Monday, December 17, 2012

A simple question

For the liberals/Leftists/what-the-hell-ever-label the gun banners are hiding under this week, I have a simple question:

How would taking my guns away from me have stopped what happened in Connecticut?

I'm not talking generalities here; I'm not speaking about large groups of Americans -- I'm speaking about me, myself -- in person and specifically.

If you were somehow able to go back in time to last week and seize all of my guns -- how would that have stopped what happened?

All right, I'll go you one better: suppose you could have seized all of my guns and all of Phlegmmy's, too. How would taking every gun in my house have stopped what happened in Connecticut?

How would taking all of mine and Phlegmmy's guns have prevented that tragedy?

Now. Do you honestly believe that my name will ever come up as a mass murderer at a school in the future?

So why do you want to take my guns?

I am not a unique case.

There are about fifty-two million -- let me type that out for you: 52,000,000 -- households in the United States that own a gun who did NOT murder anyone in Connecticut.

There are 52,000,000 households in which nothing bad at all has happened with their guns ... ever.

Bear in mind that 52 million households is not 52 million people. Many households have more than one person living there-in, so let's give a best-guesstimate of eighty million gun-owners.

80,000,000 people did nothing wrong in Connecticut.

80 million people haven't done anything wrong this week, won't do anything wrong next week and have done nothing wrong in the past.

When did it become normal to suggest that the United States of America punish 80,000,000 of its' citizens for the actions of a number of evil people totaling less than 0.00001%?

And that's what gun-banning is: When you take away someone's rights, you are punishing them. You take away my right to my AR15 because of what some scaffy little bugnsipe did somewhere else, you are punishing me for someone's elses actions.

Is it American to punish me for the actions of another; is it
just to punish me for the things someone else did?

I wouldn't think so, but maybe I'm old-fashioned.

Apropos of nothing, I note that the Independent School District of Harrold, Texas -- which armed its' teachers in 2008 -- has had absolutely no problem, no incident, nothing of any kind with either critters attempting to murder its' children, or with the teachers carrying guns in class.

For the past four years.

Might be a bit of a clue there, but what do I know?

LawDog

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

There you go arguing common sense again.

The president is right though; it IS time for a change in America.

Let's start that change by overtuning the asinine "gun free zone" nonsense, since obviously psychotic deranged lunatics don't read or obey those laws, except as a planning tool for determining where they can safely commit mass murder.

If we can trust a guy with six months or more of highly technical education sufficient to hold a Commercial Air Transport Pilot's license with the ability to apply for and receive permission to carry a gun in a cockpit of a 777 at 40,000', then we ought to have reached the point of societal evolution where we can trust someone with five years' training in education sufficient to hold a teaching credential with being able to apply for and receive permission to carry a gun in the classroom at ground level.

And for the overwhelming number of states not as retarded as Connecticut, to simply do it with minimal or no other requirement other than being over 21 and free of felonies and/or mental illness, just as a consequence of wanting to.

I realize as a result of this policy the NEA will be forced to own up to how many lunatics and ex-cons inhabit their profession, and risks the probability that a number of other teachers will become emboldened to leave the reservation and become non-liberal voters, but I think we ought to try this anyways.

For the children!

And if the NRA had half the balls of Martin Luther King, they'd announce tomorrow that they would defend, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, any school employee prosecuted for using a weapon in defense of children at their facility, Gun Free Zone laws be damned, and would furhtermore start awarding automatic Fs to any legislator failing to support overturning those asinine laws.

There'd be a stampede all right, and it wouldn't be to Chuck U Schumer.

Best regards,
-Aesop

Gaffer said...

You have the ability to say the right things in an elegant way. Thank you

Gaffer said...

You have the ability to say the right things in an elegant way. Thank you

MSgt B said...

The fact that your post was eloquent and sensible does not change the fact that it will carry no weight whatsoever in the coming "discussions".

Our president has stated that he must do something. (Not necessarily the "right" thing, just "some" thing.)

It's for the chiiiildren!

You lose.

Diane said...

common sense! of course, the liberals will not use common sense.

on another note, I am not sure how to get ahold of you, Lawdog, and I saw this article this morning >> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/texas-cop-writes-struggling-father-a-traffic-ticket-with-a-100-bill-wrapped-inside/

Cameron said...

Thank you, Law Dog. I have been typing out, editing and trashing a lot of words that ended up being more vitriolic than I intended. And here you are with a few polite, reasonable paragraphs.

Anonymous said...

Sadly, you are not going to get through to our misrepresentatives: they smell power like sharks smell blood in the water. Our ass of a ( re- elected!) Senatrix just re- introduced the assault weapons ban. Had that...posessed fellow tried his mass murder in Texas, he'd have been dead first. Ulises from CA

Library-Gryffon said...

I've posted a few places reminding people that a man with a knife killed 8 small children and seriously wounded another 15 or so in Japan in 2001. The lack of a gun didn't stop him. Nor did it stop the guy in China who slashed 22 children less than 24 hours before the Newtown shooting.

I've also pointed out to folks that I work at a hospital. If I or one of my co-workers had a stalker, we'd have to quit our jobs, since we aren't allowed to defend ourselves at work, and any stalker would know that.

But when you point out that all these rampages have happened in "gun-free" zones, you can just watch the gun banners eyes glaze over while they stick their fingers in the ears.

You get even more righteous indignation combined with eye-glazing if you point out that the biggest common denominator of all these shootings is severe mental illness.

Jerry The Geek said...

Two points, please:

(1) I own umpty-ump guns, so maybe you should divide "eighty million" households owning guns by some factor slightly less than "umpty-ump". (It would be interesting to know what that 'factor' would be, but I'm sure John Lott would know.)

(2) Similarly to Cameron, I've just finished my fourth-in-three-days blog article about mass shootings in "gun-free zones". I also wish I could learn the restraint to make the same damn points with the laudable restraint (in both word-count and vitriol-level) as you have exemplified.

Perhaps that's the definitive difference between a LEO and a Geek?

Old NFO said...

Well said LD... And this is a rather interesting counter point to what has been said...

http://www.washingtonguardian.com/washingtons-school-security-failure

Andie said...

As a relative newbie to firearms, I have been paying a lot of attention to the many facets that make them up (e.g. policy, laws, hype, lack of education, etc.). Even before reigniting my interest, I wondered how it would help, in the aftermath, to retroactively make law-abiding citizens subject to knee-jerk mass punishment that does nothing to address the actual issue(s). It seems that each reiteration becomes more draconian, but still doesn't help matters.

@ Old NFO: thanks for the share on that article... certainly offers some alternative perspective on how to possible avoid or minimize these tragedies.

Anonymous said...

I'll take a crack at it:

"How would taking my guns away from me have stopped what happened in Connecticut?"

This is a strange question, since your guns weren't used. But if you're talking about a total ban and confiscation, it's pretty obvious. If that had been done, the shooter's mother wouldn't have had a bunch of unlocked guns in her home with her mentally ill son.

But I don't want to put words in your mouth, maybe you really are just asking a question about just your personal firearms. It would change nothing, and I don't think anybody is advocating removing your guns and only your guns. This is sometimes called a straw man argument.

"When did it become normal to suggest that the United States of America punish 80,000,000 of its' citizens for the actions of a number of evil people totaling less than 0.00001%?"

By this logic, everybody should be permitted hand grenades, or anti-tank weapons, since most people would never use them in an evil way. But those weapons are banned, because the threat to the public good exceeds any rational argument for self-defense. The anti-gun crowd is now saying the same argument applies towards semi-auto weapons.

Robert Fowler said...

MSgt B said...
The fact that your post was eloquent and sensible does not change the fact that it will carry no weight whatsoever in the coming "discussions".

Our president has stated that he must do something. (Not necessarily the "right" thing, just "some" thing.)

It's for the chiiiildren!

You lose.

We all lose.

B said...

By the same token, should we lock up *ALL* of the people with emotional or mental problems?

I mean, after all, the gun didn't do this by itself.

By the logic the gun control people use, we should incarcerate, fence in, or euthanize all people with mental issues.

