Previous Post
Next Post

Ruth Glenn (courtesy

I have every sympathy for victims of domestic violence. It is not their fault. No one in that situation deserves to be abused, threatened, injured or killed. If the victim of domestic abuse chooses not to arm themselves in self-defense — for whatever reason — that is their right and I respect it. Yes, victims are ultimately responsible for their own safety, and the safety of their children. But first and foremost the abuser is responsible for his or her behavior. All that said, neither victim nor abuser has the right to disarm anyone. So when Ruth Glenn [above] tells The Trace . . .

There are a handful who do believe that victims should arm themselves. The vast majority feel like I do: that the safety of victims and survivors of domestic violence isn’t being considered. And it’s disappointing.

There you go again: another gun control advocate who believes that Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is subject to the democratic process. It isn’t. As the Heller decision affirmed, gun rights are an individual right.

If just ONE person wants to arm herself against domestic abuse (or for any other reason), that is their right. As per the Second Amendment, their right to keep and bear arms is protected from government infringement. No matter how “disappointed” gun control advocates feel.

About that “disappointment” . . .

Ms. Glenn’s word choice suggests that she believes her victimhood elevates her views on gun ownership above those who haven’t been victimized. The Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex (e.g., The Trace) promotes this perspective to emotionally blackmail firearms freedom fence straddlers into supporting the anti-gun rights cause. That ain’t right, on all sorts of levels.

What would you say to a domestic violence victim who wants a gun for protection?

The argument is just fascinating to me, because most frequently victims and survivors are the ones who say, “I don’t want a gun, I feel like it will put me at more risk, and I can’t shoot or hurt the person I love.” Usually those who want to arm victims have not been involved in a domestic violence situation. Unless you know the dynamics of domestic violence, I think it’s really bad advice to say that a victim should have a gun.

One time, after I gave a presentation, a young person said, “Why didn’t you just steal the gun from him?” Well, I could have, but how much danger would I put myself in? Because now he doesn’t have the gun and maybe he’ll beat the crap out of me until he gets it back.

Again, Ms. Glenn indicates that her support for gun control is informed by an imperfect understanding of risk analysis, filtered entirely through her own personal experience and anecdotal evidence. How many women weren’t abused because they were armed? How many women might be spared if they were armed? I don’t know and neither does Ms. Glenn.

Ms. Glenn’s “fascination” with the pro-gun rights position is another sign that she’s emotionally and intellectually detached from the pro-gun position. She can’t get her head around the idea of bearing arms for self-protection, so no one should be able to do it.

Did you ever think about using a gun against your former husband?

I cannot tell you about how many times I thought about hurting him, but it was never with a gun. I always thought, “I’ll wait until he’s asleep and stab him.” I was petrified of guns. They were something he used against me.

When my husband was in hiding after he shot me, people were trying to convince me to get a gun and protect myself. I said, “I just can’t. I don’t feel comfortable with them. I’m afraid I’ll shoot myself — and I don’t want to shoot him.” Because you still care about that person.

I find it odd that Ms. Glenn wasn’t averse to homicidal proactive self-defense against her abusive husband with an edged weapon, but crusades against using a firearm for self-defense against domestic abuse.

Ms. Glenn reckons her experience of domestic violence is the experience, which makes her opinion about armed self-defense against abusers the opinion. Seriously contemplating an alternative view would force her to seriously question past decisions related to the abuse. Which I seriously doubt she wants to do.

I’m not here to judge Ms. Glenn’s psychology, just illuminate it. In closing, I want to shine a light on one strange corner of her anti-gun animus.

We can’t understand why women are allowing themselves to be subjected to such abuse. But it becomes their norm for a long time. If you’re taking back someone who’s abused you, chances are you’re not going to kill them, even in self-defense.

And trust me, if you do have a gun and you decide you need to do something to stop the abuse, and that perpetrator is coming toward you, you’d better kill them. Because if you don’t, the consequences could be even greater.

Point taken: only arm yourself against domestic abuse if you’re prepared to use your firearm to stop the threat. It’s too bad Ms. Glenn didn’t explore that concept before deciding that armed self-defense for victims of domestic violence is something which should not be encouraged or, indeed, allowed. Shame.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I get it, I really do. You can’t easily press the trigger on someone that you’ve had an emotional connection to, no matter how horrible they are acting at that moment. However, to presume this is the way everyone should act is foolish and downright stinks of elitist thought. Just because you, Ms Ruth M Glenn, couldn’t do it, doesn’t mean that everyone is that way. I know plenty of DV survivors who couldn’t, and I know plenty of DV survivors who could, and I know a few who have.

    No one says in all situations to deploy a lethal response in a DV situation, but to deny people the option is patently offensive and ridiculous. Passive resistance is for Gandhi, and look what happened to him in the end…

    • If you, as supposedly “abused”, can’t even be bothered to do something about your own situation, why the heck should the rest of us suffer under some totalitarian police state? Just so you can sit around fantasizing about someone even bigger and stronger than your current alpha male, appearing out of a progressive romance novel, to rescue you?

      First, make the best bloody effort anyone can expect you to. Then, if that’s not enough, rely on the benevolence of others. Just never, never never never, become a shill for an even bigger, more intrusive state than we already have.

        • Mk10108 and Cliff H both hit the proverbial nail right on the head.

          Domestic violence is horrible. I realize that it is exceedingly hard for victims to leave the relationship and/or defend themselves. Unfortunately, we sometimes face excruciatingly difficult choices in life. And when we do, we either rise to the occasion or succumb to monsters. The choice is yours.

  2. Exploiting injury to gain sympathy is called Munchausen’s Syndrome. It’s a predominantly female disorder where a narcissistic woman with low self-esteem and a shaky ego needs to draw attention to herself and be the center of attention.

    • Well stated.

      If too weak to walk out on a person inflicted all this horrible injury on you, how are you going to stab them (or shoot them). Man/Woman up, stop whining, and get a backbone.

