MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Irrational Fear of Mass Shootings Can't Justify Unconstitutional Gun Control

Stinging insects kill more Americans than mass shooters do.

Jeremy Hogan/Polaris/NewscomJeremy Hogan/Polaris/Newscom"Americans are now more likely to be shot to death than to die in a car accident," Margaret Renkl declares in a New York Times op-ed piece calling for more gun control. Since Renkl is talking about mass shootings, which she says "are no longer so unthinkable," the implication is that the risk of being murdered with a gun is on the rise. But that risk is in fact much lower than it was in the 1970s, '80s, or '90s.

To back up her claim, Renkl links to a CDC fact sheet that shows guns killed slightly more Americans in 2015 than car crashes did. Yet 61 percent of those gun deaths were suicides, while 36 percent were homicides. Contrary to Renkl's implication, Americans are nearly three times as likely to die in a car accident as they are to be murdered with a gun.

Renkl deploys this misleading comparison of gun deaths and traffic fatalities to justify her own disproportionate fear of mass shootings, which account for a tiny share of firearm homicides, and of school shootings in particular, which are even rarer and have not become any more common in recent years. That is not the impression left by the recent March for Our Lives rallies, which showed that many teenagers have a grossly exaggerated sense of the dangers they face when they go to school.

Renkl says her husband, a high school English teacher, attended one of those rallies and afterward "texted me a photo he'd taken of himself standing in front of another marcher's sign. It read, 'Am I next?' For just a second, I couldn't breathe." Renkl had a similar reaction "when our oldest son, a new middle school math teacher, took me to see his first classroom. 'Just look at all these beautiful windows!' I said. 'Not exactly great for an active-shooter situation,' he pointed out. His words turned my heart to ice."

Renkl is afraid because other people are afraid, and she is not interested in considering whether those fears are reasonable. "Not only am I married to a schoolteacher, and the mother of one, I also have two younger sons in college," she writes. "Not a single day goes by when I don't worry about whether they will all be safe in their classrooms."

In reality, Renkl's sons are nearly 1,000 times as likely to die in a traffic accident as they are to die in a mass shooting, which is roughly as likely as being killed by a dog and only slightly more likely than dying from a lightning strike. Stinging insects kill more Americans each year than mass shooters do. Yet Renkl thinks the government should make policy decisions based on the shortness of her breath and the coldness of her heart.

"Everyone is worried about the threat of gun violence," Renkl says, "and almost everyone has a clear idea of what to do about it." Among other solutions, she mentions an "outright ban" on "semiautomatic weapons," a very broad category that includes the most popular guns for self-defense. Renkl seems unaware that the Supreme Court has already said such a ban would be unconstitutional.

"We don't need to repeal the Second Amendment," Renkl insists. According to the headline over her essay, criminalizing possession of all firearms except single-shot weapons and revolvers represents "a middle ground on guns." While that may be true at a March for Our Lives rally, the world outside looks different. It is more complicated but also less scary.

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.

  • sage||

    Obviously Jacob doesn't care about dead kids.

  • Hank Phillips||

    In what country?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Semi-automatic rifles are in common use at this time. Ergo, they are Constitutional. Just as the First Amendment applies to radio and television broadcasts and internet messages, just as the Fourth Amendment applies to automobiles and cell phones, so too must the Second Amendment apply to modern pertinent technologies.

  • ||

    Hihn's arguments against the second amendment come of as justification for reasonable regulation of the first.

  • ||

    I have never argued against the Second Amendment.

    I have never lied either.

    Sure, I've told falsehoods with the intent to deceive, but my intention wasn't to lie specifically. Also nobody, myself included, called it a lie and if I didn't eventually tell the truth, it was otherwise revealed. So, technically, I have never lied. And you've never argued against the Second Amendment.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Hihn refuses to recognize any firearm improvement since the 18th Century.
    When he was born.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Scalia jammed this up Dumbfuck Hihnsano's ass:

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

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I never said otherwise.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lies again.

  • Juice||

    All regular citizens are basically "helpless" in the face of an act of Congress. Not sure why the NRA would be any different.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Scalia also ridiculed your "frivolous" assumption!

    You followed that with a quote from him actually agreeing with my position.

    What he said:

    "Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

    What I said:

    "Just as the First Amendment applies to radio and television broadcasts and internet messages, just as the Fourth Amendment applies to automobiles and cell phones, so too must the Second Amendment apply to modern pertinent technologies."

  • MarkLastname||

    Hihn = owned.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    This assertion:

    Semi-automatic rifles are in common use at this time. Ergo, they are Constitutional.

    Is supported by this assertion:

    Just as the First Amendment applies to radio and television broadcasts and internet messages, just as the Fourth Amendment applies to automobiles and cell phones, so too must the Second Amendment apply to modern pertinent technologies

    And is further confirmed by this statement from Scalia:

    Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

    A quote which I, unlike you, cited in its entirety.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    "You fucked up on "bearable" -- weapons in common use af ratification."

    Wrong. You can't even read the guy you cited.

    "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

    He outright said that 'bearable arms' was not limited to those in common use at ratification, dipshit. You've own-goaled yourself pretty hard here.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Hihn, are you completely incapable of comprehending what you read, or are you intentionally misreading?

    Take your meds Hihn.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Hihn apparently thinks that Scalia's statement means that the Second Amendment extends only to muskets that hadn't yet been assembled at the time the 2A was ratified.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Hihn, you cannot sneer enough to change the meaning of the following sentence.

    "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

  • FlameCCT||

    Hell, semiautomatic firearms have been produced by civilians for use by civilians since ~1905 so yes they are very common use firearms and estimated to compose over 50% of firearms owned in the USA.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part of Heller:

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

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Prove it, psycho stalker.

    (chortle) Eat shit, Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Tionico||

    specifics on Jacob's "lie" about Heller? How about a quote from the final draft opinion, then a contradicting quote from Jacob Sullum.

    And when you actually READ the un-redacted and massaged stats from round the world, American kids are far safer in their classrooms in THIS country than in almost any other.

    When you count ALL deaths of children resulting from mass school shootings (3+ dead not including perp) since 1980, the average number of those deaths per year........ FOUR. That's right. Eff Oh You Are. In contrast 152 die on average each year whilst travelling from home to school and/or return each day. WHO is all knicker-be-knotted about THAT? Trying to banish school busses, cars, bicycles, all used to make that daily round trip... on which an average of 152 per year have died since 1980. Injured on that same trip total above 150,000 per year. And you're all knuckleheaded over four? As the article says, more kids that age die from stinging insects each year than from mass school shootings... or any shooings at all, for that matter.

    MAYBE the answer is to close ALL government funded schools, the ones in which the kids get shot each year, or die on the round trip each day. WHY do we build such HUGE target rich environments gathering and containing thuosands at each venue? Keep them at home. They learn better, anyway. And they don't get exposed to the sort of corruption, evil, bullying, abuse, etc they do in gummit skewlz

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano desperately wants that gun ban!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part of Heller:

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

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    (NOT advocating gun grabs, just calling out the bullshit)

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lies, called for a gun ban here.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    PHONY HIHNSANO (sneer)

  • KevinP||

    Why do you support increasing the rate of rape and other violent crime in America?

    Huge increase in crime across UK with 29% increase in both rape and robbery

    By comparison: US: 130,603 rapes in 2016 for a rate of 32 per hundred thousand population
    England and Wales: 48,773 rapes in 2017 for a rate of 84 per hundred thousand population - nearly three times as much!

  • khm001||

    Norway, Belgium, France, and Switzerland had HIGHER rates of mass shooting gun deaths and higher rates of mass shootings than the US from 2009-2015.

    Further, the UK has far FEWER blacks. The US's high black population is the only reason the US looks more violent than Europe. The US actually has a black violence problem, which you attribute to the presence of the most effective self-defense tool ever devised.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part of Heller:

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

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Eat shit, Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

    Cancer was too good for you, loser.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pimping his ignorance of Heller again.

  • Who needs a reason?||

    You mean like abortion?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    If we tried to legislate away all irrational fears, the jails would be full of clowns and redheads.

  • Just Say'n||

    "clowns and redheads"

    And yet Carrot Top has managed to avoid jail. How do you explain that, smart guy?

  • Citizen X - #6||

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Ok, let's put aside the fact that you knew that picture existed and had it at your fingertips. You are on my shitlist for answering the question I never knew I never wanted to know the answer to: whether Carrot Top has matching carpet and drapes.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    My thoughts and prayers are with us all.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Where would you hold all the irrational claustrophobics?

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Hihn's house.

  • Tionico||

    You call that silly twit about Sullum lying about Heller "public humiliation"? Haven't yet seen the bvackup to that claim.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Hihn doesn't even read his own posts. He just throws up on the keyboard, adds a dash of copypasta, and then hits "submit".

    Take your meds Hihn.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano humiliated again:

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

  • MarkLastname||

    Pretty sure Hihn lives under an overpass.

  • stuartl||

    I agree, you use ad hominem, verbal agressiveness, and are retarded

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I think Hihn just call most of the progressives' arguments infantile bullying.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I don't give up my 2nd amendment rights for the same reason I don't give up my 1st amendment rights, merely because a murderous tyrant with a funny mustache was able to enthral a nation with his rhetoric.

  • damikesc||

    I love the Parkland kids bitching and whining that they have to wear clear backpacks and their school feels like a jail.

    Must suck to have your "rights" restricted due to the actions of others....

  • Blargrifth||

    That's what happens when you react to an annoyingly loud minority.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    David Hogg can't grow a moustache yet.

    Stop microagressing his lack of hormones.

  • Enemy of the State||

    He has a certain Joseph Goebbels look about him...

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Irrational Fear of Mass Shootings Can't Justify Unconstitutional Gun Control

    Can't, but is probably gonna anyway.

  • ThomasD||

    Irrational fear of personal responsibility certainly was used to justify Obama's healthcare takeover.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Not only am I married to a schoolteacher, and the mother of one, I also have two younger sons in college,"

    Wait- what? I thought she had one child?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    She does. She also has two more than that.

  • grrizzly||

    She is the mother of a schoolteacher. By my count she has three sons.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    How's that reading comprehension thing going for you

  • Just Say'n||

    Oh, Rataxes. Smile once in a while. It's OK. You can do it.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    The doctor is her son!

    Also, she has two dimes and a nickel in her pocket.

  • damikesc||

    "Not a single day goes by when I don't worry about whether they will all be safe in their classrooms."

    In case more evidence was needed that author was a fucking moron, there ya go.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Not a single day goes by when I don't worry about whether they will all be safe.

    You could leave it at that. That's pretty much a worrying parents burden. You don't really need to ad any specific place.

  • damikesc||

    "We don't need to repeal the Second Amendment," Renkl insists. According to the headline over her essay, criminalizing possession of all firearms except single-shot weapons and revolvers represents "a middle ground on guns." While that may be true at a March for Our Lives rally, the world outside looks different. It is more complicated but also less scary.

    We don't need to repeal the First Amendment. We just need common sense reforms so fucking morons cannot write fucking moronic pieces.

  • damikesc||

    Hihn, you've already been anally violated over the idiocy of your post involving this. At this point, I have to assume you're pro anal rape.

  • VinniUSMC||

    You mean like you were documented to be full of shit
    here? Like that type of full of shit?

    Take your meds Hihn.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    This link shows Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates page 2 of Scalia's Heller writeup.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates this part of Heller:

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

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I still pretty much a newcomer here. but this Hihn guy; it is pretty clear he is at least somewhat mentally ill; so why do you guys bother with him? It's like arguing with an inebriated vagrant. Just toss him a couple of coins, or a fuck off, and move on.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Scalia jamming self-defense up Hihntard's ass.

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

  • Hank Phillips||

    The irrational fears fanned in Amerika blossom into liberty-consuming flames in countries with no Second Amendment. Most of the world could have nuclear energy--not just Canada and Russia. Most of the world could have individual food and drug choices, not just Portugal and The Netherlands. The purpose of econazi infiltration into the spotlight in These States is to turn the rest of the world first into dictatorships, then slums--the way the Republican Party did when Herbert Hoover and Harry Anslinger made our choices for us. Every time someone is murdered by a Junta death squad, thank an Illiberal.

  • Just Say'n||

    This is a rather insane take

  • ThomasD||

    Hank is what Hihn wishes he could be.

  • VinniUSMC||

    You don't need to narrate yourself Hihn. We already know you are a bully. No need to announce it.

