Mass Shootings

Biden's Gun Control Proposals Make Little Sense As a Response to the Mass Shooting in Boulder

It is hard to see how an "assault weapon" ban or expanded background checks could have prevented this attack.


President Joe Biden has revived his call for a new federal "assault weapon" ban and expanded background checks following yesterday's mass shooting at a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, which killed 10 people. "We can ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines," Biden tweeted today. "We can close loopholes in our gun background check system. This is not a partisan issue—it's an American issue that will save lives. Congress needs to act." As usual, those proposals make little sense as a response to a crime that supposedly illustrates the need for them.

According to the arrest affidavit, the suspect in the Boulder attack was armed with an AR-15-style "rifle" and a "semiautomatic handgun." The affidavit says he bought a Ruger AR-556 pistol, which has a 10.5-inch barrel and a "stabilizing brace," six days before the shooting. While it's not clear whether that was the "rifle" described by police and witnesses, either the Ruger pistol or an AR-15-style rifle would have been covered by the latest federal "assault weapon" bill and by a local ban that a Colorado judge blocked earlier this month.

But the "military-style" features targeted by such measures have little or nothing to do with a gun's deadliness in the hands of a mass shooter. And since Colorado already requires background checks for all gun purchases, it is hard to see how imposing that rule nationally, as Biden wants to do, could have stymied this shooter. That's assuming he had a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record, and at this point it looks like he did not.

The Assault Weapons Ban of 2021, which Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) unveiled this month, would prohibit the manufacture or sale of "205 military-style assault weapons" by name. It also covers any semiautomatic rifle that accepts detachable magazines and has any of these features: "a pistol grip," "a forward grip," a folding or telescoping stock, "a grenade launcher," "a barrel shroud," or "a threaded barrel." Also classified as "assault weapons": any semiautomatic pistol that is "a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm" or that has "a threaded barrel," "a second pistol grip," "a barrel shroud," "the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip," "a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when unloaded," or "a stabilizing brace or similar component."

With the exception of grenade launchers (not very useful without grenades, which are strictly regulated under federal law), those features do not make a gun especially lethal. They have nothing to do with rate of fire, ammunition size, muzzle velocity, or muzzle energy.

By comparison, Boulder's ban is a model of simplicity. It prohibits unregistered possession of any semiautomatic rifle with "a pistol grip or thumbhole stock," "a folding or telescoping stock," or "any protruding grip or other device to allow the weapon to be stabilized with the non-trigger hand." It also covers "all semiautomatic center-fire pistols" that "have the capacity to accept a magazine other than in the pistol grip" or "have a protruding grip or other device to allow the weapon to be stabilized with the non-trigger hand."

The rationale for banning folding or telescoping stocks is rather mysterious. But the Boulder City Council, which unanimously approved the ordinance in 2018, argued that the other targeted features "allow for greater control of the weapon," so that it can be "kept pointed at a target while being fired." The city's official explanation of the ordinance says the guns it covers have "military features" that "allow rapid spray firing for the quick and efficient killing of humans." It adds that "a rifle fired from the shoulder recoils and must be brought down and onto a target before another round can be fired."

That rationale is dubious for reasons I explained at the time. "'Spray fire' is a phrase used only by gun control advocates to scare people who do not know better," observed Michael Bazinet, director of public affairs at the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group. He added that "you do not need 'a protruding grip or other device to allow the weapon to be stabilized with the non-trigger hand' to keep a semiautomatic rifle on target," which he called "a patently ridiculous statement."

In any event, it defies reason to suppose that someone bent on mass murder would have been deterred by a local ordinance banning the possession of his gun within city limits unless he had registered it. Yet that is the implication of reports like this Washington Post story, which notes that "Boulder's assault weapons ban, meant to stop mass shootings, was blocked 10 days before [the] grocery store attack."

In a March 12 ruling, Boulder County District Court Judge Andrew Hartman barred enforcement of the ordinance, concluding that it conflicted with state law. And if he hadn't? "We tried to protect our city," a local gun control activist told the Post. "It's so tragic to see the legislation struck down, and days later, to have our city experience exactly what we were trying to prevent."

Reasoning like that allows for no gap between intent and results. If a law was "meant to stop mass shootings," the Post suggests, it surely would have done so. But it is hard to believe that Boulder's ordinance could have magically stopped a mass shooter from entering the city with a prohibited firearm.

Even if such a murderer were for some reason punctilious about obeying Boulder's gun control dictates, he would have had plenty of equally effective alternatives. Biden himself concedes that the 1994 federal "assault weapon" ban, which expired in 2004, had no impact on the lethality of legal firearms. The problem, according to Biden, was that manufacturers could comply with the law by "making minor modifications to their products—modifications that leave them just as deadly."

The new, supposedly improved ban does not solve that problem, which is unavoidable when politicians target guns based on arbitrary distinctions. And like the 1994 law, Feinstein's current bill does not prohibit possession of "assault weapons," meaning that millions of those guns would remain in circulation, available to mass shooters who prefer them.

As for expanded background checks, they will be an obstacle to mass shooters only when they have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records. They typically do not, and so far it seems that is also true of the Boulder killer.

"Using law enforcement databases," the arrest affidavit says, "investigators determined that [the suspect] had purchased a Ruger AR-556 pistol on March 16, 2021." That implies he passed a background check, since there was an official record of the sale. While his relatives reported that he had psychological problems, evidently he was not subjected to court-ordered psychiatric treatment, which would have prohibited the purchase. And while he pleaded guilty to assault when he was in high school, The Colorado Sun reports that the charge was a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Even when mass shooters are not legally allowed to own guns, a "universal" background check requirement can prevent them from obtaining firearms only if they have no access to sources who fail to comply with that requirement. In any case, mandating background checks for private sales, which Colorado already does, plainly did not prevent this particular attack.

For gun control advocates, it does not really matter whether there is a logical connection between the new laws they want and the crimes that supposedly justify them. In fact, Biden responded to the Boulder attack with his usual solutions even before the details of the crime were clear.

"We're still waiting for more information regarding the shooter," including the "weapons he used" and how he obtained them, the president said this afternoon. But he added that "I don't need to wait another minute, let alone an hour, to take commonsense steps that will save the lives in the future and to urge my colleagues in the House and Senate to act." In Biden's view, thinking before acting would be reckless.

NEXT: Big Oil Backs Carbon Tax

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

  1. >>In Biden’s view

    misspelled Obama.

    1. JOIN PART TIME JOB FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are dds much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. Biden was point man on Obamas response to the sandyhook shootings. Biden was very clear on his gun stance during the election. Sullum is just an idiot.

      1. Sure is funny how Obama shut down any inquiry into “Fast and Furious”! He SENT firearms south of the border just so they could be used in drug-related crimes to further his agenda of gun confiscation. Let’s call the DEMOCRAT AGENDA for what it is…GUN CONFISCATION..THEY’LL JUST WORK THEIR WAY TO IT IN SMALL DEGREES…

        1. Not of this Obama “Fast and Furious screed is accurate. The Los Angeles Times, CNN, Forbes and others debunked the partisan inaccuracies. ‘The Justice Department was dismissive of the anti-Obama anti Holder report, saying that it contained “distortions” and “debunked conspiracy theories,” and that “gunwalking” tactics dated back to 2006, the Bush administration. DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, while critical of the report, did credit it for acknowledging that the idea for “gun walking”—allowing illegal sales of weapons on the border—originated under the Republican administration before Eric Holder took office in 2009. Schmaler noted that Holder moved swiftly to replace the ATF’s management and instill reforms. swiftly to replace the ATF’s management and instill reforms.’
          A valuable insight – here and now – is to observe that the various iterations Fast and Furious were poorly conceived and poorly executed. A mor relevant and valuable insight would be to note that this dredged-up Obama bashing has nothing to do with a non-existent futuristic gun confiscation fantasy.

          1. Sorry. Meant to type, “None of this…” rather than “Not of this…” Inconpetent texting thumbs, I’m afraid

            1. I could give a fig about your typo. I read right through it and knew what you meant.

              But I DO hold that your mind, words, and intent, are despicable, and false.
              Brian Terry is dead because a droguista who ihad illegally entered the US, used a Fast and Furious AR pattern rifle to kill him. When the head cheese of the Sinaloa Cartel, the main recipient of the three thousand or so weapons “walked” accross the border, was captured at his main lair, quite a number of F&F guns were confiscated. One of them was a Barrett Fifty.. a VERT lethal weapon, able, in competent hands, to hit a man sized target a mile away with enough impact to literally take him off his feet.
              No, I’ve followed the detailed reports of the whole F&F debacle since it first broke, when Brian Terry was murdered. The whoe ntent was proven to have been a ruse to put guns at crime scenes in Mexico, which would then be picked up and traced by US authorities, then proven to have been bought in the US at retail and, with no paperwork, brought south of the border. That would establish a faux culpability for the US government of “arming” Mexico’s criminal elements, and grounds to restrict sale of those tings north of the border, and internainoal sanctions for supplying south of the border. The court cases brought by BATF and FBI agaisnt US FFL dealers who REFUSED to make “suspicious” sales to some of ATF’s “special boys who WERE indeed waling guns accross the border prove the complicyt of Unclie Stupid in the whole debacle.

              You’re the one swallowing the lies from Unka Joey and his kinyun sidekick denying the existence of the “programme”.

              1. You’re entirely correct. We should add that the referenced, but significantly different Bush era program “wide receiver” was briefly tried but still cancelled, though it contained more controls than obama’s. There was absolutely no reason for barry to create a more dangerous version of such a scheme, except to drive opinion against firearm ownership. No wonder he and Holder have tried to block access to the information.

          2. Your post is just apologist nonsense, completely ignoring the key fact like it never happened. 17 Democrats joined Republicans in holding Eric Holder in criminal contempt of congress over his actions relating to Fast and Furious. This made Holder the first sitting member of a president’s cabinet in US history to be found in contempt of congress.

      2. Your comment is a non sequitur. At no time in this piece did Sullum write than Chopsticks Joe contradicted himself or was acting in a manner other than what he campaigned upon.

        1. You state a fact but without context re Holder’ contempt nor subsequent debunking of same. My remarks included some of that missing context. All the facts would be better. Facts aren’t apologist nonsense. Ignoring germane facts is the nonsense. Cherry-picking is not what I offered, although it’s a tactic for ideologues. No, I’m not the apologist here. I can hold the Bush and Obama administrations accountable for ill-conceived and poorly executed policy. I can’t see that you are willing or perhaps not capable of doing the same. And you missed -or ignored – the point about some fantasy about gun confiscation. By the way, there is no such thing as a “Democrat agenda.” The word is “Democratic.”

          1. “the point about some fantasy about gun confiscation”

            Again, your ‘facts’ routinely omit the most important points. Like the fact that one of the major Democrat candidates for President in the last election (Beto O’Rourke) openly admitted (even bragged) that confiscation of firearms was indeed the plan.

            1. To SPARTACVS
              At least you’ve gotten closer to the topic, but the cherry picking continues, and the tired extrapolation fallacy remains —a rhetoric tactic that pushes out reason. I’ve heard the claim for decades: Sweeping, mass gun confiscation is a “Democrat agenda… they’ll just work their way to in small degrees.” Wow. “Evidence” from the future. That’s exactly what critics said about Obama. It did not happen. Yes, we can jump from Eric Holder or Beto O’Rourke, or Chicken Little but the sky is not falling in the near future, and there is no call for mass gun confiscation, not even from a nonexistent Democrat (sic) Party. I repeat: it’s “Democratic.” To drop syllables and letters is childish and churlish. Shall we really all stoop to that level? Knock off a letter here and a syllable there and the “Republican” Party is the “Pubic” Party. What exactly would be gained through that sort of discourse? Anyway, I’m done here. Discourse, even when parties disagree, only works when the parties enter in good faith. I don’t see that here. I genuinely wish you well; you’re free, of course to write to yourself, but I absolutely won’t back.

              1. The ‘fantasy’ you talk about (gun confiscation) is certainly the fantasy of many, if not a majority, of the Democratic Party. It is obvious to anyone who looks at the issue closely. Why don’t they publicly state their desire? Because it is unpopular with the American people—look what happens when they do admit it—look what happened to Beto, who dropped in the polls like a rock when he openly admitted that the goal was to confiscate people’s weapons. So they have to hide their true fantasies in order to get elected. Nancy Pelosi and others like her have talked for years about a national firearm registry. Why? So that they can do what they have been doing in California for the last several years, start to confiscate firearms that they declare illegal one-by-one. There are more firearms in America than there are people. Yes, Democrats want fewer people to buy them, but that will change very little from their perspective unless they can get rid of the ones in circulation.

                You, who omit the most important facts in your claims accuse others of cherry picking! That’s rich. But the record will be here for all to see. You live in fantasyland. Of course you will cower from an argument on facts, you don’t have the stomach for self-defense, which is why you don’t understand the need for firearms.

      1. At least you’ve gotten closer to the topic, but the cherry picking continues, and the tired extrapolation fallacy remains —a rhetoric tactic that pushes out reason. I’ve heard the claim for decades: Sweeping, mass gun confiscation is a “Democrat agenda… they’ll just work their way to in small degrees.” Wow. “Evidence” from the future. That’s exactly what critics said about Obama. It did not happen. Now we can jump from Eric Holder or Beto O’Rourke, or Chicken Little but the sky is not falling in the near future, and there is no call for mass gun confiscation, not even from a nonexistent Democrat (sic) Party. I repeat: it’s “Democratic.” To drop syllables and letters is childish and churlish. Shall we all stoop to that level? Knock off a letter here and a syllable there and the “Republican” Party is the “Pubic” Party. What exactly would be gained through that sort of discourse? Anyway, I’m done here. Discourse, even when parties disagree, only works when the parties enter in good faith. I don’t see that here. I genuinely wish you well, but I won’t back.

        1. its a bot, you retard

    3. This law wouldn’t have stopped this shooter isn’t a very good argument. Banning cluster bombs or land mines wouldn’t stop another world war from breaking out. The purpose of laws like this is to give us a chance of reducing overall casualties. Gun features that are designed to increase the number of people you can kill in a short time can’t be supported by people saying they want access to weapons to defend themselves, so they make up a stupid argument to change the subject.

      1. So, are you willing also to deny these weapons to local, state, and federal civilian police forces? If those features are “designed to increase the number of people you can kill in a short time”, then cops don’t need them either. Unless you think the mission of civil police forces is to kill a lot of people.

      2. Please explain why features that might make a gun more effective for offensive use would not also make it more effective for defensive use. And while you’re at it, please explain how where you stick the magazine in “increase(s) the number of people you can kill in a short time”.
        Also, the grabbers are the ones arguing that crimes such as this one somehow justify their proposed laws. When we point out that their proposed cure would have done nothing to stop the crime in question, we’re merely responding to their nonsense.

        1. they KNOW these proposed laws could not, and will not stop these crimes. SINCE they know this and push the laws anyway, they must have a different motive for enacting the restrictions.

          Hmmmm. wonder what THAT might be……. let me think here…..

          Hah, thirty plus years after Australia’s near total gun ban and “buyback” debacl,e, use of firearns in criminal activity is repidly increasing of late. WHAAAAATTTT??!!?? In a nationi where hardly anyone can own any firearm? HO could this BEEEEEEEeeeeeee???

          Not only that, but crimes against persons are increasing at insane rates there in Oz but this is impossible.. because the government came and TOOK all the guns… yet people are getting killed with them at a rapildy increasing rate…..

      3. Things like barrel shrouds, folding and telescoping stocks, and threaded barrels do NOT increase the number of people that can be killed in a short time. That is not the purpose of these laws, the purpose is to disarm the citizenry. As has been pointed out, none of these proposed laws would apply to the police state, only to its victims, the law-abiding citizens (the shooters are criminals, who by definition will not obey these laws). That is why there is no attempt made to pass a law that would actually stop these shooters, only an attempt to disarm more people. Never let a crisis go to waste.

      4. So people don’t “need” a standard capacity mag? What else is in your “bill of needs”? Why did Rittenhouse “need” that standard capacity mag when he was being chased by the mob of rioters? Would you prefer he had a musket that had to be handloaded or no gun at all. I’ m sure the dead and wounded would have preferred to have had an unarmed victim. Do you believe in China joe’s* method of self protection? You know where he says just stick your shotgun out the window and fire a couple of blasts. Tell me what you “need” when a mob of burn loot murder rioters is in your yard and starts banging on your door..

      5. This law wouldn’t have stopped this shooter isn’t a very good argument.

        When “this shooter” is used as a selling point for “this law” it’s not just a very good argument…it’s an excellent argument.

        1. Exactly right! One can’t use the tragedy as urgency for legislation and simultaneously claim that it is unimportant that the legislation would not have prevented the tragedy.

      6. If someone is intent on killing there are a lot of weapons other then a Ruger pistol as this man used or an AR 15. The reason the left is so opposed to Americans being armed has nothing to do with protecting people from shooters such as this Syrian immigrant. Keeping people that hate the US out of the country would be more effective. They simply agree with our Founders on armed citizens.
        “An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject”. ~John Adams

      7. utter non-sequitur.
        There IS no market for the heavy military weapons you mention. The world powers that start wars take OUR taxes and pay compatnies to make all they want them to.
        This proposed law is being floated precisely BECAUSE they think it WILL stop events like this. What law could possibly have prevented the killer at the Sandy Hool elementary school getting the guns he got? He murdered hia mum then stole HERS. How bout the punk who shot up the high school in Florida? He bought HIS all on the up and up, background check and all. SHOULD NOT have been able to, thogh.. why Because local LE had REFUSED to indict him on any of the four or more felony crimes he HAD committed. SO there WAS no record where it counted of his previous violent felony conduct to make him a “prohibited person” unable to buy a gun. So he bought a rifle and took it to the school from which he was banished by a court order BECAUSE of his violent felony conduct… but STILL did not report to FBI. Next we have an Air Force guy, tried and convicted of THREE violent felonies AND a dishonourable discharge, each of those four events renering him “orohibited’ from firearms. At two points along the way, two diffferent Air Force desk jockeys “failed” to forward this information to the FBI, else HE too owuld have been a lawfully [rohibited person, and unable to buy HIS AR pattern rifle Once purchased, he took it to church one sunday norning.. and murderd 26 people there. Interesting side note… that was about a third of those present that day.. AS he was wandering about the parking lot, “finishing off ” any who were yet breathing, the neighbour to the churchhouse got HIS AR pattern rifle, having heard and seen the gunfire and results, fired ONE ROUND from HIS “assault weapo” and ended the massacre.

        SO here we have two males, each with nearlyidentical rifles, one urdering 26, the other saving 52.

        You would ban both. One was alerady prohibited by law, but the pwperwork had not been filed so he was able to buy it.
        Maybe we need a stiff law with VERY harsh penalties such that whenever the person responsible for filing the report on a prohibited person FAILS to do so, there are VERY harsh penalties.

    4. Gun control proposals never make sense. They’re not intended to.

      They only give more control to the government and less freedom and safety to law-abiding citizens.

    5. Laws against the ownership of guns only matter to people who obey laws. I should think that any reasoning human being would be able to accept the fact that criminals generally have a rather low regard for laws, in fact they make their living violating them, therefore logic dictates that they will do nothing to prevent crime as the objects of them will simply ignore them. History has born this out and actually one will find that those areas having the strictest regulation of firearms including restrictions which are in essence de-facto bans on ownership such as existed in DC prior to Heller have to accept the fact that the result is increased crime and recidivism.
      Why they refuse to accept this is obvious and endemic to those of the democrat persuasion, it is because they desire complete authority and control over all people. That is their dream and it is very puzzling because they cannot successfully run their own lives and yet they demand to manage those of others who are doing quite nicely on their own.
      in today’s political atmosphere the democrats are doing all they can to set up a rigid police state where they can silence any and all opposition to their absurd schemes. If they can disarm the public that is a major impediment, in fact the major impediment, to their seizing control and being able to dictate every aspect of your life while not applying such restraints to themselves. That is part of their make up, due in part I am sure to the seemingly congenital hypocrisy which affects virtually all democrats for life.
      Of course it makes far more sense to outlaw the offensive behavior rather than the tool used to accomplish it. We do not regulate hammers and saws as a part of zoning laws in the hope that no one misuses them to build illegal structures or they do not ban certain types of automobiles based on drunken driving offenses or even drive by shootings. Those offenses are already patently illegal yet they still go on and the left cares not a whit. They only want to control you, they wish to command you to roll over at will like a dog doing tricks, they wish to show you they are superior to you.
      It is the same thing with glo-bull warming and all the regulation deriving from that grand scam that they exempt themselves from. They would have you drive an electric car, I should say coal powered car, which doesn’t work due to a lack of battery technology, while they ride in limo’s, private jets, own yachts, have multiple dwellings and all manner of gas powered recreational vehicles and so on.
      Try putting a windmill to generate clean energy anywhere it kills eagles where they can see it, or hear it, and they will squeal like stuck pigs, but they should be placed in your area because you do not matter to these people.
      They defund the police, throw open the borders, eliminate bail, empty the prisons on to the streets and send armed people to take your guns but they have their personal gun permits and private armies, locked gates and walls around their neighborhoods. They don’t let your kids go to the same schools their kids go to because they are better than you and yours. They don’t mind not giving you a school voucher so the teachers unions can funnel that money back to them as contributions, while they hamper your schools with millions of illegal aliens who have had no medical screening and hold everyone back because they do not even speak our language.
      Who would do anything these people ask? They are lucky we do not get together and banish them to somewhere they and their vile schemes stop negatively effecting us. I am through with these people.

  2. The democrats never met a constitutional right they didn’t want to suppress.

    1. I propose a quick test of all members of Congress to define the weapon features banned in this bill. Aw hell, just tell them to distinguish between a clip and a magazine. If they fail, they aren’t smart enough to vote on this bill. Gotta love it for example when they want to make barrel shrouds illegal. Cuz?

      1. Make them draw a picture of a firearm they want to ban and label all of the bad parts. Submissions done in crayon are acceptable.

      2. Cuz it’s a should thing that goes up! Which is bad because obviously.

    2. What constitution? Oh that lil thing that gets in the way of workers paradise, equality of outcomes.

  3. Funny thing, those bans would not apply to the M-1 Garand or the Short Magazine Lee-Enfield, two fine killing machines.

    1. The affidavit doesn’t make it at all clear that the gun was purchased in Boulder, which would render the Judge’s ruling moot either way.

      1. It was definitely a white gun.

        1. Maybe a white hispanic gun.

          1. Actually it was a white Syrian gun. Did you see the tweet by Kamala Harris’ niece blaming white men for mass shootings before they revealed who the shooter was?

            1. Arabs aren’t white? Boy, Ralph Nader and Marlo Thomas are in for a surprise!

              1. They’re not when free things are being given out. They are also not White when applying for government jobs and contracts and so on. It seems they can pick and choose with these stupid liberal laws meant only to divide people and manufacture the hatred the democrat party lives off of.
                They are really not our friends when you think about it. In fact they just may be….Good night folks. It’s late.

      2. It does say he lived in Arvada, CO and a quick GOOG search shows several gun shops in that town so the Boulder ban was quite likely moot.

      3. which further proves the BOulder law was bogus… it could not have actually prevented anyone from putting one into his car and driving into town, taking it out, and using it like this guy did. The ONLY thing that “law” could do is make sure no one IN Boulder could shooot back when a perp like this gets going.

    2. If you are a Progressive, how a thing looks is far more important than the reality of what it is, so guns that look like Rambo would use them must be deadlier. The same applies to laws and how a President talks. It is more important to seem to care than to do effective good.

      1. It’s why you pursue absurd long shots like Russian collusion and The Bear Spray Insurrection while letting open-and-shut cases against arsonists, looters, and felons carrying carrying concealed weapons walk free.

      2. Any rifle in a black nylon styling..any rifle that LOOKS LIKE MILITARY ISSUE would be fair game.

    3. The Garand has a “barrel shroud,” and you can bet that they will fine-tune “magazine” to “ammunition feeding device.”

  4. This will be the death of pistol braces. They were already under political pressure.

    1. Cool. I liked SBRs better anyway. Get fucked, bluecoat.

      1. Stamp collector?

      2. Said Gray_Jay, as he looked fondly over his $600 PSA rifle with a $200 tax stamp and $75 in compliance markings. He had waited several months for the rifle which now acts as a free pass for law enforcement to enter and “check” his compliance at any time, and it was certainly worth it. Also, fuck the people who are actually disabled. Fucking bluecoats.

        1. Just dogging you a little. To each their own, but I do think it’s silly to hate on a freer alternative because it compromises a small amount of functionality (unless you’re disabled, then it adds some).

          1. I’m not hating on a more free alternative. Far from it. I’m just saying that if you’re going to make felons out of ordinary, law-abiding folk, that they aren’t going to stop at committing the new felony.

            The NFA is a completely unconstitutional law on its face. It is abhorrent to the ideals of the Founders—who were fine with privately-owned cannon and warships—, and should be repealed in its entirety. I understand why they wrote it, and it wasn’t because of organized crime running around with Tommy Guns, but it and the rest of the New Deal legislation, was a far worse cure than the disease.

            Its progeny, like the ’68 GCA and ’86 Hughes, need to go as well.

            1. My man. I think we just became best friends.

            2. Here’s a fun thought I have occasionally. Under the reasoning in US v. Miller, the case that upheld the NFA, “assault weapons” bans are clearly unconstitutional. The justices ruled that the 2A only protected weapons that were suited for militia service. What could be better suited for militia service than an AR15? It uses the same magazines and ammunition as the military’s standard rifle, is mechanically similar, and functions identically. (Well, aside from the selector switch having only two positions.)

              1. Make it an M4, and it’s even more silly. It runs afoul of the NFA two ways (three, if the services ever get around to giving ever Soldier and Marine a suppressor): it is select-fire, and its barrel is shorter than the minimum length. Yet it is exactly the weapon that would be in common use for a militia.

                The NFA needs to go. Instead, it will be expanded and for the same original reasons as the NFA’s enactment. (Fear of a popular uprising, only this time, right-wing in origin, instead of being Communist inspired.)

        2. That’s a commonly held myth that the ATF can inspect NFA items at any time.

          No where in the regulations can they come and inspect your items.
          If there were some kind of question about let’s pretend if your engraving was not deep enough, they would have to make an appointment with you and you would bring the item to the local ATF office.

          If you have a FFL and in are in the business of selling firearms, they can inspect your premises.
          I’m under the impression when they audit a business, they usually make an appointment so you can have all the relevant records available to the inspector.

  5. For gun control advocates, it does not really matter whether there is a logical connection between the new laws they want and the crimes that supposedly justify them. In fact, Biden responded to the Boulder attack with his usual solutions even before the details of the crime were clear.

    It is not just the gun control issue. None of the Left’s insane policy proposals have any logical connection to anything. Why? Because the Left’s policies are ideological. Minimum wages to stop poverty, reparations to stop racism, legal discrimination to stop discrimination, removing voting safeguards to safeguard voting, etc. The entire leftist wishlist is a road map to an ideological dystopia. Reality exists only to the extent that it reinforces the ideology. Everything else is irrelevant.

    The Left wants to confiscate and outlaw all weapons because the Left wants a monopoly on coercive force in order to impose a dictatorship. They are not even hiding their intentions.

    If they want a war, they will get their war.

    1. Right. It’s long since time to stop humoring their pretexts: They want to ban guns because defenseless people are safer to order around, and that’s all.

      1. All of what Brett said. They mean to try and enact some hideous shit, and put us in a position where they think we’ll have to just lay back and take it.

        Banning AR-pistols ain’t gonna’ get you there. It’s sure as hell a big fucking flare highlighting the road you want to go down though.

      2. Looks like they’ve learned their lesson from the last time they tried to destroy our republic, unfortunately.

    2. Not surprising from a President who says he deals in “truth, not facts.”

      1. Post modernism allows everyone their own set of subjective facts. See Jeff and WK.

    3. If they want a war, they will get their war.

      The war today is online. That’s where you need to fight them. You think you can win a military war. But you won’t get support because people know you lost the moral argument (and instead made cowardly excuses for running away to your safe space here).

      1. people know you lost the moral argument

        Hey, check out the moron!

        1. So you’re saying I should stop fighting because you’ll vindicate me?

          1. No he’s saying you’re a moron. Moron.

            1. Well anyway, thanks in advance for vindicating me.

              1. No, he’s saying you’re a moron. Moron.

      2. War online? Best. Joke. Evar.

        Online is for porn and wagging your dick at someone else. Reality is where all of the cool kids are hanging out.

      3. Um, you forgot to include that link to that one tweet you made like three years ago that nobody saw to show what an online war looks like from the view of an online warrior like you.

        1. Yes the war is online, and I fight in the trenches every day. Not as much as I should, but you only bloviate here in your safe space. That’s just cowardly.

          But like I said it’s obvious that you want to go to war. The problem is that the military will side with the socialists because you made no effort to debunk their ideology (other than your allies’ insistence that there are still lots of opportunities left under capitalism if you’re not a loser).

          1. The military votes republican. Think again.

            1. Not if biden has his way.

              1. Yep, once the drive out the experienced enlisted and NCOs that actually run everything and tend to vote republican, the military will be even less scary.

                1. Pasty fat little zealots with complexes are a lot more frightening to the free, than well-trained disciplined soldiers.

                2. Yeah, you can’t simultaneously maintain the most feared fighting force on the face of the planet and simultaneously purge them of undesirables. Especially if your definition of undesirables includes people who think hard work isn’t racist and hard working people who simply hold differing opinions don’t deserve killing.

                  Imagine telling David Goggins or Jocko Willink that hard work is racist and that they need to go put down all the unarmed American citizens who don’t agree. Might as well order them not to mutiny while you’re at it for all the good it would do.

            2. Ehhhh? Even supply? And the rest of the 85/15 support to tip of the spear?

              I’m not as confident as you.

              1. 52% votes for Trump the lowest in decades. But only 45% voted for Biden, the highest in decades. Maybe it is a shift or maybe it was because Trump was an asshole who turned people off. Not sure at this point. But 52% is still a majority and includes a lot of POGs.

                1. Additionally, I remain unconvinced that the ‘Vote for Biden’ and ‘Wage war on American civilians’ numbers are a 1:1 translation. Much less heavily biased in the ‘tip of the spear’ direction.

                  With the labor advantage on native soil, I don’t give a shit if the Army Core Of Engineers is a band of bloodthirsty Biden supporters.

                  1. More than likely it isn’t.

                  2. “Wage war on American civilians” needs the right story. It’s not here yet. It might get here.

                    Consider a 2021 Guard dispersing the Bonus Army. Think they’ll be as gentle now?

                    People will do absolutely horrific shit if you give them the right story to believe in where it all makes sense. Even here.

                    1. If you mean National Guard, consider the people who are IN the Guard. And with the end of the draft in the 1970s, the political orientation of all elements of the military took a major swing away from the Left. They’re not going to be too enthusiastic about going against their neighbors — and even less so when they consider how many of those neighbors are better armed than they are. Think “Get off my lawn” times several million. Mouse Guns against Garands is a really bad match, and the guys who use guns for a living know it.

                    2. Think they’ll be as gentle now?

                      See Talcum X’s ‘7000 mile buffer’ response below. “Disarm the indigenous insurrectionists of wherever by force.” has a very different connotation than “Disarm everyone in the state where your parents and grandparents live by force.” Even if you’ve got a large contingent of bloodthirsty orphans and immigrants, we haven’t ever “Disarmed the indigenous insurrectionsits of wherever by force.” successfully.

                      That’s not to say they wouldn’t kill anyone, but the first story of a retired Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War veteran who hasn’t killed anyone since the war getting shot for not giving up his legally-owned firearms is going to weigh pretty heavily on a lot of minds.

                      The only way they have anything resembling a successful go at it would be foreign troops on American soil. Maybe that’s what the illegal immigration debate is (in part) about.

      4. 80 million gun owners, 300 million privately owned guns, one trillion rounds. All the US Armed forces and police forces combined number just shy of 2 million. You just lost the argument on line. If even half of gun owners oppose this he has all the support he needs and still outnumber the military and police 20 to 1.

        1. You might be surprised, SM.

          And now that you’re here, discussion from a week or so ago: Grass-fed beef. Is it bullshit trumpeted by Portlandia-types, or is it actually better beef by USDA standards (marbling, quality, density, etc)

          It certainly tastes ‘gamier’, though I don’t find that a plus. Thanks.

          1. Slightly higher omega 3 fatty acids and vitamin A (questionable if it has any biological impact as the difference is nG/kG) but in almost every blind taste test it loses. As for marveling no noticeable difference just takes twice as long to produce and as a result increases GHG emissions and manure per pound of beef produced.

            1. “…no noticeable difference just takes twice as long to produce and as a result increases GHG emissions and manure per pound of beef produced.”

              Weird. That’s not mentioned at all by the Gucci-meat purveyors at the urban farmers’ market. How strange…

              [The Texas psuedo-Kobe purveyor, that I do buy from, laughs his ass off at those customers. He grain finishes, at least. No idea if wholly grain fed. Sure is good though.)

