142 thoughts on “You Can’t Save Gun Control

  1. Bilwick

    “There are certainly no facts or logic involved.”

    As evidenced by some of the Hive members who post here.

  2. DaveP.

    Back after the 2000 election, George Stepanopolis put out a “why we lost” paper where he pointed out that the single-issue-voter NRA vote in many states was larger than the margin of defeat for the Democrats in those states, and that pro-gun organizations fundraised and donated to candidates at a 9:1 ratio over antigun oganizations.
    His recommendaton? Change what you call gun control. Not, “Dump this loser of an issue before it costs us more voters”, just “Keep pushing the same legislation, but start using the phrases ‘commonsense gun laws’ and ‘Let’s compromise’ instead of ‘gun control’ and ‘gun ban'”.

    Note that, folks: Not ‘hey, let’s change our goals!’ but ‘hey, let’s disguise our goals by using different names for them!’

    1. Jim

      Language apparently does make a difference. The gay marriage wins in November have been attributed, in part, to a shift on the part of gay marriage proponents in the language they used to talk about the issue. They stopped emphasizing things like “benefits” and “rights”, and focused on “equality”, “freedom”, and “love” (e.g. “marriage equality”, “freedom to marry the person you love”, etc.).

      I gather that gun control advocates are trying to rebrand their cause as “gun safety”.

    1. Brock

      This, by the way, is why former Communists are still trying to control people through gun control, excessive regulation, mandates like affirmative action, politically correct language, etc. The idea of Communism was beaten so thoroughly that only the very dumbest of them haven’t figured out it’s a bad post hoc reason to hang their emotional urges on. But the emotional urges remain, and simply find other outlets.

      This is why I wish things like the Free State project could actually work economically. If people could self-select by emotional outlook, I would love to live in the State who’s new motto was “None of your damn business.”

  3. Jim

    There are plenty of facts (e.g. the fact that 78 Americans have been shot to death in the week since the Newtown shootings). What gun control advocates don’t have at the moment is a Supreme Court that would allow a dramatic reduction in the availability of guns.

    1. wodun

      Violent crime wont go away with increased gun control. And how many of those 78 death took place in a city like Chicago that already have strict gun control laws?

      Many countries, like the UK and Australia, actually saw an increase of violent crimes with gun bans.

      1. Jim

        Violent crime wont go away with increased gun control

        That’s a straw man, no one promises the end of violent crime. One bit of good news is that violent crime has been coming down, though no one seems to know exactly why.

        a city like Chicago that already have strict gun control laws?

        Laws that only cover one state or one city are like laws that cover a small subset of guns; they’re easily circumvented. But there is regional variation in gun death rates, and stricter gun control is correlated with lower death rates.

        the UK and Australia, actually saw an increase of violent crimes with gun bans

        But fewer deaths, right? For comparison, the US has 10 gun deaths per year per 100,000 population, Australia has 1, and the UK has 0.25.

        1. wodun

          But the UK has just over 2000 violent crimes per 100,000 people and Australia has nearly 1700 buy ya they have less people die from firearms /rolls eyes. The USA has 400 something.

          “That’s a straw man, no one promises the end of violent crime.”

          Then why have gun laws if they wont stop the violence?

          And from your link, “The map above charts firearm deaths for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Note that these figures include accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes.”

          Your link also show that there already is strict gun control in nearly all of the country.

          1. wodun

            You are arguing for something that you admit wont solve the problem you are using to justify your actions.

            I reject your notion that owning a gun in on par with murder or that there is anything immoral about owning a gun.

        2. Bart

          “Laws that only cover one state or one city are like laws that cover a small subset of guns; they’re easily circumvented.”

          Mmmm, so your logic is that, once they are banned in every State, the incidence of gun violence will go down? Isn’t that the idea behind the “War on Drugs”? How’s that working out for you?

          “But there is regional variation in gun death rates, and stricter gun control is correlated with lower death rates.”

          But, lower death rates are correlated with many other indices, as well. Those regions with higher gun related death rates generally have higher overall crime rates, too. In addition, those regions have significant internal variation of their own.

          “For comparison, the US has 10 gun deaths per year per 100,000 population, Australia has 1, and the UK has 0.25.”

          Cite? Here’s one:

          According to the U.N., the U.S. had 3.0 firearm homicides per 100,000 in population in 2009. But there were 14 other nations that had higher rates in 2009, primarily in Latin America and the Caribbean: Honduras (57.6), Jamaica (47.2), St. Kitts and Nevis (44.4), Venezuela (39.0), Guatemala (38.5), Colombia (28.1), Trinidad & Tobago (27.3), Panama (19.3), Dominican Republic (16.9), Bahamas (15.4), Belize (15.4), Mexico (7.9), Paraguay (7.3) and Nicaragua (5.9). Three other nations had higher rates in 2008: El Salvador (39.9), Brazil (18.1) and Ecuador (12.7).

