Instead of fewer guns, how about better parents?

101
1993

Yet another school shooting and another call from Democrats to take away the right to “keep and bear arms.” Democrats use gun violence and safety as their excuse for wanting to make citizens vulnerable to government.

But we must remember Democrats are the party of massive government control. The proliferation of weapons in this country is one of the things keeping us free … free from government oppression. Recall that Lexington-Concord was about the British aiming to confiscate colonists weapons caches. It was one of the precipitations for the Revolutionary War.

But the shootings in major cities and unfortunately, schools is NOT a gun issue. It is a parental failing and concomitantly a social issue. We need to hold parents accountable for the predations of their offspring on the grounds they failed to raise their children properly.

Dumping their kids in day care and public schools is no substitute for inculcating proper values into your kids. When you bring a child into the world you assume a decades long obligation to adequately teach that child proper behavior.

But then it’s hard to do when adults themselves are going berserk because their fast food order isn’t correct, or someone cuts in front of them in a queue, or a restaurant runs out of chicken or sauce. The gun violence we have is a direct result of failed parental examples.

And let us not fail to mention that bastion of violence, the entertainment industry. They steadfastly deny their on-screen violence affects anyone because everyone knows it is all make believe. Watching entertainment doesn’t really impact people, they say. If that is so…why the commercials?

Commercials are on screen and advertisers use these to impact the viewer! You can’t have it both ways. If on-screen fails to impact viewers then companies are wasting a lot of stakeholder money on ads. But if on-screen ads do impact viewers, then so will the violence perpetually pervading television, movies, and video games.

As a society can we continue to permit the headlong collapse into anarchy, violence, and ultimately big government controls? How many children and adults need to be killed before we decide “enough”?

It has been said Nature abhors a vacuum. God’s values have been pushed out of the classroom and socialistic relativism is filling the void. As we’ve seen time after time, socialist agendas fail citizens.

Are we going to accept “woke” as a substitute for sanity? Are we going to allow alleged injustices to replace the merits of the Ten Commandments? The Golden Rule?

Corruption isn’t always about money. Souls and spirits can become corrupt, too, and Uvalde is the latest example.

Ken Schaefer

Sharpsburg, GA 30277

101 COMMENTS

  1. I favor common sense laws regarding firearms as a start to save us from the gun-worshipping culture we have created. Here is what I think most of us could agree on: Gun Safe Storage laws – no one should leave a gun within reach of others. Lock it up! Ban assault style rifles – the ones that have been developed to tear bodies apart in a war have no place on our streets. Enhance background checks – keep guns out of the hands of angry violent people like abusive spouses and boyfriends and members of terrorist groups. Ban large capacity magazines. Take guns away from anyone arrested for a violent crime.

  2. As a Marine Rifle Team member and former NRA instructor for handguns and long guns I assert that no one under 21 years of age should be allowed to purchase a gun. This is a parenting issue, not a gun issue. I reared four children with many guns hanging on a gun rack in plain view and not locked and had no trouble with any of them because I always emphasized the danger of guns, but I also took them to a range to teach them how to use use guns properly.

  3. After spending 30 min trying to sort out all of the comments…I believe it is simply an active motivation and the willingness of an evil mind and the personal choice of the individual to use a gun to kill people.

    That said…I have always thought that military type guns should require a special license with at least 21 years of age to qualify.

    Our population is now post-Christian, with few functional adults….teachers are now our worst child abusers that poison minds with Wokeness….I see a world full of s’mores people.

    • Have other developed nations done so well in instituting the Christian religion that they don’t have mass murders and school shootings multiple times per year? India, China, Sweden, Vietnam, Denmark are a few countries that don’t have mass shootings AND are largely unaffiliated with the Christian religion. How do they accomplish this w/o the Christian god?

      Do their societies not produce evil minds capable of atrocities? Of course they do, no country has solved all their mental health issues, though some are trying harder than others. But, you know what those countries don’t have easy access to?

      We don’t have to ban all guns in America, but we damn sure have to make it harder for some of our population to get their hands on destructive weapons. I’m tired of our country having to pay a 2nd amendment tax in the form of mass child murder.

      • ON – that is an interesting observation. China, and Vietnam are communist countries that rank high on oppression of personal freedoms including the religion. They are both state sponsored atheists nations

        Here is what Human Rights Watch has to say about Vietnam.

        “Vietnam’s human rights record remains dire in all areas. The Communist Party maintains a monopoly on political power and allows no challenge to its leadership. Basic rights, including freedom of speech, opinion, press, association, and religion, are restricted. Rights activists and bloggers face harassment, intimidation, physical assault, and imprisonment. Farmers lose land to development projects without adequate compensation, and workers are not allowed to form independent unions. The police use torture and beatings to extract confessions. The criminal justice system lacks independence. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Vietnamese authorities continued to harass, arrest, and imprison bloggers and activists based on bogus national security charges.”

        Their homicide rate from guns is miniscule at 0.18 per 100,000 but their homicide rate due to all causes is 3.81 per 100,000. Violent crimes in Vietnam are punishable by the death penalty as is drug distribution. For comparison the US has a total homicide rate about twice the per capita rate of 7.46 with firearm related being 6.16 of them.

        China is also extremely authoritarian and ranks high on human rights violations in addition to religious persecutions.

        Murder rate in India is 4.5 and the gun murder rate is 0.3

        While the US has a 20 times higher murder rate with a gun with these countries, The murder rate is not significantly larger. So dramatically reducing gun homicides does not significantly impact actually homicide rates. In terms of public gun access, the US has an access rate of 120 guns per 100 people while in these other countries gun access of 5.3, 3.6 and 1.6 for India, China and Vietnam. These countries have 2000-7500% less access less access to guns per capita, but have only 39% less murders.

        Removing guns do not remove violent crime, nor significantly prevent innocent deaths.

        • TSWL we are not talking about human rights abuses in this thread, as if America’s hands are fully clean of that.

          So let’s try to stay on point, we are talking about mass shootings and gun violence. You correctly pointed out that Vietnam, China & India do not have gun violence on par with the US (in fact no other DEVELOPED country is close, but they do have other forms of violence as does every other developed country. You will never remove all forms of violence from a society, but there sure are actions we can take to mitigate the violence.

          You conclude that reducing the number of firearms does not reduce violent crime, so I will rebut with the very statistics you are citing. How is it that America is able to achieve such a high homicide rate? You stated 6.16 out of 7.46 of America’s homicides are with guns. That’s crazy!!! You are literally making my case for me. We have widespread access to guns and our homicide rate is much much higher, with about 80% of our homicides attributed to firearms.

          So just to be clear you believe that if America were to ban guns, that our murder rate would remain at 7.46 per capita? Hell, let’s flip that. If Vietnam were to arm their population with firearms you believe their homicide rate would stay the same?

          • OM asked “You conclude that reducing the number of firearms does not reduce violent crime, so I will rebut with the very statistics you are citing. How is it that America is able to achieve such a high homicide rate?”

            You called comparing India’s rate of 4.5 to the US rate of 7.4 “much much higher”, I disagree and see these being in the same ball park.

            Murder rates in our cities. My idea of what “much much larger” is, and may be indicative of where we should be looking for answers.

