Posted by: notdeaddinosaur | December 14, 2013

Not Enough Guns

Ho hum; another school shooting yesterday.

At least we’re moving in the right direction. No one was killed except the shooter. I’m sure the two students he shot will be fine. So will all the other kids, once they get over their PTSD. Who cares how long that will take; at least they’re alive.

According to the unassailable logic of those stalwart proponents of the Second Amendment, the more guns we have, the safer we’ll be. Therefore the occurrence of another shooting simply means we don’t yet have enough of them.

And don’t believe anything from this site. It’s nothing but liberal propaganda.

As for the 9,900+ people killed since this date last year — oh, yeah; didn’t something happen in Connecticut then? School called Sandy Hook, I think? Anyway, if only we’d had more guns, maybe the carnage would be abating by now.

Oh well. Rest in peace.



  1. And how many 100’s of thousands killed by medical malpractice? As long as you create areas where you guarantee a shooter will not be met with armed people, you give them a free fish in a barrel shooting gallery. If you do not wish to protect yourself or your family from those that would do you harm, so be it. But do not prevent me from protecting mine.

  2. Good piece. You always hit the nail… Somewhere….lu


  3. What constitutionally valid law would have stopped whichever shooter you are worried about–keeping in mind that the shooter has already broken many other laws even before he pulled the trigger.

    If the second amendment would allow a law sufficiently restrictive to prevent a particular shooting, what does it actually protect?

  4. So research that agrees with you is solid (always trust the Harvard logo, right?), but someone like John Lott would be what? Conservative propaganda?

    Sarcasm to try and belittle those that don’t agree with you isn’t very constructive.

  5. And here come the gun trolls.Time to play, “What’s your logical fallacy?”

    @Simon: Ah yes, the old “MedMal kills more than guns.” That would be the Red Herring, or non sequitur. Even accepting the (flawed) extrapolation of data in the (very old) IOM report, are you saying that just because lots of people die because of bad medical care, we shouldn’t care about victims of gun violence?

    Also, your contention that gun-free zones are chosen preferentially by shooters as “fish in a barrel” targets is not borne out by actual research. Click the link.

    @Christopher: That would be a reverse Appeal to Authority. I neither said nor implied that everything with the Harvard imprimatur is above reproach. In fact, a lot of the time I believe the opposite is the case. However perusing the source in my link reveals voluminous research by numerous different researchers, all of which refutes the premise promulgated by Lott (and satirized by me) that guns and crime are inversely related.

    @Sevesteen: It’s not a question about any single law. It’s the shoddy enforcement of the half-assed laws already on the books.

    Believe it or not, there is middle ground:,0,2158079.story#axzz2nXi18ojW
    I’m not holding my breath, though.

  6. I’ve seen some claims that spree shooters don’t deliberately pick gun free zones. On the other hand, I’m unaware of a spree shooting other than the attempted Giffords assassination that happened outside a gun free zone. In every case I’m aware of, spree shootings stop as soon as someone shoots back–even when the good guy is a heavily outgunned civilian, the spree shooter either surrenders, suicides or is incapacitated. The response time of the first armed defender may be the biggest factor in minimizing innocent death and injury. A news story that got little national attention was local to my brother–A mall shooter was confronted by an armed civilian. The civilian didn’t have a safe shot at the shooter, but moments later the shooter shot himself. Wasn’t a mass shooting…but would it have been?

    Again–what reasonable laws, whether enforcing existing or proposed would reduce spree shootings?

    I could live with most of the proposals in the LA Times link. There should be minor penalties for minor problems, and gun shops should not be held to a higher standard of inventory and paperwork than the ATF is able to maintain.

    I’d like to see any evidence that the strictness of licensing makes any difference in results.

    I could live with a universal background check system with some safeguards to prevent abuse, and especially to prevent it from being used as a registration system. The background check needs to be free, just like voter ID laws must have free ID available. People with a carry license or firearms owner ID card should be exempt (They already had a background check) and private sellers should not be prosecuted for a failure to run a check unless the buyer is prohibited.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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


%d bloggers like this: