Crime

The New York Times Redefines Crazy As It Pitches New Gun Restrictions

|

video via The Washington Post

Richard Martinez is demanding "immediate action" from Congress in response to the murder of his son and five other people in Isla Vista, California, on Friday night. "I don't care about your sympathy," he tells The Washington Post, referring to the legislators who have called him to offer condolences. "I don't give a shit that you feel sorry for me. Get to work and do something." Yet Martinez candidly admits he does not know what that something should be. "I understand this is a complicated problem," he says. "There's no playbook for this. We don't know what we are doing. I just know I have to keep fighting until something changes."

Today a New York Times editorial takes a stab at describing that something, calling for "a better definition of how severe a mental illness needs to be before it prevents someone from possessing a gun." Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, anyone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution is prohibited from owning a firearm. One could argue that such a rule is too broad, especially since it covers people viewed as threats to themselves as well as people viewed as threats to others. Should everyone who is forcibly treated because he is thought to be suicidal forever lose his Second Amendment rights?

The Times has no such qualms. To the contrary, it views the current standard as a "high bar" and worries that it "misses thousands of people." In truth, it misses tens of millions, since survey data indicate that half the population qualifies for a psychiatric diagnosis at some point. Hence "a better definition of how severe a mental illness needs to be before it prevents someone from possessing a gun" could have sweeping implications for Americans' constitutional rights. 

California already has expanded that definition, prohibiting gun ownership by anyone who has been subject to a 72-hour psychiatric hold aimed at determining whether he is a threat to himself or others within the previous five years. In other words, merely being suspected of posing a threat to yourself or others is enough for you to lose your Second Amendment rights in California. But it turns out that the Isla Vista shooter, Elliot Rodger, not only had never been involuntarily committed; he had never been involuntarily evaluated either.

The closest Rodger came to a 72-hour hold seems to have been in April, when Santa Barbara County sheriff's deputies visited him at his apartment after his mother, alarmed by his dark and brooding YouTube videos, reported that he might be suicidal. The deputies, finding Rodger to be calm and polite, did not see any evidence that he was a threat to himself or others. He reassured them that he had been going through a difficult time but was not about to kill himself, and they believed him. They did not have enough evidence to confine him for a 72-hour evaluation, which in California requires "probable cause to believe that the person is, as a result of mental disorder, a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled." 

The Times suggests that "parents or other relatives should be allowed to petition a court for a restraining order prohibiting gun ownership by those who pose a credible risk of harm to themselves or others." Even assuming that Rodger's parents, who did not know that he owned guns, would have sought such an order, it is doubtful that they could have presented "credible" evidence to back up their request, given the absence of probable cause. Until last Friday, they had no inkling of their son's homicidal plans. They knew he was socially awkward, lonely, and depressed, but many people fit that description, and almost none of them become mass murderers. Loosening the standards for psychiatric holds, involuntary treatment, or loss of Second Amendment rights would strip many harmless people of their liberty, with no guarantee of preventing even a single violent crime.

The Times also reiterates its support for a "universal background check system." Yet every gun buyer in California has to be cleared by the state Department of Justice, a requirement that did not stop Rodger because, like the vast majority of mass shooters, he did not have a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record. A background check is only as good as the criteria for exclusion. Since there is no reliable way to identify mass murderers before they strike, we are left with criteria that are both too broad and too narrow. 

The Times suggests a few more. You should not be allowed to buy a gun, it says, if you "have been convicted of a violent misdemeanor, subject to a domestic violence restraining order, convicted of drunken driving two or more times in five years, or convicted of two misdemeanors involving a controlled substance in five years." Before adding to the exclusion criteria, shouldn't we ask whether the current ones make sense? As the law stands, any felony conviction—even for a nonviolent offense that might not even involve a victim, let alone violence—results in the permanent loss of Second Amendment rights. If you are in the country without permission, you have no right to armed self-defense. Likewise if you smoke pot or use a relative's prescription painkillers. These rules have very little to do with public safety.

And none of these policies, lest we forget, has anything to do with Elliot Rodger, whose crimes provoked this whole discussion. "Would these measures have prevented Elliot Rodger's rampage?" the Times asks. "Possibly not. With so many guns in this society, no law will ever prevent all gun violence, but that should not stymie attempts to reduce it."

You know what should stymie attempts to reduce gun violence? The likelihood that they will fail, combined with the certainty that they will deprive innocent people of freedom.

Advertisement

NEXT: Jacob Sullum on Gun Control, Mental Health, and the I.V. Massacre

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. “There’s no playbook for this. We don’t know what we are doing. I just know I have to keep fighting until something changes.”

    What an excellent summary of…a certain way of thinking.

    Not dissing a grieving family member, but dissing those who use him as if he’s some kind of public-policy expert.

    1. Not dissing a grieving family member, but dissing those who use him as if he’s some kind of public-policy expert.

      Why not….this guy stinks of a zealot in search of a tragedy…and has been creeping me out since the event. I wonder what his schtick would have been if his kid had been one of the victims killed with a knife or the little shits BMW.

      1. Spur of the moment reaction to losing one’s child…no, not going to blame him at this time.

        1. Spur of the moment reaction to losing one’s child…no, not going to blame him at this time.

          Better man than I am?.after scrolling down OldMex sums it nicely for me!

      2. The car is sort of the elephant in the room. He could have just as easily killed as many or more people with the car alone, no gun needed.

        1. But he had to get a license before he could operate that car! Just like guns should be licensed!

          /talking point

    2. Not dissing a grieving family member

      I will. Fuck this piece of shit. It’s blatantly obvious that he’s crawling on his dead son’s corpse to shame people into going along with his hoplophobic insecurities.

  2. “‘”There’s no playbook for this. We don’t know what we are doing. I just know I have to keep fighting until something changes.””‘

    aka – Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results

    ‘Do-Somethingitis’ should be a clinical condition barring people from the right to vote.

    1. Some people have “do-somthing-itis”. Many others want something done because they know the more hastily and in reaction it is done, the more likely it will be restrictive. They want something done because anything that gets done will result in more restrictions on firearms, and they’ll take anything they can get, because they are animists.

    2. ….AND owning guns.

      /meta

  3. I have a theory that fear is largely responsible for virtually every single crappy law, proposal and half baked idea that comes out of people being scared.

    The Times Editorial Board practically shits themselves at any mention of the possibility that something is out of their, or the government’s, control and that they, and others, are remotely responsible for themselves.

    It’s disgusting.

  4. The best part about all of this is that they will lose. Then they will weep their salty defeated tears all over the media…until another child is killed.

