What Guns Are For? Quote of the Day

WaPo columnist Christine Emba (courtesy washingtonpost.com)

“Guns are for killing. This is their purpose; this is what they are meant for and designed to do. When the question of gun control is viewed in light of that essential fact, the banality of our current debate — and our proposed ‘solutions’ — becomes scandalously clear. For instance: We should raise the age at which you can buy an assault rifle — because, really, the issue is that you should be a bit older before you can mow down crowds with a highly efficient killing tool.”  Christine Emba, We all know what guns are really for [via washingtonpost.com]

comments

  1. avatar Baldwin says:

    OK. How about we raise the age at which we can exercise ANY part of the Bill of Rights. Cause, you know, we should all be penalized for the emotional relief of the weak. If saves just one SJW it will be worth it.

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      I actually agree with part of her statement, or at least what it goes to… Why raise the age? Sure the last perp (who we haven’t finished investigating or prosecuting yet even though we are jumping to the “final solution”) was under 21. But ok so ban all sales under 21. What happens when the next 22 year old shoots up a college? Ok ban until 25. Wait how old was the Vegas guy? Age bans are stupid.

      On the other hand, I disagree guns are strictly for killing, any more than arrows or knives are for killing. They are weapons, tools which can be used for… Any legal purpose. Or even illegal ones. If guns are for killing only, then they aren’t doing their job, as the vast majority of them around the world are being collected, trained with, shooting targets, used for guard duty, or most likely, sitting in warehouses.

      1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        Guns can be used for many purposes, but bottom line they are for delivering kinetic energy to a target, in order to damage to that target. So, if she wants to say guns are for killing, I’m not going to argue with her. But while use of deadly force is never to be desired and always to be avoided if possible, all too frequently it’s the least unpleasant option in a bad situation. That would be true even if they could wave a magic wand and make all guns vanish in puff of fairy sparkles. So her headline is entirely irrelevant to any discussion of effective policy. Though, it will have the emotional power she intends.

      2. avatar California Richard says:

        +1…. the M16 was a compromise weapon meant to replace niche peculiar weapons up to and including squad automatic weapons:: i.e. submachineguns and shotguns for close range (in full auto), carbines and rifles for average combat ranges, and point/area target suppressive fire (again in full auto bursts). 2 of the 3 of those functions are negated by the lack of full-auto fire in the AR-15.

        The 5.56 round was developed from a varmint round to render people combat ineffective (death being a possible outcome) and allow the user to carry as many rounds as possible. Its why we see stats like 14 dead and 17 wounded, or 50 dead and 500+ wounded (mind you this is against defenseless crowds where the shooter has all day to pick targets with impunity). A glock, easilly modified to full auto in the L.V. example, could have got these numbers too. Its why gang bangers would rather use hollow points from handguns (98% of all incidents per the FBI). Urban ambushes and assinations (to include mass shootings) don’t require an intermediate range rifle with compromise abilities. Its why the VA tech killer got a higher body count in less time with 9mm and .22cal pistols (which nobody is proposing we ban)…. that cho guy only used 10 round magazines too. These other maniacs bought in to the hype of the “power” of the “deadly black rifle”, probably from watching too much TV.

        At its core the AR15 is nothing more than an effective rabbit and coyote gun thats cheap and easy to use (assuming you can score at least a 35 on an ASVAB). Get rid of AR’s and these maniacs will find an other rabbit and coyote gun to shoot people with….. oh ya, you can 3D print 30 round magazines at home, thank you very much Gov Cuomo. I hear its way easier than receivers. https://www.wired.com/2013/02/printed-magazine/

        1. avatar Wzrd says:

          9mm and .22cal pistols (which nobody is proposing we ban)….
          Not yet anyway.

      3. avatar Eighty says:

        I’m starting an initiative to ban steak knives because they are so much more efficient at cutting than butter knives.

        1. avatar Jeff K says:

          Mostly already do in what used to be ‘great britain’

      4. avatar ChrisL says:

        I think it’s a bad idea to argue with the statement that “guns are designed for killing.” Yeah, they basically are. They are a “tool,” yes, but not a utility tool. They are a specialized sub-category of Tools called “firearm weapons.” Sure, there are a few highly specialized sporting guns that are designed specifically for target shooting, almost all .22LR caliber. But most guns are designed to kill. If they aren’t good at killing, who’s going to buy it? Yes, in the US we end up mostly using guns for training or sporting, thank God we don’t live in Syria or Somalia–but they are in fact designed to kill, and most of that training is to develop the skills to use the weapon as intended–to kill if the situation demands. I think it’s important that we stand firm and say “Guns are designed to kill–And They Should Be!” That’s the point. We are claiming our right to possess weapons that we can effectively defend ourselves and our communities with. The 2nd Amendment exists specifically to acknowledge that for free people to stay free, they must be able to assert their freedom either personally through self-defense, or collectively through armed action. Its not about hunting or target sports or varmint control or compulsive collecting. That’s about individuals being free and responsible for their own lives and the well being of their communities.

    2. avatar WTFwa says:

      Frankly I don’t see why we shouldn’t take away voting rights of all welfare recipients. While we’re at it nobody should hold office unless they have kids, no skin in the game no right to shape the future.

