Ohio school shooting: Time for gun control, guys

You know what a gun is, right? A tiny killing machine that just about any person can use against another, whose only purpose is to cause death or the fear thereof? Which is exactly what happened in a school in Ohio this morning and many other high schools beginning with the spree at Columbine in 1999. The problem of school shootings isn’t going away.

So far, strategies to combat these deadly lash outs have been anti-bullying campaigns. That’s great, in theory. I was bullied as a kid and didn’t like it much, but the anti-bullying message places the victims right back in the position of victim. “Oh, if only we’re nice to everyone the outcasts will stop shooting us!” Yes, bullying is bad, but students shouldn’t have to walk on eggshells hoping to assuage would-be gunmen. We need to get rid of the fucking guns.

Think about it. What is the purpose of a gun? Gun proponents will say the bad guys already have them anyway, so we all need to have access to protect ourselves and prevent more crime. Really? Tell me how many of the other students in that classroom today had a gun to protect themselves.

Ah, let’s not forget the Second Amendment! You do realize the right to bear arms was originally written so the common man could defend himself against the government’s attempts to seize his house, right? Well guess what? Now the government has nukes, automatic weapons and sniper rifles. If it just came down to a battle of arms between you and the government, you are not going to win that one. It would be like playing road chicken with a tank. You lose, Gun Jockey! If you really want things to be fair, why don’t you lobby for the right to a nuke. That will totally happen.

Another argument for guns is the sport. “Oh, we don’t want to kill people, we want to shoot at animals and maybe tin cans on a fence”. I’m going to be dismissed as a hippy if I get into veganism and buddhism, so let’s stick to common ground – fun. You want to keep tiny, discreet  killing machines readily available to the public so you can practice your aim. Use a water gun! Use a pop gun! Take up jogging! Your weekend fun doesn’t justify parents losing their children to psychotic gunmen when we send them off to school.

Guns are dangerous and they need to be controlled immediately.

Sorry, families of the deceased, we want to keep shooting pigeons while we drink beer.

UPDATE – Comments have been closed, but I will point you to resources sent to me in supportive emails:

Things Pro-Gun Activists Say  is immediately eye-popping. Just click and read the latest entry and find out who said, “A dead child is a small price to pay to protect our Second Amendment rights to stop unjust laws and keep out forgeign invaders!” then read on to learn the meaning of “blood dancing”. Wow.

New Trajectory is an activism blog for reducing gun violence in Oregon.

Kid Shootings makes excellent points that kids’ guns passed trough adult’s hands first.

Common Gun Sense discusses how to prevent gun injuries.




Leave a comment
  • "If it just came down to a battle of arms between you and the government, you are not going to win that one. It would be like playing road chicken with a tank. You lose, Gun Jockey! "

    The Brits said the same thing in April 1775. You may wish to roll over and give up ma'am, I do not. Your city banned handguns for decades and all it accomplished was establishing the fact your city is the Nation's most violent, more violent than the War in Iraq. Now the ban is lifted but road blocked by your corrupt local Government. Keeping the poor law abiding disarmed to be robbed by the criminals your city creates. You liberals up there lost a long time ago and still don't even know it.
    "Guns are dangerous and they need to be outlawed immediately."
    Your speech is dangerous to my natural rights and should be outlawed immediately. See how silly that sounds? It's never going to happen. Get over it. btw, Tell Mr. Mcdonald I said hello and thanks again.

  • In reply to Doc03911:

    If you want to talk about a county where the citizens cower in fear, just look around. The vast majority of Americans don't protest and we just accept mediocrity out of fear. Your rights slip away every day. You are taxed for everything yet receive no government healthcare, you're spied on without your knowledge and most of us are one paycheck away from poverty in this struggling economy while other people sit on millions and pay nothing in tax.

    If clutching a gun makes you feel safer against that, you may want to rethink your worldview.

  • LoL! Wow! Let's back it up and I'll let you have another swing at that. Let me help you out here ma'am: I'm 36, not a preschooler. I'm a Navy (FMF) Corpsman (medic) 16 years. I've done eight deployments and countless detachments all over the world (and within my own country) helping those in need. My job is to observe, listen to people and stop the bleeding. I've done so for years in and out of uniform. MY worldview and experience is beyond average thank you. I don't clutch a "gun" to feel safe ma'am, I wear it securely or properly store it until it's needed.

    You imply that a handgun is no longer required because our government has nukes. What tyrannical government would nuke it self and its future slaves? A suicidal government maybe? Can a rifle stop a tank? No, but it can be used to gain access to items that can. Can average citizens stop a military? Yes. Just turn on the news. Populations barley armed due to strict anti guns laws established by fanatical dictators are holding their own, some actually gaining ground. My suggestion to you ma’am; broaden your view, and research facts before assuming. Lastly, dropping "F" bombs in an article to get your point across discredits the author immediately.

  • In reply to Doc03911:

    "What tyrannical government would nuke it self and its future slaves?"

    So why the need for the Second Amendment at all? I didn't know you were so trusting of the gov't. Replace "nuke" with "gun" and you see the problem.

  • I see the solution. Unfortunately you do not see at all. That might explain the many holes in your argument.

  • fb_avatar

    "If you want to talk about a county where the citizens cower in fear, just look around. The vast majority of Americans don't protest and we just accept mediocrity out of fear. Your rights slip away every day. You are taxed for everything yet receive no government healthcare, you're spied on without your knowledge and most of us are one paycheck away from poverty in this struggling economy while other people sit on millions and pay nothing in tax."--Jenna

    Your right here. Now realize that all of what you are complaining of is done to you at the point of a gun. Held by a government that no longer operates in your best interest, and is rapidly losing what it needs to be legitimate; The consent of the governed.

    Clutching a politician, especially of the Chicgo way school, has done nothing but increase the tyranny you seem to realize exists. Cluching a firearm is the CONSTITUTIONAL remedy to the failure of the political system to work for We the People.

    Unless you prefer the collectivist preferred tactic of begging for your life on your knees at the edge of a mass grave. That has been tried at least 150 million times around the world since 1917. However, it does not seem to work very well.

    Me? I will cling to my guns and my Bible. The chances of survival seem much better...

    "Learning is not virtue, but the means to bring us to an acquaintance with it. Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. Let these be your motives to action through life, the relief of the distressed, the detection of frauds, the defeat of oppression, and the diffusion of happiness.”

    --Brigadier General Nathanael Greene

  • Clutching a gun would not make me feel safer from healthcare problems or the economy. Neither can be solved with a gun. But the only solution to being threatened with a gun is to respond with a gun or give in.

  • So what do you do if a violent perp kicks your door in at 3am? Hit him with your liberal logic? Tell him the police have been called and he has less than ten minutes to do his worst, and they're still on the phone. You can sleep well knowing there are others willing to perpetrate violence on your behalf to keep you living in peace. Have you ever been punched in the face by a man who wants to rob you and doesn't want you to id him? It isn't like the movies, he may hit you 10-15 times, square in the chops. Stop that with a phone call or a lamp from you nightstand.

  • Ms Karvunidis,

    You may have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

    You're article is nothing more than a fear mongering piece of paranoid schizophrenic bullshit.

    Might I suggest you visit your local Wal Mart, find your way to the women's apparel section and buy yourself some BIG GIRL PANTIES.

  • In reply to Drummerboy2011:

    I think your Wal Mart reference speaks more about you than it does me. Thanks for reading!

  • Poor Jenna, you havent a clue.

    You can prove that a gun everytime it is used it is used to kill.

    So pardon us if we laugh that the criminals admit that they only fire a shot 15% of the time they use it. DOJ Firearms use by Offenders Nov 2001

    Pardon us if we laugh that the police in their firearm discharge reports say the same thing.

    Pardon us if we laugh that the police only hit their target 15% of the time and you have no proof to show the crimnals are better. (Same firearm discharge reports, see NYC Police & Virginia Stae Police)

    Pardon us if we laugh that the FBI UCR database shows only 1.38 mil violent crimes had 381,000 of those crimes involving a firearm.

    Of course you can disprove the 12,252 murders and 70,000 injuries in 2008 by violent crime illegal use of a firearm didnt occur as surely there should have been 381,000 murders based on your belief that a firearm is only good for one thing eh?

    Funny that the US government admits that 70% of violent crimes are never reported USDOJ National Victimization semi annual report 2008 4.8 mil violent crimes not reported on average.

    Funny how when you actually add the numbers up, a firearm is not used to kill another human 99.68% of the time and if I were a firearm based on your fetishism, I would be soooo upset I sucked at the only thing you claim a firearm is good for.

    Funny the US government acknowledges that 80% of ALL violent crimes are committed by career criminals/gang members USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment annual report 20010.

    Funny that another government agnecy the CDC admits over 50% of successful suicides involve a firearm, in itself a felony, meaning that 95% of all deaths involving firearms illegally used, are those two groups of individuals, and not the 80 mil law abiding gun owners.

    Funny when we recognize that the US Supreme Court ruled over 43 years ago Haynes vs US 390,85, 1968 that felons were not legally bound to follow a law that forced them to violate their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination as 85% of the 20,000 existing gun controls require.

    Funny how review of multiple court rulings show the police are not legallly liabble to protect the individual civilian.

    Funny how review of FBI UCR and Federal Court data show that police on average only solve 8.06% of all violent crimes committed on an average year. We must assume then that you have never bought car, life, home, or medical insurance of any kind as to do so is insane based on your unenlightened opine eh?

    Funny how since 1997, the US has seen an increase of 9 million households owning a firearm, increase of 13-16 states reinstating concealed carry, 35 states reinstated concealed carry in eateries serving alcohol, 4 states and over 80 universities reinstated concealed carry, and there was a 30% plus reduction in violent crime and 20% reduction in murders reported, how, oh how can that be when you infer the 80 mil law abiding gun owners being armed would increase violence.

    Yeah, we know your are either ill informed, or an intentional anti freedom zealot who ignores all those government facts showing how gun control never reduces violence.

    You thirsty for more things and facts you cant refute?

  • fb_avatar

    I completely agree with Jenna.

    Guns owners are disrespectful of authority. A failure to rely on authorities is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. The mere fact that they gather together to talk about guns at gun shops, gun shows, shooting ranges, and on the internet means that they have some plot going against us normal people. A gun owner has no right to associate with another gun owner.

    Therefore, to help ensure our right to happiness and safety we must ban and seize all guns from private hands, and forbid NRA-based criticism towards people who are only trying to help. Searching the homes of all NRA members for any guns and pro-gun literature will go a long way towards reducing crime. If we need help doing this we can invite people like the Australians and Norwegians to help rummage through people's property.

    Common sense requires only uniformed soldiers, police, and other agents of the state have access to firearms, and think of all the money we can save by just taking away the guns from private owners and giving them to the military and police. No person should be able to challenge this by writing to Congress or the President. If they do they should be forced in court to admit to it and then fined a hundred million dollars for each time. Subjecting them to torture will probably change their minds.

    Making it mandatory that church ministers preach against guns or else they can't get licensed will certainly force the church folk onto our side.

    People who don't like all this prove they are on the side of the killers with the guns and should be put in jail along side all the gangbangers and other gun nuts. Letting them sit in jail for a few years before they are charged will give the government plenty of time to find something wrong in their lives. Anything they say, write, or express should be held against them to prove their guilt. We should bring all of them here to Chicago to be tried by former Mayor Daly as judge, and we should allow only mothers who have lost children to gunfire to be on the juries. Any attorney who tries to defend them should be arrested also. If we don't get the right verdict the first time we can just keep trying them until we do.

    No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder and should just leave crime prevention to the Police who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime's completion. Women using a gun in self-defense interferes with and makes the attempted crime a "non-event," which unnecessarily complicates the Police investigation. Any woman who does this should be put in jail for interfering with an investigation.

    If someone still really, really thinks they have a need for a gun in their home for protection then the Army should just force them to host and feed some armed soldiers.

    Those who claim that the 2nd amendment was given to us because we might someday need guns to use against an oppressive government forget that Constitution has strong internal safeguards to protect our freedoms. So there!

    Long live our Constitution!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jack Burton:

    Sir, are evil or mentally ill. What ever meds you are on, please contact your Doctor for a review of your mental status. Otherwise, please call 911 and Me or a co-worker will come and give you a ride to the hospital for a mental health evaluation. Your in crisis Sir, so get help before someone get hurt.

    Or, if your just evil, Google Bill Clinton and Serbia rule of engagement.

    Molon Labe, munch.

  • In reply to Toaster Crisp:

    Hey Toaster Crisp, Jack Burton was being very, Very sarcastic, he was taking the typical progressive talking points and taking them to thier logical extreme; liberalism is a very disfunctional belief system.

  • If you are looking for an example of why people need guns this is a perfect example. A young widow, protected herself and her baby, after waiting over 20 minutes for police to respond. This happened 2 months, not 200 years ago.


    Also, I'm not sure what the point the author is trying to make about the other students not being armed.

  • In reply to dave60018:

    Looks like Mrs. Karvunidis has a response for everybodys' comments except mine.

  • At least as often as I read about school shootings I also hear about an old person who drove their car into a building or crowd of people, can we ban old people?

    There have been several instances recently of drunk people driving the wrong way on the highway, perhaps we should bring back prohibition.

    What if the killer had used a knife or bow, would you want to ban those?

    Some evil or mentally ill individual took a gun and used it to kill. The actions of a single person (or like Columbine, couple people) do not justify penalizing the millions of people who would never use their gun in such a fashion.

    As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, it exists for a variety of reasons. The Founders did not think that the US would have a large standing army and they wanted the populace to be armed so that one could be quickly assembled (as the Continental Army was) from the local militias. They also understood how important and armed populace was as a deterrent to someone wanting to set themselves up as king.

    Handguns can be used to perform evil acts, but the evil is created by the user, not the tool.

