Gun control advocates are fixated on the term “a good guy with a gun.” It’s a swipe at the latter half of NRA jefe Wayne LaPierre’s famous post-Newtown press conference sound bite: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” As far as gun control advocates are concerned, there’s no such thing as a good guy with a gun (except police and other armed government agents, of course). Here’ a recent example . . .
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Facebooked a news story on suspected road rage killer Christopher Lee McCullum with the caption “Don’t worry, folks. He’s a ‘Good Guy with a Gun.'” Huh? Any man who murders an innocent victim isn’t a “good guy.” Ipso facto.
The antis are spreading this mendacious meme throughout social media and onto op ed pages. Here’s how Jennifer Thorne, Executive Director of Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, deploys the same sarcastic barb in a cleveland.com column focusing on last year’s pro-gun legislative package H.B. 234:
Let’s say your neighbor Bob wants a gun or applies for a concealed weapons license. He has to pass a background check before he can get either. Everything checks out, so now he’s a “good guy with a gun.” One day, Bob commits a crime. Previously, since Bob now has a record, he can’t buy more guns. However, under the new law, his concealed weapons license allows him to bypass that background check, allowing him to buy more dangerous weapons. It seems some of our lawmakers forgot that every “bad guy” was once a “good guy.”
Hang on. If the state convicts Bob of a felony, he becomes a prohibited person under federal law. He loses his right to purchase, keep and bear arms. Bob also loses his Ohio concealed weapons license. There’s only one way this scenario makes any sense: if Bob failed to surrender his concealed weapons license and lied on his federal form 4473. Both of which are criminal offenses.
Thorne is playing fast and loose with the facts, mischaracterizing criminal behavior as a “loophole” in Ohio gun law. No surprise there. She’s also revealing her overall view of criminality; if “every ‘bad guy’ was once a ‘good guy'” criminals are just good guys gone wrong.
It’s standard-issue liberal theology: society creates criminals. In fact, there wouldn’t be criminals if only all Americans (terrorists, too!) had access to better job opportunities, education, nutrition, job housing, etc. Not to coin a phrase, it takes a village to stop a good guy from becoming a bad guy with a gun.
If you’re an average Joe contemplating criminals, the debate over whether nurture or nature creates “bad guys” is neither here nor there. You just want to protect your life and property. If you’re a liberal gun control advocate, however, the “criminals as victims” concept is central to your crusade.
To reassure supporters that it’s OK to disarm people, gun control advocates need criminals to be just a bunch of misunderstood miscreants. We’re tough on gun violence (via gun control) and the causes of gun violence (via government intervention into every aspect of life). So it’s OK to degrade and destroy Americans’ gun rights.
The flip side of this equation is what really juices proponents of civilian disarmament. “Every ‘bad guy’ was once a ‘good guy'” also means that every good guy with a gun is a bad guy waiting to happen. Which is where Thorne, Ladd Everitt and their ilk get off labeling every evil gun-wielding mo-fo “another ‘good guy’ with a gun” (complete with irony-indicating scare quotes).
Since we can’t know when a good guy’s gonna go bad, the only way we can stop good guys with guns turning into bad guys with guns is … remove the guns! The fact that the vast majority of these “good guys gone bad” had a history of violence and/or untreated mental illness is neither here nor there. It’s swept under the proverbial carpet.
Question: do gun control advocates do this consciously (i.e., lie for the greater good) or unconsciously (i.e., lie to themselves to protect their world view)? I’m going with the latter, based on the hysterical tone of their rhetoric. Their screeds read like they’re trying to convince themselves of the urgency and importance of their anti-gun jihad.
It’s time that we all start taking responsibility for the presence of gun violence in our society. Studies show this public health risk doesn’t discriminate. Gun violence is not just limited to urban areas. In fact, gun violence is increasing across the country, while decreasing in cities. It doesn’t stop with the horrific shootings in our schools. Even one school shooting is too many, but the truth remains that kids are more at risk from gun violence at home than in school. We are facing a systemic problem that at times seems overwhelming.
What do we do when lawmakers pass a bill like HB 234 while people continue to die from gun violence? It would be easy to throw up our hands, surrender, and accept this is “just the world that we live in.” But we are not raising the white flag.
Remember, Ohio’s HB 234 was passed last year. It went into effect last month. It has not unleashed “blood in the streets,” nor will it. Meanwhile, there is no legislative plan to repeal HB 234. No groundswell of support to roll back its provisions. Like many gun control advocates, Thorne is tilting at windmills, encouraged only by an sympathetic mainstream media and cynical politicians (as if there’s any other type). All that’s left, really, is the sound of her own voice.
The solution lies in personal conversations to create culture change. We can’t be afraid to talk about gun violence. Families should talk to kids about the dangers of guns and ask “is there a weapon where my child plays?” School boards should look beyond fear tactics and vote no on proposals to arm teachers. Businesses should feel empowered to create weapon free zones on their premises. We can change the culture of fear, one person at a time.
Gun owners don’t create to a culture of fear. They create a culture of safety and self-reliance. What’s more, the vast majority of American gun owners really are “good guys with guns” and will stay that way ’til their dying day. Thorne can’t see that because she’s living in the culture of fear that she’s created in her own mind. Or was it created for her? Anyway, her attempts to plunge us all into her utopian world view makes her nothing more or less than a bad guy with a PC.
It actually is a quote coined by Tom Gresham.
WLP earned his entire salary that year by getting that phrase into the public lexicon and having it burrow under skin of the gun-grabbers like a shard of glass.
It’s interesting how his brief comment–like Sarah Palin’s “death panels” statement— completely destabilized a well honed propaganda campaign.
Have you noticed how the use of the word “empowered” has exponentially increased? Ads, politics, tv, op-eds. When I hear that word, I either tune out due to my BS-radar or figure that all these people needing “empowering” are career victims.
Im always on the look out for those little catch phrases and words…… like ” Giving back” when someone volunteers or donates to charity… “Giving back” indicates you took something.. when all they are doing is donating and volunteering.
I like “crafting” legislation. For the last couple of years the libtards have been doing a whole lot of “crafting” in DC (and statehouses). Much like “crafting” a bowel movement.
More like plagiarizing dogma and rhetoric.
“Crafting” might be the correct word here, as in “Witchcraft”.
And…………………. “white guilt”
You forgot “reasonable”.
The antis are really the people who scare me most. How else to explain their obvious mischaracterization of humanity other than projection? It’s obvious that the vast majority of humanity are not murderers in the actual sense, even if they “murder” in the heart by hating our neighbor. It’s not obvious to controllers and I want guns to protect myself from them.
I cannot decide if it is psychological projection or just plain hysteria. Consider Ms. Thorne’s comment
Let me clarify the hysteria in that statement:
Which “fear tactics” should school boards look beyond? The “fear tactics” of gun rights proponents who say that we should be armed in case a spree killer attacks? … or the “fear tactics” of gun-grabbers who say that we should NOT be armed in case an armed teacher/staff/parent turns into a spree killer and attacks?
In other words Ms. Thorne is saying that her fear tactics are fine and our fear tactics are wrong. Why? Because guns. That is hysteria in my book.
In behavioral sciences, we have a truism:
“The best predictor or future behavior is past behavior.”
Nothing is perfect, but if someone has been stable, sane and altogether a general good guy in the past, they are likely to continue being a mensch.
Gun owners don’t create a culture of fear, she does.
Safety is a valid consideration, but when the only thing that makes you concerned is how a different parent goes about protecting their children, you’re the one with irrational behavior.
When safety concerns override liberty concerns, nobody is safe.
Exactly. The liberal media has created this culture of fear and it’s worked wonderfully. Antis are terrified of everything. Why do sixteen year olds have to wait for the bus in Mom’s minivan on a 60 degree spring day? The old meme of “What are you (gun owners) afraid of?” “Nothing.” continues to ring true.
