MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

First Report on Oregon Shooter's Guns: Legally Obtained

Obama's talk of common-sense gun safety laws don't seem to apply to this tragedy.

As I wrote yesterday, President Obama swiftly reacted to yesterday's horrific mass murder in Oregon with a sad, frustrated certainty that (unnamed and undetailed) common sense gun safety laws could have prevented this, and could prevent future tragedies like this.

First report via USA Today about the guns that the killer used and owned:

Authorities confiscated 13 weapons associated with the shooter, six at the sight of the killings and seven at his apartment, Celinez Nunez, assistant agent in charge at Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told reporters Friday. Nunez said all the weapons had been purchased legally by the shooter or members of is family.

Thus, as usual, no laws other than "all guns will disappear from within our borders" or "people who in the future commit a horrible crime with their guns are legally barred from buying one"—both problematic for various reasons—would have had any effect on the killer's ability to obtain the weapons he used to commit the crime. It bears, sadly, repeating that the enormous staggering overwhelming majority of gun owners never commit such crimes with them.

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

  • Swiss Servator||

    I am sure the press will be all over following up on this with the Emoter in Chief, yes?

  • Restoras||

    That and that the shooter was targeting those evil Christians...wait, wouldn't that be a good thing?

  • JWatts||

    Yeah, I'm surprised that's not getting more airplay. Or is there some doubt that it actually happened?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    I heard a short report on NPR on the incident while driving.

    They stated that the shooter had reportedly asked people about their religion.

    The NPR story made no mention of the shooter targeting Christians.

    Which, considering NPR, is an indicator that he most likely was doing exactly that.

  • JWatts||

    This is what was reported by The Washington Post:

    "In one classroom, he appeared to single out Christian students for killing, according to witness Anastasia Boylan.

    “He said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you’re going to see God in just about one second,'” Boylan’s father, Stacy, told CNN, relaying his daughter’s account while she underwent surgery to treat a gunshot to her spine.

    “And then he shot and killed them.”

    Another account came from Autumn Vicari, who described to NBC News what her brother J.J. witnessed in the room where the shootings occurred. According to NBC: “Vicari said at one point the shooter told people to stand up before asking whether they were Christian or not. Vicari’s brother told her that anyone who responded ‘yes’ was shot in the head. If they said ‘other’ or didn’t answer, they were shot elsewhere in the body, usually the leg.”"

  • Granny Weatherwax||

    Well, there you have it. He was thoughtfully making sure that only people who believed they were going to heaven were killed.
    /sarc

  • Hank Phillips||

    We don't call it National Socialist Radio for nothing...

  • Hank Phillips||

    I have trouble keeping up with "ethnic and factional" disputes. Was this berserker a Mohammedan or a Fellow Christian?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    He was a Republican, if the Irish Army fanboy variety.

  • MetalBard||

    I signed in to say exactly this.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Feelings are greater than facts.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    They are certainly more pertinent to most arguments!

  • Tony||

    Libertarians wouldn't know a fact if it slapped them in the fucking face.

    A chart.

    Now mumble something about freedom and stuff and go on pretending your politics isn't entirely about feelings.

  • commodious spittoon||

    Which of the laws in those states would have prevented these murders?

    Or are we just going to handwave about "common-sense gun control" and pretend that doesn't mean what it obviously means?

  • Tony||

    As long as we're pretending that you haven't had your every opinion on this matter delivered to you in a pretty box by the NRA.

  • commodious spittoon||

    Handwaving it is.

  • Hyperbolical (wadair)||

    I agree with spittoon and I have no earthly idea what the NRA talking points are. Funny that.

    You seem a bit tense, Tony. Could it be that you're having a difficult time making a rational argument for gun control when so-called common sense gun control would have had no effect in this case? Or is it because your projection of emotionality onto others is falling flat?

  • ||

    ^ This.

    I know very little about the NRA, do not own a gun, never have, and have only fired a (loaned) gun once in my life. It didn't appeal to me.

    Yet, I am against gun control too.

    In short: another Tony fail.

  • Tony||

    If you knew where the dumbass talking points came from you might be a mite skeptical about them. That's why ignorant sheep are useful to the NRA.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Looters are pissed because NRA lawyers helped reinforce the point that arms limitation and Test Ban treaties violated the Second Amendment--this in the middle of the hydrogen-bomb-packing Soviets using these tools to derail the Strategic Defense Initiative.

  • Rufus J. Fisk||

    When the govt puts down all of ITS guns then MAYBE i will do the same. We all know guns in their hands have a much better track record than the ones of citizens. Sarcasm insert

  • Hank Phillips||

    What was the expression? Ah, "going postal!"

  • kbolino||

    If it weren't for parroted talking points, all that would be left of your comments would be your self-loathing narcissism and thinly veiled racism. Rejoice that you can appear to make comments of substance despite having repeatedly admitted that you are ignorant about every subject you ever comment on.

  • Craig@USA||

    I support the Second Amendment. I don't have my opinions delivered to me by the NRA. In fact, you might be surprised how unpopular the NRA is in some pro-2nd Amendment circles. Not because they're too extreme but because they are too soft and don't always fight effectively. GOA (no compromise) and SAF (see you in court) would be much more in line with my beliefs than the NRA. If you research state-level organizations, it will be even more eye opening.

  • Careless||

    Any chart that puts North fucking Dakota higher than Maryland is complete bullshit, and you should be ashamed of being that gullible.

  • DaveSs||

    He's not gullible.
    He knows damn well that this chart includes suicides and accidents, which is necessary to make the very safe states of the upper midwest, and mountain west look like the least safe states.

  • Chip Woodier||

    Suicides in N Dakota? OK, that sounds reasonable.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Actually the majority of all gun deaths are suicides.

    And, since each of us owns ourselves, suicide is not actually a real crime.

    If someone wants to end their own life for whatever reason, they have an absolute individual right to do so.

  • Zaytsev||

    Somewhere north of 80% of all gun deaths in America are suicides and less than 10% are criminal homicide (with the balance being accidents and legal uses of lethal force). The US suicide rate is middle of the pack for the entire world, similiar to Canada and lower that socialist paradises like Sweden.

    You have to parse every fucking thing that the hoplophobes say about guns. Doing so you'll notice that they begin talking about crime and then shift to gun violence (or somesuch) which includes the the much larger categories listed above. But they always do it in a way that implies that gun violence is equivalent to criminality when it explicitly is not.

  • Tony||

    Suicides and accidents absolutely should not be excluded from a meaningful discussion about gun deaths with respect to gun availability. It's absurd to think otherwise.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    Thinking that restricting the availability of guns has fuckall to do with the suicide rate is the very definition of magical thinking. Japan, for instance, has a much higher suicide rate than the US and extremely strict gun control. This is true for dozens of other countries. It's simply too easy to take you're own life if you really feel like it, as there are many, many alternatives (one of the most popular ways to off yourself in Japan is to jump in front of a train).

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    What in the holy living fuck??? If suicides and accidents shouldn't be excluded then be sure you include police shootings. Unless the chart you linked from Slate just might--might--selectively cherry-pick data to support the author's preconceptions.

  • Zaytsev||

    They do include that, as well as defensive uses of guns by victims of crime.

    They're completely disingenuous shits.

  • LarryA||

    The chart represents "gun deaths." That includes about 2/3 gun suicides, about 1/3 gun homicides (which includes law enforcement and justified shootings), and a few accidents.

    It does not include suicides or homicides by any other means, which would make the chart say the wrong thing for gun control purposes.

    And no. Tony isn't gullible at all.

  • Careless||

    FFS, the highest rate on that chart is Wyoming, which is below average in reality.

  • Brian||

    The chart refers to a "gun death rank." What is a gun death rank? Is it gun murders per capita? A total count of homicides and suicides?

    You'd have to know that in order to interpret the data in a meaningful way. So, what did you take it to mean?

    Or am I just being too "feely" by trying to actually understand your citation?

  • Brian||

    For example, California has a higher gun murder rate than Alabama, measuring gun murders per capita, according to Wikipedia. But, apparently, California has a better "gun death rate", much better, according to the Slate chart. What does that mean, then?

    Do you know? If you don't, does it bother you not to know?

    Or do you just hand wave about "feels" and move on, not even understanding your own data, but satisfied that you saw a chart that must confirm your own biases, whatever the hell its actually showing?

  • Tony||

    How is murder distinct from suicides in terms of outcomes? Sure, you're all idiots obsessed with human agency, like any common religionist, but to me, dead is dead.

  • Brian||

    I never made a point about suicides, so I don't see what your point is.

    I'm still waiting for you to explain exactly what the "gun death rank" is exactly. Or answer any of my actual questions.

    Do you have anything better? Or is this all you have, trotting out a chart you don't even understand while you complain that we're just not fact-based enough for you?

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    How is murder distinct from suicides in terms of outcomes? Sure, you're all idiots obsessed with human agency, like any common religionist, but to me, dead is dead.

    How is murder distinct from dying of old age, in terms of outcomes?

    Are we idiots if we don't treat murder and death from old age as equivalent?

    You're so damn busy trying to make vapid, bad points that you can't even see how obviously, functionally retarded you are.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    How is murder distinct from suicides in terms of outcomes? Sure, you're all idiots obsessed with human agency, like any common religionist, but to me, dead is dead.

    I just can't get over how stupid this is.

    Tony, if you think ending up dead any different way isn't distinct in terms of outcomes, then guess what? We all end up dead, Tony.

    Therefore, we if we take your point as you intend it, being killed by guns is ending up just as dead as being killed by anything else. It's not a distinct outcome. So, you really shouldn't care.

    So, apparently, given your arguments, I can't really figure out why you'd get your panties in a wad over people getting killed with guns in the first place.

    Oh, yeah. That's it. Your arguments are just whatever you think is convenient to pull out of your ass at the time, regardless of how obviously ridiculous and stupid it is, while you whine and posture as smugly as possible.

    You're a joke.

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

    *crickets*

  • Kevin Sorbos Manful Locks||

    If jerking off in the privacy of my house is now the same (in terms of outcomes) as being roofied by Bill Cosby and having him jerk me off against my will, does the fact that I occasionally pleasure myself qualify me to join the Sue Bill Cosby bandwagon?

  • Careless||

    How is murder distinct from suicides in terms of outcomes?

    Oh my fucking god

  • Hank Phillips||

    Going through old newspapers you can see that suicides used morphine from the drugstore, and not perfectly legal guns to snuff themselves a century ago. So prohibition laws skew the numbers by including suicides after limiting alternative choices. Also, the more socialist the government the higher the suicide rate.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony the Marxian,

    Libertarians wouldn't know a fact if it slapped them in the fucking face.

