Taking down pro-gun talking points one at a time

UnknownThere has been a shooting at a military base. There has been a shooting in a school. There has been a shooting in a church. Regardless of motivation or location, guns are too prevalent in this nation.

In March 0f 2014, America celebrated the first month in many years without a soldier killed in action. The glow didn’t last long, as we lost three military personnel on home soil. The gun control argument is continually dismissed as the gun violence problem worsens. Guns, as always, are a polarizing lightning rodThis is getting so far beyond ridiculous.

You are not a bad guy because you own a gun. But if you’re fighting for the rights of “bad guys with guns,” then you can’t call yourself the good guy. Arguments and attitudes need to be reachable on both sides of this issue. Responsibility more than restriction.

This is not all about weapons restrictions, although they must be discussed, and it certainly isn’t about an across the board firearms ban. Americans should be free to own guns, but not at the expense of other people’s rights. This is the sticking point that gun lobbyists balk at. Instead of compromising, they dig in.

Guns are not going anywhere. Mass shootings happen at an alarming rate. The majority of Americans feel that there needs to be more gun control. Many erroneously call for a weapons ban. Gun lobbyists arguments? Well, those are the sticking points, and what we have to research. It’s long past time Americans tore down talking points and worked towards a solution.

Wayne lapierre, guns“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun!”  ~ Wayne LaPierre

In the summer of 2012, two NYPD officers in front of the Empire State Building took down a gunman. These were highly trained cops, put in the exact situation LaPierre fantasizes about. While they did do their job, their bullets wounded nine people. They were rightly lauded as heroes for not killing anyone but the shooter.

Two policemen, whose job it is to stop bad guys, but still wounded nine other people. And that’s after the bad guy had killed his victim. Two dead and nine wounded. This is the absolute best-case scenario of LaPierre’s fallacious statement.

Is it realistic to expect a random gun owner to do better than the police? No. The “good guy with a gun” is a macho fantasy. If you imagine that you are a “good guy with a gun” then you are neither responsible, nor mature enough to be handling one. If you own a gun to strut around like a big hero, you are part of the problem. Look to George Zimmerman.

Gun lobbyists are quick to counter this with stories and links about crimes prevented by responsible gun owners. And, yes, this does happen. But it is a sad fact that these rare occurrences are far outweighed by the tragic instances where gun owners were ineffective. In fact, studies show gun owners are more likely to kill themselves than others.

Quite simply, if “good guy” gun owners were so effective at stopping “bad guys” with guns, the NRA and other gun lobbies would constantly be flooding the news with these stories. There simply aren’t enough of them to do so. Meanwhile there are mass shootings after mass shootings.

And this is not to mention that seasoned cops and security personnel frequently seize up in dangerous situations. The body’s natural inclination is to freeze, fight, or flee from danger. Your body goes through hindering physiological changes in critical incident situations. Only through rigorous training can the average person suppress this instinct. And there is still no guarantee they will react in time, or even at all.

This writer has witnessed a mentally ill teenager with a butcher knife nearly escape clean after trying to cut someone’s throat in a bar. That’s because everybody stood around with his or her jaws dropped open in shock. Including an off duty cop.

In my experience in security, the very first thing people do when there is a sudden and unexpected threat is freeze up. Every time. Then they bolt. And these are in situations not nearly as dire as an active shooter. Fear is a powerful emotion, and it cancels out logic, reason, and training.

Even if you have the training and wherewithal to safely draw a firearm and aim at the bad guy, assuming that you have not been shot already, you are now dealing with people panicking and running past and probably even through you. Not to mention all the myriad factors you must instantaneously assess correctly before you can react.

Reaction time. Distance. Targeting, visibility, fields of fire, innocents, all in a split second. And if there is nobody else there with you, then you are just shot. The bad guy has the drop on you regardless. It doesn’t matter if you are armed or not.

guns, responsibility With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

The “good guy with the gun” is more likely to shoot his wife in a drunken stupor than stop a mass shooting. The problem is not the firearms themselves, but the arrogant and careless attitudes of those advocating that there be no limits on gun sales.

“Shoot first and ask questions later.” “Never mind the dog, beware of owner.” “You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.” These are paranoid exclamations of pride, attempted intimidation, and aggression. None are responsible statements.

The people who say it’s “too soon” to talk about weapons restrictions after every mass shooting flaunted and glorified firearms the day after the Newtown anniversary. This was “Guns Save Lives Day.” No matter how you feel about the issue, timing of this was tasteless, boorish, and monumentally disrespectful. Of all classifications this event could be categorized as, “responsible” was not one of them.

Those who are quick to boast of their firearms and their ability with them are the ones causing the most harm. These types of attitudes enable and embolden those who aren’t capable of properly handling guns. It’s difficult to classify this type of thinking as “responsible.”

To advocate the banning of firearms is misguided and foolish, but it is painfully obvious that just anyone can buy some. There is plenty of footage online of people buying firearms at a gun show without even showing ID. Terrorist organizations actually call for followers to do just that.

Somehow, making sure that people buying firearms are not criminals or terrorists is an assault on our freedom. These are times filled with dangerous people. Background checks, effective ones, are not unreasonable. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Making guns difficult to access for those with shady histories needs to be more firmly implemented. This would be a responsible step for us all to take.

guns from out of town“Criminals Don’t Follow Laws/Gun Laws Don’t Work”

Here are the two talking points used to argue against background checks and weapons restrictions. Both of these statements are taken from one fallacious premise. Let’s take a look at the real story.

First, the “criminals don’t follow laws” argument forwarded by gun advocates. They are forgetting, of course, that most mass shooters have no previous criminal record. Or that a family member, spouse, or friend causes most gun deaths.

In the overall picture, those with previous criminal records are not responsible for the majority of gun deaths. It is not as if there are mass roving gangs of criminals overrunning our streets in every single community in the nation. “The Road Warrior” is a fantasy movie, not a documentary of American life.

Not to mention that it isn’t hard for criminals to disregard laws that are weakly enforced and easily subverted. Gun laws are uneven from State to State; as such, weapons are brought over State lines from where they are legal to where they are not; and gun lobbyists constantly work to undermine weapons regulations regardless.

For examples of undermined gun control, see the Tiahrt Amendments. This legislation prevents the ATF from fully and properly enforcing weapons restrictions, and ties their hands on inspecting gun dealer stocks. This is what pro-gun crowds use for their “laws don’t work” fallacies. Hilarious, as they are the people doing everything they can to make sure these laws don’t work.

Take Todd Tiahrt for instance. He was a politician, bought by the gun lobbies to write legislation their way. He does not have the best interests of the American public at heart. He is following the money, and he is just one example.

 The NRA, Gun Lobbies, and John R. Lott

Here we have the root cause of most of America’s gun troubles. The National Rifle Association is only interested in keeping gun sales strong. That is their motivation, and how they make money. This is why they constantly work to undermine legislation and use their considerable influence on Washington.

The NRA and the other gun lobbies do not have public safety in mind at all. Never mind their Eddie the Eagle mascot for children. Never mind their video game, released shortly after blaming those same games for mass shootings. These tactics are ostensibly intended to teach children about gun safety. What they are really doing is indoctrinating children into a culture that glorifies guns.

The irresponsibility of gun lobbies is personified in John R. Lott. If you haven’t heard about this man, you need to research him. If you don’t have time, and he leaves a hard trail to follow, bookmark this link and check its sources for all the lurid details.

To sum up, John R. Lott has a hot mess of history regarding his research; flubbing research; losing research; escaping allegations of falsifying his research by claiming he had a computer crash; re-doing his research but on a smaller scale; missing incidents in his research, or counting other incidents multiple times; and then positively reviewing his own research under an assumed identity.

What does John R. Lott research? Guns. He’s best known for his book “More Guns, Less Crime” which advocated, unsurprisingly, more guns. Lott’s history is convoluted and complicated, but it all comes down to how his facts are not solid.

The problem with his facts being questionable is that they are the premise for his books, which are in turn the premise for many talking points of the gun lobbies. Lott’s research is either falsified on purpose or he is prone to errors in his methodology. So if his books are cornerstones of pro-gun advocates, their arguments must not be taken at face value.

He is absolutely not a reliable source, but as he advocates for more guns, he gets paid by Fox News and the gun lobbies to spread their message for them; “More guns!” But if the person forwarding that argument is basing it upon a flimsy premise, it poses bigger questions.

Are they forwarding this fallacious statement out of ignorance or deceitfulness? How can anyone displaying traits like this be taken seriously on any subject, let alone one as grave and serious as guns? Do you consider those who are careless or liars to be responsible? You shouldn’t. You will get hurt if you do.

Here’s that John R. Lott story again. He is far more integral to this issue than people realize. The next time you see an anti-gun control argument, check to see if the numbers aren’t derived from the work of John R. Lott. If they are, then those numbers aren’t credible.

The gun lobbies wrap themselves in the American flag, playing themselves off as patriots, but their sole loyalty will always be to the dollar. Nothing else. American lives are not worth as much to them.

guns don't kill people“Guns Don’t Kill People”

It’s not accurate to blame guns by themselves. But it’s unacceptable to make excuses for them. The gun owner that says firearms are just “tools” is refusing responsibility for a lethal weapon. Ergo, they are not a responsible gun owner.

Gun lobbyists often try to deflect with “cars kill people too” or “spoons make you fat” or other ridiculous semantics. Guns cannot be compared to anything other than guns. If you can’t stay on this topic and need to deflect, pivot, or compare apples to oranges, then you do not have a strong argument.

Which brings us to the base of the argument, “Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people.” Ozzy Osbourne unexpectedly put this talking point to rest in 1998, in an interview with the New York Times: “I keep hearing this [expletive] thing that guns don’t kill people, but people kill people. If that’s the case, why do we give people guns when they go to war? Why not just send the people?”

We send guns because they are meant to kill. They are a weapon meant to fire a bullet that will rend flesh and bone, or whatever other objects it is fired at. Yes, a gun can be used for things other than taking lives. But no other object or tool is meant for expressly that purpose, or can perform it so efficiently.