  • In reply to Bankerdanny:

    Old drivers and drunk people are red herrings. Should we ban butter knives? No. But the purpose of a butter knife is to butter bread. The purpose of a gun is to kill and that has no place in civilized society.

  • Do we truly live in a "civilized society" when kids are willing to murder other kids?

  • fb_avatar

    I gues that in whatever world you live in, because it is certainly not the real world, that murder is SOLELY caused by firearms and nothing else? This is insane, just as you are. Your arguement has no basis in fact, which has repeatedly been made available to you by the above commenters. You, like all liberals, simply ignore any fact that does not support your arguement. Next we will be called some name by you or a supoort of yours, like racist or extremeist. It is the next step in liberal thought to call people names when your arguement continues to fall flat. Do you think that the oppessed people of the world share your thoughts? Do you think that millions of Jews, Russians, Chinese, Cambodians feel the same way? When their governements began torture and killing, do you every wonder if the oppressed wanted to defend themselves? Or should they just accept death because the firearm has no place in civilized society?

  • so i need to give up my rights because your poorly raised and/or sick child doesn't kill other children??. suppose this little monster couldn't get a gun. do you think he'd be fine and forget about his murder fantasy?. or maybe he would grab a car and plow into a high school crowd?. what then....ban all cars?. what about a knife and secretly running around at night killing other children one by one??. ban all knives??.

    funny how parents who have lost control of their children want the population to give up rights so their disturbed child doesn't do anything wrong. how about stop trying to be your kids buddy and raise him right?. better yet, take responsibility for your disturbed kid and get him help. most of the parents of killer kids ignored or were oblivious to obvious signs of what was coming. instead of asking/making parents be more involved and accountable for their poor parenting...people like Jenna think the rest of us should give up our right to own guns.

    sorry Jenna....it's your kid and your problem. don't be looking at me to help fix sick kids and parents who failed at their jobs.the solution??. accessory to murder charges for parents who neglected the signs that their child was about to do something horrible. same charge if the gun used was the parents and not securely stored and disabled. it's their kid that committed the crime so why should anyone else have to give up any rights because of it?.

    stop reading all the "modern parenting" books and get control of your kids. again...they are YOUR problem...not mine.

  • In reply to The Voice:

    Typical Republican view. You don't care about "my" kid and "my" kid getting shot is "my" problem - but only after my child emerges out of my body. Until then, that's your running platform for presidency. Makes total sense.

    Btw, rights are only rights when they are good for everyone. When they infringe on other people's rights, like mine to safety, they become entitlements.

  • "...rights are only rights when they are good for everyone. When they infringe on other people's rights, like mine to safety, they become entitlements."

    You Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are codified in the Bill of Rights. There is no Right to safety. You can provide for your own safety but that might include having a firearm...

  • Rosie O'Donnel is not a Republican and she hired armed personell to protect her and her family. I guess since I am not famous I should just accept whatever fate befalls me. Shame on you for making this about political parties. There are Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the issue.

    Safety is not a right. It is a responsiblity. I don't have a right to be safe on the highway I have a responsibility to wear a safety belt and to watch out for hazards.

    If rights are only rights when they are good for everyone then none of our rights are guaranteed.

  • fb_avatar

    You have no right to safety. There is no such thing in the bill of rights. The right to keep and bear arms is the closest thing there is to a right to safety. And your feelings don't trump my right to self preservation.
    This is a horrible tragedy and the fact that you would try to exploit it just shows how little you actually care about the children who were killed. Children are 48 times more likely to be killed playing sports but I don't see you grandstanding to end football or baseball. They are 50 times as likely to be killed in an automobile accident but you aren't calling for a ban on cars.
    The truth is handguns are used over 2 million time a year to prevent crime by civilians. The benefit far outweighs the risk. Laws already exist to keep guns out of the hands of children. Clearly these laws were broken and those responsible need to be held accountable. Try calling for enforcement of the existing laws not calling for me to be stripped of my rights.

  • fb_avatar

    Where is it written that you have an inherent right to safety? Have you ever stopped to think that maybe those that founded this Nation felt that you were responsible for your own safety?

    Typical Liberal response is that's it's the inanimate object's fault, never those that use them.

  • fb_avatar

    Baseball bats and cars kill people too! It is NOT time to ban handguns! A vast majority of gun owners are VERY responsible and abide by the rule of law (JACK BURTON). Would you ban knives and ropes as well? How bout glass bottles or bricks? It is only a TOOL. When responsibility is taught, then gun owners have respect for the weapon. This article does nothing but pander to the fearful masses. Get off your high horse and LEARN the difference.

  • OK. First I commend the blogger on her knowledge of the original intent of the second amendment. I believe her to be correct. I also believe that citizens are significantly outgunned by the US military at this point.

    However, I will aregue that by taking away weapons from good people you put them in a position that when faced with a life threatening situation such as in the school their only recourse is to cower under a table, or charge the gunman in a suicidal fashion.

    I work in a school and have a concealed carry license. I am not permitted to bring my weapon on campus and I do not. However, my school also has no armed guard/policeman on duty. So I would be very upset if a school shooting happened and I was put in a situation where I either had to cower under a table or run at the gunman completely unarmed. Those are both terribel choices.

    If I am not allowed to have a weapon I expect that someone else will be responsible for my safety, since the tools to take on that responsibility myself have been taken away.

    With all due respect, the blogger here has probably chosen the cower option. If someone breaks into her home with a gun I assume she does not have the means to defend herself and the city she lives in does no post a guard at her side 24/7.

    It would be nice if there were no guns at all. The reality is they exists and even if banned would still exist in the hands of a few who are "properly trained" and have authoritty over the rest of us.

    All the mistakes normal people make with guns like going insane and shooting people or leaving a gun unsecured are not eliminated by your position of authority or training. Until I can be guaranteed my safety I am responsible for my own.

  • In reply to dan1:

    "However, I will argue that by taking away weapons from good people you put them in a position that when faced with a life threatening situation ***such as in the school*** their only recourse is to cower under a table, or charge the gunman in a suicidal fashion." (emphasis mine)

    Cowering under a desk is indeed the only recourse for people facing life threatening situations in a school. Unless you are suggesting we pack every lunch box with a handgun.

  • Airline pilots can be licensed to have a firearm locked in the cockpit, in case of emergency. There have been no highjackings since that policy was put into place. Logic would suggest that schools would be made safer putting a similar system in place for schools. And before you site TSA screening, watch this.


  • Ms. Karvunidis,

    I would like to thank you for sharing your feelings about the latest horror caused by guns. I too am horrified by the actions of another sick or wicked child in men’s clothing.

    Your vision of a gun free world is hard to grasp. How do you propose to rid the US of 2-3 million guns? The UN? They are working on a small arms treaty to ban private ownership of guns on a worldwide basis. It’s destined to fail even if passed. Again, how do you rid the world of guns? I would feel safe in estimating that there are far more than 1,000,000,000 guns in existence across the globe. How do you suppose they are planning on getting their hands on all those weapons?