  • Raoul Duke||

    How do these people go about their lives? I can't imagine being in perpetual fear of something so unlikely.

    I'm exhausted for them.

  • Just Say'n||

    Sullum's part of the Cult of Paulistas! Since when has gun control not been libertarian! Neoliberalism now- liberty is icky!

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Libertarians have always favored state-mandated bans over personal freedom... DUH!

  • sarcasmic||

    Actually yes. It does confuse people. Because it isn't a word. Perhaps you mean "inalienable?"

    in·al·ien·a·ble
    inˈālēənəb(ə)
    adjective
    adjective: inalienable
    unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Ok, this was hilarious. Wow. Embarrassing.

  • Juice||

    It's...the same word. Both are valid and one is used in the Declaration of Independence.

  • Tionico||

    which two "absolute rights" do you posit are in conflict? The Second, and... what? or, the First, and.. what?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Or jamming it up your ass here. (cackle)

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Explain how my possessing an assault rifle conflicts with your rights.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Indeed, I am curious about that too. I wonder exactly which right of his is being violated.

  • sarcasmic||

    The right to not be scared of scary guns. It's right there in the Constitution next to the right to get an abortion and the right to be free from offensive speech.

  • sarcasmic||

    *taps Hihn's sarcometer*

    Dude, it's busted. I think you need a new one.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Abortion is an issues of equal rights,"'

    Since only women can have them, how is it an equal rights issue?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    That would not be an equal rights issue.

    ""to the fetal child's unalienable right to Life"'

    Where does that exist?

  • FlameCCT||

    However the woman made a choice regarding her Liberty with full knowledge that she could become pregnant so her Right to Liberty is NOT equal to the child's Right to Life!

  • Texasmotiv||

    He didn't mean YOUR rights. Apparently you have the inability to think in the abstract.

    You contest that we have a rights conflict between the right to own a gun and other people's right to life.

    He is saying a given individual's right to own a gun doesn't conflict with another individual's right to life.

  • wareagle||

    And crime in London has surpassed that in New York.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pimping a gun ban again.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano hates it when it's shown he called for a gun ban.

  • KevinP||

    At the turn of the 20th century, the UK had virtually no gun control laws and very little crime. Any person could buy and carry a revolver in his pocket anywhere in the UK. The right to keep and bear arms was slowly extinguished over the 20th century while the crime rate has soared. See page 14 of this UK parliamentary report for a fascinating graph. It shows that the number of indictable offences per thousand population in 1900 was 2.4 and in 1997 the figure was 89.1 - an increase of 37-fold. Since the early 1960s, the homicide rate has more than doubled.

    UK House of Commons Library: A Century of Change: Trends in UK Statistics Since 1900 (see page 14)

  • khm001||

    Norway, Belgium, France, and Switzerland had HIGHER rates of mass shooting gun deaths and higher rates of mass shootings than the US from 2009-2015.

    Further, the UK has far FEWER blacks. The US's high black population is the only reason the US looks more violent than Europe. The US actually has a black violence problem, which you attribute to the presence of the most effective self-defense tool ever devised.

    In short, what you're doing is known as lying with statistics.

  • Tony||

    I have a right to live in a society without private ownership of assault rifles. So there.

    Don't agree? Take it up with the All-Knowing Creator of the Cosmos. He made the right.

  • Just Say'n||

    Except you don't have that right. A natural right is one in which you are naturally born with. The right to gun ownership derives from the natural right of self defense.

  • Tony||

    Lol. So is it a natural right, or a right derived from a natural right?

    My right to be free of a society with high gun proliferation extends from my natural right to life.

  • Sitting on Bull||

    Tony you got Choices, London, Paris, Havana, Pyonyang etc... pretty wide array of choices.
    You definitely have a right to move in order to find a place more to your liking. Nobody will argue with that.

  • MarkLastname||

    Does your right to live in a society without high water proliferation also follow from that right? Aren't you afraid of drowning?

    Why does your paranoid totalitarianism seem to peculiarly apply to guns, but not alcohol, sex (STDs anyone?), etc?

  • ||

    So your argument is that it's clearly justifiable under Heller to ban a category of weapons that are incredibly common and not remotely unusual?

  • ||

    No. Simply your gross misinterpretation of Heller.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    The funny thing is that Scalia has said lots of things about rulings over time. I bet Hihn disagrees with all of it.

    Even throwing the misrepresentation aside, the Appeal to Justice Scalia isn't cutting it.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Oh look, Hihn continues to link to the post where he lies and completely misrepresents the words of Justice Scalia.

    Take your meds Hihn.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The ruling you never read, bitch.
    (snort)

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "I can almost predict the bullshit responses."

    I could have actually predicted your response on this topic. It's always the same, and it's always wrong as has been pointed out by several commenters (including me) multiple times.

  • juris imprudent||

    Don't you mean

    [dons sunglasses]

    the bully-shit responses?

  • ||

    I can almost predict the bullshit responses.

    Garbage in, garbage out.

    Jar Jar Binks was a fantastic character and a well-thought-out addition to the Star Wars Universe. You can all bask in my brilliance by witnessing the idiotic responses to my irrefutable fundamental truth.

  • ||

    Behold my brilliance! My shitty nonsense arguments produced responses that I have deemed to be nothing but shitty by their mere existence. Prophecy fulfilled!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Bullshit as predicted!

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano identifies his gun control arguments.

  • Tionico||

    then by YOUR calcs, the carrying of the carpenter's standard framing hammer should be banned.. they are actually used to kill more people annually in the US than all long guns combined, of which the dreaded mythical "assault weapon" is aboit a four percent subset. SO, are not hammers "dangerous and unusual" in comparison to the Assault Weapons of the [resent fairytale?

    Now let's advance to the next part of that opinion you cite: in reference to citizens capable of military service WHO WOULD BRING THE SORTS OF LAWFUL WEAPONS THAT THEY POSSESSED AT HOME...... Americans are thought to possess at home some fifteen millions of those "assault weapons". They are lawfully possessed.
    Further, are you aware of a semiautomatic rifle available to anyone with the cash to purchase it, which rifle was capable of firing up to FORTY .69 calibre lead balls in rapid succession without reloading? They were too dear to deploy widely. But they existed during our War to kick out the British tyrants in the 1770's and 80's. Thus they were known at the time that pesky Second Article of Ammendment was drafted and ratified.

