Mr. Wakefield (courtesy 11alive.com)

It seems that there aren’t enough firearms-related homicides for anti-gunners intent on waving the bloody shirt for gun control. So they’re now asking the public to degrade and destroy Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms in the name of potential firearms-related homicides. “Imagine how much worse the death toll could have been if the mentally ill man accused in Phoenix of decapitating his wife and pets, had chosen a gun instead of a knife,” EJ Montini of azcentral.com instructs. “In Arizona, that would have been easy for him to do.” It’s hard to believe, but it gets even more fabulous than that . . .

There was a big gun show at the Arizona Fairgrounds in July. Wakefield could have attended. Gun shows like that tend to feature federally-licensed gun dealers and hobbyists selling from their personal collection, the type of people who aren’t required to run background checks on buyers. Outside of gun shows there also are plenty of opportunities for individuals seeking to purchase firearms without any checks.

That needs to stop.

There simply are too many Kenneth Wakefields out there in the world.

An excellent reason to be armed, I’d say. But not Montini. He reckons that background checks would stop wackos like Wakefield from  realizing his homicidal aspirations. Setting aside the fact that he did so anyway, with a knife. And the equally indisputable fact that he could have killed his wife with a brick, a hammer, a baseball bat, his bare hands, a can of gasoline, etc.

Given the grisly details described by Phoenix police at the murder scene where Wakefield’s wife and dogs were found, and where Wakefield was found with his awful self-inflicted injuries, it might be difficult for you to imagine anything worse.

It doesn’t take any imagination, however.

The fact is it could have been a lot worse.

I’m no sure how, exactly. Wakefield’s wife and dogs would have been equally dead if he’d shot them to death with a gun. Hell, they might even have survived. Does Montini believe that Wakefield would have shot them to death and thought “Hey, this is easy! Why stop now?” Either before of after he gouged out one of his eyeballs.

We’ve seen this argument before, relating to Chinese knife attacks. Think how much worse it would have been if the Chinese government didn’t eliminate their citizens’ gun rights (along with all other rights)! Of course, one could also say “think how much better it would have been if the 9/11 attackers hadn’t used airplanes.” Or “think how much worse it would be if Americans didn’t have gun rights and the government could commit genocide on its people as it did to native Americans.”

Too much thinking for some, I guess.

Recommended For You

49 Responses to AZ Central on Decapitation Killer: What If He’d Had A Gun?

  1. Seems one is more likely to survive a gun shot than the removal of ones head but then I’m not a doctor.

  2. Are you kidding me! AZ Central probably claims that this is journalism. Who in their right mind would make such a stupid claim? Progressives, it seems.

    • Montini and most of the Republic staff are every bit as whiney-assed liberal as you’d expect from a Gannet-owned rag. The resident cartoonist, Benson, is as classless and vile as it gets when it comes to guns.

      • I was trying to figure out (by the title) if it was Montini or Benson. I guessed right. I figured it would’ve had a cartoon attached if it was Benson. I used to post on AZ Central all the time before they went to an online subscription-based model. Sometimes I think they did that just because their articles got ripped apart in the comments so much.

  3. The way I see it, if he had tried decapitating his wife and pets with a firearm, he probably could have been stopped sooner. Imagine all the noise! Moar firearms!

  4. If he had a gun, he wouldn’t be the “decapitation killer.” Unless he had a .50 BMG and was a good shot, but I digress. Next stupid question?

    I’m always amazed at how the Progressives can take any issue and make it more idiotic.

    A better question is, “What if one of his victims had a gun.” Then he would have brought a knife to a gunfight.

    • Is there a difference? Really?

      The proggies seem to be hell bent on trying to out-idiot each other these days. It’s becoming a spectator sport.

  5. If you can’t make it an anti-gun screed (because it didn’t involve guns – usually a necessary component), then make it an anti-gun screed because it COULD have involved guns.

    What if he had used a BOMB????

    Sad. If there isn’t an argument, then make one up……and lie.

  6. Imagine how not bad it would have been if we had a real mental health system.

    The idea of UBC’s would be moot if you would just keep the people on that fancy list off the streets.

    • This I think if you aren’t safe enough to have a gun I sure as hell don’t want you to rent a bulldozer without a background check. Let’s just keep all of them locked up or put in the ground.

  7. We’re lucky he didn’t build and launch a rocket with a satellite attached. Like Paul Revere’s ride, he’s a little light in the belfry. The whole thing could have fallen from the sky and crushed a school bus loaded with children.

  8. Another gun show “loophole” argument. Yawn. How dare anyone sell personal property without permission from Big Brother! This is also another sterling example of the Archie Bunker defenestration alternative.

    • Hmm, the law of gravity applying to a liberal/progressive? Not in their own mind; they already deny human nature, history, fact and experience.

