Gun Control

The More You Politicize Guns the Weaker Your Case Becomes

For the liberal, every societal problem has a state-issued remedy waiting to be administered.

|

Credit: White House / Flickr.com

After the horrific mass shooting at a community college in Oregon, President Barack Obama made an impassioned case that gun violence is "something we should politicize":

This is a political choice that we make, to allow this to happen every few months in America. We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction.

Everything in that statement is wrong. What happened in Oregon is tragic, and the nation should comfort families and look for reasonable and practical ways to stem violence, but there is only one murderer. Now, if government somehow bolstered, endorsed or "allowed" the actions of Chris Harper-Mercer—as it might with, say, the civilian deaths that occur during an American drone action—a person could plausibly argue that we are collectively answerable as a nation.

Then again, when the president asserts that Americans are collectively answerable, what he really suggests—according to his own broader argument—is that conservatives who've blocked his gun control legislation are wholly responsible. The problem with that contention, outside of the obvious fact that Republicans never condone the use of guns for illegal violence (in fact, these rampages hurt their cause more than anything), is that Democrats haven't offered a single bill or idea (short of confiscation) that would impede any of the mass shootings or overall gun violence. This is not a political choice, because it's likely there is no available political answer.

For the liberal, every societal problem has a state-issued remedy waiting to be administered over the objections of a reactionary Republican. But just because you have a tremendous amount of emotion and frustration built up around a certain cause doesn't make your favored legislation any more practical, effective or realistic. It doesn't change the fact that owning a gun is a civil right, that the preponderance of owners are not criminals or that there are 300 million guns out there.

And if it's a political argument you're offering—and when hasn't it been?—you'll need more than the vacuousness of "this is bad, so we have to do something." That's because anti-gun types are never able to answer a simple question: What law would you pass that could stop these shootings?

Many liberals see the Second Amendment as tragically misinterpreted or useless and guns as abhorrent, so they do not believe that any legislative imposition is a trade-off—even an ineffective law. Many conservatives view guns as a civil right, so this is an unacceptable trade-off. Some don't even view mass shooting as primarily a gun problem. Now, that doesn't mean guns have nothing to do with it, as Ramesh Ponnuru puts it well responding to a Slate piece:

"One can simultaneously believe that the high volume of firearms contributes to our high homicide rate and that these laws aren't good ideas. It's actually pretty easy to believe both of these things at once, since none of the regulations at issue would do much at all to reduce our high volume of firearms."

Jeb Bush took a lot of heat for asserting that "stuff happens" (out of context). Now, horrific stuff happens, and we should do what we can, balanced with a host of other concerns, to stop these shootings. But it's worth pointing out that less stuff has been happening. Despite all the Obama administration's fearmongering and as horrifying as any shooting is, gun violence has precipitously declined over the decades without any meaningful federal law being enacted. This most likely tells us there are a number of other social currents driving this kind of violence. The left believes that the number of guns is at fault rather than social ills—because no person can be evil. So the debate takes on the same old contours, and we focus on firearms and nothing else. That kind of political debate only makes it less likely that anything good will happen.

When we politicize a tragedy, it is immediately sucked into a broader ideological conflict. Then conservatives (at least when out of power) will see (rightfully, I believe) an intrusive agenda that is a perpetual slippery slope. (Can you blame them when they hear this? "No, we don't want confiscation, but look at what the Australians did! They confiscated guns. We don't want confiscation, but isn't that Second Amendment interpretation so stupid?!") Trust me, it's not unreasonable to treat liberal policies as if they have a tendency for mission creep and unwieldy expansion.

Advertisement

NEXT: Good guy with a gun + the man who murdered the man the good guy killed

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

  1. “Republicans never condone the use of guns for illegal violence”

    They don’t?

    1. Hi AmSoc!

      Please help me with my Stalin Scouts badge! I just need to know if I steal everyone’s stuff before I kill them, or do I do it after?

      Thanks!

      1. Hey, I just found out that Norway is subsidizing Musk to the tune of $90K/car! The US (and CA) look positively sane by comparison.

        1. Norway or Denmark? The latter is finally phasing out over $100k in subsidies.

          1. “Norway hands out $90,000 to buy Teslas”
            http://dailycaller.com/2013/11…..uy-teslas/

            What happened to the Danes? Run out of other peoples’ money? An outbreak of intelligence?

            1. Got it in one.

            2. Make Danes Great Again!!!!

            3. Well, the average Dane pays a 180% “you don’t really need a car, so take the bus” tax on every car they purchase, and then on top comes a “value” added 25% sales tax. Obviously there are more penalties if you choose certain other luxury additions to your car, like an automatic gearbox or a radio. The latter of course qualifies you to pay your state run radio license as well, but that’s not a tax, only a fee you’re forced to pay. So, errr, yeah it’s not a tax..

              Denmark has allowed car buyers to get out of some of those taxes if they buy a “good” (electric) car, vs. “evil” (fossil fuel) cars. So that means Danes buy luxury electric cars for the same amount of money a mediocre gas powered car would cost. Since Denmark is geographically tiny, the amount of kilometers you get on a charge is less of a concern than here.

              Since money is running low, and more and more people are employed by, or otherwise get paid by the Danish state, they’ve had to reign in this most generous “not charging as much tax” on those cars.

              They might subsidize Tesla directly in some way, I don’t know, but you probably just have “giving” confused with “not taking”.

    2. Hey, dipshit! Pay your mortgage yet, or are you still free-riding on those who keep their word?

    3. Re: american stultified,

      They don’t?

      Well, they do, together with their Marxian brethren in Congress, when the illegal violence is meant to topple undesirable strongmen like Gadaffi.

      1. Is that the same as saying that we should start a civil war and shoot at federal officials if we don’t get our way or if politicians do things like expand the fascist Medicare program?

        If you want examples of politicizing tragedy maybe there’s one that is closer to home. Namely, the way right-wingers throw up their hands in despair at any mention of a public policy to address gun violence or, more commonly, make hysterical statements (and raise boatloads of money) about how libruls are coming to grab your guns when politicians mention things like trigger locks and background checks. I find it a victimless crime though. Aren’t politicians and the journalists that cover them supposed to politicize tragedy and suggest ways to do things better?

        1. Re: american stultified,

          Is that the same as saying that we should start a civil war and shoot at federal officials[…]

          No, it is the same as saying that Republicans and their Marxian brethren are much more keen to accept illegal violence when it comes to toppling undesirable strongmen.

          I mean, I did write that statement in English, I think.

        2. Re: american stultified,

          the way right-wingers throw up their hands in despair at any mention of a public policy to address gun violence

          Maybe because there is no such thing as gun violence. Guns are not naturally violent because they are not animated objects. I would throw my arms in despair the same way after listening to you assaulting language in that manner.

          how libruls are coming to grab your guns […] trigger locks and background checks.

          Actually, people get angry not when “libruls” talk about trigger locks and background checks but when they talk about repealing the 2nd Amendment (as if the Constitution granted rights) and actual gun confiscation.

          Aren’t politicians and the journalists that cover them supposed to politicize tragedy and suggest ways to do things better?

          If these are tragedies we talk about (tragedy: a terrible, sorrowful but inevitable outcome), then politicizing them makes no sense.

          Are Marxians learning their thinking skills from reading the back of cereal boxes nowadays? Sheesh!

        3. american socialist|10.9.15 @ 12:21PM|#
          “Is that the same as saying…”

          Hey, is that the same as saying you’ll pay your martgage?

        4. Well, you never know if starting a war is illegal or not until you see who wins.

        5. “Aren’t politicians and the journalists that cover them supposed to politicize tragedy and suggest ways to do things better?”

          I think the Washington Post just spent the better part of September and October lamenting the demise of the Nationals. Turned into a local tragedy that the team blew it. Yeah, sports. Still. It’s a job.

        6. Liberals/progs are such liars or in denial about the logical ends of their arguments they don’t realize that’s exactly what will happen down the road – they will want to grab your guns. Happened everywhere in the fricken West.

          Are you mental or something? Progressives have taken to ACTIVELY call for the repealing of the 2A.

          You can’t sit there and tell me hard core left-wingers don’t want outright confiscation.

    4. Look at every mass-shooting: they are either agnostic or Progressive.

    5. AmSoc, you lay that mortgage you defaulted on yet? Maybe you should focus on that.

    6. The socialists want the confiscation of all weapons from the citizenry in order to make all beholden to their large centralized government where an elite cadre of socialist knowledge workers will decide what’s best for you – a mere serf.

    7. The democrats do and did with the founding of the KKK

    8. Legal violence should be sufficient for dealing with you. Why are liberals so intent on taking people’s rights?

  2. Politicizing a tragedy? You mean the way Republicunts have politicized Benghazi in order to hurt Hillary’s campaign for president? I agree, that’s shitty.

    1. Politicizing the Secretary of State blatantly lie about the cause of Benghazi is different than politicizing the deaths. It should have been just as newsworthy if no one died and there was just a protest that she lied about.

      1. Do we need a 10th investigation that tells us she didn’t lie? Did the 9 other times not get through that thick partisan skull?

        1. jeffm8|10.9.15 @ 11:59AM|#
          “Do we need a 10th investigation that tells us she didn’t lie? Did the 9 other times not get through that thick partisan skull?”

          How about just one where she DOESN’T lie?

