A brief response to David Kopel

I realize the old days of extended debates among Volokh bloggers have long passed. Still, I can't help but chime in to say that David's recent post leaves me speechless.  Dave and I agree that the NRA has every right to meet, and that protesters have every right to protest. But I read Dave as also saying that criticizing the NRA for its positions and influence in gun control debates is somehow equal to the belief that it's okay to murder groups of people for their religious beliefs. If that's what Dave is saying, that claim strikes me as so completely preposterous and outrageous that there's some benefit in saying so publicly.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks for this.

[DaivdBehar]

Hi, Orin. 165 million owners of 400 million guns got through yesterday safely. Some fired back at attackers and saved many lives. None were in the news.

They are being scapegoated for the acts of disturbed people. The scapegoaters have a Chinese Commie agenda to impose tyranny on the 5% of the economy that has not gone Commie yet undrr the control of an elite central government.

Stop supporting our internal Commies. Government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the lawyer hierarchy with figurehead elected officials. These are all Ivy indoctrinated lawyers like you. We need assault rifles when these come for our last remaining freedoms. You are Ivy indoctrinated lawyer. You need to STFU. You believe in mind reading, forecasting rare human behaviors, and that standards are set by a fictitious character. You are more delusional than that mass murderer.

I blame the Supreme Court for these mass slaughters by paranoids. They took over psychiatry to generate jobs for 3 lawyers a case. He should not have been streeted.

[DaivdBehar]

David and the other lawyers fail to mention the biggest cause of scapegoating. Weakness. The Jews. The kids in that class. The NRA. Hutus. Cambodian middle class and intellectuals. Scapegoating is caused by weakness.

[DaivdBehar]

See Israel for wide gun possession. 6 school shootings since 1974. They also go after terrorists early, not afterwards. They also kill the terrorists despite their bullshit leftist opposition to the death penalty.

[DaivdBehar]

The shooter turned 18. If he registered to vote, which party got his support?

[DaivdBehar]

The places with the most Draconian Democrat gun control, do they have low or high rates of gun violence and of gun deaths?

Do those places have dozens of victims or thousands of victims?

[Frank Drackman]

Thousands, but they're mostly Afro-Amurican's so nobody gives an F.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Moron:"Do those places have dozens of victims or thousands of victims?"

Mengele: "Thousands, but they're mostly Afro-Amurican's so nobody gives an F."

States with more than 1000 gun deaths and their national ranks by gun death rate:
AL #5
LA #6
MO #7
SC #8
TN #12
GA #14
AZ #16
OH #22
NC #23
TX #26
FL #27
MI #31
PA #32
VA #33
IL #35

[StellaLink_the dog]

Missed CA with rank #44

[DaivdBehar]

That is a highly racist list. The fraction of diverses highly correlates with the ranking. The Democrat party is the party of the lawyer and the tech billionaires and Chinese Commie interests. It continues to kill thousands of diverses a year. It is 100 times more lethal to diverses than the KKK ever was.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"That is a highly racist list."

Let it never be said that you're not good for a laugh.

[DaivdBehar]

Frank. I am not addressing the toxicity of medical rent seeking and lethality to our nation. It is 10 times more costly and deadly than the lawyer toxicity of rent seeking and lethality to our people. I also fear doctors a lot more, since they get crazy and violent. See 9/11, a production brought to us by an ophthlamologist, at the top of his med school class.

[DaivdBehar]

Before you say, he was from Cairo, no, he learned a lot from his time in Queens, NY.

[StellaLink_the dog]

An interesting question from a known moron. How did that happen?

"The places with the most Draconian Democrat gun control, do they have low or high rates of gun violence and of gun deaths?"

2019 firearm death rates among those states with more restrictive gun laws:
CA #44
CT #45
MA #50
IL #35
NY #49

Top 10 highest rate states:
AK, MS, NM, WY, AL, LA, MO, SC, AR, MT

Rates of murders and gun homicides by city, top five:
Jackson, MS
Gary, IN
St Louis, MO
New Orleans, LA
Memphis, TN

Chicago is #26 with a rate less than half of Jackson, Gary, and St Louis

[Ben_]

"Gun death" includes suicides.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Gun death" includes suicides.

So what. Do you think that the state ratings would change much if suicides were eliminated? That would be an empirical claim, Bucko, go for it.

As for the city rates in the post you are responding to; they don't include suicides.

[DaivdBehar]

Stellie. You are a racist and a denier with fake numbers. I cannot argue with a denier, because your agenda is to kill innocent diverses. You do not argue in good faith. Deneirs need only one type of rebuttal.

[Ben_]

Is you policy goal to make sure more suicidal people jump in front of a train instead of eating their gun?

If that’s your goal, then including suicides makes sense. If not, then a statistic that matches the point you’re trying to make would be less easily dismissed.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"If that’s your goal, then including suicides makes sense. If not, then a statistic that matches the point you’re trying to make would be less easily dismissed."

It's hard to argue with logic like that.

[DaivdBehar]

Ben. The murder rate is totally suppressed by advances in trauma care. It would be much higher if one looked at gun shot wounds that were once not survivable.

There are 44000 suicides, and 15000 murders. Half the suicides are legally drunk, as are half the murderers, and half the murder victims. The dumbass CDC only follows the violent death rate of 18 states. There is a correlate with alcohol consumption and all those rates.

Most gun deaths are by suicide. The advances in trauma care do not apply to the close range shootings of suicides.

I suggest gun safety courses in high school, like driving courses. The content of gun safety courses is advisable as regulation, except for their review of the horrific legal consequences to people who defend themselves with guns. Toxic, traitor lawyer filth will destroy their lives. But the common sense content is OK as law, such as safe handling, storage, and separation of gun from ammo.

As to mass shootings, nothing will work save killing the shooter early in his life, before he has taken out others. During this phase, the lawyer is protecting, privileging and empowering the shooter. The remedy starts with taking down the toxic lawyer hierarchy set on the plunder and destruction of this country.

[DaivdBehar]

Other permanent incapacitations would be acceptable as alternatives to the cheap, early, certain, and permanent eradication of these shooters. They are good lawyer customers, and will remain protected by the toxic lawyer profession.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"But I read Dave as also saying that criticizing the NRA for its positions and influence in gun control debates is somehow equal to the belief that it's okay to murder groups of people for their religious beliefs."

The people Dave was referring to aren't just criticizing the NRA for it's positions and influence in gun control debates. They are directly and explicitly claiming the NRA is responsible for mass shootings.

[RhymesWithRight]

And their positions and the legislation they push that enable our streets to be flooded with weapons accessible to mass shooters does leave them with a degree of moral responsibility for the shootings.

Because the conversation goes like this:

NRA: Guns, guns, more guns!
MAJORITY OF AMERICANS: Can we have some reasonable regulations to prevent our children and other fellow citizens from being murdered?
NRA: Guns, guns more guns!
MAJORITY OF AMERICANS: Your demand for more guns makes these massacres possible.
DAVID KOPEL: The majority of Americans are a hate group and just like want to kill NRA members like Hitler killed Jews.

Yes, it is the majority of Americans who support at least some limited form of gun control who are the problem in this conversation.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"And their positions and the legislation they push that enable our streets to be flooded with weapons accessible to mass shooters does leave them with a degree of moral responsibility for the shootings."

No, it doesn't.

[ah....Clem]

Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.

Mr. Vibrating: It can be.

Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!

Man: No it isn't!

Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(short pause)

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.

http://montypython.50webs.com/scripts/Series_3/27.htm

[Hank Ferrous]

To be fair, the original to which MS replied didn't provide any substantive reasoning as to why there was responsibility, simply made the assertion. From there, it engaged in a bit of typical smug, immature bs that it no doubt finds clever. If a reasoned argument was the intent, then a reasoned argument would have been laid out.

[Mike Hansberry]

"The people Dave was referring to aren't just criticizing the NRA for it's positions and influence in gun control debates. They are directly and explicitly claiming the NRA is responsible for mass shootings."

Spot on.

I wonder if Kerr does not recognize the second point or is pretending not to see it. Nobody likes to lose, so it is no wonder anti-gun fanatics hate the NRA. But defending guilt by association thing is another entirely and does not contribute to civil discourse.

[ah....Clem]

QUESTION: Do you think Perdue Pharmacy and the Sackler family are responsible for the many deaths and many more addictions caused by their actions?

The courts certainly did.

Care to explain how the NRA and the gun lobby is so different?

[Mike Hansberry]

Care to explain why you and Orin cannot distinguish between the two points below:
"The people Dave was referring to aren't just criticizing the NRA for it's positions and influence in gun control debates. They are directly and explicitly claiming the NRA is responsible for mass shootings."

Perdue pharma claimed oxy was not addictive. However, it is addictive and that is why they were held liable.

Are you claiming the NRA is responsible for mass shootings?

[arch1]

“ They are directly and explicitly claiming the NRA is responsible for mass shootings.”

Which is of course irrelevant to Orin’s main point, which you and others on this thread are so studiously ignoring:

What they are *not* doing is murdering NRA members, or saying that it’s OK to do so. You know, something that would render Dave’s original obscenely irresponsible comparison apt.

[Mike Hansberry]

So guilt by association is OK so long as one is only criticizing, not murdering?

Is that really your and Orin's main point?

[arch1]

Mike, Orin's main point is not unclear in the slightest: He reads Dave as saying that "criticizing the NRA for its positions and influence in gun control debates is somehow equal to the belief that it's okay to murder groups of people for their religious beliefs," and rightly considers that to be an outrageous claim.

And Orin's reading of Dave is hard to fault, because Dave said "They [NRA-haters] operate by the same rule as the medieval malefactors who thought they were entitled to kill Jews because, supposedly, Jews from 1,500 years before had been responsible for the killing of Jesus."

So how about it, Mike? Do you want to stop changing the subject and address Orin's point head on?

[reasonableone1959]

You are just continuing to misrepresent Dave, as Orin did, by selectively quoting him out of context. What was relevant to Dave's point in that passage about Jews, and what makes it analogous to his main point and his other analogies, was NOT that medieval malefactors killed Jews (because they blamed them for something), but that medieval malefactors killed innocent people simply because they were associated with a group they hated (and which they blamed for that same something). All of his other analogies are the same, except in those other examples, the hatred was manifested in other ways, not killing, against innocent people associated with groups the malefactors hated. To say that providing these analogies are equivalent to saying its OK to murder people for their religious beliefs is not just to fail to understand Dave's point - I think it is far too obvious. It is just lying.

[arch1]

Thanks 1959. You're right that I didn't pay sufficient attention to what was common among Dave's examples. I no longer think he was drawing a parallel between NRA-hating and murder advocacy per se. That said, I wasn't lying about it - just overly focused on the one example.

I still don't buy what Dave is saying, and I will explain why on the off chance that I (or possibly you) can learn something further:

I don't think the main mechanism underlying NRA-hate is guilt by association. Rather, it's frustration and anger with people who appear to wield their considerable political power with insufficient attention to the disastrous consequences for others, including what appears to be a scorched-earth policy wrt most any prospective legislation that could substantially mitigate (or even systematically gather information concerning) a serious public health problem in this country.

Finally, no one said that "...providing these analogies are equivalent to saying its OK to murder people for their religious beliefs..." But I don't think you were lying (just a bit wrapped around the axle:-)

[reasonableone1959]

OK, I understand what you are saying, but I think you are mistaken. First of all, gun violence is only a "public health" problem in this country if you focus on the mental condition of those who kill people, not the tools they use. To say that the prescription to address this mental health problem is to somehow make the tools unavailable is sophomoric reasoning. Second, most people who criticize the NRA for opposing "reasonable gun control" have no idea what gun control laws exist already, and they are blissfully unaware that there is no statistical evidence that the hundreds of regulations and national laws that have been enacted since the 1968 National Gun Control Act have done anything at all to reduce gun violence. And for good reason: all studies that have been conducted looking at the question "where did the criminals who are incarcerated for crimes that involved their use of firearms get their gun?" reveal that they either stole it during the commission of a previous crime, or purchased in on the street from someone else who stole it. Only a handful of crimes involve a legally obtained firearm, and only those who legally purchase them are affected by the gun control laws. We comply. And we support the NRA's efforts to educate lawmakers as to the actual affect of their laws and the instances where proposed laws violate the Constitution. So your statement that prospective legislation "could substantially mitigate ... a serious public health problem" is just false. We have a cultural problem that is producing horrible people who do horrible things. Gun control does utterly nothing to address this problem.

[reasonableone1959]

To further illustrate the stupidity of some exiting gun regulations: last year I auctioned off a pistol I inherited from my dad. It was a "Baby Nambu," a small semi-automatic pistol made in Tokyo in the beginning of WWII and usually carried by officers. A collector won the auction for just over $5000. It is illegal for me to mail the pistol to him, and I would only deliver the pistol to a person with either a Federal Firearms License or a license called a C&R (collector of Curios and Relics) because these people have had background checks. I have to take the pistol to a gun store, have them log it into their possession, and then they log it out and mail it to the receiving license holder. It turns out my buyer was shopping - he wanted to see if my pistol was better than the one he already had. He determined it wasn't, and I honored my 3-day inspection period, refunded his money, and he had his FFL mail it back to mine. When it arrived, I had to wait a week to go pick up the very same gun I had owned for years, which is not a big imposition - it is just pointless. Nobody who is going to commit a gun crime is going to buy a $5000 collectible firearm, but the regulations ignore this fact. I had to comply with a regulation that served no purpose whatsoever, but the people who do bad things that make people like you want to somehow "control" guns would not comply - they don't wait a week to take possession of a gun for which they spent a lot of money. They steal one or buy it from someone else who stole it. And look at the shooting in Texas. The dirtbag bought the gun he used to commit the crime days before doing it - a waiting period would not have helped. It is coming to light that the dirtbag was a bully, a person who hurt animals, a person who was called "school shooter" by his fellow workers, a person other people were afraid of. There could not be a bigger "red flag," but the actual "red flag" laws could not or did not detect him. In practice, the laws that sound good to infantile lawmakers just don't work. If you are truly interested in the truth, I can direct you to a dozen meta-studies that bear this out. Find the legal text "Firearms Law and the Second Amendment - Regulation, Rights, and Policy" in a library, or buy a copy (I'm a lawyer and I love this stuff - I don't expect you to love it, but to learn takes effort). There is an exhaustive review of all of the studies conducted since 1968 by organizations both in support of and opposed to specific "gun control" legislation.

[arch1]

Thanks 1959. I respect your knowledge and have much to learn and reflect on.

That said, the fact that you haven't addressed the NRA's passion for suppressing data gathering, and the fact that every point you made wrt this complex topic points in the same direction, makes me think you might benefit from reflecting on something as well-

Q: Can you see how it might appear to a disinterested outsider that the typical NRA supporter by their words and behavior in effect prioritizes obtaining and retaining the means to incapacitate and kill their fellow humans over - well, their fellow humans?

[Gandydancer]

Opposing measures that will have no positive effect on the rate of the infliction of death and misery is not prioritizing liberty over preventing death and misery. 1959 already explained this to you, yet you persist in your bogus claim. Give it a rest.

[reasonableone1959]

The NRA has no "passion for suppressing data gathering," so there is nothing to address there.

A. I don't really care how things appear, I care how they things are. And I care about countering the propaganda that obfuscates how things are with education as to how things are. Your question just sidesteps the issue. Think about this: it is common practice not to have children use pointy scissors in arts and crafts classes in elementary school. This is reasonable: children may not be sufficiently dextrous or fully understand the danger to themselves and others when they are allowed to "run with scissors" or just use them generally. But we also know that adults do understand this danger and are capable of using pointy scissors, and so we do not ban them, we do not force scissor manufacturers to only sell blunted scissors. And when an adult stabs someone with a pare of scissors, we do not call for a ban of scissors, because we understand the blame rests with the person who chose to use the scissors to stab someone. Socialists and other Leftists do not just compulsively refuse to blame people for the consequences of their bad decisions - two necessary, but utterly false, premises to their political philosophy are "we are our brothers' keepers" and "but for the grace of god go I," and so therefore, teh choices that lead to poverty, or to inflict criminal violence, to name just two bad choices, are always "somebody else's fault," namely, "the system" or "the rich" or "the NRA", and those of us who are in these groups are somehow responsible for the poverty or the violence. Because of the false premises, they worry about "how it looks" when people oppose gun control because, obviously, they think, we don't care. We do. I do. But I will not have a conversation with someone who thinks the solution is to treat adults like children and blunt the tips of their scissors. We have to talk about what children learn in public schools, how families break down, how social media can stigmatize children and can make normal difficult adolescence into a living hell, or how spending a majority of their spare time playing violent video games desensitizes kids and some adults to violence and takes up the time they need to learn how to be productive and make good choices. Start there, and I'll continue this convo as long as you'd like.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Passion for suppressing data gathering";

I'm a little unclear what you're talking about here.

