Gun Control

Obama Talks Earnestly of Simple Laws that Could Have Prevented Oregon Shooting, Names None

How can we know simple gun safety laws would help when we know nothing about circumstances of how the killer got the gun?

|

President Obama gave an impassioned and impressively gravitas-filled reaction speech to the horrible murders today in Oregon. You can watch it here.

Whitehouse.gov

What's important in regards to the politics of Obama's speech right now is that neither you nor I nor Obama knows anything about what sort of weapon was used and how it was obtained or the shooter's background. I don't even know his name as I type. [UPDATE: Seconds after posting, killer being identified as Chris Harper Mercer]

Thus, Obama is undoubtedly overreaching beyond the facts when he speaks over and over about how apparently easy and simple gun-safety laws would have prevented this, or future tragedies like this.

He doesn't, even in this very long speech, get down to a single specific or even a hint of a specific about exactly what new laws he wants that would have prevented this from happening. Maybe because he was politically savvy enough to realize that whenever we do know, someone could point out that, well, that law you suggest wouldn't have actually stopped this. 

I don't know what law could have stopped this from happening, and thus cannot argue in good faith that none could. But neither does Obama know, yet he felt it appropriate to take to the bully pulpit and play on our national grief with vague talk about laws that could change this, when he has no idea if it's true.

He never mentioned anything about the Second Amendment or the fact that one of the problems with restricting access to guns in a manner other countries do is that we have that Amendment. Guns are a legally special item in the United States, for good reasons. Discussing them as if they were any other random safety issue misses the key point in why guns are such a politically contentious issue.

He spells out how many guns there are in this country, and that is an important part of the issue. Because you can't make those guns disappear. By making such a vague speech, refusing to acknowledge the Second Amendment exists, and making it clear that in some senses he thinks the problem is the sheer fact that there are so many guns, he certainly gives reason for Second Amendment advocates to mistrust his intentions.

Obama carefully included self-defense as one of those legitimate reasons law abiding citizens might have a gun.

But the sad fact is that one can or might be a perfectly law abiding gun owner, until the moment you use it to murder someone for no reason. That is, laws that would not bedevil "law abiding gun owners" in most cases won't bedevil even evil shooters.

Obama acts as if the question of how to stop things like this from happening is easy. It's not, which is why this speech contained so few specifics.

Expressing grief and emotion can be appropriate for a politician. But the ability of a given particular new law to prevent tragedies is a very fact-specific thing, which is why the time to begin politicizing any particular tragedy like this is after one knows what circumstances about it could be affected by law.

And as Obama implicitly admitted by not naming any specific law, we don't know that yet.

Some details on the specifics of enforcement of Oregon's new, "tougher" background check laws. Again, we have no idea right now how background laws did or might have impacted this horrible crime.

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.

412 responses to “Obama Talks Earnestly of Simple Laws that Could Have Prevented Oregon Shooting, Names None

  1. Fuck Barack Obama

    1. Not even with your dick and me pushing.

      1. So much turn on talk………

      2. No, that’s Reggie Love’s job.

    2. Not with your dick and ten feet of lead

    3. No wood chippers were mentioned in this discussion.

      1. I’m late

    4. Mmm, nothing like using freshly dead people to push a political agenda.

      1. Never let a good tragedy go to waste?

        This is a big FUCKING deal!

    5. There is nothing earnest about Obama, or any of the Democrats on this issue. Over fifty people were shot and killed in Chicago this September. Most of them young black men. Obama said, and did nothing about that.

      But such is the ways of the liberaltarian media folks – Democrats politicians are always assumed to have pure motives, while everyone else is headlined as either mentally unstable or plain evil.

      The editorial slant of Reason is as shameless as it is obvious.

  2. How can we know simple gun safety laws would help when we know nothing about circumstances of how the killer got the gun?

    Because we know that the simplest gun safety law is to simply outlaw them. I mean, look at Mexico – guns are mostly illegal there and only the most law-abiding of citizens have one.

    1. No, no, the only valid comparisons are England and Australia because FYTW.

    2. Mexico isn’t a valid example because evil Americans let them buy guns here and bring them back across the border.

      1. Ahem. The American Government.

        1. Doesn’t the gov’t povide free shipping under the “prime” program?

          1. Not yet, but now that you gave them the idea…

      2. Aha! Its like ‘socialism can’t succeed until the whole world is socialist so the revolution can not stop’.

        1. “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie socialists over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.”
          -Honest Karl Marx

      3. You mean like Eric Holder’s Fast and Furious Program for arming Narco-Terrorists?

        Then yes, you are correct.

    3. If only Mexico could shut down those evil US government operations like “fast & furious” that flood their peaceful country with weapons!

      -jcr

    4. Given that this is yet another shooting in yet another “gun-free” zone, and yet again the “gun-free” signs and policies didn’t zap the killer as he entered campus, I can think of at least one “simple gun safety law” that might make a huge difference.

      But somehow I doubt banning “gun-free” zones is on the PotUS wish-list.

      1. require any place called “gun free” to have metal detectors. you don’t have them, then the people can be armed. the signs have always been useless.

        1. require any place called “gun free” to have metal detectors.

          This reminds me of a story. A friend of mine worked in a QA/QC department at a manufacturing plant. They had consistent quality issues with several aspects of the production line. According to the operators’ own reports, there were no issues occurring on the line. The QA/QC director’s solution to the quality problems was to have the operators fill out their reports every half hour instead of every hour. My friend was not surprised when quality did not magically improve. Moreover, the reports continued to say that nothing was wrong, but now they said nothing was wrong twice as often.

          Even if every school had the same level of security as a courthouse–and that’s kind of difficult, since courts tend to be incidentally full of police, as well as frequently being located next to police stations–there’s nothing stopping a dedicated assailant from simply shooting the metal detector operator and proceeding into the school unimpeded. As you further escalate the level of security–driving tuition through the roof–you run into at least one of the following three problems:

          (cont’d)

        2. (cont’d)

          1. There is no such thing as perfect security. Explosives and artillery can overcome just about any obstacle, if the assailant is committed enough.

          2. There are always softer targets. If someone wants to kill people–whether specific individuals or just people in general–he can shift his attacks to elsewhere.

          3. There are always insider threats. No security system is better than the people who administer it; even the most upright of people can make mistakes.

          And so, the simple and only truly effective answer is to make as few places as possible “gun-free zones”. All of China is a “gun-free zone” and yet they are plagued by knife attacks that are just as deadly as mass shootings in the US. You are better off leaving people to defend themselves than placing your hopes on a security apparatus.

          1. “the simple and only truly effective answer is to make as few places as possible “gun-free zones”.”

            completely agree. i think you misunderstand my point. all these places that are “gun free” have nothing but a sign backing it up. if we required a certain level of security, rather than a wishful thought and a sign, then only places where the risk warranted the cost would be “gun free zones.” a high school in an area with heavy gang activity might warrant the cost. one in a rural area with low crime might not. a busy night club might warrant the cost, where a small local bar might not. I’m talking about forcing the market to decide where guns are restricted, rather than broad generalizations.

            as for the rest of your rant, i think it stems from that same misunderstanding. i don’t want metal detectors everywhere, i want gun restrictions limited to those areas where it makes sense, and for there to be a better assurance, than a sign, that others will also be in compliance with that restriction.

            1. i don’t want metal detectors everywhere, i want gun restrictions limited to those areas where it makes sense, and for there to be a better assurance, than a sign, that others will also be in compliance with that restriction.

              Where does it “make sense”? Why a school, and not a mall or a park? And every “better assurance” involves some kind of escalation. If somebody intends to shoot up a dozen or so people, what is going to stop him from shooting the rent-a-cop running the metal detector?

              I said more things than just “OMG too many metal detectors”, maybe you could try reading what I wrote instead of just glossing over it and calling it a “rant”.

              1. I said more things than just “OMG too many metal detectors”

                In fact, I didn’t even say anything like that–which means that you are the only one with any misunderstanding.

                1. clearly there is still misunderstanding. first, it is now clear that you are taking an absolutist stand. if you think gun free zones will ever be eliminated completely, then you are fighting a losing fight, and detracting from your points that are valid. this is the kind of argument that often keeps the libertarian standpoint out of the discussion in the mainstream. the reason i glossed over the rest of your rant, is because it was primarily about the fact that no security is absolute. i am not even trying to debate that point, nor was i ever. of course absolute safety is impossible, but what we have now is absolute vulnerability, where people have their right to self protection stripped, with no assurances AT ALL.

                  my point is that if there is a bigger requirement than just a sign, then government won’t be able to just willy-nilly declare what ever area they choose to be “gun free” for feels. and those areas they do decide should be gun free, should at least have some level of assurances beyond trust in killers not to break the rule. I’m not saying i like gun free zones, i am just saying that if they exist, there needs to be more than a sign. i don’t expect them to protect me, but if they are going to limit my ability to protect myself, they have some obligation to offset the increased risk. all they require now is a sign.

                  1. as for “where it makes sense” i gave some examples, but it would ultimately be up to local governments to make that decision. a rural school district is not likely to see the cost as warranted, where an inner city school district might. of course this won’t stop gang violence, or even keep it completely out of the school, but it would reduce how much of it happens in the school. (which is how the whole gun free school thing got started… it was not originally about mass shootings, it was for inner cities, and those schools did put in metal detectors… ) the problem is we just declared all schools gun free, and expect that sign to make all the difference. many of the schools where it actually made sense, already have metal detectors.

            2. Furthermore, there is never really any good reason to restrict the possession of weapons by law-abiding citizens. Any attempt to restrict guns is ultimately rooted in a lack of trust. If no one can be trusted, then where do the trustworthy people to set all of this up come from?

              1. again, it is now clear that you are taking an absolutist approach. i am more of a realist. the second people imagine letting loaded weapons in just anyone’s hands an an airplane, they will ignore everything else you have to say. the purist in me does not disagree with you, but the realist makes me recognize that abolishing all restrictions is not feasible. there have been weapon free zones, as long as there have been swords. there have always been some restrictions on where you can carry a weapon, and there always will be. the difference is that there was always enforcement of that, where now we go on the honor system. and, it is clear that mass killers care nothing about honoring that restriction. simply saying “get rid of all restrictions” is a non-starter. if you place requirements, beyond a sign, on the gun free zones, you will naturally have a reduction in the restrictions, as municipalities lift the restrictions on places where the cost of enforcement is not practical.

                see, my goal in this is less gun free zones, with the ones that do exist having some manner to stop those who try to bring a gun.

        3. a few years ago,I read about a US courthouse with those metal detectors and armed guards,where a guy walked up,shot the guards,walked through the metal detectors,and began shooting everybody he saw. None of them had any guns. What stopped him was a women officer who was in the ladies room,she came out at the sound of gunfire,and shot the guy,who wasn’t expecting any armed resistance.

          A REALISTIC,”common-sense approach would be to prohibit “gun-free” zones in any place open to the general public,excluding courthouses and prisons,or other high security areas.
          Then it would be too risky for any person intent on committing mass murder to try it,because of the possibility of armed people being present. This is far more rational,because despite any laws we could enact,it’s certain that some nutcase,sociopath,or even a terrorist, will try to commit another mass murder. The ONLY thing that will stop them is a “good guy with a gun”,and allowing lawfully armed ODCs greatly increases the probability that one such person will be there to do the job.
          Because “when seconds count,police are minutes away.”.

      2. “Gun-free” zone: the theory that there’s nowhere safer than where all the law abiding are disarmed and helpless.

    5. I hope you’re being sarcastic. If not, here’s a little knowledge:

      http://www.havocscope.com/blac…..ces/ak-47/

      Black market prices for AK-47s. Check out Mexico:

      “$1400 on US border, $3000 in South”

      $1400 for an AK-47 isn’t out of reach of a determined mass-murderer-to-be.

      You can also buy GRENADES on the black market in Mexico:

      “$100 to $500 for M67 Grenade”

      Bans don’t work as well as their supporters wish they do.

      1. Black markets are always the response to bans. Even in socialist utopias. It’s just human nature.

        The price only reflects scarcity. Supply and demand and all that.

      2. Can you imagine the damage someone could do with a dozen grenades and a well planned distribution route over an hour’s time? Surprised it’s never happened.

    6. “look at Mexico – guns are mostly illegal there and only the most law-abiding of citizens have one.”

      “This is not the Truth you are looking for…”

      -Obi Wan to Emperial officer…

    7. Sorry, Ag, but what does ‘gun safety laws’ have to do with legalization, ownership or use of them to wantonly kill a bunch of people?!

      Or what is your concept or definition of “gun safety” in this context? Only ‘safe PEOPLE’ can own guns?

      1. Sure. At the CORE of gun control is “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Obama, or the Clinton’s would not give up their machinegun armed SS Protection Details for a NY minute. But YOU having the means of armed self defense? Well now, that is a different matter all together in their minds.

        Gun control is inherently elitist, and ultimately totalitarian. The Founders knew this, and planned for it’s eventuality with the 2nd Amendment. After all the shooting war in the American War of Independence began with a British attempt at gun control.

    8. http://www.npr.org/…/can-sma…..gy-help… Smart guns combined with GPS technology which could only be used in your home or 1000 acre farm. This would eliminate all accidental shootings and keep perps from taking police guns and killing them. All present guns could be retrofitted. Guns could be activated by a code from the police and be used other places. This wouldn’t be perfect but would be a 99% solution.

      1. Electronics that can be bypassed by any bad guy with the skills. You think this wouldn’t create a market and an industry for “deactivated” guns?

        Any electronics you put in a gun, can be removed from the gun.

        Further I am unwilling to trust my life to the possibility of a communications or electronics failure.

        Smart guns are a pipe dream of the gun grabbers; and it’s damned stupid too.

    9. And the drug cartels…

  3. My head almost exploded when I saw that speech. God, I just wanted one reporter to call out his bullshit right then and there. BTW, 58 people were shot to death in Chicago in September. I guess he doesn’t care about that.

    1. #blacklivesdontmatterinchicago

    2. He just wants the goddamned guns. All of them.

      1. That’s why there are many who are absolutely opposed to any gun control proposal. They are always a first step towards total confiscation. But gun control proponents will never admit that.

        1. You’re missing the greater point. with the progtard, EVERYTHING is a step toward some kind of totalitarian absolutism. They are rabid incrementalists. And like Terminators, they never ever stop.

          On that note, is this a good time to discuss my plan to euthanize all the progressives.

          1. Euthanize?

            Wouldn’t you like to be a Chipper too?

    3. The “press” didn’t vett him and never ask questions that might make him look bad and incompetent.

      1. the US media is no longer the watchdogs on government,they are now a Fifth Column,working AGAINST America.
        socialists targeted education in the early 1900’s;
        they’ve been working at it a long time,have been wildly successful at gaining control of it,and now we’re seeing the effects of that,all across our society.
        Legislators, JUDGES, doctors, scientists, MEDIA, teachers,etc,all a product of a socialist education system. All indoctrinated in socialism,and applying it in their everyday lives.
        Never forget that the socialists have a dominance at nearly every university,and at most every public grade school.
        socialist indoctrination begins at an early age and continues throughout high school and college.
        THAT is what is really hurting America,and I’m not so sure we can overcome it,it may already be too late. it took a long time for the commies to become entrenched in education,and it will take a long time to weed them out,if it can be done at all. America,IMO,does not have that much time left,not enough to do what needs to be done.

  4. “the problems with restricting access to guns in a matter other countries do “

    Manners Maketh Man

  5. Charles C.W. Cooke’s rant on gun control cannot be pimped enough.

    H/t Old Man with Candy

    1. A Rebuttal:

      Amanda Duarte
      5 hrs ?

      We just had our 45th school shooting THIS YEAR. It is not even the 45th WEEK of this year. FUCKING WHO CARES ABOUT ABORTION. FIX THIS.

      1. ” 45th school shooting THIS YEAR’

        really? I’d love to see that list.

        1. It’s a worthless number. It includes suicides that didn’t happen during school hours as well as shootings that happened to be on school grounds between non-students.

          1. “It includes suicides that didn’t happen during school hours’

            Which is what i expected

            I assume its from the “Everytown”, bloomberg bullshit org. They had the worst stats-funger ever.

            Part of the problem with the anti-gun morons is that they’re just not happy with the extant real-data.

            Frankly, they could probably make a decent argument with the actual facts. In fact, its a good strategy in an argument to *admit some details* that the other side wants to use. **(like how rural areas with high gun ownership are relatively crime-free).

            Instead, they fall prey to the lefty presumption that “no one understands numbers” (because they are so innumerate themselves), and make horrible claims that are easily disproved.

            e.g. “95% of People Want Common Sense Law!!!” (which turns out to basically be the existing laws we already have )

            1. e.g. “95% of People Want Common Sense Law!!!” (which turns out to basically be the existing laws we already have )

              All we need are enough laws so that this never, ever happens again in the future of this country and mankind. Is that so unreasonable?

              1. Yes, because the only law that could ever actually achieve perfect peace is a law that orders the killing or removal of every single person within the borders of the USA.

                Put two straight men and a woman together on a deserted island, and sooner or later one of the men will murder the other to gain exclusive access to the woman’s womb. Simple fact of life. Anthropologists know that the primary reason for murder throughout man’s history going back thousands of years is simple sexual jealousy.

                You can’t stop this–evolution has rewarded aggressors with access to reproduction for millennia. Killing is part and parcel of being a human.

                1. Peace through Extinction
                  Ultron 2016

              2. Dude, this 40 year cop tells you that the kind of laws you want are almost always enforced AFTER the law is broken.

                We have put volumes of laws on the books about drugs and stopped very little. We have created a whole agency (DEA) and never made a dent.

                I think we need some laws to control civilians access to computers and the internet. Is that so unreasonable?

                Guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

            2. Yeah, but the initial claims are trumpeted far and wide and the rebuttals are largely ignored.

          2. If a “school shooting” is defined as any shooting occurring on school property, then I have a strategy to bring their number to zero.

            1. Ban schools?

          3. And I’d expect that if you included the totals from all those ‘school shootings’ it will still come out as fewer people than have been shot in Chicago this year.

            1. Or last Saturday night.

          4. 45th school shooting is a gun grabber lobby lie. That simple. They are including gang shootings on school grounds, when the school is closed, and that have no relationship to that school other than the choice of their battleground. They include suicides when the school is closed.

        2. Lists are not important. This is too important to nitpick!

        3. I googled it, a Newsweek article comes up that quotes extensively from a source from Everytown For Gun Safety…

      2. 13,000 TOTAL gun deaths 2014…

        824,000 abortions THIS year alone…

        Right…who fucking cares about abortion…we can scream about .00004% of gun owners killing someone until everyone forgets that we are killing over 550 children EVERY DAY!

        Nice politics you have there…

        Fix THAT why don’t ya’?

        1. OK, don’t oppose over-the-counter birth controls of any kind…
          THAT will cut the number of abortions. Guaranteed.
          Wanna try THAT experiment?
          Didn’t think so…

          1. I do believe condoms are still over the counter and regularly available.

            Of course the simple answer is for the female to just say “NO,” and keep her legs closed.

            Abstinence is 100% effective birth control. THAT will cut the number of abortions. Guaranteed.

            Wanna try THAT “experiment?”
            Didn’t think so….

    2. And if you’re gonna get rid of the 2nd, you gonna have to get rid of the 4th to enforce it.

      1. You think there is a forth, that is cute.

        Did you see Boston during the lockdown, no bill of rights there that day

        1. Stick with the number. It’s easier to spell.

        2. I have shared my frustration with that Boston even with other, relatively rational folks I know. Only, they think I’m a nut! After all they say, the police had to do that or the perps would get away.

          Wasn’t it Voltaire who warned of this blind acceptance of military rule a century back?

    3. Money Quote:

      … We can’t round-up and deport twelve million illegal aliens, but we can kick down the doors of one hundred and fifty million legal citizens to confiscate three hundred million firearms…

      Made even easier when they are aiming and discharging them at you :-0

  6. There used to be a short grieving period before politicians politicized these tragedies. Obama has zero class.

    1. Fuck you, you just politicized it.

      /tony

      1. which is why I never feed him or the other one

        1. I don’t either and I usually have him blocked, but no reasonable on this computer.

        2. I always ask if AmSoc has finally paid his mortgage. Never get an answer from the thieving shitbag.

    2. Empty suit.

  7. I’m surprised one of you assholes haven’t started a fake trollbook account for this guy.

    1. When have I ever shown that kind of initiative

      1. It’s not too late…

        1. I’ll just procrastinate until someone else does it

          1. Ya I’m with you. Also it’s more fun to predict nonsense than to actually pull it off. Regardless, I do love a good trolling.

            1. I’m with you Lizard.

              We had 2 Jackfish on at the same time the other day. Thirty minutes of hilarity since they aren’t edible ( if they were good eating fish it wouldn’t have been so hilarious ) but boy was it fun fighting 2 big fish with minds of their own on light tackle.

              I too love a good trolling.

        2. There’s a reason your kind are running the world from the shadows.

  8. The only purpose of “gun politics” for the democratic party is to create the impression of a vast disparity of “FEELS”

    They FEEL strongly about this issue. No, they won’t ever actually propose legislation that has better than a snowball’s chance in hell of even *being enforceable*… because they don’t even want to actually put their names to votes on legislation.

    They just want to prance around ripping their shirts off and crying about the chilluns, so that the GOP folks will be forced to say, “Uh, but the law….” and they’ll just weep louder and louder WHY DO YOU LET THIS LAW KILL CHILDREN!!

    Its not about reality, its about comparative posturing. They know there’s never going to be any real substantial change to the underlying law re: guns (or, at best, they hope simply for a few states to get more-california-esque)…. but they do the same dance all the time, trying to create the impression that we’re always a pussy hair away from the Perfect Law that will enforce a happy gun-free utopia, and Damn Those Bastards who always stop us from enacting it!!

    Its just about having an emotional resonance with the base. Nothing to do with actual law.

    FWIW, i think the Planned Parenthood defunding is pretty much the same thing. Maybe with the caveat that there are plenty of legislators who’d put their name on batshit bills, but only knowing that they’d never get past the first vote.

    1. I agree on all points, Gil. Losing on gun control is winning for the Dems, the same as losing on abortion is winning for the Republicans.

      1. “Losing on gun control is winning for the Dems, the same as losing on abortion is winning for the Republicans.”

        even better-stated.

        what its “winning” is just Moral Victory in the eyes of their base. Or a re-affirmation of “who we are”.

        Only democrats love children (except right before they’re born), only democrats care about safe-schools, etc. His speech was just so much fodder for dinner-table conversations where people moan about “Common Sense*” policy that somehow no one has the ability to actually articulate.

        *this subject came up recently and i asked the self-righteous gun controller what they thought ‘made sense’… and they thought there should be a ‘database’ of mental health records added to the firearms background check process.

        I pointed out HIPPA forbids people’s medical information being searchable like that. They got uppity and said, “there should be a work-around”. I pointed out that psychiatrists are already obligated to report on people who present imminent risk of violence.

        The more we got into details the more frustrated the person became, finally saying, “Well the fact is that we should just ban the guns and skip all the complexity”, to which i nodded, saying, “and that’s what most people REALLY MEAN by ‘Common Sense’ legislation”

        1. I had the same discussion with a friend pointing out their flaws and asking what gun laws needed to be implemented in order to stop this stuff. When you scratch the surface like you said, they want full confiscation.

          1. It’s always the goal. Everything in little baby steps….

            Well, THAT didn’t work, so need THIS.
            Well THIS didn’t work, we need THAT2.
            Well THAT2 didn’t work we need THIS-NOW…..

            Etc..etc… ad infinitum, ad nauseum. On and on until we resemble Britain or OZ. Frankly, I’d rather resemble the Swiss.

        2. HIPAA
          /pedantry

          1. I SPELL IT LIKE I SAY IT

            like a spanish female hippo

        3. Americans only pawn in game of Washington power struggle.

        4. “Only democrats love children (except right before they’re born), ”

          Or even a few minutes after birth so it seems.

          How much ? How much you give me ?

          Fresh baby brains. How much you give me ?

    2. Shakespeare was wrong. We shouldn’t off those lawyers first. Let’s start with Congress critters.

    3. Laws are inversely enforced to the degree of their quantity.
      Laws are passed so some gasbag politician can stump on the record they passed another (unenforceable or unlikely to be enforced) law.

  9. The only gravitas I’m getting out of this is that we really should make the president run for reelection every year.

    1. That’s Biden’s job. Eight years was not enough to entirely destroy the country.

  10. Wonder what this fuckers mental malfunction was? Jesus.

    1. i blame the damn southern, confederate-flag waving…..say what? He was hunting Christians? Oh. Then I blame Republican gun laws. Conservatives who love guns are the real killers, etc etc.

      Also rape culture.

      1. Taking the “targeting Christians” claims with a grain of salt, given that some version of that claim has cropped up at pretty much every mass shooting since Columbine.

        1. It was verified by a two people, and one of them was at the next class. Their stories matched, apparently.

          1. a two ppeople ?

            Is that like co-joined twins or sumpin ?

  11. I’ve been told that the US is the same kind of culture as Australia, and since banning guns worked there it’d work here.

    No, really.

    Look, will you stop laughing long enough to talk to me?

    1. Australia, Australia, Australia we love you! Amen!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA

  12. Seconds after posting, killer being identified as Chris Harper Mercer

    Did he have any flags on his Facebook page?

    1. I heard an completely unsubstantiated report from Michael Savage, so apply salt, that the shooter asked each person he shot to declare their religion.

      Must be workplace violence.

      1. Came from twitter so…

        http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015…..tcmp=hpbt1

        1. . . . as a precaution, counterterrorism officials were running his name against watchlists and checking his e-mail history, phone logs, social media profiles and online history to rule out any links to terrorism.

          As a *precaution*? WTF. Is this shitty Fox editors or shitty ‘counterterrorism officials’?

      2. Maybe he was targeting Zoroastrians?

        1. Aren’t they kind of Christian? I only recall meeting one, and she was one of the hottest women I have ever met in real life.

          1. Predates Christianity by two millennia.

              1. Famous, yes; nonetheless, just another Zoroastrian who has bit the dust.

              2. Yea, the one I met was a whole different chick.

            1. Predates Christianity by two millennia.

              Bullshit.

              More like 600 years.

        2. What, the Iranian mullahs haven’t persecuted them enough?

          -jcr

  13. Given the tragedy of today, this is probably a minor nitpick, but “gun safety” is now an acceptable euphemism for “gun control”?

    1. The grabbers have been using that term for years as “gun control” does not focus group well. They seem to have given up on its sibling euphemism “gun reform”.

      1. But when did the pro-gun side (which I assume Reason still is) start using it?

        1. It looks like Doherty was satirizing Obama when he used it.

      2. Gun control is hitting what one aims at.

    2. It’s not a minor nitpick. The NPR newsreader was using this exact phrase to describe gun control efforts that failed. It’s a deliberate and calculated attempt to push gun bans.

    3. I think I’ve got it.

      If the guy who was planning on murdering a bunch of people would’ve just followed stricter gun storage laws this could’ve been avoided entirely!

      Clearly, the one minute he would have had to spend unlocking his trigger lock and fumbling for the key to his separately stored ammunition locker would’ve meant that the active shooter situation would have been one minute shorter.

