The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Gun Control: Point-of-Sale vs. Point-of-Use
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Other than Michael Bloomberg, the Democrats view gun control as:

– We must block small town white men from legally buying scary-looking rifles.

– We must block cops from stopping and searching big city black men carrying illegal handguns.

Bloomberg favored both point-of-sale and point-of-use gun control. From NPR on Bloomberg’s 2015 question-and-answer session in Aspen:

“95% of your murders and murderers and murder victims fit one M.O. You can just take the description and Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male minorities 15 to 25.”

He continues: “That’s true in New York. That’s true in virtually every city in America. And that’s where the real crime is. You’ve got to get the guns out of the hands of the people that are getting killed.”

Bloomberg’s idea of a solution? Flooding minority neighborhoods with law enforcement.

“People say, ‘Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana who are all minorities.’ Yes, that’s true. Why? Because we put all the cops in the minority neighborhoods. Yes, that’s true. Why’d we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is. And the way you should get the guns out of the kids’ hands is throw them against the wall and frisk them,” Bloomberg says.

But as I wrote way back in 2004:

The endless gun-control brouhaha, which on the surface appears to be a bitter battle between liberal and conservative whites, also features a cryptic racial angle. What blue-region white liberals actually want is for the government to disarm the dangerous urban minorities that threaten their children’s safety. Red-region white conservatives, insulated by distance from the Crips and the Bloods, don’t care that white liberals’ kids are in peril. Besides, in sparsely populated Republican areas, where police response times are slow and the chances of drilling an innocent bystander are slim, guns make more sense for self-defense than in the cities and suburbs.

White liberals, angered by white conservatives’ lack of racial solidarity with them, yet bereft of any vocabulary for expressing such a verboten concept, pretend that they need gun control to protect them from gun-crazy rural rednecks, such as the ones Michael Moore demonized in “Bowling for Columbine,” thus further enraging red-region Republicans.

Keeping in mind Sailer’s Law of Mass Shootings, let’s try to walk through the different types of shootings in reverse order of how much space they take up in the brains of media consumers:

– Total murders: According to FBI statistics, in 2020 92% of gun murders in which the gun type is known were committed with a handgun. Also, according to FBI statistics, 56.5% of all known murder offenders (gun and non-gun) in 2020 were black. The percentage of known gun murderers was likely higher, and, judging from the lower clearance rates in black neighborhoods, the percentage of all gun murderers, known and unknown, who were was likely up around 5/8ths.

– Total mass shootings: The US is averaging about a dozen mass shootings per week in which four or more victims are killed and/or wounded. Almost certainly, a large majority of these Saturday Night in South-Central mass shootings are carried out with hand guns.

– Mediagenic mass killing shootings: Leftist Mother Jones magazine keeps a carefully curated “I Know It When I See It” list of mass shootings with only 128 over the last 40 years using criteria such as 3 dead (before 2012, 4 dead), not gang or crime related, not domestics, and the killer is identified. They cover virtually all the famous mass shootings. In their database, half of these celebrated mass shootings were carried out only with handguns. In a fraction of the other half, shooters carried handguns as well as long guns.

Long guns aren’t useful for the typical Saturday Night in South-Central mass wounding shooting, because the shooter/s intend to get away. Carrying a long gun into the scene of your crime is likely to cause passerby witnesses to notice your face — “Hey, that 6’3″ guy with the scar on his left cheek is carrying a rifle!” So a concealed handgun is preferable.

On the other hand, mass killing shooters have typically made up their mind ahead of time that they aren’t ever coming home. They intend to hang around to finish off the wounded, then be killed or arrested. They want everybody to know their names. So, a long gun isn’t a problem to them. (Fortunately, there aren’t many of them.)

My impression from this is that handguns are somewhat substitutable for long guns in the sick minds of mass killing shooters. Rifles are easier to aim accurately and are more likely to kill per shot fired.

On the other hand, most mass killing shooters seem to like the up-close-and-personal aspect of watching their victims’ faces as they shoot them. In support of this speculation, note that the highest bodycount was rung up by the Las Vegas shooter who fired from a long distance using rifles. So far, fortunately, his tactics haven’t been widely imitated, perhaps because his impersonal style of mass shooting appeals less that up-close-and-personal shooting.

That suggests that a crackdown on the sale of new hunting weapons would have a fairly marginal effect on Mother Jones mass killing shootings.

Another question is whether, in a country with a few hundred million guns (they are consumer durables), what kind of gun control could stop Mother Jones shooters. Most of them aren’t members of gangs tied into the criminal underworld. On the other hand, most of them probably know a few drug dealers and the like.

Any conceivable type of gun control, even Australian-style mass confiscation, would likely leave tens of millions of guns and could generate a huge black market. If you’ve been planning for a long time to die or go to prison forever for your carefully plotted mass killing shooting, how much of a deterrence would it be to have to get a gun on the black market? I don’t know.

What about waiting periods for legal gun purchases? Some states have them, others don’t.

For example, the crazy man who shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and a lot of other people (which was blamed, wholly wrongly. on Sarah Palin) bought the guns he used on a Walmart on the way to his crime. I call this, from The Onion, a No-I-Won’t-Be-Needing-A-Bag-For-My-Gun-Purchase shooter. Are there many of them? Somebody could go through the Mother Jones list and check.

Offhand, my guess would be that more domestic murders are facilitated by a spur of the moment gun purchase. Domestic murders are bad, too, but they don’t get much publicity.

Lots of Democrats are talking right now about “common sense gun control,” but they tend not to be trusted because of their tendency to use each incremental change as a launching pad for another one, with the ultimate goal of shutting down all legal hunting and gun culture in the U.S. For example, in 2013-15, the liberal establishment moved with incredible rapidity from winning on gay marriage to encouraging your moody daughter to have herself poisoned, mutilated, and sterilized in the name of transgenderism.

 
Hide 168 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. yeah i can see this the consensus latest nativist neurotic tic over hot 2nd grader blood in the classroom — to conflate these various types of shootings that have literally nothing do with each other

    what to do ramos and gendron have to do with innercity terroritorial-beef bangers or nightclub disrespeck spray-shooters? yeah, that’s right, nothing

    what do impulsive incel-uprising spectrumites like ramos and gendron have to do with patient, methodical, slaughter engineers like paddock — very little, if that

    it would be glancingly easy to severely limit the kind of mass killings we’ve seen in the last two weeks, through simple restrictions — extended waiting periods, raising of minimum purchase age, various forms of orientation/mandatory classes and of course medical/psych evals; how about sponsorship for 1st-time buyers as well?

    but nooooo this would impinge on bubba’s right to play soldier in the mud in his backyard with one of his 25 military-issue “long guns” and we can’t have that can we? heaven forbid some fatass’s self-defense / yoke-of-tyranny fantasy is impinged upon

    and if there are a lot of guns already in circulation, so what? some incel like gendron couldn’t come close to acquiring one if it actually entailed a trip into the underworld. and laws can easily be passed making family/friend purveyors accessories to the crime

    ofc i understand none of this will happen and we’ll all continue to play these, as long as whitey has a natsoc complex

    • Agree: For what it's worth
    • Troll: JimDandy
    • Replies: @For what it's worth
    @kahein

    "it would be glancingly easy to severely limit the kind of mass killings we’ve seen in the last two weeks, through simple restrictions — extended waiting periods, raising of minimum purchase age, various forms of orientation/mandatory classes and of course medical/psych evals; how about sponsorship for 1st-time buyers as well?

    but nooooo this would impinge on bubba’s right to play soldier in the mud in his backyard with one of his 25 military-issue “long guns” and we can’t have that can we? heaven forbid some fatass’s self-defense / yoke-of-tyranny fantasy is impinged upon"

    Spot on. Tyranny came, in the form of the COVID lockdowns. Guns did nothing to stop it.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @kahein


    it would be glancingly easy to severely limit the kind of mass killings we’ve seen in the last two weeks, through simple restrictions — extended waiting periods, raising of minimum purchase age, various forms of orientation/mandatory classes and of course medical/psych evals; how about sponsorship for 1st-time buyers as well?
     
    "...through simple restrictions — extended waiting periods, raising of minimum [registration] age, various forms of orientation/mandatory classes and of course medical/psych evals; how about sponsorship for 1st-time [voters] as well?"

    If it's valid for triggers, it's more valid for levers.


    https://www.history.com/.image/c_limit%2Ccs_srgb%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_1400/MTcxODI3MDExMjQzNzQ2NzMy/voting-gettyimages-515252746.webp
    , @Elli
    @kahein

    Gendron planned, researched, scouted, wrote a 150 page manifesto. Not impulsive.

    Ramos worked for a year saving thousands of dollars for 2 rifles and many rounds of ammunition. An impulsive kid would have gratified himself with car, clothes, etc.

    Parkland and Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech shooters were disturbed, obsessed with violence for years. Autism or fetal alcohol syndrome, developing schizophrenia. Impulsivity or culmination?

    Boulder theater shooter, schizophrenic, not impulsive.

    Columbine shooters, not impulsive.

    SC church shooter, impulsive. Almost called it off because his victims were so kind and welcoming.


    What motivates these killers? You hate black criminality or white dispossession, why not take it to the gangbangers or the political architects, see how many you can get. No, go kill a bunch of black grandmothers, that'll make your point.

    You're suffering and nobody cries for you, you'll make them cry for something?

    You hate?

    You're keeping score, who kills the most, doesn't matter if they're little kids, doesn't matter if the only people who care about your score are nothing but loser hate-filled gamer nihilists like you?

    The FBI investigated and dismissed Parkland shooter, didn't act on a tip about Ramos. I don't think they're set up for rapid response. Other priorities, entrapping the disaffected, career building.

    Replies: @kahein

    , @Travis
    @kahein

    The sister of the Uvalde gunman “flatly refused” to buy him a weapon when he asked her to last year, then he worked for a few months to save the money and finally purchase his guns. If he had to wait another 6 months due to a "waiting period" it is not likely to have made a difference in this case.

    Gendron started buying his guns back in December, 5 months prior to his killing spree. A waiting period of 6 months may have delayed his rampage by a few months, but he had been planning this for some time.

    Maybe they should ban gun sales to those under the age of 21. This is one gun law which could make a difference. If these two teens had to wait until they were 21 we would not be talking about them today, and they may have never become mass murderers.

    Replies: @kahein, @kahein

    , @Pop Warner
    @kahein


    what to do ramos and gendron have to do with innercity terroritorial-beef bangers or nightclub disrespeck spray-shooters? yeah, that’s right, nothing
     
    They were radicalized on the same discord server
    , @TWS
    @kahein

    I get it. You want to take away guns. Especially guns you don't like. Here you'll protest you just want common sense measures. You showed up a short time ago to push certain issues your focus is narrow. Push the current thing along the party line. You're a shill and not a good one.

    Replies: @kahein

    , @AnotherDad
    @kahein


    yeah i can see this the consensus latest nativist neurotic tic over hot 2nd grader blood in the classroom —
     
    Comments are often little windows into psychological makeup--i.e. "tics".

    "Nativist" is a epithet for people who like the national community and culture they and their ancestors built and want to protect and preserve it for themselves and their kids. Normal, healthy human behavior.

    "Nativist" is essentially the scaled up version of "homeowner". Similar related words would be "steward", "citizen", "normie" and ... "owner".

    Who exactly would have a problem with people who like their stuff and want to keep it? (I sure don't.) The question answers itself. The plain speaking synonyms for people who throw around "nativist" as an epithet are--"invader", "criminal", "thief", "rapist" and the solid catch all "parasite".

    "Nativist" is basically the epithet that parasites have for normal humans with a healthy immune response.

    Replies: @kahein

  2. If Mike Bloomberg had stuck to that position, he might have become our first Jewish president.

    In a later interview, he acknowledged that he couldn’t win the Democrats’ nomination for president, because he’d have to disavow his position on street crime, and he’d be nailed as an obvious phoney.

    Then he did disavow that position and sought that nomination. And he was eaten alive by Warren and the other leftists on the stage at the debates – for being a phoney. Suddenly, he realized that all the money in the world couldn’t buy him the oval office from the corner he’d painted himself into, and he dropped out.

    I wonder what would have happened it he’s stuck to his guns (no pun intended). With his moderate position on most other issues, and his superabundant financial wherewithal, I think there’s a not-negligible chance that he might, just maybe, have won the nomination of either party if he’d played his other cards right.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri, ic1000
    • Replies: @Prester John
    @I, Libertine

    I can only judge Bloomberg as mayor of NYC. And, to be honest, he wasn't at all bad. Certainly in comparison to his successor, Koko the Klown.

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @I, Libertine


    I think there’s a not-negligible chance that he might, just maybe, have won the nomination of either party if he’d played his other cards right.
     
    A missed opportunity for sure. In fact, as a former Republican and Democrat, with personal mega-bucks and a successful political record, he was perfectly placed to run as an independent -- like a non-crazy version of Ross Perot. But he couldn't resist the siren-call of 2020 woke hysteria.
  3. Bloomberg’s 15-25 age range seems dated. In his time in office, it was probably true, because with three strikes laws and the like, a repeat offender was likely to score a long jail term by age 25.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Dave Pinsen

    That's just an outlier. The age range is based on hormones and life experience. By the time you're 40, most men are starting to wind down and they can reflect that life is generally good and they realize they are not immortal and they know that violence begets more violence.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Stan Adams

    , @Perspective
    @Dave Pinsen

    I've noticed this as well, when generation X was in their teens and twenties in the 80's and early 90's, their per capita murder rate was among the highest. From my observations of watching NYC local news, it seems an unusually high number of those released from prison over the last two years that have gone on to commit serious crimes are Gen Xers now in their 40's and 50's.

    Somewhat related, I recall watching the documentary below from 1973 on street gangs in the Bronx, most of the people here are of course baby boomers, some of whom would have given birth to the gen X cohort that gave us record high homicide rates.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWL6p6hxy3Q

  4. From the Too Funny Dept: Americans living in the UK are congratulating themselves on Facebook for having moved to the UK where they don’t have to worry about their kids getting shot while learning their ABCs.

    Meanwhile, Putin has recently threatened to nuke the UK (and only the UK) on four separate occasions.

    To quote that deranged dentist, is it safe?

  5. The real problem is the gun control lobby, because everyone knows they will push and push until guns are totally banned, so giving an inch means starting down the path to gun bans for normal people. This is a problem because some controls would make sense. But if we let them have the sensible controls, they’ll just push for more and more.

    Also, the best way to stop school shootings would be to abolish schools. Who thinks schools are a good idea anyway? It takes a village? More like, it takes a neolithic village to raise a neolithic child. In reality, the idea of sending your kids off to be raised by strangers (and representatives of the state) is insane.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @For what it's worth
    @Chrisnonymous

    "Also, the best way to stop school shootings would be to abolish schools. Who thinks schools are a good idea anyway? It takes a village? More like, it takes a neolithic village to raise a neolithic child. In reality, the idea of sending your kids off to be raised by strangers (and representatives of the state) is insane."

    From pretty much the origin of reading, writing, and arithmetic, parents have farmed out the job of teaching these subjects to specialists. The rich might have a slave teach their children within the household. People lower down the social rung sent their kids to school. "Homeschooling" prevailed only in frontier situations and isolated homesteads. Civilizations realize the value of the division of labor. The ancient Greeks had schools. The ancient Romans had schools. Etc. The idea that homeschooling is normative is a myth that originated in the late 20th century.

    So, civilized human beings pretty much everywhere, pretty much since the dawn of reading and writing, found it sane to send their children to school. You, on the Internet, think otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education

    , @Corn
    @Chrisnonymous


    The real problem is the gun control lobby, because everyone knows they will push and push until guns are totally banned, so giving an inch means starting down the path to gun bans for normal people. This is a problem because some controls would make sense. But if we let them have the sensible controls, they’ll just push for more and more.
     
    Yup. When Obama was president a couple liberal friends used to tease me.
    “Oh Corn, we don’t want your guns. Has Obama tried to take your guns? No!”

    No he didn’t try to “take them”. But then he had to deal with a Republican House and Senate. My liberal friends never mentioned how Barry once praised Australia for its gun control measures, which did include mandatory turn-ins.

    Any Republican who’s not controlled opposition knows what “common sense gun laws” means:

    “You, John Q Citizen, will have your access to firearms curtailed, and DAs will increasingly limit your right to self defense. The guy who burgled or mugged you, or assaulted your wife? Well we had to let him out you see. Bail is cruel. And prosecuting him may be racist or classist.”
    , @Mr. Anon
    @Chrisnonymous


    But if we let them have the sensible controls, they’ll just push for more and more.
     
    Other than your characterization of a lot of their proposals as "sensible controls" (they are not), you are right. Remember how Roe vs. Wade enshrined the "very sensible" position that abortion through the first trimester should be legal throughout the land, state laws be damned? Then "first trimester" becamse "second trimester". Then second became third. Then it became we can induce labor, and then kill the baby (no longer merely a "foetus", but a baby). Now some Democratic legislators are pushing for retroactive abortion up to a month after birth - formerly known as "infanticide".

    Or the whole trajectory of LGBT rights (demands) - look how that evolved.

    Beto O'Roarke, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Joe Biden, etc. - they don't want "sensible gun control". They want nobody to own guns, save for their bodyguards and agents of the State. They want it because the powers-that-be want a disarmed population. The first step to "you'll own nothing and like it" is "you'll own no guns."
    , @Hypnotoad666
    @Chrisnonymous


    Also, the best way to stop school shootings would be to abolish schools.
     
    I like your outside-the-box thinking. In the same vein, not giving shootings a high-profile would eliminate high-profile shootings. The MSM has a veritable orgasm of national coverage and outrage every time there is a school shooting because it furthers their political virtue signaling about about gun control or whites being bad, or whatever. But the wall-to-wall coverage feeds the copy-cat and celebrity-seeking motives that have probably driven most of the shootings since Columbine at least.

    Curtailing exploitative media coverage would probably save more lives than restrictive gun laws. But the First Amendment is sacred (when used by the leftist media, anyway). The Second Amendment . . . not so much.
  6. “Any conceivable type of gun control, even Australian-style mass confiscation, would likely leave tens of millions of guns and could generate a huge black market.”

    And black markets love a totally open southern border.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    @B36

    One might be tempted to make the drive to the nearest big city and sell ones newly contrabanded AR15's to a passing ghetto dweller.

  7. If you give someone an inch, they then want a mile.

    –Old Proverb

    This is why I don’t blame Republicans who won’t cooperate with Democrats on reasonable gun control. The Republicans know full well that Democrats, as a general rule, won’t drop an issue and won’t respect whatever compromise was reached, mostly because they feel they are “on the right side of history”

    in 2013-15, the liberal establishment moved with incredible rapidity from winning on gay marriage

    The first hole in the dam was Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. Kennedy authored both Lawrence and then Obergefell in 2015. When liberals said that “what adults do the privacy of their own bedrooms is their own business” they were lying in the sense that they didn’t want to stop there.

    Kennedy, of course, because a justice in the first place after Bork was borked and D. Ginsburg admitted to smoking pot. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0* which will never happen again.
    *

    [MORE]
    Al Gore and Paul Simon were out running for president, while Joe Biden was home sick

    • Agree: mc23, Redneck farmer
  8. @Dave Pinsen
    Bloomberg’s 15-25 age range seems dated. In his time in office, it was probably true, because with three strikes laws and the like, a repeat offender was likely to score a long jail term by age 25.

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/1430702257125867521?s=21&t=f7-AmLG93nJd51T4MYbLWQ

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Perspective

    That’s just an outlier. The age range is based on hormones and life experience. By the time you’re 40, most men are starting to wind down and they can reflect that life is generally good and they realize they are not immortal and they know that violence begets more violence.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @Chrisnonymous

    I dunno. More outliers in that thread. https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/1482489071469486098?s=20&t=fY0MeG6bhshZVp9hM_wrtg

    , @Stan Adams
    @Chrisnonymous


    By the time you’re 40, most men are starting to wind down and they can reflect that life is generally good and they realize they are not immortal and they know that violence begets more violence.
     
    I'm not sure this is true anymore. The flaky millennials are pushing forty, and many of them are just as screwed up now as they were at 30 or 20.

    Purely as a thought exercise, let me provide a theoretical description of such a person.



    Note that I am not admitting to describing any actual human beings, living or dead. Also note that the person I am describing does not have any overt homicidal or suicidal ideation; he is merely an example of someone who is not enjoying a great deal of life satisfaction in the latter part of his 30s.

    Theoretically, if a flaky millennial male a) was pushing 40, b) was physically unattractive, c) was conflicted about having gay tendencies, d) had a small penis, and e) was generally lazy and unambitious, you would not expect him to have enjoyed a great deal of success in the relationship arena, and you would not be surprised to learn that he did not have a great deal of life satisfaction.

    (You wouldn't expect him to be a regular commenter on this site, either.)

    Suppose that this theoretical person had grown up without the benefit of a father figure and had suffered through intensely dysfunctional relationships with his female relatives, most notably his mother and grandmother. Suppose that his mother was especially repulsive, combining severe personality defects and morbid obesity with a princess mentality and an extreme sense of entitlement. Suppose that she had bad-mouthed his father and his grandfather all throughout his youth, telling him at times that she hated all men and hated the fact that he would grow up to become a man.

    Would it be overly surprising to learn that this person might not be overly eager to pursue a long-term relationship with a woman? Might he not be somewhat justified in fearing that he might get stuck with someone who would end up treating him just as badly?

    Of course, this theoretical person would feel obligated to take some degree of responsibility for his own situation. And he would feel compelled to point out that there are plenty of people his age who've done all the "right" things who are no happier than he is. He would know plenty of miserable people who'd gone from one bad relationship to another. So he would not necessarily be convinced that he'd screwed up all that badly, because he'd rather be alone than be with the wrong person.

    All of this is purely theoretical, you understand.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Intelligent Dasein

  9. 1. white “men” commit the most gun violence

    2. They also influence Men of Color to be guillemot

    3. Take away they dgubs of white men and things will fall into place.

    • Replies: @Elli
    @Ebony Obelisk


    Guillemot

    , @Hangnail Hans
    @Ebony Obelisk

    Uh oh, girlfriend hittin the sauce again

    , @Hereward
    @Ebony Obelisk

    You can have my dgub when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

    , @MEH 0910
    @Ebony Obelisk


    2. They also influence Men of Color to be guillemot
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_guillemot

    https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Black_Guillemot/

    https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/black-guillemot

    https://nas-national-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/web_a1_4262_3_black-guillemot_bill_dix_kk-breeding-adult.jpg
    , @MEH 0910
    @Ebony Obelisk


    3. Take away they dgubs of white men and things will fall into place.
     
    Take the Money and Run - I Have a Gub, Apt Natural
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VdMdboymT8

    Replies: @Paul Jolliffe, @Ganderson

    , @tyrone
    @Ebony Obelisk

    That's because we want to steal your GUANO!....we got the dgubs to do it.

    , @kaganovitch
    @Ebony Obelisk

    3. Take away they dgubs of white men and things will fall into place.


    This is why Liberia is synonymous with Eden to the well-informed.

  10. “Common sense gun control?” Most people instinctively know that “common sense” and “Democrat” do not overlap on any Venn Diagram known to man

    • Thanks: Hibernian
    • LOL: Paul Jolliffe
    • Replies: @James Speaks
    @Known Fact

    Common Sense gun control is using a gun only for self-defense and if so, effectively. In other words, hitting the target. I call this Point of Impact control.

  11. Any conceivable type of gun control, even Australian-style mass confiscation, would likely leave tens of millions of guns and could generate a huge black market.

    Such a thing would signal to the masses that ALL levels of government from their legislatures, executive branches and their judiciary have become an implacable “Enemy of the People” and will be treated as such.

    A large cottage industry of craft-made assault weapons will no doubt ensue.

  12. @kahein
    yeah i can see this the consensus latest nativist neurotic tic over hot 2nd grader blood in the classroom -- to conflate these various types of shootings that have literally nothing do with each other

    what to do ramos and gendron have to do with innercity terroritorial-beef bangers or nightclub disrespeck spray-shooters? yeah, that's right, nothing

    what do impulsive incel-uprising spectrumites like ramos and gendron have to do with patient, methodical, slaughter engineers like paddock -- very little, if that

    it would be glancingly easy to severely limit the kind of mass killings we've seen in the last two weeks, through simple restrictions -- extended waiting periods, raising of minimum purchase age, various forms of orientation/mandatory classes and of course medical/psych evals; how about sponsorship for 1st-time buyers as well?

    but nooooo this would impinge on bubba's right to play soldier in the mud in his backyard with one of his 25 military-issue "long guns" and we can't have that can we? heaven forbid some fatass's self-defense / yoke-of-tyranny fantasy is impinged upon

    and if there are a lot of guns already in circulation, so what? some incel like gendron couldn't come close to acquiring one if it actually entailed a trip into the underworld. and laws can easily be passed making family/friend purveyors accessories to the crime

    ofc i understand none of this will happen and we'll all continue to play these, as long as whitey has a natsoc complex

    Replies: @For what it's worth, @Reg Cæsar, @Elli, @Travis, @Pop Warner, @TWS, @AnotherDad

    “it would be glancingly easy to severely limit the kind of mass killings we’ve seen in the last two weeks, through simple restrictions — extended waiting periods, raising of minimum purchase age, various forms of orientation/mandatory classes and of course medical/psych evals; how about sponsorship for 1st-time buyers as well?

    but nooooo this would impinge on bubba’s right to play soldier in the mud in his backyard with one of his 25 military-issue “long guns” and we can’t have that can we? heaven forbid some fatass’s self-defense / yoke-of-tyranny fantasy is impinged upon”

    Spot on. Tyranny came, in the form of the COVID lockdowns. Guns did nothing to stop it.

    • Thanks: Je Suis Omar Mateen
  13. Lots of Democrats are talking right now about “common sense gun control,” but they tend not to be trusted because of their tendency to use each incremental change as a launching pad for another one, with the ultimate goal of shutting down all legal hunting and gun culture in the U.S.

    Precisely.

    The entire “debate” (it really isn’t) about so-called “assault rifles” and AR-15s is a straw man. Democrats want to ban them not because of mass shootings, but because they are potentially the most effective weapon against government troops and militarized cops. And when you literally had troops and armed checkpoints in the streets of Washington, D.C., that’s something they are mighty concerned about.

    If the Gun Control Fairy could wave a magic wand and make all AR-15s disappear tomorrow, mass shootings would still continue indefinitely. Shooters would just use pistols or pump-action shotguns instead. Hell, you could take a brace of single-action revolvers and a lever-action rifle manufactured in 1875 and still manage to shoot 17 or 18 people without reloading if you were so inclined. You could shoot 20 people with a British .303 Enfield bolt-action manufactured in 1914 and only reload once… which would take about 2-3 seconds. The infamous University of Texas bell tower shooter in 1966 barricaded himself in a high vantage point and used a scoped bolt-action hunting rifle with a four-round capacity to snipe people hundreds of yards away. Martin Luther King was shot from 300 yards with a — get ready for this — Remington Gamemaster.

    There is no middle ground of “reasonable” gun control. You either have a right to own guns, or you don’t. If you are limited to the type of guns that the government allows you to have and the government determines if you shall or shall not have one at all, it is not a right but a privilege, and the Democrats cannot be trusted to exercise such power in good faith.

    Even in countries where ownership of guns is a licensed privilege and not a right, there have been mass shootings. It really pisses me off to hear these people repeat ad nauseum that “the U.S. is the only country in the world where this happens.” Haven’t they heard of Bataclan, Beslan, Anders Brevik, Mumbai, Luxor, Hanau, Christchurch, Quebec City, Nova Scotia or École Polytechnique? Of course they have, but they don’t care — they’re demagogues, not reasonable people. None of the stringent gun laws in those countries stopped any of it. The only places where there are no mass shootings are countries like Japan, which is a monoracial island with literally no guns.

    It’s all so tiresome.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Dr. X

    Excellent, Dr. X! Thanks for the superb comment.

    , @For what it's worth
    @Dr. X

    "If you are limited to the type of guns that the government allows you to have and the government determines if you shall or shall not have one at all, it is not a right but a privilege, and the Democrats cannot be trusted to exercise such power in good faith."

    So you're in favor of legalizing fully automatic rifles, land mines, tanks, ICBMs, tactical nukes, etc., right? Or do you just accept the current restrictions on weapons because they're invisible to you? In Europe, a fair number of criminals resort to trucks and knives because, I infer, they don't have access to guns. Maybe they'd kill more with guns, maybe they wouldn't.

    Replies: @anarchyst, @Dr. X, @Pop Warner

    , @For what it's worth
    @Dr. X

    "Haven’t they heard of Bataclan, Beslan, Anders Brevik, Mumbai, Luxor, Hanau, Christchurch, Quebec City, Nova Scotia or École Polytechnique?"

    Are any of these instances as typical an event in their country as this sort of shooting is in the United States? How many Breivik's does Norway have? How many Christchurch's have occurred in New Zealand?

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow

    , @Prof. Woland
    @Dr. X

    The best explanation of why people, either pro or anti-gun was written by a guy who goes by the pseudonym the Anonymous Conservative. He has a must-read news aggregator site https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/home-page/ and wrote a book titled The Evolutionary Psychology of Politics. His theory is that guns are a fitness test. Same as bigger stronger goats with bigger horns win head butting contests and are the ones that get to breed. People are oriented psychologically either towards r or K reproductive strategies just like animals. Those among us who want free resources and are less likely to withstand a fitness contest resent those who are strong, attractive, and competitive by nature and are willing to fight for what is dear to them. In other words, weak people who hate guns want those who have them to die, not because they hate guns but because they hate the winners in society who are better / more fit than they are. By confiscating guns they make the fitness gap smaller so they might win a head butt, or better yet, someone else might knock their rival off. If they could defeat them openly they would but rather they are forced to stab them in the back somehow.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Almost Missouri

    , @John Johnson
    @Dr. X

    If the Gun Control Fairy could wave a magic wand and make all AR-15s disappear tomorrow, mass shootings would still continue indefinitely. Shooters would just use pistols or pump-action shotguns instead.

    Yes but a major problem is that the left will never give the guns back.

    If shooters switch to pumps then that will be the next assault weapon. They won't give the AR-15s back.

    No one needs an 8 round magazine for duck hunting. That is what they will say.

    We have to get gun violence rates down if we want to keep our guns. If not they will eventually get a majority and ban everything but single shot hunting rifles.

    The left actually needs these types of mass shootings. They won't get bans by being honest about gun crime.

    The Republican strategy of being against all new laws will fail in the long term. We saw this in NY and CA. It makes more sense to support some purchasing limitations in exchange for securing long term rights while they are still at the table. The Democrat plan to overwhelm Republicans through demographic changes from immigration is a valid strategy. The Republican counter-strategy of waving flags and giving lofty speeches about the 2A is doomed to fail.

    Replies: @Corn, @Stealth

  14. What about waiting periods for legal gun purchases? Some states have them, others don’t.

    If the Texas shooter really saved his Wendy’s money in a piggy bank until he had enough to purchase 3k worth of gear, a waiting period wouldn’t have phased him. Everything about the Buffalo shooter says the same.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @JimDandy

    Right. It's hard to stop a really determined kamikaze.

    Replies: @Wizard of Oz

    , @Mike Tre
    @JimDandy

    This is true of all gun control laws. People already intent on committing a crime with a gun are going to ignore any and all "This is a gun free zone" signage posted everywhere.

    Gun control laws do nothing but disarm the law abiding portion of our society.

    , @Paul Jolliffe
    @JimDandy

    Except, naturally, for the minor fact that there isn’t the slightest evidence that Ramos had a nickel to his name, let alone the $3,000 (minimum) needed to pull off Tuesday afternoon all by himself.

    Which he did not do all by himself, which anyone of reasonable intelligence and perceptiveness knew as soon as they saw what was clearly a mugshot of Ramos from some prior arrest.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @John Johnson, @Johann Ricke

  15. For a whiny little lib Bloomie did a solid job as mayor. His gun control fetish was effectively applied across the board, not just against law-abiding white people. During those 12 years I could go just about anywhere I wanted in Manhattan and the boroughs, for fun or my mystery shopping rounds. Today you have to think twice about every move

  16. @Dave Pinsen
    Bloomberg’s 15-25 age range seems dated. In his time in office, it was probably true, because with three strikes laws and the like, a repeat offender was likely to score a long jail term by age 25.

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/1430702257125867521?s=21&t=f7-AmLG93nJd51T4MYbLWQ

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Perspective

    I’ve noticed this as well, when generation X was in their teens and twenties in the 80’s and early 90’s, their per capita murder rate was among the highest. From my observations of watching NYC local news, it seems an unusually high number of those released from prison over the last two years that have gone on to commit serious crimes are Gen Xers now in their 40’s and 50’s.

    Somewhat related, I recall watching the documentary below from 1973 on street gangs in the Bronx, most of the people here are of course baby boomers, some of whom would have given birth to the gen X cohort that gave us record high homicide rates.

  17. Mediagenic mass killing shootings: Leftist Mother Jones magazine keeps a carefully curated “I Know It When I See It” list of mass shootings with only 128 over the last 40 years

    Wide publicity and reassurance that shootings of the above kind, that generate most fear and loathing, are less likely to kill than weather, would be helpful.

    • Replies: @Hangnail Hans
    @epebble

    As soon as they figure out a way to leverage weather patterns in support of their political goals, you may expect it to happen. Or, has it happened already?

    Replies: @epebble

  18. @Chrisnonymous
    The real problem is the gun control lobby, because everyone knows they will push and push until guns are totally banned, so giving an inch means starting down the path to gun bans for normal people. This is a problem because some controls would make sense. But if we let them have the sensible controls, they'll just push for more and more.

    Also, the best way to stop school shootings would be to abolish schools. Who thinks schools are a good idea anyway? It takes a village? More like, it takes a neolithic village to raise a neolithic child. In reality, the idea of sending your kids off to be raised by strangers (and representatives of the state) is insane.

    Replies: @For what it's worth, @Corn, @Mr. Anon, @Hypnotoad666

    “Also, the best way to stop school shootings would be to abolish schools. Who thinks schools are a good idea anyway? It takes a village? More like, it takes a neolithic village to raise a neolithic child. In reality, the idea of sending your kids off to be raised by strangers (and representatives of the state) is insane.”

