Previous Post
Next Post

I find it odd that gun control advocates demand a plan for disarmament but don’t have a plan for dealing with a lethal threat—other than preventing it from happening in the first place by stopping criminals from getting guns (assuming that guns are all that’s needed to create a lethal threat) and paying cops to protect the public (i.e. mop-up) using weapons that law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be allowed to keep and bear. Actually it’s worse than that . . .

All across America you see this: ordinary citizens with guns — good guys — regularly fighting off bad guys with guns, in ways that are truly impressive. These are rousing stories. Fiction is like that.

Welcome to the world according to Douglas Anthony Cooper [above left]. It’s a world where TTAG’s Defensive Gun Use of the Day section doesn’t exist. And journalists who enter the words “defensive gun use” at Wikipedia summon a blank screen. Where people who Google “DGU” only see Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie (German Society for Trauma Surgery).

Right from the git-go, A Good Guy With a Gun. R.I.P. reveals Mr. Cooper’s willful ignorance on the subject of armed self-defense. Clearly, he wants readers to share his belief that “a good guy with a gun” is nothing more than a putz with a pistol. And therein lies the tale . . .

Let me tell you a true story. About a good guy with a gun. A guy who was more than simply good in the sense of morally admirable: he was good with a gun. He’d fought in the Gulf War. He knew what he was doing — he had been tested in battle, and was demonstrably courageous.

You won’t find a more useful best-case scenario to demonstrate the efficacy of civilian weaponry.

District Attorney Mike McLelland from Kaufman County, Texas — unlike most Americans — had an impeccable reason for carrying a sidearm. His deputy had been shot two months before, and it made sense for McLelland to assume that he was very much a target himself. This was hardly paranoia. I expect that most people, on either side of the gun debate, would respect his decision to arm himself . . .

When he discussed the threat that he faced, McLelland could legitimately say, “I’m ahead of everybody else because, basically, I’m a soldier.” He did what you’d expect a trained soldier to do: after his deputy was assassinated, “he carried a gun everywhere he went and took extra care when answering the door at his home.”

Last Saturday, in that very same home, this courageous man — along with his wife — were found shot to death.

Yes. Yes they were. And?

McLelland was a good, good man. Also — unlike your average kindergarten teacher (and Wayne LaPierre) — he was an actual soldier, deeply familiar with weaponry.

And none of this was of any use when it came to thwarting a bad guy with a gun. Not even when McLelland was in his own house, armed, and hyperalert to a very real threat.

You guessed it! Mr. Cooper reckons McLelland’s failure to protect himself and his wife with a gun (or guns) proves that personal firearms for self-defense are useless. So it’s OK to ban them. Sorry, restrict their sale and ownership.

Mr. Cooper doesn’t come out and say that, exactly. But that is his point. Just in case you missed it, he makes it again . . .

Now, you’re welcome to argue that this was a unique situation. The shooting of Mike McLelland was an anomaly, when it comes to this archetypal scenario: decent citizens, well-armed. I would agree.

What was unusual was this: in general, good guys with guns are not aware of an impending threat. A more typical situation would be that of Chris Kyle, who was shot and killed at a shooting range, without any warning . . .

Chris Kyle was one of the best shooters in the country. Perhaps the best shooter in the country. And he had lots of weapons at hand: this was a shooting range. And he did not manage to stop the bad guy.

So . . . what? So Douglas Anthony Cooper is meshuggah. I mean, seriously crazy. How else would you characterize a person who ignores tens of thousands perhaps even millions of examples of successful defensive gun use, dances in the blood of gun guys and thereby “proves” that civilian disarmament is the best way to protect people?

Sorry, but despite the sincere bleating of the NRA’s vice president, making guns effortlessly available to good guys is just not a very good idea. It does not make good guys any safer. It is of no benefit to America. What it does — and this doesn’t matter to Wayne Lapierre — is make guns effortlessly available to bad guys.

What it also does — and this matters profoundly to Wayne LaPierre — is ensure that the people who make guns and ammunition remain fat and healthy, so that they can continue to pour millions into his obscene organization.

The nation will deeply miss the likes of Mike McLelland and Chris Kyle. Real heroes are thin on the ground. And when they are gone we tend to be left with the likes of Wayne LaPierre.

NRA-bashing aside, does the hysterical HuffPo scribe really believe the government can reduce the availability of firearms for good guys and bad guys in equal measure? Does Mr. Cooper really think that gun control would create a net gain for good guys? By God I think he does.

Laboring under that delusion, Mr. Cooper is happy to sacrifice your individual God-given or natural right to armed self-defense to engineer a crime-free utopia. You don’t need me to tell you that it’s a doomed, deeply evil endeavor; a pursuit that creates the kind of unfathomable human suffering we’ve seen throughout human history.

Like I said, this guy, and his ilk, are certifiable.

Previous Post
Next Post


      • Agreed. After all, the unified, statist utopian paradise of his wet-dreams can never exist as long as an armed citizenry stands ready to oppose that agenda. As such, it has to go.

        Another hateable, elitist phony-journalist scumbag. The simple act of throwing himself in front of a train (he is too much of a hoplophobe to use a gun) would be more beneficial to humanity than the entire body of his work over the course of his lifetime. The same goes for all of his kind.

      • Huffpo got the money from OFA and the talking points from TPM.

        Of course its manufactured spin – thats what they do. Whats interesting is how many thoughtful pro-gun responses are posted in the comments. Do what Glenn Reynolds advocates: punch back twice as hard with the facts. Read an Army of Davids. Its working and you can tell by increasingly hystericwl over-reach like HuffPo is showing here.

    • Wrong. And wrong.

      He’s a Canadian travel writer. With a master’s degree in philosophy, and he also took a few architecture courses, so holds forth on that as well.

      Back in the ’90s he’d write stuff for /Wired/, when he was launching his early book(s), but his writing didn’t demonstrate the intellectual chops to hang out with techno geeks, engineers, etc.

      We ought therefore not be surprised that he gets guns wrong, living as he does in the realm of fiction and mobility elitism. Not material reality. Or the lives and experiences of anybody outside his own stylishly buffed pate.

      On second thought maybe that DOES qualify as “crazy” and “a liar.”

  1. So why aren’t all of these people relocating to the gun free utopia just south of our border?

  2. Why does that dog look so scared? Dogs have a nose for bad people. When dogs show fear or discomfort around a person, there’s usually valid reason for it. In this case I’m trusting the dog’s instincts. Bad man, bad, bad, man.

  3. Fire extinguishers must be worthless because houses still burn down. Airbags are a waste because people still die in car accidents. And forget about condoms because sometimes they break.

    There is a reason Obama keeps falling back on emotion. He knows that in a debate based on logic, he just can’t win.

    • Moreover, he knows that in a debate based on logic, his supporters are utterly lost, in an alien landscape they’d NEVER ask for!

    • The general public does not have the patience to care about facts. They do not know how to think, let alone think critically. They’ve acted on their emotions their whole life. They won’t change (99.9% of them anyway). Government education indoctrination camps have been wildly successful.

  4. Well, you know there was a sheriff who was shot to death recently, and cops get killed even though they carry guns. So, applying the same logic we might as well disarm the police as well.

    • just. like. England. They have had such good luck with crowd control, rioters, looters, and burglars.

    • From their editors?

      Seriously. The buck for claptrap such as quoted ad nauseum above doesn’t stop with the evil POS writers. The impetus, the back pats, tail wags, raises and promotions come from the EDITORS.

      The stuff I’m referring to FLOWS DOWNHILL, until it reaches bottom.

      • Check out a great film called “Shatter Glass.” It’s the true story of Stephen Glass, who in 1998 was the hottest young reporter in Washington. He worked for the New Republic and, oh yeah, fabricated most of what he wrote. (Including a piece where CPAC attendees were drunken slobs who sexually harassed fat girls.)

        The film shows the joke that passed for “fact checking” and “editorial control” at the New Republic where a reporter’s notes were considered source material.

        These writers and editors have no interest in logic, fact or truth. They have an agenda and flail away trying to find an argument to support it.

        If handed in as a 10th grade essay, this doofus would flunk for substandard reasoning. Anecdotal evidence cannot replace statistical reality. Duh.

        • You’re missing the point.

          Cooper is a travel writer.

          With this contribution to the human literary corpus, he is dropping into the terrain of the People of the Gun and writing a travelogue. Kind of like that NYT feature where they tell you places to go for 36 hours. (He has spent more like maybe 3.6.)

