Guns

The Year Gun Control Died

Gun opponents would leave predatory cops armed and their victims helpless.

|

For fans of legal restrictions on self-defense rights, 2020 is a disaster. It provides continuing evidence that to push gun control proposals is to advocate that the likes of Derek Chauvin—the Minneapolis cop who killed George Floyd—should be armed, while the communities they terrorize should be helpless. It is also to insist that when police fail at their supposedly core task of protecting the public, people should be deprived of the means for defending themselves. As many Americans lose faith in law enforcement and do what's necessary to shield lives and property, it's unlikely that they'll be an enthusiastic audience for future disarmament schemes that would make those of us who don't work for government even more vulnerable to those who do.

Back in December,* prominent gun control advocate and then-presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg responded to reports that an armed church security guard stopped a would-be mass murderer by sniffing that such behavior is inappropriate.

"It may be true—I wasn't there and don't know the facts—that somebody in the congregation had his own gun and killed the person who murdered two other people, but it's the job of law enforcement to have guns and to decide when to shoot. You just do not want the average citizen carrying a gun in a crowded place," he said.

That comment hasn't aged well in a world dominated by names of victims of police violence such as George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, and uniformed perpetrators like former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.

Before he was charged with murder for the killing of Floyd, Chauvin had 18 prior complaints filed against him. Of the three other officers fired and charged over Floyd's death, Tou Thao also had a record of complaints—six in total, including one that resulted in a $25,000 settlement for the use of excessive force.

Chauvin and Thao are part of a larger problem. Five years after a U.S. Justice Department report called for changes in how the Minneapolis Police Department handles officer misconduct, "law enforcement agencies have lacked either the authority or the will to discipline and remove bad officers from patrol. They have also failed to set clear criteria on the use of force and de-escalation," according to The Marshall Project.

That's the back story leading up to George Floyd's death, which resulted in protests and riots across the United States.

In response to the disorder, the FBI asked the public to submit "information and digital media depicting individuals inciting violence." Americans promptly responded—with evidence of cops behaving badly from coast to coast.

"Many on Twitter quickly began sharing video clips and photos of police cracking down violently on protesters," noted Newsweek. "In some, an officer or officers attack a group of protesters, seemingly unprovoked. Other clips showed police spraying tear gas in protesters' faces or shoving them violently to the ground."

In Washington, D.C., law enforcement forcibly and very publicly ejected mostly peaceful protesters from the area in front of St. John's Episcopal Church so the president could stage a photo op.

How convincing can Bloomberg's "only cops should have guns" sentiment now be to Americans who have seen and shared fresh examples of unjustified and brutal police conduct?

Of course, police aren't the only ones terrorizing the public. Rioters and looters also put lives and property at risk, and in many areas law enforcement agencies have failed to do much about it.

Just days ago, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo complained about the performance of New York City cops. "The police in NYC were not effective at doing their job last night," he said. "Have you stopped looting in the past? Have you stopped rioting in the past? Do that again."

Residents of Chicago, Long Beach, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, and other communities voiced similar concerns as store windows were smashed, businesses burned, and people injured.

"We always assume when we need the police they'll be there for us," the disappointed manager of a looted Philadelphia ShopRite supermarket told The Wall Street Journal.

A good many Americans who weren't already enraged by examples of gratuitous police brutality were disgusted by evidence of law enforcement's ineffectiveness at a core responsibility. So, they took responsibility for their own safety—including people who fully support protests against police misconduct, but see no reason to allow themselves to be victimized by hotheads and opportunists.

In St. Paul, Minnesota, black residents stood armed guard against looters outside local businesses. Business owners in Kirkland, Washington, did the same.

"U.S. retailers are stepping up patrols by armed security guards and transferring merchandise to secure locations as widespread civil unrest sets back the economic recovery from the coronavirus shutdown," reports the Los Angeles Times.

Video captured a Bellevue, Washington, cigar shop owner chasing-off looters at gun point. In South Philadelphia, looters discovered why breaking into a gun shop is a high-risk proposition, with one of their number dead at the scene at the hands of the owner.

Many police departments conceded the limits of their abilities. In Florida, Sheriff Grady Judd advised Polk County residents to shoot looters. High-profile psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman, a gun control supporter, marveled on Twitter that, when he called Santa Monica police over a protest-related confrontation, they told him, "Sir, the city is under attack. Do what you have to do." (He also observed officers "throwing tear gas at really peaceful people.")

For those who have been advising Americans for years that we should lay down our own weapons and trust armed government employees to protect us and treat us with respect, 2020 has been a massive reality check. The year so far has demonstrated (once again) that the police can't be relied upon to defend our lives and property, and often themselves pose threats against which we need to guard.

"It's the job of law enforcement to have guns and to decide when to shoot," Bloomberg and other gun control advocates insist.

No, thanks. If we were to follow the advice of those who would disarm us, we'd be even more at the mercy of Derek Chauvin and his buddies, and of anybody else with ill intent.

*CORRECTION: The original version of this article misidentified the month of Bloomberg's speech. It was December, not January.

Advertisement

NEXT: Why Trump Might Still Get Re-elected

Guns Police Abuse George Floyd Self-Defense Gun Rights Gun Control Second Amendment Police Protests Property Rights Safety Criminal Justice

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.

Please to post comments

228 responses to “The Year Gun Control Died

  1. Yeah Americans will forget about what’s his name as soon as a new story breaks.

    1. We need social justice gun control in America. Free guns for African-Americans and a complete ban for white Christian men!

        1. Another cringe boomer song but I support your idea of arming Ammo-sexuals.

          1. lol you likely first person ever to define FEAR as boomer

            1. Gen X might as well be Boomer gen to me. #Zoomer

              1. ouch I’ll not hurl insults in the other direction lol.

                1. I am now making $35/h by doing a very simple and easy online work from home. I have received exactly $8471 last month from this online work. To start making extra income please…
                  wiki
                  visit this site………………………….Online Earn Cash

              2. So, you’re a TOTAL moron. Good to know. (Xer)

              3. Make 6150 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…. Go to Articles

            2. I am making more than 400 dollars online working from home. My last weekly payment was exactly 3192 dollars and the best part is you can join for free.
              See my earnings and join on this official site…………..Home Profit System

          1. I am now making $35/h by doing a very simple and easy online work from home. I have received exactly $8471 last month from this online work. SXc To start making extra income please…

            visit this site………………………….Go to this link

        2. From Riot to Police Truck to Police Story, American hardcore has certainly been the soundtrack of the summer.

          1. wearing DK shirt @work today.

            1. My holiday in Cambodia was cancelled

              1. Soup is, however, still good food.

                1. Lets run to the chicken farm.

                  1. And start a forest fire.

                    1. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and ecarning from this job are just awesome.VFc Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and vist tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks………. Online Jobs Provid

                    2. With stolen mail.

        3. Best song on the Repo Man soundtrack.

          1. I like the Circle Jerks country-fied When the Shit Hits the Fan, and I *really* like Pablo Picasso

          2. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First Paycheck Within A Week. No Experience Needed, No Boss Over Your Shoulder.ut.. Say Goodbye To Your Old Job! Limited Number Of Spots Open…
            Find out how HERE………. SeeMore here

      1. The history of gun control in the US is more racist and classist than many of the gun-banners will ever admit to themselves, let alone in public.

        1. So, you are for it then?

        2. Guess who banned open carry in California, because he feared the Black man carrying a gun? That’s right, it was Ronaldus Maximus. Somehow that history got whitewashed [sic] from the NRA talking points.

          1. maybe because the NRA supported the measure.

          2. Gotta be careful there, if you are going to dredge up the racist parts of American history, you might have to acknowledge Chief Justice Taney’s identification of the 2A as an individual right ‘to keep and carry arms wherever they went’ on par with 1A rights. Suddenly ‘shall not be infringed’ takes on a whole new meaning.

            Ironically, this absolutely should have been used to prevent the CA ban, but I am guessing the (D) contingency didn’t give a shit as they didn’t want black men armed either.

            “It would give to persons of the negro race . . . the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, . . . and it would give them the full liberty of speech . . . ; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
            -Dred Scott v. Sandford

          3. “…That’s right, it was Ronaldus Maximus…”

            I see you couldn’t bother with a cite. Shall we assume bullshit?

            1. He’s actually right, according to Wikipedia; the Mulford Act, in 1968, banned open carry of fire arms in public, and it was signed by Reagan. Sorry, I don’t know how to embed the proper link. I’m sure there’s many other sources to confirm the fact.

              1. You are right he signed it. But who wrote it? I’m too hungover to look it up right now but possibly a dem legislature with enough votes to override a veto. Don’t know but it’s an important part of the narrative.
                The people have too often and too easily become accustom to blaming or congratulating executives without recalling that the process begins with the legislative.

          4. No, the NRA as an organization did not support the Mulford Act (although some members did). In fact, the Mulford Act and the other gun control acts of the 1960s were the catalyst for turning the NRA from an apolitical sports and training organization into aggressive support for the Second Amendment.

            The NRA was founded after the Civil War in 1871 by Union Army generals. It was largely apolitical and was focused on sports and training. It did not object to many gun control laws, but was certainly not a proponent of them. In fact, resistance by the NRA helped keep handguns out of the onerous 1934 National Firearms Act. Most gun control laws were enacted by racist Democrats who targeted people of color who could not be trusted to own guns:

            The Racist Roots of Gun Control by Clayton Cramer
            http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

            The wave of gun control in the 1960s, aimed at disarming blacks and troublesome minorities, changed the NRA. A member revolt in 1977 overthrew the old order and made it advocate vigorously for the right to be armed for self protection by all responsible citizens.

            I am a brown-skinned immigrant, naturalized citizen, libertarian-leaning 20-year member of the NRA. Thanks to the NRA, I am able to own and carry a firearm to protect myself and my family in most of the states of the Union.

            An exception: the tolerant and inclusive states where the NRA has limited influence. Like New York, where I was given a license restricted to “target shooting and hunting” only. Unrestricted licenses for self-protection are given to only the wealthy and influential.

            1. The NRA was founded by those former Union Army officers because their experiences in the Civil War led them to conclude most soldiers couldn’t shoot straight. The NRA’s prime mission was, and still is, to promote target practice-by American civilians-with standard US issue military rifles and pistols. The “sport” shooting aspect was a subsequent development.

        3. So is the history of abortion. I’m sensing a pattern here.

      2. What?!? Are you kidding? Or are you serious? Gun control is necessary, because there are too many people who’ve gotten access to and obtained firearms who really shouldn’t have. It doesn’t matter who they are, or what they look like!

        1. Fuck off, slaver.

          1. What a tired old remark. It shows a real lack of imagination.

            1. Yet it still holds water.

        2. When you ban something people feel that they have a right to, that it benefits them, that their use does not harm others — guns, alcohol, pot, erotica, abortion — you create support for black markets.

          Last survey of firearms use by offenders showed 91% of state inmates who used or carried a gun in the offense for which they were in prison acquired their guns grey or black market

          Gun control is about disarming the law abiding. That path is unnecessary and destructive.

      3. Too over the top. You need a little more subtlety and nuance with these posts. That’s ok though. A good parody account takes time to work out.

      4. Stop pretending you are a Rabbi. And why is it white CHRISTIAN men?? You are a racist, not to mention a moron. A life lost is horrid, no matter the person’s skin color. The cops were horrid, but Minnesota (I lived there for 20 years) cops are fascists, who LIVE for the day they can shoot someone and get away with it. A sensible solution is to get RID OF COPS, as they prevent about zero crimes, solve very few crimes, and are quite often more criminal than they “criminals” they abuse.

      5. BLM: “We don’t want police to beat the fuck out of us for existing”. Boogaloo pussy interpretation: Their comin’ fer er guns! Boogaloo pussies unite!

      6. Ah, a Nachtkristall law, I get it, that and another Moratorium on Brains…

    2. In a rational world this article would be true. We can hope it will be and work for that. However, people will quickly “forget” and be manipulated into giving up more freedom for illusory security. It has always been that contravening someone’s rights should result is loss of authority, but it is never so and won’t be until qualified immunity is eliminated for prosecutors and police.

  2. As many Americans lose faith in law enforcement and do what’s necessary to shield lives and property, it’s unlikely that they’ll be an enthusiastic audience for future disarmament schemes that would make those of us who don’t work for government even more vulnerable to those who do.

    Emphasis added. Some wags have posited that “many Americans” may find it “necessary” to turn to certain groups (even Antifa) as an attempted solution. That reminds me — What’s the Nation of Islam up to these days?

    1. Its more like FARC- south of the open border.

    2. I’ve seen some interesting videos of gangs defending their neighborhoods against looters and arsonists.

  3. Michael Hihn has been a libertarian activist longer than most of us have been alive. And he says libertarians should support comprehensive gun safety legislation.

    #UnbanMichaelHihn

    1. yes. moar bold!

      1. And sneer!

        1. gotta have more sneer. dude literally types “snort” I love it.

          1. Can I have a chortle?

            1. *chortles* You may

    2. Absolutely. All guns should have a safety so you can carry them loaded and ready to go.

      1. Hell no. That’s how you get idiotic tang and crossbolt safetys put on classy lever guns. The only safety a lever gun need is a half cock notch.

      2. This is up there with the people in CA who were outraged that CCW permits only cover handguns and that there’s no law prohibiting carrying a concealed AR15.

        Not all guns need to be made for EDC. A double-action revolver with no exposed hammer is extremely difficult to accidentally discharge without any need for a separate safety if you’re looking for something to carry safely

        I don’t carry (since I live in L.A. County, there’s no way to do it legally and my job prohibits it anyway), but I also don’t keep one in the chamber for my home defense weapons. I figure that if I won’t have time to cycle the action, I won’t have time to identify what’s in front of me.

    3. Was Hihn really banned? What for, overuse of CAPS?
      I’m not missing his bullshit rants, but just curious.

      1. Sevo, I’m pretty sure that clumsy old fart who was going to show those sassy riot police what for in Buffalo, NY is Hihn. You could literally see all the caps locked posts pouring out of his ear after he hit the ground. God speed in his recovery.

        1. Which is pretty impressive as Hihn lives in Boise, Idaho.

    4. Unban Hihn, so Reason can ban him again!

    5. I haven’t seen Hihn in a while. Maybe es dead.

      Here’s hoping.

  4. won’t. somebody. please. think. of. the. children.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jFqhjaGh30

  5. Gun control can never die as long as there are people who want to order around other people, and those other people being armed makes this difficult.

    Should the Democrats take Congress and the Presidency this fall, I expect gun control will be high on their agenda, along with packing the Supreme Court so that Heller won’t remain an obstacle.