            St. Louis – 87.2 New Orleans – 52.3
            Detroit – 51.3 Richmond Va,- 29.1
            Rochester NY – 24.6 Compton CA – 18.8
            Wash DC – 27.7 Atlanta – 30.9
            Indianapolis – 24.3 Oakland – 23.1
            Chicago – 28.1 Hartford CT – 19.0
            Buffalo – 21.9.

            Source taken from a paper studying homicide rates to Rochester to other cities published by the Rochester institute of Technology titled “2021 Homicide Statistics for 24 Cities”. Funny how mainstream media downplays what is going on in these bastions of “blue”.

            Perhaps the problem is the people in these cities don’t share the same values as those of the rest of the country as a whole. Perhaps they don’t value life like the average American does.

            Perhaps it is the closure rate of crime in these cities that is the problem, and murders are not taken off the streets and they continue to murder. Are the DA’s too soft? Where are the police? Are they failing the community? Is there not enough allocated to urban neighborhoods? Or have these communities been made fearful of the police and won’t cooperate with them? Are they afraid of the gangs, and won’t tell the police what they know about the crime in their neighborhoods?

            The demographics say that blacks are very much disproportionately the victims of murders. Rough numbers are 30/100,000 for blacks vs 6/100,000 (Hispanic and the national average), vs 3/100,000 whites. Perhaps these victims do not have the legal access to weapons to defend themselves as does other races. This could be due to gun laws or financially restrictive. Have we made our existing gun laws such that they prevent minorities from gun ownership? Something is wrong in these communities that should be answered. These would go a very long way towards reducing the number of murders in this country.

            As for the question about banning guns and murder rates. Venezuela banned the sale of guns in 2012. It doesn’t look like it worked out so well, as murders rose for the next 5 years over the ban levels, until private gun ownership was made illegal altogether. Yet murder rates in Venezuela still appear to be more than 5 times ours.

            Let’s look at it from Trudeau’s proposal. Start with banning the sale of guns. What do you think will happen? I think law abiding citizens will follow the law and not sell their weapons. Criminals will steal theirs. They will make criminals out of some people wanting only to protect themselves and their families from crime by not giving a legal access to guns. Smugglers will bring them in across the border and sell them to other criminals on the black market. If we can’t stop drugs and people from coming into this country across the border illegally, what makes people think you can stop guns. It will simply drive what was once legitimate gun sales into the black market and create another lucrative criminal industry. Will murder rates do down…. Don’t see it making a significant difference in the overall murder rate and could go either way. I do see legal ownership going down as younger adults will not be able to attain weapons, I think illegal ownership will go up. Reported ownership will go down.

            We’ll see how this plays out in Canada. You can rest assured the anti-gun media will spin it like a top no matter what happens. The sign that it’s not going well will be the need to buy back or ban private gun ownership altogether, as that is usually the next step in a totalitarian regime. Considering the moves earlier this year with the truckers, I’d say Trudeau is following the playbook. We are not far behind in moving towards totalitarianism.

        • Thank you for clarifying that, unfortunately people don’t seem to want to look into these other countries and realize truthfully what they’re actually like. Guns have never been the problem, the health of our country always reflects the health of our families and homes. The true problem with our country is our families and homes. It is a SIN problem.

  4. In this country dating back a long time, we have had mental, cultural, spiritual, social issues, you name it; just like all other countries around the globe. Yet in this country we flood our communities with guns, deliberately and aggressively and then … actually debate the root cause of why we have a proliferation of mass gun violence here in this country.

    And we will also debate the solutions too, as if that will prevent or deter someone from gaining access to high capacity magazines and using a semi-automatic firearm in the public space illegally. Yes there’s an added common denominator here, denial and stupidity by elected officials who don’t care and those that elect them.

    • Doon, as to proliferation, Biden has been the best gun salesman to date. The democratic debates and his talk of gun control then set record sales in 2000. 2021 after taking office has been another banner year for gun sales. Of course, the defund the police movement also contributes the people’s desire (and right) to protect themselves in self-defense.

      It would seem that one party is bent on disarming its constituents. When this country sought independence, it’s founding fathers understood the need for its citizens to be armed to stop a tyrannical government and wrote that into their constitution. Our forefathers feared a large over-reaching federal government that becomes tyrannical. Perhaps this tells of the real desires of the party seeking disarmament.

      In lieu of that rather than focusing on why someone wants to harm others (especially innocent children), they have focused on the weapons itself. Trying to ban everything from caliber size, silencers, high capacity magazines, the mere look of the weapon, if it has a pistol grip and so forth, adapting it to the tragedy de jour. It wasn’t until FDR that the first gun control legislation came to be.

      The faithful drones mouth the talking points and vocabulary of the party publicists from their party media outlet propaganda machines.

      How soon the public forgets the deadliest school shooting was at Virginia Tech, by a lone gun man using a .22 caliber Walther, and 9mm Glock, and neither had a “high capacity” magazine. I believe there was 33 who died and 26 that were wounded in that attack in 2007.

      And across our southern border, drugs pour into this country with economic refugees through the open borders this administration permits. With over 100,000 overdose deaths in the last year (over 2x the number of gun related deaths including suicide), and drugs destroying the family units we do nothing. Never mind taking care of the citizens we have, the homeless vets, and the hordes of mentally ill in the homeless encampments in California.

      If the shooter in Texas had a stable home life with a mother that wasn’t a drug addict, would that have made any difference? How do we recognize these needing help so badly, and what can we do to prevent them from doing such evil are what we should be debating.

      • When this country sought independence (To Sir), its founding fathers understood too that within their midst were many Loyalists to the Crown. Many of these Loyalists took up arms and formed brigades to fight against their own fellow countrymen. Yes, our forefathers understood a lot, but they did not perceive of today’s weaponry used commonly against their countrymen or … the fact that we ask our women to go into battle for us. Yep, they’re spinning around in their graves knowing how things have evolved with the 2A.

        • “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

          You are right, with the size and scope of our standing army, our forefathers must be spinning in their graves.

          • In terms of political theory, as you may or may not know is that Noah Webster de-emphasized virtue (a core value of republicanism) and emphasized widespread ownership of property (a key element of Federalism). While studying at Yale rather than fighting against the British, he later defended the commerce treaty between the US and Britain after the war. As a result, he was repeatedly denounced by the Jeffersonian Republicans for some of his political writings as “a pusillanimous, half-begotten, self-dubbed patriot”, “an incurable lunatic”, and “a deceitful newsmonger” … among other things.

  5. I have been doing my best to follow the conversation from the start. But my thoughts just keep returning to: Eva, Irma, Uziyah, Xavier, Eliahna, Jose, Jailah, Layla, Jayce, Amerie, Alithia, Tess, Alexandria, Makenna, Nevaeh, Eliahna, Rojelio, Maite, Jacklyn, Maranda, Annabell (please forgive me for any spelling inaccuracies).

    How can we figuratively stand in the midst of this carnage (yet again) and argue that nothing can be done (yet again)? How do we tell the unconsolable families “Just evil in the hearts of man. Not a thing we can do.”?

    In this horrific moment, can we come together and assure them that we will at least try? That changes will be made to tighten gun restrictions; to fund mental health care; to demand accountability for securing firearms…
    even if you don’t think these suggestions will succeed, we owe it to the Innocents Lost to give them a try until we find a better solution.

