old man cane angry
Previous Post
Next Post

At the risk of alienating everyone on both sides, I would dare suggest there might be a reasoned path forward. First, for the sake of discussion, we set aside partisan rhetoric. Second, except for what the Founding Fathers signed onto as our “inalienable right to life,” we disregard for the time being our supposed legal rights and focus instead on the logic of the issue. Then, we each try to answer this simple question, “Why, as a nonmilitary, non-law enforcement, private citizen, do I want or need firearms?” Some possible answers:

1. I want to off the rats getting into my corn crib, the skunk getting into my henhouse, or the raccoon getting into my garbage can. (IMHO, if you’re so inept at handling firearms that you think you need an AR-15 for this purpose, you probably shouldn’t be allowed to touch one.)

2. I like/need to hunt game.

3. I enjoy target shooting.

4. I collect historical weapons.

5. I want to be able to defend hearth and home against intruders.

6. I want to be able to intimidate or to kill anyone I perceive to be threatening me, whenever, wherever.

7. I want to be able to intimidate or to kill lots of people rapidly.

8. I am keen to participate in the imminent civil/race war.

9. I want to be able to take out machine guns, tanks, Black Hawks, drones, or whatever weapons the government might try to deploy against me.

How you answered the question would logically determine what kinds of firearms would be appropriate for your wants and needs and when, where, and under what circumstances it would be appropriate to carry and use them. If you concur with answers 6-9, you need read no further. If you believe that there might be a better way of resolving differences than trying to kill each other, please read on. …

“But wait,” you say, “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Rubbish! It’s certainly not the only way, and as the social experiment of the last several decades has proven, it’s not a particularly good way. Deregulation and proliferation of firearms in this country has only resulted in ever-increasing gun violence, in sharp contrast to other English-speaking, gun-loving countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, where regulation has drastically curbed gun violence.

“Well, if public carrying of guns is outlawed, only outlaws will be carrying guns.” Precisely! If someone with an assault weapon was waltzing down the street, towards a playground, school, political rally, or peaceful protest, into a restaurant, bank, library, church, clinic, or city council meeting, it would be presumed that he was up to no good. Those whose jobs it is to serve and to protect us (law enforcement), could and should confront him, disarm him, and arrest him.

Then no one in government need bother about our guns safely kept in our own homes.

David Webb, MD in Gun Violence – A Possible Path Forward?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “First, for the sake of discussion, we set aside partisan rhetoric. ”

    Then Webb goes straight to partisan gaslighting.

    For a Dr he is ignorant of reality.

    • Constantly amazes me that people with the intelligence to become doctors, professors, high-level computer programmers, cannot work out the illogic of their Utopian anti-gun arguments.

      What is that old codger with the cane going to do, wave it at the group of teen age thugs to hold them off until the police arrive?

      And then there is the point that it is a natural right bestowed upon every living thing to have the ability as best they can to preserve at a minimum there OWN life. There is nothing about why do you NEED a gun anywhere in that argument.

      As for Dr. Webb, if you are in fear of law-abiding Americans owning and/or carrying firearms you need to exercise your OWN right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms to protect yourself, not rely on a 911 operator and a bunch of armed LEOs to do the job for you.

    • Yep. The very first “reason” he gives is an attempt to belittle and humiliate.

      And some of them wonder why gun owners are no longer interested in a “reasonable discussion” with them.

      • To be fair, they have never been interested in having a reasonable discussion with us either. The only conversation they want is to dictate terms.

    • webb is another quack doctor who instead of playing golf he sits around concocting slanderous, libelous, profiling ways to get the Gun Concrol Rot he wants. I would be surprised if no one has filed a complaint with the state board of medical examiners against him.

    • It didn’t take long for Doctor Webb to jump off the slippery slope.

      And comparing gun ownership in the USA to Australia is an “apples and oranges” comparison.

  2. “Those whose jobs it is to serve and to protect us (law enforcement), could and should confront him, disarm him, and arrest him.”

    Could and should, but when they don’t?

    Can you say Uvalde?

    • Morally they should, as should anyone with the power to intervene, in actual fact though his basic premise is a lie. It is not the actual job of the police to protect the lives of anyone, the just arrest the lawbreakers afterward

      Multiple court cases at every level have conclusively said the police have no duty to protect anyone but themselves, and they carry guns not for the protection of the public but, like anyone with a concealed carry permit, for the protection of themselves.

      So even bringing the abject moral failure of Uvlade into this is sadly giving into the lefts false premise

    • And again I will point out that if Texas law did not prohibit guns in funeral homes then the funeral home employee would have ended the whole thing outside the fence.

    • I can. That battalion’s worth of police was the nail in the coffin, that Elijsha Dicken slammed home, for the idea that we’re safer with police protecting us.

      You can count on no one but yourself to protect your life.

