MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

California's 'Reasonable Regulation' of Guns Did Not Stop the Thousand Oaks Shooting

The state has some of the nation's strictest firearm laws.

GlockGlockEarly this morning, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof tweeted about last night's mass shooting at a bar in Thousand Oaks, California, saying, "These kinds of incidents don't happen in normal countries where there is some reasonable regulation of firearms, starting with universal background checks." Yet California already requires background checks for all gun buyers, even when the transaction would be exempt from that requirement under federal law. In any case, ABC News reports that the gun used in the attack, a .45-caliber Glock 21 pistol, was "legally purchased," which means the perpetrator did not have a disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record, as is typically true of mass shooters.

Another firearm regulation that many people consider reasonable (although Kristof himself has his doubts) is a ban on so-called assault weapons, which is doubly irrelevant in this case, since California already has such a law and the gun the perpetrator used is not covered by it. Nor would the Glock 21 be covered by any other state's "assault weapon" law or by the proposed federal ban. The fact that the attacker managed to quickly murder 12 people with an ordinary handgun shows how misplaced the focus on military-style rifles is. Handguns are by far the most common firearms used in crimes, including mass shootings. They are also the most common firearms used for self-defense, as the Supreme Court has recognized.

Police have not said exactly how big the magazine used in the attack was, but they described it as "extended," meaning it could hold more than 10 rounds and would therefore be covered by California's ban on the sale or possession of "high capacity magazines." Although Fox News calls the magazine "illegal," enforcement of the possession ban has been temporarily blocked by the federal courts. In practice that does not really matter in this context, since millions of such magazines are already in circulation and it seems unlikely that someone planning a mass murder would be moved to turn his over to police so as not to run afoul of the law.

In any event, it is by no means clear that the need to switch magazines after firing 10 rounds would make an important difference in attacks on unarmed people. As The New York Times recently pointed out, magazines "can be swapped out quickly."

California has a bunch of other gun regulations, including a highly restrictive carry permit policy, a 10-day waiting period for gun purchases, a requirement that ammunition be purchased only from federally licensed dealers, and a "red flag" law that lets police and a long list of relatives and associates seek court orders barring people deemed a danger to themselves or others from owning guns. These rules may or may not be "reasonable," but they manifestly did not prevent this crime. Nor are they likely to prevent other mass shootings, notwithstanding Kristof's confidence that passing the right law can solve this problem.

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.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Obviously we need stricter laws.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Also known as "if you haven't reached the bottom of the hole yet, keep digging."

  • End Child Unemployment||

    You're doing it wrong, you need to dig up!

  • ||

    The standard thing is to blame a lack of national gun control laws. The idea being all the guns in CA are being smuggled in from states that don't have sufficient gun control.

  • Just Say'n||

    True. It's a real persuasive argument because Indiana funnels guns to Chicago and their crime rate is comparable to Indianapolis

    /sarc

  • ||

    Don't even get me started on the Mad Max hellscape that is Arizona!

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    But Arizona was a Mad Max hellscape long before the invention of the gun.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    Were you the Feral Kid?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Nope. A good tip off is that the Feral Kid never has a scene where he eats several dozen delicious tortilla, fresh from Tortilla's Don Juan, the best tortilleria in Tucson.

    Man, can't wait to visit home tomorrow. I'm in NYC right now. Just want to gooooooo.

  • Agammamon||

    South Tucson represent! I lived there too in the early 80's.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Indiana used to funnel corn sugar into Chicago, and dead gangsters constantly turned up at Hammond on the Indiana side--the three in the De Niro movie, when Capone was in Florida. The corn sugar flowed into stills and breweries in East Chicago, which likewise kept the coroner busy. Oh wait! Beer and sush were a felony in both states. Nevermind. NO WAY was the 18th Amendment ever going to be repealed!

  • Bubba Jones||

    Yes. Obviously he circumvented the California ban on magazines > 10 rounds. This was only possible because Arizona failed to comply.

  • pro bonobo||

    The California ban on magazines larger than 10 has been on hold... thank Zarquon for a Federal judge applying Scalia's test from Heller.

    There was an order from the same judge recently keeping the stay on the large mag ban on 2A grounds and the out of state ammo purchase ban on interstate commerce clause grounds.

  • flyfishnevada||

    Arizona will comply with Cali's gun bans when California complies with Arizona's pot laws. Fair is fair, right? What is this, some kind of federal republic or something?

  • Reason Really||

    How are you on a site devoted to reason?

  • soldiermedic76||

    Remember when Bloomberg sent undercover investigators to Virginia to illegally purchase firearms (to prove how easy it was)?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    Then blame international gun control laws because the Mexican mafia will supply the country with guns they manufacturer in Mexico. And then we can invade Mexico because they don't let the UN inspectors in to look for the WMDs. Pussy hat protests against the Mexico war to follow.

  • ||

    My understanding is that Mexico has very strict gun control laws, so that can't be the problem.

  • dchang0||

    Agreed. But these gun control freaks fail to recognize that guns can be smuggled in from outside the USA.

    The same logistics that can get drugs in from Mexico can get full-auto rifles from Central and South America.

    And if all guns were completely banned in the USA, the drug cartels would set up illegal gunsmitheries across the USA just like they set up illegal meth labs.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    AZ and CA have similar homicide rates. Go figure.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    Another fun fact. Phoenix has the least restrictive gun laws of any major city. Our homicide rate is 1/3 that of Chicago.

    I guess cold weather causes crime.

  • IceTrey||

    Vermont has no gun laws at all and has less than 10 gun murders a year.

  • CLM1227||

    It's also super frickin white - something it has (had) in common with all those European countries with no murder and no guns (changing).

  • CLM1227||

    And I can't read.
    Vermont has no gun laws? No way!

    I'm moving there.

  • Reason Really||

    Super fricken white? So were the shooters in Ventura county, Charleston, Las Vegas and most large scale mass shootings in the USA, you thoughtless, REASONless twit.

  • UncleSam13||

    Because a mass shooting by a minority is a day ending in y. No one cares if four gang meets are killeda drive by. But that would be a mass shooting.

  • Longtobefree||

    That is because there are only 10 days a year it is warm enough to go outside.

  • Tionico||

    but THIS GUY"S Glock was purchased IN California in full compliance with all their stooopud laws. Dey dinn wurk......

    We have not heard yet a definitive answer to the question" DID this guy have his Mother May I Card, and if so, from which county?

    My guess.. he did not. Ventura County is pretty restricted in that regard.

    that means he broke two more laws... transported that handgun loaded in a car, and carried it concealed upon his person..... at least as he walked into the bar.

  • dchang0||

    He broke a bunch more laws:

    1) modified magazine to increase capacity (illegal if he started with a 10rd magazine)
    2) discharging firearm within city limits
    3) open carry of loaded firearm (when he drew the firearm)
    4) assault with firearm
    5) murder 1 (for some reason the gun control freaks overlook the fact that criminals do not obey the ban on murder, yet they think common-sense gun laws will magically be obeyed)
    6) cannot CCW in place that serves alcohol (technically this applies to permitted CCW, so let's count this as a double-strike b/c he didn't have a CCW permit in the first place; i.e. if he did have a legal CCW, he just broke the CCW law)
    7) cannot CCW while wearing mask to conceal identity (technically applies to permitted CCW)

    I'm sure there are more, since Calif. has so many damned gun control laws.

  • Al Bendova||

    Hmmm...murder is illegal. Maybe Cal. should put up some signs.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Signs and words in pieces of paper always stop crimes. It's a proven fact. Just look at the south side of Chicago if you need any proof.

  • kevrob||

    Except that having some "gun privileges" - I would hesitate to call them rights - to further restrict gives the "progressives" something to raise money about, organize and motivate GOTV operations, the proponents of laws restricting guns would ban them completely, if it were as easy as snapping their fingers. Since it isn't, and Amendment 2 and SCOTUS opinions such as Heller stand in their way, they have to pretend to be in favor of "responsible gun ownership." That allows them to convince the squishes in the middle of the issue to join their beknighted crusade. The worse thing for the "anti-gun" crowd, politically, would be a Second Amendment repeal and an Australian style confiscation. They'd have to get a new hobbyhorse. People have predicted SCOTUS upholding 2A would have been the worst for the NRA, but the restrictionists will not stop, no matter what the courts say, and SCOTUS left a lot of room for "reasonable regulation." (sic)

  • ||

    They'd have to get a new hobbyhorse.

    If there's one thing the left is known for it's not a shortage of hobbyhorses.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Why? I. England they just decided to go after fake guns, multi-tools, kitchen knives, screwdrivers etc.

  • dchang0||

    The best part about the UK knife crime epidemic is that the gangs are using homemade machetes made from barstock.

    There's absolutely no way to stop the sale of steel raw materials and bench grinders or whetstones.

    And it's not like zip guns are hard to make from common hardware store goods.

  • Tionico||

    The best steel for blades comes from leaf springs, as fitted to mostly rear suspensions of large cars and most trucks. That particular alloy, spring steel, holds an edge VERY well. Also cheap, often free.

  • Merl3noir||

    Large Cars and trucks, especially those with Leaf Springs are rare in England. The Ford Mustang has only recently been sold in England. Camaros sell in double digit volumes annually. A massively big truck that will get you frowned upon is a Ford Ranger. While tracking down an old leaf spring in England would be possible, and not raise any suspicions, it would not be as easily found as it is in the US.

  • SunkCost||

    Britian's homicide rate is 1/5th of ours...

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    There are a lot more differences between the US and the UK than just our gun laws, so that doesn't really mean that much for the gun control debate.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Britain only counts homocides that are accompanied by criminal convictions for said crime. The FBI does not compile homo ideas stats in that manner. So the numbers are not comparable.

  • Tionico||

    and don't forget bats.. cricket ,and baseball. First big round of knife attacks a few years back, gummit discovered hat people had suddenly bought SIX THOUSAND new bats.... so promptly outlaws all sales ot them.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Wouldn't it be easier to just outlaw any self-defence? If someone comes at you with a knife over there, you're expected to just stand still and keep your hands at your sides. Don't yell too loudly either, as that might frighten the poor attacker, right? The only thing you are allowed to do is phone for help from the police.

    What's that old saying? "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

  • soldiermedic76||

    Actually, self defense bis pretty much outlawed. Men have been imprisoned for using weapons against burglars, women have been imprisoned for using a weapon to defend themselves from rapists. And it's not just England, in Denmark a young lady was imprisoned for using pepper spray to fend off a group of men trying to rape her.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Victims of shootings cannot defend themselves when the state restricts guns.

    Its partly why there is a 2nd Amendment, so people can defend themselves.
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I disagree. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the Feds from disarming the States indirectly, by disarming the People. It wasn't really about individual self defense.

    The 14th Amendment was intended to stop the disarming of freed blacks and by extension, everyone else.

    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

    But I understand that is NOT how SCOTUS precedent has evolved.

  • ||

    I disagree. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the Feds from disarming the States indirectly, by disarming the People. It wasn't really about individual self defense.

    It can be two things. Especially if it's a State of, by, and for the people.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Since the Constitution (which was passed before the Bill of Rights) already gave the States the power to raise militias, and in all other cases the word "the people's referred to individual citizens, it is difficult to infer this was the meaning the framers meant. And it basically goes against the framers very explanation of the amendment.
    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
    The original proposed text. The shortened it for brevity sake. Notice the right of the people is mentioned first and separated from the militia clause by a semi-colon.

  • Seamus||

    If that's the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, then it hasn't been very successful. The feds can at will take the National Guards away from their states and employ them in whatever project tickles the federal fancy at any given time. The Supreme Court upheld this practice in Perpich v. DoD (1990), holding that the feds could take the Minnesota National Guard and send it to Honduras for training, notwithstanding the refusal of the governor of Minnesota (the nominal commander-in-chief of the Guard) to allow it to to be used in that way.

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    In Perpich the Court also ruled that the National Guard, as currently constituted, is part of the federal military establishment. Some states have active State Militia formations which are not. Probably all states have them on paper, as Illinois does, though they've been inactive since 1945.

  • Longtobefree||

    Militia is not subject to any government control unless the militia members volunteer to become subject to military order. There are frequently restrictions by the militia, such as only serving in a particular county or state, or only serving until a certain date, often harvest time. This is why the founders preferred militia to a standing army. When "called out", the militia has the option to say no. This is also why the second amendment is an individual right; the volunteers are expected to provide their own weapons.
    So what the founders had in mind is a military that would reflect the '60s slogan "suppose they gave a war and nobody came?". Imagine trying to whistle up enough militia to invade Afghanistan.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    1)

    Except of course, that is wrong.

    Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their object: "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour of defence." 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

    Weapons that one wears (carries) for self-defense.

    That's what "arms" were in 1787 (as used in the 2A).

    Now, one of the roots of the 2A is the English 1689 Bill of Rights. "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law" A completely individual right, not one mention of militias or the states. This is the right the colonists believed they had as English subjects.

    Also, In Cruishank (1876) the SC said that the 2A protected a right that existed BEFORE the adoption of the Constitution and "doesn't depend on [the 2A] for its existence", and that the 2A protects that right from Federal infringement.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    2)

    Certainly the anti-Federalists feared the Congress's power to raise a standing army, but the protection of the states ability to defend themselves was only a happy by-product of the 2A.

    All agreed at the time that the BoR protected individual rights and had NO application to the states (that was wrong of course and William Rawle in 1829 said as much in regards the 2A - "it could be appealed to as a restraint on both Congress and the States).

    I have some issues with Scalia's opinion in Heller but he is right that the core of the right to arms is the individual right of self-defense.

  • Tionico||

    that pesky Second was indeed to assure an armed citizenry against ANY and ALL threats. It clearly places the burden for "the security of a free state" upon the shoulders of THE PEOPLE.

    Roving bands, or individuals, of strongmen, robbers, housebreakers, thugs of any other sort, are a threat to the individual first, but by extension threaten "the securoity of a free state" collectively. A neighbourhood beset by housebreakers is NOT a "secure" neighbourhood. The Founders fully intended to serve BOTH purposes. Most colonies, pre-war for independence from Britain, had laws mandating that every man, as he accompanied his family on the way to Sunday meetings, carry along with him suitable arms to protect against any and all threats. And government takeover was NOT, at that point in time or space, a signficant likelihood. When EVERYMAN sees to his own security, and that of his family, the entire population are safe against all threats, be it one highwayman, a small band of marauders or thieves or Indians, a foreign invading force, or our own government turning tyrant. And it was that last that sparked the turning to arms to throw off the tyrannical yoke of George Three, after he ordered ALL the colonials disarmed.
    Had General Thomas Gage had a less delusional estimation of the mettle of those despised colonials., he'd have resigned his commission and returned to England, and let George dream up a different plan to subdue those impetuous colonies.

  • CLM1227||

    AMEN!

  • TxJack 112||

    The 2nd amendment is supposed to guarantee the rights of the states to protect themselves from an intrusive and oppressive Federal government. The issue is supposed to be state issue, not a federal issue. Democrats pushing for national laws violates the 2nd amendment because the Federal government is determining the scope of our right to self defense which the Founder's considered a natural right. Cities and states were always allowed to regulate the carrying and use of firearms within their own borders which is what happened all during the 19th century. Only after the 2 yr crime wave in the 1930s, did the Feds pass the first National gun law, the National Firearms Act to restrict the sale of automatic weapons and barrels less than 18 inches. Since this law, the Feds have taken more and more control which was never intended.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    No, it was supposed to guarantee that the "right of the people (notice how it says the people, not the states) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    The original understanding of the BoR was that it PROHIBIDED the Congress - NOTHING else.

    It was never understood to give the states more power over their militia or anything else.

    The anti-Federalists did indeed fear the Congress's ability to raise a standing army, and they fought that tooth and nail but eventually lost with the adoption of the Constitution in large part because the Federalists bought them off with the promise of a Bill of Rights.

    But if they thought they were getting more power for the states they were soundly swindled because the 2A doesn't help the states, except as the happy bi-product of protecting the individual right to arms.

    Madison commented the BofR was "calculated to protect individuals rights as much as paper guarantees can".

    Tench Cox commented that the BoR protected individual rights.

    Not one commentator EVER espoused that it did anything for the states.

  • EscherEnigma||

    It was at a bar. You know, the sort of place that responsible gun owners don't carry at?

  • Echo Chamber||

    You mean that all those western movies I watched growing up weren't documentaries?

  • Tionico||

    Except in the few states that do NOT criminalise simple possession of arms wthiin a liquor establishment.... and there are at least a few. The caveat.. if you are carring, do NOT be drinking. One or the other, but not both.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Where I live the max blood alcohol level you can be at while carrying a gun is .02. Pretty much one beer, consumed with tortilla chips for no less than 1/2 hour, maybe 45 minutes.

  • TxJack 112||

    There is no state that allows carrying a gun in a bar, even mine, Texas. Alcohol and guns is a disaster waiting to happen. The guy chose a bar because you have a large number of people, in a confined space and only one public entrance and exit point. In a panic few people would think to look for a back or side door.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    ummm, no.

    That is at least without a CC license.

    With a CCL in AZ I can carry into a bar as long as I don't drink.

    I'm pretty that a number of other states do.

    I'm not arguing whether this is a restriction on the right to arms or not, just that your statement is factually wrong.

    Of course, prohibiting non CC holders from carrying into a bar hasn't stopped bad people from doing just that has it?

  • R. K. Phillips||

    Ohio allows carrying of weapons in bars, as long as you do not consume alcohol.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I think it would be fun if it turns out to be a police trade in.

  • Bubba Jones||

    "Long was a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, Dean said."

    Ban Marines?

  • DiegoF||

    No prizes for guessing Bubba's branch!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    If they're shitposting online, then it is always Coast Guard.

  • CE||

    Ban unnecessary wars.

  • Gray_Jay||

    So can we call this guy an "ex-Marine?" Or is that still reserved for Lee Harvey?

  • AFSlade||

    GJ -

    I was always taught as a young Marine that Lee Harvey was the ONLY "ex-Marine"; all others were "former Marines." Given that I am now an old fart, it may have changed, but I always thought it was interesting that the Texas Bell Tower shooter - Charles Whitman - still got the "former" moniker even though he killed 17, including a child, and wounded another 31.
    The justification I was always given by old salts was that Oswald shot the President and that got him - alone - the "ex-" designation.
    [shrug]

  • DRM||

    Whitman was a tragic figure; it's quite reasonable to argue that he was the 18th victim of a brain tumor that he made extensive efforts to get treated.

    Oswald, even before shooting Kennedy, was a traitor.

  • Tionico||

    or so the highly paid and highly suspect "Warren Commission" determined....

    plenty of evidence exists to the contrary.

  • DajjaI||

    Some of these guys are patsies for the private security industry - they sacrifice themselves upon its altar. Also there have been a lot of TV shows lately depicting returned military types with PTSD going bonkers. It's a cycle that feeds on itself and needs to stop.

  • rsteinmetz||

    I've suspected the prominence of PTSD being portrayed in former military personnel is a way for the left to subtly persuade people the military is dangerous.

  • zazoo||

    Actually I'd say that PTSD indicates that being in the military is dangerous.

  • Longtobefree||

    But PTSD is claimed by college students when someone points out that they are full of shit - - - - - - - -
    So going to college is also dangerous? Maybe we should no longer subsidize it.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Hell, then. Send all the college students off to boot camp. Give 'em something to really feel butt-hurt about.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Who needs effective policies when you have good intentions?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    There is no way to prevent gun crimes. It's already illegal to commit a crime, and often times more severely punished if it involves a gun. Tacking a lower class charge onto a class A felony (murder for instance) is like spitting in the ocean.

    In the case where the laws are functionally meaningless and only trample the rights of otherwise law abiding people, what is the point of having a law at all? This shooting, while tragic, just further illustrates this point. No amount of gun control laws will prevent mass shootings. And even if there were some amount of laws that could, the benefit wouldn't be worth the impact to individual liberty.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I believe the dream is to push towards active enforcement or disarmament. Over time they hope to wear everyone down until gun confiscation is possible. I note that many people I see online make comments to this effect. They express almost a certain amount of glee at the idea that the government will raid people for their guns, and kill those who resist.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    That model seems to be similar to the way that the war on drugs has been executed. Yet, I can still go buy illegal drugs at almost any time that I want.

    I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I'll stand by my statement... even if there were some amount of laws that could prevent all gun violence, the benefit wouldn't be worth the impact to individual liberty.

  • Gray_Jay||

    "...even if there were some amount of laws that could prevent all gun violence, the benefit wouldn't be worth the impact to individual liberty."

    You could bring back the asylums. A policy that would be as unpopular here as any gun control measure that might've had a chance of slowing this guy down.

    Surprising he didn't bring an AR-pistol or an AR to do this. As a Marine, it'd be a weapon he'd have more familiarity with than a Glock. (Though not as much as the 240 he probably used the most, since he was an ex-0331. A lot harder to carry a 240 and ammo into a bar though.), The AR'd be a lot more lethal too.

  • Tionico||

    Not so.. the venerable .45 ACP at such close range is a keavier hitting round than the puny 5.56 the AR's use. Far heavier, larger bore (almost twice the diameter and four times the mass). Sorry but he picked the best tool to do the despicable job he'd self-assigned.

  • Gray_Jay||

    "Not so.. the venerable .45 ACP at such close range is a keavier hitting round than the puny 5.56 the AR's use."

    I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. Overall tissue destruction is far greater with a fragmenting rifle bullet at 3K+ fps than with a handgun bullet. Period. Energy is greater with the 5.56 than the .45, or with any service handgun bullet. Go read Fackler or DiMaio, and then get back to me.

    Jesus, if .45 was that more devastating than 5.56, don't you think soldiers would use it instead?

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    The 5.56mm NATO round is NOT a fragmenting bullet.

  • Gray_Jay||

    Au contraire Matthew. Go look at the behavior of everything from M193 to M855 to things like OTM MK 262. At close range, and depending on things like fleet yaw, the bullet will tumble and then frag in flesh within 5 cm or so. It's just not a hollow point or dum-dum bullet, so as to not run afoul of things like the 1899 Hague Declaration. Though things like OTM are OK, so go figure. I guess the hollow point isn't hollow enough.

    In fact, the bitching about short barreled M4s with M855 was that the velocity loss from the short barrel was causing the bullet to not frag on targets over 50-200 m (depends on how short the barrel was). If it doesn't frag, it icepicks, with often little tumbling from the projectile as it goes through the target. A .22 sized crush path through and through isn't pleasant, but nowhere near as incapacitating as the ~3 to 5 inch plus wide permanent wound cavity a fragmenting bullet produces.

    With 855A1, we get the massive permanent wound cavity, not necessarily from frag, but from the copper portion of the slug deforming and tumbling hither dither. No "lead snowstorm" but good enough I guess. And it's eco-friendly. We also get penetration from the separate steel penetrator, in case the bad guy is behind cover or wearing armor.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    I you shoot a 5.56 into water, you'll have nothing but fragments.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    You can buy fragmentation rounds in 5.56. Brown tipped they are.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "Jesus, if .45 was that more devastating than 5.56, don't you think soldiers would use it instead?"

    It's not that simple.

    Letality (stopping power) is more a function of energy transfer to the target than of the raw energy of the projectile. Note: any bullet that hits a target and creates an exit wound did NOT transfer all of it's energy to the target.

    However with the military you have to deal with body armor which means another factor, penetrating power comes into play.

    Anything that increases the penetrating power (hard, non-fragmenting, non-expanding bullets for example) will generally lower the efficiency of energy transfer to the target, increasing the odds of blow through and lowering stopping power.

    And as I said before, while there are expanding or fragmenting 5.56mm rounds available on the civilian market for the AR15, the 5.56mm NATO round is not a fragmenting or expanding round.

    Also, there are those in the military who push the philosophy that living casualties that the enemy has to spend resources caring for will hamper enemy operations more than kills will.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Ruin their day is a term I heard a lot in boot camp and ITS.

  • Gray_Jay||

    "And as I said before, while there are expanding or fragmenting 5.56mm rounds available on the civilian market for the AR15, the 5.56mm NATO round is not a fragmenting or expanding round."

    Oh for fucks sake. Go look at any gels shot by M193, or SS109 or M855. Like at the wiki for 5.56. What do you see when you do? A massive permanent wound cavity caused by, wait for it, the bullet upsetting in the gel and then fragmenting. Those are fragments in the gel. Even though the bullet itself is properly classified as FMJ.

    Energy transfer is only useful in as much as it accomplishes the above effect. It's not an issue at all for wounds caused by service handgun bullets, which kill via the wounds they create through their, largely linear, permanent crush cavity. No matter how much energy you can realistically put into the thing. A slow .45 kills the same way a speedy 10mm does, and in the same way any handgun bullet below about 2200 fps (depending on the shear resistance of target tissue) does. It pokes a hole through the target. This hole either disrupts enough CNS tissue to stop the bad guy right there, or it causes bleeding via which his CNS or muscles eventually stop working. That's it. Energy has little to do with it.

  • Gray_Jay||

    "Fleet yaw" is a term used to explain why certain lots of M855 weren't upsetting in targets and fragmenting. Different lots of bullets, with infinitesimal differences in construction, were upsetting in gel or people at different distances within the medium. If the distance, the "neck" of the wound, was too long, the bullet would exit before fragmenting. And you'd have a pissed off Somali or Afghan still shooting back at you.

    Drs Fackler and DiMaio do a much better job of explaining this than I do. DiMaio's "Gunshot Wounds" is a great reference for this sort of thing, with plenty of post-mortem evidence to support his views, and I heartily recommend reading it if you've an interest in the subject.

  • TxJack 112||

    Precisely. The reason a 45 does not penetrate most body armor is its slow speed vs a rifle. A few years ago people remember all the BS about armor piercing rounds and "cop killer bullets"? Almost any rifle will penetrate soft body armor like police wear because it is traveling so fast. Pistol rounds are half as fast, even magnum rounds. Also you are right about the military not using fragmenting rounds because they would be useless against body armor. They commonly use green tipped ammo which has a steel core an resists deformation when striking hard item like ceramic body armor plates.

  • TxJack 112||

    Are you freaking serious? A 45 is way more destructive than a 5.56/223. A 223 is a 22 caliber bullet and weighs between 45-75 grains. A 45 bullet weighs between 185 and 230 grains. The reason the military uses a rifle and not a 45 as their primary weapon is RANGE. A 45 has a FPS of between 780-1004, whereas a 5.56 rifle is typically 2300-2500 fps. A 45 is only effective to about 40-50 yds and a 5.56 to about 400 yds. At the distance this guy was shooting, if you are hit with a 45 once, you are dead. If you were hit with a 5.56 once, as long as it did not hit a vital organ, you have a much better chance of survival. I load my own rounds and load both so have a pretty good idea about what I am saying and know it is correct.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "the benefit wouldn't be worth the impact to individual liberty."

    I think these gun control freaks do not give a shit about benefit [to society] or individual liberty.

    We can see from the SJW crackdown on, say, GamerGate to the most recent outrage about Red Dead Redemption II's videos of a player murdering a feminist (suffragette) NPC that the left's moral authoritarians want to fully eradicate any opposition in all aspects of life.

    You cannot and will not be allowed to play a video game in a way that contravenes their wishes. There is no limit to the micro in the micro-managing they wish to force upon all of us.

  • perlchpr||

    They express almost a certain amount of glee at the idea that the government will raid people for their guns, and kill those who resist.

    Those people can't do math.

    100 million gun owners in the country.

    85,000 SWAT trained door kickers.

    Let's assume a 95% compliance rate with an order to "turn them all in".

    5 million gun owners left. SWAT teams work in squads of 8, typically, so that's ~10k simultaneous raids.

    Let's assume a very generous 2 hours per raid. Presume 8 hours in a typical shift, so that's 40k raids per day.

    5,000,000 / 40,000 = 125 days.

    By day three, even the most obtuse of these gun owners will understand that they are in a war.

    I guarantee some of them will start shooting the cops at home.

  • soldiermedic76||

    My favorite is when they point out the strength of the military. If, and it's a big if, the military complied with orders to assist in disarmament, they would still be outnimbered by more than 2 to 1 in your scenario. If compliance was closer to what Australians did (around 50% compliance) 25 to 1. Then they speak about advanced weaponry, as if it would be a conventional war. But most likely it would be a low intensity, guerilla war, were onside can easily blend back into the popukous. As just about every conflict since Vietnam has shown, air superiority and armoud isn't much use in these types of conflicts. Inevitably, they bring up nuclear weapons, as if they are a realistic option.

  • soldiermedic76||

    My favorite is when they point out the strength of the military. If, and it's a big if, the military complied with orders to assist in disarmament, they would still be outnimbered by more than 2 to 1 in your scenario. If compliance was closer to what Australians did (around 50% compliance) 25 to 1. Then they speak about advanced weaponry, as if it would be a conventional war. But most likely it would be a low intensity, guerilla war, were onside can easily blend back into the popukous. As just about every conflict since Vietnam has shown, air superiority and armoud isn't much use in these types of conflicts. Inevitably, they bring up nuclear weapons, as if they are a realistic option.

  • perlchpr||

    Yeah. "What are you going to do against a tank with your deer rifle, heh heh" as if that's a good point.

    "Wait until the driver gets out to piss, and then shoot him in the head. Now I have a tank. Your move, asshole."

  • Tionico||

    If New York , Massachussetts., and that other state that demanded mere REGISTRATION of "assault weapons" only got compliance rates of between 5 and 15 percent, your hypothetical numbers are WAY out in the weeds. My guess is that while the numbers of gun owners who would turn in SOMETHING (remember the Polish Jews of Warsaw, that registered "something" then surrendered those "somethings" when they came round to collect but kept back plenty, refusing to surrender them all) might be half what you predict above, the total percentage of arms surrenderd as compared with the total number of arms that exist in private hands would be relatively insignificant. Bottom line, the chances of enough guns being surrendered, per Feinstein's stated preference,to disarm this nation are vanishingly small.
    Further, don't restrict the expected scenario to a direct confrontation with those who come round to take them all up. No sir.

  • Tionico||

    The ONE TACTIC that made our War for Independence a success was the frequent resort to "assymetrical warfare". They will be allowed to move about in public to attempt their mission. But they ALL live somewhere, and don't always remain with their groups. At some points, every one of them WILL be vulnerable. When enough "fail" to report for duty tomorrow, and are found incapacitated under unexplainable curcumstances, the rest will make themselves "unavailable".
    Further, if such a scenario would begin to unfold, at some point the infrasructure would deteriorate to such an extend their pay-checks would either stop coming or be so devalued they could no longer live off them, and thus decide theyve better things to do than go to "work" and get shot at.

  • perlchpr||

    Oh, no. I made sure to use ridiculously optimistic numbers for the gun grabber's side in order to demonstrate that the problem is still insurmountable, even then.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I wonder how #BlackLivesMattrer will react to the idea of the police killing people for resisting these raids.

  • Longtobefree||

    Not a dream, BUCS my friend, not a dream. A thoroughly thought out and implemented plan, proceeding at or ahead of schedule.

  • Fmontyr||

    "There is no way to prevent gun crimes." How utterly stupid, Leo. No guns = no gun crime. A very simple concept.

  • soldiermedic76||

    A gun is such it simple device that it has been around since at least the 10th century. Gunpowder even predates that by six or seven centuries. Banning guns won't do shit.

