Kathleen Parker (courtesy mediamatters.org)

“Even as we honor Wilcox appropriately, his death should give pause to any who insist that having more armed citizens is the best defense against a would-be killer. Even if one person were to stop a killer in his tracks, it is not logical to extrapolate the occasional success story as proof of the argument.” – Kathleen Parker, Let’s Give Sanity a Chance [via app.com]

Recommended For You

93 Responses to Quote of the Day: 800k DGUs Can Be Wrong Edition

  1. So success is reason to quit? This is why people see a declining America. So if only 2-3% of people wore seat belts, we should stop using them because of the occasional life saved in car crashes. Wonderful thought process here.

    • To make our seatbelt non use more effective, we would also make plenty of seatbelt free zones on the highways.

        • Kleck, used to do research for the anti-gunners. That changed when he went to disprove previous research that said there were up to a million DGU’s every year… Unfortunately for his anti-gun peers, his research said there are anywhere from 1-2.5 MILLION DGU’s a year… Kinda hard to be anti-gun when your research prooves the exact oposite thing you were looking for.

      • I think you mean crash free zones. We should set those up all over the place; every bad intersection should be a crash free zone, so that crashes won’t occur there. If only we had enough crash free zones, then seat belts wouldn’t be necessary.

  2. Yet they are okay with extrapolating the isolated actions of a crazy person with a gun to all gun owners? Double standard much?

    • Exactly. If a GFZ sign ever stopped any shooting and they had proof of it we would never hear the end of it. But I wont hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

    • Or pretending that because gun control “is working” in other countries we HAVE to implement it here?

      (which by the way is cargo cult government at its finest)

    • It’s “heads I win, tails you lose”. The failure of armed self-defense in one instance is supposed to discredit the idea. But we are warned not to take its success in other instances as supporting the idea. Basically all she’s saying is “I have an agenda to push a predetermined conclusion, so experience and data mean nothing to me.”

  3. It depends on the circumstances.

    If it’s a one on one or two vs one setup and the citizen is a direct target,concealed carry is a pretty effective system.

    Against mass shootings, things get dodgier. One guy with a pistol against an unknown number of attackers in a large building ,some of whom might be armed with long guns , is a chancy setup. In Texas a citizen tried to intervene when a mass shooter with an AK attacked a courthouse, and was fatally shot in the process. A bad guy(s)with halfway decent planning can neutralize an armed citizen fairly easily. I don’t buy the argument that the unfortunate Wilcox stopped anything-his killers planned out their assault well enough to ambush two cops . They also had a plan for anyone trying to intervene with a concealed weapon-they did live in NV, so the possibility had to exist in their minds.

    Real life ain’t a Die Hard movie.In a mass shooting , if a citizen isn’t directly being confronted by a mass shooter, they should seek the exit along with the rest of the sheeple.

    • The difference between you and her, is that you can state this as your opinion, without the added conclusion that concealed carry laws should continue to be tightened up, with stricter requirements and restrictions. She can’t – or won’t – make that distinction.

    • It’s one thing to target and execute uniformed police, it’s something else entirely to be confronted from the flank or rear without warning by a ‘random’ citizen. Police are easy to spot and their reactions somewhat predictable, armed citizens not so much. If there really were much planning put into these sorts of attacks (fortunately I’ve yet to see one with more than the most rudimentary planning) the variable that is how many armed citizens might be encountered and what their reaction might be is a serious problem. Consider it the way SWAT or a military unit would; How many are in there? Between 10 and 200. How many are armed? Unknown. What is their protocol for encountering an armed force? Unknown. With what are they armed? Unknown. What level of training do they have? Unknown. How long before reinforcements arrive? Unknown.

      With that set of variables a dynamic entry is suicidal. No rational person would attempt it except in a dire emergency, or when greatly outnumbering the potential resistance, or following preparatory fires such as artillery or an airstrike, or perhaps at the minimum application of distraction devices and or gas. For two lightly armed and essentially untrained people to enter such an environment is sufficiently tactically unsound as to be pure folly and to be attempted only by the very stupid, or suicidal (or in the current case, both).