        2. Fuck you, twerp. That worthless bitch had classified information up to the Top Secret level sent over an unencrypted medium during her entire time as SecState. If any other government employee with a security clearance pulled that stunt, their clearance would be removed and they’d probably be looking at jail time on top of that, not running for President of the United States.

          If you had a smidgen of integrity you’d be demanding that she drop out of the race and take her medicine. But you aren’t. So take your self-righteous pomposity and shove it up your ass.

          1. First off, the Benghazi investigations are horse shit. We know that because a congressional republican admitted it this week. They spent millions on sham investigations to ruin her campaign. Like her or not, and I do not, that is fucking horse shit. And it exposes what we have known all along about Republicans since ’08. Second, the email issue isn’t a scandal. Over classification happens all the time and it’s a problem with government and transparency. As of now, there is no important or damaging information in those emails. However, you are right that if this happened to anyone else, they would be fired. That is a problem and she should have been reprimanded for it. It’s a clear sign that the Clintons like to think they are above the law and have no respect for transparency.

            1. First off, the Benghazi investigations are horse shit. We know that because a congressional republican admitted it this week. They spent millions on sham investigations to ruin her campaign.

              Attempting to ruin her campaign is the one good thing the GOP has accomplished in years. I consider that to be a public service.

              Second, the email issue isn’t a scandal. Over classification happens all the time and it’s a problem with government and transparency.

              Bullshit. If you honestly think having Top Secret information sent over an unencrypted system isn’t a scandal, not to mention the other info that’s classified, you’re obtuse.

              As of now, there is no important or damaging information in those emails.

              Irrelevant. Having TS/SIGINT/TK information sent over an unencrypted system is a fireable, if not jailable, offense. Chelsea Manning’s doing 30 years in Leavenworth and even she never released anything at that level of classification. Hillary’s running for fucking President.

              1. SIGINT is crap that would get most anybody else thrown in jail, no question. That shit is serious with the possibility of getting somebody killed.

            2. However, you are right that if this happened to anyone else, they would be fired. That is a problem and she should have been reprimanded for it.

              Reprimand, nothing. She should be forced to abandon her candidacy, plain and simple. It gets to the heart of how corrupt she is, and the weakness of the Democrat bench, that no one on the Dem side is even thinking about demanding that she drop out. Allowing classified information to go over an unencrypted private server indicates that she either has no clue about simple security measures that everyone with a damn clearance is trained on annually, or she just doesn’t care. Either way, it fundamentally disqualifies her to be President. In that regard, I honestly don’t care if the Reps investigations are crap, because the email scandal itself never would have happened if Hillary hadn’t tried to stonewall them on her emails.

            3. I know a lot of people with high level security clearances. Every one of them is fully aware of what HRC specifically did with her server. And every one of them flat out said that it is a massive security violation. And if they did the same thing they would be hauled away and put in federal prison.

              And whether something is over classified or not doesn’t fucking matter. It is what it is. She signed the same agreements everyone else with a clearance signs. The bitch deserves to be prosecuted. Especially considering Patreus was prosecuted successfully for far less.

              But the law doesn’t apply to Party members in good standing, right comrade?

            4. As of now, there is no important or damaging information in those emails.

              It’s OK everyone, jeffm8 has personally reviewed every one of Hillary’s classified emails and determined, in his oh so expert opinion, that they don’t contain any damaging information. We can all relax, FAKE SKANDUL, everyone!

            5. jeffm8|10.9.15 @ 3:58PM|#
              “First off, the Benghazi investigations are horse shit. We know that because a congressional republican admitted it this week.”

              I have a feeling this is horseshit; let’s see a link.

              1. What Cali (R) Mcwhatthefrick blurted out, part of why he can’t be speaker.

            6. That’s some Grade A left-wing trolling right there.

              I still want to know why they lied about the attack being connected to a video to which they then threw some shnook in prison.

              As for the emails, right, no scandal. Happens all the time.

              Jesus these people have no fricken intellectual honesty or dignity on any level.

      2. Stop politicizing the actions of a politician, Illocust.

    2. Tu quoque all up in this be-atch

    3. jeffm8|10.9.15 @ 10:26AM|#
      “Politicizing a tragedy? You mean the way Republicunts have politicized Benghazi in order to hurt Hillary’s campaign for president?”

      Yeah, Shrill certainly shouldn’t be answerable for her crimes! Any lefty imbecile knows that.

      1. It’s basic logic.
        1. Hillary’s a Democrat.
        2. Democrats don’t commit crimes.
        3. Therefore, Hillary did not commit any crime.

      1. Could someone help me understand the difference between tu quoque and pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of someone elses argument?

        1. Tu quoque is a logical fallacy in which you don’t actually respond to the argument, you merely point out how someone else did it too.

          Pointing out hypocrisy often devolves into a tu quoque response, but, strictly speaking, would just be pointing out how someone holds two differing views of the same subject, views that depend on the actor involved. Pointing out hypocrisy, though, is also a non-response to the argument.

          So:
          “Well, Bush/Obama did it too!” is a tu quoque response.

          “How can you say that when you just said the opposite when Bush/Obama did exactly the same thing and you supported/opposed it?” is pointing out hypocrisy.

    4. Certainly, I mean it’s totally unreasonable to criticize the dept. head responsible for sending government employees into a warzone, refusing multiple requests for security, and blaming it all on a YouTube video.

      That’s completely equivalent to violating constitutional rights based on the actions of individuals.

      1. This is flat out false and boarders on deceit.

      2. And criticism is one thing, spending millions of dollars on 9 investigations for political purposes is downright corruption.

        1. jeffm8|10.9.15 @ 12:01PM|#
          “And criticism is one thing, spending millions of dollars on 9 investigations for political purposes is downright corruption.”

          Got it! You love that lying piece of shit.
          Go peddle your crap where someone is stupid enough to believe you.

          1. Calling out the hypocrisy of idiotic republicans trying to ruin her presidential campaign by wasting tax payer money for a sham investigation, makes me love ‘the bitch’? LOL Fucking retard

            1. jeffm8|10.9.15 @ 3:49PM|#
              “Calling out the hypocrisy of idiotic republicans trying to ruin her presidential campaign by wasting tax payer money for a sham investigation, makes me love ‘the bitch’? LOL Fucking retard”

              Lying your ass off to protect your love interest IS.
              Fuck off, liar.

        2. When you are a politician running for political office, perhaps there is a place for politicizing your record in….oh, I don’t know…politics.

          1. It’s politicizing a tragedy for political gains that’s the problem.

            1. Like what Obama just made a point of doing with the Oregon shooting? That he said was a good thing to politicize?

            2. Whatever else can be said about the Bengazi crap, Hillary is, you know, a politician. You can’t really politicize something that is already political.

              Wait – why am I responding to you?

        3. “is downright corruption.”

          Downright corruption is selling the rulings of the Dept. of State on issues like pipeline approval and raising the caps on arms purchases for countries and individuals who contribute millions of dollars in bribes to your personal slush find.

          I don’t see why this isn’t a bigger, or at least as big, of a issue as the security issues.

          Bribery was once considered a bad thing for public officals and the paper trail of Hillary’s bribe taking is clear to see.

          Anyone who comes to this cooks defense and tries to defend the undefendable because of political loyalty is a dispicable person . The country should insist on spending as many millions as neceessary to expose her corruption and put her in jail. Not so many years ago she would be hung for what she has clearly done.

    5. That the Secretary of State lied foolishly to temporarily duck responsibility for a tragedy made worse by her incompetence IS a political issue. It’s a political issue no matter who does what about it.

    6. Politicized her exposing the identity of one of our spies?

      http://tinyurl.com/pfupcux

      This is a real crime, unlike the whole Plame kerfluffle.

      1. The email thing is truly a scandal, as is little people would be staring down the barrel of a federal prison term, not laughing it off.

        The Bengazi thing isn’t the real scandal. It’s Hillary’s actions in conjuring a war against Libya in the first place that are the true scandal.

    7. FAKE SKANDUL!!!!!111!!!!!!1!!!!!!!! DERP DERP DUMB!!!!1!!!!11!!!!!

      FUCK OFF SHIT FOR BRAINS.

  3. I’ve ready watched liberals’ mission creep play out with their anti-smoking zealotry:

    “You’re being crazy, nobody’s gonna ban smoking, we just want common sense restrictions on smoking in the workplace, it’s not we’r banning it in restaurants …Look, we just want to restrict smoking in restaurants, nobody wants to ban smoking in bars…Please, we just want to ban smoking in bars, not ballparks and arenas….Stop sounding like a wingnut, we’re just banning it in ballparks & arenas, nobody’s going to ban smoking at the park…Stop sounding crazy, we’re just need to ban smoking the park, it’s not like we’re banning them at the beach…God, you’re so paranoid, we’re banning smoking at the beach, it’s not like we’re banning smoking in your car…We’re just making it illegal to smoke in the car, nobody’s gonna stop you from smoking in you home…”

    …and then predictably, inevitably, the first attempt to ban smoking altogether happened in Westminster, MA last year.

    1. Excellent analogy.

    2. Montgomery County Maryland tried to ban smoking in the home 15 years ago as a nuisance ordinance. Courts threw it out on the first ticket.

      1. I remember a story going around some years back;

        Maryland passed an early “Smoking in the workplace” ban, and (naturally) the anti-smoking zealots were all set to start enforcing it the very fist day it was in place. So, a brand new Smoking In The Workplace Inspector rolls up to the gate of one of the Beltway Bandit companies (contractors who cluster around the DC beltway, and do government work) and demands to be allowed in to make sure nobody on the site is smoking.