    A chart.


    The chart is not adjusted for population, first. Second, the chart shows that most of the richest states are the ones with the lower homicide rates regardless of gun control laws whereas the poorer states have much higher homicide rates. The author does not seem to see that correlation yet he goes out of his way to find the other (even though he lets out, somewhat reluctantly, that correlation does not mean causation.)

    Last, his conclusion is ridiculously stupid: "So far, gun control critics have only provided weak theories about culture or mental illness. Maybe it’s the guns."

    Guns are instruments, not causes. One could easily say that cars cause crashes.

  • Careless||

    The chart is not adjusted for population, first

    Of course it is. You'd have to shoot 1% of the state of Wyoming to make it #1

  • Hank Phillips||

    Tony is writing from a People's State where only the Gestapo and Tax agents reluctantly carry guns (just following orders).

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Now go fetch a chart on gun MURDERS vs. gun ownership restrictions so that you might be a bit closer to the topic at hand, if you dare.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Interesting where Illinois falls in the chart, with a little green dot. Perhaps you are unaware that a little shooting gallery on the shores of Lake Michigan, is in Illinois. It is called Chicago.

  • Brian||

    I can't get over how stupid this is.

    They gave every state a "gun control rank" and a "gun death rank" from 1 to 50, because there are 50 states.

    Why didn't they just use some meaningful measure of badness, like gun deaths or something, instead of a "gun death rank"?

    Because if all the data is clustered together in some way you don't like (i.e., if high ranking gun control states don't come out much different by any meaningful, measurable statistic from low ranking gun control states), then the chart paints the wrong picture.

    For example, if the only difference between the highest and lowest gun control states is 1-2 deaths per 100,000 people, all the data looks independent of gun control.

    So, you "rank" all the states for "gun death" so that they each have a 1-50 value, and, tada, you're guaranteed to see a difference of 50 between the lowest and highest gun control states. Even if we're only talking about 1-2 people per 100,000 people.

    So, basically, it's just a way to cook the chart to come out where the maximum rank in gun control can produce the maximum distance possible in gun death, regardless of the actual meaning of the data.

    This is called "fact based", reality based decision making".

    If you're a complete idiot who doesn't know the difference between actual data analysis and propaganda digestion.

  • William Pilgrim||

    Charts are easily skewed with disingenuous categorization.
    Forget guns. Breast cancer, goddamn!

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Tony, if you remember my points you will remember that for me it isn't about Gun Control, it's about government control.

    There may well be arguments for banning all civillian ownership of firearms. But until those who claim to want "common sense gun control laws" address the Constitutional issue, they do not matter. An unbridled State is horribly dangerous, as all of human history shows. Either the State is constrained by the Constitution and the Amendments, or it is not. And if it is not, we have far bigger problems than citizens with guns.

  • Illocust||

    Nu uh, obviously common sense dictates that he should have been required to get yearly mental health check ups to own a gun. Also, who needs that many guns. There should be common sense restrictions on how many guns one family can own.

  • LynchPin1477||

    There should be common sense restrictions on how many guns one family can own.

    This is what they will advocate.

  • Careless||

    To close to reality to be funny

  • Granny Weatherwax||

    I've always viewed guns like smoke detectors. Install a smoke alarms gun in every bedroom, outside each sleeping area and on every level of your home.
    Test your smoke alarms guns every month.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Didn't he get a yearly checkup when he got his antidepressant meds?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Legal?!?!?!?1 Well...argle-bargle make them not legal!!!!!! GRAAAAHHH!!!!

  • Swiss Servator||

    HM, you know you need to properly attribute quotes from Salon!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    My bad. Been drinking.

  • Charles Easterly||

    *looks at sunglasses and notes that "HM" has been mysteriously printed in gold leaf at left and right temples*

    Oh, you.

    *tilts glass of preferred beverage*

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Remember, they live.

  • Trouser-Pod (The blowhard)||

    Considering Charles' post, it would be awesome if that video had "HM" in gold leaf superimposed onto the billboard.

  • ||

    That's going to be exactly the argument. It won't come out as that exactly but then they will say, "Why should people be able to own that many guns? There ought to be a law."

  • MetalBard||

    It's sad that there are people who think like this. As if the number of guns someone owns, or the number of guns in existence matters at all.

  • dchang0||

    Even sadder: the people who think they can limit the number of guns don't understand that black market economics will drive production and import of guns up.

    The Mexican drug cartels could make a killing importing guns with the same logistics supply chains that they use for importing drugs--all we need to do is ban guns in the USA to get them started in their new line of business...

  • Sigivald||

    Funny thing, those.

    I mean, I own ... Christ, I've literally lost count of how many firearms I own. Over 20, less than 35.

    Number of people killed by them during my ownership*: 0.

    Number of people likely to be so killed, ever: 0.

    Even a murderous psychopath can only really use one gun at a time, and can only realistically carry a couple, tops, in any real-world case.

    (* Some of them are used, and a number are wartime-era surplus, dating back as far as 1899.

    I would not be the least bit surprised to find that one of the Communist WW2 guns had killed a Nazi, or perhaps the pre-Communist Nagant with Finnish property marks had killed a Red or White Russian and then maybe later a Soviet.

    Hell, maybe the Luger killed someone during the War; it's unlikely but possible.

    But that has nothing to do with me, does it?)

  • Dai wie||

    Yup. I have two gun safes, both are full. Nary a single human casualty among them. Animals, on the other hand...

  • LarryA||

    Number of people killed by them during my ownership*: 0.

    Number of people likely to be so killed, ever: 0.

    Coincidentally, 0 is the number of guns the anti-gun folks want to limit you to.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    You are obviously a ticking time bomb.

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

    Teh gunz are conspiring to kill you, your family, or a bunch of community college kids - you don't even realize. Before long their malevolent influence will have you charging out of your front door, 30 guns in hand, shooting everyone, screaming: I USE ALL TEH GUNZZZZZ!!!

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Hell, they say that about cars, they say that about houses, what don't they say that "Why should people be able to own that many XYZ" jive about?

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

    Deodorant?

  • Slammer||

    But..but...I can't even with this country right now. SMH

  • commodious spittoon||

    Argle bargle is the new rabble rabble.

  • Charles Easterly||

    Harrumph!

  • R C Dean||

    What happened to "yadda yadda"?

  • commodious spittoon||

    I mentioned the bisque.

  • Brian||

    Blah blah blah.

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    13 guns? Did they find any of his automatic ones Biden was so sure he used?

  • Tonio||

    Those are the ones that have the thing in the rear that goes up, right?

  • Jimbo||

    And make a loud noise?

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    nono they're the ones with the thing on top that makes heads appear on political maps.

  • ||

    I'm assuming that this means that the ban on high capacity magazines is working?

    The poor guy had to buy 13 fucking weapons to do the same work 5 weapons with banana clips would have done in the old days.

  • kV||

    Or one Rambo gun. (That's a technical term, right?)

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Wait, I thought it was a ban on how many clips of magazines the guy had ?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Belt fed gets around that pesky magazine size limit.

  • Sigivald||

    The Rambo gun is the one with the shoulder thing that goes up!

    (Literally; it's the M-60 in both cases.)

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    More importantly, did they find the shotgun that Biden wanted him to buy?

  • Tonio||

    Well, obviously we must make guns more difficult to legally obtain. Duh.

    Semi-related derpbook post: "If your first reaction to shootings is to think 'oh shit, Obama/liberals are going to try to take our guns!' your priorities as a human being SUCK."

  • MetalBard||

    But what if that assumption is correct?

  • Ken Shultz||

    What assumption is that?

    That my personal preferences aren't the same as yours?

    Yeah, there are a lot of things I value more than my safety.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going for a ride on my motorcycle.

  • MetalBard||

    The assumption that Obama/liberals are after guns?

  • Restoras||

    They are after our guns but don't have the balls to admit it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Oh, that, yeah...

    That's a pretty good assumption.

    He's just looking for an excuse, and if he though the American people would buy it, he'd have shoved ObamaCare for guns down out throats already.

    I've always expected him to go for the Mexican model, where you're allowed to own a gun (a .22, a .380 pistol, or a shotgun), but you have to buy all your guns and ammunition from the government.

  • The Last American Hero||

    I thought the Mexican Model was join a drug cartel and buy them from Eric Holder.

  • Sigivald||

    Well, er, the second it happened he was on TV calling for following the British/Australian example.

    Of, you know, confiscation.

    They're after my guns. I know this because they keep fucking saying that every time they think I'm not listening.

  • Rhywun||

    your priorities as a human being SUCK you're damn right that's what we are going to do.

    FTFT

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Semi-related derpbook post: "If your first reaction to shootings is to think 'oh shit, Obama/liberals are going to try to take our guns!' your priorities as a human being SUCK."

    If the first thing progressives think when there's a tragedy is, "I don't care whose rights we have to violate, let the President solve this problem!", then they really are a bunch of closet fascists.

  • sasob||

    Closet? They seem to be pretty much out in the open ever since Obama took office.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    But if you call them fascists they cry. So yea, it is just like they came out of the closet, or pantry.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If your first reaction to shootings is shriek uncontrollably while picking up the victims' bloodied shirts to wave as a flag, your continued existence as a human being should be ended.

  • Kevin Sorbos Manful Locks||

    If your first reaction is to wave their bloody shirt as a flag, you're a goddamn amateur.

    Your first reaction should be to jam a broom into the eye socket of the person on top of the corpse pile, and his your bloody shirt up the makeshift flagpole.

    That way more people can see how much you care.

  • Kevin Sorbos Manful Locks||

    *and run his

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    No, no, no, you should make your own bloody shirt and wear it at a press conference.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    I can't decide my personal "favorite" Derpbook post I've seen on the subject. It's either this...

    If guns don't kill people...
    So by this logic let's give IRAN the whole world access to nuclear weapons, because you know, nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people.
    Wake up gun control and gun elimination are 2 separate things, quit acting like children not getting what you want. Most school shootings are not happening with illegally purchased firearms.

    ...or this.

    I have a sneaking suspicion that if these mass shooters had more melanin in their skin or prayed to Allah or, God forbid, were undocumented immigrants, the Republicans in Congress would suddenly be motivated to do something other than bloviate about the fucking Second Amendment. But because the shooters are almost exclusively white and male, conservative politicians will continue to masturbate to their gun porn and do the bidding of their masters at the NRA, all the while telling us that guns are a fundamental human right, more fundamental even than the right to life. If a bunch of kids get killed every few months so that we can all have our own personal arsenals, well that's just the price we pay. Freedom ain't free, yo. It's not their kids, after all...
  • commodious spittoon||

    Because Kathryn Steinle's murder drummed up a lot of Republican support for gun control measures, right?

    Oh, wait, no. It caused a lot of consternation about sanctuary cities, instead.

  • RBS||

    I don't know whats better, the projection ("quit acting like children not getting what you want") or the attempted intellectualism with the obligatory expletive.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    So, a liberal who wants government to essentially be everyone's mommy and daddy mouths off about other people acting like children.

    Ironic.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If a bunch of kids drown every few months so that we can all have our own personal backyard pools, well that's just the price we pay
  • Riven||

    quit acting like children not getting what you want.

    Well, someone is acting like that, but I wouldn't say it's the people on the side of the 2nd amendment.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Most school shootings are not happening with illegally purchased firearms.

    I also don't think they happen from guns bought privately and without a background check, so what would those proposed laws have done?

  • Sigivald||

    Oregon recently passed a universal background check law (no idea if he got any guns after it passed).

    Which wouldn't have stopped this, because the dude had no criminal or incapacitating mental records, as far as anyone can tell, since he seems to have purchased guns directly from dealers.

    When the response to an incident is a laundry list of things that would not have stopped it, I know the response is using it as an excuse.

    (Not that things that would have stopped it are necessarily justified, but at least they're relevant to the incident.)

  • Kevin Sorbos Manful Locks||

    Yes, but after one year of these sensible gun restrictions not doing anything, they will feel justified to dip into the jar of outright senseless "solutions."

  • The Grinch||

    Wait, wasn't this douchebag mixed race (not that it matters)?

    Also, beltway shooters, Colin Ferguson, Va Tech, Hassan, and plenty of etcs.

    Thanks for the posts, it reinforces my belief that I'm doing the right thing by staying the hell away from Facebook.

  • Careless||

    VA tech guy did it at school, where Asians are white

  • R C Dean||

    Semi-related derpbook post: "If your first reaction to shootings is to think 'oh shit, Obama/liberals are going to try to take our guns!' your priorities as a human being SUCK."

    I would reply: "If your first reaction to shootings is to think 'oh boy, Obama/liberals are going to try to take their guns!' your priorities as a human being SUCK."

  • commodious spittoon||

    If your first reaction is to speculatively condemn what you think other people's first reaction is going to be, your priorities etc.

  • kV||

    Ugh, I'm too tired to deal with this stuff today. Can I outsource my derpbook commenting to all y'all? Take a whack at this statement:

    "If I see one more comment about how we shouldn't consider gun control because criminals will still get guns illegally, I'm gonna lose my fucking mind. Here's a novel thought: "bad people will still do bad things" isn't a reason to MAKE IT FUCKING EASY FOR THEM! Equivalent statements from my perspective: (a) "Diseases will still kill people, so why bother with doctors?" (b) "Alcoholics will still drive drunk, so why outlaw it?" (c) "Rapists gonna rape ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" "

  • LynchPin1477||

    It's actually not a bad point.

    The problem is that, in so many of these cases, the killer doesn't do anything criminal until they started killing people. Causality's a bitch, but I don't think we'd like a world without it.

  • commodious spittoon||

    It's not a good point in a constitutional democracy that preserves as a fundamental right the ownership of firearms. These cretins want to skip over that rather inconvenient fact without doing any of the legwork to actually address it, because they're unserious people flashing political gang signs to one another.

    There is no constitutional protection for contracting diseases, nor drunk driving, and the latter point is worse still because drunks drive drunk despite the huge social and legal impetus running counter to it.

  • commodious spittoon||

    In fact the drunk driving corollary would run something like this: alcoholics abuse the privileges of drinking, and therefore drinking should be made more difficult for everyone because targeting potential drunk drivers is difficult." Somehow, I doubt progressives want to die on that hill (again).

  • Mark6||

    right! progressives never want to do anything that affects their lives.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Not disagreeing, but I also don't have a principled objection to making it illegal for people who have committed certain types of crimes to own guns.

    The problem is that these killers aren't killers until they kill. So you can't make it harder for them to get guns unless you make it harder for law abiding citizens...because that is what these people often are when they buy the guns. And that is when all the points you make enter in.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    "I also don't have a principled objection to making it illegal for people who have committed certain types of crimes to own guns."

    We can start by segregating these criminals, after conviction, in guarded buildings where they won't have access to the public, and where they are supervised closely and not allowed to have any weapons at all, even sharpened toothbrushes.

  • dchang0||

    I agree--it's not a bad point. We DO need to use deterrents in society against bad actors.

    The very fact that I want to carry a concealed handgun (but can't where I live) is because I want to deter a robber from robbing me. Pro-gun people get that it's good to make crime hard.

    The problem is, anti-gun people don't get that guns are a big deterrent to GOVERNMENT getting its way and that banning all guns makes it EASY for them to commit crimes against the citizenry. Shouldn't we try to make it hard for government to run amok?

  • LynchPin1477||

    anti-gun people don't get that guns are a big deterrent to GOVERNMENT getting its way and that banning all guns makes it EASY for them to commit crimes against the citizenry

    Of course they don't, because they don't see government as a threat. They'll readily admit there are bad actors, but they believe in the fundamental goodness of government because they think it is fundamentally under the control of the people and they fundamentally believe in the goodness of the people. Not enough to let them run their own lives, mind you, but those are individuals, and they are talking about *the people*. Of course in the next breath they'll complain that the 1% is trying to steal control of government from the people.

  • Long Woodchippers||

    no, because the libs and progs worship at the church of state, so they believe govt can only do wrong when a Republican is in office

  • Sigivald||

    Honestly, I don't know that government in the US is much deterred by that, these days.

    Anti-gun people harp on "durr, gun people think they can stop the government with tanks and stuff", which, while it completely misses the point, DOES hit that that's a pointless and irrelevant argument most of the time.

    The Constitution did have that intent, in the Second Amendment.

    But mostly because the very idea of criminalizing arms for other uses like self defense never even occurred to the Founders; under Common Law, per Blackstone, self-defense was an ironclad right, that not even King George thought to abridge for the Colonists.

    Arms are far more about being a free man in the more direct sense of keeping oneself from being oppressed by one's fellow man than about Keeping The State Off Your Back, practically.

    They have a much better track record at that, looking at the scope of the State here and now - indeed, the ground we gain back isn't taken at gunpoint, is it?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    "under Common Law, per Blackstone, self-defense was an ironclad right, that not even King George thought to abridge for the Colonists."

    No, America was and still is light-years ahead of the English.

    Unlike the American Bill of Rights, the English bill of rights is subject to certain exceptions:

    "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"

    So only Protestants have this right, Parliament can restrict it by law, and your gun rights depend on your social class (eg, England had "anti-poaching" acts to disarm the commoners in order to protect all the deer).

  • Notorious UGCC||

    I wish John were here, so he could mention the problem of *quasi*-governmental violence - the government doesn't send its cops and soldiers to oppresses you, but gives winks and nudges to thugs and mobs, letting them terrorize a community and refusing to give protection.

    You may recall how the National Guard was strangely absent when the mobs were rampaging through the bad parts of Ferguson, burning (minority-owned) businesses to the ground, thus (coincidentally) giving the government a useful "crisis" centering around "social justice" (for the rioters, not the shopkeepers).

    A Second Amendment solution could have led to fewer torched buildings, and fewer lost livelihoods.

  • Tybus||

    I agree that " we shouldn't make it easy for them". There is a tried and true antedote and that is to carry a weapon yourself. It doesn't ensure that your not going to be shot,killed, injured, etc, but at least you have a chance. Also, if we're going to insist on good ole common sense rules like gun free zones, put a big disclaimer on the sign that tells you by entering this area you waive all expectations of security.

  • RBS||

    Here's a novel thought: "bad people will still do bad things" isn't a reason to MAKE IT FUCKING EASY FOR THEM!

    I'd imagine it's pretty fucking easy to murder unarmed people.

  • Uilleam||

    Bravo!

  • KDN||

    "Alcoholics will still drive drunk, so why outlaw it?"

    Indeed. Why should I have to worry about losing my driving privileges for six months for the non-crime of operating my vehicle in a safe and appropriate manner after splitting a bottle of wine with my wife at dinner? Is that really going to keep some moron that drives 65 through a residential area in broad daylight after guzzling a twelve pack from doing the same?

    You don't punish people for things they might do or are at an increased likelihood of doing. You'd figure the sorts of folks that are so enraged by any manner of racial profiling would understand that.

  • kV||

    To clarify, I didn't intend to put up that quote for ridicule. But I honestly have a hard time understanding how intelligent people reach these kinds of conclusions. The logical inconsistency from one position to the next just kills me.

  • sasob||

    Perhaps they really aren't so intelligent?

  • Brendan||

    Only if you include suicides. If you look at homicides, states like MD are among the worst, beaten only Louisiana.

    States like Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, etc. beat all the gun control states except Hawaii which apparently has 1/8-1/5 the gun ownership of the others.

    SOURCE

  • LarryA||

    "If your first reaction to shootings is to think 'oh shit, Obama/liberals are going to try to take our guns!' your priorities as a human being SUCK."

    My first reaction is "Damn. Yet another bunch of dead kids in yet another 'gun-free' zone. When will college administrators learn that their disarmament policies don't reach out and zap killers."

    In this case, apparently, even their one security officer isn't allowed to carry. So their solution is to make everyplace "gun-free."

  • Hank Phillips||

    Common sense told the shooter this was a convenient place to find legally-disarmed victims.

  • Jennifer O||

    I live in the area, and to be honest, that is exactly what people around here think. And many here as well.

    What I do is explain to these people that their safe, rural lifestyle is very, very different to the ones most Democrats experience in the city. In the city, gun violence is an ever-present danger. And here, for all their fine talk about protecting their families, I never see a one of them feel the need to escort their wives and children to the supermarket in order to make sure they are safe. And yet, that is a reality for many people.

    We have to understand we do not all have the same experience. But both sides hold their differing opinions through fear of crime. They just have a different way of approaching it, due to their different environment. Neither are wrong.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The one that wants to remove the rights of others is most certainly wrong.

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    where'd the jerk get the money for 13 guns? i have yet to read a report that doesn't paint him as functionally retarded.

  • MetalBard||

    What would Liberals do if they found out this guy bought guns by selling food stamps or something?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Blame conservatives.

    I like this game! Ask me another!

  • Sigivald||

    ... they'd wonder how he got "food stamps", since it's not 1982?

  • Jordan||

    But laws are magic!

    /Jackass Ace

  • Ken Shultz||

    There you go letting the fact get in the way of the narrative.

    Global warming is an excellent reason for new gun laws according to the Obama Administration.

    "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that, it's an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before".

    ----Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's Former White House Chief of Staff

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow

  • XM||

    Reminder - Obama sent untracked guns to Mexico and moderate rebels who were guaranteed to be our allies. And the drones.

  • Trump-o-Matic 5000||

    Yeah, but that was different. Barry is our Great Protector. He had the right feelz. He's just looking out for our best interests.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    AUSTRALIA!!!!!

    /my facebook wall

  • MetalBard||

    Australia!!!!! ........... still has problems with gun violence. Shhh don't tell anybody.

  • ||

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    That's not a Mass Shooting! All that matters are the frequency of Mass Shootings!

    Sure, there are still guns and gun crime in Australia, so people could still shoot a mass of people... but they generally don't, so the laws must be responsible.

  • MetalBard||

    Weren't mass shootings virtually unheard of in Australia even before they passed their ridiculous gun law. Seems odd to credit gun laws for preventing something that was already virtually never going to happen anyway.

  • Sterling Archer||

    I don't get the Australia logic. It's like claiming that the PATRIOT Act/TSA are great because we haven't had a 9/11 since (or before) 9/11.

  • Sigivald||

    Easy. The people spewing it don't realize that Australia never had a problem with them in the first place, and thus there was no change.

    Hell, they all probably think "mass shootings are on the rise in America", which also isn't true.

  • Careless||

    Divide the US rate by 15 and see how common they would be here if we had Australia's population size.

  • B.P.||

    "Authorities confiscated 13 weapons associated with the shooter, six at the SIGHT of the killings..."

    Way to go, USA Today.

  • Jay Dubya||

    I dont sea any problem.

  • Akira||

    I can't tell if you trolled him or vise versa, but I hate when people catch flack over miner grammatical errors. In Lehman's terms, your fighting tooth-in-nail over nothing. Believe me, you'll go through life more easier if you just let things go then and their.

  • steve walsh||

    I want to see the list of people that are opposed to "common sense gun safety laws".

  • Restoras||

    That'd be everybody with regular common sense.

  • MetalBard||

    Well nobody is opposed to common sense right? I love the little word games they play, it's so dishonest.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Common sense population controls.

    Common sense consumption thresholds.

    Common sense travel restrictions.

    Common sense identification requirements.

    You know who else had a great deal of common sense?

  • Trump-o-Matic 5000||

    Thomas Paine?

  • MetalBard||

    Exactly Hamster. Nobody is saying you can't have any kids, we just want common sense population controls thats all, I mean who really needs 3 kids right?

  • commodious spittoon||

    Ann Landers?

  • RBS||

    Oh, Ann Lander sucks!

  • Chip Woodier||

    Common sense Jew identification patches

  • Judge Forrest's Clitdong||

    You know who else thought it was common sense to force people to wear patches?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    The organizers of the Talk Like a Pirate Day convention?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I hear "common sense" coming from any politician, and I just instinctively check for my wallet.

    Whew! It's still there.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    Probably empty though.

  • R C Dean||

    Put my name on that list. Right at the fucking top.

  • Trump-o-Matic 5000||

    Doherty is quite obviously against common sense gun laws. This is like his second anti-common-sense-gun-law article in two days.


    He probably hates children, too.

  • Sigivald||

    If it's my common sense, I support them.

    And we will get to that goal by repealing the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.

  • Enough About Woodchippers||

    The WSJ's Best of the Web addressed this very well. If you google the following text, it will provide a link that gets around the paywall:

    “This is something we should politicize,” President Obama said yesterday. “This” referred to the deaths, a few hours earlier, of nine innocent people, murdered by an obviously disturbed young man at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore.

  • Drake||

    Sounds like he got himself kicked out of the Army for being a fuck-up. Not sure exactly what he did - too bad he had not received a BCD, then they wouldn't have been legal guns.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Considering he planned to kill a bunch of people, how many other laws he broke along the way probably was not weighing heavily on his mind.

  • Sigivald||

    Yeah, but it is somewhat easier to get guns if you're not on a NICS prohibit list.

    It's not remotely impossible to get them, otherwise, but it's easier.

  • OldMexican||

    Obama's talk of common-sense gun safety laws don't seem to apply to this tragedy.


    Oh, it does apply here if one remembers that, for Marxians, "common sense" gun control translates to proscription.

  • commodious spittoon||

    Common-sense is going to end up being a thoroughly discredited term only said facetiously if people keep using it like this.

  • Sigivald||

    *slow clap for sarcasm well-played*

  • Knarf Yenrab!||

    They're to the left of Marx, who was pro-gun, at least in the hands of the proletariat.

    These people are divided equally between authoritarians and magical thinkers who don't understand incentives or trade-offs.

  • esteve7||

    but we shouldn't have to live in a world where bad people do bad things to people!

  • esteve7||

    seriously though, when they had the black church shooting, and I said that person was able to reload and kept firing, and no one could stop him, the prog never sees that maybe a gun could help, it's always

    well we shouldn't have to live in a world where you would need a gun

    ....jesus fucking christ

  • R C Dean||

    we shouldn't have to live in a world where you would need a gun

    Let me know when that happens, and we can talk.

  • LarryA||

    In a world where no one needed a gun, there would be no problem with people having guns.

  • HolgerDanske||

    well we shouldn't have to live in a world where you would need a gun

    I had a talk with an anti-gun friend the other day (before this happened) about guns. He tried all kinds of sophistry, but ultimately his argument boiled down to this. When pressed further he basically admitted all the factual positives of gun ownership, but dismissed them simply because he doesn't like guns.

    In the case of my friend, who is otherwise a really smart person, there seems to be some kind of need to entertain beliefs that makes it possible for him to think the world can be changed to his preference. Not just about guns, but about most things.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: HolgerDanske,

    When pressed further he basically admitted all the factual positives of gun ownership, but dismissed them simply because he doesn't like guns.


    Normally, people who are skittish about guns will favor tougher gun-control legislation but not outright bans. It is socialists and Marxians who prefer an outright gun ban because they know it is much more difficult to impose their social engineering programs on an armed population Government types also prefer outright bans because it is more difficult to engage in state terrorism against the people if the citizenry is armed.

  • LoneWaco||

    we shouldn't have to live in a world where you would need a gun

    no one is making you live here

  • Hank Phillips||

    So you know a looter who wants tax collectors disarmed?

  • Seattle Mike||

    Progressive to English Translator:

    "common-sense gun laws": Universal ban for civilian use and all firearms are seized by responsible government agencies for destruction making certain only certified trained government employees may operate those that remain.

  • Dread Pirate Roberts||

    I'd really like to hear some specifics about what "common sense" gun control laws would avert tragedies like this. If a ban on private gun ownership is what you want, then just say so.

  • The Grinch||

    That's what they want but they know it's political suicide. Because they'll try to use imcrementilism to achieve this, the only correct response to common sense gun control is "Hell no."

  • LarryA||

    "It shall be illegal to restrict the carrying of self-defense firearms in any location not protected by security measures that will prevent the illegal carry of weapons."

    Bu somehow I doubt that one's on their list.

  • Akira||

    I'm kind of torn up on what the law should be regarding concealed carry and private property.

    On the one hand, I support property owners' rights to ban guns if they want - the Constitution doesn't apply to private entities. I know of various businesses that ban guns, and I simply don't patronize them. If they want to turn away business, that's their choice. Just like a person doesn't (in theory) have to allow unlimited free speech in their home or business, they don't have to allow firearms either.

    On the other hand, as long as the owners of crowded public buildings (like movie theaters) are allowed to hang up a "no guns" sign without actually enforcing it or providing in-house armed security, these shootings will most likely continue to happen.

  • edrebber||

    The school was designated a gun free zone. The so called "common sense" gun free zones are supposed to prevent gun violence. Instead they exacerbate gun violence, because only the criminals have guns in gun free zones and law abiding citizens are unable to defend themselves.

  • kV||

    Oh, haven't you heard? Your right to defend yourself and your family had been outsourced to our benevolent leaders. If you believe you are special enough to warrant special treatment, please have your attorney file the paperwork for a self-defense permit (Forms F571, Y572, T268, and W392).

  • josh||

    i was glad to see many people in the media and regular folks too decided to post the graphic that obama asked for....between terrorism and gun deaths. it's as if they really wanted to please him. such a nice charts too.

  • Pulseguy||

    He was half white and hates Christians. Has Obama said 'He could have been my son'?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Zing!

  • GeoffB1972||

    Where does President Obama stand on keeping Federal Agents' guns out of the hands of illegal aliens with felony convictions? Because when Kate Steinle was killed, I don't recall him decrying on that man got his hands on that gun.

    If the government can't even keep track of its own agents' weapons, do we really think they could manage a competent gun control regime?

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    I note in the pictures of the aftermath the police lined everyone up, hands on their heads, searched them and went through their bags. insult on top of injury.

  • Granny Weatherwax||

    Oh come on, trolling for some easy pot busts at a massacre is part of the new professionalism. AND it might have been their last chance to nab someone for recreational use IRC.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    Pot became legal back in July, so they'd have to be looking for something else...

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Yea, they were looking for a reason to shot someone, and then their dog.

  • Granny Weatherwax||

  • Granny Weatherwax||

    Until Obama fires the Secret Service and walks/drives around DC unarmed like everyone else, he needs to STFU.

  • Jay Dubya||

    they confiscated the guns from the "sight" of the killings? mayhaps a typo was made

  • Hank Phillips||

    I could live with "all guns will disappear from within our borders" if it meant voluntarily disarming the child-killing mass-murderers at the BATF and their buddies at the FBI, CIA, TSE, DHS, ICE, USMS, DEA, Treasury, BOP, FAMS, USSS, FPS, CGIS, CGPD, DOJ, ONI, OSI, CID, NSA, USPIS, (priority here) USCP, Pot-busting Park Rangers, Indian Affairs Prohibitionists, FDA, USDA... The list of acronyms meaning "men with guns pointed at legally disarmed citizens" does seem to go on forever, doesn't it?

  • Hank Phillips||

    El Presidente was careful to include "advanced" and put US berserkers in a context different from African berserkers and soldiers. Brazil passed exactly the law the looters want, and a decade later the country still has a much higher homicide rate than These Second-Amendment-protected States.

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... www.buzznews99.com

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

    But what about the feels?

  • Cloudbuster||

    I always find it amusing that Reason's go-to gun image is that obscure, obsolete old break-top revolver.

  • JayWye||

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

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com......6760983916

    Australian man makes machine guns at home,sells them to gangs.
    guns will ALWAYS be available to those who really want them.

  • sharonphillips||

    I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h… Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......

    www.HomeJobs90.Com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online