Ten Arguments Gun Advocates Make, and Why They're Wrong

There has been yet another mass shooting, something that now seems to occur on a monthly basis. Every time another tragedy like this occurs, gun advocates make the same arguments about why we can't possibly do anything to restrict the weaponization of our culture. Here's a guide to what they'll be saying in the coming days:

1. Now isn't the time to talk about guns.

We're going to hear this over and over, and not just from gun advocates; Jay Carney said it to White House reporters today. But if we're not going to talk about it now, when are we going to talk about it? After Sandy hit the East Coast, no one said, "Now isn't the time to talk about disaster preparedness; best leave that until it doesn't seem so urgent." When there's a terrorist attack, no one says, "Now isn't the time to talk about terrorism." Now is exactly the time.

2. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Maybe, but people with guns kill many, many more people than they would if they didn't have guns, and guns designed to kill as many people as possible. We don't know if the murderer in Newtown was suffering from a suicidal depression, but many mass shooters in the past were. And guess what? People suffer from suicidal depression everywhere in the world. People get angry and upset everywhere in the world. But there aren't mass shootings every few weeks in England or Costa Rica or Japan, and the reason is that people in those places who have these impulses don't have an easy way to access lethal weapons and unlimited ammunition. But if you want to kill large numbers of people and you happen to be an American, you'll find it easy to do.

3. If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far.

If that were true, then how come it never happens? The truth is that in a chaotic situation, even highly trained police officers often kill bystanders. The idea that some accountant who spent a few hours at the range would suddenly turn into Jason Bourne and take out the killer without doing more harm than good has no basis in reality.

4. We don't need more laws, we just need to enforce the laws we have.

The people who say this are the same ones who fight to make sure that existing laws are as weak and ineffectual as possible. Our current gun laws are riddled with loopholes and allow people to amass enormous arsenals of military-style weapons with virtually no restrictions.

5. Criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter what measures we take, so what's the point?

The question isn't whether we could snap our fingers and make every gun disappear. It's whether we can make it harder for criminals to get guns, and harder for an unbalanced person with murderous intent to kill so many people. The goal is to reduce violence as much as possible. There's no other problem for which we'd say if we can't solve it completely and forever we shouldn't even try.

6. The Constitution says I have a right to own guns.

Yes it does, but for some reason gun advocates think that the right to bear arms is the only constitutional right that is virtually without limit. You have the right to practice your religion, but not if your religion involves human sacrifice. You have the right to free speech, but you can still be prosecuted for incitement or conspiracy, and you can be sued for libel. Every right is subject to limitation when it begins to threaten others, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that even though there is an individual right to gun ownership, the government can put reasonable restrictions on that right.

And we all know that if this shooter turns out to have a Muslim name, plenty of Americans, including plenty of gun owners, will be more than happy to give up all kinds of rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Have the government read my email? Have my cell phone company turn over my call records? Check which books I'm taking out of the library? Make me take my shoes off before getting on a plane, just because some idiot tried to blow up his sneakers? Sure, do what you've got to do. But don't make it harder to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition, because if we couldn't do that we'd no longer be free.

7. Widespread gun ownership is a guarantee against tyranny.

If that had anything to do with contemporary life, then mature democracies would be constantly overthrown by despots. But they aren't. We shouldn't write laws based on the fantasies of conspiracy theorists.

8. Guns are a part of American culture.

Indeed they are, but so are a lot of things, and that tells us nothing about whether they're good or bad and how we want to treat them going forward. Slavery was a part of American culture for a couple of hundred years, but eventually we decided it had to go.

9. The American people don't want more gun control.

The truth is that when public opinion polls have asked Americans about specific measures, the public is in favor of a much more restrictive gun regime than we have now. Significant majorities would like to see the assault weapons ban reinstated, mandatory licensing and training for all gun owners, significant waiting periods for purchases, and host of other restrictions (there are more details here). In many cases, gun owners themselves support more restrictions than we currently have.

10. Having movie theaters and schools full of kids periodically shot up is just a price we should be willing to pay if it means I get to play with guns and pretend I'm Wyatt Earp.

OK, that's actually an argument gun advocates don't make. But it's the truth that lies beneath all their other arguments. All that we suffer because of the proliferation of guns—these horrifying tragedies, the 30,000 Americans who are killed every year with guns—for gun advocates, it's unfortunate, but it's a price they're willing to pay. If only they'd have the guts to say it.


Dead wrong man. Even if a tyrannical government had the full support of the military and police(impossible) the armed citizens of the US would pick them apart. An insurgency armed with over 300 million guns would wreck the shit out of any conventional army(US military has a little over 3 million guns).

Huh, well it certainly didn't stop the people of Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan for trying. At least 2 of those 3 were pretty successful. You think that 300 million Americans with 300 million guns couldn't do as well?

It's interesting you mention Wyatt Earp. He usually preferred to pistol whip miscreants he was arresting. And he would often be arresting them for carrying guns into town where they were not allowed - towns like Dodge had zones where guns weren't permitted, & a big part of the Marshall or Sherrif's job was to enforce that.

The American Prospect previously ran an article promoting gun control, it said, 'For example, according to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, during the nine years after the District of Columbia enacted a handgun ban, D.C. saw gun-related homicides fall 25 percent compared with contiguous areas in Maryland and Virginia. International comparisons yield similar results. One study found that stringent gun control works, while modest regulation does not.

The data from the research are complex and controversial, but the bottom line is this: Whatever significantly reduces the number of handguns in general circulation—-whether through culture or regulation —reduces homicides. Other measures such as waiting periods, required training for gun owners, and enhanced sentences for criminals have no discernable effect."
See --

yup, that is why DC had the pleasure of holding the name of "Murder Capital of the Country" for years.....or Chicago has the same name now.....two cities with the strictest gun control laws in the country and the highest murder rate........

Japan had 2 gun-related murders in 2006, the U.S. 12,000, and the U.S. has a gun-related murder rate 20 times most developed nations according to this Atlantic Monthly article:

The U.S. has 10 times the average rate among high GDP nations according to this article:

Your argument @ 3 is absurd. Where is your evidence that, at any of these mass shootings, there were armed civilians who did nothing to subdue the killer? The reality is that in most jurisdictions in the country it is exceedingly hard to get a concealed carry permit. Further, many states' laws prohibit carrying firearms into public venues or schools. It is this very prohibition that makes these places easy targets for killers. Do you think one of these clowns would try to shoot up a police station or army base, for example??? I think not as they know their odds of being successful are slim to none. Where do you think this is more likely to happen, Connecticut or Texas???

Your argument @4 is equally flawed. Don't forget the mother owned the guns in this case. Supposed we had restrictive gun laws which would have prevented this guy from buying the guns. What good would that have done if he had access to his mother's. And before you go down the road of easy access for the mother, let me tie in to your fifth argument. Yes, criminals will always have access to guns. They don't care about how restrictive the laws are. If anything, having the knowledge that it's even less likely that someone will retaliate will make them bolder. Black market guns are easy to access.

You mean like when Nidal Hassen shot and killed 13 and wounded 29 more ON AN ARMY BASE IN TEXAS?

Yeah, that could never happen. /s

There is no good reason for the public to have access to semi-automatic weapons. Their only purpose is to kill people. If the Newtown killer's mother had a hunting rifle and revolvers instead of an AR-15 and Glocks, not nearly as many would have died by simple virtue of the fact that the shooter would have had to spend time reloading.

The more guns there are in public, they more they will get used. It's as simple as that.

"You mean like when Nidal Hassen shot and killed 13 and wounded 29 more ON AN ARMY BASE IN TEXAS?"
Actually yes. Off duty soldiers at Fort Hood are not allowed to carry guns. By the rules of the base, the soldiers were UNARMED. Hassan shot up a 'gun-free zone', just like a school or a mall, etc. Your point proves the opposite of what you think it does.

That guy that supposedly got into a school and shot kids with an ar 15 that ar 15 that was found in the trunk of a car. Come on they have security tapes they need to prove this sandy hook bs shootings that never took place they showed the shootings in that highschool in Colorado. Wow goverment you got this guy to believe your storys about simi autos.

You mean like when columbine had two armed officers on location that took shots at and failed to do anything to the assailants, resulting in the largest school shooting?

"I warn you that pursuing laws that weaken the footings of a certain right weakens the footings of all rights."
I have found that people who are against all gun control laws are often not as keen to protect the freedom of religion, which necessarily includes the freedom from religion. The collocation is not true in all cases, but often enough to be noticeable.

actually you are WRONG!!!!!!! there was ONE armed security guard and he WAS NOT on the grounds at the time the shooting started.....when he got back he did exchange fire, but then backed off WHICH WAS THE PROTOCOL AT THE TIME.

