MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Are Libertarian Responses to Mass Shootings Persuasive?: Podcast

Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, Robby Soave and Nick Gillespie talk gun violence, immigration politics, Russian electoral interference, and Black Panther.

When mass shootings take place, libertarians at Reason and elsewhere respond by pointing out that gun violence is declining even as the number of weapons in circulation is climbing; that mass shootings are not increasing in number; and that most proposed solutions either won't work or raise serious civil liberties concerns. These points are all true and important. But are they the limit of all meaningful response? In today's Reason Podcast, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, Robby Soave, and Nick Gillespie discuss what if any policies might mitigate the frequency and casualties of mass shootings. They also talk about how Rush Limbaugh, of all people, has advanced the most progressive immigration policy heard in several months, whether the investigation of Russian influence into the 2016 election will undermine belief in American politics, and the deeper meanings of Black Panther, the latest Marvel superhero movie that is setting box-office records.

Take a deeper dive by reading Reason's continually updated archive on the Florida shooting, "Rush Limbaugh Is More Progressive on Immigration Than Anyone on Capitol Hill. Seriously," and Kurt Loder's review of Black Panther for Reason.

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

Photo credit Carline Jean/TNS/Newscom.

Subscribe, rate, and review the Reason Podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:

Don't miss a single Reason podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

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.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Hey hey, looks like some Reason editors read my comments last week.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The answer is "no". Probably the libertarian argument is not receptive to almost anyway. A lot of the libertarian moment comes more from coincidental agreement rather than philosophical matching.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Real talk. Did I need the quotes around the "no"? It looks weird now.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    You fucked up with those quotation marks, brah. You fucked all the way up.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Christ, what an asshole.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    The period should have gone inside the closed quotation mark:

    The answer is "no."

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That always looks weird to me when it's not a full sentence quotation.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Proper grammar always looks weird. That's how you know you're doing it right.

  • Libertymike||

    Tulpa once engaged several of us on this precise grammatical issue. He argued that only analphabets, illiterates, imbeciles, and butchers of the language would place punctuation inside the quotation mark.

    It was a fascinating thread.

  • WoodChipperBob||

    It is a full sentence. It's a one word sentence in response to the question.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    BUCS is a great guy, very Smart. He once "asked" me if he should use quotation Marks around his answers. I said no!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Spot on parody of my writing. I am not a good writer in the least.

  • Libertymike||

    Don't be so hard on yourself, BUCS. Besides, you did the opposite of what Tulpa insisted is the right way to do it.

  • IceTrey||

    You're not a "well" writer.

  • Sevo||

    Manuscript?

  • Libertymike||

    Editing of the same?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Are Libertarian Responses to Mass Shootings Persuasive?: Podcast

    No, because explaining to people that what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is, is very difficult to get across to someone wailing and waving a bloody shirt.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    They also talk about how Rush Limbaugh, of all people, has advanced the most progressive immigration policy heard in several months

    It's good to see Reason using "progressive" to mean "desirable" on immigration. Now if only you'd get on the right side of history and realize that progressives are correct about guns as well. We libertarians need to unite with progressives to oppose the NRA, which Palin's Buttplug has shown is the most powerful lobby in America. Only the left-libertarian alliance has any chance of breaking their stranglehold on Congress that prevents common sense gun safety reforms from passing.

    whether the investigation of Russian influence into the 2016 election will undermine belief in American politics

    No, but it will undermine belief in Drumpf's legitimacy. As it should. Besides, Hillary beat him by 3 million votes.
    #NotMyPresident

    and the deeper meanings of Black Panther, the latest Marvel superhero movie that is setting box-office records.

    Black Panther is not only the best superhero movie of all time, it's literally the best movie of all time, regardless of genre. Click here and see "Best Movies Of All Time" column.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I haven't seen it yet, but is it going to be like a Spike Lee film, beloved by critics as woke, but not aging well?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Well, my friends enjoyed it a lot. Though I think there is also a lot of hyperbole about it for political reasons. It seems to rank among the best of the Marvel movies, if that appeals to you then you'll probably like it. If not, then you can safely ignore it.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'd like to see it, but there's been so much PC bullshit wafting around it that I feel it's already tainting the experience. Apparently, I'm not even supposed to see it because allowing the images into my eyeballs is ruining the experience for black people.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yes, things have really gotten out of hand about this. And if you go to the other side there is a crazy amount of stupid anti-black posting about this (source 4chan, so everyone is an asshole there). Really there is just too much chatter about it.

  • Libertymike||

    So, you "think" that the fuss they are making out this film is for political reasons?

    Propaganda laced with hyperbole.

    How about the "finally, we can go see a movie where we are represented" canard?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    How about the "finally, we can go see a movie where we are represented" canard?

    There's nothing wrong with that. It's the white people telling me how I should interpret the film-- or more importantly, how I shouldn't interpret the film.

  • Libertymike||

    So, its okay to let black people prevaricate and not call them on it?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I guess I didn't understand your comment. But no, I guess I'm not offended if black people-- in any significant numbers are happy to see a film with a black person as the protagonist/hero. If it turns out to be a great film (read: not great merely because it's got a Black protagonist and white people feel they need to bump it, but great because it's well made and entertaining), all the better.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I saw it. It was okay, but there weren't any scenes that had a "wow" factor, and no real twists or surprises.

    So a well-made movie that reliably hits all the beats. Personally I felt the movie was a bit preachy in some aspects, but it wasn't too over-the-top.

    The husband liked it more then I did.

    That said...

    Apparently, I'm not even supposed to see it because allowing the images into my eyeballs is ruining the experience for black people.


    That might be a meme, but it's not reality.

  • ||

    I haven't seen it yet, but is it going to be like a Spike Lee film, beloved by critics as woke, but not aging well?

    You say that like films like Ironman, Deadpool, and The Avengers, or anything else from Marvel Studios (plenty of which straight up outperformed Black Panther others which performed equivalently with caveats) is at the top of the 'Best Movies Of All Time' list.

    I'm even a bit confused as to how the list works because there are movies with more reviews, higher ranks, and more reviews with higher ranks that are lower on the list.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    You say that like films like Ironman, Deadpool, and The Avengers, or anything else from Marvel Studios

    No, I'm actually not saying that. Other people are saying that BP is the bestest movie of all time ever. I also would never say that any of the Marvel films are the best movies ever. But I know that people can get a little excited in the first few weeks of a release-- especially when a movie touches PC buttons (Do The Right Thing), but then you watch them 10 or 15 years later and... they somehow just don't work like they used to.

  • Libertymike||

    Yeah, Black Panther beats all of the following:

    Citizen Kane, Goodbye Mr. Chips, The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, Double Indemnity, Key Largo, Red River, The Quiet Man, Shane, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, To Kill a Mockingbird, 12 Angry Men, The Sting, The Goodbye Girl, Deliverance, Walking Tall, The Dirty Dozen, Marty, The Ten Commandments, The Outlaw Josey Wales, The Godfather, Rocky, The Searchers,Trading Places, Beverly Hills Cop, Ghost, The Accidental Tourist, Mask, The Verdict, Gran Torino, Slumdog Millionaire, School Daze, The Comancheros, The Undefeated, Ferris Buehler's Day Off, Wall Street, Midnight Run, Enemy of the State, Dances with Wolves, Mr. Brooks, and Hell or High Water.

    Okay.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    LibertyMike, you forgot Drop Dead Fred.

  • The Laissez-Ferret||

    +1 Midnight run is a great and vastly underappreciated movie.

  • ||

    I didn't mean to put words in your mouth as much as point out that the issue holds for both aspects of the film and both those aspects playing off each other.

    Other people are saying that BP is the bestest movie of all time ever.

    And those people, for wholly non-cultural reasons, are dumb. I would loathe the notion of Robert Downey Jr. or Hugh Jackman as representing the totality of a single culture for anything more than the flash-in-the-pan their characters and movies were kinda-sorta meant to be. That, in no way, reflects on the quality of their movie(s) or their acting ability and more on the fact that something as wide, nuanced, and individualistic as 'race' can't and arguably shouldn't be captured and confined in such a singular way.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Ok, I admit, relying on PB as your citation made me laugh.

  • Rhywun||

    Me too.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    #MeToo

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Although his privilege prevents him from comprehending just how awful Drumpf has been, Palin's Buttplug is a valued commenter here. His knowledge of economics is particularly impressive.

    Re: the NRA, PB posted a link to a meticulously researched piece on listosaur.com. It ranked the top 10 most powerful lobbies in the United States and, sadly, the NRA was #1.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That was the list that finally made me a liberaltarian.

  • JuanQPublic||

    The NRA is a shell of what it began as, which was an organization that educated on guns and safety. It's now just a lobby that functions to mobilize voters.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Its lobbying is mostly focused on preserving an important civil right. They've largely been successful, with a few missteps along the way (supported 1st assault weapons ban).

    Meanwhile what of significance has any libertarian group accomplished ? But yeah, take a crap on them...they aren't the cool kids.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    So opposing the NRA would advance Libertarianism by allowing Leftists in the Congress to decrease individual freedom? Is that how you think it should work?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Libertarian arguments aren't particularly persuasive to people who comment at libertarian websites.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I am not convinced, Hugh.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I can simplify this for y'all.

    Are Libertarian Responses [...] Persuasive?


    The answer? Nope. Not a bit. Y'all couldn't craft a persuasive message if your lives depended on it.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    I'm not convinced of that.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I knew this day would come.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    if your lives depended on it.

