Sandy Hook School Shooting

Yes, Guns Are Dangerous. But They Also Save Lives and Secure Civil Rights

|

In the wake of last week's horrific mass murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the debate over the proper scope of gun rights and gun control has focused largely on the evil deeds some individuals have done with the help of firearms. That focus is understandable in the aftermath of this terrible event. But it's important to also remember that privately-owned guns have often been a tremendous force for good in American history. For evidence of this, look no further than the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s, where the right of armed self-defense played an indispensable role in the battle against Jim Crow.

"I'm alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms," declared John R. Salter Jr., one of the organizers of the famous non-violent sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in Jackson, Mississippi. Writing in 1994, Salter noted that he always "traveled armed" while working as a civil rights organizer in the Deep South. "Like a martyred friend of mine, NAACP staffer Medgar W. Evers, I, too, was on many Klan death lists and I, too, traveled armed: a .38 special Smith and Wesson revolver and a 44/40 Winchester carbine," Salter wrote. "The knowledge that I had these weapons and was willing to use them kept enemies at bay."

Mamie Bradley and T.R.M. Howard

Another prominent civil rights activist who championed the right to keep and bear arms was T.R.M. Howard of Mound Bayou, Mississippi, a surgeon and entrepreneur who was at the center of the trial and investigation into the shocking 1955 murder of 14-year-old Emmett Till. Here's how I described Howard's role in the Till case in a 2009 review of David and Linda Beito's masterful biography Black Maverick: T.R.M. Howard's Fight for Civil Rights and Economic Power:

In the aftermath of Till's murder, Howard put his considerable talents and resources to work. Recognizing that local officials had little incentive to identify or punish every member of the conspiracy that took Till's life, he spearheaded a private investigation, personally helping to locate, interview, and protect several important witnesses. He also made his large, lavishly provisioned home available to the various out-of-state observers gathering in town for the trial, including Cloyte Murdock of Ebony magazine and Rep. Charles Diggs (D-Mich.)….

In addition to bankrolling and assisting the investigation, Howard served as a sort of chief of security, escorting [Till's mother Mamie] Bradley, Diggs, and other witnesses and supporters to and from court each day in a heavily armed caravan. In fact, the Beitos write, security at Howard's residence "was so impregnable that journalists and politicians from a later era might have used the word 'compound' rather than 'home' to describe it." To put it another way, guns were stashed everywhere, including a Thompson submachine gun at the foot of Howard's bed and a pistol at his waist. Howard understood all too well the deep ties between white supremacy and gun control. The first gun control laws in American history arrived during Reconstruction, when the former Confederate states attempted to deny emancipated blacks the right to acquire property, make contracts, vote, freely assemble, and keep and bear arms.

For more on the links between gun rights and the civil rights struggle, see here, here, and here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Reason Writers Pick the Best Books of 2012

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Never let a crisis go to waste!

    1. All of our rights are one crisis from being lost. Sobering.

      1. It will take more than one crisis. These people are incrementalists, and patient.

        1. In response to protests from a couple hundred idiots Discovery Channel American Guns.

          Because a show about gunsmiths and gun dealers caused Adam Lanza to flip.

          1. Discovery Channel *cancels* American Guns.

            1. Discovery is full of fucking cowards. I sincerely doubt that there was even a threat to their bottom line.

          2. They probably cancelled it because it is obviously staged in addition to being stupid.

            “Sons of Guns” is pretty good.

            1. I always thought there was too much cop-fellating on “Sons of Guns,” though it was still fun to watch. At least until they started seeming like they were trying to introduce some weird romantic angle, around which point we just sort of lost interest.

            2. Well, every so-called ‘reality’ show is staged. And nicole is right, there is a little too much cop-fellating going on in Sons of Guns.

              1. there is a little too much cop-fellating going on in Sons of Guns.

                I agree. But I still watch it for the cool toys they get to play with.

                1. But I still watch it for the cool toys they get to play with.

                  Yeah, me too.

          3. As long as History Channel doesn’t cancel Top Shot, I’m OK.

  2. Nothing like claiming that you favor equality and then denying physically weaker people the ability to have equality of self defense through possession of a gun. Someone who believes in true equality can not honestly oppose the Great Equalizer.

    1. You know who else was a great Equalizer?

      1. FDR?

  3. Jim Crow laws are a small price to pay for that magical feeling of safety.

  4. T.R.M. Howard is clearly a bitter clinger. He should have had the good sense to be helpless. /Progressive

  5. If you’re going to make the empirical claim that the presence of a gun increases, rather than decreases, safety, then you need to back it up with more than anecdotes.