  5. Today a New York Times editorial takes a stab at describing that something, calling for “a better definition of how severe a mental illness needs to be before it prevents someone from possessing a gun.”

    How about: So crazy that you try to pay for your gun with reindeer poop.

    1. What if the person selling the gun needs raindeer poop?

  6. But I shouldn’t be worried about my guns rights, because “no one” is trying to limit them, and “no one” wants to pass arbitrary laws to [further] limit my right to keep, bear and USE arms, and I’m “crazy” to fight any more limits on arms, because “reasonable” and “common sense”.

    Fuck the gun grabbers, yes, including the grieving father. You wanna “do something”? Go give some money to a charity. But keep your fucking hands off my shit. I’m not the problem, and violating my rights won’t bring back your dead kin.

    Fuck. Off. Slaver.

    1. You seem to have violent and anti-social thoughts. Could you kindly slip into this sexy white jacket, don’t worry about the arms being a bit long, I’ll take care of those for you…

  7. Also — could we please stop having this dipshit’s face plastered all over HnR? Just use a pic of a BMW or a crime scene or something like that.

    1. How about rerunning the picture of Crazy Jared Loughner instead?

      1. The one of him in a G-string? I think that gets the point across pretty well.

        1. In case you were unaware:
          http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucso…..d=12622269

          Great insanity defense strategy.

          1. …Why on earth does that exist?

          2. I’m gonna go ahead and remain unaware, thank you.

  8. Which amendment to the Constitution hasn’t come under fire in the wake of an overblown tragedy?

    What has to happen in order for the New York Times to call for the repeal of the Thirteenth, Twenty-First, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments?

    Bonus if you can imagine a tragedy that involves all three.

    1. Goddamned drunken teenagers shooting up a polling place and whorin’ out the volunteers via their hired manservant-drones (“capitalist slaves”).

      Naaaah, I can’t figure it out…

    2. An 18 year old agricultural worker walks off the job, gets drunk, and votes for a Republican.

      1. Yes, but how does this result in the death of no less than 6 children?

        1. He runs over them in his Beemer on his way to the polls.

    3. Do yer own damn homework.

    4. Which amendment to the Constitution hasn’t come under fire in the wake of an overblown tragedy?

      The 16th?

  9. “have been convicted of a violent misdemeanor…”

    Really?

    So get in a fight at a bar and lose your 2nd amendment rights?
    Police ask you to “Stop resisting!” and lose your 2nd amendment rights?

    How violent does this misdemeanor have to be before you lost your 2nd amendment rights?

    1. The NYT hasn’t really thought that far through.

      In fact, I sincerely doubt that they know that resisting arrest is a “violent misdemeanor.”

    2. Don’t you understand that they literally do not care? These people think that the right to own a gun is a fable; they are not taking away anyone’s rights because in their minds, those rights don’t exist. Any person they can deny gun ownership is therefore a victory to them–it doesn’t matter if the person in question is a law-abiding citizen who would never harm an innocent, they still need to be saved from the magical, corrupting influence of firearms, and denying them a gun is a victory just the same.

      1. They think cops are sufficient. Even though cops are responsible for the majority of intentional gun-related deaths in the country.*

        *I admit, I’m pulling that fact out of my ass. But I would bet money that it’s true. Could someone confirm or disprove?

        1. There are a lot of murders. If by “responsible” you mean the cops pulled the trigger (though one could perhaps argue that cops are indirectly responsible for a lot of street crime), I’d say that has to be false. Remember, we read about a good proportion of cops murdering people. We read about very few other murders, relatively speaking.

          I think that the big problem with police killings is the lack of accountability or punishment, not the sheer volume, though that is disturbing as well even at the levels we see now.

          1. Well, cops enforce the War on Drugs.

            The War on Drugs leads to turf conflicts.

            Although cops are only a fraction of the armed participants in turf conflicts, they are still morally responsible for setting up the conditions that fostered the conflicts.

            I’ve read that there are approximately 11,000 intentional gun deaths in the United States every year.

            Supposing cops are responsible for at least half of them, that would be about 5,500 deaths.

            That’s roughly 15 deaths per day. I actually don’t think that’s unreasonable.

            1. I mean an “unreasonable assumption” that cops are, if not responsible for a majority of gun deaths, at least responsible for a sizable proportion of gun deaths.

        2. Your chances of being accidentally shot by a cop are 7 times greater than your odds of being accidentally shot by a legal concealed-carry holder. You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist.

      2. All they have to do is control the definition of crazy to include the desire to own a gun…

  10. “I just know I have to keep fighting until something changes.”

    Perhaps *that* exemplifies “how severe a mental illness needs to be before it prevents someone from possessing a gun”.

  11. “The New York Times Redefines Crazy”

    Heh…took me a few minutes to get the joke…

  12. Richard Martinez is demanding “immediate action” from Congress in response to the murder of his son and five other people in Isla Vista, California, on Friday night.

    Richard Martinez can go fuck himself. I am sorry his kid was shot dead by a deranged, self-absorbed lunatic, but that does not give anyone license to impose restrictions on anybody else’s rights and freedoms. Only ONE person shot your kid, mister, and it wasn’t me.

    What makes this whole thing more disturbing is how this man turned his dead child into a soapbox from which to vent his political leanings. The poor child’s body wasn’t cold yet and yet here we have his father tilling at windmills, while the proggie media claps on in agreement.

    1. How long after the kid died did you wait before you started lecturing to the atmosphere about how that kid had absolutely no choice but to die before scolding his grieving father?

      1. D-.

        1. You’re being too generous.

      2. We’re commenting on a website that, given the father’s apparent political predilections, is likely well outside his milieu. The only people getting in his face are the camera crews seeking to nationalize his grief. And in letting his grief be nationalized he’s castigating whole classes of people (those of us who own guns and those of us who prefer not to see that right compromised) who in no way participated in his son’s murder.

        Remind me who’s scolding whom?

      3. Well, he did have absolutely no choice. The utility of stating it on the internet may be questionable, but it’s not wrong.

        1. What I mean is you think society should not have policies that might have prevented his death, and that his death was not only inevitable but it’s a good thing, to you, that it was.

          1. policies that might have prevented his death

            Uh-huh. It’s the “might” part that’s the problem. Since even the holy priests of psychoanalysis couldn’t call it. Also, completely ignoring that these unelaborated policies will surely gut the fuck out of some individual rights.

          2. WTF is wrong with you?

          3. How many deaths could be prevented by scrapping the 4th Amendment? Since you’re against random, warrantless searches, you are clearly pro-murder.

          4. You know it’s weird I don’t hear all the parents of the people who got stabbed complaining that knives are to easily obtained, and that we need new knife restrictions. California one of the most restrictive gun control states rules didn’t even stop this kid. So gun grabbers got called on their bullshit that more control of guns will actually do something about gun violence. So what do they do, propose more of the same shit. Fuck off slaver.

      4. Funny, that, Tony. When my people grieve we do so in private, amongst our own. We do not do so in the national media. Put bluntly, we have too much class to exploit our grief and attention-whore. By turning his grief into a media event he lost all the protection and forbearance which society normally affords to the grieving.

        1. No he didn’t. When people are grieving, especially like the day after their loss, they are entitled to maximum deference. They’re not expected to uphold any decorum, really. Like Internet posters.

          1. No he didn’t. When people are grieving, especially like the day after their loss, they are entitled to maximum deference

            Sure, I won’t call Richard Martinez an idiot. His outburst was made in grief.

            The idiots are people like you that think we should base policy on the incoherent rantings of an emotionally distraught individual.

            1. We’re noting the remarkableness of his coherence and articulateness given the circumstances. He’s not saying anything we don’t already believe.

              1. In other words, your position is driven by emotion and ignorance, always.

                1. This is definitely the case.

              2. The royal “we”. LOL.

          2. No, of course you wouldn’t understand. I pity you.

    2. I cannot even begin to fathom the sort of pain this man is enduring right now. I certainly don’t blame him for losing perspective and attempting to cast blame about in a target-rich environment. Gunowners and their political backers are tempting targets for someone in the midst of a personal tragedy. In a polite world the cameras would be shut off and the mics packed up, and the victims’ families given room to grieve. This is not a polite world.

      1. In a truly polite world the cameras and mics wouldn’t have been there in the first place. The guy is grieving, let him do so in peace and dignity.

  13. I just know I have to keep fighting until something changes.”

    Interesting perspective… that by design, your plan is to flail about, stabbing and swinging at shadows in the dark, shadows you don’t recognize, or even understand, but you’ll keep doing it until something… *something* changes.

    Noted.

  14. Duh, this is the entire strategy. The NRA maintains its absolutist stance on gun liberty, politicians are pressured to loosen gun restrictions, guns proliferate hugely, then you guys says we can’t regulate guns because there are too many of them.

    If the vast quantity of guns in circulation in the US is not responsible for our rates of gun violence, then something else has to explain it, and good luck with that. If it does increase gun violence, then you have to admit you are responsible for it and you are OK with that.

    1. If the vast quantity of guns in circulation in the US is not responsible for our rates of gun violence, then something else has to explain it, and good luck with that.

      People! Gun violence is PEOPLE!!

      1. Pretty much. “Gun violence” is a term that makes no fucking sense whatsoever. It’s ascribing an action to an inanimate object. I don’t see any adjectives listed here.

    2. *barf*

    3. So what is the cause for high rates of gun violence in countries where strict gun control is enacted?

      Let’s see some links with facts directly correlating the rate of gun violence with more lax gun laws.

      It doesn’t exist, but that never stops you leftist from imagining up things, does it?

    4. Are you willing to admit that you are responsible for gun violence? You disarm defenseless people, and act surprised when they are victimized.

      And you know who is really responsible for gun proliferation? YOU. I OWN GUNS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

    5. The NRA hardly has an absolutist stance on gun liberty/rights.

      1. The NRA’s stance on gun rights is very weak compared to my own.

        1. That’s what I’m saying. TO me “absolutist” would mean no restrictions on owning or carrying any kind of gun for anyone.

    6. If the vast quantity of guns in circulation in the US is not responsible for our rates of gun violence, then something else has to explain it, and good luck with that.

      I’m told Michael Moore made a movie about this very subject, and concluded that we should become more like Canada and everything would be OK.

      Also Tony, your allies on the race-obsessed left are explaining this rampage with the “privileged white male” analysis like they did in the Duke Lacrosse rape scandal, although that one didn’t involve a gun to my knowledge. (Probably didn’t involve a rape, either.)

    7. So, how do you explain the almost non-existent rate of gun violence in Switzerland, a country with a relatively high gun ownership rate?

      1. Is that a good counterexample? I understand Switzerland has some gun control rules that I would not care for, their ownership is rather high because of militia service and such, right?

        1. Well, it is a good counter-example against the claim that gun ownership is solely responsible.

          1. If this country stuck to the actual 2nd Amendment and viewed guns as the entitlement of members of well-regulated militias, I’d be cool with that.

            1. You’re an idiot.

            2. Tony|5.28.14 @ 7:40PM|#
              “If this country stuck to the actual 2nd Amendment and viewed guns as the entitlement of members of well-regulated militias, I’d be cool with that.”

              So if everyone agrees with your lies, well, you’ll be nice?
              Lefty asshole alert!

            3. The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.

              1. WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

                1. PREFATORY CLAUSE

                2. I know I’m wasting my time, but:

                  well-regulated=functioning
                  militia=non-professional fighting force
                  people=people
                  arms=weapons intended for fighting

                  Also, consider the sentence structure of that to which you are referring. It is a preposition followed by a statement. If I need to explain further, you need an English lesson.

                  1. You guys know Tony’s an English major, right?

                    1. I’m the only one acknowledging the existence of those words. Is that what majoring in English got me? The ability to see words that are printed on a page?

                  2. Also Tony does not care to address that implicit to the heart of his argument is that every man of militia age should be in possession of and training regularly with infantry-grade weaponry.

                    1. Not just infantry grade weaponry but warships (US Constitution, Section 8)…

                3. WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

                  SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

                  There, now I’ve enhanced your stupid prog feelz

                  1. If “well regulated” means what he claims, who would infringe it?

                4. The notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the “collective” right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.

                  1. A pretty important piece of writing mentions it: the amendment itself.

                    The amendment is obsolete, from an ancient technological and military paradigm. The only purpose it actually serves now is to give gun fetishists a trump card in debates over how society should regulate the proliferation of arms domestically. I refuse to allow you that trump card, no matter what Scalia and his gun fetishist cohorts say.

                    1. Militia: The whole body of the people.

                      Regulate: The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

                      1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

                      1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

                      1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

                      1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

                      1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

                      1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

                      The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

                      In other words, fuck off you spineless fuck.

                    2. Gangs of vigilantes and individuals with a fetish or even people walking down dark streets do not fall under that definition of well-regulated. The Amendment simply does not mean what the NRA wants you to think it does, and it didn’t in constitutional jurisprudence until recently.

                      What I want is to forget about the 2nd Amendment. If it says what you want it to say, then I advocate repeal. Can we have a conversation about the public health menace that is guns without you getting a magical trump card?

                    3. The amendment is obsolete, from an ancient technological and military paradigm.

                      I’ll just bring this up again, since progs never come up with a reasonable counter to it and it’s related to Tony’s appeals to public safety.

                      More than twice as many people die from alcohol related causes as from firearms. In fact, 1/3 of all traffic deaths are caused by drunk drivers.

                      Yet, you never hear Tony or any other progs argue half as vociferously for increased restrictions on alcohol purchases as on firearms, even though alcohol is the cause of more than twice as many deaths and is empirically a greater threat to public safety than guns–because they don’t support further restrictions on something that they actually enjoy.

                      Ultimately, this boils down to two things: 1) the prog fetish for social control and engineering; and 2) their absolute faith in top-down managerialism, provided the people they like are the ones in charge.

        2. Rather high? It’s one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world.

          What does Switzerland’s gun crime rate look like? We know it has nothing to do with demographics or anything else, besides guns, because that would be racist to assume that it does, right?

          1. If everyone in this country who wanted a gun had to undergo military-level gun training I would be just fine with having a lot of guns. There’s always gonna be crazies but at least we might cut down on accidents.

            Invoking “demographics” is obviously racist, but you’d have a point and be less easily dismissed if you talked about poverty instead. Poverty causes a lot of problems!

            1. Yeah man, poverty caused this last shooting.

              1. His dad was only an ASSISTANT director!

                Inequality reared its ugly head yet again…

                1. Mass shootings are fundamentally different from most of the gun violence in this country. (White guys seem to like to do the former.)

                  But if you give me the tools to eliminate poverty in this country I could pretty much shut up about most other issues, since they’d be solved in the process. Deal?

                  1. I am not sure that most mass shooters are white, or whether it’s just (unlike a lot of other violent crimes) proportionate.

                    1. I think white mass shooters are actually underrepresented and Asians are over.

                      http://www.motherjones.com/pol…..-full-data

                  2. But if you give me the tools to eliminate poverty in this country I could pretty much shut up about most other issues, since they’d be solved in the process. Deal?

                    So, you’re saying here that you have the ability to eliminate poverty if only given the correct tools?

                    What tools would they be? Please elaborate.

                    1. Tax the rich a lot, redistribute to the poor a lot.

                    2. In other words, you plan on stealing from successful people, under threat of violence, so you can pay unsuccessful people not to commit violence?

                    3. Did I say that? Oh, you must be conflating wealth with virtue and poverty with vice. I don’t subscribe to your religion.

                  3. “Mass shootings are fundamentally different from most of the gun violence in this country. (White guys seem to like to do the former.)”

                    Except for when it’s gang related… cough *Chicago* cough.. but there’s just no air-time for that shit, because.. ‘other things’

                  4. (White guys seem to like to do the former.)

                    That’s weird cause I thought it was mostly Liberals who like to do the former.

                    Fuck off slaver.

                  5. Progtards have been waging war on poverty for 60+ years. First they started with bulldozing thriving black neighborhoods and then moving all of the residents into segregated ghettos away from any economic opportunity, then gave them access to the worst public education system money could buy, then put everyone on welfare so that they were poor, uneducated, and completely dependent on the government. My guess is that none of your tools will fix any of that, and will most likely make the problem worst since none of you racist progressives really believe that any of these poor people could ever take care of themselves even though they were doing OK and getting better before you all showed up to “help” them.

                  6. (White guys seem to like to do the former.)

                    Off the top of my head:
                    John Allen Muhammad
                    Lee Boyd Malvo
                    One L. Goh
                    Jeong Soo Paek
                    Eduardo Sencion
                    Jiverly Wong
                    Nidal Malik Hasan
                    Sulejman Talovic
                    Seung-Hui Cho
                    Jennifer San Marco
                    Jeffrey Weise
                    Arturo Reyes Torres
                    Gang Lu
                    James Edward Pough
                    Abdelkrim Belachheb

                  7. You mean murder all the kulaks? You should totally try that. Oops! We have guns!

            2. If everyone in this country who wanted a gun had to undergo military-level gun training I would be just fine with having a lot of guns.

              No, you wouldn’t.

              There are more to demographics than race, Tony. But being a Democrat, you probably don’t know that. And yes, poverty rate is a big part of crime and violent crime. So at least you have said something with some fact behind it. Now, if you just admit that if the Dems stop striving to destroy the economy, it might lower the crime rate.

              1. Since everyone always does economically better under Democrats I think I’ll stick with not admitting that.

                1. By “everyone always” you surely don’t mean “everyone” “always”? Do you?

                  1. Yes, pretty much.

                    1. Tel that to my compadres on the Southside of Chicago…which has been dominated by the Democrats since forever.

                    2. Please keep the racism to some other site–such as a local news article about Maya Angelou linked by Drudge, say–where it belongs.

                2. Since everyone always does economically better under Democrats I think I’ll stick with not admitting that.

                  You do know you’re writing in talking point clich? here, right?

                  A few facts might help.

                  You brought a knife to a gunfight, dude (sorry, I couldn’t help myself).

            3. I’d wager if you gave everyone who wanted a gun military-level gun training you’d see far more effective mass shootings.

              And so what if “demographics” is racist? Poverty does cause a lot of problems, yet members of various races (in poverty) still don’t statistically act the same way.

            4. If everyone in this country who wanted a gun had to undergo military-level gun training I would be just fine with having a lot of guns.

              It’s the other way around. The Second Amendment states a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. The context of gun ownership is that anyone who cares about maintaining liberty requires him to own guns and ammunition suitable to military action and be ready to use them.

            5. You are of course aware that during the revolution,
              Cannons and warships were privately owned?

            6. I’ve had extensive “military-level gun training”. Does that mean you’re OK with me having whatever guns I want?

    8. If the vast quantity of guns in circulation in the US is not responsible for our rates of gun violence, then something else has to explain it, and good luck with that.

      Switzerland’s gun ownership rate is similar to the US yet they have a significantly lower violent crime (crime with guns) rate.

      I’m picking up a racist and misogynist undertone in your comment, Tony, and because I feel this to be true, it is. You need to check your privilege ASAP.

      1. Isn’t Tony gay? Does gay man trump straight woman womyn in the privilege checking hierarchy? I can never keep these things straight.

        Shit, is “keep these things straight” a heterosexist thing to say?

        1. Yes, but I could be a lesbian. It’s like rock/paper/scissors. Lesbian beats gay guy beats straight woman beats straight man.

          1. Lesbian beats gay guy

            Don’t bring back those painful memories.

            1. Oh come on, Tony. We know that one of your favorite pleasures is being beaten by a fugly lesbian. I think you’ve admitted as much here more than a few times, if memory serves me well.

              1. Uh, no. But sometimes a lesbian fight breaks out and sometimes you happen to be standing in the middle of it.

                1. For some reason, that never happens to me. And I don’t care, unless they are both acceptably attractive and my intervention is going to lead to a sandwich of some type.

            2. Perhaps if the victimized gay guy had a means of, say, I don’t know, protecting himself from the brutality of bullying lesbians…….

              WHY DO YOU WANT TO VICTIMIZE WOMEN, GAYS, AND AFRICAN AMERICANS BY DENYING THEM THEIR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT, TONY!!?????

              1. I don’t want to shoot anyone. If I’m ever in a situation in which my choice is shoot someone or die, I’m probably going to die, even if I had a gun, and I accept that. That’s why I avoid certain parts of town and live in a high-rise. But I’m not delusional about my own John Wayne-esqueness nor do I fail to understand that a gun in my home is more likely to kill me than an intruder.

                1. “If I’m ever in a situation in which my choice is shoot someone or die, I’m probably going to die, even if I had a gun, and I accept that.”

                  Good Lord. I hope you can, at the very least, understand why some people might take a different position on that.

                  1. I understand why some people might think there’s a little Bruce Willis character ready to burst from their waiflike/obese frames, but that’s why I said I’m not delusional.

                    1. I understand why some people might think there’s a little Bruce Willis character ready to burst from their waiflike/obese frames..

                      You do see here how you’re trying to marginalize and vilify gun owners by stereotyping them, right?

                      You do know that the biggest percent increase in gun purchasers are women seeking to learn self protection, right?

                    2. Be nice to the little eloi fuck.

                    3. Surely there is some middle ground between preferring dying yourself rather than kill an attacker and a Bruce Willis character.

                    4. Surely there is some middle ground between preferring dying yourself rather than kill an attacker and a Bruce Willis character.

                      We’ve been over this before, Bo. Where do you get this specious notion that Tony is interested in engaging anyone’s arguments in good faith?

                    5. Surely there is some middle ground between preferring dying yourself rather than kill an attacker and a Bruce Willis character.

                      Anyone who would prefer to kill a murderer than let their family and friends be killed is obviously compensating for a small penis.

                2. ..my choice..

                  I respect your choice. Now respect mine.

                  1. He won’t respect your choice though. That’s what makes him a good progressive.

                    1. Quit forcing the freedomz on him!!!!!11!

                3. nor do I fail to understand that a gun in my home is more likely to kill me than an intruder.

                  /derp

                4. If I’m ever in a situation in which my choice is shoot someone or die, I’m probably going to die, even if I had a gun, and I accept that

                  Jesus, you just proved Episiarch’s point about projection. You don’t trust yourself with a gun so how could anyone else be trustworthy?

                  That’s why I avoid certain parts of town and live in a high-rise.

                  Make that double-proof that your progressive ideology is just projecting your contempt for your own weakness and the poor.

                  1. “ou just proved Episiarch’s point about projection. You don’t trust yourself with a gun so how could anyone else be trustworthy?”

                    Er, I think that was a profession of pacifism, not what you read into it there.

                    1. Er, I think that was a profession of pacifism, not what you read into it there.

                      But he also said a gun in his own home would be more likely to kill him than an intruder…how would that be?

                    2. You know what he’s referring to there.

                  2. That’s why I avoid certain parts of town and live in a high-rise.

                    But what if you can’t afford to live in the good part of town in a nice high-rise? What if you’re poor and are vulnerable – you’re openly gay, a women, physically disabled?

                    Tough shit then?

                    1. People like Tony could give two shits about the poor. It’s all about control.

                    2. Then you’d most benefit from effective gun restrictions.

                5. nor do I fail to understand that a gun in my home is more likely to kill me than an intruder.

                  While the study you’re referring to was skewed beyond belief (for instance, if the victim owned a gun, the gun used was assumed to be his), in your specific case, I agree.

                6. How exactly is your gun going to kill you? Is it going to self-animate, aim itself, and pull its own trigger?

            3. Suddenly, I have a newfound respect for lesbians as a class.

            4. Hehehe. Good one.

              Now back to despising your politics!

        2. Only white heterosexual men are allowed to endlessly moan about their victimhood at the hands of women and minorities. “Sure, homophobia and sexism are bad, but I have to HEAR about it. Aren’t I the real victim?”

          1. OK, credit where due, that was pretty funny Tony.

            1. meh, pretty unoriginal if you ask me

          2. Someone get Tony a crying towel!

            1. Dude, he is a towel!

              Worst character ever.

          3. Only white heterosexual men are allowed to endlessly moan about their victimhood

            When did this happen? Was it on Druge today? I must have missed it, I thought we were still supposed to check our privilege?

        3. Gay men are so misogynist that they’d rather sleep with other men.

    9. I’ll be all in for “common” sense gun regulation the day after congress implements “common” sense abortion regulation.

    10. Your right tony! The dems need to run on gun control!

    11. Nobody is saying “we can’t regulate guns because there are too many of them”. We’re saying that the 2nd Amendment is an inherent right just like the other 9 original Amendments to our Constitution, it’s our right to own firearms, and if you try to take them or regulate them away, it’s no different than taking away any other inherent right. We’ll put up with some minor inconveniences, but try to take them, and you’ll get shot in the fucking face. That’s what we’re saying.

      1. *Nobody is saying “we can’t regulate guns because there are too many of them”. *

        Why not? That’s the progressive excuse for not enforcing immigration laws! There’s just too many of them to deport! Let’s give them all driver’s licenses!

  15. The Times has no such qualms. To the contrary, it views the current standard as a “high bar” and worries that it “misses thousands of people.”

    Without getting into the quagmire of defining mental illness, it was liberalism in the 60s that attacked the mental health industry and got major changes to the laws, raising the bar for commitment- moving us away form the Tennessee Williams era.

    Progressives have been complaining about the high bar ever since.

    1. Liberals in the 1960s were pathetic. But they at least had a coherent, governing philosophy for their goals.

      Now, it’s basically grabbing onto anything convenient in order to maintain relevance.

      That’s the reason they hate the First and Second Amendments so much.

      They have to convince people that the evil Republicans have corrupted their original meaning; therefore, elect Democrats in order to reverse this evil.

      1. Liberals in the 1960s

        Therein lies the clue. In fact, liberals in the 1960s, at least some of them, were actually liberals. Today’s so called liberals are almost 100% progressives, aka statist authoritarians.

        1. They were fine with expanding personal freedoms up until they realized that they would also face the consequences.

          They’re like, “Oh, we didn’t realize that freedom isn’t without some consequences. Well, we actually prefer to live in an uber-safe world where we lock up mental deviants before they could unleash terror. So, we hereby reverse our original goals. Now, we couldn’t give a shit about personal freedom if it gets in the way of us feeling safe.”

          1. I think it’s more like this. 60s liberals got married and had children. They then realized that their liberal world was a dangerous place, and so freaked out and decided that the only way to protect the snowflakes was a massive centralized government that could control every aspect of society from cradle to grave. The fact that a lot of them had been reading Mao, Lenin, and Marx, and thought that it made sense in their drug hazed brains, didn’t help matters any.

            1. ^This. Having grown up in the shadow of that generation, you are spot-on.

              Want to make one of them squirm? Remind them how they became their parents.

              1. Remind them how they became their parents.

                If only. At least their parents didn’t try to regulate and control every hour of their kids’ lives, and let them do things like play outdoors unsupervised.

                Each succeeding generation seems to have become increasingly paranoid, due in no small part to a media complex that thrives on creating an atmosphere of low-grade social anxiety 24/7.

    2. They always complain about getting what they want, because they never actually truthfully admit their true goals.

      1. Their true goal: absolute power.

        1. Yes, their true goal is to make us all watch that crappy Clint Eastwood movie.

  16. The closest Rodger came to a 72-hour hold seems to have been in April, when Santa Barbara County sheriff’s deputies visited him at his apartment after his mother, alarmed by his dark and brooding YouTube videos, reported that he might be suicidal.

    It’s a wonder he wasn’t shot and killed. Isn’t there some rule where you never call the police to ‘help’ someone?

    1. Well, these are greater LA area cops right? There would’ve been a higher body count, I would think. Especially if there were blue trucks or Hispanics around.

      1. Santa Barbara. Hardly.

    2. Well, these are greater LA area cops right? There would’ve been a higher body count, I would think. Especially if there were blue trucks or Hispanics around.

  17. “…convicted of two misdemeanors involving a controlled substance in five years.”

    Alcohol and tobacco are technically controlled substances until 21 and 18 respectively.

    So, two MIPs and you’re toast?

    Wow, this is a Progressive two-fer – you get to steal gun rights and be a shameless puritan! Whee!

    1. Teetotalling is a virtue to impose on beer-swilling midwestern conservatives, all of whom drive drunk and all of whom beat their wives to a pulp for sport every other week.

      But don’t you dare touch their chablis or blanc.

      1. Well, of course not, because it’s different, you see. They’re smart. Nobody else is. Smart people have different laws and morals!

        Whheee! Wouldn’t it be fun to be a Progressive? It’s like living in blind hypocrisy all the time!

        1. Foolish any consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, mon fr?re.

          1. I can never be a progressive, can I? *said sadly, through almost pure progressive tears…

  18. There will be no more gun control passed at the federal level. As it is, the Dems are going to be obliterated in November.

    However, I will be the first to concede that there will be back door control of everything through various written or to be written clauses of the ACA. The ACA will be the new breeding ground and battleground for every type of hysterical control freak, from the WOD to gun control.

    1. there will be back door control of everything through various written or to be written clauses of the ACA.

      This. 8-(

    2. ^This. If you have cancer, you’re a danger to yourself. If you have a cough, you’re suicidal. You went to an emergency room once, so you’re mentally deficient (the proggies don’t ever bowdlerize those terms for their ideological opponents).

      Pretty much any medical stuff whatsoever, you’ll be barred from getting guns, talking about guns, thinking about guns, eating candy the same color as guns, using “snug” as an adjective, or buying glue utensils from the store.

      For your own good, of course. Government is good, government is great.

    3. I’ve been saying this for years, as have many around here. As soon as the government decreed that “containing health care costs” was a legitimate public policy aim, the door flew open to allow government intrusion into any human activity which can somehow affect someone’s health–which is to say, all human activity everywhere.

      1. Hear, hear. I think it’s funny/sad that the reproductive rights crowd generally supports the government intrusion, but they’re going to get hit too and just as hard as everyone else who’s eaten cheese and sniffed tobacco smoke.

        Puritans are puritans – they’re after the bedroom one way or another.

  19. 25% of American women are currently on an anti-depressant and a larger percent has been, at some point, prescribed a drug to treat some variety of mental illness.

    1. 70% of the women I know and work with are major pill poppers.

      1. Paul doses the other 30% with Rohypnol himself. He’s just doing them a favor.

        1. I don’t know anyone named Rohypnol. Unless he’s one of those new dudes from India that’s taking over in July.

      2. Do any of them take the good kind of pills? And by good, I mean the kind where the doctor isn’t allowed to phone in the prescription.

        1. Ah, yes, the good pills. We store them in the pantry next to the cupcakes.

          1. At least the pills are brightly colored so the kids won’t notice.

  20. I also love how the NRA is always the villain and viewed as some shadowy organization. Their stance on video games are dumb but they offer a lot of good gun educational services. Also, the NRA has around 3-4 million members who pay dues and with that their members have this expectation that the NRA will fight for their rights as gun owners.

    1. Indeed. The funny thing is that the NRA is the kind of grass roots organizations the left has always been so enamored with, unless it disagrees with it of course.

      1. Yeah except for its “corporate partners.”

        There’s a reason they are so absolutist on gun regulation. It’s not to protect anyone’s freedom.

        1. It’s not uncommon for an interest group to attract corporate sponsors, the ACLU has them. If you interact with the NRA and its members I think you would find that if anything they are more ‘absolutist’ than their ‘corporate partners.’

        2. Right. But the corporate crony partners of our federal government are absolute proof of their devotion to protect our freedoms?

          Tony, do you realize what dumb stuff that you think? Is there anything that can be done to wake you the fuck up, or are you hopeless?

        3. Anything to deflect from the fact that this is one case where the left is against grass roots sentiment and civil liberties.

    2. Question: How many card-carrying NRA members have gone on a shooting rampage?

      1. I did, years ago. Got a whole box of .22s and murdered every tin can I could find.

        1. Interesting. I’ve never heard any of those facts mentioned on NPR.

        2. Do any of you maggots know where Lee Harvey Oswald learned to shoot?

          1. Charles Whitman was also a Marine.

        3. BTW, they manage that by claiming Nidal Hassan ‘renounced his citizenship’, and that Seung-Hui Cho was only on ‘permanent resident status’.

          technically accurate, but a little weak as argument for ‘Murica! Whoo Hoo!

          1. John Allen Muhammad
            Lee Boyd Malvo
            Wayne Williams
            Charles Ng
            Coral Watts
            Angel Resendez

            None of the above are white men.

