Produced by Katie Couric, Under the Gun is a bloody-shirt waving extravaganza making the mainstream media happy. In the interview above, the film’s director offers the usual cocktail of misdirection and misinformation. In the clip (not magazine), an unidentified “expert” makes fun of people who divide the world into “good guys and bad guys” . . .

The problem is people are not sorted out into good people and bad people. Everybody has the potential for some kind of conduct . . . to do something bad with a gun.

And there you have it: we’re all proto-bad guys. Except, of course, we aren’t. We’re not all gang bangers — who account for the majority of non-suicide firearms-related fatalities. If it was true, if gun owners were all potential powder kegs, no one would be safe. I reckon I am — with a gun. You?

Recommended For You

137 Responses to The Only Thing That Stops an Anti-Gunner from Making a Documentary is . . . Nothing

  1. The fatal flaw in their argument is that if no one is safe with a gun then what justification for police and private security is there? If, as this man claims, everyone is capable of murder or assault with a deadly weapon, then that includes their sacred ‘only ones’.

    • Exactly.

      I have asked gun-grabbers, “What magic shields government employees from the universal temptations and failings of human nature which afflict criminals?” Of course they have no answer because there is no answer.

    • I typically point out that you don’t see people eating each other in the streets every day, ergo people are generally good.

      One of the biggest areas of anti-gunner cognitive dissonance is this notion of that they are conscientious and caring, but the average stranger is untrustworthy and idiotic. If you can establish that almost nobody wants to hurt anyone else intentionally (which isn’t hard because they can typically relate) and then ask how difficult it is to comprehend basic safety rules like “don’t point a gun at anyone else” then you can get them to see their own blind spot for a moment.

      I follow up by positing that everyone should be taught the 4 basic rules, because we’d all be safer. That doesn’t even require anyone to change their opinions about guns–go ahead and hate them still, if you prefer, but if you can recognize the difference between safe and unsafe practices then you are better equipped to distinguish regular people carrying from people acting suspiciously or unsafely.

      It may not be much, but I see it as a chink in the armor of denial & self-righteousness. My longstanding position has been that I don’t care if anyone agrees with me on guns–I just prefer they base their opinions on facts. It just so happens that the dry facts tend to support guns and gun ownership. If I can get someone to listen to the 4 rules, I can usually get them to listen to things like the Gonzalez case, how inconsistent the laws are across the country (and how ridiculous places like D.C. and NJ are compared to AZ), how the practical side of gun ownership means getting better at conflict avoidance, etc. If I stick to sharing my own opinions and how I arrived at them I can never be wrong. They don’t have to agree, but they can’t tell me my feelings are invalid. 🙂

      • OK, here’s some facts:
        – an accidental discharge can kill from across the street, through the walls of houses and apartments
        – a stray bullet fired for any reason can kill innocent bystanders
        – an accidental discharge can severely would a person innocently sitting in front of you in a theater
        – a toddler can pick up a gun and kill you (or another child) while you sleep

        – all of the above is very, very difficult to achieve with any non-firearm weapon.

        • The right to self defense is a moral absolute, a basic human right that has existed long before written laws existed.

          There is a long list of individuals who advocated and enforced taking that right away. It has never ended well, further back than the Armenian Genocide to the current issues in N. Korea, England, D.C., New York and ect, its not working out well.

          Your advocacy speaks of your morals, you disgust me and have thus far failed as a moral human being.

        • It is immoral to want to save/protect innocent life, but moral to disregard unnecessary killing and injury? Glad you said it. Gets the truth of the matter into the open.

        • getting run over by a train would happen less if there where no trains…also a fact.
          a toddler can drink house hold cleaners and die while you are napping.
          the roof of the theatre can collapse and kill the guy in front of you because of the snow load.
          lets ban trains, clean houses and snow

        • Again….dragging irrelevant risks into a discussion of gun safety and ownership. It is not necessary to remove all other risks before limiting the carnage caused by guns. It also does nothing to address, much less mitigate, the terrible power that can be unleashed through discharge of a firearm.

        • Do you have a point?

          Will you let us know when you figure out what it is?

          I realize you THINK you’re being profound, but you aren’t. It still boils down to being responsible. Either you’re an adult, and can be trusted with a firearm, or you’re not, and need supervision.

          You’ve already told us which one you are.

        • Mine was a response to an accusation of being vague and non-specific, my statements lacking facts to support. The items you are identifying were specific facts about the dangers of guns in the hands of the anonymous crowd. Dangers which have been ignored in comment after comment about my “stupid notions”. Trying to engage gun rights people in a rational, logical discussion is just about impossible because they are all only about slogans, screeds, emotion and tantrums.

        • @2Asux – Those are terrible arguments.

          There are many tools and weapons that can kill from across a street, some better at punching through walls then others. A potato gun comes to mind, and that can be crafted out of parts available at the local hardware store.

          A stray anything moving at high enough speeds can kill or injure. Consider baseball, this why baseball players wear helmets.

          Accidents of any kind can kill or injure, and in the situation of firearms, they’ve been made increasingly safe, and accidental discharges usually do not happen unless someone is mishandling the firearm. If this imaginary person is mishandling a firearm in a theater, I would bet they mishandle it else where. Additionally, this person would be charged with manslaughter, already a crime.

          A child could pick up a lighter and a cigarette, imitating mommy or daddy, and try smoking, only to set the house on fire. A child could accidentally mix bleach and ammonia creating toxic gasses.

        • I will agree with you when: i see multiple reports of potatoes crashing through walls and killing or severely injuring someoe; lug nuts fired from across the street passing passing through walls two blocks away; a house set afire by a child, and that fire immolating another house two housed down the street.

          Point is, accidentally shooting a movie-goer with a potato gun is so unlikely, even once, that it is not worth discussing. We do have numerous reports every year about accidental killings with firearms. That fact stubbornly refuses to go away.

        • Please people don’t pick on 2Asux about accidental discharges. He is sensitive on the subject because he fears he is the result of one.

        • Now there’s a stunning bit of insight and analysis. That’ll change some minds on the pro-control side.

        • “We do have numerous reports every year about accidental killings with firearms. That fact stubbornly refuses to go away.”

          Correct.

          We have dozens, if not more, killed each year by simple inattention while driving.

          There are no calls to ban (most) vehicles.

          How callous is that? 🙂

          It is irrefutable fact that driving deaths will plummet if the national speed limit was 35 MPH and strictly enforced. Thousands of lives saved annually…

        • @2Asux

          That is all true. Now, please tell me what precedent we have where we restrict constitutionally protected rights for everyone because of the criminally negligent actions of a few. Please tell me how you could even justify restricting a person’s rights based on another unrelated persons actions. We do not ban alcohol sales because some choose to drink and drive or provide alcohol to minors. We do not restrict sales of high performance cars because of some peoples’ proclivity for speeding or reckless driving. Both alcohol and cars are able to kill if misused (one more quickly than the other). Since I doubt you have a similar drivingsux account over at TTAC I can only assume you have fallen for the notion that guns are special or have some sort of supernatural properties apart from all other machines and inventions.

        • Obfuscation, irrelevant risks identified.

          Justification? No one has a registry where every citizen who does not want a firearm to intervene in their lives signs away all rights to be safe and secure in their persons, papers and property.

        • My question was not answered, so I will ask it again: how can you justify restricting the constitutional rights of the innocent majority based on the actions of the criminal minority?

        • Because guns restrict or remove my right to be safe and secure “in my person, property and papers”.

          Your right to deadly toys is subject to modification through amendment to the constitution.

        • “Again with the irrelevant identification of a non-firearm risk to persons.”

          Not irrelevant. It’s about saving lives. That’s the root argument used by the antis.

          We know banning all assault weapons will result in less lives lost than hammers murder.

          Saving lives. That’s one of their trump cards.

          The *reason* we don’t have a strictly enforced national 35 MPH speed limit is that the thousands of lives lost in vehicle crashes each year with a 70 MPH speed limit is considered acceptable to the antis. We must change the conversation. 🙂

        • Gun control is about savings lives from death or injury from use of a firearm, not about saving all lives from all risks. We are not opposed to improving safety in every aspect of living. However….this blog is not called The Truth About Cars/Buses/Trains, or The Truth About Swimming Pools, or The Truth About Plastic Dry Cleaning Bags, or The Truth About Lightening, or an array of other possible subjects. This blog is about guns, ownership, handling, safety, use, misuse and the politics surrounding guns. That is why attempting to drag other dangers into the conversation is irrelevant.

        • Because guns restrict or remove my right to be safe and secure “in my person, property and papers”.

          Incorrect. Guns are inanimate and have no inherent will or means of directly affecting their environment, thus they cannot restrict or remove anything. Furthermore, the right to be ‘secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects’ as enumerated in the fourth amendment is only in regard to illegal search and seizure from the government, not from private parties. There is no enumerated right to safety in the United States Constitution or any other founding legal document. In fact, the court has repeatedly ruled that you have NO right to safety other than that which you provide to yourself, courtesy of… wait for it… the second amendment!

          Your right to deadly toys is subject to modification through amendment to the constitution.

          Incorrect, again. The Constitution does not grant the right to bear arms. It prohibits the government from infringing on that right. As written, simply repealing the second amendment would have no effect on our right to own arms, only on the government’s ability to restrict it (a minor point, but one worth clarifying. Furthermore, guns are not toys, and your reference as such shows both your misunderstanding of their use as well as your lack of gravity of the topic as a whole.

          This, of course, is separate entirely from the primary issue, which is that you find it perfectly acceptable to remove the rights of an entire population due to the criminally negligent actions of a few. This is, by its very definition, the antithesis of freedom.

        • Ok, PEOPLE with guns restrict or remove my right to be safe and secure “in my person, property and papers.

          “The Constitution does not grant the right to bear arms.” Repeal of the amendment would mean government has legal and constitutional authority to outright ban and confiscate privatey-held guns. Then you are left with some ugly choices: attempt to repeal the repeal via the political process; over-throw the government. Repeal of the amendment can make every citizen with a gun a criminal, with all that entails. If you are looking to other gun owners to take up arms against the government, think of this: Waco, Ruby Ridge, two Bundy armed confrontations with the government. String of winners, eh? But make no mistake, after repeal of the second amendment, I see no constraint on gun owners doing what they claim they will not….use guns against the part of the public that wants only to vastly mitigate the safety risk posed by negligent gun owners.

        • @2Asux – want to take up a cause to save lives and keep children safe. Try going after the Tobacco industry. 1.5 million Americans still die needlessly each year from smoking related illnesses. Why all of the attention on guns when they kill less than 1 percent of that number.

        • Did you just jump into the blog tonite?

          Other safety issues are irrelevant to/on/in a blog about guns. Promoting action to further lower unnecessary gun deaths at the hands of a negligent gun holder does nothing to improve safety in any other area of life. Ignoring the need to improve gun safety until all other problems are solved does nothing for improving gun safety.

        • @2asux,

          Other safety issues are irrelevant to/on/in a blog about guns. Promoting action to further lower unnecessary gun deaths at the hands of a negligent gun holder does nothing to improve safety in any other area of life. Ignoring the need to improve gun safety until all other problems are solved does nothing for improving gun safety.

          Ok – so 505 accidental gun deaths per year. Your priorities are are in desperate need of calibration, but what can we say – you are afraid of guns, so other accidental deaths need not concern you – simply because we are on a gun blog.

          I’m sure a lot of those accidental deaths come from police:
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/01/police-commit-1-in-13-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

          -Which i’m sure you don’t want to disarm (because they are good guys with guns and CHL carriers are dangerous people ready to commit a negligent discharge at a moment’s notice). Nevermind that CHL’s are safer than police:

          http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/cprc-in-fox-news-police-are-extremely-law-abiding-but-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-are-even-more-so/

          But lets get down to the nitty gritty. 505 deaths is extremely low in my opinion. Gets lower every year (although I’m sure it will reach a minimum that can go no lower). And is an acceptable risk to me and over a hundred million other gun owners.

          Perspective:
          2013: United States:
          Death from Disease: 320,065
          Accidental poisoning: 38,851
          Motor vehicle accidents: 35,369
          Accidental falls: 30,208
          Accidental drowning: 3,391
          Accidental exposure to smoke, fire, and flame: 2,760
          Death from pregnancy complication: 1,111

          And the absolute smallest one amongst the entire list:
          Death from accidental discharge of firearms: 505

          http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

          Now, the reason I posted the above is to explain that having freedom entails risk, and people will die due to accidents, in all methods, in all shapes and forms.

          Furthermore, given hemenways figure of 20,000 DGU’s per year, I think 505 accidentals are acceptable; they are certainly acceptable to me and if they aren’t acceptable to you I don’t know what to tell you. Guns have been a part of our society from the beginning, we know you don’t feel safe and you didn’t get to vote on the matter because the subject was settled generations before you were born. That said, if there are irreconcilable differences (which there appears to be) there are 195 other countries with more gun control than the United States. Perhaps one of those is better suited to you. Since we are gun guys and the United States has some of the most freedom available to the gun owner – this is a place best suited to us – where else are we to go??. Maybe you should find a place better suited to you. Got it? 1 place for us… 195 different places for you. Or you could live and let live and we can all live together tolerating each others risks and differences – such was the place when this nation was founded. A stunning array of different people from all different cultures, backgrounds, languages, countries, religions. Let’s embrace freedom yea?

        • Yes, 505 is a very low number….unless you or your family is among that population. You are not here, rather than among the 505, because you are special. You are hear because the law of random events has not touched you. However, you apparently do not care that thoe 505 are dead and cannot enjoy anything anymore, so long as you have your guns.

          BTW, you are again trying to deflect attention by dragging all sources of accidental death into the conversation. Your theory is that unless and until all other risks of accidental death and injury are eliminated, 505 people killed by negligent gun use are irrelevant. Thus my position is that until we eliminate all accidental gun related deaths, no other risk factors are relevant at all.

          I would gladly support any movement to eliminate negligent gun use by police, everywhere. Might just be a really good place to start; could generate a lot of publicity that would lead to other efforts. Why aren’t you guys doing something to tackle police negligence, other than being angry about it?

    • I’ll play devil’s advocate for a second and reply with something an anti gunner could and probably would say.

      Nothing. That’s why the U.K. disarmed their police and that’s what we should all do.
      They do have special armed police but they’re not walking around every day around the public where they have so much opportunity to shoot someone. That’s why British police kill fewer people in a year than American police do in a month. Of course that would be stupidly suicidal in the U.S. where guns are available out of vending machines on the street corner and every third person carries every day. Civilians need to give up their guns and then the police can give up theirs.

        • Well, this was wrong and dangerous for them to do.

          And it’s the exception to the rule anyway. British police are still largely disarmed in most of the country, and were for a long time before this. It has still resulted in far fewer deaths caused by the police than in the U.S.

          http://www.mintpressnews.com/american-police-killed-more-people-last-month-than-british-officers-did-in-95-years/212008/

          Even in encounters with armed police the rate of a shot being fired is far lower than in the U.S.

        • You’re right about the police shooting way too many people in this country but that is neither here nor there. The fact is that there are police with guns in England, considerably more than they would have you believe. There are police with MP7s standing at the front gate of Buckingham Palace. We do not even have that level of force visible in front of the White House. I am sure it is present there but they don’t have them out in front as a visual deterrent like they did for the queen. The notion that the police do not carry guns in England is simply not true. Not every cop has guns but it is not a terribly uncommon sight, you just have to go to the right places. Now, the police in England are willing to deploy truly military grade arms to protect their royalty and their government buildings but not to protect their streets or their children, and I think that speaks volumes about their priorities.

        • You do make a point. I went to the UK for a couple of weeks back in 2013. I remember seeing a couple of cops around, it was the British Museum, I believe. I can’t remember the exact location, but I was a bit surprised at how militarized they looked. They were carrying some type of long gun and wearing what appeared to be body armor. It looked way more militarized than American police.

          Anyway, I assumed they had some kind of business in the area but I was only in England for less than 2 weeks and I saw cops with guns on the street. In hindsight, I either got really lucky or armed police aren’t as rare as people claim.

        • I was in London back in ’97, and unpleasantly surprised to see a Bobbie with a pistol on his hip in Hyde Park. It struck me what a shame it was that the tradition of unarmed police, and an underground that would assist the police in finding any criminal who broke the “gentlemen’s agreement” of no guns used in crime, had ended.

    • Their answer is that government has procedures to oust bad apples. Then you can cite a long string of “bad shoot” cases in which the offending officer gets a paid vacation and potentially a promotion to make up for all that public outrage unpleasantness. The major failing is that people don’t want to accept there is a different set of rules for those in government. Somehow they think police are their friends there to provide for their personal needs like a flat tire or axe murderer and that politicians know better because they have special information we don’t. It’s mostly that people can’t criticize what they rely on.

  2. The left will always spin things to the point they are trying to make. For instance, they will never tell you to ask the question why is it that Black neighborhoods are 10x more likely to have a shooting then a white neighborhood? Why is it that the areas that have the least gun control have a much lower crime rate than areas such as Chicago that has very strict gun control laws? Why is it that places with high black populations like NOLA when a tragedy strikes has such a high crime jump but mostly white areas that have tragedies like the farm country of the Midwest when floods struck have neighbors helping neighbors? They don’t like the answers so they will point to guns. Guns are ban MMMMKaayy

  3. I think every person who publishes a libelous “documentary” should stand up and get punched in the face by everyone they libeled.

    • pwrserge – that’s an ignorant comment. You’re playing into the anti’s hands. They look at your stupid comment and point it out to people and say “See? These are the kinds of people who are pro gun. They are prone to violence.”

      Your comment exposes you as an idiot who is prone to unjustified violence. Do us all a favor and either grow up or stop writing damaging comments.

      • Whoa there White Knight, take a minute and relax.

        Do you really think us PotG need to walk on eggshells lest we upset the delicate sensibilities of people who are trying to directly correlate gun ownership with uncontrollable bloodlust? I hate to ruin your fantasies, but these guys don’t care how polite your Internet comments are, in their minds you’re still a statistic waiting to be counted.

        • Apparently there are pro-2A supporters here who fear certain comments will offend 2A supporters here.

  4. I’m thinking if we were as described then there would be a lot of dead anti-gunners around.

    Fortunately, we are an emotionally mature diverse group of citizens, unlike the emotionally immature people who are either holophobic or tyrant-oriented.

    The only reason a person has to take a firearm from you is to gain power over you they don’t have otherwise. Be it criminal, crazy, terrorist or tyrant, their desire is the same.

    • “The only reason a person has to take a firearm from you is to gain power over you …”

      Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!!!

      As Marko Kloos stated so eloquently in his essay Why the Gun Is Civilization:

      The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. … It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

  5. Because a gang banger with a stolen pistol in his waistband is EXACTLY the same as a night shift nurse with a pistol.

    • I can’t find it right now, but on the CSGV’s Derpbook page, they once posted a question that went something like this:

      “Would you rather be around a NRA member with a gun or a gang member with a gun?”

      The comments were so derptastic, I had to stop reading them.

  6. “I’m a mushroom cloud laying motherfucker, motherfucker. I’m superfly TNT. I’m the guns of Navarone.”

  7. “Everybody has the potential for some kind of conduct …”

    Yes, yes we do … and that conduct could be GOOD conduct.

    I am most certainly NOT a “seething cauldron of rage ready to explode at the slightest provocation” as gun-grabbers so often try to portray us. My proof: I am typing this comment which means that I am NOT locked up in a prison for harming someone.

  8. If a hardened career criminal decides to intervene and prevent a mass shooting from occurring…in that moment he is the “good guy with a gun.”

    Matter not what you may do, only what you choose to do when it hits the fan.

    Always subject to flights of fancy…The antis are preoccupied with what they think could happen. They could care less about what did and does typically happen.

    Their fantasies rule their reality.

    • To that, I add that they are entitled to their fantasies. I just will not tolerate them trying to enact legislation based on those fantasies.

  9. Ohh, they have comments enabled, how long do you give it before they disappear?

    Heh heh, not a lot of supportive comments for the gun grabbers.

    Gee, how can that be?

  10. It takes an amazing paranoid fear to believe that everyone is a potential murderer. It takes an incredible lack of self-awareness to accuse US of being the fearful weirdos. Do you think it’s projection? Are antis afraid gun owners will go on a murder spree because they fear that’s what THEY would do if someone gave THEM a gun?

    • It takes an amazing paranoid fear to believe that everyone is a potential murderer.

      Well, we do embrace the mindset of Maj. Gen. James Mattis, “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” So, you could say that we are just as “paranoid”.

      While we may share the “paranoia” of gun grabbers, we most assuredly do NOT share their response — begging government to limit other peoples’ liberties to assuage our “paranoia”.

      • Maybe you have a plan to kill everyone you meet uncommon_sense. Maybe also for those that live in a very protected environment where they have never experienced being targeted by a predator. But as for me, with a modicum of situational awareness, I have found that a human predator stands out from a crowd as if he has a flashing light on his head.

        “PREDATOR ON THE HUNT!” in flashing red.

        Many moons ago, I had this experience on a regular basis when i delivered pizza in the “War Zone”. I worked in a store in which all of our drivers were mugged at least once, sometimes two or three times in a year. This what happened to me the first month i was working there. A human predator tried to mug me, we fought, I barely won, and I started carrying a firearm afterward. I was never mugged again, because I had situational awareness, I prominently carried a 4 D cell mag light, and the predators could tell from my own aura, that i was not vulnerable to attack.

        To me, when I look back at the experience, I see it as a gift. I had a concentrated dose of recognizing and being ready for a potential attack by some really bad people. I also found that the vast majority of people living in the ghetto were good people just trying to get by, it was only a relatively small minority that were human predators truly dangerous to other human beings around them.

        So, yeah, I can tell when a human predator is on the hunt. As most people can tell, even if it’s only afterward when they look back at the confrontation and they say to themselves. “I knew that guy was a bad person with bad intent, I could feel it”

        • ThomasR,

          Since taking the plunge and going armed in public every day, I believe I have spotted such predators on two different occasions. Each time those predators saw that I was watching them like a hawk and they ended up leaving the premises promptly.

          I am less concerned about predators for the very reason that you stated … they tend to reveal themselves if you are paying attention. I am much more concerned about opportunists and psychos who can go from zero to blue light instantly. Such attackers do not telegraph their intentions because they have no intentions. Rather, the opportunist suddenly recognizes an opportunity and just as suddenly goes “all in” … and the psycho suddenly perceives a slight or who knows what other trigger and just as suddenly goes, well, psycho.

          I have encountered such people on a few occasions in my life. It is rather disconcerting to face such people with a firearm, much less without a firearm.

  11. I love the line that there is not one documented case of a good guy stopping a mass shooting. How can you possibly know the outcome of something that didn’t happen? By that same logic every time a good guy drops a criminal it was a mass shooting averted, good job team!

    • Gun-grabbers use many logical fallacies … including the claim that armed good guys do NOT stop spree killers because their are no recorded instances of such. Let us set aside the fact that we do have recorded instances of armed good guys stopping spree killers and/or significantly reducing their body count. Even if we did not have any documented record of an armed good guy stopping a spree killer, that does NOT mean it has never happened nor ever will happen.

      Just because I don’t know about the existence of something does not mean it does not exist. And yet that is what gun-grabbers are claiming.

