Edited to add: I can’t thank you all enough for interacting with this post. I am actually surprised that it’s become this popular. This is the first time more than ten people have read anything I’ve written here. I’m probably going to turn off commenting soon because everything that can be said already has been. In general, I’d like to point out that this is an opinion piece. I wrote it on a 15 minute coffee break and posted it unedited. It’s raw, and that’s the whole point. The tone, the language, and the style are intentional. This was written for people like my mostly conservative Army buddies who will never click an article that is titled “Gun control is your friend”, and tend to assume those who support such legislation have never seen a gun before. I’m not a professional writer, nor a particularly prolific blogger until about three days ago. I’m just a person trying to sort it out like everybody else. Thank you for stopping by. I really do appreciate every one of you. Please find us on FaceBook.BCMCarryHandleAR-15-3

America, can we talk? Let’s just cut the shit for once and actually talk about what’s going on without blustering and pretending we’re actually doing a good job at adulting as a country right now. We’re not. We’re really screwing this whole society thing up, and we have to do better. We don’t have a choice. People are dying. At this rate, it’s not if your kids, or mine, are involved in a school shooting, it’s when. One of these happens every 60 hours on average in the US. If you think it can’t affect you, you’re wrong. Dead wrong. So let’s talk.

I’ll start. I’m an Army veteran. I like M-4’s, which are, for all practical purposes, an AR-15, just with a few extra features that people almost never use anyway. I’d say at least 70% of my formal weapons training is on that exact rifle, with the other 30% being split between various and sundry machineguns and grenade launchers. My experience is pretty representative of soldiers of my era. Most of us are really good with an M-4, and most of us like it at least reasonably well, because it is an objectively good rifle. I was good with an M-4, really good. I earned the Expert badge every time I went to the range, starting in Basic Training. This isn’t uncommon. I can name dozens of other soldiers/veterans I know personally who can say the exact same thing. This rifle is surprisingly easy to use, completely idiot-proof really, has next to no recoil, comes apart and cleans up like a dream, and is light to carry around. I’m probably more accurate with it than I would be with pretty much any other weapon in existence. I like this rifle a lot. I like marksmanship as a sport. When I was in the military, I enjoyed combining these two things as often as they’d let me.

With all that said, enough is enough. My knee jerk reaction is to consider weapons like the AR-15 no big deal because it is my default setting. It’s where my training lies. It is my normal, because I learned how to fire a rifle IN THE ARMY. You know, while I may only have shot plastic targets on the ranges of Texas, Georgia, and Missouri, that’s not what those weapons were designed for, and those targets weren’t shaped like deer. They were shaped like people. Sometimes we even put little hats on them. You learn to take a gut shot, “center mass”, because it’s a bigger target than the head, and also because if you maim the enemy soldier rather than killing him cleanly, more of his buddies will come out and get him, and you can shoot them, too. He’ll die of those injuries, but it’ll take him a while, giving you the chance to pick off as many of his compadres as you can. That’s how my Drill Sergeant explained it anyway. I’m sure there are many schools of thought on it. The fact is, though, when I went through my marksmanship training in the US Army, I was not learning how to be a competition shooter in the Olympics, or a good hunter. I was being taught how to kill people as efficiently as possible, and that was never a secret.

As an avowed pacifist now, it turns my stomach to even type the above words, but can you refute them? I can’t. Every weapon that a US Army soldier uses has the express purpose of killing human beings. That is what they are made for. The choice rifle for years has been some variant of what civilians are sold as an AR-15. Whether it was an M-4 or an M-16 matters little. The function is the same, and so is the purpose. These are not deer rifles. They are not target rifles. They are people killing rifles. Let’s stop pretending they’re not.

With this in mind, is anybody surprised that nearly every mass shooter in recent US history has used an AR-15 to commit their crime? And why wouldn’t they? High capacity magazine, ease of loading and unloading, almost no recoil, really accurate even without a scope, but numerous scopes available for high precision, great from a distance or up close, easy to carry, and readily available. You can buy one at Wal-Mart, or just about any sports store, and since they’re long guns, I don’t believe you have to be any more than 18 years old with a valid ID. This rifle was made for the modern mass shooter, especially the young one. If he could custom design a weapon to suit his sinister purposes, he couldn’t do a better job than Armalite did with this one already.

This rifle is so deadly and so easy to use that no civilian should be able to get their hands on one. We simply don’t need these things in society at large. I always find it interesting that when I was in the Army, and part of my job was to be incredibly proficient with this exact weapon, I never carried one at any point in garrison other than at the range. Our rifles lived in the arms room, cleaned and oiled, ready for the next range day or deployment. We didn’t carry them around just because we liked them. We didn’t bluster on about barracks defense and our second amendment rights. We tucked our rifles away in the arms room until the next time we needed them, just as it had been done since the Army’s inception. The military police protected us from threats in garrison. They had 9 mm Berettas to carry. They were the only soldiers who carry weapons in garrison. We trusted them to protect us, and they delivered. With notably rare exceptions, this system has worked well. There are fewer shootings on Army posts than in society in general, probably because soldiers are actively discouraged from walking around with rifles, despite being impeccably well trained with them. Perchance, we could have the largely untrained civilian population take a page from that book?

I understand that people want to be able to own guns. That’s ok. We just need to really think about how we’re managing this. Yes, we have to manage it, just as we manage car ownership. People have to get a license to operate a car, and if you operate a car without a license, you’re going to get in trouble for that. We manage all things in society that can pose a danger to other people by their misuse. In addition to cars, we manage drugs, alcohol, exotic animals (there are certain zip codes where you can’t own Serval cats, for example), and fireworks, among other things. We restrict what types of businesses can operate in which zones of the city or county. We have a whole system of permitting for just about any activity a person wants to conduct since those activities could affect others, and we realize, as a society, that we need to try to minimize the risk to other people that comes from the chosen activities of those around them in which they have no say. Gun ownership is the one thing our country collectively refuses to manage, and the result is a lot of dead people.

I can’t drive a Formula One car to work. It would be really cool to be able to do that, and I could probably cut my commute time by a lot. Hey, I’m a good driver, a responsible Formula One owner. You shouldn’t be scared to be on the freeway next to me as I zip around you at 140 MPH, leaving your Mazda in a cloud of dust! Why are you scared? Cars don’t kill people. People kill people. Doesn’t this sound like bullshit? It is bullshit, and everybody knows. Not one person I know would argue non-ironically that Formula One cars on the freeway are a good idea. Yet, these same people will say it’s totally ok to own the firearm equivalent because, in the words of comedian Jim Jeffries, “fuck you, I like guns”.

Yes, yes, I hear you now. We have a second amendment to the constitution, which must be held sacrosanct over all other amendments. Dude. No. The constitution was made to be a malleable document. It’s intentionally vague. We can enact gun control without infringing on the right to bear arms. You can have your deer rifle. You can have your shotgun that you love to shoot clay pigeons with. You can have your target pistol. Get a license. Get a training course. Recertify at a predetermined interval. You do not need a military grade rifle. You don’t. There’s no excuse.

“But we’re supposed to protect against tyranny! I need the same weapons the military would come at me with!” Dude. You know where I can get an Apache helicopter and a Paladin?! Hook a girl up! Seriously, though, do you really think you’d be able to hold off the government with an individual level weapon? Because you wouldn’t. One grenade, and you’re toast. Don’t have these illusions of standing up to the government, and needing military style rifles for that purpose. You’re not going to stand up to the government with this thing. They’d take you out in about half a second.

Let’s be honest. You just want a cool toy, and for the vast majority of people, that’s all an AR-15 is. It’s something fun to take to the range and put some really wicked holes in a piece of paper. Good for you. I know how enjoyable that is. I’m sure for a certain percentage of people, they might not kill anyone driving a Formula One car down the freeway, or owning a Cheetah as a pet, or setting off professional grade fireworks without a permit. Some people are good with this stuff, and some people are lucky, but those cases don’t negate the overall rule. Military style rifles have been the choice du jour in the incidents that have made our country the mass shootings capitol of the world. Formula One cars aren’t good for commuting. Cheetahs are bitey. Professional grade fireworks will probably take your hand off. All but one of these are common sense to the average American. Let’s fix that. Be honest, you don’t need that AR-15. Nobody does. Society needs them gone, no matter how good you may be with yours. Kids are dying, and it’s time to stop fucking around.

Advertisements

5,159 thoughts on ““Fuck you, I like guns.”

    1. @John Flammang — if you want to use military grade weapons, you do need to join the military. If you want to use an AR-15, the most commonly owned rifle in America, you just need to be a civilian who can legally own a firearm.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I couldn’t figure out how to comment, maybe she did turn it off. So, “You’re not going to stand up to the government with that thing. They’d take you out in about half second.” The apathy is widespread because of this statement. This is no longer a government by the people, or for the people. The people have no power to accomplish squat. And, before it gets said, you can vote them out, right? Does it really matter who is in office? With a lack of morality, a pandemic of greed, along with the lack of power by the people, who cares about gun laws?

        Liked by 1 person

      1. Underground gangs will always be an issue, even in countries that have a total ban on guns. However, they don’t often go shooting up school children.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. So you don’t believe gangs have killed kids? They may not be wandering in to schools to shoot them up, but perhaps you’d like to go look at the average age of those killed by gang violence. While you’re at it, look at how many there are, too.

        Like

      3. Mike: “How many of those groups have gone into schools and shot them up.”

        So you’re telling me that you only care when it makes the news? You only care when someone walks onto school property before pulling the trigger? Let’s be clear – your question directly implies that you care more about the sensation of being fed something outrageous rather than the very real, daily problems caused by these gangs.

        Over 300 people shot in Chicago alone this year, but it sounds like you don’t care about that number. Is it because the area is predominantly black? Or do you think that because of the area, they all deserved it? Maybe because it’s gangs doing the shooting, you just feel like there’s nothing to be done, so whatever.

        The lame argument is trying to prove your point by demanding a useless restriction. In other words, you have no actual concern about death, just making villains of gun owners. Nice.

        Like

      4. Michael Ejercito, you say, “And yet, these gun control laws will ensure that the only people in the firearms market will be precisely those people who are more likely than the general population to commit murder,” which means that other people are at least somewhat likely to commit murder, and gun control laws would therefore reduce the number of murders. My argument is lame, I admit, but the “If guns are outlawed . . .” argument no longer inspires me to do better.

        Like

      5. @trulyunpopular, how many of those killings were with semi-auto rifles? The statistics show that the most common firearm in murders is a handgun. That’s why the push on AR-15 variants, they’re mass murder weapons; not for targeted killings that handguns produce and which would probably happen with other weapons if guns weren’t available.

        Like

      6. Using that logic because Al Capone could kill people with Thompson machine guns I therefore have a constitutional right to do the same. Let’s try common sense here.

        Liked by 1 person

      7. MPATK said: “@trulyunpopular, how many of those killings were with semi-auto rifles? The statistics show that the most common firearm in murders is a handgun. That’s why the push on AR-15 variants, they’re mass murder weapons; not for targeted killings that handguns produce and which would probably happen with other weapons if guns weren’t available.”

        How many street shootings are done with semi-auto rifles? Not many, because they’re difficult to carry. Your assertion that ARs are “mass murder weapons” is interesting. Do you know there are 30 million ARs in private hands right this very instant? If they’re mass murder weapons, they’re not doing their job.

        As for “targeted killings that handguns produce”, are you saying it’s better to take out people in ones and twos? That’s pretty grim. Anyway, you should go back and read up on Virginia Tech – 32 dead by handgun, in under 15 minutes (12 of which were taken up by the shooter sitting in a dorm room, not killing). Oh, and one of the handguns was a .22

        Do you know what a .22 is? Do you think the people who died with .22 slugs in their head are just glad they didn’t die from an AR? “Whew! At least it wasn’t a big, black, scary rifle!”

        mm-hmm

        Like

      8. truelyunpopular…you say: …our assertion that ARs are “mass murder weapons” is interesting. Do you know there are 30 million ARs in private hands right this very instant? If they’re mass murder weapons, they’re not doing their job…. what kind of argumentation is that? you are assuming that everyone who has an AR is a potential mass murder? you are turning the argument on its head…for what? it is the other way around. someone with the idea in his head ( and yes lets state that for a moment as well, most mass murderer are male!) will most likely chose an AR. ! to make it easier: not everyone who owns an AR is a mass murder, but most mass murderer use an AR! as for your perspective on mafia, criminal gangs etc ( independent what weapon they use) ..i dont really get what you are trying to say… but do you possibly mean, because there are so many criminals on the street – with guns, the population of the US should be allowed to carry weapons? is there a statistic how many muggings, rapes, thefts, burglaries have been prevented by potential victims because they own a gun? theoretically this might sound right: I own a gun to defend myself to criminals, but in practice how many times does that actually work? i.e. are you quicker pulling your gun ( like in the western) then the other? do you run around on the streets constantly carrying becuase, well, you never know? Gang crimilanlity is a different issue. Again your argument that there are over 300 deaths by gang shooting in Chicago somehow justifies an unresticted gun law is simply meaningless…because, guess what, also gangs will have it a bit more difficult to get guns if there are restictions, sure they always will find a way, but you dont have to make it extra easy for them, especially if you so worried about the gang criminality…unless you like walking around their turfs hoping you might be able to come by one to then pull your gun and execute your right to defend yourself.

        Liked by 1 person

      9. to make it easier: not everyone who owns an AR is a mass murder, but most mass murderer use an AR!

        Let me rephrase that.

        Not everyone who is black is a murderer, but most murderers are black.

        What should be done about blacks?

        Like

      10. That argument is weak Michael. The Crips, the Mafia and MS-13 are not the ones killing our kids in schools; that’s regular people, kids who go to school with our kids. Sure, criminals are going to get high-grade guns illegally, no doubt about that. But law enforcement handles that, not us, not regular citizens. Put a ban on assault weapons, and the numbers of people killed in school shootings – or concert events like the one in Vegas – will drop. They probably will still happen, but armed with weapons without the accuracy and magazine capacity, the death tolls will be lower.

        Like

      11. You mean gangbangers never murder anyone?

        I am old enough to remember when the media focused on gang violence. They kept telling stories about how kids get caught in drive-by shootings, how some gangs use murder as an initiation ritual.

        Now you are telling me I have been lied to?

        Were the reports of the murders of Shavon Dean, Stephanie Kuhen, and Jamiel Shaw hoaxes?

        Maybe they never even existed.

        Like

      12. mk – your reading comprehension seems to be lower than average…

        “what kind of argumentation is that? you are assuming that everyone who has an AR is a potential mass murder?”
        No – exactly the opposite. If you actually read what I wrote, you’d understand the rhetorical device in play.

        “someone with the idea in his head ( and yes lets state that for a moment as well, most mass murderer are male!) will most likely chose an AR.”
        Yes – most mass murderers are male. So what? Are you proposing to ban males from owning guns?
        When you say “most likely choose an AR”, you’re wrong. Just flat wrong. The trend is increasing, which I’ll address in a moment, but let me state once more: YOU ARE WRONG. Thirteen out of more than 300 mass shootings involved ARs going back to 1984. If you believe the Gun Violence Archive and Mass Shooting tracker, the stats get even worse for your assertion: they believe literally thousands of mass shootings have happened. And still only 13 ARs.

        “…to make it easier: not everyone who owns an AR is a mass murder, but most mass murderer use an AR!”
        No – mass shooters choose ARs more frequently now for several reasons, not the least of which is the absurd level of hype pushed out by low-information gun control media outlets. No, let me fix that… intentionally misleading and flat-out lying gun control information outlets. Sales of ARs soared after the 2004 ban sunset, right? And sales have been incredible since then. However, there are lots of guns that are more powerful than ARs. Do you know that hunting deer with an AR is illegal BECAUSE IT’S UNDERPOWERED? Law enforcement frequently chooses the AR platform specifically because it’s high velocity but low overall power. The round is meant to stop in a body without passing through (using tactical rounds). Is it good at killing? Absolutely. But it’s not the best.

        “do you possibly mean, because there are so many criminals on the street – with guns, the population of the US should be allowed to carry weapons?”
        Partially, yes – but more importantly you yet again missed context. What I was referring to is the fact that nearly 9,000 criminals commit murder with a handgun every year. If the AR was as MPATK described it, then those crimes would be committed with ARs, not handguns. Seriously – try to keep up.

        “is there a statistic how many muggings, rapes, thefts, burglaries have been prevented by potential victims because they own a gun? theoretically this might sound right: I own a gun to defend myself to criminals, but in practice how many times does that actually work?”
        The estimates that the federal government collects from local law enforcement ranges from a bare minimum of 100,000 defensive uses every year to over 2.5 million. The Gun Violence Archive and various other gun hating groups grudgingly admit to the lower number, so I typically cite that because it’s still more than ten times the criminal gun homicide rate.

        “are you quicker pulling your gun ( like in the western) then the other? do you run around on the streets constantly carrying becuase, well, you never know?”
        Wow. You watch too many movies. It’s not a quick draw, and pretty much never is. Watch actual footage of CCW defenses. I’ve drawn my weapon twice to prevent immediate, lethal harm, one time made the news complete with footage and a police report. The guy I stopped was trying to stab another man in a very public place. The victim’s two young kids were watching. Fortunately I didn’t have to fire a shot – looking down a .40 barrel has that effect. There were maybe 30-40 people watching inside the store. How many 9-1-1 calls were there? Two: my wife and the store manager. That’s it. Everyone stood around gawking and NOT calling for help or trying to intervene. Bad guy turned out to be a wanted felon who earlier in the week stole a car and drove over the owner. He had robbed a food truck at gun point, and was a known drug trafficker. The stolen car was in the parking lot. Nearly all of the dozen cops that showed up came up to say thanks. One kept running my license because apparently he agrees with you. His commander told him to fuck off right in front of me.

        Three months after the incident, the news agencies dropped the story and buried it. I still have the police record. So, yes: I carry all the time in public because you don’t ever fucking know. Do you have a fire extinguisher? Are you living in constant fear that your kitchen will catch fire? Do you only have one around when you expect something to go wrong?

        Idiot.

        “Again your argument that there are over 300 deaths by gang shooting in Chicago somehow justifies an unresticted gun law is simply meaningless”
        Too much lead paint as a child? I never said unrestricted gun laws; I said I wanted “useful” laws. See? The words are completely different. Stop making shit up – you don’t have the capacity to pull it off.

        “because, guess what, also gangs will have it a bit more difficult to get guns if there are restictions,”
        Just like they have difficulty getting and distributing drugs. That was sarcasm – I point it out because you missed it earlier.

        If I sound like i’m personally attacking you, I am. You’ve proven that you don’t actually have critical thinking skills, let alone an understanding of the written word. I can have reasoned arguments and discussions with people that oppose my views by 180 degrees, and do it all the time. We respect each other’s views and we present both facts and reason to support our opinion. You, on the other hand, attempt to discredit my arguments by sheer stupidity and misunderstanding.

        Did you present a fact? Did you show any logic or presentation of argument? Not even an attempt.

        Wipe the crayon off your teeth before you type your next response.

        Like

      13. So gangs never killed anyone?

        Funny, I remember back in the early 1990’s when the media said that gang violence was a crisis.

        Now you are telling me that gang violence was a hoax, a complete myth?

        The reports I heard about Shevon Dean, Stephanie Kuhen, and Jamiel Shaw were hoaxes?

        Maybe they never even existed?

        Like

      14. Michael Ejercito, I can’t understand what your problem is–anyone should be able to understand that saying gangs aren’t the ones doing school shootings isn’t the same as saying gangs never kill people. It isn’t even the same as saying gangs don’t shoot people in schools. It makes it hard to have a conversation when you pretend not to know what someone means by “school shooting.” However bad it is when children get killed by gangs, it isn’t helpful to insist that everything be spelled out in every post. For example, if I use the word “post” and you respond by telling me the proper word is “comment” we’ll never get anywhere.

        Like

      15. Michael Ejercito, I can’t understand what your problem is–anyone should be able to understand that saying gangs aren’t the ones doing school shootings isn’t the same as saying gangs never kill people.

        If the problme is merely school shootings, then why does the proposed solution in the blog banning AR-15s everywhere, not just schools. Should not solutions to problems in schools be, in fact, limited to schools?

        Of course, one must wonder why the anti-gun cult is focusing attention on school shootings while ignoring gang violence.

        Like

    2. Well, it’s NOT a military grade weapon, but I HAVE joined up, sworn in, and done my time. You know what I swore, right? I swore I’d defend those constitutional rights. Is it inconvenient to you that the 2nd amendment is one of them?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It’s kinda inconvenient (and tragic, unconscionable, criminal, and idiotic) that citizens of America would rather protect a right to bear any kind of arm imaginable than protect their children from harm.

        Wake up America.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. It’s really tragic is the people think this is an actual choice and not a false one.
        Turns out, DISARMING these schools is exactly what’s killing these kids.

        Like

      3. The constitution enshrined slavery for 80 years, barred women from voting for 130 years, and even outlawed beer for a few. Sometimes it has to be tweaked. The writers were human, not gods.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Have you even read the second amendment? I doesn’t say anything about stupid people like me getting pissed and shooting stupid people like you, but thanks for defending my right to stupidly kill people I don’t agree with.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. No murder conviction was overturned on Second Amendment grounds.

        On the other hand, murder convictions were overturned on Fourth amendment grounds. It is clear which constitutional provision is a greater threat to public safety.

        Like

      6. Michael Ejercito, your comments are maybe the most unthinking among hundreds that I’ve read here. You need to think harder before posting things. I shouldn’t even have to tell you this, but the reason no murder conviction has ever been overturned on second amendment grounds is that the second amendment says nothing about murder. The fourth amendment deals explicitly with what sorts of evidence can be used against you. I’m surprised you can’t understand even such an obvious difference.

        Like

      7. The 4th Amendment also acts as a shield that enables some murderers to get away with their crimes.

        shall we give up on the 4th Amendment? Does anyone really need to refuse being searched by police? if you are innocent, why worry about a search?

        Like

      8. No right is absolute. Speech has never been completely “free” no matter what the 1st Amendment says. Neither is the press or religion. Hell, the 2nd Amendment already isn’t absolute: convicted felons can’t possess guns even after they’re off parole; and good luck getting grenades, etc… While where the limits are set can be argued, claiming unlimited right to anything is ridiculous and, in the 2nd Amendment’s case, proven false.

        Like

      9. Showing that government curtails some rights in no way means they aren’t violating human rights. Or do you think China is ok, because it’s a government, so that’s cool?

        Since more than half of all felons are stigmatized for nonviolent offenses, it’s unconscionable that government mandates that they can’t ever defend themselves effectively, unless they get a pardon.

        Like

    3. I can’t figure out how to leave a comment so I will just reply to someone with whom I agree! I don’t want to sound like a racist but, as a non-American, most of the rest of the world is bamboozlzed at the American response to gun violence. The Australians restricted gun ownership after Port Arther; the Scots restricted gun ownership after the nursery school shooting. And mass shootings stopped! Completely! But after dozens of school shootings, Americans do NOTHING. The second amendment has nothing to do with automatic weapons. It was passed at a time when the current weapon was a musket. I would support the right to own and operate a musket. I can’t , for the life of me, understand why anyone would support the right of young or mentally ill people to own automatic rifles. Come on people! Look around you! Nowhere else on earth has the record of mass killings that the US has. Why! Because there are laws prohibiting the ownership of automatic weapons. No-one on earth, other than a soldier in a very violent setting, need these kinds of weapons. So yes! Undoubtedly! You have the right to bear a musket. Everyone will be safe if you do! But ban automatic weapons for everyone other than a soldier in a place like Syria!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The rest of the world does have records of mass slaughter in the tens of millions. That is of unarmed citizenry slaughtered by their very own governments. This isn’t ancient history either, the last century is rife the world over with such numbers they can’t even be fathomed. The fact of the matter is that a loan murderer or even a group of them may cause a local tragedy, but they can not unleash the horror that governments can. It is nonsense that the writer of this article claims to have served in an army he is convinced wouldn’t and couldn’t be swayed by it’s own citizenry were it to be unleashed against them when for the past 17 years that army hasn’t been able to defeat a ragtag band of hillbillies in the Indian Sub-continent. Muskets were the state of the art military arm at the forming of the Constitution. The amendment uses the word “arms,” not firearms or muskets because they were aware that such specific weapons would become obsolete one day as will the AR15. The Europeans can’t own guns and they are also the types of people who give their daughters up to rape gangs and invite people to rape their women en masse in their streets. Little by little they are giving up their own rights from speech to being able to walk home at night over to ever encroaching tyranny. I’ll take the mass shooter. Guns can be a vice like drugs can be a vice. Keep the government out of both and we’ll be better off.

        Like

      2. Your comment, in addition to teaching me a thing or two about those rape-crazy Europeans, is based on a misunderstanding–the original poster never said that private citizens do more damage than whole armies. Why do gun people suck so much at arguing?

        Like

      3. You’re right, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with automatic weapons. This conversation has nothing to do with automatic weapons. This has to do with people who want guns taken away making the world think automatic weapons are the problem, but they’re not! No automatic weapons have been used!

        Like

      4. I don’t see any need to disarm people. I’m a gun owner myself. My reply to folks who have brought up gangs, the death rate in Chicago and (puzzlingly) the writer who thinks disarming schools has lead to mass school shootings (when were schools armed?) is that the assault rifle is a definable weapon. It shouldn’t be available to anyone who wants it. don’t have a problem with citizens owning them. Some people legally own automatic weapons. But they jump through a lot of hoops to get them. We can regulate assault rifles the same way. And another thing. It’s time for everyone to calm down. I know people who think guns are simply evil,like a poisonous snake. Other people are convinced that someone wants to take all their guns. The only way our society can work is for people to compromise, and making compromises is the best thing we can do now. Can you imagine letting the morons in office now screw around with the Constitution? We need to calm down and start thinking of things we are willing to let go of to try to reach a solution. Most of us aren’t stupid, no matter how passionately we feel. It’s been 20 years since Columbine. Do any of us really believe that we can’t reach some reasonable compromise that leaves each side slightly resentful but satisfied? We’ve been doing that for over 200 years! Sorry for piggybacking through an earlier comment.

        Like

      5. I have relatives who are Australian (that’s where my mother is from), and they say that yes, public shootings have gone down, but rape and other violent crimes have gone WAY up, so it’s not the perfect answer the media portrays it to be. I do support *some* limits on gun ownership, but it is nonsensical to say that because only muskets existed at the time of the founding fathers, those are the only types of guns that should be allowed now; cars didn’t exist then, either, but no one thinks cars should be banned because of how many people die in car accidents, as a result of drunk drivers or people distracted by their cell phones (hey, I know, those didn’t exist in 1775, so let’s ban those, too!). Statements like this make it easier to disregard what you have to say because they just flat out don’t make sense.

        Like

      6. First of all, I tried to check your statement that rapes in Australia had gone “WAY up”, and wasn’t able to find anything one way or the other. Maybe I didn’t try hard enough, maybe the media only reports anti-gun news, or maybe “WAY up” just wasn’t specific enough. We all have our own ideas about how raped or murdered we would have to be to consider calling it “WAY up.” I would probably choose to be raped rather than murdered, but we all have our preferences. And as far as the silly assertion that cell phones and cars should be outlawed as well, I think you know that most people aren’t talking about outlawing guns, all they want is the same kinds of regulations that we take for granted with cars, phones (try getting a phone without filling out paperwork) and other things that have uses other than killing people. As you say, “Statements like this make it easier to disregard what you have to say because they just flat out don’t make sense.”

        Like

      1. Essentially – what’s the difference? a metal part about the size of the tip of your pinky? Get real. Don’t be a tool for the NRA, use your head, for god’s sake. We don’t need to be whining about our 2nd Amendment right – we need to be protecting SOME right to own firearms, while protecting children from idiots with ANY guns.

        Like

      2. Richard, do you understand the concept of legal boundary? How about jurisprudence? Ok, what about mechanics?

        Yes – the difference between automatic and semi-automatic versions of the same gun usually comes down to the sear. And what was the legal boundary of the 1986 FOPA? AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. At that moment, any gun that could be manufactured with only an SA action was completely legal.

        Do you think that’s a meaningless distinction because it’s easy to convert an AR-15 to automatic fire? Because it’s yet to come up in a crime since 1986. I’d say that’s a pretty important piece of information, wouldn’t you? Even the Las Vegas shooter used external mechanical assists to achieve a rate of fire similar to automatic weapons. Could he have taken the 20m to convert them? Yep, probably cheaper than buying bump stocks and trigger cranks, if we’re being honest. But for some reason he didn’t. Why? I honestly don’t know, but it wasn’t because of technical limitations.

        Get real. Don’t be a tool for a political movement that promotes ignorance and endorses flat-out lying.

        Ah… well, I guess that doesn’t really narrow the field, does it? Ok – don’t be a tool for the gun control media and politicians. We DO need people protecting the 2nd amendment because it’s a right that was adopted by all the ratifying states from the start. It’s not just the founding fathers that saw the need – ALL THE SIGNATORIES accepted it.

        You want to protect children? Look at legal solutions that actually will be useful, like better reporting methods to prevent purchase. Banning the thing that is statistically least represented in all gun crime, let alone mass shootings, is childish and ignorant.

        Like

    4. To the naysayers and nit pickers: Truth hurts. Put a bandage on your booboo and get over it. People with guns kills people without guns, and there are more of the latter than the former.

      Like

    5. Military grade is just as stupid as assault rifle. Every gun can inflict a wound that is leathal therefore every gun is made for killing.
      When there are no guns on this planet, shooting will stop. Then we’ll just have to worry about what you steal from the armory and make publicly accessible.
      People expected the Florida shooting, those people should be in prison for not saying something about this person over a year ago.

      Guns are not the issue, messed up, unstable people are.

      Get rid of assault knives, assault tire irons, assault bats and assault 2x4s while you’re at it.

      Like

    6. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Your arguments are brilliant. Anyone who refutes ANYTHING you say is either being disingenuous (lying) or is mentally and morally deficient.

      Like

  1. Jesus Christ there are simply too many points to refute here so I’m not even going to try to cover all of them. Instead let’s focus on two:
    Firstly this paragraph:
    “I can’t drive a Formula One car to work. It would be really cool to be able to do that, and I could probably cut my commute time by a lot. Hey, I’m a good driver, a responsible Formula One owner. You shouldn’t be scared to be on the freeway next to me as I zip around you at 140 MPH, leaving your Mazda in a cloud of dust! Why are you scared? Cars don’t kill people. People kill people. Doesn’t this sound like bullshit? It is bullshit, and everybody knows. Not one person I know would argue non-ironically that Formula One cars on the freeway are a good idea.”

    Like

    1. Not sure why that posted. Oh well we will continue. On the above point:
      Yes you CAN drive an F-1 to work if you want. Go buy one. Get it licensed and insured and you absolutely can. If insurance companies refuse to insure it that is their choice but the fact comes down to this: There is no law that expressly prohibits you from driving a race-style car on the road so long as it is properly equipped and follows the standard guidelines applicable to all road-going vehicles.

      Now if you CHOOSE to drive 140, so be it. But do not be surprised when you are punished for stupid behavior. And no, cars don’t kill people. I just went out and stood in front of my 6000 lbs pickup. I cussed it. I flipped it off. I even kicked the bumper and you know what?The only thing it did was surprise me when the alarm went off. I’m still here.

      People in cars driving STUPIDLY or making HUMAN MISTAKES kill people.

      Second point and the last one I’m going to waste my time on:
      “But we’re supposed to protect against tyranny! I need the same weapons the military would come at me with!” Dude. You know where I can get an Apache helicopter and a Paladin?! Hook a girl up! Seriously, though, do you really think you’d be able to hold off the government with an individual level weapon? Because you wouldn’t. One grenade, and you’re toast. Don’t have these illusions of standing up to the government, and needing military style rifles for that purpose. You’re not going to stand up to the government with this thing. They’d take you out in about half a second.”

      Bullshit. Guerrilla warfare has successfully held off the greatest military powers on the planet more than a few times. Sure helicopters and grenades are an advantage a government would have, but do you sincerely think that in the event of a revolution in the future a government military force of approximately 1.4 million would actually be able to successfully combat a US population of 300+ million? Of course many of the US population wouldn’t fight. Of course many are children. Of course the weapons used may be a smidgen less powerful. Equally however how many military members would defect if told to turn on their countrymen?

      The second amendment is in place for one reason and one reason only: To protect and ensure the security of a free state. This includes protection from the tyranny of government and any other threats(be it foreign or domestic.) Before you roll your eyes and tell yourself it could never happen here, look back at history. EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN HISTORY has at SOME POINT had to revolt and rebel against its own government at some point in time. If you think the USA is anything special, that our republic style government protects us or we are too civilized you are fooling yourself. How is it Jewish people were marched into concentration camps in Nazi Germany? How did Stalin killed 20 million of HIS PEOPLE?

      Also; did it ever occur to you that the reason for the lower percentage of shootings on army bases (if this is true, I’ve not fact checked it) could POSSIBLY be because any shooter knows he will be actively shot back at? The people there are registered, known, and disciplined. On top of that, well armed and trained in the use of said arms.

      Final note: If the Constitution’s amendments are malleable then…..you undo your own point. A right to keep and bear arms can be bent either way, for more or less freedoms. However if you read the Constitution with a legal dictionary beside you’ll find it is NOT malleable. It applies concretely.

      Besides….if you are able to limit my ability to have an assault rifle as a responsible citizen because it is unnecessary or “unforeseen by the founding fathers” as many claim….I guess we should just shoot the internet down because God KNOWS they didn’t see it coming. Free speech shouldn’t apply here right?

      Stop with the endless double-standards……

      Liked by 4 people

      1. To resolve this issue there needs to be compromise, can we all agree on that?

        There are so many people who feel as you do about these guns and it will be impossible to change everyone’s mind. Same with those who feel that all guns should be removed, some minds you just wont change.

        Both need to concede a little. Something has to change for the results to be different. What’s the Einstein quote, repeating the same action over and over but expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Isn’t that what we’re doing here?

        We need better mental health care, we need better follow up on people displaying signs of mental instability, and we need to remove some higher level guns from being bought and sold. Not all guns but the higher level, military style weapons need to go away. I hunt, I own rifles, these guns aren’t needed. That alone won’t fix all the problems and eliminate the possibility of horrible events but it’s a step and one of many steps that everyone needs to take to fix this.

        Like

      2. You are categorically incorrect about the Formula 1 cars. You wouldn’t be able to register one in virtually any state unless you did some serious modifications: headlights, taillights, blinkers, front & rear bumpers, fenders, road tires, catalytic converter, etc.

        Like

      3. Besides….if you are able to limit my ability to have an assault rifle as a responsible citizen because it is unnecessary or “unforeseen by the founding fathers” as many claim….I guess we should just shoot the internet down because God KNOWS they didn’t see it coming. Free speech shouldn’t apply here right?

        Or how about banning same-sex marriage?

        After al, the Founders could not have foreseen it.

        Liked by 2 people

      4. It certainly doesn’t unless you want it to. If looked at and read from a standpoint of personal principle, it reads:
        I believe in personal responsibility and I will learn lessons from history so I may take steps to not repeat its crimes.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. >>
        EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN HISTORY has at SOME POINT had to revolt and rebel against its own government at some point in time.
        >>

        That is completely untrue. Australia, Canada, Singapore… the list goes on and on.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. Australia: Eureka rebellion and Rum rebellion.
        Canada: Rebellions of 1837-1838
        Singapore: 1915 Singapore Mutiny.

        These are examples I was able to find in less than 30 seconds from a google search and yes, they do still count despite being examples of rebellion before the complete formation of the country as it is known NOW. After all, the countries had to rebel in order to become independent from (what they considered) foreign rule.
        The Singapore Republic as it is known today is less than 60 years old. None of the countries you listed have any manner of armament to rebel easily and none are based off personal liberty or responsibility.

        Liked by 1 person

      7. Stop bringing up facts. They feeeeeel like Australia and Singapore haven’t had to defend their nation from government oppression, so you should just accept it as true.
        They feeeeeel as though Wounded Knee and Kent State could never happen again, too. No, we’ve evolved and we’re so much smarter than before. But at the same time… police and government are systemically racist… but at the same time… police and military are the only ones who should have guns. There, do you understand how you’re supposed to feel now?

        Liked by 2 people

      8. But at the same time… police and government are systemically racist… but at the same time… police and military are the only ones who should have guns.

        this makes you wonder if the leadership and spokesholes believe that the police or military should be the only ones who should have guns because they feel that the police and military are racist.

        Like

      9. that was brilliant!!!!!! Two old oaks for president!!!!!!!! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸😂😂😂😂😂😂

        You are awesome

        Liked by 1 person

      10. You obviously have no experience with how Military bases control firearms. It sounds as though you imagine a Wild West Military town of personnel wandering around carrying weapons… They don’t. As the writer mentioned, weapons are locked in the armory except for when personnel are shooting for qualifications on the range with a range master supervising them.

        The only personnel who are generally armed are Base Security. On many Bases, these are not even Active Duty personnel- they are contract civilians hired as Base Police. They man the gates, and often work at the Brig. I believe they are armed while standing duty at the gate, but otherwise, I don’t know for sure.

        Ammunition and weapons are extremely carefully controlled in the Military. (Partly due to repercussions of poss. Injuries, but also due simply to COST. Ammunition is very costly.) For example, if I were issued a firearm to stand duty and it discharged I would have to file a report stating when, where, how, & why it discharged…was it an accident? Was I aiming at something?, Etc.

        Your idea of roaming bands of patrolling gun-nuts is simply WRONG.

        People rarely get shot on Military bases because- cars get randomly searched at the gate,- deterring ppl from bringing guns on board the base, and because the guns on base are carefully controlled and under lock & key.

        Additionally, any person wishing to bring their *personal* weapon on base must request Carry permission from the Commanding Officer of the Base. The base will request of that member’s unit background info-are they mentally well? Any abnormal behavior? Personnel & Medical will review their records checking for abnormalities & that mbrs CO will report to the CO who has had the request made either that they endorse their member’s request & a records check was conducted w/nothing disqualifying noted OR they could contact the CO by phone alerting him of a specific incident that might be an issue w/that person carrying a weapon on Navy property… (I’ve not seen one say yes, but I suppose it must happen occasionally? It’s up to that CO, just as it’s his butt if something goes wrong.)

