There is nothing political about gun ownership

Like most people who don’t live in Jacksonville, I am a fan of professional football. I’ve been an avid customer of the NFL ever since Baltimore stole a team from Cleveland because Indianapolis stole a team from Baltimore. So I took great interest when I heard that they won’t allow this ad from a gun manufacturer to run during the Super Bowl.

The “controversial” advertisement depicts the provocative scene of a man coming home to his wife and children, with a narrator explaining the importance of protecting your loved ones from harm.

Really scandalous stuff, I guess.

They won’t allow the spot because they have a rule against ads that sell guns. Why do they have a rule against ads that sell guns? Well, because guns equal violence, of course. The NFL is family programming, and they wouldn’t want the children to be exposed to such mature content.

Interesting. Especially interesting considering football is violence as entertainment. According to the NFL, violence to entertain is OK but violence to defend your children from home invaders isn’t. Again, interesting. Even more interesting considering the sorts of ads they do elect to run during the Super Bowl. In fact, here’s a run down of their first quarter programming from last year’s Big Game:

Game: violence, violence, violence, concussions, violence, concussions, violence.
Commercial break: sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, booze and sex, booze, booze, sex, booze, action movie preview (violence), sex, booze, sex.
Game: violence, violence, violence, violence, time out.
Commercial break: sex, booze, sex, booze, booze, sex, sex, sex, boozy sex, sexy booze, goat beating up guy for Doritos (weird violence), sex.
Game: violence, concussions, violence, time out.
Commercial break: sex, sex, sex, booze, sex.
Game: violence, end of quarter.

So maybe the guy in the gun ad should come home drunk, have sex with his wife in the kitchen, beat up a goat, and shoot his gun at a bad guy portrayed by Michael Shannon, and then the commercial would suddenly fit their rigorous ethical standards.

But it isn’t just their ethical standards. They seem to reflect the perverted, bizarre priorities of many average Americans. They speak to the legions of moms and dads who wouldn’t dream of letting little Johnny play with a plastic toy pistol (think of the message it sends!) but also wouldn’t dream of telling little Susie she can’t wear makeup and bikinis (she has to express herself!). We brag of our enlightened and “realistic” attitudes when we teach 10 year olds about “safe sex,” but then recoil in horror when someone suggests that we ought to teach them how to safely handle a firearm.

Message to adolescents about sex: Hey, here’s a condom, knock yourself out.

Message to adolescents about guns: Evil! Run! Don’t touch! Bad! Bad dog! No guns!

I wish it was as simple as saying that our culture loves sex and hates violence, but even that isn’t true. We seem to be obsessed with sex while hating only the particular brand of violence that can be morally justified. Abortion is violence, but you won’t hear these anti-gun idiots cry about that sort of brutality. Pornography is violence, but again the “anti-violence” gun grabbers stay silent. They rarely even chime in to condemn violence for entertainment. No, it would seem that they only oppose the “violence” of men and women protecting themselves and their loves ones from predators and tyrants.

Violence is simply rough or injurious physical force. Sometimes injurious physical force is warranted and justifiable, sometimes it is not. When a man trespasses into your home, he has already committed a form of unjustified violence. When you stand between him and your children and neutralize the threat with the aid of a firearm, you have committed a form of justified violence. The gun itself is not violent. The gun itself is just an object. It reveals something quite sad about the intellectual state of this country that we place moral significance on an object rather than the manner in which the object is used, and the intentions of the individual who uses it.

Here’s how the dictionary defines “gun”:

Gun

noun
1.

a weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive.

2.

any portable firearm, as a rifle, shotgun, or revolver.

3.

a long-barreled cannon having a relatively flat trajectory.

4.

any device for shooting something under pressure: a paint gun; a staple gun.

I was actually shocked when I read that definition. From the way liberals speak in trembling tones about these horrible guns, I was expecting the definition to be something along the lines of:

Gun

noun
1.

an embodiment of evil.

2.

any mystical device that can cause the user to commit acts of murder and depravity. Also see: Lord of the Rings.

3.

a scary loud thing-a-ma-jig that goes BANG and is only used by mean, bad people.

But that’s not, apparently, the definition of gun. A gun, a firearm, is merely a tool. It isn’t ideological. It isn’t political. When someone suggests you buy a gun, he isn’t advocating a “position” or advancing a political agenda. Using a gun to protect your home is about as ideological as using a hammer to pound a nail. You could use a hammer to pound a cat or a politician, but that wouldn’t be an indictment of the hammer; it would simply make you a bad person (well, at least in the case of the cat).