Is it the Dickey amendment that prohibited the CDC from funding anti-gun advocacy?

Or is it our objection to gun registration, a well known prelude to confiscation?

[Carl_N_Brown]

"... the NRA's passion for suppressing data gathering ..."

CDC Additional Requirement 12 prohibits using CDC grant money to lobby Congress on any subject, in accordance with the Anti-Lobbying Act
https://www.cdc.gov/grants/additional-requirements/ar-12.html

[Carl_N_Brown]

CDC Additional Requirement 13 prohibits using CDC grant money to lobby Congress on gun control (because a clique at CDC felt strongly enough on gun control to ignore the Anti-Lobbying Act).

https://www.cdc.gov/grants/additional-requirements/ar-13.html

Blame the NRA if you like for blocking an executive branch agency CDC from using research grant money from Congress to lobby Congress on legislation, but AR-13 has not banned empirical research on gun issues.

[arch1]

1959: I don't think the scissors analogy very apt; maybe you can think a bit more on that one and save me the trouble of explaining why. My appeal to "how it might appear to a disinterested outsider" was a rhetorical attempt to encourage you to play the role of that outsider, and to further consider whether something real may underlie the appearance to which I alluded. (Clearly I failed:-)

As to the NRA's passion for suppressing data gathering (1959 and Brett) and the potential value of such data in informing gun control legislation (Gandy):

1) Prominent data-suppression examples do include the 1996 Dickey Amendment, but also the 2003 Tiahrt Amendment, which stopped BATF from sharing information beyond law enforcement concerning gun stores with records of selling firearms that wind up in crime scenes.

2) I can hear you objecting that Dickey only prohibited anti-gun advocacy, and stating categorically that in any case gun-related legislation can't reduce gun-related casualties. If so, you might at least consider the opinion of Jay Dickey, who in a 2012 WP editorial repudiated his own amendment, and stated:
"Since the legislation passed in 1996, the United States has spent about $240 million a year on traffic safety research, but there has been almost no publicly funded research on firearm injuries.

As a consequence, U.S. scientists cannot answer the most basic question: What works to prevent firearm injuries? We don’t know whether having more citizens carry guns would decrease or increase firearm deaths; or whether firearm registration and licensing would make inner-city residents safer or expose them to greater harm. We don’t know whether a ban on assault weapons or large-capacity magazines, or limiting access to ammunition, would have saved lives in Aurora or would make it riskier for people to go to a movie. And we don’t know how to effectively restrict access to firearms by those with serious mental illness."

3) Of course the true-blue NRAer rejects Dickey's opinion of the Dickey Amendment, and (as if eager to validate the premise of my earlier rhetorical question) continues to be unsupportive of nearly all gun safety related research. From a 2018 NYT article:
"Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the N.R.A., said the group continues to support the Dickey Amendment. 'We oppose taxpayer dollars being spent to advocate for gun control,' Ms. Baker said. Asked if there is any type of research the group would support, she said the N.R.A. would like to see a study of how often firearms are used in self-defense."

[reasonableone1959]

First, I think the scissors analogy is perfectly apt, as it shows that the instrumentality used by a person to hurt someone is not the cause of the harm, and therefore efforts to limit access to the instrumentality will have no effect on future harms. If you want to have such and effect, you have address the root causes.

Second, I'd like to address your statement: "but there has been almost no publicly funded research on firearm injuries. As a consequence, U.S. scientists cannot answer the most basic question: What works to prevent firearm injuries?" This is so untrue it is laughable.

1)Hahn, et. al., First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws, 52 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Oct 3, 2003), by The Task Force on Community Preventive Services with support from the CDC.
2)The above meta-study was expanded and the findings reported by Hahn et. al., Firearms Laws and the Reduction of Violence: A Systematic Review, 28 Am. J. Prev. Med. 40 (2005).
3)Wellford, Pepper & Petrie, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (a metastudy and report developed by the National Academies at the request of a consortium of Federal Agencies and Private Foundations, including the CDC and the Joyce Foundation.
4)The Rand Corporation, The Science of Gun Policy: A Critical Synthesis of Research Evidence on the Critical Effects of Gun Policies in the United States (2018) ("In all areas [other than child access prevention laws], the study finds that evidence regarding teh effectiveness of these policies is only "moderate, limited, or inconclusive, or that there is no evidence at all.)
5)The Rand study was updated in 2020 - same result.
6)Data on gun ownership, number of gun crimes, and defensive uses of guns: Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and their Control 67(1997); Urbatch, Gun-shy: Refusal to Answer Questions about Firearm Ownership, 56 Soc. Sci. J. 189 (2019); Yamane, Why Surveys Underestimate Gun Ownership Rates in the US, Gun Curious (Feb. 11, 2019).
7)Parker, et. al., America's Complex Relationship with Guns: An In-Depth Look at the Attitudes and Experiences of U.S. Adults 4, 18 Pew Research Center (2017).
8)Three sources note a decline in gun ownership in the US: Smith et.al., Gun Ownership in the United States: Measurements and Trends (National Opinion Research Center 2015), a General Social Survey conducted by the same center, and a Gallop Poll. There is also composite database of over 400 US polls maintained by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research that show a 9% decrease in gun ownership from 1980 to 2013.
I'm stopping here - there are FAR too many studies to list: my review of them, presented in depth by Johnson, et. al., in the legal text to which I have already referred to you, lists, summarizes, and draws conclusions from nearly 100 studies conducted by nearly 100 different organizations, including government and other public organizations, that cover a) the challenges of generating objective data on gun use and the effect of gun laws, b) gun ownership (how many and trends), d) defensive gun use, e) firearm accidents, f) firearm suicide, g) firearm violent crime, h) how criminals obtain guns, i) race, gun crime and victimization, j) youth crime, k) whether gun ownership reduces crime, l) whether gun control reduces crime, and m) mass shootings.

[arch1]

Thanks again 1959, you are clearly deep in on this topic.

Your list of examples (which I get is only a small sample) makes me wonder: Does the fact that a large proportion of the studies you cite are meta-studies, or surveys, or studies about the inaccuracies of surveys, and/or include caveats that evidence is partial, or inconclusive, or absent, be telling a story, *not* of a domain in which categorical assertions about the ineffectiveness of a whole category of potential solutions are justified, but of one in which important questions are still open at least in part because researchers are starved for raw data due to such restrictions as the Tiarht Amendment?

Put another way: If there were a config setting in your brain controlling the priority ratio of maintaining firearms access vs reducing firearms casualties in this country, could we by pushing the slider low enough cause you to decide to support removing Tiahrt and other legal, funding or political restrictions on gathering additional raw data to enable higher quality analyses to be done? Or are you so certain you are right based on currently available data that even if (say) your family's lives depended on it, and you could remove such restrictions w/ the twitch of a finger, you wouldn't bother?

[reasonableone1959]

"Does the fact that a large proportion of the studies you cite are meta-studies, or surveys, or studies about the inaccuracies of surveys, and/or include caveats that evidence is partial, or inconclusive, or absent, be telling a story, *not* of a domain in which categorical assertions about the ineffectiveness of a whole category of potential solutions are justified, but of one in which important questions are still open at least in part because researchers are starved for raw data due to such restrictions as the Tiarht Amendment?"

First, important questions are always, to a certain extent, still open. But the answer is still "no." I presented the studies in the order they appear in the book, which starts out with an exhaustive look at what studies actually have been done that illuminated the effectiveness of gun laws (not generally, but each type, in turn). I just ran out of steam after 9. Metastudies are valid if the underlying studies are valid - the process of gathering all available studies, looking at their methodologies, compiling data, and drawing conclusions is more accurate than relying on just one study. And most importantly, there were no "caveats" - that was a conclusion of the one metastudy I quoted - when you look at statistical correlations between the rate of something occurring and the onset of a set of circumstances that may or may not affect the rate of occurrence, the evidence can strongly suggest a correlation, or there can be no evidence of a correlation at all. That study "reviewed available scientific evidence from 2003-2016 on the effects of 13 different types of policies on firearm deaths, violent crimes, mass shootings, defensive gun use, and other outcomes." The policies included background checks, "assault weapon" and magazine bans, licensing and permitting requirements, concealed carry laws, stand-your-ground laws, minimum age requirements, mental illness prohibitions, and child-access prevention laws.

I don't think you would believe anything I say about the other 85 or so studies that are not metastudies that are cited in this book, but one thing is for sure - the statement "there has been almost no publicly funded research on firearm injuries. As a consequence, U.S. scientists cannot answer the most basic question: What works to prevent firearm injuries?" is not true.

"If there were a config setting in your brain controlling the priority ratio of maintaining firearms access vs reducing firearms casualties in this country, could we by pushing the slider low enough cause you to decide to support removing Tiahrt and other legal, funding or political restrictions on gathering additional raw data to enable higher quality analyses to be done?" The existence of so many studies conducted over the past 30 years tells me that high quality analyses HAVE been done. In fact, despite the Tiahrt Amendment, ATF trace data is one source of data used to illuminate the sources of guns for criminals who use them. Such data has to be supplemented by other studies (such as interviews with incarcerated criminals who used guns in committing crimes), however, because there are fundamental limits to its accuracy. Unless they were originally military handguns, virtually no commercial handguns manufactured prior to 1968 are marked with serial numbers. New guns are traceable to a certain extent, but infrequently used by criminals - they are expensive, for one thing, and you have to pass a background check to buy one. Older serial numbered guns may have been owned by many people before coming into the possession of a criminal who used it, so what good is it knowing the last owner prior to the criminal, unless you are going to allege it was an illegal sale. Gun tracing mostly just harasses legal owners - criminals get their guns by theft or illegal sales most of the time. They are stolen from manufacturers, importers, distributors, dealers, private citizens, police departments and, infrequently, from the mail or other carriers. It is estimated that about 500,000 guns per year are stolen. Cook, et al, Regulating Gun Markets, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 59 (1995). A Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey of Prison Inmates reported that 43% of guns were bought off the street or an underground market, 25% were obtained from a family member, 10% from a retail dealer, and 5% bought their gun from "someone else". Most of the 43% had been stolen, and the remaining 17% were stolen by the inmate. Of the retail sales (10%), 7.5% were purchased at a gun store, and 0.8% were purchased at a gun show.

"Or are you so certain you are right based on currently available data that even if (say) your family's lives depended on it, and you could remove such restrictions w/ the twitch of a finger, you wouldn't bother?" This emotional appeal usually occurs sometime in a conversation like this. Government officials and millions of emotional people scream out "we have to DO SOMETHING" everytime there is a shooting that makes the news. We have done A LOT to control the sales, distribution, ownership, and use of firearms, but we continue to produce horrible people who do horrible things, and none of these politicians or emotionally wrought people seem to want to assign the blame for these shootings on the horrible person who did it, and DO SOMETHING to raise adults who do not kill. I do not fear for my family. My father was a forensic pathologist, the Medical Examiner in Anchorage where I grew up. I have seen farther into the dark world of murder and gun violence than you ever will, thankfully for you. I have seen enough and read enough in my 45 years of adulthood to know that gun control is largely ineffective except for laws limiting the access to gun by children (which, frankly, is a sad statement on the irresponsibility of the average human being - there should be no need for laws mandating common sense). But beyond ineffectiveness, the call for gun control is a symptom of bad government and rotting culture. We should not want our government to be our mommies and keep us from having things that can be dangerous if misused. We should not want a government that "takes care of us." Our government of laws that limit its power is supposed to preserve our freedom; history is littered with the detritus of failed governments that obtained great power in order to provide for everyone equally, and most of the time, they kept power by making the ownership of firearms by private people illegal. We are a militia. You are a part of it, and I believe you shirk your responsibility when you refuse to keep and bear arms.

[arch1]

Thanks again 1959. If the BoJ inmate survey results are valid and representative I see that we are in deep shit wrt trying to make an impact on bad-guy gun ownership via POS-based measures (which can at best impact their gun acquisition rate by some fraction of 10%). Much else to absorb here, and I intend to go through it more carefully.

I am curious about your closing comment. What makes you think that it would be better if I, a random U.S. noncriminal, were to own a gun thus joining the de facto militia? It is not at all clear to me that this (more to the point, this times say 150 million) would on balance be expected to make our country *or* our world a better place.

[reasonableone1959]

"What makes you think that it would be better if I, a random U.S. noncriminal, were to own a gun thus joining the de facto militia? It is not at all clear to me that this (more to the point, this times say 150 million) would on balance be expected to make our country *or* our world a better place."

I've been pondering this great question. I think it could be a starting off point for a book. And thus it is kind of hard to fully answer it here. Easy answers: if more people were gun owners, guns would be demystified, people would understand that shooting generally and for sure shooting a person is not like what can be seen daily in movies and on TV (i.e. guns are extremely loud, hard to hold onto, difficult to aim, and the ramifications of aiming them at someone and pulling the trigger are life changing and always awful). Many people who advocate the most strict gun control (or repealing the 2nd Amendment) are also people who would never buy one or shoot one, on principle, so they can't know what gun control laws already exist and what hoops innocent people have to jump through to exercise their Constitutional right, and how pointless and ill-thought out most of them are.

But it is much more than that. I think of fighter pilots in Europe in WWII - 19 and 20 year old young men who who had been exquisitely and exhaustively trained and then shipped to England and entrusted with a fighter, one of the most expensive pieces of equipment yet devised, in which they would risk their lives to bring power to bear against other young men trained and sent out to try to conquer Europe and the USSR to create its on Socialist state for its perfect citizens with their singular selfless loyalty, instilled from birth, to the Fatherland. And you know what? We still have 20 something young men and women entrusted with some of the most expensive airplanes ever made who are willing to do the same if needed. This is what young people are capable of. I was fortunate to learn to fly when I was a teenager (although my luck was having a father who flew his own airplane, which made me want to fly, too. I paid for my own lessons). There is nothing like learning to fly to teach someone how to be responsible with equipment, how to take care of it and operate it in a way that is safe, and when you become good enough at doing this and exercising good judgment, you can get a license that allows you to take other people flying with you - to actually have their lives in your hands. Not everyone can afford this, or even wants it. The same goes with guns though, and nearly everyone can afford one of those. When a parent teaches a teenager to handle a firearm and shoot it safely, there is a level of responsibility taught through those lessons that is hard to duplicate by much else other than flying. I think people are as good as they are required to be, and if you keep and bear arms, you have to be good. You are part of something bigger than yourself - you are empowered to protect your own life and those of others (although you hope never to have to). When Russia invaded Ukraine, the men that remained in the country needed guns to fight back. It is highly unlikely our country will ever be invaded by the ground forces of another country, but the fact that there are roughly 1.3 guns per person in this country (about 430 million guns as of 2018) contributes significantly to that unlikelihood.

There is also a historical aspect. We are a legal descendant of England, and like most of Europe, freemen (knights and nobles) were required to own weapons and offer up their military service when requested to the crown. Peasants and slaves were prohibited from owning weapons. But of course their owners or lords could order them to fight with farm implements and other makeshift weapons. Our Constitution did away with the distinction between citizens and a nobility (unfortunately, not slavery), and every citizen was guaranteed a right to keep and bear arms. Why? Because 1) we have a fundamental right to our lives, and to be free to live as we please to the extent we don't infringe anyone else's fundamental rights, including their lives. If someone is on the verge of taking our life, we have a right to fight back and take a life to save our own. And 2) we are part of a militia, understood at the time of our founding to be the men (now women too) roughly between 16 and 60 expected to be armed and fight with our government if necessary. This was supposed to reduce the need for a standing army and thus, like most of the Constitution, it limited the power of government to infringe our fundamental rights. We now have huge standing military services, but they developed in an era when projecting power was seen as equally necessary to passively being ready to defend the nation - so that conflicts would take place somewhere else, not on our soil. While this might reduce the need for a militia, it does not eliminate it.

All of these are reasons I think we all (adults) should own guns. I think if these reasons were heartfelt in most people, if they were taught and instilled from a young age, we would have fewer criminals and fewer people blaming others, or the system, for their problems. Of course there still would be criminals, and they would still steal guns. We have laws that address this issue, and they need to be enforced. But we really need to look ourselves in the mirror and ask why people are not living up to their potential; why are so many young people incapable of being fighter pilots, or something else that is difficult to become and requires great responsibility, even if they wanted to?

