MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

None of These Popular Gun Control Proposals Would Have Prevented the Parkland Shooting

Policies favored by both experts and the public would not have prevented the Florida shooting.

Susan Stocker/TNS/NewscomSusan Stocker/TNS/NewscomA graph in The New York Times—published last year, but circulating again on social media in the wake of the Parkland massacre—attempts to map the popularity of different policy responses to mass shootings, both among experts and among the general public:

Notably, none of the policies ranked both effective and popular appear likely to have stopped Wednesday's grisly shooting.

Universal background checks? Nikolas Cruz—the man charged with the shootings—purchased his AR-15 legally at Sunrise Tactical Supply, according to a law enforcement official who spoke with the Associated Press. A special agent at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told The New York Times that Cruz passed a federally mandated instant background check, saying, "No laws were violated in the procurement of this weapon."

Another policy beloved by both the public and the surveyed public safety experts is a prohibition on violent criminals possessing guns. Cruz however had no criminal history.

One of the less punitive policies plotted on the New York Times graph is expanded mental health treatment. Broward County Mayor Beam Furr says Cruz had been receiving treatment at a mental health clinic, but stopped going about a year ago. One could well make the argument that continued therapy might have prevented Cruz from committing the crimes he did, but it is clear he had access to therapy.

Policies deemed effective but slightly less popular include bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. As any number of firearms experts have stated, "assault weapon" is a political classification, not a technical one. It does not denote enhanced lethality, as everything from a folding stock to a bayonet mount can get a firearm labeled an "assault weapon." The 1994 Assault Weapons ban prohibited the AR-15 on these cosmetic grounds, but even if this law were in effect today, Cruz could still have carried out his crime with an equally lethal, albiet less flashy weapon.

High-capacity magazines are likewise something of an artificial category. Media reports list everything from a 60-round magazine to a 16-round magazine as high-capacity. Of the states that do restrict magazine size, most draw the line at the 10-round mark. As of right now, we do not know the size of the magazines Cruz used, though a 30-round magazine for an AR-15 is considered standard. In any case, the fact that Cruz was reportedly actively shooting students and faculty for several minutes before police arrived suggests he would not have been slowed much by having to stop and reload more frequently.

In addition, the fact that there already exist a huge number of high-capacity magazines and can be purchased for as little as $13 means that actually enforcing any prohibition of the things would face huge practical hurdles.

Mass shootings are horrific, and any measures that might reduce their frequency are worth considering. However, most of the policies favored by experts and the public would have done nothing to prevent this latest tragedy.

Photo Credit: Susan Stocker/TNS/Newscom

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.

  • Rebel Scum||

    None of These Popular Gun Control Proposals Would Have Prevented the Parkland Shooting

    Of course. But we have to do this same song and dance every time something happens. And real solutions, like ending "gun-free" (read: defenseless victim) zones are ignored.

  • Eric||

    And real solutions, like ending "gun-free" (read: defenseless victim) zones are ignored.

    Yep. What we need are more guns to inoculate us from all of the gun violence.

  • Rebel Scum||

    I'm sure you find it intriguing that 98% of mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones". Wannabe mass-murderers do not go where people can shoot back.

  • Eric||

    I get your argument. I just don't think that it's a solution. And I don't want to live in a society where every jackass feels the need to arm themselves everywhere. Maybe it's the misanthrope in me, but the average guy on the street is a moron. And the average guy on the street who wants to carry a weapon in a bar, or a concert, or a library scares me more than the threat of a random shooter.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    And yet the per capita gun related homicide rates for places that allow widespread concealed or open carry should people wish to go armed don't come near that of places that do their best to outlaw guns in the US.

  • Eric||

    Show me that correlation == causation and I'll be more interested. Otherwise, I'm sure that there are demographic reasons for this variance that have little to do with "moar sheepdogs".

  • Rebel Scum||

  • Eric||

    You might as well post a link to cat videos. Try again.

  • Bruce D||

    "Michael Hihn|2.17.18 @ 12:08PM|#

    Plus, the data are laughable bullshit. Goober fodder"

    Inconvenient facts, huh?

  • Juice||

    I assume the numbers are accurate, but typos and calling Brazil a developed country don't help its case.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano desperately wants that gun ban!

  • Bruce D||

    "Current homicide rates (Latest available, UN)
    5.3% United States
    3.0% Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7% Canada
    0.9% UK"

    Michael, you lie. Read your own reference- U.S. 4.88. Also gun-loving Switzerland 0.69 and gun-loving Czech Republic 0.75. Some inconvenient facts, huh, Mike?
    "Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 31,000% higher"

    Another lie. I haven't heard of 69 mass shootings last year. The media would cover it if they happened.

  • Bruce D||

    "Current homicide rates (Latest available, UN)
    5.3% United States
    3.0% Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7% Canada
    0.9% UK"

    Read your own reference : U.S. 4.88. Also gun-loving Switzerland 0.69 and gun-loving Czech Republic 0.75. Some inconvenient facts, huh, Mike?

    "Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 31,000% higher"

    Another lie. I haven't heard of 69 mass shootings last year. The media would cover it if they happened.

    "Gun nuts LIE (or are brainwashed). England's gun control saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years"

    There were only two before that, hardly statistically significant.

    The U.K. effectively outlawed handguns and most firearms in their Firearms Amendment Act of 1997. After that, their intentional homicide rate skyrocketed for 8 years after that, See p.17 of 118.

    However, UK homicides did decrease from 2006 on, now close to pre-gun-ban levels. And why is that? It's likely explained by a large increase in prison population beginning around 2005 after a few years of decline, and also earlier (See p.3 of 48).

  • Bruce D||

    Michael Hihn|2.17.18 @ 12:10PM|#

    "The numbers suck. England had ONE mass shooting since they banned handguns in 1996."

    There were only two before that, hardly statistically significant.

    However, after the Limeys banned handguns, their intentional homicide rate skyrocketed for 8 years after that, See p.17 of 118.

    However, UK homicides did decrease from 2006 on, now close to pre-gun-ban levels. And why is that? It's likely explained by a large increase in prison population beginning around 2005 after a few years of decline, and also earlier (See p.3 of 48). Please note that the U.K. incarceration rate increased even as the homicide rate was decreasing, proving that incarceration drove the rate down. Otherwise, the incarceration rate would decrease with homicides or criminality, since less crimes would mean less offenders hence less incarcerated.

    If gun-control was so effective, there would not have been such an increase in homicide when it was instituted in the U.K.

  • ||

    Maybe it's the misanthrope in me, but the average guy on the street is a moron

    The average concealed carry holder commits crimes as a rate that is less than police officers.

    So they are actually less of a threat than even cops.

    They should be allowed to carry wherever they want, and teachers and staff should be included.

  • Eric||

    I'm not worried that concealed carry holders are looking to commit a crime. I'm sure that they mean to protect themselves and others. I am worried that they lack the training and aim to properly respond to an active shooter situation.

  • Rossami||

    Again, by every measure they have more training, more readiness and lower errors than the average cop. Remember that a large number of concealed carry holders are cops or former cops. More are former military. Many are enthusiastic hobbyists who spend their own money to train.

    On the other hand, we have story after story of cops behaving badly, escalating conflicts unnecessarily and killing people and pets needlessly.

    Okay, both populations have bell curves of capability. And there are many good cops who are better than the worst concealed carry holders. But when viewed as a population, if you trust cops generally, the evidence suggests that you should trust concealed carry holders at least as much and maybe a little more.

  • GamerFromJump||

    As opposed to the "well-trained" police who blaze away at cellphones, wallets, and vicious poodles, when they aren't executing the very people who called them in the first place?

    I don't think the word "training" means what you think it means.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I know what "bullshit hysteria" means!

    Because every one of Dumbfuck Hihnsano's posts is filled with it!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano desperately wants that gun ban!

  • Bruce D||

    "Gun nuts LIE (or are brainwashed). England's gun control saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years"

    There were only two before that, hardly statistically significant.

    The U.K. effectively outlawed handguns and most firearms in their Firearms Amendment Act of 1997. After that, their intentional homicide rate skyrocketed for 8 years after that - See p.17 of 118.

    However, UK homicides did decrease from 2006 on, now close to pre-gun ban levels. And why is that? It's likely explained by a large increase in prison population beginning around 2005 after a few years of decline, and also earlier - See p.3 of 48. Please note that the U.K. incaceration rate increased even as homicide rate was decreasing, proving that incarceration drove the rate down, Otherwise, the incarceration rate would decrease with homicides or criminality, since less crimes would mean less offenders hence less incarcerated.

    If gun-control was so effective, there would not have been such an increase in homicide when it was instituted in the U.K.

  • Bruce D||

  • Bruce D||

  • Bruce D||

    There are supposed to be links in the above. For some reason, Reason is not allowing them.

  • Bruce D||

  • the original jack||

    over 20 million CCW holders in dozens of states over several decades without the doom and gloom, blood on the streets thoughts that "scares" eric. It would be nice if these people like eric confronted reality for once in their lives instead of living with the paranoid fears about their fellow citizens that so dominate their thinking.

  • Bruce D||

  • Bruce D||

  • modurhead||

    +1 amending the 2nd amendment to include the right to mental/physical healthcare, a step in the right direction

  • SIV||

    "Experts"

    cute

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    It's time to stop the madness I'm this country: people buying guns should be required to pass a background check!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Background checks are unconstitutional.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    You would say that!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Founding Fathers beat me to it.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano cites Scalia, pretends that he didn't read past page one.

  • JWC||

    Sorry, Michael, but by that logic, freedom of speech only applies to what you can say in a town square or what you can scratch out on parchment with a quill or run off an 18th century printing press. It would not apply to any radio or television broadcast or to cinema or to the internet. In all those realms, the government would be able to quell your speech simply because the Founding Fathers had not foreseen their existence.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano desperately wants that gun ban!

  • Bruce D||

    "Common use at the time"

    At the time, citizens owned the same TYPE of weapons as the military.

    You're arguing against the absoluteness of rights and you still call yourself a libertarian? Are gun-control laws absolute? Is what you write absolute? What makes you think that any of what you say has any weight if there is no absoluteness?

  • Bruce D||

    "Plus, NO rights can be absolute, per the definition of unalienable (when such rights are in conflict)"

    Rights are not in conflict. Those who disparage rights try to fabricate conflict.

  • modurhead||

    +1 background checks should be voluntary and the people can choose to give up their information to big brother government if they are dumb enough

  • Rat on a train||

    Treat guns like cars! If you want to shoot on public property you need to be licensed and the gun registered.

  • Chip Woodier||

    Treat voting like guns!

  • modurhead||

    good, start with the cops and military first and see how that plays out

  • Rat on a train||

    Military weapons are registered. No license required for firearms, but one is required for a gas lantern.

  • rudehost||

    Must be a California thing as I have never heard of it. I get your point though. There is an inequity here best resolved by removing the dumb ass restrictions on gas lanterns.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Is this a troll account? I can't keep it straight anymore. Have you bought a gun before? You already have to pass a background check each time you buy a gun.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Is this a troll account

    Look at the handle, it does exactly as advertised.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Not for private party sales in most states.

  • rudehost||

    Maybe you can provide a list of all of the mass shootings conducted with guns that escaped a background check?

  • dave b.||

    Not in TX if you're a CHL holder

  • LarryA||

    if you hold a Texas license to carry, you have already passed a background check that's considerably stricter than the NICS.

    The FBI only allows FFLs to substitute possession of a license for the NICS check if the license background check meets or exceeds the NICS, and the license is valid for five years or less.

  • Chasman1965||

    You didn't read the article, did you. You went straight to comments. I read the article, so I will copy the section of the article that shows you are ignorant and lack understanding of the subject:

    Begin quote
    Universal background checks? Nikolas Cruz—the man charged with the shootings—purchased his AR-15 legally at Sunrise Tactical Supply, according to a law enforcement official who spoke with the Associated Press. A special agent at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told The New York Times that Cruz passed a federally mandated instant background check, saying, "No laws were violated in the procurement of this weapon."

    End quote

    In case you refused to read again, I'll digest it for you: Nikolas Cruz bought this gun and passed a background check to do it.

  • Rossami||

    Have trouble reading much? The article above says that the shooter in this case passed the federally required background check. It didn't stop him.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    It is becoming increasingly evident that screening people—whether for mental health, threatening social media posts, bristling insurrectionism, substance abuse, domestic violence, or who knows what all—can never provide security against gun violence. To accomplish that would require policy willing to treat positive findings from such screens as crimes, and follow them with confiscations or arrests. Critics of that approach complain rightly that it would exact too heavy a cost in lost freedom, while affording very little extra protection. Most of what the screens turn up, however threatening it may look, turns out to be non-predictive of future violence. In hindsight there arises a mistaken impression of clarity which is never present beforehand.

