Imbecile with Gun Murders Three Young Unarmed People

Gunfire erupted in an apartment in Chapel Hill, North Carolina as problem solver – coward Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, shot three young unarmed Muslim students, executing them with his favorite gun.

3 young promising lives wasted
3 young promising lives wasted

His victims, Deah Shaddy Barakat., his wife Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, 21 and her sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, were all found by the police with multiple shots to the head in pools of blood in the apartment they shared.

There is some question of whether this was a race/religion motivated hate crime, or a long -standing dispute over a parking space. Chances are it was both, but either way, this is yet another in a long line of law-abiding gun owners who cannot solve problems or resolve conflicts in life without having to resort to deadly force.

Apparently, this person hated people of all types, according to neighbors. “I have seen and heard him be very unfriendly to a lot of people in this community,” said Samantha Maness, a resident of the complex. She said that Mr. Hicks had displayed “equal opportunity anger” and that “he kind of made everyone feel uncomfortable and unsafe.”

Imbecile with a gun, Craig Stephen Hicks, the public enemy
Imbecile with a gun, Craig Stephen Hicks, the public enemy

Craig Stephen Hicks is a coward and hate mongrel with no heart or soul, and little mind. The 3 young students he murdered were all star students, credits to their community who excelled in the challenges they took on. They were interested in helping afflicted people in less fortunate parts of the world.

Each one of those young innocent kids gunned down was worth a hundred times what that hick, Craig Stephen Hicks is worth. As he was arrested and booked, he even appeared to look triumphant as if he did the world a favor. Craig Hicks the atheist, the man who doesn’t believe in God, decided to play God this week and execute three promising young unarmed people, because he could not control his own irrational anger.

Guns don't kill people, ignorant cowards with guns kill people
Guns don’t kill people, ignorant cowards with guns kill people


I’m not an atheist, and the victim’s own family, devote Muslims, even said that they have no problem with atheists. ‘That’s a person’s choice to make’, the brother of one of his victims said. But the thing is, this hick had no understanding of what being an atheist means. His wife reported he was accepting of gays and transexuals, etc. His big thing was that extreme Christians are just as bad as extreme Muslims, and religion is the source of most hatred, violence and murder.

The coward and public enemy proved his own theory wrong, however. The man called himself an atheist but he really was not. The main thing about an atheist is that they are supposed to know and to show that neither God nor religion is needed for a person to be giving, to care about others and to have personal morals. Atheists are supposed to have compassion for those of us who ‘need to rely on a higher power’ than ourselves.

Why did he not understand this? Because he was a poorly educated, poorly socialized gun-toting coward/hick. Craig Hicks had no prior record and was a law abding reponsible gun owner, right up to the point where he lost control of his feeble mind, and his irrational hatred caused him to grab his gun as a first resort and take the lives of three very talented and beautiful human beings.

It’s such a pity that the main outcome of this story is that Americans get to see what truly wondeful people this family was, especially the father. What an amazing example of grace and kindness under terrible and traumatic circumstances. The father actually praised Hicks for going back to school to study a paralegal ciriculum. “This is not an ignorant man”, he said.

Hicks threw his life away over a parking space. Justice demands this triple-murderer/coward spends the rest of his life in custody away from civilized people. Watch this imbecile plead not-guilty so there actually has to be a trial, rather than Hicks admitting to his crimes and not go away mad, but just go away.


Comments from all perspectives are welcome. You can also comment on our FB page:


Or follow us on Twitter


All Rights Reserved

Good Job, Florida. Michael Dunn Is (not quite) Done….

Good Job, Florida. Michael Dunn Is not quite Done….

The Michael Dunn Trial,

A Lesson in Personal Responsibility

by Rob Roman

Research by Amanda Chen

dunn_20121127045539_320_240Although I understand the sentiments of gun owners in America, there needs to be some limits and some common sense. We need to finally put our collective foot down on these terrible tragedies. I have mostly kept quiet about Michael Dunn, who fired 9 rounds into a car full of teens, and shot a high school student to death over an argument about loud music, it’s time to say something about it.

121130023444_112912_michaeldunnThe basic story is that Michael Dunn, 46 and his fiancée, were in Jacksonville, Florida to attend his son’s wedding. Dunn is a life-long gun enthusiast and an avid gun owner who enjoys going to shooting ranges. He’s a software developer and a responsible man who even has a pilot’s license. He’s a big bear of a guy and he lost a lot of weight prior to his trial. After leaving his son’s wedding where it seems he got hid drink on, he goes to a gas station / mini-mart and he ends up side by side with 4 teens in a red Dodge Durango SUV who had been spending the day after Thanksgiving visiting a few local malls.