    • Ralph
      Inducing injury in a child to obtain a secondary gain for yourself (typically the mother) is Munchausen By Proxy.
      When you feign and simulate injuries or symptoms in yourself to obtain secondary gain for yourself, that’s Munchausen Syndrome.

    • … a … woman with low self-esteem and a shaky ego …

      That is at the base of every domestic violence situation on two levels:
      (1) Abusers naturally home-in on such future victims.
      (2) People with healthy self-esteem and confidence promptly leave an abuser at the first hint of abusive tendencies … and the relationship never progresses to the point of full on domestic violence.

  3. Yes, we do have crazies on our side; an embarrassment. But her statements about women afraid of guns means those women should not have them. If they cannot ever see themselves using a gun to kill another person, no matter the risk to themselves, those women definitely should not have guns. But that is not “gun control”, that is plainly “common sense”. Is the pro-gun element in favor of forcing those women to have a gun and be prepared to use it? Would that not be a perverse form of gun control? Bottom line is that attaching reasonable controls to who can have a gun, and when is not crazy. I have read many on this blog who are full-blooded gun aficionados who believe restrictions on people convicted of felonies should have their gun rights revoked forever; a “common sense” example of “reasonable” gun control.

    • I am actually interested to see where you have found credible evidence that suggests that the pro-gun community wants to force people to own firearms when they don’t want them. Where exactly has this been published as part of either the NRA or the GOA? If you are going to make the assertion that people want to force gun ownership on people, you had better be able to back this up with some evidence.

        • Then this is just false claims made by a self proclaimed “troll.” As expected, assertions are not backed up with evidence. This entire piece is riddled with logical fallacies, false equivalencies, and flat out lack of what you call “common sense.” The best that is offered up in response is some kind of imaginary requirement that would have these women own firearms which frankly doesnt exist and never would.

        • To repeat myself (which I like to do), there have been numerous statements and blog postings that preventing women from having guns removes even the chance they could defend themselves. My point is that acknowledging that women (or men) who cannot visualize using a gun to kill another person should not have a gun. Nothing about squishy feelings, or pro gun control. Just a statement that the theme of the article was not in and of itself really about gun control, but about dealing with claims that a woman having a gun is de facto better off.

        • Preventing women from obtaining firearms does in fact prevent them from the chance of defending themselves if they want to. If they don’t want to, they won’t go seek out purchasing a weapon that they will not use which is moot. You just keep circling around on your self.

        • We actually agree…sorta.

          The usual meaning of the response is that having access to a gun means all women would use one, if available. The article points out that there are circumstances where the availability of a gun is meaningless, woulda, coulda, shoulda, don’t matter. The uselessness of a gun for people who will not use it is the only part of the article that is important. All the other pyscho-babble is just that.

        • Except that no one was saying that these women should be forced to have a gun, or that a gun would have made their situation better if they were not willing to use one. People don’t want to treat the firearm for what it really is, which is a tool. If you need to remove screws, and you have a screwdriver but are not willing to use it, its not going to help. I don’t want anyone to be forced to own anything, but the corollary to that is: if they want one to defend themselves they should be allowed to do so without any draconian waiting times, or false denials from a useless NICS.

      • Wasn’t making an assertion that the pro-gun elements actually want to force anyone to have a gun. Just using that as an opposition to the notion that in every case, a woman with a gun would be more successful at fending off another assault.

        • So essentially what you are getting at is this:

          A gun is far too effective of a tool for hurting human beings and as such it should be restricted UNLESS that tool is used by a woman at which time it becomes a paper weight.

          I will be the first one to stand up for anyones right to choose what they want to defend their lives with but claiming that a firearm is not an effective tool for self defense essentially undermines all other arguments for why it should be restricted and/or controlled. You can’t have your cake and eat it too in this case. Either the firearm is an effective means of self defense or it isn’t. Whether the woman is willing to use that firearm in defense of her life is a whole different matter altogether that has quite literally nothing to do with the firearm itself. If the woman or human being in that situation isn’t willing to use the tools at her or his disposal, it doesnt matter if its a gun, knife, or flamethrower.

        • Nope. The article accurately noted that guns in the hands of people not prepared or willing to use them are not the solution to assault. Some people seem to always assert that removing a woman’s right to a gun (alleged gun-grabber position) means that woman is prevented from at least having the chance to defend herself (note again the conflation of gun and self-defense). What I am saying is that notion that not having a gun removes a woman’s chance of self-defense is disingenuous. A woman or man who cannot and will not use a gun for self-defense is better served by knowing how to use those non-gun weapons that may be at hand when an assault is imminent. Do we really have disagreement here, or is this just another example of knee-jerk reaction to any discussion of not having a gun available to settle any dispute?

        • So in short, Yes. A woman with a better tool for self defense WILLING TO USE IT would be far more effective at stopping that assault than one that was armed with something less effective like her fists or her keys. If she isn’t willing to use it, the argument becomes moot because the gun is no longer the operative noun, rather it is the person using it which would make any tool ineffective.

        • The problem is in the prohibition by law of certain means of self defense, if that inclination was not prevalent among the ignorant, we could all just get along. I don’t much care whether you wish to commit suicide or not, for that, I would never suggest forcing anybody to defend himself. Most of my life, however, I have been legally prohibited from carrying the equipment with which I can defend my own. Law has no business in the question, that is what “shall not be infringed” means.

        • The right to self-defense presents a problem of those of us looking to make our lives safer by regulating how much capability citizens should have to cause death and injury through negligent gun handling. The people I interact with on the gun-control side do not equate self-defense with guns only. The image projected by gun supporters is that regulating firearms equals removal of self-defense, period.

          The problem we face is whether or not anyone should be able to use a weapon of any sort in self-defense. The argument is between protection and retreat. Many would like to mandate that a person must make every attempt to flee an attacker, even if fleeing results in greater injury. Others contend that one should be able to stand and fight, but only with hands and feet. Still others believe any weapon other than a gun should be permitted. But as long as the pro-gun supporters never make distinctions between self-defense and using a gun, our people can rally a uniform rejection of gun supporters.

          Personally, I believe a person has a right to self-defense, maybe with a gun. But only if the person with a gun is well and professionally trained in self-defense use of a gun, and the training is recurring on some schedule.

      • “I am actually interested to see where you have found credible evidence that suggests that the pro-gun community wants to force people to own firearms when they don’t want them.”

        Actually, years back a town in Georgia (IIRC) actually passed a law requiring every household to own a firearm.

        It wasn’t a serious intent law, the crafters of the legislation made sure it had no penalty of any type, it was their way to make a point about firearm ownership…

        • The town was Kennesaw, 30 miles north of Atlanta. I don’t know about penalties but I recollect that the ordinance provided for an exception on religious or other philosophical grounds. In effect, it required residents to keep a firearm unless they didn’t want to.

        • There was another out west somewhere that required all residents (seems like about 60) to carry a gun, when everybody already did. Same time frame, same reason.

    • People convicted of felonies should have their gun rights restored after their punishment, so long as the felonies were non-violent. They get their other rights back.

      • The right to keep and bear arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right and as such CANNOT be revoked. Government authorities do their best to suppress this natural and instinctive need for self-defense while they have a suspect or criminal under their control, but they cannot take away a right that they did not provide in the first place. Kind of like the issue of “Gun buy-backs.” The government cannot “buy-back” that which was not theirs to begin with.

        While the legal/judicial/penitentiary system may have legitimate needs to suppress the possession of arms by those in their custody they have no Constitutional authority to revoke the RKBA nor to deny it to persons no longer under their strict control and they most certainly cannot RESTORE the RKBA, since despite their fondest wishes they could not have taken it away in the first place.

        Proof in point – every jail or prison keeps a collection of all the improvised arms that prisoners have fashioned while incarcerated. Persons who are no longer incarcerated, given sufficient incentive to believe they need arms, can and will arm themselves and the unconstitutional laws be damned.

        • Well said Cliff H.

          I believe one reason for the high recidivism rates is because of these laws. Coming out of prison and choose a life time sentence of being a hated defenseless sub-human sub-class, hated and despised by the law abiding and criminal alike. or carry a weapon to defend your life, and at least while you’re out, the law abiding will fear you and the criminals will respect you..

          If being loved is out, would you rather be despised, or feared?

          What choice would many felons make?

        • “The right to keep and bear arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right and as such CANNOT be revoked. ”

          Really ? Let’s agree for this one that “arms” is restricted entirely to guns.

          What do you do with all the laws already in place curtailing or eliminating your right to have a gun? Plan to go into court and win with the argument, “The right to keep and bear arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right and as such CANNOT be revoked.” ? Please let me know if you or someone you know is scheduled to do that; I will bring the popcorn and napkins. Should be a fine show.

          What do you do with laws that permanently revoke a felon’s right to self-defense (meaning guns only)? Plan to go into court and win with the argument, “The right to keep and bear arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right and as such CANNOT be revoked.” ? Please let me know if you or someone you know is scheduled to do that; I will bring the popcorn and napkins. Should be a fine show.

        • A repeal of the second amendment would pretty much end your right to a gun…but not your right to self-defense.

    • You make no sense. No one on this forum believes that a person who does not want to be armed with a gun for self defense has to have one. I’m not going to force you to own a gun if you don’t want one. However, just because you or Ms. Glenn don’t want a gun, you have NO RIGHT to stop me or anyone else from having a gun to protect themselves. It is an individual right and an individual choice

      • Me and my fellow anti-gun supporters have every right to use political and legal measures to reduce the risk of accidental death or injury caused by someone with a gun. If there is a non-governmental way to get to near-zero instances of accidental death or injury, let’s do that. If only government can achieve the goal, let’s do that. If success means trustworthy people can own and carry guns, that is just fine. If success means one part of society must remove guns from another, then that is a solution, also.

        • It may not be the side that you think who’s doing the removing. Soldiers and cops tend to be pro gun…

        • They are sworn to uphold the laws and the constitution. If the second amendment is repealed and requires gun confiscation, cops and soldiers have only two choices.

          Why does it need to come to that?

        • By stating “anti-gun” and “firearms violence” you inherently fail to recognize that you are prioritizing the act of using a firearm as more troublesome than the violence itself.

          As far as I have experienced it’s a roundabout way of saying you want to get rid of guns and don’t give a damn about actual rates of violence as long as it’s not guns.

        • I am saying getting rid of guns is an excellent way of preventing unnecessary death and injury caused by negligent gun handling. And when I say getting rid of guns, I mean all of them, everywhere. We put people on the Moon and plan to go to Mars. Gun safety is something impossible for our nation?

        • “Gun safety” is a nice phrase that means you wish to disarm the public, which, as I have already outlined, means that you do not actually care about violence. You are scared of guns. Own up to it.

          The moon is irrelevant and a nice change of subject, but I wonder where we would be if we still lived under a feudal system of lords and kings, having never had the good sense to take up arms and rebel, something fundamentally impossible for a disarmed populace to do. I speculate we would still be in the dark ages, but the one thing many people who use arguments such as “all guns everywhere” completely fail to grasp is that what they are really suggesting is that we consolidate power solely and entirely with the government.

          While I’m sure that sounds wonderful to some people, I must ask you to consider the examples of Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, Communist China, Communist Vietnam, Communist Korea, and Cambodia, among others.

          You may not find that all states with a disarmed populace is a tyranny, but you WILL find that all tyrannies love a disarmed populace, the very thing you are advocating for at a time when the government quite openly pisses on the civil rights of the citizens of this country, and then claims it’s raining.

        • The reference to the Moon and Mars were examples of where the nation decided to take-on extremely difficult adventures and succeeded (well, once). Not a diversion, a means of demonstrating America’s capability.