          Some of these (e.g., Brazil) have far stricter gun laws than the US. So, how do you assure that our result would be more like Western Europe, and less like Brazil? Those regions of the US which have high gun mortality are more like the latter than the former. If you remove them from the statistics, the remainder are comparable to Western Europe. Any thinking individual would have to consider your claim to be strikingly shallow. You are comparing apples to tennis balls.

          On another front, the US is saturated with guns. If personal handguns were banned today, it would take decades, if ever, before availability dropped to people determined to get them. Meanwhile, the law-abiding-disarmed are sitting ducks. Lest you think this is a small matter, consider the mass shootings which were prevented in recent history by an armed populace:

          At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season. It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn’t noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones methodology:

          – Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

          – Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed-carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)

          – Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

          – Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

          – Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

          – Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

    2. Leland

      What gun control advocates don’t have at the moment is a Supreme Court that would allow a dramatic reduction in the availability of guns.

      Alas, the problem were totalitarian scum like Jim; it doesn’t matter that we have a Constitution protecting the right to bear arms nor a Supreme Court that has upheld that right. He doesn’t even want to take it up as an Amendment to the Constitution.

      Jim, why do you focus on taking away people’s rights instead of going after the relative handful of real murderers?

      1. Jim

        He doesn’t even want to take it up as an Amendment to the Constitution.

        Huh? I’d be happy to support a repeal of the 2nd amendment.

        instead of going after the relative handful of real murderers?

        Who ever suggested not going after murderers? Let’s go after murderers, and also try to reduce the number of murders.

        1. wodun

          “Huh? I’d be happy to support a repeal of the 2nd amendment.”

          You also want Presidents to have more than two terms, no debt limit, free speech restricted, and who knows what I am forgetting.

          You sir, have an extreme political ideology.

          1. Jim

            You sir, have an extreme political ideology.

            For much of our country’s history Presidents could have more than two terms, there was no debt ceiling, and the 2nd amendment was not understood to establish an individual right. What you consider extreme has at other times been mainstream.

          2. someguy

            Here is the 2nd Amendment:

            “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.”.

            The right recognized is a “right of the people”.

            You can take away the entire first part about a militia, and the meaning doesn’t change at all.

            If you instead wrote just “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, the 2nd Amendment would not change at all in its meaning or intent.

          3. someguy

            Jim, most of these items, like two terms, or the debt ceiling, were not issues that needed to be addressed until recently, recently meaning the 1900’s.

            The only president to have more than two terms was FDR, which was in the 1930’s/1940’s. This was followed by passage of the 22nd Amendment.

            The debt ceiling was not an issue because such a construct didn’t exist until recently. Congress appropriated money as needed, and the President had no say in it. The debt ceiling was invented as a convenience to allow the President to borrow up to a certain amount without having to go to Congress every single time.

            Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was not an issue because the government didn’t try taking away guns until the 1900’s.

          4. wodun

            “For much of our country’s history…”

            We didn’t have President’s that financed their popularity with the government checkdebtbook.

            By the time Obama is out of office, he will have added more to the debt than all the presidents in our entire history combined. It’s mind boggling that people like you support this unsustainable spending. Obama and the Democrats haven’t even passed a budget in 4 years which is actually illegal.

        2. Leland

          Who ever suggested not going after murderers?

          No one. I repeat, why focus on taking away people’s rights?

          1. Leland

            Here ya go, Jim, focus:

            Airbags Kill More Kids Than School Shootings

            More: I’ll boil it down for you. First, government forced this man to buy airbags, because bureaucrats in Washington know better than he what’s needed for his well-being. Then, when he failed to deactivate the safety feature he was compelled to buy, it sent him to jail. Airbags have turned America’s sense of justice on its head.

          2. Bart

            I know a couple of adults who have had their arms broken by airbags deploying in low speed crashes. The cure was worse than the disease. But, it’s a gazillion dollar industry now, with statistics claiming it has saved more lives than it has ended and, armed with those, the Government gets to claim that the increase in your odds of survival allows them to roll the dice on your behalf.

            When did we all become children who needed parents to coddle us and make choices for us all of our lives?

          3. wodun

            Jim has admitted that he is not really concerned with preventing violent crime. He has a moral opposition to guns and thinks they all need to be confiscated regardless of any factual arguments that support or shoot down his position.

            Any side effects to confiscating guns, from increases in violent crime to loss of personal freedom are just too bad.

        3. Der Schtumpy

          “Huh? I’d be happy to support a repeal of the 2nd amendment.”

          Then you’re a dumber than we EVER suspected! Jim you are yet another person who dislikes the ‘club’ he was born into. However, there are a number of English speaking ‘clubs’ that have gun laws and government health care laws JUST like you want. My suggestion?

          Change “clubs”!

          And before you accuse me of being a Love it or leave it type, your wrong. There is much I think needs to be changed about our country, but NOT the Constitution it’s founded on.

          One of the things I think needs changing IS the gun laws. They need to go back to being eligible citizens can have guns, anyone who isn’t eligible who gets caught with a gun, gets charged with at least attempted Manslaughter, because that would be the LEAST crime they’d get charged with if they use that gun.

          Jim, if you drive, and you’ve EVER had a drop of alcohol in your life, why aren’t you screaming at yourself or demanding that cars be done away with or prohibition be re-instated? There are a hell of a lot more people killed by stupid drivers and drunk drivers on our roads, and more vehicular deaths by inattentive drivers every year than by gun deaths.

          That’s no ‘straw man’, those are U.S. Government facts and figures Jim, the same big ass government you love SO well.

          You seem to keep going back and forth on what numbers can or can’t be compared Jim. So long as you don’t compare some small town in Iowa or Rhode Island with NYC or LA, it’s not hard to do per capita comparisons.

          Jim if you want some sort of proof that people can and do save lives and stop bad people from doing bad things to them, go read some of the stories at Guns Save Lives.Com. Maybe the thought of killing turns you off Jim, it turns me off too. But the thought of someone harming my family pushes that away quickly. Quite quickly in fact.

          Beyond that, someone who doesn’t know me, nor know my family telling me we’d be better off without the ability to defend ourselves because some crazy person shot and killed 23 children, is so insane a thought that I can’t grasp it.

          Who protected those kids Jim? Who protected the theater goers in Denver? Who protects unarmed people, anywhere in the country? It’s certainly not the police, they can’t be everywhere at once. All they can do is count the bodies and tell the MSM it’s the NRA’s fault and how we’d be better off with fewer guns.

          I ain’t buying it.

    3. Rand Simberg Post author

      There are plenty of facts (e.g. the fact that 78 Americans have been shot to death in the week since the Newtown shootings).

      To the degree that that’s a “fact,” it is a non-sequitur. That’s the “logic” thing. It is a fact that hundreds died in auto accidents in that time. Let’s ban cars.

      1. Jim

        We should look for ways to dramatically reduce the number of people killed in car accidents.

        We should also look for ways to dramatically reduce the number of people killed by gunfire.

        1. Rand Simberg Post author

          Yes, but people don’t want to do that. For instance, eliminating unarmed-victim zones would have such a dramatic effect. They just want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. They’ve made it very clear (e.g., Piers Morgan) that they don’t want to have a conversation — they want to lecture us, then take away our guns.

        2. Brock

          Well then Jim, you should outlaw suicide. Since well more than 3/4 of all gun-related deaths are suicides.

          That ought to cut down the rate quite a bit. Just pass a law against it!

          1. Jim

            Passing a law against suicide won’t reduce the suicide rate. Reducing the availability of guns would reduce the suicide rate. The Israeli IDF was so concerned about its high suicide rate that they stopped letting soldiers take their weapons home on weekends; the weekend suicide rate fell, and the weekday rate did not rise. Evidently, by Monday those potential suicides had thought better of it.

          2. Bart

            “Reducing the availability of guns would reduce the suicide rate.”

            Right, because that’s the only way people kill themselves.

            “Evidently, by Monday those potential suicides had thought better of it.”

            And, everyone lived happily ever after. Not. Anecdote is the opposite of data.

        3. Jim

          To clarify, I think reducing car accident deaths should be a higher priority than reducing gun deaths, because there are more car deaths, and the are more easily prevented. But if we were successful in eliminating most car deaths the focus would naturally move over to guns (assuming gun deaths stayed high).

          eliminating unarmed-victim zones would have such a dramatic effect

          Really? Don’t most gun deaths happen in places (e.g. private homes, public streets) where gun possession is legal? On the other side, there are entire countries that are “unarmed-victim zones”, and yet have very low rates of gun deaths — rates that we envy.

          You can try to convince people that allowing guns in more places (schools, malls, etc.) would reduce gun deaths, but it seems like a tough sell.

          1. Leland

            Don’t most gun deaths happen in places (e.g. private homes, public streets) where gun possession is legal?

            Certainly not mass shootings. Perhaps you have some empirical evidence you’d like to share?

          2. Leland

            Actually, many of us were talking about causes of violent death. You chose a statistic that’s a non-sequiter to Newtown. I chose one that is more relevant to the discussion.

          3. wodun

            “On the other side, there are entire countries that are “unarmed-victim zones”, and yet have very low rates of gun deaths — rates that we envy.”

            But not rates of violent crime. Getting stabbed or beat to death is not morally superior to being shot. How many of the women raped in those countries would not suffer the life long effects if they had a gun to fight off their attacker?

      1. Der Schtumpy

        Gregg,
        that’s the $64 Question. It’s damned near impossible to find because there is NO single clearing house. And the MSM ignores those stories, and purposely I think.

  4. Mark Turner

    Jim,

    I have a fact for you.

    You remind me of the dog eager to catch the car. Do you understand the material consequences of a civil war on american territory? Even if your side won, there wouldn’t be much left to claim.

    When the left plays with this issue, they are playing with a pack of matches in a swimming pool of gasoline but they are too stupid apparently to understand it.

    1. Jim

      So gun control advocates shouldn’t try to pass laws, lest upset gun owners retaliate with violence? Is that really the argument you want to make?

      1. wodun

        He was referring to your desire to overturn the second amendment and forcibly confiscate weapons from the population.

        Who are you to talk? Democrats are all about using violence for political gain. Just look at OWS and the unions in MI. How about you tell your fellow travelers to stop using violence now instead of fear mongering about imaginary violence,

        1. Jim

          I have no such desire. I’d like to see the 2nd amendment peacefully and lawfully repealed, just like the 18th.

          fear mongering about imaginary violence

          Gun violence is not imaginary.

          1. wodun

            “I’d like to see the 2nd amendment peacefully and lawfully repealed”

            Oh a law can be repealed peacefully but the confiscation of guns by the very nature of the word confiscation, wont be peaceful.

            “Gun violence is not imaginary.”

            Your assertions about future violence are very much imaginary.

      2. Rand Simberg Post author

        Suppose you wanted to, and did pass a law to ship us off to reeducation camps. What would you expect our response to be? And how would that response differ if you had successfully previously passed a law to disarm us?

        The purpose of the Constitution is to prevent those sorts of laws from being passed, or at least enforced. Which is why you hate it.

        1. Jim

          What would you expect our response to be?

          To get the law thrown out.

          And how would that response differ if you had successfully previously passed a law to disarm us?

          It wouldn’t.

          1. R7 Rocket

            Jim, the fed government is in $16T of debt ( and rapidly rising) with $55T in unfunded liabilities. It would behoove you to stop using deception to enable this weakened government to use violence against gun owners.

      3. Karl Hallowell

        So gun control advocates shouldn’t try to pass laws, lest upset gun owners retaliate with violence?

        Since you mention it, that does sound like a good reason not to do that. As others have mentioned already, you are proposing taking away a constitutional right through unconstitutional means. Sure, many constitutional rights have been successfully taken away from us over the decades via unconstitutional means, but what I don’t get is the moral certainty.

        What entitles the rights takers and other would be tyrants to life? I don’t see any such right in the US Constitution (and the 2nd Amendment and various statements by many founders seem to indicate that the people who created the Constitution saw no such entitlement either).

        1. Jim

          you are proposing taking away a constitutional right through unconstitutional means

          There’s nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment.

          1. Leland

            There’s nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment.

            Um, Jim, you brought up the Supreme Court earlier. Perhaps you can point to us in the Constitution where the SCOTUS has any capability to repeal any part of the US Constitution?

          2. Jim

            SCOTUS can change its interpretation of the Constitution, and has many times. One way to get sweeping gun control (the sort that is unconstitutional under Heller) would be a combination of a change in SCOTUS 2nd amendment doctrine plus Congressional legislation. Another way would be a repeal of the 2nd amendment plus legislation. Either way is legal and constitutional.

          3. someguy

            Either way is legal and constitutional.

            Bullcrap and more bullcrap.

            This is a version of “Constitution is whatever nine judges say it is.” The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret properly the Constitution as written, not invent new interpretations at odds with its intended meaning.

          4. Karl Hallowell

            Jim, you wrote:

            There’s nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment.

            [...]

            SCOTUS can change its interpretation of the Constitution, and has many times. One way to get sweeping gun control (the sort that is unconstitutional under Heller) would be a combination of a change in SCOTUS 2nd amendment doctrine plus Congressional legislation.

            So we don’t even need a constitutional amendment? We just decide to ignore rights that we don’t like.

        2. Mark Turner

          SCOTUS can change its interpretation of the Constitution, and has many times. One way to get sweeping gun control (the sort that is unconstitutional under Heller) would be a combination of a change in SCOTUS 2nd amendment doctrine plus Congressional legislation. Another way would be a repeal of the 2nd amendment plus legislation. Either way is legal and constitutional.

          Thats pretty much a “might makes right” argument. I might remind you that if a provoked rebellion is victorious, doing pretty much anything they want to the losing “progressive” side would be equally legal by your rationale.

          So what part of Antarctica would you prefer to be shipped to mr. jim? Make your preference known in advance for the most optimal seating arrangements!

      4. someguy

        Passing laws to take away guns is already an act of violence against gun owners. That’s what laws are. The legalized use of state violence.

        You are saying you want the situation to be that I must give up my gun or face state violence.

        So, who is the real violent aggressor here? Answer: you are, Jim, and the rest of the gun control advocates.

        We are just trying to defend ourselves from the violence of the gun control crowd.

      5. Mark Turner

        Meaning if you try and use violence to disarm a significant chunk of the population, you should be prepared to pay a very high price for that act.

  5. B Lewis

    Jim, I don’t care how many people get shot by nutbags every day. I will never register or surrender my gun. I will not have my right of self-defense abridged because of something somebody else did.

    In case you missed my point:
    I will never register or surrender my gun
    I will never register or surrender my gun
    I will never register or surrender my gun.

    1. Jim

      I should have noted that, aside from the Court’s view of the 2nd Amendment, the biggest obstacle to dramatically stricter gun control is the fact that a substantial, well organized part of the public is dead set against it.

      1. Cecil Trotter

        So why do you use the Australian ban as a shining example of gun control success when such is impossible to replicate in the US?

        Or why do you propose ludicrous solutions like everyone reverting to 18th century single shot, slow loading firearms?

        Why can’t you admit that, as Wayne LaPierre said today, the only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun?

        And to that I would add that there is no ban that can be thought up by the mind of man that will completely keep guns from the hands of bad men.

        The ideas and plans of the anti-gun crowd are completely devoid of reason and intellectually bankrupt.

        1. Jim

          when such is impossible to replicate in the US?

          It’s impossible today, and would have been impossible in Australia before the Port Arthur massacre. But public opinion can change. The percentage of households with guns has been trending down. Maybe if the general fear of crime recedes enough, and there are more high-profile massacres, the public stance towards gun bans will change.

          the only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun?

          We have a lot of good men and women with guns, and yet bad people with guns keep killing people. Perhaps we should try to reduce the number of bad people with guns.

          there is no ban that can be thought up by the mind of man that will completely keep guns from the hands of bad men.

          I agree: completely eliminating gun violence is an impossible goal. But we could have levels of gun violence that are much lower than what we have today, if the public wanted to take the necessary steps.

          1. someguy

            Jum, why do you hate people being able to defend themselves, without depending on the state?

            Why do you hate a civilian population having the means as a last resort to resist an oppressive government?

          2. Rand Simberg Post author

            We have a lot of good men and women with guns, and yet bad people with guns keep killing people.

            Because the good people with guns aren’t allowed into the “gun-free” zones, like schools and universities, and Chicago, and DC. Why are you so obtuse on this?

          3. Curt Thomson

            Maybe if the general fear of crime recedes enough, and there are more high-profile massacres, the public stance towards gun bans will change.

            High-profile massacres are pretty rare Jim, but you keep on hoping. Maybe you’ll get your wish. My hope is for a teacher with a cc license, carrying in class (they do exist), stopping one. Of course your pals in the media will do all they can to keep it from being “high-profile”, but it would certainly change the argument. But of course it wouldn’t result in innocent death, so it wouldn’t be what you’re looking for.

          4. Jim

            Because the good people with guns aren’t allowed into the “gun-free” zones

            “Gun-free” zones are a fairly recent invention, and were a response to high rates of gun death. We had lots of gun deaths before they started labeling schools and colleges as gun-free zones.

          5. Leland

            Because he wasn’t exactly in the right place at the right time, he was unable to stop the attack.

            Indeed, do go on. Tell us more of how one can’t expect others to be at the right place all the time for protection.

          6. Karl Hallowell

            At Columbine, there was an armed sheriff’s deputy in the building

            Chris, read your links next time.

            On April 20, however, Deputy Gardner and campus supervisor Andy Marton, an unarmed school security officer employed by the school district, were eating lunch in Gardner’s patrol car. They were monitoring students in the “Smokers’ Pit,” a spot just to the northwest of campus in Clement Park where the students congregated to smoke cigarettes.

            So no, the guy wasn’t in the building when the shooting started. It’s also worth noting that according to the story the deputy was able to distract one of the gunmen and that may have saved a bunch of lives. The story mentions, for example, that the gunman fired ten times at the deputy and then an unstated but large number of times later. Those shots could have been directed instead at bystanders, people fleeing the scene, or victims that were wounded but not dead (the story mentioned three such people in the parking lot where the deputy was who were spirited away a short time later by ambulance while under fire).

          7. Karl Hallowell

            To add to my previous point, Wikipedia indicates it took about five minutes for the deputy to arrive on the scene in the parking lot. If he was actually in the building, he would have immediately known of the explosions and shots fired.

          8. R7 Rocket

            Jim says:

            “Gun-free” zones are a fairly recent invention, and were a response to high rates of gun death. We had lots of gun deaths before they started labeling schools and colleges as gun-free zones.

            I guess Lanza forgot to read the “no guns allowed” sign. If only he read that sign, nobody would be dead in Newtown.
            /sarc
            Get real Jim. Why should anybody respect and comply with laws passed by rulers like Jim?

    1. R7 Rocket

      One wouldn’t want Che Guevara shot by his would be victims. Oh wait! Such is the fate of those who fellate the state.

  6. Josh Reiter

    In the U.K. roughly 47% of home burglaries occur while the residents are at home. Robbers are so brazen they don’t even bother to worry about whether their are people actually in the house or not. Compare that to the U.S. where only 12% of home breakins occur while someone is at home. Gee, I wonder why….

  7. Chris Gerrib

    Rand – how about this: How do you propose preventing lunatics and crooks from getting guns? Since what we’re doing obviously isn’t working, what should we be doing?

