The Only Thing That Stops a Bad Guy With a Gun is a 4-year Old With a Gun

12 Apr

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

(You know how blogs now offer up “related posts”?  Here’s a related post.)

Advertisements

14 Responses to “The Only Thing That Stops a Bad Guy With a Gun is a 4-year Old With a Gun”

  1. Michael Rebmann April 12, 2013 at 10:46 am #

    I guess it is time to prohibit Sheriffs Deputies from possessing handguns. While we are at it, let’s ban cars. After all, there have been cases of children getting their tiny little hands on car keys and utilizing the car to kill people.

    • Carl Gorney April 12, 2013 at 6:42 pm #

      Yeah? NAME ONE.

      I’m calling out your BS.

  2. Mike_Chmiel April 12, 2013 at 10:50 am #

    I have a better idea – let’s all pretend that the NRA still represents the interests of ordinary gun owners, rather than gun manufacturers. Amazing how many people are being suckered into defending high profits for the gun manufacturers instead of reasonable regulations.

    • Michael Rebmann April 12, 2013 at 12:58 pm #

      For the most part, gun control is over-regulated. There are some exceptions, like taking mental health into consideration, but even that has gone awry with the SAFE ACT. The bigger question is, what regulations do you implement and how do you get criminals to follow those regulations?

      • Mike_Chmiel April 12, 2013 at 3:26 pm #

        Not falling for that. Gun rights activists demand a regulation that guarantees that no criminal or psychopath ever uses a gun again before they agree to any changes in the existing laws.

        In a country of 300 million, criminals and nuts will always find guns here and there. What we can do is make it more difficult, and make tragedies like Sandy Hook less common.

        It is not about “getting criminals to follow” the regulations. We can punish that already. It is background checks and licensing that at least make it statistically less likely that a madman can just buy a gun at a gun show, or over the internet.

  3. jimd54 April 12, 2013 at 7:46 pm #

    Was Adam Lanza a criminal before he shot the hell out of an elementary school? Was his mother a criminal before he allowed her mentally unstable son access to legally owned firearms? The whole moniker of “criminal” is bullshit. Criminals don’t fall from the sky, they are people like you and me who that for whatever reason snapped. The question should be what is reasonable for self protection? We will never weed out “criminals”. We need at least to mitigate the damage they can do.
    Also these ridiculous comparisons to guns and cars etc are moronic.

    • townline April 13, 2013 at 1:24 am #

      By your logic, I wouldn’t be asking “what is reasonable for self protection?” Rather, what makes far more sense “why should anyone own a gun?”

      You’ll respond to me – well if we banned all guns – then just the bad guys would have guns and the rest of us would all be vulnerable. But, again by your reasoning, we all have the potential to be a criminal – which I would not disagree with. Given that, I’d rather there be far less people owning guns – that seems to be the only pathway towards more safety.

      • jimd54 April 13, 2013 at 7:21 am #

        Yes Townline, in my perfect world there would be far less people walking around with guns. But this country has a gun fetish so to be practical the least we can do is restrict how much mayhem one person can do.

  4. Michael Rebmann April 13, 2013 at 10:22 am #

    Child Driver Kills 3 in Car Accident – http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-6094830.html

    Luckily this one ended safely –

    6-year-old boy found driving in Lapeer – http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/6-year-old-boy-found-driving-in-Lapeer/-/1719418/19737956/-/hq62hw/-/index.html

    • Alan Bedenko April 15, 2013 at 8:55 am #

      Cars have a legitimate non-lethal purpose of “transportation”. Guns do not.

      • Michael Rebmann April 15, 2013 at 9:43 am #

        And the sun rises in the east. Both are inanimate objects that require humans to facilitate a lethal act. People are less likely to need a car for self-defense and protection of life.

      • Alan Bedenko April 15, 2013 at 10:43 am #

        Well, lucky for us, then, that cars must be registered and inspected regularly by the authorities, and that individuals must be tested and licensed before being allowed to operate one. Better still, vehicles must have a mandatory minimum insurance coverage in almost all states.

      • Michael Rebmann April 15, 2013 at 11:01 am #

        I’m sure the insurance industry would love your argument. Why stop with cars, insure kitchen knives, baseball bats, golf clubs…. Stockboys/girls in stores could be required to take box-cutter safety courses. Just think how safe the world would be if we pursued this line of thinking.

      • Alan Bedenko April 15, 2013 at 2:31 pm #

        Yes, it’s horrible to imagine a world where people proactively try to ameliorate potential future harm, as opposed to a world where one can only react once harm has already happened.

Contribute To The Conversation

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: