Serious Talk on Gun Control: We Can’t Keep Criminals from Getting Guns

So after the tragedy Friday, there’s been a lot talk about gun control. Mainly vague talk from people who want “something” done or wondering why there isn’t a serious talk about gun control. Well, here is the serious talk: There are over 300 million guns in this country. If your plan for safety rests on making sure a criminal or maniac doesn’t get his hands on one, your plan is beyond useless.

Really, what gun control law would keep a homicidal madman from stealing guns from his mother? Nothing beyond full confiscation, which in a country that has hundreds of millions of guns would not be realistic even if everyone magically went along with it. People propose so many laws about background checks or other things which they think are common sense, but common sense says they are completely useless since criminals — by definition — just go around the law. And even if your law prevents a criminal or a crazy person from getting a gun once, he doesn’t then cease to exist. He can just try again. And if you want to prevent mass shootings, your gun control needs to be 100% effective at stopping people from getting guns or all you do is make a shooting gallery. And, once again, nothing will be 100% effective in a country with hundreds of millions of guns. It’s like trying to make sure a criminal never gets inside a car to run people down — except harder, since you can’t conceal cars.

So any real discussion on gun control that will have any useful results needs to start with everyone accepting these two facts:

1. There are lots of guns in this country and there always will be.
2. Criminals and maniacs are going to get guns no matter what we do.

If anyone in the discussion doesn’t accept these two facts, then nothing useful will come out of it.

So what comes out of accepting those two facts? That the only thing we get to control through gun control is whether law-abiding people have guns or not. The extent to which gun control works was demonstrated by the fact that no one other than the killer had a gun in that school. Laws about guns are very effective in controlling law-abiding people, but how safe does that make us? That’s like considering it a nuclear disarmament success if all countries got rid of their nuclear weapons except Iran and North Korea. Yes, there would be fewer nuclear weapons around, and we’d also be less safe. Because that is all gun control does: It makes the gun in the hand of the criminal more powerful, since he’s the only one with that power.

So if you want a change in law that might have actually stopped the tragedy at Sandy Brook, the only one would be to get rid of the moronic “gun-free school” zone. We might as well call those “safe haven for mass murderers” laws. I know a lot of people don’t want to hear about arming more people — especially on school property — but it’s the only option we have. The choices are nothing (or less than nothing with passing more useless gun control laws) or arm more law-abiding people. That’s it. There is no option C, and the longer you pretend, the more time you waste.

Look at the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Maybe we should pay more attention to the first part. The militia is us, the free citizens of this country, and it is on each of us to help preserve the safety of this nation. And in many situations, that means carrying a gun.

So that’s the serious discussion on gun control: We either embrace freedom as a solution or we pass more useless laws pretending that will keep criminals from getting guns and then wait for another tragedy to pass even more useless laws. Those are the only two choices; we need to stop pretending otherwise.

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (20 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)


  1. The internet has led to a culture of glamorizing violence, and exacerbated the problem of child porn.

    For two hundred years, people did their research in schools and libraries. It seems only reasonable to return to that model. We can put more computers in libraries, with monitors for public safety. Exemptions would of course be in place guaranteeing access to religious and political material.

    It’s hard to imagine someone can justify a “need” for instant, unlimited access to information, unchecked by any oversight, with the risks of the above and of terrorist activity. Society managed perfectly reasonably for a long time, and certainly, the Founders couldn’t foresee anything like this.

    Political dissent and discussion is certainly a right, but profiting from ad dollars on graphic violence is not “free speech.” We have to move away from the myth that the First Amendment protects potential criminals.

    No reasonable person can argue against common sense internet control.


  2. In all the discussion of “Gun Control” I have not seen the following idea addressed:

    Who are these magic people that will be allowed to have guns?
    Someone is going to have guns – the politicians have armed protection – the police and vatious LEO have guns.
    The military has not only guns but fully automatic weapons.
    Who is going to ensure that those who will be allowed to have guns are not going to abuse that power?
    Are there some magical people that I don’t know about who are better than me or other law abiding citizens that shoulod be allowed to protect themselves?

    Someone is going to have guns and any law that states I am one of those people I am ok with.
    Anything else is unacceptable.