As Dunn’s girlfriend goes into the store to buy wine and potato chips to enjoy at their hotel room, the Durango, equipped with special speakers is blasting Rap music super loud. The driver was in the store, and the music is so loud that doors and glass are vibrating. Dunn asks them if they could turn the music down and the front seat passanger turns the music off. Dunn says thank you and then the back seat passenger, named Jordan Davis starts getting perturbed.

imagesJordan didn’t like the idea that his friends turned the music down just because Dunn told to, so he has his friend inthe front seat turn the music on again, but not as loud. At this point, according to Dunn, Jordan starts threatening to go out, confront and possibly kill the 46 year-old man. Epithets laced with “Whitey”, “Cracker”  “Bitch” and even “Nigga” are directed at Michael Dunn. Jordan is saying “I’ll F’ing kill you”, and other undisputed threats.

Dunn is not sure if this is just lyrics to the song and asks them “Are you talking to me?”. As he says this, the driver of the Durango is returning to the SUV. There is a claim by Dunn that Jordan said “This is going down now!”. Dunn learns that Jordan Davis is talking about him, so he reaches in his glove compartment and pulls out a semi-automatic 9 mm pistol with a 15 round clip.

This is where Michael Dunn claims that Davis reached for and lifted up a weapon looking to Dunn like a rifle barrel and attempts to exit the vehicle, so Dunn open fires 3 quick shots through the rear door of the Durango. As the driver of the Durango flips into reverse and begins backing away, Dunn fires another 3 shots and then 4 more as the teens in the Durango are trying to get away. Nine out of ten shots hit the SUV and two went through the rear door. The Durango escapes to another parking lot down the road, and Dunn’s fiancée, who heard all the shooting, gets in the car and they drive away.

The teens try to help their friend and then return to the gas station. Dunn and his fiancée are long gone by then. He doesn’t call the police, and they head back to their hotel room where they order a pizza and Dunn walks his puppy named Charlie. The police arrive at the gas station and Jordan Davis dies of his wounds. He had one bullet in his left leg and hip and one bullet tore through his liver, on an upward right to left angle through both lungs, hitting his spine and severing his aorta above the heart.

jordan_davis_flickr_imgThe next day, Dunn and his fiancée make the 2 ½ hour journey home to BrowardCounty, and he still has not called the police. Although Dunn claims he explained to his fiancée about the weapon he saw, she doesn’t remember him saying this. The next afternoon, after seeing the story of a teen shot dead in a red Durango the night before, Michael Dunn finally arranges to have the police notified and he surrenders.

Dunn made the audacious claim in court that it didn’t matter if he called the police a minute later, a day later or a month later. The facts aren’t going to change and this was self-defense. There was no crime, in Michael Dunn’s mind.

Here’s the problem: If the jury agrees that Dunn acted lawfully, then Florida needs to change the law. Dunn could have rolled up the windows and locked the doors, and he could have been ready with his firearm if Davis fully approached him with a weapon or tried to enter his vehicle. Without that, we have to take his word. That’s just not enough when there’s a fatality. Dunn could have gone out the passenger door with his firearm and taken cover on the other side of his car.

Michael Dunn deserved the presumption of innocence and he had the right to a fair trial, even though I always felt the facts were stacked against him. Dunn had two things going against him. One was his claim that the teen in the rear seat reached for and raised a weapon Dunn thought was a firearm and then exited or attempted to exit the car.

dunnreg_0This seemed to be added in after the fact because his fiancée testified he never mentioned anything about a weapon and forensics seemed to show that Jordan Davis never exited the vehicle, and was in fact ducking to his left in an effort to avoid getting shot. The other problem was that Dunn, who claims that Davis had a dangerous weapon, never calls the police and apparently he tried to just forget the whole thing and pretend it never happened.

Michael Dunn’s demeanor and personality in court surprised me, because I had an idea in my head that he was a drunken loud mouth bully type of a guy. In court he seemed very mild-mannered and he had a high, soft voice.. He seemed highly intelligent and he came across as very honest and believable on the stand. One gets the impression of a highly cultured mild mannered man who probably went to fancy private schools.

His story actually came across as understandable and believable. But was he recalling what actually happened, or his perception of what happened, or his rationalizations for what happened? Does his impression matter more than that of the one nobody will ever hear from again?

Cracks have formed in this impression given some recently revealed statements. He did say he had never been in any kind of conflict with strangers. He testified that he had been carrying a firearm with him for over a decade, and this is the first time he needed to use it in what he described was a life or death situation.  There’s no doubt that Jordan Davis got out of hand, and even his friends tried to cool him down. The evidence suggest that Michael Dunn got out of hand, too. It’s truly a pity if Dunn’s sent to prison. But what about a 17 year-old who’s six feet under for being a teen? The jury is still deliberating while I’m writing this article.

Ironically, the reason Jordan Davis escalated things to such a high level is not because of what Michael Dunn said. It’s because Dunn did not respond to Davis’ taunts. Jordan Davis sensed weakness, and he foolishly tried to exploit it, not knowing that Dunn was armed. Isn’t this the same thing that happened in Zimmerman, too? Zimmerman had a round chambered at all times, while Dunn had to practically wipe the dust off his gun and rack a round in.

luciamcbath2Dunn explained that he could not say why he didn’t call the police and he didn’t realize he had killed anyone. He insisted that he did see a weapon and that he continued firing to prevent the teens from firing back. He described the teens as 4 dangerous men who all could have been armed and ready to shoot him. He said he fired 10 rounds because he was worried about “blind fire hitting his fiancee or other customers. Blind fire, he explained, is when assailants fire back in the direction of the target without really aiming.

I was struck by the fact that Michael Dunn seemed to be the epitome of a conservative Republican, and the passengers in the Durango seemed to be fans of liberal Democrat Barack Obama, though none of this is necessarily so. But Thanksgiving 2013 was just days after Obama, hated by many Republicans, was just re-elected President of the United States in a very bitter and contentious fight against Republican candidate Mitt Romney, the Mormon Bishop.

I imagined Dunn at his son’s wedding, getting a little liquored up and grousing with friends about the re-election of Obama, the first black President, only to find himself at a gas mart parked perilously close to an SUV full of back men cranking some belligerent sounding rap music to the max. This was just the workings of my imagination, and there is no way to know, but this was also my intuition, which I tried to suppress because, unlike the murdertainment industry, I believe strongly in the right to the presumption of innocence for the accused as well as the right to a fair trial.

images (1)Even though I had a nagging feeling that Dunn’s story didn’t add up, I do believe strongly in the Constitutional rights of the accused and I abhor all the pre-trial judgments made in the media about defendants. In spite of this I did include Dunn in an article I wrote with a friend in December entitled the “law abiding gun Owner”. This was an article highlighting various gun owners I call “idiots with guns” who shot unarmed people to death or were otherwise responsible for a shooting death. In that article, I predicted that Dunn would be found guilty of 2nd degree murder and he would be sentenced to 20 to 30 years in a Florida prison.

The other thing that struck me during the trial was that Michael Dunn had used the words “Are you talking to me?” before he pulled his gun”. This may be too prejudicial of me and it’s unfair, because this could very well have been an honest and innocent question that Dunn asked the teens. I shouldn’t be thinking this, and it’s unfair but I can’t help myself. A quick check on the net revealed that I’m not the only one. That phrase does ring a bell as the phrase Robert DeNiro said as he practiced confronting an enemy in front of a mirror with a gun he had had recently purchased. The man from Taxi Driver was also a soft-spoken and meek man, who slowly became more than a little angered and more than a little crazy as the film progressed.

tumblr_m13sgo6EEL1rnseozo1_1280“You talking to me?” is the phrase Deniro keeps repeating right before he rapidly pulls out a handgun and points it at his imagined opponent in the mirror. Actually, it’s the taxi driver’s own mindset that’s creating the dangerous and devious opponent staring him down in the mirror. When DeNiro draws the gun, he is really drawing on himself and portending his own destruction. I understand the 2nd Amendment rights of gun owners. I understand there are millions of guns being kept and operated safely daily. I know there are millions of gun owners acting responsibly and reasonably, but a series of thoughts always surfaces in my mind in relation to concealed carriers.

Many times you find what you are looking for. If you are looking for danger and threats, you will find them. But sometimes they seem far more intense than they actually are and sometimes they may even be non-existent, but just arise according to your mindset. This worries me a lot. True law-abiding gun owners are generally level headed and even keeled people who would only pull a weapon as a last resort. But more and more gun owners are not this traditional type of gun owner, and that’s what worries me.

People wonder why Michael Dunn didn’t just brandish his weapon and let the 4 “trouble-makers” in the red Durango know he was armed and dangerous. But that’s not the training. , Many don’t understand that the training is not to pull the weapon unless you’re prepared to use it. Once you pull it you do not hesitate, you do not shoot to warn or brandish the weapon. You immediately aim at center mass and shoot to kill. This is euphemistically called “stopping the threat”.

I’ve often felt that  a little brandishing would go a long way, and intuitively it seems better to warn and fend off a possible serious fight than it is to have a fatal situation.  But then you may get into a wild West situation, where each is waiting for the other and even daring and double-dog daring the other to make the first move.

lucia_mcbathIn Florida, you can shoot an unarmed person to death and they often call it “self-defense” and no action is taken. Yet, if you shoot into the air on a holiday, you can be jailed. If you fire a warning shot, it could be a felony. A woman who discharged a weapon in her own home without hitting anyone was sentenced to 20 years in prison in Florida.  That’s kind of a grand bizzaro world where it seems pulling and firing a weapon is frowned upon, but if you shoot and kill, that’s just fine.

Gun crazy Arizona surprised me by passing a law which now makes it okay to show your gun to a potential enemy and brandish the weapon. It seems that’s a better alternative than automatically shooting a person to death. This is because something, which may actually be trivial that you experienced in the mindset you happen to have on a particular day, sent you into Clint Eastwood mode.

JordanParents990wideThe obvious similarities to the Zimmerman case always arrive in relation to the Michael Dunn case, another Florida gun rights case. My friend and co-blogger from California, Amanda, disagrees vehemently with me, but I thought the Zimmerman case was correctly decided. It’s a sore subject nationwide on both sides and I think people who haven’t taken a look should review the closing arguments from both sides which is available on Youtube video.

It’s always awful when a teenager, who’s job rightly should be to be rebellious, to experiment, to test boundaries and to make big mistakes, ends up having their life tragically and violently cut short by a nervous and scared gun owner who may have contributed to the situation by his or her own paranoia, preconceived notion or ornery state of mind.

Then you have a situation where one side of the action is dead, and the other party may or may not be making things up to justify a use of deadly force. A jury of diverse and ordinary citizens are then left to sort things out and deal with the strange and sometimes counter-intuitive concepts of the law and especially of self-defense law.

mourning-jordan-davisI have to hand it to the parents of Jordan Davis, who seem like really wise and wonderful human beings and good parents of a basically good but boundary testing teen. Jordan was just out enjoying himself with some friends on a Holiday weekend Black Friday. He was off from high school and just cruising the malls checking out the young ladies and perhaps experimenting with acting like a tough guy or a gangster. That’s just normal life and no one should have their life terminated for being a kid.

The reason why I really celebrate the actions of Jordan’s parents is because they wanted this case to be about a middle aged man and four teens, and not about race, as all the passengers in the Durango were African Americans. Jordan’s parents wanted no part of a racially charged Zimmerman type trial and they went out of their way to avoid that.

downloadOne can just imagine they refused interviews by folks trying to draw that kind of a story out on both sides. One can imagine they turned down some offers from the contemporaneously heroic and controversial people such as Al Sharpton and Benjamin Crump. Certainly one can imagine Jordan Davis’ Mom and Dad turning down so many solicitations form Date Line NBC and 48 hours as well as those Murdertainment Monsters at CNN’s Head Line News (HLN).

These shameless and sick opportunists from HLN claim that they are there to tell the victim’s story. They want to present themselves as victim’s advocates. But they could still do that after the trial concludes, couldn’t they? Don;t hold your breath. Murdertainment is big money.

These are the real heroes of this awful story. Jordan’s Mom, Lucia Mcbath who had to sit there and listen to Michael Dunn recount his last words shouted at her son: “You’re not gonna kill me, you Son of a Bitch!

Lucia McBath and Ron Davis had to sit there and watch as Michael Dunn became emotional and teared up when he talked about his fiancée, whose life he claimed he also was trying to protect. They had to sit and watch as Michael Dunn shed tears about his dog,  Charlie, that was at the pet friendly hotel where the couple ate their pizza and supposedly waited in terror for the Red Dodge Durango to come charging up in retaliation. They also had to sit there as Michael Dunn remained stoic and showed absolutely no concern, emotion, or remorse about their 17 year-old son who’s life his actions violently terminated. No matter whether he honestly was justified in killing or whether he was well coached and scripted by his very capable and experienced attorney, Dunn’s behavior seemed very chillingly cold.

DavisSUV-bulletHolesCloser-jpgThe nation is still awaiting the verdict as I write this and as Amanda does some last-minute research. No one knows what the jury will decide, but many of us have ideas about what the verdict should be. What a tremendously high price we have to pay to have the polite society envisioned by 2nd Amendment activists. What a strange atmosphere that’s been created in America for all who hope for a more enlightened society.

The way I see it, if a person demands their first Amendment rights to carry a concealed weapon, they best demonstrate some damned responsibility. There shouldn’t be excuses for not calling the police after an event like this and we should not have to believe Dunn’s self-serving story that the teens hid the seemingly nom-existent “weapon”.  We want to believe that Dunn had a valid and stark reason for why he pulled his weapon and fired 10 rounds at human beings for the first and only time in his life. But we are also afraid about the what-ifs. What if he is just trying to make his story understandable to reasonable people?


We know the jury is contemplating these things right now.

So if I am giving a “what if”, doesn’t that mean I’m showing I have reasonable doubt? No, because putting all the elements together, this seems to be in no way reasonable, to me, anyway.

If Michael Dunn is acquitted or only found guilty of manslaughter, or the jury hangs, I will not be happy, but I will respect the decision. I would then expect for the fireworks of outrage to begin, this time after the trial instead of before. I will just simply change the title of this article from Way to go Florida! Michael Dunn is Done! to something more fitting. My observations and thoughts still remain steadfast and aren’t about to change anytime soon.

