Gun Confiscation: The Right-Wing Christian’s Worst Nightmare

One of the most common nightmare scenarios posited by popular radio/Internet personality Alex Jones is that the U.S. Federal Government, having been co-opted by a vast constellation of evil forces collectively known as the “New World Order,” will someday attempt to seize citizens’ firearms. This could occur imminently, Jones often warns; like legions of God-fearing, patriotic Americans, he’d view any such forcible confiscation as tantamount to an act of war — and quite possibly cause for open revolt.

Alex Jones

In the wake of yesterday’s unthinkable elementary school shooting, these folks have renewed reason for concern. Everyone now has a recommendation, some drastic, about how to curb spree killing. And sure enough, I’ve noticed several tweets suggesting that the Federal Government ought to “round up” legally-owned guns.

Not only is this ill-considered proposal highly unlikely to ever be acted upon, it gives needless fodder to the conspiratorially-minded: Christian “Patriots,” Alex Jones listeners, Constitutionalists, and myriad other right-wing firebrand types. Whether the scenario is actually likely matters little in the far right-wing psyche. Frequently, even the slightest rumors and innuendos are enough to spur feverish proclamations about impending tyranny.

Right-wing Christian America is already in a precarious state. A stealth Jihadist Christ-hater just won re-election (by a virtual landslide), chatter about secession is reportedly more prevalent today than at any time since the Civil War, and militia membership has spiked.

Understandably, many people are still in a state of shock after yesterday’s massacre. But it is during times of strife that humility, prudence, and mindfulness are most called for. Blithely tossing around fantastical ideas like mass gun confiscation only leads to paranoia and hysterics, which distracts from rational discussions of policy.

About michaeltracey

Journalist based in Brooklyn, New York. Follow me on Twitter at @mtracey.

  • Philbert

    I appreciate your point about keeping the debate rational and realistic, but the test of a reasonable argument is whether it convinces reasonable people. Alex Jones is going to keep being Alex Jones no matter what.

    • http://twitter.com/mtracey Michael Tracey

      Sure, but the point is not to convince Alex Jones to behave differently — the point is to deter people from believing his unsubstantiated claims. When Jones’ claims appear to be legitimated in some sense, he gains credibility in listeners’ minds.

    • DougI

       Alex Jones can change, he no longer does his youtube rants without a shirt on.

    • Ecfl666

      I think this particular argument is to convince those of us reading this column, not the wing-nuts.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    I have to wonder why gun-nuts don’t understand that the 2nd amendment is not a free for all. There are limits on first amendment rights so there is no reason that the federal government can’t put reasonable limits on your rights to own certain weapons. 

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

      They already do.

    • http://www.facebook.com/arthur.stordahl Arthur Stordahl

      There are limits on first amendment rights so there is no reason that the federal government can’t…..do whatever they want, along this line of reasoning.

  • DougI

    I was assured four years ago by a gun shop employee that Obama was going to take away our guns.  I was also assured last week by another gun shop employee that Obama was going to take away our guns.  It’s quite obvious these guys are delusional if they actually think things are going to get done in D.C.  What’s next, are they going to tell me that Obama is going to give us single payer health care?  C’mon.

  • Formercorvguy

    I’m all for rounding up all the guns and destroying them and  shutting down the gun factories, I know it is not  politically realistic but I can dream.

    • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

       Given the increasing capabilities of modern 3-D printers, such dreaming requires increasing amounts of delusion and dangerous self-indulgence.

      • Formercorvguy

        I am a mechanical engineer and I work with 3D printers for a living. I can state without hesitation they are no-where near capable of producing anything approaching high power handguns.  Tolerance, surface finish, materials all totally inadequate for the purpose   Maybe when we get Star trek replicators I will be deluded, in the meantime it is all you.

        • 3lemenope

          Yeah, it really does seem just centuries away.

          In order for 3-d printer guns to be a functional reality, not all the components need to be printed, just the ones that are difficult due to regulations to get your hands on. That article (and attached video) shows a fully functional lower receiver assembly for an AR-15 that was printed from a 3-d printer, fully functional.

          • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

            That was the precise development I had in mind, yes.

            Contrariwise, if you’re talking about rounding up and destroying all firearms, then presumably more of the hard-to-3D-print parts would no longer be available by salvaging existing weapons.

            Nohow, 3D printer tech capabilities seems to be a societal trend increasing more rapidly than support for a comprehensive and universal gun ban. I stand by my original assessment.

            • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.r.cross.9 Kevin R. Cross

              Not to mention, some guns simply don’t need any sort of high-tech to make. An Ingram MAC 10 is made out of stamped metal parts; the only part that requires high tolerances is the bolt, which can be turned out on any backyard lathe.

    • Coyotenose

       It’s not only only politically unrealistic, it simply isn’t possible. There are more guns here than people.

      • WoodyTanaka

         Shrug.  There were once more carrier pigeons and buffalo in the US than people.  The first are extinct and the second were almost nearly so.  

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000580291905 Matthew Kwak

          you can’t compare an object with animals used for labor. that is erroneous.

          • WoodyTanaka

            It’s a weak comparison, I’ll give you that. But the mere fact that there are a lot of guns is a challenge, but not an insurmountable one.

    • The Godless Monster

       We’d also have to outlaw knives, swords, clubs, etc. and do away with larger, stronger and faster men. We’d have to genetically engineer our entire race so that everyone has the same in strength and ability…for both sexes.
      Face it, as long as one human has a physical or technological advantage over another human being, the only thing restraining him is morality.

      • Donalbain

         Of course we would. Just look at the recent attack on a school in China. Someone attacked the school using a knife, and as knives are just as deadly as guns (which is why armies use knives instead of guns), just as many people died as in the Connecticut attack.

        Well, just as many, if I mean NONE.

        • The Godless Monster

          There’s no denying that knives are not as efficient for killing large numbers of people as firearms, but if you are going to use China as an example why didn’t you bring up the numerous knife and axe attacks in Chinese schools that resulted in fatalities? At any rate,  you’re not addressing what I stated in regards to arms control and human nature.

          • Donalbain

             OK.. lets bring that up.

            A series of uncoordinated mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks in the People’s Republic of China began in March 2010. The spate of attacks left at least 21 dead and some 90 injured.

            21 people since 2010 in a number of attacks. Now compare that to the number dead in ONE DAY from ONE ATTACK in the USA where the attacker had easy access to guns.

            • The Godless Monster

              You still have not addressed my point, which is that it matters not one whit if you outlaw a particular family of weapons, physical and technological inequalities will still exist that some will physically exploit with OTHER weapons.
              Nobody but an idiot would deny that firearms are more lethal than knives, but that wasn’t my point to begin with and you know that. Try this high school debating silliness with someone else.
              Just come right out and admit that you fear guns and you’ll justify the outlawing of them with any argument and by any means necessary. This is certainly more respectable than the circuitous bullshit you’re trying to pull at the moment.

              • Donalbain

                 If people have less access to guns, then even if they do attack a school, they are less likely to kill people. That is a good reason for me to place stronger restrictions on gun ownership.

                Obviously, you would prefer to argue against someone who follows your script and says what you tell them to say, so for the time being, you can just feel free to fuck right off.

                • RobertoTheChi

                  Yes, I would feel much safer if only criminals had access to guns. You know criminals follow the law and obtain their firearms legally.

                • Donalbain

                  Children at schools ARE safer in other countries with stricter gun control laws. Your feelings dont matter. Facts do.

                • TiltedHorizon

                   They also appear safer in Canada, where gun ownership rivals the US.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  If by ‘rivals’ you mean 1/3 as many guns per capita.  And gun ownership in Canada is much more focused on hunting than on defense.  Measure for example the number of handguns, or the number of guns in urban areas.

                • TiltedHorizon

                  Let me clarify, by ‘rivals’ I mean it is the only western country to come close to the US in terms of gun ownership. There is no country that I know of to match the US, Switzerland is likely the closest but does not make for a good apples to apples comparison.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

                  I think now we’re disagreeing on ‘western’ :-)

                  But as I said, it’s not just guns per capita.  It’s more the societal attitude towards those guns.

              • WoodyTanaka

                “Just come right out and admit that you fear guns and you’ll justify the
                outlawing of them with any argument and by any means necessary.”

                Or people like you should come right out and admit that you are paranoid about the world and would rather than scores of innocent kindergarteners be murdered than you having to face your paranoia realistically.

                • The Godless Monster

                   I’ve actually asked myself whether or not my combat caused PTSD might not make me unreasonable in my assessment of my fellow human beings. I cannot discount what you say entirely and I’m willing to keep an open mind.

                • WoodyTanaka

                  Then I hope you don’t “misassess” whether someone is a threat or merely quirky, while you are “enjoying” your guns.

                • http://www.zazzle.com/atheist_tees The Godless Monster

                  That was an uncalled for personal attack. You are truly an asshole of the lowest kind.

                • WoodyTanaka

                  No, it wasn’t a personal attack (although I do cop to being an asshole sometimes.)  The stories are legion of gunowners misassessing the identity or intent of people they perceive as threatening them, blowing those people away, and then finding out it’s their kids sneaking in or some such.

          • WoodyTanaka

             You are simply misunderstanding the argument.  The purpose of getting rid of the guns isn’t an attempt to control human nature, it’s to control the consequences of human nature.  Take away the guns and these same people might go on a rampage, but they are unlikely to kill scores of innocents as they do it.  That’s the point.

            • The Godless Monster

               Yes, but I’m not convinced that this is an argument worth having as it doesn’t deal with what I perceive as the core issue…people. Some folks are focusing on inanimate objects, I’m focused on the people that use (or misuse) them.

