But, but, it’s the guns

Michigan State shooter should have been in prison

Once again, someone who should have been prosecuted, wasn’t, and goes on to do great harm.

Maybe use the laws we have before making new ones that only make it harder for the victims to defend themselves.

The latest study shows that 97.8% of mass shootings occur in places where citizens are not allowed to be armed.

Maybe disarming good people while letting bad people roam free no matter what they do isn’t the best approach.

57 thoughts on “But, but, it’s the guns

  1. RE: “The latest study shows that 97.8% of mass shootings occur in places where citizens are not allowed to be armed.”

    That’s a stunning statistic.

    Given a choice between tyranny and radical individual sovereignty, I’ll take the latter.

    If it is OK for Joe Biden to shoot anything that moves in the sky, it should be OK for citizens to shoot criminals when they (citizens) are threatened.


  2. You don’t need to worry about your guns being taken away. When Adam Lanza, armed with his mother’s Bushmaster and 10 magazines of ammo, shot his was through the locked doors at Sandy Hook and murdered 20 elementary school kids one week before Christmas and nothing was done, the battle was over. There will never be a law to take away guns of any sort, from anybody, ever.

    And even if there was, it’s too late. The country is awash with guns. If every gun manufacturer in the country was shut down tomorrow, there is already enough guns on the streets that every man, woman, and child could have multiple guns. That should give you great comfort.

    Passing laws won’t help. Courts are obviously gentle with people who carry guns without permits. And several police departments around the country have said they won’t enforce gun laws if passed. A gun law wouldn’t have stopped Adam Lanza. His mama bought him the gun. Gun laws don’t stop gangs from stealing guns out of your house. They don’t stop little kids from finding them and taking them to school and shooting their teachers. They don’t stop licensed carriers from taking them to work and shooting fellow employees.

    So what will stop the killings? Tell me what you would do, if you were King of the World. How would you stop the killings? Give everybody a gun and hope for the best? Hope that none of them every got angry enough to kill. Hope that none of them ever got depressed enough to commit suicide. Hope that none of them ever mistakenly shot a loved one thinking they were a burglar. Hope that none of them ever just snapped and went on a killing spree. How would you do it?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. You mention Adam Lanza, Ok, CT already had about all the laws possible. AR type rifles could not be sold or transferred. If you had one, you could only have it in your home, at a registered shooting range, or in between. Lanza’s mother had hers locked in a safe. Lanza murdered her in her sleep to get the key which was on a chain around her neck.

      So, very strict gun laws did not stop him, on the contrary, they contributed to the tragedy. Lanza’s mother had asked about storing her AR at the shooting range, as people often did with other firearms, but that was not allowed with AR’s. She could not even store it temporarily with the police. If she asked them to take it, she would never get it back.

      So, she followed the law and kept it locked up at home.

      What will stop such tragedies?

      Nothing will be 100% effective.

      But had the MI State shooter been prosecuted under existing laws, he would have been in prison.

      Nearly every mass shooter was “known to the police” but not prosecuted for prior crimes against persons.

      So, start with that, When a known dangerous person commits a crime, lock them up and put them in the NICS database.

      Simply following the laws we already have instead of under-prosecuting dangerous people would do more than anything else.

      Next, eliminate nearly all gun free zones. Disarming good people does not make bad people less dangerous.



      1. You are right. Gun control laws didn’t stop Adam Lanza. They didn’t stop the Michigan State shooter or any of the others. So, what will stop such tragedies?

        The absence of guns. The absence of guns will stop mass shootings and every other gun tragedy.

        You think your personal gun is innocent. It will never be involved in a crime. I had a friend in North Carolina who thought the same thing. One day, while she was at work, somebody broke into her house and stole her gun. A few months later, it was found at a crime scene. My brother had an innocent gun. His son used it to kill himself. Unless they’re a gang member, everybody thinks their gun is an innocent gun… “my gun will never be used for anything other than self defense.” They’re dead wrong.

