New Yorker Offers A Few Stupid Ideas on Gun Control

Adam Gopnik (courtesy mhpbooks.com)

You gotta love intellectual gun control advocates. They’re so . . . intellectual. Eggheads like New Yorker writer Adam Gopnik [above] would like nothing better than to sit you down and calmly explain gun control—so you can see that he’s right and you’re a brainless inbred racist redneck. I mean, wrong. Here you are, Mr. Gun Owner: A Few Simple Ideas About Gun Control that you, even you, can understand. If you try really really hard. So, idea number one . . .

No one disputes that there are sane reasons for ordinary people to need a rifle. But there is no imaginable, meaningful sense in which Canadians, or Australians, are “less free” when it comes to guns because they have to take a safety course before they use one.

Here’s another idea: a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Founding Fathers wrote and ratified the Second Amendment to the Constitution to keep the government out of the business of contravening, violating, transgressing, breaking, breaching or otherwise infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The way I read it, the 2A prohibits any government regulation of the right to keep and bear arms.

Yes, I know we have governmental firearms regulation. Lots of it. I know that the Supreme Court’s Heller decision OK’s “reasonable regulations.” And I know that Gopnik views a mandatory safety class as a perfectly reasonable regulation. But here’s another simple idea: I don’t. Millions of Americans feel the same way. They don’t want the government deciding what constitutes firearms safety and what doesn’t.

Illinois’ new concealed carry regulations require 16 hours of training. I’ll bet Gopnik’s dad didn’t spend 16 hours listening to an instructor before he fired a gun. And neither will thousands of low-income Prairie Staters, who cannot afford the time, travel or expense mandated by the training requirements. That’s before we talk about the kind of training that the government deems suitable.

Training requirements are barriers to firearms ownership. Gopnik thinks that’s a good thing. I think that’s a bad thing. More generally, whenever a government compels a citizen to perform an action—any action—they are less free.

So there, sir, are two meaningful ways in which Canadians or Australians are “less free” when it comes to guns because they have to take a safety course before they use one.

What we can learn from Canada is how to legislate common sense without violating anyone’s liberty—unless you imagine that anyone’s liberty depends on having as many weapons as he wants whenever he wants them. Perhaps no existing gun law could have been explicitly designed to stop the shotgun killer of the Navy Yard. But to repeat the central truth of modern criminology: building low barriers against violent crime has a disproportionate effect in ending it. Make something difficult and you begin to make it impossible. You don’t have to back-engineer every law to cover every past criminal circumstance; you just have to sensibly craft laws to discourage the next one.

Call me simple-minded—or not simple-minded enough—but how does one legislate common sense? That’s a bit like legislating lust, only not nearly as much fun.

Equally odd: the caveat dismissing the idea that liberty depends on having as many weapons as [one] wants whenever [one] wants them. Surely Mr. Gopnik knows that liberty must be created and protected by force of arms, as it was when our our Founding Fathers forged this nation. As it is today.

Limiting citizens’ access to arms limits citizens’ ability to limit tyranny. Mexico? Syria? Pick a nation, any nation. Norway? Sure! Time and time again we can see that gun control emboldens and empowers tyrants, whereas gun right defend and extend individual liberty. Hence the Second Amendment.

Besides, why not have as many weapons whenever one wants them? Where’s the harm in that? Isn’t the problem what people do with guns (most likely “a” gun) rather than the number or type owned by an individual? And aren’t American gun owners a peaceable lot? Not to mention that that the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution is without caveats.

As for that “building low barriers against violent crime” having a “disproportionate effect in ending it,” huh? I would have thought that our existing criminal laws (including gun laws) are a pretty damn high barrier against violent crime. And here’s the good news: they’re working! Violent crime in America continues its downward trend. So what is Gopnik on about?

Something about laws discouraging crime. Hmmm. It seems to me that laws punishing crime have a disproportionate effect on preventing crime—especially when compared to laws trying to prevent it. In other words, how’d that Prohibition thing work out? Or the War on Drugs? Why would laws regulating legal ownership of guns be any different?

Holy shit! Those aren’t the four simple ideas on gun control! They’re just the warm-up! Silly me. Here they are:

First, fix the background-check system by doing small things such as giving the F.B.I. ten days, instead of three, to complete them; prohibiting “high-risk” individuals from getting their hands on guns (anyone with a restraining order filed against him for a threat of violence, for example); and accelerating federal legislation to keep the violent and mentally ill from having guns. Second, make the A.T.F. more effective through such simple measures as getting the agency a director. Third, encourage research on “personalized” guns and gun triggers. Fourth, ban assault weapons, carefully defined, and with them magazines that fire more than ten rounds. And finally—radical idea—fund research on what actually works to end gun violence.

The FBI doesn’t need ten days to complete a background check. It’s instant! The ATF already has a director! Personalized guns don’t work! The assault weapons ban didn’t work either! Restricting a firearm’s ammunition capacity restricts Americans’ ability to defend themselves and leaves them open to attack by criminals who don’t respect ammunition capacity restrictions! There’s plenty of research already! None of it shows that gun control reduces crime.

Wow. That was simple.

comments

  1. avatar Jay1987 says:

    Why are intellectuals so damn stupid and lacking so much common sense or “horse sense” or “street smarts”? whatever you wanna call it.

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      Because, more often than not, they’ve never had a real job and/or have had everything handed to them their whole lives.

      1. avatar Jay1987 says:

        I see perhaps America should start building things again maybe then we could be spared these professional thinkers with no sense but plenty of IQ

      2. avatar matt says:

        By saying that you’re building yet another gap we don’t need. There are plenty of pro A2 people that are rich as hell but still feel everyone has a right to have guns and protect themselves. Painting with such a wide brush screws us all even if it may be true of journalists that live in anti gun states.

        1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          I taught college for several years and have been around these types quite a bit. The above comment is generally the categories that the self-identified “intellectuals” fall into. The only addition that could be added; they all seem to feel guilty about it in some way.

    2. avatar MarcusAurelius says:

      I think Thomas Sowell explains it nicely.

      1. avatar John says:

        Thomas Sowell is awsome !! Thanks For Posting +1

    3. avatar Cliff H says:

      “Why are intellectuals so damn stupid and lacking so much common sense or “horse sense” or “street smarts”?”

      Intellectuals and Progressives seem so damn stupid to us because we look at a problem like RKBA and the 2A and see that the solution is simple – leave ’em alone! But do NOT be fooled. They actually seem stupid to us because they are NOT trying to solve the problem that we see as the problem. They are trying to solve the problem of, “Why can’t we just regulate away all these guns and the Second Amendment?” Since THAT is the problem they are actually trying to solve we tend to see their actions that work against our RKBA as stupid. They know EXACTLY what they are about and they are not our friends nor friends of our Constitution.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        I think it’s more like they need to invent a problem that appears to apply to someone else so they can gain attention and prestige with no personal risk but plenty of potential gain (money, power, non-ugly mating partners, etc.).

    4. avatar Rokurota says:

      Don’t buy into that trope! These people are not necessarily “intellectual,” and we should not divorce “common sense” and higher reasoning. Doing so is the way people try to diminish others.

      First, is Gopnik even credible? He’s a magazine writer. Well, I’ve had magazine articles published, too — so what? Does he even have a degree? So is this guy even “an intellectual,” however we define that?

      But let’s say he has three PhDs and a MacArthur Genius grant. Look how many logical fallacies he commits. He speaks of not “violating anyone’s liberty—unless you imagine that anyone’s liberty depends on having as many weapons as he wants whenever he wants them.” Does he know what the definition of liberty is? “The power or scope to act as one pleases.” Etymological fallacy! Then in the same paragraph, he claims no existing law could have stopped Alexis, then claims low barriers to gun crime will stop the next shooting. Is he mad? This shooting happened in one of the most gun-restricted environments in the nation. He insinuates that barrier is lower than the low threshold trumpeted by criminologists, when in fact the barrier in this case was extremely high.

      This man is no intellectual, so don’t give him credit for it. We’re the “Armed Intelligentsia” after all. “I don’t even call it violence when it’s in self defense; I call it intelligence.” This from a man who never finished high school.

    5. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Because idiots like this guy aren’t intellectuals at all. They Google some stuff and find phrases that sound smart so that they can make people think that they are intellectuals, but they don’t have the IQ necessary to tie their shoes and breathe at the same time.

    6. avatar Hannibal says:

      Because they refuse believe that something so simple could be beyond their experiences and education. It’s like the manager in Dilbert…

    7. avatar slicer87 says:

      Most so called intellectuals are really pseudo intellectuals. They are only good at blowing out BS, con men who trick other people to think they are smart.

    8. avatar maiko says:

      Who do you think argued, and won, cases like Heller, McDonald, and Lopez before the US Supreme Court? I’m pretty sure it wasn’t some fat hillbilly that works down at the gun store. Read a case.

    9. avatar Rebel says:

      Why are intellectuals so damn stupid and lacking so much common sense or “horse sense” or “street smarts”? whatever you wanna call it.

      I believe this sheds light on why:
      The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding.
      Psalm 111:10

    10. avatar IdahoPete says:

      As George Orwell said, “some ideas are so stupid it takes an intellectual to believe in them.”

      Case in point: Gopnik calls for “… finally—radical idea—fund research on what actually works to end gun violence.” So he wants to impose all of his disarmament ideas BEFORE he starts researching whether they will actually work.

      As an aside, we already have years of research and real-world evidence that none of his “reasonable” laws would prevent a criminal from committing a crime. Maybe that is why we call them “criminals”?

  2. avatar Paul53 says:

    Well documented is that the writers of The Bill of Rights did so out of fear of one thing, Tyranny. Think backwards from that and it’s obvious that government regulation of the first 10 amendments is completely precluded. See? Simple!

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      More pointedly, tyranny from a strong, centralized, Federal government. Much like the one we have today.

    2. avatar ropingdown says:

      I’m not a tyranny freak, but it does give one pause to reflect; You have to buy health insurance or pay a fine and BTW your old “catastrophic only” policy you’ve been buying for years is no longer legal even though you’ve got tons of cash to cover your ordinary H expenses; If they feel like pulling your passport you can’t leave the country; if you fight that passport-yank then you’ve invited yourself onto the no-fly list; If you pick a weed in the woods and smoke it the nearest ranger can put you in prison; if poor folks all go to one candidate you have to pay for another round of ‘entitlement’ even though those people and the government are both broke…and the large corporations can offshore 80% of their operations and cash in the blink of an electron.

      I cherish the constitutional framework of an independent judiciary, all spending bills originating in the House in case the Senate gets carried away, an executive subject to congressional oversight, and a SCOTUS that can insure rights are not deprived because of legislative overreach. Why does it seem, though, that the system has headed south? “Something Happening Here” and what it is this time around IS clear. It’s the dead end democracy hits when congressinonal and presidential candidates whore for votes and openly threaten the supreme court, if in a veiled way, to pile more entitlements on a broke fiscal base. Firearm Safety courses? I only wish that were the level of the game today.

      1. avatar Anthony says:

        When you reflect enough, you’ll realize the founding fathers went to war the the most powerful army at the time…and won…over less despotism then there is now…

  3. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    It is common for those who have no experience with something while nursing a fear or hatred for that object/situation to write with lack of fact or substance. Give me something I know nothing about to debate-I would, because I should, shut the f*ck up…………….guess it is too much to ask from some.

  4. avatar ThayneT says:

    Well done, RF. Too bad Mr. Holier Than Thou will never see it.

  5. avatar Brandon says:

    “radical idea—fund research on what actually works to end gun violence.”

    The only thing I agree with

    1. avatar LongPurple says:

      Same here, but with one minor revision —- not “GUN violence”, just “violence”. Since when are guns the only instruments of human violence ?

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Interestingly enough, the solution (that they will never admit) to what they refer to as “gun violence” is to allow constitutional carry in all 57 (joke on BHO) states. I am willing to bet big bucks that the crime statistics everywhere in the U.S. would fall precipitously, and the would mean for ALL violent crime, not just their sacred cow “gun violence”. Unless, of course, they want to count the good guys dropping a few (or many) bad guys as gun violence, which they no doubt would try to do.

    3. avatar Rick says:

      Even MOAR radical idea… do that FIRST!!

  6. avatar jirdesteva says:

    Here’s a simplistic idea guarantee me that no CRIMINALS will have guns. Then and only then will I think about giving up my rights. But there in lies the rub CRIMINALS don’t and wont obey the law.

    1. avatar Rokurota says:

      And what about the 250 lb, 2% body fat MMA champ who decides to play knockout with you? Or the six punks out wilding? Or even the petite criminal with an iron pipe? Guns aren’t just for defense against guns.

  7. avatar Mike says:

    Little story: I was doing work in a local office building that has the area’s FBI office. My work required me to go through their office space over the course of about two hours. I had to give the nice lady at the door my information to do a security clearance (she wouldn’t let me see my FBI file… I asked). But, it was a matter of minutes. Not hours, not days, not TWO BUSINESS WEEKS. I think, it’s because there’s these things…. called computers…. and this vast amount of information… almost a SUPER HIGHWAY of information. To quote Martin Luther King, a right delayed is a right denied.

  8. avatar Al says:

    FOID cards and required training are the 2nd amendment version of an (Unconstitutional) poll tax. They have a “disparate impact” on the poor and minorities. Put that in your pipe, Mr. Holder.

    1. avatar Not So 1337 says:

      FOID? More like FOAD! huehuehue

  9. avatar James says:

    Just wait, once the pinnacle city of all things wonderful elects Di Blasio mayor and he does what he wants to do in regards to handling the crime issue, New York will be back in the race for murder capital of the US. Personally, I can’t wait to say told you so, but then again, I have no plans to travel to NYC in the future, if ever. They made their bed, not they can lie in it.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      I’m afraid the “made their bed” analogy doesn’t work for me.

      More like “built their own coffin in the basement and are using it for a coffee table.”

  10. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    So super intellectual guy! Tell me why 10 rounds is the magic number? So far no statistical analysis says that it is. The analysis that has been done says magazine capacity has little effect on how many people are killed in a mass shooting. The navy yard shooter had how many shell capacity in his shotgun? 7? Just because it is a shotgun doesn’t mean it kills everyone in a 30 foot by 90 degree cone either. So until that time that it is proven super killy, the 10 round limit is a non-starter for me.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      If ten were the magic number every SWAT team in the country would turn in their standard capacity mags as unnecessary and switch to the smaller, lighter 10-round mags. And they wouldn’t cheat and keep number 11 in chamber, either.

  11. avatar Jeff Dege says:

    I do believe that every gun owner should have firearm safety training. To that end, I would support making firearm safety a standard part of the grade school curriculum.

    1. avatar DisThunder says:

      Seems like I’ve been saying that for years. Didn’t we have something like that, when we were kids…whattaya call it…Boy Scouts? Seems like we learned all kinds of useful, responsible type shit there.
      When I was in high school, it wasn’t uncommon for teachers to let guys out of their 7th period classes on occasion so they could finish their Eagle Scout projects. In fact, once that little nugget worked it’s way to us Juniors at the time, the next spring there were 100+ more would-be Eagle Scouts taking advantage of it.
      But that was last century, so….

  12. avatar Jeh says:

    You know what stops gun violence? Having a gun. As we’ve seen repeatedly, when a criminal meets a good guy with a gun, he stops, be he dead or given up. But I suppose these and other such facts are irrelevant and essentially imaginary to people like this man. Im guessing because he doesn’t FEEL good about somebody who doesn’t wipe his ass for him (the government), taking responsibility and having a gun.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      “As we’ve seen repeatedly, when a criminal meets a good guy with a gun, he stops, be he dead or given up.”