      1. avatar Retrocon says:

        Voting?

        Age 21 unless they are in military service.
        No public assistance at any governmental level.
        Not dependent on anyone except a spouse for income.

    3. avatar Nigel the expat says:

      Whether it is ‘waiting periods’, ‘bans’, GVROs, Mag limits, just sub the text in for restricting the 1st, 4th, or 5th, for example, and you’d never see those get out of the gate.

      Justice Thomas just had something similar to say regarding the 2nd Amendment handling vs. the 1st, 4th, and 5th in his dissent on CA’s 10 day waiting period.

      “The Ninth Circuit’s deviation from ordinary principles of law is unfortunate, though not surprising. Its dismissive treatment of petitioners’ challenge is emblematic of a larger trend. As I have previously explained, the lower courts are resisting this Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald and are failing to protect the Second Amend- ment to the same extent that they protect other constitu- tional rights.”

      “This double standard is apparent from other cases where the Ninth Circuit applies heightened scrutiny. ”

      “In the Ninth Circuit, it seems, rights that have no basis in the Constitution receive greater protec- tion than the Second Amendment, which is enumerated in the text.”

      “If this case involved one of the Court’s more favored rights, I sincerely doubt we would have denied certiorari. ”

      “The Court would take these cases because abortion, speech, and the Fourth Amendment are three of its favored rights. The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan.”

      1. This orphaning of a constitutional protection should be considered a national scandal.

  2. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    And we should raise the driving age to 21 as well…as well as the draft age. And the voting age, of course.
    Perhaps have a minimum age to have children as well? Absolutely!
    We have a minimum age to become president, after all.
    And add women to the draft…so there are equal rights…for sure.

  3. avatar Jeffro says:

    Killing, yes. Intimidation as well. Tell you what, lets just ban and confiscate them all and let the .gov and criminals (but I repeat myself) have them. That way everybody can feel safe! After all, .gov has no duty to protect or serve, they’re just your neighbors that needed a job. (shameless use of a Joe statement) And it is most important that they go home at the end of their shift. Hope that helps you feel warm and fuzzy.

    1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

      Did not work with alcohol…not working with drugs.
      Bans don’t work. People will always find a way to get what they want.
      Legally or not.
      Was that your point? Or you just like to bash LEOs?

      1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

        With the revelations of what occurred in Coward County maybe we need a bit more bashing.
        Where are all the LEO’s calling for the dismissal of the Sheriff and his crew?

      2. avatar Jeffro says:

        I didn’t think a [sarc] notification was necessary. I’ve met a few good LEO’s. Most have been badge heavy, respect my authoritah types. YMMV. FWIW, I’m 60 years old, get stopped on my way to work at 3am on at least a monthly basis for some made up infraction because they’re trolling for drunks and druggies.

    2. avatar D. says:

      Here’s the thing about banning so-called assault weapons. There is conservatively more than 20 million AR15s in the United States. Each time there is a threat of a ban millions more are sold. That is not including the millions of AR-10s, AK-47s, HK ‘s, Scar’s, and a plethora of other similar style weapons. There are probably at least 80 million so-called assault style weapons in the US, if there is a ban these weapons they aren’t going to go anywhere. If there is an attempt to confiscate guns do you really think people will just hand them over? Most gun owners believe they have a absolute constitutional right to have their guns, which they do, (a common argument the anti-gunners use is “Well they had muskets not AR15s when the second amendment was written.” – Well they had horse-drawn wagons, not cars and trucks, it’s called modernization.) Many people who paid thousands of dollars for their guns will simply sell them on the black market, not hand them over, where the real criminals can get them. “What about tracing serial numbers?” 5 minutes with a Dremel tool and they will become a “ghost gun”. “What about embedded computer chips?” 5 minutes with a drill, instant “ghost gun”. Even if they stopped manufacturing them in the United States they can still be smuggled across the border from other countries, for example the war on drugs has not stopped drugs from coming into the country, if anything there’s even more drugs. If criminals want guns they will get guns, but if we give up our guns we won’t be able to defend ourselves from the criminals that have guns. These anti-gunners should be careful about what they wish for. If they take guns away from law-abiding citizens how will they defend themselves from criminals that have the guns. -These guns are here to stay it just depends on who has them, law abiding citizens or bank robbers, gangbangers, and other violent criminals. What would you choose?

      1. avatar No one of consequence says:

        I’m.not sure that most gun owners would refuse.

        That said, if there are ~80M “assaults” weapons in the US, and even 1% of them refuse, that’s still a newly minted outlaw army.

        1. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

          My plan is to turn in all my waterguns after I rattlecan them flat black. Hell, I might write “bump stock” or “100 round banana clip” on them with white out so they can feel good about getting the dangerous weapons of war off the streets.

          I’ll be keeping the ones that make the loud noises.

      2. avatar Huntmaster says:

        You aren’t quite accurate when you say that “Most gun owners believe they have a absolute constitutional right to have their guns, which they do”.

        Most gun owners would probably insist that the right to self defense and bear arms comes from God and the Constitution simply recognizes that fact. If the Constitution was changed or amended to remove the 2nd Amendment it would simply be considered as an usurpation.

