On Keith Evans’ question of “Will they ever learn?” on the gun control debate (11/19, Letters, “Guns don’t make us safer”), the “they” actually needs to be pointed at those who share his opinion.
There are more than 60 million gun owners in the U.S. If every single lawful gun owner in this country rendered themselves defenseless by turning in their weapons tomorrow morning, there would still be millions left in the hands of criminals who would think their dreams just came true starting tomorrow night. Facts are facts. Criminals go where their goals are the easiest to achieve.
Nidal Malik Hasan didn’t go to a part of the base where he knew the soldiers would be armed. He went to where he knew they wouldn’t, so he could cause more damage. Had more soldiers in that area been armed, this tragedy would more than likely have never happened because he would have known that he’d be stopped right in his tracks.
Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?
Barry Kaplan
Overland Park
“So, your notion of safety from lunatics is to turn the nation into one big armed up "biker bar"?” – So my notion of safety from lunatics is to turn the nation into one big gulag holding both you and the lunatics.
That would be nuts. You're insane. No thanks.
Posted by: GCYL | November 25, 2009 at 06:31 PM
"Never get shot due to a lack of shooting back"
Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?
Sorry I had to throw that in since it seems to be a common theme today
Have a happy Thanksgiving all! I'm off to go club a turkey cuz they took my guns away!
Posted by: mike d | November 25, 2009 at 02:35 PM
Here's someone getting shot at the range, caught on Youtube ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11fcg543Jow
If these people had armed themselves with spoons for protection instead of handguns, there would have been less to explain to the investigators.
Posted by: whispering_to_kc | November 25, 2009 at 02:23 PM
Here's a school shooting, caught on Youtube ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmRN00KbCr8
Posted by: whispering_to_kc | November 25, 2009 at 02:20 PM
Senator Clara you are so silly. Pray tell me how "murder sprees" have occured at the rifle range vs. the mall, or school campus?
Again I would point out that only in combat are soldiers carrying arms. A military base has, in most case, its own police force. I am surprised sub-contracted the function out to local civilian law enforcement.
Posted by: Kee | November 25, 2009 at 01:48 PM
I've never been in a "biker bar".
I lived near one once. I remember they set up a flatbed semi-trailer in their parking lot once for a loud biker-babe/bikini contest. One of the drunk bikers ran off the road in front of my house and ended up in a bean field. I helped him pick his bike up and roll it back to the highway after which he asked me not to tell anyone because his license was suspended. He then road off to the gas station down the road. When the cops/fire department showed up a couple of minutes later, I said "the drunk biker road off to the gas station over there and his license is suspended."
I didn't ask the drunk biker if he was armed.
Why am I not surprised "zeno" hangs out in biker bars? Looking for Jesus in a bottle?
Posted by: whispering_to_kc | November 25, 2009 at 12:50 PM
yeah Lispering, paint whatever grandure picture your lil' bean mind can handle.
Maybe you like government taking what is not theirs to take, probably because you are a recipient type.
Hell we live in a less than median priced home and are perfectly pleased.
Only a moron would think ONLY allowing voernment gunownership is smart.
You obviously do not like your freedom and are more reactive than proactive.
BTW - Anytime you want to march on over and get some, feel free chump.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | November 25, 2009 at 12:36 PM
"So, your notion of safety from lunatics is to turn the nation into one big armed up "biker bar"?
That would be nuts. You're insane. No thanks."
I love it when a wacko leftist like you gets burned in a discussion. Instead of answering the post you take some small part and try to make that the thesis. But just so you can understand I am not advocating biker bars as the safe haven of the world. But i suspect you are not really that stupid, just caught in a stupid argument and cannot dare admit it.
The Irishguy would be so proud of you.
Posted by: Zeno | November 25, 2009 at 11:43 AM
"... How many cases do you here of some guy with a grudge casually walking into a biker bar and opening fire? ..."
So, your notion of safety from lunatics is to turn the nation into one big armed up "biker bar"?
That would be nuts. You're insane. No thanks.
The most heavily armed places in the world are also the most violent. The two go together like peas n carrots.
