The Myth of the Good Guy with a Gun: How I was Almost Curtis Reeves

FILED TO: Uncategorized

Curtis Reeves probably didn’t wake up that morning and decide to kill someone. He probably did all the mundane, banal things we all do: grab breakfast, read the news, made a couple of calls, and decided to catch a movie. I don’t know Curtis Reeves, but I almost ended a day the way he did. I’m not a monster, but if not for a slow power-window, I would’ve done something monstrous.

My father didn’t own a gun and neither did I until my early twenties. I wasn’t a gun nut, but I was passionately pro Second Amendment. Every “real” American was, or so I thought. It’s what made the United States special, unique. I could paraphrase historical platitudes from figures like Machiavelli who wrote “between an armed and an unarmed man no proportion holds.” I could expound on Jefferson’s Constitutional philosophy that the Second Amendment upheld the First. Basically, all those specious, seemingly valid but in reality shitastic points that are raised ad nauseum in the comments section every time Bob posts a piece calling for Gun Control, I used as my talking points. But being an intellectual gun enthusiast wasn’t enough. I wanted to practice what I preached. Rather than simply talk about the unassailable Constitutional right of gun ownership, I became a gun owner. My it was my first gun and only gun.

I still have it. It’s a Ruger P89 9mm. It’s the same series Antonio Banderas’s character used in Desperado. I purchased it, literally, over a kitchen table from my best friend’s dad. Fifty bucks and it was mine. No registration, nothing, because Tennessee state law didn’t require it. I wasn’t obligated to let the government know I had a pistol because my right to own it was practically biblical scripture divined by Saint Jefferson and sanctified by the hallowed blood of patriots. I’m an American and it’s my birthright. Or so I thought.

Besides, I wasn’t just any ignorant jackass who shouldn’t be handling a firearm. I’m a former US Marine. I carried the SMAW (Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon), was trained to use C-4 to make improvised explosives, and shot Rifle Expert. I’d been around guns for most of my life and treated them with the respect they deserved. Or so I thought.

The next step was to get my concealed carry permit. I looked into it, but scheduling the time to complete was always difficult. I wasn’t the best at follow through in those days. But while I couldn’t carry it in public, I started carrying it underneath the passenger seat. Someone told me I was allowed to carry it as long as there wasn’t a round in the chamber. This was in the days before Google, so I didn’t bother to research it. It was Tennessee, the “Real America”, and if I didn’t have to register it then it seemed reasonable that I could carry it in my personal vehicle. Besides, it’s pretty stupid to have a firearm and not have it on your person to protect yourself. Criminals aren’t going to wait for you to go home to fetch it. I learned to shoot in the Boy Scouts, and they also taught me their motto: Be Prepared. I was. Or so I thought.

I’d been driving with my pistol for a couple of months when my Curtis Reeves moment almost happened. It had been an exhausting day at a dead end job and I was driving home to a failing marriage. I was on I-26, heading through Johnson City, a stretch of road I’d been down a thousand times. On autopilot, lost in a fantasy where I was fighting monsters, doing good, or anything to distract me from my wretched life, I saw a car in my peripheral vision swerving rapidly toward my driver’s side door.

My reflexes kicked in and I jerked the wheel away from the oncoming impact toward the emergency lane. I’d managed to dodge away at the last second, but I’d overshot the lane, and I was heading right into the end of a guardrail on an overpass. I pumped the brakes to give me an extra second and darted back to the right lane. I figured a side swipe was better than head on collision. Fully alert, heart racing, white knuckled hands death gripping the steering wheel, I screamed out “Fuck!” Then the car made a beeline for me again.

I was scared and confused but completely in the present moment now. This time, I dodged out of the way without any problem. I looked over to see a white car with three teenage boys in it. All three were laughing hysterically at my plight. They swerved into me again, but this time I didn’t dodge away. Seeing I’d had enough of their game, they pulled up just inches from hitting my car. The one in the passenger seat flipped me off with both hands which earned him a hearty back slap from the boy in the backseat.

Fear and confusion turned to white hot rage in an instant. These little shit stains could’ve killed me, all for a laugh. I hated their very existence. I reached underneath my seat and grabbed my pistol. I used my knees to steady the steering wheel as I racked the slide back. The click-clack of the slide was satisfying. I was about to demonstrate a truism of life to these dumb fucks. I was about to become someone they’d very shortly regret fucking with.

The shock on the passenger’s face was apparent. He frantically gestured to the driver to speed up as my free hand reached for the button to roll down the window. I wanted clean shots to make every single round count and I damn sure wasn’t gonna blow out my window for these wastes of humanity. These little assholes had tried to kill me, put my life in danger, and did it as a prank. I’d show them just how fucking funny it was.

I’d been driving with my pistol for a couple of months when my Curtis Reeves moment almost happened.

The car took off, the driver flooring the accelerator seeing how much danger they were in, and I followed after them. I chased them down the interstate for about a half mile when the muted, dull throb in the back of head that was my conscious finally broke through and screamed “Calm the fuck down! This is insane!”

I slowed down, and what I’d done, what I was about to do, what I’d lived through started to hit me. I drove the rest of the way home in a daze with a sharp whine in my ears and an acute pain in my temples. After I pulled into my apartment complex, I took several deep breaths to steady myself before I walked inside the house to crack a beer.

Seeing I was drinking some alcohol, which I rarely did, keeping beer in the house for friends, combined with my obvious agitation, my wife knew something was up. After I’d told her what had happened, she insisted I keep the pistol at home. “What if you’d actually shot those boys?” she said. “You couldn’t live with yourself!” She hugged me and I shed a lot of tears of tension. I retrieved the pistol from my car and left it in the nightstand drawer.

I don’t carry a gun with me anymore. It has taken me years to transition from a rabidly pro-gun guy to a gun control advocate, but this incident was the catalyst.

I have little doubt that Curtis Reeves is wondering where everything went so horribly wrong. He’d gone out to see a movie, and in an instant he’d snatched a man’s life, and almost took another. The cliché is that it takes mental preparation to take a life. No, all it takes is a bit of anger. It doesn’t require any thought at all. We all have a trigger, a limit, and whatever it might be when it’s pulled, that’s it. For some of us it’s in those instances, we reach for the biggest stick we have. It could be a harsh word or a physical thing. Whatever it is, we want the impact to be devastating and there’s nothing more brutal than a bullet.

If it hadn’t been for a slow window, I wonder if I would’ve pulled the trigger. I was certainly angry enough. I could’ve justified to it myself saying those teenagers put me in danger. I’d come a hair’s breadth from a potentially fatal accident, but I hadn’t actually had one. Another few seconds I might’ve been a killer, or maybe I would’ve stopped myself. I can’t know for sure. I do know I might’ve ended all of our lives that night, and shattered families. Worlds would’ve burned away in a flash of anger.

That’s why I don’t carry gun. I considered myself one of the good guys. I was familiar with firearms, handled them properly and I wasn’t a criminal. It was for protection, and I was sure that I’d never use it unless absolutely necessary.

Firearms are too easy to use especially when you give yourself license, when you tell yourself you’re justified you have it. It’s your right after all. You’re not like everyone else, and I’m sure that’s exactly what Curtis Reeves, a retired police officer and firearms instructor thought. He was a good guy with a gun until he wasn’t.

Aurora, and Sandy Hook are shocking tragedies on a mind boggling scale, but they’re poor examples to advocate for gun control. James Eagan Holmes, and Adam Lanza can be dismissed as outliers, crazies that can’t be stopped no matter how much gun control we have. Even in my worst moments I can say without a doubt that I’d never walk into an elementary school with a loaded assault rifle and mass murder little children. It’s inconceivable, and utterly unconscionable. And I’m definitely not the same angry person I was back then.

But I was almost Curtis Reeves. If we want to get serious about gun control that’s where our focus should be. Because when you stop respecting the power of firearms, when you forget that in a moment of anger after a tub of popcorn has been dumped on your head you just might reach for it because you’re a “good guy” and therefore have the authority to use it. That’s when your world ends with a bang.


If you love what we do here at the Banter, please consider becoming a Banter Member and supporting independent media! Readers get access to the Magazine and unlimited monthly articles

  • le don


  • rocky sands

    I am glad i had a video to protect me after I had to pull my gun, funny how the bad guys will all attack you even after they have attacked each other, i was walking to the store when i walked up on a fight about to happen i had my Ipad so i started recording as the yelling and pushing became fighting, what i was able to see was a guy running around hitting girls in the head why they were trying to get one or two girls off of another girl . and after i seen them take one girl to the ground and continue to beat on her i went over to tape it, i knew if i touched or got involved the 5 to 6 guys standing there rooting them on would come after me and having a gun on me you are told to do what you can without hurting anyone, so a video is all i could do to help, well after a girl seen me taking a video she ran over and pulled her friend off the other girl and the girl was able to get up and get into her car with her friend and leave the area, as i thought that it was over and i started to back away the girl turned her attention to me and started yelling about me having a video camera and she was gonna take it, I was still backing away and told her that she cant have it . then as I looked away I seen a guy running at me and she also turned at me again and started running at me, as I looked behind them I seen 4 guys in all black start to follow them also . so I started to tell them to stop running at me and I started moving backwards faster to keep distance between us, after telling them 5 to 6 times yelling thinking that would be enough and I had 6 large grown people comming at me I had to go for my gun, It slowed them down as I only pointed into the sky . letting them see I had it, I then walked down the shopping center and went into a store and told a girl to call the cops that I had to pull a gun on attackers,I felt that I had to pull it after just watching them fighting and knowing how adrenaline works,after they stopped I seen a lady go to her car that was behind the girls that were attacked and yelled that she had he CCW also, I then told her if people are gonna attack her next to use it in the right way to protect herself so she didn’t pull a gun on me and so she would think first, I am so glad i had so much of that on video, funny how so many people tried to attack me for doing what’s right for the good guy and still so many turned on me, I’m sure it was a race thing or they all knew each other and were trying to protect the attackers but the cops looked at the video and what happen and said I did the right thing, It is to bad that my wife had to be there for it and so many kids were around & today I feel like even doing the right thing to help people being hurt still puts such a bad feeling and worry from my loved ones, there was other video taken also but by the time they all turned on me I didn’t see anything but me trying to get out of there. now I have to always watch my back why I am out, I am trying to move but can’t so I have to deal with trying to be a help and an angel for good people in a battle of mostly evil why do I feel so bad and when will it go away ? & where is my help now that I helped others ? & I pray that my wife will get over her fear and will not leave me in fear of herself and her kids and grandkids. If you were being attacked would you want someone to help you or just walk by ? I spend a lot of time thinking if I can or will have it in me to help again after all I just went through, from a guy with no place else to go .

  • H. Rosenfeldt

    The phrase “I’m a former US Marine” raises some serious red flags. There’s no such thing as a former Marine. The person who wrote this article is, gently put, a lying sack of shit for posing as a service member, active or retired.

    This article is entirely made-up. It’s not hard to make things up, but if you do it, make sure you get your details right.

  • Steven Padilla

    What this guy isnt saying is that a rational man made a rational decision.and even more, if this were to ever happen again he probably would be even more ready to make the same decision.but he could have very well had used his car to retaliate instead.if he was in his right mind to roll down his window, he was in his right mind to know that once you pull that trigger, your life changes forever.with respect, not that anyone cant lose control for a minute I thknk the real answer lies not in gun control but rather in how real violence is born as a result of child abuse.real evil is the offspring of people who were the victim of violent study anyone who ever killed, beat or molested another and you will find a former victim.this is the real crisis.

  • Matt Gospodinovich

    You obviously don’t have the mental capacity or stability to carry a gun safely. Murdering rowdy teens on the interstate is not what the second amendment is for. I carry a gun as a last resort when my life is threatened and I have no escape. You were just raging mad and almost murdered someone. You were not protecting yourself. This isn’t about gun rights its about your rage issues. Don’t confuse the two. At least you had enough sense to stop carrying it in your car. Just because you don’t know how to be responsible with a firearm doesn’t mean I don’t.

  • Superlative Critic

    Your focus is all wrong. Your focus is the same focus as gun prohibitionists: “so just ban it!”. People have a right to life – a right to self defense and a right to defend themselves in a way that they decide. However, once a person chooses a firearm, they should get mandatory training and education similar to a policeman who has to carry. The answer is the same answer to the homicide problem: education.

  • Artifex

    When you carry a gun, too many problems look like they can be solved with a bullet. Period.

  • Max Baucom

    I wouldn’t have viewed this guy as a Curtis Reeves. Curtis Reeves was in no danger and killed a man. This guy had a very good reason to be angry. I don’t think shooting them would be the right thing to do however, but this situation is much more understandable. You could shoot at the tires, or take down their license plate number and attempt to report it to the police. What those boys did is in no way acceptable, and they should be punished for their actions.

  • P Reed

    Must not be much of a marine to not handle that kind of stress… very poor. Display of the gun got you out of the situation, so in effect it possibly saved your life. Fearing what might have come next only signals weakness within yourself. Get a grip and lay off of everybody else’s rights!

  • recordguy_2000

    That was a great and powerful piece. Much food for thought. These three punks didn’t just flip him the bird and show him disrespect, they weren’t merely tailgating, they would have and could have caused a fatal accident. Bad day, bad job, marriage on the rocks, most people can feel the anger and hatred burning. The desire for retribution.

    And this essay points out another fact. The Batman movie killer and Sandy Hook were outliers. They had reached the point of being psychotic before the mass killings. Same with the Tucson airport massacre. And the man who shot up an island, I think it was Norway. Gun control won’t have any effect on these isolated atrocities.

    But the question remains, will it reduce the number of murders committed by thugs and gang members. I wish I could be more positive but I’m not. At this point, I favor the total ban of rapid-fire, quick reload assault weapons, guns that can fire hundreds of bullets in a couple of minutes. If not, the next Aurora or Sandy Hook might cause 100 deaths or more, not “a mere” 10 or 20.

    • Ferrumkit

      You seem reasonable, I’ll pose you a few questions on your suggestion of total bans.

      What do you define as ‘rapid-fire’?
      What do you define as ‘quick reload’?
      what do you measure to judge the speed of a trigger or rate of fire?

      Unfortunately, while meaning well, each of these answers will either end in poorly reached conclusions, or ineffective measures that only serve to affect the law-abiding citizenry.

      • recordguy_2000

        I think you’re just being, well let’s say, snarky. Obviously you know dam well what I mean by rapid-fire, quick reload.

        Now can you tell me this? Unless you’re surrounded by 100 or more thugs or gang members (which would never happen in real life unless you go into some parts of Detroit or Philly or Chicago and start shouting racial slurs at the top of your lungs), why would you ever need a firearm that could propel hundreds of bullets in a couple of minutes or less?

        • Ferrumkit

          I’m not intending to sound snarky, these are well intentioned questions towards misconceptions. Unfortunately because of advancement of technology you can’t reasonably undo the evolution of the devices.

          For a fast rate of fire, a seasoned shooter can put down many rounds accurately, for unseasoned/average shooters, more time is taken between shots to be on target. So that could only be remedied by legitimately removing the semi-automatic action as a whole, which would also effectively remove alot of sporting rifles that don’t get used in such fashions to begin with.

          The second is again, extremely subjective as even the old bolt action rifles have speed loaders known as stripper-clips, Revolvers have moon and half moon clips, and the most controversial is magazines, for the average user, it speeds up the process a few seconds, for a professional it’s a blink of an eye. So effectively going after reload speed or magazine size is also ineffective in that respect.

          Those mass shootings usually happen quickly and end quickly, normally ending before they have used much ammunition.

          PS: I do apologize if I do sound abrasive but I tend to be direct and logical.

          • recordguy_2000

            You obviously know far more about firearms and weaponry than I do. I’ll concede that. I cannot compete or counter your technical knowledge.

            Notwithstanding, I side more with Mr. Poag’s sentiments than yours.

            One final thought, there are more than two sides to the issue of gun control. There are at least a dozen sub-issues. And nothing can prevent a psycho from committing mass murder or a serial killer from committing 10, 20, 30, 50 murders over a lengthy period of time.

            Finally, I’ll say that my siding with forms of gun control, registration requirements, prohibiting “easy” purchases at shows or via mail order, etc. has absolutely nothing to do with weaponry in combat zones or use of the most rapid fire, assault weapons by elite law enforcement officers. As for your run of the mill cop, I feel there should be limits on the types of guns they can take home with them. Too many loose cannons masquerading as policemen (and soldiers).

          • Ferrumkit

            It’s understandable, it’s more that the people attempting to regulate the tool refuse to actually learn about how it functions. So for those like myself that are staunchly against regulation, it’s because the sheer ignorance of the item in question, it would be like telling a car savy person they need blinker fluid.

            The simple reason I cannot side with him is sheer reckless disregard while knowingly carrying a weapon without proper training nor knowledge of the laws surrounding it.

            Indeed it’s sadly a case where you cannot stop everyone from doing harm to others, it’s simply impossible without being able to literally see the exact future, but bear in mind some would have been kept in proper care facilities were they not all shut down on a premise of so called ‘oppression’. Not to say that all people were admitted properly, mind you.

            The various issues with ‘Gun-Control’ is that the most effective of them, only prevented under 2% of sales to restricted persons, so legal purchase isn’t effectively to blame. Purchases are shows, generally longarms [rifles/shotguns] Are rarely used in homicides, less than hands and feet by FBI statistics. Mail order can only be carried out by a recognized FFL dealer otherwise the purchase is illegal [Even private purchase through websites have to ship to an FFL dealer, not directly to homes, the postage and shipping systems are fairly strict on that] So called ‘assault weapons’ are all aesthetic features, some simply are ergonomic additions, again they fall under long arms, and are rarely used in crimes.

            A vast majority of homicides are done with handguns and those that are not gang related are rare [US homicide rate adjust for gangs puts us in line with all other first world countries, roughly 1.4 per 100k if memory serves me, oddly our violent crime rate is actually lower than many others] and many are a few shots, not full magazines as one may imagine.

            The only thing to honestly stop gun-crime, would be to magically remove all of them, somehow manage an immense border from illegal importation, and then hope that people don’t still murder with other tools, which for the UK and Australia, is the exact problem they face even today, and that’s with the benefit of island isolation. Their homicides remain relatively unchanged, except they can say ‘less gun-crime!’ while ignoring the other methods rising transversely to fill the gap.

          • recordguy_2000

            Exactly. Your points are well taken and your knowledge of statistics far surpasses mine. But some laws regarding regulation, restrictions and banning of certain types of weapons will not impinge upon our 2nd Amendment rights (as pertains to law abiding citizens not restricted from gun ownership) and just may save some lives of innocent victims. As I said, the only restrictions I am in favor of is the total ban of hi-cap, rapid reload, rapid fire guns – which are not likely to reduce the number of gang or drug related killings or armed robberies but just might make it more difficult for psychotics and lunatics to kill the most they can when they go off on a mass murder spree – shooting as fast and as many rounds as they can in as little time as they are able.

          • Ferrumkit

            I may have to point out an unfortunate truth, you are blanket targeting all firearms that aren’t bolt or lever action, and large capacity actually may have save more lives, as they are typically unreliable, many cause jamming issues [which is the case of the Aurora shooter], and they are clumsy and easy to see, but the end of the day is more relative to pointing at a magazine and claiming that it needs to be 1 bullet capacity to be safe, while criminals will simply ignore it, and continue to use the standard that originally came with it.

            For your benefit I’ll include a few examples of low capacity weapons that are used for Compacts.

            Many with large [.45- 9mm] caliber have 6 to 7 rounds and many smaller [.38 and below] reach up to 10. And then your standard revolvers are normally 5 or 6.

            As with the case involving Mr Reeves, you can see 1 is enough to cause a crime and a murder.

            It would be unreasonable to demand that everyone suddenly only carry a weapon with 1 round on account of the irresponsibility of the vast minority of offenders [the population of gun perpetrators is somewhere in about the .006% of the total populace, while there are about 45% of the populace legally owning and not committing crimes]

            I’m not going to insist you change your stance, but when you can, educate yourself on the tools being blamed for the actions of a man, and then you can make atleast more informed and collected thought, that in fact may lead to a productive idea, but unfortunately without basic understanding of a firearm it’s hard to explain the ineffectiveness of magazine restrictions or banning based on ergonomic equipment such as angled fore-grips.

            I don’t mean to insult you if you take it that way, but some things are hard to profess without familiarity with jargon, a simple mistake often stated is ‘clip’ instead of ‘magazine’. Understanding the difference between terms will often determine the depth of knowledge some carry on subjects.

            Again, I’m happy to have a clean open discussion rather than a heated emotional argument that often happens with hot button topics.

          • bob

            I appreciate your desire to decrease gun violence, but as Ferrmkit has pointed out, a significant portion of it is gang-related and unlikely to be affected by the ban you propose.

            As for mass shootings (especially the ones that are big enough to make headlines), they represent an incredibly small proportion of total gun deaths. You can target them, sure, but you won’t be making much of a difference, except for restricting people from owning weapons that are, by and large, used for hunting and sport.

            And although I hate to nitpick, you really do need to define what you mean by “hi-cap”, “rapid reload”, and “rapid fire”. If you google “rapid fire revolver”, you’ll find videos demonstrating that you can put six rounds of .357 (a pretty potent cartridge) downrange in 2-3 seconds. If you’re looking to ban “rapid fire” firearms, that includes essentially all handguns. If you’re looking to ban “rapid reload” firearms, that includes basically everything except for muzzleloaders. And if you’re going to tackle “hi-cap”, you first have to define what you mean by that, and then you have to explain how restricting magazines to whatever arbitrary number you choose will effect a change in gun violence.

          • recordguy_2000

            Your points are well taken. Don’t want to restrict ownership of guns used for hunting and sport. There are no easy solutions. I think most Americans are shocked by the infrequent but headline making mass murders committed by psychos. And appalled at innocent victims killed by stray bullets in drive-by shootings. Serial killers – gun control would have little or no affect. Their victims are murdered over time – months or years – and the gun usually isn’t the means used to kill. More often than not, they die by the knife or strangulation.

            As far as gang related killings, there isn’t, as far as I can tell, a whole lot of sympathy for the victims. “If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the fire”. That I think we can agree is a societal problem, not a gun control issue.

          • bob

            I do agree whole-heartedly that gang violence is a societal problem, and an incredibly sad one at that. I don’t know how we combat it, but as a medical provider, it saddens me to see people affected by it.

            As far as new legislation goes, I would urge you to be cautious even of things that shock most Americans. We are shocked by different headlines every week, and while some are undeniably more tragic than others, their shocking nature does not automatically mean that new legislation is the answer. If it were as simple as passing a new law, we wouldn’t continue to see the elderly humiliated by the TSA, or our text messages confiscated by the NSA, or terrorist bombings of public events. These are all events which generated shock, but to which there is no simple legislative solution.

          • recordguy_2000

            Bob, regarding your last post, I am in total agreement.

  • dbtheonly


    Not that you’ll ever see this among the 326 other comments; but your experience hits the ultimate fallacy of the “Good Guy with a Gun” argument.

    You’re a “Good Guy”. But even you can be pushed too far. It happened to you. It’s happened to me. It can happen to all our friends here. We all can get pushed beyond our limits of control.

    On the good side. I’ll bet it’s a cold day in hell before those kids pull that stupid stunt again. Cars kill people too. And, frankly, I don’t see a whole lot of difference between being reckless with a car & reckless with a gun.

    • Mister Xiado

      There’s a difference between shooting someone who is actively trying to run you down (shooting while driving is a big NO in most places regardless), and going after them when they give up. It’s the difference between self-defense and murder. But hey, I am not a lawyer, so anyone who wants to can try their luck in court.

      • dbtheonly

        I was not suggesting that Fred’s actions were justified. I doubt anyone here would assert that.

        I’ve never heard of laws restricting the use of firearms while driving. Can’t say I’ve ever looked for them though.

        I was pointing out that Fred’s story had a happy ending & as a “half-full” kind of guy; I was going to point that out.

        • Ferrumkit

          Unfortunately your statement is common to people arguing for so called ‘gun-control’. They don’t know the laws already in place for them, they don’t understand the mechanisms of the device itself, and the travesty is they don’t care-nor-bother to correct themselves on it.

          Hunters are very familiar with transporting any firearm. They need to be secured and unloaded, there are exclusions on a state-by-state basis, usually concerned with a CCW. So far all the author did was reinforce the status-quo of irresponsibility and sherping. His prior affiliation with the military has NO bearing on his ability to follow the law, except that apparently he can’t be bothered to follow it out of inconvenience.

          Also for a little fun-fact for you, discharge from a vehicle is also illegal.

          I’m glad you seem to be more open to hearing out the objection to the story than defending him as a victim of his own emotions.

    • bob

      He doesn’t really count as a “good guy” when he started breaking laws that he couldn’t be bothered to look up at the beginning of the story…

  • bbiemeret

    I would like to apologize to all the regular Banter readers, as well as Mr. Poag himself, for allowing myself to get bogged down in a futile argument with a couple of trolls on this thread, and allowing my frustration to degrade the quality and the tone of the commentary on this site, especially after Mr. Rudow’s recent glowing praise of our “impeccably high-minded comment section”.

    I’ve been reading both Bob Cesca’s site (I miss the old title God Damn Awesome Blog, GO!), and the Banter for quite a while, but commenting online is fairly new to me, as I see where comments sections usually end up, and I choose not to be a part of it. It’s because of the quality of the discourse here, that I felt it worthwhile to contribute. They was never that much trolling to be concerned with..

    However, as time has passed, and the Banter crew has grown to reach a larger audience, it seems to have also attracted a few more of the bridge dwellers. I guess it’s true that the better you’re doing, the more others try to knock you down.

    Anyway, It’s not like I’ve been reprimanded or anything, and I’m sure at lest a few of you can sympathize, I just wanted those who come here often to know that while I don’t expect to win Commenter Of The Week anytime soon, I also didn’t come here to fling verbal poo, and I’m a little ashamed at how quickly I let it escalate to that. In a weird way, I think I can relate to Mr. Poag’s feelings after he realized how close he came to doing something he’d regret later. He put the gun down, I didn’t, and I’m sorry. I’ll try to be more mature in the future.

    P.S. Keep doing what you guys are doing here. This is my favorite progressive site.

    • bob

      Thank you for taking the time to acknowledge that telling people you disagree with to “blow it out their collective asses”, calling bullshit, name-calling “sissy”, mocking your opponents for implied cowardice, calling “bullshit”, dropping f-bombs like they’re going out of style, and calling “dumbass”, “pussy”, and more “bullshit” (everything in quotes comes directly from you) is actually inappropriate.

      The encouraging thing for me is that, whenever I try to discuss the actual issue, you immediately focus in so hard (no pun intended) on male genitalia that anyone who disagrees with you isn’t well-endowed and people only carry weapons “cause [sic] it gives you bigger balls”. I don’t have to say anything about your views when that’s what you run home to.

      Oh, and contrary to your earlier comments, much of the above DOES, in fact, count as insults. In the future, an apology to the people you’ve said these things to (instead of to the article’s author) works better than just saying, “but none of that was an insult”.

      It’s been fun discussing the issue with you and seeing where your feelings and views really are. I wish you a safe journey next time you visit the UK, and I’m glad that you feel safe and free of surveillance there. I’ll be at home here in America, proudly using the rights that are given me.

      • Mister Xiado

        …and not being stabbed to death by chavs or being decapitated by the emergent replacement population of the United Kingdom while people just stand and stare.

  • Bea Logical

    Here is the single most telling graph of firearm statistics I’ve seen to date. It indicates that increased gun control efforts focusing on making it harder for people to get guns legally would affect maaaaaybe 12% of firearm crimes. Not exactly compelling data, guys.

  • bbiemeret

    These “an armed society is a polite society” fools can blow it out their collective asses. The Wild West was an “armed society”, and there wasn’t a damned thing polite about it. Fuck, why do you think it’s referred to as the “Wild” West?

    Those who don’t know their history are condemned to repeat it.

    • B.

      The “Wild West” had a lower murder rate than today as well. That all changed in 1920 with the Volstead Amendment. Crime and murder rates with firearms has since done nothing but climb.
      Why? Because the government created the environment for it, and since then, done everything in their power to keep it that way as an excuse to spend more money.

      • bbiemeret

        Actually, according to Adam Winkler, author of “Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America”, the low rate of gun violence in frontier towns like Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge City was due to their VERY STRICT gun control laws. Many of those towns allowed possession of guns at home for protection, but carrying them in town was illegal. There is even a photo from Dodge City, Kansas, circa 1878, depicting a sign at the edge of town that reads ” The carrying of firearms is strictly prohibited”. Even back then, people knew more guns lead to more gun violence.

        P.S. The Volstead Amendment concerned the prohibition of liquor, not guns. Do better research, we make short work of weak sauce around here.

        • Mister Xiado

          Right, and prohibition did nothing to increase violent crime and illegal gun ownership.

          • bbiemeret

            What does that have to do with gun violence in the Wild West? Try to keep up.

          • bob

            Come now, you’re being petty and snippy. He responded to your comment about the Volstead amendment and then you condescendingly told him to “keep up” and pretended like your post didn’t talk about what he was responding to.

        • bob

          You… haven’t heard of the mafia, have you?

          • bbiemeret

            See post above.

          • bob

            I did. That’s what I was replying to. You shot down B.’s reference to the Volstead Amendment, and I’m trying to discern whether you actually know the effects of said amendment. You don’t seem to, at least, not if you think it had nothing to do with illegal firearm proliferation.

        • B.

          The Volstead Act lead to the direct rise of organized crime in order to meet the demands for liquor. Organized crime increased the use of firearms in violent crimes associated with the smuggling of the liquor, the rise of speakeasies and unregulated gambling, etc. Another consequence of the Volstead Act was the rise of tobacco use across the nation – people will have their vices, and tobacco companies used the prohibition to push their product.
          Organized crime was not as large or widespread in the Old West from 1800 to early 1900s – the main period of the Western expansion. While some cities (just like today) had stricter gun control, overall the majority of the nation did not. Case in point – cannons, Gatling guns, and other traditional “modern” warfare weapons were available to anyone with the money. No background checks, no licenses or permits required, firearms could be bought in stores or even via mail order – yet the murder rate was very low.
          The government was less intrusive in our daily lives, and they did not allow just a few radicals with extremist ideas to push their agenda upon the entire populace – until Volstead, who was swayed by the leaders of the Temperance Movement.
          The violence in today’s larger cities are are a direct result of the organized crime created by the actions of that government. Current gun control is also a direct result of the problem the government
          Branching out from liquor to drugs, the government just switched lyrics to the same tune – the war on drugs which it started in 1914. At this point in time they are just using it as justification to keep the money train rolling – private corporations are making huge amounts of money from state and federal agencies on housing incarcerated criminals due to drug crimes. Because of their determination to “save” people, the government has created a monster that they cannot control now in the form or organized crime and gang violence.
          As for weak sauce, I’m sure you’re speaking from experience. I have my degree in history, my master’s thesis was on the rise of organized crime and the government’s role in it. Next time, keep snide comments to yourself. You might not be schooled as badly, especially when I was being civil even though I disagree with your ideologies.

          • Ferrumkit

            I’m and avid fan of history but my limits of other more pressing matters leave it a back-burner hobby, I didn’t fully realize the extent of damage Prohibition had caused to the nation at large, but if all those pieces fit, as you state, then indeed our trip to hell has been pave with good intentions.

    • Ferrumkit

      Contrary to popular belief, guns were very controlled in the west. Shootouts were uncommon. Robberies were even rarer. All the ‘wild west’ stuff you see is romanticized bologna.

      You could equate the myth of the ‘wild west’ to the myth of ‘Chewing gum stays in your stomach 7 years’ as in, bunk.

      Yes, early on, there was violence in spades, but as settlers moved in, it was uncommon for it to happen.

      So you tell -me- who doesn’t know their history.

      • bbiemeret

        Although you are correct about gun control in the frontier west, you kind of make my point for me. It was the areas that enacted strict gun control laws that saw a lower rate of gun violence. Before these towns were settled and laws took over, it was fairly brutal. Hence the strict gun laws.