Gun ownership is a matter of practicality and pragmatism — not politics and belief systems. If a person owns a gun, I can assume only two things about him: 1) He values the Second Amendment. 2) I should go rob somebody else’s house. I can not glean anything about his perspective on the “divisive” issues of the day, because he likely doesn’t view a handy, potentially life saving tool as “divisive” or an “issue.” It’s just a thing. It’s a thing that you might need some day. If you need the thing and you don’t have it, you’ll call someone else who has the thing to come and assist you. But by then it might be too late, because bad guys don’t see the thing as a matter of ideology, either. They see it as a means to an end; the end, in this case, being harm to your person, your family, or your property.

It’s become popular to laugh about the “tea bagging rednecks” who are “obsessed” with guns. But the tea bagging rednecks I know aren’t obsessed with guns at all; they own guns because it makes sense to own guns. It’s the anti-gun crusaders who have the unhealthy obsession. They are the danger. They are a danger to liberty, but also a danger to themselves and their loved ones. They proudly go through life defenseless, vulnerable, ready to be victims.

Hopefully, when that time comes, one of those same “gun toting whackos” will be there to bail them out.

*********

Find me on Facebook.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

175 Responses to There is nothing political about gun ownership

  1. John Bach says:

    Excellent. I would delete the “tea bagging” reference, however.

    • MidSouthMitch says:

      Agreed. That nasty reference needs to disappear from polite discourse. Thank you.

    • H-s Smith says:

      In “Tea Bagging” it is the VICTOR who rubs his scrotum on the LOSER’s face,
      So they are the ones who are admitting WE are the winners & they are the LOSERs!

      • Gospel X says:

        Tea bagging originally referred to dropping your scrotum in the mouth of a sleeping victim. In other words, a sign of one’s own immaturity.
        These days it’s used in video games after someone has downed another player. Again, another sign of one’s own immaturity.
        No one should take any pride in it, and it just shouldn’t be used.

  2. Ron says:

    Matt, great analysis. Casting pearls before swine comes to mind. Arguing with them is a waste of time. They only learn by firsthand experience. I’d like to ask the guy what was it like to watch his wife being beaten and raped for Sport while he helplessly looked on? You know what, people get what they ask for, and I’m OK with that. Go ahead, be a victim!

    • Golden Boy says:

      That is a terrible mentality to take. If my folks get robbed it isn’t their fault. Don’t try to blame the victim for the robbery. It is the robbers fault and no one else’s. That said, it would behoove my folks to meet up with Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson, but I digress.

    • Edik415 says:

      You’d really like to ask that guy that? If this is true, you are a sick, twisted individual.

      • Cyberguy64 says:

        His point is that since this hypothetical person was so vehemently anti-gun, they didn’t have anything to protect their wife from those horrors with. You make the bed, you lie down in it, to borrow the colloquialism.

        Now either their stance on guns changes, or they’re completely and literally insane.

      • Dorothy says:

        But he didn’t make the bed. The rapist made the bed. Regardless of the intention behind the statement, the statement was abhorrent. I’m all for gun rights. Take on a “use responsibly” like they do for beer, and we’re all set. It’s mentalities like the one above that give gun owners a bad name.

  3. Paul says:

    *Gun ownership is a matter of practicality and pragmatism — not politics and belief systems.*

    True. Which is why believing that having a gun in a school classroom will prevent school shootings is the same as believing that you can put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.

    A gun is not a “a scary loud thing-a-ma-jig that goes BANG and is only used by mean, bad people.” But, it’s also not a mystical talisman that automatically makes the person carrying it impervious to harm. I’ve said for years that a “conservative” is someone who believes that complex problems have simple solutions, and nowhere is this more true that the gun debate.

    • Lee Craven says:

      That sounds rather overly simplistic of you.

      I’m afraid statistics disagree with your stance.

      http://www.examiner.com/article/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics

      As do the vast majority of policemen in the nation:
      http://www.policeone.com/police/news-reports/6185420-P1-Gun-Control-Survey

    • taidaisher says:

      You realize that firefighters will perform controlled burns to curtail fires right?

      • Edik415 says:

        True…but I’ve never once heard a firefighter say, “You should keep some extra gasoline in your basement just in case your house catches on fire.”

      • Yup, and they also encourage us to keep fire extinguishers.