    To banter excuses over what is left of their bodies is unworthy of them (or us).

  6. I like a good debate, but some on this thread don’t have an understanding or even a clear definition of morals – and then good luck trying to position it alongside of ethics in a discussion. Staying on point is another challenge through its 45+ comments so far.

    But make no mistake for those that support military style assault rifles, that when used maliciously against others, especially defenseless little kids, it renders its multi-shot victims beyond any clear physical recognition. DNA therefore must be used to identify them. And sadly, many across this country and within our communities do not see this as a very serious public safety concern regardless of their own morals or ethical standards.

    • Doon, so tell me would it be any less devastating had this terrorist used a 12-gauge pump at close range, to rob these children of their lives instead? Would their parents be any more able to identify their children robbed of a lifetime? Perhaps if left with only Browning 30.06’s semi’s the left could sleep at night that the boogie man wouldn’t appear with a “military style assault rifle” and this would have magically prevented the massacre at Uvalde.

      What I see as a SERIOUS public safety concern is that recognized mentally unstable people are not treated for their conditions. It’s too bad the left is fixated on the appearance of a weapon rather than the mental stability of the operator. The unstable family life that these psychopaths are raised in. It seems like time and time again these psychopaths have been previously flagged and released.

      • TSWL, isn’t funny how just recently the Texas Governor slashed $211 million from a department budget that oversees mental health illnesses in the state. Gee, it doesn’t seem like he’s addressing mental illness like you think they should. Why is it that “these psychopaths have been previously flagged and released”? Why aren’t there systems to handle the mentally ill in the way you find acceptable and then do so without violating their rights and without taxpayer funding? Tell us all how you want to make that happen?

        • DH, Funny how your source failed to mention that the $211 million was not a net loss to the agency, was replaced by federal Covid 19 funds, so there actually wasn’t a budget cut. But Beto’s buds in the liberal media have misled you again. Try googling “Governor Abbott, HHSC Announce $210 Million In Federal Emergency Funding For Behavioral Health Services”. BTW, the transferred money went to fund additional Boarder security do due the border crisis Biden created when he invited south and central america to come on in.

          As for what this kid needed, his grandparents knew he was troubled but probably lacked the resources to get him counseling. Friends and family noted he had a y propensity to torture animals. PETA noted that the Buffalo shooter also had a history of violence towards animals. The Parkland shooter used his neighbors chicken’s for target practice. The Michigan school shooter took a baby birds head in a jar and left it in the school bathroom. I think it’s important to try and fund help for these kids in terms of counselling because they obviously exhibited signs before they hurt others.

    • BTW, you seem to insinuate this crime was committed with a rifle with functionality of the military standard issue rifle like the M16. The public can not buy or own an M16 manufactured after 1986, and one built prior requires a FFL 03 (collectors) license, and it takes a year or more to be granted this type of license after applying. But what is sold to the public and was used by this lunatic is NOT a military style assault rifle, but a handicapped look-a-like that does not permit critical features like automatic or burst mode (multi-shot) fire found in a modern military assault rifles. But they look just as formidable, and are capable of striking fear into the hearts of all liberals, media, and gullible viewers by mere mention and many believe they are the same as what a soldier uses because they look like one. Imagine the Thompson machine gun from the 20’s gangster movies if they had to pull the trigger for each bullet fired, rather than the machine gun fire. That is the difference between a M16 and an AR-15.

  7. STF – “You have skirted the logical consequences of all of your arguments when they are applied to other activities.”

    Let’s start with one. Are you referring to legislating morality? What I mean when I say that is, we can put all the laws in place that we can dream up – and we should have good, reasonable laws in place, but you can’t force people to follow them. I never said we shouldn’t have them in the first place. I agree with sensible law and I agree with enforcing sensible laws.

    Let’s pick apart one claim I’ve made that bothers you, and we’ll sort it out and have a civil discussion. Maybe we will learn something from each other in a friendly dialogue.

    • As you wish Wing. You repeat that morality cannot be legislated, and thus most hurdles to acquiring and using guns are a fool’s errand. You equivocate on traffic laws. Although most drivers try to be safe, you don’t object to scores of laws regulating who can drive or what rules must be followed by all drivers even if this places unnecessary burdens on the majority of lawful and courteous drivers.

      You completely ignore your repeated warning that morality cannot be legislated when it comes to reproductive rights. Since this offends your morality, you are willing to legislate almost any and every impediment to a woman’s right to control her own body. You reason that protecting a prospective person trumps any inconvenience to a pregnant woman, and you are willing to legislate those inconveniences.

      Others see protecting children against gun violence (the leading cause of children’s deaths in 2020 in the United States) as an imperative that easily trumps citizens’ weapon rights. These people are very willing to legislate significant barriers to acquiring and maintaining firearms and see inconveniences as hardly consequential.

      You can’t “win” this debate by offering inconsistent arguments. Be honest enough to state that your personal views inform your predilections of which morality you want to see legislated. You will have the advantage of integrity, a rare characteristic of policy debaters in our polarized country.

      • If protecting children [at school] was a true concern and not a political tool to disarm the population, we would not have a “GUN FREE ZONE” sign in front of every school with no full time armed protection to guarantee their safety. You are rolling out a red carpet for every would be terrorist.

        Instead, you limit attempt to limit the scope of your concerns to only one form of attack as if it were the ONLY means in which to harm these children. It is not the gun that attacks children, it is the warped mind holding it and using it against them. But by deliberately focusing only on a gun, you show your hand that it is not the children that are your concern, but disarming the public, and you are just using the dead bodies of children as heartstrings to support a political agenda.

        If a gun were to be unavailable, another form would be used instead by these sick individuals. These aren’t accidently, sporadic or unplanned events. They have been considered, planned and executed. The shooter doesn’t wake up and goes “oh, look a gun, let me go shoot up a school”. This kid worked for 4 months to earn enough money to go buy his arms. He bought enough ammunition to arm a platoon. When he got enough he quit his job two week earlier. He wanted to inflict terror and get his 10 minutes (or more) of infamy by doing the worse think he could do — shoot up a school.’ If he lived where guns weren’t available, do you think he wouldn’t have considered another means to achieve these same goals?

        Lets not forget about the 86 that died in Nice in 2016 by the vehicle attack. After the terror attack at the Christmas parade in Wisconsin, using the logic of gun control minion, there should be federal background checks on drivers and we shouldn’t let convicted felons drive. The general public shouldn’t be allowed to own SUV’s because they are more capable of inflicting more harm than if they had a compact. SUV’s would only be left to law enforcement, the military, and the elite by their personal body guards/drivers. You shouldn’t be allowed more than a few gallons of gas as high capacity fuel tanks would need to be restricted, and might be used as an explosive weapon. (high cap magazines) Electric cars wouldn’t be allowed as they are too quiet, and unsuspecting targets might not hear them coming. (Silencer ban). These to me are all just as ridiculous as you trying to compare an explicit constitutional right, to driving laws.

        • Even though it is very sad when mad men shoot up schools, it is very rare population wide. I am much more concerned about gun deaths to children that result from irresponsible owners, often relatives. Any gun owner whose gun kills a child, accidentally or not, should be criminally prosecuted for child endangerment.

          As for other methods for mass execution, I’ll take the less lethal methods because it gives children and adults a better chance of avoidance and survival. As far as draconian prohibitions on cars, I agree that there are common sense limits on how many regulations are reasonable. I’d be happy if gun regulations were somewhere in the neighborhood of our current auto and driving regulations.

          And our major disagreement will not be resolved. I am much more fearful of an armed citizenry than of the government. The violence at the BLM protests and the January 6, 2021 attempted coup d’état have cemented my distrust of armed rebellion from both sides of the political divide.

          • NPR had an enlightening article dealing with child gun deaths being the leading cause of death in children (which they defined as being <20). There were 4,368 firearm fatalities in "children" under 20. After further research on the CDC website, Of the 4368 there were 149 (90 white, 53 black, 6 other) were unintentional. I will agree the gun owner should be responsible for securing the firearm and should be held responsible in these cases where reasonable care was not taken. More than half of the unintentional victims were teens.

            1293 (1030 white, 181 black, 38 Native American, 44 Asians) were suicides with all but 11 of them being teens.

            25 were due to "legal involvement" l (14 white, 10 black, 1 other)

            This leaves 2580 as homicides (828 white, 1701 black, 31 Native American, 20 Asian and 51 else) (2262 Male, 318 Female) and (512 Hispanic all races). While we've heard that the police represent a clear and present danger to people of color. Instead of defunding the police, the black community should be demanding better protection from the police. And police departments should be working closer with black communities to foster safer neighborhoods for these kids to grow up in. For me it is heartbreaking to hear the death tolls from our inner cities. So who is shooting our young black males? And why isn't this major news? Why the cover-up by the media? These are kids. It is these numbers that BLM should be rioting about, and I would join their cause.

            As to regulations for guns and cars: You have to have a background check to buy a gun, you don't even have to have a license to buy a car.

            I'm not opposed to having to take a gun law/safety course to operate a gun and think this is a really good thing and encourage all gun owners to do this. Nor would I be opposed to proper operating tests.

            Contrary to the assertions, there ARE gun operating laws. If you draw you weapon on someone outside of self defense you are likely going to be charged with assault. There are MANY laws and regulations on where you can and can not discharge a weapon. And of course as with a car if someone is injured or dies, you can be charged with various crimes.

            So where do you see the large disparity?

            As a matter of fact, most gun laws are tougher than driving in where you can or can not go with your gun vs where you can go with your car. By the way, a car does not require a license to operate on your own private property.

            While gun liability insurance isn't required, most people are covered by their homeowner policies. I also recommend looking into additional coverage just in case you ever have to use your weapon to cover legal expenses.

            I'm still laughing to hard about the alleged coup d'etat to respond to that. maybe later.

            I rechecked the numbers, and if we remove the voting age children the total number of gun related fatalities, drops to 2102 vs 2462 traffic related fatalities for the same age group. I have to wonder if the researchers stretched the definition of child to include 18 and 19 year olds in order to make gun fatalities the "leading cause" of death in children to advance their political agenda.

          • TSWL – Thank you for your response and researching the CDC statistics. Even though we are not in concert on some of the salient issues, I appreciate that you bothered to offer a reasoned response instead of an emotional one. This is a recipe for civil discourse rather than one-upmanship.

            Since I am a pragmatist and have children frequenting my house, I will eschew any gun’s presence, especially a handgun. For the purchaser of a handgun who does not use it for sport (e.g., gun range, etc.), the statistical probability that this purchaser will accrue beneficence from the discharge of that handgun is extremely low. The chances of it being used for suicide, stolen, accidentally or impulsively discharged, mishandled by a child, waved recklessly, etc. far outdistance the likelihood that it will defend the owner from harm.

            A pragmatist will look at this reality and factor it into the decision to purchase a handgun. An ideologue will discount this low probability, convince him/herself that the statistics are not applicable, and “buy the lottery ticket.” I’m not suggesting that it is wrong or illegal, merely that factual arguments carry little weight for ideologues.

            As for the attempted coup d’état, that was the crystalizing moment for me to recognize how fanatical right wing gun owners would gladly overthrow our republic and turn us into a banana republic with an authoritarian dictator. I am just as concerned that left wing anarchists would gladly overthrow our republic and replicate the French Revolution.

            For me, the fewer guns the better. I don’t expect that reality, but I can dream, can’t I?

        • Someone doesn’t understand the difference of lethality. Gee, I wonder why the choice of weapon in these tragedies is a gun? Based on your words, one would think cars, or SUV’s, or knives, or shovels would be the first choice in committing mass murder. Gosh, have you let police forces in on your little secret? What about our armed forces? I think you’re doing a disservice to our country by withholding this information. Golly, our soldiers and our police forces should have been using baseball bats all this time. I mean, even a caveman knows that.

          • DH, To better answer your question as to weapons of choice, you have to ask what is the goal. Why would someone want to murder innocent children? To that we may never know, but I suspect they are seeking revenge for some wrong they felt they have been done.

            If you ask the military their weapon of choice, to stop an army the choice is artillery or explosive, and firearms are saved to finish the job or take prisoners.

            As for a terrorist, you need to look to their goal. If the terrorist goal is to make a statement and kill as many as possible, then you will see things like 9/11 or the Oklahoma bombing. With school shootings, I suspect the goal is to seek revenge. If the perpetrator wants to see the terror in the victims eyes I suspect they would use a gun or a knife. I suspect bullying may have been a factor in those same school especially when the victims are young children and not their current peers. None the less, in my opinion reducing the carnage isn’t as paramount an issue as trying to eliminate the threat all together. We shouldn’t settle for fewer killed or wounded, but avoid the shooting altogether.

          • TSWL, “We shouldn’t settle for fewer killed or wounded, but avoid the shooting altogether.”

            If there was no gun, there wouldn’t be a shooting. You need a gun to have a shooting. Violence by baseball bat is not a shooting. Violence by auto is not a shooting. Violence by knife, fertilizer, broom, bomb, shovel, is not a shooting.

          • DH, “If there was no gun, there wouldn’t be a shooting” and in the same light, if we closed the school there would be no more school shootings. Neither are realistic.

            As it would seem, I seemed to have missed one of the worst school massacres, which was the Bath School Massacre in Michigan 1927.

          • No one is suggesting closing the school and there doesn’t have to be a school in order to have a shooting. Further, the Bath School Massacre was not a shooting. Your continued attempt to minimize gun violence is evident through every comment you make. You just can’t address the questions asked of you without moving the subject in a different direction. I noticed your comment to STF, in regard to CDC statistics. Again, you made an attempt to minimize death numbers by removing those that are voting age and then made a snarky comment about it. Why? Are those deaths you discounted not worth anything? And what about those children that did not die, but were injured by gun violence? What about those children? What about the approximately 3 million kids that are exposed to gun violence every year – either to themselves or as a witness? Let’s move even further and include young adults, middle age adults, geriatrics – everyone? Why don’t you come back to us and tell us about those deaths, about those injuries, about those exposures? Are all those lives, all those injuries and all those exposures to gun violence worth it so that you can keep your gun? Is your gun more important than a life – let alone multi-thousands of lives taken each year? The first thing people like you and t_w_t do when anyone talks about reform is to blame everything but the gun. You go round and round, making excuses, making up stories of justification, and accusing others with opposing views as “emotional”. The only person you’re fooling is yourself. You’re a fake and a fraud.