        When you say “eliminate nearly all gun free zones,” I assume you mean schools since that’s where the vast majority of mass shootings happen. Do you really want to give teachers guns? What about students? Should they have guns to protect themselves if there’s no teacher around? What about political rallies? Guns there? Courts? Hospitals? Grocery stores? Restaurants? Bars? How about everybody packing heat at work? That would make discussions with your boss more interesting. Yeah, let’s have guns everywhere. That way, everybody would be safe all the time. NOT.

        “Disarming good people does not make bad people less dangerous.” Wrong viewpoint.

        Disarming everybody makes everybody less dangerous. (Good people can kill you by mistake.)

        But don’t worry. As I said before, it’s never going to happen. Nobody will ever come for your gun. If we were too stupid to learn from Sandy Hook, we’re too stupid to learn.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. The age limit for a Concealed Handgun Permit is 21. So that pretty much excludes students.

          Eliminating guns is not on the menu. No “gun free zone” sign has ever dissuaded a madman intent on suicide by cop, so what is the point?

          A person who has passed the background test to get a concealed carry permit should be able to carry anywhere a policeman can, with very few exceptions like courtrooms or prisons.

          1 in 5 adult Virginians have Concealed Handgun permits.

          You walk by us every day and never know it, but you are safer because we are there.


          1. So you’d accept a ban on any kind of gun that can’t be concealed? You’d be ok with banning assault rifles?

            “No “gun free zone” sign has ever dissuaded a madman intent on suicide by cop, so what is the point?” If there were no guns anywhere a madman would have to find another way to commit suicide wouldn’t he? He might even have to do it alone.

            Sure, he could probably do some damage with a knife. But he couldn’t pump 30 rounds into a room full of elementary school students in 60 seconds. With a weapon like that, a teacher with a gun in her hand when the shooter walked in the door couldn’t stop him.

            And no I do not feel safer because 1 in 5 Virginians is carrying a concealed weapon. When the bullets start flying you’re just as likely to hit me as the bad guys. I’d prefer not to die in the crossfire of a shootout at the OK Bar & Grill… or the Kroger parking lot… or driving past a road rage rant…

            But you are correct. Eliminating guns is not on the menu. We’ll just keep adding more and more guns and having more and more shootings because we’re just too damn stupid to figure out what’s causing all those shootings.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. The worst US mass murder at a school didn’t use a gun at all. The madman used explosives. And a couple of buckets of gasoline could do even worse.

            You are worried about getting shot by a concealed carry permit holder under a variety of circumstances, but why?

            We have had shall issue concealed carry for decades now, and those things have just not happened. On the contrary, CHP holders are less likely to commit a crime with a gun, or injure a bystander, than policemen.

            Maybe we aren’t the ones you should worry about. Maybe it’s the dangerous people turned loose on the public by liberal prosecutors and school faculties.


          3. https://www.businessinsider.com/missouri-lawmakers-reject-ban-on-children-carrying-guns-in-public-2023-2?op=1

            Well, this latest iteration seems really ridiculous. But it fits the goal of arming absolutely everyone and “let’s see what happens”.

            A bunch of 14 year olds hanging out at the mall, or street corners, with 9mm guns in their torn jeans pockets. What could possibly go wrong?

            IMO the gun lobby has gone “full Monty” to make sure we use guns instead of IUD’s to keep population growth under control. Congrats and job well done. Next mass shooting scheduled for____________@______________.

            Be there, it’ll be wild.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. It might come as a surprise to you, but teenagers hunt in Missouri.

            When I was 15, I was captain of the Sheriff’s dept youth marksmanship team. We brought our rifles to school and stored them in the Principal’s office so we could go directly to the range after school.

            I’m sure it comes as a shock, but there’s a big world out there beyond the city limits, and life is different there.


          5. So your point is, again and ad nauseum, that rural people are superior to those who live in cities. So very Jeffersonian of you.