          Members of his elite audiences will mistake it for coherent comments about firearms use and policy. And HuffPo pays for content either in dollars or exposure.

  5. Seems like laws, militarized police, and all the best intentions of these gun grabbers failed to save these people too, so maybe we should ban all those things too?

  6. In his mind, because others have failed at self-defense-the rest of us should just give it up. Well if that works for him, so be it. I choose to ignore him and others who feel that we should just accept that these things happen and hence do NOTHING in terms of self protection. For those who choose to self-victimize-this is America-and you have that right. I on the other hand have and will continue to embrace our 2nd amendment.

  7. And yet there are millions of instances of weapons, all types, being used to overthrow despots, destroy tyrannical regimes, and defend life. But these two examples prove that good guys with guns can’t protect anything.

  8. The “soldiers” he refers to also get killed in battle daily. So we should disarm them and take away their body armor, other protective gear and MRAPs, which have proven useless against IEDs over and over. I mean if these trained soldiers with all these weapons and gear cannot prevent themselves from being killed we need to disarm them.

  9. They love to go after the NRA, not one word about the Crips, Bloods, MS13 or Latin Kings etc.

  10. So self defense isn’t foolproof; and so I should give it up and die cowering and pleading? Yeah that sounds much better. Where is my gene pool skimmer…there’s some shit floating on the top.

  11. He ain’t crazy, he EVIL. EVIL. Can you say “EVIL” with me, boys and girls? You call them “crazy” YOU’RE DOING THEM A FAVOR!!

    People like that are a CANCER upon the planet, a MALIGNANCY upon decency and self-respect.

    You KNOW what they DO to CANCER, DON’T YOU?

    • We seem to be just as hopelessly inefficient at getting rid of cancer as we are at getting rid of statist sh*theads like Cooper. But agreed. Evil.

  12. Both those men believed in the right and the need for people to protect themselves. Both took oaths to defend the Constitution, and both faced ambush by people who don’t give a damn how many laws you want to pass.
    This man disgusts me.

  13. This is a free country. I encourage all people who want to be disarmed to disarm. I hope to never hear from them again.

  14. There is a difference from being actively targeted vs. being victim to a random act of violence.

    There really isn’t much you can do against the former other than be lucky and don’t piss the wrong people off.

  15. It’s almost comical how foolish these people are. Except they’re also dangerous.

    No one ever said that having a gun gives you perfect security. Only that it evens the odds and gives you a fighting chance. Criminals understand that. I guess they’re smarter than most Huffpo writers.

  16. Since body armor can be defeated by armor piercing rounds, by this wanker’s logic the US military and police agencies should cease using it at once.

    I submit guys like this don’t care about crime. They don’t care about personal safety or even the well being of women forced to defend themselves against men many times larger then them.

    No, they care only that their personal idea of a perfect society be executed through force of law, no matter the consequences. Even if crime is factually rampant, people like this will say that things would be worse if we DIDN’T outlaw personal use of firearms. I know , because thats what people like this say in Chicago where crime is in fact quite rampant.

  17. In the twisted mind of a gun grabber, he believes he and those who share the same ideas to be more intelligent and virtuous than the opposition and masses. In that way, I think the gun grabbers are blinded by their own self-importance to realize the flaws in their beliefs.

  18. Human nature is why each individual needs a means of self defense. Those who still argue that one can sit vulnerable in this world missed the value of M.A.D. during the cold war. If we didn’t have the ability to turn the USSR into a smoldering mass with our arsenal, we definitely would have been the smoldering mass or worse, under their thumb.

  19. Ok – for all intents and purposes, this tool has abandoned his US Citizenship. Let him continue to enjoy the splendors of Mexico (but a real man would move to Juarez and disarm the drug cartels there).

    From Huffpro:

    Police: Boy Accidentally Kills Deputy’s Wife
    CBS News Calls Out GOP Senators For Declining Interviews On Guns
    NATO Helicopter Crashes In Afghanistan
    Reid Cites Father’s Suicide In Gun Control Plea
    Sequestration Forces Cancer Patients To Travel Thousands Of Miles For Care
    Santorum Warns Against ‘Suicidal’ GOP Move
    ‘More Americans Now Support Gay Marriage Than Believe In Evolution’
    Biden’s Son Gives Insight Into Dad’s 2016 Thoughts
    McConnell Campaign Reacts Strongly To Leaked Anti-Judd Audio
    Obama Budget Includes $235 Million For Mental Health Programs

    Douglas Anthony CooperRSS Feed GET UPDATES FROM Douglas Anthony Cooper
    .Douglas Anthony Cooper’s first novel, Amnesia, was a national bestseller; it was shortlisted for the Books in Canada First Novel Award, and longlisted for the Commonwealth Prize. He has published two bestselling novels for young adults: Milrose Munce and the Den of Professional Help, and Milrose Munce and the Plague of Toxic Fungus.

    Cooper’s blog and collected journalism can be found at Blogger Mortis. He lives in Oaxaca, but collaborates regularly with artists and architects around the world: most recently on Chain City, a video installation with Diller Scofidio + Renfro at the Venice Biennale.

    For five years Cooper was a Contributing Editor at New York Magazine, where he wrote and photographed the travel features. His essays and photography have appeared in Food & Wine, Rolling Stone, Travel+Leisure and The New York Times; and he has been collected in The Best American Travel Writing (ed. Pico Iyer).

    Cooper’s journalism has won numerous awards, including the Lowell Thomas Gold Medal, America’s most prestigious travel writing award. ”

    Oh, and this is part of his “series” on guns and Newtown. Translation: He needs to hype himself up to sell more books. Whatever.

  20. Those who don’t live by the sword can still die by it. Those who do live by it at least have a fighting chance.

    • Not to disagree, but I concider a differance between “living by the sword” and maintaining profeciency with a “sword” that you keep handy for the baddies.

      I propose the majority of us live by laws and principles. When we’re confronted by those who live by violence they are the one who the poetic justice alludes to.

      • I agree with your sentiments, I don’t mean to imply that gun owners walk around seeking a confrontation or a chance to be a warrior. We just realize that not owning/being proficient with firearms does not preclude us from harm.

  21. I am seeing more and more often articles that go something like this… and not just at the HuffPo!

    “Blah blah guns, blah reduce guns, blah blah Wayne Lapierre is horrible, blah blah ban guns…..”

    I think we should send Mr Lapierre a nice card, and maybe some chocolates or something, to let him know that at least some people don’t think he is personally related to the Devil or anything.

  22. He left off an important detail. It was reported on the news that McLelland was trying to get to his gun when he was shot. The real lesson is home carry. When my wife read the story in the paper her first word “Given the threat to his life why didn’t he have his gun with him.”

  23. I just left a couple of comments. I’ll be interested to see if they are purged.

  24. There is really good stuff on this blog. I find the arguments to be reasonable and compelling. However, the tone of many posts (especially those by Mr. Farago) comes across as abrasive — even condescending, arrogant, and self-righteous (kind of like the Huffington Post). If Robert Farago could “be the bigger person” in a way that columnists for HuffPo seem incapable of, this blog actually has the potential to change a lot of minds.

    As it is now though, it’s just another angry echo chamber, caught in the same liberal/conservative, right/wrong dichotomy that it (purportedly) tries very hard to transcend, and few people on the fence will be swayed by it.

    • It’s not a blog for dialectic, it’s a blog for rhetoric.

      A lot more speaking to the choir than converting the faithless.

      the commenters are all of the same ilk. 😉 I’m new so you can pretty much ignore me.

    • This is RF’s blog. He can and should expose elitist, morally corrupt propagandists for what they are. Statist pawns like Douglas Cooper seek to manipulate the weak-minded into supporting the further degradation of their civil rights and liberties. That is the most despicable of practices and it should be identified, mocked and scorned. With enthusiasm, malice and gusto I might add. Alex what you’re suggesting is that one must be polite to a person (I use the term loosely) who is so arrogant that he/she feels qualified to tell others how they may live and what they can and cannot do. That is an indictment of your character, frankly.

      It is very easy to cop out of this debate by pretending to be moderate. Perhaps you are simply too weak to take a stand because you have been corrupted by the ethically bankrupt concept of relativism. Either way, that is exactly what you’re doing here by comparing RF and Cooper. Only ONE of these writers are attempting to deprive the citizenry of civil rights. Think about that. While you’re at it, you should take a closer look at yourself.

      • In that case, Hal, how should I respond to someone who has arrogantly (mis)interpreted a 100 word blog comment and from it made an irresponsible judgment about that person’s character? Should I be polite to that person or should I mock him or her?

        • I don’t think I’ve misinterpreted anything, friend. Your relativism is painfully evident:

          “As it is now though, it’s just another angry echo chamber, caught in the same liberal/conservative, right/wrong dichotomy that it (purportedly) tries very hard to transcend, and few people on the fence will be swayed by it.”

          As if that wasn’t enough:

          “But because so many folks on this blog take absolutist positions, the position I just articulated will be mocked and ridiculed in..”

          So both sides are neither right nor wrong, but we still need to take the high ground, right? Hey afterall, liberal statists understand where we’re coming from and trust us, we just need to get rid of those particular tools which are too dangerous for lowly citizens, right? Really all we really need to do is just compromise a little (just a little! no more gun control ever… they swear!) and to be nice while we’re doing it, right?

          When all the while our enemies (that’s right ENEMIES and your denial of their descriminatory, self-aggrandized aristocracy is an error) stoop lower and lower every day to erode our rights and liberties?

          Well to hell with that. You can call my stance “absolutist” all you like. Unlike you, I refuse to play the role of 2nd amendment apologist. I will not “DO SOMETHING” or “compromise” ANYTHING. I wear that absolutism as a badge of honor. That label which to you is a condescending slur is a compliment to me.

          I will never accept a compromise where my rights and liberties are concerned, nor will I succumb to the disgusting ideology that that refusal is somehow morally inferior. Either support liberty or don’t. Regardless of what you think, your warm and fuzzy moderateness is only helping those who would disarm us all if they were given the chance.

          Have I sufficiently met your expectations for mockery and ridicule?

    • I have to disagree. We are bound together by an interest in firearms but there a great divergence in opinions on other topics which are reflected in the comments. This is hardly an echo chamber where everbody thinks the same way on every topic. Robert also welcomes the antis in the more of one MikeB who hasn’t been around latetly. Mikey’s posts stir up a lot heat and often shed some light on the topic.

      • The blog is still directed more at the rhetoric than the dialectic. Methinks from the comments that there is a problem with knowing the definitions and differences between the two … neither are derogatory, they are simply different.

        I compare the best strategies at fighting gun control to using the bayonet in war:

        … Which basically says that the best way to fight an equivocating enemy is to call him on his BS. I agree that’s what this blog does.

        However you have to agree most people who read/post here are already pro-2A. So far I have seen no participants from the other side … so really if you want to use the bayonet you need to meet the enemy at some point.

        Preaching to the choir ~only~ isn’t really going to move your agenda forward at all. If you’re not taking what you learn here and using it to engage the enemy, well then shame on you.

        • I gladly engage anyone I perceive to be anti-RTKABA in dialogue on the spot. No shame here 😉

        • I would contend that even as you see antis as enemies, many antis do not see responsible gun owners and supporters of the second amendment (within reason) as enemies. One can believe that everyone has the right to protect him/herself and her family — the rights to freedom and liberty — using deadly force if necessary, while at the same time believing that Assault Weapons impart their users with an amount of deadly force so effective and efficient that no one outside the military should have one. Even “good guys” sometimes go bad.

          But because so many folks on this blog take absolutist positions, the position I just articulated will be mocked and ridiculed in..

        • You are assuming good faith on the part of anti-Second Amendment crowd. They do see us as enemies. Now if you are talking about people who are anti-Second Amendment because they don’t know anything about guns that something else. We can’t make them read TTAG or other pro-Second Amendment blogs and news sources. Someone who is looking for TTAG can find it. The Huffington Post, and similar anti-Second Amendment blogs or E-zines, will not add this site to their blogroll.

          Let me correct you about “military weapons.” The AR-15 that a private citizen can by is not at all a military weapon. Without a select fire capability a firearm that uses a 223 based cartridge is nothing more that an autoloading varmint rifle no different than the Ruger mini-14 ranch rifle. No Army would willing equip its soldiers with such a weapon. If you are using a semiautomatic weapon as standard issue you want a full power cartridge like the 308. The minimum cartridge you would use is a 243 Winchester.

          Outside of tautological definition of military weapon or weapon of war the AR-15 doesn’t make the grade.

        • I stand corrected. I have been corrected on that before.

          But if it’s a hunting rifle, why do people want it for self-defense? Why is it made to look like a military weapon? Why do you load a semi-automatic with an extended magazine? Is your aim that bad?

        • Alex:

          I am a deer hunter and for that kind of game it’s usually one and done but rancher with a coyote problem, a farmer with feral hogs eating his crops or horseman with gophers ground hogs an AR-15 is a perfect rifle to use. That is what 223 cartridge was designed for and how the AR was marketed to civilians since1962.

          Why do people want to use them for self defense? The round won’t go through brick or cinder block. If I used my Remington 750 in my house the round would blow through the intruder and still put a 3″ hole through my my brick and plaster walls.

      • I think is more likely that the pro Second Amendment constituency is more likely to read a {generally leftwing] anti-Second Amendment blog than vice versa. Same for almost any issue. I bet more conservatives and libertarians read the Huffington Post than Progressives read pjmedia or hotair.

        • which is why it’s called “preaching to the choir”

          there are no enemy combatants here.

        • Mina, you’ve never met mikeyb#’s, hmmmmmm, low budget dave, WC? We have plenty of anti gunners show up here.

  25. “How else would you characterize a person who ignores tens of thousands perhaps even millions of examples of successful defensive gun use, dances in the blood of gun guys and thereby “proves” that civilian disarmament is the best way to protect people?”

    As ignorant.

    You have to admit the most coverage that is had by DGU are on pro-2nd sites and rightie-oriented news rags. Probably even then, most of the DGU are undocumented and unrecorded.

    I agree, it’s logical that it happens. I don’t need to see statistics and data. But it’s a data point we don’t have to show anyone.

    We are always the ones to say “we have facts and data on our side”. We really need to find a way to get this data gathered somehow.

    No answers just observations.

    • The MFM isn’t going to broadcast your pro2A data.

      Accept that fact. You’ll sleep better.

      Better off spending your time making more money and funding NRA/GOA to get the type of sausage you desire from the sausage factory of Congress. Pestering your local reps also helps a bit.

      If you’re skilled at media without accidentally stepping on your schlong message wise, then try to make a video that goes viral for some reason to somewhat bypass the MFM.

      • All good ideas! since I’m female I’m pretty sure I won’t be stepping on my schlong at all.

        I petition my representatives in Congress and in my state legislature regularly.

  26. Given the photo of him and his little bitty girly dog I am sure he supports nationwide dog bans as well as being a male feminist / white knight. Gad I hate those guys!

    • Hey now. I have two of those Italian greyhounds. Not every adamant RKBA supporter needs to have a large dog to broadcast to the world that he’s a 100% manly man, who does manly things, with men.

      • it looked like some kind of chi hua hua variant to me … I do like a manly man with a largish dog I will admit.

  27. I pity the fool & am deeply impressed by his concern for the DA. This is a new twist, trying to save gun owners from the “bother” of being armed. I thought they really didn’t care about us(wiping the tear from my eye). I would much rather go down with my gun blazing that hear some crackhead in a store say “now everybody line up against the wall” when I was unarmed, Randy

  28. “Douglas Anthony Cooper [above left]”

    ZING!!! I did laugh out loud 🙂

    • Had to make sure the dog wasn’t insulted in a case of mistaken identity. After all, the dog might be pro 2a for all we know.

  29. All of Mr. Cooper’s examples of good guys with guns getting whacked were all guys taken out by professional hit jobs.

    Whatever the result of their deaths, Mr. Cooper’s logic is completely flawed. At the end of the day, the underlying detest he has for guns is that they are most likely “scary” to him.

  30. So he defends McLelland’s decision to arm himself but then later on says it was pointless? What does he expect people to do in similar situations then? Be helpless victims of our circumstances?

    • Well, HEY! An effective armed response helps his EVIL AGENDA in what way?

      People disarmed, people killed. WIN-WIN. Rot in Hell, you EVIL POS. I’m happy to wait.

  31. You know I have always wondered if the gun grabber, excuse me I really meant freedom killer, is interested in a quid pro qou. In other words you remove one of my rights and make something very important to me illegal then I get choose another admendment that you lose. For instance, I lose the 2nd admendment and everybody involved on my side picks for you to lose the 7th admendment (right for jury trails, or perhaps the 13th admendment, protection from enslavement.

    I mean, hey you take something of mine so I limit you too. Seems fair. Maybe some folks cannot be allowed to drink, or vote.