    Gun deaths are higher in the US than any other non-shithole country. Studies show that people are far more likely to use guns to kill themselves or a loved one than an armed intruder. That is, the presence of guns decreases public safety on balance.

    Couples get into physical disputes all the time. In the presence of a gun, a woman is 2.7 times more likely to die in such disputes. The presence of a gun provides no known protective effect.

    You have to be honest and say all the dead children are worth it, and to your credit some of you have.

    1. Couples get into physical disputes all the time. In the presence of a gun, a woman is 2.7 times more likely to die in such disputes. The presence of a gun provides no known protective effect.

      You got a source for that? If not, that’s just another anecdote.

      1. Dude, it’s a sockpuppet. Don’t respond to it. Just walk away.

      2. Hemenway, David. 2011. “Guns in the home provide greater health risk than benefit.” American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/5/6/502.

        1. I read through the entire article. There was no attempt to correlate gun risk data with socioeconomic factors.

          Strange, that.

          1. Why is that relevant to the claim that guns increase safety?

            1. Think.

              Think hard.

              I’ll still be here, if you find the answer.

              1. Brown people killing each other don’t count?

                1. You talking to me about Brown people is rich, Tony…RICH!

            2. Because they might increase some people’s safety and decrease others’. Statistics averaged over the whole population rarely tell the whole story because things often work differently for people differently situated.

              In any case, so what? Being armed is both a constitutional right and is essential to a free society.

            3. It’s called the Yule-Simpson effect Tonykins.

              1. Oh, good. There is a proper name for it. I figured there must be.

        2. Obviously, the authorities need to declare these places “gun-free zones” and such violence will go away.

        3. I would dare say that the legions up legions of people whose lives have been saved by the prresence of a gun would be offended by the notion that they should be disarmed because some other people used their guns to settle a domestic argument.

    2. And why is that Tony’s Shrikeplug? Why was it not previously a problem, say 60 years ago, when there were even fewer gun laws? Could it be that your and your collectivist friends have succeeded in creating a nation of dependent, atavistic wards of the state, knowing all along that you can change the fundamental relationship between the individual and the state from one where the individual is paramount to one where the individual is subordinate to the state, each step of the way, you slowing raise the thermostat to boil the frog and encroach on individual rights.

        1. Google “John Lott” you ignorant turd.

    3. If you’re going to make the empirical claim that the presence of a gun increases, rather than decreases, safety, then you need to back it up with more than anecdotes.

      And if you’re going to make the claim that gun death rates are higher in the US than any other “non-shithole” country you should be backing that up as well. First by defining what you consider a non-shithole country then by linking where you get your data from.

      I don’t doubt you, but it’s fucking stupid to demand people cite their sources then reference studies and statistics yourself without citing them.

      1. I don’t doubt you

        You should. Nothing about Tony is honest.

      2. Lost of countries by firearm-related death rate

        There, now I’ve linked to two sources. Anyone care to link me the study that demonstrates how more guns = more safety?

        Or is this yet another entry in a long list of policy subjects about which you guys prefer not to care about facts?

        1. Come on Fallacy Boy!

          Aren’t you going to refute Lott’s study with some ad-hominem arguments?

          That’s the usual ploy! Lott’s study is wrong because he’s a poopy-head!

          Poopy-head! Poopy-head! Lott is a poopy-head!

          1. Whatever medication you’re not on, get on it.

            1. KING OF THE DERPS IS SO CLEVER!

              LOOK HOW CLEVER THE KING OF THE DERPS IS!

              SO CLEVER!

              HIP HIP HOORAY!

              HE IS SO CLEVER!

            2. Google “John Lott” you ignorant turd.

        2. In the 1800s, there were no automobile related deaths. Maybe we should ban all automobiles since that is proof that less automobiles = less automobile deaths.

          1. The relevant analogy is traffic laws. Nobody of relevance is talking about banning all guns. Should we remove all traffic laws because they decrease our god-given freedom to move as we see fit? Or do we draw some prudent lines to decrease traffic deaths, while accepting some level of them in order to maintain a certain level of liberty of movement?

            1. Google “John Lott” you ignorant turd.

            2. The end state is banning all guns from private possession. Anything less will still allow for mass shootings. Pistols can easily be used for mass shootings. Shotguns could be used for mass shootings. It doesn’t take an automatic or semi-automatic rifle to kill a significant number of people in a short time.

              1. The end state is banning all guns from private possession. Anything less will still allow for mass shootings.

                Even a total ban will still allow for mass shootings, just as a total ban on heroin still allows for widespread heroin use.

              2. The gov’t banned many substances from private possession, that hasn’t effectively stopped anyone from getting their hands on them.

            3. All traffic laws should be repealed, and the roads unrestricted to any form of travel by anyone.

            4. Nobody of relevance is talking about banning all guns.

              No. You’re just looking to arbitrarily define guns you don’t like as some magical “Assault Weapon” made to kill and ban them.

        3. Anyone care to link me the study that demonstrates how more guns = more safety?

          In the US, as the number of guns goes up over the last few decades, the rate of violent crime has gone down.

          In the UK, when very strong gun control was adopted, the rate of violent crime spiked up and has stayed high.

          There’s lots of data out there, and what it shows is basically the following:

          (1) Cross-country comparisons are meaningless. Violence doesn’t really correlate to gun ownership or legality very well at all.

          (2) Within countries, changes in gun ownership and legality tend to correlate inversely with violent crime.

          1. Every once in a while, I’ll still see a burly dude walking around with a fanny-pack.

            Wearing a fanny-pack, it’s almost like brandishing. If you’re a mugger, and you see a redneck walking around with a fanny-pack? You pick another target.

            How could the fear of possibly getting shot NOT discourage violent crime? When I was a kid back in Maryland, back in the ’70s, the shotgun rack/rebel flag combo was so common on pickup trucks, I used to wonder if they came standard from the factory that way.

            When you see that kind of visibility, it has an effect on people. If firearms being common didn’t have any effect on people checking their violent behavior, then why not just let everybody open carry?

            I bet people commit different kinds of crimes when they know there are a lot of guns around. I bet there are fewer armed burglaries in a big city like Houston–and more stolen cars.

            If you don’t have any guns in your house, that’s certainly not something you want the general public to know.

        4. Google “John Lott” you ignorant turd.

        5. This is pretty disingenuous. Firearm-related death rate includes a lot of things, Tony boy. Using the death rate, there were some 27,000 gun deaths in the US last year. According to the FBI, 9,000 gun murders. So that makes 16,000 gun suicides. Why do those count? Do I get to count suicides by poisoning, etc as indications of why gun control doesn’t work in countries that have it? I doubt you’d allow it.

        6. This data doesn’t prove anything. Take for instance Chile, which has the lowest rate, lower than any of the more affluent, western European countries, or Canada, yet has more liberal gun ownership laws (http://tinyurl.com/d6l6s7z). How is Canada only half of the rate of the US? You would think with your magic gun-control-cure-all pill, it would be as low as Chile’s? As is common with collectivists, whether it be gun control or economics (broken window fallacy), you tend to only include partial data (http://tinyurl.com/6x4pmk). Perhaps look at the nature of a society versus how the law-abiding citizens in those countries are able to defend (or not defend) themselves. I know, that is objective thinking, something that leftists have difficulty with.

          Do you really think that if that if possession of firearms by civilians was made illegal in the US, that we would become any less violent, that we would become Sweden?

          1. Holy shit, KalkiDas came to play.

        7. http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1413

          Our conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the world’s myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant.

          http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/previe…..5214a2.htm

          In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence. References and key findings are listed (Table).

          1. Here, somebody did a comparison of a state’s crime rate vs. it’s “Brady Ranking” (where the Brady Campaign ranks a state based on how strict it’s gun control laws are). There is absolutely no correlation.

            http://www.pagunblog.com/2010/…..and-crime/

            Simple fact of the matter is, every non-rigged study comes up negative on correlations between gun control laws and crime rates.

        8. Okay – here is one problem with using the “firearm-related death rate”: the majority of gun deaths in the United States are suicides. The United States is on-par with nearly all the other “non-shithole countries” as you put it with suicide rate (Can’t put link to Wiki, it’s too long – but you can google the suicide rates by country). Just because they use guns doesn’t mean shit… they were going to kill themselves regardless (you can try to argue otherwise, but look at the statistics – they don’t lie). When you factor out suicides, the United States isn’t that much worse with gun violence then other “non-shithole” countries when you compare it to the overall violent crime statistics. I’ll take my chances with a gun in the house thank you…

    4. The presence of a gun provides no known protective effect.

      No fucking shit. A gun is an inanimate object.