        1. avatar D. says:

          I stand corrected. It is my God-given right to protect myself and my family by any means necessary, regardless if it is an amendment written on a piece of paper or not. That includes ARs, AKs, or anything else.

        2. We the People (citizens and naturalized citizens only, check the Constitution) have the absolute responsibility for managing those we choose to give permission to speak for us while managing our country in our places.

          We have a representative democracy/Republican form of government which requires that each of us always be aware and involved of/in everything being done by those we chose to govern. We cannot manage government if we do not know those we choose better than we know ourselves before deciding to vote for them.

          Choosing is part of our responsibilities. Paying attention to what they do after they are chosen is another part. How can we evaluate the way they represent us and serve us and the United States if we are not constantly on top of what they do and say? We can’t and we can’t let someone else do it because that someone else may be of a different mind concerning what is good for us and for our country. Possibly have a hidden agenda that includes mass murder as a means of taking control.

          The third part of our responsibilities is voting responsibly. We must never vote a straight ticket where every candidate on a party ticket is chosen despite their qualifications to hold office. We must not vote for anyone for any reason but their demonstrated honestly, high moral character and patriotism plus an unwavering belief that the Constitution must be followed to the letter as it was written and has been legally amended. We must not vote for incumbents seeking another term in office if the have not demonstrated that they cannot be persuaded to waiver from their stated promises while campaigning and the Oath-of-Office taken before being seated in their elected office.

          The only way we can directly control government is by voting! There is no other way. Oh, we could amass a large group of the same mind and demand that our representatives do what we want. They can ignore that demand if its not followed by a valid threat to their reelection chances. Today, all incumbents fear being voted out of office more than death itself because they would lose the power, influence and income that they garner from being in elected offices.

          Be very vocal about the performance of those elected or attempting to be. Get those that fail in performance for the good of our country and protect our Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

          We each are aware of probable foreign enemies. We need to be aware of the many domestic enemies existing at this moment. Many of those currently serving as government fit into that category. More exist in the shadows and it is your responsibility to do research and know about them. “Know your enemy and he is yours.”

          Be smart, DO NOT REELECT ANYONE THAT DOES NOT KEEP HIS PROMISES AND HONOR HIS OATH OF OFFICE!! Do not vote for people that have no morals but continue programs upon which you have become dependent (slave to). Doing so further enslaves you. Learn to stand on your own two feet and take care of you and yours. Anything else contributes to the United States becoming a welfare state and government becoming empowered to stand in command over each of us. That would end freedom the World over.

        3. avatar D. says:

          Joseph D. Hollinger, +1

        4. avatar neiowa says:

          Hollinger – If you wait until the 2nd Tuesday of Nov. you will find that the ship sailed without you. MUST get involved in local party politics/nominating. Vote in the primary so you might actually find a Constitutional candidate on the general election ballot.

          If Conservatives/POTG were 1/2 as organized as these Fl kids (mythical) are every DEMTARD primary winner would be Pro 2nd. There is a project for you get a 2nd Amendment guy on the local dem primary ballot.

      3. avatar Southern Cross says:

        Perhaps the Progressives can mobilize their army of SJWs to do the collecting. Give them a catchy name such as “The New Red Guards” in homage to Mao’s cultural revolution.

        I wonder how many would return after the first day?

        1. avatar ed schrade says:

          They could offer a great benefits package since it would never be used.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Those bastards would probably send children.

      4. avatar Ak47 shooter says:

        Anyone with basic knowledge of firearms and ability to use tools can make an “assault rifle” in their garage out of common materials. Even if you confiscated every existing gun, unless you ban all knowledge and erase 80 million brains, you will never have a world without guns. You’ll just have a world where good people don’t have guns.

  4. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Or we could prosecute gun crimes with harsher sentencing instead of probation.
    Seize illegal guns from prohibited persons.
    Offer significant rewards for illegal guns/owners/buyers/sellers.
    Oh wait…that would be racist.

    1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      Because it’s all about guns? Nobody can harm another without a gun?

      No indeed. The best answer to a violent attack is the death or severe injury to the aggressor at the hands of the intended victim or their guardians.

  5. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

    Some people need killing. I hope you don’t come to that realization on a dark night without a gun in your hand.

    1. avatar Rodd H says:

      Well that will not happen. My weapon is like my VISA card, “Never leave home without it”

      1. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

        Yep, good for you and the people on this site that see the world as it is, not how we wish it to be.

        The antis don’t realize what a favor law abiding citizens like you are doing for their protection. Right now, criminals have to behave as though everyone is potentially carrying because they can’t identify those of us who are. When all the lawful guns are gone, they will no longer have any restrictions on their behavior.

        1. avatar anarchyst says:

          That is exactly what happened in Great Britain and Australia. Home invasions are relatively rare in the United States, as criminals KNOW that there is a good possibility of being confronted by an ARMED homeowner.
          The “castle doctrine” in most states makes it more difficult for an over-zealous prosecutor to charge a homeowner for defending himself and his family.
          In Great Britain and Australia, where the citizenry (actually “subjects”) has pretty much been effectively disarmed, home invasions are relatively common. In addition, a homeowner can be charged with using excessive force for merely defending himself and his family with other items–baseball bats, knives, sticks, broom handles, etc. In fact, there are cases in Great Britain where the homeowner was charged to a much greater degree than the home invader for “using too much force”. In some cases, the home invader and the homeowner were transported to the police station in the same vehicle. That’s “British justice” for you…

        2. This goes to show the true motivation of the leadership of the antigun cult.

  6. avatar barnbwt says:

    She’s right about guns, at least in this out of context quote, and wrong that criminals are “allowed” to do crimes (that’s why we call them crimes)

  7. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Yet another Leftist heard from,lets do away with the Constitution because there’s just too much Liberty and Freedom,we can’t have that now can we.