              Thanks again. It’s one of the best parts of electronic social media that—once we get past the shitposting, and everyone being a dog—you can actually talk to people who do X for a living, and pick their brain.

              1. Nothing is 100%totally grain finished. You need fiber or it screws up the time and can actually reduce weight gain or cause death. The lowest most rations can go is no less than 9% (by dry matter) rouphage.

                1. Screws up the rumen (fucking autocorrect).

          2. Hell the NRA alone has about 10 million members.

            1. Do you need an AR pistol to hunt deer? With that poodleshooter cartridge?!

              (Yes, properly chosen .223 is perfectly fine for shooting deer. Stop it.)

              1. AR-10? .308 maybe one of the most perfect deer cartridges ever made.

                1. Or if you want wood stock, th Springfield M1A.

                2. ,243 or 6.5 Swedish says, “Hi!”. I like .270, but it’s really overkill unless you really need to anchor Bambi across a canyon.

                  I’m just satirizing the typical NRA Fudd.

                  I’m not sure .308 does enough to make up for the magazine capacity hit, unless, you need room to carry an AP penetrator payload. AIUI, M995 does appreciably better than M993.

                  It’s all silly: 5.56’s won enough Highpower, that it’s fine for anything you’re not calling it in on a radio anyway. Or would, if we were fighting in a committed manner. Yeah, yeah, ‘Muh .338 Lapua.’ Just call in one of the other myriad ways to kill that spot, and stay covert, huh?

                  1. .270 fan myself, though I’ve upgraded to a .270 wsm, need the extra velocity on the prairies.

                  2. You mentioned the .243, whose pa re wnt cartridge is the .308. if we want to talk best big game cartridge, hands down it’s the .30-06, every nig game animal in the US and Africa had been taken with a .30-06. John Browning was a genius, no two ways about it.

                    1. Well yeah, but it’s way overcapacity for the 150 and 165 grain bullets most people fling out of them. And I like the ’06, but the .308 does pretty much everything you’d want an ’06 to do, in a shorter action, and the stuff it doesn’t do (mongo Elk cartridge, 900-1300 m sniper rifle, muh dangerous game yadda, yadda,), you’re going to a .300 Win Mag or the like anyway.

                      .270 WSM is that much more zippy than .270 Win in 150 grain plus? Where it’s worth the wear, kick, etc…? I hadn’t realized. If I can’t kill it with a 150 ballistic tip or partition out of a .270Win, I need to get closer. Not always an option with pronghorn or sheep, I admit.

                    2. I shoot a 130 gr and the wsm pushes that out above 3000 fps. I don’t really notice the added recoil but it does add about 300 fps on average.

                  3. Can’t believe you guys don’t know (unless you are to scaredie cat to mention it) the BC of Creedmoor. Gotta be sending that down range to sit at the cool kids table.

                    1. 6.5 is far different than .277 (.270/6.8), for interesting historical reasons. It’s always had very long bullets for diameter. Which can lead to some weird effects, as the Warren Commission could tell you. Longer bullets equal higher BC, all else remaining equal.

                      Anyway, it’s always had much longer bullets for its diameter—and the higher spin rates to stabilize them—than .270. I haven’t plugged my rifle’s 1 in 10 spin rate into something like a stability calculator, but I’m not sure it would stabilize something like a hypothetical 170 grain VLD-ish bullet in .277.

        2. You forgot to clarify that the military is loaded with button pushing half men, not trigger pulling, CQB loving killers. Besides, I’ve never met a single man in combat arms that would follow such an order.

          1. Yep, nor most of the POGs either.

            1. Someone on here claimed that half of the military voted for Biden. Maybe that half can put their camo dresses on and take on the gun owners. They could drop 800 skirt wearing, transitioning personnel on top of NRA HQ. Their butts would whistle like Stukas on the way down ensuring fear and compliance! “Yoo hoo, Mr Hunter, I won’t shoot you if you use the correct pronoun”.

              1. Trump won 52% of active duty military, Biden 45%. Trump definitely underperformed compared to historical norms. We’ll see if it was because of Trump or an actual shift in preference in a year.

                1. And, again, even if you absolutely believe Trump underperformed, I don’t believe that in any real way translates to acceptance of the policy of relieving American citizens of their arms.

                  1. The political officers will have to put together picked teams at first. Then they rely on the rest of the military pulling together once bullets are flying their way. Organizing to flip sides will be difficult when the officers have already been rendered politically reliable.

                2. When he intervened in military UCMJ matters and allowed murdering war criminal scumbags to walk, he lost a lot of support. The three that he pardoned belong in jail.

          2. I’ve met a few who would follow the order. VERY few. And most of those won’t go unless their buddies are with them.

        3. OK and nothing’s stopping the socialists from getting weapons to defend themselves. You just lost the argument.

          They shut down the economy for a year and you did nothing. You just lost the argument again.

          1. They can and I’ve seen videos of their attempt at playing Army. I am not scared.

            1. Yes, the group in Louisville put on quite a show. They are so tough, they shoot themselves and their friends to get their point across. Unfortunately, their highly trained leader, Grand Master Jackoff is back in jail making rhymes in his cell.

          2. They didn’t here. Despite our democratic governor trying to.

            1. Now you have the “Noah never retired” far right whack job who assaults reporters as your governor. Of course the inbred hicks in the shithole part of the state you live in love that kooky shit.h

              1. I am just flagging and ignoring you from now on. Carry on imbecile.

                1. Whatever mormon lover.

                  Your governor did assault a reporter.

                  1. Should tell you a lot about how terrible mike cooney was as a candidate then. Judy Martz was terrible but besides that there was a pretty good run there by the democratic party how’d they mess it up?

                2. To be fair I talked to a friend in the non shithole part of Montana and they said Gianforte is opening stuff up that Bullock closed. So that’s good.

                  Gianforte is still a far right kook who assaults reporters.

                  1. I like your AddictionMyth sock better, you gross fucking pedo.

                    1. I don’t sock. I changed names a few times but never tried to hide it was me except for one comment.

                      Not everyone who disagrees with you is a sock you goddamn fascist.

                    2. So you don’t sock, except when you do.

                  2. I’m not sure what you mean? This side of the state is becoming disgusting mini portland i’d say nice trees lakes mountains, but besides that it a lot of needles and used baggies of meth/herion on the ground. Found 5 needles myself on ground this month.

          3. Oh, yes, there IS something keeping the socialists from getting weapons — peer pressure and cancel culture.

            Even if they did get guns — and ammunition — that’s not the same as knowing how to make them work. And knowing how they work isn’t the same as beaing able to hit anything. And they’re not going to have much time to learn.

            1. You seem to be behind the curve. In 2020 all kinda records were set in gun sales, background checks, and by all accounts from 40-60% of those sales were to first time buyers and lots of them were dems. I know one die hard lib who bought a new Kel Tec 12g shotgun. He still has never sent a round down range. When he first told me about it I was shocked he paid probably twice what the price was before the ‘mostly peaceful protests’ prompted his (and lots of other libs) purchase.

        4. SM76 you need to get up to speed. By FBI stats at least 30-40 million guns were sold in 2020 going by background check numbers meaning probably 350 million guns at least. As for ammo there were 13-14 billion round produced in 2020 and it was flying off the shelf. Interestingly the US military by law has to produce it’s own ammo and the only pace they are now doing it is in Lake City, MO which produced maybe 2 billion rounds in 2020 with at least some being eaten up by training and good old Afghanistan.

          1. Yeah my numbers might be low.

    4. Shut up traitor. You have zero credibility you fascist bigot.

      Let me guess your response will be “cite?”

      1. Says the internet troll.

    5. I hope every soul who has typed the words, “They will have to pry my gun out of my cold, dead hand!” meant what they said. If these scum-sucking, sub-human, anti-liberty, anti-God douchebags want a civil war, try coming for people’s guns!!

      1. Your god doesn’t exist

        1. You’d really like that to be true, wouldn’t you?

          1. It is true. The evangelical christian fascist god doesn’t exist.

            I don’t know if the Christian God exists or not, but the one the Trump loving Fascists pray to definitely doesn’t.

            Just like the mormons pervert god doesn’t exist.

  6. Never let a crisis go to waste.

  7. Who is going to collect all the banned “assault weapons”? Those police departments that are being defunded? Those horrible racist cops?

    1. The military. So defund the police and empower and unleash the army … but only against those obstructionist white people … and then everyone else.

      1. It did not work very well in Baghdad when the military could kill without justification. Why would they think that it will work here?
        Do you know what is right outside every military base in the US? The military member’s families. This isn’t the Middle East or Afghanistan. There is no 7000 mile buffer. Every military member would have to accept the fact that their families would be part of the “gun grab” equation.

        1. I don’t think they’ve ever seriously gamed out what it would be like siccing the military on their own country, even assuming the military were willing. Logistics, for example. It’s completely different from sending your military to mess up somebody else’s stuff.

          And as soon as it starts, no Democratic member of Congress can leave DC without getting killed, for instance.

  8. This guy is from Arvada ( a suburb of the I70 Denver corridor at least 40 minutes from Boulder ). Why did this guy go up to Boulder to do this? Maybe he realized that he would not be changed with a hate crime, because wokeitarian Boulder. He claims racism made him do it.

    1. He said islamophobes hacked his phone, and hated Trump, so really at the end of the day this guy seems like your typical crazy nutjob who’s reason for doing what he did amounts to ‘he’s crazy’.

      The news and politicians will spin it however they think will benefit them, but really sometimes they are just a rogue crazy person. In fact, I think that’s usually it because sane people don’t do things like this.

      You could probably carpet bomb Boulder and not hit a single Trump supporter, so I hardly think that was any motivation or if it was it’s solidly in the ‘crazy person’ column.

      Looking for reasons among that mess is probably a waste of time.

      1. Mentally ill true. A lot of that going around nowadays. I just came off of a thread titled “Car ramming at stop Asian Hate rally”. Short story, some asshole white guy pulls up close to protesters and yells Fuck China a few times. The LAPD is going to arrest and charge this guy with a hate crime. But yeah, the guy in Boulder is mentally ill but the guy who killed the massage employees is a white supremacist and so is the guy who yelled fuck China.

        1. Thought cars running over activists were fine, the media barely mentioned the multiple times democrats drove through trump rallies.

        2. Isn’t it great that speech, thoughts, feelings and emotions are crimes now?

        3. Other than citing the fact that the shooter was previously convicted of assaulting someone, I have not seen anything bad said about this guy in the press at all. Only heard things like he’s mentally ill and was bullied and called names in high school, like we are supposed to feel sorry for a guy who just murdered 10 people in cold blood. Does this make me an Islamaphobe?

          1. I thought the whole ‘bad day’ thing was passe? No? Well then *bzzt* move along citizen.

            1. At least we can be safe knowing this murder was not a hate crime. Just a nice, orderly, hate-free killing, because we all know Muslims don’t kill out of hatred. Must be mental illness, not an intentional act.

    2. He went to Boulder because it was unlikely he would be shot by someone carrying concealed.

      1. And to take out a cop. The top of the leftist food chain hero status.

      2. This was my first thought. I live in Lakewood, a western suburb of Denver south of Arvada, and someone here would’ve likely returned fire. Hell, I imagine the same would’ve been true even in deep blue Denver.

    3. Why did he go to Boulder?
      Boulder is a liberal strongholds.
      Colorado has shall issue concealed carry and permit less open carry.
      if he went to a conservative area, many people would be concealed or open carrying and would shoot back.
      So the best place for her mass slaughter is where the people disarm themselves

  9. I think the underlying problem is the bully culture. We have too many assholes in this country. That mean spirit creeps into religion, politics, everything.

    1. They almost all leftists, and you are one of them.

      1. +100

    2. The problem is actually the media. 100% chance you will be on every liberal TV screen, magazine, newspaper and social media feed if you go anywhere and shoot it up. You want to be famous and live forever, get an Uzi and go to McDonalds. The media will immortalize you, and the whole world will know your name.

      And that is a money-back guarantee! If you are lucky enough to do this in a gun-free state (like NJ) where you won’t meet any armed resistance, surrender alive and do interviews from jail for the rest of your life. Keep reminding the people who you are. Famous forever.

      Totally the media’s fault, and you can play this card for a long time.

    3. Lol, Jeff doesn’t think he’s part of the problem.

    4. Only EVIL PEOPLE FAKING RELIGION AND HIDING BEHIND RELIGION engage in hate; not sincere God-fearing Christians because they believe Christ’s teachings and obey His example. Don’t conflate hypocrites with Christians.



  11. I think it’s fair to ask the people who guard legislators to be the first who disarm. Leading by example and all that. Or are we saying that some animals are more equal than others? That seems to be it.

    Also, if all semi-automatic weapons are ‘assault weapons’ then logically they want to ban all modern weapons past muskets, and only for the people. Not their guards or domestic military forces that we now see at the capitol.

    It seems that if we ‘defund’ the police, what we end up with are National Guard troops instead. That’s not actually an improvement by anyone’s measure, I don’t think.

    1. Revolvers, General; don’t forget revolvers.

    2. I think it’s fair to ask the people who guard legislators to be the first who disarm

      That’s not the kind of equity they are talking about …

      1. Like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It only got passed because LBJ got the southern Democrats to join the Republicans by adding a provision that said Congressmen were exempt from the law and wouldn’t have to actually hire black people on their own staff.

    3. Oh come on. The National Guard did a great job of peace keeping at Kent State in 1970. What could go wrong?


  12. It makes sense in that he probably had a file marked “open in case of mass shooting,” and his gun-control proposals were in it.

    1. ^

  13. In every jurisdiction whether in the U.S or elsewhere, gun control laws have reduced gun violence and gun murders. Those who state otherwise are either in the employ of the gun industry or are very frightened,

    1. Instead of the “Wild Side”, “Take A Walk On The South Side” [of Chicago] and let me know how hard it is for criminals to get guns. Try Baltimore, Md., or NYC, East LA & et cetera. Yep, them loose gun laws in those places (and more “Blue” areas) sure do need to be tightened up.

    2. Just because you state a lie as though it’s a fact, does not make it not a lie.

    3. You can’t just make stuff up and expect no one to call you on it. Your statement is completely preposterous and bears no relation at all to reality.

    4. Those who believe you are mentally ill.

    5. Try Chicago. The Progressive Utopia! Swing by HeyJackass and the CWB blog for daily updates. 800 homicides, 4000 shootings in 2021 despite the strict gun laws. The 54 mass shootings (4 or more shot) barely made the media. Black lives don’t matter if the shooters were black. BLM never matches at the scene of the crime.

      1. He will blame Indiana for the guns.

        1. . . .and refuse to think about the fact that these things don’t happen in Indiana, where all of those guns are . . .

    6. You are completely full of shit. Please walk across one of your favored areas enacting gun control. Let us know how it goes.

      You know what really correlates to a map of gun violence prevalence? Go look at something like the “Dot Map”, over the United States, and let me know what you find.

      Seriously: the prevalence of African-Americans maps so closely to areas of high gun violence, it’s scary. What redpilled me on this was looking at CDC Morbidity and Mortality reports for violent crime, broken out by race and age cohorts.

      LBJ cannot have a fierce enough punishment, roasting in Hell

      1. And by ‘favored areas’, I meant ‘favored municipalities.’ I mean, I can walk through Westwood. Doesn’t prove shit. Now walk from there to the Port of Long Beach….

        1. Montana has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation and one of the lowest homicide rates (suicide is a different matter, but that is a social issue and lack of mental health capacity).

          1. We countin’ the Rez, there?

            1. For which? Suicides or homicides (it really doesn’t matter since they lead in both categories).

              1. Though on the rez they prefer to commit homicides with knives or fists.

            2. The rezs also lead in missing persons. You wouldn’t know it from watching Big Sky, but it isn’t pretty little blond girls going missing in Montana…

              1. No, SM, no it’s not.

                Read some of the travails of Alaskan Native villages—the NYT did a decent feature on one of the Tribal officers a year or two ago. It’s heartbreaking. And it’s evidently how they want to live. (Not restricted to other than Whites by the way. Go look the racket Pitcairn Islanders had. FLDS-esque.)

                1. I lived in Anchorage and the village girls flee there by the droves. The villages are emptying of females because of the not well kept secret of sexual assault in the villages.

    7. Is that you Tony?

      1. Looks like a Tony. Quacks like a Tony. Must be Tony!

    8. Seems to work for Venezuela, where they’ve been seizing guns for years, and Honduras, who has had an “assault weapon” ban since 2003.

      1. And Mexico.


    10. The reason you have to say “gun violence” and “gun murders” is because gun control does not reduce overall violence or homicide trends. Not comprehensive cross country comparison supports gun control as a violent crime reduction tool. No comprehensive study of a country over time shows any impact on crime trends. The best gun control advocates have is carefully selected comparisons and time frames, and the carefully selected term “gun violence.”

