“Fighting violence with more violence is never the answer. It is imperative that everyone who either purchases and registers a gun or applies for a concealed carry permit does so with no plans to use it.” – Chicago needs fewer guns, not more [via  columbiachronicle.com]

Recommended For You

114 Responses to Quote of the Day: Columbia Chronicle’s Psychological Test for Gun Ownership

  1. Huh? What?
    That’s like buying a car and parking it in the garage forever. Only crazy people do that.

      • Every gun I buy I plan to use and will use.

        Seems that there is some disagreement about exactly what guns are used for.

        While efficient at poking holes in people, guns do other things well. The psychological question should be naming those other things.

        • You said “question” and the original title of the article said “test”. I don’t mind anyone asking the question (provided they’re prepared to take “none of your business” as the answer) but if obtaining a firearm is predicated on my response, they’ve gone too far.

        • Big
          Whether overt or not, it is the privy of the gun seller to determine (test) the fitness of the gun buyer. If the seller feels the buyers anticipated use, demeanor, attitude, or intent is counter to whatever on God’s green earth the gun seller thinks, the transaction can end right there and then in spite of a successful background check.

          So it would seem that the test is alive and well. Just not where you thought.

          But before anyone starts screaming there is no way this happens. Be careful. Very careful. Because your baby just went out with the bathwater.

          “So let me get this straight Mr. Gunstore Guy, You sell to anyone no matter who they are, what they say, or how they act?”

          “Yup. None of my business what they want a gun for. I just sell ’em to anyone who wants one.”

    • “Fighting violence with more violence is never the answer. It is imperative that everyone who either purchases and registers a gun or applies for a concealed carry permit does so with no plans to use it.”

      Speak with your local dem, and you will find out that elections are extremely dangerous, and will have Bush 43 and Trump pointed out as extreme dangers to the country.
      Yet, they want no limits put on voting, not even a necessity to prove you are who you say you are when you vote.
      But GUNS! Oh, my! We need all kinds of tests. Are you a drug user? Can’t have a gun, but can vote. A convicted felon? Poor dear, here’s your voting rights back, but NO GUN FOR YOU!
      The hypocrisy is just not recognized for what it is. Opposites are just fine, thank you, but look at Trump’s hair!
      Of course, expecting logic from a lefty is a fool’s errand. When the goal is totalitarianism, every thing is fair game, except for anything standing in the way of that goal.

      • The claim about Democrats and voting isn’t true. Most of them agree that voter I.D. is a good idea; what they’re opposed to is slapping down that requirement in a way that excludes legitimate voters because of the burden imposed. As example of that would be my mom and some friends who have voted Republican all their lives, but wouldn’t have been able to vote if some of the proposed laws had been imposed here, fr the simple reason that the sort of paperwork required would have been out of their reach.

        Propose a voter I.D. law that would automatically send out an ID card free of charge to every current legitimate voter, and there would be no problem.

        Of course it would also help if Republicans stopped doing things like shutting down polling places so there are so few in some areas that it is impossible for everyone in those precincts to vote, because that just hardens attitudes since it looks (and likely is) racist.

        • Roymond: “Propose a voter I.D. law that would automatically send out an ID card free of charge to every current legitimate voter, and there would be no problem.”

          That actually sounds good.
          Well, except for a problem…
          One of the latest “crimes” of keeping black voters from voting was reported not too long ago. Seems a state (can’t remember which one) decided to do a purge of its voter rolls by sending out letters to all registered voters, and purging those names that had the letters returned as undelivered. While this might seem reasonable, because if the person in question no longer (or never) lived there, he/she isn’t a legal registered voter, and therefore can’t vote unless or until he/she re-registers with new address, it somehow was reported that this was a scheme to keep blacks from voting.
          I never saw an explanation of how this was so. Is it possible that blacks routinely mark mail as undeliverable? Or do they have some race-related inability to re-register with their new address that other races don’t share?
          But, aside from that, how is the government supposed to send out a voter ID to every eligible voter if the government doesn’t know where they are?

  2. So, when police show up to an active shooter scenario, they’re supposed to do what exactly? “Put your weapon down… or else.” What are we supposed to use, harsh language?

    • Or ask them why the hell we have a military??? Ask them their stance on our bombing the shit out of the Middle East for the past decade…

    • No. Harsh language might hurt the shooter’s feelings. The police should try to empathize with them. They should set up a safe space as soon as possible. Then they can have a dialogue with the shooter and discuss the ways in which the shooter has been victimized by our evil American society. Once the shooter has been sufficiently coddled, they will realize that violence doesn’t solve anything and will willingly give up. Then they can be remanded to the revolving door justice system. They will receive a slap-on-the-wrist sentence and serve less than half of it. During that time they will be well fed and receive services that veterans and poor people struggle to get. After a few months they will be released, with an official apology from the government for the ways that society has wronged them, and be free to live among the rest of us.

      To the best of my knowledge, this is the Progressive “solution” to violence.

    • Rational discussions with people completely divorced from reality lead nowhere.

      This is fanaticism, but it takes less criticism than it should because it’s in the name of ‘peace’. I love to engage these people in conversation/debate because I just keep positing scenarios more and more heinous until we find the limits of their fanaticism.

      “Would you fight back violently if you were being raped?”
      “No.”
      “Would you fight back violently if your child was being raped?”
      “…”

      Sorry to be graphic, but eventually these idiots surrender in substance, if not in talk. There are monsters in this world, and though very small in number you will get nowhere trying to philosophy them into compliance with norms and morals. The best we can do is defend civilization from them. Sorry, but that sometimes takes violence.

  3. “I want to buy a gun”
    “Do u promise never to use it”
    “Yes”
    “You’re crazy, and can’t buy a gun”

    • (continuing the questioning …)

      If you buy a gun, would use it to defend yourself?

      Yes.

      Then you are crazy, no gun for you!

      • Do you want a gun?

        Yes.

        And, are you a good witch, or a bad witch?

        WTF¿!

        We need to know these things. We must first bind your hands and feet together. Then, we place you in the village pond. If you sink, and remain underwater for precisely 10 minutes, you are a good witch. If you remain above water for any amount of time, then you are a bad witch, and must be disposed of by firing squad.

        But… but…

        Miles! Quick son, fetch the witching rope.

        • “… are you a good witch, or a bad witch?”

          Every politician should get asked that.

      • It doesn’t take practice to use a fire extinguisher effectively.

        And it doesn’t take practice to use a firearm effectively, either … especially for the overwhelming majority of self-defense events where the defender never has to fire a shot.

        Reference the story of the mom in Georgia who had no practice and managed to shoot a home invader in the face/neck five times with a 6-shot revolver (without reloading).

        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-mother-hides-children-shoots-intruder-5-times-during-home-invasion-police-say/

        • What’s really interesting about that is that people who are inexperienced with guns supposedly tend to aim for the face/head more than experienced and trained shooters which go center mass. Certainly seemed to be effective regardless though.

          Nothing like a 38 caliber incentive to turn your life around.

        • Which opens the caliber wars, doesn’t it? The mother used a .38 revolver, inside five or so feet, and the attacker abandoned the attack without being killed.

      • What does “practice” have to do with anything?

        By “use,” I believe the editorial was referring to the intended purpose of the gun, which is self-defense… not practice or training.

        And, as has been mentioned, the vast majority of DGUs are folks that don’t “practice” EVER, or at least not in the sense of how we (enthusiasts) think of “practice.”

        • That’s curious. Self defense wasn’t the only purpose for my purchase of firearms. It certainly was a concern but not the only one.

          …and although not essential to self preservation, practice and fore thought are good-to-haves in any situation involving firearms.

        • Yup. Many folks don’t even know basic stuff like PASS and will tend to aim an extinguisher incorrectly, nevermind the A/B/C/D and rating stuff.

        • No, no… no, I wouldn’t be surprised that people need practice to use a fire extinguisher properly.

          I’ve seen the results of lack of practice and training with fire extinguishers, first-hand.

      • Yes, you need training and practice to use a fire extinguisher.
        There are several types of fires and extinguishers for each. (Using water on a electrical or oils fire is bad for you) you need to know the type of fire and what will put it out. Plus you have to maintain them.
        Using a fire extinguisher takes training on where to aim and what to expect.

    • “It doesn’t take practice to use a fire extinguisher effectively.”

      Having used one in a practice scenario with a device designed for it, it’s a bit more difficult that it would seem.

  4. I don’t plan to use my gun. I prepare to use it. So that part, I agree with. The part about violence doesn’t stop violence is total BS.
    How do the Liberals stop citizens owning guns? Randy Weaver can answer that question.

    • Yes, they always forget or ignore the whole “enforcement” aspect of ending civilian firearm ownership. All government authority comes from the barrel of a gun.

    • Clinton sent troops to the Balkans as I recall to use violence to solve violence. Obama sent troops to the desert to use violence to solve violence. And progressives hold those two up to be the ideals of what society should be.

  5. I’ve planned for my defense (of self and loved ones). There are many tools and measures I’ve implemented to that effect. A firearm is just one of them.

  6. This is the exact premise of Catch-22. Unfortunately, I don’t trust the Chicagoans to recognize that.

  7. The Columbia Chronicle is apparently the student newspaper of Chicago’s Columbia College. As I recall reading The Daily Illini in my college days, I remember how it’s sometimes fascinating to watch budding journalists at work.

    In this case, the budding journalists have spent their lives in the progressive bubble known as Chicago and are products of that ideology, such as it is. And they are living proof that you don’t need intelligence to go to college.

      • Interesting…there was one pro-gun rights comment on that site around 6:55am (Pacific Time), but it’s gone now.

    • One of my physics professors used to call such people, “educated beyond their intelligence”. He applied this standard to all the PE, psychology and basketweaving ‘degrees’. Pretty much everything outside the hard sciences actually.
      People into logic tend to not care much about other people’s fantasy islands, no matter how well they stay inside the lines, or how pretty they color in the unicorns and rainbows…

    • The student paper at my alma mater was usually thought of as a cautious echo of Tass (yes, I’m dating myself). Alas, the ‘mainstream’ daily paper in that town was more or less a reprint of Pravda. 🙁

    • Yeah it’s Columbia College. My wife is an alumnus with a degree in theatre(and business). SJW always begging for bucks for left wing claptrap. She ignores all the endless appeals…

  8. “Fighting violence with more violence is never the answer”. Bumper sticker slogans have no merit in real life. So by that “logic”, if someone breaks into my home with the intent of raping my wife and murdering my children, I should what…make them a cup of tea and talk to them about their troubled childhood?

    • if someone breaks into my home with the intent of raping my wife and murdering my children, I should what…

      That is exactly what happened to the Petit family in Connecticut. Sadly the home invaders burned the wife and children alive, after raping them of course.

  9. “Fighting violence with more violence is never the answer.”

    Thank God the USA didn’t feel that way on December 8th, 1941.

  10. Columbia College in 1944: “fighting violence with more violence is nevet the answer.”

    General Eisenhower: You’re right, call off the invasion!

    • “”Violence never solved anything!” – sheltered snowflake.

      “Nerts!” – Fat Man.

    • One reason generals love pacifists is that they will obligingly lie down in front of their tanks, allowing themselves to be run over as a gesture of protest. And, having dealt with this minor threat, the generals can get on with their war.

      • Actually, it was by the overwhelming productive capacity of our factories. They were, of course, producing all the various implements of war that allowed us to apply overwhelming violence.

        • We also won WW2 because we had patriotism in those days. There were people willing to give their lives to defend the nation and our way of life. The government held pep rallies to sell war bonds to finance the war. Actors served in combat zones. The people were willing to live with rationed resources so that the troops fighting the war had the best equipment the nation could provide.

          Even with all that, there were many thousand of people who were pro-Nazi, anti-war, etc. By the time of Korea, the level of patriotism had declined further. By the Vietnam Era, progressivism had so influenced colleges that there were mass demonstrations.

          Today, those progressive influences have reached all the way down into elementary schools.

    • I challenge you to a dance off!
      Hands off, no trash talk, no back walk
      On the black top, just me, you, that’s all
      No cat calls, no tag teams, no mascots
      Right now, dance off
      Get on the floor
      Get on the, get on the floor, go!

  11. My mother said violence never solves anything.” “So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that.”
    Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.), p. 25; exchange between him and a student
    ” … I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”

    • If a Col. Dubois said something like that college classroom today he’d be promptly fired for daring to upset the delicate sensibilities of the little snowflakes. Of course violence never solves anything. Everybody knows that or should know that. The only people who disagree are simply immoral warmongers.

      • If Col. Dubois was around, we wouldn’t have snowflakes in a position to demand anything. Hell, the overwhelming majority of them wouldn’t even have the ability to vote.

        Call me biased, but I rather like how Heinlein’s government controls the franchise in that book.

  12. Violence and brute force has settled and finalized more fates and issues that any other single factor in the history of mankind, both for good and evil. To think otherwise is to have ones head in the sand. I guess the militia at Lexington and Concord should have asked the British for a ” dialogue”, followed by a group hug? Let’s ask the millions massacred by Hitler, Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin how a passive ideology worked out for them.

  13. Okay! What a bunch of totalitarian wackjobs! Who needs a psychiatric exam!? This coming out of all places! $#!Tcago !

  14. Yeah! If The Libtard DemoCRAPs in Massachusetts had there way. They’d be demanding we all pay reparations to Britain for the Tea party, and the American Revolution!

  15. Strip the Chronicle of its 1st Amendment Right until they prove they never plan to abuse it. Then make them swear they’re not Communist_Globalist_Progressive_Liberal_or Leaning Too (D). Then prosecute their violations with the death penalty.

  16. In my life I’ve seen:
    * oil shortages
    * milk shortages
    * computer memory shortages
    * meat shortages
    * ammunition shortages

    The one thing that’s always been available in hyper-abundance is stupidity.

    I’m going to go out on a limb and speculate that the nitwit who made the quoted statement, if trapped in a room by ISIS sympathizers cutting off the heads of the “infidels” therein, would prefer that the police use VIOLENCE to fight violence rather than moral suasion.

    • I would bet that if you put a gun in his hand the most he would do is threaten to use it, right up until he got stabbed to death for daring to point a gun at a member of the religion of peace!

      These anti-violence snowflakes aren’t psychologically up to the emotional rigors of defending themselves in the real world, and truly believe that the only acceptable response to the violence going on around them is stronger locks on their doors and windows.

    • Meat shortage was a norm during my childhood. But have you seen car shortages with waiting lists for any kind of car?
      All electronics including color tv and cassette player shortages?
      What about toilet paper shortages?
      Can you imagine dealing with women during pads shortage?

  17. I hope I never have to use my concealed weapon. That said, I asked myself before I got the permit if I was willing to use it if threatened with a life or death situation. When the answer was I’d rather risk an aggressor’s life than my own or one of my family if forced into such a situation, it was time for me to get the permit.

    I still believe that avoiding stupid people doing stupid things at stupid places will provide me more protection than carrying a gun ever will. But you know that old cliché “When seconds count, cops are minuets away”.

        • Unless it is the Minuet Waltz, which usually lasts about two minutes, Roll Over Beethoven!

      • A minuet is an expression of time composed of 60 seconds. When used in “I haven’t done that in a minuet”, it’s usually a length of time the speaker is too lazy to state exactly. When I used it now in “cops are minuets away”, I mean more than 5 and less than an hour which usually covers most cities and towns.

        • The police’s response time is probably better measured in minuets rather than minutes anyway.

  18. What is the Columbia Chronicle and who are the sixth graders who comprise the editorial board?

    • “What is the Columbia Chronicle and who are the sixth fourth graders who comprise the editorial board?”

      There, fixed that for you.

  19. Of course you don’t plan to use it.

    The point is to be prepared to do so on the off-chance that it’s required.

  20. “Fighting violence with more violence is never the answer.”

    Wonder why the journal did not seek comment from the ambassador of the nation-state of Carthage?

    Oh, that’s right. The Romans burned Carthage to the ground, and salted the earth so nothing would grow there again.

    • I think the Duke of Wellington and Napoleon Bonaparte can have a useful debate on the topic. Adolph Hitler could referee and the jury can be made up of the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon.

  21. “Fighting violence with more violence is never the answer…”

    Actually, violence is often the answer and the correct one.

    • When somebody has a sore throat, the answer is not likely to be eye surgery.

      When somebody has cataracts, the solution is not likely to be Robitussin.

      When somebody is screaming “Allahu akhbar!” and running people over and cutting off heads, the solution is not talk. The solution is two bullets to center of mass and one to the head. Anyone who thinks differently is foolish. Anyone who would force others to allow themselves to be murdered is a monster.

  22. You should read some of the other articles on that website. Holy crap. If that is the future of journalism…..

  23. I hope I never have to use it, either, but someone else will ultimately make that decision for me. Which is exactly why I have it.

  24. “Fighting violence with more violence is never the answer. ”

    When you’re in the process of having lethal violence applied to you, the only other answer is dying.

  25. “Fighting violence with more violence is never the answer.”

    So we should let a spree-killer kill until they are exhausted or run out of poison, gasoline, ammunition, or whatever?

    And that means we should let rapists rape and kill women until the rapist gets bored and moves on to basket weaving?

  26. Have there been enough murdered journalists?

    Many, like the Chronicle’s POS crew, think that there hasn’t been enough of you murdered.

  27. “Fighting violence with more violence is never the answer.”

    Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. …I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”

    -Heinlein, Starship Troopers

  28. “Fighting violence with more violence is never the answer.”

    But it sure puts a definitive end to the debate.

  29. Somebody put this guy in a chair and make him watch the videos from the liberation of concentration camps.

  30. Actually, I thought the interesting statement in that opinion was the following: “Perhaps these residents think concealed carry will protect their home and families—a distinctly white working-class ideology…”.

  31. I find it hard to believe that there are no comments on the editorial(at the columbia chronicle site). More likely none that agree with them

  32. There is nobody more pants on head retarded than a pacifist. And they can only survive in well developed 1st world nations with stable .govs and military and police.

    Anywhere else they get ate alive.

  33. “Fighting violence with more violence is never the answer. It is imperative that everyone who either purchases and registers a gun or applies for a concealed carry permit does so with no plans to use it.”

    Anyone else notice that NONE of the Editorial Board members signed their name to this drivel?

    I want to know just who our supposed “betters” are, if they had any testicles they would sign their work.

Leave a Reply

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