      KING OF THE DERPS! KING OF THE DERPS!

      HIP HIP HOORAY FOR THE KING OF THE DERPS!

      1. I should ask my ex’s mother about that; she shot a would be rapist with a handgun she kept in her purse.

        1. Don’t you mean the handgun discharged and the rapist was struck?

          Passive voice! Blame the gun! She had no control! The gun did it by itself!

          1. Well, she did keep snacks with high-fructose corn syrup in her purse, so it’s possible the gun just happened to fire when she bumped her purse.

            1. Woah, that’s Old School, tarran. Well-played.

            2. The gun was just lucky there was a rapist in the way when it went off. Otherwise it might have hurt a child or veteran or something. This would have given the gun a sad.

        2. Well, no wonder she dumped you. What have I told you about raping your girlfriends’ moms, tarran?

          1. That shot almost hit his femoral artery, but luckily for tarran, he’s a genetic freak and his femoral artery is in his penis.

            1. Aim small, miss small. OHHHHH BURRRRRRRRRRN

          2. What have I told you about raping your girlfriends’ moms, tarran?

            You told me it would bring me closer to the family, you bastard!

            1. Yeah, but then I told you to make sure not to get shot. YOU DIDN’T LISTEN

              1. You said AFTER!

                She shot BEFORE!

                You suck as a teacher!

        3. She should have laid back and thought of England

          /libtard

    5. Google “John Lott” you ignorant turd.

    6. Tony, did you poopy in your pants again?

    7. If you’re going to make the empirical claim that the presence of a gun increases, rather than decreases, safety, then you need to back it up with more than anecdotes.

      And if you’re going to make the empirical claim that the dearth of guns increases, rather than decreases, safety, you’ll need to back that up as well.

      Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa…

      In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
      The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..a-U-S.html

      I mean, why bother looking at the various cultures in place when blaming a boogeyman is so much easier? For someone who claims to be able to think critically, you’re doing a damn poor job of it.

    8. Re: Tony,

      If you’re going to make the empirical claim that the presence of a gun increases, rather than decreases, safety, then you need to back it up with more than anecdotes.

      You mean like pointing out Columbine or Virginia Tech?

      Ooooooppppsssss!!!!

  6. One of the best examples I can think of in recent memory was when the small business owners of Koreatown banded together to defend their businesses from the mobs, who were specifically targeting Korean businesses during the LA riots, and burning them down.

    1. Here’s NPR, from earlier this year, interviewing one of those Korean businessmen about the riots 20 years ago:

      HA: April 29 was a Wednesday. All the riots are happening in the South Central area. On Thursday morning, I expect something going to happen in Koreatown, so Koreatown is closed, but we bisect by the freeway. I assembled my people, all the store owners, people who has a big rifle or the hunting rifle, everything. So we see that our – next door is selling the electric part that’s American-owned. They just go home. Then the riot people came inside, and they steal everything. They put the gasoline, then they put the fire, so whole building’s on fire.

      MARTIN: I understand that, as the disturbance was beginning, you heard hosts on Radio Korea – which is L.A.’s major Korean-American radio station – tell people to leave their businesses and go home and pray. And you told one of our producers that that made you upset. Could you talk a little bit about that?

      HA: Yeah. I was so upset. So I know the owner of that Radio Korea, so I brought my handgun and I put it on the table. I told him that we established Koreatown. It’s been more than 20 years (unintelligible) riot, even to be able – insurance and everything, but I want to protect my business, as well as all other Koreatown business.

    2. MARTIN: You were saying that, listen, it took 20 years to build up these businesses and to just walk away and watch it turn to ash, you weren’t going for that. Can I ask you, though: Why did you feel you had to defend your store yourself? Did you just have a feeling? I was just wondering why you didn’t feel the authorities would do their job.

      HA: From Wednesday, I don’t see any police patrol car whatsoever. That’s a wide-open area, so it is like Wild West in old days, like there’s nothing there. We are the only one left, so we have to do our own (unintelligible).

      MARTIN: Well, you just told us that the security guard at your store was killed. This must have been very traumatic for you. Do you mind telling me how this happened?

      HA: The riot people took the next building, put it on fire. Then these people want to come to our store. Then we are shooting each other. Somehow, the people stationed on roof, then their line of fire got my security guard, and he really get blown off. So…

      MARTIN: Oh, I’m sorry.

      http://www.npr.org/2012/04/27/…..-for-riots

      This is the same NPR that can’t seem to find a reason right now why anyone should need to defend themselves with a gun when we have plenty of police around.