    From pretty much the origin of reading, writing, and arithmetic, parents have farmed out the job of teaching these subjects to specialists. The rich might have a slave teach their children within the household. People lower down the social rung sent their kids to school. “Homeschooling” prevailed only in frontier situations and isolated homesteads. Civilizations realize the value of the division of labor. The ancient Greeks had schools. The ancient Romans had schools. Etc. The idea that homeschooling is normative is a myth that originated in the late 20th century.

    So, civilized human beings pretty much everywhere, pretty much since the dawn of reading and writing, found it sane to send their children to school. You, on the Internet, think otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education

    • Agree: Redneck farmer, Alden
    • Disagree: Pop Warner
    • Thanks: Hangnail Hans
  19. @Chrisnonymous
    @Dave Pinsen

    That's just an outlier. The age range is based on hormones and life experience. By the time you're 40, most men are starting to wind down and they can reflect that life is generally good and they realize they are not immortal and they know that violence begets more violence.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Stan Adams

  20. Anonymous[154] • Disclaimer says:

    Test

  21. In South Texas today, there is one and only one story being talked about by real people: the cowardice, criminal negligence, and cover-up by the Uvalde police department. Quite literally, the only gun control being talked about today is the gun control exhibited by the parents who didn’t shoot the cops that heard their children screaming for help and that refused to rush the shooter. Texans are outraged and ashamed. It feels like the days after the Floyd shooting, like it would only take a spark to set the whole state on fire. I can’t tell what this rage would be directed at, but we are sitting on a volcano gentlemen.

    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Corn
    @aNewBanner

    Is it true that some officers rushed into the school to retrieve their own children but would not go back in to confront shooter or evacuate more children?

    Replies: @aNewBanner

    , @Intelligent Dasein
    @aNewBanner

    I was about to say this as well, so thank you for mentioning it. It's really a distraction to talk about gun control at all when the only real issue here is the utter incompetence and cowardice of the cops. It's time to defund the legacy police force and start over again.

    But to just to riff on the point, I would like to mention that the full spectrum failure which the greater West seems to be suffering across every dimension of society is not occurring in multiple, random ways. Each one of these failures shares the same Platonic form, which we can note by looking at a few examples:

    • At the beginning of the Covid debacle, it was announced to everyone that hospitals would curtail their normal treatment protocols and that restrictions would be placed on individual freedoms in order to flatten the curve, because it was necessary to "save the healthcare system."

    • At the recent school shooting currently under discussion, the police refused to confront the shooter because they were afraid that they might get hurt. Instead, they tackled parents who were trying to save their own children.

    • The banking system was bailed out after the Great Financial Crisis and QE was instituted, which caused vast amounts of debt belonging to basically insolvent governments to trade at negative interest rates.

    • The war in Ukraine, which Russia is quite handily winning, and which Russia had perfectly good reasons for prosecuting, is being portrayed in the Western media as a wantonly aggressive act by Russia, which is also suffering embarrassing losses. The sanctions levelled against Russia have only strengthened the Russian economy and harmed the West.

    In each one of these cases what we are witnessing is the abdication of the institutions of society, who are now forcing ordinary citizens to bear the cost of their failure while also insisting, contrary to evidence, upon their own legitimacy and right to govern. We see, in other words, the failure and desperation of the elites who are determined only to cling to power but have no idea what to do with it.

    Replies: @aNewBanner, @That Would Be Telling, @Ganderson

  22. Bloomberg ‘24!

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Ian Smith


    Bloomberg ‘24!
     
    Harris '22!
  23. @kahein
    yeah i can see this the consensus latest nativist neurotic tic over hot 2nd grader blood in the classroom -- to conflate these various types of shootings that have literally nothing do with each other

    what to do ramos and gendron have to do with innercity terroritorial-beef bangers or nightclub disrespeck spray-shooters? yeah, that's right, nothing

    what do impulsive incel-uprising spectrumites like ramos and gendron have to do with patient, methodical, slaughter engineers like paddock -- very little, if that

    it would be glancingly easy to severely limit the kind of mass killings we've seen in the last two weeks, through simple restrictions -- extended waiting periods, raising of minimum purchase age, various forms of orientation/mandatory classes and of course medical/psych evals; how about sponsorship for 1st-time buyers as well?

    but nooooo this would impinge on bubba's right to play soldier in the mud in his backyard with one of his 25 military-issue "long guns" and we can't have that can we? heaven forbid some fatass's self-defense / yoke-of-tyranny fantasy is impinged upon

    and if there are a lot of guns already in circulation, so what? some incel like gendron couldn't come close to acquiring one if it actually entailed a trip into the underworld. and laws can easily be passed making family/friend purveyors accessories to the crime

    ofc i understand none of this will happen and we'll all continue to play these, as long as whitey has a natsoc complex

    Replies: @For what it's worth, @Reg Cæsar, @Elli, @Travis, @Pop Warner, @TWS, @AnotherDad

    it would be glancingly easy to severely limit the kind of mass killings we’ve seen in the last two weeks, through simple restrictions — extended waiting periods, raising of minimum purchase age, various forms of orientation/mandatory classes and of course medical/psych evals; how about sponsorship for 1st-time buyers as well?

    “…through simple restrictions — extended waiting periods, raising of minimum [registration] age, various forms of orientation/mandatory classes and of course medical/psych evals; how about sponsorship for 1st-time [voters] as well?”

    If it’s valid for triggers, it’s more valid for levers.

  24. Corn says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    The real problem is the gun control lobby, because everyone knows they will push and push until guns are totally banned, so giving an inch means starting down the path to gun bans for normal people. This is a problem because some controls would make sense. But if we let them have the sensible controls, they'll just push for more and more.

    Also, the best way to stop school shootings would be to abolish schools. Who thinks schools are a good idea anyway? It takes a village? More like, it takes a neolithic village to raise a neolithic child. In reality, the idea of sending your kids off to be raised by strangers (and representatives of the state) is insane.

    Replies: @For what it's worth, @Corn, @Mr. Anon, @Hypnotoad666

    The real problem is the gun control lobby, because everyone knows they will push and push until guns are totally banned, so giving an inch means starting down the path to gun bans for normal people. This is a problem because some controls would make sense. But if we let them have the sensible controls, they’ll just push for more and more.

    Yup. When Obama was president a couple liberal friends used to tease me.
    “Oh Corn, we don’t want your guns. Has Obama tried to take your guns? No!”

    No he didn’t try to “take them”. But then he had to deal with a Republican House and Senate. My liberal friends never mentioned how Barry once praised Australia for its gun control measures, which did include mandatory turn-ins.

    Any Republican who’s not controlled opposition knows what “common sense gun laws” means:

    “You, John Q Citizen, will have your access to firearms curtailed, and DAs will increasingly limit your right to self defense. The guy who burgled or mugged you, or assaulted your wife? Well we had to let him out you see. Bail is cruel. And prosecuting him may be racist or classist.”

  25. example, in 2013-15, the liberal establishment moved with incredible rapidity from winning on gay marriage to encouraging your moody daughter to have herself poisoned, mutilated, and sterilized in the name of transgenderism.

    Which is just one major reason the fake gay “marriage” ruling should be reversed.

    Tolerating their degeneracy has gone on lone enough. They are coming for your children—to molest, torture, and rape them. Homosexuality must be stopped, the Bible thumpers were right all along.

  26. @JimDandy
    What about waiting periods for legal gun purchases? Some states have them, others don’t.

    If the Texas shooter really saved his Wendy's money in a piggy bank until he had enough to purchase 3k worth of gear, a waiting period wouldn't have phased him. Everything about the Buffalo shooter says the same.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Mike Tre, @Paul Jolliffe

    Right. It’s hard to stop a really determined kamikaze.

    • Agree: JimDandy
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    @Steve Sailer

    This Australian in a big city which didn't suffer a lot of violent crime even before the big compensatory buy up after the Port Arthur massacre about 25 years ago is puzzled by American politicians' failures to do the obvious

    1. Limit access as far as possible under the Constitution to the most lethal weapons

    2. Go as far as possible in preventing the young, the already crimina, and the mentally unstable from acquiring firearms

    3. Penalise both as a crime and by huge liability to damages anyone whose negligence makes it possible for others to get hold of their firearms

    4. [This is my innovation so pay attention😇]. Allow frisking for concealed guns and knives by electronic means. Nobody could persuade me that a police person couldn't wear a scanning device so that a well designed AI program could result in the reporting of any object within two metres which had a probability of at least 30 per cent of being a weapon. The police person hears a telltale beep, presses a button and then hears "3 feet to your Right at height 3 feet".

    Replies: @J.Ross, @That Would Be Telling, @Stealth, @Reg Cæsar, @Dr. X

  27. Thanks for the great post full of common sense. Though I would be against “common sense” gun control even if I didn’t believe this, you are quite right that all Liberty lovers know that the left does not stop with what they call “common sense” measures. Everything is incremental with them, and for them, compromising with them means losing.

    As an example, I just read a memo at work about one more simple word we are not supposed to say. I wish I could write more, but it’d give away too much. Anyway, I don’t think I’ll be complying anymore…

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Achmed E. Newman


    As an example, I just read a memo at work about one more simple word we are not supposed to say. I wish I could write more, but it’d give away too much. Anyway, I don’t think I’ll be complying anymore…
     
    Probably the word is something like "inmate."
  28. @aNewBanner
    In South Texas today, there is one and only one story being talked about by real people: the cowardice, criminal negligence, and cover-up by the Uvalde police department. Quite literally, the only gun control being talked about today is the gun control exhibited by the parents who didn’t shoot the cops that heard their children screaming for help and that refused to rush the shooter. Texans are outraged and ashamed. It feels like the days after the Floyd shooting, like it would only take a spark to set the whole state on fire. I can’t tell what this rage would be directed at, but we are sitting on a volcano gentlemen.

    Replies: @Corn, @Intelligent Dasein

    Is it true that some officers rushed into the school to retrieve their own children but would not go back in to confront shooter or evacuate more children?

    • Replies: @aNewBanner
    @Corn

    Yes. It’s a disgrace.

    https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-texas-police-spox-on-live-tv-confirmed-cops-went-in-for-their-own-kids-during-uvalde-shooting/

    Replies: @Hangnail Hans

  29. @Dr. X

    Lots of Democrats are talking right now about “common sense gun control,” but they tend not to be trusted because of their tendency to use each incremental change as a launching pad for another one, with the ultimate goal of shutting down all legal hunting and gun culture in the U.S.
     
    Precisely.

    The entire "debate" (it really isn't) about so-called "assault rifles" and AR-15s is a straw man. Democrats want to ban them not because of mass shootings, but because they are potentially the most effective weapon against government troops and militarized cops. And when you literally had troops and armed checkpoints in the streets of Washington, D.C., that's something they are mighty concerned about.

    If the Gun Control Fairy could wave a magic wand and make all AR-15s disappear tomorrow, mass shootings would still continue indefinitely. Shooters would just use pistols or pump-action shotguns instead. Hell, you could take a brace of single-action revolvers and a lever-action rifle manufactured in 1875 and still manage to shoot 17 or 18 people without reloading if you were so inclined. You could shoot 20 people with a British .303 Enfield bolt-action manufactured in 1914 and only reload once... which would take about 2-3 seconds. The infamous University of Texas bell tower shooter in 1966 barricaded himself in a high vantage point and used a scoped bolt-action hunting rifle with a four-round capacity to snipe people hundreds of yards away. Martin Luther King was shot from 300 yards with a -- get ready for this -- Remington Gamemaster.

    There is no middle ground of "reasonable" gun control. You either have a right to own guns, or you don't. If you are limited to the type of guns that the government allows you to have and the government determines if you shall or shall not have one at all, it is not a right but a privilege, and the Democrats cannot be trusted to exercise such power in good faith.

    Even in countries where ownership of guns is a licensed privilege and not a right, there have been mass shootings. It really pisses me off to hear these people repeat ad nauseum that "the U.S. is the only country in the world where this happens." Haven't they heard of Bataclan, Beslan, Anders Brevik, Mumbai, Luxor, Hanau, Christchurch, Quebec City, Nova Scotia or École Polytechnique? Of course they have, but they don't care -- they're demagogues, not reasonable people. None of the stringent gun laws in those countries stopped any of it. The only places where there are no mass shootings are countries like Japan, which is a monoracial island with literally no guns.

    It's all so tiresome.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @For what it's worth, @For what it's worth, @Prof. Woland, @John Johnson

    Excellent, Dr. X! Thanks for the superb comment.

  30. @I, Libertine
    If Mike Bloomberg had stuck to that position, he might have become our first Jewish president.

    In a later interview, he acknowledged that he couldn't win the Democrats' nomination for president, because he'd have to disavow his position on street crime, and he'd be nailed as an obvious phoney.

    Then he did disavow that position and sought that nomination. And he was eaten alive by Warren and the other leftists on the stage at the debates - for being a phoney. Suddenly, he realized that all the money in the world couldn't buy him the oval office from the corner he'd painted himself into, and he dropped out.

    I wonder what would have happened it he's stuck to his guns (no pun intended). With his moderate position on most other issues, and his superabundant financial wherewithal, I think there's a not-negligible chance that he might, just maybe, have won the nomination of either party if he'd played his other cards right.

    Replies: @Prester John, @Hypnotoad666

    I can only judge Bloomberg as mayor of NYC. And, to be honest, he wasn’t at all bad. Certainly in comparison to his successor, Koko the Klown.

    • Agree: I, Libertine, Pop Warner
  31. @Ebony Obelisk
    1. white “men” commit the most gun violence

    2. They also influence Men of Color to be guillemot

    3. Take away they dgubs of white men and things will fall into place.

    Replies: @Elli, @Hangnail Hans, @Hereward, @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910, @tyrone, @kaganovitch

    Guillemot

  32. @Dr. X

    Lots of Democrats are talking right now about “common sense gun control,” but they tend not to be trusted because of their tendency to use each incremental change as a launching pad for another one, with the ultimate goal of shutting down all legal hunting and gun culture in the U.S.
     
    Precisely.

    The entire "debate" (it really isn't) about so-called "assault rifles" and AR-15s is a straw man. Democrats want to ban them not because of mass shootings, but because they are potentially the most effective weapon against government troops and militarized cops. And when you literally had troops and armed checkpoints in the streets of Washington, D.C., that's something they are mighty concerned about.

    If the Gun Control Fairy could wave a magic wand and make all AR-15s disappear tomorrow, mass shootings would still continue indefinitely. Shooters would just use pistols or pump-action shotguns instead. Hell, you could take a brace of single-action revolvers and a lever-action rifle manufactured in 1875 and still manage to shoot 17 or 18 people without reloading if you were so inclined. You could shoot 20 people with a British .303 Enfield bolt-action manufactured in 1914 and only reload once... which would take about 2-3 seconds. The infamous University of Texas bell tower shooter in 1966 barricaded himself in a high vantage point and used a scoped bolt-action hunting rifle with a four-round capacity to snipe people hundreds of yards away. Martin Luther King was shot from 300 yards with a -- get ready for this -- Remington Gamemaster.

    There is no middle ground of "reasonable" gun control. You either have a right to own guns, or you don't. If you are limited to the type of guns that the government allows you to have and the government determines if you shall or shall not have one at all, it is not a right but a privilege, and the Democrats cannot be trusted to exercise such power in good faith.

    Even in countries where ownership of guns is a licensed privilege and not a right, there have been mass shootings. It really pisses me off to hear these people repeat ad nauseum that "the U.S. is the only country in the world where this happens." Haven't they heard of Bataclan, Beslan, Anders Brevik, Mumbai, Luxor, Hanau, Christchurch, Quebec City, Nova Scotia or École Polytechnique? Of course they have, but they don't care -- they're demagogues, not reasonable people. None of the stringent gun laws in those countries stopped any of it. The only places where there are no mass shootings are countries like Japan, which is a monoracial island with literally no guns.

    It's all so tiresome.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @For what it's worth, @For what it's worth, @Prof. Woland, @John Johnson

    “If you are limited to the type of guns that the government allows you to have and the government determines if you shall or shall not have one at all, it is not a right but a privilege, and the Democrats cannot be trusted to exercise such power in good faith.”

    So you’re in favor of legalizing fully automatic rifles, land mines, tanks, ICBMs, tactical nukes, etc., right? Or do you just accept the current restrictions on weapons because they’re invisible to you? In Europe, a fair number of criminals resort to trucks and knives because, I infer, they don’t have access to guns. Maybe they’d kill more with guns, maybe they wouldn’t.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    @For what it's worth

    All of the weapons that you claim are "illegal" for civilians are not illegal at all.
    Under United States federal law, all of the above weapons are available and may be possessed by civilians upon submission of fingerprints, photos, and payment of a $200 "tax" for each item. The approval "process" takes anywhere from three to nine months. Those with "special occupational taxpayer" (class III) licenses can freely transfer these items among themselves without payment of the "tax".
    Look up the "National Firearms Act of 1934".

    Replies: @For what it's worth

    , @Dr. X
    @For what it's worth


    So you’re in favor of legalizing fully automatic rifles, land mines, tanks, ICBMs, tactical nukes, etc., right?
     
    Mostly, yes.

    The comparison with tanks and ICBMs is facile and stupid. The Second Amendment grants the right to "keep and bear arms" so it's pretty clear that it refers to arms that can be borne by typical infantrymen.

    Full-automatic machine guns, dynamite, short-barreled shotguns, blasting caps, detcord, all of that stuff was perfectly legal prior to 1934, when you could order a Thompson submachine gun through the mail from Sears, Roebuck and buy dynamite at the local hardware store. Back when we actually lived in a FREE country.

    And mass shootings of schoolchildren were basically nonexistent, because the country was almost monoracial, the people were more self-reliant, more sane, and more God-fearing.

    Replies: @For what it's worth, @For what it's worth, @That Would Be Telling, @That Would Be Telling

    , @Pop Warner
    @For what it's worth


    So you’re in favor of legalizing fully automatic rifles, land mines, tanks, ICBMs, tactical nukes, etc., right?
     
    Yes.
  33. @Dr. X

    Lots of Democrats are talking right now about “common sense gun control,” but they tend not to be trusted because of their tendency to use each incremental change as a launching pad for another one, with the ultimate goal of shutting down all legal hunting and gun culture in the U.S.
     
    Precisely.

    The entire "debate" (it really isn't) about so-called "assault rifles" and AR-15s is a straw man. Democrats want to ban them not because of mass shootings, but because they are potentially the most effective weapon against government troops and militarized cops. And when you literally had troops and armed checkpoints in the streets of Washington, D.C., that's something they are mighty concerned about.

    If the Gun Control Fairy could wave a magic wand and make all AR-15s disappear tomorrow, mass shootings would still continue indefinitely. Shooters would just use pistols or pump-action shotguns instead. Hell, you could take a brace of single-action revolvers and a lever-action rifle manufactured in 1875 and still manage to shoot 17 or 18 people without reloading if you were so inclined. You could shoot 20 people with a British .303 Enfield bolt-action manufactured in 1914 and only reload once... which would take about 2-3 seconds. The infamous University of Texas bell tower shooter in 1966 barricaded himself in a high vantage point and used a scoped bolt-action hunting rifle with a four-round capacity to snipe people hundreds of yards away. Martin Luther King was shot from 300 yards with a -- get ready for this -- Remington Gamemaster.

    There is no middle ground of "reasonable" gun control. You either have a right to own guns, or you don't. If you are limited to the type of guns that the government allows you to have and the government determines if you shall or shall not have one at all, it is not a right but a privilege, and the Democrats cannot be trusted to exercise such power in good faith.

    Even in countries where ownership of guns is a licensed privilege and not a right, there have been mass shootings. It really pisses me off to hear these people repeat ad nauseum that "the U.S. is the only country in the world where this happens." Haven't they heard of Bataclan, Beslan, Anders Brevik, Mumbai, Luxor, Hanau, Christchurch, Quebec City, Nova Scotia or École Polytechnique? Of course they have, but they don't care -- they're demagogues, not reasonable people. None of the stringent gun laws in those countries stopped any of it. The only places where there are no mass shootings are countries like Japan, which is a monoracial island with literally no guns.

    It's all so tiresome.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @For what it's worth, @For what it's worth, @Prof. Woland, @John Johnson

    “Haven’t they heard of Bataclan, Beslan, Anders Brevik, Mumbai, Luxor, Hanau, Christchurch, Quebec City, Nova Scotia or École Polytechnique?”

    Are any of these instances as typical an event in their country as this sort of shooting is in the United States? How many Breivik’s does Norway have? How many Christchurch’s have occurred in New Zealand?

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    @For what it's worth

    Those countries are also a lot smaller in population, what 5 million and 5 million compared to the US with 330 million, that might explain the lower rate of mass shootings as well.

  34. @JimDandy
    What about waiting periods for legal gun purchases? Some states have them, others don’t.

    If the Texas shooter really saved his Wendy's money in a piggy bank until he had enough to purchase 3k worth of gear, a waiting period wouldn't have phased him. Everything about the Buffalo shooter says the same.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Mike Tre, @Paul Jolliffe

    This is true of all gun control laws. People already intent on committing a crime with a gun are going to ignore any and all “This is a gun free zone” signage posted everywhere.

    Gun control laws do nothing but disarm the law abiding portion of our society.

  35. @Chrisnonymous
    @Dave Pinsen

    That's just an outlier. The age range is based on hormones and life experience. By the time you're 40, most men are starting to wind down and they can reflect that life is generally good and they realize they are not immortal and they know that violence begets more violence.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Stan Adams

    By the time you’re 40, most men are starting to wind down and they can reflect that life is generally good and they realize they are not immortal and they know that violence begets more violence.

    I’m not sure this is true anymore. The flaky millennials are pushing forty, and many of them are just as screwed up now as they were at 30 or 20.

    Purely as a thought exercise, let me provide a theoretical description of such a person.

    [MORE]

    Note that I am not admitting to describing any actual human beings, living or dead. Also note that the person I am describing does not have any overt homicidal or suicidal ideation; he is merely an example of someone who is not enjoying a great deal of life satisfaction in the latter part of his 30s.

    Theoretically, if a flaky millennial male a) was pushing 40, b) was physically unattractive, c) was conflicted about having gay tendencies, d) had a small penis, and e) was generally lazy and unambitious, you would not expect him to have enjoyed a great deal of success in the relationship arena, and you would not be surprised to learn that he did not have a great deal of life satisfaction.

    (You wouldn’t expect him to be a regular commenter on this site, either.)

    Suppose that this theoretical person had grown up without the benefit of a father figure and had suffered through intensely dysfunctional relationships with his female relatives, most notably his mother and grandmother. Suppose that his mother was especially repulsive, combining severe personality defects and morbid obesity with a princess mentality and an extreme sense of entitlement. Suppose that she had bad-mouthed his father and his grandfather all throughout his youth, telling him at times that she hated all men and hated the fact that he would grow up to become a man.

    Would it be overly surprising to learn that this person might not be overly eager to pursue a long-term relationship with a woman? Might he not be somewhat justified in fearing that he might get stuck with someone who would end up treating him just as badly?

    Of course, this theoretical person would feel obligated to take some degree of responsibility for his own situation. And he would feel compelled to point out that there are plenty of people his age who’ve done all the “right” things who are no happier than he is. He would know plenty of miserable people who’d gone from one bad relationship to another. So he would not necessarily be convinced that he’d screwed up all that badly, because he’d rather be alone than be with the wrong person.

    All of this is purely theoretical, you understand.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Stan Adams


    Theoretically, if a flaky millennial male a) was pushing 40, b) was physically unattractive, c) was conflicted about having gay tendencies, d) had a small penis, and e) was generally lazy and unambitious, you would not expect him to have enjoyed a great deal of success in the relationship arena, and you would not be surprised to learn that he did not have a great deal of life satisfaction.

    (You wouldn’t expect him to be a regular commenter on this site, either.)
     
    It is funny you should say this, because it is exactly what I would expect.

    I mention it, not to pick on anyone in particular, but because I would be very surprised to learn that no correlation whatever exists between time spent online and how unhappy one is.

    Everyone needs a pastime and fair enough. However, with all the quibbling, backbiting, trolling, etc. that goes on here, I fail to see how this site differs significantly from any social media site you could name.

    Frankly, I have no idea where some of the frequent commenters get the time to post so volubly. If spending hours on end writing comments on this site is the best thing you can hope to do with your time, fine, but perhaps it is worth slowing down for a moment and considering: is it really?

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    , @Intelligent Dasein
    @Stan Adams


    And he would feel compelled to point out that there are plenty of people his age who’ve done all the “right” things who are no happier than he is.
     
    Ah, and therein lies the rub.

    One of the bad things about Alt-Right is that there are far too many voices who, if they are not quite pushing an alpha-Chad ethos, they are at least exhorting everyone to get married and have children under the pretext that this is going to make them happy.

    What's missing are the voices saying that marriage and children do not necessarily make everyone happy, but it's something you need to do anyway.

    For many men, the domestic situation is disagreeable in certain respects. It results not in happiness but in a type of dry martyrdom, a life full of duties that have lost most of their relish and sacrifices that don't seem to bear any fruit. But these men were not wrong to start families; they did what the higher life demanded. They carried on and earned the right to be counted with all striving, suffering, genuine creatures who cannot help but command our respect.

    Any happiness that we find this side of heaven cannot be drank "straight" but has to be mixed with irony, and this is the tragic view of life. If we are to take comfort in anything, let it be in the fact that we aren't supposed to be comfortable.

    It's just like going to work. I recognize that we all have material needs and consequently man must labor under the sun, but this is not essentially what we are. We work to live, we don't live to work.; he who gives his heart to material pursuits is something less than human. But when we take work ironically, knowing that it isn't the final purpose of our existence, this is precisely what opens us up to any real enjoyment there is to be had in it, and we work better as a result. And a relationship built on this premise is much more likely to last than one that is founded on the pursuit of happiness.

    By the way, this hypothetical fellow of yours is full of beautiful insights into the human condition and would no doubt make a good husband and father. I wish him all the best.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

  36. @Ebony Obelisk
    1. white “men” commit the most gun violence

    2. They also influence Men of Color to be guillemot

    3. Take away they dgubs of white men and things will fall into place.

    Replies: @Elli, @Hangnail Hans, @Hereward, @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910, @tyrone, @kaganovitch

    Uh oh, girlfriend hittin the sauce again

  37. I am watching TV and all the news stations are commenting on the time-line in the Texas school masacre. The amount of time wasted before they engaged the shooter. Parents being restrainted from trying to save their childrem, Truly sickening and I must state I was never in the service so never in combat, but are there no heroes?

    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
    @Buffalo Joe

    It appears that post Columbine, the profile of the perpetrator (or perpetrators) of this type of crime is they are armed yes, but that a reasonably trained non-SWAT non-Dirty Harry police office would prevail in a shoot-out with such a person. The perpetrator is young, scared, perhaps mentally unbalanced but neither trained nor prepared to engage a professional law enforcement officer or perhaps even any reasonably determined person prepared to shoot back at them?

    Did the police attempt such an engagement, with two officers wounded early on? Is it suicidal for an officer armed with a Glock to engage someone with an AR, a much more accurate and powerful weapon?

    In the instance of the Congressional baseball practice shooting in 2017, Hodgkinson may have been mentally disturbed, but he was an older person, and multiple Capitol police officers engaged in a protracted exchange of gunfire before shooting him dead?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting

    If the officers knew that they were dealing with someone fitting the "school shooter" profile I described, yes, I consider it cowardice that they didn't breach the classroom door much sooner. But are there mitigating factors in defense of the police?

  38. @For what it's worth
    @Dr. X

    "Haven’t they heard of Bataclan, Beslan, Anders Brevik, Mumbai, Luxor, Hanau, Christchurch, Quebec City, Nova Scotia or École Polytechnique?"

    Are any of these instances as typical an event in their country as this sort of shooting is in the United States? How many Breivik's does Norway have? How many Christchurch's have occurred in New Zealand?

    Replies: @Unladen Swallow

    Those countries are also a lot smaller in population, what 5 million and 5 million compared to the US with 330 million, that might explain the lower rate of mass shootings as well.

    • Agree: Travis, James B. Shearer
  39. @For what it's worth
    @Dr. X

    "If you are limited to the type of guns that the government allows you to have and the government determines if you shall or shall not have one at all, it is not a right but a privilege, and the Democrats cannot be trusted to exercise such power in good faith."

    So you're in favor of legalizing fully automatic rifles, land mines, tanks, ICBMs, tactical nukes, etc., right? Or do you just accept the current restrictions on weapons because they're invisible to you? In Europe, a fair number of criminals resort to trucks and knives because, I infer, they don't have access to guns. Maybe they'd kill more with guns, maybe they wouldn't.

    Replies: @anarchyst, @Dr. X, @Pop Warner

    All of the weapons that you claim are “illegal” for civilians are not illegal at all.
    Under United States federal law, all of the above weapons are available and may be possessed by civilians upon submission of fingerprints, photos, and payment of a \$200 “tax” for each item. The approval “process” takes anywhere from three to nine months. Those with “special occupational taxpayer” (class III) licenses can freely transfer these items among themselves without payment of the “tax”.
    Look up the “National Firearms Act of 1934”.

    • Replies: @For what it's worth
    @anarchyst

    "All of the weapons that you claim are “illegal” for civilians are not illegal at all."

    *All* of the weapons I mentioned? I included tanks, land mines, tactical nukes, and ICBMs.

    Even if fully automatic machine guns are legal per what you wrote, presumably Dr. X would object to the restrictions you describe. They're heavily restricted, and Dr. X confirmed that he opposes those restrictions.

    Replies: @For what it's worth

  40. Elli says:
    @kahein
    yeah i can see this the consensus latest nativist neurotic tic over hot 2nd grader blood in the classroom -- to conflate these various types of shootings that have literally nothing do with each other

    what to do ramos and gendron have to do with innercity terroritorial-beef bangers or nightclub disrespeck spray-shooters? yeah, that's right, nothing

    what do impulsive incel-uprising spectrumites like ramos and gendron have to do with patient, methodical, slaughter engineers like paddock -- very little, if that

    it would be glancingly easy to severely limit the kind of mass killings we've seen in the last two weeks, through simple restrictions -- extended waiting periods, raising of minimum purchase age, various forms of orientation/mandatory classes and of course medical/psych evals; how about sponsorship for 1st-time buyers as well?

    but nooooo this would impinge on bubba's right to play soldier in the mud in his backyard with one of his 25 military-issue "long guns" and we can't have that can we? heaven forbid some fatass's self-defense / yoke-of-tyranny fantasy is impinged upon

    and if there are a lot of guns already in circulation, so what? some incel like gendron couldn't come close to acquiring one if it actually entailed a trip into the underworld. and laws can easily be passed making family/friend purveyors accessories to the crime

    ofc i understand none of this will happen and we'll all continue to play these, as long as whitey has a natsoc complex

    Replies: @For what it's worth, @Reg Cæsar, @Elli, @Travis, @Pop Warner, @TWS, @AnotherDad

    Gendron planned, researched, scouted, wrote a 150 page manifesto. Not impulsive.

    Ramos worked for a year saving thousands of dollars for 2 rifles and many rounds of ammunition. An impulsive kid would have gratified himself with car, clothes, etc.

    Parkland and Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech shooters were disturbed, obsessed with violence for years. Autism or fetal alcohol syndrome, developing schizophrenia. Impulsivity or culmination?

    Boulder theater shooter, schizophrenic, not impulsive.

    Columbine shooters, not impulsive.

    SC church shooter, impulsive. Almost called it off because his victims were so kind and welcoming.

    What motivates these killers? You hate black criminality or white dispossession, why not take it to the gangbangers or the political architects, see how many you can get. No, go kill a bunch of black grandmothers, that’ll make your point.

    You’re suffering and nobody cries for you, you’ll make them cry for something?

    You hate?

    You’re keeping score, who kills the most, doesn’t matter if they’re little kids, doesn’t matter if the only people who care about your score are nothing but loser hate-filled gamer nihilists like you?

    The FBI investigated and dismissed Parkland shooter, didn’t act on a tip about Ramos. I don’t think they’re set up for rapid response. Other priorities, entrapping the disaffected, career building.

    • Thanks: For what it's worth
    • Replies: @kahein
    @Elli

    i agree i misused the word impulsive (my comment for some reason vanished after i submitted it and i didn't get a chance to edit)

    but let's not overstate the degree of planning involved here. the ideas incubate like any baleful hate-fantasy does in a teen mind, but i doubt the arc from fantasy to the actualization threshold when it becomes apparent to them that they're going to go through with it -- radicalization, so to speak -- is any longer than a few months. klebold and harris are probably outliers because they had each other to generate and sustain momentum. a lot of them are simply too young to deal with those ideas at that level for more than a year or two at most -- from 16 to 18 is the sweet spot from teen resentment/alienation to ideological padding to money shot

    i don't think this is some FBI problem anyway -- how many fucked-up kids / potential time-bombs are they supposed to be monitoring? this is a gun problem. several of these killers had help family help getting these weapons as well

    i mean, pick your poison -- offhand any reasonable person could dredge up a bunch of restrictions that would barely inconvenience any "law-abiding citizen" so-called but would seriously witch and interfere with the kill metamorphosis these teens undergo. the bad conscience of gun fetishists sticking to their nonsense is getting painful to even listen to anymore

    if people want to get serious about teen mental health too i'm fine with that -- but that's not really the issue here and is just yet another rationalization

  41. @For what it's worth
    @Dr. X

    "If you are limited to the type of guns that the government allows you to have and the government determines if you shall or shall not have one at all, it is not a right but a privilege, and the Democrats cannot be trusted to exercise such power in good faith."

    So you're in favor of legalizing fully automatic rifles, land mines, tanks, ICBMs, tactical nukes, etc., right? Or do you just accept the current restrictions on weapons because they're invisible to you? In Europe, a fair number of criminals resort to trucks and knives because, I infer, they don't have access to guns. Maybe they'd kill more with guns, maybe they wouldn't.

    Replies: @anarchyst, @Dr. X, @Pop Warner

    So you’re in favor of legalizing fully automatic rifles, land mines, tanks, ICBMs, tactical nukes, etc., right?

    Mostly, yes.

    The comparison with tanks and ICBMs is facile and stupid. The Second Amendment grants the right to “keep and bear arms” so it’s pretty clear that it refers to arms that can be borne by typical infantrymen.

    Full-automatic machine guns, dynamite, short-barreled shotguns, blasting caps, detcord, all of that stuff was perfectly legal prior to 1934, when you could order a Thompson submachine gun through the mail from Sears, Roebuck and buy dynamite at the local hardware store. Back when we actually lived in a FREE country.

    And mass shootings of schoolchildren were basically nonexistent, because the country was almost monoracial, the people were more self-reliant, more sane, and more God-fearing.

    • Replies: @For what it's worth
    @Dr. X

    "The Second Amendment grants the right to “keep and bear arms” so it’s pretty clear that it refers to arms that can be borne by typical infantrymen."

    Not facile or stupid, at least not necessarily. It's not the Founding Fathers' fault they lived before tanks and missiles were a thing. Did anyone think the Second Amendment covered cannons?

    But I do appreciate the candid response. You're being consistent where I suspected you wouldn't be. Not saying I agree, but I respect candor and consistency. Thank you.

    Replies: @Dr. X, @Redneck farmer

    , @For what it's worth
    @Dr. X

    "And mass shootings of schoolchildren were basically nonexistent, because the country was almost monoracial, the people were more self-reliant, more sane, and more God-fearing."

    There was that one school bombing, which was an anomaly.

    As far as being monoracial, I don't think we can look back at the 20s as a time when we had liberty because we had pretty much one race in the country. Here's two reasons:

    1.) The 1934 restriction (I'm no longer saying "ban") on machine guns was driven by gangsterism. A good deal of that involved Sicilian/Italian, Irish, and Jewish mobsters. So there was an ethnic angle to the suppression of gang violence.

    2.) I think the 1910s-1930s is when the feds took a stance on illegal drugs. The "cocaine-crazed Negro rapist" was part of the propaganda for this.

    So, already in the early 20th century, racial and ethnic diversity helped motivate federal restrictions on guns and drugs.

    Replies: @Dr. X

    , @That Would Be Telling
    @Dr. X


    The Second Amendment grants the right to “keep and bear arms” so it’s pretty clear that it refers to arms that can be borne by typical infantrymen.
     
    A better focus, a hard one to answer, would be grenades, especially "defense" fragmentation ones. But also the offensive type like the famous "potato masher" German concussion grenade which was easy to throw beyond the danger zone for you with its long handle. Or consider dumb anti-tank rockets like our bazooka, the RPGs we see being used so much in the Ukraine, etc. Ones like the smaller and lightweight single shot LAWs, first model five and a half pounds and two feet long before extended to arm and use.

    [...] dynamite ... blasting caps ... all of that stuff was perfectly legal prior to 1934, when you could ... buy dynamite at the local hardware store.
     
    And beyond 1933-4, my father remembers his father buying quarter sticks of dynamite at the hardware store to remove stumps, the sort of exciting thing that would make an impression.
    , @That Would Be Telling
    @Dr. X


    Offhand, my guess would be that more domestic murders are facilitated by a spur of the moment gun purchase.
     
    You likely have the data at your fingertips to check the following proposition, but this is generally thought to not be true because many if not most domestic murders get to the point of homicide after gun stores are closed for the day. If so, the "moment" would have to last many hours, which I'll stipulate does happen. Also would probably want to factor in the influence of alcohol.
  42. @Ebony Obelisk
    1. white “men” commit the most gun violence

    2. They also influence Men of Color to be guillemot

    3. Take away they dgubs of white men and things will fall into place.

    Replies: @Elli, @Hangnail Hans, @Hereward, @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910, @tyrone, @kaganovitch

    You can have my dgub when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

  43. Any conceivable type of gun control, even Australian-style mass confiscation, would likely leave tens of millions of guns and could generate a huge black market.

    The UK, an island which until recently had pretty good border control, outlawed virtually all firearms in 1997. Before that blanket gun ban, the UK’s homicide rate was was bouncing around 10-12 per million per year. Following the blanket gun ban, the UK’s homicide rate shot up to 14-18 per million per year, perhaps a 50% increase, so in this real life experiment, total gun control increased the murder rate.

    Nowadays, after knife bans and implementing a total surveillance police state, the UK murder rate is back down to 10-12 per million per year, exactly where it was before the UK embarked on its nanny state project to end gun crime.

    Incidentally, half of Britain’s mass shootings have occurred after Parliament passed the laws to prevent mass shootings (or any shootings). By any objective standard, the natural laboratory experiment in gun control conducted in the UK must be counted as a total failure.

    (P.S. The above figures are for England and Wales, but I wrote “UK” to reduce verbosity and because most foreigners don’t known the difference anyway.)

    Lots of Democrats are talking right now about “common sense gun control,”

    Lots of them are talking to me about it for some reason. I tell them:

    • Your Dem Presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg was right (back when he was a Republican): it’s the minorities, stupid. If y’all believe in “root causes” like you say, well they’re right there in front of your face. Homicide is basically a function of ethnicity, especially blacks. Everything else is a rounding error in comparison. If you are not willing to deal with that basic fact, there isn’t isn’t much to talk about.

    • When the media reports that “school shootings are up” and that there is more than one school shooting every week, they are playing a double game and you are falling for it. Almost all of those are ghetto black kids shooting each other up with pistols, which the media are careful never to report to you. Denuding rural whites of long guns will do nothing to end this, and may make it worse, as these gangbangers and wannabes realize that the suburbs are defenseless.

    • Gun control hasn’t worked elsewhere (see UK, above), and it is even less likely to work here.

    • Since WWII, the US murder rate has been driven up by 1960s liberalism and more recently by Obamunism (Ferguson, BLM, etc.). It has been driven down by rightwing legislatures, prosecutors, and presidents. Which of those two sides has the upper hand determines the murder rate. If you like murder, support the former. If you dislike murder, support the latter. If you claim to dislike murder, but support the former, you are not serious.

    • I agree that the Second Amendment is not to protect hunters and sport shooters. It is to protect citizens from the government (and their unofficial paramilitaries (BLM & Antifa mobs, which Dems support)). The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Second Amendment is not only for state militias. If you don’t like it, you are welcome to get a Constitutional Amendment to change it. The Constitution has been amended 17 times since ratification, so if you think your cause is “common sense”, it should not be a problem to amend it an 18th time. If you can’t get it, maybe it’s not so common sense after all.

    but they tend not to be trusted because of their tendency to use each incremental change as a launching pad for another one, with the ultimate goal of shutting down all legal hunting and gun culture in the U.S. For example, in 2013-15, the liberal establishment moved with incredible rapidity from winning on gay marriage to encouraging your moody daughter to have herself poisoned, mutilated, and sterilized in the name of transgenderism.

    Absolutely true, but who could have foreseen this?

    [MORE]

    Well, liberals, as it turns out, by which I mean if you take the opposite of whatever they say.

    Pro-gay-marriage meme from last decade:

    • Thanks: houston 1992
    • Replies: @Jimbo
    @Almost Missouri

    That meme is even funnier now that every single thing on the list has actually happened.

    , @dearieme
    @Almost Missouri

    The UK ... outlawed virtually all firearms in 1997.

    Oh balls! Sheer fantasy! Where do people get such stupid ideas?

    "Handguns" were banned. Rifles and shotguns were not.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    , @That Would Be Telling
    @Almost Missouri


    When the media reports that “school shootings are up” and that there is more than one school shooting every week, they are playing a double game
     
    Even worse than that; you failed in attempting to link to a source, but those "school shootings" include people shooting BBs or pellets at school windows after school, and drug deals "gone wrong" in school parking lots at night.

    Left, that's a good word, the Left is utterly shameless in lying and the Right doesn't have a good answer to it that's not coup complete. Although I think some on the Supreme Court have been muttering about reigning in the insanity started with the 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Removing the feedback mechanism of legitimate libel and slander enforcement has a lot to do with how we've come to this point, part of the Left's victory in the 1960s and 1970s to "fundamentally transform America."
  44. @Corn
    @aNewBanner

    Is it true that some officers rushed into the school to retrieve their own children but would not go back in to confront shooter or evacuate more children?

    Replies: @aNewBanner

    • Thanks: houston 1992
    • Replies: @Hangnail Hans
    @aNewBanner

    Is this a fact? Are the MSM running it? Because if they're not, the masses will assume it didn't happen. Maybe the NY Post? But does that count?

    Replies: @aNewBanner

  45. Rob says:

    For “urban” school shootings, where someone gets mad at this other dude, holds his gun sideways, and shoots in the general direction of his target, having to get guns on the black market would likely be no deterrent.

    For the evil people who shoot up classrooms full of kids they don’t even know? They would be nearly totally deterred. These aren’t people with friends. I’ve never bought a gun either legally or n, but I have some experience buying drugs. Guns ain’t drugs. No one is afraid the guy who buys his weed from you is going to shoot you. For one thing, drugs are sort of an iterated prisoner’s dilemma. For pot, you’re going to want more weed next week/month. You kill your dealer, and there’s this saying about killing the goose that lays the golden gram. But you are not likely to smoke your whole gun and have to buy another one soon. Guns sales are often not repeat business.

    [MORE]

    Think back to high school. If you’re taking a very interesting class where your assignment is to take a hundred bucks and get a quarter oz of pot by the end of the week. Think you could have gotten an easy A? I could have, and I went to 3 high schools 2/1/1 by years. If I had wanted to buy a gun in high school, I don’t even know where I would have started. These 18-year-old shooters are just out of high school. If they wanted illegal weapons, the process of procurement would likely have nixed their plans.

    I think eighteen is way too young to let people buy guns. Twenty-one? Can a twenty-one-year-old guy rent a car? Last I read on it, twenty-six was the youngest a guy could rent a car without serious hassle. That seems more like a reasonable floor for buying guns.

    Maybe gun insurance should be like car insurance? You have to have insurance to legally drive in some states, though in mine, you can register as an “uninsured motorist” for \$300/year. When you buy a gun, you would also have to buy insurance for it, perhaps as a one-time fee that covers the life of the gun. I’d let insurers compete and the market (and actuaries) set the price difference for various risk factors, like being male or being a NAM.

    Do you know the thing about my right to swing my first stops before your nose? Well, buying a gun is a lot like buying a bigger fist. You may not intend for anyone to get hurt. But the gun gets stolen and used in a crime? I don’t think you should necessarily go to jail for that, but gun insurance provides some compensation for people whose noses get in the way of people swinging guns around.

    I saw a meme on Twitter (cited here) about the people whose “lockdown for 2 weeks to crush covid” morphed into, “get a third dose of the vaccine if you want to go to college” are the same people now saying they want “sensible gun laws.” Beto O’Rourke was at least honest enough to say in a primary debate that yes, his goal was to take away guns.

    The thing with gun laws is the anti-gun and pro-gun people are arguing different things, so no one can convince anyone of anything. Pro-gunners don’t like school shootings, but they think that the probability*likely harm of from the government going totalitarian (gee, who’d think that?) is greater than the harm of a few school shootings.

    So, instead of trying a “compromise” that won’t work, we make a grand bargain? No more assault rifles sold in exchange for a constitutional amendment banning immigration forever and deporting all the Dreamers, bebés ancla, y padres.

    Because really, don’t we want private gun ownership as a backstop to the government importing enough voters to always get what it wants? Well, stop diluting our votes and hacking elections and we’ll stop preparing for contingency plans when you decide to genocide us more quickly. I don’t like guns, but I think even patriots who do like guns would like that bargain, no?

    Guns (and soon, sadly, abortion) are the only things the right seems to win on, well, also cutting taxes on the billionaires so the country collapses. If we’re going to compromise on guns, we really need something big in exchange. Seriously, if President Trump had stopped immigration, neither of the last two mass shootings would have happened. The Replacers have blood on their hands.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @Rob


    I think eighteen is way too young to let people buy guns. Twenty-one?
     
    Not necessarily an unreasonable view. But it's a tough sell as long as the draft age is 18: "Yeah, we can make you carry our assault rifle and kill our enemies, but you obviously aren't mature enough to carry your own assault rifle."

    Relatedly, I used to think the draft was a moot point because any modern war would be all drones and bots and high tech, and would be over before any call up could have a point. But Ukraine's WWI-style trench war has shown that there may still be a market for 18 year-old cannon fodder.

    Replies: @houston 1992, @Rob

    , @kaganovitch
    @Rob

    For the evil people who shoot up classrooms full of kids they don’t even know? They would be nearly totally deterred. These aren’t people with friends.

    While your theory is not implausible, it has been empirically falsified. None of the murderers (Brievik, et al.) from countries where guns are strictly controlled were deterred.

  46. @I, Libertine
    If Mike Bloomberg had stuck to that position, he might have become our first Jewish president.

    In a later interview, he acknowledged that he couldn't win the Democrats' nomination for president, because he'd have to disavow his position on street crime, and he'd be nailed as an obvious phoney.

    Then he did disavow that position and sought that nomination. And he was eaten alive by Warren and the other leftists on the stage at the debates - for being a phoney. Suddenly, he realized that all the money in the world couldn't buy him the oval office from the corner he'd painted himself into, and he dropped out.

    I wonder what would have happened it he's stuck to his guns (no pun intended). With his moderate position on most other issues, and his superabundant financial wherewithal, I think there's a not-negligible chance that he might, just maybe, have won the nomination of either party if he'd played his other cards right.

    Replies: @Prester John, @Hypnotoad666

    I think there’s a not-negligible chance that he might, just maybe, have won the nomination of either party if he’d played his other cards right.

    A missed opportunity for sure. In fact, as a former Republican and Democrat, with personal mega-bucks and a successful political record, he was perfectly placed to run as an independent — like a non-crazy version of Ross Perot. But he couldn’t resist the siren-call of 2020 woke hysteria.

  47. @Chrisnonymous
    The real problem is the gun control lobby, because everyone knows they will push and push until guns are totally banned, so giving an inch means starting down the path to gun bans for normal people. This is a problem because some controls would make sense. But if we let them have the sensible controls, they'll just push for more and more.

    Also, the best way to stop school shootings would be to abolish schools. Who thinks schools are a good idea anyway? It takes a village? More like, it takes a neolithic village to raise a neolithic child. In reality, the idea of sending your kids off to be raised by strangers (and representatives of the state) is insane.

    Replies: @For what it's worth, @Corn, @Mr. Anon, @Hypnotoad666

    But if we let them have the sensible controls, they’ll just push for more and more.

    Other than your characterization of a lot of their proposals as “sensible controls” (they are not), you are right. Remember how Roe vs. Wade enshrined the “very sensible” position that abortion through the first trimester should be legal throughout the land, state laws be damned? Then “first trimester” becamse “second trimester”. Then second became third. Then it became we can induce labor, and then kill the baby (no longer merely a “foetus”, but a baby). Now some Democratic legislators are pushing for retroactive abortion up to a month after birth – formerly known as “infanticide”.

    Or the whole trajectory of LGBT rights (demands) – look how that evolved.

    Beto O’Roarke, Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Joe Biden, etc. – they don’t want “sensible gun control”. They want nobody to own guns, save for their bodyguards and agents of the State. They want it because the powers-that-be want a disarmed population. The first step to “you’ll own nothing and like it” is “you’ll own no guns.”

  48. White liberals, angered by white conservatives’ lack of racial solidarity with them, yet bereft of any vocabulary for expressing such a verboten concept, pretend that they need gun control to protect them from gun-crazy rural rednecks, such as the ones Michael Moore demonized in “Bowling for Columbine,” thus further enraging red-region Republicans.

    I don’t believe this for a minute. White urban liberals don’t expect racial solidarity from rural / small-town conservatives because they don’t believe in the concept of racial solidarity at in the first place. They neither expect it from red-state America nor – certainly – would they ever offer it in return.

    Those white urban liberals want gun control because they really believe the government will protect them. Because they believe what the media tells them. Because they actually believe the horses**t they profess. Because they are – at root – idiots. Highly educated idiots, but idiots none-the-less. And they’re not going to change until forced to by reality.

  49. @Rob
    For “urban” school shootings, where someone gets mad at this other dude, holds his gun sideways, and shoots in the general direction of his target, having to get guns on the black market would likely be no deterrent.

    For the evil people who shoot up classrooms full of kids they don’t even know? They would be nearly totally deterred. These aren’t people with friends. I’ve never bought a gun either legally or n, but I have some experience buying drugs. Guns ain’t drugs. No one is afraid the guy who buys his weed from you is going to shoot you. For one thing, drugs are sort of an iterated prisoner’s dilemma. For pot, you’re going to want more weed next week/month. You kill your dealer, and there’s this saying about killing the goose that lays the golden gram. But you are not likely to smoke your whole gun and have to buy another one soon. Guns sales are often not repeat business.

    Think back to high school. If you're taking a very interesting class where your assignment is to take a hundred bucks and get a quarter oz of pot by the end of the week. Think you could have gotten an easy A? I could have, and I went to 3 high schools 2/1/1 by years. If I had wanted to buy a gun in high school, I don’t even know where I would have started. These 18-year-old shooters are just out of high school. If they wanted illegal weapons, the process of procurement would likely have nixed their plans.

    I think eighteen is way too young to let people buy guns. Twenty-one? Can a twenty-one-year-old guy rent a car? Last I read on it, twenty-six was the youngest a guy could rent a car without serious hassle. That seems more like a reasonable floor for buying guns.

    Maybe gun insurance should be like car insurance? You have to have insurance to legally drive in some states, though in mine, you can register as an “uninsured motorist” for $300/year. When you buy a gun, you would also have to buy insurance for it, perhaps as a one-time fee that covers the life of the gun. I’d let insurers compete and the market (and actuaries) set the price difference for various risk factors, like being male or being a NAM.

    Do you know the thing about my right to swing my first stops before your nose? Well, buying a gun is a lot like buying a bigger fist. You may not intend for anyone to get hurt. But the gun gets stolen and used in a crime? I don’t think you should necessarily go to jail for that, but gun insurance provides some compensation for people whose noses get in the way of people swinging guns around.

    I saw a meme on Twitter (cited here) about the people whose “lockdown for 2 weeks to crush covid” morphed into, “get a third dose of the vaccine if you want to go to college” are the same people now saying they want “sensible gun laws.” Beto O’Rourke was at least honest enough to say in a primary debate that yes, his goal was to take away guns.

    The thing with gun laws is the anti-gun and pro-gun people are arguing different things, so no one can convince anyone of anything. Pro-gunners don’t like school shootings, but they think that the probability*likely harm of from the government going totalitarian (gee, who’d think that?) is greater than the harm of a few school shootings.

    So, instead of trying a “compromise” that won’t work, we make a grand bargain? No more assault rifles sold in exchange for a constitutional amendment banning immigration forever and deporting all the Dreamers, bebés ancla, y padres.

    Because really, don’t we want private gun ownership as a backstop to the government importing enough voters to always get what it wants? Well, stop diluting our votes and hacking elections and we’ll stop preparing for contingency plans when you decide to genocide us more quickly. I don’t like guns, but I think even patriots who do like guns would like that bargain, no?

    Guns (and soon, sadly, abortion) are the only things the right seems to win on, well, also cutting taxes on the billionaires so the country collapses. If we’re going to compromise on guns, we really need something big in exchange. Seriously, if President Trump had stopped immigration, neither of the last two mass shootings would have happened. The Replacers have blood on their hands.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666, @kaganovitch

    I think eighteen is way too young to let people buy guns. Twenty-one?

    Not necessarily an unreasonable view. But it’s a tough sell as long as the draft age is 18: “Yeah, we can make you carry our assault rifle and kill our enemies, but you obviously aren’t mature enough to carry your own assault rifle.”

    Relatedly, I used to think the draft was a moot point because any modern war would be all drones and bots and high tech, and would be over before any call up could have a point. But Ukraine’s WWI-style trench war has shown that there may still be a market for 18 year-old cannon fodder.

    • Replies: @houston 1992
    @Hypnotoad666

    since women dont register for the draft, does that mean that women cannot buy a gun until they turn 26?

    ) aside: what % of the police force of 1968 was made up of men who had at least heard a gun fired in combat inWW2, Korea, Vietnam versus today?

    , @Rob
    @Hypnotoad666

    Yes, that is a good argument, but let’s look at how the military handles actually giving people guns. IIRC, the only people who carry guns on a daily basis on an army base are military police. I don’t know the details, but it seems obvious that the military either realized or were dumb enough that they had to discover, that 18-year-olds all carrying assault rifles all the time led to lots of people getting shot.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

  50. @Dr. X
    @For what it's worth


    So you’re in favor of legalizing fully automatic rifles, land mines, tanks, ICBMs, tactical nukes, etc., right?
     
    Mostly, yes.

    The comparison with tanks and ICBMs is facile and stupid. The Second Amendment grants the right to "keep and bear arms" so it's pretty clear that it refers to arms that can be borne by typical infantrymen.

    Full-automatic machine guns, dynamite, short-barreled shotguns, blasting caps, detcord, all of that stuff was perfectly legal prior to 1934, when you could order a Thompson submachine gun through the mail from Sears, Roebuck and buy dynamite at the local hardware store. Back when we actually lived in a FREE country.

    And mass shootings of schoolchildren were basically nonexistent, because the country was almost monoracial, the people were more self-reliant, more sane, and more God-fearing.

    Replies: @For what it's worth, @For what it's worth, @That Would Be Telling, @That Would Be Telling

    “The Second Amendment grants the right to “keep and bear arms” so it’s pretty clear that it refers to arms that can be borne by typical infantrymen.”

    Not facile or stupid, at least not necessarily. It’s not the Founding Fathers’ fault they lived before tanks and missiles were a thing. Did anyone think the Second Amendment covered cannons?

    But I do appreciate the candid response. You’re being consistent where I suspected you wouldn’t be. Not saying I agree, but I respect candor and consistency. Thank you.

    • Replies: @Dr. X
    @For what it's worth


    Did anyone think the Second Amendment covered cannons?
     
    Yes. Cannons, interestingly enough, are exempt from nearly all gun laws today because they are black-powder muzzleloaders (albeit very big ones) and not considered "firearms" under Federal law.

    Henry Knox famously moved cannons by sled 300 miles for the Siege of Boston in 1776:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Knox#Siege_of_Boston
    , @Redneck farmer
    @For what it's worth

    You could buy a cannon if you had the money when the Second Amendment was passed.

  51. @anarchyst
    @For what it's worth

    All of the weapons that you claim are "illegal" for civilians are not illegal at all.
    Under United States federal law, all of the above weapons are available and may be possessed by civilians upon submission of fingerprints, photos, and payment of a $200 "tax" for each item. The approval "process" takes anywhere from three to nine months. Those with "special occupational taxpayer" (class III) licenses can freely transfer these items among themselves without payment of the "tax".
    Look up the "National Firearms Act of 1934".

    Replies: @For what it's worth

    “All of the weapons that you claim are “illegal” for civilians are not illegal at all.”

    *All* of the weapons I mentioned? I included tanks, land mines, tactical nukes, and ICBMs.

    Even if fully automatic machine guns are legal per what you wrote, presumably Dr. X would object to the restrictions you describe. They’re heavily restricted, and Dr. X confirmed that he opposes those restrictions.

    • Replies: @For what it's worth
    @For what it's worth

    I looked into it more, and hey, pretty much all weapons are legal if the government signs off on it. I have learned something. Thanks to the posters above who pointed it out.

  52. @Hypnotoad666
    @Rob


    I think eighteen is way too young to let people buy guns. Twenty-one?
     
    Not necessarily an unreasonable view. But it's a tough sell as long as the draft age is 18: "Yeah, we can make you carry our assault rifle and kill our enemies, but you obviously aren't mature enough to carry your own assault rifle."

    Relatedly, I used to think the draft was a moot point because any modern war would be all drones and bots and high tech, and would be over before any call up could have a point. But Ukraine's WWI-style trench war has shown that there may still be a market for 18 year-old cannon fodder.

    Replies: @houston 1992, @Rob

    since women dont register for the draft, does that mean that women cannot buy a gun until they turn 26?

    ) aside: what % of the police force of 1968 was made up of men who had at least heard a gun fired in combat inWW2, Korea, Vietnam versus today?

  53. @kahein
    yeah i can see this the consensus latest nativist neurotic tic over hot 2nd grader blood in the classroom -- to conflate these various types of shootings that have literally nothing do with each other

    what to do ramos and gendron have to do with innercity terroritorial-beef bangers or nightclub disrespeck spray-shooters? yeah, that's right, nothing

    what do impulsive incel-uprising spectrumites like ramos and gendron have to do with patient, methodical, slaughter engineers like paddock -- very little, if that

    it would be glancingly easy to severely limit the kind of mass killings we've seen in the last two weeks, through simple restrictions -- extended waiting periods, raising of minimum purchase age, various forms of orientation/mandatory classes and of course medical/psych evals; how about sponsorship for 1st-time buyers as well?

    but nooooo this would impinge on bubba's right to play soldier in the mud in his backyard with one of his 25 military-issue "long guns" and we can't have that can we? heaven forbid some fatass's self-defense / yoke-of-tyranny fantasy is impinged upon

    and if there are a lot of guns already in circulation, so what? some incel like gendron couldn't come close to acquiring one if it actually entailed a trip into the underworld. and laws can easily be passed making family/friend purveyors accessories to the crime

    ofc i understand none of this will happen and we'll all continue to play these, as long as whitey has a natsoc complex

    Replies: @For what it's worth, @Reg Cæsar, @Elli, @Travis, @Pop Warner, @TWS, @AnotherDad

    The sister of the Uvalde gunman “flatly refused” to buy him a weapon when he asked her to last year, then he worked for a few months to save the money and finally purchase his guns. If he had to wait another 6 months due to a “waiting period” it is not likely to have made a difference in this case.

    Gendron started buying his guns back in December, 5 months prior to his killing spree. A waiting period of 6 months may have delayed his rampage by a few months, but he had been planning this for some time.

    Maybe they should ban gun sales to those under the age of 21. This is one gun law which could make a difference. If these two teens had to wait until they were 21 we would not be talking about them today, and they may have never become mass murderers.

    • Replies: @kahein
    @Travis

    and every additional year beyond 21 you make them wait probably cuts into the possibility of ill usage by 80% or more, compounded (up to 25, ideally, i'd think)

    a nominal waiting period is far and away the mildest restriction. the real barrier should be a psych eval with teeth -- maybe in conjunction with a point system of some sort so your basic in arrears / sheaf of disorderly conduct (or hell, even speeding) tickets type can't get one -- or my favorite current idea, how about first-time gun buyers needing to be sponsored by a gun fetishist in good standing, etc

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @anon

    , @kahein
    @Travis

    gendron's papa gave him a gun when he was 16. he had school psychiatric interventions last year but this apparently didn't prompt dear old dad to wonder if perhaps payton shouldn't have a bunch of weapons at his disposal. apparently the red flag laws in NY were triggered but nothing happened

  54. but are there no heroes?

    Lenny Skutnick. (Air Florida Flight 90 crash into the frigid Potomac. Scores of responders standing on the water’s edge watching Priscilla Tirado about to succumb to hypothermia and drown. The nerdy budget office employee swam out and rescued her. Recognized by Reagan at the SOTU a few weeks later. Awarded the Coast Guard‘s rarely given “gold lifesaving medal.” 40 years ago, how time goes by. Younger people here, if you’ve never seen Reagan saluting Lenny, it’s worth watching the brief YouTube. Thank you.

    • Thanks: Hypnotoad666, Dave Pinsen
    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @SafeNow

    There was also hero, Arland D. Williams, whose name wasn't identified until later:


    According to the other five survivors, Williams continued to help the others reach the rescue ropes being dropped by the hovering helicopter, repeatedly passing the line to others instead of using it himself. While the other five were being taken to shore by the helicopter, the tail section of the wrecked Boeing 737 shifted and sank farther into the water, dragging Williams under the water with it.

    The next day, The Washington Post described his actions:

    He was about 50 years old, one of half a dozen survivors clinging to twisted wreckage bobbing in the icy Potomac when the first helicopter arrived. To the copter's two-man Park Police crew he seemed the most alert. Life vests were dropped, then a flotation ball. The man passed them to the others. On two occasions, the crew recalled last night, he handed away a life line from the hovering machine that could have dragged him to safety. The helicopter crew – who rescued five people, the only persons who survived from the jetliner – lifted a woman to the riverbank, then dragged three more persons across the ice to safety. Then the life line saved a woman who was trying to swim away from the sinking wreckage, and the helicopter pilot, Donald W. Usher, returned to the scene, but the man was gone.
     
    — The Washington Post, January 14, 1982., in "A Hero – Passenger Aids Others, Then Dies"
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arland_D._Williams_Jr.

    Replies: @EddieSpaghetti, @SafeNow

  55. @epebble

    Mediagenic mass killing shootings: Leftist Mother Jones magazine keeps a carefully curated “I Know It When I See It” list of mass shootings with only 128 over the last 40 years
     
    Wide publicity and reassurance that shootings of the above kind, that generate most fear and loathing, are less likely to kill than weather, would be helpful.

    https://www.weather.gov/images/hazstat/weather_fatalities_2020(1).jpg

    Replies: @Hangnail Hans

    As soon as they figure out a way to leverage weather patterns in support of their political goals, you may expect it to happen. Or, has it happened already?

    • Replies: @epebble
    @Hangnail Hans

    I am seeing all natural disasters being prefaced with Climate Change. In future, we should expect economic hard times (inflation, recession, stagflation...), pandemics, increase in crimes, political gridlock all attributed to Climate Change - the Universal Container for all miseries natural and manmade.

  56. @Dr. X

    Lots of Democrats are talking right now about “common sense gun control,” but they tend not to be trusted because of their tendency to use each incremental change as a launching pad for another one, with the ultimate goal of shutting down all legal hunting and gun culture in the U.S.
     
    Precisely.

    The entire "debate" (it really isn't) about so-called "assault rifles" and AR-15s is a straw man. Democrats want to ban them not because of mass shootings, but because they are potentially the most effective weapon against government troops and militarized cops. And when you literally had troops and armed checkpoints in the streets of Washington, D.C., that's something they are mighty concerned about.

    If the Gun Control Fairy could wave a magic wand and make all AR-15s disappear tomorrow, mass shootings would still continue indefinitely. Shooters would just use pistols or pump-action shotguns instead. Hell, you could take a brace of single-action revolvers and a lever-action rifle manufactured in 1875 and still manage to shoot 17 or 18 people without reloading if you were so inclined. You could shoot 20 people with a British .303 Enfield bolt-action manufactured in 1914 and only reload once... which would take about 2-3 seconds. The infamous University of Texas bell tower shooter in 1966 barricaded himself in a high vantage point and used a scoped bolt-action hunting rifle with a four-round capacity to snipe people hundreds of yards away. Martin Luther King was shot from 300 yards with a -- get ready for this -- Remington Gamemaster.

    There is no middle ground of "reasonable" gun control. You either have a right to own guns, or you don't. If you are limited to the type of guns that the government allows you to have and the government determines if you shall or shall not have one at all, it is not a right but a privilege, and the Democrats cannot be trusted to exercise such power in good faith.

    Even in countries where ownership of guns is a licensed privilege and not a right, there have been mass shootings. It really pisses me off to hear these people repeat ad nauseum that "the U.S. is the only country in the world where this happens." Haven't they heard of Bataclan, Beslan, Anders Brevik, Mumbai, Luxor, Hanau, Christchurch, Quebec City, Nova Scotia or École Polytechnique? Of course they have, but they don't care -- they're demagogues, not reasonable people. None of the stringent gun laws in those countries stopped any of it. The only places where there are no mass shootings are countries like Japan, which is a monoracial island with literally no guns.

    It's all so tiresome.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @For what it's worth, @For what it's worth, @Prof. Woland, @John Johnson

    The best explanation of why people, either pro or anti-gun was written by a guy who goes by the pseudonym the Anonymous Conservative. He has a must-read news aggregator site https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/home-page/ and wrote a book titled The Evolutionary Psychology of Politics. His theory is that guns are a fitness test. Same as bigger stronger goats with bigger horns win head butting contests and are the ones that get to breed. People are oriented psychologically either towards r or K reproductive strategies just like animals. Those among us who want free resources and are less likely to withstand a fitness contest resent those who are strong, attractive, and competitive by nature and are willing to fight for what is dear to them. In other words, weak people who hate guns want those who have them to die, not because they hate guns but because they hate the winners in society who are better / more fit than they are. By confiscating guns they make the fitness gap smaller so they might win a head butt, or better yet, someone else might knock their rival off. If they could defeat them openly they would but rather they are forced to stab them in the back somehow.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Prof. Woland

    Weren't guns known as The Equalizer?

    Replies: @Corn, @stari_momak, @Corvinus

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Prof. Woland

    they hate the winners in society who are better / more fit than they are.

    Isn't this a sub-case of Bioleninism theory?

    Which itself is a sub-case of Nietzsche?

    Replies: @Prof. Woland

  57. @aNewBanner
    @Corn

    Yes. It’s a disgrace.

    https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-texas-police-spox-on-live-tv-confirmed-cops-went-in-for-their-own-kids-during-uvalde-shooting/

    Replies: @Hangnail Hans

    Is this a fact? Are the MSM running it? Because if they’re not, the masses will assume it didn’t happen. Maybe the NY Post? But does that count?

    • Replies: @aNewBanner
    @Hangnail Hans

    Then the elites and masses in New York City do not know about it. No one gives a damn about them around here. The local press in South Texas is all over this story. Every major byline in the San Antonio Express News is about some variation of the utter failure of the police. (Basically, the state is redirecting its anger from the shooter toward the police.) The press is trying to force Gov. Abbot to resign as a way to save Robert O’Rourke’s campaign.

  58. The same people who are actively trying to undermine the 2nd amendment are actively trying to undermine the 1st amendment as well. They don’t just want gun control. They want book control, blog control, press controll. They want to control what you read, write, say, and think.

    • Agree: Old Prude
  59. @Chrisnonymous
    The real problem is the gun control lobby, because everyone knows they will push and push until guns are totally banned, so giving an inch means starting down the path to gun bans for normal people. This is a problem because some controls would make sense. But if we let them have the sensible controls, they'll just push for more and more.

    Also, the best way to stop school shootings would be to abolish schools. Who thinks schools are a good idea anyway? It takes a village? More like, it takes a neolithic village to raise a neolithic child. In reality, the idea of sending your kids off to be raised by strangers (and representatives of the state) is insane.

    Replies: @For what it's worth, @Corn, @Mr. Anon, @Hypnotoad666

    Also, the best way to stop school shootings would be to abolish schools.

    I like your outside-the-box thinking. In the same vein, not giving shootings a high-profile would eliminate high-profile shootings. The MSM has a veritable orgasm of national coverage and outrage every time there is a school shooting because it furthers their political virtue signaling about about gun control or whites being bad, or whatever. But the wall-to-wall coverage feeds the copy-cat and celebrity-seeking motives that have probably driven most of the shootings since Columbine at least.