          I am not a big fan of any European nation, but…..which nations in western Europe (nations with strict gun controls) do you find are suffering a tyrannical government? Where in Europe are the populations abject serfs and vassals? It is possible to have significant personal liberties and significant life event success without private ownership of guns.

          Somewhat related (because we are talking about Liberty), the European Commonwealth takes individual privacy of communications much more seriously that our own government. When was the last time the US government sued a commercial company because that company did not provide enough privacy for its customers? We hear about that out of the EC almost every year.

          Guns no longer ensure our Liberty. It is the vigilant attention of the citizens to reject government attempts to impose tyranny that is working to protect us today. The government does not fear armed insurrection, it fears the ballot box.

        • I get it.
          You don’t pack the gear to dare confront and disarm anybody. But you think you can control and manipulate others, police and military I assume, to do your bidding.
          Somehow, I am unconvinced that you have the force of personality to inspire such loyalty in the face of death among such men, when you yourself will not lead them, but perhaps merely attempt to coerce them to do your will.

        • I ask again, for the sake of those who yet believe they are part of some bold patriot rebellion, where were the patriots when the government was required to intervene in Waco with a large-scale armed raid on a gun cache? Were were the patriots when the government was forced to take armed action to bring Randy Weaver and buddies to justice? Where were the thousands of gun owners supporting the first Bundy armed confrontation with the government? Where are they today, now that one member of the small number of “patriots” who occupied an obscure federal facility was shot dead by government authorities?

          Guns will not fend of a fully integrated government. Guns will not help a rebellion succeed. Indeed, a rebellion cannot even get started anymore (see all the examples I have been describing all through this discussion). Guns for protection against government is no longer a legitimate argument. Relying on arguments that feature guns saving the nation do not resonate with those supporting reasonable gun control, and so far that argument is not swaying much of the “undecided” population. Culture is trumping old notions about the relationship between a government and citizens. New ideas are shaping the culture, and the culture is shaping the future.

        • 2Asux,

          If you honestly want an (near) end to gun death and injury, here is a very simple solution:
          Invent a more efficient weapon.

          How many people are killed or injured with arrows anymore?
          Sure, a few, but I have not seen Bloomberg paying for anti-archery legislation, so it can’t be much of a problem.

          Maybe Japan could take care of their suicide problem by outlawing swords.
          Oh, wait …

          You will not change the violence and instability inherent in human nature by restricting access to weaponry.
          That said, if you genuinely want to see firearms injuries and fatalities decrease as we have seen with archery, talk Bloomberg into investing in plasma weapons.

        • People who believe guns have a legitimate purpose are responsible for proving the fact. People who do not want to be accidental or collateral damage need not further justification that simply wanting to keep breathing. My doing nothing to put you at risk does not require a defense. Your taking action(s) that may end my life had better have an unassailable justification. I will be charged with no crime for doing nothing to put you at risk. You will be charged (hopefully severely) for inadvertently injuring or killing me. I need no permission, from any authority, to do you no harm.

        • 2Asux,

          You, uh, don’t seem to have a clear grasp on use of force laws in any jurisdiction.
          Legal use of deadly force to defend oneself is clearly documented throughout this country, the precedent set throughout human history.

          Your paranoid phobia that every gun owner is trying to kill you does explain your position, however.

        • I have no opposition to using deadly force to defend life. I have opposition to the unstated, but well understood thesis that self-defense means first and foremost using a gun. This is not a discussion about the right of self-defense. It is about people posing a deadly threat to others being held accountable for proving they can be trusted with a gun.

        • 2Asux,

          You questioned “legitimate purpose.”
          I pointed out use of deadly force in self-defense.
          It’s really not that hard, honestly.

        • Guns do not have a legitimate purpose when so many non-lethal tools are available (I would agree that all forms of self-defense, other than explosives and firearms should be legal everywhere). Collateral damage from non-firearms used in defense is near-zero.

        • 2Asux,

          You again failed to comprehend the “deadly” aspect of use of force in self-defense.
          Advocating “non-lethal” tools only is opposition to use of deadly force in contradiction to current law and historical precedent.

          The legitimate purpose for firearms is deadly force in self-defense.

        • In another comment, I noted that there are a number of weapons that are in the category of “deadly”. Taser and pepper spray may be the only things a person unwilling to kill another human can easily use (though both may be ineffective in the event).

          Barring extreme, nearly unheard of circumstances, the bulk of deadly weapons other then firearms cannot wreak havoc yards, blocks away due to an act o negligence on the part of whoever employs the deadly weapon (that is, weapons likely to be handy in an emergency situation).

          The insistence by many (most?) commenters on this blog that firearms alone are effective as a crime deterrent, firearms alone provide for self-defense, removing firearms from the society will lead to uncontrolled violence upon the populace, violence that can only be stopped/reduced through guns, that no police action is effective in reducing crime, no legislative action can be taken to effectively reduce crime, firearms alone are responsible for the continuing downward trend in crime of all sorts, removing firearms from the entire populace (wherever those firearms may be) is undesirable as a means of further reducing negligent death resulting from gunfire, all combines to send a message of fear; fear that society is on the verge of deciding privately held firearms can no longer be tolerated, and the political will to restrict firearms ownership and use is near at hand. A further indicator of fear is the vicious ad hominem attacks unleashed in place of exploration of useful and acceptable ideas and measures to ensure gun owners are safe and competent in handling their guns.

          But I thank you for the hours of fun this has been.

        • 2Asux,

          Please explain which non-lethal self-defense weapon a 110 pound female, a 65 year old male, a cancer patient weakened from chemotherapy, or a pregnant woman can use to fend off two male home invaders who are physically fit, weigh 200 pounds each, and have clubs?

          As for your statement

          My doing nothing to put you at risk does not require a defense.

          But you are most assuredly NOT “doing nothing”. Rather, gun-grabbers are directing government agents to act as proxies for gun-grabbers and forcibly disarm everyone … and gun-grabbers are paying government agents (via taxes) to do it. Forcing 110 pound females, 65 year old males, weakened cancer patients, and pregnant women to be unarmed when facing young, fit, violent attackers most assuredly INCREASES the victims’ risk of harm.

