Gun Control

Here It Comes: Wash Post Writer Calls for "A Gun-Free Society"

Despite continuing declines in gun violence, Fred Hiatt says enough is enough.


Fred Hiatt, who runs the Washington Post's editorial page, has had it with incrementalism when it comes to gun violence. In the wake of last week's horrific mass shooting at an Oregon community college, he says the time has come to contemplate:

A gun-free society.

Let's say that one again: A gun-free society.

Doesn't it sound logical? Doesn't it sound safe? Wouldn't it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?…

He's well aware of the political problems with such a solution:

Congress will not lead this change. There has to be a cultural shift. Only then will Congress and the Supreme Court follow.

As we've seen over the past 15 years with same-sex marriage, such deep cultural change is difficult — and possible. Wyatt Earp, the frontier mentality, prying my cold dead fingers — I get all that. But Australia was a pioneer nation, too, and gave up its guns. Societies change, populations evolve.

And people are not immune, over time, to reason. Given how guns decimate poor black communities every day — not just when there are mass shootings, but every day — this is a civil rights issue. Given how many small children shoot themselves or their siblings accidentally, it is a family issue. Given the suicides that could be prevented, it is a mental health issue. On average 55 Americans shoot themselves to death every day. Every day!

Read the whole piece here.

What the same-sex marriage debate shows—and the move to legalize pot, too—is that Americans can be surprisingly quick to embrace cultural libertarianism, especially after recognizing that the status quo doesn't work and that the change gives you one less hangup to have to keep on top of. People understand that pot, whether recreational or medical, doesn't lead to harder drugs; it just leads to mellower highs than booze tends to supply. Allowing gays and lesbians to live their lives openly, including the ability to officially get married, in no way invalidates a straight person's life. In fact, it makes society richer by giving different types of people one more experience that they might share.

But what is the status quo with guns? Over the past several decades at least, most states have liberalized their gun laws. It's easier to own guns, generally, and to carry them in a wider variety of circumstances, too. And over the same time period—and this is key—gun violence has declined to historic lows. In other words, the status quo, while far from perfect (as recent mass shootings and crime-wave reports from Chicago and other cities attest), is good and getting better. In fact, according the most recent government statistics, violent crime, a category including murder, rape, and armed robbery, is far below what it was in the mid-1990s.

Pew Research and others have documented this (see accompanying charts). The plain fact is that having more guns in circulation has not led to higher rates of gun murders. People get that, which is one of the reasons why popular sentiment has not turned against gun rights.

Here are figures from the Department of Justice/FBI showing murders and guns over the past several years:

FBI Crime Reports

Add to this other points, such as the fact that mass shootings are not increasing. Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox writes in USA Today that the "Umpqua shooting [is] a tragedy, not a trend."

According to a careful analysis of data on mass shootings (using the widely accepted definition of at least four killed), the Congressional Research Service found that there are, on average, just over 20 incidents annually. More important, the increase in cases, if there was one at all, is negligible. Indeed, the only genuine increase is in hype and hysteria.

Over two-thirds of gun deaths a year are suicides. But even among suicides, the trends are basically flat.

Such data will not end the suffering and grieving of parents and loved ones in Oregon who were touched by the latest shooting. But it should help people in the media and the government understand that they are overreacting when they inveigh that the only way forward is via zero-tolerance for guns. Zero-tolerance has never worked in any other context and the idea that gun prohibition in a country as large and gun-friendly as America (like it or not) is several steps past delusional.

Just how delusional is the subject of Reason TV's "How To Create a Gun-Free America in 5 Easy Steps."

NEXT: Police Mag Calls Marilyn Mosby 'The Wolf That Lurks'

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. What I’d REALLY like is a Derp-Free America.

    Hey, a man can dream, can’t he?

    1. Sounds good to me.

      Imagine the wide open spaces for gamboling that would be created by the removal of the stupid. I would guess half to 80% of the population would disappear depending on where you set the bar.

      1. There would be a lot more places to shoot as well.

        1. That is an essential part of proper gamboling. Camping, fishing, hunting, hiking, diving, SHOOTING.

          1. You’re invoking the White Indian blocker by using “gambol”

            1. Look! Loook! NOW we see the prevention of gamboling inherent in the system!

      2. If we give up all of our guns what will we use to defeat the socialists in the coming civil war?

        Next they’ll want us to give up our rocket launchers too?

      3. Don’t forget capering. It ain’t gamboling if you aren’t capering as well.

    2. What about the right to be derpy?

        1. How would you even know that?

    3. I’m sorry, but New Libertarian Man is as likely as a New Socialist Man WaPo article advocates for.

      Derp will always be with us, but if we teach people that their Derp might not be The Winning Derp*, a state of MAD can be created where Derps balance each other.

      *holy shit, new Trump slogan?

      1. *mind BLOWN*

  2. So I’m curious. As a veteran, do I lose my ability to own a gun the second I stop being a government lapdog? Or am I grandfathered in for life like a cop? I know the answer to that already, so why bother.

    1. That’s what he’s implying with “when necessary”.

      Oh, and if you have a dishonorable discharge, forget guns altogether.

      1. Can cops be dishonorably discharged?

        1. Very rarely. My neighbor is a retired chief of police, and he actually made case law about 15 years ago.

          One of his officers retired early on psychological disability, and demanded a concealed carry endorsement in his retirement (which gives him the right to concealed carry in all 50 states). The chief refused to issue it, and it went all the way to the CA supreme court. The chief won.

          Now the case law is:
          If you’re too fucking crazy to show up for work, you don’t get a CCW endorsement.

          1. I can understand why the officer tried to have his special CC rights. The psych disability was, like most pubsec ‘disabilities’, a fuckin fugazi and the cop knew it. So to him, he couldn’t fathom why he couldn’t have his CC rights.

          2. Essentially, he was probably flabbergasted that anyone took his ‘disability’ seriously, so when they pulled his card, he was indignant.

            1. Well yeah. He could have scammed the system with a medical retirement, but he went full retard and tried to get a psych retirement.

    2. Since when did we have the right to own guns. When on active duty, I wasn’t allowed a gun unless they decided to issue it to me. Then I wasn’t issued ammo except on the range – or on the Kuwaiti border.

      1. Personal firearms were prohibited at the Air Force base where I was stationed. The guys in the barracks had to keep them off base at a friend’s house or in storage. Truly idiotic and pointless.

        1. Yup, why my son doesn’t live on base at Lejeune.

        2. The Army required storage off post or checked in with the unit armorer. Nobody ever stored their personal firearm with the armorer. The guys in the barracks kept them with friends off post.

          When I was an armorer I had access to about 100 small arms of various types along with the basic load for the unit (thousands of rounds). Now that I am out, the grabbers wouldn’t trust me with a 22 and a box of ammo.

  3. When has the government ever been successful at eliminating something that many people want?

    I’ll surrender my right to own a gun as soon as the cops and government give up theirs…maybe.


    2. Remember when Prohibition worked?

      And it, unlike a Total Gun Ban, was actually relatively popular!

      1. And they had to amend the Constitution to impose Prohibition. So, until they change the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment, this is a pointless debate.

        1. Tell that to the countless number of people rotting in jail because some progressive utopia – like NYC, Chicago, or Washingotn DC – found them in violation of laws that clearly violate the 2nd ammendment…

          1. Our elected officials routinely violate the Constitution. Until more people are aware of this and begin to hold them accountable, the abuses you cited won’t change, unfortunately.

            1. They will never change. No matter which “top men” you put in there, each bring only their own version of force theft and coercion no matter which side they are on.

              1. This is why I’m a Libertarian and advocate a smaller, less powerful government. People will always abuse their power, so the only solution is to severely limit the amount of power these people wield. Giving them more power to fight abuse is akin to using gasoline to extinguish a fire.