    1. I can definitely see the Democrats, craven cowards as they are, using the violence as a pretext to put in more gun control. Arguments like Tucille’s will fall on deaf ears. Logic has no place in an emotional debate. What’s needed is 36×48 hi-gloss prints of people dead by guns for a congressman to wave around on C-SPAN.

      If there is one thing that’s clear, it’s unconstitutional methods can be easily rammed through the process, and that is exactly what they will do.

      Still not voting for Trump though.

    2. Yeah, even after the LA Riots, I would have thought the gun control debate was put to bed forever.

      Never underestimate a short public memory and the cunning of dems to bring it roaring back.

      Or if someone makes a credible attempt on Trump’s life (looking more plausible by the day), the republicans will certainly take up the mantle.

    3. “Should the Democrats take Congress and the Presidency this fall”

      Well, all that , and this; the DNC (of such other body ) will be designated as the organization to determine if any future president is ‘capable of discharging the duties of his office’.
      25th amendment to the US Constitution; section 4:
      Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, . . .

  6. As you continue to repeat left talking-point lies, you are part of the problem J.D.

    1. Can you be more spcific?

      1. “shall not be infringed”
        If you think ‘common sense gun control’ is reasonable, how do you feel about requiring a gun permit in order to vote?

        1. Sounds like a plan to me.

          Actually, scratch the permit, just require that people be armed to vote.

          1. “ Actually, scratch the permit, just require that people be armed to vote.”

            Great idea, I love it. I can see it now, “Here’s my ID. I need a ballot and a box of Federal HST 230 grain in 45 acp. Go ahead and get me a couple of those Shoot-N-C targets while you’re at it too.”.

    2. “As you continue to repeat left talking-point lies, you are part of the problem J.D.”

      Are we to assume YOU are the problem?

  7. I assume that is why some neighborhoods in Philly and Chicago, (almost impossible to buy a firearm) are carrying bats to patrol their hood and stores. Mayors of both Philly and Chicago are calling them armed vigilantes. Ban baseball?

    1. They’re aren’t calling for a ban on bats. They just want to ban donuts from the market; except for the cops.

    2. In California its illegal to a have a bat in a car unless there are other baseball items in the car. its considered a weapon otherwise.

      1. Why am I not surprised.

      2. Look how much damage eating one does!

      3. Even stupider, the establishing case was about a novelty-sized bat found under a seat in an unoccupied car.

    3. Bats don’t kill baseballs. People kill baseballs.

    4. Per Philly media:

      “Kenney was “disturbed” by reports of some of the officers high-fiving and taking photos with the residents armed with bats. He said it took too long for the officers to disperse the group.

      “We tolerated it last night for too long and that was a mistake. We will not tolerate it moving forward,” Kenney said.

      The mayor welcomes residents standing up for their neighborhood in a peaceful and non-threatening way.

      “We do not condone vigilantism. We understand a community’s desire to protect their neighborhood and if they want to do that in peace, we would allow it, regardless of neighborhood,” Kenney said.”

      Sooo only protect your neighborhood in peace!

      1. So, just sit there peacefully waiting for the police to show up (which may take days) while assholes beat you up and burn down your business. Sounds like a good plan.

        I would honestly prefer to see residents and business owners shooting some looters and arsonists than the police deal with it. I bet the rioting would slow down real fast if people were ready to actively defend themselves.

      2. Vigilantes only show up when government law enforcement fails.

      3. Drunky McMayor [Kenney] is a buffoon.

    5. It’s not hard to buy a firearm or to conceal carry in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a shall issue state for conceal carry. I’m a Delaware resident with a Delaware CCDW to carry in Delaware and I have a PA LTCF to carry in PA, since Delaware and PA don’t have a reciprocity agreement. I go to Philly regularly and carry all the time there. Any person that can legally purchase a firearm under federal law can easily get a firearm in and around Philly and they can get a conceal carry license as well. I can’t speak with first hand experience regarding Chicago, but Illinois was forced to become a shall issue state for conceal carry a few years back.

  8. “It provides continuing evidence that to push gun control proposals is to advocate that the likes of Derek Chauvin—the Minneapolis cop who killed George Floyd—should be armed, while the communities they terrorize should be helpless”
    No, this episode taught me that when the shit hits the fan, there won’t be any cops responding to my 911 call to protect me from the chaos. So if I want protection, I better armor up myself. Libertarian moment?
    Oh, and since Chauvin didn’t use his gun, is this author calling for common sense knee reform?

    1. “It is however, somewhat fuzzy on the subject of kneecaps”

      1. Your firefly reference is noted and appreciated.

      2. Shepherd Book reference, shiney.

    2. As if the aftermath of Katrina was not enough to fully demonstrate the limitations of the thin blue line.

      In such an urban environment, for all their failings, they are the only thing between you and mayhem. If they are to be de-funded you sure as shit better arm up. I don’t think anyone who wants you or your shit is gong to care much about your virtue toward any social justice.

    3. Chauvin didn’t use his gun – but at least two other cops with guns were standing by to prevent onlookers from dragging Chauvin off his victim and beating him unconscious.

    4. Statistically, using a gun successfully in self-defense happens less frequently than other outcomes. Other things that happen; you miss, you shoot a family member instead, you injure or kill a neighbor, it is used by another family member for suicide, or to commit another crime. If you add these together, one of them is about 20 times more likely to occur than a successful self-defense.

  9. On the morning links, there was reference to a YouTube video in which a man claiming to work for BLM goes around demanding that white men and women bow the knee to him in acknowledgment of their shared guilt for the death of George Floyd.

    It bears mentioning that the guy in the video is online hoaxter Smooth Sanchez, a Hispanic who was trying to show white sympathizers, in the most over-the-top way possible, that they’re being played by the left. He even went so far as to accuse them of being accomplices in the death of “George Foreman” — and they still didn’t get the joke.

    It’s a sad commentary on the state of self-awareness in this country.

    1. Apparently, there have been some guys trying to convince white women to shave their heads for much the same reason.

      1. twittering trends of the South Africa model of government. ANC with land/wealth reform. BTW, the same economists that consult Sanders and Warren’s campaign, called for land reform in South Africa. It didn’t go smoothly when white farmers and their families were murdered in their sleep (shhh, the media doesn’t write about that).

      2. so all the butch ladies who shave their heads already will be assumed to in support?

        1. Not Janie, but she still looks cute.

          https://youtu.be/uHFS4mE9UTA

  10. The Year Gun Control Died

    You wish. Never underestimate people’s ability to simultaneously hold two conflicting beliefs, like for example the belief that “only agents of the State should be allowed to be armed” and the belief that those same armed agents of the state are all “racist-ass crackers who hunt black people for sport.”

    1. This two beliefs are not contradictory at all.

      1. They’re not contradictory, they’re conflicting. Amazingly, different words mean different things.

        If you believe that ‘armed agents of the state are all “racist-ass crackers who hunt black people for sport”‘, and claim to be anti-racist, it is very much in conflict with the belief that “only agents of the State should be allowed to be armed”. Unless you’re a lying, two-faced Democrat for whom hypocrisy is all but guaranteed.

  11. Do you mean the People are expected to take some responsibility in protecting themselves and their families? Heresy, I tell you!

  12. While some eagerly and gleefully conflate all protest with the specific bad actors involved in looting, vandalism, and arson… the police in some jurisdictions seem more concerned with putting down peaceful exercise of First Amendment rights than they are with concentrating on the bad actors and protecting people and property from real threats.

    1. Poor trolling form. The post is certainly vague and fallacious enough to identify you as a Prog, but this really lacks the invective and specificity to get people to argue with you.