          Saying it another way, gun-grabbers are accomplices to violent criminals. Gun-grabbers work very hard to ensure that violent criminals will have the upper hand when they attack good people. Given that the frequency of violent criminal attacks dwarfs the frequency of negligent shooting injuries/deaths, gun-grabber policies expose good people to much more risk than firearms owners. (People reported well over 1 million violent crimes to law enforcement agencies in the United States last year … versus about 3 thousand injuries/deaths from negligent firearm use.)

        • My phrase, “My doing nothing to put you at risk does not require a defense.” Is related solely to my going about my business in public places and conveyances requires no defense at trial when you or one of your careless buddies injures me with a stray bullet. I will not be required to defend my being in the path of the bullet; you will be required to defend negligence.

        • “If there is a non-governmental way to get to near-zero instances of accidental death or injury, let’s do that.”

          We have. That is where we are, and violent crime has been decreasing for decades, is decreasing even farther still. Just leave it be. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

        • 500 deaths from negligent firearm use are 500 too many. But in nation as big as USA and with as many guns around as we have it is damn near zero – especially compared to other accidental causes of death.

          You keep bringing up danger of getting hit by stray bullet as a reason for restricting our RKBA. If we promise we will be really, really careful, will you let it go, please?

          Self defense does not equal gun use, true. Guns are the best and most effective tools of defense, easy to use and carry they are the great equalizer for us too old to run and too weak to fight back with our fists and feet.

          About government fearing the polls – I don’t know, you can pick Peter or Paul, but you still have the same Peter/Paulian government. And after couple of years it can change by voting in Paul/Peterian one. Politicians don’t want to get replaced if they go too far to the dark side of tyranny, sure. But they don’t want to get shot even more.

        • Not a bad reply. You did again reference other risks, which are not relevant, but overall, a civil reply.

          Our political leverage is getting us where we think a modern society should go. The culture and the youth are with us (when was the last time you heard young people say they had as a role model a money-grubbing, environmentally ignorant, selfish, profiteering capitalist ?

          From some of the comments posted on this and other subjects, pro-gun people are frightened, and are afraid they will lose more ground if they try to use politics to achieve their goals, relying instead on their guns to overthrow the government when they finally come to the conclusion they have lost the political and culture war.

          Thank you for agreeing 500 negligent deaths is too many. We over here are trying to find ways to reduce that number further. Some of our ideas are just not serious, but many are. The pro-unrestricted, uncontrolled guns availability gang seems to be bereft of wither interest, or ideas about how to lower those negligent deaths even further.

    • No, no one is in favor of forcing anyone to do anything. That’s exactly the issue you fail to grasp, when you make such a vague statement as “reasonable controls”.

      Surely, if we applied this standard to “reasonable warrant-less searches” or “reasonable free speech reductions”, you’d be shitting yourself.

      “Reasonable controls” are another way of saying “what I think is right dressed up as something moderate and reasonable”. There are no real reasonable controls, beyond even less than what we already have: Background checks. No NFA. No Assault weapons bans. Just background checks. Nothing more.

      • Based on your disdain for “reasonable controls”, why are background checks “reasonable”? Are you not postulating that background checks are “reasonable” because you accept them? Why can other steps not be acceptable/reasonable? I think once you pick one exception to allowing controls on gun ownership, you open the door to others. Accepting background checks is merely your preference, but preferences of others are somehow less valid?

        • Background checks are at best a tenous thing for me. I believe that they have a solid grounds to exist as an extension of the penal system (preventing people on parole and probation from possessing a firearm in violation of such) and the mental healthcare system (preventing people ruled incapable of being responsible for their actions from possessing them)

          No, there are no other “reasonable” regulations, because the second amendment is a right that applies to all citizens. This is the rule, and the above people are the sole exceptions, having forfeited such rights through severe and terrible disability that renders them incapable of caring for themselves or not harming others, or through a crime of violence that they have not yet finished atoning for.

          Any other “reasonable” regulations serve only to attempt to limit the category of arms people may possess, a concept that is fundamentally incompatible with our constitution and any logical argument. “Bigger” guns do not cause more crime, nor are they somehow “more dangerous”.

          Does that answer your question? I am not positing what I find acceptable personally, I am positing what I believe the absolute constitutional limit of the law is.

        • I think limiting guns to those who must demonstrate proficiency in gun-handling, knowledge of gun safety practices, knowledgeable in the laws of purchase, ownership, open/closed carry, with a universal standard of annual training is reasonable, and within the limits of the constitution. I think it is unreasonable to permit the untrained, clueless and belligerent among us to have easy access to firearms. If the public can have firearms with no training, it is illogical to mandate that law enforcement must undergo training in firearms operation, deployment and laws civilian possession (and I do think police forces can and must become much more thoroughly trained).

        • 2Asux,

          Maybe we can make sure people know how to read before we let them vote, too.
          Otherwise they might be voting for a power-hungry authoritarian who had no respect for constitutional limitations on executive power.

          We could have them take a little test, and would probably have to charge them a fee to pay for the administration of the test …

        • The idea that any breathing soul who shows up has a right to vote is nothing I ever endorsed. But an person unqualified to vote does not represent a potential immediate death sentence for me. A person unqualified to properly handle a firearm does.

        • 2Asux,

          Begging your “time where individuals were disconnected from the whole of society is gone,” the concern is not a single unqualified voter, but millions upon millions of them, like those who voted history’s worst dictators into power.

          Your hysterics over the threat of “immediate death” at the hands of the millions of lawful gun-owners in this country is in no way convincing.

        • Understand, if millions and millions of unqualified voters install a government unfriendly to your ideas of personal liberty, that is a risk you face in a society where people are allowed to vote. What is the alternative if you cannot stop that erosion? Armed rebellion? Really? Were you there with the ranchers at Bundy’s? Were you there at the Oregon standoff? No? Then you accept what can be construed as a government out of control. You accept it because neither directly changed anything in your life. When it comes to the point you are personally affected, do you image you are really going to charge a fully kitted-out SWAT team in defense of your “rights.