      Most of these violent shooters practice using their assault weapons in violent video games (rounds of which often last less than one minute) so it is irrefutably proven that one less minute to terrorize the community would mean that his COD TERROR TRAINING would’ve been rendered ineffective and nobody would’ve been hurt in the slightest.

      …YOU HAVE BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS!

      1. But . . . all the *other* potential shooters would have been doing the same so the time he spent unlocking and loading his gun would have been countered by the time others spent doing the same.

    4. to “progressives”, the only way for everyone to be safe is for us ordinary decent citizens to not have guns.
      They never consider that government will ALWAYS have guns,and they have them “lost” or stolen much more than is common public knowledge. they never consider that guns can eb smuggle din same as drugs,or even made in home shops.

      http://www.dailytelegraph.com……6760983916

      Australian man makes machine guns at home,sells them to gangs. sold LOTS of them.

      1. “to “progressives”, the only way for everyone to be safe is for us ordinary decent citizens to not have guns.”

        Greater safety is only a *rationalization* for greater government power.

  14. Obama is a dummbass who cares what he has to say.

    http://www.Full-Anon.tk

    1. Tonight the machines stand with us….but it’s a trap!

    2. Wow.

      The Bots make more sense than Tony.

      We shouldn’t be worried yet though because Tony is a malfunctioning human specimen.

    3. SamDodBot for commenter of the year!

  15. Not sure if this photo of him is legit.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.co…..t-college/

      1. Looks like we’ve got another flag to ban.

        1. Yeah, Not even sure it’s him though. Guess we’ll find out soon enough

      2. That would be a zinger

      3. Myspace? Did he have a page wen he was a toddler?

        1. I didn’t know it was still around. It looks suckier than it did 10 years ago,

          1. Too bad it was not an internet thing owned by Big Media with piles of cash and power. It could have killed Facebook pre-infancy.

        2. Kids get MySpace pages today because parents can barely handle Facebook – so it gives them a bit more privacy.

      4. Now Jeremy Corbin is going to have to praise him.

      5. “progressives” either don’t realize the Irish Republican Army was a MARXIST/communist leaning (and supported) organization,or they’re again being dishonest and trying to paint this killer as a “conservative” because they saw the word “republican” in the title.

    1. I love how people parse the fog-of-information in the first few days of something through their own biases.

      Chris Harper Mercer was an atheist.

      I’m not sure I’d describe “Not religious, but spiritual” as atheism, but whatever.

      Chris Harper Mercer was mixed race.
      He may have been a Black Lives Matter supporter but this is just speculation at this time.

      From whence does this speculation arise, I wonder? Does the one drop rule now apply for political ideology? Whatever the case, it’s incorrect. Mercer blogged (it’s a verb now, bitches) concerning the Houston cop shooting: “In case anyone’s wondering, I’m not on the side of the suspect, I’m on the side of the officer, and generally don’t agree with the black lives matter protests.”

      1. “From whence does this speculation arise, I wonder? ‘

        Not only is everything filtered through of one’s own bias… but i find people constantly trying to shoehorn everything they see into arbitrary pre-existing narratives

        See: Corning turning everything into Gamergate, and anything perceived as critical as “SJW” (and the opposite versions of him who want to call everything MRA /PUA-associated)

        its like they’ve become convinced that “Internet Stuff” is real, and Real Life stuff needs to be stuffed into Internet terms for it to even register with them.

        Then there’s the way people treat the Internet Detritus of people’s lives as sufficient to understanding the Total Person.

        A quick review of a person’s tweets, and a few random Facebook entries, provides enough for a complete Psychographic Profile apparently. If not that, they’re still “IMPORTANT FACTS”… to a mass killing, somehow.

        The only detail there that actually seems revealing (*aside from his otherwise sane-sounding blog posts)…

        “‘He also posted on the website that he has never had a girlfriend.””

        at 26?

        I don’t even understand how that happens unless you’re clinically averse to any kind of human relations.

        1. Let’s test your hypothesis. Can you glean much, if anything, about the person who wrote the following?

          “Russia has a potent intelligence service that had assets and connections threaded through Ukrainian society like the rhizomorphs of the fungus Armillaria solidipes through a conifer forest.”

          1. You’re not making sense mike. Try again.

            1. Ask him about the vaccines.

        2. “See: Corning turning everything into Gamergate, and anything perceived as critical as “SJW” (and the opposite versions of him who want to call everything MRA /PUA-associated)”

          What about PIV and ATM?

        3. “‘He also posted on the website that he has never had a girlfriend.””

          at 26?

          Eh, I didn’t have a girlfriend until 26. Though I am somewhat averse to human relationships.

        4. I didn’t have a girlfriend until I was 20. I was deathly afraid I’d do something to offend a girl and drive them away, to the point it became a self fulfilling prophecy. Other than that, there was nothing wrong with me, just too fucking shy

      2. Why don’t these spree shooters go somewhere interesting, like a police station or the Capitol Building?

  16. From the empty-suit-in-chief’s remarks:

    There is a gun for every man, woman, and child in America. So how can you, with a straight face, argue that more guns will make us safer?

    Yep, a gun for every person in America, over 300 million in all… and only two or three of them are used in a mass shooting every year. Sounds like the guns aren’t the problem.

    But the notion that gun violence is somehow different? That our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon?

    Is there any jurisdiction in the US that doesn’t have very strict regulation of how people use guns? Is there somewhere where it’s legal to do what this freak did today?

    1. “Is there somewhere where it’s legal to do what this freak did today?”

      Rhymes with Romalia?

      1. Yeah, he would have been put down there pretty quickly I’m guessing.

      2. Tamalia? Sounds delicious.

      3. Obama, Malia?

        1. I’m gonna off allaya.

          1. be peaceful, like the treaty of wesphalia?

  17. An atheist who hunted Christians, eh? This guy will be a hero on Rational Wiki.

    1. SugarFree is going to be pissed.

      1. He hates Christian martyrs.

    2. Well, I can name one simple law that could have prevented this – abolishing gun free zones and allowing conceal carry everywhere.

      Even in Oregon, I’m sure there would have someone carrying a gun that could have stopped him, had they been allowed to.

      1. Well, I can name one simple law that could have prevented this – abolishing gun free zones and allowing conceal carry everywhere.

        What?? You MONSTER! You must want Old West-style shootouts on the street every single day!

        1. We should only ever permit THIS sort of shootout. Much safer for the shooter.

        2. I know – I can barely make it to the corner store without having to dodge a bullet. There’s a small turf war going on down the street from me right now.

          AZ needs some ‘common-sense gun safety laws’ – it was bad enough when we had free open-carry, once they dropped the licensing requirement for concealed this place has gone to hell.

          1. Friend of mine runs a convenience store – no, not Pakistani (Iraqi!) – his son was running the counter the other day, kid’s 16 and open-carries a 9mm to protect against robberies while he’s working.

        3. “Old West-style shootouts on the street”

          A Hollywood created myth. Murder was less frequent in the Old West than it is today. And guns were more common amongst the population.

      2. It sounds like the students complied with the shooter’s demands and died like sheep. The kids these days aren’t all precious snowflakes, particularly at a community college, but the aware ones seem to be few and far between.

        1. Seems like the most precious of them all brought a gun into a gun free zone.

        2. Unfortunately, they were taught all their lives that words and thoughts stop bad guys. If just one of those kids had a dad or mom that took them out to the range, they might have said, “Fuck this gun free zone shit.” Maybe some more kids would be alive.

      3. Even in Oregon, I’m sure there would have someone carrying a gun that could have stopped him, had they been allowed to.

        What about all the innocent people they would have shot while trying to shoot the killer?
        No, its best to play dead and just wait for the trained professionals to save you.

        1. “just wait for the trained professionals to save you.”

          Exactly. Because they will be there in 10 to 20 minutes after the shooting starts.

          Ya’ll just won’t be patient.

          1. Because they will be there in 10 to 20 minutes after the shooting startsstops.

            FTFY

          2. When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away!

        2. wait for the trained professionals

          The SEALs are going to respond to every school shooting now? Won’t that violate the Posse Comitatus Act?

        3. What about all the innocent people they would have shot while trying to shoot the killer?

          Unlike the sadistic murderers who initiate these killing sprees, most people care about the lives of other people, or at the very least don’t want to go to jail. Do you really think guns turn people into homicidal maniacs? If so, what good are these “trained professionals” who also have guns?

      4. Need bigger “Gun Free Zone” signs, obviously.

      5. If they had legalized pot sales a few days earlier this might not have happened.

      6. An unarmed vet took between 5 to 7 bullets, and survived, to protect others.

    3. “An atheist who hunted Christians, eh?”

      I’d have to wait for all the facts to come out before I accept this as true, but there is some indication he at least asked people about their religious affiliation before shooting them.

  18. I think the only thing worse than a terrible tragedy is a tone deaf idiot spouting nonsense that attempts to politicize it before even next of kin have been informed.

    Where are the reporters brave enough to say, “Jesus, dude, have you no shame? Show a little respect and don’t make this about your party!”

    1. “I think the only thing worse than a terrible tragedy is a tone deaf idiot spouting nonsense that attempts to politicize it before even next of kin have been informed.”

      Speaking ill of the President is so un A Merikan.

  19. What pisses me off about the gun control advocates is the dishonesty. We all know they want to fucking ban guns so why not be truthful and actually admit it?

    1. I blame that Overton Window jive. The pot folks do the same thing with medical weed rather than going for the liberty argument. Okay, not the same since the gun Nazis are anti-liberty.

  20. By the way, just wanted to remind everyone that Obama is the MOST PRO SECOND AMENDMENT PRESIDENT EVARRR!!!!11oneoneeleven

    /shriek

    1. Look down the thread.

    2. I recall Reagan signing a gun ban but not Obama.

      And I never said “most ever”. I said he supports the Second Amendment.

      1. Wow, who said anything about Reagan? Show me where the gipper touched you.

        1. It was a rectal search.

      2. I recall this guy down in Houston killing someone and he got away with it.

        Some other guy ( probably a Messkin ) killed someone yesterday and all Houstonians agreed that we should let him go because that guy last year did it too.

        /Texan Buttplug

        1. And, I recall a Kennedy killing a young woman in his car with some water and never being prosecuted for it.

      3. Obama does not support the 2nd amendment – I don’t even know where you would get that idea.

        Has he *said* he does? And if so, why would you believe him?

  21. “I don’t know what law could have stopped this from happening, and thus cannot argue in good faith that none could”

    Come on Brian, murder on school grounds needs to be outlawed.

    1. This was a community college? Right after Obama announced he wanted to herd every high school student who can’t get into real college into community colleges for at least 2 years?

      Interesting.

        1. *lights Warty signal*

          BAN college!

        2. That one is long overdue. Community College used to be high school with ashtrays. Now they took away the ashtrays.

          1. People just need something to be against. It brings everyone together.

            1. 2 minute hate – circa 1984

        3. That’s the only place left to find large groups of young girls to have fun with without getting arrested since all the men hater’s took over the Universities.

  22. According to this, Mercer identified as a conservative and a Republican who disliked organized religion.

    I think this will be a good time to avoid Facebook. The political derp will be overwhelming.

    1. I can’t wait for Alex Jones to get this into his conspiracy blender.

    2. Release the derp!

    3. Then again, Papaya, I think this is his Myspace page (which should have been our first clue he wasn’t playing with a full deck), and if so, not many conservative Republicans are also down with the PIRA.

      It gets better. He’s got two connections—one guy, one gal—and the guy’s page is laden with muj pictures, death to Israel rants, etc…

      Christ, who knows if these materials actually are affiliated with the piece of shit, but a PIRA-fan and potential jihad wannabe might be why O wanted to get his speech out there before people started looking too close at this guy.

      Oh, and UCC is evidently the school where one of the Belgian-train-massacre-stoppers—Alex Skarlatos—is going to school. He’d be there, were he not training for Dancing With the Stars.

      You can’t make this shit up.

      1. Or, I could have just looked closer at Almighty JB’s link.

        Odds that this is the first time this piece of shit’s done something crazy and violent?

      2. one of the Belgian-train-massacre-stoppers—Alex Skarlatos—is going to school. He’d be there, were he not training for Dancing With the Stars.

        What the fuck? What is going on? I need to stay off the internets.

      3. His dating profile. Of course, there’s nothing that prevents crazy people from identifying as conservative or Republican and at the same time being into the IRA and being friends with Muslim jihadi wannabes. Crazy people say and do crazy things.

        1. Yeah people will try and glean all sorts of reasons and intentions and motivation for murdering a bunch of innocent people. He’s a fucking whack job. There’s no real explanation other than that. His brain is broke.

          1. Even irrational actions usually have a rational explanation.

            1. Yeah, he’s crazy.

              1. What about marginalized and disaffected? Or is there a new set of BS language for that now?

                1. random-shamed.

                  http://www.theguardian.com/com…..CMP=twt_gu

                  1. I don’t know what’s more ridiculous about that piece = that someone will translate any fucking random comment into a claim of Structural Oppression….

                    …or that 700+ people felt the need to comment on it.

                    To be fair, most seem to be pissing on it.

                    1. Yeah, pretty pathetic.

        2. Looks like a pagan so I guess the pogrom against Atheists is off ;(

      4. not many conservative Republicans are also down with the PIRA.

        Ever heard of GOP Rep. Peter King?

        1. If this shooting means that asshole goes quiet for a bit, it’d be highly satisfying, even if not really justified.

        2. So this was the issue he and Teddy Kennedy found common ground on?

      5. Now his Troubles are over.

    4. Mercer identified as a conservative and a Republican who disliked organized religion.

      HE AIN’T EVEN OLD TIMEY!

      1. Your comments are more interesting, but make less sense, than usual. Are you typing with one hand?

    5. A Conservative Republican who’s into wiccan activities?

      1. Darth Vader?

      2. Apparently a biracial conservative Republican. What’s next? When his bisexuality comes out, everyone will be terribly confused. So the conversation will be steered back to “gun violence” once again….

  23. I’m sure his plans are exactly as detailed as the plans to end work hunger and poverty; not one bit.
    Pure grand-standing.

    1. BTW, my comment had to do with Obo’s simple plans to end ‘gun violence’, not the conclusion-jumping competition about the whacko kid.

  24. Per the empty-suit-in-chief’s allegations and national news AGIT-PROP there have been like 262 of these “mass shooting’s” THIS YEAR11!!. So good luck putting “sensible gun control” measures in via executive order as seems to be the plan. If a mass shooting now = more than 1 person shot per incident then I can predict these type of incidents will have a ridiculous statistical run-up when obama-kicking-in insurgent-doors pogram gets started.

    1. I like how the news is being introduced as “the 15th time in his presidency, President Obama has had to address the nation after a mass shooting”.

      2 a year in a nation of 320 million is not bad (and a “mass” shooting is defined as four or more victims, a ridiculously overbroad definition).

    2. How about two really fat people? How much mass is enough?

  25. OT: Those refugees in Germany don’t seem to have left their ideologies back in their home countries. Just more for Cytotoxic’s “immigration never has any downsides” file.

    1. Just more for Cytotoxic’s “immigration never has any downsides” file.

      I look forward to the fresh coat of gloss he spreads over that story.

    2. What can we do to help you?
      Die

    3. What can we do to help you?
      Die

    4. If this is accurate, it’s almost comically geared for the rise of some “far right” candidate to replace Merkel. It’s not Germans are going to vote for the even more guilt-ridded SPD.

    5. C-Tox does say you can turn back criminals. And if these people are acting in this way then they are criminals.

  26. Where did Obama call for a gun ban?

    You Peanutters are over-reacting again.

    1. Obama didn’t call for anything. As usual, he talks a lot and says nothing.

      1. Pretty much.

        At least he wasn’t yelling into a bullhorn whilst standing over the crime scene.

        1. There are moments when i start to think, “at least he’s not as stupid as AmSoc”…

          … and then i actually read the things you say.

          1. Why? I agree that Obama was just blabbing vague platitudes to mollify the left.

            Pretty much what Doherty said.

            1. Because that is exactly what he did Buttplug.

              Before the bodies were even cold he took his (our) bully pulpit and started trying to rally his political base.

            2. So, you understood the headline perfectly well, but posted an idiotic question pretending people thought he was “calling for a gun ban” anyway?

              either you said something really stupid because you were oblivious, or you said something really stupid because you’re mendacious. You really don’t win any points either way.

              1. I have it on good authority that he has 8% of the points.

      2. It was a warm up. It was implied.

        Soon go to come, executive order.

    2. He’s supported gun bans publicly since immediately after the 2012 election. Are you not paying attention?

      1. Not full gun bans. Just gun bans for people who do not have his permission to possess them.

    3. When he says “we need to have a conversation”, he’s not talking about the weather.

      1. He’s talking about the weather underground.

      2. He wants a conversation the way many feminists do – with him talking and us listening.

    4. And here comes the Obama sycophant.

  27. Yes very OT; Mango , thanks for sharing.

  28. I’m guessing this has already made the rounds but in case not.

    Rand Paul and the Fizzling of America’s Libertarian Moment

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelli…..ment.html#

    1. Rather droll actually. Yawn

    2. The Republican frontrunner once called for the legalization of all drugs and hasn’t recanted it yet.

  29. He never mentioned anything about the Second Amendment or the fact that one of the problems with restricting access to guns in a matter other countries do is that we have that Amendment.

    Obama has never let the Constitution stop him before, why would he now?

    And besides, the “simple laws” that we aren’t passing are obviously the ones that would eliminate gun violence, but that the evil Republicans aren’t willing to pass because of racism. You know, those laws. Why would he need to say anything more than that?

  30. “Palin’s Buttplug|10.1.15 @ 10:03PM|#

    Where did Obama call for a gun ban?

    You Peanutters are over-reacting again.” English-do-you-
    speak-it?

    1. Or do you just pretend you don’t understand it?

    2. Where did Obama call for a gun ban?

      Obama didn’t call for anything. He just did his usual thing: document his outrage, make vague accusations against his political opponents, and otherwise had nothing substantive to say.

      Obama is a windbag and a loser.

  31. We get it, Brian. You don’t want to do anything to stop what has most certainly become a national tragedy…a tragedy that no other developed nation endures, one they avoid simply by means of tougher gun control.

    Your excuses are tired, but at least consistent.