      What I see repeatedly, in all those reality video shows, is that almost every time a criminal meets a good guy with a gun he DOES NOT engage in a gun fight. He may or may not actually fire the gun he brought with him, but it’s almost always while he is making all haste to get the hell out of dodge. It would be interesting for someone to come up with the statistic as to how many armed robbers wind up in the emergency room shot in the ass.

      1. avatar Jeh says:

        I cant tell if your missing my point or not.
        Lanza killed himself when police showed up. The guy who entered Denver airport killed himself when armed personnel showed up, Holmes surrendered. Etc.
        You mentioned the fight-less encounter which supports my remark of “given up”.

      2. avatar Rokurota says:

        I know this is true because my anti-gun friends’ reaction to it is to make fun of it: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a donut is a good guy with a donut” or whatever. Told one of ’em about the CCW guy at Clackamas and she only responded, “well, I would just rather die.”

  13. avatar LongPurple says:

    This guy has added a new danger, “magazines that fire more than ten rounds”. None of my magazines can even fire one round.
    Oh well, give him partial credit for not saying “clip”.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      I nominate “The New Yorker” for dangerous magazine that only belongs on a battlefield.

  14. avatar Rev. Maurice Pompitous says:

    If you’re old enough you might remember China’s “Cultural Revolution” back in the 60’s. Intellectuals were drug out of the Universities and put to work in the rice fields. OK maybe a little harsh but Mao might have been on to something.

  15. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I have got to get me some of those magazines that fire rounds.
    Ding, fries are done.

  16. avatar isarmann says:

    So, out of his own mouth, the goal here is to “legislate common sense without violating anyone’s liberty”… Okay. But Mr. Smarter-Than-You also says : “Make something difficult and you begin to make it impossible.”

    So, if I take anything you’re at liberty to do, and make it difficult, I have begun to make it impossible.

    Wouldn’t making something you’re currently at liberty to do difficult-going-on-impossible kinda-sorta maybe violate your liberty?

    You currently have the liberty to leave your house. If I board up your windows and doors, install land mines and electric fencing around your house, thus making it “more difficult” to leave (some may argue “impossible”, with safety in mind), seems to me I have pretty effectively REMOVED your liberty.

    So tell me, Mr. Gopnick, when is a *removed* liberty you once had *not* violated? When you say it isn’t? Because of your vast “common sense”?

  17. avatar rhampton says:

    >> I know that the Supreme Court’s Heller decision OKs “reasonable regulations.” … I don’t.

    Until you are appointed to the Supreme Court, your legal opinion has no bearing on the matter. Same goes for those who argue that “militia” means citizens outside of military or police forces are disqualified from the right to bear arms. Reasonable restrictions are constitutional, and that’s from Justice Scalia.

    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

    1. avatar isarmann says:

      Well-documented post, there… but you left out *why* those who make the “militia” argument are wrong.

      I quote 10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes:

      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are—
      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

      I think your entire line of argument, however, is undercut by the fact that in the opinion of those who actually *wrote* the constitution, SCOTUS does NOT have the power to make an unconstitutional law constitutional; just like such laws are not legal or valid.

      The Supreme Court ARROGATED this power unto themselves, with a (you guessed it) Supreme Court decision!

      With your powers of research already demonstrated, I’m sure you’ll have no trouble finding it.

      1. avatar LongPurple says:

        It would be well to note that the “militia only RKBA”, perversion of the 2 A. leaves all females — except those “female citizens” (curiously, excluding female resident aliens who have declared intention to become citizens) who are in the National Guard — as not covered by the 2 A. guarantee of the “right of the PEOPLE”.

        No females are in the unorganized militia.

      2. avatar rhampton says:

        I hope you realize that the two long paragraphs with extensive footnotes to previous legal cases was written by Scalia. He did the research, not I.

        To your second point, it was also made (and lost) by the Anti-Federalists, who conceded that;

        “I have shewed, in a former paper, that this court will be authorised to decide upon the meaning of the constitution, and that, not only according to the natural and ob[vious] meaning of the words, but also according to the spirit and intention of it.”
        Anti Federalist Papers, XV, March 20, 1788

        So yes, the Supreme Court does have the power to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and apply it to directly to legal questions that arise after the document was ratified. Furthermore, they are charged with the duty to keep and respect prior precedents – hence Scalia’s footnotes regarding the established constitutionally acceptable regulations placed upon the second amendment.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Just because 5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices say something that is demonstrably NOT true (…shall not be infringed.”) is, in their opinion, Constitutional, does not make it so. It only makes it one more step towards the most difficult possible way to enforce the Constitution, which was he purpose of the Second Amendment in the first place.

      See Dredd Scott decision for an example of how badly they can get it wrong, or Roe v Wade. SCOTUS is made up of men (and a few women) and they bring their personal prejudices with them. Would that they were angels who could adjudicate impartially according to the Constitution of the United States of America, but there are few if any such in this world.

      1. avatar rhampton says:

        Yes, 5 out of 9 Justices does make a decision Constitutional until such time a future Supreme Court decision or Amendment to the Constitution says otherwise.

    3. avatar Chip says:

      “… nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions”

      I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV….. but!

      Doubt on longstanding prohibitions is the phrase that jumps out at me. Adding regulations would mean they aren’t longstanding, they would be new. There is nothing in the decision that is inviting new restrictions, or more restrictions. There is only the acknowledgement that there already are restrictions and we (the Court) aren’t addressing their validity in this decision.

      1. avatar rhampton says:

        Agreed. The constitutionality of any new type of regulation, like mandatory safety training, can only be decided by the courts. What may be reasonable to Adam Gopnik may be unconstitutional to Justice Scalia

      2. avatar LongPurple says:

        “. . . nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

        I would add that without the use of “such as”, the list of “prohibitions” and “laws forbidding the carrying of arms in sensitive places” is expressed as exhaustive. Contrast that with the examples given of the “sensitive places”. “Such as schools and government buildings”, indicates that other places, such as bars and sports areas may be included.

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    Those doe eyes, that “come hither” look — he’s channeling Bette Davis. And I’m so totally creeped out.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Marty Feldman eyes.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      That is one of the creepiest photos I’ve ever seen. Behind those eyes lurks an emptiness that consumes human souls.

  19. avatar Chaotic Good says:

    Just once I’d like to see someone who advocates an Assault Weapons Ban explain, in detail, how eliminating pistol grips and barrel shrouds makes a gun less deadly.

  20. avatar Pat says:

    This dirty libtards hair is thinning in the front. That’s all there is to say.

  21. avatar Lance says:

    Quit reading that New York Fascist Crap Robert!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  22. avatar Steve O says:

    This guy and everyone like him can simply go F themselves. I’m so sick of these fools.

  23. avatar 505markf says:

    Several points from the article I find most illuminating. First, let’s go ahead and pass some things because we can slam them through. THEN fund research to find out if it did any good (reducing gun violence). Seems a bit backward to me, but then I am not Canadian nor a writer for the New Yorker.

    Second, I am fairly certain that once the Supremes publish a decision, it becomes the law of the land. The issue is decided. Or not, in the New Yorker’s view as they know better than SCOTUS. I can certainly get behind the idea that the Court make decisions sometimes that I find ridiculous, but it then is the law. A personal right to firearms (duly decided and posted) is what the 2A means, per Heller. So how about we work with that as the starting place for a discussion. But it will not happen because the antis simply want the world to spin a different direction for no other reason than they think it should.

    Must be nice to get up every morning and realize that you know everything there is to know and no surprise learning will happen to you that day because you are past all that discovery and honest discussion thing.

  24. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    So this genius gives us his idea on gun control, the closes with the suggestion that we: “fund research on what actually works to end gun violence.”

    In other words, he admits that his ideas may not work to end gun violence because, as he notes here, the research hasn’t been done. (Of course it has, and shows that gun control actually makes society less safe and not more safe, but whatever.)

    He doesn’t need me to demolish his arguments, he does that himself.

  25. avatar Al W says:

    Someone asked me recently why I needed a 30 round magazine for my AR. I said to defend myself from a pack of feral hogs and a tyrannical government. They looked at me with a vacant stare and I stated my problem was telling the difference.

  26. avatar Danny says:

    Those last few points are exactly the same ones my liberal cousins use. They used it 8 months ago, and they used them today. People need to stop looking a guns like they are only used by THE BAD GUYS.

  27. avatar cynical bastard says:

    Just FYI, “gopnik” means a low-level street thug in Russian. Verrrrrry appropriate…

    1. avatar Patrick says:

      Yes! I read his name and thought about that irony (that he is such an “intellectual”). You beat me to it. I think “street thug” is a good (and in this case fitting) translation.

  28. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    $20 says this asshat lives in a NYC Co-op with a doorman and possibly a guard. Tell you what Punchy, publish your home address and tell the guard you are expecting company so it is ok to buzz them up. Then tell the Mrs. that you decided to play a game tonite called “strangers can F**k me while husband helplessly watches”. Not interested? Exactly.

  29. avatar Ross says:

    Sure you can own a rifle in Australia, providing it’s not semi-auto and you most definitely can not use it to shoot someone, even if that someone needs shooting.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Another Aussie on the board.

      In New South Wales, you don’t have to take a safety course but a safety booklet is available to study because there IS a mandatory safety test for the application of your first firearms license (but not for any subsequent re-applications or renewals). In this test, there is a minimum pass mark AND mandatory questions that have to be answered correctly. In our club we tell applicants to ask us if there any questions they would like us to explain before they take the test. So far everyone who took the time to raise issues with us has passed.

      1. avatar Ross says:

        Kiwi/American here.

  30. avatar Steve says:

    I wish I had a magazine that fired 10 rounds. All My magazines do is load ammunition into my firearm. 🙁

    1. avatar Patrick says:

      Those mags have bad recoil and ergonomics. Maybe a .380 with 30+ rounds would be comfortable to shoot, but having a barrel would greatly increase velocity and aim. (Would these mags require an FFL?)

  31. avatar Melquiades says:

    Gun control works! Come to Mexico where our law-abiding citizens are mostly unarmed! Sure, our criminals arm themselves with assault rifles, machine guns and goddamn grenade launchers, (which are 100% illegal in Mexico and HEAVILY regulated in the US) but at least knowing that these laws are in place will ease your minds.

  32. avatar Cubby123 says:

    This guy is a Dope,who thinks he is an intellect .Some famous libatard statements; “why do yo need”,Common sense gun laws’,’ it would be assumed’,we could then assume’,180% of the country wants this’,’ there is no NEED for’ ‘polls suggest that’ assault weapon CLIPS’ ,if there is a gun in the house,it is almost assured ,there will be a suicide’ ‘ you don’t need a gun you have the police’ ?’Only police should have guns’.Stupid BOZOS!

  33. avatar BaconFart says:

    “And finally—radical idea—fund research on what actually works to end gun violence.”

    So, what he is saying here is that every suggestion/recommendation he previously said before this statement means nothing and he has no clue if any of these changes would stop gun violence. So, why implement them? And finally -radical idea- use common sense and enforce the current laws and investigate/prosecute those who break them. After all, if the government can’t enforce the current laws what’s the use of more laws?

    1. avatar Fred says:

      Not quite, as we all know the anti-gun leadership makes up the results before any study is ever done. The CDC did this with a strange obviousness as they even concluded the exact opposite of research and the clear conclusion of the researchers on occasion, which is why they were told directly to stop conducting biased research and defunded. To them guns are bad, everything else is just an excuse to try to force their uneducated opinion on you, reality be damned.