      1. Don’t forget that some gun violence is good.
        Every time a woman pulls out a revolver and shoots her attempted rapist, that is a completely justifiable homicide.
        And social good.
        Unless the leftist gun banners are for women getting raped.

        1. Amen to that

  14. Leftists are always happy to target innocent gun owners for arrest and imprisonment.

  15. More than anything we, as a nation, have a BIG problem with Mental Health and ignorance. Id like to know how these individuals get their weapons…schmuks

    1. How do alcoholics get their booze? How do they get the vehicles they commit drunk driving with?

      1. same answer all the way down the stack. Capitalism at work. Selling a gun to a nut is only bad if I’m still in the vicinity when the nut cracks. Otherwise, it’s someone else’s problem…

    2. They pass federal background checks and complete the purchase.

      What’s your next question?

    3. The wokey wokes probably have a worse mental health stigma than any other group, and that was probably a factor here. I would bet money that part of his reason for not getting help was that it would forever disqualify him from 2A. I’m not sure how to comprehensively fix that particular problem, but the ‘rights dependent on mental health tests’ for everyone position that the left is taking seems like a disincentive for actually detecting these folks and getting them help.

      1. I would bet money that part of his reason for not getting help was that it would forever disqualify him from 2A.

        Or that part of being disconnected from reality is thinking that you’re not disconnected from reality.

  16. I wonder (not really) how long it will take “The Authorities” to finally cease being “Puzzled” as to his motives and conclude that the 21 year old male who seems to have been the one that shot about 10 people in a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, has a “Mental Illness”? With a name like his, it’s the only politically correct conclusion they can come to.

    1. You don’t even hear from the media the suggestion that the crime was motivated by Islamic extremism. Yet in Atlanta, even though the police and the Director of the FBI publicly said there was no evidence of racism in that killing, we heard endless ‘hate crime’ and ‘Anti-Asian violence’ claims from the media.

      1. They claimed it was anti-asian hate crime despite the fact that a third of the victims were not Asian. By comparison, the Boulder shooters victims were all white.

        1. You’re right, it was probably racist. Finding a lot of white folks in Colorado takes a lot of work, the bloke probably had to stalk for days to find so many white folks in the same place.

    2. Why do we have to soft-soap and gloss over EVIL? Why do we gloss it over with “mental illness”?

      1. I mean, evil isn’t very helpful in categorizing and addressing risks. I wouldn’t add ‘evil’ to the risk portfolio for my business. I might add ‘spree shooter’ to the risk portfolio, and I might classify the threat actor as mentally ill, disgruntled, or a terry. In this case the guy seemed to be genuinely mentally ill, and because it was not addressed it resulted in great evil. Of course there are also some reports that he sympathized with extremism, but that was probably a manifestation of the same illness that had him constantly running and hiding from invisible stalkers (according to his brother).

  17. Do we hate these people yet? It’s not about banning guns cause nobody can get any ammo right now and this bastard damn well knows it. We’ll be forced to beat each other to death with empty AR-15s

    1. ^–This.

    2. Went to the local Sportsman’s Warehouse. No rifle ammunition except some uncommom cartridges, such as .416 and almost no long arms or pistols, except some o/u shotguns and replica winchester ’73s. The guy at the counter when I asked about a SigSauer M17 just laughed and said they are gone as soon as the put them out. Reminds me of 2008, I purchased an Bushmaster XM-15 sporter the day after the election. The gun aisle was nearly bare and I bought the last AR in the store. When I asked to buy it they just laughed and said they had just out it out and had a bet on how long it would be there… Less than 10 minutes as it turned out. Had to wait a month to find ammo for it.

      1. When the Brady bill passed, the Steyr Aug jumped from $700 to $3000 overnight. Not a single Steyr Aug was ever used in a crime, but they were featured as the bag guy’s weapon in dozens of Hollywood movies.

        1. I’d think if some untrained 20 something wanted high body counts in close quarters they’d use shotguns. They only use ARs because Feinstein has been advertising them as the weapon of choice for “smart” criminals for nearly 30 years now. I blame her and her advertising campaign for most mass shootings.

          1. Didn’t we just have an articel on tsnarov? Pressure cookers, manure, other items can do a heck of a lot of damage too.

          2. I’d think if some untrained 20 something wanted high body counts in close quarters they’d use explosives, flammables, jet airliners, etc.


            1. Turns out that jet airliners are harder to get ahold of than shotguns. Plus, they don’t have “point-and-shoot” user interfaces.

      2. “gone as soon as the[y] put them out”… did you see a crowd or line of those waiting for ammo to be put out? Or is there a remote camera viewing set-up?
        I simply do not believe the numerous factories that make ammo cannot keep up with demand. Or that new ammo companies are not being constructed as it seems profits are immediate. How is the military and police fixed for ammo? The military seems to use ammo everywhere at any given time but not off the shelf calibers…Hey China! Ship some of your 7.62×39 over with Walmart’s crapola you sell! China tries to sell us everything and tries to hide the fact it is China especially on ebay…

  18. September 4, 2019: “Customers who shop at Colorado’s 148 King Soopers and City Market stores are being asked to “no longer openly carry firearms” into the stores,… “Our No. 1 priority is the safety of our associates and customers,” Kelli McGannon, a King Soopers spokeswoman, said Wednesday.”

    How’s that working out for ya?

    1. Wait a minute, “Open Carry” is legal in Colorado? Why wasn’t there a Wild West” style shoot out with all them armed customers just a’blazin’ away at any and everything that moved? Isn’t that what the anti-gunners always say is sure to happen whenever there’s a proposal to allow more open and/or concealed carry someplace?
      [The dulcet sounds of the Family Gryllidae are gently wafting throughout the land.]

      1. Boulder

      2. Because it isn’t legal in Boulder. Why do you think this Islamic terrorist drove 60 miles from his home? Easy pickings. Hippies are fucking morons. Like shooting sheep in a pen.

        1. +1000000

          1. If he would have drove his goat loving ass to Colorado Springs, he would have been shot by a lawful gun owner within seconds. He looks just like every cartoon target the locals use down at Dragonman’s range during the annual “full auto” shoot.

            1. “If he would have drove his goat loving ass to Colorado Springs, he would have been shot by a lawful gun owner within seconds.”

              Sounds like a good reason to avoid Colorado Springs, if they shoot at you within seconds of arriving.



            That explains the Ft. Hood shooting about a decade back. Go shoot people on an army base. They’re all soft.

            1. The United States Army is a risk averse bureaucracy that happens to have guns.
              A military base is one of the most disarmed places you can possibly go.
              The Only people who are armed on base are the military police.

            2. Ft Hood was a gun-free zone. It is not a coincidence that the guy did his shooting there.

              1. Last time I checked, Ft. Hood was in Texas.

                1. Very good. Did you check the rules on carrying guns on the Army base at Ft Hood where the shooting took place. You should, really. Everyone will assume you are an idiot if you keep spouting this nonsense. You don’t want that, do you?

            3. “…army… They’re all soft.”

              No need to repeat yourself.

              In all seriousness though, apparently you’ve never been on a military base. Very few people on base are carrying loaded weapons regularly.

              1. ” Very few people on base are carrying loaded weapons regularly.”

                They’re all soft. Someone should have said that. If you want to find people who are afraid of firearms, a military base is where you want to go. Just look at how many people get shot in Afghanistan on the military bases.

                “In all seriousness though, apparently you’ve never been on a military base.”

                You based this insight on your extensive knowledge of my military record, no doubt.

        3. 60 miles? Fucking hell, dude, Arvada is not that far from Boulder. I wouldn’t be surprised if his dad worked down the Turnpike in the Interlocken tech center.

      3. No, that would only occur in a “gun culture”.

  19. Democrats and leftists want to use these issues to gain even more power at your expense. This all could have been prevented but many libertarians decided Trump was bad for them. Now witness the result.

  20. Biden almost certainly did NOT tweet anything today. The tweet appeared under Biden’s account.

    1. Does Biden know how to use anything electronic?

      1. Jill does. The poor gal.

        1. It’s just an electric motor with an unbalanced weight, battery, and a 1/0 switch. Not sure that counts as electronic.

          1. Perhaps Jill has an old fashioned hand crank version.

      2. Sure. You just have to tell him the website number.

  21. get rid of the screeching hyperbole and DEAL WITH FACT!

    Without the FEAR DRIVEN MISINFORMATION and take every ‘gun control law’ completely off the books, this shooter could have easily been taken down immediately after the first shot y=by a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN that chooses to carry for the DEFENSE OF HIM, OR HERSELF. AND THE LIVES OF OTHERS.

    The way this works out, in REAL LIFE, more innocent people are murdered which gives the left something to work with to ensure ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE from the masses.

    1. There is a reason he traveled to Boulder to do what he did.

      1. Tie dye sets him off?

    2. THE THING IS, law-abiding citizens, armed or not, OFTEN DON’T KNOW what is going on, and thus are POORLY PLACED to TAKE ANY DEFINITIVE ACTION.

      IN THE MOVIES, one good guy with a gun can save the day. DOESN’T work as WELL in real LIFE.

      1. Many Americans come from a culture of hard work and self-reliance. They obey the law and they defend themselves. These people are not dependent on government to solve their problems.

        You have contempt for these people, and believe they should defend themselves only with 911 on speed dial, because they “often don’t know what is going on”.

        These people don’t really care what you think. What are you going to do about it?

  22. “Biden’s Gun Control Proposals Make Little Sense As a Response to the Mass Shooting in Boulder”

    And opposing the reelection of Donald Trump made little sense given that Biden promised an all out war on our gun rights on his campaign website.

    He promised to ban assault weapons, force the registration of all those currently in circulation, ban the sale of guns and ammo online, and institute a national relinquishment [confiscation] program in conjunction with local law enforcement.

    These issues were all decided in the presidential election in November and the Senate election in January. To whatever extent you contributed to Trump and the Republicans losing, you’re complicit in this assault on our gun rights. Biden coming after our gun rights was not only foreseeable but also foreseen.

    We libertarians are supposed to be all about enjoying the likely consequences of our choices with open eyes. Buyer’s remorse is for people who are too stupid to foresee the negative consequences of their choices and don’t acknowledge the negative consequences until after they suffer them. I’d like to think that we’re at least lab rat smart–smart enough to learn from the negative consequences of our choices. How’s that electric shock feel? Anything to learn from that?

    Unfortunately, some of us aren’t lab rat smart–don’t even seem to be willing to admit we made a mistake after the electric shock. The sooner we admit we were wrong, the sooner the healing can begin.

    1. If he recently just purchased the Ruger then I wonder if he used his stimulus check to cover the cost. Maybe this attack wouldn’t have happened without the helicopter money dished out.

      1. Damn good point! I’m sure CNN will be all over Biden on that one!!

    2. Aside from Biden openly telling us our plans, how were we supposed to know Ken???

      1. Their plans*

        1. Biden’s campaign website is a cornucopia of conspiracy theories!

  23. Evidently this kid was bullied in high school. Obviously that’s not an excuse but it’s still a prime risk factor in many of these cases (e.g. Parkland). The problem is that we medicalize ‘mental illness’ which actually makes it harder to treat. In fact it almost always has psychodynamic causes (like bullying) that we pretend don’t exist because it’s too painful to recognize (or to profit from the misdirection). We need to be more honest about the real causes of ‘mental illness’. But too many don’t want to solve this kind of problem, as much as they moan about it.

    As for ‘gun control’, yes it’s terrible that people die by the dozen. But it’s better than by the thousand or million, as would happen if we cede our self defense rights.

    1. I don’t understand why it’s illegal not to go to school.

      Force anybody to be around people they hate for a decade and it’s not gonna be pretty.

    2. So was I. Never murdered anyone. Bullshit excuse.

      1. Also, define ‘bullied’. If you’re going to seriously defend everyone who shoots someone because of misgendered pronouns on Twitter, you may as well kiss the rest of your preferred/perceived social constructs goodbye.

    3. “As for ‘gun control’, yes it’s terrible that people die by the dozen. But it’s better than by the thousand or million, as would happen if we cede our self defense rights.”

      And that is a simple statement of the libertarian premise that we need to hammer home: libertarianism is not going to solve every problem, but it will reduce the number and severity of those that remain.

    4. I’m with you on the tend to “Medicalize ‘mental illness'”, or what is perceived as such; like normal childhood behavior for boys.
      Here’s what I went through, and why I believe we’re ” … Reaping the whirlwind … ” of violence today – One of the glaring contributory problems is the increasing tendency of primary school districts to encourage drugging their male students into pliable somnambulant behavior. How can “enlightened educators” admit that boys and girls are different, since they’ve spent the last forty years “proving” they aren’t. Several years ago, back in the nineties, I related to his doctor how a grade school teacher and the principal strongly suggested my son be placed on Ritalin. His response to my complaint that they weren’t doctors was met with: “Well. They’re ‘Professionals’ “. I replied: “So are prostitutes, but I wouldn’t go to one for medical advice”. The look on his face was amazing. I had Child Protective Services at my door a couple of days later. I reiterated my reasons to them and backed them up with evidence of the deleterious effects already known at that time that these drugs had on children, and that I flat out refused to subject him to them. They went away, knowing I was resolute (and within my rights), and never darkened my door again.

      [Addendum: Before I met my fiancée and her son in ’92 in Cal., he’d been in foster care in Florida. While there they used to lock him in a closet, apparently to control him. It took a lot of patience and effort, especially after she passed away a week after he turned six in ’93, but it was worth it. And no psychotropic drugs were used nor needed.]

  24. Called it, though it wasn’t exactly a bold prediction.

  25. Actually an AR 15 is a great home defense gun , not an Assault weapon. Easier to handle than a shotgun, more accurate than a handgun.

    1. And goes easily through wallboard to take out your own kids in the next room.
      A baseball bat is best, doesn’t look so premeditated. Any edged weapon is also a good choice, it doesn’t need to be reloaded. A shotgun should have a low charge, because home combat is in feet, not yards, of distance. Birdshot doesn’t give away so much power, yet can be loaded to reduce the effects of a miss. (and yes, you can miss with a shotgun across an uncrowded room)

      1. Not a lot of people that I know rely on an AR or a shotgun for indoor. A nice revolver with Glaser Safety Slugs is your best bet. They won’t go through a wall, just about guarantee a one shot kill without any chance of survival and the name just rolls off the tongue in court. SAFETY! Much better than the 12 gauge loaded with Annihilator X rounds you bought at a gun show.

        1. Before I purchased and XD-40 I kept my colt SAA loaded and my ruger redhawk .44. The colt .45 was good enough for Bass Reeves and Bat Masterson, it is good enough for me.

        2. Let’s just say I’ve never regretted my decision to purchase a Ruger GP-100 a few years ago. Best fucking gun I’ve ever owned, and anyone who comes in to my house uninvited is going to end up having a real bad day.

        3. Use frangible rounds if you’re worried about overpenetration. A baseball bat sucks. You’re at an instant disadvantage in doorways and tight hallways where you can’t get full swing length. You’re also at an instant disadvantage if the intruder has a gun. A shotgun is not a bad option though an overzealous prosecutor might look to your use of birdshot to claim you only intended to wound/mame or that you didn’t fear for your life if you chose to use an underpowered ammunition.

      2. Have fun fighting half a dozen guys with a knife.

        1. What if he is playing knifie spoony?

        2. Why stop at a half dozen? At some point, you’re preparing for a scenario that will never come to pass or, if it did, is going to end with you dead no matter what preparations you’ve made.

          Have fun defending your family against a platoon of armed men with an AR-15. Good luck with your .50 BMG when the SMOD hits.

          1. You know, we had a hell of a time with untrained guys wearing man-dresses and carrying old battered AK-47s. Have you ever entered a house that is occupied by an armed man? He just has to spray and run. They will run out of “operators” willing to do the job. Even our highly trained special mission units lost a lot of men. Those men cost at least a million dollars to train and they never become bullet proof or IED proof.
            My friend turned an entire battalion of Iraqs around with a .50 BMG. After they saw 8 men get smoked by a guy on a cliff, 1500 m away, they turned tail. The last man he shot that day was hiding behind a boulder.
            The .50 BMG is not the most effective weapon, but in the hands of a master it is heinous.

          2. I know that I can’t defeat a full army, but I have a god given right to make a sporting man’s try at it.

            1. Set some antipersonnel land mines.

        3. It works in a narrow hallway.

      3. Go look at the boxotruth. See what he found out by actually testing ammunition. (Plus, Ol’ Painless is a really nice guy, and a true Southern Gentleman.)

        Anyway, you might be surprised by how well M193 penetrates in wallboard or other residential construction materials vs thinks like pistol rounds and buckshot.

      4. Don’t have any kids and not letting any home intruder get close enough for me to use a blade. same with a bat. Will stick with the AR and semi auto as a back up.

      5. I disagree with pretty much all of this.

        12g bird will still go through 3-5 layers of drywall. A shotgun is fine as a home defense tool if you are really comfortable and well trained (limited round count, hard to reload, potential for ‘short stroking’, etc). Bird is not recommended for defense because it can be deflected by walls, might not pass through clothing, and might not stop an intruder. #1 Buck is the general recommendation.

        A bat or edged weapon is going to require space enough to swing, and requires up close and physical confrontation. You might not be able to incapacitate them, you might get hurt in the process, or you might find yourself confronting them in a hallway and now you have to close distance. If they are armed your odds of getting slotted are worse because you are not on equal footing with your attacker.

        For anyone who doesn’t train constantly, your best chance is a relatively short semi-auto rifle in a controllable cartridge. AR is the obvious choice. A PCC is fine, like the Hi-Point carbines (and cheap too, if you can find them). You need the repeatability and round count because you will be less likely to make hits. You need the safety and controllability of a rifle. You need a light round so you can follow up quickly and not get disoriented by the blasts indoors. You need something short so you don’t get hung up.

        1. And for the record, I’m a WEKAF world medalist and I still do not recommend a blunt or bladed weapon. You should have those skills in the toolbox and maybe you could make the case for having one handy if it comes to that…but I wouldn’t recommend that as your primary strategy.

        2. Most of what this guy said. I’d only expand on a few points. Mainly, that it’s a lot easier to make hits with a rifle than a handgun, and easier to make repeated hits than with a shotgun firing defensive ammunition. Further, the terminal effects from rifle hits far exceed those from handguns, while not appreciably penetrating further in residential construction than handgun bullets.

          Use an AR. Have some muffs nearby you can quickly throw on and/or have a gun muffler on it.

        3. “12g bird will still go through 3-5 layers of drywall”.
          We used bird-shot for breaking doors for many years. We put the barrel to the door and hold it in place with your body, the charge of the round breaks/bends hinges and the shot safely scatters, usually.
          3-5 layers of drywall? You should try it before you believe it. Maybe through a single piece of drywall, but it won’t go through the second wall. I was hit in the face with a bird shot ricochet, the shot was embedded just below the skin, it stung but it didn’t do much damage. In fact, I was even more handsome, some say.

          1. I have tried it, but for the sake of this discussion there are videos testing exactly this. Off the top of my head, demo ranch tested it and punched through 4 layers of drywall. I’m not arguing that it isn’t underpowered, but even here you are saying it is powerful enough to go through a door mechanism.

            Birdie off a door is pretty sketchy, but I guess how it was done until fairly recently. These days it’s frangible/compressed metal slugs. Glad the one you caught had dumped the energy

            1. And either way, I guess both of us are kind of saying it isn’t a good choice. Generally it either works on drywall or fails on humans.

            2. “I’m not arguing that it isn’t underpowered, but even here you are saying it is powerful enough to go through a door mechanism.”

              Muzzle against door is going to have a sizable gas charge coming along for the ride.

              I’m with you; I had thought it was a frangible load/powdered lead load that was used to defeat locks/hinges. Not birdshot. I’ve not done it for real though. Maybe a skeet load is decent field expedient? (Shrug.)

              It’s not what you should be using against humans, in any event.

      6. Is this a parody?
        I am a Doctor and have seen hundreds of gunshot wounds in the operating room.
        I categorically state bird shot is not deadly enough for home defense.
        It produces a very shallow wound that does not reach the vitals.
        While plenty of people are killed by pistols, if you really want to kill someone shoot them with a rifle.
        As for penetration, I refer you to the website the “box o’ truth”. Episodes 1 and 14.
        He shoots different guns at typical home interior walls.
        And sees how many walls each caliber can penetrate.
        All common pistol calibers and different kinds of .223 penetrate at least three interior walls.
        Shotguns penetrate four interior walls.

        1. And what this guy said.

          Doc, it’s a dead thread, but maybe you’ll see it. What was your professional opinion of the M&M talk going around youtube a few year’s ago, detailing a surgeon’s experience treating various types of bullet wounds? I think this video is it. I remember the guy being from UW in any event:

          Basically, the vast majority 6/7 or 7/8 of people hit by a handgun bullet live. Rifle wounds, usually not. Which is in line with what DiMaio writes.

      7. Do not try to school anyone about home defense unless they pay for your course and appear in person at your academy. Never ever suggest a baseball bat either until you think it through and test it yourself. The most cockamamie advice today anywhere by anyone.

  26. Does anyone believe that the mentally unstable will stop killing people? Maybe not 10 at a time, but they will kill and an unarmed public will be at risk.

    1. They didn’t stop in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, or any of the other 10 countries with more annual mass shooting deaths per capita than the US. If you count annual frequency per capita, that is 11 countries. US has a lower than global average mass shooting rate. If measuring mass ATTACKS, US drops even lower on the charts. Violent crime rate is pretty low too. Homicide rate is low for the Americas and is 94 of 230 globally (included countries that don’t report or under-report). We would be relatively high compared to Europe, but European homicide rate has always been lower than the US (even when gun ownership rates were similar. The gap has actually been closing). If you break the US into states it gets weirded. New Hampshire has high gun ownership but is one of the safest places in the world (particularly when you consider that the US counts homicides on report rather than pending the result of a trial, like most of the rest of the world).

  27. This sad and unfortunate shooting is yet another example of why the country needs to pay a whole lot more attention to the problem of mental illness. I am reading today that the shooter’s family/friends were commenting that he often imagined people were chasing or stalking him, which is a classic paranoia symptom. His family needed to get him some psychiatric help, which might have been able to prevent this tragedy. Perhaps they did not recognize the symptoms, or perhaps they didn’t know where to get help, or could not afford help. More education on, and access to mental health treatment is the key to dealing with that sort of problem, not a large bureaucratic process that mostly restricts the freedom of millions of law abiding gun owners.

    1. Define “mental illness” please. Is “Muslim” a mental illness?

  28. The number of guns involved in mass shootings carried out by people who should never have owned a gun (the Massage Parlor shooter bought the gun that day) is quite large as is the body counts they amassed. Assault weapons make it even easier to raise the totals of those who are killed or wounded. It really doesn’t matter whether or not the actions proposed to limit guns and strenghten background checks would have prevented these particular massacares; although it has been proven that when the assault weapons ban was in effect the body count from these types of shootings decreased. But arguing that the rules won’t protect against all gun violence, is about as sensible as refusing to get a flu shot because it doesn’t protect against Covid. Any protection, however inadequate, is better than none.

    1. Of the 4000 shot, 800 killed last year in Chicago, how many times were assault weapons used? Almost none. How about ARs?
      No matter how baggy and saggy your pants are, it is nearly impossible to hide an AR. It is difficult to conceal in a car, it is difficult to shoot from a car. If you make it into a “pistol” it is nearly useless and a handgun would be a better choice.
      So, guess what weapons are killing the most people? Cheap ass, low caliber, throw away handguns.
      It really is that simple.

      1. More people are killed yearly by knives and blunt objects than are killed by long rifles.

        1. No people died from nuclear bomb blasts. From this we can determine that everybody should be issued a couple of pounds of plutonium each.

    2. We could outlaw all guns. Then only the criminals (and the Government, but I repeat myself) would have guns. Then after the guns we could ban knives. Not just hunting knives, but anything sharp that could cause harm. Scissors too. Then after we ban everything pointy and people are still killing each other with their fists, then we outlaw hands, just cut them off straight at birth.
      Or people could just accept that murder is a part of life and the method isn’t really what we should be controlling, but providing a deterrence and punishment to those who kill, and removing from society those who can’t control their actions.

      1. The U.K. is going down that path now. Boy Scouts are not allowed to have knives, there is discussion about requiring chefs to have a license to own knives.

        1. Step 1. Buy piece of metal.
          Step 2. Wrap “handle side” with tape.
          Step 2. Sharpen on concrete.

    3. AngelaM is by far the most disgusting handle i have seen on reason and i really want you to suffer for that. Sorry.

    4. “It really doesn’t matter whether or not the actions proposed to limit guns and strenghten background checks would have prevented these particular massacares”

      Refreshing to hear honesty about the real motives of gun control—not to stop future shootings but to keep people from exercising their second amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

      1. Yea, but they also call themselves the German leader Angela M., so I think they are just a really disgusting parody. Anyways, they are shit and need to be flushed.

    5. 2009 to 2015 the EU suffered 303 deaths from mass public shootings. The US had 199. Accounting for population this is roughly the same fatality rate (0.62 US vs 0.60 EU). Injuries had a substantial gap, with EU countries having 680 injuries versus 197 for the US (rates of 0.61 for the US and 1.34 for the EU). You’re just as likely to be killed in the EU from a mass shooting, and more likely to be injured. If you instead measure ‘mass attacks,’ the EU actually FAR surpasses the US in deaths and injuries. Bombings, vehicle attacks, edged weapon attacks, and fire attacks are all higher in the EU (well, maybe not fires after 2020 lol).

      1. How about injury due to accidental dischage?

    6. Supposing this is an anatomically-correct female and not a redbot, the regurgitating bun-banning vagueness is, bet on it, exactly the reaction anyone would expect to God’s Own Prohibitionists jumping in front of the LP to defend any part of the Bill of Rights. Women who ‘ve tasted blood crushing the plans of Linseed Graham Crasker, Marjorie Green Teeth, Ted Cruz and all the ku-klux, Beatles-burning Dixiecrat rednecks for National Socialist Positive Christianity will–if not too discerning–come to Reason to vomit in the comments like all the Dixiecrat Republican infiltrators. To them, cowardly libertarians are “right wing” and hence fair game. The 1972 platform never exposed us like that.

    7. A single handgun in the hands of someone at that parlor could have invalidated whatever this man tried to do.

      Hoplophobia isn’t the solution to violent crime. In fact, it often enables it to happen and to reach deadlier outcomes.

      The number of shootings when the AWB was in effect did not decrease, as you claim. In fact gun ownership has risen in strong correlation with a decrease in violent crime over the past 20 years.

    8. And where are your statistics from?

      Long guns (including rifles of all kinds, not just assault rifles) are rarely used in homicides. Homicides were decreasing for decades until 2020 happened. (And most homicides in 2020 were by pistol – rifles are still rarely the weapon of choice). Ergo, when the Assault Weapon ban was in effect, more murders happened than after the assault weapon ban ended. (I don’t think 2020, as bad as its been, is up to 1990s levels of homicides, but i haven’t seen 2020 summary statistics yet, since they won’t be compiled by BJS until ~2022.)

      1. Side note, doesn’t actually exist… Someone should definitely get on that.

  29. Lloyd Austin needs to call a 90 day witch hunt to go through the ranks of the military to ensure that no Islamic Supremacists are serving in the military.

  30. It would be easier to accept gun control measures if the government didn’t declare open season in Portland.

    1. Stay in Vancouver, and you don’t have to care what’s happening in Portland.

    2. I think that’s a poor example, but whatever reason people will take to not ban guns, I’m for.

  31. Every time a democrat says “expand background checks” we should remind them the Atlanta and Boulder shooters passed a background check.

    1. We could also remind them that Colorado has had “universal background checks” and a ban on >15 round magazines since 2013.

      1. Not to mention a recent red flag law.

    2. “Every time a democrat says ‘expand background checks’ we should remind them the Atlanta and Boulder shooters passed a background check.”

      Which is a sign that the current level of background checks are inadequate. Which is a necessary first step towards expanding them. So you’re helping their cause.

      1. Or it’s a sign that background checks, in general, are inneffective. The FBI was also warned about the Boulder shooter but did nothing; another piece of evidence that the authorities cannot be trusted to provide for your safety. The only person that can reasonably hope to guarantee your own safety is you yourself. Therefore the solution in this specific case with Boulder is to be armed and be allowed to carry your weapon where you go to prevent being victimized. In fact, being armed against an attacker is a pretty good solution for stopping most shooting attacks.

        1. Or it’s a sign that background checks, as applied, are ineffective. You have a substantial portion of the population dedicated to subverting attempts to limit access to weapons by people who shouldn’t have such access. Surprise! Attempts to limit access to weapons by people who shouldn’t have such access are not effective.

          “Therefore the solution in this specific case with Boulder is to be armed and be allowed to carry your weapon where you go to prevent being victimized.”

          Where can I buy one of these weapons that makes you bulletproof? If I could have one of those, then I could feel safe on the streets of Boulder.

          1. I didn’t say a gun makes you bullet proof. A gun allows you to shoot back. Plate carriers and plates make you bulletproof.

            1. Nothing is “bulletproof” but rather “bullet resistant”.

    3. That has always had as much effect as informing mystical girl-bulliers that life began millions of years ago. The effect is the same because the looter mentalities are the same.

  32. There is 3 questions I ask Democrats when they call for gun control:

    1. What is the “gun show loophole”?
    2. What is the “background” loophole?
    3. Why focus on appearance of a gun over it’s functionality?

    None of them can provide any answer to any of them. All they do is parrot talking points.

    1. I’m not a Democrat, but 1 and 2 are related to a fundamental flaw in background-check legislation. People who are in the business of selling new firearms to people usually have a business premises and business license. The ones that don’t aren’t fazed by risking losing their license or premises.
      3 is largely your choice of framing. The people who choose to commit mass shootings tend to prefer specific weapons when they do so, so one approach to limiting the mass shooting is to limit the distribution of the weapons the shooters would use. A lot of them are would-be military so they want guns that fit their self-image.
      As to limiting the functionality, note that kits to convert semi-automatic weapons to fully-automatic capability are strongly regulated (to the point of being largely prohibited) and so they moved on to targeting large capacity magazines (which are clearly functionality not appearance) and ran into lawsuits from firearms fans who wanted to keep their ability to shoot 30 deer.

      1. I can’t let that pass. You completely ignore FBI stats that show hand guns, not military style long guns (what ever that means), are used in way more multiple shootings than long guns. As has been noted if you remove six cities, all dem run by the way and with strict gun laws, the US numbers look much better.

        I doubt gangbangers in Chi Town are would be military and they all seem to use cheap one time use what use to be called Saturday Night Specials as their weapon of choice.

        1. Dimwit, people who plan mass shootings tend to grab whatever weapons they can get ahold of. The problem with cheap-ass Saturday Night specials is the reload. That’s not a problem if your hit squad is a half-dozen of your closest friends planning a drive-by, but if your “team” is you, and you alone, having to stop shooting long enough to reload gives the unarmed targets time to stand up and kick your ass, ala Kip Kinkel (google him if you aren’t familiar with his story.)

      2. “I’m not a Democrat”

        Really, you sure sound like one. What does hunting have to do with the second amendment?
        Do you prefer Socialist? Leftist?

        1. Obviously, you’d know better than I would what political party I belong to.
          It was foolish of me to rely on the fact that I’m not a member of any political party to claim to not be a Democrat.

      3. Wrong. There is no fundamental flaw. The “gunshow loophole” does not exist because sales at gun shows still require you to complete background checks. Furthermore, the only transfers that don’t require a background check are private person-to-person transfers, such as me gifting a firearm to a family member or a friend. That “loophole” is not a loophole as it was a compromise by design when lawmakers crafted legislation mandating background checks for transfers. They made that exception as a compromise (perhaps the only example of Dems agreeing to a compromise ever when calling for Republicans to come to a compromise on gun rights). Implying private transfers without background checks is a loophole or fundamental flaw or an oversight is dishonest.

        Your assertion that mass shooters all prefer a certain type of weapon is also bullshit. The Boulder shooter as the most recent example. He didn’t have a “military-style” rifle. He had a handgun. Handguns are used in far more shootings than AR-15s. In fact, knives are used for more murders and assaults than nearly all classes of firearm combined.

        The question about appearances over function is also pointed at the fact that gun control enthusiasts have largely targeted AR-15s within narry a mention of the Ruger Mini14, which accepts the same magazines and also fires semi-automatic but which is done up in wood furniture and doesn’t frequently have collapsing stocks or rails for mounting optics or grips.

        1. “Your assertion that mass shooters all prefer a certain type of weapon is also bullshit.”

          The kind that is true. The fact that you like the same kind of weapon that a would-be mass shooter would is purely coincidental, I’m sure.

          People who like to drive where there isn’t a road tend towards the same vehicles, too, but nobody objects if you point out this fact.

          1. The fact that the vast majority of killings with guns are hand guns is evidence to the contrary. Your claim is complete and utter bullshit.

