Guns do not kill people

The recent shooting spree of yet another murderous mad-man is proof that gun laws are ridiculous. Why do I think gun laws are ridiculous? Because they only protect the criminals.

Why are we making laws to protect criminals?!?

I am sure most of you already understand this concept. However, for those who do not see the light, allow me to enlighten you. It is actually quite simple.

Laws are only followed by good law abiding citizens. If we make a law that says “nobody can have a gun” then all the good people get rid of their guns. We are safe right? No. Now the only people who have guns are the people who do NOT obey the law. This means that criminals are free to run around and shoot whoever they want without resistance, until the police show up.

Ask yourself this, if you were in a store, or on a college campus, or in a church, or in an elementary school, or at a concert, or any other place in the world and some fool starts shooting people, would you rather wait 5-10 minutes until the police show up and the shooting is all over and you or your family members are dead, or would you rather be able to pull out your concealed weapon (that you are trained and licensed to carry) and take out the fool, thus saving your own life and perhaps the lives of countless other people?

Guns do not kill people, idiot criminally minded murderers kill people.

Now go learn how to use a gun, get your license to carry one, and buy yourself a little peace of mind!

Glock 19

7 thoughts on “Guns do not kill people”

  1. I’ll totally agree with you that law abiding citizens should have the right to carry guns, and if we don’t, only criminals will have them. But I also believe that if law abiding citizens are to have guns, there should be related laws for them to abide.

    This is one of those issues where major opinion-formers tend to be so polarized they’ve blinded themselves and their followers to reason. I don’t understand how some well-meaning people have problems with:

    Waiting periods — Is anyone in their right mind ever so desperate for a gun that they can’t wait a few days to get one? If they are -that- desperate is it really a good idea to give them one?

    Required Training (and re-training and certification) — How long did you have to practice driving, and how many tests did you have to pass, before you were able to even apply for a drivers license? Compare that to requirements for handling a weapon (not just a concealed weapon.)

    License and Registration — I’ve heard the argument that gun licensing is a privacy violation. But we license our cars and keep them registered. We also have safety inspections on a regular basis. Sure it’d be a pain, but if it makes such an impact on the saftey of our streets to register cars, doesn’t it make sense to do the same with guns?

    Restricting reckless behavior — This opinion I formed from personal experience. A friend we’d invited over took out his loaded gun in our home and twirled it on his finger to show off. His only consequence is that we never invited him back. Would it be such a bad idea to say, vote on some dos and dont’s regarding gun handling and have consequences (gun confiscation or even just taking their license away for X months and having them re-certify) for idiotic moves like that one?

    Anyway those are just a few ideas and examples and I’ve not solidified my opinions or committed myself to any of those particular concepts. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

    What I do feel strongly about is that we the people have got to stop supporting the prevalent all-vs-nothing attitudes we’re being force fed, and use our noggins to come up with some workable solutions.


  2. Amen! Good comments Velda. I would be willing to abide by rules that make owning a gun safer for all involved. Just so long as it does not impede second amendment rights as so many anti-gun groups impose upon the citizens.

  3. Some good points here. If I may add a bit to the discussion, there are really very few in the debate who really are arguing for a total ban on guns. I think what those most in favor of “gun control” really want is just that — control.

    I think the claim “gun laws only protect criminals” is a gross oversimplification, and it’s one that comes from not critically examining one’s own argument. The rationale is this: if ordinary citizens are armed, criminals will be afraid to commit violence. Using that logic, places like Iraq, Sudan and Rwanda should be the safest places on earth.

    From a police point of view, it is actually much safer to have only one shooter than to have several, even if all of the other shooters are acting in self-defense. The latter situation makes thins much less clear. If you see one person waving a gun around, it’s pretty easy to tell who the shooter is. If you see seven, how do you tell which one is the bad guy? Hopefully, it’s the only one that’s dead. But what if the shooter gets up, starts shooting, then Citizen #2 jumps up and takes aim at the original shooter? Citizen 3 hears the shots, and sees two people with guns and has to decide which one to take down. Citizen 4 jumps into the fray, sees Citizen 3 shoot either the Shooter or Citizen 1, and then starts firing. The police then show up and see several dead people, some with guns. They also, in the course of their investigation, find several others who were wounded or killed by stray bullets. (One shot, one kill doesn’t often work well with handguns, especially if you’re filled with adrenaline to the point you’re shaking.) They also see a few people who are visibly shaken who have guns. (If you don’t think you’d be affected by killing someone — even a “bad guy” — you’ve never been in combat.)

    Now, I’m not saying that it would be better if none of the citizens were armed. What I am saying, as Velda said, is that if we want people to be able to carry concealed handguns, there needs to be a lot more training than there currently is. That training should not be a one-time shot. In the Army, soldiers are required to qualify on the weapon(s) they’re issued at least annually, sometimes every three months. Why should a civilian be any different? Quarterly exams would be a huge headache to submit to, as would yearly. But why not have weapons safety and marksmanship training be required every two years if you have a concealed carry permit? If you’re packin’ heat to defend the public, I’d much rather you demonstrate that you know how to use it.

    Just a thought…

  4. I can buy most of your arguments, Velda. But the registration one… We peace-loving patriotic Americans don’t like thinking about it much. But one of the reasons we have the right to keep and bear arms is to protect ourselves from our very own government. It seems absurd to even think of an armed uprising against the good old USA, but that’s only because the need hasn’t arisen. Yet. After the injustices the colonists endured at the hands of the unrestrained British, the states would not sign on to the constitution without this right. The knowledge that the citizenry may be armed is meant to be a deterrent to outrageous behavior from government, police, and other citizens.

    I have not researched it, so I may be only repeating urban legend, but my understanding is that when the Nazi party came to power, they whipped up public support for the idea of gun registration. Once the guns were registered, it became a very straightforward exercise to disarm internal opposition to their reign of terror.

    It can sound very reasonable to say, “Let’s get everybody with a gun to register it.” And reasonable people in reasonable times can agree. But not having everybody else know whether you’re armed is an additional peace of mind that will be sorely missed in less reasonable circumstances.

    Our rights do not exist to protect us from reasonable, law-abiding people. Let’s not be too quick to discard them because we are reasonable, law-abiding people.

  5. While the debate is great…. The fact is even those who want to carry dont do it often enough. The dang things are heavy and bulky.
    As a side note, the only reason the recent salt lake city shooting was so mild is because an off duty police officer was on site, and they are required to carry. Without him there, how many more would have died???
    In Israel many decades ago a school class was massacred on a field trip. The Israelis didnt talk of gun control, they responded by requiring all teachers of children to be armed, and I believe its with automatic types like the uzi. The result?? There have been no massacres of Israeli children since. And you think there are more or less people wanting to kill Jewish children vs American kids. Its not because people hate Americans more, its because they know that our kids are unprotected, and the people who kill them are cowards. Cowards dont attack where they know they will face immediate return fire.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *