Comments for: Why we need gun control

Posted Dec. 25, 2012, at 2:09 p.m.

Who are gun owners really protecting themselves from? In 2007, the Small Arms Survey reported that the U.S. had 88.8 guns per 100 people. The country with the second-highest ratio, Serbia, reported 58.2. Switzerland, a country that does not have a military, ranked fourth at only 45.7. Six of the …

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

    Mr. Shain, I understand your concern, but don’t penalize me, or the millions of other gun owners who act safely and responsibly with our guns. Nobody has the right to decide for me what is necessary. If necessity is the guiding principle in regard to the type of firearms we own, or the size magazine we have, then shouldn’t that also apply to everything else? This would then boil down to food and shelter as being the only things necessary. Who gave anybody the right to tell me what my rights are?

    • well the constitution is the guiding document that dictates your rights….The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms, it doesnt say you have the right to bear a semi-automatic assualt riffle with a 100 round magazine…

      • Anonymous

        Although you can flip a switch on an assault rifle to have it fire semiautomatically instead of automatically, there’s no such thing as a semiautomatic assault rifle.

      • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

        Sorry Eric, that’s where you’re wrong. The Constitution is technically the supreme law of the land, but a piece of paper is not where my rights come from. Rights are God-given, or, as others like to call them, natural rights. There is a difference between the law and rights. The drafters of the Constitution would tell you the same thing. I see you have a UMA bball jersey on (I’m assuming it’s you), so this would mean that you are either in college, or are a college graduate, right? Never studied American history, how our Constitution came to be, or about the men who founded the early American government(s), or were you just asleep when they covered that material? Out at recess maybe? That must be it.

        • Jonathan Albrecht

          Sorry, Whiskey your rights are not god-given. They reside in the fact that humans are conscious beings, have freedom of action, the power to decide – sovereignty. And I have studied the Constitution for 40+ years. Eric is wrong on his point. The Constitution is not the origin of rights but the surrender of powers necessary for a stable society. The assault weapons ban was an irrational in fact silly attempt to differentiate military from civilian guns and then ban the military guns from civilians. But a ban on all semi-automatic weapons because they increase the number who suffer injury at the hands of irresponsible people involves a compelling government interest that justifies such a ban.

          • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

            I respect your well worded post, but as I stated, my rights are God-given, but for those who don’t believe, natural rights, which is pretty much what you said. We’ll just have to disagree on the weapons ban.

          • Anonymous

            So why do your god given rights vary if you were born in US, Canada, Great Britan, Mexico or Pakistan

          • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

            That’s just it, God-given rights don’t vary.

          • Anonymous

            Good luck trying that on the London police dept when you go for a stroll down the street with a Bushmaster or for that matter down Pennsylvania Ave

          • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

            Why don’t go explore the difference between “laws” and “rights”.

          • Anonymous

            Has your god bestowed any other illegal rights upon you?

          • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

            You really are kind of funny. No too bright, but funny.

        • Anonymous

          “Rights are God-given”

          So if God were definitively shown not to exist everyone would lose their rights?

          • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

            Instead of focusing in on what it is that gets you all wound up, read my whole post. Didn’t I recognize that not everybody is a believer, and so I stated “natural rights” for those who don’t. Read man, read read, read!

          • Anonymous

            No, “god given” means you are born with these rights.

      • Anonymous

        “The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms”

        The Constitution says absolutely nothing about any rights. The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, clearly links the right to bear arms with the necessity of a standing militia. What constitutes a militia is defined clearly in the Constitution itself; the National Guard almost, but not quite, meets that definition.

        Additionally, the term “bear arms” had a clear association with military action in the 18th centurey that we no longer hold. A court in Tennesee issued a ruling in the early 19th century where it was stated that a man could hunt every day of his adult life and never been said to bear arms.