    Screening advocates should rethink their tactics, and work out realistic proposals centered on the guns themselves. They haven't even begun to do that. Many pro-gun commenters can get away with mocking would-be gun controllers, and baffling them with lists of astoundingly varied straw man arguments, such as the ones presented in the OP here.

  • the original jack||

    you are aware, are you not, that the shooter "passed a background check"?

    And that EVERY purchase of a new gun REQUIRES a "background check"?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Any gun control is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment's protection of American's right to keep and bear arms.

    Government deciding restrictions to that right defeats the whole purpose as they could "common sense" the 2nd Amendment to mean nothing. Which is what they want. You cannot completely control a people if they can fight back.

  • Eric||

    So laws against any and all speech of any type are also unconstitutional?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Yes.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Perjury and death threats are protected by the 1st amendment?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    While there is a shit-load of stuff that has been taped onto it via precedent, it still says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...". So as written, yes.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    The same Congress that passed that amendment also passed laws against perjury in the federal courts, and against death threats on federal property. Clearly they did not view such activities as falling under the freedom of speech.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    *shrug* ok? I guess it didn't take them long to set about breaking their own rules.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Don't forget the America First Suprema Corte that ruled frogmarching conscripts into military service and ordering them to kill or die is not, repeat NOT involuntary servitude, hence totally permitted by the 13th Amendment.

  • the original jack||

    so...mouse... where are the muzzles to keep people from committing perjury or issuing death threats? Oh... there are none, eh.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    The same Congress that passed that amendment also passed laws against perjury in the federal courts, and against death threats on federal property. Clearly they did not view such activities as falling under the freedom of speech.

  • Ron||

    Your still free to make death threats but you will go to jail for it

  • Cyto||

    This is conflating multiple things.

    Perjury is speech in that a person is speaking, but the crime isn't speaking. The crime is violating an oath and lying to the court.

    The same goes for fraud. The crime isn't the speech, it is acquiring goods via deception. So whether you were speaking when committing fraud, or simply wearing a costume that was deceptive, the crime is the same.

    In the case of the second amendment, the language is clear. The right to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That means that congress saying that you can't keep and bear a particular style of magazine is clearly unconstitutional, because it is unequivocally an infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Any of the "common sense gun control" we currently have would rightly require a constitutional amendment, were we to actually be following the constitutional process.

    No amount of linguistic hoop jumping can turn "shall not be infringed" into a phrase compatible with infringing the right to keep and bear arms, no matter how starry-decisisy the courts decide to be.

    "Constitutional" is a completely separate argument from "is a good idea".

  • Sigivald||

    Nobody who wrote that and voted it into effect though it meant that, though.

    It's almost like they didn't think "freedom of speech" meant what you think it does now.

    That doesn't make them hypocrites or liars - or wrong.

    It means you think words mean a different thing than they did.

    I suggest that there's no coherent way to interpret constituting documents or laws other than starting with original public meaning*. We need not entirely limit ourselves to it, but we cannot just throw it out, without throwing out the document's essence.

    (* I once argued with a guy online who thought that if words changed meaning over time, the Constitution's meaning simply changed with them - he literally argued that if e.g. "establishment" changed meaning to mean only "founding", that Congress would simply be prohibited from starting Churches rather than making an official state Church.

    That interpretation is utterly untenable.)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You ought to read it yourself, Hihntard, since you never made it past page 1.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    None of what you quoted is on page 3 of either the introduction or the main body of the ruling, dumbass.

    Maybe you should bother reading the links you post.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Perjury is a contract that you will tell the truth with criminal penalties.

    Since most perjury can get people sent to prison for years, I am fine with that contract punishment.

    Death threats allow people to defend themselves from violence, so you do that at your own risk.

  • Eric||

    This absolutism is why libertarians are dismissed as philosophers by everyone trying to live in the real world.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I don't know about libertarians, but yes, in most regards my philosophical outlook is pretty absolute.

  • DesigNate||

    Then go live somewhere else or change the motherfucking constitution.

  • DesigNate||

    Then go live somewhere else or change the motherfucking constitution.

  • Juice||

    The words on the paper are absolute. If you want to change them, do so.

  • Eric||

    That's your answer to my retort about libertarians as philosophers?

    Worthless.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Clearly Libertarians are not dismissed and are deemed dangerous political adversaries which is why some non-Libertarians are here to monitor us and report us to SDNY.

  • Barbara Yarhead||

    @eric
    If you don't believe in amendments and you pshaw the central premise of a constitution, then just argue for getting rid of the Constitution.
    A nation does not need a constitution. Such a document is silly if you believe that democracy and legislators are fully capable of solving all social problems.
    You should love the idea. Just pass the laws you want, amend any law that gets "stale", there is no need for supermajorities or interpretation issues.
    Problem solved.

  • MarkLastname||

    And this popular dismissal of principle in favor of discretionary statism is why so many governments the world over get to brutalize their subjects with the tacit assent of the majority.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The statism is yours, if you attempt to use state force to mandate ANY right as absolute.

    Rights ARE absolute until the state passes a mandate to regulate them, you moron.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano screeches about things of which he does not know.

  • Paradigm||

    "White privilege" is a mythical advantage concocted by progressives to explain away the inconvenient fact that their policies have destroyed the lives of black people in democrat-run cities.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks a username is "bragging".

  • Paradigm||

    He's not bragging. He just doesn't take the concept of white privilege seriously, nor should he.

    And I'm not brainwashed by conservatives, but they're not constantly trying to tell me I'm a racist for going about my daily business. Your ilk are.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano is two tunes short of a concert.

  • creefer||

    You've misquoted your links like 4 or 5 times now. You might want to read the links you quote. The current homicide rate in the US is not 5.3%, whatever that might mean. You're losing it old man.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano desperately wants that gun ban!

  • the original jack||

    any speech laws that are by nature, prior restraint, are unconstitutional. A person is free to exercise "any and all speech" as he chooses. AFTER THE FACT he is judged to have committed a transgression.

    Your desire for prior restraint gun control is akin to demanding that the general public be forced to wear muzzles to prevent them from speaking "just in case." Or requiring government permission in advance to publish "just in case."

  • Joe_JP||

    Those who love the Constitution in a sensible way realize that rights are not absolute and various types of regulations are within the ambit of "rights" in a civilized society as compared to the artificial state of nature.