        Like

      11. I think you were trying to refute me, but you literally just proved my point.

        Also, I never alluded to such a vision of military bases. You drew that image yourself. I grew up around military men and they are my best friends. I have a pretty solid idea of how things are handled.

        Like

      12. Even though I like the idea of a significant percentage of Americans taking up arms against the government and would probably join in such a lost cause, you should also know that I am mentally ill and make all kinds of ill-informed choices. Let’s stick it to the Man, comrade!

        Like

      13. “I address exactly why you are incorrect on a factual level based on lessons from history.”

        Except you didn’t, you provided your opinion on this, and as someone else has pointed out already it was factually incorrect (not every country has at one point had to revolt or rebel against its own government). In fact, I am very curious how many times (if ever?) this has happened in developed democracies in the last 100 years. You give the example of the Nazis, however Hitler succeeded in controlling the country through brainwashing and manipulation, do you think if the civilian population was armed the results would be any different? Also “tyranny” were to occur, you think the military would collectively go to war with the entire US population? More than likely a large portion of the civilian population would also support such a government (otherwise how would it have got there in the first place), and what you would end up with is just armed civilian vs. armed civilian vs. military. Furthermore, this is the digital age, if the government really wanted to control or kill mass amounts of civilians (if you actually think this is a plausible possibility) they wouldn’t need guns or to engage in physical combat to do so.

        Like

      14. Regarding your point about civilian guerilla warfare to counter an oppressive government, it is the number and wide distribution of fighters not the asymmetry of the weaponry that matter. Civilian resistance is a solid argument in support of the second amendment, but it is not refutation of the authors main point about regulating that asymmetry. Banning assault rifles is not synonymous with repealing the second amendment.
        The essence of the ongoing controversy is the line that has been drawn for the sophistication of civilian weaponry that is legally allowed. There is a line, otherwise RPGs would be legal. Let’s just move it back a little! The benefits far outweigh the costs.

        Like

      15. You talk about being able to protect ourselves from the tyranny of government–but it’s the people whose views align with yours Two Old Oaks, the minority of people who have bought our current government, who are looking like the tyrants. The majority of Americans are crying out for stricter gun control and the banning of assault weapons, are BEGGING for a change, and yet a much smaller minority are able to buy a larger voice and refuse to listen. And why?? To protect freedom? To protect themselves from oppression? They have BECOME the oppressors. This IS the revolt. The children staging lie-ins and protests, the people who are calling out corruption in our governments, the walk-outs…this IS the rebellion. And they are all doing it WITHOUT guns.

        Like

      16. So…..you want to take my property at threat of gunpoint….property that in no way poses ANY threat to you (without criminal behavior which is rightly punished by due process of the justice system)……but I’m the oppressor?

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Sure, drive a Formula One car on the highway. I don’t care. But if you go 140 MPH in it you are breaking the law by going over the speed limit. There are plenty of street legal production cars that can hit 150-200 MPH. Driving them that fast breaks the law. The Porsche 718 Cayman, MSRP of $55k, has a top speed of 170 MPH. The Ford Mustang GT, MSRP of $35k has a top speed of 155 MPH. Should we ban them because they can go significantly faster than the speed limit? The AR-15 is the most commonly owned rifle in America, and we are not going to ban them because a minute subset of people use them for murder. It wouldn’t fix the problem. If you look at the stats, only a small percentage of people are killed by rifles. Most are killed by handguns. The majority of deaths (2/3) are suicides. Suicide and mass murder are mental health issues, which we need significantly better support for.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. To Jewel:
        I’d like to suggest you look up the definition for the term, “personal responsibility.” In what way am I responsible for any other person’s actions? I’m not. Neither are you. You and I or anyone else is responsible for yourself. Just the way the world works.

        To Scott:
        We ABSOLUTELY need compromise. I just don’t believe I have a right to tell you how to live your life through policy. Equally you have no right to tell me how to live mine. Also, when you say, “Not all guns but the higher level, military style weapons need to go away. I hunt, I own rifles, these guns aren’t needed.” Please read my post more thoroughly and in its entirety, I address exactly why you are incorrect on a factual level based on lessons from history.

        To Lindsey:
        Not sure if you were talking to me or one of the other commenting parties but if you were in fact talking to me, I’m very glad I helped your day brighten!

        To Phil:
        That is exactly what I said at the end of that paragraph; “if it is properly equipped/follows road-going guidelines etc….”. YES you can buy one if you have the funds. However we have rules just as we do with firearms. Also as another individual stated there are many many high-speed capable cars that are perfectly legal to buy and drive without any real effort and they are a far cry more dangerous than firearms in basically every way on a statistical level.

        And to EVERYONE!!

        Thank you for taking time to read and critique my comment! 🙂 Seriously, I realize you may have only done so because you utterly disagree and that is FINE! But that criticism, that critique and open dialogue is what is needed.

        Liked by 2 people

    1. Well, if you listen to the overwhelming majority of military veterans, especially the ones that have used full auto M4s in combat, they overwhelmingly support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, including the semi-automatic AR-15 (which they did not use in combat)

      Like

      1. Have you heard about the idea that, because of the way social media & Google function, most of us tend to live in “bubbles” of information?

        What this means is, Google, Facebook, Twitter & the like keep track of what you read & like. So they show you that.

        After a while, if you like Trump, the NRA, & Fox News, you will see an overwhelming majority of *Positive* news about these things. After a while, it will seem to you that THAT is how EVERYONE thinks.

        It’s very deceptive. Because those people who look at only liberal topics think the exact opposite.
        It’s part of the reason our country is so divided. People have stopped seeing ALL the news, & they also no longer read/see news that is presented w/out bias, for the most part.
        If you’ve been reading a lot of “Military loves NRA stuff, that’s what you’re going to see.
        I can tell you from personal experience it’s not true. Many Military personnel are pro-gun, but that doesn’t always mean a) that they believe *everyone* should have one, & b) they are human- so they have varied beliefs, like other humans.
        As a Retired Chief Petty Officer, I don’t want a gun, however there are many people I highly respect whom I believe are responsible enough to care for their weapons, & keep them secured properly.

        I’ve also had many idiots work for me who I wouldn’t want near a weapon.
        There have to be some type of regulations on weapons. After reading the kind of physical damage that AR-15 did, I see no reason anyone needs that. It’s obviously not for hunting. It’s a military assault weapon, pure & simple.
        Are you prior service? Are your prior service friends all “overwhelmingly” of the same mind?
        I can easily find multiple Twitter feeds of prior service Military to quote who are for gun regulation as I am.

        Liked by 1 person

      1. Truly-I AM a gun owner. I DOunderstand why people own guns. But ownership isn’t an absolute right. I know not to try to take a firearm onto a passenger jet. I’d have to leave my firearm in my car to enter a prison, jail, etc. Either all of us come up with a compromise or sooner or later the idiots in office now will start trying to screw around w/the 2nd Amendment! I’d much rather engage people I disagree with & find a compromise that prevents this. I’ve heard an alarming number of people say they want THIS Congress to fuck around with the 2nd Amendment. That could lead to the repeal! We need to solve this on a legislative level!

        Like

      2. I agree, Bryan – the actions you cite are required by law, but the address your behavior. Laws are agreements and you’re choosing to abide by them, and that’s precisely what we should be doing.

        Unfortunately, the gun control side has become fanatical about bans on ARs right now, and some are pushing for full bans on private ownership. If you propose any other solution, you’re accused of not wanting to do anything AND that you just want more children slaughtered.

        Many of us are all about compromise, and not because we feel forced into it – we want a compromise solution because the longer we have this standoff, the more people die. Gun control advocates seem to think we don’t care, but the reality is they frequently cause the delays by insisting there can be only one solution.

        Like

      3. trulyunpopular…shirley quincy might have read through all the comments here, including your earlier ones and is very aware of YOUR personal reasoning why YOU want to carry guns, and jsut doent find them convincing. and dont just throw all gun owners in one pot, as the original article points out, the writer is also a gun owner, with a very differnt view then yours),

        Like

      4. mk – find any citation where I offer my personal reasoning on why I want to carry guns.

        What I’ve done is presented my opinion (with facts, history, and logic) regarding why there should be no additional restrictions on types of weapons owned.

        I don’t care if Shirley or you find the arguments convincing; some people don’t find arguments supporting climate change to be convincing, and others are absolutely convinced there is a god (no matter what name is used).

        Many of us on this thread have pointed out both factual and logical errors in the original article. But you won’t believe those things are wrong because you have a religious adherence to your perspective.

        Fortunately, we aren’t truly a church state.

        Like

  2. Very good read and thoughts about gun control. The second amendment was written so States could maintain a well regulated militia, so they could defend themselves against any outside hostilities, like the Native Americans or what was feared in those days, a despot taking control of the government. It was never meant to arm every American, every man woman and child, against each other. It was for those outer fears, not the inner ones we have when we meet someone we do not know. The only positive side is our country can never be invaded, we are so armed to the teeth.

    Like

    1. “The second amendment was written so States could maintain a well regulated militia, It was never meant to arm every American”. – How can we have a well regulated (trained & supplied) militia without an armed pool of people to draw from. Secondly being in a militia is only “one” reason to be armed not the “only” reason. That’s why there are separated parts in 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.* Notice it says “people” not “certain people”. Also the word “States” means “in a state of being” not one of the United States. A militia does not require a state (as in government) to call it to action. A situation can cause the members to rally themselves without waiting for some politician’s permission.

      Like

  3. Thank you. This is not easy to do when most in your personal and professional circle would disagree. I salute your courage for speaking out.

    Like

  4. Americans own something like 15 million AR-15-style rifles, which have been one of the biggest-selling firearm categories during the last decade or so. These guns are almost never used to commit violent crimes. According to the FBI, rifles of all kinds accounted for just 3 percent of firearm homicides in 2016, while handguns accounted for 65 percent. Contrary to what you may have heard, handguns are also by far the most common choice for mass shooters. A Mother Jones review of mass shootings from 1982 through 2012 found that 66 percent of the weapons were handguns, while just 14 percent would qualify as “assault weapons” under the definition used in a 2013 bill sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). More recent data show a similar pattern.

    Like

      1. Because it’s not televised; because it frequently happens alongside other crimes in progress; because it mostly affects blacks.

        Any one of those reasons to ignore it is unacceptable, but the last one is truly disgusting.

        Like

      2. I am old enough to remember when the issue was gang violence in the inner cities. I remember reading stories about how kids had to sleep in bathtubs to avoid stray gunfire.

        Of course, the only way to stop criminal gangs from having guns is to shut them down, and yet, gangs have been operating in the United States for what, two hundred years?

        Like

    1. Ben: If there really are 15,000,000 AR-15 like weapons in our country, it shouldn’t be surprising that we have mass shootings. Since it is widely known that more than 20% of Americans experience mental illness in a given year, we can expect a lot more. Currently, there are only 14 recorded mass shootings on record with more than 12 people murdered. The 1966 Texas Tower Shooting is still the 8th biggest and did not include a semi-automatic. 4 of the top 5 shooters used semi-automatic weapons. It seems the current trend is for use of weapons like the AR-15. Banning these types of weapons would seem prudent, but real background checks, raising the age of ownership to 21, and laws preventing felons & the mentally ill from purchasing/owning guns should be considered. Sadly, it seems likely that airport-like security at schools will become common place. Pre-screened Teachers should be allowed to have a weapon.

      Like

  5. I sort of agree with you here. The only reason that I own a .22 cal AR-15 style weapon is because my employer requires me to requalify on the AR-15 and my .22 has the same sight configuration. If my employer didn’t require the AR-15, I’d be happier owning a .223 long rifle with a scope. I like shooting at the range, and would have no other use for the rifle. Now, I’d own a 9mm handgun or a .45 cal handgun. (but then, I have the mentality of a sniper. I like to take my time and get a good shot in, rather than be in the middle of a close range gunfight.)

    Like

      1. You’re also a writer, according to your Gravatar profile. What about this piece is compelling for you? There are several posts that refute the salient elements, including both fact and logic; however, it seems to have impressed several people despite these demonstrable shortcomings.

        This is an honest question, and not bait or condescension. I’ve seen a number of people echo your sentiment, so I’m truly curious. I don’t intend to take apart your response – I’d like to understand what makes this article stand out in your mind.

        I’m also a writer and educator, but I tend towards more technical material professionally.

        Like

      2. The fact that the writer added an extra at the top saying she wasn’t a writer was, I thought, deserving of encouragement when her style is raw, honest and engaging. Great copy doesn’t rely on being perfectly, technically correct – it relies on engaging the heart, on appealing to that very human vulnerability that sits within us all. She writes with personal perspective – she’s trained with and shot guns – and she offers the heart of a mother. It’s a lovely contrast: guns and maternal care. I shared her prior post for the same reason – she unpacks why a pistol on a teacher in a school will never answer the might of point and press weaponry in a style that both analyses why and is engaging. Engaging is the key. From a personal perspective, I’m a fan of Jack Reacher and Lee Child’s writing – hers has echoes of how Child writes.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Thank you for your insight! What I got was a ‘stream of consciousness’ approach, that felt unrefined and slightly unfocused – you used the term raw. However, that’s just stylistic preference. You’re right that engagement is critical, and that’s pretty subjective. I couldn’t really feel the same way because of the technical problems, but I understand your perspective – if you aren’t inclined to challenge the information, it feels comfortable and authoritative, and that does make for a good piece.

        I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand. I also appreciate that you wanted to encourage the writer; even if I disagree with her, I never want people to shy away from putting effort into sharing their views.

        Like

      4. Plenty of tearing down in our world; only takes time and empathy to build someone up. I’m a journalist so took me a long time to move from that to ‘just’ writer as by default it’s observe, facts only. To enjoy writing for its style – raw, designed to evoke a reaction, whatever – is a pleasure. Thanks back!

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Well, that pretty much says it all. Thank you. I’m tired of having this conversation with people who drag out those stories about how guns don’t kill people, or we need to fight the government, etc. It’s all crap. The bottom line is 69% of the AMERICAN PEOPLE want a ban on AR-15s. So in a DEMOCRACY (hear that word, guerrilla wannabes?) they should be banned. So I’m just going to focus on getting people out to vote and get rid of the jerks who are in the pocket of the NRA. Also maybe neuter the NRA while we’re at it.

    Like

    1. Wendy Hanawalt sums things up perfectly—for me. The increasingly extremist positions taken by the NRA and its followers, and their doubling down on those positions following the Parkland massacre, mean that all attempts to “understand” these well-paid shills for gun manufacturers are wasted efforts. As for “compromising” with these fake patriots, THEY have made it clear they will only up the ante in response to any foolish attempts our side might make to find common ground with their well-practiced insanity. Instead, we must mobilize every member of the large majority supporting SENSIBLE restrictions on gun ownership, get them to take the same absolutist “single-issue” approach to voting that gun nuts have for decades and then BEAT THEM fair and square at the polls. Vow to not vote for any politician, Republican or Democrat, who doesn’t pledge to reject the support—and the money—of the NRA.

      Like

      1. The anti-gun cult are the extremists here, supporting laws that can only disarm the law-abiding, and not the criminal gangs who are much more likely to hurt and kill people using firearms.

        Like

    2. The US is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. The founding fathers did not want a democracy. They viewed it as a form of mob rule. You know like two foxes and a rabbit deciding on what’s for lunch. There are 5 million (and counting) NRA members in this country. We joined to have our voices heard. Oh I guess you want to trash the 1st Amendment also.

      Like

  7. Your article hits the nail on the head. It’s so well written, and reading it makes you feel like “what’s the matter with our government) what does it take to drill this into the heads of those who are pro-life yet are against doing anything AGAINST GUN CONTROL young people are getting killed and their only fault is going to school. PEOPLE READ THIS unbelievable areticle and think about how true every word that is written in it. to you Sir, this article is a masterpiece and I wish to congratulate it. I wish that more people would read what you wrote and have an open mind to understand your point of view. BRAVO.
    With respect,
    Danielle

    Like

    1. I understand her point of view.

      Can you understand Christopher Morton’s point of view?

      https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.culture.african.american/-2TwVOBXpys/jcDAgF3f3-MJ

      “The leading cause of death of Black males between the age of 15 and 24
      is murder, and can be attributed to the hand gun and other semi-automatic weaponry. The life expectancy of these young black males in cities like L.A. and Washington D.C. is less than the soldiers fighting in Vietnam. How can we as a society use these “Bill of Rights”
      as a shield and hide our eyes to the reality that a generation of the
      nation’s youth are being systematically eliminated? What of the rights
      of the hundreds of lives that are needlessly snuffed out every month of
      every year?”- George W. Hunter

      “The same way we use the 1st and 5th amendments. They protect EVERYBODY.
      When you start limiting them, you ENDANGER everybody. The REAL question is how
      we can make ourselves safer by destroying the rights of non-criminals?”-
      Christopher C. Morton

      “While its true that a major root to these problems is the drug issue.
      We must deal with this issue, but we must also cure the immediate
      problem. The problem is the availability of guns. It is irrelevent
      where the weapons are obtained. The relevent matter is that the guns
      are available and they are available to anyone who wants them. “- George W.
      Hunter


      And they will CONTINUE to be available. There’s NOTHING you can do about
      it. At most you can severely limit the rights of ALL people, and not just
      regarding guns. You can no more uninvent guns than you can uninvent fire. People
      make submachineguns in PRISON. Along with banning the 1st, 2nd, and 5th
      amendments will you also ban machinetools and seemless aluminum tubing?”- Christopher
      C. Morton

      ” Lets take a lead form Canada, from Sweeden, from England. These
      countries have outlawed the handgun. And an amazing thing has
      happened….They have in essence no murders by handgun! If you combine
      the total number of deaths by handgun in all of three of these countries
      for the last five years, they do not compare with the number of deaths
      in D.C. alone last year. In Canada, we are talking about less than 20
      murders by handgun last year!”- George W. Hunter

      “Their murder rates are RISING. Of course that’s beside the point anyway.
      Why not take the lead of South Africa? We could institute a pass law system and
      limit the movements of young Black males. We could make them live in barbed
      wire enclosed hostels so that the police could better control their
      movements. Why not follow THAT example? The next thing you know, you’ll be telling me
      that that would be unconstitutional and WRONG….

      Of course if you DID get your way, and you conferred upon Daryl Gates and
      Jesse Helms the monopoly on the means of armed force, the above probably
      WOULD
      happen.”- Christopher C. Morton

      “Lets stop being incredibly stupid and open our eyes to the reality that
      we as a nation will have to eliminate these weapons sooner or later, if
      we are to save this generation of black males. Lets make it
      sooner….don’t let another innocent person die a meaningless and
      avoidable death.”- George W. Hunter

      “NOBODY can eliminate them without eliminating the constitution as a whole,
      not just the 2nd amendment. Of course the Soviet Union didn’t HAVE the 2nd
      amendment, and THEY couldn’t take everybody’s gun away EITHER. If you want
      to REALLY do away with all PRIVATELY (read owned by Blacks) owned weapons,
      you’d better ditch the pissy little examples and use REAL law and order
      environments,
      like North Korea and South Africa.”- Christopher C. Morton

      Liked by 1 person

    2. By your way of thinking, your liberal side, who want to control guns to preserve life, should be rallying against abortion to preserve the life of all of the unborn children who can’t fight for themselves.

      Like

  8. What must happen is for everyone to take several deep breaths and realize that the constant demonization of the other side accomplished nothing. I disagree with this articles entire premise, but it is a reasoned and well articulated point of view and I believe we could sit and discuss without being violent emotionally.

    I see no reason that such a small minirity of bad actors should lead to curtain long the rights of the rest of the citizens of the country. And there should be no mistake, the founders wrote the second amendment into the constitution for the sole purpose of allowing the citizens to resist tyranny, especially from their own government. All you have to do is read their own words.

    The solutions must address the problems, not just be shots in the dark because “we must do something!” We must do the right thing. Once we know what that is, let’s get it done.

    Like

    1. That deals with ONE threaded point, but not the others, that for practical reasons, ignore the constitution, the ACTUAL EFFECTS would be “as such”. Also, the credentials of the author tend to lend weight to their points.

      Like

      1. At this point one has to decide whether they’re OK with other people becoming more and more victims of violent crime, when they ban whichever guns… In which case they’re tacitly admitting that your life only matters if it ends by bullet.

        Like

    2. What must happen is for everyone to take several deep breaths and realize that the constant demonization of the other side accomplished nothing. I disagree with this articles entire premise, but it is a reasoned and well articulated point of view and I believe we could sit and discuss without being violent emotionally.

      This is true.

      It is one thing to argue that stricter gun control laws will lead to increased incarceration of young black men for victimless crimes, as well as expanding the control criminal gangs have over the gun markets

      It is a whole other thing to accuse supporters of hating black people and wanting kids to be killed in the crossfire between rival gangs over gun market disputes.

      Like

  9. You spent a lot of time talking about your experience with an M4….Well…as a Land Surveyor..you certainly have a lot to say about ‘weapons of war’. The use of ‘dude’, “I am avowed pacifist’ and other comments demonstrate your objective and audience. I have an AR15. Do I “love it”? no…do I “like it”? Sure..when I got to the range or go hunting…quit opining on shit you don’t know. “Once we know what it is?”…let’s see. The FBI (using your language)..FUCKED UP by not doing anything. The Sherrif’s department did NOTHING in spite of 18+ calls…the cowardly deputy did NOTHING to stop the shooting. Are you going to blame guns? Go do your ‘land surveyor’ thing and leave this discussion to those who understand….

    Liked by 1 person

  10. I meant to write this days ago, but have been rather busy, sorry for the delay. This veteran appears to have a limited experience with guns. Just the time he was in service. He doesn’t appear to have owned or used one before or since. He makes no mention that he was raised using them or that he uses them all the time, and many of the statements he makes show that. He has almost no knowledge of how law abiding civilians use Modern Sporting Rifles these days, and I will show why I say that.

    I am not sure where the “every 60 hours” part came from. There’s no mention of it, and I’ve not heard it before. I am guessing it comes from the anti-gun Bloomberg funded group saying that we have had 18 school shootings so far this year. A number that even the Washington Post admitted was false, or the very least, misleading.

    The “extra feature” in an M4 rifle is that it is a machine gun. An AR-15 fires one bullet at a time. Just like the old fashioned guns like the M1 Carbine, M1 Garand, and hunting rifles used by Teddy Roosevelt. The other extra feature is that it has a shorter barrel. For civilians to own a Short Barreled Rifle (or SBR), they have to pay the feds an extra $200 tax and fill out lots of paperwork and wait a long time and deal with extra state and NFA laws, just to have a 14 inch barrel instead of a 16 inch.

    Yes, it is an objectively good rifle. All those good things mentioned make it good for a variety of lawful purposes, including “marksmanship as a sport”, which a lot of people use it for.

    “The express purpose of killing human beings”. We hear a lot that an AR-15 is a “weapon of war”. Virtually all firearms developments, going back to the invention of gunpowder, came from warfare. The bolt action hunting rifles we use today came from the early Mauser rifles used by armies over 120 years ago. The lever action rifles used by ranchers came from the Henry rifles used by both sides of the Civil War. The semi-auto pistols used today came from the Mauser and Borchardt pistols developed for armies 110 years ago. Smokeless gunpowder used in all modern cartridges was developed for the French army. It doesn’t matter where it came from, it matters in how most people use them today.

    “These are not deer rifles, these are not target rifles.” Now you’re showing your ignorance. Have you not heard of the Camp Perry Matches? Have you not heard of National Match rifles? These exact rifles are used in shooting matches (sometimes even by members of the Army) all over the country. Not usually the M4 carbines, but the longer, 20 inch barreled A2 rifles. But they are also used even more often in “practical” shooting matches. Ever heard of “3 Gun” shooting? Where people use a rifle, pistol, and shotgun on a variety of targets on a course? Apparently not.

    And ARs are routinely used in hunting. Even in the original 5.56 x 45 caliber, and the older .223 Remington caliber, they are used for everything from prairie dogs, deer and wild boar. They are quite popular as “varmint rifles” on coyote and other game.
    You mentioned that they come apart easily. One thing the military doesn’t do but is very common in the civilian market is that it is popular to change the uppers on them. (For the rest of you, An AR has a lower receiver, where the trigger parts and magazine well are, and this is the serial numbered frame. Legally, that part is the firearm. The upper receiver has the bolt, and barrel.) In a matter of seconds, you can change the upper by taking two pins out. You can go from a 16 inch barrel good for home defense to a long 24 inch heavy barrel with a bipod on it good for long range target or varmint shooting. You can also change the calibers as well, anything from the little .22 long rifle cartridge used by squirrel hunters and Olympic shooters for almost 130 years to .50 Beowulf, which is great against large animals. I can offhand think of almost a dozen different calibers in an AR, most of which will use the same original magazine.

    Another thing is that it is a modular firearm. It is extremely easy to customize it to you individual preferences. Want a more comfortable pistol grip? There are dozens and dozens of different ones you can swap out in a matter of minutes. The forward grip, the muzzle brake, charging handle, bolt carrier, shoulder stock, forearm, scope, etc, etc, can be tailored to fit you. You can even upgrade the target style trigger in minutes with simple tools.

