MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Obama Calls for 'Stronger Background Checks' to Prevent Mass Shootings

Responding to the San Bernardino attack, the president says more people should arbitrarily lose their constitutional rights.

CBS NewsCBS News"We can't tolerate this anymore," President Obama declared after the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. "These tragedies must end." At the same time, he conceded that "no single law" and "no set of laws" can "prevent every senseless act of violence." Yesterday, responding to the mass shooting that took 14 lives in San Bernardino, Obama made even more allowance for reality, telling CBS News, "There are some steps we could take, not to eliminate every one of these mass shootings but to improve the odds [so] that they don't happen as frequently." Yet he still faces the same challenge: What steps, and how exactly can they be expected to "improve the odds"?

Obama referred to "common-sense gun safety laws," including "stronger background checks." We don't yet know whether the perpetrators of yesterday's attacks—identified by police as Syed Rizwan Farook, a 28-year-old environmental inspector who worked for the county health department, which was holding a holiday party in the building where the attack occurred, and his 27-year-old wife, Tashfeen Malik—had criminal or psychiatric records that would have legally disqualified them from buying guns. But given the general pattern in mass shootings, the odds are that they didn't. Furthermore, as Brian Doherty noted last night, California already has the "universal background checks" that Obama would like to require throughout the country: All gun transfers, except those between close relatives, must be carried out with the assistance of a licensed firearms dealer, who is required to make sure the buyer does not meet any of the state's disqualifying criteria, which are more numerous than those set forth in federal law. California also requires a buyer to wait 10 days before taking possession of a gun, restricts the size of magazines, and bans so-called assault weapons.

Like Obama, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof thinks "universal background checks" are "an imperative first step" in "curbing access to guns among people who present the greatest risk." That makes it sound as if there is a well-established connection between violent tendencies and the factors that bar gun ownership under federal law. But except for the criteria related to violent crimes (including misdemeanors as well as felonies in the case of domestic violence), that is simply not true. The fact that people consume cannabis, enter or stay in the United States illegally, commit a nonviolent felony, or have undergone forcible psychiatric treatment for suicidal tendencies does not make them especially likely to commit mass murder. (In fact, undocumented immigrants seem less likely to commit crimes than natives.) Yet all these groups are legally barred from owning guns.

Universal background checks would only compound this injustice by improving enforcement of rules that arbitrarily deprive people of the right to armed self-defense. Yet instead of reconsidering the absurdly broad excuses for taking away people's Second Amendment rights, Obama and Kristof want to expand them. "We have a no-fly list where people can't get on planes," Obama told CBS News, "but those same people who we don't allow to fly could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a firearm, and there's nothing that we can do to stop them. That's a law that needs to be changed." Kristof concurs:

Astonishingly, it's perfectly legal even for people on the terrorism watch list to buy guns in the United States. More than 2,000 terrorism suspects did indeed purchase guns in the United States between 2004 and 2014, according to the Government Accountability Office and The Washington Post's Wonkblog. Democrats have repeatedly proposed closing that loophole, but the National Rifle Association and its Republican allies have blocked those efforts, so it's still legal.

One man's loophole is another man's due process. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) estimates that the FBI's so-called Terrorist Watchlist includes more than 1 million names. The ACLU describes the list as a "virtually standardless" dragnet that "ensnares innocent people and encourages racial and religious profiling." Although the list is supposedly limited to people "reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activity," something like two-fifths have "no recognized terrorist group affiliation."

Under current law, certain convictions, including many that have nothing to do with violence, result in the permanent loss of Second Amendment rights. Obama and Kristof think that's a wimpy approach. In their view, mere suspicion, no matter the grounds for it, should be enough to disarm someone. Why insist on a conviction, or even formal charges, when public safety is at stake? 

In addition to depriving innocent people of their constitutional rights, the "stronger background checks" Obama wants would impose new burdens on millions of gun owners trying to sell their own property. That's the downside. As for the upside, we cannot say for sure that requiring background checks for all gun transfers would never prevent a mass shooting. But unless it turns out that Farook and Malik were legally disqualified from buying guns but evaded background checks by obtaining them from a private seller outside of California, their crimes do not make the case for the policy favored by Obama and Kristof any stronger. "It's not clear what policy, if any, could have prevented the killings in San Bernardino," Kristof concedes. "Not every shooting is preventable. But we're not even trying."

When "trying" means imposing definite costs in exchange for uncertain benefits, pointing that out does not make one complicit in mass murder, as the New York Times editorial board implies. "Are these atrocities truly beyond the power of government and its politicians to stop?" it asks. "That tragically has been the case as political leaders offer little more than platitudes after each shootout, while the nation is left to numbly anticipate the next killing spree." In truth, it is the Times that keeps offering platitudes, as opposed to actual policy proposals backed by anything resembling a logical argument. The Times wants "firm action" in the form of "gun safety laws." That's as specific as it gets.

This ritual is quite familiar by now. Gun controllers insist that a horrifying, headline-grabbing crime bolsters the case for the policies they have always favored, but they can't explain how. Might that failure have something to do with their lack of success?

Update: According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the two rifles and two handguns used in the San Bernardino attack were purchased legally in the United States four years ago. Assuming they were sold in California, that means the buyer(s) passed background checks.

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's not going to happen, not based on this incident. The focus of the general population will not be that they had obtained weapons legally but that their names were Middle Eastern. The best Obama can hope for is support to disarm Muslims.

  • ||

    +1 bitter clinging

  • WTF||

    Fortunately, California has super-restrictive gun laws to prevent incidents like this.

  • Adans smith||

    It is the France of the U.S.A.

  • Drake||

    Exactly - no one passes the background check with a name like Sayeed or Barrack Hussien.... Problem solved. Thanks President Obama.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I suspect that many who have contempt for the 2nd also have contempt for the 1st.

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    I suspect that many who have contempt for the 2nd also have contempt for the 1st.

    There's no need to suspect that. Just visit a university campus.

  • Akira||

    I suspect that many who have contempt for the 2nd also have contempt for the entire document. I mean, it was written, like, 100 years ago by white slave owners!

  • 3||

    They don't care about due process and they don't care about self defense. What they want is a ban and confiscation but it's an unattainable goal. For now.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The minute any sort of banning law is passed at this point is when the second Civil War starts. Even the mandatory buyback in Australia saw plenty of people refuse to turn their guns in, and Australia's gun-owning culture is far less ubiquitous than ours is. Clinton got away with an "assault weapons" ban in the 90s, but that was a far less partisan time and no gun owner today actually trusts that the Democrats value safety over rubbing their authoritarian impulses.

  • wareagle||

    this is why the left tries the incremental route, with "common sense" ideas whose sole purpose is rhetorical and political - if you disagree, then you clearly lack common sense. We've seen this movie before: each step leads to the next one.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Yeah, I still remember when the holy Brady Bill was going to stop all the gun violence.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    Australia's buyback only reduced private ownership by 20-40% and now there are more guns in Australia than before the buyback.

  • Johnimo||

    Clinton's "Assault Weapons Ban" is just one of the many good reasons why John Kasich is going nowhere in the Republican pre-primaries polls. He voted for it, and we haven't forgotten. John now claims "I was wrong to vote for it because it didn't work." We can only assume he'd still be for it if it had "worked," whatever that means.

  • totc||

    These progressives sure do enjoy dancing in the blood of innocents.

  • Steve G||

    Especially when it's still all warm and sticky

  • Mr Lizard||

    Stomping on a vanquished foe is disrespectful, and ruins the meat...wait are we talking about the same thing?

  • d3x / dt3||

    I liked all of the idiotic calls for civilian disarmament before anything was known about the case. Classy.

  • Rich||

    "WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS SENSELESS GUN VIOLENCE!"

  • ||

    Has Obumbles started calling this workplace violence yet? No one is buying that.

    This is going to be a real kick i n his balls. His refugee program is going to be scrapped. HIs gun control push is going to fall flat. He will lie his ass off and everyone will see right through it.

    I am hoping this will torpedo The Hildebeast's ambitions. She endorsed his refugee plan. No Dem with any sense will support him now.

  • Princess Trigger||

    They're like Jesus, Joseph and Mary - with body armor!

  • WTF||

    No Dem with any sense will support him now.

    So, all the Dems will support him?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Pretty much.

    If they had any sense, they would be Dems in the first place.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    make that wouldn't be Dems

  • Chip Woodier||

    In a word....yes.

  • Cloudbuster||

    What kind of background check would have stopped the San Bernardino attack? Maybe the one that decided: "Oh, you're a devout Muslim that has recently traveled to Saudi Arabia and brought back a mail-order bride." But the left and civil libertarians would never allow that. I would not be comfortable with that myself. None of that is a crime.

    My solution to Islamic terrorism -- the real problem -- is to stop inviting Muslims into the country. We invited this latest killer's parents in a generation ago, and that's when this should have been prevented. Once someone is a citizen, we have a responsibility to treat them just like any other citizen, including respecting his second amendment rights.

  • Praveen R.||

    No, but you could certainly prevent such a candidate frm getting semi automatic weapons. I thikn regular guns should be easier to purchase, but you will have to get a security clearance to get semi automatics. What is the compelling reason to own one? I have to go through hurdles for building a damn house. A lot of my conservative neighbors have on problem dictating what height my lawn should be.

  • Rich||

    Um, a lotta guys might say semiautomatics *are* regular guns.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Indeed - several in a row.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Semi automatics ARE regular guns.

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    Semi automatics ARE regular guns.

    And have been for over a century.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Semi-automatic guns are regular guns.

  • wareagle||

    and how would you do that, prevent this person from getting a gun? And no, you do NOT need security clearance for a semi-automatic, as a few others have told you already. The compelling reason to own is because I feel like it; I'm not required to seek someone else's permission beforehand.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Semi-automatic rifles and pistols are fun to shoot. They are interesting machines. They are useful in many self-defense situations.

    A determined killer could do just as much damage with a revolver and a bolt action 30-30 as these deranged killers in San Bernardino did.

    We've got to do something about deranged killers! Banning semi-autos is something! We've got to ban semi-autos!!!!!!!!11!!!11!!!

    The next iteration will occur when a lunatic goes on a shooting spree with a revolver or a 30-30.

  • MetalBard||

    That might even do more damage, because using a slower bolt action might force them to actually aim.

  • Akira||

    Not to mention that with a bolt-action, lever-action, or pump-action, you can put a single round back in the internal magazine whenever you have a second. It's much more cumbersome to drop your mag, push a round or two in, put it back in, and chamber a round.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    What is the compelling reason to own one?

    That's backwards. I don't need a compelling reason to own one. You need a compelling reason to stop me (and specifically me).

    I have to go through hurdles for building a damn house. A lot of my conservative neighbors have on problem dictating what height my lawn should be.

    So work on getting rid of those stupid and immoral rules, don't try to emulate them elsewhere.

  • Praveen R.||

    I am not preventing you from getting one. But what is so compelling that you can get one without a security clearance. I suppose you will also protect my freedom to get a drivers license automatically and I can purchase whatever I want in terms of military grade weapons.

    Forget semi auto. What about armor piercing ammunition. I ahve no problem making it tougher(not banning or even preventing) to get weapons that are not just for defending one self against a robber. If it's for recreational use, guess what, theere are a LOT MORE things I have to put up with when I do my daily chores in life. I had a wingnut neighbor report me to the city because my lawn grew a little because i was out of town traveling for a few weeks.And I don't lve in a subdivision.

    I don't agree with the liberals about gun control being a magic cure. But i think it's stupid that lawmakers won't even pass a bill preventing people on a terror watch list from purchasing even serious weapons . And a lot of gun control people would be fine with a reasonable waiting period. People act like we are depriving you of the right to own such weapons.

  • Cloudbuster||

    The compelling is my natural human right to effective self defense and resistance of government tyranny. Semi-automatic weapons (and select fire weapons) are the normal individual arms carried by police and military and thus are precisely the type recognized by our founders as the sorts of arms that we have the right to own. They specified that this right "shall not be infringed." Period. If you don't like that. You're welcome to try to get the Constitution amended.

  • Loki||

    But i think it's stupid that lawmakers won't even pass a bill preventing people on a terror watch list from purchasing even serious weapons

    There's a lot of people on "terror watch lists" who aren't actually terrorists. A lot of people on no the no fly list are there by mistake. Or perhaps you think the government is perfect and doesn't make mistakes. In which case, you're a dumbass.

  • Trigger Hippie||

    I honestly wonder at times how many of us on this blog are currently on a Terrorist Watch List after the woodchipper incident mearly for voicing our displeasure with government in general. I suspect the number may be fairly large, despite having no affiliation with terrorism in any way, shape or form.

  • Cloudbuster||

    While I know for sure that I am not, at least, on the no fly list. I find it probable that I am flagged somewhere.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    There was a story here of a woman who got on the Terrorism Watchlist in retaliation for her mother challenging the government listing her on the Terrorism Watchlist.

  • Foo_dd||

    you effectively show the ignorance of those who support gun control.

    "I am not preventing you from getting one. But what is so compelling that you can get one without a security clearance."

    requiring a "security clearance", is requiring an arbitrary means of authorizing ownership. as such, people will be denied, who should not be.... so yes... you are preventing people from getting one. 2nd, there is no need to have a compelling argument for a right.

    "Forget semi auto. What about armor piercing ammunition."

    i suppose it is understandable that someone who does not like guns has no idea what they are talking about. first, that most guns are semi-automatic... 2nd, that armor piercing dos not mean only used to pierce armor. typically, it is any bullet made with minimal or no lead.

    "I had a wingnut neighbor..."

    irrelevant. wrong is wrong

    "...pass a bill preventing people on a terror watch list from purchasing..."

    like your "clearance" the watch list is even more arbitrary. it is a list of people you DON'T even have a reason to arrest. this would be a massive violation of civil rights.

    "...would be fine with a reasonable waiting period."

    completely unrelated your other ideas (and, src?)

    "People act like we are depriving you of the right to own such weapons."

    because you are. you just described 4 ways you want to make it harder to own a weapon, all with an arbitrary nature that will impact people who it should not.

  • Chocolate Starfish ( . )||

    @ Praveen R. " But i think it's stupid that lawmakers won't even pass a bill preventing people on a terror watch list from..."

    1. Never start a sentence with a conjunction.
    2. You dumb motherfucker! What if someone put you on a watch list?

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    military grade weapons

    Please cite for us the contemporary military forces for which semi-automatic rifles are the standard issue infantry weapon.

  • Akira||

    I have some questions and counterpoints for you:

    "What about armor piercing ammunition."
    Please explain what you mean by "armor-piercing".

    "lawmakers won't even pass a bill preventing people on a terror watch list from purchasing even serious weapons"
    Are you aware of how arbitrary the terror watch list is? Are you aware that American citizens of Middle Eastern descent have been placed on the list for having the same name as a known terrorist on the other side of the world? And how would you justify the denial of a Constitutional right with no due process whatsoever?

    "And a lot of gun control people would be fine with a reasonable waiting period."
    Define "reasonable". Also, explain why it is that a woman who leaves her abusive ex-husband and receives death threats from him should have to wait a "reasonable" time period before being able to purchase and/or carry a firearm for self-defense.

  • thom||

    What is the compelling reason to own one?

    You've got it backwards. The question should be about the states compelling reason to prevent me from owning one. And if their reason is so compelling, amending the Constitution to reflect that should be possible.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Does your friendly neighborhood crack dealer check for security clearances when selling Sten guns on the side?

  • Loki||

    but you will have to get a security clearance to get semi automatics.

