MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

How Could Anyone Deny the Need for Tougher and More Stringently Enforced Gun Laws in the Wake of the Vegas Slaughter?

How can anyone not realize that more, stronger, and more strongly enforced gun laws are absolutely necessary in the wake of last night's Vegas horror, the largest mass-murder committed with guns in modern U.S. history?

Håkan Dahlström via Foter.com / CC BYHåkan Dahlström via Foter.com / CC BY

In order to get to that seemingly inexplicable place, you have to begin with a basic belief that it's a bad idea in general to use violent force against people who have not, and are very unlikely to, harm other people. If you believe innocent owners of some tool should be subject to control, harassment, and arrest or death if they resist, as long as some owners of that tool, even a vanishingly small number of them, harm other people, none of this will make much sense.

The above are questions of sensibility, and certainly arguable. Empirical understanding is in play as well.

To resist an instant call to more or tougher gun laws or enforcement in the wake of terrors like Vegas, you need to understand it is not only that existing laws and regulations will not reliably prevent such crimes as long as guns exist. All the new or expanded national gun control laws advocated as sensible and necessary would have had no effect on horrible crimes such as occurred in Las Vegas last night, even if perfectly enforced, as Jacob Sullum explained at Reason earlier today. (Nor, it seems to me, would wider skilled civilian possession of guns likely done much good in this particular scenario. Hard as it is to admit, some tragedies are not meaningfully preventable.)

With that understood, the only relevant legal response to nightmares like Las Vegas is a total ban and confiscation of at least types of weapons, as The New York Times argued in a rare front page editorial against what they consider "assault rifles" in December 2015 after the Orlando nightclub massacre.

Another idea on the minds of those who obdurately refuse to seize on a new legal solution when nightmares such as Las Vegas occurs is that public policy should rely on measured, proportionate reactions that consider and balance the demonstrated prevalence of any given public threat or crisis.

Despite Nevada's much-discussed "loose" or "lax" gun laws, over the course of the three years prior to 2017, rifles were used in murders four known times in the state, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime report.

Nevada's figures, though, show an unusually large number of gun murders where the type of gun used is unknown. But if you presume the ratio of handgun to rifle murders is similar for known and unknown gun type, you should add 20 more rifle murders, for a total of 24 in the three-year period. That larger number represents 4 percent of total murders in Nevada over that three-year period. For some context, killers used hands or fists to murder 25 times during that same period.

With its "lax" gun laws, Nevada saw 67 percent of its murders committed with a gun last year. That is one percentage point lower than the 68 percent for the country as a whole in 2016.

Reluctance to call for more gun laws also requires believing that some individuals are bizarre and horrific outliers who can and do horrible things. But noticing how rare are such events, despite the millions of rifles out there, might give one pause when imagining a national legal solution to such bizarre individual crimes.

Guns or rifles are not the only tools that allow an evil maniac to cause so much harm, as the driver of the truck that produced 84 casualties in 2016 in Nice, France shows. We normally recognize using an existing tool to cause harm is insufficient reason to ban the tool. And recall, too, legal solutions short of bans are largely irrelevant to these sorts of crimes.

The unwillingness to leap to a legal solution to mass gun murders requires recognizing that guns are tools, with genuine uses for personal safety, personal fulfillment, and convenience, just as are cars, as well as noticing that a tiny number of people who own or have access to these specific tools ever use them to harm another human.

Some people don't see this and it is a difficult thing to convince those who don't want, need, or enjoy guns to fathom how anyone else could, given their demonstrable ability to cause horrific harm. Those who resist calls for more and tougher gun laws believe that, even if you don't understand why anyone wants or needs one, that a third of Americans think they do need or want guns, and the hundreds of millions of guns that exist in America are proof of this.

There are a couple of reasons someone might not see getting rid of guns as a proportionate response to the actual demonstrated threat of rifles, even post-Las Vegas America.

One is the threat of, to put it mildly, severe civic unrest if the U.S. government attempted a mass confiscation, even with the promise of an absurdly expensive buyback, of that many almost universally legally and peacefully owned weapons.

That might not occur to those who think of those owners as just gun nuts, not worthy of respect. But even Americans with that attitude should have another reason to think twice about some new attempt to create mass national contraband: the historical evidence of previous national experiments in banning highly desired and available products, like alcohol and drugs.

Vast harm can come to individuals and communities from ultimately futile attempts to extirpate such things. One might consider how police, who would be the confiscators, behave, especially in America's poorest and least-respected communities. What might it be like unleashing them on a contraband potentially lethal to them?

You might disagree with these value judgments and assessments of proportionality, but a failure to fall back on a legal solution to mass gun murder events is a plausibly reasonable understanding of the extent and proportion of the problem weapons cause versus the costs in civic peace and innocent lives damaged.

For the vast majority of their owners, guns are no more worthy of banning than any other element of their peacefully enjoyed liberty, one tool among many to shape their chosen life and leisure. Banning something that tens of millions of people innocently value and imposing onerous costs on American citizens, generally downward in socioeconomic terms, is a recipe for disaster. There is intellectual room to understand and internalize the pain and damage that weapons can cause in the hands of an evil maniac, yet still sincerely believe that any effective legal solution is either impossible or requires an unacceptable level of police interference into innocent lives.

Photo Credit: Håkan Dahlström via Foter.com / CC BY

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.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Something must be done to prevent such events.
    Gun control is something.
    We need another round of gun control laws.

  • Harry Jones||

    You and Reason.com just drove more AR-15 sales.

  • mysmartstuffs||

    Which is really what all of this is about. Kooky old murderers and future-murderers = $$$$$$

  • ||

    NOPE

  • Eric||

    Yep. And more 22LR hoarding. Why can't these assholes hoard something I don't like? For example, Circus Peanuts candy, or Brussels sprouts. Or shitty beer: How bout we declare that going forward the fiat currency for TEOTWAWKI is MGD.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    One is the threat of, to put it mildly, severe civic unrest if the U.S. government attempted a mass confiscation

    Why don't the gun control people get this part? A person would have to be nuts to try to take guns from their owners.

  • mysmartstuffs||

    If anything, the implicit threat from these loons only serves to prove the desirability of doing so.

  • ||

    Well of course. From the statists viewpoint, a disarmed citizen is easier to control violently, if the gun owner would follow through and defend his right to have a gun. He won't. It's all bluff. See: Katrina aftermath where looters roamed the streets and authorities went door-door taking guns. This was the second most important time to have guns and people gave them up. So why have them? So you can puff your chest out and pretend to be free? Or what about Watertown? The city not only gave up guns but their homes and allowed mass arrest/detainment for hours.

    The lesson learned by govt. was guns are no threat to tyranny by the US Empire. The Iranians probably have more fight in them, and they used to live under worse govt. Will the US citizen have to learn the hard way also?

    Anyone who calls a person prepared to defend life/property personally with a gun a loon is delusional. His self-deception is that govt. will protect him. But he can't answer the question: Who will protect us from our protectors?

  • David Nolan||

    Anyone who calls a person prepared to defend life/property personally with a gun a loon is delusional

    Equally delusional -- anyone who believes THAT is why the "loon" epithet is applied. Tribal partisanship is often based on self-serving denial, on both left and right, which is why both are shrinking ... as a growing majority figures it all out.

  • DarrenM||

    This is why you need multiple guns. So you have a few in reserve when the government comes to confiscate them.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Mow the fuckers down with an AKL-47. Die in glory!
    For the Fatherland!!

    But try phrasing that in a way that doesn't make us all look so crazy!

  • mysmartstuffs||

    If anything, the implicit threat from these loons only serves to prove the desirability of doing so.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    fuck off, troll

  • David Nolan||

    You're too mature for this crowd.
    And you act exactly like Sevo, who shares your maturity.

  • FreeRadical||

    Hihn, you are so very tiresome.

  • David Nolan||

    To you? That' a victory.

  • ||

    No, it serves to reduce the desirability of doing so, assuming your goal is less gun deaths.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Police shot and killed a mere 1,907 people last year. At that rate it would only take them another 58,206 years to kill every non-government gun owner, assuming there is in the meantime no increase in that target population. By the year 60,223 only trained first-responders, to whom the Republican platform is dedicated, would have guns.

  • David Nolan||

    How long would it take if they wanted to shoot as many as they can, as quickly as they can -- which (of course) they would do in your scenario!?

  • Fat Hubie||

    Why do you and Hank assume that no one will be shooting back?

  • David Nolan||

    I merely corrected his math.

  • jincenco||

    "A person would have to be nuts to try to free slaves from their owners"

  • David Nolan||

    If you say so!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Has there been an erosion of people's abilities to deal with tragedy? We are less religious than ever, and among my friends people are pretty nihilistic and depressed. (myself included, of course) Does increased reaction to these type of events correlate with this lack of ability?

    We have entered into a time where we as people have more and more control over our surrounding. As we have more understanding of the physical universe, and more ways to manipulate it to our needs, do we begin to lose the ability to accept that tragedy will happen? The more we can control, the less we can accept that which we cannot?

    The only thing I know I can control, the amount of rhetorical questions I use in my writing.

  • Hugh Akston||

    It might be the other way around. I think as the institutions of religion erode, people are beginning to comprehend just how little control they have over anything in their lives and the world at large. Chaos is scary, so where they once told themselves that God had a plan in all this horror, now they just run to government to control the uncontrollable.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Maybe it is simply that the government for many has become the paternal replacement for God. And so when something happens they petition it for aid. The same as one would pray traditionally.

  • Ron||

    it goes back to president Washington who was considered the father of the nation now all presidents are father figures and liberals always looking for answers run to their father, the government, for answers

  • David Nolan||

    So do conservatives.
    Left - Right = Zero

  • Jujucat||

    @David Nolan I'm going to make a t-shirt out of that if it isn't one already. Shall I add credit to you? ;)

  • David Nolan||

    If you mean left-right=zero, I THINK it was Nolan -- the founder of the LP, but I couldn't confirm that on Googfe. It goes WAY back, fairly sure to the 70s.

    His Nolan Chart (1969) -- used by the World's Smallest Political Quiz - coined "Left and Right Are Obsolete," which is not so immediately obvious. I'll use an example. Left and right are obsolete, because over 60% of Americans would self-define as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." So are they right or left? Neither. Originally, it meant the electorate was no longer JUST left and right

    He also coined what Johnson revived (but never addressed) "Most Americans are libertarian but don't know it." That wasn't polled properly until 2005, at 59%. There's been a LOT of growth in social tolerance since then, which is why I say over 60% now. .

    The bad news, most Americans are libertarian, but WE don't know THEM. 40-50,000 are in elected local office, as I was, but why did you learn that now? Even worse, 91% of THEM refuse the libertarian label, which is a VERY long story. Not what you asked, but since you like the "equation" this may flesh it out a bit. I hope.

  • ||

    ...Or you know do it themselves (praying or otherwise).

  • SIV||

    Thanks Atheists!

  • Number 7||

    we're all in a Bergman movie

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I wondered why I was thinking of Franny and Alexander....

  • David Nolan||

    Does increased reaction to these type of events correlate with this lack of ability?

    What was the prior reaction to mass murders on this scale?

    The only thing I know I can control, the amount of rhetorical questions I use in my writing.And their relevance!

  • Alcibiades||

    "One is the threat of, to put it mildly, severe civic unrest if the U.S. government attempted a mass confiscation..."

    You think such a scenario doesn't get the anti-gun crowd's pulse racing?

    Cause it does...

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Perhaps it would act as justification for further action.

  • Curt||

    I think it does. But, I think that they massively underestimate their ideological opposition on this issue. I think that they massively underestimate the overall nationwide gun-owners' resolve and ability to prevent their guns from being confiscated. I think they massively overestimate the willingness of law enforcement to conduct any kind of large scale confiscation; especially confiscation from unwilling targets.

  • XM||

    They need to get on the gun control train before it's (possibly) revealed that Paddock is a deranged Trump hater who targeted a country music festival.

    The guy apparently worked on a NASA project and owned airplanes. He was rich. A gambling loss that wipes away (enough to chase away a girlfriend) all of that would be news in itself. We heard nothing of it. Now I hear multiple windows were broken and a woman told everyone "you're all going to die".

    Something weird is going on. How did move that much weapon into his room? A rifle (I've seen one) is too long for most travel luggage bags.

  • flyfishnevada||

    Golf travel cases. There is a golf course right next to the hotel. I'm not sure what people envision going on at vegas casinos but they don't have metal detectors, bag searches or gun sniffing dogs. They are hotels. And you can most certainly fit a carbine length AR-15 with a collapsible stock in luggage and shorter versions aren't hard to come by.

  • IceTrey||

    An AR can be broken down to two two foot long pieces.

  • XM||

    You're right, I didn't think of that.

  • JFree||

    If his gun was actually an automatic, then it was already illegal and has been since they banned personal machine guns in the 1930's.

  • Alcibiades||

    No, you can legally own fully automatic firearms provided they were manufactured prior to 1986 but they are very tightly regulated.

  • JFree||

    Well if legal, then he passed the 'very tightly regulated' BATF controls. Which does say something as well.

  • Alcibiades||

    I'll be surprised if those reports he had fully automatic firearms turn out to be correct. Those types of weapons are extremely expensive and tracked by the ATF etc.

  • JFree||

    The video/audio I heard sounds like 3-burst fire at least.

  • Alcibiades||

    I bet they turn out to be modified semi-autos.

  • JFree||

    That could well be. It didn't sound like actual automatic

  • JFree||

    That said - 59 dead and 527 injured ain't anywhere in the realm of what should be acceptable from a legal personal weapon. That is an arsenal weapon

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Sorry, I could've got that many with aimed fire from my 8 shot Garand. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

    And, I'd have had a much higher kill ratio, that .30-06 is hit for hit going to cause more damage.

  • JFree||

    And your mindset - I could kill innocent people much better - is just evidence that it is our gun culture that is psychopathic. It is that culture - not our laws - that is the root of the problem here in the US.

    There is an anecdote about a German officer observing Swiss militia musters just before WW2 (when the Germans seriously twice contemplated invading/occupying Switzerland). He asked one of the militiamen - You have 500,000 militia but what can you really do against 1 million German soldiers. The militiaman said 'Shoot twice and then go home'.

    Totally different mindset - and only one is psychopathic.

  • MaxBlancke||

    Putting yourself in the mind of a potential attacker is part of a basic security oriented mindset. My primary job is security against piracy and terrorism. One of the things that make me good at my job is approaching each of our facilities with the question "How would I most effectively attack this installation?". Asking such questions does not put people like me on the side of the bad guys. Those questions need to be asked constantly for effective defense.

    Of course, in the case of the events in LV, we do not yet know the motives, what the source of the weapons was, or whether there are accomplices. Any sensible attempt to prevent this from happening again would need to be made with those questions answered.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    And your mindset - I could kill innocent people much better - is just evidence that it is our gun culture that is psychopathic.

    He was directly rebutting your ignorant allegation, not adapting any mindset.

    Stop being dishonest.

  • David Nolan||

    Whoooosh

  • Robbzilla||

    A guy took out 86 people and injured 468 more in France last year. Maybe we should ban his weapon of choice? After all, it must not have been a legal personal truck... It must have been an arsenal truck... whatever the fuck that is.

  • David Nolan||

    It was a 19-ton refrigeration truck, which explains all the momentum to kill so many.
    The crazy a-hole in Charlottesville would have killed a lot more with more weight and momentum.
    Would you ban ball bats because people are killed with them?.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    JFree|10.2.17 @ 8:13PM|#
    That said - 59 dead and 527 injured ain't anywhere in the realm of what should be acceptable from a legal personal weapon. That is an arsenal weapon


    Whatever an "arsenal weapon" is...the 2nd Amendment disagrees with any gun control.

  • David Nolan||

    Whatever an "arsenal weapon" is...the 2nd Amendment disagrees with any gun control.

    Depends how you define control.
    Ir's limited to the guns in use at the time (modern version), what citizens brought from.home, originalism, last confirmed in Justice Scalia's ruling in Heller, originally in 1939, Text on this page
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/10.....t_6985127/

    Adding other weapons is not originalist. It's "living constitution."

    Plus, and this is nit-picking, in one sense. but critical to avoid misunderstanding. No rights are absolute, by the definition of unalienable. ALL fundamental rights are unalienable -- Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and all the others. They're EACH absolute, thus precisely equal, so NONE can be absolute over ANY other, When two are in conflict (competing), neither is superior. That's when SCOTUS comes in..

  • rudehost||

    So we could for example ban the use of the word twerking since it wasn't a word that existed at the time of the founding? Or we could for example censor the internet since we would be limited to the kind of press that existed at the time. The 5th amendment would only apply to taking of property that existed in 1787 so the government couldn't take your horse without compensation but they could take your abortion clinic.

    Roughly correct?

  • David Nolan||

    Part one of tswo
    SOME of you (mostly conservatives from Infowars) are wackier than proggies -- with "Constitutional originalism" ONLY when con-veeen-yent to your own agenda. I'll TRY to dumb it down, but this may be as stubborn as global warming hysteria. (Atlas shrugs)

    Rudehost ridicules Justice Scalia becasuse ... wait for it ... rudehost SAYS SCALIA'S RULING ALLOWS ONLY MUSKETS! .... AND BANS COMPUTER PRINTERS AND PRINTING PRESSES (omfg)

    WHY? (laughing) ...

    Because he's too freaking ARROGANT to read Scalia's text I posted ON THIS PAGE ... and linked to ... or his actual ruling, ALSO I linked .... and .... SOMEHOW even FAILS to comprehend my own summary, the words in all caps

    It's limited to the guns in use at the time (MODERN VERSION), what citizens brought from home

    Or he doesn't understand "modern!"

    Why? Well, because of what Scalia calls the "prefatory" ckuse ("A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State")

    So ... RUDEhost makes WACKO assumptions ... based on laziness and illiteracy … holds his arms out and grins triumphantly …. over FAILURE, like …. oh .,.. Rachel Maddow every evening

    So we could for example ban the use of the word twerking since it wasn't a word that existed at the time of the founding?

    What prefatory clause limits the First Amendment?

    Cont'd

  • David Nolan||

    2 of 2

    Scalia (on this page IN BOLD) "the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right"

    GOOBERS GO APE-SHIT IF ANYONE USES BOLD AND/OR ALL CAPS HERE … well, much of the commentariat (mostly from Infowars and Breitbart) suffers tribal rerardation and …. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

    1) What "prefatory clause" limits the First Amendment? (For the afflicted, that ridicules both "twerkng" and "internet")

    2) What legal/judicial issues equate "twerking" with the "modern development" from muskets to AK-47s? (And, in his ruling, dangerous weapons were BANNED AT THE TIME -- Scalia, not Hillary)

    3) What prefatory clause limits the FIFTH amendment?

    Roughly correct?

    (pees pants in laughter)
    Must I also explain all your Owners Manuals, because you're too lazy and/or illiterate to? When you pull your head out of your butt, wash that icky brown stuff out of your hair.

    I am SO sorry I triggered you. Anythng else, snowflake?

  • David Nolan||

    I'll be surprised if those reports he had fully automatic firearms turn out to be correct.

    Almost any semi-automatic can be modified to automatic. As his were. Follow the news.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Are you referring to the BATF controls and taxes on suspected hardware at Mt Carmel in Waco? Those government agents only massacred, scratch that, fatally beseiged 76 men, women and children, and nobody is crazy enough to want to disarm tax collectors, right? This Las Vegas thing fatally beseiged 50 people, and 50 is a MUCH bigger number than 76 because First Responders goood, tax suspects baaad.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The BATF have repeatedly proven themselves to be a collection of ass-clowns.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I don't know why they still exist. They're reviled by both the left and the right. They should be disbanded, and have their duties absorbed back into the FBI. Keeping none of the ATF personnel.

  • Alcibiades||

    Some sources are stating he used fully automatic firearms. If so, that's incredibly rare as such are extremely tightly regulated.

  • IceTrey||

    It's not too hard to convert one.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    This is a frequently repeated statement, but only partially true. It's not hard to convert SOME models, if you are a competent gunsmith and have access to a machine shop. Most people lack the training.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    This is a frequently repeated statement, but only partially true.

    It's quite easy and has been widely reported, if not by Fox, Breitbart and Infowars. Educate yourself on bump stocks which "automate" (not the best word) trigger pulls on a semi-automatic.

  • DarrenM||

    I'm sure there are people with the necessary knowledge that would be willing to convert one for the right price.

  • David Nolan||

    Ever watch the news? Click the "bump stocks" link in the comment above you. It's been reported for days, and among the top stories since yesterday..

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Or visit me on Infowars! Buy bump stocks at my store before the dark state seizes them all.

  • DSK1134||

    ok, if that person had guns that are not legal for sale and unregistered guns, not to mention that that the Mandalay is a gun free zone, just how would further gun restrictions have changed this story. This guy even had explosives, so imagine what would have happened if he used them? Now lets take a look at a country that has severe gun restrictions, France. Bataclan was a tragedy not because the terrorists used explosives, but because of the gunfire. This is just another knee jerk reaction from liberals that are anxious to remove all guns from society. Please review what has happened in Chicago and Washington D.C. Gun violence has not gone down, even though guns have been forbidden from sale and outlawed.

  • JFree||

    The Bataclan was an example of gun laws making things worse. France has a lot more guns than people think (the French don't obey rules and there are a ton of families who now hand down rifles within their family outside 'wills' and other state stuff). Nevertheless the legal controls force purchasers to the same illegal arms-dealers who supply AK-47's and such to mercenaries and the Third World - and can also supply personal weapons. I suspect that was how they bought them - esp since Belgium is the center for that biz.

  • flyfishnevada||

    This isn't based in fear, ignorance or hate. This isn't the time for reason and logic. This is when we need to make rash decisions, use tragedy to further our political aspirations and disparage others. Get with the program...

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    This is why I loathe to find out the reasoning behind the shooting. No matter what it is, it's going to turn into a complete shit-show.

  • Hugh Akston||

    He did not care for the Magic Schoolbus reboot.

  • Rich||

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The changed Ms. Frizzle in all ways I loathe.

  • ||

    And now she has a sister, and I can't wait to see how they will PC all over this reboot.

  • Tony||

    Why couldn't he have been a Muslim and made your life easier?

    Thoughts and prayers!

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Pretty fucked up, even for you. Fuck off

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Don't just threaten Tony with a log chipper, FEED HIM INTO ONE OF YOURS! The damn commie

  • Hank Phillips||

    So The Wall is really to keep Americans in? Who would want to emigrate somewhere where 100 people a day die in traffic accidents?

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    THEY WOULD DIE EVEN WITH AN ABSOLUTE GUN BAN!
    Focus on the REAL majority of deaths, natural causes, cancer and the like. Gun control has NEVER saved one of those lives, anywhere on earth!

  • Alcibiades||

    Count up the bodies from gun-related homicides in Chicago over the summer and contrast and compare to today's carnage.

  • IceTrey||

    50 a month.

  • JFree||

    That just says Americans are fucking immature assholes about guns (and everything else). Switzerland has almost as many personal gunowners (gunowners as % of population) as us - with a million or so militia keeping their service arms (the only ones that are automatics) at home and with option to purchase at end of militia service.

    They have about 15 gun homicides/year (avg less than one due to service arms). A gun homicide rate of 0.21/100,000 vs the US at 3.6/100,000.

    Maybe we should spend a bit more time figuring out how the Swiss are a fuckload better than Americans re guns. And that 'we' should include both gun nuts and gun grabbers.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    The murder rate in the areas of the US where we "gun nuts" live has the same murder rate as Europe: see, Vermont, NH, pretty much any rural county.

    Our murder rate is concentrated in urban areas and the South: eg, areas with large, urban, low-income black populatuons.

    (Note that rural black populations have the same murder rate as white communities, so no, I'm not making a eugenics argument here.)

    The problem isn't "American" or "gun" culture, it's "Great Society single-parent family" culture. The single greatest predictor of violence is absence of a father figure, and when you combine that with an unusually harsh Drug War and lingering racialist attitudes...

    There is no problem in America's murderous areas that is not also present in South American and South African cities... And gun control didn't work there either. Which is why they have the same rates, the same percentages of guns in said rates, and the same fatherlessness + ghettoized black populations at the root of it that we do.

  • JFree||

    So this murder spree by a rich old white guy at a Las Vegas country music festival - was perhaps caused by some country song about fatherless blacks and pickup trucks?

  • JFree||

    Or perhaps he's just the sort of guy who's really serious when he yells get off my lawn.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Oh, for fuck's sake, we were talking about general murder rates across countries, not specific incidents. Mass killings are a completely separate and vastly rarer kind of killing compared to the generic gang shootings, domestic murders and robberies gone wrong that comprise the bulk of ANY country's murder rate. THAT is what I was talking about and you damn well know it. Plenty of white male crazies kill people in Europe too- see, Breivik, Anders.

  • JFree||

    And I could just as easily argue that Switzerland's low murder rate - with VERY widespread ownership - has nothing to do with your racist fatherless-blacks bullshit. And everything to do with near-universal militia service - which is precisely what teaches gun responsibility without the PTSD of 'conscription' and perpetual war.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    As I noted yesterday, since I started commenting here, I have been called a:

    Obama Momma
    Cousin-Fucking Racist
    SJW
    Neocon
    Godless Cuck

    I suppose we can now add "just plain old racist" to the evergrowing list of Things Telcontar Has Been Called By Cognitively Incontinent Dullards.

    Tell me, Joffrey, what part of "ghettoized", "racial animus", "unusually harsh Drug War" and "rural black populations have the same murder rate as white communities" sounds like "racism" to you? Oh, right, I forgot, the "it's easier than actually formulating a response" part.

    I did not imply nor do I believe that black people are genetically *or culturally* inclined to violence. I believe that white (American, White Brazilian, and Afrikaaner, respectively) racism put (some of) them into ghettos, and then social experimentation kept them there and broke their family structure while it was about it. That is the conventional libertarian position on the subject, and it is the correct one.

    As to "militia service", again, why does militia-free Vermont have the same murder rate as Switzerland. Do tell.

  • JFree||

    Vermont doesn't have the same homicide rate. Vermont rate - 1.6/100,000. Switzerland - 0.21/100,000 (or 0.5/100,000 if you include all non-gun homicides too). Vermont may be our safest state - but that's 3x higher than Switzerland (and Switzerland is pretty urban too).

    And I repeat - your nonsense about fatherless black families is racist. Yes - it is a serious problem. But the reason gangs predominate as a very violent 'safety structure' in neighborhoods - and the reason urban teens (of any race) don't even remotely comprehend the difference between 'brandishing' and 'carry' and thus the use of 'gun as threat and penis-extension' - is because our social INSTITUTIONS of security/safety continue to be broken. Not because families are broken. Focusing on 'families' is simply admitting nothing can/should be done.

