–Gun control


Dear Mr. President and Members of Congress;


Gun control.


If not now, when?


If not by you, by whom?




Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Jesus: “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”

63 thoughts on “–Gun control

  1. All males in Switzerland are issued a semi-automatic firearm to keep at home. Switzerland has the lowest per-capita gun violence among developed nations.
    Closer to home, some thieves tried to steal my generator during the power outage wrought by Hurricane Sandy. My neighbor, mostly in the dark with an extension cord running to my machine was petrified, my wife was petrified and we called the police who NEVER came.
    During a large scale emergency, the police will not help you. The thieves ran at the sight of my son brandishing my shotgun. After my gun is gone, who will help? You folks clammoring for gun control?
    The answer is not gun control.


      1. You are implying I killed those kids? I saved my family . There is no trade off. I gues the killer did not get the memo that schools are a gun free zone…or maybe he did.
        More kids die in swimming pools and car accidents than gun violence. Why aren’t you trying to get rid of those death vehicles? Oh yes, because anti-gun people drive and have swimming pools. It’s pure hypocrisy and disgusting that you would politically leverage a tragedy like this.


        1. I have a gun and my family is safe. The hysterical anti-gun crowd have gun-free school zones and 20 kids are dead. Who and what are really to blame?


        2. Saved your family from what, being in the dark? I doubt the thieves were there to kill you and your family. I have no objection to you owning a shotgun, I personally own guns, but it is your mindset that bothers me. If you are saying that you approve of Switzerland’s approach then I agree with you. Issue every male, who can pass background and mental health checks, one (1) gun. Then we will know where every gun is and who is responsible for it. Glad you brought this up.


    1. Please investigate the gun control laws, how and why all males in Switzerland are issued firearms. We have to get serios on gun control. I am sorry but there is too much violence and your solution is to arm everyone.


  2. the President should issue executive order banning all semi auto hand guns and rifles and demand all local police and govt confiscate all these type weapons at once. Congress does not have the will or desire to go against NRA checkbook and would/have been sacrificing American lives for their financial gain.


  3. Best use of a gun; threat period. but, we don’t need all the military style advantages that should be left for police and Army useage of course. I would even put up with bolt action and a magazine maximum of 10 rounds for target practice, an often used amount. No breakdown stocks or screwon end for flash suppressors or silencers. Home defense is basic, especially as you grow older and “they” all know you’re the “rich” old guy down the street…. with guns and dogs, so they go elsewhere. Just how was that young man missed when he purchased body armor, etc. ? Maybe at a gun show, which do need to be totally restricted as to “take home” items IMo.


  4. Here’s my most recent facebook post, on this issue…


    In the wake of the recent shooting in Connecticut the opposing sides are rolling out their arguments for and against more gun control.

    I think if we consider this issue, put in the context of nuclear weapons, we can see where the appropriate compromise should be.

    In military doctrine there is a notion called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), where neither country, once armed with nuclear weapons, has any rational incentive to initiate a nuclear conflict with another country that also has nuclear weapons, because doing so would ‘mutually assure’ the destruction of both.

    This is essentially the argument that pro-gun people make when they suggest that we would all be safer if everyone owned and carried a gun.

    But, does it logically follow then that every country should have nuclear weapons? Do you think every country should have nuclear weapons? Do you think if every country had nuclear weapons then we would be more or less likely to see them used?

    In a world of nuclear weapons, for those countries that do not have them, it is very much in their interest and security that the countries that do have nuclear weapons are transparent about what they have, that they demonstrate often they are not using them in any way that hurts others, that their nuclear weapons are secured in such a way that it is very difficult for them to ‘get into the wrong hands,’ and that it is not easy for any country to obtain them however and whenever they would like to.

    In a world of guns, for those people that do not have them, it is very much in their interest and security that the people that do have guns are transparent about what they have, that they demonstrate often they are not using them in any way that hurts others, that their guns are secured in such a way that it is very difficult for them to ‘get into the wrong hands,’ and that it is not easy for any person to obtain them however and whenever they would like to.