I wanted to celebrate this verdict because I believe it will send a strong message about personal responsibility. I hope it will put concealed carriers on notice that you can’t just pull a gun in an unreasonable state of mind and then hide behind self-defense laws and invent evidence as an afterthought. Maybe it will give another gun owner appropriate pause before yet another young life is blown away and his family and friends are left to pick up the shattered pieces.

BTW, This State’s Assistant Prosecutor, John Guy, seems like someone’s golden boy and someone is obviously pulling strings to set him up for a high profile win, because he’s a less than mediocre prosecutor. Really, this Guy needs to get into politics, because he’s a real dud.

If the verdict is other than expected, don’t blame Dunn and don’t blame the prosecution, it’s Florida law that you can blame. Let’s get rid of it before complete insanity spreads like a virus to the more reasonable states.

If Dunn walks, maybe I should give it this article a new title:

If Dunn’s law is The Law of the land, then the law of the land must Change!

Your opinion is welcome!

All Rights Reserved

Looks like my intuition was right. You really should take a look at this:

Key stories about the Michael Dunn case:

20 Not Very Merry Gun arguments from the far right


20 Not Very Merry Gun arguments from the far right

Fact-Based Reporting by Rob Roman

merry christmas

Gun-grab, gun-free zones, murder magnet,  good guy with a gun, Constitutional right, right from God, tyrannical  government, first step to gun grab, laws on books not enforced, arm the teachers, everyone get a gun, AR-15 for home defense, inanimate object, mental health only, armed militia, cars kill more, not a gun problem, not a problem, not my problem

1) The Government just wants to grab my guns. Pry my gun out of my cold, dead hand, etc. (1)

The Gun – Grabber argument is no argument at all. The 2nd Amendment is here to stay. It has been recognized by the Supreme Court as an individual right, not attached to any militia. This is a government of the people and a government of laws. No one is coming to take your guns away.

imagesCAE7ZPQJThis would require a repeal of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This requires the votes of 2/3rds of both the House and Senate. Then it must be ratified by 3/4ths of state legislatures. Another way is for 2/3rds of the States to call a convention and then 3/4ths of all State legislatures must approve it.

Can you imagine 67 Senators and 290 Representatives voting to repeal the 2nd Amendment? Can you imagine 34 state legislatures then calling for a Constitutional Convention and then 38 States approving a repeal? It’s never going to happen, so relax. And if it did happen in the future, it would be the will of the people.

2)  A ban or more controls on certain types of semi-automatic military-style rifles and high capacity magazines would just be the beginning. This is an assault on law abiding gun owners. (2)

magThere is no need for these weapons class to be available to the general public. If you want one, you should be willing and able to qualify to have one and use and keep it safely.

3)   Guns are just a tool. They are inanimate objects. People are responsible for misusing guns. Don’t blame the gun.

Guns are a special kind of tool or inanimate object. They are an inanimate object designed to kill. When animated, they can easily cause instant death from both a physical and emotional distance. Not all gun owners are responsible or reasonable. So, we need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable and other unqualified people.

4)  Knives, forks, cars, and bathtubs are just as dangerous as guns. (4)

The controlling idea here is that it is the person, not the “inanimate object” which wounds and kills. Knives, forks, cars, and bathtubs are not designed specifically to kill. A person armed with a fork or a knife would have a real difficult time killing 26 people in 5 minutes.

An accidental death by car or bathtub is not the same as an intentional killing with a gun. Cars are heavily regulated and insured. The problem is the combination of an impulsive, irresponsible, or mentally disturbed person with an instrument which is designed to kill many people quickly and easily.

5)  An “assault weapon” is fully automatic”. A semi-automatic military style rifle with high capacity magazines is not an “assault weapon”. (5)

rap 4There’s no need for semantic games. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16 military assault rifle. The main reason this weapon was developed was to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.

Guess what? The AR-15 can be easily converted to fully automatic, and many owners know this very well.

6mmThe .223 caliber hollow point round, used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School, was preferred over higher caliber rounds in combat because you can carry more of the smaller rounds and because the round Yaws through the air at 880 meters per second (963 yards per second) .

It then explodes on impact causing baseball sized holes in the flesh. Seth1Internally the bullet causes a massive baseball sized explosion. The bullet then fragments into multiple shards which spin, ricochet off bones, and rip through vital organs.

Emergency Room Doctors will tell you that they don’t see injuries from this weapon very often because most victims never even make it to the hospital and usually bleed to death. (6)

(5.56 mm / .223 gunshot wound)_

6)   I need my semi-automatic military style rifle and high capacity magazines to protect my home and my family.

Is your name Tony Montana? Are you expecting a coordinated assault on your home? No one needs this kind of weapon for home defense.

7)   A ban or further regulation of military style rifles and high capacity magazines will not help save the 500 plus victims killed by handguns each year in Chicago.

This is a classic. There are two separate issues here.

Hadiya Pendleton was shot  to death in Harsh Park in Chicago only 1 week after performing in the 2013 Presidential inauguration (click to enlarge)
Hadiya Pendleton was shot to death in Harsh Park in Chicago only 1 week after performing in the 2013 Presidential inauguration. (click to enlarge)

The first is an effort to reduce the rate and lethality of mass shootings. The second is general gun violence.

Irresponsible gun owners try to tie the two together. Then they say that further regulations on certain rifles and magazines won’t stop general gun violence. This is obvious, it’s not meant to do that.

8)   Gun free zones are “murder magnets”. We can’t reduce the rate and fatalities of mass shootings unless we get rid of “gun-free zones” and allow concealed or open carry in all schools and other public places.

This argument assumes that if more “good guys” have guns in schools and other public places, then the “good guys” can stop the “bad guy(s)”.

great-no-guns-signFirst of all, there have been mass shootings where there was a good guy with a gun. Columbine and Arapahoe High Schools both had armed Resource Officers who were ineffective. This argument doesn’t take into account the chaos, the unknown, and the overwhelming fear coming from a shooter with heavy firepower who is ready to kill and to die.

In Sparks, Nevada, what if the math teacher had a gun? At that point in time, only one student was wounded in the shoulder. Do you think this teacher would then be emotionally ready to shoot a 12 year old to death?

Would he then be sued? What about mistakes? Innocent people will be shot in the confusion and people will get caught in the cross-fire.

good guys This is not an episode of Bonanza where the good guy rushes in and fixes everything, bang bang, lickity split.

Even armed police at a shooting enter the fray slowly and carefully. By that time, people have already died. The killing usually happens in a matter of a few minutes, and the shooter always has the element of surprise.

The shooter will change tactics to address the presence of armed staff in a school. The “good guy” with a gun might have a spouse and children, and only very few would heroically charge into a firefight with a mentally disturbed killer armed with superior firepower.

9)   An FBI background check did not stop the Boston Bombers. More people were killed by drones authorized by President Obama than were killed in mass shootings in the USA during the Obama years.

What? These are entirely separate and unrelated issues.

10)   My 2nd Amendment rights come straight from God almighty and are meant to establish an armed militia against a tyrannical government.

wayne 1Some people are always citing the Constitution but at the same time they say that their right to keep and bear arms is a right over and above the Constitution.

This is a nation of laws. If government tried to act in defiance of the 2nd Amendment, it would be stopped by the courts. We have three branches of government, the Legislative branch, the Executive branch, and the Judicial branch. (I find it amazing that a great number of Americans actually don’t know that).

Note the misleading information and the veiled threats, a trademark of far right gun rights advocates.

The Constitution assures that these branches are co-equal and balance each other out. Two of these branches are elected directly by the people. So what are you talking about?

11)   Gun homicides, suicides and gun accidents have declined dramatically since 1994.

Gun homicides were at an alarming rate and peeked in 1994, which spurred the passing of the assault weapons ban and other legislation. imagesCA3U1TQYThe crack epidemic led to a great deal of this violence and Tech-Nines were in use all over.

The rate of gun homicides, suicides, and accidents has remained rather constant since the late 90’s. They are poised to escalate, as many new gun owners have appeared on the scene due to fear and hysteria raised by the far right and gun lobbies trying to convince people that their gun rights will be taken away or severely reduced by the government.

Domestic violence gun homicides and suicides have remained quite constant over the last few decades.

12)  If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Guns are not going to be outlawed. Please come up with a newer or more convincing argument.

Michael Dunn, gun enthusiast, allegedly fired 9 rounds into a car full of teens, allegedly killing a high school student.

Way too many unarmed people are being shot to death by citizens who used to be law-abiding gun owners right up to the point where they lost their common sense or control and killed an unarmed person with their gun. (Please see “The Law-Abiding Gun Owner)

13)  Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

Right you are, so we will need some sensible gun safety legislation, to make gun use safer, and to keep guns and especially the most dangerous guns away from people who should not have them.

14)  Laws won’t help because criminals don’t obey the laws. We have enough laws on the books but they are not enforced.

Then why have any laws at all? E21DD88D-D9AB-4244-8BAE-A58899921B07_mw1024_n_sSmart legislation does work to keep everyone safer and to make it more difficult for unqualified people to get hold of guns.

The laws on the books are not fully enforced because law enforcement has a limited amount of resources and must make difficult decisions about priorities.

If you are talking about going after people who fail the background checks we do have, you cannot go after, arrest and jail people for failing a background check.

The people who make these arguments are the same people who don’t want to help fund the enforcement because it’s “against their core values”.

15)  Chicago has the most gun laws and the most gun deaths, so there!

imagesCAVAW0BSChicago has the most gun laws precisely because they have the most gun deaths. Local legislation is overwhelmed by lax laws in other cities and states, which make guns available to “bad guys” via straw purchasers, the lack of background checks at gun shows and numerous other outlets.