              • Shonmcd

                 Far too many of those to track down. 
                And people oftentimes lose it and on impulse initiate acts of violence.  Far easier and quicker to kill with a gun, than a knife or a baseball bat.  Why have the availability of that tool, the gun, to make it any easier to maim, kill, or injure.   Focusing on abusers, narcs, psychopaths or those who are mentally ill, and seeking some kind of a solution through therapy or institutionalization is both ridiculous and irresponsible.  You are not so easily going to change people’s behavior, but what you grant them access to, you can.  Guns can be purchased at flea markets illegally in the U.S.  And a gun is not just a deterrent, it is oftentimes an indication of the fear based almost psychotic paranoia, and religious self-righteousness of the individuals possessing these weapons.  Not in all cases, but far too often.  Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction and the U.S. government is saying nay to Iran over them.  Why, what’s wrong with that, I mean  the U.S. has them, so does China, Russia, and Israel, to name a few.  Obviously you’re not going to change the Ayatollah or that regime, thus not possessing those weapons is probably a damn good idea.  Same with the issue of guns, you can kill a lot more, far quicker, with fear of getting to close to the shooters, or shooter.  However, many people can wrestle a knife wielding man to the ground far easier as his reach with that weapon is limited. 

                • mk

                  “And a gun is not just a deterrent, it is oftentimes an indication of the fear based almost psychotic paranoia, and religious self-righteousness of the individuals possessing these weapons.”

                  jumping to conclusions, eh?

              • WoodyTanaka

                The core issue isn’t “people” it’s “killing.”

        • Who’s Paying Attention

          How many died in Rwanda from machete attacks? You must have missed that one, it was just a  genocide with the weapon of choice being a large bladed knife. Better ban them too, can’t be too careful.

      • Derrik Pates

        Yes, one *can* kill people with a knife. One can kill people with their bare hands. But you can’t deny the simple truth, which is that guns and bombs make it way, way easier and quicker to kill en masse than anything else.

        It’s like Carlin’s response to “guns don’t kill people, people do” – “Well, you have to admit that the guns kind of help.”

  • Plasticpony256

    They can have my Gum when they pry it out of my cold dead mouth

  • AlaJackd

    If imposing more gun control laws was a serious and legitimate solution to ending non-sense violence like what happened yesterday, I’d gladly hand over my guns right now. But we all know it won’t. It’s akin to telling adolescence to abstain from having sex. Yeah, good luck. Confiscating guns will only make the problem WORSE, not better. The gun trade is NOT an industry you want to drive underground. Imagine prohibition (which resulted in organized crime) on steroids… The only people who will have guns will be bad guys. Gun control is the absolute worse thing you can do.

    • Ibis3

       

      The only people who will have guns will be bad guys.

      And law enforcement. And the military.

      And I think that would be excellent.

      • AlaJackd

        Why? What good did Law Enforcement do against the bad guy in Sandy Hook yesterday???

        • Michael Waters

          Since the shooter got them from his mother, was she law enforcement, military, or a “bad guy”?

          • Alajackd

            Are you being serious or just sarcastic? I can’t tell which.. If it weren’t his mother from whom he’d gotten guns it would have been someone else.. Outlaw guns, and gun trade goes underground. Just like drugs. Guns will never go away.

            • Michael Waters

              Part sarcastic part serious. If you actually look at other countries with more gun control you see more stabbings (which are less lethal) less shootings so at least some people seem to be having trouble getting guns. For the record i don’t support a complete ban on guns but people need to wake up and start treating them with at least as much care as automobiles (insurance, training, licences,  registration etc).

              • Holly

                Training. Yes. And if we’re going to teach kids about safe sex in schools, perhaps we should also teach them what to do if they ever encounter a gun.

            • Donalbain

               Really? HOW? How exactly does a white middle class kid who doesn’t know any criminals get hold of the rifle he used to kill those children if they are illegal for people to own? Does he go into the nearest bar and just ask for one?

              • WoodyTanaka

                 Oh, don’t you know?  The NRA-fantasy  black-market-gun supplier would instantly appear and supply the weapon…

            • Ibis3

               You are making a false equivalency. If guns are only allowed to be manufactured for law enforcement and both those weapons and ammunition are tightly tracked and controlled, the number of guns out there on the street would be few and far between (not to mention expensive). It’s not like someone can grow ‘em in their garage or cook them up in a basement. Moreover, people want drugs so they can be used and thus they need a never ending supply; according to so-called gun enthusiasts, they just want guns standing by in case they might be needed–a very limited demand even if we don’t take into account the fact that, without a gun culture, the number of such people demanding to have guns would drop. When was the last time you woke up and thought, you know what I need? a biological weapon/rocket launcher/hand grenades *just in case*?

              Sure, there might end up being a small underground trade in firearms stolen from manufacturers and law enforcement, but those weapons would mostly be owned by professional criminals who mostly shoot each other, not civilians. Still, a better situation than what you have currently. And if you legalise drugs at the same time, the situation would be even better yet.

              People who do mass shootings have readily available firearms or ways to legally acquire them. They are generally young middle-class suburban men who have no other connection to crime.

      • The Godless Monster

         Routine/regular law enforcement work is almost 100% reactive, not proactive. If you expect police to protect you in a timely fashion in the event of a home invasion, think again. Unless you are one of the fortunate (rich) few who can afford a monitored security alarms service, they’ll show up long after you’ve been robbed, tortured, raped, etc and write a report while standing by for the detective and forensic team to show up. The claim that cops protect us is just wrong. They WANT to, but the nature of what they do is not proactive in the least. It can’t be as there simply aren’t enough of them. In order to accomplish that, we’d have to have a cop on every corner. Do you want to live in a country like that? I don’t.
        In regards to the mentally and dentally challenged who think they are going to be able to stand up to the might of the the United States military, they are ignorant and foolish in the extreme.
        I keep firearms for personal/home defense. Period.

        • Coyotenose

           *adds that “mentally and dentally challenged” line to his quote file*

        • Ibis3

          Routine/regular law enforcement work is almost 100% reactive, not
          proactive. If you expect police to protect you in a timely fashion in
          the event of a home invasion, think again.

          Umm… no. But then, with fewer guns, violent crime rates drop. I’d be even safer if everyone were disarmed than I am if everyone  (including home invaders, burglars et al.)  is walking around with a gun.

          • The Godless Monster

             

            ” I’d be even safer if everyone were disarmed…”

            If only we could make that happen. This world would be a better place.

      • Bystander Standingby

         Kent State

        • Ibis3

          I said “excellent”, not “ideal” or “perfect”.  It’s not as if the police refrain from abusing civilians because they’re afraid of those civilians being armed and shooting back. The way to crack down on police abuse is through monitoring, transparency, arm’s length disciplinary institutions, civilian inquiries, and a fair judiciary, not arming everyone.

      • Holly

        Yes, because there’s NEVER been a mentally unstable cop or person in the military. Ever.

    • Donalbain

       You are right. All the countries in the western world with stricter gun control than the USA have FAR more of these spree killings.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000580291905 Matthew Kwak

      yes. Serbia is 2nd in the world in terms of high rates gun ownership, and you don’t really hear anything bad from there.

  • Ian Reide

    Ok, here is where I sound like a right-wing nut job. Having travelled and lived in the developing world for several decades I have seen the excesses of state power first hand, usually displayed through a monopoly on firearms held by the state in the form of the police and the military. Just one example, in 2010, the Thai military (‘elite units’) gunned down several dozen (hundred?) peaceful protesters in the centre of Bangkok.

    Weaponry in the hands of civilians is one defence against state power. If you want to ban  civilian ownership of firearms, do the same with the cops.

    • David Starner

      I was reading about just one example, where military units shot protesting students on a university… I think it was called Kent State?  As far as I can tell, arming the students there would just have gotten more people killed.

      When a guy stole a tank in San Diego, there was nothing the cops could do to stop him. There’s not much that civilian equipment can do against modern military equipment.

      The way we keep ourselves safe from state military power is make sure its in our hands. We keep the cops and military accountable to us, but more importantly we make them part of us; as long as cops and military consider themselves American first, they won’t accept orders that they turn their weapons against us.

      • The Godless Monster

         A voice of reason, thank you. I’m a gun owner and supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but I have never once thought that I’d be able to stand up to the U.S. military. I own firearms for sporting and home/personal defense.
        Those who spout off about fighting the government are simply deluded and, in my opinion, quite dangerous if left unchecked and to their own devices. I may get some flack for this last comment from fellow gun owners, but I’m sick and tired of listneing to the seditious and inflammatory talk that so often emanates from the extreme right.

      • Bystander Standingby

        How do we make this citizens of this country see themselves as “American” first, instead of as “*-American” first?

        /a divide to make us fall…?

        • David Starner

           President Woodrow Wilson asked that question, and then segregated the military.  There’s a long history of people who ask that question who act like they consider American to White Christian (well, originally Anglo-Saxon Protestant, but Irish and Germans and Catholics and even apparently Mormons get to be considered American nowadays.)

        • David Starner

           President Woodrow Wilson said something like that; then he segregated the military. It seems like most of the people making such a comment seem to think of American as meaning white Christian (formerly Anglo-Saxon Protestant, but Irish and Germans and Catholics and seemingly even Mormons have been added to that group.)

  • Ibis3

    The nuts also think that atheist activists want to stop Christians from practising their religion by making it illegal and that the UN is going to send in troops to enforce diplomatic treaties about the disabled and children. So we should all shut up about church-state separation and human rights so as not to inflame paranoia?

    By the way, there’s nothing irrational about comprehensive anti-firearm legislation. Lots of countries have done it and been relatively successful.

    The more posts I read of yours, the more I think Hemant made a mistake making you a guest blogger here.

    • http://www.facebook.com/arthur.stordahl Arthur Stordahl

      So what did happen to Chirstmas? It did seem to disappear awful quickly-no bell ringers, no lights…and no snow-that is likely a one off ;) And no, not a repubican.

  • AlaJackd

    Most of the irrational clamoring regarding gun confiscation you hear right now following the tragedy in CT is just first-reaction emotional think. Once everyone calms down and REALLY thinks about the situation, and all the facts are in, more rational though will (or at least should ) prevail.

    Besides, owning guns is a Constitutional right, and unlike other potentially blurry constitutional law, this issue is very black and white. So in order to do away with the amendment you’d have to have 2/3 House, Senate, and ALL 50 states votes… And we all know that isn’t even about to happen.

    • Patterrssonn

      I prefer the arguments of the insanely paranoid right wing nut job gun fetishists too, much less emotional.

    • Erin W

      Not all 50, only 38. Article 5 requires 3/4 of states to ratify. Not any more likely but an important distinction.

      • WoodyTanaka

         You don’t need an amendment, all you need is the political will to impose regulations sufficiently harsh that most will volunteer to give up their guns. 

  • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

    It astonishes me that many of these people seem to think that their guns will protect them from a rogue government. No matter how many guns they have, their country’s army will always be more powerful. Even if they’ve managed to stockpile a small arsenal at home, the army will still have more than they do, plus tanks, armor, and biological weapons. If a totalitarian regime is bent on getting its way, an invididual (even a group of individuals) isn’t going to stop them. 

    • AlaJackd

      Still doesn’t mean you’re not entitled (Constitutionally) to defend yourself and loved ones against a tyrannical government, no matter how “out-gunned” you may be. A well-armed and well trained militia can defeat standing armies (reference U.S. revolution).

      • Cecelia Baines

        I do not like this government or country, especially the last asswipe and his VEEP, you know W. and Dick. They did more to convince me they would throw out the rule of law and democracy, but I never once felt I needed to have guns to “defend against a tyrannical government”. WHere is the tyrannical government you speak of? Where. Show me where/when in history we have EVER had this. 

        This is a BULLSHIT argument and so hollow it makes the head spin to see people regurgitate it like it is just around the corner. How many more mass shootings it is going to take?

        When some simpleton of a kid gets its head stuck in a crib and suffocates we call for a congressional act to have a billion dollar product recall. When we have mass shootings with products designed to do nothing BUT kill we do nothing? No, that is insane. INSANE.

        NO MORE GUNS.

        • Cecelia Baines

          Oh yes, I am fine with prying guns out of dead rednecks’ “cold dean hands” if it means this country is safe from armed freaks.

          NO MORE GUNS. ENOUGH.

          • more compost

            Are there unicorns where you live?  Because you certainly don’t live in any reality I experience if you think there is even a remote chance that guns will go away.

          • Alajackd

            Unfortunately, it’s not the rednecks you have to worry about. As annoying as they are, they’re generally non violent. It’s the thugs, rapists, drug addicts, gangs, and murderers you have to worry about, and THEY’RE the ones who benefit the most from gun control laws, as they’ve no regard for law to begin with.

          • The Godless Monster

             You just stated that you are willing to see people killed to achieve your aim of eliminating gun violence. How would you suggest people accomplish this evil deed?

          • The Godless Monster

             How does one distinguish a “redneck”? I’m an Arab-
            American, but I live in a mixed urban-rural part of Michigan. I wear a flannel shirt and ball-cap often. I own firearms for personal defense but I don’t hunt as I don’t like the idea of killing for sport.
            I’m mixed race, so I’m light-complected. Would I be lucky enough to qualify as a redneck? Maybe we should just round up all white males with ball caps and NRA memberships and put them in camps, or as you suggested, kill them?

            • Cecelia Baines

              Ooooo…..did I touch a nerve little man?

              You are disingenuous and your arguments fall short of anything resembling actuality.

              And it is always the redneck.gun totin’ side of the fence that claims “them thar guns makes us safe”…..without proof. 

              Go ahead and spew nonsense and rhetoric and try and distract with gunsmoke and mirrors. Instead of arguing with the likes of you I am going to dedicate time and resources to changing the gun laws in this archaic and barbaric country.

              They said big insurance could not be taken down and they were. They said big tobacco could not be taken down and they were. They said Marijuana laws would not change and they are.

              YOUR GUNS ARE NEXT.

              • The Godless Monster

                 Touch a nerve? Nope, but I obviously got you pissed off.
                I’m glad I got to you, you evil shrew. :-)

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000580291905 Matthew Kwak

                you’re spewing nonsense and rhetoric.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6CV3NKRH2H7GQTMC6BYQ3FJEFE Daisy MJ

             Shove it b itch! Not all the rednecks have the guns you ignorant puta.

        • The Godless Monster

           

          “…When some simpleton of a kid gets its head stuck in a crib and suffocates…”

          Calling an innocent baby a simpleton for getting injured in a poorly designed product is just plain sick.  Between this comment and your calls to kill gun owners, it’s obvious that you are one twisted, evil bitch.
          It’s a good thing YOU don’t own any firearms, that’s for sure.

          • Cecelia Baines

            You want to come over and talk about it slick? You better watch your fucking mouth you piece of shit. You are nothing but a mouth who thinks he is tough. LIttle man, I could kick your ass.

            So, thanks for 9/11 and go fuck yourself.

            • The Godless Monster

               Thanks for 9/11? Ah…a racial attack based on my being Arab-American. Nice.
              You could kick my ass? Very nice. :-) All of this from a peace loving wannabe gun banner. BTW, I was an instructor for security/police defensive tactics and a contributor to a defense contractor who developed a subject control system based on their proprietary combat fighting course, but sure…you could kick my ass. :-)
              With every insane comment you write, you simply make my case more and more.  I just love it when you lefties go off the deep end. You’ve made my day. Hope you burst a vessel in your tiny brain.

        • matt

           I’m not a “redneck”.  Or probably not what you would consider one.
          Ive never killed anyone nor do I ever want to. 
          I have 2 guns in my house. 
          The only time I’ve ever pointed one at a person was when they broke in my basement door when I was sleeping. 
          The man promptly ran out.

      • Patterrssonn

        Russia, Cuba, Iran, well armed militias are awesome at establishing tyrannies too, they rock!

      • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

        But this isn’t the 18th century. There’s no way people with rifles and pistols are going to take on the the military and win.

        • Alajackd

          In a perfect world, no. A militia wouldn’t stand a chance. However, if things ever were to become that severe, you can bet the military will be VERY divided… A lot of military hardware could, and most likely would be used in and by revolutionaries.

          • Donalbain

             in which case the privately owned guns are irrelevant. It is not the arms in the hands of the civilians that keeps you safe from the US army, it is the arms in the hands of the US army.

            • AlaJackd

               Ever heard of the reason why the Japanese didn’t want to attack the mainland USA? You got it… because our citizens are so well armed. Gun ownership in America is vital to our nations security whether you know it or not.

              • Donalbain

                 Because they didnt have a navy capable of doing so?

                • AlaJackd

                   Um, no. Because Japanese military planners knew the citizenry of the U.S. is armed to the equivalency of their own standing army. Guns save lives.

                • Donalbain

                  And you know this because you once took a tour around a different tourist attraction?

                • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

                  How much utter bullshit can you contain before you rupture?

              • WoodyTanaka

                What the hell are you talking about?  The Japanese didn’t attack the US mainland because (1) they had no strategic reason to and (2) because they had no tactical ability to do so.  Stop listening to NRA bullshit

              • RobMcCune

                Japan was fighting a land war in China, and was running low on oil. The fact is they didn’t have the man power or resources to invade the US. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Patrick Swayze and his Wolverines aren’t the only thing preventing an invasion.

                • AlaJackd

                  Japan would’ve loved nothing more than to have attacked the mainland. Among numerous factors, a well-armed citizenry is yet another reason why they didn’t. 

                • WoodyTanaka

                   You are wholly ignorant of history and prove it with every post.

                • RobMcCune

                  They had no problem attacking 3 major powers at once but were scared of hunting rifles and shotguns?

          • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

            What is with these fantasies of revolution that has “patriots” like you fapping in the basement?

          • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

            Maybe, but unless a bunch of civilians are going to steal tanks and armor and heavy-duty weapons from military bases, they’re not going to stand a chance. It’s this fantasy of imagining that owning a gun (or two, or three, or four) is somehow going to defeat a rogue government that strikes me as unrealistic. Having a gun in your house will not protect you if a totalitarian regime comes after you.

            • Bystander Standingby

              Have you /not/ been paying attention to what happened in Egypt, and what is ongoing in Syria?

              Those conflicts are almost textbook examples of what happens in the sort of “civilian uprising” being discussed.

              Ultimately, the “heavy duty” weapons do eventually filter to the “resistance” (mainly because portions of the military defect as they are called upon to fire on their own citizens – including family, friends, and neighbours).

              Does any of this mean that what happens in the end will be to the citizens benefit? No (ie – look at Egypt again; despite having had democratically held elections, things are appearing to go downhill once more); but without civilian citizens having access to guns, what has happened likely wouldn’t have transpired in the same manner, if at all.

              • http://www.flickr.com/groups/invisiblepinkunicorn Anna

                If the heavy duty weapons are going to “filter down” regardless, then why on earth does it matter if ordinary citizens own guns? They aren’t going to defeat an army with their personal handgun.

                It’s the paranoia that gets me, this fantasy of being able to take on an entire army and win. They’re not going to be able to do that with ordinary weapons, no matter how many they might have.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000580291905 Matthew Kwak

          this ain’t the 20th century either.

      • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

        You might want to crack open your history books on the U.S. Revolutionary War. The militia deployed by the U.S. was at best an uncertain factor in battles. It was the combination of pressures on the British in the European theatre, a stretched British supply line, and some smart moves by the Continental Army — trained regulars, NOT militia — that defeated the British by 1783.

        Militia are by definition NOT well trained or armed. During the 18th c., a battle solely between British regulars and U.S. militia would be heavily weighted towards the redcoats. The British army at the time was one of the most professional in the world, and they proved it by the expanse of their empire.

        Also, the “American Patriot” paranoia over a tyrannical government has in the last decade or so reached absurd proportions. It’s embarrassing.

        • Alajackd

          Just last year I toured Valley Forge in Pennsylvania where our continental army drilled and trained.. I know my history, but thanks for the invitation anyway. Washingtons army did indeed begin as a militia whose sole purpose was to overthrow his own government.

          • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

            Good for you. Your Continental Army began as militia but most certainly did not win the war as a militia. Try to keep up.

            • AlaJackd

              It began as a militia and many militia’s supported and played a vital role alongside the Continental Army. Please do your homework before saying anything else to expose your ignorance. The fact remains that it was a well trained militia who defeated one of the greatest military forces in the world. Our forefathers recognized this need for our citizens to keep and bear arms and form militia’s because of this very point.

              • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

                Did you learn that narrative from books you bought from a guy standing on a box?