    Nearly every mass shooter has used an AR-15? Actually, more of them use handguns. The South Carolina church shooter used a Glock pistol, and reloaded 7 times while nobody laid a finger on him. In Columbine, they used pistols. The Fort Hood terrorist used a FN 5-Seven pistol. The Navy Yard shooter used a pump shotgun. The Aurora Colorado shooter had to switch from an AR to a 12 gauge shotgun when his rifle jammed and more were killed with the shotgun than the rifle. The texas church shooter was STOPPED by a neighbor with an AR-15. The spoiled rich kid in California with the black BMW used a pistol. The school shooting in western KY a couple weeks ago used a pistol. Pistols are a lot easier to conceal than a rifle into some place where they’re not allowed. And I’m still wondering how this latest murderer was able to get into the building, and sneak a rifle in there, without anybody noticing.

    As for the reasons, “why wouldn’t they”? Those are the same reasons why it is a very popular rifle, actually the post popular firearm in America, used by millions of people who never use them to commit a crime. Virtually every manufacturer has their own model of one, and I’ve read that up to 20% of guns sold today are AR models. “Really accurate, high precision, long distance”, and yet you claim they aren’t good for target competition or hunting? Sounds contradictory.

    By the way, you CAN’T buy one at Walmart. They quit selling them a few years ago. There was a huge drop in the sales of them about that time, since so many people already bought them in 2013 when they were afraid they were going to be banned. Stores couldn’t keep them on the shelves no matter the price back then. Now it’s picked up some, as people have learned how practical, useful, and enjoyable the rifle is.

    “Because they are long guns, I don’t believe you have to be more than 18 years old”. See, you “believe”? Someone more familiar with civilian gun ownership would KNOW that since 1968 you had to be 21 to buy pistols, but 18 for rifles and shotguns. You’ve probably never bought one, especially now that you’re a pacifist.

    “This rifle was made for the modern mass shooter.” Which is why the police use them, right?

    “This rifle is so deadly and so easy to use that no civilian should be able to get their hands on one.” Deadly? Compare the round this gun fires to more traditional rifle bullets. The old 30-06, the .308 (or 7.62×51) that the military also uses. Or the even larger and more powerful rounds that are used by other hunters and snipers and target shooters (6.5 Creedmoor, .338 Lapua, .50 BMG), and I would much rather get shot with an AR than any of those. And “easy to use”? We should ban a gun because it’s easy to use? That’s beyond ridiculous! Remember that next time you’re trying to train your wife to defend herself to choose a weapon that’s hard to use, instead.

    “There are fewer shootings on Army posts than in society in general, probably because soldiers are actively discouraged from walking around with rifles,” How about because an Army base is supposed to be secure, people aren’t supposed to be able to just walk in off the street and attack it. How about because there ARE armed people there defending it. The Fort Hood shooting happened because it was one of their own that became the enemy, and knew a vulnerable place to strike from inside. He also knew how far away the armed guards were, as well. Same goes for the attacks on the recruitment stations, those working there were disarmed.

    “Gun ownership is the one thing our country collectively refuses to manage,” Refuse to manage? There are over 10,000 gun laws in the US, at the federal, state and local level!

    Maybe you can’t drive a Formula 1 car to work. But if you have the money, you can buy as many cars as Jay Leno, including monster trucks and top fuel dragsters, and take them to the track and try them out, or in your back yard, if you have a big enough back yard. You can also drive 140 mph if you’re on the Autobahn, or the Italian Autostrada. And of course you can drive street cars capable of reaching well over 140 mph (or 240 mph) if you use them safely, and can afford a Bugatti Veyron or Ferrari or whatever.

    “Military grade rifle”. Again, most firearms today developed from the military. How about a Springfield M1-A? (A copy of the M-14 used in Vietnam) How about surplus Garands, M1 Carbines or many other guns that were actually used by a military? Old 1911 pistols? It doesn’t matter where it came from, it matters how you as an individual use it, and 99.999% (or whatever) never use them to murder someone. There are over 8 million of these things, already in people’s homes.

    “do you really think you’d be able to hold off the government with an individual level weapon?” Well, a bunch of goat herders and poppy farmers in Afghanistan did pretty well for over 16 years. You weren’t able to get rid of them, they’re still there, and they’re even making a comeback, unfortunately.

    Instead of focusing on a particular gun some of the higher profile incidents used, and making it a scapegoat, lets focus on real solutions that would help, no matter what gun they used. How about making it harder for someone to get into a school, sneak a weapon inside, and begin killing people until they either get bored and leave or someone else with a gun finally shows up and either stops them or they kill themselves. How about trying to figure out WHY these people are wanting to commit mass murder?

    I thank you for your service to our country in the past, but writing crap like that is a DIS-service to our country, sorry.

    Like

    1. RICHARD EVANS – You need a new hobby. Guns are fucking stupid. Your attitude is contributing to the 2161 people in the US that have already lost their this year due to guns. Gun toting America is so fucking out of touch with the rest of the world, grow up and get over it. You are supporting an industry centered on selling weapons that are designed to kill. All guns are designed to kill. If you really want to get your rocks off with loud bangs and target practice go get some firecrackers and a nerf gun. Stop hiding behind a piece of paper screaming constitutional rights while people needlessly die. Give it up.

      Signed,
      An average Canadian who doesn’t own a gun, doesn’t know anyone that owns a gun, doesn’t know anyone who has been shot or killed by a gun, and still lives a meaningful, interesting, happy life.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I need a new hobby? I tried guitar playing but didn’t do so well. Hell, I can’t even afford gun collecting. I’m so poor I can’t even afford bullet collecting!
        Yes, guns are fucking stupid. They’re an inanimate object. They have no brain, they have no soul. They’re a piece of wood and steel (or in the ARs case, plastic and aluminum). Everything they do depends on the person using it, and the person using it should get the blame if something goes wrong, not an identical gun owned by someone else who didn’t do anything wrong.
        2161 people? Well 2/3 of them were suicides. How we going to stop people from wanting to kill themselves?
        Every gun designed to kill? How about those Biathlon rifles they’re using in the Olympics? Were those designed to kill? All guns are designed to SHOOT. What, where, who, and under what conditions, again, is entirely up to the user. The exact same gun could be used by a criminal to harm someone, or a policeman to stop a criminal, or a woman to stop someone trying to rape her, etc, etc, etc.
        Hey, even firecrackers are too expensive. This fourth of July, I took a bunch of old empty aerosol cans and burned them in a trash barrel until they blew up! hehe…

        Like

      2. Man, the rest of the world must be a really fucked-up place. Do have any statistics about these unchaste women? Is there no country where women are safe except the US?
        Even though I accept your statement about Biblical executions in the rest of the world (even Hindus and Buddhists are doing it?), I think I should point out that your attempts to bolster your arguments by defending the rights of women and blacks (in another post) seem kind of cynical.

        Like

  11. As someone on the outside looking in it is mind boggling how a country, that is supposed to be the world leader, is so fucked up. There is so much research that proves gun control will reduce what is happening immensely if not eliminate it.

    How a society will out guns before their children is incredibly confusing.

    Your 2nd amendment was written in 1791 when a really fast loader may have gotten off 3 shots per minute and American was new and for theost part had an unstable government. This is not the case any longer. Guns have changed so should the amendment… That’s why it’s called an amendment.

    I hope this gets figured out so more kids don’t die.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m sure it is very confusing, Mike. I don’t know of any other country whose founding documents specifically protected any kind of ownership, let alone ownership of firearms. Aside from various cultural differences to other countries, the perspective of many Americans is that it’s a right just like any other. I can’t help you understand that to any great degree, because you’ve never had the right.

      What gun owners recognize is that some people abuse their rights. We have lots of murders that nobody cares to hear about or prevent because they don’t involve polarizing political discussions. For that matter, most people in the US don’t actually care about gun murders unless they happen to our children. I’m not sure why this is, but you can see it any time there’s a mass shooting. We’ve had mass knife attacks not even make it beyond local news. Keep in mind that in an average year, we lose around 9,000 people to crime-related gun violence. Something like 70% of those happen while another crime is being committed, and over 80% are committed by people who would already be prohibited from owning a gun.

      A major problem with the discussion is ignorance of fact and intentionally misleading language. When you say “gun control”, what do you personally mean? Do you think everyone uses the same definition? We already have gun control, it turns out – it just may not be the same thing you think it should be. And when people propose gun control at any level, they frequently don’t truly understand what they’re asking; they delude themselves into thinking you “just” change this one thing and it all gets better.

      That’s not how it works, though.

      As for putting guns before children, that’s a typical remark made out of intentional ignorance. It’s not even close to true because there is no comparison. Do you think we don’t have kids? Do you think we don’t love them? We sure seem to keep making them, so you might reconsider that. The reality is we don’t agree that there’s a direct relationship. You see, there are around one hundred million law-abiding gun owners in the states. That’s one hundred million people not using their guns to commit any kind of crime.

      If you were part of a group that size, and one person abused their membership by taking a life, how do you think you’d feel if the rest of the country said you couldn’t have that group any more? It turns out the number of people abusing the right is very, very small. As I said, the people who do are generally not members of that group to begin with. The others are indeed a problem, but why should the solution be applied to all hundred million members?

      Why not do like we do with virtually every other law, and punish the behavior of the individual? Yes, we can do some things to make it more difficult to abuse those rights, and we should. Many possible solutions do not involve sweeping restrictions, but would have measurable effect. Most of the sweeping restriction solutions don’t actually address the problem properly, so they end up having no effect.

      Does that clear things up for you?

      Like

      1. Why not just give up the guns? What’s to lose? I don’t have a gun. Lots of people in Canada don’t have guns. We seem to be doing just fine 🙂

        Like

      2. That question is just a demonstration of your lack of understanding. That’s all. I do just fine without Molson and maple syrup. Note that Canada’s history is somewhat different, too, such as being officially a knee-bending realm of the Queen until what… 50 years ago? We beat you to that by two centuries.

        Like

      3. Hmm, still not following you, eh.

        More guns = less deaths! More guns = more better! USA USA USA!

        Math is hard for simple Canada folks.

        Like

      4. Have you noticed that gun sales keep climbing while total gun deaths keep declining? That’s been going on for something like 30 years, but I bet you didn’t notice. Mass shootings are on the rise, and we don’t really know why. Glib answers like “people buying military assault weapons” are plain ignorance, so just give it up. ARs have been selling rapidly since 2004, now accounting for some 25% of all rifle sales. That equates to around thirty million ARs in private homes.

        Once more: Gun sales are going up, gun deaths are going down. That’s fact. The other fact is that there’s no correlation. That’s difficult for most people to understand, but it’s true. There are not fewer gun deaths BECAUSE we sell more; there are fewer gun deaths DESPITE selling more.

        Want to try to claim we’re all killing each other with ARs? Let me get there first: there have been 13 mass shootings with ARs. Sounds like a lot, huh? Except that is over the last 35 years. So… the recent increase in popularity has to do with the psychology of pain and punishment by the shooters, and is possibly driven by the media hype.

        But remember that you’re Canadian. You are certainly welcome to express your thoughts just like anyone else, but don’t make the mistake of believing you understand the situation to any great level.

        Like

      5. Oh wow dude… you’re really that far gone?

        If 100m people aren’t mature enough to recognize that the weapons (toys) they cherish are being used to kill people at alarming rates then ya’ll going to keep dying from guns (suicides too!).

        Americans need to give up the guns (and fast food while you’re at it, you could loose a little weight), take up a hobby that doesn’t involve killing things or practicing killing things, and join the rest of the civilized world for a beer 🙂

        Like

      6. Gone how far? That I use statistics and facts instead of playground insults to make my argument?

        You think it’s statistically possible that one hundred million people – one third of the country – is immature? So by that logic, any minority can be shouted down and made to follow the majority. You need a history lesson.

        Look at how you have to ignore facts and logic in order to use terms like “toys” and “cherish”. That alone tells me you are intellectually incapable of distinguishing between masturbating and rape.

        So, I’d like to say it’s been fun, but it hasn’t. I tried to give you clear reasoning, but you take a religious view of your ignorance and keep it precious. I can see how that’s comforting. After all, I’ve asked you to think, and that is obviously not within your skill set.

        Like

  12. As someone on the outside looking in it is mind boggling how a country, that is supposed to be the world leader, is so fucked up. There is so much research that proves gun control will reduce what is happening immensely if not eliminate it.

    How a society will put guns before their children is incredibly confusing.

    Your 2nd amendment was written in 1791 when a really fast loader may have gotten off 3 shots per minute and America was new and for the most part had an unstable government. This is not the case any longer. Guns have changed so should the amendment… That’s why it’s called an amendment.

    I hope this gets figured out so more kids don’t die.

    Like

    1. Fine, and in accordance with the 1st Amendment in 1791, get off your computer, and use a hand cranked printing press and pass out leaflets on the street corner, preferably copies of The Federalist Papers.

      Like

      1. Richard Evans, this was your chance to show us that gun owners are responsible, thoughtful people who can be trusted with a dangerous weapon, but you decided to say something silly. I have always been skeptical about gun control–you might even have been able to tell me something I didn’t know, but you blew it.

        Like

      2. I said something silly because the argument was silly. That our rights only apply to the technology that existed in 1791. The internet, computers, tv, radio, etc, didn’t exist when the 1st Amendment was written. When the 4th Amendment against search and seizure was written, they didn’t have blood tests, DNA tests, thermal imaging cameras, GPS trackers, etc, etc. Same with the other Amendments. My point is that I’m tired of the ridiculous notion that the only thing we are allowed are muskets, since that’s all they had back then. (And the Puckle Gun, by the way.)

        Like

      3. Obergefell v. Hodges had to do with The Equal Protection Clause, under the Fourteenth Amendmen, equal rights under the law. If you want to pass a law allowing men to have guns but not women, I will be against you.

        Like

      4. The fundamental rights to marry is guaranteed by constitutional principles, not directly in the constitution.
        “Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

        Like

      5. Also, the only way they should change the amendment is to make it more clear. During recent years, we had government attorneys in court claiming that only members of the military had a right to arms, and then only when on duty. Something that seems completely contrary to the founder’s intentions.

        As it is now, it kinda sounds like this:
        A well informed electorate, necessary for a free state, the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

        Like

    2. I’m guessing your gunless country doesn’t have any resources any multi conglomerate wants to steal— well America does and we won’t give up our fresh water supply without a fight thanks. The moronic author of this piece is trying to use the “AR-15” as a “just this one weapon”— unfortunately in America the courts use: “precedence” and to agree to this adjustment will make it possible for the corrupt, corporate sponsored politicians to sell out American safety. No thanks, I’ll stay free and hope to have a fighting chance if an outside aggressor tries attacking us in out streets. You feel free to remain in your country and look on confused. The fault of delusional idiots is not the fault of the product nor the fault of the millions of gun owners who deserve to buy whatever they wish as long as they are responsible— which millions upon millions are.

      Like

      1. I don’t think it serves your purpose to call someone a moron or an idiot just because they didn’t know how serious the danger is that your enemies will try to steal your water. It’s very rude and makes you seem silly and unfeeling–couldn’t you maybe share your water? Or, since they will eventually die of thirst anyway, is killing them the more humane choice? The fact that gun owners think this is some kind of war that can be won with childish name-calling makes me worry that if you can’t use words responsibly, you can’t be trusted with a gun.

        Like

      2. You might also have some sympathy with gunless countries with no resources worth stealing, because, if that is in fact true, it only means that US corporations have already stolen them (probably to make guns). How sad! You should be more sympathetic.

        Like

  13. People have been calling Trump fascist and comparing him to Hitler since he was elected and now they want his government to disarm the populace.

    Could someone explain that to me?

    Like

    1. This is all crap – you say u need a license to drive a car or there are regulations for alcohol – for fireworks – for drugs – for this or for that but tell me with those regulations do kids get their hands on alcohol?? On fireworks?? Dying because of illegal drugs every day?? Or on anything they want to get their hands on, even though we have those regulations or laws in place?? Do we have people driving drunk multiple times even though their license was suspended?? Yes we do all the time!!
      You talk about how in the Army, and thank you for your service, you leave your guns in storage until the next range shoot and you counted on the mp’s to protect you but if a real threat came about you and your friends could have your hands on your weapon probably within a matter of 30 seconds. Just like the criminal in the Florida school shooting, his arsenal was locked up but he had the key. So please tell me with all of the signs that signaled this fool was going to do something, and reported by the people who took this person in, why would they give him a key?? Please tell me you understand that no matter what kind of regulations you have for anything, if you want it you can most likely get it- whatever it is, drugs, fireworks, guns, whatever you can get it- guns are not the problem. The problem is you can get these things if you have the means anytime you want them. We have a bigger problem in this country than just putting regulations on everything, and do i know the solution NO!! But i do know that the only way of getting it done is having a constructive conversation and making people aware of the signs of drug use, of alcohol abuse, of mental illness. You need a license to drive a car, or to catch a fish, but they let anybody be a parent but we don’t regulate the responsibilities of that parent and what values they need to instill into that child or how much time they spend with that child, or anything – we let them wing it- and it is a free country to let them wing it but is it our responsibility to spend time with those kids and teach them what is right and wrong for everyone?? Rambling on and I apologize and I hope we do more than just say guns need to be regulated because it won’t work they will still be available to someone who wants one – just like the drugs or the fireworks or the alcohol

      Like

  14. You lost me with the Formula one bullshit. It’s not roadworthy because it doesn’t have the safety equipment to make it roadworthy like headlights and tail amps and such. It’s not the speed capability that makes it illegal for the road. There are plenty of cars that can go faster than 150 out there that are road legal. Come on!

    Like

  15. The author would do well to read the Federalist Papers, Blackstone, and the Heller decision before opining on what the Second Amendment does or doesn’t mean. And reading the actual Constitution might disabuse her of the notion that the Constitution is “malleable” aside from the provisions contained in it for its amendment.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. “This rifle is so deadly and so easy to use that no civilian should be able to get their hands on one.”

    All firearms are designed to kill. All civilian firearms are easy to operate.

    The AR’s guilt is its appearance. It looks scary and evil to some people. so it has become to poster boy for those opposed to gun ownership. There are dozens of other guns that function and fire the same as the AR. The Virginia Tech killer used two pistols and murdered 34 people.

    And this accusation that it is not used for hunting; The AR-15 is the most popular hunting rifle in America.

    Like

    1. It doesn’t even have to be the most popular hunting rifle – the AR format accounts for 25% of all long gun sales. Who cares if they’re used for hunting, poking holes in paper, or collecting dust in a safe. The argument we need to keep making is “we have thirty million of them, and that’s thirty million not committing any crimes at all”.

      Don’t bother trying to justify your ownership to them; state plainly that you are a gun owner that is not committing any crime, just like 1/3 of America.

      Like

  17. Reblogged this on Karen's Stone Soup… and commented:
    I couldn’t have said this better, & I don’t have any knowledge I can fall back on! It is so well said I’m reblogging your blog. Sorry you Gun Nuts. I have guns also, & since you won’t take a realistic stand on this issue, the option becomes to outlaw assault rifles. You can hunt, protect your home, Target shoot, but NO MORE MILITARY WEAPONS,

    Like

    1. Well, the most truthful thing you’ve said was you don’t have any knowledge.

      Simply having a gun does not confer upon you any actual knowledge of the issue – not the mechanics, not the statistics, not the law, not politics, not history, and certainly not logic.

      Want to demonstrate your honesty? Go look up and define “MILITARY WEAPON”, and come back to tell me exactly what that means. Not what HuffPo or Vox tells you, not what your Facebook friends tell you, not what you feel. Definitions. Bring ’em.

      Like

      1. Can you honestly tell me the public needs to have a weapon such as a MR16 in their possession? Most p expletive would not use any weapon to harm another person, but as the saying goes…”a few bad apples spoil the barrel!” It seems those few always spoil it for the rest of us. I don’t want the next mass shooting to harm my loved ones, or yours either. This is what happens when the people that have the power to do something beforehand, don’t. Things get drastic! Sorry my opinion has changed drastically lately.

        Like

      2. “Can you honestly tell me the public needs to have a weapon such as a MR16 in their possession?”

        I don’t know what an MR16 is, but it sounds exciting!

        Anyway, I don’t want any more mass shootings either. But guess what? Removing one kind of rifle won’t affect that in the least. Not even a blip. How can I be sure of that? Because over the last 35 years we’ve had at least 350 mass shootings, or upwards of 2,000 depending on your definition. How many of those used ARs? 13.

        Thirteen, Karen. They use handguns in nearly every mass shooting, and pretty much all street crime.

        You have convinced yourself that gun owners don’t want anything to change. Bull. Shit. Let me repeat in caps so you get the full effect:

        BULLSHIT, Karen.

        The difference is we see the potential have GREATER REDUCTION OF VIOLENCE by using appropriate legal tools, like uniform reporting to the background check system, updates to the NICS database, and harsher penalties for criminal gun trafficking.

        But do you ever think we support those measures? No. You and your kind want one fucking solution that has been *demonstrated* to have exactly zero effect on crime, and you bitch and complain and moan about how gun owners don’t want to do anything if we don’t just roll over on every new restriction.

        My anger here is not about keeping my gun; it’s about battling the fucking stupidity based on fucking lies about gun owners, gun capability, and gun laws. I am an educator, and I usually try to present objective arguments and facts. But on this topic, people like you actively refuse to comprehend. You supplant every god damned piece of information with your lie-fueled emotions, fed by a media and gun control culture that even admits they fucking lie.

        That’s my anger – lying for political control. I do not support the NRA because they’ve been guilty of the same thing, and they are in it for the manufacturing interests more than personal rights. That notwithstanding, at least we get the benefit of their greed, which keeps most of your flavor of ignorance in check.

        I do care deeply about your opinion, but i want it based on reason and fact. Are you capable of that?

        Like

      3. Can you honestly tell me the public needs to have a weapon such as a MR16 in their possession?

        The same reason the public needs to marry someone of the same sex.

        The same reason the public needs to practice Islam, Mormonism, or Scientology.

        The same reason the public needs to criticize the Honorable Donald J. Trump.

        The same reason the public needs to limit the ability of the police to search persons and papers.

        Like

  18. Gee, what was it about: “giving up essential liberty for temporary safety”?? As if without an AR-15 the shootings will magically stop–
    Nothing like starting a catalyst so they can use the banning of: “just this one gun” as precedent to make all other guns illegal over time-
    – piss on this would be army guy or girl. While the media reports of assault weapons all the time it is usually not the weapon shooters use.
    YOU KNOW how news reporters use a certain term and then suddenly it becomes the “next great phrase” in media usage– I think the same goes with the AR-15— word of mouth has created a marketing success. Perhaps the media should refer to the assault rifle as a McZerginderflukschpan– I have a feeling that gun wouldn’t be as popular because its too hard to say. AR-15 is less to remember than one’s locker number.
    It is not the fault of the millions upon millions of registered and responsible gun owners that a few mental cases and wannabe macho assholes misuse a product. Not to mention it is the army/FBI/ATF that I tend to fear more as they are in the hands of a select minority with a very set agenda– check out the water crisis in California and the minority control holders there to see what I mean.
    I’m not in any hurry to trade our resources under TPPA type legislation without a fight– and if a few assault rifles make it a fair fight – so be it. Not to mention if Russia or China ever does try to enter our country they too will be in for a shock at the fire power of every Patriotic American.

    Like

  19. The point that occurs to me, and I have hardly heard it, is that we need to discuss where the line is drawn regarding the 2nd amendment. Quit expressing your paranoia that it is going to be repealed. It’s a question of interpretation and degree.

    What does it mean to bear arms? What do you think the Constitutional framers meant? There were mass killing devices then; they were called cannons. Do you think they were intended to be included among arms owned by the populace? We currently say it’s ok to own a mass killing rifle. Why draw the line there? Why shouldn’t you be able to own an RPG? Wouldn’t that be fun for blowing up stuff? How about shooting down drones with an anti-aircraft missile? What a hobby! Only the bad guys would use them for bad purposes.

    Get it?

    Like

    1. The point is we have already gone through interpretation and setting degrees of regulation. What doesn’t seem to occur to you is that you’re asking for *more*, not *some*. How long have ARs been on the market? And what is the rate of incidence in their use? Go look it up so you can’t blame me for skewing the information. Look for actual numbers.

      Then go look up how many we have right this very moment in the US. Compare the numbers and then look up handgun use. Go on. When you’ve done that, come back and use those numbers to justify “mass killing rifle”. Hell, go look up the ballistics, capable rate of fire, capacity and any other mechanical piece you’d like. Then do the same for any ten other guns you care to imagine that we currently are allowed to own.

      We drew the line, you’re trying to move it AGAIN. And there are plenty of people demanding a repeal, including some politicians trying to put out proposals.

      Get it?

      Like

  20. The 2nd amendment wasn’t really brought up and doesn’t need to be. Pro gun people will always see and infringement as an INFRINGEMENT. You give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. The same concept goes for everything in life. The colonials paid one tax then Britain wanted them to pay more and more. If one gun law goes into place another one will until they’re gone. Good for you and bad for responsible gun owners and a huge industry in America.
    Going off the formula one cars on the freeway example, you can go 140 mph in a Ferrari, Lamborghini, Tesla, and much more. Does that mean we need to ban those as we ban ar15s? That’s the exact premise being used and it’s a little extreme. Not everyone with a Ferrari is zipping by at 140 putting people in danger, not everyone with an ar15 plans on being a mass murderer one day.
    We have laws against killing people yet people are killed everyday, what makes you think that not having certain features on an ar15 or not having them at all will stop school shootings? People that want to kill 17 kids are going to find a way. That’s the morbid truth that both sides need to realize. Another morbid truth? A kid with a big ar15 has to walk around with a rifle and when people start running he starts shooting before he loses them, ban those and he’llbe forced to bring a handgun where he could walk into a class with 30+ kids/sitting ducks. Which is worse, 17 dead or 30? Taking my guns doesn’t stop him from finding a way, it doesn’t bring back these victims, it doesn’t help the next shooter from wanting to shoot kids. We don’t need walls around schools, but growing up I could walk on and off of my campus no problem. It wasn’t until ten years ago we started having fences to keep weirdos out. Then we got a guard later on.
    That shooter was reported many times and no one did anything about it, if it was looked into he could have been put on a black list for buying guns, be mad at those people that could have prevented that.