NMMNG is sitting in his gated community in his cookie cutter house with his gun, waiting for the cops to bust in so he can mow 'em down. Why am I not surprised.
Posted by: whispering_to_kc | November 25, 2009 at 11:10 AM
What difference does it make whether civilian or military Jazz?
Do you think civilians (citizens0 shoud not be allowed to own firearms to protect themselves from criminals? Sorry, that is protected and afforded by the US Constitution. One thing if for damn sure, someone breaks in our house, trespasses or attempts to bring harm to my family, they will get DEAD with a quickness. No matter what badge or credential they flash.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | November 25, 2009 at 11:02 AM
UMMM, IF THIS WERE A CIVILIAN ISSUE i WOULD UNDERSTAND BUT THESE GUYS ARE IN THE MILITARY.
Posted by: Keith Williams3 | November 25, 2009 at 09:41 AM
"Actually, "no guns" would have been a better way to have averted the tragedy. Hasan couldn't have harmed anyone armed with only a spoon.
Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?" WT KC
You are not really this stupid are you Whisp? Sure "No guns" would be better. Along with "no drugs", "no alchohol", "no prostitution", "no child abusers", and a thousand other things which produce harm. But guns do exist and bad people will use them to kill. And when a bad guy has one or more guns, it is a very good thing that there are good guys who have them also.
Whisp, you ever notice how these crazies always seem to pick places where there is not likely to be anyone else with a gun around? I wonder why that is. How many cases do you here of some guy with a grudge casually walking into a biker bar and opening fire? And when and if you do, it probably does not last very long.
Posted by: Zeno | November 25, 2009 at 09:35 AM
A gun owner that I know and respect told me one of the best words of advice:
If you purchase a gun for self protection, and you pull it out then you better use it to kill, period.
If you don't think you can handle the responsibilty then don't get one.
Posted by: T. Hanson | November 25, 2009 at 08:43 AM
Whispering does not undertsand improvised munitions. For those that do not like the US Constitution...LEAVE!
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | November 25, 2009 at 08:32 AM
Hot Flash for the blithering, blathering idiot crowd. Terrorist Hasan was stopped with a (gasp) gun. Ain't that a b i itch?
Posted by: Kee | November 25, 2009 at 07:55 AM
“There are more than 60 million gun owners in the U.S. If every single lawful gun owner in this country rendered themselves defenseless by turning in their weapons tomorrow morning, there would still be millions left in the hands of criminals who would think their dreams just came true starting tomorrow night.” - The Letter
“Hasan's guns were acquired legally.” - I don’t understand what I’m reading.
Check. What does legally acquired weapons have to do with Hasan’s unquestionable ability to acquire illegal weapons? All whispering has done is underline our societies inability to ensure safety through convoluted, confusing, contradicting gun laws.
What I’m really waiting for is whispering’s outrage that our government surveillance of a citizen didn’t result in immediate arrest of Hasan when he demonstrated the desire to legally obtain a weapon.
Posted by: GCYL | November 25, 2009 at 06:20 AM
“Crib note: I’m pushing a reality that can’t possibly exist. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?” - Posted by: whispering_to_kc | Nov 25, 2009 3:10:51 AM
Actually there is a place on earth where we approach the reality of all guns being tightly controlled. Military bases. Other than law enforcement about the only “legal” place you’ll find fully functional weapons is on a firing range. A place that is so tightly controlled that if you do not follow specific instructions you’re liable to be killed by the range instructors. They’re not about to let a “Hasan” stand up with his “legally acquired” weapon and “use” it as he sees fit.
No second amendment rights. The instant use of deadly force. Yeah, why is this so difficult for some people to understand?
Posted by: GCYL | November 25, 2009 at 06:10 AM
Hasan's guns were acquired legally.
Actually, "no guns" would have been a better way to have averted the tragedy. Hasan couldn't have harmed anyone armed with only a spoon.
Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?
Never let a crisis go to waste, Barry.
Posted by: whispering_to_kc | November 25, 2009 at 03:10 AM