    1. avatar ed schrade says:

      See this is what you get when schools no longer teach, but indoctrinate . All these kids and many adults don’t know anything about our country’s origin or about the constitution and bill of rights. It’s much easier to take away a right that nobody understands or realizes that they have. Dumb people do dumb things.

  8. avatar Ian in Transit says:

    Raise the age to post on the internet to 21 while we’re ate it. You know, to prevent potential abuses of the 1st Amendment.

    If “Guns are for killing. This is their purpose; this is what they are meant for and designed to do.” then “Cars are for racing. This is their purpose; this is what they are meant for and designed to do.” Stupid statement only works if you ignore every other intended and functional purpose.

  9. avatar Duke Bowlwinder says:

    Wrong. They’re for linearly accelerating a projectile using chemical energy.

    She’s not only presenting her imagination and ignorance as fact but expecting it to frame the argument.

    1. avatar Russ in AK says:

      Sorry, but this is one of the weakest arguments in the Pro 2A arsenal.

      At no point when or before a firearm was designed, did anyone say “we need a more effective way of linearly accelerating a projectile using chemical energy.” What they needed was a more effective way of killing. Killing their enemies in combat in China, Mongolia, across the Silk Road and into the Gunpowder Empires. Killing animals for food. Killing peasant uprisings. And so on and so forth.

      From that need they discovered that “linearly accelerating a projectile using chemical energy” was the most efficient way to do it. What you’ve described is a firearm’s function on a very basic level, but the intent behind the design was people needed a leg up in combat over the common arms of the day, bows and swords and whatnot.

      A firearm is a weapon; nothing wrong with that. We’re doing ourselves no favors by trying to run away from that fact. Training the safe handling and effective use of weapons is not a bad thing, an act of which we should be ashamed. And before you start with the typical “no it’s a tool” arguments, a weapon is defined as “any instrument or device for use in defense or attack in combat, fighting, or war.” It’s also defined as “anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim.” It can ALSO be a tool, defined as “anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose.” Just as a hammer, typically a tool, can also be a weapon depending on the context in which it’s used, a firearm, a weapon, can also be a tool depending on the context in which it’s used. But to pretend that a firearm is not, at its core, a weapon, does us no good. The discussion needs to be “yes, it’s a weapon. Please explain to me why a proficiency with weapons is a problem?”

      1. avatar Philthegardner says:

        That is why itis safe to conclude that the ultimate aim of every hoplophobe is the banning of ALL guns. Because every gun made was made to kill. That much we can agree on. And it’s time we agree that all gun control laws have the spirit of total disarmament as their end goal

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        There are exceptions to the “made to kill” statement.

        High end target guns come to mind.

        1. avatar Russ in AK says:

          It’s still a firearm, only difference being it’s slightly modified to perform a specific task better. That doesn’t affect the intent behind the design of firearms, it’s just a mission specific modification.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Not really.

          A rifle built for the biathalon was never designed to kill. It was designed to be a very light, very accurate target rifle specifically for running that competition. The same thing is true of some of those really tricked out target pistols.

          As a general rule I would agree that most guns are “meant to kill” something but there ARE exceptions in terms of design. Could they kill someone or something? Sure, but they were not designed with that purpose in mind.

      3. avatar neiowa says:

        Oh the progs (and some here) want to DEMAND proficiency from gun owners. Which they don’t demand if their popo. Until the day when they demand you turn over the gun.

  10. avatar Rodd H says:

    Murder is already illegal, how about we change life sentences from the rest of your natural life to say 180 days. If we started actually punishing criminals for crimes there would be far fewer of them!

