Articles

Can America Handle the Truth? If Not, More Will Die.

December 20, 2012 at 5:00 am / by

About Dr. Gina Loudon

Dr. Gina Loudon is the host of Smart Life with Dr. Gina on MoneyBizLife Network seen every weekday in cities around the country on BizTV and heard on the BizTalkRadio Network. She is a frequent guest on… More

When a tragedy like the one in Connecticut occurs, my phone starts ringing.  As an expert in psychology, and a mother of 5 children, people want to ask me two questions:  1) How did this happen? 2) How can we prevent this?

There really are no good answers, and reacting rashly to tragedy is seldom rational or productive.  I home school, but when asked after this tragedy if parents should pull their children out of schools, my advice was that this is not the time to make such decisions.  They are reactionary.  The same is true for the gut reaction to want to ban certain weapons used in the crime.  This is not the time to be reactive.  We don’t ban cars when children die in car wrecks, no matter how sad we are.  We don’t ban buckets when children drown in them, though more die in cars and buckets than by guns, by far.

There are some paths to answers. There have always been psychotic breaks.  There always will be.  Themes like loneliness, isolation, powerlessness and spiritual depravity are all warning signs.  Professionals can see warning signs and professional organizations can do a better job alerting professionals as to the warning signs.  The paths are not predictable, but are indicative.  Better research, better information, and better treatments are critical goals for the mental health community, and families of those who exhibit those “red flag” warning signs.

As a researcher, I can’t deny the practical political answers that subsist outside the purview of the mental health community.  I wonder if America is really ready for some answers?

After 9-11 I began to see that the tragedy that befell America could have been largely prevented, if pilots and other military aboard the doomed aircrafts were allowed to be armed.  There would likely never be another hijacking of a commercial plane, killing innocent travelers, if hijackers were stoppable.   While the low information populous out there might like the simplicity of “ban guns” for their answer, complicated problems like mass tragedies experienced on 9-11, Columbine, or Connecticut require complicated analysis.  The answer might seem shocking at first, but the question can’t be, “What FEELS good?”  The question must be “What REALLY works?”

Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America points out that several potential massacres have been cut short — some by average citizens, others by off-duty officers:

*Armed citizens prevented several potential tragedies from occurring in 2012.  Samuel Williams came to the rescue of several patrons utilizing an Internet café in Ocala, Florida.  And in Garden Grove, California, a 65-year old woman sent five burglars fleeing from a jewelry store.  In both cases, security cameras captured the heroic efforts of armed citizens who sent the bad guys fleeing — even tripping over themselves, as they stormed out the doors.

* Five years ago this month, Matthew Murray entered a large Colorado Springs church, armed with several weapons and a thousand rounds of ammunition.  But a woman with a concealed carry permit critically wounded him, thus saving the lives of hundreds of people.

* And at a Salt Lake City mall in 2007, an off-duty police officer brought a shooting rampage to an abrupt halt.  “I was in a situation that I was carrying my gun,” the hero, Ken Hammond, told reporters.

In all the above cases, where citizens were able to stop evil, the good guys were carrying guns.  There was no time to run to their cars.  There was no time to run home.

The lesson is clear:  good guys with guns save lives.  And while bad guys may be evil, they are not stupid.  They don’t typically target gun stores or police stations to perpetrate their crimes.  No, they consciously select areas where their victims are disarmed by law.”

Some will argue that pilots should not be allowed to carry a dangerous weapon.  But others disagree:

1) Pilots command technologically advanced, multi-million dollar aircrafts that take extensive training and testing to operate. Why are we to believe that pilots cannot handle a revolver?

2) Which is more difficult to operate: a multi-million dollar airplane with hundreds of knobs, buttons, gauges, levers and hundreds of moving parts — or a point and shoot revolver?

3) If we trust pilots not to crash their planes and kill everyone on board, why should we not trust them to prevent terrorists from taking over the plane and killing everyone on board?

In fact, the CATO Institute’s research indicates that well trained citizens can be even safer defenders against crime than can police: “On the whole, citizens are more successful gun users than are the police. When police shoot, they are 5.5 times more likely to hit an innocent person than are civilian shooters.” (-Policy Analysis 109, TRUST THE PEOPLE: THE CASE AGAINST GUN CONTROL, by David Kopel)

The same “uncomfortable facts” might illuminate answers for tragedies like the school shooting in Connecticut this week.  No matter how uncomfortable, if you knew something could prevent most (or all) future similar tragedies, would you support it?