          I am not concerned that millions of gun owners might accidentally shoot me. I AM concerned that I do not know who among those gun owners can be trusted with a gun. And neither can you. It is sheer folly to think that everyone with a gun is a well-trained professional at gun-handling. Gross numbers tell you that it is impossible that even a simple majority are formally trained (hours at the gun range do not constitute training).

        • 2Asux,

          You really are begging us to defend the Bundy incidents, but as rational adults most of us realized that the dispute over cattle grazing permits sensationalized by a couple Mormons was not genuine tyranny.
          You again fail to comprehend the point that voting can be as dangerous en masse as firearm ownership if the result are more Stalins and Maos.

          Your concern has been noted and correctly identified as a paranoid phobia.
          Lack of formal training does not negate genuine common sense, nor guarantee negligence.
          You present a false dichotomy.

        • I also identified: Waco, where the probable cause for the attack was that guns were at the compound, and children were present, and any such concern for child safety was in the primary jurisdiction of local authorities, not the Attorney General of the US; Ruby Ridge, where a federal sniper violated laws that would have resulted in life sentences for any non-police who likewise shot through a closed door, uncaring of what was behind it; Bundy, where the federal government was accused of encroaching on private property owners.

          All of those episodes could be construed as representing a severe government overreach that could not be resisted in the courts. AND I also pointed out that since 1789, the central government has never lost an armed confrontation with its citizens. Point of all that was to call-out those whose bluster is all about how guns are necessary to revolt against a tyrannical government. What gets by you all is that in none of the identified events, but one, any significant number of citizens take up arms against the government, even though compared to what launched the American Revolution, the nation you live in is do deep into tyranny that any talk about how guns protect people from the government is laughable. Armed citizens have proven ineffective in every instance. So what keeps us all from being “enslaved”? Politics, law, courts. The fact that the gun culture may be losing in each of those venues only means the nation is tired of uncontrolled people being in possession of guns.

        • 2Asux,

          Your concern about a general injury/death from an armed citizen, much less your concern about “imminent potential” injury/death from an armed citizen is not based in reality. How many armed citizens injured or killed a bystander in public last year in the United States? I literally cannot recall a single occurrence. The next closest event that I can recall is a toddler that pulled his mom’s handgun from her purse and then shot/killed his/her mom. (Since the mom was the firearm owner, you cannot claim that she was a bystander.)

          Everything has risk. Every person that you encounter in public could accidentally or negligently do something that causes your severe harm or death. Get over it. Rather than fighting to disarm people, fight to train them.

          By the way, the idea of “imminent potential” is an inherent contradiction. If something is imminent, it is no longer potential. If something has potential, it is not imminent.

          And another thing, firearms are exceedingly simple devices to operate and exceedingly simple to train … so simple in fact that even 10 year old children can operate them responsibly. The extent of safe and responsible firearm operation is:
          (1) Always make sure that firearms are never accessible to young/irresponsible children.
          (2) Always point your firearm in a safe direction.
          (3) Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot at a known target.
          (4) Always treat every firearm as if it is loaded.

        • To answer your question, 505 negligent deaths. For those humans, the probability of death by a negligent gun owner was 100%. Because neither you nor your family were included in that number, you have the luxury to tell those 505 and their families, “Stuff happens, but I have no responsibility for helping to lower that number significantly.” It is easy to talk big when you are alive to talk.

          The four gun handling rules were not handed down to Moses. The four gun handling rules depend on all 30 million (or whatever that number is now) gun owners never making a mistake, ever. About 500 people are dead each year because perfect gun handling 100% of the time is not possible.

        • 2asux. Sorry, you irrational fears of an inanimate object are just that. Irrational. The odds of being in a mass shooting are less than being struck by lightening. The odds, of you are not involved in drugs, or the criminal life style of being in a shooting incident are the same.

          The greatest danger, as proven through history, is that of governments using their monopoly of force to committ mass murder upon the people. Over a hundred million in the last hundred years. Communists, and all of their spawn, such as progressives, are proven to have complete contempt for individual life, liberty and property. These are the people that generally support the mass murder of the unborn, that completely reject the sanctity of private property in the support of imminent domain and government designating people property as wetlands in not letting them develop such property. Forcing citizens, at the point of a gun, to buy health care.

          There is no reason to restrict or control law abiding citizens access to guns, except to have those guns under the control of government. Because, in the end, it gives us, the people, the power to say no to the tyranny of government.

          Because 2asux, you are absolutely insane, by proof of history, to say that we no longer have to fear a blood thirsty, tyrannical government. Germans, within living memory were considered the height of being “progressive,”, and then see the rise of Hitler and the tens of millions murdered.

          The Weather Under ground, with unrepentant terrorist member Bill Ayers, current university professor that says he didn’t “do enough” planned, once their marxist revolution succeeded, to murder twenty five million Americans that they figured could not be “reeducated”.

          The idea that we here in America have nothing to fear from the same possible tyranny, with the prevalence of this contempt for individual liberty, property and rights as evidenced on the popularity of Bernie Sanders , “proud socialist” is proof that we are very close to this possibility of mass murder in the name of some,”collective good”.

          You, 2asux, and people like you, are birth place of tyranny and mass murder. You, and people like you, are the “useful idiots” used by those that want complete and utter control over every aspect of our lives.

          So no, 2asux, you should call yourself freedomsux, because the end result of your sick need for control will be tyranny and mass death.

        • Got it wrong again. My concern is of an irresponsible, negligent, clueless, bone-head gun carrier shooting me with an inanimate object. It is not the gun I distrust, but the person.

          The “inanimate” object crap is really old, and does not apply here. I have made no statements that guns can do anything by simply being a hunk of metal.

