Mass Shootings

The New York Times Explains Why Neither Psychiatry Nor Background Checks Can Stop Mass Shooters

Their profile is shared by many people who never kill anyone.



The New York Times notes that mass shooters tend to share certain traits, including isolation, anger, and depression. But that does not mean they can be identified before they commit their crimes, because many other people with these traits never kill anyone. "What seems telling about the killers," says the Times, "is not how much they have in common but how much they look and seem like so many others who do not inflict harm." As Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, an expert on mass murders, tells the paper, "The big problem is that the kind of pattern that describes them describes tens of thousands of Americans—even people who write awful things on Facebook or the Internet. We can't round up all the people who scare us." Duke University psychiatrist Jeffrey Swanson concurs:

Sure, you've got these risk factors, but they also describe thousands of people who are never going to commit a mass shooting. You can't go out and round up all the alienated angry young men.

The observation that mass shooters cannot be identified before the fact is obviously relevant to proposals for expanding the use of forcible psychiatric treatment as a way of preventing these crimes. But it is also fatal to the idea that background checks are the key to stopping mass murderers. As Brian Doherty noted on Friday, all of the guns used by the perpetrator of last week's massacre in Oregon were purchased legally, either by the killer himself or by his relatives. The fact that the killer bought weapons from federally licensed gun dealers means he repeatedly passed background checks, presumably because he did not have a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record, which is typically the case with mass shooters.

A sidebar to the Times story obfuscates that point, saying "criminal histories and documented mental health problems did not prevent at least eight of the gunmen in 14 recent mass shootings from obtaining their weapons, after federal background checks led to approval of the purchases of the guns used." In three of these cases, information that arguably would have blocked the purchases was not obtained, either because of FBI negligence or because of incomplete databases. But in the rest of the cases, the "criminal histories and documented health problems" to which the Times refers were not legally disqualifying because they did not involve felonies or court-ordered psychiatric treatment. And in none of these cases would requiring background checks for all gun transfers—the most commonly mentioned response to mass shootings—have made a difference.

The obvious response is to expand the criteria for prohibiting gun ownership. But as I mentioned last week, those criteria are already excessively broad, arbitrarily depriving millions of people who pose no threat of their Second Amendment rights. Expanding the criteria—to include, say, people with psychiatric diagnoses or people whose disruptive behavior gets them fired from jobs or kicked out of school—would only compound this unconstitutional injustice while doing little to prevent mass shootings.

NEXT: 3 Medical Marijuana Growers in Washington Get Federal Prison Terms

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The “Gun show loophole” is my favorite. People seem room think that background checks aren’t done at gun shows.

    1. “Don’t you get it?! Anyone can get a gun at any time!!!”

      Ah, now they’re getting it!

      1. We need more guns to protect people from the government and lawyer crooks that run the country!

    2. When that phrase comes up, I like to tell the story of how I tried to buy a gun at a gun show, but the guy wouldn’t sell it to me because I had moved recently and my driver’s license had my old address on it.

    3. The gun show loophole is a myth, perpetuated by anti gun radicals. Now some radicals want to lock up anyone that has ever been prescribed Valium or Zoloft type meds. You know, just in case they are the one in a million that gets violent at some point. So they want to discriminate against people with health issues. Bill O’ Reiley of Fox news, espouses to this sort of thinking.

    4. my fav is “Internet gun buying with no background check.”
      As if you can just give them your credit card number and they mail you a gun,right to your door. I wish it were like that.

  2. I Fucking hate auto-correct. Nothing makes me swear at my phone more.

    1. (violent_k now added to new government list)

    2. *sends violent_k nude selfies*

      Perhaps that will make you swear more at your phone?

      1. *sends reptile porn to Ted S*

        Perhaps that will make you smash your phone?

        1. That’s a cold blooded move, Mr. Lizard…

        2. Please do NOT “trigger” me!!!

          I have reptile dysfunction, so have some mercy!!!

          1. I think it is WAY past time for those of us who are other-phallused (having the phallus of another species) should just STOP being ashamed of ourselves, and PROUDLY step out of the closet! ? Did you know that “schlang” is German for “snake”? See my schlang, then, as I proudly display it! And it has been DECADES now that the un-inhibited have not only proclaimed that they have the “schlang” of another species; they have even proudly said that they ARE the “schlang” of another species!!! See, for instance, the well-known history of JFK, who proudly proclaimed, in front of many-many Germans, in the public (pubic?) light of day? “Ich bin nein Bear-Weiner”!!!!

            1. Oooops, EIN bear-weiner, not NEIN bear-weiner… Mein Goof!!!!

              PS, what is the German word for bra?


              German for Vaseline?

              Viener Schlider!

        3. Ruby on Rails provides an excellent development ecosystem for building performant web applications. It’s fast, reliable and supported by a massive community of talented Ruby on Rails developers. RailsCarma as a Ruby on Rails Development Company have leveraged this technology in most of our web development projects, giving our clients the best solutions on the market with hire ruby on rails developer services . We’re not the only company using RoR ? Airbnb, GitHub, SlideShare, Dribbble, Bloomberg, CrunchBase, and Shopify (to name a few) have also trusted Ruby on Rails and used it in their applications.

    3. I used to have to misspell words without any assistance. Now I have software to handle that for me.

    4. …how ’bout your ex-wife on the line?

    5. I believe you can turn autocorrect OFF.

  3. In fact, adding universal background checks or expanding the list of disqualifying events just makes it all the harder to control guns, as with any black market. It continually amazes me that the lessons (Prohibition, the War on Some Drug Users, and existing criminal access to guns) are so blithely ignored, even though I realize statists don’t give a damn about counter-examples. All they want is cake state control, and nothing else matters.

    1. The difference is when you use illegal drugs, you get the benefit and the police are unlikely to ever know what happened (once you use it). Use a black market gun to stop a robbery or home invasion, and you’re fucked.

      1. An illegal gun is useless for anything except illegal acts.

        It’s almost as though they want the violent criminals to win.

        1. You would pretty much have to be in a situation where you could shoot, shovel, and shut up. Which raises the stakes for burglars quite a bit.

        2. Worse. It makes worthy acts illegal.

          Sitting in the OR classroom with tour illegal gun when the shooter appeared, you would have committed a serious crime by defending the victims and shooting the shooter. Catch 22.

          1. Not true as I understand it. I thought it was only school policy prohibiting carry on campus. Am I wrong on this?

            1. Note I said “illegal gun”, for which any use is a crime. No?

              1. My only point is, in this particular case, CC isn’t illegal in OR, even in public schools if you have a permit. So I would think the worst they could do to you is boot you from school (and I question that).

                1. In NC, bringing a legal ccw into a place marked as gunfree is a violation of the rules for your CCW. Would prolly have your CCW revoked at least.

              2. Yes. The long game with banning guns is if you can’t effectively use it (really, unless you’re doing other illegal acts) ever, why bother to hold on to one?

                FdA is also correct about legal carry in the Oregon shooting. If the college discovered you were legally carrying, they could request you leave the campus (and later kick you out of school or other academic administrative punishment for violating school policy). If you refused to leave, you could then be arrested for trespass but you couldn’t be arrested for the legal carry itself.

                1. Btw, OFF is an excellent organization and Kevin Starrett does yeomen’s work for gun rights in the state.

                2. Well, there IS a very good reason to hold onto guns even when banned completely.

                  The millions of French citizens who own illegal guns* and who are otherwise not criminals understand that though they can’t use these guns to, say, defend themselves from petty criminals, they can use them when the time comes to defend themselves from a violent gov’t, either their own or an invading one.

                  * There are between 10 and 20 million illegal guns in France, according to anti-gun CS Monitor:…..onry-video
                  Obviously, there aren’t 10 to 20 million violent criminals in France, a country of 66 million, so some millions of those guns must be owned by ordinary otherwise-law-abiding citizens.

                3. Because you’re still better off being the perp than the victim.

              3. And here is the school policy:

                Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited.

                Possession of knives with a blade longer than 4″ is prohibited.