      A lone gunman faces an even more daunting task, which is perhaps why GFZs seem to be the rule for these sorts of attacks, with this one an outlier. Further, all armed citizens are not equal: A completely untrained elderly person with severe vision and mobility issues armed only with an NAA .22 versus running into Jerry Miculek armed with a race pistol . . .one of these would not have worked so well in NV, the other would likely have been able to end the threat instantly and with authority.

      The decision to fight or run is a personal one with many variables. Included are, though not exclusively, what is my skill level, what level of threat am I facing (how many are they and how are they armed and proceeding), what weapons and tactics are available to me, what is the cost of running versus fighting, am I alone or do I have others to protect, what environmental factors are in play( are we in an open field or is there dense cover and concealment).

      These are only a few, but given a typical Wal-Mart and my level of skill and the weapons I normally carry I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that two very obvious targets randomly engaging people as they encounter them are not the sort of tactical encounter that is in anyway impossible, or even terribly difficult to overcome. The briefest consideration suggests maneuvering to a position behind them and engaging both at very close range. Basically this puts them in the same position they put the police officers in, ambushed at close range with a high volume of accurate fire. My considerations? I’m fairly young (37) with no health issues to impair my engagement. I’m well experienced and highly trained in combative use of a handgun. I carry ‘enough gun’, typically a G19, XDs-9 or 1911, any with two spare mags and all with a .380 bodyguard as a BUG. I know that I won’t hesitate to head shoot or multiply body shoot an active shooter from concealment/ambush and from behind. I know that I wont miss with enough regularity to fail to seriously impair or outright incapacitate shooter number 1 almost instantly. I know that unless shooter number two has very good luck or near super human skills they cannot turn and fire effectively on me before they too are taken under effective fire. Even if I’m killed at this point I’ve reduced the threat level by 50% and hopefully casualties by the same. It’s a risk I’m willing to take. If I’ve miscalculated, I’ll likely die and it’s still a risk I’d be willing to take.

      To say that all carriers should exit with the ‘sheeple’ isn’t accurate and doesn’t come from any real evidence or experience. The most obvious flaw in the argument is simply that it’s impossible to say what an armed person is since they run the gamut from completely untrained and ill prepared to real HS/LD operators. Somewhere right below the middle point on the continuum between these extremes are a group of people who are more than capable of ending such a scenario reliably. If they are willing to try, why suggest they shouldn’t? Assess yourself, the scenario and your tools, then make a decision, but don’t make a blanket statement about what everyone ought to do.

      • The problem is Intel.

        A gun is useless unless you know who to point it at.

        You’re in Aisle 9, and all the way over in the grocery section you hear shots fired. You don’t know who the attacker is, how many there are, whether theres undercover LE in the area, etc. A firearm instructor once held a class which set up the student as a bystander, witnessing a woman running from a guy with a gun .

        Clear case of a victim running from a criminal, no?

        Except the woman was a fleeing suspect, and the grimy dude following her with a gun was an undercover cop.

      • I’m not in disagreement, but would like to point out that Wilcox apparently did not recognize that there were two shooters working in concert. From what I understand of the encounter he got the drop on the male, but was ambushed from behind at close range by the woman.

        I guess my point is that the uncertainty that you mention works both ways. This event in NV has given me great(er) pause in engaging as a solo CCW.

        It might be that Wilcox was yelling when he should have been shooting, and moving. I don’t doubt he did his best. I wish we knew more so that we could learn from his sacrifice.

    • Since you are never sure how many bad guys there are, you are saying you should always leave. Maybe you need better track shoes not a better gun.

      • Yep, he seems to be advocating running. Then he mentions intel. Well, look and see what is going on and make a judgement! If people always waited until they knew every detail about the situation they were in and were always fearful that something bad could happen and they shouldn’t act unless they were absolutely positive that the outcome would be good, humanity would still be in the prehistoric ages.

  4. It’s really the only defense, other than catching someone before they kill, and last I checked, precog isn’t possible yet.
    True, the good person is not always going to win the battle, but that is nature. This is why we always say practice, whether it be with a gun, or hand to hand combat, it can get you through the anxiety of the situation and allow you to think and act more clearly.

  5. The article starts out with:

    So much for the argument that having more people armed in public places will result in fewer gun deaths.

    This is intellectually weak. One event can be used to dismiss an entire position with the wave of your hand.

    So much for the argument that gun control will result in fewer gun deaths.

    So much for the argument that sex education will result in fewer teen pregnancies.

    So much for the argument that having drunk driving laws will result in fewer drunk driving deaths.

    So much for the argument that having Obamacare will result in lower insurance premiums.

    I’m tired of these dismissive BS statements that are intended to show me how smart, smug, and snarky you are…

    • Here! Here!
      I’ve seen comments to the effect of “see what a concealed carry permit got Wilcox, dead”, as if a single ‘failure’ discredits our position entirely. If that were the case, the anti’s position(s) would have been discredited many years ago since everything they’ve done has failed over and over at accomplishing its stated purpose.

  6. Why is it that an armed citizen being taken by surprise by the female shooter invalidates the concept of citizen self-defense, but two armed police being taken by surprise by the same shooter doesn’t invalidate the concept of armed police, or the protection of the public by police?

  7. What?!

    I get it…
    Next time they or their property is getting violated, _don’t_resist_…
    ….just give them what they want.
    Next time they’re getting assaulted or abused, _don’t_resist_…
    … just cry for help and _hope_ there is a Wilcox who happens to be nearby in an acceptable government uniform that is not willing to listen to your ridiculous advice!

  8. Apparently she likes something that she can’t get in a polite armed society.

    That and the news media has completely gone off their respective rockers.

  9. Once again, an opinion of a well to doer, insist on a value that allows for the murder, rape and robbery of citizens. The claim that training to the level of law enforcement is required along with gun ownership is another obstruction to an individual’s right to bear arms.

    When will the leap of logic coincide with reality…its a low bar and not difficult.

    • What makes it more absurd is the fallacy of the ‘trained’ police. For most firearms training is rudimentary at best and advanced training concepts like fire and maneuver are completely absent. Most are barely proficient with a handgun and have available almost nothing of tactics to augment their poor shooting. A typical class of IDPA or IPSC shooters has a skill level several orders of magnitude higher than the average police officer. If skill with a firearm were the criteria for possessing weapons a large portion, if not a majority, of police would have to be disarmed. The reality is that it doesn’t take all that much training or skill with a firearm to be an effective police officer the vast majority of the time. It also doesn’t take much skill or training to effectively defend oneself against the most common threats encountered. The ‘training’ argument is so full of holes that it holds no water whatsoever. Common sense and all available evidence suggests that a completely untrained person with a gun stands a better chance in a violent assault than a person with no gun. However, if the training argument did hold sway, it would have unintended consequences that I don’t believe the antis would much care for. It’s just another example of an illogical and factually untrue argument asserted by uniformed and dishonest people to accomplish a dubious and potentially disastrous goal. If they aren’t bright enough to see the flaws in their arguments or the horrific fall out of their goals, why should we expect them to respond to rational arguments?

  10. Even if one person were to commit murder with a firearm, it is not logical to extrapolate the occasional negative story as proof of the argument [for gun control].

    • ^^ THIS!!! If the argument doesn’t work for her opponents (in her mind) then she can’t turn around and use the same one.

  11. I’m so sick of all the talking head propagandists. I really try not to watch TV news anymore but that poison always finds a way to creep into my life.

    On that note, Kathleen Parker is a phony conservative.

  12. “NOT ONE MORE… Unless it means having another gun on the streets, in which case a few more are just fine.”

    • Precisely! Finally you get it. Geez and they thought all us ‘gun nuts’ were too dense to catch on.

  13. So since all these gun-control laws are not 100% effective stopping anyone from doing a bad thing we can just scrap them all, right? Awesome!

    • According to the constitution YES.

      Unless you pinko-communist liberals want to apply shit evenly here. Thus, hence forth your right to use a computer and electronic telephone has been revoked. The founders could have never imagined such things and thus they would not be covered by the constitution.

      • “pinko-communist liberals”

        You sound like you just escaped from a John Birch Society meeting in the early 60’s. Channel the ghost of Joe McCarthy much?

        • I think he’s calling them like he sees them and I’d say his vision is 20/20 John G. I’ve read your posts on other threads and he’s going light calling you a communist. I have some stronger words and phrases in mind: Statist, collectivist, 5th columnist, disingenuous, deluded, contrary to liberty, agent provocateur, troll, contrarian, radical leftist, anti-American, anti-freedom, misinformed, ignorant of relative facts, haughty, presumptuous, falsely superior, egotistical, self-righteous, rabble-rouser and just generally factually, ethically and logically incorrect.