  • ||

    And those that love the Constitution in a sensible way realize that the restrictions that meet muster are very little and need a lot of justification.

  • Juice||

    rights are not absolute

    Sometimes you have a right to life and sometimes not so much.

  • Paradigm||

    Why in the name of hell would anyone come to you with a question?

    Face it, guns are not going anywhere. There are 300 million of them in the US and their owners would gladly fight a civil war rather than allow you progressives to take even one of them away. I have over 20 of them and no progressive will ever lay one grubby, subhuman finger on them.

  • modurhead||

    and if they get their border walls built...we will be like fish in a barrell

  • Hank Phillips||

    Good point. Didn't "The Guns of Neverown" belong to Germany's Kristallnacht government?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    If the "popular" measures had been passed prior to this shooting, the shooting would have happened anyway which leads to me wondering what the Left would be calling for now. More gun control of course, but specifically where would they go since what they had previously asked for had obviously failed?

  • Sigivald||

    Confiscation, natch.

    That's always the logical end of the progression, even though many proposing other parts of it genuinely don't intend so.

    Nothing else can even attempt to get them "stop all the badness".

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    They banned handguns

    No, they didn't, you dumbass.

    "Long-barrelled revolvers" and "long-barrelled pistols" meeting specified criteria are not classified as small, and hence prohibited, firearms; it is legal, with a Firearm Certificate, to possess them. The barrel must be at least 30 cm (12 in) long, and the firearm at least 60 cm (24 in) long, which can be achieved by having a permanently attached extension to the grip or butt of the firearm. Long-barrelled single-shot firearms of any calibre, and semi-automatic pistols of .22 rimfire calibres, are permitted with FAC.
  • bangbang||

    One..in 2010..the same amount they had prior to the ban. Snort indeed.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks pistols and revolvers with 12-inch long barrels aren't handguns.

    Long-barrelled single-shot firearms of any calibre, and semi-automatic pistols of .22 rimfire calibres, are permitted with FAC
  • bangbang||

    "Anything else?"

    Yes...why are you intellectually dishonest? England never had a problem with mass shootings prior to the ban either, so why do you pretend it's not happening now because of a handgun ban(that doesn't even exist anyway, lol)? There are plenty of guns around in England to carry out a mass shooting if someone wants to yet they don't.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't like this part of Scalia's opinion:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    This is beybond politics. Please, Donald Trump: it's time to do something about gun control in this country.

    Right before we impeach you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yeah. Right before we lefties lose more seats in the House and Senate.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    I don't trust Trump one bit on gun issues. He used to be a gun grabber and flip flopped for political convenience. No reason to think he won't do it again.

    If they impeached and removed Trump, we'd have Pence as president, which would make me far more comfortable.

  • Eric||

    "If they impeached and removed Trump, we'd have Pence as president, which would make me far more comfortable."

    On the 2A, but we'd be pretty f**ked on everything else.

  • DajjaI||

    Mental illness 'treatment' wouldn't help. In fact, this is what caused the problem. He was diagnosed with 'autism' as a small child. Thus his parents were told, "Never punish" and he was taught, "Always apologize." He simply took this training to its logical conclusion. If we really want to prevent more of these incidents, we must track down the other victims of this indoctrination and have a little chat with them.

    Parents who take their kid to autism 'treatment' might as well tattoo 'Mass Murderer' on their kid's forehead.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    I have deep insight into decades of mental health and family parenting dynamics of complete strangers! Hear my words, good people!

  • DajjaI||

    Uh... you own stock in autism treatment centers?

  • soldiermedic76||

    As a parent of a child on the spectrum, no expert we have ever talked to has ever suggested we don't discipline my son. In fact they have all stated discipline is necessary for children on the spectrum. The spectrum exists rather you want it to or not. And I have seen you spout a lot of pure bullshit the last couple of days about people on the spectrum and their parents. Trust me we didn't get him tested because we wanted to, it became necessary. The diagnosis has helped him to receive the therapies he needs to progress and become a functioning member of society. Your ignorance and bigotry are the very reason many children never received the help they needed. You sir are a grade A ASSHOLE, who has to belittle people you don't understand. To imply evil where none exists. Why don't you take your arm chair psychology and shove it up your ass.

  • DajjaI||

    There is NOTHING wrong with your child. Please stop feeding him bleach and performing weekly colonoscopies. And teaching him there is something wrong with his brain. Because you might as well tattoo 'Mass Shooter' on his forehead. BUT - thank you for demonstrating the bullying that parents will be subjected to when they question their doctor's grave prognosis that their child will never experience normal peer interaction but don't worry we have lots of tricks we can teach your child to learn to fake it. Please, don't let me stop you:

  • Texasmotiv||

    What the fuck are you even talking about?

  • WoodChipperBob||

    You know, most people don't feel the need to preface speculation with, "This is just speculation on my part," nor do most people require it to understand that such is implied when someone is talking about "decades of mental health and family parenting dynamics of complete strangers."

    Did you consider, perhaps, that Dajjal might have the insight implied as the result of experience with people who *aren't* complete strangers? It happens some times.

  • Texasmotiv||

    You sound like Nancy Maclean. It's really interesting how little people seem to understand autism.

  • DajjaI||

    It's really interesting how little autism 'experts' seem to understand normal people.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It's really interesting how little autism 'experts' seem to understand normal people

    Get off the opioids and you might even understand them yourself.

  • CE||

    Not to mention the psychoactive drugs everyone prescribes having the side effect of making some people worse or more violent.

  • BryanB||

    For those skeptical of statist solutions, why not at least say more about what might be done other ways? If Reason only runs critiques, and no analysis of options that might feasibly make a difference, then it is as much as saying nothing can be done (despite the examples of all the other countries where mass shootings are not as bad).

  • colorblindkid||

    But violence of every kind in those countries is far less common, including physical violence without guns. You can' compare America to any European country or Australia. Culturally and historically we're more similar to the rest of the Americas, like Brazil.

    And in case you haven't noticed, there have been quite a few mass shootings in Europe lately, including one that killed 130.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    From the Heller ruling that you like to cite, but never read:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment
  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano admits he doesn't read the links he posts.

  • Rhywun||

    it is as much as saying nothing can be done

    Something can always be done. It's a question of how many of your freedoms do you want to give up in order to make it happen.

  • Billy Bones||

    You forgot to

  • Deflator Mouse||

    "Mass shooting" is a bullshit term since it is used for shootings of as few as four people. So a lot of gang warfare, etc, get rolled in to those totals. If you're talking about the shootings of 10 or more defenseless people, those are incredibly rare in the US. Damning the US for having a slightly higher rate of such events than Europesque countries is like damning showers because people die in them more often than in bathtubs. Reality is both events are exceedingly rare.

    And of course the deadliest mass shooting of children in the developed world happened in that socialist paradise of Norway.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment

  • Eric||

    There are no good answers. The left wants to take away guns, even from the 99.99% of lawful gun owners. And the right wants us to live in a Clint Eastwood movie.

    No in-between is acceptable.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Here we go with the false equivalencing. The NRA, for example, supports many gun laws, actually. There are some people on the right who think there should be none but they are a tiny minority. Meanwhile the typical leftist praises Aussie and Brit gun bans, and the senior Dems in Congress publicly supported similar bans when it was fashionable back in the 1980s and 1990s.

  • Eric||

    "My team is better than yours! Here watch me burn this strawman!"

  • Deflator Mouse||

    On this issue, the GOP is better than the Dems. No question. If you want to argue for gun control have fun.

  • Eric||

    No, I don't want to argue for gun-control. Constitutional issues aside, I think we've passed the threshold where gun-control would provide any meaningful benefit. But I also don't fetishize firearms like many on the right do.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "My team is better than yours! Here watch me burn this strawman!"

    And the right wants us to live in a Clint Eastwood movie.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    And our FUCKING PRESIDENT REPEALED the regulation to merge the gun control registry and the registry of seriously mentally ill.

    False.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Australia homicides have fallen five times as fast as the US since then.

    False.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano can't do math, can't decide if it's five times or nine times.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't like this part of Scalia's opinion:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment

  • Bruce D||

    "Current homicide rates (Latest available, UN) -
    5.3% United States
    3.0% Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7% Canada
    0.9% UK"

    Michael, you lie. Per your own reference above, U.S. 4.88, check it out. You conveniently forgot to mention gun-loving Switzerland 0.69 and gun-loving Czech Republic 0.75, both lower than gun-control U.K.

    Michael, you lie again: "US = 69.3 per year". That's bullshit. I haven't heard of 69 last year, and I'm sure the media would have covered them. You guncontrol people have a nasty tendency to lie.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano also thinks citing his own comments is evidence, believes all handguns have barrels that are smaller than 12 inches.

  • Brandybuck||

    The problem is not guns, the problem is that we have a violent society, for whatever reason. The US may have a higher rate of gun ownership, but gun violence far exceeds what it would be if it were merely about the number and availability of guns. Also, the overwhelming of non-suicide gun-violence is gang related, and NOT school shootings.

    How do you stop school shootings? I don't know. I do know that there was a school shooting in Germany a couple of decades ago that happened just down the block from some friends of mine. Really shook me to my core. I know that school! I know that street! Would banning guns have prevented it? No, they were already banned in Germany! It wasn't about clip size or background checks or anything like that.

    Deadliest school killing in history was done with dynamite.

    Sometimes shit happens. People don't want to hear it, but it's true. People genuinely believe that they can use government to prevent shit from happening. Every problem, any problem, can be laid at the feet of government to solve. But government can't solve most of the stuff we demand it solve. Murder has been illegal for six thousand years, yet we still have murder. Preventing shit from happening just doesn't work. We can minimize it though.

  • Brandybuck||

    Damn word limit. Anyway, the rest of my words:

    I'm going to reverse myself and NOT blame our violent culture. The good news is that we are much less violent than we used to. We're doing something right. Every violent crime is at historic lows. Except these sorts of mass shooting. Which have not risen, yet are not going down. We think it's going up, but that's just over reporting of every incident. We know ever detail about every incident within seconds and there are hundreds of not thousands of memes circulting within hours, so we think every one is more horrific than the last. But that's not true.

    There is something different about mass shootings. I don't know what. Back after Columbine everyone was wringing their hands and suggesting we lock up introvert nerds. Remember that? Loners were dangerous, report loners to the police. Today I'm hearing calls about mental health, call the cops if someone has mental health issues. Fuck that. Let's not be arresting people just for being different.

  • Sigivald||

    "Nothing can be done that is worth the cost" is ... actually a great answer to a lot of "problems".

    "Something must be done" is the first mistake.

    (The second is "this is something, so this must be done".)

  • Juice||

    despite the examples of all the other countries where mass shootings are not as bad

    The fact that other countries don't have school shootings and the like (nearly as much) means nothing really. It doesn't point to a solution at all. Saying that a country "prevents" mass shootings by having strict gun control is begging the question, especially when other neighboring countries have less strict gun control and have similar rates or even lower rates of gun violence or mass shootings.

    What's "the" solution? Beats me, but it certainly isn't more gun control.

  • WoodChipperBob||

    One restriction that I sometimes hear called for that wasn't mentioned in the article is waiting periods. When did he get the rifle?

    Of course, waiting periods only have a potential effect in two situations: 1) if they result in the potential shooter having a chance to think about things and decide against their intended course of action, or 2) if the waiting period gives police time to detect and prevent the potential crime.

    Even if we ignore the issue of whether or not waiting periods might be constitutional, the question remains whether the crimes prevented in 1 & 2 would outweigh the crimes prevented by allowing people to get firearms when they need them (the classic example being a woman who needs greater protection than the paper shield of a restraining order).

  • DaveSs||

    Considering the people who do these sorts of things basically plan them weeks and months in advance, it would have no effect at all.

  • soldiermedic76||

    It appears he has been planning this for months. How long a waiting period do you suggest? Nick Gillispie addressed this yesterday, it is a myth that these are sudden events, research has shown that most mass shooters plan these events months and even years in advance.

  • Chasman1965||

    He had owned the gun for a year, and had bought it legally a little over a year ago:

    From an online article on www.local10.com (this site won't let me send the complete URL)

    And yes, there was a waiting period:
    quote:
    Sunrise Tactical Supply owners Michael and Lisa Morrison closed the store Thursday. They are represented by attorneys Stuart Kaplan and Douglas Rudman.
    "The purchase of the AR-15 to Nikolas Cruz took place on Feb. 11, 2017," attorney Stuart Kaplan told reporters.

    Kaplan said Cruz returned seven days later to pick up the rifle, which came with a magazine.

    The owners of the store told their attorneys that after Cruz passed his federal background check, they had no reason to believe he was disturbed or capable of carrying out such an attack.