      1. Poor trolling form. The post is certainly vague and fallacious enough to identify you as a Prog, but this really lacks the invective and specificity to get people to argue with you.

        So you’re saying he should write for Reason?

        1. So you’re saying he should write for Reason?

          Do we know that he doesn’t? He used the phrase ‘bad actors’ twice in the same run-on sentence. If he had used ‘to be sure’ we would know which writer.

          1. To be sure, libertarians and their publications aren’t supposed to suck cop dick just because the guy in charge has an (R) after his name.

            1. See? Now that is some quality trolling. Non-sequitur, invokes Trump, insults the writers and the commentariat, yet also clearly a response to the specific post.

              Tony is a sensitive soul. When he progs you, you really feel that he has actually read what you wrote.

  13. Actually, I expect lefty-run cities to double down on gun control.

  14. In response to the disorder, the FBI asked the public to submit “information and digital media depicting individuals inciting violence.” Americans promptly responded—with evidence of cops behaving badly from coast to coast.

    Hoisted by their own retard.

    *cue sad trombone*

    1. >>Hoisted by their own retard.

      +1 Shakes Pear.

    2. And used wrongly, to boot.

      The proper usage is ‘hoist UPON your own petard’

      1. References becoming a victim of one’s own infernal device (petard being a bomb used to blow a castle door, the only way for the petardier to get away was to run down the drawbridge over the moat before the petard exploded).
        That was before the LAW and RPG made it easier to blow stuff up.

  15. “The Year Gun Control Died”
    LOL no, Reason.

    I have no doubt Tucci sincerely believes this, but gun control is going nowhere. In fact, Blue State Dems are probably going to accelerate their efforts at passing new laws.

    Like most other issues arising from these riots, things will switch back to status quo ante on gun control within a few weeks.

    While some minorities and white Karen’s have been red-pilled by the events of this past week, there won’t be enough to make a real difference this fall. So no Libertarian Moment.

    1. See the 75-yr.-old man vs. police thread.

      Within a matter of months this will be turned around and retconned so that armed white men on the steps of the MI statehouse, who burned nothing and broke nothing, were having their white privilege respected but unarmed black protesters were, right along George Floyd, denied their due constitutional rights.

      1. Months? It’s already happened.

  16. While a nice fantasy, I expect they’ll forget it as quickly as they forgot Korean dry cleaners defending themselves with rifles during the L.A. Riots.

    1. I believe the Roof Koreans (blessed be their name) were accused at the time of being racist.

  17. Gun control is very important. Squeeeze the trigger don’t yank it. It’s not your dick.

    1. Police are more ‘panic shooters’ than anything. Except for that fucker in Louisville, he nailed McAtee dead center and didn’t manage to hit any of the bystanders.

  18. Even with the current object lesson in the need for protection options beyond local law enforcement, I’m not sure this will change many minds on the left.

    So much of the anti-2A believers have been pushing the dual narrative that “cops are hunting black/brown people every day” and “only cops can be trusted with guns”, along with declaring the bumper-sticker slogan “when seconds matter, the cops are minutes away” as tinfoil-hat level paranoia, that doublethink may have become their default setting. At the very least, they (along with ideologues on the right) rarely seem to ever put any two of their “principles” side by side to see all the ways in which those ideas are directly contradictory.

    They know that a lot of gun control laws (especially in California) were instituted as a reaction to the Black Panther Party arming themselves for protection from law enforcement (and in some cases to patrol areas the cops wouldn’t), but they also somehow appear to think that doubling down on those laws will somehow reduce police brutality (even when they acknowledge openly that there’s no real chance of their preferred policies actually disarming many criminals)

    1. No, no, no, see it’s just that the wrong cops have guns. Except, of course, we should have no cops, well unless they are enforcing the myriad laws we like or want to implement. What contradictions?

      1. Laws don’t need enforcement. If they did, then a byzantine system of regulation and confiscatory tax structure would be authoritarian/statist, and the people who want them sincerely believe they’re fighting that sort of thing.


    2. I’m not sure this will change many minds on the left.

      It won’t, and the simple reason why is because many minds on the left reside in ivory towers with guarded fences. What does it really matter to them if a certain segment of the population burn their own neighborhoods down when those same ivory tower types never go to those places?

      To them, this is all academic. It’s notable only those few leftists who had the ‘protesters’ get ‘within a few miles’ that they started to wonder about maybe being armed themselves, but they still can’t connect the dots because of course it just so happens that they are one of the few people who can be trusted with a gun.

      In far less than a year they will be back to trying to disarm ‘black’ people through gun control the same way they’ve been doing for well over 100 years now. At least in the modern era they have also conceded that poor rural rednecks also shouldn’t own guns so they seem a bit less racist about it.

      In fact, I think most people are just classist and it has little to do with race outside of it’s statistical significance as a marker for poverty. If most of the people who look like you are poor as fuck, people will assume that because you look like them you are also poor as fuck.

      See that white guy on the side of the road with missing teeth and a lazy eye? Must be an uncultured redneck! Even if, you know, they work for Stanford or Oxford upon closer examination.

      1. “It won’t, and the simple reason why is because many minds on the left reside in ivory towers with guarded fences. What does it really matter to them if a certain segment of the population burn their own neighborhoods down when those same ivory tower types never go to those places?”

        But this time, they’re looting on Rodeo, 3rd Street and Melrose instead of Crenshaw and Broadway. Makes you feel sorry for the leftist elite in L.A. knowing they may have to keep wearing last year’s Patek Phillipe model for a few extra months instead of keeping current with the line…

      2. The Dredd Scott decision was way over a 100 years ago. Cruikshank 1873 which overturned the 1870 Civil Rights Act enabling states to ignore the BoR was rendered moot by Guest and Price which upheld the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Cruikshank and all restrictive state laws allowed since 1873 need to be revisited.

  19. Unless you are ready to contend that a citizen should have shot the officer before he could complete the murder of George Floyd, this is just right-wing fever dream.

    Gun nuts are destined to lose their facet of the culture war as America continues to progress. I hope their absolutism doesn’t provoke a backlash from the American mainstream that overruns a right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home.

    1. Open wider Rev. The barrel won’t fit in your mouth yet.

    2. The people who watched the murder of George Floyd had two choices, watch him die, or go to prison. If George lives, the reason for interfering with the police is moot.

      Plus, you just implied that a right-winger would put a bullet in a cop to prevent the death of a black man. The mental gymnastics that it takes to hold all those contradictory stereotypes in one mind are amazing considering your status as a jar full of gall bladders of failed dictators.

    3. Yep, I’m ready to contend this. I’m also ready to contend that this would be legal and moral. Calling people “gun nuts” is unconvincing, the only nut I see is the on that thinks firearms can be “reasonable” or that your right to own them is limited to your home.

    4. I don’t know that I’d contend a bystander would have shot the cop in front of three others. It’s definitely possible that a couple of bystanders carrying might have given the cop some pause in keeping a fully restrained man pinned that way for so long after the cuffs were on.

      The Panthers weren’t carrying those rifles to shoot a cop that had one of them pinned, they were carrying to make the cops less aggressive about trying to pin them in the first place.

  20. it’s the job of law enforcement to have guns and to decide when to shoot

    As long as they can demonstrate a willingness to sacrifice their own life rather than take a life unnecessarily and know the intricacies of the law as well any judge, I can support this idea.

    Considering that the reality is closer to giving a fellow of below average intelligence with training that everyone is a threat a loaded pistol to point at Philando Castile and qualified immunity when he unloads his gun into a car full of innocent people, fuck Bloomberg and the horse he rode in on.