    Does anyone think that nuclear weapons should be open for sale to any country interested in purchasing them?

    If not… then why does anyone think that guns should be open for sale to any person interested in purchasing them?

    I see both sides of the debate cherry-picking evidence and then constructing reasons for why their side is correct. The truth is there really is no wrong or right answer for issues like this. There are merely perspectives.

    Can you put yourself into the perspective of those you disagree with, and empathize with where they are coming from? If people on both sides can do that, then reasonable compromise is possible.

    Are you interested in compromise?

    My opinion:

    In a fairytale world where no nuclear weapons or no guns exist, we’d all be safer. That’s true. But that’s not reality. That genie has long been out of the bottle. Therefore, since we’re living in a world with nuclear weapons and guns, and the purpose of these things is to kill, they ought to be regulated. Those countries that do not own nuclear weapons, and those people that do not own guns, deserve to have safeguards and mechanisms in place that attempt to prevent these weapons from ‘getting into the wrong hands.’

    What type of safeguards and mechanisms?

    Obtaining guns should be a lengthy process that involves demonstrating a responsible commitment toward ownership. Maybe this includes…

    1) Having never been convicted of a violent crime as a prerequisite.
    2) A psychological evaluation of the purchaser and those living with the purchaser of a gun.
    3) Yearly re-registration of all guns owned.
    3) Mandatory lockable storage for guns.
    4) Serious punishment for violators.


    Those may sound oppressive to your ‘freedom’… but try telling that to the families of the victims of gun violence. Or, imagine it was one of your siblings that stole your gun and just killed a bunch of 6 and 7 year olds. Or, imagine that it was your child or niece/nephew that was just killed while drawing his or her ABC’s in Kindergarten.

    I think we can respect people’s right to own a gun and at the same time respect other people’s right to feel safe and secure from gun violence.


  5. Notice that I only used the words “gun control,” and immediately the gun nuts came screaming out of the woodwork. Do you folks want no controls? Should everyone be allowed machine guns, bazookas and cannons?

    Or do you really feel we have sufficient control? Really?

    Because the gun nuts are . . . well nuts . . . it is impossible to have a rational discussion with them, as the nutty slogans about “guns don’t kill”,demonstrate.

    Yes, guns do kill. They are made specifically to kill. You gun nuts want them for that specific purpose: To kill. So you mindlessly can parrot all the nutty NRA slogans you want, and that won’t change one thing: Guns kill.

    That said, prohibition doesn’t work. Prohibition of alcohol didn’t work as well as licensing and legal controls over sales.

    Prohibition of mind-altering drugs hasn’t worked as well as licensing and legal controls over sales would.

    And prohibition of guns won’t work, but licensing and strong legal controls over sales would help.

    Today, the licensing and controls over gun sales is a joke. If gun sales were controlled as well as alcohol sales, which are at best, minimal, there would be fewer automatic and semi-automatic weapons out there.

    And if gun manufacturers were held liable for damage caused by their product, the problem would end — but that may be too much to ask (although in many jurisdictions, bars are liable for damage done by their drunk customers).

    Meanwhile, any rational person would have to agree that gun ownership is out of control, and we simply cannot continue as we have been. The wild west approach will lead to more and more dead children.

    Admit it, gun nuts. Guns do not make you safe. The other guy may have a bigger gun and be a better shot. Then your last thought, as the bullet enters your brain, will be, “Gosh, guns do kill.”


  6. Guns ABSOLUTELY make you safe. I will not give up the ability to defend myself UNLESS EVERY thing that kills more people than guns, such as automobiles, tobacco, swimming pools alcohol and doctors are dealt with in the exact same manner as firearms. Until that day, which will never come just shut up.