Don’t whine about the need to change something you and your ilk created.
haha I just bitched about this on monday. 15-20 cars parked like a**holes blocking the exit to the complex I was leaving. 15 min of my time wasted so they wouldn’t be inconvenienced by walking 200 feet to the stop sign while they wait for their brats.
“The solution lies in personal conversations to create culture change.”
You want a culture change? Start by looking at where most violent crime originates: gang culture. Make steps to get rid of the gang culture. Oh wait, I forgot, they’re just “misunderstood victims of society, and it’s all our fault because we’re racist, bigoted “ammosexuals” (sarc).
LaPierre should have said “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good woman with a gun.” I’m sure that Thorne would have lapped that up.
Your choice of words (lapped that up) now has me wiping water off of my screen and keyboard. . .
Holy crap. I just had a flash of that South Park episode with boxes and carpet 🙂
Don’t even mention scissors.
The old and tired: “The world would be a much better place if everyone thought the same as I” meme. No thank you lady. I will exercise my own freewill to make the decisions in my life.
It’s quite simple- in too many people’s minds, the only bad people are not criminals, but you, the ordinary citizen. Every criminal is misunderstood and not really at fault. You, on the other hand, are 100% culpable. You are the problem.
Taken from that perspective, disarming the law-abiding while ignoring the criminal element makes perfect sense.
The anti-gun folks are mostly emotional and do not know the fact. And the fact don’t matter when it’s an emotional argument. The only thing that is remotely effective (but not enough) are stories of defense. Once we become like the UK and home invasion robberies/rapes go up, it’ll be too late.
In the UK, 50% of home burglaries occur when the homes are occupied. They only have to ring the door bell.
In the US, the average is <15% but I'm pretty sure that NY, Chicago, and NJ have numbers that meet or exceed the UK. While the rest of the country is far below 10%.
There have been discussions about arming school teachers. What about 18 year old students who care and are not afraid of guns and come with multiple letters of recommendations? They could go through rigorous background checks, a training course in defensive gun use that exceeds police training and psychological testing. The would carry concealed. Has anyone suggested this?
But there is already 18year old carrying guns in high school…oh wait. Sorry I may get flamed but almost every 18year old I knew in HS was an idiot. Including me. Arm the teachers(who may be slightly less idiotic).
FWW, I totally agree with this assessment. I know I was a powder-keg at 18 and in no way should have been allowed to carry. Then again, the OP DID suggest stringent vetting before allowing it. I’m just not convinced THAT plan is the best idea. My $0.02 (and worth every bit of it!)
I have to take issue with this one, for a couple reasons.
One, in the state of Vermont any 18 year old who can legally own a gun can carry it concealed, and they don’t seem to have too many problems with 18 year old idiots with guns.
Two, the state of Montana requires that one only be 18 years of age to acquire a Concealed Carry Permit; I imagine they don’t have too many problems with their 18 year old CC’ers either.
Neither of those groups of people would automatically become uncontrollable animals once they step through school doors.
At 18 I was already a corporal, having quit HS and enter US Army on my 17th birthday. Crazy, eh?!?!
Since we’re dreaming, I’d say a better option is to have marksmanship and firearm safety taught in schools. If the weapons and ammo are stored in the building, it’s a really small step to go from that to a loaded rifle in a quick-access safe in each classroom, or at least a few in the main office.
More broadly speaking, I’m of the opinion that public schools should teach self-reliance. That means intellectual self-reliance (such as the ability to think critically and examine both sides of an issue), and physical self-reliance (marksmanship, basic hand-to-hand combat, and more general life skills, such as managing finances, basic car maintenance/repairs, handyman-type skills, etc).
When my Dad was in high school in the mid-late 40s, he drove the bus. Additionally, he never drove a load of kids off the road.
When I was in high school I kept a .357 Magnum in my truck with my parents’ knowledge and consent. No yutes were harmed.
No need to arm students, all staff armed will take care of the problem.
And Alan, when I was in HS in the ’60s, nearly every school bus was driven by a student. No problems noted.
Funny, the data does not support that at all. Of course, why let facts and data get in the way?
Well it feels like it’s increasing,and it’s the feeling that matters.
It’s true. They are either deliberately or ignorantly taking advantage of the fact that most Americans simply don’t know that crime is falling. And will deny it even if you tell thim it is, haha. UGH.
I laugh so hard I almost passed out when I read her solution of “businesses can create more gun free zones”…. yeah that ought to stop a determined thief or deranged killer in their tracks.
I’m sure she has a gun free zone sign prominently displayed on the front door of her house
So let me get this strait…… If i have never driven drunk but own a car i could one day be a bad guy and drive drunk so your going to take away my car!?
Exactly. The left is all about taking away people’s rights because someone might abuse them, in complete opposition to one of the pillars of this country, the presumption of innocence.
“The left is all about taking away people’s rights because someone might abuse them,…”
‘The left is all about taking away your rights because someone might you may infringe on thier rights,….’
Fixed it for you.
Worse than that, I’ve never raped anyone, but being a man, I could theoretically become a bad guy with a penis someday. Sooo…..
And she comes fully equipped to be a prostitute.
Oh yes, it’s gotten bad here in Ohio. Blood in the streets. Especially in this little town in the middle of nowhere that I live in. 15 people were shot just in the last ten minutes, by 20 different guns! By this time tomorrow, half it’s population will fall victim to these dangerous automatic rifle weapons going on mass killing sprees with high capacity assault clips jam packed with nuclear ballistic bullets. /sarcasm
We always ask do the antis really believe the lies they tell. The answer is a resounding no. This is propaganda. Their goal is the complete disarmament and pacification of those who will oppose their rule. Their motivations have nothing to do with violent crime. If it were about violent crime, the antis would be focusing their campaigns on illegally acquired pistols, not legally owned ARs and AKs which are seldom used by criminals.
I see that more as them going after what they think is the low hanging fruit…
Assault weapons are scary – it’s easy to equate them to “assault Rifles”. Hell my father a deer hunter(kind of a Fudd) thinks you can buy machine guns at walmart. and he should know better.
they know damned well though they CAN’T attack handguns right now – handgun bans in Chicago & DC overturned. Supreme Court rulings on our side. If they can get an assault weapon ban to stick though…. that could be their legal precedent to keep pushing for more and different types of bans.
Asking whether or not they believe it is true or not an oversimplification.
They don’t care whether it’s true or not. It’s all ammunition to them. It’s just a bullet point they can thoughtlessly throw at anyone to try to browbeat them into submission. Its veracity is immaterial because it’s all about how they FEEL.
HB 234 was signed into law in December 2014, but does not go into effect until later this month (the 23rd, IIRC?). So, it has had no impact yet. I’m waiting for it to. I’m working with a client in Dayton, and am still unable to carry concealed (or carry a loaded firearm in my car) on my Indiana LTCH until HB 234 goes into effect.
Your point, though, will prove to be true. More freedom for the law-abiding doesn’t lead to more crime; in fact, it tends to drive crime elsewhere.
One additional point is that the crux of “anti’s” logic is that guns are the only tools at a criminal’s disposal to commit violence. If so-called “gun violence” is eliminated, it won’t be replaced by knife violence, hammer violence, automobile violence, home-made bomb violence, chainsaw violence, etcetera.
True. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was a good guy with a bomb before he was a bad guy with a bomb.
The Anti weenie is again only talking about ‘gun violence’ because including all violent crime and murder numbers completely destroys the anti-gun position.
Puerto Rico has a virtual ban on law abiding gun ownership. Yet it has a murder rate 6X the mainland US. Chicago is also 5 to 6x the national average. And another problem they both share, that also follows civilian disarmament. Public corruption.
Jen – loose 25lb, give up on the girls, and find a man (who packs).