    • As those here know well, their job isn’t really to protect US – their legal obligation of service and protection to the public is in enforcing laws, not necessarily to intervene in the midst of an illegal act to stop or minimize harm to any individual citizen.

      The idea that this guy thinks the average crime is committed by some guy walking down the street with an ‘assault weapon” clearly in view for all to see coming – as opposed to an easily concealed pistol illegally possessed by a prohibited person blending in with the sheep until he finds one he wants to reveal himself as a wolf to – shows how uninformed and out of touch said doctor is.

    • Actually all you need to experience is someone breaking into your home and call 911. Then see how long it takes for a LEO to show up. From experience, 20 minutes at least! Thankfully my neighbor next door heard my alarm and responded. This convinced my wife (who previouosly was anti-gun) to take a handgun course and purchase a firearm. The responding officer advised us to be prepared with our own defense.

      Another observation is this obsession with AR-15’s and whether or not you need one. I don’t own one but I had rented one at our local range and can say that they are very accurate, easy to shoot and have very low recoil making it safer to shoot if you need a follow up shot. The ammo is expensive so I don’t see me buying one but I can definitely understand why someone would want one.

      Just to throw in another point that was not mentioned. The popular 8 to 10 round magazine limit is misguided. If you check out LEO statistics (Massad Ayoob is a good expert, read his books) most officers have an accuracy of less than 20%. That means the average shooter will hit the bad guy maybe twice with a 10 round magazine. If there are 2 or more home invaders, the odds are not good for the good guy.

      • I always hate their argument about limiting magazine capacity. Who cares about MOST defensive gun uses? People who carry aren’t carrying for the most likely scenario. They’re carrying for the rare times when something MIGHT go wrong. Not for what is most common

  3. “Those whose jobs it is to serve and to protect us (law enforcement), could and should confront him, disarm him, and arrest him.” Just like TV.

    Did this guy just wake up from a coma. He has no idea how Uvalde went down.

    • Not to mention several recent attacks on grocery stores or the movies theater in Colorado a few years back.

      I seem to recall that the armed murderer was already shooting people in the parking lot as he headed for the front doors in Buffalo and in the theater he came in through an exit door and started shooting in the dark before anyone even knew his was there.

    • He has no idea how anything is going down, save maybe, colds and boo-boos.

      1) The police can’t protect you.
      2) The police don’t have a duty to protect you.
      3) The police, if standing right there, still may not protect you.

      4) Murder is already illegal, why are we bothering with gun control? Go get the murderers, idiots!

      5) Gun control is an attempt to stop murder, and it is a crappy attempt, because good people own guns, and attempts to force them to live the life you approve of, makes you a tyrant and garbage human.

      6) This MD’s screed, is more proof MD’s should stay in their lane, because their intellectual authority exists in their lane, not others. You wouldn’t ask your MD about plumbing issues would you? Of course not. Why would you consult them about the philosophical ideas about the rights of citizenry???

      7) This guy’s entire article is delusional nonsense. He has all these preconceptions and prior assumed conclusions that he builds upon to make his arguments, and they are not not ground in reality.

      8) Can gun control work? Absolutely. It works great in China and North Korea. But I don’t want to ******* live in North Korea. Gun control also works in small island nations, like the UK and Japan. But we don’t live in an island nation. Further, there are more guns here than people. So… in other words… it’s not going to work! So take steps to protect yourself and family, if that is what you want to do, or not if that is what you want, and live your life and stop trying to force everyone else to live your ideals.

  4. Those whose jobs it is to serve and to protect us (law enforcement), could and should confront him, disarm him, and arrest him.

    LOL, they are the first to run away.

    • And it always happens just like:
      “If someone with an assault weapon was waltzing down the street”

      This guy’s an idiot. He also seems to think the problem is political violence.

      • Yeah, no one has ever explained to this guy that the AR is split in easily disassembled portions and can be easily concealed in a bag.

    • If the cops had given their rifles to the parents trying to enter the school, those parents would have went in guns blazing. Zero hesitation.

  5. Has no one ever explained to this guy that ARs are great for hunting hogs, coyotes, and any number of varmints that are either shy (distances .22lr won’t reach) or run in packs or both?

    nO oNe NeeDS aN ar TO hUnT. Says the guy who knows nothing about either guns or hunting

  6. “Need.” Brought to you by the same band with such hits as “To save your rights we must restrict your rights”, “Shoulder things that go up” and “Wood is good but plastic is evil.”

    These people are like flat earthers at this point.

    • They’re worse. At least flat earthers know that global warming is a myth. Planar warming MAYBE, but even then, the science isn’t settled on how much is man made and how much is natural cycle stuff.

  7. Geez what a gaslighting trip. Holy smokes. But in any case I choose 9 because of all the people on the list I fear the government most of all because they have a near virtual monopoly power on violence. It’s what all governments throughout all of human civilization do best, engage in violence against their own people. Ask those kids in Denver how they felt when the cops opened fire on them. I’d tell him to ask the kids in Uvalde or Waco or Ruby Ridge or Kent State or whole hosts of other incidents but they can’t speak any longer, but the cops? Well they’re doing just fine. Those children were protected and served right into the grave. It’s SOP dontchaknow.

    Furthermore, it’s not like youtube isn’t filled to the rafters with bad cop actions. I’ll take the gun and personal responsibility for myself and well if some people want to off each other on Black Friday over a flat screen TV for $199 then go for it.

    People who are disarmed are more easily controlled and less likely to rise up cause you know that monopoly power on government thing (see above). Our founders wanted us to have weapons specifically so that can’t happen. They saw the abuse of power in European nations. In the final analysis people still need a way to violently overthrow governments if needed.

    • “People who are disarmed are more easily controlled and less likely to rise up…”

      Add to the “disarmed”, those who are doped up on anti-depressants, legalized narcotics, “free” government money programs for not working or paying debts, etc.

  8. ” Second, except for what the Founding Fathers signed onto as our “inalienable right to life,” we disregard for the time being our supposed legal rights and focus instead on the logic of the issue.”

    Our supposed legal rights? Fuck this guy, they are not supposed, they are inalienable. What other rights would he like to disregard after this one? Once again, fuck this guy and everyone like him.

    • I wonder if I can tell cancer that it needs to go away because I have an “inalienable right to life”. That’s not a right guaranteed by anything.

    • The right to life, liberty, and the purfuit of hapineff appears in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, while the right to keep and bear arms appears in the latter. Maybe he should go back to Civics 101.

      • I’ve pointed that out to several leftists myself. It seems like confusion is a common characteristic among that crowd.

    • dph,

      … we disregard for the time being our supposed legal rights and focus instead on the logic of the issue.

      There is something here far worse than suggesting that legal rights may not actually be rights at all: Dr. Doofus is invoking the Social Utility argument to justify something “logical” to supersede rights.

      Here is the problem with the Social Utility argument:
      There is no question that our birth rate must outpace our death rate if our society is going to survive. And there is no question that young women of prime child bearing age with good genetics will produce the healthiest children which maximizes the odds of our society surviving. Therefore, it is only logical that young women of child bearing age and good genetics MUST allow government-appointed men to impregnate them–for the good of society of course.

      Can you imagine the howling, weeping, and gnashing of teeth on the Far Left political spectrum if government mandated that young healthy women have sex with government-appointed men?

  9. Dear dr webb, after all the people that medicine has killed or maimed the last 3 years, who are you to say anything to me? Even before covid 19 malpractice killed many times more than gun violence. Your chosen profession killed millions telling them that a useless so called vaccine was the only hope just so some could get richer. So sincerely piss off

  10. (Besides others on the list…)
    “6. I want to be able to intimidate or to kill anyone I perceive to be threatening me, whenever, wherever.

    7. I want to be able to intimidate or to kill lots of people rapidly.”

    WOW- can anyone create a better straw man than this BS?

    Sheer stupidity. Other than partaking in the enjoyment of shooting activities, the obvious answer for why one might want to own and keep firearms is neither of these, nor any of the others that this self-imposed expert Webb has put forth.

    Many gun owners do seek to both protect life and livelihood from one’s government, and from those who would take one, the other, or both without any reason other than they don’t think “you” should have it, sans due compensation, price negotiation, or your actual consent in the first place. The millions of new firearms owners in response to the pertinent government’s unopposed, often encouraged, rioting in blue states and cities proves this better than any evidence the uniformed doctor can present.

    Webb’s entire premise is from the same used toilet paper as most “gun studies” put forth by anti-gun groups, including the DOJ, AMA, JAMA and CDC: State a oroposed outcome and then go about concocting “data” to support your premise. They must do this, as so many actual, scientifically-acceptable studies since the late 1970s have shown the opposite of these group’s desired results, at which point, the results and findings become buried and suppressed, even though most were funded with taxpayer dollars.

    • Couldn’t agree more. Strawman seems to be the favored logical fallacy of ideology from both the right and the left these days. No one talks about actual reasonable counterarguments and why their point is still better They always portray the other side as some easy to refute BS.

      • Like always they correlate quantities of guns sold, vague and various regulations, and levels of “gun violence” which is also vague unless defined.

        “Deregulation and proliferation of firearms in this country has only resulted in ever-increasing gun violence.” Nothing to prove this other than saying “rubbish!” to anyone who believes otherwise. Up until the BLM sponsored defund movement and COVID lockdowns violence in general was on a downward trend.

        The surge in gun buying was riot/COVID and the usual gun control threat related, but the esteemed author needs to show that all these new legal gun owners buy a weapon, buy some ammo, kill some people yeehaw!

        Or are all these new guns getting manufactured getting funneled directly to criminals? Glock has a shop on “the street” for their underworld patrons?

