Orlando Shooting

There Really is No Policy Solution to Tragedies Like Orlando, and It Can Hurt to Seek One

|

The Orlando Pulse nightclub mass murder understandably has inspired calls for legal solutions to prevent such things in the future. It touches on the core reason people think we need government: to protect our lives from violence.

Jacob Langson/TNS/Newscom

Omar Mateen's evil assault, evidently motivated by some combination of dedication to radical Islam as represented by ISIS and an animus toward homosexuals, for which he used guns including a Sig Sauer MCX rifle condemned by many as an "assault rifle" unsuited for any legitimate civilian use, touches on three different areas where many Americans desire more legal pressure or attention: the presence of Islamic radicals in our nation, the "hate speech" thought to possibly motivate such violence, and the ability to obtain the weapon used. (It's a grim trifecta that likely pushed some "the government must do something" button in nearly all non-libertarians.)

So how can people be so obtuse and/or heartless as to believe that people's freedom of movement (for those who conflate the citizen Mateen with non-citizen Muslims who might like to come here) or freedom from surveillance or arbitrary detainment, or freedom to think and express hateful things, or freedom to peacefully own objects that exist in the world, should trump government's ability to stop tragedies like Mateen's shooting?

There are a few reasons. If you don't have even a hint of a core belief that, for the most part and in most circumstances, people should be free to be, act, think, speak, and own what they want, as long as they are not or have not actually harmed someone's life or justly owned property, you may find these reasons unconvincing. You might even consider such people not enthusiastic supporters of "doing something" with force of law in the face of nightmares like Orlando to be villains.

If you believe no benefits exist on the other side of questions of surveillance, censorship, or weapon ownership, then the fact that in most actual circumstances, certainly including this one, no amount of conceivably acceptable government action would have stopped this from happening is meaningless; all costs spent toward the goal of stopping murders, no matter how unlikely to accomplish anything, are then acceptable.

Should government keep a closer eye on people in America who seem to evince some sympathy for or connections to radical Islam? People who knew Mateen did feel they saw something, and they did say something. And the FBI investigated.

We have no reason to believe their investigation was incompetent in terms of not uncovering things that were uncoverable, unless we believe they should either be seers or be so suspicious of all Muslims that they should have initiated some sort of 24 hour tail on Mateen. They looked into him, discovered he had committed no crimes, and eventually took his name off a terror watch list. (And had they kept him on it, that too would have had no bearing on their ability to prevent him from committing this crime.) 

Are advocates of increased surveillance of suspected terrorist sympathizers imagining preventive detention of the suspicious as necessary and proper? Do they believe if cops listened in on every phone call and read every email in real time, that the plans to murder would be discussed out loud in plenty of time to swoop in and stop them?

The use of government manpower to investigate people who said the wrong things or had the wrong associates in the field of terror in the vastly overwhelming majority of cases are merely harassing people who have committed no crime and don't realistically plan to do so. And even when such surveillance or investigations are not harassing the innocent, or not ginning up attempted crimes that would not have even happened without the FBI's encouragement, the Mateen case shows that using such techniques to prevent future crime rather than investigate and punish past crime is not apt to accomplish much either.

Treating a huge sector of American society for reasons of ethnicity or religion or ideology or associates as inherently worthy of deep, extended investigatory attention from government has, understandably, a bad reputation in American history, even when the ideology under investigation is genuinely ugly. And as this week shows, such surveillance or investigations don't hold much promise to actually accomplish much in the way of public safety for the costs to the dignity and privacy and right-to-be-left alone of those targeted.

For those who think that hateful attitudes or expression toward others (even when they fall short of violence) need to be extirpated or punished, well, that is certainly a more and more popular attitude in the West. I imagine it makes perfect sense to those who reacted to the last sentence of 1984 with anything other than a chill of horror, or those who have a hard time seeing any principle or value behind freedom of conscience or freedom of expression, those cores of Western liberty, other than "it is only good to say and think good things." There are costs to giving power over conscience and expression to government, and they won't only be used where you think they ought to be used.

As for guns, you may believe in the Second Amendment, sort of, or not believe in disarming all American in all circumstances but just think when it comes to certain kinds of guns you want to call "assault rifles" or certain size magazines that there's no good reason to allow them to stay in circulation.

Almost universally, those kinds of guns or magazines of a certain size are not used to harm anyone. But they clearly can be, and those who want them gone can't think of any good reason some one would want one, certainly not a reason good enough to justify even the slightest chance it can be used to harm someone. (It might be worth considering the specific types of weapons or magazines usually targeted by these "reasonable" gun control recommendations aren't necessarily any more deadly than other kinds.)

One can even grant two suppositions—that the innocent should be robbed of the use of some existing tool because the evil may misuse it if you aren't satisfied with their reasons for wanting it, or even that it would be a better world if no one had those kind of weapons and those sized magazines—and still doubt trying to pass and enforce such laws is worth it. 

America already has had a couple of wide-scale experiments, with alcohol and drugs, in banning or forbidding something that already exists here in America in vast profusion, and/or is relatively easy to smuggle in. Booze, drugs, guns, magazines, all things that in some cases can facilitate or further or help cause harm to others; and that in the vast majority of cases are used for private pleasure and fulfillment of a sort an outsider might scoff at but whose pursuit can be seen as core to liberty writ large: the ability to choose how to shape your life and leisure, as long as you are not actually harming someone else's life or property.

So we already know here in America that there are enormous costs associated with such attempts to police the nation and find and confiscate and punish people over existing items that people want and that they almost never harm others with. Such costs can be seen especially in the harassment and punishment of the actually innocent (that is, those who might be violating the prohibition on owning or using the contraband, but would not ever have harmed someone else), and these costs which almost certainly will fall the hardest on our culture's poorest and least respected. They can be huge and should not be taken on lightly.

You might think that murder is not a "light" reason and indeed it is not. But given the combination of other ways to kill (guns were not part of either the 9/11 or Boston marathon terror attacks), the existence of so many of those weapons and magazines already, and the vanishingly small number of cases in which their absence would have made murder impossible, the costs of a new war on a new form of contraband—one which police could make the case present such a danger to them that already overly violent policy practice would get even more violent thus conceivably leading to more deaths than that would-be contraband cause now—seem, to some Americans, to outweigh any imagined benefit. (Unless the only benefit is the ritual of "doing something.")

So, those are some reasons some people don't instantly leap to the conclusion that something new must be done by government in the face of this horrible mass murder Orlando just suffered through.

To be fair, if you believe any amount of harassment or restrictions on the innocent's ability to peacefully move through American life unmolested is meaningless in the face of a vanishingly small possibility that you might prevent a murder or murders from occurring, then those reasons will not be convincing to you.

But there might be cultural and historical reasons that those more libertarian-leaning attitudes can be found in your fellow Americans, as your "any price in terms of liberty is worth paying in pursuit of any possibility of safety" attitude is strongly at odds with the structure and philosophy of American government and life as it was constituted, at its best.

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.

216 responses to “There Really is No Policy Solution to Tragedies Like Orlando, and It Can Hurt to Seek One

  1. Well said. None of which has prevented the usual people from calling even more loudly for the usual “solutions” that won’t work anyway.

    1. And, unsurprisingly, those solutions match their preferred policy agendas without the additional information.

    2. Anybody can earn 450dollar+ daily… You can earn from 8000-15000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity..
      Go to this site home tab for more detail… Go this Website========== http://www.earnmore9.com

    3. Make 14500 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website.._________ http://www.earnmore9.com

    4. Make 14500 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use this website.._________ http://www.earnmore9.com

  2. How can we stand by and not at least try to do something?

    1. Anything that “we” do will get muddled with identity politics and fail. Again.

    2. You really want to crank one of those idiots up – respond with “do what?”

    3. We should try to do something. The problem is that our pathology isn’t an easy fix (and guns are almost irrelevant to the pathology) – and it involves tradeoffs – and we don’t do complexity. And without exception on both sides, every pol/analyst who tries to trample on the dead bodies in order to make a speech about what needs doing is part of the problem not the solution.

      1. Actually that [guns being irelevant] is the point, some time ago when hand gun bans were being expemented with. The NRA had no science or numbers at the time, only tradition to go by.
        * Four cities were polled about handgun ownership.
        * The cities then banned hand guns.
        * The NRA noted that either the cities crime and death rates increased, or stayed the same.
        pointing this out only got the responce “just think how bad it would have gotten if we hadn’t.”
        * The NRA some years later noted that the Neighbors rates had either stayed the same, or went down.
        Grumble.. grumble.. grumble..
        * the University that had done the older study decided to do another survey and was stunned to discover no statistical change in the number of guns. Like New Jeresy now and Australia most just ignored the criminal infringment of their rights.

        So why did the gun bans generate More killing.. because it ignored basic predator phsycology, the predators were silly enough to believe their prey was disarmed and walked into the trap set for them.

    4. Gotta do something, even if it’s wrong.

    5. does holding in a fart count?

  3. I think we can all agree that military assault type weapons taken out of the hands people who don’t use them to anyway is a good start. And a good start to that is a sufficiently arbitrary definition which will capture as many of those weapons from those who would comply. I think that’s a good starting point to total disarmament, which 90 percent of all Americans want.

    1. And how could anyone disagree with this? It’s just simple common sense. They’re called assault weapons for a reason. Nobody uses them for hunting. This is the kind of common sense solution America is literally begging for.

      1. I assault the fuck out of cows. But I have to reload a bunch of times in California.

        1. Oh George, not the livestock.

          1. ::whispers::
            That’s baby face Easterly.

            1. This threads about to R-U-N-N-O-F-T

        2. Did you penetrate/ Canadian Supreme Court

      2. Actually that small a caliber is mostly used in hunting smaller things the size of coyote. in somestates it is explicitly out lawed for deer hunting as it may not kill them.

    2. There was a congressman on the radio today that said you could walk into Walmart and buy a machine gun in 15 minutes.

      The shame of it was that he didn’t tell me which Walmart, so I had no idea how quickly I could get there and purchase one before they sold out.

      1. Congressman: And is this what the Orlando shooter did?

        No? Then shut the fuck up

        1. How can you let all these innocent six year olds LGBT community members die and do nothing to prevent it from happening in the future with just a few common-sense regulations? Why do you hate children gay people?

          1. Who says recycling is difficult?

          2. Who says recycling is difficult?

          3. It is as unconstitutional to require persons to keep or carry firearms as to infringe in the other direction. Luckily the LGBT community is taking their protection back in to their own hands as it should be. Now if we can just get the phrase “I am the Designated” to mean shooter as well as driver.

      2. It’s really weird how people think that because Wal-Mart sells guns, you can just buy them the same way you buy any other product there; as if you can take an AR-15 through the self-checkout and be on your merry way.

        Well I guess it’s not really weird at all… Just the result of fearmongering and misinformation.

        1. It doesn’t help,matters that the kind f people who make pronouncements about Walmart have never been IN one.

          Kinda like the old Jewish American Princess joke; What three words has no self-rightious anti-Walmart crusader ever heard?

          “Welcome to Walmart”

      3. Really? Because I can’t walk into my Wal Mart and get out with a gallon of milk in 15 minutes.

        1. The wal mart in my town is so afraid of shoplifting (not unduly mind you) that they got rid of self checkouts. But they still only staff 2-3 cashiers and hence it takes 15 min just to get through the line.

    3. You do know there are semi automatic hunting rifles that are way more powerful than a .223 AR-15?

      1. Don’t worry, as soon as they get those AR’s banned, the powerful hunting rifles are next.

      2. I was gonna say that there are a couple of deer I met last Winter that felt pretty ‘assaulted’ by me….

      3. Right, you need something that will actually take down a deer at distance.

  4. (It’s a grim trifecta that likely pushed some “the government must do something” button in nearly all non-libertarians.)

    This is why I hate most of the political leaders (and their voters) in today’s America.

    And it’s not just about terrorism; when it comes to “illegal” immigrants, climate change, student loan debt, the gun violence “epidemic,” Iran, etc. it’s always the same fucking thing: “DO SOMETHING!!!”

    The politicians do stupid shit because the people themselves don’t know how to function without other people telling them what to do or showing them the way.

    We’re all headless chickens now.

    1. Yeah. No matter what happens here, I’m sure it will involve legislation that is completely tangential to the issue and designed to infringe rights on the broadest swath of people. Like the Patriot Act.

      1. Or the Assault Weapons Ban. Or the NSA data-collection bullshit. Or the yuge, classy Trump Wall on the Mexican border. And so on.

        Though without the constant cries of “DO SOMETHING!” the politicians would probably be very bored since they’d be doing a lot less (which would be good).

          1. Zika!

              1. The epidemic of narrowed gazes.

        1. I like to imagine a world in which everything required at least a 2/3 vote to pass. I suspect there would be far less laws for the government to fuck with people.

          1. And a 1/3+1 vote to overturn.

            1. On the plus side we are that much closer to having a sentient computer on our side.

            2. I want a constitutional amendment:

              Every new law passed shall automatically require an existing law to be erased from “the books”.

              1. Surely the new ‘modern’ law is so superior that we could get rid of half a dozen dinghy old laws, amirite?

    2. This attitude provides fodder for military recruitment and reduces the need for a draft. As you say, many people want someone else to tell the what to do.

    3. and the stupid shit that’s done becomes the next crisis we need to do something about. it’s really a pretty clever scheme!

    4. Is there some thing I believe that our polititian absolutely must do.. yes take a nap, and sleep what ever you are on off.

  5. So how can people be so obtuse and/or heartless as to believe that people’s freedom of movement (for those who conflate the citizen Mateen with non-citizen Muslims who might like to come here) or freedom from surveillance or arbitrary detainment, or freedom to think and express hateful things, or freedom to peacefully own objects that exist in the world, should trump government’s ability to stop tragedies like Mateen’s shooting?

    Freedom of movement is a little different than the rest of those. Just ask every single government in the world.

    And as much as it sucks to have to say it, we should probably be a little bit leery of an open immigration policy for people coming from nations that are governed and are culturally diametrically opposed to western liberalism. And if that means we don’t open our borders unquestioningly to people from nations that are predominately Muslim (and also predominately barbaric in the ways they legislate vice/lifestyle), then so be it.

    1. On the other hand, one of the prime evils in the world is the very existence of coercive government, because it brings out the nutjobs who want to use that coercive authority to make everyone else obey their will. If there were no coercive government, people would have to rely on persuasion alone. Face it, must statists fail all logical thinking and are scared to death of truth and reality.

      I’d bet a paycheck that if the US government were not the busybody tyrant that it has become, if it were limited to some very basic judicial system which relied on private police and private courts, and if its legislative policy were limited to defining common terms like “threat” …. I’d bet most statist twerps would leave everybody else alone, not only because government coercion was a pipe dream, but because they wouldn’t have to worry that everybody esle was trying to shove the coercive government up their ass.

      And I’d bet that those power-mad Muslims would stay away because they couldn’t stand the freedom, because they’d know that private police and private courts would be far readier to deal with them, and because there’d be no chance of hijacking a coercive government into premature ejaculation.

      1. Either they’d stay away or they’d immigrate to the point they could overthrow the legal system and incorporate their barbaric one. They’re already proving that as their method in Europe.

        I wish you were right, but I fear we’ve reached a point where many of them, probably not a majority but a strong and vocal minority, have decided that it’s time for a global caliphate. And they’ve decided that the war has begun. And until enough of their own people (culturally as well as nationally) step up and stop the insanity, we have to treat their culture as hostile to western liberalism.

        1. The EU example only applies because there is a very suffocating and pliable government to sucker into all sorts of welfare. If that government weren’t there and practically begging to be abused, I’d bet most of those refugees would not come over, and of teh remainder, they be so busy minding their own business just to survive that they wouldn’t have either the free time to get agitated and go rampaging, or the incentive to disrupt their self-made living.

          One of the underrated joys in life is getting ahead by your own hand. Whether running your own business or just being an employee, when you earn your own living and don’t have to depend on charity, it’s incredibly satisfying. I am sure that is one reason statists live them some welfare — it creates more dependency and more scope for government expansion.

          Refugees who not only had to earn their way, but could, would be far less interested in agitation which would disrupt their self-made satisfaction.

          1. statists live them some welfare

            John quality typo.

            1. Nice catch (and I agree with both you and the typo’s meaning).

          2. We are rapidly advancing toward an EU-style welfare state, in case you haven’t been watching the news lately.

            1. That’s half my thesis — if there were no, or much less, coercive government, there would be far less of this crap because (a) there’d be no coercive government for people to waste time trying to cajole into doing things their way, (b) people would have to fend for themselves instead of depending on the welfare state, and (c) people would have much more satisfying lives without the government dependence that they wouldn’t want to run around disrupting society.

        2. How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property ? either as a child, a wife, or a concubine ? must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die: but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome

        3. If someone refuses to bake you a cake, most of us would go down the street to the next shop – but when government is there, ready and willing to destroy that shop that dissed you, why not go for it? Make yourself a victim?

    2. I think it’s just common sense that anyone coming here for any reason from countries with known terrorist populations should be receiving extreme scrutiny. Problem is the Administration only want’s to screen the people who don’t need screened for PC reasons and the TSA is completely incompetent. Well those are just the start of the problems.

      1. The TSA was doomed to incompetence from the first. It was created almost exclusively because of the widespread perception that The Government should “do something” about airport security. Everybody with a lck of sense knew that the next iIslamic idiot to try to take over a planeload of Americams was going to get dogpiled. Consequently, nobody with anything better to do paid the TSA any attention, and it filled up with petty beaurocrats and such-like.

    3. I think it’s just common sense that anyone coming here for any reason from countries with known terrorist populations should be receiving extreme scrutiny. Problem is the Administration only want’s to screen the people who don’t need screened for PC reasons and the TSA is completely incompetent. Well those are just the start of the problems.

      1. The squirrelz got you too?

  6. It’s true. The closest you can come is to make everything a police state like fortress and even then there will be a mass shooting. Sorry folks. No law or even most preventative measures will prevent all mass shootings. Welcome to the universe. Sorry, you’re not in charge.

    1. What about chloroform tanks for people suppression like Halon tanks for fire suppression?

    2. On the other hand, treating the Citizenry like adults, and allowing them to defend themselves would seriously cut down on the number of shooters who managed to get into double digets.

      Sadly, that would go against the fundamental beliefs of the Progressive Left, so they will fight against it tooth and nail.

      1. All people should be allowed to carry semi-automatic rifles where ever they go. That would stop mass shootings and terrorism.

        1. Naw.. a semi-auto pistol like the 1911 would do fine.
          If I was to take a rifle out I’d go with a full battle rifle maybe try out the Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle, since I don’t need to worry about a long patrol and ammo weight.

  7. Headline says it all. The article is superfluous.

    1. (-: So are the comments 🙂

      1. No comment.

        1. This is not a comment.

          1. I have already reported myself as spam.

            But in all seriousness….this is a good article.

  8. People can’t accept that in a free society, there’s really nothing that can be done to stop these horrible acts from happening. There’s no law that would have prevented this, no matter how much you want to blame guns. Most laws just make it worse — the shooting was in a gun free zone, remember?

    The only way to stop these from happening is to live in a police state.

    1. I’ll take that. The suffocation thing.

    2. Or, you know, abolish gun free zones.

      The right to self defense is a policy solution that could have mitigated the harm.

      It’s not an exaggeration to suggest that the blood is on the hands of politicians who created “gun free zones”.

    3. There’s no law that would have prevented this, no matter how much you want to blame guns. Most laws just make it worse — the shooting was in a gun free zone, remember?

      Suppose that lefty progs had their wet dream of a society in which there were no guns (except in the hands of police officers and the military, who proggies either distrust or hate).

      Now if Omar Mateen couldn’t get a gun anywhere and decided to go out like a real jihadist by blowing himself up, how many more people would have died?

      1. well then we would need bomb free zones, duh

      2. Isn’t that basically how the Bali bombing played out?

        1. Pretty much.

        2. or this guy who killed 87 people by setting fire to a bar in 1990 in Boston

          http://www.nydailynews.com/new…..-1.2152091

    4. And by “free society,” you mean “any society,” right?

    5. Actually the easist way to cope, is shoot back.
      Remember that the first shot you just heard is probably some one in uniform going down, in case they had a weapon. That person is really hoping you can get the drop on the shooter so that EMTs can get in as soon as possible.

  9. So how can people be so obtuse and/or heartless as to believe that people’s freedom of movement (for those who conflate the citizen Mateen with non-citizen Muslims who might like to come here)

    The Muslim refugees might not like to come here if they have to pay their own way, find someone to voluntarily take responsibility for them or support themselves, and be subject to immediate deportation should they become public charges. “Freedom of movement” is not a positive right.

    1. The Muslim refugees might not like to come here if they have to … find someone to voluntarily take responsibility for them

      That’s how it works now. All refugees must be sponsored by one of nine agencies.

      1. The agencies are government funded.

        1. No, that’s not quite accurate. Yes, as government contractors they are given grant money by the ORR, but those grants far from cover the non-profits’ operating costs. The rest is made up from fundraising and individual charitable donations.

          And again, we’re not just talking about who’s paying for them, we’re talking the indemnity that arises as being the sponsor of a visa.

    2. Minnesota is experience the cultural enrichment of Somalia (but with roadz!!!) thanks to very many compassionate souls in the Lutheran churches, sponsoring them.

      1. Those agencies operate with government money. The Lutherans are generous with your tax money.

  10. Statists don’t think beyond State == Good. More State == Gooder. Seriously, non-statists know this, this isn’t news.

    The problem is that the statist-lite folks, the not-full-on-socialists, in addition to believing that Top.Men do exist and can solve problems, also don’t believe that these “small” expansions of State power are dangerous. Hell, if you’re already going 100 mph, 101 won’t hurt, right? But if you’d asked them at 65 mph is 100 was too fast, they would have agreed whole-heartedly.

  11. People who knew Mateen did feel they saw something, and they did say something.

    Mr. Doherty, by your choice of words here it seems to me that you are expressing doubt with regards to the efficacy and desirability of the If You See Something, Say Something? type of program as advocated by the Department of Homeland Security.

    Note: The DHS has in fact Trade Marked the “If You See Something, Say Something” slogan.

    1. Note: The DHS has in fact Trade Marked the “If You See Something, Say Something” slogan.

      Sure about this? I was under the impression taht governments can’t copyright or patent anything, which probably covers trademarks too.

      1. It can.

        example

      2. Yes Scarecrow,

        Here is the entire paragraph from the link to which I provided a link: “Across the nation, we’re all part of communities. In cities, on farms, and in the suburbs, we share everyday moments with our neighbors, colleagues, family, and friends. It’s easy to take for granted the routine moments in our every day-going to work or school, the grocery store or the gas station. But your every day is different than your neighbor’s-filled with the moments that make it uniquely yours. So if you see something you know shouldn’t be there-or someone’s behavior that doesn’t seem quite right-say something. Because only you know what’s supposed to be in your everyday. Informed, alert communities play a critical role in keeping our nation safe. “If You See Something, Say Something?” engages the public in protecting our homeland through awareness-building, partnerships, and other outreach.”

        Emphasis mine.

        1. That’s a really weird paragraph. It lulls you into a false sense of security with obvious, mundane bullshit and visions of people waving at their neighbors. Then BAM! EVERYONE IS A POTENTIAL SPY

          1. Or terrorist. Just really reminded me of Cold War style propaganda.

            Guess we’re just fighting Eastasia this year.

        2. If you see something, say something…unless your abusive husband is threatening to murder a gay club and/or Disney World.

    2. Just say “no”. We all know that works. Right?

    3. Pretty sure it was PANYNJ and not DHS.

  12. If a government bureaucrat, or panel of bureaucrats, can by a stroke of the pen/click of a key deny your right to fly airplanes or carry arms, then we’ve taken a step toward full-on banning orders:

    “The banning of individuals in South Africa was a practice virtually unique among nations with legal systems derived from Roman or common-law traditions. At the order of the minister, a person deemed a communist, a terrorist, a member of a banned organization, or otherwise a threat to the security and public order of the state could be confined to his home or immediate surroundings, prohibited from meeting with more than one person at a time (other than his family), forced to resign any offices in any organization, prohibited from speaking publicly or writing for any publication, and barred from certain areas, buildings, and institutions, such as law courts, schools, and newspaper offices. Moreover, the banned person could not be quoted in any publication. The effect was to render the banned person a public nonentity. Opponents of the apartheid regime could be banned on the whim of a minister or even a local police officer and be deprived of any legal safeguards in the event of their disappearance or death. From 1950 to 1990 more than 2,000 people were banned in South Africa , such as ANC leader Albert Luthuli, who was banned and confined to his home for lengthy periods of time in the 1950s.”

    1. And we go marching to Pretoria…

  13. OT:

    “Sen. Charles Schumer spent $292,000 in public money flying private airplanes last year.”

    http://observer.com/2016/06/fl…..ir-travel/

    1. In all fairness to Schumer, when you think flight attendants who tell you to turn off your cell phone are bitches, flying chartered planes make sense.

      http://nypost.com/2009/12/16/s…..one-bitch/

      1. It’s not like he makes the rules.

  14. Looks like he cased the place

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com…..story.html

      1. He hated watching gays kiss, he hated it soooo much.

        1. Sure, grinding away on the dance floor is fine…BUT NO KISSING!!!

  15. So Banjos and I were having a talk about guns today and I brought up a good point to counter leftist grabbers:
    They say guns are designed to inflict maximum violence, yet they are involved in far fewer deaths than vehicles (suicides don’t count because common fucking sense). They say there are 300 million guns in the nation, yet only 1000 deaths a year from them (suicides still don’t count). And this is from an item specifically designed to kill according to them.

    Compare that to the number of deaths by drowning and you will see that pools, which were not specifically designed to kill, are much more dangerous than guns. So are cars.

    So the argument that “guns are specifically designed to kill and there are too many of them” flies in the face of common sense as well as statistics. In fact, I’d wager that guns are among the safest consumer products made in the modern age, relatively speaking.

    So I told Banjos to use that argument the next time a proggie started talking about how dangerous guns were. And she thought for a second and replied “if they ask me why I want to have a gun, I’ll tell them it’s so I can overthrow the fucking government when they become oppressive. Fuck that other bullshit.”

    I guess she won that one even though my point still has validity when some asshat starts trotting out their numbers.

    1. Your wife is awesome. Yeah, so much of it is media agenda and the sheep that buy it. The could probably get a number of people to push for banning pools if they pushed the stories hard enough.

    2. 30,000 gun deaths a year, 2/3 suicides, and of the 10K homicides, 2/3 or 3/4 involve criminals, either gang vs gang or criminals being shot in industrial accidents, so to speak. So more like 3K real murders every year.

      But I’ve used that general argument, and as you probably expect, it carries no weight, because guns.

    3. Why does anyone *need* a swimming pool?

      1. “Why does anyone *need* a swimming pool?”

        THIS

    4. On Hate Radio this afternoon, the discussion centered around what should trigger (so to speak) your automatic (so to speak) loss of 2A rights. Besides the usual blabber (“No fly list” “Domestic order” “Drug offender”), the host strongly advocated confiscation and arrest of anyone who is “anti-government.” The Progressive mind is a wondrous thing to behold.

      1. I’ll just leave this here.

      2. The camel’s nose (so to speak) that’s already in the tent is that you can be on the no-fly list without being given a reason why, and without being charged with anything, let alone convicted. So one extra-Constitutional process is being used to justify another extra-Constitutional process. Does anyone see a problem with that?!?!?!?

        1. The obviousness of that is lost on them when they go into a Statist froth.

          1. Mmmmmmmmm……..”statist froth.” It’s what occurs when Huma and Hillary hug.

            1. Thanks, I’ll need an Ambien now to sleep tonight.

        2. Well when terrorists used airplanes to kill in 9/11 we HAD to do SOMETHING! These simple new gun regulations are just another extension of that.

        3. While I’m not on the no-fly list, I am subjected to extra scrutiny any time I return to the US from overseas trips because someone with a similar name is on the no-fly list. Note – similar name, not same name. One of my last times coming back into the US, I asked the CBI agent checking my passport what could be done about it. They just shrugged and said that I’d just have to deal with it.

          So, because some other schmuck is on the no-fly list, I have to deal with the consequences. I’m glad that I have basically finished up my purchases before they pass the law limiting what the no-fly list people can acquire (and I’m sure this is coming).

      3. It’s like they can’t see past the latest iteration of their team being in charge.

        Probably because they’re retarded.

        1. They think they will be in charge forever, and that their policies could never be used against them.

          1. Even a mouth-breathing conservative will pause to consider that – but not a fucking true-blue progressive, nosirree – absolutely convinced they will NEVER be out of power!

    5. I used a similar argument against a gun-grabber who I also happen to know is quite the drunk in his spare time. I pointed out that alcohol leads to a lot of deaths, including a lot of children killed by drunk drivers, and – unlike guns, which have a real utility for home defense and hunting and have literally saved people’s lives – alcohol is just for personal enjoyment. I specifically pushed the drunk driving aspect, as that directly poses a danger to others rather than just the individual (and he’s for confiscating all guns so he can’t fall back on “well, just stop drunk drivers.”) So if his ideology calls for the banning of firearms because they pose a danger to people, shouldn’t he logically also be a prohibitionist teetotaler is it saves “even one life!” ? Or is he just for the banning of one and not the other because he doesn’t like guns but does like wine?

      His response was just that there was no comparison because “alcohol is designed to celebrate life, so of course I don’t want to ban it.”

      When you start with the viewpoint that there is absolutely no reason to own a gun whatsoever, there is no logic that can penetrate the wall of bullshit. This guy also wanted to ban knives.

    6. But, they always counter that small arms in the hands of citizens are no match for a military. BTDT.

      Of course, these types don’t really understand terrorism or the demoralizing effect that it has on military structure.

      1. “But, they always counter that small arms in the hands of citizens are no match for a military.”

        They’ll say that, but in the next breath, they’ll say, “why do you NEED an AR-15?? That’s a military-style assault weapon that only belongs on the battlefield! It’s a weapon of war! What are you trying to do, overthrow the government or something??”

      2. They also underestimate how many gun owning citizens there are (which is why they seem perpetually shocked that their ideas to limit the 2A don’t go over well in elections). Sure, it would take a lot to get most of those owners to become revolutionary, but the entire fucking point of them having guns is to stop the government from ever getting to that extreme point.

      3. A friend on Twitter asked how one was supposed to go up against the entire US military with just small arms. I mentioned Vietnam, Afghanistan & Iraq, and questioned just how many of the military would actually be opposing the citizenry. He didn’t respond back.

    7. And she thought for a second and replied “if they ask me why I want to have a gun, I’ll tell them it’s so I can overthrow the fucking government when they become oppressive. Fuck that other bullshit.”

      It’s hard to consider that argument seriously. Mainly because, if you were serious about it, guns would not be enough. We need to talk surface-to-air missiles, rocket launchers, grenades just to start with. In short, if you are serious about being armed so you can overthrow the government (if necessary), then you need to be against artillery control, just not just gun control.

      So I can’t take that argument seriously. It’s like someone saying they’re worried with government surveillance and then posting their detailed holiday itinerary to Facebook.

      1. An argument I hear is that because they can’t fathom citizens today equipped with small arms today overthrowing a modern military, that can’t be what the founders intended.

        I ask, “Then why do you think only nine of the Bill of Rights are meant to protect citizen’s rights from the government but just that one wasn’t?”

        1. Eh. You mistake my words.

          I’m not saying anything about what the founders intended. I’m saying it’s hard to believe that Person A actually believes it if Person A isn’t willing to take it far enough.

          It’d be like if I said “I think people should carry guns for self defense” then insisted that people didn’t need anything more then a .22. The restrictions I’m happy with undercut my claimed argument.

  16. People must die so that Muslim refugees can come here. That is all Doherity is saying. I could respect that if Doherty was one of the ones dying. Of Brian as always expects other people to die for his principles. He is just that kind of guy.

    1. Hey, I’ll chip in on a collection to buy John some Depends.

      With all his pantshitting, he clearly needs it.

      1. Yeah Bill what is 50 people murdered? God you are a fucking moron.

      2. Why don’t you tell is more about how communism and communists have nothing to do with the millions of deaths in communist nations? Could you try to be a little more stupid? Maybe you can set a record.

        1. Yeah, John, every Muslim alive is out there to get you. You better check under the bed. There might be a couple hiding under there.

          Serious question. Are you really just a sockpuppet the cosmos set up to make conservatives look ridiculous?

        2. Yeah, John, Muslims are just like communists. None of them had any problem with this.. .

          Christ Almighty, John, you really are a disingenuous little fuck. That took all of thirty seconds on Google to find.

    2. No, he’s obviously saying that people must die so that people can own AR-15s.

  17. Has Gary Johnson said anything? Good test for him…

      1. Guy Nazi cake Gary.

    1. “In this immediate aftermath of what is clearly a tragic and despicable attack, our thoughts must be with the victims. Regardless of what the motivation is ultimately found to be, this violence against innocent people simply going about their lives is both cowardly and infuriating. We must allow the authorities to do their jobs, understand how this attack came about, and then respond accordingly. It is not a time to either politicize or jump to conclusions.”

      He took the opportunity to politicize it by pointing out how he wasn’t going to politicize it.

      Lebron: “I’ve been taking the high road for years. I guess I’ll just do it again.”

      1. Although, to his credit, Johnson did say that we should all be Shariaphobic some time back.

  18. Any calls for encryption to be banned yet?

  19. Almost universally, those kinds of guns or magazines of a certain size are not used to harm anyone. But they clearly can be, and those who want them gone can’t think of any good reason some one would want one, certainly not a reason good enough to justify even the slightest chance it can be used to harm someone.

    “Almost universally, those kinds of automobiles or motorcycles of a certain size are not used to harm anyone. But they clearly can be, and those who want them gone can’t think of any good reason some one would want one, certainly not a reason good enough to justify even the slightest chance it can be used to harm someone.”

    “Almost universally, those kinds of dildos or cockrings of a certain size are not used to harm anyone. But they clearly can be, and those who want them gone can’t think of any good reason some one would want one, certainly not a reason good enough to justify even the slightest chance it can be used to harm someone.”

    ….

  20. pushed some “the government must do something” button

    What’s generally true of this crowd is that their DO SOMETHING mentality goes hand in hand with their faith in TOP MEN. They don’t have a solution. Ever. But they believe that the abdication of power to a higher authority will make their lives better. Thus they commit wholeheartedly to the magical thinking of socialism/totalitarianism.

    I just don’t understand where this faith comes from. I don’t understand where much of any faith comes from. But this is the worst.

    1. Do you know, my son, with what little understanding the world is ruled?
      Pope Julius III

      Same as it ever was.

    2. Indeed. “Doing something” means enabling the government to act. If you’re not in favor of the government doing something, you’re told that you’re “obstructionist” (at best) or have evil intentions (at worst). This applies not only to tragedies like this latest shooting, but to normal day to day political decisions.

    3. it’s a religion

  21. Am I allowed to think that there is no excuse not to have a carry permit in Florida? If no one in that night club was armed, then why should I care more than they did?

    Unless the night club was a gun free zone, in which case the answer is fuck off, slaver. In texas that place would probably qualify for a 51% no guns sign.

    If the Feds interviewed him three times and found nothing actionable, then why bother trying to prevent this shit? Pink pistols are the solution.

    1. Unless the night club was a gun free zone,

      IIRC it’s illegal to carry in a bar in FL.

      1. So there is some room for common-sense reform that could prevent these tragedies in the future.

        1. Yes.. allow designated drivers to be armed.

    2. Pink Pistols need to join up with the NRA and go after state governments that prohibit people from carrying into bars and restaurants. I’d even compromise and say they can only do so if they’re not drinking, just to shut the idiots up that would claim (incorrectly) that it would lead to gunfights all the time.

      So should BLM, if there are any of them that aren’t SJW assclowns.

      1. If I am legal to drive, why am I not legal to carry?

        The counter argument is that I might get drunk while at club and then drive home after sobering up. But that is probably a fallacy.

        1. To clarify, that is the TEXAS standard. Can drink. Cannot be drunk. Bac 0.08.

        2. Counter-counter argument: Designated Shooter.

          1. Great idea. Maybe they can get free sodas, too.

      2. I’d even compromise and say they can only [carry into bars and restaurants] so if they’re not drinking.

        Didn’t one of our Virginia commentators inform us that this is now the case in their Commonwealth?

        1. I didn’t find “solid” sources when looking for an answer to my own post, yet I did find this map of states where it is legal to carry firearms into bars/places selling alcohol.

          Does anyone have better/more trustworthy information?

        2. Possibly. But Virginia may have different standards since (at least when I lived there) there are no bars in Virginia. And I was also led to believe that people carrying could only do so in the restaurant area of a grill and bar and could not in an area predominately designated for drinking rather than eating.

        3. In California you can carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol if their main purpose is food, you can’t drink though. funny though the only time I was punched I was sober. but then I’m an ass when I’m sober so there is that.

  22. We could divide the country into 1000 or so smaller countries, that way when something like this happens it’s a 1000-1 shot that it happened in your country so you don’t need to get all worked up over it.

    1. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

      1. Yes, I am also interested in your periodicals.

    2. Beats my idea of suppressing news.

  23. What about my idea that any time someone has given as much reason as this Omar did, police tail him in public for the rest of his life? There are certainly enough police to do so, I can’t think of a better use of police time, and it wouldn’t interfere with the person’s liberty if the person never commits crimes. And it would surely prevent the person from committing crimes, so it’d be a win all around.

    1. Seriously, how many persons in the entire world have given authorities that much reason to investigate them? Generously, maybe some tens of thousands. Would 10 police for every such person be enough coverage? (One on each side so if he turns to shoot one, the other has the drop on him.) Add 25% for administrative jobs, & subtract from the total # of police in the world. The rest you can all fire, since what do they ever do to prevent crimes? So with a vast reduction in world police, you could achieve an immense increase in crime prevention, and practically never have to apprehend anyone. Empty the jails.

      And it’s so good on civil liberties! Anywhere you go in public, anyone else, including police, can be too, right? So it’s not as if the police would be trespassing; like some venue’s going to turn away a tax-paid agent there to insure everyone’s safety? Doesn’t keep the suspect from going home & popping family members, but that’s not what this is about. And if the problem is embarrassment, that shouldn’t be one either, since if the person didn’t want to be suspected, why’d he make non-confidential statements like that?

  24. RE: There Really is No Policy Solution to Tragedies Like Orlando, and It Can Hurt to Seek One

    Oh, but there is a solution, and that is total confiscation of firearms from the little people.
    Nothing but good will come from it.
    Just ask anyone living in North Korea or Cuba.

    1. Just the Muslims….

  25. We have no reason to believe their investigation was incompetent in terms of not uncovering things that were uncoverable

    Except, you know, for all of the evidence coming out about the guy now. And the beliefs of his father. And his travel pattern. And, and, and…and pretty much everything we fucking know about him.

  26. There Rally is No Policy Solution to Tragedies Like Orlando, and It Can Hurt to Seek One

    Let’s see if I can come up with a few in about 30 seconds of trying:
    1. Eliminate gun free zones and let all property owners establish their own policies so people can congregate where they feel safe vs where the government tells them they should feel safe.
    2. Vigorously prosecute those who are domestic abusers and make punishment stringent.
    3. Take threats of jihadi sympathies seriously, especially from those whose parents are Taliban supporters.

    That’s for starters.

    1. 4. chloroform tanks
      5. preventive tails

  27. @Conor McCartney

    I’m Canadian, don’t really know the gun laws well but I’m pretty sure I can get a handgun in less than a year if I go thru the paperwork, fees and classes. Now I’m pretty sure I can get a hunting rifle in less than a month or so, which would probably make me more deadly than with a handgun (people tend to see you when you shoot them at less than 30 feet, not so with a rifle at 800-900 feet). Probably can get a shotgun legally quite easily too, which would be more deadly at close range than a handgun. Here I feel like I should precise that I don’t own any weapons nor do I have the intention to shoot anyone.

    And of course I’m just talking about legally acquiring guns, which doesn’t seem to stop people in Toronto or Montreal Nord. And apart from the urban areas, everyone I know owns at least one gun. When the police is 100 Kms away, you kind of have to pack if you want to survive.