First of all I am very liberal in many, many ways however I also support the fundamental right for law abiding citizens to own firearms. Your arguments about the countries that have lower gun deaths is flawed because there actually are a large number of hunting weapons in some of those countries yet those are not used for these types of violent crimes. Switzerland has more guns per capita than any other nation yet they are the safest place in the world to live by crime statistics so your argument about less guns equals less gun deaths is not accurate based on known facts. You also made the assertion that some accountant that spent a few hours at the range couldn't make a difference in the real world also just isn't true. You would be surprised when faced with this type of danger how much difference an average person with some training can make. One only needs to look at the heros of United Flight 93 on 9/11 to see how average people that didn't train at all for this event can save potentially thousands of lives. I am sure had it not happened you would say that this bravery was impossible as well. People that talk gun control the way you have written almost without exception do not have personal experience of any depth with firearms. They generally are nervous about them and since they don't care to have one then no one should have one. I don't close the door to regulating certain things about firearms and when it is figured out how to do it there needs to be more mental health screening and far more resources available to help people without the stigma that is usually attached. Those types of things would help more than the normal knee jerk reaction, time to take away the guns. It always comes from well meaning people that just don't know what they are talking about. Let's talk about why any of these people do these sorts of things given that in Switzerland they have far more guns per capita than we do and young people are taught how to shoot and hunt and it is common for a young person to have their own gun and yet there is almost non-existent gun violence there. So the problem lies within our society obviously unless you were just looking for a reason to talk gun control. In looking at why anyone would commit such atrocities I am left to think there has to be some motivation in their twisted thinking about the amount of media attention that is garnered from such crimes. Why else would these people pick random targets trying to create even more mayhem than the last shooter? Nothing else makes sense. So this has been brought up before but the media makes an even bigger splash with each escalating incident making all of these people that commit these horrible crimes very famous names. So if they are thinking about killing themselves why not go out famous instead of a small blip on page 27 of the local newspaper? It is thinking that makes no sense and is hard to imagine but I can so no other reason for their actions. I would like to see more journalists actually look at all the facts including what their own industry is doing to create the problem instead of totally distorting the truth to make it sound like banning the sale of any more assault rifles will solve everything.

These arguments are propagandized, heavy-hitting and do not invite intellectual response, but instead irrational and emotional response. They are seriously devoid of facts, and blatantly miss state the data from other countries as well as willfully neglects to mention relevant reasons why we should stack up against countries in the first place (we don't).

I find that using human tragedy and the dead as political currency for policy changes (while we are heavily emotional and irrational!), is morally and ethically bankrupt. Pointing your finger at an object that cannot defend itself as the source of our sorrow and pain is an easy way to make yourself feel better without having to address the person and people at fault for such crimes against humanity.

We don't like talking about taking social or personal responsibility to take care of ourselves or the PEOPLE-part of the problem, do we?

Didn't Timothy McVeigh kill over 168 people with a fertilizer based home-made bomb? Yeah. I guess, by the logic presented here, that we should have Home Depot report to Uncle Sam every time we re-fertilize our garden beds.

And what did we do after McVeigh killed all those people with an ammonium nitrate bomb? We regulated the ammonium nitrate! You can't buy it without registering with the Department of Homeland Security and being screened through a terrorist database, among other regulations.

But it's a false argument. Fertilizer has a use in our society. We need it to grow food. Why are semi-automatic weapons necessary?

People use the term semi-automatic weapon like it is an anti-aircraft weapon or something. It only means you pull the trigger and 1 bullet comes out. Then afterward, you can pull the trigger and another bullet comes out without you having to reload. It is the vast majority of all guns available today. Automatic weapons, machine guns, are banned and cannot be purchased by any Joe off the street.

Guns are tools. Can they be used for ill? Of course. Lots of things with otherwise positive benefits can be. Human Society was infinitely less just in the days before guns. Is that because of guns? I don't know, perhaps it is better investigating methods for crimes, maybe it is a more prosperous world society? I don't know, but saying that less guns would mean less crime and murder without any statistical basis is akin to me saying 'the murder rate in Medieval Europe was many times was it is in 2012 America, it must be because of guns that there is less.'

If you believe that gun control will make it harder for criminals to get guns, you must be someone who has never used an illegal drug, and must not know anyone who has ever smoked pot. Prohibitions don't work so well, they just create black markets and make put the prohibited things in the hands of criminals. I'll spare us all the discussion of Chicago gangsters in the 20s.