        Otherwise, he needs to change up his argument, are you a lawful gun owner with lawfully acquired guns? Ok nothing more to say to you, you’re good, carry on, you are in the least likely to cause trouble crowd. Ok are you have guns and are a violent felon, gang member, straw purchaser, gun smuggler? Ok you should be the focus here.

        • I’ve been arguing with people over this talking point for years: They say that it is the wide availability of guns that “causes” the gun crime. Why is it then, I ask, that the number of gun crimes each year is three to four orders of magnitude lower than the number of guns? If the number of crimes is proportional to the number of guns, why is not an increase in the number of guns in the country on the order of tens or even hundreds of millions over the past decade or two not accompanied by a huge surge in gun related crime?

          Just how many guns are needed to commit a homicide, for instance? Apparently, in this country, it is tens of thousands (approximately 3.5 homicide guns per 100,000 guns). In Mexico, however, it is fewer than 1000 (approximately 110 homicide guns per 100,000 guns). In El Salvador, it is less than 100 (1150 homicide guns per 100,000 guns). Why does it take 30 times as many guns in the U.S. to provide for 1 homicide as it does in Mexico? 300 times as many as in El Salvador? Is a gun in El Salvador, on average, 300 times as lethal as a gun in the U.S.? What is the proportionality of guns to gun crime? Is it constant? How many guns would we have to eliminate in the U.S. to cut gun-related crime by, say, 10%?

          I have never gotten cogent answers to any of these questions.

  11. In reality life is always a trade off. Nothing is fool proof and nothing is perfect and so it is with gun control laws.

    History has proven that way less people die when there is strict gun control. Of course the paranoid far right cannot except reality and never will. The Far Right are selfish and self-serving and “they look out for No. 1 and say to hell with everyone else”.

    In reality gun ownership takes more lives than ever saves them. A gun in the home makes it 500% more likely the Husband will kill his wife or that kids will kill themselves or each other or that someone in the home will commit suicide with a gun because it is so easy and deadly, you get no second chance when you commit suicide with a gun compared to many other means which often fail.

    Yes there will always be the criminal element and there will always be mentally ill people but when guns are available it makes it much easier for both groups to either rob or commit mass murder. History has proven that countries with strict gun control have way less killings and mass murder than those that permit easy access to guns.

    Remember the naked ape was bred for violence and murder and the more weapons you let him have the more weapons he will use on his fellow man. There is no such animal as the “law abiding citizen” and “an armed society is not a polite society”. We would not have police departments if this were not true nor would we have road rage murder if the naked ape could not gun down someone for just cutting him off in traffic.

    I call to mind the Zimmerman case. Here we had two viscous naked apes, one a vicious street thug and robber and the other a power mad viscous storm trooper looking for a fight and violence. When the two met the both were also fighting over material property with human life being regarded as expendable. The inevitable happened which was deadly violence and death. Would this have happened without the gun? Probably not.

    Without the gun Zimmerman, the power mad naked ape, would not have antagonized a much bigger Martin the viscous naked ape and waited for the police to arrive instead of provoking a deadly fight and Martin would never have been shot and killed over a fight over material goods.

    With Europe’s strict gun control and the banning of carrying guns none of this would have happened because Zimmerman would not of been carrying a gun or used one as he would have been in more trouble than Martin the robber and that is fact.

    The above example happens frequently in Capitalvania where money is the only god and life is considered cheap and expendable.

    And remember in Japan with strict gun control last year they had just one gun murder while in Capitalvania we have on average 40,000 deaths from gun fire.

    • Japan had 21,007 suicides last year, having strict gun control does not stop people from killing them selves or others for that matter.

      • What you fail to reveal is that studies prove that if Japan had access to handguns (they do have access to rifles and shotguns) that the suicide rate would be far higher than what it currently is.

        • The “studies”? Lol. The USA has the most guns in the world and are middle of the pack for suicide. Japan has triple the suicide rate of the USA. There are 9 other countries with higher suicide rates than Japan.

          There is zero doubt that there are factors vastly greater than access to guns in terms of suicide. Gun control advocates don’t care about suicide. They just pretend to because they think it’ll help them ban guns. Your supposed concern is nothing more than excuse of the moment. We could have a suicide rate of zero and you’d still want to ban guns.

    • Your statistics are not correct and you do not get them from the right sources. If you want the real deal go to the FBI website where there is far less propaganda involved.

    • “History has proven that way less people die when there is strict gun control.”

      Like in the Soviet Union? Or Mexico? Or China? Or Germany?

      • They only count certain countries with strict gun control. When Pol Pot kills a quarter of his recently disarmed population, that doesn’t count

      • My favorite quote from the game No One Lives Forever 2.

        “This is the Soviet Union. People just don’t disappear.”

    • “History has proven that way less people die when there is strict gun control”

      Lots of strict gun control in Stalin’s USSR and Red China. Millions and millions dead by democide in the 20th century.

      You lie.

    • Just like the far left, at the 11 o’clock position, the far right at the 1 o’clock position wants gun control. The position that wants an armed citizenry sits at the 6 o’clock position.

      I figure you sitting at the 12 would realize that.

    • And remember in Japan with strict gun control last year they had just one gun murder while in Capitalvania we have on average 40,000 deaths from gun fire.

      Why does the method matter? Is death from knife or poison better?

      Get over your hoplophoba and grow up. Murder and suicide is a choice. You can’t prevent choices with any law.

    • dacian,

      History has proven that way less people die when there is strict gun control.

      That is a huge comfort to the more than 100 million people whose governments executed them–just ask all of those dead Russians, Jews, Gypsies, Chinese, and Cambodians.

      And let’s also remember the countless dead Rwandans and Ukrainians who thankfully died at the hands of someone other than their own government.

      Pro tip: when a population is weak and unarmed, it is only a matter of time before awful people rise to power and go on to use, abuse, exploit, deceive, coerce, rape, pillage, and/or murder the weak and unarmed populace.

    • History has proven that way less people die when there is strict gun control.

      6 million Jews, 65 million Chinese and 20/60 million Russians MIGHT disagree with you IF they had not been MURDERED because they had been denied a viable means of self-defense (rocks and sticks against guns?)

      • to Madd Man

        As Usual the Far Right know zero about History.

        The Jews did indeed own guns and those that did not had access to them as was proven during the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. The Jews chose not to use guns as they feared a mass slaughter by Hitler’s Army which would have happened and they knew that they would have no chance against a modern well equipped army. It was only when they received word in the Warsaw Ghetto that they were destined for the gas chambers that they figured it was better to die fighting. In both cases they knew they could not win.

        The idea of a mass citizen revolt seldom has seldom happed in history and to be successful the insurgents must have outside funding and arms supplied and have a sanctuary to retreat to when attacked by a modern army as happened in the American War of insurrection and also in the war in Vietnam, both in the French-Indo China War and the American war in Vietnam. In those latter two cases it was not citizen soldiers revolting against their own government but fighting an occupying’s force and they were led by a well equipped, well funded guerilla army funded by several foreign countries.

        The American insurrection ending in 1776 , while not identical, closely paralleled the wars in Vietnam and was also successful only because of another more powerful foreign country financing the insurrection and supplying professionally trained foreign troops to help them, which did not happen in Vietnam as they fought alone with only the help of outside financing and weapons.

        Yes the wet dream Far Right fantasy of the citizen solider rising up against a tyrannical occupying army is just another myth believed in by the ignorant Far Right which loves to glorify a war that was largely financed and won by the professionally trained French Army and Navy, not a bunch of untrained American hillbillies, led by an incompetent General Washington, probably the worst general in U.S. History, that lost more battles than he won and was almost captured twice, not to mention his incompetent and disastrous performance in the French and Indian War when he worked for the British and later demanded a generalship in the British Army which resulted in the British laughing in his face.

        And your usual ignorance about the Chinese History and Russian history is another subject way to long to go into but none of it would have been stopped by a bunch of Chinese or Russian peasants revolting and not having the support of an already existing well equipped governmental army that was in revolt.

        • The “Far Right”: Every mass murdering, genocidal dictator has attempted to disarm their population to make their genocide easier. Let’s enshrine the right to self defense with effective tools like guns.

          Dacian: Armed resistance to government can’t work. Let the dictators strip rights to make genocide easier. Look at all of my moral superiority.

          Dacian pal, you are literal human garbage.

        • Dacian working hard to render the populace powerless and under the boot of majoritarianism.

          Good work Dacian. Definitely when someone is looking to kill you, be it a maoist, or the SS, it’s better to be disarmed!

        • Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

          Fuks what happened in one small group in POLAND got to do with the disarmed Jews in Nazi Germany. A little refresher in case you missed it:

          The legal foundations that the Nazi Party later used for the purpose of disarming the Jews were already laid during the Weimar Republic. Starting with the Reichsgesetz über Schusswaffen und Munition (Reich law on firearms and ammunition), enacted on 12 April 1928, weapon purchase permits were introduced, which only allowed “authorized persons” the purchase and possession of firearms. Mandatory registration of weapons was introduced, which gave the government the opportunity of accessing weapon owner and their weapons at any given time. Manufacture and sale of weapons was only permitted if authorized so. The purpose was to ensure that firearms were only issued to “reliable individuals”. Starting in 1930, bladed weapons were also regulated. The carrying of weapons in public now required a weapons permit.

          Apparently YOUR ignorance has no bounds…

        • I wonder if Dacian wears one of those Mao shirts.

          Naw, dac is too COOL for Mao he’s a Che/Fidel/Hugo kind of Kommie.

    • What Communist drivel this is? You and your Neo-Marxist leftist friends want (NEED) power & control. Colt made all men (this includes women) equal…but you don’t like that, do you? Why should I bow to larger, stronger men than I? Your desire for a Big Gov police state makes you a lunatic. Even after the last few years of evidence you still think the police will protect you? You think it is bad that Ukraine citizens had/have guns? You blame guns rather than the main murder stat/culprit GANGS? What an evil, racist POS you are.

    • How much are you being paid to troll the gun forums???

      And which Anti-Gun org is paying you to come on these forums to post “BLATANT LIES”???

  12. For someone supposedly highly educated, he really should learn what a “strawman” logical fallacy is. Why is it that whenever someone points out the core premise of the second ammendment being for the people to be armed to resist government tyrrany, some idiot brings up tanks, drones, jets, helicopters or even nukes to justify how stupid that is? If small arms still couldn’t be effectively used as a major tool of a resistance against a large military, there would be no insurgencies around the world that succeed. But as the Taliban showed, that’s just not true. If anything, there are more gun owners in the US than there were Taliban fighters in all 20 years of our occupation and counter insurgency. Or what about that time a bunch of farmers kicked our asses out of Vietnam using mainly small arms and guerilla tactics? The second ammendment is as relevant a check on government power today as it was at any point in American history.

  13. Another day, another screed written by another arrogant gasbag.

    Don’t care what he thinks.

    • What a maroon! If you didn’t get armed up in the last 2&a half years you’re an imbecile🙄 Why do these self-proclaimed geniuses get everything wrong?

      • Based on working with such people, isolation from reality. Not exposed to actual crime or violence paired with a social support bubble that further insulates all involved from observing let alone discussing basic human nature allowed to run unchecked by consequences. Also observed one get a wake up call after getting carjacked a block from the state capitol and start his pistol permit application.

        • I’d like him to go for a walk with me around a few neighborhoods in my area. Let him see a little bit of the real world. There’s a couple areas the cops won’t go unless there are at least 3-4 cruisers and more nearby.
          I kinda hope he declines the offer really.

  14. Dr. Webb, look down at your shoes.
    Odds are, they are slip-ons. Few Phd’s can tie shoe laces, because they studied their chosen field so intently. And IGNORED the reality of those millions who live in the stink that you abhor. Don’t ever preach to me about the horrors of the ER team treating a gunshot casualty until you live in OUR world. And, not until you yourself are a casualty can you describe what it is like, or how “you feel about it”. How ten million TV watchers like you FEEL about something doesn’t hold a candle to how I EXPERIENCE it.
    You Academics take the greatest pride in reading books written by closet-dwelling Liberals, chatting with your fellow closet-dwellers, then PRESCRIBING to us unwashed Basket-Dwellers chapter and verse how we now must live.
    YOU had a meeting. YOU had a consensus. Now WE need to take a bath in your glorious closet-wisdom? Go pound sand.
    Your rationalizations are poorly researched and invalid. Your position is unscientific, unproven and flies in the very face of reality. As a physician, I would never let you touch me! You cannot be trusted with my life because you have no concept of reality. Yes, I’d rather die in Triage than let you prescribe treatment for MY wounds.
    Find another profession.

  15. As stated by David Webb, MD(more dumbass), ” First, for the sake of discussion, we set aside partisan rhetoric. Second, except for what the Founding Fathers signed onto as our “inalienable right to life,” we disregard for the time being our supposed legal rights and focus instead on the logic of the issue”

    Set aside partisan rhetoric and disregard supposed legal rights leaves only opinion, his. He uses the word “kill” in #s 6&7 and implies “kill” in 1,2,8 and 9. POTG want to stop the threat which may result in killing but at the onset stopping the threat is the mindset. #7 is an insult to POTG and reveals his true feelings. These aren’t choices for POTG to take but rather choices he ascribes to POTG. Nothing new about Webb’s opinions, he’s just stating them in a different way under the guise of reaching a common medium ground.

    • It does seem like he’s letting slip that he can’t be trusted with guns. Apparently he doesn’t have control over his own emotions and would like to kill anyone that he disagrees with

  16. The only comment on his article is by c_gray* 😆.

    Also, David Webb sounds just like Albert L J Hall.

    *I get moderated without the underscore. So some words are added by TTAG or did WordPress decide to moderate that?

    • Moderated by a divisive anti authority pot stirring type. If he was more articulate I would say he glows.

  17. I guess the author of this article never read the statistics on police response times and how many people would be dead if they waited for the police to handle a serious firearm violation. Nor did they look at the statistics of just how many people successfully defend themselves from armed assailants. The problem with these leftist antigun folks is that they are totally ignorant of most firearm issues. And, yes, given the Government we have today that does not follow its own laws and harasses anyone who speaks out against its failed policies, we need AR15’s, AK47’s, and all types of weapons to protect our Country against them.

