When a tragedy like the Connecticut school shooting happens, it usually takes the anti-gun side about fourteen seconds to jump on the opportunity and use the still warm bodies to justify more stringent gun control, if not outright confiscation. The fact that it took Dan Agin almost two hours to get his cri de coeur up on Huffpo could be taken as a sign of a reasoned pause to consider the full extent of the issue. It could, but that would be assigning him far too much credit . . .

Instead, Agin’s angst-ridding post should be taken for what it is — opportunism aimed at blaming all gun owners for the crimes of a few. Agin sees gun owners the way southern racists used to see blacks — we’re all the same. Doesn’t matter if you’re a skeet shooter or a single mom who lives in a crime-ridden neighborhood. Just a bunch of wackos who are irrationally in love with their guns.

It’s time to tell the NRA, the gun lobby, and all the moral imbeciles, psychiatric cases, and entertainment hunters to stop kissing their guns and start thinking about what’s good for the public at large — including what’s good for their own children.

Really, if some people like kissing guns, let’s have the gun barrels blocked with lead and let them kiss all they want. Let them kiss guns, eat bullets, do whatever they like — as long as it’s not possible to use private guns to kill people.

Oh, and you hunters? Screw you, too.

In the first place, we don’t need to put the lives of everyone, especially city and suburban people, at risk because of backwoods hunting. Making weapons available for backwood entertainment hunting results in the deaths of too many innocent people. The hell with hunting and buffoon “hunters” when hunting is now merely entertainment and not an economic necessity.

Since Agin’s decided that no one needs guns, even to hunt, it’s about time you STFU and turn in your heaters.

Guns kill people, including children, and all guns need to be highly regulated and if possible removed from the hands of everyone except people in law enforcement.

Got that? OK, start queueing up and make sure you bring all your firearms, cause Dan wants ’em turned in. Now.

The fact that Agin said nothing about knives is sort of curious, though. Maybe he hasn’t heard about that other school tragedy that happened today. The one in Chengping, China where a man stabbed 22 children before being subdued. Maybe Dan missed that one. Or maybe he’s still OK with knives in private hands because no one has died from that attack. Yet.

He’s also curiously silent on the subject of the millions of annual defensive gun uses in this country. He skips right over the fact that tens of thousands of people would likely die every year if he got his way and only criminals (and maybe a few moral imbeciles and psychiatric cases) have guns.

But that doesn’t matter to him. No, Agin’s a wand-waver. He lives in a world where he can shake his magic stick and make all the guns disappear. Good luck with that, Dan.

While he may not have been the best spokesman for gun safety per se, William S. Burroughs had it right as far as those who are only too happy to use the deaths of innocents to further their rights abrogating agenda:

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.

Neither would we, Mr. Agin. And though you’re obviously incapable of comprehending it, neither would you.

 

106 Responses to Dan Agin: Stop Kissing Your Damned Guns and Turn Them In

  1. When a tragedy like the Connecticut school shooting happens, it usually takes the anti-gun side about .04 seconds to jump on the opportunity

    There ya go. Fixed that for you.

    • Private website free to censor comments any way they like.

      The number of people who have no idea what the First Amendment means frightens me. Makes me wonder if you truly understand the second as well…

    • Might be the “terminology”. From my personal experience, they don’t like “libtard”. “Redneck” is O K, probably stuff like “right-wing nut” too.

  2. I honestly believe if we took every legal firearm away in America, homemade-bombings would go up dramatically. These guys are killing themselves anyway, we’d just see mid-east style attacks rather than gunman attacks.

    It isn’t the method, it’s the sickness. We need to find better ways to identify these people, cause they aren’t being turned crazy by guns.

  3. “as long as it’s not possible to use private guns to kill people.”

    I think those words mean a lot right there. When private guns can no longer kill people, it makes it a lot easier to the non-private (read: government) guns to kill people.

    Apparently he thinks that would be better. Not surprising for these types.

  4. This fool should meet the store clerk here whose life was saved 2 weeks ago when he shot and killed the robber who pointed a handgun at him and threatened his life. The clerk yesterday was cleared and common sense prevailed.

  5. Let me get this straight: a disturbed young man – known to friends, family and neighbors as potentially mentally ill – manages to arm himself in a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, travels to another state, also with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, to kill not only innocents but members of his own family, and normal, law-abiding citizens are now supposed to voluntarily disarm themselves so they can be at the mercy of criminals and, God forbid, worse.

    Also, is it even worth asking a guy like this…why does he assume we don’t love our children too? You can own a gun and love your children too. Really. I swear.

  6. It’s because of people like him that I have to say this:

    Come and take them.

    I’m more than willing to have a discussion on enforcing the laws already on the books and making mental healthcare more of a priority…But I *will not* be punished for someone else’s actions.

    • The rights of citizens are not contingent on the reasonable excercise of those rights by all citizens.Each of us is responsible for our individual acts,I will not be painted with the Adam Lanza brush. I wasn’t in Newtown,Portland,Wisconsin,or Aurora . I will suffer my rights and the rights of others to be abridged on account of the misdeeds of others. The sheep may remain sheep if they choose,the wolves are always around looking to prey on the weak and unaware and sheepdogs come in all sizes and colors. Be safe.