[Mike Hansberry]

The "rule" being guilt by association, which is always wrong whether advocating murder or merely criticizing one's political opponents. Do you disagree?

It is sophistry to pretend to miss the main point and instead "read" David's statement as making an equivalence between advocating murder and criticism.

[Pacific]

Just checking in to see all of the Kopel fans calling Orin Kerr a "leftist" or "commie."

[Pacific]

And to see all of those who agree with Kopel that commenting on the NRA makes one a follower of "Satan." Who knew?

"So as we begin our day of studying the Law, we say to each and every hate group, we reject your sick and twisted lies against us, for exactly the same reason we reject the blood libels against every race, every religion, and every other group: We reject Satan and all his works."

[Estragon]

I still can’t get over the fact this was a CLE

[arch1]

Oh I dunno, as a layperson I'm finding this pretty educational as to the degree to which Satan-belief has infected the supposedly evidence-and-reason-based legal profession..

[Carl_N_Brown]

San Francisco council calls NRA 'domestic terrorist organisation
Sep 4, 2019 BBC — The San Francisco city government has formally labelled the pro-gun lobbyist National Rifle Association (NRA) a "domestic terrorist organization" ...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49574445

And if I don't surrender my rifles' standard issue magazines in response to school shootings, I could be declared a domestic terrorist, placed outside the protection of the law, and have a Hellfire missile dropt on my head, like that kid who went to his dad's funeral in Yemen.

Kopel was on a rhetorical roll.

Funny that David Kopel would use the Roman Baptism, "Do you renounce Satan, and all his works and empty promises?"

[Josh R]

David's post was the worst in the history of the Volokh Conspiracy. Orin, you have saved the day with your post. I can only hope that Eugene does likewise (and Adler and Baude who I admire as well).

[DaivdBehar]

Joshie. Whom did you vote for President in 2020? You need to disclose that. Orin is being hysterical and over reacting.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"You need to disclose that. "

Nobody needs to do anything you suggest.

[Snorkle]

Check everyone for Nixon backtoos, just to be sure they're loyalists.

[ah....Clem]

Well, it wasn't written as a blog post. It was written as a speech to serve up a heaping helping of red meat to a group of zealots. Expecting rationality or careful legal reasoning instead of mindless pandering, vilification, and grievance will result in disappointment.

Thanks to Prof Kerr for pushing back. This blog deserves better.

[Gandydancer]

The blog deserves better than Kerr's dishonest and tendentious "read" on what Kopel said about mis-apportioning responsibility.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Didn’t we slaughter Iraqis because they were Muslims??

[Gandydancer]

No.

[Doug Heffernan]

More thanks.

That clearly is what Dave is saying.

One might say that what he is saying is in a speech targeted for a specific audience. But he posted it here, so obviously he is not just playing to a particular crowd.

Dave does say that protesters have every right to protest. But that is the last time he refers to them as protesters. From then on, it is "hate groups" and "haters". It read no different than the president of wokeness going off about hate speech, or some university president claiming that all speech is welcome except hate speech (as self-defined).

[Life of Brian]

Dave does say that protesters have every right to protest. But that is the last time he refers to them as protesters. From then on, it is "hate groups" and "haters"

This is reading incomprehension. At best.

Orin is the only one that used the broad brush of "protestors." At the outset and throughout, Dave consistently referred to the subset of "hate groups" who "have declared that they will shut us down." Full context:

"Today, hate groups are demonstrating against us for even daring to gather. They have declared that they will shut us down. Certainly, they have the right to demonstrate as they wish, and they have no right to suppress the free speech and free association of other people."

[Krayt]

Likening it to various loose blood libels was a bit strained, but I didn't see what Orin said at all. I kept reading with his complaint in mind, waiting for it to show up, then I was at the end.

[Gandydancer]

Kopel was saying that blaming the NRA for shootings their members didn't engage in or approve of is akin to blaming uninvolved Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. Cold contempt would be a better tone for Kopel than anger, but Kerr is being inexcusably obtuse.

Strictly speaking, the latter blame isn't a "blood libel", btw.

[Ben_]

Except Kopel doesn’t have to make up the hate or strain to divine it from so-called "code words" or microaggressions. No Jussie Smolletts needed. The hate is front and center and the haters express it clearly and directly.

[Gandydancer]

"Haters" is a brainless insult, and Kopel lowered himself by using it with insufficient irony.

[Ben_]

It’s a description.

If particular words cause teh bad feels for you, you’re welcome to your reaction, but don’t expect others to understand or share in it.

[PenrodJ]

I’ve now read Dave’s post four times and believe you are all misinterpreting what he said.

My take is that he said that attacking the NRA and it’s members (of which I am one) as being responsible for school murders -or any other murders- simply because NRA members own guns and support the guarantee of the 2nd Amendment is akin to holding Jews today responsible for the killing of Christ simply because they are Jews.

(Whether some Jews were responsible 2000 years ago is moot: any such are long dead and no one today is responsible for their alleged actions. To hold otherwise is classic collectivist thinking based on the belief that all Jews everywhere, in all eras, are interchangeable and responsible for each other’s actions.)

Remember: the protesters are not by and large simply criticizing the policies of the NRA: their core attack is the assertion that the NRA and it’s members are responsible for the deaths of Texas schoolchildren, as well of all the other schoolchildren and others murdered with guns.

Is claiming that people who defend their rights are responsible for other people committing murder so far from claiming that all Jews are responsible for a killing 2000 years ago? Both are examples of collectivist thinking.

To these critics, gun owners are interchangeable, just like Jews are interchangeable to anti-Semites.

[not guilty]

The NRA celebrates and actively promotes the proliferation of firearms. The most charitable reading of that is that it contributes to a pro-death culture. Holding their convention in Houston, mere days after a school shooting, is indecent. Kudos to the entertainers who canceled, and shame on the politicians who appear.

[Jimmy the Dane]

What is a "pro death" culture? One that promotes abortion on demand?

[not guilty]

Whenever I get a tu quoque> reply, I know I have struck an exposed nerve. As some of us say in the South, the hit dog hollers.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I ask because I am legit curious. What is your definition of "pro death" culture? Is it just a culture that permits firearm ownership or does the value of being "pro death" run deeper than that?

I suspect I know the answer which is why you don't want to actually answer the question. But, I'm game, so go ahead.

[Krychek_2]

If that is a serious question -- what is a pro death culture -- let's start with something simple. The United States has one of the highest infant mortality rates, and lowest life expectancies, in the world. Both of those could be greatly improved by expanding government services. But any politician who tries will be rewarded with taunts of "you commie" and "the Democrats socialist agenda" and "but what about my freedom". So, we continue to have high infant mortality and low life expectancy rates, largely because our world view. (Or, more correctly, the world view of the rural areas that under our polity have disproportionate influence on our politics.) That, I would say, is a sign of a culture of death.

[Krychek_2]

Sorry, in my first paragraph I meant to say "in the Western world"

[Michael Ejercito]

What makes Western countries different from Eastern countries in this context?

[Michael P]

By that logic, sending all Black Americans to Africa would make America more pro-life / anti-death, because they have a disproportionate number of infant deaths and shorter lives. Is that the argument you are making?

That's even setting aside the country-by-country variations in counting infant mortality, which are well-documented to have a huge effect on the official statistics (to the US's apparent detriment). And the fact that the US still comes in 50th lowest out of 195 countries -- certainly not one of the highest in the world.

[Krychek_2]

I said one of the highest in the Western world, which does not include most of your 195 country list.

No, moving the blacks back to Africa simply shifts the geography of where the problem is happening. The pro life solution is to figure out why they have worse rates and work on fixing it.

[Michael P]

You're cherry-picking demographics while acknowledging that demographics have big effects on the metrics that you are looking at. That's a flawed argument.

[Krychek_2]

No I'm not. The United States to Zaire is not an apples to apples comparison because the two countries have hardly anything in common. The United States to other Western democracies is an apples to apples comparison (or at least closer to an apples to apples comparison) because of all the many things we do have in common. By restricting the analysis to Western democracies I'm explicitly looking for the fewest number of variables.

[Michael Ejercito]

Brazil, Mexico, and Jamaica are Western democracies.

[Gandydancer]

...moving the blacks back to Africa simply shifts the geography of where the problem is happening...

The United States to other Western democracies is an apples to apples comparison (or at least closer to an apples to apples comparison) because of all the many things we do have in common. By restricting the analysis to Western democracies I'm explicitly looking for the fewest number of variables.

Nonsense. Comparing only the White populations in these countries removes another variable, and is illuminating. Your response is mere distraction.

[SimonP]

Ah, yes, the "once you correct for race" defense.

Is your point, then, that America's "death culture" is really a "racist death culture?"

[StellaLink_the dog]

Is your point, then, that America's "death culture" is really a "racist death culture?"

That is a great question.

Why is it that "sending all Black Americans to Africa would make America more pro-life / anti-death."

[Gandydancer]

Ah, yes, the "race is just a social construct, so any differences prove racism" defense.

Your brain is broken.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Well, let's try addressing your comment. "Both of those could be greatly improved by expanding government services"

The US life expectancy rate is interesting to look at. There is considerable geographic variation by state, from a high of 82.3 years in Hawaii to a low of 74.8 in West Virrginia.

So, I suppose my question here is, is there significantly different levels of government services across the states that are responsible for this difference in life expectancy?

[Krychek_2]

Yes. Blue states consistently do better than red states. You can find an odd exception here or there, but that's the general rule.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So what "blue state services" are responsible for this? You seem to imply it's health care.

[Armchair Lawyer]

But, here's some interesting facts for you.

You can also break down life expectancy by race.

In Washington DC, if you're White, you have a life expectancy of 87.5 year. If you're black, just 72.6 years.

Looking at Mississippi, if you're White you have a life expectancy of 76 year. If you're black, just 72.6 years.

That's fairly consistent, African Americans typically have lower life expectancy than white Americans. (Hispanics and Asians tend to have life expectancies above both). There are a few exceptions to the rule though. Maine, ND, SD, ID and VT all reverse that trend (African Americans live longer than Whites).

But many blue states have African Americans living significantly shorter lives than Whites. Maryland, California, NJ, IL and more.

Why is that? How are the blue states failing their African American populations so dramatically such that they look like Mississippi? Where Red states like ID aren't....

[Krychek_2]

No one has ever claimed that racism (and the effects of racism) is absent in blue states, and it's amazing how eager you are to introduce race into a conversation that had nothing to do with it. But that said, my original statement -- that overall blue states do better than red states -- remains true.

[Armchair Lawyer]

What I'm doing is looking at different variables that may be able to explain some of this difference.

Let's take your racism concept here for a second. Let's assume racism is 100% responsible for the difference in life expectancies between African Americans and Whites.

That would mean the "most" racist place in America was Washington DC (which is also the most liberal), with an amazing 14.6 year difference in life expectancy. West Virginia only has a 2.6 year gap. Mississippi, which is next lowest in life expectancy for African Americans, is just a 3.4 year gap. Illinois, by contrast has a 5.4 year gap in life expectancy...so is far more racist than WV and MS. California has a 4 year gap in life expectancy...more racist than WV. Maryland....a 4.7 year gap. Pretty racist. Georgia, a 2.5 year gap....Not nearly as racist.

Blue states seem to do quite a bit worse....

What explains this?

[bernard11]

I think you will find that poor people have shorter life expectancies than those who are better off.

Note, for example, that WV, certainly poor, has the lowest LE in the country, per A.L., yet is only about 5% African-American.

[bernard11]

What explains this?

It seems plausible that what might explain it is that LE is more determined by socio-economic status than by race.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I think you will find that poor people have shorter life expectancies than those who are better off."

Which, if it actually explains these numbers, implies that racial income disparities are higher in 'blue' states.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to believe that such a pattern of disparity isn't the product of racial discrimination, but how do liberals explain such a pattern?

[Randal]

Fundamentally, racial discrimination, on some timeline.

All income disparities are higher in blue states, including racially influenced ones.

Blue states have big urban centers, which are drivers of income disparity for various reasons (including that they attract low-income people from red states). That's why blue states see income disparity as a problem. It's not because they've solved it, it's because they haven't.

[Michael P]

If one wanted to increase life expectancy in the US, it would more effective to ban pizzas, shutter bodegas, and strictly regulate McDonald's than to ban guns, and none of the first three would run into constitutional problems.

[Krychek_2]

First, I haven't said a word about banning guns, and in fact do not support banning guns (though I do support more regulation of them than you do).

Second, I don't support banning pizza or McDonalds either, though you're probably right that if they disappeared American life expectancy would benefit. But, pizza and McDonalds are legal in other countries that have higher life expectancy rates than we do, so that can't be the problem. It may be that culturally people there just don't choose to eat as much junk as we do; I would argue that that same cultural preference also gives them national single payer health care, so it really is a healthier culture -- or, if you wish, less a culture of death.

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

What specific regulations are you proposing? Leftists never disclose this, only asserting more regulations. Please be specific and address the efficacy of each proposed regulations.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A New Yorker article by Atul Gawande goes far to settle questions of the sort you guys are working on. It details the means by which Costa Rica, a notably poor nation, improved life expectancy from mid-50s in the middle 20th Century, to a better-than-U.S. approximately 81 years today. Five words: public health policy, construed broadly.

[Krychek_2]

GPH, bullshit. Specific proposals for gun control have exhaustively and extensively been put forward, here and elsewhere, ad nauseum. I myself offered a half dozen specific proposals in another thread here earlier this week.

If you’re opposed in principle to regulating guns then say so. But the claim that “leftists” aren’t offering specifics is nonsense.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have to say that your response to Ghost of Patrick Henry sure sounds to me like a refusal to be specific.

I'm not opposed to 'regulating guns', but I suspect my idea of 'regulating guns' looks remarkably different from yours. The term "regulating guns" is just too abstract for anybody to meaningfully approve or disapprove of.

How about we trade examples?

[DaivdBehar]

KryKry. In Europe, Commie care records the deaths of premature infants in NICU as a miscarriage. So their infant mortality is fake. If you look at whites in Minnesota, versus in Norway, ours do a lot better with our health care.

[Krychek_2]

Um, nope:

http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Don't make claims that can easily be disproven with a five minute google search.

[Krychek_2]

Sorry, only half the link copied. Here's the whole thing:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4856058/

[DaivdBehar]

KryKry: "There may be reporting differences for infants born near the threshold of viability, with the U.S. more likely to count them as live births while other countries are more likely to count them as miscarriages or stillbirths."

[DaivdBehar]

KryKry: As diverses invade Europe, their stats will ressemble our diverse invaded US stats. The biggest drop in mortality comes from reaching 2000 cal a day. A tiny additional increases come from vaccinations and sewer systems. Mortality is not a good measurement of health care quality. Commie Care is cheap care, good at physical exams and vaccinations. If you need expensive care, you are dead. Princess Diana was assassinated by French Commie Care. She was talkin'. They took 45 minutes to get her out of the car. No Jaws of Life, $500 on Ebay, used. Many other deficiences compounded her assassination.

[Krychek_2]

Daivd, you didn't read the article all the way through, did you?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

>The United States has one of the highest infant mortality rates, and lowest life expectancies, in the world. Both of those could be greatly improved by expanding government services.

Why aren't the existing government services and policies working?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Because they are terrible policies, not sufficiently socialist, and unevenly applied. For a counter-example to prove it, see Costa Rica.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Directly spending 50% of our healthcare dollars and heavily directing and regulating the rest isn’t sufficiently socialist?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Do you think the low infant mortality rates are among the poor who are serviced by socialist healthcare, or among the middle class and rich who are not?

[Krychek_2]

In the same way that private schools skim the cream off the top, leaving the public schools to take care of everyone else, so the American health care system skims the cream off the top and leaves government health care to take care of everyone else. So it's not an apples to apples comparison.

That said, the UK spends 10% of its GDP on health care and insures everybody. The US spends 16% of its GDP with lots of people who still aren't being properly cared for. Those numbers speak for themselves.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are you really arguing that socialist healthcare in the US isn't working because healthy people aren't averaging down it's awful metrics?

The US public healthcare spending per capita already exceeds UK healthcare public spending per capita.

How do you reconcile that?

[Toranth]

And the "infant mortality" canard rears ins head again. It has only been a week or two, yet here are the ignorant repeating it again. I should just make a cut-and-paste for this.

The US has the highest survival rate for an infant born at any stage of development.
The US has a higher infant mortality rate than most Western or OECD nations.

How can both of these things be true? Well, it's quite simple: definitions and demographics.