                Brandishing weapons is prohibited.

                Misuse of personal defensive weapons ? e.g., pepper spray, etc. is prohibited. The owner is responsible and accountable for any misuse of these devices.

                [emphasis mine]

                So, based on that, if you have a CCP, they’d have a hard time booting you.

                Tou your point, however, without a CCP. it would be an “illegal gun.”

                1. Allegedly there was a guy on campus with a concealed permit and a pistol who wanted to go help out when he heard the gunshots but was told by a “campus employee”–the article was vague–to stay in the classroom because police responding to the call wouldn’t know whether he was the active shooter or not. Reasonable advice, if depressing.

                  Naturally, anti-gun people are cleaving to this as proof that the “good guy with a gun” idea is false, despite the fact that we’re talking about one person with a pistol several buildings over, not a person in the room with the shooter. Of course they’re not holding the police to the same standard, or else they’d have to conclude that there’s no justification for police at all since none were able to prevent the shooter from killing anyone.

                  1. I keep hearing this.

                    police responding to the call wouldn’t know whether he was the active shooter or not.

                    Think about it. No one says off-duty cops shouldn’t carry because they’ll be mistaken for the killer.

                    I’d think the fact that the killer is the person standing in the middle of bodies shooting unarmed people and the CHL is carrying defensively with scared people hiding behind him (like the off-duty cop) would pretty much unambiguate the situation.

                2. actually,UCC has a policy of requiring WRITTEN PERMISSION from them to be armed while on their campus. Otherwise,you’re subject to discipline.
                  And they’re STINGY about giving that written permission,since even their own security guards don’t have guns.
                  They even have signs posted around campus that no guns are allowed.

        3. It’s even more as if they were afraid that an armed citizenry would eventually tell them to go climb a tree……

          1. Online IAS Preparation Clear IAS by Self-Study!Step 1: The first step you should make while you begin IAS preparation is to enroll in ClearIAS Prelims Online Mock Test Series. The ClearIAS test-based approach is faster and will keep you focussed.Buy the recommended UPSC CSE Preparation books from the links IAS Books.Take your UPSC Mains preparation side-by-side with UPSC Prelims preparation.

      2. “Use a black market gun to stop a robbery or home invasion, and you’re fucked.”

        Oh, not necessarily… You just have to be the Right Kind of People: Carl_Rowan#Shooting_controversy

        “In a 1981 column, he advocated “a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail?period.””

        “Rowan gained public notoriety on June 14, 1988, when he shot an unarmed teenage trespasser, Neil Smith, who was on his property illegally. “The interloper was a near-naked teenager who had been skinny-dipping with friends in Rowan’s pool, and the columnist’s weapon was an unregistered, and thus illegal, .22 caliber pistol.””

        1. Well, duh. That was an emergency–naked teenagers in his pool!–and thus exempt from his earlier moralistic blatherings.

          As long as we don’t have equality before the law, gun control works out just fine.

          1. Ask Bernhard Goetz about that.

  4. Look, Obama was quite clear in his statement after the murders. He praised the U.K. and Australia for their gun policies – policies that entirely disarmed the population. That is the goal of the progressive left – to entirely disarm the population.

    1. Well, they THINK they entirely disarmed the populations of Great Britain and Australia.

      The reality that leftists/progressives just can’t seem to recognize or accept is that there are huge numbers of illegal guns still in those countries, most hidden away.

      National Review reports that only one-fifth of the guns were actually confiscated:…

      “Gun confiscation is not happening in the United States any time soon. But let’s suppose it did. How would it work? Australia’s program netted, at the low end, 650,000 guns, and at the high end, a million. That was approximately a fifth to a third of Australian firearms.”

      We have seen the same kind of thing happen more recently in New York State and Connecticut, with huge percentages of noncompliance to “assault weapon” and large-capacity magazine bans. Repeatedly, the reality is that people refuse to be controlled.

      But leftists/progressives were never much interested in successfully dealing with reality anyway. They live in and want to live in dreamland.