                The “fact remains” that the colonial militia was NOT the amazing fighting force you’re glorifying, and that the Continental Army along with an armload of other complex pressures are what defeated the British presence in the Thirteen Colonies. Had the British not had to focus on the mess in Europe, and devoted their might to securing their American colonies, the Revolutionary War would’ve been an utterly crushed rebellion.

                Your parroting about the 2nd Amendment lends much credence to the idea that you’re another “American Patriot” that has become a part of the ZOMG TYRANNY! crowd.

                • WoodyTanaka

                   Exactly, Silo.  Not only that, but the British Army was defeated by the French Navy, not the Continental forces.

                • AlaJackd

                  Just keep this in mind… I have 6, what you would deem “assault rifles” and 8 semi-automatic pistols. When and if legislation passes to ban the sale of these weapons, I could care less. I have plenty of ammo as well. IF new legislation passes, it will only be proactive, not retroactive. Soooo…. Sleep well knowing I’m one of the Patriots you fear having these weapons the most.

                • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

                  I see what you did. You abandoned your original argument, which was clearly embarrassing bullshit from the beginning, and shifted to PHEAR ME I AM TEH GUNLORD!!!!11

                  Even a half-blind stroke victim would have observed that I made no comments about “people I fear.” You dishonestly introduced it as an attempt to distract from the fact that you had your ass handed to you by facts.

                  Be sure to let us all know when you actually get past puberty.

      • Donalbain

        The French Navy and Army were not a well trained militia. They were an army.

      • WoodyTanaka

         “A well-armed and well trained militia can defeat standing armies (reference U.S. revolution).”

        You’re living in an 18th century fantasy land.  No militia, no matter how well trained and armed would defeat any of the top militaries in the world.

  • Kaoru Negisa

    I’m reasonably certain you haven’t been paying attention. The right wing will insist thst this is the case regardless of what anyone says. They have been making the claims that the government is coming for their guns for decades, especially in the last four years. We should just be quiet because incredibly paranoid people will latch on to anything to prove their ridiculous conspiarcy theories? This is a joke, right?

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

    I’m an atheist gun nut and a former member of the NRA. I also have my concealed firearms permit but I also know that stricter gun laws will do nothing but hurt law abiding people such as myself. Am I worried about the government taking away my firearms or my right to own them? No, I’m not but when these horrible things happen gun nuts do panic.

    I heard there was a run on lower receivers for AR-15′s because people where worried they would not be able to get one in the coming months. Which I hope doesn’t happen.

    Not all firearm owners are big bad evil people. Some of us just desire to have the needs to protect our lives and our loved ones.

    Attached is my CFP which required me to take a class, pass a written test, pass a range test and then allow my local PD to look deep into my past.

    • Nikwarner

      Yes but that’s not the minimum standard required across the country is it? By all means have your guns, but only after extensive training and licensing.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

        I cannot speak for every state. Maine is a shall issue state, not all states are. It can take over a year to get a CCW/CFP in places such as NY and in MD it is damn near impossible to get one.

      • WoodyTanaka

         It’s not just training and licensing; it’s also access.  THere should be a national law requiring (under penalty of long prison terms) both trigger locks and gun safes.

    • Coyotenose

       Most of us are aware that the majority of gun owners aren’t dangerous people. The problem (well, one problem) is that the paranoid and rhetorically violent ones are both organized and irrational. I’m sure you know about the massive runs on gun sales in response to nothing more than Obama winning the election, and all the psychotic racism and jingoism accompanying that. Many of those involved were actual licensed dealers with their own businesses.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

        One of my local gun stores has a life size cut out of Obama and next to it a sign reads “Salesmen of the year”.

      • WoodyTanaka

         ” Most of us are aware that the majority of gun owners aren’t dangerous people.”

        Are we??  I, for one, think that EVERY gun owner is either an actual or potential dangerous person.  How many people have guns but don’t have trigger locks and in gun safes??  Every one of those people are highly irresponsible and are very, very dangerous.

        • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

          I’m potentially dangerous then; I have a shotgun at home, which is breech-locked and double-locked to a wall mount. The ammunition is stored in a separate safe. I used to hunt but don’t anymore. I may end up selling the weapon fairly soon just because it takes up space and it remains unused.

          I’m a Canadian, by the way, and one not living in Alberta. :-) (The stereotype is that Albertans have all of the guns in Canada, but that’s untrue – a lot of Canadians who live in rural areas in whatever province have sporting rifles and other hunting weapons.)

          • WoodyTanaka

            Yes, you are potentially dangerous, although you appear to be more responsible than most gun owners.  You intend to sell the weapon soon.  It is unlikely that the person you sell it to will be as responsible.  Better you have the thing destroyed and not add to the increased risk of firearm deaths.

        • matt

           What makes you think that every gun owner is dangerous?

          • WoodyTanaka

            I think that every one is either actual or potentially dangerous.  As such, I don’t think that every one is presently dangerous.

            • Holly

              Then you have to count every cop, every member of the armed forces, every bodyguard, every FBI, CIA, Homeland Security Agent. Because they’re people too. I would argue that they are at least trained to handle guns, but promoting gun safety awareness and training doesn’t seem to be on the table. Taking guns away from vulnerable citizens, on the other hand…

              • WoodyTanaka

                Yes, I would consider each of them actually or potentially dangerous. Think of the all the dead suspects who were mysteriously shot on duty, the number of innocent Iraqis and Afghans who were murdered or “accidentally” killed as “collateral damage” and so on. These people are probably even more actually or potentially dangerous than your average gun fetishist who’s shooting his empties off the back deck on the trailer before passing out in the recliner watching NASCAR.

                And I would support gun safety awareness and training, too. But the fact remains that guns and their owners are a disease and we need to wipe out the guns as much as possible.

  • Cecelia Baines

    Michael, you have already lost by being a coward and hiding behind weasel words and actions. You cower at the thought of “giving them fodder”. Well, that is no different than giving in to radical muslims who kill at the sight of a Mohammed cartoon.

    No sir, no more conversation. No more debates and false equivalency based on bullshit propoganda and made up nonsense. Now is the time for ACTION. And you are damn right I am calling for guns to be removed from the public. No handguns. No assault rifles. And hunting rifles and shotguns are allowed ONLY with intense training, registrations and even more intrusive and intense background checks.

    There. Is. No. Debate and I will not be a coward like you suggest.

    Grow a spine you coward and stand up for what is right.

    • http://twitter.com/mtracey Michael Tracey

      So “what is right” in your mind is to forcibly seize citizens’ lawfully-acquired guns? By what statute? Or should the Federal Government just assume tyrannical powers because you decree it should be done?

      If your aim is to decrease violence, then imposing mass gun confiscation will achieve exactly the opposite. Violent outbreaks are assured.

    • Vanadise

      Nobody’s suggesting that you are or should be a coward.  However, I would suggest that you’re a moron if you really think you can simply put a blanket ban on handguns.  I wish you the best of luck in going around and telling people that you are going to take their handguns away without any conversation or debate.

      Hint: the person who has the handgun is going to win that argument.

  • advancedatheist

    Obama doesn’t have to take away our guns to have a dictatorship. Iraqis under Saddam Hussein’s tyranny could own all the guns and ammo they wanted:

    Iraqi public well-armed and wary

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0310/p01s03-woiq.html

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    I listened to Alex Jones once.  He had on Noam Chomsky.  Towards the end he tried to goad Noam into a gun debate, and Noam refused to go there, since it wasn’t what he was brought on to talk about.  After a polite agreement to disagree, Noam hung up.  Then Alex proceeded to gloat about how he had wiped the floor with Noam.  This wasn’t even the next show, this was 2 seconds after Noam had hung up, and there had been no gun debate.  It was kind of like the guy who made up his own marathon to win, and even created a web page for it, complete with fabricated other entrants.

  • http://v1car.wordpress.com/ The Vicar

    How about a nice compromise: we’ll let everyone keep their guns, but we’ll round up and shoot all the people who are known to have voiced these paranoid fears about the government taking away guns? I think that would actually do a lot more to make this country a better place than actually, you know, rounding up the guns.

    • Coyotenose

       Preemptively shoot people for mental disorders? Nice.

  • Alajackd

    Outlawing guns with the intent of eliminating gun violence is like outlawing alcohol with the intent of eliminating drunkards.. And well, we all know how that worked out…

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      A great deal depends on how available the prohibited item is.  Given the number of guns currently in the US, you’re probably right.  But if we had attributed the same responsibility to gun ownership that we do to car ownership all along, it might be a lot more difficult for crazy people to get their hands on guns.  At least it seems to work in a lot of other countries.

      • Alajackd

        It would be as difficult as buying drugs.. Not hard at all. Outlaw guns and guns go underground, they don’t go away. They’ll be shipped in from overseas like drugs, they’ll even be manufactured in underground operations. But rest assured, they won’t go away.

        • Paul_Robertson

          The school shootings of which I’m aware all involved legally purchased guns. Taking them off the street would be a fabulous start.

      • Charles Walker

        Last I checked it was easy to get a license to drive (and keep it long after the person has become a danger to themselves and everyone else on the road). It is much harder to get a legal gun and permiting is much harder. Stricter gun laws might reduce (but not eliminate) shoting sprees like this but will have little effect on overal gun violence (drive-bys, roberies, and such). Guns have been a part of human culture for about 500 years and can not be wished or legislated away. The real issue is what is behind the gun, namly us, humans. Outlawing an implament used in crimes does not address the root of the crime. England has strict gun laws. When they experienced a spike in knife violence they started pushing to ban knives and swords. They did not address the reason for the violence. I think it is more important to look at why we act out with violence and not what we use to act out with. Without us, a gun or knife or bat or rope or rock or car is just an inanimate object, unable to cause mayham on its own.

        • Coyotenose

           

          It is much harder to get a legal gun and permiting is much harder

          Speaking as a Southern Redneck, I know a lot of people with unregistered firearms. I know a lot of people who can make their own ammunition and reliable zip guns, and who have enough parts to make many, many more unregistered weapons. Before I destroyed it, I had enough spare parts to assemble DOZENS of firearms from what my father left behind when he died, none of it accounted for by the state. This despite his having been a licensed gun dealer when he picked up the stuff.*

          I know a violent thug a few miles away who owns an unregistered .44. He crows that he “bought it from a drug dealer” (he thinks that makes him sound tough.) The police won’t touch it, even though he keeps it on his wall with other guns and posts pictures online showing it. He also travels with a .45 in the small of his back “for when the Mexicans try to rob him”, and he doesn’t have a concealed carry permit. Again, cops won’t do anything.

          *A former police officer and soldier who opened a hunting and fishing store, and never once in my lifetime kept a firearm for defense or even hunting at home or his business that I know of. I still can’t parse that.

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          I have to question how easy it is to get a gun vs. a car.  I know many states have a 2 week waiting period on the gun, and don’t on the car, but I think there are a lot more controls in place on cars.  Legally, the government has to be involved if you transfer a car.  Is that always the case with guns?  Legally you have to show some level of competence to buy a car.  I would never argue that drivers tests are stringent enough, because they aren’t, but at least you have to take them.  Do you have to demonstrate competence just to purchase a gun?  Most states require insurance to own a gun.  Pretty sure none require it for guns.  Honest questions, I’ve never looked into owning a gun so I don’t know.

          As for licensing, I think getting a carry permit is MUCH harder for a gun.  But if  you’re going to do a murder/suicide, you don’t care about the legality of anything, it’s just a matter of getting your hands on the weapons.

          Like I said (maybe it was elsewhere) I think guns (and cars) in the US are treated more as a right and less like a responsibility.  I know that doesn’t apply to Godless Monster or Kevin from Bangor, or probably Charles Walker.  That’s the only explanation I have for why countries like Switzerland can have so  many guns per population, and so few guns deaths, compared to the US.

          • The Godless Monster

             What bothers me most is that while firearms ownership IS a right in the United States, very little in the way of responsibility and knowledge is required.
            There needs to be much, much, much more in the way of regulation as to what kind of training and education a person must go through in order to obtain a device that is made to kill.
            I don’t have a problem with any law-abiding citizen having access to any sort of firearm, but they need to be trained! I’m not taking about the cursory bullshit that people are being put through now, but something that requires a commitment of time and energy. Instead of requiring people to come up with the money to pay for these courses, tax firearms sales an additional amount to cover some sort of federally mandated course ( a REAL course) for all FIRST TIME gun buyers.
            As far as concealed carry permits, I don’t think 75% of those who carry concealed (and are not former LE or military) have a clue as to when they should or could present and use their weapon. There needs to be a federally mandated course that includes MANDATORY “shoot-don’t shoot” training in both simulation and live fire venues.
            Even more important, there needs to be mandatory training for all firearms owners in verbal deescalation techniques and less-than-lethal defense alternatives to deadly force.
            It’s my right to carry and own firearms and I don’t want it taken away, but the folks that want to own firearms need to understand that deadly force should only be used as a last resort.

            • WoodyTanaka

              “I don’t have a problem with any law-abiding citizen having access to any sort of firearm, but they need to be trained!”

              From what the stories suggest, this killer in Conn. used legally-obtained guns that one these fantasy responsible “law-abiding citizens” had access to.

              The issue isn’t that people aren’t properly trained, it’s that people have the guns.  If we can’t get rid of the guns, then we have to be sure that ownership is tightly regulated.  Limit the total number of weapons to one handgun and one long gun, per person, with a maximum of three weapons per household.  I think that mandating both trigger locks and locked in a gun safe, (with the keys limited to only the registered and licensed gun owner, who must carry the keys on his person at all times) requiring that guns be accounted for every 12 hours, registration of all guns, gun parts, ammunition, and an inspection regime whereby people have to account for all of their weapons by presenting them to a state inspector every year.  Further, because all of this will be expensive, the cost must be borne by fees for the licensing and registration, inspections and by a tax on guns and ammo.  Further, failure to abide by the regulations should mean a permanent bar from every owning or using guns, and use of a gun thereafter being a jailable offense, with the first offense being a mandatory 10 years in prison without parole and a second offense, life without parole.  Further, these regulations must be nationwide with no state being permitted to do anything less.

              If we’re going to trust our fellow citizens to own these things, there must be dire, dire consequences for their misuse. 

              • Bystander Standingby

                All of that sounds great, but it makes a grand assumption that the government of tomorrow will be the same as the government of today; that somehow in the future even a duly elected government of the people won’t go door to door to round up the “unwanteds” on behalf of the electorate.

                First, of course, they need to get rid of the guns (of both the electorate – and the “unwanteds”, then perhaps move the “unwanteds” to other neighborhoods – perhaps neighborhoods of their own. Of course, when these grew too large, there needed to be another solution, something more final…

                Of course, without their guns, which the “unwanteds” gave up (sometimes at the point of a gun) – they had little to no means to avoid where they were ultimately headed.

                Did I mention the government was democratically elected by the people?

                • WoodyTanaka

                   If you’re so paranoid that you fear of Nazi boogeymen, you should be permitted nowhere near weapons.  Yours isn’t a valid argument, it’s a symptom that you are in need of mental health care.

              • The Godless Monster

                 You make a valid point, but I’m not sure how realistic all of those restrictions are….

                • WoodyTanaka

                  The fact that they don’t seem realistic merely points out the fact that self-proclaimed “reasonable gun owners” in this country, who drive the debate, are not interested in doing what is necessary to be safe; they merely want to have their guns and not be hassled about it. 

                • matt

                   That’s because the majority of legal gun owners haven’t and never will murder anyone. 

                  If there was some magical way that we could be sure that ALL guns were out of the hands of criminals first, then I’d be more likely to give up mine.

                  Having someone break down your basement door while you’re still home is scary.  I was very happy to have a gun by my bed (I have no children in my house and live by myself)

                • WoodyTanaka

                  The fact that they would never murder someone is irrelevant.  They should, if they actually believe the hype they put out there, be happy to jump through whatever regulations are necessary to ensure that guns don’t get in the hands of criminals.  But they don’t believe their hype, as they do everything in their power to defeat any and all measures that would have the effect of reducing the chance of guns getting in the hands of criminals where  they, themselves, would even be slightly inconvenienced or where there government-conspiracy pathology goes into high gear.

                  And for every story you tell about being happy when someone was breaking in, there are 20 stories of people sad when the person “breaking in” was a son or daughter or other non-criminal that the paranoiac gunowner murdered in cold blood.

                • matt

                  There are more stories about people accidentally shooting a family member “breaking in”?  Why do you think everyone who owns a gun is paranoid and quick to kill?  You are lumping all gun owners in with a VERY small group people.

                • WoodyTanaka

                  Pretty much the thousands upon thousands of gun deaths per year tells me that the number of truly “responsible” gun owners are few.  The majority or either irresponsible or have been lucky to date.

              • gerber

                Yes mein Furür!! And how many tens of millions of tax dollars would this cost (gun tax ‘aint going to cut it) not to mention what are the logistics of enforcing them?

                • WoodyTanaka

                  Who cares, coward? We waste trillions per year on useless military spending. I’m sure we can shift some to fight an actual threat: the lunatic gun fetishists in our midst.

            • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1599792529 Mick Flanigan

              I own a few guns, and I have zero interest in repealing the 2nd amendment. But I have zero issue with curbing types of firearms as long as it is is joined in legislature by mandatory background checks everywhere, no more sales of firearms without proper transfer, and mandatory checks on mental health, which in itself needs to be a database designed and maintained by a separate entity than any we currently have in my opinion. Also no reason why we shoudl not have mandatory training programs, tiers if you may, to gun ownership. You want a single shot shotgun or a bolt action .22, thats tier one training. You want a long rifle up to ..308 caliber, thats tier 2, up to .410, thats tier 3, Special permit for revolver, another special permit for semi auto. 50cal is another special permit altogether. There should not be a one size fits all for any gun, jsut like there is no such thing as a one size fits all gun.

        • WoodyTanaka

           You (purposefully?) misstate the argument.  The claim isn’t that confiscating the guns will get rid of “mayhem” but it will make the effect of someone’s choice to engage in mayhem less costly.  You simply cannot inflict the type of death with a rope that you can with a gun. 

          • TiltedHorizon

            “You simply cannot inflict the type of death with a rope that you can with a gun. ”

            Removing guns from the equation simply forces people to get their hands dirty or improvise; a mind hellbent on murder will find a way. The only thing that will change are the tools used. How many people die in the middle east from improvised explosive devices? If you think I’m reaching just look at history.

            Michigan School Massacre of 1927: 44 dead, 38 of which were elementary children.

            Oklahoma City, Oklahoma of 1995: 168 dead.

            Even the Aurora shootings from earlier this year. While the killings at the theater were done with guns, James Holmes had IDEs waiting to supplement his death toll at his apartment. 

            • WoodyTanaka

              “Removing guns from the equation simply forces people to get their hands dirty or improvise; a mind hellbent on murder will find a way”

              That is your assumption, but it is simply not true that all will.  And this doesn’t account for the number of accidental deaths, like the 3 year old who got murdered by a gun owner in OK, I think, where the person left a gun where a 3 year old could find it.  (Of course, being idiot America, no charges were filed.) 

               And for those that do try to use bombs, it is unlikely that they can provide the kind of killing we’re talking about, except in very rare circumstances.  (I mean, your citation of the Oklahoma City bombing attack is ridiculous.  That was a terrorist attack, not an alternative to a shooting.)  and points to the need for stricter controls on explosives, not that gun control wouldn’t prevent gun deaths.   

              • TiltedHorizon

                “That is your assumption, but it is simply not true that all will.”

                All of these school ‘mass-killings’ so far have been planned, sometimes written about far in advance, they have not been heat of the moment reactions which would have benefited from a cool down period. Therefore even if gun were removed, they would have found a way to lash out in a method which satisfies their building blood-lust.

                “And for those that do try to use bombs, it is unlikely that they can provide the kind of killing we’re talking about”

                Sadly, nearly everything one needs to build a crude explosive is located under your sink and/or on the shelves of your local hardware store. Anyone who can follow instructions can craft one. It just takes a google search.

                As for the Oklahoma City bombing, it was not a ‘ridiculous’ citation. The only difference between a mass-killing and a terrorist attack is the motive; the level of planning and results are the same: Terror, Shock, and Death. I used it because it underscores how easy it is to build an IDE using easily accessible ingredients.