First, the definition of a "live birth" can vary significantly between countries, and this can cause the reported infant mortality rate to change. As your own link reported (despite your claim otherwise). To quote the WHO: "it has also been common practice in several countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Spain) to register as live births only those infants who survived for a specified period beyond birth".
Studies show that using the definition of different countries can change the results by up to 50% (Richardus), and even just using the different Western European standards resulted in changes of up to 40% (Graafmans).

Second, demographics. Infant mortality is closely tied to the age and health of the mother, and in the US there are many more mothers that are under 20 or over 40, and many more that are overweight, than in most other countries. And by "many more", I mean between 4 and 10 times as many 'at risk' mothers. Even though premature births are most survivable in the US, when you have so many more of them, it brings down the overall average.

Similarly, life expectancy in the US is driven down primarily by the prevalence of heart disease. And yet, the US has the top survival rate most years. So how can these both be true?
Because heart disease is closely linked to weight, and the US population is fat. Fat by choice, because it is so easy to get large quantities good tasting but unhealthy food that even the 'poor' do it. But hey, the rest of the West has rising obesity rates, so they'll catch up to the US soon.

How does eating at McDonald's constitute a "culture of death"?
What 'government service' is going to get people to stop watching TV and run laps around the neighborhood?

[Krychek_2]

Toranth, I would refer you to the same article I linked above for Behar.

[Toranth]

Congratulations, you completely failed to read or understand what I wrote.
On the other hand, I both read and understood the article you linked before I posted. It does not disagree with what I wrote, and if you understood what you had linked, you wouldn't even try disagreeing with it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Toranth, you wrote this:

The US has the highest survival rate for an infant born at any stage of development.

Please show what there is in the link which does not flatly contradict that.

[ThePublius]

" The United States has one of the highest infant mortality rates, and lowest life expectancies, in the world."

That is absolute, made-up rubbish! Holy cow. Cite the data source for those assertions!

[Don Nico]

""pro death" culture.
It is just a propagandist term that is meant to foreclose debate.
in order wrods a trick used by a merde.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"a propagandist term that is meant to foreclose debate."

Sort of like calling zygotes babies or kids.

[SimonP]

A "pro death" culture may be one that suggests that teachers need to be the ones that put their own lives at risk, in order to prevent their students from being shot by a random mass shooter.

A "pro death" culture may be one that adopts abortion laws that are certain to result in more women dying from botched abortions and being prosecuted for miscarriages.

A "pro death" culture may be one that tolerates thousands of traffic deaths every year like it's just an unavoidable fact of nature.

A "pro death" culture may be one that views the loss of a couple millions of lives to a respiratory virus as an acceptable cost for keeping an economy open, or that rejects taking vaccines that can protect against that virus.

A "pro death" culture may be one that knowingly doubles down on policies that will accelerate climate change, while doing nothing at all to mitigate the consequences of those policies, as they reverberate around our natural, social, and economic worlds.

I mean, I could go on. If you've ever looked at some death statistics and thought, "well, that's just the cost of... [whatever]," then you might live in a pro-death culture.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I know how to fix climate change! Give trillions of dollars to the people in government!

Giving more money and power to the people in government has a long track record of successfully solving our problems, for example:

[Michael Ejercito]

A "pro death" culture may be one that keeps the U.S. Army from doing what needs to be done to quell inner city violence.

[Toranth]

The incoherence in the post is off the charts.
A few examples:

A "pro death" culture may be one that adopts abortion laws that are certain to result in more women dying from botched abortions and being prosecuted for miscarriages.

That's right! A pro-death culture is one that bans killing people in favor of a fantastic parade of horribles that never happened even when abortion was banned. It couldn't possibly be the culture that demands the right to kill unborn children at any time for any reason, to the extent of 1 million deaths per year.

A "pro death" culture may be one that tolerates thousands of traffic deaths every year like it's just an unavoidable fact of nature.

Of course! With the right government program, we could have roughly 300,000,000 vehicles be driven for more than 3,300,000,000,000,000 miles without anyone making a single mistake. We just need super genius SimonP to tell us what his simple plan is for achieving this.
Well, Simon? We're waiting.

Seriously, that post was seriously stupid, even for you "culture of death" people.

[SimonP]

You probably shouldn't be casting aspersions on a "fantastic parade of horribles" when your theory of the case takes it as granted that people are aborting fetuses at 8.5 months as a delayed form of "birth control."

The point of "abortion on demand" isn't to enable women to make perfectly monstrous kinds of decisions about when and how to end their pregnancies. It is, rather, to limit government involvement in decisions that should be made in private, with a doctor's guidance. We permit late-term abortions, for instance, not because anyone is choosing to carry a pregnancy for eight months before having a change of heart, but because health issues can arise or be discovered at that late date that make carrying to term a legitimate health risk to the mother or result in a stillbirth or a short, tortured existence, for the child. And there's just no good reason for the government to be making that kind of decision for women. The same goes for precise techniques used to terminate a pregnancy, aborting incomplete miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies, and any other boundary cases where we can reliably expect male-dominated legislatures to spend little time thinking about what actually best serves the interests of the doctors, mothers, and, yes, fetuses involved.

If you want to fetishize the value of fetal life - well, I can't stop you. I can only observe that it's odd that so many people care about fetuses but care so little about babies (or grade schoolers in their classrooms). Suffice it to say that I, personally, see little reason to value a fetus's life more than the life of the mother carrying it. I'm in favor of liberty, I guess you could say.

Of course! With the right government program, we could have roughly 300,000,000 vehicles be driven for more than 3,300,000,000,000,000 miles without anyone making a single mistake.

It's interesting that this is the only other point you choose to respond to.

But certainly it's not a fantastic notion to suppose that we could do more to reduce traffic deaths. The techniques for doing so are known, and proven - we just choose not to implement them, largely because the hoi polloi and their politicians think they have better ideas about how traffic works. And always there's this drumbeat - which you repeat implicitly here - about how traffic deaths are inevitable. I suppose that can be conceded in at least some cases. But many of these deaths are completely preventable. We just value driving more.

[Gandydancer]

It's not remotely "interesting" that Toranth chose to reply two only two of your long list of idiocies. It's the natural response to such a list to debunk only a sample.

Your "We just value driving more" locution is what's really "interesting", by which I mean revealing.

[Michael P]

I think a "pro death" culture is one that makes a bomb threat to a hotel where its political opponents are meeting.

[Hank Ferrous]

That would be the normal behavior for many progressives, and appears to be acceptable to the left-leaning/progressive commentariat, and Prof Kerr. This has been going on since the 2010 at least, and shows little sign of letting up. Not only against the NRA, but against 1A supporting groups.

[Lee Moore]

Demonstrating that Kopel is exactly right and that Orin Kerr is having a pretendy hissy fit because he, like you, would like to carry on with trying to make the NRA and millions of lawful gun owners guilty by association with criminals and murderers.

[not guilty]

Lie down with dogs; get up with fleas. When has the NRA taken any action or advocated any position that did not call for a greater proliferation of firearms?

When is the last time a prominent Republican stood up to the NRA? Was it George H. W. Bush in 1995?

[Jimmy the Dane]

John Lott proved the fact that more guns equals less crime. Your inherent assumption that more guns is somehow a bad thing is patently false.

[not guilty]

Is that why mass murders with firearms are an almost uniquely American phenomenon?

[bc15]

When terrorists drive trucks into crowds in European cities, do you consider that vindicating of gun control because those were mass murders by truck rather than "mass murders with firearms"? What about mass murders with bombs?

When one plays wordsmithing games to claim that mass murders are "uniquely American" because non-firearm mass murders somehow don't count, one diminishes the suffering of all those European victims, however inadvertently. That sort of thing can happen whenever one tries to connect a human tragedy like the one in Texas to some broader political agenda.

[Randal]

Yes, let's get to bombs and trucks! That would absolutely be an improvement. Bombs are much easier to deal with than guns, and trucks are way less deadly than guns. This would be a great outcome, let's get on it!

[Michael P]

That's not even close to true. Charlie Hebdo, Bataclan, and Strasbourg and Carcassone/Trèbes in 2018, are similar examples from France alone. Plus, as bc15 points out, mass murder victims from non-firearm attacks (like the truck attack in Nice in 2016) are just as tragically dead.

[Krychek_2]

Perhaps John Lott can explain why Tokyo, with almost no private gun ownership, has a next to nonexistent violent crime rate then.

[Harvey Mosley]

I wonder if it might have anything to do with its homogenous population and bow to authority culture?

[Brett Bellmore]

I thought it was due to forced confessions, the basis of their over 99% conviction rate. Basically allows the Japanese police to send off to prison anybody they think is a bad seed by railroading them.

[Hank Ferrous]

The yakuza would differ on the violent crime rate. The rest, largely cultural.

[Gandydancer]

Yeah, right. If we had Woke gun control the 'hood would be just like Japan, Sherlock.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"John Lott proved"

John Lott never proved anything. That was Mary Rosh.

[Snorkle]

Thought that was Mary Rosh. I get those two confused.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Yes I think they wear the same underwear.

[not guilty]

Of course, by 1995 former President Bush had nothing left to lose except a reputation for dignity. He elected to keep that.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I don't imagine you would be so congratulatory for the right wing politician that stood up against say the ACLU when it comes to another civil right, would you?

[not guilty]

I was contrasting Bush's belated courage with the craven pandering to the gun nuts of virtually every other Republican politician.

Right wingers denouncing the ACLU is completely unremarkable.

[Michael P]

Alternatively, the nuts here are the ones who want to pretend the Second Amendment doesn't exist, and Republicans are being consistent in recognizing American rights that Democrats want to erase.

[bernard11]

No. It's not guilt by association.

If you advocate for, and lobby for, and widely promote certain policies, and those policies are adopted, and prove disastrous, you bear part of the blame.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You are presumably opposed to alcohol prohibition. So you’re partially to blame for carnage caused by drunk drivers? For spousal abuse done by dtunk husbands?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Which policies are you referring to?

[Don Nico]

Bernard
You define "guilt by association" in your very post

[Josh R]

Fair enough. But, guilt by association is a fallacy when the association is irrelevant. In this case, the association (membership in the NRA) is relevant because it is an endorsement of the policies that we believe contribute to gun deaths.

[bevis the lumberjack]

How did an NRA policy contribute to Uvalde? If the NRA didn’t exist Ramos would have been a happy kid? He’d have had no access to a gun?

I’m not a gun owner and find the NRA to be tiresome and ridiculous (like, say, the Environmental Defense Fund) but y’all are just scapegoating. And not contributing at all to any solution.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Their mindmasters have given them a target for their hatred.

They need these targets since they've been groomed for years on rage and hate.

Facts or evidence don't matter. Only Otherizing and Hatred.

[StellaLink_the dog]

" If the NRA didn’t exist " Ramos would not have had access to a semi-automatic assault weapon nor to magazines holding more than ten rounds. Perhaps "If the NRA didn’t exist" Ramos, being under 21, would not have been legally able to own a gun at all, or perhaps not be able to possess one except for when engaging in particular activities like target shooting or hunting. It's possible that "If the NRA didn’t exist" Ramos would have had to go through some simple evaluation and training, like prescribed by CT law, that would have filtered him out.

[Toranth]

That's a quite weak chain of counterfactuals, which has little basis on reality.

The NRA was never the only gun rights association. It wasn't even the biggest until recently. If it didn't exist, the others would have taken its place - or a new organization would have been created for the same purpose.
Because the millions of people that care enough to be NRA members would not suddenly stop caring because a particular organization didn't exist.

[Gandydancer]

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic assault weapon". "Assault rifles" are by definition full-auto/selective-fire capable.

Perhaps Salvador Ramos would have been removed from the gun-buying-eligible population if he had had to wait until 21 rather than 18 to pass his background checks. Maybe he would have been hit by a truck. But it's a sad excuse for an argument for denying citizens their Constitutional rights a bit more than is done already. Why not 50? (Yes, I know you would applaud the latter as an advance, though an incomplete one.)

[Harvey Mosley]

Exactly. So why do you keep advocating for the kind of laws that California has that have been proven to be ineffective at best while trampling the rights of law abiding citizens?

[StellaLink_the dog]

"laws that California has that have been proven to be ineffective"

Leaving aside the obvious fact that California gun laws trample on nobody's rights, Genius, splain why among the most populous ten States California and New York rank nine and ten when ordered by firearm death rates?
Ten most populous States with their national ranks in firearm death rates:
GA 14
OH 22
NC 23
FL 26
TX 27
MI 31
PA 32
IL 35
CA 44
NY 49

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, if you don't believe a right exists in the first place, obviously you won't believe it can be trampled.

[Pacific]

Indeed. Per Kopel, it's time for another Inquisition!

"So as we begin our day of studying the Law, we say to each and every hate group, we reject your sick and twisted lies against us, for exactly the same reason we reject the blood libels against every race, every religion, and every other group: We reject Satan and all his works."

[StellaLink_the dog]

"We reject Satan and all his works."

That's a stunning declaration in this context. Those advocating for policies which would make firearm deaths less likely ar on the side of Satan? No, we are not on the side of the Canadian Cruz.

[David Lawson]

The reason gun control usually fails to take root after these horrific events is that the roughly 330 million or more Americans in this country know they aren't going to be committing such an atrocity whether they own firearms or not.
Whether they know it or not, admit it or not, most rational people instinctively know that one does not disarm oneself as a response to the violence of others.

[ah....Clem]

The reason gun control fails to "take root" at the national level is that we have a body of congress where senators representing less than 12% of the population can use the filibuster to stop any legislation from passing. And where it would only take states with 18% of the total population to get a majority in the senate.

Overwhelming majorities of Americans favor universal background checks and bans on large magazines, and depending on which poll you read are favored by a majority of gun owners. Measures like this don't pass at the federal level because they can't get the votes in the senate, largely due to groups like the NRA reflexively opposing anything that has a whiff of restrictions on firearms. And they're not very effective at the state level because it's too easy to get in the car and drive to a state where those restrictions are absent.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The reason gun control fails to take root is the 2nd Amendment. Whining about the electoral college won’t repeat it.

[StellaLink_the dog]

Gun control measures in CA, NY, CT, IL do not affront the 2d Amendment. At least not yet and hopefully Ginni Thomas won't throw her weight around and it will stay that way.

[Gandydancer]

Even SCOTUS is just about to disagree with you about NY, it seems.

[Don Nico]

Clem,
If you don't like the American system of government so much, you can use what Ilya Somin calls "foot voting."
Otherwise the complaint is just so much blah-blah.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The NRA opposes using foot voting. It wants federal law to force concealed carry to apply alike in every state.

[Don Nico]

SL,
Nice topic switching. C'Mon, be honest.
NRA opposes in that one instance.
For myself, I oppose a national concealed carry law.
I see nothing wrong with registration of all purchases. I find "red flags laws.' as well down the slippery slop to the Texas abortion statute
I have never owned a gun and never will.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"For myself, I oppose a national concealed carry law.
I see nothing wrong with registration of all purchases."

You are well on your way to being a gun grabber. Just add a willingness to limit magazines to ten rounds and you're there in support of all the federal changes that, in the present environment, are possible. Add a willingness to allow States to oulaw semi-automatic assault weapons and you will be able to get your NRA Hater card.

[Gandydancer]

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic assault weapon" Which armies arm their soldiers to engage in attacks with semi-automatic rifles? Ukraine? Russia?

[StellaLink_the dog]

"If you don't like the American system of government so much, "

Yeah, love it or leave it. That's always a winning argument.

One need not dislike the American system of government to desire changes.

For example, items mentioned or implied in this little foray:

Filibuster reform: this is not a feature of the system of government at all.

Lessening the influence of lobbying groups: Mostly this would be accomplished through campaign finance laws and laws that would not conflict with Citizens United -- or killing CU likely with an amendment. All within our system of government though killing CU would be problematic, in my opinion.

Fixing the anti-democratic nature of the Senate: That would require a pretty significant change. Not sure how to fix that one.

Fixing the electoral collage BS -- well within our "system of government."

So, you see, not only is "love it or leave it" a suck ass argument, fixing the problems we are talking about has almost no impact on our system of government and the most obvious, and probably most significant, filibuster reform, would not implicate the system at all.

[Carl_N_Brown]

Favored in polls does mean actually works in reality.

[tekcoyote]

“The NRA celebrates and actively promotes the proliferation of firearms. The most charitable reading of that is that it contributes to a pro-death culture.”

So I understand clearly, it appears that this phrase says that proliferation of firearms => contribution to a pro-death culture. It’s unclear what “pro-death culture” means, but it sounds good or bad depending on whom you are trying to convince.