Israel endures terror daily.  Their brand of the TSA is the most effective in the world.  It turns out that those who deal with internal terror on a daily basis might have some answers for such domestic terror.  In Israel, teachers and other school administrators are allowed to be armed. They carry semi-automatic firearms whenever they are in the schools.  This policy was adopted in the 1970’s, and tragedies like the one in Connecticut do not happen there.  Let me repeat that for emphasis as it was quoted in WND.com:  “In Israel, teachers and parents who serve as school aids are armed with semi-automatic firearms whenever they are on school grounds. Since the country adopted this policy in the 1970s, attacks by gunmen at Israeli schools have become non-existent.”

We need to ask tough questions to sink this message to the low information public who wants to deny reality and give “feel good” answers that don’t work and result in more death and destruction.  WND asks:  “When last did you hear of a multiple-victim shooting taking place on a firearm range, in a police station or at a gun show, or wherever many firearms are found anywhere in the world? You haven’t. That’s because criminals prefer unarmed victims, or soft targets. No wonder they love gun control – it makes their work so much easier and their working environment much safer.”

How many children have to die before we implement real solutions that work?  How many planes have to be hijacked before we adopt practices that actually save lives?  If we continue to ignore well documented, thoroughly tested in favor of “feel good” slogans, at some point we need to ask ourselves who is really at fault for these tragedies?

 

Like this article? Share it!    Share on Facebook709Tweet about this on Twitter0Google+2Email to someonePrint this page

 

Dr. Gina Loudon

Dr. Gina Loudon is the host of Smart Life with Dr. Gina on MoneyBizLife Network seen every weekday in cities around the country on BizTV and heard on the BizTalkRadio Network. She is a frequent guest on Fox News and Fox Business Networks and has appeared on other networks including Al Jazeera and Comedy Central's Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Dr. Gina is a psychology expert, Politichicks.com anchor, WorldNetDaily and Townhall.com columnist, and is the co-author of Ladies and Gentlemen: Why the Survival of our Republic Depends on the Revival of Honor. Her new book (co-authored with Ann-Marie Murrell and Morgan Brittany) What Women REALLY Want comes out later this year. She also appeared on Right Wing News' list of hottest female conservatives in new media. Dr. Gina saw the inside of politics while spending 14 years with her husband, Senator John Loudon, in the Missouri state capitol. She moved to Southern California in 2012 to fight the culture war and began with a bang by doing a prime time ABC reality show.

Read all posts by Dr. Gina Loudon
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

54 Comments

  1. 7Out7 says:

    Excellent article. Nice to find someone who “gets it” about private citizens carrying guns. A lot of crimes would be stopped, or wouldn’t happen at all. Dems are so scared of this idea as they push for taking guns away from honest people. I am about to buy another handgun (it’s legal in Louisiana) and apply for a concealed carry permit. I am not going to be anyone’s victim.

    • agree, for thou that follow the rules, many people do not. That’s what the Dems are pointing to. If Rep want their weapons police your the idiots that do not want to do the right thing.

      • PennJim says:

        The MSM and those with agendas are quick to point out the actions af a few as reason to further their agenda(s). There are literally thousands of law abiding, responsible people carrying handguns legally who would never, ever consider using that weapon irresponsibly. We don’t know how many bad-guys have been disuaded from thievery, robbery, assault, etc. because of the possibility that the potential victim was armed. The vast majority of people do follow the rules. Don’t be swayed by the sensationalism that a few garner.

        • So are you telling me the way to Fix this issues is just handout everyone guns. Go wild wild west style and leave evolution to Darwinism.

          • I am not sure what the fix is.

            Y’all are saying give more guns out, Dems are saying place stricter regulation on weapons. I have to go with them. Everyone with a gun is a recipe for chaos. He you read some of the things people say on this and other social site. I just can believe giving everyone a gun, is the right thing to do. The there’s the matter of training everyone, who is going to pay for that. You all are already crying about money and how you are paying for everything.

            Am I stating your argument wrong, if so pls help me understand, because right now, This discussion is really out in Red wing/tea party land where nothing makes sense except for those that are in it.

          • PennJim says:

            No, if I may speak for the tea party, is saying is “personal responsibility” and “civility”. Most Americans are responsible and civil. A minority – those that get all the press – are not. Since this minority of Americans do not respond to logic and reason – that being to value others and to fear consequences – the alternative is to be able to defend yourself and those around you. The politicians are not and have not, been doing it. The courts are not and have not, been doing it. It’s already the “wild west”, as you describe it, out there in many places. The bad-guys have superior firepower and they terrorize the otherwise peacable civilian population. Until we have another Wyatt Earp of Elliot Ness – as in the government doing the right thing – the rest of the civilian population will need to defend itself against those who have no positive moral or social values. That is quite the opposite of ‘chaos’.