    If you had a plan, and a realistic one at that, then I might actually listen to you. Since all you did is react from your feelings rather than using logic to take this issue apart, you really aren’t in a position to intelligently discuss the issue of “gun” violence. But, in a sense of friendliness, let me lay out a few things you might want to think about and apply some logic to.

    1. You cannot find a single instance of a firearm loading itself and willfully killing someone without a human hand controlling it. This is the old saying, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” That psycho kid loaded the gun and he pulled the trigger. He also willfully got a gun he shouldn’t have had access to. And he chose to use it to kill other humans. The gun made no decisions, had no voice and performed no independent actions in this event.

    2. You have heard it before but here it is again, “If you take the guns from the law abiding, the criminals will still have guns.” Criminals are criminals BECAUSE they will break laws. Any laws. Even laws banning guns on school property. And those laws banning minors from possession of firearms. And laws making it illegal to kill other humans. They will even create guns out of pipe and wood if none exist due to a “successful” world-wide gun ban.

    3. And this is the most important fact in my book, by Natural Law (look it up) I have a Right to protect my self and my family from anyone bent on doing them harm. The Bill of Rights (look it up) codifies and protects my preexisting Right to protect myself and my family with violence if necessary. Today that is done through the lawful use of firearms. I don’t hunt. I don’t shoot for sport. I carry a gun every day because of kids like this psycho.

    I do own a couple of those billion guns and if no one else had one, and that fact could be proven to me, I would still keep mine. Gun beats bat. Gun beats knife. Gun beats mob. I plan on keeping mine.

    So, with that said, let’s say you and your ilk manage to get a nationwide gun ban in effect. How do you plan on getting those guns? Let me tell you now, I am unwilling to walk to the local police department and surrender my firearms. Will you send your kids or your husband to get my guns? Not likely, that would be dangerous. Will you bravely come and ask for them? Nope. You will send the police. To force me. And if I resist they should kill me? Of course. Oh you sweet and glossy idiot. You are touching something very dangerous here and I don’t think you grasp the import of your foolish words.

    Your best bet is getting some of your teachers armed to protect your kids. That is a far better solution to school shootings than starting a huge war on the streets of your nation with your attempt to get the guns away from the wicked and insane.

    If having guns in the hands of the crazy among us is the problem, then the issue to deal with needs to be the effective and viable treatment of the insane. If the wicked are using guns to harm people, then the wicked must be opposed by equal force and removed from society, either to jail or the morgue.

    It is just that simple. Not perfect but simple.

    Yours in Freedom,
    Mark Borgeson

  • fb_avatar

    Jenna, you know I love you but I totally disagree with your commentary about yesterday's horrific shooting in Ohio. Ray Bradbury wrote a short story called "A Piece of Wood." In it, a sergeant has a weapon that can disintegrate metal. As the official and the sergeant continue their conversation, one of idealistic peace and disarmament, the official realizes the sergeant actually has this weapon and has used it. He orders others to kill him, but they're all in awe of the fact everything metal is gone. It's then, the official breaks apart a chair and goes after the sergeant with a piece of wood.

    If all the guns in the world were gone, violence, even like Columbine and this high school in Ohio would still happen. We can't teach our children to be afraid, wussies, in the face of danger. We have to teach them to stand up for what is right and just and not be afraid to take on the bullies or walk on those egg shells.

    That's what I'm teaching my daughter to do. She's seen more than any 11 year old should see, but she's empowered now to defend herself from bullies, drugs, boys wanting sex, you name it. She's empowered to know the difference between right and wrong and to speak up about it at school. We've taught her to be strong and not to be afraid anymore. If you look through my facebook pictures, you'll see her shooting her bow and arrow, target practicing with a pistol and cheering in her cheer uniform.

    I don't want her to be afraid of what might be but to be aware of her surroundings and always know who and what she is about at all times. That's the best thing I can do to protect her from the world.

  • In reply to Ashley Gonzalez:

    "If all the guns in the world were gone, violence, even like Columbine and this high school in Ohio would still happen. We can't teach our children to be afraid, wussies, in the face of danger."

    Excellent. You cannot legislate evil or crazy out of existence.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ashley Gonzalez:

    I'd also like to mention, while I'm on my high horse and your blog will get insane traffic today, more than 12000 children died at the hands of child abuse between 2001 and 2008. That's a lot of unnecessary deaths caused by fists and neglect. My daughter could have been in those statistics if we hadn't adopted her from foster care.

    Outcomes during transition from foster care to adulthood National data:
    Earned a high school diploma 54%
    Obtained a Bachelor's degree or higher 2%
    Became a parent 84%
    Were unemployed 51%
    Had no health insurance 30%
    Had been homeless 25%
    Were receiving public assistance 30%

    What they don't track is how many of those also end up in jail. If we want to do our small part to save the world from violence, let's start in our homes, by adopting, fostering, mentoring these children to become stable, productive adults.

  • In reply to Ashley Gonzalez:

    We'll have to agree to disagree.

    Please take note of this: In the last 100 years, there were 17 school shootings in all of Europe, yet there were 177 school shootings in the US just since the 1960's. Less guns, less school shootings.

  • My Romanii ancestors left Europe to get away from oppression... Those civilized Europeans slaughtered and sterilized us up until 2007 officially and continues today unofficially according to the UN.

  • fb_avatar

    Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. Removing gun ownership is tantamount to removing the woman's right to choose. Both have the ability to bring harm to a human life but both also have the ability to save lives in the process. Removing any one of our freedoms is a slippery slope of unnecessary government involvement.

  • You mean that in those gun ban countries (including europe) between 2000-2009 those 47 school shootings, just slightly less than the 67 in the US didnt occur, yeah they did!

    How can that occur with strict gun control and continue to increase, oh thats right, pieces of paper with words dont stop cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

    So how again is that incremental increase in school shootings in all those gun free strict gun control countries evidence gun control works?

  • That's 'fewer' guns and school shootings, not 'less'.

    And, as someone who has gone to primary and secondary (high) school in Europe, I can tell you that it is not the absence of guns that makes school shootings less likely, but rather the absence of this awful social Darwinian environment that we have in highschools here stateside. Europeans are uniformly shocked at how highschool is portrayed in film, and routinely ask me if it's actually that bad. I always tell them it's even worse than that.

  • I detect a large amount of hypocrisy in what you say Jen.. Why don't we have a look at those California 10 year olds that decided to fight over a boy... One is dead from blunt trauma ie the other girls fists... Murdered. Kind of removes your credibility on people shooting each other..

    That is the kind of civilized society you advocate.. One where children beat each other to death rather than shoot one another as if one is better than the other.... The flaw in your argument is that you blame guns rather than individual, the parents, and the society for these kids problems.

  • In reply to Romanii:

    People are going to fight. It's unfortunate, but it's human nature. Arming *some* people with guns is not stabilizing anything, it just ups the ante. Until you're ready to assign a gun to every newborn (God forbid) the pro-gun argument makes so sense.

  • If we follow your "logical" progression we should cut off the hands of every new born because having fists to beat someone to death with ups the ante..... Does that make sense?