      Actual useful research doesn’t really fit their agenda, it usually shows the anti-gun policies create crime. Finding that out would show the nation those that decry guns have created all the problems they cite and that they actually made them worse over the decades. Uncovering the racism, economic manipulation, and uncaring nature of the left isn’t something they want. Besides that their “research” was all too simple to defeat the first time around, anyone that knows anything about stats can do it within a minute.

      1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

        THIS.

        I am surprised no one said it earlier.

  34. avatar DaveL says:

    I suppose it wouldn’t be an infringement on Gopnik’s liberty to regulate the amount of ice cream he can consume. Maybe we’d have to make him take a course first. Then we can institute a 24-hour waiting period to prevent stress overeating, and maybe a strict limit of 2 quarts per month.

    Now, I’m sure Mr. Gopnik would object that ice cream is nothing like firearms, and he’d be correct, but the example serves to illustrate that his proposed gun control measures are, without question, an infringement on people’s liberty. It’s just that he thinks they’re justified,

  35. avatar The Original Brad says:

    All these stories usually have a lot in common, lack of common sense is just the obvious. No, what I see in these “plain speaking” type articles from intellectuals who are trying to show how they “get it” but we don’t, are the folksy little sotried about Dad’s raccoon hunting, or Grandpa’s deer rifle, or whatever. You get my point. As if this little anecdote about firearms gives them some sort of street cred with the gun rights supports. I am tiered of the “Hey! look at me, I see a valid reason for .22 LR rifles too, but…..”. They are wasting my time and lose my interest almost immediately. I’d actually respect them more if they didn;t try such a belittling tactic. Come to think of it, that’s exactly what they are down. Patting the little gun rights child on the head with a little story so they don’t seem so thtreatening. They are being condecsending, naturally, but don’t even know it, becasue that is, after all, what they do when faced with an opinion or facts that differ from their own selective adgendas. They can’t help it. It’s the liberal progressive way of moral superiority, look down your nose, speak down and treat anyone with a different view as a child.

    This article makes that all so clear to me now. I mean I guess I knew that already, but even when trying to make a serious attempt at communicating, like this pencil neck (couldn’t resist), they still can’t hide who they really are, a statist, trying to create fictional utopia based on intellectualism and moral superiority, contrary to all human nature and history. It just goes to show you how removed they are from reality.

  36. avatar TheBear says:

    I always tell the pseudo intellectuals: I will gladly turn my guns in when the next great tool of self defense is invented.

    Isn’t our current gun control conversation going to look silly when people can hurt or kill others with their minds?

  37. avatar The Blue Angel says:

    PhD = Piled High and Deep.

  38. avatar AJ says:

    “There’s plenty of research already! None of it shows that gun control reduces crime.”

    I would say a couple things about that.

    1. There is a body of research that “proves” exactly that.
    2. There is a body of research that proves there is no correlation between gun control and crime reduction.

    The problem is that the “proof” rendered in item 1 is based on anecdotal evidence and blatant omission of data that do not support the conclusion. The secondary problem is that the “conclusion” reached by the “studies” was actually predetermined, IE they had the answer first, and gathered the evidence to support said answer.

    The problem with number 2 is that the antis used their propaganda machine to render the findings irrelevant, despite having not actually read the actual research. Meaning, for all intents and purposes, that such a study does not exist or is fatally flawed and invalid.

  39. avatar SpeleoFool says:

    Not all those ideas are bad. I’m currently conducting research on “personalized” guns by acquiring a variety of firearms that I find appealing and outfitting them with various accessories to determine what makes them look cool and be fun to shoot. I will expand my research to personalized triggers as soon as the aftermarket Tavor trigger packs become available.

    Also, I feel that magazines capable of firing any number of rounds sound exceptionally dangerous. Proper equipment should never allow even a single round to detonate until it is safely in battery and intentionally fired by pulling the trigger.

    As for research into reducing gun violence, I’d suggest starting by looking at gun buy back programs conducted under laws, rules or regulations that compel the destruction of the firearms that are turned in. Also, artists who create sculptures out of scrapped guns may support a market for violence against guns. Look into it!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email