Cops, Gun Restrictions, and Mass Shootings

Plus: The editors contemplate the recent Libertarian National Convention.

Audio Player

00:00

00:00

00:00

Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Cops, Gun Restrictions, and Mass Shootings

In this week's Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch, Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Nick Gillespie consider the slate of policy prescriptions on offer in the wake of the Uvalde school shooting.

1:21: the gun control debate after Uvalde

27:41: Weekly Listener Question: My question to you pertains to guns and gun culture, specifically "Where are the gun nuts?" Where at Reason or elsewhere in the high-profile, opinion journalism world are the people who love guns or at least enjoy being a gun owner, enjoy going to the shooting range or participating in shooting competitions or what have you? Why aren't they more common among the pro-liberty or even the conservative press? It seems to me that there is a class divide in this country on guns. Upper-middle to upper class urban dwellers (such as the media class) all seem to hate guns and do not partake in gun culture, while more "blue-collar" and, of course, rural Americans are heavily into guns yet get little to no representation in media. Is there a class element to the gun control debate which is not being given proper attention?

49:08: the Libertarian National Convention and the Mises Caucus

1:00:54: media recommendations for the week

This week's links: 

"If You Want Protection for Your Loved Ones, Do It Yourself," by J.D. Tuccille

"Unfazed by the Second Amendment, Democrats Want To Ban Gun Purchases by Young Adults," by Jacob Sullum

"While Dying Children Called 911 for Help, 19 Uvalde Police Waited in the Hallway. For 45 Minutes.," by Robby Soave

"There Have Been 13 Mass School Shootings Since 1966, Not 27 This Year," by Robby Soave

"Mises Caucus Takes Control of Libertarian Party," by Brian Doherty

"Netflix Airs Ricky Gervais' Controversial Standup, Chooses Actual Entertaining Over Woke Pandering," by Liz Wolfe

Send your questions to [e-mail]. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's sponsors:

• We all want to make sure our family is protected in a medical emergency. What many of us don't realize is that health insurance won't always cover the full amount of an emergency medical flight. Even with comprehensive coverage, you could get hit with high deductibles and co-pays. That's why an AirMedCare Network membership is so important. As a member, if an emergency arises, you won't see a bill for air medical transport when flown by an AMCN provider. Best of all, a membership covers your entire household for as little as $85 a year. AMCN providers are called upon to transport more than 100,000 patients a year. This is coverage no family should be without. Now, as a listener of our show, you'll get up to a $50 Visa or Amazon gift card with a new membership. Simply visit AirMedCareNetwork.com/reason and use offer code REASON.
• Life can be overwhelming, and many people are burned out without even knowing it. Symptoms can include lack of motivation, irritability, fatigue, and more. We associate burnout with work, but that's not the only cause. Any of our roles in life can lead us to feel burned out. BetterHelp online therapy wants to remind you to prioritize yourself. Talking with someone can help you figure out what's causing stress in your life. BetterHelp is customized online therapy that offers video, phone, and even live chat sessions with your therapist, so you don't have to see anyone on camera if you don't want to. It's much more affordable than in-person therapy, and you can be matched with a therapist in under 48 hours. Our listeners get 10 percent off their first month at BetterHelp.com/roundtable.

Audio production by Ian Keyser
Assistant production by Hunt Beaty
Music: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve

What are we consuming this week?

Peter Suderman

• Slow Horses

Katherine Mangu-Ward

• We Own This City

Nick Gillespie

• Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties, by Tom O'Neill and Dan Piepenbring

Matt Welch

• SuperNature, by Ricky Gervais

---

Comments

[Dillinger]

>>Is there a class element to the gun control debate

class element to everything. life is high school.

[R Mac]

I don’t listen to the podcast. How did they answer.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Nick showed off his Ramones tee-shirt and Suderman said that while the regulations are understandable, they won't work.

[R Mac]

To be sure.

[Dillinger]

didn't listen either. and lol Diane

[JesseAz]

If they don't work how are they understandable?

Gov Hochul is asking for no new transfers or sales of any weapon without micro stamping. Which is not part of production at this time and hasn't been despite California passing a similar law of new sales on weapons without microstamping. This makes it even more impossible to get a weapon if you are in New York. I'm sure gun violence will end next year.

[Don't look at me!]

Life can be overwhelming,..

If you are a weak little pussy, sure.

[PurplePros]

As a proud member of the Illinois Libertarian Party, I have to rebut some of the framing of both Brian’s article and the summarization of the LP proceedings this past weekend on the Reason Roundtable. Firstly, I am not a Mises Caucus member, and never will be of that PAC. Instead, My GenX energy is devoted to the Spike Cohen-led Big umbrella PAC “You are the Power.” The Mises Caucus sweep was possible with more than MC members, it included both members of the LPMC and also non-affiliated or other caucus folks like me that reject the do-nothing COVID-era response by the previous LNC and also reject (as most Reason editors and contributors do) the culture of woke-ism and identity politics that was rejected (wisely) in the Platform . If the lower-case “l” libertarianism is to expand its influence and reach to new advocates, you wouldn’t sense any help from the editors of there RRT or Brian’s article which often repeated old news and disproven distortions and did little to cite first-hand feedback from LP members. If Mr Doherty had bothered to align some of his observations with the anti-cancel culture analysis by colleague Robby Soave he might also see the platform changes that remove negative language whose “We stand against …” clause had been used as a blunt canceling weapon internally at the LP) and apply positive (what we affirm) language as a step forward for the LP. At least Nick’s verbal asides on the RRT and on-camera interviews (to be released soon) with LP delegates including myself take a more holistic and accurate temperature of the changeover happening in the LP. Thank you

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

“We stand against …” clause had been used as a blunt canceling weapon internally at the LP) and apply positive (what we affirm) language as a step forward for the LP.

This is a really good summation. The LP really doesn't need to say a whole lot of "we stand against"- especially in the realm of vaguely defined characteristics or lines of thought. Libertarianism (small l) is by definition not a bigoted or racist concept because it's almost militantly individualistic. And in the current culture, "bigotry" and "racism" has been so defined down as to literally mean someone who believes people shouldn't be judged by their immutable characteristics. When colorblindness is now widely considered "racist", you could conceivably be "canceled" for treating people based on the content of their character.

"We stand against bigotry and racism" is something that really NO political party needs to say, because in its absence, I wouldn't believe that any particular party would stand FOR bigotry and racism. I mean, the Democratic party is now almost wholly racist and bigoted, so what would a "stand against bigotry and racism" even mean at this point? It seems that everyone has a nuanced definition of the term, so if you're going to "stand against" a particular modality of thought, pick something concrete.

"We stand against any attempt to regulate or limit speech, and will defend the first amendment" might work. But when you get vague, like "we stand against gross people who send mean tweets", then what? Who does that apply to? What are the mechanisms for exorcising someone from the party who, in the determination of the leadership has violated "being gross and sending mean tweets"?

[Nardz]

"also reject (as most Reason editors and contributors do) the culture of woke-ism and identity politics"

LOL

[Dillinger]

today's off-to-the-side popup ads with 30 year-old pics of Shania Twains boobs has been entertaining lol

[JesseAz]

Why is nobody bringing up the fact that this school actually had security measures in place forcing the police to wait to grab a different type of entering device (their crowbars were inefficient) and the shooter was let in by a teacher propping a door open making the security system in place meaningless?

[Nardz]

And how the hell could this deadbeat child of a drug addicted single mother afford multiple ARs and body armor?

[JesseAz]

Credit Cards.

That's one thing I'm not shocked about.

Get them addicted and in debt early.

[IceTrey]

An 18 year old part time Wendy's worker had a 5 thousand dollar line of credit?