  18. “Hi, I’m Doctor Karen Webb, and I have a reasoned path forward for Doctor Dave.”
    Give a fair assessment of your motives, by simply choosing the one you feel is closest to your need to remove the Constitutional Guarantees that protect the Citizens of America:
    1) I hate penises, and GUBS are penises.
    2) I carry a scalpel withs curved blade, in case I need to do a De-Testicalization on anyone I meet that may have testosterone in them (sexually confused biological females need not be alarmed).
    3) My TV and Movie based feelings of fear and loathing are far more valid than your reality. They trump those silly little pieces of paper that so many hundreds of thousands of you NON-Menstruators bled and died for.
    4) The right to gossip and plot the firing, alienation and ostracism of subject races (men, Southerners, other non-city dwellers, etc.) is an inalienable right of us women.
    5) You Basket-Dwellers need to be killed one way or another. We don’t care how.
    6) We’re 53% of the vote and we hate you! Let’s have another war! Now you non-bra-wearers get on down to the Selective Service office and line up.
    7) I watch CNN so I know.
    So feel free to choose, Dave, it’s all fair. You HAVE to admit that. And oh BTW that thing about being a woman, I just assumed that. You go girl!

  19. “Why, as a nonmilitary, non-law enforcement, private citizen, do I want or need firearms?”

    “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.” – George Mason, American delegate from Virginia to the U.S. Constitutional Convention

  20. Supposed? See the ACTION CLAUSE of the 2nd Amendment. Reason? See the PREFATORY CLAUSE of the 2nd Amendment. Disarm the bad dude with a rifle and ill intent? I’m sure he will willingly comply.

  21. I can’t get the waltzing AR owner out of my head – just imagine the awesome reality show you could do – “Dancing With Guns”, “Bullet Ballerinas”, “So You Think You Can Shoot”, “Strictly Ballistic”…stuff writes itself!!

  22. Yet another Dr. that because he possesses an MD after his name he has been infused with the godlike capacity to tell everyone what they must do. Just another Fauci expecting us to do whatever his “science” tells us to do.

  23. Where do you guys find these ignorant a-holes and why must we be treated to their fecal matter. I thought this was The TRUTH about guns.

      • “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”
        – ancient Klingon proverb.

        “If the only weapon you have is a knife”
        – ancient SquirrelSlayer proverb.

    • “Where do you guys find these ignorant a-holes and why must we be treated to their fecal matter.”

      This junk again?

      It’s called “Know the enemy”.

      Knowing what they are saying helps us develop countering arguments to refute their ‘fecal matter’…

      • Knowing what they are saying helps us develop countering arguments:

        AND trash the morons that agree with them.

  24. I have guns and want them because I like guns of all types and keep them for a myriad of reasons and uses. I also am permitted to have them under the second amendment and as long as I am not committing crimes with those guns I need no other justification for having them. If that disturbs you then leave and don’t be around me. Your fear of me and my guns is not my problem. If I commit a crime with a gun, then you can make it your problem and legallyb remove my guns.

    • “If I commit a crime with a gun, then you can make it your problem and legallyb remove my guns.”
      Is that a crime according to the Constitution or a crime according to a self serving SOB such as Biden?

  25. When seconds count, police are but minutes away.

    That’s all you need to refute this nonsense.

    • Depending what “police” you’re talking about, you could be but minutes away from having your door kicked in – your dog shot – your family terrorized – your house wrecked —- or far worse.

  26. “I would dare suggest there might be a reasoned path forward.”
    no need to “dare.”
    there is … and yours is not it.
    the reasoned path forward has already been established.
    “the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.”
    see … that wasn’t hard.

  27. “Deregulation and proliferation of firearms in this country has only resulted in ever-increasing gun violence,”

    Someone, or actually, a lot of people need to be introduced to the idea of ’cause and effect’. Yeah, he’s got an undesirable effect identified. Now he needs to find the cause. The cause of crime and violence is not the weapons available. The cause, whatever it is, has a lot to do with people, not the tools that people use.

    We see criminals in their revolving door justice system, being arrested, and turned loose again, to commit ever more serious, ever more violent crimes. We’ve seen the prison system all but emptied in the last two years. We see prosecutors refusing to prosecute. There are a lot of causes.

    The solution is, allow every law abiding citizen in the nation to carry, whenever, wherever. No permits, nor licensing, no nothing. Allow everyone to carry whichever weapon they choose to carry. There will be a whole lot more people available, immediately, on the spot, whenever a crazy goes crazy. The crazy can be medicated – permanently. Ditto with criminals. Criminals respond in the same way as crazies respond to two or three lead pills, delivered at high velocity. Or, even middling velocity. Small caliber, large caliber, supersonic, subsonic, the medicine works more often than not.

    Just stop hogtying law abiding citizens, making them easy victims for the predators.

  28. Another person who puts “MD” after their name as if anyone should listen to them on a topic that has nothing to do with their specialty, training or education.