That is why firearms always should be in their own category and never compared to anything else. Don’t let semantics draw you away from the point at hand; guns are primarily designed to kill and they are too readily available.

Not to mention all the accidents where a gun went off unexpectedly. Even by NRA safety instructors. Perhaps it was dropped. But yes, guns can kill. Without people pulling the trigger. Glossing over that the gun is a weapon does yourself a tremendous disservice. These are not the actions of someone with a responsible attitude.

Knives? Yes they can kill too. But they can’t do it nearly as quickly and completely as an AR-15 with a high capacity. The same day as Sandy Hook, there was a mass knifing in China. Twenty-two children wounded, no deaths. In April of 2014, another mass knife attack in a school in Pennsylvania. No deaths at the time of this writing.

This is not to belittle knife attacks. Certainly there have been mass knife attacks that have caused many deaths. But they aren’t frequently as deadly as shootings. And if that had been an AR-15 in that school near Pittsburgh, you cannot deny the outcome would have been much more dire. Instead, victims survived, and the assailant was captured, not killed.

Again, it comes down to responsibility. If you can’t admit a gun is a lethal weapon, try to pass it off as anything else, or make excuses for it when it is too often apparent how deadly and dangerous it is, then you should not own one nor advocate that everyone else should.

People save lives. Guns take them.

Gun Free Zones

This argument is beyond ridiculous. The premise being that shootings mostly take place in gun-free locations, restricted zones, etc. Simply untrue. Refer to Columbine with armed guards; Beltway snipers; and any of a countless number of shootings, mass deaths or not. Whomever forwards this argument does not know what they are talking about, and will most likely quote statistics, if they even do that, cribbed from our buddy John R. Lott.

They are trying to falsely equate a relatively small percentage of shootings to represent the entire issue. Dismiss them out of hand. Next argument.

god, gunsThe God Factor

Another tired statement going around is that school shootings happen because God has been removed from schools. Well which God do you mean? Surely you must realize that different people believe different things? And let’s say, for argument’s sake, you mean the Christian God and that everyone on the planet is Christian. How do you explain shootings at Christian schools? Pedophile priests?

Not every Christian is pious, meaning that they are just like non-Christians in that there are good and bad people in that Faith. One sees this in all walks of life. Christianity only accounts for a fraction of the American population, remember. Not all Christians are American, and neither is every American a Christian.

Freedom of Religion means you may practice your faith freely, not that you can tell everyone they must live by your religious views. If you are going to cite the Second Amendment, you cannot ignore Separation of Church and State, or you will be seen as hypocritical.

In other words, you can’t say The Second Amendment is sacred if you’re going to piss all over the first.

The Second Amendment

“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 Constitution of the United States of America was amended this way so that people could:

▪   deter tyrannical government.

▪   repel invasion.

▪   suppress insurrection.

▪   facilitate a natural right of self-defense.

▪   participate in law enforcement.

▪   enable the people to organize a militia system.

Participate in law enforcement? Yes, I think everyone’s cool with that. Organize a militia system? Nobody has a better militia system than the USA. The military outweighs the next fifteen plus countries in spending and equipment alone. Nobody has more guns than the armed forces of the USA. Okay. Covered.

Check this out though, deterring tyrannical government and suppressing insurrection cancel each other out. Repelling invasion? From whom, Canada? I think it’s fair to say that these concepts need to be updated. We are no longer in the days of powder muskets that could be fired twice a minute by a professional soldier. The USA is not facing any conventional invasions, Red Dawn fantasies aside.

A natural right of self-defense makes sense. Except that the right of self defense, the main argument for gun proponents, has escalated to the ridiculous. Helped by right wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and ALEC, draconian laws such as ‘Stand Your Ground” are becoming lightning rods for social injustice.

There are actually people out there who think they should be in their rights to own a bazooka. Why? Because they want one. That’s it. Ridiculous. You don’t need one. You just don’t. You only want one, and that is not the same thing. Join the armed forces then.

Well regulated militia” does not mean everyone in the country should own a bunker full of firearms. “Well regulated” comes before “shall not be infringed” for a reason. Order, not chaos. Responsibility, not recklessness. Whomever tells you “shall not be infringed” comes before “well regulated” is selling you something. 

kids and guns at schoolTrue Freedom

True freedom does not need a weapon. True freedom means not being afraid. True freedom is something we all desire. It does not mean abandonment of consideration. It does not mean your neighbor does whatever he wants, regardless of how you are negatively affected. True freedom is tempered with responsibility. This should be a mantra for everyone, regardless of what side of this issue they stand on. True freedom means compromising with those around you. Talking, not shouting.

There are those who will not engage in this discussion of course. There are always people like that. They will mock and they will rage. They will condescend and insult. They will never go away. They will only get in the way. For examples, check the comments section, they are sure to appear there soon, if not already. Some will make it clear they only wish to shout you down. Ignore them.

And as they are free to express their opinions, we are free to dispute them. Especially when their opinions are based upon fallacies. If they only insult you, then they are only trying to intimidate you. If they are trying to intimidate you, then they are the wrong people to own firearms, as they are not acting in a responsible manner.

You should be free to own a firearm. But that freedom should not come at the cost of anyone else’s. If you cannot prove you are responsible and mature enough to own a gun, you shouldn’t. If it is the gun that gives you a sense of freedom, of power, then what you are really saying is you are powerless without it. That is a dangerous mentality to have. Should a person like this be carrying a firearm? No.

What everything comes down to is this; if you don’t feel free unless you own a firearm, then that is not truly Liberty.


Chad R. MacDonald has a degree in English literature from Cape Breton University and subsequently received a full scholarship to AMDA in New York City. He is a former security professional, veteran of the hospitality industry, and experienced in both the arts as well as administration.He has been writing all his life, likes baseball, hockey, literature, science, the arts, and marine photography.Chad lives in Brooklyn with his wife and son and their gigantic cat.


  1. Nice article. One thing you seemed to have overlooked in all your posturing is that all the mass shootings have taken place in “gun free zones” so everyone was unarmed, therefore unable to defend themselves. We know the results of this are numerous dead people. What we don’t know, and you and your friends who are sanctimoniously sure that an armed citizen with a gun is more dangerous than an unhinged assassin, is what would really happen if there were some armed citizens in a group of potential victims. We haven’t seen that played out in real life yet. My guess is that you and Diane Sawyer would be very disappointed in how quickly the attacker was stopped. But, unless those of you who prefer victims to victory will step out of the way and let Americans defend themselves when necessary, I guess we’ll never know.

    • Bullshit. How do you know any of those bystanders were unarmed? How would you be able to tell? Ammosexuals like to ostracize the concept of “gun free zones”, even though no one is stopping them from carrying a gun into one and breaking the law– which makes them little better than the shooters themselves. Chances are they would have just ended up injuring or killing more people as they tried to live out their Hollywood fantasy of being a crackshot cowboy.

    • NOT TRUE. There were armed individuals in the Tucson mass shooting. They were not able to react quickly enough or accurately enough to stop the deaths and injuries. Arizona allows open carry of firearms and people at that gathering were armed.

  2. “But if you’re fighting for the rights of “bad guys with guns,” then you can’t call yourself the good guy.” YOU SAID NOT I. There you nailed it. This is the problem that we have today. The liberals advocate the migration of BAD GUYS that want to kill us into our countries. The liberals are fighting for the rights of evil and bad guys to come and kill innocent citizens. The day the liberals will side with common sense is the day terrorists will be eliminated at the core.

    • No, you misunderstand the situation. Many of us are advocating that we provide refuge to people who are fleeing THE SAME BAD GUYS that you and I want to keep out of the country. It’s a 2 year process, and refugees are vetted by multiple national and international agencies before they’re allowed in. Not an efficient method for bad guys to use – they’re much more likely to get in on a tourist or student visa, which is far easier to obtain than refugee status.

      • Because no ISIS ever came in unvetted , right ? 2 to 300 across our Southern Border, that we know of ! There will be no two year process, the Liberals will se to that ! Look at Germany ! This article is nothing more that the latest attempt at ANTI-GUN PROPAGANDA ! Look at us , we have bullet points, we must be right !

        • Please cite your source for this number of ISIS coming in through our southern border. I’ve not heard this before. But refugees are an entirely different thing than illegally crossing the border, regardless.

  3. Whats Funny is you Left out the Part of What really caused the Injuries… It wasn’t the Bullets as you alluded to…
    From the Article: “Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said the bystanders were not hit directly by police, but rather the officers’ struck “flowerpots and other objects around, so … their bullets fragmented and, in essence, that’s what caused the wounds.”


    • How does that make any difference John? If I swerve in my car to avoid a head on collision, hit a telephone pole and die, I still died as a result of a car crash. Same here, these people were still injured as the result of a shooting.

      • Funny you should mention Car crashes.How many people die needlessly because of Automobiles crashes ? If we could save just one life, shouldn’t we try ? Ban those damn cars, they kill innocent men, women and Children each and every day ! We need more CAR CONTROL ! No one said this EVER ! There are just too many CARS in AMERICA ! If you’re driving around in your big , fast car thinking you can drive faster than some other driver, you’re part of the problem ! Could it be that its only because Cars cant really be used to stop Government tyrannical action , but guns could be used this way. Could this be the real cause of the endless push for GUN CONTROL ? ?

        • Actually, we do have ever increasing car control – specifically on safety mechanisms to decrease unintended injuries and deaths. But this isn’t a reasonable argument on your part because of one simple but significant thing. The primary purpose of cars is to transport people and goods. The primary purpose of guns (the only purpose, actually) is to injure and kill.

          • No it not. Many people use guns on a daily basis for target shooting, skeet shooting. People use cars for suicide too.
            You wont change my mind on this, as Im sure you wont change yours. Get over it.