  • CE||

    Someone buying a gun for self-defense because they feel endangered doesn't want to hear about a waiting period.

  • Sigivald||

    We don't see waves and waves of people buying a gun to shoot someone the same night, in the states without them.

    They're simply not relevant to the actual threat models in the real world.

    (1 doesn't seem to be a real-world factor in the data sets we have.

    2 equally doesn't, because there's generally nothing to "detect" before they actually start shooting, especially unless you're also advocating a total police state.)

  • Rossami||

    There was a waiting period. The gun store fully complied with it. It didn't stop him.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    We're kind of missing the obvious here - people who push gun control religiously couldn't give two shits about stopping mass shootings, or saving lives.

    It's about control, and making the world conform to your prejudices. "Concern for life" is just a handy ribbon to pretty things up for the proles.

  • Eric||

    I get that's your narrative, and your way of dismissing the opposition as evil. But there are a lot of people who likely are just searching for answers and see firearms as having no benefit in today's society. Rather than vilify them, try understanding their perspective.

    And don't tell me that 5.56/.223 is a good hunting round either. It was designed for humans. There are much better choices for hunting animals.

  • Sigivald||

    .222 Remington was not designed for humans - and .223 is just a slightly lengthened .222, basically.

    Both are (or were; .222 is mostly eclipsed by more specialist chamberings) popular for target and varmint shooting.

    Not all "hunting" is deer or elk for meat, after all.

  • Eric||

    Of course you can hunt with .223. Just like you can run in loafers.

    But rather than waste $ hunting small game with .223, I'd use .22LR or even .22 Magnum. MUCH cheaper and you don't lose as much meat.

  • Barbara Yarhead||

    Gonna have to agree with Eric on this one. Ultimately, the majority of those who want to outlaw guns do so for personality reasons. They are not evil. They have less tolerance for risk in general and they have similar stances on various other issues. To them, the government is an amazing hammer and there are so many nails that need a good pounding.
    Ironically, the strongest argument for the 2nd amendment, the right of insurrection, is also an argument that anti-gun proponents easily dismiss because ultimately it is an assessment of risk and there is logical way to resolve such a value based issue.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    But there are a lot of people who likely are just searching for answers and see firearms as having no benefit in today's society. Rather than vilify them, try understanding their perspective

    Their perspective is shit.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lies constantly, can't even read his own links.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Another obvious thing nobody notices is that the states with the highest incidence of gun violence are the ones that struggle most fanatically to keep the Libertarian Party off the ballot. Look it up... make my day!

  • Eric||

    Lol. As much as I'd like it to be true, nobody in any state is worried about the Libertarian party.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    To be blunt, if we keep having these events our gun rights will be taken away. They came very close in the 1980s and 1990s, and Heller and McDonald could be overturned by a one-justice shift on SCOTUS. The Second Amendment is useless if it's just ink on paper like the guarantee of freedom of speech that was present in the Soviet constitution.

    The big massacres of the last few years were all perpetrated by 18-24 year old men who were either considered batty by the people around them or whose lives had taken a serious turn for the worse over the preceding year. Maybe we should raise the age for semiauto rifle purchases to 25, or put these kinds of people under surveillance. yes, I understand this could be abused, so this isn't the final form of my proposal, but we have to at least offer something to try to prevent these things from happening, for the sake of our rights.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Yeah I forgot about the Las Vegas guy with the age range. But still, 4 out of the last 5 big massacres were by young adult men.

  • Eric||

    I agree that "sensible gun control" sounds sensible. Until you realize that you've just proposed infringing upon the rights of an entire group of people based upon nothing but their age.. And your sensible approach will be attacked and ridiculed. And you will be labeled a "gun-grabber", and a "leftist" by those who should know better.

    I'm telling you...In today's political climate, there are no good answers to this.

  • DesigNate||

    What would you call someone who advocates restrictions on a perfectly law abiding majority because of the actions of a handful of people?

  • Eric||

    So "leftist" fits in every instance of authoritarianism? If you believe that, you're missing half the problem.

  • DesigNate||

    No, that was an honest question, I'm not sure what to call them. "gun grabber" seems slightly appropriate I guess.

    Definitely not leftist since many on the right wouldn't have a problem with taking everyone's guns away either.

  • Eric||

    Call them "Human". Gun-Grabber is a buzzword to socially signal your stance on the issue. It's lazy and polarizing and meant to shout down nuanced positions.

  • WoodChipperBob||

    I'd lean toward "gun prohibitionists" or "gun restrictionists" - they're accurate, and don't have the emotional baggage that "gun grabber" does. If one wants to be wordy, "those who favor increased gun restrictions, without consideration for the effect of those restrictions on the law-abiding majority of gun owners."

  • Chip Woodier||

    If someone is too crazy and dangerous to own a gun, they are too crazy and dangerous to be loose in public.

  • ||

    Exactly this

  • Eric||

    Nice aphorism. So lock up all those with mental health issues? Or give everyone a firearm?

  • Jickerson||

    Leave them alone and accept that freedom is more important than safety.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Nice aphorism. So lock up all those with mental health issues? Or give everyone a firearm?

    You leftists and your false dilemmas.

  • Joe_JP||

    We shouldn't assume things without time passing so that we get the full story. Except to refute gun regulation supporters. Anyway, laws don't "prevent" all wrongs. The path to sound policy is a list of things that in the aggregate result in better results. The article doesn't even totally meet the terms of the original claim on that point.

    "One could well make the argument that continued therapy might have prevented Cruz from committing the crimes he did, but it is clear he had access to therapy."

    A basic proposal is that someone who met the needs of such therapy shouldn't be able to buy a gun in the first place, especially if he had access to therapy that might prevent violence but didn't go.

    " the fact that there already exist a huge number of high-capacity magazines and can be purchased for as little as $13"

    Support or oppose, this sort of thing is a major concern of those for more regulation. Laws, like all things, won't stop all future wrongs here, but net, they can reduce it. Ditto the usual expert preaching on specifics on guns. If the labels some critics use are inexact, experts can formulate laws more well defined akin to a regulation on engine parts that is carefully drafted. Some shooters do benefit from easier shooting ability and even this one might have killed less if it took somewhat longer. Again, harm reduction not stopping all harm is reasonable public policy.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    Laws, like all things, won't stop all future wrongs here, but net, they can reduce it.

    There is no evidence that magazine restrictions would lessen harm at all, much less that they would do so to an extent that is worth the tradeoff of taking such magazines from law-abiding citizens. Making laws is a big deal, not something to be done for speculative reasons.