                1. This is how I often explain my libertarianism to people. It’s a great point, and needs to be made loud and often.

                  1. Wrong ! If we remove money from Kochporations then those enlightened individuals who are smarter than us will be free to implement wonderful…..wonders and finally create the workers paradise we all know they can create !!!1!

                    Oh, and the need to get rid of the gunz cause some of you don’t understand what is gud for you and fail to appreciate the brilliance of their control.

  4. People lose the ability to reason so very easily.

    1. Ya can’t lose what ya never had.


    2. *looks around nervously*


    3. It’s also amazing that gun control rears its ugly head when more than 1 white person is killed at a time.

  5. I keep getting told “nobody wants to take your guns”.

    By people who are on this guy’s side, and the side of people like him, and presumably must know the type exists and is sincere.

    1. They are flat out lying to you. Gun control schemes, if followed to their logical conclusion, will always result in total confiscation. Which means force. So, essentially, what gun grabbers are constantly agitating for is quite literally a War on Guns, just like the War on Drugs. And we know how well that went, right?

      1. It’s hard to imagine more of a cluster fuck than the war on drugs, but I believe a war on guns would make the WoD look like a tickle fight.

        1. A war on guns would be wonderful. Out would result in armed insurrection, and the military would not interfere in the side of the government. It would quickly re-establish the concept of limited government. The size of the federal government would be slashed, possibly by the use of wood chippers, although I prefer gallows and gibbets, perhaps crucifixion.

          1. Call me old fashioned,but what is so wrong with something a little kinder and gentler? Like the old standby of tarring.feathering and running them out of town on a rail. Makes the point non lethally and gives the scofflaws,rapscallions and various other state fellating ne’er do wells the opportunity to find an honest line of work and/or a new place of residence.

            1. Perhaps because the “laws” they impose are so dangerous and in-your-face unconstitutional…… They are corruption and evil on steroids–they’ve been lawfully notified by the Citizens Common Law Grand Jury that they need to stop, NOW.

              They ignore what is plainly before them–the laws they must obey but do not. They have no excuse whatsoever now to continue committing treason that is and has been destroying this country pretty much since its inception. We are zionist controlled and very few in any position of authority have the spine to stand up and say so and refuse to commit treason.

      2. Well, they’re really agitating for The Total State, because that whole “boo-hoo, the NSA is spying on us’ bullshit had nothing to do with the NSA spying on us, it had to do with George Bush being president. Notice how quickly no none in the MSM gave a shit about NSA spying once Dear Leader came into power?

      3. No, most of them believe it, quite honestly.

        They don’t want to “take my guns”, just, you know, “keep me from buying more of those scary ones, unless maybe I prove to someone I’m worthy”.

        So they just think confiscators are speaking for effect, or don’t matter, or don’t count.

        (“Nobody wants to take your guns! When the President said we shoudl be more like Britain and Australia he didn’t mean confiscation!”

        Because they have no idea what Australia and Britain did other than “sensible gun control”.

        Pure ignorance.)

  6. Just another man-child, shivering under the covers, terrified of the boogeyman living in the closet.

    1. If he can just control everyone else, he’ll finally be safe!

  7. No.

    And I have guns, so what the fuck are you going to do about it?

      1. Jerry on the sea: LOL!!

    1. Pry them from your cold, dead hands. Duh.

    2. Yeah, and I double-dog-dare them.

      I have enough of the right kind of guns (and ammo) to arm a unit the size of the one I led in the Marine Corps Infantry

      And I am arguably more fit than most progs I have run across

      Please draw your line in the sand

  8. The point of these articles and the associated “Liberal Narrative” is not to win on policy.

    They know they will lose on policy.

    They *want* to lose on policy.

    Because losing on policy means that none of the TEAM BLUE people will ever drift to TEAM RED, because Guns ‘R Bad, Mkay?

    It straps a cultural boat anchor to the core Blue voter.

    As i think crusty said the other day – On Guns, losing is winning for democrats – as On Abortion, losing is winning for Republicans

    they need to signal to their constituents = We hate those yukky guns!! And the powerlessness to do anything about it? Is all the fault of those Awful Other People.

    1. The thing is, though, the anti-gun thing isn’t even a TEAM BLUE issue. It’s a East & West Coast urban progtard issue (which also explains why the media is always so keen to harp on it). If the Democrats are serious about making this a party platform going into 2016, they will not win a single state in the Midwest, with the possible exception of Illinois.

      Hell, even Vermont wants to keep its guns.

      1. This.

        Furthermore, the anti-gun thing is starting to lose its charm even in the coastal urban areas. I think that a lot of the success that the pro-gun side has seen in the past few years, can be directly attributed to hipsters and yuppies finding out just how fun boomsticks are…

        1. Back when I used to have free time, I used to take a newbie to the range once a month. It never fails.

      2. They will win Minnesota too. This state is full of dipshits.

        1. Full of hunters, too. I mean, what the hell, right?

      3. Yeah, this. I know quite a few people who are generally pretty left-center politically who are getting really sick of all of the gun control shit the Democrats keep spouting. There are plenty of rural Democrats who don’t want their gun rights further curtailed and are getting annoyed.

    2. They could outlaw abortion except where it is performed using a gun.


      2. Holy shit, that’s true bipartizanship! Have you considered contacting Trump HQ?

      3. You could throw your hat into the ring for Speaker of the House with bipartisan ideas like that.

    3. YES. Case in point:

      “and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed ”

      Do you think the cops are going to support this law, and cheerfully go around confiscating guns?

      Half the reason that people become cops in blue states is to be able to carry a concealed weapon when non-cops can’t.

    4. If losing on these issues is winning, when do libertarians get to feel like they’re winning?

  9. We need to follow the example of countries like Mexico and Brazil and make the private legal ownership of firearms very difficult if not impossible. Only then can we get their murder rates.

    1. But those countries aren’t supposed to count as they don’t fit the narrative, you see.

      Only the countries the gun grabbers want to count are supposed to count.

      Oh and also only their version of whats’ going on in the countries that they want to count instead of what’s actually going on them is supposed to count too.

      Such are the ways of the self described “reality based community”.

      1. They aren’t advanced…because they’re not full of white people.
        *stares at Obama*

        1. Just make owning a gun a felony, just like cocaine or heroin possession and we will be rid of them in no time flat. Just like we got rid of illegal drugs in this country, for almost no cost and with the side benefit of giving us the lowest incarceration rate in the world!

      2. And you can’t count the Swiss (who are legally armed to the teeth), even though they ARE white people, because, well, because they don’t have the murder rate that is SUPPOSED to come with being that heavily armed.

      3. and they tell us that Australia now has NO guns, but I read the other day the buy-back only netted around 15% of the guns…and the violence rate keeps dropping as it did previously

    2. Dude, this point should be quoted and quoted forever. Show me a third-world shithole or a dysfunctional country with a sky-high gun death rate and I’ll show you a country with extremely prohibitive gun laws, which just by sheer coincidence happen to boil down to guns being permitted solely by the employees, friends, and allies of the ruling regime.

  10. A good read. Spend your time productively before PM links instead of snarking here:…..ntrol.html

    Gun confiscation sparked the revolution.

    1. A good read, indeed. Thanks for the link, Suthen.

    2. And we’ve got considerably more of them now.

  11. This is even lamer than the “Problem of Evil”. At least that arsks why the supreme being allows evil. Here the question being arsked, as though it makes any sense and is worthy of consideration, is “Why does the government allow evil?” Taking liberties. More strictly, the question is, “Why does the government allow people other than LE or the military access to the basic laws of physics?” which is even stupider, so we will assume it’s just a circumlocution for folks being capable of making evil choices. I don’t know, now that I think of it, which is lamer, the assumption that the State has some power over the laws of nature or that it has power over the minutest movements of every soul.

  12. “Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.

    Doesn’t it sound logical?”


    “Doesn’t it sound safe?”


    …I guess that’s that, then. Nothing else to say.