    Also, any American that types “rubbish” as an exclamation is trying too hard to sound british. And if he’s british, that’s all the more reason to ignore him.

  29. Sounds like this guy has been reading too much Babylon Bee… Although 9 DOES sound pretty cool. Anyway, gotta go vote, it’s Primary day in the Gunshine.

  30. So David Webb believes in New Jersey’s definition of self-defense, namely, it is illegal to defend your life (or defend yourself from being raped) when you are outside of your own home. My gun lawyer said, “New Jersey does not recognize any legal right to self-defense outside of the home,” and neither does David Webb.
    Webb’s wording of rules 5 and 6 are incredibly slanted and biased! He wrote:

    “5. I want to be able to defend hearth and home against intruders.

    6. I want to be able to intimidate or to kill anyone I perceive to be threatening me, whenever, wherever.”

    And then due to his biased, slanted working, he concludes that reason 5 is OK, but reason 6 is not OK. In other words, Webb thinks that if a carjacker wants to kill you, then you should just let him do it, or if a gang of street thugs want to kill you or rape you, then you should just let them do it.

    We should replace Number 5 and 6 with the following:

    6. I want to be able to defend myself and my family against anyone intending to kill, rape, rob, mug, kidnap, or carjack me or my family regardless of whether I’m in my “hearth and home” or riding in a car, walking down the street, riding the subway, shopping, or visiting a park, museum, or other public place.

    And moving on to rule 9:
    “9. I want to be able to take out machine guns, tanks, Black Hawks, drones, or whatever weapons the government might try to deploy against me.”

    If you think that defending yourself against a tyrannical government is not a valid reason to bear arms, tell that to the Jews in Nazi Germany, occupied Poland, etc. who were herded into boxcars and sent to Auschwitz, or rather tell it their ghosts at their mass graves. Tell that to the ghosts of the victims of Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, the Saudi Royal Family, etc. at their mass graves. Tell that to the American colonists who fought off the British Empire, the greatest armed force in the world, in 1776.

  31. This guy looks the part, but I don’t think I’d trust him to be even a mall Santa. Some good comments after the source article, so he shouldn’t think he pulled off any kind of mike drop.

  32. Perhaps the good doctor would join us here and enlighten us all in how wrong he thinks we all are?

  33. Then according to this “doctor’s” logic, there is no reason to obey a politician (or a left-wing MD), simply because he said (demanded) so, either. I mean, who died and made either god? Coming around to shoot me because I refuse to comply with your demands only gives credence to why we “plebs” (in your eyes) have guns in the first place.

  34. I am totally against bump stocks, even though the ATF doesn’t have the power to regulate them as machine guns, as per the law. Bump stocks are not used by any military of the world or any branch of the military or any police force. They are not used for suppressive fire or any indirect fire. Machine guns and select fire weapons are used. I can’t think of them for any use for self-defense or to fight against tyranny, which I believe are the uses of…” to keep and to bear Arms…. They are useless for that and for me are not the Arms the fathers meant. When I first heard of them I thought How stupid, waste of ammo, they would only appeal to wannabe operators, although they may be fun to shoot.. The big trouble to me is that the defense of them is used by the left to malign us to the fence sitters, the people we need to convince with logic. I can’t imagine trying to explain to someone on the fence how the founding fathers were so afraid of tyranny developing, as Jorden Peterson once said.. “all hierarchal systems tend toward tyranny, and how on page 74 or ‘the nyrpa vs breun ‘ it says that ”firearms are used 2.5 million times a year to deter crime, and oh yea bump stocks can help spray inaccurate fire in a general direction. …..They have no military use. Its not a hill I want to die on. I think many people felt like me but in the intrest of solidarity moved over or didnt voice their concerns .

    • It is refreshing to know that you are all-too willing to compromise with those whose ultimate goal is to disarm you completely, and then kill you when you do not further comply with future demands. The left will never compromise, period. Why in the hell should gun owners and Second Amendment supporters do so? It is not your opinion-or the governments-as to what guns (or accessories) you think I am “allowed” to have just so you feel comfortable. If you are willing to compromise, move the hell somewhere else, where you not only do not have a Second Amendment right, you do not have any of the others. You might find such a place more to your liking, and you do not have compromise, because you have nothing to work with. People like you fight for nothing, stand for nothing, and will be the first to fall when SHTF.

      • the first to fall when SHTF?

        Most likely the idiot trying to hit something with his “bumpstock” equipped AR.

  35. To be honest at this point it won’t be easy to regulate it. I don’t really know the solution to his dilemma, though it would be great if there is a middle ground where guns and safety can be experienced

    • Safety is a sliding scale concept. So long as there are people or nature, no one will be perfectly safe. In regards to human activity, addressing issues that lead to higher crime rates will do more to improve the safety of folks than any gun control measure ever could.

Comments are closed.