          • well said I don’ t know how to argue my point from that. I agree with your statement. my issue with the tea party is the hate and racism they are using. everyone has a right to fight for their best interests but using hate is wrong

          • PennJim says:

            Do yourself a favor and search out just what the tea party is saying and not what the MSM is saying about them. There is no hate or racism there. There is no class warfare. There is no presumption of guilt in multi-racial ‘incidents’, there is no call for “shooting NRA members” or anyone else, for example. Look at the message and not those who would presume to speak on their own authority about any certain group. You just may be surprised.

          • I will bring the links I have and the email I sent the official Tea party site in order to gain an understanding of their views after the new year. I have actually tried to talk to them and ask questions, They booted me off the site. Maybe be because I didn’t sugar coat anything. That was my fault I went in with an objective and with a semi open mind. In any case I am kind of busy with family.

            Happy Holidays

          • TiltRon says:

            No way did she say that EVERYONE should have a gun!

          • Not her, the people who I was discussing the issues with. Pls read everything

  2. Jack Martin says:

    Dr. Gina, well said. My message tomorrow is all about this and why there were signs that folks could of and should of picked up on. When I see this young man I dont see a demon, I see a product of a country that has removed God and simply truths like honor your father and mother, Dont kill.
    I see a young man that I wish I had met the day before yesterday and had the chance to feel his hurt, perhaps with Gods grace picked up even the slightest clue of what was going on in his head.
    If its statistics the world needs to see, an honest view back to the days before God was removed, prayer was banned, the 10 commandments were declared dangerous to read it would be quite obvious these type events were almost non exitent. Thank you for your wise words here, and for all the good counsel that you give.

  3. As a father of 6 boys and one girl I feel horrible and nothing but empathy for these parents and kids, however the left using this terrible situation to further their political agenda is in bad taste.Your points were very well stated and make very talking points. God bless and watch over these kids and their family’s.

  4. ScottLucas11 says:

    Wow — these children die horribly and you can only advocate spreading yet more guns around, rather than confronting the situation….

    Just unspeakable.

    • Guest says:

      People like you are a big reason these children are dead. You’re just to ignorant to understand.

      • ROYSTOLL2 says:

        If they had one person with one gun in that school the outcome just might have been different. If is a big word. What do you suggest?

    • ROYSTOLL2 says:

      I am sorry that you feel this way. We are all horrified and saddened that his happened and I would give anything in the world to prevent it. The guns are the absolute only way to prevent this from happening. Think about it. We in Texas had this happen in a LUBY’S restaurant in Killeen, Texas in 2001, where 24 people were massacred by a lone gunman. We passed a concealed weapon permit law with mandatory training, background check, and marksmanship training. This has never ever happened again other than FT. Hood terrorist attack which happened in a “gun free zone”. Obama classified it as work place violence if you can believe that. We are not trying to change law to lift “gun free zone” section. They will never ever be allowed in bars though. Also we are going to have armed security in all schools. All larger ones have it. We did not create the problems in this world. All that we can do is react to them. By the way, how would you “confront the situation?”

  5. doowop1942 says:

    Dr. Gina. I have just recently posted on facebook basically your complete message prior to reading it, though not as well written. I spoke of warning signs and for those close to them not to hide them but reveal them to the proper people. I agree with you on the “feel good slogans/ Knee jerk reactions that don’t really work. Yes anywhere guns are banned you create a target-rich environment. The question of, do parents think about keeping home their children after such an event. It’s a thought. But do people choose not to fly anymore after hearing of an airliner crash. If it makes you feel safe..OK.. But it;s not the answer. THE NTSB searches for the root cause of the crashes and take measures to prevent further incidences by disseminating solutions. This is what we need to do in these horrible, horrible incidents.
    I n Florida we have resource officers in our schools. Real law enforcement officers. They not only become a first line of security, but come to know the students who can confide in the officer about possible impending problems. I don’t understand how people reject the idea of someone responsible with a gun, as a first line of defense. The only thing I can think of is that they’ve been brain washed all their lives, that guns are bad and just don’t see it as a positive thing.

    Thank you for writing this article and getting it out to the public…. I hope it will answer some questions.

  6. Phil Gorden says:

    Absolutely Gina, the answer is more guns. That’s what we need, more guns. Despite being the most heavily armed country in the world and having one of the highest rates of death by handguns we just haven’t hit the sweet spot. More is always better. The fact that this young man could pick up 4 handguns and blast his way into a school shouldn’t give us pause, nor the fact that he had a assault rifle in the trunk of his car. Firearm homicides account for nearly 12,000 deaths per year in the US. We have the highest death rate by handgun of any developed nation. But hey we still trail places like Colombia, Mexico, El Salvador and South Africa so we obviously aren’t doing everything we can to get to number one on the all time list. Gina If you want some hard facts to look at its the murder rate in countries with high levels of gun control like the UK, Japan, and New Zealand , they are minuscule compared to murder rates in the US. But then there will always be conservative talk show hosts and the NRA in our country to carry water for the gun industry and make sure more loved ones spend a lonely Christmas missing a husband wife, son or daughter. Hats off to you Gina, its amazing what people can make a buck off of.

    • CBI says:

      I can see that you are unable to engage in rational discussion. May God bless you and keep you far away from harming others.

      • LAB says:

        Actually, Phil’s response is the first rational one that I’ve seen on here. He presented alternative facts and a decent argument. Yes, he was sarcastic, but that’s a little understandable at a time like this. But he addressed your points.

    • ROYSTOLL2 says:

      You are very wrong about Britain according to the Daily Mail. Britain is the most violent country in Europe.

    • pat78 says:

      What we’re really talking about here is a bully issue. Whether shooters act alone or with others, just like bullying, it’s easier to overcome someone (recently, gun-free zones) who is weak and defenseless. Without responsible people being armed, there are more of us who are at a disadvantage face to face with armed criminals. Stats indicated that criminals will prey on someone who appears unsure of themselves rather than someone who walks with deliberateness.

    • PennJim says:

      A high NUMBER of deaths by guns, but not a high rate PER CAPITA. Damned statistics! If you spin them too much you too will get dizzy.

    • brianjconway says:

      You sir are a low information, insufferable ass!

  7. Rebel With A Cause says:

    If guns are banned criminals will find another way to commit mass-murder, They’ll use bombs, machetes whatever

  8. jabernowl says:

    You want more guns in the hands of more people? And this will somehow make a safer America? This is delusional thinking.

    • lisacolorado says:

      Might not make it completely safe but would likely let people feel empowered to handle themselves in a crisis situation, which I don’t think the creeping controllers would prefer but the freedom fans will.

    • brianjconway says:

      Apparently you are incapable of distinguishing safe, sane people from the criminals and loonies. Your worldview is probably the pre-eminent liberal view that all people are equal. The typical lame progressive herd instinct.

  9. Leslie says:

    ‘purview’ not “prevue”, Dr. Gina

  10. nicole says:

    Really, you think Phil’s is the first rational one on this comment section…really?? I don’t think so…not at all. He’s just being an smart ass. Its funny that he brings up the UK…I was just speaking about this horrible tragedy with a gentleman from the UK. He was asking me all these questions, because he doesn’t understand our need to carry a gun. He said that it creeps him out that people conceal and carry. And I told him those are the least people you need to be afraid of.

    And I told him why….that no matter what weapon is outlawed, the bad guys will always find someway to kill. Whether its a bomb, a knife or a gun. The difference is we as law abiding citizens wouldn’t be able to protect ourselves. That’s the difference.

    Then he proceeded to tell me that there is a huge amount of knife deaths and attacks in the UK, we just don’t ever hear about them over here. Why would we? He also told me about a farmer who’s house and property kept getting broken into by the same “four blokes” and the farmer finally shot one of them in the foot and the farmer got in trouble for protecting his OWN PROPERTY. Or what about the man in China that slashed up 20 children at a school? So do you start banning knives as well?

    So you see…Dr. Loudon was not saying lets bring more guns to the street, she was fighting the gun control argument we are going to have because of this tragedy. She pointed out that in places where people were allowed to conceal and carry, they saved many lives. Did you also know, that James Holmes, the man that shot up the movie theatre in colorado had a few choices of movie theaters for him to terrorize, but the one he chose was the only one that was a “gun free” zone. You see, these men are cowards, they kill helpless people at a time when its least expected and before they can face the piper, they take their own lives because they are scared to face any real opponents. As Obama said today, he is going to do everything in his power to not have another tragedy like this one, so what does that exactly mean? Only time will tell.

    One more thing to think about….two of the women that worked at that school, the psychiatrist and the principal were both killed because they tried to tackle the shooter to stop him from killing any more innocent children and the teacher that stepped in front of him to save her students. Stop and think if they had a gun to protect the school, do you think he would have gotten very far? I don’t think so, why? Because he shot himself when the police arrived, because he did not want to face that arsenal.

    So think about those things….in the end, if someone wants to kill they will kill. No matter what the law, because they don’t follow the laws. So we as law abiding, moral people with integrity need a level playing field to protect ourselves and our families. Plain and simple. Educate yourself and understand why the second amendment stands and why our fore fathers felt that it was necessary to add this to our constitution.

  11. nicole says:

    Really, you think Phil’s is the first rational one on this comment section…really?? I don’t think so…not at all. He’s just being an smart ass. Its funny that he brings up the UK…I was just speaking about this horrible tragedy with a gentleman from the UK. He was asking me all these questions, because he doesn’t understand our need to carry a gun. He said that it creeps him out that people conceal and carry. And I told him those are the least people you need to be afraid of.

    And I told him why….that no matter what weapon is outlawed, the bad guys will always find someway to kill. Whether its a bomb, a knife or a gun. The difference is we as law abiding citizens wouldn’t be able to protect ourselves. That’s the difference.

    Then he proceeded to tell me that there is a huge amount of knife deaths and attacks in the UK, we just don’t ever hear about them over here. Why would we? He also told me about a farmer who’s house and property kept getting broken into by the same “four blokes” and the farmer finally shot one of them in the foot and the farmer got in trouble for protecting his OWN PROPERTY. Or what about the man in China that slashed up 20 children at a school? So do you start banning knives as well?

    So you see…Dr. Loudon was not saying lets bring more guns to the street, she was fighting the gun control argument we are going to have because of this tragedy. She pointed out that in places where people were allowed to conceal and carry, they saved many lives. Did you also know, that James Holmes, the man that shot up the movie theatre in colorado had a few choices of movie theaters for him to terrorize, but the one he chose was the only one that was a “gun free” zone. You see, these men are cowards, they kill helpless people at a time when its least expected and before they can face the piper, they take their own lives because they are scared to face any real opponents. As Obama said today, he is going to do everything in his power to not have another tragedy like this one, so what does that exactly mean? Only time will tell.

    One more thing to think about….two of the women that worked at that school, the psychiatrist and the principal were both killed because they tried to tackle the shooter to stop him from killing any more innocent children and the teacher that stepped in front of him to save her students. Stop and think if they had a gun to protect the school, do you think he would have gotten very far? I don’t think so, why? Because he shot himself when the police arrived, because he did not want to face that arsenal.

    So think about those things….in the end, if someone wants to kill they will kill. No matter what the law, because they don’t follow the laws. So we as law abiding, moral people with integrity need a level playing field to protect ourselves and our families. Plain and simple. Educate yourself and understand why the second amendment stands and why our fore fathers felt that it was necessary to add this to our constitution.

  12. Jon says:

    Dr Gina – you quoted WND as saying that you don’t hear of these massacres happening at gun stores etc, because criminals prefer unarmed, or soft targets, but what about the tragedy at Ft Hood? Wouldn’t soldiers be the opposite of soft targets? In Detroit, about two years ago, four police officers were wounded in a shooting rampage at their own precinct. Again, hardly unarmed, soft targets.

    You also quoted Eric Pratt who pointed out the man in the internet cafe in FL that foiled an attempted robbery with his gun. I’ve got to tell you that whenever I watch that video, I get a strange mix of feelings – satisfaction when those thugs are run off, but very uneasy when I see how wildly that man is firing his gun. To say that he thwarted a massacre is definitely a stretch. I’ll give you robbery, but you can’t sit there and tell me for one second those punks were there to randomly kill everyone in the place.

    You speak of wanting to avoid knee jerk reactions, but then spoke of how these tragedies could have been avoided with someone armed with a concealed weapon. Isn’t arming pilots a bit of a knee jerk reaction when you consider the millions of flights that have taken off and landed without hijacker interference? Wouldn’t it be a knee jerk to arm teachers when you consider the millions of of children who go to school safely everyday? You and I (and probably most of your readers) have very different viewpoints on guns I see them as powerful, dangerous tools that have no place in a school. I will continue to live my life playing the odds (very good odds) that I won’t be a victim of random violence in my life time.