    One man who lost his daughter in the shooting said save your gun laws for later and make sure these kids are safe NOW. Do you know how long it takes to enact laws? Do you know how long it takes to hire guards for schools? Everyone is missing the point here, the kids weren’t safe, we need to make sure they’re safe
    Taking my rifles does nothing for kids that have already been killed on the other side of the country. By the time you get the laws through and find a way to confiscate them you’ll have more shooting because you did nothing for those kids NOW. The author said so themselves, at the garrisons they didn’t walk around with ar15s because the MPs protected them. 1 or 2 guards for a school of 2,000 isn’t the same as a couple dozen armed MPs for a garrison though keep that in mind. Keeping schools safe and making anti gun laws are 2 different things. And in the meantime everyone is out protesting being sitting ducks for the next shooter. 17 died in everyday school life. Now you’re sitting in groups by the 100s, that’s idiotic, keep them inside and safe, theyre protesting the wrong things.

    Like

  21. I can absolutely appreciate both sides of this argument. Although I’m feel I see holes in both sides. It is imperfect and always will be. The way I see it is a firearm is a tool. Like anything else designed to aid in a task. Chainsaws, knives, cars, trucks, busses, etc all forms of tools. Anyone of these can be used for a unintended purpose and cause harm or death to many people. I don’t want to be naive to think that a person who intends to do harm, can’t and won’t find a alternative “tool” to perform horrible and unthinkable acts. I did not serve in an armed force. But I have great respect and appreciation for those that did. That being said something to consider is that in all of history we see persons using “tools” for good and evil. I cannot wrap my head around the idea that “managing guns”, will solves any of the issues we are referring to. Driving a loaded 18 wheeler into a school can have just as devastating of an effect.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Like in the LA riots of ’93, the police ran and hid. The AR-15 and others like it are excellent hunting and competition weapons. Because they are short and handy, light weight and almost without recoil, they are incredibly popular with women and youth.
    As the target of two home invasions, can say no weapon seems adequate when the glass breaks in the middle of the night. First time I ran them off when they heard me rack a 12ga round into the chamber. No harm done to me or the perps.
    Second time, my guns locked and inaccessible so I had to rely a military issue samurai sword. It was dark out when my 80 yo landlady called out “who’s there” in response to someone trying to open the back door of the home. As I emerged from my nearby bedroom, she said someone is trying to get in. I grabbed the sword and prepared to go all banzai on their asses (there were three shadows I could see at the door) as they entered. At that moment the families golden retriever woke up and charged the door howling like a rabid wolverine. I yanked open the door as the punks ran, following the dog down the steps waving the sword and screaming come back and let me gut you. The last one made it over the fence with the dog just missing his butt.

    When the police arrived, they said a trio of two legged sadists had done the same the night before only they met no resistance from the 78 yo man and his 74 year old wife, and so were happy to beat the man into a coma after making him watch them gang rape his wife. The police where certain this was the same gang

    Typing is painful for me so I can only manage a final observation; Since there are no guns allowed in prison, no one should ever be murdered there. JB

    Liked by 1 person

    1. There is no way you can get your head around America’s love for guns. The NRA has been successful in convincing people that they are all in danger and should be afraid at all times, so the NRA can enrich themselves with dues paying members.

      Like

      1. Right – in exactly the same way the gun control media has lied to you about the power and use of AR15s and guns in general in order to convince you you’re in danger from us. The gun control crowd at large loves to believe gun ownership implies a mental deficiency and a desire for destruction and evil.

        In other words, you’ve adopted a religion of hating opposing views.

        Like

      2. trulyunpopular, I think you’re wrong that we’ve adopted a religion of gun control. This is a very complex issue, and in the same way that gun owners can’t think of a better solution than owning a gun, we can’t think of anything better than some form of gun control. From our side, the problem is that we can’t agree on what form of gun control would be best, and many of us are very skeptical about how helpful any kind of gun control would be, but you have to remember that most people are just trying to figure out how to reduce the number of shootings–they aren’t trying to take your gun away because they’re assholes. I have yet to hear a solution that I could wholeheartedly support, partly because prohibition in general seems not to work, but there has to be something better than having everyone walking around with guns, ready to shoot everyone else at the first sign of danger.

        Like

      3. That’s a fair response, and rather than try to justify my opinion of the general gun control population, let me share a little more of my views with you.

        From a gun rights perspective, the control movement is not trying to decide on the best approach; they’ve already decided by and large that the only approach is to make it difficult for anyone to own a gun. What we see most publicly – and indeed in some actual bills proposed at the state level – is real attempts to chip away at the overall right. This happens through extreme regulations, useless requirements, and up to outright bans of certain types of guns.

        As an aside, there are indeed some people trying to take away guns precisely because they are assholes. Assholes that don’t believe 2A should still exist, and are actively working at removing the rights piece by piece.

        As for wholeheartedly supporting solutions, you won’t ever find one if your metric is “solves all the problems”. As you said, it’s a complex situation, and the best we can do is take a rational, information-based approach. My personal strategy is to segregate different kinds of shooting crimes and try to understand the root causes, then propose solutions that deal directly with those elements to the best of our ability. I firmly believe in targeted solutions that come with some way to define AND measure success so you can tweak them as you learn.

        What gun owners frequently hear, however, is that the solution is to “take the toy away from everybody”. That’s just not rational, and worse – it’s useless. When you get up to proposals that actually want full bans on personal ownership, you’re moving into the very foundation of how we build rights and laws in this country, and that’s literally where wars begin.

        If gun control advocates would see gun rights advocates as humans, and not scum hell-bent on slaughtering children and playing soldier, we’d probably be able to move on to step two. But so many politicians are driven to keep the outrage going so they have an angry base of voters, and if a problem actually got solved they wouldn’t have any headlines to scream about.

        Like

  23. Apparently he forgot why the second amendment was added. It wasn’t for hunting or target shooting!!
    We need to start looking at other causations other than guns

    Like

  24. How many mass murders were there under Obama?
    WTH did he accomplish? Or Bush before that for 8 years? That’s 16 YEARS at least!
    This is NOT a Trump issue.
    This is not a NRA issue.
    This is NOT a gun issue.
    This is a serious problem that has been approached for DECADES!
    And with only ONE APPROACH!
    It’s always “the gun” that we’ve attacked for 20 years. AND THAT HAS ACCOMPLISHED WHAT?
    Let’s try another friggin approach! Don’t ya think?
    Only STUPID people keep doing the SAME THING… and expect DIFFERENT results!
    How about some armed guards and/or willingly armed & trained teachers INSIDE?
    How about some metal detectors?
    How about actually fixing our already in place, BUT FAILING background check system? In most of these incidents, we have had PLENTY of opportunity to have stopped the shooter!
    How about we do SOMETHING OTHER THAN GUN CONTROL?
    My goodness, some people are so thick headed and it shows their intelligence.
    THIS IS NOT A DIFFICULT ISSUE TO FIX!

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Thank you for your well-thought reflection and call-to-action. You’ve certainly convinced me of the merits of curtailing the sale of AR-15s to civilians. As your first commenter said, anyone that wants to shoot one can “sign up, swear and stand a post.”

    Like

  26. The author makes some valid points. I don’t completely agree with all of them, but at least he’s thinking. I just got a kick out of reading some of the comments — all the people still clinging on to the ridiculous arguments they got from the NRA (even if they are not aware that these points were planted in their minds by the NRA, like zombies).

    I love the one that said gun control won’t work because people will find a way to get them anyway. Well, in that case, why have any laws at all? People will always find a way to break them anyway — any law.

    Of course, any gun control law won’t be effective immediately. It will take time. But did Australia manage to do it? Are Australians superior to Americans? Well… don’t answer that. It may have something to do with the ability to think.

    I also like the idea of putting armed guards in all the schools. Hmm… not sure how that would have prevented the mass shooting in Vegas — the most victims in history! This one goes along with turning every teacher into a black belt Ninja Warrior with the ability of an expert military shooter. Or, how about making the walls of the schools thicker and installing smaller, bullet-proof windows. I don’t have any kids, so maybe the people who do won’t mind having their kids go to school in what is essentially a prison. But wait… don’t those kids have to come out of that prison at some point — to, say, go home?

    Last, but certainly not least, is the endless argument that we need guns in case some tyrant tries to take over our government and the gun owners will rush to defend the country! OK, nice thought. I’ve always said that if someone did try to take over our government, the gun owners would do nothing. Absolutely nothing — because the first thing that is required in order for that to happen is the political acumen to understand when this has happened. It turned out that I was right, much to my own surprise. It turns out that, during the 2016 election, the Russian tyrant installed a puppet in the White House. Where are all the defenders of the nation with their guns now? If you are too cowardly to do anything about it, perhaps you should just sit down someplace and make love to your gun.

    Like

    1. I love the one that said gun control won’t work because people will find a way to get them anyway.

      It is more than that.

      Gun control will lead to more black men being imprisoned for victimless crimes.

      It will also lead to criminal gangs like the Crips, the Mafia, and MS-13 having a greater share of the gun market, and to the increase in criminal homicide that results from more gang control of the gun market.

      Well, in that case, why have any laws at all? People will always find a way to break them anyway — any law.

      Laws exist to punish those who harm or endanger others.

      Like

  27. This is going to sound simple or silly but everyone is hung up on the “tool” Guns Guns, Guns. Yes guns are for killing people. I just want us to explore what really motivates those who need ‘guns”. What we’re looking at here are behaviors. it’s searching for the “feeling” you get when you know that “I could kill something or someone” and with that am i seeking the rush you get when you have THAT power over people. Look inside yourself and think about it -is it because I really WANT TO Take someones life or could I possibly be that violent. Think – am i a natural borne killer or could i find an alternative “thrill”? YOU can see that people need that “killing” rush – throgh the news channels you CAN SEE that people are so frustrated by our ‘society” SO MUCH THAT they can’t even describe why they would do such a thing. They are mentally OVERWHELMED. WHAT IS NEEDED IS A CHANGE IN THE INFRASTRUCURE OF THE ENTIRE WAT
    To cut this short- what could we need do to change the innate behaviors of those potential killers? it has to be multi-stream approach;Positively presented – this rough idea must be presented to a positive INTERACTIVE mental health approach – – very rough but the “idea is there.”
    1- IDENTIFY as early as possible those children who are the school bullies.
    2 – RELATIONSHIPS – BUILD NON VIOLENT activities through the school year (s)
    3 – Create programs – build apropriate “classes in non-violence” as if it were ‘graded’ THROUGH THE YEA.R
    4 – COLLEGE FOUNDATION COURSES. – REQIURE THEM AS PART OF FOUNDATION CURRICULUMS – OR you don’t graduate .
    5 – Background checks, required difficult training,
    MORE……NON VIOLENT THOUGHTFUL – pLANNED DOING AND THINKING
    ABOUT WHY YOU NEED A GUN?
    – HAND out violent computer games – let them get their killing urge through violent video games –
    – Think about and change behaviours – track bullies early – give them alternatives to take out their aggression.
    JAPAN IS ON THE RIGHT TRACK – I HEAR ITS WORKING WELL
    – FINALLY INSTALL CARD READERS OR RETINA SCANNERS. It would help shortime
    -Readers might work shortime – don’t make knee jerk decisions – Systematic approach to behavioural changes in how we think about safety and violence.

    Like

  28. YES: “We simply don’t need these things in society at large.” and “Gun ownership is the one thing our country collectively refuses to manage, and the result is a lot of dead people.” (that whole paragraph). Congrats on the success of this blog post! I also write a fledgling blog so I can only imagine what it must be like for you. Well done! 🙂

    Like

  29. Thank you for your essay. You have said everything I have been saying as a comment post by post for awhile now (since the however many mass shootings we have had). I just posted on an NRA news story last night how vague that amendment is and how we can say one muzzle stuffer and one sword per person and not be infringing. It didn’t go over well…. 😉

    Like

    1. It didn’t go over well because you don’t understand how laws work, nor apparently do you comprehend English language. The amendment is not vague, and it becomes crystal clear when you read documents from the time it was drafted, in particular what James Madison had to say about it. In fact, it’s explicitly stated that individuals must be able to retain the right to arm themselves in a manner suitable to forming a militia.

      Do you want a US militia to form up with a musket and sword?

      Do you know we’ve been having mass shootings since at least 1966? Have you really been saying this since “the however many mass shootings we have had”? Mm-hmm

      Like

    2. I just posted on an NRA news story last night how vague that amendment is and how we can say one muzzle stuffer and one sword per person and not be infringing. It didn’t go over well

      It did not go over well because it was a complete lie.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s