    3. Since successful use of firearms to deter crime rarely makes national news (since there isn’t a pile of bodies to plant your flag on), let’s have a round-up here. I’ll start with one I posted in another thread:

      Pearl High School

      Woodham was fleeing from the high school when an assistant principal, Joel Myrick, apprehended him with his .45 pistol and held him at gunpoint until until the police arrived.

      1. Yeah, they make like this stuff never happens.

        And I would add, what we saw happen in Libya and elsewhere in North Africa… God forbid we ever needed to overthrow some vicious dictator here in the U.S., but that’s what the Second Amendment is really for.

        It’s really sad when the only option people have left is to peacefully protest and hope that when the world sees the security services shooting peaceful protestors, it will somehow make that dictator stand down.

        People act like having the means to overthrow the government is somehow extremely radical or based on a far fetched scenario, but people being oppressed by dictators who hold a slim majority of popular support is actually a fairly common around the world and throughout history.

        1. I’ve actually seen commenters and columnists in HuffPo in the last 2 days specifically say “That can never happen here.” They seem to have completely forgotten how they felt about Bush.

          1. The left forgets about how organizations like the Black Panthers felt about the right to bear arms.

            I tell you what–the slaves wouldn’t have been slaves for very long if they had been armed. They probably wouldn’t have been enslaved in the first place, either.

        2. In many cases, the dictator doesn’t even have a thin majority of support. IIRC both Hussein and Gaddafi “enjoyed” only minority support. But as many have pointed out, in these countries the only votes that count are the ones backed by guns.

          1. Some of the last crop of dictators came to power by overthrowing colonialists, who would never have let them bear arms.

            I think Gaddafi had popular support to begin with. So did Fidel Castro.

            It was only after people realized that they never planned to leave office that they became really unpopular.

            The left seems to want to pretend like we don’t have to worry about a president refusing to leave office here in the U.S. becasue we have elections.

            Just becasue nobody’s officially crossed the Rubicon here in the U.S. before, doesn’t mean it won’t ever happen. Nobody had crossed the Rubicon before Caesar either.

          2. Ahem, I believe it was Saddam who got 99% of the vote.

        1. Link to a blog listing successful self defense gun use.

      2. This blog has a running count of justifiable homicide stories the blogger runs across:

        http://www.ma-rooned.com/search/label/Dead Goblin Count

  7. The gun control scum are, as expected, climbing on the bodies of dead children. And they will be just as unsuccessful as they have been. You lost, you scumbag fucks. Suck it up, losers.

    1. Of course they are. They love nothing more than to claim the moral high ground while hysterically whipping up hatred against their TEAM’s enemies. Fuck them.

      1. We have the moral high ground. It’s just that it so rarely accompanies absolutist dogmatism and deadly weapons.

        1. ‘Might makes right’ is the moral high ground?

          …mumble mumble Enlightenment mumble mumble…

        2. The moral high ground is leaving my ex-MIL to be violently raped because you deny her the tools to defend herself?

          1. Stop. Responding. To. A. Sockpuppet.

              1. No, it’s just stupid. Borderlands is fun.

          2. For Tony, the “moral high ground” is disarming all those who would oppose wealth redistribution by force.

            Waving the bloody shirts of murdered 6-year-olds like the Horst Wessel Flag is just a means to accomplish that.

          3. I just linked to a study that showed that the presence of a gun does not tend to provide a protective effect for women in violent encounters.

            1. You mean if there’s a gun in the house and the man has it, it’s likely to go south for the woman?

              That’s brilliant!

              Just fucking brilliant!

              Sounds like a great argument to ARM THE FUCKING WOMAN SO SHE CAN FIGHT BACK!

              Holy fuck! Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me!

              1. Show me the data that it works. Show me how somehow an armed woman doesn’t become an armed man. Perhaps women’s guns come with superglue for their hands?

                1. Google “John Lott” you ignorant turd.

                2. Show me how somehow an armed woman doesn’t become an armed man.

                  By aiming and pulling the trigger? WTF?

                3. It must burn you up inside knowing that your leaders aren’t going to do jack shit to ban guns.

                  Laffo.

                4. If that armed woman isn’t smart enough to have already put two in the chest and one in the head by the time her assailant is within grabbing range, then perhaps we should be thankful that she’s not passing her DNA along to the next generation.

