Free Minds & Free Markets

Hillary Clinton Reacts to Gun Tragedies with Old Policy Proposals

More background checks, more assault weapon bans, more suits against gun makers and sellers, and expanding group of people to whom gun ownership bans apply.

Hillary Clinton in a "town hall" political rally in New Hampshire this morning laid out her latest gun control, er, sorry, common sense gun safety agenda. 

The biggest emphasis in her prepared remarks (and the only issues stressed in her current website issue page) were on more universal background checks to close "gun show loopholes" and loopholes involving the government failing to complete its background check in the required time.

She also stressed re-banning certain types of guns because of their scary cosmetic features, generally knows as the "assault weapon ban" which we have already seen come and go with predictably nearly no effect on violent crimes committed with guns. 

These are likely the same "common sense gun safety" (get prepared to hear that phrase an awful lot in the presidential campaign season) Obama had in mind during his post-Oregon-massacre speech, but he was either too lazy or too savvy to name, the latter for fear people might realize, hmm, those laws would not have prevented Oregon from happening.

Indeed, nothing short of a complete ban on firearms ownership (and somehow confiscating the 300 million existing ones) or predicting future misbehavior and using that to bar gun ownership in the past might, and neither seem common sense or reasonable to most Americans. Remember gun banners: even if you see zero right for anyone to be able to defend themselves with the best means available, the guns already exist, and laws do not dissolve metal.

I won't at all be surprised if something like a "universal background check" law does pass in the near future, though probably in the beginning without the federal gun registry that the National Institute of Justice admits is necessary for such laws to actually be thorough and effective. We have enough gun owners in America and enough people who believe in a basic right to gun ownership, combined with a clear record of gun registration leading to gun confiscation, that in the short term that won't work.

It is understandably much easier to police sales regulations on licensed dealers who already are legally "seen" by the state and have natural and easy places where the state can find and examine them, and punish them if seen necessary. Random private citizens selling or transferring guns are far harder, well nigh impossible, to police, though I suppose there will be some incentive to make such unlicensed dealers think twice if they fear fines or punishment if a gun they sold illegally is later used in a crime, but it is by no means a foolproof means to curb gun violence.

Thus, if a universal background check law passes so everyone is legally required to run checks before selling or transferring a gun to anyone, people will continue to use weapons to harm other people in hideous ways that make national news. Then people like Hillary will call for more "common sense" laws that either won't do much or will seriously restrict innocent people's ability to defend themselves and their families.

Clinton also this morning, in the question and answer session, got to decry the fact that we don't do enough "public health" research into guns (Jacob Sullum has explained at length why turning gun violence or safety into an allegedly objective "public health science" issue is politically controversial and by no means just about "science") , slamming both current bans on government financed Centers for Disease Control research on gun violence and a Florida law that does not allow doctors to ask patients or parents about their gun ownership, which they allegedly want to do in order to pass on common sense gun storage safety advice to parents with guns and kids in the home.

There should be no laws telling a doctor he can't ask a patient or parent anything, as long as the doctor has no power to pass on that information to legal authorities in the name of "public health." But this is mostly a cultural issue and likely not one of great legal or political importance, but it signals to those who need the signalling that the person who says it is "taking gun violence and gun safety seriously." There is already plenty of "anti-gun" public health research happening even with that CDC ban.

The Wall Street Journal, quoting a Hillary aid, mentioned some more policies that she will be pursuing, and how she plans to do so in some cases by executive order:

....calling on Congress to overturn a 2005 law that bars victims of gun violence from suing gun manufacturers. Mr. Sanders supported that law when he served in the House.

Mrs. Clinton also backed proposals to bar gun sellers from completing sales if background checks are still under way. Under current law, sellers are allowed to complete a sale after three business days even if a background check hasn’t cleared....

Mrs. Clinton’s newest idea is to use executive authority to expand the definition of who is “in the business” of selling firearms to include any person trying to sell a significant number of guns, a Clinton aide said....

Current law allows someone who owns guns as a hobby to sell them without conducting background checks, and defining who technically is in business is complicated.....

The Clinton aide said the former secretary of state would also seek to expand the definition of a domestic abuser who is prohibited from buying a gun to include people in dating relationships and convicted stalkers.

The problem with all laws about prohibiting certain classes of people from legally owning guns, whether drug users, those who have been committed, even felons, is that they will far, far, far more often rob someone of a core right who would never have misused a weapon to harm people than they will prevent gun violence. But recognizing that point requires respecting why people want a right to own weapons for self-defense or recreation or hunting in the first place, and most people advocating gun control don't, really.

As for liability from being sued for gun makers and sellers, while those in the gun business should be liable for flaws in the product they sell based on negligence, such flaws generally are not at play in gun violence, Hillary's alleged topic. It would please her and her constituents to have deep pockets to sue when someone causes chaos and harm by their own misuse of the product, but such misuse is not the fault of the people making and selling the guns. Reason contributing editor Walter Olson has explained at length why existing legal protections for gun manufacturers and sellers against liability suits make sense and have no nexus toward actually preventing gun violence, as opposed to punishing a politically vulnerable target.

Hillary called often for more grassroots action to give cover for what she apparently intends to do by executive order, and called out the NRA openly as the enemy. The politics of gun control haven't gone well for the controllers in the past 15 years, and it isn't clear they will anytime soon.

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.

  • fuckyougotmine||

    How is the UK's response to the Dunblane Massacre not proof of gun control working in practice?

  • kbolino||

    I guess these 12 deaths and 11 others injured never really happened. Nah, I'm sure the answer is to ban all guns; we can then pretend these 29 deaths and 143 others injured never happened, as well as these 39 deaths and 90 others injured.

  • kbolino||

    Here's the second link, this time with less artificial sweetener.

  • ||

    The USA is the only modern country that has mass killings. Obama said so and he's never been known to lie.

  • kbolino||

    The exclusion of terrorism is also pretty laughable. Apparently, killing people with airplanes (9/11), explosives (Oklahoma, London, Madrid), or sarin gas (Tokyo) is a-ok as long as we ban guns.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    If you first remove all mass murders that don't involve firearms from the sample, it is striking how many of the mass murders that are left involved firearms.

    The More You Know....

  • ATXChappy||

    It's also striking how few gun deaths there are from mass murders when you remove all other firearm deaths.

    Lies, Damn Lies, and Government statistics

    Playing with statistics is fun, isn't it?

  • kbolino||

    Many of the very same (non-libertarian) people who will proclaim a right to assisted suicide will insist that suicides must be counted among gun deaths vis-a-vis gun control. Apparently, you have the right to get someone to kill you, but not the right to do the job yourself.

  • techgump||

    No... Most Govts have mass ... real MASS killings. It's just Govt doing the killing. Individuals with equal rights and arms absolutely pale in comparison to the ownership, proliferation, and of arms in the utter destruction and outright murder upon innocent peoples.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    When the government bombs a hospital or a wedding party, it isn't mass murder. You see, we are the government and the government is us, so it's really just a form of assisted suicide.

  • ||

    Collateral damage, you know. It's all good.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    Acceptable, tactical losses.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    During "Overseas Contingency Operations."

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    It's good to know that Norway is not a "modern" country.

  • fuckyougotmine||

    Only one of those attacks happened in England. The point of gun control isn't to stop every shooting, but to drastically reduce them.

    Also, there's some bias here in that only the shootings make the news, not someone who wanted to carry out a mass shooting but couldn't because they couldn't get a gun.

    I would suggest the following glibertarian argument for you: yeah, America has way more mass shootings than other first world countries, stop whining, pussy, this is what Freedom looks like.

  • RBS||

    The point of gun control isn't to stop every shooting, but to drastically reduce them.

    Citation needed.

  • Illocust||

    The United States is much larger in both population and size than England. To fairly compare mass murders one would have to compare the United States to the E.U., or split off single states of similar size, population, and demographic and compare it to England.

  • ||

    Let's talk about how effective gun control is. Brazil has some of the strictest gun controls on the planet. It is literally impossible for an ordinary citizen there to legally buy and own a gun. Concealed carry is impossible unless you are someone whose job requires it, such as police, security, etc..

    Now that being said. Guess which country is less safe and has more violence, the USA or Brazil? If you said the USA, you're a fucking idiot.

    There are actually gangs of 10 year olds roaming the streets in cities like Rio in some neighborhoods where they rob citizens at gunpoint, in broad daylight. They are extremely emboldened because they know citizens are unarmed.

    The demographics of the USA is much more like Brazil than any country in Europe. It is the demographics of European countries that is the reason why there is less gun violence, not the gun laws.

    If you want get a picture of what the USA will look like with strict gun control, look at Brazil.

    When the left gets what they want, get used to being robbed in the streets, home invasions being common, and a world where it is much less safe than what we have now. Don't wear jewelry in public or carry an expensive camera. A bullet proof car will also be a good idea.

  • ||

    The point of gun control isn't to stop every shooting, but to drastically reduce them.

    No, it absolutely is not that. You can tell that to your non-thinking leftist friends and they will swallow the lie. But that will not fly here.

    The point of gun control is to disarm the public, completely. That's the only goal, so take your lies and shut the fuck up.

  • fuckyougotmine||

    It's just incredible to me that any attempt to regulate guns isn't an attempt to increase public safety or reduce mass killings in respons eto public outcry, nonono, they just don't want private citizens to have guns so they can march

    How is your glock going to protect you from a drone strike? The state could vaporize you from 20,000 feet. These are not colonial times when everyone's fighting with muskets and cannons, your handguns are not much of a check against tyranny in 2015.

    You're incredibly cynical about government, and that's adorable, but we have a civilization to run.

  • kbolino||

    It's cute how you drop any pretense of government of the people and switch straight to "running civilization", the people be damned.

  • ||

    Fascism here we come.

  • Jordan||

    Yeah, It's a real mystery why people might be cynical about a group of people who think of them as chess pieces, at best.

  • ||

    We're 'biological resources' to the ruling elite. And they have their useful idiots like fuckyougotmine to make sure they stay in power.

  • fuckyougotmine||

    First paragraph cut off, I forgot what I was going to say, but I assure you it would have been devastating.

  • kbolino||

    First paragraph cut off, I forgot what I was going to say, but I assure you it would have been devastating.

    Unlike us "glibertarians", you bring real substance to the table.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    In your mind, is there any meaningful distinction between "civilization" and "government"? Is it possible to be civilized without having regulations as to what has to go on the label for your bottle of shampoo?

  • commodious spittoon||

    If you want authentic, Australia-style gun control, you have work to do. Forget sitting here trying to convince strangers that the Second Amendment doesn't explicitly protect a right, nor that we shouldn't venerate and wish to preserve it. You've lost that argument, just as you've lost the argument for cosmetic reforms like "thing that goes up" bans. You have real, arduous work to do if you want to implement consequential legislation. Otherwise you're just fapping about.

  • ||

    Oh, great point. A drone could get me anytime so I should just give up the right to protect myself. Is that you, Tony? It sure sounds like you. Few are so mentally challenged.

  • SugarFree||

    All he's really made is an argument that I should be allowed to have anti-drone missiles.

  • DenverJ||

    Exactly. The right to keep and bear arms is fundamentally the drought to protect yourself from the king's men, and if they have drones then we should have the right to protect ourselves from them. Same with APCs: If the cops wanna play soldier and invade a neighborhood while hiding inside mobile armor, then I should be able to have anti-tank missiles.
    Nor am I being sarcastic. Any weapons system the government can use to target an individual, the individual should be able to defend against.

  • kbolino||

    A drone could get me anytime so I should just give up the right to protect myself.

    This is such a stupid argument, anyway. The tyrants don't start out by having absolute control of the apparatus of state; they don't get to bomb their opponents into oblivion on day one. They start out small, victimizing people they can get away with victimizing, and scaling up slowly. Putting down tyrants starts with defending your hearth and home against vandals, rioters, and secret police.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    isn't an attempt to increase public safety

    You're more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than murdered by someone with a firearm, per the FBI and CDC. If you gave a shit about public safety, you'd be chimping out for more stringent alcohol distribution laws and expanded penalties for their abuse, if not the outright repeal of the 21st Amendment.

    How is your glock going to protect you from a drone strike?

    That's just precious that you think a US government going to that extreme isn't effectively dead and buried by that point.

    You're incredibly cynical about government, and that's adorable, but we have a civilization to run.

    Please. You proglydytes would melt in less than 15 seconds if shit ever got real. For someone who says the government can vaporize us from 20,000 feet, you're not making any kind of case for giving up firearms. You're not going to be running point on any of these so-called drone strikes or SWAT raids you're fantasizing about, any President who did try to launch that kind of full-scale operation would likely be subject to a military coup, and it's obvious you can't think farther ahead than the next news cycle, particularly with those boilerplate talking points. Try coming up with some material that you didn't get from a Media Matters email blaster.

  • R C Dean||

    we have a civilization to run.

    And there you have it, folks. "They" are entitled to "run" every aspect of your life.

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Thymirus||

    The debilitative ignorance, stupidity, or a combination thereof requisite for these hoplophobic positions are painful to behold, and the impact of witnessing them in plain sight, flaunted as if they were commendable, never lessen, regardless of how regularly I encounter them.

    Fuckyougotmine's a gem, isn't he? Before you hasten to enchain your neighbors for the furtherance of your precious illusion of security, understand that your viewpoint is invalid to totality. This horseshit is so unbelievably old, and so unbelievably tired, it hurts my fucking head to restate, for the thousandth time, what every man with a moral compass and comprehension of reality already knows -- prohibition is practically ineffective, morally impermissible, and fallacious conceptually.

    If you want an argument, I'll give you one. Get this, fuckbreath -- the United Kingdom is, comparatively speaking, a festering shithole of violent crime. From the absolute fabrication of crime statistics to the misclassification of crimes committed to the sheer censorship masking the severity of crime in Europe, I could drag you into a debate and drown you in a million different reasons for why you're a misinformed fucking idiot.

    But I suspect a troll. Are you going to just chickenshit away when actual arguments start rolling, like I suspect?

  • fuckyougotmine||

    Dear dear Thymirus, I'll let you in on a little secret. I'm mostly just here to fuck with glibertarians. I hate glibertarians and glibertarianism. I want it to be singularly unpleasant to engage with me, I want to waste a lot of your time, and I want to make fun of you guys, a lot, so that's what I'm doing.

    How does that grab ya? Fucking twerp.

  • Brian||

    I'm sorry you hate libertarians. Whatever we did to make you so butt hurt, we apologize.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "but we have a civilization to run."

    Who is "we"?

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    We are the government, and the government is us!

  • Brian||

    Part of the fun of democratic governance is fantasizing about control.

  • KevinP||

    I agree completely. This is why the Soviet Union won in Afghanistan, and the US won decisively in Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Oh, wait.

  • KalkiDas||

    Yes, modern armies are so formidable against armed citizens, the citizens shouldn't even consider resisting. Cake walk for government. Someone forgot to tell that to ISIS. Someone forget to tell the Iraq resistance. The mujahideen in Afganistan in the late 70s. The Viet Cong in the 60s. Etc.

  • EMD||

    "These are not colonial times when everyone's fighting with muskets and cannons, your handguns are not much of a check against tyranny in 2015."

    Tyranny comes in the form of your local police, mostly.

    Or from your fellow citizen.

    Not from the Federal Government and Armed Forces.

  • kbolino||

    Only one of those attacks happened in England.

    No shit, sherlock. Learn to fucking read.

  • ||

    this is what Freedom looks like

    Strangely enough this is the answer. With freedom comes responsibilities and sometimes side-effects.

    Like the freedom of being able to drive a car will have the side-effect of automobile accidents & resulting deaths.

    Or the freedom not currently to do drugs could lead to more deaths via overdosing.

    Or the freedom to have sex will lead to higher STD rates.

    Now if you want to go live in a dictatorship, catch yourself a plane ride to North Korea. If you want a more benevolent dictatorship, ala Europe, I'm sure the US is getting there in a few years.

  • ||

    s/b: freedom (not currently) to do drugs

  • lap83||

    this is what Freedom looks like
    Strangely enough this is the answer.

    I disagree. Like Hyperion pointed out above, gun control makes crime worse, not better.
    Progs have set up a false dilemma that we have to choose between freedom to carry and reducing crime. The reality is that gun control laws only disarm law-abiding citizens.

  • ||

    agreed - I was just saying that true freedom will always have some side-effects. But that's the price of freedom.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    There is no such thing as a zero-risk society. Government could just mandate that we all stay in bed until they can send a guard around to take us to work. Unless you are in favor of people being shot down helplessly in the street while trying to get to their job?

  • kbolino||

    Government could just mandate that we all stay in bed until they can send a guard around to take us to work.

    Amazingly, nobody cites such places as being very safe. Funny, that.

  • EMD||

    "Government could just mandate that we all stay in bed until they can send a guard around to take us to work"

    Like, prison.

  • NYC2AZ||

  • Jordan||

    How is my lack of tiger attacks not proof of my tiger-repelling rock working in practice?

  • ||

    No one needs to own a rock.

  • ||

    Especially a black scary one that can be thrown more than seven times.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Or more than 23 rocks !

  • Brian||

    Does it have that thing that goes up in the back?

  • Adam330||

    Well handgun use in crimes went UP (actually more than doubled) after the 1997 handgun ban:

    That would suggest that gun was not "working in practice"

  • KevinP||

    With the sole exception of homicide, the UK is a more violent country than the US. You are more likely to become the victim of a crime of violence in the UK than in the US.

    UK is violent crime capital of Europe (Telegraph)

    It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe... By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.
  • FYTW||

    It's proof of gun control working in practice in an island-nation the size of Alabama that lacked a robust gun culture, a constitutional equivalent of the Second Amendment, or anywhere near the sheer per-capita quantity of firearms that we do in the United States.

    In other words, it's a stupidly irrelevant comparison. Please tattoo the words "I AM A FUCKING MORON" on your forehead in block letters.

  • DesigNate||

    If you think places like the UK and Australia are so peachy, why don't you move there and leave America to people who actually appreciate liberty.

    In other words: Fuck off, slaver.

  • ||

    "Hillary Clinton reacts to gun tragedies in completely predictable way that I could have written up for you before she even announced it"

  • ||

    The left don't have any plan outside of getting what they can towards turning the USA into an authoritarian regime. They've been playing this game for more than 100 years. They just keep whining and pushing and saying 'but let's just do some common sense stuff, we don't want to take away anyone's rights'. But in fact, taking away people's rights is exactly what they want. If they could confiscate all guns today and make owning any gun illegal, they wouldn't hesitate for a minute to do it. They can't do that, so they just inch along a little at a time until they get what they ultimately want.

  • Adans smith||

    All this form a women living under the protection of the Secret Servie since 1991.What a bitch. Your betters will always have armed guards.

  • R C Dean||

    "Hillary, would you say your life is in more danger on a day-to-day basis than a single mother living in inner city Detroit?"

    If she says "yes", she looks like a narcissistic fool.

    If she says "no", well, now you're set up to ask her why she needs armed protection, but someone whose life is, by her own admission, in more danger shouldn't be allowed to own a gun,

  • MetalBard||

    That is actually brilliant. Too bad nobody will ever ask her that...

  • DenverJ||

    It is brilliant. What about it, Reason staff, you're journalists, aren't you?

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Come on, this is easy.

    Single black mother.

    "So you want to cut funding for inner city single moms but you want them having an arsenal in their homes where little kids can shoot themselves? You racist Rethiglican teabagging monster."

  • Drake||

    For most of the preceding 12 years, the Clintons were guarded by Arkansas State Police. So she has lived most of her adult life with armed guards about (whom she despises and insults according to all reports).

  • Tejicano||

    It would be interesting if some whacko popped out with a handgun to shoot her and the secret service agents dove down pretending to take the bullet for her - but actually giving the shooter a better shot.

  • RBS||

    Articles like this are what is wrong with America. #something.

  • GILMORE™||

    OT = Collective Bargaining, Old-School

    "PARIS — Union activists protesting nearly 3,000 proposed layoffs at Air France stormed the headquarters during a meeting Monday, zeroing in on two managers who had their shirts torn from their bodies, scaled a fence and fled under police protection.

    ... labor relations in France are commonly testy, with unions sometimes even resorting to holding managers hostage — or “boss-napping” — to make a point."

    The picture is pretty epic

    The irony is that this kind of manager-class is the product of a system where parasitic unions are taken for granted. The union class engenders managers who allow institutions to lapse into near-bankruptsy, *forcing layoffs*, because they are too terrified to make any actual business-decisions along the way that might be unpopular with labor. Its "management as Politics" instead of management to sustain a profitable business.

  • ||

    Well, profits are evil, you rat fucking teahadist American.

  • commodious spittoon||

    So managers in France are really just designated Goldsteins?

  • GILMORE™||

    lol to some degree

    management is hired by the board

    the board of a "National Infrastructure" company like Air France is likely stuffed with at least 1-2 political reps, and 1-2 labor reps, and 1-2 finance reps each of whom aim to hire managers who deliver X range of required concessions to labor during their tenure, while also making good on their payments to debt holders.

    The goal is for the person to feed the beast(s) while causing as little public disruption as possible. If the business starts to founder due to 'competition' or external economic conditions, management is thrown to the dogs, the firm appeals to Govt for a bailout, debt is restructured, and the cycle is renewed.

  • GILMORE™||

    A small hint that Air France isn't exactly a "delivering value to shareholders" kind of operation

    To be fair, all airline stocks have their own weird kind of internal dynamics.... either "perpetually going bankrupt", or "experiencing sudden short boom after restructuring/buyout"

  • ||

    They just need to tax the evil rich at like 70%. Have they done that yet?

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    It didn't work. So they are going to try 80% next. Eventually, they'll get the level right.

  • ||

    Yeah, it would have worked, they just didn't go far enough. Typical leftist mentality.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Fuck Air France. I will never fly them again. Bunch of effeminate America hating dickwads.

  • commodious spittoon||

    Air France is staffed by American academics?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Damn close. The French.

    The good food and wine on the flights doesn't even come close to making up for what assholes the employees are.

  • GILMORE™||

    The few times I flew it (intra-Europe), it involved a stale-ish croissant, a bottle of vin no different than on any airline, and a little tub of pate

    Chez Paul, it wasn't.

    Plus, while jokes about french people over-using perfume/body-spray and under-using deodorant are tres passe... i would have traded the wine for Febreze in a second.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I was on an overnight to Tahiti. Good food served by world class assholes.

    Next time, I'm taking Air Tahiti Nui. I don't care if it costs double.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    The business exists to employ workers, not to provide a good or service to consumers.

  • GILMORE™||

    yeah. to my point - the board seems to be disproportionately represented by "human resources"... and they even have a second board devoted exclusively to labor representatives.

    I would add that the firm also serves as a jobs-provider/cash-churner for financial services firms.
    i.e. banks buy their bonds by the bushel, knowing the state will always intervene to protect their stake, they make bank trading them. Everyone is a crony/parasite, except the equity "owners" who seem to be perpetually hosed.

    I find it amusing that the Left's ideal of a "Managed Public-Benefit Corporation" is in reality far closer to the caricature of 'corrupt crony wall st bankers and govt toads' than anything else.

  • ||

    Hillary, going full in on climate change and gun control. Probably the least most important issues on most voters minds. There's a reason why no one runs on gun control. Even Obama didn't do it.

    The bad thing is, if she's the nominee, democrat voters will vote for her no matter how much they dislike her. Their reasoning, she's not a Republican. There is no voter block on the left like we have on the right who will sit it out or vote 3rd party. They're like the borg.

    And the GOP is going to totally screw it up again, that's already apparent.

    If you think Obama has been bad, wait until this hag is in the Whitehouse. We'll all be wishing for the good old days of Obama.

  • GILMORE™||

    Her strategy now is simply to retain as many core-democrat voters she can. She's not campaigning to Win new people or people on the fence on issues... she's trying to cling desperately to "core FEELS issues" for hardcore Team Blue.

    Bernie is weak on Gun Control (i.e. "sane"), and weak on Mexicans. hillary will try and out-green him, and out anti-gun him, while ignoring the mexican issue because she knows there's plenty of moderate populist Dems who dislike immigrants as much as the Team Red voters.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    Her campaign has made this explicit - she can't rely on independents or stealing Republican votes, so she needs to count on the Obama coalition. Which, unfortunately for her, means trying to inspire them to bother to vote. When even the hard-core, "Democrats Uber Alles" moonbats admit they will need to vote for her with their nostrils held shut, inspiring the Obamaphiles to turn out is a long shot at best.

  • GILMORE™||

    Yep. I've been convinced that even if she wins the primary, that her chances of winning the general are weak because of so many dems that are generally disinterested in her, preferring Bernie

    they rely on turnout most of all. she doesn't do it for the kiddies and the minorities and independents. Old people and women wont win for her.

    Her only hope is if the GOP brings someone super-retarded like Trump.

  • R C Dean||

    So, she's the odds-on favorite for winning, I suppose.

  • AlexInCT||

    You are forgetting the cadre of illegal and dead voters they rely on...

  • Scalro Humillimus||

    Their turnout is unreliable. She may need some proxy voting. I am sure sufficient ballots will be found in the trunk of a car somewhere.

  • ||

    I don't think she can steal many left voters from Bernie, most of the really far left progressives like Bernie and don't trust Hillary. It's mostly the 'we need a woman president' single women, and old school Dem voters that will go for Hillary, if they can remember where the voting booth is and empty their drool bucket in time to drive their huvaround there.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    She would accomplish absolutely nothing that is on her agenda, would be run out of office by the end of her term, and probably give us all some epic freak-outs to enjoy when people failed to treat her with the reverence she feels entitled to.

    But, all that would pale when put up against having to see that face staring out of the TV screen every day.

  • Drake||

    It would be amusing if she had a hysterical break-down in front of Putin or a similar thug.

  • R C Dean||

    There is no voter block on the left like we have on the right who will sit it out or vote 3rd party.

    Well, not exactly, but turning out the base is still a necessary, if not, perhaps, sufficient means to winning an election.

    Record turnouts in the black community were a big part of Barack's wins. Leaving aside how much fraud occurred in deep blue black precincts, if you take those down to historically typical turnouts, its not at all clear he would have won.

  • ||

    I will admit, I doubt she can get the black turnout she expects or the youth vote that Obama had in 2008. Voting for an old white hag just doesn't have the same kind of cool that voting for the first black president had. In fact, I doubt that can ever be repeated by any special victim group. The magic is over.

    But don't underestimate the power of the Stupid Party to out stupid themselves, again. And this time, they have a secret weapon, the Donald.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    We're a year away from the election and there was a big shooting days ago. This is not indicative of her "going full in" on gun control.

  • dantheserene||

    "We" have anything on the right? I didn't think I was a part of the left-right spectrum.

  • EMD||

    You may not be a part of the left-right spectrum, but the left-right spectrum is a part of you.

    Or something ...

  • GILMORE™||

    The story headline changed

    ...removing the point that "Old Policy Proposals....that wouldn't have any effect on mass shootings?"

  • Mr Lizard||

    Come on proggies you almost got it last time. You just have to change up your message. Charge that hill, it's election season after all.

  • This Machine||

    "Half a league, half a league, half a league onward
    Into the valley of death gun-grabbing
    Rode the six hundred shrieking old harridan"

    Hmm. I think this could work.

  • R C Dean||

    even if you see zero right for anyone to be able to defend themselves with the best means available,

    This needs to be how every conversation with a gun "controller" starts:

    "Do you believe that people have the right to defend themselves if they are attacked? Yes or no. Its a simple question."

    If they say no, they are an obvious fringe nutter and can be written off by everyone.

    If they say yes, well, they've just lost the game.

    "So, if I have the right to defend myself, doesn't that mean I have the right to use an effective means of self-defense?" Etc.

  • RBS||

    "Look, RC, I know you are a responsible person, I'm not worried about people like you. It's those other people I'm worried about."

  • R C Dean||

    "But you are still trying to take my guns. Why is that, if you're not worried about me?"

  • AlmightyJB||

    Guns are bad mkay

  • commodious spittoon||

    "We're not trying to take your guns. We're just trying to implement commonsense legislative reforms, none of which we can actually articulate much less justify how, in practice, they might have prevented the most recent shooting."

  • Charles Easterly||

    If I understand these things well enough, Dean, the reasoning goes something like this: "R C Dean, it's individuals like you, whom we personally know and believe to be a safe person, who can buy and keep their guns. Although we might believe that you are mistaken in your understanding of the Second Amendment and even though you seem to veer near conspiracy theories regarding your own government (which is one of, by, and for the people!), we nonetheless know you personally and believe that you would only use a gun for self-defense.

    It's those other crazies who we need to keep from obtaining and keeping guns.

  • R C Dean||

    "I'm flattered that you think you know me well enough to grant me permission to defend myself, but we've just met. You don't know me at all. Tell me how your regulatory bureaucracy is going to sort the "good" gun owners from the "bad" gun owners."

  • commodious spittoon||

    Through a process less like threshing wheat and more like burning down the field.

  • Charles Easterly||

    "... your regulatory bureaucracy...."

    I am confident they would respond with appeals to authority.* Experts in germane fields should be consulted and their recommendations used to enlighten the people's representatives in Congress (i.e., influence legislation).

    I know I am echoing a point CS made ("We're not trying to take your guns. We're just trying....") but I think a significant number of people tend to trust the people with whom they normally interact or have met several times than they trust people whom they've never met.

    Thus: "R C? That guy's alright. I know him. You know him. Heck, most of us here have known him for years. It's those other wackos we need to keep from getting guns."

    Thanks for responding. I think we agree enough to not play choir to one another.

    *Again, this is pure speculation. I am trying to understand a seemingly consensus view with which I have no attachment.

  • Illocust||

    Then you trot out a tiny weak woman and ask why they hate women. Men don't have to worry about being able to fend off an attacker. Being pro-gun control is being pro-male dominance via physical intimidation.....Of course, that's if you want to go full emotional appeal on them. If you only sorta want to appeal in that direction. Reword to point out that most criminals are young men, so disarmament is going to disproportionally hurt the old, female, and disabled, while also disproportionally benefitting both the criminal and the young, male, and fit.

  • R C Dean||

    Just so.

    Once you get the conversation to be about the fundamental right to self-defense, you are fighting on friendly ground.

    If you let it be about all those icky guns and the weirdos who own them, not so much.

  • Illocust||

    You're assuming that there is a common ground of rights to debate over. Social contract folks basically assume rights do not exist. All public policy should be based upon what produces the most good as defined by the person asserting the social contract. It's defeatist, I know, but there is a place for practicality when trying to convince people.

  • R C Dean||

    I know, but flushing these attitudes into the light of day by asking the "big" rights-based question is a good way to put them on the defensive.

    They love the language of "fundamental human rights". Having them deny one, out loud and on the record, puts them on the defensive.

    We should do it a lot more often.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    A social contract is when the people with power tell you what you are allowed to do with your life and property.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Vast majority of gun violence is commited using handguns. The vast majority of those are obtained illegally. First order of bysiness for left though is always banning "assault weapons" and making legal purchases more difficult. Really just proves that their gun grabbing agenda has zero to do with reducing gun violence. Makes sense since to them Black Lives Really Don't Matter. Disarming law abiding citizens does matter though.

  • AlmightyJB||

    On the plus side, her and Dear Leader talking about it ought to give another boost to gun sales. The more guns out there, the harder their attempts at taking them all away get. Ramble on.

  • ||

    And bye, bye civil rights...

  • AlmightyJB||

    Abortion on demand is the only right that matters.

  • R C Dean||

    And the fundamental human right to get a state-licensed gay marriage.

    [ducks, runs]

  • ||

    The right to have someone forced to provide cake for your wedding ceremony shall not be abridged.

  • ||

    abridged?!? WTF? Infringed is the word that I meant to type.

  • ATXChappy||

    "Mrs. Clinton also backed proposals to bar gun sellers from completing sales if background checks are still under way. Under current law, sellers are allowed to complete a sale after three business days even if a background check hasn’t cleared...."

    On the face of it this one does seem like "Common sense". But, then I remembered that politicians don't have any common sense and immediately thought of the Marijuana tax act. What better way to render something illegal than require a background check to purchase it. But, then not issue any background checks.

  • Tejicano||

    The current NICS background check system usually works rather quickly. But once the transaction cannot proceed until that check is completed I can imagine how some monkeying with the system could slow that down to a crawl. "Sorry John, again today the system hasn't cleared your purchase. Call us back tomorrow - or better yet, we'll call you when it clears."

  • Idle Hands||

    OT: The Instapundit mansplains the gun lobby:

    According to a recent Pew poll, more Americans support gun rights than gun control. That represents a significant shift over the situation a few decades ago. And I believe the reason is that people don’t trust the government to protect them anymore, and, in fact, that they don’t trust the government in general.

    To feel safe in a society where only the police have guns, you have to trust the police. But in post-Ferguson America, trust in police is at a 22-year low. (Paradoxically, many of those criticizing police for brutality and abuse also support gun control, and appear oblivious to the inherent contradictions.)