          • DH – “No one is suggesting closing the school and there doesn’t have to be a school in order to have a shooting.” It’s your logic. “No guns no shootings.” So, no schools no school shootings. Both statements are equally ridiculous and without meaning.
            DH – “Further, the Bath School Massacre was not a shooting.” – Exactly, a massacre can occur with or without a gun. While you say “No guns no shootings” does not say “no guns no killings” What I am saying is if stop the killer you stop the killing.

            DH – Your continued attempt to minimize gun violence is evident through every comment you make.”
            Actually you are the one actually minimizing murder, taking away the guns does not stop a murderer from killing people. Taking away a gun does not stop someone from harming another person. This is what Ken was trying to address in his letter. You fix the person, not the gun.
            “You just can’t address the questions asked of you without moving the subject in a different direction.” You are the one trying to change the scope to suite your solution.

            “I noticed your comment to STF, in regard to CDC statistics. Again, you made an attempt to minimize death numbers by removing those that are voting age and then made a snarky comment about it. Why?”

            A statement was made earlier that [gun deaths] were the leading cause of death in children in 2020. This is a false statement. I showed that the study that this was based on had to include 18 and 19 year olds as children in order to make the number of gun deaths to exceed the number of traffic fatalities. The “snarky” comment was directed at the misleading headline/researcher being misleading and likely biased. This is called “Cherry Picking”, which is deliberately picking a data set that will achieve a desired result or conclusion, hoping nobody notices that he manipulated the data to achieve those results. The person that used the headline I feel was misled as the headline writer/researcher intended and I do not believe the commenter was not trying to pass on bad information, and is deserving of my respect so I afforded them some berth. Even though I do not agree with you I still respect your opinion and do give your statements consideration. I’ve tried to point out where we differ, and have tried to make the point to you that a person wanting to harm someone will do so using whatever means are available that give them an advantage. To stop the carnage, we need to stop the individual.

            DH – “Are those deaths you discounted not worth anything?” They are just as tragic, and is why I left them in the breakdowns.

            Even though they are not considered children, they have yet to truly embrace life.

            DH– “And what about those children that did not die, but were injured by gun violence? What about those children? What about the approximately 3 million kids that are exposed to gun violence every year – either to themselves or as a witness? Let’s move even further and include young adults, middle age adults, geriatrics – everyone? Why don’t you come back to us and tell us about those deaths, about those injuries, about those exposures? Are all those lives, all those injuries and all those exposures to gun violence worth it so that you can keep your gun? Is your gun more important than a life – let alone multi-thousands of lives taken each year? “

            Why is it just gun violence that you see, and why do you believe it is any less tragic than being killed by being blugened, stabbed, poisoned or any other violent means? The gun doesn’t put the violent feelings into these people minds, it is not going to stop simply by taking away a way of hurting someone. By removing people’s access to guns, you remove the ability of weaker people from defending themselves. A gun levels the playing field. It’s not the gun that people need to stop, its he person trying to harm others. The gun gives a weaker person a better chance of stopping someone from harming them.

            DH – “The first thing people like you and t_w_t do when anyone talks about reform is to blame everything but the gun. You go round and round, making excuses, making up stories of justification, and accusing others with opposing views as “emotional”. The only person you’re fooling is yourself. You’re a fake and a fraud.”

            Using the deaths of innocent children as political fodder in order to promote ineffective gun measures are “emotional pleas”. Feel good laws gave us the “gun free zone”. How many shootings do you think they have prevented in the last 30 years? How many do I think they encouraged? A few. but its a rhetorical question.

  8. DH – where is my Fauci statement incorrect? Fact is he did fund gain-of-function research in that very lab where Coronavirus came from. So how is that statement inaccurate? And you cannot legislate or pass laws to force people to be moral? Care to argue that one? People have to choose to be moral. Murder is illegal, yet a law against it doesn’t stop immoral people from committing it. Maybe you just aren’t understanding and I need to mansplain to you? And I’m not happy with mass shootings. But you and I disagree on what to do about them. I say allow teachers to be armed. I say improve school security instead of wasting money on PBS and the Kennedy Center for Performing Arts. I say hire armed vets to patrol schools during school hours. Knowing a plain-clothes vet with firearm training is roaming the halls will deter someone more than a law that makes guns illegal. Your reasoning is flawed, illogical and has good intentions but won’t deliver results because only the moral will follow th gun control laws. Criminals will go buy one illegally, you dolt. And the only ones punished are the law-abiding citizens.

    • Your solution is more guns and put them in the hands of teachers. Hmmmm, can’t say I’m surprised with your response.

      Did you see the recent article that mentioned car break-ins? It happens all the time. People leave their purse and valuables in plain site which prompts thieves to bust open windows or in many case, simply open an unlocked door. You know what else they steal? Guns. Unsecured guns and now criminals have them. You know, law abiding citizens with guns that aren’t responsible enough to secure them. Now, imagine teachers having a lapse of judgement and having their loaded weapon falling into the wrong hands in the classroom. That would be interesting. Teachers have enough things to worry about and now you want them to handle weapons around kids. What makes you think they would even want to carry a gun in the classroom? What makes you think it would even be effective? Too many variables to just be spit-balling their effectiveness.

      PTC police beg citizens not to leave guns in their vehicles or unsecured in their homes. People don’t listen and still do it all the time. More stolen guns on the street. Guns are the common denominator in all shootings.

      • DH – I don’t think all teachers should have guns. But responsible ones with proper training should not be stopped from having them in lock boxes in the classroom. But I don’t think that’s a “one size fits all” solution. I do like the idea of hiring retired service members to patrol halls, while armed, as well. Also hardening the access points to schools.

        You’re correct – guns are involved in all shootings. So what is the solution you’re proposing? Is it to get rid of all the guns? Guns are also involved in 100% of the cases where law enforcement or an armed citizen shoots and kills the perpetrator.
        Guns are also involved in home defense cases where a weaker, older victim neutralizes the perpetrator. Do we get rid of all guns?

        Cars are involved in 100% of fatal car accidents, and more people are killed in car accidents than in mass shootings. Alcohol is involved in 100% of all DUI cases, are you wanting to ban alcohol also? It’s not possible to paint everything with a broad brush like that.

        • It’s quite obvious that you’re not paying attention to anything I’ve written. I’ll reiterate – stronger gun regulations, semi and autos gone. Reduction of guns – not a ban. Certainly not introducing more. It should be difficult to get guns – not easy. Obviously, with the amount of stolen guns out there and the high chance that guns will be stolen, not much will change right away – but it’s a step in the right direction and it shows a willingness by all to do something about the problem. Secure the schools. Take mental health services seriously. Address the social media problem and identify those that have potential to be a problem. Address the social issues of family and society. As well, we need to offer thoughts and prayers. That goes a long way in addressing the problem. All of these things need to be done at the same time. Even then it won’t prevent mass shootings or gun violence, but it will start to reduce it and reducing is all we can ask for at this time. Remember, all of the things I mentioned cost money (except thoughts and prayers – those are free) Money that many taxpayers will balk at. It’s got to be sold as a package for the betterment of society and our country.