    1. Stop plate tectonics while you’re at it.

    2. These tragedies are common in developed nations, and they happen at about the same rate:

      http://www.politifact.com/trut…..appen-oth/

      I suppose your lies are tired, but at least consistent.

      1. Ace will cherry pick that into a hockey stick and then he will declare moral superiority.

    3. And yes we get it,State-fellating jackass. Odds if this happening much lower than death by lightning strike or death by hammer strike. You had a point?

    4. And yes we get it,State-fellating jackass. Odds if this happening much lower than death by lightning strike or death by hammer strike. You had a point?

      1. Or death by squirrel strike….

    5. Murder rates in many “developed” nations are no lower than the United States. And much of these supposedly developed nations are borderline banana republics.

      50 plus people were shot in Chicago. I’ll bet that most of the guns used in those homicide were stolen or bought in the black market, where gun control can’t reach.

      Oregon expanded background checks on online and private gun sales in August. If you have some “Common sense” solution that would stop these shootings without violating any citizen’s second amendment or privacy rights, then just come out and say it. Stop beating around the bush.

      I’ll start by proposing one simple solution – no government ran facilities should be “gun free zones” to such an extent that they can’t even have armed security guards. This community college didn’t allow its security guard to carry guns.

    6. The one thing you never get tired of doing, Jack, is consistently and thoroughly fellating your masters.

    7. No excuse is needed in response to, “Some kind of law would’ve stopped him!”

    8. Jackand Ace|10.1.15 @ 10:27PM|#
      “We get it, Brian. You don’t want to do anything to stop what has most certainly become a national tragedy…a tragedy that no other developed nation endures, one they avoid simply by means of tougher gun control.”

      Oh, Jack, you are such a wonderful concerned…….
      ignorant piece of shit.

    9. What do you propose?

      And please, be sure to show how it would have prevented this latest tragedy.

    10. Mass-murder happens every where. What planet are you on?
      In China, and other places where guns are exceedingly rare, they mass-kill with machetes.
      Hell, I’d rather be shot than chopped alive into little pieces, thank you very much.

  32. I find the President’s blind eagerness to instantly politicize this even more despicably disgraceful than all of the other events the hack has instantly politicized combined.

  33. Politifact fact-checked his claims, and found them to be false:

    http://www.politifact.com/trut…..appen-oth/

    Mass shootings like this happen in “other advanced countries” and at comparable frequency.

    Obama is right that we could reduce mass shootings in the US further… by turning the US into a police state. Having spent time in a police state, I’d rather not.

    1. Socialists (social engineers) of both the national and international flavors have used their police states to murder well over two hundred million people in the past hundred years alone. I think I’ll just stick with these a couple here and a dozen there odds. Giving up every last shred of my remaining liberty just so some sick social engineers can murder hundreds of millions more than are murdered now seems foolish.

      1. JG, that just makes too much sense. Ergo
        – we can never let those numbers ever be known or published.

      2. The trajectory is certainly in that direction.

  34. You might be screaming, “No, no, no!” but all they hear is “Who wants a police state?” And let me tell you something, they all do. They all want a police state.

    1. +1 frosting

    2. Irrational fear is a funny thing, give ’em a little and they’ll start begging for a police state like an addict begs for a fix.

  35. Six hour workday?

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World…..ur-workday

    1. Too bad they didn’t take their 6 hour work day off the day they invented ABBA.

      1. I kind of had a thing for the girls back in the day. Not their music though:)

        1. Girls. They smell nice. And make sandwiches.

          1. And their soft and curvy and have nice lips

            1. That’s one weird sandwich.

        2. Hey, does your mamma know how wrong you guys are?

          1. Yes, my mama knows how wrong I am. She still loves me.

    2. I think the eight-hour workday is not as effective as one would think,

      Shit man – no wonder Europe is so screwed. Who the hell does 8 hour workdays?

  36. These guys think he bought nazi paraphenalia (sp?) online

    1. If so, that’s kind of messed up for a “mixed race” guy.

      Maybe it was an ironic gesture?

      1. Buying nazi war memorabilia says nothing about a person except that they like war memorabilia.

        1. Just trying to spread some rumors.

        2. you know who….oh nevermind

          1. Made ironic gestures?

                1. Rear Loader. Tail Gate. They seem to be a bit too infatuated.

      2. Do they even teach about the Nazi’s in school anymore or is it all sadness and tears about icky America? Kids may not have the same sort of automatic revulsion today cause they’re so disconnected from it. Makes it more of a novelty like a Viking or Gladiator helmet.

        1. “I have often been called a Nazi, and, although it is unfair, I don’t let it bother me. I don’t let it bother me for one simple reason. No one has ever had a fantasy about being tied to a bed and sexually ravished by someone dressed as a liberal.”

          -P.J. O’Rourke

          1. Wait, peasant blouses, copious body hair, and birkenstocks aren’t sexy?

        2. Are you kidding – *all* they teach is WW2.

          Or at least a version where the US was nothing but noble heroes (no analysis of what ‘total war’ entailed or how ‘firestorm’ got into the lexicon) and how the government saved the country through increased wartime spending (because making a lot of shit and then immediately destroying it ‘primes the pump’ somehow) and the post-war ‘New Deal’ policies were what set the US on its current path to utopia.

          The rest of *US* history is glossed over, pretty much nothing from current events or world history

          1. Hmmm…so I guess nothings changed.

          2. American history as I was taught:

            French and Indian War: it lead to taxes

            Revolutionary War: went to war because we were pissed off about taxes

            War of 1812: um, it happened? Impressment or something?

            Mexican War: America bad

            Civil War: proves how awesome Lincoln was; is the most substantial use of classtime after WWII

            Spanish-American War: William Randolph Hearst bad, Teddy Roosevelt sexy

            Industrial Revolution: melting pot! Teddy Roosevelt really sexy because The Jungle, trust-busting, national parks

            WWI: we’re not really sure what this was about, all you need to know is that the Allies won because of America. And Wilson is cool because League of Nations.

            New Deal: laissez faire and Hoover evil, FDR and Social Security godly

            WWII: internment? What internment? (they do mention it, but it is glossed over) America is the fucking best. And FDR rocks.

            Korean War: um, it happened? or did it really?

            Cold War: McCarthyism, Moon Landing (yay Kennedy!), Iran-Contra (boo Reagan!)

            Vietnam: really bad. Thank you hippies for saving America, and sorry you got killed at Kent State. Mysteriously little mention of Kennedy.

            Desert Storm: it happened

            Women’s suffrage, Prohibition, and Civil Rights Movement also mentioned but discussed in little detail. Oh, and Watergate and how evil Nixon was.

            1. this War of 1812: The Movie sketch does a good job poking-fun at how most Americans have no idea WTF it was about, due to generally terrible High School history.

              Something about your comment worth noting – i’ve pointed out to people in the past that most of what we call “History”…at least the way its taught in high school, and most basic college courses…. is actually just “Wars”….and then some smattering of few details “in between wars”… usually things that either eventually Caused Wars, or were Consequences of Wars.

              Its sort of the unstated architecture of history (as we approach it in school-teaching) – everything is basically footnotes to wars.

              i think the James Burke-ian approach is a possible interesting alternative… which is that rather than “War”… everything in history is actually the story of Technologies.

              1. War drives technology.

                Machine gun. Submarine. Airplane. Atomic Bomb.

            2. I had a down-to earth sensible HS history teacher and a flaky hippie one.

              One of them liberal but wanting us to get the facts, the other boasting that she’d smuggled Mao’s Little Red Book past U.S. Customs and showing a pro-Marxist film (and also a pro-Protestant film for the Reformation part).

              But the hippie did care about her subject, and we did a re-enactment of the trial of Louis XVI, followed by a “let them eat cake” party.

              1. And I *did* want cake.

              2. Oh, and everyone who voted “Not Guilty” got the guillotine.

                I also think it was her class that we did a mock Mideast peace negotiation.

              3. Did you tell that teacher that she wasted a lot of effort – The Little Red Book has never been banned from import into the US. It even had ‘official’ translations published and printed here.

          3. I’m taking US history II as my blowoff course this term and while we haven’t gotten to the Great War, we’ve just begun the progressive era. I’ve been indulging copious material critical of the progressives and their era to counter the tongue bath our professor and the literature gives it.

            1. Not gonna dig up page numbers this evening, but:
              “The Great Bridge: The Epic Story of the Building of the Brooklyn Bridge”
              McCullough spends some (sympathetic) time on the proggies throwing the immigrants out on the streets, since it’s better than the proggies’ opinion of the places they were living.
              Takes longer to find, but Chernow in “The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance” makes it clear that Morgan’s support of the ‘lying-in’ hospital was of far more assistance to the poor than the proggies hoped to be. And Chernow doesn’t know he’s admitting that.
              Try “Meet You in Hell” for a condemnation of steel-workers unions from someone too honest to do otherwise, much as he’d wish to.
              I got a million of ’em.

              1. Thanks! I’ll look them up on the morning

  37. And I like this quote which was repeated in several places:

    “The gunman has been identified as Chris Harper Mercer, 26. “He appears to be an angry young man who was very filled with hate,” a law enforcement official told the New York Times.”

    Reminds me of the comedy sketch where the cop said he thought that the Great Train Robbery was the work of thieves.