    1. It sounds safer until a much larger and stronger person decides to fuck with you.

    2. A better question is: does it even sound remotely possible? No? Then why the fuck would you try it?!?

      This is like saying “let me say again: a death-free society” or “let me say again: a suffering-free society”. It’s fucking retarded. Anyone who says this shit seriously can never, ever be taken seriously. Because they’re too stupid to pay attention to.

      1. I would like a sobriety-free society. Let’s try that.

        1. I’m doing my part!

      2. Hey, it’s part of my pledge to bring a suffering-free society.

        But…not a death-free one. Not until all the suffering is done, at least.

        1. WARTY/NICOLE 2016


          1. rapeworst sounds like a new German sausage….hmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmhmmm hmmmmmmagain

            1. It’s called canolaworst, you blockhead.

              1. Triggered

          2. Shouldn’t it be Nicky/Warty?
            Then you get:


      3. “Rabid gun supporter extols death and suffering, news at eleven.”

      4. Just imagine, Epi. It’s easy if you try.

        1. You know, I’m actually a really big John Lennon fan, and that song makes me ill. If I hear it, I have to listen to Plastic Ono Band to clear my brain.

          1. “Don’t let me down” is my favorite Lennon song.

          2. Epi, my friend, this one is for you.

            Yoko Rocks The House

      5. A gun-free society is a euphemism for something else, I’m sure you know.

      6. True. Also, even if we managed it….then we’d get crazy mass stabbings like China, where twice or three times as many end up being killed. Yeah, that’s so much better.

    3. How about a hatchet free society?

      A knife free society?

      A baseball bat free society?

      A hands free society?

      Taking away from the law abiding the instrumentalities of violence does not make society safer in itself. It just eases simple minds.

    4. Yeah, “a gun free society” doesn’t sound safe, and it sure as hell doesn’t sound “logical”. Logic doesn’t even apply. Maybe he meant “sensible” or “reasonable”, although it doesn’t sound like either of those things either.

      What it DOES sound like, is something one of my lefty high school friends might have said after the third or fourth bong hit. “Picture it, man! No guns! Like, nobody could shoot you! It would be amazing!”

  13. On average 55 Americans shoot themselves to death every day. Every day!

    Better to remove the gun and let them fumble around with razors or pills. Then there’s a chance they’ll only inflict a lot of pain on themselves, rather than a quick death.

    1. But at least they’ll have the ACA!

    2. Hilariously, I bet he’s in favor of Euthanasia with no questions asked if patient is insistent.

      1. We should think of the children. The continent they are on shouldn’t matter.

    3. Why the fuck is that any of my business? If people want to kill themselves, that’s their right.

      1. If people want to kill themselves, that’s their right.

        Nope. They must be forced to be productive members of society and pay their fair share of taxes until they’re too old to contribute any more. Then they can kill themselves.

    4. Or, make them go back to their job as an airline pilot and take 150 other people with them…

  14. On average 55 Americans shoot themselves to death every day. Every day!

    Better to remove the gun and let them fumble around with razors or pills. Then there’s a chance they’ll only inflict a lot of pain on themselves, rather than a quick death.

    1. But dude, the gun *made* then do it! Don’t you know how animists think? Like morons. Go slam your head in a car door about two hundred times and then you can think on their level.

      1. Better make it 2,000 times.

  15. Australia […] gave up its guns


  16. A unicorn rainbow farts society.

    Let’s say that one again: A unicorn rainbow farts society.

    Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe? Doesn’t it sound fun and sweet smelling?

  17. “Look, you tea-bagging morons, literally NO ONE is talking about confiscating your precious guns. All we want are results that can only possibly come from doing exactly that. Why can’t we be more like all the civilized countries that banned guns and have no violence now? And if you that means I want to ban guns, YOU’RE an idiot.”

    1. (hundreds of people furiously hit “Like”)

      1. Yes, right after they use the “edit” button…

  18. Russia Needs Gun Control

    well…. missile control

    “Four Russian cruise missiles launched from the Caspian Sea missed their Syrian targets Thursday and landed in Iran, FOX News and CNN reported, citing unnamed U.S. officials

    …The official Islamic Republic News Agency reported the crash Thursday morning of an unidentified flying object, originally thought to be a drone, near a village in the province of West Azerbaijan near the borders with Turkey and Iraq and not far from Syria.”

    Looking at a map… I feel a bit like Bob Uker

    1. Front row?

    2. I wouldn’t say they missed their targets. More like they fell short by about 60%.

      1. They were fired from the Caspian Sea, so i think it was like 80% short

    3. ooooh! Conspiracy time

      a while back Israeli defense minister was in Moscow. So, what we are seeing here, is secret Israeli-Russian deal. Russians will bomb certain sites in Iran that Israelis give them coordinates to. In return, Israeli arms industry will lend their expertise to improving electronics systems in Russian tanks, airplanes, missiles etc. This will run through Turkey as a third party.

        1. The wheels are the way to tell.

        2. Nah, this is Elders of Zion territory. Reverse vampires and RAND corporation know to keep the fuck away. Only Gnomes of Zurich dare enter. But what is their plot?

          Shit, now I want to pull out my old Illuminati box and build couple decks!

    4. “That’s good shootin’ Lew.” / Chief Wiggum

  19. Setting aside the moral and constitutional objections, I’m trying to imagine the sheer logistics of attaining a “gun-free society.” There are, what, 350 million guns in the U.S.? Do any of these people calling for a gun-free society understand how hard it would be to locate and secure 350 million relatively small objects, especially when many of their owners would rather they not be found? In a country the size of the U.S.?

    Are these people dumb enough to believe this? Or cynical enough to not care? Which is scarier?

    1. Are these people dumb enough to believe this?

      dumber in fact

      1. Yes, because they actually think they are going to make us willing to do it.

    2. You would have to use the military and National Guard – a majority of whom are conservative gun owners. That’s going to work really great.

    3. Not to mention the number of dead confiscators that would result.

      1. Good point, but I still don’t think we should do it.

        1. Beer out nose. You owe me a new keyboard.

    4. They live in large cities where people are packed together. They think the whole country is like where they live. They think all the people are like the ones they know.

      Someone once posted a progressive’s confession here about having moved to florida and the guy was terrified of his neighbors, knowing that many of them were gun owners. He actually believed the parody stereotypes pushed by the left and professed that he had never actually met anyone outside of his proggie bubble. Then he was forced to meet some of them at school and neighborhood functions. He discovered that those people were nothing like he had believed in any way whatsoever and that he grew to like them. I think I remember him also saying that he found them to be the nicest, most generous and trustworthy people he knows.

      Confiscating all guns in the US would be a de facto war declared on the citizenry by the government. The government would lose. The people pushing this shit have no clue about any of that.

      1. The government would lose. The people pushing this shit have no clue about any of that.

        Or what the cost in lives would be. In fact, their own Confiscation Laws would drive the gun homicide rate sharply higher.

        1. The cost in lives? It would be astronomical. Rivers of blood. It would destroy the country as we know it.

      2. “Rednecks in the Mist”

      3. I love it when an anti-gunner throws out “You can’t beat the GOVERNMENT, they have bigger guns!” Stupidity at it’s finest.

        1. Setting aside the domestic issues with their plan, do we really think that China, Russia, and the European Union would just sit idly by as the world nuclear superpower commits a genocide of its own people? The power vacuum would be incredible! The Russians and Chinese at least would play the role of the French during the revolution.

          1. Unfortunately, those countries have a vested interest in keeping the current government in power. The last thing they would want is a split of the states into different fragments and an end to the dollar. As a result, if it got that bad, you would see Chinese, Russian and EU “Peace Keepers” on american soil. Then it would be a protracted insurgency style conflict. The last time we did this, the losers at least had the good sense to not disband the Confederate army and let it continue as a insurgency / guerrilla war.