    • ROYSTOLL2 says:

      My neighbor is a commercial pilot and he was ecstatic when they allowed pilots to be armed if they wished.

    • PennJim says:

      “Stupid is as stupid does” You play the odds, I can narrow them considerably.

    • Fred Campbell says:

      Point of fact:
      It was Clinton, I remember, who banned the carrying of loaded weapons by military personnel while on base. There was no one armed in the vicinity. The Major was fully aware of the softness of his target(s).

      • brianjconway says:

        Fred that is correct. Firearms both personal and government are very closely controlled in the military. Where I was stationed, I had to keep my duck hunting shotgun in the base armory till I was going duck hunting or to keep it someplace off-base. I was a gunners mate, and had access to a 5″ naval gun (127mm) that could hurl 70 # high explosive shells 14.5 miles. No loose shotguns though.

    • brianjconway says:

      If a punk loses his life in a robbery attempt, it is a grand thing. A cause for celebration. Why the mixed feelings Mr. I’m so sensitive?

  13. I like you article, I agree the Military and government jobs that work with weapons should be allowed to be armed. I think that is as far as I would go. Most civilians don’t have the training or willing to do all the paper work and training involved to carry.
    I think the fix is taking people weapons away that have not followed the law. If you can’t follow rules Why should we (everyone around you) consent to be a victim when you go off

    • ROYSTOLL2 says:

      Tell me exactly how you intend to take the guns away from the criminals? If you could do it you would be famous. You have got to be trained. I had a permit in Washington state for fifteen years and I have a permit in Texas. You would not believe the responsibility it places on you. If you carry a gun you become this ultra law abiding citizen because you just might have to make that life and death decision. I got my first permit because my home got burglarized and I walked in on them.

    • PennJim says:

      As a retired police officer, I am now technically a ‘civilian’. Am I to be banned from carrying also? While you are hiding in your closet, waiting for the police to show up after your frantic call to 911, because bad-guys broke into your home/ tried to rob you or car jack you, I’ll be telling the operator how many body bags to bring.

      • LOL you both got me wrong, You both are on the side that should have a weapon, trained, have gotten the their permit. I not saying people that don not follow the rules should lose their privileges,

        As far as getting everyone weapon that do not follow the rules I don’t know. We have to figure out how to fix the issue.

        • PennJim says:

          You said a lot! The problem IS the people who don’t follow the rules. Unfortunately logic does not work with something or someone as illogical as a school shooter, a mall shooter, a theatre shooter, etc. In my small mind there are two types of language that someone can understand and act upon: 1) intelligent, reasonable, logical conversation or 2) pain compliance. It works with young children as well as older beligerent types. When the beligerent type has a gun and intends unspeakable harm, logic and reason pale significantly to, in this case, armed response.

  14. John Watts says:

    A link that suppliments your articfle is http://clashdaily.com/2012/12/historically-whenever-the-government-grabbed-guns-it-went-bad-for-the-peeps/icl
    Why are so many people so reluctant to admit that the “Emperor Has No Clothes”? Is it because “political crackness” prevents us from assumming what is 99% obvious?

  15. brianjconway says:

    Craaack! You hit that one right out of the park Doc. Great job. Merry Christmas to you and yours bjc.

  16. Gina, A well constructed piece that should a low information populace happen to read, will have them largely agreeing with you,hopefully?

  17. Dee says:

    I think that anyone who owns a military assault weapon suffers from a Rambo complex… and those people who sent the bad guys running did not use assault weapons. Also it isn’t just about banning assault weapons – obviously looking for signs of mental illness is necessary – but isn’t that one of the theories why the mother got shot? She was apparently going to have her son committed and got shot for her trouble! Bottom line is if he DID NOT have access to an assault weapon or ANY weapon fewer/no kids/people may have been killed!! If his mother thought her son had mental problems why weren’t the guns locked up!! But then we don’t know what went on in that home so we can only guess. However I still believe you do everything you can to prevent a tragedy from happening again.

  18. Obamas new progressive government will take care of you that is why you voted for him ain’t it ?

  19. Juliet Montague says:

    My mom finally broke loose this Christmas and actually sent me a BIG CHECK. Would like to buy a gun! What kind?

  20. Outstanding article! We cannot ban everything just because some person decides to harm others with a particular item. Yes, guns in the hands of responsible people do save lives. Someone commented that if the two women at the school had guns instead of tacking him, they would still be alive. Amen to that.
    Thanks again for well written article.

Leave a Comment

 

— required *

— required *