More like 75 pounds.
Looks like Jennifer needs to worry less about gun control, and more about fork control.
Great! fat shaming — Stay classy guys!
She is fat, and a leftard, and should be shamed for both.
“One day, Bob commits a crime.” – I hate this line of thought more than anything.
Never mind that statistically, CCW holders are amongst the most law abiding in the US. In Texas (the epitome of a gun totin’ state in any Antis mind) alone people with concealed carry permits are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public and 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public.
Austin has been one of the largest cities in the country for around 10 years, and growing constantly. Generally runs about as many murders in a year as “gun-free” Chicago does in a month. The facts are clear, and clearly ignored in favor of mindless ideology.
“. . . under the new law, his concealed weapons license allows him to bypass that background check, allowing him to buy more dangerous weapons.”
OK, so, let’s suppose that our convict neglects to turn-over his CCP. Could happen. He says he lost it; can’ find it. (He reported it lost a year after he got it and obtained a duplicate.) The bailiff will march him off to prison and no effort will be made to recover the lost CCP.
Simple solution. Each State establishes an 800 number that anyone can call to validate a CCP serial number. When the phone-machine answers it prompts you for the CCP serial number; you enter it; and, it responds by saying that it is: Valid; Expired; Suspended; Revoked.
Where gun shops skip the NICS check based on a CCP they could validate the CCP in a minute with a phone call. Cops could validate a CCP on a traffic stop. Acquaintances loaning guns to one another could validate a CCP before loaning a gun.
We ought to be using the least-intrusive means to solve slip-through-the-cracks problems rather than the most-intrusive means.
“…We ought to be using the least-intrusive means to solve slip-through-the-cracks problems rather than the most-intrusive means.”
Yes. I agree the simplest method should be the first method.
But no. Ultimately no.
Any kind of license regarding firearms is ultimately a bad thing. A license for carrying is the Government taking a right away from you and then charging you rent to exercise that right.
“Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says.
Chip, while I agree with that, the question addressed here concerns the current treatment of existing CCLs, not countering a goal of constitutional carry.
Jennifer thorne is evil. Shannon Watts is evil. You don’t have to be a communist to confiscation private property. Progressives confiscated the private property of Japanese Americans, German Americans and Italian Americans in ww2. Progressives confiscated the private property of Katrina storm survivors. Progressives confiscated the private property of black people and are still working to prevent black people from getting private property. Miss Thorne is a pretty woman. To bad she has such an evil heart.
“””In fact, gun violence is increasing across the country, while decreasing in cities.”””
This…. this is a complete and utter lie.
Do they just make this shit up on the spot?
“Gun owners don’t create a culture of fear. […] Thorne can’t see that because she’s living in the culture of fear that she’s created in her own mind.”
THIS! I point this out all the time, haha. Thorne accuses people who want to carry a gun of being crazy or paranoid or afraid. But who is the one insinuating that every single person is a murderer waiting to happen? Not I.
Don’t folks with CWPs still have to go through the instant background check to buy a gun? I do. So what is Jennifer whining about?
That could depend on the state. In Texas, a CHL holder may skip the background check at the point of transfer from an FFL.
However, in this state, one’s eligibility even to maintain a licence to carry concealed is itself monitored on a monthly basis. The Texas DPS runs the NICS check monthly on all license holders, as well as checks state databases for disqualifying events.
At the time of a disqualifying event, such as issuance of a restraining order or charge of a felony, the judge will order forfeiture of the license, just as they might with a passport for defendants considered an international flight risk. Even if the judge doesn’t take the license, the Tx. Dept. of Public Safety will send a trooper to seize the license, should their routine monthly check reveal a disqualifier.
So when she says they skip the background check, it’s only because they’ve already been checked.
It’s all just so silly. If you want a gun, you can get a gun one way or another, or else accomplish your evil aims by other means. The check means little.