        Guard tells him “NO. You’re not coming in.”

        “I’m an official inspector, you have to let me in.”

        “This is a Top Secret Installation. You don’t have clearance. If you try to enter, I get to shoot you.”

        I suppose the site was probably inspected ?. eventually.

    3. Yes, every time liberals find that their “common sense” regulations doesn’t work, they add another layer of law to keep the cracks from showing. I think the driving force behind this is those 1 issue organizations that achieve their limited goal and suddenly realize that their existence is no longer needed, so they feel urgent need to move the goal post. I would point to MADD’s insistence of ever-decreasing levels of blood-alcohol test results needed to show “impaired driving”.

      1. ^So much this.^

  4. You’ve certainly mapped out their path on the subject.
    I think of true “mission creep” as new ideas that came up after a course of action began, rather than being part of the plan all along with incremental implementation. The anti smokers are too premeditated to fit my definition. Same with the gun banners.
    As an aside, I typed this without looking at it and inadvertently typed “fun banners” in place of “gun banners”. I think my slip is showing.

    1. Well, there’s a lot of “fun banners” out there too. Puritanism is alive and well on the progtard left.

  5. From a policy standpoint, the constant invoking of Australia is beyond moronic. Australia had a veey low homicide rate to begin with, banned “assault” weapons only (still allows handgun, shotgun, and rifle ownership) and collected about 1/3 of 3 million banned weapons after enactment (if you’re incredibly generous with the numbers). America has 100x as many guns and more people are killed by hammers annually than all rifles, let alone just “assault rifles.”

    From a “people will eat this shit up and assume Australia ‘DID SOMETHING’ that magically solved murder, because research is hard” standpoint, it’s working brilliantly.

    1. Who else told big lies?

      1. Is that the same as lies about things being big?

    2. Re: paulrvalentine,

      From a “people will eat this shit up and assume Australia ‘DID SOMETHING’ that magically solved murder, because research is hard” standpoint, it’s working brilliantly.

      An article at National Review reminds readers and the Marxians that the policy implemented by the Aussie government (the gun buyback program) amounted to gun confiscation, since the program was not voluntary. Besides this, the program did not net the number of guns expected, only gathering about 1/3 (at most) of the estimated 3 million rifles and semi-automatics

      With there being about 300 million guns owned by private individuals in the US, the notion that you can get 1/3 of that many guns by threatening people, let alone 1 million, is ridiculous.

      1. Hell, new gun *registration* programs in the U.S. are lucky to have a 1/3 success rate. We’re going to top that if we move to confiscation?

        “I don’t want you to know I have a gun, but now that you’re asking for it I’ll hand it right over!” – average U.S. gun owner, apparently

    3. “America has 100x as many guns and more people are killed by hammers annually than all rifles, let alone just “assault rifles.””

      If I had a hammer I wouldn’t need a gun!

  6. “This is a political choice that we make, to allow this to happen every few months in America. We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction.” – dicho por nuestra excencia, el adorado se?or presidente.

    Speak for yourself, asshole. I didn’t shoot those kids. I haven’t even bombed hospitals and wedding since I’ve been alive, or do you mean to be selective as to whom we “collectively” answer?

    1. Obviously, that is a Royal “We”.

    2. Is this the equivalent of saying “you didn’t build that” to a mass shooter?

  7. So then it is safe, and accurate to conclude that Obama is trashing the Constitution with his endorsement of Second Amendment abuses.

  8. Trust me, it’s not unreasonable to treat liberal policies as if they have a tendency for mission creep and unwieldy expansion.

    After his attempt at investing the Osaka Castle in 1614 (Japan), Tokugawa Ieyasu reached an armistice agreement with the ruler of Osaka, the young Toyotomi Hideyori (son and heir of the powerful Toyotomi Hideyoshi), after which the willy Tokugawa ordered his troops to fill the moats of the castle with sand, arguing that, after all, there was an armistice and there would be NO need for moats and castles, right?

    In the end, Tokugawa laid siege to Osaka Castle again and this time he was successful. Toyotomi committed suicide along with his young wife (and Tokugawa’s daughter) and his mother.

    You can bet the Marxians are not going to be as magnanimous as Tokugawa when they fill our moats.

  9. Reason and rights have got nothing to do with gun control obsessives. It’s about irrational efforts to make them feel good about their fears by CONTROLLING the rights of others.

  10. exactly, they cannot answer the question. What law do they want to pass that aren’t already on the books now? Their solution is always the same: bad guys commits crime so punish the good guys exponentially!! Oh yeah, that’s called tyranny isn’t it? These left wingers are just itching for a fight….and they just might get one if they don’t stop infringing on other peoples God-given rights—yes, God-given. THEY have no power over us whatsoever except what we allow them to steal from us…we need to remember that….this is a govt of the people and not of elitist tyrants who impose their will.

  11. The photo that accompanies this piece: Who exactly was it that had to change Obama’s thong panty after he pissed himself doing a guy thing?

    1. I believe that’s in ValJar’s job description.

  12. Heard on ABC radio news at noon: “Obama to circumvent Congress/Constitution by issuing an executive order on gun control”

    1. Can I get a printed copy of the XO, I need a new target to post at the range?

  13. Wouldn’t it be easier to lock up the 3 million schizoids (Dr. Krauthammer’s number) that are at risk of “going postal” than to round up 300+ million guns?

    1. This is not an either/or situation.

      Let’s do both . . . for the children.

      1. Oh yes, and while “we” are at it, let’s also create a dictatorship, which will hopefully be benevolent to supervise the whole thing, “for the children” of course.

        1. We can just revert back to a monarchy. That seems to be the Left’s end game, just without the crown. They seem to prefer military uniforms instead for some reason.

    2. Not hardly. First, he refers to 3 million people with schizophrenia, not ‘schizoids’. The two are not the same: the former have a psychosis, the latter a personality disorder. Second, as Dr. Krauthammer points out, only a tiny percentage of that 3 million are violent (in fact, as I recall it’s a smaller percentage than that of the general population) and anyone who claims he can identify the violent ones is lying. Third, we have enough trouble accommodating the 2.2-odd million locked up in our prisons already without more than doubling that number. Fourth, many of the people with schizophrenia who are violent are already in prison, albeit undiagnosed and therefore not receiving any of the treatment that might mitigate or eliminate their antisocial behavior.

  14. Ironically and tragically, it was the “conservative” party in Australia that confiscated the guns, and it wasn’t all guns, it was mainly just automatic and semi-automatic, all other types of guns are still widely available.

    There is something inherently wrong with the American culture, that so many people resort to gun violence for whatever reason. Removing the guns therefore, will not change that inherent nature.

    I don’t know why the USA seems to be plagued by so many shootings, but I tend to imagine it may have something to do with the way Americans tend to perceive everything as a personal affront or confrontation and then tend to become overtly emotionally charged. Maybe?

    1. David_B

      Perhaps the continued presence of governmental idiots might go far in explaining the problem, though when one views who it is that puts these idiots in power, other questions appear.

    2. B+. This is the proper way to troll.

      Unless you’re making an existential argument about man’s inhumanity, which I’d be totally on board with, there’s nothing inherently “wrong” with American culture owing to the fact that there is no “American” culture. America is an amalgam of about a dozen distinct cultures, with plenty of tiny subcultures scattered here and there.

      Asian-Americans commit violent crimes at an extraordinarily low rate. “White” Americans commit crimes at a significantly higher rate (higher for the traditionally Scots-Irish South than the North), but not out of line with western Europeans. Hispanic Americans have a murder rate about twice that of white Americans, and African Americans (whose culture and religion is fundamentally a cousin of traditional Southern white culture) have a murder rate of seven to ten times higher than white Americans.

      What the U.S. has relative to Europe is a disproportionately higher murder rate among our two largest minority populations, with the smaller accounting for half the nation’s murders despite being only around 1/9 its population.

      1. “What the U.S. has relative to Europe is a disproportionately higher murder rate among our two largest minority populations”

        That’s as it should be. When it comes to seemingly unmotivated mass shootings of strangers, American Whites, usually young dispossessed males, take a back seat to no one.

        1. Trueman lies. That’s all he does. There is not a single post from him that isn’t full of lies. He posts here only to see his name on a reputable site.

          1. “Trueman lies.”

            That’s as it should be. I take a back seat to no one when it comes to provoking the grumpiest this ‘reputable site’ has to offer.

      2. Very interesting observation, one that brings to mind Ronald Bailey’s recent article “Victimhood Culture in America: Beyond Honor and Dignity”. What Scots-Irish, Hispanic, and African Americans have in common is that they are all, compared to the ‘mainstream’, from ‘honor cultures’, where people “tend to perceive everything as a personal affront or confrontation and then tend to become overtly emotionally charged”. Basically, the idea is that a verbal insult is understood as morally equivalent to a physical assault, and the person insulted is entitled to respond as if he were threated with a gun or knife. The ‘victimhood culture” that is being taught in our schools nowadays asserts the same equivalence but says that you’re entitled to have the government beat up your ‘attacker’ instead of doing it yourself. I wonder how many schoolyard shooters were raised with this expectation and when the state didn’t perform as they were taught to believe it should, they went into “Death Wish” mode.