        • Anonymous

          The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution therefore they are part of the Constitution. Your understanding on that point is a little weak. Those first 10 Amendment describe the relationship between the people and their government and what the government may not do. Not what it can do, but what it may not do. That is why they are called “rights”. Interpretation may change over time but the purpose of “The First 10 Amendments.” Is rock solid.

          • Anonymous

            The Constitution was adopted by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Bill of Rights was proposed in 1789. They are certainly intrinsically connected, but they are just as certainly not the same document.

          • Anonymous

            Are you serious? Or are you auditioning for a part in Family Guy the opera?

            The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are the bill of rights.The amendments are as much a part of the constitution as revisions are part of the finished book.

          • Anonymous

            Well, then. You must be prepared to argue that it’s constitutional to own slaves, that it’s constitutional for the government to search your home and belongings without a warrant, and that it’s constitutional for the government to throw you in jail for saying Congress consists of a bunch of idiots.
            The Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the CONSTITUTION — came about when the Antifederalists balked at endorsing the Contsitution. The Antifederalists were worried that the Constitution, as proposed, did not keep the federal government’s power over citizens in check. The Federalists argued that individual rights to such things as free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be safe from warrantless searches were understood.
            That wasn’t good enough for the Antifederalists. So the two factions compromised. The Antifederalists would advocate for the Constitution’s passage on the condition that the Federalists would help draft a bill of rights and advocate for its passage. The Federalists agreed.
            To further educate you, please read Article V of the Constitution, which states: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose AMENDMENTS TO THIS CONSTITUTION…” (emphasis added).
            And what is the Bill of Rights? Why, it’s a slate of the first 10 AMENDMENTS to the Constitution.

          • Anonymous

            ROFLMAO

          • Anonymous

            It’s scary that two people agree with this nonsense.

        • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

          Maine State Constitution, Article 1, Section 16 states, “To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”

          From the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary:

          Arms: Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.

          Bear: To possess and use as power; to exercise; to bear sway.

        • Jonathan Albrecht

          You couldn’t be more wrong. The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution as such they are part of the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not link the right to bear arms to the necessity of a standing militia although this is ambiguous nothing in it refers to a “standing” militia. Bear arms is not about military action. It refers to social status. Those who could bear arms were an English elite. And how about a more recent opinoin – Heller which agrees with what I just wrote.

          • Anonymous

            The Constitution was adopted by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Bill of Rights was proposed in 1789. They are certainly intrinsically connected, but they are just as certainly not the same document.

            You are correct that the Amendmend does not use the term “standing” it uses “well-regulated”. However, that is a red herring to the central point which is that, to those who wrote it, the Second Amendment seems to be saying that all citizens have the right to serve in the military. Heller is a bad decision in that it was authored by originalist judges who deliberately chose to overlook their own philosophy about evaluating law based on what the document meant to the folks who wrote it. I’m not personally opposed to Heller, or an individual right to own guns of some sort, but it did make it clear that the originalist faction of the court is so full of it that their eyes are brown.

          • Anonymous

            “[T]he Second Amendment seems to be saying that all citizens have the right to serve in the military.”
            Hogwash. This argument is so ridiculous, there’s not much use commenting on it, other than to say there is absolutely nothing to support it in the historical record. In the legal arguments over allowing homosexuals to serve in the military, nobody argued that homosexuals had a Second Amendment right to join the military.

        • Anonymous

          Uh, the Bill of Rights is very much a part of the U.S. Constitution. They were always intended to be individual rights. Perhaps you missed these tidbits in Civics or American Government class.

          • Anonymous

            Ryan: These people didn’t go to school, they stayed home surfing liberal websites, and watching MSNBC.

          • Anonymous

            All I can say at this point is “wow.” Then comes to mind a Forrest Gump line.

    • Anonymous

      “Nobody has the right to decide for me what is necessary.”

      Nobody has the right to decide whether heroin is necessary for an addict. Same statement, different object. Agree or disagree?

      • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

        Actually, I do agree. Drug abuse has been an issue for thousands of years. Laws have failed to eliminate the problem. I don’t believe for a second that if the war on drugs was ended and all drug laws repealed, that you would see an increase in drug use. If I am wrong, and everybody started doing drugs, then I guess we don’t have free will and are in a more sad state of affairs than I realize, but I don’t believe that I’m wrong.

      • Anonymous

        I sure agree (although you didn’t ask me.)

        This is a free country and if someone wishes to put themselves at the back end of the line, I feel that is their right. I also feel it is the right of the rest of society to refuse to support this individuals habit, and when this individual breaks into my house to steal my stuff (to sell for drugs) he should have the expatiation of dieing there.

  • Sam Richton

    “What a pathetic, lazy outlook on a legitimate problem.” Right. Describes this article perfectly.

    • Anonymous

      Just remember, these are the same people who believe things like bayonet lugs, pistol grips, and barrel shrouds make a firearm inherently more dangerous.

  • Anonymous

    “Switzerland, a country that does not have a military, ….” ~~~Samuelson Hain

    After reading this in the first paragraph I decided that Mr Hain had nothing informative to say and was making up things as he goes along. The Swiss military would be confused to say the least that they do not exist.

    Since the Army XXI reform in 2004, the basic structure of the Land Forces has been reorganised in the following units: infantry brigades (2 and 5); mountain infantry brigades (9 and 12); armoured brigades (1 and 11).
    Additionally two large reserve brigades (Infantry Brigade 7 and
    Mountain Brigade 10) exist. Four territorial regions link the Land
    Forces with the cantons by coordinating territorial tasks inside of
    their sector and are immediately responsible for the security of their
    regions, depending only on the decisions of the Federal Council.

    In addition Switzerland has a draft.

    Switzerland has mandatory military service for all able-bodied male citizens, who are conscripted when they reach the age of majority, though women may volunteer for any position. People determined unfit for service, where fitness is defined as “satisfying physically, intellectually and psychically requirements for military service or civil protection service and being capable of accomplishing
    these services without harming oneself or others”, are exempted from service but pay a 3% additional annual income tax until the age of 30, unless they are affected by a disability

    Not only does Switzerland have a military they TAX you if you are unable to serve.

    The things people make up to justify their point of view… jeesh.

    • Anonymous

      I’ve visited Switzerland twice. Very impressive outlook on defense of the country, quietly confident, but not aggressive or chippy. I traveled by train across the country on weekends and soldiers traveling to weekend duty/training were quite common. A cleverly disguised bunker is dug into a cliff right across the road from the castle near Montreux. The mountain along the airstrip in Gstaad has Mirage jet fighters in bunkers. Their philosophy is, “want to attack us? We’ll close off the rail tunnels and you have to come over the mountains and we’ll be waiting for you …” Meanwhile, no hint of martial law or a police state.

      • Anonymous

        Thanks. The Swiss military you describe is much how I imagined it. I recall having heard their military philosophy before. I think our writer mistakes “neutrality” for unarmed. Maybe Hollywood and too many viewings of the “Sound of Music” as a child skewed his view further. :)

    • Cecil Gray

      And they have a better control on mass murders by gun.

      • Anonymous

        It is still not an excuse for a person who presumably at some point was a newspaper reporter to not know basic information. It makes you wonder every time you read a news article if any reporter might have gone to the same school as Haim.

  • Anonymous

    You are wrong on who we need to protect ourselves from.. Not much use explaining it to you..

  • Anonymous

    Two firemen murdered, two more shot, police shot, multiple homes destroyed by arson as a means of targeting unsuspecting firefighters, body remains found within one of the structures (not the shooter” (yet to be identified at this time) All this in the Town of Webster, New York. The shooter/”suspect” dead of self inflicted wounds.

    Problem?