                “stricter controls on explosives”

                All the components of an ‘explosive’ are sold in an inert state at every local home an gardening store.

                As for the accidental gun related deaths, which realistically are few and far between. I consider even 1 to be one too many. I’m all for background checks and mandatory safety training for all members in a home with guns. I have a small armory in my house, I’m an avid target shooter, all my family members are trained to handle and respect my guns; including my 6 year old. Even with this training, all firearms and ammo are under lock & key. “leaving it out” is not an option.

                • WoodyTanaka

                  “Therefore even if gun were removed, they would have found a way to lash out in a method which satisfies their building blood-lust.”

                  You simply don’t know that; you merely assert it because you think it takes the blame off of you gun fetishists when people do the predictable, given your efforts to make these weapons so available.

                  “Sadly, nearly everything one needs to build a crude explosive is located under your sink and/or on the shelves of your local hardware store.”

                  Then the solution is to figure out which ones we have to regulate strictly and get off of shelves, not to simply throw up our hands and go, “oh, well, guns fer everyone.”

                  “As for the Oklahoma City bombing, it was not a ‘ridiculous’ citation.”

                  It’s absolutely ridiculous.  Even if every mass shooting were turned into a mass bombing with the number of deaths, we should still ban guns because of the untold number of accidental killings and suicides that guns bring about.

                  “As for the accidental gun related deaths, which realistically are few and far between.”

                  You’re delusional.  About 1,000 people per year, most children, die senselessly.  That’s 3 per day.  And that’s not even considering tens of thousands of gun-caused suicides per year, the thousands of gun-caused homocides per years, and the fact that virtually every mass killing is a gun-caused crime.

                  ” I’m all for background checks and mandatory safety training for all members in a home with guns.”

                  That’s the absolute minimum any person should be in favor of.  How about a mandatory 2 million dollar insurance policy per gun?  How about a mandatory sentence of 20 years without parole if a child kills himself or someone else with a “found” gun?  Or a year in prison if a gun is stolen and the person doesn’t report it with 12 hours?  How about mandatory background checks and mental health screening prior to being able to use a gun?  How about 2-gun maximum limits?  How about a three-month waiting period?  How about mandatory trigger locks and gun safes?  How about an end to all private gun sales?  How about mandatory registration of all guns and ammunition, including parts?

                  Or do you merely favor stuff that won’t inconvenience you and pat yourself on the back because you think you’re “responsible”?

                • TiltedHorizon

                  “You simply don’t know that;”

                  And neither do you, yet here you are asserting your opinion as the only correct answer. Little difference between yours and the “if only the shooter had god in his heart” answers.

                  “Then the solution is to figure out which ones we have to regulate ”

                  Bleach, ammonia, gas, propane, fertilizer, salt, sugar, etc. There is a reason why they are called ‘improvised’ explosive devices. Good luck regulating it or taking it off the shelves. (I guess you are walking to work)

                  “…untold number of accidental killings and suicides that guns bring about.”
                  “About 1,000 people per year”

                  You need to provide citations. Even pro-gun control/eradication sites list “accidental” shootings at a few hundred. Which is FAR below your claim.

                  http://issuu.com/cdfweb/docs/protect-children-not-guns-2012?mode=embed&layout=http%3A%2F%2Fskin.issuu.com%2Fv%2Fdark%2Flayout.xml&showFlipBtn=true&proShowMenu=true&pageNumber=11

                  “It’s absolutely ridiculous.”(Re:Oklahoma City bombing)

                  As I stated previously, the only difference between a mass-killing and an act of terrorism is the motivation; results are the same. McVeigh, the bomber, was an avid gun enthusiast, in his opinion guns are “the first tool of freedom”. Based on your logic, he should have used the guns he had easy access to; yet he chose to NOT use his guns. Go figure.

                  Based on your “guns kills children” argument then if you want to save lives; walk to work. Nothing kills more children than motor vehicles. How about a mandatory 2 million dollar insurance policy per auto. Or do you merely favor stuff that won’t inconvenience you and pat yourself on the back because you think you’re “responsible”?

                  Despite all your arguments, a gun still has to be loaded, cocked, held and pointed. There are several opportunities to change one’s mind before the trigger is pulled. These are not rational people, these are not heat of the moment events, removing the ‘tool’ does not quiet their motivation to kill. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

                • WoodyTanaka

                  “Little difference between yours and the ‘if only the shooter had god in his heart’ answers.”

                  Baloney.  You’ve got your head in the sand in the blind-faith belief that taking away the tool of the crime will not reduce the deaths because — contrary to all evidence — you have faith that the person will simply kill the same number of people with something else.  That’s fantasy thinking.

                  ” Good luck regulating it or taking it off the shelves.”

                  If we start having the need to, then we will cross that bridge.  You’re working on the rather nonsensical belief that if you take away all the guns, that everyone will people will start making bombs and kill the same number of people, so banning guns won’t do anything.  That’s dumb and contrary to the evidence.

                  “You need to provide citations. ”

                  Do your own homework.

                  “As I stated previously, the only difference between a mass-killing and an act of terrorism is the motivation; results are the same.”

                  But it’s still a stupid comparison because they are different phenomenon, so you’re assumption that guns and bombs are interchangable and, therefore, banning guns won’t change anything, is silly. 

                  “Based on your “guns kills children” argument then if you want to save lives; walk to work. Nothing kills more children than motor vehicles.”

                  Yes, which is why I am a firm believer in safety technology in cars and laws that restrict unlimited freedom of drivers, in order to minimize those deaths.  The driving equivalent to your don’t-take-the-guns-out-of-the-hands-of-killers argument is that since we can’t make driving 100% safe, we should let people drive pickup trucks drunk, with their kids in the truck bed, without restraints of any kind, while going 100 miles per hour and not requiring them to follow any traffic rules or obey traffic signals.  And as proof, you would say, the alternative is everyone walks to work.

                  “How about a mandatory 2 million dollar insurance policy per auto.”

                  I would be in favor of such a policy and cover more than that, myself.  How about you?

                  “Despite all your arguments, a gun still has to be loaded, cocked, held and pointed. There are several opportunities to change one’s mind before the trigger is pulled.”

                  Yes, and if the gun is not available, then it can’t be used. 

                  “These are not rational people, these are not heat of the moment events”

                  Many gun-caused killings are spur of the moment events.  A large percentage of people who survive suicide attempts by jumping off of bridges report panicking on the way down because they realized that they really didn’t want to kill themselves.  No such luck for those who had access to guns.

                  “removing the ‘tool’ does not quiet their motivation to kill.”

                  No one said it will.  What it will do, however, is eliminate or reduce their opportunity to kill.  That’s the point that you gun fetishists pretend not to understand.

                • TiltedHorizon

                  “you have faith that the person will simply kill the same number of people with something else.”

                  At no time have I ever quantified the amount of deaths one can achieve, nor would I. You, on the other hand, are ignoring the human side of this. Removing guns does not remove or even lessen the ability to murder. Instead you would rather demonize and penalize those who legally own firearms based on this unqualified assertion. Ok. Let us assume this is true. How many children would have been killed in this latest mass-killing had the tool been a machete; please quantify.

                  “Many gun-caused killings are spur of the moment events.”

                  Correction. People-caused killings. An inanimate object has to be set in motion. When I was a child, true story BTW, I was at a party where my friend’s parents got into a heated argument with their neighbor. In a fit of rage the neighbor got into his car, drove around the block then accelerated. He ran through the fence and pinned my friend’s father against the stoop of his house. He died later that day from internal injuries. I am sure if the neighbor had a gun he would have used it but it’s nonavailability still resulted in death. Had more people been in the front they would have likely been killed or critically injured as well.

                  “What it will do, however, is eliminate or reduce their opportunity to kill. ”

                  Eliminate? And you accuse me of blind-faith belief? Once someone has decided to give in compulsion and or impulse to kill will find a way to satisfy the desire; period.

                  “so you’re assumption that guns and bombs are interchangable”

                  Never stated they were interchangeable, violent crimes using guns is another matter entirely, the point is that the tools required for purpose of ‘mass killing’ are EASILY available using components that cannot be regulated. The fact that you want to categorize it under a different column does not matter, the results are the same. Both are done as a statement, both are targeting massive body counts, both target clusters who are ill equipped or complete incapable to protect themselves. And both are PLANNED, sometimes far in advance, if guns are not available they will ‘plan’ accordingly. We are talking about people who have committed to the act far in advance of

                  As for violent crimes where guns were used, oddly enough, according to the US Department of Justice, the rate of serious injury and death is higher (2-3x) in crimes where no gun was used. No reason is cited but it does suggest that not having a gun results in an increase in aggressive behavior; perhaps because the offender feels they have to compensate for not having a gun. In cases where a gun was used 72% used it as a blunt instrument. It seems even with a gun in hand most people, thankfully, don’t want to pull the trigger.

                  I’d provide you the links but since you would rather I do my own homework; feel free to find it on your own.

                • WoodyTanaka

                  “At no time have I ever quantified the amount of deaths one can achieve, nor would I. You, on the other hand, are ignoring the human side of this. Removing guns does not remove or even lessen the ability to murder.”

                  If your position isn’t “removing the guns won’t reduce the number of people killed” then there is simply no point in argument about bombs.  Yes, even if you remove the guns, you will still have some people will kill by other means.  But you are a fool if you don’t believe that removeing the guns will lessen the abilityt to murder.  Almost every mass murder in the last 30 years have involved these weapons and foreign states with rational gun control measuare simply don’t have rashes of home made fertilizer bombs. 

                  “Correction. People-caused killings.” 

                  Nope, gun-caused killings.  Because so many of the people who are killed by guns would be alive today if the same people were involved, but didn’t have guns.

                  “Eliminate? And you accuse me of blind-faith belief? Once someone has decided to give in to the compulsion and or impulse to kill they will find a way to satisfy the desire; period.”

                  You are talking nonsense.  There are many different levels of impulse-control problems that these people have.  You seem to be living in a fantasy world where these people act like robots once they “give in to the compulsion” and simply will not stop until someone is dead.  That’s simply false.  Where the tool to commit the deed is more readily available, those who would be stymied if the weapon were not available would not, in that case, be stymied, as they would if the gun were not accessable.