  11. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

    Wow… so wrong, much dumb…. Anyway, ma’am guns aren’t designed for killing. Yes, they can be used to do that but really they’re just designed to throw a projectile much faster than a human. Every single day guns are used for sport (i.e. 3 gun, IDPA, IPSC), recreation (plinking), and collecting. Now to move on to your point about assault rifles, Ma’am an assault rifle is a shoulder fired weapon firing an intermediate cartridge with multiple (more than one) mode of fire. The current US standard is the M4/M16 family of rifles these rifles are
    1. Shoulder fired
    2. Air cooled
    3. Magazine fed
    4. Have 3 fire modes which vary depending on model: M16A1 and some M4s – Safe, Semi, Full Auto
    M16A2 and other M4s – Safe, Semi, Full Auto
    Now, yes they do look just like the civilian AR15 and yes they share a lot in common but the AR15 only has 2 modes of fire: Safe and Semi. Civilians can own M16A1s provided they pay the ATF 200 dollars for a tax stamp, can afford the exorbitant price for the gun itself, and pass a much more stringent background check that includes finger prints and a local law enforcement officer’s signed permission to own said weapon in his jurisdiction.
    You say they are highly efficient at killing people ma’am that’s partially true but not for the reason you think, after all it is just shooting a 22 caliber bullet, what makes the rifle efficient actually has nothing to do with the rifle itself. This weapon doesn’t get the body counts tied to it in mass shootings because it’s the biggest, the fastest, or the most deadly rifle ever made it gets those body counts because of the target environment in which it’s used. Notice these mass shooters aren’t shooting up gun ranges, police stations, army bases, or banks they’re going for schools, theaters, outdoor concerts, and other “soft targets”, places where there is little risk to the shooter of meeting armed opposition, and it’s because of this that we are seeing the shocking numbers of dead and wounded at these events.
    Gun owners as a group hate to see these tragedies happen and we mourn right along with you, but we ask what sense does it make to punish us for the actions of a statistical anomaly? Valentine’s day at the exact same time that kid was “mowing down” students and teachers while the deputies held covered positions outside 99,999,999 guns were left in gun safes, holsters, and cases across the country. These guns and their owners were busy going about their normal day. Why do you want to punish them? It isn’t going to prevent the next shooting anymore than banning sex would prevent teen pregnancy.
    I realize you may think you’re right and that banning guns will prevent violent premature death, but with all due respect you’re thinking like a 5 year old. Yes banning guns will stop people being killed by guns, but people will still die. They will be killed by knives, vehicles, bombs, fires, poison, baseball bats, hammers, screwdrivers, and nearly a million other tools that can be easily adapted to fill the role guns used to play in mass casualty events. Ma’am this IS NOT a gun problem this is a people problem. Every single mass shooter was known to be a little off and nearly all were known to their family and law enforcement to be a danger, but no one did anything about it. These people were never forced to get the help they needed, they were never flagged in the NICS system to be a danger, and they were never effectively engaged before they committed their crimes. Now I know why does NICS matter the background check system failed right? Well… Right and wrong. Yes the system failed to screen these people out but not because it’s designed to. See on every 4473 (the form number for the actual background check that you fill out to buy the gun) there is a question (11F) that asks
    “Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective ( which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?”
    These mass killers were able to answer No on this question ( a Yes answer will get you rejected by the system) because no one had gotten them committed or judged to be mentally defective (i.e. retarded, insane, or any number of serious mental ailments that effect judgment) these shooters as far as NICS knew were normal people. If you had actually bothered to read the form you’d know that in hindsight most if not all of the shooters would have failed on one question or another had the multiple warnings been heeded.
    I know you think laws prevent crime but nothing is further from the truth. Yes laws can DETER criminal behavior but they don’t actually stop it. Laws only punish actions we deem illegal, they don’t prevent the action from taking place. Every mass shooter is charged with a count of murder for each person they kill and attempted murder for each person they wound. Their prison terms would add up to centuries is they live long enough to be convicted and don’t get off on an insanity plea so the question now is why does it matter that you add another decade or another charge? These people don’t care about living after they commit the crime (many are killed or kill themselves before being apprehended) so what difference is a POSSIBLE 210 year with no parole sentence going to make to this person versus a 185 year with no parole sentence or a death penalty sentence? Either way they are dying in prison if they haven’t died on scene.

    1. avatar Alfonso A Rodriguez Borrero says:

      Do you think she will read your answer? I do not think she is interested to see farther than her nose and feels entitled to be protected by law enforcement at all times. She expects that LEO’s do the killing and the dying, not get her hands dirty and not be responsible to protect her own life at all times. If some one could convince people like that that the world is not a fantasy where all ends well all the time. We are so civilized that we are abrogating our rights to self defense.

  12. avatar DaveL says:

    Yes, guns are for killing. Which is why we have a government with its full complement of armed agents, in order to kill us all. Wait! Ha, ha, I forgot. How silly of me. Of course when we put the stamp of the Official Business on something, then (and only then) we are allowed to look past that and consider there may be legitimate, nay, compelling reasons for killing. We can’t consider those reasons all the time, because then we might reach non-approved conclusions.

  13. avatar 'liljoe says:

    My favorite comment so far from the article is someone saying they know plenty of people who shoot competitively and none own guns that shoot fast…. I’ve analyzed their competitions and I think I’ve pinpointed why they come in last for 3-gun comps 🙂

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Umm, in service rifle we have rapid courses of fire, typically 5, 7, 8, or 10 rounds with 5 seconds per shot allowed (3 seconds when we had self-loading rifles).

      And there are various rapid fire pistol matches as well.

  14. avatar sound awake says:

    shes retarded

    she doesnt know what shes talking about

    obamas own cdc did a study and found this:

    “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

    1. avatar D.. says:

      Isn’t it interesting how the left-leaning media rarely report on the defensive use of firearms by law-abiding citizens.

  15. avatar MouseGun says:

    A gun is used to house a small explosion which propels a projectile at high velocities. What that projectile comes in contact with is the responsibility of the person wielding it. No more, no less.