    (“So you think thieves are responsible?” “Heavens no, I think they’re very *irresponsible* – ghastly people who go around stealing your money”)

    The sketch

    1. Well, I suppose that’s better than dispassionate or filled with a Jokeresque desire to inflict pain and horror for its own sake.

  38. The Daily Beast is reporting the shooter identified himself as a “conservative republican” while Breitbart is reporting the shooter asked victims to “identify their religion” then “shot anyone who said they were Christian in the head.”

    Okay, there appears to be problems with the general narrative at this point.

    1. Let’s wait for more investigating, and see what it looks like when they’ve separated out the wheat of truth from the chaff of rumor and retardation.

      1. Time to ignore the whole thing until the cloud of retarded exploitation has settled.

    2. I think the conservative republican came off a dating profile so take that for what it’s worth. What’s he going to put on there? I’m a psychotic asshole who thinks all Christians should die?

      1. Actions, to myself, have always said far more than words.

        CBS is reporting “that a blog purportedly written by the killer spoke longingly of the fame given to mass shooters.”

        The shooter obviously was very aware of his ability to use his actions to manipulate others. He certainly was not a “conservative republican” given Conservative Republican’s love affair with Christianity. Seems probable he wanted to squeeze everything he could out of his hatred towards Christians, including attempting to tie his actions to a phony “conservative republican” persona self created solely for that purpose.

        Of course, having targeted Christians in his mass murder spree, he very well may have been “hunting” victims via said “dating profile.”

        1. alternatively, he could have been crazy.

        2. “that a blog purportedly written by the killer spoke longingly of the fame given to mass shooters.”

          Ah, so the problem isn’t the *Second* Amendment, it’s the *First!*

          Don’t let the media and the Internet publicize these killings.

          /sarc

        3. CBS is reporting “that a blog purportedly written by the killer spoke longingly of the fame given to mass shooters.”

          See. It’s not guns that cause those mass shootings the pres is upset about. it’s the darn news media!

    3. He was very conservative – if you didn’t identify as the *proper* form of Christian . . .

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3fAcxcxoZ8

      1. nice:) I haven’t seen him for a long time.

      2. Is that really a proper emo haircut? Looks more Medieval serf.

    4. Is that actually a problem? Back in high school I was a huge Reagan fan and was an atheist.

      This Republicans = Christian, Democrats = Atheist (or Muslim or Hindu) narrative isn’t really true. There are a lot of non-religious Republicans and a lot of Christian democrats.

      Admittedly, a lot of atheists these days put their faith in the government, or “Science!” or even astrology and crap like that. But I don’t think it’s necessarily tied to politics.

      1. “…and a lot of Christian democrats.”
        Blacks in the South and major metros.
        SF politicos who would rather die than shake hand with white Southern Baptists fall all over themselves to meet Reverend ‘Max’ who can deliver, oh, 150 votes in district X

    5. he was both.

      A conservative republican who was anti organized religion and spiritual.

      1. You know this how? Idjut.

  39. interesting =

    the Kiwi WWII-weapons collector I linked to above… made a few commentaries in 2013 on the US gun-laws and the sudden demand for new, “Common Sense” ones in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings.

    One here. Another here, “Feinstein’s Folly” is also good.

    I’ve shared them both with some non-ideological people to help them understand the reason for opposition to ‘more laws’…and they’ve proven useful, mainly because they’re from an “outsider” in a strict-gun-law country, who understands the issues from both sides.

    the fact that he’s got machine guns hanging on the wall behind him is maybe bad-optics, but you can’t have everything.

  40. Turns out, in the event that people were unaware,that Obama is simply another anti gun rights wind bag, a double talking one at that.

  41. “Listen: no matter what we learn about what happened today, we know that, if only we could just ban all guns, none of this would have happened. Come on, people. It’s simple.”

  42. Wait a minute, have they changed the format of the main H&R page?

  43. See, our concern troll Jack is but one of, maybe tens:

    “The Latest: Crowd gathers at vigil for mass shooting victims”
    http://townhall.com/news/polit…..e-n2059854

    Yep, we can all signal to those horrible people who, uh, don’t agree with us, that we are really, really caring, loving, wonderful, terrific, OMG, good, uh, hugging, better than you, something…

    1. Hey, is this a good place to get laid? Just askin’

        1. No. Does he have guns?

  44. Eh, the real problem with mass shootings committed by maniacs is the sanctimonious bitching by Obama that necessarily will follow. Why won’t maniacs consider the feelings of right-wingers? Dear gun maniacs, we’ll have to listen to Obama prattle on about how nuts shouldn’t be able to buy guns so why don’t you think about us before you shoot up your office, or school, or movie theater? Any politician that talks about banning guns in response to when a mass shooter kills a bunch of children in a school is a disgusting, devious asshole who doesn’t know that a. more guns mean less crime, b. lives can be saved if everyone has a concealed bazooka in their trouser pocket so they can engage an active shooter in a densely crowded public place and c. guns need to necessarily be stockpiled in citizen fortresses surrounded by moats and crocodiles so they can form a cadre of citizen revolutionaries to take on the dreaded forces of the federal government, Zog, and Obama’s secret army of Muslim socialists.

    God, don’t libruls know anything?

    1. You don’t even do argumentum ad absurdum well

      Did you ever take a basic rhetoric course? Seriously. You’re operating at a 6th grade level.

      At least buttplug is funny. and Jackand at least seems self aware. But you’re just crushingly *dull*.

        1. you caught me… Reasonable was turned off. Normally i don’t see these boobs anymore

      1. Socialism is a religion. It relies on faith, not syllogisms or sorites familiar to every child in the Victorian Era.

    2. tl;dr

      Of course, I would have said the same thing if an AmSoc post was two words.

    3. I want guns to protect myself from thieves like you…..(though you are obviously too chickenshit to steal my money by yourself, you need hired guns.

      Piss off.

    4. Sorry amsoc. We need to keep those bazookas in our trouser pockets to be sure your kind don’t take over. You talk tough but are afraid to die. And you are threatened by our access to weaponry and willingness to use them on the likes of you, should you attempt to force your utopian visions on all of us.

  45. Welp, the shooter is from my neck of the woods.
    http://www.dailybreeze.com/gen…..zer-center

    I’m going to hug my guns and go to bed.

    1. Lists of South Bay graduates from 2009 published in the Daily Breeze showed Harper Mercer graduated from the Switzer Learning Center in Torrance with four other students. Switzer teaches students with learning disabilities and emotional issues.

      … on the other hand, he was top of his class.

  46. There’s some densely packed references in this article the 2nd Amendment which I find grating. Two questions… 1. why should libertarians give a rat’s ass about respecting the Constitution? and 2. if the problem is a mere amendment to the Constitution why not just repeal it and have it go the way of the 18th amendment? What is so sacrosanct about this dumb and poorly written law written by slavers with muskets that we must defer all logic and common sense to?

    1. you really never wondered about these things before now?

      how did you even get here? were you thrown out of the socialist club because you were too lazy to read Marx *either*?

    2. These arguments are so fresh and exciting! Why haven’t we heard these before?

      1. Shrugs. I don’t know. I’m a (non-dogmatic) libertarian and I’ve heard plenty of libertarian arguments about why we shouldn’t care or admire such documents. Here’s one such article…

        http://bleedingheartlibertaria…..stitution/

        Why do you care about the Constituion and, in particular, its poorly written 2nd Amendment bastard child?

        1. Your handle is associalist, yet you claim to be libertarian…..bwaaaaahhhhaaaahaaaa.

          Oxymoron much.

          1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Libertarian_socialism

            We bascially think that rich guys that a.) would think nothing of calling the cops on a suspicious homeless person in their neighborhood AND b.) bitch about how much they pay in taxes are assholes

            1. What is it with left wingers being afraid of accurately identifying their political philosophies? It certainly can’t be a sense of shame (though that would be understandable, given the execrable philosophies you support). First you guys destroyed the word “liberal”, so now you’ve moved on libertarian?

              1. “What is it with left wingers being afraid of accurately identifying their political philosophies”

                It should be obvious. He doesn’t understand either half of the “libertarian” or “socialist” parts.

              2. Actually, it was conservatives–another religious bunch every bit as ignorant and bigoted as the commie looter socialists. The Liberal Party, formed in 1930, was against prohibition and gave the Dems no choice but to close ranks for repeal. Ku-klux conservatives never forgave or forgot.

            2. From your link:

              Libertarian socialists are strongly critical of coercive institutions, which often leads them to reject the legitimacy of the state in favor of anarchism.

              Um.. I think you posted the wrong link to describe yourself.

              1. Anarchists believe legalizing murder will make people safer. Too bad they can’t sell the idea to voters.

            3. I’m a rich guy. I’ve got a few guns.

              You want what I have.

              Go ahead. Try and take it. 🙂

            4. Someone fetch a hankie and a butthurt report form ffor the poor thing.

    3. 1. why should libertarians give a rat’s ass about respecting the Constitution?

      What?

      2. if the problem is a mere amendment to the Constitution why not just repeal it and have it go the way of the 18th amendment?

      2A didn’t establish “gun rights”, it recognized the right that predated the constitution, and the feds responsibility in respecting its boundaries… Ask the police unions how their members would feel about patrolling with flintlocks..