    The shooter is a convicted felon, convicted of murdering his own mother served 17 years in prison. RELEASED ON PAROLE by a board of “compassionate people” who fell for the lies the evil men tell so that they may continue their ways.
    Subsequently dropped from “supervised parole”. Whether anyone continued to keep track of this man remains to be explained. Convicted felons are banned for life of ever possessing firearms again. The weapons, a six shot revolver, a pump shotgun, a SEMI automatic rifle. New York has a 10 shot limit on detachable magazines for firearms. It is unknown to me if this law was followed. ARSON is against the law in all 50 states.and is a felony. The murderer left a type written note stating his intentions which clearly state the murder is his favorite activity..

    The idea that another law or restriction of law abiding citizens is going to ‘IN ANY WAY ” change this is not only incomprehensible it is criminal in and of itself. Moreover it further demonstrates that there are those who willingly and complicity aid and abet those who would perpetrate such criminal activities by enabling them to commit such crimes and then apologizing to them by making excuses for their crimes.. It is those people who either through ignorance of the world around them of simply suffering from tunnel vision fail to see that their flawed rationalizations cause these type of heinous activities to persistently reoccur. The biggest problem is that it always seems to be the innocent among us who pay the ultimate price for their actions.

    Perhaps their names and addresses need to be published so that the criminals they enable shall know where the easy pickings live.

    • What poor, morbid suggestion…

    • Cecil Gray

      Nice try. There are some additions to laws that could help the situation such as background checks on ALL sales and the elimination of high volume magazines. I said help, not cure, a society that indoctrinates its youth at an alarmingly young age with the common denominator of violence by gun.

      • Anonymous

        Society does not indoctrinate its youth to gun violence. Irresponsible parents accomplish that all on their own by not monitoring what their kids are doing, not banning violent video games that reward points for killing en mass, not getting involved in their children’s lives beyond suprerficial “keep ‘m busy” attitudes, not training their kids responsible firarms use and handling at an early age, and not exposing youth to firearms at all for that matter, so their first encounter with firearms comes when their buddy who stole Uncle’s handgun shows it off, loaded or not, and for letting kids ingest hundreds of hours of violent “shoot ’em up” Hollywood movies rather than movies with meaningful lessons. How is it society’s responsibility to raise your kids with morals, conscience, compassion and empathy? Those are traits learned at home for starters. Back in the 60’s and 70’s when many local schools had competitive rifle teams, so-called “gun violence” did not exist? We use to take our guns to school so we could hunt to and from class. Our rifles did not jump out of our hands and start shooting people. What changed? The guns did not. With the increase in Hollywood movies and shows glorifying murder and gang violence, certain factions jumped into action. Ban guns! Teach kids that guns are bad so they stay away from them! Soon thereafter state and federal governments banned guns from school grounds forcing organized school shooting activities to cease so firearms education was largely eradicated. Society shifted from a one working parent household to two working parents so children started fending for themselves after school with minimal supervison. With time on their hands and no parents to keep them in check, more and more kids’ only exposure to firearms came from Hollywood. Divorce rates skyrocketed, reducing the number of dads who had time to take their kids out to the shooting range to learn about responsible gun ownership, handling and hunting. What happens when you teach kids to “just say no”? A natural curiousity takes hold, and kids learn what they ingest. Many parents took the attitude that it was the responsibility of public schools to develop their chidlren’s morals, conscience and compassionate traits. They couldn’t be more wrong.

  • Anonymous

    The “controls” regarding firearms are multiple, varied, and comprehensive. Once again, in a continuing attempt to usurp rights and responsibilities of the 99% in the populace a social scientist attempts to explain how further controls and manipulative legislations will certainly make things better. When Wayne Pierre echoes the continuing concerns of child psychiatrists regarding exposure to violence, suggests the armed protection of schools which already is in place throughout the U.S. and mirrors the conclusions of criminologists who identify other non-firearm factors as pre-determinating facets in violent episodes while pointing out the deliberate policy of ignoring defensive uses of fireams on a daily basis, he is castigated and vulgarized. The Bible references that when a child is no longer a child, childish thoughts and actions are put away, but those who continue to identify the tools of the violent trade as agents of cause are simply perpetuationg the childish myths of political correctness and actively delaying the implementation of ideas that could really make a difference. Our recent history predicts only more of the same because of these destructive avenues being followed. Ken Fogelman

  • Anonymous

    We don’t need gun control legislation.
    The Legislators need gun control legislation.
    That way they can say we have done all we can do to prevent the next school or church or grocery store masacre.
    Gun control legislation will just be a piece of paper on the books that costs nothing.