    1. Gee, I never knew that swimming pools kill more people than guns. Typical gun-nut ranting.

      But, I agree with you. Guns should be treated just like automobiles (driver tests, licensing, tickets and jail for infractions, loss of license for misdeeds, manufacturer liable for faulty products), tobacco (the tobacco companies paid billion in fines for killing people, retailers must be licensed, age verification of purchaser) and especially alcohol (which I have recommended many times).

      Although, unlike guns, these products were not designed specifically for killing, they are licensed, registered, and legally restricted. Bravo for your suggestions.


      1. Swimming pools kill more children than guns and there are less of them. A child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than gun violence. The average person is 50 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than gun violence. Swimming pools kill many many more people.
        A child is at greater risk of getting run over and killed in the driveway than getting killed by a firearm. Its all public info.
        Sure, typical gun nut ranting. At least I don’t stick my head in the sand and ignore it because I have an agenda to disarm America.


        1. Swimming pools are not designed to kill.

          I said gun control. You translated that into “disarm America.”

          I was specific in saying that prohibition doesn’t work, and suggested controls similar to what we do with alcohol. We don’t ban alcohol; we tax and regulate it. .

          What is your boundary? Should everyone have a machine gun? A mortar? An RPG? A cannon? Where do you draw the line, and why do you draw it there?


          1. Yes, I did overreach. I am responding to you but the other comments cloud my response.
            Personally i dont see the need for assault weapons and agree control is required.
            My apology for taking your comments out of context.


  7. I live in a very violent city – Baltimore. In the past the penalties for using a gun in a crime were lame, and we had a lot of gun crime. The average prison time doled out to Baltimore’s felony gun offenders doubled in 2011 to more than five years in state institutions from 32 months in 2009, according to MayorStephanie Rawlings-Blake, who released new crime data Tuesday.

    Federally indicted gun cases were also up 16 percent during the two-year period, and non-fatal shootings were down by the same percentage, her office said.

    Reducing gun crimes overall mean putting gun criminals in prison longer, something many are opposed to – but that IS part of gun control.

    Mass shootings are a symptom of our broken healthcare system, and HORRID mental health system. Same story every time, mentally ill with violent tendencies fall through the cracks. Fix the health system, and mass shootings probably go down.

    I will refer to the Bath School disaster of 1927 where three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, and four other adults; at least 58 people were injured. The perpetrator killed his wife first, and later committed suicide in his last explosion. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–14 years of age[1]) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.

    The bomber was the school board treasurer Andrew Kehoe, 55, who was angry after being defeated in the spring 1926 election for township clerk. Mass killings are not new, and have happened everywhere.

    We should also remember violence every time a president pushes the military kill button abroad too, where thousands die every year. There is much more to this than gun control. We live in a hyper-violent world, media, video games etc. It all has an effect.


  8. :”We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them”.Albert Einstein

    Just a foolish suggestion:

    Pass a GUN OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE LAW (GODL) with serious enforcement teeth.
    Own any gun, you must have a permit to own.
    Buy any gun, you must have a permit to purchase
    Every time you wish to own, purchase any gun becomes a matter of PUBLIC Record. This record would also make available “how and where anyone that has a concern can submit that concern to the authority that oversees
    the enforcement of proper ownership. Access to this record would be mandatory for mental health workers.
    To have possession of a loaded non permitted gun would carry a mandatory jail sentence.

    “To bear arms” is one thing, responsibility is another.


  9. As most Americans have been doing these last few days, I too am asking ‘how in the world could someone murder 20 children?’ and ‘how in the world can we stop this insanity?’. I do not belong to the NRA but I have always generally supported the idea of the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. My own take on the constitution was that our founding fathers included that provision in the constitution not so much to allow the citizens to keep hunting rifles or to necessarily allow them to defend their homes, it was included as a promise to the citizenry that they would have the means to take back their government should their elected representatives, with their unique and extraordinary power, veer from the intent of the constitution and start representing their own vested interests (and those of their biggest financial contributors) over that of the common man. That is the main reason that I would be very hesitant to see any significant gun control over what we have now, even given this current mind numbing tragedy.