          It doesn’t show a willingness to address the problem when gun supporters aren’t willing to compromise at all. When there is no compromise, that’s when you see the reaction you’re receiving.

          • DH – let’s make sure you understand terminology. Automatic weapons are almost impossible to get. Automatic weapons = one trigger pull, endless firing, ejecting, reloading, cocking. “Fully automatic” might be a term that is better describing of this. Fully automatic – good luck getting one.

            Semi-automatic refers to a similar weapon but where intentional trigger pulls are needed to fire a shot. Many hand guns fire, eject, reload, and cock all by themselves, so they’d be considered semi-automatic. AK47’s, AR15’s, AR22’s, etc. All semi-automatic.
            In some sense, an old S&W revolver could be semi-automatic, it prepares for the next round (although doesn’t eject the spent cartridge) by itself. So you want those banned too?

            We agree it should be difficult to get guns. I’m in favor of even a 30-day background check. Problem is – govt doesn’t do anything with excellence except fight wars when the politicians stay out of the way. So they’re going to miss things and not execute this background check correctly. Some private oversight would be necessary.

            I’d even say secure our borders to help…..as many drugs and illegals that are pouring over the borders…..why wouldn’t cheap Chinese firearms be coming across too?

            I think if you listen to most reasonable people on the right – not the fringe 10% extreme who’s as cuckoo as the fringe 10% on the left are – I think you’ll find most people want the same things. As the late great Charlie Daniels once said, “if you take away the guns from the criminals first, I’ll gladly GIVE you mine.” That’s impossible to do. So the people that want to arm themselves to protect innocent life, property, and rights are going to hang onto their guns in a defensive posture. It’s the criminals that use weapons in an offensive way…..that’s where the culture and upbringing come into play. The rise in gun crimes isn’t a result of more guns, it’s a result of our deteriorating culture that devalues life, that leads to mental illness, where fathers aren’t present in homes – leading to boys that grow up to be broken young men – especially in the black community. Try to find a movie that comes out that doesn’t depict an epic gunfight that shows no consequences to either the shooter or the victim. Video games are violent. Rap music…..do I even need to explain that. We have a culture problem, not a gun problem. The gun is the tool that the broken or angry or deranged use to vent their emotions. I think the pushback those on the “gun-control” side get from “gun nuts” is when you’re threatening to take away 2A rights without really addressing the issue and taking them away from the criminals.

            We all want these needless killings to stop. We just disagree with many of the left’s knee-jerk emotional responses that don’t address the root of the problem.

          • There’s really nothing else to go on about. You see it your way. I see it mine. You want more people to own and use guns. I want the opposite. You’re interested in more injuries and killings by guns. I want the opposite. You attempt to diminish my stance as one of emotion – a stance that doesn’t address the root of the problem. You diminish it because you don’t want to discuss gun regulation. In your mind there’s no room for negotiation. That says it all right there. When it comes down to it, you don’t really care one way or another about the problem. It’s just one of life’s messy, dark inconveniences that you’re willing to look past.

          • Dawn, I think we disagree on the problem. You see the gun as the problem, I see our human state of brokenness as the issue. You think the way to fewer deaths is fewer guns, and I think way to the same end is a cultural awakening, more dads present in homes, more soul-searching and more personal, responsibility.

          • Ya think?

            Human brokenness will be around until the end of time. I agree we should do everything we can to minimize it, but it will still exist. I’ve said that repeatedly. Humans are emotional driven. Someone can be fine today and snap tomorrow. Knowing that, should we make it easier for them to act on a destructive emotion with an easily accessible gun that has proven to be one of the preferred, ultimate weapons to take lives? I guess you think so. Compromise is key and you’ve shown no indication that you’re up for the challenge.

        • Tread lightly Wing – you have just been accused of being interested in more injuries and killings of your fellow humans. You could be determined to be spewing hate speech if that were true, and then it would be cancel time for you. That, of course, would be fitting for not discussing gun regulation properly.

          • DH can accuse me of anything they want to. I’d challenge him/her (sorry, those are my only pronouns I’m using) to back up this outlandish claim with facts. But that’s not what liberals typically do. I think DH’s heart is in the right place….I just think he/she thinks a simple “get rid of the guns” solution will be an answer. It won’t.

  9. WTF are you even on about?! Let me try to trace the “logic” of this letter …

    -Democrats want control.
    -Guns are the only thing keeping us free (from Democrat control?).
    -Mass shootings aren’t a “gun problem.”
    -Mass shootings are a parental problem.
    -Mass shootings are a problem of day care, public schools, and entertainment.
    -We know entertainment is to blame because commercials work.
    -God’s values have been pushed out of the classroom.
    -Enough is enough.

    This is a torturous route to saying, I think, “Do a better job rearing your children — teach them the 10 commandments and the Golden Rule, and voila, no more violence!”

    There is a more direct route to reducing violence which we can all get behind whether or not we believe in the 10 commandments and the golden rule, and whether or not parents, schools, and Hollywood start doing a better job raising America’s kids: we can ban assault rifles, require background checks, and require licenses for firearms just as we do for drivers. Enact those things, and you’ll have a much safer America than if you stand by and encourage parents to do better. Sheesh.

    If your guns are so important to you that you are willing to sacrifice kids to keep them, you are way beyond redemption by the 10 commandments and the golden rule.

    • That (“we can ban assault rifles, require background checks, and require licenses for firearms just as we do for drivers”) won’t do it, either. If one has ill intentions, one will get around the law. You may want to look at history before increasing legislation.

      • Sorry Jax, Doug is 100% correct. You cannot legislate morality. Those who have no intention of breaking the law will follow them. Those who are intent upon doing harm and evil to others will just find another tool to utilize. Also – requiring licenses like we do for drivers….good intentions but doesn’t get the result you want. How many illegals here in the USA have valid drivers licenses? Few do. How many criminals go through the hassle of getting a CCP before committing crimes? Zero. Laws are for rule-followers. The problem is people who don’t care about the laws.

        • Wow this thread went crazy! Just a note to those kind enough to answer my comment, as I cannot even with the rest of this stuff!

          1) As for “you cannot legislate morality.” Isn’t that what laws are? Legislating what someone thinks is best. If you believe you can’t register and license guns the way you do cars, then why do it for cars? Because some people drive without a license, does that mean all of us should just give up on trying to teach drivers ed and make people get licenses? That is silliness. Whenever you have a law you are legislating morality. I can think of few better morals to legislate than “children’s lives are worth more than my right to own an AR.”

          2) 77% of modern-day mass shootings have been committed with guns which were purchased legally. So saying that banning automatic weapons, requiring background checks, waiting periods, and licensing will just drive the desperate criminals to acquire their guns illegally seems like a big leap. The majority of these poor, disturbed shooters aren’t somehow finding illegal gun dealers and buying weapons on the sly. They’re purchasing them legally … and if that were a huge hassle, and if it were illegal to get an AR, that would at least put an impediment in their way. They’d have to figure some way to connect with illegal arms traders to get what they want — and by definition the illegal arms trade must be much smaller and harder to find than legal gun sales … so it seems worthwhile to make it that much harder and riskier for a disturbed person to get a gun.

