MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Gay Gun Rights Activist: Arm Yourselves

An important Supreme Court decision on the right to self-defense involved the fear of anti-LGBT violence.

Tom PalmerKefim2013 / WikimediaThe New York Daily News has used the Orlando attack (as have many, many others) to continue its call for stricter gun controls and to blame the National Rifle Association (NRA), in spite of America's lengthy history of being completely unable to ban access to any product or good its citizens want to get their hands on.

But despite their tunnel vision, let's give credit to them for giving space for a strong opposing opinion. Today they've also got a piece by noted gay, libertarian, gun rights advocate Tom G. Palmer, calling for LGBT citizens to arm themselves. He writes:

Let's get one thing very clear. Gun control advocates disarmed the victims at that night club. Florida law states unequivocally that even a concealed carry permit "does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose."

That made those people sitting ducks. Legally designated gun-free zones are invitations to killers. They get to rack up kills among defenseless victims without any effective opposition. There is a reason that they seek out such places: Everyone has been disarmed and rendered defenseless by the gun-control movement.

Advocates of gun control think it's a good idea to disarm victims and to advertise where you can find completely defenseless people because there's one primitive magical superstition they share with the murderer Omar Mateen: chanting things makes them true. If you chant the right words, in this case "Guns are forbidden," no one will have guns. And if no one has guns, there will be no murders.

Palmer isn't just a supporter of gun rights, he helped fight to secure them. Palmer was one of the plaintiffs of the important District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court decision. That was one of the Supreme Court decisions that helped establish that the Second Amendment right to self-defense is, indeed, an individual right.

Palmer fought for gun rights on the basis of being able to protect himself from the likes of Orlando killer Omar Mateen. He had previously used a gun in California to scare off a pack of men who threatened him with apparent antigay animus. But D.C. laws prohibited from similarly defending himself (and others) there.

The call for more gun control here is as predictable as it is rather baffling. For one, there is no prohibition in the United States that actually works. And while there's increasing evidence that Mateen was likely a dirtbag even before ISIS came around to use an excuse to wreak the mayhem he probably always fantasized about, it's just not clear that he ever would have been affected by tighter gun regulations—that is, unless we started using mere suspicion as an excuse to curtail liberties, which some have been promoting. It's as much of a constitutional violation as proposed "hate speech" restrictions and will likely have the same unintended consequences. We would have no control over who the government prosecutes or who the government denies gun rights. Keep in mind Mateen worked as a security guard with government contracts. Many gun restrictions have exemptions for those who work in law enforcement.

What we do know is that clearly relying on the government domestic surveillance system to prevent attacks failed here just as it failed in San Bernardino. So many responses to this sort of violence seem to a call for a sort of collective action that's already been shown to be unsuccessful. Think all Muslims should be under surveillance? Well, Mateen was investigated a couple of times by the FBI, who apparently did not conclude he was a threat. Think there should be collectively tighter gun controls? Have we forgotten Bataclan already? Go ahead and forget France, then—many of the same people calling for tighter gun laws already understand that prohibition against drugs are a massive failure that have done little but throw more people in prison. Prohibitions don't work.

How could some sort of collective government response be successful to such a decentralized domestic threat? How is it reasonable to expect that the same government that failed to predict Mateen's behavior (and to be clear, I'm not saying that it was even possible to know that this was coming) to be able to immediately mobilize and protect us at the drop of a pin?

It's becoming increasingly clear that the Orlando Police certainly tried in this case. The latest details have police rushing into the club early on to confront Mateen, leading to a firefight, followed by a hostage scenario. Now we can dread the possibility that some people might have been killed by police gunfire by accident. But that's the argument that gun control advocates use against individual ownership—self-defense in public encounters might not work, and innocents could get hurt or killed. If the same thing happens when police respond to mass shootings, and it's not reasonable to expect safer outcomes when the government gets involved, then all people are doing is rendering themselves utterly, bafflingly helpless. What happened wasn't a failure of gun control. It's exactly what an outcome of gun control looks like that advocates just refuse to accept as an unintended consequence.

People can decide that they don't want to arm themselves. And the bar owner should be able to decide whether to allow armed patrons or not. But people should not be able to make that decision for others. That was exactly Palmer's crusade. He should not have to hope that somebody with a badge shows up with guns blazing to protect him in time. None of us should. It's not a realistic expectation of government.

Palmer is hardly alone in wanting to defend himself against anti-gay attacks. Check out the Pink Pistols.

Photo Credit: Kefim2013

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.

  • John||

    I would definitely advise arming yourself. Understand though Scott, a guy who is willing to do what this guy did, would also drive a car full of explosives into that bar if that was what was required. Yes, that is harder than just shooting people. Building bombs is not easy but it isn't that hard either. So, arming yourself only goes so far. Let a few of these types of attacks fail and they will just change their methods to something that will work.

    They are not going to go away .

  • The Fusionist||

    The perfect is the enemy of the good.

  • The Fusionist||

    In the case reported in the post, a group of men surrounded a gay guy and began nerving themselves up to attack him. Instead of submitting meekly, Mr. Gay whipped out his piece - and this is the one context in which I can say good for him for doing that.

  • ||

  • Charles Easterly||

    Well done, Pope.

  • John||

    Why do I think I said not to arm yourself? It isn't going to hurt and it will likely help some, but it isn't going to solve the problem.

  • The Fusionist||

    OK, neither of us think it will solve the terrorism problem, if anyone does, good for you in disabusing them of that notion.

    Some gay-bashing is opportunistic, by bullies who can be scared off by the thought that "if I attack this guy I risk death or serious injury."

  • John||

    For sure. But that is why everyone should have the right to be armed. It isn't only gay people who get beat up. An armed society is a polite society.

  • Mindyourbusiness||

    +1 RAH

  • ThomasD||

    The deterrent is not fear of death with these types. The deterrent is fear of failure. Getting taken out before you are able to rack up a body count does not help glamorize the cause.

  • Dark Space||

    "Building bombs is not easy" - honestly building a bomb is easier than buying a gun, ammo, and getting proficient enough to change out mags quick enough to not get tackled or shot in between. And, you can buy the ingredients at a grocery store or pharmacy (unless you want, say, nails as shrapnel - home depot).

    The biggest problems amateur bombers face are a detonator (i.e. a blasting cap) and a way to delay detonation (fuse, timer, etc.), but they get around both pretty easily. The Boston Marathon Bombers just used black powder (does not require a blasting cap) dumped in a pressure cooker with all the shrapnel, and a remote control (although a kitchen timer would've had the same effect). You can't buy black powder at most pharmacies, but you can buy the same stuff Eric Rudolph used for his truck bomb there in multiple products sold for other purposes.

    Then you can logon to Youtube for easy instructional videos. A few missing fingers and 1 less eye later and your a jihadist.

  • John||

    And being armed doesn't help you against a bomb. Scott is fooling himself if he thinks gays being armed is going to make them safe from this threat.

  • prfd1||

    John,
    Let me get this straight....

    You say Gays should not defend themselves because the Terrorists will just find a different way to kill them?

    Damn!

    You're a Genius!!

  • ThomasD||

    One of the primary effects of being armed is a greater sense of personal responsibility. Along with that comes heightened situation awareness.

    For better or worse a net effect is you are much less likely to find yourself in a dance club at last call.

  • wagnert in atlanta||

    Eric Rudolph didn't construct any truck bombs, and the only data I can find implies that his bombs used dynamite.

  • ThomasD||

    I'm thinking he meant the assholes in Oklahoma City, whose names I will not repeat.

  • ThomasD||

    Also, if a guy like that can jump through all the hoops he did to get his Florida security papers he is probably capable of jumping through the hoops necessary to to get a Federal Explosives Permit. All he really needs to do is put himself into a line of work that provides suitable justification.

    http://www.myfloridacfo.com/Di.....dForms.htm

    Florida might be a tough place to find that opportunity, but there are lots of other states where mining and those sorts industries are more common.

  • LarryA||

    You don't really need a "bomb." This isn't the first, or worst night club mass murder:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

    83 dead.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Do we really want gay people parading through the streets... armed?

  • geo1113||

    Who you calling faggot...BANG!

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    Yes. Yes we do.

  • Libertymike||

    Well some would like to see them parading through the streets naked.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Armed and fabulous?

  • UnCivilServant||

    What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business - when you impede traffic, you gotta cut that shit out.

  • ||

    You mean women, right? Suspect you'd be disappointed.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Burrrrrrrrrrrrrrrn.

  • Rhywun||

    No fems, no fatties

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    Tards OK?

  • SugarFree||

    Yes, Playa. You are welcome.

  • Tundra||

  • Libertymike||

    Playa, what type of tards?

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    The good looking ones, obviously. No extra chromosomes.

  • Libertymike||

    Can't wait for the new Jason Bourne flick.

  • ThomasD||

    A Florida carry permit requires that the firearm be concealed.

    Don't really want to dwell more on that.

  • Animal||

    Yes.

  • LarryA||

    Do we really want gay people parading through the streets... armed?

    Sure. Well, I'd rather see them at the range practicing. But the only thing I'd like more than lots of gay people in my gun classes is to find several who want to become firearm instructors.

  • The Fusionist||

    In this case I'm cheering the gay-rights activists.

    Well, not the mainstream, which I suspect is still as gun-controlly as ever - but the Pink Pistols - who defend *everyone's* Second Amendment rights in the reasonable belief that doing so will help vulnerable populations - like gays.

    For the mainstream of the gay-rights movement, you don't have the right to be armed against gunmen who go to a gay wedding with a massacre in mind, but you *do* have the right to conscript an unwilling baker to cater that wedding.

  • ||

    Is that you, Eddie?

  • The Fusionist||

    Yes indeed.

  • Libertymike||

    Right on, Fusionist.

  • R C Dean||

    In this case, they aren't gay-rights activists, they are gun-rights activists who happen to be gay.

  • The Fusionist||

    Here's how they describe themselves in their press release about the Orlando massacre:

    The Pink Pistols is an international organization dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community.

  • R C Dean||

    When they start pushing for special privileges for gays re: guns (like, say, shall-issue without showing cause, but only if you're gay), they will be gay-rights activists. Until then, they are gun-rights activists.

  • The Fusionist||

    That may be a less confusing way to put it at a time when the gay-rights label is being claimed by advocates of gay lib and gay-oriented policies.

  • ||

    Extra gun rights would be a big selling point for the homo-agenda wouldn't it?

    How many people would go gay for guns?

  • The Fusionist||

    What are you talking about?

  • BYODB||

    I think he's talking about the best slogan ever, obviously.

  • But Enough About Me||

    How many people would go gay for guns?

    Oh *HELL* ya!

  • Rhywun||

    For the mainstream of the gay-rights movement [...] you *do* have the right to conscript an unwilling baker to cater that wedding.

    Those conniving gays are managing to convince judges to go along with their evil plans. Maybe you should be directing your ire at them, too.

  • The Fusionist||

    Indeed, I never once criticized the judges who made these silly decisions. You sure got me there.

    /sarc

  • The Fusionist||

    (It's really difficult to find any coherent point in your remarks, other than "lol u suk")

  • Rhywun||

    If you did, I haven't seen it. So I'll ignore the many, many times you have criticized the gay rights movement - and only them - for being in lockstep on this issue.

  • The Fusionist||

    What on earth are you talking about? What does it even mean?

    Anyway, rather than search my previous comments, I'll just stipulate that I haven't gotten around to criticizing the judges yet, implausible as I think that is.

    So here you go: The judges who voted to violate the 1st Amendment and freedom of association in the name of so-called gay rights were wrong.

    Even the straight judges.

    I hope that clarifies matters.

  • BYODB||

    Remember when disarming all the black people made them super safe and no more hate crimes happened?