    Curtailing exploitative media coverage would probably save more lives than restrictive gun laws. But the First Amendment is sacred (when used by the leftist media, anyway). The Second Amendment . . . not so much.

  60. @Ebony Obelisk
    1. white “men” commit the most gun violence

    2. They also influence Men of Color to be guillemot

    3. Take away they dgubs of white men and things will fall into place.

    Replies: @Elli, @Hangnail Hans, @Hereward, @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910, @tyrone, @kaganovitch

  61. @For what it's worth
    @anarchyst

    "All of the weapons that you claim are “illegal” for civilians are not illegal at all."

    *All* of the weapons I mentioned? I included tanks, land mines, tactical nukes, and ICBMs.

    Even if fully automatic machine guns are legal per what you wrote, presumably Dr. X would object to the restrictions you describe. They're heavily restricted, and Dr. X confirmed that he opposes those restrictions.

    Replies: @For what it's worth

    I looked into it more, and hey, pretty much all weapons are legal if the government signs off on it. I have learned something. Thanks to the posters above who pointed it out.

  62. @Ebony Obelisk
    1. white “men” commit the most gun violence

    2. They also influence Men of Color to be guillemot

    3. Take away they dgubs of white men and things will fall into place.

    Replies: @Elli, @Hangnail Hans, @Hereward, @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910, @tyrone, @kaganovitch

    3. Take away they dgubs of white men and things will fall into place.

    Take the Money and Run – I Have a Gub, Apt Natural

    • Thanks: Gary in Gramercy
    • Replies: @Paul Jolliffe
    @MEH 0910

    You beat me to it - great clip!

    , @Ganderson
    @MEH 0910

    One of the funniest scenes ever. I find a lot of the Wood man’s stuff doesn’t hold up, but Take the Money and Run is still comedy gold.

  63. @SafeNow

    but are there no heroes?
     
    Lenny Skutnick. (Air Florida Flight 90 crash into the frigid Potomac. Scores of responders standing on the water’s edge watching Priscilla Tirado about to succumb to hypothermia and drown. The nerdy budget office employee swam out and rescued her. Recognized by Reagan at the SOTU a few weeks later. Awarded the Coast Guard‘s rarely given “gold lifesaving medal.” 40 years ago, how time goes by. Younger people here, if you’ve never seen Reagan saluting Lenny, it’s worth watching the brief YouTube. Thank you.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PixWSSeKGtI

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    There was also hero, Arland D. Williams, whose name wasn’t identified until later:

    According to the other five survivors, Williams continued to help the others reach the rescue ropes being dropped by the hovering helicopter, repeatedly passing the line to others instead of using it himself. While the other five were being taken to shore by the helicopter, the tail section of the wrecked Boeing 737 shifted and sank farther into the water, dragging Williams under the water with it.

    The next day, The Washington Post described his actions:

    He was about 50 years old, one of half a dozen survivors clinging to twisted wreckage bobbing in the icy Potomac when the first helicopter arrived. To the copter’s two-man Park Police crew he seemed the most alert. Life vests were dropped, then a flotation ball. The man passed them to the others. On two occasions, the crew recalled last night, he handed away a life line from the hovering machine that could have dragged him to safety. The helicopter crew – who rescued five people, the only persons who survived from the jetliner – lifted a woman to the riverbank, then dragged three more persons across the ice to safety. Then the life line saved a woman who was trying to swim away from the sinking wreckage, and the helicopter pilot, Donald W. Usher, returned to the scene, but the man was gone.

    — The Washington Post, January 14, 1982., in “A Hero – Passenger Aids Others, Then Dies”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arland_D._Williams_Jr.

    • Thanks: EddieSpaghetti
    • Replies: @EddieSpaghetti
    @Hypnotoad666

    Arland D. Williams was a hero. Sadly, his son died of stomach cancer at age 37. A hero and his family deserve better.

    There is a memorial to Mr. Williams at the Atlanta Federal Reserve, where Mr. Williams worked. An article on the Atlanta Fed's website mentioned the following incident:


    "The memorials held meaning not only for Arland's colleagues and his daughter but also for some special visitors. [The] vice president in the Atlanta Fed's Public Affairs Department, tells a story of getting a request in the early 2000s from some visiting Japanese economists to view the Arland Williams Jr. memorial. "Those economists stood there for a good 10 minutes. I could just see the emotions play across their faces," [he] said."
     
    A lot of class all the way around.
    , @SafeNow
    @Hypnotoad666

    Thanks. I did know about Arland D. Williams but wanted to focus on Lenny, because of the parallel…those Potomac inert responders and the Texas inert responders. Arland also received the rare Coast Guard Gold Lifesaving Medal, after a delay in confirming who he was and what he had done. He laid down his life for complete strangers. Wet eyes now, as I type those words.

  64. @kahein
    yeah i can see this the consensus latest nativist neurotic tic over hot 2nd grader blood in the classroom -- to conflate these various types of shootings that have literally nothing do with each other

    what to do ramos and gendron have to do with innercity terroritorial-beef bangers or nightclub disrespeck spray-shooters? yeah, that's right, nothing

    what do impulsive incel-uprising spectrumites like ramos and gendron have to do with patient, methodical, slaughter engineers like paddock -- very little, if that

    it would be glancingly easy to severely limit the kind of mass killings we've seen in the last two weeks, through simple restrictions -- extended waiting periods, raising of minimum purchase age, various forms of orientation/mandatory classes and of course medical/psych evals; how about sponsorship for 1st-time buyers as well?

    but nooooo this would impinge on bubba's right to play soldier in the mud in his backyard with one of his 25 military-issue "long guns" and we can't have that can we? heaven forbid some fatass's self-defense / yoke-of-tyranny fantasy is impinged upon

    and if there are a lot of guns already in circulation, so what? some incel like gendron couldn't come close to acquiring one if it actually entailed a trip into the underworld. and laws can easily be passed making family/friend purveyors accessories to the crime

    ofc i understand none of this will happen and we'll all continue to play these, as long as whitey has a natsoc complex

    Replies: @For what it's worth, @Reg Cæsar, @Elli, @Travis, @Pop Warner, @TWS, @AnotherDad

    what to do ramos and gendron have to do with innercity terroritorial-beef bangers or nightclub disrespeck spray-shooters? yeah, that’s right, nothing

    They were radicalized on the same discord server

    • Thanks: kahein
  65. @aNewBanner
    In South Texas today, there is one and only one story being talked about by real people: the cowardice, criminal negligence, and cover-up by the Uvalde police department. Quite literally, the only gun control being talked about today is the gun control exhibited by the parents who didn’t shoot the cops that heard their children screaming for help and that refused to rush the shooter. Texans are outraged and ashamed. It feels like the days after the Floyd shooting, like it would only take a spark to set the whole state on fire. I can’t tell what this rage would be directed at, but we are sitting on a volcano gentlemen.

    Replies: @Corn, @Intelligent Dasein

    I was about to say this as well, so thank you for mentioning it. It’s really a distraction to talk about gun control at all when the only real issue here is the utter incompetence and cowardice of the cops. It’s time to defund the legacy police force and start over again.

    But to just to riff on the point, I would like to mention that the full spectrum failure which the greater West seems to be suffering across every dimension of society is not occurring in multiple, random ways. Each one of these failures shares the same Platonic form, which we can note by looking at a few examples:

    • At the beginning of the Covid debacle, it was announced to everyone that hospitals would curtail their normal treatment protocols and that restrictions would be placed on individual freedoms in order to flatten the curve, because it was necessary to “save the healthcare system.”

    • At the recent school shooting currently under discussion, the police refused to confront the shooter because they were afraid that they might get hurt. Instead, they tackled parents who were trying to save their own children.

    • The banking system was bailed out after the Great Financial Crisis and QE was instituted, which caused vast amounts of debt belonging to basically insolvent governments to trade at negative interest rates.

    • The war in Ukraine, which Russia is quite handily winning, and which Russia had perfectly good reasons for prosecuting, is being portrayed in the Western media as a wantonly aggressive act by Russia, which is also suffering embarrassing losses. The sanctions levelled against Russia have only strengthened the Russian economy and harmed the West.

    In each one of these cases what we are witnessing is the abdication of the institutions of society, who are now forcing ordinary citizens to bear the cost of their failure while also insisting, contrary to evidence, upon their own legitimacy and right to govern. We see, in other words, the failure and desperation of the elites who are determined only to cling to power but have no idea what to do with it.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
    • Thanks: Almost Missouri, slumber_j
    • Replies: @aNewBanner
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Exactly. Curtis Yavin calls these types of problems something along the lines of regime-complete issues. As in, it takes less work to replace the current regime with a new one that has a free hand to fix these issues than it takes to work within the current regime. We have many, many such issues.

    Sadly, many people cannot get their heads around the real problem (failing elites and worthless institutions) and just think that if they vote out the current party, then the other party will fix these issues. Others are so tribal that they cannot contemplate even doing that.

    The other day, I saw a comic with a trolley on a single track that had people tied down on it. There was a lever, and the person pulling the lever could change the color of the trolley from blue to red and back again.

    , @That Would Be Telling
    @Intelligent Dasein


    At the beginning of the Covid debacle, it was announced to everyone that hospitals would curtail their normal treatment protocols and that restrictions would be placed on individual freedoms in order to flatten the curve, because it was necessary to “save the healthcare system.”
     
    Without PRC levels of social control, plus a quarantine regime in the face of two of the longest land borders in the world and huge coastlines as well, this is not an axiomatic failure of "the institutions of society." And as we can see in the PRC today is even more expensive than the path we took absent an effectively vaccinated population (one PRC vaccine is bad, don't know about the other, and the people rightly distrust them).

    Continuing on that theme you're not factoring in "vaccine hesitancy." Justified or not, without forcing people to take the effective vaccines we developed, which absolutely do maim and kill some people, there would be no end to that as we're seeing in the PRC as Xi stubbornly sticks to his Zero COVID policy.

    So in the US context, prior to Omicron (except for a few places??? Did any get overwhelmed?), it was imperative to "bend the curve" and keep it bent (which does not say anything about how to do that). I live in a part of deep Red state flyover country where due to very high levels of vaccine hesitancy our hospital capacity was exceeded for 150 miles in all directions during a Delta wave and we needlessly lost people to this.

    OK, I suppose we could say "you refused to take the vaccine without a legit reason?" "No healthcare for you," but again "that's not who we are," a concept very much in play in our battle with gun-grabbers.

    Replies: @Gabe Ruth

    , @Ganderson
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Good observations all. I’d add, and I’ve made this point many times before; while our government agencies are bleeping up all over the place, governments at all levels are unwilling and or unable to perform traditional important governmental functions such as border control and basic municipal services (plowing, street and water system maintenance etc).

    The old Daley machine was corrupt; you could get your idiot nephew on the city payroll, or skim some dough off a paving contract, but the streets better get plowed and the garbage picked up.

  66. Which other Unz.com authors does Steve read?

    I just learned about the Audacious Epigone and saw Steve left w comment there.

    Why did Audacious Epigone stop posting?

  67. @For what it's worth
    @Dr. X

    "If you are limited to the type of guns that the government allows you to have and the government determines if you shall or shall not have one at all, it is not a right but a privilege, and the Democrats cannot be trusted to exercise such power in good faith."

    So you're in favor of legalizing fully automatic rifles, land mines, tanks, ICBMs, tactical nukes, etc., right? Or do you just accept the current restrictions on weapons because they're invisible to you? In Europe, a fair number of criminals resort to trucks and knives because, I infer, they don't have access to guns. Maybe they'd kill more with guns, maybe they wouldn't.

    Replies: @anarchyst, @Dr. X, @Pop Warner

    So you’re in favor of legalizing fully automatic rifles, land mines, tanks, ICBMs, tactical nukes, etc., right?

    Yes.

  68. @Prof. Woland
    @Dr. X

    The best explanation of why people, either pro or anti-gun was written by a guy who goes by the pseudonym the Anonymous Conservative. He has a must-read news aggregator site https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/home-page/ and wrote a book titled The Evolutionary Psychology of Politics. His theory is that guns are a fitness test. Same as bigger stronger goats with bigger horns win head butting contests and are the ones that get to breed. People are oriented psychologically either towards r or K reproductive strategies just like animals. Those among us who want free resources and are less likely to withstand a fitness contest resent those who are strong, attractive, and competitive by nature and are willing to fight for what is dear to them. In other words, weak people who hate guns want those who have them to die, not because they hate guns but because they hate the winners in society who are better / more fit than they are. By confiscating guns they make the fitness gap smaller so they might win a head butt, or better yet, someone else might knock their rival off. If they could defeat them openly they would but rather they are forced to stab them in the back somehow.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Almost Missouri

    Weren’t guns known as The Equalizer?

    • Replies: @Corn
    @Steve Sailer

    “God created men, but Sam Colt made them equal”

    , @stari_momak
    @Steve Sailer

    Yes. Way way back in 8th grade I had an old school history teacher who taught American history as that of conquest and settlement, contrary to the even then prevailing Narrative. He loved frontier history and taught that the revolver/six shooter in particular was the 'great equalizer'. Prior to their ready availability, the Bowie knife was the weapon of choice on the frontier, and even though that knife itself leveled the playing field a bit, struggle still favored bigger, heavier, stronger men.

    It's interesting to note that pre-civil war folk hero Mike Fink was a brawling and knife man, whereas, say, Jesse James or Doc Holliday were fast on the draw.

    , @Corvinus
    @Steve Sailer

    "Weren’t guns known as The Equalizer?"

    Only if the police who are trained use them.

    Question--Why didn't the white Texas moms and dads go into the school with their vast array of weaponry take out the deranged killer who was barricaded when the police stood there for 79 minutes? I mean, they pose for Christmas pictures and write on blogs on how they hold Kyle Rittenhouse in such high esteem. They had every liberty to go in and save their children from an absolute monster.

  69. @Elli
    @kahein

    Gendron planned, researched, scouted, wrote a 150 page manifesto. Not impulsive.

    Ramos worked for a year saving thousands of dollars for 2 rifles and many rounds of ammunition. An impulsive kid would have gratified himself with car, clothes, etc.

    Parkland and Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech shooters were disturbed, obsessed with violence for years. Autism or fetal alcohol syndrome, developing schizophrenia. Impulsivity or culmination?

    Boulder theater shooter, schizophrenic, not impulsive.

    Columbine shooters, not impulsive.

    SC church shooter, impulsive. Almost called it off because his victims were so kind and welcoming.


    What motivates these killers? You hate black criminality or white dispossession, why not take it to the gangbangers or the political architects, see how many you can get. No, go kill a bunch of black grandmothers, that'll make your point.

    You're suffering and nobody cries for you, you'll make them cry for something?

    You hate?

    You're keeping score, who kills the most, doesn't matter if they're little kids, doesn't matter if the only people who care about your score are nothing but loser hate-filled gamer nihilists like you?

    The FBI investigated and dismissed Parkland shooter, didn't act on a tip about Ramos. I don't think they're set up for rapid response. Other priorities, entrapping the disaffected, career building.

    Replies: @kahein

    i agree i misused the word impulsive (my comment for some reason vanished after i submitted it and i didn’t get a chance to edit)

    but let’s not overstate the degree of planning involved here. the ideas incubate like any baleful hate-fantasy does in a teen mind, but i doubt the arc from fantasy to the actualization threshold when it becomes apparent to them that they’re going to go through with it — radicalization, so to speak — is any longer than a few months. klebold and harris are probably outliers because they had each other to generate and sustain momentum. a lot of them are simply too young to deal with those ideas at that level for more than a year or two at most — from 16 to 18 is the sweet spot from teen resentment/alienation to ideological padding to money shot

    i don’t think this is some FBI problem anyway — how many fucked-up kids / potential time-bombs are they supposed to be monitoring? this is a gun problem. several of these killers had help family help getting these weapons as well

    i mean, pick your poison — offhand any reasonable person could dredge up a bunch of restrictions that would barely inconvenience any “law-abiding citizen” so-called but would seriously witch and interfere with the kill metamorphosis these teens undergo. the bad conscience of gun fetishists sticking to their nonsense is getting painful to even listen to anymore

    if people want to get serious about teen mental health too i’m fine with that — but that’s not really the issue here and is just yet another rationalization

  70. @For what it's worth
    @Dr. X

    "The Second Amendment grants the right to “keep and bear arms” so it’s pretty clear that it refers to arms that can be borne by typical infantrymen."

    Not facile or stupid, at least not necessarily. It's not the Founding Fathers' fault they lived before tanks and missiles were a thing. Did anyone think the Second Amendment covered cannons?

    But I do appreciate the candid response. You're being consistent where I suspected you wouldn't be. Not saying I agree, but I respect candor and consistency. Thank you.

    Replies: @Dr. X, @Redneck farmer

    Did anyone think the Second Amendment covered cannons?

    Yes. Cannons, interestingly enough, are exempt from nearly all gun laws today because they are black-powder muzzleloaders (albeit very big ones) and not considered “firearms” under Federal law.

    Henry Knox famously moved cannons by sled 300 miles for the Siege of Boston in 1776:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Knox#Siege_of_Boston

    • Thanks: For what it's worth
  71. How are you going to stop illegal guns with a wide open southern border?

  72. @Steve Sailer
    @Prof. Woland

    Weren't guns known as The Equalizer?

    Replies: @Corn, @stari_momak, @Corvinus

    “God created men, but Sam Colt made them equal”

    • Agree: Hibernian
  73. Imagine if a group of gazelles suddenly figured out how to fire guns and stand their ground. The ones who poo pooed them would suddenly be at a major disadvantage from a reproductive standpoint. They could either learn how to shoot, attach themselves to the K selected gazelles and then betray them, or try to take away all the guns so they could all be equal. Liberals would be in camps 2 and 3.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Prof. Woland

    The samurai considered guns to be unfair because it gave weak peasants a fighting chance against well-fed samurai.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Corvinus, @That Would Be Telling

  74. @Travis
    @kahein

    The sister of the Uvalde gunman “flatly refused” to buy him a weapon when he asked her to last year, then he worked for a few months to save the money and finally purchase his guns. If he had to wait another 6 months due to a "waiting period" it is not likely to have made a difference in this case.

    Gendron started buying his guns back in December, 5 months prior to his killing spree. A waiting period of 6 months may have delayed his rampage by a few months, but he had been planning this for some time.

    Maybe they should ban gun sales to those under the age of 21. This is one gun law which could make a difference. If these two teens had to wait until they were 21 we would not be talking about them today, and they may have never become mass murderers.

    Replies: @kahein, @kahein

    and every additional year beyond 21 you make them wait probably cuts into the possibility of ill usage by 80% or more, compounded (up to 25, ideally, i’d think)

    a nominal waiting period is far and away the mildest restriction. the real barrier should be a psych eval with teeth — maybe in conjunction with a point system of some sort so your basic in arrears / sheaf of disorderly conduct (or hell, even speeding) tickets type can’t get one — or my favorite current idea, how about first-time gun buyers needing to be sponsored by a gun fetishist in good standing, etc

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @kahein

    Yeah, and said psych eval will be conducted by US Feral Gov't certified evaluators who are trained with a manual that includes all the newest disorders... Conservatism, use of the word "Constitution", etc.

    Stupid. We've had a century of Communism and other Totalitarianism to study, yet some have learned absolutely nothing.

    , @anon
    @kahein

    In some of the most rabid gun-control states (e.g. Mass), you have to get three references/letters to apply for a gun license. Whether you get it depends on who you are and the inclination of your town's chief of police. In any case, it takes many months to get one.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  75. @Steve Sailer
    @Prof. Woland

    Weren't guns known as The Equalizer?

    Replies: @Corn, @stari_momak, @Corvinus

    Yes. Way way back in 8th grade I had an old school history teacher who taught American history as that of conquest and settlement, contrary to the even then prevailing Narrative. He loved frontier history and taught that the revolver/six shooter in particular was the ‘great equalizer’. Prior to their ready availability, the Bowie knife was the weapon of choice on the frontier, and even though that knife itself leveled the playing field a bit, struggle still favored bigger, heavier, stronger men.

    It’s interesting to note that pre-civil war folk hero Mike Fink was a brawling and knife man, whereas, say, Jesse James or Doc Holliday were fast on the draw.

  76. @Prof. Woland
    Imagine if a group of gazelles suddenly figured out how to fire guns and stand their ground. The ones who poo pooed them would suddenly be at a major disadvantage from a reproductive standpoint. They could either learn how to shoot, attach themselves to the K selected gazelles and then betray them, or try to take away all the guns so they could all be equal. Liberals would be in camps 2 and 3.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    The samurai considered guns to be unfair because it gave weak peasants a fighting chance against well-fed samurai.

    • Thanks: Redneck farmer
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Steve Sailer

    Europeans felt exactly the same way, but were prevented by political chaos from effecting a continental ban.

    , @Corvinus
    @Steve Sailer

    Imagine taking a six year old boy, giving him an weapon (one that he can’t even hold properly) capable of mowing down dozens of people and repeatedly stating that the enemy to your future existence will require him to stand up to them in the name of God (Trump) and country…without even realizing he is being indoctrinated.

    Are you of the mindset that hundreds of thousands of white suburbanites are capable of pulling a Kyle in a moment’s notice? Why?

    , @That Would Be Telling
    @Steve Sailer


    The samurai considered guns to be unfair because it gave weak peasants a fighting chance against well-fed samurai.
     
    That didn't stop them from buying or making more guns per capita than any other nation at the time, and using them on each other before the Tokugawa shogunate....
  77. @Ian Smith
    Bloomberg ‘24!

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Bloomberg ‘24!

    Harris ’22!

    • LOL: Ian Smith
  78. @Hangnail Hans
    @epebble

    As soon as they figure out a way to leverage weather patterns in support of their political goals, you may expect it to happen. Or, has it happened already?

    Replies: @epebble

    I am seeing all natural disasters being prefaced with Climate Change. In future, we should expect economic hard times (inflation, recession, stagflation…), pandemics, increase in crimes, political gridlock all attributed to Climate Change – the Universal Container for all miseries natural and manmade.

  79. @Hypnotoad666
    @SafeNow

    There was also hero, Arland D. Williams, whose name wasn't identified until later:


    According to the other five survivors, Williams continued to help the others reach the rescue ropes being dropped by the hovering helicopter, repeatedly passing the line to others instead of using it himself. While the other five were being taken to shore by the helicopter, the tail section of the wrecked Boeing 737 shifted and sank farther into the water, dragging Williams under the water with it.

    The next day, The Washington Post described his actions:

    He was about 50 years old, one of half a dozen survivors clinging to twisted wreckage bobbing in the icy Potomac when the first helicopter arrived. To the copter's two-man Park Police crew he seemed the most alert. Life vests were dropped, then a flotation ball. The man passed them to the others. On two occasions, the crew recalled last night, he handed away a life line from the hovering machine that could have dragged him to safety. The helicopter crew – who rescued five people, the only persons who survived from the jetliner – lifted a woman to the riverbank, then dragged three more persons across the ice to safety. Then the life line saved a woman who was trying to swim away from the sinking wreckage, and the helicopter pilot, Donald W. Usher, returned to the scene, but the man was gone.
     
    — The Washington Post, January 14, 1982., in "A Hero – Passenger Aids Others, Then Dies"
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arland_D._Williams_Jr.

    Replies: @EddieSpaghetti, @SafeNow

    Arland D. Williams was a hero. Sadly, his son died of stomach cancer at age 37. A hero and his family deserve better.

    There is a memorial to Mr. Williams at the Atlanta Federal Reserve, where Mr. Williams worked. An article on the Atlanta Fed’s website mentioned the following incident:

    “The memorials held meaning not only for Arland’s colleagues and his daughter but also for some special visitors. [The] vice president in the Atlanta Fed’s Public Affairs Department, tells a story of getting a request in the early 2000s from some visiting Japanese economists to view the Arland Williams Jr. memorial. “Those economists stood there for a good 10 minutes. I could just see the emotions play across their faces,” [he] said.”

    A lot of class all the way around.

  80. @For what it's worth
    @Dr. X

    "The Second Amendment grants the right to “keep and bear arms” so it’s pretty clear that it refers to arms that can be borne by typical infantrymen."

    Not facile or stupid, at least not necessarily. It's not the Founding Fathers' fault they lived before tanks and missiles were a thing. Did anyone think the Second Amendment covered cannons?

    But I do appreciate the candid response. You're being consistent where I suspected you wouldn't be. Not saying I agree, but I respect candor and consistency. Thank you.

    Replies: @Dr. X, @Redneck farmer

    You could buy a cannon if you had the money when the Second Amendment was passed.

  81. @Hypnotoad666
    @SafeNow

    There was also hero, Arland D. Williams, whose name wasn't identified until later:


    According to the other five survivors, Williams continued to help the others reach the rescue ropes being dropped by the hovering helicopter, repeatedly passing the line to others instead of using it himself. While the other five were being taken to shore by the helicopter, the tail section of the wrecked Boeing 737 shifted and sank farther into the water, dragging Williams under the water with it.

    The next day, The Washington Post described his actions:

    He was about 50 years old, one of half a dozen survivors clinging to twisted wreckage bobbing in the icy Potomac when the first helicopter arrived. To the copter's two-man Park Police crew he seemed the most alert. Life vests were dropped, then a flotation ball. The man passed them to the others. On two occasions, the crew recalled last night, he handed away a life line from the hovering machine that could have dragged him to safety. The helicopter crew – who rescued five people, the only persons who survived from the jetliner – lifted a woman to the riverbank, then dragged three more persons across the ice to safety. Then the life line saved a woman who was trying to swim away from the sinking wreckage, and the helicopter pilot, Donald W. Usher, returned to the scene, but the man was gone.
     
    — The Washington Post, January 14, 1982., in "A Hero – Passenger Aids Others, Then Dies"
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arland_D._Williams_Jr.

    Replies: @EddieSpaghetti, @SafeNow

    Thanks. I did know about Arland D. Williams but wanted to focus on Lenny, because of the parallel…those Potomac inert responders and the Texas inert responders. Arland also received the rare Coast Guard Gold Lifesaving Medal, after a delay in confirming who he was and what he had done. He laid down his life for complete strangers. Wet eyes now, as I type those words.

  82. Anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Stan Adams
    @Chrisnonymous


    By the time you’re 40, most men are starting to wind down and they can reflect that life is generally good and they realize they are not immortal and they know that violence begets more violence.
     
    I'm not sure this is true anymore. The flaky millennials are pushing forty, and many of them are just as screwed up now as they were at 30 or 20.

    Purely as a thought exercise, let me provide a theoretical description of such a person.



    Note that I am not admitting to describing any actual human beings, living or dead. Also note that the person I am describing does not have any overt homicidal or suicidal ideation; he is merely an example of someone who is not enjoying a great deal of life satisfaction in the latter part of his 30s.

    Theoretically, if a flaky millennial male a) was pushing 40, b) was physically unattractive, c) was conflicted about having gay tendencies, d) had a small penis, and e) was generally lazy and unambitious, you would not expect him to have enjoyed a great deal of success in the relationship arena, and you would not be surprised to learn that he did not have a great deal of life satisfaction.

    (You wouldn't expect him to be a regular commenter on this site, either.)

    Suppose that this theoretical person had grown up without the benefit of a father figure and had suffered through intensely dysfunctional relationships with his female relatives, most notably his mother and grandmother. Suppose that his mother was especially repulsive, combining severe personality defects and morbid obesity with a princess mentality and an extreme sense of entitlement. Suppose that she had bad-mouthed his father and his grandfather all throughout his youth, telling him at times that she hated all men and hated the fact that he would grow up to become a man.

    Would it be overly surprising to learn that this person might not be overly eager to pursue a long-term relationship with a woman? Might he not be somewhat justified in fearing that he might get stuck with someone who would end up treating him just as badly?

    Of course, this theoretical person would feel obligated to take some degree of responsibility for his own situation. And he would feel compelled to point out that there are plenty of people his age who've done all the "right" things who are no happier than he is. He would know plenty of miserable people who'd gone from one bad relationship to another. So he would not necessarily be convinced that he'd screwed up all that badly, because he'd rather be alone than be with the wrong person.

    All of this is purely theoretical, you understand.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Intelligent Dasein

    Theoretically, if a flaky millennial male a) was pushing 40, b) was physically unattractive, c) was conflicted about having gay tendencies, d) had a small penis, and e) was generally lazy and unambitious, you would not expect him to have enjoyed a great deal of success in the relationship arena, and you would not be surprised to learn that he did not have a great deal of life satisfaction.

    (You wouldn’t expect him to be a regular commenter on this site, either.)

    It is funny you should say this, because it is exactly what I would expect.

    I mention it, not to pick on anyone in particular, but because I would be very surprised to learn that no correlation whatever exists between time spent online and how unhappy one is.

    Everyone needs a pastime and fair enough. However, with all the quibbling, backbiting, trolling, etc. that goes on here, I fail to see how this site differs significantly from any social media site you could name.

    Frankly, I have no idea where some of the frequent commenters get the time to post so volubly. If spending hours on end writing comments on this site is the best thing you can hope to do with your time, fine, but perhaps it is worth slowing down for a moment and considering: is it really?

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Anonymous

    On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog ... but some people have their suspicions.



    https://i.ibb.co/PCY3ww9/a1.png

    https://i.ibb.co/YjdbGt9/a2.jpg

    https://i.ibb.co/zZ6ky8B/a3.jpg

  83. @Known Fact
    "Common sense gun control?" Most people instinctively know that "common sense" and "Democrat" do not overlap on any Venn Diagram known to man

    Replies: @James Speaks

    Common Sense gun control is using a gun only for self-defense and if so, effectively. In other words, hitting the target. I call this Point of Impact control.

  84. @Ebony Obelisk
    1. white “men” commit the most gun violence

    2. They also influence Men of Color to be guillemot

    3. Take away they dgubs of white men and things will fall into place.

    Replies: @Elli, @Hangnail Hans, @Hereward, @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910, @tyrone, @kaganovitch

    That’s because we want to steal your GUANO!….we got the dgubs to do it.

  85. @Almost Missouri

    Any conceivable type of gun control, even Australian-style mass confiscation, would likely leave tens of millions of guns and could generate a huge black market.
     
    The UK, an island which until recently had pretty good border control, outlawed virtually all firearms in 1997. Before that blanket gun ban, the UK's homicide rate was was bouncing around 10-12 per million per year. Following the blanket gun ban, the UK's homicide rate shot up to 14-18 per million per year, perhaps a 50% increase, so in this real life experiment, total gun control increased the murder rate.

    Nowadays, after knife bans and implementing a total surveillance police state, the UK murder rate is back down to 10-12 per million per year, exactly where it was before the UK embarked on its nanny state project to end gun crime.

    Incidentally, half of Britain's mass shootings have occurred after Parliament passed the laws to prevent mass shootings (or any shootings). By any objective standard, the natural laboratory experiment in gun control conducted in the UK must be counted as a total failure.

    (P.S. The above figures are for England and Wales, but I wrote "UK" to reduce verbosity and because most foreigners don't known the difference anyway.)

    Lots of Democrats are talking right now about “common sense gun control,”
     
    Lots of them are talking to me about it for some reason. I tell them:

    • Your Dem Presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg was right (back when he was a Republican): it's the minorities, stupid. If y'all believe in "root causes" like you say, well they're right there in front of your face. Homicide is basically a function of ethnicity, especially blacks. Everything else is a rounding error in comparison. If you are not willing to deal with that basic fact, there isn't isn't much to talk about.

    • When the media reports that "school shootings are up" and that there is more than one school shooting every week, they are playing a double game and you are falling for it. Almost all of those are ghetto black kids shooting each other up with pistols, which the media are careful never to report to you. Denuding rural whites of long guns will do nothing to end this, and may make it worse, as these gangbangers and wannabes realize that the suburbs are defenseless.

    • Gun control hasn't worked elsewhere (see UK, above), and it is even less likely to work here.

    • Since WWII, the US murder rate has been driven up by 1960s liberalism and more recently by Obamunism (Ferguson, BLM, etc.). It has been driven down by rightwing legislatures, prosecutors, and presidents. Which of those two sides has the upper hand determines the murder rate. If you like murder, support the former. If you dislike murder, support the latter. If you claim to dislike murder, but support the former, you are not serious.

    • I agree that the Second Amendment is not to protect hunters and sport shooters. It is to protect citizens from the government (and their unofficial paramilitaries (BLM & Antifa mobs, which Dems support)). The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Second Amendment is not only for state militias. If you don't like it, you are welcome to get a Constitutional Amendment to change it. The Constitution has been amended 17 times since ratification, so if you think your cause is "common sense", it should not be a problem to amend it an 18th time. If you can't get it, maybe it's not so common sense after all.

    but they tend not to be trusted because of their tendency to use each incremental change as a launching pad for another one, with the ultimate goal of shutting down all legal hunting and gun culture in the U.S. For example, in 2013-15, the liberal establishment moved with incredible rapidity from winning on gay marriage to encouraging your moody daughter to have herself poisoned, mutilated, and sterilized in the name of transgenderism.
     
    Absolutely true, but who could have foreseen this?



    Well, liberals, as it turns out, by which I mean if you take the opposite of whatever they say.

    Pro-gay-marriage
    meme from last decade:

    https://www.barnhardt.biz/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/img_6239.jpg

    Replies: @Jimbo, @dearieme, @That Would Be Telling

    That meme is even funnier now that every single thing on the list has actually happened.

  86. @Prof. Woland
    @Dr. X

    The best explanation of why people, either pro or anti-gun was written by a guy who goes by the pseudonym the Anonymous Conservative. He has a must-read news aggregator site https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/home-page/ and wrote a book titled The Evolutionary Psychology of Politics. His theory is that guns are a fitness test. Same as bigger stronger goats with bigger horns win head butting contests and are the ones that get to breed. People are oriented psychologically either towards r or K reproductive strategies just like animals. Those among us who want free resources and are less likely to withstand a fitness contest resent those who are strong, attractive, and competitive by nature and are willing to fight for what is dear to them. In other words, weak people who hate guns want those who have them to die, not because they hate guns but because they hate the winners in society who are better / more fit than they are. By confiscating guns they make the fitness gap smaller so they might win a head butt, or better yet, someone else might knock their rival off. If they could defeat them openly they would but rather they are forced to stab them in the back somehow.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Almost Missouri

    they hate the winners in society who are better / more fit than they are.

    Isn’t this a sub-case of Bioleninism theory?

    Which itself is a sub-case of Nietzsche?

    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    @Almost Missouri

    It is just evolutionary psychology. Why do you think Antifa / BLM / types hate people so much who are married and live as families or live in the suburbs? Same reason they hate cops. It is because these people are insulated from their predations. The left side of the bell curve is much more comfortable being in a herd with losers like themselves in a non-competitive environment where the unequals have an equal chance. You don't have to believe it but IMHO it is the best explanation yet of a lot of things and not just gun ownership.

  87. @kahein
    @Travis

    and every additional year beyond 21 you make them wait probably cuts into the possibility of ill usage by 80% or more, compounded (up to 25, ideally, i'd think)

    a nominal waiting period is far and away the mildest restriction. the real barrier should be a psych eval with teeth -- maybe in conjunction with a point system of some sort so your basic in arrears / sheaf of disorderly conduct (or hell, even speeding) tickets type can't get one -- or my favorite current idea, how about first-time gun buyers needing to be sponsored by a gun fetishist in good standing, etc

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @anon

    Yeah, and said psych eval will be conducted by US Feral Gov’t certified evaluators who are trained with a manual that includes all the newest disorders… Conservatism, use of the word “Constitution”, etc.

    Stupid. We’ve had a century of Communism and other Totalitarianism to study, yet some have learned absolutely nothing.

    • Agree: magilla
  88. @Steve Sailer
    @Prof. Woland

    The samurai considered guns to be unfair because it gave weak peasants a fighting chance against well-fed samurai.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Corvinus, @That Would Be Telling

    Europeans felt exactly the same way, but were prevented by political chaos from effecting a continental ban.

  89. Every single Democrat policy is an obvious lie because of non-negotiable contradictions. Remember that next time some Republican wants to meet Democrats halfway.

  90. @Steve Sailer
    @Prof. Woland

    The samurai considered guns to be unfair because it gave weak peasants a fighting chance against well-fed samurai.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Corvinus, @That Would Be Telling

    Imagine taking a six year old boy, giving him an weapon (one that he can’t even hold properly) capable of mowing down dozens of people and repeatedly stating that the enemy to your future existence will require him to stand up to them in the name of God (Trump) and country…without even realizing he is being indoctrinated.

    Are you of the mindset that hundreds of thousands of white suburbanites are capable of pulling a Kyle in a moment’s notice? Why?

  91. @Dr. X
    @For what it's worth


    So you’re in favor of legalizing fully automatic rifles, land mines, tanks, ICBMs, tactical nukes, etc., right?
     
    Mostly, yes.

    The comparison with tanks and ICBMs is facile and stupid. The Second Amendment grants the right to "keep and bear arms" so it's pretty clear that it refers to arms that can be borne by typical infantrymen.

    Full-automatic machine guns, dynamite, short-barreled shotguns, blasting caps, detcord, all of that stuff was perfectly legal prior to 1934, when you could order a Thompson submachine gun through the mail from Sears, Roebuck and buy dynamite at the local hardware store. Back when we actually lived in a FREE country.

    And mass shootings of schoolchildren were basically nonexistent, because the country was almost monoracial, the people were more self-reliant, more sane, and more God-fearing.

    Replies: @For what it's worth, @For what it's worth, @That Would Be Telling, @That Would Be Telling

    “And mass shootings of schoolchildren were basically nonexistent, because the country was almost monoracial, the people were more self-reliant, more sane, and more God-fearing.”

    There was that one school bombing, which was an anomaly.

    As far as being monoracial, I don’t think we can look back at the 20s as a time when we had liberty because we had pretty much one race in the country. Here’s two reasons:

    1.) The 1934 restriction (I’m no longer saying “ban”) on machine guns was driven by gangsterism. A good deal of that involved Sicilian/Italian, Irish, and Jewish mobsters. So there was an ethnic angle to the suppression of gang violence.

    2.) I think the 1910s-1930s is when the feds took a stance on illegal drugs. The “cocaine-crazed Negro rapist” was part of the propaganda for this.

    So, already in the early 20th century, racial and ethnic diversity helped motivate federal restrictions on guns and drugs.

    • Replies: @Dr. X
    @For what it's worth


    The 1934 restriction (I’m no longer saying “ban”) on machine guns was driven by gangsterism. A good deal of that involved Sicilian/Italian, Irish, and Jewish mobsters. So there was an ethnic angle to the suppression of gang violence.
     
    Somewhat true, but a better example is the 1911 New York Sullivan Law, passed by Irish criminals (who controlled the police) for the purpose of disarming Jewish and Italian criminal rivals.

    The 1930s criminals like Capone were largely driven by Prohibition, but Midwestern white trash like Clyde Barrow committing sensational crimes with machine guns served as useful propaganda for restrictive legislation.

    Of course Barrow didn't buy his machine guns, he stole them from a National Guard armory, so it wouldn't have mattered one way or the other if they were illegal or not -- a point that has been conveniently forgotten.

  92. The Mother Jones problem is incels with guns. Instead of a five-day waiting period or a minimum age of 21, just pass a law that no man can buy a gun unless he brings his girlfriend (or wife) to vouch for him.

  93. @Hangnail Hans
    @aNewBanner

    Is this a fact? Are the MSM running it? Because if they're not, the masses will assume it didn't happen. Maybe the NY Post? But does that count?

    Replies: @aNewBanner

    Then the elites and masses in New York City do not know about it. No one gives a damn about them around here. The local press in South Texas is all over this story. Every major byline in the San Antonio Express News is about some variation of the utter failure of the police. (Basically, the state is redirecting its anger from the shooter toward the police.) The press is trying to force Gov. Abbot to resign as a way to save Robert O’Rourke’s campaign.

  94. @Intelligent Dasein
    @aNewBanner

    I was about to say this as well, so thank you for mentioning it. It's really a distraction to talk about gun control at all when the only real issue here is the utter incompetence and cowardice of the cops. It's time to defund the legacy police force and start over again.

    But to just to riff on the point, I would like to mention that the full spectrum failure which the greater West seems to be suffering across every dimension of society is not occurring in multiple, random ways. Each one of these failures shares the same Platonic form, which we can note by looking at a few examples:

    • At the beginning of the Covid debacle, it was announced to everyone that hospitals would curtail their normal treatment protocols and that restrictions would be placed on individual freedoms in order to flatten the curve, because it was necessary to "save the healthcare system."

    • At the recent school shooting currently under discussion, the police refused to confront the shooter because they were afraid that they might get hurt. Instead, they tackled parents who were trying to save their own children.

    • The banking system was bailed out after the Great Financial Crisis and QE was instituted, which caused vast amounts of debt belonging to basically insolvent governments to trade at negative interest rates.

    • The war in Ukraine, which Russia is quite handily winning, and which Russia had perfectly good reasons for prosecuting, is being portrayed in the Western media as a wantonly aggressive act by Russia, which is also suffering embarrassing losses. The sanctions levelled against Russia have only strengthened the Russian economy and harmed the West.

    In each one of these cases what we are witnessing is the abdication of the institutions of society, who are now forcing ordinary citizens to bear the cost of their failure while also insisting, contrary to evidence, upon their own legitimacy and right to govern. We see, in other words, the failure and desperation of the elites who are determined only to cling to power but have no idea what to do with it.

    Replies: @aNewBanner, @That Would Be Telling, @Ganderson

    Exactly. Curtis Yavin calls these types of problems something along the lines of regime-complete issues. As in, it takes less work to replace the current regime with a new one that has a free hand to fix these issues than it takes to work within the current regime. We have many, many such issues.

    Sadly, many people cannot get their heads around the real problem (failing elites and worthless institutions) and just think that if they vote out the current party, then the other party will fix these issues. Others are so tribal that they cannot contemplate even doing that.

    The other day, I saw a comic with a trolley on a single track that had people tied down on it. There was a lever, and the person pulling the lever could change the color of the trolley from blue to red and back again.

  95. let’s try to walk through the different types of shootings in reverse order of how much space they take up in the brains of media consumers

    What is this thing you call facts, unmentionable Mr. iSteve? They are contrary to my lived experience!

    [Lived experience = 2% real life; 98% folklore, hearsay, 24-hour news, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube,…,.]
    ,
    ,


  96. White liberals, angered by white conservatives’ lack of racial solidarity with them, yet bereft of any vocabulary for expressing such a verboten concept, pretend that they need gun control to protect them from gun-crazy rural rednecks ..

    Steve, I’ve always thought this was one of your weaker psycho-analyses.

    Sure urbanites could want “gun control” to keep guns out of the hands of young black men who are mugging them and sometimes shooting up the streets. That’s a plausible simple problem-solution political choice. But liberal urbanites can argue directly for that “handguns are dangerous”. And take a “no tolerance” policy to crimes with guns. White conservatives are fine with a no-tolerance policy toward gun wielding criminals. But, of course, while there was “handgun control” talk back in the 60s that’s not what we’ve gotten in the past several decades.

    In contrast, this is spot on…

    – We must block small town white men from legally buying scary-looking rifles.

    – We must block cops from stopping and searching big city black men carrying illeg”al handguns.

    I.e. “disarm the goyim”.

    “Liberals”–a bogus moniker; let’s charitable just call them “minoritarians”– have shown zero interest in cracking down on urban crime. The opposite the past two years. But they’ve shown a whole lot of interest in the “hick from the sticks” being armed.

    This policy set has obviously nothing to do with urban safety and everything to do with Jewish ethnic hostilities and paranoias. And their hatred of the goyim having ideas about the right to self-government, as opposed to a bossy Jewish run/influenced super-state ordering them about.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  97. @Dr. X
    @For what it's worth


    So you’re in favor of legalizing fully automatic rifles, land mines, tanks, ICBMs, tactical nukes, etc., right?
     
    Mostly, yes.

    The comparison with tanks and ICBMs is facile and stupid. The Second Amendment grants the right to "keep and bear arms" so it's pretty clear that it refers to arms that can be borne by typical infantrymen.

    Full-automatic machine guns, dynamite, short-barreled shotguns, blasting caps, detcord, all of that stuff was perfectly legal prior to 1934, when you could order a Thompson submachine gun through the mail from Sears, Roebuck and buy dynamite at the local hardware store. Back when we actually lived in a FREE country.

    And mass shootings of schoolchildren were basically nonexistent, because the country was almost monoracial, the people were more self-reliant, more sane, and more God-fearing.

    Replies: @For what it's worth, @For what it's worth, @That Would Be Telling, @That Would Be Telling

    The Second Amendment grants the right to “keep and bear arms” so it’s pretty clear that it refers to arms that can be borne by typical infantrymen.

    A better focus, a hard one to answer, would be grenades, especially “defense” fragmentation ones. But also the offensive type like the famous “potato masher” German concussion grenade which was easy to throw beyond the danger zone for you with its long handle. Or consider dumb anti-tank rockets like our bazooka, the RPGs we see being used so much in the Ukraine, etc. Ones like the smaller and lightweight single shot LAWs, first model five and a half pounds and two feet long before extended to arm and use.

    […] dynamite … blasting caps … all of that stuff was perfectly legal prior to 1934, when you could … buy dynamite at the local hardware store.

    And beyond 1933-4, my father remembers his father buying quarter sticks of dynamite at the hardware store to remove stumps, the sort of exciting thing that would make an impression.

  98. @Almost Missouri

    Any conceivable type of gun control, even Australian-style mass confiscation, would likely leave tens of millions of guns and could generate a huge black market.
     
    The UK, an island which until recently had pretty good border control, outlawed virtually all firearms in 1997. Before that blanket gun ban, the UK's homicide rate was was bouncing around 10-12 per million per year. Following the blanket gun ban, the UK's homicide rate shot up to 14-18 per million per year, perhaps a 50% increase, so in this real life experiment, total gun control increased the murder rate.

    Nowadays, after knife bans and implementing a total surveillance police state, the UK murder rate is back down to 10-12 per million per year, exactly where it was before the UK embarked on its nanny state project to end gun crime.

    Incidentally, half of Britain's mass shootings have occurred after Parliament passed the laws to prevent mass shootings (or any shootings). By any objective standard, the natural laboratory experiment in gun control conducted in the UK must be counted as a total failure.

    (P.S. The above figures are for England and Wales, but I wrote "UK" to reduce verbosity and because most foreigners don't known the difference anyway.)

    Lots of Democrats are talking right now about “common sense gun control,”
     
    Lots of them are talking to me about it for some reason. I tell them:

    • Your Dem Presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg was right (back when he was a Republican): it's the minorities, stupid. If y'all believe in "root causes" like you say, well they're right there in front of your face. Homicide is basically a function of ethnicity, especially blacks. Everything else is a rounding error in comparison. If you are not willing to deal with that basic fact, there isn't isn't much to talk about.

    • When the media reports that "school shootings are up" and that there is more than one school shooting every week, they are playing a double game and you are falling for it. Almost all of those are ghetto black kids shooting each other up with pistols, which the media are careful never to report to you. Denuding rural whites of long guns will do nothing to end this, and may make it worse, as these gangbangers and wannabes realize that the suburbs are defenseless.

    • Gun control hasn't worked elsewhere (see UK, above), and it is even less likely to work here.

    • Since WWII, the US murder rate has been driven up by 1960s liberalism and more recently by Obamunism (Ferguson, BLM, etc.). It has been driven down by rightwing legislatures, prosecutors, and presidents. Which of those two sides has the upper hand determines the murder rate. If you like murder, support the former. If you dislike murder, support the latter. If you claim to dislike murder, but support the former, you are not serious.

    • I agree that the Second Amendment is not to protect hunters and sport shooters. It is to protect citizens from the government (and their unofficial paramilitaries (BLM & Antifa mobs, which Dems support)). The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Second Amendment is not only for state militias. If you don't like it, you are welcome to get a Constitutional Amendment to change it. The Constitution has been amended 17 times since ratification, so if you think your cause is "common sense", it should not be a problem to amend it an 18th time. If you can't get it, maybe it's not so common sense after all.

    but they tend not to be trusted because of their tendency to use each incremental change as a launching pad for another one, with the ultimate goal of shutting down all legal hunting and gun culture in the U.S. For example, in 2013-15, the liberal establishment moved with incredible rapidity from winning on gay marriage to encouraging your moody daughter to have herself poisoned, mutilated, and sterilized in the name of transgenderism.
     
    Absolutely true, but who could have foreseen this?



    Well, liberals, as it turns out, by which I mean if you take the opposite of whatever they say.

    Pro-gay-marriage
    meme from last decade:

    https://www.barnhardt.biz/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/img_6239.jpg

    Replies: @Jimbo, @dearieme, @That Would Be Telling

    The UK … outlawed virtually all firearms in 1997.

    Oh balls! Sheer fantasy! Where do people get such stupid ideas?

    “Handguns” were banned. Rifles and shotguns were not.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @dearieme


    “Handguns” were banned. Rifles and shotguns were not.
     
    They didn't need to because most long guns were already banned in 1988.
  99. @Almost Missouri
    @Prof. Woland

    they hate the winners in society who are better / more fit than they are.

    Isn't this a sub-case of Bioleninism theory?

    Which itself is a sub-case of Nietzsche?

    Replies: @Prof. Woland

    It is just evolutionary psychology. Why do you think Antifa / BLM / types hate people so much who are married and live as families or live in the suburbs? Same reason they hate cops. It is because these people are insulated from their predations. The left side of the bell curve is much more comfortable being in a herd with losers like themselves in a non-competitive environment where the unequals have an equal chance. You don’t have to believe it but IMHO it is the best explanation yet of a lot of things and not just gun ownership.

  100. @Almost Missouri

    Any conceivable type of gun control, even Australian-style mass confiscation, would likely leave tens of millions of guns and could generate a huge black market.
     
    The UK, an island which until recently had pretty good border control, outlawed virtually all firearms in 1997. Before that blanket gun ban, the UK's homicide rate was was bouncing around 10-12 per million per year. Following the blanket gun ban, the UK's homicide rate shot up to 14-18 per million per year, perhaps a 50% increase, so in this real life experiment, total gun control increased the murder rate.

    Nowadays, after knife bans and implementing a total surveillance police state, the UK murder rate is back down to 10-12 per million per year, exactly where it was before the UK embarked on its nanny state project to end gun crime.

    Incidentally, half of Britain's mass shootings have occurred after Parliament passed the laws to prevent mass shootings (or any shootings). By any objective standard, the natural laboratory experiment in gun control conducted in the UK must be counted as a total failure.

    (P.S. The above figures are for England and Wales, but I wrote "UK" to reduce verbosity and because most foreigners don't known the difference anyway.)

    Lots of Democrats are talking right now about “common sense gun control,”
     
    Lots of them are talking to me about it for some reason. I tell them:

    • Your Dem Presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg was right (back when he was a Republican): it's the minorities, stupid. If y'all believe in "root causes" like you say, well they're right there in front of your face. Homicide is basically a function of ethnicity, especially blacks. Everything else is a rounding error in comparison. If you are not willing to deal with that basic fact, there isn't isn't much to talk about.

    • When the media reports that "school shootings are up" and that there is more than one school shooting every week, they are playing a double game and you are falling for it. Almost all of those are ghetto black kids shooting each other up with pistols, which the media are careful never to report to you. Denuding rural whites of long guns will do nothing to end this, and may make it worse, as these gangbangers and wannabes realize that the suburbs are defenseless.

    • Gun control hasn't worked elsewhere (see UK, above), and it is even less likely to work here.

    • Since WWII, the US murder rate has been driven up by 1960s liberalism and more recently by Obamunism (Ferguson, BLM, etc.). It has been driven down by rightwing legislatures, prosecutors, and presidents. Which of those two sides has the upper hand determines the murder rate. If you like murder, support the former. If you dislike murder, support the latter. If you claim to dislike murder, but support the former, you are not serious.

    • I agree that the Second Amendment is not to protect hunters and sport shooters. It is to protect citizens from the government (and their unofficial paramilitaries (BLM & Antifa mobs, which Dems support)). The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Second Amendment is not only for state militias. If you don't like it, you are welcome to get a Constitutional Amendment to change it. The Constitution has been amended 17 times since ratification, so if you think your cause is "common sense", it should not be a problem to amend it an 18th time. If you can't get it, maybe it's not so common sense after all.

    but they tend not to be trusted because of their tendency to use each incremental change as a launching pad for another one, with the ultimate goal of shutting down all legal hunting and gun culture in the U.S. For example, in 2013-15, the liberal establishment moved with incredible rapidity from winning on gay marriage to encouraging your moody daughter to have herself poisoned, mutilated, and sterilized in the name of transgenderism.
     
    Absolutely true, but who could have foreseen this?



    Well, liberals, as it turns out, by which I mean if you take the opposite of whatever they say.

    Pro-gay-marriage
    meme from last decade:

    https://www.barnhardt.biz/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/img_6239.jpg

    Replies: @Jimbo, @dearieme, @That Would Be Telling

    When the media reports that “school shootings are up” and that there is more than one school shooting every week, they are playing a double game

    Even worse than that; you failed in attempting to link to a source, but those “school shootings” include people shooting BBs or pellets at school windows after school, and drug deals “gone wrong” in school parking lots at night.

    Left, that’s a good word, the Left is utterly shameless in lying and the Right doesn’t have a good answer to it that’s not coup complete. Although I think some on the Supreme Court have been muttering about reigning in the insanity started with the 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Removing the feedback mechanism of legitimate libel and slander enforcement has a lot to do with how we’ve come to this point, part of the Left’s victory in the 1960s and 1970s to “fundamentally transform America.”

  101. @Steve Sailer
    @JimDandy

    Right. It's hard to stop a really determined kamikaze.

    Replies: @Wizard of Oz

    This Australian in a big city which didn’t suffer a lot of violent crime even before the big compensatory buy up after the Port Arthur massacre about 25 years ago is puzzled by American politicians’ failures to do the obvious

    1. Limit access as far as possible under the Constitution to the most lethal weapons

    2. Go as far as possible in preventing the young, the already crimina, and the mentally unstable from acquiring firearms

    3. Penalise both as a crime and by huge liability to damages anyone whose negligence makes it possible for others to get hold of their firearms

    4. [This is my innovation so pay attention😇]. Allow frisking for concealed guns and knives by electronic means. Nobody could persuade me that a police person couldn’t wear a scanning device so that a well designed AI program could result in the reporting of any object within two metres which had a probability of at least 30 per cent of being a weapon. The police person hears a telltale beep, presses a button and then hears “3 feet to your Right at height 3 feet”.

    • LOL: JimDandy
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Wizard of Oz

    Blue areas pretty much already do this, to no effect. Guns are already restricted in these areas beyond what is permitted by the Constitution. The result is massacre. Australia has had several mass shootings since the Port Arthur operation. The problem is diversity, not technology or law.

    Replies: @Wizard of Oz

    , @That Would Be Telling
    @Wizard of Oz


    This Australian ... is puzzled by American politicians’ failures to do the obvious
     
    Well, your problem starts right with your second word, you're not an American. Different peoples in the countries, different histories including your indigenous folk being an infamous example of a people who decivilized after they killed all the megafauna except for kangaroos. Ours were dangerous, see "The American Indian foundation of American gun culture." You hear about the Salem Witch Trials, hardly a unique phenomena but one used by the usual suspects to harm us? The population in which it happened had been traumatized by being on the losing end of one battle/war with our Indians, as I recall forced out of lands to their north/northeast (Maine).

    Your constitution isn't hardly as limiting on your ruling trash as ours, you for example have a Westminster parliamentary system where the winning party or coalition gains a monopoly of executive and legislative power for the duration of their reign. We are "crazier than a shithouse rat" and they know it, so here sufficient abrogation of the Second Amendment would simply result in a civil war our ruling trash would not win. We'd kill them, at retail by hunting them, but if necessary at wholesale by killing the exquisitely fragile cities they live in.

    So not being individually brave as a rule, they follow the "discretion is the better part of valor" principle, no matter how palpably they want to take our guns and that's both parties at the national level. Some of the worst say they'll nuke us if we refuse to hand them in, but that's not on the table for the foreseeable future and would have its own host of consequences if attempted or done.

    In all these Civil War 2.0 scenarios it doesn't work to make war on your own logistics base, they'd lose almost everything they currently have. At this point for those who can see what's happening with the war on fossil fuels and Belarus and Russian and the impacts that is having on fertilizer and food production it should be clear they'd simply starve to death. Well, I suppose they could continue their banditry by threatening non-nuclear nations like Brazil to give us their food, but I doubt that would really work or work for very long.

    Allow frisking for concealed guns and knives by electronic means.
     
    Again, you're not an American, although plenty of those in their big Blue bubbles don't grok how decisively they've lost this one cultural war battle. We've got 50 states out of which 42-3 have "Shall Issue" or better concealed carry regimes covering ~72% of the population prior to the COVID then BLM exodus from big Blue cities. That means unless you're a criminal the authorities must issue you a license, even in many Blue states.

    But it gets worse! And here the political lay of the land should be clear, next month two more states will be "Constitutional Carry," no license required, for a total of 24/50, and the 25th will be on 1/1/23. So for most of the nation this technology would be useless without also IDing and quickly searching databases since legally carrying a gun is generally legal. And our databases for this sort of thing aren't in great shape; some states even refuse to share mental health records with our national "instant check" system for over the counter gun sales, which in my experience takes enough time the suspect will likely have left the immediate vicinity. Sharing of concealed carry license databases is also iffy due to past abuses.

    I'm not about to tell you to stick to your own country and ignore the USA if for no other reason because our ruling trash are increasingly wielding wrecking balls of for example global famine intensity, but hopefully this will fill you in on some details about our country and how very much not like your's it is.

    Replies: @Wizard of Oz

    , @Stealth
    @Wizard of Oz

    Your country treats its own citizens as prisoners. If I were you, that would concern me far more than gun laws in a country on the other side of the world.

    Replies: @Wizard of Oz

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Wizard of Oz


    Limit access as far as possible under the Constitution to the most lethal weapons
     
    Automatics are severely restricted, with no new licenses issued in almost 40 years. Surface-to-air missiles, nuclear devices, well, no need to ask.

    Flamethrowers are legal in 48 or 49 states, yet flamethrown felonies are rare. Even those apocryphal church burnings haven't been blamed on them.


    Go as far as possible in preventing the young, the already crimina, and the mentally unstable from acquiring firearms
     
    Again, these statutes are already on the books. The mentally unstable shouldn't be operating motor vehicles or casting votes, either.

    Penalise both as a crime and by huge liability to damages anyone whose negligence makes it possible for others to get hold of their firearms
     
    Again, these are already in place. The issue is whether they are in use.

    You neglect the most serious issue of all-- gun control advocates in the US are almost to a man dishonest.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Jonathan Mason, @InnerCynic

    , @Dr. X
    @Wizard of Oz


    This Australian in a big city
     
    Yep, the "big city" Australians in places like Sydney with queers parading down the street decided that they were going to ban people living on 5,000 acre ranches in the outback of Queensland where there isn't another human being as far as the eye can see from having guns.

    Real tolerant and diverse of you, being so considerate of how other people live their lives.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  102. TWS says:
    @kahein
    yeah i can see this the consensus latest nativist neurotic tic over hot 2nd grader blood in the classroom -- to conflate these various types of shootings that have literally nothing do with each other

    what to do ramos and gendron have to do with innercity terroritorial-beef bangers or nightclub disrespeck spray-shooters? yeah, that's right, nothing

    what do impulsive incel-uprising spectrumites like ramos and gendron have to do with patient, methodical, slaughter engineers like paddock -- very little, if that

    it would be glancingly easy to severely limit the kind of mass killings we've seen in the last two weeks, through simple restrictions -- extended waiting periods, raising of minimum purchase age, various forms of orientation/mandatory classes and of course medical/psych evals; how about sponsorship for 1st-time buyers as well?

    but nooooo this would impinge on bubba's right to play soldier in the mud in his backyard with one of his 25 military-issue "long guns" and we can't have that can we? heaven forbid some fatass's self-defense / yoke-of-tyranny fantasy is impinged upon

    and if there are a lot of guns already in circulation, so what? some incel like gendron couldn't come close to acquiring one if it actually entailed a trip into the underworld. and laws can easily be passed making family/friend purveyors accessories to the crime

    ofc i understand none of this will happen and we'll all continue to play these, as long as whitey has a natsoc complex

    Replies: @For what it's worth, @Reg Cæsar, @Elli, @Travis, @Pop Warner, @TWS, @AnotherDad

    I get it. You want to take away guns. Especially guns you don’t like. Here you’ll protest you just want common sense measures. You showed up a short time ago to push certain issues your focus is narrow. Push the current thing along the party line. You’re a shill and not a good one.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @kahein
    @TWS

    i don't give a shit about your guns. i have a big problem that because people like you want to roll around in the mud in the ravine behind your hovel playing intrepid delta killmaster, or fantasize about killing blacks, or whatever you do while waiting for the first of the month, and don't want any simple, common-sense hindrances to your fun -- that real killers can get rifles easypeasy and drown 2nd graders in their own blood

    and yeah, obvs you lack the humanity or intelligence to understand this pov. you ofc know what you can do next (although in reality, you'll probably just buy another pair of tac sunglasses)

    Replies: @TWS

  103. @Dr. X
    @For what it's worth


    So you’re in favor of legalizing fully automatic rifles, land mines, tanks, ICBMs, tactical nukes, etc., right?
     
    Mostly, yes.

    The comparison with tanks and ICBMs is facile and stupid. The Second Amendment grants the right to "keep and bear arms" so it's pretty clear that it refers to arms that can be borne by typical infantrymen.

    Full-automatic machine guns, dynamite, short-barreled shotguns, blasting caps, detcord, all of that stuff was perfectly legal prior to 1934, when you could order a Thompson submachine gun through the mail from Sears, Roebuck and buy dynamite at the local hardware store. Back when we actually lived in a FREE country.

    And mass shootings of schoolchildren were basically nonexistent, because the country was almost monoracial, the people were more self-reliant, more sane, and more God-fearing.

    Replies: @For what it's worth, @For what it's worth, @That Would Be Telling, @That Would Be Telling

    Offhand, my guess would be that more domestic murders are facilitated by a spur of the moment gun purchase.

    You likely have the data at your fingertips to check the following proposition, but this is generally thought to not be true because many if not most domestic murders get to the point of homicide after gun stores are closed for the day. If so, the “moment” would have to last many hours, which I’ll stipulate does happen. Also would probably want to factor in the influence of alcohol.

  104. @kahein
    yeah i can see this the consensus latest nativist neurotic tic over hot 2nd grader blood in the classroom -- to conflate these various types of shootings that have literally nothing do with each other

    what to do ramos and gendron have to do with innercity terroritorial-beef bangers or nightclub disrespeck spray-shooters? yeah, that's right, nothing

    what do impulsive incel-uprising spectrumites like ramos and gendron have to do with patient, methodical, slaughter engineers like paddock -- very little, if that

    it would be glancingly easy to severely limit the kind of mass killings we've seen in the last two weeks, through simple restrictions -- extended waiting periods, raising of minimum purchase age, various forms of orientation/mandatory classes and of course medical/psych evals; how about sponsorship for 1st-time buyers as well?

    but nooooo this would impinge on bubba's right to play soldier in the mud in his backyard with one of his 25 military-issue "long guns" and we can't have that can we? heaven forbid some fatass's self-defense / yoke-of-tyranny fantasy is impinged upon

    and if there are a lot of guns already in circulation, so what? some incel like gendron couldn't come close to acquiring one if it actually entailed a trip into the underworld. and laws can easily be passed making family/friend purveyors accessories to the crime

    ofc i understand none of this will happen and we'll all continue to play these, as long as whitey has a natsoc complex

    Replies: @For what it's worth, @Reg Cæsar, @Elli, @Travis, @Pop Warner, @TWS, @AnotherDad

    yeah i can see this the consensus latest nativist neurotic tic over hot 2nd grader blood in the classroom —

    Comments are often little windows into psychological makeup–i.e. “tics”.

    “Nativist” is a epithet for people who like the national community and culture they and their ancestors built and want to protect and preserve it for themselves and their kids. Normal, healthy human behavior.

    “Nativist” is essentially the scaled up version of “homeowner”. Similar related words would be “steward”, “citizen”, “normie” and … “owner”.

    Who exactly would have a problem with people who like their stuff and want to keep it? (I sure don’t.) The question answers itself. The plain speaking synonyms for people who throw around “nativist” as an epithet are–“invader”, “criminal”, “thief”, “rapist” and the solid catch all “parasite”.

    “Nativist” is basically the epithet that parasites have for normal humans with a healthy immune response.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri, Wj
    • Replies: @kahein
    @AnotherDad

    "another dad" is an epithet for '48er germanic backwash that have turned the soft middle of the country in an endless dystopic stripmall hellscape (where, alas, they feel right at home)

    Replies: @Hibernian

  105. @Wizard of Oz
    @Steve Sailer

    This Australian in a big city which didn't suffer a lot of violent crime even before the big compensatory buy up after the Port Arthur massacre about 25 years ago is puzzled by American politicians' failures to do the obvious

    1. Limit access as far as possible under the Constitution to the most lethal weapons

    2. Go as far as possible in preventing the young, the already crimina, and the mentally unstable from acquiring firearms

    3. Penalise both as a crime and by huge liability to damages anyone whose negligence makes it possible for others to get hold of their firearms

    4. [This is my innovation so pay attention😇]. Allow frisking for concealed guns and knives by electronic means. Nobody could persuade me that a police person couldn't wear a scanning device so that a well designed AI program could result in the reporting of any object within two metres which had a probability of at least 30 per cent of being a weapon. The police person hears a telltale beep, presses a button and then hears "3 feet to your Right at height 3 feet".

    Replies: @J.Ross, @That Would Be Telling, @Stealth, @Reg Cæsar, @Dr. X

    Blue areas pretty much already do this, to no effect. Guns are already restricted in these areas beyond what is permitted by the Constitution. The result is massacre. Australia has had several mass shootings since the Port Arthur operation. The problem is diversity, not technology or law.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    @J.Ross

    I'm afraid it would take 60+ years to achieve radical change in the US but I think you are wrong about Australia having had "several mass shootings since the Port Athur [one]". And Google hasn't helped.

  106. I sense Republican commitment to resisting gun control beginning to buckle. It’s a shame, too, because once the ball gets rolling, it will be no time before we’re facing a de facto ban on the private ownership of firearms. After every mass shooting, the same thing happens: the Democrats first call for universal background checks and waiting periods, but within two days they take off the masks and demand that we follow Australia’s lead. Every time.

    I think we would already have sensible policies in place if that’s what the Democrats actually wanted, but they don’t. Why stop at quarter-measures, right? The Democrats don’t believe that ordinary people should be able to outright own guns of any kind, and they certainly don’t think someone should be able to use one for self-defense, so why shouldn’t their proposals reflect that? “Common sense,” in this context, means something entirely different to them. In their desired, more perfect, world, most types of guns, including mundane long guns like pump-action shotguns, would be banned entirely. As for the remainder, the government would essentially be co-owner. You might be able to get a bolt-action .223 if you fill out a mountain of paperwork, go to a training course, and present a very compelling reason for why the authorities should allow you to keep it in your home.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Stealth

    A good solution would be to leave the Second Amendment intact as it is obviously very popular, but at the same time make manufacturers and importers and retailers of firearms and ammunition 100% liable and responsible for the use of their products, and to make it possible for their executives and board members to be held personally criminally responsible for any misuse of their products.

    Thus without the government interfering, such persons would know that they were putting their own livelihoods and lives at risk if they sold weapons and/or ammunition to irresponsible users.

    It would thus be the responsibility of each community to determine whether a member was safe to have firearms and ammunition. Perhaps for example, at the gun dealer would require written references from three responsible persons known to the gun dealer before they would release a weapon to a first-time buyer.

    Also perhaps the methodology used in Texas that allows individuals to sue abortion providers could be adapted to allow individuals to sue providers of murder weapons.

    Replies: @Stealth

  107. @Wizard of Oz
    @Steve Sailer

    This Australian in a big city which didn't suffer a lot of violent crime even before the big compensatory buy up after the Port Arthur massacre about 25 years ago is puzzled by American politicians' failures to do the obvious

    1. Limit access as far as possible under the Constitution to the most lethal weapons

    2. Go as far as possible in preventing the young, the already crimina, and the mentally unstable from acquiring firearms

    3. Penalise both as a crime and by huge liability to damages anyone whose negligence makes it possible for others to get hold of their firearms

    4. [This is my innovation so pay attention😇]. Allow frisking for concealed guns and knives by electronic means. Nobody could persuade me that a police person couldn't wear a scanning device so that a well designed AI program could result in the reporting of any object within two metres which had a probability of at least 30 per cent of being a weapon. The police person hears a telltale beep, presses a button and then hears "3 feet to your Right at height 3 feet".

    Replies: @J.Ross, @That Would Be Telling, @Stealth, @Reg Cæsar, @Dr. X

    This Australian … is puzzled by American politicians’ failures to do the obvious

    Well, your problem starts right with your second word, you’re not an American. Different peoples in the countries, different histories including your indigenous folk being an infamous example of a people who decivilized after they killed all the megafauna except for kangaroos. Ours were dangerous, see “The American Indian foundation of American gun culture.” You hear about the Salem Witch Trials, hardly a unique phenomena but one used by the usual suspects to harm us? The population in which it happened had been traumatized by being on the losing end of one battle/war with our Indians, as I recall forced out of lands to their north/northeast (Maine).

    Your constitution isn’t hardly as limiting on your ruling trash as ours, you for example have a Westminster parliamentary system where the winning party or coalition gains a monopoly of executive and legislative power for the duration of their reign. We are “crazier than a shithouse rat” and they know it, so here sufficient abrogation of the Second Amendment would simply result in a civil war our ruling trash would not win. We’d kill them, at retail by hunting them, but if necessary at wholesale by killing the exquisitely fragile cities they live in.

    So not being individually brave as a rule, they follow the “discretion is the better part of valor” principle, no matter how palpably they want to take our guns and that’s both parties at the national level. Some of the worst say they’ll nuke us if we refuse to hand them in, but that’s not on the table for the foreseeable future and would have its own host of consequences if attempted or done.

    In all these Civil War 2.0 scenarios it doesn’t work to make war on your own logistics base, they’d lose almost everything they currently have. At this point for those who can see what’s happening with the war on fossil fuels and Belarus and Russian and the impacts that is having on fertilizer and food production it should be clear they’d simply starve to death. Well, I suppose they could continue their banditry by threatening non-nuclear nations like Brazil to give us their food, but I doubt that would really work or work for very long.

    Allow frisking for concealed guns and knives by electronic means.

    Again, you’re not an American, although plenty of those in their big Blue bubbles don’t grok how decisively they’ve lost this one cultural war battle. We’ve got 50 states out of which 42-3 have “Shall Issue” or better concealed carry regimes covering ~72% of the population prior to the COVID then BLM exodus from big Blue cities. That means unless you’re a criminal the authorities must issue you a license, even in many Blue states.

    But it gets worse! And here the political lay of the land should be clear, next month two more states will be “Constitutional Carry,” no license required, for a total of 24/50, and the 25th will be on 1/1/23. So for most of the nation this technology would be useless without also IDing and quickly searching databases since legally carrying a gun is generally legal. And our databases for this sort of thing aren’t in great shape; some states even refuse to share mental health records with our national “instant check” system for over the counter gun sales, which in my experience takes enough time the suspect will likely have left the immediate vicinity. Sharing of concealed carry license databases is also iffy due to past abuses.

    I’m not about to tell you to stick to your own country and ignore the USA if for no other reason because our ruling trash are increasingly wielding wrecking balls of for example global famine intensity, but hopefully this will fill you in on some details about our country and how very much not like your’s it is.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    @That Would Be Telling

    Thanks for a lot of interesting detail. Harking back to battles with native Americans makes sense and adds to my belief that nothing will be done which makes much difference. A well informed commentator in the US said about 12 hours ago in a long interview on ABC RN Between the Lines that there were reasons why Republicans would block any change however reasonable it might seem.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

  108. @Steve Sailer
    @Prof. Woland

    Weren't guns known as The Equalizer?

    Replies: @Corn, @stari_momak, @Corvinus

    “Weren’t guns known as The Equalizer?”

    Only if the police who are trained use them.

    Question–Why didn’t the white Texas moms and dads go into the school with their vast array of weaponry take out the deranged killer who was barricaded when the police stood there for 79 minutes? I mean, they pose for Christmas pictures and write on blogs on how they hold Kyle Rittenhouse in such high esteem. They had every liberty to go in and save their children from an absolute monster.

    • Agree: Jonathan Mason
  109. Rob says:
    @Hypnotoad666
    @Rob


    I think eighteen is way too young to let people buy guns. Twenty-one?
     
    Not necessarily an unreasonable view. But it's a tough sell as long as the draft age is 18: "Yeah, we can make you carry our assault rifle and kill our enemies, but you obviously aren't mature enough to carry your own assault rifle."

    Relatedly, I used to think the draft was a moot point because any modern war would be all drones and bots and high tech, and would be over before any call up could have a point. But Ukraine's WWI-style trench war has shown that there may still be a market for 18 year-old cannon fodder.

    Replies: @houston 1992, @Rob

    Yes, that is a good argument, but let’s look at how the military handles actually giving people guns. IIRC, the only people who carry guns on a daily basis on an army base are military police. I don’t know the details, but it seems obvious that the military either realized or were dumb enough that they had to discover, that 18-year-olds all carrying assault rifles all the time led to lots of people getting shot.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Rob


    let’s look at how the military handles actually giving people guns
     
    The problem here is that post-WWII officer advancement has become a zero tolerance process. A negligent discharge by a sentry will end an officer's career, so they're at best allowed to keep a loaded magazine out of their rifle in a pouch or pocket. Gate guards are sometimes another matter and I assume are generally MPs.

    An extreme example of this in many ways was the Beirut Marine barracks bombing. The guys running the show were so terrified that the gate guards might accidentally fire a round in the direction of the nearby airport they had no heavy weapons, and by the time they'd inserted their magazines and charged their rifles the truck was half-buried in the building and they could only take cover.

    (This per Command of the Seas by Reagan's Secretary of the Navy at the time, who was an A-6 bombardier/navigators A sometimes funny and generally very informative book, like about how the followup to the bombing was so screwed up and Libya wasn't. Perhaps the most important was reforming ship procurement so the Congress would believe it was even worth trying to spend the money to create a "600 ship navy." Seeing as how the Navy regularly messes that up, from WWII torpedoes to too many ship types today....)

    So after 9/11 we were told this was SOP at the time and remained so afterwords. That is, if a base was attacked the commander would all but certainly have his career ended, so purely from his viewpoint it was safer not to really be ready for one.

    Replies: @Rob

  110. @Intelligent Dasein
    @aNewBanner

    I was about to say this as well, so thank you for mentioning it. It's really a distraction to talk about gun control at all when the only real issue here is the utter incompetence and cowardice of the cops. It's time to defund the legacy police force and start over again.

    But to just to riff on the point, I would like to mention that the full spectrum failure which the greater West seems to be suffering across every dimension of society is not occurring in multiple, random ways. Each one of these failures shares the same Platonic form, which we can note by looking at a few examples:

    • At the beginning of the Covid debacle, it was announced to everyone that hospitals would curtail their normal treatment protocols and that restrictions would be placed on individual freedoms in order to flatten the curve, because it was necessary to "save the healthcare system."

    • At the recent school shooting currently under discussion, the police refused to confront the shooter because they were afraid that they might get hurt. Instead, they tackled parents who were trying to save their own children.

    • The banking system was bailed out after the Great Financial Crisis and QE was instituted, which caused vast amounts of debt belonging to basically insolvent governments to trade at negative interest rates.

    • The war in Ukraine, which Russia is quite handily winning, and which Russia had perfectly good reasons for prosecuting, is being portrayed in the Western media as a wantonly aggressive act by Russia, which is also suffering embarrassing losses. The sanctions levelled against Russia have only strengthened the Russian economy and harmed the West.

    In each one of these cases what we are witnessing is the abdication of the institutions of society, who are now forcing ordinary citizens to bear the cost of their failure while also insisting, contrary to evidence, upon their own legitimacy and right to govern. We see, in other words, the failure and desperation of the elites who are determined only to cling to power but have no idea what to do with it.

    Replies: @aNewBanner, @That Would Be Telling, @Ganderson

    At the beginning of the Covid debacle, it was announced to everyone that hospitals would curtail their normal treatment protocols and that restrictions would be placed on individual freedoms in order to flatten the curve, because it was necessary to “save the healthcare system.”

    Without PRC levels of social control, plus a quarantine regime in the face of two of the longest land borders in the world and huge coastlines as well, this is not an axiomatic failure of “the institutions of society.” And as we can see in the PRC today is even more expensive than the path we took absent an effectively vaccinated population (one PRC vaccine is bad, don’t know about the other, and the people rightly distrust them).

    Continuing on that theme you’re not factoring in “vaccine hesitancy.” Justified or not, without forcing people to take the effective vaccines we developed, which absolutely do maim and kill some people, there would be no end to that as we’re seeing in the PRC as Xi stubbornly sticks to his Zero COVID policy.

    So in the US context, prior to Omicron (except for a few places??? Did any get overwhelmed?), it was imperative to “bend the curve” and keep it bent (which does not say anything about how to do that). I live in a part of deep Red state flyover country where due to very high levels of vaccine hesitancy our hospital capacity was exceeded for 150 miles in all directions during a Delta wave and we needlessly lost people to this.

    OK, I suppose we could say “you refused to take the vaccine without a legit reason?” “No healthcare for you,” but again “that’s not who we are,” a concept very much in play in our battle with gun-grabbers.

    • Replies: @Gabe Ruth
    @That Would Be Telling

    Thank you for sticking to your act through thick and thin, truly an inspiration for those aspiring to ideological purity.

    What does the science say right now about the vaccines for a person who was bravely waiting till every POC was able to get the jab before using up a pair of shots on his own worthless white life? Am I still a threat to society if I don’t see the point?

  111. @Dr. X

    Lots of Democrats are talking right now about “common sense gun control,” but they tend not to be trusted because of their tendency to use each incremental change as a launching pad for another one, with the ultimate goal of shutting down all legal hunting and gun culture in the U.S.
     
    Precisely.

    The entire "debate" (it really isn't) about so-called "assault rifles" and AR-15s is a straw man. Democrats want to ban them not because of mass shootings, but because they are potentially the most effective weapon against government troops and militarized cops. And when you literally had troops and armed checkpoints in the streets of Washington, D.C., that's something they are mighty concerned about.

    If the Gun Control Fairy could wave a magic wand and make all AR-15s disappear tomorrow, mass shootings would still continue indefinitely. Shooters would just use pistols or pump-action shotguns instead. Hell, you could take a brace of single-action revolvers and a lever-action rifle manufactured in 1875 and still manage to shoot 17 or 18 people without reloading if you were so inclined. You could shoot 20 people with a British .303 Enfield bolt-action manufactured in 1914 and only reload once... which would take about 2-3 seconds. The infamous University of Texas bell tower shooter in 1966 barricaded himself in a high vantage point and used a scoped bolt-action hunting rifle with a four-round capacity to snipe people hundreds of yards away. Martin Luther King was shot from 300 yards with a -- get ready for this -- Remington Gamemaster.

    There is no middle ground of "reasonable" gun control. You either have a right to own guns, or you don't. If you are limited to the type of guns that the government allows you to have and the government determines if you shall or shall not have one at all, it is not a right but a privilege, and the Democrats cannot be trusted to exercise such power in good faith.

    Even in countries where ownership of guns is a licensed privilege and not a right, there have been mass shootings. It really pisses me off to hear these people repeat ad nauseum that "the U.S. is the only country in the world where this happens." Haven't they heard of Bataclan, Beslan, Anders Brevik, Mumbai, Luxor, Hanau, Christchurch, Quebec City, Nova Scotia or École Polytechnique? Of course they have, but they don't care -- they're demagogues, not reasonable people. None of the stringent gun laws in those countries stopped any of it. The only places where there are no mass shootings are countries like Japan, which is a monoracial island with literally no guns.

    It's all so tiresome.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @For what it's worth, @For what it's worth, @Prof. Woland, @John Johnson

    If the Gun Control Fairy could wave a magic wand and make all AR-15s disappear tomorrow, mass shootings would still continue indefinitely. Shooters would just use pistols or pump-action shotguns instead.

    Yes but a major problem is that the left will never give the guns back.

    If shooters switch to pumps then that will be the next assault weapon. They won’t give the AR-15s back.

    No one needs an 8 round magazine for duck hunting. That is what they will say.

    We have to get gun violence rates down if we want to keep our guns. If not they will eventually get a majority and ban everything but single shot hunting rifles.

    The left actually needs these types of mass shootings. They won’t get bans by being honest about gun crime.

    The Republican strategy of being against all new laws will fail in the long term. We saw this in NY and CA. It makes more sense to support some purchasing limitations in exchange for securing long term rights while they are still at the table. The Democrat plan to overwhelm Republicans through demographic changes from immigration is a valid strategy. The Republican counter-strategy of waving flags and giving lofty speeches about the 2A is doomed to fail.

    • Replies: @Corn
    @John Johnson


    It makes more sense to support some purchasing limitations
     
    Which limitations would you support?
    , @Stealth
    @John Johnson


    If shooters switch to pumps then that will be the next assault weapon. They won’t give the AR-15s back.
     
    People need to understand that. Before semi-auto assault rifles became popular, the emphasis was on Saturday night specials and sawed off shotguns. We'll go right back to that after assault rifles are banned.

    The goalposts will move until the Democrats consider all guns unsafe to own.
  112. @Wizard of Oz
    @Steve Sailer

    This Australian in a big city which didn't suffer a lot of violent crime even before the big compensatory buy up after the Port Arthur massacre about 25 years ago is puzzled by American politicians' failures to do the obvious

    1. Limit access as far as possible under the Constitution to the most lethal weapons

    2. Go as far as possible in preventing the young, the already crimina, and the mentally unstable from acquiring firearms

    3. Penalise both as a crime and by huge liability to damages anyone whose negligence makes it possible for others to get hold of their firearms

    4. [This is my innovation so pay attention😇]. Allow frisking for concealed guns and knives by electronic means. Nobody could persuade me that a police person couldn't wear a scanning device so that a well designed AI program could result in the reporting of any object within two metres which had a probability of at least 30 per cent of being a weapon. The police person hears a telltale beep, presses a button and then hears "3 feet to your Right at height 3 feet".

    Replies: @J.Ross, @That Would Be Telling, @Stealth, @Reg Cæsar, @Dr. X

    Your country treats its own citizens as prisoners. If I were you, that would concern me far more than gun laws in a country on the other side of the world.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    @Stealth

    Are you are thinking of our long past lockdowns? You may be misinformed though there do seem to have been some pretty harsh restrictions unlawfully imposed on some non citizens in public housing a couple if years ago. I have never, unlike my counterparts in Shanghai, been prevented from getting out for an hour's exercise or for shopping, even un Melbourne. And that's only during experimental adaptation to an unprecedented pandemic which has been managed so as to kill only a few old and already very ill prople while America has reached the point of allowing the greatest cause of death for children to be gun crime. (That's what I read and is certainly near enough to the truth to be a critical consideration).

    What is more I have family in and out of the US, including at university in NY, so often that I am rationally more worried about there welfare than anything temporarily on my doorstep.

  113. @Steve Sailer
    @Prof. Woland

    The samurai considered guns to be unfair because it gave weak peasants a fighting chance against well-fed samurai.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Corvinus, @That Would Be Telling

    The samurai considered guns to be unfair because it gave weak peasants a fighting chance against well-fed samurai.

    That didn’t stop them from buying or making more guns per capita than any other nation at the time, and using them on each other before the Tokugawa shogunate….

  114. @John Johnson
    @Dr. X

    If the Gun Control Fairy could wave a magic wand and make all AR-15s disappear tomorrow, mass shootings would still continue indefinitely. Shooters would just use pistols or pump-action shotguns instead.

    Yes but a major problem is that the left will never give the guns back.

    If shooters switch to pumps then that will be the next assault weapon. They won't give the AR-15s back.

    No one needs an 8 round magazine for duck hunting. That is what they will say.

    We have to get gun violence rates down if we want to keep our guns. If not they will eventually get a majority and ban everything but single shot hunting rifles.

    The left actually needs these types of mass shootings. They won't get bans by being honest about gun crime.

    The Republican strategy of being against all new laws will fail in the long term. We saw this in NY and CA. It makes more sense to support some purchasing limitations in exchange for securing long term rights while they are still at the table. The Democrat plan to overwhelm Republicans through demographic changes from immigration is a valid strategy. The Republican counter-strategy of waving flags and giving lofty speeches about the 2A is doomed to fail.

    Replies: @Corn, @Stealth

    It makes more sense to support some purchasing limitations

    Which limitations would you support?

  115. @Wizard of Oz
    @Steve Sailer

    This Australian in a big city which didn't suffer a lot of violent crime even before the big compensatory buy up after the Port Arthur massacre about 25 years ago is puzzled by American politicians' failures to do the obvious

    1. Limit access as far as possible under the Constitution to the most lethal weapons

    2. Go as far as possible in preventing the young, the already crimina, and the mentally unstable from acquiring firearms

    3. Penalise both as a crime and by huge liability to damages anyone whose negligence makes it possible for others to get hold of their firearms

    4. [This is my innovation so pay attention😇]. Allow frisking for concealed guns and knives by electronic means. Nobody could persuade me that a police person couldn't wear a scanning device so that a well designed AI program could result in the reporting of any object within two metres which had a probability of at least 30 per cent of being a weapon. The police person hears a telltale beep, presses a button and then hears "3 feet to your Right at height 3 feet".

    Replies: @J.Ross, @That Would Be Telling, @Stealth, @Reg Cæsar, @Dr. X

    Limit access as far as possible under the Constitution to the most lethal weapons

    Automatics are severely restricted, with no new licenses issued in almost 40 years. Surface-to-air missiles, nuclear devices, well, no need to ask.

    Flamethrowers are legal in 48 or 49 states, yet flamethrown felonies are rare. Even those apocryphal church burnings haven’t been blamed on them.

    Go as far as possible in preventing the young, the already crimina, and the mentally unstable from acquiring firearms

    Again, these statutes are already on the books. The mentally unstable shouldn’t be operating motor vehicles or casting votes, either.

    Penalise both as a crime and by huge liability to damages anyone whose negligence makes it possible for others to get hold of their firearms

    Again, these are already in place. The issue is whether they are in use.

    You neglect the most serious issue of all– gun control advocates in the US are almost to a man dishonest.

    • Thanks: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Reg Cæsar


    Automatics are severely restricted, with no new licenses issued in almost 40 years.
     
    No new machine guns allowed to be bought by civilians since 1986, but sales of the existing at the time 250-300K (the ATF doesn't really know (of course)) are still very much allowed.


    Go as far as possible in preventing the young, the already crimina, and the mentally unstable from acquiring firearms
     
    Again, these statutes are already on the books. The mentally unstable shouldn’t be operating motor vehicles or casting votes, either.
     
    Not as such for the former. One has to be judged† to be "mentally defective" or committed for more than the standard 72 hour hold period. Forced outpatient treatment also qualifies, Virginia totally screwed that up WRT to the Virginia Tech mass shooting.

    You neglect the most serious issue of all– gun control advocates in the US are almost to a man dishonest.
     
    And here we get to an atrocity started by Clinton who liked to use it but otherwise profoundly loathed the military. Any hint someone had PTSD resulted in their being reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which I don't think technically took their RKBA away, there's always person to person sales in most states but who wants to be a test case? Later this as been extended to anyone who ever has someone take care of their financial affairs, including while they're recuperating from war wounds.

    There's absolutely no good faith on the gun grabbing side and being ignorant about this is not an excuse, and thus all the people crying for some "grand bargain" that would put the issue to rest are, well, mentally defective.
    , @Jonathan Mason
    @Reg Cæsar


    You neglect the most serious issue of all– gun control advocates in the US are almost to a man dishonest.
     
    Probably so, but then again those who promote guns are equally dishonest. For example the NRA is not really transparent about receiving funding from the gun manufacturing industry, and politicians of both sides lack transparency about who is financing their pro-gun or anti-gun advocacy.

    You always have to follow the money. Ted Cruz is now saying that every school should have armed guards and only one entrance, but who would benefit financially from this?

    Look at the TSA for example. While the organization exists ostensibly to prevent hijackers from getting on planes with knives, guns, and explosives, the delayed time spent in airports before and between flights is incredibly beneficial to the overpriced restaurant services when travelers are not even allowed to carry a bottle of water or a sandwich.

    I noticed this on a recent flight when I had a long changeover. Even if you were prepared to spend an unlimited amount of money there was simply no decent food available presumably because the restaurants knew that they could charge the earth for total garbage and get away with it. Anyone who protested would quickly be taken away by the goons.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @John Johnson

    , @InnerCynic
    @Reg Cæsar


    You neglect the most serious issue of all– gun control advocates in the US are almost to a man dishonest.
     
    Amen to that!
  116. @AnotherDad
    @kahein


    yeah i can see this the consensus latest nativist neurotic tic over hot 2nd grader blood in the classroom —
     
    Comments are often little windows into psychological makeup--i.e. "tics".

    "Nativist" is a epithet for people who like the national community and culture they and their ancestors built and want to protect and preserve it for themselves and their kids. Normal, healthy human behavior.

    "Nativist" is essentially the scaled up version of "homeowner". Similar related words would be "steward", "citizen", "normie" and ... "owner".

    Who exactly would have a problem with people who like their stuff and want to keep it? (I sure don't.) The question answers itself. The plain speaking synonyms for people who throw around "nativist" as an epithet are--"invader", "criminal", "thief", "rapist" and the solid catch all "parasite".

    "Nativist" is basically the epithet that parasites have for normal humans with a healthy immune response.

    Replies: @kahein

    “another dad” is an epithet for ’48er germanic backwash that have turned the soft middle of the country in an endless dystopic stripmall hellscape (where, alas, they feel right at home)

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @kahein

    The Midwest is historically the most peace loving part of our country.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

  117. @MEH 0910
    @Ebony Obelisk


    3. Take away they dgubs of white men and things will fall into place.
     
    Take the Money and Run - I Have a Gub, Apt Natural
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VdMdboymT8

    Replies: @Paul Jolliffe, @Ganderson

    You beat me to it – great clip!

  118. @TWS
    @kahein

    I get it. You want to take away guns. Especially guns you don't like. Here you'll protest you just want common sense measures. You showed up a short time ago to push certain issues your focus is narrow. Push the current thing along the party line. You're a shill and not a good one.

    Replies: @kahein

    i don’t give a shit about your guns. i have a big problem that because people like you want to roll around in the mud in the ravine behind your hovel playing intrepid delta killmaster, or fantasize about killing blacks, or whatever you do while waiting for the first of the month, and don’t want any simple, common-sense hindrances to your fun — that real killers can get rifles easypeasy and drown 2nd graders in their own blood

    and yeah, obvs you lack the humanity or intelligence to understand this pov. you ofc know what you can do next (although in reality, you’ll probably just buy another pair of tac sunglasses)

    • Replies: @TWS
    @kahein

    Glad you're so reasonable about this. Certainly, your opinion about firearms seems much more persuasive now.

    How do you scream, "Give me your guns, bigots!" without writing actually writing that? Well done.

  119. @Rob
    @Hypnotoad666

    Yes, that is a good argument, but let’s look at how the military handles actually giving people guns. IIRC, the only people who carry guns on a daily basis on an army base are military police. I don’t know the details, but it seems obvious that the military either realized or were dumb enough that they had to discover, that 18-year-olds all carrying assault rifles all the time led to lots of people getting shot.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    let’s look at how the military handles actually giving people guns

    The problem here is that post-WWII officer advancement has become a zero tolerance process. A negligent discharge by a sentry will end an officer’s career, so they’re at best allowed to keep a loaded magazine out of their rifle in a pouch or pocket. Gate guards are sometimes another matter and I assume are generally MPs.

    An extreme example of this in many ways was the Beirut Marine barracks bombing. The guys running the show were so terrified that the gate guards might accidentally fire a round in the direction of the nearby airport they had no heavy weapons, and by the time they’d inserted their magazines and charged their rifles the truck was half-buried in the building and they could only take cover.

    (This per Command of the Seas by Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy at the time, who was an A-6 bombardier/navigators A sometimes funny and generally very informative book, like about how the followup to the bombing was so screwed up and Libya wasn’t. Perhaps the most important was reforming ship procurement so the Congress would believe it was even worth trying to spend the money to create a “600 ship navy.” Seeing as how the Navy regularly messes that up, from WWII torpedoes to too many ship types today….)

    So after 9/11 we were told this was SOP at the time and remained so afterwords. That is, if a base was attacked the commander would all but certainly have his career ended, so purely from his viewpoint it was safer not to really be ready for one.

    • Replies: @Rob
    @That Would Be Telling

    I don’t know much about the military. My uncle (by marriage) was a conductor of Air Force bands, so he was pretty far from the shooty, bombedy-bombedy part of the military.

    When you say negligent discharge by a sentry will end an officer’s career, do you mean the lieutenant directly above him, or does it go all the way up to the base commander? I can see that discouraging officers from having armed sentries.

    Maybe the policy is different for foreign bases in hostile territory? Surely, sentries at the edges of the Green Zone in Baghdad had loaded rifles? Maybe they should allow high-up officers to always have pistols? That way, when a psychiatrist divides to massacre everyone at a PowerPoint presentation, they don’t all get killed? It’d be yet another perk of being promoted. Lt Colonels would fantasize about the day they became real colonels carrying guns.

    Regardless, the military has a lot of experience with young men and guns. Probably, they are not doing anything stupid for daily operations at domestic or German bases, but they are probably really inappropriate for specific situations.

    Is the military any good at aligning officers’ incentives with what they want to happen? Are the generals an old boys club who mostly just promote people like themselves? I mean recommend for promotion, cuz at some point, the President decides.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

  120. @Anonymous
    @Stan Adams


    Theoretically, if a flaky millennial male a) was pushing 40, b) was physically unattractive, c) was conflicted about having gay tendencies, d) had a small penis, and e) was generally lazy and unambitious, you would not expect him to have enjoyed a great deal of success in the relationship arena, and you would not be surprised to learn that he did not have a great deal of life satisfaction.

    (You wouldn’t expect him to be a regular commenter on this site, either.)
     
    It is funny you should say this, because it is exactly what I would expect.

    I mention it, not to pick on anyone in particular, but because I would be very surprised to learn that no correlation whatever exists between time spent online and how unhappy one is.

    Everyone needs a pastime and fair enough. However, with all the quibbling, backbiting, trolling, etc. that goes on here, I fail to see how this site differs significantly from any social media site you could name.

    Frankly, I have no idea where some of the frequent commenters get the time to post so volubly. If spending hours on end writing comments on this site is the best thing you can hope to do with your time, fine, but perhaps it is worth slowing down for a moment and considering: is it really?

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog … but some people have their suspicions.

    [MORE]

    • LOL: EddieSpaghetti
  121. @JimDandy
    What about waiting periods for legal gun purchases? Some states have them, others don’t.

    If the Texas shooter really saved his Wendy's money in a piggy bank until he had enough to purchase 3k worth of gear, a waiting period wouldn't have phased him. Everything about the Buffalo shooter says the same.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Mike Tre, @Paul Jolliffe

    Except, naturally, for the minor fact that there isn’t the slightest evidence that Ramos had a nickel to his name, let alone the \$3,000 (minimum) needed to pull off Tuesday afternoon all by himself.

    Which he did not do all by himself, which anyone of reasonable intelligence and perceptiveness knew as soon as they saw what was clearly a mugshot of Ramos from some prior arrest.

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @Paul Jolliffe

    K, sure, but a waiting period still wouldn't have stopped him and his alphabet handlers.

    , @John Johnson
    @Paul Jolliffe

    Except, naturally, for the minor fact that there isn’t the slightest evidence that Ramos had a nickel to his name, let alone the $3,000 (minimum) needed to pull off Tuesday afternoon all by himself.

    He worked for Wendy's and didn't have to pay rent.

    It's public information and they have interviews with his co-workers.

    Please leave the Unz bubble once in a while.

    , @Johann Ricke
    @Paul Jolliffe


    Except, naturally, for the minor fact that there isn’t the slightest evidence that Ramos had a nickel to his name, let alone the $3,000 (minimum) needed to pull off Tuesday afternoon all by himself.
     
    He lived with his grandmother. No food or lodging expenses. Even at minimum wage, that's $15K a year in spending money, less FICA. Fact is criminals aren't shy about theft or robbery, from shoplifting all the way to bank heists. You think the bling you see on the average Mob soldier is obtained through honest labor? At worst, he steals his grandmother's valuables and heads to the nearest pawn shop. You think he'll shoot her in the face, but is too ethical to rip her off? He did steal her truck for his final joyride.

    Replies: @Paul Jolliffe

  122. @For what it's worth
    @Dr. X

    "And mass shootings of schoolchildren were basically nonexistent, because the country was almost monoracial, the people were more self-reliant, more sane, and more God-fearing."

    There was that one school bombing, which was an anomaly.

    As far as being monoracial, I don't think we can look back at the 20s as a time when we had liberty because we had pretty much one race in the country. Here's two reasons:

    1.) The 1934 restriction (I'm no longer saying "ban") on machine guns was driven by gangsterism. A good deal of that involved Sicilian/Italian, Irish, and Jewish mobsters. So there was an ethnic angle to the suppression of gang violence.

    2.) I think the 1910s-1930s is when the feds took a stance on illegal drugs. The "cocaine-crazed Negro rapist" was part of the propaganda for this.

    So, already in the early 20th century, racial and ethnic diversity helped motivate federal restrictions on guns and drugs.

    Replies: @Dr. X

    The 1934 restriction (I’m no longer saying “ban”) on machine guns was driven by gangsterism. A good deal of that involved Sicilian/Italian, Irish, and Jewish mobsters. So there was an ethnic angle to the suppression of gang violence.

    Somewhat true, but a better example is the 1911 New York Sullivan Law, passed by Irish criminals (who controlled the police) for the purpose of disarming Jewish and Italian criminal rivals.

    The 1930s criminals like Capone were largely driven by Prohibition, but Midwestern white trash like Clyde Barrow committing sensational crimes with machine guns served as useful propaganda for restrictive legislation.

    Of course Barrow didn’t buy his machine guns, he stole them from a National Guard armory, so it wouldn’t have mattered one way or the other if they were illegal or not — a point that has been conveniently forgotten.

  123. @Reg Cæsar
    @Wizard of Oz


    Limit access as far as possible under the Constitution to the most lethal weapons
     
    Automatics are severely restricted, with no new licenses issued in almost 40 years. Surface-to-air missiles, nuclear devices, well, no need to ask.

    Flamethrowers are legal in 48 or 49 states, yet flamethrown felonies are rare. Even those apocryphal church burnings haven't been blamed on them.


    Go as far as possible in preventing the young, the already crimina, and the mentally unstable from acquiring firearms
     
    Again, these statutes are already on the books. The mentally unstable shouldn't be operating motor vehicles or casting votes, either.

    Penalise both as a crime and by huge liability to damages anyone whose negligence makes it possible for others to get hold of their firearms
     
    Again, these are already in place. The issue is whether they are in use.

    You neglect the most serious issue of all-- gun control advocates in the US are almost to a man dishonest.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Jonathan Mason, @InnerCynic

    Automatics are severely restricted, with no new licenses issued in almost 40 years.

    No new machine guns allowed to be bought by civilians since 1986, but sales of the existing at the time 250-300K (the ATF doesn’t really know (of course)) are still very much allowed.

    Go as far as possible in preventing the young, the already crimina, and the mentally unstable from acquiring firearms

    Again, these statutes are already on the books. The mentally unstable shouldn’t be operating motor vehicles or casting votes, either.

    Not as such for the former. One has to be judged† to be “mentally defective” or committed for more than the standard 72 hour hold period. Forced outpatient treatment also qualifies, Virginia totally screwed that up WRT to the Virginia Tech mass shooting.

    You neglect the most serious issue of all– gun control advocates in the US are almost to a man dishonest.

    And here we get to an atrocity started by Clinton who liked to use it but otherwise profoundly loathed the military. Any hint someone had PTSD resulted in their being reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which I don’t think technically took their RKBA away, there’s always person to person sales in most states but who wants to be a test case? Later this as been extended to anyone who ever has someone take care of their financial affairs, including while they’re recuperating from war wounds.

    There’s absolutely no good faith on the gun grabbing side and being ignorant about this is not an excuse, and thus all the people crying for some “grand bargain” that would put the issue to rest are, well, mentally defective.

  124. @Wizard of Oz
    @Steve Sailer

    This Australian in a big city which didn't suffer a lot of violent crime even before the big compensatory buy up after the Port Arthur massacre about 25 years ago is puzzled by American politicians' failures to do the obvious

    1. Limit access as far as possible under the Constitution to the most lethal weapons

    2. Go as far as possible in preventing the young, the already crimina, and the mentally unstable from acquiring firearms

    3. Penalise both as a crime and by huge liability to damages anyone whose negligence makes it possible for others to get hold of their firearms

    4. [This is my innovation so pay attention😇]. Allow frisking for concealed guns and knives by electronic means. Nobody could persuade me that a police person couldn't wear a scanning device so that a well designed AI program could result in the reporting of any object within two metres which had a probability of at least 30 per cent of being a weapon. The police person hears a telltale beep, presses a button and then hears "3 feet to your Right at height 3 feet".

    Replies: @J.Ross, @That Would Be Telling, @Stealth, @Reg Cæsar, @Dr. X

    This Australian in a big city

    Yep, the “big city” Australians in places like Sydney with queers parading down the street decided that they were going to ban people living on 5,000 acre ranches in the outback of Queensland where there isn’t another human being as far as the eye can see from having guns.

    Real tolerant and diverse of you, being so considerate of how other people live their lives.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Dr. X


    5,000 acre ranches in the outback of Queensland
     
    Acres? Oz is the most metricated corner of the Anglosphere. Decimal currency wasn't enough for them. They had to go the whole Robespierre.


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZTeWLA1LAs



    https://res-2.cloudinary.com/moad/image/upload/c_fit,q_60,w_800/v1/moad-web/heracles-production/b95/914/0e2/b959140e2c7f3608458f303ad9b90a924143393394c1b2dc2cc5aa459e3d/John%20Frith%20cartoon-rz.jpg


    The Introduction of Decimal Currency: How We Avoided Nostrils and Learned to Love the Bill


    Good heavens!:


    The Museum of Australian Democracy acknowledges the traditional owners and custodians of country throughout Australia. We recognise their continuing connection to land, waters and community. We pay our respects to the people, the cultures and the elders past, present and emerging.

