committed to a mental institution, such a database could prevent people like him from buying guns (leaving aside the fact that he used his mother's weapons) only if the criteria for rejecting buyers are expanded to cover many people who pose no threat of violence (potentially including half the population, if a psychiatric diagnosis is all that's required). 

LaPierre wildly shoots at several other targets, including our allegedly lenient criminal justice system, which supposedly coddles "killers, robbers, rapists and drug gang members"; "vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse"; and "blood-soaked slasher films like 'American Psycho' and 'Natural Born Killers'" (which were released 12 and 18 years ago, respectively). There is some sense in there too (about the "assault weapon" bogeyman and the puzzling progessive aversion to armed self-defense), but it is drowned in the flood of foam flying off LaPierre's lips. And while letting teachers or other staff members with concealed carry permits bring their guns to school seems like a better policy than advertising "gun-free zones" to armed lunatics, the National School Shield Emergency Response Program that LaPierre recommends, featuring "a protection plan for every school," a potentially smothering "blanket of safety," and congressional appropriations, including "whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school," seems utterly disproportionate given the level of risk that children (yes, including my own) actually face when they go to school.

Last night I suggested that Piers Morgan's televised faceoff with Larry Pratt "pretty accurately reflects the general tenor of the current gun control debate, with raw emotionalism and invective pitted against skepticism and an attempt at rational argument." The NRA and Wayne LaPierre seem determined to prove me wrong.

NEXT: California Jobless Rate Below 10 Percent

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. LaPierre and the NRA were going to go FULL LAW & ORDER. There was no doubt. They're getting hammered, and they are an organization that has grown beyond their original purpose since that purpose has been mainly achieved (as happens with any advocacy organization). What do organizations like this do when they see an opportunity or are pressured? They go FULL PANIC, especially if they are getting hammered by a FULL PANIC from the other side. Think of MADD, for instance.

    1. True, but the NRA doesn't have a responsibility to any civil rights issues outside its purview. I can't blame them for protecting gun rights in the ways that they feel they can best do so.

      1. Do you feel the same way about MADD? Because I distrust any lobbying organization that grows too large, powerful, and beyond its original purpose. The NRA used to be about (mainly) one thing: gun rights. They have expanded into conservationism in the form of protecting public hunting grounds, some social conservatism, and trying to buddy up with law enforcement. It's dangerous, and I am wary.

        (Full disclosure: I am an NRA member.)

        1. I'm an NRA member, too. I haven't really noticed any social conservatism (if anything their branding efforts as of late have been attempting to get women and minorities -- "cosmos" -- to adopt their position), and outside of training for law enforcement and a pro-LEO slant I haven't seen them involved in legislation in that regard. As far as MADD goes, I never fully agreed with their agenda so I don't really know how to respond to your question.

          1. My concern is that the organization is going to start changing in order to protect its own existence and power rather than continue its original mission. And then it will become an enemy to liberty, just like MADD. And LaPierre's speech smacks of that, whereas he could have calmly focused on gun rights and sanity.

            1. Calm and reason were out the window once the gun grabbers initiated the cri de couer. I agree with your concern long-term but in the short-term, I don't think the NRA is going to change the aims of the organization -- nor could it without losing members. Hell, I know some people who are frustrated enough with the NRA's tactics that they've moved to other (less effective) organizations like GOA.

          2. The American Rifleman constantly fellates law enforcement and the military.

            1. Oops sorry, I shouldn't post when drinking beer. I read your whole comment and saw the pro-LEO slant. Sorry.

        2. (Full disclosure: I am an NRA member.)

          Wary is good. But the fact remains that they are likely all that stands between us and some comprehensive gun-confiscation scheme. To me, any cozying up they might do so socons or law enforcement is a lot less dangerous that what we'd face if they weren't out there at all. I imagine you think along similar lines, given that you're a member.

        3. The NRA was founded in the wake of the Civil War to promote civilian marksmanship in the service of a more effective military. In other words, it was founded to support the 'well regulated militia' part of 2A, not gun rights per se. It formed a lobbying arm in 1934 in response to the National Firearms Act, which it backed. It also backed the Gun Control Act of 1968. The contemporary concerns of the NRA - gun ownership at all costs - are historically novel for the organisation.

          1. Oh, look, another militia-clause troll.

            1. Yeah, if they wanted the law to only impact militias, I think they would have phrased it "The right of militias to bear arms will not be infringed."

              1. Oh look, another dickless loser/gun nut who thinks he's a constitutuional expert.

            2. Oh, look, another HandR commenter with reading comprehension problems.

        4. The NRA used to be about (mainly) one thing: gun rights.


          This isn't true, and never has been. The NRA's primary mission for much of its existence has been training and recreation. The political advocacy is quite recent, because for much of the NRA's existence the shooting sports were not a controversial thing. They have had to enter the fray to defend the things they stand for, but the NRA was and is a nonpartisan entity that takes political positions on one thing and one thing only.

          Oh and I thought all of us here thought that LEOs need as much extra training as possible. How the hell is training cops to shoot accurately under pressure instead of running out the magazine a bad thing? How many times have we seen cops firing 50, 60, or more shots at a single target but only connecting with five or so?

      2. To paraphrase Lombardi, defending civil rights isn't a some of the time thing, it's an all of the time thing. If you're willing to throw other civil liberties under the bus just to protect the "important" ones, you're weakenin them all.

        I value my first ammendment rights just as much as my second rights, and I'm just as offended by LaPierre's accusation that I'm responsible for Sandy Hook because I like to play Grand Theft auto as I am by the accusation that I'm responsible because I'm a gun owner.

        1. It is depressing that people in modern times seem incapable of defending one right without throwing another under the bus.

        2. I'm not throwing any civil liberties under the bus, but as a simple matter of politics I understand that single-issue advocacy groups cannot do the same without becoming multiple-issue and thus losing broad-based support.

          It's a politics thing.

          1. It's possible to advocate for gun rights without advocating against speech rights. Further more, by advancing the argument that the government has an obligation to interfere with personal freedom for the purpose of protecting society from "degenerancy", they're planting the seeds of the arguments that will eventually be turned against gun rights even if they mommentarily refrain for the purposes of going after another target first.

            When they came for the violent video games, I said nothing because I did not play Splatterhouse...

            1. Wow, you can form a coherent, nonpartisan thought. It must be the end of the world.

            2. The NRA isn't going to spend a penny lobbying against the 1st Amendment.

    2. I'm disappointed that they suggest putting armed officers in every school. I agree that they're getting hammered in a completely irrational way, but now... now, more than ever is there chance to be calm, rational and defend the Bill of Rights.

      This reads (to me) like a screed against the decay of society.

      1. It's a little more involved than that. By bringing in a security expert and emphasizing the connection between the NRA and LEOs, the message from the NRA is:

        *We are experts
        *We get guns in the hands of the good guys
        *We have thought about the issue
        *We have specific solutions

        I am as skeptical as anyone on this board when it comes to LEOs, but understand that most people (esp those who might be inclined to favor gun control) are not. This message works for the soccer moms. So long as the NRA doesn't spend time or effort on these "solutions", it's cool.

      2. Well, I think this was a brilliant strategy given the limitations of a very bad situation. The alternatives? Arm the teechurz - a non-starter for pretty much everyone. Arm the kids - loony tunes. Swarm training - parents aren't going to go for that.

        So what they did was basically parrot what "responsible" people have been saying, albeit a bit watered-down. Plus, offering to help (which infuriated the proggies, so win). The bits about video games, etc? Fluff.

        1. Plucked the very fibers of thought from my brain, you did.

        2. I hear what you and Immaculate are saying, dude, but I'm not a big fan of being mercenary and utilitarian.

          1. Trouser: Heh. Thx.

            Epster: Me, neither, but they are. Also +1 mercenary.

          2. Understandable, and neither am I but such are the scraps that liberty lovers are dealt in this world.

        3. Arm the teechurz - a non-starter for pretty much everyone. Arm the kids - loony tunes. Swarm training - parents aren't going to go for that.

          No, don't arm the teachers, allow teachers who are inclined to do so, arm themselves. There's a difference... a subtle difference, but a major one. And if articulated correctly, recognizes the moral right of self defense.