    Stop believing what those liberal urbanites are telling you, maybe we don’t own as many guns as the US, but most Canadians know how to use them pretty well. And dare I say we pulled waaaay much more than our weight in the last few wars we were in?

    1. shotguns are statistically twice as deadly as handguns.

      How many times have you read about a police involved shooting where the perp was shot three times but still able to run or return fire?

      How many times have you read about a perp hit by a 12 gauge blast did anything but collapse?

    2. You can get a sidearm much more quickly than that ? the one requirement is that you take a Restricted PAL (Possession & Acquisition License) safety course, pass with a reasonable grade, fill out the (fairly straightforward) paperwork and send it in. All-in costs vary, but expect to pay between $300 to $500 CDN for both the courses and the application fee. Then you wait, ’cause it’s a government bureaucracy. I waited 45 days to send in my forms (unavoidable delays due to personal circumstances), and waited another 4 months to get the PAL (restricted & non-restricted). It was about six weeks longer than it should have been ’cause the bureaucracy fouled up contacting my two references.

      From that point, you can buy long-guns of any type without further ado, although if you want a sidearm, you need to acquire an ATT (Authorization to Transport) from your provincial Chief Firearms Officer; side-arms are legally restricted to licensed firearms ranges everywhere in Canada.

      1. Thanks for the info. I personally just like to plunk with a lead gun every now and then with a few beers but it’s always good to know.

        I just really don’t get all the adulation we get from US liberals, as if we are some sort of socialist paradise care-bear country. No, we have guns too, elected the conservatives for about the last 2 or 3 mandates while the US had Obama and no we are not sorry. And the only reason PM Elbow-in-the-boobs got elected was because we got tired of Harper and because he pandered to the middle, not because we liked Emperor Justinian.

        No we don’t want you in if Trump wins, go live in San Francisco or something. Secession, no big deal. In fact, no, please do come in Toronto and see if you’re still lovey happy after a month or so of actually living what you preach. Let’s see if you’re gonna stay once you fill in that tax return for that “free” healthcare. That and the weather. You’ll go back to CA in no time. Oh no wait, you messed that place up too bad already, well, next stop, Colorado!

        Sorry for ranting, I guess I’ve reach my stupid limit these lasts few days.

        1. It’s surprisingly easy to reach your “stupid limit” when talking about these issues, especially when your fellow Canucks tend to think of themselves as morally superior to Americans vis-?-vis firearms. I used to be much more forgiving of my brothers and sisters for their attitudes, but in recent years I’ve become a hard-ass. The average Laurentian Canadian is rapidly turning into an insufferable prick/cunt about way too many things.

    3. Thanks for setting Conor McCartney straight about Canada.

      Now about Japan…

      Conor’s comparison to Japan is outright intellectually dishonest.

      1) Japan is an island nation. Like Australia, that gives them a huge advantage in controlling the importation of contraband. (Admittedly, Canada is not an island, but drug cartels coming up from Mexico and Central America are more likely to stop in the USA where drug buyers are more plentiful.)

      2) Japan’s people are highly rule-following. The Japanese never cut in line, queue up in an orderly fashion for concerts or even when evacuating from disasters. They don’t loot or riot at the first available opportunity like in the USA.

      3) Japan is highly racially and culturally homogenous. There are very few immigrants–the average Japanese person can trust that nearly everyone else has grown up in the same or similar way that they have, has roughly the same values, and can generally be trusted. Sweden was the same until the mass importation of incompatible Muslims. The USA is full of competing groups of all stripes, none of which trust each other much at all.

      4) Japan’s yakuza gangs cooperate with the police to enforce order. Not so in the USA.

      5) Japan’s people shun criminals. Criminals are considered scarier and more shameful and outcast than here in the US, where thug life is glorified by pop culture.

      My brother, who lives in Tokyo, tells me Japan is probably the only place in the world where gun control can really work.

  28. To “Conor McCartney” in the promoted comment:

    I’m one of several Canucks on this board, and your comment about Canada having “effectively eliminated handguns” is witless nonsense. There are hundreds of thousands of licensed handgun owners in Canada and millions of long-gun owners. And, most tellingly, almost all of the gang shootings in the Lower Mainland of B.C. (where I live) involve the use of unlicensed (and therefore illegal) handguns. The same is true of many other parts of Canada. If that’s what you classify as “effective elimination,” you’re dreaming in wide Technicolor.

    Similar situations obtain throughout most of Western Europe and the UK: my family in France lives in rural Normandy, and firearms ownership is quite extensive there (both legal and illegal). National authorities throughout Western Europe and the UK (as well as third-party monitoring organizations) estimate that there are millions of firearms of all types illegally owned in places like Austria, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium and so forth. And the existence of legal firearms in Switzerland hasn’t turned them into some gunslinging Hell-hole.

  29. Wait! Wait!

    There is ALWAYS a governmental policy solution to any tragedy or perceived slight. Just ask them.

    Shoulda, coulda, woulda. It’s the government’s answer for everything.

    We’re from the government and, we’re here to help!

    🙁

  30. i keep replaying that speech from ‘V is for vendetta’.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKvvOFIHs4k

    it always seems appropriate at times like this.

  31. There is certainly a policy solution to Islamic terrorism:

    1. Nuke Mecca and destroy that Kab’aa thing. After that say there is no more Islam since Mecca is gone. and;
    2. Ban Islam from America: A proposed constitutional amendment to ban Islam

    The Rhomites and Reason magazine are salivating to see Iran nuke Israel and kill the six million Jews there (another holocaust which “Reason” will deny as it did in their 1976 issue). That being the case, I don’t want to hear any lectures from you Rhomites about brutality. And you clowns are not the party of the Founding Fathers, Islam was the enemy of America since the dawn of the Republic. A Jew, Haym Soloman, financed the American Revolution and went bankrupt in the process.

    “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here”

    The Jewish DEfense League Marching Song

    1. This nuke Mecca comment will be received with roars of admiration over at the Tea Party, Prohibition Party and Constatooshun Party websites. With their support your Crusade ought to do at least as well as the Republican Party’s betting odds. Your buddy with the Amendment will discover that the IRS does not “define” religion, so, too bad there. Ireland might like it though, or maybe Malaysia.

  32. Brian Doherty,

    I disrespectfully disagree.

    A new policy of FOLLOWING THE SECOND AMENDMENT would do wonders for preserving life in formerly gun free zones.

    Whenever some Statist religious nut declares “Allah yakbar”… or “god bless the queen”…. or ” al salama lick a long salami”…. suddenly intended victims abruptly bump off the would be terrorist.

    Now that’s a new policy!

    1. Yep, the Second Amendment, as written, would cut short religious berserkerism in Orlando. It could have saved lives in Vichy France were they not so enamored of Kristallnache laws and fascism.