        • Whether “reasonable” or not, background checks accomplish nothing and cost too much, interfere too much with the free exercise of civil rights, cannot be shown to have accomplished anything at all, insofar as the big picture is concerned. They were only designed to be eyewash for morons, buy votes for crooks.

        • Where are the outraged gun owners refusing to submit? Where are the armed revolutionaries refusing to comply with regulations forced onto citizens by an out-of-control government? Where is the civil disobedience, limp people lying on the steps of the courthouses, sit-ins, etc. You can’t cry “….shall not be infringed”, then acquiesce to infringement. Unless you are actually OK with restrictions, but just the ones you don’t find too inconvenient.

    • Hey 2Asux, I like your style. (not kidding) I disagree with you, but I respect your approach here at TTAG comments. Based on your writings here I think you might be perfect for an episode idea I have and based on those same writings I think you would like the episode idea as much as I do.

      If you want to discuss it with me please contact me by clicking on my avatar (I think) or you can use the contact link at or email [email protected]

    • “Is the pro gun side willing to force….” The pro gun side isn’t willing to force anyone to do anything. We offer an option, its your side who wants control and force.

      • Yeah, this one was a casualty of complete depletion of the coffee supply. What I did badly was to offer that the pro-gun people are quick to decry a woman not having legal access to a gun for defense, and that while one cannot know if a gun would have made a difference, the woman would have at least had a chance. My retort was that the pro-gun position comes out as universal, disregarding that a gun available to someone who will not use it is useless, regardless of the gun laws in place at the location of an attack. The pro-gun element completely underestimates the horror some people have of killing anyone for any purpose. I think that underestimation results in surprise and disbelief when a jury of people who cannot imagine killing another human render a verdict against gun owners/supporters.

        It is late again, did this attempt to explain make more sense?

  4. Ok, so those women are free to fall prey to the people who will prey on them then. Although it doesn’t seem reasonable though…

  5. What ms. glenn is missing it is the women’s choice ( to arm or not) which is paramount, said choice would not exist if some have their way

    • Although removing guns from every person (all of them)O) would be ideal, what Ms. Glenn proposes is that because some women (people) will not use a gun if they had one, then that line of thought pertains to all people. This kind of silliness gets in the way of discussing real solutions.Like I said, we anti-gun people have our crazies also.

        • Supporting reasonable gun control (already outlined in other comments) is not only prudent, but necessary. On this very blog, last week, there was heated discussion about a “good guy with a gun” accidentally shooting a woman in a theater. A woman who was minding her own business and expected to see a movie and not get shot. Think you are immune to that sort of thing? Think some other “good guy with a gun” will never cause you injury. Why should any free citizen live with that sort of unnecessary risk?

        • 2Asux
          Your “reasonable” anti-gun measure are neither legislated nor enforced in a vacuum. Your partners in opposition to the Second Amendment will not stop short of Australian/UK-style confiscation (“Mister and Missus America, turn them all in” -Feinstein).
          Your “solution” is neither necessary, nor prudent as both crime and negligence are in decline without the aid of confiscation. Sensationalizing individual incidents (i.e. “bloody shirt waving”) is not legitimate basis for policy.

          Yes, this is a blog about guns.
          But you myopically focus on (gun) death.
          So we offer a larger perspective on more prevalent causes of death.
          Then you complain that we are deflecting while failing to comprehend the distinction between instrument (gun), consequence (death), and agent (killer).
          We humans have killed one another and ourselves with various instruments throughout history.
          You will not make anyone safer by removing one category of weapons.

          Yes, this is a blog about guns.
          But you myopically focus on (gun) negligence.
          So we offer a larger perspective on more prevalent negligent behavior.
          Then you complain that we are deflecting while failing to comprehend the distinction between instrument (gun), consequence (injury or death), and agent (idiot).
          Taking away everyone’s scissors because Johnny cut himself is overbearing, unnecessary, and detrimental to actually learning about responsibility.

        • Are you contending that Australia and the UK suffer tyrannical government? That the populace is reduced to penury? It is not guns that “saves” us from tyranny (from the “constutionalist” point of vies, this nation must be classified as tyrannical, yet there is no revolution afoot or pending, or in danger of breaking out. Laws and politics are keeping government in check…as successfully as the populace wants it.

          I focus on negligent gun related deaths because those killed and injured did not willingly take on the risk after calculating likelihood against need or convenience. These dead did not take any action to put themselves at risk of being shot. In all the other risky situations noted in this string, the all required some willingness to take on a known risk. Being killed by someone’s hobby is not the same as being run over by a train when you try to cross the tracks. I am saying your freedom can cost me my life for simply being stationary for a critical but fatal moment. That is punishment without warrant. It is so easy to decide, “We’ve done enough to lower risk” when it isn’t you or a loved one lying dead in your arms because somebody decided that they were immune from the need to be responsible.

          Yes, it is a bloody shirt. Logic doesn’t seem to work.

        • 2Asux,

          I contend that Australia and the UK have as much, if not more, death and injury from crime and negligence, including deaths and injuries with firearms, after passing their bans, illustrating the ineffectiveness of your “common sense.”

          Again, the point is that negligence is dangerous, not the instrument.
          Would you honestly feel better if that loved one were run over by someone texting while driving?

          Logic actually does work, you should try it some time.

        • To get down to playground argument…will you be happier that your loved one is killed by a negligent “good with a gun”, than by a drive-by gangbanger?

        • 2Asux,

          Glossing over that part where you completely ignore the demonstrated ineffectiveness of your position, the only person whom I knew personally to be killed was stabbed to death.

          Turn your own argument around.
          As stated before, innocent victims are still shot and killed in Australia and the UK.
          If all your legislative wishes came true and there were no legal gun-owners, you would still face just as much danger, including gunfire, from criminals.

          You completely missed the point of negligence resulting in injury by conflating the issue with criminal intent.

        • Don’t think for minute the possibility that you might have a gun intimidates determined criminals.