The Chicago gun homicides are mostly related to gangs and drug crimes. Would you like to help attack this problem by spending more money to apply more Federal resources for more prevention and enforcement projects in Chicago?

16)   We don’t need gun control, we need a mental health solution. A mental health only solution is the answer to mass shootings.

Mental health is definitely a component of mass shootings, but if you want to have more mental health services available, are you willing to help fund them?

A mental health only solution is not the answer to reduce the rate and lethality of mass shootings without a gun safety component. The problem at Sandy Hook was not that a mentally disturbed man came to the elementary school and exposed himself or threw crayons at the students.

Crime Scene Evidence (Click to enlarge)
Sandy Hook Crime Scene Evidence (Click to enlarge)

He came armed with two semi-automatic pistols, an AR-15 semi-automatic military-style rifle and ten 30-round high capacity magazines plus 10 magazines for the 9mm Glock and 10mm Sig Sauer. Before this, he shot his mother 4 times in the head with a .22-caliber Savage MK II-F bolt action rifle.

So the problem is not only mentally disturbed people. It is mentally unstable people who can too easily get their hands on highly lethal firearms.

A mental health solution and gun safety are inextricably entwined when it comes to preventing or lowering the rate and lethality of mass shootings.

17)  Mass shooters are mostly liberals and most general gun violence is caused by liberals.

Actor Jeff Bridges star in "The Dude"
Actor Jeff Bridges stars in “The Dude”

This is an over-simplification and an attempt to avoid the issues. Many mass shooters are in their teens and twenties, and the majority of young people start out as liberals.

So, this may be true about mass shooters, but many of them were rebelling against their conservative parents who had introduced them to firearms. Also more conservatives are usually more reluctant to seek psychiatric help for their children.

18)  Millions of AR-15s are in circulation and are being safely owned and operated by law abiding gun owners as we speak.

That’s true, but more and more it has become a sort of conservative right of passage to own and carry weapons. Owning an AR-15, like Nancy Lanza did and like George Zimmerman does is the crowning achievement which gives you street cred. among far-right conservatives. It means you are in the club and you belong.

imagesCAMOBLO0Ownership of this type of firearm is becoming more main stream. Instead of avid hunters, sports shooters, and veterans owning the majority of these weapons, more and more rash, hot-headed, impulsive, irresponsible and unstable people have them or have access to them and more people are not as qualified in their safe keeping and operation.

So that’s a good reason why there should be more controls on this particularly dangerous weapon class.

19)  The Universal background check is not good, fair, necessary because ….. because ….. uh … please see reasons 1 through 18.

There is no valid legitimate reason for not passing a Universal background check for all weapons purchases and transfers. The Gun Industry, the gun lobby and irresponsible gun worshippers cloaked in the American flag and constantly citing our Constitution, just don’t want any further regulations or controls on these weapons, no matter what.

We have a serious societal problem which directly affects gun owners, and some feel absolutely no responsibility to help to do anything about it (even initiatives not involving firearms). Their answer is we should do nothing and their attitude is they don’t care. Isn’t it?

friendsThese are the people who want us to eliminate gun free zones. They expect us to  count on them to pull their pistol and go rushing towards a chaotic situation with a highly disturbed shooter armed with a high powered rifle and high capacity magazines. The good guy with a gun will save the day. It ain’t never gonna happen.

Mass Shooters will ALWAYS seek out schools, malls, theaters, and other public places to make their statements, no matter what. By the time the shooter is in the school or other public place with the element of surprise, it’s already too late no matter how many good guys are legally carrying concealed weapons.

The person you depend on to save you is the same person who watched 20 six and seven year-olds and six educators get shot to pieces and basically said “ I don’t care”, “It’s not my problem”, and “it’s not the gun”.

20)  In this country, and especially in certain parts of this country, we are the most vocal, we are the vocal minority and we will never compromise and nothing about gun safety will ever be done.

Gun-RightsI think responsible gun owners, many NRA members, mothers and other concerned citizens who are not gun owners will all get together to pass sensible gun safety legislation such as the Universal background check and mental health legislation with a gun safety component.

This will only strengthen the 2nd Amendment and make gun ownership more acceptable and responsible to the community.

fight-for-your-rightsYou are the loudest right now, but the will of the people will prevail and you will still have access to all kinds of firearms. (The Constitution, the American flag, and our system of government belong to all of us).

All comments are welcome and appreciated

all rights reserved

(1) “A new amendment repealing the amendment in question. It must be done exactly the same way, because the repeal itself is an amendment. To begin, a proposed amendment must be voted approved by a 2/3 majority of both legislative bodies of the US Congress. The Proposed Amendment must then be sent to every individual State’s legislature for consideration. Each state follows its own parliamentary process to arrive at a yea or nay on the Proposed Amendment.