    The museum respectfully acknowledges the role that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continue to play in shaping Australia’s democracy.

    https://www.moadoph.gov.au/blog/the-introduction-of-decimal-currency-how-we-avoided-nostrils-and-learned-to-love-the-bill/#
     

    Replies: @Wizard of Oz, @Stan Adams

  125. @B36
    "Any conceivable type of gun control, even Australian-style mass confiscation, would likely leave tens of millions of guns and could generate a huge black market."

    And black markets love a totally open southern border.

    Replies: @Bill Jones

    One might be tempted to make the drive to the nearest big city and sell ones newly contrabanded AR15’s to a passing ghetto dweller.

  126. @dearieme
    @Almost Missouri

    The UK ... outlawed virtually all firearms in 1997.

    Oh balls! Sheer fantasy! Where do people get such stupid ideas?

    "Handguns" were banned. Rifles and shotguns were not.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    “Handguns” were banned. Rifles and shotguns were not.

    They didn’t need to because most long guns were already banned in 1988.

  127. anon[187] • Disclaimer says:
    @kahein
    @Travis

    and every additional year beyond 21 you make them wait probably cuts into the possibility of ill usage by 80% or more, compounded (up to 25, ideally, i'd think)

    a nominal waiting period is far and away the mildest restriction. the real barrier should be a psych eval with teeth -- maybe in conjunction with a point system of some sort so your basic in arrears / sheaf of disorderly conduct (or hell, even speeding) tickets type can't get one -- or my favorite current idea, how about first-time gun buyers needing to be sponsored by a gun fetishist in good standing, etc

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @anon

    In some of the most rabid gun-control states (e.g. Mass), you have to get three references/letters to apply for a gun license. Whether you get it depends on who you are and the inclination of your town’s chief of police. In any case, it takes many months to get one.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @anon

    Seems like a good idea. In fact before reading your comment, I came up with the same idea individually. The thing is obviously that formal, mechanical, computerized background checks that revealed that the person has no psychiatric history often do not tell the whole story about that person, and some more personal proactive method is needed to determine whether that person is of a good character and of sound mind.

    Here in Ecuador you even need to have reference letters to open a credit card or checking account at a bank. Credit card fraud and identity theft is practically unknown here.

    Replies: @Anon

  128. Rob says:
    @That Would Be Telling
    @Rob


    let’s look at how the military handles actually giving people guns
     
    The problem here is that post-WWII officer advancement has become a zero tolerance process. A negligent discharge by a sentry will end an officer's career, so they're at best allowed to keep a loaded magazine out of their rifle in a pouch or pocket. Gate guards are sometimes another matter and I assume are generally MPs.

    An extreme example of this in many ways was the Beirut Marine barracks bombing. The guys running the show were so terrified that the gate guards might accidentally fire a round in the direction of the nearby airport they had no heavy weapons, and by the time they'd inserted their magazines and charged their rifles the truck was half-buried in the building and they could only take cover.

    (This per Command of the Seas by Reagan's Secretary of the Navy at the time, who was an A-6 bombardier/navigators A sometimes funny and generally very informative book, like about how the followup to the bombing was so screwed up and Libya wasn't. Perhaps the most important was reforming ship procurement so the Congress would believe it was even worth trying to spend the money to create a "600 ship navy." Seeing as how the Navy regularly messes that up, from WWII torpedoes to too many ship types today....)

    So after 9/11 we were told this was SOP at the time and remained so afterwords. That is, if a base was attacked the commander would all but certainly have his career ended, so purely from his viewpoint it was safer not to really be ready for one.

    Replies: @Rob

    I don’t know much about the military. My uncle (by marriage) was a conductor of Air Force bands, so he was pretty far from the shooty, bombedy-bombedy part of the military.

    When you say negligent discharge by a sentry will end an officer’s career, do you mean the lieutenant directly above him, or does it go all the way up to the base commander? I can see that discouraging officers from having armed sentries.

    Maybe the policy is different for foreign bases in hostile territory? Surely, sentries at the edges of the Green Zone in Baghdad had loaded rifles? Maybe they should allow high-up officers to always have pistols? That way, when a psychiatrist divides to massacre everyone at a PowerPoint presentation, they don’t all get killed? It’d be yet another perk of being promoted. Lt Colonels would fantasize about the day they became real colonels carrying guns.

    Regardless, the military has a lot of experience with young men and guns. Probably, they are not doing anything stupid for daily operations at domestic or German bases, but they are probably really inappropriate for specific situations.

    Is the military any good at aligning officers’ incentives with what they want to happen? Are the generals an old boys club who mostly just promote people like themselves? I mean recommend for promotion, cuz at some point, the President decides.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Rob


    When you say negligent discharge by a sentry will end an officer’s career, do you mean the lieutenant directly above him, or does it go all the way up to the base commander? I can see that discouraging officers from having armed sentries.
     
    All the way up it was said after 9/11, and based on my study in the 1970s when I was considering it for a career I believe it. Note while the lieutenant directly above him has a degree of personal responsibility, the base commander sets the rules, all the way to what arms if any soldiers living on the base can possess (and some have tried to extend that past the base).

    Maybe the policy is different for foreign bases in hostile territory? Surely, sentries at the edges of the Green Zone in Baghdad had loaded rifles?....
     
    The military is not (completely) insane, knows the difference between a low probability of being subject to Sudden Jihad Syndrome and being in a real war zone they created where mortar shells and rockets are known to land, bombs are placed, suicide bombers attack.... I'd also expect the State Department would have input into this.

    Is the military any good at aligning officers’ incentives with what they want to happen? Are the generals an old boys club who mostly just promote people like themselves? I mean recommend for promotion, cuz at some point, the President decides.
     
    What is the first use of your's of "the military" anything other than the men running it, which means the generals and sometimes an activist secretary of their branch, or of the DoD, and maybe the President if he takes an interest. So, yes, the promotion system is as you posit, the President decides, but Senate has to confirm.
  129. @John Johnson
    @Dr. X

    If the Gun Control Fairy could wave a magic wand and make all AR-15s disappear tomorrow, mass shootings would still continue indefinitely. Shooters would just use pistols or pump-action shotguns instead.

    Yes but a major problem is that the left will never give the guns back.

    If shooters switch to pumps then that will be the next assault weapon. They won't give the AR-15s back.

    No one needs an 8 round magazine for duck hunting. That is what they will say.

    We have to get gun violence rates down if we want to keep our guns. If not they will eventually get a majority and ban everything but single shot hunting rifles.

    The left actually needs these types of mass shootings. They won't get bans by being honest about gun crime.

    The Republican strategy of being against all new laws will fail in the long term. We saw this in NY and CA. It makes more sense to support some purchasing limitations in exchange for securing long term rights while they are still at the table. The Democrat plan to overwhelm Republicans through demographic changes from immigration is a valid strategy. The Republican counter-strategy of waving flags and giving lofty speeches about the 2A is doomed to fail.

    Replies: @Corn, @Stealth

    If shooters switch to pumps then that will be the next assault weapon. They won’t give the AR-15s back.

    People need to understand that. Before semi-auto assault rifles became popular, the emphasis was on Saturday night specials and sawed off shotguns. We’ll go right back to that after assault rifles are banned.

    The goalposts will move until the Democrats consider all guns unsafe to own.

  130. @That Would Be Telling
    @Intelligent Dasein


    At the beginning of the Covid debacle, it was announced to everyone that hospitals would curtail their normal treatment protocols and that restrictions would be placed on individual freedoms in order to flatten the curve, because it was necessary to “save the healthcare system.”
     
    Without PRC levels of social control, plus a quarantine regime in the face of two of the longest land borders in the world and huge coastlines as well, this is not an axiomatic failure of "the institutions of society." And as we can see in the PRC today is even more expensive than the path we took absent an effectively vaccinated population (one PRC vaccine is bad, don't know about the other, and the people rightly distrust them).

    Continuing on that theme you're not factoring in "vaccine hesitancy." Justified or not, without forcing people to take the effective vaccines we developed, which absolutely do maim and kill some people, there would be no end to that as we're seeing in the PRC as Xi stubbornly sticks to his Zero COVID policy.

    So in the US context, prior to Omicron (except for a few places??? Did any get overwhelmed?), it was imperative to "bend the curve" and keep it bent (which does not say anything about how to do that). I live in a part of deep Red state flyover country where due to very high levels of vaccine hesitancy our hospital capacity was exceeded for 150 miles in all directions during a Delta wave and we needlessly lost people to this.

    OK, I suppose we could say "you refused to take the vaccine without a legit reason?" "No healthcare for you," but again "that's not who we are," a concept very much in play in our battle with gun-grabbers.

    Replies: @Gabe Ruth

    Thank you for sticking to your act through thick and thin, truly an inspiration for those aspiring to ideological purity.

    What does the science say right now about the vaccines for a person who was bravely waiting till every POC was able to get the jab before using up a pair of shots on his own worthless white life? Am I still a threat to society if I don’t see the point?

  131. @Buffalo Joe
    I am watching TV and all the news stations are commenting on the time-line in the Texas school masacre. The amount of time wasted before they engaged the shooter. Parents being restrainted from trying to save their childrem, Truly sickening and I must state I was never in the service so never in combat, but are there no heroes?

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind

    It appears that post Columbine, the profile of the perpetrator (or perpetrators) of this type of crime is they are armed yes, but that a reasonably trained non-SWAT non-Dirty Harry police office would prevail in a shoot-out with such a person. The perpetrator is young, scared, perhaps mentally unbalanced but neither trained nor prepared to engage a professional law enforcement officer or perhaps even any reasonably determined person prepared to shoot back at them?

    Did the police attempt such an engagement, with two officers wounded early on? Is it suicidal for an officer armed with a Glock to engage someone with an AR, a much more accurate and powerful weapon?

    In the instance of the Congressional baseball practice shooting in 2017, Hodgkinson may have been mentally disturbed, but he was an older person, and multiple Capitol police officers engaged in a protracted exchange of gunfire before shooting him dead?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting

    If the officers knew that they were dealing with someone fitting the “school shooter” profile I described, yes, I consider it cowardice that they didn’t breach the classroom door much sooner. But are there mitigating factors in defense of the police?

  132. @Rob
    @That Would Be Telling

    I don’t know much about the military. My uncle (by marriage) was a conductor of Air Force bands, so he was pretty far from the shooty, bombedy-bombedy part of the military.

    When you say negligent discharge by a sentry will end an officer’s career, do you mean the lieutenant directly above him, or does it go all the way up to the base commander? I can see that discouraging officers from having armed sentries.

    Maybe the policy is different for foreign bases in hostile territory? Surely, sentries at the edges of the Green Zone in Baghdad had loaded rifles? Maybe they should allow high-up officers to always have pistols? That way, when a psychiatrist divides to massacre everyone at a PowerPoint presentation, they don’t all get killed? It’d be yet another perk of being promoted. Lt Colonels would fantasize about the day they became real colonels carrying guns.

    Regardless, the military has a lot of experience with young men and guns. Probably, they are not doing anything stupid for daily operations at domestic or German bases, but they are probably really inappropriate for specific situations.

    Is the military any good at aligning officers’ incentives with what they want to happen? Are the generals an old boys club who mostly just promote people like themselves? I mean recommend for promotion, cuz at some point, the President decides.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    When you say negligent discharge by a sentry will end an officer’s career, do you mean the lieutenant directly above him, or does it go all the way up to the base commander? I can see that discouraging officers from having armed sentries.

    All the way up it was said after 9/11, and based on my study in the 1970s when I was considering it for a career I believe it. Note while the lieutenant directly above him has a degree of personal responsibility, the base commander sets the rules, all the way to what arms if any soldiers living on the base can possess (and some have tried to extend that past the base).

    Maybe the policy is different for foreign bases in hostile territory? Surely, sentries at the edges of the Green Zone in Baghdad had loaded rifles?….

    The military is not (completely) insane, knows the difference between a low probability of being subject to Sudden Jihad Syndrome and being in a real war zone they created where mortar shells and rockets are known to land, bombs are placed, suicide bombers attack…. I’d also expect the State Department would have input into this.

    Is the military any good at aligning officers’ incentives with what they want to happen? Are the generals an old boys club who mostly just promote people like themselves? I mean recommend for promotion, cuz at some point, the President decides.

    What is the first use of your’s of “the military” anything other than the men running it, which means the generals and sometimes an activist secretary of their branch, or of the DoD, and maybe the President if he takes an interest. So, yes, the promotion system is as you posit, the President decides, but Senate has to confirm.

  133. @Stealth
    @Wizard of Oz

    Your country treats its own citizens as prisoners. If I were you, that would concern me far more than gun laws in a country on the other side of the world.

    Replies: @Wizard of Oz

    Are you are thinking of our long past lockdowns? You may be misinformed though there do seem to have been some pretty harsh restrictions unlawfully imposed on some non citizens in public housing a couple if years ago. I have never, unlike my counterparts in Shanghai, been prevented from getting out for an hour’s exercise or for shopping, even un Melbourne. And that’s only during experimental adaptation to an unprecedented pandemic which has been managed so as to kill only a few old and already very ill prople while America has reached the point of allowing the greatest cause of death for children to be gun crime. (That’s what I read and is certainly near enough to the truth to be a critical consideration).

    What is more I have family in and out of the US, including at university in NY, so often that I am rationally more worried about there welfare than anything temporarily on my doorstep.

  134. @Stealth
    I sense Republican commitment to resisting gun control beginning to buckle. It's a shame, too, because once the ball gets rolling, it will be no time before we're facing a de facto ban on the private ownership of firearms. After every mass shooting, the same thing happens: the Democrats first call for universal background checks and waiting periods, but within two days they take off the masks and demand that we follow Australia's lead. Every time.

    I think we would already have sensible policies in place if that's what the Democrats actually wanted, but they don't. Why stop at quarter-measures, right? The Democrats don't believe that ordinary people should be able to outright own guns of any kind, and they certainly don't think someone should be able to use one for self-defense, so why shouldn't their proposals reflect that? "Common sense," in this context, means something entirely different to them. In their desired, more perfect, world, most types of guns, including mundane long guns like pump-action shotguns, would be banned entirely. As for the remainder, the government would essentially be co-owner. You might be able to get a bolt-action .223 if you fill out a mountain of paperwork, go to a training course, and present a very compelling reason for why the authorities should allow you to keep it in your home.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    A good solution would be to leave the Second Amendment intact as it is obviously very popular, but at the same time make manufacturers and importers and retailers of firearms and ammunition 100% liable and responsible for the use of their products, and to make it possible for their executives and board members to be held personally criminally responsible for any misuse of their products.

    Thus without the government interfering, such persons would know that they were putting their own livelihoods and lives at risk if they sold weapons and/or ammunition to irresponsible users.

    It would thus be the responsibility of each community to determine whether a member was safe to have firearms and ammunition. Perhaps for example, at the gun dealer would require written references from three responsible persons known to the gun dealer before they would release a weapon to a first-time buyer.

    Also perhaps the methodology used in Texas that allows individuals to sue abortion providers could be adapted to allow individuals to sue providers of murder weapons.

    • Replies: @Stealth
    @Jonathan Mason

    In other words, get rid of all the guns. Make it so difficult and so risky to manufacture and obtain them that almost nobody will do either. No thank you.

  135. @anon
    @kahein

    In some of the most rabid gun-control states (e.g. Mass), you have to get three references/letters to apply for a gun license. Whether you get it depends on who you are and the inclination of your town's chief of police. In any case, it takes many months to get one.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Seems like a good idea. In fact before reading your comment, I came up with the same idea individually. The thing is obviously that formal, mechanical, computerized background checks that revealed that the person has no psychiatric history often do not tell the whole story about that person, and some more personal proactive method is needed to determine whether that person is of a good character and of sound mind.

    Here in Ecuador you even need to have reference letters to open a credit card or checking account at a bank. Credit card fraud and identity theft is practically unknown here.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Jonathan Mason


    Here in Ecuador you even need to have reference letters to open a credit card or checking account at a bank. Credit card fraud and identity theft is practically unknown here.

     

    In Japan you need a co-signer for an apartment rental or lease agreement. And if a small corporation wants to get a business loan the main owner/officer has to personally guarantee the loan, rendering the whole point of the corporate veil meaningless.

    This works pretty well in a homogeneous society with close family bonds, few social outcasts, and a sense of responsibility. I think even Japan is starting to fray at the edges though, in various ways.

    Do American college student loans still require parental co-signers, as at least some of them used to?
  136. @That Would Be Telling
    @Wizard of Oz


    This Australian ... is puzzled by American politicians’ failures to do the obvious
     
    Well, your problem starts right with your second word, you're not an American. Different peoples in the countries, different histories including your indigenous folk being an infamous example of a people who decivilized after they killed all the megafauna except for kangaroos. Ours were dangerous, see "The American Indian foundation of American gun culture." You hear about the Salem Witch Trials, hardly a unique phenomena but one used by the usual suspects to harm us? The population in which it happened had been traumatized by being on the losing end of one battle/war with our Indians, as I recall forced out of lands to their north/northeast (Maine).

    Your constitution isn't hardly as limiting on your ruling trash as ours, you for example have a Westminster parliamentary system where the winning party or coalition gains a monopoly of executive and legislative power for the duration of their reign. We are "crazier than a shithouse rat" and they know it, so here sufficient abrogation of the Second Amendment would simply result in a civil war our ruling trash would not win. We'd kill them, at retail by hunting them, but if necessary at wholesale by killing the exquisitely fragile cities they live in.

    So not being individually brave as a rule, they follow the "discretion is the better part of valor" principle, no matter how palpably they want to take our guns and that's both parties at the national level. Some of the worst say they'll nuke us if we refuse to hand them in, but that's not on the table for the foreseeable future and would have its own host of consequences if attempted or done.

    In all these Civil War 2.0 scenarios it doesn't work to make war on your own logistics base, they'd lose almost everything they currently have. At this point for those who can see what's happening with the war on fossil fuels and Belarus and Russian and the impacts that is having on fertilizer and food production it should be clear they'd simply starve to death. Well, I suppose they could continue their banditry by threatening non-nuclear nations like Brazil to give us their food, but I doubt that would really work or work for very long.

    Allow frisking for concealed guns and knives by electronic means.
     
    Again, you're not an American, although plenty of those in their big Blue bubbles don't grok how decisively they've lost this one cultural war battle. We've got 50 states out of which 42-3 have "Shall Issue" or better concealed carry regimes covering ~72% of the population prior to the COVID then BLM exodus from big Blue cities. That means unless you're a criminal the authorities must issue you a license, even in many Blue states.

    But it gets worse! And here the political lay of the land should be clear, next month two more states will be "Constitutional Carry," no license required, for a total of 24/50, and the 25th will be on 1/1/23. So for most of the nation this technology would be useless without also IDing and quickly searching databases since legally carrying a gun is generally legal. And our databases for this sort of thing aren't in great shape; some states even refuse to share mental health records with our national "instant check" system for over the counter gun sales, which in my experience takes enough time the suspect will likely have left the immediate vicinity. Sharing of concealed carry license databases is also iffy due to past abuses.

    I'm not about to tell you to stick to your own country and ignore the USA if for no other reason because our ruling trash are increasingly wielding wrecking balls of for example global famine intensity, but hopefully this will fill you in on some details about our country and how very much not like your's it is.

    Replies: @Wizard of Oz

    Thanks for a lot of interesting detail. Harking back to battles with native Americans makes sense and adds to my belief that nothing will be done which makes much difference. A well informed commentator in the US said about 12 hours ago in a long interview on ABC RN Between the Lines that there were reasons why Republicans would block any change however reasonable it might seem.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Wizard of Oz


    A well informed commentator in the US said about 12 hours ago in a long interview on ABC RN Between the Lines that there were reasons why Republicans would block any change however reasonable it might seem.
     
    No one should bet strongly on that, they palpably want more gun control. Their only fear is "spending more time with their family," an excuse for a resignation or a cope when they lose reelection.

    But Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate has directed a gun-grabbing Senator to negotiate with the Democrats, and I'm pretty sure a reason for that is that he doesn't want to get a majority in the Senate, we'd then expect results about "Biden," the economy, etc. Note they threw the Senate balance to the Democrats as well as the Presidency in 2020....

    The biggest problem is that our separation of powers system doesn't give a psychologically weak group like the Congressional Republicans much power without supermajorities which they won't get. Mathematically can't get as I recall in the Senate. So they can't for example force "Biden" to take the boot off the neck of the fossil fuel industry, which wouldn't be inclined to take a chance that would last for long anyway.

    Plus the Republicans are almost as anti-Russia as the Democrats, so we'd expect the food (fertilizer) and fuel and cost of electricity problems to get worse. And high Diesel prices make almost everything more expensive. Also no politician has a answer to the current bird flu problem, here in the US last time I checked it's killed 10% of our egg laying hens.

    And it's not like there are vast differences between their preferred policies in the first place, like open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc. Plus some people would notice the Republicans fighting much less hard against "Biden" than they did against Trump.

    Although note, as you imply there are no "reasonable" gun control changes on the table or even possible, especially since the Democrats are not negotiating in good faith, haven't since the 1950s. Or 1933. Or 1911 (Sullivan Law).

    Every concession is just a "good first step" and with a couple of "must pass" bill exceptions in the couple of years of Obama and Democrats running the Congress we never get anything anything positive (those were concealed carry in National Parks and carriage of guns on our passenger railroad system, that is in checked baggage (thank you, W) ... which is much less than we got with the mirror of Trump's first couple of years.)

    Replies: @Corn, @Wizard of Oz

  137. @Reg Cæsar
    @Wizard of Oz


    Limit access as far as possible under the Constitution to the most lethal weapons
     
    Automatics are severely restricted, with no new licenses issued in almost 40 years. Surface-to-air missiles, nuclear devices, well, no need to ask.

    Flamethrowers are legal in 48 or 49 states, yet flamethrown felonies are rare. Even those apocryphal church burnings haven't been blamed on them.


    Go as far as possible in preventing the young, the already crimina, and the mentally unstable from acquiring firearms
     
    Again, these statutes are already on the books. The mentally unstable shouldn't be operating motor vehicles or casting votes, either.

    Penalise both as a crime and by huge liability to damages anyone whose negligence makes it possible for others to get hold of their firearms
     
    Again, these are already in place. The issue is whether they are in use.

    You neglect the most serious issue of all-- gun control advocates in the US are almost to a man dishonest.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Jonathan Mason, @InnerCynic

    You neglect the most serious issue of all– gun control advocates in the US are almost to a man dishonest.

    Probably so, but then again those who promote guns are equally dishonest. For example the NRA is not really transparent about receiving funding from the gun manufacturing industry, and politicians of both sides lack transparency about who is financing their pro-gun or anti-gun advocacy.

    You always have to follow the money. Ted Cruz is now saying that every school should have armed guards and only one entrance, but who would benefit financially from this?

    Look at the TSA for example. While the organization exists ostensibly to prevent hijackers from getting on planes with knives, guns, and explosives, the delayed time spent in airports before and between flights is incredibly beneficial to the overpriced restaurant services when travelers are not even allowed to carry a bottle of water or a sandwich.

    I noticed this on a recent flight when I had a long changeover. Even if you were prepared to spend an unlimited amount of money there was simply no decent food available presumably because the restaurants knew that they could charge the earth for total garbage and get away with it. Anyone who protested would quickly be taken away by the goons.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Jonathan Mason


    the gun manufacturing industry
     
    Way, way down on the list of domestic industries. And many are made abroad.
    , @John Johnson
    @Jonathan Mason

    Probably so, but then again those who promote guns are equally dishonest. For example the NRA is not really transparent about receiving funding from the gun manufacturing industry, and politicians of both sides lack transparency about who is financing their pro-gun or anti-gun advocacy.

    I'm not a fan of the NRA but it is a myth that they are funded by the gun manufacturing industry.

    The NRA receives most funding from individuals:
    https://amarkfoundation.org/nra-funding/

    Guns are actually not high profit and some of the biggest companies are barely solvent. That is why liberal plans to destroy them via lawsuits should be taken seriously.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

  138. @J.Ross
    @Wizard of Oz

    Blue areas pretty much already do this, to no effect. Guns are already restricted in these areas beyond what is permitted by the Constitution. The result is massacre. Australia has had several mass shootings since the Port Arthur operation. The problem is diversity, not technology or law.

    Replies: @Wizard of Oz

    I’m afraid it would take 60+ years to achieve radical change in the US but I think you are wrong about Australia having had “several mass shootings since the Port Athur [one]”. And Google hasn’t helped.

  139. @Travis
    @kahein

    The sister of the Uvalde gunman “flatly refused” to buy him a weapon when he asked her to last year, then he worked for a few months to save the money and finally purchase his guns. If he had to wait another 6 months due to a "waiting period" it is not likely to have made a difference in this case.

    Gendron started buying his guns back in December, 5 months prior to his killing spree. A waiting period of 6 months may have delayed his rampage by a few months, but he had been planning this for some time.

    Maybe they should ban gun sales to those under the age of 21. This is one gun law which could make a difference. If these two teens had to wait until they were 21 we would not be talking about them today, and they may have never become mass murderers.

    Replies: @kahein, @kahein

    gendron’s papa gave him a gun when he was 16. he had school psychiatric interventions last year but this apparently didn’t prompt dear old dad to wonder if perhaps payton shouldn’t have a bunch of weapons at his disposal. apparently the red flag laws in NY were triggered but nothing happened

  140. @Jonathan Mason
    @Reg Cæsar


    You neglect the most serious issue of all– gun control advocates in the US are almost to a man dishonest.
     
    Probably so, but then again those who promote guns are equally dishonest. For example the NRA is not really transparent about receiving funding from the gun manufacturing industry, and politicians of both sides lack transparency about who is financing their pro-gun or anti-gun advocacy.

    You always have to follow the money. Ted Cruz is now saying that every school should have armed guards and only one entrance, but who would benefit financially from this?

    Look at the TSA for example. While the organization exists ostensibly to prevent hijackers from getting on planes with knives, guns, and explosives, the delayed time spent in airports before and between flights is incredibly beneficial to the overpriced restaurant services when travelers are not even allowed to carry a bottle of water or a sandwich.

    I noticed this on a recent flight when I had a long changeover. Even if you were prepared to spend an unlimited amount of money there was simply no decent food available presumably because the restaurants knew that they could charge the earth for total garbage and get away with it. Anyone who protested would quickly be taken away by the goons.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @John Johnson

    the gun manufacturing industry

    Way, way down on the list of domestic industries. And many are made abroad.

  141. @Wizard of Oz
    @That Would Be Telling

    Thanks for a lot of interesting detail. Harking back to battles with native Americans makes sense and adds to my belief that nothing will be done which makes much difference. A well informed commentator in the US said about 12 hours ago in a long interview on ABC RN Between the Lines that there were reasons why Republicans would block any change however reasonable it might seem.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    A well informed commentator in the US said about 12 hours ago in a long interview on ABC RN Between the Lines that there were reasons why Republicans would block any change however reasonable it might seem.

    No one should bet strongly on that, they palpably want more gun control. Their only fear is “spending more time with their family,” an excuse for a resignation or a cope when they lose reelection.

    But Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate has directed a gun-grabbing Senator to negotiate with the Democrats, and I’m pretty sure a reason for that is that he doesn’t want to get a majority in the Senate, we’d then expect results about “Biden,” the economy, etc. Note they threw the Senate balance to the Democrats as well as the Presidency in 2020….

    The biggest problem is that our separation of powers system doesn’t give a psychologically weak group like the Congressional Republicans much power without supermajorities which they won’t get. Mathematically can’t get as I recall in the Senate. So they can’t for example force “Biden” to take the boot off the neck of the fossil fuel industry, which wouldn’t be inclined to take a chance that would last for long anyway.

    Plus the Republicans are almost as anti-Russia as the Democrats, so we’d expect the food (fertilizer) and fuel and cost of electricity problems to get worse. And high Diesel prices make almost everything more expensive. Also no politician has a answer to the current bird flu problem, here in the US last time I checked it’s killed 10% of our egg laying hens.

    And it’s not like there are vast differences between their preferred policies in the first place, like open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc. Plus some people would notice the Republicans fighting much less hard against “Biden” than they did against Trump.

    Although note, as you imply there are no “reasonable” gun control changes on the table or even possible, especially since the Democrats are not negotiating in good faith, haven’t since the 1950s. Or 1933. Or 1911 (Sullivan Law).

    Every concession is just a “good first step” and with a couple of “must pass” bill exceptions in the couple of years of Obama and Democrats running the Congress we never get anything anything positive (those were concealed carry in National Parks and carriage of guns on our passenger railroad system, that is in checked baggage (thank you, W) … which is much less than we got with the mirror of Trump’s first couple of years.)

    • Replies: @Corn
    @That Would Be Telling


    But Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate has directed a gun-grabbing Senator to negotiate with the Democrats, and I’m pretty sure a reason for that is that he doesn’t want to get a majority in the Senate, we’d then expect results about “Biden,” the economy, etc.
     
    I’m sure McConnell has a plan if the Senate reverts to Republican control. It involves immigration reform and another tax cut for the rich no doubt.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    @That Would Be Telling

    Thanks for interesting details. As a matter of further interest the reason given for Republicans behaviour even when contrary to reason was your electoral system where, at least in solid Republican seats the only opposition to reflection would be from another Republican willing to ramp up the rhetoric and get the fanatics out to vote in a primary. Add that to Gerrymandered seats.

  142. @Dr. X
    @Wizard of Oz


    This Australian in a big city
     
    Yep, the "big city" Australians in places like Sydney with queers parading down the street decided that they were going to ban people living on 5,000 acre ranches in the outback of Queensland where there isn't another human being as far as the eye can see from having guns.

    Real tolerant and diverse of you, being so considerate of how other people live their lives.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    5,000 acre ranches in the outback of Queensland

    Acres? Oz is the most metricated corner of the Anglosphere. Decimal currency wasn’t enough for them. They had to go the whole Robespierre.

    The Introduction of Decimal Currency: How We Avoided Nostrils and Learned to Love the Bill

    Good heavens!:

    [MORE]

    The Museum of Australian Democracy acknowledges the traditional owners and custodians of country throughout Australia. We recognise their continuing connection to land, waters and community. We pay our respects to the people, the cultures and the elders past, present and emerging.

    The museum respectfully acknowledges the role that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continue to play in shaping Australia’s democracy.

    https://www.moadoph.gov.au/blog/the-introduction-of-decimal-currency-how-we-avoided-nostrils-and-learned-to-love-the-bill/#

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    @Reg Cæsar

    Thanks for what should have been a reminder but I don't remember seeing.

    The Royal was a good name which would have distinguished the Australian currency but outlu PM Bob Menzies was seen as too much of an old fashioned royalist and the proposal aroused derision.

    I think it was a Senatot chairing a committee but having too little to do and to distinguish him who took us the whole way to metrication oblivious of the fact that computers and even hand held HP calculators were going to make 640 acres in a square nile, 4840 square yards in an acre etc. very easy to handle.

    , @Stan Adams
    @Reg Cæsar

    The crazy guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords made a bunch of weird YouTube videos in which he talked about manipulating language to create a new currency.

    (He was obviously schizophrenic, so naturally Sarah Palin was to blame.)

    "Every human who's mentally capable is always able to be treasurer of their new currency" ... said someone who was quite obviously not mentally capable of grasping reality.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHoaZaLbqB4

    His main beef with Giffords was that he'd attended one of her town meetings and asked her the nonsensical question, "What is government if words have no meaning?" Naturally, she didn't know what the hell he was talking about, but she gave him some BS answer.

    https://i.ibb.co/bNn8qWd/nft.png

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

  143. Corn says:
    @That Would Be Telling
    @Wizard of Oz


    A well informed commentator in the US said about 12 hours ago in a long interview on ABC RN Between the Lines that there were reasons why Republicans would block any change however reasonable it might seem.
     
    No one should bet strongly on that, they palpably want more gun control. Their only fear is "spending more time with their family," an excuse for a resignation or a cope when they lose reelection.

    But Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate has directed a gun-grabbing Senator to negotiate with the Democrats, and I'm pretty sure a reason for that is that he doesn't want to get a majority in the Senate, we'd then expect results about "Biden," the economy, etc. Note they threw the Senate balance to the Democrats as well as the Presidency in 2020....

    The biggest problem is that our separation of powers system doesn't give a psychologically weak group like the Congressional Republicans much power without supermajorities which they won't get. Mathematically can't get as I recall in the Senate. So they can't for example force "Biden" to take the boot off the neck of the fossil fuel industry, which wouldn't be inclined to take a chance that would last for long anyway.

    Plus the Republicans are almost as anti-Russia as the Democrats, so we'd expect the food (fertilizer) and fuel and cost of electricity problems to get worse. And high Diesel prices make almost everything more expensive. Also no politician has a answer to the current bird flu problem, here in the US last time I checked it's killed 10% of our egg laying hens.

    And it's not like there are vast differences between their preferred policies in the first place, like open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc. Plus some people would notice the Republicans fighting much less hard against "Biden" than they did against Trump.

    Although note, as you imply there are no "reasonable" gun control changes on the table or even possible, especially since the Democrats are not negotiating in good faith, haven't since the 1950s. Or 1933. Or 1911 (Sullivan Law).

    Every concession is just a "good first step" and with a couple of "must pass" bill exceptions in the couple of years of Obama and Democrats running the Congress we never get anything anything positive (those were concealed carry in National Parks and carriage of guns on our passenger railroad system, that is in checked baggage (thank you, W) ... which is much less than we got with the mirror of Trump's first couple of years.)

    Replies: @Corn, @Wizard of Oz

    But Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate has directed a gun-grabbing Senator to negotiate with the Democrats, and I’m pretty sure a reason for that is that he doesn’t want to get a majority in the Senate, we’d then expect results about “Biden,” the economy, etc.

    I’m sure McConnell has a plan if the Senate reverts to Republican control. It involves immigration reform and another tax cut for the rich no doubt.

  144. @Stan Adams
    @Chrisnonymous


    By the time you’re 40, most men are starting to wind down and they can reflect that life is generally good and they realize they are not immortal and they know that violence begets more violence.
     
    I'm not sure this is true anymore. The flaky millennials are pushing forty, and many of them are just as screwed up now as they were at 30 or 20.

    Purely as a thought exercise, let me provide a theoretical description of such a person.



    Note that I am not admitting to describing any actual human beings, living or dead. Also note that the person I am describing does not have any overt homicidal or suicidal ideation; he is merely an example of someone who is not enjoying a great deal of life satisfaction in the latter part of his 30s.

