For Some Sensible Talk on Firearms, Watch Reason TV's Gun Rights Playlist

Guns, laws, and panics.

|

The gun debate is in the news again in the wake of a mass shooting on the campus of an Oregon community college. Are there more shootings than ever before? Should the federal government require stricter criminal background checks or mental health screenings? What about "assault weapons" bans?

Educate yourself on these questions and more by spending some time with Reason TV's gun rights playlist above, starting with "Guns, Laws, and Panics" produced in the wake of the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).

Advertisement

NEXT: Waco Biker Massacre: GQ Writer Paints a Picture of Likely Police Misconduct

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Damn Reason, I got honey do’s today. Ain’t nobody got no time for 21 videos in a row!!

  2. If only we could get some strict common sense gun laws. We should be following the example of say Mexico or Brazil. Then we could see the end of gun crimes.

    1. just like has happened in places like Chicago and New York and Baltimore and so forth, where guns are tough to come by legally. I still recall the police chief in Detroit suggesting strongly that people arm themselves for their own protection.

      1. Crossing the city limits is just like crossing a national border, vehicle searches, Customs agents, and all.

        Right.

        1. Yeah, because everyone crossing the Mexican border gets searched, it would be impossible to smuggle anything at all into this country.

  3. If you use a gun to commit a crime you go to jail, if you leave a loaded weapon someplace a child can get their hands on it and something bad happens you go to jail, otherwise your gun is no one elses business. No bans. No registration. No waiting periods. No jacking up gun and anmo taxes to make them prohibitively expensive. CCW should not require a permit.

    1. if you leave a loaded weapon someplace a child can get their hands on it and something bad happens you go to jail

      You realize this is not the law in most of the country. And most of the people on this site have opposed laws like this in the past.

      1. Yes, I do realize that. It obviously depends on the recklessness involved. If you have elementry age children playing at your house on a regular basis and you keep a loaded gun just lying around I believe you are responsible if something bad happens.

        1. Leaving the gun out by itself should not be a crime. If you educate the kids who will be near the gun to the point where they can be responsible around it, then leaving it there just might enable them to save a life is something crazy happens.

          1. Like I said it goes back to recklessness. Did the adult who is supposed to be the responsible one act with reckless disregard.

            1. Too reasonable and realistic. The gun banners don’t want real solutions such as the ones you recommend. They want excuses to control people, and you’re not helping them disarm their political enemies.

  4. OT: Holy hell… 700+ comments last night? I’m almost afraid to look.

    1. That’s because last post was PM links at 4:30. I missed it. Was out partying.

    2. Bo showed up and tried really hard to get attention.

      It’s one of the more pathetic things I’ve seen in the history of HnR.

      1. Someone pathetic showed up and tried really hard to get attention.

        It’s one of the more Bo things I’ve seen in the history of HnR.

        Works either way

        1. And he’s already back in this very thread! Poor Tulpy-Poo, so lonely this weekend. His Fleshlight wore out and he could only get three day priority delivery.

  5. The noxious belief that the existence and presence of an inanimate object, or a category of objects, is the cause of murder, robbery, rape, and the numerous other violent crimes committed throughout the world daily is almost unaddressably idiotic. Its sheer stupidity takes me aback repeatedly and unfailingly with every one of its invocations I read, or hear.

    Permanently infantile, psychoemotionally retarded snowflakes regularly demand prohibition, cowering in abject terror at the sight of weaponry, because they don’t understand responsibility, independence, and freedom. Evil exists, and that means we must disarm ourselves and pray for its acquiescence to our pacifistic wishful thinking, according to these morons.

    Enshrine in our general culture once more a thorough knowledge of, and respect for, personal weaponry, deconstruct the authoritarian projects that give birth to this sort of crime, and raise men and women instead of the half-grown, dysfunctional tadpoles we produce so abundantly today, and you’ll witness improvement. Until that day, I suppose we’ll just have to watch these statists continuously shit their pants at every turn.

    1. The noxious belief that the existence and presence of an inanimate object, or a category of objects, is the cause of murder, robbery, rape, and the numerous other violent crimes committed throughout the world daily is almost unaddressably idiotic.

      It’s called animism and it’s depressingly common.

      1. You’re only saying that because the spirit of your guns has possessed you.

  6. Oh you Americans, don’t you understand Evil Banality of Guns. You are so lucky you have a Canadian who deigned to live among you savages explain, not that you’ll listen.

    Allow students to carry weapons, issue weapons to professors, hire armed undercover mercenaries, install gun racks in class, whatever. Just make sure more and more people have guns.

    It sounds crazed, but as America’s gun anarchy grows, it has a weird logic.

    Common-sense solutions ? like the crackdown Australia imposed after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 ? are not just politically impossible in America, they’re impossible, period.

    1. People who drive square-wheeled cars will never understand.

    2. as America’s gun anarchy grows

      It does?

      1. A Canadian journalist said so! Who can argue with that?

        The article is just an amazing mixture of stupidity and mendacity, sprinkled all the way through with Obama worship. Makes me proud that my tax money contributed to it, in a very minor way.

      2. I’m not even sure what “gun anarchy” means.

        Is the relative lack of laws regarding party balloons considered “party balloon anarchy”?

        1. Nobody needs more than one party balloon.

          1. sad clown:(

        2. Obviously you missed Felony Release of Balloons:
          http://articles.sun-sentinel.c…..ood-storks

      3. Pew, 2013 = Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993; Public Unaware

        “National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data…. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm?assaults, robberies and sex crimes?was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades….’

        They note – declines since 2000 are slower, but the trend is still negative.

        The real kicker = ALMOST NO ONE BELIEVES IT

        “”Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower.

        1. Job done.

          /American media

  7. The biggest reason why the scum in the JournoList are drawing such disproportionate attention to these killings nowadays is because they need anything they can get to distract people’s attention and avoid talking about what a complete and utter disaster this lowlife president Block Insane Yomomma is, and the incredible damage that his policies are doing around the world.

  8. If only we had common-sense airstrike control

    1. Politicians are incapable of learning from history and incapable of making policy based upon known (proven?) strategy. They must bend to feelz of the ignorant, or worse, bend the ignorant to a position that benefits his political position rather than accomplishes the desired objective.

      It’s always been that way and probably always will be.

      Limited warfare is a self licking ice cream cone. It is to little to ever actually accomplish the stated (legitimate?) objective, and just enough to create further opposition, ensuring the conflict never ends.

      1. I think the politicians mainly respond to what the people want. Nobody wants to see dead bodies lying around. That picture of the dead child on the beach? That’s what war is, folks. Lots of destruction and suffering. The more total the war, the more sad pictures. Because the voters don’t want to see that, war has been sanitized for their protection, made even easier in the States once the DoD realized how easy it is to enlist reporters to essentially serve as an unpaid PR department.

        1. War is immoral. Always. Which is exactly what makes it something to be avoided.

          Instead of being the option of last resort it has become the first tool to come out of the box. We’ve redefined “threat” from nuclear annihilation of most of the planet to anyone we don’t agree with that might have cross words with us in the future.

          Here is a general rule for killing people without due process…

          If the situation isn’t dire enough to wage total war over, you prolly shouldn’t be there to begin with. (Not speaking of retaliatory strikes against open aggressors.)

          Either commit to it (when the situation actually warrants it) with all that entails, or leave it in the box.

          1. Now that IS common sense gun policy.

    1. They may not hold on to the House either, with ICE employing a strategy of detaining (and subsequently releasing) illegals in Republican districts.

      1. I don’t think there’s any way the Democrats could take Congress in 2016.

        1. They shouldn’t have any problem if the Republicans keep rolling over for Obama like they have been since the last election. The RNC must issue them lube as soon as they are sworn in.

  9. If you want to see sensible talk, don’t read John Paul Stevens’ WaPo op-ed. And, whatever you do, don’t read the one in USA Toady from the guy whose daughter got shot on teevee.

    If you want a lot of melodramatic anguish, on the other hand…

  10. I know I’m probably going to get flamed for even mentioning this, but the shooter in this case was rejected from a gun training class in 2013 because some of his statements alarmed the instructors. A similar thing happened with the Aurora shooter, whose application to a Colorado gun club was turned down because one of the club officers considered his voice mailbox message to be indicative of craziness.

    Should incidents like this be triggers for an immediate and binding investigation of the person’s suitability to own a firearm? The people who recognized these problems are unquestionably pro-gun. It’s not like the proposal to have doctors and psychiatrists determine whether someone can own a gun. I’ve never heard of a person being preemptively turned down for a gun class, so it’s not like many innocent people would be affected.

    1. “Should incidents like this be triggers for an immediate and binding investigation of the person’s suitability to own a firearm?”

      No. The conversation in this country has gotten fixated on the fact of guns themselves, and has shifted away from people like this guy being psychotic mass murderers. If he was so gung ho on slaughtering a bunch of Christians, simply taking his gun away wasn’t going to make everyone safe.

      If more people around on campus had had guns on them, however, a lot fewer people would have died.

      1. Sure, he may have found other ways to harm people. But having a gun makes it possible to harm a lot of people in a short time and with little possibility of getting harmed oneself, to an extent that no other easily available weapon does — the very reason why people want them for self defense.

        1. “to an extent that no other easily available weapon does ”

          Howzabout pressure cookers?

        2. “But having a gun makes it possible to harm a lot of people in a short time and with little possibility of getting harmed oneself, to an extent that no other easily available weapon does”

          And there is no getting around this. You can set up all the gun free zones and gun bans in the world and still a motivated criminal will find the means to acquire a gun, while neutering law abiding citizens from protecting themselves.

        3. But having a gun makes it possible to harm a lot of people in a short time and with little possibility of getting harmed oneself, to an extent that no other easily available weapon does…

          The three worst mass murders in recent US. history:
          Happy Land Night Club fire – 90+ dead* – can of gasoline
          Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City – 160+ dead – truckload of fertilizer
          9-11 – 3,000+ dead – box cutter

          Nary a gun in sight.

          * That’s about 3 times the worst mass shooting, at VA Tech

          1. This is why I come to this site, thank you.

    2. Ima make the Tulpa call right now.

      1. It does smell fairly Tulpical, doesn’t it. Kind of like…rotten mackerel.

          1. It’s astounding that he has kept this going for so long.

            1. He’s a nutcase. This is what nutcases do.

            2. I aim to impress.

              1. But you fail so miserably, Tulpy-Poo.

    3. Lots of people are considered weirdos due to beliefs that are outside the Overton window politically or religiously. Ajnd lots of us weirdos look at regular people–the sort who experienced gate-rape under Obama and then watched him murder multiple US citizens in his Star Chamber, then reelected him in a landslide–and wash our hands of all responsibility for political and human affairs.

      If being weird is sufficient to warrant state investigation and “medical” diagnoses that permit a person who has been convicted of no crime to be incarcerated, then we should commence plans to go Galt posthaste and find a new home where the exceptional and exceptionally weird are not persecuted by the state for being unusual.

    4. “Should incidents like this be triggers for an immediate and binding investigation of the person’s suitability to own a firearm?”

      Sure, if you want victims’ families in every mass shooting to sue any gun club he ever belonged to for failure to notify the authorities.

  11. Stevens:

    Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands. Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.

    It is true, of course, that the public’s reaction to the massacre of schoolchildren, such as the Newtown killings, and the 2013 murder of government employees at the Navy Yard in Washington, may also introduce a strong emotional element into the debate. That aspect of the debate is, however, based entirely on facts rather than fiction. The law should encourage intelligent discussion of possible remedies for what every American can recognize as an ongoing national tragedy.

    Our hysterical weeping and wailing is justified.
    You’re just being a bunch of crybabies.

    1. It’s called projection, P. And it’s what people like this do.

      1. I’m just wondering when we will reach the tipping point where it becomes fashionable on the left to outright call for banning and confiscation of guns.

        Yes, yes, we all know that’s what they ultimately want and would implement in a heartbeat if they could, but it seems that until very recently they were smart enough to assure America that they only wanted “common-sense” things like background checks.

        But since those have been proven to not actually stop mass shootings, they’re now inching towards the banning/confiscation topic. After all, they keep saying that Australia is the model solution to this and Australia banned and confiscated people’s guns.

        So the ultimate irony is that (and this is, as you say, projection) we can’t have a “conversation” if one side isn’t willing to be honest and forthright about what they actually want, which is Team Blue and the gun-grabbers.

        1. In the 1980s and 1990s, before the surge in gun rights activism that followed the 1994 AWB, the Left were very explicit and very public about wanting to ban guns. Which would be a problem for them now when they say they just want “common sense gun safety laws”, were it not for the lapdog media.

          1. It’s a massive problem for them now thanks to alt media. The online RKBA movement has a huge presence with radical libertarianism providing it its intellectual and moral core, and it’s not difficult to find superior alternatives to the sorts of pabulum you find at CNN or ABC.

            And the fact that the RKBA movement has really morphed into a community where we can invite newbies to the range or introduce our anti friends to the basics without too much overt proselytizing speaks well of the future, to say nothing of the importance of 3D printing and other authoritarian-despised technologies.

        2. I’m just wondering when we will reach the tipping point where it becomes fashionable on the left to outright call for banning and confiscation of guns.

          Well, they’re already citing Australia as their ideal, they just neglect to mention what the Australia model actually is because they know it would lose them elections to admit it.

          However, they’re not going to call for the banning of guns explicitly any time soon. They won’t do that because support for gun rights is actually at an all time high and they’d get crushed if they tried to get rid of guns. They lost multiple high ranking state senators in Colorado for a relatively mild gun control initiative, and I think they learned their lesson. They’ll bitch but they won’t do anything.

          1. They lost multiple high ranking state senators in Colorado for a relatively mild gun control initiative, and I think they learned their lesson.

            They’re still blocking the repeal of that law and getting away with it. Governor Hickenlooper certainly got away with it.

            And the Colorado gun-rights community is too stupid and intransigent to compromise and peel away a couple of Dems in the state senate to partially repeal it.

            1. You have to understand the First Rule of Politicians – get re-elected at all costs. Even if they haven’t managed to get rid of the law yet, politicians all around the country saw what happened in Colorado and they are not risking their jobs on this kind of gun law, much less advocating for outright bans.

              1. Yes, they saw the governor who signed it survive reelection, along with most of the Democrats who voted for it. And those who get voted out of office for “doing the right thing” get cushy consulting gigs with leftist firms or “nonprofits”.

                1. Tulpa, you’re talking nonsense.

                  The Colorado state legislature FLIPPED TO THE REPUBLICANS because of that law. This means all the people who previously had powerful chairs on the various committees? Yeah, they lost those chairs and those chairs went to Republicans. All the opportunities to reward your buddies that you get from controlling the legislature? Now the Republicans have that.

                  If you don’t think politicians around the country were shocked that the Colorado speaker of the assembly lost his seat in a backlash over gun rights, then you’re insane. Furthermore, they didn’t just lose their seats – they lost the first recall elections to ever be lost in the history of Colorado.

                  1. The Colorado state legislature FLIPPED TO THE REPUBLICANS

                    No. The Dems still control one chamber (the state House), which is why the magazine limit is still in place.

                    And the Dem governor who advocated for and signed that bill got reelected during one of the best elections for the GOP in modern history.

          2. One of the interesting points about the Australia ban which nobody seems to want to mention – they only got about 15 to 20% compliance. The lion’s share of the guns which were banned were not turned in.

        3. Yes, exactly. They are projecting their own intransigence on the subject onto everyone else, just like they do with everything. But the core here is their animism, and how their projection interacts with that. It’s why they accuse people of having guns as penis extensions or whine about them clutching their guns in fear; it’s the projection of their own animism onto the rest of us non-animists. They assume we are just as emotionally invested in an inanimate object as a supernatural token as they are. Because they are such amazingly limited thinkers, they can only think that we are just like them, except we love the tokens and worship them instead of fearing and hating them like they do.

          They are deeply, deeply stupid. Matt’s gun exchange from yesterday should be a pretty good indicator of that. The reason he was able to punk the shit out of the person with the stop and frisk question is they don’t think. Remember that, always. They are not logical. They are not thinkers, and this is why logical argument after logical argument fails with them.

          What do you do when you are dealing with someone whom you can not reason with? Who will not see logic, they only feel emotion?

    2. “Emotional claims”

      The progs should get their talking points straight.

      That highly informative video above had the National Review reporter ask the two progs repeatedly what specific policies they advocated and the progs didn’t suggest anything other than having “passion.” And they were indignant that Cooke kept talking about the complexity of the situation and focusing on the failure of various “solutions.”

      But people will eat up Stevens’ statement that it’s those other people who are emotional.

  12. Matt Welch on Real Time with Bill Maher

    He did an excellent job, I think. The look of discomfort on the Dem shill’s face when he pointed out that stop and frisk was a gun control measure is priceless.

    1. 1000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook?

      Fuck you for making me watch that, Serious.

      1. Exposure to smug idiocy builds character and a thick skin, both of which will be needed after the 2016 imperial election.