            And you get worked up over cities not respecting rural folks. And that is why the Capitol was attacked, along with a litany of “what did you expect” excuses for right wing petulance and violence.

            But, aside from that jab, you do know that there are cities in Missouri. Do you think a bunch of young teens gathering at a street corner should all be armed? We are talking about 13, 14 years old and up.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. They weren’t making a law for cities only.

            And I didn’t say rural people are superior, I said they are different and have different needs and customs.

            One of which being that young hunters don’t shoot each other up on the weekends.


          7. Well that teen open carry law is not restricted to farm land. So perhaps you try to not shove dangerous laws onto urban dwellers.

            Where is the break point? 5 miles outside a city? 2 miles? 20 miles? What about the teen farmer bringing his gun to downtown? What about suburbs? Exurbs?

            Different laws for people living throughout the country depending upon their location is seriously problematic. Armed teens in the city is ludicrous. Permitting and safe storage of weapons as in your schooldays is fine and won’t affect the farming teens one bit.


          8. Snidely superior then? Your sarcasm is noted as a camo cover for rural moral superiority.

            So checkpoints at city limits to see if kids are packing? Some teen packs while visiting a friend in St. Louis. Felony for him, or parents? Some kid gets insulted by a bully. Stand your ground applies when a 14 year old takes out a big kid because he thought he was in danger? Impulse control is not a strong suit among kids.

            (Could use the same type of checkpoint that women must pass to prove they are not pregnant while leaving the state. I know, not there…yet. But the right wing is working on it.)

            Liked by 1 person

          9. It is already unlawful for those under 18, and in some states 21, to carry a handgun concealed or openly.

            They can openly carry a long gun, which allows for hunting.


          10. What a relief. So these 14 year olds will be carrying AR-15’s slung over shoulders next to the backpack.


          11. And there was a time when the NRA supported sportsmen and honored the environment because it was necessary to the sport. Those days are over. Alexander Torshin and Maria Butina changed the NRA from a sportsman’s club into an arms dealership, pushing weapons of war onto our city streets. And Putin laughs.

            Spare me your sportsman-justification for unlimited access to guns. “Sportsmen” don’t hunt deer with automatic weapons that fire 60 rounds per second, but they’ll burn the Capitol down if anybody dares suggest those weapons should be banned from civilian sales.

            Yeah, “life is different” out there. Nobody out there ever dies from guns. Or so I’ve been told.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. I’d say this is the perfect example of the “f*ck around and find out” rule, but I’m absolutely sure they are too stupid to comprehend the results. Maybe when the schoolyard bullies start gunning down their kids? Nah. They’ll just close public schools.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. When I bought my gun, I took it home in my car. Not wanting to leave it in the open, I concealed it. True, it was not in reach, but that was more practicality than law abiding.

            He was arrested for having a concealed weapon without a CCP.

            Was I a felon also.

            No, and he pleaded to a misdemeanor. No record of violence or past convictions.

            I know you are trying to prove a point, but this is not a good case for that.

            So how did he get his gun for the mass shooting?


          14. Yeah a century or so ago a madman blew up a school because he didn’t have access to modern weapons. Today it’s much easier to wipe out a school. No need to haul around all that heavy gasoline. Hurrah for technology. Keep it going!

            I am worried about getting shot by anybody with a gun, whether they have a permit to carry it or not. People make stupid decisions every day. When people with guns make stupid decisions, things tend to be much worse.

            Yes, we have had concealed carry for decades. We’ve also had gun deaths for decades. When you have guns you have gun deaths. When you don’t have guns nobody dies by gun shot. Not gun suicides. Not gun accidents. Not gun crimes.

            Maybe you ought to worry about those “dangerous people turned loose on the public by liberal prosecutors” getting their hands on more guns the minute they’re back on the street.

            But as I’ve said before, you have nothing to worry about. More guns than ever are now available to anybody who wants a gun. Portsmouth is planning to open a gun shop in the highest crime neighborhood in the city. Might as well. At least the city will get a little tax revenue from the gun sales. Beats having the gun dealers doing business from the trunks of their cars.


            Liked by 1 person

          15. “You walk by us every day and never know it, but you are safer because we are there.”

            I think you have your numbers about right but your conclusion is self-serving delusion. IMHO.

            But, in the spirit of compromise, here is a suggestion – lets make every gun owner subject to the same level of scrutiny as an applicant for a CCP. Why not? And then, let’s ban concealed carry altogether . Open carry is already legal. It let’s everyone know that you are armed and dangerous. By your logic, that would be certain to create a more civil society.

            What is the purpose of concealed carry anyway? One gun store owner explained it this way . . .

            “In Virginia, you can carry most places open. It’s just not a good idea because people look at you funny. So concealed carry is ideal because you can be carrying without people making judgments about you.”

            “People look at you funny.” Indeed they do. With good reason.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. Armed citizens stop more mass shootings before the damage is done than police, simply because they are there.

            It’s a long list.

            But still, the odds are that I will never be placed in such a situation, thankfully, but the odds that my boat will catch on fire are small too, yet I carry a fire extinguisher on board.


          17. If a hardened or desperate robber doesn’t want to risk your being armed, he might just shoot you in the back of the head, take your wallet AND your gun from your cold, lifeless shoulder holster.


          18. He could as easily think you are armed and do the same, only to be disappointed to only get your wallet.

            But if you broadcast the fact that you are carrying by doing so openly, that is much more likely to happen.

            BTW, if you practice, it is surprisingly easy to draw and fire a triple tap in less time than it takes a person to react.


          19. So someone taps you on the shoulder to ask directions, and before they can say “Excuse me…” they are triple tapped because you reacted fast with a gun.

            Millions of untrained folks armed to the teeth walking around neighborhoods and grocery stores is not a mark of a civilized society. It is a recipe for more carnage.
            We cannot even restrict guns from the mentally disabled who are actually qualified to receive disability funding because they are, well, mentally disabled.

            In my mind, you are not serious about only law abiding and sane citizens having access to guns.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. Where are they?

            We’ve had concealed carry for decades. If we were going to be making these mistakes, there should be plenty of examples by now.

            And yet, such mistakes are more common with policemen than CHP holders.


  3. It’s the guns, stupid.

    Countries that seriously regulate guns do not have a fraction of the gun violence and mass shootings that we do. (And their democratic governments are not threatened by gun-toting yahoo militias).

    You mention Adam Lanza and how the law could not stop him. If the Brady ban on such guns had been in place his mother – a law abiding citizen – would not have had them in her house along with outsized magazine.

    This is not an either/or situation. Of course we should better control violent people AND better regulate and limit guns.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. MY GUNS do not contribute to the problem.

      Neither do those of other lawful owners.

      There is no justification for interfering in my life because someone else might commit a crime.


      1. “MY GUNS do not contribute to the problem”
        Which is what every gun nut says until they do.

        Having your child blown away is a little bit more significant than any interference in your life that better gun control would cause. Duh!

        Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “There is no justification for interfering in my life because someone else might commit a crime.”

        Exactly right. This is a fundamental legal principle. Without it, the legal system itself cannot operate, except as an arbitrary authority.


        1. Exactly wrong.
          The principle that extremely deadly weapons cannot be owned by the public has already been established in law. Now we are just debating where the appropriate trade-off between your rights and public safety should be drawn.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I wrote of the legal principle — which dates to the Magna Carta — that the law has no authority over a person who has committed no crime. Do you not endorse this principle?


          2. RE: “Restricting your choice of weapons is not a punishment.”

            But it is an abuse of the principle you say you endorse. Besides, your criticism of Dr. Tabor’s statement has nothing to do with gun ownership options.


          3. “But it is an abuse of the principle you say you endorse. ”

            No, it is not. There are countless things that you might want to have, use and enjoy but public safety does not permit it. It would be fun to throw hand grenades at dummies in your back yard but you can’t and no principle is being violated or abused when you AND EVERYBODY ELSE is prohibited from doing so.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. It is true that some firearms are prohibited by law. It is also true that those prohibitions violate the legal principle I have described — that the law has no authority over persons who have committed no crime.

            But it is also true that the issue you raise is a straw man, unless you are accusing Dr. Tabor of possessing prohibited weapons. Is that what you are doing, or are you merely demanding the privilege of being able to control other people?


          5. “Is that what you are doing, or are you merely demanding the privilege of being able to control other people?”

            It is pointless to try to have an adult conversation stay civil with someone as nasty as you. But, I will try one more time…

            Those who commit no crimes are not subject to the criminal sanctions of the law. But that does not mean the law has no authority over us. I have committed no crime but the law has the authority to make me pay taxes. I have committed no crime but the law – in some states – won’t allow me to buy fireworks. I have committed no crime but I am not allowed to buy RPGs to protect my property. etc. etc. etc. These are not “abuses” of any legal principle.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. You cite examples of laws having authority over you even though you have committed no crime. I submit that your examples have no relevance to the point you seem to think you are making.

            You seem to think that laws which restrict personal behavior or choices are perfectly valid solely because they exist. But if that were true (or even merely reasonable) such laws would be capable of infinite extension — to the point that no one would have any freedom to do anything.

            It is thus to impose limitations that basic principles must be applied — in this case, that because Dr. Tabor harms no one with his guns he deserves to retain his freedom to own them.


          7. We already have limitations – the Constitution and our democratic system of government. There is no magical distinction between say an RPG and an assault rifle where one can be legitimately banned and the other cannot.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. I would agree, neither can be Constitutionally banned.

            Regulated for safety, perhaps.

            I should not fire my RPG where it could harm someone or even where the noise would cause concern. But if I can assure the public’s safety, then, no, a preemptive ban is not Constitutional.

            Even the Federal Firearms act does not prohibit me from having a machine gun, it just makes it expensive.


          9. RE: “There is no magical distinction between say an RPG and an assault rifle where one can be legitimately banned and the other cannot.”

            If that were true, then a good argument can be made that if one is not banned the other must not be banned. But, of course, the statement isn’t true: There are many ways to make a distinction between an RPG and an assault rifle.

            But the statement itself is just another irrelevant straw man. Your challenge is to explain how you justify restricting the freedoms enjoyed by people who harm no one.


          10. “Indirect fire artillery could be regulated since you can’t see your target.”

            Been snoozing for a decade or so? Drones, the extension of the eyeball. Now everyone with a beef can pulverize whomever or whatever without leaving home.

            Liked by 2 people

          11. OK, I was poking Paul a bit, but we are getting astray.

            The point being missed is that we have close to 100 million gun owners in the US, but the bad acts with firearms are limited to a tiny fraction of 1% of them.

            It doesn’t make sense to burden the 99+% and make it harder for them to protect themselves if we can detect those who are dangerous with firearms.

            Yet over and over we see great harm from people who gave us plenty of warning but were passed over by liberal prosecutors and educators for political reasons.

            Fix that before you burden me.


          12. RE: “Their infantile toys are dangerous to others. Simple.”


            Carpentry tools are dangerous to others. I reject any form of your intention to control my possession of them.


          13. “They discourage criminals and wannabe tyrants.”

            Laughable self-serving nonsense.
            Criminals don’t give a shit that you got your “man-license renewed.” If anything, your weapons cache makes you a more attractive target for criminals.

            Besides such blather, you have already made very clear how you really feel about people fighting tyrants. They should just give in to superior force.


          14. You really just don’t understand the concept of deterrence.

            Pretty much every house in South Chesapeake has plenty of weapons. How many home invasions have there been in Chesapeake south of the Intracoastal in the last 10 years?


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s