    1. avatar lean4wardhereitcomesagain says:

      You make too much sense 🙂

  16. avatar anarchyst says:

    The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.
    A firearm is a tool which possess no evil intent on its own. Assigning intent to an inanimate object is the epitome of insanity. Demonizing a weapon on “looks alone” also marks the accuser as an unstable individual who is also insane. Call them out on their illogic and insanity.
    Another dirty tactic the anti-Second Amendment crowd uses exposes children to potential and actual harm by putting them in “gun-free zones”. These people care not one wit about children, but uses them for their own nefarious purposes.
    We need to TAKE BACK the argument…
    When the antis blame the firearm for the actions of a criminal, state that: “a firearm is an inanimate object, subject only to the intent of the user. Firearms ARE used to preserve life and make a 90 lb. woman equal to a 200 lb. criminal.
    When the antis attempt to justify their “gun free zones” counter their misguided argument with “you mean, criminal safety zones” or “victim disarmament zones”.
    State that “we protect our money, banks, politicians and celebrities, buildings and facilities with PEOPLE WITH GUNS, but protect our children with “gun-free zone” signs”.
    When the antis criticize AR-15s in general, counter with: “you mean the most popular rifle of the day, use able by even the smallest, weakest person as a means of self-defense. Besides, AR-15s are FUN to shoot”. Offer to take them to the range and supply them with an AR-15, ammunition and range time. I have made
    many converts this way.
    When the antis state that: “You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt with”, counter with “AR-15s ARE used for hunting, but in many states, are prohibited from being used to take large game because they are underpowered”.
    When the antis state that: “AR-15s are high powered rifles”, correct them by stating that “AR-15s with the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge are considered medium-powered weapons–NOT “high-powered” by any means”.
    When the antis state that: “you don’e need and AR-15”, counter with, “Who are YOU to considere what I need?”
    When the antis state that: “the Constitution was written during the ime of muskets, and that the Second Amendment should only apply to “weapons of that time period”, state that: “by your logic, the First Amendment should not apply to modern-day telecommunications, internet, television, radio, public-address systems, books and newspapers produced on high-speed offset printing presses. Only “town-criers” and Benjamin Franklin type printing presses would be covered under the First Amendment”.
    When the antis state that “only law enforcement and government should possess firearms”, remind them of the latest school shooting, as well as Columbine, where “law enforcement” SAT ON THEIR HANDS while children were being murdered, citing “officer safety”, afraid to challenge the shooter, despite being armed to the hilt. The government-run murderous sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco are also good examples of government (mis)use of firearms.
    This tome can be used to counter any argument against any infringement of our Second Amendment.

    1. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

      problem is most leftists see Waco and Ruby Ridge as honest mistakes or worse yet outright government victories against covens of alt right nut jobs. They abhor killing unless it’s killing people they view as undesirables (ie. Christians, Republicans, and others who don’t mesh with their global “unity” parade).

    2. avatar D. says:

      Well said anarchist. We should demand equal time on these so-called news programs to counter the overly emotional- irrational anti-gunners with some logic and reason. But that is unlikely since most of the media outlets are owned by staunch liberals.

  17. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Let’s try this again with logic and less myopic hoplophobia:

    “A very small percent of our population has or develops severe mental and emotional issues which leads to them to attack and kill other people. This is their perceived purpose; this is their last straw and in many cases their final act for attention, notoriety, and an attempt to solve their problems. When the question of gun control is viewed in light of that essential fact, the banality of our current debate — and our proposed ‘solutions’ — becomes scandalously clear.”

    Because, frankly, I’ve never seen a gun kill anyone by itself.

    1. avatar anarchyst says:

      Yes, the “mental defectives are called “democRATS” and should be barred from purchasing firearms.

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    Oh, goody. Another Mensa member running her mouth.

    There’s a foolproof way to keep a gun from killing.

    First of all, keep him out of the light, he hates bright light, especially sunlight, it’ll kill him.

    Second, don’t give him any water, not even to drink.

    But the most important rule, the rule you can never forget, no matter how much he cries, no matter how much he begs, never feed him after midnight.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Excellent Gremlins reference.

    2. avatar CarlosT says:

      Loved the reference, but the “after midnight” thing always bugged me. What does that mean? It’s always after midnight, all day long. Do they mean after midnight and before a certain time?

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        Also – midnight where? I live close to time zone line, if we drive couple miles it might be before or after midnight. What about light saving time? Local true astronomical midnight? Does the mogwai have built in clock or can I fool him by hiding or resetting the wall clock?

  19. avatar Higgs says:

    The weakest part of this argument is that it only looks at the potential cons of guns. None of the antis mention (or more likely the don’t know) that at least 55 to 70 crimes are prevented every year by guns. Even if the crime is not completely prevented the injuries sustained in self defense are less severe. This comes from a CDC study commisioned by Obama.

    As many on this board know, this is likely a low estimate. It is far more likely this number is in the hundreds of thousands. It’s hard to prove because it’s difficult to measure a crime that does not happen.

  20. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘…the issue is that you should be a bit older before you c an mow down crowds with a highly efficient killing t ool.’

    So what, it was OK for the guy in Vegas to do it because he was 64 years old?

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      Yeah, apparently the problem with the Parkland killer was that he was underage. Sheriff Israel will get on the retraining program to make sure his deputies rush in as soon as possible to check IDs on mass shooters.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Generally speaking, people should be more measured with their words. For a lot of people they simply have no control over the profanities that come out of their mouths. For others, they don’t stop to think about how absurd their opinions are. But a truly great man (or woman) is one that has control over their own tongue.

  21. avatar Philthegardner says:

    Her statement is the reason why we will never believe them when they say they aren’t coming for my guns. Let’s face it. To them ANY gun is dangerous. Therefore… ban them all.

  22. avatar Accur81 says:

    Firearms are designed to propel bullets, slugs, or pellets by the force of burning, expanding gas. Statically, the vast majority of firearms in the US are used to punch holes in paper targets or crush clay pigeons. Should an animal be killed, it falls into the category of hunting, poaching, or self defense. Should a person be killed, it falls into the category of self defense, legal intervention, or murder.

    The utility of firearms is undeniable given that the vast majority of firearms in the US are responsibly used for target practice, training, hunting, and self defense.

  23. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    And my truck will go over a hundred miles per hour, it has a fully automatic transmission, and it holds 30 gallons of gas. If my son looked like Obama, and stole my truck, and ran over a bunch of kids at a couple of school bus stops would a Chevy be the choice of mass truckers? Would emotionally fragile SJWs be demanding pickups be limited to 10 gallon tanks, that we install smart limiters so trucks can only go the speed limit, or raise the age someone can drive a pickup to 21? We need to sit down to a discussion on the reasonable limitations on trucks, for the children.

    Do I really need a /sarc?

  24. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    the issue is that you should be a bit older before you can mow down crowds with a highly efficient killing tool.” …such as a car.

  25. avatar Knock Knock, it's the United States says:

    People have short memories. During the 20th century, we saw 200 million people murdered by their governments. If anything, and armed population is, by design, the only way to prevent that from occurring wholesale using conventional means.

  26. avatar nativeson says:

    Her argument is this – we need to deprive 18 year olds of their right to keep and bear arms because some of them will exercise that right in an irresponsible manner. Using that same logic, the government could deprive every American of all their Constitutional rights. There will always be someone who abuses their rights – whether it be free speech or religious beliefs or right to vote or RKBA.

  27. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    The conversation is, indeed, banal. Why are you focused on the tools, not the killers?

    How much are you gonna limit people’s ability to protect themselves, when all that official protection has failed? How many kids are you going to leave with nothing to do but hold a door, to save their friends? How many kids get to die because you won’t allow them the tools to #shootback? How many teachers with nothing to do but throw their bodies in front of a killer, knowing it won’t be enough.

    Those are the other questions, the anti’s don’t mention. And they’re just as banal.

    When all the programs and protections have failed, I’m OK with the people about to be killed having the means to fighg back, if they choose. And net, net, I trust the vast majority of people to do only what’s needed, only at need.

    You don’t trust them, and think they’re expendable. I am not O K with that.

    I am not O K with consigning good people to die, when you can’t, or won’t stop the killers. Who’s side are you on? Not the people who have done nothing wrong, clearly.

    Whether that “highly efficient killing machine” is used to mow down crowds, or stop the guy doing the mowing has everything to do with who is using it. How about we pay attention to that? I am not O K with ignoring that difference.

    There’s something like 300,000,000+ private arms in the US. Around 30,000,000 households with arms. Something over 5,000,000 individual members of the NRA (… and climbing because of your relentless stupidity, BTW.) If guns, or gun owners were universally fangerous, we’d all be dead.

    I’m O K with someone who’s the target of a home invasion, a rape attempt, some whack-job shooting up a school to make a point having a “highly efficient killing machine” to try to stay alive with. With good leolle, protecting themselves, efficient is good. As the DHS said, a civilian AR-pattern carbine in 5.56 is an excellent defensive firearm.

    How about we shut up about banalities, n talk a out the real stuff – bad people do bad things sometimes. Would you rather good people are able to look out for themselves, or would you rather they just die quietly? How many yood people are you willing to throw in jail or worse, to make then helpless victims for bad peolle you won’t stop?

    Who’s the killers, here?

  28. avatar Joe R. says:

    “Guns are for killing. . . ”

    Yes, and, per the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, I’ll move against ghose like you who would prevent an 18 Yr old from posessing what they needed ti get the job done according to the due authority under that reference. If they’re legal to vote, they’re legal to decide to chuck the whole thing and start over.

    Plus, we all know what a bunch if coomunist cack sackers such as yourselves do when you get on a roll banning sh_t, so it’s worth putting your stupid POS (D) asses on notice that the path you’re on leads to pain, suffering and violent endings (cause that’s all communism is good for).

  29. avatar TexTed says:

    If guns are “for killing”, then there’s something wrong with mine. I’ve got dozens, and not a single one has ever killed anything. Are they broken? Or am I doing it wrong? Or maybe, just maybe, there’s a different purpose for guns than just “killing”.

    My guns are not for killing lives, they are for saving lives. That is the purpose of my guns.

  30. avatar Sal Chichon says:

    Just more clap-trap from a priveleged woman living in a priveleged east coast, “power city,” and espoucing typically short-sighted, provencial urban values. In other words, she hasn’t seen shit, she doesn’t know shit, and yet she likes to talk shit because she thinks her shit doesn’t stink. Fuck. Her.