      2. The “1000 mass shootings” claim comes from a site that counts every time 3 or more people are shot even if zero of them die.

        There are literally hundreds of ‘mass shootings’ that therefore resulted in zero fatalities that they use to puff up the numbers.

        1. How many of those mass shooting were done by cops?

          1. Does it fucking matter? It’s a bullshit statistic.

    2. The look of discomfort on the Dem shill’s face when he pointed out that stop and frisk was a gun control measure is priceless.

      And everything Democrats claim to hate about the War on Drugs would also be a gun control measure. I don’t know how Democrats deal with the cognitive dissonance of a) being angry so many Americans are in jail and b) wanting to throw millions of Americans in jail for gun possession.

      1. There’s also the cognitive dissonance or believing that:

        1) Cops are racist scum that habitually abuse minorities.

        2) Those racist scum are the only element of society that can be trusted with the possession of firearms.

      2. I’m still trying to figure out how it is that asking for an ID to vote is the worst racism since slavery, but it’s perfectly fine (and in fact, a good idea) to ask firearm buyers for ID, make them fill out a 4473 form that asks for your ethnicity, undergo a background check, and in some states, make them register with the authorities just for doing what the Constitution explicitly says they are allowed to do.

    3. Ahh, purple tie with navy. Banging.

  13. “Should incidents like this be triggers for an immediate and binding investigation of the person’s suitability to own a firearm?”

    That will do nothing to prevent a motivated insane person from acquiring a firearm or resorting to other means of harm. I think removing gun free zones and a campaign to convince people that only they are responsible for their security would be a start.

    1. It’s not as easy to buy a gun illegally as the gun-rights dogma seems to think.

      A lot of the people here oppose the laws regarding gun purchase requirements. Yet I suspect that none of them have ever tried to ignore those laws and buy a gun on the black market. Why? Because it’s difficult and dangerous to do if you don’t know the right people.

      If the cunt responsible for this shooting had tried to approach some street gang members and asked to buy a gun from them, they’d probably think he was a cop or an informant and treat him thusly.

      1. Otherwise law abiding people manage to get cocaine and heroin without too much difficulty.

        It’s preferable to buy guns legally for the reasons you stated, but especially in the era of the internet it is not that difficult to find a way to come into possession of an illegal firearm.

        1. In the era of the internet it’s much more difficult to determine whether the person you’re making a deal with is a cop or informant.

        2. Exactly. There is not a huge black market for guns currently because they are relatively easy to obtain legally. Should that change the black market will become much more prominent, the same way it did with alcohol when it was banned and the same reason it has with tobacco where sin taxes have made it prohibitively expensive.

          1. Alcohol is easy to make inside our borders, and cigarettes are legal (and thus easily stolen or otherwise “lost” from the legal market).

            None of these arguments apply to a potential gun black market.

            1. Dumbering Down: the term for when Tulpa has already been shown to be clearly wrong but he just. Won’t. Stop. Digging. Like with address parsing, amirite, Tulpy-Poo?

              1. Listen, dumbass, Tulpa has his ass and he pulls facts out of it, and they’re obviously true, because it’s his ass. He has a PhD, you know. He’s an authority. Well, he probably doesn’t, because he’s an abject liar, but still. What do you have, tough guy?

                1. A…uh…a tighter ass?

            2. Alcohol is easy to make inside our borders, … None of these arguments apply to a potential gun black market.

              Firearm manufacturing is 19th Century technology. (The first production semiauto rifle was the Mannlicher Model of 1885.)

              Tribesman in Pakistan who barely have electricity manufacture modern firearms of all kinds for the black market. Their children make ammunition.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FinRqCocwGE

              Picture that in Appalachia, or Louisiana, or many Indian reservations.

            3. Last time I checked, nobody is talking about getting rid of guns for the military or police, so there will be guns being made and sold within the United States. Unless of course you’d like to ban gun manufacturing domestically? Also, what will happen to the at least 300 million guns currently in circulation? I assume they will just magically vanish and nobody will ever buy or sell one?

              Alcohol is indeed easy to make, so please explain how the black market happened during prohibition. Was it less easy to make at that time? Have the laws of nature changed since the 1930s?

            4. You clearly don’t know jack about how guns are made. It’s actually pretty simple for someone with a CNC machine to make one if they have the blueprints, which are widely available on the Internet. Not to mention the fact that with 3D printers getting better and cheaper every day, there will probably come a point when people can download and print a fully functional pistol with a few clicks of a mouse.

              Also, do you think that the Mexican drug cartels won’t step up to fill the demand for guns if they are outlawed here? They don’t seem to have much trouble moving their other products across that border.

              (No, I’m not saying we need to build a giant wall; I’m just stating the fact that smuggling things into the US is not exactly difficult)

      2. I didn’t say it was easy. I don’t know. I said it was a matter of motivation. I guarantee though if guns are banned, they will be easier to acquire on the black market. The street gang member you referenced has a gun and probably a criminal record that wouldn’t allow him a legal means of purchase.

        1. Normal people don’t buy guns on the black market because they can get them legally. It’s the same reason normal people don’t buy booze on the black market now but did during prohibition.

          1. Normal people don’t buy guns on the black market because they can get them legally.

            After undergoing a more or less arduous process and paying extensive fees, depending on where you live.

            Cigarettes are legal but there is still an enormous black market for them, as our friend Eric Garner knew well.

            1. There is an enormous black market in New York, not in most other places. Taxes there have produced artificially high prices which makes the black market a viable proposition. The risk of legal trouble and cost of smuggling in tobacco products only becomes worth it once the cost of buying legally exceeds the opportunity costs of the black market business.

              Look, there’s very little incentive to have a black market in guns currently, although since there are millions of unregistered firearms there is already a grey market as these weapons are transferred. I have family members that have multiple firearms and would undoubtedly sell or give one to me if I asked. I’d imagine the same is true for lots of people. There’s no law that’s going to fix that.

        2. He also has extensive connections and reputation in the criminal world, which a mentally ill or otherwise slightly-off person does not have.

          If guns are banned they would be harder to find on the black market, because the supply chain would be disrupted (fewer guns to steal). Not that I support a gun ban of any kind.

          1. “If guns are banned they would be harder to find on the black market, because the supply chain would be disrupted (fewer guns to steal). Not that I support a gun ban of any kind.”

            The price decline in illegal drugs over the last 30 years says different.

          2. Really Tulpa?

            The same story unfolds in the data for heroin and cocaine. Prices for both drugs are down by eighty percent, while heroin purity is up sixty percent and cocaine purity is up eleven percent in the United States. In Europe, the price of heroin dropped seventy-four percent and cocaine price dropped fifty-one percent. Prices declined and purity rose despite ever-increasing seizures of those drugs and eradication of the drug crops globally.

            1. Cocaine and heroin are smuggled in across our borders from countries where they are more plentiful. That won’t work with guns because the US is the place where guns are smuggled from.

              1. “Cocaine and heroin are smuggled in across our borders from countries where they are more plentiful. That won’t work with guns because the US is the place where guns are smuggled from.”

                Because guns cannot be manufactured anywhere outside of the U.S. and smuggled into the country.
                Got it.

                1. Where are they going to be manufactured? The US is by far the biggest gun exporter (legal and illegal) in the world. And manufacturing a gun is much, much harder than making alcohol, cocaine, or heroin.

                  1. “Where are they going to be manufactured? The US is by far the biggest gun exporter (legal and illegal) in the world. And manufacturing a gun is much, much harder than making alcohol, cocaine, or heroin.”

                    Because cocaine can be grown anywhere whereas guns can only be made in the U.S. due to the water or something.

                    1. Our water has electrolytes, what guns crave.

              2. Jesus fucking Christ Tulpa.

                Okay – the reason you would see an inversion of the gun supply chain would be because the US would no longer be a source. However, there is literally nothing stopping people in other countries from illegally producing guns like they do in the Philippines.

                Moreover, there’s nothing stopping AMERICANS from setting up a shop where they produce illegal guns as well. In fact, it would be easier to do than it is to produce meth since you couldn’t control random pieces of shop equipment the way they try to control the components of meth.

                Why wouldn’t some of the meth super labs in Mexico just get converted to gunsmiths? There might be fewer guns in America, but the fewer guns would be from the hands of people with no desire to kill anyone. Anybody who wanted to commit a murder would be able to get a gun easily in such a scenario.

                Plus, with 300 million guns already in civilian hands, those guns alone would keep every criminal in the country well stocked for the next 20 years, even without any new gun production.

                1. Are those 300M guns going to be handed over to the black marketeers all of a sudden? When the Aussie gun ban went into effect, virtually all the newly illegalized guns were destroyed.

                    1. Love the bit about not being able to stop the flow of weaponry across state borders ‘without the proper control’.

                      How can you say ‘you vill show me your papiss’ in an Aussie accent?

            2. Oh man he’s so Tulpical. No matter what he tries, his abject stupidity always shines through.

      3. It’s not as easy to buy a gun illegally as the gun-rights dogma seems to think.

        Just for the heck of it, to prove a point, I recently sought out to purchase a handgun with no background check. Didn’t take very long before I got one. Just a .22, but it proved my point. It’s not difficult at all.

      4. “It’s not as easy to buy a gun illegally as the gun-rights dogma seems to think.”

        Well, that’s because we’ve got crack teams of Law Enforcement personnel out there making sure the public is SAFE from the scourge of “illegal guns”…. like in Mount Vernon NY, where during the course of an “Undercover Illegal Gun-Buy-Sting”…. police shot and killed an innocent bystander when the ‘perp’ decided to hoof it in the opposite direction.

        Oh, and they opened fire despite knowing that the perp was holding a BB gun? (cop) Safety First!

        1. … But Obama won’t hold a sob-fest press release for THAT victim of gun violence.

          1. I wonder if this was classified as a Mass Shooting. 9 were wounded?

  14. On CNN this morning, their pet shrink was buy deflecting attention from “mental health” issues. “Now, hold on, a minute. We’re doctors, not psychics!”

    She wants to highlight the correlation between (completely nebulous and nonspecific) previous police interactions and substance abuse issues on the part of people who go on to commit mass shootings.

    I suspect they all ate toast, too. If only we could cross reference the database for people who buy bread, own toasters, and subsequently attempt to purchase a firearm, we could end the madness!

  15. Hey, anyone want proof about what a high minimum wage does to an economy? Prior to 1974, Puerto Rico had its own minimum wage. In 1974, Congress decided this was unacceptable, and passed a law normalizing the minimum wage between Puerto Rico and the rest of America.

    Here’s what happened next.

    You might have to scroll down, but in that link there is a graph of Puerto Rico’s unemployment and LFP rates starting in 1960. In 1974, Puerto Rico’s unemployment rate went up every year for half a decade (after being relatively stable since 1960) until it eventually doubled by 1980 and Puerto Rico had 20% unemployment. Furthermore, the employment to population ratio fell from 78% in 1974 to 58% by the mid-80s and has never recovered to its pre-minimum wage increase levels.

    Now imagine what it would do to Puerto Rico if we doubled the minimum wage to $15/hr. Progressives are basically talking about destroying the livelihood of everyone on that island.

    There is absolutely no evidence that a minimum wage is destructive though. Tony told me.

    1. So what if raising tobacco taxes encourages people to quit, and carbon taxes encourage people to burn less or find alternatives? That’s the intention!

      Raising the cost of hiring young and unskilled labor is not intended to result in fewer of such workers being hired, so it could not possibly be the result!