    NOW WHAT? Those two were "lawful weaspons that some possessed at home".

  • ThomasD||

    Gonna throw out my framing hammers to be safe.

    Gonna have to settle for roofing hammers instead.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano making shit up again.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

  • Cynical Asshole||

    "We don't need to repeal the Second Amendment," Renkl insists.

    Just ignore it. /sarc

  • wanfuforever||

    My life was saved by a gun. Should I be sacrificed so someone else can feel safe?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Hang on, let me ask a frightened child.

  • markm23||

    ... A frightened child with no idea which dangers are real.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Yes. For the Greater Good.

  • sarcasmic||

    "This is my rifle! This is my gun!"

  • sarcasmic||

  • sarcasmic||

    You embarrass yourself with your literal interpretation of what anyone says.

    Perhaps the concepts of sarcasm and facetiousness are beyond you.

  • FlameCCT||

    IIUC almost any type of rhetoric is beyond the limited comprehension of Hihn!

  • JuanQPublic||

    Actually, before you "educate" everyone in multiple threads about it, you may want to at least use the right word: inalienable, not "unalienable".

  • Juice||

    It's unalienable in the Declaration of Independence. They are both valid words. Just sayin'.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn't read Heller, thinks he's educating people.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I am old enough to remember when the fear was over gang violence.

    Both the media and politicians focused on gang violence. Gang violence was considered the greater threat than mass shootings.

    Time magazine even put a picture of Yummy Sandifer on the front page.

    A columnist for the Long beach Press-Telegram ran a series of columns titled "Javier's Legacy"

    and yet, somewhere along the way, gang violence ceased to be a problem. None of the politicians nor network pundits mention the problem of gang violence anymore.

    I wonder why.

  • sarcasmic||

    and yet, somewhere along the way, gang violence ceased to be a problem.

    I think the average Chicagoan would disagree.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    According to network pundits, they do not count.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Mass shootings are higher than gun violence?! Tell that to Chicago.

    Lies, it's nothing but lies all the way down.

    Take your meds Hihn.

  • ||

    3) How many mass shootings occur in the inner-city?

    Lots actually. They just don't get reported as 'mass shootings' or 'school shootings' despite having multiple victims and being between or among students and/or on the way to/from school because narratives. Dead black kids and taking guns away from urban black people (who can't own them by law) doesn't prop the narrative up and advance the progressive agenda the same way as taking guns from rural white folk who just want people and the government to leave them alone.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    How many of those people are aware that gun control laws are more likely to be enforced against urban black people instead of rural white folk?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I try to bring up that point all the time.

    I saw what Giuliani's gun crack down looked like. It was not pretty for low income and minority neighborhoods.

  • Tionico||

    this phenominon is of a piece with the one for which the Broward County schools were awarded a $54Mn cash bonus of FedBux because they reduded their "arrest rates" for school age thugs..... by simply NOT INDICTING THEM when tjhey committed gross misdemeanours or felonies. Our recent hit kid, the Parkland shooter, had THREE such incidents in his recent past that were ignored. ANY ONE of those three, had they been reported to NICS< would have disquaoified him buying his ten rifles that he owned.
    Same thing happened to the "gang violence issue" of a few years ago. Nothing has changed, other than the number of such incidents being reported. I've seen some frightening video of vicious gangs of ______ youths descending upon parks, convenience stores, etc, destroying, beating, at times even killing, innocents because they happen to be there and be __________ (colour) That problem is not diminished over the past ten years. And the Modern Sporting RIfle is pluperfectly suited for such urban warfare. For that application, however, the standard capacity magazines are an absolute MUST. When fifty maruauders descent on a place, ten rounds just is not a sufficient response.

  • FlameCCT||

    Firearm deaths:
    1. Suicide
    2. Gang violence
    3. Mental illness

  • junyo||

    ""We don't need to repeal the Second Amendment," Renkl insists. According to the headline over her essay, criminalizing possession of all firearms except single-shot weapons and revolvers represents "a middle ground on guns.""

    Presumably this would make here head explode. Or the fact that a single shot, break action shotgun will do a world of carnage in a world of deliberately soft targets. Or the fact that semi-auto firearms aren't actually that hard to manufacture, so effectively what she's saying is, 'I'd like to give organized crime another revenue stream, while penalizing lots of people who's politics I dislike, and fuckall about the actual issue I claim is important.'

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Not your Constitution, Hihn.

  • Tionico||

    too many dreams for one afternoon. You are beyond your quota of false claims. Yur quotes are misinterpreted. Go back and REREAD them again, this time for CONTENT>

  • VinniUSMC||

    Anyone who checks your links, and actually reads them, will see that you lie about what they actually say.

    Take your meds Hihn.

  • Marshall Gill||

    No! I would prefer that he doesn't take his meds. While I still think it likely that he is simply Mary Stack, whatever it is, it is some funny stuff! Especially when someone agrees with it! It still trashes them, just like the mentally ill Mary would. Calls people names and then accuses them of name calling!

    I literally only come here for the Hihn. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that he was a sock puppet of Nick, just to keep up the web hits. Can a human being really be so intellectually contradictory? Hihn tests the theory of "peak Derp". If one really held the beliefs that it claims, wouldn't they have already drank bleach or tried to gouge their own eyes out?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano lies about Heller, thinks he has proof.

  • junyo||

    I accept what it plainly says, and not your batshit interpretation of what some robed asshole thinks.

  • Morbo||

    Or the fact that semi-auto firearms aren't actually that hard to manufacture,

    True enough, but they're actually significantly more difficult to manufacture than a full-auto submachine gun.

    The sear arrangement on a simple sub gun is extremely simple, and you can make one in just about any modestly equipped machine shop.

  • Morbo||

    They've been turning up fairly often in Australia. It doesn't happen here because there isn't really a market for it, because there's plenty of more easily obtainable guns.

    Ban the more easily obtainable guns, and the things that replace them will be either military-grade stuff from south of the border or stuff that is easily turned out in small shops, and it happens that sub guns are among the easiest to make.

    This is pretty simple black market economics 101. Thinking you can ban something that is high in demand and make it stick is the same idiotic thinking that's lead to the moronic war on drugs that never ends. At least with drugs you can use dogs to find the stuff. A pile of gun parts mixed into a pile of random bits of scrap metal or non-gun machine parts would be damn near impossible to detect. It doesn't smell any different from any other piece of metal and won't show up on x-rays if its jumbled together with a bunch of other metal.

  • FlameCCT||

    Especially the old M-79 breakaways. Those 40mm shells held a whole lot of whoop ass!

    Although IIUC 40mm is no longer allowed so modern variants use a slightly smaller shell in the 36mm to 37mm range!

  • Tony||

    You guys can be such cynical dweebs sometimes. We aren't tasked with only solving the most important problems. Though it would be nice if we paid attention to those more--you're also against doing that, right?

    People are emotional beings. If we were all logical technocrats, politics would be barely necessary. This country has a major gun violence program. If white suburban kids getting slaughtered, however rare an occurrence, is what galvanizes public support for important reforms, so be it. God knows "inner city" violence isn't doing it. And I wonder why.

  • Just Say'n||

    And yet the "solutions" you support would solve nothing

  • Tony||

    Putting all gun owners in camps wouldn't work?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Who's going to do that? Other people with guns?

    It just highlights the hypocrisy.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano shows his reading comprehension is negligible.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Among TrickyVic's non-stop hysteria is an even crazier version.""

    Infantile bullying

  • Tionico||

    all hundred ten million of us? And just WHO has the balls AND firepower to DO that? Then KEEPus there? And what will happen when the low hanging fruit is gathered and interned in your camps..... leaving the harder to identify/locate gun owners? Who by then will be of much the same mood as Captain Parker's men after eight of their fellow townsmen were killed when the =Brits opened fire upon them at Lexington back on that April 1775 morning? After burying their own dead, and seeing to the security of their families, they set out to take up a strong position along the COncord road for the certain to be returning Redcoats as they would be returning to Boston whence they came the evening before. Those fifty or so men were responsible for taking out quite a number of Gage's officers and even more footsoldiers, grenadiers, Hessians...... a devastating loss for Gage's command, and not one of Parker's men was touched. Had the colonials persued all the way to Boston there would have been none left to bid General Thomas W Gage "good evening Sir" upon their return. Such a response is certain should disarmament or incarceration be attempted. HOW LONG will the government employees continue their "service" with no paychecks forthcoming? My guess.. less than one month, and certainly less than two weeks.

  • JuanQPublic||

    People are emotional beings.

    Not sure why that's relevant, rather matter of fact. All mammals are emotional beings on some level. Humans are unique in that we are capable of reason and far higher, more refined conceptual thinking.

    Embracing emotion as an important way to approach social problems is primitive.

  • Tony||

    Tell it to the people who sell all of their policies on fear of brown people.

  • Brian||

    Do they have guns?

  • JuanQPublic||

    You're deflecting.

    But while on the subject, yes, selling fear of "brown people" is just as intellectually vacant as the gun control example.

  • MarkLastname||

    Leftists telling us we need gun control or else dangerous minorities will shoot us in our homes? Leftists that want SWAT teams to raid house after house in poor black neighborhoods looking for illegal guns?

  • Agammamon||

    Leftist who might just be on the shortlist for the next DNC presidential candidacy lamenting that the end of the WoD will remove an 'important tool' allowing cops the harrass minorities.

  • Agammamon||

    The Democrats then.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Will you please do the world a favor and throw yourself in front of a speeding train, you fucking retarded pile of shit.

  • MarkLastname||

    Inner-City violence isn't doing it because it only goes to demonstrate how ineffective gun control is in violent inner-cities.

    It's nice to see you admit, if only tacitly, that you're ok with fomenting mass hysteria to achieve your favored policy goals (which, strangely, aren't really justified without the mass hysteria).

  • Agammamon||

    Tony, you have *consitently* supported the very policies and the people pushing the policies that have directly lead to the very 'gin violence' that you now claim to deplore.

    You're taking a problem caused by government and using it as justification for *more* government.

    Again.

  • ||

    If we were all logical technocrats, politics would be barely necessary.

    What do you mean 'if'?

  • JuanQPublic||

    Quotes from the NYT piece:

    "[The sign] read, 'Am I next?' For just a second, I couldn't breathe."

    "His words turned my heart to ice."

    Until the discussion moves from raw emotion to rational, mature, adult conversation based in non-misleading statistics, it's hard to imagine anything good coming out of this (like many other issues).

  • zombietimeshare||

    "Stinging insects kill more Americans than mass shooters do."

    Stinging insects must be banned, especially scary looking insects whose stingers are fully automatic.

  • Juice||

    The bombardier beetle is right out!

  • hardcorps||

    I mean, who wants to get stung right?

  • Ein Vogel-frei||

    a) whether gun deaths are rising or dropping, it is still rational to try to decrease them.
    b) a certain amount or type of gun control is constitutionally permissible. bazookas are banned, machine guns are banned, for personal use. There are numerous cases, some of which the Supreme Court has reviewed and declined to take up, of limited, specific gun control laws being found constitutionally permitted.

    as long as there remain so many alternatives, that you can say "the right to bear arms" has not been infringed, there are still many many ways for the individual to exercise that right, then a specific, limited law about bumpstocks, large magazines, "assault rifles" can again be found to be constitutionally acceptable.

    Which leads to a couple conclusions:
    - some states are GOING TO pass such laws; and therefore
    - those who are pro-2A and anti-crime should try to negotiate compromises, so as a society we get something in exchange for the limited gun control being passed.
    - such as: school security, armed staff etc.. border control. stop'n'frisk. stronger gun crime sentences. guarantees of no-registration/tracking of legal citizens' gun ownership. broader stand-your-ground laws.

    Let's be part of the solution, and not let this situation go to waste from our side of the table either!

  • JuanQPublic||

    The problem with this is that the ideas above are presented as solutions. But they aren't solutions. They are psychologically satisfying ideas, for some people.

    - "Stop and frisk" is constitutionally a no-go, and probable cause already provides the parameters for that.

    - "Stronger gun crime sentences" are application of arbitrary law.

    - "Broader stand your ground laws"... Broader? Stand your ground laws are already far too broad, and have nothing to do with effective self defense, which is already legal.

    - "Border control" has absolutely nothing to do with the thrust of this issue, at all.

  • zombietimeshare||

    "- those who are pro-2A and anti-crime should try to negotiate compromises, so as a society we get something in exchange for the limited gun control being passed."

    "When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile."
    Delany Tarr, speaker at the latest student March for Gun Control

    That is the mindset of those with whom you would presume to compromise.

    --

    First, "assault rifles" is a made up term.

    Second, fully-automatic firearms (e.g., "machine guns") have been Federally legal to own forever if you jump through the hoops outlined in the National Firearms Acts of 1934, and it's legal in your state. The only thing that the 1986 law changed was that the public could only buy machine guns manufactured before Nov 1986. There are a lot of restrictions, it isn't quick, and it isn't cheap, but it is possible to do it legally.

    Finally, a bazooka is a problem as it constitutes a rocket propelled explosive. It isn't a firearm—though it would be fun.

  • James Pollock||

    "First, 'assault rifles' is a made up term."

    Er, yeah, in the sense that ALL terms are made up. It's used as shorthand for "guns that are broadly legal at present, that are designed to be particularly useful in mass shootings." Yes, the array of features that are covered by various definitions of "assault weapons" or "assault rifles" are largely unconnected to each other, and most of the features, in and of themselves, fail to define a unique category.

    Not all "fully-automatic firearms" are legal. Some examples that are not... the M61A1 and the GAU-8. Outside of manufacturers in the military supply chain, these weapons are not found in civilian hands. To use a line that gun-control advocates like to use, you don't use these weapons for hunting deer.

  • Tionico||

    IUn how many of the emotion-provoking "mass shootings" have bump stocks been used? One. How about people who used guns they bought "legally" but per existing laws should NOT have been able to so dp.. specifically, Parkland school (three felonies in the punk's recent past were NOT treated as the felonies they ARE.. thus NICS did not have the record of them, so could not deny his ten gun purchases. Or the Sutherland S
    prings church shooter iTexas,, some USAF desk jockey failed to forward the three disqualifying events in this guy's history, again, NICS could not prohibit HIS gun purchase because... the disquaifying info was not in the database How bout Sandy Hook school? No backgorund check needed when you murder your own Mother to steal HER guns.. Columbine, the thugs arranged straw purchases, full felonies for the ones who provided the guns. Aurura Theatre shooting, he was known for mental instability, counsellors were TRYING to get treatment, government were deaf.
    Further, 98% + of all mass shooters in the 20th and 21st centuries were, or had recently stopped, taking SSRI's or other pyschoactive drugs. THIS is not being addressed.
    IF all existing laws were observed, NONE of these shooters could have gotten their guns legally. So WHY do you insist on taking MY guns, which have never harmed anyone? Or telling me what I can/cannot own?

  • Agammamon||

    Actually, then answer is zero. Bump stocks have been used I zero mass shootings.

    They were present on some of the weapons seized but not used.

  • Agammamon||

    A) does not follow.

    The COST to reduce needs to always be factored in. And once factored in it can make if absolutely not make sense to continue to spend resources for increased reduction.

    Diminishing returns

  • Agammamon||

    You're listing stopandfrisk as something we get in exchange for *yet more* compromise?

    No thank you.

  • Rockabilly||

    But like isn't Trump totally like Hitler, so wouldn't people want weapons to protect themselves against Trump, who is totally like Hitler?

    This makes no sense - or rather it makes communist sense;

    it better that goobermint control the weapons so you can't fight back against Trump who is totally like Hitler, because it's better that the crazed and the criminals don't have weapons to kill illegally

  • Migrant||

    Sullum, in his eagerness to fight for the social benefits of facilitating mass slaughter, dismisses tens of thousands of suicide by gun as a mere distraction. But let that pass - his omissions are even more creepy. Having not listened with the ears of a normal human being to the young people who, unlike him, are at the business end of the gun slaughter and who experience the unforgettable images of their peers fleeing for their lives or reduced to heaps of gore and meat, Sullum somehow fails to notice that practising lock down drill is now core curriculum for American children. Perhaps he hasn't seen the sort of helpful guide for parents about these drills. In countries where NO children have to do this they spend their time learning useful stuff instead of worrying about being massacred in the maths class. Perhaps his monumental smugness about the odds of lightning strikes etc might seem a tad out of place were he to actually try to imagine a society where the President does not feel the need to speculate about training thousands of teachers how to shoot intruders without killing their colleagues or the children in their care?

  • MarkLastname||

    Needs more references to women and minorities (and lgbtqxyz) but otherwise good.

  • Tionico||

    take away ALL guns, or most of them as in Canada, suicides still happen, but by other means. Don't twist stats to lie. Further, WHO are these mass killers? Most of them are... young people. Twenties and under. A few in 30's. Rarely above that. How's about those peers that are "under slaughter" start being proactive when THEY KNOW some kid liike the Parkland loonie are a clear and present danger? Instead, like that one "chick", they persist in taunting, provoking. teasing, destroying kids like this Parkland shooter..... and then are surprised and amazed that "he would DO such a thing". Don't be stoopid, kids.... poke a stick at the hornet's nest, don't be surprised when they sting you.......

    I grew up with fire, earthquake, and atom bomb attack drills. We were all aware there was some danger, wanted to be prepared to deal with it and survive. =But none of us wet our pants, went on to be mature and responsible adults. No one tried in instill fear and panic into our vulnerable little hearts. Not like today, where media and politicians get all emotional and irratioinal and stir the dainty little things up to wet their pants.

  • Tionico||

    Children in school are the ONLY asset we have that is NOT routinely protected by armed individuals from harm or taking. WHY is this? Money, drugs, records, merchandise. jewelry, the guns in the gun store... all protected by armed individuals. WHY IS IT that these mass killings all take place in Certified Disarmed Victim Zones? Of COURSE.. let adults who are already at the schools prepare themselves, then carry their own weapons upon their persons at school, just like they carry them everwhereelse BUT the schools........ Learn about Ohio's FASTER programme.... AND how it is working. AND what it costs taxpayers.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Roughly 2.5 times the number of people are killed by alcohol-related causes as by firearm-related causes. Are you going to call for a repeal of the 21st Amendment, shitlib?

  • MarkLastname||

    The editorial page of the New York Times is a reliable fountain of concentrated stupidity.

  • rhkennerly||

    Unconstitutional? In Heller the gun fetishist's favorite Associate Justice Scalia made a point of highlighting where, when & which parts of his Majority report were wide open to regulation. No right in the Constitution is "unalloyed," and subject to time, place & conditions (famously the falsely yelling fire example.) He also commented on how few modern cases there were and invited more tests of the 2nd amendment.