    Screaming that “you can’t take any of my guns ever” is all very well, but not terribly constructive to the problem at hand.

      1. Chris Gerrib

        I have read exactly zero from you or Rand on how we keep guns from crooks. The only vague suggestion I’ve seen on lunatics is from Rand, suggestion we make it easier to commit people. Although that’s helpful, I doubt we want to permanently lock up everybody who at one time had a mental problem.

        1. Cecil Trotter

          “I have read exactly zero from you or Rand on how we keep guns from crooks.”

          That’s because you can’t, that’s why they’re called “crooks”, IE they do illegal things. Duh.

          What you can do is let the law abiding people arm themselves, which aides tremendously in keeping “the crooks” in check.

          Last Friday was the result of disarming law abiding people and announcing the fact of their helplessness by calling their location a “Gun Free Zone”.

          1. Jim

            What you can do is let the law abiding people arm themselves, which aides tremendously in keeping “the crooks” in check.

            Do recall that the Newtown shooter’s law-abiding first victim was armed, and her being armed did not aid in keeping “the crook” in check. The fact that she was armed made the massacre possible.

          2. Leland

            So we just give up and tell everybody to pack a gun? Why pay for police?

            Gerrib builds his strawman army. Oh the humanity!

          3. someguy

            Why pay for police?

            Because the purpose of government is to protect the individuals in society from having their rights infringed (this includes the government not infringing individual rights itself).

            This means that there is a system that can deal with criminals who would steal from me or kill me. In other words, deal with those who would infringe my right to liberty and life (property/capitalism is the economic dimension of individual liberty).

            Police are there to protect individual rights on a society-wide scale, especially for those who can’t or won’t defend themselves.

            It doesn’t mean that those who would defend themselves must surrender their right to defend themselves to the state.

            Police are an additional safeguard, not a substitute.

          4. Cecil Trotter

            “Do recall that the Newtown shooter’s law-abiding first victim was armed..”

            Really? That is your reply? All evidence I have heard thus far suggests she was in bed ASLEEP.

            My being a firearms owner and sleeper gives me some insight into this, I do not consider myself “armed” when I am asleep even though there is at least pistol within arms reach of my bed.

            I will say this, the mother in this case was negligent in not keeping her firearms secure with a mentally challenged youth in the house.

            But to suggest we take away everyone’s rights because some are negligent in exercising those rights is pure idiocy.

          5. Jim

            not keeping her firearms secure with a mentally challenged youth in the house

            How would you suggest a gun owner in her position keep her firearms secure, while preserving her ability to use her firearms to defend herself (including against her son, if necessary)?

          6. someguy

            And all of this is explained in the Declaration of Independence:

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

            This means my right to Life and Liberty are not granted to me by the state, or by a 50%+1 bare temporary majority of the population voting that I have these rights at the current time, until a different 50%+1 bare temporary majority votes differently.

            They are granted to me by a higher authority, God if you believe in Him, or just because you are a human being if you don’t.

            However, just because I have these rights, doesn’t mean they are secured. In a state where there is no government, anyone can come along and infringe these rights at any time. And the only one to stop them is me. No one exists who can punish them for trying to take my life or my property.

            So, we go further in the Declaration:

            “…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

            So, to secure the individual rights of people, not grant them but secure them, we institute governments to deal with those who would infringe the individual rights of people.

            An individual right to life implies an individual right to defend that life.

            So, it is not so much a “right to own a gun” as it is a “right to defend my life”.

            By saying you are taking away my gun, you are saying I don’t have a right to defend my life, and by extension that I don’t have an individual right to life.

            By saying you are taking away my gun, you are saying my right to life only extends to how far the state can or will protect it, and no further.

          7. Leland

            How would you suggest a gun owner in her position keep her firearms secure, while preserving her ability to use her firearms to defend herself (including against her son, if necessary)?

            I’d say the solution should be hers, and not a federal one that applies to everyone. That’s the problem with totalitarians like you, Jim. You think everyone must follow the exact same solution. You don’t want liberty. You want mass conformance to your own thought process, and your thought process is obviously simplistic and foolish.

          8. M Puckett

            Do recall that the Newtown shooter’s law-abiding first victim was armed, and her being armed did not aid in keeping “the crook” in check.

            You are a moron Jim.

            Being in the same building as a gun is not being ‘armed’. Being armed is having a weapon within your immediate control, at a maximum, within arms reach.

          9. Mark Turner

            So we just give up and tell everybody to pack a gun? Why pay for police?

            Because the Police are not in the business of being armed bodyguards for society at large.

          10. Mark Turner

            To add to the above, Police make arrests for violation of the Law. Their gun is a small part of their total duties.

          11. Cecil Trotter

            Jim “How would you suggest a gun owner in her position keep her firearms secure, while preserving her ability to use her firearms to defend herself (including against her son, if necessary)?”

            Oh wow Jim that is a real tough one, I think you’ve got me there.

