Refuting Gun-Enthusiasts’ Anti-Gun Control Arguments Part #2

For the first half of this article, follow this link:


8.   “Mass shootings only happen in places where there are no guns allowed.”

Put plainly, this argument is just not supported by the evidence; there are numerous examples of shootings happening in locations with other armed individuals.

In Columbine High School, there was an armed guard. A full tactical team was dispatched and on site during the Virginia Tech Massacre. Adam Lanza’s (the Sandy Hook shooter) mother had numerous guns in her house when she became the first victim of the Sandy Hook shooting spree. In addition to these few examples of situations where mass-shootings happened in areas with guns, we have the perfect refutation of this ideal: the Fort Hood shooting.

During the Fort Hood shooting, a disturbed army psychiatrist, Major Hasan, entered the base and opened fire on other soldiers. There were 43 people injured in this shooting, 13 of whom died, making it one of the most deadly shooting in modern years. As Fort Hood is a military base, nobody can argue that there were no guns present (eventually, the DOD police on site took the shooter down and he was captured), but the fact remains that numerous people were still shot. As he worked on the military base, Hasan clearly knew that there were armed personnel on site, yet he decided to stage his shooting anyway—his desire to kill outweighed his desire to live.

An armed guard in a potential shooting location may cause the shooter to change their plan, but it will likely not deter them from committing the crime. Most mass-shooters either “go down in a blaze of glory” or die of self-inflicted wounds, thus it is evident that they will not be deterred by the thought of somebody shooting back. If they know that they may face armed resistance, they may take out the armed guard first (via surprise attack), or may simply avoid being stopped by the guard before they start shooting (as happened in Columbine).

Logically speaking, if somebody goes to a shooting with overwhelming force and an expectation that they will die, then the potential that they will meet a guard with a pistol simply lacks a significant deterrent effect. Somebody with this level of focus on their lethal goal and lack of concern for their own future will conduct their shooting regardless of the potential risk to themselves and will simply try to kill as many people as possible before they are killed.

In the past, even the most extreme gun-enthusiasts have acknowledged this point and have supported the very gun-free zones which they now deride. The following quote was from Wayne LaPierre—the very same man who made the wildly controversial statement for the NRA after Sandy Hook—during his speech after the Columbine shooting:

“First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America’s schools, period … with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.”

In the quote above, you hear the NRA proclaim its support for gun-free zones while, in modern quotes, you hear them deride the policy as the cause of massacres. Put plainly, those who support the new gun-enthusiast line that shootings only happen in places without guns are not even as attached to reality as previous gun extremists. Massacres happen where the targets of mass-shooters congregate (schools, government buildings, workplaces, etc.) and the potential for people in those locations to be armed is simply not a deterrent to these shooters.


9.    “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”

Those who utilize this argument fail to recognize that reality is not like the choreographed action sequences in movies and that a good guy with a gun is simply not the best solution. In all likelihood, a public shootout between multiple armed parties will result in their deaths, along with the potential for massive collateral.

In contradiction to the idea the only way to stop a shooter is a random citizen taking the law into their own hands, there are two critical alternatives to this paradigm:

First of all, gun control can help stop the bad guy from ever getting a gun, thus rendering the discussion about stopping the shooter moot. If gun laws prevent shooters from gaining access to weapons, there will never be any risk to the public of a shooting and there will be no need to contemplate public shootouts. Ultimately, this solution is the most efficient and reliable method of stopping gun violence.

Secondly, we already have those “good guys with guns” to protect us—these people are called police officers. Unlike random people with guns, police officers have received training and institutional support that allows them to be more efficient and safe in their handling of dangerous situations. In the worst case scenario, a tactical response team (ex. SWAT) can come in and help resolve even the most dangerous situations. Even if a “good guy with a gun” is the solution to a violent situation, then there is no reason why this person should be an untrained vigilante rather than a law enforcement professional.

To drive this point home, I will give you a real life example: Imagine a situation where a psychopath enters a school and starts shooting kids with an assault rifle. In response to this threat, a teacher pulls out his assault rifle (legally bought and licensed) and begins shooting at the school shooter. It is certainly possible that this teacher gets a lucky shot (assuming that the shooter isn’t wearing body armor) and kills the shooter quickly, but a likely result of this situation would be a mass-shootout in the school. Two shooters unloading assault weapons on each other could result in a crossfire of hundreds of bullets and would potentially result in many more deaths than the original shooter would be able to do alone.