    Hiller, which Scalia cited favorably, outlawed machine guns, sawed off shotguns & such, even though the only people threatened by those weapons in the 1930s were the patrons of speakeasy & banks. The public still has the right to negotiate the weapons they will tolerate in their midst.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Heller was the decision Scalia wrote, you dumbass. And your entire gun control foundation rests on Cruikshank, which overturned the convictions of a white mob that assaulted and killed black men who were armed in self-defense.

    (famously the falsely yelling fire example.)

    This was used to throw war protestors in jail. You shitlibs can't even keep your narratives straight.

  • DesparateReasoning||

    On the plus side, we've been hearing for years how anti-gunners don't really want to do away with the 2nd Amendment...now the first time they get some real steam, they stop hiding behind that lie. I think the resulting whiplash is going to be crushing once it happens.

  • shawn_dude||

    It's not a lie. Just as there are 2A supporters that think they can constitutionally own any "arm" in existence (like a nuke or a tank) there are people who think think any weapon at all is bad. But those are the extremes. If you focus on the extremes in order to argue your side, you're not really doing that in good faith, are you?

    Plenty of us folks that support the 2A and gun regulations at the same time.

  • JeremyR||

    In the hands of a competent user, revolvers can fire really fast. The record for 12 shots from a revolver is like 2 1/2 seconds.

    And for sustained shooting, they are much better. I can plug away 18-24 rounds a minute for hours with a revolver, while with a semi-automatic you constantly have to stop for a minute or two to reload the magazine.

  • shawn_dude||

    I've never fired a revolver--only clip-style semi-automatic handguns. So, just out of curiosity... how do you reload a 6-shooter such that it can shoot 24 rounds a minute?

  • markm23||

    You use 4 speed loaders or moon clips a minute. Swing the cylinder out and load 6 rounds at once. I doubt you could reach the same sustained rate of fire as a man with a Glock and a bandolier full of 16-round magazines, but with enough speedloaders I think most people could learn to exceed 18 aimed rounds per minute until the revolver jammed from overheating.

    But that's more speed loaders or magazines than most shooters can afford. Once you run out of the pre-loaded ammo, your rate of fire is going to slow down - but contrary to Jeremy, you'll reload magazines from stripper clips much faster than handling single rounds to refill a revolver or speed-loader. For how fast stripper clips can go, look up the "mad minute" exercise the British used to perform with a SMLE before WWI - soldiers were required to get 15 hits on targets in one minute with a bolt action rifle with one fixed 10 round magazine, and their best men could exceed 30.

  • James Pollock||

    So, in your example, the revolver-user gets to use a reloader, but the semi-automatic user doesn't get to carry any spare magazines? Sounds fair. Surely nobody who wanted to carry out a mass shooting would think of preloading their extra ammunition into spare magazines, and bringing the spare magazines along.

    Besides, a REAL man uses a belt-fed.

  • Jacks61||

    It's only irrational if you are a Senior Editor, sitting at a desk somewhere that isn't school. While I don't believe there needs to be any "control" per se, or take peoples guns away, there MUST BE Gun Responsibility. I grew up in gun country. When kids disagreed, someone got punched in the nose, and it was OVER. Adults disagreed, someone gets punched in the mouth, it's OVER.

    Not now, oh hell no. Lose a fight or to chicken shit to defend yourself, go get daddy's gun, bang bang. It's a culture change. Stop giving these little turds ONE second of publicity. Hold adults responsible for gun ownership. It's a right that comes with a responsibility that must be taken as seriously as a third heart attack.

    Enough with the bullhsit from both sides.

  • ||

    If the Constitution protects gun ownership the Constitution needs to be changed, or replaced.

    In civilized countries even conservatives ask, "Why would anyone want to own a gun?"

  • ||

    If the Constitution protects gun ownership the Constitution needs to be changed, or replaced.

    This doesn't end the way you want it to end.

    In civilized countries even conservatives ask, "Why would anyone want to own a gun?"

    In civilized countries even liberals are compelled to serve in the military against their will too, which is more of an morally treasonous conundrum than conservatives choosing to give up modern arms.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    In civilized countries even conservatives ask, "Why would anyone want to own a gun?"

    There are plenty of gun owners in "civilized countries", you moron. Unless you want to argue that third-world African and Central American countries really are shitholes.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""In civilized countries even conservatives ask, "Why would anyone want to own a gun?""'

    To kick the Germans out?

  • Marshall Gill||

    "Why would anyone want to own a gun"

    While I realize that you are an imbecile it is called "equality".

    God, or nature if you prefer, made man. Samuel Colt made men equal. Your willingness to disarm my grandmother is noted. Go fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw.

  • shawn_dude||

    "Why would anyone want to own a gun?"

    You're trolling, right? I mean, isn't this obvious? In civilized countries, like Canada, people own guns and understand why someone might want one.

    - Hunting
    - Self defense
    - Target shooting/recreation

    That's why.

  • TxJack 112||

    The problem with idiots like this is they have no clue what they are actually trying to "ban". She says a ban on semi automatic weapons which, like Chelsea Handler, only shows she has no clue what the term actually means. Both think it refers to AR style rifles only, which we all know is not true. They all seem to think their irrational fear of guns supersedes my right to self defense. They do not understand they do not get to decide how I defend myself. More important, since she chose to use traffic accidents as a comparison, do we try to strip everyone of their right to own and use a car because people knowingly violate the law and drive drunk? Do we bitch and scream when people with suspended licenses are caught driving or have accidents? Why when the item used is a gun do progressives seek to punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty, especially when the guilty are so few? Far more people in this country drive drunk that commit mass shootings. People such as this columnist do not add anything to the debate except more misinformation and hysteria. Sadly, the old saying is still true,,,, you cannot fix stupid.

  • shawn_dude||

    I'm former military. Marksmanship ribbon. Dad was a hunter and owned weapons until the day he died. I'm also in favor of gun regulations that limit the weapons we can own. I'm guessing you're including me in "they all" but there are a lot more of "me" than you may realize--people in favor of regulating guns but not outright banning them.

    1. "We" do get to decide how you defend yourself. You can't go buy a bazooka, right? "We" decided that. It's also constitutional.