You must be unfamiliar with Australia if you're under this ignorant mindset.

"...for gun advocates, it's unfortunate, but it's a price they're willing to pay."
I think it's more accurate to say "it's a price they're willing for someone else to pay." They're usually not the ones being shot up or losing children and other family members.
James from

This is probably the most sensible comment here. Bravo.

Want some modern examples? Look at Egypt, a new democracy that has immediately been taken over by their new dictator Morrisey. All the unarmed people could do was demonstrate while being beaten, gassed, and shot at. Lets not forget all the children slaughtered in Norway. Gun laws in Norway are about the the strictest in the world and what happens? 75 children are killed!

First of all let me say its a damn shame so many young innocent live were lost in Connecticut. My prayers go out to the families. But maybe just mayber if one of those teachers was armed we would be having a different discussion. That being said, that young coward would have killed regardless of weather or not he could have found a gun. Actually ironically Connecticut has some of the most strict gun control in the country including an assault weapons ban.
This is discussion is about more than that though. It has to do with the 2nd Amendment in America. The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. It has to do with the ciitizen's defense from a tyrannical government. Not protection of the state, protection of the free state. As such every citizen should be as well armed as his/her government. It CAN happen here!

So your saying you support citizens shooting cops? Over the past ten years there have been numerous occasions where protesters have been gassed, beaten and even shot and killed by police in the United States. Your solution would be to arm the protesters to shoot and kill the police officers?

See, we have this thing called democracy, and it isn't a young democracy with little history or tradition to support it. It's the oldest democracy in the world. It allows you and I to have our disagreements without killing each other. It allows us both to appeal to our fellow citizens to support our causes. Sometimes we get what we want, sometimes we don't. Most Americans have done pretty well by this system, at least compared to any other system out there. The best part about the system is that it is non-violent. I don't need a gun to revolt against the government. All I have to do is vote - or volunteer on a campaign, if I really want to make a difference.

It requires a deep disdain for the Constitution of the United States to believe that you need a gun to revolt against it.

Where did he say he supported citizens shooting cops? All I saw was a claim that you have a right to defend yourself when government becomes tyrannical enough to threaten your life.

If you disagree with that, then you probably didn't pay very close attention in American history class.

I don't think they teach that in history class anymore. Don't seem to teach much history in school anymore, sadly.'re using a dictatorship to compare to America, a support gun rights. Your logic was already flawed at that point.

Number 7's hedge-against-tyranny argument is usually expressed differently, in my experience, from the way it's characterized here. The fear is not that our freely-elected democracy will be overthrown by some exogenous, despotic force; rather, it is that our freely-elected democracy will itself turn despotic, a fear which is characteristic of a segment of our citizenry that already feels beset by modernity and marginalized in a society that is liberalizing on social issues. Though there's a goodly dose of paranoia in this view, I have to admit that recent events, from the Patriot Act to warrantless wiretapping to Citizen's United and the general sense that we are transitioning to a government of the people, by the moneyed, for the moneyed, make it seem less absurd than it once did.

Underlying this is an argument that a government that can take away your AR-15 will come next for your deer rifle, and proceed from there to revoke your right to free speech, assembly, etc. This, too, makes a certain amount of sense, at least in respect of its own internal logic. The way to counter it, I think, is to acknowledge that a government with the power to protect itself from foreign adversaries in a world as dangerous as ours will also possess the means to protect itself from internal ones. The disparity in this power is exponentially greater today than it was at the time of the 2nd amendment's drafting, when the iron cannonball was state-of-the-art weaponry and the very idea of a standing army was controversial. That a band of armed citizens could fight off the military might of a government-gone-bad was still plausible in those days.

It is simple fact that the handheld anti-personnel weapons we're discussing here would be of little avail against drones, cruise missiles, and FAEs. If the government wanted to turn on its own citizens, it could do it, and unless we expand the scope of the 2nd Amendment to include private ownership of Patriot missiles and the like, your best defense is not to hunker down with your gun collection but to remain fully engaged in the political process, to make sure that (small d) democrats remain in charge.

And where do criminals get all these guns? They steal them from other people who have legally (and usually unnecessarily) purchased guns. There are JUST TOO MANY GUNS all over the place in this country. If you want to hunt, fine; have a rifle. But assault weapons and hand guns are for one thing only - killing people.