[Nardz]

Just heard on the radio that now they're saying the teacher removed the rock, but the door didn't lock when it closed...

[JesseAz]

Just not believable. How did the shooter know this door was still partly open? My guess is it was still propped open.

[Nardz]

Agreed. Seems like a (suspiciously delayed) CYA attempt

[JimboJr]

The left going hard on gun control might just seal their fate for these mid terms. They have already jumped right past AR-15 bans and landed on all handguns.

A complete handgun ban last had a 19% approval rate. So many of homes that use a firearm for self defense have a single handgun. This is absolutely a losing issue and America will not stand for it. Of course, fortunately, the SC absolutely wont allow it (for now).

Imagine making the argument that we should give up our guns after a deranged person who is ready to die (therefore gives 0 fucks about your law) is killing children and the agents of the state present do nothing but use their force to keep you away from your children. If there was ever an advertisement for gun ownership and keeping power in the hands of citizens, not the state, it has been this incident.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

They have already jumped right past AR-15 bans and landed on all handguns.

In Canada, sure. Who in the US is proposing to ban all handguns?

[JimboJr]

Some random dinosaur of a D that has some kind of position in the administration. Probably not worth mentioning.

He contrasted a relatively safer 22 round with the apparently lung evaporating (maybe Snopes or Politifact can fact check this for me? They haven't put out as many opinions as when they said Trump told people to ingest sunlight and bleach...) and dangerous 9mm round. Going on to say that the latter have no use in hunting or self defense.

The 9mm round of course being extremely common and ubiquitous in...hand guns. Sure lots of platforms can accommodate various rounds, but the vast majority of 9mm rounds are used in every day garden variety hand guns.

He ended his little tirade with a reminder that "the 2nd amendment and constitution are not absolute".

So I dunno, maybe talk to your boy about his messaging.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

You know far more about what Biden is saying on a daily basis than I do, that is for sure.

But reading his actual remarks, he didn't say anything about handguns.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/05/30/remarks-by-president-biden-after-marine-one-arrival-10/

He mentioned "high caliber weapons", and he recalled an anecdote from 25 years ago, in which he recalled a conversation with a doctor, and the doctor supposedly discussed the difference between a .22 caliber bullet and a 9mm bullet on the tissues of patients. So sure he could have brought up that anecdote specifically because he knows so much about guns that he is fully aware that most handguns use 9mm ammunition and it fits perfectly with his devious plan to ban all handguns. But I think the more likely explanation is that he was using that anecdote to make a broader point that there is a difference between types of guns: some are okay in his view, and some are not.

But I know why you think he was talking about handguns, because Fox News told you so. This is how they reported it:

"President Biden on Monday took aim at 9mm handguns, appearing to suggest that the "high-caliber weapons" ought to be banned. "

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-9mm-guns-texas-uvalde-mass-shooting

So they deliberately twisted Biden's remarks to suggest that he is specifically targeting handguns, when that is not the case if you read his actual words. This is what partisan media does to you: they lie to you, most frequently lying by omission. In this case, it's a bald-faced lie: "took aim at 9mm handguns" is a complete falsehood. IF ANYTHING, he "took aim" at the ammunition, and even then, it is a debatable proposition. So saying that Biden "took aim" at handguns is a lie.

Don't get your news from partisan media, they lie to you.

[DesigNate]

You know you don’t have to reflexively give the administration the benefit of the doubt right?

[JesseAz]

Jeff is a biden cultist. Of course he does.

He is also ignorant about guns and doesn't understand handguns are the most common firearm to use 9mm.

Jeff is gaslighting as usual when democrats say something wrong.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

So let me get this straight. On the one hand, Biden is a senile doddering old fool who can barely string together two coherent sentences without an aide stepping in to remind him. But on this occasion, in these unscripted remarks right after getting off a helicopter, he is so sharp that he specifically brought up this "anecdote" about .22 vs. 9mm bullets, based on his deep knowledge about firearms, so that he could slyly signal to the world that he wants to ban all handguns, without actually mentioning handguns at all because that would be too obvious and create too much of a PR headache (not that he's ever generated PR gaffes before). Is that it?