    Universal militia is EXACTLY what would change the recruiting for police/etc, would provide a neighborhood security/future that 'breaks' gangs, and would teach gun responsibility. Along with eliminating all the mind-blowingly pathetic pictures of people begging (while doing nothing themselves) post-disasters. And greatly reducing the unseemly susceptibility of Americans to being fear-mongered by our pols (and bluntly we are more easily fear-mongered than any country I've ever lived in - despite all dem guns).

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    The average murder rate in Switzerland was 1 to 1.7 in the 90s, albeit lower on either side of that, while Vermont and NH have consistently been 2.5 to 1, lowering over time. Where was that Bismarckian statist discipline in 90s Switzerland? Did it go on the blink? The idea of conscripting people as part of some mass social engineering experiment is statist, illiberal and could only lead to de facto slavery in a country as militarily active as the US (and regardless of what you think of said military activity, it isn't going anywhere any time soon).

    And those families are broken BECAUSE OF social programs. You can call me racist 'til the sun's gone and the moon is dead, but have you ever read about Australia's NTER program? The shit that goes on in Native American Resevations? Well, that's the Great Society. You're not wrong about it being social institutions, you're wrong about which ones: NCVS data from black victims consistently confirms police crime data, so it isn't racial bias in policing, it's the 1960s paternalism that welfare and drug prohibition brought about. It's the schools, the dole, and the dad that is absent thanks to the dole. It is racism that does it, it's just the "soft" racism of socialist "helpers", preserving the social conditions of the 1960s that would have otherwise long since dissipated if black people were trusted to make their own decisions.

    "Racist", my ass.

  • JFree||

    And those families are broken BECAUSE OF social programs.

    Those families were 'broken' long before the Moynihan Report (1965) made the observation that they were already broken. Moynihan himself used the work of Franklin Frazier (from the 1920's). Black family structure was broken by slavery - and rebroken after that in a whole bunch of ways/places including social welfare programs.

    Which is irrelevant to the rise in homicide/violence that only occurred in the 1970's/1980's. The cause of that was Cointelpro/police suppression of the 'black power' movement and the abdication of policing in black neighborhoods - which created a vacuum filled by gangs financed by drug dealing -- and a massive increase in young black male unemployment (caused by the end of conscription/VietWar with no private sector offset). The notion that a boy's father is gonna fix all that is fucking laughable. And yes racist if the only 'proposal' is to deliver yet another patronizing kick in the teeth to the 'broken black family'.

    The idea of conscripting people as part of some mass social engineering experiment is statist, illiberal and could only lead to de facto slavery in a country as militarily active as the US

    First I'm not talking about conscription into the military. I'm talking a broad definition of militia. Second conscription ended because it restricted DC's ability to conduct perpetual war. Third there are many ways of making it more incented than coerced.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Even if it were not a part of the military proper, and used wages or the promise of glory to recruit people voluntarily, I am fairly certain that such a government-ordinanced and controlled militia would end up being used for military/LEO propaganda purposes very quickly. The military/LEOs get enough propaganda value from "assisting" the production of action movies and cop shows as it is. Forget what you *want* your militia to do: that's what it *would* end up doing. Do we really need a Drumpfenjugend?

    Anyway, I fail to see how you get away with doubling down on your prematurely-flung race card just because *you think* my preferred policies would hurt black people. As if it's impossible that I might actually simply disagree with you, rather than being a crypto-fash Richard Spencer sock.

    I claim no stone-set knowledge of anything, but how exactly is "VietWar" unemployment supposed to explain a murder rate of +/- 9 per 100k in *1993*? And the murder rate increased *across all races* in the 60s, so did LEOs withdraw from poor white neighborhoods too? Hmm.

    Black poverty was decreasing faster before LBJ than after (see Sowell). The jettisoning of the black father and perverse incentives from welfare eviscerated the "launch pad" kids need to move into the middle class, thus locking black communities into the neighborhoods where King Heroin recruited his infantry from '65 on.

  • JFree||

    would end up being used for military/LEO propaganda purposes very quickly.

    I'm sure they'd try too. And because participation would again be near-universal, that sort of usage would hopefully spark opposition again. Which is as it should be. OTOH - it is entirely possible that the US is so morally bankrupt that we would again resort to misusing the militia as we historically did (Kent State, 1968, Ponce, Tulsa, Ludlow, Sand Creek, Mountain Meadow, Bloody Island, slave patrols). But again, if that's who we still are then that's who we still are and we should stop pretending.

    how exactly is "VietWar" unemployment supposed to explain a murder rate of +/- 9 per 100k in *1993*?

    Once black teen unemployment ramped up, it never dropped much. It peaked at 55% in early 80's but was still more cyclical than economy (40% in early 90's and post-08). The LOWEST number it reached (25% at turn of century) was still higher than the highest white teen unemployment ever reached. This is so far beyond the ability of any individual black father/family to influence - that invoking some Horatio Alger bullshit as a 'solution' is effectively racism. I'm not trying to just throw the term around as an epithet.

  • David Nolan||

    Kent State was not misused. It was mismanaged. The ROTC building had been dynamited into rubble. This was a 2-story block building, like a National Guard armory (ROTCs were mostly classrooms and "auditoriums"). I had been in that ROTC. On assignment in Canada, asked my dad why the Guard troops were event there. He said he'd send the Cleveland paper. A two-story block building had been reduced to rubble less deep than people standing next to it. It was entirely a state and local matter.

    Mountain Meadows Massacre r was also "state" level, a territorial militai southern Utah wiped out a large wagon train, leaving no survivors. This was among the reporting since Vegas, on the history of US mass murders.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "Racism" means believing that a race is innately genetically or culturally inferior. I have expressly rejected both possibilities and nothing in what I've said has implied either. Race is only relevant to the discussion because 20th century discrimination against black people is what placed them in a position to be hit worst by *whatever it was* that doubled EVERY race's murder rate from 1965 onward.

    Speaking of which, it's an odd man as believes that veterans or their kids would still be unemployed 30 years later. That's one hell of a market failure. Especially since said unemployment, and murder rate, began rising in 19*65*: not exactly a "low point" in gainful employment opportunities in the Land War in Asia sector of the economy. Bit of a growth period, actually. And again, racism in policing does not explain the doubling of the white murder rate in sync with the black rate. So: what happened in '65, which affected *every* race's poor, with blacks necessarily being the worst affected because they were (and would artificially be kept) the most ghettoized?

    It strikes me as awful strange that 1-parent families (which were quite rare in black communities up to that point: again, see Sowell), the murder rate, and the US drug user pop all began rising in the same 3 year period. Unless *someone* had come along and started giving people cash to do drugs and have kids out of wedlock... And thus created a black market to die for.

  • ||

    No they really weren't the amount of black single family homes in the 1920's were a fraction of what they were then or now.

  • Loss of Reason||

    Telcontar, I like your news letter and like to subscribe.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Spasibo.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Sounds like you have been called names by both sides about equally. You must be doing something right.

  • David Nolan||

    I'll stand with Justice Scalia's Heller ruling ...
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/10.....nt_6985127
    .. which trumps EVERY argument for a "living constitution" in this thread.
    Because originalism is not a tribal option.

  • trig||

    Right

  • David Nolan||

    Trig
    Right

    Thanks! Scalia is very blunty and direct, as you saw at that link!.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    MORE MUST FIND GOD!

  • ||

    "Lingering racist attitudes", or just the debilitating message of failure, and blaming that failure on someone else?

  • David Nolan||

    Surety, you don't deny "lingering racist attitudes" -- which would also be blame-shifting.

  • Robbzilla||

    So we start training our young men and women with guns at a very early age. We regulate how much money each person can take out of his or her bank account, thus babysitting their finances. And we magically deport everyone not of Caucasian ancestry, because we don't have a small, homogeneous population with a long culture of strict neutrality and strong family values.

  • David Nolan||

    Seig Heil!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    JFree, how do you know they compile their gun crime stats the same way we do? It certainly isn't a given. For example, in Great Britain, gun crimes are only designated as such statistically if the incident results in some form of criminal conviction. How does Switzerland figure their stats? Unless its truly apples to apples statistics, it doesn't mean anything.

  • Chip I. Alhazred||

    JFree wrote, "Maybe we should spend a bit more time figuring out how the Swiss are a [lots] better than Americans re guns."

    Good news! The research has begun. David B. Kopel wrote, "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies?" in 1992. Switzerland is mentioned on pages 14, 403, 407-410, 412 of one edition, and the entirety of a chapter titled "Switzerland: The Armed Society." That chapter has 121 footnotes. Three chapters after that look into America.

    To give you the flavor of the material, "Is Switzerland a model for widespread gun ownership, as the American gun lobby asserts? Or for strict gun control, as the American anti-gun lobby asserts? Before deciding which side of the American debate Switzerland supports--if it supports any side at all--let us look at what the gun laws in Switzerland really require, and at what role guns play in Swiss culture."

  • David Nolan||

    Well?

  • Rich||

    it is a difficult thing to convince those who don't want, need, or enjoy guns to fathom how anyone else could, given their demonstrable ability to cause horrific harm.

    it is a difficult thing to convince those who don't want, need, or enjoy automobiles to fathom how anyone else could, given their demonstrable ability to cause horrific harm.

    it is a difficult thing to convince those who don't want, need, or enjoy dogs to fathom how anyone else could, given their demonstrable ability to cause horrific harm.

    it is a difficult thing to convince those who don't want, need, or enjoy milkshakes to fathom how anyone else could, given their demonstrable ability to cause horrific harm.

    ...

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's just a necessary truth. If you don't find something fun you can't fully appreciate why others find it fun. We sometimes say we can understand why someone would find something fun, but that's a logical attempt at an ultimately inherent thing. We find it fun because we do.

    Though I don't actually shoot guns so everyone who owns them IS a completely nut case.

  • Rich||

    So, is this kind of discussion fun?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    For me it is. I spend most of my life navel gazing.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Oh, and I didn't really state my reason for saying that. That means that one personally not finding something fun is a dumb shit reason for calls to ban it. Saying all your friends don't understand doesn't make it any more reasonable of an argument.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Aww! That's the nicest thing anyone's ever said about me! {purrs}

  • Hank Phillips||

    Just ask them about disarming the DEA, ICE or some other pet goons. Alluva sudden SOME guns are more equal than others, as in Animal Farm.

  • David Nolan||

    Antonin Scalia disagreed with such soundbites in his Heller ruling, strongly. And it's too late to persuade him otherwise. Plus, you'd need to change constitutional precedents since 1939.

  • Alcibiades||

    I have many problems with Trump but if that fucking evil bitch had won then no Neil Gorsuch and several years down the line a reversal of DC vs Miller, 2008.

  • Karl Hungus||

    This. For all his deep and profound flaws as a man and as a politician, I believe Trump will appoint judges and justices who can be relied upon to uphold the Second.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Good article in the WSJ a couple of days ago crediting Trump on his selection of Federal Judges, such as Gorsuch, Willett, and Ho [it does sound like a firm, doesn't it?]; for this the credit his reliance on recommendations of the Federalist Society. If Trump does nothing else [short of starting a nuclear war] this may prove to be an incredible and lasting legacy.

  • David Nolan||

    can be relied upon to uphold the Second.

    While destroying other parts. A lose-lose.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Really? He handled DACA correctly. He may not be perfect on everything, but I see an awful lot of prejudice against Trump here based on little more than personal dislike for the man.

  • David Nolan||

    That's an excuse to avoid the obvious failings and flaws.. Like "Fake News" is an excuse.
    Tribalism.

    He handled DACA "correctly" like everything else he handled "correctly." By caving or reversing.
    And it's a fucking lie that it was unconstitutional. But hate Obama

    But if you check what I cited, I was replying about judges, mostly Gorsuch...

  • AZ Gunowner||

    That was actually HELLER in 2008. MILLER was 1939 and didn't involve the D of C.

  • Alcibiades||

    My bad!
    Thanks for correcting that.

  • David Nolan||

    and several years down the line a reversal of DC vs Miller, 2008.

    Miller was 1939, upheld in Scalia's 2007 Heller decision.

  • Hank Phillips||

    My own curbside observation is that gun-confiscators only want some guns confiscated. The ones in the hands of the same cops that shoot-then-handcuff people for no good reason, dog killers, all kinds of madmen are OK with guns provided they take orders from The Political State.
    For this particular event, one or two police snipers on rooftops might have been a meaningful hedge.

  • Alcibiades||

    Obama doesn't believe US citizens should be "allowed" to own guns.
    He stated this to John Lott when they were both lecturing at the University of Chicago.

  • Hank Phillips||

    So none of those cops and government agents are citizens? What about borrowing guns?

  • IceTrey||

    Not to be callous but there are 330 million Americans and 22,000 were at the event and only 59 deaths. The odds of being killed like this is just tiny. Driving is a million times more dangerous.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That's my argument for why we shouldn't jump to ridiculous extremes in regard to this. This is very likely a random event, we can hopefully avoid making things worse by jumping to extreme action.