      4. “I’m not a Democrat,”

        Sure. Sure you’re not. You only mimic their opinions with damned near every post you make here.

        At least you haven’t tried bullshitting us that you’re a “reasonable gun owner.” “I go deer hunting, guys!”

        1. “I’m not a Democrat” is a fact.
          I’m not a member of any political party.

          People obsessed with bitty little popguns are funny.

      5. Most mass shooters use pistols. Note rifles of any sort.

  33. I wish one of these mass shooters would shoot up a Mormon church.

    1. LOL random unrelated dipshit wanting to see blood. Well, the attacker would get shot probably, because the target is not a bunch of unarmed loser victims like you is my guess 😀

      1. Mormons are too stupid to defend themselves. They worship a pervert god who doesn’t exist and believe a discredited book.

        They’re morons.

        1. You are pretty much the same person as the Boulder shooter, aren’t you?

          1. People like the Boulder shooter would throw this KAR the hicklib faggot off of a roof, or cut his head off, and he knows it.

        2. I see, so you want to mass kill them despite them being essentially harmless? I think you are really like the mass shooters we see elsewhere.

          I mean, to me you just look like a clay target honestly. I’m sure most church goers in a rural area would see you just like that. A head on stick LOL 😀

        3. Mormons are too stupid to defend themselves.

          Unmask your email like you promised, you hicklib faggot, and we can find out.

    2. It is not coincidence that that never happens. The shooter would be shot dead very quickly. They prefer to do their shootings in gun free zones.

    3. You don’t dare.

      They would kill you, then baptize for the dead!

    4. ” … shoot up a Mormon church … “? What in the Hell did people like Mitt Romney ever do to you? Other than the fact he’s a RINO, that is.

    5. Have you ever seen the rifle/pistol range that the Mormons have? I have trained people there. It is on par with anything that the US military has. They are very serious about protecting themselves. If you enter their church with intent to harm them, ensure that your insurance is paid up and your cat has food for the week.

      1. Your assumption is that people who enter intent on causing harm also intend on walking back out again. Frequently enough, they don’t.

        1. Shooters intend to kill as many people as they can. If they were to pull out their gun and be shot before they could accomplish what they went there to do (murder a large number of innocent people) they would be unsuccessful in their final act. That is why they strongly prefer gun-free zones.

          1. The category “shooters” includes specifically murderers who prefer to use firearms. The ones that don’t have this preference do things like make bombs out of rental trucks or pressure cookers.
            In one case, maybe you heard about it, they decided to use jetliners full of jet fuel as bombs.
            No number of armed defenders can provide complete defense against a murderer intent on killing people.
            Don’t underestimate the value of tactical surprise.

    6. What’s your beef with the Mormon church? I see you posting about it all the time.

  34. There is never going to be a mass confiscation of weapons. There is no public will for such a thing. If the public is unwilling to stomach mass deportation of 10 million undocumented foreigners, they are certainly not going to stomach turning 80 million citizens into criminals overnight. And at this point passing another gun law won’t do anything, except drive Republicans to the polls in reaction. I think Democrats are smart enough to realize this now. That getting rid of guns is not going to happen by passing laws or edicts.

    That being said, there *is* a gun violence problem in this country, but not one that can be solved with more laws regulating or banning guns.

    1. Yea, how about they just stop demonizing any random large group of people they see fit and thus reduce primitive undirected hate by said group? Maybe such a more moderate environment would breed less hate. But what fucking fairytale do i live in…

      1. I mean you can tell from my other comments that i am kinda participating pretty good in that by now

    2. That being said, there *is* a gun violence problem in this country

      No there isn’t. COVID, in one year, has been deadlier than all gun violence in a decade. Cancer is deadlier than COVID. Heart disease is deadlier than cancer. Just like COVID, if you exclude a handful of cities/counties, our gun violence ‘problem’ is on par with the gun violence ‘problem’ throughout the rest of the Western World, despite much higher firearm ownership rate. In terms of cost, the total cost of firearm deaths could be swallowed whole by 1/10th of what we’re going to spend on COVID.

      I don’t know if you don’t know what the word ‘problem’ means or if you just have no idea what priorities are. Either way, I suspect things like brushing your teeth and dressing yourself in the morning are real problems for you.

      1. *Relative to other advanced countries*, we have a gun problem in this country. Better?

        1. Compared to other advanced countries, we have a freedom of speech problem in this country. And a pretty-much-the-rest-of-the-Bill-of-Rights problem.

          That’s why the best people from all of the other countries in the world want to come here.

        2. You’re halfway there. Chicago has a gun problem in the city. LA, Baltimore, Detroit, etc. have gun problems in their cities. Given the localities, conditions, and context, given that other municipalities right down the road don’t have the same problem, and you might rightly infer that the “gun problem” isn’t a problem isn’t a *gun* problem.

        3. Maybe if you measure ‘gun violence.’ If not, our violent crime rate is actually surprisingly low, while overall homicides are high but not the highest (historically the US has always had a higher homicide rate than the EU, even when gun ownership was comparable. The gap is actually closing). Breaking the US into states makes the “gun problem” even weaker.

          I think we have an entrenching ghettos through welfare, said welfare also disincentivising whole families and presenting a cliff which discourages productivity, and then not allowing families to choose where their kids are schooled while also erecting economic barriers like the minimum wage…problem. Plus prohibition, which creates cartels that thrive in those poor and isolated areas of high urban density. The data does not support guns being a major crimenogenic factor, but it does support all that.

      2. And you can’t just “exclude a handful of cities/counties” to wave away the problem. Of course the gun violence problem is not evenly distributed. Furthermore, the gun violence problem is not just homicides/mass murder. It is also suicides and accidents. As I said these problems cannot be solved with gun laws. But don’t ignore the problems or sweep them under the rug.

        The firearm-related death rate is about 12 per 100,000 people. No country in Europe has a value higher than 3. It’s a problem.

        1. I have to say that countries with more cars have a “car accident problem”. That is a side effect of having more cars. But, as you may agree, that doesn’t justify taking cars away. Neither does a country with an intact self-defense legislation have to take guns away because of the few who abuse them.

          Therefore, it is not a problem, because no other country has as many cars (guns) as we do. Sorry to break it to you (if I do, which I am not sure about), but a certain rate of accidents and deviations is just a normal side effect of having something in place that is essentially good.

          1. Well yes and no. No other country has as many guns per capita as the US, sure, but the problem is not simply proportional to the number of guns. If you take a look at a place like, say, Germany, their gun ownership rate is about 1/4th of ours, but the firearm death rate is far less than 1/4th of ours (12 vs. 1). So there is something else going on.

            1. Hey, where do you take “1/4th of ours” from, in terms of owning firearms? I would estimate it to be a fraction of that actually.

              However, as I am saying, we might have a problem with being hateful and violent, but in that context, using guns is only what people naturally do, because they are available as the most efficient instrument. Maybe we can agree that the guns are not really the core problem, but instead what people make of them. Because I believe that, if people have been made to be violent and hateful, it doesn’t matter what’s within reach (be it an AR-15 or a truck), they will use it to do harm. You can probably see I am not blaming it on the people either, but on a warped environment or culture that causes really strong emotions and also the outbursts that come with it

              I think that the 2nd amendment is worth protecting for the 99.99+% of people who know how to handle their freedoms, and that, if there is a deep seated problem within the society (and we are undeniably warped in a way, politically), of course the ones that attack will take whatever is there to weaponize.

            2. So its not the guns?

              1. Also lol Germany, because gun control didn’t have any casualties there

            3. Is anybody counting guns in the Middle East, the “Stans”, or down in South America?

        2. Suicidal people use guns to kill themselves (as I would), because they are a clean and efficient way to get there. Suicidal people would find other ways though.

          Yes, I acknowledge you said more legislation is not a way to solve this problem (thanks for that), and so I would like to know what your take actually is. We might have a hate and violence problem, because too many people are extreme, but they just use whats available anyways.

          I think we dont have a gun violence problem more than other countries have a “drive a car into tourist groups” problem (see German xmas market a few years ago).

          1. Those that are suicidal might find other ways to do it, but perhaps less effectively.

            I don’t think there is one solution, or one source to the problem. Poverty plays a role. Racial bias plays a role. Mental health plays a role. Stigmatization of mental health issues plays a role. All of these things play a role. If we just work generally to make the place a more humane and compassionate place, then people will be less likely to kill each other or themselves, and so that should be the goal.

            1. I am for making the place more compassionate and also more aware of what they are actually allowed to have and do, because being aware of your effect and importance as an individual is essential (though not everything) to feeling like you belong. If we have a country as free as the US (still pretty free, at least as of now) we can be sure that in areas where people feel really left behind (be it just a feeling or because they are) the violence spikes. And humans use whatever is there to fight each other.

              May sound extreme, but I think whoever is as suicidal as it takes to really “carry it out”, they will also go with the slightly less effective means.

              Similarly, if someone feels stigmatized, desperate, discriminated against, and ready to attack, I think in a constellation like that, having the option to have a gun is neutral. (I know, I am kinda single issue style protectin 2A right now, but that’s because of the article here)

              But what I am trying to say is that the civil liberty to bear firearms is not going to change the level of underlying frustration that leads to actual outbursts like the ones we saw. Trusting the bulk of adults with their means of civil self-protection is, if antything, going to positively affect the reality of those who feel left behind, because at least they will have the bare minimum of firepower to stand their ground against whoever wants to suppress them. Of course, in an actual event, that requires perfectly equal justice (court-wise). But I never opposed that in any way.

            2. You are making a classic endogeneity error. Gun control has not had the expected impact on suicide in the areas it has been enacted. A leading theory now is that areas and demographics with high gun ownership are also a common factor in suicides (makes sense, I think. Passes the sniff check). What are the common areas and demographics? Rural lower class single male. High suicide rates, high gun ownership.

              Otherwise we might say that Japan has a knife problem, because their suicide rate is twice that in the US despite extremely low gun ownership.

            3. CNN headline “In Japan, more people died from suicide last month than from Covid in all of 2020. And women have been impacted most ”

              Japan is the only G-7 country where suicide is the leading manner of death for young people aged 15 to 39. And suicides among those under 20 had been increasing even before the pandemic, according to health ministry.

              And virtually 0 of those suicides were using firearms, because of Japan’s gun controls. It begs the question then to call the USA 2/3 of gun deaths via suicide as a “gun violence” problem.

          2. “Yes, I acknowledge you said more legislation is not a way to solve this problem (thanks for that)”

            Depends on how broad the buy-in to the hypothetical more legislation is. As long as you have a substantial portion of the population more interested in obstructing the laws, the laws will be obstructed sufficiently to blunt any positive effects it might have had. But firearms enthusiasts continue to insist on seeing any kind of law that limits the availability of weapons to people who would misuse them as merely the first step of the “gun-grabbers” looking to come take their weapons, you’ll continue to get “gun control” legislation that is written without the meaningful input of the people with the most knowledge of the subject, which is likely to produce poor results.
            the single best way to cut down on mass shootings would be if the people who have weapons suitable for such shootings did not provide the weapons to people intent on committing mass shootings.

            1. “the single best way to cut down on mass shootings would be if the people who have weapons suitable for such shootings did not provide the weapons to people intent on committing mass shootings”

              As long as you are going to take up residence in Fantasyland, why not just say “the single best way to cut down on mass shootings would be if the people intent on committing mass shootings would realize that violence isn’t the answer”

              1. Fantasyland, where controlling access to plutonium has been 100% successful in limiting atomic weaponry, and where limiting access to conventional explosives has been very effective at limiting their use as weapons? That the one you want me to leave?

        3. It seems silly to me to say:

          “And you can’t just “exclude a handful of cities/counties” to wave away the problem.”

          When six cities account for more gun deaths than the rest of the country it is at least worth a look at why there is such a great difference. Especially since all these cities are run by dems and have much harsher gun laws than the rest of the country.

          While I agree that there is not a single solution in one sense in another sense maybe getting rid of the dems approach to criminal justice, social programs, and a WOKE culture would be something to consider.

          1. chemtard doesn’t want to confront the empirical fact that if it wasn’t for minority gangbangers, the gun violence problem in this country would be on par with the ones he’s comparing us to.

            And minority gangbangers aren’t exactly respectful of gun laws to begin with.

          2. Pay a bunch of people to live in murder holes, construct a payment cutoff which disincentivises productivity, pay them not to keep fathers in the picture, force their kids into shitty schools, hike up minimum wages which harms teen and low experience employment, fill the cities with cocaine, pump the people full of opiates, and then wage a prohibition war.

            1. Well, Chron … , sounds like the someone’s been reading the Democrat/Socialist/Communist/Anarchist playbook to me.

            2. I think that you are missing one very important factor. Those “denizens of the ghetto” live to gang bang. They love that life. They glorify it.
              Look up “The Study of Concentric Circles” that was done in Chicago. Every other immigrant group arrives in the ghetto and works their way out. The same group of people tend to stay and never leave.
              They tore down the projects in Chicago and moved the residents to the suburbs. Did they assimilate? No. They just moved operations and continue to act like “denizens of the ghetto”.

              1. Sounds a like you are making a point about race, but I’m not a witch hunter. I’ll assume you are making the argument that the culture of these neighborhoods is a primary crimenogenic factor, and that it is difficult to reform people if they have been raised to have these habits. I don’t disagree with that point. Once people are ~15yo they have formed most of their habits. Many people that were a problem in the ghetto and move out probably do continue to be a problem for the rest of their lives, though I’m sure many do reform (changing locality has shown to be highly successful in both criminal and addict reformation).

                I think past racial oppression led to blacks being dis-proportionally stuffed into ghettos. I doubt this is contentious. Prior to LBJ blacks had a higher employment rate than whites, and similar rates for intact families. After LBJs war on poverty we see a tremendous decrease in economic mobility and employment, and an increase in absent fathers (all of this is for both whites and blacks of population dense poor areas, though blacks hardest hit because they were already dis-proportionally represented in these neighborhoods). Crime rates soon rose in these neighborhoods. It is also worth noting that these areas not only produce negative outcomes for people who come up in them, but even when people leave they are replaced by people in a position and willing to move into these neighborhoods (they are paid to live there, to boot). For all of these reasons we see a unique crimenogenic culture evolve from these neighborhoods, one which is now being sensationalized and adopted across the nation (my theory is that in these areas social capability is at a premium. Rather than being productive and rich, you gain status the old fashioned way – by being cool. These cool people sometimes make successful entertainers who also bring with them, and market, the spectacle / culture we are discussing now).

                I think if you want to improve outcomes (including culture), you have to stop paying people to live in the horrible places where crimenogenic culture thrives. If we are to subsidize housing, it should be an open subsidy and not tied to murderholes. Families need to remain intact and they need to have schooling options – these things ensure that families can produce the best outcomes possible for their kids. And we need to axe the welfare cliff and minimum wage – crime is not very profitable for most people (average drug dealer makes like $9 an hour). If people are not incentivized to stifle their own productivity, we would see better outcomes overall. If we are to have welfare it should smoothly taper, maybe losing $0.60 for ever $1. This ensures that making more money through work always results in more money total, including welfare, than less.

                Politics are mostly downstream of culture, but I think culture and economics are pretty evenly entwined. Better economics makes for better culture.

                1. And BTW I mean the point about your intentions genuinely. I am assuming you were not making a racial point, and I am choosing not to assume or internalize that you were making a racial one. If you disclose that you were, then that changes the context of our discussion and I will be changing to a different set of arguments (I don’t think melanin is crimenogenic). Otherwise don’t feel any obligation to be defensive – like I said, I think your meaning was cultural and not racial

          3. ” Especially since all these cities are run by dems and have much harsher gun laws than the rest of the country.”

            The way you tell it, it’s almost like there isn’t any national group that opposes any restriction on gun possession, anywhere in the country.

            1. The group you are talking about is the Founding Fathers who codified no restrictions on guns in the Second Amendment.

              I have never seen anyone claim the Founding Fathers though there should be any restrictions on guns.

              1. The Founding Fathers of THIS country wrote a Constitution with no Second Amendments in it.

                1. Yes, and then immediately thought better of it. Realizing that although they had intended to create a federal government that was strictly limited in the powers as expressly listed in the main body, they realized that someday someone would come along and try to fuck shit up. So they wisely recognized that certain things–things they originally took for granted–needed to be codified to protect those very same things…in case anybody coming along later was unclear on how things were supposed to work.

                  [Unless you’re in some other country than the one I’m in].

                2. “I will now add what I do not like. First, the omission of a bill of rights, providing clearly, and without the aid of sophism, for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury, in all matters of fact triable by the law of the land, and not by the laws of nations.”
                  Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, 1787

            2. “The way you tell it, it’s almost like there isn’t any national group that opposes any restriction on gun possession, anywhere in the country.”