          It’s not as if you’ve had an original idea, trolling a pro 2a blog to spread derision and engage in argument for it’s own sake. It’s not even that it’s much a problem really, since we’re well versed in the tactic. It is however a little much to play the victim in in all. You’re much like a homophobe at a gay rights rally insisting that gays are bullies because they react poorly to your bigotry or, perhaps more aptly, like a like a racist at a black power rally, shouting insults and epithets and demanding that they be put back in their place while decrying how they shout about infringement on their rights and how they organize to ensure people like you don’t leave them as second class citizens and devoid of rights. You prove the very thing you insist doesn’t exist by you rhetoric and your posturing. There really are people out to disarm us, and for their own ill conceived or actually nefarious reasons. By all means keep shouting from the sidelines, you’re all the evidence we need to further organize, further resist, and turn the tide (as we already largely have) toward the recognition of a basic human and civil right. Down the road someday, when it’s well settled, you’ll be in the same camp as Bull Connor, Orval Faubus, John Birch and Anita Bryant. Forgotten, except when remembered as misguided, possibly evil people who stood in the way of basic rights for honest people. Claim the high ground, sure, but know that in the end your legacy is one of shame and derision.

      • Oh Ardent, give me a break. I am a gun owner, arguably a military weapons enthusiast. You don’t represent me. Frankly, you and your kind are an embarrassment.

        You call me various things. I see you as nothing more than a light weight Fascist wannabe that talks about free speech, but when confronted with a contrary opinion you get sand in your mangina and start whining.

        Well versed? Most of you super patriots just follow the neo-Fascist propaganda memes. No original thinking there.

        History is clearly on my side. You may be too dense to understand that, but frankly does anyone really care what you think?

        • I don’t see where he claimed to represent you. Judging by your response, he’s obviously got your number and gotten under your skin.

  14. Interesting that she chooses to ignore the many incidents where a good guy with a gun actually stops a bad guy with a gun without being harmed himself. But that would prove much too inconvenient for her idiotic viewpoint.

  15. My personal favorite from the Anti-gunners: Concealed carriers live in a fantasy world that a) they’re going to even need their gun, and b) Because we’re not all highly trained police officers we’re not going to be able to respond and use our guns effectively…

    but, if we make sure to reduce magazine capacity then we can tackle the guy while he reloads!

    • I find the “highly trained police officer” line the antis use to be hilariously dishonest. Judging by the statistics alone police lack the training they should have to do a job where wielding deadly force is part of the occupation. Hearing that qualification consists of simply putting rounds down range for some departments is obscene. Hearing that these departments now get SWAT teams and submachine guns is frightening, and hearing the excuse “we don’t have the budget for it like LAPD SWAT” is a cop out, no pun intended.

      • “There are many more armed citizens I would rather have on my side in a gun fight than most police out there.”

        ^^ This was quoted to me by a deputy recently. I know I train more than the average cop and I’m no super-operator.

        She mentions where the guy who grabbed the AZ shooter was nearly shot by another citizen… Same thing almost happened to the guy that had taken the gun from the FRC shooter by the cops. Regardless of who and what is going on, in these events everyone is making split second decisions. Some are well-trained, others operating off their gut.

        The ignorance in that article is painful.

      • Yes, that’s one of my all-time favourites, along with “An AR15 serves no purpose except to kill a large number of people in a small amount of time, and only the police should have them.”

        • Was being trolled by an anti-gunner yesterday in a quasi-mock debate. It started with, “but more background checks would…” and by the end of it, all she could argue rationally for to get guns out of the hands of criminals (and “potential criminals”) was a Fallujah-style campaign against crime alcoves and rural America.

          Gun-control advocates aren’t for stopping “gun violence”, they want to only “gun violence” to be police violence.

  16. Wilcox let his guard down with respect to the woman involved; a tactical blunder which isn’t reflective of the benefit of conceal carry. He could’ve just as easily made that blunder from behind a badge. The unfortunate reality of such blunders is you rarely get a chance to live and learn.

  17. “Even if one person were to stop a killer in his tracks, it is not logical to extrapolate the occasional success story as proof of the argument.”

    It is also not logical to *eliminate* the possibility of correlation. One data point does not a trend make, either for or against any hypothesis.

    Good thing we have many more data points where guns were used defensively.

  18. “Even if one person were to stop a killer in his tracks, it is not logical to extrapolate the occasional success story as proof of the argument.”

    If the the argument is that it CAN be done, then it sure is logical to extrapolate a success story as proof of argument.

  19. Funny how this argument is the opposite when they try to support gun control.

    When Newtown happened it was the one example to cause gun control across the country, but when one incident of someone stopping a tragedy, oh that is just one example, can’t happen again.

    Just more BS

  20. “Even if one person were to [become] a killer…, it is not logical to extrapolate the occasional [abuse] story as proof of the argument.”

    The argument being the abuses are a little more occasional than the successes. The publication ratio are vice versa.

  21. I’m tempted to extrapolate that anti-gunners are not particularly intelligent based upon their irrational statements.

  22. If the concealed carrier had stopped both of them and was not injured, we’d never hear anything about him, because that part of the story would have been buried by most news outlets (see how many news orgs ignored the role that Nick Meli played in stopping the Clackamas Town Center shooting). They’d just be focusing on the two dead officers and the bad guys.

    The anti-gun folks simply ignore whatever inconvenient truths don’t fit their view of the world.

  23. I do not know why these whack jobs even try. If the number out of some of these blue states who recently restricted the 2nd amendment right is any indication, most peace loving gun owners won’t obey these unconstitutional laws anyway. .On Another note, if a criminal wants a gun, they can always get them; when that deranged couple in Nevada needed more guns for their short lived murder rampage, they found a few strapped to a couple of police officers, which is how a lot of criminals from countries with more restrictive gun laws get their guns.

  24. “Even if one person were to stop a killer in his tracks, it is not logical to extrapolate the occasional success story as proof of the argument.:

    So success isn’t proof of success? Just what is proof of success, Kathleen . . . . death & failure?

    • Apparently so. Seeing as how she is using the tragically easy ambush and murder of two cops to prove that we need to surrender our guns and let the cops protect us.

  25. +1 Bob4…and why don’t the anti’s understand even the cops can have no situational awareness? Everything is broadcast over the whole world instantly. In Chicago murders peaked at nearly 1000/year in 1993…you’d think from the whiny media it is 10 times more. My perception as a 60year guy( who does business in Chicago) is the criminals are much younger & missing any sense of right & wrong. 40 years ago the attitude was still “those people just can’t control themselves”. My 2¢..from an OFWG married to a beautiful black woman( for 25 years).

  26. Another demonstration why one does not take advise from libtard urban broads. Perhaps she needs to stick to a cooking column or the society page.

    “Police officers and military forces go through extensive instruction” No doubt she actually believes this BS.

    “deputized thousands of private citizens” She would wet her twisted panties if knew how many citizens carry (with or without an unconstitutional government “permit”).

  27. “Even if one person were to stop a killer in his tracks, it is not logical to extrapolate the occasional success story as proof of the argument.”

    Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man…

    Also, it’s all the proof they need when the goal is gun control. For instance:

    “Nicola Bocour, project director for Ceasefire NJ, said reducing the number of bullets in a magazine could save lives. She noted that Jared Lee Loughner, who opened fire at an Arizona public event and shot U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in January 2011, was tackled when he stopped to reload*. He shot 19 people, killing six with a Glock 9mm. He used a 33-round magazine.”

    *And even that’s not true. His after market glockazine caused a malfunction which he was trying to clear.

  28. Even if there are NO successful DGU’s, or if no license holders even bother to carry, the issuing of licenses is a strong deterrent to crime. Compare any two places with and without licensed carry, or the same place before and after the law changed. Or heck, just look at the brazenness of criminals in England. They operate in broad daylight without the slightest fear.

  29. Well, why didn’t the police protect the citizen…?

    Oh, right, they were murdered beforehand.

    At the end of day, we are all on our own. I’ll remained armed, thanks.

  30. These people just talk in circles. One instance of anything that fits THEIR meme is rock solid proof. Several instances of anything that disproves their illogical position is ‘not logical to extrapolate’. Aint that rich.

  31. Even if one person were to stop a killer in his tracks, it is not logical to extrapolate the occasional success story as proof of the argument

    Even if one person DOES NOT stop a killer in his tracks, it is not logical to extrapolate the lack of that success as proof of an argument.