  • JFree||

    No this is not some 'random' event. Of course that only means that means that both the gungrabbers and gunnuts will dig themselves the same old fucking trenches that they always do EVERY FUCKING TIME these 'random' events take place.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    You can piss your pants till your blue in the face , but you still don't have an argument , bub.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Now that you brought that up, there were no Camaros able to do 55 MPH in first gear in 1790. In fact, there weren't even any mo-peds or even bicycles in 1790. Nor is there anything in the Bill of Rights saying that the right of the people to drive cars, trucks, motorcycles "shall not be infringed". So "we" could stop dangerous traffic from killing about 100 people a day by simply banning motor vehicles that didn't exist in 1790. Flushed with that success, Congress could then get off its duff and repeal that Second Amendment that makes foreigners not want to emigrate to These States.

  • Karl Hungus||

    We're a nation of 330 million people. Comprising that number are 100 million gun owners, few of whom ever commit a crime, who between them own 300 million firearms, only a fractional percentage of which are ever used to commit a crime. As always, as long as you stay out of certain neighborhoods and refrain from certain activities, your chances of being shot, ever, are so remote as to merit no serious discussion.

    Outside its major urban centers, America simply does not have a gun violence problem.

  • Alcibiades||

    ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

    This and those major urban centers have some of the tightest gun-control restrictions in the nation.

  • Tony||

    And what good are mindless talking points if they don't result in an absolute mind-fuckingly desperate grasping onto the status quo?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Go drink your Drano bitch. You have nothing positive to contribute to anything, ever.

  • David Nolan||

    Shitlord = aggression = bullying,
    Now he can throw an immature hissy fit at me too!.
    By what right? None.
    None at all.

  • mysmartstuffs||

    Mostly, it's just too late. The genie is out of the bottle, and it's too late to un-ruin the country.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    If you left it would be a good start....

  • Lily Bulero||

  • Hank Phillips||

    Last year there were 13,172 gun fatalities not counting suicides, ESPECIALLY not counting the 1,907 suicides-by-1st-responder. That's only a third the number of people KILLED in traffic in vehicles that did not exist in 1790, the keeping and bearing of which is not protected by the Constitution. To save lives and preserve and defend the Constitution, we clearly need car-grabbers. The ban payoff is three times higher. The Political State could simply condemn the cars and pay some fair price for them, so it's not really a "taking."

  • Lily Bulero||

    PROG: "When the 2nd Amendment was ratified there weren't these modern automatic weapons, there were just muskets."

    ME: "When the 1st Amendment was ratified you couldn't send messages around the world in less than a second, there were printing presses and you had to send printed matter by horse and boat."

    PROG: "OMG why are you changing the subject? What does that have to do with anything? Guns kill people!!!!!!"

    ME: "Communicating delicate military information can lead to deaths, as well. Now that information can be communicated in less than a second, so the government should definitely register everyone's Twitter accounts."

    PROG: "I'm talking about guns and the Second Amendment and you keep changing the subject!"

  • David Nolan||

    It's the FREEDOM of both speech and press protected, not the methodology. PROG wins on elementary logic!

    Antonin Scalia was a PROG. Who knew?

    Justice Scalia's ruling in Heller. (Supreme Court website)

    "... We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. 'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

    .... as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty..... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Scala begins with actual dictionary definitions since 1771. But ... but ... it's a LIVING Constitution.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Scalia also said the feds can use the interstate commerce power against marijuana, even against people who just grow it for their own use.

  • David Nolan||

    Scalia also said the feds can use the interstate commerce power against marijuana

    Not true. That was Justice Stevens' opinion. Scalia concurred with the decision but dissented on the reason.

    From his opinion
    " It is misleading because, unlike the channels, instrumentalities, and agents of interstate commerce, activities that substantially affect interstate commerce are not themselves part of interstate commerce, and thus the power to regulate them cannot come from the Commerce Clause alone."

    His reasoning is too complex for here. Scalia!

  • Lily Bulero||

    My bad - he used the Necessary and Proper Clause.

    Of course, he used it verrrrrry broadly.

  • David Nolan||

    The "necessary and proper clause" explicitly names Congress as the determinant. It's also referenced as "the elastic clause." And he is an originalist!

  • Lily Bulero||

    Is?

  • David Nolan||

    Thanks. Was. I should have said his reputation is originalist, which would have been WAY too verbose!

  • Jonathon||

    The U.S. Constitution is a "living" document in the sense that it can be amended, not reinterpreted to fit ones agenda. Without amending it, the wording should be interpreted based upon the meaning of the words at the time it was written, and any amendments should be clearly and concisely worded with but a single interpretation for current and future courts to apply.
    Perhaps an amendment requiring all Supreme Court decisions must be unanimous would result in better governance.

  • David Nolan||

    The U.S. Constitution is a "living" document in the sense that it can be amended, not reinterpreted to fit ones agenda.

    Apparently, you've never heard all the ridicule from the right?

    legal definition
    "Living Constitution is a term used to describe the Constitution's ability to change to meet the needs of each generation without major changes. This is a concept used in interpreting the Constitution of U.S. It is based on the notion that Constitution of the United States has relevant meaning beyond the original text and is an evolving and dynamic document that changes over time. Therefore the views of contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases"

    That's the opposite of the Originalism I cited from Scalia. We're disagreeing only on the label, not the need to amend.

  • Jonathon||

    PROG: "OMG why are you changing the subject? What does that have to do with anything? Guns kill people!!!!!!"

    Many things can and have been used to kill people. But in the end it is people who kill people, sometimes using a gun, sometimes with another weapon even bare hands. And sometimes crimes are prevented because a potential victim is better armed than the criminal, which has been the case twice in my lifetime when working the night shift in down town Atlanta, Ga.

    Instant communication can result in someone on the East Coast or even in another Country making a statement which results in another taking action elsewhere in the world.

  • David Nolan||

    Many things can and have been used to kill people

    Only guns are a protected right in the Constitution. Limited, but protected.

  • mpercy||

    Guns kill people!!!!!!

    No, they don't. Not unless thrown very hard or swung as an overpriced club.

    Bullets, on the other hand, do a pretty good job.

    Semantics aside, guns and bullets are by themselves inanimate objects. No gun has ever jumped up off the table and unleashed a stream of bullets at a person by itself. It takes a person to intentionally or stupidly point and click/boom.

  • David Nolan||

    No, they don't. Not unless thrown very hard or swung as an overpriced club.

    They do get fired, which is their purpose

  • David Nolan||

    WOW! Such a balanced view is so rare, and even worse at Reason. But as was once taught in high school, no rights are absolute, because all fundamental rights are absolute (unalienable) -- so they can be in conflict, with each other. Conflicting rights were once well-known and accepted, as a concept,

    But in today's polarized, triba

  • Lily Bulero||

    lized world we should be free from BULLIES who LIE.

  • David Nolan||

    BULLIES who LIE

    Easier said than done, when left and right are both pandering to their own tribe's bullies. And the tribal death spiral is doomed to get even worse. As more and more voters abandon loyalty to either party, zealots get a louder voice in each party's base ... which drives still more away.

    That's why Presidential candidates no longer move toward the center for general elections. Increasingly, we are governed by a minority. Unless and until we abandon partisan primaries.

  • David Nolan||

    continued (got away from me)

    ... But in today's polarized, tribal culture -- we now see both left and right fighting and snarling that THEIR right must prevail in any conflict. For gun rights, that means the left screeches for a total ban on guns. And the right screeches that NO regulation is permissible - which even Justice-dismissed per "original intent." (the militia was armed with whatever guns they kept at home, what we now call hunting rifles). So it's amusing, but also scary, to see so many on the right defending a "living constitution" but only when it's convenient, no different than the left!

    All one need to do is open any dictionary, read the definition of "unalienable," and DARE to assume that Jefferson and the founders were ... literate. But tribalism.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Do you have an example of someone on the right saying that "NO regulation is permissible"?

  • David Nolan||

    The NRA for openers.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Then why did their magazine approve the enforcement of the ban on felons carrying guns?

  • David Nolan||

    Violent felons. Because they tend to repeat. Curiously, your link faults Obama for FAILING to enforce gun regulations! I've also corrected your claim on Scalia, pot and interstate commerce, with link to source.

  • Lily Bulero||

    I was wrong about Scalia, which is why I admitted I was wrong.

    See how easy that was?

    Now, about your claim that the NRA claims "NO regulation is permissible" - what are the odds you will admit you were wrong on that one?

    So far, I'm seeing little evidence that you're willing to do that, because you seem to belong to the school of Internet commenters who think that every time they admit they were wrong, their manhood shrinks.

  • David Nolan||

    I see restrictions on VIOLENT felons as a separate case, like voting rights for all felons. Voting disenfranchisement for felons are being rolled back lately, but the principle has been.upheld by SCOTUS.

    you seem to belong to the school of Internet commenters who think that every time they admit they were wrong, their manhood shrinks.

    That's uncalled for. A purely personal attack kinda contradicts your position. Please review again how my responses your Scalia comments were done politely ... twice ... without saying you are .. ummmm ... a bitch.

  • Lily Bulero||

    You attributed to the NRA the position that "NO regulation is permissible."

    You were in error.

  • David Nolan||

    you seem to belong to the school of Internet commenters who think that every time they admit they were wrong, their manhood shrinks


    http://reason.com/blog/2017/10.....nt_6985189
    And still not calling you a bitch

  • Sevo||

    Hey, Mike!
    I'll call you a fucking imbecile!

  • Lily Bulero||

    Yes, that certainly proves your contention that the NRA thinks "NO regulation is permissible."

  • Lily Bulero||

    "And still not calling you a bitch"

    Then I won't call you a [NSFW NSFW NSFW].

  • David Nolan||

    Then why did their magazine approve the enforcement of the ban on felons carrying guns?

    Read it again.. He calls for enforcing longer sentences for felons who commit gun offenses. NOT a ban on freed felons

    I'm STILL polite. STILL not launching personal insults.
    How many different ways can you play the "tiny dick" insult -- whole I STILL don't call you a bitch?>

    (Boldface in response to stalking, aggression and sexual insults a/k/a cyber-bullying, punishing me for stating both left and right violate the principle of unalienable rights, re: 2nd Amendment)

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/10.....nt_6985115
    But in today's polarized, tribal culture -- we now see both left and right fighting and snarling that THEIR right must prevail in any conflict (of rights) ... the left screeches for a total ban on guns. And the right screeches that NO regulation is permissible - which even Justice Scalia dismissed per "original intent." (the militia was armed with whatever guns they kept at home, what we now call hunting rifles). So it's amusing, but also scary, to see so many on the right defending a "living constitution" but only when it's convenient, no different than the left!

  • Lily Bulero||

    How would you interpret this part of the article I cited:

    "These thugs could have been taken off the streets long ago under federal law. Gun possession for convicted felons alone calls for five-year mandatory prison sentences with no parole. If the possession involved drugs, multipliers kick in that could render sentences of up to life in a federal pen."

  • David Nolan||

    Exactly the way I did. Note that he includes HOW they could have been taken off the streets .. with longer sentences ... NOT a gun ban after they've been released, which he NEVER states..

    That means the MANDATORY minimum of five years (up to life) with no parole was NOT being enforced for gun POSSESSION by a convicted felon. He also blames both Obama and Mayor Emanuel for the gun death rate in Chicago, because they were NOT enforcing the minimums of 5 years to life

    It's mostly a rant against liberals. I have no idea if he's accurate -- a five-year minimum for POSSESSION of aNGF a gun in the commisiobb

    .

    .

    .

  • Lily Bulero||

    So you believe the following things simultaneously:

    (a) The NRA thinks "NO regulation is permissible"

    and

    (b) "That means the MANDATORY minimum of five years (up to life) with no parole was NOT being enforced for gun POSSESSION by a convicted felon. He [NRA author] also blames both Obama and Mayor Emanuel for the gun death rate in Chicago, because they were NOT enforcing the minimums of 5 years to life."

    That's your story, and you're sticking to it!

  • David Nolan||

    So you believe the following things simultaneously:

    (a) The NRA thinks "NO regulation is permissible"

    and

    (b) "That means the MANDATORY minimum of five years (up to life) with no parole was NOT being enforced for gun POSSESSION by a convicted felon. He [NRA author] also blames both Obama and Mayor Emanuel for the gun death rate in Chicago, because they were NOT enforcing the minimums of 5 years to life."

    That's your story, and you're sticking to it!

    You change the subject, but yes
    You equate bans and regulation of guns ... with the the prison sentences of felons.

    Is THAT your point, in over a dozen corrections, that the NRA supports a gun ban on felons because they want then in jail longer? Otherwise, inmates could own guns in prison?
    And you're sticking with it!

    Just below, I link you to the NRA's long support for REMOVING gun bans on freed felons.

    (Boldface for obvious harassmentt

  • David Nolan||

    I think this new keyboard is defective! It keeps submitting on its own.

    .... I have no idea if he's accurate -- about a 5-year minimum for POSSESSION of a gun in the commission of a felony, or Obama/Emanuel culpability ... but he NEVER endorses a gun ban on freed felons. WHICH ALREADY EXISTS.

    LaPierre has explicitly and repeatedly OPPOSES a gun ban, even on convicted felons, for years. They are banned now., but the NRA has proposed and supported various ways to RESTORE a convicted felons gun rights. Here's their Facebook page..

  • Lily Bulero||

    "This bill does not intend in any way, shape, or form to allow a violent criminal to possess a firearm."

  • David Nolan||

    Shamelessly dishonest quote, corrected

    According to The Hill, the amendment would let the Justice Department process restoration applications, which they currently aren't able to do. his bill does not intend in any way, shape, or form to allow a violent criminal to possess a firearm"Restoration" of gun ownership for nonviolent felons.