      1. What they do in G.B. is charge people who use guns to defend themselves and their property. I read about a case in England a few years ago where an older gentlemen was being robbed in his house by two armed robbers. He took his shotgun and blasted both of them killing them. If he hadn’t they would have killed him. He was charged with manslaughter and sent to prison. This is what the progressives want.

        1. Carmatec uses one of the top notch strategies for your business to reach its highest potential that it can! Without any excuses, we have successfully provided our previous clients of our our extra efforts to get their website design to pop and stand out from the typical layouts and structures being used today. Our creative team is dedicated to bring new ideas and promote the essence of modern modality in every way possible. Looking back at our work, We have never felt so passionate and determined to keep producing excellent refined material of work than before. After all, our quality finished delivery beats and outruns most design & research based agencies. This is what makes us stand out as the only web design dubai company with real talent!

    2. This is exactly the kind of ignorant comment that adds to the paranoia and fear in this country. In neither the UK nor Australia are guns banned. The populace is not disarmed. And disarmament of the population is not the goal of the left. It is the goal of a highly paranoid, small segment of society on the left that is scared of their own shadow.

      Much like some on the right, yourself included, that arm up because they are scared of their own shadow.

      I am progressive left, AND I live in Roseburg. I understand this culture. I do not want to ban guns, and I agree that most regulations would be ineffective, given our culture. But the people on the left are upset for sincere reasons – they see the bloodshed in this country as senseless – which it is – and want to do something about it. Just an emotional response, but not nefarious.

      Just as most on the right who disagree with the left’s plans are not just murderous huns, but disagree with the left on what would be effective.

      I grew up in the UK and my husband grew up in New Zealand. And we think that many Americans, in spite of of their cries of “freedom!” only consider the freedom from government regulation – a very, very narrow definition. And while that is an important part of the scope of freedom, they have a poor grasp of the concept of freedom from fear and freedom from want – something we find to be equally as important.

      But even so, I do not go around accusing the right of wanting to curtail my freedoms.

      1. Freedom from want? WTF? It’s called get off your ass and do something about it.

        Freedom of fear? Fear of what? If it’s irrational fear go get some therapy.

  5. The obvious response is to expand the criteria for prohibiting gun ownership.

    compound this unconstitutional injustice while doing little to prevent mass shootings

    The gun banners aren’t trying to prevent mass shootings, or even individual shootings, they’re trying to take guns through whatever rationale they can. The more people prohibited, the better. That’s not an injustice in their eyes. They’ve learned from the success of the gun groups to stop focusing on a national ban but instead chip away in the blue states on continuous basis.

    1. I asked an old teacher of mine to just be honest and admit he wants to ban guns. I never got a response.

      1. I’ve noticed more and more people just admitting it. It’s freaky.

        Of course, that’s a complete nonstarter in red and purple states, and even in many blue states, because pols’ need to stay in office trumps personal policy.

        The only way a mass confiscation would happen is if a federal entity declared it as an edict without a vote, and such a thing is not poss—oh, shit.

        1. I honestly think you would see mass armed resistance to that.

          1. Hopefully. Guns are the most basic and effective way for the population to protect against government oppression.

            They’re also the great equalizer against those who happen to be bigger or stronger. I just don’t understand why liberals hate women…

            1. How many Liberal Women have you met? They’re pretty hateful……

        2. And a number of states seceding

        3. Yup, gun-grabbing is a non-starter even in blue states. Remember when they recently implemented some stricter registration requirements in NY and CT and the people largely ignored it. I doubt you could get away with it even in the most machine-controlled cities – it would certainly get ugly.

        4. “I’ve noticed more and more people just admitting it. It’s freaky.”

          Honestly, I think it would be wonderful if mainstream politicians started calling for confiscation of all firearms. There are a lot of people, even gun owners, who don’t actively oppose gun control because they believe that it would stop at some “reasonable” point before ever infringing on THEIR rights.

          1. The #BlackLivesMatter movement managed to further cause Americans to distrust the police.

            After all, if the police regularly gun down unarmed black men, then how can we trust them to enforce such laws in an even-handed manner?

            1. Along that same vein, how can Dems be so against police brutality but at the same time be for giving the police more power? I mean, do they not realize that as the only people with guns, police would have even more power to oppress?

    2. You are completely paranoid. If the left were trying to get rid of guns, it would be much easier to start with the illegal guns in the inner cities.

      I am on the left. The far left, actually. And I have no problem with the private ownership of guns. But I do think many on the left are a bit more concerned about the number of innocent lives lost. They may be deluded in thinking something can be done, but honestly, they show more concern and less self-absolution than you do.

      I do have a problem with people with 2 brain cells who imagine they are at the center of some mass conspiracy.

      Makes you feel important, doesn’t it.

  6. How about we take a closer look at psychiatry? This appears to be another case of some kid who was taking a handful of prescribed pills each day. I bet there is a psychologist or three who are quickly shredding all their records of this kid.

    1. No, no, no. He was taking the *right* drugs, not the politically-incorrect kind.

    2. ‘…some kid who was taking a handful of prescribed pills each day.I bet there is a psychologist or three who are quickly shredding all their records of this kid.’

      You mean a psychiatrists. Its psychiatrists, who possess a medical degree, who have the authority to prescribe medication.

      1. Any MD can prescribe psychotropic medication. Most “psychiatric” drugs in the US are prescribed by primary care physicians, not psychiatrists.

    3. Always hard to tell whether this happened because of, or in spite of, drug therapy. The literature on suicide in extensive on this question.

    4. So far, there has not been any definitive clinical data enabling us to detect such people ahead of time. I would go so far to say that this is not a mental illness, but just an extension of our cultural propensity to cure all problems through violence. War, death penalty etc.

      Perhaps if we returned to more robust psychiatric help we may catch more of these people ahead of time, without actually pinpointing them.

      But I do not think the average person would support paying for such treatment.

  7. “We can’t round up all the people who scare us.”

    And yet, that’s exactly what they want to do. It’s pretty transparent.

    1. You know who else rounded up people who scared them?

      1. Popular 80s character actor Josh McAdoo??

      2. Governor William J. LePetomane and his Attorney General/Procurer, Hedley Lamarr?

        1. -1 didn’t get a harrumph from that man

    2. It’s better than rounding them down, isn’t it?

      1. As via the guillotine, I mean.

      2. You know, a little off the top.

  8. Why are we making freak events, like mass shootings, the driving forces behind our gun policies? Even if you believe that they are becoming more frequent, they still make up a very small percentage of overall gun deaths, that even if you ended all mass shootings, it wouldn’t produce any statistically significant reductions in total gun related deaths.

    Also, why do people try to make persecution of the mentally ill as a possible solution? Again, if we look at overall violent crime, the mentally ill commit such a small percentage of them that even if you believe that outright bans on the group’s pocession of firearms would prevent them from getting guns, it would not result in a significant reduction of gun deaths. If we are going to round up a bunch of folks, imprison them, and engage in a mass violation of individual rights in the name of preventing crime, let’s actually do it to a group that does commit a disproportionate number of crimes: young black men.

    Of course, this is a evil and disgusting policy. But why is it suddenly okay when you substitute ” mentally ill” for “black.” If lefties abhor the idea of persecuting black youths, then they should equally abhor doing the same to the mentally ill for the same reasons.

    If progressives want to be the “intellectuals” and “the smart guys,” they better start trying harder than producing the same knee-jerk, irrational, and emotionally-laden policies.

    1. “I don’t accept your argument because you equated African Americans with the mentally ill, RACIST!!!!111!!


    2. Because it’s convenient, and it gets their blood up. Gun control advocates (by which I mean the Bloomberg and Robert Wood Johnson shot callers, rather than the base) don’t give much of a fuck about reducing rampage killings, or reducing crime in general.

      Their goal is to reduce the number of civilian gun owners in society. Anything that follows from their goal is a bonus.