  • JP88||

    "A basic proposal is that someone who met the needs of such therapy shouldn't be able to buy a gun in the first place..."

    Placing people on government list based on interactions with a psychologist... Seems like a sure fire way to make paranoid people refuse get help in the first place. Just one unintended consequence of government list based on private interactions with a doctor.

  • Brandybuck||

    From the details of this shooting, it appears that just as much carnage would have resulted with a simple handgun. People screaming about the AR-15 and its assault-ish-ness caused all this, but nothing would have stopped this asshole from just plinking everyone with a 1911 pistol instead.

    People unable to think past their own narratives.

    I'm not a purist on the second amendment. I would have little problem with a mandatory training for many guns. But nearly every proposal I see coming out of the hand wringing left would do nothing to stop shooting like this. People latch onto a soundbite and run with it without ever stopping to think it through, to fully understand the issue.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    You can shoot an AR far more accurately and quickly at range than a 1911. If we're going to argue that counterfactuals are invalid for the gun grabbers then we have to lay off them ourselves. The most deadly massacres of the past decade or so were committed with ARs. An exception is the Aurora theater shooting, where the perp's AR jammed after a few rounds, but that was a special case of the victims being tightly packed together in a dark room, where a shotgun is enough to cause great carnage. The Tucson Safeway shooting was done with only a handgun, but he only killed a few people.

  • Brandybuck||

    AR-15s are used because they are relatively inexpensive and versatile firearms. They are popular for mass shooters for exactly the same reason they are popular for hunters and target shooters. They are popular because they are very customizable. Easy to change stocks, scopes, calibers, etc.

    Many of the so-called "AR-15 shootings" didn't even involve AR-15s. It's just a name attached to a stupid narrative that "people don't kill people, AR-15s kill people".

  • Jickerson||

    I'm not a purist on the second amendment.

    So you're fine with violating it? If not, what does that even mean?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment

  • Ron||

    "Another policy beloved by both the public and the surveyed public safety experts is a prohibition on violent criminals possessing guns. Cruz however had no criminal history."

    Except police responded to his house 39 times. there may have been no crimes but I call this a lack of foresight by many groups of people and the FBI clearly didn't give a shit about the death threats posted by him. It clearly can't be that hard to find an originator of a youtube video, especially for a group that has access to every thing online

  • Ron||

    I'm also curious about how did Cruz's parent die, maybe that needs to be looked into a little deeper now

  • PaulTheBeav||

    I wonder if there's any difference in the frequency of shootings at charter schools vs public schools.

    As long as people are exploiting this tragedy for political purposes...

  • NoVaNick||

    I can't think of any that have happened at a private or charter school, they have all been at public schools in (mostly) affluent communities.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I'd bet money that in the more libertarian states like New Mexico, Minnesota, Maine, Michigan, Colorado there is less of this initiation of force than the national average. All of these states have a libertarian spoiler vote levers of 20 or more.

  • NoVaNick||

    I don't own any guns, and am not really interested in them. I understand though that some people like them or think they need them. They can pass some feel-good gun laws I guess (expanded background checks, taxes on ammo) until the next one happens, and it will. There is no way to get rid of all guns and never will be, even if the progs' dream comes true, where they have a constitution convention to scrap the second amendment (along with the first). These shootings would have been unthinkable when I was in high school 30 years ago-so there has been a major change with kids that nobody wants to admit-maybe more of them are on psychotropic drugs, or spend too much time online (there was no internet back then). These are much harder problems to solve though, so its easier to say "lets just get rid of the guns".

  • Mcgoo95||

    I'm afraid the problem is much deeper and systemic. Kids today have less freedom and it's well known that when you block a river it will find a new way, sometimes with catastrophic force. Most of the idiots that commit these mass murders are dis-enfranchised loners with close to zero self-esteem that feel rejected by humanity. I would also suspect there is large psycho-sexual component. If only these losers could find love, or at a minimum get laid, it might prevent some of this.....maybe not.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Nathaniel Branden sentence completion exercise: "With friends like Nick, who needs ________?"

  • Mcgoo95||

    Vertical impalement should be instated as the penalty for mass murder. Maybe it will convince some of these assholes that perhaps they should just shoot themselves instead of risk being taken alive....plus it would give me pleasure to watch a piece of shit like this go in such a manner.

  • CE||

    What would actually work?

    Shut down all the schools. Kids can learn everything at home or online now. Families can get together and hire a teacher if they can't afford tutors for subjects they can't teach themselves.

    Stop publicizing the shooters after their crimes. Don't give their back story or analyze their mental health or talk to their neighbors. Just report the facts and state that the shooter is dead or under arrest and awaiting trial. Refer to them as the shooter and not by name in all news reports.

  • Hank Phillips||

    That's exactly what Organized Mysticism is putsching for on its websites...

  • Hank Phillips||

    The screening out of Saracen berserkers seems to be working. These force-initiating creeps mostly had names like Omar, Mohammed, Tashfeen, Syed, Mohammad and such. Now they look and sound more like undercover agents or relatives of beady-eyed U.S. Senators.

  • Sigivald||

    The 1994 Assault Weapons ban prohibited the AR-15 on these cosmetic grounds, but even if this law were in effect today, Cruz could still have carried out his crime with an equally lethal, albiet less flashy weapon.

    Well, that and "the AR-15" was never effectively banned, as such.

    Oh, maybe you couldn't label it "AR-15".

    And it couldn't have a collapsible stock and bayonet lug.

    But I bought an HBAR "AR-15" during the "Assault Weapon Ban", and it's just as shooty as today's M-4gery is.

    (Honestly, probably better for most people, in practice, since the heavy barrel leads for higher accuracy, and collapsible stocks are mostly useful if you're a tiny person or are wearing body armor.

    Now, if they could ban The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up, we might have some real progress...

    And for god's sake, nobody tell them about AR-10s, M-14s, G3s, or FALs.)

  • Azathoth!!||

    Am I the only one amazed at how white this young Hispanic man, Nikolas de Jesus Cruz, is getting?

    There are a few pictures out there that make him look like a Weasely.

    Yet no complaints of 'whitewashing'...........?

  • NoVaNick||

    He was adopted.

  • ssgcmw||

    How about we add getting expelled from school for a weapons violation to the list of things that will get you prohibited from buying firearms.

  • XM||

    It turns out the FBI was tipped off at least twice about Cruz, and the most recent tip all but gave away his plan. And Cruz literally introduced himself as a school shooter when investigators visited him. Whoever is currently running that joint was all like "Sorry we didn't follow protocol".

    Yeah, I'm not buying that the FBI dropped the investigation on the Boston Bombers, Omar Mateen, SB shooters, and other mass shooters because they did their due diligence and honestly found nothing useful. Comey's old hangout had eyes on probably half of the would be mass shooters. It's like, we can't stop people who were deported 3 times from reentering the nation and running over football players, but we should have complete faith in the FBI.

    They dropped the ball on Cruz. And likely dropped the ball on almost every other mass shooters and terrorists they were tipped on. And when FBI lets people off the hook, they can buy guns legally.

  • MikeyB||

    How about this?
    If you are suspended from school for any reason you lose the right to buy arms until you are 21.
    That might've prevented the Broward situation.
    We do similar things for domestic violence offenders.
    If you are convicted of ANY crime you lose your right to purchase commensurate with the level of the crime.....not just felons. Not sure how many of these shootings that would apply to.

  • Gene Ralno||

    It looks like all those "proposals" were taken from 20,000 existing laws in the several states. To leftist democrats, I'd say for God's sake, stop talking and protect the kids. Everyone should know by now that since 1950, only one percent of the mass shootings have occurred where citizens are allowed to defend themselves. As usual, I didn't have to watch the news to know two things. The Parkwood shooting was carried out by a mentally deranged individual and nobody returned fire. But I sense a sea change in Florida. I didn't hear the usual chant, "grab the guns, grab the guns, I hate Trump." On the other hand, I heard several ask what was expected of the school security officer. And the obvious answer actually was spoken out loud.

    He was unarmed so all he could do was to get between the shooter and the kids. He lost his life because public school policy always has been that guns are bad, evil and icky. For decades, many like myself have written and called policy makers to provide physical protection in public schools -- at least as effective as is provided for government officials, parking lots and ball games. I heard more than a few in Florida calling for professional armed security. The days of hearing leftist democrats howl for the government to grab the guns, make new laws and have a conversation seem to be waning. Perhaps the political insanity against guns is softening and they'll actually protect the kids.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment

  • John B. Egan||

    No law protects against everything.... But there's nothing wrong with implementing sensible laws that would reduce our gun death rate... Simply put, Australia only had to experience one such mass shooting and their conservative government instituted a series of sensible gun laws and a massive gun buy-back that did reduce their deaths to about 20% of the avearge before that shooting... BTW, as a result, any politician who voted for the laws lost his position in the next election, but all agreed they'd do it again.. IMO, it's very hard to argue a success like that in face of our continual mass shootings.. I understand this isn't a popular opinion on conservative sites, but real results have to count for something, right?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    a series of sensible gun laws and a massive gun buy-back that did reduce their deaths to about 20% of the avearge before that shooting

    The homicide rate was already dropping before then.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano cites Scalia but can't read past page 2.

  • LarryA||

    It's interesting how all these gun-control laws have overwhelming popular support in the surveys, but when people go to the polls and vote, the majority of voters in all but a handful of states keep sending pro-gun legislators to the state capitols and pro-gun congress members to D.C.

    It almost makes you question whether the surveys are accurate.

    but cannot pass because of the NRA, its supporters, and their allies in Congress.
    If the NRA has enough supporters to elect enough allies in Congress to block legislation the "experts" (and the media) want, that's the way it's supposed to work.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Then ban all such "equally lethal" weapons, since even Justice Scalia's Heller ruling reaffirmed that the Second Amendment protects ONLY weapons in common use at the time (brought form home for militia duty)

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano keeps peddling this bullshit (and now has changed his qualifier from "essentially hunting rifles" because he got called out on his lack of reading ability).

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks the colonists only owned hunting rifles, can't read past page 2 of the Scalia ruling.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't know what "essentially" means.
    (chortle)

  • ScottyBoman||

    While I don't know if this would prevent the shooting from starting, it would have ended it before so many were killed....

    Do away with so called "Gun-Free" zones. If people who can conceal carry elsewhere were allowed to conceal carry at schools, theaters and nightclubs most mass shooters would be stopped as soon as they fired there first shots.

  • Fmontyr||

    Jake, you fail again to make a constructive point. You describe some known trivial proposals for reducing gun violence and then say they won't solve the problem. That is pretty much worthless information, just some negative stuff. However, since gun violence is far, far less in many highly intelligent nations why didn't you bring up those successful methods which they have employed? The little substance of your article is probably due to your love of guns and the right to bear arms, thus making it nigh on impossible for you to properly address the matter of reducing gun violence.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Gun violence is far lower than it was 25 years ago, yet we have far fewer restrictions on firearms.

    Since the vast majority of these mass shooters are young, mentally disturbed men (the exceptions being the Vegas and Orlando shooters, the latter of whom the FBI ignored warnings from his own father about), it seems more logical to address the actual source of the problem.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks gun violence levels in the US are higher than 20 years ago, despite the fact they are not.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks shrieking "Liar" will hide his ignorance.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    And no, Skippy a 2-foot long revolver is NOT a handgun! (sneer)

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't know jack shit about firearms, thinks a handgun only has a barrel shorter than 12 inches.

  • GamerFromJump||

    Facts just confuse the "hut muh feewings!" crowd.

  • Cajuan King||

    The School district should sanitize the 'crime scene, and rename the school after the football coaches who died protecting the children of Broward County.

    Marjory Stoneman Douglas a 104 years old journalist, writer, feminist, and environmentalist, who has nothing in common with the students of this high school.

    A real life hero was their friends and coaches: Assistant football coach Aaron Feis, cross country coach Scott Beigel and athletic director Chris Hixon, hailed as heroes, were among those killed during the shooting !

  • Devastator||

    They are going to tear down the building and build a new one. They might name it in honor of the victims.

  • Devastator||

    I don't get it. If someone can't use an AR they can still buy a bunch of cheap ass revolvers and kill just as many people. Unless there are zero guns allowed then their point about getting rid of ARs is moot. I've pointed this out to gun haters and the most I can get out of them is "but it looks like a machine gun". It's like their brains just shut down.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't like this part of Scalia's opinion:

    3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment

  • mitora11||

    Hire a hacker that has efficiency, handles with all professionalism and diligence. Without saying much i want to introduce a company that assisted me both with my infidelity issues and with all my other hack related issues. you can visit rootgatehacks...com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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