Quote of the day—Anonymous

A gun has no other purpose than to kill. It appear to me that the right to bear arms transcends the right of school children’s right to live. As long as the public are allowed to own weapons of local destruction children’s lives will be in danger. Make ALL ownership of guns a capital offence.

Anonymous
Comment to Would a ban on guns reduce crime in the U.S.?
[Simple solutions from simple minds.—Joe]

15 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Anonymous

  1. Strong, brave words from someone who posts as “anonymous”. For my part, I’m more than willing to give up my guns IF someone can put forth a valid plan to remove the guns from the criminal element FIRST (I will still feel the need to defend my family if there’s any question as to whether the criminals still have weapons. Of any sort.), remove their criminal lifestyle/mindset/intent, and make the society in which I live PERFECTLY free and safe…including from governmental tyranny and crime.

    Until then, I’m keeping my guns.

  2. The only purpose of laws that require capital punishment is to kill. Anyone proposing such a law should be summarily executed, preferably by firing squad. By someone other than me, of course, since I’m squeamish about such things.

  3. This “any mouse” does not even appear to be from these you-nighty States. He takes “offence” easily. Brits do that, we don’t in Murica.

  4. People like that are why I own firearms in the first place. Petty little tyrants who would kill someone else for an “offence” that, by itself, harms nobody. I welcome them to try; I do not think they could stomach the result.

  5. I can understand the person’s POV about school children but doesn’t make what they say okay.

      • Yes, and arming schools can cause more mayhem and chaos than the Adam Lanzas of the world could.

        The one thing I will NEVER be in favor of is armed guards or arming teachers in schools.

        That is the only thing no one could convince me is the right thing to do.

        • If you’re not going to post guards, how are you going to keep the kids safe?

          And why would you be opposed to licensed, credentialed guards, when (I’m guessing) you’d still want to call the police — who have guns — to deal with the shooter.

          It’s less a case of having someone armed at the school (though there is that) than it is reducing the response time of trained personnel.

          • Have never called the police, will never call the police.

            I’ve seen first hand how stressful this environment can be. I barely trust teachers to grade papers, let alone be the supposed good guy with a gun

          • Never calling the police is your right, and I respect your choice.

            However, if you’re now calling for schools to be 1) unguarded and 2) not call the police, then you’re basically saying “We’re just going to let the gunman kill kids until he gets tired of it or runs out of bullets.”

            I’m not hearing any constructive suggestions on how to keep our schools safe short of a total gun ban, which — given that Australia and Great Britain still have crimes involving banned firearms — just isn’t going to work here.

        • Arming schools can cause more mayhem and chaos than the [mass shooters] of the world could, but the question is, “Will it?”

          I submit that Utah has been allowing teachers – and visitors, too – with Concealed Firearm Permits to carry in schools for quite some time, and there have been no incidents of mayhem or chaos. Personally, I believe it’s also one reason we’ve not seen any school shootings in Utah, but that’s one man’s opinion; the previous sentence is a fact.

          Also, I submit that vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death among children ages 2-14, so it could be argued that allowing parents to drop off and pick up their kids in family cars on school grounds can cause untold amounts of mayhem and chaos. But historically, aside from very rare exceptions, it doesn’t, so we still allow it.

          • If arming teachers is such a dangerous bad idea, why do Israelis do it with such good results?
            The reality is that bad guys know about disarmed victim zones and prefer going there. The Aurora cinema case is a clear example, as are the 9/11 hijackings. I really can’t understand why you would want your schools to invite killers to come visit.

        • Unfortunately for your assertion, historical facts disprove your claim.

          The Gun Free School Zone things only dates to the mid 1990’s.

          The idea of legally restricting places where lawfully armed citizens may carry, aside from the very obvious locations such as mental hospitals, courtrooms, and jails, only really dates to the explosion of “Shall Issue” laws during the 1990s.

          So we have a lot more experience with “guns in school” — and it wasn’t a problem — than we do with “Gun Free Zones” — and mass shootings INSIDE the GFZs _ARE_ a problem.

          Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but you don’t get to make up your own set of “facts” based on prejudice and bigotry.

  6. The “offence” he wishes summary execution as the penalty for is really “thoughtcrime”. You can own a gun and not kill anyone, you can own a car and not run over anyone, or speed, or commit any number of vehicular violations, you can possess a penis and not commit rape, you can own a printing press or a mouth and not commit sedition or obscenity, the only offense to Mr. chicken$h1t anonymous is the crime of ownership. No intent there, not even recklessness or criminal negligence, just a thoughtcrime of ownership. given nothing else. I would point out that he likely owns a car, or a penis, but he definitely owns a keyboard and a mouth, and as we have seen in the past 100 years or so how those items can kill, he can check out for his thought crime when I do.

Comments are closed.