          1. My point was that they didn't suggest either of those options, they stuck with politically safe options.

          2. I say let each school district determine their own gun policies. I understand the concerns about a student stealing the teacher's gun somehow, so one possible solution is requiring biometric safeties on any guns held in the classroom. That way it will be impossible for a kid to shoot. But advertising a school as a gun-free zone is the absolute worst way to protect kids from gun violence.

            1. You're touching on something that I've been puzzling through for the last few days.

              I actually wouldn't have a problem letting the school district hold a concealed carrier to higher standards.

              Just some thoughts:

              A teacher may legally carry concealed if he or she:

              1. Has a legal carry permit issued previously by the state.
              2. Submits a mental health evaluation to the school board.
              3. Must be in control of the weapon at all times.
              4. May be fired without cause if the teacher displays any behavior which causes concern about his or her reliability or safety tp carry the weapon.
              4a. Waves all administrative hearings in the case of said firing.

              Just some thoughts.

              1. Public teachers, like Proprietist said, can just get those James Bond guns the Proggies have been salivating over the past few days.

                1. Is there a gun that won't shoot if it detects Proggie Biometrics?

              2. I like the responsibility items, but to be effective, no one other than the carrier should know who has a gun and who doesn't. If there's a list or official program, it will come out and those people will be the first targets.

                Let school employees carry concealed if they wish (gun to be carried on their person not locked up) but don't require disclosure or a formal program. Make the expedited policies above apply to any employee who chooses to carry.

            2. From the NRA response: "If a school decides for whatever reason that it doesn't want or need armed security personnel, that of course is a decision to be made by parents at the local level."

      3. If we can tolerate armed security guards at malls, office buildings, banks, court houses, airports, and your local social security office, they can sure as hell replace the useless school nurse or PE teacher. I'm going to demand it at my child's school, or the home schooling will resume. Think about it...useless politicians and hollywood celebrities have armed security and our children don't?

        Given the reaction to the NRA's suggestions, I actually think the gun grabbers want the issue more than they want to protect schoolchildren.

    3. The best part of this tone-deaf NRA response is that people who might not have been paying attention before are waking up to the fact that gun owners are completely bat-shit crazy and need to be contained.
      Go dry hump you weapons, "boys" b/c the tide has turned.
      Also, box of Extenz available on late-night TV for about $20, for the dickless losers who need it.

      1. Yeah, they're "bat-shit crazy" for thinking they have rights as citizens of a republic. Tell me, YGBKM, which of your rights are you "bat-shit crazy" for expecting to maintain? None? I'm betting I can find plenty of people ready to disagree with you on that.

      2. The ol' liberal "your dick is smaller than mine" insult. On this board? hahahahahahhahha

    4. I'm not so sure. This strikes me as more of a tactical passing of the buck than an organizational realignment. It may be morally cowardly, but it is consistent with their mission of protecting gun rights. The public is adamant someone "solve" this and the NRA is trying to make sure the "solve" doesn't mean gun control, rather than explain that there really isn't a "solution" that isn't worse than the problem.

      1. Yes. The hysterical anti-gun advocates want ACTION on this one issue completely disregarding all else. Imagine the reaction to President Bush if he would have calmly said there is little we can do militarily after the 911 attacks. The masses want action and the politicians will give them what they want. The NRA is fighting back the only way they can.

  2. No surprise here. Liberals see evil corporations everywhere, waiting to prey on their customers and employees. Conservatives see evil people everywhere, ready to do their evil deeds unless we live in an armed camp complete with a SWAT team on every corner, a camera on every street light, a wiretap on every phone and a TSA agent in every public building.

  3. The problem is, the NRA is just following suit. The anti-gun crowd is firmly entrenched in the "scare the shit out of the great unwashed" and is using the Connecticut tragedy as a leaping off point for their rights-grab. They feel the kids who were shot are perfect fodder for making guns and gun ownership out to be this evil specter from which all violence originates.

    the NRA was simply taking a page from the other side's playbook. You see how rational debate is impossible right now. CNN baits people who are for liberty and rights onto their network to try to ridicule and demean their position and reasons. So rather than sit back in silence, just do what the ambulance-chasing progressives are doing. Fear-monger right back.

    1. Damn, wish I'd have read downthread before posting. You said that better than I did.

  4. The Cosmos don't approve of a pro gun message. Can't upset their media friends.

    1. The instant someone uses "cosmotarian", they have announced to the world that they are a KULTUR WAR moron. Congratulations, moron. You're a fucking moron.

      1. Don't forget "orange line."

        1. Now you're making me miss LoneDipshit. Stop it!

      2. Oh, Cosmos. I thought he meant the universe didn't approve and was a little confused. When did celestial bodies get media friends?

        1. Who do you think he is, Carl Sagan?


          1. You eediot! It's beelions!

      3. Characteristics of the Yokeltarian:

        1. Every Yokeltarian will refer to non-Yokeltarians as Cosmotarians (because cities are bad mkay?)

        2. Yokeltarians can't let go of the conservative values they were brought up with. They will insist these values are libertarian and anyone who does not have them is merely a libertine.

        3. Yokeltarians will whine about teh Mooslims, teh gheys, teh immigrants, teh multikulturalism, and other KULTUR WAR bullshit.

        1. Characteristics of the Cosmotariat.

          1) Frame liberty issues in a proglodytic way.

          2) Expansion of government that proggies like are great and expansion of liberty that proggies hate are bad.

          3) Cosmotrarians can't let go of their proglodyte roots.

          1. "Gay marriage is the greatest expansion of goverment since the New Deal."
            - Yokeltarian

          2. All false. Nice try though.

          3. VeeGee, you are just making shit up out of whole cloth.

            1. Randian| 12.21.12 @ 4:30PM |#

              VeeGee, you are just making shit up out of whole cloth.

              I'm just fucking with you guys now.

              But the tone of this article is fucked and doesn't accurately reflect La Pierre's speech.

          4. What exactly are the progressive ideals that make me a cosmotarian? I named specific things, you only say I'm a "proglodyte."

            The truth is that cosmotarians simply lack your idiotic conservative ideals, they don't even need to have progressive ideals.

        2. 1. I live in Yorkville. On the Upper East Side of Manhattan. I don't hate cities.
          2. How are conservative values, unenforced by government unlibertarian or a bad thing? Are you going to try to argue you can't be a true libertarian unless you're a gay Mexican crackhead? Or are you going to try to tell us that having a strong family life, staying sober, and having a strong faith makes you a bad person?
          3. I won't speak in favor of those who advocate government action against "teh Mooslims, teh gheys, teh immigrants, teh multikulturalism", but do you think it is somehow or another libertarian for the state to interfere in their favor? Because that tends to be what I see a lot of conservative libertarians objecting to.

      4. Then what is the proper term for a putative libertarian who consistently finds fault with traditionalists, even when they're defending libertarian values, while giving everyone the "Nothing to see here people. Move along" on every progressive assault on liberty?

    2. Oh, shut the fuck up. Turning public schools, from the low-security prisons they are, into Supermax prisons is neither a pro-gun message, nor a libertarian one.

      1. No, see, the only way to be pro-gun is to agree with everything the NRA says.

        1. I prefer with GOA myself.

          I'm such a naughty lil' schismist!

          1. I've given to the NRA in the past, but I think I am going to give GOA a good look. Between shit like this and their constant fundraising pleas, I've had about enough of them.

            1. I left the NRA last year - they are relentless in seeking my $, er, rejoining.

              1. The last time they called me at home to try to get some money out of me, I told them that if they ever called me again at home they would never get another cent from me. So far it seems to have worked. But I still get about 3 letters a week in the mail.

              2. I don't think they miss you....they are signing up 8000 new members/day as a result of the lefts politicization of another heinous crime by a loon.

            2. HM & Zebulon, GOA has in the past issued statements praising Sheriff Arpaio. Worse, they praised him for 'protecting the Constitution' or something like that.

              I'm probably not giving to a gun group soon, but if I did, it would be the SAF.

              1. Hmm. That's good to know.

                1. Their founder wears bow-ties!

                  Part of the Richman/Gottlieb/Friedman libertarian bow-tie axis.

                2. Wow, I made it about a minute into that video. Who is that cunt interviewing him? "That's all you got, his record?... Let me tell you what Holder said!" Yeah, let's go on the words of this administration that has shown a propensity for lying over their actions. Great argument, fuckwad.

                  1. Simple guy...hate women much?

              2. The GOA also seems to have a pro-Drug War stance. I haven't seen anything official, I've noticed it while reading between the lines of past newsletters.

              1. The GOA is everything that Episiarch has been accusing the NRA of. Half of their schtick is that the NRA isn't a "conservative" organization, and they act appropriately. They are ineffective, at best, actively damaging at worst (and they have a history of completely fabricating shit to get attention).

                If you want to give other gun-rights organizations a look, try the Second Amendment Foundation. They're the ones who did the heavy lifting in Heller and McDonald, and they're still out there actually getting shit done.

                1. SAF is pretty damn great. I've heard that some local chapters of ACLU in southern states can be very good on gun rights, as well. Some decent state-level organizations to participate in, as well.

            1. You with the American Gun Owners or the Owners of Guns in America?

          2. Lifetime member of the GOA here.

            And boy am I looking forward to concealed carry in IL.

    3. Huh? Where did you get that from?

      1. From the first sentence of the article.

        Today the National Rifle Association broke its silence on the Sandy Hook massacre, and its strategy seems to be fighting anti-gun hysteria with pro-gun hysteria.

        Which is exactly what the proggy assholes are saying now.

        And no I don't like the idea of turning schools into prisons. Except that boat sailed a long time ago for a large percentage, maybe even most of them.

        Except of course for the schools that the ruling class send their kids to. Well fuck em. If metal detectors and armed guards are good enough for inner city schools, then they're good enough for for wealth districts like Newtown's.

        Maybe, just maybe real change will be possible if the pain is felt high enough. Worst case, it will encourage more people to bail on public schools, which is a good thing.

        1. See, if you just said that instead of just screaming "COSMO!!!" Most of us would have agreed with you instead of dumping on you.

        2. Well, I'd agree that the reaction was hysterical. That doesn't mean I'm not in favor of little or no restrictions on gun ownership. It's the hysterical part that's the problem, not the pro-gun part. Talking about video games as if that has anything to do with anything is just as hysterical and silly as thinking that having fewer 30 rd magazines or bayonet lugs would do anything to prevent things like this.

          1. I watched the press conference. LaPierre was not hysterical at all. So claiming that he was is a flat out lie. And one that the proggy hoplophobes are engaging in. So I don't know why anyone would add that unless they were trying to appear reasonable to those people.

            And yeah, his proposals were kind of ridiculous, but I saw them more as deflections to head of gun control than as serious proposals.

            1. I missed the beginning, where he talked about video games, mental health, and criminal justice, but I saw about the second half or so, and I have to say he didn't sound hysterical at all.

            2. Are you fucking retarded?

              Are you REALLY going to stand there and admit that LaPierre's proposals are ridiculous and not serious, and admit above that they would turn schools into prisons, but still stamp your little cunt foot and insist that they're not "hysterical" because of the douchebag's tone of voice?

              Fuck you, loser.

              Please kill yourself.

              1. I don't know if you're responding to me or VG, but all I can say is that (a) I only saw part of the speech, which included the bullshit about putting cops in schools but none of the rest, and (b) yeah, he didn't sound hysterical, and everything I heard him say was way lower on the hysteria-meter than what I've heard from the other side.

                When I read the full transcript and saw what I'd missed, I was pretty pissed off. It sounded like a lot of cheap and unethical deflection.

                1. I am responding to VG.

                  Because VG is pulling a fucking DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO and getting all butthurt because people are attacking absurd statements from LaPierre, because we're supposed to know he's "on our side".

                2. I don't know if you're responding to me or VG

                  Nobody calls women "losers", nicole.

                  1. We all have to check our privilege, Randian.

                    1. We all have to check our privilege, Randian.

                      They revoked my executive bathroom privileges after the last...uh...incident.

              2. Fluffy| 12.21.12 @ 2:49PM |#

                Are you fucking retarded?

                Apparently, because this is what Sullum summarized with the line pro gun hysteria

                a) Gun free zones are ridiculous and don't stop gun violence.

                b) The media began sensationalizing this crime immediately to push a pre-existing gun control agenda that won't prevent it's recurrence.

                c) The only thing that can stop a criminal with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

                Sullum excised all of that as pro gun hysteria.


                You know who else is doing that exact same thing? Ever proggy asshole in the media.

                1. Active database of the mentally ill.

                  That seems pretty hysterical to me.

                  1. Look I'm really offended by the phrase pro gun hysteria because it implies a mirror image of the anti gun hysteria that is everywhere right now.

                    And I'm pissed that a supposed gun rights advocate completely skipped the parts of LaPierre's speech that I mentioned above.

                    There's no reason to do that, it creates a completely false impression of the overall tone of the speech.

                    Now I wouldn't have a problem if Sullum had mentioned those and then said something like La Pierre lacked the courage to take those ideas to there natural conclusion and instead proposed government expansion that would appeal to the left or whatever.

                    But don't use the phrase pro gun hysteria which is a fucking proglodyte talking point.

                    1. I think you are reading too much into it. It was a turn of phrase in a headline on a blog.

                    2. I think you are reading too much into it. It was a turn of phrase in a headline on a blog.

                      That phrase has been used by proggy assholes to distort the gun liberty positions.

                      It's like saying that adding "shows their racist roots" is only a phrase and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

                      Oh and it's flat out funny how many people get here get hysterical vapors everytime the see the cosmo.

                    3. every time they see the word cosmo.

                    4. That's because they know it's true

                    5. It is a mirror image. Saying our children will die unless we reduce guns is the mirror of saying our children will die unless we increase guns.

              3. National Mental Health Database +1

          2. It's the hysterical part that's the problem

            "calm and dispassionate" doesnt' sell a story

            you think this would be news if he gave an erudite lecture on the basis for the second amendment?

            1. I don't know or care. I'm just saying what I think. Wayne Lapiere can do what he wants to.

              And I don't know that this needs to be news right now. They could have issued a quiet statement saying that their positions on gun control have not changed and left it at that.

        3. It's amazing how morons like you can read Jacob and think that he isn't utterly pro-liberty regarding guns. How fucking stupidly KULTUR WAR butthurt sensitive do you have to be to read what Jacob wrote and think he's somehow anti-gun-freedom?

          Holy fucking shit you're stupid.

          1. So why add the pro gun hysteria line in the first fucking sentence?

            And why say that Pierre was hysterical which he clearly was not?

            1. Oh no, he very clearly was hysterical. Video games, the press, the mentally ill - they're all at fault for Lanza.

              That's Hysteria 101 - firing an angry broadside in a kulturkampf-y way.

              1. Oh no, he very clearly was hysterical. Video games, the press, the mentally ill

                Which of those counts as pro gun hysteria?

                1. Because it's hysteria in the service of being pro-gun. Look, LaPierre could have simply defended the right to own a gun. Instead, he said we won't be safe if we don't have more guns. There's a difference between being pro-second amendment and being pro-more-guns. And it's hysteria because he's stoking fears that if we don't have more guns, we will have these rare violent acts. So yeah, it exactly mirrors the anti-gun hysteria that says if we don't reduce the number of guns, we will have these rare violent acts.

                  1. And it's hysteria because he's stoking fears that if we don't have more guns, we will have these rare violent acts.

                    And that's what makes you a cosmo.

                    Your attack on the idea that the only way to stop a criminal with a gun is when good guys have guns.

                    I'm curious why you fight that label so hysterically.

                    1. No, the fact that my blood is nothing but vodka and cranberry is what makes me a cosmo.

                      And my urine is triple sec.

                    2. And that's what makes you a cosmo.

                      Your attack on the idea that the only way to stop a criminal with a gun is when good guys have guns.

                      That's as broad and stupid a statement as "without guns, there would be no massacres." Thanks for proving my point

                    3. I'm curious why you fight that label so hysterically.

                      I didn't stoke any fears, irrational or not. Repeatedly whining about the word 'hysterical' makes you look like a twat.

                    4. I'm not whining, dumbshit.

                      But telling someone I hope you fucking die because they called you a cosmo is hysterical.

                    5. "non-responsive"

                    6. Hmm, what were those words you used? Oh yeah, "non-responsive."

            2. So why add the pro gun hysteria line in the first fucking sentence?

              Because that's what this was? Scaremongering, panicked "do something" reactions, calls for curtailing the bill of rights, all present and accounted for. Just because gun rights are a good thing doesn't mean it's impossible to be a fucking dipshit in support of them.

              1. Right, there was no hysteria over that attack until today when LaPierre spoke.

                1. Right, there was no hysteria over that attack until today when LaPierre spoke.

                  Missed the first part of the headline, didja?

              2. And for a political activist, as opposed to an armchair theorist, what exactly is the appropriate response when the public is looking to "DOOO SOMETHING!!!"?

          2. And by the way, no one else is prominently and publicly defending gun rights.

            But yeah he's a pro gun hysteric

            1. Yeah, just keep reminding us that you're stupid. That seems like a smart tack for you to take. Really, keep it up.

              1. Nice content free response.

                1. It's all you deserve.

                  1. I'm curious Epi,
                    did you actually watch the presser?

                    Did you hear La Pierre attack the idea of schools as gun free zones?

                    Or attack the media for sensationalizing the attacks in Newton and using them as a justification for worthless gun control?

                    Do you disagree with LaPierre's statement that the only way to stop a criminal with a gun is for good guys to have guns?

                    Are you even aware that is how he started the press conference.

                    I ask because Sullum doesn't mention any of that all. He summarizes it with the statement s strategy seems to be fighting anti-gun hysteria with pro-gun hysteria.

                    So why would he do that?

                    1. So why would he do that?

                      Obviously because he's a cosmotarian and thinks guns are icky!

                      It couldn't have anything to do with La Pierre's fear mongering.

                    2. Non responsive.

                      Why did he use a proglodyte buzz word to summarize positions that gun rights advocates agree with.

                      Especially when he didn't mention LaPierre's articulation of those points at all.

                    3. Gun rights advocates are not necessarily pro-gun and they don't necessarily engage in fear mongering, I don't see why you have a problem with Sullum characterizing what La Pierre said as what he said. Just because he said other things doesn't mean he didn't use pro-gun hysteria. But I can see you are more concerned with 'cosmo'-bashing then saying anything interesting.

                    4. I'm sure that you don't see any problem with the way Piers Morgan frames his anti gun arguments too.

                    5. I'm sure an idiot like you would think that.

        4. Maybe, just maybe real change will be possible if the pain is felt high enough.

          Taking a page from the proggie playbook, eh, VeeGee?

          1. Isn't that the whole point of wanting to get the crash over with already that I frequently encounter here?

          2. No, but thanks for playing.

            1. It's not?

              Then what do people advocating that position mean.

        5. All of the Jewish schools in LA County have private security. I assume all of the private schools do, too. Of course, Jews understand the harsh realities of the world. And the wealthy understand that they are targets of kidnapping, extortion, etc. The problem is reality just hit a bunch of suburban, White, upper-middle class people who have grown dependent on the State to educate their children.

          Armed security guards in private/religious schools works because they have no duty to enforce laws such as drug possession, truancy, or bullying. They are simply hired muscle, paid to protect the school against external threats. The problem with putting sworn officers of the State in every public school is that they have to pay attention to drugs on campus, truancy, fights between students. They won't just be hired muscle, but will become disciplinarians, investigators, jailers, etc. It sounds like a terrible idea.

          1. I'm a Jew. Believe me, you don't want to live the way Jews have to live - in fear of being killed when they gather together. At every community function I have to get buzzed in by a security guard - and I fucking hate it. I don't pass through the gate thinking 'oh, thank goodness we have security'; I think 'fuck those people who want to kill me'. Likewise, anybody who has to post an armed sentinel outside a kindergarten like it's fucking Fort Knox is going to think 'fuck those people who think personal firearms are the answer to every question about security and safety'.

            1. Where do you live? I'm not Jewish, but I live in Chicago and have Jewish friends. I've gone to Synagogues before. Never in my life have I had to pass through a security checkpoint when going to a gathering place where there will be a large number of Jews.

              Do you live in Israel or something? Because if you're living in constant fear of being killed and you live in America, that strikes me as being a little absurd.

              1. They kinda have a good reason to be skittish, yo.

              2. There was a shooting in 1999 at a L.A. JCC and ever since we've had visible security at High Holiday services at synagogues here.

          2. And when the cops in the schools inevitable have nothing to do that has anything to do with stopping serious violence (because that almost never happens), you can be sure that they will find some other things to do.

    4. VG Zaytseve was a Yokel
      Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

      1. Ha! Just what a Cosmo would say! Cocktail parties!

        1. Wheee martinis and craft beers!

          1. I could go for an Old Fashioned, myself.

            1. That or a Manhattan. Oh noes I said the name of a trendy borough. ORANGE LINE...ASSEMBLE!

              1. Hell, if there are Old Fashioneds and Manhattans, count me in on TEAM ORANGE!!!!!

              2. It's okay, Randian, if you were really a cosmo you would remember that Brooklyn is the trendy borough.

                1. Manhattan is still trendy if you have enough money,

                2. ppppt. girlfriend if it aint Williamsburg, its all lame. I'm so Cosmo Im half cranberry juice. We can listen to TV on the Radio and talk about how lame Murray Rothbard is.

                  1. Is that sort of like "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded"?

                    1. I just don't think I'd call Manhattan "trendy." Not to say that people who have the money don't want to live there; it's just not hip. It's for the people who married i-bankers, not the people cohabitating with artisanal chamberpots.

                    2. Zeb| 12.21.12 @ 4:01PM |#

                      Is that sort of like "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded"?

                      Kind of. Well, put it this way = when you're 22-27, Manhattan is the shit because you're a young punk who doesn't know shit and blow 99% of your earnings on lots of eating out and going to bars and clubs until you are completely fucking jaded and simply want a few good things/places to rely on.

                      Then you move to Brooklyn when you're 30 and realize that Manhattan is full of fucking annoying 20yr olds in crowded places that charge way too much and actually kind of suck.

                      After a few years your Brooklyn-snobbery hardens and now you sniff at all the early-30s hipsters flocking into your neighborhood and all the bodegas turning into "organic groceries" Its so fucking hip you seek out lame places to feel normal. Manhattan seems like a shitty Disneyworld parody of NYC by that point.

                    3. That was awesome.

          2. Hey Randian,

            Regale us again with how killing kids isn't a bad outcome.

            1. oh snap you got me!

              Well, if reading comprehension isn't the name of the game you got me, anyway.

              1. Uh oh, Neocon fight! Where are the pillows?

    5. That explains all the anti-gun propaganda I see on Reason. I can hardly come to this site without regular users explaining to me how important the implementation of a proactive gun ban is.

      1. Well, they are quite forgiving in allowing people to keep flintlock muskets!

      2. iggy| 12.21.12 @ 2:15PM |#

        That explains all the anti-gun propaganda I see on Reason.

        Also, the constant Ron Paul hatred. It was overwhelming. Plus, I can never remember whether Nick and Matt wrote a book. Did that ever come out?

        1. Yes. Declaration of Independents.

    6. I love it when cosmotarians call other cosmotarians cosmotarians.

      1. That's just the sort of shit I'd expect to hear from a Cosmotarian.

      2. A cosmotarian like you would.

        1. You ever hear the saying, "The beef jerky calls the bubble gum chewy"?

          Of course you haven't, but it fits here, Mr. Jerky.

  5. About what I expected, I guess. Like Epi said, they went law 'n' order rather than armed citizen, and thus managed to reinforce the main argument of their opponents: that Americans are inept and incapable and not really to be trusted with guns unless they wear a uniform.

    1. "Americans are inept and incapable and not really to be trusted with guns unless they wear a uniform."

      You are spot on - that really boils me ...so 30 June 2012 I was perfectly capable of carrying or using anything up to a nuke...the next day I hung the uniform up for good and now I cannot be trusted to keep the one rifle I have without going on a rampage or blowing my own foot off, etc.

      1. Too bad that wasn't a LEO uniform.
        Federal law allows retired police to carry concealed in all fifty states.

        The Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act.

        Some animals are more deserving of safety than others.

        1. Cripes, sarcasmic, that really is enough to make one puke in rage. So much for the "Civilian" Safety Act, eh?

      2. the next day I hung the uniform up for good and now I cannot be trusted to keep the one rifle I have without going on a rampage or blowing my own foot off, etc.


        1. A pity my last name isn't Rambo - then I could really get some attention when I inevitably snap and go postal on some small town inn rural derp-America!