    Let us assume we did legislate a complete private citizen weapons ban, I ask myself if I think it would honestly work. I just don’t see how given the millions upon millions of weapons presently owned in our country, many of which have never been registered and many of which are currently ‘stolen’ and in the possession of criminals. I do think the argument that honest citizens would turn in their weapons and criminals would keep them is valid. I am equally skeptical of the debates that always occur regarding which weapons should be banned. Some want all assault weapons banned. Some want to include all semi-automatic hand guns. These arguments too seem to not make much sense. Anyone who has ever fired a six shot revolver knows that it only takes a very few seconds to reload another six.

    However, it really is not my intent to get into the gun control debate at all. As a father I am sickened by what happened this last week. I think the burning question we should all be asking ourselves is ‘why are these senseless killing occurring with ever increasing frequency and ferocity?’. The means to kill has been around for centuries. Testosterone has been around since the beginning of the human race. Why is it that, now, young males feel driven to massacre ever larger numbers of innocent people with ever increasing viciousness and inhumanity? I think the answer is much deeper and much more troubling that the mere existence of deadly weapons. I believe we truly have a societal sickness functioning and growing that is driving more and more people (yes, primarily men) to feel despair at what life offers.

    I stumbled across a documentary last night on netflix that I thought addresses this issue in a manner more germane to the real problem we face. It is entitled “Murder by Proxy: How America Went Postal”. I urge everyone to view it. Honestly no pun intended, but I do not think gun control is the ‘magic bullet’ that will take the desire to murder out of minds of young men who feel their lives are hopeless.


    1. thomas,

      1. The founding fathers left no doubt about why they wanted people to have guns. They said it right in the 2nd Amendment. So a militia could be organized quickly (Remember the times). The Constitution is not subtle like the bible. The Constitution says exactly what it means.

      2. The notion that citizens armed with hand guns and rifles, could or should resist the U.S. federal government in an armed fight is ludicrous — unless you’re thinking of arming citizens with tanks, aircraft carriers, atomic weapons, mortars and RPGs. We aren’t a 3rd world, arab nation. If you disagree with the government, are you really ready to attack Washington. Really?

      3. No one I know has suggested “a complete private citizen weapons ban.” That is a silly straw man. For some reason, gun enthusiasts love to exaggerate the meaning of gun control — probably parroting the NRA “sky-is-falling” line.

      4. The killing has increased, not because people are getting worse. I suspect people are better today than in years past. The killing has increased because it has become easier. That kid would not have been able to kill 20 children and 4 adults with a knife.

      5. And just because gun control is not the “magic bullet that will take the desire to murder out of minds of young men,” does that mean no control is desirable?

      I asked this of another writer: What are your boundaries? Would you allow all citizens to have machine guns? Bombs? RPGs? Bazookas? Land mines? Mortars? Where do you draw the line? And if you do draw the line, what are your criteria?


      1. Yes we have made killing easier by creating gun free zones and barriers to gun ownership that ensure a safe working environment for the criminals among us.


      2. Hi Roger, just one last comment. When disaster strikes, be it natural or manmade, When the power is out and neighborhoods are cold, dark and without phone service both landline and cel. When gas and heating oil supplies are running out…the police don’t respond even if you can call. That was reality for New York and New Jersey.
        Confronted with this, my wife who was anti-gun found great comfort and security in gun ownership. She has lost all confidence that the police will be there when she needs them.


      3. And you think removing guns from the good/sane guys is the way to go?

        Did the shooter have an RPG? Why even bring it up?

        The bad/insane guys wont listen to anything you or the government say. And second grader would figure out that the only way to equalize this scenario is by making it easier for the good/sane guys to carry guns.

        Gun free zones? Get rid of them, train teachers/principals to shoot and defend themselves with arms, not with their bodies.

        I cant believe the president would use the death of 20 children to push his agenda. What a mess.