          3) Somewhere up in this massive thread Suz reminded us of the names of the dead children, the latest school shooting victims in Texas since the last time TX Gov Abbot promised it wouldn’t happen again on his watch. Thanks, Suz, for saying their names. It’s more than Abbot or all the gun lovers on this thread will ever do.

          • Visionaryjax–
            And I appreciate all of your efforts.

            It is evident in your comments/responses that the tiny casualties have an advocate in you. Thank you for remembering them with dignity.

            And for realizing the price is simply too high to argue for the status quo on firearm ownership.

  10. I think ultimately if we’re not going to do anything about it, the media should just stop covering it. Post a list of names.

    Short of making schools almost exactly like prisons, or banning certain weapons/high capacity mags (obviously it wouldn’t get rid of all but the majority have used AR’s) I don’t think Americas going to make much progress on this front. You can’t watch people all the time.

    • “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

      The problem is, we are becoming less and less a “moral and religious people”. Unless we can return to being a religious (which gives us a guiding direction of right & wrong) and moral (if we uphold those values of right & wrong), then we are doomed. Democrats don’t seem to understand this at all. Many RINO’s I would say also don’t. Government regulation is NOT the solution. Self-regulation, in obedience to a higher power, is the answer.

    • Do you know what else is a common denominator? An idiot or idiots who make the choice to take out their anger in a horrible way and take human lives. That denominator is also the reason for the Wisconsin car massacre where a deranged black man drove through a mostly white parade crowd and killed multiple people. Should we take cars away to prevent this from happening again?

      • I like the driving analogy. We require all drivers to be licensed and undergo testing to ensure at least some minimal level of competence. We require automakers to equip their cars with significant safety devices and can easily sue the manufacturer for harm that could have been avoided if these safety devices were not installed properly. We also tax cars as property and require annual fees to maintain the license plates. Drivers who violate driving laws pay fines, can go to jail, and can permanently lose their privileges to drive. Law enforcement may stop a driver and deter him/her from operating a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe they are impaired or are acting in a dangerous manner. Drivers are required to carry liability insurance in case their vehicle harms someone. Drivers are not allowed to use enhanced features of their vehicles when these violate the traffic laws that everyone else must adhere to. These are just a few examples of how your analogy should be applied.

        Neither guns nor cars should be arbitrarily taken away from law-abiding citizens, but both should be regulated using common sense strategies.

        • You can pass all the well-intentioned laws, regulations, and taxes that you want…..the problem is – who’s going to follow them? Law-abiding citizens who don’t commit crimes. Criminals don’t care about any of that. Criminals skirt laws, they ignore regulations, and they don’t share common values. And there you have the root cause of all these shootings……a lack of common values and decency. Fix that – and gun violence will be greatly reduced.

          • Let’s follow your logic. Since some drivers will not follow the traffic laws and will be irresponsible, we should not regulate driving at all. We should merely recognize that good people will drive responsibly and that bad people will cause havoc.

            We should merely view the carnage and consequences of bad drivers as unavoidable and throw up our hands. I suppose we should also get better in sending our “thoughts and prayers” to the victims of traffic accidents.

            To fix vehicular misbehavior, we have to instill common values and decency.

          • Interesting how in today’s society we have become quick to cancel peddlers of misinformation, hate speech, use of the N-word, #metoo, threats of violence, etc. yet everyone seems to be giving a free pass to an industry that has actively promoted, and continue to promote gun violence and killing to the point of even glorifying the use of maximum lethal weapons. They should be at the top of the discussion.

          • the_wing_t, you made my point. This problem needs to be addressed from multiple angles and even then no one can guarantee there will be no more mass shootings. You just cannot plan for every single scenario, but you can reduce the odds. Ken Schaefer offers somewhat of a valid point, but by itself, it will not be enough. Stronger programs to address the mentally ill will help, but politicians and taxpayers alike don’t want to spend the money in that area. Stronger protocols for safety in schools will help, but again, you have a segment of the population that doesn’t want to pay for it. Stricter gun curtailment will also be a step in the right direction, but a segment of the population is fixated with the power to kill and just can’t give it up. There are many other areas that can and should be addressed (social media) but on their own, they won’t have much of an effect. It must be as a coordinated plan – together. Sadly, with the state of politics today, there’s no way we can count on our politicians. We also can’t trust each other to COMPROMISE. Everyone is too selfish for that.

            And to the people comparing guns to cars, knives, fertilizer, etc. Grow the eff up. As I said before, the common denominator here is guns. When you can sneak up on your prey and spray bullets all over the place, wounding or killing your target, in a matter of minutes – that’s where we are. It’s obvious that the whackos of the world prefer to use a gun, rather than a car, or a bomb, or a knife. Guns are glorified because gun owners feel empowered.

          • DH – you can’t legislate morality. That’s the issue. All your ideas are valid. But a criminal is going to figure out how to accomplish his plans, regardless of the tools available to them. You actually contradict yourself – the common denominator in all mass tragedy events is not guns and it’s not even the same kind of gun. It’s evil hearts in broken men. McVeigh didn’t use a gun in OKC. The 9/11 terrorists didn’t use guns to take down 4 planes. The Wisconsin black man / hate crime perpetrator used a car, not a gun, to mow down 6 and injure 62 other innocent white people. Fauci has helped kill millions around the world by funding Covid research, without a single bullet. The denominator is not guns, it’s evil in the hearts of men. Guns are just one of the many tools used. But guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens have been an effective deterrent. It’s not the gun, it’s the person holding the gun that matters.

          • STF – you cannot regulate morality. 99% of good drivers don’t need laws, they have common sense and decency and respect for their fellow man. The problem is the 1% who turn up their nose, think that laws don’t apply to them, and do whatever the truck they want to. Morality is the issue….not a lack of laws. Fix morality, and you won’t need laws.

            The problem is – humans have a hard time with following rules. Always have. Shoot, God through Moses made it easier and just came up with 10 laws, which the Israelites still couldn’t follow (and most of us still can’t today). So Jesus simplified it even further, “love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.” That’s the supreme law that we need to follow. But if we can’t follow those two basic guidelines, good luck getting people to follow rules on speeding, taxes, gun ownership, etc.

          • “Fauci has helped kill millions around the world…” That tells me all I need to know concerning your mental state of mind. You claim that we can’t legislate morality – yet that’s what are laws do! SMDH – what is going on in that noggin of yours?

            Guns are the common denominator. Guns are used most often in these tragedies. It’s clear you’re happy with the way things are with the “let’s move along – nothing to see here” attitude. I guess mass shootings are the price we all have to pay so gun nuts don’t have to deal with regulation.

          • Wing – Let’s be consistent and follow your logic. Since morality can’t be regulated by laws, why should conservatives force laws against abortion? Why should books be banned? Why should school boards prevent teaching the truth about race to public school children?

            You want all kinds of laws prohibiting things you don’t like, but none that address your own vices. Perhaps you might think a moment before typing another inconsistent argument.

    • Nice use of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy Jax. But why don’t you call it what it really is?

      terrorist attack – a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims

      act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act – the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

      coup de main, surprise attack – an attack without warning

      And instead focus on disarming law abiding citizen and prevent weaker individuals from protecting one’s own self and force them to rely upon a police state for protection. Of course, the liberal elite has their armed security details to protect them. A lot of good it did those poor kids in the classroom as they waited with the police outside their door for more than an hour to save them.