        So yes, the “Wild” West wasn’t ALWAYS quite as wild as some believe, but it was wild before a civilized, unarmed society tamed it.

        • Ferrumkit

          Or you seem to ignore that the local sheriffs deputized local populace when necessary, and many had long guns for personal use that were not as subject to the strict controls as handguns were. And in many ways they also undermine your point as the criminals still largely had their weapons, only obliging at their personal whim, the only true escalation was the OK corral which was concerning gun control to begin with, and it was escalated greatly due to the complex relations with all parties involved.

          Yet such escalations rarely happened and most townships didn’t need the controls to begin with as ‘shootouts’ were not common place.

          So it was neither as violent nor gun crazy as played up, and certainly doesn’t really prove that ‘gun control works’, as personal responsibility and discretion had more influence than any of the laws enacted.

          • bbiemeret

            I don’t get your point. What is your evidence that it was “personal responsibility and discretion” that kept gun violence to a minimum in towns with strict gun control laws. The OK Corral was fought because the Cowboys didn’t want to follow the local firearm ordinance and give up their guns, and threatened the law when they came to enforce it. Why would a frontier town, with limited means of law enforcement, enact unnecessary gun restrictions? Most laws developed in lawless areas are laws of necessity. If there wasn’t much to fear from guns, why all the prohibition?

          • Ferrumkit

            Generally the least troubled areas, at least in recent times, are ones that have familiarity and instilled responsibility, not to dismiss accidents and negligence, because ultimately you can’t bubblewrap the world.

            As far as Law is concerned, they get pushed for various reasons, some are for the general good, some are asinine, some have no effect at all. You can look at Federal Gun Control, and about the only effective one was the NICS system that stopped about 2% of sales to criminals. Conversely this means that criminals are getting weapons somewhere else, So further restrictions actually effect no one but the law abiding populace that doesn’t run around playing shoot-em-up

            So you tell me, where does the unwarranted fear come from?

        • bob

          So you started out by stating what you knew was a falsehood, waited to be corrected, and then went, “See, you just proved I’m right”?

          Anyway, if you really want to compare what localized gun control does to violent crime rates, look at Chicago and NYC.

          • bbiemeret

            I don’t even know what your talking about anymore.

          • bob

            I’m talking about the violent crime rates in the cities of Chicago, which only recently was told by SCOTUS that the second amendment does, indeed, apply to Illinois, and New York City, which is currently threatening to confiscate firearms with an ammunition capacity greater than 5 rounds (which describes ~80% of firearms currently in use).

            Both of these cities have INCREDIBLY strict gun control. Look at their violent crime rates and compare them to cities with less stringent regulations.

  • B.

    Well, this is a case of apples and oranges. You would have been justified in the use of lethal force since they were using a 2+ton vehicle as a weapon, even if they were “just joking.” Doesn’t matter one flip that they were teens.
    Reeves story is still untold. We don’t know if he shot because he had a bag of popcorn thrown at him, or if he was swung at by a much younger assailant. And we won’t know until the trial.
    You keep your ideas of gun control – also btw good job letting those punks go so they could do it again to someone not as lucky as you were. Your inaction may have meant someone else lost their live or lives due to those kids.

  • Leo M.

    So basically you’re saying: I’m a fucking idiot and almost killed some teenagers over something stupid. GUNS MADE ME DO IT. Get on medication and leave other people and their gun rights alone.

  • AlbDavidT

    If you are deciding whether or not to personally carry a gun for what ever reason, by all means, listen to the stories of other, maybe they will keep you from making a mistake you did not think you would make.
    All personal anecdotes aside, it you are talking about making national policy, you need to look at the actual number and types of uses of guns and by who. Nationally gun owners who are serious and dedicated enough to get a concealed weapons permit, or CCW, or what ever their location calls it, commit crimes, including gun crimes, at a lower rate than even law enforcement officers. Nationally good citizens use their guns to protect themselves against criminal attacks more often than guns are used by criminals in all crimes.
    Any discussion about national policy should look at the national statistical evidence for the use of guns overall at the national level. Any discussion for what individuals should do on their own should by all means look at what other individuals have chosen to do and what happened to them. Mixing up the two, like using anecdotal personal stories, without looking at what happens overall nationally, and thinking that it will give a valid picture of what national policy should be is not good reasoning.

  • j hentai

    eye-opening article. thanks. the nra trolls are really out in force today

    • Victor_the_Crab

      Yup. And all of them suffer from acute tiny penis syndrome.

      • Mister Xiado

        In truth, many gun owners are compensating for the lack of telekinesis, stab-proof skin, super speed, being built like a linebacker, and/or not being a master of several forms of martial arts from various cultures and countries. Phencyclidine, which can be used to provide the average person with some of these abilities, tend to be illegal, and is used to great effect by those with no regard for the law, the safety of others, or their own safety. As far as male gun owners’ genitalia, even the most fortunate man does not use his genitals to protect his family from armed and/or multiple assailants, so I do not see the connection. Unless you are making a rather lewd assertion in the hopes of attacking the pride of your opponents.

        • Ferrumkit

          I enjoy that they hated your comment rather than rebutting it, clearly we’re of the close-minded so much that we should simply play the dick-waving game as they seem to assume. Let me start “Oog booga, ug ug, me man.”

          • Mister Xiado

            Like they say, you cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into. All the more reason… to remain the reasonable party in the debate.

        • Victor_the_Crab

          I’m attacking their sanity and their lack of decency and common sense. Also, their pride is misplaced. Hope that helps you a lot. If not, well too bad.

          • Ferrumkit

            Sanity is a relative term in the minds of many, and it’s been muddled in the world of legalities.

            Here’s an interesting argument to ponder:
            Individual A knows they lack the physical strength for confrontations but cannot move out of a known trouble spot for assaults.

            Would it be sane for Individual A to not seek a means to defend themselves in a worst case scenario?

            No psychology, no ‘what ifs’ beyond the question, just what is presented case.

            Sometimes for personal safety you need to balance the idea of lethal force being a necessity, I’ve known someone that opted for an attack dog instead of a gun because they felt they could not handle killing someone, while another I know has opted to train and obtain a CCW license because they are stuck in a not-so-nice neighborhood.

            Sanity can only be weighed on logical process, not emotional opinion.

          • bob

            I’m kind of glad that all you can do is bring baseless ad hominem attacks to the discussion. It reveals your true position: one based in emotional reactions, but not considered worth taking the time to think about. Keep on feeling.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            Well, having to deal with an obvious sociopath devoid of reality like you makes it very difficult to have an argument. So how bout we call it a day, and you go analy fuck yourself with a cactus, mmmkay?

          • Jeff Jefferson

            Keep on feelin’ in the free world! Keep on feelin’ in the free world!

        • bbiemeret

          Let me spell it out for you… many men equate the ability to defend oneself, as well as the size of one’s penis, as a measure of virility and manhood. Those who are lacking in either tend to compensate in some way. A gun compensates for the lack of defense, which compensates for small penis. Get it? Good.

          • bob

            Ah, I see now. You seem to think yourself clairvoyant, and this ability of yours to discern the hearts and minds of all has laid bare to you the intentions of tens of millions of people. Is that what you’re saying?

            Or… are you merely referencing an age-old movie trope as if it’s relevant to the discussion? If that’s the case, please start referencing 80s action films as examples of mass shootings; at least they’re more recent than this “guns == genitalia” joke that you’re peddling.

      • bob

        It’s saddening to me that you approach an issue as important as gun control with the attitude and approach of an immature adolescent who’d rather make crude jokes about genitals than actually put thought into their words.

        • Victor_the_Crab

          You know what’s really saddening? That innocent men, women, and little children can be gunned down in cold blood by people who have no business owning firearms, and the only thing that matters to micro dick scum like you is making sure your right for everyone to own as many penis extending guns and other assault weapons as inhumanly possible is not impeded.

          You don’t like my so-called immature adolescence towards Bizzaro World dwelling trolls like you? Tough! It’s what you truly are. Deal with it!

          • Ferrumkit

            Unfortunately in today’s world of ‘no responsibility required’ these things happen, recently a mother attempted to poison her 4 children, smothering the oldest to death, this is following her stabbing her husband multiple times before he escaped to get help. So in this case do we hold the knife and chemicals responsible, or the crazy woman?

            You crusade under false pretense that removing guns will somehow remove crime, which in all statistics, is not true.

            And a note on etiquette, you weaken your own stance when the best you can muster is petty insults against someone you hardly know, that is where his argument of ‘immaturity’ holds true.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            It’s far more quicker, easier and convenient to kill someone with a firearm than it is to poison and stab them to death. Handguns and other assault weapons only increase the likelihood of a crime being committed.

            Australia imposed strict gunlaws in their country after a mass shooting, and guess what? Their crime rate went down dramatically.

            But it doesn’t matter what I say to you. You’d rather cling to the notion that if someone takes away your firearms, than only criminals will have firearms than do what they want. Talking to people like you is like talking to a brick wall. And just as intelligent.

          • Ferrumkit

            But the numbers hardly support your statement, When restrictions were lifted [AWB expired} There was an equal decline in crime. And your ‘prime example’ also faced a sharp jump in violent crimes following their ban. On top of that they also lack the same border issues we face daily which only opens the doors to more opportunities for those undesirables of society to obtain those tools.

            You make a claim without any means to back it up, and I can subsequently present an easy to read pictograph for you to read that also presents facts and citations that rather counter your claims of ‘out-of-control gun crimes’. Bear in mind, the ‘ban’ was enacted in ’97. Homicides have dropped [relatively recent, same as stateside] But every other crime jumped.

            And the second image shows the sharp drop following the expiration of the AWB in the US.

            Seems the numbers favor my so-called ‘brick-wall intelligence’

          • Bea Logical

            way to go, brick wall. :-)

          • Ferrumkit

            Elaborate on how I’ve been a brick wall, I’m presenting statistics from respective government data, US and Australian. I’ve yet to get a compelling argument to the contrary.

          • Bea Logical

            Yah, sorry bout the misunderstanding! I was more poking fun at the other guy and silently congratulating you on your excellent rebuttal.

          • Ferrumkit

            I appreciate it. I suppose I was sick of being silent being summed up as ‘meat headed idiot with a gun’ and was compelled to speak up about it. Sometimes the only way to logically compel people is to play the Devils Advocate and break misnomers.

          • Mister Xiado

            The people who have no business owning firearms (convicted felons, the mentally unfit, and other items listed on ATF form 4473) aren’t the type who concern themselves with the laws governing the legal acquisition of firearms in the first place. Perhaps if people were more understanding, there wouldn’t be such a negative stigma against those who voluntarily seek help for their psychological issues. People with severe problems tend to hide them, rather than seek help with them for fear of being ridiculed, detained, and having their rights stripped from them. Because apparently being a registered Democrat, and taking medication for one’s mental problems isn’t enough to stop one from illegally bringing firearms into places where they are explicitly forbidden. Or disregarding laws against transporting loaded firearms in one’s vehicle without a permit. Or contemplating murder as more than an intrusive thought.

            I congratulate you for taking the mature path, the high road in this discussion, as it lends great credibility to your position, and may convince those who are on the proverbial fence of which side aligns with their personal moral compass.

          • bob

            Again, I know that you only have genitalia-related innuendo to bring to the discussion, but I really wish you’d take the time to formulate something more. This is an important issue, and you’re approaching it with all the thought that goes into teabagging someone in multiplayer.

            What firearm owners are trying to defend is their constitutionally-protected right to own, use, and carry firearms. You, on the other hand, appear to be advocating for the overriding of that law based on your male genitalia-based feelings.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            I’m only pointing out the obvious to you, micro dick. You don’t like it? I don’t care.

            And the fact that you choose to overlook the reasons for my disgust and disdain shows that you really don’t give a fuck about human life, no matter how much you otherwise protest. You don’t deserve to be taken seriously. Go and fuck yourself to hell, scum!

          • bob

            Oh well, I thought it was worth a shot. You may continue with your profanity-based campaign for what you perceive to be “the right point of view”. I’ll be discussing this with other folks in the thread who aren’t as fascinated with penises.

      • Jeff Jefferson

        My penis is of adequate size to the best of my knowledge. No girls that I’ve slept with have complained about its size. I’m curious why anti-gun people always bring up penis size when clearly the discussion/debate is about rights and regulations. Tells a lot about the maturity of your opponent when they need to appeal to sexual/sexist comments.

    • Mister Xiado

      Yes, the eye-opening part is, just because one has served in the US armed forces in some capacity, even as a POG, does not mean that one is responsible with firearms in a non-combat scenario. Additionally, lessons about the type of person who talks about breaking the law because the law is an inconvenience, is the type of person who seems to be the most in favor of disarming the poor and the disabled. All good lessons we should each remain aware of, lest we make careless choices about who we should trust with our safety. Are you the type of person who would call someone a troll for chastising a woman who claims that shaking her baby is the best way to make it stop crying? The majority of comments against this article cite the unnerving irresponsibility and complete disregard for the law and lives of others, on the part of the author. Unless you are intentionally baiting people. If so, 10/10, xir.

      • j hentai

        i would call somebody a troll who deliberately misses the point of the article and then uses bullshit comparisons to try and make me change my point of view.

        • Ferrumkit

          His comparison is reasonable from a logical standpoint.

          The Author admitted to illegally carrying, and brandishing a firearm, both serious offenses in their own right which also calls into question the level of responsibility they feel they are capable of. What if he had just run them off the road in lieu of brandishing? Would it then have suddenly been the vehicles fault for giving him enough horsepower to catchup and enforce his will on some jerks?

          If one can’t handle some jerks, then sadly there is little that can help him beyond consoling. People have been/are/will be jerks, but that doesn’t mean your/his/my experience with them suddenly means everyone will react the same there-fore ban gun/car/bats/lamps/item X because I lack self control.

          This entire article sums up into “I have no personal responsibility cause I got mad so no one should be able to have [item]”.

        • Mister Xiado

          If you do not wish to be civil, and wish to believe that my position is forcefully compelling you to re-evaluate your own, then so be it. This is only the internet, and you need only look away from the screen.

        • teresaInPa

          I am a liberal who used to be in favor of stricter gun control measures. Then I started changing my mind about the 2nd amendment. While I still support closing the gun show loophole where it still exists and I do not think either side is 100 percent right in their arguments, without a doubt, the stupidest arguments come from the left. It is the left that convinced me the right was correct. Look at the 2nd amendment and tell me it doesn’t protect our right to keep and bear arms. You can not. So all the rest of this is nonsense and noise until that is changed.
          No one missed the point. No one is trying to change your mind. You are too bound by your political affiliation to think for yourself. One day if you are lucky, like me you will figure out exactly how useless brand loyalty is and then facts might mean a bit more to you than emotional over reaction to personal stories.

          • Mister Xiado

            I appreciate your level-headedness in this discussion, and I’d like to take the opportunity to let you know that there is no gun show loophole. All dealers at gun shows are licensed, and perform background checks as they would in a brick-and-mortar store, and can still reserve the right to refuse sale if the buyer seems suspicious. Private sales, on the other hand, do not require a background check, as the NICS system is not available for free public use. People cannot request instant background checks when selling a gun to someone else, so they operate on their own judgment. Selling to someone you know is ineligible to possess firearms is a felony in itself. While you cannot know everyone’s criminal record, you can make reasonable assumptions based on their behavior.

            People looking to turn a quick buck on guns used in crimes tend to use police-sponsored buyback programs, which take guns with no questions asked, and no checks are performed to see if the person turning them in is legally permitted to possess firearms, if any of the firearms had been reported stolen, or had been recorded in use in prior crimes, before they are destroyed.

            Now that is a loophole, right there.

  • Christopher Foxx

    Thank you for your story.

  • Christopher Foxx

    The cliché is that it takes mental preparation to take a life

    I’ve not heard that one before. But if I had I’d have disagreed with it.

    As your story shows, being able to kill someone is far more often an act of passion. Thinking about it “talks” most people out of it. It’s in the unthinking moment that one can do anything.

  • dukesirius

    I’m pleased to see all the comments from people who’ve read this article and gotten the takeaway that since the author was storing his pistol illegally (ignorance of the law is no excuse, but it does happen to be a reason), he clearly falls outside the fence of “good guys with guns.” And let’s not forget that despite his multiple years of handling and training with guns, he didn’t take the concealed carry course, which would of course have been the missing piece of those years of firearm training.

    Most of these same commenters are making the point that since they haven’t shot anyone or brandished their weapon in anger, clearly they have nerves of steel and would absolutely never have a bad day or make a mistake. They are the true good guys with guns.

    I’m glad that we can all agree that every single person who uses their gun in anger is a bad guy with a gun, retroactive to their first purchase. Otherwise, all of this pissing and whining about the right to own a particular consumer product that happens to double as a weapon of mass destruction might come across as a touch silly.

    • Heywood Jablowme

      I know this might seem insane, crazy even. I can honestly say none of my guns have destroyed anything in mass…other than paper targets. Now, before you shed a tear for these innocent paper targets let me remind you, guns are not actually inanimate objects, they control your emotions. When you own one you a crazy blood-thirsty psychopath. So you see, in essence it wasn’t my fault all those paper targets lost their lives. The gun just made me have a bad day and since I had a gun I just started blasting away! I couldn’t help myself.

      you guys are right I’m a maniac…please just lock me up now.

      On the bright side at least no one will ever die again once guns are gone!

      • Mister Xiado

        You’re wrong, sir. Corn is the enemy. Many of the shooting deaths over the past few years were in the presence of corn products. Like popcorn. Monsanto’s genetically modified corn is altering brain chemistry and making people react violently to distressing, but temporary issues. Guns just happen to be a convenient scapegoat.

      • dukesirius

        And Russia’s nuclear arsenal never destroyed any cities, doesn’t mean we should just leave it alone.

        Additionally, I see that you’ve missed my point entirely: you extend your own capacity for reasonable gun ownership to those outside of yourself in the face of contravening evidence. It should be apparent to you that many, many, many people are utterly incapable of being reasonable in any facet of their lives, let alone in owning something which is at best a granular component of the global destruction wrought by small arms.

        This is my point, that we unfortunately are all sharing space with the lowest common denominator, and when we’re taking toys off of shelves because three children misuse them and hurt themselves, we ought to be able to apply a modicum of that same sense to the gun debate.

        Look at this article with an objective eye and you will see someone with extensive experience and knowledge with firearms who almost committed grievous acts in a moment of adrenaline rage. That you haven’t hit that point is commendable, but it is highly silly of you to deny that these things will happen in the context of a world where we’ve reached a fetishization level of firearms comparable to most of the world’s obsession with soccer.

        Again, I’m glad you haven’t murdered anyone, but with tens of thousands of people doing so every year, it might be worth looking at the free-wheeling nature of our gun provisions.

        • Bea Logical

          I’d say that’s part of the problem with society right there–we shouldn’t be taking toys off the shelves because a couple parents didn’t supervise properly and thought they had the right to sue some toy company because they’re irresponsible.

    • bob

      It’s interesting how, when commenting on an article that takes an example and extrapolates it far beyond any logical application (“Once I almost did something horrible with a gun, so guns are, by extension, horrible”), you take multiple comments from people pointing out the criminal nature of the author’s actions and extrapolate them far beyond any logical application (“You point out that the author nearly committed murder in a hate-fueled rage, so YOU must have PERFECT nerves and NEVER make mistakes!”).

      Reductio ad absurdum, buddy.

      • dukesirius

        Actually, the example is not extrapolated as far as you think, given that it’s an exploration of a moment when a firearm almost accelerated a bad situation into murder. How do you think the thousands of gun murders in America happen? Tempers flare, guns are pulled, and people die.

        The extension to the incredible ease with which one can get these killings tools (note I don’t say murder, and don’t try to pretend that guns serve functions besides facilitating easier death, that’s their core reason for existence), and the way that even someone with training and experience can lose it, is perfectly valid.

        And I don’t think I’ve at any point denied the illegality of the author’s actions, but when people use the moment where he admits he almost turned into “a bad guy with a gun,” and uses that to retroactively exclude him from the “good guy” club, I have to point out how they’re missing the point.

        • bob

          He’s not “retroactively excluded him from the good guys” for intending murder; he’s out of that club from the get-go. He committed multiple crimes that brought him to the point of intended murder, and he clearly demonstrates throughout the article that, like many other criminals who don’t legally own and use firearms, he shouldn’t be allowed to have one.

  • Tyler Sea

    Why the hell didn’t you just stop the car?

    If you were the type of person who ought to carry a gun, you’d know it’s your responsibility to deescalate any dangerous situation you’re in. A firearm is a last resort. It’s not a tool of vengeance, it’s a tool to save your life.

    • bob

      This, this, this. A thousand times, this.

  • Tyler Sea

    “That’s why I don’t carry gun. I considered myself one of the good guys.
    I was familiar with firearms, handled them properly and I wasn’t a

    Good, you shouldn’t carry one. You may be familiar with firearms, but you aren’t one of the good guys. You carried illegally, and brandished a firearm with intent to do much, much worse.

    If I were you, I’d be embarrassed as hell.

    • Lady Willpower

      That’s kind of the entire point of the piece.

      • Tyler Sea

        No, the point of the post is to imply that no one should carry a gun because of what the author was irresponsible enough to do.

        • Lady Willpower

          I’m sorry that was your take-away.

          • Jeff Jefferson

            What else can one take away from it? “I did something illegal. I have a temper. but but I was in the Marines so therefore I am trained with guns even though most military training with a firearm is a few weeks and then it’s to whatever job I do that doesn’t require being armed.”

            The guy doesn’t know much about being a responsible gun owner. Just how to be aggressive when confronted with a situation.

  • Tyler Sea

    “The next step was to get my concealed carry permit. I looked into it,
    but scheduling the time to complete was always difficult. I wasn’t the
    best at follow through in those days. But while I couldn’t carry it in
    public, I started carrying it underneath the passenger seat. Someone
    told me I was allowed to carry it as long as there wasn’t a round in the

    So, you carried a gun illegally for who knows how long, because obeying the law was inconvenient? This says a lot about the kind of citizen and gun owner you are.

    “I was about to demonstrate a truism of life to these dumb fucks. I was
    about to become someone they’d very shortly regret fucking with.”

    This also speaks a lot about the kind of person you are. “A truism of life?” Evidently you suffer from tough guy syndrome, that, coupled with your lack of respect for the law regarding carry of firearms makes you no different than some gang banging punk who will shoot someone for wearing the wrong colored shirt in the wrong neighborhood.

    “I don’t carry a gun with me anymore. It has taken me years to
    transition from a rabidly pro-gun guy to a gun control advocate, but
    this incident was the catalyst.”

    Thank you for proving what many of us have been thinking for years now, that gun control freaks feel the way they do because they’re projecting what they’d do with a gun onto everyone else. You shouldn’t own a firearm, probably shouldn’t even own a sharp kitchen knife. You couldn’t respect carry law enough to do it right, and the only thing that kept you from murdering three kids was a slow window. You are not a responsible enough man to own a firearm. Your article has said very little of the gun owners at large, and an awful lot about your character (or lack thereof).

    I feel very sad for you, because I’m sure this type of behavior leaks through in many other aspects of your life.

  • MaximumMad

    Frederic Poag looks like a chubby bitch-faced loser and probably highly autistic because he can’t control himself and now thinks because he sperged out that no one else should have a weapon.

  • bob

    Do I understand the author as saying, “Because I have poor self-control and nearly murdered three teenagers in a fit of rage, nobody else can be trusted with a gun”? If so, is it because he thinks he is as “good” as everyone else? Or is it that he thinks that nobody else has more self-control than him?

  • Dago T

    I agree with most of the story, except I think Officer HappyTrigger has waited his whole life for the opportunity to go Rambo on someone. And in FLA, he’s likely to get away scott-free with it.

    PS: Cars don’t kill people. People kill people.

    • Heywood Jablowme

      I’m going to assume you have the entirety of the facts of this tragedy you were personally there…

      So did you get to actually see the movie?
      Was it good?

      …or are you rushing to judgement based on second hand accounts?

  • Robert Scalzi

    I can see why you were pissed off at three kids trying to actually harm you but popcorn is not a deadly weapon ( a car can be, just read some police reports) and the parallels to the dirtbag Reeves you make don’t stick and the reasons guns were pulled out in each incident aren’t even in the same ballpark . FAIL – glad you see the need for gun control but …. there is no comparison to you and the fuckwad old man reeves.

  • Jeff Jefferson

    Since you can’t control your emotions like an adult and be responsible with a gun nobody can be trusted with them?

    • Lady Willpower

      The specific comparison was to Curtis Reeves. Do you think Curtis Reeves can be trusted with a gun?

      • bob

        So you think that a pro-gun-control activist wrote the entire article and his only point was, “Guys, I’m personally irresponsible and can’t be trusted”? You really think that he isn’t extrapolating this principle out to the gun ownership debate itself?

      • Jeff Jefferson

        Irrelevant what his comparison is. It’s the fact he admits to committing crimes and has a temper that demonstrates he isn’t fit to handle a weapon. It’s like an alcoholic who derides anyone else who can imbibe responsibly like a damn adult. Just because some people are incapable of acting like rational and reasonable adults doesn’t mean all of us are not.

      • Jeff Jefferson

        Apparently not because like the author he let’s his emotions dictate how he’s going to react to a situation instead of thinking clearly and using sound judgement like an adult is supposed to.

  • nicole

    Frederic, a really excellent piece, and one that took some courage to write.

  • Bea Logical

    Everybody has their knee-jerk reactions and their jackass moments, especially when responding to other jackasses. That doesn’t excuse our author’s behavior, but I think it makes it understandable. We use what tools we have available in those knee-jerk moments–if he hadn’t had a gun, I bet Mr. Poag would have followed the kids and tried to ram them with his car in his moment of rage. Seems only fair since they tried to ram him, right?
    I think all of his actions were appropriate. I’m glad he didn’t end up shooting them, cuz that’s when I would have disagreed with his behavior. The most important part is that Frederic’s actions (brandishing a gun and scaring those punks) may have ended up saving lives in the long run, because he made the kids see the potential consequences of their actions. It’d be nice if they’d been horrified at his near accident and seen the seriousness of their actions then, but they didn’t, they’re dickheads, and they deserved to be good and frightened. Maybe realizing that their shitty behavior could come back on them and get them hurt made them stop acting that way.
    But the really interesting undercurrent here is that since our author is a self-defined “good guy”, he must be better than most people, and therefore since he was horrified by his own behavior, that must mean that everybody needs to have more control forced over them. I know the actual point of this article is more like an elbow nudge to pundits who are in favor of gun control to take note, but the moral of the story sure reads like he thinks he shouldn’t have been able to get a gun that easily, or to carry it in the car like that. And guess what, if gun control laws were stricter, you still could have done EXACTLY the same thing again, because you didn’t buy your gun from a dealer, and you didn’t follow the regulations about firearms in your vehicle. So your moral is moot.

  • SHOTGUN285

    This is a great piece of fiction. Well written, but totally unbelievable.

    • Lady Willpower

      That’s the best you can do?

  • John

    Since we are using personal experiences to justify why there should be gun control, how about this one. Try being the night manager of a chain restaurant who is required to take the day’s receipts, put them in a bank bag and walk a hundred feet across a lighted parking lot and drop them in the night depository of the bank used by your owners. As you approach the night drop you are accosted and told to hand over the bag which you do. You think the incident is over but you hear this loud popping sound and your legs go out from under you. The person or persons who shot you in your legs speed off. Perhaps they didn’t intend to kill you but you die from blood loss. This happened to a fellow restaurant worker. I had always figured that if someone wanted my bank bag I would give it to them too. You can always make more money, but what about the individual who doesn’t care about registering his gun or taking a concealed and carry course and just doesn’t want you to be able to identify him in a police lineup? If this fellow restaurant worker had had his bank bag in one hand and an open hand gun in the other perhaps these murders would have gone to an all night gas station and robbed it rather than take a chance on getting shot themselves. It appears that the only thing that stopped these joy riding teens from running you off the road and either killing or injuring you was the fact that you had a gun. Consider yourself fortunate that you lived in a state like Tenn.where you were able to defend yourself and not say in Chicago, the murder capitol of the US, or NYC, where motorcycle gangs can threaten you and your family, and their “registration and licensing laws” make it possible for only criminals to obtain a gun.

    • Edward Himsel

      You can’t exactly compare cities like Chicago with rural Tennessee. Of course there are less murders in TN; there are less people, and far less confrontations, because you’re a lot less likely to see someone in the first place. Saying all the crime problems in Chicago are because of gun control is just totally simplistic.

      • Heywood Jablowme

        but you can…if you look at the murders per capita new york chicago and La are almost 3 times higher than places like memphis

  • Heywood Jablowme

    To Summarize:

    “I was a jackass and in a fit of rage I attempted to kill someone. Since I can’t control my emotions we need to strip everyone else’s rights away”

    does that sum it up?

    I’ve carried my pistol everyday for the last 5 years and have drawn it on someone….ever…not once.

    Not even after some punk rear ended me while he was high as a kite.

    Just because you are irresponsible, irrational, and out of control does not make me the same

    • Fabius_Maximus

      You missed the point. Everyone has a point where he flips out. Adrenaline is one hell of a drug. If you happen to have the biggest stick in the room in such a situation, the sensible thing to do – to run away – suddenly becomes unimportant. It just needs one misjudge to end a person’s life.

      • Gæbriel

        Sometimes running away just means you’re going to be hit in the back.

        • Fabius_Maximus

          Yeah, “sometimes”.

      • Heywood Jablowme

        They are “MY” emotions.

        Since they are mine, only I am in control of them. “They” did not piss me off and get my adrenalin pumping. I let myself become upset and rage.

        I am a man, I take responsibility for my actions. I do not let others dictate how I live my life.

        • Mister Xiado

          These days, controlling your emotions and not freaking out over trivial things makes you a dangerous cold-blooded psychopath. You know, instead of a rational person.

          • Fabius_Maximus

            If he hasn’t fright or flight reactions, he probably is a psychopath.

          • Heywood Jablowme

            “His argument is flawless let me attack his personality, hopefully he will not notice I have nothing pertinent to say”

          • Fabius_Maximus

            Well, since psychopaths actually do have a low fear response and I was answering a – admittedly sarcastic – statement about the issue, it is kind off pertinent.

          • Heywood Jablowme

            you need to look up the definition of the word psychopath…its not what you think it means.

          • Fabius_Maximus

            It’s not about the definition – which you were so kind to post upthread – but about their brain’s or central nervous system’s reaction to fear triggers. Which is inhibited:


            2 (only an abstract, I’m afraid)


          • Heywood Jablowme

            so you have the ability to judge if a person can react to an external stimulus with or without fear just by reading a post?

            Please tell me more about your internet superpowers….

            also good job going waaay of topic. I guess I can assume you can’t conceive of a logical counterpoint. So now you must debate semantics and us ad homenim attacks?

          • Fabius_Maximus

            Please show me where I did what you just accused me of.

          • Heywood Jablowme

            Everyone reacts similarly in situations they perceive as dangerous (with the exceptions of psychopaths, of course)

            also you are wrong… not everybody reacts to a dangerous situation similarly. I would argue the opposite.

          • Fabius_Maximus

            Holy hell, that statement is as neutral as it gets (and was a reference to my earlier answer to the snarky post about psychopaths). You don’t seem to be as level-headed when it gets to debating strangers on the internet.

            Also, note that I used ‘similarly’, not ‘the same’ or a similar term. If I – as a non-native English speaker – can get the difference between the two terms, so can you.

            Additionally, you ignored the rest of said post, where I wrote that you may be calmer than other people (‘may’ because I don’t know), but that makes you an exception (and I did not mean to call you a psychopath in a roundabout way).

          • Heywood Jablowme

            I really don’t care what you think of me TBH I’m not upset at all.

            So let me get this right. So because someone may or may not react negatively to danger we should toss out everybody’s rights? is thit correct?

          • Fabius_Maximus

            Not ‘toss out’. Limit. You should have to qualify for owning a gun and qualify further to carry one.

          • Heywood Jablowme

            So we should “limit” everybody’s rights because a few people can’t handle the responsibility?