      4. From your response to me yesterday, I find myself asking, “Is he talking to me?” By reviewing my original comment, I don’t see where some of your comments came from. I don’t think I deserved your cynicism. With the honest intent of contributing to the discussion of solving this terrible sickness in our society, I offered my thoughts. My PRIMARY point was to encourage this forum to examine the message I discovered in the documentary “Murder by Proxy, How America Went Postal” since I believe it addresses more the real causes of this epidemic of heart wrenching, senseless killing. I am sorry to say that I see the national conversation, once again, devolving into one as between the “NRA NUTS” and the “Gun Control NUTS”; there seems to never be a permissible middle ground or alternative viewpoint. I, personally, am not either one, however I am not ready to give away a constitutional right for 350+ million Americans just to throw an experimental ideology at a terrible problem of our modern culture. Yes, it will take an hour and a half of your time, but anyone really interested in seeing that little children are not killed in the future by young male adolescents in the future, might invest that much time to entertain an alternative train of thought on the issue. (“Murder by Proxy” on netflix).

        Mr. Mitchell, since you accuse me of creating a “silly straw man” permit me to point out that you seem to have a well developed propensity of introducing your own “straw man” arguments. Please permit me to defend myself to your 5 numeric responses:

        1.) First of all, I never mentioned the bible. And yes, “the Constitution says exactly what it means.”; it is not in need of your paraphrasing. I can decipher it for myself thank you very much.

        Per Wikipedia, the 2nd Amendment, as passed by Congress in 1791: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        That does not translate into “So a militia could be organized quickly (Remember the times).” in so far as I can see.

        2.) Pardon me again, but here you introduce your own “silly straw man”. I did not call anyone to arms against the federal government. Per your admonition to “(Remember the times)” I was clearly speaking of my perception of what the Bill of Rights framers would have been dealing with at the time (1791) and what their intent might have been. They were addressing a very recent history of defending themselves from a once perceived sovereign that lost sight of the rights of their colonists in preference to their own affluence and wellbeing. The revolutionary war and the war of 1812 was not between citizens with rifles against tanks, jets and mortars, it was rifle to rifle and canon to canon, albeit their respective inventory and treasuries may not have been too equal.

        3.) ” “No one I know has suggested “a complete private citizen weapons ban.” That is a silly straw man.”

        Once again, this ‘straw man’ is of your own creation, not mine. I simply was using the vehicle of assuming an extreme to make the point that I have doubts as to whether any type of gun control will have the effect to prevent young male adolescents with profound despair and social disfunction from killing children in the future.

        4.) Now I’m sorry but if anything is indeed ludicrous, it is your response #4.

        “The killing has increased because it has become easier. That kid would not have been able to kill 20 children and 4 adults with a knife.”

        Really? By such argument, you imply that the only reason the perpetrator went berserk was because he could get a body count of at least 27? It was not the hate and despair; just because it was easier? You seem to discount, the perpetrator blew his own brains out. Blowing ones own brains out does not seem like a ‘win’ to me regardless of any ‘ease’ or numeric ‘body count’. According to your logic(?) then if he could have killed only 6 kids with a revolver, then he would not have done it? Such is the logic of the “Gun Control Nuts”. Thanks for your contribution. Allow my cynicism to match your own.

        5.) “And just because gun control is not the “magic bullet that will take the desire to murder out of minds of young men,” does that mean no control is desirable?” A courteous, sincere reply. I understand your concern. Well done.

        6) And now I’m adding a 6th point. In answer to your challenge to “DEFINE MY BOUNDARIES”. Here goes; I’m defining my boundaries. (Though I repeat, I am not a card carrying NRA member. Permit the concept that I might just be a common American citizen with my own freely chosen perspective.)

        O.K., I concede, let’s take away all assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns to American citizens. Just leave citizens with 6 shot revolvers, bolt action hunting rifles and one cartridge shotguns. Let’s give it a try. Per the “Gun Control Nuts”, this will of course “fix everything”; no more mass killings. By your own flawless logic, it won’t be easy anymore. A lonely, despairing young male adolescent can only get 6 at a time, it won’t be worth it to him anymore; not a high enough body count; problem solved. (So you don’t miss it, I am certainly being cynical here.)