    Perhaps you should do some basic research on what a semi automatic firearm is before spouting off on the internet. Semi-automatic just means you don't have to cock the gun (or operate the bolt on a rifle) between each shot, but it won't continue to fire if you hold the trigger down. You may be confusing semi-automatic with fully automatic, which is a gun that will continue to fire if you hold the trigger. The vast majority of guns on the market are semi-auto.

    The left loves to conflate the two in order to sew confusion and obfuscate on the issue. Mainly because there's already a lot of restrictions on the ownership of fully automatic firearms. If they were actually honest about all that most people wouldn't support more restrictions on semi-autos since that would mean the only "regular guns" left available would be bolt action rifles and six-shooters. Of course that's what the left wants, but again they can't be honest about that and expect to get anywhere.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    Stephen King does exactly that.

    Guys, gals, now hear this: No one wants to take away your hunting rifles. No one wants to take away your shotguns. No one wants to take away your revolvers, and no one wants to take away your automatic pistols, as long as said pistols hold no more than ten rounds.

    King, Stephen (2013-01-25). Guns (Kindle Single) (Kindle Locations 246-248). Philtrum Press. Kindle Edition.

    In addition to the Glock 10 Adam Lanza used to kill himself, he carried a Bushmaster AR-15, a light, easily handled, pistol-gripped semiautomatic rifle that can fire thirty rounds in under a minute

    King, Stephen (2013-01-25). Guns (Kindle Single) (Kindle Locations 265-266). Philtrum Press. Kindle Edition.

    Semi-automatics have only two purposes. One is so owners can take them to the shooting range once in awhile, yell yeehaw, and get all horny at the rapid fire and the burning vapor spurting from the end of the barrel.

    King, Stephen (2013-01-25). Guns (Kindle Single) (Kindle Locations 271-272). Philtrum Press. Kindle Edition.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    And the other way around:

    Dylan Klebold, one of the Columbine shooters, carried an Intratec DC9M machine-pistol, more commonly called a Tec-9.

    King, Stephen (2013-01-25). Guns (Kindle Single) (Kindle Locations 258-259). Philtrum Press. Kindle Edition.

    The DC9M is mini version of the DC9 which is a semi-automatic pistol designed for California (which is what the DC stands for).

  • Gray Ghost||

    Which proves that King knows as much about guns as he does about cars. Fans of his writing have liked him despite his ignorance of both.

    Though the last half of Cell was where I finally washed my hands of him. Should have done it after Dark Tower Part 6, frankly.

  • Praveen R.||

    I will admit a mistake on my part in loosely throwing out terms like semi automatic. That is what happens when you allow the left to have a monopoly on the gun control conversation. People like me will get influenced with such terminilogy because there are no real competing arguments on the conservative side that are commonly put out there. (Well there may be, but you don't come across many of them ).

    For the record, gun control is a very low priority on my list of things I wish would get better. So even if I disagree that there should be no limits on any kind of weapons (whether there are semis or fully autos), at the end of the day, it does not bother me that much,One of the reasons is I do agree with the argument that people kill people and guns are just a tool. The question is can we stem the flow of destruction when weapons inevitably land in bad hands. Public policy is not about eliminating such incidents, but reducing the severity and frequency.

    I guess we should be grateful that islamic fanatics are really not that smart. I am surprised they could only take out 14 people considering there wasn't much resistance.

    As far as a terror watch list, I would hope there would be a convenient way to challenge one's inclusion on it. If not, then I will gladly opppose such a list to be used for anything like screenings on gun background checks or similar areas.

  • junyo||

    What's special about semi's? They call lever actions "redneck AKs". You can crank out a decent volume of fire with a boltie if you've practiced and your Pakistani 'starter virgin' is covering you. What's more dangerous, a dude with no ill intent with a Ruger 10/22 or a crazy with a Remington 700 in .308 Win?

    If you can't define a brightline about what objectively makes these a special case you're basically just saying "they should be banned/controlled because the ban doesn't effect me".

  • Catatafish & Woodchips||

    The sheer amount of ignorance in this comment could rival the power of the sun.

  • Akira||

    Now that's what I call a renewable energy source!

  • kbolino||

    you will have to get a security clearance to get semi automatics

    Well you are a fucking idiot who has no idea what a security clearance is or why it exists. WTF does the protection of classified national security information have to do with owning firearms?

  • Johnimo||

    Like so many others, you apparently have no idea what semi-automatic gun is. The M1911 .45 cal handgun, designed by John Browning is over a hundred years old. It is a semi-automatic gun, and according to wikipedia: "It served as the standard-issue sidearm for the United States Armed Forces from 1911 to 1986. It was first used in later stages of the Philippine-American War, and was widely used in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War."

    What you probably mean is that you don't like the way certain guns "look."

  • Michael Ejercito||


    What kind of background check would have stopped the San Bernardino attack? Maybe the one that decided: "Oh, you're a devout Muslim that has recently traveled to Saudi Arabia and brought back a mail-order bride." But the left and civil libertarians would never allow that. I would not be comfortable with that myself. None of that is a crime.


    The old left perhaps.

  • Sevo||

    Cloudbuster|12.3.15 @ 7:18AM|#
    "What kind of background check would have stopped the San Bernardino attack?"

    The same one that prevents any thing similar from happening in France. The same one that makes Chicago totally free of gun violence.
    See? It's easy.

  • Johnimo||

    It's not often that we get as clear and precise (and illustrative) an answer as you have so facetiously provided! Thank you!

  • Cloudbuster||

    I do know that if I'd been in that building yesterday, I would have wanted a gun to defend myself.

  • Praveen R.||

    I am for concealed carry. And guess what, if you pass a background check , you would have a gun to defend yourself. The biggest clash is over background checks even if it wouldn't apply in this case. Personally, I can't see why each side can't give in a little on background checks. The right should make sure the left doesn't ban all weapons. But the right can't keep pouting over the right to get a gun the very second they want to purchase one. Waiting a week or two won't kill you. If it's a case where your life is in danger, then I don't mind provisiions for an expedited check.

  • Cloudbuster||

    My natural rights are not subject to authorization by the state.

  • junyo||

    Waiting a week or two won't kill you.
    It will if your deranged ex breaks down your door while you're "cooling off". #waronwomyn

  • kbolino||

    Waiting a week or two won't kill you.

    What an idiotic characterization.

    Either "waiting a week" is a pointless exercise in bureaucratic jacking off, in which case there's no fucking point, or else "waiting a week" really means "being denied permission to exercise your God-given and legally enshrined rights" in which case you're just a fucking liar.

  • Foo_dd||

    you are all over the map with your stupidity here. concealed carry licenses are completely separate from buying a gun. in those cases where there are laws to combine them, it is to make buying a gun easier (because you have the CCW)

    as for it not killing you.... so what? our constitution defines gun ownership as a right. would it be OK for the government to tell you you can't eat until tomorrow, unless it would kill you? (and in that case, you have to prove it would kill you to wait). i mean, there is an obesity problem, and the government is just trying to help you.

  • Sevo||

    Praveen R.|12.3.15 @ 10:12AM|#
    "...But the right can't keep pouting over the right to get a gun the very second they want to purchase one. Waiting a week or two won't kill you. If it's a case where your life is in danger, then I don't mind provisiions for an expedited check."

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Chocolate Starfish ( . )||

    Praveen R, " And guess what, if you pass a background check..."
    1. See the earlier comment about your grammar.
    2. You dumb motherfucker! If you pass the background check you will once again be on a list. That list will be used to identify where the guns are when it comes times time for confiscation.

  • Chocolate Starfish ( . )||

    Chocolate Starfish is also a dumb motherfucker.