    And trust me, they will.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Nah, probably not. The world ain't as bad as y'all think either.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I don't know that all that many people are familiar with libertarian arguments to begin with. Most of the people out there probably think that a "libertarian" is somebody who helps you check out books. The remainder would say "oh yeah like my crazy uncle Ernie". People who aren't listening at all are probably not all that persuaded.

    In any case, an honest libertarian answer isn't likely to make most folks happy. The honest answer is that the politicians can't fix this problem, even if they were inclined to. And they're not inclined to. That answer will go over like a fart in a spacesuit, especially to somebody in the midst of an emotional meltdown.

    The situation is not helped by Leftist activists and media who are doing their best to keep the emotions whipped up, often by blatant lies (e.g. "there have been 18 school shootings already this year").

  • JuanQPublic||

    And the subject of death is handled very strangely in American culture. It's the only thing that is certain in life, and yet it's one of the most deeply buried and purposely forgotten subjects. That's strange.

    So when many on both sides of the political aisle exploit all sorts of tragedies that end in death for political elevation, we're twice removed from reality, in a way.

  • JuanQPublic||

    "Persuasive" depends on if its based in real evidence, but also depends on who listens. There were some comments here recently that pointed out that there is a time and place to put forth these arguments after something awful like the Florida shooting. That's reasonable, and understandable.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Are Libertarian Responses to Mass Shootings Persuasive?

    Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, Robby Soave and Nick Gillespie talk gun violence"

    Were there any libertarians on the podcast?

  • MasterThief||

    Not as familiar with Suderman's writing, so I'd say maybe him. The others are libertarian on a narrow set of pet issues with Gillespie sadly being the most broadly libertarian of the group (in spite of his heavy cosmotarian nature and leftist sympathies.) Maybe my perception is a little off since I'm a bit of a conservative/libertarian mix, but I see too much pandering to the SJW statists from these writers.

  • BigT||

    KMW can be very good on some issues. Nick lost it.

  • MasterThief||

    I just hate the signalling to and siding with progressives that is common among so many writers here. To be fair, they could be as libertarian as possible and commenters will still tear them apart (we are a disagreeable lot overall.) It's frustrating to see otherwise reasonable takes on these issues ruined by emotional pandering and PC coddling. Some days it's difficult to differentiate this site from huffpo and that certainly isn't a compliment to anyone.

  • Brian||

    Libertarians aren't usually trying to persuade. They're usually trying to respond to accusations.

    I'm really sorry, but my libertarianism really hasn't killed any kids, and your self-serving moral outrage is really just that.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Your libertarianism has failed to save kids, which is the same as killing them.

    Socialism, on the other hand has killed kids trying to save them, which is the same thing as saving them.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Ha ! Progressive leftism succinctly explained.

  • Anastasia Beaverhausen||

    Transcript?

  • nomadjoanne||

    Somewhat related to Limbaugh's immigration idea:

    Another immigration issue that irks me is the fact that American expatriates like myself are by and large disenfranchised. I'm registered to vote in Colorado, but frankly, me and other expatriate's interests (trade, immigration, etc.) are not represented so long as we stick to this idea of a nation-state being somehow tied to its land and the people physically on that land. Though to be fair, America is not the greatest offender when it comes to disenfranchising expatriates, many countries are much worse, and it guarantees that the least globally-minded voices are manified a bit more.

    I'd much rather see a world where nation-states were defined as consisting of their people, not their land (which sure, they may also happen to own land). Were this the case, I'd be much more willing compromise on the issue of America taxing its citizens income worldwide.

  • m.EK||

    The Libertarian arguments that Reason mag put out disregard the most basic understanding of the Constitution and Liberty.
    We are "FREE" as people/persons due to the grace of the Creator (however you view this "phenomenom") and are protected by the governmental rules called the Constitution.
    The first 10 Amendments should not be called the "Bill of Rights"! This name implies that the government can grant "rights". This is BACKWARDS as a concept. According to the first 10 Amendments, the government can NOT legislate, decree, or "rule" beyond the clearly stated LIMITATIONS on their authority and autonomy (please, don't believe me! Read the "Federalist Papers", the statements by Adams, Henry, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and a few others. They were seeking PROTECTION for the God given "rights" of free, Law abiding people. {the discussion of the political and patriarchical crap from the politicians of that day is interesting and pertinent, but not here}) The first 10 Amendments were directed AT the government. The 13th and on are attorney speak directed at the citizenry. Clearly outside of the purview of the government which is bound by the Oath of Office!
    Tell me, why is the Oath of Office not recognized as the LEGAL AND BINDING CONTRACT with the citizenry? This CIVIL contract is the sword over the necks of those who swear or affirm this legal vow/promise! Honor your agreement or you have committed a CRIME against the people!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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