[R Mac]

You know you don’t have to reflexively give the administration the benefit of the doubt right?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

There is a difference between a generous reading of his words ("benefit of the doubt"), a fair and plausible reading of his words (e.g. Occam's Razor), and a completely unfair reading of his words (e.g. Fox News's characterization of them).

I reject the unfair implausible reading of his words, in favor of a fair and plausible reading of his words. Because I'd like to know what he actually meant, and not what I would like to pretend that he meant so that I can write a snotty conspiratorial comment about him like Jesse and Jimbo and Fox News did. Where do you stand?

[R Mac]

“(e.g. Fox News's characterization of them).”

What was Fox’s characterization of this statement, and why did you bring them up?

[R Mac]

Ok I see your link above.

So what do you think of when someone says “9 mm”?

[Mother's Lament]

"a completely unfair reading of his words (e.g. Fox News's characterization of them)"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

[JesseAz]

Jeff is so ignorant about guns he still doesn't understand 9mm is most often tied to hand guns. He is just a Democrat defending idiot.

[JimboJr]

If I actually listen to his words and the contrast he made, it sounds like he is talking about the 9mm as a big bad round and caliber that needs to be banned. As I stated, 9mm is by far the most widely used popular handgun round. But hey, I got my info from watching a live clip of him speaking on youtube.

But if I bend over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt, and give him absolutely the most favorable interpretation, maybe I have nothing to worry about. But in the setting of both him and his VP both coming out talking about banning guns, in a country where liberals are actively craving a gun ban...forgive me for being skeptical.

But please keep showing us how giving the benefit of the doubt to power hungry authoritarians who have proven time and time again they will do everything to take power from citizens (were you around for COVID?) is the go to libertarian move.

[JimboJr]

Oh and did you address him putting that nice little "the constitution, the 2A is never absolute" punctuation mark on his remarks? Still down with giving him the most favorable interpretation?

You are revealed, as usual, as the DNC fan boy you always show yourself to be.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

"the constitution, the 2A is never absolute"

EVEN SCALIA made that very same point in DC v. Heller. Biden is wrong in trying to use Scalia's argument to try to justify banning guns that the 2nd Amendment actually does protect, not for trying to argue that the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-r-0578.htm

Limitations on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Second Amendment rights are not absolute, according to Scalia. Thus, the amendment does not grant the “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose” (Heller., at 2816). Among “presumptively lawful” regulatory measures are laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, (3) forbid the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or (2) impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. He adds that he could also find “support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons” (Id., at 2816, 2817). In a footnote, Scalia says the list of presumptively lawful measures “does not purport to be exhaustive.”

[DesigNate]

“Shall not be infringed” is as absolute as “Congress shall make no law”.

Scalia was wrong.

[R Mac]

Also, he lied about people owning cannons.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

If I actually listen to his words and the contrast he made, it sounds like he is talking about the 9mm as a big bad round and caliber that needs to be banned.

I think the fairest interpretation of his words is that he used the .22 vs. 9mm anecdote to illustrate his point that he thinks there are some types of guns and/or ammunition that don't belong in public circulation.

But if I bend over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt, and give him absolutely the most favorable interpretation, maybe I have nothing to worry about.

But see, that's not what I'm saying either. I'm not saying "we have nothing to worry about". I'm just saying that from that one clip alone, it is an absolute stretch to claim that he is literally advocating for banning all handguns.

Of course I think he wants to ban SOME guns. He has made that plainly clear for decades now.

But please keep showing us how giving the benefit of the doubt to power hungry authoritarians who have proven time and time again they will do everything to take power from citizens (were you around for COVID?) is the go to libertarian move.

I think the go-to libertarian move ought to be to use reason and logic and empirical knowledge to guide our decision-making, not paranoid conspiratorial thinking.

[DesigNate]

Reason and imperical knowledge and a study of history shows that every time the gun grabbers are given an inch they want an extra mile.

That’s not a conspiracy theory.

There are some 20,000 gun laws from all levels of government. More laws is not going to do anything but chip away more at something that is quite clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

[JesseAz]

.22 and 9 mm are two of the most common handgun rounds you fucking idiot. 9mm is actually fairly low power compared to other round sizes.

My God are you ignorant.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

"My God are you ignorant."

Where guns are concerned, they consider that a virtue.

[JesseAz]

It is amazing how truly ignorant you are. It can only be explained by outright lying about what you know.

[JesseAz]

First...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/survey-majority-of-democrats-want-to-ban-semi-automatics-half-want-to-ban-all-guns

Of course based on the morning roundup comment of yours, you do not actually understand what semi automatic means. You are ignorant.

Second.... bidens comments from fucking this last weekend.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Your citation is an op-ed citing a poll from four years ago. Jimbo claimed that "the Left" is currently pushing right now for banning all handguns. So your poll is not terribly relevant to the current discussion. But you knew that.

[JesseAz]

Jeff, I know I've told you this, but you continue to be one of the most in denial dishonest cunts on this board. Show me a survey of democrats supporting private ownership. They have been caterwauling since heller. But you know this. Yourr just a dishonest shithead trying to protect democrats at all costs.

I can show you dozens of polls but your dishonest ass will dismiss every single one.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

So, this is typical Jesse behavior. You try to make your case, I point out how you failed, and so you respond with offensive insults and trying to reverse the burden of proof. No, Jesse, I'm not going to try to prove your point for you. That's your job. Which you failed to do. Again. It must make you very mad when I routinely show you up, doesn't it?

I can show you dozens of polls but your dishonest ass will dismiss every single one.

I am well aware that there are many polls out there that show pluralities if not majorities of Democrats wanting much stricter gun control laws. But that wasn't my question. I repeat:

Jimbo wrote: "The left going hard on gun control might just seal their fate for these mid terms. They have already jumped right past AR-15 bans and landed on all handguns."

So I asked "Who in the US is proposing to ban all handguns?" In this moment. Not from 4 years ago. I haven't seen anyone submit a bill in Congress to ban handguns. Biden's completely disjointed incoherent rambling about 9mm ammunition is a big big stretch. So where is this proposal?

And by the way, I'm not putting it past them to try to ban handguns. It would be foolish of them to try, because it would never pass, and even if it did pass, the law would not be obeyed. But as of right now, I don't see any proposals. I see things like expanding "red flag laws" and raising age limits for purchasing certain guns, but no sweeping bans.

[Mother's Lament]

So, this is typical Jeffy behavior. Jesse and Jimbo make a case, and Jeff twists and rewords it so it becomes something completely different and attacks that.

[JesseAz]

Jeff you outright dismissed actual surveys of democrats. Saying 4 years ago is old news. You are ignorant of politicians on Twitter proposing the same. Youre just gaslighting. You dismiss all information counter to your leftist narrative. You aren't arguing, you're denying

[DesigNate]

“ I’m the only guy that passed legislation, when I was a senator, to make sure we eliminated assault weapons. The idea you need a weapon that can have the ability to fire 20, 30, 40, 50, 120 shots from that weapon, whether it’s a 9mm pistol or whether it’s a rifle, is ridiculous. I’m continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things.”

I’ll see if I can get a first hand source for that Biden quote from last July. But I’m sure I can find other Democrats saying the quiet part out loud.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Yes, he's made it clear that he is in favor of banning "assault weapons".

[DesigNate]

He literally called out 9mm pistol, which no sane person would consider an “assault weapon”.

And that’s completely ignoring that “assault weapon” is a purposely nebulous term. I mean really, all weapons intended use is assault.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Yeah, they also want to ban the "high capacity magazine" stuff.

Look, do I think that Biden passionately believes in the right to own a gun, like libertarians tend to do? No, not really. Maybe in his ideal Utopia, all guns would be banned. Certainly in this world he's demonstrated a willingness to compromise that right away in various forms. But I can only go by what I observe in empirical reality.

[JimboJr]

so would you agree with a history of specifically calling out 9mm PISTOLS in the past, that your very generous interpretation of his current comments on 9mm rounds and then saying "no use in hunting or self defense." and then "the constitution and 2a are not absolute"...

you see how this might paint a picture to skeptical folks like libertarians that he might...just maybe...want to ban 9mm handguns?

[Nardz]

Collectivistjeff is a lying, evil clump of cancer cells whose only purpose is to push totalitarian leftism.
It is our enemy, and an imminent deadly threat.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

In Canada, sure. Who in the US is proposing to ban all handguns?

Lots of people.

Why America Needs to Ban Handguns

Introduction

The United States leads the industrialized world in firearms violence of all types—homicides, suicides, and unintentional deaths.1 Most of this violence involves the use of a handgun.2 Handguns are easily concealed, engineered for maximum lethality, relatively inexpensive, and easy to acquire. On average, handguns are used in nearly 70 percent of firearm suicides3 and 80 percent of firearm homicides.4 The United States has not so much a firearms problem as a handgun problem.

So the remaining question is, how seriously are they taken?

The banning of all handguns has been a frequent point of debate, and depending on what data you look at, 47% of those polled say "yes" and 53% say "no".

So invoking Nick Gillespie on the abortion question, this is one of the reasons I don't want to return the second amendment to legislatures or popular vote, because it seems abundantly clear that there is not a *clears throat* remarkably stable consensus on the bill of rights.

[JimboJr]

Apparently "who on the left is talking about banning guns?!" is going to be the new "CRT isnt even happening in schools" argument around here from the lefties.

[JesseAz]

It is Jeff's primary form of trolling. Ignore all data and push his opinions and gaslighting as fact.

[ScottM1A]

Sudermann suggested the number of guns in the US is around 400 million he's off by about 250 million, it's at minimum 650 million according to the ATF.

[Mother's Lament]

Somebody's desperate sucking up to the Democrats for money and weapons:
Ukraine debuts LGBTQ Unicorn troops

If that doesn't work Zelensky has promised to personally transition and extend healthcare to any Mexican illegals.

[Nardz]

LOL

At LeAsT tHeY'rE wInNiNg ThE iNfOrMaTiOn WaR!

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Jesus I thought that was a conspiracy theory... holy shit.

[Nardz]

They also just canned one of their chief propagandists for not lying well enough

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukraine-fires-human-rights-chief-perpetuating-russian-troop-systematic-rape-stories

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

'NO BULLYING'
Their first tour of duty around Mykolaiv in southern Ukraine, about 135 km (80 miles) from the port of Odesa, changed their lives. They fought in the same unit and found it terrifying, Zhuhan contracted pneumonia, but, the couple says, their fellow fighters accepted them.

"There was no aggression, no bullying... It was a little unusual for the others. But, over time, people started calling me Antonina, some even used my she pronoun," Romanova said.

To be fair, Ukraine could add just one or two more color stripes to their national flag and it would become a rainbow flag.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

So... *rubbing my temples* Russia is invading Ukraine and the Ukrainian military is debating gender pronouns. Why they aren't in NATO on that alone I have no idea.

[Nardz]

Globohomo isn't just a nickname

[Mother's Lament]

"Why they aren't in NATO on that alone I have no idea"

LGBTQ Unicorn troops are mandated by Article 15 of the treaty.

[CharlesWT]

Some years ago, while watching a South Korean police procedural, I was surprised to see an almost word-for-word Miranda warning in the English subtitle as a police officer was speaking to a suspect. I thought at first it was just a convenient translation for an American audience. But when I checked what I could find of the South Korean criminal code online, it looked like they had adopted the Miranda Act.

"Miranda v. Arizona is probably the most widely recognized court decision ever rendered. Thanks to movies and television, people the world over know about "Miranda rights." Governments around the globe have embraced Miranda-like rights. Suspects in South Korea must receive their "Miranda warning" before being interrogated. So must those in Mexico, Canada, and most European countries. Miranda's notoriety surely has something to do with the decision's kaleidoscopic symbolism.
Does Miranda Protect the Innocent or the Guilty?

[Joe Friday]

I am shocked! Shocked to hear that their is partisanship being practiced here by chemjeff. This must not stand and he should be banned until he reaches the level of fairness to party and personality by the regular assholes here like Mother, Jesse, and Nardz.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

You have 0 credibility.

0.

[Sevo]

Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.
Eat shit and die, Asshole.

[Zamboni Palin]

May I write an unsolicited response to your Roundtable episode on mass shootings, aptly scheduled on International Children’s Day (6/1/2022)?
I’ve been listening to this and other podcasts associated with Reason (or ‘Reason people’) for quite a few years now and, though I agree with you as often as not, I have not previously felt the impetus to write. (Or I have easily beaten it.) But the aforesaid episode has made the urge to object irresistible, perhaps because I am writing from Eastern Europe – born and raised –, where we learned some three decades ago that the connection between guns and freedom is tenuous at best. (At least unless you are at war – but even then, your own government’s guns will matter vasty more than your prized possessions.)
What particularly annoyed me – to describe the emotion bluntly – throughout said episode was your endless exercise in nitpicking. I understand the temptation, and I think carping serves well against the right targets. But in this case you scattered your fire pointlessly. Sure, this or that ‘anti-gun’ measure, no matter how extreme or excessive – and perhaps especially when extreme or excessive –, will not solve the problem on a reasonable term. Sure, the overexcited left doesn’t get a lot of things, from the importance of well-crafted policies to your cherished gun culture. (Oh, if hi-fi could kill…!)
Yet endlessly finding fault with efforts to mitigate the whopping problem you ended up in as a nation is not the right response. I get it that, collective bouts of repetitive public mourning notwithstanding, you have become inured to the thing. Death-by-gun feels like the cost of doing the business of being America, exceptionally free and exceptionally (pick your attribute). But something should be done – and that something is a whole slew of inescapably imperfect measures that will fail occasionally, some by being too soft, some too stringent, and most not as effective as desired. Still, aim at the long term.
So when Suderman faux-nerdily points out that you need one kind of policy if you want to tackle mass shootings, another kind if you’re concerned about gun crime more generally, and still another if your problem of choice is suicide, the needless appeal to complexity smacks of obfuscation. Each of the above is somewhat different from the other, obviously, but what they share, in context, is far too easy access to guns. Mitigate the latter and you will have alleviated a bit of each of the problems.
Or when you all beat around the wagons (forgive the mixed metaphor) by pointing to the police fiasco in Uvalde... The police definitely failed, but it is by no means certain that a more interventionist police would have saved any of the victims. (It might even have gotten a few parents killed.) And even if it had saved a few in this case, it would not have been able to do so in other similar instances. I was left with the impression that your horrified perplexity at yet another round of public agency failure – expressed with the customary libertarian glee – served merely as a deliberate strategy of avoiding the central issue.
Which central issue is that America is in bad shape gun-wise. That a lot should be done, carefully and as soon as possible, from as many angles as conceivable. And that the many inevitable missteps, which you can all do your best to expose and help correct, should not be a reason to delay action. So while I am sympathetic to your criticism of David French’s proposals, that’s a reason to be very careful in designing red flag laws, not to ditch the idea or postpone doing something about it. By all means, remain cautious and skeptical about the short term, but press forward.
Last but not least, Moynihan’s respectable journalistic nose may not be the best gauge for due process rights in Europe – or the US. The nice people here (https://govdata360.worldbank.org/indicators/hcdac549f?country=USA&indicator=27938&countries=GBR,FRA,SWE,DNK,CAN&viz=line_chart&years=2015,2021) assessed ‘due process of law and the rights of the accused’ around the world and it turns out the US is at the level of étatiste France, quite a bit below the UK and Canada, and embarrassingly – for Moynihan, assuming you aired his views properly – far below Sweden and Denmark.
A beautiful, well-machined collection of arguments this particular episode was – I am afraid – not.
Best.

