Violence

Policy Responses to the Roanoke Shooting: 1) Mass Disarmament or 2) Mass Disarmament

"Stronger mental health screenings for prospective gun owners" would strip many harmless people of their Second Amendment rights.

|

WDBJ

The New York Times editorial about yesterday's horrifying shooting in Roanoke, Virginia, is predictably lame, exhibiting the wishful thinking and vague prescriptions that characterize the anti-gun movement. "Easily available guns offer troubled Americans the power to act out their grievances in public," the Times observes. "The power to be seen killing innocents with one of the guns so easily obtained around the country proves irresistible as the ultimate outlet for an individual's frustration and rage." The paper complains that "guns are ubiquitous and easy to acquire," with an "estimated 300 million guns in America owned by a third of the population, far more per capita than any other modern nation." What is to be done? The Times does not say. "There are too many guns," the editorial concludes, "and too little national will to do anything about them."

If the problem is "too many guns," the solution presumably involves reducing the number of guns. Mass confiscation of firearms would require more than "national will." It would require ignoring the Constitution, including not just the Second Amendment but also the Fourth and the Fifth. Perhaps that is why the Times does not spell out the logical implications of its argument.

There are similar problems with making guns less "easily available." ABC News reports that Vester Lee Flanagan II, the man who murdered WDBJ reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward on live TV, legally bought the Glock pistol he used at a Virginia gun store. "Despite Flanagan's workplace struggles and his employers' suggestion that he seek medical attention," ABC says, alluding to an employee assistance program referral, "he did not fail any of the benchmarks for purchasing a handgun." He had "no known criminal record," and he apparently was never committed to a mental hospital. An obvious response, recommended by Parker's grieving father, is to expand the criteria for stripping people of their Second Amendment rights. "I'm not going to let this issue drop," Andy Parker said during a Fox News interview last night. "We've got to do something about crazy people getting guns."

The problem is that, once you expand the definition of "crazy people" beyond the current standard of forcible psychiatric treatment, it's not clear where you stop. People who knew Flanagan during his stint at WDBJ, where he worked under the professional name Bryce Williams, described him as "unhappy," touchy, "volatile," paranoid, perenially disgruntled, and "difficult to work with." In retrospect, those traits look like clear warning signs, and they are in fact common among mass shooters. But they are also common, period, and people who exhibit them rarely become murderers.

"We can point to all the warning signs we missed," Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, an expert on mass murder, told the Associated Press last year. "But they're yellow flags. They're not red flags until blood is spilled." Any law that tried to disarm people like Flanagan would inevitably disarm many innocent, harmless people.

What would the new criteria look like? Should everyone who is fired because he has trouble getting along with his coworkers lose his Second Amendment rights? What about people with a short fuse, people whose employers refer them for counseling, or people who make dubious allegations of racism or homophobia? Perhaps the net should be cast even wider, to cover anyone who has ever qualified for a psychiatric diagnosis (something like half the population, according to one estimate). When you think about the details, "stronger mental health screenings for prospective gun owners," as ABC describes Andy Parker's proposal, begin to look a lot like the mass disarmament that The New York Times would like to see. Neither is feasible or desirable.

NEXT: A.M. Links: WDBJ Shooting, Joe Biden vs. Hillary Clinton, Trump Vows to Tax the Rich

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. Meanwhile the very same day a man killed his three sisters with a knife, very little media attention since they weren’t one of their people and since it does not prove their typical anti-gun stance that if there were no guns no crime would exist.

    1. Sheesh, dude. Stick to the narrative, ok?

    2. A few years ago, I remember a news story about how some deranged woman in LA deliberately crashed her car into a whole line up of people who were waiting to get into a club or some other venue. I think she killed several of them and injured a whole bunch more. Where were the lefties’ cries for tighter driver licensing, a ban on heavier “assault” cars, and for more rigid mental health screening before allowing people to drive?

      The fact is if some loon wants to kill someone, or even a whole bunch at once, they will figure out a way to do it. The gun-grabbers are just looking for any excuse to curtail rights.

      1. I agree the gun grabbers at the New York Times and their ilk are always looking to seize on a tragic event to push their own radical agendas. Obama, Feinstein, Durbin, and other politicians will soon use this to call for more gun control bull. Let’s restrict the kinds of guns and ammo that the government thugs can have and lay off the people!

      2. We had a similar story here in Indianapolis in the last week.

        http://www.indystar.com/story/…../32389125/

    3. Ron:
      Anyone who would discriminate against the mentally ill should not be given any media attention. This Andy Parker guy must be crazy if he thinks he has the right to dictate gun policy. We are tired of tyrants like him and our politicians trying to use tragic events to further their own anti freedom agendas.

    4. Let’s instead restrict the kinds of guns and ammo that our government crooks can have and leave the good people alone! Why do police need military armored vehicles and grenade launchers? They don’t!! They must disarm and restrict themselves to lead bullets and semi auto firearms. No more fully auto weapons for police work!! Now that is the only gun control the American people need!!

    5. Andy Parker sounds like a gun grabbing nut!

  2. It sure is a bizarre coincidence that the media narrative after any shooting is based on whatever is worst for conservatives while hiding anything that could potentially damage the left.

    So a racist murderer who kills black people is used to attack the entire south and impugn southern whites as nefarious racists who oppress people with the power of their Confederate monuments, while a racist African American murderer who kills two white people only tells us that we need stronger gun control and says nothing whatsoever about the fraught issue of race relations in America.

    Again, it’s just kind of weird. I’m sure there’s no kind of bias in play here, since leftists have assured me media bias is a right-wing myth.

    1. Both people committed their heinous acts for the exact same reason. They were fucked up in the head. We’re not fixing that with any laws or editorials or national conversations or Icon outlawing or whatever bullshit.

      1. The thing is that people want to feel in control when in fact they are not. You can reduce your risk by avoid stupid people, stupid places, and stupid situations and having some situational awareness and certainly a defensive weapon that you know how to use doesn’t hurt. Cops are not there to protect you, that’s for damn sure.

        1. When will someone introduce a bill requiring weapons training and CC for reporters?

          1. I don’t think they stood a chance. They were preoccupied with their jobs. Like I said, you can reduce risk but you’re not going to eliminate it.

      2. Well, no, they both committed the murders because they’re racists. Racism is an ideology, not a mental illness. Calling them fucked in the head ignores the actual ideological reasons that led them to kill.

        1. How many racist do you think there are? If that were the reason would we not indeed have a full on race war right now? I think just on what limited info we have that it’s pretty obvious that these guys were both mental.

          1. There are a ton of racists out there, I just think the number of obsessive racists out there to create a full on race war is a bit short.

        2. There’s racism and then there’s racism. The racism of the Nazi who wants all blacks to die and the racism of the Indian store clerk who thinks all blacks are at high risk for shoplifting, are very different beasts.

          1. But for all of the tough talk and assholiness coming out of the skinhead camp, 99.9% of them will never pull a Roof. Because they are not crazy, just stupid. Probably about the same odds as the general population. Most people who kill do so for personal reasons, not pie in sky bullshit. That takes a special kind of snowflake.

            1. I regularly spar with one on Usenet who keeps calling me a gook and types tough. But I know he is just a girlyboy pansy.

            2. This is still too simplistic an explanation. Calling all murderers “crazy” is satisfying in the same way it is satisfying to call all Islamist suicide bombers “cowards.” It explains away a disturbing aberration in a way that is reassuring, but it’s not accurate.