            2. Well, a gun might have helped these people, Tony. BTW, handguns are illegal in UKR.

              More on this case.

              And yes, I have an alibi. -D

                1. Magnificent comments.

                  EYESOPEN (unregistered) December 15, 2012, 22:55 quote +1
                  most judges, cops and lawyers are masons. it just so happens that the penalty of the master mason (33rd degree) is to be beheaded. he might have been a master mason that betrayed his oath.

                  not that this is good. masons are scum. just saying.

                  Magnificent.

            3. Tony, the phrase “presence of a gun” sidesteps the fact that if the WOMAN has the gun, she’s in far better shape than if she’s trying to defend herself with her fingernails. If whoever’s attacking her has the gun, then she’s probably done for.

              Your argument is fucking stupid.

              -jcr

              1. It’s not stupidity, it’s out-and-out woman hatred. He and his ilk expect chicks to just lie back and take it and not resist.

          4. Yep. Right along with letting T.R.M. Howard get murdered by white racists.

        3. Again, Tony played the “dogma card.”

          1. The only policy change will be minor and reasonable. You guys will oppose it no matter how minor and reasonable, and paint proponents as tyrants and scum. Yeah, dogma is relevant.

            1. The only policy change will be minor and reasonable

              You don’t know this, shithead. Plus, “minor and reasonable” is utterly subjective.

              You’d know this if you were smarter.

              1. “Reasonable” gun control is always what’s next. They’ll nickle and dime you with one “reasonable and moderate” gun control law after another. Than of course they don’t enforce these laws with any consistancy so more laws are needed. The mentally ill are supposed to be in the NCIC. How many are? When a felon gets busted with a gun (in absense of a serious crime)does he get more than a slap on the wrist. No? Seems like if gun scontrol advocates were solely conserned with public safety they would be looking at this stuff and not continuing to try and grab guns from everyone.

            2. Google “John Lott” you ignorant turd.

              1. More wisdom, less wankery.

            3. There is nothing minor or reasonable about your end state… to ban all guns from private possession.

              We should never surrender an inch to you statist fuckwads.

              Why do you hate minorities, gays, and women, Tony?

            4. Double down, nice.

              I was just commenting how you like to yell “DOGMA!” thinking that it gives you some kind of upper hand in arguing.

            5. Yeah, and the “minor and reasonable” policy change won’t do anything at all to prevent future massacres. It’s just an opportunity to use a tragedy to advance a preexisting agenda.

              1. Exactly. Any firearm left in private hands could be used in this manner. So if we want to prevent this in the future all firearms (and materials that could potentially be used to build a firearm) must be in the government’s possession.

                Is that the country we want to live in?

    2. I used to think gun control was a combination of ignorance and misplaced fear. I was naive.

      1. It’s about control. It’s always about control.

        1. TEAM BLUE, especially, is always and forever about violence.

          “Doin’ right ain’t got no end.”

          1. At least for once we can slightly revel in it.

            Most likely absolutely nothing will come of this. The only possible thing that will come is some stupid minor gun law banning something no one cares about that gun companies will find a way to work around that probably won’t go into effect for another five years.

            Leftists right now on this issue feel like we do on every other issue.

            Too bad for them the people that pay for their welfare also want to keep their guns.

            1. I think you are probably right. But in the mean time, everything is going to get stupidly expensive. How am I ever supposed to afford an AK-47 now?

              1. They’re only like 25 bux for a good one in Liberia or Ivory Coast (they don’t know the difference between the Chinese and Russian ones). Getting it home might be hard, but, meh.

                Why the hell would you want an AK-47 anyway. Why not learn to actually shoot and get a much better weapon 🙂

                1. All of these things are possible. I already have a good, more accurate rifle. I just think that the design is cool and it would be a fun gun to have if they were still cheap here.

                2. I’ve only shot an AK on a few occasions. I really liked them and found them to be more than acceptably accurate.

                3. Why the hell would you want an AK-47 anyway. Why not learn to actually shoot and get a much better weapon 🙂

                  Nothing wrong with having a truck/trunk gun. AKs and SKSs will do a fine job in that regard.

                  1. AKs may not be the best weapon there is, but there’s a reason the rest of the world uses them – they’re cheap, relatively effective, and they are reliable.

        2. Control and hatred of “the other”. Gun owners are just another Goldstein to these people.

    3. “The gun control scum are, as expected, climbing on the bodies of dead children”

      I agree 100%. And it is about control. How about the elitist sh*tbags have their bodyguards go unarmed (let’s start with the secret service who I belive carry min-uzi’s).