    I don’t know the other people who have guns, therefore I must be allowed to have one because I know I am not insane – the others, I am not so sure of.


  3. Just hours following the tragedy, Barry Obama, wiped non-existent tears from his eyes as he prostituted the killing of children to launch another political attack on the Constitution, ironically demanding that representatives “put politics aside.”

    So far, there are only two intelligent responses I have seen to yet another tragedy in a liberal-imposed “gun free zone” where jackasses know they will be the only ones armed:

    1) St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch –

    2) Rep. Louie Gohmert –

    The fact that liberalism is a mental disorder is made apparent every time a liberals solution to a problem they’ve created is to do more of the same on a larger scale. Mentally-deranged liberals disarmed those who would protect our children and broadcasted to the world that in this “zone” there is no protection for children and are surprised when other mentally-ill freaks seize on the opportunity to slaughter the defenseless. Then, their solution to the problem they created is to disarm society as a whole so that criminals can commit mass slaughter in any place they choose, not just schools. It also bears noting that those who call for the disarming of more Americans are usually privy to personal armed security details…


  4. It’s like trying to make sure a criminal never gets inside a car to run people down — except harder since you can’t conceal cars.

    Concealed cars? Garages! No, I guess that would be a car safe.

    I guess you’re right, cars are open carry. Notice how they serve as a deterrent to all the criminals who obtain cars on the black market, or just steal them. They see law abiding people driving around in their cars, and say, “Whoa! Let’s go somewhere else and commit our violent car mayhem.”[1]

    Car control is the only answer. Maybe enough laws, confiscation of “assault cars” (AKA SUVs), confiscatory taxes on gas (??) and tires, and education (snitch) PSAs will do the trick.[2]

    Maybe we shouldn’t give them ideas. Forget I said anything. Oops. Too late.


    [1] In a way that’s true. If there are a lot of cars around, then there are a lot of witnesses, too. And a lot of people with the means to stop them, just like those guns things.

    [2] The radio Public Service Announcements will have to be on conservative talk radio or else no one will hear them, which is kind of like running anti-tobacco PSAs in a smoke shop.


  5. How about we look into homicidal nutcases control. How often do we see that these whackjobs have displayed behaviors that 50yrs ago would have landed them in a mental ward?


  6. Mass shootings ALWAYS happen in “gun free” zones. The only meaningful way to prevent them is to abolish these zones. These shooters are cowards. It’s not by chance that they always pick locations full if unarmed people.

    Suggesting that this will increase shootings is of course ridiculous since places like that have been around for hundreds of years and there have been no incidents of mass shootings there.

    Crazy people will always find ways to kill groups of people. They can hijack a schoolbus and run it off a cliff. In China on almost the same day a deranged man stabbed 20 elementary school students with a knife. A student could easily slip cyanide into the Michelle Obama tofu and twigs entre in the school cafeteria. That nutbag in Norway where gun ownership is pretty much illegal, found himself a military rifle.

    The responsible thing to do is eliminate these easy targets. Mother Government can’t protect you from this. You have to take responsibility for yourself.

    Did you know that almost the same time as the NJ shooting a man in Oregon tried to shoot up a mall? Guess what stopped him before he managed to kill a single patron? A 22 year old man who choose to ignore the “no guns” signs posted around the mall and had his weapon. Story never got picked up beyond local news.


  7. When most people think of Switzerland they think of an idealistic country and people, with no wars and very little crime. Peaceful. Polite.
    A country that requires every citizen to possess an assault rifle and 2,000 rounds of ammunition.
    And it is directly because they are an armed populace that they are an idealistic country, with no wars and very little crime. Peaceful. Polite.


  8. If we accept the 300 million guns in provate citizens’ hands figure (and I see no reason not to and think it’s reasonable estimate) we have to look at it this way:

    there are roughly 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. The pro-illegal camp always argues (and the claim is echoed by a lot of politicians) that it’s “impossible” to round up 20 million illegal aliens most of whom are not interested in being rouded up, send them back to their home conutry, and secure the border in such a way as to prevent illegal aliens from coming back across.

    If they accept that premise (which they do readily and without question), then how can they possibly think that a government incapable of rounding up 20 million illegal aliens will round up 300 million firearms, most of which will also be unwilling to be rounded up and may choose to be uncooperative and then secure the borders in such a way as to prevent ANY guns from coming over?

    If they do plan such a thing, it CANNOT be done without first making the decision that at some point, Americann law enforcement will have to take the lives of U.S. Citizens to relieve them of their firearms. It WILL result in a civil war.


  9. In a police state, the police still have guns. So there is always a source for criminals and crazy people to also get them. Plus all those fast and furious guns are just accross the border. Good luck collecting them back.


  10. If there wasn’t so much hypocrisy dripping, unctuously, from every pore of this administration, as it, rabidly, chases the opportunity to ban weapons…

    Forcing myself to power through Our Leader’s interruption of my Pats game last night I was struck by the Leader’s insincere concern for children…those children who (in his eyes) were not viewed as unviable tissue masses by their parents and, selfishly, allowed to grow outside the womb. Insincere, exploitive sentiments being expressed by a man (using that term with an overabundance of generosity) who, as a state senator, recall, supported partial birth abortion legislation which mandated the destruction of infants not successfully terminated during the birth event and found to be alive.

    Oh, the poor little children, Our Leader emoted…

    As he read off the names of the murdered children, I half expected him to fling the back of his hand to his forehead and, in a choked voice, whisper I’m sorry, I can’t go on with this… spin on his heel and retreat to the rear of the school auditorium stage.

    So, one kind of killing…that of innocent newborns…is cool with him. However…get to seven or eight and death by way of armed mental deficient really bums his stone and harshes his mellow and has him flying out on AF One to indulge in what the local affiliate of the Big Eyeball called “vigilling privately with the families”.

    As the constitution is not seen by this administration as being absolute, expect executive orders granting weapons confiscation policy to the military and federal through municipal levels of law enforcement.

    Because Our Leader does not want such tragedies to ever happen again.


  11. Your are spot-on with your commentary. To prevent any future attacks on school children of any age, arm the teachers and train them. Just like the Isrealis in the 70s who were facing terrorist attacks on their schools. After careful consideration, they armed their teachers. They no longer had any problems.


  12. seen on facebook:

    “What is the NRA going to do about Sandy Hook ? ”

    “I dunno. What is the gay community going to do about Penn State ?”


  13. Actually the “well regulated militia” is NOT us, the free citizens of this country. The militia was, and is, the MILITARY. And as a well regulated militia is necessary for the protection and defense of this country, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The founding fathers knew that the citizens of this country should be able to defend themselves against enemies. Whether those enemies were invaders from another country or their own military turned against them by a despotic government they believed the PEOPLE should have easy access to the same level of weaponry utilized by the military forces of the world.


  14. “Really, what gun control law would keep a homicidal madman from stealing guns from his mother?” Or steal them from a cop or an armory. Or, if you have a Mexican sounding last name and are a drug dealer, receiving them directly from Obama’s Justice Department.


  15. I am stealing this from someone else:

    I’ll go along with “gun control” when they declare and have signs up that the White House, The Congress, Supreme Court, etc. are GUN FREE ZONES!

    Why should those idiots be protected and the rest of us not???


  16. In the UK you are 30 times less likely to be killed by a gun than in the USA, fact. The UK is no Utopia it has the highest prison population in Europe, we have many social problems and some of our criminals are the nastiest you can find anywhere, and our Police force is overwhelmingly not armed. So why does the UK have one of the lowest gun death rates in the developed world? Simple extreme gun control, only single shot rifles and broken loading shotguns are allowed. If you carry any other gun you will be met by extreme force. Police Armed Response teams are not like ordinary ‘Coppers’ they are undertakers, and are some of most experienced firearms specialists in the world. The criminals know this and are scared of them. This was aptly demonstrated recently in Manchester when a hoodlum killed 2 young Police women, when he realised what he had done he promptly drove to the nearest Police station and gave himself up. He knew if he came up against a PART he would end up in a body bag. Scary simple and effective, use a gun and you will probably get killed


  17. Pingback: And so it begins: WA HB1588 « Sigspace

Comments are closed.