    And, if you’re at all a gun rights supporter, to support “reasonable” gun control measures you have to trust politicians who say they only want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies, not confiscate guns from everyone. That’s hard to do when President Obama — who said in 2008 "I won’t take your gun away” — now says that Australia, with its draconian program of gun confiscation, is a good model.
  • Idle Hands||

    comments are predictably hilarious:

    njglea is a trusted commenter Seattle 5 hours ago
    Yes, conservatives have done a great job of sowing fear, anger and hate against OUR governments. However, the vast majority of Americans want serious gun regulation so WE can live in a safe environment. WE concerned Americans are not demanding enough and it's time to stand up and shout out for serious gun regulation. Every gun in America must be registered on a national database, licensed and fully insured for liability. Every gun. People can own as many as they want - just like cars - as long as they are registered, licensed and fully insured. Manufacturers already have a record of every gun, and every gun part, they manufacture to track sales. It's just a matter of requiring that they be put on a national law-enforcement registration. States already have licensing offices for vehicles - easy to add guns. Insurers will love the extra business of insuring guns and lawyers will rush to sue errant gun owners who do not care for their guns properly. It's time for NATIONAL REGULATION OF GUNS to restore peace, peace of mind civility and safety in America.


    M.L. Chadwick is a trusted commenter Maine 7 hours ago
    I am a living human being, and I advocate for my right to continue to enjoy this status. Human rights trump "gun rights."
  • R C Dean||

    Human rights trump "gun rights."

    And here we have our opening to ask Mr. Chadwick if he believes people have the right to defend themselves against attack.

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    He has trust for police and govt. Self-defense is unnecessary.

  • lap83||

    Who aren't legally obligated to defend anyone. I wish that myth would just die already.

  • Restoras||

    Indeed. My BiL is a cop and has told me flat out he won't take a bullet for anyone - that's not his job. However, the Protect and Serve myth continues and people are inclined to believe what they read without any serious thought. As far as our own government - I believe the phrase is 'provide for the common defense', at least with respect to foreign actions, and not 'guarantee peace and safety'.

  • commodious spittoon||

    Human rights also include the right to stage a home invasion, mugging, or strong-armed robbery without fear of overwhelming retaliation.

  • Restoras||

    Don't forget all the free shit.

  • lap83||

    "Yes, conservatives have done a great job of sowing fear, anger and hate against OUR governments."

    This is a really telling way of framing his argument. He's saying it's gun control advocates and government VS conservatives. He basically admits that gun control is targeted at conservatives and, if implemented, the government will magically reward everyone else with safety and peace.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    And I believe the reason is that people don’t trust the government to protect them anymore, and, in fact, that they don’t trust the government in general.

    On this point, the above tard's argument, "You don't need a gun to stop tyranny, because the government would just vaporize you with a drone strike," probably isn't helping.

  • Idle Hands||

    Wow what a convincing argument, we might as well roll over and let the fascists take over.

  • Idle Hands||

    game over all the scales have tipped, the gun grabbers have won, the science is settled.

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    paula is a trusted commenter
    18 minutes ago
    Say a little more, professor. Not everybody has this much hatred and mistrust for the government. Stop random people in a middle class suburb above the Mason-Dixon line. They may be worried about crime, but they aren't worried about the government "comin for their guns." For that matter, they may or may not be concerned about police killing black men, but they aren't arming themselves to stop that.

    This projected off my screen and smacked me in the eyes so fast I barely had time to blink.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Stop random people in a middle class suburb above the Mason-Dixon line.

    That comment tells you all you need to know about the range of this idiot's personal perspective, which is likely limited to whatever noodle-arms and effete SWPLs she hangs out with.

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    So instead of figuring out why background checks take greater than three days, this prospective nominee to run our country's government wants to put background checks on an open-ended schedule. Of course there's no quid pro quo with filing quarterly employer taxes, etc.

  • R C Dean||

    A background check requirement without a hard deadline is essentially a slo-mo ban on the sale of weapons.

    Which is exactly why the gun banners want it.

  • ||

    Maybe we should pass laws as follows:

    Hold TV networks responsible for crimes carried out by their viewers if the crime can be shown to have been part of a recent broadcast on that network.

    Hold drug companies liable for deaths or injury caused by improper use of their products (like swallowing an entire bottle of sedatives).

    Hold beer producers responsible when an inebriated fan falls from the balcony of a sporting event and is injured or killed.

    Or MAYBE we should be logical and assume that people are responsible for their own behavior, even when it is foolish or dangerous.

  • wFt||

    I think MADD sets a good example for dealing with a problem of avoidable deaths. A couple of decades back fatalities from drunk drivers was a huge problem, much more than it is now. Thousands of innocent people were being killed by impaired drivers, many of whom were repeat offenders.

    This invariably involved two things: 1) a car and 2) alcohol; however MADD did not set out to ban either of those things.

    What MADD did was raise grass roots support and doubled down on States, Courts, and Prosecutors who had a long standing habit of allowing repeat offenders to plea down to a lesser offense [1st or 2nd] so they could pay a fine and literally drive away, only to DWI again.

    When existing laws were finally enforced, this changed. The repeat offenders who kept driving drunk and eventually killing someone was no longer such a factor. That and raising the legal age of drinking from 18-21 further reduced these occurrences.

    So why not apply this shining example of success and focus on where these problems occur [cities like Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans, Washington DC to name a few, and mandate prosecution of those who commit weapons violations, no plea bargains, and impose mandatory maximum sentencing. I am willing to bet the homicide rate will drop another 50% [as it has over the past two decades] within a few years.

    Now that is what I call a reasonable solution.

  • Idle Hands||

    and drunk drivers still pose more of an immediate statistical threat to your health than someone shooting you.

  • R C Dean||

    When existing laws were finally enforced, this changed.

    Well, when laws were changed to lower the BAC limit, restrict options for sentencing, etc., this changed.

    mandate prosecution of those who commit weapons violations, no plea bargains, and impose mandatory maximum sentencing.

    Unless, by weapons violations, you mean "commit a violent crime with a weapon", you have just described every gun banner's desired end state.

  • Number.6||

    That does nothing to address the systematic current injustice which denies law abiding citizens in those cities any effective way of defending themselves.

    I'm also willing to 'bet' that there are thousands of *otherwise* law abiding citizens in those jurisdictions who own a firearm, who would inevitably get caught up in that "zero tolerance policy".

    The difference - and I'm surprised anyone has to point this out - is that an adult may legally drive a car, and an adult may legally get intoxicated. It's the confluence of these two activities which creates what most "reasonable" people would agree is dangerous situation which MAY endanger others' lives.

    In the cities you mention, to all intents, an adult cannot legally own a firearm because the city Solons consider that the very act of owning an inanimate object constitutes a grave threat to public safety - in effect doing what MADD did not do.

    So now, you're advocating punishing someone EVEN HARDER for behavior which is legal in the rest of the US. Bravo. Maybe you'd like to point to the specific behavior for which "reasonable people" should support a "zero tolerance policy".

  • kbolino||

    All driving fatalities are down a lot from where they were decades ago. Cars are a lot safer than they used to be.

  • GILMORE™||


  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Fuck MADD and piss off

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Reacting with the same failed policies that got us into this mess.

  • DenverJ||

    The majority of gun owners left the Democratic party years ago. I think many progtards just have a picture of some yokel when they think of gun owners. I really think a lot of the dislike of guns is actually a dislike of who they think gun owners are.

  • Alan@.4||


  • The Grinch||

    What to do when these rules don't do jack shit?
    Pass moar rulez!!

    Dear God, we're fucked.

  • paulrvalentine||

    I've been arguing the past couple days with a relative who works for the Center for American Progress. Things he's now argued:

    1. He thinks the "common sense thing to do" is the government banning private ownership of literally all weapons

    2. I pointed out that DUIs kill more people than guns every year in the U.S. and asked if he then favored prohibition of alcohol. He responded no because he "likes a drink" and "besides, alcohol is designed to enhance celebration, not kill."

    3. He claims there's no substantive intellectual difference between an individual owning a handgun and a billionaire purchasing a fully armed drones, and I am therefore arguing in favor of people owning fully armed drones by supporting gun ownership.

  • The Grinch||

    Sounds like a smart, thoughtful fellow you should interact with on holidays only.

  • EMD||

    Where do I sign up for the fully-armed drone?

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Jesus guys.
    Who's always first, and who was first on this thread.

  • DenverJ||


  • DenverJ||

    Oh wait, you're saying we're being trolled by fist?
    That's ok, it's always good to lay out this argument.

  • Alan@.4||

    Saint Hillary doesn't suffer from a shortage of funds.That being the case, respecting what appears to be her current rehash of old songs, why doesn't she hire dome new writers? Is she really that cheap?

  • Sigivald||

    I won't at all be surprised if something like a "universal background check" law does pass in the near future

    Which Oregon already had, those so recently I have no idea if any of Mr. Shooter's guns were purchased in that time frame.

    And I am roughly 100% sure it wouldn't have mattered, since so far I have no information suggesting he was a prohibited person.

    All around Facebook I've seen two things:

    1) People suggesting new laws that would not have stopped it.
    2) People swearing that "nobody wants to take your guns" ... while demanding something be done.

    I don't comprehend #1, except as a weird coping mechanism.

    #2, well ... I'm sure they personally are "sure" they don't want to "take your guns", you know - just make it super hard to get any, but that's totally different.

    And I know better than to believe "nobody" wants to take "my guns" - because the gun control advocates occasionally slip up and admit they want to, when they think nobody's really listening.

  • Tejicano||

    Well of course they don't want to take YOUR guns. They will just write the laws which will make all guns property of the government - maybe they will even let you hold on to them for a while.

    But when it is time to get rid of all weapons in circulation they will come to take the government's guns away from you.

    See how that works?

  • Rockabilly||

    When the harpy says 'common sense,' she means communist sense.

  • dbruce|| Smart guns combined with GPS technology which could only be used in your home or 1000 acre farm. This would eliminate all accidental shootings and keep perps from taking police guns and killing them. All present guns could be retrofitted. Guns could be activated by a code from the police and be used other places. This wouldn't be perfect but would be a 99% solution.

  • Lord at War||

    Wow- we got us a leftard here, guys!

    1)Smart guns combined with GPS technology which could only be used in your home or 1000 acre farm.-- So, what do I do when someone tries to rob me while taking the $3000 from the Pizza shop I manage to the night depository at the bank? Beat him over the head with the gun butt?

    2)This would eliminate all accidental shootings,-- Except all those accidental shootings that occur on your 1000 acre farm or in your home.

    3) All present guns could be retrofitted.-- Because all of those 350 million guns owned by over 100 million people will absolutely be "retrofitted" about the same time you collect the ~$1 trillion annually in unpaid taxes and stop the multi-million dollar drug trade in maximum security prisons.

    4)Guns could be activated by a code from the police and be used other places.-- This is what "full retard" looks like.

  • PatrickPayton||

    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!......


  • PatrickPayton||

    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!......


  • Chrxtoph3r||

    Guns don't kill people.

    Cain didn't have a gun.

    Nor, were the BILLIONS of humans killed, before guns were even invented, killed with a gun.

    They were killed with evil intent.

    Just like abortions.

    800,000 a year (in the U.S. alone) killed without the FIRST INSTANCE OF A GUN being used!

    So, for all of the 'Guns Are Evil' crowd...

    Do you hate 'murder?'

    Or do you just hate those who don't subscribe to being murdered?

    Oh, WAIT!

    You DO hate those who don't subscribe to being murdered, because, you SUPPORT ABORTION SYCOPHANTICALLY!!!

    The dichotomy in your brain is described as a legitimate mental ailment.


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