      Besides that, workers are people! Basic economic laws should not apply to workers! That’s unfair!

    2. Progressives are basically talking about destroying the livelihood of everyone on that island.

      A $15 minimum wage is about to destroy the livelihood of everyone in economically-distressed upstate NY too but that isn’t stopping Cuomo. It’s almost as if the employment to population ratio is not something they care about, and there is instead some other motive.

      1. If one is cynical, one could point out that more unemployment and poverty “proves” we “need” more government spending.

        1. I’m sure that’s not at all what they’re thinking. I’m also sure that MW agitators do not have in mind getting theirs and throwing everyone who gets laid off under the bus.

    3. Hey, anyone want proof about what a high minimum wage does to an economy?

      That’s like providing proof of what jumping off the top of your office building does to your health.

      Price theory is the core insight of economic understanding. That we still have presumably honest people running around lobbying for price controls of any sort is evidence that we’re still fundamentally a race of superstitious idiots.

      1. You needed more evidence?

  16. I’m just wondering when we will reach the tipping point where it becomes fashionable on the left to outright call for banning and confiscation of guns.

    Just look at all the people braying about how awesome the Australian Model is.

    1. I love walking people into that trap. I get to call them racist.

  17. Someday, I’ll read all the way through a comment before responding to it.

    Someday.

    Maybe.

  18. All this whimwham about “sensible gun safety laws” is just an appeal to magic.

    If only we could get the spell right, nothing bad would ever happen.

    NEEDZ MOAR EYE OF NEWT

  19. Lauren Southern’s university gave her a gag order saying she wasn’t allowed to talk about the women’s studies class she’s taking.

    Note: They claimed that “people” in the class couldn’t talk about it without saying this was true of Southern specifically, but I’m willing to bet someone mentioned what she was doing to the teacher and that’s why this “rule” was put in place.

    Oh, Canada.

    1. We’re awesome, aren’t we?

      I wonder if she’ll get even 200 votes this election. Wish I could vote for her, but, wrong riding.

  20. It’s not as easy to buy a gun illegally as the gun-rights dogma seems to think.

    Not as easy to buy one legally as those shitbags claim, either.
    I’m weary of hearing about how you can buy a gun over the internet with just a few mouse clicks.

  21. OT: Sheriff Joey Terrell of Habersham County, Georgia, who excused and joked about his deputies flash banging and maiming Bou Bou Thometheva, was shot and injured by another cop at a domestic violence call (the officer who shot him was the subject of the call.

    I’m not going to comment here, because it feels wrong, but… yeah.

    1. It is worth a comment, because Sheriff Farva is going to live.

      On Sunday, Sheriff Terrell and Deputy William Zigan were dispatched to a domestic disturbance that involved former Gainesville city police officer Anthony Giaquinta. Giaquinta was recently fired from his job at the Gainesville Police Department, but as of now the reason for his termination is unknown.

      When police arrived on the scene, they found Giaquinta’s ex-wife dead in the garage of the home.

      The suspect then shot both Terrell and Zigan, then fled the scene and began a search that ended just before midnight, when police found the bodies of two men, including Anthony Giaquinta.

  22. There is an agenda to ban guns. PERIOD. Any incident involving a gun will be used to further that goal.

    The bottom line is, that there IS an acceptable level of gun violence. Just like there is an acceptable level of deaths caused by prescription drugs. Just like there is an acceptable level of airplane crashes, or rapes, or murders, or car accidents, or babies drowning in buckets of water…

    The real problem is, statistically speaking, there is no problem to solve. Only manufactured hysteria to further an agenda.

    1. True. There are, what, 100 million gun owners who are obeying the law? And somehow, every time there’s a gun crime, the “common sense approach” is to crack down on the 100 million.

  23. Also-

    I’m no fan of JEB! but I cannot help but be appalled at how flagrantly dishonest the attacks on him over that “stuff happens” quote have been.

    1. I don’t even understand why they’re attacking him. They’ve been successfully blaming Bush for their own fuckups for eight years now, why wouldn’t they want to run against an actual Bush?

      1. Republicans always get flak from the MSM. Sometimes they let up a bit, temporarily, to try to steer things a certain way, but that’s about it.

  24. Corning has lost his mind.

    He thinks ENB is getting paid to promote Gawker links on the grounds that a URL she posted in PM links contained the term UTM_campaign. UTM_campaign is a thing that pays people to promote links.

    Problem: She very easily could have found that link on twitter, clicked on it, and then copy and posted the URL into PM links. In that case, just like the URL I just posted, it would contain the term UTM_campaign even though ENB would not be getting paid.

    All this proves is that at some point someone was posting this from a paid campaign and ENB copied the URL.

    1. Makes sense.

      OT: Sweden is having a lot of fun with immigration.

      During the last few decades, Swedes have had to get used to the government (left and right wing parties alike) prioritizing refugees and migrants above native Swedes. The high tax level (the average worker pays 42% income tax) was been accepted in the past, because people knew that if they got sick, or when they retired or otherwise needed government aid, they would get it.

      Now, Swedes see the welfare system failing them. More and more senior citizens fall into the “indigent” category; close to 800,000 of Sweden’s 2.1 million retirees, despite having worked their whole lives, are forced to live on between 4,500 and 5,500 kronor ($545 – $665) a month. Meanwhile, seniors who immigrate to Sweden receive the so-called “elderly support subsidy” — usually a higher amount — even though they have never paid any taxes in Sweden.

      Worse, in 2013 the government decided that people staying in the country illegally have a right to virtually free health and dental care. So while the destitute Swedish senior citizen must choose between paying 100,000 kronor ($12,000) to get new teeth or living toothless, a person who does not even have the right to stay in Sweden can get his teeth fixed for 50 kronor ($6).