Let's say you were successful in eliminating all the gins in the U.S.. What would happen? How long do you think it would take a foreign manufacturer to make and import millions of new ones? We can't stop countries from building nuclear weapons, how do you propose we are going to stop Russian gun manufactures from making hand guns? Then, how are we going to stop them from coming into the U.S.? We can't stop drugs or people from coming in illegally, so the guns will get in. Who will those guns go to? Criminals, as you will effectively have disarmed the law-abiding population. Such a prohibition just stacks the deck further in favor of the criminals, as they would spit on your laws.

Hey, look long before there were even guns at all there was murder. In fact go back and look at the statistics for Medieval society. That was a brutal time, with significantly more murder going on. None of these measures anyone is suggesting would have stopped the Connecticut shooter from what he did. It might have taken him a little longer to get a black market weapon, but it would've still happened. Or maybe he would've used a car bomb? Or used Molotov Cocktails to burn the school down with the children inside. Crazy and evil isn't stopped by laws, even good laws. None of these suggestions are good laws.

It seems to me like most of the argument against gun control arises from people's fear of being unable to protect themselves. Gun advocates will claim that banning guns will leave them vulnerable to any manner of threat, including the criminal that illegally obtains a firearm.

If the argument is indeed protection, then I believe what is needed is a more creative way to solve for the protection problem. Why do we need to kill someone in order to protect ourselves, and why do the weapons needed to protect have to be lethal? What I believe Americans on both sides should be advocating is the ban of lethal weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens, and the research & development of effective non-lethal weapons to replace them.

If one could develop for example, a non lethal firearm that could render an attacker immobile for a period of time long enough to phone an authority or escape from the situation, then you've effectively accomplished the same goal as shooting someone with a gun.

The added benefit is that you don't have millions of lethal weapons floating around, which lowers the probability that events like what transpired in Connecticut occur. If someone feels the need to carry the non lethal weapon for protection they can still disable the would be attacker.

This problem can be solved, it just requires a disruption in the way we think about the problem we are addressing.

Although I don't own a gun, the article is pathetic as it does not contain anything factual or of value. In fact, if the majority of the respondents still had a reasonable amount of function from 8 pounds of mass in their heads, they could research the data and see the information/opinions in the article is simply not with basis: "since the so-called assault weapons ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have declined". This does not take away from the tragedy of the situation but proves more about how this country has become more "cattle" or "sheep" to the ones really running it and don't wish to address problems proactively instead of reactively. Any model of training is designed to teach proactive activities since reactive generally means to late. Additionally, ones proactive decisions should be made on solid facts and positive performances.

These "sheep" responding are just simply to lazy to actually research anything for themselves. They want to be spoonfed information, want their jobs to have little performance with high pay, don't follow the facts surrounding the information their fed and making them think pharmaceutical companies are helping them when in fact they are on an international trial for Genocide, and the food they eat is actually near empty in value and full of an inconceivable amount of chemicals not to mention worthless calories. ie.. Fat, dumb, failing health country - look at the statistics before you gripe at this one.

You "sheep" are just yes, yes, "yessing" and following the rest of the pathetic crowd people which don't think for yourselves. There was plenty of information provided that this individual had issues and they continued to push him aside because it would inconvenience their already pathetic mundane existence and didn't want to actually do anything effective to address it ahead of time and the situation finally exploded.

WAKE UP AMERICA - Ya'll are sabotaging yourselves and it is starting to show up. The system is crashing and our patterns of living are causing problems on an international level. We need to go back to the basics of living from the land, raising our children at home and nursing them into their adulthood with positive reassurements and constructive criticisms. Not scraping for an existence that keeps us away from our families most of the day. The loss of these little souls and their protectors is tragic indeed but the retarded baseless articles and responses shows the true tragedy of our country.

lets remember folks criminals don't obey the law. Imposing more gun laws/restrictions will only effect the people who follow the rules, it does nothing but make it better for the criminals knowing that they have fire arms and rest of the civilian population doesn't , its unfortunate but there will all ways be crazies/evil people out there. As long as there are murders/criminals with gun owning the streets I would like to able to have my own firearm, Keep in mind I've never shot a gun in my life.