        2. The victors of The Battle of Athens, Tennessee proved otherwise.

        3. Tyranny most likely will be at the hands of your local constable, not the DoD.

        4. I love it when an anti-gunner throws out “You can’t beat the GOVERNMENT, they have bigger guns!”

          You don’t need to beat the government. You just need to beat the anti-gunner…who have just made themselves publicly known. And, they are at home…unarmed.

    5. Are these people dumb enough to believe this? Or cynical enough to not care? Which is scarier?

      When they’re honest, they’ll admit that the only way to actually achieve this is through a combination of massive propaganda campaigns, an overwhelming show of police force leveled against anyone found not in compliance, and enlisting citizens to rat out their neighbors who won’t go along.

      I’ve never seen any suggestion from the pro-gun control side that this would not be the case.

      1. I suspect many of them haven’t really thought it through and are just posturing. But I agree with you that the ones who *have* thought it through would essentially espouse the course you describe. And that is scary as hell.

        1. It is called the “dictatorship of the proletariat” , and it is supposed to be bloody. Look it up.

      2. Lucky me everyone in my neighborhood has guns so there won’t be any reporting from there just crickets. guns what guns never heard of them.

        1. Here’s the thing, though: even if you have mass non-compliance, what good does that do the otherwise law-abiding citizen? You presumably would not be able to go shooting anywhere with it without risking being arrested, unless you live somewhere extremely remote. Even if someone breaks into your house, and you shoot them to save your own life–you’ve won yourself the Pyrrhic reward of getting to spend the next several years in prison for using an illegal gun.

          Sure, it should be pretty easy for anyone who wants to to hide a gun from the confiscators–but what then?

          1. I imagine, after defending your home and family, people will quietly dispose of the body, and pretend nothing happened. I’m pretty sure the cops would be more than a little scared to enforce these laws.

            “Well Mr. Smith, I know he was about to rape your wife and kill your kids, but the law’s the law. And the law says guns are illegal. You’re going to jail and we’re calling CPS to take the kids into custody.”

            At which point Mr Smith thinks… ‘This guy’s going to take my kids from me… well, I only used 3 of the 10 rounds in this magazine…’

            1. This is why there’s a grassroots effort to bring back OUR common law back into OUR courts that were taken over by equity/ maritime/ admiralty/ judges -making -it -up -as -they -choose “laws”. This is the only way that I’ve seen that will give us, the People, back our voices, our authority, and our power…..a peaceful way to run the filth out of their illegitimate offices, from bottom to top. We need our sheriffs on board because they are constitutionally sanctioned and elected; those sheriffs serving now who are not obeying the law of our land need to be dumped and REAL oath keepers put in their places. Please check out this effort at National Liberty Alliance dot org……… the more the merrier.

    6. There is no need to confiscate. Just make them illegal. Because it is a law, everyone will simply turn theirs in or destroy them. Any that remain will simply evaporate.

      Don’t you people understand what a law is???!?!??!?!?!?

    7. I’m gonna go with dumb. While some progtards may be cynical as well, most aren’t, for all their other character faults. After all, it’s hard to be cynical when you live in a fantasy world where people and society can be perfected if only we get right Top. Men. in charge.

    8. These people live in large cities on the coasts. They have no comprehension of how vast this nation really is. New York city has what? Like 8.4 million people in 300 square miles, give or take?
      They simply cannot conceive of how empty and large fly over country really is.

  20. Speaking as the owner of more than one, but fewer than fifty, handguns, I have only this to say:


    1. I report my guns like congress reports their financial holdings.

      More than 10, but fewer than 50,000.

      1. More than 10? Seriously?

        Never owned one myself but am still a huge supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Guns make me nervous and every time I’ve held a loaded one I had a strong urge to stick it in my mouth and pull the trigger. Anyone else ever feel that way? But I don’t care if my neighbor has one, or a dozen.

        1. I believe that urge may be a sub-type of OCD called Scrupulosity. Might be worth checking into.

          1. Doesn’t necessarily have to be about guilt at all. It’s just like people getting the urge to jump if they stand on a ledge. It’s not because you think you did something wrong.

            1. Not guilt per se. It’s associated with a fear of doing something. You’re so afraid of doing that act, that it becomes an obsession. Usually associated with a fear of harming others which then leads to constant thoughts of doing harm to others, but it can be self-directed.

            2. Doesn’t necessarily have to be about guilt at all.

              I think it’s the realization that it’s something irrevocable that would be so easy to do. I’m sure a lot of people have unhealthy or dangerous urges from time to time. Sane people resist them but less-stable people often give in.

                1. Hmmm…interesting. Maybe I’m not as crazy as I feared. Although I suspect some people here might have a contrary opinion…

                  1. I know the feeling. I get it with heights sometimes. I wouldn’t call it an urge as much as a contemplation. My thought is typically something like “I’ve done more clumsy things than what would be required to kill myself in this situation”

                    1. I get it with heights sometimes

                      Just two years ago I stayed on the 20-something floor of the InterContinental Bucharest Hotel in Romania. Each room had a balcony with only a flimsy, waist-high guard rail between safety and certain death. I figure that if I survived that, I can survive anything.

                  2. Sounds like you have a handle on it. For you, guns are not something to handle. See how easy that was? Personal choice and personal responsibility. Or what we old farts call “freedom”.

          2. sub-type of OCD called Scrupulosity

            While being mildly OCD (I feel off if the bills in my wallet aren’t arranged by value and facing the same way), I don’t think that one fits. But I have a similar urge to jump to my death when I’m high up, and in woodshop class I was always tempted to shove my hand into the band saw.

            1. I’m not qualified to diagnose anyone, however it may be worth talking to a therapist about that.

              1. Or, just put your left hand into the band saw. That should take care of any future unwanted impulses.

              2. may be worth talking to a therapist about that.

                Tried that (I was deeply depressed and borderline suicidal about 25 years ago) and it was a huge waste of time. I just avoid situations that make me feel that way.

            2. Yeah, that’s all normal OCD stuff.

              1. Yeah, that’s all normal OCD stuff.

                Can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic…

                1. Can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic…

                  Nope. And IMO not worth telling a professional about unless you want to take a bunch of nonfun drugs to stop a feeling that probably doesn’t affect your life all that much.

                  1. not worth telling a professional

                    To my credit, I NEVER feel the urge to harm others. Just myself. And it’s more of an awareness that if for some reason I wanted to do it then nothing could stop me. But it’s just a thought that pops in my head. It’s not like I have to fight to resist the urge, and I’ve never come close to actually trying.

                    1. Yep. Normalsauce.

            3. I have a very similar issue, Antilles. Is it just self-harm related stuff with you? With me, sometimes it’s stuff like you describe, or I might be talking with somebody and have this weird urge to randomly punch or attack them in some way. I chalk it up to some mild form of OCD, as suggested above.

              1. ” or I might be talking with somebody and have this weird urge to randomly punch or attack them in some way.”

                I get that too, it’s called “people being stupid assholes”. Sadly, there’s no cure.

              2. weird urge to randomly punch or attack them

                I only get the urge to harm myself. Other people would have to do something seriously fucked up for me to consider doing the same to them.

            4. Just take a bunch of Ritalin and you’ll be fine. Especially if you share some with me.

              1. take a bunch of Ritalin

                Weed and booze work just fine. I rarely have the urge when I’m drunk or high.

                1. They’re just thoughts. People give thoughts too much credence, much like dreams.

                  1. Lately they’ve been giving feelings too much credence.

                2. But I already have lots of weed and booze! In fact, the Ultimate Purple I got recently is *very* nice.

                  1. Ever try Presidential Moonrocks? Nuggets of premium weed soaked in hash oil and then rolled in kief. Highly recommended if you have a high tolerance like me.

                    1. Jesus fuck. :p

                      It’s been 20 years since I smoked regularly, and these days, it’s usually a once a year or two years sort of thing. And every goddamn time, I forget just how fucking strong the stuff has gotten. One hit, and I’m just, useless (or even more useless, depending on one’s starting opinion of me) for like, hours.

                  2. I switched to a vape with hash oil. So convenient and low profile. Of course, it’s easy to buy such a rig in Colorado, your mileage may vary.

            5. and in woodshop class I was always tempted to shove my hand into the band saw

              Oooh! I do get that one. Well, machine tools. I resist, of course, because duh, just… yeah. I hear you. Hunh. Interesting. I actually kinda figured everyone got that, and mostly just, y’know, didn’t, because duh. 😉

        2. If I felt that way, I’d make a point to not own guns.

          1. You’re going to tell me you don’t know what the barrel of a gun taste like?!?

              1. Just to see what it feels like…

                1. It feels like (as stupid as this sounds) I’d want to go side of the head to avoid chipping my teeth. Yes, I know, it’s fucking stupid. Nonetheless…

                  1. No actually, I’ve heard that shooting into the mouth causes large numbers of failed suicide attempts.
                    Man, if you’re life is so bad that you try to commit suicide, and then you fail WOW you must really feel like a loser then: “I’m such a failure I can’t even kill myself!”

        3. No I haven’t. I have a strong aversion to causing harm to myself or others. Even critters.

          I can’t imagine what would give you that urge or what having it would feel like.

          1. strong aversion to causing harm to myself or others. Even critters

            No desire to harm others or animals–just myself. Bit it’s just a thought that pops in my head. I think my mild OCD causes me to obsess about it and make more if it than I should.

            1. … and make more if it than I should.


        4. I’m no psychologist, but usually strong urges similar to that are caused by some type of emotional trauma or a feeling that you are “broke/evil”. You are not broke nor evil. Matter of fact it’s “normal” to have behaviors that are not “normal”(normal is overused- when it comes to humanity normal is regressive and stagnant imo).My sister died when I was 8 and mother when I was 10 so I have attachment issues with the womyns…(I don’t like throwing this much personal stuff out there but I want you to know that you are not broke).
          From your posts it appears you have a head on your shoulders so hang in there and if you don’t want to talk to someone about it(maybe a group that has same feelings/issues?) maybe you can do some self analysis and find out what happened long ago that causes this. Or just resist the urge and go on with your life.
          Long story short- you are not alone.

          1. +weed and booze for the win

          2. You are not broke nor evil.

            I know I’m not evil (others may disagree), but I’m not quite ‘normal’ either. But that’s OK because I consider most ‘normal’ people to be uninteresting and boring and wouldn’t trade places with them for anything. But I’m 51 and have never actually acted on the urges. I’ve never cut my flesh or intentionally inflicted pain on myself. And after reading the NPR link that Lee G posted I think my only problem is that I obsess over these thoughts when I should do what normal people do and dismiss them outright. Thanks for your concern and for sharing your personal experiences…

        5. No, but I occasionally have the urge to say catastrophically inappropriate things. It’s like… pre-Tourette’s.

          1. I’m gonna fake Tourette’s and get a doc to write me a note, just so that I can go around and tell everybody what I really think.

        6. They’re always loaded! Rookie mistake and the cause of most accidental shootings.

        7. Umm….so you get the urge to put long hard things in your mouth? Why not just give BJ’s instead? At least if you get shot you’ll still be alive and well.

      2. Same here. More than….well, probably more than you have. Still under 50K though.

        1. My collecting ability is severely hamstrung by California.

      3. Right now I’ve got three. Hunting rifle, shotgun, and pistol. Got a metric shit ton of ammo though. Been thinking about getting something for medium range/ home defense though, any suggestions?

        1. Old painless. Seriously I’m a fan of a shotgun for home defense. A have a short barrel Remington 870 with extended magazine and night sites for home defense. Some “experts” recommend an AR. I’m concerned with over penetration because I live in a neighborhood.

          1. I agree with Florida Man. A shotgun is almost certainly the best home defense tool out there. I prefer a pump action because of the “turn bowels to water” crunch-chruch if a warning is appropriate.

            Don’t get sucked into loading double-aught buck when it’s usually not at all necessary. Nine .25 caliber slugs is an over penetration issue if you live in a close environment.

            And please, if you are going to own a weapon, practice with it! Shooting skills deteriorate rapidly. It’s not like the movies where the hero can pick up any old weapon after years of neglect and shoot like a champ.

            1. The sound alone of a pump action is enough to send most intruders running.

          2. Been thinking about getting something for medium range/ home defense though, any suggestions?

            Old painless


            Irony, given that a handle of the guy I’m going to cite is Ol’ Painless, but an 5.56 AR is what you seek, Dark Lord. Properly chosen 5.56 bullets will go through fewer drywall panels than buckshot or pistol bullets, yet will still penetrate the FBI requisite 12 inches in ballistic gelatin.

            Further, rifles are:
            1) easier to aim effectively than handguns;
            2) recoil less than shotguns firing buckshot;
            3) lighter than most shotguns, making them easier to use by females or minors;
            4) able to destroy more tissue than handguns.
            5) able to have larger, more reliable magazines than either handguns or shotguns.

            So, get a legal length 5.56 carbine. If available, get a short barrel for it (easier to move around with it indoors) and a suppressor. Your ears will thank you, the first time you touch it off indoors without ear protection.

        2. kriss super v (vector)
          Kinda dreamy gun imo.
          Shoots 45 acp accurately with a built in anti recoil system. And it looks cool. Or if you want to do it with less $ maybe an mp5 or even a mini14 carbine. Florida man is right on with a shotty though…

  21. I would love a gun-free America.

    We should outlaw the manufacturing of any devices exclusively designed to murder people.

    I would love to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

    As for enforcement, the government will make a clever way to get the guns from folks.
    Maybe they’ll deny certain tax benefits or something. Maybe they may deny people from getting drivers licences.

    But regardless of what the government does, people will always be able to manufacture a gun right at home. Guns can be made crudely with a steel pipe, some gun powder, and some ball bearings. Or, one can 3D Print a gun.

    But either way, it will be a good start to get rid of murder devices from our society.

    The POLICE-STATE ship has sailed by fellow libertarians. It’s not coming back. We live in a police state. The government (police, SWAT-TEAM, IRS, FBI, military, drones, satellites, etc. etc. etc.) have 100000000% control of our lives. And, no gun can protect any of us from the Government. So, let’s get rid of the guns already.

    1. To borrow an expression from the Late P Brooks in the previous comment: Fuck off, slaver

      1. Sorry to hear P Brooks passed away.

    2. This is

      I don’t


      1. +1 Dave’s not here.

        1. The “logic” sort of reminds me of Alice Bowie, but presented with better spelling and sentence construction.

          1. It’s a known Tulpa

            1. Oh. Then it’s just sort of sad.

      2. It is Tulpa.

        It has been using that handle to troll the site lately.

        Pay zero attention to it.

        1. Thanks for the heads-up. I will troll back in the future.

    3. When you can find me a hobby that is as interesting, as useful, and as much fun as target shooting, then we can talk about getting rid of the guns.

      Until then, feel free to gag yourself on my ass.

      1. Ewww. You’re gonna have to wash your ass after.

      2. That sounds like a good way to discover fascinating new chimeric diseases.

    4. Is this for real, or an illustration of Poe’s Law?

      1. I think it’s for real because I had it blocked already – he’s spewed leftist garbage before. Either that or he’s world-class satire.

        1. At this point in time what difference does it make?

    5. “We should outlaw the manufacturing of any devices exclusively designed to murder people.”

      Agreed. Let me know if you ever find such a device.

      1. Let me know if you ever find such a device.

        A Guillotine-free society.

        Doesn’t that sound logical? Does that sound safe?

        1. Dude! There is no more fun way to slice sausage.

    6. As for enforcement, the government will make a clever way to get the guns from folks.

      Well, they can’t use guns in a gun-free society.

    7. And, no gun can protect any of us from the Government.

      1775 Concord. 1965 Vietnam. 1980 Afghanistan.

      People have been preaching the “government is too powerful for mere small arms to defeat” for hundreds of years. It has become no truer than it was back then.

  22. A gun-free society…Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed ?

    Apparently, you need a little work on your definition of gun-free, or your grasp of the English language.

  23. “Read the whole piece here.”

    Do I have to?

    1. No, no.
      *cradles Gleep’s head in lap*
      ?Hush little baby…

  24. Precisely how many gun deaths, every year, are attributable to the Drug War? How many gangs finance their murderous activities with money they make because of the Drug War, and how many deaths are attributable to murderous gangs fighting over drug distribution?

    My understanding is that of the 11,000 gun homicides in this country every year, a huge portion of them are concentrated in poor urban areas, where illegal drug distribution makes up a disproportionately large share of the local economy.

    Murderous gangs would continue to use guns–regardless of whether guns were banned. The reality is that the Drug War is ultimately the single biggest cause of gun homicides in this country, and that wouldn’t change if guns were banned. Minimizing gun violence means ending the Drug War. There’s no way around it.

    Everyone who says their primary concern is ending gun violence but doesn’t want to end the Drug War is either an ignoramus or a liar.

    1. Eh, make drugs legal and those guys will lose customer base and profit margins. So they’ll have to shift into other areas, and continue resolving their disputes through violence. Shit, with drugs closed, they might have to go extract money from local populace through involuntary transactions – I guess since they aren’t official government, we call that robbery and extortion rather than taxation.

      1. “Eh, make drugs legal and those guys will lose customer base and profit margins. So they’ll have to shift into other areas, and continue resolving their disputes through violence.”

        None of them as profitable as the drug trade.

        They’re already running protection rackets. Every gang that can charges the businesses in their area “rent”.

        They’re going to have to downsize.

        Ending the War on Drugs wouldn’t mean the end of street gangs, but it would be the end of their biggest, most profitable business. And it would mean ending trying to compete for and protect drug distribution channels as well. If distributing drugs makes up 75% of a gang’s income, and that revenue stream dries up, there are going to be a lot of out of work gangsters looking for other work–same as if they were working on Wall Street. And that income stream isn’t going to be about protecting distribution channels by murdering the competition either.

        1. They’re going to have to downsize.

          Right, I’m just assuming downsize will be done through Glocks, not saying “welp, off to work at McD, I guess.” These are not the guys who want to put in two part-time shifts a day for minimum wage.

          Shit, now you got me extra depressed – if idiotic $10-$12-$15-why not $20 an hour goes through, even if they want them, legal jobs will be beyond them anyway. Fuck, it is like fighting a hydra, pointy sharp teeth keep coming from odd angles….

          1. Why would a low margin industry that doesn’t depend on distribution replacing a high margin industry that does depend on distribution–mean the same amount of gun violence?

            The willful obtuseness is very strong with this one.

            Is this Tulpa?

            1. OK, here’s what I figure – these guys want or have to deal drugs (even if it means shit pay at entry level) and not do 9-5 for shit pay at entry level.
              Legalizing drugs means (presumably) legal business moves in, and starts dealing drugs like any other retail good (say, like corner shop moves in, starts selling cigs where it used to be guys reselling them).
              Do these guys apply for sales job at the store? Do they get it? I assume not. Could be wrong, but I don’t think a store would go “oh, you spent last five years dealing drugs illegaly? welcome aboard!”
              Even if they could get the job, do they want all the bullshit that goes along with it? Dress code, having some pussy check your hours, being polite to customers, paying tax?
              So now there’s less stuff for all these guys to do – I’m guessing their downsizing will be done with guns to sort out who remains. Afterwards, violence may drop, but that shakeout period will suck.
              As I said, it’s possible I’m too pessimistic. I just don’t see the guys doing shit work of drug business being able to transition to legal jobs in hypothetical legalized drug industry.

              1. Yeah, the transition may involve some problems. When gang members get laid off, they don’t transition to something else.

                Chances are they’ll end up on welfare.

                There won’t be any new positions opening up, however. In much of Los Angeles, you don’t even have to be recruited to be affiliated anymore. You’re affiliated because of where you live. The ranks of the hardcore soldiers are filled from those that are affiliated, and there simply won’t be enough money to go around to pay out new recruits anymore. There won’t be more room for soldiers in the ranks like there used to be, there won’t be violent competition for drug distribution territory like there used to be. They’ll probably drop the affiliation eventually.

                We’re talking about the future, too. It isn’t just what the gangsters out there now are going to do when they’re downsized. It’s also that there are going to be a lot fewer gangsters in the future with legalization–and forever more.

                There’s going to be a lot less gun violence in the future without several hundred billion dollars’ worth of illegal drug distribution to fight over and distribute to other gang members. You’re not getting flashy clothes and a car.

                It’ll be like what’s happening with Indian tribes disenfranchising other band members because there isn’t enough casino money to go around.

            2. He seems to be assuming that some people will be criminals no matter what. And that that accounts for all violent criminality. I think that the first part is somewhat true. But the second part is not. Some people may get into gangs because they are just violent sociopaths. But there are plenty there because of the economic and social incentives too. And without the WOD, the economics change a lot.

              1. Well, it’s more, people who join gangs may not be people who want what you’d call low-end jobs, and who might not be able to get them, especially if your entry wage is too high.
                Shit, maybe just keep drugs illegal, and then end WoD, and accept that there will be an area of commerce outside state activity, but come down hard on violence. So that drug dealers and cronies will do what they do now, but maybe with fewer people caught in crossfire and fewer people sent to prison.

                1. We’re talking about depriving an industry of hundreds of billions in illegal drug profits. If they can’t pay their people anymore, then that’s the end of it.

                  It doesn’t matter how sociopathic the soldiers are. If they’re no longer economically sustainable, the need and desire to recruit them will disappear along with the financial incentives to do so.

                  Some of the current members will continue to commit crimes, and they’ll go to prison and become wards of the state. But there won’t be any incentive to replace them with new recruits.

                  And keeping it illegal but ending the War on Drugs just continues to keep the gangs flush with cash. It isn’t just the fear of the police that makes them violent. It’s also competition from other gangs.

                  What you’re talking about would be an improvement, but the problem would continue to fester. …and for no good reason.

                2. It’s not as if most people in gangs are raking it in. They mostly live with their mothers and if they have fancy clothes or cars or whatever it’s because they spend all of their money on them. As far as I know, it’s only the most successful leaders who make lots of money. Street dealers aren’t making more than someone working 40 hrs at McDonalds, I don’t think.

                  If drugs were legalized today, I think there would be an adjustment period where people currently involved in drug gangs would look for other ways to be gangsters. But over time, I think you’d see a lot of them either die off, land in prison for long terms or find something else to do.

                  Anyway, the main reason for legalizing drugs is that it is completely immoral to use force against people for engaging in peaceful, voluntary transactions or for harming themselves.

                  1. Yeah, I didn’t mention it because I couldn’t remember where it came from (Freakonomics? or something) but supposedly drug dealers work on same principle as actors or models – shit jobs with shit pay that chew up most of the people who attempt them, but there’s always takers because
                    a) if you make it big, you make it BIG
                    b) it’s more socially prestigious (within their circles) to be actor/model/dealer making min. wage than retail clerk doing the same

                  2. “Street dealers aren’t making more than someone working 40 hrs at McDonalds, I don’t think.”

                    They’re making a lot more than that. They just tend to blow it quick.

                    It’s like professional athletes or rappers that blow all their millions on friends and associates and living large.

                    The money comes easy and goes fast. But they’re making a ton of it, and they’re also taking care of their families. And they’re taking care of everybody in the gang that’s in any way associated with selling.

                    I knew a crip that somehow ended up owning every apartment building on the block where he grew up. They don’t spend their money like you would spend your money, but they make plenty of it. And they spread it around.

                  3. “Anyway, the main reason for legalizing drugs is that it is completely immoral to use force against people for engaging in peaceful, voluntary transactions or for harming themselves.”

                    That’s the main reason you and I would legalize drugs.

                    Other people might do it because they abhor gun violence, and they really want the government to do something to stop it.

                    Banning gun won’t stop gun violence–certainly not where gun violence is most prolific, which is in urban areas with heavy gang activity surrounding the drug trade. If people want to see all that heartache and murder come to an end–because they care about ending that more than what we care about–then that’s an excellent reason to end the Drug War.

            3. That was uncalled for Ken. Pan is a true American Hero (mostly because of hot Eastern European athlete links.)

              1. I didn’t know, and I fall for Tulpa so often…

                I was really asking.

                Anyway, I apologize.

  25. Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe? Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed ? and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?…

    Good gravy.
    They wouldn’t even accept that for publication in A Child’s Guide to Logic.

    1. Appeals to emotion (and lies) are all these POS’s have.

      1. But they have good intentions! They just don’t want any gun violence in America, and who can disagree with that?

        They just think there’s gotta be a way that the government can achieve that. There has to be a way! Because Ronald Reagan was wrong, and they hated Nixon.

        So there has to be a way that the government could stop all the gun violence. …if only all the stupid white Christian redneck racist homophobes would get out of the way.

        1. Have you noticed how they will use any excuse to aggress against innocent people? Their entire philosophy is grounded in perpetually violating the NAP.

          1. This is necessary to maintain tonus of the power gradient. If at any time they find themselves in a community in which there is no authority that is clearly great and powerful and no opposition that is not clearly weak and pathetic, their identities begin to lose conformation. And these identities are ultimately standing on a foundation of fear, so this disintegration is accompanied by a sense of mortal terror. It is, I think, also why there is no shame in cowardice in this group, such as one finds universally amongst societies of free men where there is no oppressive authority enforcing a delusional power gradient.

  26. Congress will not lead this change. There has to be a cultural shift.

    This must be the wishful thinkers’ new talking point. I was just reading a while ago about how we just need to shame gun freaks like we did smokers, and everything will be awesome.

    1. This actually scares me more than legislation.

      1. Not me. These people live in little bubbles. They aren’t going to win.

        1. I know it’s not completely the same but the way they have beat on the tobacco industry gives me pause.

          1. Yeah, but smoking really is a danger that private gun ownership isn’t. And people who don’t live in urban progressive bubbles know that. Smoking damages your health in all cases. Owning guns almost never does.

        2. Unfortunately, the Cultural Marxists have a pretty successful record. They won’t get it anytime soon, but they’re persistent as hell.

    2. It wasn’t shame that cut down on smoking. It was tripling the taxes and making it illegal to smoke almost everywhere.

      1. Sarcasm? Because, the fact is, smoking greatly declined due to education efforts. The bans came after social norms changed.

  27. Morons like these guys can make their own guns. It isn’t that hard.

  28. Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe?

    I’m good enough, I’m smart enough – and people like me!

    1. i’m head of the class
      i’m a quarterback
      my mom says i’m a catch
      i’m never last picked
      i’m a cheerleading chick

      1. +1 Kennedy

  29. Why stop with guns? Let’s all push for a sin-free society. That would be nice. Not very damn likely, but nice.

    1. Yeah, we’re just about to turn the corner and win the War on Prostitution.

      It’ll be any day now.

  30. every time I’ve held a loaded one I had a strong urge to stick it in my mouth and pull the trigger. Anyone else ever feel that way?

    Well, now that you mention it…


    1. I confess, after my 3rd vacation in Fallujah, I was informed I was going directly to Afhganistan for another year, I did put a pistol in my mouth.

  31. the way they have beat on the tobacco industry gives me pause.

    They already talk about the NRA as a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Beelzebub Industries.

  32. Is the Washington Post going to require any security guards at its offices to be gun free as well?

    1. Yes, WaPo is only going to rely on the police, much like our political overlords … *uncontrollable laughter*

  33. So no armed cops, no armed soldiers, no armed security guards, no armed anyone. Gun Free Society.

    1. I guess the Secret Service can just get back to investigating counterfeiting.

      1. They don’t investigate the biggest counterfeiter ever, that being the fed.

        1. No shit. Fuckin monopoly money is keeping the whole shit together. It’s like watching a blind guy juggle hand grenades

    2. That is not what King Tard of Tardistan proposed in his WaPo article.

  34. But Australia was a pioneer nation, too, and gave up its guns.

    And became worse.

    Societies change, populations evolve.

    “Change” and “evolution” are not interchangeable, fucking dipshit.

  35. The Police State in America is here to stay.

    There’s no way to fight a government that some of us don’t like.

  36. But Australia was a pioneer nation, too, and gave up its guns.

    No, they did not. They didn’t give up their guns; the buyback program was actually mandatory. What the Australian government did amounted to gun confiscation. In that sense, Australia was no more a pioneer than, say, Nazi Germany.

    Besides, as the Australian government concedes, they were able to confiscate only 1/3 of the estimated 3 million guns owned by Australians. That’s not much to write home about.

  37. And people are not immune, over time, to reason.

    If that were true, no socialists would exist today.

  38. Y’all really love your guns.

    1. We just don’t like our freedoms being infringed upon when we’ve done nothing wrong.

      Like a reasonable person.

      1. There is more to the gun thing though. People who otherwise don’t give two shits about giving up all of their other freedoms are absolutely in love with their guns.

        1. Those types exist in every single civil rights movement.

          Take abortion, for example. Many, if not most, of the people who would be in the street chanting “my body my choice” if anyone threatened to outlaw abortion are the same people who think it should be illegal for someone to choose to put drugs into their own bodies.

    2. I don’t love the guns, but the guns love me.

    3. “Y’all really love your guns.”

      There’s the unescapable fact that interference in everyone’s rights to own property injures everyone, so gun control is an immense moral evil with the entirety of the population as actual victims.

    4. I really love the rights I was born with and which were/are enumerated in the Bill of the Rights, part of the law of this land. Perhaps you should read what the real laws are and then become someone who obeys them.

  39. Actually, the Ozzies gave up a few of their guns. Big Buyout wasn’t exactly the overwhelming success some people would like you to believe.

    1. Have they called it off yet?

  40. As we’ve seen over the past 15 years with same-sex marriage, such deep cultural change is difficult ? and possible. Wyatt Earp, the frontier mentality, prying my cold dead fingers ? I get all that.

    Wyatt Earp – Jew.

  41. “Fred Hiatt, who runs the Washington Post’s editorial page, has had it with incrementalism when it comes to gun violence.”

    Not to mention intelligence; he went full-stupid here!
    Note I did NOT say “peak”; like perfection, that’s always just beyond reach.

  42. Progressives are so dumb, it’s painful. The same people who came up with #blacklivesmatter think that cops are the only ones who can be trusted with guns.

  43. “There has to be a cultural shift. Only then will Congress and the Supreme Court follow.”

    Everyone reading this who does not own a gun needs to go buy one.

  44. So the Jackassed Stormtroopers of Liberaltardistan have received their orders from Lord of the Tards.

  45. Lefties don’t hate guns per se. They detest the conservative and “white” support for the second amendment. To them the NRA is basically a white men’s gun club, and they hate it with a passion more than ISIS or Al Qaida.

    Most gun homicides involve gang members and criminals. Stop and Frisk would be arguably more effective than any gun control measures, but lefties won’ stand for that, because that would violate the rights of CERTAIN people.

    The left has a vested interest in mass shootings becoming a norm and orchestrated by a bitter white man. It validates their worldview in a number of ways, and the regulatory / DJW state that acts on behalf of the people is among them. That’s why I support gun rights. Guns scare me and I’ll never put one in my house, but the gun grabbers are not only disingenuous but have supported policies that have led to gun violence.

    They’re right, if people were working and happy, there’s less gun violence. So who’s been running places like Chicago and Detroit again? Their solution to the breakdown of families is “welfare”.

  46. Zero-tolerance = prohibition; we have often seen that such a policy generally tends to produce worse consequences than the evils it combats. This would, require a Constitutional amendment, which probably won’t ever be ratified in the foreseeable future. Finally, it is unfair to lump suicides in with the gun violence statistics. Perhaps, were guns to magically disappear tomorrow, the net suicide rate would go down. But would people who would remain alive continue to be miserable with no hope? If so, they would arguably be better off committing suicide; as long as it is their own decision and a direct result of their own actions, who has right or authority to stand in their way? The only way a lowered suicide rate would be a good thing, were if those who remained alive could also rekindle the joy and hope of life. Otherwise, would gun opponents doom those people to suffer in waking nightmares — THAT is “compassion”?

    We could and should try OTHER things to reduce gun violence before seriously considering banning guns themselves. End the Drug War. End the War on Terror (along with our interventionist foreign policy) and severely cut back the high-incarceration surveillance State. Eliminate restrictive regulation, occupational licensing, high taxation, and other barriers to opportunity for people trying to get ahead. If we did things like that, I think we’d see such a reduction in gun violence that the gun-banners would have little or no remaining point.

  47. The silliest thing about this editorial is that it ignores the absolute fact that the overall homicide rate has remained the SAME in all of these ‘developed nations’ after gun bans. Maniacs who want to kill, will kill regardless of the modus.

  48. 1) A society where only cops and soldiers (and the bodyguards of the elite, as he somehow forgot to mention) are armed isn’t “gun free”, it’s feudal. He’s just suggesting to toss out the notion of equality under the law and re-institute a class system.

    2) In his vision of a “gun free” society, does the Dept. of Education still have guns? If so, how would he justify it?

  49. ” Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed”

    So, emphatically *not* a gun free society.

    A disarmed peasant class, with an armed ruling class.

    Hardly a new idea.

    “and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?…”

    Yeah, it always works out that fewer innocents die when only the rulers are armed. Uh huh.

    1. The samurai class protested the introduction of firearms to Japan for a very good reason – next peasant they tried to behead for disrespecting his ancestors could blow the motherfuckers away. Guns in the hands of the citizenry ended a centuries long pattern of highly a trained warrior class subjugating disarmed and untrained peasants.

  50. Sam Harris has a series of articles on guns and gun violence.

    He has a FAQ as well. Among other things, it shows what one would expect in a disarmed society. Knowing they need not fear an armed victim, criminals are more violent more often.

    U.S. 4.8
    UK (includes Northern Ireland) 1.2
    Australia 1.0
    Sweden 1.0

    U.S. 27.3
    UK (England and Wales) 28.8
    Australia 88.4
    Sweden 63.5

    U.S. 250.9
    U.K. (England and Wales) 664.4
    Australia 766
    Sweden 936.6
    Scotland 1449.7

  51. In a “gun free society” the police would have to give up their guns too. I’m game, you disarm first.

    1. + 2 crossed fingers

  52. I cannot fathom the intellectual dishonesty that the supposedly scientifically literate progressives must possess if they keep spewing arguments like this in spite of the extremely well documented and amazingly consistent negative correlation between private gun ownership and rates of murder and violence (and the lack of association with suicide). Surely they must have become aware of this reality and chosen to willfully ignore it by the 700th time they dug up correlations between guns and gun violence specifically, as if being stabbed is better than being shot.

  53. I’ll give up my gun* when they pry my cold, dead, fucking fingers from around the trigger. I have just one request: “Please bury it (my beautiful S&W .357 magnum) with me so that I can kill a few more statist asshole mother-fuckers in the afterlife.”

    *Please reload my gun (upon my death it will have six spent cartridges in the cylinder, naturally) so I’ll be ready for action when I arrive on the distant shores of the River Styx.

  54. If we do somehow end up with firearms becoming illegal and confiscations becoming reality I hope there will be an on-line petition drive somewhere along the way. Then, when it is time for confiscations to begin, send out a mass e-mail to all the people who signed the petition for a manditory meeting to support the new law – the law only going into effect if 95% of the signatories show up.

    Once they show up let them know that they thenselves will be doing the door-to-door searches – commencing immediately.

    “You want the guns turned in? Go get ’em!”

  55. I don’t know why people think Australia is gun free. It’s actually relatively easy to get a gun in Australia.

    You apply for a license at your local police station, do a gun safety class, sit a test, get your license, buy a gun. So long as you keep your guns and ammo in a gun safe, you can have as many guns as you desire. Although, you can’t buy any automatic or semi-automatic weapons without a special license. And you can only use the gun in situation appropriate times and places.

  56. Statistics and graphs do not compel me to give up my rights based on the rants of paranoid useful idiots.

  57. Enjoy reading comments, rarely post. Paying a lot of attention to this topic. I am really seeing why there have been spikes in gun purchasing based on politicos statements. They so want to be seen as ‘doing something,’ or just saying something to make themselves feel better. But that article in the New Yorker made me realize they aren’t just delusional. They are lying on purpose. There IS an agenda. This is scary to me, all joking and sarcasm aside.

  58. Nick:

    Some gun control advocates argue that restrictive gun laws in other democratic, developed countries, such as the United Kingdom, have resulted in a very low number of homicides when compared to the U.S. Here’s one such article:…..lling.html

    What is your response to them?

    1. Control for drug-war/gang/inner-city violence and our homicide rates would be lower than the UK. We have a violent subclass in the US that contributes a vast majority of the violent crime. They will be violent with or without guns. They will find guns even if they are illegal. We need guns, among other reasons, to protect ourselves from them. I don’t own a gun as an arms race wtih the gun owner next door or across the street, I’m armed for the goon casing my house at 11 at night. We have a unique social and cultural situation in the US that Western Europe doesn’t have – or is just now starting to experience with the unassimilated and violent muslim immagrants they’ve been receiving lately…

    2. Those countries that gun control advocates like to point to had low and declining homicide rates before they implemented their restrictive gun control laws; the US had higher homicide rates than them even back when our laws were more comparable. In fact, it’s noteworthy that after Britain imposed their 1997 handgun control law, the homicide rate went up, not down, reaching a peak around 2002. Since then their homicide rate has fallen back around to where it was in 1985. (Meanwhile, the US’s homicide rate has been falling fairly consistently since around 1990, and is currently at rates lower than any seen in the last hundred years.) To the degree that they have low homicide rates, it isn’t because of their laws.

      As an aside, whenever an argument like that is prefixed with “other democratic, developed countries”, this is pretty much a sign that you’re cherry-picking your data points to select only the ones that you want. Estonia and Lithuania are democratic, highly developed EU member states with homicide rates higher than the US’s. And if gun control works, we have to ask why it doesn’t seem to work in Mexico or Brazil. The usual response is, “Well, those countries are different”, but that’s exactly the point: it’s about culture, not laws. The UK would have a low homicide rate with or without restrictive laws; Brazil would have a high homicide rate with or without restrictive laws.

  59. Gee, this sounds exactly like that brightidea back in 1963 – “Let’s get rid of illegal drugs.”
    We can be assured that any effort by the govt to remove guns will result in the law abiding having their guns removed, but no one else. Nick Gillespie must be living on Mars or something. How can a person be this stupid? As for stopping murders, we can be assured that the Blacks and the Hispanics, both of whom love knives, will have an ability to continue their murdering ways.
    Next we will hear brainless Nick explain how we have to get rid of all knives. Then baseball bats, then crowbars, etc etc Suicides will discover the joys of hanging themselves or taking overdoses.
    Gee, what a mind Nick Gillespie has.

  60. In comparing us with Australia, everyone should be aware that we have all the Black thugs and Hispanic gangs in this country. Any stupid attempt to prove anything using Australia as an example of a gun-free America is really, really stupid.

  61. Does the statement cold dead hands tell the reporter anything?

  62. Does the statement cold dead hands tell the reporter anything?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.