For the Proposed Amendment to become a Constitutional Amendment, 3/4 of the individual American States must vote a final yea. With the current body of States numbering 50, the required number of State ratifications to adopt the new amendment is 38. Upon the confirmation of the 38th yea, the Amendment becomes part of the Constitution, amending, or changing, whatever the subject of the amendment covers–whether it be a new cause, or eliminating an old Amendment.”

(2) “United States Supreme Court DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, (2008)

No. 07-290 Argued: March 18, 2008    Decided: June 26, 2008


1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

2. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.””

3. The distinction of the fact that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill people is relevant because as a society, we tend to regulate physical items themselves based on a combination of a few things, including 1) their primary purpose (i.e., benefit) and 2) their lethality. Guns and other weapons are different from other items because their primary purpose/benefit and their lethality are one and the same.

Another common comparison gun advocates make is “well, heart disease kills way more people a year—600,000–why don’t people focus on regulating cheeseburgers?” or “cars kill 30,000 people a year too–why don’t we get rid of all cars?” The answer is that we do regulate cars and cheeseburgers and try to prevent their related deaths, but we do it with a logical relationship to their primary purpose and their immediate lethality. I assert that as Americans, we regulate guns in an illogical manner as compared to everything else we regulate.

4. “When you get in your car and turn it on, the goal in mind is to get from wherever you are currently to wherever you are wanting to be. A successful drive of a car involves you and your passengers if applicable arriving at your destination, all involved are unharmed. Vehicular injuries or deaths generally arise as a result of some form misuse (either negligence or carelessness), badly designed road or badly designed vehicle. If you attempt to use a vehicle for its intended purpose and nothing goes wrong, nobody gets harmed.

On the other hand with guns, when you pick up a gun and pull the trigger, the idea is the thing its pointed at gets maimed or killed- i.e. that is its designed purpose. If you point a gun at something and pull the trigger, and the thing its pointed at isn’t injured or killed, either you didn’t use it well (i.e. you missed) or it isn’t a very good/well designed gun.

When we’re talking about vehicular deaths, they are referred to as “accidents,” whereas when someone gets killed by a gun its referred to as a “shooting.” In the firearm scenario, the “shooter” has successfully carried out a “shooting,” where as in the vehicle scenario the “driver” has had “an accident.”

Considering the Lame Argument That Asserts Cars Kill More People Than Guns

The argument under consideration clarifies that, when it comes to murders, people are the ultimate cause and guns are merely proximate causes—the end of a causal chain that started with a person deciding to murder. But nothing follows from these facts about whether or not guns should be regulated. Such facts are true for all criminal activity, and even noncriminal activity that harms others: The ultimate cause is found in some decision that a person made; the event, activity, or object that most directly did the harming was only a proximate cause. But this tells us nothing about whether or not the proximate cause in question should be regulated or made illegal.

5) “Because of their deadly design, assault weapons amplify the carnage of public shootings. A review of mass shootings between 2009 and 2015 by Everytown for Gun Safety found that incidents where assault weapons or large capacity ammunition magazines were used resulted in 155% more people shot and 47% more people killed compared to other incidents. When access to assault weapons is restricted, deaths due to mass shootings decrease. A 2014 study found that “both state and federal assault weapons bans have statistically significant and negative effects on mass shooting fatalities.”…/assault-weapons/

6)  “But the worst is a wound from an AR-15 or AK-47 — high-muzzle velocity weapons, which impart a tremendous amount of kinetic energy into the body. Those are much more destructive. You’re looking at a wound that, externally, is two, three, four times bigger than any handgun wound.And that is reflective of the damage that happens on the inside. When a bullet from a high-muzzle velocity weapon hits the intestines, it’s like an explosion, whereas a low-muzzle velocity can be very similar to a knife going through the intestines; there’s bleeding, but it doesn’t destroy the whole area. A high-muzzle bullet, however, destroys whole areas of body. With a bone that’s been shot with a standard-issue caliber handgun, you’ll see a break, a hole in the bone, and maybe some displacement. But a high-muzzle weapon shatters that bone into hundreds of microscopic pieces, in a way that cannot be repaired.”

Furthermore, AR-15 bullets don’t just affect the skin and the tissue immediately under it. In addition to turning a bone to dust or liver into jello, the high energy would also cause damage around the entry and exit wounds.

When a high-velocity bullet pierces the body, human tissue can ripple just like water does when you throw an object in it. But it all happens at increased velocity. The bullet and its ensuing fragments might miss a critical artery, but the cavitation effect could tear through blood vessels.

Rhee also said that a handgun would require only one surgery, but an AR-15 bullet wound needs three to ten.

Because it’s designed so well, the AR-15 fires almost without recoil, meaning that a shooter can inflict more damage with multiple bullets accurately hitting the same target. “The gun barely moves. You can sit there boom boom boom and reel off shots as fast as you can move your finger,” Denver Health trauma surgeon and Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery editor Ernest Moore told Wired.

What happens when AR-15 rifle bullets tear through the human body