          1. Yeah, but then you'd have to spend the next 10 years freeing hostages from Viet Nam and Russia.

    2. Disagree. What the NRA did was avoid an argument where their position could be characterized as "*shrug* shit happens".

      Is that, at its core, the correct response after grieving? Probably, but it makes for horrible politics. The NRA established a constructive tone and averted charges of insensitivity with their presser. More likely than not, there will be no action on the NRA's part aside from a vague endorsement for more armed policemen; I doubt that they will dedicate resources or bring pressure to bear so that Congressmen will construct such a bill.

      1. What the NRA did was avoid an argument where their position could be characterized as "*shrug* shit happens".

        No, they could have come out strong for armed citizens as the first line of defense, pointed out that it works where its tried, and argued for getting rid of gun-free school zones, allowing teachers and anyone else who is licensed to carry to do so in a school.

        That's not "shrug, shit happens". That's a solution to the problem that is not inconsistent with the the principles of the RKBA and a free people.

        What LaPierre did was say we needed even more squads of armed agents of the state roaming the countryside. No thanks.

  6. Funny with all the violent video games and movies that the crime rate has been falling for years.


    2. And don't forget all the glorious, glorious PRON online and the rape rate has been falling too, despite the efforts of Steve Smith.



  7. What a bunch of pussies. Let's not defend gun ownership on principle, nope, let's make complete asses of ourselves and scapegoat the media and fellate the police instead, that'll work.

    1. The NRA has never been especially concerned about principle, at least not within my lifetime. Mostly, they seem to function as collectors of a database of gun nuts; the designated whipping boy and bogey man for the left's anti-gun political pogroms; and the political fig leaf for every successful legislative assault on the 2nd Amendment.

    2. Not the best response, but one which infuriated the proggies because they said nothing which proggies hadn't.

  8. Wayne looks sleepy.

    1. Nah, he's just opening wide for LEO phallus.

  9. "Our shibboleths are much better than theirs!"

  10. Oh. mah. gerd. Did you know that Adam Lanza "wasn't making a moral choice when he shot his mother in the face with her own gun, and then killed 20 defenseless children"? Because Salon does.

    And yes, I know the First Rule of Salon, but I clicked on this because it was billed as something that "may trump the NRA presser as the dumbest comment on mass shootings," so suck it.

    1. "so suck it"

      Wayne, in the photo above, looks like he is going to.

      1. He does. And he doesn't look very happy about it either.

        1. He's probably a spitter.

          1. Speaking of spitting...

            (Safe for work, but probably not your marriage...)

            1. I'm not sure that actually is safe for work, HM.

              1. It is if you work in Thailand.

                1. Well, I'm guilty of that.

                  Quite a culture shock to return to the States.

            2. That is awesome. Now I'm not completely hating the holiday season.

            3. Why is it that nobody will walk by my desk for hours, then as soon as I start playing a champagne facials video, or looking at Sports Illustrated bikinis, it becomes like Grand Central Station around here?

              1. We perverts have an inner sense for such things. Like how birds can find magnetic North.

                1. These types of videos make me wish wifey were more... openminded about some things.

            4. 2 is the winner.

              1. In the world of champagne facials, we're all winners, Warty, we're all winners.

                1. It does, to tell you the truth. Just make sure to give yourself a half hour or so of recovery time.

                  1. Random thought: I wish Mary was still making videos.

                    1. Dude, you see champagne facials and think of Mary? I'm so, so sorry. At least think of champagne.

    2. If you know The First Rule of Salon, why do you insist on breaking it?

      1. Gearing up for Holiday Family Fun Time?

        1. Downloading SugarFree's complete archives is a much better way to accomplish that, and will probably leave you feeling less dirty too.

    3. To be pedantic, I would say that no, Lanza didn't make a moral choice, because he was too busy making an immoral choice.

      1. Moral: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character

        1. Geez, Randian, try not to live up to the stereotype of Objectivists being humorless pedants.

      2. Was Lanza even capable of understanding the distinction between the two, much less a decision?

        1. I don't know. And neither does anyone else because he is dead and no one had a chance to ask.

    4. The origins of the Newtown massacre can be traced back to the birth of our contemporary "pleasure economy"

      By James Livingston, Jacobin

      First of all, neever troost a blooody Jacobite fook.

      Second of all, that shit is 90% sentence fragments. There's bad writing, and then there's just plain fucking LAZY. This is both.

      (in his style =) Only possible if you're a career academic.

      James Livingston is a professor of history at Rutgers University -- New Brunswick, where he has taught since 1990 on American economic, cultural and intellectual theory.

      i.e. Never. Had. Real. Job.

      1. "Wake up, Franklin! We're going to New Brunswick."

        "The hell I am, what for?"

        "The whoring and the drinking."

    5. Holy shit, that is incoherent. I had to read the first paragraph several times to make any sense of what he was trying to get at. And I'm still not sure what the point was.

      1. Yeah, I still have barely any idea what it actually said myself.

      2. I'm still not sure what the point was

        You must relax your logic muscles and allow the fist of deconstructionism to plunge deeper into the bowels of your constructed consciousness

        basically dude, the guy's an undergraduate college teacher who has been living off spewing incoherent pseudo-intellectual gibberish to 19yr olds for the last 20+yrs. He's spent so long hawking weak-ass '90s 'gender/race/class'-theories of EVERYTHING that he is completely unable to read his own material and objectively perceive how utterly assinine and contrived the whole schtick is.

        This is how pathetic the progressive left is... Take mass murder + apply self-satisfying hackneyed academic socio-psychological bullshit. = Feel smug.

        Jesus, the bodies are barely in the ground, and we've got idiots doing their Literary-Theory Master's thesis on it already.

        War is a drug only where the meaning of masculinity is reduced to mere survival...

        ...oh, and BTW? F-

    6. Adam Lanza: America's Crisis of Masculinity Personified.


      And I didn't RTFA, but the title extracted from Nikki's link was enough.

      Why can't a nutjob just be a nutjob? Why does it always have to have some deeper (derper?) meaning?

      1. Personally, I blame it on the agricultural city-state's propensity to direct violence inwards when it cannot expand -- either into other the territory of other city-states, or rapaciously into virgin soil.

        1. So what you're saying is...young white men need to gambol?

          1. It's the only way.

    7. He [William James] worried that this fear of emancipation from the older "pain economy" would take a regressively masculine form; he knew the manly virtues could be reinstated by the violent means of war, by militarism unabashed, and he designed his moral equivalent?real work with a social purpose?with that possibility in mind.

      If only Adam Lanza had toiled away in the fields for 18 hours a day, then those children would be alive.

      1. See what happens when you allow unrestricted gamboling?

    8. "It also follows, logically at least, that better regulation of access to guns is actually consistent with the NRA's stupid slogan: the man who slaughtered those 20 children was not an individual, a person able to distinguish between right and wrong."

      HOLY SHIT! They are arguing that if you commit a horrible crime, you aren't technically a human because you have no conscience.

      I can't see anything that could go wrong with the total dehumanization of other people. Nope. That always ends just fine.

      1. Yeah. Adam Lanza wasn't a person. You need to prove your personhood before being allowed to buy a gun. But I'm not really sure what kind of gun, because he seems to think both "assault weapons" and Glock 9mms are a problem.

        1. (1) You need to prove your fitness to own a gun.

          (2) Wanting to own a gun is a sure sign that you aren't fit to own a gun.

      2. That always ends just fine.

        Usually a fine carbonized powder, scattered across the countryside of the Masovian Voivodeship.

    9. No, the NRA presser was dumb, that Salon article was downright sickening.

      I guess I broke the 2nd Rule of Salon. I actually read some of the comments.

      Was that a trial-by-fire test of bravery, or was it a stupid thing to do?

      Ummm... Never mind.

  11. People are making a virtue of cowardice.

    People used to be ashamed of being frightened. Now they're so proud of being scared, they get mad at you if you're not as afraid as they are.

    I'm not especially religious anymore, but there's something to be said for the way religion evolved as an adaptation to help people deal with fear. As the country moves more toward agnosticism, we were supposed to replace religion with reason--but that ain't what's happening.

    We're just replacing fire and brimstone preachers with politicians and crises. Global warming or Muslims or the Koch Brothers or the Zionists or the rednecks--what people are afraid of is their new religion.