    2. Moreover, Corning’s own post proves that ENB wasn’t the one getting paid for this. Here’s the important part:

      SocialFlow
      http://www.socialflow.com/
      SocialFlow
      SocialFlow uses real-time data and business rules to determine what and when to publish to your social media properties for both owned and paid social posts.

      In other words, how this works is that it posts links to your twitter and facebook. It would not post a link to Reason automatically. Therefore, what happened is that someone was using this campaign on social media, and that link got passed around until ENB copied it and pasted it into the PM links.

      He’s gone completely insane.

      1. Who gives a shit.

    3. Gah, I’m not wading into that stew. Besides, I’m too busy laughing at Chelsea, their goon fans, and their goon manager.

    4. All of my Facebook links have UTM Social Flow.

    5. UTM_campaign is a thing that pays people to promote links.

      utm_campaign URL parameters do not necessarily indicate a paid campaign is taking place; They are used with Google Analytics to help track what promotional campaigns — including, but not limited to, paid ones — brought users to your site (and IIUC, their conversion rates and whatnot). Of course this is often / usually going to be applied to paid promotional campaigns, but not always.

      (And they certainly don’t pay people or monetize links.)

      As to Corning’s ravings specifically:

      SocialFlow uses real-time data and business rules to determine what and when to publish to your social media properties for both owned and paid social posts.

      My bold

      Here is the tweet from the author of article linking it.

      That link in that tweet does not have the monetizing tracker URL….

      The Deadspin Twitter account posted the same URL ENB did (click through the shortener).

      So hey — an owned social post (as Corning neglected to bold) with SocialFlow / Google Analytics URL parameters. Shocking!

      1. Oh, and even without knowing what utm_* URL parameters are or what Deadspin posted to its Twitter feed, the idea that ENB is getting paid to promote Gawker articles through a monetizing tracker URL is moronic simply because for that to work, her paymasters would have to provide her / Reason with a unique URL, which this is clearly not

        P.S. If you’re curious, the U in UTM stands for Urchin, which is what Google Analytics was called before Google acquired it. The TM stands for Tracking Module, IIRC.

        P.P.S. If you’re not aware, Google Analytics is a platform that allows, at its simplest, sites to add a snippet of code to their pages that tracks data about their users. Some paranoid people view this as somehow nefarious, but it is just to get people to spend money on Google’s advertising products (plus there is a paid premium/enterprise version).

  25. GAMERGATEGAMERGATEGAMERGATEGAMERGATEGAMERGATE

    We’re all just dupes of the vast SJW conspiracy.

    1. All you sjw’s are mad because we are winning.

  26. There was something we could have done.

    Back during the Los Angeles riots, after rioters started shooting firefighters, the U.S. could have sent some bombers from Edwards Air Force Base and bomb the shit out of the rioters. this would have been followed up by the Army seizing control of Los Angeles. For “[y]ou don’t fight a junkyard dog with ASPCA rules. What you do is you take the leash off your bigger, meaner dog”. And this would be a permanent state of affairs. Civil administration in Los Angeles would be abolished. Soldiers would patrol every street, occupy every point. And there would be zero tolerance for the slightest of disorderly conduct. Any disorderly conduct will be met with lethal force. There will also be arbirtrary arrests and searches, and even the slightest resistance would be met with lethal force.

    This would cause the people to fear the U.S. military, And this fear would keep them in line. Thus, Los Angeles would have become the safest city on Earth. The model of governance- ruling by the fear of force- would no doubt have been followed by other cities. There would be no more mass shootings, because fear would keep the population in line.

    What would have been the downside of “tak[ing] the leash off [our] bigger, meaner dog”?

    1. Nothing. There would be no downside.

    2. Posse Comitatus is more than just the name of an awesome bourbon stout I’m brewing this winter.

      1. I just picked up ingredients for pumpkin ale. Thinking of using Marris Otter as the base malt with a hefty dose of Special B. Then five cans of pumpkin right into the mash. Mash at 152 or so, then a mild addition of English Kent Goldings in the boil. Then some spices at the end of the boil. I’ll try for a SG of 1.050.

        Then later this winter I plan to make a lager with Thai chilis.

        1. Then five cans of pumpkin right into the mash… Then later this winter I plan to make a lager with Thai chilis.

          You are a serious man. I can’t recall ever having a pumpkin ale that actually had pumpkin in it; mostly they just seem to be less boozy variants of spiced holiday ales.

          I like the high-grav quads and stouts come winter, but this year I’m really looking forward to a few gallons of milk-jug mead and melomel.

        2. Interesting side note- at the Great American Beer Festival this year, no entry won the Pumpkin Beer category because no judge in the blind tastings felt any of the beers were of high enough quality.

          Every September, my wife goes insane with Pumpkin beer. She buys every single brand at the store for two months. It is a dark time for beer in our house.

      2. But see the Enforcement Act of 1871.

  27. This was predictable: The online hunt for Iraqi and Syrian militiamen in Europe. Though France24 is not helping by blurring the faces of the fighters.

    Europe’s unprecedented migrant crisis appears to have presented an opportunity for some Shiite militiamen fighting in the Middle East. Internet users believe they have spotted a handful of notorious fighters in photos of refugees in Europe. There is now a campaign to name and shame these alleged militiamen, as our Observer explains.

    1. This totally won’t result in innocent people being wrongly accused because they just happen to look like someone else or anything.

      1. I agree, it’s not optimum.

    2. “Name and shame”? I’m sure that will be effective.

      1. Militias are basically like conservatives, right? So you can do the same to the militia as you do to conservatives – go to their place of business, wave placards, and shout “shame on you!”

        It’s as easy as that!

