“I suspect that those who seek a legislative solution to crimes such as (Sandy Hook) are on a fool’s errand. It would be difficult to tabulate the number of laws the gunman broke in the course of his murderous spree that morning; to think the enactment of one or a dozen more would deter such a man is to engage in childish fantasy. And talk of banning “assault weapons” is equally naive, not least for the fact that the very term has no real definition other than to describe rifles that some people find scary-looking.” – Jack Dunphy in ‘Childish Fantasy’: Gun Control and the Victim [via pjmedia.com]

13 Responses to Quote of the Day: Equally Naive Edition

  1. Dunphy’s last paragraph in that article says it all:

    “It may sound uncivilized, but so be it. When the Bad Guy shows up with a gun, there are just two questions to be asked: where is the nearest Good Guy with a gun, and how long will it take him (or her, as the case may be) to arrive, get a sight picture, and if necessary squeeze the trigger? Everything else is wishful thinking.”

  2. The Oregon mall shooter and the CT child murderer used stolen ARs. If those guns had been secured in a quality safe that only the owners could access then those guns would probably not have been stolen.

    • We still don’t know how the Connecticut shooter obtained the guns. He may have broken into the safe to get the guns or they may have been unsecured. A funny thing happens with children though, they learn how to get into things like safes so it’s entirely possible he found the combination or the key and broke into it. I don’t think you should make those type of statements until all of the facts are known.

      • No key should have been available for him to use (if there was a safe) and no combination left to find. If it was a cheap safe there is no excuse. Even the best quality and most expensive safes can be broken into yet it takes time, effort, tools, and knowledge. He murdered his mother while she was in bed. Realistically, the guns were most likely not secured or not secured enough.

        • A dangerous assumption Aharon. You are making statements not supported by facts. The fact is, we may never know how he got the guns.

    • The CT shooters mom had been out of town for a few days prior to the tragedy. Secure storage should always be in place but its tiresome when folks think its some sort of magical force field that can only be unlocked with the right combination of spells & charms. By all accounts her son was a very smart individual. As I recall the news reports said that she did have some form of secure storage. It’s not unreasonable to say that the smart kid had plenty of time to find the safe combination, key or even physically defeat the storage.

      • If she had a quality safe and her son had to put serious effort into breaking into it then she did her best to secure her guns. Otherwise no.

  3. “Quality safe” is relative. What you see as “quality” I might view as “garbage” or vice versa. The locking mechanism, construction style/materials, size, weight, cost, etc. are all variables that come into play.

  4. If the mom was out of town he could have had time to defeat whatever locking device was in the safe, then fixed it where it looked like it was still secure.
    I agree we may never know how he truly got the guns, and just from what we know I doubt a High Quality Safe would have deterred him for very long.
    Even if the mom had all of her weapons locked in a top of the line safe his shooting her would probably have been the key to him getting in the safe. Key or combo lock or whatever once he killed her he has the time he needs to get the access he needed.

  5. Normally I do not learn article on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up very pressured me to take a look at and do it! Your writing style has been surprised me. Thank you, very nice article.

Leave a Reply

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