                  ” the point is that the tools required for purpose of ‘mass killing’ are EASILY available using components that cannot be regulated. ”

                  And you foolishly think that they would, therefore, use those tools.  In fact, that is not the case.  Again, almost every case of these types of mass killings over the last 30 years have been with these guns, even with the availability of other means.

                  “As for violent crimes where guns were used, oddly enough, according to the US Department of Justice, the rate of serious injury and death is higher (2-3x) in crimes where no gun was used. No reason is cited but it does suggest…”

                  It suggests to me that you’ve been reading some gun fetishist propaganda.  Only about 1/4 of violent crimes involve any weapon at all, and not every violent crimes involving those weapons results in the use of the weapon.  Most rapes and assaults do not involve the use of weapons, and a very high percentage of those cases result in serious injury or death.  So of course you’re going to get skew the percentages.  This is merely a case of “NRA-style lying with statistics.” 

                   

                • TiltedHorizon

                  Oh I see. If I find stats which don’t support you it must be propaganda from an NRA site and anyone who disagrees with you is a gun fetishist. There goes my, “if only the kindergarteners were packing” argument which I have not made. My stats came directly from the US Department of Justice website, not a proxy, I guess they are all gun nuts too.

                  “Most rapes and assaults do not involve the use of weapons, and a very high percentage of those cases result in serious injury or death.”

                  Which is in sync with “the rate of serious injury and death is higher (2-3x) in crimes where no gun was used.” which you have relegated as propaganda.

                  You don’t like my answers simply because they don’t jive with your anti-gun agenda., I’d like to see the motivations addressed but you feel targeting firearms is the way to go. Murder predates firearms, mass-murder predates firearms. While firearms are the tool of choice it’s unavailability will simply give rise to the next best thing; in accordance with their end goal. Prohibition did not prevent the consumption of alcohol, the war of drugs has not prevented drugs from being available to anyone who wants it; yet you think obstacles prevent people from acting on their will. Clearly I am the dreamer.

                • WoodyTanaka

                  No, I’m saying that the analysis of those statistics is NRA propaganda.

                  “While firearms are the modern ‘tool’ of choice it’s unavailability will simply give rise to “plan B””

                  Then explain why there isn’t an equivalent rate of violence that is inflicting the USA in every single modern, first-world country, regardless of the level of gun availability. If your position were correct, there would be no correlation between the availability of guns and the murder rate.

                • TiltedHorizon

                  “Then explain why there isn’t an equivalent rate of violence that is inflicting the USA in every single modern, first-world country, regardless of the level of gun availability”

                  I can’t. By that I mean I have nothing you will accept because ANYTHING I can offer, which does not support you, is arbitrarily labeled as “NRA propaganda”. Therefore you are ‘closed’ to any counter evidence.

                  I have stats from the US Department of Justice website, a Harvard Study, an Article published in Forbes, several data mashup sites, and a comparative study by state. All of which paint a different picture than yours. None of it matters since you don’t want to hear it. Evidence only matters when it is considered.

                • WoodyTanaka

                  You can’t because your basic premise about guns has no factual support. I’d be happy to consider any evidence you might cite to. And if they demonstrate that there is an equivalent rate of gun violence in other first-world countries, regardless of the availability of legal guns in those countries, I’ll be happy to say so. (and I’ll even consider a right-wing, reactionary, Republican Party rag like Forbes. Because we know all the best social science is published in Forbes…)

                • TiltedHorizon
                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000580291905 Matthew Kwak

                  you foolishly believe that because almost every mass murder of this type over the last 30 years have been completed with guns, future mass murders will be with guns.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000580291905 Matthew Kwak

                  “You simply don’t know that; you merely assert it because you think it takes the blame off of you gun fetishists when people do the predictable, given your efforts to make these weapons so available.”

                  Anyone actually can know that.

                • gerber

                  just remember the Brevik shot to death 80 people in Norway, despite their HA HA… “resonable” gun laws…
                  Psychos find a way.

              • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000580291905 Matthew Kwak

                his “assumption” is correct. do you think that if a murder-minded person has a limited ability to acquire firearms, it will deter that person from murdering at all?

                • WoodyTanaka

                  No, it will deter him from murdering with guns.

              • Holly

                A child is far more likely to drown in the pool in the backyard than by accidental death via firearm. Where’s the cry for bans on pools?

                • WoodyTanaka

                  I am in favor of much stronger regulation of home pools than currently exist. But the reality is that with pools, no one can take them from your back yard, take them to a school and shoot a class full of first graders like they can with your weapons, so your statement is nothing but an attempt to excuse the murder of a class of first-graders and the negligence and policy that made those murders possible.

                  Go wash the blood off your hands before worrying about pools.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000580291905 Matthew Kwak

            simply, we don’t want our property confiscated when there are other solutions.

            • WoodyTanaka

              But they’re not solutions, they’re excuses. You people and the NRA — the lobby for mass murderers — would rather have classrooms of kids die rather than accepting the facts that countries around the world which share our basic culture, but not your gun fetish know: the problem is the access to the guns.

      • The Godless Monster

         I have a concealed carry permit and own numerous firearms. I am a firm supporter of my right to own firearms and yet, I can fully understand where you are coming from. And you are right…the cat is already out of the bag. It’s too late to undo what has already been done. There are far too many guns available to make confiscation a tenable solution. The government would go broke just after a few weeks of trying to implement a gun confiscation scheme.
         As Charles Walker and others note, the real issue is with people, not inanimate objects.
        Still, I have to ask myself…would I accept this answer if it was my little baby Anthony lying lifeless on a classroom floor? Would the 2nd Amendment mean so much to me then?
        I’m torn on the issue, but I can say this…I have not slept in two days. I have three children and my heart is just broken. I hope the survivors and parents can find peace.
        I’m still glad I have the ability to protect my family with adequate force in case of a criminal attack, but I cannot stop thinking about those innocent babies. am I willing to risk the lives of any of my children for one of those kids? Of course not, and that is why I will not give up my guns. Still, I so badly wish there was a solution to the problem of gun violence. I don’t have an answer. WE don’t have an answer, but we owe it to the children to get an answer.
        Now.

        • Julie

          I have to answer that Adam Lanza was NOT exercising his 2nd Amendment rights. He did not own the guns, his mother did. He was using a stolen gun. He used the guns irresponsibly. He used the guns in a manner not prescribed by the 2nd Amendment. The man was totally sick, twisted, and about to be committed. He knew it, and he acted out against that. If the laws we had on the books already had been enforced, this could not have happened.

          • Godless Monster

            You speak the truth, Julie. You speak the truth..

  • John of Indiana

    This Left-Wing Atheist gun owner is not exactly sleeping like a baby, not after reading “Liberal” blogs and on-line communities where I’ve read that I should be subjected to everything from having my hands cut off to having my guns “shoved up my ass”.
    Nice peace-loving people, them “REAL Liberals(tm)”…

    • Dan

       We’re screwed John. After the feminist vs MRA war, the powers-that-be in the atheosphere are looking for another hated group to get pissed off about. Now it’s us gun-toting liberal nonbelievers. =(

      (If I was compensating, then why the heck did I get a 2 inch snubbie?)

    • The Godless Monster

       I’m sure the majority of liberals would be opposed to hurting folks like you and me. That being said, all it takes is one nutcase to do the deed. As they are opposed to firearms, I wonder how they would carry out their fantasies of inflicting death and mayhem upon us? Broadswords, bolos, harsh words?

      • Coyotenose

         I vote for Snu-Snu.

        • The Godless Monster

           oh yeah….

  • Paul_Robertson

    And gun confiscation is a fantastical idea, why?

  • The Godless Monster

    It won’t bring back the dead, but it would be nice if the nutjobs on the left and right would stop bickering about gun control and take a minute to hug or call or write someone  and tell them they love them.
    Babies were killed. As individuals,we need to bring something positive into this world out of this tragedy.
    We need to fix ourselves and we need to reach out to those who do not love or do not feel loved. This young man might never have committed this unspeakable act if he’d seen life as precious and if he’d felt or known love.

    • Bystander Standingby

      TGM:

      Were there any babies killed? I seem to recall that children were killed, and adults, but I don’t recall any younger being killed in this tragedy…?

      Your use of the term “babies” sounds much like the way those who are opposed to abortion refer to fetuses, as a means to emotionally drive the discussion in a way that supports their agenda.

      Maybe you applaud this sort of rhetorical device? If not, then please be more accurate in your choice of words.

      • The Godless Monster

        I should have realized that there would be some stupid asshole like yourself who would make a big deal out of my use of the word “babies”. I often refer to my kids as ‘my babies”. If you don’t like the fact that I use the term” babies’ then kindly go fuck yourself.
        I’m pro-choice btw, dickhead.

  • http://www.facebook.com/don.gwinn Don Gwinn

    Hemant, this kind of reasoned response is what I’ve come to expect from you.  Thank you.

    (EDIT: Aaaaand Hemant didn’t write this. So, Michael, this kind of reasoned response is what I’ve come to expect from The Friendly Atheist. Thank *you*.) :)

    • AlaJackd

       Hemant didn’t write this.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Hemant Mehta

      Thanks, but Mike Tracey wrote it and deserves the credit!

      • Donalbain

         Credit? Its a fucking stupid comment, as we would expect from the man who brought us “Ron Paul raised our conciousness”..

        Seriously? People shouldn’t talk about practical steps that might prevent guns from being used to kill children, because a crazy fucker will be crazy about it? That is just about the worst response you can have to a tragedy like this.

  • advancedatheist

    Suppose in an alternate universe Adam Lanza broke into one of the Koch brothers’ meetings and murdered 27 members of the One Percent.

    Would progressives use that as an excuse for calling for more gun control? Or would they instead hail him as a hero and a martyr for “social justice”?

    I pull out of the Memory Hole the fact that people on the left have idolized sociopaths and murderers who have the blood of millions of children on their hands, like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and lately the Stalin wannabe, Che Guevara. In fact, Che’s image showed up all over those Occupy derelict camps last year. 