        Mr. MItchell, I am for whatever remedy, however costly or dramatic, that will stop the insanity of mass killings of children by young adolescent males with dysfunctional, seemingly to them, hopeless lives. I just think that what we should all be looking for is how to give every young person enough hope and support such that none of them feel they have to massacre their parents and innocent children to make a statement about their despair and hopelessness. I do not see how, assuming one extreme, giving them tanks and mortars OR, assuming the opposite extreme, taking away any and all types of guns will remove that hate and despair.

        Mr. Mitchell, I have been following your blog on monetary sovereignty with much interest for a couple of years now. I would like to see you as our Secretary of the Treasury instead of that Goldman Sachs – Wall Street shill Tim Geitner.

        That aside, obviously this discussion on the Connecticut tragedy is way off topic for your blog and passions are bound to surface on this heartbreaking issue in whatever forum. I can tell you are certainly very sincerely passionate in your views. I sincerely hope America rises to resolve this challenge by whatever means before more innocent people are killed. I only suggest let’s look outside the usual boxes.

        If you allow this response to your response, I await your next volley.


        1. You said, ” I concede, let’s take away all assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns to American citizens. Just leave citizens with 6 shot revolvers, bolt action hunting rifles and one cartridge shotguns. Let’s give it a try.”

          I agree with you.

          Additionally, I would make sales of automatic and semi-automatic weapons to the public a federal felony — whether by the manufacturer or by any member of the public.

          We’ll never stop the killing, but killing fewer people is a worthwhile goal.


        2. Why take away all assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns? Is your right to carry them protected by the 2nd Amendment? After all, “assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns” don’t kill, right? (So you don’t miss it, I am certainly being cynical here.)


          1. Right Curt, the criminally insane will not stop killing people, so let’s make their job easier by giving them WMDs.


          2. Until some sanity prevails on this thread, I’m going to keep my semi-auto, 10 shot magazine, no frills 22s and 30-06 for target and varmint px for fun and am developing a laptop remote target system for the fun of it…on my FB…. Tom LaMar chaio


        3. Thank you for your thoughtful comments and the forum to discuss it.

          “You said, “I concede, let’s take away all assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns to American citizens.”
          We’ll never stop the killing, but killing fewer people is a worthwhile goal.”

          Roger, good point. I would be willing to give that a try given the tragedy. My only concern is that in the “NRA-NUT” vs “Gun Control-NUT” argument will not also take into account the mental state of many of our young people and also many of our societal ‘norms’ these days that did not exist when I was growing up in the 50s-60s such as violent video games, violent and violent sexual movies, MTV and a much higher degree of broken families. I am willing to see a ban on semi-auto weapons. Yes, it would be better to at least lessen the body count but I still maintain that, as a society, we must address the hate and despair that would cause the same young man to attempt the same thing with a 6 shot revolver. We will never achieve zero but only 6 dead is not the place to stop. As we are now finding out, a single mother, afraid of and concerned for her son owns 4 semi-auto weapons & 1 shotgun? Bizarre! That is so far from my own mother, wife and daughter I can not fathom it.


        4. Thomas,

          Yes, the thing I find irritating is the abhorrence of partial solutions. Every suggestion for gun control is met with a “what if” scenario, “proving” gun control would not work in every single circumstance — and therefore there should be no gun control.

          So you have the NRA madness of assuring its members that reducing the number of automatic and semi-automatic weapons will not always prevent a murder, in every circumstance.

          So the NRA solution becomes to load our schools, churches, arenas, shopping malls, stores, building lobbies, buses, trains, airplanes, gas stations, offices, banks, parks and every other place where people gather — with armed vigilantes — hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of armed guards, circulating through every facet of our society.