      1. Make all federal areas in Washington DC, completely gun free.

  8. But Choney told me that I sounded like a crazy whack job paranoid freak because I’m going out and buying guns and ammo NOW even though “NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED (yet)”.

    So now anticipating the next move of the bad guys, which is, unfortunately, my own government, is being “paranoid”.

    If it keeps me and/or my family alive down the road, I don’t really care what Choney thinks. Actually, I don’t care what Choney thinks anyway. So never mind.

    1. Yes, it’s funny how all of the “paranoid” people stocking up on guns and ammo two months ago in anticipation of an Obama 2nd term are ahead of the curve.

  9. From AM Links

    “The Gun Lobby doesn’t care about your family, your rights, or your life.”

    But gun grabbers do? Fuck you, assholes! You want to take away people’s rights and take away their ability to defend their lives and their families… And you put your trust in a government to protect you? You’re a fucking joke! The 20th Century is rife with governments murdering their own people… the people they were supposed to protect. So fuck you for trying to take away my right to defend myself, my family, and my rights. Drink molten lead and throw yourselves into a ditch. We’d be better off without you bleeding heart dumb fuck statist pansies!

    1. Amen.

      The biggest statist pansies are, of course, those who join state sponsored military and / or paramilitary organizations.

  10. Top 5 Gun Massacres by an Individual

    One of them is in the US, but it’s not the top.

    Jezebel ran an article about how it’s almost always angry white males that commit these atrocities. How many angry white males were on that list?

    1. And that list doesn’t include some of the shit that has happened in Mexico in recent years. They have found mass graves of decapitated bodies down there.

      1. Those were probably not done by individuals.

        1. And Mexico has strict gun prohibition. So it is all good.

          1. I wonder how much Eric Holder got in kickbacks for supplying Mexican gangs with weapons.

            -jcr

    2. Yep, don’t forget the Beltway snipers either.

      1. RELIGION OF PEACE!

        1. Fun fact: The FBI charged the Beltway Snipers with “terrorism”. The FBI classifies Nidal Hasan’s murder-spree-to-shouts-of-Allah Akbar! as “workplace violence” and has consistently refused to charge him with “terrorism”.

          1. Clearly, there is racism here. John Muhammad and Lee Malveaux are darker than the olive complexioned Dr. Hasan, a psychiatrist (irony) charged with debriefing combat soldiers.

            Wait, what?

          2. To be fair, I’m not sure what Nidal Hasan did should be classified as terrorism. He was a soldier attacking other soldiers, where as I generally see terrorism as non-soldiers attacking civilians to sow fear.

    3. “Jezebel ran an article about how it’s almost always angry white males that commit these atrocities”

      The fact that this was not the case for most of the very worst atrocities does not in any way refute the above statement. I’m not trying to comment on its validity. I don’t know.

      1. I guess if they dug deeper, “angry white male nerds” just wouldn’t have that same pop.

        Interesting how they’re trying to show this as a problem associated with the UGH VAPID JOCKS they tend to despise but still want to fuck, and not the creepy, anti-social dorks that they turned up their noses at in high school.

  11. Any Obama voters wringing their hands about THE CHILDREN are hypocrites.

    See drones.

    1. This. Don’t stop calling them out on it either.

  12. Why police and Military should only be armed:

    The Vi?egrad massacres also known as the Vi?egrad Genocide were acts of mass murder committed against the Bosniak civilian population of the town and municipality of Vi?egrad during the ethnic cleansing of eastern Bosnia by Serb police and military forces during the spring and summer of 1992, at the start of the Bosnian War.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vi?egrad_massacres

    Of course the US could never degenerate into ethnically based factions.

  13. Gun control is the precursor to government-sanctioned genocide:

    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

    1. From previous link:

      “Day after day, truckloads of Bosniak civilians were taken down to the bridge and riverbank by Serb paramilitaries, unloaded, shot, and thrown into the river.”

    2. Interesting. I went to the range last month, and among the various people I observed were a large group of Armenians. A family of Orthodox Jews, with little kids at that (the little boy was probably 8, the little girl probably 13). Many Hispanics, and many Asians. Some black folks. The split was almost even between male/female. Looking back, I think the “white male bitter-clinger” was probably the minority at the range.

      Essentially, I saw every group from the list above represented at the range. Some people still remember this shit, and will refuse to let it happen again.