    The same posting opens with

    Those who have lost the right to purchase and obtain a firearm are now one step closer to being able to petition the government for a full restoration of those rights.

    Where did I read this".

    you seem to belong to the school of Internet commenters who think that every time they admit they were wrong, their manhood shrinks

    If a female, would her tits be shrinking? Her vulva? Clit?

  • Lily Bulero||

    You attributed to the NRA the position that "NO regulation is permissible." To back that up, you'd have to show me where the NRA proposes to permit *all* convicted felons to carry firearms. The measure you linked to doesn't do this.

  • David Nolan||

    What does that have to do with your lie that I called out?
    Are you really confused between a regulation and punishment for a crime?

    Where did I read this".

    you seem to belong to the school of Internet commenters who think that every time they admit they were wrong, their manhood shrinks

    If a female, would her tits be shrinking? Her vulva? Clit?
    Do you have trouble sitting?

  • SIV||

    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms hall not be infringed"

    As for original intent, you could own a "suppressed, smokeless, 20 round repeater" or an 18 gun brigantine.

  • David Nolan||

    You're challenging Scalia, the 1939 Miller ruling, and gun restrictions at the time. Your link describes only military use, but, regardless of that ... did many of the "citizen's militia" have those weapons in their homes? For what purpose?

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, all of them.
    The most deadly military weapon of the time was the infantry musket. Most "civilian" rifles/muskets were just better made version of the same thing. They were better made because the government issued mass produced low quality muskets to the masses because they were cheaper. Individuals preferred more accuracy to shop for supper.
    And everyone should remember that the second amendment applies to arms, not just firearms. By just discussing guns, you are going off topic. (which never happens at reason)

  • David Nolan||

    Well, all of them.

    None.

    And everyone should remember that the second amendment applies to arms, not just firearms. By just discussing guns, you are going off topic. (which never happens at reason))

    Who should I believe, Antonin Scalia's Heller decision or Longtobefree? ,

    What does "arms" include, that were not firearms, and that citizens brought from their homes? Not that you've gone off-topic.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Cavalry sabers? Spontoons?

  • David Nolan||

    (lol) You can't name any either!

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Cavalry sabers were sometimes kept at home and were used in the war.

    See: Samuel Whittemore. (Didn't do him much good, him being a 78-year-old cripple on foot. But he did *have* it.)

  • David Nolan||

    With no cavalry? Do you know what "militia"" means? "sometimes?
    Would YOU fight redcoats with a SABER ... instead of a gun.

    him being a 78-year-old cripple on foot. But he did *have* it

    How many battles did he take it to?

    Tell Scalia! Oh, wait ...

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "With no cavalry? Do you know what "militia"" means? "sometimes?
    Would YOU fight redcoats with a SABER ... instead of a gun."

    If I were mounted, yes, I would use a saber, and militia did absolutely ride in certain areas, particularly in the South. Insurgents such as Francis Marion usually led their men to the battle on horseback before dismounting to use their rifles, but they were sometimes caught unawares and had to fight in close quarters. Sabers were still important close-quarters weapons as late as the Napoleonic Wars. And militia officers on horseback would require one regardless of whether the infantry they were leading did. To say nothing of providing a source of sabers for Continental government cavalrymen, who would not have had adequate access to foreign sources of weapons until after the French offered their support following the Battle of Saratoga.

    "How many battles did he take it to?"

    The one he almost died in. The point is that there is no reason to believe that he was the only man in the nascent United States to keep one at home. Sabers were usually kept by the officers they were presented to, and were absolutely viable battlefield weapons until the invention of repeating rifles and machine guns rendered cavalry ineffective- and even then, cavalry with sabers and lances were used against artillery in the Battle of Mons in WW1 and successfully took the cannons, albeit with heavy casualties.

  • David Nolan||

    The point is that there is no reason to believe that he was the only man in the nascent United States to keep one at home.

    Why would that be a point at all?

    If I were mounted, yes, I would use a saber

    Against guns!

    ans militia did absolutely ride in certain areas

    As cavalry?

    Sabers were usually kept by the officers they were presented to, and were absolutely viable battlefield weapons

    And ... you took the bait!
    Can you tell us who's trying to ban sabers?
    I didn't think so.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "Why would that be a point at all?"

    Because it proves that sabers were military-grade weapons of the time that were kept outside of state-controlled armories, a la Kentucky rifles and muskets.

    "Against guns!"

    Just as many cavalry, mounted and dismounted, did at the time. When your pistol only has one shot and only the most important officers can afford more than one or two pistols, a weapon that is not affected by rainy weather and does not require reloading is rather useful. The use of sabers by cavalry, and mounted officers leading cavalry, at the time is well-documented.

    "As cavalry?"

    In the case of officers at least, yes.

    "And ... you took the bait!
    Can you tell us who's trying to ban sabers?
    I didn't think so."

    I was not claiming a threat to Americans' right to own non-firearm weapons, merely noting that the 2A would protect them if there were such a threat. But on reflection, I recall hearing that the United Kingdom has banned its subjects from owning certain weapons, such as katanas, owing to their use in robberies. As to whether such bans are effective or advisable, I make no claim; but I believe such a ban would be unconstitutional in the United States as its Bill of Rights is currently written.

  • David Nolan||

    1 of 2
    boldface cuz a response to bullshit, stalking and general cyber-harassment

    And I thought Telcontar could not POSSIBLY get ant wacker! BUT! ...

    1) He STILL claims to know the Constitution better than ..... Antonin Scalia! (snort)

    2) NOW claims a TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED ASSERTION is .... PROOF! (OMFG)I

    3) Backs off his cavalry lies, ignores the CRAZY lie...

    If I were mounted, yes, I would use a saber

    Against guns!

    Just as many cavalry, mounted and dismounted, did at the time.

    There was no cavalry ,,. by HIS OWN WORDS!

    "As cavalry?"

    In the case of officers at least, yes.

    SEE IT? Called out as a liar having backed himself into a corner … HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT A CAVALRY IS!!!!!.

    Show of hands, how many would call this a cavalry?
    1) The OFFICERS lead the charge on horseback .
    2) The troops follow are on foot!

    IT GETS WORSE!

    (cont'd)

  • David Nolan||

    2

    And ... you took the bait!
    Can you tell us who's trying to ban sabers?
    .

    I was not claiming a threat to Americans' right to own non-firearm weapons

    (sigh)

    merely noting that the 2A would protect them if there were such a threat.

    WHY ARE YOU STALKING, BULLYING, HARASSING AND AGGRESSING AGAINST ME FOR DARING TO REPORT ... the ruling by Justice Scalia that exposes the bullshit and hysteria of Bellowing, Blustery, Blowhards for 2a?

    CRAZY bullshit like this.

    You say he
    a) went into battle:
    b) as a cripple -- 75 years old (in the 1700s)
    c) on foot
    d) armed with a saber (against armed redcoats)
    e) at a time sabers were used by a cavalry (that did not exist) THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ON FOOT!.

    Imagine a 75-yeawr-old cripple on foot FURIOUSWLY HOPPING to keep up with a cavalty!!
    Told by the rightwing equivalent to a Berniebot!

    The same bullshit is applied on many issues - false equivalence.
    SCOTUS rules (in 1939) that second amendment protects ONLY weapons brought from home by a militia. Goobers stand and screech.
    1) Many of them owned scythes. and went to war with a scyrhe (HERE!)

    2) 5% of the militia CARRIED sabers ... .but dismounted and used guns to actually fight. (HERE)

    Or ..... WHY NOT BAN FISTS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE BEATEN TO DEATH? (snort) .

    Can you imagine the Constitutional Convention debating shit like this?
    Stop laughing.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "WHY ARE YOU STALKING, BULLYING, HARASSING AND AGGRESSING"

    I have been perfectly civil throughout this thread. You are the one resorting to personal insults.

    If your complaint is that a sword used by a mounted officer would technically be called a "officer's" saber rather than a "cavalry" saber, then I will not argue the point. But "sabers", adjective notwithstanding, were absolutely used by militia officers who would have sourced them from their own households or private donations. Thus rendering them militia grade weapons brought from home, thus protected. If the use of the adjective "cavalry" is your objection, I concede the point.

    If any of my contentions seem uncivil to you, that is not my intent.

  • David Nolan||

    Boldface for NEW stalking, lies and harassment by the authoritarian right.

    "WHY ARE YOU STALKING, BULLYING, HARASSING AND AGGRESSING"

    I have been perfectly civil throughout this thread.

    (He can bullshit and stalk ... with civility.).

    You are the one resorting to personal insults.

    NOT ONCE. Shame on you.
    DOCUMENTING lies is not a personal insult -- nor is defending from aggression. Repeatedly shouting me down -- with PROVEN lies .. for reporting SCALIA'S ruling is aggression and stalking. Even with "civility" (sneer)

    If your complaint is that a sword used by a mounted officer would technically be called a "officer's" saber rather than a "cavalry" saber,

    IT NEVER ENDS!
    There was no cavalry in the Revolutionary militia. Called out as a LIAR, you THEN say "cavalry" means foot soldiers led by a mounted officer.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/10.....nt_6988215

    FAR more blatant train of lies about Samuel Whitmore

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/10.....nt_6988227

    The libertarian movement evolved from student protests in the 60s. Before anti-war and civil liberties, it was a revolt against ....
    the authoritarian right .... They're ba-a-a-a-ack. Now working through trolls

    We stood up to the all-powerful state. Suppression by online trolls is no challenge.

    STOP STALKING ME, snowflake.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    To reiterate: posting replies in a thread is not stalking. It is carrying on a conversation. Disagreeing with you is not aggression, and regardless of whether you think my assertions are false, I have not intentionally lied once in this thread.

    As to *your* personal insults, you have called me: "liar" (implying deliberate intent to mislead), "snowflake" (as if I have overreacted once in this thread), "authoritarian right" (I believe in free trade, open borders, abortion, and gay marriage and believe Trump's policies may fairly be described as fascistic; if that can be construed as "authoritarian right", the term "authoritarian right" no longer has meaning) and "troll" (I have not once capitalized, boldfaced or used an exclamation mark in this thread, nor once made any criticism of you directly). All of these accusations are false, and thus I have made no aggression at any point. And thus your "retaliatory" boldface/personal insults/etc. are *actually aggressions*, which would, incidentally, leave me quite at liberty to attack you as genuine and just retaliation if I felt like doing so. But I do not.

    Finally, I never said "mounted officers leading infantry" is "cavalry". I noted that said officers would require "cavalry sabers", "cavalry saber" being used by me as a term for "saber that is wielded by a mounted combatant *in the manner of* a cavalryman". If I was unclear in my language, I apologize.

  • David Nolan||

    Telcontar the Wanderer|10.4.17 @ 6:13PM|#
    him being a 78-year-old cripple on foot. But he did *have* it
    How many battles did he take it to?

    The one he almost died in.

    So ... you're telling me that he
    a) went into battle:
    b) as a cripple -- 75 years old (in the 1700s)
    c) on foot
    d) armed with a saber (against armed redcoats)
    e) at a time sabers were used by a cavalry (that did not exist) not on foot

    And he only "almost" died?

  • David Nolan||

    Telcontar the Wanderer|10.4.17 @ 6:13PM|#
    him being a 78-year-old cripple on foot. But he did *have* it
    How many battles did he take it to?

    The one he almost died in.

    So ... you're telling me that he
    a) went into battle:
    b) as a cripple -- 75 years old (in the 1700s)
    c) on foot
    d) armed with a saber (against armed redcoats)
    e) at a time sabers were used by a cavalry (that did not exist) not on foot

    And he only "almost" died?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "And he only "almost" died?"

    Yes, that is why I know of him. He is the official state hero of Massachusetts, apparently. He confronted a Redcoat detachment with a musket, two pistols, and a saber he had apparently taken as a trophy from the French in his youth. He fired all three guns and killed a Redcoat with each at point-blank range, then drew his saber when they surrounded him and he was out of ammo. Being an old man with a sword against numerous young men with significantly longer bayonetted muskets, his inability to use the weapon to dispatch them is hardly surprising (although he survived being shot in the cheek and bayonetted a dozen times and lived to be 96).

    I did not bring him up as an example of "effective use" of sabers, merely a demonstration that they were in fact kept by American citizens and used in war. For usage in its prescribed manner, I recall a mounted saber duel between Rebel commander William Washington and a British officer during the battle of Cowpens. As mentioned before, even assuming that was not Washington's personal pre-war saber, guaranteeing civilian ownership ensured a supply to Rebal officers prior to the French intervention.

  • David Nolan||

    I did not bring him up as an example of "effective use" of sabers, merely a demonstration that they were in fact kept by American citizens and used in war


    1) False equivalence.
    2) You also said
    - he went into battle:
    - as a cripple -- 75 years old (in the 1700s)
    - on foot
    - armed with a saber (against armed redcoats)
    - at a time sabers were used by a cavalry (that did not exist) as he limped as fast as he could to keep up with a mounted cavalry (before you revealed lying about a cavalry!)

    ADMIT YOU WERE LAUGHINGLY FULL OF SHIT

    I have linked everything I say to original sources, multiple times on this page, out of respect for readers, to judge for themselves on objective facts.

    You document NOTHING, have been exposed for several lies ... even claiming that a TOTALLY undocumented assertion ass ... proof.