    1. The public schools teach religion.

      Your education comes from government. Your safety comes from government. Your rights come from government. All science and innovation comes from government. Your food is safe because of government. The roads come from government. Your cars are safe because of government.

      And... without government none of those things would exist.

      Government is god.

    2. People are making a virtue of cowardice.

      For refernce, see: Christianity.

      1. If religion has any adaptive benefits (and no culture made it into the historical record without religion), the alleviation of fear is probably one of the first among them.

        We can talk about different denominations and different doctrines, but "Be ye not afraid" is all through the Bible.

        If you ever sit through a fire and brimstone sermon, it all ends well for the Christians. Maybe that's what's missing from the fear mongers in politics these days. Their mission never gets accomplished.

        There's no point in the political narrative when everything's finally alright. It's all fire and brimstone with no happily ever after. Just permanent fear. It's worse than during the Red Scare in its own way--because during the Red Scare we were mostly afraid of communists and the communists among us. Now we're all supposed to be afraid of each other.

        1. Matthew 5:5 - Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

          John 1:29 - The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

          Matthew 6:14 - For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

          Psalm 32 - Thou art my hiding place; thou shalt preserve me from trouble; thou shalt compass me about with songs of deliverance.

          James 5:1 - Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.
          2 - Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten.
          3 - Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days

          Cowardice and envy.

          1. You left out the part where they threaten you with hell. You also left out how you get a mansion of gold and to live forever. Instilling fear gets them on the hook--alleviated the fear keeps them there.

            In the political fear-mongering, there's never any happily ever after. The fear is never alleviated. But Christians think they're going to heaven...

            Progressives don't really think banning guns will end gun crime. They're just afraid and lashing out at Republican infidels. They're afraid of rednecks--and so they're spreading their fear. There's no end to the fear mongering.

            It happens that way on the right, too; they're just afraid of different things--like terrorists and Muslims. We'll never be safe from them, either. Terrorism will never present the kind of threat that the USSR did, but tell people we shouldn't be afraid of terrorists or Muslims--we should just live our lives anyway--and see what kind of reaction you get.

            The right's solution to the fear caused by terrorism is to degrade our constitutional rights. The left's solution to the fear of psychos shooting children is to degrade our constitutional rights.

            Some Christians' applaud degrading our rights, too, but when many of them are afraid, they just pray. ...which is a whole lot better than degrading my rights. I wish progressives had something similar to do about their fear.

            1. You're missing part of the point Ken. Christians may threaten people with hell, but who is going to enforce it? Not the Christians themselves, they're too busy being meek and pure and forgiving. No, it's their almighty God that is going to punish all the evil-doers. Because they can't, because they're weak, because they're afraid.

              1. I wish they were truer to the principles of the Sermon on the Mount than they are.

                The problems we have in this country aren't because of the Amish.

                And it's difficult to argue with success. Turning the other cheek chased the British out of India. Turning the other cheek spelled the end of Jim Crow.

                I used to see people wonder about why there had never been a Gandhi/MLK peaceful resistance movement in the Muslim world--back before the Arab Spring. Egypt and Tunisia's futures are still murky, but peaceful protestors taking sniper shots and keeping on protesting is what got rid of their dictators.

                Jesus was a messianic revolutionary living under occupation of the Roman Empire, whose message was all about how to thrive under those circumstances. Say what you want about his tactics, but posthumously he took over the Roman Empire.

                And if oppressed people 2,000 years later are still using his tactics to successfully, then that's one hell of a track record. Maybe we should be looking closer at this "turn the other cheek" business. When people take it seriously, seems like a lot of good things happen.

      2. Depends on the Christian. Lots of words you can use to describe the folks in Foxe's Book of Martyrs, but "pussy" isn't one of them.

    3. Well said, Ken, well said.

    4. I believe that C.S. Lewis (very religious Christian) said something that I've had a hard time disputing: If you believe in nothing, you'll believe in anything. I know he was kind of referring to atheists... but it has a secular truth to it.

      Meh, I just found the original quote (I think):Atheists who don't believe in any gods are thus capable of believing and ... believing in God, they don't believe in nothing ? they believe in anything.

      1. I like Lewis a lot, but all that his Christian apologia has convinced me of is that Jesus was either insane, a liar or a fictional character.

        I haven't gotten too deep into a lot of it, but the thrust of most of his arguments seems to be that you have to believe in something, so it might as well be the Church Of England.

        1. The lunatic/liar/lord trilemma is one of the most seriously disappointing "arguments" I've ever read. I've certainly seen worse arguments, but I was (apparently insanely) expecting Lewis to have some answer to that other than, "Well, he doesn't seem crazy or like a liar to me, so he must be God!"

          1. And Lewis's formulation leaves out the very real possibility that Jesus was just completely made up.

          2. The argument that Lewis makes is not to convince others that Jesus is God -- but rather, that holding the view that Jesus is a "good teacher"/"good prophet" or somesuch without believing that he is God is a view that is difficult to reconcile with the lunatic/liar/lord trilemma.

            1. That's actually how the trilemma was introduced to me. I was involved in some discussion of religion and was trying to be nice and said something about Jesus being a good teacher or some such.

    5. A good point, Ken. Disappointingly, for me, there are lots of atheists (*cough* Pharyngula *cough*) who are pants-wetting hysterics 24x7.

      The truly faithful should have nothing to fear from personal risk because they believe they will go to heaven.

      I could see how agnosticism or weak religion would encourage cowardice - fear that maybe there really is a hell and they are going to that. So, yeah.

    6. Now they're so proud of being scared, they get mad at you if you're not as afraid as they are.

      The more fish in the fish swarm, the better odds each individual fish wont get eaten by the dolphin.

  12. I see nothing in the quoted excerpt that the NRA or anyone else should apologize for. Politics ain't a debate club, and there's nothing in there that was wrong. Not gonna play the Cosmo card, but FFS.

    1. So, the implication that US citizens cannot be trusted to carry guns around children unless they are LEOs, military, or have some kind of special training doesn't bother you?

      1. Where is that in the quoted excerpt? I admit that I might have missed something, but I've read the excerpt twice and don't see anything implying that.

        1. I haven't read the entire release, but doesn't he imply that by not forcefully making the argument that teachers or school officials should have a right to carry concealed, legally in a school?

          That's really what's at stake here. These attacks are distributed in nature. They can't be predicted, and they can't be prevented, because you can kill a lot of kids with a knife.

          The point is that citizens who are on the scene, confronted with the violence should have the legal option to repel it.

        2. Where is that in the quoted excerpt?

          Only alluded to in the quoted excerpt. More detail here:



          LaPierre said that retired police and retired, reserve and active duty military, security professionals and others could quickly fill these roles, and qualified civilians could be trained to join them.

          1. qualified civilians could be trained to join them

            Doesn't anyone realize what the NRA is doing here? If you read the Gallup poll on "what should we do" the most popular answer was "more cops in schools", #2 was "more mental health", #3 " less violent entertainment", #4 "grab guns", #5 "arm teachers, principals and janitors", #6 "that fake Morgan Freeman quote about the media making these killers heros". Wayne went out there and pointed at everyone on the list EXCEPT #4 and emphasized them to the degree and rank they were expressed.

            The NRA isn't lobbying FOR any of them , just against #4 "grab the guns". To the extent they are offering a "meaningful contribution" it is in only and exactly their core mission of firearms training. That is what they do when they aren't having to fight political battles to preserve gun rights.

            This is all a P.R. move to head off a legislative battle and prepare for any that might arise. They don't get paid to lose these things.

            1. Great golly I agree with SIV.

      2. Yes, RC, that is the implication. But look at what Immaculate, Mechafenris and I wrote above about this as a strategic, though unprincipled, move.

    2. He's advocating national lists of the "mentally ill". That's wrong, dude. Very wrong.

      1. He's advocating national lists of the "mentally ill".

        Oh, you want to purchase a gun high-speed death machine? You're obviously a psychopath. On the list you go!

      2. He's advocating national lists of the "mentally ill". That's wrong, dude. Very wrong.

        Yes it is.

        It's also a deflection that will go nowhere. As opposed to gun control which has a high likelihood of getting passed in some form.

        And statements like it's strategy seems to be fighting anti-gun hysteria with pro-gun hysteria. don't help at all.