            3. The British were probably having a similar discussion about the colonies back in the 1700s. When there’s a few people willing to act on an ideology, they’re nuts. When there’s a decent number but still a small minority, it’s a movement. The more numbers an ideology has, the less insane it becomes. Nazism was probably deemed insane to begin with, then became a movement, then we had WWII.

          2. We used to call them bigots. You know, the people who held those beliefs but never really acted on them. We’ve lost the ability to use specific language to aptly describe these differences.

            1. The Left dislikes the term bigot. Or at least a lot of Left Wingers do. Because quite a lot of them are bigots. Just ask them what they think about Southerners, rednecks, or religious people.

      3. No. Both Roof and this asshole committed their murders because of long-standing grievances against their targets. The fact that their grievances were petty, if not completely imaginary, doesn’t make the killers insane.

        The lesson that I think we can draw from this tragedy, is that the perpetually offended types aren’t just annoying, they are literally dangerous to be around. Stay away from them.

        1. “if not completely imaginary”

          Isn’t that the definition of delusional? I’m not saying insane in that the sense they didn’t understand right from wrong which is the standard for that defense. I’m saying they have something more mentally going on then just straight up race issues. They are defective.

          1. I see what you mean, but I have to disagree. I don’t think that being narcissistic and working one’s self into a rage over petty slights counts as mental illness, not without stretching the definition beyond usefulness. Rather, I think that they are just the traits of a bad person, of weak character. If you like, call it ‘evil.’

            I certainly could be wrong, and there could have been something biologically wrong in the killer’s brain. But I doubt it. He was just a bad person.

            1. “He was just a bad person”

              I don’t disagree with that. I just think with people with these strong personality disorders that if it wasn’t race it would be something else. My point being that if you eliminated all racism you would still have crazy bad actors doing crazy things like this. There’e no real rhyme or reason hence we can’t control it with

            2. especially when that’s how the left is telling us we’re supposed to act.

              everyday on Facebook I see several lefties posting things that we should all be outraged about, most of them exaggerations if not outright lies.

              then you turn on tv and see Hillary giving a speech about how all of us are victims, all those bigots are out to get us, and we need her and her ilk to save us.

              listen to all the ‘rape culture’

              everything thing is about making victims

              then a guy feels victimized and picks up a gun – and it’s the NRA’s fault

          2. “Isn’t that the definition of delusional?”

            No, it’s not. Particularly when those same sorts of motivations (if not actual actions) are frequently validated by other people not widely considered to be delusional.

            e.g. Sally Kohn who said the perp “acted out of a sense of victimization I have no reason to believe not justified..”

            That he fled, and eventually chose to kill himself also being further evidence that he knew his actions were not socially acceptable. This in contrast to the Hinkley or Chapman type who either waits around, or calmly sits down and starts reading a book.

            This dude was all but destined to kill himself, that he chose to take others with him is only evidence of the malice within.

  3. If you think they are cheap and easy to get now, try outlawing them.

    1. No, no. It’ll be totally different this time.

  4. They might as well give this up. If standing on Newtown coffins didn’t give the grabbers the juice to remove rights they don’t want anyone but state agents to have, nothing will.

  5. The end game, as you said, is clearly mass disarmament. They want to expand the definition of anyone who can’t get a gun to people who’ve ever had a psych diagnosis. They’re going to want to allow people to call/write in to say “so and so shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun because X”, which would be grounds for disallowing gun purchases as well.

    This is going to end up making things more dangerous, because people who need psychiatric help won’t get it for fear of that type of consequences.

    Which will lead to more tragedies.

    Which will lead to more calls for mass disarmament.

    1. You see, anyone who wants to own a gun has a psychological diagnosis! There, that www easy.

      1. Exactly, so wanting a gun, which is crazy, disqualifies you from owning a gun.

        1. It’s Catch .22

    2. They’ll now also want to include anyone who has filed any sort of grievance against their employer or colleagues.

      1. That one might be a toss up, since it could potentially conflict with their agenda of using the EEOC to bring disfavored businesses to their knees.

        1. That’s the thing – progressive policies almost always eventually come into conflict with each other.

          1. Progressives do not have policies. They believe they should be allowed to rule by whim. Anything they say that looks like a policy or a principle is cover for that lust for power.

      2. Mental diseases that prevent you from owning a gun:

        Paranoia
        Psycopathy
        Uncontrollable rage
        Wrongthink

        1. I can see it now…

          “You’re troubled about some things you went through over in Iraq? You’re clearly a PTSD basket case; no guns for you!”

          “Your wife left you and you’re feeling depressed? Better take those guns away before you snap and kill somebody!”

          “You don’t have very many friends and spend most of your time playing video games? You’re exactly like Adam Lanza! Your 2A rights are hereby revoked!”

          1. I know of one example, at least, of #2 on your list. Brian Aitken. Probably many examples already of all three.

      3. One idiot on TV Yesterday was saying anyone who has had several jobs in recent years should not be allowed to have a gun. I know people who had several jobs because of the crappy economy not because they were crazy

        1. I know people who have had several jobs in the last few years because they’re independent contractors.

        2. Hell, my brother and his wife have had several jobs in recent years. Not because they’re freelance or contractors or because of the crappy economy, but because they’re great at what they do and are constantly searching for new opportunities.

  6. Welcome to gun control by administrative prohibition.

    For a real world example of what this looks like, here are the “Personal History” questions on the license application in Canada:

    C – Personal History
    If you answer yes to any of the questions in this section, you must provide details on a separate page. Add your name at the top of each page you attach. If details are not provided, your application cannot be processed.

    A yes answer does not mean your application will be refused but it may lead to further examination.

    If you have received a pardon for any offence listed in box 16 a), you are not required to disclose the offence.

    16. a) During the past five (5) years, have you been charged, convicted or granted a discharge for an offence:
    (i) under the Criminal Code or the Youth Criminal Justice Act where violence was used, threatened or attempted;
    (ii) involving the misuse, possession or storage of a firearm; or
    (iii) involving trafficking or importing drugs or controlled substances?
    Yes No

    16 b) During the past five (5) years, have you been subject to a peace bond, protection order or an order under section 810 of the Criminal Code? Yes No

    16. c) During the past five (5) years, have you or any member of your household been prohibited from possessing any firearm? Yes No

    1. 16. d) During the past five (5) years, have you threatened or attempted suicide, or have you suffered from or been diagnosed or treated by a medical practitioner for: depression; alcohol, drug or substance abuse; behavioural problems; or emotional problems? Yes No
      16. e) During the past five (5) years, do you know if you have been reported to the police or social services for violence, threatened or attempted violence, or other conflict in your home or elsewhere? Yes No

      16. f) During the past two (2) years, have you experienced a divorce, a separation, a breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or bankruptcy? Yes No

      Entire application form here: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-…..92-eng.pdf

      1. I had to fill that out.

        Here’s the problem. In this case, Canadians think this is exactly what keeps Canada safe.

      2. That looks a lot like New Jersey’s permit application. For some reason the courts don’t consider it an infringement.

      3. Fuck d), depression is a wide fucking range, and doesn’t tell you anything about the person.

      4. Question 16 (the one about divorces) was probably added due to those bumper stickers you see sometimes that read, “I miss my ex. But at least my aim is improving!”

        Those are clearly a joke, but the left has zero sense of humor, so they take those stickers as a literal threat.

        1. Question 16 (the one about divorces) was probably added due to those bumper stickers you see sometimes that read, “I miss my ex. But at least my aim is improving!”

          Triggered!