      “What is so sacrosanct about this dumb and poorly written law written by slavers with muskets that we must defer all logic and common sense to?

      Weak bait.. 2/8

      1. http://www.davidcolarusso.com/deaths/#.Vg_rOOxVgoI

        And The Debates…. and above link really do intertwine. If you take the time to read and explore, you’ll have your answer. A helpful perspective beforehand, think of the wickedness of superstition.

  47. I’m sorry that some people died, but it might drop below 70 here tonight, and nobody can take that away from me.

  48. The other thing that I’ve learned from libertarians who turn off comments that they don’t like is that liberals are done debating.

    1. Come back when you’re sober.

    2. “”liberals are done debating.””

      Well, if you consider Obama’s “naming of zero actual specific policy” example, that’s exactly correct.

      He doesn’t have any actual ideas. Neither do you. You just throw out your 6th grade reductio-ad-absurdum.

      please – explain a “common sense” regulation, and defend it on its merits and benefits of its enforcement. we’d love to see you try.

      1. Hmmm, maybe he first idea is that I wouldn’t make argumentum ad absurdum points about how HIPAA laws prevent a gun store owner from determining whether her customer is a loon.

        1. The gun store owner used to have the right to refuse service to anyone, as long as he respected their right to cake, and baked it for them on request. They have 0% to do with actual vetting of an individuals background. The state police agencies are the ones that make that determination when the details of the form 4473 are phoned into them. HIPPAA puts some information outside their reach..

        2. Having mental health problems is not illegal. Nor is having these problems a sure sign that the sufferer will kill. There are plenty of people with mental health issues that won’t be killing anyone. Furthermore, violating your customer’s privacy will not identify killers. Gun dealers will never be able to diagnose a would-be killer. So your solution is dumb.

          It’s mostly impossible to predict who will kill and when. Subjecting innocent people to privacy invasions and taking away their rights will not prevent much of anything, anyway. Your real problem is that, like most lefties, you refuse to blame the killer so you blame the tool instead. Also like a typical lefty you consider the whole community guilty until proven innocent. So you want to violate or take away their rights to prevent the unpreventable.

          Why don’t you just accept that there are things that you cannot fix by decree? Human nature will not bow to your machinations without a huge police state. Your solution is far worse than the disease.

        3. “I wouldn’t make argumentum ad absurdum points about how HIPAA laws prevent a gun store owner from determining whether her customer is a loon.”

          lol

          oh, amsoc. Protip = when you don’t know what something like “argumentum ad absurdum” means? Don’t try using it in a sentence, lest you look more like an idiot.

          Pointing out facts about medical information law, and how they conflict with “common sense” proposals for trying to screen mentally ill people from gun ownership, is not a ‘reduction to absurdity’, like your above (failed) attempt at parody of the criticisms made here.

          Unless you somehow believe Gun Store owners are capable of psychological profiling customers merely by eyeballing them, there is no way for retailers to screen potential customers sans the ability to check medical records just like criminal records.

          And HIPAA prevents this. Just as other laws would have prevented the store-owner from knowing that this guy was a graduate of a school for “learning disabilities and emotional problems”.

          The constituencies preventing these kinds of screening are actually the kinds of people who advocate for protection of the rights of the mentally ill, and those who seek voluntary treatment. If you want to fight with those people – go ahead.

          So what “common sense” rule have we missed?

  49. This ass clown wants all the guns and wants to prevent you from protecting yourself. Yet he gives Iran $150 billion and puts them closer to a nuclear weapon than ever before.

    1. And he was surrounded by armed, secret service personnel while telling us that.

  50. Hi,

    I’ve noticed lately that people on this website have taken to blocking commenters who they disagree with. I get plenty of stupid and rude comments directed my way questioning my personal life or my economic decisions, but I’ve never blocked anyone since I don’t really care about commenters who engage in such discussions. I just move on.

    Are such people so thin-skinned and put-off by simple philosophical disagreement that you can’t even bear the site of a particular commenter? I just find that sad and more than a litte pathetic.

      1. And I hope that answers your question, unless you’ve blocked me.

    1. I don’t block anyone but I’ve seen a ton of threads filled up with troll comments. If someones entire purpose in coming here is to shit all over the place then blocking them seems like a reasonable thing to do. I’m not sure why non-libertarians would come here and make snide comments unless they just enjoy being assholes. Go to HuffPo instead.

    2. I don’t block you or PB or Tony because you are teh smartestest peepulz on the Reason you show us intecllectually weak libertardians the light. This forum would be dark, hopeless place without the glory of your insights. All praise be to AmSoc!!!

    3. Intellectual dishonesty is its own reward, amsoc

    4. Epistemic closure, you can’t have fact-free dogma without it.

      1. You’ve had every opportunity to propose the “common sense” policy which Obama didn’t, Tony.

        Pretending your (absent) brilliance is being “shut out” of a debate is the sad and pathetic stuff here.

    5. american socialist:

      Are such people so thin-skinned and put-off by simple philosophical disagreement that you can’t even bear the site of a particular commenter? I just find that sad and more than a litte pathetic.

      Not really: some commenters are sad and a little pathetic, so it makes sense for some to ignore them. You know: like spam filtering. It’s not the disagreement or the hurt feelings. It’s more the repetitive silliness, over and over again. It can get boring. And, we really only have a limited amount of time. We can’t read every email, every book, or every post, so why not just filter out the known junk, which is usually conveniently labelled as such by its author?

      For example, if someones comments are never more original then the same repetitive:

      “You think [insert politician/government program here] is bad, just remember Bush and Reagan!”

      “Why can’t we just be more like wonderful Europe in all the ways I like, except for all the ways I don’t like?”

      “Pollution proves that all government regulation and laws are good! QED!”

      “You libertarians disagree with me about concepts of rights! How dare you! Who do you think you are?”

      Hell, Tony’s been here for years, and he trots out the same arguments, over and over again. He’d come up with something new and better, but he’s obviously too stupid.

      Filtering out junk is just an effective way to maximize time.

      Whining about it is more pathetic. “I’m not getting read! Boo hoo!”

  51. I read your idiocy, it’s easily dismissed. Perhaps some people don’t want to read the same tired shit you post every time you are here. As far as I’m concerned, keep fighting your fight, but you probably not going to change many minds around.

    You basically have an incoherent arguement.

  52. Obama is the best leader ever seen by me

    http://www.mytricks.in/

    1. Oh Spambot, you were on a roll there with the insightful comments, but now this.

  53. WHY ARE YOU AGAINST COMMON SENSE REFORMS, DOHERTY?!?

    1. He hates children, obviously.

  54. Likelihood my brother is going to see this as yet another false flag: 100%

    Ugh.

  55. Same old routine, demands that “something” be done, but no specifics, which leaves this citizen wondering the follows. Exactly what might the guy be hiding beneath the rhetoric

  56. The headline reads “Obama Talks Earnestly of Simple Laws that Could Have Prevented Oregon Shooting, Names None”

    Possibly because he realizes, but isn’t honest to admit, that there are no such things.

    1. Does this surprise anyone?

      The legislature has been passing laws for years that defy simple economics: Supply and demand. They still believe they can overrule that.

      President parts the Atlantic Ocean to allow access for refugees. News at 11:00.

    2. Syria passed an anti-gun law in early April of this year, and immigrants are lining up to get in. In fact, this may deflate the xenophobes at Bernie’s and God’s Own parties, with everyone lining up to get into Syria instead of These States.

  57. 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.buzznews99.com

  58. So this berserker killed 10 people and police berserkers killed 623 the last full year for which figures exist. This amounts to 1.6% by comparison. It would be interesting to compare the telescreen media barrage dedicated to each. When half of Germany was still Socialist after WWII, the suicide rate in the civilian-gun-free portion was nearly twice the rate in the heavily-mixed-economy portion. This was some 3000 EXTRA messy suicide deaths a year in a population a third the size of the USA in the 70s and 80s. So what’s left of the the Second Amendment likely saves us about 9000 lives a year taking into account only the suicide differential between “a free State” and a “Democratic People’s Republic” of the sort worshipped by the looter media. The USA has a really low suicide rate compared to the African countries unmentioned by El Presidente. A relatively free society is worth living in–guns, immigrants and all.

  59. “Thus, Obama is undoubtedly overreaching beyond the facts when he speaks”

    That sentence can end right there, and you could extend it to all the Progressive Theocracy.

    Facts are simply irrelevant to these people. They use words to manipulate, whether it’s the pols in power or their propaganda arm in the media.

  60. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
    If we are going to have a discussion on why people kill others, can it at least be an honest discussion?
    The state of mental health is this nation is frightening.
    Look at the movies, the video games, what people post on social media…
    I view that as all the more reason to be armed, I need to protect myself and my family from all the wacko’s out there.
    That said this country has a bad habit of creating more and more laws, while enforcing less and less those laws already on the books.
    And it’s not just gun laws, it’s every law; from immigration law to corporate law to constitutional law, there is always some reason why so-and-so should be excluded from the laws the rest of us are bound to. Almost universally that break is given to the worst offenders, and they throw the book at the first-time offenders.
    But I am wasting my time here, the agenda is for banning self protection and government mandated mental health checks, for your protection, you see.
    Heh! Change! Like it? Keep Voting Democrat and RINO. Two sides of the same coin.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.