        1. This.

          If we were talking about a speech from, say, a libertarian I would be more upset. Hell, I am mildly upset from a principles-based standpoint -- but one must understand that the messaging for an advocacy group must be different from that of a principles-based organization.

          The NRA is not a principles-based organization but it is a damned effective organization and these sorts of deflections help in that regard.

          1. And Reason is a principles based organization, so they published a post criticizing the tactics used by an advocacy organization. So everything is as it should be.

            1. Methinks that the headline is much too strong for the content of the speech. There is not an equivalence in tone between the NRA and the people who grabbed the bodies of dead children to start screaming about gun control.

        2. So now your next defense is that YOU KNOW that LaPierre is lying.

          Just because.

          Wow, way to defend the guy.

          You really showed us cosmos, didn't ya?

          LaPierre is advocating tyranny, making ridiculous and unserious proposals, and lying.

          But he's not "hysterical" so DAMN YOU JACOB YOU DAMN COSMO you have SLURRED this tyrannical, ridiculous, unserious, lying speaker!

          1. Did you watch the presser?

            Sullum is seriously distorting the general thrust of it by his selective quotations.

          2. Those proposals are bullshit.

            But are they pro gun hysteria?

      3. Agreed but it won't go anywhere. The NRA isn't going to spend a dime trying to make it happen.

        When it comes to advocacy groups, that's more important IMO.

        1. ^This.

          It's just spin.

      4. He's advocating national lists of the "mentally ill".

        Sounds like he and the administration finally agree on something.

      5. He's advocating national lists of the "mentally ill". That's wrong, dude. Very wrong.

        The list already exists in the NICS.This is classic NRA "enforece the laws on the books". The NRA does not necessarily agree with many of those laws (see NFA) but "enforce the laws we already have" plays well with the public.

    3. If he actually believes what he said, then no, he has nothing to apologize for. But it's still stupid to try to look for something like video games to blame.

      1. Suzy Soccermom has to blame SOMETHING.

        The NRA is going to point at whatever popular scapegoat that isn't guns.

        The National VideoGame Association has to defend their own turf.

  13. Not exactly the voice of calm reason

    Fundraising on the bodies of dead children requires projecting your voice

  14. How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation's refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?

    Clearly, there needs to be a 30 day waiting period between purchasing psychos.

  15. Hey, the media wanted to blame everything on the NRA, so the NRA blamed everything on the media.

    The "side" that first fired that shot is the one that is to blame. I hate what LaPierre did here, but a guy's gotta defend himself.

    1. Why not defend himself by tearing into the bogus arguments of the media (for instance, why is no one reminding the media, again and again and again and again that schools are Gun Free Zones!) and then defending why we have the rights we do? It's not the NRAs job to propose solutions to the failures of government protection- except by pointing out that we have these rights precisly because government can't protect us at all times.

      1. He did mention the Gun-Free zones. See transcript:

        Politicians pass laws for gun free school zones, they issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them. And, in doing so, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are the safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.

        How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order. Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, court houses, even sports stadiums are all protected by armed security.

        1. Ok, I'm actually impressed to see that. Thanks for the reference, Nicole.

          1. But that's part of the pro-gun hysteria that Sullum was referring to but couldn't be bothered to actually quote.

      2. Because it won't work.

  16. He forgot to mention that last episode of The Walking Dead. The walker/biter apocalypse is pretty much the only reason I buy those mega packs of ammo.

  17. OT: I just saw Zero Dark Thirty. It was good, very good. Go see it when you have a chance.

    1. Is it going to cause riots all over the Muslim world, as the Obama administration fears?

      1. Well, maybe but what it won't cause is any hand-wringing on the left about...well, I better let Kurt Loder earn his movie review paycheck. It was good though. Two Thumbs Up!

        As I was leaving theater the tickcet-takers were having everyone with a coat open it for inspection, presumably to check for "assault" rifles. No one would ever think to hid a pistol in their bag or backpack.

        1. I can guess.

          When BOOSH was President, Bigelow was all like "War is Hell" with The Hurt Locker. Now that we are led by the Anointed, she's all like "Torture! FUCK YEAH! We killed bin Laden!!! WHOOO!!! Oh, and sexy CIA GRRRL POWER!!!!!"

          Loder, you can thank me for the ghost writing with a bottle of good bourbon.

      2. Uh oh, who's getting under the bus this time?

    2. Hey, Restoras,
      Does Zero Dark Thirty in any way advocate torture? Haven't seen it, heard that it did.

  18. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we still do not have the results of the official investigation. I haven't seen one single person mention this.

    For example, all the NRA would have to say is "Just like everyone else, we are awaiting the results of the investigation. It would not be appropriate or helpful to make recommendations based on guesswork."

    Oh I'm sorry, that would require being calm and actually using your brain.

    1. The results of the official investigation often turn out to be whatever is most convenient to officialdom. Specifically, nobody in the government is ever at fault, procedures were followed, etc.

      NRA made a good move from a strategy/PR context, though not a principaled move.

      It seems that Lanza and/or his mother bear the blame for this, unless it turns out that she tried to get help for him and the state refused to commit him and hold him. It will be interesting to see if his patient records which are disclosed.

      1. "principled", dammit.

  19. "An active national database of the mentally ill"?

    Hey, we already have databases of sex-offenders. How much more work or expense could it be to expand those databases to include the mentally ill? And let's not just stop with those who have a history of mental illness, let's start screening students, welfare recipients and arrestees, so we can identify at-risk people who haven't yet been through the mental-health system, before they pop? And while we're screening people, why not also look for antisocial or even criminal tendencies? And then we could ...

    ... excuse me, I must pause for a moment to wipe the spittle from my chin...

    1. Well I always loved the ways they've described at risk teenagers. Rebellious, change in dress, music taste and behavior. No longer wanting to spend all of their time with the family.

      1. Ah, yes, in other words, "all teenagers".

    2. Good snark, but if you really wanted to sell it, replace the question marks with exclamation points. Looks more crazy.

  20. I posted this elsewhere but wanted to say it again: Fuck Wayne LaPierre. Having him as the "face" of the Second Amendment is like have a Tourette's sufferer as the face of the First Amendment.
    I joined the NRA earlier this week and now I feel like a fucking moron. What a complete load of excrement that "statement" was. Jesus.

  21. He cited Splatterhouse as a violent video game? That can't possibly be the the old arcade game with the Jason Voorhees-looking character that I remember playing as a kid in the last '80s-early '90s, can it??? That game was AWESOME! haha

    1. They made a new one a couple of years ago.

      Predictably, it sucked.

  22. I'm still waiting for the 'bully' argument to come out. After all, the kids that went to school with him all described him as "the weird kid" from the time he started kindergarten. No question what his chikdhood experiences were. I guess they've figured out the bully angle doesn't do anything to help give more power to the state. Not that it's all that relevant anyways, but they have brought that up in past shootings.

    1. I'm guessing most of these idiots are at least sane enough to realize that it's a tough sell to suggest that a guy responded to a lifetime of bullying by whacking a bunch of five-year-olds. I'm sure this thread of sanity will disintegrate, though.

  23. Piers Morgan @piersmorgan
    This is your moment, America: The #NRA has 4 million members, your population is 311 million. Don't stand for this murderous crap any more.

    1. And there are 80 something million gun owners and only one Piers Morgan.

      I like our chances.

    2. How are Americans supposed to "not stand" for this "murderous crap", except through somebody using guns? Complaining loudly, which is what they're already doing?

    3. I'm beginning to like this Piers Morgan guy. He's kind of like a retarded court jester. What's he going to say next?

      1. Stephen Fry once defined "countryside" as "the murder of Piers Morgan."

        I'm not arguing.

  24. Hey, Reason, please rethink your decision, whatever it was, that led to these ridiculous popunder ads and windows that open and close everytime one clicks in your web pages. This is some seriously bad internet etiquette. I've given money to you for years, and did this year as well, but right after your webathon this started happening. Rest assured my contributions will be greatly diminished, if not discontinued, if this continues.

    1. Get a different browser. This isn't happening to me with Opera. (Yes, I know I'm the one Opera user around.)

    2. I've been noticing this in Firefox too lately and I have popup blocker on. WTH?

      1. Same here with blocker on IE

    3. What are these "ads" you speak of?

      1. I hear tell some people see them on the internet. I don't know what they are talking about. Must be the bathtub gin, or bath salts.