          • Fabius_Maximus

            Well, you could go another way. Give everyone the right to own firearms, but declare them a public health risk (the per capita gun death rate in the US should be sufficient) and tax the shit out of them.

            Or the ammo and the components to make your own. I’d prefer that. People could own all the guns they can get, but would get poor(er) when actually firing them.

          • Heywood Jablowme

            Maybe we should do that for all our rights, in the interest of “public safety” of course. We should charge folks to express dissenting opinions.

            The right to a fair trail, as long as you pay the fee’s.

            or the right not to incriminate your self, as long as you pay.

            what about if your property is about to be searched illegally you can stop it by paying off the police?

            sounds reasonable to me.

          • bbiemeret

            Your “rights” as you keep referring to them, are granted to you by the government. Even the Constitution was written, enacted, and enforced by the government. You aren’t born with them. You have the right to own a gun in America because the government says you do, and that “right” can be rescinded, as a felon.

            By the way, we do charge folks to express dissenting opinions. Try to hold a rally in public without a paid permit, see what happens. And don’t get me started on what happens to spontaneous protesters.

            Your right to a “fair” trial most definitely depends on you being able to “pay the fee”. The vast majority of Public Defender cases end up with a plea-bargain and a guilty verdict.

            Poor people who can’t pay bail, often incriminate themselves as a way to prevent going to jail, or to minimize the length of time locked up.

            Corrupt cops and judges take bribes to look the other way, or to be lenient, all the time.

            Sounds like America to me.

          • bob

            You sound very disenchanted with the way these “government-issued” rights are working out, and yet you want more government restriction on your rights?

          • Heywood Jablowme

            and again why should I be punished and charged money to exercise my rights when I have never committed a crime? I have been nothing but responsible in my entire life but in your world I am a public safety hazard for protecting myself and my family…

          • Guest

            You are not. Your guns are.

          • Heywood Jablowme

            You are not a public safety hazard. Your guns are.

            I was under the impression that guns needed to be maipulated by a human to be dangerous. Like, a human needs to load it, a human needs to de-activate the safety, a human needs to point it at someone, a human needs to pull the trigger. I guess they do that all by themselves.

            Since more people die by drowning in america than being shot should we tax people who want to swim? Same with cars?

            As for your other response: Neither of those rights are liable to kill someone.

            Ghandi would like to have a word with you friend. Also, I guess that thing called the “Declaration of Independence” didn’t cause the revolution.

            And your property can be searched if there is a warrant.

            So lets just make it so you have to pay a fee every time the police get a warrant to search your property just you know for when you say illegal things in dissent. If you have to pay for it, doesn’t it defeat the purpose of having it as a right?

          • Fabius_Maximus

            You are kind off making my earlier point here. Because people handle guns, they should get a license to do that.

            Ghandi didn’t kill anyone if I’m not mistaken. His actions were also against British law, so he had no rights. Same goes for the US revolutionaries. Which is beside the point, I know. However, their actions didn’t kill anyone. They made the Brits start killing, which is a bit of a difference.

            I’m going to respond to your strawman, but add another limited right: You may drive your car almost anywhere, but you are required to get a license, because cars can kill people. Also, you are not allowed to go everywhere in the US. Some areas are restricted, because giving unauthorized persons access could be harmful.

          • Heywood Jablowme

            Unfortunately driving is not a right guaranteed to us. Thus, we need a license to drive.

            Yet, thousands of people a year still die in car crashes…that’s an interesting point.

          • glena

            There are lots of things we have RIGHTS to do. I believe inherent rights don’t have to be spelled out in a document.

            How can owning a gun be a RIGHT, yet driving a car merely a privilege granted to those willing to follow the regulations to have one? Nearly every adult needs a car or to ride in a car to get to work, appointments and such, but really is a gun a necessity? Nope, most people can get through daily life just fine without one. There are a few that it is a part of their every day life but not many.

            Why should a car or boat even, be more regulated that a weapon used to kill things?

          • Heywood Jablowme

            but really is a gun a necessity? Nope, most people can get through daily life just fine without one. There are a few that it is a part of their every day life but not many.

            Why should a car or boat even, be more regulated that a weapon used to kill things?

            Glena I’m glad you asked…
            You have feet don’t you Glena? Don’t they transport you places?
            Did you know in new york city the majority of people don’t own cars?

            Also Glena, did you know that there are more people killed by cars than guns each year?

            in fact in some states (read states with less gun control) you are more than 3 times as likely to die in a traffic accident as opposed to being shot. In fact, if we take out suicides from the gun death stats you are more that 6 times more likely to die in a car?

            Now onto your question let me rephrase it for you and maybe you can answer it for your self.

            “Why should a car or a boat even, be more regulated than a tool used to protect oneself and ones family?”

          • Tyler Sea


            6,000,000+ people in the United States carry a gun every day. 89,000,000+ are gun owners.

          • glena

            That’s NYC, there are a few other metropolis cities that it is very easy to get around without a car. MOST of the Country that is not an option.

            The difference between deaths in car accidents and deaths by gun is fairly negligible and in fact in at least three States, gun deaths have exceeded deaths in car accidents. In every other State they are nearly the same.

            The difference is BILLIONS of trips in motor vehicles occur on a daily basis, making the number of deaths to the number of car trips relatively low. The number of guns carried and the number of shootings makes the guns statistically and in real life far more dangerous than any motor vehicle.

            The motor vehicle has a practical use in nearly every single instance. A gun is not a car. It is not needed to live, work, go to appointments, to get groceries or any other daily living situation. Unless of course you are in the military or a police officer.

            A gun is not a car. It’s very purpose is to kill. A car may have a side affect of death in some instances but that is not it’s main purpose nor is it the outcome of most uses of a motor vehicle.

            Yet we still need license and registration and insurance to compensate those who are hurt, injured or killed as the result of operating a motor vehicle. The same should be required of a object such as a gun that sole purpose is causing death.

          • bob

            Again, your driving privileges are not constitutionally protected.

          • bob

            So your argument is that the second amendment is no longer valid? Or are you saying that, every time a new regulation is enacted by law, we need to evaluate every other unrelated action that is regulated or protected by other laws against the new regulation? I’m not really sure what you’re getting at, other than an emotionally-driven reaction of, “Guns are scary”.

          • glena

            No, guns aren’t scary. Not at all. Some of the people that are allowed access to guns make them scary.

            A large portion of the population has jumped on a popular notion perpetrated by the NRA (which they did not agree with twenty years ago) that EVERYONE should have a gun, it’s not only their RIGHT but a RESPONSIBILITY as a Patriot to carry a gun.

            Guns have no purpose other than to kill or annihilate whatever they are aimed and fired at.

            A very large percentage of our population could live their lives without ever needing a gun in any way.

            It has nothing to do with them being SCARY but in most peoples lives they are completely unnecessary.

            I’m all for the 2nd Amendment but I like ALL the Second Amendment. Even the part that says “well regulated”.

          • bob

            And how do you plan on regulating it without infringing on it?
            Additionally, I’m in no way suggesting that everyone SHOULD own a firearm. Again, look at this article. The author clearly demonstrated that he was willfully ignorant of the law and tried to commit murder. I’m not saying that the author SHOULD own a gun because it’s his duty to do so.

          • glena

            So, are you saying you are embracing only PART of the Second Amendment? The part that you like?

            Are you saying that our Founding Fathers were so stupid as to put conflicting words in the Constitution, therefore you get to pick and choose the part of each that you want to uphold and follow?

            You CAN regulate without infringing upon. Or it wouldn’t be a part of the Amendment.

            Guns were more heavily regulated during those crazy “wild west” days than they are now.

            The general population wasn’t allowed to run around with a gun strapped on them, as you see in the movies. If you came into town with a gun, it was held by the Sheriff until you left town. You also didn’t sit in a saloon with a gun strapped on you either.

            Not a one of those folks back then were screaming about their RIGHTS being violated. Because it was common sense that was used. Now it’s a sense of entitlement I hear way more than any common sense.

          • bob

            I don’t believe I said that I don’t support the entire 2A. What I asked was, “How do you plan to regulate without infringing?” Let me be more specific: What exact measures do you propose to “regulate” firearms, and at what level should they be enacted?

            If you really are suggesting we base modern law on laws from the days of western expansion, then answer me this: were those restrictions federally-enacted? Or were they something the local sheriff did? And which do you advocate for: a federal solution, or more localized state-, county-, or city-based solutions?

            And you can throw around the words “common sense” as much as you please; it’s a catch-phrase that, in my mind, aligns you with POTUS’s views on the issue (read: a man with a history of supporting bans on semi-automatic weapon sales and handgun ownership).

          • Tyler Sea

            Inherent rights don’t have to be spelled out, but the rights that are specifically spelled out aren’t rights and you should have to prove yourself to be able to exercise them.

            Control freak insanity. You can’t make this shit up.

            Cars and boats can’t be used to kill things?

          • bob

            Except that handling guns (or “bearing arms”) is a constitutionally-protected right. Show me where the bill of rights makes provisions for taxing said rights.

            As far as Gandhi goes, I’m not inclined to pull the views of a man who slept with naked under-age girls into a discussion of the bill of rights.

          • j hentai

            not true. there are on average 4000 deaths a year in the us from drowning. also i think they do tax cars

          • Fabius_Maximus

            You are not a public safety hazard. Your guns are.

            As for your other response: Neither of those rights are liable to kill someone.

            And as far as I know, some of them are limited, too. You are not to use hateful speech or “fighting words”. And your property can be searched if there is a warrant.

          • glena

            Why are we taxed on boats and cars and made to get licenses and registrations and carry insurance on them. Even if we’ve never broken the law or had an accident.

            Because the RISK IS THERE. Same as with a gun. They are all law abiding citizens up and until that second they pull that trigger.

          • bob

            No, we’re taxed on vehicles to provide funding to maintain roadways. Show me a bill that proposes an ammunition tax to fund public shooting ranges and then we’ll talk.

          • Tyler Sea

            False, owning/driving a boat or a car isn’t a right enshrined in our Constitution, and government will use any excuse they can to generate revenue.

          • Tyler Sea

            “They are all law abiding citizens up and until that second they pull that trigger.”

            …Or until they illegally carry their gun in their car based on hearsay and without a permit and brandish it at a car full of kids.

          • Jeff Jefferson

            Nice burn on the author.

          • Tyler Sea

            So you want to tax the shit out of them so poor people won’t have the means to defend themselves?
            God, progressives really are fascists.

          • teresaInPa

            not all of us.

          • bob

            So you really think that only rich people should be allowed to own guns? Tell us what other constitutionally-protected rights should be denied to poor people.

          • j hentai

            it seems to me with approximately 30,000 gun deaths per year in the us that it’s more than “a few people who can’t handle the responsibility”

          • Tyler Sea

            30,000 is .0000967 % of 310,000,000. I’d say we’re doing pretty good.

            How many of those deaths were legally justifiable? How many caused by police action? How many were suicides? How many of those were unlawful killings? Isn’t murder already illegal? How will making guns illegal stop people from using them if making murder illegal doesn’t stop murder?

            34,080 people died in automobile crashes in 2012, obviously that’s more than “a few people who can’t handle the responsibility of driving.

            98,000 people die from medical mistakes every year in America, obviously there’s more than a few people who can’t handle the responsibility of being doctors.

            38,000 people kill themselves every year in America, obviously there’s more than a few people who can’t handle the responsibility of living.

          • j hentai

            hey wow, people die in america? i’d never have guessed. cars are multi-use items, whereas gun have one single purpose: to kill. also kudos on your empathy

          • Tyler Sea

            I must have defective guns, my glock can open beer bottles, and can work as a hammer in a pinch, it’s also really good at putting holes in paper!

            It doesn’t matter what you *can* do with something, it matters what you actually do with it. Inanimate objects have no free will of their own. Their use depends on the character of their user.

            As long as evil people exist, there will be murders. It doesn’t matter if they use a gun, a knife, or a fucking plunger handle, the act is evil, not the object.

          • j hentai

            i) i don’t recall imputing inanimate objects with free will; ii) while murders will continue to happen without guns, it is much harder to murder with “a knife, or a fucking plunger handle”,
            as it takes time & physical effort as opposed to a movement of a finger.

          • teresaInPa

            Actually it is not much harder to murder with a knife. At close range it is easier and quicker.

          • bbiemeret


          • bob

            Yeah, it’s actually frighteningly easy to end someone with a 3″ blade, and many steak knives are longer than that. Carotid and femoral arteries are all easily within reach, and the abdominal aorta isn’t much of a stretch so long as your victim isn’t morbidly obese.

            Source: healthcare provider who’s spent many a night in the ER

          • bob

            Inherent to your comment is the idea that homicide is never justifiable. If you truly believe that an assailant’s life can never be justifiably ended, regardless of how much damage they are about to do to however many innocents, then your comment holds up. If, on the other hand, you believe that it’s acceptable for someone to be killed before they murder others, then you have to start discussing who should be allowed to defend themselves or others.

          • bob

            And you should be the one who sets the criteria for “qualification” because you’re so knowledgeable, right?

          • Edward Himsel

            You’ve already said yourself, it’s almost impossible to judge how someone will react in that situation unless they actually do it. You can give people training for concealed carry permits and everything, but you will never know how they will react. With that in mind, do you think it’s right that we should just wait until people go out and shoot someone before deciding they’re not suitable to be carrying a gun in public? That seems to be the way it is right now. You might see it as taking away peoples’ rights. Personally, I see it as enforcing peoples’ rights to not be shot.

          • Heywood Jablowme

            I’m sorry you have been shot so many times friend…

          • bob

            It seems to me that, by this logic, we really shouldn’t allow military personnel to deploy to a combat zone until they’ve been shot at by insurgents. Anything less than this would be intruding on the rights of civilians in said zone to “not be shot”.

            Or should we make sure that doctors have at least one patient die on them before they’re allowed to practice so that we know how they’ll handle it?

          • bob

            “It’s not about what the words I’m using actually mean.”

            You’re being a particularly orange emu in this argument, or should I say, “A fleeting subatomic coffee”?

          • bob

            What you mean to say is, “If he hasn’t given in to cowardice in a stressful situation, he is probably a psychopath”. Please stop projecting your emotion-run life onto everyone else.

          • teresaInPa

            To be fair, I don’t think anyone is suggesting having a car full of asshat teenage boys driving you off the road is a trivial thing. I suppose a guy texting in a movie theater is.

        • Fabius_Maximus

          Bullshit. Everyone reacts similarly in situations they perceive as dangerous (with the exceptions of psychopaths, of course). It may be that you reach your “trigger point” not as quickly as other people, but that makes you an exception.

          That’s what gun control is about, among other things. People should have to prove that they can be level-headed in a crisis before they are allowed to own or even carry a gun.

          • Heywood Jablowme


            A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.

            It would seem that the “psychopath” here would be the one brandishing an illegally stored gun.

          • Tyler Sea

            Projection, the post.

          • bob

            And how do you propose manufacturing crises to test people? Heck, how do you propose doing that for law enforcement? And just how bad does a crisis have to get before it’s good enough to qualify?

          • Tyler Sea

            “People should have to prove that they can be level-headed in a crisis before they are allowed to own or even carry a gun.”

            Except for the police of course, they work for the government, of course they’re good guys!

            …Right? R-right?

          • teresaInPa

            oh really? First of all….lol, what’s your degree in that tells you everyone reacts the same in dangerous situations? I can tell you that’s a load of crap from personal experience. I am at my calmest in a crisis as are many people. That includes dangerous situations.
            As for your second point, how the hell are you going to get that all added to the 2nd amendment Braintrust?

      • bob

        This still essentially reads, “I have a point where I flip out. If I have the biggest stick, instead of wanting to run away, I’ll want to commit murder. Everyone else is just as uncontrolled as me.”

      • Tyler Sea

        My parents taught me to be patient and gentle towards those who are weaker than I am. Having the biggest stick in the room isn’t an excuse to be careless with it, it’s a moral imperative not to be.

        The author and the dickhead ex cop both clearly were not the right type of people to be armed, judging by your reasoning, I would say that you aren’t either.

        Cool heads and humble hearts prevail.

    • Vermillion

      To summarize this comment:

      “Even though essentially the same thing happened to me, I am going to ignore any similarities or opportunity to empathize to make a snide remark about the author’s emotional stability.”

      Oh wait, that isn’t short enough.

      “My hubris has convinced me that not using my gun somehow makes me a hero by default, instead of just being lucky.”

      • Heywood Jablowme

        I don’t empathize because I’m not a 14 year old girl who lets my emotions control me. If you own a gun for self defense you have a responsibility to be cool, calm, and collected in heated situations.

        At no point did I say I was a hero I’m just pointing out that the author is trying to create an argument demonizing guns and gun owners based on the fact that he let his emotions get away from him. I am providing a counter example of how a responsible gun owner should act.

        The fact is he was never responsible from the get go. He did not follow the laws that have already been set into place. He was never a “Good Guy” at any point in this “Story”. He actual violate several laws from by illegally transporting a weapon and brandishing said weapon in a fit of anger.

        If he had taken the CC class to get his license he would have know that you should not draw your weapon unless you intend to use it.

        • Vermillion

          Wow, sir. I am amazed. Just the utter blindness to another person’s humanity, or maybe just an unwillingness to equate with your own.

          I assume you feel the same way about Reeves, a career police officer who went through the same training that you say would have prevented such situations. In fact, he did have a concealed carry permit, unlike the author. He followed the rules. And yet…

          Poag isn’t trying to create an argument demonizing guns. He is talking about how, despite all the experience and confidence he had in his ability to judge when such action is warranted, he had a moment of anger that almost led to unnecessary deaths. He opens himself up to talk about how this effected him so deeply, that he lost the false bravado he had and reevaluated how he saw himself and his view on firearms. He is comparing himself to a man who, in a similar moment of anger, caused a lot of tragedy.

          And the best you can come up with is “he is weak and ignorant, that would never happen to me.” Even though that is exactly what he thought before it happened. He described the same mentality. The same proud justification.

          You say he should stay cool and collected in all situations. Something that even the most hardened soldiers and cops have stated is near impossible. Something our very biology prevents. Something that all the training in the world is designed to trick the human body to do. It is not natural. It is not instinctual. And yet, you smugly crow about it anyway.

          You don’t even consider the idea that maybe, just maybe, you are not immune to this, that you just haven’t hit your breaking point yet.

          But whatever. You continue to enjoy your fortune. I sincerely hope you never have to draw your weapon for any reason.

          • Heywood Jablowme

            “he is weak and ignorant, that would never happen to me.”

            funny i can’t seem to find that in my comment…

            “despite all the experience and confidence he had in his ability to judge when such action is warranted.”

            what experience was this?…the concealed carry class he never took?

          • Lady Willpower

            Did you miss the part where he was in the Marines? Some might call that experience.

          • bob

            So the fact that he apparently learned nothing about ROE from the Marines means that everyone else is incapable of using judgement in a similar situation? Or are you saying that everyone who serves in the Marines is a bastion of self-control? If so, I’ve got a few buddies who served in the Marines that you should meet.

          • Jeff Jefferson

            Not really. I knew plenty of people in the Army that I wouldn’t trust with a butter knife. Enlistment requirements aren’t really that stringent.

          • teresaInPa

            Completely different kind of training…think about it.

          • Vermillion

            funny i can’t seem to find that in my comment…

            Oh, really?

            I don’t empathize because I’m not a 14 year old girl who lets my emotions control me.

            Here it is. Unless there is some other way to interpret that. I just don’t get why that seems insult-worthy to you.

            Look, maybe you are right. Maybe all anyone needs, regardless of circumstance, upbringing, or situation, is a few weeks of training, after which they will have nerves of steel and the prescience to know when and when not to draw a gun.

            Saying that, why the hostility to someone who acknowledges their deficiency in this area and how it could lead to something bad? What, because you think they are trying to take your gun away? Why should you care? You have nerves of steel. You have been trained. You followed the rules. He isn’t advocating taking guns away; hell he still has the same gun. So how is he hurting you?

            If anything, you are a perfect example of how stronger laws and better enforcement of those laws would actually benefit society. If the transfer of firearms between private citizens were recorded by law, and concealed carry laws were more defined and publicly known, he would not have slipped through the cracks. He would have the training you say he needed, the permit he was legally required to have, and he would have known better not to draw his weapon.

            So again, what is the problem here?

          • bob

            If you’re going to hide behind, “He didn’t EXPLICITLY state that he wants more gun control,” you should read his other articles first. He is obviously pro-gun control.

            And no, there is no amount of training that truly prepares a person for the moment where they have to make a do-or-die decision, but if we withhold licenses based on imperfect training, we won’t have any doctors, pilots, police officers, soldiers, or firemen.

          • Vermillion

            I said he wasn’t trying to take away your guns. The fact you equate “more gun control” to “take away your guns” tells me more about you than him.

            Now we do get an acknowledgement that simply getting training doesn’t prevent tragedy from happening. From what a lot of the comments here are saying, you would think getting this all-powerful training would turn any regular Joe into a Jedi with a gun. Training that is apparently different from and somehow expected to be more effective than that given to military and police (according to comments here as well).

            And another thing: this whole dictionary battle over “good guy vs. criminal”. Several comments are saying that he couldn’t possibly think himself a “good guy” because he didn’t follow the law. Excpet it is blatantly clear that is not the reason he gave for his self-justification. He thought himself a “good guy” for the same reason anyone does: intent. He didn’t get a gun to rob or kill someone. He got one to protect himself. He states that he was a dyed in the wool Second Amendment defender and “wanted to practice what I preached”. He thought he was a good guy because of THAT. He was soon disabused of that notion.

            Isn’t that the definition of a “good guy with a gun”? Somebody who has their weapon for defense of self and, if need be, others? Or are you really arguing that training and proper registration determines that, not motives? In that case, since military/police training is different than civilian training, does that mean they are no longer “good guys”? Either motives count, or they don’t. Either training counts, or it doesn’t.

            And even then, with someone properly trained with official training, with all the registration and laws followed, and the best of intentions, something can go wrong. But gun control is not about 100% prevention, because that is impossible. It is about mitigation. It is about covering bases so that when something does go wrong, the proper people are addressed appropriately..

          • bob

            The frustrating reality for firearm owners is that, at the end of the day, gun control activists want, in general, to severely restrict our right to own and use firearms. They can say, “We don’t REALLY want to actually take them away…”, but we’ve already seen comments in this article about restricting them to rich people and such. But please, tell me about your perfect balance of rights and danger mitigation. Show me where you draw the line and we can discuss that.

            No one here said that they have jedi-like training or reflexes or anything. Our refrain has been that, with proper training and self-control, firearm owners can safely carry a weapon and NOT run the risk of murdering teenagers over road rage.

            And no, the author’s 2A convictions and image of himself as a bastion of constitutionality doesn’t make him a “good guy”. He evidently lacks the self-control to keep himself from murdering people when angry. That, in and of itself, strips him of any “good guy” status that he imagines he has.

          • Vermillion

            In order:

            If someone wants to restrict gun ownership to the rich, that is them. Just like you don’t represent Lanza or Reeves, they don’t represent me or a lot of gun control advocates. I can only speak for myself with 100% accuracy, and I want gun laws to be treated as something actually serious. I want actual studies into gun violence to take place in this decade. I want gun sellers to actually record their sales, and not only when they feel like it. I want the actual laws on the books to not have loopholes a mile wide. I want people to stop deluding themselves about their motives for owning or disowning guns. I want people to acknowledge that guns are designed for one purpose, and to treat them accordingly. Considering how easy it was for the author to get a gun without the proper training, and delude himself into thinking it was okay, doesn’t that mean something is wrong?

            But you are saying that one type of training (civilian) is more effective than another (military/police) by dismissing the experience both the author and, by extension, Reeves had. Either that is true, which means that at the very least police officers are woefully under-prepared and need their training to be overhauled, or it is not, and regardless of training people still have moments of anger they cannot always control. Either way, it doesn’t make the current system look any better. Quite frankly, if a police officer with years of experience in several high-stress situations, who the retires and becomes a firearms instructor (it must be some different instruction than the “proper training” you say he needed), still cannot manage to hold himself back from shooting a man over POPCORN, am I that unreasonable to be less than enthused about the current system?

            Considering that he wrote this piece acknowledging that he lost control and could have hurt someone, and reevaluated himself over it, insisting that he lacks self control NOW is pretty far to reach. I mean, are you honestly arguing that a person is static and cannot develop the self-control and peace of mind required to have a gun? If so, why have training at all? Isn’t that the very purpose of training, to change a person into a responsible gun owner? But because he decided he shouldn’t carry a gun at all, now he is a loose cannon that can’t control himself?

            I acknowledge that regardless of all the precautions taken, shit happens. Whether it is an outlier like Lanza or a trained person like Reeves, people cannot be predicted to do the right thing all the time. But that does not mean that all precaution is worthless, that we can’t sew up the many, many holes people like this seem to slip through. Otherwise, there is no point in having laws at all. Including the rights you feel are being threatened.

          • bob

            The challenge is that you have to convince firearm owners that your mandated tracking of all sales won’t be used to create some sort of registry, because we have multiple examples of those leading to firearm confiscation, with California’s SKS registry being one of the most recent ones.

            In calling for extensions of government authority over 2A rights, you’re aligning yourself with a group that has a vocal history of wanting to disarm Americans. Even if you have a more moderate approach, you’re going to have to do a lot to make yourself stand out from that crowd.

            Training is not perfect, and it cannot prevent every conceivable incident. That being said, civilian training for concealed carry permits generally places a great emphasis on the legal boundaries of CCW and the justifiable use of force. I’m not saying that police training doesn’t cover that as well, but they are trained for a completely different role than a civilian is.

            No, all precaution is not worthless, but you’ve got a long way to go to gain support for further restrictions on 2A rights.

          • Vermillion

            Ah yes, the other rub. It isn’t simply the right to own a firearm that is being debated, it is the right to own any firearm, regardless of actual need or function. Hell, it could be a weapon that couldn’t feasibly be used for concealed carry or everyday self-defense. If a person can’t buy whatever slug-thrower catches their fancy, then it must mean tyranny is afoot.

            Look, I don’t see the SKS ban as evidence that any registry is bad. I can agree that the assault weapons ban is probably the dumbest written piece of legislation in quite a while. But I don’t agree that means there should be a free for all when it comes to civilian weaponry.

            As far as aligning myself with people trying to disarm people, I would rather do that that side with people who proudly wield AR-15s in the faces of families of dead children. Look, I get wanting to show dedication to one’s beliefs, but when people actively taunt those saddened by loss on the off chance that there MIGHT be a discussion on firearms, I can’t really consider the nuances of their points, If they cannot afford any respect to those who didn’t even want to be part of the conversation, I see no reason to treat whatever they say with any seriousness.

            These are the folks you are aligning with. You may not agree with all their points, just like I don’t agree with all the points there. But simply saying “well, some people on your side want them all to be gone!” is not a cogent counterpoint. Again, just because they exist, it doesn’t mean that ANY attempt to regulate firearms is a gateway to complete disarmament.

            And then there is the fact that all this hand-wringing about a gun registry ONLY applies to the government. The NRA, a private organization, has one, and there is nothing to demonstrate that it is any safer or more protected fromabuse than a federal one would be. If someone decided to take advantage of it, who would stop them? The government? The very same one who you don’;t trust with such information in the first place? I certainly trust a public entity that has to answer to the citizenry much more than a group that has no such guarantees.

          • bob

            While you may not personally favor disarmament, you are pushing for gun control under an administration whose attorney general, a man known for purposely shipping the same weapons his party wants to restrict civilian ownership of to Mexican drug cartels, has gone on record as saying that we need to “brainwash brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way” (his words, not mine), and whose president has a long and active history of anti-gun policies, including banning the manufacture and sale of semiautomatic weapons (read: handguns), as well as banning ownership of handguns. If you want to have a discussion with firearm owners about gun control, don’t do it when you have a rabidly-anti-gun administration whose goal is to outlaw the majority of firearms that are used for self-defense.

            And while the SKS registry doesn’t, by itself, make ALL governmental firearm registries a bad thing, it serves as an example of what said registries have often been used to do in the past. Look at NYC: they’re sending out letters demanding the surrender of weapons they deem too dangerous for people to own, a list of which that includes MOST firearms in circulation.

            While I don’t agree with everything that every firearm owner believes, I DO draw the line on confiscation of the majority of firearms that US citizens own, and that’s what our president said he wanted to do way back when he was still a senator.

            As far as the NRA goes, am I legally required to register myself on that list?

          • bob

            Reeves didn’t follow the rules. He blatantly broke the rules and murdered someone. You still can’t extrapolate either example out to say that all people should be regulated based off one or two cases involving maniacs who lack self-control.

            You’re lying to yourself if you really believe that this isn’t an article demonizing guns. You can’t say that anyone who holds views similar to what he did before this incident is the same person as he was before this incident or would have acted the same way in this incident. There are plenty of people out there who have self-control and don’t make snap decisions to commit homicide because their tempers flare. The author evidently isn’t one of them.

            Our biology doesn’t “prevent” calm, rational thought in emotionally-charged situations. If it did, we wouldn’t trust airline pilots to land a plane in an emergency, or paramedics to save the life of someone who’s bleeding to death. Yes, you have to learn to control your emotions and not let them run your actions, but that’s not an insurmountable task for most folks.

            And believe me: I hope I never have to draw a weapon for any reason, either. I’m not out for blood like you seem to think that I am; I’m out for the safety of myself and my family.

          • teresaInPa

            Do you have a CC permit? No neither did the author of this article. Ex-cops sometimes have bad tempers. They get burn out. They expect people to do as they say. I know, I lived with one. He pulled a gun on me a few months ago. He got charged with a felony. The training you get in the military is different than what you get as a civilian getting a CC permit. The author was not a good guy with a gun, he didn’t follow the rules, he didn’t even bother to find out what they were. The ex-cop I lived with thought the rules were for everyone else. He also wasn’t a good guy with a gun. I am lucky I am not dead. But I still support the 2nd amendment and training. Not military training, not police training….civilian training, the rules of responsible gun ownership and how and when to use it. It is for self defense or the defense of others and if you can not make that case in a court of law you had better keep it holstered or do not own one. Contrary to what you think it is NOT our nature to be hot headed. When a loaded gun was stuck in my face, cocked and the person’s finger on the trigger I was completely cool and collected and I am still here.

        • Razor

          I’m not a 14 year old girl who lets my emotions control me.

          Oh please, we all let our emotions control us. And gun nuts in particular are the biggest bunch of emotional, self-aggrandizing, clinging to symbols bunch there is. “FROM MY COLD, DEAD HAND!” is pretty much the grown-man version of “TINA IS OUT TO DESTROY ME!”

          • Heywood Jablowme

            Oh please, we all let our emotions control us. And gun nuts in particular are the biggest bunch of emotional, self-aggrandizing, clinging to symbols bunch there is. “FROM MY COLD, DEAD HAND!” is pretty much the grown-man version of “TINA IS OUT TO DESTROY ME!”

            Generalizing my arguments doesn’t diminish the fact that, you and only you are responsible for your emotions and actions, try as you might to evade it

            “Did you miss the part where he was in the Marines? Some might call that experience.”

            So that’s where he learned to chase down a car and brandish his weapon at unarmed civilians. He must have slept though the part of basic where they teach you about rules of engagement.

          • Jeff Jefferson

            Except gun control advocates and politicians have come clean and stated they would love to ban guns if they could. Feinstein has stated that she would ban guns if she had the votes. So yes, they are out to get our guns. Hence why no compromises ever.

          • bob

            Speak for yourself. Some people don’t make critical decisions based off of fleeting and unpredictable emotional reactions. Just because you live your life ruled by your uncontrollable temper doesn’t mean that everyone else is on the same level, no matter how much you wish it was true.

          • Razor

            You are not a machine, no matter how predictable and boring you are. I never said anything about being ruled by an uncontrollable temper, just that every decision we make is an emotional response on some level or another. It’s kinda what makes us human.

          • bob

            While I appreciate your vote of confidence in my judgment based on my boringness, the point still stands: the author’s inability to control his emotions does not translate to rage-fueled attempted murder by other firearm owners.

          • bbiemeret

            You seem to imply that you are immune to random spurts of anger. I don’t know you, but if you’re not the goddamn Dali Lama, I call bullshit. Everyone has a line where they won’t take it anymore, and it’s at those times you lose most rational thought. But tell you’re self whatever you need to to sleep at night, just don’t think anyone here is buying it.

          • teresaInPa

            Speak for yourself. I don’t let my emotions control me. I learned self control somewhere around the age of three.

        • teresaInPa

          Hey, I agree with you, but leave the 14 year old girl bs out of it. My brothers were a bit slower learning self control than my sisters and I. Think back and be honest.

      • Tyler Sea

        To summarize your post:
        “The author chose to draw his gun and point it at kids because he was unlucky.”

        It’s called self control. It’s not our fault your parents raised you without any.

        • Tyler Sea

          Keep voting it down, but you can’t say shit otherwise.

          Gun control advocates fear that everyone else is as impulsive and dangerous as they are, which is why they want guns banned.

          Gun control advocates are mentally ill.

          • Lady Willpower

            “Gun control advocates are mentally ill.”

            And there goes any semblance of a rational discussion.

          • Jeff Jefferson

            Welcome to everyone who rationally tries to explain why they like and own guns, world. All we hear from the Left is “Da Children! THINK OF DA CHILDREN!!”

    • Christopher Foxx

      To Summarize:

      “I was a jackass and in a fit of rage I attempted to kill someone. Since I can’t control my emotions we need to strip everyone else’s rights away”

      As is typical, the gun nuts insist everyone wants to take all of their rights away. That nothing was said along those lines at all is beside the point.

      ANY mention of something less that rabid support for guns-for-everyone they insist is “stripping all our rights away.” They really demand that they get viewed as oppressed victims, especially when it isn’t true.

  • Trent DeRoc

    I’m confused. The author used a gun to end an attempt on his life by a motorist (with a deadly weapon), and no one got hurt. Had the author NOT had the means to protect himself he (or most likely someone else bystanding the incident) certainly could have been maimed or killed.

    While illegally carrying a firearm is a serious problem, and people who know themselves to have an unhealthy temperament should know to exercise restraint, the presence of a firearm in this instance de-escalated the incident.

    Perhaps if the process of obtaining the necessary licensure was better administrated the author might have been more likely to be informed in the laws in their state and avoided breaking the law in that way. It is definitely important to fulfill the legal requirements in your state before carrying a firearm, it’s for your own safety as well as the safety of those around you!

    • Fabius_Maximus

      If you’re confused, you should re-read the piece. Maybe it will clear things up.

      • Trent DeRoc

        That’s a good point, i’ve clarified my statement to better reflect the cognitive dissonance occurring in the piece. It’s interesting to see how thick the lens of perception can be sometimes, and how someone can break multiple laws (illegally transporting a weapon and brandishing with intent to harm) and still not consider themselves a criminal.

        • Fabius_Maximus

          You still didn’t get it. Let me quote the relevant part:

          “Seeing I’d had enough of their game, they pulled up just inches from
          hitting my car. The one in the passenger seat flipped me off with both
          hands which earned him a hearty back slap from the boy in the backseat.”

          He wasn’t in imminent danger anymore. Shooting the kids would not have been self-defense, it would have been retribution.

          The thing about being a criminal or not is completely beside the point.

          • Trent DeRoc

            Based on the title of the article, I think the author clearly stated what he believed the point was. The author characterized himself as a “good guy”, going so far as to explain he was not a criminal. Throughout the article he describes the instances where he breaks the law, and while a court hasn’t convicted him of any crime he has admitted to engaging in illegal actions both before this incident and leading up to the incident.

            You’re exactly right, after seeing the weapon the kids fled, ending a scenario where self-defense was warranted. Had he fired at the fleeing children he would have been guilty of his third crime that day by his own count. We are all fortunate he didn’t shoot those children after they were no longer attempting to kill him, that would have been murder, but what is important to the subject of the article is that the author has described his criminal behaviors in the same article where he claims to be a “good guy”, something that I think at a deep level he understands is not the case.

          • Fabius_Maximus

            I’m going to assume that you’re intentionally missing the point, now.

            He realized the kids were done before he went for the gun.

          • Trent DeRoc

            According to the narrative the kids were mere feet away from him when he went for the gun, and they had already made more than one attempt to ram him already. They fled when he presented his illegally carried pistol, not before hand (otherwise they would have been unable to see it clearly from the passenger’s side as they drove away).

          • Fabius_Maximus

            Yeah, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. I even quoted the relevant section. I’m not going to do that again.

          • Trent DeRoc

            I think the problem you are having in understanding is tied to the fact that you have determined for yourself what section of the article is relevant, instead of reading it as it was presented by the author. Perhaps you would be better suited composing and presenting a complete editorial reflecting on this article as opposed to segmenting it and interpreting it by part without respect for the whole.

          • glena

            I believe if you go back and read, you will find he clearly states that when he refused to try to avoid their car, they stopped playing their game with him but did flip him off and that’s what sent him over the edge.

            Flipping him off. The game had ended with him being flipped off.

            The game had ended. Flipping someone off is not life threatening.

            The threat was over. Any act that isn’t to try to defend your life is retribution. Retribution is not self defense.

          • Trent DeRoc

            There was no stop of the attempt on his life at that time, flipping someone off is not a gesture of good will nor does it indicate that someone no longer means you harm. Until his attackers actually began to leave they were still an imminent threat on his life, one that he would have been justified to defend himself against.

    • Christopher Foxx

      Had the author NOT had the means to protect himself he (or most likely someone else bystanding the incident) certainly could have been maimed or killed.

      Why do you see the ONLY way in which he could have protected himself as the gun? Why not consider that he might have protected himself by getting away from them.

      Or would steering away from a confrontation be too wimpy a response and therefore unthinkable?

      • Trent DeRoc

        While the author hasn’t shared the make or model of any of the vehicles involved with us, he did give us a fairly accurate accounting of the events leading up to the incident and his options are fairly clear. Without superior mobility (his car had stopped and pulled up to a guard rail, allowing him to only go backward and at a greatly reduced speed to his attackers) his only remaining options were to grab his illegal weapon or to exit the car and attempt to flee on foot.

        I do think it is interesting that you are suggesting trying to de-escalate or avoid a confrontation is “wimpy”, it gives us much better insight into the sense of insecurity that drives you to interpret clearly presented events in this way.

        • Christopher Foxx

          I do think it is interesting that you are suggesting trying to de-escalate or avoid a confrontation is “wimpy”

          I uggest you read it again. Trent. You got it pretty much exactly backwards.

          I’m suggesting that advocates for “going for your gun” reject walking away because they see that as too un-manly an option. That their egos to prove themselves override any consideration of any other route to get out of a confrontation safely.

          • Trent DeRoc

            I see what you’re insinuating now. I think it’s important in discussions like this to stay earnest and look at things how they actually are, as opposed to making disingenuous implications about the motivations of strangers projected from a posture of unfamiliarity.

            Where someone cannot simply leave, it seems unilaterally inappropriate to expect them do to so.

          • Christopher Foxx

            as opposed to making disingenuous implications about the motivations of strangers

            Yes, please avoid doing that.

          • bob

            He has a point. You’re acting as though you intimately know the hearts and minds of firearm owners and that, from your position of omniscience, you can tell it’s all about ego. I, for one, don’t believe that you know the motives of everyone you disagree with.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Wasn’t intended as an absolute, naturally there are exceptions and a spectrum of views. I Suppose I could have been clearer about that.

            That said, the equating guns to manliness is fairly self evident. One need only check the marketing materials and advertisements and comments of folks to see that.

          • bob

            Jeep advertises its vehicles as climbing mountains and fording rapids. As-seen-on-TV products are advertised as solutions to insurmountable problems that don’t actually exist (see: housewife who can’t crack an egg, man who can’t operate a Q-tip without stabbing himself in the eardrum).

            We can go down the list of ridiculous advertisements and the stupid methods they employ. Judging users of a product by whatever dross the product’s advertisement execs come up with works well when you disagree with a given industry, but doesn’t hold up when you apply it across the board.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Missed the point completely, bob. Advertisements are about wish fulfillment. That they show unrealistic scenarios merely reinforces my point that there is, in the mind of the manufacturer and consumer, an image associated with the product.

            That a particular body wash won’t make you a chick magnet, a Jeep won’t make you Indiana Jones or a gun won’t make you a real man doesn’t matter. It’s the connection that is being promoted, which was my obvious point.

          • bob

            In your previous post, you stated “that advocates for ‘going for your gun’ reject walking away because they
            see that as too un-manly an option. That their egos to prove
            themselves override any consideration of any other route to get out of a
            confrontation safely.”

            When Trent pointed out that you don’t actually know what people in self-defense situations (or advocates of self-defense) think or believe, you responded with a single advertisement for a sporting rifle as evidence that you DO, in fact, know what they’re thinking.

            No, your advertisement is NOT the definitive core reasoning that people in dangerous situations who act in self-defense are falling back on. You are still acting as though you know the hearts and souls of the people you oppose, and that, when it comes right down to it, they refuse to deescalate situations because self-defense is a matter of pride.

          • bob

            Perhaps the people who support drawing a weapon aren’t so much concerned with ego as they are concerned that three teenagers just tried to kill them and may not give up once they get out of the protection of their vehicle.

  • Travis Kunz

    Good people aren’t just a myth, I’m sure incidents of road rage are repeated time and time again on the road, weapon or not. I feel that comparing yourself to Curtis Reeves denies one simple fact: you decided not to shoot, you made a decision, Reeves made his. No weapon makes you evil, your decisions do, blaming the weapon denies the responsibility every law-abiding gun owner has, to protect that which is worth protecting; and morally lifts that responsibility from Mr Reeves, placing it on the weapon. Frankly, as far as I’m concerned, even after that incident, your decisions were the right ones. If you don’t believe its right for you to own and carry a firearm, then I applaud your decision not to. However, I cannot accept that the tools we use are responsible for our actions, because at the very end of it all, we make the decision whether to use them or not.

    • nerdnam

      I’m sorry, but you are truly insane. He had already made the wrong decision and the only reason he didn’t shoot was the lack of a clear shot.
      You may believe yourself to be a robot, capable of making flawless decisions in all circumstances, but you are very likely not. And once you discover you are not, it may very well be too late for you.

      • Someguy

        Actually he was only really wrong when he attempted to shoot them after the fact. In drawing and brandishing his weapon he likely diffused the situation from escalation. The correct thing to do would have been to drawn the weapon and slow down immediately as much as possible to let them pass. IF they then continued to try to run you off the road, they are trying to maim and kill you with their vehicle and you need to get the hell off the road and away from them if possible. If you can’t due to other traffic/variables then you need to immediately shoot to kill at the driver. Point blank period. It’s a hairy situation because it was out on a road with other drivers and vehicles around and that’s why hands down the best option would be to evade the erratic, idiotically suicidal driver. However, if you are about to be intentionally maimed or killed, be it by car, or knife, or gun, or fists and clubs, or mob, by another person(s), and with no possibility of retreat you use your weapon lethally, immediately to save your life. If the author is a hothead who can’t control himself and feels he shouldn’t be armed, more power to him. He can’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of us.

      • bob

        Name-calling doesn’t make your views any less wrong…

      • Travis Kunz

        Im sorry you need to slander someone with an opinion opposing yours. I can tell you there is a big difference between pulling the trigger or not. I also never claimed to be infallible, Ive made decisions that Im not proud of. But I made them and lived with the consequences. Blaming the weapon when you pull the trigger is denying you made the decision to fire, denying your responsibility, and as long as we as human beings hold free will, I cannot accept that.

    • JozefAL

      There’s also a difference in the situations here that you seem to have overlooked. The author of this piece was IN his car and HAD the gun IN his car AT the time of the incident. Mr Theater Shooter, on the other hand, was IN the THEATER, while his gun was IN THE CAR at the time of the incident. Mr Theater Shooter THEN went TO HIS CAR, GOT HIS GUN AND SHOT THE OTHER MAN. Did Mr Theater Shooter use his time in walking to his car to cool off or calm down and think “Why am I getting my gun?” NO. He got his gun out of his car, went back to the theater and shot the other man IN COLD BLOOD.

      On the other hand, Mr Theater Shooter actually had weapons on his person but chose not to use them–his hands. Hands were and are a human’s first weapons. He could’ve punched the man who so grossly offended him. He could’ve slapped the man. Hell, he could’ve tried wrapping his hands around the other man’s throat to try strangling him. So, why didn’t he use THOSE weapons? No. He went for a weapon that’s PRIMARY job is TO KILL. Sure. You can fire a gun as a warning but there’s STILL an intent there to kill (that’s what the “warning” is); it’s like a rattlesnake. Rattlesnakes–hell EVERY venomous snake–has no intention of wasting its precious venom on something that it can’t eat which is why it presents a “warning”–with rattlesnakes, it’s the infamous rattle. But if you don’t heed that warning, it will strike.

      • Travis Kunz

        Im afraid Im confused, are you claiming Mr Reeves had his wepaon on his person, which would have been legal under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (which does apply to both active and retired LEOs), or that he did not? You contradict yourself. Either way, I feel my point remains, Mr Reeves made the decision to fire, regardless of how much time was in-between the instigation and trigger pull. An officer of the law should demonstrate better judgement and coolness under pressure. Also, we are not animals, we can act on more that just pure instinct, we all have free will, and that comes with the responsibility of being affected by the consequences of our free will.

    • Christopher Foxx

      However, I cannot accept that the tools we use are responsible for our actions, because at the very end of it all, we make the decision whether to use them or not.

      The tools aren’t responsible. They have no minds and or free will etc. Duh.


      The presence of a gun makes it much more likely that someone will use it. If Frederic hadn’t had a gun in his car it is far, far more likely that he wouldn’t have tried to chase down the idiots who almost ran him off the road.

      If someone doesn’t have a gun, it’s less likely they will get into a situation where they’ll feel they need it. Having the gun makes a person feel more powerful, more tough, and predictable, more willing to get into a situation where they will have to defend themselves.

      • bob

        You’re still blaming an inanimate object for the person’s emotions and, ultimately, poor decisions.

        • Christopher Foxx

          Nope. Not what I said. Distinctly not what I said.

          But you need it to be what I said so you can feel justified in dismissing it. And so >presto< it's what I said.

          In your mind.

          • bob

            You said that a gun, by its presence, makes a person more likely to use it. You also said that, if the author had not had a gun, he would have been less likely to attempt murder. Then you said that, by not having a gun, a person is less likely to get into a situation where “they’ll feel they need it”. In all three examples, you causally link the presence of a gun with the actions of a nearby person.

          • Christopher Foxx

            In all three examples, you causally link the presence of a gun with the actions of a nearby person.

            And in exactly none of those examples did I say the gun decided to do anything.

            I quite clearly said the tools aren’t responsible. And my “Duh” should have indicated that that should be self-evident.

            But, like the radical wingnuts who can’t countenance a meare suggestion of gun control, you’re insisting something was said which was not said. So you can rail against what nobody was arguing for.

            Anything but actually face what’s really going on.

          • bob

            You’re right. I got carried away and read things into your post that weren’t there. Sorry about that.

            I still take issue with your assumption that carrying a firearm definitively makes a person more likely to get into dangerous situations.

          • Christopher Foxx

            I still take issue with your assumption that carrying a firearm definitively makes a person more likely to get into dangerous situations.

            We’ll have to scarify what is meant by “getting into a dangerous situation”. I don’t think a person carrying a gun is more likely to find themselves in a situation where they get mugged, etc. What I do think is, once some kind of interaction starts, that a person carrying a gun is more likely to have it turn into a more dangerous situation.

            That is, when carrying a gun a person will tend to feel more powerful, more able to defend themselves. And therefore less likely to pursue a course that could defuse the situation before it becomes violent.

            The 6’5″ built-like-a-linebacker is more likely than the 5’3″ built-like-a-jockey to confront someone because the larger guy believes he’s more able to handle whatever is going to result than the smaller guy. But, if the smaller guy has a gun, his confidence will grow that he can defend himself and he’s less likely to, for example, withdraw.

            Hence, the presence of a gun makes a person more likely to get into a situation where they may feel they need to use it.

          • bob

            That’s a fair point in general, but it is SO dependent on the actual person, their personality, and the amount of training (ESPECIALLY on justifiable use of force) they’ve had. Yes, there are going to be some people who legally own firearms that don’t have what I consider sufficient judgment to do so, but I tend to err on the side of less restriction. Depending on what type of gun violence you’re trying to address, this group of firearm owners may not even enter into the equation.

            For example, if you are targeting mass shootings (and I’m not saying that you necessarily are), you have to look at the pattern of mass shootings and recognize that many perpetrators stole their firearms, enacting legal restrictions targeted at sales to them won’t be very effective.

            For me, the bottom line is that I don’t believe that egotistical legal firearm owners who are out for blood make up a significant portion of gun violence. I think we have more of a gang problem than a problem with average firearm owners.

          • Christopher Foxx

            you have to look at the pattern of mass shootings and recognize that many perpetrators stole their firearms

            Not in Aurora. All of the guns used were obtained legally.
            Not at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis. All of the guns used were obtained legally.
            Not at the Wisconsin Sikh temple. All of the guns used…
            Not at the Café Racer in Seattle. All of the guns…
            Not at Virginia Tech. All…
            Not at Sandy Hook.
            Not at …

            You were saying?

          • Mister Xiado

            There is also no connection between Robert Holmes and Peter Lanza.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Nor between Elmer Fudd and Maynard G. Krebs.

            But, then, nobody was saying there was.

            Seriously, WTF?

          • bob

            Lanza MURDERED the owner of the weapons and took them. THAT’S legal procurement? He did not “legally” own the weapons; he stole them from the first victim that he murdered.

            Tallying the others up yields… 59 deaths? You’re going to enact legislation on a federal level to ostensibly combat something that has killed fewer children in your examples than choking on food? Heck, fewer than the vast majority of other preventable causes of death?

            Before you call me cold and uncaring for tallying the numbers, pause to think about what life would be like if we enacted legislation every time a given thing causes more than 50 deaths per year.

          • Christopher Foxx

            59 people are murdered, but we should do nothing abut it because… food?

          • bob

            59 people are murdered and you think that’s reason enough to strip millions of people of their freedoms. I disagree, and I provided an example of something that causes more deaths that I don’t hear you arguing for legislation to address.

            If you’re calling for legislation on things that kill 50+ people over a period of years, you’ve got bigger fish to fry than firearms.

          • Christopher Foxx

            59 people are murdered and you think that’s reason enough to strip millions of people of their freedoms.

            And, once hundredth again, you’re off in paranoia-land. Who said anything about “stripping” you of your freedoms?

            Requiring you to, for example, register your firearm doesn’t stop you from having one. Letting people know that you have exercised your right, somehow, means you haven’t exercised that right? Which you just exercised?

            Is the right to bear arms a completely, absolutely, no exceptions, everyone-gets-as-many-weapons-as-they-want-including-personal-ICMBs-with-nuclear-warheads-for-any-nutjob-who-wants-one right? Of course not. Even without the hyperbole, of course not. Rights have limits. Reasonable boundaries and restrictions on rights exist all over the place.

            And putting those limits in place is not “stripping” someone of their freedoms.

          • bob

            Again, explain to me what your registry will do to combat violent crime. How is your knowledge of who around you owns firearms going to make you safer from the criminals who won’t register them, but will instead use your public registry to steal firearms from legal owners?

          • Christopher Foxx

            Off the top of my head, it would help make weapons used in crimes trackable, and help holding the people who supply them to criminals or otherwise allow them to get into criminal hands to be held accountable.

            Now, explain to me how a registry would keep you from being able to exercise your right to bear arms. It’s been asked at least three times, and you keep avoiding an answer. Why is that?

            criminals … will instead use your public registry to steal firearms from legal owners?

            Wait a minute, I thought an armed society was a polite society because criminals would be more hesitant to attack if they couldn’t be sure their intended victim wasn’t armed? That the possible presence of a gun would dissuade criminals. Now you’re saying actually knowing for sure that a gun is present makes someone MORE of a target.

            Seriously, doesn’t it hurt your neck when you whip around and reverse direction like that?

          • bob

            I have told you multiple times, as have others, that registries have historically been used to facilitate confiscation many times, and so I don’t consider them worth whatever benefit society may receive from them.

            And you’re saying that it will help police pick up the pieces after victims are dead. Nope, I’m not interested in compiling a confiscation list so that the cops will be able to track the stolen weapons that they’re already able to track because people report the theft of their firearms. You seem to think that organized crime has a well-established method of supplying arms that involves buying them from legal owners. I haven’t heard of such a thing, but if you have something to back it up, I’ll think on it and discuss it.

            Now tell me honestly: do you really think that a public registry of who has what types of weapons WON’T be used by criminals to target burglaries and robberies for the purpose of stealing firearms?

            If you really don’t understand the difference between deterrence and targeted theft, please say so and I’ll explain them.

        • Christopher Foxx

          No, I’m not. I quite clearly said the tools aren’t responsible. A nd my “Duh” should have indicated that that should be self-evident.

          But, like the radical wingnuts who can’t countenance a meare suggestion of gun control, you’re insisting something was said which was not said. So you can rail against what nobody was arguing for.

          Anything but actually face what’s really going on.

      • Travis Kunz

        Im afraid I cant agree with that, in Mr Poag’s case, his own vehicle would have been just as if not more lethal if used to run the other vehicle off the road. Honestly, I feel like the elephant in the room of this whole comment section is the fact that the true culprits of Mr. Poag’s incident are the teenagers of the offending vehicle. Mr Poag’s emotional response is what led to his decisions to swear off firearms, but I feel he wrongly targets the tools; like you said, they have no free will. If those teenagers hadn’t decided to endanger everyone on a major highway, improperly using their vehicle, just like Mr. Poag felt he improperly used his firearm, then I don’t think the catalyst for his rationale would have occurred. Those three, improperly using a tool that provided them with a powerful feeling, attacked Mr. Poag, threatening not only him, but everyone else on the road.

        • Christopher Foxx

          No argument there. The driver of the other vehicle, and the passengers who no doubt encouraged him, are indead teh villains of this piece.

          That may not have come up much in this discussion, but I don’t think that’s an elehant anyone has been actively trying to ignore.

          • Travis Kunz

            Just skimming the comments, I can see the topic for most in purely gun control.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Yes, the discussion went that way. But folks not talking about the three bad guys doesn’t mean they’re avoiding them. Only that they’re following the path the discussion took.

            Which is understandable given that the topic of Frederic’s article wasn’t how bad they were, but how he reacted to them.

  • David L.

    Wow. Really powerful piece. I think this part is the perfect summary of cases like the one in Florida:

    We all have a trigger, a limit, and whatever it might be when it’s pulled, that’s it. For some of us it’s in those instances, we reach for the biggest stick we have. It could be a harsh word or a physical thing. Whatever it is, we want the impact to be devastating and there’s nothing more brutal than a bullet.

    It’s way too easy when that stick is comfortably resting on your hip.

    • bob

      Should police officers also be disarmed? We have plenty of examples of police brutality, so why should they be treated any different than the general population?

      • Fabius_Maximus

        Better training could work.

        • Ferrumkit

          Better ‘training’ hasn’t been backed by statistics, in fact they end up hitting collateral and tagging wrong houses regularly compared to their CCW counterparts.

          • Fabius_Maximus

            Out of curiosity: what’s the average length of training for police officers in the US?

          • Ferrumkit

            It’s a discretion of individual stations {Read: Supplies} on how often their officers actually need to qualify on their carry gun.

            Yes they need to atleast attend their -basic- LEO courses in order to initially qualify, but comparatively speaking, they can maintain a lowest requirement on a firearms exam and are still seen as ‘competent’. This is also on an assumed honesty, as a RO can fudge the numbers if they choose [different debate over ethics].

            Contrast with an enthusiast{read:Not a wackjob} that chooses to regularly practice, not focusing on an bi-/semi-/annual qualification but rather more on personal marksmanship improvement that’s of personal interest.

            Humans are proven to be animals that go with the path of least resistance, so to assume all cops are ‘dedicated’ is naive, just as it’s naive to assume all gun owners are negligent asshats.

            This man’s article is on false pretenses; Illegal carry, Illegal brandishing, Assuming everyone would functionally respond as he did. His argument holds as much ground as “Peanuts/pretzels/Legos/{Insert item here} should be banned because I almost killed my child by not noticing him choke on them” when the real point that I pull from this is personal LACK of responsibility on his part. People are/have been/will be jerks, This is not new. How we -handle- ourselves is entirely upto us. There are people who use cars to run others off the road on imagined slights, in this case he was going to attempt to use a gun rather than the car, a matter of “which tool will I use”, Arguably he could have had an easier time killing them with the vehicle if he let his road rage get to him that deeply.

          • Ferrumkit

            Training is dictated by individual police stations, Generally weapons qualifications are subject to supplies which are also subject to funds. So some may do bi-annual while others do semi-annual.

        • bob

          Better training than what? We already put them through years of education on reasonable use of force. Besides, the question wasn’t, “How can we reduce homicide (justifiable or not) by police officers?” It was, “Cops are people, too, so by this logic, shouldn’t they be disarmed?”

      • David L.

        Looking at the state of technology nowadays, I’d bet that police could perfectly be armed (except SWAT teams and the like) with non-lethal weaponry and the number of homicides committed by officers would drop drastically near to zero. C’mon, you think it isn’t possible to design a gun that can be functionally equivalent to a firearm with live munition but instead can stun or produce a temporary paralysis to the target? We have nuclear weaponry but can’t figure out how to disable a dangerous person without a good chance of killing them? Of course, such a structural change would mean less billions for the Death Industry, so we can’t be having that.

        On the whole, the cult to these metallic contraptions that can cause the extermination of a human life with the mere jerk of the muscles in the index finger is something I’ll never, ever be able to understand. The fear of being assaulted at all times, the infinite daydreaming of Hollywoodesque battle scenarios which are extremely unlikely to actually happen in the real world, the sacralization of a mechanic toy which is nothing but another commercial product, and one of the most dangerous one can buy… this stuff can’t be good for the health and psyche of any modern society. No, I don’t think police and the military should be disarmed per se, the State can have the monopoly of violence as long as there’s a perfect Rule of Law (not exactly the one we have today). Also, it’s interesting that of the total police force of the UK, only the officers in Northern Ireland carry firearms. In England, Scotland and Wales, police don’t, except in special circumstances. They carry non-lethal weaponry for self-defense like incapacitant sprays, some tasers and extendable batons. Consider this:

        There were 640 murders / homicides in Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) in 2011/12 (10.43 per million population). Of these 640 murders / homicides, 44 involved a gun or firearm as the main weapon. Gun murders in Britain in 2011/12 represent 6% of the murder cases, (0.72 gun homicides per million population). Population of Britain (combined England, Scotland and Wales) in last census 2011 = 61,370,912

        In the United States in 2011, there were 32,163 deaths inflicted by firearms. That’s 10.3 per hundred thousand people, not a 0.72 per million like in Britain. I’d say it’s a big difference. Not only because of the police, of course, but because firearms regulation is extremely strict. And while there is no doubt armed organized crime in places like London, Manchester, Glasgow or Liverpool, civilians usually don’t possess any guns at all, and you can’t exactly say that the UK (or most of Europe) is much more tyrannical or less democratic than the USA (please look at the Global Democracy Index of 2013, which places the UK five spots above the US, who ranks 21st in the world by the way). It’s sheer insanity what’s happening when gun nuts have absolute political hegemony in American discourse. It’s disgusting, and it’s immoral, since the epidemic of violent deaths caused by guns is avoidable and definitely possible to ‘cure.’ Any person with a conscience should be appalled by the number of children and teenagers who get to end their exiguous time on this planet because of being at the receiving end of a bullet shot by someone who shouldn’t be allowed to have the power to extinguish lives in the first place.

        • bob

          Nuclear technology is not equatable to less-lethal technology, nor are the fields of research appreciably complementary. Tasers usually work, but not always. We don’t have a good non-lethal device that reliably stops someone in their tracks, every time.

          Your entire description of what you think the mind of an average gunowner is like is a blatant strawman from start to finish. Argue your point using something more than, “Well YOU think like this: BLAH BLAH BLAH DOY!”

          If you think extendable batons are “non-lethal”, look up Kelly Thomas, or just search Google for, “Death by baton”.

          And the next time you want to discuss statistics, bring up something more relevant than, “When there are fewer guns, fewer people are shot”. Try discussing violent crime as a whole.

          • David L.

            What you say is what I think is in the mind of an average gun owner is actually what I think is in the mind of a huge majority of gun nuts. Big difference there. Obviously, I’m not calling every person in America who owns a gun a gun nut, because not everybody swims in constant paranoia. The NRA and the Republican (et al.) fanatics who consider that there should be no restrictions to gun ownership at all. That’s what’s sick to the core: it’s, IMHO, one of America’s biggest shadows and blots in the dawn of the 21st century. As a citizen of that country, I think I have the right to be angry about a situation that has spiraled beyond control a long, long time ago. Civilized people, one would hope, are capable of mantaining general and personal security without the immediate recourse to a killing-machine.

          • bob

            Civilized people are only capable of maintaining personal security without access to guns if nobody else can threaten them with a “killing-machine”. The author had his life threatened with several thousand pounds of metal moving several times faster than humans were designed to move; that counts as a “killing-machine” in my book.

            And besides, people who carry firearms don’t “immediately and ubiquitously” recourse to them. Firearms serve as a last resort to protect your safety, not a catch-all response to anything you disagree with.

          • Ferrumkit

            National Firearms Act (1934)
            Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968)
            Gun Control Act of 1968 (1968)
            Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986)
            Undetectable Firearms Act (1988)
            Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990) (ruled unconstitutional as originally written; has been upheld repeatedly after minor edits were made by Congress)
            Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
            Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004) (expired)
            Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005)
            Yep, no restrictions what-so-ever, The best part is none of these managed to do anything, at all, nothing, nada. They, added taxation, bumped up purchase age from 18 to 21{handguns}, said “you can’t sell this to a person you know is a criminal”, enforced all interstate sales [assuming on transactions between 2 persons from different states] require to be done via FFL {Unenforceable if you travel interstate}, Restricted importation on arbitrary devices [non-adjustable sights, short barrels, etc], Anyone with a Med Marijuana card is also barred from ownership, an illegal database registry by the ATF, another list defining ‘prohibited persons’, a 24 hour waiting period [Debatably good, sometimes people do dumb shit], a safe passage article [good, cops can’t slap you with a fine for passing through a no gun zone with properly stored weapons], a Machine Gun ban that achieved nothing, Gun free zones{so far haven’t deterred criminals}, the Brady act that again defined prohibited persons but managed to block some people from purchasing [rightly so] but doesn’t prevent strawman-purchase [nearly impossible to truly catch if not caught in the act], and an attempt to hold companies liable for user’s actions [I would equate this to suing pinsole for someone poisoning someone with it] In an attempt to sherp the criminal of responsibly.

            So yes, Firearms have often been restricted by law, despite the constitutional questionable legislation to do so. Now you may want to blindly -hope- people are civilized, but it’s naive to say the least. Most people don’t do dumb things, but the few that do result in the likes of companies NEEDING to label coffee {Unquestionably a hot beverage by all means} as HOT asto warn you, that YOU MIGHT BURN YOURSELF ON THIS HOT COFFEE. That tells you the state of personal responsibility some people have. Homicide and gun-death are pretty darn low, despite the hype recently.

            Now if you want to argue personal safety, that is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, no ifs-ands-or-buts about it, Police are not responsible for your well-being. They are responders and enforcers, not your defenders. Immediate bodily harm takes often mere seconds [Police can legally treat people with knifes as a gun-threat within 21 feet] Average response time is around 15 minutes [My home town was nearly 30 minutes while being within a mile of the station]. So while the author may feel he isn’t responsible enough [and proven correct with his irrational behavior and blaming everything else] I am personally responsible enough to handle my personal defense. This is from someone that doesn’t even CCW right now, but if I wish to, I should certainly be able too do so as long as I take the responsibility for it and through the proper channels [CCW courses].

          • bob

            And don’t forget that, according to Warren v. DC, police don’t actually have a duty to provide police services to people. They can’t be held liable for not doing their jobs. Add that to the response time and you’re looking at a picture where you are the only person who can protect yourself.

          • Ferrumkit

            Indeed, I already knew about those bits, hell I’m still chilled reading about the cases of slow, or worse, no response. I think the one that gets me the worst is the case involving the woman that had a restraining order, lived about 400 yards from the station, called the cops, her daughter was murdered by the estranged husband, and she was slashed across the throat, both with a broke mirror shard if I remember right. She barely survived the ordeal.

        • Ferrumkit

          Call me skeptic, but wasn’t there a big hu-bub about some cops beating the literal life out of a man? To assume the only people they kill are with guns may be a tad naive.

          And bear in mind this only -one- of the cases we are aware of.

          Also even less than lethal devices can still cause death.

          While we’ve made allot of ‘less than lethal’ devices, theres a few things that prevent the mass issue of them, they are often cumbersome, expensive, many cases ineffective on truly dangerous criminals, and often require more expensive training to certify the user in [Often Tazer and pepper spray needs certification for issue because if not trained, suddenly accidental death is very very possible]

        • bbiemeret

          I know this is totally anecdotal, and not proof-positive of anything, but I spent 2 weeks in London, in the middle of August las year. I rode the tube everyday, and read the free paper every morning and every evening, and for two whole weeks, I didn’t see one single story of an incident of gun violence. There were crimes, to be sure, even a particularly brutal gang stabbing, but no gun violence.

          They passed sweeping gun reforms years ago, after a mass shooting no less, and their gun violence has dropped like 37% between 2005 and 2011. And the cops don’t carry guns. Despite all the CCTV, I never felt “surveilled”, the cops did not have an overwhelming presence, and yet I felt quite safe, even on the tube.

          • bob

            What has violent crime overall done since the ban? If all you’re concerned about is gun violence, then by all means ban guns. If, on the other hand, you don’t want to be stabbed, beaten, robbed, or raped, then you have to look at a bigger picture than firearm statistics alone.

            And just because you’re comfortable with a nanny state watching everything you do doesn’t mean that everyone else is.

          • bbiemeret

            Violent crime in general, gun or otherwise, has dropped significantly in the last decade in the UK, which is close to the same amount of time the ban has been in effect. And the British lump ALL crimes against person, including simple assault and even verbal harassment as violent crime, where here in the US we only include murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault as violent crimes.

            And as far as that nanny state bullshit is concerned, you can blow it out your ass. First, a lot of those CCTVs are privately owned, just business owners protecting themselves and not the “nanny state”. Second, I only noticed because it was different from where I’m from, but after a couple days, you don’t even notice or care. Besides, it’s not like the cameras only catch criminals and paranoid people like you, they can help get aid and emergency response to those in distress faster.

            To be quite honest, as a black man, I felt way less “surveilled” in the UK than I do right here at home in the good ole’ USA. What would you know about the nanny state?

          • bob

            1.2 million violent crimes nationwide in the US.


            Scroll down to table 1 (page 6). 1.94 million violent crimes in the England and wales.

          • bbiemeret

            If you bothered to actually read my post, I informed you that the reason they have more violent crime is because they consider more crime to be violent. If you added those same types of crime to the US statistic, the US is far more violent.

          • bob

            322,358 in the “violence against the person WITH injury”, which still leads to a higher (~5000/million) rate than the US (~3800/million).

        • Jeff Jefferson

          You think that police on the beat should not pack any kind of heat in a country where there are over 300 million guns? Do you get born that retarded or do you have to work at it?

    • Tyler Sea

      Your post and the author’s story:

      “we lack the self control to not attempt to murder people over trivial shit, that means everyone else does as well.”

      Seriously, why would you advertise to the world just how unstable you are?

      • David L.

        While I’ve never been so angry as to literally want to murder anybody, the fact that to do so I would either have to strangle, poison or hit that somebody with a blunt object on the dome, makes it seem like a much more strenuous proposition than having your brain command your finger to press a trigger. In any case, I am certain that my homicidal instincts are pretty well-held at bay; if you are a gun owner, I sincerely hope yours are as well.

        • bob

          Your argument still boils down to, “I have poor self control that I theorize would be worsened by possessing a gun, and everyone else is exactly the same as me.”

          • Christopher Foxx

            Yours boils down to “I’m always in control and nothing could ever happen that would rattle me. Ever.”

          • bob

            And you believe that your assumptions about my character are sufficient grounds to deny me constitutionally-protected rights, correct? Please tell me what other rights you think I should be stripped of based off of your assumptions.

          • Christopher Foxx

            And you believe that your assumptions about my character are sufficient grounds to deny me constitutionally-protected rights, correct?

            No, incorrect. Predictably incorrect.

            Why do you take anything anyone says about gun control, even a comment that says nothing about gun control, and immediately claim it’s “You wanna take away all my rights!”?

            This is why it’s impossible to have anything approaching a reasonable discussion about guns. Those in favor of them absolutely insist anything other than full-throated, unquestioning agreement with their side is as attempt to utterly steal their rights away.

          • bob

            Fair enough. Yes, based on what you posted, I assumed your views were pro-gun control, and it seems that I’ve offended by that. For that I am sorry.
            Please tell me what your opinions on the subject are and what you think should be done about the issue. I’d love to continue discussing it, but we need to understand each other’s views on the subject.

            P.S. I really am sorry for making the assumption. I’ll try not to get carried away and presume upon your views again.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Yes, based on what you posted, I assumed your views were pro-gun control, and it seems that I’ve offended by that. For that I am sorry.,

            My views are pro gun control. Pro reasonable gun control. And I dont’ take offense at you’re makign that assumption.

            What I do find incredibly frustrating is that any conversation with someone who is “pro guns” very quickly devolves into an accusation that people in favor of some controls are eagerly trying to take all of their rights away. As you did with your “tell me what other rights you think I should be stripped of”

            Such ridiculous hyperbole and paranoia is why having a rational discussion about guns is nearly impossible.

            I agree that you have a right to have guns. While I might wish at times that that were not the case, it is the law. So you have a right to them. Why can’t those who want to own guns acknowledge that reasonable controls don’t abridge that right?

            (Actually, most gun owners do. Over 80 percent,I believe. But they happily stand aside and let the sociopathic minority speak for them.)

          • Mister Xiado

            1: Shall not be infringed.

            2: The problem is people, but people calling for “reasonable controls” are the people who had mental health hospitals shut down. Because parents in denial are so well equipped to keep their mentally-deranged offspring from going berserk.

            3: Warren v. District of Columbia. The police have no obligation to protect you, or to come to your aid. It is your own duty to defend yourself, maybe your friends, maybe your family. Perhaps to even strangers on the street.

            4: More laws only restrict those who respect the law, and do nothing to prevent willed criminals and the mentally unstable from doing what they please.

          • Christopher Foxx

            1: Shall not be infringed.

            You state that by itself, as an absolute. So before we can even begin to go any further, let’s be clear on where you stand.

            NOTHING can be put in place which limits or affects in ANY way a person’s right to bear arms?

            If your answer is “Yes, that’s right”, then there is nothing to discuss. If your answer is anything else, then don’t throw up that “Shall not be infringed” mantra as if it’s some carved-in-stone trump card.

            2: The problem is people, but people calling for “reasonable controls” are the people who had mental health hospitals shut down.

            And if you’re going to insist that anyone who tries to discuss reasonable controls is actually trying to do something extreme, there is similarly nothing to discuss. Doing that shows a closed mind and utter unwillingness to actual hear what is being said.

          • Mister Xiado

            Perhaps if the government were to require a permit for people to speak outside of their homes (the web and the rest of the internet is also outside of your home), we would have less strife and disharmony. Freedom of speech is enumerated in the Bill of Rights, even before the right to bear arms. If people had to be licensed by the state to communicate outside of their own homes, then we might have much less gang violence (nixing freedom of assembly), fewer crimes of passion, and perhaps less domestic violence. If people cannot communicate differences of opinion, then they may get along better. But that would only limit people who would willingly obey the law. Still, this works very well in England, where criminal scum are now in fear of posting hurtful comments on social media sites, protecting the feelings of their potential victims.

            We had banned alcohol, and had achieved great success and societal harmony with that restriction. We have declared war on drugs, and now the men, women, and children of our great nation are blessed with freedom from chemical intoxication in all its insidious forms. The last hurdle in achieving an utter utopia within our lifetimes is to ban all weapons, to prevent “gun nuts” from murdering thousands of pieces of paper, plastic bottles, and the wiping out the endangered clay pigeon. These dregs of our society refuse to believe that their vile weapons of mass destruction, equal in all ways to fission bombs and fuel-air mix munitions, are engineered specifically for the slaughter of helpless babies. Their ignorance goes so far that they aren’t even using their mass murder weapons for this purpose, and insist further that they have the self-control to resist attempting to murder people who vex them. It is literally impossible to resist the urge to murder when one has an evil gun whispering vile thoughts into their very minds. If one has a gun, they should throw it into the nearest garbage can. Because once it goes into the garbage, it is utterly destroyed.

            What’s to stop a strong person with a knife from raping and murdering everyone they have the mind to? Surely weak people can just say no, and call for the police. Who have no obligation or legal requirement to come to the aid of the victim. With the police called, the dignity and safety of the intended victim is secured, and the would-be murder-rapist just stops existing, instead of gong to a weaker target. What’s to stop a trio of criminals from breaking into people’s houses and doing as they please, taking and breaking everything at their whim? I really would like to know.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Mister Xiado: Perhaps if the government were to require a permit … I really would like to know.

            So you chose to avoid answering the questions and go off instead on some ad absurdum straw man rant.

            How utterly unsurprising.

          • Mister Xiado

            What are your restrictions going to do but get more people killed, as exampled in cities like Washington DC, New York, and Chicago, which all have de facto handgun bans in place? Show me a pattern, as indexed by FBI crime reporting statistics, that the restriction of firearms in the United States has led to a marked decrease in instances of violent crime. Correlation may not be causation, but in my own personal experience, I have been the victim of assault and robbery more frequently than after I had become a gun owner. I am not so blind as to assume that my experiences mirror those of all others. My position is based on my limited firsthand sampling of being kicked in the head by multiple assailants without the mechanical means to defend myself at the time, and a damaged knee preventing the ability to run away.

          • glena

            Damn, my advice to you would be move. If you’re getting attacked over and over like that, robbed and assaulted by a mob, I’d say move. That mob rolls up on you and they’re still gonna over take you and beat you ass before you get a gun out to shoot any of them with.

            Sounds like a really bad neighborhood.

            Twice, in over fifty years of life has someone intended to assault/rob me. Once in DC, once in a suburb of DC. Neither time did I have a weapon of any kind, Neither time was I harmed or lost any money. Sometimes if your wits is all you have, it’s enough.

          • Mister Xiado

            I was a ward of the state at the time. I was under the alleged protection of the government, for all the good it did me. Moving was not an option until I was old enough, coincidentally, to buy a gun. At least from a gun shop. You are blessed in your fortune of never having been assaulted by a group of thugs, or stabbed, so please argue in an arena in which you have more experience. Telling people to move out of a poorly-policed city is like telling poor people to buy more money.

          • glena

            I’ve walked some of the slimiest streets in the Country. Detroit, DC, Chicago. All the ones that claim victims daily.

            In my little corner of the Universe know, there were two murders last week. Two being a huge number for such a small rural County, both in the same area.

            Not every victim can prevent a crime but many live a life of fear where there is none. Or even worse, have the false assertion that because they carry a gun, they are safe.

            I don’t think carrying a gun makes the average person one bit safer in public than I am, without a gun.

            Statistics prove over and over that those who own guns are more likely be shot than those who don’t own guns.

            So, I’ll take my lower risk with no gun. I’m not saying that folks shouldn’t have guns. By all means you want a gun and you’re within the law to have one, have one.

            I think, however, that are current state of gun FRENZY has folks who would never have a gun, getting GUNS. Thinking it makes them safer or better folks. It doesn’t.

          • bob

            You’re more than welcome to not carry a firearm or weapon. I won’t tell you that you have to. In turn, please don’t tell me that I can’t.

          • bob

            Ah, so you’re employing the “it doesn’t matter if you act or not, bad stuff will still happen” argument that your pro-gun control allies have already argued isn’t fair game.

            Your personal decision that someone else’s attempt to defend themselves won’t work is NOT a good reason for you to argue that they should be stripped of their right to TRY to defend themselves.

          • Christopher Foxx

            “NOTHING can be put in place which limits or affects in ANYway a person’s right to bear arms?”
            Yes? No? Something in between?

            Still waiting.

          • Ferrumkit

            verb: infringe; 3rd person present: infringes; past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed; gerund or present participle: infringing
            actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).

            Seeing as you want to know SPECIFICS, And it’s been acknowledges ad nauseam that generally speaking, serious offenders of any given law are typically stripped of their general rights, This also extends to causes of mental instability for their protection and those around them to limit the damage that can occur, but that was also the intention of Asylums, that people decried as infringement of civil liberties, when in many cases there are people that are beyond social integration.

            I suppose we should call it the Bill of Privileges then because if you start nit-picking each one, you can twist it any way that fits your needs, especially with the numerous litigation that undermines nearly each and every one. Freedom of Speech allows you to say what you want [as long as it doesn’t offend anyone or cause public nuisance of coarse!]

            The freedom to bear arms, however, will never end at ‘just these’. With EVERY law leveraged against it, they increasingly seek for -TOTAL- ban, they even have said as much. THAT is what concerns most Pro 2A people, because the consistent erosion, and much of it without causation to boot, but instead public terror via mass media, because they certainly fail to mention that homicides in general are at an all time low.

            edit: spelling correction

          • Christopher Foxx

            Seeing as you want to know SPECIFICS, And it’s been acknowledges ad nauseam that generally speaking, serious offenders of any given law are typically stripped of their general rights, This also extends to causes of mental instability for their protection and those around them to limit the damage that can occur, but that was also the intention of Asylums, that people decried as infringement of civil liberties, when in many cases there are people that are beyond social integration.

            There’s a sentence in there somewhere, struggling to get out, but damned if I can figure out which one it is.

          • Ferrumkit

            Thanks for the logical response.

          • Mister Xiado

            How can you only be “sort of” restricted? A compromise does not mean that one side consistently gives until the other side has taken everything. No, other than felons, people convicted of domestic assault, or the other strikes outlined on form 4473, no one should be restricted from purchasing any firearm for legal use. As several people have already cited in Warren v District of Columbia, it is not the duty of the police to come to your rescue. I will not be made a victim to preserve your feelings. I will not allow my family to fear being murdered by home invader. I will not give an inch, because your position declares the lives of your friends and family to be worth less than those of criminals who would take those lives to eliminate witnesses, or for sheer thrill.

          • Christopher Foxx

            other than felons, people convicted of domestic assault, or the other strikes outlined on form 4473, no one should be restricted from purchasing any firearm for legal use.

            How is registering a firearm stopping anyone from getting one? It’s not saying you can’t have one, only that you need to make it known you do?

            And if the reason for having one is protection (“I will not allow my family to fear being murdered by home invader”) wouldn’t making it known that you have one be a disincentive to the home invader? There’s a reason folks put stickers in their windows advertising that they have an alarm system. A home invader is far less likely go for the home with the “Premises protected by Smith and Wesson” sign that the one without.

            because your position declares the lives of your friends and family to be worth less than those of criminals who would take those lives to eliminate witnesses, or for sheer thrill.

            Still making up nonsense about my position, I see. Arguing against something nobody ever said in an attempt to justify your position isn’t’ really productive.

          • bob

            Registering a firearm, as has been pointed out before in this discussion, has, on multiple occasions, served as a prequel to confiscating said weapon.

            And no, public weapon registries actually serve as great maps for violent criminals seeking to obtain firearms illegally. It shows them exactly where firearms can be stolen, provided said thieves can either a) overcome the defenses of the homeowner or b) find out when the homeowner is gone and break in then.

          • Christopher Foxx

            It shows them exactly where firearms can be stolen

            But, but… I thought all those homeowners had those guns because it would let them prevent exactly that. Doesn’t turning that fast cause you whiplash?

          • bob

            So your argument is that, because firearm owners can use firearms for self-defense, that they should be tested by purposely sending violent criminals their way? For all your talk of bloodthirsty firearm owners, it sounds as though YOU are really the one who wants bloodshed, so long as it’s the blood of people you disagree with.

            Now tell me what these public registries will do to DECREASE gun violence.

          • Christopher Foxx

            So your argument is that, because firearm owners can use firearms for self-defense, that they should be tested by purposely sending violent criminals their way?

            Yeah, bob. That’s exactly what I said.

            And did ya like the part where I said people who want to own assault rifles should have the entire population of a prison dropped in their front yard?

          • Ferrumkit

            You created a fallacy of statement.

            He implied they would be made public record which unnecessarily puts owners at risk because it gives a hostile person an upper hand in knowing who owns a weapon, which reasonably means if they observe common habits for several days, you’re now cased, which is a common practice for thieves.

            You indeed have unintentionally put not only owners in danger, but any follow-up victims, all from a simple registry that can be accessed as public knowledge document that would likely be listed much like a sexual assault convict, you know, for public safety.

            The resulting shitstorm would cascade into a confiscation as a further measure of safety for that neighborhood. If you think thats impossible, the Confiscations back when Hurricane Katrina happened are certainly telling that it’s not impossible for it to happen. Infact some of those individuals still have not received their property back from the local governments.

          • bob

            Then what’s your point? I pointed out that you’re in favor of compiling a government-funded hit list for any violent criminals who want to steal weapons, and you responded with “but YOU can just SHOOT all the bad people”, implying that you think it’s just fine for the government to fund said hit list.

          • Christopher Foxx

            you’re in favor of compiling a government-funded hit list for any violent criminals who want to steal weapons

            Yes, right, that’s exactly what I said. And also, per you, I eagerly want to absolutely strip you of every right you have, force you to hand over your guns to any criminal who knocks at your door and make you instead get a unicorn to act as your guard dog.

            This is why it’s impossible to have a rational discussion with a gun nut. They’re simply too fond of their imaginary victimhood and lies to ever deal with what people actually do say.

          • Ferrumkit

            so called ‘gun-nuts’ can say the same of ‘gun-grabbers’ as far as irrationality, despite an all time low of homicides, they insist that violence is thoroughly through the roof, except the collected data states the exact opposite.

            Extremes exist at both ends, don’t you think?

            If you took the time to read, his actual life encounters do warrant a rather cautious attitude towards his fellow man, or would you presume he’s simply lying?

          • Christopher Foxx

            Yes, he’s lying. His experiences may be what they are. I’ve never questioned him on those.

            But when he repeatedly insists, despite my several times correcting him, that I want to strip him of all his rights then, yes, he’s lying.

            And demonstrating exactly what I pointed out: it’s impossible to have a reasonable conversation with the gun nuts. If he wasn’t to deny he falls into the “gun nut” classification, he’s going to have to stop acting like one.

          • Ferrumkit

            The issue is that the over-zealous supporters of ‘control’ typically display incomplete data, or none at all, and the issue of regulation on basic rights, is that it starts leading down paths like ‘why do we need the [X] Amendment in today’s world?’ And I have heard that particular garbage on a few different amendments including the 2nd. So it indeed trends towards a removal of rights, though aimless blame is used as a divider of people, as would be the case here. You and he disagree over regulations pertaining to the 2nd, and this schism can easily carry over to other items say like the 1st Amendment and Net Neutrality, while you both may agree there, in the political world it would become “I’m against it because he votes in favor of it.” simply on an imaginary divide.

            Assuming you can’t converse with people is dangerous and narrow while adjusting your position to take a more level approach may open up a larger dialogue. Personally to me, ‘gun-control’ is pure stupidity because the intended effects won’t be achieved by gun regulation or restriction.

            My personal opinion falls more into improved mental healthcare and restrictions on News coverage of such events [My opinion falls in line with the recommendations of Dr Deitz, where you nearly ignore the killer by all means in order to avoid copycats] But others would claim this could trample civil liberties or ostracize certain individuals.

            Despite these stances, I would likely be labeled a ‘gun-nut’ because I don’t support gun-control in the slightest.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Assuming you can’t converse with people is dangerous and narrow

            Fortunately, I didn’t assume anything. bob has repeatedly demonstrated that he will distort what I’ve said.

          • Ferrumkit

            But is egging some one on really proper etiquette? Sometimes you just nod your head, ignore the off-topic statements and push forward. Alternatively, request clarification, as sometimes voice inflection or satire can’t carry well in text. Analogies can be lost in translation, even regional dialect can cause misunderstandings.

            Simply going on a single route, calling people names, and not understanding their view might just leave you looking as silly as they do if they say something that seems stupid to you.

            I could call you a big-government pandering toddler that wants to be carried in life by social programs, but simple things would just undermine me from all senses:
            A:makes me seem like some hard right-wing ass-clown
            B:it’s a sweeping assumption on a basis of gun-control
            C:it encourages more mud-flinging and demeans the discussion
            D: Lacks any root or hard-point to prove it.

            Now this is a gross simplification, but when you say he thinks you’re out to strip his rights because you want broad restrictions, it’s because most of the restrictions that are being presented crumble under brief scrutiny, and as a firearm owner you are being held to know these points much like bob, but because your personal stance doesn’t support it, it just seems odd from his perspective to the interpretations you’ve boiled boiled down too have become school-yard arguments on singular statements. Much like when you simply attacked one of my own statements over punctuation. Instead of opening the dialogue, you made a snide comment.

            It was equatable of not even debating my point or requesting a more clarified statement, but instead going for the quick easy out.

            TLDR: Keep it civil if you hope to keep a proper dialogue with anyone, even if they insist to be disagreeable.

          • Christopher Foxx

            My personal opinion falls more into improved mental healthcare and restrictions on News coverage of such events… But others would claim this could trample civil liberties or ostracize certain individuals.

            My objection would be based on it being a cover up of bad news. Someone who sees any gun controls as leading inevitably to a confiscation should surely see forbidding news reports of gun violence would inevitably lead to gov’t censorship of all manner of things.

          • Ferrumkit

            The problem on news is inaccuracy, skewed information, political agenda, and sheer lack of journalistic integrity. The stance of restricted reporting on these incidents is more to prevent the copycat cascade that -always- has followed. There has been recommendations on how to report in a way to prevent it from happening, but they often disregard it.

            I’m not saying forbid news, but when they do things like omit full statements to bend words into something it’s not, It is no longer qualified to be news, but gossip.

            The news cycle in today’s world has become unreliable and almost a source for riots over disinformation and poor data. While not every reporter is doing it, the ‘head-turner’ headlines are often the worst, finding racism where it isn’t, inequalities where it doesn’t exist and propigating a general divide in the people for the sake of ratings.

            Every major news source has been guilty of this.

            As far as censorship, it already happens on many topics. For every humanitarian story, you will find 10 disheartening ones.

            A good example, the Sochi propaganda. Instead of attempting to help with the security or offer assistance in the matter, we seem hellbent on insulting the Russians abilities to handle things, we have politicians intentionally telling people to not go if they planned too, and this is over an event meant to strengthen international community. While indeed there are threats in the world, the fear being generated by those that seek the attention only encourage anyone that seeks it to follow suit or ‘one-up’ them.

            So why didn’t we do the same with the Terrorist videos received from extremists in the middle-east? it would have encouraged MORE kidnappings and Be-headings because it made headlines and got them the attention they wanted for it. [I’m sure you recall when that stretch of news was happening almost weekly after the first] Despite them still occasionally trying it, it’s not as common anymore, concerning -our- people, but they still use it to great lengths to demoralize and instill fear in the local populace ensuring their presence is felt, even when diminished as it is.

          • Mister Xiado
          • Mister Xiado

            I work in a gun-free zone. I don’t take my guns to work because I respect the sign on the door. If someone knows you have guns, and wants to steal them, they sure as hell aren’t going to try while your car is in the driveway.

            Now don’t throw your back out moving the goalposts any further.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Registering a firearm, as has been pointed out before in this discussion, has, on multiple occasions, served as a prequel to confiscating said weapon.

            So… because something rare could follow a particular action, we must assume it will happen and therefore shouldn’t do that action?

            Oh, oh, can I play the irrational paranoia game?

            Manufacturing a firearm, as has been pointed out before in numerous discussion, has, on multiple occasions, served as a prequel to mass murder.

            So clearly we shouldn’t allow he manufacture of guns.

            Gosh, what a fun game.

          • bob

            Before you call it “rare”, please give me a list of legally-mandated registration that has NOT contributed to confiscation. And before you try to use CT, please recognize that the requirement has been in place for what, 3 weeks? Not a fair example yet.

            Make pithy comments to your heart’s content. My goal is to persuade you. Your goal appears to be to defeat me. I’m approaching it with civil debate. You’re approaching it with name-calling.

          • Ferrumkit

            Rare? it’s happened about 8 times in modern history [last 100 years] results in about 70 million dead unarmed civilians, Last I checked not even the US total losses in war [from inception] come even close to that

            Irrationality is refusing to see what has historically happened, and ignoring it.

            You can poke fun at the results if you like but explain that to; Armenians, Soviets, Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill[Europe], political dissidents[Chinese], Mayans[Guatemala], Christians[Uganda],“educated” people[Cambodia], the Tutsi of Rwanda.

            “Gun-control” is more accurately “People-control”

          • bob

            I’ll step in here to answer your question:
            * No, you cannot start a registry, at least, not until you explain how it will decrease gun violence.
            * No, you cannot require universal background checks, at least, not until you provide free NICS access to private citizens (which means anyone can run a background check on you or your friends, at any time, for any reason).

            There’s no point in arguing whether the ownership of weapons can be restricted in any way whatsoever because that question has already been answered by SCOTUS in multiple cases. What we’re discussing now is the progression of gun control and what measures can and should be enacted right now.

          • glena

            Each and every Amendment to the Constitution stands alone. For you to try to drag one of top of the other in order to make a point tells me you have no solid argument for which you are trying to make.

            What’s going to stop someone from raping you, sound asleep in your bed? NOTHING, maybe brut force but you have no time to react.

            A home invasion? Again, you have no time to react.

            That might be the most maddening thing I encounter from those who feel every man, woman and child needs armed to the teeth to protect their very life, they are somehow lulled into believe that because they have a GUN, nothing bad is going to happen to them or those they love.

            It’s laughable to think you are going to get the upper hand on someone who has deliberately came into your home and want to do harm to you. They are prepared to risk their life for whatever crime they are about to commit, they are not going to allow you the time to get your weapon and stand still while you shoot them.

            So many people have a false sense of security just because they have a gun (or ten).

          • bob

            He’s point out that your logic, applied to other amendments, leads to abhorrent results.

            And again, it’s so easy for you to state absolutes that you’re unacquainted with. I have a deadbolt on the door that will require multiple blows to take down, and I’ve got multiple weapons, a cell phone to call the cops, and an escape route, all accessible before they can breach that door. Please stop pretending that you know what happens in an average home invasion/self-defense scenario.

            And isn’t the point of having a firearm for self-defense that the concept of repelling someone who means you harm ISN’T laughable?

            I don’t have a false sense of invincibility because of firearms; I have a good deal better chance at surviving a violent encounter because I have a firearm, a cell phone, a flashlight, and the judgement to know when and how to use each.

          • glena

            “Well REGULATED” is just as an important part of that Second Amendment but you failed to quote that part. “Shall not infringe upon” covers a lot of ground. You can still have a firearm to do whatever legal thing you want/need and still be well regulated.

            It happened all through history. Firearms are less regulated now that at many other times in history and have much more fire power as well.

            How about we all start arming ourselves and our property with explosives or get some rocket launchers. Because aren’t those “arms” too?

          • Ferrumkit

            At one time you could, but due to various laws enstated, you require various avenues to acquire such items. Explosives can legally be gotten for various reasons. You can purchase a ‘dearmed’ Launcher, you can obtain cannons for curio reasons, you can build working cannons as long as you pay for the tax stamp.

            Now all of these devices can be legally gotten for one reason in one condition or another, but the only thing that matters is the ‘I’m using this for legal purposes’ Otherwise you could argue the various ‘pumpkin launchers’ to be a national threat because all of those pumpkins being launched can definitely cause major harm/death.

            The last bit is more gee-wiz than nitpicking. Regulated, in the classic sense is more synonymous with maintenance than legal terminology in that era, Even the first definition of regulate is in regards to maintaining operation not legal jargon that’s tossed around in courtrooms. Consider the replacements “a well maintained militia’ or ‘a well controlled militia’ They both work, but how can you control a poorly maintained militia? You can’t, that’s one reason the Continental Army came into existence.

          • glena

            Well, on that note, maybe we should consider banning any militia. We have more than adequate Armed Forces to deal with any threat.

          • Ferrumkit

            That’s synonymous with banning peaceful assemblies, as the militia in and of itself isn’t causing any illegal actions by existing until they have performed an action that would be considered an act of aggression, in which case they would be considered lawful combatants.

            To give an idea of our Armed forces, only 2.5 million Service members are active, If I recall this includes NG and R. To that end due to budgets, separations are happening in numbers. Conversely the total population of the US is 330,000,000+. If they suddenly sparked a civil war, the general populace already has a numerical advantage, this also doesn’t account for desertions.

            And only a fool believes in certainties, as we’ve been seeing with the concept of stopping a radical belief rather than an organized army.

          • bob

            What I’m hearing from this is that you think the entire 2A should be repealed. You have been arguing against not infringing, and now you’re arguing against the concept of a militia.

            Well, you’ll be happy to know that there IS a process in place for repealing constitutional amendments, and you are WELCOME to follow it. Please don’t count on the support of firearm owners, though.

          • bob

            I already asked you how you plan to regulate without infringing, and you didn’t respond. If you’re really so sold on “regulating” a “militia” (that you seem to think should exist as a governmental entity), I would like to know how you plan to do that.

          • glena

            Do not infringe is not incompatible with Well regulated. The people that wrote our Constitution aren’t idiots which you seem to imply. One is not the exclusion to the other.

            Just because your firearm might be regulated doesn’t mean it infringes on your ability to HAVE one.

            In my opinion, we need very simple regulations. Very similar to a vehicle (and I KNOW the Constitution doesn’t guarantee you a right to drive a car that was no even invented at the time of the writing of the Constitution).

            But why not do the same thing. If a medical doctor deems a person unfit to drive a car, they are compelled to report this information to the proper authorities to revoke the license to drive. Registration is required of the vehicle so that we know who it belongs to and if in fact it is stolen, we can know the proper owner. Insurance is required in case there is an accident and others are harmed, so that they can have remedy for that injury to person or property. Whether intentional or accidental.

            Why cannot we regulate firearms in such a way that this will help diminish gun violence in our Country?

            If a medical doctor finds through treatment that a person is unfit to have access to a firearm, report it to the proper authorities who will in turn revoke their licensure to have said firearm or permit or whatever you want to call it. We should also say at that point it would be illegal to have a firearm in the home of anyone deemed unfit medically to have a firearm.

            And yes there is precedent for that. Felons cannot have firearms, nor can they be stored in a home that a felon lives in. Technically a felon cannot even visit a home with a firearm without risking a mandatory five year sentence.

            Those who have no reason to be medically denied a firearm (most of the population) would register their weapon and carry insurance on said weapon.

            It isn’t a hardship to register a weapon or to carry insurance on a weapon.

            The old standby that only criminals would not register their weapons and crime would continue doesn’t fly.

            If that’s a fact, only drunk drivers would drive. Or why have any laws because ALL of them are broken.

            There ARE common sense things we can do to lessen gun violence in this Country but until ALL gun owners are willing to come to the table for common sense discussion it’s probably not going to happen.

            NO ONE is trying to round up all the firearms from people. That is not he purpose of registration. No one rounded up all the cars did they?

            But instead of discussion it is always “the Second Amendment says” or “no one is going to take MY guns”. No one WANTS all the guns. We want a safer society.

            Just yesterday a “legal” “responsible” gun owner said right on my facebook wall that he is glad he lives in Florida so he can shoot someone from the comfort of his home if they happen to walk across his back yard.