      Already it is illegal to shoot someone with a gun. Carry a gun onto campus. Use it in the commission of an assault. Or discharge his weapon in city limits. Maybe if we could magically make all guns disappear, we wouldn’t have to worry about this demented creature using a gun and hope this nut cake never thinks about driving his grandmother’s pickup truck into a school parade or blowing up the school with explosives. Naw, that would never happen. Wonder why he picked an elementary school? Could it be that it was a gun free zone? Naw, that wouldn’t be very sporting, would it?

      Do you honestly believe a person that could shoot his own grandmother in the face with a gun, wouldn’t bash it in with a baseball bat if that was all he had?

      These people are terrorists and psychopaths, and until we start treating them and the subject as such (and not as political fodder), this type of behavior is not going to stop.

      So exactly what is your panacea for this anyways? Lots of blame and lip service being paid here to “tougher gun laws.”

          • I’ll play along. List out the inconsistent arguments and I’ll mansplain them to you in simple terms, like the Democrats use with their voters.

          • Wing, I’m your huckleberry. Why do you and your ilk want laws to restrict abortion? I thought you couldn’t legislate morality?

            And no, we don’t need mansplaining from a mysogynistic slob such as yourself.

          • Sorry TSWL, the greater majority of Americans (Democrats as well) do not support killing full term babies. Democrats want Roe vs. Wade to be upheld.
            Some Democrat politicians have pushed no restriction abortions for political posturing/games knowing full well it would never come to light. I don’t agree with the political BS, especially because it gives Republicans and their propaganda machines fodder for rubes like you. They even have gone so far to claim that all Democrats want to be able to kill babies after birth and of course you fools lap it up like a dog drinking water. Sorry to burst your bubble.

          • Dawn,

            Tell that to Chuck and two worthless senators that claim to represent this state that voted for that exact measure instead of proposing something 70% of Americans could get behind. It’s people like yourself that support them, so give yourself a virtual gold star. And I’ll bet you bothered to write both of them and tell them you didn’t support the bill. Or would I be wrong about that too?

          • Dawn, I don’t have any ilk and I don’t claim to speak for anyone but myself. I belief in life. I belief that an innocent life should have the chance to grow and develop. I believe we are all entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The vast majority of abortions are for convenient birth control, which denies a living organism the chance to life. I think this is irresponsible and it’s a bandaid. I believe the choice that women have is the choice to have sex or not. If pregnancy results from that act, then I don’t think a person has the right to end that life that is growing inside of them. I’m sure you’re going to bring up abortion to save the life of the mother. I think abortion should be rare – and that’s one circumstance I can tolerate it, in cases of the mother’s health being in jepoardy, and also in cases of confirmed rape as long as it’s performed early on. A raped woman didn’t have a choice, and it’s an already traumatic situation, the woman should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy then.

            I think the issue is – when do you value life? Is life valuable only if it’s desired? Is life valued only when it’s a certain age of embryo, or a certain health level or sex? If you argue that babies can be aborted at “x” weeks because they’re not fully developed and cannot live on their own, then why would we fight to preserve the lives of people who have brain damage from vehicle accidents? You have to figure out where you stand and what you stand for, and then we can have a reasonable and logical discussion.

          • Dawn, can you even define mysogynistic? I know you can’t spell it. If you’re going to make a claim like that, please back it up with facts and not merely some emotional babble. If you’re referring to my “mansplain” comment, well then you just aren’t good at picking up sarcasm. :).

          • TSWL – Spare me the poutrage. I already told you that I don’t like it when politicians play political games – what more do you want? It’s a scummy way to work out problems and I don’t see it changing. If you think for one minute that Dems are the only ones that pull that BS, I don’t know what to tell you. You know exactly why you have two Democrats representing you in the Senate. It could have been so much different, but many Republican voters decided to listen to Daddy Trump and they stayed home instead of voting. That’s your leader. And tell me when you’ve condemned your MAGA representatives that do exactly the same by introducing or voting for legislation that only is good for appeasing the fringe? When have you written ol’ Turd Ferguson for rubber stamping everything Daddy Trump wanted? Most likely you wouldn’t have written a thing to him because you’re happy with whatever he does – and that says a lot about you.

          • Wing, with all those words, you still did not answer my question or even admit to your hypocrisy. I don’t really care for your reasons for or against abortion. That’s not the point. You specifically asked why we are accusing you of having inconsistent arguments. Why do you want to legislate morality in regards to abortion, but then turn right around and say we can’t legislate morality concerning gun regulations? Abortion kills a potential life. The purpose of guns is to kill lives. Tell us why you’re so concerned with the life of a fetus, but once they are born and spend time on this earth – you don’t want to protect that life? Are you saying that your guns are more important than someone’s life?
            As far as the word misogynistic, yes, I spelled it incorrectly in the comment and one minute later I corrected it in a follow up post. So what? I’m curious why you chastised me for misspelling it, when you did the same? And yes, I know what the definition is and I used it in the correct context. You know, there’s a dictionary that can give you the definition of the word if you’re having a hard time.

          • I was simply copying your misspelling, on purpose, to poke at you a little. Someone doesn’t seem to have any sense of humor. “Lighten up, Francis.”

            “…Tell us why you’re so concerned with the life of a fetus, but once they are born and spend time on this earth – you don’t want to protect that life? Are you saying that your guns are more important than someone’s life?….”
            So your claim here is that because I believe in the 2nd Amendment, then I don’t value human life? Is that what your claim is? You’d better come up with better reasoning and rationale to make such a ridiculous claim like that. Back up your claim with some details for me.

            Guns have many purposes: sport, protection, hunting, self-defense, and if your intentions are sinister or if you’re involved in war, their purpose is to kill. Should we take away all guns just because a tiny minority of people use them inappropriately? I guess that would probably fit your rationale, you’re likley one of those who celebrate that we have “pride month”, a stupid nonsensical recognition of a tiny fraction of our population.

          • It isn’t a ridiculous claim. I’m curious why you cannot directly answer the question in the way I asked it? Are your guns more important than others lives or not?

            Why have you still not addressed your inconsistent arguments? Why is it so hard for you to address your inconsistencies? Stop running around in circles and answer what has been asked.

        • Wing – first step is to add more laws restricting gun access. Your politicians will know best how to determine the what and how. The next steps your government will take will be in your best interest. Please trust them and know that they will not go too far, and who knows – maybe after a few years and the violent assaults have decreased dramatically they may ease some of the restrictions. And don’t forget, if you ever watch a movie or video game that depicts gun violence – oh, never mind.

          • Brewster – and we have 2 weeks to flatten the curve too……we’ve all heard the “I”m from the government, trust me” line one too many times….lol. Oh and by the way our planet is going to explode from heat in 12 years, isn’t that what Al Gore said in 1993? And again in 2001? And again in 2007? One of these times he may actually get it right.

          • Brewster, on your first step of more laws restricting gun access, would that be like the plethora of laws designed to curb access to drugs and narcotics? Seems Chicago has plenty of lows restricting gun access to guns, but something there is amiss. If this country can’t protect the borders from narcotics, what makes you think that they can control guns from coming across the border too?

            As for trusting a government, can you honestly say YOU TRUSTED TRUMP, and did every think in your power to support him? And I trust this administration even less.