Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, March 23, 2019

Top 8 Dumbest Responses To The Mass Shooting in Newtown


Originally posted at Brad Blog

In no particular order of dumbness…

1) “20 schoolchildren stabbed in China on the same day proves nothing can be done to stop crazy people!”

Nope. Though it does prove that even without access to guns, crazy people may still try to kill people. But, unlike all of the 20 schoolchildren in Newton, CT, who were shot several times each in a matter of minutes with a legally purchased and registered semi-automatic rifle equipped with high-capacity magazines, none of the 20 kids stabbed in the China incident actually died. No wonder the NRA stooges stopped referring to that story within about 24 hours of the Newtown shootings, but it was “fun” while it lasted (and before the wingnuts bothered to read beyond the China story’s headline).

2) “More guns would have stopped it!”

Nope. Despite NRA Con-Man-in-Chief Wayne LaPierre’s embarrassing argument that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” armed guards didn’t stop the Columbine mass shooting or the Virginia Tech mass shooting (the worst in the nation’s shameful history of mass shootings) or even the assassination attempt on President Reagan. But, more to the point, this 2009 ABC News video just destroys the absurd notion that “more guns would have stopped it!”

3) “You just want to take away my guns!”

Nope. But we do, at the very least, agree with the vast majority of NRA members (if not their terrorist-enablingcon-men leadership) who strongly support new gun safety regulations, such as mandatory background checks for all gun purchases, bans on concealed-carry permits for violent misdemeanants and domestic abusers, gun safety training requirements for gun owners, and barring those on the “terror watchlist” from purchasing weapons, just to name a few. Why does the NRA oppose all of those things despite the overwhelming support of them by their own members? Because they don’t care about their members, the 2nd Amendment or gun safety, they care only about their real bosses: the U.S. arms industry. Period.

4) “More people die in automobiles, so you must want to ban them too!”

Nope (and we don’t want to “ban” all guns, either.) But we’d have no problem with severe safety regulations and oversight on the manufacture, purchase and use of guns, just as those in effect for the manufacture, purchase and use of automobiles. Seatbelt requirements don’t prevent everyone from dying in cars, but we still require they are built into every car and used by every driver. The result: the prevention of thousands of deaths and injuries each year. We also have serious licensing requirements for the use of cars, including proficiency tests before anybody is allowed to legally operate one on their own. We have universal speed limit laws, stop lights, and laws that bar drunk driving (which can be enforced before someone gets killed.) We also require that everyone purchase insurance before operating a motor vehicle. Yet few, if any (and certainly not the industry’s top promoter, the AAA), cry “Liberty! Freedom!” in response to all of those sensible safety regulations. And, it should be noted, all of those safety regulations are in place for a “tool” that is not designed to kill people, unlike semi-assault rifles and high-capacity magazines which, when used as designed, are meant to kill as many people as possible and as quickly as possible.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit4
  • Print this page
  • 217

46 responses to “Top 8 Dumbest Responses To The Mass Shooting in Newtown”

  1. Well, there’s “Killer” Joe Arpeio arming up his posse to patrol around schools.

    Just what we need, Steven Segal toting a hand cannon around kids!

    Over on the fundamentalist (accent on “mental” boards, one guy posted that the killer of Trayvon Martin should have been at Newtown. My response was that the only thing that would have resulted would have been an even higher body count.

  2. sigrid28 says:

    Not to be too picky–let’s change the title or list number eight. My number eight would be, “I should get to have a lot of guns because I can describe a lot of guns in great detail.”

    • OKsettledown says:

      I love this one! I made an argument about assault weapons and got a number of highly technical descriptions of what counted or didn’t count as an assault weapon. Obviously, the ability to discuss the technical aspects of weaponry proves the “right to bear arms.”

      • sigrid28 says:

        Thanks. You couldn’t even make this particular argument up, it’s so not an argument. I guess it does fall into the category of “response.”

  3. Patrick PH says:

    Another comment I hear just as often as these is “If you take away our guns, there’s nothing to stop the government from turning tyrannic! If the feds use military weapons so must I!”. I hear it over and over again but it’s so flawed by paranoia that it’s making ME crazy. By this logic you would need tanks, jet fighters and A-bombs to defend yourself. You could even try and see if you can fit at naval aircraft carrier in your garden pool. This is the arsenal the government possesses and it’s quite enough to handle any mob of gun-o-philes which would dare stand in the way. Despite that, no president has turned the military against the people to impose tyranny. Say Obama suddenly found the title of dictator more fancy than president, he would still need to have the full unquestionable support of the ENTIRE military and that’s not something you just get.
    Also, once again we can look to the peers of the US -the top OECD countries- and we will once again see that they have nothing to fear on that regard. Why is the US different?

    The last part is what I find to be the best argument against almost all of the previous comments. If the US could just learn from it’s peers -which each have less than half the number of firearms per capita compared to the US and are still safer according to the Legatum Prosperity Index- then perhaps there might be something to learn. Wouldn’t that be great?!

  4. Hal Slater says:

    Why should gun owners not be required to have liability insurance for their weapons like car owners are for their cars? Let insurance companies pay for the background checks and keep track of their customers guns and charge for it in the premiums. The insurance should pay for damage regardless of who fires the gun, just like with cars. It would be a start and the premiums on assault rifles and big ammo clips could make them prohibitive to own. Lax gun laws are just more corporate welfare.

    It should be just like your car insurance that will cover the damages and attempt to collect from a thief who steals your car and hurts someone. There are no insurance requirements on guns. You would have to sue and collect. The taxpayers end up paying in most cases. Insurance companies would be better about making sure someone should have a gun and how it is secured. Not to mention that they could make more money.

    • Never thought of this, but seems like a great idea. You aren’t insurable? Well, you can’t own a gun. I would assume that in order to be insured, the insurance company would require you to take gun safety classes.

    • latebloomingrandma says:

      I wonder if insurance companies add on to the cost of the premium if your household has a gun, or reduces the premium is there is no gun? .They do that with smoking.

    • onedonewong says:

      great idea. We also need to make sure that anyone seeking medical care has insurance before treatment no tickee no washee. We also need to insure that people have an insurance policy to cover their income in case they lose their jobs or become unemployed. people who are homosexuals should be required to have an insurance policy in case they contract AIDS. Then they should have an insurance policy on all their kids that pays for higher education.
      We also need to insure that people have home owners have protection in case of floods hurricanes etc. I think your on to something

    • DEFENDER88 says:

      A lot of us do carry our own gun specific liability insurance. Cost me about $300/yr. Here in Tenn you also have to pay for your background check, finger printing, gun training etc. Cost about $400.

      • Ralph says:

        So why not nationwide?

        • DEFENDER88 says:

          I will agree to that if you will agree to this:

          As a Licensed/Permitted Concealed Weapon Carrier I have been background checked by local, state, and FBI. Have had training in gun handling, safety and qualified in shooting accuracy. Similar to police qualifications. All of which I paid for. Tenn State Requirements.

          I will be allowed to carry my weapon in Gun Free Zones.
          And Tenn Law applies in an active shooter situation.
          ie I can legally use my weapon to protect myself and others who are at risk of being harmed.

          Since I am a competitive pistol shooter and can out-shoot 98% of police, if he does not get me 1st, I “can and would” stop a killer.

  5. 13observer says:

    How about abortion? How many does this kill? Argue that! Are those rights being infringed? Don’t you want to regulate these mass murders? What say you now America. Oh, by the way, driving is not covered in our Bill of Rights, the right to bear arms is!!!

    • latebloomingrandma says:

      Since the 2nd amendment is interpreted so strictly by so many, allowing a free for all possession of weapons, the right to an abortion is implied in the 4th amendment—the right to be “secure” in your person. What could be more “personal” than control of your own internal bodily organs? Why should the internal organ of the uterus be claimed by governmental jurisdiction as to what it contains? I’m not talking about the morality or immorality of seeking an abortion, strictly the Constitutional argument, much as many do with guns.

      • 13observer says:

        Exactly, as long as they are consistent. In fact when you mention to be secure in your person, would this not also pertain to drug usage. I am not arguing about ANY rights being limited however, if people want to infringe on my gun rights, I will certainly do the same!

  6. 13observer says:

    You obviously all no little about civil war. Look at the number of our soldiers in our mighty armed forces brought home in body bags killed by “rebels” with small arms. Obama himself encouraged the “Arab Spring” where the tyrannical government was overthrown by rebels. If you don’t know what you are talking about, shut the fuck up!

  7. DEFENDER88 says:

    The anit-gun arguments here are so full of disinformation, obtuse twisting of facts, and out-right lies they are making me crazy.

    A discussion on assault type weapons and how to make things safer is a discussion we should have but it should not be clouded with so much dis-information.

    I dont have time here to de-bunk them all but just consider Fort Hood – The place was one of your vaunted “Gun Free Zones”.

    Another good Govt Idea gone terribly wrong and killing the people it was supposed to help.

    Which have now become the new Murder Zones.
    Columbine, VT, Norway, Fort Hood, Aurora Theater, Sike Temple, New Town.
    If you dont see a “trend” here you are just ignoring the facts because they dont fit in with your argument/agenda.

    Fact is, when someone else shows up with a gun the killers usually kill them selves right off.
    That is what happened in the Oregan Mall. A conceal Carry guy pulled his gun on the guy and he promptly shot himself. And only 2-3 were killed. Not good but better than 4 or 28.
    Typically, these people, down inside, are actually true cowards and kill themself rather than actually trying to take on someone else who is armed.

    Lets take Fort Hood
    I understand it was an inbound processing center for people returning from In-Theater(war zones) and he was there as a Psychologist to help them with transitions, potential PTSD, etc. There were 200 or so in a large room filling out paper work. All unarmed. After talking with his AlQaeda friends on-line, he emerged from his office with weapons. Now you are trying to tell me he would not have been stopped if even a few of them had been armed??? BS

    Valid anti-gun arguments need to be aired and considered but please dont distort past events to try to promote your view. If you want to have a real and valid discussion of what should be done that would be good but distorting the facts to suit your side just leads to further polarization, anger and frustration.

    ps I understand Biden is considering Adopting or supporting the Fienstein proposal for gun control which I also understand includes gun confiscations from legal, registered owners who are not mentally disturbed(ie the good guys). Of course we know you people consider anyone who owns a gun as mentally disturbed and that your untimate goal is total disarming of us all. But just because “you” dont have a need nor desire to defend yourself does not mean all of us are in such a good position.

    Since your “Opening Position” is the Fienstein bill and your ultimate goal is total dis-arming, of course the NRA guy is going to have an “Opening Position” of “no changes”. What did you really expect? Meeting you 1/2 way with the Fienstein proposal(which is disarmament)?
    Which he knows is your ultimate objective.

    That may work ok in NYC or Chicago but down here in Dog Patch USA many of us have to depend on ourselves for self defense and security.

    There are things that could and should be done but disarming all of us will get a lot of/more of us killed. And I am not guessing here, I have had to defend myself to live. I know first-hand what it is like being un-armed and facing someone(Red Neck A..Ho..s) with a gun. I dont wish that on anyone.

    This is a big and still wild in many places country – this aint England.

    And dont start on my paranoia and stupidity. That is just a diversion for not having good, factual argument to support your positions.

  8. 13observer says:

    Susan, I am responding to a post in this thread as an indiviual was claiming armed civilians were no match for our military should we ever need to overthrow a tyranical government….. the very purpose for our Second Amendment. No one ever thought Hitler was going to kill six million Jews either. … but he did, but only after disarming the civilians! A history lesson we obviously don’t want to repeat! 911 should make everyone aware we can’t all get along. We shouldn’t disgrace the Veterans that fought to keep our Bill of Rights intact!

    • latebloomingrandma says:

      I can’t agree with you. The Second Amendment’s purpose was for citizens to be at the ready in case of an insurrection or marauding Indian attack. The newly formed government BY THE PEOPLE was not sure they wanted a standing army. If the citizens became trained (thus the well REGULATED militia), they could be called up at a moment’s notice for the safety of the citizens at large. Since this was set up as self government, why would you need the militia to protect against our own government? The last people those with muskets fought were the British. Getting armed to the teeth with military style weapons of war in this day and age is paranoia to the extreme. There is treatment and medication for that.

      • 13observer says:

        Someone like you told the Jews that they were just paranoid too….until Hitler disarmed the civilians and killed dix million of them. There are “evil” people out there that want to kill others but much to your dismay, most are not law abidding gun owners. Speaking of “rights”, abortion kills more children than guns so…. I will respect a woman’s right to choose if they respect my right to choose the guns I want!

      • DEFENDER88 says:

        Several of the Revolutionary War soldiers on the American side had Rifled Muskets as opposed to the standard of the day “Smooth Bore” Muskets.
        The Rifled Muskets were the most advanced weapon of the day back then. And in fact helped us win that war.
        They were sent home with them. They includes many militiamen. They used them to help oust an oppressive govt – the King of England. If the King was still in control and the Revolutioniary War was fought today and we won we would expect to be sent home with our assault rifles just like they were when the 2nd Amendment was written. Or do you think you are smarter than the drafters of the Constitution?
        Using them on your neighbor has never been a real problem here.
        The problem is these new Gun Free Zones and the crazies getting access to the weapons.
        More controls to keep them out of the wrong hands – yes.
        But dis-arming the good guys – not a good idea.
        Provide security and allow permitted carriers in the Fake Gun Free Zones – yes – the killings will go down.
        Paranoid in the extreme is setting up Fake Gun Free Zones so all will be totally defensless and slaughtered without worry of being stopped by someone with a gun. Lets recall actual history – Gun Free Zones – Columbine, VT, Norway, Fort Hood, Aurora Theater, Sike Temple, New Town. If that is not a trend and common link I have never seen one.

        • latebloomingrandma says:

          “Using them on your neighbor has never been a problem here.” What???? What on earth do you call all these shootings of one citizen against others? Are they shooting at visitors from outer space or their “neighbors”? Speaking only for myself—I feel much safer in a so called gun free zone. That’s how I describe freedom. I don’t want to live amongst everybody packing heat. I don’t want to live in Yemen, the country with the second most guns per capita after the USA.

          • DEFENDER88 says:

            It is not the good guys(conceal carry permit holders) doing the shooting. It is the bad guys and more can and should be done to limit their access to weapons. Permit holders (here anyway) have to go thru the same backgroud checks as police and have to have gun training etc. And nation-wide have stopped many crimes. They are not reported on a national level since they are not news. Although a permit holder drew his gun and stopped the killer in the Oregan mall(the killer shot himself when he saw a gun drawn on him). Not real big news since only 2-3 were killed. I would “prefer” not to have to own and carry a weapon also but my reality has proved otherwise. I have been shot at 4 times in Gun Free Zones, twice with assault rifles. I refuse to be an unarmed victim any longer. And reserve the right to self defense with equal force.
            For now that means me staying out of Gun Free Zones unless I can be armed or armed security is provided by someone on site.
            If you have not had to face the terror of being shot at while unarmed I am happy for you and hope you dont have to experience that. Or approached by bad people with ill intent. But it is a big country and not all of us are as safe as you apparently are.
            I describe freedom as knowing that if a bad guy comes at me with a gun I am free to defend myself and I know what to do and how to do it to stop them. For me – using a gun is a very last resort, life or death thing but dont want to be without it if I need it. I, like you, would actually much “prefer” not to have to worry about guns and bad guys but that is not my reality nor the reality of much of this country as it is.
            Personally I dont like violence, but I DO believe in self defense.
            You dont think I(An Authorized Gun Permit Holder) should have the right to defend myself with equal force if security is not provided?

    • awakenaustin says:

      Maybe you should read any book written by any real historian regarding the rise of Hitler, nazism, and the Final Solution. The existence of an armed or unarmed German population had absolutely no role in those matters. Since that argument is a crock, should I presume the rest of what you have to say is a crock also. No presumption needed the rest is a crock also. Are you suggesting that 9/11 is an example of our government attacking its own? If not then it is a non sequiter. Are you actually suggesting that any type gun control is disrespectful of veterans? Really?

      • 13observer says:

        If you are so worried about all the killing, perhaps you could speak a little about your position on abortion. Please respond and I just wanted to thank you for being a good sport before your anger gets the best of you and say we enjoyed having you on today’s show as your stupidity makes us all laugh.

      • leedaily says:

        You are only partially correct about Germany. The germans were encouraged to have firearms but the Jews were forbidden and guns were confiscated from the Jews. Then they were put on trains. So your stufff is partially a crock too.

        • awakenaustin says:

          Who, other than those consumed by the idea of no limitations on gun ownership, can you name who gives any credence at all to the idea that Hitler rose to power because of a lack of guns in the hands of Jews or only came to power because of gun control or that gun control limitations had any significance in his rise to power? Name one noted historian in this subject area who has taken the position that except for gun control there would be no Hitler.
          Actually my answer much more than partially correct. I made no assertion at all about whether guns were forbidden or not. My assertion was that guns, the existence of or the lack there of, were of no explanatory value when talking about Hitler coming to power and explaining the holocaust.
          Because you are unable to accept any rational limitations on the possession of firearms you are required to rely on these absurd arguments to defend your absolutist positions.

          • leedaily says:

            I did not say Hitler came to power because of taking the guns away from the Jews. I said that it was easier to get the Jews on the trains because they had no way to defend themselves.