    1. Yeah, the other important part of the job is that it is their job to be in danger so that others don’t have to. The most important thing must be that no innocent people are harmed, not that the cops go home safe at night. It’s the police’s job to take the chance with their own lives if they aren’t completely sure that they guy they think they saw with a gun intends to do them harm.

      1. It’s the police’s job to take the chance with their own lives if they aren’t completely sure

        The public certainly believes so. Their unions take advantage of that to lobby for pay and benefits for heroes, while training them to behave as cowards and defending them when they act as thugs and thieves.

        1. Literally the same as it’s ever been.

          Firemen and EMT are bigger heroes than the police, since Firemen just about always show up first and hardly ever kill anyone on purpose. It would be a great model to use if one wanted to reform police, outside the pension and union issues of course. Think more local fire department in a small town vs. FDNY.

          Oh wait, am I just thinking of the Sheriff’s department? Shit.

    2. Fuck Bloomberg WITH the horse he rode in on.

  21. The Lefties keep telling me that the Second Amendment is a #WhitePrivilege. Even when cops are murdering Blacks, they still refuse to see that self defense if an unalienable right that all possess, not a grant from Whitey government, but a gift by God and Nature.

    Conservatives only recently got on board the Second Amendment. It was Ronald Reagan, when he was governor, that signed the Mulford Act that banned open carry. Because the Black Panthers were defending Black neighborhoods with firearms.

    I stand with the Black Panthers in supporting the right of Blacks to defend themselves, their families, and their neighborhoods.

    1. This board needs a like/upvote button.

    2. Condelezza Rice, when asked why she supported the 2nd Amdt, responded that growing up, she remembered her minister father joining the other men is their community in patrolling it with guns to protect them from the Klan (and other racist Democrats). She also had friends, when she was young, who died when the church they were in was blown up. Again, of course, by Democrats.

  22. For maybe an election cycle, sure. Remember folks, we’ve been through this before.

  23. So… we’re supposed to shoot at cops now?

    It’s one thing to whore out other people’s issues for psychopathic pet causes they would have nothing to do with, but advocating for people to shoot at cops in self-defense is libertarianism taken to new levels of wish-fulfillment, or it would be if it weren’t actually cynical horseshit meant to make gun manufacturers more money.

    1. If I’m reading my headlines right, the protesters are shooting at cops.

      1. The great thing about this situation is that there remains no need to collectively punish protestors or suggest that they are collectively defined by a violent fringe. The same would go for cops I suppose if their orders to shut down the constitution weren’t coming from the top.

        1. But aren’t you a collectivist? Guess not today you aren’t.

          1. Define collectivist, if you can.

            1. Greatest good for the greatest number. All have to give up something in order to achieve best desirable outcome.

              Of course the trick is who gets to decide just what that is, and who all has to give up what.

              1. That’s everyone. Literally everyone. You just have a minimalist set of policy wants, presumably, but I still have to pay for your nightwatchmen state, for the greater good.

                Since we’re both agreed that society can’t be wished away and that it must be organized to some degree so that individuals contribute to the collective good, why can’t we have centralized health insurance, again?

                1. That’s everyone. Literally everyone.

                  Great job proving that you aren’t a collectivist.

                2. “Since we’re both agreed that society can’t be wished away and that it must be organized to some degree so that individuals contribute to the collective good, why can’t we have centralized health insurance, again?”

                  You simply do not understand the invisible hand, and you’re too stupid to even know you don’t.

            2. Hint: Dictionaries are full of definitions. Feel free to crack one open someday.

    2. Of course not. It’s inappropriate for people to use guns in self-defense, as studies show that countries with more guns have more gun deaths.

      Instead, we need criminal justice reform, which includes diversity training and equal opportunity policing, which is sure to put an end to racist policing and restore order to society.

      1. Because it makes total sense to devote limited resources to policing area’s with virtually no crime, right? They tried that, and they were called racists for not patrolling black neighborhoods enough when crime was skyrocketing.

        Turns out, no matter how you slice it, police are ‘racist’. Perhaps feature, perhaps bug.

        1. Ugh, thread fail on my part.

      2. Wasn’t there a study a while back that found office “sensitivity training” failed to reduce, and in some cases led to increases in the behaviors they were trying to reduce?

        Something about the people who “are the problem” don’t realize it and don’t really absorb the “training” while the people who pay attention to it weren’t going to be a problem without it.

      3. Lame troll, Earnie.

    3. So… we’re supposed to shoot at cops now?

      You missed the point of the article.

      No, you’re not supposed to shoot cops now.

      In the USA, thanks to the 2A, you have the right to defend yourself, rather than being disarmed and, thus, forced to call racist police over to kill you while they protect and serve.

      I really wish progressives would go ahead and show that government can at least do police right before they try disarming everyone. Otherwise, I can’t take it seriously, since it’s all based on idealistic fantasy.

      1. Second Amendment fundies are never gonna go for arming black communities even more, even if the idea that more guns equals less death weren’t an “idealistic fantasy.” What do you think the second amendment was written to protect them from?

        1. You’re not even making sense.

          1. The Bundys can murder cops and engage in actual, literal insurrection, and they’re heroes and get pardoned. Meanwhile selling loose cigarettes or whatever is a death sentence for people with brown skin. You think gun nuts want to give blacks more guns?

            Do you also think that the NRA’s incredibly flimsy bullshit rhetoric is meant to achieve anything else but selling more guns?

            1. What 2nd Amendment supporter argued for killing people for selling loose cigarettes? I know you think that everyone you don’t like is a racist, but that’s just because you don’t like yourself, you know you are racist and you project it.

        2. And yet 2A “fundies” were OK with black individuals arming themselves as much as they like, which logically allows black communities to become more armed. 2A was written to protect against bandits and other criminals, not blacks. Wait, you don’t automatically assume a violent criminal is black do you Tony?

          1. Hell yes, I want to give black people more guns, if by “give” you mean to encourage them to own and carry guns, especially those people who live and work in high-crime areas. Why on earth would you think we would not want them to be able to defend themselves? (Projection, perhaps?)

            “What do you think the second amendment was written to protect them from?”

            Their own government, should it ever get to that point. There’s nothing mysterious about that.

        3. King George.

        4. I am a Second Amendment fundie that has called for arming black communities even more, and I know plenty of others too. Let’s not forget that one of the major reasons Southern states passed gun control laws after the Civil War was specifically to disarm blacks.

          1. I saw a black man openly carrying the other day in the grocery store, and I thought it was the best thing I’d seen in months. We need to see more regular people (not cops, not criminals) taking responsibility for their own protection. It’s a different mindset when you carry, one of responsibility and self-reliance, and it’s not the one the left wants you to have.

            I briefly considered offering to shake his hand, but then I remembered this whole COVID thing. Easy to forget for the briefest moment when neither of us was in a face diaper to remind us to be afraid, be very afraid, as we’re meant to be by those who find us ever so easy to control in that circumstance.

    4. Your progtard pals are working hard to completely disband the police.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/06/07/minneapolis-votes-to-disband-police-department/#68b4848a5274

      This is being pushed by various progtard celebrities and organizations in deep blue cities. So unless you can afford armed security, you better hope you can hold onto your 2A rights. You might be needing them very soon.

  24. It will rise like the phoenix at the next school shooting, or insignificant statistical increase in violence.

  25. Reason staff should really show some due diligence for once on their reporting of this issue. When you cite prior complaints against these officers, don’t drop the ball to suit your narrative. Dig deeper. How long have they served? What is the typical number of complaints that an officer can expect to receive over the course of their career? Has complaint frequency increased in recent years due to social media? Do officers in inner cities receive more complaints than suburban and rural officers? How do crime rates affect complaint rates? Were the complaints frivolous? What were the resolutions to each complaint? Do they tell us anything meaningful about the officer’s conduct?

    A Libertarian news site of all places should know better than to casually cite complaints and settlements as evidence of wrongdoing. Lots of people settle to mitigate the cost of litigation; settlement is not admission of wrongdoing. Likewise, anyone can file a complaint.

    1. And since I’m on this tangent now about settlements, I’m curious if anyone can fill me in on this. Are there any laws on the books that allow people to pursue criminal charges against people who file frivolous civil suits? Because from my perspective, most civil suits are like hostage taking. People know that litigation is expensive and that the process affects you mentally. A lot of people and businesses pay the ransom and have the person sign an NDA, not because there’s truthfully something bad they want to hide, but to make the person shut up so they have recourse if they try to drag things out further. I remember how the other Ds treated Bloomberg over this issue and it was despicable. I get the feeling that he was most likely innocent and simply paid the ransom as needed. It’s a drop in the bucket for him anyways.

      1. Can you imagine how quickly the war on drugs would have ended if we could have pursued civil lawsuits on cops?

        Or judges?

        Or governors?

        There is one law for all or there is no law at all. This has been a long time coming.

    2. You must already know that most of your questions can’t be answered, by design. Government/police union agreements keep that data inaccessible — see 50-a in New York, and Cuomo’s comments from a few days ago — which is a huge part of the problem.

      I’m not the biggest fan of Reason staff’s writing, but on this issue, they have done their due diligence.

  26. I posted this response above:

    “As if the aftermath of Katrina was not enough to fully demonstrate the limitations of the thin blue line.

    In such an urban environment, for all their failings, they are the only thing between you and mayhem. If they are to be de-funded you sure as shit better arm up. I don’t think anyone who wants you or your shit is gong to care much about your virtue toward any social justice.”

    Upon further reflection, what better way to achieve social justice and equity than disarming everyone [who is law abiding and willing to go along with that] and enabling those without take from those with?

  27. Universal background checks won’t make anyone “helpless”.

    Stop conflating the tiniest measure of “gun control” with gun abolition.

    1. “Shall not be infringed”
      It is not really a hard concept; just pretend that a voter registration card can double as a gun permit in all states.
      You know, equal protection and all that jazz.

    2. “Stop conflating the tiniest measure of “gun control” with gun abolition.”

      Stop trying to convince anyone with a brain that they are not the same.
      Fuck off, slaver.

    3. It’s not possible to achieve an effective implementation of universal background checks without a universal firearms database. Once such a database exists, disarming the public becomes _much_ easier. It’s the anti-2A wet dream.

  28. The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s good-bye to the Bill of Rights.
    ~ H. L. Mencken quotes

  29. “…police fail at their supposedly core task of protecting the public…”

    Funny, I have been lead to believe that police are ONLY responsible for ENFORCING the law. They do NOT protect or serve the public.

    They ONLY enforce the law. So saith the Supreme Court of the United States.

    1. Well what the hell do THEY know?

  30. “A good many Americans who weren’t already enraged by examples of gratuitous police brutality were disgusted by evidence of law enforcement’s ineffectiveness at a core responsibility.”

    Are you sure it was “ineffectiveness” and not intentional neglect? Recall that in past incidents when police officers were accused is using excessive force, the police unions reacted by telling officers to “back off” to avoid being “falsely accused” of brutality. It would not surprise me if we learn that some of last weeks rioting and looting was the result of the same thing.

  31. Excellent reporting, thanks. Who’d a thunk there was anything unsafe about looting a gun store? Copying the LP prohibition and asset forfeiture planks could go a long way toward helping the Gee-Oh-Pee win an election by getting rid of two of the main causes of the Great Depression. They missed that opportunity in 1932, then 1976, then 1992, then 2008–before LP spoiler votes had properly ramped into a hockey stick.

  32. The author’s arguments are riddled with both dishonest and downright faulty logic, use of straw man, false dilemma, and so much more. People who think no civilians should have any firearms are a fringe minority of those who support gun control measures. Even most gun owners support some restrictions on certain types of weapons, and/or unregulated sales, possession by certain people, in certain circumstances, etc.

    Furthermore, the insinuation that people are going to want to drop their support of gun control so everyone can defend themselves against police and anyone sees that as a workable solution is idiotic. Everyone recognizes the uphill legal battle of a citizen shooting a cop and then trying to convince a jury (that is, in the off chance he lives to make it to court) that he was defending himself against the cop’s excessive use of force, vs cops regularly getting no-billed for suspicious shootings because DAs don’t like pissing off the cops they have to work with.

    Beyond that, one significant result of the author’s thesis would be: sure, let people have more powerful guns to defend themselves against cops, and cops will just escalate with even more powerful weapons to counter – an arm’s race. Actually, we already have been there for the past 20 years, due to things like DOD’s 1033 program (DOD sells its unwanted military hardware to local law enforcement agencies).

    That’s why many of us who have advocated for sensible gun laws have also been advocating for the demilitarization of our civilian police forces – the answer to this problem isn’t less gun control for civilians, it’s more gun control for the police. Not just demilitarize their equipment, also demilitarize their tactics – like limits on when they can use the WAY overused middle of the night “no-knock warrants”, that not only put suspects and bystanders (ex: Brionna Taylor) at unnecessary risk, but cops, too, like the cop Ryan Frederick killed when he thought his home was being broken into by criminals again. (Actually, his home WAS being broken into by criminals again – criminal cops who had paid an informant to break into his house, and the informant came back and told them his Japanese maples were a marijuana growing operation).

    And on top of demilitarizing weapons and tactics, police need to have their mindset demilitarized. No more Blue Wall of Silence. What is it cops tell us? “If you see something, say something?” That should apply to all the good cops out there who see the cop who seems to go just a little too far, but don’t say anything out of fear of being labeled a “rat”. At least two of the other three cops with Derek Chauvin expressed concerns about Floyd’s safety, but because Chauvin was the senior officer, they were too scared of being charged with “insubordination” to more forcefully stop him. If you think a senior officer is doing something dangerous or unethical, you should stop him. Cops need to be reminded that they aren’t in the military, cops don’t get sent to Leavenworth in front of a firing squad for “insubordination”. At the worst, they get fired, but if they can show their actions were to prevent an unnecessary death, or the violation of a citizens’ civil rights, they won’t even get that. I work in the petrochemical industry, and in every plant I go to, anyone, even the janitor or an outside contractor can stop a process if he has safety concerns. Everyone HAS to stop, a safety meeting has to be held, and even if the person who stopped the work was wrong, he cannot be disciplined. Police also need to learn deescalation techniques. Far too many confrontations with police escalate because a cop gets his fragile little ego hurt that “some punk is mouthing off”, and feels he needs to assert his power over the person instead of remaining professional. There is also a way to restrain people, even those who are out of control, without killing them. It’s called Mandt training. My wife, a school psychologist who supports self-contained behavior units with emotionally disturbed “kids” (I say that because many of them are 15-16 year old boys who tower over her at 5’0″) and she has to take Mandt training every year. She and her colleagues are taught how to restrain out of control people, but in a way that they don’t risk restricting their breathing or injuring their spines. Why the hell aren’t cops trained to do that? My wife has had all sorts of verbal and physical abuse directed at her. She’s come home bruised from chairs and desks being thrown at her. Some of her colleagues have had broken bones and stitches. And they make less money than cops with their years of experience do. If they can continue to be professional, empathetic, and provide psychological services to these kids, then cops can “put up with” what they do without escalating situations and then responding with excessive force.

    1. Most of the “common sense” gun control agenda seems to be made up of policies that the people advocating them don’t realize are either already the law, are fundamentally unenforceable, or both.

      Out of curiosity, what’s a “sensible” policy that you believe in which doesn’t fall into at least one of those categories?

      1. You’re off tropic and your question is irrelevant. The author of the article said “ For fans of legal restrictions on self-defense rights, 2020 is a disaster.“ That sentence would include being a fan of the currently in place restrictions, so I am under no burden to propose any new restrictions. You trying to drag this into the weeds by demanding to know what additional restrictions I would impose is an attempt to create a red herring. The authors argument is that private citizens taking up arms against police is the answer, though clearly that would be a disaster for the citizens. The president that you conservatives support would simply send more guns in more police hands to subdue them. The answer to this specific problem is clearly not more guns for the people, but less military grade equipment to police, less militarization of police. That’s an argument many conservatives are on board with 100%, should be if they adhere to true conservative values. The problem is you and the other people arguing against me here are so emotionally invested in a “no gun control ever” mindset that if someone happens to mention that gun control isn’t the problem here, that distracts you too much for you to be able to focus on the bulk of my post, which was about demilitarizing the police.

    2. “…People who think no civilians should have any firearms are a fringe minority of those who support gun control measures…”

      “Shall not be infringed…”
      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. Unfortunately, all those people seem to be democrat politicians, so forgive me if I don’t give a shit what their base wants.

        1. I’m talking about private citizens, not politicians, your comment isn’t close to relevant.

      2. I’m just going to repost your comment, because your irrational reactionary stupidity and lack of ability to produce any kind of cogent counter-argument speaks for itself.

        “…People who think no civilians should have any firearms are a fringe minority of those who support gun control measures…”

        “Shall not be infringed…”
        Fuck off, slaver.

    3. Firing squad at Ft Leavenworth? And, police not trained on non-lethal restraint? Not only ate bot of these laughsbly untrue, but unreasonable and a few minutes of thinking, or research on your part, wpuld have shown you this. Why didn’t Chauvin just shoot Floyd then? Why arrest anyone, if all they know is lethal takedown? If the premise of the article is off, then your premise is dishonest and intellectually immature. Honestly, your entire post is both.

      1. The fact that you aren’t bright enough to recognize that the comment about firing squads OR Fort Leavenworth was a figure of speech not meant to be taken literally, and chose to harp on it as “untrue” pretty much demonstrates why you didn’t understand the rest of my post either.

    4. I don’t think that you are interpreting the article correctly. The argument is not that civilians have to be armed as well as the police, in order to protect themselves from the police, but rather, that they need to be armed if their government is not going to provide them with police protection. The point is that you can’t disband the police, while also disarming the citizenry. That appears to be the prescription of some on the left, and it just won’t work. You can plausibly argue that society can provide one or the other, but not neither. That would result in a power vacuum, to be filled by those with the most power. Disarming the populace, after disbanding the police, just asks for a violent response, as people buy guns to provide the security that the state no longer will provide.

  33. Gun control?
    Don’t you mean gun confiscation?
    All sane people need to own a firearm, especially minorities and women in these dangerous times, and guess what?
    Every day in America is a dangerous time.

    1. “Gun control?
      Don’t you mean gun confiscation?”

      Um, no. Confiscation is the forceful taking of property. A waiting period before buying a firearm is gun control. It doesn’t involve confiscation. A background check is gun control. It doesn’t involve confiscation. Flagging of multiple or large purchases of the same firearm is gun control. It doesn’t involve confiscation. Limits on the sale of certain types of firearms are gun control. They don’t involve confiscation. Words actually have objective meanings, despite your need to redefine them to fit a paranoid agenda.

      “All sane people need to own a firearm, especially minorities and women in these dangerous times, and guess what?”

      The average American is actually FAR more likely to suffer sudden cardiac arrest than be a victim of violent crime. Yet the same emotionally fragile, paranoid people who claim that “all sane people need to own a firearm” aren’t running out and buying Automated External Defibrillators. Why is that? Because for certain Americans, firearms have become fetish objects, totems of power.

      And crime in America is actually the lowest its been in decades, has been on a downward slope for over 25 years.

      You need to ask yourself who is keeping you scared, and what are they getting out of doing so?

      1. “And crime in America is actually the lowest its been in decades, has been on a downward slope for over 25 years.”

        And gun ownership is higher than ever, and has been on an upward slope that whole time.

        You should ask yourself, why do you feel the need to control others?

        1. The amount of guns owned is higher than ever, but they are owned by proportionately fewer Americans. 50% of all guns in this country are owned by just 3% of the population, so the number of guns out there actually has nothing what’s to do with crime being down. And I haven’t actually advocated for any “controls” on guns or people, just pointed out that contrary to what the author of the article is trying to claim, advocating gun control and advocating control of police behavior aren’t actually incompatible.

          1. “the number of guns out there actually has nothing what’s to do with crime being down”

            A statement, not supported by facts.

          2. False. Get out of your progressive bubble.

  34. “As many Americans lose faith in law enforcement and do what’s necessary to shield lives and property, it’s unlikely that they’ll be an enthusiastic audience for future disarmament schemes that would make those of us who don’t work for government even more vulnerable to those who do.”

    You don’t talk to a lot of Democrat voters, do you?

    1. A huge chunk of them have an attention span barely more than that of a toddler’s- not that the same is not true of Republicans…

  35. Gun opponents would leave predatory cops armed and their victims helpless.

    I rarely sign in or comment here, but this subhead is just ignorant.

    Victims of cops shooting cops? You’re encouraging that?

    More like victims of criminals shooting criminals when the cops don’t defend the public in liberal cities.

    the author is participating in the american cultural revolution – it didn’t work out well for the chinese and it won’t work out well for americans

    1. Nothing reduces no-knocks like a non-announcing, non-uniformed cop getting justifiably shot during one. Yeah, the homeowner probably ends up dead — like anybody else fighting for our liberties in wartime — but the state gets rocked back on its heels.

  36. “Before he was charged with murder for the killing of Floyd, Chauvin had 18 prior complaints filed against him. Of the three other officers fired and charged over Floyd’s death, Tou Thao also had a record of complaints—six in total, including one that resulted in a $25,000 settlement for the use of excessive force.”

    So are these complaint totals more or less than normal?

    1. Yes AND no, it’s complicated. The reason I know this is due to a degree in CRM-J. So, the number of complaints isn’t necessarily a good standard of whether someone’s a bad cop, because if a complaint is made, it’s in the officer’s file together, and ANYONE can make a complaint. My department head was a Philly cop, and one example he gave was a Saturday in Philly where they were having an extremely bad night, it was raining, and there was so much shit happening that you weren’t getting the cops unless you were getting shot, stabbed, or raped. Griffin was on Paddy wagon duty that night (basically a taxi service for taking all arrestees to the jail), and going back and forth for 2-3 hours, notices that there was a car broken down on the side of the road that he had passed multiple times. He finally gets a lull and decides to be proactive and help the motorists, a couple. For his good deed, he gets a complaint because according to them he “took too long to respond”. People commonly complain as a form of revenge also, to make the cop’s life difficult for arresting them or giving them a ticket.

      There’s more though. While departments understand that a lot of complaints are bullshit, they actively strive to promote cops who have no complaints, so good cops can and do get fucked by getting one. Also, working in a high crime neighborhood is a good way to rack up a lot of complaints, because the cop is having more interactions. (This also is a reason that many black cops have trouble getting promoted, because departments like to put minority cops in a neighborhood that shares their race, ie black cops in black neighborhoods, hispanics in hispanic neighborhoods, etc, it does help improve relations with the locals. But because they’re in usually high crime areas, they get fucked by complaints and being unable to spend downtime to prepare for Sergeant’s exams like cops in low-crime areas do.)

      So, with all that, I’d say that Chauvin’s is probably high, especially since we have his former boss on record saying that he was hot-tempered and quick with the pepper spray. The other guy, Thao, I’d want to know how long he’s served and in what sort of neighborhoods. Also, with regards to the payout, that doesn’t necessarily mean anything, the city will often pay out automatically because of how expensive and lengthy a legal battle will be, unless the person is asking for a ludicrous amount of money. This is the reason why police budgets are so ludicrously high, the lawsuits.

      Sorry for the essay.

      1. “If a complaint is made, it’s in the file *forever”

      2. “especially since we have his former boss on record saying that he was hot-tempered and quick with the pepper spray”

        Ya. See here’s the thing, right? Police know who the bad one’s are, they just don’t do anything. In fact, they and their unions actively obstruct any efforts to create databases or review processes which could be used to find potential problem officers (conversely helping the good ones).

  37. A Peaceful Protest is one where You apply for a permit, you do not block roads, you do not screw with other people’s lives, and you follow the instructions of the people who are paid to serve and protect. The one in Richmond, lots of guns, lots of people, all polite and respectful to the city and it’s police officers who were there to protect both the protesters and property. I saw them separate Antifa and the Proud-Boys with out incident.

  38. The AWB passed in 1994, just two years after the LA Riots.

    Gun control is in remission only. This culture lacks the needed intellectual antibodies for immunity.

  39. Literal wishful thinking. Gun control won’t end until gun owners start stacking gun grabber bodies. I’m not advocating anything, just seating a fact. Look at the groups that actually win in our society. Islamic terrorists. Bundy ranch militia (the first time.) Black lives matter. Tim McVeigh. All of these people brought the U.S. government enough pain that it fundamentally altered it’s behavior.

    Yes the middle east got invaded but that is because they were a convenient foreign actor who could be invaded. They still had the effect of forever changing how Americans interact with certain industries and government.

    McVeigh killed gun control at the federal level for eighteen years. The Bundys got the U.S. government to back down on their own land. BLM is currently getting dozens of state and local government officials to buy in to their laughably false narrative and disrespect their Republic and it’s institutions in real time on live TV.

    The lesson here that gun owners need to hear is that voting Republican will never work. Domestic terrorism, however, does.

    If the government really desires peace, perhaps they should look into the signals they send with their behavior.

    1. I should’ve brought this back around to the article rather than to the behavior exhibited by most gun owners when threatened, namely voting R. Since that wasn’t what was being discussed I will address another point.

      It is laughably stupid to actually imagine that democrat voters are suddenly going to punish their massa’s for supporting gun control. It will never happen. Ever. Democrat voting blocks are owned by their party. Their party can do nothing to lose those blocks until their party loses control of the media, the functions of the welfare state, and the “education” scam.

  40. Riots over police brutality in Ferguson happened even though the force was legal, moral and called for. Never an easy line to walk.

  41. The problem is, a significant proportion of adults have an attention span barely more than that of a toddler.

    The next time some gangbangers gun down a bunch of kids in a drive-by shooting front of a school, they will call for more “common sense”, “sensible” gun legislation like banning assault weapons or high-capacity magazines. When asked what they expect to happen when enforced by a “racist and prejudiced system and culture that has treated Black bodies as the enemy from the beginning”, they will:
    1. pretend to have not heard the question.
    2. deny that there is any racism or prejudice in the criminal justice
    system, even though they themselves have made that claim just DAYS AGO.
    3. reply, “Fuck you, kids are getting killed in our streets and in our
    schools!”

    1. I am now making $35/h by doing a very simple and easy online work from home. I have received exactly $8471 last month from this online work. CDx To start making extra income please…
      wiki
      visit this site………………………….Online Earn Cash

  42. Gun control is so seductive to statist, not only because of the extreme situation of armed citizens facing down obvious tyranny, but because the self-reliance fertilized by firearms use can inoculate citizens against tyrants and demagogues.

    The first purpose of the Second Amendment is too often overlooked, fostering a liberty of mind and action necessary in the individual citizens of a free republic.

    The power that disarming us give them is too great a lure they will be back; and, if you’ve any allusions that it’s on one side, you need to review all of the horrendous gun control that Trump has proposed. The state, all of the state, wants us dependent and helpless.

    1. “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

      Yes, I admit it; someone smarter that me had a similar idea first!

  43. It is extraordinarily naive to think that gun-grabbers will be scared off by a virus or a bunch of riots.

    1. All those prog governors threatening everyone if they went to the beach’s or opened their businesses sure shut up about ‘social distancing’ as soon as there were prog crowds botching about prog agenda items.

  44. “We always assume when we need the police they’ll be there for us,” the disappointed manager of a looted Philadelphia ShopRite supermarket told The Wall Street Journal.”

    And his wife always assumes that when she writes a check, there will be money in the account to cover it.

  45. It is very unfortunate that the current situation is getting worse. It should be resolved as soon as possible.

  46. Statists like Eric Swalwell and Beto O’Rourke will defund and disband local police forces and replace them with a paramiltary National Police force. The NaPos will enforce the Progressive agenda at bayonet point.

  47. Scanning Reason and other reporting and opinion, the government seems to have declared war on citizens, with police the point of its spear. To its credit the military leadership (Mattis et al.) past and present have and are fighting hard to abstain from the government’s assault on citizens.

    Gun control gives them free reign.

    “Military weapons in civilian hands are for preserving civil rights and civilian lives. They are, indeed “weapons of war”: humanity’s
    10,000-year-old continuing war against tyranny.” ~ L. Neil Smith

  48. Libertarians can’t ever make it to closing time anyway.

  49. Its been proven in court that cops do not have to protect any specific persons life or property. Its more of an enforce the law view, and in the courts opinion that protects the people in general. So you, generally, cannot be guaranteed protection. So any crime against you will be documented if possible and if they run into the criminal they will likely be arrested. So being able to protect yourself is paramount and your option to do so.

  50. ALL black lives matter. But not according to BLM. Only the handful of blacks wrongly killed by the police matter.

    No one seems to be concerned that 50% of the nation’s murders are committed by a group that constitutes only 13.4% of the nation’s population. That group is responsible for over 90% of the blacks murdered annually.

    Is this group the KKK? No.

    Ayrian NAZI’s? No.

    The police? Nope.

    It’s a mystery.

    Judging from the protests, BLM doesn’t care. There’s been not ONE BLM protest to object to this killing spree that murders THOUSANDS of blacks annually.

    On some weekends in Chicago, more blacks are killed by this group than all the wrongful black killings by all the police nationwide in a year.

    BLM doesn’t care.

  51. I’m offended, the “18 prior complaints filed against him” link took me to the Communist News Network – CNN site. Not cool.

Comments are closed.