Dave H said...

The problem isn't guns, it's mental illness. All banning guns will do is allow us to sweep the mentally ill under the rug. That's no help to anybody.

Anonymous said...

The problem is mental illness, coupled with the gun banners inability to understand that removing firearms from public hands will not have any affect on criminal's ability to commit heinous crimes. The only thing that will be accomplished by a national gun ban is that now criminals will have a shooting gallery to live in where none of their targets will be able to shoot back. Bad guys will always be able to obtain guns, they are willing to break the law. That is what makes them bad guys. Look at New york for example, complete ban on private ownership of handguns. Lots of violent crimes perpetrated with firearms every year. Which brings me to my nod to the fact that any sort of a firearm ban is unconstitutional. Not that many people care about that anymore. They are willing to sacrifice their rights for a false sense of security. I am a father of two, and what happened in Newtown was beyond awful. But a national gun ban is not the solution. My prayers go out to the families of the children brutally murdered at the hands of a madman. Just remember that guns did not murder those kids. A psychopath did. He would have used whatever tools he could obtain to accomplish his sick objective. I am done now.

Godel Fishbreath said...

It is a problem that none of the heroic adults could stop him.

That said, I want to post a quote from Sailor Jim Johnson: "

I don’t like guns.

I spent most of my adult life with guns and around guns and using guns … I still don’t like guns.

However, I believe – and have long believed – the saying that “when owning a gun is criminal, only criminals will have guns.” I believe that criminals, most criminals, certainly might have the wherewithal and connections to find and purchase just about any weapon on the black market.

But what I have come to equally believe is that mentally upset or psychologically damaged individuals WON’T! They don’t have the connections, they don’t have the wherewithal, and I also believe that any one of them that tries to somehow buy a gun under the table will end up losing their money for a bag of rocks.

I also believe that the individuals who are shooting up schools, malls, and theaters are not – repeat, NOT – criminals.

So, since it is impossible to stop the criminal class from owning guns, but it is possible to stop the emotionally and psychologically damaged from doing so, I have come to believe that outlawing the sale of guns can only make things better."

At one time Joe Bethancourt had a song that said that the second amendment protected the rest. I got on the pro-gun side from that song alone. But if you can not really stop such a minor force player as the ATF, then you really have not a chance against the state or national guard, and the army is totally out of your class. What protects the rest is the armed services are sworn to uphold the constitution. So the same thing that worked in the french revolution would work or fail here: the army either supports or blocks the revolution. Seeing that we did have a revolution of sorts in 1877, and that the local armories are there more for internal suppression than for any other reason, well that just points to the army not an informal militia being what counts.
Sailor Jim is on medical discharge from about 20 years with the coast guard. He has shot it out with people, he has had some of his own people killed.
Some of which is detailed in his somewhat exaggerated and somewhat adult stories: Naked Through the Snow.

Godel Fishbreath said...

Love it Aesop. I do feel that there may be a place for known responsible people to have guns. Like the principal. As an substitute teacher, the classroom is not a place for such. Too much access when any access can be bad. Well, maybe if tightly controlled and well thought out.
Anon: If the teachers had rushed and struggled with a knife person they may have prevailed. Guns give power. Someone was pointing out that in China a knife assailant did not kill, even though the circumstances were similar. Slashed is not dead. It is recoverable.
The mentally ill are already 'under the rug'. Which might have lead to this problem. We as a people lack the knowledge and wisdom to train our young to handle problems like bullying and other social nastiness. And that is a problem.

Anonymous said...

Newtown…the Sandy Hook School.
A tragedy and a terrible loss of innocent life in what was supposed to be a “safe place.” ...what could have been done to prevent it?

Blame violent video games and movies/TV? Censor them? Yeah…like that’s going to ever happen…violence, like porn, is likely to continue to be everywhere…do they influence behavior?
Possibly, to some degree…but if the deaths of 20 children is a terrible tragedy (and it truly is)…why do we not care as a nation that the total of US abortions since 1973 (Roe v. Wade) through 2011 was 54,559,615 based on state government health organization data & the Guttmacher Institute data…Planned Parenthood alone performed 329,445 in 2010. Those children were no less innocent than the ones at Sandy Hook, and were in what is supposed to be a safer place…the womb. Does the attitude that bearing children to term is a matter of the mother’s choice and convenience, also influence behavior? But I digress…


Kalashnikat

Anonymous said...



In states where lawful citizens can carry concealed weapons, those criminals who are rational have to consider that what looks like a helpless victim may in fact be fully able to defend himself/herself. Twisted individuals who are not behaving rationally or not capable of understanding right and wrong may or may not weigh that possibility, but if you disarm the law-abiding, each incident after that becomes like Newtown...the gunman knows he has free reign within the building for at least some period of time until the police respond.

Whether the threat is terrorists, criminals, or twisted murderous sick individuals, responsible adults need to be prepared and have the means to protect and defend themselves, their families, and in the case of schools, protect and defend the children in their charge.

Kalashnikat

Wombat said...

A few of you seem to have forgotten that there is a wide spectrum of mental problems. Not everyone with a mental illness is so crazed that they couldn't obtain a weapon illegally. Also, while the CT shooter obviously had mental issues, I strongly doubt he would meet the legal definition of insane. He does fit the classic profile for a mass murderer. This guy was a criminal, a coward, and a loser. That is why he did what he did. I'm sure he justified it to himself in some twisted way, but bear in mind that twisted is not necessarily mentally ill. For those that are not aware, mass murderers are typically white males in their 20s to 30s, of above average intelligence, not good with women, and losers/failures of some stripe. Look at Tim McVeigh (I'm sure a gun ban would have stopped him [please mop up the oozing sarcasm]), Charles Whitman etc.
I've already emailed my congress critter a request to refrain from knee-jerk emotional reactions to this tragedy and suggest others do the same. Personally, what I would like to see is the media to practice a little mouth control. They've been shooting off their mouths without verifying facts, leading to conflicting reports and confusion. At least when I shoot a firearm, I'm accurate. I wish they would be more accurate with their mouths. I know, I know, wishful thinking, but a girl can dream can't she?
Great post LawDog, keep them coming, please. My day just isn't complete without reading your blog and I'm rapidly working my way through the old posts.

Godel Fishbreath said...

My friend Leslie Fish is a example of why we should have guns: she has successfully faced down an intruder and dealt with the police.
It seems that I can not track her write up of that, but here is something similar:
http://lesliebard.blogspot.com/2012/09/racism-punks.html

She tried to cite the Israeli society as a gun positive society and got some push back from an Israeli citizen:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4214118592232747230&postID=4540487840554352754
Ignoring my comments, the Israeli comments on how they run a slightly gun positive society should be of interest.

Anonymous said...

"By this logic, everybody should be permitted hand grenades"

And what exactly is stopping them? Don't have a hardware store near by? Anyone with an internet connection or any basic grade school science under their belt can figure out how to make one. They're called pipe bombs, and they've been around for a long time. But no one would ever use something like that for evil...

"This is sometimes called a straw man argument"

And you did it so well too.

TheIrishman

Anonymous said...

@TheIrishiman

Actually, it's rather difficult to make bombs that explode exactly how you want them to when you want them to. The Columbine shooters put a ton of time into it and failed miserably when trying to do so. Perhaps they're easier for sane people to build.

I also was responding exactly to LawDog's argument, "The vast majority of citizens can be trusted with these weapons, so why punish them for what a few nutjobs do?" The answer is: "Government already does this with military-only weapons, due to public safety concerns." You can argue they shouldn't do that, but it's a losing argument with the general population.

Robert ANnis said...

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Make no mistake, the massacre of children is evil.

Preventing the vast majority of good, honest and sane citizens from being able to prevent such an act is to enable further atrocity.

Preventing good men from stopping evil is in itself evil.

It has been proven, in forty states, that those citizens who arm themselves for personal protection are no threat to the community; they are in nearly every case the more responsible and law-abiding members of their respective communities.

Life being precious, protecting that life is a natural right. The means to do so are given to the lowliest of creatures; mankind has used its collective mind to develop the means of self-protection. To remove this protection from all those who are willing to be subservient to the laws of men, while failing to prevent those who are willing to act outside the law from bearing arms, is to abet criminal and insane behavior.

I fail to understand how anyone could advocate such a position.

Dan said...

Nice comment....but they aren't interested in preventing shootings like the one in Newtown.

Those shootings are just the excuse du jour for what they really want.

Total disarmament as part of the agenda of enslavement.

The true "in the know" gun grabbers don't usually admit their true motivations but occasionally the mask slips and a glimpse of their true persona's is seen.

They don't give a rats ass about who dies, how or in what fashion.
A thousand school kids could be
tortured to death and they wouldn't bat an eye. All that matters to them is if an incident can be used to further their political power agenda.

It's not possible to talk to, reason with, or communicate with a gun grabber because they come in two varieties....the useful idiot who is incapable of rational thought and emotes their way through life...

and the evil evil monster that knows fully well that gun control
leads to more crime, more death,
more misery, more horror...and who
don't give a shit because they are only interested in RULING over everyone...not protecting them.

The gun control advocates cannot and will not listen reason or logic. The only currency they care about is action so we will have to act.

Violence and bloodshed are coming.
A new civil war is brewing. America
as we knew it growing up has ended.
What comes next depends on who wins the battle that is just commencing.

Anonymous said...

Law Dog,

While I lived in Israel I notieced often that the school age children on field trips. I asked the teachers who were armed with Sigs and M1 Carbines if they were only armed on frield trip days (this was post intafad days). The headmaster told me that in 1970's there was a group of terrorists who broke into a school and killed a large number of children and adults. Afterwards the powers that be decided that all administration would be armed (concealed pistols) and would have access (a small safe in their office) to a long gun (in the case of this school M1 Carbines). Teachers were encouraged to carry concealed and he told me that it was about 80-90% rate that carried today (was 2007). I asked him if they had anymore school schootings afterwards. He said that about a year or so later the terrorists tried again and were potted inside the doorway. Now we don't hear of mass shootings in Israel and as the late Paul Harvey used to say "Now you know the rest of the story."

Kind Regards
Dr. C.

Anonymous said...

Lawdog,

I work in a gun-free zone. It's called a "state correctional institution". Part of my job is to try to keep the occupants from beating the living crap out of each other in various creative ways. Seeing what they come up with makes me really glad that there are some guys and ladies on the perimeter with semiautomatic rifles.

There is a higher incidence of mental illness among incarcerated persons. I think it's due to the fact that ALL of them are screened for mental illness. If that was done to the general population outside of prisons, I think there would be no difference in the incidence of mental illness.

I think that this dirtbag in CT was evil. It's just that simple. We're not supposed to judge others, but maybe we should consider becoming fruit inspectors: "...by their fruit you will know them."

Micki Mahoney said...

Anonymous,

Firstly, thanks for keeping it civil.

"But if you're talking about a total ban and confiscation, it's pretty obvious. If that had been done, the shooter's mother wouldn't have had a bunch of unlocked guns in her home with her mentally ill son."

Yes, and if commercial flight had been banned, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. If free speech had been banned, Mein Kampf wouldn't have been written. If religion had been banned an awful lot of wars and persecutions wouldn't have happened. You get the idea. Yes, you could have stopped every atrocity in the world if you had taken away freedom. But what sort of a world would that be?

"But I don't want to put words in your mouth, maybe you really are just asking a question about just your personal firearms. It would change nothing, and I don't think anybody is advocating removing your guns and only your guns. This is sometimes called a straw man argument."

It's not a straw man argument at all -- it's the very crux of the matter. People really are talking about taking LawDog's guns away and those of every other law-abiding citizen. Is punishing the huge, overwhelming majority of people for the actions of a madman really a just thing to do? Would you think it was just if they took your car away just because the guy down the street was a drunk-driver?

"By this logic, everybody should be permitted hand grenades, or anti-tank weapons, since most people would never use them in an evil way. But those weapons are banned, because the threat to the public good exceeds any rational argument for self-defense. The anti-gun crowd is now saying the same argument applies towards semi-auto weapons."

