Previous Post
Next Post


If it bleeds, it leads. I’ve got no problem with that. As Don Henley sang, it’s interesting when people die. And important. News reports on firearms-related homicide offers us a chance to learn how to avoid that fate, both individually and as a society. On the anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School spree killing, we should take a moment to honor the innocent victims of that slaughter, and consider the meaning of that horrific event. For gun control advocates . . .

that means waving the bloody shirt to argue for civilian disarmament. NBC went particularly big on that aspect. Since Sandy Hook, an American Kid Has Died by a Gun Every Other Day is the first of two major articles on Sandy Hook posted today, this one implying that something must be done! More to their point, they want to leave readers with the impression that nothing important has been done. Yet.

Mind you, the NBC article pretended to be objective: “We talked to 10 experts on gun violence, from both sides of the political divide, to try to answer the question that inevitably arises on milestones such as this: Has anything changed to make children safer from gun violence?” But the pictures and text tell a different story, giving full weight to the anti-gun rights side of the “debate” while giving short shrift to the pro-gun rights side of the equation.

In case that article didn’t inflict enough anti-gun agitprop upon its readers, NBC also chose this day to post an article entitled They Were Killed by a Gun: Faces of the Child Victims. It features portraits and bios of children shot and killed after Sandy Hook, as if to say “why haven’t we done anything to stop this?” Even though none of the children were shot by a spree killer. I repeat: the piece was a clear attempt to wave the bloody shirt for gun control. Like this:

The massacre of 20 first-graders at a Newtown, Connecticut, school three years ago outraged the nation and spurred calls for new legislation, but it did nothing to slow the firearm deaths of young Americans. Each year, hundreds of kids under 12 are shot and killed, either by accident or on purpose.

NBC’s methodology for counting the number of children shot and killed since Sandy Hook is questionable; it was “derived from news reports and other publicly available information.” But even if we take the stat at face value, the articles singularly and I believe intentionally fail to provide a suitable context for readers contemplating the heart-tugging headline and text.

According to the CDC, unintentional injury is the leading cause of death for children between the ages of one and 14. Congenital anomalies and malignant neoplasms are the second most likely cause of death. Homicide and suicide rank third. The total number of children aged one to four who died in the U.S. in 2013 was 4,068. Deaths per 100,000 population: 25.5 The total number of children aged five to 14 years who died in the U.S. in 2013 was 5,340. Deaths per 100,000 population: 13. [Link]

These facts don’t change the horror of Sandy Hook, or any of the other firearms-related fatalities since that unconscionable act. They do not remove responsibility from the people who directly contributed to those deaths, either by malicious intent or negligence. They do not invite complacency. But they do highlight the fact that firearms-related death amongst children aged one to 12 is not an enormous risk, nor an epidemic.

There’s something important missing here: the life-saving deterrent effect of our firearms freedom. I’m not talking about defensive gun uses (DGU) against criminals – despite the fact that the lowest estimate of annual DGU’s is 55k per year, while the highest estimate tops 1m. In the main, those stats apply to adults. I’m talking about our children’s ability to live their lives safe from the effects of government tyranny.

As far as gun control advocates are concerned government tyranny is a non-issue That’s because we live in a society that bears little resemblance to countries where such tyranny exists. Countries like Somalia, where tens of thousands of children die each year from inadequate nutrition and medical care. Or Mexico, where the Knights Templar cartel has kidnapped children to harvest their organs and some 20k children are victims of sex trafficking each year. These are countries with one thing in common: disarmed populations.

Simply put, our guns protect our children from the unimaginable horrors unleashed by government tyranny and chaos. As the son of a Holocaust survivor, I can assure you that this is no paranoid delusion. Liberty can be lost and young lives destroyed in a very short period of time, even in the most “civilized” country with the most democratic government. If Americans were not armed against government tyranny, thus preventing it, our children’s lives would be very different. And not for the better.

So while it’s easy for gun control advocates to wave pictures of kids killed by gunfire to bolster their cause, we should never forget the tens of millions of children are living their lives happily because of our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. The inability of statists to impose civilian disarmament in the immediate aftermath of the Sandy Hook murders indicates that we the people have not entirely lost sight of the “hidden” benefits of gun ownership. I hope our children learn this truth about guns.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Maybe i’m just too sensitive. But having a post about Sandy Hook whilst in the midst of a “Show Us Your Weapons of War” series might not be tactfull.

    • having a post about Sandy Hook whilst in the midst of a “Show Us Your Weapons of War” series might not be tactfull.

      What does one thing have to do with the other? The point of the “weapons of war” series… There’s no such thing. None of those weapons shown have gone to war. None of them had anything to do with Sandy Hook… None of the firearms shown have ever (or will ever) kill a person.

      • Yes, I understand all that. But it still makes me uncomfortable. And not looking to start a pissing contest. But how do you know none of these weapons pictured will never kill anybody? That Lee Enfield has been around for generations. And is still going strong. These AR’s and others will be around for at least a 100 years. The substitute standard Hungarian “Mauser” and the mg-42 can almost be gauranteed to have seen action in the war. And that Israeli 1919, converted to semi auto now is likely to have had an active life.

        • Ok, let me rephrase, none of the MSR (Modern Sporting Rifles), that look similar to the one used at Sandy Hook which is obviously what the objection was; Otherwise, again, what does a Historical model 1919 machinegun have to do with this tragedy? Why does the 1919 make you uncomfortable… can you show us on the doll where it touched you?

        • Since you obviously ‘Know” what is in my mind I should just stop commenting now and let you do your amazing kreskin thing.

          As for playing with dolls. It appears you have the advantage on me there.

          As far as I’m concerned this wannabe pissing contest is over.

        • “Yes, I understand all that. But it still makes me uncomfortable.”

          Concern troll alert! Don’t feed trolls.

      • RF, we don’t always agree. But this doesn’t rise to the level of needing an apology. I was just voicing my discomfert at the timing, is all.

    • I’m still not convinced that the sandy hook thingy actually happened,I’ve looked at what little evidence I could find and it still doesn’t add up,I think sandy hoax would be more accurate.

    • Maybe i’m just too sensitive. But having a post about Sandy Hook whilst in the midst of a “Show Us Your Weapons of War” series might not be tactful.
      Oh foo, as my daughter stated all guns are dangerous and can be deadly.
      Lanza could have used a Nylon 66 at Sandy Hook and created total chaos and carnage.
      We could have a picture of an Ithaca 37 with a game scene on the receiver and it would be a Weapon of War favored by Navy SEALs.

  2. I figured the Administration would announce their new ‘gun control’ plan today to coincide with the SH anniversary.

    If not, I’m going for 5:08 PM Christmas Eve.

    • It will be a 2fer,odumbo will outlaw guns right after he declares martial law and makes himself Fuhrer for life.

  3. I’m surprised that the proponents of non government worker disarmament haven’t tried the hail mary yet, as outside a few northeastern states and Kalifornia they are losing miserably. They ought to show, in full detail, the blood and guts of shooting victims. People who protest the legal murder of unborn children by their mothers use signs of the chopped up victims and it’s effective. More and more states are trying to make legal murder of the unborn more difficult.

    Now, this is a hail Mary because it has almost no chance of working. In fact, I think it would just make people buy more guns and make legislatures continue to acknowledge more gun rights.

  4. Wanna know how to survive in the real world? 30min of Liveleak everyday and you’ll find out how lucky you’ve always been

  5. In politics, as in economics, it’s a great challenge arguing against what is seen with what is unseen.

    Slap a tariff on imports from a foreign manufacturer to shield domestic manufacturers.
    Seen: Domestic makers of the competing product keep their jobs.
    Unseen: domestic makers of a product which uses that foreign product as a component, now lose a disproportionate number of jobs because tariff-shielded manufacturers jack up prices.

    Impose an increased minimum wage.
    Seen: Some current employees get a free raise.
    Unseen: Businesses lose productivity as employees who’d already earned their way to that new minimum wage scale back their efforts to match those who received the raise by law. Also unseen are the businesses that never open and the employees never hired because the cost of business is now too high, thanks to the new minimum wage.

    Americans have a difficult time thinking beyond the range of the moment and seeing these less obvious consequences. Likewise, they tend not to equate our right to keep and bear arms with keeping away from us the unspeakable misery that tyranny would inflict on us. That’s unseen. They just see the craven politicians waving the bloody shirt.

    • If they were to raise the minimum wage to $15.,they would just devalue the dollar by half.Then seniors living on social security would have to make do with half of what they had. The government is always trying to fuck the law abiding by giving in to the criminals and criminally poor.

      • Can’t argue with you there, guest. You’re probably closer to correct than anything else.

  6. The deaths of children under any circumstances are tragic but I don’t see Shannon Watts and Co. calling for mandatory medicine cabinet locks, for drain cleaner safe-storage laws, a photo montage of “Toddlers Lost To Toilet Drownings”

    • My ex wife had a strange habit of demanding things,she was in the checkout of a local grocery store and started making demands about how the bagboy should place her items in the bags,needless to say,he slapped her sooooooooooooo hard that i think she was in danger of her head falling off,she told me about the incident when she arrived home expecting me to “do something about it”,I did,I laughed my ass off to her face,one reason she is my ex.

  7. “Each year, hundreds of kids under 12 are shot and killed, either by accident or on purpose.”

    Each year, thousands of kids under 12 drown or are drowned, either by accident or on purpose


    Each year, thousands of kids under 12, die in vehicles, either by accident or on purpose


    Each year, thousands of kids under 12, die by the hands of another human, either by accident or on purpose


    Each year, thousands of kids under 12, die from cancer.

    BAN CANCER!!! No really, ban cancer. F U cancer.

    Do you see where I’m going here?

  8. Since the Assault Media’s anti-gun pieces always boil down to argument by way of the emotional fallacy, I’ll boil my response down to this simple counter-question:

    Why do you anti-gun zealots hate guns so much more than you love children?

  9. The way school security is done in the country, I actually think that the Bolsheviks actually want school massacres to occur which will lead to increases of government power.
    My wife is a substitute teacher and the active shooter drill consists of having everyone huddle in a mass against the side of the wall which separates the class room from the hall.
    At least the school has a deputy patrolling the elementary and high school grounds and parking lots.
    Adam Lanza really had a shooting fish in a barrel experience before he decided to eat one, which is why he was so effective. He probably could have used a Civil War musket with a bayonet and achieved the same results.

  10. My god RF but you are some kind of asshole.

    Fighting for gun rights is one thing, making snide comments about if “it” bleeds it leads when the “it” is a five year old girl

    The devil has claimed you as one of its own

    • Methinks the liberal doth protest too much.

      It’s an adage almost as old as the press itself: if it bleeds, it leads. Mass media outlets have been doing the dancing-in-the-blood-of-the-dead routine for a long time — not only that, they’re making schloads of money from it. And the more sensational and sad the story, the more eyeballs they attract and the more money it brings in.

      It’s an ugly cycle, and I’d love to do my part to stop it. So here’s my proposal: I’ll agree to support the MSM’s favorite “common sense” gun control measures — and what’s more, I’ll publicly proclaim my assholiness (and call upon RF to do the same) — if they’ll agree to some common sense speech-control measures.

      How about this:
      — No 24/7 mass-media freakouts when mass murders happen. Coverage will include no more than one live report per news outlet per day.
      — All journalists will provide evidence of credentials and ongoing training in return for a journalistic license to practice.
      — On-location reports will be sourced from a pool of journalists who (in the interest of fairness) will be randomly selected from the larger pool of federally licensed press outlets.
      — The names and motivations of mass murderers, spree killers, and terrorists may *not* be speculated upon in live broadcasts. The identity of any mass killer may be conveyed only once by any news outlet.

      What do you think? Deal?

      • I like all the ideas which are specific and designed not to overly limit speech rights. I might add to it tax on 100% of ad income for all hours of broadcast including lurid or video coverage

        Perhaps text only coverage and all else taxed

        I genuinely think that would be the most effective way to cut down on mass killings, would be more moral, would infringe on profit but not rights

        I also think it is a decent strategy for gun rights advocates, because all the above might actually be true

        And it is why I’m so against this column, in addition to making guns rights activities seem like absolutely terrible people, and in addition to the horror a parent might feel on coming here or seeing it in a web search and reading it, the glee on taking profits, in posting web hits and then saying how people should make money on terrified dead children, is just so ugly and unhelpful.

        Sorry. I was agreeing with you but could not help but want RF to feel shame

        • Exude me, to add, I think training requirements for media are neither legal nor practical and I do get your analogy, and explicitly limits may not be as well

          That is why I suggested taxes. Sin taxes are very popular, seemingly legal, and if organizations feel they need to in the public good they can still always print or show what they like

          Then we could see how much is profit drive

        • For the record, I wasn’t serious. I was hoping you’d find those proposals UNreasonable.

          If the news media would restrain itself voluntarily out of a sense of decency (or failing that, in response to public shaming), that would be ideal. I really do believe they’re fueling a growth market in spree killings by providing instant celebrity to mentally unbalanced fame-seekers.

          But even as much as I hate the toxic behavior of the legacy news media, I’m not going to support infringement of the First Amendment any more than I support infringement of the Second.

  11. And as I’m typing I’m watching the network snooze whining about “the horrible lack of gun control since Sandy Hook”…sorry your kid died but it does not mean you get to take my rights away. And now we have left-lunatics wanting to ban guns because “Moose-lims”…

  12. The most interesting thing about post Sandy Hook America is how fully the country has embraced the belief that possessing guns for self-protection is better than not having guns. Gun control advocates believed that Sandy Hook finally gave them just the kind of shocking event that would allow them to cause a panicked and outraged population to accept gun control. They failed. All it took was NRA’s Wayne LaPierre’s “goog guy with a gun” comment to completely discredit the gun control argument that banning guns creates a safer America. The simple fact is that, despite decades of progressive political propaganda, Americans know that owning a gun is better for self-protection than not owning a gun. When The Bad Thing happens, it’s better to have a fighting chance with a gun than not having one.

Comments are closed.