    • So how about we actually do something that WILL make a difference?! Start talking about that…If we as Americans think the only solution is everybody having a gun then this generation of Americans has failed. Throughout our history we have found answers to the major problems in this country, People unfit to carry a firearm, gaining access to firearms is now a major problem, so lets talk solutions

      • Anonymous

        Talking about it won’t do anything. That’s all they are doing now is talking. Talk is cheap.
        Real psychiatric help isn’t. The current US Congress is controled by people who’s main objective seems to be not spend one dime on social services. They would rather spend a billion on designing a bomber that will never leave the ground than spend a red cent to help people in need.

  • Dean Willis

    All of our spectator sports are training exercises for primitive combat. Is swinging a club at a ball not a good training exercise for swinging a club at a head?

    • last time i checked a head wasnt beening thrown at you at 95 mph…

      • Anonymous

        Neither is the golf ball that just sits there on a Tee. That’s DW’s point. Maybe I need another cup of coffee but I think you got the two sports mixed up.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    Switzerland DOES have a military. The columnist would know this if he had bothered to check the CIA World Factbook.

    The mental disorder in question, asperger syndrome, is not a mental disorder. It is a developmental disorder. The columnist would have known this if he had checked with the National Institutes of Health.

    “Another outlook is: ‘Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’ But guns should not be completely off the hook. The pair of alcohol and a vehicle is a deadly combination. So is the combination of psychopath, unfit gun owner and a gun. Guns need to be held accountable for their role: the murder weapon.”
    Ouch in logic there. What about holding motor vehicles accountable for their role in drunken driving?
    And, one again, a gun control advocate shows pure ignorance by claiming that guns have one purpose only: to kill.
    Sorry, but target practice rarely has anything to do with preparing to kill people.
    In short, this is one poorly researched column written via reflex, not thought.

    • Id like to know what the purpose of target practice is? Since usually when you have a gun its for protection or feeding your family through hunting, protection can lead to killing and killing for food is the purpose of hunting…whats the purpose of a gun: to kill.

      • Anonymous

        The purpose of target practice is the same as it is when you play golf or shoot baskets by yourself at the gym: to play against yourself. You learn to breathe properly, to keep your emotions in check, to regulate your heart rate, to focus your attention, to learn patience.
        If you want to get right to it, the purpose of a firearm is to propel a projectile in controlled fashion. The trigger mechanism sparks a small amount of explosive (gun powder), which ignites and generates intense gas pressure. The explosion propels the bullet from the cartridge. That’s it.
        For those who think the framers of the Bill of Rights weren’t thinking of the guns we have today, think again: They weren’t stupid. They new guns would improve and become more efficient. The guns that existed back in the 1700s were far more dangerous than the guns on the market today. They often misfired, bullets were not that accurate, and they were prone to mechanical malfunctions because of their clumsy design and the clumsy ammunition available.
        Target shooting is about skill. If you bother to go to a shooting club, you would find out that few people talk about preparing to kill anything.

        • Anonymous

          “The purpose of target practice is the same as it is when you play golf or shoot baskets by yourself at the gym: to play against yourself. You learn to breathe properly, to keep your emotions in check, to regulate your heart rate, to focus your attention, to learn patience.”

          Dissembling.

          People target shoot so, when the time comes, they are prepared to kill. If the purpose for target shooting is not preparation to kill, you would use devices that expel non-lethal projectiles.

          • Anonymous

            So now you should be able to decide what a person has for a hobby?! Are you serious?! I Have been shooting since I was 10 years old. I was taught respect and discipline when it came to firearms, and I am damn proud to say my teenage son and preteen daughter have been brought up the same way. It’s something we can enjoy as a family, you know, something you people are always whining about American families don’t do enough of. You should be ashamed of yourself to suggest that I am training my children to be killers! Go stick your head back in the sand and stop insulting law-abiding gun owners. You’re pathetic.

          • Anonymous

            “So now you should be able to decide what a person has for a hobby?!”

            Where exactly did i say you shouldn’t be able to target shoot? If you want to spend your free time getting ready to kill your fellow humans if the need should arise more power to you. But don’t kid yourself – or us – about why you are doing it.

          • Anonymous

            The only one who is kidding himself is you. Call your local shooting club and find out when and where the next competition is. Go to the competition and see for yourself. You won’t hear anyone talking about preparing to kill humans. You will hear lots about regulating breathing, heart rate, adjusting your position, taking your time, blocking out your surroundings, adjusting your sights, etc.

          • Anonymous

            Nope. Skeet Shooting is often pursued by folks who never shoot a living thing.

  • The author also claims that without a high powered rifle, the killer wouldn’t have been able to kill that many. Ever heard of a pipe bomb? Also, last time I checked, guns weren’t allowed in bars. Comparing guns to heroin use? Really? And as has already been brought up, Switzerland has an army. I could go on and on. This is a very poor article, with not much thought behind it, only lots of emotion. Take time to think before you write. If you’re going to discuss facts, try get them right.

  • Anonymous

    The two most successful acts of terrorism were committed without guns. Timmy McVeigh used a Ryder truck a five gallon can of diesel fuel, and a ton of fertilizer.

    Mohammad Atta and company used box cutters (knives?) and four airplanes

    Timmy killed 168 folks in a couple of minutes, and Mohammad killed over 3,000 in two hours.

    • Anonymous

      “The two most successful acts of terrorism were committed without guns. Timmy McVeigh used a Ryder truck a five gallon can of diesel fuel, and a ton of fertilizer.

      Mohammad Atta and company used box cutters (knives?) and four airplanes”

      And as a result of those two incidents, sales of fertilizer in bulk were restricted and closely monitored and we can’t take much of anything on airplanes anymore. In other words, a threat was identified and steps were made to minimize that threat. We didn’t bury our heads in the sand and say “Oh well, the whack-a-doodle will just find some other way…”

      Speaking of whack-a-doodles finding other ways – the same day as the Sandy Hook tragedy a guy in China attacked a total of 22 kids in a school – more than were attacked in Connecticut. None of those children died, because the whack-a-doodle had to use a knife rather than a gun to commit his crimes.Go tell the parents of the Sandy Hook victims that gun control never saves lives. I dare you.

      • Anonymous

        17 children in China have been killed by six different attackers since 2010. None of them used guns.

        I can make methane based fertilizer in my barn using NOTHING but cow poop and lime.

        • Anonymous

          “17 children in China have been killed by six different attackers since 2010. None of them used guns.”

          That really does absolutely nothing to support your point. Adam Lanza was able to kill 20 six year-olds because he used a gun specifically designed to efficiently kill people. If he didn’t have access to that kind of firepower, the statistics – even the ones you produce – strongly suggest we would have limited the casualties. If we used the statistics you produced a baseline, then probability indicates that the Lanza attack would have produced less than 3 fatalities (the average of the six attacks in China that caused fatalities is 2.83). While still unacceptable, we’d also have 17 fewer grieving families.

          • Anonymous

            So by eliminating guns, we reduce the tragedy, but by eliminating Lanza (and his ilk) we avoid it entirely.

            The same logic you use would suggest that we should not have large numbers of people in the same place, because corralled cattle produce large numbers of dead, rather than picking them off one at a time out on the range.

          • Anonymous

            “So by eliminating guns, we reduce the tragedy, but by eliminating Lanza (and his ilk) we avoid it entirely.”

            I thought a central tenet of the need for guns was there is no other way to stop these tragedies. Instead all we need to do is eliminate some poorly defined ilk, and our problems will be solved.

            So, what exactly is Lanza’s ilk? Kids that play video games? Kids that may be in the autistic spectrum? Kids that suddenly go off the deep end and shoot up schools before killing themselves? Who exactly are you suggesting that we eliminate, Mr. Katz?

          • Anonymous

            Lanza’s “Ilk” is people who kill large numbers of people because they are deranged. Gee did you miss that part of his personality?

    • info@dennysriverguide.com

      Exactly.

  • Anonymous

    To say that I was appalled by the NRA’s stupid suggestion of armed guards at all the schools is an understatement. Just the image of a few George Zimmermans roaming the halls of a school is enough to get my blood boiling.

    • You know armed guards can be police, right? And that more and more George Zimmerman’s story can’t really be refuted? Or, did you know that Concealed Carry Permit holders happen to be the single-most law abiding subset of the United States?

      CCers have ONE thing in common with the lowest of the low in the United States. My fingerprints are on file with the FBI. So, if I was going to go out committing crimes, why in the hell would I give them my fingerprints? Because I have nothing to fear from them. They won’t ever have a reason to come after me.

      As for your blood boiling issue, I guess you like the idea of unprotected children better than anything else.

      Let me pose this to you: if i could guarantee you a 50% reduction in the number of victims for every Sandy Hook like shooting, would you be okay with that if the good guy killed one kid every time? In other words, two scenarios for you to choose. 1) Criminal kills 26 and then himself (as the cops get there, oddly enough). 2) Criminal kills 15, armed civilian kills criminal and one by bystander. Which do you choose? Or, better yet, would you feel more morally superior because you opposed your child’s school having armed guards, but losing said child and her entire class to a madman, or would you feel better allowing good guys with guns to take out the base guy earlier?

  • Anonymous

    Everyone posting facts to dispute this opinion piece are just wasting their time. The BDN is a leftist rag, read by mostly leftists. It’s readership is shrinking and it is preaching to a small choir of dedicated followers.

  • I don’t think prohibition is effective and I don’t think a gun ban would do much to deter violence…though it would be nice to see my fellow citizens exercise a bit more restraint. Being legal and being a good idea are not always synonymous. That is to say, it’s not the buying of guns that worries me, it’s the motivation. Following the herd isn’t always the best course of action, especially when one examines who’s driving it.

  • Anonymous

    Just as folks cringe at the thought of over population being the root cause of environmental problems, we continue to avoid the original cause of the violence and madness in our society; a lack of “people control.” Gun control is an easy target, allowing legislators to give us the illusion of progress with more laws.

    • Anonymous

      “Just as folks cringe at the thought of over population being the root cause of environmental problems”

      The people who point out environmental problems rarely avoid the overpopulation issue. In fact, the environmental community is about the only place i hear the word. Until today at least.

      • Anonymous

        Actually there is not a problem we have today that could not be minimized by halving the population.

  • Anonymous

    Apparently, Mr. Shain lives under the lucky star of never having been the victim of violent crime. Ask the woman who was raped what value a handgun has. Ask the car jack victim if there is any value to firearm ownership? Ask any one of a thousand citizens who have received death threats whether they would prefer a baseball bat to a rifle for home defense.

    • Anonymous

      “Ask the woman who was raped what value a handgun has.”

      My wife has been raped. I did ask her. All i can say is it’s a good thing it was me and not you who asked her, my friend.

      • Anonymous

        Was she carrying at the time? A handgun has no value unless you are ready and willing to use it.

  • Lets see…the second amaendment states that…

    heroin shall not be infringed…nope…

    cars shall not be infringed…nope…

    alcohol shall not be infringed…nope…

    Oh yeah, now I remember…”the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    • Anonymous

      Except that’s not all that it says…. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,…” is the leading clause. Regulation is clearly a part of the Amendment. And a militia that is necessary to security of the nation – as opposed to the individual – as well,,,,

      • Anonymous

        Where is “nation” implied or mentioned in the second amendment? When the Constitution was written “the army” belonged to individual States.