  7. And oh my God, Gawker is now blaming it on toxic masculinity while ignoring the fact that he admitted he killed them to try and start a race war.

    Of course, these deaths cannot in any way be blamed entirely on ego. People like Bryce Williams, Dylann Roof, James Holmes, and Adam Lanza have other serious mental ailments besides outrageous entitlement. And I realize that this is a very binary heteronormative frame.

    Well, in this case, the man’s outrageous entitlement was related to his racism, but the word ‘racist’ does not appear once in the article.

    If a white man commits a murder, the emphasis has to be put on the fact that he’s white. If a black man commits a murder, the emphasis has to be put on the fact that he’s a man. This is why political hacks love identify politics – since everyone belongs to multiple identity groups simultaneously, any murder can be used to impugn some identity group you don’t like.

    It’s like a smorgasbord of bigotry.

    1. Well, yes. He was such a misogynist that he wasn’t even sexually attracted to women!

      1. “this is a very binary heteronormative frame.”

        What. The. Fuck?

        1. You must maintain vijay heteronormative frame of you want to be an alpha and get some real pussy.

        2. The whole-new-language thing is always amusing.

          One day, while bored in my college library, I picked up some required-reading book from some SJW class. Randomly picking a page, I read a paragraph condemning the “racialist hegemony” enforced by the U.S. government on the world. I kept reading, but it never really made any more sense.

          1. Racialism, properly understood, is precisely what the SJWs are; all consumed with race and the racial aspects of any conceivable event of human interaction.

            1. It’s projection all the way down.

            2. C.f., 50% of the comments made by Reason’s resident racist liberal Tony.

          2. To believe that white supremacy is global would require complete detachment from reality.

            1. SJWs are not big on reality when it conflicts with the preferred narrative.

        3. Monty Crisco|8.27.15 @ 11:20AM|#
          “this is a very binary heteronormative frame.”
          What. The. Fuck?

          It was ghost-written by Sokal.

    2. The really funny part is her repeatedly mentioning his bruised ego but failing to mention what did the bruising. It’s an amazing dance around him seeing racism everywhere.

    3. this is a very binary heteronormative frame.

      Complete nonsense masquerading as intellect.

  8. ” Any law that tried to disarm people like Flanagan would inevitably disarm many innocent, harmless people.”

    FEATURE, not a bug. This has been the goal of leftists since the beginning of the 20th century. They see how well it worked for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc, and they realize the only way that TOP. MEN. can truly implement their preferred policies is through disarmament of THE PEOPLE. (Yes, authoritarians, it actually says “the people” in the 2A and not the word “muskets”…)

  9. The slavers can’t slave when there exists a wave of peaceful individuals that are armed, and for liberty will not cave.

  10. I don’t get it. Haven’t the people spoken against the gun grabbers time and again? I thought progressives were all about “Democracy!”

    *shrugs*

    1. No, no, no. It goes like this:

      “The gun lobby has all the congress in its malign grip!”

      Only with more all-caps words, misspellings, and exclamation marks.

      1. And the person saying it wouldn’t be smart enough to use the word ‘malign.’

        1. Don’t malign me, bro.

          1. I’ll malign you right in your mouth.

      2. “The law is settled!”

  11. More robust screening and investigation may have prevented Vester Lee Flanagan from obtaining a firearm. That’s two lives potentially saved out of ~9,000 (11K firearm homicides less ~2K police shootings) each year out of a nation of 320M. That’s the benefit. The costs include, but are not limited to, every act* of self-defense with a firearm.

    *to include display/brandish

    1. That’s two lives potentially saved

      This guy was determined to attack them, knives and blunt objects work well at killing people I’m told. On thew whole, guns merely level the playing field between potential aggressors and their potential victims.

      1. Agreed, hence “potentially.”

    2. More robust screening and investigation may have prevented Vester Lee Flanagan from obtaining a firearm.

      Yeah, I mean look at how more robust screening and investigation by DHS has led to all those terrorists getting nabbed!

      No. No, it wouldn’t prevent a single fucking thing from happening.

  12. “There are too many guns,” the editorial concludes, “and too little national will to do anything about them.”

    The supremacy of democratic majorities only applies when those majorities agree with the progressive position.

  13. “Second amendment rights”

    Yay! If your community, weak-willed because of weekly mass shootings committed by maniacs, decides to outlaw handguns in your area you can go down to the nearest constable, wave this document written by musket-wielding slavers in their face, and threaten to sue. Whadda country!

    1. Is there a reason you want to turn the U.S. into another commie shithole like Cuba?

    2. The only reason you have an “America” to be in, socialist, is because of the right to keep and bear arms.

      Attempt to disarm the people and you create a civil war. Actually succeed and you’ll get more violence… even ignoring the hundreds of thousands you’ll have to kill in order to disarm them. Fail to succeed and you’ll likely die or find yourself in a Disunited States.

      1. Remember: The Drug War is a miserable failure that has not decreased the amount of drug usage but has created a violent black market.

        If we did the same thing with guns though, it would work for some reason. Hey idiots – we share a border with a massive country riddled with drug cartels who get their guns funneled to them through a corrupt military. Meanwhile, there is absolutely nothing to stop them from manufacturing guns themselves if they wanted to do so. It is very easy to manufacture a firearm if you know how.

        So prohibition failed for alcohol and it failed for drugs but it will work for guns because we’re idiots who don’t learn from our mistakes.

        1. They would argue that true gun control would be to outlaw the manufacture of firearms entirely, with the exception of law-enforcement and military contractors.

          And they’d prevent the distribution of firearms from those sources with steep fines and prison sentences.

          That’s what I’ve been told, anyway.

          Admittedly, guns are more difficult to manufacture than, say, weed, but I’m sure some creative black market entrepreneur will figure out a way to do it, and we’ll be looking at the new Gun War and its deadly consequences.

          1. In the Philippines uneducated 16 year olds make guns in shitty backyard gunsmiths with crappy equipment.

            Let’s consider what would happen if well funded drug cartels and people in the US with high tech equipment started trying to make illegal firearms. I suspect they’d have some success.

            1. The craftsmen of Danao’s cottage industry range from teenagers to the elderly — the majority of them male. The city made guns as early as the Philippine-American war at the start of the 20th century, when gunsmiths in the hills were said to have supplied Cebuano rebels with weapons, according to historian and author Michael Cullinane. During the Japanese occupation in the 1940s, Danao supplied Filipino guerrillas in Cebu province with handguns locally known as paltik, he said.
              The gunsmiths thrive even as police regularly raid backyard operations, Councilor Jose Thaddeus Roble, who heads the peace and order committee in the city of 119,000 people, said in an interview in his office on Oct. 1. Risking jail terms of as long as 40 years, gunsmiths often post bail and return to making weapons.
              “Most of our gunsmiths are farmers who go into the business of making guns because of poverty,” Roble said. “They use the money to feed their families. Instead of judging them, we pity them.”

              This totally would never be replicated in Mexico, since obviously people in northern Mexico would never want to make illegal guns in order to make shitloads of money on the black market.

              1. National Geographic had an anti gun show that showed how many of the guns, well built I might add, are smuggled into the U.S. from the Philippines and are sold to gangs already.

                1. I saw that show.

                  My first thought was wow, these guys are pretty damn good at making the guns. No reason why many, many people couldn’t make them if they wanted.

                  On another thought – lets take Iraq and Afghanistan and the IED. Outlaw guns here and how many people would start using IEDs to commit crimes. Then we have to outlaw batteries, clocks, electronics, etc.

                  1. Heck, I can make a Fuel Air Explosive that would level a city block from the propane bottle I use in my grill.

            2. Given how cheap and plentiful 3D printers have started to become and how firearm designs are already available on the internet ?as poor as those designs are ? mass confiscation would result in the perfecting of gun designs* in probably a matter of weeks at most and then wide-spread black market fabrication in spite of any increased security (metal detectors, etc)

              *beyond the usual 3D designs and anything else available online for CAD conversion, the next step when necessity presents itself would be all the myriad military weapon blueprints in private hands out there; within ten feet of me right now is a curatorial locker key for a storeroom with naval blueprints for a century’s worth of artillery that I could walk in for and have no complaints from the staff at that ship museum for “borrowing” for “outside research” (which happened to involve “consulting” with an engineer friend of mine)…

          2. Considering that big time smugglers are building fairly sophisticated tunnels, its not too unrealistic to expect they couldn’t find some machinists to make firearms.

            1. Hell, drug smugglers have hired Russian engineers to build freaking submarines ? not just semisubersibles but full-on submarines.

          3. They would argue that true gun control would be to outlaw the manufacture of firearms entirely, with the exception of law-enforcement and military contractors.

            In Mexico, drug gangs are armed with M16s and RPGs manufactured for law enforcement and the military not weapons you can buy in US gun stores.

    3. See guys, it’s always important to remember that decent leftists, like Orwell, recognized the value of firearms in protecting the proles from a Stalin-like strongman. Smart leftists actually agree with the right on firearm possession because they recognize their utility for the people. I wonder why an apologist for the Soviet Union might want to get rid of guns in populations he doesn’t like?

      1. Hell, even Bernie Sanders took that position until, like, two weeks ago.

    4. Oh, God. We’ll never get the stains outa the carpet after he’s dumped.

      1. Sorry, John. meant for AmSoc above.

    5. No, but you should be able to go to your nearest court and get the new law thrown out so hard it bounces. Government SHOULD be limited in its actions by its own laws. If it isn’t the results are seldom pretty.

      If the people who fear guns want fewer guns on the streets, they need to propose a Constitutional Amendment. Not because Guns are more important than lives, or any such drivel, but because the Bill of Rights (which, on passage, became part of the Constitution) says that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”. It doesn’t say “Unless competent authority deems otherwise”. It doesn’t say “unless gun technology changes dramatically.”. It doesn’t say “Unless the arms in question look scary, or have large magazines.”. And maybe it should. But the way to do that is to Amend the rules, not ignore them. Because as scary as the number of guns loose in society may be, anyone with the common sense that God gave a turnip should be more scared of a government that rules by expedience rather than by Law.

  14. “Stronger mental health screenings for prospective gun owners”

    It’s become obvious that there is no level of falsifiability for leftists, when it comes to gubmint actions. WE ONLY HAVE TO INCREASE THE BEATINGS.

    OTOH, every person in the US would suddenly be declared nuts. Problem solved!

  15. Also, why do progressives hate women? There’s a reason the firearm has aptly been called the “equalizer.”

    Is a woman just supposed to wait for her white knights on the police force to come rescue her from a man twice her size?

    1. “wait for her white knights on the police force to come rescue her”

      Oh man, that’s hilarious. You mean to write the report later and ask why she’s dressed that way?

      1. Or to rape her themselves…

    2. What? Black knights aren’t good enough?

      Racist.

      1. Obviously you have not seen the Martin Lawrence movie.

    3. I’ve been considering what to get the wife for Christmas. I’m thinking a snub, striker-fired, DA-only .38 Special. Haven’t decided what brand. I’m leaning towards Ruger.

      1. I have an old S&w .38 I got used that my wife has shot and really liked. Very accurate. Only issue I have with it is it has the built in very shallow sights that are hard to pick up in low light not that that matters much up close and personal.

      2. The Ruger is nice, but not fun to shoot at the range – but then again, none of the lightweight revolvers are.

        1. The one I have is not a lightweight but it’s certainly lighter than my officers special. Has nice custom wood grips. Pleasure to shot.

          1. I’ve been thinking about selling it because of the sights. I got lasiks a few years back and no longer wear glasses. I see pretty well but not quite that level of detail in low light. I really do like it a lot though,

          2. Well, specifically the LCRs and LCRx’es – being lighter, they’re more subject to felt recoil, but Mrs #6 manages fine on range night.

            I agree heartily with her when she says it’s not *fun* though – because I can advise her to get another gun for entertainment – because when her collection increases, I get permission to expand *my* collection.

            1. I’ve also been considering a snub .357 because it would be heavier, and perhaps even fun to shoot with .38sp loads.

        2. Yeah, it’s not meant to be a range gun.

      3. I wish the .32 S&W was more popular. I think it is a great carry caliber.

        1. Is that comparable to 380?

          1. The .32 S&W I think has more energy than the .380, but it is a revolver cartridge. Then there is the .32 ACP is auto, but is less energy than the .380.

          2. Nowhere near as snappy as 380, if you’re using a small gun.

            For ‘close and personal’ encounters, the reduced power of a 32 probably makes little difference, and you’ll probably have more rounds than you would in an equivalent 380.

      4. My Neighbor loves her 9 mm M&P Shield. She carries it everywhere and you can’t tell.
        take your wife to a range and have her try several different guns.

        1. At some point I’m going to do that. Not just for her but for me as well. My experience with guns is quite limited. It’s a matter of logistics though, being that the nearest range that has rentals is several hours away, and I wouldn’t want to have the little one in tow.

          1. Well, some gun stores often have ranges. In my area $10 gets you a rental for 30 mins, plus a spot on the range, as long as you use store-bought ammo.

            The problem with that is, that usually, your selection is going to be dominated by Glock, Beretta and a selection of 1911’s, and in my case, a sprinkling of Ruger and Walther.

            What state are you in, Sarc?

            1. What state are you in, Sarc?

              Maine. There ain’t nothin around here. I’d have to go way up north or to NH.

        2. I still want to try to steer her towards a revolver. I don’t want her to have to fuck with a safety or a slide if she ever has to use the thing.

          1. I’m a fan of revolvers. I don’t think the reduced capacity matters in the real world. Most defensive gun fights are 3 shots or less.

            1. This is another common misconception. While the average number of shots fired in a firearms homicide is around three, this number includes things like summary executions.

              In actual gunfights, people tend to fire as many shots as they have in the gun. Having more ammo onboard might not be an advantage you ever need to use, but it’s an advantage nonetheless.

              1. I like revolvers because there’s no safety to fuck with and they don’t jam.

                1. And you can double-strike if you need to.

          2. Smith makes a good hidden hammer 38sp – 640 I think. It’s kinda ugly but functional for conceal carry. They make light weight guns for the emergency use you may be looking for.
            http://www.gunshopfinder.com/s…..162522.asp

            1. I want to get her something that’s small enough to conceal, but heavy enough that it absorbs some of the recoil. No point in her having a gun that’s so light that she can’t handle it.

              1. A stainless .357 6 shot with a 2.5 inch barrel is a good start. Obviously heavy and small are at odds. A hammer can get caught up in clothes and stuff but I agree with the revolver vs the semi-automatic. Smith makes a good hammerless stainless steel 357 I believe.
                gunbroker.com is a good place to do research in terms of pricing.
                http://www.snubnose.info/docs/m640.htm

                1. And you can practice with 38 ammo.

              2. I’d give a long look at the aforementioned S&W M&P Shield, along with the Glock 43. They’re very concealable, much easier to shoot than any J-frame revolver, and neither one has an external safety to deal with.

                1. I’d give a long look at the aforementioned S&W M&P Shield, along with the Glock 43. They’re very concealable, much easier to shoot than any J-frame revolver, and neither one has an external safety to deal with.

                  Like I said in above comment, I don’t want her to have a slide to fuck with. It will most likely be holstered in her purse, and I wouldn’t want her to have a semi-auto with a round in the chamber. Better to have a DA-only revolver, striker fired. That way if it slips out of the holster, the long trigger pull will make it less likely to be accidentally fired.

                  For myself I’ve been seriously considering the M&P 9mm. I don’t like Glocks. Too light.

    4. This is my argument with gun-grabbers, most of whom claim to be “feminists”. But they’re of the victimhood school of feminism, which says all women are weak, helpless creatures in need of protection from big, strong men like cops.

      1. By “from”, do you mean “against” or “provided by”, ’cause it could go either way.

        1. I like to think the parent poster meant both. Because gun-grabbers want it both ways (to be both protected from, and by, cops).

  16. It would require ignoring the Constitution, including not just the Second Amendment but also the Fourth and the Fifth.

    It would also require a [not so] Civil War. Beltway types always miss that.

    Molon Labe.

    1. That or a series of Wacos and Ruby Ridges.

      And don’t forget gun control would be yet another reason to harass black men on the street, arrest them, or go open season on them.

      1. That or a series of Wacos and Ruby Ridges.

        How many men they got? Not enough, I would guess, to even take 3% of 330 million belligerents…

        Hence why I said “civil war”. When your attempt at a Waco gets attacked in the flank by armed people who can predict that they are next, it’s called a “war”.

    2. The Beltway types, who know next to nothing about history, and even less about history that doesn’t fit their preconceptions, have totally internalized the grabber ‘argument’ “What are you going to do? Go up against tanks with small arms?”. They don’t know, and don’t want to think about, how effective the Maquis were against the Germans. And they never saw the quote of the Afghan who, when asked how he could call a bolt action Mosin?Nagant “a great anti-tank gun”, said “Little man in tank gotta pee sometime.”

  17. Our social justice lesson for today: While the Confederate battle flag is terribly dangerous because it inspires violence, the constant harping on racism and microaggressions has nothing to do with any violence committed by people obsessed with racism and microaggressions.

    1. Damn. It’s good there’s no flag for racism and microaggressions.

      *** looks around ***

      Is there?

        1. The murderer was also gay, so maybe we should ban the rainbow flag.

  18. Also, we obsess over these maniacal tragedies, but forget it over the past 30 years, violent crime, including gun related crime, has declined precipitously. If the absence of gun control laws was making America unacceptably violent, wouldn’t gun related violence and violent crime generally be on the increase?

    But here I go again blurring the issue with facts.

    On a related issue, isn’t it disturbing that before we can even digest the shock of what occurred, the Democrats already have their talking points out?

    1. Crime is down, but reporting is up. What would have only made local news is now national news. So it gives the appearance of higher crime.

      1. Precisely. And since “mass shootings” are now a hot topic that will get high ratings, news outlets report every little thing as though it were Columbine all over again. I’ve seen stories about “mass shootings” where only two or three people were killed. I’m absolutely not trying to trivialize their deaths – even one murder is a tragedy – but it’s dishonest of them to report it as though it’s the same thing as Columbine, Sandy Hook, or Virginia Tech.

        1. There’s typically one or two high-profile murders a year (e.g., Natalie Holloway, George Zimmerman, etc.) that gain national attention, even though they are not especially different from most other murders. The especially gruesome and public nature of this one practically guaranteed it would be one of them.

          1. George Zimmerman did not commit murder. it was legitimate self-defense.

      2. Exactly. Confirmation bias at work.

  19. “We can point to all the warning signs we missed,” Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, an expert on mass murder, told the Associated Press last year. “But they’re yellow flags. They’re not red flags

    *** dons sunglasses ***

    until blood is spilled.”

    An expert on mass murder, indeed.

  20. Every “we have to do something” call is as delicate as a balsa wood house, because it falls apart once you apply pragmatism and reality.

    “Ban the sale of guns.” Well, that only leaves 300 million left in civilian hands. Thanks for making my gun collection so much more valuable, and hey, remember what made Al Capone rich when we banned alcohol?

    “More mental health checks on guy buyers.” Oh, you were depressed once in college? No guns for you.

    1. No, gun bans are different. Drug bans failed and alcohol bans failed and both lead paradoxically to more deaths due to a violent black market, but guns are different because progressive feelings overwhelm the market forces of an underground gun dealer.

    2. Yeah, anyone concerned about not forfeiting their rights will avoid any and all psychiatric treatment

      1. Ever been prescribed Chantix to help quit smoking, or Xanax to help lose weight? Congratulations, you’ve been given a psychotropic drug and you’re in the Obamacare database.

  21. OTOH, we could just outlaw killing.

  22. We can point to all the warning signs we missed,” Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, an expert on mass murder, told the Associated Press last year. “But they’re yellow flags. They’re not red flags until blood is spilled.” Any law that tried to disarm people like Flanagan would inevitably disarm many innocent, harmless people.

    Yeah, I know, Jacob… There’s a whole continent out there that has done exactly what you propose in the last sentence, still has people that hunt for rabbits and hedgehogs, and reaped the terrible consequences of lower gun homicide rates. But, yeah, we can’t possibly touch the guns of the insane because, god forbid, someone might have to sign for a permit when they buy a Glock at the shitty Wal-Mart near them.

    1. You want the state to define who is and isn’t sane? I wonder what kind of precedent that would set…

      still has people that hunt for rabbits and hedgehogs

      And this is relevant to self-defense?

      1. Re: See Double You,

        You [american stolid] want the state to define who is and isn’t sane?

        Well, the Soviet Union did it. Why not the US government? Right?

        Don’t think for a second that Marxians are concerned about the lives of innocents. They’re not.

    2. “There’s a whole continent out there that has done exactly what you propose in the last sentence, still has people that hunt for rabbits and hedgehogs, and reaped the terrible consequences of lower gun homicide rates. But, yeah, we can’t possibly touch the guns of the insane because, god forbid, someone might have to sign for a permit when they buy a Glock at the shitty Wal-Mart near them.”

      And lefty shitbags *always* ignore that when it is tried here, we get Chicago!
      Is this ignorance a product of the same brain damage which causes lefty emotions, or is is just abysmal stupidity? Or is it both?

      1. What lefties always ignore is that Europe didn’t used to have all this gun control and had fewer murders than America back then too.

        Go compare England’s murder rate to America’s in the early to mid 1900s before England’s gun control laws were really implemented. Even back then their murder rate was half what ours was. So leftists believe gun control laws are what made Europe relatively safe, even though Europe’s low murder rates precede gun control.

        The rule about Europe has always been this: They have low murder rates for extended periods of time, then they go crazy and murder a couple million people to make up for it. It’s kind of their thing.

        1. Yeah, it’s the same willful ignorance as:
          ‘Gee, what worked for a while in a burg the size of Chicago with a perfectly homogeneous population should work across the US!’
          You’d think twats like am-soc would have the ability to at least be embarrassed by such twaddle, but keep spouting it.
          It’s insulting.

        2. I always like to say, it’s like putting leeches on your skin and declaring that they cured your cancer when you didn’t have cancer in the first place.

    3. we can’t possibly touch the guns of the insane because, god forbid, someone might have to sign for a permit when they buy a Glock at the shitty Wal-Mart near them

      Do you actually know anything about gun laws or the process of buying a handgun, or do you just like to spout off ignorantly because you think it makes you sound clever?

      1. the latter

    4. Re: American Stolid,

      There’s a whole continent out there that has done exactly what you propose in the last sentence, still has people that hunt for rabbits and hedgehogs, and reaped the terrible consequences of lower gun homicide rates.

      You mean like Honduras?

      we can’t possibly touch the guns of the insane […]

      Just like you can’t touch their other property, Stolid.

    5. And again, the person who handwaves the atrocities of people he likes suddenly cares very much about the deaths of people if it gets a chance for him to lambast his ideological opponents in the most childish way possible. You really are so profoundly stupid that you fail to realize that your constant pathetic moral grandstanding makes you an utter joke.

    6. How did you come to the conclusion that Vester Flanagan was insane? Crystal ball?

      1. It’s a safer claim than invoking the “Angry Black Man” stereotype.

    7. Then propose the necessary Amendment, dammit. All this talk about “Common Sense” is bootless whining until you make Gun Control a Constitutional possibility. Because we have more than one continent ravaged by governments that do not obey any laws other than the whims of their ruling elite. 50 million deaths in China. Another 50 million in the USSR. One quarter of the population of Cambodia reduced to fertilizer. Gods alone know how many “ethnically cleansed” in Africa. In. One. Century.

      Violent crime is tending down as gun ownership is trending up. That may not be connected. There’s certainly an argument for it having to do with the aging of the population. But it isn’t the “blood in the streets” predicted by the anti-gun hysterics (and both sides have hysterics). You want gun control? Fine. But there is not emergency, so play by the f*cking rules. Propose an amendment, and get it passed.

    8. There’s a whole continent out there that has done exactly what you propose in the last sentence, still has people that hunt for rabbits and hedgehogs, and reaped the terrible consequences of lower gun homicide rates

      Low gun homicide rates in Europe are unrelated to gun control. Nor has Europe been disarmed: illegal guns are widespread. Heck, my mother has one for self-defense.

      Europe is also stagnant and close to being totalitarian. If you’re willing to sacrifice enough liberties, you can, of course, get crime rates down to next to zero.

      Finally, gun violence in the US is overwhelmingly a problem of inner city black youths; taking away legal guns from suburban housewives isn’t going to change that. Furthermore, unless you are an inner city black youth, your risk of being a victim of gun violence really isn’t that much higher than that of a typical European.

  23. Did anyone else catch this bit?

    far more [guns] per capita than any other modern nation.

    So the Times is more or less explicitly saying that the citizens of “modern” nations don’t have guns, and those that do aren’t “modern”. Can you imagine the fit the Times would throw if someone associated with the right side of the American political spectrum called other nations “not modern”?

    1. We don’t have far more guns per capita than other modern nations, we have far more guns per capita than literally everybody. If you look at the top 50 countries or so by guns per capita, the vast majority of the top countries are highly developed nations like us, Switzerland, Canada, Germany, Sweden, etc.

      In the top 20 countries with the most guns, the only country that’s actually violent is Yemen. All the rest have murder rates under 5 per 100,000.

      1. We don’t have far more guns per capita than other modern nations, we have far more guns per capita than literally everybody.

        [Wipes tear of pride away with red white and blue handkerchief.]

      2. Well, we are a wealthy country. Serious gun collectors often have hundreds of guns. But they are no more or less dangerous than if they only owned one. I have rarely, if ever, heard of a serious gun collector involved in a shooting.

  24. Every day the news about people being hurt or killed by automobiles gets worse.

    All we need is the national will to BAN CARS!

    1. If these people really cared about saving lives, they’d go after alcohol. If the CDC’s numbers are to be believed, almost 90,000 people died of alcohol-related illnesses and accidents each year from 2006 to present. That’s probably triple the annual number that died as a result of gunshot wounds.

      1. about 30K die from guns but 20K are suicides.

        1. Yep, it’s a despicable tactic the gun grabbers use to inflate the number of firearm deaths.

          While the term “firearm deaths” reasonable includes suicides, the gun grabbers include them in the context of firearm homicides. The public, they reason, is more likely to respond negatively to the availability of firearms if deaths are due to homicide.

          1. The fact that gun-free Japan has a suicide rate that’s about 50 percent higher than ours should put the “more guns = more suicides” argument to bed.

        2. And I don’t count those. Which means we’re left with about 10k per year. Of those, how many are rival gang members killing each other? Because I really don’t count those either.

          1. I also wonder what the rate would be if you factored out African Americans, who, statistically, have a higher rate of firearm deaths relative to whites. I’d bet the rate would be very close to those of Europe.

            1. For the purposes of trying to educate someone on the issue, I wouldn’t be comfortable eliminating blacks from the discussion unless they were suicides. Those should be dropped at the outset from any reasonable discussion about gun deaths.

              1. *gun suicides among all races, just to be clear.

              2. Sure, so would I.

            2. If you eliminate Chicago from Illinois you more or less eliminate the gang and prohibition related murders from the count for Illinois.

              Do that and Illinois has a murder rate of about 2.3 per 100,000

              Of course that still includes the three or four notorious small towns adjacent to Chicago and St Louis with a notable gang issue. East St Louis for example, is a very small town which accounts for about 8% of the non-Chicago murders in the state.

              Eliminate those places as well and the parts of Illinois that aren’t ghettos are basically 1 to 2 per 100,000

            3. I’m very reluctant to go there. Urban poor populations have a history of violence that doesn’t appear to have anything to do with color. If the Blacks weren’t our poor, it would be somebody else, barring a change in society I can’t really imagine. So I don’t think taking black on black crime out of the equation is honest.

      2. “If these people really cared about saving lives, they’d go after alcohol”

        Oh, please, not again. They TRIED that. Prohibition was an unholy joint project of the Progressive social engineers and the Social Darwinist wealthy factory owners (who didm;t expect it to be enforced on THEM. And, to be fair to their intelligence if not their principles, it mostly wasn’t. Prohibition was a DISASTER, so far as the prestige of Government was concerned. Oh, the Progressives got out in front of the rebelliousness as soon as they saw which way the wind blew, but I think the mass disobedience of the Working Class shook them.

  25. While, to some extent, I understand the call for “better mental health treatment” as part of the solution, it seems like a dangerous move to me. We can’t start stripping people of their rights simply because they went to a psychiatrist or were suffering anxiety or whatever. For one thing, it will push many people who otherwise would seek help to avoid it, for fear of what will happen to them. I know I wouldn’t seek treatment for anything if I knew my name would go into a Federal database, saying I can’t own guns (or science only knows what else).

  26. Never, in a million years, will I understand how checking ID at the voting booth is a racist plot to shut black people out of the democratic process, but the three-ring circus of hoops to jump through just to buy a gun is not only non-racist, but a model that the rest of the nation should follow.

    1. It’s TEH RACEIST because (unlike driving a car, starting a job, opening a bank account, boarding a plane, buying alcohol or cigarettes, cashing a check, entering a Federal building, returning a purchase at any number of retail establishments, using a credit card, and so on) the teathugliKKKans are evvulz.

  27. This could also be considered a result of racial quotas and affirmative action: they hired him in part because he was black and gay, he underperformed, and they hard a hard time getting rid of him. Giving him a position he couldn’t handle did not help him, and the result was tragedy.

    1. There’s something to this.

      As a gay black man, he was a prize to their HR department and their quotas.

      His sense of entitlement was reinforced and reinforced, so that any slight criticism (“Dude, you can’t be wearing a candidate’s button while reporting on the election”) was a terrible slight.

      Yeah, I think the affirmative action culture and the SJW permanent grievance culture had a lot to do with this guy going off the rails.

      1. Is there a quota for gays now? What’s the number?

        1. Probably not a quota, but it’s helpful to management to have one to point to. Well, until they kill your other employees.

  28. Well, if the murderer were white and his victims were black, you could try to ban the Confederate flag or do something else symbolic.

    If the murderer is black and he murdered his white victims 1) out of a sense of entitlement because of his race and 2) because he admits to hating white people–then obviously you can’t blame the ideology of collective responsibility. I mean, there’s a whole industry around that.

    So what else are you gonna do? Of course you’re gonna blame the guns!

  29. I just don’t see how this is going to play out well – you’re a southern good ‘ol boy and a white kid shoots up a bunch of black people for racist reasons, and they lose the “right” to fly a flag in front of their government buildings. A black guy shoots up some white people for racist reasons, and the SAME PEOPLE who lost their “flag rights” are going to have their gun rights restricted. Just playing devil’s advocate here, but you’re going to have a A LOT of pissed off Cleetus’s out their very shortly.

  30. As horrific as the live video was, can you imagine how much worse it would be if Flanagan rushed Parker and started stabbing her?

    Just a random thought to make us all a little more depressed.

    1. But, if he had a knife, she could have fought back, or gotten away, or something. ‘Cause only guns can kill people.

      /typical gun grabber

      1. What about a pointed stick?

  31. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    http://www.onlinejobs100.com

  32. Less than one in a thousand.

    This is important to remember, because with over one hundred million gun owners, only nine thousand of them commit homicide. That is less than one in a thousand.

    But this statistic equally applies to black people.

    For, out of 39 million black people in America, only 4,500 commit homicide.

    Are we to infringe on the rights of all black people merely because less than one thousand of them commit homicides?

    1. Are we to infringe on the rights of all black people merely because less than one thousand of them commit homicides?

      Yes, because GUNZ!#%*(&!

    2. I don’t think it works that way. Are gun owners 8x more likely to be murderers than non-gun owners? Because blacks are about 8x more likely to be murderers than whites.

      1. At the moment.

        One statistic I keep in mind is one I read years ago in an account of 1870’s New York City. In a city where the slums were occupied largely by white poor, and at a time when one New York street gang was notorious because they had A gun, one block of Hell’s Kitchen averaged a murder a night for a whole year. That’s 365 murders in one block. I was living in Washington DC when people were losing their minds and using terms like “murder Capitol” over less than twice that for a whole city.

        The high murder rate among Blacks is likely to be an artifact of poverty, public-school abetted ignorance, the idiotic War On Drugs, and any number of other factors that have little to do with color, and not much to do with the availability of guns.

        The inter City Black population has stagnated in a way that the previous poor populations did not. You could, if you wanted to, make a case that this is because of race. I am inclined to believe that it is because of public policy. And may the policy makers rot in hell for it.

    3. This is important to remember, because with over one hundred million gun owners, only nine thousand of them commit homicide. That is less than one in a thousand.

      “Gun owners” generally refers to legal gun owners. The vast majority of violent crimes involving a gun are not committed by legal gun owners.

      1. “Bu bu but if guns were totally banned, there would be less guns to steal and trade illegally!” /progderp

  33. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

    1. Making cash is s no-no. The Treasury gets really stripy about it.

  34. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  35. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  36. Where are the calls to amend the Constitution? Yes, it is a very difficult thing to do, but for those who are certain that gun control is necessary, isn’t the effort worth it? Organize. Knock on doors. Raise money and run media ads. Every thousand mile journey begins with the first step. Without a change to the second amendment, the courts will continue to toss out restrictive gun legislation.

    1. They don’t want to Amend the Constitution. Many of them don’t believe they have to. Either they are holding to a fundamentally lawless view of the document, or they are simply too lazy to play by the rules. A few are dedicated to undermining the Constitution, because the idea that the authority of The State (which they mean to wield) is on any way constrained infuriates them.

      1. As it currently stands, they don’t have to amend it. Most of our justices view the Constitution as a “living document” where the meaning of the words evolve with the culture. All you have to do is make a populist argument that a word that meant one thing now means something else.

        The only way we can ensure our rights in perpetuity is for our judiciary to espouse the view that the Constitution is a dead document, i.e. the meaning of the words therein are fixed to the definitions they had at the time of the authorship of the Constitution, and do not change.

        Otherwise those in positions of authority over us have the ability to modify the DNA of our legal system whenever the winds of political pressure prevail upon them to do so, without having to go through the purposefully long and arduous process of amending the Constitution.

        1. Not quite. We need to espouse the theory that the Constitution is a LIVING document because t includes a process for amendment.

          1. A process of amendment doesn’t make the Constitution a “living” document in the sense that that term is used in Constitutional scholarship.

            Amendments must be “dead” the moment they are adopted, i.e. the meaning of any language in a new amendment must be fixed to the meaning of that language at the time of adoption of that amendment. Otherwise the meaning of the amendment could change with the shift in political winds.

    2. They’d never do that; it’s too honest. The gun control movement has had some great victories because they have convinced most of the general public that they only want a few modest tweaks to the gun laws. They’ve convinced everyone that “taking guns away” is a lunatic conspiracy theory that only Alex Jones would believe.

      If they came right out and said they wanted to amend the 2A, they’d blow the lid off that scheme right away. People would realize that banning and confiscation is the long-term goal, and most of these fence-sitting voters would promptly move to the pro-gun side.

      Hell, maybe we should amend the 2A. Here’s my proposed draft:

      “The rights of individuals to keep and bear arms (including firearms previously or currently used by the police and military), to obtain and store unlimited ammunition, and to carry loaded firearms either concealed or openly in public, shall not be infringed. At all. Not ever. Not even once. Don’t even think about it.”

      1. I favor :

        “The occasional horsewhipping, or defenestration, of an officious government stooge being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear such arms as may make the State well behaved, or at least circumspect, shall not be infringed.”

  37. My new go to line is when people bring up gun bans after these incidents, I suggest there are other amendments where common sense rules could also help:

    media shouldn’t be allowed to mention killer’s name and promote the killer’s issues.

    We all know the media is in a sick symbiosis with these crazy guys.

    The media says “we’ll air all of your grievances, but we need a newsworthy event. Can you provide that event? Preferably over 5 dead, with some blondes?”

    So let’s ban media stories on these events. I’d do that before banning guns.

    You know the media would immediately object, and its because they make big money on these events. They totally over cover them, too. Two people killed in VA has been top news in Cali for two days now….who cares!

  38. The problem is that, once you expand the definition of “crazy people” beyond the current standard of forcible psychiatric treatment, it’s not clear where you stop.

    It stops where “the party” says it stops. There is, of course, only one party because voting for anybody else is per se a sign that you must be crazy.

    That’s the way it worked in the GDR and in the USSR.

    Just ask Sanders, he is a socialist, after all.

    1. Right. They’ve only killed 645 people so far this year, and this is August. Then again, if politicians would quit instructing the police to murder every man, woman and chile in These States if that’s what it takes to enforce laws against victimless crimes, the police would be like and liked by everyone else. It is the Republican and Democratic parties that transform officers into prohibitionist murderers, as chronicled in “Before and After Prohibition” by Sen. Millard E. Tydings (1930)

    2. FEDGOV is “missing” several thousand of their guns,some being full-auto machine guns. that does not include US military arms losses. Then state and local law enforcement have guns stolen from their vehicles frequently. Former Orlando POLICE CHIEF Val Demings had her service handgun stolen from her unmarked SUV in 2009,and years later,it still hasn’t been recovered. OPD has “lost” 2 AR-15 kits,and had 2 machine guns stolen from vehicles.
      Post-9-11,several armed Federal employees have LEFT their loaded handguns on commercial air flights and deplaned,the guns being discovered by other passengers. One guy in Alabama stole rifles (real assault rifles,select-fire) and grenades from Anniston Army Depot.
      guns will ALWAYS be available to those who really want them.

  39. Google ‘China Mass Stabbing’ or ‘Africa Machete Attack’. Banning guns doesn’t stop madmen from killing people, they just find another way. But then there’s no one with a gun to stop him from stabbing 26 children.

    1. Machetes were the weapon de jour in the Rwandan Genocide

    2. Hear hear! Anti-life berserkers are everywhere altruism is valued and reason is rejected.

  40. What’s wrong with working toward a society in which people can legally have jobs, keep their earnings, enjoy themselves harmlessly, have guns of their own as a deterrent–a free society in which people might have more reasons to live than to die? Wasn’t depressed and disgruntled suicide the primary by-product of gun-banning East German Socialism?

  41. Many of the same people who think they can get rid of three hundred million guns want to make sure we keep eleven million illegals. There rationale about the illegals is that it would be impossible to remove them. Well…..?

    We have thoroughly failed to eliminate heroin in this country in spite of the fact that no one is defending it, and it’s not constitutionally protected. Can we all just recognize that the guns aren’t going anywhere.

    The only plausible solution is to commit the crazies before they kill, instead of waiting until after they’ve done it. This is uncharted territory, full of pitfalls. But as long as we keep making it about the guns, we will continue to accomplish nothing.

    1. The trouble is that forcibly committing people opens the door for all kinds of abuses. As many commenters have pointed out above, there’s no real definition of “insane”, and that power would no doubt be abused. It could easily be used as a political weapon against people who criticize the government; I can vividly see the Alex Jones listeners being carted off in straight jackets.

      Once again, it’s a case where a bad law is one of the primary contributors to a problem. All of these “gun-free zones” seem to be where these mass shootings usually go down (although not in every single case, as the topic of this article illustrates).

    2. I would argue that we should promote gun ownership and concealed carry. Virtually EVERYONE should have a gun! We should have housewives hosting gun parties like they are selling lingerie and sex toys. Every child passes a gun safety class on their 10th birthday and gets a rifle! Old folks homes have shooting ranges and mixed couples competitions every Sunday after church! Sure, every now and then some dumbass will try to off somebody, but that motherfucker will now be walking into a hornet’s nest of hollow points and buckshot. “An armed society is a polite society.” Can we move on now to more important things like the Fed ensuring the financial ruin of our children?

      1. This is being done, widely. Which is one reason that every time their is an incident, the Gun Grabbers got completely over the top; they are losing, and know it. When I was in Jr. High School (early ’70’s) it was broadly accepted that handguns would be banned in almost all states within a decade, or at most two. And the Gun Control people were fairly up front about their intentions of following up on that by increasingly narrow definitions of allowed long arms.

        Somewhere in there, their program came unglued. States started passing “Must Issue” laws, and all the Gun Hater’s hysterical predictions of “blood in the streets” spectacularly FAILED to come true.

        They are on the down slope, and picking up speed. They can still do a lot of damage, but barring a real shift in society, they aren’t going to last.

      2. I second that. All in favor?

  42. no guns for liberal proggies – they’re perpetually offended by everything

  43. If you fucking right wingers start hoarding 22LR ammunition again I’m going to sell my goddammed Ruger Takedown and donate the proceeds to Hillary! I’ve barely been able to fire the damned thing since I bought it.

    Jeebus H Crackers! Obamys gonna take R Gerns!!!!

    1. Start hoarding? When did it ever stop?

      I haven’t seen 22LR in a Wal-Mart in almost 3 years now.

      Since I’ve finally been able to move to a rural area with a freely accessible DNR range nearby I’ve been itching to get my 10/22 out of its bag for the first time in a few years, but I can’t because I can’t find anything to feed it.

  44. Sorry, but this is a lame article. I’m generally not in favor of gun control, but when the father of the slain reporter talks about stopping ‘crazy people’ from buying guns, it’s sensationalist and intellectually dishonest to extrapolate that to ‘anyone who has ever had a psychiatric diagnosis’ and then reject the notion out of hand.

    I think most reasonable people understand that there are a variety of psychiatric diagnoses and that some people are understood to be far more dangerous than others because of these diagnoses. Whether or not they should be prevented from getting guns is the question, and I don’t have the answer, but at least try to approach the discussion honestly.

    1. The problem is that there is no agreed-upon standard for for “crazy”; it’s not a diagnostic term. And plenty of shootings have been committed by people who didn’t have a history of violent insanity, but were just clearly ‘off’. Pretty much nobody disagrees that someone who’s commit-able should be restricted, but that’s precisely why it’s obvious that the argument is not about people like that.

      1. Yes, I understand that, but my criticism of the author’s lazy portrayal of the issue stands because no reasonable person interprets the father’s use of ‘crazy’ as all psychiatric diagnoses.

  45. If there was no affirmative action Alison and Adam would likely be reporting this A.M.

  46. Look, let’s skip all this superflous nonsense and get to what really matters:

    What flag(s)/state monument(s) can we blame and go after?

  47. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  48. “Perhaps that is why the Times does not spell out the logical implications of its argument.”

    No gun-control advocate ever does. Hell I dint even know if they THINK through to the implications of there argument. Probably because at least one of the implications would be that they get shot in a civil war.

  49. Let’s face the fact that the 2nd Amendment is flawed in view of the technological developments with firearms and needs to be revised or repealed. I realize the gun culture will violently disagree with this assessment. There was absolutely no way the Founding Fathers could have foreseen the harm to society when their knowledge of a firearm was a muzzle-loader. It took at least 30 seconds before a second shot could be fired, so the shooter was at a disadvantage. Only an idiot would insist that the 2nd Amendment of 230 years ago is valid today. Get over it, gun nuts, and I await your violent and irrational reactions.

    1. the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
      it’s about the people retaining the ability to “alter or to abolish” a government gone bad,as written in the Declaration of Independence.
      the Founders had just overthrown their own incumbent government (Britain) by FORCE OF ARMS,and recognized that it might have to be done again in the future,thus the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment protecting the People’s right to keep and bear arms.
      The American Revolution BEGAN when the Brits moved to confiscate arms at Concord.
      the people (in militia) responded with privately owned arms.

      Constitutional attorney Stewart Rhodes will explain The Second Amendment for you.

      …”The whole point of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military capacity of the American people – to preserve the ability of the people, who are the militia, to provide for their own security as individuals, as neighborhoods, towns, counties, and states, during any emergency, man-made or natural; to preserve the military capacity of the American people to resist tyranny and violations of their rights by oath breakers within government; and to preserve the military capacity of the people to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, including those oath breaking domestic enemies within government. “

      1. semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today’s modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms under the Second Amendment.

        Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
        Since we “compromised” and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.

        In US v Miller,SCOTUS asked if a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon that a militia would commonly use,implying that arms protected by the 2nd Amendment were arms a militia would use. AR-15’s,M-16’s and AK-47s would be ordinary militia arms,and “hi-capacity magazines” also would be protected.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.