            When questioned about that, he continued on that path and tried to defend his right to “stand his ground” inside his house because if someone walks across his lawn, he is fearful for his life.

            THAT is the mentality we are seeing more and more of.

            Just for the record, nearly every member of my family has a CC permit. They all have guns. Lots of guns. I’m not against people having guns. Just some common sense regulation.

          • bob

            Mandatory physician reporting of impaired drivers is a state-by-state issue. So is the carrying of weapons, but you’re not calling for it to remain a state issue.

            But as I read further into your post, I see that you’re actually calling for physicians to have judicial rights in determining who can own a firearm and who can’t. What other rights would you like to be subject to a physician’s discretion? Perhaps the right to peaceful assembly should ONLY be granted after a physician determines that a person is not at high risk for inciting protest?

            Vehicle registration is used to generate tax revenue for maintaining public roadways. Are you suggesting that we should register firearms and use that tax revenue to build public shooting ranges?

            Carrying liability insurance basically means that, when you are at fault in an accident, the insurance company steps in to pay the damages. Are you suggesting that, when a criminal shoots someone, their mandatory firearm liability insurance should step in on their behalf and cover the damages so that they don’t have to?

            And no, your comparison arguing that “only drunks drivers would drive” isn’t accurate. We aren’t arguing that, if we register weapons, ONLY criminals would have weapons; we are saying that criminals will not register their illegal weapons and will continue to use them for crime. It’s worth pointing out that there are plenty of people who have had their licenses revoked yet continue to drive, just as, if your doctor-as-judge-jury-executioner idea is enacted, there will be plenty of people who continue to possess firearms “illegally”.

            Your “common sense” idea sets a precedent for physicians being given the authority to strip you of any right you have that they deem could be harmful to yourself or others. As a med student, I want to see my patients quit smoking. With this precedent, I could revoke their ability to purchase tobacco. After all, it’s a threat to their health and the health of others, so why not just ban them from purchasing it. And before you jump in arguing in favor of a tobacco ban, please tell me YOUR personal vices so that I can explain the health risks of them and why you should be prohibited from enjoying them.

            So fine, you saw a crazy post on facebook. I’m not willing to give up my rights because you’ve got crazies posting on your facebook wall, just like I would not be willing to surrender my right to free speech just because someone misused that right to post something hateful and bigoted.

          • Ferrumkit

            A few things stand in the way of your proposal, granted it’s a compelling argument

            First; Owners are already legally obligated to report stolen firearms because if it is found at a crime scene they can still get in deep shit even if not involved in anyway.

            Second; Anyone that already is averse to mental assistance would be even more put-off if they are avid hunters or gun enthusiasts, even if their condition wouldn’t be considered a risk. In turn we would see another rise in various mental breakdowns.

            Third; the ‘Common-Sense’ Lobby tends to be anything but common sense, and it only makes it worse when you have legislators like Sen. Kevin de Leon, who displayed his lack of knowledge, even most basic levels of it, with a nonsense statement that SOUNDED scary.

            While you may not intend for all guns, many of the pro-regulation side relentlessly crusade for more, and more, and -more-. There are many laws in place that they seem to ignore, proven in previous bills that defined ‘prohibited persons’ pretty much identically to a bill that was approved about 3 decades prior, and that one about 3 decades earlier had a similar description.

            Now if you want something meaningful, have requirements placed on CCW, some states have NRA certified instructors[Many of them have admitted to get that certification is very difficult] as the only authorized teachers, while others seem to be a bit more loose on who can train others.

            Honestly the restrictions on Longguns have done nothing, as they are a rarity in the world of crime, so any restriction would literally need to focus on handguns, and again, most of the suggestions end in ‘capacity’ ‘scary devices’ ‘fully-semi-automatic’ and so on.

            The problem isn’t the device, its the people that find ways to get them, and to that end, the crime rate has become low compared to previous levels, and it’s continuing on that trend already without intervention.

          • glena

            Your crime rate stats you read might say the trend is downward but deaths by guns is upward every day.

            So we do nothing? All these mass shootings are nearly all exclusively “long guns”.

            Petty crimes by thugs with cheap handguns are probably on the decline.

            Shootings and deaths by more sophisticated guns that are available to those with the money to have such high priced fire power are on the increase.

            We need to address this issue.

            So, just because someone might KNOW themselves to be mentally ill and avoid medical care, we should just skip that very important part of trying to control gun violence?

            How about drunk driving? When regulations and laws were enacted (at the behest and much effort of mothers who were tired of their kids dying from drunk drivers) very similar rallying cries were heard. Changing the laws wouldn’t stop people from driving drunk. Only the “legal” folks would be troubled by it.

            Turns out regulation sometimes works and isn’t always a bad thing but no one likes change and until change is implemented there’s always a good number folks who think it’s the end of the world.

            It rarely has been.

          • Ferrumkit

            The trend on ‘mass’ shootings has no correlations in the average statistic, as they actually get more effect from news sensationalizing the event, which psychologists have already stated is the BIGGEST problem when it comes to this ‘echo’ like effect where one does it, several more follow suit.

            If you wish to know more about it search for ‘Copycat Effect’ Many psychologist acknowledge that the 24 hour news cycle has a frightening connection to repeat incidents following mass news coverage. I’ll hand this link to you, he gives a good insight on that subject :

            On the whole, so called ‘mass shootings’ make up an extreme minority of the gun-crimes, The weapons used more recently have been standard hunting guns, manual actions, internal magazine of less than 7(some even only carry capacity of 4).

            Drunk driving is only partially equatable, because despite the tightened laws, DUIs still happen fairly regularly, and the good thing is that the signs of a drunk driver are sometimes easier to see [poor driving ability] While others you would be hard-pressed to tell without a Breath test. Then, sad part of mental illness. Some have it, and don’t know it, others know it, but refuse the medication, and even in some cases the medication makes it worse.

            Regulation based on knee-jerk reactions is rarely good for -anyone- which almost all the gun-control regulations ride on. They love to pitch their plans and parade dead bodies to guilt people into siding with them, or they’re a: insert ‘bad’ person here [Terrorist, anarchist, babykiller, insecure jerk, disagreeable person]

            For example, the Patriot Act, suppose to be a temporary enactment, still got extended … and for how long? It’s arguably the most harmful intrusive INEFFECTIVE legislation that has passed, but if you disagreed with it you were a TERRORIST SUPPORTER, when it first came out.

            That is why all regulation needs to be logically thought out, especially if it’s intended to stop something. Which I previously pointed out how much true effect previous laws have.

            If you can propose something that logically would handle illicit actions that doesn’t blame a 99% for a .00001% [it should be far less considering mass shooters are single digit amounts to 330M total population] Then I will gladly stand behind it, but if it’s merely placing sanctions on the majority populous on a basis of appearance, capacity, or caliber, then all I can do is point out the simple ineffectiveness of it and stand against it.

          • glena

            So, you’re of the “don’t talk about it and it will go away” variety? There is no real correlation with the media coverage of these mass public shootings and the next one. They all have their own agenda and it’s something that only they have in their head for the most part. Some revenge they feel they are supposed to extract by killing people.

            There are more mass public shootings now than at any other time in history, media or not. We also have more guns per capita than at any other time in history. So is it the ease of which we can obtain guns contributory in these shootings? I say yes. Much more so than media covering any said event.

          • Ferrumkit

            No, I’m about responsible reporting, and there has been a correlation when news plastering Mass shootings 24/7 after it happens, and then copycat incidents like an echo effect in some lash out to validate existence. The recent incidents when it was large amounts of people had little or no connection to the shooter, many of them had pre-existing conditions that were quite visible and written off as quirks. Read up on the Likes of Charles Whitman, who sought help for nearly a year before his condition lead to his infamous shooting.

            As far as more mass shootings, there’s also more variables and restrictions in place than in previous days but that hasn’t effected much either. Population is certainly much higher than in the past, medication is prescribed to children that have barely begun to write, culture is turbulent as ever and consistency of daily life has become questionable, to top it off we have absentee parents and epidemics of people that like to find something to blame outside of their own fault.

            People like to scapegoat objects and items for shortcomings “My dog ate my homework.” “My car wouldn’t start” “No one told me about the rules” “No one ever told me I can’t do that” “I have “affluenza”[That one was a god damn gem to hear about] ” So simply saying ‘it’s guns fault!’ is another way to say “I didn’t do it!”.

            How come hunters haven’t run off and blasted some shmuck away? Why haven’t all former military members gone wacko and just blown away anyone they think is a threat? Where are all the CCW people shooting up restaurants?

            Sometimes people do crazy irrational fucked up things, but to punish the hundred millions for the act of a few people would be a travesty.

            If you can give me a good, effective, solid regulation of a firearm that can stand without causing a massive detriment to the 99.99% of the law-abiding citizens, Then I will agree that guns are the problem.

            If we can allow people with potential violent conditions like radical psychosis, or a history of violent crime into society rather than put them into a proper asylum, then I should certainly be legally allowed to arm myself if I feel it necessary to do so.

          • Mister Xiado

            Well clearly you should just move into a walled and gated community, because bad things only happen to poor people, and who cares about them, anyway?

          • Ferrumkit

            You know as well as I do, such a thing would only treat the symptom of the problem, not solve it. Then again maybe we should ban being poor, certainly that will fix that problem just as good as banning guns. At least if I’m tracking the logic we should be following.

          • Mister Xiado

            Oh certainly, but the emotionally-driven don’t want to do anything other than appear like they have a solution. Working to prevent crime, to move forward, is counterproductive. That takes effort, thought, planning, and consensus. I believe Ted Turner said it best, though I don’t have an exact quote, that it’s easier and less costly to simply -appear- to care.

          • glena

            Make no mistake it’s the shooters fault, but the prevalence of guns these days must be figured into the equation.

            More guns available equals more guns available to shoot folks with.

            Easier access means those who might have never acted on their quirky or mental health issues or even anger issues before, now have quick and easy access to blow away those anger, quirky minds of mental illness folks targets.

            Access has to be figured in. More people are told it’s their RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to have a gun (or guns) in the home. Bigger and better proves you love your family and are ready to protect them against all ills of the world. ALL ills not just someone creating a home invasion with the intent to do bodily harm.

            If the number of cars increase on our highways, we will see more accidents. More guns, more shootings. After all that is the purpose of a gun, to shoot it. It’s not to sit in the safe and look pretty (in most cases). Shooting often results in death or serious injury.

            Gun shot injuries or death are now the third leading cause of death among children 10 and under. THIRD LEADING CAUSE of death. More guns equal more deaths. So are you going to sell me on the fact that if the news reports on a six year old shooting his four year old brother, that makes other six year olds want to copy that crime?

            More guns equal more shooting injuries and deaths.

            We need better education, better background checks, better ways to make gun owners responsible.

            It should be at least as hard to get and own a gun as it is to get an own a car. Classes, license, registration and insurance.

          • Ferrumkit

            Ok, you’ve pointed out that a law-abiding citizen, even with mental conditions can pass NICS check, as they aren’t being deemed a prohibited person.

            Lets follow that logic by legal pursuit “Any persons exhibiting conditions similar and including “X” shall henceforth be banned from ownership of a firearm” You will have legally performed the historical method of targeting anyone the state doesn’t ‘feel’ is privileged enough, also violating Personal Health Discrimination laws. [Note I’m not assuming you’re saying this, but how the legal objectives would be pursued to prohibit specific individuals]

            The number of firearm owners is up, yet even with all the commotion, guncrime and gun-death is at it’s lowest since about the 60’s if I remember. Regarding cars, we’ve just witnessed massive pileups due to people ignoring DANGEROUS DRIVING CONDITIONS, so those are certainly still keeping up their average death rate pretty well even with nearly every family having a vehicle now.

            Accidental deaths, while certainly saddening are fault of irresponsibility and ignorance. I’ve known people who grew up around guns, never toyed with the damn things but treated them like their parents taught them too, not to mess with it, much like a hot pan. Second is a matter of proper storage, reading about ‘we just had it sitting in the corner of the room’ is fairly common among those stories.

            Better education is all on personal responsibility, you can take a horse to water but you can’t force them to drink. Background checks only work on people with CRIMINAL BACKGROUNDS, since NICS was conceived it has prevented 1.8% of sales for Prohibited Persons, thats a couple million handguns, and for comparison, gang related shootings fall into about the 11k of yearly gun-deaths per year.

            The sad truth of life is you can’t ‘Make’ people responsible, they need to learn that quirky trait, but when everyone around them works hard to tell them it isn’t them, but factor X, then how will they gain a concept of personal responsibility?

            To make a simple point on your last bit, I could go buy a 200$ beater in a private sale, uninsured, and without any [proof of] drivers license, and when I was younger I drove unregistered for nearly a -year- before I got stopped. That was in normal daily transit. But That vehicle was legally sold by all means.

            Guns sold in private can be done as long as the seller has no reason to beleive that person is a ‘prohibited person’, Theres entire laws around private sales of guns already. To sell out of state, it MUST be performed through a licenses FFL [That would be Gun shops/Sport Shops]

            So these laws you want are ALREADY in place. it’s the PEOPLE that decide to break them, that somewhat don’t care to observe them. Just as much as the parent that decides that leaving a loaded and easily accessible firearm around children is ‘responsible’.

            Obtaining a firearm, especially handguns are ponderous to obtain. As long as you don’t pop hot on a check, they have no reason to deny you service, beyond the owner deeming that will not provide a service to you.

          • glena

            Gun deaths are the THIRD leading cause of death in children under ten years of age. Right now. Today.

            Gun deaths exceed deaths in car accidents in three States. Right now. Today.

            In the rest of the States, gun deaths and car accident deaths are nearly neck and neck.

            To turn a blind eye to those statistics and say there is nothing that can be done is wrong.

            We can and should regulate firearms just as vigorously as we do cars.

          • Mister Xiado

            Suicide and gang violence will not be stopped by legislation, though they may be increased by it. Not all gun deaths are the result of criminal assault. Please present your sources. There will be an examination.

          • Ferrumkit

            Child obesity is rampant to the point that parents outlive their children, so does that call for sanctions again over consumption of food?

            On top of that that’s on personal responsibility within one’s home.

            Can you break down the numbers into accidental and Intentional? Because I can honestly say, the accident rate in my home state is so low the CDC states no number but the suicide rate is about 23

            The CDC even has 3 guidelines for reducing the accidental, as follows:

            Easy availability of and access to firearms. [Proper storage]

            Youth living in neighborhoods with high rates
            of poverty, social isolation and family violence. [general beyond control> see Detroit/LA/Chicago]

            Youth with little or no adult supervision. [Parental responsibility]

            These are Generally the causes for accidental deaths by firearms


            And from the CDC the numbers don’t quite match you’re claims

          • bob

            The challenge in discussing gun control with firearm owners, especially in this administration, is that you’ve got an attorney general who wants to “brainwash” (his words) people’s view of guns, and a president who has an avid anti-firearm history, including trying to ban the sale of all semi-automatics, as well as wanting to outlaw handgun ownership. It’s tough to have folks like that in charge and pushing for what they call “common sense” and then hold a discussion with the crowd who’s watching these attempts to strip them of their rights about “reasonable” gun control.

            You’ve got a top dog on your side who, based on his views and voting record in the past, wants to disarm the American public. Please, tell me what your reasonable alternative to this is. What specific controls do you think need to be put into place?

          • Christopher Foxx

            and a president who has an avid anti-firearm history

            Not outside Clint Eastwood empty chair ramblings. Obama has taken no significant action on firearms prior to Sandy Hook. But don’t let actual facts stop you from buying into the bogeyman the NRA wants you to see.

            You’ve got a top dog on your side who, based on his views and voting record in the past, wants to disarm the American public.

            If you think I’m wrong on that, then certainly you can list exactly what he’s done to disarm everyone. Outside of Alex Jones-style “He’s coming for your guns!!” lunacy, I don’t think you can do it.

          • bob

            Ah, so “brainwashing” is fine so long as… you agree with it? I quoted the word “brainwash”, and you replied with, “he really just means a repetitive and ubiquitous campaign to completely change public thinking. You know, like smoking.” And that’s basically brainwashing, right? Besides, you can’t honestly believe that the goal of the anti-tobacco movement is anything other than tobacco-free.

            As far as the president goes, he has a vocal history of opposition to firearm rights. Although his voting history only includes less inflammatory things (e.g. limiting purchases to one per month, as if that will somehow impact gun crime), he has been a vocal advocate for keeping firearms out of the hands of citizens. Heck, he said that GWB failed by not renewing the AWB, a ridiculous piece of legislation targeting cosmetic features of firearms written by legislators who evidently had no knowledge of the subject.

          • Christopher Foxx

            I quoted the word “brainwash”, and you replied with, “he really just means a repetitive and ubiquitous campaign to completely change public thinking. You know, like smoking.” And that’s basically brainwashing, right?

            No. Decidedly not. It’s putting forth an argument and trying to convince people to change their view. “Brainwashing” in actually it is “making (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure.” In common understanding (thanks to Manchurian Candidate movies, etc.) it’s synonymous with enforced mind control.

            And you know that. Which is why you used the word and now disingenuously try to claim it’s the same as convincing someone to willingly change their opinion.

            you can’t honestly believe that the goal of the anti-tobacco movement is anything other than tobacco-free.

            I believe it’s more to make sure folks who don’t want to be exposed to the bad effects of tobacco don’t have to be. You know, the whole “you man not infringe on my right to breath clean air” point of view that you advocate for so strongly when “breathe clean air” is replaced with “own guns”.

            But so what if it is their goal? Provided they’re trying to achieve that goal thru legal means (such as advertising the dangers of smoking, working with the entertainment industry to not depict smoking as cool, working within the system to get laws passed and cases decided in a manner that furthers their goal) so what if their goal is the is the complete elimination of tobacco products? NOBODY is going to kick down your door and forcibly take your cigarettes from your hands.

            As far as the president goes, he has a vocal history of opposition to firearm rights. Although his voting history only includes less inflammatory things (e.g. limiting purchases to one per month

            Huh. What happened to “based on his views and voting record in the past, wants to disarm the American public.“? Moving away from claiming he’s voted to disarm you to he’s voted to slow the rate at which you can be armed, I see.

            Nice to see you’re starting to recognize your habit of overstating things and be more realistic.

          • Ferrumkit

            “Repetition is the key” My english teacher always told me whenever we were suppose to make a speech or piece on an objective topic, and it does impact your subconscious much like using lesson tapes when you sleep. On top of that it works frighteningly well on youth because ingraining values and morals starts at a young age.

            As far as the ‘Anti-Tobacco’ campaigns, they are geared at exactly what he said, their stated GOAL is “TOBACCO FREE” not “tobacco if you want”, and to drive that point home my home state now makes it where you cannot smoke in any public venue, at all, so now owners can no longer determine if they want to even be smoke free or not, they are forced to.

            So what comes next after telling owners what they can and can’t have for their business? “Only this kind of wood” or “only these government approved channels” or how about “Only these safety approved anti-fall stools”

            “Obama, 2003: While a complete ban on handguns is not
            politically practicable, I believe reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of handguns are necessary to protect the public safety. In the Illinois Senate last year, I supported a package of bills to limit individual Illinoisans to purchasing one handgun a month; require all promoters and sellers at firearms shows to carry a state license; allow civil liability for death or injuries caused by handguns; and require FOID applicants to apply in person. I would support similar efforts at the federal level, including retaining the Brady Law.”

            There are obvious flaws in even the thought here, especially based around the fact that he supported the AWB, which by-the-way was more a ban on aesthetics than functions, would certainly apply to handguns in kind, anything that looks scary, should be banned. That’s the average norm I’ve seen on the end of ‘commonsense gun-control’

            Now the time frame purchase limit, exactly what is this stopping? Elaborate on that.

            Holding someone else accountable for someone else’s crime?! Holy crap this one is simply amazing. Apply it to cars, chemicals, food, hell lets throw in people that refer products too because, ya know, they know what you’ll do with it.

            The Brady Law, while in a sense is good, only prevented about 2% [rounded up] of unlawful purchases since 1994. The other problem that exists now is the potential force-able registrations which historically has preceded state enforced confiscations [Many LEOs deem this improbable and dangerous to perform with current state of affairs, some outright stating a refusal to even perform such an action even if the federal government demanded it]

            This is just based on an excerpt preceding his presidency. And given his former position in Illinois being the heavily gun-controlled Chicago area certainly would lend to credence of an existing anti-gun stance.

          • bob

            Okay, so you take his use of “brainwash” to mean a media campaign. I’ll counter your “they won’t kick down your door to take your cigarettes” with “tobacco tax is now a vice tax that either restricts smoking to rich people or robs addicts of money to afford food and healthcare”. Yes, you can hold up your media campaign, but I’ll just point out the ridiculous tax rate on tobacco. The government, federal and state, wants tobacco eliminated, and is working towards that as fast as they can get away with it.

            And I don’t think you understand that POTUS’s voting record includes votes against firearm rights. I’m judging him to be anti-firearm rights based on what he’s said and how he’s voted, and you’re essentially saying “well, he only voted that way ONCE, so clearly, he can’t REALLY want it.”

          • Christopher Foxx

            Okay, so you take his use of “brainwash” to mean a media campaign.

            Well, since he was actually using the word in the context of describing a media campaign, yeah.

            tobacco tax … robs addicts of money to afford food and healthcare

            The exact same could be said of the high price of caviar. I mean, Beluga goes for over $3000 a pound. That’s robbing people of the money they need to pay for actual necessities!

            After all, it’s not like people have a choice in how they spend their money and don’t have to throw it away on things that are harmful.

            Oh, wait.

            The government, federal and state, wants tobacco eliminated, and is working towards that as fast as they can get away with it.

            And this is a bad thing because having the gov’t take steps that would improve the health of the general population while also reduce spending is wrong?


          • bob

            No, you’re comparing scarcity to government regulation and equating them. Caviar is expensive because of supply and demand, not because of a caviar tax. Tobacco is expensive because federal and state governments are taxing it into oblivion.

            But your last statement again shows your heart in the matter. You don’t agree with tobacco use, so you think it’s okay for the government to step in and eliminate it, one way or another. You don’t like the idea of firearm ownership, so you want the government to do something about that. I don’t agree with you.

          • Christopher Foxx

            <i.But your last statement again shows your heart in the matter. You don't agree with tobacco use

            Nope, wrong again. I have no problem with tobacco use. You want to smoke it, chew it, shove it up your ass and fart it, be my guest.

            PROVIDED I don’t have to breathe it, smell it, or pay for the additional health care you’ll need. Your right to light up takes a back seat to my right to breath free.

            And your right to bear arms (which I’ve never said you don’t have) takes a back seat to my right to live. And that means reasonable controls to improve my chances of not being killed.

          • bob

            So does your right to free speech take a back seat to my right to not have to listen to you, thereby disallowing you to speak freely where I might hear you?

          • Christopher Foxx

            Filling the air with my words doesn’t harm you. Filling the air with your smoke or bullets does harm me.

            Try again.

          • bob

            Your words give me a headache. Your words raise my blood pressure. Define harm.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Your words give me a headache. Your words raise my blood pressure.

            They make you angry? I piss you off?

            Well, how fortunate that you don’t have ready access to something you can use to vent that anger.

            Oh, wait.

          • Mister Xiado

            The thing is, he does have easy access, but simply dismisses the idea of being a belligerent man-child with it.

          • Ferrumkit

            Noise pollution is a fine-able offense.

            While I agree to your right to breath clean air, I also believe business owners should be able to decide if their establishment is a smoke free zone or not. They shouldn’t have to accommodate a non-smoker simply because you maybe might think about going into their establishment. If you make a conscious choice of entering their business you can certainly leave and not give them your business.

            Recent initiatives by the governing bodies are becoming far too involved with day to day life, especially when it begins going into dictating private small business operations beyond maintaining relative standards depending on the business [Obviously it would be silly if supermarkets had to meet the same criteria as a clothing store]

          • Christopher Foxx

            What specific controls do you think need to be put into place?

            Were it up to me? Records of every gun sale, mandatory training for anyone who wants to use a gun, strict penalties for the owner of any gun which accidentally causes injury (I’m thinking here of the almost daily incidents in which a child gets a hold of a gun and injures someone.)

            I don’t see that being able to identify who a gun belongs to (ala license numbers on cars), ensuring owners know how to operate their gun(s) properly/safely (again, I could draw a parallel to cars), and holding owners responsible for securing their guns restricts anyone’s ability to own a gun.

          • bob

            Would you say it’s fair to call what you’re proposing a registry? Maybe not one with mandatory initial reporting, but if you’re requiring every sale to be recorded and reported somewhere to someone, you’re functionally building a registry of firearm owners.

            The problem is that you have to convince firearm owners that the registry you’re putting together won’t be used to confiscate their firearms, and when you try to do that, they’ll point right at California and NYC and say, “Oh yeah?” I’ve heard many arguments in favor of registration, and while it would have some merits, you’ve got a long ways to go with the existing precedent of registries leading to confiscation.

            And as for magazine capacity, it takes a ridiculous number of rounds to stop someone. Look at FBI statistics: the majority of rounds fired don’t hit the target, and there are case reports of people still fighting after taking 40+ hits. There are tons of theories about how effective different calibers are against assailants, but the bottom line is that it usually takes multiple rounds on target to stop an attacker.

            And besides, look at Virginia Tech for an example of what you can do with standard-cap mags.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Would you say it’s fair to call what you’re proposing a registry?

            Or “list” or “record” or any of a host of other possible terms. I know “registry” is favored by pro-gun folks because they’ve been able to attach some specter of badness to it. (“One they have a Registry they’ll use it as a hit list to come take all your guns!!”)

            But what is the real problem with having a record of who is responsible for which gun?

            The problem is that you have to convince firearm owners that the registry you’re putting together won’t be used to confiscate their firearms

            If they’re reasonable and responsible people they won’t have to be convinced of much. It’s only the irrational folks who argue ANYTHING that even HINTS at gun control is an all out effort to strip them of all of their rights and institute a police state who would be a problem. And there’s no reasoning with lunatics so why bother.

          • bob

            The real problem is exactly what I’ve already said: that there’s a significant historical precedent for registries leading to confiscation, both here and abroad. What do you plan to do with that information, anyway? Ban private sales?

            Since you’re rejecting case reports and common knowledge about the importance of shot placement and insinuating that I’m stupid and not serious about this subject, I guess I don’t really have anything to offer back. Um, I AM serious about the subject? But… I guess there’s nothing I can offer right now that you’ll take seriously.

          • Christopher Foxx

            there’s a significant historical precedent for registries leading to confiscation [here]

            Examples? Because, while I’m not sure what you’re going try to to give as examples, I’m fairly certain that I’ll be able to point out where they’re not what you’re trying to make them out to be. There’s significant precedent demonstrating your penchant for overstatement. For example:

            Since you’re rejecting case reports and common knowledge

            No, I’m not denying that there could be case reports of someone getting shot 40+ times and still moving. What I’m denying is that they represent anything other than the extreme end of the bell curve. Common knowledge, backed by vastly more of the case reports than you’d ever be able to show involving 40+ shots, show people stop after being hit with very few (typically one) bullet.

            I guess there’s nothing I can offer right now that you’ll take seriously.

            I’l absolutely take seriously any argument that doesn’t rely on fringe data or unfounded paranoia..

          • Mister Xiado

   – No registration, but still.

            I’d post more examples, but I was actively seeking pages from sites that were still active, and not hosted on sites you would dismiss out of hand.

            The police seem to think a lot of people could use more than the USRDA of lead in their diets.

   (he wasn’t hit 40 or more times, but not for lack of trying)

            Alas, I couldn’t find people on phencyclidine engaged in combat with the police being shot more than a dozen times, just people unlucky enough to have shoot me signs taped to them, or something.

          • bob

            Okay, if you’ll take examples seriously, then I’ll throw California’s SKS registry and NYC’s registry on the table. I’ll also counter with the question, “What problem are you trying to solve and how will a registry solve it?”

          • glena

            One flaw with your argument, is that you assume that if someone WANTS something, they are doing everything in their power to make it become a reality.

            EVERYONE wants peace. Lots of people want there to be no gun violence.

            BUT we are smart enough to know that is never going to happen.

            BUT we are willing to TRY to have dialogue with those who feel they MUST have guns and find a way to make gun violence less prevalent in our society.

            BUT the minute someone tries and attempts to bring up the epidemic (and yes it has reached epidemic proportions) of gun violence those who MUST have guns automatically hear “hey, we’re gonna take ALL your guns and the Government is going to suddenly become Nazi Germany”.

            That is NOT the case. There was regulation of guns since the beginning history of the gun. Even Wild West days were more regulated than they are now.

            But we’ll never be able to come up with ways to keep our populace safer from gun violence because those who WANT/NEED guns can’t understand common sense regulation would not adversely affect them but just might keep their loved ones alive.

            All they seem to comprehend is more guns, more guns. They wouldn’t have died had there been more guns.

            Sadly that is not the case.

          • Ferrumkit

            I can apply the flaws to your logic, people want peace because it’s easier than strife, people want money but they want it for the least amount of work, people want candy but don’t want to get fat.

            People want ALOT of things, and usually the failing comes in from a very simple thing that goes deeper than the mind, it’s a natural response, Humans will ALWAYS take the path of least resistance, when ever feasible. It’s how we’ve evolved, we work to make devices that make things easier. we seek the most economic method to doing something to make it easier. we have peopel that will take shortcuts because it’s easier.

            The gun regulation in the west was AUTONOMOUS from federal regulation, meaning each region had more tailored LOCAL laws in place, but they also didn’t have alot of things in that era that would cause nearly as much complication as there are now.

            As far as ‘keeping the populace safe from gun crime’ That notion is so emotionally charged it’s not even funny. once you adjust the number of homicides, not in relation to gang killings, the average person here has about a .006 of even facing the potential chance of being killed by a gun. That’s just putting it into perspective by the supposed “Out-of-control” Violence for guns, and bear in mind, We’re in possibly among the LOWEST crime periods in modern times.

            So SADLY your sources calling out for ‘sensible regulation’ seem to leave out the fact that crime is at an all time low while attempting to regulate a device one simple appearance, among other arbitrary ‘common sense’ restrictions.

            To equate how much of a joke I find the ‘common sense’ argument is, Joe Biden suggested you Violate about several common laws, and about every safety rule regarding the discharge of a shotgun. If they don’t even know the -basic- rules and laws why should I trust them to regulate it?

          • bob

            Are you suggesting that I shouldn’t actively oppose gun control because the current chief of state, who has a history of being ideologically opposed to private ownership of firearms, has taken the term “executive branch” to the extreme in both the implementation and legal defense (or lack thereof) of federal laws, and who recently said that he didn’t have to wait for congress to pass legislation (as is their purpose) because “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone”, won’t take any REAL actions against firearm owners? I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that POTUS will just sit back and let this issue slide for the rest of his term.

          • Jeff Jefferson

            Well you assholes fucked us over real good in the 90’s. We’re not going to buy into your bullshit anymore. I say we push to have the NFA repealed. Hell I say we push to have most gun laws kicked back. Compromise is not going to happen, ever. Last time we all got screwed for it.

          • Christopher Foxx

            My, but you really are a whiney, little victim, aren’t you. Even when you have to make it up.

            Why are you so desperate to have people see how weak you are?

          • David L.

            I assure you that I am about as violent as an euphoric jainist who’s constantly high on oxycotin. So no, my argument doesn’t decoct down to that. Since you’re eager for the stewing away of arguments into short sentences, it’s as simple as: “in the turbulent age we live in, some people are bound to use the weapons they always carry to kill others once they enter a state of impaired judgement.” Stop dreaming about “good guys” and “bad guys.” There’s no such thing in the real world. Only fearful mammals who are as a species capable of genocide, torture and slavery – and guns are tools which serve as multipliers of our ability, and in rare but very real cases, delight in killing other humans. Sure, you could kill with a crossbow. a sword or a spear… but there’s nothing comparable to the potential for death and destruction that lies in the weapons we have in our hands nowadays.

            If you really think that allowing near-unrestricted access (that is, fuck background checks and registries and qualifying tests and gun-free zones; they’re after all only bureaucratic nuisances which make LaPierre cry like a certain eyedrop-addled Speaker of the House) to every single adult American is a good idea, you are cheating yourself into thinking either a) that everyone is willing – and is psychologically capable – to never use their weapons in any occasion except in the most urgent act of self-defense where no other outcome is possible, and that they are so responsible with their guns that they will never fail in any safety protocol, ensuring that it is impossible for any accidental discharge to happen in any way; or b)that your own expertise with your weapon will always keep you safe from harm, sort of like a supernatural amulet. In both cases, you’re deluding yourself.

            2nd Amendment fanaticism I personally find to be one of the most offensive fundamentalisms, I think your ‘right’ to buy a Walmart-edition mass murder-enabling tool is laughable (shouldn’t the government issue out free guns to every person above 16 – they can drive, after all – since it’s our unalienable, Gawd-given right to bear arms?) and I’d say that someone who’s priorities are defending the proliferation of the easiet practical means of killing in the market, instead of the dignity of people who do not wish to have to be wondering if that guy is carrying a concealed gun under his sports jacket and wants to eviscerate them for texting during trailer time, is not the most humanist of creatures. Most people here at this site tend to favor humanism. It takes a lot of faith to believe your liberty ends with the renouncing of your shiny arsenal of cool AR-15s.

          • bob

            You really believe that, with the tens of millions of firearms in circulation, that banning them will remove them from circulation and from the hands of criminals? And you really believe that confiscation (which is what I understand your last sentence to reference; please correct me if I’m wrong) will lead to the universal, peaceful surrender of firearms by all citizens, law-abiding or not?

            At the end of the day, we dance along a continuum of firearm rights vs restrictions. You’re arguing in favor of restrictions up to the point of confiscation (again, correct me if I’m wrong), whereas I believe that the 2nd amendment still holds true as the law of the land. I don’t think that any amount of training will guarantee me perfect safety from all forms of violence or accident; I DO think that I can maximize my own training, thereby maximizing the safety in which I live my life, and minimize the odds that a violent assailant can harm or kill me.

          • glena

            Your odds of encountering a violent assailant are very low. Lower than your odds of getting shot in your own home with your own gun or someone you love getting shot in your own home with your own gun.

            There are exceptions to every situation but unless you run with a risky crowd, there isn’t much evidence to support that the general population is in dire danger and should arm themselves to prevent them being maimed or killed.

            It’s becoming increasingly clear however that you ARE in danger of death if you piss someone off by texting or any other little infraction. If you had been in that theater and the guy pulled his gun and shot you, you’d be just as dead as the father of that child is today. Once the gun is shown, it’s split second until that bullet hits you and you don’t have time to react. Just like in nearly ALL instances of gun violence.

            These movies and TV shows give gun owners a false sense that they could actually stop someone from shooting them if they just carry their own gun. Not likely, if someone is going to shoot you, rarely are they going to give you warning and time to pull your own weapon.

            Laying dead, never having touched your special equalizer must be the cruelest joke the NRA perpetrates today.

          • bob

            Even IF you had statistics to back up your claim that gun owners are not likely to be able to defend themselves or others, I would only place limited faith in them. Given the nature of these incidents, it’s believed that they are significantly under-reported, with estimates of actual cases ranging up into the millions per year.

            And while I’m sure you THINK you know what’s going on in the mind of every firearm owner, I can assure you that people carry firearms for a vast array of reasons, many of which you are unacquainted with.

          • Mister Xiado

            Who is morally superior? The woman who shot her would-be rapist to
            death, or the woman who had been strangled to death with her own
            pantyhose? You would deny someone the chance to protect their own life, based on your assumption that someone who does not have criminal intent is not capable of properly handling a firearm? The naivety is nauseating.

          • Ferrumkit


            You like to point at guns like a scape goat, so I’ll point to other things that are weighted above in pure numerical value. bear in mind this only covers injuries related deaths, there are far broader -preventable- deaths that are ignored.

            On topic of people being crazy, that’s mental disease, not the means they act out in.

          • glena

            I don’t think any of those things are ignored. Violent gun deaths have topped car accidents in three States, it nearly ties in all others.

            Just because you can die one way, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t stop looking at ways to lessen other ways too.

            It’s almost like the saying, only criminals will have guns, only criminals will commit crimes (really? that’s why we call them criminals) So, are you saying we should do nothing about the HUGE uptick in deaths by guns because, well people die from lots of other things as well?

            Or are you saying, I like my guns and I don’t care that they kill lots of people, I’m not killing anyone so I don’t care and don’t want any changes?

          • Ferrumkit

            I’m not implying that solutions cannot be found, but I do find it improbable to bubblewrap the world.

            The only real problem I have with your thought here is a false claim of ‘huge uptick’ when numerically it’s still lower than previous years, even lower than during the years of the AWB. Vehicular deaths are fortunately dropping, for the time being, because safety measure have caught up with ‘idiot proofing’ for today, yet the simplest factor is a device called the seatbelt, which if I remember brings up survivability 70% alone.

            my stance is that generally, the measures they implement have not effected crime. I stated before the redundancies they have passed previously, as well as the sheer meager percentile of the single functional law they have passed.

            On top of that they barely understand the functions or mechanisms so little that they will ban a sporting rifle on basis of aesthetic appearance, this is on top of them forgetting about laws already in place that accomplish many of the things they cry for.

          • dbtheonly

            “You really believe that, with the tens of millions of firearms in
            circulation, that banning them will remove them from circulation and from the hands of criminals?”

            Criminals will still have guns.

            Therefore we should do nothing to restrict guns.

            Logic is not those little plastic blocks you play with.

            I assert that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the “Citizen’s Militia” to draft you into the army.

          • bob

            So do you support creating a “citizen’s militia” with mandatory membership and mandatory firearm training for citizens? How do you plan on dealing with this without tossing the 2A out the window?

          • Mister Xiado

            What will your restrictions do to prevent willed criminals from acquiring the many millions of firearms already in existence, or if need be, creating them anew? Not every criminal is unintelligent, and for similar reasons, not every criminal has been arrested, much less convicted. You cannot un-invent the gun. What you can do is educate people, so they do not worship the “magical” qualities of them, and do not fear them as some sort of metal devils. They are machines.

          • Ferrumkit

            noun: militia; plural noun: militias
            a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

            adjective: military
            of, relating to, or characteristic of soldiers or armed forces.

            Not to draft, to supplement, they are not the same, they can co-exist.

            The ‘draft'[AKA Conscription] was a measure that ended up in place because a Militia didn’t have enough proficiency to handle organized general warfare, but today we actually can see the true lengths that asymmetric warfare can damage a professional armed force with a minimal overhead cost.

            Now to that extent the other side of allowing the ‘everyman’ to have arms [bear in mind private arms[weapons of any variety] have traditionally better than their military counterpart [General issue items have a price tag and armies have a budget]] was written into the DoI. For your benefit I will transcribe that section, you make check it if you must:”

            That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
            it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
            institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
            organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
            effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
            Governments long established should not be changed for light and
            transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind
            are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right
            themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But
            when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
            same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
            is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
            provide new Guards for their future security.

            ” From the document from whence our government came into existence. The Bill of Rights was in turn created with the intent to empower the populace to avoid repeats of the history where tyranny and despotism took root, and many of the Amendments within rely on the others as an inter-meshed system that protects the other, the most important being the Freedom of speech, as communication is key in expressing delights or displeasure. Freedom to arms is to allow you to physically defend your right to speak if they attempt to oppress you.

            And so on.

            They were also written in ways so simple that you couldn’t twist them and contort them in ways to undo the purpose, yet people insist ‘they couldn’t have seen that being created’ then by all means Phones and Internet aren’t covered by freedom of speech, or military could stay in your apartment or suite because it’s not a house. etcetera.

            Thus if you start allowing the contorting and twisting of one, so too do the rest face such play on words.

          • bbiemeret

            Bob, Bob, Bob… Do you expect anyone here to believe that at no time in you life have you ever failed to exercise self control or shown poor judgement? The point is, WE ALL have moments of weakness, even your righteous ass, and some circumstances make it easier to give in to our baser instincts. I mean, I don’t know you, but I know people in general. And while it may be true that SOME gun owners view firing their weapon as a last resort, I highly doubt that is true for a majority.

            For some people, humiliation and embarrassment are enough to blast someone. Like Mr. Reeves, who was in no real danger of getting hurt by the flying popcorn thrown by what appeared to be a suburban soccer dad, got all butt hurt and decided the only way to regain his honor was to shoot the guy point blank in the chest. Any way you slice it, that dude is a pussy, and he’s gonna know just how big a pussy he is when he has his next inevitable confrontation, and no piece on his hip. Karma’s a bitch.

          • Ferrumkit

            The analog you’re using is not nearly as comparable, and because we only have mostly hear-say on this case the dispute is the escalation, and you actually bring up a good point of -why- some people need a gun, as an equalizer. If that 40[I don’t recall his exact age] year old had bludgeoned that 71 year old to death, would we be calling for sanctions and restrictions of hands?

            As far as Mr Reeves is concerned, his case has signs of dimentia, illegal possession [Theaters already define general policy of no weapons, which includes guns] and then the true variable in his case, intent. if it was premeditated it’s simply murder, if it is proven to be a simple escalation that got out of hand, it’s manslaughter[If I recall jargon correctly]

            So you can’t compare the argument to ‘I nearly got killed by someone so I nearly tried to kill them’. It’s an apples to oranges case.

          • bbiemeret

            No, if he had “bludgeoned” the old guy, he would have gone to prison for aggravated assault and/or murder/manslaughter. Hands can kill, but that’s not what most of us use them for. You kind of need your hands. You don’t need a gun, period.

            You guys and your bullshit straw-man argument that since you can kill someone with almost anything, guns aren’t anymore dangerous than “insert random object here”. The truth is guns were designed for one purpose and one purpose only. TO KILL!!! Sure you could probably use it for something else, but that ain’t why they built it, damm it, and all of you know it. So please stop insulting our intelligence with the bullshit, we see through it like pane windows.

          • bob

            And it isn’t called the Bill of Needs, is it?

          • Ferrumkit

            So you’re telling me the older gentlemen isn’t allowed a means of defense on a basis that the more physically capable one is able to kill him bare handed? My point is that not all people wrongfully wield an arm as is the case for Mr Reeves and Mr. Poag. In honesty the numbers in the criminal database are contrary to out-of-control CCW. And to your claims of ‘straw-man’ you already just admitted if the intent is present it will be manifest, no matter the tool involved, Yes guns have a design for killing, but in many cases a display of superior offense can in-turn be regarded as defense, Vis-a-vis common national display of military parades or prowess. the best Analog you may catch is the Nuclear stalemate known as Mutually Assured Destruction.

            As for the “Thats not why it’s built” Argument, Yoyos, boomerangs, sling shots, bats/clubs, ETC. All of those are seen as ‘toys’ and those were originally created as killing devices, period.

            You assume I’m insulting you because I’ve chosen to debate your stance, without even a slur, while weathering nothing but insults from your side of the table from ignorance to genitalia being thrown at me. I ask you to check your own vision of self righteousness before you call-out someone else as I’ve held naught but a civil debate whilst you only echo rhetoric, slander and misnomers.

          • bbiemeret

            So because someone can’t fight, they should be able to shoot someone they think might kick their ass? Fuzzy logic to be sure.

            The day yo-yos and boomerangs kill someone in a movie theater, come talk to me, otherwise save it.

            I never insulted you, or called you any names, or slandered you in any way. I feel insulted because your arguments are weak but made to sound smart, the way dumb people think smart people sound. As I am not dumb, but you insist on talking to me as such, I can only surmise that you think I’m stupid, which is in insult to me. Get it? Hope so.

          • bob

            Plenty of people (roughly 1,800 in 2010, according to the CDC) get stabbed, and yet I don’t hear you calling for knife control.

            And is it only the theater and restaurants you’re worried about? I hear that as a recurring theme in your posts, that you want to feel safe when you’re at the theater or going out to dinner.


          • Christopher Foxx

            Plenty of people (roughly 1,800 in 2010, according to the CDC) get stabbed, and yet I don’t hear you calling for knife control.,

            Nearly 20 times as many people (roughly 32,000 in 2010, according to the CDC) get killed by guns. So let’s deal with that far larger problem before you try to pull out the “but people get killed with toasters, you want to start outlawing them” distraction nonsense.

            Source:, data further sourced to footnote 19.

          • bob

            I’m not saying that knife crime is more pressing than gun crime. I’m responding to bbiemeret’s statement that he or she will honestly consider what action to take on a given weapon once that weapon is actually used to assault people.

            I don’t personally support stricter knife laws at this point in time; I’m just saying that, if bbiemeret wants to get worried about things that are actually used as weapons, he or she should feel free to do so about knives.

          • dbtheonly

            bob, Christopher,

            There’s also the range of the weapon. A knife has a range of maybe 4 feet. A gun is effective at some distance.

            Guns generally carry more “stopping power” than a knife. Thus can be used on a larger group in a shorter time.

            Frankly bob, your comparison’s absurd.

          • bob

            My point wasn’t that knives are deadlier than firearms. My point wasn’t that firearms have a shorter range than knives. Heck, I didn’t even bring up the famously undefined term “stopping power”. My point to bbiemeret was that, if he or she was willing to start worrying about any weapon as soon as it has been used to kill someone, then it’s time to start worrying about knives as well.

            Please read my post, as well as the post I’m responding to, so that you have the context of what I’m talking about.

          • dbtheonly

            “My point to bbiemeret was that, if he or she was willing to start
            worrying about any weapon as soon as it has been used to kill someone,
            then it’s time to start worrying about knives as well.”

            bob, that’s what’s known as “a comparison”. You compare the response to killing with a gun with the response to killing with a knife. I’ve pointed out several ways in which the two items are different. How they are not “comparable”.

            I’ve used some big words. You’ll find them in a “dictionary” though.

          • bob

            I guess if you feel that sarcasm is the only way you can “win”, feel free to snark it up. If you want to actually discuss the issue, I’m more than happy to, but if tossing out sarcasm is enough for you to be happy, feel free :-)

          • Mister Xiado

            It appears to me, at least, that you have an affinity for all but outright calling your opposition stupid, instead of just formulating a clear counterargument. This is not how one wins friends and influence people.

            Knives have been used to kill people since before the written word. Knives can be used in much more discrete manners than a gun in most situations, as well. Thankfully, a person who is skilled in the use of knives tends not to rob random people on the street or murder passers-by for jollies, and the criminals who use knives tend to be very overt and unsubtle with them, often allowing one to dissuade them from their poor life choice at a safe distance, even without shooting them for their grievous error.

          • Ferrumkit

            You claim it’s fuzzy logic, but it can be dropped in other scenarios that are less ‘fuzzy’ if needed. Some people don’t know when to ‘stop’ in a fight, some people will keep going until the body stops moving, while some people have enough force to legitimately kill in a single hit [in the right places of course].

            As far as the yo-yo’s and Boomerangs are concerned, I was just giving you an idea that original intent isn’t the end-all use of a device. For hobbyists, guns are used for target and competition, but they may never even feel compelled to use it for hunting or fighting.

            Lastly, I still never insulted your intelligence because I’m presenting my personal stance on the subject, simple as that. They may seem ‘weak’ for you, but it’s the same as me finding the Author’s argument a weak anecdote in support of ‘gun-control’. And if I honestly thought you stupid, why would I even wish to debate? It would be a self defeating purpose.

          • glena

            We’re discussing public carrying of a gun. Not a slinky or a yo yo. GUNS designed and manufactured as a means to kill. Not one other purpose but to kill.

            Oh target shooting? To train to be an more accurate shot to KILL. Clay pigeon’s? Same thing. Simulating the killing of flying birds.

            People don’t generally arm themselves with slingshots for a night on the town and think they’ll just kill someone if things get out of hand.

            All these stupid arguments that a fork is a weapon are bullshit. Get a grip on reality. More and more more folks are told they SHOULD have a gun, that they NEED a gun. That it is PATRIOTIC to have a gun, anywhere, anytime because, well you want to be able to protect your family and every single centimeter of our existence is dangerous these days you know.

            Those same folks are so trigger happy and ingrained that NO ONE should be allowed to harm them in anyway, fell no remorse at just taking that gun and showing them who is boss. Ultimately they’ll pay the consequences for such actions but these are just normal citizens, caught up in some kind of gun frenzy and the environment that EVERYTHING is a threat to them inside and outside their door.

          • Ferrumkit

            Believe it or not, some people only use guns for hobbies, as in they never shot at an animal or anything resembling a person. Competition shooters simply run a course to get a good timing and achieve a good ranking on the scoreboard. How is it that none of these people suddenly go out on a killing spree or rampage?

            My analogy is that eventually in the future, firearms of today me be toys in the future, Who knows, certainly I don’t. For the present though, people need to understand it’s not a bogeyman, it can’t act on it’s own, and it certainly has no morally ambiguous agenda. Once you demystify a gun some people suddenly question how these ‘common-sense’ laws accomplish anything at all. Truth be told they don’t do anything.

            And you’re making a sweeping generalization of firearm owners in that last bit, every person that asked me if they should ever get a gun, I give them a speech on safety first, and if they intend for personal defense I tell them to get properly trained first to fully understand the gravity of it. I’ve yet to meet someone that got a gun on a whim, not that it’s to say that’s impossible, but unless you can literally suggest a way to forcibly make people responsible for their actions it can’t realistically happen.

          • glena

            I know lots of folks who buy guns on a whim. Go to a gun show and have no intention of buying a gun and walk out with sometimes more than one.

            There are LOTS of ways to forcibly make people responsible for their actions.

            We do that every day in our society.

            I recognize (as do most folks) that a gun is an inanimate object. That’s why were are not demanding that guns get themselves down to the local equivalent of a DMV and register themselves and take classes on how not to kill the neighbor when he shows up at your door at midnight to let you know your dog got out.

            That’s why we want to hold PEOPLE responsible for their actions and purchases of deadly firearms.

            I don’t see how one can think it’s disastrous to register firearms when we register cars. I haven’t seen law abiding driver have their car confiscated yet.

          • Ferrumkit

            Gun shows are typically unique in the fashion that if there is a private sale, it doesn’t require the normal procedures involved. Long guns also do not fall under the NICS requirement [reasonable as they are used in less murders than hands and feet].

            The aversion to registration comes more from the historical implications than simple opposition of a list. To that end there are unlicensed, unregistered operators of vehicles, they don’t often cause accidents, but the ones that have unfortunately did enough damage to warrant mandatory insurance. And for me, that in itself is a grey-area subject because the severity of what can happen weighted against the forcing of the population to purchase insurance, which in theory should have become cheaper, stayed the same price, almost like mandatory health insurance has panned out so far.

            I’ll not repost the historical registrations as someone already has.

            Edit: before loophole is called, Private sales are -not- illegal and to regulate them in a meaningful way would call for the FBI making the NICS system open to the public and free or very cheep to encourage people to use it.

          • bob

            People buy plenty of deadly items every day that you don’t demand registry of. And when you watch an acquaintance purchase a firearm on a whim, do you encourage them to take a class on firearm safety? Do you take the time to teach them yourself? Or do you just stand back, calling for the government to come make you safer by stopping these “maniacs”?

            The reason firearm owners don’t want to register their firearms is because there is plenty of precedent for those registries being used to confiscate their firearms at a later date. And besides, WHAT will that accomplish? Do you have any idea what you would USE that information for?

          • bob

            I take my rifle to the range because I enjoy putting holes in paper. I’ve never killed an animal with a weapon (2 deer and a coyote with a Buick, but believe me, I tried to avoid them). Your argument is based on this assumption that all firearm owners are people who desire to kill other people. Ferrumkit didn’t talk about slinkies; you brought that up to straw-man his point. He’s right; boomerangs, bats, and yo-yos were designed as weapons, but serve purposes other than killing now. So do firearms.

            Again, you can state that everyone who owns a firearm is trigger-happy and eager to end their fellow man, but that doesn’t make you right any more than it makes you clairvoyant enough to determine the motives of millions of people you’ve never met. I wish we could meet, hang out, share a craft beer, and discuss firearms. I wish you could meet and hang out with any number of responsible firearm owners. They’re not the monsters that you seem to think they are.

          • glena

            I’m aware that there are PLENTY of responsible gun owners. I’m also aware of an entirely new breed of gun owners. Those who think completely differently than you do (and most of my family who nearly all own LOTS of guns and nearly all have CC permits).

            Just read the facebook posts. Listen to the news. Uh, he yelled at me and I was afraid, so I shot him. Ok, go home and try not to shoot anyone else this week.

            That’s some sad, sorry state of affairs, we are finding ourselves in more and more.

            Some peoples very first instinct is to grab a gun if their doorbell rings (yes, read about it, they actually admit this). Their first instinct is to reach for their hip of someone looks at them wrong or says something they don’t like.

            There is a whole new breed of entitled gun owners running around armed in this Country that we should be very afraid of.

            Not all gun owners are responsible. Many think it does give them a license to say whatever they want, go ahead and start a verbal altercation and it doesn’t matter if it escalates to getting popcorn thrown on you or a fist to the face, they’ve got a gun and will handle business.

            You can approach someone, start an altercation and if it doesn’t go your way, just shoot them and say you feared for your life.

            I find that appalling.

          • bob

            Anything to back up your claim other than reports of facebook posts? Perhaps a recent court case or ten that finds self-defense claims ungrounded and determines that the defendant acted out of bloodlust and ego? It’s awfully easy for you to sit back and call for the restrictions of people’s rights based off your intuition of their intentions, but I feel you would not be so accepting if it were someone else’s intuitions of YOUR intentions.

            Or should we base federal legislation off of facebook comments?

          • Mister Xiado

            Well, there are more letters in “feelings” than there are in “facts”, so it must be a more intelligent word, and thus, win all arguments forever times infinity plus one.

          • glena

            Second degree murder. He left, came back in, killed the man. Maybe first degree even. But if he had left his gun at home (and being a retired LEO he was allowed legally to have that gun on his person) he wouldn’t be sitting in prison soon and a father would be home with his child.

          • Ferrumkit

            Yes, it’s a variation of murder, but just as illegal as the other variants.

            Despite being ‘allowed’ to carry, that still violates the theaters ‘TOS’ so to speak, as he is retired rather than an active police officer. So he was just as much of a civilian as the former Naval officer.

            I more or less agree that the weapon should have been left in it’s place, which, if it was stored properly in his vehicle, means premeditated murder, while if on his person, would have immediately been an illegal carry upon entering the cinema. So no matter how you paint it, he’s guilty, but if anything this just proves only one total truth, that ‘no gun zones’ are a joke, only followed by us that are bothered enough to respect the law.

          • bob

            So what do you propose? What legislation should be enacted based on your “high doubt” of the emotional control of people in general?

          • bbiemeret

            If you want to own and use a gun for sport, hunting, and home protection – fine. But when you go to the show, the bank, or out to dinner, leave that shit at home.

          • bob

            Ah, so you propose nixing out the whole “bearing” part of the 2A.
            There are already plenty of laws in place that allow said theaters, banks, and restaurants to prohibit weapons. The nice thing is that they work pretty well on law-abiding firearm owners. Criminals are another matter, but if all you want is to feel safe from law-abiding citizens, there are PLENTY of options currently.

          • Christopher Foxx

            bob: The nice thing is that they work pretty well on law-abiding firearm owners. Criminals are another matter,

            This argument is really “criminals will break that law, so we shouldn’t have that law in place”.

            It’s weak and should embarras those who make it.

          • Mister Xiado

            Never trust a man who has to live by an externally-imposed set of rules in order to be a good person.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Mister Xiado: Never trust a man who has to live by an externally-imposed set of rules in order to be a good person

            So, trust nobody, then.

          • Mister Xiado

            So if you trust nobody, why are you opposing self-defense?

          • Christopher Foxx

            I was paraphrasing you. It’s your own position you’re attacking now.


          • Mister Xiado

            You implied that people were untrustworthy by default if there were not laws to stop them from doing things. That’s not paraphrasing me, that’s making an inference based on a flawed presumption.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Everybody lives by an externally imposed set of rules. There isn’t a person alive who doesn’t regulate their behavior because of rules, codified or unspoken. It’s not flawed to either recognize that fact of life or apply it to your statement that people who do that (i.e., everybody) are untrustworthy.

          • Ferrumkit

            I beg to differ, Sociopaths typically disregard rules as the go deeper down the hole, but unless you can pick them out, many being adept blenders, I’m pretty sure couldn’t stop them from doing as they please.

          • Christopher Foxx

            I beg to differ, Sociopaths typically disregard rules as the go deeper down the hole

            Hmmm. Okay. I’m tempted to give you sociopaths.

          • Ferrumkit

            Rules and laws for that matter are only followed based on a general consensus, now the outliers, being the mentally disturbed and criminal-minded, do not -care- about rules and only follow them by sheer incidence or convenience.

            Example: How many pot smokers have you known? I can honestly state almost 40 people, I’ve known in high school, used an illegal substance. How many Drunk Drivers? I can think of 10.

            So indeed, sometimes you can only trust people so much if you’re to care for your personal wellbeing in the grand scale of life.

          • Mister Xiado

            So your feelings trump everything, then.

          • Christopher Foxx

            So your feelings trump everything, then

            I didn’t bring my feelings into this. So that’s just you, trying to go off in odd directions again.

          • bob

            Oh, don’t mistake my explanation of existing laws and restrictions for an argument that they shouldn’t exist. I was merely explaining how CCW laws in my state permit homes and businesses to ban concealed firearms on their premises. My point was that, if bbiemeret really wants to go out on the town and feel “safe”, he or she can, at least in my state, do so and simply choose establishments that ban the carrying of firearms. My comment on criminal behavior was targeted more at the assumption that, once you’re in one of those establishments, you’re “safe” from gun crime.

        • Tyler Sea

          I actually practice what I preach, and I’ve high tailed it a few times when a situation got dicey or I got a bad feeling. Unlike the author, my pride isn’t more important to me than someone’s life.

          If you’re carrying a gun, unless your life or the life of one of your loved ones is seriously threatened, you have to back down, you have to be the one to leave the situation. A gun is the absolute last resort. If the danger is over, the gun gets put away. It’s not a tool for vengeance. It’s not to be used to “teach someone a truism in life,” or to “make them regret fucking with you.”

          I don’t want to kill anyone. I don’t want to even have to reach for my gun, let alone draw it and fire it. I carry it because one day, it may be my only alternative to dying.

          In my opinion, the author has some serious masculinity or impulse control issues. He should probably talk to someone about them.
          I go with a big circle of gun owners, I know too many of them to count. Most of them carry. I don’t know a single one of them who’s even considered going for their gun over someone driving like a dick. The author should have stopped his car and called the police.

          But again, his story reflects only on his poor character, not on the rest of us.

          • David L.

            While I aknowledge that your disposition is serious and I find it great that you don’t really have much desire to actually use your weapon, what I’d like to know is in which scenario you could see yourself having to use it. I don’t know which state you live in (or maybe you’re in a risky profession like law enforcement, where it would be understandable), but do you think always being armed really means the difference between life and death? I mean, a gun maybe isn’t the appropiate self-defense mechanism against someone who’s punching you, or even someone who threatens to kill you with a swiss army knife. Do you envision yourself at some time being held at gunpoint? Do you think that, in each and every case, you would be able to outdraw your opponent (there’s always someone who’s faster than you in the Wild West), shoot him dead or incapacitated, without there being a good chance of him shooting you first or someone being accidentally killed in the crossfire?

            I’m sure all your CCW courses explore multiple cases where lethal force is deemed to be ‘necessary,’ but what about all those times where having a gun actually makes the situation worse? Are you really so confident that you will never, ever discharge your weapon accidentally, that a child won’t have somehow gotten access to the gun, that you will inevitably win in a shootout contest with someone who wants to shoot you every single time? If it’s fear of mugging, I would wager that a mugger with a pistol doesn’t usually kill you in cold blood if you cooperate. If he sees you reaching for an object held in a holster near your hip, he’s infinitely more likely to freak out and shoot.

            It’s just that I can’t see the minuscule likelihood of a violent event occuring where you, as a civilian, would need to use your gun to save your life or that of others, is comparable to the significantly higher probability that the weapon will accidentally kill an innocent person. It’s that exact myth of “I’m an infallible one-man army capable of always protecting myself and my loved ones, in any circumstance and at all times” that’s behind the apparent justification for ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws (which are racially skewed and a blatant giveaway to the already pampered firearms industry), and I simply don’t buy it.

          • bob

            Alright, you’ve generated hypothetical scenarios where self-defense with a firearm doesn’t have a high probability of success. What do you suggest we do in response to your hypothetical scenarios? Surely you don’t think that we need to enact legislation to strip people of their rights based on the scenarios you’ve dreamed up, do you?

            If so, I can dream up just as many hypothetical scenarios where a firearm allows me to successfully defend myself and others. And before you portray me as thinking that I’m a “one-man army” (as you seem to think gun owners believe), let me assure you that I know the risks inherent to owning a firearm, as well as drawing one in self-defense. I know that it doesn’t make me unstoppable, and I know that there are plenty of times where my odds are best if I cut and run.

          • David L.

            You keep talking of stripping people of their rights. I ask you to show me where in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does it state your right to possess and utilize arms (I’ll save you some time: absolutely nowhere; but it’s interesting how many of these aren’t upheld in the U.S., the country which basically drafted the Declaration – just off the top of my head, Articles 22*, 23**, 25*** or 26*****, for example).

            Oh yeah, it’s in the XVIIIth-century Holy Sacred Constitution, written in an age where a musket shooting 800 rounds a minute wasn’t present in even the most enlightened nationbuilder’s wildest psychedelic dreams. That Constitution, by the way, never mentions the word ‘democracy’ (obviously because it was a plutocratic Republic for a good time), nor did it of course extend too many damned rights to indigenous Peoples, women or African slaves and their descendants. But you know all that, I don’t doubt. Here’s the thing. From the Minneapolis Post:

            The Second Amendment arose at time when most its key words and phrases meant something quite different from what they would mean today and from circumstances also fundamentally different — so different that its modern meaning is almost completely detached from its original purpose.

            (…) What’s a militia? If you aren’t in a militia, does this have anything to do with you? Or perhaps (and this is roughly the current Supreme Court interpretation) what if “militia” is just an 18th century word for all the able-bodied males in a state who had better have access to arms in case their state needs them to secure its freedom even though they might not actually “belong” to what we 21st century-types would recognize as a militia, like a National Guard unit that you actually joined and were trained by and that actually has a command structure.

            (…) But if “militia” doesn’t refer to an organized group, what’s “well-regulated” doing in there? Who gets to decide whether the (actual or theoretical) militia you are in is well-enough-regulated to trigger (no pun intended) whatever impact the militia clause has? Who is doing the regulating? The state? The United States? The (non-existent but theoretical) organization of all the gun-owners in the state acting as self-regulators?

            (…) When Second Amendment extremists start talking about how Hitler took away people’s guns and Stalin took away people’s guns and no one had better try to take away their guns, are they alluding to the so-called “insurrectionist” motivation behind the Second Amendment? Do they imagine literal combat between private gun owners in some particular state and the actual organized U.S. military?

            There’s some great stuff in the United States Constitution that holds up after two-and-a-half centuries, but even today it’s not a perfect Carta Magna. The fact that it has undergone so many changes and academic interpretations throughout the years attests that not everything in the Great Document is set in stone, but rather adapts to the sociopolitical and philosophical realities of each period. The 2nd Amendment is an archaic relic of times past, and as such, should not be the justification behind universal firearms possession. You can go on about your safety and self-defense, which is a slightly better argument than saying: “IT’S IN THE ‘MURICAN CON-STITUTION!!,” but at some point public safety and human dignity strike me as a tad more important.


            * Art. 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

            ** Art. 23.

            (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
            (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
            (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
            (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

            *** Art. 25.

            (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
            (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

            **** Art. 26.

            (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
            (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

          • Ferrumkit

            You don’t credit the human mind much if you feel they didn’t see the escalation of firearms technology first hand. In their short time, the musket was already evolving from smoothbore into rifled, Revolvers and self contained paper cartridges were being developed. They had astute renaissance men Jefferson and Franklin, and you have the gaul to think they couldn’t see the evolution of military objects as well as they saw day to day items like candles moving onto “electric candles”[Light bulbs]? But we all could see people like DaVinci looking into tanks and planes well before they even manifested. People are far smarter and brighter than you seem to credit them, they are also dangerous and sometimes uncontrollable but it hardly says everyone is the same.

            You do understand that the striking difference between a Militia and any National Gaurd/Reserve unit, is a Militia is purely people run, while the latter are government run [They fall under the US Armed Forces charters and rules, which gaining certain exemptions] The intent is that the common man can act upon the inlaid duty that people seem to ignore in our own governments creation, which is to rise against it should it become a tyrannical body and dispose of it in kind, intent to replace it with a people’s government. It’s a fail-safe, as are the intentions of the Amendments to be building blocks that nurture growth, as well as the means to protect that growth.

            How can you protect the most important Amendment, Freedom of Speech, without the means to do so, the Rights to Bear Arms? It’s a was written in a simple, interlocking way so to allow it flexibility in evolution of civilization.

            When you call something as simple as the amendments “archaic relics” when they are simple Keystones and guidelines for a basic government, you may as-well say that the 90 degree angle is out of date and has no place in our 120 degree future.

            To that end I’ll leave you with a simple fact, the Government, federal or local, are not bound by law to protect your persons or property, nor are they liable for the damages caused by their inaction. The only person responsible for you well being, the simplest right to live, is you. If you don’t believe me look into how responsible your local authority is for your protection or enforcing restraining orders. You may not like what you find, my friend.

          • bob

            If you’d like, I can go pull some random documents together and claim that they’re inherently better than the constitution that, as of right now, is still the basis of our legal system. Quoting a document with a fancy name (e.g. “The Most Humane And Goodest Of Nicest Things”) doesn’t make your argument relevant to the discussion in any way.

            And I’ll see your “800RPM musket” 2A point and and raise you a “telephone system” and “internet” 1A point.

          • David L.

            Well, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an admittedly controversial document, but it’s regarded around the freakin’ planet Earth as the main juridical reference for any person’s inherent rights (which don’t include the right to a high-impact weapon) for all signatory countries of the U.N. (the ones with the black helicopters and all that crap) and in customary / International Law, which is kinda important to my point since there are other countries out there apart from ours, ya know. It was drafted by a committee chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, and was basically, like the whole world order after WWII, the bastard child of the United States. It’s not some lofty pamphlet, it’s an international Bill of Rights that is definitely more relevant to the Modern World than a pre-Industrial Revolution-era piece of paper.

            You think your 1A isn’t restricted in any way? In some instances, it’s a lot more restricted than the 2A. You can’t get a death sentence for carrying an unregistered gun, but you can for sedition (cfr. Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, 50 USC Sections 21-24 or even Article III Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which defines “giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemies of the United States” as treason, clearly including Speech). The Department of Homeland Security under the Bush Administration “ha[d] even gone so far as to tell local police departments to regard critics of the War on Terrorism as potential terrorists themselves.” You can be sometimes restricted by “free speech zones.” You can be subjected to time, place and manner restrictions. But somehow, the 2A as you like to call it should be free of any restrictions whatsoever. Why? I’d like to see a moral justification for the gun nuts’ histrionic battle against goddamn Universal Background Checks, or the AWB, or any little measure trying to palliate the gun-related deaths epidemic. If the best you can come up with is that it’s in the basis of our legal system, I say change that legal system. Repeal the 2nd Amendment and buy back all guns from people who don’t have an absolute need for them for their daily safety (everyone except security guards, bank drivers, police, etc; who should pass very strict qualifying tests and training to be able to pack heat). They did it in Australia, a country with a similar gun-worshipping culture, and it worked out just fine.

            And I’m sorry, but I don’t see the comparison between channels of communication and war tools. Maybe if in the future people are afforded the ability to kill with a couple of clicks (who knows, everyone might have his own personal missile-equipped little drone – alleging their right to bear arms – and use the wi-fi connection at a Starbucks to carry out strikes), we’ll have to look into how, as a society, we can regulate that.

          • bob

            Are you suggesting we base the legal decisions of our courts on international opinion instead of our own established precedent?

            I’ve watched “free speech zones” be defeated in the courts in the city that I live. Such an issue is up to the courts to determine, as is the extent of the government’s control of 2A rights.

            Regardless, you’ve shown your true colors in calling for confiscation (which you refer to as “buy-back”, because “buying” implies mandatory compliance with legal ramifications if you DON’T sell) of firearms from people that you think don’t “need” them.

            Yes, Australia’s gun crime dropped. Rape increased. Assault continues to increase. Robbery SPIKED after the ban. Again, if all you care about is the number of people affected by lead projectiles, then yes, you can argue that gun control is effective. If you want to see people actually become safer, you have to decide whether rape, assault, and robbery are acceptable collateral damage to reduce the mystically-terrifying “gun crime” rate.


          • David L.

            Dude, let it be. You’re not going to make me worship guns, and I won’t be able to get any pro-regulation arguments through your skull. Don’t worry, confiscation won’t happen anytime soon. Unfortunately. you’re on the winning side when it comes to Supreme Court rulings and (for now) popular opinion. But don’t pretend that every gun owner in this country is rational and/or iron-willed: there’s a small lobby called the NRA to make sure many, many imbalanced people remain chest-deep in anti-government paranoia.

          • bob

            I haven’t yet argued that all firearm owners are rational. I won’t, because the author of this article is a perfect example of one who isn’t. I’m simply arguing that we should not further restrict the right to self-defense, especially not because the author found out that he can’t trust himself with a weapon.

            As far as confiscation goes, NYC is teetering on the brink. We’ll see what kind of enforcement happens. Maybe it’ll mirror California’s warrant-less shows of force with SWAT teams showing up to confiscate firearms from people who are not legally prohibited from owning them.

          • Ferrumkit

            He never attempted pushing an agenda on you, but he is correcting your Citations for reasons of pro-regulation, and calling out the mandatory ‘buy-back’ for what it is, confiscation. To that end he also cited the effect of the Australian gun ban, which while good intentioned, had a serious backfire as a result in the rise on other various Violent-crimes rather than the championed “low GUN-crime”!

            That’s like saying someone Brain-dead is ‘depression free!”

            I’m not going to make you change your views, but I would ask you to educate yourself on firearms first, understand the current laws already in place, check the number of estimated owners and compare that to the occurrences of homicides and then adjust the ownership for illegal firearms[Just in case you don’t feel upto that work, it falls into the area of about .05% of owners].

            Gun bans won’t work for a nation like ours for many factors, and the cities that attempted such measures increased crime rates to embarrassing levels.

            If you want to propose restrictions, educate yourself on pre-existing laws to avoid things like;

            “Murder should be illegal”
            “Criminals shouldn’t be able to have guns”
            “This is a ghost gun, This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.”

            Yes … I’ve seen that proposed by pro-regulation people, so you can imagine how fast respect will drop when you have people demanding legislation without even knowing what they are even saying.

            Research the effectiveness of current laws:

            NICS background check [the only regulation that actually managed to do anything] Managed to stop a whopping 1.8% of prohibited people over the course of 20 years

            Majority of the remaining legislation is fairly redundant, or arbitrary [banning ergonomic equipment, or visually aggressive looking items].

            So if you wish to even debate the topics of regulation, know the material, just like highschool science where you made a report on findings based on studied material.

          • Tyler Sea

            I live in Detroit, and work in Flint and Saginaw. That’s dangerous enough. Every time I go in public, I carry a gun. There is no such thing as a “safe area,” because bad people have feet and cars. Do I think it’s a matter of life or death whether I have a gun on me or not? No, just like it’s not always a matter of life or death if I wear a seatbelt or not. But guess what? I still wear my seat belt and I still carry my gun. You will not know in advance the day that you get in a car accident, or the day that you might need to fight for your life.

            I carry mace, a knife (more of a general tool than a defense weapon, but if I had to use it I would), and a gun. No, I wouldn’t shoot someone for punching me in the face, but I would shoot someone threatening me with a knife in a heartbeat. I’m more afraid of someone with a knife than I am someone with a gun. There is no real defense against a knife, if someone can close distance with you, you’re going to get cut. I don’t care if it’s a machete or a 3″ pocket knife. Most of our major blood vessels are still within reach. It’s actually relatively difficult to hit a moving target with a gun, if you haven’t trained for it.

            Where I live and work, yes, it’s possible that I could at some point be held at gunpoint. I’m not going to stand in place and draw, I’m going to haul some lateral ass and draw. They may just want my wallet, they may reconsider and not want me to be able to ID them to the police later on, I have no way of knowing. The fact that they’re willing to threaten to kill me and display the means of doing so is reason enough for me to take them seriously. If I get shot, I get shot, I ultimately have no control over it. However, that doesn’t mean I’m going to roll over and just accept it. If he’s going to shoot me, there’s a chance he’ll hit a bystander. I train my ass off with my guns to try and prevent the same thing from happening on my end. I carry my gun in a good, secure holster and keep my finger off the trigger until my sights are on my target. I never aim my gun at anything I’m not willing to put a hole in. I’m pretty damn confident I won’t accidentally shoot someone. I’m 25 and have no children. If my gun isn’t in my holster on my waist, it’s unloaded and secured. There is no room for fucking around or being lazy, you might think you know that, but you don’t carry a gun every day, you have no idea.

            There’s no guarantee I’ll win a gun fight if it ever comes, but I guess it’s personal preferance, would you rather have a fighting chance, or get gunned down running away, possibly leaving your shooter to continue killing other people? The possibility of failure doesn’t dissuade me, my desire to stay alive is my motivation, and it’s pretty damn strong. How do you know my gun is on my hip? Maybe I “accidentally” drop the wallet and go for my gun when he or I have to bend over to pick it up. Ultimately I don’t know whether he’ll shoot me anyway or not, but I’m not going to put much trust in someone who’s willing to point a gun at me to take what’s mine. You shouldn’t either. Every day citizens in this country face more danger than police do. Do you think a common criminal is going to target a police cruiser for a robbery? I don’t. Police come in to clean up the mess, and occasionally stop a crime in progress. Are you a betting person? I’m not. I’m not going to bet my life they’ll show up in time, or that I’ll even be able to reach them. As I said earlier about seatbelts, there’s an incredibly small chance I’ll get in a car wreck, but I still wear my seatbelt every time I’m in a car. Only I am responsible for my weapon and what is done with it. I take that responsibility very seriously.

            People who defend themselves aren’t doing it because they think they’re unstoppable, they’re doing it because the alternative is so much worse. You have one life to live, why the fuck wouldn’t you defend it with everything you have? You’re really going to trust an armed robber to be benevolent enough to let you live? As far as Stand Your Ground laws being racially skewed, I’m not aware of any that afford the right of self defense only to a specific race, perhaps you can enlighten me on this?

            Black man shoots unarmed white teen in self defense, is acquitted.

          • David L.

            A national coalition led by the Reverend Jesse Jackson Sr. is seeking to have Georgia’s “Stand Your Ground” statute ruled unconstitutional, arguing in a federal lawsuit filed late Monday that the law discriminates against minorities.

            The 2006 law, which allows citizens to use deadly force in self-defense if they feel threatened, harms black people because they are often perceived by society as more dangerous than other racial groups, Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition said in the suit filed in Atlanta.

            “All Georgians, and particularly those of color, will be compelled to at all times prove that they are not taking part in any action which may lead an individual to form a ‘reasonable belief’ that they are posing a threat to them,” the suit said.


            The stated goal is to protect innocent people from the criminals. However, a paradox is created. These laws are passed to protect the law-abiding people from criminals. Yet innocent people may end up being killed because of the new laws, while nothing will happen to the killers. No one will be punished. There once was a time when we punished all homicides. Soon, we will punish none. Thus begins a transmogrification of the law.

            (, in an essay titled Stand Your Ground and Racial Minorities – Race, Racism and the Law by Dr. Luevonda Ross, PhD.

            A June 2012 study by the Tampa Bay Times found that in Florida, defendants citing the Stand Your Ground law were more likely to prevail if the victim was black. Seventy-three percent of people who killed a black person walked away with no penalty, compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white victim.

            (Huffington Post, “Stand Your Ground Laws To Be Scrutinized For Racial Bias By Civil Rights Commission.”

            It’s clear that when you’re legally sanctioned to kill by justifying it with ‘fear,’ if the thing you happen to be fearful about is a racial group, a SYG law is nothing if not an all-too-perfect excuse.

          • Jeff Jefferson

            Statistically blacks do commit most of the violent and property crimes. Granted I view anyone who menaces me as a threat but it’s more likely a black man in his teens to mid 30’s is going to be an assailant if I become a victim of violent crime. Sad but DOJ crime statistics don’t lie.

          • David L.

            What’s sad is that people like Zimmerman have that archetypal image of a “black man in his teens to mid-30s” constantly looming in their brains as the face of the typical evildoer. That’s why a harmless teenager tragically died for the offense of being part of a group which “statistically commits most of the violent and property crimes,” which you seem to think is something explainable only by their race (no other factors in play there, no sir).

          • Jeff Jefferson

            Regardless, if you are assaulted or robbed you’re more likely to be the victim of a black male from mid teens to mid 30’s. That’s the DOJ’s very own crime statistics. Black males are 39 times more likely than their white counterparts to commit violent crimes.

            And we will never know what happened that night except 2 people, Trayvon and George. The former is dead and so far the evidence sided with what the latter has stated.

          • bbiemeret

            Here’s some “stats” for you, based on FBI data, and compiled by Tim Wise for his essay “Race, Crime, and Statistical Malpractice: How the Right Manipulates White Fear with Bogus Data”…

            Only about 1 percent of African Americans — and no more than 2 percent of black males — will commit a violent crime in a given year;

            * Even though there are more black-on-white interracial crimes than white-on-black interracial crimes, this fact is not evidence of anti-white racial targeting by black offenders. Rather, it is completely explained by two factors having nothing to do with anti-white bias: namely, the general differences in rates of criminal offending, and the rates at which whites and blacks encounter one another (and thus, have the opportunity to victimize one another). Once these two factors are “controlled for” in social science terms, the actual rates of black-on-white crime are lower than random chance would predict;

            * No more than 0.7 percent (seven-tenths of one percent) of African Americans will commit a violent crime against a white person in a given year, and fewer than 0.3 (three-tenths of one percent) of whites will be victimized by a black person in a given year;

            * Whites are 6 times as likely to be murdered by another white person as by a black person; and overall, the percentage of white Americans who will be murdered by a black offender in a given year is only 2/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.0002). This means that only 1 in every 500,000 white people will be murdered by a black person in a given year. Although the numbers of black-on-white homicides are higher than the reverse (447 to 218 in 2010), the 218 black victims of white murderers is actually a higher percentage of the black population interracially killed than the 447 white victims of black murderers as a percentage of the white population. In fact, any given black person is 2.75 times as likely to be murdered by a white person as any given white person is to be murdered by an African American.

            Put that in you pipe and smoke it…

          • Jeff Jefferson

            I don’t smoke crack.

            And some white guilt activist like Wise isn’t exactly as reliable as the DOJ statistics that show that a black man is 39 times more likely to commit violent crimes than a white man. All those shootings you hear about in Chicago and Detroit, who do you think the trigger man and the victims are? Blacks.

            Blacks are more likely to be killed by blacks. So stop your whining about racial profiling. Until blacks stop representing a majority of prison populations or violent crime statistics they’ll be treated as the likely suspect on a violent crime.

            Just because you and the author are not capable of handling a weapon like a grown adult doesn’t mean the rest of us are willing to be treated like children.

          • bbiemeret

            Who the fuck said anything about crack? Are you off your meds? By the way, Wise’s data is from the FBI dumbass.

          • bob

            If you’re going to make this a racial issue, then you need to present comparable data for whites as well. If you really want us to compare and contrast, you have to give us both sides of the story.

          • James O Donnell

            Does Wise get the credit for the moronic logic too, or was that your contribution to stupidity?

          • James O Donnell

            Wow, what a load of bullshit you’re spouting. And from that professional white-guilt whore Tim Wise, of course. Let’s take his (your) claims about inter-racial violence and look at them objectively:

            Blacks make up about 12% of the US population, whites about 72%. In round figures about 37 million blacks, 223 million whites.

            Yet there are 447 black-on-white murders, versus 218 white-on-black murders.

            447/37,000,000 = 1.2 per 100,000 black-on-white murder rate

            218/223,000,000 = 0.1 per 100,000 white-on-black murder rate

            Blacks are more than 12 times as likely to murder whites as vice versa. No wonder Jesse Jackson is on record as saying when he hears footsteps behind him, late at night, he’s relieved if it’s a white person.

          • bbiemeret

            Please cite you stats. I’d bet they’re either old, or straight bullshit.

          • bob

            No photos of a beaten and bloodied defendant or the bloodied knuckles of the assailant will ever convince you that anything other than first-degree murder happened that night, will they?

          • David L.

            Give me a break. It was a law-abiding citizen acting in self-defense against a dangerous attacker armed to his teeth with Skittles™, right? Sorry, but no way. Fuck that murderer.

          • bob

            You would rather he had let himself be beaten to death on a concrete sidewalk, right?

          • glena

            Are you seriously buying that? He wasn’t close to being beat at all. There in nothing to prove that Zimmerman was in fear of his life. If had not had the gun strapped to him and fully know he was going to shoot someone, he wouldn’t have followed the kid. He would have done like the dispatcher told him.

            False bravado brought on by a gun on his hip. He went looking for trouble with the certainty he would “deal” with it. And he did.

          • bob

            Well, seeing as how you reject the jury’s decision, there’s not much more I can do to convince you on this subject. You are free to believe however you wish, and if months of a media circus and all of the evidence presented at trial isn’t enough to convince you, comments from someone named “bob” on the internet probably won’t do the trick, either.

          • glena

            Sure. If those photos existed but they don’t. No bloody clothing, a cut on the back of his head that was so “bad” it didn’t even require medical attention.

            If you were fighting for your life, I think there would be some REAL evidence of it.

            Of course Zimmermans violent behavior before and after aren’t predictable either right?

          • Mister Xiado

            My brother flipped a car end over end at over 100 Mph on a country road, and ended up with nothing but a cut on the back of his head that needed a square of gauze and some tape because a band-aid wouldn’t stick to his hair. So catastrophic car wrecks aren’t dangerous. Being on the ground is about the worst place you can be if someone’s swinging for you, but you might only know that if you’d ever been physically assaulted by anybody.

          • glena

            “So catastrophic car wrecks aren’t dangerous” Are you serious? You use the term “catastrophic” and “not dangerous” in the same sentence.

            I’d say there are friends and loved ones of folks who were killed, maimed and injured in much less car accidents that would tell you that indeed car accidents ARE dangerous.

            I have had to attempted muggings/robberies of my person when in a public place. Neither time I was harmed nor robbed and I did not have a gun or other weapon at the time.

            Miracle? Maybe. Maybe as much of a miracle as a 100MPH end over end flipping car accident where no one got hurt.

          • Mister Xiado

            Are you unable to see obvious sarcasm? Being in a car wreck is arguably as dangerous as being in a fight while on the ground. I also find it odd that people champion the party that was bragging about their illegal possession of a firearm in that unfortunate case.

          • bob

            You… you’re not serious, right? He specifically took your logic of, “Well I didn’t see a picture of it” and applied it to a deadly car crash.

            And besides, we don’t base federal legislation restricting constitutionally-protected rights on one or two case reports, do we?

          • bob

            When you say “medical attention”, do you refer to his physician’s report that says he had a fractured nose, two black eyes, multiple scalp lacerations, and a back injury?

            And when it comes to prior behavior, neither is young Trayvon’s fights at school, illegal drug activity, or apparent illegal purchase of firearms. None of that’s applicable, either, is it?

            If you want to bring it down to a character smear, there’s stuff we can throw at both sides.

          • Tyler Sea

            Well I am not a Georgian, nor can I speak for them or their legislature. However just because one state slipped racial wording into their law doesn’t condemn every other state that has a similar law without that wording. Was Georgia the first state to enact stand your ground laws?

          • bob

            So defending yourself when you fear for your life is racist because, statistically speaking, you are more likely to be made to fear for your life by someone of a certain ethnicity?

          • David L.

            Yes, the law is racist in that it allows for blanket immunity for anyone who claims to have felt threatened at the moment of pushing the trigger… and if you think that it’s a coincidence that these laws are overwhelmingly present in Southern States (where one would be hard-pressed to find any instances of racially-motivated homicide, I’m sure)… well, I suggest you watch episode 17×03 of South Park, titled “World War Zimmerman.” Trust me, it’s hilarious, but also a scathing critique of ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws in this country, which should be repealed ASAP.

          • Jeff Jefferson

            LOL you are using a cartoon as your argument? South Park? What kind of crack do you smoke?

          • David L.

            Only New-Mexico-produced high-purity blue crystal meth, fyi. Of course, I forgot that all the humorless constipated reactonaries out there are inherently incapable of appreciating the genius in South Park’s satire.

          • bob

            Yes, I understand that you consider a cartoon to be high art and completely applicable to the political process. No, I don’t consider satire, cartoon or not, applicable to the current discussion, nor do I plan to waste a half-hour watching something that you assure me sums up your viewpoint. If you value your viewpoint enough to summarize it, great. If you choose instead to say, “go watch this cartoon”, then I’m afraid I won’t be heeding it.

          • bob

            You have yet to explain how allowing someone to act in self-defense is racist.

          • Jeff Jefferson

            How do you push a trigger? Do you mean pull a trigger?

          • bbiemeret

            Blacks are almost three times more likely to be killed by a white person than a white person is to be killed by a black person. And whites are 6 times more likely to be killed by another white person. So who exactly should be afraid of whom?

          • Jeff Jefferson

            Even if that were true most of those probably came from a black person breaking into a White person’s house and trying to rob them.

          • bob

            I guess I still don’t understand how defending yourself when fearing for your life is inherently racist. Perhaps try explaining again?

          • Christopher Foxx

            As far as Stand Your Ground laws being racially skewed, I’m not aware of any that afford the right of self defense only to a specific race, perhaps you can enlighten me on this?

            Black man shoots unarmed white teen in self defense, is acquitted.,

            Reasonably presented argument for most of your comment. If teh vocal gun owners thought along similar lines, I suspect we wouldn’t have a problem.

            But your ending:

            As far as Stand Your Ground laws being racially skewed, I’m not aware of any that afford the right of self defense only to a specific race, perhaps you can enlighten me on this?
            Black man shoots unarmed white teen in self defense, is acquitted.,

            in comparison to the rest of your comment shows a stunning naivete. I’m not aware of any law that says black people should get harsher penalties than whites who commit the same crimes, but there are mountians of evidence that shows that is the case. To deny that, and to think finding one incident where that wasn’t the case proves anything, is riduculous.

          • bob

            What is the solution to the problem of unequal legal penalties based on race, then?

          • Christopher Foxx

            What is the solution to the problem of unequal legal penalties based on race, then?

            Time, unfortunately. It leads to a growing awareness that things are out of whack and more calls to fix it.

          • bob

            I agree that it takes time and, unfortunately, I’ve known a blatantly-racist firearm owner or two in my time. In general, though, the people I shoot with are a happy and accepting crowd. Yes, there’s still a problem with prejudice, but I don’t believe that stricter gun control is the solution to violence that stems from that prejudice. On top of that, I think that there’s a bigger problem with gangs and organized crime causing firearm violence than overzealous firearm owners pleading self-defense.

          • bbiemeret

            Why are you so afraid of dying? Do you live in an exceptionally violent area? I do believe that a vast majority of Americans go about their everyday lives without being armed, and never give it a second thought. At close to 40, I’ve lived in Los Angeles, San Diego, Chicago, and Milwaukee. All large metropolises with lots of crime. In all my years, I’ve never been the victim of a violent crime, I’ve never carried, or even owned a firearm, and I’ve never felt like I needed one. Of course, I’m not a paranoid sissy who can’t fight but thinks everyone is out to get him. So that probably helps ease my mind.

          • Ferrumkit

            Anecdotal evidence, at best. You also assume he may have martial prowess to handle assailants and also assume they will only attack, unarmed, and without numbers.

            In short you’re argument here is “You’re dumb because you don’t allow yourself to be more vulnerable at the expense of an opinion of ‘manliness’.” To which I would simply reply “I would prefer to have the tools I need and not use them, than to need those tools and not have them”

            Preparedness is hardly a foolish notion, and to imply someone should be unarmed for vanities sake is a foolish notion at the least.

            I had a teacher express to me the most distilled opinion on his life’s experience “I would rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6”. Now justification for that would be opinion of imminent danger to ones self.

          • bbiemeret

            I’m sorry, I missed the comment where you presented empirical evidence to support you claim. Also, I’m no martial master, and don’t look it. I just choose not to be afraid. People carry guns out of fear, and I’m not afraid. Even if I get killed, I’m not afraid. I’m not a bible thumper, I don’t believe in heaven or hell, and I’m still not afraid. Living in fear is a life half lived. How do you handle traveling? Or do you? Have you ever been to a land that didn’t allow guns? How on earth did you survive?

          • Jeff Jefferson

            People carry to be prepared if they are attacked. I’m not afraid of anyone in particular but I’ve dealt with three separate incidents where I had to draw a weapon to defend myself. The sight of it every time scared the little thugs off quite easily. I went about my day just fine. Some of us aren’t so eager to be victims of violent crime and some of us live in areas that have a high rate of it.

          • bbiemeret

            No one prepares for EVERYTHING in life, you prepare for the things that you think are likely to occur. You carry a gun to protect yourself because you think it’s LIKELY to occur, even though the vast majority of those who carry guns never actually prevent any crime from occurring. Admit it, you carry a gun cause it gives you bigger balls. If you live in an area with a high crime rate, I could see a justification. If you live in the suburbs and take you gun to the movies, you’re compensating, plain and simple.

          • bob

            Please cite your sources when you throw out statistics like “vast majority never prevent any crime”. If you don’t, it sounds like you just made something up on the spot.

            Wait, you… you didn’t just do that, did you?

            And again, as much as you seem to love to talk about genitalia, it’s not really about that for all of the firearm owners I know.

          • Yolo

            Here you go:
            Data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) ..each year there are only about 68,000 defensive uses of guns in connection with assaults and robberies, or about 80,000 to 82,000 if one adds in uses linked with household burglaries. … The NCVS estimates that about 0.09 of 1% of U.S. households experience a defensive gun use (DGU) in any one year…

          • Ferrumkit

            Of course you can’t prepare for everything, but that’s hardly a reason or excuse to not prepare for things that -can- happen. Flat tire? Make sure you have a spare, a jack and tire-iron. Chance you may get stranded in the cold? Pack a blanket. Single parent with kids walking home ate night? I guess you just run and hope for the best.

            Of coarse the last one sounds silly or farfetched, but the occasions can happen and sometimes it’s logical to have a means to level an unfavorable situation. That can be mace, a stun-gun, or a gun. Honestly the best option is the one you’re most comfortable with.

            And you also are assuming on where he lives, some suburbs are as bad as the city they are nearest, he might live in a bad neighborhood. As far as ‘compensating’ what does that mean? He could be compensating for being feeble or physically inept. But the way this normally goes is some talk of gonads, which I’ve yet to hear anyone with such an obsession and I normally work around police and military, many that are avid arms enthusiasts.

            In the end none of those variables honesty excuse his actions, as he was a criminal as soon as he had that gun in the theater, They had stated their policy on no weapons in the theater in various articles. So the next escalation you can really enact is armed guards in the theater patting everyone down or metal detectors.

          • Ferrumkit

            Empirical evidence for situations that largely go unreported if de-escalated? I’m afraid that’s one of those data-points that falls under-reported much like male sexual assault. For the instances of escalation, those have a bit more because weapon discharge or actions otherwise happening where someone was harmed or killed. It’s unfortunately one of the quirks of intentions vs actions and the followup results of confrontation. I almost got T-boned by a truck a few nights ago, I didn’t go and report it, had an accident happened, it would have been reported.

            Fear and anxiety is actually healthy to pay attention to because that is what primes us towards imminent stress or danger, be it bills, slamming on the brakes, getting burned, etc. I’ve traveled around but also don’t forget, when you travel, you often are not going into the worst neighborhoods a place offers, and the cultural differences and nuances further complicate any correlations[In the middle east it’s disrespectful to give a thumbs up while here it’s a sign of approval]

          • bob

            Propping yourself up as superior because you don’t live your life in fear has nothing to do with the discussion of these legal issues.

          • James O Donnell

            Nice to know that you value your life so little, and feel so little obligation to your family, that death is no big deal. And that those of us who don’t care to be victimized are just pumping up the size of our balls.

            What an arrogant schitstain you are.

            I suspect you’re right about one thing: no one is likely to miss you.

          • bbiemeret

            Man, you’re trolling on a three month old thread. Talk about irrelevant. Try and keep up with the adults, ok?

          • James O Donnell

            Your stupidity doesn’t improve with age.

          • bob

            Are you implying that your personal experience is what gun control legislation should be based off? Or are you simply saying, “Well, I’VE never felt unsafe, so YOU can’t possibly have been unsafe”?

          • bbiemeret

            Of course not, don’t be ridiculous. But if I and all the other non gun owners of America start to feel unsafe because 1/3 of the country is carrying guns everywhere they go, that could be something to base gun control legislation on.

            I’m not afraid of being a victim of crime. That doesn’t make me superior, it makes me not afraid. What does frighten me, are frightened people with guns. They shoot and kill unarmed people texting during movies, walking home from 7-11s, or knocking at their door to ask for help. Your fear doesn’t trump mine.

            If you’re too frightened of the big, scary world to go out in it with your piece, just do the rest of us a favor and stay home, it’s safer, unless you own a gun, then it isn’t.

          • bob

            The last major piece of gun control legislation that was attempted really shattered the notion of “1/3 of America is scared of firearm owners”. It was destroyed so readily that we got a pissed-off scolding from POTUS while Uncle Joe stood in the back and cried about it. Based on public support, it doesn’t look like your third of Americans is as passionate as you think they are.

          • Artifex

            That’s the key to the ‘gotta be packin’ crowd – they are always scared. Basically a bunch of scared people strutting around (don’t mess with me!) with instant death on their hips puffing out their chests about how American they are and just itching for a situation to prove it.

          • recordguy_2000

            I’ll assume that you’ve never been the victim of a violent crime while living in those cities because you have enough common sense to know which areas to keep away from. Am I right?

          • Mister Xiado

            No one looks to score big on a mugging by sticking to the hood. Unless they’re trying to get a prepaid flip phone, an EBT card, and a community transport schedule.

          • recordguy_2000

            True, but I didn’t say or imply that they do. With most murders that happen in gang infested or blighted neighborhoods, there’s a connection between the killer and the intended victim. Or some poor soul, often a child, is killed by a stray bullet.

        • AlbDavidT

          Judging by national statistics, US legal gun owners do keep any homicidal instincts they may feel in check quite well. Guns are owned in about half of all US houses, and guns are personally owned by about one third of all US adults (Gallop pole 2013). The actual number of gun homicides (including justifiable) per year was 11,101 (according to the latest 2011 info from the CDC), out of a Nation of over 30,000,000 citizens, that is less than 0.004% of citizens killed by a gun by anyone, including criminals. Then if you look at who commits the majority of those gun homicides you find that it is people who already have a criminal record and are not legally allowed to own guns in the first place.

          Now if you look at defensive uses of guns in the US, even by extremely conservative estimates guns are used to defend against criminal attacks more often than guns are used by criminals in all crimes (CDC, FBI, & NIJ statistics).

          Many states have recently enacted CCW, or concealed carry laws, allowing law abiding citizens a license to cary their gun everyday. This was a somewhat controversial policy, and this group of licensed gun carrying citizens is very closely scrutinized. It turns out that CCW permit holders commit crimes, including gun crimes, at a lower rate than even law enforcement officers.

          So it looks like law abiding gun owners do keep their homicidal instincts “well-held at bay”- in the US at least.


Subscribe to the Banter Newsletter!