  • Foo_dd||

    after thinking about it, i know why the "wait a week" thing bothers me so much.

    first, it demonstrates the fundamentally wrong mindset of gun grabbers, that a person buying a gun implies they need some cooling off time. they see wanting to buy a gun as an automatic red flag that someone might not be quite right.

    second, the fundamentally nearsighted idea that no body who already owns a gun would misuse it. no... we have to add a restriction only for people who feel they might need a gun, who do not already have one.

    and third. it would not change a single one of these cases. all of these people got their guns well over a week before they attack (except those that killed their mom). in fact, i would say that the waiting period would not be a major factor in most murders at all. since domestic violence has been more aggressively added as a dis-qualifier, the "jealous lovers" waiting periods were intended to stop, already can't buy a gun.

    in other words.... talking about waiting periods is the dumbest response to this situation possible, and it demonstrates the underlying truth.... that you think there should be waiting periods, and you will use any situation possible to inject your pre-existing belief into the conversation..... just like every other gun grabber, you come with your opinion being formed before any rational thought or discussion on the current event, or available facts.

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    The biggest clash is over background checks even if it wouldn't apply in this case.

    Nor in any other case case that's been used as an excuse to peddle that non-solution to the topically ignorant...like you.

  • Johnimo||

    Tell me, will the IRS have access to Federal background checks for firearms purchases? We've already seen how they used applications for tax exempt status from anyone on the conservative side; are we to suppose they won't use this info to persecute political enemies? I think not. Furthermore, most people already undergo background checks.

  • Rockabilly||

    Obama wants 'communist sense' gun control laws and special central committee 'background checks' which take ongoing brain scans to look for future crimes, like a P K Dick novel.

  • Rhywun||

    If Democrats get their way, they will just put anyone they don't like on the "no-fly list". What an elegant solution to disarming the country & no "brain scans" required.

  • Praveen R.||

    Obama has NEVER hinted at such a thing.

  • d3x / dt3||

    Um, I think that was sort-of a joke.

    But the idea is correct that gun banners want to continually tighten "common sense" restrictions until they are a de facto ban.

  • ||

    It's comforting that Obama can always be counted on for some tedious Obaming when bad things happen. WHYCOME NO LISTEN TO ME GUN BAD

  • ||

    When I find myself in times of trouble
    Mother Barack comforts me
    Speaking words of wisdom:
    "Worship me"

  • Swiss Servator||

    *opera applause*

  • Hamster of Doom||

    *standing ovation*

  • Chocolate Starfish ( . )||

    standing ovulation

  • Gray Ghost||

    Standing ululation

  • uunderstand||

    Women under fifty get a lot of that, CS.

  • Swiss Servator||

    He really should deadlift - might clear his mind a little.

    I know, not bloody likely, but I am grasping at straws here.

  • 3||

    He could use those plastic five pounds plates with the same diameter as a 45.

  • Mr Lizard||

    Hey now...some of us are recovering from a tricep injury.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Actually, I can see a use for those in helping people just starting weight training to not despair over the fact that they're struggling to lift what looks like a practically empty bar.

  • 3||

    Yes, and to learn and use proper form the bar need to be at a certain height. A grown man like Obama should be able to lift 135 though.

  • Hank Ferrous||

    Don't let the size of his ego confuse you as to his maturity, he's an infant.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    "We have a no-fly list where people can't get on planes," Obama told CBS News, "but those same people who we don't allow to fly could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a firearm, and there's nothing that we can do to stop them. That's a law that needs to be changed." Kristof concurs:

    Wow, I'm old enough to remember when liberals were against lists that arbitrarily strip people of due process rights.

  • grrizzly||

    It looks like "liberals" sound remotely liberal only if their party doesn't control the White House. Somehow they turn into straight up fascists if they have power.

  • WTF||

    It's more "reveal themselves" than "turn into", but yes.

  • 3||

    Just like that anti-war movement disappeared in 2008.

  • sarcasmic||

    It will be back as soon as the Republicans gain the White House.

  • Princess Trigger||

    Thank God.
    They made all the difference.

  • WTF||

    "We have a no-fly list where people are arbitrarily deprived of their right to travel freely without due process, why can't we also arbitrarily deprive people of their Second Amendment rights without due process?"

    This is what proglodytes actually believe.

  • ||

    I am not sure this is an argument for denying people on the no-fly list the ability to buy guns. The law needs to be changed alright, just not in the way he means.

  • sarcasmic||

    Wow, I'm old enough to remember when liberals were against lists that arbitrarily strip people of due process rights.

    Don't worry. As soon as there is a Republican in the White House they will be against those things again.

  • WTF||

    Yes, because Cruz or Rubio or whoever will be "shredding the Constitution!!11!!!" just like chimpymcbushhitler.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The "old guard" liberals do.

    It is these neo-Communists who support doing that.

  • junyo||

    That was back when those mean ol' teabaggers were adding names to the lists. Now that the Top People Who Identify As Whatever Gender They Chose Or None At All are on the job, the lists are free and fair. So much so that judicial review and due process would just add inefficiency. And I thought you people were all about cutting waste out of government, but now you're bitching. Hypocrites.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Barry, I'll tell you what. If you can parachute into ISIS territory with just your selfie stick and film yourself taking the skulls of twenty known, identified ISIS leaders without ever once using a firearm, I'll hear you out. But as it stands, you've lost so much credibility, that it will take that level of accepting personal risk before I will even listen to your drivel.

  • Hank Ferrous||

    Erm,

    could he take the Rodham with him? Admittedly, first-strike use of WMD is something we've said we wouldn't do, but, man, '44 Boys...'

  • uunderstand||

    Two best ideas I've heard all year.

  • Nick H||

    it's incrementalism. They realize that the only way to curb gun violence is an outright ban and confiscation. But they got to start somewhere. After they implement universal background checks and shootings continue they'll just up the ante to some other restriction.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Actually, after the outright bans and confiscations in the UK and australia, gun violence went UP as the criminals with their hidden, illegal arms knew they were unopposed.

  • sarcasmic||

    Liar! That wasn't the intention, so it couldn't have happened!

  • MetalBard||

    The intention was always to make sure all the people with the fancy toys are on the government's payroll.

    Nothing tells me more about what a politician thinks of me then his position on gun control.

  • d3x / dt3||

    Plus, there's the whole "gun violence" thing. I find it darkly amusing that they think homicide with a gun is worse than other methods.

  • UnCivilServant||

    And with the whole Knife Infitada going on right now, I don't see how anyone can rationally expect the lack of availability of one type of weapon to prevent violence with whatever is on hand.

  • d3x / dt3||

    Yes. Operant word: "rationally"

  • Rich||

    I remember seeing a "self-defense video" in which the main premise was *practically anything* can be a weapon.

  • MetalBard||

    It would be easier listing things that can't be made into a weapon then things that can. Something like mayonnaise for example, (although the thought of weaponized mayonnaise fills me with fear and dread)

  • UnCivilServant||

    My first thought was shoving someone's face into a bowl of mayo until they drowned in it.

    But would that be weaponizing the mayo?

    Or, you could freeze it, making a blunt object.

    Or force it through a nozzle with sufficient pressure that it cuts flesh (but then the nozzle and presure source would really be the weapon and the mayo the ammo...)

  • Cloudbuster||

    When mayo is outlawed, only outlaw delis will have mayo!

    You can have my mayo when you scrape it from my cold, thin-sliced roast beef sandwich!

  • Loki||

    the thought of weaponized mayonnaise fills me with fear and dread

    As long as it's artisinal mayo I'm OK with it.

  • spqr2008||

    This needs to be an episode of Mythbusters, something like, "Condiment Carnage".

  • dantheserene||

    The logical progression will eventually reach the point where they attempt to ban non-government possession of the jawbone of an ass.

  • Drake||

    It's am uppity peasantry they want to curb - not any particular form of violence.

  • MetalBard||

    Yep. They don't want anyone to be able to resist going along with the "greater good."

  • UnCivilServant||

    *intones*"The greater good"

    /NWA Member

  • ||

    "They realize that the only way to curb gun violence is an outright ban and confiscation."

    So, strong gun control like they have in Mexico and France; places where mass shootings "just don't happen"?

  • ||

    Oh, and California.

  • d3x / dt3||

    Well, they don't count in the "developed world" like the other, proper countries.

  • DJF||

    """which was holding a holiday party in the building where the attack occurred"""

    Sounds like the war on Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, and (whats the name of that minor Christian holiday?) is expanding

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Festivus?

  • Cloudbuster||

    Clearly Farook was bested in the Feats of Strength and came back angry!

  • Rich||

    Someone at that party must have offended Farook *bad*.

  • Swiss Servator||

    Bacon wrapped shrimp?

  • Rich||

    "Oh, try 'em, Syed! You don't know what you're missing!"

  • VG Zaytsev||

    All I said was that "the bacon was good enough for Allah"

  • d3x / dt3||

    Probably going to be unfriended.

  • Rich||

    A) We don't yet know whether the perpetrators of yesterday's attacks ... had criminal or psychiatric records that would have legally disqualified them from buying guns. But given the general pattern in mass shootings, the odds are that they didn't.

    B) "There are some steps we could take, not to eliminate every one of these mass shootings but to improve the odds [so] that they don't happen as frequently."

    Putting A and B together, obviously the solution is to "improve the odds" that people have criminal or psychiatric records legally disqualifying them from buying guns.

  • ||

    We could also improve our odds by not shipping 100,000 Syrians into the country that almost certainly include ISIS infiltrators.

  • MetalBard||

    I'm pretty sure Hillary is done for if they go along with that plan.

  • Cloudbuster||

    I recognized that strategy years ago. You couldn't pay me to speak to a mental health professional now. I wouldn't even tell my family doctor if I was in a bad mood.

  • Praveen R.||

    Would gun control have stopped these killings? I dont tihnk so because Paris had those killings too. Having said that, I do not understand why the right has to go to the other extreme. Why is it easier to get a gun than a drivers license. What exactly in Obama people's gun control proposals that would prevent you from getting guns for self defense? I can get a reasonable gun next week if I wanted to .

    Why does the right not want to bar people on the terror watch list from getting guns legally?

  • MetalBard||

    What is a "reasonable gun"?

  • ||

    It only shoots you after it's heard your side

  • Swiss Servator||

    *reasonably narrows gaze*

  • sarcasmic||

    Why does the right not want to bar people on the terror watch list from getting guns legally?

    Due process?

  • DaveSs||

    Due process isn't the motivator here.

    Its the certain knowledge that every few years the requirements would be ever more onerous until such time as while 99% of the population has no behavioral or past criminal reason to be denied, there is in effect a red-tape firearms ban because 98% of the population is unwilling to go through the gigantic pain in the ass that has been set up.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Yup. That unaccountable government watch list would quickly grow to 100 times its current size if government bureaucrats could use it to ban firearms ownership without due process, and with the Kafkaesque process required to challenge your placement on the list as a barrier to recovering your rights.

  • thom||

    It's also likely that the state would insist on secrecy as to how many people were on the list and who they were, so any attempt to receive government permission to possess a firearm would probably just be met with a response of "no". And that, would be that.

  • Akira||

    Spot on. Using the terror watchlist to bar firearm purchases would go over very well for "progressives" given their claims that the majority of terrorists are white, Christian, nationalist types. I can see it now...

    Someone called Waco an atrocity? Terrorist!

    Someone said that the federal government has exceeded its authority under the Constitution and should be reined in? Terrorist!

    Someone is a member of a church with some non-mainstream beliefs? Terrorist!

  • Drake||

    Please walk through the process of buying a firearm in CA and get back to us on how easy it was.

    Also, please point out the part of the Constitution where citizens can be stripped of their rights when a bureaucrat places their names on a list.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Sorry but you have not been appointed the arbiter of what is and isn't a "reasonable" gun.

  • Cloudbuster||

    A reasonable gun is one made from an open design, with modern ergonomic features, easily adaptable to a wide variety of body sizes and shooting styles, with many interchangeable parts available from a wide variety of manufactures. It has unprecedented industry and government support such that it is not likely to be obsolete in the foreseeable future. It can be adapted to a variety of calibers with simple parts and barrel exchanges.

    In other words, the AR-15 pattern. It's one of the most reasonable guns ever designed.

  • Drake||

    I have a NJ driver's license and Firearms ID. The driver's license was far easier and faster to obtain. And that NJ FID card still does not permit me to carry or buy a pistol. Buying a pistol is an exquisitely painful process. Actually being permitted to carry one, unless a retired cop or very well connected, is damn near impossible.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm glad I live in Maine. No Firearms ID. I can buy a firearm off the classifieds if I want, without going through a licensed dealer. And we're now a Constitutional Carry state as of October, so you don't need a permit to carry.

  • Drake||

    I am trying to talk the wife into moving to PA. Unfortunately, it would probably be a career set-back for her.

  • Jordan||

    Why is it easier to get a gun than a drivers license

    Driving a car around exposes others to risk. Owning a gun doesn't.

    I can get a reasonable gun next week if I wanted to

    Sucks if you need one sooner, huh?

    Why does the right not want to bar people on the terror watch list from getting guns legally?

    If the government can arbitrarily strip you of your 2nd Amendment rights without a trial, why not the others as well? Anybody on the terrorist watch list should have a police officer or soldier stationed in their home 24/7.

  • Rich||

    Now, *that* is reasonable!

  • spqr2008||

    And to add the 1st to the 2nd through 8th, why not ban any protest to the media of your inclusion on such a list? It wouldn't be good to be accused of ungoodthink comrade.

  • WTF||

    Why is it easier to get a gun than a drivers license.

    It isn't. You really should try not to arguefrom ignorance.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Also the correct comparison is getting a car vs. getting a driver's license.

    I can to down to a used car lot, drop some cash on the table, or buy from some guy on the side of the road and have a car with no background check, no id. Nothing.

    Whether I'm licensed to drive it is a different matter, but just *getting* a car is far easier than getting a gun.

  • Duke||

    Why is it easier to get a gun than a drivers license.

    You might as well ask "Why is it harder to obtain a search warrant than a driver's license?" Because freedom from all forms of tyranny, that's why. Go back and study recent American history circa 1770s. The founders could speak and write Greek, Latin and often French and certainly knew their world history.

    Freedom comes with costs, such as gun crime, but those costs are ultimately less than the costs of an all-powerful totalitarian government. And another thing, we really shouldn't have to keep explaining this simple concept over and over when it comes to "freedom v. tyranny, better to let guilty men go free than punish innocent men" thing.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    Well said, Duke.

  • MokFarin||

    For multiple reasons. First and foremost, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

    But even if you set aside the 2nd amendment for debating purposes, there are several studies that show numbers starting at 100,000 uses of firearms a year in self-defense. The homicide with guns number in 2013 was 11,208. The Gun-involved-crimes number was 62,907. So, they benefit at least as much as they harm - but there are a lot of situations where stopping a crime is unreported, so this could be skewed towards gun violence.

    Additionally, there are many other aspects of society that have similar risk, but those risks are accepted. Vehicles have almost an identical incidence of deaths vs guns, for instance. No one wants to ban the car - or they are, at least, not currently on a four-decade crusade to do so.

    On top of that, people who commit crime will do so without guns. A man is beating his wife and grabs a gun to hurt her? Well, now he's grabbing a knife or a bat. How do I know? Simple, crime statistics show that it's already fairly common to have domestic violence committed with any weapon, even in houses with guns available. In England, where guns are "illegal," many shops are held up at knife point. Taking guns out of it simply means that the clerk can't equalize the force brought in to play against him when the criminal brings a gun in the first place.

    If you want to stop gun violence, you need to stop the root cause of the violence, not the tool.

  • Praveen R.||

    Most people do not oppose that, even those who are in the Democratic Party. The real debate is to what constitutes reasonable background checks. And a more heated debate is over the very existing of such checks as people on the right feel it is a slippery slope. yet the right to drive a car is not without restrictions.

  • Catatafish & Woodchips||

    Please find me the clause in our founding documents that says "The right to drive a car shall not be infringed." Then please find me the historical relevance to automobiles and the prevention of the totalitarian state.

    I'm gonna go get a cup of coffee while you're working on that.

  • Foo_dd||

    not relevant anyway. anyone can buy and drive a car... in your own yard... it is driving it on public roads that is licensed..... just like some states require a permit to carry in public.

  • Praveen R.||

    OK, I have to apologize to the community for some sloppy arugments here made by me.I reread my comments and acknowledge the sloppiness and laziness in which I put them out here.

    As far as the car analogy, I don't know if its any better than my license analogy because you can buy a car, but you still have to register it. And you still need a license to run it for most tasks. If you buy a gun, it;s not like you have get a "shootng license" to show you are fit to operate the gun.

  • Loki||

    If you want to stop gun violence, you need to stop the root cause of the violence

    And unfortunately the "root cause" is human nature. There will always be some small portion of the population that will commit violence. Sometimes out of desperation due to socio-economic issues, sometime because they're just bad people. Stripping everyone of a valuable tool to defend themselves against those who wish to do others harm is not the answer. As Duke says above, "Freedom comes with costs, such as gun crime, but those costs are ultimately less than the costs of an all-powerful totalitarian government." Putting people on a list that allows the government to strip people of their right to defend themselves with a gun if they so choose is tyranny. Plain and simple. Anyone who doesn't get that is either a moron, a fascist shitbag, or both.

  • Cloudbuster||

    And unfortunately the "root cause" is human nature.

    "t's the Pax. The G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate that we added to the air processors. It was supposed to calm the population, weed out aggression. Well, it works. The people here stopped fighting. And then they stopped everything else. They stopped going to work, they stopped breeding, talking, eating. There's 30 million people here, and they all just let themselves die."

    "Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave."

    -- Serenity, 2005

  • CatoTheChipper||

    "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

    Licensing is a form of infringement.

    Words have meanings. Want to license firearms? Then fucking repeal the fucking Second Amendment.

  • Praveen R.||

    I hope you will call for the prosecution fo the cop that murdered Tamir Rice because even if he mistook the toy gun to be a real gun, how did he know that he didnt have a right to carry it in an open carry state.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Are you fucking daft? There isn't a commenter on this board (other than Dunphy, who is a cop is generally despised be everyone else here) that thinks the cop who shot Tamir Rice shouldn't be prosecuted. Cops are hated here almost as much as concern trolls like you.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Your typical Reason reader is completely in favor of prosecuting that cop. Have you been here before?

  • Loki||

    I think this may be a new troll. Or a Tulpa sock puppet.

  • dantheserene||

    If you had any understanding to government watch lists, you would never ask such a question.

  • Chocolate Starfish ( . )||

    Praveen R
    You kinda sound like one o them Mooslims. That what you are, Boy?
    There's a sayin' here in Texas 'bout why there's so many of you Mooslims around. It's cause we ain't played "Cowboys & Mooslims" yet.

  • Foo_dd||

    clearly you have never bought a gun..... you usually need a drivers license to get one. (government issued ID). this also applies to those nasty private transfers that grabbers hate. (because the seller does have to verify you live in state)

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    Excellent questions. Responses inline:

    "Would gun control have stopped these killings?"

    Obviously not, as California has some of the strictest gun legislation in the country. Unless you're implying that looser regulations would've allowed more of the victims the opportunity to defend themselves, in which case you might be right.

    "Having said that, I do not understand why the right has to go to the other extreme."

    It's not the extreme, it's the baseline. It's our Constitution, and it's the fundamental, some might say natural or inherent, right of each individual to defend him or herself to the best of his or her ability.

    "Why is it easier to get a gun than a drivers license."

    That's a debatable point, but I'll stipulate it to be the case and say that, again, you have a Constitutionally-established right to own a gun, whereas a driver's license is a privilege granted by the state to operate a vehicle on public property.

    cont.

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    "What exactly in Obama people's gun control proposals that would prevent you from getting guns for self defense?"

    I want to buy a full-auto AK-74. Or an AR-15 with a barrel shroud and a 30-round magazine. And I don't plan on using trigger locks, because if I hear someone break into my house I don't want to spend time trying to find a key. Oh, and if I buy a gun while on a trip in Wyoming I want to be able to bring it back to Maryland and give it to my wife without filing any paperwork.

    "I can get a reasonable gun next week if I wanted to."

    Define "reasonable gun". And then ask me the same question. My definition will probably be different.

    "Why does the right not want to bar people on the terror watch list from getting guns legally?"

    Because due process. Also, reread the sentence, focusing on the "legally" bit. If a person can legally obtain firearms after passing a background check, why is that person on a "terror watch list" in the first place?

  • Johnimo||

    "Why is it easier to get a gun than a drivers license."

    Simple answer: We have the 2nd Amendment to the constitution!

    The real question should be, why do I have to get permission from the State to operate my automobile? What purpose does that serve?

  • Hyperbolical (wadair)||

    Why does the right not want to bar people on the terror watch list from getting guns legally?

    I don't consider myself "right" but I'll add something that I think is important to this subthread.

    If the government can expand the scope and power of this list, they will continue to expand it. Before long it would include all the people that they consider unworthy of traveling, owning weapons, purchasing other "restricted" items, etc.. It requires only a little imagination to understand just how powerful a tool this would be. People could buy themselves off the list and buy their enemies onto the list, all at the benefit of politicians. This glorious list is a great way to bypass the fourteenth amendment.

  • Mr Lizard||

    BTW if I was running a proper dictatorship and had a secret "no fly list" in one hand, and a database of weapons purchases by name then I would perhaps spend a bit of priority on cross-referencing the 2.

  • sarcasmic||

    You can't fix stupid, and you can't prevent crazy. Unfortunately though, there are a lot of stupid people who think you can prevent crazy.

  • Praveen R.||

    You can make it tougher on them. Though I do not agree with the emphasis the left puts on gun control on an incident like this.

  • sarcasmic||

    You can make it tougher on them.

    Restrictions on legal gun purchases only affect those who buy their guns legally. If someone is planning to buy a gun for the purpose of murder, what's to stop them from buying it illegally from a drug dealer or a thief? Certainly not the law.

  • Praveen R.||

    It would not prevent this Farooq guy. But it would have prevented that crazy nutjob in CT.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Nope. He killed his mom and took her guns. You fail.

  • Chocolate Starfish ( . )||

    Praveen R.
    Please shut up

  • ant1sthenes||

    Well, no, it only affects those who (due to lack of knowledge or a law-abiding nature) would not buy their guns illegally. If buying guns legally is easy, then some people who would happily turn to the black market will instead use legal avenues. Just to be pedantic.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Explain to me why the parameters of the rights of any individual should ever be reduced in any way because of the actions of someone else.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The children, that's why!

  • thom||

    Basic human rights for 100% of people must be restricted to what the craziest 1% of people can reasonably handle. That's the progressive theory of government in a nutshell.

  • David Wall||

    No. But you can name an enemy when they have declared war on you and call for their true believers to go out and kill you. Then, you can go about figuring out how to defend yourself, or you can wait until they kill you or someone you love.

    It likely the killers in San Berndardino were not crazy, it is much more likely they Islamic Totalitarianist. You know this is true, sarcasmic, yet you refuse to name it. You and all your fellow Libertarian Islamic apologists & blame-America-firsters need to face the irrationality of the narrative you have been pushing for years. My guess is that these (likely) dead Islamic totalitarianist in San Bernardino never even heard of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Yet, nothing will be heard from Ron Paul and his supporters.

    Tell me again how low the probability is that I will be killed by a Islamic terrorist, again. I live in a large metropolitan area often sited as a likely Islamic target, and I would like to know.

    Yes, Libertarians, go ahead and try to shift attention towards the gun controlling left. Some of you are just as culpable in supporting ideas that bring these tragedies on.