      Such claims from gun-grabbers betray their own psyche: they know that they are not brave enough to carry a firearm much less oppose a spree killer; therefore they assume that no one else can either. What does that tell you about gun-grabbers?

    • Rather difficult for a “good guy with a gun” to stop a mass-shooting when such attacks are almost universally in “gun free” venues. “Good guys” obey the laws — “bad guys” exploit stupid laws.

      • The reason anti-gun supporters do not accept “a good guy with a gun…” anything is because good people don’t need guns; they don’t live in fear, they don’t live in paranoia. Once “a good guy” picks up and uses a gun, that person is now a “bad guy with a gun”. Can you not see that?

        • Very good. You have learned well. When left nonplussed (in the original, correct sense of the word) try to change the subject.
          The trouble is, you didn’t get away with it.

        • Not trying to get away with anything. Just explaining a fact. Don’t like it? Do something to change the belief. Negative comments are just that; nothing productive.

        • Still not getting away with anything.
          I explained a fact. I would have entertained discussion about that fact, or accepted agreement with it, THEN discuss another subject. That door has closed.
          I doubt that there will be any way to “change the belief”. Certainly not if such deflection is permitted, even encouraged by viewing it as “negative comments”.
          Why don’t you try, if that is your opinion ?

        • “Rather difficult for a ‘good guy with a gun’ to stop a mass-shooting when such attacks are almost universally in ‘gun free’ venues. ‘Good guys’obey the laws — ‘“bad guys’ exploit stupid laws.”

          – I was addressing the “good guy with a gun” mantra, not the “gun free zone” comment itself. But on that mark, I agree with you that as established today, “gun free zones” do not help much. Unless whoever created the “gun free zone” enforces it with metal detectors and armed security, the designation is not helpful. Of course, anyone who violates those protected zones should be prosecuted fully, with no plea bargaining.

          How’d I do?

        • You are no longer my concern.
          Perhaps you would like to ask Sam I Am his opinion. He seems to think it possible to “change [your] belief”. I think it would be interesting to observe a discussion between 2Asux and Sam I Am.
          Don’t like it? Blame Sam I Am.

        • It was that easy to blow you off? Hope this is indicative of the strength of the pro-gun movement. To borrow a phrase from Charlie Sheen….”Winning.”

        • 2A is challenging our self-satisfaction. He made some good points, and we seem to not be able to get beyond casting aspersions and name-calling. This guy is only one person. If we cannot effectively deal with his positions (the brown-shirt shoutdown is not an option), then how do we ever gain the attention and trust from the widespread anti-gun groups who are touching millions with their rhetoric? Some of the stuff 2A puts out there is old, shopworn and well known. Do we have better to offer in return? I don’t have all the answers, but somehow, in a group as large as TTAG followers, can’t we find some innovative and effective ideas on how to improve our image and political influence?

        • Blowchoseyraz!
          Which means, “Yeah, sure. Up yours, mate. Go argue with your alter-ego”.

        • Sam I Am, thanks for ‘getting’ what 2Asux does.

          He’s as pro-gun as the most rabid among us, but he actually takes the time to construct (sometimes) elaborate arguments where one has to parse the data, your position, and react logically. The other times he slaps the morons – which is also amusing.

          Please, this guy spends his time coming up with mental exercises for you – give this the respect it really deserves. Which is more than just treating him like a run-of-the-mill opponent.

          He’s completely on our side how dense/new-here are you?

        • “He’s completely on our side how dense/new-here are you?”

          I musta really screwed up. I thought I was respectful of this guy’s commenting.

          I do take what he says as opportunity to think about what I put out there, how to make a better case for gun rights, while staying anchored in the reality of what we are up against.

        • Let’s see. If some one with multiple personalities argues with himself — or among “himselves” — is it impossible for him to win that argument, or impossible to lose that argument? Also, is the cat in the box alive or dead?

        • The reason anti-gun supporters do not accept “a good guy with a gun…” anything is because good people don’t need guns; they don’t live in fear, they don’t live in paranoia. Once “a good guy” picks up and uses a gun, that person is now a “bad guy with a gun”. Can you not see that?

          No. Because gun ownership does not make one bad. I am the same person the moment I pick up a gun or put a gun back in the cabinet/safe. Touching a gun, or owning a gun, does not change my personality, my character, my morals, my ideals, or my person. The problem lies with you guys perception of our persona – not with a change in our character. Can you not see that?

          Furthermore, are cops good guys or bad guys? Do cops not need guns? When you need help because a criminal is in the process of raping you, you call a cop and they show up with a gun – is that not correct? How can a piece of clothing change who a person is? Cops are people. They are the same person before wearing a uniform and during the wearing of that uniform.

        • Ok, let me refine….once a “good guy with a gun” uses it to shoot another human, that person becomes a “bad guy with a gun”. That allows for using guns to hunt and go to the range (but it covers accidental shootings while hunting and at the range).

        • Heisenberg Theory of Uncertainty says it can be both, at the same time.

          Uh… no it doesn’t. Why don’t we just take your ideas, 2asux, and map them to Newtonian physics? No? Doesn’t make sense? Just like your comment.

    • New Life Church, Tyler Texas Courthouse, Pearl High School, Appalachian Law School, Golden Food Market, Winnemuca Players Bar, Parker Middle School, and more. They weren’t looking that hard. The truth would hurt “the narrative.”

      • They would have done far worse, had they not restricted the comment to “mass shootings”, planned for and executed almost universally in “gun free zones”. There’s lots more criminal activity brought to a screeching halt by a “good guy with a gun” that doesn’t qualify as a “mass shooting”.

  12. Katty Couric always has rather reminded me of Hillary. Shrew and Shrew.

    Her struggle for relevance after being thrown out of the hive is rather pathetic.

  13. My favorite from the video, the sudden mental disorder, wtf is that? Is that even something that happens? What, you bump your head and go on a crazy shooting spree? Oh, and by the way, I’ve been angry many times and never once have I thought, “where’s my gun”.

    • I’d speculate that there are probably a lot of people still alive today only because someone didn’t think it was worth losing their right to own a gun.

      • Nothing I have ever read on that subject tops Ralph’s comment on this site:

        “I have saved several lives by just walking away. None of those lives was my own”.

  14. I don’t believe any of us believe that Mr. LaPierre’s quote was specifically about citizen’s with a gun. We know that ALL mass shootings are stopped by good guys. Be it Police or citizens. All acting as good guys in these scenarios.

  15. It sells, though. Doesn’t it?

    The goal is not “truth”, it is to eliminate an unnecessary tool of accidental death. And maybe criminals without guns will be less likely to kill someone over trivial stuff, like property.

      • Can you at least agree that making something more difficult for a segment of society that is looking for an easy way through life just might reduce the potential for killing someone over trinkets?

        • Why agree about something that has no truth. Some guy tried to mug me just because he was almost as big as me, with nothing but his body as the weapon.

          Even with me being 6’1″ tall, over 220 lbs, most of it muscle, and trained in martail,arts for over ten years, He could have easily severely injured or killed me, with just a little less skill on my part. With most oeople, especially a woman, but even many men, his body would have been a lethal weapon.

          So even if the black market didn’t get him a gun; he doesn’t need it , with hammers, knives, baseball bats and machetes, along with his hands and his feet to injure or kill people..

        • As I understand it, you do not want to be in position to suffer greatly because you wouldn’t have a gun to even things out, but you are happy with others suffering injury or death because of negligent gun handling. A simple case of “me first, last and always”. I get it.

        • Can you at least agree that making something more difficult for a segment of society that is looking for an easy way through life just might reduce the potential for killing someone over trinkets?

          No. The infringement of the rights and freedoms of the many is not justification for the reduction of criminal acts of an extreme few.

          40 people die each year from sports related deaths (like playing basketball). There are 8000 emergency room visits each day! in the United states due to sports related injuries. Lets ban sports.
          http://www.youthsportssafetyalliance.org/sites/default/files/docs/Statistics-2013.pdf

        • Have any thoughts on the upper limits of crime and destruction you are willing to tolerate so you can play with your guns?

    • Well you got that right speaking about the goal – they are completely uninterested in truth.

      But then you go on to state that you want to take away our natural civil right to self defense, codified in the constitution and decades of laws and precedence, based on your assertion that – and this is your word here – ‘MAYBE’, blah blah blah.

      No.

      We know that criminals will acquire guns by any means possible, stealing them from lawful holders, smuggling them in illegally, acquiring them from corrupt politicians and police, and failing all of that all one needs to do to make the simplest of guns is to go to Home Depot and get yourself some steel pipe, a fitting, a drill and a nail and you can have a salmfire gun with the application of a little work with a hacksaw.

      Criminals will get guns, and what it more they will also use anything available to them, sticks, bats, more pipe, rocks, knives, gasoline, need I go on?

      The right of self defense is not the governments to take away, and the law abiding citizen is no threat to anyone, again, this is backed up by empirical evidence.

      We have logic, evidence and history telling us a truth that is there to see by anyone who is willing to open their eyes to see it.

      And you have ‘MAYBE’.

      Come and take them 2asux, stop talking like an idiot, the amendment process is clear. Make your move.

      • Get a grip. Removing guns from society does nothing to eliminate the right to self-defense or to KBA. Being “armed” is not exclusive of all tools other than guns. That is where your side keeps failing.

        To your way of thinking, “self-defense” is apparently restricted to using a gun. Have you ever seen, read or heard of anybody in this country supporting the removal of all means of “self-defense”? Has anyone proposed making “self-defense” illegal? Anti-gun supporters just want guns removed because they create more risk of accidental death and injury than stones, chains, sticks, pipes, you name it.

        The tools of self-defense (other than guns) are so varied and plentiful, yet guns seem to be the only legitimate tool recognized by gun rights people. Day-by-day, society is becoming more aware that guns are the alter where “self-defense” worships.

        • “To your way of thinking, “self-defense” is apparently restricted to using a gun.”

          Please show where I said this.

          “guns seem to be the only legitimate tool recognized by gun rights people”

          Firearms are a force definer – you really need a gun to defend against someone who has a gun, and if you are a bad guy a gun is the most effective weapon you can choose, especially against people who are unarmed.

          Self defense for the law abiding citizen is best implemented by being armed.

          Any other questions?

        • My conclusion from the focus on firearms when talking about self-defense. Removing guns does not end self-defense. Claims that restrictions on firearm ownership infringe on the right of self-defense are only valid if guns are considered the only means of self-defense.

        • “Removing guns does not end self-defense.”

          Technically correct.

          “Claims that restrictions on firearm ownership infringe on the right of self-defense are only valid if guns are considered the only means of self-defense.”

          As I said, when faced with a bad actor who is armed pretty much your only option is to be armed yourself. And this is what happens with removal of firearms from the law abiding; the criminal knows who will be defenseless and being a criminal is not prevented from being armed themselves, hence the law abiding citizen is effectively unable to defend self.

          I fail to see how anyone could argue against this obvious truth.

        • Why would a bad guy assume someone is armed with a gun, and to be avoided, but not assume someone is armed with a different weapon, and to be avoided? If a bad guy has decided I am to be a target, unless I first display my weapon (whatever it is), I am going to be a target. The gun does not transmit radio waves telling one and all I am to be feared because I am “armed”. Again we come back to the notion that “armed” means gun only. If you have no gun, and are serious about being armed against attack, why not learn defensive knife fighting? Why not learn Krav Maga? Why not bear a Shillelagh? Why not brass knuckles? You understand what I am getting at. Self-defense is possible and successful without using a gun. Are there some instances where a gun would have worked better, could be. Could you know ahead of time when that instant will arise?

        • My conclusion from the focus on firearms when talking about self-defense. Removing guns does not end self-defense. Claims that restrictions on firearm ownership infringe on the right of self-defense are only valid if guns are considered the only means of self-defense.