So any good guy with a gun is just waiting to become a bad guy with a gun? Using that kind of logic, any woman with a vagina is a prostitute waiting for her first client? Any man with a penis is a potential rapist? Anyone that owns a chainsaw is guilty of deforestation of the planet? I guess we need to lock up EVERYBODY, EVERYWHERE, because none of us is to be trusted with our penises, vaginas, tools, or skills.
@bontai Joe, now you’re gettin’ it. That is the statists objective afterall. Everyone is evil so put us all under a police state for control.
No, actually, a bad guy with a gun was once a bad guy without a gun.
Do antis believe the drivel they spew? Many do, the peons who populate their social media campaigns and toddle about with sad little signs. The movers and shakers? No, they do not, it is all propaganda, plain and simple, and they f**king well know it. Look at the oft repeated lie,”gun violence is increasing”. The facts from THEIR government agencies proves gun violence is falling nationwide, it remains high in the very places THEY have total control. It is not about guns, or violence, it is about control.
A bit off topic, but I would suggest we call these gun control advocates what they are. Gun confiscation nuts.
No, no, no. They’re advocates for sensible gun safety, champions of gunsense, fighting tirelessly against the Evil Lord En-Ar-Ray to end the public-health epidemicrisis of gun violence and manchildren running around with guns in our streets to compensate for their small penises with Assault Glocket Launchers That Nobody Needs Until They Snap and Become Bad Guys With Guns who won’t be stopped by wannabe hero “good guys” with guns because the data says it doesn’t happen, it never happens.
For the children.
Brings up a better plan, why not just call them “gun nuts”?
By their logic, every 14 year old boy should be castrated. After all, they are equipped for rape and have all those hormones raging, just raging, through their bloodstreams. Who knows when some random 14 year old, (an A student, church goer, volunteer in the neighborhood) might go off the deep end and begin to rape and pillage? Better to remove the danger than control it with stable homes, parents who are equipped for child rearing, engaged police forces and citizens who will say something if some young man is showing signs of inappropriate fanasies.
uh, som feminists already say similar things…
“if “every ‘bad guy’ was once a ‘good guy’ criminals are just good guys gone wrong.”
Mr. Farago, where have you been?! The idea that “criminals are just good guys gone wrong” has been the rationale for shorter prison sentences and other poorly conceived liberal criminal justice “reform” efforts for decades!
All of their GGWAG horror stories lead me to an understanding of their actual mindset of crime worship to accomplish their goal: To them, people who commit gun crimes ARE their “GGWAG.” Their heroes.
They always need to be called out on their “statistics”.
Like “In fact, gun violence is increasing across the country, while decreasing in cities.”
Really? The national murder rate is down almost 50% since 1993 (over 50% since the 1980 peak) and violent crime is significantly lower too. If carnage is “increasing” it’s increasing from historic lows. The trend for the last 21 years has been consistently downward.
If some liberal makes the claim that a “good guy” can just, willy-nilly without warning, turn into a “bad guy” we should ask them this question: If that’s true, then you’re also saying that the democrats we elected to Congress could turn into tyrants at any time without warning too, right? Or the President might exceed his authority using unconstitutional executive orders…oh…wait.
Recently Bloomberg made some racist remarks that 95% of the perpetrators of violent crime were young minority males (up to 25). The offshoot of that was that we needed to stop them from exercising their right to obtain a firearm whenever possible. So we see Bloomberg – financier for Everytown and Moms demand action is a racist who wants to deny certain minority groups their civil rights. It appears Jim Crow is still alive and has changed his name to Michael Bloomberg.
But good liberals abhor racism, don’t they? This means to implement a racist agenda, they cannot appear racist, so they want to apply the laws to everyone. Except, of course, they’ll want it to work like Jim Crow laws by not enforcing it on “the right sort of people.”
Lets see she was born with the equipment to be a whore and she is probably not a virgin at her age……… so she has the equipment and the training to be a whore! OH MY GOD at any time this woman could suddenly decide to be a WHORE! Quick lock her up before she flips to the dark side!