    Theoretically, if a flaky millennial male a) was pushing 40, b) was physically unattractive, c) was conflicted about having gay tendencies, d) had a small penis, and e) was generally lazy and unambitious, you would not expect him to have enjoyed a great deal of success in the relationship arena, and you would not be surprised to learn that he did not have a great deal of life satisfaction.

    (You wouldn't expect him to be a regular commenter on this site, either.)

    Suppose that this theoretical person had grown up without the benefit of a father figure and had suffered through intensely dysfunctional relationships with his female relatives, most notably his mother and grandmother. Suppose that his mother was especially repulsive, combining severe personality defects and morbid obesity with a princess mentality and an extreme sense of entitlement. Suppose that she had bad-mouthed his father and his grandfather all throughout his youth, telling him at times that she hated all men and hated the fact that he would grow up to become a man.

    Would it be overly surprising to learn that this person might not be overly eager to pursue a long-term relationship with a woman? Might he not be somewhat justified in fearing that he might get stuck with someone who would end up treating him just as badly?

    Of course, this theoretical person would feel obligated to take some degree of responsibility for his own situation. And he would feel compelled to point out that there are plenty of people his age who've done all the "right" things who are no happier than he is. He would know plenty of miserable people who'd gone from one bad relationship to another. So he would not necessarily be convinced that he'd screwed up all that badly, because he'd rather be alone than be with the wrong person.

    All of this is purely theoretical, you understand.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Intelligent Dasein

    And he would feel compelled to point out that there are plenty of people his age who’ve done all the “right” things who are no happier than he is.

    Ah, and therein lies the rub.

    One of the bad things about Alt-Right is that there are far too many voices who, if they are not quite pushing an alpha-Chad ethos, they are at least exhorting everyone to get married and have children under the pretext that this is going to make them happy.

    What’s missing are the voices saying that marriage and children do not necessarily make everyone happy, but it’s something you need to do anyway.

    For many men, the domestic situation is disagreeable in certain respects. It results not in happiness but in a type of dry martyrdom, a life full of duties that have lost most of their relish and sacrifices that don’t seem to bear any fruit. But these men were not wrong to start families; they did what the higher life demanded. They carried on and earned the right to be counted with all striving, suffering, genuine creatures who cannot help but command our respect.

    Any happiness that we find this side of heaven cannot be drank “straight” but has to be mixed with irony, and this is the tragic view of life. If we are to take comfort in anything, let it be in the fact that we aren’t supposed to be comfortable.

    It’s just like going to work. I recognize that we all have material needs and consequently man must labor under the sun, but this is not essentially what we are. We work to live, we don’t live to work.; he who gives his heart to material pursuits is something less than human. But when we take work ironically, knowing that it isn’t the final purpose of our existence, this is precisely what opens us up to any real enjoyment there is to be had in it, and we work better as a result. And a relationship built on this premise is much more likely to last than one that is founded on the pursuit of happiness.

    By the way, this hypothetical fellow of yours is full of beautiful insights into the human condition and would no doubt make a good husband and father. I wish him all the best.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Intelligent Dasein


    By the way, this hypothetical fellow of yours is full of beautiful insights into the human condition and would no doubt make a good husband and father. I wish him all the best.
     
    Thanks.

    It's oddly comforting (?) to think that my own father is an even bigger screw-up than I am. His father was something of a failure, as well. (Neither of my paternal grandparents made it past 45.)

    My maternal grandfather is the only member of my family for whom I have any real respect. I owe him everything.
  145. @Paul Jolliffe
    @JimDandy

    Except, naturally, for the minor fact that there isn’t the slightest evidence that Ramos had a nickel to his name, let alone the $3,000 (minimum) needed to pull off Tuesday afternoon all by himself.

    Which he did not do all by himself, which anyone of reasonable intelligence and perceptiveness knew as soon as they saw what was clearly a mugshot of Ramos from some prior arrest.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @John Johnson, @Johann Ricke

    K, sure, but a waiting period still wouldn’t have stopped him and his alphabet handlers.

    • Agree: Paul Jolliffe
  146. @That Would Be Telling
    @Wizard of Oz


    A well informed commentator in the US said about 12 hours ago in a long interview on ABC RN Between the Lines that there were reasons why Republicans would block any change however reasonable it might seem.
     
    No one should bet strongly on that, they palpably want more gun control. Their only fear is "spending more time with their family," an excuse for a resignation or a cope when they lose reelection.

    But Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate has directed a gun-grabbing Senator to negotiate with the Democrats, and I'm pretty sure a reason for that is that he doesn't want to get a majority in the Senate, we'd then expect results about "Biden," the economy, etc. Note they threw the Senate balance to the Democrats as well as the Presidency in 2020....

    The biggest problem is that our separation of powers system doesn't give a psychologically weak group like the Congressional Republicans much power without supermajorities which they won't get. Mathematically can't get as I recall in the Senate. So they can't for example force "Biden" to take the boot off the neck of the fossil fuel industry, which wouldn't be inclined to take a chance that would last for long anyway.

    Plus the Republicans are almost as anti-Russia as the Democrats, so we'd expect the food (fertilizer) and fuel and cost of electricity problems to get worse. And high Diesel prices make almost everything more expensive. Also no politician has a answer to the current bird flu problem, here in the US last time I checked it's killed 10% of our egg laying hens.

    And it's not like there are vast differences between their preferred policies in the first place, like open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc. Plus some people would notice the Republicans fighting much less hard against "Biden" than they did against Trump.

    Although note, as you imply there are no "reasonable" gun control changes on the table or even possible, especially since the Democrats are not negotiating in good faith, haven't since the 1950s. Or 1933. Or 1911 (Sullivan Law).

    Every concession is just a "good first step" and with a couple of "must pass" bill exceptions in the couple of years of Obama and Democrats running the Congress we never get anything anything positive (those were concealed carry in National Parks and carriage of guns on our passenger railroad system, that is in checked baggage (thank you, W) ... which is much less than we got with the mirror of Trump's first couple of years.)

    Replies: @Corn, @Wizard of Oz

    Thanks for interesting details. As a matter of further interest the reason given for Republicans behaviour even when contrary to reason was your electoral system where, at least in solid Republican seats the only opposition to reflection would be from another Republican willing to ramp up the rhetoric and get the fanatics out to vote in a primary. Add that to Gerrymandered seats.

  147. @Reg Cæsar
    @Dr. X


    5,000 acre ranches in the outback of Queensland
     
    Acres? Oz is the most metricated corner of the Anglosphere. Decimal currency wasn't enough for them. They had to go the whole Robespierre.


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZTeWLA1LAs



    https://res-2.cloudinary.com/moad/image/upload/c_fit,q_60,w_800/v1/moad-web/heracles-production/b95/914/0e2/b959140e2c7f3608458f303ad9b90a924143393394c1b2dc2cc5aa459e3d/John%20Frith%20cartoon-rz.jpg


    The Introduction of Decimal Currency: How We Avoided Nostrils and Learned to Love the Bill


    Good heavens!:


    The Museum of Australian Democracy acknowledges the traditional owners and custodians of country throughout Australia. We recognise their continuing connection to land, waters and community. We pay our respects to the people, the cultures and the elders past, present and emerging.

    The museum respectfully acknowledges the role that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continue to play in shaping Australia’s democracy.

    https://www.moadoph.gov.au/blog/the-introduction-of-decimal-currency-how-we-avoided-nostrils-and-learned-to-love-the-bill/#
     

    Replies: @Wizard of Oz, @Stan Adams

    Thanks for what should have been a reminder but I don’t remember seeing.

    The Royal was a good name which would have distinguished the Australian currency but outlu PM Bob Menzies was seen as too much of an old fashioned royalist and the proposal aroused derision.

    I think it was a Senatot chairing a committee but having too little to do and to distinguish him who took us the whole way to metrication oblivious of the fact that computers and even hand held HP calculators were going to make 640 acres in a square nile, 4840 square yards in an acre etc. very easy to handle.

  148. @Achmed E. Newman
    Thanks for the great post full of common sense. Though I would be against "common sense" gun control even if I didn't believe this, you are quite right that all Liberty lovers know that the left does not stop with what they call "common sense" measures. Everything is incremental with them, and for them, compromising with them means losing.

    As an example, I just read a memo at work about one more simple word we are not supposed to say. I wish I could write more, but it'd give away too much. Anyway, I don't think I'll be complying anymore...

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    As an example, I just read a memo at work about one more simple word we are not supposed to say. I wish I could write more, but it’d give away too much. Anyway, I don’t think I’ll be complying anymore…

    Probably the word is something like “inmate.”

  149. @Ebony Obelisk
    1. white “men” commit the most gun violence

    2. They also influence Men of Color to be guillemot

    3. Take away they dgubs of white men and things will fall into place.

    Replies: @Elli, @Hangnail Hans, @Hereward, @MEH 0910, @MEH 0910, @tyrone, @kaganovitch

    3. Take away they dgubs of white men and things will fall into place.

    This is why Liberia is synonymous with Eden to the well-informed.

  150. @Rob
    For “urban” school shootings, where someone gets mad at this other dude, holds his gun sideways, and shoots in the general direction of his target, having to get guns on the black market would likely be no deterrent.

    For the evil people who shoot up classrooms full of kids they don’t even know? They would be nearly totally deterred. These aren’t people with friends. I’ve never bought a gun either legally or n, but I have some experience buying drugs. Guns ain’t drugs. No one is afraid the guy who buys his weed from you is going to shoot you. For one thing, drugs are sort of an iterated prisoner’s dilemma. For pot, you’re going to want more weed next week/month. You kill your dealer, and there’s this saying about killing the goose that lays the golden gram. But you are not likely to smoke your whole gun and have to buy another one soon. Guns sales are often not repeat business.

    Think back to high school. If you're taking a very interesting class where your assignment is to take a hundred bucks and get a quarter oz of pot by the end of the week. Think you could have gotten an easy A? I could have, and I went to 3 high schools 2/1/1 by years. If I had wanted to buy a gun in high school, I don’t even know where I would have started. These 18-year-old shooters are just out of high school. If they wanted illegal weapons, the process of procurement would likely have nixed their plans.

    I think eighteen is way too young to let people buy guns. Twenty-one? Can a twenty-one-year-old guy rent a car? Last I read on it, twenty-six was the youngest a guy could rent a car without serious hassle. That seems more like a reasonable floor for buying guns.

    Maybe gun insurance should be like car insurance? You have to have insurance to legally drive in some states, though in mine, you can register as an “uninsured motorist” for $300/year. When you buy a gun, you would also have to buy insurance for it, perhaps as a one-time fee that covers the life of the gun. I’d let insurers compete and the market (and actuaries) set the price difference for various risk factors, like being male or being a NAM.

    Do you know the thing about my right to swing my first stops before your nose? Well, buying a gun is a lot like buying a bigger fist. You may not intend for anyone to get hurt. But the gun gets stolen and used in a crime? I don’t think you should necessarily go to jail for that, but gun insurance provides some compensation for people whose noses get in the way of people swinging guns around.

    I saw a meme on Twitter (cited here) about the people whose “lockdown for 2 weeks to crush covid” morphed into, “get a third dose of the vaccine if you want to go to college” are the same people now saying they want “sensible gun laws.” Beto O’Rourke was at least honest enough to say in a primary debate that yes, his goal was to take away guns.

    The thing with gun laws is the anti-gun and pro-gun people are arguing different things, so no one can convince anyone of anything. Pro-gunners don’t like school shootings, but they think that the probability*likely harm of from the government going totalitarian (gee, who’d think that?) is greater than the harm of a few school shootings.

    So, instead of trying a “compromise” that won’t work, we make a grand bargain? No more assault rifles sold in exchange for a constitutional amendment banning immigration forever and deporting all the Dreamers, bebés ancla, y padres.

    Because really, don’t we want private gun ownership as a backstop to the government importing enough voters to always get what it wants? Well, stop diluting our votes and hacking elections and we’ll stop preparing for contingency plans when you decide to genocide us more quickly. I don’t like guns, but I think even patriots who do like guns would like that bargain, no?

    Guns (and soon, sadly, abortion) are the only things the right seems to win on, well, also cutting taxes on the billionaires so the country collapses. If we’re going to compromise on guns, we really need something big in exchange. Seriously, if President Trump had stopped immigration, neither of the last two mass shootings would have happened. The Replacers have blood on their hands.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666, @kaganovitch

    For the evil people who shoot up classrooms full of kids they don’t even know? They would be nearly totally deterred. These aren’t people with friends.

    While your theory is not implausible, it has been empirically falsified. None of the murderers (Brievik, et al.) from countries where guns are strictly controlled were deterred.

  151. Anon[312] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    @anon

    Seems like a good idea. In fact before reading your comment, I came up with the same idea individually. The thing is obviously that formal, mechanical, computerized background checks that revealed that the person has no psychiatric history often do not tell the whole story about that person, and some more personal proactive method is needed to determine whether that person is of a good character and of sound mind.

    Here in Ecuador you even need to have reference letters to open a credit card or checking account at a bank. Credit card fraud and identity theft is practically unknown here.

    Replies: @Anon

    Here in Ecuador you even need to have reference letters to open a credit card or checking account at a bank. Credit card fraud and identity theft is practically unknown here.

    In Japan you need a co-signer for an apartment rental or lease agreement. And if a small corporation wants to get a business loan the main owner/officer has to personally guarantee the loan, rendering the whole point of the corporate veil meaningless.

    This works pretty well in a homogeneous society with close family bonds, few social outcasts, and a sense of responsibility. I think even Japan is starting to fray at the edges though, in various ways.

    Do American college student loans still require parental co-signers, as at least some of them used to?

  152. @MEH 0910
    @Ebony Obelisk


    3. Take away they dgubs of white men and things will fall into place.
     
    Take the Money and Run - I Have a Gub, Apt Natural
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VdMdboymT8

    Replies: @Paul Jolliffe, @Ganderson

    One of the funniest scenes ever. I find a lot of the Wood man’s stuff doesn’t hold up, but Take the Money and Run is still comedy gold.

  153. @Intelligent Dasein
    @aNewBanner

    I was about to say this as well, so thank you for mentioning it. It's really a distraction to talk about gun control at all when the only real issue here is the utter incompetence and cowardice of the cops. It's time to defund the legacy police force and start over again.

    But to just to riff on the point, I would like to mention that the full spectrum failure which the greater West seems to be suffering across every dimension of society is not occurring in multiple, random ways. Each one of these failures shares the same Platonic form, which we can note by looking at a few examples:

    • At the beginning of the Covid debacle, it was announced to everyone that hospitals would curtail their normal treatment protocols and that restrictions would be placed on individual freedoms in order to flatten the curve, because it was necessary to "save the healthcare system."

    • At the recent school shooting currently under discussion, the police refused to confront the shooter because they were afraid that they might get hurt. Instead, they tackled parents who were trying to save their own children.

    • The banking system was bailed out after the Great Financial Crisis and QE was instituted, which caused vast amounts of debt belonging to basically insolvent governments to trade at negative interest rates.

    • The war in Ukraine, which Russia is quite handily winning, and which Russia had perfectly good reasons for prosecuting, is being portrayed in the Western media as a wantonly aggressive act by Russia, which is also suffering embarrassing losses. The sanctions levelled against Russia have only strengthened the Russian economy and harmed the West.

    In each one of these cases what we are witnessing is the abdication of the institutions of society, who are now forcing ordinary citizens to bear the cost of their failure while also insisting, contrary to evidence, upon their own legitimacy and right to govern. We see, in other words, the failure and desperation of the elites who are determined only to cling to power but have no idea what to do with it.

    Replies: @aNewBanner, @That Would Be Telling, @Ganderson

    Good observations all. I’d add, and I’ve made this point many times before; while our government agencies are bleeping up all over the place, governments at all levels are unwilling and or unable to perform traditional important governmental functions such as border control and basic municipal services (plowing, street and water system maintenance etc).

    The old Daley machine was corrupt; you could get your idiot nephew on the city payroll, or skim some dough off a paving contract, but the streets better get plowed and the garbage picked up.

  154. @Paul Jolliffe
    @JimDandy

    Except, naturally, for the minor fact that there isn’t the slightest evidence that Ramos had a nickel to his name, let alone the $3,000 (minimum) needed to pull off Tuesday afternoon all by himself.

    Which he did not do all by himself, which anyone of reasonable intelligence and perceptiveness knew as soon as they saw what was clearly a mugshot of Ramos from some prior arrest.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @John Johnson, @Johann Ricke

    Except, naturally, for the minor fact that there isn’t the slightest evidence that Ramos had a nickel to his name, let alone the \$3,000 (minimum) needed to pull off Tuesday afternoon all by himself.

    He worked for Wendy’s and didn’t have to pay rent.

    It’s public information and they have interviews with his co-workers.

    Please leave the Unz bubble once in a while.

  155. @Jonathan Mason
    @Reg Cæsar


    You neglect the most serious issue of all– gun control advocates in the US are almost to a man dishonest.
     
    Probably so, but then again those who promote guns are equally dishonest. For example the NRA is not really transparent about receiving funding from the gun manufacturing industry, and politicians of both sides lack transparency about who is financing their pro-gun or anti-gun advocacy.

    You always have to follow the money. Ted Cruz is now saying that every school should have armed guards and only one entrance, but who would benefit financially from this?

    Look at the TSA for example. While the organization exists ostensibly to prevent hijackers from getting on planes with knives, guns, and explosives, the delayed time spent in airports before and between flights is incredibly beneficial to the overpriced restaurant services when travelers are not even allowed to carry a bottle of water or a sandwich.

    I noticed this on a recent flight when I had a long changeover. Even if you were prepared to spend an unlimited amount of money there was simply no decent food available presumably because the restaurants knew that they could charge the earth for total garbage and get away with it. Anyone who protested would quickly be taken away by the goons.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @John Johnson

    Probably so, but then again those who promote guns are equally dishonest. For example the NRA is not really transparent about receiving funding from the gun manufacturing industry, and politicians of both sides lack transparency about who is financing their pro-gun or anti-gun advocacy.

    I’m not a fan of the NRA but it is a myth that they are funded by the gun manufacturing industry.

    The NRA receives most funding from individuals:
    https://amarkfoundation.org/nra-funding/

    Guns are actually not high profit and some of the biggest companies are barely solvent. That is why liberal plans to destroy them via lawsuits should be taken seriously.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @John Johnson

    We should also note the gun industry has its own and fairly effective NRA equivalent, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) which is also closely linked to the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) which is the US standards organization for things like specifications of cartridges. Get added to their newsletter; our enemies continue to pursue Jonathan Mason's scheme for disarming the country which includes bankrupting the industry which we need for guns, spare parts, ammo, etc. (Civilian smokeless powder is not trivial to make, has nitrocellulose and maybe nitroglycerin as its base components.)

    With its internal corruption plus a very badly implemented self-defense "insurance" attempt resulting in existential threats to it and more importantly the Winning Team leadership and board, the NRA is all but AWOL in the political fight for the foreseeable future. After all, after 2016 when Trump showed he was still a liberal 1980s NYC Democrat gun-grabber, having him be a guest speaker is thought to be more a ploy to help Wayne LaPierre et. al. keep their positions instead of advancing the cause or increasing membership and thus dues.

    It would also seem Jonathan Mason is completely ignorant of the IRS 990 form for non-profits which you linked to. Which should also be filed by Bloomberg's organizations.

  156. @Reg Cæsar
    @Dr. X


    5,000 acre ranches in the outback of Queensland
     
    Acres? Oz is the most metricated corner of the Anglosphere. Decimal currency wasn't enough for them. They had to go the whole Robespierre.


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZTeWLA1LAs



    https://res-2.cloudinary.com/moad/image/upload/c_fit,q_60,w_800/v1/moad-web/heracles-production/b95/914/0e2/b959140e2c7f3608458f303ad9b90a924143393394c1b2dc2cc5aa459e3d/John%20Frith%20cartoon-rz.jpg


    The Introduction of Decimal Currency: How We Avoided Nostrils and Learned to Love the Bill


    Good heavens!:


    The Museum of Australian Democracy acknowledges the traditional owners and custodians of country throughout Australia. We recognise their continuing connection to land, waters and community. We pay our respects to the people, the cultures and the elders past, present and emerging.

    The museum respectfully acknowledges the role that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples continue to play in shaping Australia’s democracy.

    https://www.moadoph.gov.au/blog/the-introduction-of-decimal-currency-how-we-avoided-nostrils-and-learned-to-love-the-bill/#
     

    Replies: @Wizard of Oz, @Stan Adams

    The crazy guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords made a bunch of weird YouTube videos in which he talked about manipulating language to create a new currency.

    (He was obviously schizophrenic, so naturally Sarah Palin was to blame.)

    “Every human who’s mentally capable is always able to be treasurer of their new currency” … said someone who was quite obviously not mentally capable of grasping reality.

    [MORE]

    His main beef with Giffords was that he’d attended one of her town meetings and asked her the nonsensical question, “What is government if words have no meaning?” Naturally, she didn’t know what the hell he was talking about, but she gave him some BS answer.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Stan Adams


    He was obviously schizophrenic, so naturally Sarah Palin was to blame.
     
    It is entirely plausible that mentally disturbed people like Loughner might have perceived the target symbol on Giffords that was posted on Palin's website as a go ahead to shoot her.

    That is why politicians have to be so careful about making incendiary remarks about race.

    This is something that Steve Sailer doesn't seem to get, and is part of the reason why he is spurned by politicians and mainstream media, even though his ideas are often quite interesting.

    I am not saying that Palin was even aware of the posting with the gun sights on Giffords, or if she was she had any idea of how it could have affected unbalanced people.

    But Palin is a silly, lightweight woman who was accidentally promoted way above her pay grade when a desperate John McCain was looking for a female vice president, and she just dug a deeper hole for herself after Giffords was shot instead of giving the matter some serious thought.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

  157. @John Johnson
    @Jonathan Mason

    Probably so, but then again those who promote guns are equally dishonest. For example the NRA is not really transparent about receiving funding from the gun manufacturing industry, and politicians of both sides lack transparency about who is financing their pro-gun or anti-gun advocacy.

    I'm not a fan of the NRA but it is a myth that they are funded by the gun manufacturing industry.

    The NRA receives most funding from individuals:
    https://amarkfoundation.org/nra-funding/

    Guns are actually not high profit and some of the biggest companies are barely solvent. That is why liberal plans to destroy them via lawsuits should be taken seriously.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    We should also note the gun industry has its own and fairly effective NRA equivalent, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) which is also closely linked to the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI) which is the US standards organization for things like specifications of cartridges. Get added to their newsletter; our enemies continue to pursue Jonathan Mason’s scheme for disarming the country which includes bankrupting the industry which we need for guns, spare parts, ammo, etc. (Civilian smokeless powder is not trivial to make, has nitrocellulose and maybe nitroglycerin as its base components.)

    With its internal corruption plus a very badly implemented self-defense “insurance” attempt resulting in existential threats to it and more importantly the Winning Team leadership and board, the NRA is all but AWOL in the political fight for the foreseeable future. After all, after 2016 when Trump showed he was still a liberal 1980s NYC Democrat gun-grabber, having him be a guest speaker is thought to be more a ploy to help Wayne LaPierre et. al. keep their positions instead of advancing the cause or increasing membership and thus dues.

    It would also seem Jonathan Mason is completely ignorant of the IRS 990 form for non-profits which you linked to. Which should also be filed by Bloomberg’s organizations.

  158. @Paul Jolliffe
    @JimDandy

    Except, naturally, for the minor fact that there isn’t the slightest evidence that Ramos had a nickel to his name, let alone the $3,000 (minimum) needed to pull off Tuesday afternoon all by himself.

    Which he did not do all by himself, which anyone of reasonable intelligence and perceptiveness knew as soon as they saw what was clearly a mugshot of Ramos from some prior arrest.

    Replies: @JimDandy, @John Johnson, @Johann Ricke

    Except, naturally, for the minor fact that there isn’t the slightest evidence that Ramos had a nickel to his name, let alone the \$3,000 (minimum) needed to pull off Tuesday afternoon all by himself.

    He lived with his grandmother. No food or lodging expenses. Even at minimum wage, that’s \$15K a year in spending money, less FICA. Fact is criminals aren’t shy about theft or robbery, from shoplifting all the way to bank heists. You think the bling you see on the average Mob soldier is obtained through honest labor? At worst, he steals his grandmother’s valuables and heads to the nearest pawn shop. You think he’ll shoot her in the face, but is too ethical to rip her off? He did steal her truck for his final joyride.

    • Replies: @Paul Jolliffe
    @Johann Ricke

    Fair enough - but my point stands:

    There is absolutely no evidence that he bought at least $3,000 worth of firearms and ammo with money he himself had earned.

    As of right this moment, the authorities have not identified that he had a checking account, let alone a driver’s license.

    You can theorize all you like, but the burden of proof is on you to show he did it all by himself.

    He did not, and it’s even money he was guided by federal handlers as part of a pay-op.

  159. @kahein
    @AnotherDad

    "another dad" is an epithet for '48er germanic backwash that have turned the soft middle of the country in an endless dystopic stripmall hellscape (where, alas, they feel right at home)

    Replies: @Hibernian

    The Midwest is historically the most peace loving part of our country.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Hibernian


    The Midwest is historically the most peace loving part of our country.
     
    In terms of the historically three significant cultures relevant to the US making war, the Jacksonian Southerners always ready for a fight given sufficient cause and New England Moralists should not require explanation but see Walter Russell Mead for the former, and if the Midwestern Pragmatists decided the costs of doing business with you exceeded the benefits, they would join the others and systematically and ruthlessly crush you.
  160. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Stan Adams


    And he would feel compelled to point out that there are plenty of people his age who’ve done all the “right” things who are no happier than he is.
     
    Ah, and therein lies the rub.

    One of the bad things about Alt-Right is that there are far too many voices who, if they are not quite pushing an alpha-Chad ethos, they are at least exhorting everyone to get married and have children under the pretext that this is going to make them happy.

    What's missing are the voices saying that marriage and children do not necessarily make everyone happy, but it's something you need to do anyway.

    For many men, the domestic situation is disagreeable in certain respects. It results not in happiness but in a type of dry martyrdom, a life full of duties that have lost most of their relish and sacrifices that don't seem to bear any fruit. But these men were not wrong to start families; they did what the higher life demanded. They carried on and earned the right to be counted with all striving, suffering, genuine creatures who cannot help but command our respect.

    Any happiness that we find this side of heaven cannot be drank "straight" but has to be mixed with irony, and this is the tragic view of life. If we are to take comfort in anything, let it be in the fact that we aren't supposed to be comfortable.

    It's just like going to work. I recognize that we all have material needs and consequently man must labor under the sun, but this is not essentially what we are. We work to live, we don't live to work.; he who gives his heart to material pursuits is something less than human. But when we take work ironically, knowing that it isn't the final purpose of our existence, this is precisely what opens us up to any real enjoyment there is to be had in it, and we work better as a result. And a relationship built on this premise is much more likely to last than one that is founded on the pursuit of happiness.

    By the way, this hypothetical fellow of yours is full of beautiful insights into the human condition and would no doubt make a good husband and father. I wish him all the best.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    By the way, this hypothetical fellow of yours is full of beautiful insights into the human condition and would no doubt make a good husband and father. I wish him all the best.

    Thanks.

    It’s oddly comforting (?) to think that my own father is an even bigger screw-up than I am. His father was something of a failure, as well. (Neither of my paternal grandparents made it past 45.)

    My maternal grandfather is the only member of my family for whom I have any real respect. I owe him everything.

  161. @Stan Adams
    @Reg Cæsar

    The crazy guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords made a bunch of weird YouTube videos in which he talked about manipulating language to create a new currency.

    (He was obviously schizophrenic, so naturally Sarah Palin was to blame.)

    "Every human who's mentally capable is always able to be treasurer of their new currency" ... said someone who was quite obviously not mentally capable of grasping reality.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHoaZaLbqB4

    His main beef with Giffords was that he'd attended one of her town meetings and asked her the nonsensical question, "What is government if words have no meaning?" Naturally, she didn't know what the hell he was talking about, but she gave him some BS answer.

    https://i.ibb.co/bNn8qWd/nft.png

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    He was obviously schizophrenic, so naturally Sarah Palin was to blame.

    It is entirely plausible that mentally disturbed people like Loughner might have perceived the target symbol on Giffords that was posted on Palin’s website as a go ahead to shoot her.

    That is why politicians have to be so careful about making incendiary remarks about race.

    This is something that Steve Sailer doesn’t seem to get, and is part of the reason why he is spurned by politicians and mainstream media, even though his ideas are often quite interesting.

    I am not saying that Palin was even aware of the posting with the gun sights on Giffords, or if she was she had any idea of how it could have affected unbalanced people.

    But Palin is a silly, lightweight woman who was accidentally promoted way above her pay grade when a desperate John McCain was looking for a female vice president, and she just dug a deeper hole for herself after Giffords was shot instead of giving the matter some serious thought.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Jonathan Mason

    I have a surprise for you:



    https://i.ibb.co/J5pp4X8/DAD9-B375-90-EE-4-A6-B-B4-B6-8-FB3-A50-CC721.jpg

    https://i.ibb.co/rt7cKTy/3-FC3-DD66-4-B87-4311-AA2-F-2-D5244-B2-CFF5.jpg

  162. @Hibernian
    @kahein

    The Midwest is historically the most peace loving part of our country.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    The Midwest is historically the most peace loving part of our country.

    In terms of the historically three significant cultures relevant to the US making war, the Jacksonian Southerners always ready for a fight given sufficient cause and New England Moralists should not require explanation but see Walter Russell Mead for the former, and if the Midwestern Pragmatists decided the costs of doing business with you exceeded the benefits, they would join the others and systematically and ruthlessly crush you.

  163. @Jonathan Mason
    @Stealth

    A good solution would be to leave the Second Amendment intact as it is obviously very popular, but at the same time make manufacturers and importers and retailers of firearms and ammunition 100% liable and responsible for the use of their products, and to make it possible for their executives and board members to be held personally criminally responsible for any misuse of their products.

    Thus without the government interfering, such persons would know that they were putting their own livelihoods and lives at risk if they sold weapons and/or ammunition to irresponsible users.

    It would thus be the responsibility of each community to determine whether a member was safe to have firearms and ammunition. Perhaps for example, at the gun dealer would require written references from three responsible persons known to the gun dealer before they would release a weapon to a first-time buyer.

    Also perhaps the methodology used in Texas that allows individuals to sue abortion providers could be adapted to allow individuals to sue providers of murder weapons.

    Replies: @Stealth

    In other words, get rid of all the guns. Make it so difficult and so risky to manufacture and obtain them that almost nobody will do either. No thank you.

  164. @Jonathan Mason
    @Stan Adams


    He was obviously schizophrenic, so naturally Sarah Palin was to blame.
     
    It is entirely plausible that mentally disturbed people like Loughner might have perceived the target symbol on Giffords that was posted on Palin's website as a go ahead to shoot her.

    That is why politicians have to be so careful about making incendiary remarks about race.

    This is something that Steve Sailer doesn't seem to get, and is part of the reason why he is spurned by politicians and mainstream media, even though his ideas are often quite interesting.

    I am not saying that Palin was even aware of the posting with the gun sights on Giffords, or if she was she had any idea of how it could have affected unbalanced people.

    But Palin is a silly, lightweight woman who was accidentally promoted way above her pay grade when a desperate John McCain was looking for a female vice president, and she just dug a deeper hole for herself after Giffords was shot instead of giving the matter some serious thought.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    I have a surprise for you:

    [MORE]

  165. @Reg Cæsar
    @Wizard of Oz


    Limit access as far as possible under the Constitution to the most lethal weapons
     
    Automatics are severely restricted, with no new licenses issued in almost 40 years. Surface-to-air missiles, nuclear devices, well, no need to ask.

    Flamethrowers are legal in 48 or 49 states, yet flamethrown felonies are rare. Even those apocryphal church burnings haven't been blamed on them.


    Go as far as possible in preventing the young, the already crimina, and the mentally unstable from acquiring firearms
     
    Again, these statutes are already on the books. The mentally unstable shouldn't be operating motor vehicles or casting votes, either.

    Penalise both as a crime and by huge liability to damages anyone whose negligence makes it possible for others to get hold of their firearms
     
    Again, these are already in place. The issue is whether they are in use.

    You neglect the most serious issue of all-- gun control advocates in the US are almost to a man dishonest.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Jonathan Mason, @InnerCynic

    You neglect the most serious issue of all– gun control advocates in the US are almost to a man dishonest.

    Amen to that!

  166. @Johann Ricke
    @Paul Jolliffe


    Except, naturally, for the minor fact that there isn’t the slightest evidence that Ramos had a nickel to his name, let alone the $3,000 (minimum) needed to pull off Tuesday afternoon all by himself.
     
    He lived with his grandmother. No food or lodging expenses. Even at minimum wage, that's $15K a year in spending money, less FICA. Fact is criminals aren't shy about theft or robbery, from shoplifting all the way to bank heists. You think the bling you see on the average Mob soldier is obtained through honest labor? At worst, he steals his grandmother's valuables and heads to the nearest pawn shop. You think he'll shoot her in the face, but is too ethical to rip her off? He did steal her truck for his final joyride.

    Replies: @Paul Jolliffe

    Fair enough – but my point stands:

    There is absolutely no evidence that he bought at least \$3,000 worth of firearms and ammo with money he himself had earned.

    As of right this moment, the authorities have not identified that he had a checking account, let alone a driver’s license.

    You can theorize all you like, but the burden of proof is on you to show he did it all by himself.

    He did not, and it’s even money he was guided by federal handlers as part of a pay-op.

  167. @kahein
    @TWS

    i don't give a shit about your guns. i have a big problem that because people like you want to roll around in the mud in the ravine behind your hovel playing intrepid delta killmaster, or fantasize about killing blacks, or whatever you do while waiting for the first of the month, and don't want any simple, common-sense hindrances to your fun -- that real killers can get rifles easypeasy and drown 2nd graders in their own blood

    and yeah, obvs you lack the humanity or intelligence to understand this pov. you ofc know what you can do next (although in reality, you'll probably just buy another pair of tac sunglasses)

    Replies: @TWS

    Glad you’re so reasonable about this. Certainly, your opinion about firearms seems much more persuasive now.

    How do you scream, “Give me your guns, bigots!” without writing actually writing that? Well done.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Becker update V1.3.2