          Nobody said you can’t use other tools for self defense. The second amendment says “arms.” Arms included guns – it didn’t exclude them. Your premise and conclusion are wrong.

        • Removing guns does not make the right of self-defense go away. It does not make the means of using deadly force in self-defense go away. You accept that the public is restricted to trying to resist tyranny using only small arms. Why is that? Because it is reasonable? The founders would run you out of town for surrendering weaponry matching what the government could bring to bear on the citizens. So….removing firearms from the list of allowed deadly weapons is of a kind.

        • Why would a bad guy assume someone is armed with a gun, and to be avoided, but not assume someone is armed with a different weapon, and to be avoided? If a bad guy has decided I am to be a target, unless I first display my weapon (whatever it is), I am going to be a target. The gun does not transmit radio waves telling one and all I am to be feared because I am “armed”. Again we come back to the notion that “armed” means gun only. If you have no gun, and are serious about being armed against attack, why not learn defensive knife fighting? Why not learn Krav Maga? Why not bear a Shillelagh? Why not brass knuckles?

          Criminals typically target the weak. I’m sure Krav Maga, a Shillelagh, or brass knuckles i’m sure is going to work wonderfully for the sick, the disabled, the elderly. It is most certainly going to offset the probability of success from a large attacker to a small petite victim. But yea – sure. Self defense is successful without a gun.

          You understand what I am getting at. Self-defense is possible and successful without using a gun. Are there some instances where a gun would have worked better, could be. Could you know ahead of time when that instant will arise?

          Partially. If you know you are travelling through thugville, gangland, or a paperbag/money exchange zone, you could take a gun for protection. Or learn Krav Maga??!? and hope that the criminal doesn’t have a gun?

        • You carved-out some points worth exploring: the sick and frail. Nice job. Those conditions do need to be looked at in any conversation about the use of guns. It would be a great posting all its own. Maybe there are some things we can agree on.

  16. “Everybody has the potential for some kind of conduct . . . to do something bad”

    Middle-school logic.

    Of course everyone has this potential. That’s why we have these things called “laws” to punish those who do wrong*.

    *Except for wealthy and politically-connected liberals, of course.

  17. I can understand that some people do not like guns and don’t want them. Why do they need to take guns away from the rest of us? Are we not allowed free choice in this country anymore?

  18. “if gun owners were all potential powder kegs, no one would be safe”

    Yeah this! You are more eloquent than I am, but I’ve been using that line of thinking in facebook talks for a bit. It gives the lie to the “access to guns are the problem” schtick. If that was true, there would be VASTLY, and I mean orders of magnitude more crime than there is right now. It is absolutely devoid of any fact or reason to say that number of guns in the country equates to more crime.

  19. “Everybody has the potential for some kind of conduct . . . to do something bad with a…”:

    Car
    Baseball bat
    Butcher Knife
    Banana (credit to Mr. Cleese)
    Pointy object
    Rock
    etc
    etc
    etc

    Wankers

  20. The problem is people are not sorted out into good people and bad people. Everybody has the potential for some kind of conduct . . . to do something bad with a gun.

    Crap… millions and millions of us… let’s say 149,989,000 of us are not living up to our “potential!”

  21. “Sudden metal disorder” – Just walking along when nurons burst and concealed carriers are command to murder citizens. Wow…odds are a 300 million to 1, but we have to make sure, so turn in your guns.

    Wondering if there’s a condition call stupid feelings syndrome?

  22. That’s what it really comes down to. These people hate people. They hate everyone but themselves, which justifies ruling over others. Some of them even hate themselves, which only reinforces their “Well, if even I can’t be trusted, then who the Hell are YOU to exercise independent judgment?” mentality.

    This isn’t limited to political decisions, either, as we see the same in loco parentis patronization play out with economic decisions, too. Remember Bill Clinton arguing against tax cuts because the people can’t be trusted to spend the [their own] money the right way?

    These people fundamentally disbelieve in the Individual. Their worldview is predicated on the primacy of the collective. Every thought, belief, and opinion is based on the premise that individuals are subordinate to the whole. They just tend to assume both that they’ll personally always be part of the ruling class and that even poor decsions by the collective are superior to the average decisions made by individuals.

    • Only the hive exists. There really aren’t any bees. The individual has no meaning, except as a relatively insignificant part of he whole.
      It’s simple. The SOBs want us to model ourselves on social insects.

  23. EVERYONE is a proto-bad guy? Even other good guys? Or Joe Citizen going about his business at the grocery store? Or police officers? Or government officials? I couldn’t think of a better reason to have a gun!

    “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.”

  24. Claiming that “[e]verybody has the potential . . . to do something bad with a gun” takes the gangs off the hook, doesn’t it?

    Because Hollywood’s policy of inclusion has its limits, and it’s not just the Oscars.

  25. More marxist twisting. Gun owners don’t divide the world between good guys and bad guys. In the event of the shooting of innocent people, gun guys divide them then into good guys and bad guys. Bad guys are typically the ones you call the police to address. And… After you call them – good guys with guns show up. What do you know! – good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns.

  26. The problem is people are not sorted out into good people and bad people. Everybody has the potential for some kind of conduct . . . to do something bad with a gun…such as members of the government.
    If people are bad and cannot be trusted with guns, and people are employed by the government, why do you want the government comprised of bad people to have a monopoly on guns?

    • Defending yourself and everyone you know or come across does not, does not make you a bad guy. Never heard any anti-gun people or spokespeople call for making self-defense against the law. But you have reinforced that conclusion that for your type, a gun is the only acceptable form of self-defense. Forget “acceptable”, for you a gun is the only means of self-defense. When you pick-up the gun and use it to harm another (intentionally or not), then, then you become “a bad guy with a gun”.

        • Not seeing any calls in this country for outlawing self-defense. Some tools, like taser and pepper spray are illegal in some states (which is really bizzare), but the concept of self-defense still applies.