      2. Does going to the range count as a rampage or do you have to kill people for that?

        1. Refer to your ‘terms of en-rampage-ment’ handbook for details..

      3. I once shot 2 deer within 10 minutes. From the ungulate point of view I would guess that qualifies as a rampage. They were cull bucks. One of them was a little small so I caught a lot of shit about my greyhound bag limit.

  21. Were the police called to his apartment because of the videos we are all seeing on the news these days? Because those strike me as meeting the low bar of ‘probable cause.’

    1. I think the police interviewed him at his parent’s’ request. I could be wrong.

      1. But I thought the parents alerted the police because they (the parents) were alarmed by the videos. If that were the case, and they told the police that, did the police not even take a minute to look up the videos? That’s negligent.

        1. He was well spoken, courteous, and charming. Q.E.D.

        2. I’m not about to defend the cops in this case, although for fun I’m trying to imagine what the reaction around here would have been if they’d tossed the apartment, discovered his armory, and hauled him into custody.

          Granted, the videos are pretty indicative of this lunatic’s lunacy.

  22. I grew up in the Chicago Metro area, so guns weren’t as prevalent in my life. For the most part I was indifferent towards gun control but that changed when I went to a shooting range with some friends in Indianapolis a couple years ago. What impressed me the most was their knowledge about their guns, the laws, but most of all their focus on safety. I started to slowly understand that a lot of gun owners don’t own their weapons for only recreation but also for protection. If someone were to break into my apartment, the police would be there in 5 minutes minimum and 10 minutes maximum. That gives the burglar lots of time to fuck around so I couldn’t rely on the police to help me. If went for a jog at night near the lakefront and some asshole decides to accost me and try to rob me, I can’t scream for help nor expect it but having a weapon would be a great equalizer. Guns are great for recreation but as a person I have a fundamental right to protect myself and others at anytime and for the Progressives to try and deny that is downright evil.

    1. If someone were to break into my apartment, the police would be there in 5 minutes minimum and 10 minutes maximum.

      What, did you live above the police station?

      1. It depends on where you live. if you live in an impoverished area they took their time. If you live in an affluent part of the city, they might be slow but they will get to your place faster then they would on the West Side.

        1. From what I’ve learned from my 5 years in MD, if you call 911 in Howard county, the average response time is 5 minutes, or less. In some areas of inner city Baltimore, the average response time is somewhere between a few hours and never.

          In either case, if someone breaks down your door with a weapon and bad intent, and you can’t respond with equal or greater force, you’re dead.

    2. having a weapon would be a great equalizer

      You could almost catch yourself wondering why feminists aren’t unapologetic fans of gun ownership.

      1. When I was in college, I was in the Conservative Alliance and we hosted an event where it advocated looser gun restrictions because one of the many benefits would be for women to have an equalizer when they get sexually assaulted. The feminists lost their shit and we were like, but this would actually be beneficial towards you. That was a day when I learned that for feminists leftist ideology comes first and protecting women is probably a distant second.

        1. Victimhood comes first and the rest is irrelevant. If they have a gun, their chances of being a victim are reduced. What would then whine about then?

    3. Progressives have to be the most short sighted people ever. They would have all private gun ownership banned if they could. Yet they cannot think past their own mouths and imagine a world where guns are only in the hands of a SoCon, Teathuglican government. That’s how foolish these people are.

      1. Remember: these people are animists. They imbue an object with evil and intent, as opposed to seeing it just as a tool, which is why guns scare them so much. They are not rational about it. They’re not thinking it through or considering future ramifications. Quite simply, their only thought is banishing the evil totems (guns) completely…except for priests/wise men (cops, politicians) who because of their wisdom and holiness are safe from the corrupting influence of the supernatural evil that are guns.

        1. But don’t you think they are also associating gun ownership with the political untouchables, i.e., rural folk? To me, I see progressives as overwhelmingly urban (and smug) and generally people who’ve had no cultural association with guns. Whereas most rural Americans, even those who identify as liberal, have experience with guns and aren’t as afraid of them as objects per se.

          1. That too. You would be surprised at how many blacks on the Southside own a gun. Some asshole politician was trying to talk about gun control to a black audience and one of the audience members where like,” Talk to us about restricting the use and ownership of guns when you let go one of your bodyguards an live in our neighborhood.” That shut the guy the fuck up

          2. I bet that’s part of it for some of them, but the major factor seems to be an almost total lack of familiarity with guns combined with a predilection for superstitious thinking.

            There may be different and varying initial reasons for them to be gun banners. Maybe it’s that icky rednecks use them. Maybe it’s because someone they know got shot. But what they all do is start ascribing supernatural powers and intent to guns, which leads to the absolutely absurd notion that if you just severely restrict gun ownership you will magically stop gun crime or rampages.

            Since the guns are magical, banning them will have magical results. This is about the extent of their thinking.

      2. Also, Walmart sells guns.

  23. “The Times has no such qualms. To the contrary, it views the current standard as a “high bar” and worries that it “misses thousands of people.” In truth, it misses tens of millions, since survey data indicate that half the population qualifies for a psychiatric diagnosis at some point”

    I don’t think they’re ‘missing’ anything, since they would have absolutely no problem by enacting Total Gun Restriction by simply ‘agreeing that crazy people can’t have guns!’ (COMMON SENSE REGULASHUNS), and then subsequently re-defining everyone as ‘crazy’ in one way or another. (GAME SET MATCH)

    They are equally capable of being stupid enough to believe their own bullshit, and craven enough to lie their way to this goal while placating their opponents with the claim they ‘have no intention’ of total disarmament… regardless, the end will justify whatever means they use to reach their conceived gun-less nirvana

    When the guns are ‘gone’ (i.e. out of the hands of law-abiding civilians), and the crime persists/escalates, it will simply be time for Round II of “Moar Top Down Controls”, albeit this time without all that yucky having to ‘convince’ an armed population its All For Their Own Good.

    1. ^This. I wonder how people like the NY Times writer exist. I really do. It’s puzzling. Then I realize that sociopaths exist, people who have replace religion with state exist, socialists exist, power mad despots exist, and the sycophants who cozy up to power for favor exist.

      It’s the insane who want power and control and will do anything to make sure that those who oppose them have no will nor legal recourse nor ability to defend themselves against overwhelming, absolute control by others.

      1. These people simply think that the solution to all problems is More (and *Better!) Government.

        The problem is the “better” never comes, so, More MOre MoAR MOAR MORR MOREST

        DO SOMETHING!! IS their battle cry

        1. That makes me think of the seagulls from “Finding Nemo” (I have a niece who watched that movie…a lot), only “MoAR” instead of “mine”. Though that word applies to.

          Oh progressives. They would make helmets mandatory for walking if they could.