[JasonAZ]

Breaks for paragraphs man! FFS!

[Sevo]

"...Which central issue is that America is in bad shape gun-wise..."

Correct; not nearly enough of them.
Eat shit and die.

[KR]

Your response to Spencer's email showed that his assessment was correct. None of you are part of the gun culture, same as all the other conservative pundits and same as Trump. A simple test: none of you would be affected by any gun law proposed by the left, because you don't own guns. Would not have to turn in or register anything. Would not have anything you own become illegal. Never been denied the basic right of self defense because some random bureaucrat decided to post a sign making it illegal for you to carry concealed. Do any of you know anyone that carries concealed in public daily? It's possible to get a DC carry permit now. Talk to DC attorney George Lyon about it.

Romney-esque anecdotes about target shooting in a basement or firing a rented Glock at some urban indoor range doesn't mean that you know anything about current gun culture. And repeating the negative things about the NRA that you've heard your Ivy League/Pundit friends spout at the DC cocktail parties you attend is bullshit too. If you've never been to a gun show, or the NRA annual meeting and met actual NRA members, you don't know anything about the NRA or what it has stood for.

Your weak sauce answers to Spencer's email served as proof, not rebuttal, of his primary point.

[Liberty Lover]

Reason left out the media sensationalizing these shootings. If you notice they come in bunches. There won't be one for an extended period of time, and then there is a mass shooting, the 24 hour news cycle sensationalizes the shooing and giving the shooter the infamy they sought and all of a sudden there are many more shootings. Then it quiets down for a while. The shooters name should never be mentioned. No graphic videos. I am even against showing the hurt the people has as it gives possible shooters power.

[JFree]

The Pros and Cons of Letting Children Die

[voluntaryist]

The belief: Give away your rights to others by voting and you will be protected. Authorize those "others" to force your choice on all, on pain of death. Why? Freedom to choose, e.g., individualism, personal sovereignty, is chaos. Being ruled by force is security.
Consider this: Is this, "The Most Dangerous Superstition"?
Voting is NOT choosing. It is forfeiting choice to an elite who are granted the power to make law. Law is rule by the initiation of force, threats, backed by the ultimate power to kill. It's legalized tyranny.
While a reasoned argument may disguise a specific threat (law), if all arguments are refuted, exposing no justification, the sham is dropped with "the law is the law", meaning, "do it or die".
When individual sovereignty, expressed by one's conscience, one's value judgements, one's life choices, is not allowed on political principle, as expressed in the rule of law, then right to life, liberty, property, happiness, is denied. That is the worldwide political paradigm, justified as benefiting the "common good". But, is the sacrifice of reason, rights, personal choice, to violence, ever good?

[HouseHubby]

Katherine couldn't be more wrong about why people loved Ron Paul. It wasn't because he was "chill" and a "nice grandpa". Sorry, but that's just laughable. Paul was popular because he was a badass who stood firm on his Libertarian principles and unapologetic to his beliefs that liberty comes first and foremost. Actually, the fact he was a grandpa brought tons of criticism that he was too old for POTUS, and likely hurt his chances of winning the primary of 2012.

[George J. Dance]

The podcast's mention of Andy Jabbour got me interested, so I went onto my Twitter account and searched his name. No results; did this brou-ha-ha drive him off Twitter or something?

[George J. Dance]

Found him. https://twitter.com/andyjabbour