Gee..I never thought of the Constitution of our country as being "wrong"

Why idiots are wrong:

Every YEAR law abiding citizens thwart over a MILLION crimes by showing or using their legal guns. Often against criminals, who really don't give a shit about the law and will use them anyway. Of those over 1 million crimes a year, FAR MORE would have resulted in the death of an innocent citizen than the 26 that died in the school on Friday.

The second amendment is NOt going to be repealed. If that is what you are hoping for, then you may as well move to another country. And believe me, there will not be one person who will cry when you leave. NO ONE wants you here anymore...including your own mother.

Congratulations on having an opinion, but you might want to back up the asinine assertions made in your title and post with some sort of referenced fact and data. This post is essentially 5 minutes of my life which i will never get back.

I would agree with all the points apart from number 2. If these people can not find guns they will find another way to go on a killing spree. For example we have reports of arson on an almost daily basis. Over in China there have been several reports of schools getting attacked by people with knives, axes and swords. Less than 20 miles from where I'am (Wales, UK) we had one person drive around the city (Cardiff) mounting the pavement, killing one and wounding may others. I presume that when you get to the level of mental breakdown you simply reach for the nearest and most harmful weapon to hand. For some this will be a book of matches, car keys or a gun.

Other than that I'm 100% behind these points

"If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far.If that were true, then how come it never happens? "

Ummm, have you done any research before posting an ignorant comment like this?

A QUICK Google search next time will help you write a more informed article.
Its people like you that make lobby groups like the NRA 100% necessary.

Here are some articles where guns saved a life.. Again, random Google search:
Here is one :

Here is another :

Good points in this article. Here is some research to back things up:

Check out the understated last sentence in "Conclusions"

Yet another anti gun article with not a single fact to back up the slew of opinions posted. The only attempt at a fact in this article is #3 in which the author claims that people carrying concealed weapons could stop someone from committing these mass killings. Well, look at where these mass killings occur and you'll see they all have one thing in common....GUNS ARE NOT ALLOWED AT THESE LOCATIONS!!!!! That's why you don't see concealed gun owners intervening, the people who commit these mass shootings choose places where they know there aren't any guns. The shooting that occurred in the theater when Batman came out could've chosen 7 theaters that were closer to his house but chose an 8th one further away. The 7 that were closer all allowed concealed guns and the 8th one, the one he chose, was the only one that visibly posted signs that it didn't allow concealed weapons. You see what happens when you look at FACTS?

Propaganda piece on #3 especially. They do happen its just that the press are not interested in screaming it from the rooftops as they are if someone succeeds.
Here are several instances.

"If that were true, then how come it never happens?"
Any "journalist" who uses this type of grammar sounds as if they have a third grade education. And the view points from above are so lame, tired and worn out.
I do not know one gun owner who wants to play Wyatt Earp and "play" with guns.
Criminals WILL always have banned guns as they do now because they have no respect for the existing laws.
We DO need to enforce the existing laws so that someone who is mentally ill is not in the same house as an "assault" weapon.
I have NEVER seen nor have heard of a gun suddenly springing to life and killing anyone.
And YES the Constitution does protect my gun ownership rights.
You are quite full of the same old worn out arguments. You don't like guns, move somewhere that outlaws the ownership of guns.

#1. Timing is never an issue. People will talk about anything whenever they want. This is a moot point, and the fact you used it as your first point just shows how stupid the rest is going to be.

#2. I'm pretty sure no gun every killed anyone without someone pulling the trigger. They are designed to kill, both in defense and offense. It is unfortunate that they exist, but they exist because evil exists, not because they are evil. If evil has a gun, I'd want the right to protect myself with the same power that evil has.

#3. In fact, there are plenty of example where citizens have stopped mass murders.

Just like this 71 year old man did this past summer:

And here's a bunch of documented examples from the libertarian party's website:

A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school’s vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.

A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.

A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.

A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.

A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.

A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.

A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.

At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.

#4. It isn't an issue of more laws or no more laws. It's an issue that laws these days tend to make more problems than they solve. I'd rather have less laws that are enforced well, and keep my liberties and right to protect myself, than to create more laws to disarm the civil obedient in the face of the disobedient.

#5. Criminals will indeed always find a way to commit their horrific act. It's not a question of trying or not trying to reduce violence, it's the fact that stripping ordinary citizens of their right to defend themselves is not the right way. We need more security where it is important. Why do we not have a standard for armed security guards at our children's school? It's our most precious resource, yet we remove all security. That doesn't make any sense to me.