      Oh yeah, there were lots of people with guns, and no one got shot.

      1. Oh yeah, there were lots of people with guns, and no one got shot.

        As it usually is. When folks get shot it’s usually because only one of them had a gun…

        The progressives are so eager to deal an ideological blow to their enemies that they would knowingly harm our society’s most vulnerable members. It’s disgusting.

  14. Looking at statistics for the US as a whole, and even looking at individual states is really flawed since the most of the criminal activity in the nation is largely confined to a few concentrated areas.

    Louisiana gets a bad rap because of New Orleans (is this still true?), Illinois because of Chicago, and so on.

    That being said nationwide, violent criminal activity is at its lowest since about 1964.

    1. It would be interesting to correlate criminal stats with whether or not a county voted for Our Glorious Leader or
      some other politician. While I know correlation isn’t causation, I wouldn’t want to bet the results show Democratic areas are more peaceful.

  15. The good news is, the lame duck session won’t do anything, and by the time Congress reconvenes next year, the hysteria will have passed.

  16. Hey Tony, how many of those other countries aggresivley wage a war on drugs? How many of those other countries have as large and diverse a population as the U.S.? How many of them have rates of incarceration, substance abuse, mental illness, and single parent households that are higher than the U.S.?

    Or are you so simple minded that you really think there is one variable to gun violence? If so, look at the UKs experience.

    Finally, we tried prohibition on alcohol and drugs. How’d that work out?

  17. Re: Tony,

    Hemenway, David. 2011. “Guns in the home provide greater health risk than benefit.” American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine.

    From the abstract:

    “The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns.”

    That’s like saying a study finds that electrical accidents are most likely to occur in homes with electricity. Falls from a roof accidents are most likely in homes with ladders and DIY hubbies. The conclusion is ridiculous.

    “there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in.”

    This is an extraordinary conclusion, considering the fact that there has been no mass shootings in gun shows, where all those guns should not ha ve a deterrent effect, only in so-called (and very well advertized) “gun-free zones.”

    Also, there is inconsistency between that conclusion and the fact that the crime rate in urban areas with very stringent gun control laws are higher than in those cities where people are free to purchase and carry firearms.

  18. “There is talk of pepper sprays and martial arts as self-defense for women, but none of this is really effective,” Singh, who heads Indians For Guns said. “If the woman had a gun, this was preventable. We need to get rid of our victim mindset.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..-in-india/

    Tony wants women to be raped.

    1. Tony wants women to be raped.

      Of course, what does tolerant, enlightened Tony care for moo-moo cow breeders?

    2. Tony wants women to be raped

      I do’nt think he wants them to be raped, per se. But it’s clear he believes a raped woman is morally superior to one who puts a bullet in her would-be attacker’s sternum.

  19. “Couples get into physical disputes all the time. In the presence of a gun, a woman is 2.7 times more likely to die in such disputes.”
    -T o n y

    I think that’s backwards, actually. I am 2.7 times more likely to get killed by superbitch.

  20. Guns save lives. It’s true! Why just the other day I saw a gun giving life-saving CPR to a little old lady that fell down on the sidewalk. Just another reason why guns should be owned by everyone. Who knows when they will come in handy.

    1. If you assume that bad people will have guns, then guns in the hands of good people save lives (either by taking lives, or creating an environment hostile to the unjust use of violence). In all likelihood, they save more lives than they claim, even if ensuring that good people have guns raises the percentage of bad people that have guns.

      If you don’t assume that bad people will have guns, you aren’t dealing with reality, and so should be ignored.

  21. “there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in.”

    Pfffft. It took less than a minute to find these.

    http://sittingduckpolicy.com/2…..22-pistol/

    http://sittingduckpolicy.com/2…..-for-more/

  22. Yes, the main is the one who use the gun, and what him or her do by it.

  23. Why must we continue to muddy the waters of gun freedom debates with these personal defense anecdotes and arguments regarding the necessity of AR/AK style rifles?
    The Constitution in general and the 2nd Amendment in particular, as we should all know, doesn’t give a shit about you hunting squirrels or repelling a car jacking. It’s about defending the states from government tyranny.
    The AR/AK platform is excellent for what it was designed. They are for the Dunphy’s of the world, foreign or domestic, and do a pretty good job of it. If you think not, one only has to point to Afganistan where a committed people with reletively meager means have stymied first the Ruskies and now the Yanks for nearly 20 years, and fought them to a standstill, without tanks and F-16’s.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.