              The national group that Democrats hate? What’s that got to do with the price of tea in China?

              1. Not much effect on tea pricing, but lots of effects on trying to limit access to firearms to responsible adults.

                1. Let’s hear how you define “responsible adults”. Because it seems that in your mind that group of people would be exceedingly small or better, the empty set.

                  Kinda like how Democrats define “fair share”.

                  1. Specifically…many hoplophobes express the notion that one’s wanting to own a gun is prima facie evidence that one is not mentally stable enough to be allowed to own a gun.

        4. The US has a general homicide rate ~8x greater than Western Europe. (US homicide rate is ~6.1 per 100k, most of Western Europe is in the 0.6-0.8 per 100k range). So the US definitely has a violence problem relative to Europe. (And that doesn’t count differences in attempted homicides, which are probably large as well).

          The US also has vastly more guns per person in private hands than any other country in the world.

          Per your figure, all deaths from firearms have an ~4:1 ratio (US : Western Europe). Well, the US has *at least* a 4:1 advantage in guns in private hands. (Its ~120 per 100 persons in the US, vs. ~30 for the countries in europe with the most privately owned firearms. Finland leads that list). It would seem the difference in ubiquity of firearms would completely explain the difference in rates of gun deaths.

          What it doesn’t explain is the difference in homicide rates between the US and Europe. The difference there is *bigger* than the difference in gun ownership.

          And here’s another weird thing. Homicide rate in the US is ~6.1 per 100k, but gun homicide rate is 4.63 per 100k, a bit more than 2/3 of them. But if you look at a country like France, the homicide rate is 0.8 per 100k, but the gun homicide rate is only 0.3 (or closer to 1/3 of them). So, in France, because guns are less available, people who want to kill substitute other weapons instead. ie, there isn’t just a difference in gun homicides, but a difference in all homicides, and a difference in the ratio of gun homicides to all homicides between the US and countries in Western Europe.

          Bottom line: gun ownership doesn’t seem to explain the difference in rate of homicide. The problem is people, not the tools they have access to. For whatever reason, people in the US are more inclined to lethal violence.

          (Data i reference is variously from wikipedia or OurWorldinData, because of ease of reference).

  35. Could Sidney Powell succeed with a similar argument?

    I doubt it, because Larry Flynt never tried to convince a court of law that Jerry Falwell really did have sex with his mother. By contrast, Sidney Powell really did try to convince a court of law that Dominion voting machines were rigged by Venezuelans or whatever.

    1. Oops. wrong article!

  36. Congratulations, Jacob, on all of the hard work you did to put Biden in office having paid off so well.

    1. I know, right? If only he had sold his soul like so many “libertarians” here in the comments who voted for Trump.

      Senior Editor

      Who do you plan to vote for this year? Texas has stringent requirements for absentee ballots, notwithstanding COVID-19, so I may not vote at all. But assuming I do, the choice is obvious: Jo Jorgensen. Given the odds, voting is best viewed as an expressive activity rather than an attempt to influence the outcome, and I have no interest in expressing whatever horrifying message would be implied by a vote for Trump or Biden (although I am morbidly curious to see what a second term for Trump would mean).

      1. “Given the odds, voting is best viewed as an expressive activity rather than an attempt to influence the outcome”

        So how he actually voted isn’t really the hard work he’s referring to. But you already knew that, liar.

        1. I doubt Marianette Miller-Meeks or Rita Hart consider voting to merely be an “expressive activity.”

    2. Jacob’s objective reporting is of course hated by the more simian girl-bullying totalitarians. But these are the same geniuses who got women to vote en masse against God’s Own Prohibitionists. Surely nobody expects them to admit the blame!

  37. Don’t look for logic in the bullshit that lefturds toss out on gun-grabbing. Their purpose is to disarm the public to make resistance to the government impossible. Don’t argue with them, there’s no point. Just tell them to fuck right off because our right to self-defense is not negotiable.


    1. ” Their purpose is to disarm the public to make resistance to the government impossible.”

      Now make the argument that the January 6th insurrection was peaceful, in the sense that most of the participants were not openly armed.

      1. How about you fuck right off.

        1. No thank you. I prefer women.

  38. Stop voting for democrats.

      1. thats also not sarcasm btw

  39. “Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.” —Friedrich von Hayek

  40. So I guess Hello Kitty’s AR15 are ok ?
    It sure does not look like a military weapon.

  41. Gun Control is never about guns. It’s about control.

    When government disarms, then we can talk about disarming citizens. Until then, and until they start giving the same amount of press time to the lives saved by guns, there is nothing reasonable people need to talk about.

  42. Emergencies have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.” —Friedrich von

  43. Gun control doesn’t look as good when you remember…the whole 20th century? I’m always stunned when people point to Germany as an example of gun control working. That’s like minus 7 million points for gun control just in the first 20 years or so.

  44. The U.S. should not only ALLOW but ENCOURAGE law-abiding citizens to carry firearms. One might even consider it a civic duty, though DEFINITELY not mandatory.

    I’m old, but I can shoot straight.

  45. “After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.” ~ William S. Burroughs

    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.

    1. The first purpose of the 2A is to keep Congress from needing to keep a standing army. Oops.

      1. Retarded troll is retarded.

        1. Clever retort.

        2. Indeed you are.

      2. No, it’s to maintain a free state. Nowhere in the 2A does it mention the ability of congress to avoid needing a standing Army. There is zero mention of a standing Army whatsoever. Even if you want to bring up the tired old militia argument, there’s no claim that the founders wanted militias so they wouldn’t need a standing Army. That does not exist whatsoever in the amendment language. The only purpose for a militia is that it will be useful to maintain a state of freedom within the US.

        1. Absolutely and historically accurate! Mason, often called the father of the Bill of Rights, both stated so and excluded those in government, including a standing army.

          “That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State…
          Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country…? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers.~ George Mason

          ~ George Mason

        2. If you remember that there are parts of the Constitution that AREN’T the second amendment, you can find the Founders actually trying to ensure that there was no standing army. Then there’s that whole first section of the 2A, which explains why the 2A was added.

          1. I’ve actually read the constitution and BOR. Face the fact that nowhere in the 2A is anything you just claimed mentioned. I just explained the entirety of that first section of 2A which describes maintaining the security of a free state. No mention of standing Army. 2A is for a free state. No ifs, ands or buts.

      3. Close. It was to prevent Congress from forming a standing army and using it against the people.

        What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. …Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

        –Elbridge Gerry, Fifth Vice President of the United States

        Virginia’s Bill of Rights said “that a well‐​regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in times of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases military power should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.”

        “A standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen.”
        James Madison, Debates, Virginia Convention, 1787

        “Standing armies are dangerous to liberty.”
        Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, 1787

        “None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army.”
        Thomas Jefferson

        “Always remember that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics—that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe.”
        James Madison, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1809

      4. “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty…The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

        James Madison

        Altho’ a large standing Army in time of Peace hath ever been considered dangerous to the liberties of a Country, yet a few Troops, under certain circumstances, are not only safe, but indispensably necessary. Fortunately for us our relative situation requires but few. The same circumstances which so effectually retarded, and in the end conspired to defeat the attempts of Britain to subdue us, will now powerfully tend to render us secure…But, if our danger from those powers was more imminent, yet we are too poor to maintain a standing Army adequate to our defence, and was our Country more populous & rich, still it could not be done without great oppression of the people.

        George Washington

        Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

        James Madison

        A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.

        Richard Henry Lee: Senator, First Congress

        A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves. They include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike how to use them.

        Thomas Jefferson

        Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

        Elbridge Gerry

      5. That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided.

        George Mason: Draft proposal, 3 Elliot, Debates at 659.

        The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.

        James Madison: I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

        I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.

        George Mason: Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

        Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.

        George Mason: Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1788

        It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the
        protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal
        services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official
        exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform
        Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called
        forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.

        George Washington: letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783)

  46. States that allow concealed carry are safer, and the legal heat packers VERY seldom commit crimes. Here’s my article in this, using Texas as an example. A little outdated, but the experience has not changed.

    1. Simply and absolutely not true, tainted reference notwithstanding.

    2. “States that allow concealed carry are safer, and the legal heat packers VERY seldom commit crimes.”

      Safer than what?

      Like a lot of other people, I think that people who can behave like responsible adults should be able to own and possess the weaponry that they can afford and makes them happier. I don’t reflexively want to extend that power to people who do NOT behave like responsible adults, however. I see it as analogous to driving a car. The state licenses drivers by requiring them to pass a test on roadway law and a practical driving test, and places more restrictions on driving some vehicles. They also require insurance to protect people who are harmed by negligent drivers. They also keep records of which cars are associated to which operators (and some states require periodic inspections of them, to ensure that they are maintained well.)

      1. Courts have always held that driving is a privilege not a right.

      2. So, using your ‘logic’, people who can behave like responsible adults should be the only ones allowed to have freedom of speech (another freedom guaranteed by the Constitution). What if some people (perhaps the previous administration) believes that your speech is not responsible, should you lose the right to post your opinion?

        1. Were you trying to make an argument?
          because you’re babbling. I’m guessing you thought you were making a point. Well, maybe next time.

  47. Of course, it’s hard to “see” something when eyes are shut and the brains are switched to “off.” During the 10 year span when the AWB was in place mass shootings dramatically dropped and then began spiking in number and lethality as soon as it expired. Gun worship is as dangerous as any other religious fanaticism.

    1. Long guns of any description account for a very small percentage of overall homicides, even during the pendency of the Assault Weapons ban. Whose eyes are closed?

      1. Most homicides are performed without any firearms at all. Thing is ready availability makes it easier to kill and easier to kill large numbers of people. The 9-11 terrorists and the Oklahoma City terrorists found other ways to achieve their goals. But airplanes-as-weapons incidents have remained rare, and so have truck bombings, whereas mass shootings are quite common.

    2. It was a ban on sales, the guns didn’t magically cease to exist, then reappear.

  48. Why do we, the people, have a Bill of Rights in general and a Second Amendment specifically protecting our “Natural Right” to keep and bear arms within it? Let us inquire into the matter by assessing the opinions of some of those who may have had some insight into this question. Let us consider them “Expert Witnesses”.

    The Founders on “Arms”:

    “A free people ought to be armed.” – George Washington

    “The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” -Thomas Jefferson

    “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they 
should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of 
independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would 
include their own government.” – George Washington

    “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject”. ~John Adams

    “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature.
They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to 
commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and 
better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to 
prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater 
confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

    “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 your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” – Thomas Jefferson

    “I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.” – Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

    “Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.” – John Adams

    “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason

    “I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.” – George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.” – Noah Webster

    “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster

    “A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace.” – James Madison

    “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” – James Madison

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” – James Madison

    “The ultimate authority resides in the people alone.” – James Madison

    “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt

    “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee

    “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves … and include all men capable of bearing arms.”- Richard Henry Lee

    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry

    “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – St. George Tucker

    “… arms … discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property…. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them.” – Thomas Paine

    “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams

    “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story

    “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

    ” … for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”- Alexander Hamilton

    “…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
    -Samuel Adams

    Addendum: Feel free to copy and paste this if you so find the need. It is of great disappointment to me that, today, so few of our fellow Americans have ever been taught, let alone be curious enough on their own, to look up the thoughts, ideas and founding principles of our founders, to study and understand the times in which they lived and just how “Radical” their intent to bring liberty to all the people in their newly founded nation was, given the times and the past history of the world. (Of course, they had to “Compromise” with the South in order to get the Constitution ratified, but with the clear intent that slavery would become a thing of the past and not exist in perpetuity.) That’s not taught today either.

    1. The Founders ratified the original Constitution with no second amendment.

      1. It was a precondition to ratification, as were the entirety of the bill of rights:

        “However, other states, especially Massachusetts, opposed the document, as it failed to reserve undelegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. In February 1788, a compromise was reached under which Massachusetts and other states would agree to ratify the document with the assurance that amendments would be immediately proposed. The Constitution was thus narrowly ratified in Massachusetts, followed by Maryland and South Carolina. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document, and it was subsequently agreed that government under the U.S. Constitution would begin on March 4, 1789. In June, Virginia ratified the Constitution, followed by New York in July.”

      2. The Second and the rest of the BoR were just an extension of Mason’s Virginia BoR to the rest of the states, thus it dates from 1776 along with the Declaration – well before the Constitution.

        “Influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the Bill of Rights was also drawn from Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, drafted by George Mason in 1776. Mason, a native Virginian, was a lifelong champion of individual liberties, and in 1787 he attended the Constitutional Convention and criticized the final document for lacking constitutional protection of basic political rights. In the ratification struggle that followed, Mason and other critics agreed to support the Constitution in exchange for the assurance that amendments would be passed immediately.”

        Under the Articles of Confederation the federal government was so properly limited that the state constitutions, which contain(ed) RKBA protections, were the governing documents.

        A few examples of the then 13:

        Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.~ Connecticut Constitution

        Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms; and this right shall never be questioned.~ Maine Constitution

        The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. And as, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the Legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the Civil authority, and be governed by it.~ Massachusetts Constitution

        All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.~ New Hampshire Constitution

      3. Many believe that some unalienable rights were so obvious they needed not be enumerated. Some knew there would be those in government now that disagree with individual rights to liberty.

      4. Not only was the Bill of Rights a precondition but the federalist papers and the language of the Bill of Rights itself make clear that the right to bear arms does not originate from the constitution but is inherent. The language of 2A does not give the right to bear arms, it states that such right shall not be infringed, implying the right had already existed prior to any legal language on the matter.

        1. True! Also, true of all of the explicitly and implicitly warrantied rights of the Bill of Rights. Preexisting rights, including these, were acknowledged by all of the founding documents by their warranties of many negative rights ranting positive rather than granting positive rights. What government mustn’t infringe always being the key defense of liberty.

  49. “It is hard to see how an “assault weapon” ban or expanded background checks could have prevented this attack.”

    Doesn’t really matter. The question is, or should be, will it stop any future attacks? No law prevents anything that happened before the law was passed. That’s the nature of time.

    1. Of course it matters, if the shooting is being used to justify the need for the new gun control law. It also matters because it is evidence the law is pointless if it couldn’t even stop the incidents people are complaining about. Take high-capacity magazine bans for instance; Colorado outlawed those several years ago. I think it is clear that was a pointless law that did nothing to prevent mass shootings.

      1. If (a big if) a new law will effectively reduce future events, then it’s worth doing because it will effectively reduce future events, whether or not it will reduce prior events, which it will not. Categorically.

        If you want to prevent past crimes, first you need to develop an effective time machine.

  50. Only evil Republicans could oppose Commonsense Gun Control™

    1. That is like saying only law abiding citizens oppose gun control. Criminals really have no opinion because they don’t follow laws. At least strict common sense gun laws will keep people that would never shoot others from shooting others.

      1. ” Criminals really have no opinion because they don’t follow laws.”

        Of course, they do sometimes interact with some people who do. Do you know why counterfeiters don’t just use color-copy machines to print counterfeit money? It’s because the color-copy machines have technology built into them to prevent making color copies of money. That technology is put into the machines by people who DO follow laws.

  51. Has it not occurred to anyone in the government to just make it illegal to kill people regardless of what equipment is used?

    Debating on whether or not to ban a particular model of gun in the name of stopping killings seems like beating around the bush compared to just a blanket prohibition on the killing part of the scenario…

    1. “Has it not occurred to anyone in the government to just make it illegal to kill people regardless of what equipment is used?”

      Next you’ll fight identity theft by making fraud illegal.

      The real trick is to make it so that even if someone has motive to commit a crime, either the means or the opportunity are interrupted. So, for example, when the 9-11 terrorists showed us that there was a means and an opportunity to commit terrorism using passenger airlines, we didn’t just make it illegal to commit terrorism by airliner, we also put locks on the cockpit doors.

      1. But it’s the physical locks which interrupt the opportunity, not the government action (which benefits from the airlines having an overwhelming self-interest in compliance as well as an interest in having the locks even in the absense of a requirement) requiring the locks.

        A law that has a low level of compliance (such as a prohibition on the manufacture/sale of alcohol, or drugs, or assault weapons) does little to nothing to interrupt the means or opportunity for a mass shooter; doubly so considering that most mass shooters don’t use “assault weapons” and those who do would be just as easily able to use whatever else is available (kind of like how the hijackers on 9/11/01 specifically chose only weapons that were allowed under FAA/Airline security rules at that time).

        The thing that people should maybe be far more worried about is the kind of damage that would be done by people looking to commit mass murder without the use of a firearm. Two of the most deadly attacks in U.S. history were carried out without the use of any firearms, and at least one “mass shooting” incident, and the Boston Marathon bombing could very easily have reached similar numbers if the detonation had happened at a moment when more people were around that area.