    No, I don't either.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...because there's one primitive magical superstition they share with the murderer Omar Mateen: chanting things makes them true.

    Damn.

  • BYODB||

    I'm just going to go ahead and say it, can we just elect this guy President right here and right now? He's the fusion of left and right this country needs.

  • John||

    A Muslim guns down fifty gays the Progressive response is to say the population needs to be disarmed and we need to let more Muslims into the country . But remember, its the evil conservatives who hate gays.

  • Libertymike||

    Did you see or hear of ESPN's (I know, I know, I know...but does it help to totally ignore them or just accept and put up their pollution of sport?) Jemelle Hill's tweet in which she castigated the West for daring to lecture Islam about LBGTQ?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Her job is to do that sort of thing. ESPN is truly shameless.

  • Libertymike||

    Yes, ESPN is truly shameless.

    As for Ms. Hill, did you know that during the 2008 NBA playoffs when the Celtics were playing the Pistons, she said something to the effect that "rooting for the Celtics is like rooting for Hitler?"

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Yes. Which resulted in a promotion and more air time.

  • Libertymike||

    Thank god "Hitler" (Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, Sam Casell, Ray Allen and Glenn "Big Baby" Davis lead by Doc Rivers) won that series.

  • BYODB||

    Remember that time the Irish almost conquered all of Europe?

    No, I don't either.

    Of course, we are very white but since Ireland's been conquered by pretty much everyone that's been able to find the island, while being a second class citizen virtually everywhere they've gone, I'd say white privilege skipped us somehow.

    But hey, national kick a ginger day right! It's like a nationally recognized hate crime day! Free pass, because white!

  • John||

    Wow. That is unbelievable even for them.

  • ||

    Yeah, they are having a vigil in my town tomorrow for the victims of the Orlando shooting. Not going because I'm sure it will turn into a grabber-fest real quick.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    *reads sentence several times*

    Oh you mean for guns.

  • SugarFree||

    "Creative control, spin-off rights and theme park approval for Mr. Banana Grabber, Baby Banana Grabber, and any other Banana Grabber family character that might emanate there from."

  • Hugh Akston||

    You never should have given up animation rights.

  • Citizen X||

    Look over there! A seagull!

  • Hugh Akston||

    Don't all gay events end up getting kind of grabby?

  • Princess Trigger||

    Not the weddings!
    The one I was at turned into a total bawling contest. One of the brides was a former Army officer and now senior DoD manager and was getting pissed at everyone acting like fucking weeping marys.

  • ||

    Well, not all of them. The "mixed" events not so much.

  • Citizen X||

    Fuckin' aye, Scott Shackelford. Fuckin' aye.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    I became an anarchist roundaboutly. I never had much use for collectivist anything; I remember a friend trying to talk me into joining the cub scouts because you get to go camping, learn all sorts of stuff, and me trying to understand why he couldn't just learn them on his own. I grew up with the incompetent Vietnam War and NASA's turn to the dark side after Apollo, and the last straw was learning that radio frequency allocation and air traffic control had their beginnings in spontaneous user organization, and were co-opted by politicians at the behest of cronies. I gradually realized that government by definition is incompetent, figured out self-ownership on my own but without any labels, and then discovered that others had already figured it all out, and found sites like Reason.

    To me, self-ownership is so natural and obvious that I simply cannot understand how people can swallow crap like minimum wage and occupational licensing laws, especially when their racist origins are so well-documented. Alcohol and birth control prohibition didn't work, drugs prohibition hasn't worked, and gun control hasn't worked, yet so many people want to keep on trying.

    Then there's all the lip-service to science: creationists who deny evolution while happy with GMO food, global warmists who deny GMO, how can they stay even remotely sane while holding such Caterpillarish conflicting nptions simultaneously?

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    And along come people like Scott and other writers here, who also seem to be sane, and I wonder ... there are two of us? Three? How can there be so few sane people in this world? Logic would seem to imply that when only a very few people seem sane, it is more likely they who are insane, and all the political junkies who are normal.

    I sometimes think of visiting the LA hq, or taking one of the Reason cruises, just to verify that there actually are other people with consistent views of freedom. It's really hard to get a handle on.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I think there is a high correlation between perceptions of 'sanity' and confirmation bias. "These people are talking sense (confirming my beliefs) why does everyone else talk crazy (support a different belief set)?"

  • Zunalter||

    +1

  • ThomasD||

    "...creationists who deny evolution while happy with GMO food..."

    Not a creationist, but not sure how a recognition of the science of genetics, and the technology of genetic manipulation somehow absolutely precludes the existence of a creator. Couldn't that hypothetical creator have also created DNA and made it the mechanism for genetic expression?

  • Animal||

    I have as acquaintances several religious Christians who hold the view that God created Man, and that evolution was the tool used in that creation.

    I don't agree with their religious views, but they are at least consistent with the observed evidence. It's not an entirely unreasonable stance.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Obviously I mean the idiots who think the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution doesn't exist. I know some. My brother and I had a famous-in-the-family argument about it.

  • Animal||

    My wife's brothers both believe (or claim to believe) the 6000-years-old-earth horseshit. My mother-in-law has forbidden any discussion of the topic at family gatherings, because my wife, who has degrees in Biology and Animal Science, has a short fuse and a tendency to tell them how full of shit they are.

    On reflection, my mother-in-law probably handled the issue appropriately. Best for family harmony and all that.

  • Ron||

    funny I have a sister who is a biologist and does not believe in evolution, she is religious but luckily does not push it

  • ThomasD||

    Darwinism is most certainly wrong, but broadly speaking that is not fatal to the concept of evolution.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinian_Fairytales

    (The Ghiselin quote is horrendous, accusing Stove of stating "..organisms invariably reproduce as much as possible" when it is Stove who argues in multiple chapters that it is Darwin who made that assertion and that it is (as Ghiselin agrees) laughably and observedly wrong. In it's entirety the quote makes one doubt that Ghiselin actually read the book.)

  • ||

    This fucker is so out of the special snowflake club.