            Maybe if I think about it for, oh about 5 seconds I can come up with a solution…

            Oh yeah, keep the locked gun safe in the bedroom closet and lock the bedroom door while I’m asleep. For personal protection have one pistol in a “SentrySafe Quick Access Pistol Safe” at arms length from the bed.

          12. Karl Hallowell

            Chris, you wrote:

            Why pay for police?

            Police provide consequences for illegal actions that happened. Citizens with guns provide in-your-face deterrence.

            We’re just pointing out the obvious, that the human cost from murder and other crime is lower, if the criminal is stopped before or during commission of a crime rather than after. But in the cases where criminals do get away with murder, we want someone to bring them to justice. That’s one of the primary roles of police as I see it.

        2. wodun

          “Although that’s helpful, I doubt we want to permanently lock up everybody who at one time had a mental problem.”

          And that is one of the problems because the anti-gun crowd will use a vague term like “mental problem” to prevent people from owning guns and possible justification to have them committed.

          People with “mental problems” are not the cause of mass shootings. It is people who are certifiably insane.

        3. R7 Rocket

          Chris Gerrib, you cannot keep guns away from crooks. Especially now in the 21st century where you have 3d printers printing out gun parts. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But alas, it is really pointless debating dishonest people.

  8. Gregg

    “At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season. It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn’t noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. ”

    Well isn’t that fascinating!!!!!!

    And here Jim was chiding my for suggesting the exact thing by saying I like Walter Mitty stories, in another thread.

    How interesting………

  9. Gregg

    Jim writes:

    “How would you suggest a gun owner in her position keep her firearms secure, while preserving her ability to use her firearms to defend herself (including against her son, if necessary)?”

    So you are unaware of the methods of keeping a gun secure but available for quick use.

    Do you think it’s impossible?

    Here’s one:

    secure box with a pushbutton combination lock. Only can be opened if you know the combination. Since the combination is a series of button pushes on a keypad rather than twirling the wheel on usual combination locks, it takes about 3 seconds to open the box.

  10. Gregg

    Jim writes:

    “Do recall that the Newtown shooter’s law-abiding first victim was armed, and her being armed did not aid in keeping “the crook” in check. The fact that she was armed made the massacre possible”

    Wrong (as usual).

    it was insecure storage of the weapons that made the gun accessible to a mentally ill person.

    The decision to use the gun to kill people by the mentally ill person with perfect mobility was what made the massacre possible.

  11. Gregg

    Hey Jim here’s the question you carefully avoid in the other thread:

    Suppose the Newtown shooting started, and, after a few rounds, some teacher stopped the assault with a gun.

    Would that be better than what happened?

    Or worse?

    1. Cecil Trotter

      The lefty loon gun hater comment that I hear most often is probably “More guns in school is not the answer”.

      So to those people (Jim/Dave/Gerrib) I pose this scenario:

      Your child is in a classroom and it just so happens you are visiting that day. Someone has just killed a half dozen people in the front office, is shooting others in the hallway and is headed toward the classroom where you and your child are located.

      A crazy right wing gun nut teacher goes to a locked briefcase he has in his desk, unlocks the case and produces a .45 caliber handgun which he has illegally brought into the schools “Gun Free Zone”.

      What is your reaction?

      Do you say:

      A – “Great, shoot that SOB!”
      or do you say
      B – “No, put that away, more guns in schools is not the answer”?

      If you are really true to your claimed position you’ll say B.

      But if you’re not a complete idiot you’ll say A, and admit that leftist anti gun hysterical position is utter foolishness.

      Or you’ll ignore my question altogether, which is itself just as informative.

      1. R7 Rocket

        Looks like he didn’t answer. The main reason the antigun movement has kept on losing the argument is because they keep getting caught on the Internet with dishonesty, bribery, and ignorance. It shows how dependent the antigun movement is on the corrupt MSM.

        1. Gregg

          Jim never answers simple direct questions that have an obvious answer…an answer he cannot wriggle out of, and an answer that destroys the very basis of his position.

          1. M Puckett

            That is because Jim cannot argue beyond the Kos/DU groupthink talkingpoint circle-jerk ad-nauseaums. The same swill he spouts here is spouted other places almost to the word.

  12. Dave

    I suggest that everyone who wants a gun must be part of a well-regulated militia, with an emphasis on the organization and regulation by the government. That’s what the constitution calls for, folks.

    1. Gregg

      FWIW, the phrase “well regulated” as used back in the late 1700’s meant:

      functions smoothly.

      Had nothing to do with Federal control.

      1. Leland

        Well regulated still means that. Unfortunately, some think regulation is only something a government can do.

        1. M Puckett

          Dave has it backwards. In order to be a member of the well-regulated militia, you must first have a gun. Being unarmed precludes membership.

  13. Dave

    Can you point to where it says it isn’t?

    In any case, a nutjob with a Bushmaster ready to go on a psychopathic rampage isn’t regulated by any definition.

    1. Leland

      Can you point to where it says it isn’t?

      Sure, the 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  14. Dave

    Well ‘smooth-functioning’ might imply deranged freaks not turning the tools of national defense toward killing the citizens. And FWIW, ‘militia’ has never meant some crazed loon in his mom’s basement packing up an AR-15 to kill a bunch of kids.

    People here are just playing word-games too.

  15. Dave

    Sure, the 9th Amendment:

    Lol. You take the most enigmatic ammendment as your rock-solid defense that the government can’t regulate its defense of the nation? Grasping at straws.

    1. Leland

      the government can’t regulate its defense of the nation?

      Well now you’re not talking about militias but the Army and Navy. That’s Article I. Is there any part of the Constitution you understand?

      1. Rand Simberg Post author

        It seems that “Dave” is the latest leftist idiot to demonstrate what a poster boy he is about my point on facts and logic, not to mention the Constitution.

        1. Mark Turner

          The number one tactic of the left when they dont understand what they are arguing it to simply start making shit up.

          1. R7 Rocket

            That pretty much sums up all the arguments used by the antigun crowd. They just repeat the same lame debunked points that are decades old over and over again.

  16. Gregg

    “For much of our country’s history ……….and the 2nd amendment was not understood to establish an individual right. ”

    That’s an absurd statement. Have you ever read the Federalist papers?

  17. Dave

    What national defense uses a Bushmaster rifle?

    The one implied by your 2nd ammendment argument, where any homicidal maniac wielding an assault rifle is protected as part of a “well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state”. Have you read the constitution recently?

    1. Leland

      If that’s your answer, do you plan to give up knives and clubs too? They’re used by homicidal maniacs as well and also protected by the 2nd Amendment.

      What I find interesting is your logic of comparing a well-regulated militia to the US Army. So, assuming you believe what you wrote, what do you make of the rest of the 2nd Amendment, the part you haven’t wrote?

      the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      Does this mean every soldier, being organized and regulated by the federal government, has the right to keep their firearms and that right cannot be infringed? Instead of Bushmaster AR-15s, they can keep and bear their Colt M16A2?

      If no, then what does that part of the amendment mean to you?

    2. someguy

      It’s simple. The 2nd Amendment protects the “right of the people” to keep and bear arms. You can take away the whole first part about a militia, and the meaning doesn’t change. In either case, it is a “right of the people”, not a right of the state.

      And why do you equate every law-abiding person who owns a gun with “homicidal maniacs”?

      Homicidal maniacs are criminals (not law-abiding) by definition, and so through due process of law, their right to own a weapon can be taken away. Same as any other criminal trial.

    3. DaveP.

      Dude, you can’t even spell the word “Amendment” so don’t babble about how you interpret the Constitution.

    4. Gregg

      A homicidal maniac is protected by very little other than Miranda, writ of habeus corpus, right to a speedy trial, right of representation, and protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

  18. Paul Breed

    Jim,
    You asked what is our proposal to keep guns away from criminals…, I say its impossible. 100% impossible, government has never in the history of the wolrd even once manged to enforce a prohibition on anything where criminals could not get that thing. Try prohibition, or the drug war for starters… Also a gun is an easy thing to make, look on line for the Luty submacine gun, a fully functional fully automatic sub machine gun out of hardware store parts using only hand tools…. Also explain how the cities in the U.S. with the most strict gun laws have the most gun violence?

    Lastly read this and tell me anyplace where the author is wrong?
    http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

  19. Gregg

    Even Eleanor Roosevelt understood:

    “We in the U.S.A., who have long boasted that, in our political life, freedom in the use of the secret ballot made it possible for us to register the will of the people without the use of force, have had a rude awakening as we read of conditions in McMinn County, Tennessee, which brought about the use of force in the recent primary. If a political machine does not allow the people free expression, then freedom-loving people lose their faith in the machinery under which their government functions…..
    When the people decide that conditions in their town, county, state or country must change, they will change them.”

  20. Bilwick

    Still unclear on the logic how assassin or mass murderer A attacking B confers upon C (Jim, Gerrib or some other State-fellator) the right to attack (initiate force against) peaceful gun-owning citizen D. Also unclear of the logic behind “My desire to feel safe confers upon me a right to force you to do things, however irrational, that make me feel safer.” But looking for logic in the State Cult is like looking for garlic in Dracula’s pantry.*

    *Vampires reportedly dislike garlic.

    1. someguy

      Vampires reportedly dislike garlic.

      That was back when vampires were cool, you know, when they actually killed people and drank their blood and burned in the sunlight.

      Now, they just talk about their feelings and sparkle in the sunlight.

      1. DaveP.

        Vampires still dislike garlic. Just do what the old Sicilians used to do and soak your shotgun pellets in it.

        1. someguy

          DaveP, if you are already aware, then ignore this.

          I was making fun of the vampires as depicted in the Twilight movies.

          At least there are the Underworld movies which are recent, where the depiction of vampires is more in line with what they should be. Plus, Kate Beckinsale is in those moves, so there’s also that.

Comments are closed.