  24. The predictability of the talking head industry’s reaction to this tragedy is maybe the most depressing part of the entire thing to me. Horrible things happen, have always happened, and will always happen. I can accept that, and have had to in my life. It’s all the shit that comes after it; people seeking to inflict pain or embarrassment on their ideological opponents because X happened that really sucks. The logical fallacies fly as fast as the vapid and fear-filled can mouth them as they seek to harness the massed attention on the event to their personal advantage while it lasts, and nothing seems beneath them in their efforts to do so. It’s so fucking disgusting.

    1. Yes it is. But this is what happens when people get their identity from TEAM and not from themselves. And there are more people than ever before who have rabidly attached themselves to a TEAM.

      1. I remember having my gun grabber friends responding to some stuff I posted on Facebook about gun control. It involved the usual bullshit but the best part was that I have four friends, who are really into guns, eviscerate them. It’s great because their ignorance became so evident. They argued from emotion and came up some weak ass statistic to prove their point.

        1. The real question is, are they capable of learning and accepting that they were wrong, and changing their view?

            1. And again this goes back to my point above about identity and TEAM. Their identity, once they choose to have it based on TEAM, doesn’t have any bearing in reality or rational thought. Because it is based solely on what the TEAM believes, and nothing else. And they will then reinforce the shit out of each other however they have to.

              1. It’s back to the “faith” versus “facts” thing – no true believer will be persuaded by facts or reason. Equalization of defense, in reference to guns, is a totally foreign concept to them because they cannot handle being an authority – or they cannot concede to someone with different thoughts. TEAMS. Ugh.

      2. Epi, it’s not coming from team identity, it’s coming from the fear of having to take responsibility for themselves. Team identity is the symptom, not the cause. These people WANT power consolidated via ever-increasing regulations because they want to be blissfully irresponsible. Essentially, perpetual children. That’s why they throw hissy fits.

        1. ^This. Not to take away from Episiarch’s TEAM thesis – which is true basically, that many of them line up for the TEAM and because they become so personally identified with platitudes, they entrench themselves.

          But, I think the evasion of choice and responsibility is the psychological core of it – it feeds into the TEAM mentality. I agree completely. The children give absolute power to others to evade consequence and choice.

          The whole “freedom from ‘x'” thing is a symptom of that. Freedom is basically only preventative and positivist.

          In essence, for those who desire power, nothing is better than the Progressive/Socialist platform. And they have a willing herd to cull and manipulate for it.

        2. I’m sure you’ve read this, but again, an interesting read on the authoritarian personality. Ironic it’s on Marxists.org, but hey.
          http://www.marxists.org/archiv…..tarian.htm

  25. “Possibly not. With so many guns in this society, no law will ever prevent all gun violence, but that should not stymie attempts to reduce it.” Yes it should, moron!

  26. Fuck Chicago.
    (Hockey related comment)

    1. I’m on my way to watch the game at the cigar shop tonight. Hopefully they win but if not, meh. I’m more into baseball and football.

      1. Most of the players on the Kings live in my town. All really nice guys. I got to drink out of the Stanley Cup in 2012. Dustin Brown brought it to a bar I used to frequent.

        I hope to do it again, and get a picture this time.

        1. When the Blackhawks had their parade, it went by my office building. I thought it was awesome to see the Stanley Cup up close.

    2. Kings take the lead! Scoring!

  27. Something must be done but not sure what? Let me help. Legal concealed carry nationwide, no permit nor license required. That’s change.

    1. Yours is the only reasonable, non-pants-wetting solution, but the gun grabbers refuse to admit their policies are abject failures and instead want to blame their failures on the other side.

      Let’s also not forget that Richard Martinez is a criminal-defense lawyer and directly profits from an increase number of laws, the less effective the better. Legalized concealed carry would hurt his business.

  28. Good grief. The gun grabbers seem to be getting increasingly desperate and increasingly mendacious. Most people see through their bullshit so their response is to double down with the same schtick?

    Once again, in response to a tragedy, they have a tearful victim’s family propose solutions that in no way, shape, or form would have prevented said tragedy.

    Genius.

    1. ‘Luck’ is the only defense against a determined would be assassin who is willing to die in the course of killing you… it’s just that simple.

      1. Hardly. Situational awareness, training, and preparedness are a better defense than “luck”. I hear it can be quite difficult, if not impossible, for dead assassins to assassinate anyone.

    2. Pretty much. Mendacious is a proper word to describe it.

      I understand the parents’ grief, and sympathize, of course.

      However, it’s bordering on worse than the tragedy when people use something like this to forward their social or political agendas. Not only are they immoral monsters, they are cowards and charlatans.

      I don’t use the word hate often – but that’s my main feeling (along with contempt and revulsion) for politicos who build their agendas on the tears of tragedy.

      1. What is the suitable period following a gun massacre before it’s OK to talk about gun politics? Because we don’t have a lot of very long windows between them in this country.

        1. Talk about it all you want. Don’t ever stop!
          It is a pleasure to watch you fascists get your
          asses kicked.

          1. It is not similarly pleasurable watching kids get mowed down as a result of your kicking our asses in the political debate.

        2. Tony, you say you accept Democracy, majority rule, all of the time.

          A majority of people are ok with guns, what is the issue then?

          I believe you are ok with majority rule when they agree with you.

    3. Dead children=progressive hardon.

  29. What this whole incident proves is that psychologically and emotionally disturbed people like Elliot Rodger are not just a threat to our lives, they are a threat to our civil rights. They are a cancer on humanity.

    Cancer is not cured by transforming the cancer cells back to normal, healthy cells. Cancer is cured by destroying the cancer cells. So too, we must destroy this cancer on humanity,. The existence of mentally and emotionally disturbed people like Elliot Rodger can no longer be tolerated. The threat to our lives and civil rights is just too great to try anything else except destroy them. And the destruction must be thorough. Even one psychological or emotional deviant is one person too many.

    1. Who gets to define what “mentally and emotionally disturbed” means? It’s quite possible that you could be the first person on the list.

      1. The state defines it, of course. The fact is we have a cancer out there that is threatening to destroy us.

  30. Today a New York Times editorial takes a stab at describing that something

    +100 Internets.

  31. Anyone who works at the NYT is mental.

    This is the ‘newspaper’ that covered up Stalin’s crimes.

    Nothing but a bunch of retarded fetuses work there and from 2008 we know the proper thing to do with retarded fetuses, right?

  32. OT: Seattle police file federal lawsuit over ‘use of force’ policy

    […]

    The officers are seeking financial compensation and a complete overhaul of the policy, calling it “unconstitutional and beyond repair.”

    […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.