    2. When people drink and drive "We" strip them of their right to drive. (Maybe you didn't consider your example too closely when you came up with it?) "We" also limit the types of vehicles people can drive on the roads. "We" require education and testing in the use of vehicles before you can drive one. "We" require retesting throughout your life. "We" have a universal registration system for identifying legal drivers. "We" bitch and scream (and jail) people who drive with suspended licenses.

    3. Cars are tools for transportation. Guns are tools for killing.

    4. People who advocate for no limits on guns (may I say "You" here?) have an irrational fear of gun regulations. "You" think universal background checks and registration of firearms equals confiscation. When "We" mention background checks, "You" hear "take away your guns." They are not the same thing.

    5. The majority of the "misinformation and hysteria" seems to be coming from "You."

  • Fmontyr||

    Thanks, for a common sense message.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    When people drink and drive "We" strip them of their right to drive.

    We continue to allow them to buy alcohol, though, don't we?

    "We" also limit the types of vehicles people can drive on the roads. "We" require education and testing in the use of vehicles before you can drive one. "We" require retesting throughout your life.

    Laying this out was your stupidest move. I'd LOVE to treat guns EXACTLY like we do cars. Get a license, registration, and insurance to own a firearm? Sure! In exchange, I can buy any gun I want, across state lines, without a background check. The license is a simple operator's test (for example, what the military uses, which I've passed with flying colors on both rifle and handgun), is SHALL ISSUE, and is reciprocal in every state. The renewal test is a simple eye exam (you flat-out lied that "retesting through your life" is required).

    Yes, let's treat guns EXACTLY like we do automobiles. PLEASE.

  • Fmontyr||

    OK, so I'm black and afraid to open carry an assault-style rifle for fear of being shot by some cop of some white privilege dude. I'm obeying the law, but they aren't. Saying "enforce the existing laws" ain't going to save my ass. It's time to REPEAL the 2nd ADMENTMENT! Jake boy, you are certainly screwed-up.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    OK, so I'm black and afraid to open carry an assault-style rifle for fear of being shot by some cop of some white privilege dude.

    Thank the Cruikshank decision for that, the foundation upon which every gun control law is based.

  • shawn_dude||

    As I recall, the NRA *supported* the assault weapons ban in the 80s. Largely because white people were worried about black civil rights groups arming themselves.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Largely because white people were worried about black civil rights groups arming themselves.

    Making shit up again, shawn?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano desperately wants that gun ban, resorts to lying that Cruikshank was overturned by Miller instead of reaffirmed by it (because he's too fucking stupid to read what he's citing).

  • KevinP||

    Huey P. Newton Gun Club leads open-carry rally in South Dallas [and nothing happens]


    Quote:
    Two dozen protesters — most of them armed — from a gun club named after the founder of the original Black Panther Party peacefully marched through parts of South Dallas on Wednesday.

    The open-carry rally was organized by the Huey P. Newton Gun Club to promote self-defense and community policing in response to recent police shootings, both nationally and locally.

    "We think that all black people have the right to self-defense and self-determination," said Huey Freeman, a march organizer. "We believe that we can police ourselves and bring security to our own communities."
  • shawn_dude||

    "Irrational Fear of Mass Shootings Can't Justify Unconstitutional Gun Control"

    Irrational fear of mass gun confiscation doesn't justify opposing reasonable regulations on guns, either.

    The 2A crowd interprets any sort of regulation, like registration, as a slipper slope to confiscation and thus "unconstitutional." Until that changes, and until places like Reason.com can have a rational discussion on gun control--which would first require that they admit most gun control advocates are not in favor of confiscation--this will never get resolved amicably.

    And, given that this issue is nearly as useful propaganda to drive conservative angsts as gay marriage and abortion, I'm pretty sure the 2A crowd will never have an adult conversation regarding gun regulations.

  • James Pollock||

    It's catch 22.

    You can say that "gun control" just means keeping guns away from people who shouldn't have them, while leaving the people who are safe and responsible alone, but, well... paranoia is a mental illness, and we keep suggesting that mental illness might be a justification for limiting firearm possession. So the paranoids are kind of right, in a self-fulfilling-prophecy sort of way.

  • Fmontyr||

    Police shoot and kill over 900 persons a year. Proportionately more unarmed black Americans are killed by cops than others. Some are just behaving erratically due to mental illness. The extent to which cops are prosecuted for unwarranted killings is quite low. Police in other countries shoot far fewer percentagewise and patrol unarmed in a number of the intelligent nations.

    The libertarian Cato Institute, said the Supreme Court's support for qualified police immunity helped "create a policy of near-zero accountability for law enforcement." The organization's vice president, Clark Neily, told the Los Angeles Times on Monday: "Today's ruling gives yet another green light to officers who use deadly force as a tool of first resort instead of last."

    This among many other reasons is why the US has the greatest number of gun deaths by far among the highly developed nations, yet Jacob Sullum finds that our nation's gun violence is trivial. Therefore, to amend or repeal the 2nd Amendment is totally unnecessary. In effect, he is saying that he endorses gun violence. Jake has a sanctity of life blind spot.

  • Fmontyr||

    From my local police department:

    "It has been found that there is a gun in approximately one in three U.S. households with children.[1] Further, every day seven children and teens (ages 0-19) die from gun violence, either from murder or suicide.[2] Unintentional shootings cause a number of firearm-related deaths among children and "an underestimation of children's ability to gain access to a firearm in the home is a common problem."[3]"

    Whoopee! We are the nation with the greatest amount gun violence among the intelligent nations. So what if roughly 2600 children and teens die each year. Whoopee! According to the wisdom of Jake Sullum, no action needs to be taken for AMENDING or REPEALING the 2nd AMENDMENT.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Maybe you should talk to your fellow black people about shooting each other so much. Take away black and Hispanic gang members plugging each other, and gun violence drops to European levels.

  • ranrod||

    If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about. The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarcy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand!

    In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, "You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

    The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."

  • James Pollock||

    "Irrational Fear of Mass Shootings Can't Justify Unconstitutional Gun Control"

    That depends entirely on just how far the irrational fear spreads. Irrational fear can, and has, been used to restrict the freedom of Americans before... WITH US Supreme Court acquiescence. See, e.g, Korematsu.

  • khm001||

    The other component in all of this is that if these guys are so worried about safety in public schools, this is just another example of the failure of government and yet another argument to privatize schools.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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