This line of reasoning directly faults the Jews of the WWII ghetto for defending themselves by amassing a cache of weapons and using them against an enemy bent on killing them. It’s hard for me to see how trying to survive is being inherently “pro-death” in any meaningful way.

Disclosures: I’m an NRA member, also a JPFO member. The former has it’s faults, some of which I do not excuse, but being “pro-death” is not among them. Being responsible and competent regarding the use and handling of firearms is part of its mission. Advocating for being able to defend oneself with force—should that prove necessary—is another. I intentionally did not use the word “allowed” in the previous sentence in lieu of the word “able.” “Allowed” would have implied that defending oneself is a privilege. By contrast, 2A explicitly recognizes it to be a right.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"2A explicitly recognizes it to be a right"

No, it doesn't. 2d Amendment says nothing explicitly about the right to defense. It is either implicit or pre-existing.

[Gandydancer]

That you possess the natural RIGHT to bear arms is so you can use them to defend yourself and your neighbors is too obvious to require explicitness, especially given its history.

[Krayt]

Ukraine was short of small arms, to say nothing of bigger stuff, and screamed for more.

RRR is currently the biggest movie on the planet, an action comedy romance musical from India, but the background political intrigue is the Indians need guns to resist the British. How will they get them in the face of gun bans?

We sit here with two contemporaneous, live examples of the real need for the 2nd Amendment, right in the world's face.

This is like our politicians screaming crypto (messages, not coins) should be illegal because of criminals, while billions around the world are living with, not merely imagining, a boot stepping on their face, forever.

[bernard11]

two contemporaneous, live examples of the real need for the 2nd Amendment, right in the world's face.

I don't think either of these is an example.

The Ukraine military needed military weapons, tanks, artillery, anti-tank weapons, etc. That's not what we're talking about.

RRR is a movie, for Pete's sake, not a "live example" of anything.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
Since you have now switched to what Voldy wants, why is Mr Biden considering sending weapons with a 500 mile range. Does he really want to push Russia into using small nukes? We are already supplying targeting intelligence to Ukraine.
Think twice before you answer.
Is it wise to try to push the bear into a corner?

[bernard11]

Is it wise to try to push the bear into a corner?

Depends on your other options.

Is it wise to tell the bear he can be as aggressive as he likes, that he will inevitably gain territory, no matter how unjustified, no matter how criminal, his behavior?

If you are afraid of pushing the bear into a corner then you can't fight him at all, because if you do you might win, and push him into a corner.

But I don't think the metaphor is quite right here. Yes, you want to allow him an escape route, a line of retreat, but Putin has that. He has all of Russia to retreat to.

[Don Nico]

"If you are afraid of pushing the bear into a corner then you can't fight him at all, because if you do you might win, and push him into a corner. "
Bernard,
There is not a strong either/or as you suggest.
A 500 mike range would allow a Ukrainian strike deep into Russia. You may think that is what Russia deserves, but what would it gain Ukraine, beside the petty satisfaction of its President?
At some point, consistent with Russian military doctrine well known in the Pentagon, it will resort to tactical nuclear weapons; all to no one's advantage in the West and certainly not of benefit to Ukraine.
In the end I see arguments such as yours just a statement that the US will fight Russia down to the last Ukranian.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"A 500 mike range would allow a Ukrainian strike deep into Russia. You may think that is what Russia deserves, but what would it gain Ukraine, beside the petty satisfaction of its President?"

Is it not true that Russia is attacking Ukraine with missles launched from deep within its territory? Giving Ukraine the ability to fight against that is a bit more than just a matter of petty satisfaction.

About the nukes, consider: if Russia uses nukes it will not be to the benefit of NATO and Ukraine. But, will it be to the benefit of Russia? Will it be to the benefit of Belurus? Will it be to the benefit of Kaliningrad/Konigsberg? Using tactical nukes -- that woud be very dangerous fun.

[Carl_N_Brown]

Does anyone in Belarus or Kaliningrad remember the effect of Cernobyl on Belarus and Kaliningrad? Would they want that again?

[Michael P]

You think that Indians never fought for independence from the British Empire?

Wow.

[bernard11]

No. I said a movie is not a "live example" of something happening. Further, and you should sit down before you read this, not all historical movies are historically accurate.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"The NRA celebrates and actively promotes the proliferation of firearms."

Even if that's true, that doesn't make the NRA morally or legally responsible for the criminal misuse of guns.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Many progressive organizations actively celebrate the illegal migration of people into our country and many of those go on to commit some heinous crimes. Does that make them morally culpable for those offenses?

You don't need to make many comparisons to highlight how silly this artificial and fake hand wringing is to any sane person. The bully is just mad that here they were called out for doing exactly what they intended on doing - bullying.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"Does that make them morally culpable for those offenses?"

In and of itself, no.

[Nisiiko]

The NAACP celebrates and actively promotes black culture and black freedoms. Since blacks are inherently more violent, any policies that give them the same rights as freedoms as whites will inevitably lead to more crime. So if you support blackness, you contribute to a pro-death culture.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Since blacks are inherently more violent, any policies that give them the same rights as freedoms as whites will inevitably lead to more crime."

An example of why I am no longer a Republican.

[Gandydancer]

Good riddance.

Giving Blacks the same rights and freedoms as Whites was of course a founding Republican enterprise which the GOP has never disavowed.

-I- certainly disavow the propriety and wisdom War of Northern Aggression... but I'm not a Republican, though the Dems are invariably the greater evil.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Perhaps you're deliberately unaware of this, or just deliberately misrepresenting it, but advocating for proliferation of firearms does not have anything to do with desiring the death of anyone or anything, which is what I am interpreting your 'pro-death' nonsense to mean.

The NRA does not advocate that anyone should use a firearm to commit any unlawful acts, and the overwhelming majority of those who own a firearm will never use one to harm anyone.

Your 'pro-death' statement is complete bullshit.

[Kleppe]

"Holding their convention in Houston, mere days after a school shooting, is indecent."

Why should they have to cancel their event? They bear no more responsibility for what happened than any other group, and canceling may fool simpletons into believing otherwise.

[Carl_N_Brown]

NRA cancelled everything about its meeting after Columbine except those things required by law which could not be cancelled and was still pilloried by gun control advocates.

[Gandydancer]

"pro-death" "pro-self-defense"

FIFY.

.As to "charitable", you're just embarrassing yourself.

[Carl_N_Brown]

The convention was planned, scheduled, set up starting months ago.

[Stephen Lathrop]

PenrodJ — Why not think of gun owners as interchangeable? That is pretty much how policy works, right? One policy which applies alike to everyone.

Why should gun policy be different? The notion is madness that it is somehow, "punishment," to make a gun owner obey a generally applicable law. It is yet crazier to suppose a gun-owning minority must have power to dictate legitimate gun policy against the will of a majority.

The requirement is the constitutional one, nothing more. An absolutist constitutional interpretation is more. If you insist otherwise, you hasten the day when political power sufficient to frustrate you will appear.

By the way, the monstrousness of policies persecuting Jews came from exactly the kind of advocacy you offer on behalf of gun owners—do not treat everyone alike, you say. You are mistaken. Equal treatment, not distinction, is the refuge.

[David Lawson]

The sad fact is that the "common-sense" policies proposed in the wake of these acts either were already in place and failed or would have been moot had they been in effect.

[Stephen Lathrop]

David Lawson — Gun policies are available to preserve the right to keep and bear arms, but reduce guns' lethality for mass killing, and undercut their efficiency to embolden criminals. Problem is, the NRA, and many commenters here, would oppose those policies more vehemently than the ineffective ones.

The pro-gun advocacy you read here, and from the NRA, is mostly on behalf of an open-ended civilian arms race, to make guns ever more destabilizing in society. Maybe that is not the intended overall effect, but it is the inevitable one. The social sum of individual attempts to hold a lead in an arms race cannot come out any other way. Naturally, proponents of that kind of policy disfavor policies which trend instead toward social safety and stability.

[DaivdBehar]

Steve. You are a lawyer. You need to disclose if you were Ivy indoctrinated. You need to account for the low crime rates and suicide rates of Israel and of Switzerland. Everyone there is packing.

[Michael P]

You and guilty are proving why Kopel was right and Kerr just hadn't seen the criticisms that Kopel responded to: between "pro-death culture" and "think of gun owners as interchangeable", your rhetoric is that of hateful misrepresentation and unpersoning.

[Gandydancer]

You're even worse than Kerr when it comes to dishonest "takes". Penrod said nothing against having one "policy" for everyone. He objected to the claim "that all Jews[or gun owners] everywhere, in all eras, are interchangeable and responsible for each other’s actions." If you think that claim is ok then you are a cretin.

[Carl_N_Brown]

"One policy which applies alike to everyone."

My great grandparents and grandparents were among those affected by the Virginia Racial Integrity Act.

We had local option prohibition of alcohol 1953 to 1968, I was five to twenty years old. Disillusioned me about policies. And the 1950s "Seduction of the Innocents" comic book crusade,

[Leo Marvin]

My take is that he said that attacking the NRA and it’s members (of which I am one) as being responsible for school murders -or any other murders- simply because NRA members own guns and support the guarantee of the 2nd Amendment is akin to holding Jews today responsible for the killing of Christ simply because they are Jews.

First, that's a tendentious description of the anti-NRA position. It's more accurate to say the critics hold the members morally responsible for NRA policies the critics believe enable the kind of tragedy we saw this week.

You and DK may not agree the policies have that effect, but it's not an implausible argument. And holding people responsible for the consequences of their policies isn't remotely the same as "they hate us for supporting the 2d Amendment."

Second, the NRA policies are actual things that are happening today. Holding members responsible for what their organization is doing right now could hardly be less similar to a guilt-by-association blood libel for things that may or may not have happened 2,000 years ago.

[Michael P]

An even more credible explanation of the policies that enabled this attack were the ones that demonstrably did: making the school a "gun-free" zone where only criminals can bring guns, delaying the response to 911 calls, preventing good guys with guns from quickly engaging with the gunman (contrary to established practice), and relying on police to save lives.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They do not care about reality or facts.

[Don Nico]

"relying on police to save lives"
Hmmm.
That was a bad decision until the evil Border Patrol showed up.
Interestingly We've heard precious few news reports in which the victims were identified as "persons of color."

[Michael P]

The Border Patrol showed up pretty early. And the police ordered them not to go in. The current set of stories say they got tired of waiting and went in anyway.

I don't count the Border Patrol as police -- they're much more specialized law enforcement, especially if we consider the group at this school (BORTAC, a special tactical unit within the Border Patrol).

[Don Nico]

Indeed Michael, the local police failed and failed in the worst possible way.

[Gandydancer]

Still fewer where the SHOOTER was identified as a POC.

[DaivdBehar]

I hold the vile toxic lawyer profession responsible for streeting the shooter then for the police mistake. Police are agents of the prosecutor, a vile, worthless, toxic lawyer. They did procedure and stumied public self help.

[bernard11]

Exactly, Leo.

[Ben_]

"First, that's a tendentious description of the anti-NRA position."

Read the comment from Davedave below. It’s a completely accurate description.

[Josh R]

My take is that he said that attacking the NRA and it’s members (of which I am one) as being responsible for school murders -or any other murders- simply because NRA members own guns and support the guarantee of the 2nd Amendment is akin to holding Jews today responsible for the killing of Christ simply because they are Jews.

We are attacking the NRA and its' members as contributing to gun deaths because of their political decision to oppose almost all gun control measures. It is outrageously appalling to equate that attack with justifying the killing of Jews based on a blood libel.

[PenrodJ]

No, actually there are plenty of people claiming the NRA and gun owners in general are responsible for murders and that they are knowingly responsible but do not care.

Given that FBI Homicide By Weapon Type stats show around 300 people per year killed with all types of rifles combined -ARs, other semi-autos, lever action, pump, bolt action- the assertion that ARs must be banned to make America safer doesn’t make a lot of sense. That is especially so given the success rate which would be required. The very people most likely to commit murder include the very people least likely to docilely turn in their ARs.

You -and we- would be a lot better off by turning your attention to the people who commit murders and stop asserting that innocent people are responsible for violent crime.

[Josh R]

there are plenty of people claiming the NRA and gun owners in general are responsible for murders and that they are knowingly responsible but do not care

It is not unreasonable to assign some responsibility to the NRA because of its policies and to argue they don't care. Of course, you disagree. But the problem is Kopel thinks disagreement isn't enough. He has to appallingly attack the argument as a blood libel.

[Gandydancer]

He didn't.

And you don't even know what a "blood libel" is. He doesn't use those words either, not being as ignorant as you.

[Voize of Reazon]

simply because NRA members own guns and support the guarantee of the 2nd Amendment

Those are two separate statements.

1. "because NRA members own guns" - this is Kopel's outrageous blood libel charge, that gun control advocates persecute NRA members as guilty by association with mass shooters. He claims it is an attempt to punish gun owners as though they were the murderers, but other than some poorly chosen hyperbole it is absurd to believe that anyone argues that NRA members should be punished like murderers, or that requiring murderers to reschedule a convention is an example of the punishment that would involve.

2. "because NRA members ... support the guarantee" - the reasonable statement that gun advocates are responsible for frustrating efforts to deal with the problem by running the clock with counter-proposals that are variants on the thought that the solution to too many guns is more guns, or nonsense about the weekly massacre being the price of liberty.

There is no guilt by association in holding people responsible for their own actions, and when those actions are harmful in insisting that they stop.

[Toranth]

"Their own actions", is it?
What "actions" did the NRA members take that supported murder?

[PenrodJ]

None. Some of the statements I’ve seen appear to consciously defy reason.

‘Their blood is on your hands’ is unequivocal.

[Gandydancer]

What are you "insisting" stop and what actions on the part of you or the like-minded are you threatening that would transform a request into a demand?

[ThePublius]

Excellent post, thank you.

[reasonableone1959]

Exactly. Well done.

[David Nieporent]

Remember: the protesters are not by and large simply criticizing the policies of the NRA: their core attack is the assertion that the NRA and it’s members are responsible for the deaths of Texas schoolchildren, as well of all the other schoolchildren and others murdered with guns.

Why do people keep saying this as if it's profound? This is a completely false dichotomy.

Their core attack is the assertion that the NRA is responsible for the deaths of the Texas schoolchildren because of the NRA's policies. It's a very simple syllogism.

1) These kids would not have been killed if the shooter didn't have these guns.
2) The shooter would not have had these guns if the NRA had not worked to block anti-gun legislation.
3) The NRA knew that blocking this legislation would result in shootings like this.
4) Therefore, the NRA is partly responsible for the shooting.

You can of course disagree with any or all of the premises, but it's not that hard to understand.

[Gandydancer]

What legislation --- that allegedly would have prevented this shooting, and would possibly be in effect absent NRA opposition --- are you referring to?

[Stephen Lathrop]

As Kopel has shown, a monstrous complacence afflicts too many gun advocates. To judge Kopel's article scrupulously requires the answer to a question which would seem unnecessary, but which must be asked: Does Kopel have any first-hand experience with what guns do when they kill?

If the answer is yes, dismiss Kopel's article as the ravings of a psychopath. But perhaps he does not have that experience. Perhaps Kopel is merely a gun-range pistol adept, who has never killed anything with a gun.

Doubtless there are many, many gun advocates who have never used their guns to kill. It would do them all good to get a look at what they are talking about.

In that latter case, and for the correction of countless other gun advocates who evince Kopel-style complacence, it is time once again to remove the lid, metaphorically, off Emmett Till's coffin. It is time to make gun advocates like Kopel see and own what they advocate.

There are undoubtedly photographs of the victims of the Uvalde shooting, and of the Sandy Hook shooting, detailing the horrific wounds the victims suffered. Publish them. Show the world what the later victims of those massacres must have witnessed, just before they too died.

Find heroic parents, like the mother of Emmett Till, who will consent to let those picture be seen, and demand they be seen. I shudder to think of the emotional sacrifice that asks, but believe if it were me who suffered the loss of a child so gratuitously, I would see it as an appropriate way to fight back.

Kopel, and Cruz, and LaPierre, and Trump, and all the other apologists for moral monstrosity who afflict the nation with their callousness, should be made to own those images. Pro-gun politicians should be confronted with such images wherever they appear in public. A politician who resists gun reform should not be able to place a campaign ad on television without seeing it followed immediately with another ad, one which pairs the politician's photograph with an image of the horrific gore their preferred policies support and sponsor.

Make it clear to pro-gun politicians that only vigorous and effective support of gun reform will suffice to free their public persona from association with images of the awful consequences of their opportunistic gun politics. If that can happen, I believe the deadlock on gun reform will be broken. I doubt it would take long to do it, or to remove the NRA's policy lobbying from influence at the same time.