          If all my dreams came true, people would have the nerve to force the government to confiscate all guns, everywhere. And keep it that way. Routine round-ups in areas notorious for gangs, drugs and illegal guns would be more effective than what we have now…and yes, I am assuming the authorities and courts will try and jail the guilty for lengthy sentences. But then, this is my dream.

        • In Australia, gun owners can have their safes searched once a year at random by the police without a warrant to ensure they haven’t sold any guns under the table. In the UK, police chiefs can sign off on Bloomberg-style stop & frisk open seasons in their districts if they think it will get guns or knives off the street. In both these countries, free speech rights are also violated by hate speech laws. The British GCHQ makes our NSA look like amateurs in terms of what they collect. The U.S. is much, much better at respecting the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments and these rights are ends of themselves. They don’t need to be justified by anything else.

        • These are modern nations. Are their people enslaved? Subject to the whim of the ruling class in every detail of their lives, without any recourse to right injustices? If the people of Australia and the UK manage fulfilling and purposeful lives despite the limited restrictions on personal action, and they manage it without 100 million guns in the hands of citizens, why are these two nations held up as somehow deeply flawed, just because they don’t have a rampant and reckless gun culture? As a modern society, not some start-up suffering eternal warfare over their futures, the US is a state in which laws prevent citizens from being enslaved, not some archaic notion that guns everywhere is the protects the citizens from slavery (which no one in the US has ever seen in this country, much less endured).

        • 2Asux,

          I do not rely on intimidation to stop criminals, that is why I keep my gun loaded.

          I had already correctly identified your dream as an authoritarian dystopia, but thanks for clarifying.

        • Based on how your side defines socialism, dictatorship, totalitarianism, are you not aware you are living it already? Your speech is constrained so that you can’t say what you thing (which is good because it is so much hate speech), you can’t refuse to do business with people you don’t like (public accommodation laws, which ended segregation), you have gay marriage (which you hate, but must accept and endorse), there are hundreds of environmental laws the keep you from ruining the planet, (but preserve it for the rest of us), the government monitors unhealthy lifestyles and makes people correct themselves (because people are just slobs and want the rest of us to pay for their healthcare so they can continue to their unhealthy ways), the government ensures public safety in every product and service, the government requires financial institutions to assist the poor and bad off (even if those very people can never repay), the government roots-out the selfishness of the rich so that the poor have a chance (zero income tax on the poor). The government we all accept and depend on is the result of our political decisions to abandon the brutally independent and socially disconnected society of the first hundred years of the nation, and provides great benefits to everyone. Yes, there had to be some minimizing of the “rugged individual” who once could ignore the rest of the population, but the result is a better life for more people than ever before. Progress in social conscience isn’t finished, but it is too late to go back to the middle 1800s.

        • “They are sworn to uphold the laws and the constitution. If the second amendment is repealed and requires gun confiscation, cops and soldiers have only two choices.”

          That you can envision any part of the Bill of Rights being repealed so nonchalantly is truly frightening.

        • Nonchalant? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a constitutional amendment passed? Take a look at the ERA amendment attempt from, like, 30 years ago. When did it become ratified?

          On the other hand, there are executive orders and actions that could be used to accomplish some of what repeal of the second amendment would do.

          Point is, if the second amendment is repealed (and part of the new amendment requires gun confiscation), the police, federal agencies and military will follow orders to enforce the constitution (don’t give me posse comitatus, that is a piece of legislation, not a constitutional provision, and can be changed by simple majority of congress, 18 U.S.C. § 1385). Who do you think filled the ranks of the Union Army of 1861-1865? Americans. American soldiers. If it becomes necessary, the US military will attack US citizens who fail to comply with valid law.

        • @2ASux –
          “Supporting reasonable gun control (already outlined in other comments) is not only prudent, but necessary. On this very blog, last week, there was heated discussion about a “good guy with a gun” accidentally shooting a woman in a theater. A woman who was minding her own business and expected to see a movie and not get shot.”

          No, that isn’t what you wrote. Here is what you wrote:
          “2Asux says:
          February 9, 2016 at 12:18
          OK, here’s some facts:
          – an accidental discharge can kill from across the street, through the walls of houses and apartments
          – a stray bullet fired for any reason can kill innocent bystanders
          – an accidental discharge can severely would a person innocently sitting in front of you in a theater
          – a toddler can pick up a gun and kill you (or another child) while you sleep

          – all of the above is very, very difficult to achieve with any non-firearm weapon.”

          I scoured all 39 comments you were related to in that discussion (I may have missed something). You made no distinction in gender or a “good guy with a gun accidentally shooting a woman in a theater.” You used generalities. Please be honest, and please be consistent.

        • I gave several “bulleted” examples in one post, and referred to another example from a different TTAG posting. “Good guy with a gun; Bad guy with a gun” is the generic “guy”; means every gun user. Would you be more comfortable with the ridiculed PC version? “An alleged good person of unidentified gender; An alleged bad person of unidentified gender”.

        • “If all my dreams came true, people would have the nerve to force the government to confiscate all guns, everywhere”

          Unarmed, how would you force an armed government to do anything, whatsoever, no matter how much nerve people had? That is just silly, even you can’t read any common sense into that!

          Also, others may plan to use firearms to “intimidate” criminals, I do not. If any intimidation is necessary, I plan to shoot them. If they are still not intimidated, I will shoot them again. If you’re claiming that will have no effect, you still need to do some study.

        • “These are modern nations. Are their people enslaved? Subject to the whim of the ruling class in every detail of their lives, without any recourse to right injustices?”

          They are moving in that direction. Results of many things are not instant, in case you haven’t noticed. It has been near 50 years waiting for SCOTUS to finally hear a case on 2A, while for 48 years of that gun grabbers have been saying it’s all over, the decision has been made, all manner of BS. See what is going on there in 150 years. In UK, especially, they have HAD enslaved people subject to the whim of the ruling classes BEFORE, while you try to pretend that is somehow not possible. America was included in those enslaved people, and many said that was going to be the case forever, divine guidance, nothing we can do, no hope, just like your spew.