  • ||

    Welcome to my world, Hyper.

  • ||

    I understand, buddy.

  • Zunalter||

    Though I love identity politics as much as the next maladjusted peon, can we just say that everyone should be armed, for any reason or for no reason, "vulnerable" population or not?

  • UnCivilServant||

    but then the oppressive majority would outgun the oppressed peoples

    /progthink

  • Glide||

    That made me think of a world where instead of Congress we just have enormous literal Mexican stand-offs on every issue and, while it totally inappropriate to do so, I laughed.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    *You* can say whatever you want. You don't need "our" permission. And if you get that permission, it will be *you* who gets that permission, and it does not extend to "we* being required to say anything.

  • Zunalter||

    Wow, thanks for that, your valuable contribution will be forever remembered.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Hint, buddy: stop beating about the bush with the royal "we". Speak for yourself, clearly, stop pretending to be subtle and cute with the royal "we".

  • Ron||

    note the constitution does not limit being armed to hunting or even self defense it just said we have the right to be armed, zero qualifications required.

  • EscherEnigma||

    That depends, are you trying to be persuasive, or are you trying to "virtue signal"?

    Because, generally speaking, your "everyone should be armed, for any reason or for no reason" line quickly crumbles under cross-examination. Okay, you say, we didn't mean children (where do you draw the line? 16? 18? 12? Lower?), we didn't mean the mentally unstable (who gets to decide who is/isn't mentally unstable? Did visiting a therapist just become a one-way ticket to losing your gun rights? How do we let Joe with anger issues keep his gun while making sure that senile and delusional grandpa doesn't?), we didn't mean those physically incapable (okay, so Steven Hawking doesn't get a gun. What about a guy with a tremble who can't stay on target?), we didn't mean felons (but which felons? Violent crimes you could probably get support for, but we're increasingly getting non-violent felons) and so-on.

    You can stick to your "everyone" argument if you want, but it'll mostly be virtue-signaling. It won't actually be persuasive. Sure, you'll get cheers from people that already agree with you, but that's not persuading them any.

  • John||

    http://www.theamericanconserva.....unishment/

    But gays should have no worries about Muslim immigration. None at all.

    I responded by pointing out that Qaradawi has advocated executing homosexuals, and that he gave advice on his website about how a Muslim man can beat his wife in an Islamically correct way.

    "That's violent," I told Mr. Elmougy. He slammed his hand on the table and said he agreed with the Shaykh, and that he wouldn't apologize for it. He went on to tell a story about an adulteress who came to the Prophet asking for release from her sins. The Prophet ordered her stoned to death, said Mr. Elmougy, and declared that he could see her rejoicing in paradise. Mr. Elmougy finished his account by saying that things we Westerners consider to be unacceptable violence are considered by Muslims like him to be pro-family "deterrence."

    Saturday was just "pro family deterrence" I guess.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    I don't mind all these idiots claiming to know what God proclaims. I object to them trying to enforce God's will here. The hypocrisy of proclaiming God to be all-knowing and all-powerful, then taking it upon themselves to know and execute on his behalf.... of course, they all say God made them do it. Can't beat that logic.

    Like the joke about the flood victim. Police warn to evacuate, he declines. Police come door-to-door, he declines. Police rescue boat comes by, he declines. Helicopter wants to lift him off the roof, he declines. He drowns. He asks God why He didn't rescue him? God says "I sent police, a boat, and a helicopter -- what more did you expect?"

  • John||

    They won't keep to themselves. And it doesn't matter if it is only a few of them who are willing to murder. Okay, lets say one in a hundred thousand Muslims ever actually does something horrible. That quickly adds up to a lot of attacks like Saturday. One attack like Saturday is too many. But a five or a dozen?

  • kbolino||

    The Prophet ordered her stoned to death, said Mr. Elmougy, and declared that he could see her rejoicing in paradise. Mr. Elmougy finished his account by saying that things we Westerners consider to be unacceptable violence are considered by Muslims like him to be pro-family "deterrence."

    Jesus totally did that too, right?

  • Zunalter||

    Worse, he said "go and sin no more"

    Talk about virtue signalling.

  • Swiss Servator||

    +1 dropped rock.

  • ||

    Yes, they have rules for the beatings, what you can use, where you can strike, how many blows, etc. I read this once somewhere, it's pretty barbaric.

  • ||

    Also, is most people just forgetting that Islam is not just a religion? They have a legal system named Shariah. A pretty good percentage of Muslims support this system and want it imposed wherever they live. It's pretty incompatible with the American legal system. But I'm wagering that we'll soon start allowing Shariah zones in the USA. On our current path, it's inevitable.

  • ||

    are most people, damnit

  • John||

    Most people have lost their mind on this issue. Scott is gay and a decent number of Muslims are okay with killing him. And Scott still can't bring himself to oppose letting Muslims into the country.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Hey, I have decades of being told that it's unacceptable to blame all Christians (as a group) for the actions of a few Christians (as individuals). If we get to blame all Muslims for this guy, then blaming all Christians for what the few fuck-ups do is game.

    And if I do that, Muslims still won't be my biggest concern.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I cannot believe that Scott is calling for LGBT individuals to disarm themselves.

  • Tundra||

    Yeah, and I can't believe Liberace was gay. I mean, women loved him! I didn't see that one coming.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    True colors come out.

  • John||

    WTF are you talking about? He said just the opposite. Have you lost your mind?

  • ||

    Let's just face it. We live in a world right now where it is not safe to be a defenseless target. When the government takes away people's right to defend themselves and those people are murdered, the government is responsible for that murder. There's no 2 ways about it. Every American should have a right to self defense, period.

  • SugarFree||

  • You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)||

    He is the real victim in all of this.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    OMFG, fucking irony: talking about the Unconstitutional nature of Transgender bathroom laws while calling for fucking Unconstitutional gun laws. Cognitive Dissonance at its best!

  • Sir Digby Chicken Caesar||

    I...wha...huh? Does he actually understand what he's writing, and how screwed up his brain is?