This nation will reach a watershed on gun policy sometime. The sooner the better, for everyone, including gun advocates. They will be obtuse if they suppose a future left open on present terms will not someday deliver yet-worse outrages. In time, maybe soon, those will include events so shocking they will confer political power to eliminate cherished gun rights altogether.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Using dead kids as a political prop for hollow public policy that will do nothing to prevent any actual deaths is pretty sick and offensive. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Krayt]

Indeed. I support abortion, but I'll ne damned if I am gonna put posters of ripped up babies on my walls.

If we go this route, every policy or corrupt politician should hang posters of people who died by disease who would have been cured "butfor" their machinations slowing the economy and thus medical progress.

[DaivdBehar]

Guns killed the Nazis and the Kmer Rouge, sweetie. We are at war with internal agents of the Chinese Commie Party supported by oligarch own media.

[Krayt]

Examples of gun use? Knows the consequence? Buddy, you think yourself clever, but have no idea.

Consequences? How about Ukraine, which had very limited guns when the Rooskies invaded? Or the hit movie from India right now, RRR, abou colonial independence and how very, very badly the Indians needed guns to resist the British?

If you're gonna demand consideration of consequences, go the whole way, pal.

[Don Nico]

Krayt,
"the Rooskies "
Please write us a primer on when ethnic slurs are okay.

[DaivdBehar]

Have you ever met a real Russian? Big stores had to close down after being emptied out by Russian immigrants in Philadelphia.

[DaivdBehar]

Have you ever tried talkin' to a real Russian? Good luck.

[Don Nico]

Yes, many Russians, both in the US and in Russia.

[David Nieporent]

Please provide a definition of "ethnic slur" that fits this discussion.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

"Or the hit movie from India right now, RRR, abou colonial independence and how very, very badly the Indians needed guns to resist the British?"

India is probably the least apt example you could possibly cite in defense of gun rights. Its so preposterous that I dont know where to begin.

[Michael Ejercito]

Kopel, and Cruz, and LaPierre, and Trump, and all the other apologists for moral monstrosity who afflict the nation with their callousness, should be made to own those images. Pro-gun politicians should be confronted with such images wherever they appear in public. A politician who resists gun reform should not be able to place a campaign ad on television without seeing it followed immediately with another ad, one which pairs the politician's photograph with an image of the horrific gore their preferred policies support and sponsor.

Explain how they are responsible for inner city gang violence.

John Kass, who had been a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, writes often about violent crime. Let us read what he wrote about the subject:

https://johnkassnews.com/the-furies-own-the-chaos-on-chicagos-streets-toni-kim-and-lori-the-chicago-way/

In a recent episode of The Chicago Way podcast, Jeff Carlin and I spoke with Heather Mac Donald, the fearlessly brilliant public intellectual of the Manhattan Institute and the author of “The War on Cops.” She said that if Chicago doesn’t enforce the law and prosecute crimes, all that lack of enforcement will embolden thugs and release “the furies” upon the city.

[Gandydancer]

Good to know that you have no principled objection to anti-abortion posters with cut-up infants on them. Or that you are a complete hypocrite.

Pick one.

[Leo Marvin]

I realize the old days of extended debates among Volokh bloggers have long passed.

Certainly understand why you may feel there are more productive ways to spend your time. Just know, should you ever decide to bring those days back, that some of us are exuberantly here for it.

[NotAnExtremist]

Yes!

[David Lawson]

I have yet to learn of a single NRA member who has committed one of these atrocities. More than most though have been confirmed Democrats.

[Toranth]

Most mass shootings aren't political, or even ideological at all - they're gang shootings.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Toranth — You say that as if you think you have announced an attribute which reliably characterizes mass shootings (or mass murders more generally). A moment's reflection should correct that, and let you see that motives may change over time, or from place to place. What endures in this place, in the U.S., regardless of other motives, is a perverse, applies-always, motive to make lethal effort maximally destructive. Reason suggests we would do well as a nation at least to free ourselves from that.

[Michael P]

People also drive trucks through crowds and use explosives. Let's ban vehicles with more than four wheels, and nitrogen, to reduce destructive capacity!

A moment's reflection should have corrected your argument, but you never apply even that much thought.

[Davedave]

It's pretty normal for neo-Nazis to accuse others of Nazism as a deflection tactic, and that's what happened in that piece.

The reality is that everyone who is continuing to oppose gun control is actively working to kill more children. That's the state of the USA these days. Actual child murder proponents meeting en masse. Actual neo-Nazis openly arguing for their death cult.

Scum, the lot of them.

[damikesc]

...but insisting on abortion being legal, which has a much higher body count, is NOT that.

Got it.

As a hint, disarming yourself and relying on the government to come in and save the day, as we've seen here, is a fool's errand.

[Stephen Lathrop]

damikesc — Life is a fools errand, for which we are all fortuitously equipped. Some choices are more foolish than others. For most people, most of the time, the impulse to carry a deadly weapon against imaginary contingencies is a good deal more dangerous than the contrary impulse to leave the gun at home. Problem is, rationality to make that assessment must contend against self-love expressed as affinity for personal drama, and against cowardice, and against paranoia. That murderer's row of emotions too often makes short work of reason.

[Michael P]

Stephen, we know you can post rambling rants full of unbacked assertions. You don't need to demonstrate it quite so many times.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Michael P, I back more assertions than practically any other commenter on this blog. You back nothing at all. Not ever. For all you contribute, you could be a minimal-grade bot, which you may be.

Not long ago you accused me of knowing nothing about history. I responded with a challenge. Each would read a book about history proposed by the other, and we would each write book reviews here about what the other's book contained. I accepted your book. You ran from mine. I think the very short book I proposed scared you.

Continue as an ankle biter as long as you please. Do not expect a reply. You are muted.

[Michael P]

I declined to engage you in an off-topic argument then. You want to have an off-topic argument here too. You are a thorough bore and a liar. (My other comments in this thread show that I do, in fact, back up my assertions.)

[Don Nico]

" is actively working to kill more children"
Wow. You'll catch a lot of flies with that moldy vinegar

[Ben_]

This post makes Kopel’s point exactly.

[Both Sides]

"The reality is that everyone who is continuing to oppose gun control is actively working to kill more children."

So, is this statement a blood libel? Because it is exactly what Kopel accused NRA haters/opponents of doing: saying NRA folks who support a different position on gun control are working to kill more children.

The fact is that folks on both sides of the political spectrum accuse their opponents and their opponents' political groups of taking positions that lead to more murders and/or deaths on a wide variety of issues. That's most obviously true with gun rights/regulation debates, but is also obviously true in debates over abortion, COVID-19 restrictions, immigration rules, etc. Heck, I remember both sides accusing the other of contributing to more deaths in debates about speed limits.

Kopel's hysterical fainting-couch take on this thus is dishonest in terms of what political discourse is like in general. I guess that could be ignored because he was obviously in "serving up red meat for the NRA audience" mode. But the gulf between this bog-standard "the organization you belong to takes positions that increase murders but I guess you just don't care" rhetoric and "saying stuff like that IS LIKE BLOOD LIBEL AGAINST JEWS" goes beyond precious snowflake-dom is wide, and the latter goes truly offensively far into "not getting what anti-Semitism has historically been and done" territory.

[Gandydancer]

The reality is that everyone who is continuing to oppose gun control is actively working to kill more children.

This is of course exactly the kind of bullshit that got Kopel's dander up. I prefer to be merely contemptuous of it.

[bc15]

Kopel is just decrying the hate directed towards NRA members. When someone says that Muslims shouldn't build a mosque in NYC in the wake of 9/11, they are not merely expressing disagreement over some theological point in Islam. They are suggesting that all Muslims' practice of their religion is somehow tainted simply because the 9/11 hijackers were also Muslims. Similarly, those that find it unconscionable that the NRA should go forward with its convention are not merely expressing disagreement with NRA policies. They are implying that the NRA is guilty by association. (In fact, many people, including commenters here, are stating that explicitly.) In this case, it's even worse than the Ground Zero mosque example because, as Kopel points out, the shooter isn't even an NRA member or associated with the NRA in any way. In fact, the shooter is exactly the type of person that NRA members want to defend themselves against.

I'm not an NRA member nor even a gun owner. But, I certainly understand their desire to defend themselves and their families, all the more so when the events in Texas remind us that there are still dangerous people in the world that the police can't necessarily protect us from. Whatever one thinks of the NRA's preferred policies, I would hope that we would not villify people for wanting to defend themselves and their families, especially now of all times.

[Michael P]

Yep. Kopel was responding to the kind of person who says "everyone who is continuing to oppose gun control is actively working to kill more children" (see just above). That is the blood libel that Kopel's critics deny exists.

[Stephen Lathrop]

They are implying that the NRA is guilty by association.

No. The NRA incurs guilt by the content of its lobbying; by making false and offensive attributions of the sources of gun violence; by systematized attacks on reasonable gun regulations; by continuous attempts to pass laws to force more gun carrying everywhere; by overt political activity; by paid-for purpose-built advocacy published by sketchy "scholars"; by hate-filled propaganda published to its members; by promoting social paranoia; by dark money donations to politicians; and by demands to suppress government-funded research on gun issues.

Also, it is not thoughtful to suppose the populace can be divided into two groups: inherently good people entitled to carry guns, and unworthy bad people who are the wrong, "type," and not to be trusted with guns. Today's pillar of the community is tomorrow's manic–depressive psychopath, or domestic abuser, or new-minted alcoholic, or drug abuser, or unstable anti-Semite, or Las Vegas mass killer, or Replacement Theory grievance terrorist. Today's bullying victim with a neglected need for protection will sometimes come back to shoot up the school.

The damage the "wrong," kind of people inflict can only be minimized by laws which impede their lethal efficiency before they start killing—which is to say laws which act on them while they are still numbered among the good people entitled to carry guns. Regulations to do that are not, "punishments," inflicted on the innocent, and they cannot be counted as infringements of any right—because there cannot be any right to go crazy and start shooting everyone.

[Michael Ejercito]

The damage the "wrong," kind of people inflict can only be minimized by laws which impede their lethal efficiency before they start killing—which is to say laws which act on them while they are still numbered among the good people entitled to carry guns. Regulations to do that are not, "punishments," inflicted on the innocent, and they cannot be counted as infringements of any right—because there cannot be any right to go crazy and start shooting everyone.

Here is a better idea.

How about just punishing people after the fact?

[Stephen Lathrop]

You really cannot think of an answer? You claim you are so dense that you do not understand that, "after the fact," means after someone is dead, and not one thing can be done?

So, how about waiting until it's too late? No.

And once again, living in a legal regime to make firearms less lethally efficient for everyone, and treating everyone alike, is not, "punishment." It is policy to make you safer.

[Gandydancer]

Don't give me this "impede their lethal efficiency" crap. The logic of your position -- if "it is not thoughtful to suppose the populace can be [sufficiently] divided into two groups: inherently good people entitled to carry guns, and unworthy bad people who are... not to be trusted with guns" -- is that NO ONE should be able to get guns. Stop prevaricating and just say it.

[Josh R]

They are implying that the NRA is guilty by association.

No. We are opposing the NRA's policies because we believe they contribute to gun deaths.

[Gandydancer]

No, YOU may not put it this way, but "they" [those Kopel gave the finger to) are saying the NRA is "actively working to kill more children" (actual quote, above). If you don't want to be associated with that stop saying "We". And if you DO want to be associated with that I join him in saying "F**k you".

[Ghost of Patrick Henry]

Not really. They are likely asking that public policy recognize the concept of jihad is a real thing, is a real part on Islam.

[Sarcastr0]

Jihad in Islam doesn’t mean the same thing as it does for ISIS.

[Gandydancer]

That's the claim of a lot of apologists for what's actually in the Koran.

Sure, you can find schismatics who have gone soft. But the Islamic explosion was instantiated by warriors who seem to me to have been closer in spirit to ISIS than the softies.

'Course, Christianity's spread was pretty bloody too. But the religious enthusiasm of Charlemagne isn't much of a problem for the rest of us at the moment.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The shooter's gun is associated with the NRA. It urges unfettered sale of guns of that style. NRA critics would like the NRA's help to get that shooter, and others like him, different guns. Guns less likely to kill so many people so quickly. Guns less likely to embolden would-be mass killers.

I think you understand the arguments. You just prefer they were different arguments, so you speak to those instead. What twist of reason rules out using policy to increase family safety, instead of betting on a win in an arms race?

[AJ_Liberty]

There's not much difference between an "assault" rifle and a regular semi-automatic rifle. Few if any advocates are calling for the banning of all semi-automatic rifles....or pistols for that matter. The NRA should be more helpful with crafting useful Red Flag laws and requiring thorough background investigation in all gun transfers (and maybe even advocating for consistency in the age of acquiring a semi-automatic rifle and acquiring a handgun), but I'm not sure what re-instituting the assault-weapons ban actually accomplishes. It seems akin to arguing, well this model is popular, so we're doing something.

[Michael P]

"Assault rifles" are select-fire automatic rifles, using cartridges that are lighter in size/weight than normal rifle cartridges. "Assault weapons" are just guns that have some "scary-looking" feature.

Stephen Lathrop seems to think that details of the gun make a big difference in body count when the police give one shooter well over an hour to kill a room full of people. A moment's reflection should have corrected his argument... but it never does.

[StellaLink_the dog]

"Assault rifles" are select-fire automatic rifles,

Wrong. Many semi-auto rifles are included. If only select-fire automatics could be assault weapons, there would be no need, or advocacy, for an assault weapons ban, you knob.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The fact that you don't know what is or is not an 'assault rifle,' or the fact that the term itself is only begrudgingly accepted in order to speak to people like you about guns, does not mean that you are somehow right.

As I've covered before, the only half-acceptable definition of an 'assault rifle' is one with selectable fire, including at least one option which is either burst or automatic.

If it doesn't have either a burst or automatic firing mode, then it cannot be an 'assault rifle' no matter how many times you say otherwise.

Deciding to deliberately mislabel something means you're an idiot, not that you're correct.

[StellaLink_the dog]

The term "assault weapon" includes rifles which are semi-auto only. That's what the assault weapon ban back in 1994 was aimed at, that's what all assault weapon bans and limitations currently in effect and prospectively considered are aimed at. I don't have any idea of the extent of your knowledge or the extent of your experience, but I can assure you that I have enough knowledge and experience to know the details of what these weapons are and how the work. The simple fact, which you continue, for some inexplicable reason, to deny, is that when people involved in the current debate about various gun control proposals refer to assault weapons, they are speaking of semi-auto weapons. You know that, too, as it's been explained to you and you are aware the automatic weapons play no part. Clearly, you're not ignorant about what people mean when they refer to assault weapons -- you're just an intentional bell end.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

What part of "there is no such thing as an 'assault weapon' because it's a made-up term with ever-changing definitions that nobody in the industry agrees with" do you not understand?

There is no such thing as an 'assault weapon.' Say it again.

"Assault rifles" have selectable-fire. Tell me the immutable defining characteristic of your precious "assault weapons."

You cannot, because they do not have a unique characteristic, because they do not exist.

[Gandydancer]

The fact that you responded to "'Assault rifles' are select-fire automatic rifles' with 'Wrong. Many semi-auto rifles are included. If only select-fire automatics could be assault weapons...", thus, apparently unknowingly, changing the subject from "assault rifles" to "assault weapons" indicates that you are a truly determined ignoramus.

His definition IS wrong, but only because select-fire isn't strictly necessary, though it's become standard. But full auto (or at least burst) capability is. Educate yourself on this point. It won't be hard, even for a numbskull like you.

"Assault weapon" is a propaganda term of no fixed meaning used to refer to weapons of no current military use. E.g., the M1 Garand was the WWII/Korean War semi-auto US military rifle... and no one with any semblance of a clue (this leaves you out, of course) would call it an "assault rifle" or "assault weapon", even retrospectively and certainly not at the time.

[Gandydancer]

...I should have said "contemporaneous" rather than "current". Point is, exactly no army has ever provided its infantry with Armalites. Since the weapon was invented no military assault on an enemy position has ever taken place with troops armed with AR-15s or its equivalents , so calling it an "assault weapon" is just a lie. Or, in the case of ignoramuses like you, a misinformation/credibility victimization.

[Michael P]

Assault rifle has a specific, standard definition. Assault weapon doesn't. Every law about "assault weapons" needs to provide its own definition.

[Gandydancer]

In the case of gun grabbers ignorance is invincible and all-the-time. You think _dog hasn't been told this before? Even Wikipedia knows better, but this is men-are-women level ingrained stupidity, only older. You can't fix religion.

[Gandydancer]

The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 without using a rifle.

[Gandydancer]

...no white supremacist he was, like Ramos, a POC as well as a POS.

[Purple Martin]

The gun industry has helpfully given their semi-automatic knock-offs of the military assault rifle a distinctive name—the Modern Sporting Rifle.

The primary characteristic differentiating the AR-varient Modern Sporting Rifle from a typical lightweight, semi-automatic utility rifle like the Ruger Ranch Rifle we used on the farm back in the 70's, is that for marketing purposes, it's designed to look scary and threatening through use of sharp angles, unnecessary molded plastic cladding, and stark cut-away stocks.

Thus, it purposefully attracts people who feel compelled to buy threatening items, who feel a need to be perceived by other people as threatening and dangerous. This includes not just lonely, alienated 18-year-olds, but a far larger population of people like those pictured on the Massie Family Christmas Card, paranoid Fox News watchers, and 3-Percenter/Oath Keeper militia wanna-be's.

Or do you have a different reason they're not flocking to the less-threatening-looking Ruger Ranch Rifle?

So…should the desire to possess an American Modern Sporting Rifle be considered a valid factor in identification of people who should not be allowed to legally own a firearm?

Though it might pass Justice Scalia’s SCOTUS Heller Test as a Constitutionally-permitted arms restriction, and though it's tempting, I'd say no. Personally, I think the 1990's assault weapon ban—already found not to be in violation of the Constitution—is a better idea then registering and tracking the Menacing Massies and angry loners about to turn 18.

Given Congress’s general disdain for civil liberties though, that second idea might more easily pass Congress than the first.

[Stephen Lathrop]

AJ_Liberty, I agree that the assault weapons ban should not be re-instituted. Something different is required—preliminarily a law to make gun owners choose between semi-automatic operation, and detachable magazines, of whatever size. You can have either one, but not both together. I would tune that with some other changes to the AR-15 formula.

The notion would be to recognize that different gun design virtues serve different gun purposes. So design guns for the purposes we want to encourage—such as self-defense—and disfavor designs which serve purposes we oppose—such as mass murder.

In general mass murder capacity increases with speedy operation, light weight, low-recoil high-velocity ammunition, inexpensive ammunition. So design against those characteristics.

Self-defense, and especially self-defense in the home, are well supported by a different set of characteristics: stopping power, intimidation, reliable operation, lower velocity ammunition. That points to a gun designed with more weight, greater caliber, heavier ammunition, and more recoil. So design in favor of those characteristics.

[Purple Martin]

...plus, they rarely need be accurate at more than a few dozen feet. Hence, the the typical Modern Sporting Rifle would be covered by an assault weapon ban, while the low-cost "tactical shotgun" often advertised for home defense, might not.

[Ed Grinberg]

But I read Dave as also saying that criticizing the NRA for its positions and influence in gun control debates is somehow equal to the belief that it's okay to murder groups of people for their religious beliefs.

I read him as saying:
1. Blaming NRA members for school shootings is not dissimilar from blaming Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus.
2. The deranged hatred on display and the attempts to disrupt NRA events are not dissimilar the deranged hatred of Jews and the mob actions against them.

[Michael P]

It's not merely #1. It's calling the NRA and its members things like "[a]ctual child murder proponents" (see above) that is reminiscent of accusing people of conspiracy to murder children.

[Stephen Lathrop]

They are not, "dissimilar," they are utterly unlike the incompetent comparison you pretend.

[Gandydancer]

"[E]veryone who is continuing to oppose gun control is actively working to kill more children" is indeed similar in its derangement and appeal to the claim that Jews use the blood of Christian children into their rituals.

[DaveM]

"But I read Dave as also saying that criticizing the NRA for its positions and influence in gun control debates is somehow equal to the belief that it's okay to murder groups of people for their religious beliefs. If that's what Dave is saying, that claim strikes me as so completely preposterous and outrageous that there's some benefit in saying so publicly."

Well, it's pretty obviously not what he said, so I think you can rest easy on that point. His point is that a blood libel is a blood libel anywhere you find it, and he believes he's found one in those who claim that legal gun owners are responsible for this latest mass murder. To the contrary, he claims that NRA members are among the safest members of society:

"Ironically, none of the bigots whose lips drip with blood libel can point to a crime committed by an NRA member. Since 1871 the millions of members of our Association have among the most safe and responsibly-behaved people in human history."

Speaking for myself, I am not a gun owner but I do enjoy sport shooting. All the NRA types I've met are obsessed with safety and proper handling. NRA members are not the people you need to be worried about. There have been 218 people murdered in Chicago so far this year, and it's only May. That does, indeed, worry me. But no one ever talks about that.

[damikesc]

The reason the Left is "blind" to it is the inherent racism that has always been a hallmark of progressivism.

[Stephen Lathrop]

damikesc — I wouldn't claim that the leftists in your head have no counterparts in reality. But they are not the leftists who comment here. Why not try dialogue with those.

[Stephen Lathrop]

NRA members are not the people you need to be worried about.

DaveM, I will choose my own objects of concern, thanks. To me, pro-gun emotional tendencies will always stand out as red flags—suggesting a temperament unsafe to manage a gun. A tendency to divide humanity into good guys with guns, and bad guys who should not be permitted guns, looks like another warning sign. I want gun wielders worried all the time that they might be bad guys.

NRA advocacy runs counter to what I want for gun community guiding principles, so I wonder about NRA members.

[Terry]

If Kopel had only publicly called for open borders, then Kerr would have been thrilled with his comments.

[Michael P]

I think you're confusing Orin Kerr with Ilya Somin.

[dwb68]

Kopel didn't say that. Also, as I read it, it was a speech, so one had to read it that way with the the appropriate pauses and emphasis.

The left likes to blame the NRA. Trying to use the mob to cancel groups is popular on the left. The NRA is at their weakest in history and had been shown to be an extremely corrupt organization run by a narcissist. Picket, protest, and pillory them as much as you want. The NRA is not the source of the 2nd Amendments power or popularity.

[bernard11]

Thank you , Orin.

[Sarcastr0]

Sometimes I’m just glad there are sober smart and still libertarian folks like Orin in the world.

I may not always agree with him, but having some of you opposition be generating food for thought and not just willing to condone craziness is a comfort.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why? Unless he changes sides, Orin Kerr, for all of his decency, will never be part of any solution or progress in America.

And this blog is conservative -- movement conservative -- not libertarian. Not nearly. It's a bunch of sheepish right-wingers masquerading in garish, unconvincing libertarian drag. This white, male, hard-right blog evokes a RuPaul show with its 'libertarian' prancing.

[Michael P]

To borrow a trope from Sarcastr0, it "seems" as if Kerr is endorsing blood libel and bomb threats against the NRA. And to borrow a trope from Kerr, if that's what Kerr is endorsing, it is so completely preposterous and outrageous that there's some benefit in saying so publicly.

[Gandydancer]

Bingo!

[Jerry B.]

If you think the anti-NRA crowd aren't haters, read the comments about any shooting in the Washington Post. You'll find plenty of haters there.

[Rossami]

re: "that claim strikes me as so completely preposterous and outrageous"

Yes, that interpretation is preposterous and outrageous - and has no basis in what was actually written.

[wreckinball]

Because it’s those gun organizations that are violent. Remember all of those shootings and violence at those NRA events? No me neither.

Remember the “mostly peaceful” protests. Yea me too. It’s one of the reasons for 2A

[Sarcastr0]

Blood libel is not mere criticism. Most of you defending this know that.

The circling of wagons in defense of this shit is pretty disappointing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" The circling of wagons in defense of this shit is pretty disappointing. "

That's what these low-character clingers do daily, SarcastrO. They huddle for warmth at separatist safe spaces like the Volokh Conspiracy, raging at their betters because losing the culture war has made them desperate, disaffected, and delusional.

You can't reason with bigotry, superstition, or belligerent ignorance. It is pointless to try, perhaps even counterproductive. Appeasing these bitter clingers is immoral. Defeating them with better ideas and better people is the sole sensible course. Thank goodness that has been the trajectory of America for more than a half-century.

[Michael P]

You might want to read the rest of this comment thread, friend. There's a clear example of blood libel up there. Kopel want making it up.

[Michael P]

*wasn't making it up

[Sarcastr0]

No, actually.

I see none of that.

You may want to look up what the Blood Libel is.

[Michael P]

To be precise, I was referring to the comment that contains this, among other accusations:

The reality is that everyone who is continuing to oppose gun control is actively working to kill more children. That's the state of the USA these days. Actual child murder proponents meeting en masse.

Exactly what would have to change for you to accept that as a blood libel?

[Gandydancer]

Um... a claim that the blood of the dead was used in the sauce for the rubber chicken at the NRA dinner?

Lathrop hasn't objected to the misuse of the term elsewhere on this thread, so I'm not sure what to make of his question. That Jews are responsible for the Crucifixion is not a blood libel.

[MatthewSlyfield]

While some would argue that the existence of Jesus and the Crucifixion are myth, taking the Biblical story as true, certain specific Jews 2K years ago were responsible for the Crucifixion.

To suggest that any living Jew today bears even the slightest responsibility for those events is very much a blood libel.

[wreckinball]

For the sensible “common sense” gun laws crowd I propose the reciprocal agreement.

Whatever restrictions you put on law abiding citizens also apply to the secret service and any congressional security.

Only fair right?

[MatthewSlyfield]

Those restriction should apply to all law enforcement officers/agencies.

[Sarcastr0]

Special responsibilities generally includes special abilities or authorities.

Though I grant that police accountability may mean their responsibilities are not what they appear.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Another possible compromise. I'll consider supporting their "common sense*" gun laws if the bill include provisions that make all law enforcement officers personally liable for failing to protect people such that the people not protected or their families can sue for damages. It should also include a provision explicitly making any form of immunity unavailable against such suits.

*really it's not commons sense, it's nonsense.

[Mike Hansberry]

So, now guilt by association is a good thing. OK Boomer.

Since Lefties cannot seem to parse a certain compound sentence, it is little wonder they cannot fathom Kopel's argument that guilt by association is always wrong.

Orin's position is weaker still when one examines the supposed "association" between NRA members and the perp.

[Sarcastr0]

Kopel said a shitload more than guilt by association is always wrong,

Also the approbrium against the NRA is not about association.

Other than that great jerb!

[bevis the lumberjack]

People up above in this thread explicitly said that NRA members have culpability in these shootings. Multiple people.

Your comeback was pretty glib but you’re ignoring what he’s reacting to.

[Sarcastr0]

Culpability is not the same as being the shooter.

Conflating the two is a straw man.

[Toranth]

No one is complaining about NRA members being named as collectively being Salvador Ramos, so that's a huge lie right there.

[Sarcastr0]

That is literally what the blood libel invocation is saying,

[Toranth]

...
No. No, it isn't.

No one - not Kopel, not Kerr, not the most deranged protester, thinks that Ramos was actually a collection of 5 million NRA members in a large trenchcoat.

[Sarcastr0]

What does the Blood Libel say about the Jews? Is it a criticism of the policies Jews advocate for?

[Toranth]

It does not, under any circumstances, pretend that the actions of a single individual were actually carried out by multi-million person collective, which is what you claimed.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Open wider, Mike Hansberry. Your betters have even more progress to shove down the whiny, bigoted, superstitious, right-wing clingers like you.

You get to whine about it as much as you like, but you will continue to comply with the preferences of better Americans, because better ideas and people have won the culture war and therefore will continue to shape our national progress against the wishes and works of downscale, bitter clingers.

Your continuing compliance is appreciated, as always. Well, until replacement occurs.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I agree that the Kopel speech was ridiculous overstatement.

That said, many of y’all who are yelling for gun control based on a terrible but very rare event are the same people who were all in favor of the censorship effort that was intended to be run by Truth Minister Whackadoodle.

It’s as if y’all can’t sacrifice my civil rights fast enough. You’re more of a threat to me and mine than any prospective shooter.

[Sarcastr0]

Humans are not pure utilitarians. This is an example of that.

Even republicans are offering policy changes. That’s not weird.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“Policy changes” and assaults on the bill of rights are not exactly the same thing.

Truth Minister Whackjob was an assault on the 1st Amendment. (DeSantis too). Haven’t seen the proposals yet as to guns but a lot of the noise isn’t promising.

[Sarcastr0]

That is begging the question, I agree with you on the 2A mostly but that doesn’t mean you can pretend those you disagree with think they are assaulting the Constotution.

[bevis the lumberjack]

If they are doing so I don’t care whether they think they are or not. The potential damage is the same. And if they can do it to the 1st and 2nd, what protects the others.

Hell , civil asset forfeiture has already substantially weakened the 5th. Want more of that?

[Sarcastr0]

It’s not about what I want it’s about short circuiting a debate into a moral stand.

The left does it all the time. It’s not great there and it’s not great here.

[bernard11]

Truth Minister Whackadoodle.

Don't understand what you are talking about.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I bet you don’t.

[Gandydancer]

You don't understand anything about anything. That's revealing about you, not anyone else.

Did you really miss the Mary Poppins act by our would-be Ministry of Troth head? Gotta catch that. It's... amazing. "Whackadoodle" isn't wrong. (But this is better: https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=Awr.1xAcgpRilmIfeB80nIlQ;_ylu=c2VjA3NyBHNsawN2aWQEdnRpZAMEZ3BvcwMx?p=%22Mary+Poppins%22+%22Ministry+of+Truth%22&vid=bff0354038aa9c50afde06b8314df592&turl=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOVF.EkEpQQzxRvQ6hXEpj2X20A%26pid%3DApi%26h%3D360%26w%3D480%26c%3D7%26rs%3D1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DaysnLzod3nw&tit=Nina+Jankowicz+Responds+To+%3Cb%3EMinistry%3C%2Fb%3E+%3Cb%3EOf%3C%2Fb%3E+%3Cb%3ETruth%3C%2Fb%3E+Being+Shut+Down&c=0&h=360&w=480&l=60&sigr=w9cYceD6yqa1&sigt=DRc9WO1e2YGk&sigi=yU4BSF.SIZGP&age=1652994363&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&fr=yhs-iba-syn&hsimp=yhs-syn&hspart=iba&type=asbw_8923_CHW_US_tid20073&param1=W3vP4HiBwO9WMWDqeptztdRiCc3CxAG4d3i0SVYsOqrsZLhRf1rks%2F6JmJuzK0is&param2=9dUI1n2R0BLDxNuWfiP4aSFOTltNdSPoIx38%2BUf%2FiXpdioyXr1Sww%2BDEYBUNnFHtAqXJI7QNbd32Jvu99Uv88D0BC1qxFg3SHTwJzBLoTTWdYAE0pAbHHwebVeT2BIFTzpmkUlQi%2B%2FF9Pl5Rms6bOHbxF3LfEOlWF9YpfJJBQJH0dnGpBEatcyx9dpgsKffSE7O2niT38FVPsaGuWrFOYDYlwqlmJ6FJ0ezwxy5%2FQt0djvcCVPB%2FfO7SwvzI47g2pO6ygRLFM%2BW%2BYl9a43tAC505tF5FXGBPQtBFK%2BHOmKg%3D&param3=NwVEMR%2FzKcG52XsVBYEh2zk2Yklq85vdfspZPoqz2M1qypHRDDTed5vIiOf0QJloIYNIhURx5ygk43IbuWBmnfLApzQNuNyJQuCIFEosygzUObTBvpAdBKtFCFkedGtzXg8BZPONEY8XN9MMyOktF6ijsgCol4pKozP8v53bbS%2FR5zgKGyWXE5QJjAgIfowzSLahv3VWegGVeqdOmrcPtkjo%2B9RTyEyLbDKQlPZnEmXsvbk8UdiORNvMSXU8BZ09J30tolXpPWS7c5pXBA2CJtVniQ4hnuIFQQ7NJQK5rM2bN2LXzQ5LLly7StT%2FVQq7Xx4rOu8irnOjBBdvaERVk3B%2Bav9ksyBpXQIro49epM7FDntE3%2F5y5zNxlb%2B88JKdc6EiazVjsl5xPZVHIG4FBZqwVwq%2FGaMSojZ53h2eQbHNUTZvcCPuAVHQsAZRed1U&param4=Im6zTg7cYy3lGLTtosL55zjJPHbeZleIIlt8KUydZ58%3D&tt=b)

[Estragon]

Thank you Prof. Kerr.

“Gun owners and NRA members are the real victims here.”

It’s beyond belief and totally unsurprising all at once. The mind reels.