  32. As dangerous and asinine as Douglas Anthony Cooper’s logic is, I can’t help but worry that there are others like him, they vote, and through the media they hold all the power. This “editorial” is disgusting and offensive to freedom-loving people, but it will reach weak, impressionable minds and in doing so, influence the debate and the resulting public policy. I find that incredibly unnerving.

    How do we fight that?

  33. One of the things that seperates sociopathic killers from the mundane is their joy in their ability to disarm, even gain the trust of, the people they have chosen as their victims.
    This is the tactic used to a great extent by the Left, it is what drives the endless orgspasam of lies and fear mongering

  34. I did have a question.
    Do we know if Mr. McLelland had his side arm on him? Do we know how the murder, or murders got into the house? Do we know if Mr. McLelland had had a few drinks of wine with his wife, maybe he was impaired? Do we know if he was answering the door thinking it was a pizza delivery, and his situational awareness was lower than walking on a public street? Does Douglas Anthony Cooper have super mind powers to have analyzed the crime report and scene before it is released? If it has been released, I haven’t checked..
    Ok that was a few questions, but you get my point. Mr. Cooper is making an ASS out of YOU AND ME.. See what I did there..
    He assumed.. He assumed Mr. McLelland was armed, and had his side arm on him and was at a heightened level of situational awareness in the one place he wouldn’t his house. He assumes that Mr. McLelland didn’t have his side arm tucked away in a bed side safe, and assumes yet again that the bad guys took their sweet time bashing down the front door or what ever to kill him and his innocent wife.
    I haven’t read any official report, however what we do know is the two main groups that could be responsible were some really bad dudes. This was a hit. This was calculated. This was timed and planned. 99.9% of the violent crime out there would not have gone through this type of planning. Even trained soldiers die when they are ambushed. I am sorry it happened, but it was an ambush and unless he had his gun with him ready to go, it wouldn’t have helped much.
    Using him as an example of the millions of defensive gun uses which occur each year is a really bad one. Most are not like that. We know this.

  35. The liberals can place their faith in 911 and see how well that works out for them. I myself place my trust in God (first) and in my XDM .40

  36. Of all the news outlets out there, the huffington post is the most yellow of them all. They’re just trying to get ahead and rank up there with CNN, even if that means giving up completely all journalistic integrity.

    “Yellow Journalism” = Chase headlines, do little to no research, don’t cite stats, or use non-credible stats, uptalk or downtalk the truth, all in an effort to bring in readership and popularity, which in turn generates more money. Because face it, the real truth is boring. You know like rape, stabbings, muggings, home invasion etc….

    I stopped reading and watching the huffington post after they did a story on how a small town was getting surplus humvees. they spent 30 minutes talking about how they were getting this military equipment and we were becoming a police state etc….. But not a single one bothered to research at least the humvee wiki page. The humvee was never designed for combat, it was designed for behind the lines logistics. It wasn’t until later after missions like blackhawk down that they upgraded them with armor, which in turn with all the weight turn made them incredibly unreliable.

  37. Like most of these types, he ignores the latest reports. The murdered DA had guns in every room of his house according to his grown children, but removed all of them and put them in one spot because of a party for several friends…that is why he could not defend himself and his wife.

  38. Being from the DFW area I saw this on the morning news. Apparently the DA disarmed himself because he had a dinner party and didn’t want his guns out for guests to see. According to his children the man regularly had guns available but had locked them up. This may seem irrelevant but it proves that making people lock up their self defense guns is a bad idea. Also this was a professional hit. Some organization was looking to intimidate the DA of Kaufman county, and whether it is white supremacists or Mexican cartels it just goes to show that bad guys will not be deterred by well meaning laws. Here is the link to the story:

  39. “…..He’s a Canadian travel writer. With a master’s degree in philosophy…….”

    That can’t be true! A master’s degree in philosophy? Why his writing throws classical logic out the window. His thesis:

    “…good guys with guns are not aware of an impending threat…”

    Therefore, all good guys with guns get shot.

    What an embarrassment!

  40. Even though I own a car and am an excellent driver, I was late to work today. And car accidents kill millions every year. Clearly, the idea that cars are useful is a fantasy, and the only thing we as a country have done is make it easier for drunk drivers to kill innocents. As such, all decent humans will agree that we need to ban the ownership of cars.

    /End Sarcasm

Comments are closed.