  • In reply to Romanii:

    No, because a) hands have many purposes besides hurting and b) you can't fire a "hand" across a crowded room an UNNATURALLY kill everyone in its wake.

  • The reality in this case is that this young man was so bent on violence against those he perceived as tormenters that even if guns did not exist, he would have found ways to inflict lethal damage (knives, blunt instruments, arson, etc.). This person's life had degraded to the point that everyone was an enemy, thus the indiscriminate nature of the act. He was bound to be a criminal. Taking away guns would not have changed it.

    Despite the desire to do so, we cannot use acts such as this as an impetus to trample the rights that are granted to us by the US Constitution. If we start cutting away at the edges of one basic right then all become fair game whether it be freedom of speech, the press, religion, etc. Our rights serve as the basis for a country where individuality is respected and rewarded and has allowed us to do big and great things. We would not have achieved what we have if we existed in purely a collective mindset.

    Now one could argue that individualism and the competitiveness that goes with it causes some of the issues we see in high schools. The battle for supremacy among immature minds. However, we have seen far greater positives than negatives when looked at from a big picture perspective.

    If as you suggest, guns do not exist in a civilized society then put the question to society. Start a movement to amend the constitution and nullify the second amendment. You will most likely fail but you will have your answer. Then you will have to decide whether you live in a civilized society (you do) or realize that a civilized society believes that the private ownership of firearms have a role in it.

  • Funny you should bring up the hundred year history of Europe, Jenna.
    Let's talk about the successful gun confiscation by Hitler and the millions murdered after they had been disarmed.
    Oh, you say, that could never happen here, well, when Bill Ayers was a member of the Marxist Weather Underground, an undercover FBI listened to Bill and others of the leadership group plan that after they were successful at their revolution, they would probably need to murder up to 25 million Americans that would not be re-educated.
    They weren't successful at this abomination, but this type of evil is common in those who desire power over others, the German people said the same thing, it couldn't happen here, until it did with Hitler, those who say it couldn't happen in our country, are in denial of the most basic understanding of the forces of history.
    Our Founding Fathers understood history, which is what the second amendment is about, a defense against tyranny.
    May we remeber this lesson, God willing.

  • Jenna I truly adore your passion. I am going to also take the agree to disagree response to your article. Although I think there is merit to limiting who has a gun, banning all firearms is not the answer. My husband is a hunter. Yes the dreaded hunter, who kills helpless animals. Yet the meat he harvests legally each year feeds my family. It controls the animal population and prevents these animals from overpopulation which will lead to starvation. We own a handgun. He also has undergone a military training, has a permit to carry it and it is stored in a safe with a trigger lock as are all our firearms.

    I am not sure how we would go about harvesting all these firearms to ban them. Door to door searches of all homes in the US? There are those who are ethical and take their freedom to own a firearm with the weight it deserves and those who are careless. Either way the school shooters didn't go through legal means to obtain the weapons they used to assasinate their victims. Advocating exceptance, teaching our children kindness towards others and compassion for their fellow man are of dire importance in our schools.

    I think your message saying something has to change to stop these school shooting was established, the thought process of how to accomplish this was not rational. This was not a rational situation though, so I respect your passion.

    Catie D

  • In reply to LCC-Catie D:

    Thank you for your respectful response, Catie. If handguns *and* bullets were no longer sold, eventually the handguns currently in circulation would be rendered useless. Sure, there's always the internet but cocaine doesn't sail through the USPS, so neither would illegally purchased bullets.

  • "If handguns *and* bullets were no longer sold, eventually the handguns currently in circulation would be rendered useless."

    Try again.

  • LOL, here is the elephant Jenna wants to chew on, all verfiied by one of the definitley not pro gun media sources, so be careful what you wish for.


    For example:

    On August 8, 1973, C.L. Sulzberger in a Times op-ed piece, Arms and the Soviet Man, reported that "underground gun factories had been discovered" in several Republics within the Soviet Union. "Machine tools have been stolen from government factories" and used to make guns, "including pistols disguised as fountain pens" and there are "considerable quantities of explosives and firearms" in four Republics." Noted Sulzberger, "The interesting thing is that Soviet society, with its known predilection for discipline and supervision should be suffering at all from this kind of ailment."

    Other newspapers have echoed these reports. On December 11, 1988 England's Manchester Guardian reported that "the number of weapons held illegally in Azerbaijan [then a part of the USSR] is clearly formidable."

    The Times has reported several times on the illegal manufacture of firearms in that most brutal and effective of police states, Maoist China. On February 10, 1980 its Peking reporter, Fox Butterfield, described a recent Peking bank robbery and stated that during Mao's rule "many workers in factories are said to have fashioned knives and guns." In June of that year Butterfield reported on another Peking bank robbery in which two criminals carried four homemade guns. Other news articles in the Times have described gang wars and other criminal acts in China where such bootleg weapons were used.

    In these two highly regimented Communist police states even the ownership of machine tools by private individuals was strictly forbidden, as was their use for private purposes. Yet in both nations, during the height of Communist power and despite omnipresent informers, bootleg guns were made either by stealing the machinery outright for use in underground factories or were used to make guns in state owned factories under the noses of authorities.

    The Times archives provide many other examples of the ease with which guns of any sort can be fabricated quickly and in large numbers even in primitive conditions. On may 7, 1987 Times correspondent Seth Mydans reported on Philippine gun bootleggers who manufactured to order "sophisticated copies of European and American handguns complete with nickel or silver plate and counterfeit brand markings." In the town of Danao "3,000 gun makers provided a livelihood, directly or indirectly, for 60% of the residents." A portion of their products are "periodically discovered" being smuggled into Japan.

    Mydans described a typical gun maker, Benjamin Barriga, who produced these copies "on a hand turned lathe in a pigsty that abuts his thatched home..." And another manufacturer "whose five-man assembly line shares a thatched workshop with wandering pigs and chickens."

    The Times reported on August 18, 1980 on fighting between Moslems and Hindus in the Indian state of Kashmir "where the manufacture of so-called country guns is something of a cottage industry." On April 27, 1987 the Times reported widespread gun bootlegging in the Indian state of Bihar, where "even an old truck's steering wheel can be fashioned into a gun barrel at one of dozens of makeshift factories."

    Thus, experience proves that even in the violently repressive police states or under primitive conditions the most sophisticated and varied kinds of weapons can be bootlegged.

    In the U.S. there are of course no restrictions on the private ownership of machine tools; anyone with a little cash can buy a lathe and milling machine, and the necessary skills are readily acquired or hired. With millions of available machine tools and millions of garages and basements in which bootleg factories can be established, the number of guns that can be illegally produced is unlimited.

    Predictably, the tighter that firearms restrictions would become, the greater would be the rewards for bootlegging. Thus, the only way to enforce such laws would be to emulate, and go much further than, the Communist dictatorships which themselves failed to stamp out gun bootlegging.

    It would be laughable to attempt enforcement without first prohibiting the private, individual possession of the machine tools. Those remaining in factories would have to be carefully monitored and controlled. Naturally, few Americans would willingly obey bans on ownership of tools. To enforce those bans the guarantees under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure would have to be abandoned in order to permit random inspection of homes and shops suspected of harboring machinery or machinists.

    So let us suppose Holder's Fast and Furious conspiracy had succeeded in mobilizing public support in such a way as to satisfy to the fullest the gun banning desires of Chicago Democrats. The evidence from Mao's China, the USSR, the Philippines, et al. via the NY times makes it obvious that the only way to enforce such a ban would be to abandon our long held Constitutional protections of personal freedom, property, and privacy. And that would require a fundamental transformation of American society.

    Ah, but of course. That fundamental transformation is exactly what has been declared as the goal. A dead American lawman (Border Agent Brian Terry and another) is a small price to pay for that, and as Holder has said, no apology need be given.

  • fb_avatar

    You can try to ban handguns if you want, but many people will resist... Forcefully. And I doubt you'll find anyone in our police or military stupid enough to put theur lives at risk, going door-to-door to make sure people aren't buying, selling, or making handguns.

  • In reply to Gerald Fleming:

    That's the problem. This country is chocked full of idiots waving guns in the air. Yay.

  • You mean like the few progressive idiots going chicken little screaming the sky is falling the sky is falling yet no data to support their claims!

  • Do you every leave Chicago and look around? The rest of the country is not swarming with "idiots waving guns in the air." Must be only happening there in Chicago.

  • fb_avatar

    Ah, I’m just really saddened that you seem to be willing to place all gun enthusiasts in one group, without recognizing the diversity of thought within the movement.

    First off, let’s clear this up; I, and many of my fellow firearms enthusiasts are heart broken and truly saddened at the events of Monday in Ohio. I certainly do not want to see anyone die or be injured, and to imply that we don’t care does nothing but a disservice to us.

    Second, and again what happened is a true tragedy, but the truth is that these events are the exception rather than the rule. We note these events, and many comment upon these events, and they get the notice (mostly negative towards gun society) because of the numbers of people involved. Again, any death or injury is too many, but the reality is that a young person is more likely to die as a result of a swimming pool accident, or be struck by lightning than to be the victim of a shooting incident, as reported by various government agencies such as the Dept. of H&HS, and the CDCC.

    Next-guns in America. The basic fact is this; as reported by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Statistics, while the numbers of firearms have gone up, violent crime in America has decreased; murder, rape and violent assaults have trended downward. Will I say that more guns = less crime? No, but I can say that crime has certainly not gone up as gun ownership has gone up as well.

    Here’s another fact-Washington D.C. and Chicago have some of the most restrictive gun laws in America; they are also at the top of crime rates as well, leading the nation in violent crimes, again such as murder, assault and rape. Here’s another example of where less guns does not equal less crime. Same for Great Britain and Australia; they banned guns for the most
    part, and the result? Crime rate increases throughout, among the highest of the major industrialized countries, as indicated in a report by the Dutch Ministry of Justice.

    Now the Second Amendment: I would sincerely suggest that you look at the documents and writings of the Founders, and the Framers of the Constitution. You should realize a few things;
    the amendment was not written to address specific situations, such as house seizure or as many start, protecting ourselves against the British immediately after the Revolution. The amendment was included to address the basic situation with human nature; there are those people who are evil, whether they are the criminal lurking in the shadows or the dictator intent upon eliminating those who oppose his rule. So we address this two ways; one, we elect good people who respect the Second Amendment, and we provide the opportunity if people wish to take it to take responsibility for their security. It is no knock on the authorities, but most police work nowadays is taking the reports and dealing with the aftermath. We simply do not have the ability to secure each and every citizen, so it falls to good citizens who will volunteer their fingerprints, photos and agree to accept licensure to carry for their protection. Again, the issue is human nature-evil exists, and one of America’s unique characteristics is that we have the opportunity to be proactive in dealing with it.

    In addition, to address your comment:

    “Now the government has nukes, automatic weapons and sniper rifles. If it just came down to a battle of arms between you and the government, you are not going to win that one. It would be like playing road chicken with a tank. You lose, Gun Jockey!”

    Not necessarily. I ask you to take time and read American history. The United States defeated the mightiest empire on Earth during the Revolution; not by force of arms, but by grit, determination, and the desire for freedom. America was heavily outgunned by the British Empire. We won our freedom because we could make it sufficiently painful, in part by weapons, but more so by tactics, perseverance, and the knowledge that failure meant sure death for many, who committed their very lives and fortunes to the cause.

    To address a final comment; yes I agree, guns are dangerous-when used improperly, when used in violent ways, when used to commit evil, when used. However, that’s a tool we can use to promote responsibility, good judgment, and respect. For example, students who compete in authorized and supervised shooting programs such as NCAA contests on average are better students, both academically and socially. 4H and Scouting programs turn out well adjusted participants in shooting programs on average; young men and women who turn out to be good citizens.

    To close, let me address this; I ask that you treat everyone, including us, with respect. Your comments such as “Gun Jockey” and “Sorry, families of the deceased, we want to keep shooting pigeons while we drink beer” are disingenuous and cheapen the debate. I hope you note that I have kept the tone civil. I ask you to do the same, including leaving the profane language out of the discussion.

    Again, the problem is not the gun; it is human nature, and the inability or lack of desire for our society to deal with it. It had been noted that the assailant had noted his intensions online, yet the authorities dismissed it. I truly wish someone has listened, and this might have never happened. And let me add this; you may say, “oh, you’ve never lost anyone like this”.

    Yes I have. I know firsthand the grievous loss of these types of situations. A dear friend lost his life because his employer banned firearms from their establishments, and as a result he and others were violently murdered by gunfire. He was trained and capable of defending himself, but was unable to do so because “conventional wisdom” dictated that “if we ban guns, everything will be fine”. No, just as that school yesterday, where guns are banned by national fiat, the policy led to the results. The gun is not the problem. The human element is.

  • In reply to Ed Rollings:

    You are trying to use facts and statistics on someone who goes by personal feelings... No amount of logic or facts can get through to such people. They could see the truth on video that they themselves made and would say it was doctored...

  • In reply to Ed Rollings:

    "yes I agree, guns are dangerous-when used improperly, when used in violent ways, when used to commit evil, when used."

    So when used properly, what is function of a gun? KILLING. They are killing machines with no other purpose.

  • Funny how 99.68% of the time a firearm is used, they are not used to kill.

    2008 FBI UCR 1.38 mil violent crimes reported, 381k involved a firearm.

    Based on your belief there should have been 381,000 murders, uh but there were only 12,252 murders and 70,000 injuries.

    Felons report only firing their weapon 15% of the time they used on in a crime. DOJ Firrearms use by Offenders Nov 2001.

    Police firearm discharge reports show the same, and also show they only hit their target 15% of the times shots are fired. Kinda destroys your criminals are all powerful inferral as you have no evidence criminals are btter shots or perfect.

    Dont forget that USDOJ National Victimization 2008 semi annual report where the government admits 70% (4.8 mil violent crimes) on average are not reported.

    Guess the police and military use firearms to kill every single time they carry them eh, uh no they dont.

    Then lest we forget all those target shooting, practice and all other sporting events where firearms are used millions of times kinda add up, but you infer since they only have one purpose, then there should be 10's of millions of murders each year, uh get a clue!

  • fb_avatar

    You are correct. However, even though my comments are addressed to the original author, they are aimed (no pun intended) at the vast majority who have not yet formed an opinion, or who lean somewhat one way or another. The O.A. has an opinion based upon emotional outburst, fiction, half-truths and techniques such as misdirection and red herrings. To be credible, we must respond to the majority with the truth, based upon the facts. To reduce ourselves to their level will in fact diminish our arguments. I make these simple points when I make my public presentations, and again the majority are receptive.
    We have to battle the media misperspections, the wavering politicians and the anti-gun rights forces with the tool we have available-the simple truth.

  • In reply to Ed Rollings:

    Not true. Just because a barrage of you has come in from pro-gun sites doesn't refute the fact my argument was based on the logical disassembly of pro-gun arguments.

  • fb_avatar

    Ms Karvunidis,

    Your column brings to mind a quote from the late, great economist and libertarian scholar Murray Rothbard. Since he was talking about economics, allow me to paraphrase: It is no crime to be ignorant of firearms, the military, American history and the history of guerilla warfare, which are, after all, a specialized disciplines. But it is totally irresponsible to have loud and vociferous opinions on these subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

    The police and military have "sniper rifles"? Oh me, oh my, sweet golly! [Gasp!] Sniper rifles! You don't say, sugar britches! You really ought to get out to the local range some time, and see what kind of precision tools we "mere civilians" have, and what we can do with them. Google "F-Class Rifle", and be amazed.

    Now, if you lived in a part of the country that was still relatively free (although "more free than Cook County, Illinois" is akin to saying "doesn't stink *quite* as bad as a day-old loaded diaper" but bear with me) you could mince on down to the nearest gun store or pawn shop with $600 (or maybe less), and walk out with a rifle capable of hitting man-sized targets out to 500 yards and beyond, right out of the box. The fact is, most of the sniper rifles used by police agencies and the military are essentially tricked-out hunting rifles. Suppose you read a column about drugs, in which it became clear that the author didn't know what methamphatamines are,, didn't know the difference between cocaine and heroin, and pontificated that crack is a plant and that marijuana is sold as "rocks". Could you take that person's policy prescriptions regarding drugs seriously? Ignorance is one thing. Your problem is aggressive ignorance. You don't know, you are actually *proud* that you don't know, and you are emphatically not interested in getting smarter.

    Tanks? During WWII someone asked a Yugoslavian guerilla leader how he planned to fight the Germans in their formidable new Panzer tanks, when all his men had were some rusty old rifles. He replied, "When the Germans get out of their new tanks to take a piss, my men will shoot them with their old rifles." Tanks are great in a wide-open desert when the enemy obligingly lines up in ranks to be mowed down. In built-up urban areas... not so much. Ask an Iraq veteran.

    Nukes? Really? A government that wouldn't use nuclear weapons in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, Grenada, Panama, El Salvador, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran (note: the US had not nuked Iran at the time of posting)... is going to drop them on its own cities? In the immortal words of Queen Nan of San Fran, "Are you serious? ARE YOU SERIOUS?!"

    I could spend hours picking this column apart, but as everyone who's read said column and your subsequent replies knows, we're not going to reason you out of a position you didn't arrive at through reason.

  • In reply to Luke Oehler:

    "Everyone" being a bunch of gun enthusiasts seeing this linked on pro-gun websites.

  • No. Just the 75 million law abiding gun owners who have committed no crime. Whom you wish to make into criminals because of you own personal Fear.....

  • Here is a good question.... How many people slaughtered each other before guns existed?? Or did it start with the advent of guns? The UK is awesome for anti gunners right now. Almost no one has a gun yet violent crime is at record levels.. They have even banned steak knives that have points on them. Pocket knives down to blades the size of ones pinky. Yet the violence is not abating... In the UK it is against the law to protect ones self when they attack you... What is a really popular weapon right now there is a cut down cricket club with long nails hammered up and down its length. Does that sound like the society you want to emulate??? Or how about Australia where they are doing the same thing?

  • Well Ms. Karvunidis, you have managed to get a lot of gun nuts to come out and oppose your position. I assume by the tone of your writing you are against murder. So I ask why do you support gun control? The US city with the most extreme gun control is Washington DC followed by Chicago. In 2010 DC had twenty seven times more murders than the larger city of El Paso, TX. Texas is a state where any responsible adult citizen can carry a concealed handgun. In the same year Chicago had nineteen times more murders per capita.

    If you want fewer murders it would stand to reason that you should want fewer restrictions on responsible adults who believe in self defense. Twenty seven times more murders is a huge amount. Or do you simply want a disarmed America without regard to our safety?

  • I understand you're angry about the shooting, I think we all are (including gun owners). Yet, blaming the gun is not the answer any more than we should blame candy for cavities because doing so absolves people of personal responsibility. Eliminate candy and we’re all still getting cavities just as eliminating guns still leaves us with the problem of violence.

    I own several guns, use them responsibly, and no one has ever been harmed by my firearms. In my hands they are defensive tools against the armed and threatening person who desires to assault, harm, or kill me. Why should I have to give up the most effective means of defending myself against violence simply because a high school student in another state decided to commit random violence with a firearm? In fact, I shouldn't. But, for the sake of adding to the discussion, we should all know the idea of banning guns is an impossible idea that would never work even if the government could justify their actions.

    First, guns exist in all societies of the world. A ban in America would only create a black market for them and guns would flow into our country from South America and various other places just as drugs do right now. The "War on Drugs" hasn't worked so well and neither would a "War on Guns". So long as American soldiers and police carry guns (they aren’t giving them up under any circumstances!) then Americans will desire equivalent arms to use against them. The criminal will have illegal firearms to defend against the police and to intimidate victims while law-abiding citizens will have illegal firearms to defend themselves against being a victim. Call them all criminals if you like, but many people love their peaceful life enough to defend it with a firearm. As a result, guns will exist in every nook and cranny of the nation regardless if the government declares them illegal or not.

    Second, common knowledge makes it impossible to render guns extinct. For example, one can easily make a firearm using household items such as a piece of metal pipe, spring, and a nail. Gun powder is made using only 3 fairly common ingredients and primitive peoples from around the world have been making it since the 13th century. Lead is cheap and can be melted in a cooking pot over a campfire for molding into bullets. Passing a law which bans guns, gunpowder, or bullets won't eliminate them any more than we can make drugs disappear by having a law which outlaws drugs. Using an example from the Prohibition, homemade alcohol (e.g. bathtub gin) could still be found when it was illegal but it was far more dangerous to the consumer (e.g. caused blindness, death). The same would happen with firearms, for many more accidents would happen if the weapons in our society were all homemade guns, gunpowder, and lead bullets which are crudely made without safety features. Like it or not, modern firearms are incredibly safe to use and operate, not to mention fairly expensive and controlled through regulation.

    Third, what good is a gun ban without confiscation in a society where firearms outnumber adult citizens and what would it take to confiscate 200 million firearms? It would take the every single member of law enforcement, all 800,000 of them, to set aside all of their normal duties for 250 days; assuming they could confiscate an average of one firearm per officer per day. There would be no police available to provide any other kind of service or respond to any kind of call during those 250 days so crime of every kind would be rampant for approximately 9 months. Obviously, that is not going to work so let’s assume both the military and police worked together to form a national confiscation team numbering half a million people. It would take them 400 days to confiscate 200 million firearms in a perfect world, but we do not live in a perfect world. Some citizens would resist, let’s say 3% of them, to the point of taking up arms to defend their liberties against a tyrannical government. As a result of the crossfire the confiscation team would be reduced by an average of 3% every single day. Half of the national confiscation team would be dead after three weeks while only 20% of the team would remain alive after three months. It is highly unlikely those who remain alive would willingly choose to continue working for the remaining 300 days of the firearm confiscation campaign, but if they did then only 2 would survive it. That’s an incredible loss of life, but for what gain if citizens are still buying them on the black market or making their own firearms at home?

    Undoubtedly, government wouldn’t tolerate suffering half a million police and soldier deaths without doing something more aggressive while many sympathetic citizens would be outraged at the open display of tyranny. We’d be in an outright civil war within a few months of implementing a national gun ban with active confiscation. The Civil War conducted under Lincoln resulted in a death toll of 600,000 people, but we now have ten times the population of 1860. Theoretically, the death toll of a modern-day civil war would also be ten times higher (6 million lives). This is equivalent to the number of Jews who met their death under Hitler, a regime which will be forever considered evil in the pages of history books. If one desires to reduce violence in public it hardly seems that banning and confiscating guns would be a viable way to accomplish that goal.

    As an alternative solution, I propose the answer can be found in home schooling. With random violence occurring in our schools at the hands of strangers, a national 70% graduation rate (50% in major cities), and 25% of graduates not being able to pass the entrance exam for college or the military; one must wonder why parents choose to send their children to school at all. Home schooling can reduce or eliminate a child’s exposure to many of the things which can cause them to become an unstable person such as bullying, peer pressure, relationship dramas, substance abuse, assault of all kinds from various sources, etc. It also requires the parent to become more involved in their child’s life with more control over their activities and behavior. Home schooling produces children who are more confident, secure, mature, and independent with higher GPA’s, ACT scores, and graduation rates. Home schooling isn’t for everyone, but it certainly is one way for a child to acquire a better education while being in a safer place.

  • There are just too many things coming in to respond to. I'll try to address a few things that have popped out at me.

    1. Several people have commented about how violent my own city of Chicago is in spite of our gun control laws. This is why gun control should be a nationwide issue. Sure, I could draw a circle in the street and say "no drugs here!" but if the surrounding areas are flowing with drugs, it won't work. The mayor agrees with me: http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-control/231803-rahm-wants-more-gun-control-illinois.html

    2. Someone posted a story about a lady who shot a robber in her house. For every obscure story like that, there are hundreds, if not thousands more drive-bys and street shootings in the city. The reality is robbers do not break in looking for a fight. They wait until you're not home and rob you during the day. Gunfire happens in the city every day.

    Lots of you live in the country or in safe little suburban havens. You have no idea what modern, urban life is. Even if I bought ten guns, nothing would keep me safe from stray bullets and drive-bys. I walk these streets. I live where people shoot each other in broad day light. Me having a gun "to defend myself" is ludicrous - that would mean a serious urban street war. I'm just a mom of two little girls pushing my stroller to play group. I shouldn't have to be afraid.

    3. Someone mentioned homeschooling. Right. I just can't with that. I suppose two-income households who pay taxes for good schools should just cower in their homes and never see the sunshine so we can shield our kids from possible gunmen - so you animals can have your little hobby.

    4. More about this rising up against the government crap. If you think your little pistol is going to keep the US military in check, I'd like to see you try. Tear gas, my friends. Automatic weapons. You don't have a prayer against Uncle Sam.

    5. A few people have complained about my use of profanity. Are you really that precious? I guess it does make sense that weak people would need to cling to guns "to feel safe" - especially considering that carrying a gun makes you MORE likely to be shot and killed. Oh, but I guess that fact is from a silly thing called "science":


  • 1) So, gun control doesn't work in Chicago because guns flow freely in the surrounding areas, so the solution is to impose a state-wide ban. What about the border states? If we make it national, what about Canada and Mexico (both of whom already have strict gun-control laws) through which other countries will smuggle arms to America? It only works if the entire world gets on board with this idea AND the military plus police give up their guns too. Good luck with that one.

    2) It doesn't matter the comparison to drive-by shootings, a lady, maybe even one like yourself, should be able to defend herself against a home intruder and other threats. Even if firearms could be eliminated entirely attackers would use the next best thing, and then they would be banned. Eventually, we're all living in a world where might rules over the weak just as they did in caveman days. Being the weaker of the species, women would be little more than property to be fought over and won. So much for having a civilized society.

    3) Home schooling is a choice, one which doesn't fit your lifestyle. So be it, but so far as providing a safe environment for a child it is within the realm of possibility whereas banning guns from society is not.

    4) Who is the military if not the children of Americans who were likely not born in a liberal household and strongly believe in defending freedom? Many of them go AWOL rather than fire upon fellow citizens, but even if not the military is only 1.5 million strong (half of one percent of all American adults). If only 3% of Americans resist then the military it would be outnumbered 6-to-1. They certainly aren't going to bomb populated areas in which innocents live so it will be reduced to guerrilla warfare. How did we fare in Vietnam? How about the Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia?

    5) I love your science. Why not also say those who use stairs have a greater chance at falling down stairs? No surprise there, but what about the flip-side of carrying a gun? What are the odds an unarmed person can successfully survive an attack by another person? We already know attackers prefer victims they can easily overpower so I would say the chance of fighting them off is pretty low without a firearm. In this day of equal rights, gender equality, and empowerment of women I would think women would welcome "the great equalizer". A firearm puts everyone (e.g. women, disabled) on equal footing with the strongest of men who intend to inflict harm.

    What I think is really interesting is that a woman would want to advertise to the world she does not like firearms, basically announcing to everyone that she is an easy target. She also has her photo posted for the entire world to see. The point I'm trying to make here is that you don't seem to take your personal safety very seriously, for anyone can now recognize you on the street and they know you dislike guns. In Illinois no one can carry a firearm so no one will confidently come to your assistance if you are attacked by a man with a gun, but things are different in nearly every other state. Someone scoping you out for evil intentions while you're in Arizona or Alaska might choose to leave you alone simply because they know someone around you likely has a gun and would be willing to come to your aid. It's not a matter of weak people clinging to guns to feel safe, but rather having access to an effective weapon in order to be safe against nearly all threats.

  • In reply to sirmatthew:

    Is that last remark a threat?

Leave a comment