    Why doesn’t the left celebrate Lanza for his authenticity in the face of death and his rejection of the values of an oppressive bourgeois society, the way Norman Mailer celebrates the violent “existentialist” and “psychopath” in his famous essay, “The White Negro”? Because Lanza chose victims inconvenient for that purpose, perhaps? 

    • http://twitter.com/mtracey Michael Tracey

      Your caricature view of progressives’ goals is not helpful. Some might be glad that Charles and David Koch no longer exist, given the harmful political agenda they promote, but the notion that such violence would be cause for widespread celebration in progressive circles is absurd.

    • Formercorvguy

      If that happened there would finally be a meaningful move to gun control

  • AlaJackd

    Gun control and gun confiscation is a knee-jerk reaction to the tragedy in CT. It’s as effective at ending gun violence as the outlawing of drugs is effective at ending drug use, prohibition at ending alcohol use, and teaching abstinence to end unwanted pregnancies and std’s. Total and utterly wortless idea. 

    • Donalbain

       Yes.. after all, look at how much gun violence there is in other countries with far stricter gun control than the USA.

      • AlaJackd

         Such as Australia who tried this and now enjoy more gun violence?

        • WoodyTanaka

          Baloney.  It’s interesting that factcheck.org debunked both this nonsense and your nonsense about the Japanese in WWII, reacting to gun-freak email spam. 

          http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

          Let me guess: you get all your “ideas” from spam in your email.

          And to think: people who make such stupid claims as you did about Australia and Japan in WWII get to own guns.

          • AlaJackd

            No need in even looking ouside the US to see what gun control does… Just take a look at Washington D.C., where very strict gun control laws are in place, how about Chicago??? How’s that working out for those guys??

            • WoodyTanaka

               You were full of shit when you talked about Australia, why shouldn’t we expect you’ll be as full of shit about America?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000580291905 Matthew Kwak

            how do we know that factcheck.org is free of partisan editing?

            • WoodyTanaka

              How do we know that you aren’t a robot spewing random crap? If you believe that fact check’s analysis is faulty, then demonstrate it. Otherwise your question is nonsense.

        • Donalbain

           Stop getting your facts from your crazy right wing uncle’s emails.

          • AlaJackd

            FACT: Australia implemented gun control, and gun violence has risen since then. 

            • Donalbain

               http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

              Oh look! We have a liar!

              • AlaJackd
                • Paul_Robertson

                  Still a liar. You said above that Australia has more gun violence since the “gun ban” but your stats do not show this at all.

                • AlaJackd

                   The facts I just posted is post gun control law… What don’t you get?

                • Donalbain

                   Strange. Your stats dont say that Australia has more gun crime. How odd. A liar who doesnt tell the truth.. shocking!

                • AlaJackd

                   the amount of gun-involved crime:

                • AlaJackd

                   What part of GUN-INVOLVED crime didn’t you see?

                • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

                  What’s funny about the murder apologist’s link is that there is no “Australian Bureau of Criminology”, nor is there an “Australian Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research”. It also says that “sexual assault” is what Australians call rape. No, it’s not.

                  If one looks at the Australian Institute of Criminology, not a right wing opinion piece, for the actual data one will see that:

                  * gun homicides are down significantly
                  * overall homicides are down significantly
                  * the drop in gun homicides have not been offset by a rise in knife or other sharp object homicides
                  * people shouldn’t make shit up in the internet age

                • Paul_Robertson

                  The stats you posted were not stats on gun crime.

                • Paul_Robertson

                  Here’s a more detailed response. Your linked article is highly dubious for any number of reasons.
                  * their citations are both vague and wrong: it cites the Australian Bureau of Criminology and Australias’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research – I have been able to find neither. There is, however, an Austrlian INSTITUTE of Criminology and various state-based Bureaux of Crime Statistics and Research, but I have found no bureau for all of Australia which was your article’s claim. I have been unable to find within these organisations either the publications or the precise statistics that were attributed to them.
                  * they cherry-pick data to an astonishing degree. Why the precise data points chosen? Why no discussion of a wider trend? Why choose these specific measures and not other measures. All of this screams cherry picking.
                  * they seem to assume that because a crime involved violence, it involved a gun. Why? If these statistics are indeed filtered only to show, for example, sexual assaults involving a gun, I would love to see the source, because the stats I have found in the primary source to not give this breakdown.

                • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000580291905 Matthew Kwak

                  how do you know that factcheck.org has no cherrypicked information?. Correlation does not imply causation.

                • Paul_Robertson

                  How do I know? Well, they have linked to orignal sources, so it’s easy enough to check. Also, they don’t discuss single data points, except to note outliers, instead they focus on trends.
                  As for your final statement, it was AlaJackd who tried to draw causation from alleged correlation, not I.

          • AlaJackd

             If gun control works so well, why is Washington D.C. the murder capital of the U.S. when ALL guns are banned there?

  • AlaJackd

    Hitler supported gun control…. 

    • AlaJackd

      And so did Stalin… 

      • Donalbain

         Hitler breathed in oxygen and breathed out carbon dioxide! So did Stalin!

        • AlaJackd

           So you’re saying their enforcement of gun control was a mistake?

  • AlaJackd

    If gun control works so well, why is Washington D.C. the murder capital of the U.S. when ALL guns are banned there?

  • Nancyfrankandjoe

    There’s something wrong when in the face of this tragedy people react with fear for their guns moreso than fear for our school-children. (I unfortunately know people who do so)

  • SeekerLancer

    I used to be on the side of minor gun control, but not outright banning guns. I’m getting to the point where I can’t justify that viewpoint anymore. Nothing can kill as quickly and efficiently and is as readily available in this country.

    Yeah you can give the arguments about how people can learn to build bombs on the Internet and other such nonsense but that doesn’t change the fact that a person can simply just pick up a gun and kill a room full of people with no planning or contemplation on the matter.

    You can say that if we arm our teachers then our kids would be safer but what does that say about our society and does it really make our kids safer? Life is not an action movie and teachers aren’t paid to be action heroes.

  • Sware

    911
    Oklahoma City
    Mass casualties by folks that had the desire to carry out a plan…no guns used in the process.  If banning guns is the answer, then how does that prevent these types of heinous acts? 
     
    As a parent, my heart is broken and guts wrench as much as the next parent upon hearing about 27 murdered children & school staff.  But the fact that both extremes on gun issues leapt out the moment the tragedy began to unfold on 24 hour news media was really pathetic and disheartening.  It’s as if the best time to push your agenda is at the very height of emotion.

    • WoodyTanaka

      This may be the single dumbest fucking post of all.  No one is suggesting that banning guns would prevent terrorist attacks.   Stupid.

      • Sware

        Wow, with such sound argument you’ll convice all the gun owners in no time to just turn in all their guns and kiss your hand telling you how wrong they’ve been all along and how right you are. 

        Mass murder is still mass murder regardless of the tools or the motive.  You think people in that school weren’t terrorized in that moment? 

        • WoodyTanaka

          First, I don’t have any hope of convincing the gun nuts.  I’m hoping that there are enough sane peopel in this country that we can get some good work done without the nuts.  Fuck them.  They’re the problem.

          Second, it’s a stupid argument is say “mass murder is mass murder” when no one is suggesting that greater control of guns will do anything but affect one type of mass murder.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000580291905 Matthew Kwak

        you certainly sound like you are.

        • WoodyTanaka

          Then I would suggest you work to improve your reading comprehension.

  • Tommy73

    Lets have the UN peace keepers track down all gun owners and KILL them if the do not turn in all their gun and AMMO. Thats right KILL THEM ALL. The goverment has the right to control everyone and if we need to give up some if not all of our right for the greater good so be it. We need new rules and people willing to enforce them. Give up your rights for the greater good.

  • Joe

    Sir, we are already living under tyranny. How much more does it need to be in your face? That is not a rhetorical question. I am for rounding up the guns too, when such a time comes as all governments, militaries, and police disarm – then I will disarm. Until then, I will not disarm, nor be disarmed except if killed by those doing the disarming with their own guns. History shows what happens when the public is disarmed. Murder. Mass murder of citizens at the hands of gun-toting government “officials”. I need not explain, as if you do not understand this, you do not know history and cannot be expected to live in reality. There is a reason for the 2nd amendment, and it is exactly because of the history I have previously mentioned. If you don’t like it, I suggest that they attempt to repeal it. Should that happen, repeal, then I will relocate as what will be coming will catch many many reality TV show, celebrity, and sports worshippers off-guard. Just check how long it took Hitler or Mao to start slaughtering citizens after the confsiscation. I fail to understand why fundamentally good people refuse to understand history, and for some reason believe that government is goodness. It is not goodness, it is power and coercion, and should be treated with suspicion and low regard. I may as well add that for those who dislike the rules of our society, the Constitution, then they should work toward a constitutional convention. I don’t worry because none of the above will happen. The 2nd Amendment will not be repealed, nor will the Constitution legally and by the People’s will be overturned or replaced. What you call right-wing extremism by such blanketing statements is ludricrous as well. Under your definition the vast majority are right-wing extremists to cover liberals, Christians, Jews, Democrats, Conservatives, Constitutionalists, and so on. You cannot put all these people into a box as most do not fit into any box and disagree amongst one another even though they may hold a great many similar views. Bottom line: taking guns from honest citizens will create chaos, death, and destruction. It has everywhere the good people have been disarmed. Criminals do not obey the law. I do, and I will not give up my right to protection. If the principal, and several teachers had been armed, this would not only not happened, but the perpetrator would not have even considered it. If he was hell-bent on doing it, he could have done it with a steak knife just like a man in China did recently in a school and murdered about the same number of children as this gunman. Oh, and how about that second guy…you know, the one the police led from the woods? The one the news ignored, conveniently? Something smells like feces here. Perhaps you should entertain Alex Jones’ information with a a little less scepticism. He is more often correct than not.

  • http://www.facebook.com/arthur.stordahl Arthur Stordahl

    What is the point except for, he seems to be right…get it, RIGHT….also correct. And he is a libertarian ie left/right is a joke.

  • LittleFrenchy

    You do know gun confiscation has already happened in America right? My brother had a dishonorable discharge from the military for refusing to take guns from law-abiding people during Katrina.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X