  32. Guys, you have to understand Kathleen Parker. She used to be a very conservative pundit, if not a great 2A supporter certainly no anti. Then Obama ran for Pres and Sarah Palin ran for VP. Parker’s hubby said Palin was “hot” and Parker went ape with Sarah Derangement Syndrome; at the same time, she decided that she would show the world that conservatives could be “sophisticated” too by going all-in for Obama, while claiming to still be a “conservative”. In fact, she took to labeling herself a “rational conservative”, as if believing that the constitution means what it says is irrational and believing Obama’s blather is sterling critical thinking. So it’s no surprise at all if her first sentence contradicts her second, that her thoughts, so called, are all over the place, and that her logic is a complete fail. And outside of the DC cocktail circuit, it is of no consequence. Conservatives don’t listen to her anymore, liberals only use her to show that they really are open-minded because they agree with a “conservative” like Kathleen Parker sometimes–she couldn’t even last a month at CNN.

    • I have to agree, and not to pile on poor Kathleen Parker, who I really sympathize with- she probably has bills to pay, a mortgage, kids in college-

      so she has to sell herself, while she is selling out on conservative principles –
      and the proof you can see in the screen shot from wherever noting her as being from WAPO (where she is the house-pet token-(faux)conservative,

      the embarrassment and shame in her eyes having to equivocate on something or other, as she does, rambling on mindlessly in this piece cited here.

      So, enough shooting the messenger- as you say, no one on the right pays attention, and the left simply uses her.

      Here is the point.

      When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
      Period. Full Stop. Thats it, plain and simple, Kathleen.

      Now, if you wanted to equivocate and draw out the article you could has as easily expanded on this probability:

      “An armed citizen stopped the Las Vegas Cop Shooters, before they became the Las Vegas Walmart Massacre shooters”.

      Probability- you say? Why yes- most sociopaths who plan out these events have an exit strategy- if not suicide by cop, then suicide at their own hands, to go out in a blaze of ego glory.

      Rodgers, Lanza, Columbine kids, etc etc. We will never know, but perhaps Loughner would have gone out the same way, if not tackled.

      VERY few sociopaths work in teams – and it was poor tactical awareness on poor Mr Wilcox part that he didnt spot the second Las Vegas Cop Killer, but the end result was the same- they called it quits, as planned, when they reached armed resistance, rather than risk capture and jail and trial. Not a glorious end to be Bubba’s B1tch in The Big House.

  33. Obviously if you’re against gun control you’re against sanity, right?

    Gotta love the faulty logic, false equivalence, etc etc etc that gun control proponents are forced to use.

  34. Ok..let me make sure I have your logic correct. You are saying that just because it saved one life, doesn’t mean that we should use that as a source of definition for arming the citizens.

    I would like to go back to the day February 4, 2013. During a speech, Obama said that is gun control can save one life, then they succeeded in gun reform. “If there’s just one life we can save, we have an obligation to try.”

    How about the case for every life that is save because someone came prepared to defend another’s life, that that too is a success? We don’t have enough police officers to be every where at once. So it becomes the responsibility of the citizen to defend other citizens in harms way.

    Personally, I will continue to carry to defend my kids from people who make decisions poorly. If you and I were at a supermarket, and we had our children with us, and someone started shooting. Your phone call isn’t going to stop anything. There will be 90 seconds (if were lucky) that an office will arrive. In 90 seconds, you are going to honestly tell me to not worry, and the police are on their way.

    There are so many things wrong with that line of thinking. Still, it is your choice and your freedom to put your kids in harms way. As for me and my kids…I will protect them as best as I can with the tools I have.

    http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/20955969/obama-gun-laws-minneapolis-speech

  35. I read her article twice and thought, she’s saying “No, Yes, Maybe”, so I figured I was failing to understand her at all…after reading the previous comments…I realize her rambling discourse was as confused as I thought. Thanks for clarifying it for me.

  36. Wait let me get this right. It is wrong to extrapolate out the fact THE FACT that a person with a gun stopped a shooter because she sees it as a rarity even though that is exactly what happened in the last two shootings. But it is ok to extrapolate out that the occasional nut job goes on a killing spree to justify outlawing guns. Because lets be honest here this is not about gun control this is about outlawing guns.

Leave a Reply

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