      Brazil and Australia both have forced elections and campaigns to disarm citizens. Brazil is completely overrun with muggers, purse snatchers, armed robbers, burglars and looter politicians holding office while under indictment. Australian robbers have shifted somewhat to threatening people with knives. Yet in Texas it is very rare to find a holdup man still breathing. Parasitical cops are less inclined to go fishing for asset forfeiture in areas where citizens exercise Second Amendment Rights. These shootings occur around signs saying the opposite of the Second Amendment. Does anyone notice this?

  33. The problem is the missapprenshion that the purpose of government is to protect our lives from violence. In a free society it literally can’t be done because until a violent act takes place they can’t intervene. Government us about justice after the fact.

    1. You want a policy to stop this type of attack? More capitalism.

    2. Amen to that! People forget that crimes can only be addressed by justice AFTER they are committed (see the whole Minority Report pre-crime debate–is it ethical to accuse or punish someone for something they haven’t done yet?)

      Of course that doesn’t stop people from trying to criminalize people before they have actually committed any crimes, which is essentially what they are doing to every single law-abiding gun owner.

    3. In a Jack Vance novel the function of justice was to “dissuade another from committing a like misdeed.” But this runs into a point raised in Atlas Shrugged–a point that has to do with people who value their lives versus mystics who worship life, but only if it’s life-after-death.

  34. i don’t think some of you understand.

    we must do something! this is something, so therefore we must do this!

    we can even give it all a clever name like, “the clean hands act”, as in washing the blood off, etc.

    it’s all very logical!

  35. But there is indeed an obvious solution to the Pulse tragedy problem.

    First notice that the massacre occurred in a gun-free zone. No one was armed and able to defend themselves.

    Then notice that mass shootings in similar places in Israel stopped once they encouraged their responsible citizens to be armed. Then realize that mass shootings don’t occur when people carry guns.

    Then realize that Colorado carried out an experiment on encouraging people to be armed. The results are astounding. see http://www.discouragecriminals.net/concealed-carry

    Whoever says “there really is no policy solution” is either refusing to look at the evidence, or has decided that their mind is already made up – so why confuse the issue with the facts?

    1. Correct. Either more or less guns will reduce these sorts of things, if taken far enough. The problem is that the people willing to go far enough (with either solution) are unable to persuade enough people to make it a reality.

      And speaking to Reason and libertarians/Libertarians in specific, any policy that requires government action (that is, the state taking any steps to promote/encourage gun ownership/skill/use) is going to be disfavored.

      So really, the headline should have read “there really is no policy solution that we would support

      1. Yes Escher, but outside that 2% of law-changing libertarian voters, Scott Adams commented:

        Consider Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslim immigration until we figure out what is going on. Remember how radical that sounded months ago? Remember how ? even if you liked the idea ? it sounded outrageously racist, even though Islam is open to all races? To most American ears, Trump’s proposed immigration ban sounded inappropriate and far-fetched EVEN IF YOU LIKED IT.

        Scott guesstimates that 75% now believe that shutting out Ottomaniacs now sounds “disturbingly reasonable.”
        More disturbing is the fact that elders programming children to wear suicide vests is OK, protected by the First Amendment even, provided only that their motives be mystical. Observations suggest that this doctrine–not guns–is a problem. Refusing to enforce such a monstrous distortion, just as Americans refused to enforce indentureship contracts signed by illiterate immigrants, might be an option.

  36. Agree. ‘Autonomous defense’ is the only way to go.

    LEOs will not protect anyone.

  37. “We have no reason to believe their investigation was incompetent”

    I’m starting to think its not incompetence but more of allow the nutter to go nuts so we have a reason for more gun control and survalence. Is it conspiracy well that was found to be the purpose behind Fast & Furious which the government failed at so now they just let their natural ability at failure to do anything to work for them.

  38. “There really is no policy solution to tragedies like Orlando, an it can hurt to seek one”.

    Sadly, this won’t stop the wolves and sheep from making their presence known. Demagogues will list every scapegoat imaginable with the hopes of furthering their agendas, with followers absorbing every morsel of it, blinded by this horrific event of terror. When you have a politician exploiting such a tragedy, you know you have a real winner. Wake up people, Jesus!

  39. After reading the torn and garbled article, I was left wondering whether God’s Own Prohibitionists might not seize the moment to shriek for a ban on gay cellphone apps. In backward Banana and Bandana Republics, Uber and Lyft apps are lustily banned with overwhelming force of law to please influence peddlers and peddlees alike. I also expect Republicans to whine and yelp that Apple or Samsung must be forced to hack the dead berserker’s phone and expose all his lay (no pun intended) contacts.

  40. FEDGOV can’t even keep track of their own guns.

    FEDGOV is “missing” several thousand of their guns,some being full-auto machine guns. that does not include US military arms losses. TSA alone is missing 100s of their guns. Then state and local law enforcement have guns stolen from their vehicles frequently. Former Orlando POLICE CHIEF Val Demings had her service handgun stolen from her unmarked SUV in 2009,and years later,it still hasn’t been recovered. OPD has “lost” 2 AR-15 kits,and had 4 machine guns stolen from vehicles.
    Post-9-11,several armed Federal employees have LEFT their loaded handguns on commercial air flights and deplaned,the guns being discovered by other passengers. One guy in Alabama stole rifles (real assault rifles,select-fire) and grenades from Anniston Army Depot.
    guns will ALWAYS be available to those who really want them.

  41. 3″I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 98usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do.

    ======>http://www.Today70.com

  42. Brian’s view of innocence includes the product of parents zealously programming children to believe that Satan will torture them with pitchforks in the afterlife if they do not shun, hate and murder everyone who is different from the parent doing the brainwashing–or if they doubt the truth of that indoctrination.

    Force-feeding children with superstitious hatred is the common denominator among jesusfreaks and mohammedans. Both sects are eager to force women to squeeze out brainwashable babies–by duress if need be. To describe children altered by their own parents incessantly dinning them with threats and superstition, modifiers like mentally maimed, twisted, insane, deranged, mutilated, harmed, mistreated, injured, pitiable, wretched and dangerous come to mind, but… “innocent”? Once they mature and obtain military equipment, my hope is that they will prefer to hang out with Brian, and avoid unsympathetic types like myself.

    1. You know people like this, actually know them? I’ve traveled all over this country over thirty years of driving an 18 wheeler and the number of ” jesusfreaks ” you describe could be counted on one hand. Met quite a few folks with strong religious opinions, but almost no one you describe.

  43. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK=====>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  44. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  45. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ???????

    http://www.Reportmax20.com

  46. my roomate’s step-mother makes 60 each hour on the internet and she has been out of work for seven months but last month her check was 14489 just working on the internet for 5 hours a day, look at ..
    Read more on this web site..

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.maxincome20.com

  47. my roomate’s step-mother makes 60 each hour on the internet and she has been out of work for seven months but last month her check was 14489 just working on the internet for 5 hours a day, look at ..
    Read more on this web site..

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.maxincome20.com

  48. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.selfcash10.com

  49. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Reportmax20.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.