  7. Yet another man who is lumping me, and about 3 million other responsible citizens, in with a deranged psychopath. I wonder, can we sue for defamation?

  8. “Guns kill people, including children, and all guns need to be highly regulated and if possible removed from the hands of everyone except people in law enforcement.”
    The gun control laws we have now didn’t work. Agin’s solution? More gun control laws. More of what didn’t work in the first place. I guess we just don’t have enough gun control laws. When the magic number of gun control laws is reached, the homicidal/suicidal maniacs will stop shooting people, right? Oops! It’s the guns that are shooting people, not the homicidial/suicidal maniacs! Silly me!

    I’ll turn in my guns when Rosie O’Donnell & Michael Moore turn in their spoons.

  9. There was a time when mass shooting did not occur in America, because nuts were put where they needed to be whether they liked it or not. But we can’t do that any more because the courts have ruled that the mentally ill have a right to kill themselves and everyone around them be mentally ill without governmental interference. Which is why a$$h0les like Agin are free to write nonsense when they should be working with modeling clay and taking psychotropic medications.

    • It is unfortunately Reagan who closed the psychiatrist hospitals after a string of bad depictions in the media, including the movies Frances and One Flew…

      • Reagan didn’t stop the police in NYC from doing their jobs and taking control of the mentally disturbed people who now roam the streets of the city.

        Once the civil rights lawyers got ahold of the issue, nut cases became a protected class. Which by itself was fine — New York’s skells scared people but rarely hurt them — but the protection was rapidly extended to all nuts, including the most antisocial of psychopaths.

        • Agreed. I just finished a semester in an Abnormal Psychology class, and our last unit was on the ethics involved behind the legal definitions of terms, and what measures could and couldn’t be taken to ensure the safety of those with mental illnesses. It’s a tough line to draw, and conditions in many of those old institutions were absolutely inhumane, but mental health is one area of increased federal spending I could whole-heartedly support.

  10. ugh… Yet another one..
    How about posting an article to send support, have your kids make cards for those innocent children who are home but scared out of their wits right now… Oh I’m sorry I thought you cared…

  11. Yeah… and the outright gun ban certainly stopped the slaughter of hundreds in Beslan, too.
    The anti-gunners have to jump in with all they’ve got because incidents such as this give the lie to their favorite myth: big government can keep you safe & secure from cradle to grave. So, just sit back, relax, become a ward of the State. Don’t worry. Be happy!
    Sadly, we live in a world where evil exists. Trying to take us, as a nation, one step further down the path to complete subservience to dictatorial government is just a different facet of the same evil that murdered innocents today.

  12. Quote by HuffPo ‘superuser’ orcinusorca47:

    3) Void all concealed carry permits except for those with proof of need

    Confounding. The sick bastard was 20 years old. The firearms are reported to be his mother’s. Argue relevant facts and I will be willing to discuss, even if I strongly disagree with you. Don’t “pork” your point.

  13. This says it much better than I could. My first post after lurking for many months soaking up good information and much common sense. Hopefully I will be able to post things and thoughts that are worthy of the posters here.

    “To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow… For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.”
    Jeff Snyder

  14. I dislike scum like that guy cant even wait for the mother and dads of the victims to claim the bodies and then the Democrats and Brady campaigners stand on those dead children to preach about how you and i and Nick and Robert and Dan are all evil and behind this. Id spit in his face this columnist.

  15. Of course the anti-gun usual suspects will wring their hands, gnash their teeth and cry: “we need to have reasonable gun laws!” Well I agree. We need to strike now while the iron is hot! We need to change the laws that make it impossible for teachers and administrators in school to protect themselves and their young charges. It’s obvious that part of teachers’ job description needs to include training and hardware to take down these mass shooters before they carry out their evil deeds. Or at least encourage them(the teachers) to prepare for such situations. We who know that more “gun control” laws is not the answer, indeed it is part of the problem, we need to play hardball now and put the anti’s back on their heels. We need to not let the anti’s put us back on our heels. The bell has been rung and we need to come out swinging.

    • Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the Federal Gun Free School Zone act allows school administrators etc to allow guns in their school. My state is the same but I’m sure some states are more restrictive. I’m not aware of any school exercizing this option though.
      Anyone know of a case? This could be an area for local involvement.

      • I’m not aware of any school exercizing this option though.

        You won’t find any. In a universe where dodgeball is illegal, what do you believe the soccer moms would think about guns in the school?

        • I am proud that while students are no longer allowed to keep shotguns in their lockers (was considered safer than left in a truck) in my high school alma mater, they do still play dodgeball. My point being if cities with higher porportions of reasonable adults are successful labrotories of democracy, their results could influance others. I’m looking into it in my current residence.

  16. Where is everyone getting the information that the guns were owned by the shooter’s mother? Also, read that an AR was found in the psycho’s car, but not used; can’t find any sources reporting this!

    Just listened to a Fox live report, claimed the rifle WAS used.

  17. Navy Seals did not kill Bin Laden.
    Guns did……said no one ever.
    So don’t blame guns for the actions of stupid/evil people.

  18. Why all the angst ? Guns are just integral to American life.

    Cars kill a lot of folks; 32,000 in 2010. Every once in a while there’s a fifty-car pile up and it’s news for a day or two. Tragic. We shake our heads and hop in the SUV and listen to the talkers babble about it on our way to work as we rubber-neck past the wreckage.

    Same with guns. Tens of thousands die every year, like clockwork. So what if there is a spike in the numbers periodically? A nut gets a gun. Tragic. The left goes bonkers and screams, “git the guns”! The right goes bonkers and screams, “git yer greasy paws off my guns”!

    Then. Nothing. Happens. Nothing ever will. This is America.

    (The only exception might be the NRA and Brady bunch rake in a few extra donations, and a better sales for the industry, but that’s just collateral profit.)

    So learn to love your Glock, and Democrats too. And Relax. It’s all good.

    • Tens of thousands do not die in gun homicides in the US. The total number of homicides in the US in 2009 was something like 17,000. Guns were below stabbings, bludgeonings, fistfights, and poisonings on that list. You can find this info from government sources easily enough.

      Lets just keep these mass shootings in perspective. They are comparable to lightning and sharks for causes of death in the US.

      • Not to quibble, but I said nothing about homicides, just deaths. In that, I’m not wrong. But that’s not the point. Regulations have been consistently relaxed over the past many years, even under the socialist, Kenyan Muslim interloper. Just sayin.

        Do you really think Obummer will spend political capital on this? He can’t even protect his SecState candidate right after winning an election.

        PS: Plus, last night MI got rid of gun-free areas like schools, daycares, stadiums etc. The action’s in the states, the Feds are neutered on this stuff.

        • What is the problem if someone is allegedly muslim( even though evidence points to the contrary)?

          You do know muslims are regular People just like you?

  19. >as long as it’s not possible to use private guns to kill people.
    >private guns
    So when it’s public guns then its okay? That seem to be the implication.

  20. I do not kiss my guns, I caress them. It seems less weird in front of my wife – That was before I lost them all in that horrible boating accident.

    • Honest truth … when I first saw the picture I thought it was Michael Douglas and thought, “Man, is he getting old.”!

        • A wrinkled up angry old man of the Left, angry & frustrated that the Bolshevik revolution he dreamed of in his green & salad days, complete with a progressive intelligentsia leading the obedient masses, never came to pass. Bitterness etches his dried up visage.

          Today’s Aristocracy of Conscience, led by the likes of Obama, Feinstein, & Schumer, is that whitehaired old fogie’s last shot at relevance. They fail, he might as well jump off the Bay Bridge.

  21. I would love to hear a well reasoned non-emotional post/article/discussion from a gun control advocate that provides some basis on how banning guns save lives. It’s not because I believe them but because I believe they don’t have any factual basis. Guns help protect the weak and innocent and if you take them away from law abiding citizens, they are then defenseless. Then only criminals, the military, and law enforcement would have them. We know that law enforcement has no legal duty to protect us so what are we to do when attacked?

    Theese mass shootings are awful and garner a lot of attention but if guns were banned, the overall body count of innocent people would be significantly higher nationwide.

  22. So, yet another shooting incident has come and gone in The United States of America. Due to how common happenings like this are, in that ‘developed country’, we all know now what will ensue. A hugely emotional, but irrational, pseudo-debate on gun laws. The anti-gun lobby will espouse the need for guns to be completely banned, and for stricter regulations to be imposed on them until such a team that the constitution can be amended. The pro-gun lobby will say (somewhat bafflingly) that people need to be given more guns, in order to defend themselves from gun-toting lunatics who are perfectly free and able to legally obtain guns and then carry out such vicious attacks, due to the backward gun laws, which are actually based completely on false pretence, which I will come to later. Here’s the funny thing; both sides are very, seriously wrong. Total banning of guns would lead to the same events that occurred during the alcohol prohibition in the US, widespread chaos, and gangs running the joint. Also, freely giving out guns to people in the hope that they, themselves will defend one another from a potential attacker is even more laughable than the first proposition, for obvious reasons (but I still would not even choose the former over it). I mean these people are actually using the ‘fight fire, with fire’ argument, which should be excluded immediately from any serious argument, but somehow manages to filter through. Now on to the point on the constitution.
    Here is the actual language used in the second amendment, as passed by congress; ‘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.’ Now, this very clearly does not allow anyone to simply go into a ‘store’ and buy a gun. It does, however, clearly state that a ‘well-regulated militia’ has the right to ‘bear arms’. Now the importance of the language here cannot be overstated. This clearly means that, only those who are part of such a militia should be entitled to have a firearm. Not just any average Joe from the street, who doesn’t have an understanding of how to handle a gun, who has been given a somewhat half-assed background check, and to whom a proper, psychological evaluation, has not been carried out. This is not what the founding father’s wished.
    The founding fathers were against all forms of tyrannical government, hence why they fought against the ‘British’. They would certainly have not appreciated the, so-called, ‘patriot act’ which I will describe as the most democratic way that fascism has crept into a democratic state, since the most obvious example. But, I digress. And this is why they gave the right to the people, to form militias and fight back against governments that were encroaching too far on their personal liberties. Not, however, for everyone and their dog to have an AK-47 hanging on the wall. And I would urge the pro-gun lobby to recognise this undeniable fact, and legislate on guns, accordingly.
    The last major gun attack we had here, in the ‘UK’ (specifically in Scotland), was the Dunblane massacre carried out by an individual in 1996, and immediately after, we signed in laws and campaigned for tighter gun control, to ensure that a travesty to humanity such as this, would never happen again. That is the last of its kind we have been forced to bear witness to, since then. Unfortunately, in the United States, it’s happening to a point where it’s becoming worryingly common. In the calendar year of 2012, we have been shown truly horrific scenes, from the shooting at the new batman film premiere, to those who were killed in a shopping mall, and now, an elementary school, in which a ‘man’ opened fire, with multiple firearms, and stole the lives of at least 29 people, including members of his own family.
    It pains me to say that, when I first heard of this, I was obviously experiencing a wide range of emotions, but the one that was missing was shock. It’s just all too common. It happens too much. And we really need for the people of the United States to have an, adult, civilised, and more importantly fact-based, discussion on what needs to be done in order to effectively prevent travesties like this from happening again. And the annoying thing is, the solution is all too simple; attitudes towards guns are what have to change. Not the laws, not the prices, not the availability, the attitudes. That is how we managed to legislate against them after the massacre at Dunblane. Not because the law was easier to change (which it is), but because of our attitudes towards guns, we managed to do the right thing. The attitude towards guns across the pond, however, is disturbingly different, and is proving to be lethal. Mass killings such as the most recent in Connecticut, and the more famous like the Columbine massacre, and the 61 that have happened since 1982, should be enough to rationalise against the idea that guns are a good thing that keep the citizens safe. But this is just simply not the reality. After gun laws were tightened here, gun crime went down. It works.
    And if the people of the United States won’t do it themselves, it is our role, as human beings, to pressure them into actually reading their constitution that they shove in your face when you question their right to ‘bear arms’, and also to drag the pro-gun lobby, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century, and out of the wild west. I don’t mean this condescendingly, this is the world’s perception of the US as a nation, and it is unfortunate, as you had so much potential, on paper. It’s time to grow up, and live up to the potential and the ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that were freely offered to you, but wholly rejected.

    • “Now, this very clearly does not allow anyone to simply go into a ‘store’ and buy a gun. It does, however, clearly state that a ‘well-regulated militia’ has the right to ‘bear arms’. Now the importance of the language here cannot be overstated. This clearly means that, only those who are part of such a militia should be entitled to have a firearm.”

      Sorry, you are incorrect. Period. The 2nd is about the individual right to bear arms and the role that those individuals and their arms may play in the defense of a “free state”.

      Want a more thorough deconstruction of your position? Conveniently Bruce Kraft has already written it for you.
      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/11/bruce-w-krafft/the-second-amendment-what-it-says-what-it-means/

      As for this:
      “I don’t mean this condescendingly, this is the world’s perception of the US as a nation, and it is unfortunate, as you had so much potential, on paper. It’s time to grow up, and live up to the potential and the ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that were freely offered to you, but wholly rejected.”

      Who the hell do you think you are? Since you are apparently in Jolly Old England I suggest that you review your history and remind yourself that this is not the first time you’ve been told to shove your ideas about how we run our country where the sun don’t shine.

      I’ll continue to happily live my life without your authoritarian dictates here in what is left of the Wild West.

      KMA

      • Well for a start i am in Scotland not England so lets get that straight from the start , we had to bring in gun laws after the dunblane massacre in which many innocent kids were killed as today the same unfortunate thing has happened in Connecticut , as for reviewing my history on the 2nd amendment my main point was that the gun laws now did not reflect the views of the founding fathers, or even what they were experiencing at the time.maybe it is time that america woke up and the the gun laws do not work , whether the laws are right or wrong they do not work and must be changed , no doubt you wont agree so what is the point ?

        • Scotland, England, who cares – you still have no standing whatsoever vis-a-vis U.S. law.

          Your opinion regarding the 2nd amendment and the view of the founding fathers is both flawed and irrelevant. Further, your condescending tone relative to who we as Americans are and how we choose to run our country is arrogant and offensive.

          Your notion that our gun laws “don’t work” is based upon arrogant presumption that there is some preferable alternative reality that we could be in if only we were enlightened enough to understand what you have proclaimed to be the truth.

          How convenient it must be to preemptively disregard any response I might have by stating,
          “whether the laws are right or wrong they do not work and must be changed , no doubt you wont agree so what is the point ?”.

          I guess we poor, stupid colonies will have to keep struggling to learn all those lessons that our “betters” in the old world seem to think we fail to comprehend.

        • “my main point was that the gun laws now did not reflect the views of the founding fathers, or even what they were experiencing at the time.”

          youre right. the current infringements upon the 2nd amendment do not reflect the views of the founding fathers. they had a intimate understanding that free societies are to be armed, unlike the populations in europe that have been disarmed since the feudal age.

          and what they were experiencing at the time? hmmmm, does the American Revolutionary War, a war on our own soil, ring a bell?

    • douglas kinloch: “This clearly means that, only those who are part of such a militia should be entitled to have a firearm. Not just any average Joe from the street…”

      Your entire argument is predicated on a misunderstanding. When the Constitution was written, the average Joe was the militia. Every able-bodied male between 16 and 60 was the militia.

      About the only thing we agree on is that the founding fathers wouldn’t have appreciated the Patriot Act. Everything else you said was just claptrap based on your original, mistaken, misunderstanding.

        • No, I don’t really care to elaborate. There is a fundamental difference of philosophy between you and I, and I’m just not in the mood to try (likely fruitlessly) to bring you around to my point of view.

          Our countries have vastly different origins. Yours evolved from a bloodline-based aristocratic system, while mine was founded on equality and freedom from tyranny, and the Second Amendment is the linchpin of the defense of that freedom. Although your country has evolved (sort of) away from that aristocratic system, that history still rings through. Subjects in the UK still kowtow to certain lucky people based solely on the order in which they were born into a family that was awarded land and title some hundreds of years ago in reward for their loyalty to someone else. Freedom and liberty are what we were founded on, it’s who we are. I can no more expect you to understand that than you can expect me to understand why people show deference when the Duke or Duchess of Devonshire pass by.

    • douglas wrote:
      It [2nd Amendment] does, however, clearly state that a ‘well-regulated militia’ has the right to ‘bear arms’ (emphasis mine).

      No, it clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms (emphasis mine) shall not be infringed.”

      douglas wrote:
      “This clearly means that, only those who are part of such a militia should be entitled to have a firearm. Not just any average Joe from the street, …”

      As I stated above, “the right of the people”. More importantly, all citizens’ rights are pre-existing. Government does not grant rights. Government’s primary job in the U.S. is to secure those rights of the people.

      douglas wrote:
      “Not just any average Joe from the street, who doesn’t have an understanding of how to handle a gun, who has been given a somewhat half-assed background check, and to whom a proper, psychological evaluation, has not been carried out.”

      I don’t know anyone in our military (the dreaded standing army that the Founders loathed) who has undergone a “proper, psychological evaluation”. For that matter, I don’t know anyone in government or law enforcement who has, either. Your average infantry grunt and police officer on the street do not require psych exams to bear arms and neither does any citizen.

      douglas wrote:
      “And this is why they gave the right to the people, to form militias and fight back against governments that were encroaching too far on their personal liberties.”

      No, the Founders did not give any rights to the people. As I said earlier, our rights are pre-existing, inalienable and this was the view of the Founders expressly stated in the Declaration of Independence. The Founders simply codified some of our pre-existing rights in our Bill of Rights. That concept confuses you because your mindset is that of a British subject — you are effectively property of the ruling elite.

    • douglas wrote:
      “The last major gun attack we had here, in the ‘UK’ (specifically in Scotland), was the Dunblane massacre carried out by an individual in 1996, and immediately after, we signed in laws and campaigned for tighter gun control, to ensure that a travesty to humanity such as this, would never happen again. That is the last of its kind we have been forced to bear witness to, since then.”

      You fail to see the travesty to humanity occurring on a daily basis all around you: the violent crime rate in the UK is five times higher than the violent crime rate in the U.S. You also fail to see the 100s of thousands of instances where armed citizens successfully defend themselves from home invasions, rapes, violent assaults, armed robberies, and murders every year. One of my favorite examples is the 18 year old mother in the state of Oklahoma who defended herself and her infant from two men breaking into her home with the explicit intention of killing her. The first man through the door was twice her size and carried a large knife. She stopped him with a shotgun 20 minutes after she called police … who arrived some time thereafter.

      douglas wrote:
      “And we really need for the people of the United States to have an, adult, civilised, and more importantly fact-based, discussion on what needs to be done in order to effectively prevent travesties like this from happening again.”

      I agree. Sadly, even if you could magically make all firearms disappear, events like this would still happen. Instead of a firearm, the criminals would use cars, gasoline, compressed gas, fire, chemicals, whatever. In some respects, it is impossible to stop a person who is determined to harm the public. All we can do is prepare to minimize the casualties that such an evil person seeks to create. And armed citizens have the same potential and tools to stop an evil person as the police. Why take that away?

      douglas wrote:
      “The attitude towards guns across the pond, however, is disturbingly different, and is proving to be lethal.”

      I agree. And the solution is a lot more armed citizens. Right now, 100% of mass shooters are armed. But only about 3% of the adult population has concealed handgun carry licenses — and almost no one carries in schools for various reasons. And that is the problem. I am not aware of any successful mass shootings at a gun range or police station. Occasionally some idiot charges into a police station blasting away and the ARMED police officers promptly shoot the criminal before the criminal is able to harm more than two or three officers. If we had a lot more armed people in public — including schools — criminals intent on killing dozens of people will never get the opportunity.