#6. The Constitution is right. The 2nd amendment was written to protect against tyranny.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution)

There's a reason why every dictatorship first starts with disarming the public under the guise of safety. It's not made up. There's history to prove it. Our era is no different. If you believe it is, I believe you are sorely mistaken, and we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

#7. The same as above. I don't like to repeat myself.

#8. Slaves are people. Guns are objects. Guns don't have rights. People do. People have a right to own a gun. They don't have a right to own a person because that person inherently has the right to his life. It was a compromise for the time period that that was allowed. It was eventually corrected. Please don't play stupid with me.

#9. Training, waits, registration. Fine, but how much is enough. Where does it stop? Who is considered a crazy bastard?

#10. Please, do let everyone see how sarcastic you are, and how you like to put everyone into the same box and treat them the same. That's very non-discriminatory of you.

Full disclosure. I do not own a gun. Never have. Probably never will. I support liberty first and foremost. I'm not a democrat. I'm not a republican. I do not play team politics, so please don't do that with me.

I don't know who the editor is on this website but they should seriously reconsider giving this emotional nutcase the ability to post his "blog" here... You've got an article filled with untrue facts and no citations.

Go back to holding an "The end is here" sign outside the super market.

Posting this again - which was a reply to someone above:

George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”

James Madison: “A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”

Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”

The National Guard is nothing like what is being described by Madison, Lee and Mason. And it shouldn't be a "moot point", and we shouldn't even have a standing army - the Founders you selectively quote were opposed to having a standing army. They did, in fact, make provision in the Constitution for a Navy to protect our shores. Without a standing army, the U.S. wouldn't have troops in over 100 countries and we would be focused on protecting our own country instead of Japan, Germany, South Korea, Iraq, etc...

Then there's this:

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

George Mason: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.”

Noah Webster: “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops”

George Washington: “A free people ought to be armed.”

Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

Patrick Henry: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

You seem to disregard the "shall not be infringed" portion of the amendment. A proper reading of the amendment in the context of the writings of the Founders is:

"Without a standing army - which we are opposed to and specifically stated that no appropriation for an army shall be for more than two years - a militia is necessary. Since a militia is necessary, we want everyone to have guns and know how to use them - from their youth up. While perhaps not every person in the country will be a current member of the militia, we want them all familiar with guns so that they will be prepared to assist us in the militia if we need to expand it in the event of some sort of attack on the country - from within or without."

Harvard University has something to say about this in the study:


See here:


"... the National Institute of Justice surveys among prison inmates find that large percentages report that their fear that a victim might be armed deterred them from confrontation crimes. “[T]he felons most frightened 'about confronting an armed victim’ were those from states with the greatest relative number of privately owned firearms.” Conversely, robbery is highest in states that most restrict gun ownership."

"a study comparing the number of guns to murder rates found that during the 25-year period from 1973 to 1997, the number of handguns owned by Americans increased 160% while the number of all firearms rose 103%. Yet over that period, the murder rate declined 27.7%. It continued to decline in the years 1998, 1999, and 2000, despite the addition in each year of two to three million handguns and approximately five million firearms of all kinds."

"Norway has far and away Western Europe’s highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands has the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe (1.9%), and Sweden lies midway between (15.1%) the Netherlands and Norway. Yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian, and the Swedish rate is even higher, though only slightly."

For everyone that wants stricter gun controls, or to ban them completely I am willing to compromise. I will gladly give up my firearms that I use for home defense and recreational use, as long as you give up the keys to your automobile. Swear that for the rest of your life you will only use approved public transportation. I think this will also solve the many fatal accidents caused by an automobile every year in our country. In those fatal accidents many being children either crushed or severed in half. I think by this solution we will get rid of the many careless idiots who put the lives of each and every automobile operator at risk every day due to their insane driving. Out of how many of these people who wish for stricter control drive intoxicated, text while driving, or have other distractions? "But that isn't fair what about all the rest of us who are excellent drivers with good records" Well too bad blame that on the select few who ruin it all for the 99% who are good law abiding citizens.

All the gun law talk aside, we do NOT live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Democracy is nothing more then mob rule. We have certain rights in this country that no matter how many people don't like it, it can not be taken away. A republic protects the rights of the minority. If any of these rights (freedom of speach, freedom of religion, and yes the right to bare arms among others) are removed from the constitution, the dead count will be enormous because civil war WILL ensue. I don't care if you don't like it, or if 90% of the country doesn't like it. I AM protected by the republic. This should not be a federal law discussion. It should be a state law discussion. This is why we have states, so that different people can live their different ways. This was the whole point of the republic. Just like a guy from San Francisco doesn't want some hick from Amarillo dictating how he should live his life and vice versa.

If you can’t ban guns, at least raise taxes on ammunition. By 100 per cent or even 500 per cent. The US would be a safer place and the gun lobby would have less reason to be up in arms.

Excuse the pun.

But the whole idea of taxing ammunition has an excellent pedigree. Back in Dec 1999, a very provincial Barack Obama, at the time no more than an Illinois state senator, was reported by the Chicago Defender newspaper to say that he was in favour of increasing “federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] – weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.” The report went on to say that Obama made the proposal at an “anti-gun rally,” where he proposed a host of other gun control policies.

The report fed into the fear psychosis induced by America’s politically powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), which claimed, back in 2009 that the then newly elected President Obama would “increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent”. At the time, the NRA added that it was all an insidious part of what it called “Obama’s 10-Point Plan to ‘Change’ the Second Amendment.” That is Americans’ 221-year-old constitutional right to bear arms.

The Annenberg Policy Centre debunked the claims back in June 2009, saying it “found no record of Obama introducing legislation to this effect while in the Illinois state Senate, or in the U.S. Senate. Now, after further research, we can find no record of the president, or any other administration official, saying that an increase in the ammunition tax is part of his current agenda either.”

So far, so depressing. If Obama believes more guns in a system kill more people, why doesn’t he do something about it? Realpolitik? Perhaps. If so, surely the best way forward is to raise tax on ammunition to levels that would make buyers stop and think and probably neglect to buy. Prohibitive taxation has worked in many countries, especially with cigarettes and alcohol. Why should guns and the ammunition that makes them dangerous be off-limits?

It is important to say at this point, that increased taxes on ammunition are hardly a bold new idea. In 1993, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan proposed a 50 per cent tax-hike on most handgun ammunition, and one that came in at more than 10,000 per cent on slightly more lethal arsenal.

It did not go through.

Somewhat dispiritingly, President Obama’s remarks (on Wednesday, Dec 19) that a “majority of Americans” back changes to some laws seems fairly anodyne. At most, Obama is proposing a renewal of an assault weapons ban (which existed 1994-2004), limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines and an end to loopholes allowing gun purchases with no background checks. But this would not mean an end to private, no-questions-asked sales at gun shows across the country. This would not take the estimated 300 million guns currently owned by Americans out of the system.

The only option? Tax ammunition to levels that make it unaffordable to buy, practise with and actively use a gun.

I'm pro-gun rights, but at that point I'd honestly rather them be banned all around the board. Doing that will still let criminals buy a few round of ammunition for the ACTUAL crime, but just make it impossible for legitimate gun owners to hunt, or simply train with their own weapon

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Maybe, but people with guns kill many, many more people than they would if they didn't have guns,"

Google: Chinese man kills 9 people with knife. If there's a will, there's a way. Whether it's a gun or not, if an insane person wants to kill, they will with whatever they have. Of course more people are killed with guns because that's a murderer's weapon of choice. It's quick, easy, scares people and they can protect their selves from their victims. I bet you if guns didn't exist, the crazies would find other tools to use. Not everyone has intentions like that. The focus should be on preventing people from becoming psychos and not on guns.

I'm not a gun owner, and don't want to be one. I do believe in the 2nd amendment and the right to own guns. However, I do have 1 question, which I would love a gun owner/lover to answer. But first,

Every person who is against gun control, spews the same crap over and over...
1- if there was an armed security, teacher, or whatever at the school that day, this would never had happened.

2- The reason there is more crime in gun free zones is because the bad guys know there won't be anyone confronting them.

3- I have the right to carry a concealed weapon for protection

On these 3 points, I'll give them to you. You are correct. But my question revolves around the 1 thing. Why are you so against banning assult rifles?

On point 1- a trained person would be able to take out a bad guy with 1 bullet. No need for an assult rifle. You may as much damage as the bad guy.

2-Again same thing, all you need is 1 bullet. No need for an automatic assault rifle

3- those that do carry a concealed weapon, have you ever concealed an automatic assault rifle? My guess is no.

So the question again, is, why are all the gun owners/lovers and those who believe in the right to bear arms, so vehemently against banning automatic assault rifles?


You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)