      • LilyL2182 says:

        Actually gasoline in liquid form doesn’t catch fire all that easily. Movies would have you believe that throwing a cigarette into a puddle of gasoline will cause an immediate explosion. That’s just not the case. I believe most accidental gasoline fires happen from static electricity. You very well could put out a fire but dumping gasoline on it, depending on how big/hot the fire is and the amount of gasoline of course. Not that I would recommend trying doing this in an emergency.

        I guess my point being….this whole analogy is dumb.

    • Stephen says:

      “True. Which is why believing that having a gun in a school classroom will prevent school shootings is the same as believing that you can put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.”

      Why, then, do police have guns? Why does our military have guns? If someone walks into a police station and starts shooting, the police officers don’t go hide in a closet praying the guy doesn’t find them. They pull out their weapons and shoot the assailant to mitigate the damage. The shooting at Ft. Hood was as bad as it was, because guns weren’t permitted in that area. If several teachers at Sandy Hook had been trained and armed, fewer children would have died. The shooter at Pearl High School in Mississippi stopped shooting when the principal pulled a gun on him.

      As for a gun being a mystical talisman making one impervious to harm, no one believes that. But if someone is shooting at me, am I more likely to stop him with a gun or without a gun? Don’t bring an eraser to a gunfight.

      • VY says:

        What’s interesting that I haven’t heard much in the media about that principal in Mississippi. Good for him. And I totally agree: “Don’t bring an eraser to a gunfight.” There’s nothing wrong with being equipped to defend oneself.

    • Kristian says:

      You do realize that liquid gasoline doesn’t burn, right?

    • Golden Boy says:

      When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away, right?

      I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

    • sam says:

      You say conservatives are oversimplifying. I am interested in how the mindset of “making guns illegal will fix the problem” is not providing a simple solution to a complex issue?

      • Edik415 says:

        An excellent point. BOTH sides are oversimplifying. Making guns illegal will not solve the problem any faster than will arming everyone.

        And of course, it’s also oversimplifying to assume that there are exactly two sides, or that either “side” wants the exact stereotyped solution I’ve written above…

      • taidaisher says:

        “making guns illegal will fix the problem” is a flawed statement right from the start. Since crimes are perpetrated by people who are breaking the law, how would outlawing guns stop gun crimes.
        Criminals don’t care about the law.

    • longstory says:

      Let’s keep apples to apples here. GUN OWNERSHIP is to VIOLENCE PREVENTION as WATER is to FIRE. Not Gasoline. Gun ownership has the possibility, and often the probability of preventing violence, even in gun free zones. When these crimes occur, they are usually meticulously planned to occur at the places where they will inflict maximum damage and meet minimal resistance. No gun ownership means there WILL BE casualties if an attack occurs. Some guns means violence MAY BE prevented. I understand the complexities in this debate, but please do not accuse gun owners of being part of the problem, not the solution.

    • waggs says:

      Paul, you are comparing gun vs gun with fire vs gas? You do know gas is a fuel consumed by fire making it burn stronger, right? Fun fact: One way to stop an oil rig fire is by using a controlled explosion to snuff out the oxygen surrounding the fire.

      • waggs says:

        I do not think anyone is naive enough to believe guns in schools will completely eliminate shootings, but it will damn well reduce the amount of victims per incident.

      • Archer says:

        Agreed.

        Fact: The average number of victims in mass shootings stopped by police intervention: 14.29.
        The average number of victims in mass shootings stopped by armed citizens: 2.33. (source)

    • Ryan Corbin says:

      A gun is more like a fire extinguisher than a bucket of gasoline. It’s the same principle. Fire departments can’t be everywhere 24/7 so that’s why business and citizens keep fire extinguishers to react to the contingency of a fire. That’s the exact same reasoning behind admitting armed law enforcement officers can’t be everywhere at once and allowing private citizens to react to the contingency of a violent criminal.

      Acting like putting up “no guns” signs is the overly simplistic thought. What happens if that doesn’t stop a violent criminal? He’s in a gun free zone, but that means nothing to him. Flip the coin to the other side, guns are permitted but the violent criminal is undeterred by the possibility of encountering armed law abiding citizens, those citizens are able to employ their weapons to defend themselves. Gun free zones are security theater, nothing more.

      • Jamie says:

        In Kennesaw, GA if you are a property owner within the city you are required to have a gun license. That area has an almost nonexistent in-home crime rates.