      But like any denial of reality, it only lasts as long until the sudden stop at the end.

  9. The fact is it could have been a lot worse. Knife-wielding maniacs lopping of people’s heads is all fun and games, but if he had used a gun, this situation might have turned out tragically. Isn’t it worth giving up a mere 10% of the Bill of Rights if just one person (or dog) can enjoy being a headless corpse instead of a victim of gun violence?

  10. Always remember;
    Anyone shot with a firearm, especially if its black, with a high capacity bullet clip fully loaded with automatic bullets and a tactical thingy that goes up and a trigger that fires a bullet EVERY TIME YOU PULL IT is way more deader than someone who has their head cut off.

  11. Think how much worse if he’d used a nuke! Ban ’em! You can’t hug your children with nuclear arms. Fluffy bunnies, narf!

  12. Did anyone catch the implicit inclusion of federally licensed gun dealers in the types of people not required to run background checks?

    • Yeah, it was pretty masterful. They can claim (later to any critics) that they were only referring to the individuals with the don’t need a background check, but they worded it so that it sounded like FFLs at gun shows ALSO don’t need background checks.

  13. And what if E.J. Montini could write? Or think? Or take a leak without an illustrated instruction booklet? There’d be blood in the streets I tell ya! Blood in the streets! Or something.

  14. Um, he chose not to have one because the job necessitated a knife? Maybe a gun is poor at chopping off heads? I’d say the decapitation would not have occurred if he’d had a gun and given there is a chance to live after being shot, and guns make noise which attacks attention to help someone, maybe fewer life would be lost. What a dumb premise for author to even speculate. Zero wisdom.

  15. My wife went “Ape” over this guy, wants to know what kind of hair tonic he uses, so she can get me some, tells me I should get my “act” together!

  16. Imagine all the peace and quiet gun owners would have if we didn’t have any whiney gun-grabbers around to b_tch about it all.

  17. IMHO, violent crime has 4 causes; anger, desperation, mental health, and opportunity. Each needs a different intervention to stop the violence, short of just cutting everybody’s hands off! Without hands guns, knives, bricks, chain saws, cars, poison, my home cooking are neutralized. Not a practical approach, but probably the most direct and effective. Since that’s not possible, the anti’s must resort to the “chicken little” approach!

  18. People like this guy must be why they don’t want you to have evil bayonet lugs! I mean, imagine the swing he could have had on the knife if it had a rifle on the end of it.

    I’d laugh to find out this guy was rejected on a 4473 trying to buy. Then again with Fast and Furious and the completeness of the background check database due to PDs not doing their part (Dylann Roof) he probably would have been approved.

    As gun owners we should actually start gathering statistics for the number of shootings that make the national news and see if those rates have risen at all. We can “scientifically” correlate it to an increase in reporting that glamorizes such crime.

  19. ‘sob sister’ writer – checkout his other columns. Seems like the epitome of the “Ain’t It Awful” behavior described in Games People Play http://www.opost.com/dlm/blog/2012/05/11/playing-aint-it-awful/

    Montini has an opportunity to explore systemic failures that might have prevented the deaths. Example: campus police failed to act on warning from James Holmes’s psychiatrist two months before shooting: why didn’t campus police act?

    Instead, Montini chooses hypothetical fiction.

  20. Cheap and easy car bombs and Molotov cocktails have been employed by disarmed people for generations to great effect, as have about a thousand other lethal tools that don’t involve firearms.

    You’re not going to stop evil and crazy people from doing evil and crazy things by passing a law or twenty thousand. All you’re going to do is render the future victims disarmed and unable to defend themselves against the evil and crazy people.

    A public policy that emboldens offenders and exposes victims strikes me as evil and crazy in itself.

  21. Blown up people and those who are household itemed (itemized?) to death are still way less deaderer…,,est….ish.
    Right?
    Of course.

  22. Oo….oo…the “What if ” game!!! Can I play??? What if he weren’t crazee!? Then he woont hab dun it!!! I win. I win! ?

  23. Let me see if I’ve got this straight:
    Instead of mutilating himself and murdering and beheading his wife and their dogs… this man might have shot them… but didn’t… because he might have gotten a gun… but didn’t… but if he had, this would have been… worse?
    I’ve got one for you:
    Imagine if someone this deranged, this delusional, this fixated upon the unfathomable, tortuous horrors of his own imagination… could have written a column in azcentral!
    Now THAT’S scary.

  24. The Amazing Montini misses one important point – the man is mentally ill. It’s a good chance he chose a bladed weapon because THAT’S the weapon he WANTED to use. If that’s the case, then even if he had one available, he still wouldn’t have used a gun.

Leave a Reply

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