  • Robert James Comingo

    Samuelson Shain, seriously?

    [ Ignorant observation #1 ] Firearms are not permitted in establishments that serve alcohol as a primary means of business.

    [ Ignorant Observation #2 ] “You have no issue with the right to own, but this isn’t a Society you want to live in?” Go live in Iraq. You ignore history and who fought to defend and free this nation from oppression. The same type of patriots today firmly recognize that keeping arms to maintain that freedom and to protect against any threat to liberty foreign or domestic.

    [ Ignorant Observation #3 ] “I just cannot buy into the idea that adding guns to an already locked and loaded society is the answer.” This is an example/response of fear mongering by gun grabbers and media. The answer is to protect that which can be threatened, that which has no means of self defense. Grown adults have an undeniable right to self defense, but they choose to be passive/spineless and rely on others to protect them. (Police have no Constitutional requirement to protect you or defend you) People talk, but look at the armed security that protects them, and the schools their children attend. Children have no means to self defense, why is it they do not deserve the same amount of security as Courts, Fed Building, Banks, Politicians, Stadiums, etc?

    [ Ignorant Observation #4 ] “It would mean that owning a gun wouldn’t just be a right — it would be a necessity.” It has always been a necessity, show me the magical law capable of stopping a bullet, rapist, burglar, murder, etc.

    [ Ignorant Observation #5 ] “10 innocent children and six brave teachers”; It was 20 children in a Gun Free zone.

    [ Ignorant Observation #6 ] “Also, is it really necessary to own high-powered assault rifles?
    Containing 30-round magazines, these weapons are death machines made for
    killing quickly and mowing people down.” You clearly have no compression of the capabilities or effectiveness of this so called “High Powered Assault Rifle” but with my 18 years now of being in the Military, It is by far a weak rifle. the .223/5.56mm round/bullet is smaller than a 9mm, .45 or .38 round/bullet. It’s purpose in combat is to injure an enemy, make them bleed out and slow them down. The AR15/M4/M16 is not a killing machin., This in effect will cause your enemies to rush to render aid making themselves a target. 30 round magazine versus any other, just means you need to carry more magazines. Pointless. A shot gun is far more destructive and effective at close range. Your ineffective with your political “Shock and Awe” statements to those who are not ignorant.

    [ Ignorant Statement #7 ] “Another argument: “He could have used a knife, baseball bat or chain saw.” When someone attempts to rape a woman or man wielding a chainsaw, you can bet your top dollar they won’t hesitate to use their hand gun to stop the attacker.

    [ Ignorant Statement #8 ] “There is a reason that people choose guns in mass killings: They work
    best. There is no chance that 26 people would be dead in Connecticut if
    the killer went in with a bat, chain saw or knife” Rule number one, don’t bring a knife, bat or chainsaw to a gun fight.

    [ Ignorant Statement #9 ] “One idea to require guns in schools is completely ludicrous.” Because protecting money/paper in a bank is more important than protecting defenseless children in a Gun Free zone?

    [ Ignorant Statement #10] “Our fearful country has sadly manifested into gun owners protecting themselves from gun owners.” Your fed fear by design. Gun owners do not fear gun owners, they fear those who would choose to do harm to them. Fear, is being on the receiving end of a Government spreading Democracy overseas. Fear is living in that Country that will one day turn that method of spreading Democracy on its own people!!

    Thanks.

  • Guest

    Some of the kindest and most polite people I’ve ever met carry guns on a regular basis. There’s truth in an armed society being a polite one. People need to keep in mind that most gun deaths are due to suicides. Not great, but certainly they pose little threat to the rest of us. If fact more crimes are prevented with guns than occur with them. A fact often/usually ignored by the media.

Similar Articles