  15. The following sub-headline, “For the liberal, every societal problem has a state-issued remedy waiting to be administered.”, does seem an appropriate observation. Unfortunately, it appears that the major problem with these “ready made solutions”, which are just waiting to be plucked from the shelf, generally don’t work.

    1. Sowell is fond of pointing out that one of the best ways to distinguish between the so-called left and right is that the left looks at the world as a series of problems awaiting a solution, while the right regards it as a series of trade-offs with nary a utopia in sight.

      The idea that intellectuals can engineer an ideal society the same way one might design a superior mousetrap is one of the most dangerous relics of 19th-century thought.

    2. They aren’t supposed to work. At least, that’s not the purpose. The goal is more control. Any ‘solution’ which results in more control by government over individuals is a win since everything good must be accomplished by first having government control the populace. Establish control first. Figure out what to do with it later.

  16. For the modern liberal democrat progressive socialists , the government is never big enough and there are never enough taxes and regulations.
    Tax and regulate
    spend spend spend
    tax and regulate
    and regulate and tax
    make some forms for the people to fill out
    make the forms long and hard to understand
    tax and regulate some
    and then some fees and fines
    spend spend spend spend
    tax and tax
    fees and fines
    more forms to fill out
    Get the bureaucratic mind involved to make more forms and fees for the forms
    Tax and regulate
    spend spend spend
    tax and regulate
    and regulate and tax
    make some forms for the people to fill out
    make the forms long and hard to understand
    tax and regulate some
    and then some fees and fines
    tax tax
    spend spend spend

  17. Well said, Sir!

  18. “This most likely tells us there are a number of other social currents driving this kind of violence.”

    Care to give us a clue as to what exactly you have in mind here? Nothing ‘political’ I hope.

    1. Maybe that … there are a number of other social currents driving this kind of violence? Could that be what he has in mind?

      What’s with the scare quotes around the word “political”?

      Can someone translate this post for me?

      1. “Could that be what he has in mind?”

        I have no idea what he has in mind. Seems that something is causing these incidents. As long as it’s not guns, it doesn’t really matter what it is. It’s unidentified social currents is all we need to know.

        “What’s with the scare quotes around the word “political”?”

        My intent was satirical. Heavens forbid anyone at Reason magazine delving into politics.

    2. As I said above…the culture of victimhood, which teaches that words are more than vibrations in the air or marks on a piece of paper or pixels on a computer screen but can be used to injure, that a criticism or even the use of a forbidden word is tantamount to a physical attack and the ‘victim’ has every right to respond as if it were.

      1. “the culture of victimhood”

        Victims have every right to respond to physical or verbal attacks, and there’s nothing new about that. It’s always been the case. These incidents we are discussing involve usually a person randomly killing strangers. The attacker is not responding to some use of a forbidden word.

  19. Conor Cruise O’Brien once pointed out that there is an important difference between problems and situations. Only problems have solutions; situations have only outcomes. Unfortunately, most Americans have been indoctrinated in their government schools with the belief that anything undesirable that happens (poverty, hurricanes, the failure of anybody to receive the very best medical care, multi?victim shootings in schools and other public places, some vicious kleptocrat seizing power in a country that has never known any government but that by vicious kleptocrats) is a problem, that there is a perfect and universally applicable solution for it in the form of a law or new regulatory agency, and that all the “experts” in Washington need to implement it is more money, more power, and more bureaucrats. The idea that there is no solution, that it is a situation we have to live with–usually as payment for some lunch we thought we had weaseled out of the check for–is simply not to be thought of.

  20. On a side note, Obama is perfectly okay with using drones to kill people all over the world using profiling. That of course is way different than the occasional tragedy because a crazy person shoots someplace up.

    Maybe Australia should confiscate drones so our progressive comrades can have a way forward in breaking that cycle of violence.

  21. Definitely, I am agree with the statement that no need to politicize the tragedies of people. And it is too bad to compare the constitutions of our country with the other countries (I have read a sentence that makes me to feel so). Respect our constitution and follow the rules and regulations of our country. We also have guns, which are not intended to fire unnecessarily at people. I believe that our corps are following the rules properly.

  22. Politicians who advocate for additional gun control know beyond any doubt that what they are recommending would do nothing to deter mass shootings. For them, this is a purely political issue (as are most issues) which gives them an excuse to get in front of the cameras and berate the opposition. Politics is a filthy, criminal enterprise that is perfectly comfortable exploiting the tragic deaths of shooting victims for political gain. That is the rule in politics. No holds barred. Check your ethics at the door. I encourage you to think about that the next time you’re about to cast a vote for your favorite incumbent.

  23. By “politicizing guns” I assume you mean having any discussion of how to stop large automatic weapon attacks as a form of suicide. I would have said, since Congress refuses to even discuss the problem, that guns haven’t been politicized enough.

    1. Automatics were banned in the ’60s. Try again.

  24. how to stop large automatic weapon attacks as a form of suicide.

    ?

  25. There is a simple solution. John Lott has proved that “More Guns, Less Crime” is the actual truth not just a slogan. So encourage law-abiding citizens to be able to protect their loved ones from violent criminals and spree shooters.

    UniversalGunOwnership.net – Universal Gun Ownership encourages people to have guns without gun ownership being compulsory works brilliantly, It’s the real deal, the answer. see: http://www.UniversalGunOwnersh…..ks-so-well

  26. The More You Politicize Guns the Weaker Your Case Becomes…When we politicize a tragedy, it is immediately sucked into a broader ideological conflict. Then conservatives…will see…an intrusive agenda that is a perpetual slippery slope.

    By that same yardstick one might equally argue that the more you politicize crime “the Weaker Your Case [against crime] Becomes”. That would, to use your own words: be “politiciz[ing] a tragedy”.

    For the liberal, every societal problem has a state-issued remedy waiting to be administered over the objections of a reactionary Republican.

    Putting criminals in jail is, of course, a “state-issued remedy” and therefore a solution which only liberals would embrace. Conservatives will rightly see it as “a perpetual slippery slope”.

    It therefore follows that liberatarians and other conservatives would be opposed to putting criminals in jail. They know full well that “state-issued” remedies are slippery slopes which never work.

    I’m sure you can all see where this goes next. Instead of opposing crime we should embrace it. More crime will keep America safer!

    1. 1. An individual crime may have tragic aspects, but crime itself is not a ‘tragedy’.
      2. In case you are not acquainted with the rules of basic logic, saying that it is not true that *every* societal problem has a state-issued remedy is not the same thing as saying that *no* societal problem has a state-issued remedy. If you are acquainted with them, shame on you.
      3. I’m not sure what ‘liberatarians’ are, so I don’t know whether they are conservatives or not, but libertarians are definitely not.

  27. “Many liberals see the Second Amendment as tragically misinterpreted or useless….” It is this same group of Liberals who insist on a literal reading of the 14th Amendment, and not in the least tragically and intentionally, misinterpreting what is now a pretty much useless Amendment (Green Card and legal immigrants excepted).

  28. Their argument is not designed to appeal to reason, it is an appeal to emotion. It is reassuring to their supporters by falsify claiming the moral high ground.

    1. Their argument is not designed to appeal to reason, it is an appeal to emotion.

      That could just as easily also be said of the arguments gun supporters deploy. They are appealing less to reason than to emotion.

      1. You could easily say that, but that wouldn’t make it accurate.

  29. To immigrants facing deportation Uncle Sam says vendettas, random violence, gang warfare–none of those things matter. Unless the immigrant can document and prove to the Judge that government agents aided and abetted their mistreatment for collectivist reasons of religion, race, nationality, membership in some identifiable social group or political opinion, they can count on being Jebbed, Trumped, Bernied, Carsoned, Cruzed and deported without so much as a Sanonara, sucka!

  30. The vast majority of gun crimes would not be avoidable with stricter gun control laws short of repealing the Second Amendment and confiscation. Gun control is a purely political issue that the Ds and the left use as a weapon to attack the Rs and the right. It has little to nothing to do with passing new legislation. Like so many issues in politics it is purposeful hot air.

  31. The freedom and ability to defend myself and my family is as basic a breathing.

    Progressives tell us how impossible it will be to round up a few million illegal aliens, try forcibly removing three hundred millions guns from legal citizens who have a constitutional right to own them.

    The history of gun confiscation is an ugly one. Don’t go there.

    1. The freedom and ability to defend myself and my family is as basic a[s] breathing.

      A story broke in the past day or so about a guy in Texas who decided his family needed protecting. One night about 4am he heard a noise at the front of his house so he took up his shotgun and went to investigate.

      As rawstory.com relates:

      “The man said he saw a light and someone standing at a distance, so he fired one blast from the shotgun.”

      Unfortunately it turned out he had just shot his wife! When police arrived they tried to revive her, but she was pronounced dead at the scene.

      Moral of the story: the same gun you bought to defend your family can also kill members of that same family. Make sure you know what you’re firing at before you pull the trigger.

      1. So don’t be dumb with your firearms and fire blindly. What does that have to do with my gun rights?

        1. What does that have to do with my gun rights?

          That (a) there are far too many guns in America and that too many are in the hands of idiots; and (b) that Americans are far too ready to reach for their guns and use them against other Americans. We see that in the case I cited above and we see it in all the thousands of gun deaths America suffers each year and every year, some in mass shootings, some through trigger-happy police officers (eg the Tamir Rice case which is now back in the news again), and some through suicide.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.