      • Defending yourself and everyone you know or come across does not, does not make you a bad guy. Never heard any anti-gun people or spokespeople call for making self-defense against the law. But you have reinforced that conclusion that for your type, a gun is the only acceptable form of self-defense.

        Who said self-defense can only be accomplished with firearms? I don’t endorse the exclusion of other tools, but I do endorse the inclusion of the firearm. What is wrong with self defense by firearm? Firearms are already invented and you can’t un-invent them. More than likely the criminal will be armed with a firearm, regardless of the legalities.

        Forget “acceptable”, for you a gun is the only means of self-defense.

        Given that the most the criminal would likely be armed with is a firearm – yes – a gun is the best means of self defense.

        When you pick-up the gun and use it to harm another (intentionally or not), then, then you become “a bad guy with a gun”.

        So – knives, bats, krav maga, Shillelagh, brass knuckles – its okay to harm people with those, but not with a gun? Sorry – Not a logical argument.

        • You are looking in the wrong direction. This is not about whether it is Ok to kill with one weapon, and not another. This is about reducing carnage caused by negligent gun owners (and the gun culture owns the irresponsible owners). Guns can kill from long distances, threatening anyone near a negligent gun owner (or one who can’t shoot strait). The idea is to remove the long range weapon (or better said, removing guns is a logical step to lowering the number of accidental deaths…which no one seems to care much about), not eliminate armed self-defense. For almost everyone on this blog, self-defense starts and ends with a gun. I am pointing out that even though “armed” is a code for “gun-only) there are actually dozens of other weapons in the “armed” category.

        • This is about reducing carnage caused by negligent gun owners (and the gun culture owns the irresponsible owners).

          It’s not to me. I’m not looking to force people to do what they don’t want to do. I would like to be left to do what I want. Certainly so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.

          Furthermore, I own a gun so I am answerable for other people’s negligent discharges??? Spoken like a true statist marxist. In this country we have a thing called rights. Let that soak in. That means that you don’t get to legislate what I can and can’t do in regard to those rights. So no. I am not answerable for other people’s negligence. People are judged individually – with individual rights. I am not a collective or a statistic. I am a person – with rights.

          Lastly. There are 505 accidental/negligent discharges per year in this country of 319 million people. That makes this topic… yes… not even worth talking about. It would be better to talk about home swimming pools, ladders, or BBQ grills. You have weird priorities that have been skewed on the basis of your irrational assessments.

        • I think you intended this for me, so let’s get right to it.

          First, gun owners who ignore, dismiss and disclaim responsibility for negligent and irresponsible death and injury due to firearms use, and who do not support the idea that voluntary, citizen-initiated, professional, recurring training is worth talking about, “own” everyone of the 505 resulting deaths (505, as you state). Why? Because of coarse, cavalier, insulting, dismissive, disrespectful statements like: ” That makes this topic… yes… not even worth talking about.” What kind of person thinks 505 deaths due to negligent gun handling is not even worth talking about. It is so easy to ignore another life, just because it isn’t happening to you. Again, the challenge is when your family suffers one of these worthless deaths (your words), will you tell them the lost life isn’t worth talking about because it was only one death compared to the tens of millions of gun owners who didn’t accidentally shoot someone? Will you tell them that 505 is so statistically insignificant, that the death of the family member isn’t worth talking about?

          Now as to your rights….they are not sacrosanct, they are not inviolable, and they can (and are) be legislated away. In this country (where you live), everything is subject to majority rule. Even court cases deciding whether your “rights” can be infringed. In the final analysis, all rights listed in, or derived from, the US constitution are subject to majority rule. Majority of the voters elect representatives. Those majority-elected representatives can vote to ratify a constitutional amendment that restricts/removes whichever “right” they choose. Then, when 3/4s of the state legislatures ratify the amendment, the amendment passes and becomes law. Majority rule, my friend. Once an amendment becomes part of the constitution, the courts cannot rule that amendment “unconstitutional”. Belief (that rights are not subject to legislation) doesn’t trump reality.

  27. Katie and the rest of the MSM have a great story exposing NRA contract lobbyist for Illinois Todd Vandermyde. Using black people from Chicago as plaintiffs for lawsuits, then selling out Otis McDonald and every black person in Cook County by placing Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 “NRA backed” carry bill in 2013. NRA made $1.3 MILLION in legal fees from the City of Chicago on the McDonald case. Setting up armed citizens to be raped and executed by police criminals is big business for NRA.

    Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA-ILA don’t seem to have done a resume check on Vandermyde, AKA Donald Todd Vandermyde. His former boss William Dugan was convicted by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in 2010. Vandermyde worked as lobbyist for Dugan when he was president of the Intl. Union of Operating Engineers local 150 in Countryside, IL. It’s not hard to find the FBI press release. Fantastic resume for NRA’s pet rat.

  28. When you set out to present something following where the facts lead … that’s a documentary.

    When you start with the conclusion, then marshal images, stories and evidence to align people with your preferences … that’s propaganda.

    Making a film marshaling evidence about “bad gun violence” that’s … which one?

  29. Wrong 2asux friend of mine. Don’t think that a gun is my only means of defense. Everything, and l mean everything in my reach l will use to extinguish a threat. The gun is if all else fails, including getting the hell outta there. I don’t agree with your kind trying to rid this country of all the evil guns. But, you are entitled to your opinion. So be it.

    • It will be interesting to see how many people begin to talk of other than guns when the phrase “self-defense” is used. It is not enough for you to know what you mean by “self-defense”, it is important that people on my side understand as well. To date, virtually every time a gun owner talks about RTKBA or other mantra about self-defense, defensive use of any other weapon is no where to be found. Why should you expect me to read between the lines for you? As an individual, you may be able to visualize and effectively use other defensive techniques, but what you write points directly and only to guns.

  30. The comments on here are almost too many to read, but they sure are interesting. I am not gonna stick my neck out and get into this one.

Leave a Reply

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