  4. Mack Pryor It sounds like the gunners had the drop on the victims, did the job quickly, and the victims would not have been able to defend themselves with pistols. In some circumstances, the POSSIBILITY of armed resistance from an unknown source in the crowd. would be a distraction. think of an airplane hijacking. The assault on Canada’s parliament was impeded by the fact that someone who was not a guard had a gun.

    • Mack Pryor that “someone who was not a guard” was the Sargeant at arms for the parliament buildings. The safety and security of the parliament buildings is his job. Also he is a retired police officer with 29 years service. It was widely believed that he killed the attacker on Parliament hill but it was reported several months ago that four rcmp officers advanced towards the shooter as he was shooting at the police. While the Sargeant at arms did shoot the attacker, Cst. Barrett of the RCMP fired 15 shots at the shooter and most likely hit him with all 15.

      There were no civilians with guns playing hero.

    • That someone was a former RCMP officer who was the head of Security on Parliament Hill and got the gun from his desk drawer. He was not some bystander with a gun in his belt….and there were at least 10 other policemen hunting down the criminal with their officially sanctioned guns…

  5. But what does one do in a country where everybody that shouldn’t have guns already owns all the firearms he needs.

    Even if you stop the sale of new guns 100%, starting tonight, those people will continue to possess their own arms.

    Can you recover firearms from people, or have everybody surrender their firearms? No. And what about those that want to continue making more of them, and buying and selling arms? It’s a lethal cycle that can have only one possible outcome.

    It’s worse than living in West Africa at the height of the ebola crisis. 6000 people died in W Africa in 2014 because of ebola. (Source: http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/case-counts.html).

    More than 8000 people died in the US in the same period (2014) because of guns.(source: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/tolls/2014)

    Would you have liked to visit W/ Africa at the height of the Ebola crisis? I’m happy I don’t live in gun country. I couldn’t live in that sort of fear 24 x 7 x 365.

    • “I’m happy I don’t live in gun country. I couldn’t live in that sort of fear 24 x 7 x 365.” Sounds like a person problem. Fortunately your feelings have no bearing on my constitutional and unalienable rights.

  6. Chad, please read up on system justification theory. This gun controversy is primarily a moral issue. The REASON I will never suffer the mental and emotional anguish of the parents in Montana whose son accidentally shot his friend while protecting his castle it’s the same reason my teenage son never accidentally shot any of his friends with a loaded herion syringe. Moral reasons. The REASON I will never have a DUI is I never justify climbing behind the wheel while Loaded for bear or even lightly armed. Moral reasons. I congratulate Rob on mastering the ancient low arts of rationalized, justification and the denial of responsibility for implicit threat. “I’ve driven drunk a hundred times and haven’t crashed my car yet”. Of course more guns will prevent the next Buell elementary school. Rest in pieces Kayla , Robert is protecting your safety with a gun.

  7. I understand all sides of this issue. The 2nd gives people freedom to choose. Some Americans want to be half roasted, bullet riddled corpses come the next Waco. So be it. ATF,FBI and SWAT officers will continue prying guns from the hot dead hands of insane people, it’s what they get paid to do. Many people value the imaginary far more than they value reality, just crazy people doing what they do. These castle defenders aspire to someday be on TV in Montana talking about the horror of having your son accidentally shoot his best friend. Being the parent of Adam Lanza or Michael Holmes is a desirable goal for these sick people. I get that, I just don’t agree. Many Americans really do want more hatred,violence and murder. Things will go on like they are until all the sane, educated people are murdered or band together and dump all the pistols to the bottom of the sea before some crazy gun loving fool decides to shoot either you or another bunch of children, black folks, or gays. Looking live genocide of mind, kill all of not your kind.

    • EEEWWw , sorry a bit of vomit hit the back of my throat upon reading that bit of self righteousness. Only a child fantasizes about dump all of any problem away in the deep dark sea. Why not do this with gangs, or drugs ? Children and people do stupid things everyday that cause death. Sometimes its with a gun. You wont stop all bad in the world just because you get rid of guns. You wont ever get rid of Criminals guns. Why not focus on ONLY CRIMINALS GUNS ? Take away guns, they will use knives, take those away and then they will get sharpened sticks, and so on and so on. ITS THE PEOPLE who are bad, NOT THE INANIMATE OBJECTS !

  8. You people talk about the right to bear arms. When that statement was made people still had to hunt to put food on the table. I did so for forty years. A gun was a tool, now it is a life choice. I would never argue for a thirty shot magazine. What a waste of ammunition. I’ve shot thousands of feral animals in my life on a cattle station in the NT and even when faced with dozens of targets and little time a bolt action of heavy calibre did the job every time. What a bunch of pussys. Here is another observation. How many of you heroes has actually been shot at. The odds of that happening at home is close to nil so why the armory.

    • Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment is hunting mentioned. Nice try though.

      The right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right that is confirmed by the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution and is also part of the Bill Of Rights. This right is the right to protects one’s life, the lives of their family, their property and their country from tyranny; domestic and foreign, as they see fit.

      • “as they see fit” Wrong.

        And regardless of how you choose to misinterpret the 2nd Amendment, feeling that you need a gun to do any of those things you mentioned makes you a puss-puss.

        • Yes, as a person sees fit. How do expect to protect your life, the lives of your family, and your home against an armed intruder? Will you just kindly ask him/her not to kill you or rape your wife and children?

          Because let me tell you an inconvenient fact: criminals will always have guns.

          But according to you, I’m a “puss-puss” for actually manning-up and choosing to protect my life, the lives of my family, and my home by exercising my constitutional rights. If you don’t see the irony in your own comment, I don’t know what else to say.

          And not that is any of your business, it does give your argument another perspective. I am disabled and cannot be struck and I cannot run. Using a firearm is my only option for self defense. But I suppose a real man such as yourself would just allow his life and the lives of his family to go unprotected.

      • With all you gun-toting, house-defending people around, you should ask the Govt to refund the taxes spent on police, National Guard and the army, navy and airforce. Obviously you don’t need them.

        • Police only come after you’re attacked. The Armed Services doesn’t protect me and my loved ones in our homes. At least not locally they don’t. You don’t really think your comments through very much, do ya ?

  9. Its worth mentioning that gun control activists who assert that they want to stop gun violence support the use of deadly force when it comes to enforcing gun bans or regulations as they like to call their restrictive laws. Read their Facebook, Twitter and other social media supporters posts. You will find comments calling for the death of gun owners and their families, mass arrests, and using drones to murder other American citizens.
    Far as confiscating guns, legislation proposed by Senator Feinstein would not allow you to leave your gun to your children upon death. It would be taken without compensation, prohibited under the Fifth Amendment. Cuomo wanted a confiscatory ban in NY. Confiscation bills are introduced every year in Congress and in the states. These are facts, not paranoia.

  10. Responsible. Ummm…ok.

    There was a time in this country when a felon could be released from prison, his debt to society paid, take whatever money he had to the nearest place that served as a gun shop, and walk out with a shiny new gun. No laws, no questions asked.

    That period in our country had one quarter the gun homicide rate we have now, 1 per 100k.

    Since then, we have regulated machine guns (NFA 1934). Then we outright banned them, of sorts (FOPA 1986). We prohibited felons, mentally ill, illegal aliens, and others from having them at all, besides other restrictions (GCA 1968 and it’s revisions). To reinforce that, we passed the Brady Bill in 1993. By that time, across the nation, the Second Amendment was tightly curtailed. Few states allowed carry at all, most prohibited it altogether. With all those laws, all those restrictions, guns tightly controlled, the gun homicide rate was TEN TIMES higher than with none at all, 10 per 100k.

    Where was the safety we were promised for these laws? We didn’t get it.

    In desperation, states began relaxing their restrictions. Couldn’t really make the problems worse at that point. Gun homicides dropped. More followed suit, state after state adopting concealed carry. The deaths dropped more. More and more, as the states restored the Second Amendment to it’s natural balance, the deaths fell until we are now at 3.7 per 100k. They’re lowest they’ve been since the NFA was passed in 1934. Clearly, gun control doesn’t work, as evidenced by the increased incidence of gun violence in places where the Second Amendment is still tightly curtailed.

    Responsible. Sure.

    Let’s not forget to take note that our society, our “land of the free” has become overcriminalized. Everything is a felony nowadays, many things which shouldn’t be. In New York, having one too many bullets in a gun, an activity perfectly legal in EVERY other state, harms no one, is a felony with a worse sentence than molesting a child. This is not the only example, the prisons are full of people convicted of felonies who did nothing technically wrong, certainly committed no crime against any other person. Is it any wonder reasonable and sane people resist laws to clamp down on felons? That could be any of us tomorrow. I know felons, and each one that comes to mind I would hand any one of my guns to if asked, no questions. Felon does not equate bad. It only means that at some point, they ran afoul of some law, somewhere, that likely should never have been made in the first place.

    Assuming, of course, that government has authority to deny a right to any person. It doesn’t.

    And of course, we can’t bring up government without pointing out what it is that makes us resist the most – we don’t trust those criminals. Never mind history being a guide, although it presents a compelling argument. No, we’re talking about THIS regime we have right now, the worst of the last hundred years. This is the very regime that OPENLY and unabashedly argued that assassinating American citizens on American soil with drones without due process of law, Sixth Amendment protections, or even knowledge, is legal. The same regime who through legislation such as the NDAA and Patriot Act has been attempting to subvert Constitutional protections. The same regime that’s stacked the courts with judges who rule against the Constitution, denying the citizens rwlief from an overzealous government such as the judge that recently ruled PA police can search your car without a warrant. The same regime that OPENLY and brazenly spies on everyones’ communications across all media. I can go on and on.

    You want us to allow the Second Amendment to be curtailed with THAT going on?! You need your head examined, mister.

    Sorry to say, all things considered, further restrictions on the Second Amendment are neither warranted nor desired. The results of loosening existing restrictions have been favorable, so we are going to keep doing it, it is the correct action. Sorry to burst your bubble. We will not be accepting new gun laws.

    We will NOT be accepting new gun laws. For reference, see NY SAFE Act, Connecticut, and Colorado.

    • So by your logic, mass shootings shouldn’t be happening, but they are. It looks like your cherry-picked data isn’t bullet-proof. It is indeed time for better gun legislation.

  11. Does Robert Buckey have a job cause he certainly seems to have a lot of time on his hands. Making multiple FB accounts to “discuss”/argue/troll/whatever you wanna call it every single comment anyone makes that disagrees with his opinion.

    I’m gonna go out on a limb here but I’m guessing the reason Chad doesn’t respond to Robert, or anyone else who keeps repeating talking points heard on Fox News and the NRA, is because it’s not a helpful or meaningful discussion. Robert doesn’t want to come up with a compromise or even admit that there are things we could do to make it just a little safer. He just wants everyone to know that their opinions on guns are wrong if they disagree with him and that we’re all uneducated because god forbid we feel that more could be done when it comes to guns in this country.

    Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Some just stink more than others. If we can’t reach a point in this country where we can have open, honest, civilized conversations about the real issues then we will never be able to move this country forward.

    What I’m still trying to understand however is why Robert and several “Anonymous” feel the need to even read, much less post hundreds of times, on articles, pages and blogs that they don’t agree with. I assume it’s because they “just wanna set the record straight” but if you’re not getting a response or the response you want why keep commenting? You don’t seem to be changing anyone’s mind, I haven’t read anything you’ve said and thought to myself “wow, this guy really knows his stuff. I have had a total change of opinion!” If anything I’m slightly embarrassed to have to admit we served in the same branch of the military for fear someone may think I feel the same way he does or that I am in some way as close minded to others opinions and offended by their vocalizing them as he is.

    You mention that Chad keeps calling you names and accusing you of harassment. Do you not see the same type of responses from those on the other side of the issue? Do you not see that perhaps by posting the addresses, names and contact info of those who disagree with your stance could quite possible make your argument look less credible? Why threaten, harass and/or troll those who disagree? To what end does that get you? I’m not insinuating that Robert has done that, I don’t know him from a hole in the ground so I can’t just make assumptions. But those are the same people who are on Roberts side of the argument and it just seems that if Robert really had a point he wouldn’t want that kind of stuff happening because it kinda ruins any sort of credibility he may have.

    No one is coming to take your guns and to insinuate so is simply a scare tactic and not based on sound logic. The “government” does not want to take all your guns nor do they have the time or finances to take on such a task. Some in society may have that knee jerk reaction to mass shootings but it’s never gonna happen and I don’t think that the majority of us want to take it to that extreme, I know I certainly don’t. But that in no way means I don’t think there isn’t room for better regulations and rules for purchasing and owning a firearm.

    • Wow, I am quite honored that you devoted so much time and effort to me. I must have really made an impression. I love how you don’t actually address a word I have said, only essentially excuse Chad from doing exactly what he called on us all to do in his article, discuss. I guess by “discuss”, Chad means that we should simply tell him he is right. Do you see anything in his responses to indicate that he wants anything but an echo chamber?

  12. The “arguments” this author makes are beyond ridiculous. Is he seriously suggesting when he says “gun owners are more likely to kill themselves than any attacker” that guns beam mind control rays at mentally healthy people to get them to commit suicide for no reason? A girl in Florida who was being bullied in school committed suicide by jumping off a smokestack. A boy in Massachusets who was constantly harrassed for being gay committed suicide by hanging himself. I personally know someone who committed suicide after his computer business failed by sitting in his car in the garage with the engine running. Unless the author can explain how gun control laws would have prevented these suicides, the author is being self serving by exploiting a mental health issue to promote an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with public safety, regardless of whatever fancy word the author is using to explain what he’s doing.

    • Check out statistics on suicides and you will find that if a person intent on suicide has access to a gun that is what they will use. If they don’t have a gun handy they will use whatever means are available to them. The gun regulations that are being discussed will not stop suicides but it may decrease the numbers. To pick up a gun, aim it at your head, and pull the trigger takes about a minute. To commit suicide by other means takes longer and takes more “courage”. Keeping guns locked up and inaccessible to kids will decrease suicide rates. Universal criminal background checks at all points of sale, including gun shows and online, will keep guns out of criminal and unstable hands which benefits all of us who are concerned about safety.

      • When buying a gun online, do you really believe there is no background check ? Gun Shows, while a person may sell to another, any dealer working the show still must comply with the laws in place, meaning they do background checks as well. If merely by going online , we could bypass the laws, well , even our retarded Government wouldn’t let that go unnoticed ! In 2013, 32,000 people died in Car Accidents What will you do about that ? Sometimes it seems guns are picked out for some other reason because of how many people die. Nothing will be settled here today.

  13. I live in CT and we’ve been hit with the worst gun laws ever, completely infringing on our 2nd amendment rights, I’ve been an avid shooter since I was a kid. And now to have a reckless liberal governor come and tell us what we can and cannot own is ridiculous. Gun owners aren’t running around with full auto weapons and the ridiculous false media coverage over the sporting rifle AR-15 is sicking.

    • You’re far from alone in this, brother. Get with your fellow Connecticut residents, assemble. organize and register nothing. One person standing alone can lose everything, but 1000’s standing together can gain so much.

    • Most gun owners who are law-abiding and reasonable are not “running around with full auto weapons”; I’m sure you are correct, Nicholas. What about the few that are, however? What about Sandy Hook and Aurora and the numerous other killing fields? Don’t we have the right to protect ourselves from that element? And why are you opposed to a few common sense regulations that wouldn’t affect you anyway, unless of course you are a felon or severely mentally ill?

      • First off, an AR15 is not a full auto weapon. Second, even if it was, so what? Why does someone carrying a slung rifle bother you so much?

        Third, did it occurs to you that just because you call these regulations “common sense”, doesn’t mean that other people don’t see them that way?

        • Then those other people are wrong and have chosen to live their lives based on fear and the incorrect notion that an assault rifle makes them more of a man. You do not have the right to walk down the street and make other people fear for their lives, no matter what the broken laws in your state say.

          • If you fear for your life at the sight of someone walking down the street with a firearm, you have a personal issue and an irrational fear of firearms.

            Fortunately, your feelings have no bearing on my constitutional rights. I also find it quite odd that you say all gun owners live in fear. Yet you are scared at the sight of a gun. See the irony there? Every gun owner I know lives a virtually fear-free life. At least free of the fear that they cannot protect their lives, the lives of their family, as well as their property.

  14. “Look to George Zimmerman.” Do you know why Zimmerman shot Martin? Because Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman’s chest throwing down punches “mixed martial arts style” in the words of the witness on the scene. Martin was also pounding Zimmerman’s head into the pavement, again according to witnesses and as confirmed by the physical evidence.

    Zimmerman had no choice but to defend himself or else he likely would have been murdered by that up-and-coming street thug Martin. THAT is why the jury found Zimmerman not guilty in a case that never should have seen the inside of a courtroom. In fact, it would not have seen the inside of a courtroom were it not for the intervention by powerful ideologues with a political agenda.

    If you can’t even get the Zimmerman case right, why should I even bother paying attention to anything else you have to say? That’s why I stopped reading your essay after the 7th paragraph.

    Suggested reading: If I had a Son: Race, Guns, and the Railroading of George Zimmerman by Jack Cashill (WND Books: 2013).

    • Of course Trayvon was attacking Zimmerman! Z immerman followed him, threatened him, instead of waiting in the car for the police to arrive as directed by the police. He gets out of his car and starts following this kid who is returning from the store with candy and drinks. If MR. Z had followed instructions none of this would have happened. Z was acting like a vigilante with no reason – Trayvon had not threatened him in any way, he was walking home. There is no way you can justify was Z did from the start of this tragic episode.

      • Actually, if you listen to the recording of the phone call, the dispatcher twice told Zimmerman to let him know if Martin did anything before Zimmerman got out of his vehicle. It was only after he had been out of his vehicle for about 15 seconds that the dispatcher told him that he didn’t need to follow Martin.

        The conversation then continues for about a minute and forty seconds with Zimmerman and the dispatching working out where the police would meet Zimmerman when they arrived. We don’t know where Zimmerman and Martin were or what they were doing during that time. There was plenty of time for Martin to be well away from where he was shot, but I don’t know what he was thinking and and I’m not going to lay what happened on him.

        • Sorry to be blunt, but that was rather a lame response. 15 seconds? OK, that really changes the whole scenario in my mind – not. The blame is squarely on Mr. Z and most of us know it.

          • “Sorry to be blunt, but that was rather a lame response. 15 seconds? OK, that really changes the whole scenario in my mind – not.”

            Your mind is apparently a really confused place. It doesn’t understand the difference between what you believe and what is known.

            First, I mentioned that it was 15 seconds to establish that it was well after Zimmerman was told by the dispatcher (twice!) to let him know if Martin did anything.

            Second, Zimmerman was NEVER directed to wait in his vehicle.

            Third, he was never told to return to his vehicle.

            Fourth, he was talking with a dispatcher, not a police officer.

            Fifth, you have NO CLUE what happened after Zimmerman and the dispatcher ended their conversation. You don’t know which one approached the other, who spoke first, or who struck the first blow. You have an opinion, but it is not an opinion based on known facts.

            Martin could have been well away from where the fight took place in the time it took Zimmerman and the dispatcher to finish their conversation. Why was he still around? I don’t know AND NEITHER DO YOU!

            Sixth, Zimmerman followed the only instruction he was given, to let the dispatcher know if Martin did anything else and when the dispatcher figured out that Zimmerman was following Martin he said, “we don’t need you to do that.” It was a statement, not instruction. Zimmerman was NEVER told not to follow Martin.

            “The blame is squarely on Mr. Z and most of us know it.”

            I have my guesses about what happened that night, but I distinguish between what I know and what I can infer from that knowledge. Many others apparently not so much.

      • After the dispatcher inquired as to Martin’s direction, Zimmerman exited his car and briefly followed Martin only to the extent necessary to relay the requested information to the police dispatcher. We know this from Zimmerman’s call to the police. Here is the link to the full unedited recording. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L04Vh4do6bY

        (For a blatant example of how NBC lied about the recording to smear Zimmerman, follow this link. http://www.mediaite.com/online/nbc-news-admits-error-in-editing-george-zimmermans-911-call-apologizes/ Just one of many many lies told by the major media about the Zimmerman-Martin incident.)

        At :22 into the recording Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that Martin appears to be on drugs. (Later toxicology reports that Martin did in fact have drugs in his system that night. Martin had earlier been caught in possession of a baggie that contained illegal drug residue. Facebook posts between Martin and his homies indicate that Martin was a drug user and drug dealer who loved to fight. Perhaps the drug use partly explains his paranoia and poor impulse control.)
        At :48 into the phone call Martin and Zimmerman make eye contact with each other.
        At 1:00 Martin starts approaching Zimmerman. This is BEFORE Zimmerman has exited his car.
        At 1:18 Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that “there’s something wrong with” Martin.
        At 2:08 Martin starts running off. The dispatcher asks Zimmerman, “Which way is he running?” It is only at this point in response to the police dispatcher’s question that Zimmerman opens his car door and briefly follows Martin. We hear in the recording Zimmerman in motion and breathing hard as he follows Martin.
        At 2:23 the dispatcher asks Zimmerman, “Are you following him?” to which Zimmerman says, “yeah.” The dispatcher says, “OK, we don’t need you to do that,” to which Zimmerman replies, “OK,” and breaks off the surveillance. We know that he breaks off the surveillance because we no longer hear the sounds of Zimmerman moving fast or breathing hard. Also, the polygraph test administered to Zimmerman by the police indicated that Zimmerman was being truthful when he stated that he broke off the surveillance in response to the suggestion by the dispatcher, and returned to his car. We also know this from the dialogue between Zimmerman and the dispatcher at 3:30.

        At 3:30 the dispatcher asks Zimmerman for his address. Zimmerman starts to give him the address but then says, “Oh crap, I don’t want to give it out. I don’t know where this kid is.” He doesn’t know where Martin is because he had broken off the surveillance 60 seconds earlier.

        Valerie claims that Zimmerman “threatened him [Martin].”

        OK, Valerie, questions for you now. Is there any indication that Zimmerman threatened Martin while on the phone with the police dispatcher? If so, please identify the point during the recording at which this “threat” took place because I sure didn’t hear it.

        Are you claiming that Zimmerman “threatened” Martin after Zimmerman ended the call to the dispatcher? Did you see Zimmerman “threaten” Martin? Of course not because you were not there and thus have no first-hand knowledge of the events in question. So did *any* witness testify that they saw Zimmerman “threaten” Martin? If so, please identify the witness by name and describe how exactly Zimmerman supposedly “threatened” Martin. Did Zimmerman direct a verbal threat towards Martin? Was it a physical threat? Did Zimmerman touch Martin? Did Zimmerman make a threatening gesture to Martin? Did Zimmerman pull out his gun while he was having a conversation with Martin? Did Zimmerman point his gun at Martin and say something like, “Listen here you little N-word, get outta here before I shoot your black ass!”

        Of course the answer to those questions is “no.” There is not one iota of evidence to support your absurd claim that Zimmerman “threatened” Martin. All the evidence supports Zimmerman’s statement to police that he pulled out his gun ONLY after Martin jumped him and knocked him down. According to the testimony by prosecution eyewitness Jonathan Good, who watched the fight from about 15 feet away, Martin rained down punches on Zimmerman “mixed martial arts style,” and repeatedly slammed Zimmerman’s head into the concrete as Zimmerman called out for help. Forensic medical evidence show Zimmerman sustained injuries to his face, nose and back of his head consistent the statements by the witnesses. Aside from the gunshot to his chest, the only injuries martin had were bruises on his knuckles.

        Zimmerman had no choice but to defend himself in order to stop that little gangsta-wannabe Martin from killing him.

        So when you falsely claim that Zimmerman “threatened” Martin, either you are making it up as you go along, or you are simply repeating some lie that was fed to you.

        ALL the evidence supports the self-defense narrative of George Zimmerman. That is why it did not surprise me at all when a jury of his peers found Zimmerman not guilty.

        • Oh c’mon we’re getting back to beating that dead horse now? Personally, I think Zimmerman is a pud, but the evidence shows that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered TM. Nancy Grace’s opinion is not evidence. people.

        • So in other words, Zimmerman tricked Trayvon into attacking him so he’d have an excuse to kill him. Now he’ll be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. What a waste of a human being.

  15. It would be interesting to see the author of this article actually engage people who disagree with him, rather than come up with excuses, lies, deflections, and playing the victim card. Are there any gun control advocates with a shred of intellectual courage and honesty?

    • Yes, of course I possess intellectual courage and I’m being entirely honest when I explain to people that gun junkies and crackheads both lack moral conscience. Equal threats to my safety for exactly the same reason. Pathological moral depravity.

      • Oh, and last I checked, heroin is still illegal. Yet that hasn’t stop the deluge of it and every other illegal drug from flooding the streets in every city across the United States.

  16. I’m a retired cop and a gun owner. I have seen guns in the wrong hands over and over again. I have waited a long time for someone to get to the root of the problem. This is Brilliantly done. This article isn’t anti-gun, but anti-gun lobby. McDonald does a great job dissecting everything.

    You can tell it’s a sound piece by the increasingly desperate attacks by the gun advocates. It’s hilarious to see all the comments begging the author to debate them. Especially because the guy predicts they will come and try to shout you down and says what to do about them and then does it!

    As for you Buckey, you are a damn liar. When you click on the author’s Facebook link, you can scroll to where he linked this piece. There you are in the comments with that Paul Joe psycho. The guy even warns you off his profile and you still kept harassing him. No wonder he blocked you idiots. Notice he hasn’t blocked you from this site though. When he called you on it, you were all “Well, I never” If you don’t want to be called on your idiocy, then don’t do it in the first place.

    Also he has never said you threatened him, that’s another lie. I think he’s laughing his ass off at you like the rest of us. He’s counting on you guys, don’t you see that? You’re not trolling him, he’s trolling YOU!

    • How do you “shout somebody down” on the internet?
      And how am I a “psycho”?
      You’re not doing a very good job supporting the argument being made in the article either. You’re basically just saying “It’s right because you guys disagree with it.”

      Judging by the wishy washy writing style, I’m almost curious to see if your IP address is similar top somebody else’s here. 🙂

      If you agree with the author’s interpretation of the 2A, Wayne, then I’m glad you’re off the street.
      There is nothing scarier than a constitutionally illiterate cop.

    • “I’m a retired cop and a gun owner. I have seen guns in the wrong hands over and over again. I have waited a long time for someone to get to the root of the problem.”

      Which is what, exactly?

      “This is Brilliantly done.”

      Actually, it’s anything but brilliant. It’s full of strawmen, slaps at gun owners, sloppy thinking, platitudes, misleading statements, and flat-out mistakes. I only hit the highlights in my first comment on the article. I probably could have written three times as much.

      “This article isn’t anti-gun, but anti-gun lobby.”

      Perhaps you missed these gems:

      “People save lives. Guns take them.”

      “This is not all about weapons restrictions, although they must be discussed.”

      Chad mentions weapon restrictions again elsewhere in the article and complains about guns that are banned in some states being available in others. Sounds anti-gun to me.

      “McDonald does a great job dissecting everything.”

      Not hardly.

      “You can tell it’s a sound piece by the increasingly desperate attacks by the gun advocates.”

      Sorry, that’s sloppy thinking. The quality of an article has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the comments about it.

    • I have not lied about anything, Wayne, and I have not shouted Chad down at all. I have simply asked pointed questions about claims he makes in this article, and refuted specific points, which no one has defended, especially Chad.

      Myself and Paul have not done what he predicted in the article, not at all. We simply have attempted to discuss the topic with Chad, as his article calls for, and he comes up with every excuse not to.

      So tell me, retired police officer Wayne, what is the root of the problem? I am very curious.

    • Although I appreciate your support, Wayne I am going to have to delete your second comment, it’s relies too heavily on offensive language. You are more than welcome to comment again, just without the swears. Thanks.

  17. Wow, there’s a lot that needs to be challenged here, too much to cover exhaustively. I’ll just hit some highlights, using quotes from the article as starting points.

    “But if you’re fighting for the rights of ‘bad guys with guns,’ then you can’t call yourself the good guy.” That’s a strawman, Chad. Who, exactly, is fighting specifically for the rights of bad guys with guns? I’ve never heard of anyone doing that and you don’t give any examples, so maybe you haven’t either.

    “Americans should be free to own guns, but not at the expense of other people’s rights.” Chad, owning a gun does not violate anyone’s rights. That’s sloppy thinking. Use of a gun may violate someone’s rights, but not merely owning one.

    “In the overall picture, those with previous criminal records are not responsible for the majority of gun deaths.” No, the majority of gun deaths are suicides. Chad, you’re right, but very misleading at the same time. The majority of homicides are, on the other hand, committed by people with previous criminal records.

    “The premise being that shootings mostly take place in gun-free locations, restricted zones, etc. Refer to Colombine with armed guards; Beltway snipers; and any of a countless number of shootings, mass deaths or not. Whomever forwards this argument does not know what they are talking about.”

    First, it’s “Columbine”, not “Colombine.” Chad, please show where the premise that most shootings take place in gun-free locations is advanced. The usual argument is that most mass killings take place in gun-free locations and it’s pretty easy to come up with a list of mass killings in gun-free zones. Off the top of my head there were the Stockton Schoolyard Shooting, Columbine (yes, a gun free zone, see below), Aurora, Luby’s in Killeen, Texas, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook Elementary, the San Ysidro McDonalds, the Edmond, OK, post office, Fort Hood (twice), the Navy Yard, and the 101 California Street shooting in San Francisco by Gian Luigi Ferri.

    At Columbine, there was one armed Sheriff assigned as a school resource officer. He happened to be eating lunch in his car that day and was not in a position to halt the massacre. Everyone else at the school, a total of well over a thousand students, faculty, and staff, was unarmed by law. A gun-free zone is where the average citizen is not allowed to carry a gun, not a place where there are no armed LEOs.

    “You should be free to own a firearm. But that freedom should not come at the cost of anyone else’s.”

    Again, Chad, owning a firearm doesn’t violate anyone’s rights.

    “Which brings us to the base of the argument, ‘Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people.’ Ozzy Osbourne unexpectedly put this talking point to rest in 1998, in an interview with the New York Times: ‘I keep hearing this [expletive] thing that guns don’t kill people, but people kill people. If that’s the case, why do we give people guns when they go to war? Why not just send the people?'”

    Using the drug-addled Osbourne for your argument is rarely a good idea. Osbourne’s quote doesn’t even address the original argument that it’s the intent of the person using the gun, not the gun itself that’s dangerous. Some work on critical thinking skills seems to be in order here.

    “People save lives. Guns take them.” This is an extremely simplistic and fallacious statement. Some people save lives. Other people take lives. Most people do neither. Sometimes guns are used to kill. The great majority never are. And sometimes guns are used to stop killers.

    Now on to the 2nd Amendment.

    “Nobody has a better militia system than the USA. The military outweighs the next fifteen plus countries in spending and equipment alone. Nobody has more guns than the armed forces of the USA.”

    Chad, the military is not the militia. When the Constitution was written, the militia was the armed citizenry. Given their recent experience with the British, the founders were afraid of a standing army. Please, read some history before posting nonsense like this.

    “If you cannot prove you are responsible and mature enough to own a gun, you shouldn’t.”

    OK, my response is a bit snarky, but are there any other constitutional rights for which you think people should need government permission or just the Second Amendment?

    “‘Well regulated militia’ does not mean everyone in the country should own a bunker full of firearms. ‘Well regulated’ comes before ‘shall not be infringed’ for a reason. Order, not chaos. Responsibility, not recklessness. Whomever tells you ‘shall not be infringed’ comes before ‘well regulated’ is selling you something.”

    Chad, please note that “well regulated” refers to the militia, not to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That right is what “shall not be infringed” refers to, whether you like it or not.

    And “well regulated” came before “shall not be infringed” because of what was then a more common sentence structure. The Second Amendment could easily have been written with “shall not be infringed” coming before “well regulated.” It’s a real stretch to claim that word order in a sentence makes some words more important than others. It’s just a matter of grammar, which you need to work on given some of the errors in your article.

    “And as they are free to express their opinions, we are free to dispute them. Especially when their opinions are based upon fallacies.”

    All I can say is, “Construct a sentence using the words pot, kettle, and black.”

    • Edward, what abuse, exactly? Care to actually refute a word I have said? This is the tactic you people have, though, call anyone who disagrees with you a troll, play the victim card, while claiming to want discussion.

    • Thanks, Edward. I appreciate you reading.

      A recurring theme in my articles, including this one, is pointing out how a minority of Americans try to control the direction of dialogue for the rest of us. They use the volume of their opinions to make up for the lack of volume in their numbers, compared to the rest of the country.

      At the time of this writing, there are 121 comments on this piece. 40+ were from one guy before I stopped counting. There’s another dozen or so from one other dude, who has followed me from article to article on different sites.

      Two guys, responsible for half of all the comments. One of them is now the top commenter on the site, having run from article to article commenting on everything. We have since learned he supports torture and lower pay for women.

      But, you know, they’re not obsessed trolls or anything. I am sure they will say so right underneath this comment.

      • .Chad, if you truly believed what you wrote ^up there in that article was true, you wouldn’t be trying so hard to avoid defending it. Like I said before, everything you’ve said in the comments section here is nothing but you trying to save face and the trolling accusations are just another cop out. Nobody is threatening you. Nobody is trying to spam the page with a bunch of irrelevant crap to disrupt people from having a discussion. All that has happened here is you tried to misrepresent your anti-2A sales pitch as a credible argument and some people disagreed with you. Man up a little bit and actually try standing behind your claims. It’s blatantly obvious to everybody here that you are just wussin’ out.

        I would ask you to prove how we are just “some small minority”, but you’re so backed up with all those other questions you wussed out on that I won’t bother.

        Maybe you should hit up the local community college and see if they offer “Acceptable Adult Male behavior 101”?
        A refresher course on argumentative writing wouldn’t hurt either. 🙂

      • Do you ever stop lying, Chad? Why don’t you actually defend refutations of your article, and answer questions asked about your article, instead of just talking about people? How abou you actually discuss as you called for in your own article?

        “We have since learned he supports torture and lower pay for women.”

        In the right situation, when lives are at stake, yes I do support getting the information by any means necessary.

        As to lower pay for women, I never said anything of the sort. I simply refuted this myth that women are being paid less. Show a shred of intellectual honesty, Chad.

      • Chad, the truth is, your argument, your position, is extremely weak, and you know it. This is why you are putting more effort into avoiding a discussion with anyone who disagrees with you than actually defending your assertions or simply answering questions about said assertions and talking points.

        Everyone reading this, judge for yourself. Be honest. Is Chad really standing behind his work?

  18. I proposed an idea to a friend a long time ago about a “purchase permit”. You have to have certain permits to own some chemicals or labware, and you even have to have permits to *purchase* some of them first. Why not employ a similar system for firearms ownership? Roll with me here:

    Let’s say I plan to buy a firearm. The first step would be to get a purchase permit. That entails my taking a comprehensive weapons course. Not just “this is the bang switch, that is where you point it”, something detailed, something that approaches practical application of the weapon as well as storage techniques, firearms history, maintenance, etc.

    Next, an evaluation by a certified mental health professional. The idea isn’t to have a psychiatrist dig into your past and find out about how you played with fire once when you were 8 and accidentally burned yourself. The idea is for someone who is trained to understand the human psyche look at you and ask “Does this person have the mindset capable of responsibly handling a firearm?”

    After that, the local sheriff or a judge could sign off on your purchase permit, and then you could proceed with making your purchase.

    This would help private sales as well. If I wanted to sell a weapon to someone, I personally don’t have the resources to run a background check on someone and figure out if they have a criminal record, so instead I could just say “Show me your purchase permit”. That permit would provide me with assurance that the person to whom I’m selling is a responsible, trained, sensible person that is serious about what he is doing.

    Mind you, the purchase permit program would be separate from a carry permit, and would expire eventually. After a while, if the owner wishes to make another firearms purchase, he would have to apply for another purchase permit.

    • Now this is a good example of how to open a discussion on reaching an acceptable solutions.

      Great ideas, Solomon! Thanks for posting these!

      • So Chad, if it isn’t about proposing more controls on people, it isn’t an acceptable discussion. Questioning your talking points, or outright refuting them, is not?

        Is your cognitive dissonance so strong that you can’t handle people telling you how you are wrong?

        • Chad is a respectable human being. He has no obligation to respond to an immature dweeb of a gun freak who has been banned from every anti-gun violence page on Facebook and has 4 FB accounts that all spew the same gun lobby drivel.
          You aren’t “telling anybody they’re wrong”. YOU are wrong.
          You are also pretty much a megalomaniac. Look it up.

          • I would be proud if I were banned from every anti-gun page on fb. Its not very respectable the way you are calling this man names because you disagree with his opinion. Typical liberal.

            • Is labeling and name-calling (“typical liberal”) going to help at all??? Is being “proud” going to help at all? Among civilized nations, America stands alone – way alone – in our overwhelming gun ownership, and our overwhelming gun deaths

                • Pride is something you feel through accomplishment, how does owning a gun give you a sense of accomplishment? For that matter, how does being born by chance in the US give you that sense of accomplishment? Pride cometh before a fall… Especially false pride.

                  • I hear what you’re saying there, Mike, but I kinda’ felt a little sense of accomplishment when I finished building my AR15 lol.
                    There is nothing wrong with having pride in where you come from either, as long as you are able to keep an open mind and acknowledge when there is something wrong with your government or your culture.

          • SmartGuns, you don’t even have the courage to show your real name, so don’t call someone immature. As to bans from anti gun, not anti gun violence, but anti gun pages, of course you and yours banned me, that is what you do with everyone who disagrees with you, just like Chad here.

            You simply can’t handle dissent, and I don’t think you know what a megalomaniac is.

          • Asking a person who puts up an op-ed piece on a public web page to support their argument is not trolling, smart guns. If you cannot recognize how Chad has been dodging anybody who doesn’t agree with him you are either gullible, dishonest or need some help with reading comprehension.
            P.S. Please explain how ^that is just “gun lobby drivel”.

    • Solomon, what you suggested in itself may not be so bad and if taken at face value, it does seem to be a reasonable compromise. The problem with that is the people in power who would be behind it. What are the intentions of the person who would be setting the standards for the mental health evaluation? Who would be in charge of setting the price for this “permit”?. If you look at the voting records of the people who would be behind this stuff, you’d have to be a serious sucker to think that they are not going to use such a system as a ,means to infringe on people’s 2A rights.

  19. What an ignorant rant about gun control ! I will go along with Gun control, when we start drug testing people for welfare checks. Stop calling illegal immigrants undocumented workers and the list can go on for ever. Oh one last thing militia is not same as u.s armed forces.

  20. Your point regarding the Second Amendment is beyond wrong and misleading.

    The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms. In order to have a well regulated ( in good working order ) militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. It is not an authorization to have a militia, and the military is not the militia. Article 1 Section 8 already lays out the authority for Congress to support the military and utilize the militia. The Constitution makes clear distinctions between the militia and the regular military. Article 4 Section 4 also expressly requires the federal government to protect the states from invasion.

    As to your bazooka talking point. One,the military doesn’t use bazookas anymore. Two, what you think someone else needs is irrelevant. A free society doesn’t limit it’s people to what someone else thinks they need. Third, when the Second Amendment was ratified, private citizens owned cannons and warships.

    Now, please spare me the “your opinions were already addressed by this article” cop out, because they clearly weren’t, and let’s, as you said, discuss.

    • Actually, the 2nd Amendment was only ratified to keep the Southern states in the newly formed nation, so they could have their “well regulated militias” keep their slaves from running away.

      No sane and rational government would write into it’s Constitution the means to it’s own destruction. If you think a few yokels with guns will save you from an Abrams platoon, you’re beyond delusional.

      And if you think private citizens owned cannon and warships back in the day, you have clearly shown just how retarded you truly are. Take one of your many guns and eat a bullet, for great justice.

      • Eben, I encourage you to research “privateers”. Those are privately owned warships, equipped with cannons and sufficient crew to engage in battles, who’s owners leased or otherwise contracted with the government for the sake of conducting naval battles and acts of piracy. In the early years of our country, we didn’t have a sufficient navy to compete against Great Britain, so we hired ships to assist and handle things that the US needed some extent of deniability about. http://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/privateers.html

      • Eben, not one word you just said was remotely true. Not even the wording of the Second Amendment supports that claim. These were people who just threw off the control of a world super power, and we’re very distrustful of government, and wouldn’t ratify the Constitution without further restrictions.

        Your childish insults only confirm that you have no real argument.

        • It just begs the question then… why did the framers of the constitution insert the pre-amble “regarding a well regulated militia” into the 2nd amendment? If the intention was to provided the right to All citizens, why not just state that? And if the constitution did protect All citizens rights to bear arms, then why did states like Pennsylvania & New Hampshire write into their state constitutions those very words.

          • Because in order to have a free state and a well regulated militia, the right to keep and bear arms can’t be infringed, that is what they are saying. As to those two states, the Second Amendment is a restriction on the federal government, that was the whole point.

      • Another thing,Eben. Please share with us all of your experience conducting counter insurgency operations. I would also like to point out that, in case you missed it, a group of “yokels” with guns, just yesterday, faced down the federal government in Nevada.

      • The idea isn’t to give the citizen the means to *destroy* the government, it’s meant to allow the citizen the power to maintain a government that doesn’t *require* that kind of destruction.

        • Or destroy it if necessary.

          “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends in is in the right of the people to alter or ABOLISH it.”

          “but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to establish new guards for the future security.”

          The Declaration of Independence.

        • “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Thomas Jefferson

    • Your interpretation of the second amendment is distorted as well as your views. Write your own article instead of commenting on everyone else’s comments. It’s boorish.

      • And ^this^ is the reason I will not engage Robert Buckey. He personifies the exact person described in the article as those who just want to get in the way.

        Buckey has taken to commenting on other articles I have written, even deeming it justifiable to go to my personal page and try to goad me there. He continually tells me to “back up what I say” while everything I do say is hyperlinked to credible sources.

        Nobody believes he wants to “discuss” anything, he just wants to tell me I am wrong. That he can’t see how creepy it is to follow me around trying to goad me like this is very telling.

        Yes, the article ends with “discuss” but Robert is the example of those who just want to get in the way. Don’t believe me? Look at all his comments. Here and everywhere else in the site. He is clearly obsessed, beyond the point of reason.

        The entire point of this article was to point out how guns themselves are not actually the problem but the attitudes of some of those who own them. Robert and “Anonymous” Paul are bending over backwards to give everyone a good look at exactly what I am talking about.

        Robert, Paul, I am blocking you from Facebook now. I have good reason to believe you will soon move on to my friends and family. These are the last responses you will ever get from me. Rage away all you want.

        • Excuse me? I have done nothing of the sort. I have only asked you questions about your article, and specifically refuted direct points you have made. I would never harass your friends and family, and have done absolutely nothing to indicate that I would. I have only been respectful and polite to you. I have not raged, or insulted you, threatened you, or anything of the sort.

          This is intellectual dishonesty at its worst, Chad, and you know it. The truth is, you can’t refute a word I said, you can’t respond to simple questions I asked you about your own article, your positions, so you are playing the victim. This is blatantly obvious to anyone who can read these comments.

          This is all a cop out, and you know it.

            • …and there are 3 types of behavior that cowards are known for on the internet:
              1) Messing with somebody’s family.
              2) Avoiding civil debate with the people you are making claims about.
              ….and you better pay attention to this one, Chad.
              3) Using your family and friend’s as a red herring to justify more of the behavior outlined in item #2.


    • Bro, in the context of this article, “bazooka” was used as it is in common lexicon; a generic term for a shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon. Think AT-4, Javelin, RPG-7, SMAW, etc. So, in that sense, yes, the military does indeed still use “bazookas”. Yours is a very detailed, educated response, when you nit-pick little shit like that it kind of dumbs it down.

      • No, it is used by the pro gun control crowd, just like assault weapon, out of pure ignorance. It is used to create a ridiculous strawman. Do you have a response to the rest of what I said?

  21. Because its a myth. The majority of all males are actual conscripts in the Swiss militia. the are required to keep a gun at home. Surprisingly, however, the ammo is closely regulated. 99% have no ammo. Those that do, are limited to what they can hold in their hands and are subject to frequent inspections. Every round must be accounted for. Ammo can only be purchased at government ranges. Gun ownership laws in Switzerland is actually very strict, but somehow this myth of relaxed laws is continuted to be spread.

  22. If you want to be free of your fear of firearms, buy one. Get training. Go shooting to get familiar with it. Your fear will go away with knowledge.

    • I am well trained and experienced in firearms. I have also seen them in the hands of the wrong people far too many times. Refer to the hyperlink with the NRA safety instructor in this piece for more.

      The attitudes shown by some commenters here are meshing up exactly how the article predicted.

      • Please share with us how a resident of Brooklyn and veteran of the hospitality industry is supposedly “well trained and experienced in firearms”. Judging by the fact that you used the the NYPD(aka: laughing stock of the shooting community in regards to marksmanship) as an example of what is well trained in your article, one could assume that you are about as competent in handling a firearm as you are at making an argument that can hold up to debate.

      • No, you should never be afraid of firearms. You should respect it’s capabilities, but you shouldn’t be afraid. It’s like driving. Are you fearful every second you are behind the wheel? No. Do you respect the vehicle and the situation you are in? Yes. When I work with my horses, and I mindful of the fact that they are bigger and stronger than me, and certainly can hurt or kill me? Yes. Do I fear them? No.

      • Are you getting ready to cite the Kellerman Study there? Because the same data from that study shows that being a renter makes your home almost twice as likely to have a homicide than one with a gun in it.

      • That’s kind of common sense; having boiling acid in your home increases the likelihood of being horribly burned, and having a bear in your home increases the likelihood of being mauled to death. Please, contribute something constructive.

        • Now this is very interesting, Solomon. If I am questioning a talking point, or outright refuting one as blatantly false, that isn’t being constructive. That is such an obvious cop out.

          Seriously, I see from pro gun control advocates all the time that I am more likely to shoot myself or a family member than a criminal doing me harm. Ok then, how likely am I NOT to shoot myself or a loved one? None of you can ever answer that.

          • Only herion addicts die from herion overdose. Only gun junkies become parents of “teen shoots friend in face”. Now I’ve answered your argument.

            • “Gun junkies”? Come on, man. You lose any argument you may have had when you start throwing around terms such as “gun junkies”.

              So you’re stating that only law-abiding gun owners are the victims of gun violence? I’d like to see your source for that outrageous claim. I can provide you with stats and studies from the FBI, DOJ, and CDC that prove what you claim is an outright lie.

      • Ok lets say a person has no guns in their home because the government says he cant have one. In the middle of the night someone breaks a window and enters the home with a gun which he got illegally from the same dealer he bought his cocaine from. This homeowner is now in a life or death situation. Not to mention his wife and 2 kids. Who is more at risk of death the law abiding homeowner or the coc head that just broke in this home with an illegally purchased gun?

          • And there is nothing paranoid about wanting your law abiding neighbor to have some of his guns confiscated because “someday he might decide to become a violent principal”?

        • First of all, if the “government” says you can’t have a gun it means you are a criminal or insane pretty much or you have been convicted of a violent attack against your wife/girl friend. So that takes care of your comment.

          • Valerie, until recently, Washington D.C. and Chicago had laws that forbid civilians from having firearms in their homes. And even though those laws have recently been deemed un-constitutional, by the Supreme Court, these cities are still trying to find a way to make it an incredible PITA to own a gun for protection. Now when you hear about us being called “paranoid” for thinking that “Obama is coming for our guns”, please note that our president supported both of these citywide gun bans.

          • Unless you live in Washington, D.C., where until recently it was pretty much impossible to get a handgun and it’s still insanely difficult, and where you can become a criminal for possession of an empty cartridge case, an expended shotshell, bullets for a replica muzzleloader or a standard capacity magazine for an AR-15 (unless you’re a talk show host). And until recently, Chicago was pretty much the same.

            After the Civil War, blacks in the South were prevented from having guns simply for the crime of “living while black.” More recently, California was fine with their gun laws until the Black Panthers started legally carrying guns, and then the laws were quickly changed.

            It’s way more than just the insane (a pretty hazy term), too. Last year, California expanded the list of diagnoses that disqualify a person from owning guns and there are efforts to expand it further.

            The “government” doesn’t always, or even frequently, act with the best interests of the people in mind. People don’t become virtuous because they’re part of the government. Often it’s quite the opposite. They frequently have their own agendas to advance that have nothing to do with the welfare of the people.

            It’s not nearly as cut-and-dried as you claim. Reality is a lot messier.

            • It happens to people everyday across the US. It has happened to a close friend of mine. Guns save innocent lives everyday. Liberals think the world is filled with unicorns shitting skittles on marshmallows. Lets face it there are people who use guns for the wrong reasons. There are criminals who have no regard for the law or for human life andare wIlling to take a life to get their next cocaine fix. These people are why I feel it is necessary to have guns in my home and the reason I have a handgun on my hip every time I leave home. Guns were never meant to be used as a tool to commit a crime but some people use them that way. I use them for what they were intended to do put food on my families table and protect myself and my family.