      Consider this douglas. My mother, father, wife, and I recently went to a restaurant. Do you know what would have happened if a man walked in with two handguns and started shooting? My father, wife, and I were all armed and all three of us would have promptly shot and stopped the armed criminal. Sure, he might have been able to shoot three, maybe four people before we could put him down. But he damned sure would NOT have shot and killed 20 to 30 people.

    • No more Dunblanes maybe, but Englishmen are at the mercy of criminals who run rampant, burglarizing homes and menacing the populace at a world-beating rate. Your recently released gun crime statistics were notedly appalling. And you are woefully incorrect about our constitution as another poster has pointed out. Our Supreme Court has just sifted through reams of historical analysis and textual legal analysis of the constitution and affirmed that the right is an individual right, as it has been properly understood by citizens for all of our history. I won’t give you the treatment for being so presumptuous as how our country runs, but having lived in Uk for five years I feel our societyis far more enlightened about guns than yours and huge numbers of your countrymen would agree with me.

    • It is the “right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms”, not the right of the “militia”. The concept of a “militia” (in effect, a body of armed men drawn from the populace, serving as soldiers) having its right to be armed recognized in the BOR is as ludicrous as saying “the army has the right to bear arms”.
      That arms-bearing by a military force, be it militia or “regular” troops, is implicit —- it needs no statement, let alone Constitutional guarantee.
      The only “army” I ever heard of that does NOT bear arms is The Salvation Army (lousy infantry, but a great brass section).

  23. I’d like to see us (the pro-2A’s) be quicker and a lot more vocal to clamor for less gun laws every time something like this happens. I personally feel everyone who has in some way supported disarming the populace is partly responsible for negligent homicide.

  24. Yeah OK Douglas, because violent crime doesn’t happen in Scotland.

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scotland-in-the-grip-of-murder-mayhem-as-homicide-1099307

    Obviously the numbers are nowhere near as high but then again the population is smaller. I’ve been to Scotland. I have relatives in Aberdeen. I love Scotland. The most S**T scared I have ever been was in the middle of a brawl in a Glasgow pub.

    Thanks for your sanctimonious comments. Murder rate up 30%? Hmmmmmm, guess it’s ok though it was “blades and booze” not guns. Ban booze and knives yet?

  25. “… let’s have the gun barrels blocked with lead…”

    *scratching my head*

    Mine already is blocked with lead. Maybe he just didnt get the memo. It just happens that with the pull of the trigger, lead is removable.

  26. I have a better solution.

    Give Americans a cheaper, more effective means of seeking professional and accredited psychiatric care, especially for kids aged 14-21 that are exhibiting anti-social tendencies or that have major attitude problems.

    The problem are demented, undiagnosed, and mal-adjusted youths and adults that are not being recognized as having mental problems or conditions.

  27. Here’s a mental exercise that I think paints a nice picture of why enabling a well-armed law-abiding populace and eliminating gun free zones is more important than any thought of legislating more “gun-control”.

    Note that this is a purely hypothetical exercise and I obviously have no intent to carry out the below example. I only use it for relevance and to drive my points home.

    Right now, as of this moment, there is nothing stopping me from getting a knife from my kitchen and going to a school and going on a killing spree. Absolutely nothing. I could hide the knife (or pencil, hammer, broken bottle, bat, chair leg, etc.) easily in my clothing as to not arouse suspicion from any police officers that I could pass by en-route to my destination (any gun-free zone). At this gun-free zone, I have no fear of being stopped by a CCW holder, especially inside the school, where it is illegal for them to carry. I could very easily attain a high count of injured or dead if that was my goal.

    My point is, the evil people that go on murder sprees are calculating, meticulous (they prepare beforehand), and are evil. No doubt about that. Note that I didn’t say their tools were evil. I said they were evil. That is key.

    Now, here’s the point of this scenario. Obviously, I would have to have had a mental break or be totally insane to even consider doing such a heinous crime. And I would have to be a sick individual — an evil individual to even think of such a thing. Still with me?

    That said, it goes without saying that a sane, “good” person would never dream of doing the crime that I described above. So, it stands to reason, that dementia, insanity, and murderous, evil intent is the primary instigator of any sort of violence or murderous spree. Not the tools they end up using to commit the act.

    What tool that murderous evil person uses is irrelevant when it comes to assigning blame of the crime. We’ve already established the evil person is the cause. They could’ve easily killed many innocent people with any object they chose to use as a weapon. This was already demonstrated by the man in China that injured 23 people with a knife.

    The fact of the matter is, an evil person can kill as many innocent people as they want using whatever tool they want until they are met with resistance.

    This is where CCW holders come into play. Or who I like to call, the civilian militia. Sound familiar? That’s the well-armed militia mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. And then come the police and military.

    So, to the anti-gunners, do you know why police and military carry guns? It’s because they are fighting people with guns. Fact is, there are millions of guns in circulation around the globe. There’s nothing anyone can do about that. And criminals have access to them now.