  • Tionico||

    Propane, compressed air, and home made compounds can also be employed to propel solid objects large enough to cause damage over distances large enough to be tactically effective. I've seen home made mortars that can hurl a bowling ball over a mile with pretty impressive accuracy.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Leaving aside the obvious morality of the individual right to self defense (and an effective means thereof), which you do not address and apparently lack the wit to understand, you gloss over the practical aspects of implementing your "solution."

    Putting toothpaste back in the tube is also a simple concept. But even a simpleton like you might grasp the impossibility of that proposition.

  • Longtobefree||

    Silly me; I thought people committed crimes, not objects.
    Is a traffic accident a "car crime"? Is a libelous post a "keyboard crime"? Is drunk driving :booze crime"? Is rape a "condom crime"?

  • TxJack 112||

    Really? In Mexico it is illegal for any one except the military and police to own a firearm. Are you really going to argue there is no gun crime? Criminals break the law so there is no law that can stop gun crime.

  • Zeb||

    "These kinds of incidents don't happen in normal countries where there is some reasonable regulation of firearms, starting with universal background checks."

    What a dishonest statement. The countries he has in mind have significant restrictions on firearm ownership and use that largely amount to de facto bans, especially for handguns and semi-autos. Not what is currently floated as "reasonable regulation" in the US which, as the article points out, can't and don't stop these sorts of things happening.
    And of course, in those "normal" countries, you still get mass murders by terrorists and other bad and/or insane people with machine guns and grenades (not to mention trucks, knives, acid, etc.).

  • ||

    You also have to be selective about which "normal countries" you look at. If you're going to look at countries that have 1/10th the US population and 1/20th the area, yeah - many of them are going to have really low rates of mass shootings. But then there's Norway.

    As with Universal Healthcare, the proper scale of comparison is US = EU, not US = Ireland.

  • ||

    So if, for example, you compare, say, Iowa to Norway, I think you'll find Norway's numbers compare quite unfavorably.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And Norway never gave us an Iowahawk either. More and more evidence that they should be banned.

  • ||

    You can't even grow corn in Norway. Hardly a proper country.

  • SIV||

    Try harpooning a whale in Iowa.

  • Rock Lobster||

    There are plenty of fat chicks in Iowa.

    Unfortunately, most of them have standards.

  • Gray_Jay||

    How does Norway compare if you take Brevik out of the statistics?

  • ||

    How does Norway compare if you take Brevik out of the statistics?

    Norway is a very, very peaceful place if you do that.

    Which drives home the exact point I was implying about the utility of using mass shootings as a gauge of whether or not you need gun control.

    It's like forbidding people from going to the beach because of shark attacks.

  • soldiermedic76||

    How does the USA compare if we remove a few metropolitan area? How does Norway compare to a comparably populated state?

  • soldiermedic76||

    Most European countries are comparable in population tonUS states, however, they have higher population densities.

  • Fmontyr||

    Square = Circle, I can't believe that you, without having looked at population and gun statistics, are spouting off all kinds of nonsense about comparisons between the US and European countries. When it comes to gun violence, for example, Iowa beats the hell out of Norway for gun deaths.

  • John||

    And plenty of countries with draconian gun laws have had mass shootings. Moreover, guns are not the only way to kill a lot of people. Kristof is a mendacious moron.

  • Fmontyr||

    Give us a break, John. Whether people are killed in mass shooting or in single shootings, countries having the tightest gun control are the lowest in gun deaths. Mass shootings don't actually kill a lot of people. Here in US around 300 dead in mass shootings this year and around 12,000 dead in non-mass shootings. For developed nations the US, relative to its population, has far more guns and far more gun deaths. Get facts! Few guns = few gun deaths so strong control works!

  • soldiermedic76||

    Bullshit. States with lowest gun ownership rate have one higher gun homicides then states with the highest gun ownership rates.

  • LiborCon||

    Mexico has pretty strict gun laws. And only one gun store. So they must have a pretty low number of gun related deaths right? Brazil has strict gun laws too, so it must be another low violence paradise.

  • Tionico||

    add in all other cause of deliberate killing of innocents..... guns are available here, so are used more often. The little guy in Europe can't own them, so other tools are used to perpetrate far more violence and death in those places. And, here in the US., hammers, bare hands and/or feet, clubs, edged tools, each account for several multiples of deaths above deaths perpetrated by firearms. Even vehicles are being used more often here as insruments of murder. WHY the fetish over guns? If that guy who shot up the bar in Thousand Oaks had not had his Glock, he could have rented the handy truck from the local Home Cheapo and driven that in through the front door of the bar at high speed..... and probably would have killed/seriously injured even more. And THAT has been done before.. both here and in Europe.

  • TxJack 112||

    The greatest number of deaths by gun in the US are suicides. The numbers commonly used are not random acts like this one, but rather criminal on criminal violence or domestic events. When you call a mass shooting any event where 4 or more people are shot, then yes the numbers are high because cities like Chicago, which bans all guns, have more shootings than almost the entire country. You can rant all you want about few guns = few crimes and use all the manufactured and/or slanted stats you wish but the simple truth is you will never restrict or ban guns in the US. If the Feds banned them today, you takes them? The military is barred from law enforcement activities by the Potus Commitatus act of 1878 and there are not enough police to enforce the law. In addition, you have that problem with the 4th amendment and needing probable cause and a warrant to search a home or vehicle. Toss in the fact that a get number of military and police would refuse to enforce such a law and you have another problem with the concept. The only thing you can accomplish with any law is assure the compliance of those people, like me, who are already law abiding. Those who are not will not suddenly become scared of breaking the law.

  • Billy Bones||

    If only we could pass a "common sense" law that would make it illegal to kill another human being, we would have no more murders. /s

  • ||

    It's been suggested here before, but really the only solution is to ban people.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That's the extreme end of the bitter libertarian path.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Well, in all fairness, we don't need to ban all people.

    I'm fine. We just need to ban all the rest of you motherfuckers.

  • Tionico||

    that would involve a lot of killing of people, then, would it not?

  • Sheriff Bart||

    Also, progressives wish to make sure firearms are only possessed by people with adequate training, which translates to agents of the state (police and the armed forces). So, every proposal I have read exempts retired cops and military from having their weapons taken away as a matter of course, unlike the plebians like us.

    Why they only want incredibly racist police forces (which they all are, according to them) to be armed is another issue...

  • See.More||

  • rsteinmetz||

    You mean like a former Marine?

  • Longtobefree||

    So a "qualify once a year" cop is better trained than a recreational shooter that fires 200 rounds a week?
    Sorry, but the only effective gun control is repeal the 2nd and confiscate all firearms.
    So get on it, and shut up until you finish it. (because I will be dead by then)

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I set up a twitter bot to automatically send out a tweet about common sense gun control when a news story about gun violence hits social media. It's just faster that way.

  • ||

    An NPC bot. How original.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Did you name it Arthur Kirkland?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I don't like that Kirkland is so effective here lately that he's replacing Hihn as the go-to reference of a bot. Y'all have no sense of history.

  • Dillinger||

    miss all the bold and exclamation points.

  • Rat on a train||

    Don't forget links to his own posts.

  • Dillinger||

    the true highlights.

  • Rock Lobster||

    It's not that he's effective. He's just voluminous. And to give the devil his due, Hihn is a lot more creative than the Rev.

  • ||

    And to give the devil his due, Hihn is a lot more creative than the Rev.

    ^ This x1000. The Rev is easily the most tedious commentator here. No contest.

  • Horatio||

    Given my experience with Glock 21 extended mags he did not use one. Otherwise we'd be reading about a maniac who was beaten to death after his gun jammed. My guess is he used the standard 13-rd mag, which counts as "extended" in the Golden State.

  • Gray_Jay||

    It was a 21 he used, so 13-rounders should have been flush-ish with the bottom of the frame. Witnesses claimed he had 'extended mags' though, which I didn't know were even a thing with the large frame Glocks (10mm/45), so who knows? Maybe he actually maintained them, and didn't use the mag as an additional part of the grip?

  • Horatio||

    They are barely a thing, and the only ones I've managed to find are not Glock manufactured. And they suck. And it's the universe's sick sense of humor that his worked, apparently.

  • TangoDelta||

    Well the question is was it simply a long magazine or was it a standard magazine with an extension added to it. There are essentially extended base plates that add 2 rounds to the standard, non-Cali, 13 round magazine and there are also the silly long stick magazines that just about double the capacity and as Horatio says are mostly jam-o-matics.

    Now, not personally owning a G 21, I don't know whether Glock modifies the follower, base plate, or box to limit the Cali-capacity to 10 rounds but it's conceivable that if he added an extended base plate he could be looking at 12 to 15 rounds which would look extended, hold a Cal-illegal number of rounds, and probably not suffer from reliability concerns.

    Of course the extensions do illustrate just how silly California's magazine ban is since a magazine is little more than a box with a spring inside. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if my single shot pistol wasn't an assault weapon in California's eyes since I am the ammunition device and I can hold a perhaps thousands of rounds if I stuffed a backpack full of ammo.

  • LiborCon||

    The California legal 10 round Glock 21 magazines are single stack. So the mag extension would make them 11 rounders, if they work.

    During the "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994-2004 I wanted a G21 but got a G30 instead because its standard mags are 10 rounds. I couldn't bring myself to buy a pistol that's designed for a 13 round mag and then use those bastardized restricted mags.

    Since the ban ended, I've bought a lot of "High Capacity" magazines, I suspect a lot of gun owners have. If I don't have at least 20 magazines per gun I get itchy. I even bought a high capacity revolver.

  • soldiermedic76||

    It appears that a good portion of those present were from a Christian university. And the Rev hasn't posted anything yet, that I've seen. Given his hated and outright hostile bigotry towards Christians, is it possible he might be the shooter?
    Albeit, the shooter is reported to be a former Marine and I doubt the Rev has what it takes to get through BCT.

  • soldiermedic76||

    My mistake, it is hard to keep these progressive Toadies straight. Rev posted earlier and I even responded to him (fed the trolls).

  • rsteinmetz||

    Every time one of theses tragedies happens you predictably see calls for "common sense gun laws".

    Yet I haven't found any "common sense gun laws" that likely would have prevented this tragedy or any of the others.

    Even the Florida school shooting which involved a person known to police and school officials does not seem to have crossed any of the existing or proposed legal barriers except possibly limiting sales of guns to people 21 or older.

    As far as limiting magazine size to10 rounds, I don't know for sure but if reports of the incident are correct but some said at least 30 rounds were fired. That would require at least 3 changes of standard magazines.

  • Craig Johnston||

    A minimum of two magazine changes, assuming he had a loaded magazine in the Glock to start with.

  • Ron||

    don't forget the one in the chamber so he started with 11 before the first mag change. got to account for every last one

  • Naaman Brown||

    "Common sense gun laws" to Bloomberg Everytown would be like a national version of the Sullivan Act of 1911 as enforced in New York City. On steroids. And PCP.

    I have a 1994 Assault Weapon Ban complaint H&K USP, starting with one up the spout and a ten shot magazine in place, 3 changes would be 11 +10 +10 +10 = 41. Firing 31 would be just 2 changes.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Comrades,
    We must confiscate all firearms from the masses for a host of reasons.
    First, only our beloved secret police, the military and our ruling elitists' bodyguards should own guns. Otherwise there may be elements in our lovely socialist society that may ferment counter-revolutionary thought that will lead to gun violence, especially on our oppressors. No one wants that on their conscience.
    Secondly, how many times have we heard of the numerous incidents regarding gun violence. About 30,000 deaths a year comes from guns annually. This fine because it does reduce the excess population, but culling the extra needless lives in our country should come from the professionals, like the secret police and the well indoctrinated soldiers in our people's army.
    Lastly, the people here have no right to defend themselves or their families. If violence occurs, then it is the will of The State, and the potential victims should embrace harm and even death if need be. Defending you, your loved ones and your property (if you have any, shame on you!) is an antiquated and an ugly bourgeois belief that should've been stamped out during our beloved Peoples' Revolution a long time ago.

  • Jerry B.||

    I see a lot of comments in the Washington Post about how the homicides in D.C. are due to the guns smuggled in from Northern Virginia, where I live.

    When I ask them why firearms homicides are 10 times higher in D.C. than in gun toting NOVA, they tend to go silent or change the subject.

  • Seamus||

    That's a racist question.

  • Rat on a train||

    Or are the guns racist?

  • Rock Lobster||

    Most of the scary looking ones are black.

    So that's unpossible. Obviously.

  • Ron||

    Coming soon to California is also a background check to buy ammo but don't worry no one will go out of state to buy that never no how would anyone even think of that. BTW California DOJ does monitor purchases made in Reno and other nearby Nevada sporting goods stores. We just have to drive a little farther and get even more to make it worth the effort.

  • Gray_Jay||

    "BTW California DOJ does monitor purchases made in Reno and other nearby Nevada sporting goods stores."

    How? Do you mean ammo, or accessories like magazines? Do the stores voluntarily share their sales data? Or do the credit card processors share their data with CA for anyone with a CA mailing address?

  • Tionico||

    Probably the card processors... but then, one could make a great defense on 4th Ammendment illegal searches wiht no warrant if Calif LE obtain such data and "misuse" it. Cardholders in Calif could also seek an injunctioni and sanctions againds the card issuers to end such date dumps.

  • Tionico||

    Easy out.. when CalDOJ come round to "inspect" the ammo purchase.. oh, I bought tnose in Reno on my way to Pahrump for a week of handgin school with FrontSight. Need fifteen hundred rounds for the course, they said do. So, they're all gone now. Nothing to show. Bugger off.

  • soldiermedic76||

    How do California laws deal with home reloaders?

  • Longtobefree||

    SWAT takes them out in the middle of the night and files a missing persons report to cover their tracks.

  • TxJack 112||

    Ironically, they were totally left out of the law because the gun control zealots who passed the law have no idea that people even do it. In a debate on Politico, when I said I load my own ammo, some lady in Massachusetts said it was illegal and she was going to report me to the ATF. I offered to give her my home address and phone number so she could give it to the ATF. My point is the people who are most rabid about gun control as almost always the most uninformed.

  • Tionico||

    Or have friends who sometimes travel from their home states into California.

    OR, just pay cash. None of those nearby states check ID for ammo sales.

  • Rob Misek||

    We need a complete postmortem about the shooter.

    Learn everything about his life and paint a picture of a killer with data.

    We should do this for all murderers. I'm sure some will already have been done by and for authorities.

    But civilian experts and the public are never allowed to see the whole picture. Knowledge is power and it is being kept from us.

  • Longtobefree||

    I can save a few tax dollars; the shooter was batshit crazy. End of story.
    If this country had a working constitution the shooter would have died before getting halfway through his first magazine.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Actually, the less hysterical publicity about the event and shooter, the better. I bet we could reduce future shootings more by banning media coverage.

  • aajax||

    I say every gun owner should be automatically enrolled a state militia and required to show up for training every three months. No one can argue that that violates the Second Amendment. No-shows lose the right to vote, go on the no-fly list, and lose their driver's license for a year. Yeah, that includes movie stars.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Fuck that.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    no, a better solution is that in order to have the right (or the right to hold public office) to vote you have to serve in the militia.

    that would weed out a LOT of people out that really shouldn't be in politicks.

  • jjjjj||

    Would you like to know more?

  • AZ Gunowner||

    So you see the Starship Troopers connection there?

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    Aren't all able-bodied citizens automatically part of the militia in their home state? Isn't that what the draft is premised upon?

  • soldiermedic76||

    It has been the law, through modifications, since the 1790s.

  • soldiermedic76||

    There are exceptions though for religious and conscious objections to military service

  • Sevo||

    aajax|11.8.18 @ 5:25PM|#
    "I say every gun owner should be automatically enrolled a state militia and required to show up for training every three months."

    I say stuff it up your butt.

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, except for the inconvenient truth that the distinguishing characteristics of a militia are that the members are volunteers, elect their own officers, and are not subject to any government control unless they volunteer to accept military orders under a specific set of conditions as to time and place. They militia can be called out by a government, but they can say no.

  • zombietimeshare||

    No law, license, rule, regulation, ban, or tax is going to stop a committed psychopath.

  • ||

    Gun control cannot work without a totalitarian government to enforce it. If you have any kind of freedom in your nation, gun control simply is not enforceable.

    Gotta be able to go door to door and confiscate.

    I'm going to say, thats a really bad idea. going to door to door would take a cold civil war, hot faster than anyone can imagine.

  • Tionico||

    that's assuming they JUSTgo door to door.. knock up the door, ask to see the guns, get told there are none, and go on their way. To REALLY be sure they get them all, an all day detailed search of EVERY residence would be in order.... bring shovels, bolt cutters, etc, tear the place apart, search everywhere, then search some more. Meanwhile, down the block, others will be aware of the sortie against Charlie up the block, and take appropriate defensive, evasive, and at times offensive action. They'd better plan on that process taking a VERY long time. Meanwhile, as they find and seize Charlies guns, what of them they DO find. Pete and George are quietly moving theirs over to Bob's place, which was targetted yesterday and labelled "clear". After they've left that neighbourhood with a few firearms confiscated, the little community meet, redistribute what's left along with the ammo, and make a plan to locate their next targetted neighbourhood....... and take offensive action as they work their madness.

    No way will all 430,000,000 firearms that they KNOW about be found and seized. There will soon enough be a campaign to bury the seizors.......

  • Longtobefree||

    I had an acquaintance of the conspiracy mold, who had buried a bunch of rebar bundles the length of rifles in his back yard to thwart the searched for his buried guns. He figured it the ground radar got hundreds of hits, they would give up. So you never know.

  • XM||

    I used to read Michael Totten's blog during the height of the Iraq War.

    According to soldiers he interviewed, most of them hardly saw any action. Most of the day was spent on routine patrol which became uneventful enough that they had to remind themselves to stay on alert. The locals were generally friendly or cooperative, and captured Al Qaida members promptly gave up their comrades.

    Maybe this guy's mind became warped in a war zone, but is it possible that the army might be accepting recruits with mental issues or disturbed minds to begin with? I know a few church members who served in AFG and they're perfectly normal.

    Can PTSD actually cause someone to snap and kill 12 strangers in a bar? Steroid rage happens, but it's not supposed to that common.

  • Fmontyr||

    Ah, Jake, here you go pontificating about guns again as if you know facts. Obviously you do as you avoid them. Where I live,in NJ, we have a very safe state with respect to gun violence because it has very tough gun laws. CA also has tough gun laws but you avoided like the plague about how safe a state it is, relatively. I've observed that you just love promoting guns and will do anything to avoid the truth about the harm they cause. I don't know what your points are other than you are a defender of having lots of highly effective killing devices in public hands. Are you just some sort of wicked person? I think so. You should be ashamed!

  • perlchpr||

    That's adorable. Your firearm homicide rate is 6 times that of New Hampshire, which has nearly no firearms laws at all.

  • ||

    CA also has tough gun laws but you avoided like the plague about how safe a state it is, relatively.

    Why don't you come on down to Oakland and we can observe together how well those "tough gun laws" are working to keep CA sooper-dooper safe.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Wyoming has one of the highest (may be the highest) gun ownership rates in the nation and has 16 homicides in 2015 and a fun ownership rate of of 54%. Alabama 3 homicides the same year and 49% gun ownership. Both also had a lower murder rate per 100,000 then California New Jersey. Idaho, BTW had a lower homicide rate per 100,000 then California and equal to New Jersey. Idaho gun ownership rate 56.9% of adults, New Jersey 11%. If you plotted that you would little to no correlation.

  • Longtobefree||

    Love the typo (?) of Wyoming "fun ownership". Thought it was deliberate until I got to the next part.

  • Sevo||

    Fmontyr|11.8.18 @ 6:03PM|#
    "Ah, Jake, here you go pontificating about guns again as if you know facts. Obviously you do as you avoid them. Where I live,in NJ, we have a very safe state with respect to gun violence because it has very tough gun laws."

    Ah, you lying piece of lefty shit, you don't know what your posting about.

  • Ascolti||

    The article doesn't really ask the right question.

    You could never use a single incident to prove or disprove the efficacy of a regulation. That the regulation failed in this particular instance is obvious.

    If you are debating the efficacy (political views aside) of the regulation in general, you would need to examine general trends. California's per-capita homicide rate is essentially the same as in Texas, which I presume has fewer gun regulations. So I suspect CA's gun laws are not that effective.

    The original meaning of the Second Amendment is another issue entirely, unrelated to the issue of efficacy of regulation. Nonetheless, people who hold a certain belief about efficacy seem to interpret 2A in a manner that supports their beliefs. Unfortunately, most who debate the "original" meaning of 2A are entirely ignorant of the fact that the Bill of Rights did not apply to restrict state action until well into the 20th century (only federal action) -- only people who've had a class in Con Law seem to know this. Guns were actually much more heavily regulated by states in the 1800s than now. A state, in the name of a "well-regulated militia" could require all sorts of things that no one would tolerate now, such as routine muster calls, keeping weapons in a public armory, etc. Private rights were recognized in some states, and completely curtailed in others. There was tremendous variance.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    "Guns were actually much more heavily regulated by states in the 1800s than now."

    Not true.

    In fact, absolute BS.

    "keeping weapons in a public armory,"

    Name an example of that.

    "completely curtailed "

    What fantasy history class did you take?

  • soldiermedic76||

    Well regulated meant in good working order, i.e. well armed and equipped. Not strict regulations. Look up the history of private militias serving in every war the US fought up to the beginning of the 20th century. These were privately raised and equipped forces. Also, please look up the original wording and the writings of the framers. It is obvious that the militia clause was separate from the right to bear arms.
    As for your fantasies about gun regulations could you provide citations? And 45 states have the right to bear arms in their Constitution according to the American Bar Association (hardly a progun group). So do you just make shit up as you go along? You do realize in the self described liberals love to brag about how studies show they have higher IQ then conservatives, that those same studies show libertarian leaning adults have the highest average IQ? People on here will call you out for your stupid shit.

  • Ascolti||

    One problem that simply cannot be swept away casually is the there is a lot more gun violence in the U.S. than in most comparable democracies, to a degree that is staggering. We are talking orders of magnitude here. It would be foolish to argue that this is unrelated to the proliferation of firearms in the U.S. Countries such as Japan and the U.K. where guns are very heavily regulated have per capita gun homicides on the order of 1 or 2 % of what occurs in the U.S. Is this a mere cultural preference? While I sympathize with the Libertarian arguments that regulation in the U.S. is not effective in the present day, I hear few rational alternatives suggested.

    It's far too late to get rid of guns in the U.S. We could stop making them tomorrow and there would be plenty of usable weapons for the next 50 years at least, and people could make their own.

    However, I don't see why we couldn't regulate the sale of *bullets*, which run out much more quickly, under the same kinds of laws that restrict the distribution of other explosives. No, you cannot make bullets at home so easily. Even in a Libertarian scheme, I have the right to be free of risks I have not bargained for -- such as your stockpiles of gunpowder next door.

  • ||

    there is a lot more gun violence in the U.S. than in most comparable democracies

    But there isn't more violence. What is it that makes gun violence so special? If we got rid of all guns today, but the violent crime rate remained exactly the same, would that be "victory?" Why?

    Even in a Libertarian scheme, I have the right to be free of risks I have not bargained for -- such as your stockpiles of gunpowder next door.

    But I'll bet you feel you have a right to keep cans of gasoline around, right?

  • jerryg1018||

    Gun Free Great Brittan has replaced gun crime with knife crime.

  • TxJack 112||

    The United States is also about 10x larger than the countries that are often used for comparison. Australia only has 26 million people which is fewer people than in the state of Texas. Sweden has 3 million people which is less than half of the total population of the DFW metroplex. The reason they have less gun crime is they have dramatically fewer people. So many of these comparisons are apples and oranges. If you make a valid comparison such as Australia vs Texas (26 million vs 28 million) Australia has more than twice the number of mass shootings than Texas. When you compare 3 million (Sweden) to 330 million (US) the US will have more every time simply because it is 110 times larger. Comparing the US directly with European countries is a ploy used to convince people it is about guns when in fact it is about population.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    Ammo will keep for decades if properly stored. And you don't need a lot of it. A case of 9mm will fit in a shoe box.

  • perlchpr||

    Smokeless powder is a propellant, not an explosive.

    Try again.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    One can make bullets (actually complete cartridges) even easier than making a reliably functioning firearm.

    That you make that statement - "No, you cannot make bullets at home so easily" - shows you have absolutely no knowledge of this subject.

    But your main point is sort of correct. The wrong subject is often discussed after something like this - namely the cost/benefit of gun ownership, or the efficacy of "gun control" laws.

    But, the right to arms isn't subject to cost/benefit analysis.

    So I eschew that pointless debate.

    I have the right to life, therefor I have the right to defend that life, therefor I have the right to the means to defend that life, therefor I have the right to arms.

    A right that predates the Constitution and doesn't depend on the 2A for its existence (Cruishank 1876).

    And that position is non-negotiable.

  • Gray_Jay||

    "One can make bullets (actually complete cartridges) even easier than making a reliably functioning firearm."

    Primers. Making primers at home is tricky, if you like keeping your limbs. The rest? I'll give you bullets, and cases. Making powder? O.K., maybe. It'll be shit compared to anything commercial in the last 90 years, but Mr. Fallout Survivor probably could do it.

    Primers will be tough.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Fulminated Mercury in a copper disc. The first percussion caps were manufactured by a Scottish minister at his home. Not a chemistry but a minister. Because he got tired of ducks escaping because of the delay between squeezing the trigger and the fun firing that you had with flintlocks.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Chemist not chemistry.

  • Gray_Jay||

    "Fulminated Mercury in a copper disc."

    Try making it at home. Let me know how the ER visit goes.

    The point I'm trying to make is that primers are essentially small primary explosives. At least Hg(CNO)2 is. We've all read how trying to make primary explosives at home usually goes. Anyway, if you can do that, you can make stuff that'll actually be effective against military opposition, such as EFPs.

    Anyway, maybe Sinoxid or Sintox ones aren't primary explosives, but they do deflagrate with a lot of intensity. I wouldn't try to make them at home.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    No doubt, primers are the trickiest part.

    So, I think you'll find there are probably more primers stored in American basements than there are complete cartridges.

    Indeed, if the new sale of ammunition was prohibited from this moment forward I suspect Americans could shoot for at least 10 years, including the Civil War that would start immediately upon such prohibition.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Funny I made 40 rounds, 20 for my deer rifle and 20 for my sons in about an hour tonight. Tell me again how you can't make bullets at home? Even if you banned stores from selling the individual components of cartridges it wouldn't matter.
    You do realize that bullets can be cast fairly easily from any soft metal, lead works the best but copper will work nearly as well. Granted smokeless powder is a bit more complicated to make, but even if you banned smokeless powder, black powder is pretty effective and easily made. Sulfur isn't hard to acquire, neither is carbon and saltpeter can be made from simply boiling urine. Percussion caps are fulminated Mercury. Again, not really hard to to make. Casings, brass (and can be reloaded multiple times).

  • Tionico||

    remove the qualifier "gun" from your remarks about "villence" and go recheck your stats. You will find VIOLENCE of all types are far more common in nations which have largely removed arms from the general public. I KNOW this is so in the UK, France, Australia, when the gummit in Oz demanded everyone turn them in to be destroyed, the GUN violence did go down.. for a season, but VILENCE increased by double digit percentages. After a few years, funniest thing happened.. GUN violence again started to rise. WHY? SO few honest people were armed, no one was there to stand against violence of all types. So, it increased, finding little to no pressure agianst it. Now, serious fully automatic military arms are flooding into Australia, and the government are clueless as to how to stop it, and the resulting GUN violence that is growing rapidly. And the diarmed citizenry are..... to use a common figure of speech, "up in arms" about it all, demanding they get their guns back.

    Brasil just elected a new president who campaigned on two planks.. one of them being restoring the right to possess and carry arms to the law abiding citizens of Brasil. He was elected by an unprecedented high margin. Any guesses as to the crime rates in Brasil year on year over this past decade?

  • Longtobefree||

    Funny, in the sixties the members of the Rifle and Pistol club at Va Tech manufactured a couple thousand rounds of ammunition every Friday night. Then we went to the range Saturday and shot it all up. Oh yes, we open carried all the way across campus to the parking lots.
    Yes, we cast lead bullets as well as reloaded commercial bullets into used brass. We had permits from the fire department, who rightly needed to know where to exercise greater caution in case of a fire, but that was it. The propellant was secured in a bit of a safe, with the primers.

    And by the way, there were no mass shootings when the students had second amendment rights.

  • Abe Froman||

    The Glock 21 standard magazine holds thirteen rounds.
    Would California's 10-round limit apply?

  • Ascolti||

    AZ,

    You're point about Cruishank actually goes right to my point. That case involved the application of the Bill of Rights under the *Fourteenth* Amendment. With the adoption of the Civil Rights amendments, the Federal judiciary acquired new powers to restrict state law. This played out over the next century in something you may be familiar with called "incorporation doctrine". Before the civil rights amendments, the Bill of Rights did not apply to state regulations. Sorry, this is settled history. Ask your favorite originalist judge -- Thomas, Scalia, Bork, all wrote about this extensively. So 2A was written in a different world from 1876, much less 2018.

  • Sevo||

    "So 2A was written in a different world from 1876, much less 2018."

    So was 1A. So what?
    "...shall not be infringed"
    Read that again and fuck off, slaver.

  • Ascolti||

    The right of the people shall not be infringed. Not the rights of persons. Not the rights of citizens. "The people." That's a collective term, referring to the people of free states, and their security. It would have been very easy to write the Second Amendment like the First, and state simply that Congress shall make no law respecting the regulation of firearms, or even, more radically, that Congress and no State shall make any law infringing on the right of persons to carry firearms. But they didn't. The reason we have a Bill of Rights is because Anti-Federalists would not ratify the Constitution without it. The first ten amendments were about enshrining state law over federal law in these key areas. So the textual meaning of 2A is that "the People" in each state will mind their own affairs when regulating their militias, without interference from the feds. As for state regulations, there was radical variance at the time -- some states aggressive protected an individual right to bear arms, while others did not recognize it at all. Most were in between. No two state constitutions were alike.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Yes, indeed, the right of citizens, the "people".

    As the SC said in Dred Scott - "if blacks were citizens they would have the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went" (sic).

    That is the right of an American citizen.

    You've not answered my earlier response -

    "Guns were actually much more heavily regulated by states in the 1800s than now."
    Not true.
    In fact, absolute BS.
    "keeping weapons in a public armory,"
    Name an example of that.
    "completely curtailed "
    What fantasy history class did you take?

  • Ascolti||

    The people who wrote the Constitution chose their words very carefully.

    The Fifth Amendment states that "No *person* shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury..."

    It would be a simple matter to write "No *person* shall be deprived of the right to bear arms" or "No *citizen*..."and be done with it. But as far as I know, that option was not even seriously discussed by anyone drafting the Bill of rights. I humbly submit that there is a reason they decided to use the word "the people" as a collective term rather than "person", and there is a reason why they did not write "Congress shall make no law..." and a reason why 2A, very much unlike 1A, begins by asserting the importance of a well-regulated militia. We can reasonably infer that a poorly regulated militia is a threat to a free state, probably because incompetent people with guns are dangerous. Imagine that.

    I actually did address your questions in other posts below, at least pointing to resources for the info. Militia laws in most states were very strict, no one would tolerate them today. Renting armories were a fact of militia life. You can read about them easily, try Massachusetts or Pennsylvania militia laws 1800s as your search (I just did) and you'll see what I mean.

    As to what fantasy history class I took -- Con Law. In law school. Also, I just read a lot of old laws and court cases, because they're fun and I'm curious.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Then back up your claim with even 1 example of

    "completely curtailed"

    or "keeping weapons in a public armory".

    You won't because there aren't any.

    No doubt the dissent in Heller would have reference them if there were.

    I've been reading - and writing (50 page term paper in 1996) about the 2A for about 30 years.

    I've NEVER seen any reference to laws that you are suggesting existed.

    And funny that Madison, Cox, the anti-Federalist, Rawle, Story, Tucker, the Dred Scott decision and a plethora of other commentary all treat the right as that of individual people.

    But no doubt you are a celebrated Constitutional lawyer/scholar. Why don't you provide some decisions you participated in.

  • soldiermedic76||

    So? Most state Constitutions also recognized the right to bear arms. English common law, which was the basis for early American judicial traditions also recognized the right to bear arms (at least for Protestants). In fact, during much of England's history not only did freeman have a right to bear arms, they were required to. This goes back to the Saxon conquest of Britain. It actually probably predates the invasion among the Anglo, Saxons, Jutes and Gotlanders who made up the invasion forces, because other Scandinavian Germanic tribes had similar traditions.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Doesn't matter.

    The right to arms predates the Constitution.

    The concept of Federalism that relegated the BoR to the Congress died at Appomattox and was buried with the 14A.

    And the 14A was passed with the explicit purpose of protecting the newly freed blacks right to arms.

    That the SC refused in Cruishank etal to recognize the intent of the 14A doesn't change the 14A.

    That the SC came up with the "legal fiction" of incorporation (Thomas's words in MacDonald) doesn't change the fact that the SC has applied the BoR including the right to arms to the states as per the 14A.

    That is settled.

  • Ascolti||

    Now you are saying things which resemble reality. You are also repeated what I asserted from the very beginning, i.e., "Guns were actually much more heavily regulated by states in the 1800s than now. A state, in the name of a "well-regulated militia" could require all sorts of things *that no one would tolerate now*."

    Incorporation may be a "fiction" according to Thomas but it's been the essential means by which the Supreme Court has applied to Bill of Rights to prevent state overreach for more than a century. Note that Thomas was taking a very radical position and invoking the privileges and immunities clause in his criticism, setting him at odds with 120 years of case law and his own fellow originalists. It's nothing more than a curious bit of dicta with no supporting precedent. Recall that in that case the plaintiff's attempt to use P&I rather than due process completely failed.

    2A incorporated in 2010 against the states. So, yes, it's been settled for 8 years now.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    No, I am not repeating any of your claims.

    They were NOT more heavily regulated" then than now.

    Complete fantasy.

    "A state, in the name of a "well-regulated militia" could require all sorts of things *that no one would tolerate now*."

    No, and none did either.

    It is you whose reality is different.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    The idea that the BoR only applied to the Congress was wrong then regardless of Barron etal. But that is history.

    But Rawle got it correct even in 1825 -

    In 1825, William Rawle, a prominent lawyer who had been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified the Bill of Rights, published an influential treatise, which analyzed the Second Amendment as follows:
    "The first [principle] is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. . . .
    "The corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    "The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." Rawle 121–122.20

  • Ascolti||

    I can see you really don't grasp the issue.

    Your Rawle quote is inapposite. Rawle is simply expressing an opinion. It does not change the fact that the tenth amendment protect state Police power. If you don't know what police power means in the context of con law then you have no business expressing an opinion.

    Take Commonwealth v. Alger, Mass. 1851 -- "every holder of property...holds it under the implied liability that his use of it may be so regulated, that it shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having an equal right to the enjoyment of their property, not injurious to the rights of the community." This was the common understanding in the 19th century. Why else would the 14th amendment be necessary? Or the Slaughterhouse Cases? Or Lochner v. New York?

    I'm not arguing pro or con on this point. Your agreement or mine is irrelevant. I'm telling you an essential fact of legal history in the United States which is *undisputed* among legal scholars. The most conservative judge on the supreme court understands this as an essential fact of legal history.

  • Doug Huffman||

    Kalifornistan's Borderline shooting is evidence of gun laws anile lack of effect. Good behavior cannot be legislated and you cannot have my guns.

    From My Cold Dead Hands, my old hands, works for me.

  • tlapp||

    It was reported the shooter had an illegal magazine. How dare a person willing to commit multiple murders violate those "sensible" gun laws?

  • jerryg1018||

    Watch for a ban on Glock 21 fully sem-automatic assault pistols with high capacity magazines.

  • AER1972||

    Jacob's answer is?
    As Reason slips further down the crap hole of progressive mind meld I am sure his next article will be about the common sense of tgun confiscation.
    Yes we all know that gun laws do not stop nut cases, the mentally challenged, vets with PTSD. So what else is new?

  • Ascolti||

    I don't think I argued that one could not make bullets at home -- a someone skilled and determined could do it. But for most gun owners it would be an inconvenient time suck. Which is why requiring a license to buy bullets would be a reasonable measure.

    My familiarity with 19th century gun laws comes from readings extensively about 19th century state and municipal regulation in general. I have read well over a thousand court decisions from that era. State and local regulation of arms, speech, economy, etc. was rampant, as were state-created monopolies. I am NOT arguing in favor of the situation -- just pointing it out as an essential truth which has passed from popular awareness. Google the term State Police Powers 19th Century and you'll learn a few things. It was actually the result of proto-libertarian "activist" judges in the late 19th and early 20th century that caused this to change. I refer you to an important case called Lochner v. New York in 1905.

    Regarding gun control specifically, I could throw out some court case names but it will be dismissed as cherry-picking. I would recommend a great book called "A Well Regulated Militia" by Saul Cornell, who is hardly a lefty. The book explains in detail how militias and arms were regulated in the 19th century. A shorter article describing how laws against "open carry" were common in municipalities called "Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West" can be found on Smithsonian .com.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    Regardless of what Saul wrote firearms were not more heavily regulated than they are now.

    I have read Cornell and his work doesn't even support his own thesis. The only diff between him and the other fraud Belliese (spelling?) is Cornell didn't make up evidence.

    He just claimed that because Dodge City made cowboys check their arms at the door there is not right to arms.

    Laughable.

  • Ascolti||

    You read Cornell's book? Really?

    "He just claimed that because Dodge City made cowboys check their arms at the door there is not right to arms."

    Dodge City, and many others, did in fact do that. There is photographic evidence as well as ample case law evidence. No one that I know of, certainly not Cornell, argues that municipal regulation on carrying weapons means there is "no right to bear arms". His argument is that the right existed as a civic right, but was subject to social contract -- i.e., local laws. Cornell explains how the 18th century notion of rights different from the present day. It wasn't black and white. "Civic" isn't part of our vocabulary any more, so of course we don't understand it now, we just falsely dichotomize between "individual" and "state" as though there is no social fabric outside of state regulation.

  • AZ Gunowner||

    So what? Just so much intellectual sophistry.

    Firearms were ubiquitous and NONE of the supposed restrictions that you've touted eg ""completely curtailed"
    or "keeping weapons in a public armory" ever existed.

    And you won't provide an example of them because you can't.

    Yes, I have read his book, but I didn't buy it. Otherwise my 2A library occupies a shelf about 3 feet long.

  • Ascolti||

    The first chapter of the book contains dozens of examples. Page 28, footnote 33, provides a whole series of citations of laws regulating the storage of gunpowder, the right to confiscate weapons, etc. That's just the first page I landed on when I opened the book just now.

    Literally, the whole first Chapter of Cornell's book is a litany of such regulations, all with citations to the original documents and statutes. I'm not going to transcribe his citations for you. If you've actually read the book but don't bother the fact check the citations you say you dispute, what good will it do if I waste time providing them?

  • TxJack 112||

    Components used for reloading are not considered ammunition. The ATF under Obama was attempting to reclassify smokeless powder as an explosive so it would require a license to purchase, but the move was thwarted by massive public outcry. The discussion is a fun one to have but you cannot every ban firearms in the US for one good reason. Someone will always be around to figure out how to get around the law and we do not have enough prisons to lock up every one.

  • Ascolti||

    A number of comments stated that countries with more gun control had more violence by other forms. No evidence was offered. It is very east to find tables of per capita homicide rates published by the UN, and again, it's clear that more highly regulated societies like Canada, UK, Japan, etc. have much lower homicide rates in general.

    I find -- gun activists consistently employ two contradictory arguments. 1) people who want to kill can kill just as easily with knives, power tools, rocks, etc., and 2) guns are essential for self-defense. Look, either guns have a unique capacity to kill with efficacy, or they don't. If they do, then people cannot kill as easily without them. If they do not, then they are not any more useful for your self-defense than other household objects.

    By the same token, if heavily regulated societies were actually "more violent" as someone said, that would actually be an argument in support of gun control, since those societies have fewer gun homicides, and homicides in general, despite being "more violent", which demonstrates that gun regulation can be effective.

    Of course, if you think you have an absolute right, then arguments about efficacy are irrelevant. Oddly, this article which we are commenting on asserts that regulations are not effective, which would also seem to indicate that one's liberty to own a firearm is not actually under any kind of threat by regulations currently in effect in the U.S.

  • Gray_Jay||

    Dude, stopping gun crime by making guns harder to get for the law abiding, is like trying to stop obesity by forcing thin people to diet. The law abiding aren't the problem for most gun crime.

    Gun crime in the US is usually an urban phenomenon, when it isn't suicide, and the inner cities are where you'll find most of the "mass shootings" in the US originate. Mainly due to the definition of "mass shooting" that's used to artificially increase its frequency and make people think it's a larger problem than it is.

    Guys like this asshole in Thousand Oaks? He was nuts. People around him knew he was nuts. The cops stopped by earlier, and probably thought he was nuts, but thanks to Reagan and Ken Kesey, the laws were changed to prevent the cops from doing anything about guys like him.

    Bring back the asylums.

  • frankania||

    It seems to me, that many shooters just want the notariety and want to become instantly famous in the world of news! I don't know if it would work, but if many news agencies, TV shows etc. would all agree NOT to publish the name or picture of a mass shooter, (just call him a "cowardly sicko"), it might reduce the incidents???

  • Longtobefree||

    Nope. You can't fix (or stop) crazy.

  • Ascolti||

    I spent much of my childhood in a home with a hunter and a fairly sizable gun collection, so I'm pretty sympathetic to the rights of gun owners. Especially in the suburbs and rural areas where the police are much too far away to be of use in an emergency. Shotguns and rifles are a good thing.