        1. “But it’s the physical locks which interrupt the opportunity, not the government action (which benefits from the airlines having an overwhelming self-interest in compliance as well as an interest in having the locks even in the absense of a requirement) requiring the locks.”

          retrofitting locks to a door that was never intended to be a physical barrier to entry wasn’t cheap. Maybe the airlines would have paid it anyway, if insurance wouldn’t cover airliners lost to terrorists.

          “A law that has a low level of compliance (such as a prohibition on the manufacture/sale of alcohol, or drugs, or assault weapons) does little to nothing to interrupt the means or opportunity for a mass shooter; doubly so considering that most mass shooters don’t use “assault weapons” and those who do would be just as easily able to use whatever else is available”

          Odd that you think prohibition on the manufacture of machine guns has low compliance. Millions of Americans refrain from manufacturing machine guns every day. Only a relative handful do the manufacturing. “They’ll just find someone else to sell them a weapon” is true in the current environment, when anybody can sell almost any weapon. Let the seller of a weapon carry strict liability for what the buyer does with it and see if it’s still so easy to buy a weapon to commit a crime.

          “The thing that people should maybe be far more worried about is the kind of damage that would be done by people looking to commit mass murder without the use of a firearm. ”

          Yes, a bit of work can turn all kinds of things into deadly weaponry. But the nutcases tend to go for firearms, because of ease-of-use. The gang boys can work out how to do a drive by in an afternoon. The 9-11 terrorists had to spent months in flight school. They had a hatred that burned bright enough to carry them through the long days. Had any of them had second thoughts, the conspiracy could have broken with zero casualties. Compare to the Portland Christmas-tree (would-be) bomber. In that case, he talked about his plans around the mosque and somebody told the FBI. They set him up with a fake bomb. so when he pushed the trigger button, nothing exploded into fire and ruin. When our guys were running into improvised land mines in Iraq, interrupting the supply of explosives would have been welcomed by our guys. They had the same problem in Vietnam, improvised landmines are a bitch.

  52. Democrats seem to always deny wanting to grab your guns at first, but after a few years in office change their tune. Clinton, Obama, Biden, Senator Gillibrand in my state. Has there ever been one that was consistently pro-second amendment?

    1. Let’s try to clear that up for you. What they want is to take the guns away from irresponsible people while leaving the responsible people alone. Once you flip from the one category to the other category, their interest in your choice of weaponry changes with it.

  53. We know strict gun laws work. Just take Chicago for example………….
    Why do areas with strict gun laws have more shootings and murders then areas with very lax gun laws? If you were going to shoot some people would you pick a place where half the people conceal carry or where they don’t? That seems like common sense.

    1. You might have cause and effect backwards. They have strict gun laws because of all the murders, not murders because of all the strict gun laws.

      If the bad guy shoots you before you know he’s a bad guy, you’re still dead but now the bad guy can use your weapon, too.

      1. What we have is cause and no effect. All those strict guns laws and nothing to show for them, what with all the gun murders still happening.

        1. It’s almost like you only have to drive a little way out of the city to buy a gun without running into any of the city’s gun laws.

          1. Wonder why the murders are not as high outside the city if guns are so plentiful there? Wonder why people in the city who know its against he law for them to have those guns go out and buy them anyway then illegally import them into the city?

            1. “Wonder why the murders are not as high outside the city if guns are so plentiful there?”

              Murders require people to be murdered. Most of the people live and work in the city.

  54. “But the “military-style” features targeted by such measures have little or nothing to do with a gun’s deadliness in the hands of a mass shooter.”

    Trauma surgeons who work on gunshot wounds say otherwise. A high muzzle velocity bullet is much more deadly. With a low caliber hand gun this man might well have wounded 5-6 people without a fatality. A similar nut case in China attacked children at a school; he had only a knife; he wounded about twenty, but there were no fatalities.

    Give every law abiding adult the modern equivalent of the Revolutionary War Charleville Musket. Two shots per minute and a maximum range of around 50 yards. With that kind of weapon, I’ll bet this guy would not have been able to kill anyone.

    Of course the features of the weapon make a difference.

    1. If you were going to be shot at close range and had a choice, would you choose an AR 15 or a 12 gauge shotgun with 00 buckshot?

      1. I’d prefer not to be shot with any weapon, thanks. That’s kinda the point.

    2. “Trauma surgeons who work on gunshot wounds say otherwise. A high muzzle velocity bullet is much more deadly. With a low caliber hand gun this man might well have wounded 5-6 people without a fatality.”

      Not a single one of the features that draws the designation of “assault weapon” under pretty much any version of U.S. Laws (past, present, or proposed) has any effect on the caliber, shape, expansion, muzzle velocity, or kinetic energy of the bullets that come out of it. If the current proposed bill from Feinstein is anything like her previous versions (or the CA state law that it’s probably based on), there are multiple models of rifle which are either considered to be “featureless” or are specifically exempted in the language of the bill but have identical ballistic performance (ammunition type/caliber, rate of fire, muzzle velocity/energy) to any version of the AR15 which the law would seek to “ban” (meaning to not allow the sale of any more new ones to add to the 20+ million such rifles which are already in civilian hands in the U.S.). The M1A is a far more deadly rifle than the AR-15, and fires a much more powerful round, but is virtually never covered by any proposed “common sense” regulation on assault weapons because it has a traditional shoulder stock and no “pistol grip”.

      There have been several high-profile, high-fatality incidents in which the shooters used nothing by “low caliber” handguns. When gang-related and murder/suicide incidents are included in the counts (usually only done when the intent is to show a high frequency of “mass shootings”), the vast majority involve only handguns. It only shakes out to show that most incidents are a “white male with an AR-15” when multiple other categories of violent crime are deliberately excluded; there’s a reason that the charts showing that “assault weapons” are the chosen tool of mass shooters have to span 20+ years to come up with the 30 or so incidents which are frequently cited (all the way back to Columbine HS, which happened while the last Federal bans on “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines were still in force).

      1. “There have been several high-profile, high-fatality incidents in which the shooters used nothing by “low caliber” handguns.”

        One important characteristic is just how many projectiles are delivered downrange. More of them tends to correlate with more and more deadly injuries to the victims. There are a couple of different ways to achieve a high rate of fire. One way is to have multiple sources, popular in drive-by shootings as carried out by urban gangs. This requires higher manpower and thus not popular with solitary shooters. Another source of a high rate of fire is automatic weaponry… these weapons are harder (not impossible) to get or make. Another factor that affects this is having to stop shooting and reload. You can reduce reloads by getting one of those Hollywood “six shooters” that can fire seven or more rounds without reloading. Or you can choose a weapon that holds more bullets in the first place. Or you can choose your attack to give you opportunity to reload.

        1. Check out the youtube videos of people doing “tactical reloads” with 10-round magazines sometime. The highly trained pros can run through 3 10-round magazines in less than 2 seconds longer than it takes to empty a single 30-round magazine, and the people who are introduced as inexperienced shooters take maybe 2 seconds longer than that. The idea that random strangers without coordination could reach/overwhelm an active shooter during one of those reloading pauses is a pretty “hollywood” idea as well; a trained military/swat/HRT operator might be able to time it out but most unprepared people will be so overwhelmed with adrenaline that even counting shots to predict an interval would be extremely challenging.

          The third option is to do what the VA Tech shooter did and have multiple guns and draw a new one rather than reloading at some point.

          Reload times are longer for revolvers, but there are speed-loaders available for pretty much any model of 38cal or 357 magnum (generally they’re less expensive than Glock magazines and can be bought on Amazon). Bigger bore revolvers (44Cassul/460Mag/500Mag which are actually much more powerful than 223 rifle rounds) have a smaller potential market and the speed loaders for those are harder to find and more expensive but they exist, 44 magnum probably falls somewhere in between.

          1. ” The idea that random strangers without coordination could reach/overwhelm an active shooter during one of those reloading pauses is a pretty “hollywood” idea as well”

            That’s how a school shooter in Oregon got persuaded to stop shooting people. They hit him when he had to stop shooting to reload.

    3. The shooter used a low caliber pistol. A Ruger AR 556 fires a .223 cal. round. At least one of the victims he stood over and shot multiple times. A .22 cal. handgun would have been sufficient.

      1. “At least one of the victims he stood over and shot multiple times. A .22 cal. handgun would have been sufficient.”

        If you can stand over the victim and strike over and over, a brick would have been sufficient.

      2. The AR556 is built on the same receiver (the part which the ATF defines as being the “firearm”) as an AR-15 rifle, and while the 223 caliber bullets it fires aren’t much bigger than the projectile from a 22LR round, they’re being driven by a hell of a lot more powder, and moving a lot faster (especially if he used 556 NATO ammunition rather than 223 Rem).

        If you have the luxury of a fully vulnerable and stationary target, a 22LR can deliver a fatal wound, but there’s a reason that nobody seriously considers using that caliber as a defensive weapon.

        In a situation like what’s being described, it’s not clear that a 9mm or 40cal pistol (or two) loaded with +P hollow point ammunition (similar to what’s generally advisable for home defense) would have been any less deadly than the weapon that was used, though.

        1. In USAF Basic Military Training, we used M-16s that were modified to use .22 ammunition. All the targets were 10 meters away. A passing score was 0 hits with 40 rounds. I missed the sharpshooter’s medal because I got cheated. My target had 57 hits. The guy next to me scored a 0 because he’d misadjusted his sights. In AF training, you get an afternoon of rifle instruction in a classroom, then the next morning you go to the range. You fire 40 rounds, 10 each from standing, kneeling, sitting, and prone. All you have to do to pass is deliver all 40 rounds downrange without violating any of the range safety rules. Specifically, do not reach over the firing line for any reason while the range is hot, particularly not to collect brass. They collect brass after the trainees are back in the barracks. I saw one guy get caught reaching over the firing line to collect brass, and so did the range marshals. You go back to day 1 of basic training for violating range safety rules. Then they take the rifles away and never give them back. Then, depending on your MOS, you get sent to a different base for technical training, and in my case, then got to start learning how to take care of the cool guns. (M61A1, GAU8)

    4. The .223 Remington aka 5.56 NATO is so under-powered that almost all fish and game agencies ban it for hunting medium and big game in rifles. It appears that a handgun version was used, even less powerful – velocity is dependent on barrel length. Most hunters consider it a target toy or closer range small pest control round in a rifle. The pistols, as combos of every pointless feature, must be an artifact of gaming and movies intruding into real life.

      1. Big game tend to have thicker hides (to the point that we actually wear many of them as a degree of protection in many situations) than humans, and enough body mass to handle the KE of a smaller bore rifle round.

        Many areas require hunting with rifles firing a 0.300 or greater caliber bullet; technically a 38 special round or 380 ACP round would meet that criteria, but it doesn’t make them suitable for deer hunting, even the higher powered 9×19 or 40SW handgun rounds don’t make the cut (a 357 magnum from a Henry repeater might qualify in some places, but even that is far less powerful than something like 30-06 or 308 Winchester)

        1. And yet some people come home with a deer despite setting out with just a bow and some arrows.

  55. I’m willing to bet that Representative Omar will make a statement that Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa was exercising his First Amendment-protected religious right to protest against the Great Satan. The other shoppers were all legally disarmed thanks to the Kristallnacht laws that made it so convenient to murder gunless Boulderites. I lived in Boulder and worked at the Golem Press. What I see is exactly what most of the locals voted for–the initiation of force against the unarmed. What the attraction is is hard to fathom.

  56. Mark Glaze, former director of Bloomberg’s “Everytown” anti-gun group, in a fit of honesty:
    “Is it a messaging problem when a mass shooting happens and nothing that we have to offer would have stopped that mass shooting? Sure it’s a challenge in this issue.”

    1. If only we had some magic tool that we could point at people, and if they would ever in their life decide to become a mass shooter, a red exclamation point would appear over their head. Then we could take that guy’s weapons, and leave everyone else’s alone.

  57. In the movie “I robot” with Will Smith, John blows away an evil robot or two with a shotgun. Now THAT is an assault weapon!

    1. In the movie “The Terminator” with Arnold Schwarzeneggar, the evil robot tries to buy a plasma rifle with “40 Watt range”. That’s an assault weapon.

  58. When the Founders gave us the right to bear arms, the typical gun was something along the lines of the Charleville Musket; Two shots per minute, range about 50 yards. If that is all we could have, you could still kill people, but it would be much harder. My guess is that if someone had given the Boulder shooter one of those, he would have maybe wounded a couple of people. A guy in China went on a rampage in a school, but all he had was a knife; he wounded about 18 children, but no fatalities. Thing is, the Constitution also gives the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that trumps the right to bear arms; If stupid, ineffectual, and overly bureaucratic gun restrictions save even one life, they are worth it.

    1. You meant the Declaration of Independence. What government gives is PROTECTIONS of our Rights that are given by our/your creator. Rights they recognize are given to all human beings. Plus the Framers were all intelligent and would not be amazed at any inventions as they had access to history books and new technologies in their own time. None of them though of gunpowder as something new and magical, they knew when it was invented. They also had to dodge the arrows that Indians hired by the British launched at them. They did not laugh at stone age weapons and even colonists attacked soldiers with stones prior to 1776 look it up. Hell, the rifles were the only thing not stone age Indians used against the 7th cavalry and they did not build any of them.
      Ever see a musket with more than 2 or 3 or 4 barrels?

      1. ” What government gives is PROTECTIONS of our Rights that are given by our/your creator.”

        The right to be naked, and sit in your own filth? Or the right to wail when you don’t get what you want?

    2. By that logic, it is even more imperative to ban alcohol, vehicles of all types (including bicycles), knives, ladders, skis, dogs, etc., etc. If it saves even one life, it’s worth it.

    3. You miss the entire point of the 2nd Amendment. The “typical” gun at the time was the same weapon available to both citizens and military. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government from terrorizing the citizenry. Thus, as the weapons available to the military become more sophisticated, those available to the citizenry must also, if the 2nd Amendment is to have any value.

      Granted the military will always be better equipped, but that does not justify forcing the citizens to be ever more vulnerable. The Revolutionary War and Vietnam proved that a better equipped military does not ensure victory over citizens defending their homeland.

  59. If the man had walked into the store located in The People’s Republic of Boulder (as us old timers in Colorado call it) and proceeded to light a Marlboro those shoppers would have torn him limb from limb.

  60. Obviously, bans work great. Look at how the bans on alcohol and drugs completely eliminated their use. So glad we have such intelligent anti-gun crusaders who can actually learn from history and correctly apply it to current situations. They will keep us all safe from gun violence. Hopefully, they will continue the weapons bans to include knives, hammers, baseball bats, hands/fists, ropes/garottes, fertilizer for bombs, etc. Then we can all live in peace and harmony forever. Utopia is nearly here.

  61. If vote by mail is safe (because mailed ballots are only supposed to be mailed to, and mailed from, a non-prohibited person), then it’s also safe to have a firearm shipped to the same address a mailed ballot.

    One’s legal, and the other isn’t; either both are safe, or neither is safe.

    Democrats are Malignant cancerous cells that seek to outnumber, overtake and overwhelm the healthy cells of our freedoms, money and children. (Since Democrats now capitalize “black,” I now capitalize “Malignant” and “Malignants.”)

    Mass shootings are yet another consequence of majorities of the voters of Biden and Harris.
    In Boulder County (where the city of Boulder is located), since 2004, the Democrat nominee for U.S. President has received a minimum of 66% of the vote; Biden got 77% last year. In the county, there are 96,319 active registered Democrats, and 36,302 active registered Republicans.
    The mayor, and all eight council members of the city of Boulder, are
    “nonpartisan,” but the Rorschach Test of the Homo sapiens species—social
    media—revealed that all are Democrats. On their social media, here’s what I
    Comparing the hunting and killing of prairie dogs to the Holocaust;
    Obama alum;
    A pronouns obsessive;
    Gay pride;
    And, last but not least: wear a mask, mentioned two trillion times.
    The suspect’s name was one of the last bits of information I acquired; I thought: uh-oh, we better soon figure out how to make a guy named Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa a lily-white militia member, with a secret manifesto about the Lost Cause of the Confederacy that’s read at the local Aryan Nations cross-burning book club.
    Atlanta, site of the massage parlor shootings a few weeks ago, has elected only Democrat mayors for nearly 52,000 consecutive days; its 16-member city council is “nonpartisan,” but online searches and public statements strongly suggest that they’re all Democrats. Atlanta is the county seat of Fulton; Georgia does not register voters by party. The Democrat nominee for President has won the county every election since 1976; the margin of victory this past November was 46 percent.
    All Democrat majorities are malignant—no exceptions.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.