    We’ve just established that evil people have guns. And knives, and anything they think they can use to inflict harm on innocent people.

    So let me ask you this, dear anti-gunners. Why are you trying to limit where the good guys with guns can carry legally (thus limiting their effectiveness in possibly stopping crimes and murder sprees)? Especially when the bad guys and crazies among us already have guns or the will to kill law-abiding people to illegally obtain them?

  28. “It’s time to tell the NRA, the gun lobby, and all the moral imbeciles, psychiatric cases, and entertainment hunters to stop kissing their guns and start thinking about what’s good for the public at large — including what’s good for their own children.”

    Those that give up essential liberty for little or no temporary safety deserve neither – ben franklin-

    “In the first place, we don’t need to put the lives of everyone, especially city and suburban people, at risk because of backwoods hunting. Making weapons available for backwood entertainment hunting results in the deaths of too many innocent people. The hell with hunting and buffoon “hunters” when hunting is now merely entertainment and not an economic necessity.”

    hunting is not backwood entertainment. i certainly should be allowed to acquire food that hasn’t been contaminated with antibiotics and hormones that give me cancer and various other illnesses.

    right. because “economic necessity” is the reason why food will ALWAYS be on the shelves no matter what. self sufficiency? nah. that is so 1776 LOL.

    with given statistics on defensive gun uses annually, it can be concluded that the advantages of gun ownership outweigh the disadvantages. see what i did there? that is deductive reasoning.

    “Guns kill people, including children, and all guns need to be highly regulated and if possible removed from the hands of everyone except people in law enforcement.”

    unfeeling psychopaths kill people, including children…

    and there are most certainly no psychopaths in law enforcement /sarc off

  29. so typical of the pro gun lobby in the replies to me along with some of you who actually read my first post properly for which i thank you ,i am not against or for the use of guns for civilians ,all i tried to point out was that the current gun laws in america DO NOT WORK something has to change and that is through dialogue and not just the going round in circles dialogue that happens after every atrocity using guns, as for the name calling in a reply to me well what can i say that’s disgusting and disappointing to be honest but each to their own i guess, i am not or anyway near pro government as has been said to me ,i am more anti government than anyone , i can see that the pro gun lobby have their views by the replies to me on here ,i respect their views even though i don’t agree with them but i do respect them , sadly the same respect has not been shown to me but hey that’s the way of the world and i will live with it, i sincerely hope that something good happens and that changes are brought for the sake of the children who died yesterday and they have a lasting legacy that some good maybe will come in the future and their lives were not taken away in vain, and with that i will retire from here and not post again ,

    • You write something to which people can take offense and when they respond disagreeing in particularly terse terms with what you consider to be a magnum opus, you get all butthurt and declare that you won’t be back. Fine.

      I would suggest that if you are still lurking, you might want to consider how brave and resolute you are in defending your thoughts and speech in an on-line forum and how that might translate to other less virtual areas of your life. You are not prepared mentally to stand up for yourself. If you can’t defend yourself against rather tame chatter, could you ever defend your loved ones against physical assault?

      Most folks here take their safety and that of their loved ones very seriously. They are willing to defend themselves and their families. Until you can understand that, you’ll never be able to talk to them. And, when you do understand it, I suspect that you’d understand why your rant was met with scorn.

      • so calling someone a child molester is a way of dialogue ,not im my world but as i said hey ho each to their own , that post was disgusting i don’t care what anyone thinks but that’s just shocking , i see no point in arguing my side of it on here as it only leads to vitriol and disgusting remarks ,but you keep being happy with that , i do not wish to be part of a forum which used vitriol and disgusting remarks like that to defend myself thanks.

        • douglas kinloch: “i do not wish to be part of a forum which used vitriol and disgusting remarks like that to defend myself thanks.”

          I laughed when I read this. I’m sorry, but I did. As someone who didn’t use “vitriol and disgusting remarks” in responding to you (like the vast majority of us who responded), let me just say:

          “Welcome to the Internet. Get a helmet.”

          Seriously, if we passed your bar for offensive commentary, you may want to just shut off the computer now and go outside. We are one of, if not the, tamest sites that I’m aware of on the “series of tubes,” certainly among those that cover this subject. Good luck in the future.

        • Sorry, IF you feel offended. I was quite polite in my remarks on your statements. Surely you cannot use the excuse of hurt feelings to avoid defending the opinions you so freely published here.
          I frequently find that those who cannot defend what they have to say feign outrage at some real or imagined insult. That is why I do not use ad hominem remarks, to prevent anyone using such an excuse.
          In consideration of all this, will you respond to my criticism of your comment, or do you choose to go off in a huff ?

        • come back when you decide to grow up.

          if those electrons on your screen are so offensive then you better break your internet modem.