    Urban areas are quite different. If you want city people to mind their own business with regards to people in the countryside, surely that swings both ways. People live in very different circumstances. Those best positioned to decided what kinds of laws will protect them are those living in the situation, not absolutists of one shade or the other living hundreds of miles away. It makes sense to have permissive gun laws in rural areas and more restrictive gun laws in urban areas.

    That being said, it's odd to see arguments on a libertarian website, from one of the posters above, that the police should have more extensive powers and that more people should be institutionalized. I would think my proposal for the modest regulation of the sale of bullets is a far less intrusive measure -- we can stop the pointless attempt to get rid of weapons, while making sure that bullets are not sold to people who have not passed some basic licensing procedure so that we know they are not compromised by psychosis, PTSD, evil spirits, etc. I really am suggesting what I think is the least intrusive option to deal with a serious problem of pubic safety.

  • Longtobefree||

    Basic question; would you support the same restrictions (police permissions, permits, fees, waiting periods, mandatory 'approved' training, etc) on all other rights?
    Do you have a first amendment permit allowing you to post here?
    Do you have a fourth amendment permit to keep the cops from searching your home and car at will?
    Do you have a first amendment permit allowing you to go to church?
    Do you carry a fifth amendment permit to keep from talking to the cops?
    Do you have a 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' permit to keep the cops from preventing your travel?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    To which they will reply no, but those other rights do not get people killed.

    To which you can only answer yes, but the 2nd is a right for which we have to accept costs as well as benefits. The overwhelming vast majority of gun owners [99+%] don't cause harm. Short of draconian actions well beyond Giffords "reasonable and common sense" meme, will this type of incidents diminish. That would mean no guns to nobody going forward, and an Australian style mandatory buy back [confiscation] and a media campaign showing Mr Middle American standing with his back to the wall in a prison shower as the inevitable consequence of not complying, will we be able to "prevent" the miss use of weapons by a psychopathic and or criminal minority.

    This will be with us going forward as the reins came off any sense of not behaving in this manner a couple of decades ago. Alienated, angry, INCEL, resentful, terrorist, or just plain crazy, it is now a viable option for people to go down in flames and make as many sorry for it as possible.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Blame 24 hour cable news, social media, the appeal of immediate [albeit posthumous] notoriety, whatever, it is not going away. Nor will the clamor to "do something" about it. If we want to keep our guns [and I do] then we need to be honest enough to say this is just part of the cost of freedom, that innocent persons will be hurt and killed, but keeping a perspective that it is not happening every where every day [keep the stats on declining homicide rates handy], and assume responsibility for your own safety and protection.

    If anyone sees another way I am, as Ross Perot liked to say, "all ears."

  • Ascolti||

    Longtobefree,

    That's not a "basic question" -- it's a huge complicated question followed by parade of strawmen.

    Every freedom encounters a limit when it endangers public safety. Even a libertarian has to recognize that, even on libertarian grounds. Someone earlier mentioned storing gasoline at home. Most people have lawnmowers, most plastic gas containers do not spontaneously explode. So, no problem. But what if your next door neighbor decides he likes to collect gigantic open vats of jet fuel in his back yard because he likes the smell? What if he likes like to set bonfires of paper and plastic toys? His private property, his choice, right? But his habits intrude on your health and your enjoyment of your own property. Obviously. And this is why people, when they live within smiting distance of each other, tend to develop a consensus of rules governing conduct.

    So, back to the specific issue at hand. You have a right to own a gun. You don't have a right to use it to rob and murder or threaten people. Some people are, let's face it, a few raisins short of some trail mix, and those people are dangerous and should not be armed. Allowing them to roam free with powerful weaponry is a threat to your freedom and your life, and to mine. Surely you and I and our neighbors can work out a reasonable standard of competence for owning access to deadly projectile force that protects our rights without enabling unstable serial killers.

  • TxJack 112||

    The problem is your solution is to punish the people who have not broken the law in the hope it will stop the ones who will likely violate the law. Your jet fuel comparison is ludicrous because there are other laws to prevent it such as storage laws. Are you permitted to smoke while getting gas for your car? No because that is an immediate threat. The issue is you think you have some right to determine how others are allowed to defend themselves so you feel safe. I have a news flash for you, if you live in state where concealed carry is legal and not restricted by the government as in California, the chances you have stood right beside people with a gun is very high and guess what, you never even knew it. No one near me ever knows when I carry unless I am going to the range and decide to open carry. The moment you establish " a reasonable standard for competence" it is no longer a right, but a privilege. This is exactly the problem with carry laws like California where you must demonstrate a "need to carry a gun". No surprise, the government never sees anyone with a need unless they are rich and/or famous. Common people are denied the same rights as the well connected.

  • Ascolti||

    Compromise is the essence of any legal system. If everyone was perfect, we would need no laws. We are all punished by human imperfection, one way or another. If your preference is that the risk that your children will be mowed down to mincemeat in a hail of bullets is not important enough to you that you're not willing to endure a background check or show a basic safety certification filtering you for the most severe DSMIV diagnosis before you buy ammo...okay, so that's your cost-benefit analysis. I disagree. A drivers license is a pain in the ass but it beats getting on the road with people too incompetent to even acquire one. You and I still drive.

    "Your jet fuel comparison is ludicrous because there are other laws to prevent it such as storage laws. Are you permitted to smoke while getting gas for your car? No because that is an immediate threat."

    Yes, you make my point for me. Why do we have "storage laws"? It's a clear restriction on your property rights. What justifies it? Safety and public health.

    "I have a news flash for you, if you live in state where concealed carry is legal and not restricted by the government as in California, the chances you have stood right beside people with a gun is very high and guess what, you never even knew it."

    I spend a lot of time in the deep south. Most of my family is from there. I don't doubt it. It never bothered me. Most gun owners are responsible. It's the one's who aren't who shouldn't be carrying.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "It's the one's who aren't who shouldn't be carrying."

    I do not think you will find much disagreement on that; now, how to identify and restrict said citizens individual rights in that regard? Your devil is in the details; otherwise it is akin to Giffords clamoring for "common sense and reasonable" without ever saying exactly what this is, nor how it would have prevented any particular incident.

  • Ascolti||

    What I suggested was a licensing procedure, akin to getting a driver's license, in which you are screened for past diagnoses of mental illness, given a written test on gun safety, perhaps a few hours of time at a shooting range to demonstrate you know how to operate the weapon. Of course, any specifics I come up with here will be quibbled over, but I'm not here with a complete piece of legislation ready to go, just suggesting that a test for competence and lack of neurosis is quite doable. Beyond that, I would definitely place restrictions on how much ammo you could buy at once, but that's open for discussion. I don't think it's a "punishment" to be asked to demonstrate your physical competence in handling and maintaining a deadly weapon before you are permitted to begin stockpiling rounds, nor to show a license demonstrating same.

    I don't think I have the burden of showing how it would have prevented a particular incident. The burden is -- would it result in an overall reduction of gun homicides?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Not to quibble, but while your proposals are no doubt with good intentions unless you can demonstrate what any of them would do to actually prevent one or more actual instances, a goal of "an overall reduction of gun homicides" is little more than a generalization for placing burdens on the 99+ percent of us who are not the problem.

    And I am inclined to think that the majority of actual mass shooters would have managed to pass licensing any reasonable license procedure [Arron Alexis, the Washington Navy Yard shooter, had a pretty good government security clearance].

    "Lack of neurosis?" Perhaps psychosis would be more to the point, or are you thinking of restricting the constitutional rights of those of us who worry excessively, or who have an irrational fear of heights?

    NEUROSIS: a relatively mild mental illness that is not caused by organic disease, involving symptoms of stress (depression, anxiety, obsessive behavior, hypochondria) but not a radical loss of touch with reality. Compare with psychosis.

  • Ascolti||

    I'm sure that some of the mass shootings could not have been prevented by any amount of gun regulation. I'm equally sure that others would have been, such as Parkland, where the shooter had numerous prior contacts with law enforcement and should have been red-flagged. But the goal can't just be mass shootings, it needs to be gun homicides in general, as well as suicides.

    Yes, psychosis, not neurosis. You would not want to restrict someone just because they're on prozac or didn't like their mom.

    Again, the issues isn't whether regulation burdens those of you who are not part of the problem. Obviously,it burdens you. The issue is does it burden you *more* than the families of those who will lose loved ones because some gun owners object to a moderate inconvenience entirely comparable to similar such inconveniences widely accepted for driving cars, buying houses, operating a large boat, launching an Estes model rocket, operating an animal shelter, etc.

    Are you unwilling to submit to some personal inconvenience even it saves lives?

  • Reason Really||

    What is the REASON that Tokyo, London and Sydney have such rare occurrences of gun violence?

    ***You deserve ridicule for your willful myopia.***

    Your extraordinarily thin argument appears to be that some laws enacted (in the current gun-fetishist, US political environment) haven't prevented the incessant series of mass shootings. I'm not certain what to conclude from such a lazy argument. Is it an endorsement of the status quo? Is it proof that the law is inherently ineffective to stop mass shootings?

    This article LACKS reason, thoughtfulness and, frankly, context. In the developed world, the US incidence of domestic gun violence and mass shootings is unparrallelled. Anyone employing REASON and facts can comprehend this. The climate of barely-restricted, universal access to guns is not normal, reasonable or defensible to any reasonable people.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Again Jacob argues well, but misses the target. The Second Amendment got in the way of inflating the "reasonable" Nixon ABM and Soviet-proposed ban on SDI antimissile defenses into cowardly surrender. Congregants of the Church of Government Ownership of the Means of Production are royally pissed that the 2A crushed all hope of bluffing These States into surrendering and joining the USSR on the Pascal's Wager premise that "resistance is futile"--unless it leads to collectivist totalitarianism where only the border guards have guns. None of that has changed. Every failure to repeal 2A is simply another Great Disappointment calling for more prayer and calculations.

  • vaadu||

    CA, Sheriff Geoff Dean of Ventura County CA stated during a press conference today that there were six LEOs present (that he knows of) among the guests attending the club at the moment the perpetrator starting shooting.
    
    A reporter asked the Sheriff if any of the six officers present at the scene dutifully engaged the suspect with precision gunfire.
    
    The Sheriff sheepishly answered:
    
    "None of them were armed!"
    
    At lease six unarmed police present when a madman starts shooting, and not a single one able to call upon his training and instantly stop the carnage.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The shooter in that gun-free zone had no trouble making good use of his military training. I'd bet money the guy couldn't handle long division, much less differentiate a constant. Did the guy forfeit his G.I. Bill for the extra $100?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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