            The disarming of the Jews along with allowing arms to be kept, concealed and carried by the rest of the popul;ation, that went along with the Nazis, was not the reason he came to power but it played a roll in the overall picture.

            You are not 100% correct, sir. Nor is the other person you are bashing.

          • awakenaustin says:

            Civil wars and guerilla wars are successful and sustainable because they are supported and sympathized with by large portions of the population and the people amongst whom they dwell.
            In 1933, the Jewish population of Germany was approximately 505,000 persons. The total population of Germany was 67,000,000. This made them about 0.75 percent of the population. About 80% of the Jews in Germany were citizens and the rest mostly held Polish citizenship. About 70% of them lived in urban areas. Between 1933 and 1939 approximately 304,000 of these individuals emigrated, leaving approximately 214,000 within German borders prior to the beginning of WWII and the beginning of the Holocaust proper. Prior to that time, under the already existing Nazi dictatorship, Nazi led changes in the laws marginalized, disenfranchised, and interned thousands in concentration camps (see the aftermath of Kristallnacht). These are reasons so many chose to emigrate. By and large with very minor exceptions the Nazi’s had the willing and tacit support and cooperation of its military forces, its paramilitary goons, its Police forces, its Christian religious institutions and leaders, and its non-Jewish population. The myth of the ignorance and lack of support by the general German population is just that-a myth. Sure there were those who opposed Hitler’s efforts, but these were mostly political opponents on the left and Communists who were interned and ultimately killed along with the Jews and others the Nazis viewed as undesirables.
            Outnumbered 99 to 1 with the entire apparatus of government and all the institutions of society arrayed against you, just how do you see the role of gun possession changing things? The argument that guns in the hands of German Jews would have made a difference or played a role is at best disingenuous. It is an idea thrown out there by gun advocates which isn’t supported by either reason, fact or reality.
            As an aside, If you are wondering where did all those Jews come from that they murdered during the Holocaust, most of them came from Poland and Russia. The Jewish population of Poland 1939 was approximately 3.3 million. 1946 approximately 80,000.
            In Russia 1939, the Jewish population was approximately 4.8 million. Between 800,000 and 1.4 million lived outside the area occupied by Germany or were evacuated eastward out of that area. This left approximately 3 million in the occupied zone. Almost all of them perished in the Holocaust. It is worth noting the Polish and Russian Jews had their national military services to protect them from the Nazis. They were unsuccessful.
            The fellow I addressed first did in fact imply that a causal factor in Hitler’s rise to power was gun control or the disarming of the German population. I answered that by disagreeing. (Maybe I bashed him a little, but ignorance is so distressing.) I made no comments whatsoever on who was disarmed or if even anyone was disarmed, I said it wasn’t a factor worth considering in the explanation of how and why Hitler came to power or in how and why the Holocaust occurred. I stand by that because it wasn’t.
            You raised the issue about who or who wasn’t disarmed, I never said anything about that. You are disagreeing with a statement I never made. No one is a 100% correct.

  9. jstsyn says:

    Give us a break. Not many of us will agree with you.

  10. The UNDERLYING psychological driver for America’s largely unquestioned love of guns is the PERVASIVE SENSE OF HELPLESSNESS that Americans feel at the hands of their own institutions.

  11. DoctorFaustroll says:

    What is it about the concept of “well-regulated” that the gun nuts don’t understand?

  12. 13observer says:

    Oh that’s what you all say when I get you pinned down on an issue you don’t have a valid response for! Killing, guns, abortion are you starting to remember now?

  13. Ralph says:

    More ignorant childish comments from the gun crowd. Grow up already!

  14. 13observer says:

    Shouldn’t we require I.D. (biometeric card), fingerprint, social security card, background check, proof of citizenship, to vote in any election or get a job? How about all that for everything you do? Sort of a National Registration Card…. and you must also have that to purchase a gun but it is MANDATORY for everyone to have PERIOD! Also, let’s BAN ABORTION as it kills more children than guns ever did! I like how the left deamonizes the “NRA” and “National Right to Life” who teach gun safety and oppose mass murder by abortion respectively but advocate for the compromising our Bill of Rights and advance the cause for abortion murders. The wealthy people know how to protect their children now by armed guards in their schools because they care more for the safety of their children than compromising the Second Amendment rights of Americans!

  15. Metzae says:

    Was the 8th one so dumb you didn’t want to include it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.