    • So once again you stand atop your self constructed pedestal and crow that our gun laws “do not work” and that something has to change and you imply that you know what that it is and that we are a bunch of backward yahoos since we don’t instantly agree with you. You also wrap the thinly veiled implication that we are all too foolish to reach our own conclusions and are, rather, just repeating the talking points of the nebulous “pro gun lobby”. You say, “i respect their views even though i don’t agree with them but i do respect them,” when clearly you do not. Respect is not displayed by arrogant presumption that those views “must be changed” simply because they don’t agree with yours. As you have displayed little or no respect, you get little or none in return.

      So you are going to depart after having deemed us beyond reproach, are you? Well, I will then say to you and your self righteous superiority, farewell.

      I wonder, were William Wallace alive today would he cry. “Freedom, as long as I have a false sense of security because the law says that no one is supposed to have a gun”?

    • “… all i tried to point out was that the current gun laws in america DO NOT WORK…”

      We already know this but the only thing that needs to be changed with gun laws ia that they be done away with. We need stricter and harsher punishments for crimminals and we need doctors to take psychological issues more seriously.

      We also need thoes damn civil rights groups to stop gettimg all sqemish over punishing criminals. As I said in another post, people have no problem putting grandma in a home so they dont have to deal with her dementia. I have been in and out of nursing facilities for the ten years I have worked in Emergency Medical Services, across several states. I can count the good ones on one hand. We can put our loved ones in these disease and filth ridden places with a staff who can care less what they want or that they are alone. Let them get MRSA, decubitus ulcers or anything the 80°+ room tempuratures can cook up. Needless to say many of these people are war vets, from a generation when everyone did something for freedom. It is okay if we allow them to suffer and die alone.

      God forbid one person ever be punished for a harsh crime.

      Youre right. Gun control laws dont work but only one thing needs to change, who suffers for haneious acts.

  30. Why, whenever the antis call for bans, do they always say that law enforcement is exempt? Are law enforcmenet officers not people too? Do they not have the same failings as the rest of us? Have we not seen case after case of police abuse, brutality, and corruption? If we citizens who committed no crime, should be disarmed because of Sandy Hook, should the police be disarmed because of Sean Bell? Why is it that the antis put so much blind faith in the goodness of law enforcment with guns while believing that any gun owner without a badge is a dangerous, hateful, psycho?

  31. To me, this whole civilian disarmament (some are calling it, rather disingenuously, “gun control”) fooforaw hinges on whether, because of the conspicuously heinous acts of a very small number of wackos like Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Jared Loughner, James Holmes, and Adam Lanza, ordinary law-abiding citizens with no history of any behavior permitting the inference that they are themselves incipient wackos or criminals, should be deprived of the same means of defending themselves, perhaps by lethal force, as those available to law enforcement.

  32. Do people really think getting people to hand guns in will solve the problem? I live in the UK where Full-bore semi-automatic firearms are banned along with hand guns but I guarantee if I walked into the town nearby I could walk out with enough guns and ammo to rob a bank(any law enforcement reading this I won’t do that, I’m just saying its possible).

  33. The anti-gun crowd wants all the guns,they have a leftist socialistic agenda,and they can’t follow through until we the people don’t have a way to keep it from happening.We do not need a gun ban,an ammo ban,or a background check on private transfers of firearms,that is tantamount to registration and then confiscation.There is also the U.N. arms treaty negotiations coming up,that will be registration on a world wide scale,a lot of countries would love to see our population disarmed,it is we the people that actually keep them from invading our country,that is why it hasn’t happened,if you think I am full of crap look at how guerrilla warfare has stopped huge armies in the past.Let you Senators and Representatives know that you don’t want any more gun control,and you don’t want the U.N. arms treaty.I contact them every day,you just have to keep up the push,so that they know.Also a lot of you might remember when the assault rifle law was passed a lot of seats in congress changed hands very quickly,It could happen again! Ya’ll. have a good one.Keep your powder dry.

  34. Well folks it appears that we may have slowed down the gun grabbers,as of 3-19-13,Senator Harry Reid, head of the Senate,has announced to his fellow Democrats that they may not have enough votes to pass the following-assault rifle ban,magazine capacity limit ban,or the background checks on private transfers of firearms.Possible passing the school police funding will probably pass,as will the mentally ill database bill,also being looked at is better prosecutions on offenders of standing background checks law.We can’t stop the pressure yet,keep letting them know that you don’t want more gun control!Keep your powder dry.Thank-You.

  35. Well Obama is using executive powers again,that is almost caught up to the amount of vacations he has taken,for gun violence,he has relegated TWENTY million dollars for the study!Heck I could tell him for free what the problem is,not enough prosecutions for crimes,not enough prosecutions for criminals using guns in crimes,early release of felons!Also less government intrusion in our lives,prayer in schools,corporal punishment back in schools,no pay for illigitimet children,if you have them do work for city,state or Feds,there is head start to take care of them while you work,teach people to be responsible,because it seems that a lot of people don’t teach their kids responsibility anymore,get rid of some of the “entitlements”,also if you don’t work you should not get a tax refund no matter how many kids you have,the system is screwed up almost beyond repair!This country is going down the leftist socialist path and that is the wrong way to me,our rights don’t mean anything to the liberals,because they think they know best.Keep your powder dry.

Leave a Reply

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