To further compound the problems with the suggestion that a shootout is the answer, imagine the potential for harm if there are more than two shooters. In a situation where multiple shooters are attacking each other, there is a high likelihood that people will not know who the original shooter is and who the “good Samaritan” is; such a situation would result in everybody shooting at everybody else and the innocents being caught in between multiple armed parties.

In the very same school shooting situation described above, imagine that multiple teachers have guns and start using them to “defend themselves”. Three or four people shooting at each other (there is no way for them to know whether or not the other teachers were the original shooter or not; perhaps the teacher is a workplace shooter) could unleash massive damage on the school and could kill dozens of people with stray bullets alone.

Unlike in gun-enthusiasts’’ fantasies of vigilantism, the bullets that come out of a good guy’s gun cause the exact same harm as the bullets that come out of the bad guy’s gun. This fact leads the argument that “a good guy with a gun to be the best solution to a bad guy with a gun” to be simply not a viable alternative to other, less dangerous, policies.



10.   “There are already over 20,000 gun regulations on the books and they don’t work.”

What the proponents of this argument fail to grasp is that 20,000 gun regulations are absolutely useless if those laws are either too weak, easy to circumvent, or just not enforced.

In reality, there aren’t actually 20,000 gun laws on the books in the United States federal and state codes; the true number is debatable (is a gun law a regulatory law, tax law, insurance law, etc.), but it is less than 1,000. The inflation of the gun law numbers in this talking point is due to its proponents estimating the number of local gun laws and adding that number onto the major state and federal codes. Despite the over-inflation in the number of gun laws estimated by gun-enthusiasts, the fact remains that there are numerous gun laws on the books in the United States—for the purposes of arguing this talking point on its ideals, I will stipulate to the fact that hundreds of gun laws are currently in existence.

Unfortunately, the gun laws on the books in the United States are often inadequate and are rife with enough loopholes to make them ineffective. A law with significant loopholes or work-arounds is functionally ineffective and the simple fact that it is on the books is irrelevant. When talking about laws, it is not the sheer number of laws that matter, but their strength comprehensive nature, and lack of loopholes.

For example: There are gun laws on the books in some states that pertain to mandatory background checks and that ban felons from owning firearms. Despite these laws, the “gun show loophole” allows people in these states to circumvent the gun laws by buying from unregistered sellers. It doesn’t matter if there are a million laws banning firearms sales to felons in states with the gun show loophole, as these felons can circumvent all of them by simply buying their weapons from gun shows.

When confronted by people who promote this argument, my basic response is to propose eliminating all of these gun laws in favor of one gun law that actually works. If a single strong and comprehensive gun law could be passed through the federal legislature, we could massively reduce the number of laws on the books while making gun laws stronger. The supremacy of federal laws over state and local laws would extend the extremely powerful federal gun law over all of the others and render them moot. As of yet, no gun enthusiast that I have talked to has accepted this suggestion, as they understand just how ridiculous their argument is.

Ultimately, those who promote this argument are just illustrating the need for federal action on the gun problem in the United States. A solution based in passing hundreds of state laws is ineffective, as many state political organizations will never pass any sane gun laws. The federal government needs to pass one or two piece of legislation regulating guns, thus consolidating sane gun laws into a federal regulatory regime; these new regulations can be extended across every state uniformly and would be able to close many of the legislative loopholes that currently facilitate the circumvention of gun regulations.


11.   “Cities with gun control laws on the books sometimes have high levels of gun violence and this shows that gun control doesn’t work.”

It is certainly true that some of the cities with above-average gun laws suffer from high crime rates, but this has little bearing on the efficacy of local/state gun laws. Guns are often obtained in areas of the country where it is easy to buy large numbers of weapons without background checks (ex. southern states) and then transported to be sold in the areas where guns are restricted (ex. New York).


Because our country’s gun laws vary based upon state politics, there is the potential for a few gun-friendly states to undercut the ability of all other states to control the flow of guns within their borders. States in the south typically have very lax gun laws and often allow individuals to purchase many weapons, quickly and without a background check. Once they obtain these guns through the lax laws of the southern states, individuals are able to transport them up north and sell them in cities with stronger gun laws. In northern cities that have strong gun laws (ex. New York city), guns are difficult to obtain legally (or without background check), thus trafficked guns from the south can be sold at a premium.

It is simple market pressure that causes guns to be bought in the south, where supply is readily available, and sold in northern states, where demand is higher than supply. There is a profit for gun traffickers when they bring guns into cities with strong gun controls, and there is no feasible way of stopping them once they have the weapons in their possession.

By arguing that violence in cities with strong gun control laws illustrates the ineffectiveness of gun control, gun enthusiasts are simply proving that strong gun control laws are necessary on a federal level. For as long as some states are allowed to undercut the ability of other states to enact sane gun control, there is little chance that gun violence will be controlled. Guns will continue to flood the northern cities and the pockets of the gun manufacturers/traffickers will continue to grow fatter.



12.   “Countries like Israel and Switzerland have high levels of gun ownership, but low levels of gun crime, so guns aren’t the real problem”

A favorite argument of some gun enthusiasts, the idea that outlier countries disprove the general trend of gun ownership leading to violence is an intentional attempt to confuse the issue. By naming the two examples of developed countries that defy the correlation between violence and gun ownership, gun enthusiasts try to disprove this well-established trend.

Israel and Switzerland are the two model examples of developed countries that have high levels of gun ownership, yet low levels of gun crime. Gun enthusiasts promote this break in the correlation between gun violence and gun ownership as proof that the causation is false, but there is a very simple alternative explanation: Both Israel and Switzerland have mandatory military service programs which lead almost every young adult in these countries to serve as part of their armed forces.

The near-universal military service of citizens in Israel and Switzerland leads large portions of the population to have significant weapons training. This training lasts long after the citizens of these countries leave the service and allows for the relatively-safe ownership of firearms into civilian life. Every citizen goes through a battery of testing in preparation for military service and those who are mentally unfit for service are not given the access to guns that those who have been prepared through the military are.

The examples of Israel and Switzerland do not prove that high levels of gun ownership are always safe, but rather that letting only those who have been heavily vetted by the state own weapons is not dangerous. In both of these countries, there are high levels of gun ownership, but there are also heavy controls on guns that prevent un-vetted people from obtaining them. As opposed to the United States, which has high levels of guns and low levels of gun control, these countries have high levels of both gun control and gun ownership.

The true purpose of gun control is not to remove weapons for the sake of removing weapons, but to prevent the violent among us from obtaining weapons with which to harm others. If gun control regimes can be enacted that prevent just the violent and unstable in society from getting weapons, then this has virtually the same effect as removing all weapons from society; in both cases, gun crimes drop because people who are dangerous to society are denied weapons.

In order to refute this anti-gun control argument, I argue that Israel and Switzerland have many weapons, but they also have very strong gun control laws. In both cases, every person to legally own a gun has received psychological testing and safe weapons training—two components of a strong gun control regulatory regime—and is forced to register their weapons. These laws are facilitated by the compulsory military service and function as a sorting mechanism to ensure that dangerous people don’t have easy access to weapons.


13.   “Since car accidents kill more people every year then guns, why don’t we ban cars?”

Put plainly, guns are tools that have only one real use: to kill things. They exist for the simple purpose of propelling a small projectile at high rates of speeds towards a target, with the direct goal of causing it physical trauma. Unlike many other things which may become lethal as they were not intended, guns have no alternative purpose and must be treated differently.

Cars kill many people during accidents and mechanical failures, but their actual purpose is to facilitate transportation. When used correctly, cars are simply a tool for transporting people or objects from point A to point B faster or cheaper than many other methods of transportation. It is only when cars are used incorrectly that they become dangerous to others.

With our current transportation infrastructure, cars are an integral part of how our society moves and it would be virtually impossible for us to change quickly. The deaths caused by cars are tragic, but they have no bearing on the need to regulate an entirely unrelated tool.

The key difference between guns and cars in this debate is the fact that cars have purposes other than causing harm, while guns have no such redeeming aspects. At the most charitable, guns can be described as existing to allow good people to defend themselves from bad people by threatening them with death. In the context of maintaining social order, guns do serve a purpose to allow the civil authorities to impose force on violent people (giving the police the ability to defend themselves on the job), but the idea that this force should be distrusted to everybody in society is just insane.

If cars were like guns and served no purpose but to facilitate violence, then I would support as strict regulations of them as I propose on guns. Guns have no social benefit and a removal of guns from society would not have the negative effects that a removal of cars would have. In fact, the reduction of gun availability in our society would help alleviate the epidemic of gun violence that we are living in and would save many lives.


While on the subject of cars and guns, I would also point out that, in many cases, cars are far more regulated then guns. Gun enthusiasts may like to draw the comparison between guns and cars in support of their ability to own/operate guns without regulation, but they don’t appear to acknowledge the fact that car operation is far more regulated then gun operation. With guns, many states don’t require background checks, licensing, registration, or state-issue permits, yet they require all of the above for cars.

In order to drive a car, you must be registered, get training, have a license, get insurance, and submit to periodic inspections. If such strict regulations were imposed upon guns, there is little doubt that gun-enthusiasts would begin hyperventilating and gesticulating about an illegal overreach into their personal right to own weapons.

The next time somebody draws comparisons between the regulations on guns and cars, simply suggest that, since both have the potential to be dangerous, the regulations on cars should be translated to analogous restrictions on guns. Before anybody is able to buy a gun, they should be required to get firearms training, become certified through a state licensing process, get insurance for potential damages that their weapons may inflict, and register each and every one of their weapons with the state. Such a suggestion would likely result in a rapid backtracking by the gun-enthusiast as they try to make up reasons why guns don’t deserve to be as regulated as cars.


14.   “Gun control was imposed by dictators like Hitler and Stalin, thus it is, by definition, bad and something that puts us on a path towards becoming an autocratic regime.”

This argument is both historically incorrect and a complete red herring.

First of all, the simple fact that a dictator—even one as evil as Hitler—supported something does not mean that the thing in question is evil. While such dictators may be guilty of terrible crimes, they may also have policies which are simply good governance. Using the bad acts of a dictator to attack a good policy that they happened to support is simply disingenuous and not a valid argument in debates over policy.

Policies should be judged independent of the people who support them and a good policy is not automatically bad because a bad person once supported it. For example: Fidel Castro, the Cuban dictator, may have committed vicious crimes against his political enemies, but he also supports universal healthcare and a strong public health system. Using Castro’s support for universal healthcare and public education to attack the programs by association is wrong and is not a real argument against the validity of those programs.

In the case of gun policy, the assertion that Hitler and other notorious dictators always supported gun control is simply not accurate. These dictators may have disarmed those who they considered enemies, but they did not propose gun control as we know it now.

In 1919, Germany banned gun ownership by individuals to accord with the post-WWI treaty of Versailles. Contrary to the anti-gun control talking point, Hitler passed a law which reduced the gun laws in Germany in 1938. This deregulation, not increase in gun controls, is the signature gun control change which gun enthusiasts have latched onto in calling Hitler anti-gun. When compared to current American gun laws, the past German laws were much stronger, thus some see Hitler a pro-gun control, but this does nothing to mitigate the fact that Hitler actually decreased gun regulation.

Hitler banned Jews, gays, and other oppressed minorities from carrying weapons, but this was part of his campaign of dehumanization, not an expression of gun control. According to his government’s perverted view, these people were not human, thus no human laws applied to them.



  1. 8.   “Guns are part of our national heritage and restricting them is an attack on our cultural identity.”

I only have one thing to say to those who utilize this argument: Tough Shit.

While it may be true that our country has had a long history of gun ownership, hunting, and gun sportsmanship, this heritage is getting people killed today. Even if one concedes that guns have been a large component of our country’s heritage, this is irrelevant in the face of the very real harm that guns are doing today; in order to stop this harm, our culture must be updated. Our weapons technology is so great now that guns have become able to kill dozens of people in seconds—an impossibility during much of our country’s cultural history of guns.

Cultural heritage changes and, in some cases, must be forcibly changed by the government to protect the population from itself (or the extremism of certain parts within itself). Before the civil war, slavery was a part of our cultural heritage that had led to misery among many within our population. The government enforced change over a component of our country’s culture when it abolished slavery and it must do so again in the case of guns (not to conflate slavery with gun ownership; this is simply an example of the law forcing a cultural change to protect an affected group within the population).

No relic of our cultural heritage is worth the cost of nearly ten thousand lives a year and it is far past time that we update our gun laws to sane levels. If apple pie killed as many people as guns do, I would also promote changing that tradition and I have no doubt that most other Americans would agree with me.


27 thoughts on “Refuting Gun-Enthusiasts’ Anti-Gun Control Arguments Part #2

  1. Pingback: Refuting the Pro-Gun Arguments | New NY 23rd

    • That is a reply favored by those who are too dumb or ignorant to refute their opponents’ arguments with well thought out arguments.

      I am open to discussion, but a simple assertion that I am wrong and dumb is just a dodge to attack me without even trying to address my arguments.


      • No, he’s right… Why do you need an explanation? What matters is that the content of this post is so fully saturated with bullshit that you can’t even breath while you read it. You are clearly biased in your research, and lacking in your understanding of guns, safety, the military, constitutional rights, etc, etc, etc…


      • Please point out specific places where I am wrong and stop using generalized and false attacks. If you cannot point out where I fail to understand “guns, safety, the military, and constitutional rights” I can only conclude that it is you that doesn’t understand these things and you are simply trying to cover your ignorance with false attacks.


  2. One of the ironic things about this post is the use of the where crime guns come from. They blame VA, SC, and NC when if fact most of those guns originate in the very States that complain about other States’ gun laws. The rifles used in Aurora and New Town were built in NY. They banned them from being sold but not manufactured. Strange how some of those politicians think, if they’re too bad to be sold in your State, why is it OK to build them there…

    As far as criminals and gun shows, isn’t there research that states that a whopping 1.7% of criminals buy their guns at gunshows? So much has been said lately about the so-called “gun show loophole”, but it had absolutely nothing to do with New Town, Aurora, or Tuscon.

    The silly cartoon that show the AR and says it’s good for nothing shows the ignorance of the cartoonist. ARs are used for hunting, target shooting, home defense, or whatever the owners choose.
    Don’t believe that they’re used for hunting…google Jim Zumbo+AR-15 and you’ll find articles from several years ago about his learning experience. ARs are the most popular platform for 1000 yard shooting matches at Camp Perry.

    As far as the murders via firearm and updating our laws to bring that number down…alcohol kills nearly 75,000 people a year. Logic dictates that we should start with alcohol since it is a much larger threat to public wellbeing.


  3. Normally I just read this stuff chuckle and get on with me day, but you pushed my buttons with the comments about Fort Hood. I don’t know what you think we do in the Army, but we don’t walk around cocked and locked at all times. Unless you’re an MP or DA Police soldiers don’t walk around locked and loaded on US soil. Weapons are assigned and stored in an armory, to prevent against theft of government property. Weapons can be drawn for training purposes but even access to ammunition outside of ranges or specified live fire areas is highly regulated.

    Nadal Hasan opened fire in a Deployment processing station. A place where no one was loaded, armored, or prepared to handle a murderer wielding a firearm. Once the MPs arrived they shot him and detained him. So yeah all it took was a gun in the hands of a good guy to stop the gun in the hands of a bad guy.

    To imply that Fort Hood, one of the most populous and frequently deployed installations in the United States Army, was some how cowed and rendered impotent in the face of one man wielding a pistol is beyond insulting. The only reason Nadal Hasan’s spree lasted as long as it did was the soldiers he was shooting at had no means to defend themselves.


    • While you are correct that many on the base are not armed, the fact remains that this example proves that shootings can happen (and be very lethal) in areas where guns are present. The base clearly had MPs and DOD police who were armed, yet a shooter was successful in his shooting rampage.

      When translated to a civilian situation, this example shows how a few armed guards are not the perfect answer to shooters. The armed guards do not deter gunmen, nor can they save lives; the only thing that they may achieve is to shoot the shooter after his rampage has taken many lives.

      I do not argue that every employee on the base is armed, merely that there were many guns on the base, yet the shooter attacked successfully anyways. This situation disproves the NRA argument that shootings never happen where there are guns.


      • Someone takes the time to carefully refute your arguments and because they don’t agree with your conclusion they can be carelessly tossed aside? You don’t get it, guns were NOT present “on site”, unless on site means locked away in a remote, secure location. On a day to day basis, unless a unit of soldiers is engaged specifically in training or duty where weapons are necessary for said training or duty, said weapons will NOT be issued. Unless said training or duty specifically requires ammunition, it will NOT be issued with the weapons.

        Barring those two specific examples, even on Ft Hood grounds, a weapon with ready ammunition would no closer than they are in any small town or big city in America – in a police car several minutes drive away.

        Regarding Columbine: It is THE signature event in American history that taught us that the risk of police officers rushing in to confront a suspect unprepared was a more acceptable risk than waiting for properly prepared officers with hostage negotiation or special weapons skills. (Often an hour or more away).

        Columbine was the event that changed police procedure. There is “pre columbine” response, and there is the current “post columbine” response, was evidenced at Sandy Hook (Whoever gets there first, go in and confront the suspect).

        If Sandy Hook response had been on the same level as the Columbine response, officers would have formed a perimeter to contain the suspect(s) and then awaited proper support before confronting the suspect(s).


      • You can carefully construct an argument, but this is meaningless if the argument is based upon a flawed logical premise. Regardless of what you argue about guns in a location and shootings, the fact remains that shootings have regularly occurred in places that have armed individuals (case in point: we just had one of our best snipers shot on a gun range; needless to say, there were many armed and trained individuals on site). This talking point is simply dead and not based upon reality; move on to another, more realistic one.

        I agree that Columbine was a changing event in mass shootings, but that has nothing to do with gun control. The police should carry guns and utilize the most effective tactics in resolving a situation. Private individuals and self-appointed vigilantes will only make these situations worse (imagine these police officers entering the school in a disorganized manner encountering the armed teachers who are attempting to shoot the shooter).

        If you would like me not to simply disregard your arguments, I would suggest that you base them on a good logical base. While I may not agree with gun enthusiasts on their arguments, there is a little more realism in their #7 and #10 arguments.


      • Let me get this straight… you say that ” a few armed guards are not the perfect answer”… so since that is the case you want Zero people armed to protect themselves? What’s you major malfunction? Reality is that you are an obvious hoplophobe.


      • I want the police armed and to prevent the next psycho from getting a gun.

        P.S. I love how you call me scared when it is you who feel the need to own guns because the entire world makes you feel to scared to live without them. Your cowardice is killing your countrymen and it is fairly pathetic to see.


  4. Pingback: Refuting Gun Enthusiasts’ Arguments Part #3: Additional Arguments | The Progressive Cynic

  5. Just browsing and didn’t really have time to read the whole thing, but you do realize that military personnel are prohibited from carrying weapons on a military base unless in a training area, right? You wouldn’t say something so ignorant like “The Fort Hood massacre occurred in a place surrounded by thousands of weapons and thousands of people who are trained to use them” without doing your homework first and realizing that not only are personally owned weapons prohibited on a military base (unless it’s registered and you’re travelling gate to gate) but even the military issued weapons are locked up in secure arms rooms almost all the time, would you? Trust me, this example does not prove your point at all.


    • I knew about those restrictions while writing this article, but that is irrelevant to the greater point. The issue here is the fact that military bases are protected by guards and there are armed personnel within minutes of any area (MPs). Hassan clearly knew that he would be facing armed and trained people, yet he attacked there anyway, thus disproving the talking point that shooters only target places that have no guns present. Mass shooters target areas of significance to them, or areas of mass transit to amass a high body count, and the presence of armed security is largely irrelevant to deterrence–as I say in the article, these people are not rational and will not be stopped through the dispatch of armed guards.


      • So what is your point? Are you saying it is safer to have nice, good people give up their weapons because bad guys will shoot at you no matter what? You make zero sense. HERE IS THE FACTS FOR YOU: good people will not harm you with their guns, bad people may. Taking good people’s guns away through legislation will not take the guns away from bad people. More people are more likely to survive an attack if they are armed as well. If you recommend the good people have no guns, then obviously the bad guy has more time to kill more innocent unarmed people. Your case about guns is not about safety for that reason. It’s about control of people through the process of dismantling the constitution. You make me sick that you are pushing for this. I fought 5 tours of duty in 2 different wars defending all of our rights… including your right to be uneducated about the reality of safely carrying a weapon vs. being disarmed during an active shooter situation. I’ll be damned if anyone is going to say I may not have a weapon on my person in order to defend my family. Criminal do not follow laws. Criminals will not follow a law about guns either. You are not protecting anyone by advocating taking away the good peoples guns. You are only getting more people killed. Even if all the guns were banned in America, do you not think there would be a black market for them that would create even more killings etc. like the war on drugs? You are incredibly naive. Take your ass overseas and lose buddies and family members fighting for people like YOU who undo all we feel we were fighting for. You make me sick.


  6. You are a really stupid POS…No one at Ft. Hood was allowed to carry “the guns that surrounded them” you dip-wad. THEY were all locked in the arms room. [The same stupid ass thing you want to do.] If everyone there had a gun and amunition he would have never made the first mag. And the rest of your arguments are just as brainless…You do know that being afraid of a gun is a sure sign of a lack of “manhood” don’t you?


    • First of all, are you actually contending that Fort Hood has no armed security on the base? Yes, there were many unarmed personnel on site, but all military bases have armed security and military police officers patrolling it. Armed MPs were actually on site within minutes, yet the shooting still claimed lives, thus disproving the myth that shootings only happen in places with no guns.

      Secondly, I am completely secure in my “manhood” and it isn’t me who needs an assault rifle as security to get out of bed in the morning. Your gun is your security blanket and the only way that you are able to function with your crippling fear of the world. If you really were brave, you would be able to function without your guns and wouldn’t be risking the lives of children just so that you may feel a little more secure.

      Personally, I am not afraid of guns, merely sick of having to hear about children murdered by lunatics with assault weapons and tens of thousands of Americans murdered by criminals with handguns. It is cowards like yourself who create a climate of true danger in our society and who let their fear cause real problems for the rest of us.

      P.S. I notice that you are only able to attack me personally, not my arguments. If you really want to debate me on this issue, try making a coherent point rather than challenging my “manhood” and throwing out nonsense (nonsense is ignored and I will simply laugh at your pathetic projections if you try to attack my manhood further).


  7. You neglected (on purpose?) to mention that:
    A. Of the 1000 murders the FBI reports on each year that only 200 are by firearms, the other 800 are by baseball bats and hammers–if you are interested in stopping murder you would be going after those weapons–but you don’t really care about murder do you.
    B. Every one of the medical personal at Ft. Hood who knew the shooter knew he was both insane and a muslim and deliberately chose to ignore his homicidal behavior out of political correctness.
    C. Sandy Hook, same issue, i.e., a mentally disturbed man who “slipped” through the mental health system because the people in that system were more worried about a select group preferred clients than a dumb white kid not part of the preferred SES.

    So “refuting facts” is one thing (which you totally failed to do), but refuting select data you embellish and twist to suit your political agenda is something else. By ignoring the people who actually pull the trigger (or in the case of most murders baseball bats) you actually increase the rate of violent deaths, meaning that the victims parents should look to you people as the cause of these deaths because by deliberately ignoring the cause of crime and death in favor of a political agenda you guarantee that the violence will continue.
    Nice job people.


  8. This article makes me sadly admit that liberals are no more logical than conservatives. Their feelings just happen to be on the right side of most issues. But clearly, when their feelings go against evidence and logic, they become just as mindless as conservatives arguing that global warming is fake because it snowed today.

    Your argument that guns don’t stop shootings because shooting can still happen within 100 yards of a gun is like arguing that medicine doesn’t stop illness because people still get sick in hospitals. When someone gets sick the illness is stopped by medicine. When someone starts shooting, they are stopped by a gun. Mass shootings are almost always stopped by people with guns. The sooner the guns get there, the sooner the shooting ends.

    1. Norway, Breivik was free to roam the island because no one else there was armed.
    2. Columbine, the armed security guard is credited with preventing the shooters from advancing into an area of the school. He saved many lives.
    3. Fort Hood, the MPs arrived and he surrendered.
    4.Virginia tech, the shooter killed himself when the swat team reached the second floor. Had they arrived sooner, it obviously would have ended sooner.
    5.Appalachian Law School, 2002, the shooter was stopped when a student retrieved a gun from his car and confronted the shooter.
    6. Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school’s vice principal took a .45 fromhis truck and ran to the scene.
    7. Colorado-Springs, a mass shooting was prevented when a heavily armed man burst into a church and started shooting but was killed by an armed woman who had offered to work as an armed guard for the church.

    The vast majority of mass shooting are ended by good guys with guns. The only other way they end is by suicide, often after police arrive. Guns don’t have to prevent shootings, they STOP shootings. Just like medicine treats illness. You wouldn’t argue against medicine just because it sometimes kills people and usually only treats illness, doesn’t prevent it completely.

    Also, why do liberals lose the ability to understand statistics when guns are the topic? Everyone knows that a solitary statistic is useless without a baseline to compare it to. Yet liberals cite statistics such as “Since outlawing guns ~10 years ago, Australia has seen a decrease in homicides.” This is supposed to be an argument against the notion that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens makes us safer. But anyone who has taken a basic statistics course can tell you that this is about as irrational as arguing that since John Smith started drinking orange juice at the age of 70, his health has gone downhill over the past 30 years. So clearly orange juice is bad for you. All statistics must be compared RELATIVE to something else. For instance, since banning guns 10 years ago Australia has seen a 10% decrease in homicides. But over that exact same period of time, the U.S. increased the number of guns owned and saw twice as much reduction in homicides as Australia. And while Australia’s violent crime rate went up during that period, the U.S. violent crime rate went down. Gun bans equal a slower reduction in crime(which means more relative crime) and an increase in violent crime. The same holds true for Britain.

    Please stop being blinded by your fear and pick your battles. When you make fallacious claims it makes it that much harder for us to be taken seriously on issues where we liberals ARE right, such as universal background checks and bans on automatic fire modifications.


    • I only just read Daniel’s post. I realize that tomorrow, it will be one year old and he will probably never read this. However, I must reply.

      Let me say that it is refreshing to see a self proclaimed Liberal showing a spark of common sense and not only supporting the Second Amendment, but having the courage to criticize his fellow Liberals for their blatant ignorance. This makes me wonder if Daniel is actually a Conservative at heart and just doesn’t realize it.

      However, Liberals are most certainly NOT right on most issues and being Liberal is actually indicative of mental illness. Just because the sun was shining on July 4th does not mean that global warming or climate change or the Green House Effect as it was originally called is real. There is PLENTY of credible research and basic scientific fact to support that it is not only fake, but may actually be an intentional hoax.


  9. Actually in the Fort Hood shooting that part of the facility was unarmed. There is no need to argue that they had no guns because it is a fact that they didn’t. Granted Nancy Lanza had guns I’m sure she didn’t expect her son to kill her in her sleep. Then again I don’t anyone that take precautions to avoid being murdered by their own children. It is also a fact that the principal at Sandy Hook attempted to charge Adam Lanza. If the principal at Sandy Hook was armed there’s no doubt in my mind she would have done anything necessary to stop that evil man from harming the students at her school.


  10. As far as #8 “This argument is both historically incorrect ” that statement is incorrect.

    Ps. look into a video labeled Holocaust survivor speaks about gun control.


  11. 1. 8. Sorry buddy but though shit America will not surrender freedom to fear. By the way Apple pie does kill as many people as guns. Just look at the death statistics related to heart disease. I guarantee you that McDonalds kills more people than guns.

    Ps. I hunt with an AK and carry one well hiking to protect my self from
    bear attaattacks.


  12. Well I put my AR-15 w/ a fully loaded 60 round mag upright in a chair in front of my screen door. I had deliveries from UPS , the kid from up the street came down and mowed my yard, and even my annoying neighbor was out blaring his music while washing his truck while flooding my yard with his filthy backwash making a muddy pool in my flower garden. And guess what…nobody got hurt, shot, or killed. Now isn’t that something that my big bad black rifle that can shoot many rounds in a matter of seconds didn’t just jump up by itself and do some damage ? I wasn’t suprised to see it still sitting there in the chair where I left it for hours unattended. But then again I’m not suprised that people like you still don’t get that guns don’t kill people…people kill people.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s