              • ” Liberals think the world is filled with unicorns shitting skittles on marshmallows. ”
                And conservatives pretend to know what other people think, and demonize anyone who disagrees with them.

                • O conservatives demonize? Look at how the pro gun people on her were treated . Every time we disagreed we are called trolls and accused of abuse and DEMONIZED FOR DISSAGREEINGwith something which was supposed to be broughtup for a friendlyddiscussion.

              • Robert Buckey>>”In the right situation, when lives are at stake, yes I do support getting the information by any means necessary.”
                If you have studied the question of torture, you would know that a skilled “interrogator” can nearly always get someone to say whatever the interrogator wants to hear, but it will not necessarily be the truth. Moreover, those who abandon principles and morality, have crossed the line, and become the “bad guys”, no matter what cause they are struggling in. They render even a good cause pointless. These are the inquisitors and concentration camp guards, convinced of their own moral superiority, and acting like beasts in the name of patriotism and duty. Torturers have become the enemy.

                • hisxmark2014, first off, simply getting desired information, vice correct information, is worthless. If you yourself had ever bothered to study it, you would be aware that everyone has a breaking point, and that skilled interrogators indeed can get the correct information.

                  It is not immoral to keep the men to the right and left of you alive, or to seek out information that does so. That does not make us the bad guys. As a veteran of two wars, who has seen the reality of war, I am willing to go to whatever lengths needed, and support going to whatever lengths needed. If it keeps a Marine or Soldier from getting killed, it is worth it.

                  • I did get some training in these techniques when I was in the military. We were told that everyone does indeed have a breaking point, but at that point they will tell the interrogator whatever he wants to hear, and that may not be the truth. And some that you think have broken have not, and will give you misinformation that you will want to believe.
                    The only thing that can justify a soldier is the cause he fights for, and the methods he uses. What the hell are you fighting against if you become the enemy by using his methods?
                    The Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg tribunals set the limits.

                    • Well hisxmark, I was never a Soldier, so I can’t speak for them, but I was in the Marine Corps. The cause I fought for was the protection of Americans, and the lives of them men to my right and left, so yes, if the methods achieve that, it is worth it. The enemy we fight also shoots at us, should we not also shoot at them, or would that be bringing us down to their level too?

                      Now, since this has nothing to do with the topic of this article, perhaps you would like to get back on topic, but kudos to Chad for being at least partially successful at getting taking the heat off of his article and inability to defend it, as at least one person took the bait.

  23. If we’re going to have guns on the street, let’s treat them like cars, both are deadly. You have to be a certain age, pass a test, pay for a license, get insurance, etc. True, some will not do these things, just like we have unlicensed drivers, but it is a step in the right direction.

    I also don’t think private citizens need guns manufactured for war either. Gun ownership is about “protection” or hunting, right? Then you don’t need to shoot 50 rounds in a matter of seconds.

      • Nancy, I can’t vote in Washington state, but I can tell you that HI 594 is a bunk, feel good bill that will do nothing to curb violent crime. I live in Oregon. I support the mandatory NICS check at gun stores and I support the mandatory state police background check we have at our gun shows here. That being said, passing a law that requires me to go through a background check when transferring a gun to my wife or close friend is not going to stop some gangbanger in Medford from selling a stolen gun to another felon from the trunk of his car. They have a similar law in California and California has a per capita murder rate twice that of Oregon’s.

        • HI 594 is the initiative on the ballot this coming November in WA State; it mandates criminal background checks for all gun purchases, including gun shows and online; does not include family transfer of weapons. Unfortunately, but no surprise, the gun lobby/NRA has put up a competing initiative, HI 591, and are now trying to scare gun owners that we’re comin’ for their guns and their typical rubbish.

            • Robert, it is everyone’s business because guns kill so many innocent people every year in this country! Did you know that since 1969 more Americans have died from gun violence than the total number of soldiers killed since the Revolutionary War? Since 1969 hundreds of children have been “accidentally” killed by irresponsible gun owners leaving their guns accessible to kids; thousands have died from suicide-by-gun; the list goes on and on.
              It is OUR business because WE are sick of the daily deluge of violence caused by irresponsible gun owners. To object to a background check (looking for criminal/severe mental health issues) is to negate all the deaths of innocent citizens in YOUR country and MINE.
              If you are a law-abiding, responsible citizen with no history of violence or criminality then I do NOT care if you buy a gun. Go for it, bro, but get out of the way of those of us who are insisting on reasonable protections from gun violence.

              • But I am not irresponsible with firearms, never have been. So what have I done to warrant such scrutiny, exactly?

                I have no intention of getting in the way with reasonable protection against gun violence, I just don’t find this kind of law to be either reasonable or a protection against gun violence.

                How would this law have prevented Sandy Hook, or any gang shooting, or a accidental shooting in the home, exactly?

                No, to object to a background check to exercise a natural right is simply to want my privacy protected.

              • Guns kill people? Guns are inadament objects with no will of their own. No gun has ever killed anyone. Human malice, negligence or defense of another life has done that.

  24. What you are saying about the Tiahrt is also not true, Chad. . The Tiahrt Amendment still allows for law enforcement agencies (Local PD, FBI, ATF) to access gun trace data from dealers, but only with a warrant and only when they are performing a criminal investigation.

  25. I often see this factoid about how you are more likely to shoot yourself or a family than a criminal. Okay then. Here is a follow up on that which no one can ever seem to answer. How much more likely am I to shoot myself or a family member that NOT shooting either?

  26. There are convincing arguments on both sides. But the test has been run. If we look at the homicide rates in the US and in countries with tighter restrictions, then the answer is obvious.

    • That point is not so crystal clear when you compare rates of actual violent crime. If you remove Chicago, DC, New Orleans and Detroit(all cities with the GC policies you support), our numbers are closer to those of Canada’s.

    • “”The former Soviet Union’s extremely stringent gun controls, successfully implemented and enforced by a police state, did not keep the nation, and successor states like Russia, from posting murder rates from 1965-1999 that far outstripped the rest of the developed world [sources: Kates and Mauser; Kessler; Pridemore; Pridemore]. The killers in question did not obtain illegal firearms — they simply employed other weapons [source: Kleck].

      In the 1960s and early 1970s, murders committed by Soviet citizens — again, almost entirely without guns — equaled or surpassed the lives taken violently in the gun-saturated United States. By the early 1990s, the murder rate in Russia trebled the American rate, which had by then leveled off, then dropped significantly (more on that later) [sources: Kates and Mauser; Pridemore; Pridemore].

      On the other hand, Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, all countries with heavy gun ownership, posted low murder rates in the early 2000s compared to “gun-light” developed nations. In 2002, for example, Germany’s murder rate was one-ninth that of Luxembourg, where the law prohibits civilian ownership of handguns and gun ownership is rare [source: Kates and Mauser].

      Statistics within countries paint a similar picture: Areas of higher gun ownership rates correlate with areas of lower rates of violent crime, and areas with strict gun laws correlate with areas high in violent crime [source: Malcolm].

      After all, the most violent areas are also the most likely to pass stringent gun laws.””


  27. When someone tells me they don’t believe in gun control I ask “should a mentally ill 12 y/o be allowed to bring an assault rifle to school?”. Of course they say “no”. Isn’t that gun control? Aren’t you deciding who can or cannot carry a gun? It usually opens the door to civil conversation. I find most people have some limits when forced to defend their position.

  28. Let me start by clarifying the term “mass shooting” A mass shooting is where there are a large number of casualties. Not where 2 or 3 people were killed. Second of all most of the places where these shootings occur are gun free zones where it is illegal for anyone to carry a firearm. O wait that criminal had a gun in a gun free zone. Criminals don’t care about laws. If Clinton wouldnt have made all the army bases gun free zones these well trained soldiers could have protected themselves but because they were law abiding citizens they were not armed and it cost them their lives. The only thing gun control will do is create unarmed victims.

      • No it is not. If anything, your gun free zone point is the weakest one made in that op-ed piece. V-tech had campus police and Columbine had an armed guard but it was still illegal for a civilian to carry concealed in these places. Aurora theater, Westroads Mall, Sandy Hook, Luby’s Cafeteria, etc. were all places where lawful concealed carry was prohibited. The circumstantial evidence stacks up in favor for the claim that mass murderers tend to pick places where they can find lots of unarmed people and rack up a high body count. Are you guys trying to change the definition of what a gun free zone is to better suit your argument?
        Paul Goodell
        Brookings, Or.

      • It was me who posted the comment. My name is Blake and I’m from the great state of Louisiana. Lets come up with a better response than your opinion was considered and dealt with in the article. Quit listening to your liberal media and these senators holding anti gun speeches which contain false information about gun crimes. Go out and find the facts for yourself.

        • Blake, it’s the only response he has, because he doesn’t have the intellectual courage to defend his article. He just wants people to tell him how wonderful his work is, or people fitting the caricature he created who will just come onto the post and flame he. He simply can’t deal with rational, knowledgeable, individuals who disagree with him.

          • What about people who can’t afford guns, am I suppose to be in fear of the guy with a gun because I can’t afford one. You pro gun people are assholes and have your heads up your ass.

        • Chad apparently considers George Zimmerman to be “part of the problem.”

          Excuse me? The eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence prove that Zimmerman used a firearm to defend himself *after* Trayvon Martin jumped him and began raining down blows “mixed martial arts style” in the words of one witness. Martin was on top of Zimmerman slamming his head into the concrete. What was Zimmerman supposed to do?

          You see this is my fundamental disagreement with the victim-disarmament lobby. It’s not really an argument about waiting periods or the allowable capacity of magazines or pistol grips. I believe that self defense is a human right. The other side says that we should just submit, give the aggressor what he wants even if what he wants is to rape, and “be a good witness.”

          The attempt to smear and demonize Zimmerman (and Darren Wilson, i should add) for using lethal force to defend themselves fits perfectly into their insane agenda.

    • Too bad Chad refuses to listen. Anyone who actually tries to engage him is dismissed as a troll for not agreeing with im.

Leave a Comment