  31. guns are for more than just killing. you can target shoot. which I enjoy doing. you can do that officially or imformally. either way it is fun and builds some hand to eye coordination. and it becomes an acquired skill.

  32. avatar samuraichatter says:

    I read the WaPo and my response is:

    So you really are trying to take our guns away!

  33. avatar anonymoose says:

    Let’s see well how this automobile I can have at 16 for “transportation” does at killing vs. a gun…oh…

  34. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Actually, sweetie, if one buys your premise that guns are designed to kill people, and your implicit suggestion that the people being killed are innocent people, such those comprising crowds being mowed down, then the banality of gun control measures becomes clear.

    If you really believe these are only good for committing mass murder, then why wuss out and only raise the age limit? Why not admit that only a ban coupled with confiscation would work?

    They don’t say that because that would reveal their ultimate objective. For now, it’s enough to lie and deny that these weapons have proven to be extremely effective dlseld defense weapons, and just take the incremental step toward their ultumate objective.

  35. avatar Anonymous says:

    My guns are for fun and entertainment. They haven’t killed anyone. Can they be used to kill? Sure, but lots of things can be used for that. So the they should not be regulated or banned on those grounds. Guns aren’t the problem to murder. Murder is a decision made by the operator of the instrument they use to murder. The problem is the decision, not the instrument. And there is more than one way to address that decision. Addressing the instrument doesn’t address the malice in the hearts of those with ill intent.

  36. avatar Chris Morton says:

    Honey, sometimes it’s NECESSARY to kill people.

    Or perhaps you think that Abraham Lincoln should have responded to Nathan Bedford Forrest and the Confederacy with a hashtag campaign.

    May you in time have thoughts with more depth than a raindrop.

    1. Now that you mention Nathan Bedford Forrest…

      Not many people know this but the “the KKK began as a gun-control organization…” As The Wall Street Journal acknowledged, “It was a constant pressure among white racists to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans, because they would rise up and revolt.” While in 2003 the book “The Challenge of Crime” acknowledged that felons or “second-class citizens,” own the majority of stolen or illegally owned guns many who I suppose have been imprisoned for drug offenses.

      Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/andygill/the-war-on-guns/#KVAPXK2zfQJKkq3y.99

      those who call for more #GunControlNow continue the work of #NathanBedfordForrest.

  37. avatar Nanashi says:

    To “throw off such government”.

  38. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    I agree with her. Guns are tools for killing. And…?

    Guns are tools for killing, but not for murder. That is their purpose. They are tools of combat because humans being humans, like to murder and kill one another, and thus humans create weapons to be able to protect themselves from other humans, animals, and also to hunt other animals. And contrary to what the Anti’s claim, that they are tools for killing makes them safer than other tools, because other tools you can severely injure or kill yourself by accident in making a mistake while using the tool for its intended purpose. It is pretty difficult though to have an accident while using a gun, and almost impossible when not using it, provided proper safety is adhered to.

  39. avatar Bubba says:

    The voting ID card and the public handgun carry card should be the same card.

    Given that constraint, I am open to negotiation on the minimum and maximum ages we allow for the possession of that card.

  40. avatar John in Ohio says:

    My firearms are for killing; what needs it and when absolutely necessary. What they are not for is murder, a deed which governments’ track record exceeds any individual by far. If you want to disarm the dangerous murders, disarm governments.

  41. avatar Johnny108 says:

    What are guns for?
    Freeing slaves.
    Stopping religious persecution.
    Stopping political persecution.
    Stopping genocide.
    Stopping tyranny.
    Fighting for equality.
    Fighting to stop corruption.
    Ensuring Freedom of Speech.
    ……Did I miss any?

    1. avatar Johnny108 says:

      Can’t BELIEVE I forgot this one:
      Stopping rape.
      (My wife’s Sig P226 was the reason she (120lbs) was not raped by a 220lb convicted felon released because his violent offenses had no “mandatory minimums”.)

  42. avatar john says:

    The leftists think we should use Australian style gun control. Well, let’s see the results of that. 1996 was when the gun confiscation(sorry buy back) began.

    Since 1996 the United States assault rate has dropped by 43.6 percent. Australia’s assault numbers have increased by 150 percent.

    Since 1996, the United States forcible rape rate has fallen by 36.5%, while “gun free Australia’s” sexual assault numbers are up by 22%.

    Since 1996, the United States robbery rates have consistently fallen, by a total of 46%. Oz? The official robbery rates soared immediately after the Howard regime’s gun control laws, but now the official, and heavily edited, robbery rate has fallen by an extremely unimpressive 12.2 percent.
    Check extranosalley.com/violent-crime-rates-u-s-vs-australia/ for information.

    1. avatar Johnny108 says:

      You forgot about the incredible proliferation of P.A. Luty model sub-machine guns Australia now has…

      Anyone know where his grave is? I want to pour a bottle of finest single malt over it, to salute a great man.

  43. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

    Huh. My guns must all be defective then, because they’ve never killed anybody. Well, I don’t know about the Mauser K98k. A German soldier may have used that one to kill one or more people, but I can’t know for sure.

  44. avatar John in Ohio says:

    I forgot to mention that the hammer spur on my NAA Mini .22lr has gotten used as a box opener. So, I guess it’s a multi-function tool.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email