          That is the America the NRA visualizes.


          1. I know; difficult, but doable, as in Switzerland I suppose for a start ? Signage and random, but copious deployments would deter to a good extent I would hope and help minimize costs. Hitler used the random idea to guard against the lone gunman of course. The NRA seems to just want gun sales; I’m working on my latest hobby item in the gun world ; electronic target systems which is on my FB page …Tom LaMar a dangerous world for sure no matter what we do.


    2. Let me get this straight, you “would be very hesitant to see any significant gun control over what we have now, even given this current mind numbing tragedy” because you think the 2nd Amendment is “a promise to the citizenry that they would have the means to take back their government”? So the government could be defeated in a battle by people armed with guns? Seriously?


  10. Interesting,

    I have asked gun lovers a very simple question: “What are your boundaries? Would you allow all citizens to have machine guns? Bombs? RPGs? Bazookas? Land mines? Mortars? Where do you draw the line? And if you do draw the line, what are your criteria?”

    But no answer. Lots of dancing around, but no answer. If you would allow all of the above, fine. That’s your choice. But if you would not allow all of the above, simply have the courage to answer.

    Or do you need a gun in your hand for courage?


  11. Boundaries: No ownership of a gun by any male. No use of a gun by a male.
    I know, silly and discriminating, but most killing (legally and illegally) is done by males. All mass shooting at schools has been the work of males.

    Maybe the answer isn’t gun regulation. Maybe it’s the way we raise boys to be men.


  12. “Through its control of mass media, and unending repetition, of the same lies and idiocies, the plutocrats have made the citizens of the USA believe half a dozen absurdities about gun ownership. The result is exactly what the plutocrats wanted: a society where everybody is afraid of everybody, and where the most basic human right, the right to life, is violated. Once the most basic civil and human right is violated, other violations shall easily follow. Such as having the richest and nastiest pay no, or very little taxes. Yes, my point is that the gun problem is just one aspect, part and parcel, one more way to help enable plutocracy. ” from
    “The density of lunatics is whatever it is, and the mass killings occur when a lunatic and a mass destruction weapon find themselves in the same neighborhood. This is proportional to the product of the density of lunatics by the density of weapons. Only the later can be controlled, and be brought down to zero.

    Note 3: The last of five massacres in 12 years, killed 35 people in Tasmania. The Australian government instituted a buy-back program of 600,000 semi-automatic guns (which fired every time the trigger is pulled). Regulations brought the murders down by 60%.”


    1. I own a semi automatic shotgun for sporting clays. In a way, a revolver is also an auto loader.
      You propose to make me a felon when I am law abiding because I have a semi-auto? I think not.

      Fully automatic weapons made after 1986 are already illegal to own. Ban the rest of them and restrict the magazine size of the auto loading guns but thats all I would put up with.

      I heard Mayor Bloomberg discuss “an epidemic” of gun violence. He would like to disarm everybody…except his bodyguards of course. I would bet they all carry automatic weapons.


          1. you know, I am applying for my concealed permit, as up here in winter, you carry under your coat where permissible or the thing won’t work I am told, so it’s either don’t carry in winter or get CC. I will also ask about NYC and see if I get any kind of real answer just for us…


      1. I too am a law-abiding citizen.

        I drive between Chicago and Florida, frequently. I’d love to drive 140 mph, and get there faster.

        But, I favor everyone doing the the speed limit, because I don’t want to kill anyone, and I don’t want anyone to kill me, my family, my friends or other children in cars. So, I agree with the restrictions on speed.

        Would you be willing to give up on clay pigeons, so there will be less killing by automatic and semi-automatic guns? Just a little less killing, not no killing.

        Not no guns. Just less lethal guns. Would that be reasonable?

        In a society, we all give up on certain things for the benefit of our neighbors.The “me-only” attitude is for savages and the NRA, not for civilized people.


        1. The difference between you and me? Even though cars kill literally hundreds of thousands more people than guns, I am not asking you to drive a bicycle or walk, each having more risk than gun ownership.