    3. Mental illness is not a suspect classification, nor is there a fundamental right to be mentally ill.

      1. Bruce Caitlyn Jenner disagrees.

    4. I am a leftie, and I agree with you. I have no idea why people make such a huge deal about single mass shootings, but say nothing about the constant murders in this country.

      And I would not agree with expanding the list of mentally ill people subject to exclusion from guns. The facts just don’t support it.

      So you are mistaken when you generalize about progressives. Although it probably makes your life simpler.

      1. So, is it wrong for me to say that conservatives don’t support gay marriage just because a handful of them actually do? Or how about saying that most libertarians support gun rights, even though Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute (not exactly libertarian, but certainly pro-liberty) said once in a presentation that you could make a coherent liberty-friendly, small government argument in favor of gun control? Yes, it is a generalization of most progressives attitudes towards guns. And yes it makes my life easier, because I don’t have to put a caveat on everything that I say. Do you make sure to put a footnote on every ideological generalization you make to ensure that you have included every single theoretical deviation from the norm?

  9. OT: Their 3rd attempt at light rail in Tampa bay looks shaky already. But besides that check out all of the wonderful assholes that came to shit on the comments section…From derpbook no less. Warms my cold-blooded hearth…..-20150930/

    1. But.. but.. Miami has one!1!

  10. This guy James Alan Fox ain’t too shabby.

    Swanson on the other hand, when he says You can’t go out and round up all the alienated angry young men, probably means “We would if we could, but we can’t so we won’t.”

    1. Well, as a woman, I should say our society would be much better if we locked all of our young men up until the age of 30 and made them study something – anything. Even playing World of Warcraft 24/7.

      But one can but dream.

  11. well the gun grabber will just say that background checks can stop a lot of other non-mass murderers from getting guns and prevent more typical gun deaths. these school shootings are obviously a small number of total gun related deaths. But of course it is these shootings that motivate the anti-gun movement. they are using a sorta bait and switch.

    1. Has nobody suggested making all registered gun owners and concealed carry holders undergo bi-annual psychological evaluation. This is the kind of idea that I think is coming down the pipe. Then the easy step is to find a way to show any one who wants a gun and carry it has something wrong w them. I do not think the “mental health issue” sidestep is a long-term strategy in the gun control fight.

      1. Who is going to pay for that?

        Can we require it for all registered voters?

      2. I am a Bernie voter, and I would say that psychological evaluations are mostly a crock. Yes, there are clearly some rare deranged individuals in our society, but for the most part, violent crime comes from those looking for monetary or status gain, and thus fit cleanly into our culture.

  12. It’s high time we round up the mass killers and take their weapons away, or at least put the killers out of business. We DO have responsibility for allowing this to continue.…..n-hospital

    There is only one candidate who might have prevented this. Can you guess who?

    1. Obama said “sorry”.. what more do you want? Get over it, and quit dwelling in the past. Nobody’s perfekt..

    2. This’ll be the president who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for being black, yes?

      1. The Nobel Peace Prize now has the same objective value as a soccer kid’s participation trophy. I’ll bet Nobel is spinning like a turbine.

  13. I have an idea. Lets make everybody undergo psychiatric evaluation. To make it fair we should make sure the psychiatrist do not know the identity of their patient. And naturally, anybody who is discovered to have a mental illness is excluded from running for or serving in public office. Of course we should start with the politicians and heads of cabinet departments in Washington.

  14. Just have a cop for every person. They’ll escort them around and make sure they don’t do anything naughty.

    1. Just think of all the jobs!!

    2. Just make every person a cop – problem solved.

    3. To be fair, it is the right who wants to arm our community college in Roseburg like an armed camp.

      I am a lib and I say screw to that. We don’t hide in our houses every time there is a large car pileup on the freeway.

      Why are so many American so afraid? I have never lived in a country so scared. On both sides of the spectrum.

  15. It’s hilarious that leftists continue to argue “We’re not coming to take your guns!” when that’s exactly what Obama implied should be done the other day, and hacks like Ezra Klein are openly promoting, with the citation of Australia.

  16. Nice- the fat fuck is on ABC right now saying it should be easy for the government to round up crazy people and lock them up in nuthouses.