  25. I was just down in the shop, dismounting and mounting tires, which is never a fun job. For some reason, either these tires or these wheels were making it even less fun than usual.

    And what was I thinking about, as I was getting more and more pissed off?

    I was asking myself what sort of narcissistic grandstanding sociopath would use the funeral of a stranger's child to stage a political campaign event.

    If the President of the United States or any other politician (including Wayne laPierre) showed up at the funeral of a family member, I would beat him bloody with a tire iron.

    1. I love you, man.

  26. Hey, Reason, please rethink your decision, whatever it was, that led to these ridiculous popunder ads and windows that open and close everytime one clicks in your web pages.

    No kidding. What genius thought it would be a good idea?

  27. our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters?people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them.

    I wonder if this moron is aware that vast numbers of people on the left believe his name should be in the Top Ten list of such people?

  28. I spotted this article from Breitbart.com where it was mentionned then President Clinton suggested a policeman at each school in 2000. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-J.....in-Schools

  29. Feministing weighs in on the NRA proposal.

    With their typical lack of research.

    An example:

    -Hey remember Fort Hood? The shooter there was an Army psychiatrist on a military base. Two points: (1) He was a psychiatrist and not a "crazy person" and he still shot up a bunch of people, and (2) he was on a military base surrounded by people who had guns and knew how to use 'em and he still managed to kill 13 people and wound 29 others.

    1. Christ, that's embarrassing. Well, I'm sure a correction is forthcoming, right?

  30. As far as the mental heath argument goes, Lanza was blocked from buying a gun by the instant check system. Both the guns used in the Portland mall shooting and the Newtown shootings were stolen.

  31. When the NRA scoffed at the concept of smart guns, I realized they were truly full of idiots. Smart guns are the best way to maximize gun safety, around children or otherwise. Having a gun that can't be used against you and your family or can't be misused by your children would solve most of the extraneous concerns gun control advocates continually rail against. After that, the burden is entirely on them to prove why trained, law-abiding citizens with significantly safer guns should be disarmed. In fact, if I were running a school district, I'd allow all trained and licensed teachers to carry smart guns with biometric safeties only so they can't be potentially stolen and misused by a student.

    1. Smart guns will increase the murder and mutilation of gun owners in robbery situations.

      "I'm gonna need your wallet, gun and your right hand."

      1. WTF? Do you even have a glimmer of understanding of the technology? Thought not. Posting without knowledge is like standing on a soap box and braying "Look I am an idiot".

        1. Do you even have a glimmer of understanding of the technology?

          Apparently a shit-load more than you do.

          No one in their right mind is getting a verichip, and grip tech is less than 90% reliable. Other options require rings or bracelets, which can be easily misplaced and/or forgotten. That leaves fingerprints. Which require fingers. Not to mention that all options up to this point require batteries, and it is completely insane to introduce extra points of failure on a device who's reliability your life could depend upon. If your laser sight dies, you can still use your gun. Not so with biometric readers.

          But if you really want biometrics, you can get some of my biometric data off my left nut. Just spit in the cup when you're done sucking on it.

          1. Proprietist|12.21.12 @ 5:24PM|#

            When the NRA scoffed at the concept of smart guns, I realized they were truly full of idiots.

            The definition of irony right there.

            Smart guns? Seriously?

            Go look up how many smart guns are available on the market. Check their reliability, their weight and size penalties, their cost.

            That is the dumbest comment from an HandR regular I've ever seen. I include Tony and shriek in that, because they are retarded and/or children, and I know you to be an intelligent human being. Please don't assume that because it was in a movie, it really works.

          2. Even if you don't have much understanding of firearms technology I expect you have some experience with current IT technology. So just imagine the possible downsides of needing a gun for immediate life saving function - then the little status screen shows the message "updating file... updating file...".

            One of the most interesting points about military firearms for engineers is the design of a pieve of machinery that HAS to work every time under any conditions or the operator could quickly lose his life. That is a desing criterion.

  32. School shootings may be "rare" events, but not as rare as political assassinations. But we rightly spend a lot of money on armed guards for our politicians, so why not spend some on protecting our children? The children are compelled to attend school by truancy laws and are incapable of defending themselves. We have a moral duty to defend our children at school, and have been sadly neglecting our duty. 2 1/2 cheers for the NRA.

    1. That's actually a good point. The government forces kids to be there (or home schooled, I guess), so it has an obligation to protect them.

      1. Indeed a very good point.

      2. Well, defend them or seriously restrict access to guns. And which do you think is more cost effective?

        1. It's not gonna cost anymore than the paper it's written on to get rid of "gun-free zones", so I'm gonna go with defend.

  33. This is exactly why I've never been a member of the NRA, even though I'm probably to the Right of Ted Nugent when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

  34. I'm not sure why they had to say anything publicly at all. What was the fucking point? The NRA didn't kill those kids, and their speaking out seems like they've got something to atone for. They don't, and never have.

    The trashing of the 1st Amendment as a way to support the 2nd is fucking bullshit. They're no different than the rest of the statists, except they point their fingers at different people and advocate for different kinds of statist action.

    Why they felt the need to come out publicly rather than simply doing what they do is a fucking mystery.

  35. According to a Leftist I was communicating with earlier- he/she emphatically stated it has a right not to die by bullet in public so the second amendment must be trashed in order to insure this right. Yes, I'm serious. Christ, I wish I had the right not to die at all. Yes, I'm one of those strange people who'd like to live a very, very long time. But, see, there is this thing called reality... and Leftists don't interface reality well.

  36. The NRA isn't popular because it's logical and calm. They are popular because they are good at defending our rights on one particular issue, and they pursue it passionately, and relentlessly.

    So we'll go to reason.com for sane, logical, rational arguments, and we'll leave the appeals to emotionalism to LaPierre and his cohort.

    Last I heard, we reason readers were a small minority - people in general eat this crap up from the media, and the NRA is fighting on their turf: hype, sensationalism, and appeals to emotion. The NRA has been pretty effective, I think, for what it does.

  37. Guh... this social conservative shit is getting real old. The NRA has absolutely failed the American gun owner with this bullshit.

  38. Attention Dickless Losers: Boner pills are a lot cheaper than ammo for your gun collection. And less likely to kill innocent people.

    1. Ah, the ol' liberal "your dick is small"

      How about being responsible for your own safety and that of your loved ones. I know its hard to imagine.

  39. Why propose difficult and expensive solutions such as putting armed security personnel in every school, mall, and theater in the US when you can simply outlaw the sale of all high rate of fire weapons in the US? Then you just implement a significant gun buyback program and add an extra $0.50 tax for every round of ammunition. Simple, straight forward, fiscally responsible, and we have all the systems in place to administer the implementation. Anything more complex is just ludicrous.

    And it just occurred to me that if we have 200,000 security positions open in our schools, how many undocumented child molesters are going to be standing in line for those positions? Lets see, child molester, paid to sit in an elementary school with a gun all day long, what's not to like?

  40. I've subscribed to Reason since my 20's and I'm now 53. I have planted the seeds of libertarianism with all my children, now in their 20's. I have followed with great passion so many of the issues this publication has brought to light. On a personal level, the son of a woman who cared for my children, Santae Tribble, has just been declared innocent after spending 30 years in jail after being falsely convicted with made up forensics.
    But if anyone here can make a sincere case for rapid fire semi-automatic guns, I'd like to hear it. Standing on principle becomes ridiculous in the extreme. Libertarians should admit that and thereby advance the bigger cause.

    1. The status quo on firearms doesn't require a case to be made for it. It is working out just fine. A bunch of fascist whiners and their sycophants want people disarmed is all.

      But I would like to hear the case for confiscating every firearm in the United States that isn't a bolt action or a museum piece, if someone is ready to put it out there finally. We hear all these demands and big talk, but no one has ever actually laid it out for us dummies that just can't see reason on the issue of surrendering our rights.

  41. As long as you realize the NRA is a lobbyist organization for gun and gun accessories manufacturers, you can keep things in perspective. That is, they are not the totally authoritative oracle of the 2nd Amendment.

  42. Jacob...that picture, you are an absolute arsehat. Lowball, lowrent, cheap, plastic journalism and no I'm not reading it..

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.