    PROVEN: a bellowing blowhard
    The defense rests

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "were used by a cavalry (that did not exist)"

    Wrong:

    "On 12 December 1776, Congress converted Elisha Sheldon's militia regiment into the Regiment of Light Dragoons. In March 1777, Washington established the Corps of Continental Light Dragoons consisting of four regiments of 280 men, each organised in six troops. Many problems faced the light dragoon regiments, including the inability of recruiting to bring the units to authorized strength, shortage of suitable cavalry weapons and horses, and lack of uniformity among troopers in dress and discipline. Congress appointed the Hungarian revolutionary and professional soldier Michael Kovats and the Polish Casimir Pulaski to train them as an offensive strike force during winter quarters of 1777–78 at Trenton, New Jersey."

    "as he limped as fast as he could to keep up with a mounted cavalry"

    I never said this. You implied that I did, but I said that he was using a cavalry saber, not that there were any cavalry present. I believed it was a cavalry saber from memory; in fact it was an officer's saber, but poor memory on my part is neither deceit nor aggression.

  • David Nolan||

    MORE CRAZY BULLSHIT!

    "as he limped as fast as he could to keep up with a mounted cavalry"

    I never said this. You implied that I did

    YOU SAID THE CAVALRY USED SABERS. AND HIS SABER "PROVES" OF ALL THAT ...

    BUT

    and a saber he had apparently taken as a trophy from the French in his youth

    VERY typical ownership.

    NEW REVERSAL

    I believed it was a cavalry saber from memory; in fact it was an officer's saber,.

    It's a "FACT" NOW .,. but "APPARENTLY" until ridiculed.

    ALSO CAUGHT A LIAR HERE

    See: Samuel Whittemore. (Didn't do him much good, him being a 78-year-old cripple on foot. But he did *have* it.)

    How many battles did he take it to?

    The one he almost died in.

    He was a civilian ... a farmer ... in his fields ....
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/10.....nt_6988227

    Can you tell us who's trying to ban sabers?

    I was not claiming a threat to Americans' right to own non-firearm weapons, merely noting that the 2A would protect them if there were such a threat

    1) Nobody said otherwise
    2) ANOTHER reversal.
    3) ADMITS all his lies, stalking and harassment are for ... a NON-issue that had NEVER been raised (even by him until then).

    And that ... somehow ... the constantly changing bullshit and wacky logic is superior to ....
    Antoin Scalia's Heller ruling!

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "YOU SAID THE CAVALRY USED SABERS. AND HIS SABER "PROVES" OF ALL THAT ..."

    I did not say that. I said that it proved sabers were kept in private homes, which it does. At no point did I allege that Whittemore was a cavalryman, or that cavalry were present at the battle in question; though I did allege that sabers were of use to "cavalry", using the term as a catch-all for "mounted combatant". Nor did I allege that sabers were "commonly" held, merely that they were "sometimes kept" (direct quote).

    "It's a "FACT" NOW .,. but "APPARENTLY" until ridiculed."

    It was a misremembered data point from when I was going by memory, before you started challenging the particulars of my argument.

    "ALSO CAUGHT A LIAR HERE"

    Not a lie, and not false. Mr. Whittemore's fight was part of the overall battle of Lexington and Concord; that he did not take the field as part of an official regiment does not change the fact that his combat was part of the battle and contributed to it.

    "1) Nobody said otherwise"

    Then why did you ask LTBF:

    "What does "arms" include, that were not firearms, and that citizens brought from their homes? Not that you've gone off-topic."

  • David Nolan||

    More Telcontar hot air

    Re: Samuel Whitmore

    He confronted a Redcoat detachment with a musket, two pistols, and a saber he had apparently taken as a trophy from the French in his youth. He fired all three guns and killed a Redcoat with each at point-blank range,

    BULLSHIT.
    Point blank ...against an entire brigade ....who just stood there … while he killed three of them ... including two who just stood and waited,.

    then drew his saber when they surrounded him

    INSTEAD OF SHOOTING HIM?
    Are you -bat-shit crazy or gullible? A bullshitter or a puppet?

    He was a farmer. in his fields --- NOT IN BATTLE. He "confronted" them by .... opening fire from behind a stone wall -- not point blank until they charged him.

    TRUTH

    "By the time Whittemore had fired his third shot, a British detachment had reached his position" ...

    When he's already point-blank????

    "Whittemore drew his sword and attacked He was subsequently shot in the face, bayoneted numerous times, and left for dead in a pool of blood."

    THE SABER WAS ALL HE HAD LEFT! YOU SAY SABERS WERE COMMON THEN.
    But your own words prove you a liar (and witless!)

    and a saber he had apparently taken as a trophy from the French in his youth

    How low can you sink?.
    (flush)

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    It is not "stalking" to carry on a conversation. I have not personally insulted you once. You are the aggressor in this thread.

    I did not get my information from Wikipedia, but from a site called revolutionary war archive .org (remove spaces), which is reference #7 on the Wiki page. It stated that he shot the musket from some range, but the two pistols at point blank. Quoting:

    "Finally, when the column was directly in front of him, he stood and fired his musket. A grenadier fell dead. He drew his two pistols, firing both at almost point blank range. Another grenadier fell dead, a third fell mortally wounded. The British soldiers were on top of him, he had not the time to reload his musket or pistols, so drawing his sword, he started flailing away at the bayonet wielding soldiers. A soldier leveled his Brown Bess musket, at point blank range and fired. The .69 calibre ball struck Sam in the cheek, tearing away part of his face and throwing him to the ground. Sam valiantly tried to rise, fending off bayonet thrusts with his sword, but he was overpowered. Struck in the head with a musket butt, he went down again, then was bayoneted thirteen times and left for dead."

    If "almost point blank" is too far from the truth for your taste, I apologize.

  • David Nolan||

    PROOF! True Believers EAGERLY brainwashed!

    It is not "stalking" to carry on a conversation.

    (sigh) Nobody said it was.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/10.....nt_6989567

    EVEN CRAZIER!

    I did not get my information from Wikipedia ..... which is reference #7 on the Wiki page.

    WIKIPEDIA SUCKS -- BUT HE CITES A (secondary) SOURCE ....
    FROM THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE I PROVIDED!! OMFG

    NOBODY COULD INVENT ANYTHING FUNNIER

    He AGAIN exposes his original lie!

    If "almost point blank" is too far from the truth for your taste, I apologize

    LIAR! You said all 3

    He fired all three guns and killed a Redcoat with each at point-blank range,

    Now only the last 2 - via MY LINK ....
    MORE PROOF ... you BELEEB what you want to: an entire British detachment rushed him for shooting one of their own ... THEN STOOD AND WATCHED HIM SHOOT TWO MORE OF THEIRS!

    True Believer Trolls NEVER stop.

    "Throughout human history, TRUE BELIEVERS have been eagerly brainwashed to SACRIFICE for some "greater good" -- the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party or a God. Zealots and fanatics. The militant self-righteous."

    aka Blustering Blowhards
    (SUPPORTED!)
    (flush)

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I was not denigrating Wikipedia as a source; I found my article from the Wiki page, which I visited yesterday but found to be insufficiently detailed (which is not a complaint, brevity being a virtue in a general reference encyclopedia). I was merely explaining why my version differed from the Wiki's, as the Wiki and RWA accounts differ as to whether "the detachment reached his position after he had fired the third shot" (Wiki) or were at "almost point blank range" (RWA).

    As to your complaint: yes, I did say "He fired all three guns and killed a Redcoat with each at point-blank range". This was incorrect, given that the RWA link indicates the musket was fired first from further away. I gather you believe this to be deliberate deception on my part, or else so incorrect as disqualify me from being taken seriously. Given that the detail in question is entirely irrelevant to the reason I brought the anecdote of Mr. Whittemore into the discussion (eg "as an example of someone privately possessing a saber and using it in war")- I only mentioned the shootings at all to clarify I was not alleging he used the saber successfully, which would have been genuinely deceitful- I disagree. You are, I assume, familiar with the game called "Telephone"? Failing to transcribe an ancillary detail of an anecdote does not indicate intellectual inadequacy, much less willful deception.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "YOU SAY SABERS WERE COMMON THEN.
    But your own words prove you a liar (and witless!)"

    From my second comment:

    "sometimes kept at home"

    "sometimes" =/= "common". Sabers were officers' weapons, essential in both combat and as a badge of rank. They were no more common than the officers who wielded them, but given the importance of officers that is more than enough to qualify them as militia weapons worthy of protection at the time.

  • Longtobefree||

    Swords, knives, hatchets, scythes, clubs etc all used by militia in both the first and second rebellion.

  • David Nolan||

    Swords, knives, hatchets, scythes, clubs etc all used by militia in both the first and second rebellion

    Ummm ... how serious are all attempts to ban or regulate swords, knives, hatchets, scythe, clubs, etc. ... by those crazy liberals.

    You did tell me that "all of them" (citizens militia) had in their homes a gun developed for, and used mostly for ..... THE AUSTRIAN ARMY! ... whose "most famous use" in the America's was .... the Lewis and Clarke expedition ... LONG after the Second Amendment was ratified! Tribal loyalty vs Antonin Scalia?

    Have YOU read Scalia's Heller decision, which I both cite and link several times here? Here's what HE says (bold in my original cite).

    "We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.''"

    P.S. "Military" weapons were not a factor at the time, among our colonists. .

    P.P.S.. I am distressed, but not surprised, that the tribal left and tribal right are so equally ... ... manipulated by power-seeking elites, which is why I've long stood with the growing majority of independents (both non-tribal and anti-tribal).

    Nothing personal, but I do consider Scalia's research and conclusions more credible.

  • Mock-star||

    Hey Hihn,

    Fuck off

  • Mac61||

    The media including this Reason article keeps referring to this shooting as the largest mass murder committed with guns in MODERN U.S. history. What U.S. single-day lone gunman mass shooting tops it in EARLY or 19th Century U.S. history? Just wondering. I am too lazy to look it up.

  • David Nolan||

    120. But I THINK you MAY have added "lone gunman" yourself. The 120 deaths - Mountain Meadows Massacre - was by a group of Mormons, on a wagon train passing through Utah. This came up in a closed discussion group. and the best listing I found (quickly) for -- then called massacres -- was this LA Times piece.

    Would a lone gunman at the time, without an automatic weapon and so many people armed, have been able to kill all that many? Just suggesting.

  • Jonathon||

    I's be satisfied if the law simply applied mandatory punishment for any crimes involving a gun.
    Perhaps the death penalty of all involved in a crime where a life is lost, including the life of one of the criminals, and life without parole for any crime in which a gun or life threatening weapon was involved.
    What ever happened to the police employing the words "POLICE! Stop or I'll shoot!"

  • Sevo||

    David Nolan|10.2.17 @ 9:14PM|#
    "WOW! Such a balanced view is so rare, and even worse at Reason. But as was once taught in high school, no rights are absolute, because all fundamental rights are absolute (unalienable) -- so they can be in conflict, with each other. Conflicting rights were once well-known and accepted, as a concept,
    But in today's polarized, triba"

    Lily Bulero|10.2.17 @ 9:16PM|#
    "lized world we should be free from BULLIES who LIE."

    David Nolan|10.2.17 @ 9:34PM|#
    "BULLIES who LIE
    Easier said than done, when left and right are both pandering to their own tribe's bullies. And the tribal death spiral is doomed to get even worse. As more and more voters abandon loyalty to either party, zealots get a louder voice in each party's base .."

    OK, we know Mike has adopted the David Nolan sock, I guess in the hopes that people will think he's not the fucking idiot he is.
    But it appears as if the poster Lily Bulero has a bit to explain.
    Ms. Bulero, care to tell us how you completed the fucking idiot's thought?

  • Lily Bulero||

    I made the best guess I could.

    Uncanny, eh?

    I'd love to mess with you and pretend I'm really one of Hihn's sock puppets, but I'm not sure I could imitate his STYLE very PERSUASIVELY.

    "the poster Lily Bulero has a bit to explain"

    I don't owe you shit.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Whether or not I qualify as a "sock," I'm not Hihn.

    I mean, I made a joke about him being a short-dicked man. Would I insult myself that way?

    I have a Goldilocks penis - not too big, not too small, but just right.

  • David Nolan||

    Lily Bulero|10.3.17 @ 12:28AM|#
    I mean, I made a joke about him being a short-dicked man

    Actually TWO sexual insults ... Despite BRAGGING that you had admitted a mistake .. and me NEVER insulting you. I never, for equivalence, called you a bitch, did I?

    Not when I politely corrected your error on Scalia.
    Nor when I politely corrected your error on the NRA magazine.
    Not even after four insults by you.

  • Lily Bulero||

    So you still try and reconcile that article with your claim that the NRA thinks "NO regulation is permissible."

  • David Nolan||

    You lied about it
    You confuse a regulation with punishment for a criminal conviction.
    And your stalking has expired my grace.

  • Sevo||

    Lily Bulero|10.3.17 @ 12:12AM|#
    "I made the best guess I could."

    Bullshit.

  • Lily Bulero||

    What are you saying, that I'm Hihn?

  • David Nolan||

    Sevo is a VERY aggressive cyber-bully... thus EASILY baited. I recently kept baiting him, and he bellowed his way to eleven personal assaults, ELEVEN ...

    Now he commits the same aggression here.
    Yes, Virginia, unprovoked assaults are aggression. The authoritarian mentality. See it here

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/09.....nt_6983111

    (Excerpt I deeply enjoy baiting aggressors and bullies, especially the bulliest, which includes Sevo They ALWAYS take the bait! Because they NEVER miss a chance to bully.
    ... he's been stalking and attacking me for months, with all the self-righteous zeal of the authoritarian right)

    Count 'em ELEVEN assaults, LOADED with rage, foul-mouth swearing and viciousness ... because of my handle ... not what I said ..... PLUS .... .... HE REPEATEDLY ORDERS ME OFF THE PAGE! On what authority?

    His own authoritarian mentality. A self-appointed Guardian of Truth, Justice and the American Nazi Way.
  • Lily Bulero||

    "Sevo is a VERY aggressive cyber-bully... thus EASILY baited. I recently kept baiting him"

    And you show great mastery of the art.

  • David Nolan||

    Sevo is a VERY aggressive cyber-bully... thus EASILY baited. I recently kept baiting him"

    And you show great mastery of the art.

    Not once And that's your fourth.unprovoked aggression ... plus BRAGGING that you called me a small-dick man. Self-defense is not aggression, but I STILL have not insulted you.

  • David Nolan||

    Ms. Bulero, care to tell us how you completed the fucking idiot's thought?

    That was NOT my thought, which is clear by how I completed it myself -- over two hours before your unprovoked attack on both me and her.

    the fucking idiot

    over two hours before your unprovoked attack ...

    I'll call you a fucking imbecile!

    over two hours before your unprovoked attack ...

    (boldface in defense of multiple unprovoked attacks)

  • David Nolan||

    That was a response to THIS unprovoked attack by Sevo:
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/10.....nt_6985206

  • Lily Bulero||

    "your unprovoked attack on both me and her"

    Don't misgender me, my handle is based on the song "Lilibulero," minus the offensive lyrics, of course.

  • Lily Bulero||

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    One person adopting two personae to talk to themselves.....now I've seen it all.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Oh, for goodness' sakes, I'm not Hihn and couldn't be if I tried.

    I'm someone else's sock entirely, not Hihn's.

  • David Nolan||

    He's as bad an aggressor as Sevo. Do a page search for. his name. All insults and bellowing.
    He comes here just to insult people. Such an empty life he must have.
    Probably because his handle CELEBRATES feeding live humans into a log chipper, which he's actually quote proud of..

    But NEVER assume and Sevo are the same person, despite actual evidence..

  • David Nolan||

    Lily
    As you can see, the tune precedes the most famous (and offensive) version of the lyrics

    As you did NOT see, you managed. to misspell your own name, AND the name of the song!
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/10.....nt_6985313

    One question, Lilly (spelled correctly)
    Will it be very difficult. correcting the misspelling of your own name?

  • David Nolan||

    Don't misgender me, my handle is based on the song "Lilibulero,

    You spelled your own name wrong!
    Your own link says " Lilliburlero" TWO Ls! And TWO Rs. Ooops.
    You misgendered yourself. Or can't count all the way to two. And/or don't know how to read OR do contractions.

    By my count, your manhood has now shrink so much as to be recessed, like a dimple.

    Now that I have matched you with your peers, Sevo and Migrant Log Chipper, my work here is done. They're a PERFECT match for someone who can't spell their own name! Three amigos, all bullies..

    Did you notice they BOTH assumed YOU are one person with two handles? But they are not (wink, wink)

    (Boldface because ,.. who could resist?)

  • Jacks61||

    This was a homegrown terrorist attack, period.

  • StuPendisdick||

    We have a Constitution. The Second Amendment of said Constitution has already been violated nine ways to Sunday, thanks to seditious assholes who scream for "gun control".

    Piss the fuck off and go lick some boots.

  • David Nolan||

    Are you one of those who "thinks" the Second Amendment is an absolute right?
    When NO rights can be absolute, because ALL fundamental rights are unalienable, which means.precisely and exactly co-equal. That only matters when two or more are competing with each other, the "conflicting rights" I assume are still taught in high school.

    If two unalienable rights are in conflict, then NEITHER can be absolute to the other, because they're all absolute in themselves/ By definition. This includes Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and all the others/

    Sadlty, both the left and the right have jackbooted thugs on this, each trying to bully their preferred right to the top of the pile. Good to know that you're NOT one of those ... not licking boots on the authoritarian right,

    Left - Right = Zero. .

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "That only matters when two or more are competing with each other, the "conflicting rights" I assume are still taught in high school"

    Exactly what "right" is it that is conflicting with the right to keep and bear arms?

  • David Nolan||

    Could be almost any, since they're all equal.
    And recall, the amendment protects only those weapons that were "in common use at the time" that citizens brought from their homes.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Could be almost any, since they're all equal."

    There isn't any other right that conflicts with it. All rights are negative liberties to be free from government interference in the exercise of each particular right.

    "And recall, the amendment protects only those weapons that were "in common use at the time" that citizens brought from their homes."

    Nope - there is nothing the text of the 2nd Amendment that states any such thing.

  • David Nolan||

    There isn't any other right that conflicts with it. All rights are negative liberties to be free from government interference in the exercise of each particular right.

    What part of "unalienable" did you miss? Don't they still teach "conflicting rights" in high school?. You never heard, "There's no free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater"?

    Or, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." -- an analogy on the need for a boundary between conflicting rights, which only the judiciary can establish, and obliged to define a boundary that BEST defends BOTH rights. That's how it's done Because unalienable

    "And recall, the amendment protects only those weapons that were "in common use at the time" that citizens brought from their homes."

    Nope - there is nothing the text of the 2nd Amendment that states any such thing.

    "A well-regulated militia" does precisely that,. Weapons that citizens brought from home, weapons THEN in common usage..

    You might believe in a "living constitution," which you're entitled to do, however your "living constitution" has no relevance here at all. I gave a layman's summary of Justice Antonin Scalia's Heller ruling. Scalia was an originalist, one of the strongest opponents of your "living constitution." His exact text is cited on this page at
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/10.....nt_6985127

    Anything else?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Or, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." -- an analogy on the need for a boundary between conflicting rights, which only the judiciary can establish, and obliged to define a boundary that BEST defends BOTH rights. That's how it's done Because unalienable"

    Invalid analogy. The mere possession of a gun does not constitute an active act of harm against your person.
    There is no conflicting "right" applicable.

    "A well-regulated militia" does precisely that,. Weapons that citizens brought from home, weapons THEN in common usage..

    The well regulated" militia dependent clause of that sentence places no constraints whatsoever on the right of the people to keep and bear arms without infringement enumerated in the independent clause of the sentence.

    "You might believe in a "living constitution," which you're entitled to do, however your "living constitution" has no relevance here at all"

    LOL

    You are the one trying to read something into the 2nd Amendment which it doesn't literally say - not me. If there were any restrictions on the type of arms that people have a right to bear - it would have to explicitly and literally state what they are. it makes no such statement therefore there aren't any.

    That is all.

  • Sevo||

    Gilbert Martin|10.3.17 @ 3:44PM|#
    "Or, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." -- an analogy on the need for a boundary between conflicting rights,..."

    You are arguing with a pathetic old fart name of Michael Hihn. He infects this site from time to time and has recently taken on a sock name in the hopes people will read his crap not knowing from whence it came, and thereby immediately reject it.
    You'll notice most folks here don't bother to engage Mike; there is no gain, his 'arguments' wander around such that you'll never get any direct answer to any question.
    Help yourself, if you please.

  • David Nolan||

    There is no conflicting "right" applicable.

    A conflict requires two ... OF ANYTHING. You mentioned only one right.
    Yes, if fhere is only one person living thing in Arizona, there will never be a any conflicts. Who said their would be?

    The well regulated" militia dependent clause of that sentence places no constraints whatsoever

    Do we believe you or Scalia?

    LOL

    (smirk) Do we believe you or Scalia?

    You are the one trying to read something into the 2nd Amendment

    That was Scalia ... not me ..., confirming a 1939 ruling.
    Do we believe you or.... Scalia AND two different Supreme Courts AND 79 years of constitutional law?

    it would have to explicitly and literally state ...

    Do we believe you or Scalia AND two different Supreme Courts AND 79 years of constitutional law?

    .That is all.

    Do we believe you or Homer Simpson?

  • Kevin47||

    You don't have a right for someone else to not have a gun. There is no natural or Constitutional right for someone who is not you to have a thing that does not harm you.

  • David Nolan||

    You don't have a right for someone else to not have a gun

    Relevance?

  • Kevin47||

    Rights are not in conflict, so there is nothing to decide.

  • David Nolan||

    Hence no relevance.

  • Kevin47||

    You assert that we can limit gun rights because we have to hold rights in balance. You have not told us which right comes in conflict with someone owning a gun.

  • David Nolan||

    You have not told us which right comes in conflict with someone owning a gun.

    Rephrase that honestly.
    I'm not stupid.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "A conflict requires two ... OF ANYTHING. You mentioned only one right."

    You cannot prove that there is any "conflict" created at all by someone merely possessing a firearm in the first place and you cannot come up with any other actual right that relates to it at all.

    "Do we believe you or Scalia AND two different Supreme Courts AND 79 years of constitutional law?"

    Who is "we"? You speak for no one other than yourself.

    The literal text of the Constitution itself IS the law. I can read it perfectly well for myself. It mentions no restrictions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms so there aren't any.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Gilbert, I appreciate your efforts for the alt-right, but he's kicking your butt which HURTS our cause. Few of us would ever say what you have. Here's why.

    >"You cannot prove that there is any "conflict" created at all by someone merely possessing a firearm in the first place"

    He called that stupid. I say risky since so few argue against ownership, which is not even the issue. And how can we win by ridiculing Justice Scalia, possibly THE most revered defender of literal text?

    > "you cannot come up with any other actual right that relates to it at all"

    Not with ownership, but that's not the issue.
    --
    >Nolan: "Do we believe you or Scalia AND two different Supreme Courts AND 79 years of constitutional law?"
    >You: "Who is "we"? You speak for no one other than yourself"
    --

    Everyone but Nolan would take your word over Scalia's!. May I be blunt? If that's how you generally defend our cause, STOP. NOW

    >"It mentions no restrictions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

    It says the purpose is to maintain a militia, which was added to defend from anti-federalists ., Scalia ONLY ruled that this LIMITS the right to weapons brought from home by citizens, a limit which excludes modern military-grade weapons. We can (and do) debate AK-47s, but not the ownership, which is not the issue and too easily dismissed as hysteria.

    Sorry, but if you cannot advance our cause, please stop hurting it.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    And by the way the word is inalienable - not unalienable.

  • David Nolan||

    Gilbert Martin|10.3.17 @ 3:46PM|#
    And by the way the word is inalienable - not unalienable

    From the national archives. (Transcription from original parchment).

    ... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..."

    Anything else? Just ask

  • SezWhom||

    The same people who would be put in charge of getting all the guns off the street are currently in charge of getting all the heroin off the street......

    And, drug dealers' territory is defended with (pregnant pause) illegal guns.

    After Hillary gets the heroin off the street, I'll listen to her plan to get guns off the street.

  • Gryph||

    Because more gun laws isn't as solution. Banning guns isn't a solution.
    Enforcing the laws we have is the beginnings of the solution.
    If it wasn't a gun it would be another weapon and, possibly, a higher body count.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    In Rwanda in 1994 some 800,000 people were killed, primarily with machetes.

  • eyeroller||

    From a 2015 Pew study:

    The nation's overall gun death rate has declined 31% since 1993. This total includes homicides and suicides, in addition to a smaller number of fatal police shootings, accidental shooting deaths and those of undetermined intent. For example, in 2014 there were 464 fatal police shootings, up from 333 in 2009. (Government data on fatal police shootings are also collected and reported by the FBI, though the agency acknowledges there are discrepancies between federal and local law enforcement counts.)

    The rate of nonfatal gun victimizations declined in a similar way to the gun death rate, with a large drop in the 1990s – 63% between 1993 and 2000. The decline since then has been more uneven. In 2014, there were 174.8 nonfatal violent gun victimizations per 100,000 people ages 12 and older.

    Despite these trends, most U.S. adults think gun crimes have increased. In our 2013 survey, more than half (56%) of Americans said the number of gun crimes had gone up compared with 20 years ago. Another 26% said the number of gun crimes had remained the same, and just 12% said gun crimes had declined.

    Gosh, why would anyone think gun violence was up? I mean, the press has such a calm, measured response to gun incidents.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Thermometer data show temperature decreasing gradually. But the coercive ban on freon because of superstition over Antarctic ozone has made air conditioners unreliable. AC failure makes it easy to convince suckers that Big Oil or some billionaire has paid off all the thermometers to get them to show lower temperatures. Never has a political party admitted error. Looters invent new lies to justify past errors. Gainsaying measured trends is part of being dishonest.

  • Longtobefree||

    Either you believe in the bill of rights, or you don't.
    Welcome to America.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Or welcome to Australia. They have elections via votes cast at gunpoint by forcibly disarmed voters. It's an English-speaking paradise untrammeled by any nasty old Bill of Rights. Even the Libertarian Party has to operate Down Under under a fake name.

  • David Nolan||

    Either you believe in the bill of rights, or you don't.

    Not necessarily, Ron Paul only believes in part of it .. and denies the other part even exists..

  • politicalmenace||

    I am starting to think that these proponents of guns and the push for stricter gun laws are merely doing it under the guise of government revenue and control. The stricter a gun law becomes the more bureaucracy you create and the more control you have over the populace. There is no way these thought leaders actually believe what they are saying because the evidence and statistics do not substantiate their claim. If so, they should not be able to hold a government position because no one wants people to create policy or laws that impact millions all due to an emotional reaction vise logical. The author is right and to propose stricter gun laws without actually knowing the facts and how this incident and others acquired that firearm is plainly disingenuous. It's actually appalling that politicians would use this incident and others to push gun control without substantiated evidence or at least a constructive debate with actually facts vise on what they think or what they have become to believe. These people are soulless ghouls who have zero compassion for those impacted and to push legislation in order to take advantage of someone's peril should be ashamed of themselves.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Being a Leftist means never having to say You're Sorry!

  • Alice Adderton||

    Here's how I can "deny the need." One guy in France launched a more lethal attack, under similar circumstances, WITH A TRUCK!! What hit the Boston Marathon? Pressure cookers!

  • David Nolan||

    Here's how I can "deny the need." One guy in France launched a more lethal attack, under similar circumstances, WITH A TRUCK!!

    How is driving into a crowd of people relevant here?
    The a-hole in Charlottesville could have killed close to that many if he wanted to.
    As could anybody,.anywhere there's even a modest crowd.

  • Kevin47||

    "How is driving into a crowd of people relevant here?"

    Are you really that obtuse?

  • David Nolan||

    "How is driving into a crowd of people relevant here?"

    Are you really that obtuse?

    You don't know either.
    I didn't think so.

  • Kevin47||

    So you are, or are pretending to be.

    It's relevant because it demonstrates a gun is in no way necessary to kill a large group of people, and so there is no reason to especially restrict their use.

  • David Nolan||

    I just wanted you to state it.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Strawman+fallacy

  • Kevin47||

    An analogy isn't a strawman fallacy.

  • David Nolan||

    Nor necessarily. But of you say never, you're looking even sillier

  • Hank Phillips||

    How could anyone forget National Socialist Kristallnacht gun control laws? One of the counts of indictment at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal had to do with the Gestapo practice of summarily executing anyone caught packing, then logging the victims as "commandos." Jeronimo Yanez for president, anyone?

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    And, it is from those same Kristallnacht gun-control laws that our enlightened leaders borrowed the "sporting purpose" requirement for gun legality.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    And, it is from those same Kristallnacht gun-control laws that our enlightened leaders borrowed the "sporting purpose" requirement for gun legality.

  • jerryg1018||

    "How can anyone not realize that more, stronger, and more strongly enforced gun laws are absolutely necessary in the wake of last night's Vegas horror, the largest mass-murder committed with guns in modern U.S. history?"

    First we need more strongly enforced "Thou shalt not kill" laws. When that is solved then gun deaths will be a thing of the past.

  • David Nolan||

    That's failed for well over 2000 years.

  • Flinch||

    More gun laws? That's a knee jerk reaction that ducks the question: what psycho is going to care about anything on the books? And, since congress will not secure our borders, would it matter anyway? Black market gun salesmen don't care either, and most anything can be moved across the southern border at will. The shooter is obviously someone who harbored and nurtured a long standing hatred. At this point, he was either a muslim not in anyone's database, or a committed leftist in my estimation. There is no way the virtually instant proclamation of "no terrorist connection" by the media/authorities involves any real investigation - they haven't yet combed through the perps financial history and electronic history. The question is... how do we spot the psycho's, do something about them, and still remain a free society? Meanwhile, we don't have a press release about what guns were used. The audio from Vegas suggests two calibers judging by report: a .223 and .308. At least one was belt fed, and based on the premeditated nature, the .308 makes sense for a 400 yard target.

  • David Nolan||

    And we should repeal all the anti-theft laws, since people are still stealing.

  • Sevo||

    Mike,
    No one buys your sock.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: How Could Anyone Deny the Need for Tougher and More Stringently Enforced Gun Laws in the Wake of the Vegas Slaughter?

    Me.
    Me and all the other sane people in this country.

  • zombietimeshare||

    "With that understood, the only relevant legal response to nightmares like Las Vegas is a total ban and confiscation of at least types of weapons,..."

    As criminals will, as is their wont, ignore all laws, the only effect of confiscation will be to turn the country into a predator safe hunting ground filled with easy prey. That, and a very uncivil war.

    "recognizing that guns are tools, with genuine uses for personal safety, personal fulfillment, and convenience, just as are cars,"

    Must have missed that one. Which enumerated right refers to cars?

  • David Nolan||

    You must have missed the 9th Amendment, which\ guarantees each and every unenumerated right.
    Essentially, iincorporates the Declaration's unalienable rights into the Constitution - Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and all the others.

  • DrZ||

    "For the vast majority of their owners, guns are no more worthy of banning than any other element of their peacefully enjoyed liberty, one tool among many to shape their chosen life and leisure. Banning something that tens of millions of people innocently value and imposing onerous costs on American citizens, generally downward in socioeconomic terms, is a recipe for disaster."

    What?!?!? The innocent must be punished. If we do not punish lawful gun owners how will we ever reach our innocent punishment quotas?

  • rhkennerly||

    There is another way to approach the question of guns in America. We could try the motor vehicle and drivers licensing approach: universal education, training, testing, demonstration of skills, periodic relicensing, required liability insurance.

    Sure, there are aberrations, like drunk drivers. But law and insurers pretty much take care of increases. Year after year our demonstrated success at fewer accidents per cap while exponentially increasing the billions of miles driven shows the success of the education, insurance and licensing system.

    Yeah, it will take 50-100 yrs to get full compliance, but it's a start. No right in America is completely unalloyed by time, place, and use exceptions. There is no reason guns can't fall under the same rubric as cars. Useful tools for the trained and responsible.

    Every scare about gun confiscation to date has been false. The government's not going to take guns (although the courts might from individuals). And if they did, they'd come with M1 Tanks and drones. If there is a total collapse of society, it won't matter that the government knows you had a license.

  • Kevin47||

    "There is another way to approach the question of guns in America. We could try the motor vehicle and drivers licensing approach: universal education, training, testing, demonstration of skills, periodic relicensing, required liability insurance."

    We could do that. That wouldn't have prevented this or any tragedy, and it would be enormously expensive and create government bureaucracies that inevitably overreach in their power. But, yeah.

    "Year after year our demonstrated success at fewer accidents per cap while exponentially increasing the billions of miles driven shows the success of the education, insurance and licensing system."

    Car accidents ballooned under that system until cars became safer.

    Similarly, the rate of gun deaths has gone down under the present system. To which again, there is no need for your burdensome solution, other than to sate your desire to impose a ban by proxy.

    "Every scare about gun confiscation to date has been false."

    Well, POTUS praising that very idea was certainly a scare. If he could have, he would have.

    "And if they did, they'd come with M1 Tanks and drones."

    That's what some of us prefer to avoid.

    "If there is a total collapse of society, it won't matter that the government knows you had a license."

    So we should grant the government more and more power, since if government were the type to grossly abuse that power, we're all screwed anyway? Just give them some power and see what they do with it? Brilliant.

  • Bra Ket||

    Anyone can own a car. The laws only regulate driving them on public streets.

  • David Nolan||

    Some are RULED by hysteria. It's tribal. On both the left and right.

  • PlaystoomuchHALO||

    I know, we need to ban evil from existing....

  • Mr. Dyslexic||

    I am not a conspiracy theorist but , has anyone stopped to consider the possibility that this poor shmuck was set up and executed in his room and then all the evidence planted? How hard would that be to pull off?

  • Lester224||

    You don't need automatic weapons to kill deer or defend yourself from burglars. If you think you need them to thwart excess government power than take your machine guns, go down to your bunker and eat your canned food. That way you know you'll be safe.

    The first thing that needs to happen is to enforce existing laws anyway.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    No one is talking about machine-guns (legally registered and taxed); which, by the way, have been used in only three shootings/killings since passage of NFA-34 73-years ago.
    Remember, drugs are illegal, and are available everywhere - including prisons.
    Now tell me how you're going to pick-up 300-million+ firearms from 120-million gun-owners without setting off a civil war?

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    No one is talking about machine-guns (legally registered and taxed); which, by the way, have been used in only three shootings/killings since passage of NFA-34 73-years ago.

    Umm, he was ridiculing your thinking.
    And you just proved why!

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    If you think you need them to thwart excess government power than take your machine guns, go down to your bunker and eat your canned food.

    Careful. Goobers are easily triggered.
    The authoritarian right thinks THIS is a safe zone!.
    Even Antonin Scalia ridiculed their goobicity

  • TxJack 112||

    A year or so ago, I read an article that explains why urbanites, especially those in very large cities, like NYC, are so aggressive in their support for government regulation and gun control. It is all they know. To live in a large city, like NYC, the government has to control every aspect of your life or people would not be able to coexist. For many life long residents, this is the only world they know and the only type of world where they feel safe. Put them into an environment with actual freedom and they are totally lost and terrified. This is why they must attack and dismiss people who advocate for maintaining the freedoms granted in the Bill of Rights as "nuts".

  • Charles.H.Anziulewicz@wv.||

    I've resigned myself to this being the new normal. Nothing happened after Aurora, or Sandy Hook, or Columbine, or Orlando. Nothing will happen after Las Vegas, either. The NRA will lay low for a while, and then it will be business as usual. Apparently the occasional massacre the the price we have to pay to let gun enthusiasts indulge in their little hobby. Let's just call it "American Exceptionalism" and accept the fact that THIS IS WHAT WE ARE.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Ah, Yes, the Evil NRA, which just represents the interests of its five-million members......who vote!

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Ah, Yes, the Evil NRA, which just represents the interests of its five-million members......who vote!

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    So ... NRA members are outvoted by transgenders alone?
    Are you one of them?
    I mean a trannie.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    *American/French/Belgian/Norwegian Exceptionalism

  • ||

    Did you get this little quip signed by your mother?

    Lord me what a load of crap.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Lord me what a load of crap.

    But not infantile like:

    Did you get this little quip signed by your mother?
  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    We need to ban fists and feet also, which kill many more people than rifles do.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    HYSTERICAL ... but there are goobers who BELEEB that makes sense!.

  • Who needs a reason?||

    Why don't you attack the central issue instead of all this peripheral stuff? All you have to do is make murdering people illegal and the problem goes away.
    .

  • Jay Dee||

    If we actually enforced existing laws, this might be a real discussion.

    One of the core pieces of the Gun Control Act of 1968 was the prohibition of convicted felons from purchasing or possessing guns or ammunition. How many have you seen prosecuted in the almost half century since this was passed? It's very few.

    As it stands, gun control is little more than another government boondoggle that absorbs billions and accomplishes little. The Brady Act has an annual budget of almost $10 billion. For all the loud pronouncements of the hundreds of thousands of background checks denied, this background check law manages to actually prosecute less than a 100 offenders annually. We don't need more bureaucracy. We need effective use of our resources.

  • David Nolan||

    How many have you seen prosecuted in the almost half century since this was passed? It's very few.

    How would you possibly know that?

    this background check law manages to actually prosecute less than a 100 offenders annually.

    Alex Jones says so!

  • Mock-star||

    "One of the core pieces of the Gun Control Act of 1968 was the prohibition of convicted felons from purchasing or possessing guns or ammunition. How many have you seen prosecuted in the almost half century since this was passed? It's very few."

    Baloney. I worked at a state prison. felony possession of a firearm was a quite common charge.

  • SDN||

    Yeah, I'm real eager to disarm for the same people (commenting at Reason and elsewhere) who say I deserve to be killed.
    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/277498/

  • David Nolan||

    (lol) PLMedia is not a wacko source? Why would you defend "murderous" people?
    Even Fox reports the obvious lie ... below a typical bullshit headline for their goobers.
    Once again, we see hysteria and screeching from both left and right, both shameless, both seeking to exploit tragedy, both brainwashing their more gullible tribesmen.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Vesparado||

    Here they go again focusing on the guns and gadgets rather than starting with the question of how could this have been prevented in the first place.

    Maybe it could have been prevented with better security. Remember, Las Vegas has been specifically targeted by ISIS, and given their record it appears it would have been quite appropriate to devote some serious attention to threats against large gatherings. It is apparent to me that Las Vegas did not do this.

    The security they had didn't consider the basic security situation: a gathering of 20+ thousand people below a perfect sniper(s) position that was 35 stories or so high. Without guard towers manned with sharpshooters watching the building you have what is basically a huge attraction (much like so called "gun free" zones) for anyone wanting to harm people. LA police reported today that they do this for events such as the Academy Awards. Why was Las Vegas remiss?

    A better alternative would have been to have held the concert at a different, less vulnerable location.

    Seems to me that the families of the dead and those who were wounded have good cause to sue for negligence on the part of the event operator. (I also believe that is true of every other "gun free" zone where similar murders have occurred).

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    THANK YOU! Never again can anyone say that *I* am the absolute craziest person in the history of the human race!
    Please visit infowars.com and leave your contact information, I want my viewers and visitors to hear your insights on the major issues of the day! I pay $1,000 for my Interview of the Month.

  • PD Quig||

    I'm with Obama on this one: more people die slipping in the bath tub every year.

    Nothing to see here.

  • David Nolan||

    I'm with Obama on this one:

    Agree. You both spout wacky nonsense!

    Nothing to see here.

    Not HERE. (lol)
    Say Hi to Alex Jones.

  • PlaystoomuchHALO||

    The solution is obvious; since democrats are responsible for most shootings, these people are, as a class, unfit to have access to weapons. Simply declare them all mentally ill and they won't pass the background check.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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