  28. the U.S. could have sent some bombers from Edwards Air Force Base and bomb the shit out of the rioters. this would have been followed up by the Army seizing control of Los Angeles. For “[y]ou don’t fight a junkyard dog with ASPCA rules. What you do is you take the leash off your bigger, meaner dog”. And this would be a permanent state of affairs. Civil administration in Los Angeles would be abolished. Soldiers would patrol every street, occupy every point. And there would be zero tolerance for the slightest of disorderly conduct. Any disorderly conduct will be met with lethal force. There will also be arbirtrary arrests and searches, and even the slightest resistance would be met with lethal force.

    Nothing says, “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” like waging open warfare on American citizens.

    1. Actually, military governance of Los Angeles could only be an improvement. I hate it when they come up with incredibly sensible exceptions to the rule.

      1. also, remember that open warfare was waged on American citizens back in the early 1860’s.

  29. Another idea floating around has been to increase funding for the ATF. That seems logical. What damage has the ATF done, if any, in the past thirty years? I cannot think of anything.

  30. serious question: would it be outrageously against the rights of Americans to have a waiting period of 2 days plus a more extensive background and psych check on someone looking to buy a new gun that has say, a greater than 6 round mag? I mean, it seems that would be enough to at least prevent a james Holmes or the Oregon guy from legally obtaining a gun, and in our current climate it’s not exactly easy to get one on the black market. the vast majority of ppl would have no problem still obtaining firearms, but these batshit crazy outliers don’t seem that hard to spot..

    1. Who interprets the results of the more extensive background check and psych exam to determine whether the person should be allowed to own guns?

      If the answer is government bureaucrats or a medical profession that skews heavily anti gun, that’s going to be a de facto gun ban.

    2. You already have to wait 3 days for a freaking shotgun if the paper-pushers feel like it.

  31. I shouldn’t have ventured onto Facebook after a story like this. Of course, one of those Marxists with a Master’s (or something) decided to trot out the jive bullshit that we need “Background checks and mandatory training for gun purchase would be a reasonable start. Gun registration. Both these are required for a car right now.”

    All total bullshit. All you need to buy a car is cash, even from a dealer. You don’t even need to title it unless you want prima facie evidence that you own the thing. People buy cars for racing without titling or registering them all the time.*

    You don’t need a driver’s license of any kind to buy a car either. It might be handy to have one if a cop stops you on a public road, but it is certainly not a requirement for purchasing any car.

    For example, a race car. No government license required. Some race tracks issue a license for their track and such, but that is purely a private affair.

    Thing is, my whole news feed is full of these morons.

    *I’ve heard Maine requires registration even if the vehicle stays on private property, but I’ve never verified this.

    1. Here’s how one state addresses the situation.

      “? 20-4.01 Definitions….

      “(13) Highway. – The entire width between property or right-of-way lines of every way or place of whatever nature, when any part thereof is open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purposes of vehicular traffic. The terms “highway” and “street” and their cognates are synonymous.

      “? 20-4.01(30) Private Road or Driveway [definition]. – Every road or driveway not open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purpose of vehicular traffic….

      “? 20-7(a)…To drive a motor vehicle on a highway, a person must be licensed by the Division under this Article or Article 2C of this Chapter to drive the vehicle and must carry the license while driving the vehicle.”

      Caution – consult an attorney before actually trying to drive on a private road, on the off-chance you’ve overlooked some loophole.

      1. And you still don’t need one to buy a car.

  32. Okay. Raise your hands if you are getting sick of these shootings.

    So if you are sick of them, what do YOU propose we do to address the problem?

    If “gun control” or “background checks” or “banning firearms” is off the table, then what measures do you think we CAN do that might be effective?

    Obama wants to “politicize” this issue. I understand the pure frustration he feels — I think we all do to some extent. But the act of “politicizing” this in order to get something done is exactly the WRONG approach on all of this. The moment you “politicize” something, you create two or more groups with a bunker mentality and NOTHING gets done.

    Frankly, I think we all need to go back and identify the REAL problem, and it isn’t firearms or even weapons at all. It is the fact that for decades we’ve simply ignored our mentally ill population. Oh, we know when someone is “off”, — we all know that “one” person. But we don’t really pay that close attention to them. If the person is really close to us, we might even overlook some of his (and rarely her) more serious warning signs. We give wide berths…

    So far, in case after case, I have yet to hear a solution that WOULD, let alone COULD work.

    Maybe someone here has one?

    IF you do, tell us, and explain HOW you think your solution will work.

    1. A Department of Pre-Crime should do the trick.

    2. Eliminate the gun free zones.

      Apparently these “mentally ill” folk are not mentally ill enough to pick a gun show to do their shooting. Their very special mental illness, that everybody under the sun seems to think needs more medicine or something, draws them to places where normal people won’t be packing.

      Then there is whatever the hell this common medication that they are on,

  33. Ban them/progderp

  34. Portantino is despicable. So because he and others like him need to feel better about themselves, people should be barred from protecting themselves. Only law enforcement and his security detail have those rights. And then his explanation that when going down Main Street, folks loose all their rights is disgusting.

    Just because one person is comfortable being obese, doesn’t mean that gives that person a right to infringe upon the rights of other people who aren’t comfortable.

    So if you don’t want to see someone’s firearm because you are a danger to liberty not, nor uphold your oath for the matter, than others don’t want to see your morbidly obese body, or be forced to pay for your healthcare.

  35. Linda Stasi is calling for the NRA to go on the terror list. OMFG! These people want nothing more than control. They ignore reality, and bring up all these places where if folks were armed there would be no massacre.

    But no, they want everyone to be weak and defenseless so they can feel better about themselves.

    Fuck off slaver!

  36. Best line: Crazy people are going to do crazy things and no law is going to stop them.

    Worst line: You don’t need a handgun to order a cheeseburger.

    But, you know, Do Something! Anything! Now!

  37. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    http://www.HomeJobs90.Com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.