The many owners of full-auto weaponry and "destructive devices" show that such things can be safely held by ordinary people without carnage in the streets. In fact, the use of legally-held full-auto weaponry in any sort of violent crime is almost unheard of. Ergo, if grenades and anti-tank weapons were used in a safe way by law-abiding people why shouldn't they be legal?

""The vast majority of citizens can be trusted with these weapons, so why punish them for what a few nutjobs do?" The answer is: "Government already does this with military-only weapons, due to public safety concerns." You can argue they shouldn't do that, but it's a losing argument with the general population."

Yes, you're right, it is a losing argument with the general population. That doesn't mean the argument is wrong, though.

"Actually, it's rather difficult to make bombs that explode exactly how you want them to when you want them to. The Columbine shooters put a ton of time into it and failed miserably when trying to do so. Perhaps they're easier for sane people to build."

Well, some bombers fail. But then countless others succeed. Oklahoma City; 7/7 in the UK; multiple terrorist cells throughout the world; etc. ad nauseum. Countless lives have been lost to the crudest fertilizer bombs over the years -- banning high-explosives didn't save them any more than it saved the two policewomen killed in the UK this year in a grenade attack.

The only viable way of stopping mass shootings in a "no-gun zone" is to get rid of no-gun zones. Have someone on the premises who can actually fight back against these psychos in a meaningful way. Firearms have been around for about 600 years; you can't wave a magic wand and get rid of them. And you can't expect someone who doesn't obey the laws against murder to obey the laws against gun-ownership.

CDH said...

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/houston-police-make-video-surviving-mass-shootings


Even the Houston PD included [FIGHT] as a viable alternative. I know that whatever weapon the guy is holding, be it shotgun, autoloading rifle, sword, knife, or baseball bat, I would much rather be holding a firearm. Those that would take mine away (or prevent me from carrying, even with my CHL) are complicit in murder, plain and simple. Too bad our justice system would never prosecute them.

Anonymous said...

"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it."

- William Burroughs


Goatroper

Anonymous said...

How would the gun death stats be affected if you removed all the stats from states with high gun control laws?

Anonymous said...

Aesop Comment #1

Here is your first case. Seward Montessori Elementary School in Minneapolis MN.

"Mpls Police: Woman Brought Gun to School in Response to CT Shooting

A staff member at Seward Montessori Elementary in Minneapolis is on administrative leave Wednesday after bringing a gun to the school."

http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2872536.shtml?cat=1

rd

Crucis said...

Two Missouri state Reps are introducing legislation allowing teachers and administrators with CCW to carry in school. I'd prefer allowing anyone with CCW to carry in school, but I'll accept teachers and admin as a good start.

Anonymous said...

If you think that outlawing certain guns won't stop people from having them, then why do you believe that outlawing abortion will stop women from having them?

Bergman said...

The first and second amendments use similar language, and both can be construed to protect collective rather than individual rights.

Almost every argument I've ever heard for banning guns can be made at least as strongly for banning books and/or literacy. After all, more people throughout history have been killed by the misapplication of knowledge found in books than the misapplication of bullets found in guns.

The two amendments offer equal levels of protection for the rights they shield. If you can abolish the rights protected by one, you can abolish both.

I for one don't want to slide down that slope, especially since all a gun ban will do is make it impossible for the people who would never go on a shooting spree to defend themselves from the people who do go on shooting sprees. After all, if making something illegal made it stop existing in the country, then all those cocaine and heroin addicts must be imaginary, right?

Windy Wilson said...

Anonymous at 10:18, that is backwards.
If you think that outlawing certain guns would stop people from having them, then why do you believe that it is useless to outlaw abortion?

This is what is called "Prior Restraint" in Constitutional right analysis.

Who was the Roman writer who wrote, "abusus non tollet usum?
Abuse does not prohibit proper use.

Anonymous said...

How many mass murders & what was the weapon of choice took place in the nation's schools prior to the establishment of the "gun free zone" nonsense?