    Defenders of free minds and free markets, my ass.

  • kbolino||

    Yes, Libertarians, go ahead and try to shift attention towards the gun controlling left.

    They're doing that all by themselves, you single-minded moron.

    But no, I think the best thing to do in the fight against Islamic terrorism is to disarm our populace. That worked out well for Paris, didn't it?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    We don't yet know whether the perpetrators of yesterday's attacks—identified by police as Syed Rizwan Farook, a 28-year-old environmental inspector who worked for the county health department, which was holding a holiday party in the building where the attack occurred, and his 27-year-old wife, Tashfeen Malik—had criminal or psychiatric records

    [[[cough]]] Islam [[[cough]]]

  • Drake||

    I shoot with a guy who is handy and used to repair motorcycles and bicycles. He build his own Sten gun (semi-auto, closed bolt). Said it was pretty easy. Being a law-abiding type, he actually did all the paperwork to get it legally registered. The thing is reliable and pretty accurate out to 100 yards.

    People in places like Pakistan build their own guns all the time, it's old technology and anyone with access to a machine shop can make something crude but functional.

  • sarcasmic||

    One of my coworkers did something similar. Except that when he went to do the paperwork, the ATF guy thought the gun was so cool that he confiscated it without a receipt stole it.

  • MetalBard||

    In fairness how can we expect an ATF guy to know if a gun is not illegal?

  • Rich||

    BAN MACHINE SHOPS!

  • MetalBard||

    Yes in fact ban all industry. We can all become office workers in big government union jobs, it will boost the economy, because multiplier or something..

  • Cloudbuster||

    All we need is a handful of bureaus:

    Bureau of Form Generation
    Bureau of Form Completion
    Bureau of Form Archiving
    Bureau of Form Disposal

    100% employment. Done. Utopia achieved!

    Hey, it's not simple-minded stuff like breaking windows or digging holes and filling them up! This is the 21st century! We do things in an orderly fashion!

  • Chipwooder||

    And as 3D printers become more common, you won't even need a machine shop or the skills to use one.

  • KDN||

    Guns are really simple machines; there's no law that can remove them from the world. There was an episode of Vice on HBO where they talked to a guy in the Philippines that builds model 1911 .45's (IIRC) out of his backyard with his sons, mostly by hand, out of scrap for sale to locals. It takes him about 8 hours each.

  • Duke||

    Question of the day: How is the Left handling the Muslim killer thing?

  • Drake||

    They are having a real Sad that it wasn't a Tea Bagging Confederate Flag Waving Redneck Christian Conservative.

  • Duke||

    That's what I thought but don't have the stomach to peruse their websites.

    My guess is that by day's end, the narrative will be something like the killers weren't real muslims, but just your run of the mill psychos, and that the NRA gave them the weapons because of the white christian conservatives' opposition to "common sense gun safety laws," and blame will be laid at the feet of the obstructionist republican congress.

  • 3||

    Sounds about right.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Teh patriarchy forced those poor, peaceful Muslims to do this, and then killed them for it.

    They are the real victims here.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    One thing I'm seeing them toss out is the notion that it's the NRA's fault because they oppose the bill to give the government the authority to ban guns from anybody on the no-fly list or a terror watch list.

    And no, it doesn't matter that the perps weren't on any such list. Or that the Left vociferously opposed the lists when the "wrong" party had the presidency. Or that those making the argument are tacitly admitting that the perps were indeed terrorists.

  • Dallas H.||

    I haven't seen that one.

    Have seen multiple times that maybe he was discriminated at work for being Muslim and the attack could have been retaliation. MSNBC apparently floated this idea yesterday as well.

  • thom||

    Right. It's not the fault of the legislators, but the lobbyists who influenced those legislators.

  • Loki||

    +1 "workplace violence incident"

  • Chipwooder||

    Absolutely. I post regularly on a football message board, and there are a fair number of gun confiscation fanatics on there. There was a long running conversation there yesterday as events unfolded, and you could practically taste their glee when there was a false report that the shooters were white. This was it, they thought, their holy grail - a domestic terrorist attack! Probably white supremacists!

    They were obviously VERY disappointed when the name Sayd Farooq was released.

  • Duke||

    Chipwooder - Is this an American [real] football board, or European [gay] football board? Down here in the deep, dark south, liking football and hating gun control go almost hand in hand.

  • Chipwooder||

    I'm in the south myself, but by virtue of birth I'm a NY Giants fan, so that's what board I'm talking about.

    The fun part is that they are now all latching on to the idea that some horrible racist Islamophobes at the party triggered all this by insulting Muhammed or something, so they were probably a bunch of teabaggers who brought it on themselves

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I bet that they made fun of him needing to get a mail order bride from the old country.

  • Duke||

    I realize many here are non-believers and hey, it's a free country after all. But...

    I believe in my heart of hearts that the main reason those on the Left are so insane, is that they hold utter contempt for God and Jesus Christ. I don't mean a passive disbelief, or I'll believe it when I see it mindset. I mean a deep, abiding hatred of things that are pure, such as Jesus' teachings in the "sermon on the mount." There's an old proverb that says something like, "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." The Left does not fear God or else they wouldn't be so cavalier about 1+ million abortions annually.

    I know, some here will say "Hey, I'm a rabid atheist, and I have morals." I don't doubt that at all. The bible says as much when it says that many non-believers curse God because of the actions of the Jews. However, I've never seen or heard of an officially atheistic country that treated its people well. I think but for the few people who do pray and try to believe and follow God, we would have even more mass killings and such.

    Just a sermon, not a thought...

  • ant1sthenes||

    Oh, the left has a god, called "the state".

  • steedamike||

    You should read "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt. Liberals are very poor at understanding, or even trying to understand conservative values and morals.

  • Chocolate Starfish ( . )||

    One needs a god to justify killing in large numbers.

    just sayin'

  • bflat879||

    It's difficult to control people in government is not god. Progressives understand that, hence why the ACLU and other leftist organizations, go all out against religion of any sort.

  • Chipwooder||

    I'm in the south myself, but by virtue of birth I'm a NY Giants fan, so that's what board I'm talking about.

    The fun part is that they are now all latching on to the idea that some horrible racist Islamophobes at the party triggered all this by insulting Muhammed or something, so they were probably a bunch of teabaggers who brought it on themselves

  • lap83||

    I always make pipe bombs and form a posse to kill everyone in the room whenever someone offends me, doesn't everyone?

  • Loki||

    Yes, of course. I also have a stash of assault weapons and some body armor at home. Now I just need some co-worker to say something offensive to me...

  • Chocolate Starfish ( . )||

    pussy

  • Rich||

    Please. That's "a real Syed".

  • Ceci n'est pas un woodchipper||

    As despicably as you might guess. They're practically having a parade over at WaPo. The link to Islamic terrorism is being treated as entirely incidental to the primary causal factor, which is the wingnuts and Teabaggers irrational and evil obsession with owning guns at any cost.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I bet universal background checks would prevent mass alt-text omissions.

  • GregMax||

    The notion of treating firearms like cars/driver's licenses is actually a good one.

    NO law prohibits the number of cars you can own. NO law prohibits you from driving a car on private property. NO law requires that you register cars not used on the road. NO state can reject your driver's license. NO law prohibits you from purchasing a car in another state NOR does one require a background check because of "commerce clause". NO law requires a driver's license to purchase a car.

    So, let's treat gun ownership like cars and driver's licenses! PLEASE. The only situation where the government can put conditions on your use of a firearm is on the public streets. You get a concealed carry license that is good in all states, you take a safety course and firearms test and the state SHALL issue. Then you register any firearm you want to carry in public. That's it. No transfer processes, no limit on the number of guns, no background check to purchase.
    Yeah, let's compare firearms to driver's licenses.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Hey, wait! You mean to say that you expect people to, like, think through the real meaning of what they propose? What sort of monster are you?

  • GregMax||

    A gun-toting monster :)

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    A lot of gun control advocates want guns to be treated like cars — they want license tags for guns and gun owner's insurance in case you commit a mass shooting.

  • Chocolate Starfish ( . )||

    +1

  • bflat879||

    Actually, along the same line, what if the weapon of choice were the automobile? On a crowded street, it would be relatively easy to drive a car into a crowd, at high speed, and kill a dozen people or so. If this were happening on a regular basis, would they be looking at banning automobiles?

  • Loki||

    Didn't take long for President Broken Record to climb on top of that pile of dead bodies - who were killed in a state that already some of the toughest gun laws in the country - to call for MOAR COMMEN SENS GUN KUNTROLE!!11!111!!!!!1!!

    It would be funny if it weren't so predictable and pathetic.

  • GregMax||

    Pathetic is the perfect word. Oblivious is also good.

  • Praveen R.||

    I agree Obama sounded predictable and tired with the latest statement. Gun Control wouldnt have stopped this. but look at the alternative on the right. They make such a big deal of this shooting, but these kind of islamic looney shootings are only a small percentage of random murders in the US. If you are an american, you have a higher chance of getting shot by a fellow american than an islamic lunatic. So even if someone like Fiorina likes to blabber how she can fix these kind of shootings, in the big scheme of things, these islamic shootings are not the majority of such shootings in America. So what is her solution for cracking down on the majority of other shootings? The right likes to act like america would be safe if we only went in and invaded syria. Geez, why the stupid fixation on Assad. He is not a good guy, but he won;t make the top 5 evil dictator list. Let him take out ISIS. Don't make his job harder by interfering with what's going on there. The whole middle east is a big damn mess. Let them fight it out and do their own borders.

  • bflat879||

    If we were to remove black on black crime from the murder statistics, our murder rates would be much more in tune to those the president touts as being acceptable. Of course no one will talk about that either.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Not as pathetic as his speech in Paris. Christ was that a new low in tranzi insanity.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    "Not every shooting is preventable. But we're not even trying."


    We clearly are not trying hard enough .

    It is clear that conventional law enforcement is not up to the job of protecting people. If you are going after a rabid junkyard dog, you do not go in there with ASPCA rules; you take the leash off your own bigger, meaner dog. What we needed then, and what we need now, is Los Angeles to be placed under martial law, to be administered by the Army. Soldiers would be given immunity from state and local laws and they would have authority to conduct searches, detain people, and do other things that they see fit to deal with this crisis on our streets.


    The U.S. military, the mightiest military force in the history of humanity, is our own bigger, meaner dog. Time to unleash it and let it crush the junkyard dogs among us.

  • Cloudbuster||

    You kinda look like a junkyard dog. Just sayin'....

  • Lorenzo Zoil||

    So, Obama has managed to use another crisis and political mis-direction to turn the spotlight back on himself.

    President Attention Whore.

  • Praveen R.||

    The thing I am pissed about is this family acts clueless as to how they couldnt see the signs of this murderer becoming a lunatic. This is a guy who grew up in the US, then all of a sudden goes to Saudi Arabia of all places and brings home a bride? What are Saudi women doing on dating sites? I thought everything was arranged over there. Which means what? Did this guy actually go meet some people in Saudi Arabia who arranged this bride for him since it looks like the family didnt arrange for this bride? Which means what kind of groups was he associating with over there that he was able to find a bride just like that?

  • Cloudbuster||

    Yes, the people closest to him didn't spot what to you are in retrospect obvious signs, but you trust a government with an unbroken record of incompetence and malfeasance to appoint bureaucrats to make those judgments about complete strangers. What could go wrong? What kind of intrusions into ordinary peoples' private lives would be required for such a thing?

    (BTW, how many other men are there in the U.S. who got brides from Saudi Arabia who have not and never will commit mass murder. It's a non-zero number. Will you explain to them why they are being deprived of their rights and what they can do about it?)

  • Praveen R.||

    I never said he should not be legally allowed to own a gun. I have said elsewhere while I have no problem with better background checks, it wouldnt have made a difference in this incident.

  • R C Dean||

    I have no problem with better background checks,

    "Better" how?

  • Cloudbuster||

    They always go really quiet at that point. They admit that no conceivably practical background check would have stopped the latest killing. Then you ask "what would?" And ... crickets. Apparently crickets will work.

    Because you've pushed them into a corner and they realize that they either have to shut up or admit that "reasonable restrictions" is really just code for "take allz yourz gunz!"

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    More like California's.

  • In League with the Dark Ones||

    Which means what kind of groups was he associating with over there that he was able to find a bride just like that?

    It's called a "matchmaker".

  • Curt||

    "Are these atrocities truly beyond the power of government and its politicians to stop?"

    Yes. Yes, they are absolutely beyond the power of government and politicians to stop. Are we done now?

  • Lorenzo Zoil||

    Thank you. There is the salient point.

  • Loki||

    Thread winner.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I say that to proggies I know every once in a while. It's funny to watch them twitch, but it's a good idea to have earplugs because their wailing hits the "fingernails on the blackboard" frequencies.

  • ranrod||

    The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States..

    Second Amendment foes lying about gun control - The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal self-defense.Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government. Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.

    No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media prostitutes tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..

    These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family. Ask the six million Jewws, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazzi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back.

    American Thinker

  • Praveen R.||

    I hoipe you will support blacks right to arm themselves and shoot cops who fire against unarmed blacks.

  • Alan@.4||

    Does he explain how his "wet dream" supposedly might work. He doesn't, oh my, one wonders why.

  • Henry Baker||

    That maggot who is and will continue to be surrounded every day of his scumbag life by heavily armed bodyguards can preach all the idiotic gun control he wants but he won't get it.

    This year's Black Friday sales event transferred more guns from dealers into private ownership than ever before. In fact, it was the single highest gun sales day in history.

    Americans are armed to the teeth and the day this government tries to disarm them will be this government's last day in existence.

  • Akira||

    I think it's pretty fucking hilarious that the more Obama and his statist cronies shout about "doing something" about gun ownership, the more people rush out on a buying spree to every gun store in a three-county area.

    There are more guns in civilian hands than there EVER would have been if he had just kept his mouth shut.

  • josh||

    the winner for least the helpful suggestion was from a slate article...."if liberty allows stuff like this to happen, maybe we should reexamine liberty", or something to that effect. priceless.

  • bflat879||

    How many mosques have been shot up since 9/11? How many muslims have been murdered in the United States since 9/11? How many times have muslims reported other muslims for being radicalized? How many times have Christian women dropped off a 6 month old child, with their parents, so they could go out and commit murder? I ask these questions because Barack Obama has no problems pointing out his perceived flaws in America, but has a really difficult time recognizing that Islam has a serious problem.

    I guess we'll return to sanity in January 2017.

  • Praveen R.||

    I tihnk Obama is being maddeningly overly cautious in refusing to admonish radical islam which is a huge problem. But domestically, the vast majority of shooting incidents had nothing to do with radical islam. So when politicians on the right act like saying the words radical islam will make us more safer by bringing more focus on whatr needs to eradicated, how exaclty is that going to work oin most of the mass shootings that happen in the US? Now it has been a good reality check not to throw around cliche talking points about gun control. But come on, the anti Obama rhetoric is ridiculou when you consider the talking points from the right like Bush, Fiiorina , and others wont do much to make the average american safer. Obama actually took a more skeptical view of a terroist sympathizing country like Pakistan more than the Bush administration. Yet, obama is the muslim sympathiser? Obama was in charge when osama got killed. I didn't see obama needing to worry about Pakistan's feeling. if Obama did anything wrong, it is his silly half way posture on Syria. Assad is of no danger to us. Why not let him fight the islamic fanatics in his country. Why is it so essential to get rid of him when there are worse dictators around the world. I though fanatical islam was a bigger problem than the dictator of a small country.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Moron-In-Chief recites blather from the Leftist Hymnbook, again and incessantly.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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