[Ben_]

Because you view them as the other.

[Estragon]

Ok huckleberry, thanks for the tip

[reasonableone1959]

Prof. Kerr, you completely misrepresent what Kopel said. His point was that the frothing crowd that is BLAMING NRA members and supporters, because of their ASSOCIATION with their organization, and not for any act that had anything to do with the deaths of the children at the hand of another human being, is analogous to all of the examples he quoted where people hate other people because of a group they are associated with. I assume, without knowing, that you are smart enough to be able to distinguish this analogy from your accusation that Logan said: "criticizing the NRA for its positions and influence in gun control debates is somehow equal to the belief that it's okay to murder groups of people for their religious beliefs." So you are a liar, or propagandist, or of insufficient intelligence for your position as a professor of law. Which is it?

[Gandydancer]

He's a jackass with a very low opinion of the credulousness of anyone who reads his shit. As this thread shows, there are a lot of cases where either that is justified or they are as dishonest as he, or both.

[Ben_]

Kopel's post did seem poorly tailored to the audience. Aside from that, the comparison is about right. Gun controllers do, in fact, want to send soldiers out against gun owners. That will lead to many unjustifiable, tragic deaths.

How is sending troops out to hunt down gun owners significantly different than the "belief that it's okay to murder groups of people for their religious belief"? They are both signing off on hunting down innocents based on the idea that those people are the other.

Maybe you think Kopel blasphemed your sacred history. If you hold that history sacred, you are welcome to that judgement.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What gets me about this post, defenses of it, defenses like it, and the general right wing reaction to mass shootings isn’t the desire to talk about anything other than guns (and then never act on those suggestions either). It’s not even the “don’t politicize the tragedy” hypocrisy and nonsense.

It’s just the utterly grotesque and depraved self-involvement on display. So many anti-social reactions coming from people that have obvious personality disorders and this is widely cheered.

At a time when a whole community is devastated beyond comprehension, Kopel is writing and delivering a speech about how the gun lobby are the real victims just like the Jews in medieval Europe.

At a time when people were finding out the cops failed and parents needed DNA samples to identify their kids they seem to get more upset by Beto or reporters confronting them with pointed criticism/questions. They’re the real victims.

And then there’s the sociopath-in-chief, Donald Trump. While families are trying to coordinate funerals and memorials, he gives a speech at the NRA convention where he butchers the names of all the victims and chooses to end that speech by doing that weird “dance” move where it looks like he’s jerking two guys off. And people clap/cheer.

Just total heartless self-involvement on every level.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oops should clarify by “this post” I mean Kopel’s not Orin’s obviously.

[bevis the lumberjack]

What separates your zealotry from the people you decry? What makes you different than Kopel? The righteousness of your own opinion? Lol. Remove the plank from your own eye. From my perspective there’s not a lick of difference between you and he.

And not everyone in Uvalde is depressed. The Uvalde PD is probably feeling pretty good about themselves.

[LawTalkingGuy]

What separates me is I didn’t write a post about how I’m the real victim after a mass shooting. I also didn’t do a weird dance for a crowd after reading the names of victims in a mass shooting. That’s something that separates me. Not everything is some kind of equal both-sides thing.

[Gandydancer]

At a time when people were finding out the cops failed and parents needed DNA samples to identify their kids you want to whine about how Kopel is expressing upset that there are idiots about blaming the NRA for Salvador Ramos' twistedness and demanding that it shut down its meetings in penance for something it neither did nor endorsed.

Stick a sock in it.

[Ben_]

I agree. People are far too self-involved and far too ready to play the victim.

Where was this judgement during the George Floyd protests though? If self-involvement is bad now, it should have been bad other times.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I don’t remember any liberals doing a jerk-off dance at a police convention after his murder.

[Ben_]

I don’t have a response to Trump-obsession. Not interested.

There were a zillion politicians doing all manner of stuff during those protests. It goes without saying that at least one of them did something that can be ridiculed.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You don’t have a response because you know it’s utterly depraved in every sense of the word. Congratulations, you have a soul,

[Ben_]

Condemning people isn’t a virtue

[LawTalkingGuy]

It is when they suck.

[Gandydancer]

Then condemning you is perfectly fine.

[Estragon]

I mean, it’s shocking but it’s not. This is the “Trump 2020 fuck your feelings” crowd after all.

[Estragon]

We’re just witnessing how deep that sentiment goes.

[Ben_]

"This is the “Trump 2020 fuck your feelings” crowd after all."

That’s how that crowd's feelings have been treated for decades. They finally decided to reciprocate.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So you’re admitting they’re self-involved narcissists who think they’re the real victims in any situation and are justified in being awful people now?

[Ben_]

Lots of people are self-involved.

Does anyone disagree that Trump (the guy you have an obsession about) is a self-involved narcissist? I certainly don’t.

"…being awful people now?"

Treating others the way you are treated is awful? By what standard?

[LawTalkingGuy]

The guy I quote “have an obsession about” is the leader of one of the two major political parties and is a reflection of their values!

“Treating others the way you are treated is awful? By what standard?”

Lol no one treats you poorly. You’re just upset that you’re not (consistently) in a dominant cultural position anymore. People can now criticize you for your shitty attitudes and actions, and you take it as a green light to be a shitty person.

[Ben_]

"Lol no one treats you poorly."

Got it. Others need never be considered.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It’s like your a little kid mad that his brother is getting ice cream because his tonsils were removed, so you’re acting out and crying that your parents don’t love you.

[Ben_]

Any complaint about anything can be dismissed as childishness. Understood.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It can when the complaint is “I’m being treated unfairly because I’m being criticized for how my positions affect other people, and because of that treatment I’m going to act out and rationalize petty tantrums and anti-social behavior.”

[Ben_]

And whenever else. We can all be completely dismissive, just like this.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes. And so you’ll wallow in self-pity and victimization and never improve yourself and your character. Sounds like a great plan for a happy and healthy life.

[Gandydancer]

LTG: The guy wallowing in self-pity and victimization.

[Estragon]

“It’s you who is forcing me to act this way!”

Pathetic.

[Ben_]

Your feelings about that are as important to me as my feelings about it are to you.

[Estragon]

“Sure we’re behaving poorly now, but let’s not forget who started this: liberals who passed the VRA in the 60s! They didn’t care about my feelings then so why should I care about theirs??”

[Ben_]

Whenever I see a post like this, it reads like:

…something….something….60-years-ago

[NoOne]

Speeches like Kopel's are the best argument for opposing the NRA. The problem with the NRA is not its support of gun rights, because the NRA is not actually a gun rights organization. It's an organization that romanticizes gun violence, promotes political polarization, and is deeply invested in culture wars. That is why the NRA bears some degree of moral responsibility for gun violence in the US and why they should be opposed.

I'm skeptical that gun control will solve the mass shooting crisis in the US, because I believe it is a cultural problem. If the US was willing to ban guns, then I don't think we'd need to. I support 2nd amendment rights and I have no problem at all with organizations like the Nevada ACLU that do too. But, I do not support the NRA, because they deliberately foment fear and anger. They also lobby for various nonsense "solutions", like arming teachers and whatnot, which create unhelpful noise and do more harm than good.

Guns may not be the problem, but organizations like the NRA certainly are. Kopel illustrated that quite clearly. Not to diminish the efforts of the speakers with more name recognition.

[Gandydancer]

Not seeing that Kopel is any problem for me.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

The number of supposedly pro-free speech people defending what Mr. Koppel said is totally ridiculous ... it doesn't work one way. Either you believe in freedom of speech, and the right to protest, or you dont.

The NRA has the right to host their convention. We also have every right to criticize them harshly for the utter tone deafness of doing so and then refusing to provide an actual solution to these problems. Arming 4th graders, or even teachers, is not a solution! Are certain criticisms off base, yeah, but being pro free speech means that one respects peoples right to make even ridicules and off base critiques.

[Ben_]

Violent attacks are not speech. Violent attacks by leftist "protesters" have become commonplace.

[Michael P]

People should be criticized for bad speech (like saying mainstream political opponents are actively working to kill more children). They should be prosecuted in very specific cases (like making a bomb threat, mentioned in Kopel's speech/post).

Don't conflate the First Amendment right to make bad arguments with a desire to not be called out for them.

[Davy C]

Did Kopel make the argument that the protestors should be *prevented* from protesting? If not, I don't know what your argument is here. You can believe in the right to protest and still disagree with everything the protestors are saying.

[Estragon]

Bless their hearts, those AR-15 Moonies not looking quite so fringe all of a sudden!

[David Brayton]

Conflating strong criticism of one's beliefs and/or political positions with attacks based on an immutable characteristic (such as race, religion, national origin) is rather common but erroneous fallacy.

Criticism based on an immutable characteristic, such as race, is corrosive, pernicious and wrong. Crimes that are motivated by such animus are seen as warranting more severe punishment than a regular crime.

Criticism based on one's chosen position on a policy issue, such as whether universal health care is a good idea, is at the very heart of free and fair political debate.

Often those being criticized for their position on a particular issue feel that criticism acutely. It feels as if they are being attacked unfairly because, after all, their position is obviously correct and would be to any other reasonable person.

It seems that Mr. Koppel's position on gun control has been criticized and he has responded by attributing characteristics to his critics that are unfair.

This statement by Mr. Koppel is so far over the top that I wouldn't expect it in a high school debate: "Ironically, none of the bigots whose lips drip with blood libel can point to a crime committed by an NRA member."

Oy vey. One wonders whether he is trying out for a gig at Fox News.

[Toranth]

Labeling obviously false accusations of "wanting to murder children" as mere "criticism" is quite the dishonest take, but unfortunately there are some others that have already beaten you to it several times.
But you did fit the "auditioning for Fox News" meme in there, so you get a half-point for diversity.

[AJ_Liberty]

I think the NRA and David lapses into a tactical problem when they appear to resist even modest reforms like Red Flag laws, closing background check loopholes, and making the purchase age for rifles the same as for handguns. Nothing is perfect (as Red Flag laws should provide the accused with an opportunity to object, provide evidence, and be time limited) and laws benefit from a critical process, but they give the impression that the only acceptable solutions involve more guns and hardening targets,

I would even go so far to say that limiting magazine capacity to 10 is not a significant encumbrance on 2A rights of self defense. It may be a small (arbitrary?) inconvenience for reloading when sport shooting, but how much really? Now you can argue that it has no effect other than maybe a brief pause in a mass shooting, but strategically, why die on that hill? The slippery slope arguments kill good will.

I get that David and the NRA are skeptical that any of this accomplishes a lick, but they should understand that they then look obstructionist. It's rhetorical excess to say that they are culpable as mass shootings are still statistically rare and tend to be immune to most of these suggestions (except maybe raising the age here). If you don't want to be pilloried, put on a face that doesn't suggest indifference.

[Nisiiko]

Sorry, but this is all BS. It's not a slippery slope argument when your opponent is actively trying to push you out on the slope to fall. We've spent the last 70 years "compromising," and the laws only become stricter. The stupid and ineffective laws, like prohibiting interstate handgun sales, remain on the books, and never get repealed.

The magazine limit is obviously a large negative for defense, which is why the police won't agree to those limits. Every state that has them carves out law enforcement. Why?

If it was purely an inconvenience while target shooting, then you'd have a point. But it's not. Limiting defensive uses to 10 rounds can have a real impact against a group of intruders or in a civil disorder situation. We're not obligated to agree to things that are stupid and ineffective, at best, and harmful, at worst just to "show goodwill."

What goodwill has the left shown? Has it agreed to any sort of national carry reciprocity? Why are they dying on that hill? What about banning rifles with bayonet lugs? Why are they dying on that hill?

Regarding the age, I'm okay with raisin the age to 21, but only if the general age of majority is raised to that. That means no more getting stupid 18-20 year olds to "rock the vote" for Democrats, which is why Democrats support that group voting.

[AJ_Liberty]

Sorry, but how does a 10-round magazine-limit prohibit you from having multiple magazines conveniently available when the horde of imaginary assailants come to take your sacred bodily fluids? You can certainly turn it around, as I suggest, and question its real deterrent value in a mass shooting, but it doesn't qualify as not rational. These shooters are caught up in a fantasy. Why not make it harder for them to indulge in it. Give responders and victims that pause to resist. This kid was a recent gun buyer and hardly had any time to practice. What's the harm in trying to slow him down zombie hunter?

The Left certainly has its agenda....and a striking unwillingness to apply this same sense of urgency to gun violence in Chicago. But this is about building a majority and persuading those in the middle whu may not be gun owners but who agree with you on self defense. The current NRA look is bad...meaning you're losing the middle and losing your ability to resist bigger changes, like returning to an "assault" weapon ban. This is about smart positioning as well as reducing the toxicity in politics.

We are heading down the path to more and more violence. Do you want to hand down that legacy to your kids? Give the other side a chance to be magnanimous...reduce the hate.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Left certainly has its agenda....and a striking unwillingness to apply this same sense of urgency to gun violence in Chicago. But this is about building a majority and persuading those in the middle whu may not be gun owners but who agree with you on self defense. The current NRA look is bad...meaning you're losing the middle and losing your ability to resist bigger changes, like returning to an "assault" weapon ban. This is about smart positioning as well as reducing the toxicity in politics.

The very fact that they have a striking unwillingness to apply this same urgency to gun violence in Chicago proves they are arguing in bad faith.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You think firearms shouldn't be allowed to have standard magazines which have been sold for over thirty years because you arbitrarily decided upon a different number?

Magazines which quite literally fit inside the grip of the weapon in many cases.

You'd also have to explain how, since the core anti-2A argument is the militia bullshit, how restricting magazine size to LESS THAN standard sizes sold for over thirty years somehow helps in service to a militia. Is that the defense of America you wish to offer? Sorry, but we've decided to neuter ourselves because someone who doesn't know jack or shit about firearms decided a random number was 'the limit?'

[Carl_N_Brown]

"... how does a 10-round magazine-limit prohibit you from having multiple magazines conveniently available ..."

16 April 2007 the Virginia Tech murderer used two handguns and a total of nineteen 10- and 15-round magazines to kill 32 people, wound 17, then shot himself.

How does an AR-15 ban and a 10-round magazine-limit prohibit a mass murderer from having a handgun or two and multiple magazines conveniently available?

[Nisiiko]

I see the resident liberal jackasses like Stephen Lapthrop are back to posting the same usual drivel in this thread.

Any law that leftists push for is "reasonable" so that if conservatives oppose them, they must be "unreasonable."

We can't be opposing their proposals because they're ineffective at best, and malicious at worst.

It's very simple. As long as guns are generally available as a "right," not as a "privilege," then there will be occasional mass shootings. The only way to eliminate it is to amend the Constitution and ban guns (and institute the police state it would require to get all of the existing ones out of circulation), because none of your "reasonable" and "common sense" restrictions like banning scary black rifles or magazine limits will do a damn bit of good. Anyone who says otherwise is either stupid or a liar.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I wonder why the Democrat Gun Free Zone policy didn't keep these kids safe?

Weird.

[Nisiiko]

The left creates angry, poorly adjusted young males, and then wonder why they do these things.

[Estragon]

Needs more Michelle obama

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" It seems that Mr. Koppel's position on gun control has been criticized and he has responded by attributing characteristics to his critics that are unfair. "

He also invoked Satan.

Competent adults neither advance nor accept superstition-based arguments in reasoned debate, especially with respect to public affairs.

But David Kopel does. He brings his silly fairy tale, like a child peeking from behind a stuffed animal or holding a ragged blanky. This "adult" figures his fairy tale can beat up everyone else's fairy tale! And he does this at an ostensibly academic blog.

Keep flailing against Satan, Mr. Kopel, on behalf of the conservative angels.

And against Sen. Blutarsky and those damned Deltas, the Wicked Witch and her flying monkeys, and of course we can't forget that goddamn roadrunner!

Carry on, Neidermeyer. Until . . . well, you'll find out.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey everybody: Happy Hour. Time to chill.

[BrotherMovesOn]

I'm with ya Bumble.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Chill?

Didn't you hear?

Satan is here!

[ReaderY]

When I read Professor Kopel’s post, I was so horrified I was moved to cuss. Professor Kerr’s “completely preposterous and outrageous” is very much more polite. Nonetheless, I think I will stand by “bullshit” just this once. I try not to cuss often. But I think this one deserved it.

[ReaderY]

I appreciate Professor Kerr’s calling a spade a spade.

[Gandydancer]

Except he was claimg that a club was a spade.

Koppel didn't say what Kerr claimed he thought Koppel said.

[DWB]

Are ALL professors at Berkley lying, mendacious cunts????