          My gun benefits my neighbor. If there is trouble she will call somebody who is armed. This is hardly a “me” attitude. Most all gun owners I know will physically get into harms way during an emergency to help their neighbor, gun or not, The gun control crowd is content to dial 911 and not get dirty. This is a true observation.

          There is no evidence to suggest that removing my semi automatic will save lives…none. Your car will kill somebody, many more somebodys, before my gun kills anybody. If you really want to benefit your neighbors, simply stop driving and buy a gun.


          1. There is no evidence to suggest that removing my bazooka will save lives…none. The police will kill somebody, many more somebodys, before my bazooka kills anybody. If you really want to benefit your neighbors, simply defund your police department and buy a bazooka.


        2. Curt, thank God you’re not my neighbor. The last thing I would do is phone the lunatic next door to come over with his AK47 and start spraying lead in all directions.

          No, thank you. I’ll call the cops.They are trained for this work.

          But I do appreciate your silly comment: “If you really want to benefit your neighbors, simply stop driving and buy a gun” It demonstrates for all to see, the quality of NRA thinking.


          1. Roger, I don’t have a AK- anything nor do I have a handgun and the chances of “spraying lead” are unlikely. This characterization of gun owners is precisely the problem. Repeat the BS enough times and people believe it to be true. If you were correct then accidental shootings would be topping the mortality charts.
            I know many police and I question whether some of them should be armed. Good luck with them, and good luck waiting for them in an emergency.
            I don’t care if my neighbor calls me or not…but I will be there if she does.

            Despite your comical mis-characterizations, the typical gun owner is not Rambo.


        3. Right, the typical person is law abiding. But we have laws. Why? To set boundaries and to stop the atypical person.

          I’m not worried about whomever you call a “typical gun owner.” I’m worried about an armed, law-abiding guy who will follow an unarmed kid, all around the complex, (because he looks “suspicious”) until he gets into the hoped-for confrontation, at which point he shoots the kid.

          I’m worried about you, an untrained, self-appointed deputy, running over to your neighbors house, and killing someone, simply because you don’t know how to pacify a situation.

          If you see a guy beating his wife, would you shoot him? Wife beating is not a capital offense. What is your training in this situation?

          Anyway, if you don’t own even a handgun, what is your problem re. eliminating AK47s?


          1. I have no domestic violence training. What would you do if said husband was stabbing his wife?
            If anybody is being attacked with deadly force, how do YOU respond? Obviously you rather die than accept help from some lunatic gun packing citizen.


        4. O.K., hero. You can invent all the scenarios you want, but the bottom line is this: The nations having the most guns per capita have the highest gun murder rate per capita. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aclnzv_QD3Q

          The U.S., having the highest gun ownership per capita, also has the highest murder rate. (Also the highest rate of accidental in-home killings, but those are mostly children, so they don’t count.)

          The self-defense, NRA mantra is total bullsh*t, provided to the lame of brain.

          And by the way, guns account for 68% of the murders in America. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state


        5. Interesting that you must refer to me as “hero” “lunatic” “gun nut”. You have lost the argument already. Rarely, if ever , does the winner resort to name calling.

          I don’t deny guns are used in homicide or accidental shootings nor do I ignore that more children die in their swimming pools than accidently by gun fire. More children are accidently run over by their parents than accidently shot. If you want to save the children then STOP DRIVING.


      2. Oh sure, why stop at semi auto? Any law abiding citizen should be allowed to own machine guns, RPGs, bazookas, land mines, mortars, nuclear bombs … What’s the worst that could happen?


  13. roundelswgs,

    Years ago I heard a story (probably apocryphal) about a guy sleeping on his back, with a gun under his pillow. He woke up to see someone lurking at the foot of his bed, so he took out his gun and shot the “intruder.”

    In the dark, he shot off his penis.

    What surprised me was that a guy who sleeps with a gun under his pillow actually has a penis.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s