    I wonder how those lucky people will be “discovered”.

    1. We could begin with the control freaks who want power over their fellow man.

  17. How about if we started to say, “depriving millions of people who pose no threat of their Natural Right to Self Defense” instead of “depriving millions of people who pose no threat of their Second Amendment rights.”

    Using this phrase makes it sound like we are born with the right to self defense (you know, inalienable) instead of implying that this right is given by government.

    Just a thought.

    1. It’s all about the narrative, isn’t it? Subtle ways of suggesting that the government grants your rights.

      1. The government actually does grant your rights. In this country, you only consider rights that are enshrined in law.

        And the government, given enough support, could actually take any of them away.

        Foolish people have no idea what rights are.

        As an avid student of English history, rights are only those things that can be enforced through law or force.

        But you cannot sit there and whinge about rights as inviolable when they are part of a legal document.

  18. 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……

  19. I’m getting downright confrontational on this. I flat out ask people who babble at me about gun control, “Are you in favor of a Government limited by its founding documents, or not?”. When they pull “living document” out of thier ass, I say “It’s a living document because it includes a specific proceeedure for amendment. Anyone who wants to change how it operates without proposing an amendment is a scofflaw.”. I don’t know if I’ convincing anybody, but my in-laws have stopped nattering at me.

    1. I am a liberal, and a historian, and I am constantly trying to educate people on “my side” about what the 2nd Amendment actually says.

      And when they say it’s outdated, I say it only becomes outdated when the people change it, and they haven;t. So this is what we have.

  20. The NYT is responsible for advocating much of the additional “violence of law” that prompts berserkers to lash out. Before prohibition and the personal income tax transformed the Constitution into an instrument of coercion, shooters concentrated on politicians (no big loss). Population density may have an effect, but mentioning that will draw the boiling wrath of the same religious conservatives who curse Margaret Sanger for the legalization of condoms. Never look to looters for a truthful account of any controversial subject.

  21. For better or worse, the genie is out of the bottle. Anyone can have a gun anytime.

    We need to start thinking about cost-effective measures, and what liberties we are willing to give up for increased safety. Think about how we reacted to 9/11 by waiting an aggregate of millions of hours in TSA lines, have having screwdrivers confiscated. Was this effective? Was it worth it?

    Metal screeners in schools and malls? Who mans the screeners? Who qualifies the people running the screeners? Millions of screeners – why wouldn’t they be the shooters?

    Will we just start avoiding places where we are likely to be shot? Will we all start carrying guns – not just the responsible and rational, but your crazy uncle Ted, your 19-year-old-daughter, your alcoholic brother-in-law?

    1. “what liberties we are willing to give up for increased safety”

      I’ll consider signing a “Have No Intent to Mass Murder”-promise on purchase of a firearm, but that’s about it.

      1. Well, I take your point, but the kinds of restrictions I was thinking of is around metal-detectors and the accompanying searches, and so on. If you think this is silly, as I do, ask why we have allowed this at our airports?

    2. How about prosecuting people who commit murder?

    3. Despite what the government thinks, my copy of the Constitution doesn’t say “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, unless they are flying, or near a school, or entering a courthouse.”

      1. OK, so you are saying no metal detectors anywhere, and guns are permissible everywhere.

        Do you have any other ideas on what to do? Or are is this just the way it’s going to be for the rest of our lives?

        1. Or are is this just the way it’s going to be for the rest of our lives?

          If you really thought this was a significant threat to your own life, and there were no restrictions on firearm ownership and possession, what would you do?

      2. The constitution doesn’t contain a clause forbidding plants, but here in Oregon, specifically Roseburg – who you all seem to be defending – they think forbidding plants that their state has authorized is something they should side with the Feds and ban.

  22. I distinctly recall efforts to stop civilians from buying bulletproof vests. Surely this gives some idea of just how whacked-out these looter fanatics are. In their struggles to sound reasonable they downplay the anti-vest lobbying efforts just as anti-choice candidates are real quiet about their organizations’ efforts to have people arrested for buying or selling condoms.

    1. Must be sad to walk around with such small, saggy balls as you have, scared of your own shadow.

      Try to man up and live through a real tragendy or war, not the one you have going on in your own mind.

      I am a woman and I am not nearly so chicken-shit as you are.

  23. You only stop fire with fire – concealed carry should be fairly ubiquitous, so that at any locale, the odds of a concealed carry person present is good.

    1. Sometimes it is not going to be at all obvious who to shoot.

      “The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio “grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall” before realizing he wasn’t the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn’t pull out his own weapon was that “he didn’t want to be confused as a second gunman.”…..earms.html

      1. Slate?……hahahahhahahhhhhaaaa

        1. I’ll second your hahahahahaha, it’s Slate!

      2. So a gun owner acts responsibly and that’s… a bad thing?

  24. The biggest problem is that the population does not fear the police. Ruling by the fear of force is essential to a civilized society.

    How do we get the American people to fear the police?

    1. Send them to YouTube where there are numerous videos of cops beating the crap out of American people for minor or no offense committed.

    2. Americans are interested in a free society, like it reads in the second amendment (it’s real short). You might peddle your idea of “civilized” society over in Germany, Italy, Rumania or Greece.

  25. It seems to me there are but two solutions to this mass murder with guns problem:

    1. Remove and destroy every gun, all of them, in the United States and disallow their manufacture and sale going forward.

    2. Make sure there are armed people at these sorts of public places.

    The first is impossible. The second won’t eliminate the occurrence of these crimes but will help minimize the number of people killed and injured.

    Every other suggestion that I’ve heard will do nothing but make some people feel good that they’ve finally done something about this scourge.

    1. Um… maybe my sarcasmeter is broken but if #1 is enacted, then what are the people in #2 arming themselves with?

      1. Or are these two alternate solutions? Given that your #2 will probably limit arms to some sort of protected enforcer class I don’t see how it solves anything. We have armed enforcers all over the place and it’s not stopping anything.

    2. If it were possible to remove all the guns it may stop the “mass murder with guns problem,” but it won’t stop mass murder.

      The three worst U.S. mass murders in recent history are the Happy Land Night Club fire, the Murrah Federal Building in OK City, and 9-11. Nary a gun in sight.

    3. I take it you’ve never set foot in a classroom where people lectured on logical consistency or universes of discourse.

    4. Unfortunately those seem to be the choices.

      I live in Roseburg, where the local population is all about “freedom”, and against any gun regulation.

      Which is their choice.

      But then these same people start talking about militarizing every place in town.

      How is that “freedom”?

  26. 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!……


  27. 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!……


  28. Packers and Movers in Bangalore @…..bangalore/
    Packers and Movers in Pune @

  29. Packers and Movers in Hyderabad @…..hyderabad/
    Expert Packers and Movers Chennai @…..s-chennai/

  30. When you accept that the ultimate goal is a totally disarmed population, with only government agents carrying arms, the proposed laws make complete sense.

  31. We can’t round up all the people who scare us.

    Korematsu v. United States says otherwise…

  32. Not to mention that expanding the criteria for prohibiting gun ownership to include more psychological conditions would cause people to avoid diagnosis and treatment in order to not lose their gun rights.

  33.…/can-sma…… 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.

  34. It is troubling–for more than the way totalitarians will exploit these failed and creepy outliers as a pretext to disarm and enslave the population. Overpopulation? Manchurian Candidate brainwashing? Berserker reaction to life-crushing overregulation? Or perhaps this is the predictable outcome of social pressure when all “our” leaders are devoutly committed to the initiation of force to take from others, wreck their happiness and force them to pretend to sanction life-strangling anti-values imposed by the crowd. Between the berserkers and the police state that greets their every rampage with whoops of joy and increased police budgets, I am starting to wish I owned a gun.

    1. You know what you need to do? Take 6 months off. Go travel. Go around the world. See how other people live. Learn one or two words of a different language.

      You live inside a bizzaro world.

  35. absolutely correct ..government needs to take some steps regarding this mass shooting

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.