    Oh, right! He's a Slatist.

  • ||

    He should not have to hope that somebody with a badge shows up with guns blazing to protect him in time. None of us should. It's not a realistic expectation of government

    Well, they'll be there in 3 hours or so, what's the problem?

  • mojoe||

    When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

  • ||

    Or hours, apparently, if you live in Orlando.

  • ||

    minutes away from setting up a perimeter and waiting 3 hours for the tacticool gear.

  • Sevo||

    So it was a 'gun free zone'. Until it wasn't.

  • Zunalter||

    Do we know that someone pointed out the incongruity to the shooter during the situation? I am sure once he knew, he would have been red-faced from embarrassment, apologized profusely, and taken his hate-fueled shooting spree to a more appropriate venue.

  • Libertymike||

    The power of your observations amazes!

  • You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)||

    Tom Palmer is great. That's all I have to say about that.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Good post, Scott.

  • Princess Trigger||

    I'm starting to miss the whole 'Bathroom Debates.'

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    I haven't heard about that Stanford gorilla getting raped and shot lately. I wonder what's going on with that?

  • Swiss Servator||

    He is getting boycotted by Target customers.

  • Charles Easterly||

    Bulls-eye.

  • ||

    Gives "that squinty look" to both Switzy and Chuck.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What's great about living in America? How very quickly you actually miss the previous awful thing.

  • ||

    Yep, our only possible relief is if someone shoots the cutest panda ever.

  • Alice Bowie (GO Gary Johnson)||

    Perhaps we can establish a Gay Militia.

    Perhaps we can call them "the Pink Berets"

  • ||

    So, if the gays want to start a militia named the 'Pink Berets', do you think they should be banned from doing so?

  • Alice Bowie (GO Gary Johnson)||

    Absolutely not.

    The Black Panthers armed themselves. So did the KKK.
    It appears that the receptionists and janitors of abortion clinics need to start Militias as well.

    I'm for personal self defense. I know it gives law enforcement a more difficult job to deal with (having armed citizens). But law enforcement needs to work around this.

    As I've mentioned over the years, stop-and-frisk made a big impact on NYC. But it came at a far too high price.

    There's no doubt that if a Pink Berets was at PULSE the other night, the death toll would most likely be less than 50.

  • ||

    I'm for personal self defense. I know it gives law enforcement a more difficult job to deal with (having armed citizens). But law enforcement needs to work around this

    I don't buy that. How does this make cops job more difficult?

  • Citizen X||

    'Cause then the Heroz In Bloo won't be able to get their jollies by roughing up the citizenry without possibly getting shot, and if you can't do that, why even become a cop in the first place?

  • ||

    Oh, I see, he meant make their 'thuggery' more difficult, not their jobs.

  • Alice Bowie (GO Gary Johnson)||

    This is why police is militarizing.

    For simple warrants, they have to deal with an Armed Citizen that may be a bit off.
    The police use concussion bombs and all sorts of stuff now due to the fact that citizens are armed.

    The apprehension process would be a lot simpler for police if the person they were apprehending was not armed.

  • kbolino||

    The American populace has always been armed. The 2nd Amendment wasn't drafted a few years ago. It has been part of the Constitution since the beginning.

    The police are "militarizing" because they want to play soldier without any of the downsides.

  • ||

    And they get free shit from the Feds. People loooove free shit.

  • But Enough About Me||

    The apprehension process would be a lot simpler for police if the person they were apprehending was not armed.

    This is precisely the argument a cop friend of mine (who was otherwise a decent and thoughtful person, but had blinders about this specific issue) used to use when I asked him "Why shouldn't Canadians be armed?" To him, it was all about making police officers' jobs easier and safer. It just never occurred to him that, in a supposedly liberal democracy, the job of a police officer was supposed to be difficult. Otherwise, the liberal democracy's doing something wrong.

  • DarrenM||

    Well, if the job of the police is to be government enforcers, it makes perfect sense. Remember. To "protect and to serve" means protecting and serving the aristocracy, not the peons.

  • Animal||

    "I know it gives law enforcement a more difficult job to deal with (having armed citizens)."

    Tough shit.

  • Charles Easterly||

    Will the SPLC add them to their ever-expanding list of Hate Groups©?

  • ||

    If they no longer fit the narrative, of course they will.

  • ThomasD||

    If it means more money they damn sure will.

  • ||

    Apparently Nation of Islam is on the SPLC hate group list. Baby steps.

  • ||

    The problem being, I'm sure H&R commentariat are on the list also, somewhere higher up the list than ISIS.

  • Charles Easterly||

    Oops - here is the Hate Map©.

    Yes - it exists.

  • OldMexican Trained Philosopher||

    Re: Alice Bowie (GO Gary Johnson)

    I have to wonder how long will it be before the Southern Poverty Law Center labels the 'Punk Berets' a 'Right-wing Hate Group' compelling the IRS and MSNBC to go after them. The problem is not that homosexuals decide to arm themselves and become militant; the problem is that Marxian politicians want to keep them defenseless and targeted so that they can use them as a convenient political pamphlet.

  • BYODB||

    Same as it ever was.

  • ||

    I just read an article yesterday about Marseille France, sorry I don't remember the link, talking about the high crime rate in the city, including gun violence. Apparently, entire sections of the city are no-go zones where there is basically mob rule and gang wars fought with AK-47s is an almost daily thing.

    Are the gun laws in France more lax than in the USA? I don't really know. But if they have gun control, it's apparently very ineffective.

  • SugarFree||

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Depardon't, am I right?

  • SugarFree||

    He reprises his role from The Wire.

    "Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeerde."

  • R C Dean||

    And the bar owner should be able to decide whether to allow armed patrons or not.

    Indeed he/she/xe should. But, if they ban guns on the premises, they should be liable for any assaults on the premises, as well.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Eh. If entrance is voluntary, as opposed to government monopolies like the DMV or post office, then caveat emptor.

  • ||

    Yeah, I think if you want to go into a club that the owner says is a gun free zone, then you do it at your own risk. Having the government demand that it's a gun free zone is an entirely different thing.

  • R C Dean||

    Why shouldn't a business owner be responsible for the consequences of his/her/xer policies?

    That said, I can see the "assumption of risk" argument. This one could go either way.

  • Don Escaped Texas||

    No, it can't go either way. The proximate cause of being shot is that someone pulled a trigger. Your beef is with the trigger man when you get shot.

  • ||

    Why should the bar be held to that standard?

    Those victims had plenty of thing to defend themselves with. Throw things like ice, cans and bottles, or even butt lube at the attacker.

    What America needs to be strong again is more gun control and bacon flavored lube.

    Hell Hillary!

  • AlmightyJB||

    Is tgat a gun in your pocket? A bow chicky bow bow.

  • Charles Easterly||

  • Glide||

    I've always done my best to be very practical and not dogmatic on guns, though philosophically I have no problem with my neighbor owning an ICBM for home defense. But to this day, though I've been searching, I've yet to hear a progressive proposal that eliminates gun rights for a notable block of guilty parties without eliminating the same rights for many, many more of the innocent. The closest they seem to get is "this won't affect YOUR rights, you personally, reader." Well, great, but if I wanted to lobby exclusively for the rights of white, educated, Christian heterosexual males like myself why would I have bothered to leave the two-party tent at all?

  • ||

    On the one hand, the gun grabbers are getting me down. On the other hand, the Pink Pistols' Facederp page has had a lot of postings along the lines of "I was anti-gun until yesterday". I have hope.

    (of course, the Pink Pistols have also been subjected to a barrage of "you people aren't real gays Real gays don't have guns.")

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's interesting because a particular subgroup was targeted. that tends to make members of the subgroup jumpy. And justifiably so.

  • ||

    I hope it lasts - I mean, the newly-minted 2A supporters. Once the fear wears off, maybe they'll go back to being anti-gun. If someone can get a firearm into the hands of these new folks ASAP and bring them to a range, maybe they'll se the light permanently. PP is a great group, with local chapters everywhere that go on shooting trips, hold classes, etc. They were central to the recent follow-up case to Heller.

  • tarran||

    My facederp hs been very, very quiet on this.

    A family friend in the Netherlands posted a link to Moms against Handgun Violence calling for Obama to magically will away the bad bangy-bang totems. Other than that, nothing.

  • ||

    Then you are truly blessed, t. My derpbook, being heavy with gays and progs, has been a cesspool of shrieking eels of late.

  • ||

    Oh gosh, you're lucky! Mine has been full of anti-gun emotional bullshit. And I don't want to apply my feed filter to guns, because then I would be also filtering out pro-2A stuff.

  • ||

    I got one Prog to admit "I don't have a solution." That was enough Facederp for me today.

  • JayWye||

    My problem with this is that homosexuals are mentally ill (in varying degrees from mild to off the charts),irrational,and hypersensitive,imagining slights and "homophobia" where none exists. They have an unusually high suicide rate,even in foreign nations where they are fully accepted,thus their claim that their suicides are "caused by Christian homophobia",etc. doesn't wash.
    GBLTs are not stable and rational people.
    We already have a desire to prevent mentally ill people from having access to firearms,this isn't furthering that aim.

  • SugarFree||

    Eddie has a posse.

  • ||

    C+. Needs more self-pitying, and oppreshunz.

  • kbolino||

    where none exists

    ... 50 dead bodies say otherwise

  • ||

    [golf clap]

  • Charles Easterly||

    Ouch.

  • ||

    Well, you're clearly mentally ill, so no guns for you, asshole.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    B+ Solid.

  • ThomasD||

    Dentists also have an unusually high suicide rate, do we presumptively deny their rights as well?

  • ||

    William and Mary students hit hardest.

  • Citizen X||

    Q. How many William and Mary students does it take to change a light bulb?

    A. Three - one to change the bulb, and two to crack under the pressure.

  • Charles Easterly||

    I once worked with a fellow who graduated from William & Mary who referred to his Alma Mater as William & Larry.

    True story.

  • Citizen X||

    Neurologists, too. NO GUNS FOR BRAIN SURGEONS!

  • Florida Hipster||

    I don't usually say this but, go fuck yourself.

    *sorry for feeding a troll*

  • ||

    I'll give you a mulligan this time.

  • Citizen X||

    These euphemisms!

  • SugarFree||

    A Mulligan is where you get to hit another ball if your first one landed in the rough.

  • Citizen X||

    You're right, that's barely euphemistic at all.

  • Florida Hipster||

    ...are HAWT!

  • JayWye||

    Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

  • Citizen X||

    So everybody should be able to have guns except Teh Gheys?

  • Charles Easterly||

    Evidently, Citizen X.

    Well, the group you mentioned and people who are intolerant of other people's cultures.

  • dantheserene||

    Has anyone been making comparisons to Mumbai yet? An entire city so disarmed, even few of the police had working firearms, but armed terrorists could walk around unopposed for hours killing at will.

  • dantheserene||

    Actually, it was days, not hours.

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    This started with a gun battle between the killer and an off duty cop.

    It was handled very poorly from that point on.

  • tarran||

    How so?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    From every account I've read the shooting started at 2, the police sent in an armed team at 5... three hours after the beginning of the incident, and only when text messages from hostages started coming in.

    The first news report I heard on the radio said that the cops in in an armored MRAP for three hours while the gunman had the run of the place. This, of course wasn't worded that way, but that's the gist of it.

    Here's the bottom line, if you're ever in a place where a gunman is shooting, the cops won't respond until the shooting stops, the shooter kills himself, or he's done killing everyone he really intended to kill.

    Modern policing at its finest.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    *hid in an armored MRAP*

  • tarran||

    What I've read is that the off duty cop/security guard ran inside when the shooting started and exchanged gunfire with the guy. The ODC/SG called for help, and a pickup team of the first cops on the scene ran inside after him and after a gun battle they cornered the guy in the bathroom.

    Once the guy was in the bathroom with one doorway to defend, they really had no chance and getting him, and containing him there while they evacuated the wounded behind them in the dance area was prudent.

    And, by the time the SWAT guys showed up with the equipment to get at him, he had stopped shooting. Negotiating was prudent. There was likely nothing they could do for the people in the batrhoom with the terrorist; he had probably killed them all before SWAT got there.

    Breaching the wall of the bathroom he isn't in and pulling people out was a smart move.

    And, when he cmae out through that hole, killing him was also prudent.

    At this early, confused stage, absent a comprehensive chronology of who did what, I want to withhold judgement.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What I've read is that the off duty cop/security guard ran inside when the shooting started and exchanged gunfire with the guy. The ODC/SG called for help, and a pickup team of the first cops on the scene ran inside after him and after a gun battle they cornered the guy in the bathroom.

    Well that certainly makes me feel better. The stories I read on CNN last night didn't provide any of that detail. They reported an initial exchange of gunfire, then suddenly the story shifted to the cops waiting outside for three hours.

    I guess I'll go back to complaining about the cops in my head.

    And, when he cmae out through that hole, killing him was also prudent.

    Killing that fuck was ALWAYS prudent. We need to find a way to kill him again.

  • tarran||

    Time machine. Make sure you kill Hitler first.

  • DarrenM||

    But if we had killed Hitler, there would be no WW2 and we would still be in the Great Depression.

  • Flawgic||

    Any word on what happened to his "other" device? I've seen it described as a suicide vest, but haven't seen much in the way of specifics.

    One has to wonder why he didn't detonate if it was a proper suicide vest, or if perhaps it was a fake vest, filled with iPhone cases.

  • This Machine||

    Advocates of gun control think it's a good idea to disarm victims and to advertise where you can find completely defenseless people because there's one primitive magical superstition they share with the murderer Omar Mateen: chanting things makes them true.

    AND IT'S PALMER COMING DOWN FROM THE TOP ROPES - WITH A FOLDING CHAIR!

  • Citizen X||

    The dude has got no mercy!

  • ||

    WHY HHH WHY?

  • Hank Rearden||

    At a time when the government seems to think it has the power to tell individuals what they can and can't do, and private businesses that they have to do business with anyone and everyone whether they want to or not, does this not also infer that if the law says you have a right to carry a gun then no private business should be able to deny you that right?

  • ThomasD||

    Bake me a cake with the shoulder thing that goes up.

    Because it's my right.

  • Florida Hipster||

    You can't carry in bars in FL, so it was the government violating rights, not the club owner.

  • Hank Rearden||

    My point is that if the supreme court ever does confirm the constitutional right to carry a gun for self defense, federal laws supersede the state laws and the statement in the article:

    "People can decide that they don't want to arm themselves. And the bar owner should be able to decide whether to allow armed patrons or not. But people should not be able to make that decision for others."

    If the bar owner decided not to allow armed patrons would this not be a violation of a constitutional right.

  • Ron||

    federal laws such as " shall not Infringe" does not seem to matter to the states

  • Florida Hipster||

    Disney doesnt allow firearms, but at least they installed metal detectors and it wouldn't surprise me if they have a private armed response team.

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    They have undercover deputies all over. Disney pays for it.

  • Florida Hipster||

    Makes sense. At least they recognize if you aren't going to let people protect themselves, you need to provide the protection.

  • EscherEnigma||

    You *do* know that the Pulse had two armed guards, right? One exchanged fire with the guy, the other helped get patrons out.

  • Charles Easterly||

    +1 tenuous Ugly Kid Joe reference.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Wait, you though that the dude in the Goofy Costume was just a frustrated actor?

  • Florida Hipster||

    I just thought he was friendly. I didn't realize he was patting me down.

  • The Other Libertarian||

    No, just a frustrated cop.

  • John||

    Does anyone think that allowing Muslim immigration at the levels that Hillary Clinton and Gary Johnson would like to will make the country more tolerant of gays? Will the assimilation unicorn show up and suddenly make Muslims "gay affirming"?

    If Scott wants to support Muslim immigration into this country, I would suggest he look at the fate of Jews in Europe and France in particular. I don't believe for a minute that Muslims will ever get Sharia law in this country. That is just paranoia. Muslims will however do what they have done in Europe, which is terrorize small or marginal groups that for whatever reason they don't like. Yeah, there are Jews in France, but going to a Synagogue involves an armed guard and walking around as an open Jew outside of certain neighborhoods is taking your life into your own hands.

    Ninety eight percent of the population is not gay and won't really be effected by Muslim terrorism of gays. Does anyone really think many of that 98% are going to stand up anymore than they stood up when Muslims made it impossible to draw Muhammad in public? People generally don't risk their lives for the right to engage in activities that do not interest them.

    So sure Scott, keep supporting mass Muslim immigration. I am sure 20 years from now you will be able to go to a gay bar or attend a pride parade. Of course we will have to call out the national guard and park a tank in front of it, but you will be able to go, if you are brave enough.

  • Alice Bowie (GO Gary Johnson)||

    Like Donald Trump says: "We want the good Muslims" He's not going to deny Fareed Zakaria's Mom admission.
    Neither is Hilary or Gary.

    I'm sure that all of the candidates want some form of vetting process to let immigrants in. That'll keep out the so-called riff-raff.

    The problem is that the United States doesn't really allow for poor/uneducated immigrants. So Latin American poor have to cross the border. But if Trump wins....WATCH OUT.

  • John||

    We can't really tell who the good Muslims are. And as far as gays go, there really are not any good Muslims. It is hysterical to listen to the same people who think not being willing to recognize gay marriage some national sin turn around and have no objections to letting religious Muslims into the country. It is just tragic comedy.

  • ||

    Gay and packing!

    Ignore your political and media masters. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO ARM YOURSELVES.

    SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.

  • John||

    Like I said on the other thread; a Muslim just murdered fifty gay people in a gay bar in the name of his religion and the Progressive response is demand that more Muslims be let into the country and to tell gays they need to give up their guns. Yet, somehow it is the evil right wing Christians who hate the gays and not Progressives.

    We live in insane times.

  • Alice Bowie (GO Gary Johnson)||

    John, I agree we live in insane times.

    But just as this Muslim American Murdered 50+ Homos,
    Christian Americans have murdered counless in abortion clinics too.

    The only people that seem to behave are the Hindus and the Jews.

  • kbolino||

    counless

    It's not hard to count to 1.

  • This Machine||

    It's not hard to count to 1.

    You forget who you're talking to.

  • John||

    Christian Americans have murdered counless in abortion clinics too.

    No they haven't. Eric Rudolph bombed two abortion clinics over 20 years ago and didn't even kill anyone in those bombings. One abortion doctor was murdered in the late 1980s. That is about it. There may be a stray case I am forgetting but not many. And certainly nothing like this. Countless? Why do you tell yourself lies? It doesn't help you. You can disagree about things but lying never helps anything.

  • tarran||

    There may be a stray case I am forgetting but not many. And certainly nothing like this. Countless? Why do you tell yourself lies?

    John, you are arguing with a man who spent an entire afternoon arguing that radioactive fallout from government atomic bomb tests was an example of private industry polluting the environment. Please bear this in mind.

  • Citizen X||

    Fentanyl is a hell of a drug.

  • Alice Bowie (GO Gary Johnson)||

    I'm not lying. I thought more people were killed in these abortion clinic attacks.

    But without a doubt, radical Islam seems much scarier than today's Christians.

    As far as good-ones/bad-ones, its going to be tough.

    This fellow was born in the USA.

  • DarrenM||

    Now that you mention it, it probably is a good idea to allow more Muslim terrorists into the country so they can teach their Christian counterparts how to produce dozens corpses efficiently. Maybe they just need more practice.

  • ||

  • John||

    What does that have to do with my point? So because some Jews are anti-gay themselves, that makes it okay for the Muslims in Europe to terrorize them? Or even if it did, that means Muslims won't terrorize gays back into the closet if we let enough of them into the country?

    What is your point here other than Jews suck as bad as Muslims, a point which I frankly don't agree with but is irrelevant anyway.

  • ||

    Clearly I wasn't replying to you, John.

  • Some Engineer||

    Maybe that was just a circumcision gone wrong.

  • Eloh-Nroc||

    -1 The correct answer is.... The Mormons. Just ask any of them.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    a Muslim just murdered fifty gay people

    It appears that he was a gay Muslim. And when gay kids are raised by religiously conservative parents, they often end up messed up, either suicidal or violent.

    Yet, somehow it is the evil right wing Christians who hate the gays and not Progressives

    There is really little difference between right wing Christians and Muslims, except that in the West, over the last century, rational people managed to bring right wing Christians to heel and curb their violent tendencies. Whether we can do the same thing with Islam remains to be seen.

  • Alice Bowie (GO Gary Johnson)||

    "Gay and packing"

    DOes that mean you have a big dick ?

  • The Fusionist||

    ["concealed carry" joke deleted for reasons of taste]

  • But Enough About Me||

    Taste?

    Like this has stopped anybody on here before?

  • Sir Digby Chicken Caesar||

    Asking for a friend?

  • OldMexican Trained Philosopher||

    The call for more gun control here is as predictable as it is rather baffling. For one, there is no prohibition in the United States that actually works.


    Coincidentally, proven by this very tragedy, considering the assassin was able to purchase the weapons despite background checks which stemmed from "sensible gun-control legislation."

    Of course the anti-gun Marxians are never serious about wanting "sensible gun control laws". They want to proscribe weapons of any kind. A disarmed population is much easier to control. After guns, they will go for whatever other instrument exists to resist an assailant:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....eapon.html

  • TANSTAAFBOW||

    The "Great Wall of America" and the 'Great Islamic exclusion act of 2017" would do nothing to stop people like this fellow from doing this.

    I guess while Trump is rounding up the Mexicans and illegal brown-people, he'll use the same forces to round up anyone who is Islamic or has any relatives that are Islamic in their family tree.

    Or, god forbid, perhaps we can stop fucking with these people? Is it way too late ?

  • Drake||

    Exactly how did we "fuck" with this guy?

  • John||

    This guy did this because he was pissed men were kissing in public. So, we should tell the gays to get back into the closet? If not, then how are we not fucking with this guy and others like him?

  • TANSTAAFBOW||

    Oh I'm not saying that we fucked directly with this guy per se.
    But these Mid-east wars for decades have taken its toll.

    And oddly enough, the Muslims seem to be very successful of selling their hate to Americans.

    From what I heard, this guy had a good life before committing suicide and taking 50 people with him.

  • Drake||

    I keep hearing how he was born in the USA and Trumps immigration ban wouldn't help - although it might have kept his crazy Afghan dad out. If that's the case, then it's like an Italian, Japanese, or German American going ballistic during WWII - which never happened.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Gay Gun Rights Activist: Arm Yourselves
    An important Supreme Court decision on the right to self-defense involved the fear of anti-LGBT violence.

    Gays have no more rights to arm themselves for self defense than straights.
    As we all know, only the police and criminals should own firearms.
    This way, all crime rates will go down.
    One only has to look at Illinois and Chicago's gun control laws which were the strictest in the nation before the Heller decision.
    Then look at at just look at Chicago's gun related deaths before the Heller decision.
    That should tell you everything you need to know.

  • The Other Libertarian||

    The Pink Pistols statement on Orlando shootings:

    http://www.pinkpistols.org/201.....ando-club/

  • Rational Exuberance||

    So, being gay is sufficient justification for carrying a gun in states that require justification? That sounds like fun! I expect many men, when faced with the choice between (1) their gun and free blowjobs from men, and (2) no gun and costly blowjobs from women, may end up choosing (1).

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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