        A person intending to attack a home is going to stay out of Kennesaw because of the likelihood that the home owners are armed. If a person intends to shoot at a school, they’re less likely to pick a school that allows faculty to be armed. That person who attacked the military base would not have attacked one where soilders could carry their weapon – proof is in the fact that he shot in a base where they aren’t allowed to carry.

        In these cases, the gun doesn’t have to be used or even drawn – it’s a detterent for a criminal by the mere existence of weapons on the premises. A gun is not always like a fire extinguisher; more often it’s like a guard dog and the criminally-inclined just walk by.

    • Paul says:

      Okay, this is going to be fun…

      *When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away, right?*

      This is what is called “bumper-sticker logic.” I’ve got one of my own, but mine might actually be right: “If ‘more guns equals less crime,’ then Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta and Oakland are the safest cities on Earth.”

      *In Kennesaw, GA if you are a property owner within the city you are required to have a gun license.*

      Good for them. They also have an 8.4% unemployment rate (GA has the tenth highest unemployment rate in the nation), so they might want to get to work on that. According to a 2009 lawsuit, however, it’s not the greatest place to have a job if you’re not white. However, if that unemployment rate persists and if there are a bunch of guns laying around, I predict real trouble for the good people of Kennesaw if the 27% of their population under the age of 18 can’t afford college, can’t find a job, and there are a bunch of unsecured firearms within easy reach.

      Although, let’s take a look at your statement: “property owners” are “required” to have a gun license. What if I don’t “own property?” Does this mean that people who rent are excluded from this mandate? Now, who would be renting in Kennesaw? Oh, that’s right…poor people and minorities. Your statement may as well have read, “In Kennesaw, GA, white upper-class Christians are required to have a gun license…to protect themselves from marauding black people.” I thought the Second Amendment was for EVERYBODY…why would the law in Kennesaw only extend to landowners? Could it be the Kennesaw city council is still fighting the War Of Northern Aggression?

      But, I digress. I am NOT anti-Second Amendment or anti-gun ownership (although to gun nuts, implying there is ANY avenue of American life they should be banned from is tantamount to blanket illegalization). I’ve taken handgun courses. But, every once in awhile the horseshit argument is advanced that teachers or school administrators should carry guns. These people have never taught in a classroom (at least, not successfully), don’t understand how schools work, and do not understand children.

      I’ve already spent way too much time on this, but here’s my argument in a nutshell:

      1) First, statistically speaking, what is the chance your child’s school will be subject to a Newtown/Columbine style attack? I have it as about one in a million (for a sense of perspective, you have a 1 in 1.4 million chance of winning the Powerball, and there’s a 1 in 200,00 chance life on Earth will be destroyed by a meteor): http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2012/02/27/tragic-but-rare-odds-of-dying-in-a-school-shooting-as-in-chardon-at-least-one-in-a-million/

      2) Now, persistent lobbying by the NRA and confusion regarding “accidental deaths” vs. “intentional homicide” (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=1&amp ;) make this a very difficult question to answer, but, if a gun were kept in your child’s classroom, which event is more likely: that the gun would be used to successfully repel a hostile intruder, or that gun would accidentally be used to maim or kill a child or teacher in that school?

      In 2012, there were 39 deaths in school shootings, nation-wide (Sandy Hook made it an especially gruesome year). However, nation-wide, during the period 2008-2009, the last year for which complete data is available, there were 62,940 deaths in the US due to firearms, for a crude (non-age adjusted) rate of 10.29 deaths per 100,000 persons. If you lived in a city of 100,000 persons, you could expect that 10 of your neighbors would die from a firearm injury that year. 1,146 of these deaths were classified as “unintentional” (an accident), and 61,289 of these deaths were classified as “Violence-related” (presumably intentional). During the same period, there were 145,390 non-fatal firearm injuries here in the US, with a crude rate of 23.8 non-fatal injuries per 100,000 persons. If you lived in a city of 100,000 persons, you could expect 24 of your neighbors to suffer an injury due to a firearm that year. Of these injuries, 35,826 were classified as “Unintentional”, while 109,565 non-fatal injuries were “Violence-related”.(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/26/1077930/-Statistics-Guns-and-Wishful-Thinking).

      The bottom line? If there is a gun in your child’s classroom, the odds are far, far greater that gun will harm or kill a child or teacher than it will be used to repel an attack by a hostile intruder. This isn’t “belief”…this is “FACT.”

      If someone wants to try to rebut this using facts and data, I welcome them to do so; however, I’m not interested in anything Gary Kleck or John Lott have to say, because they’ve both discredited themselves (Kleck, among other things, wildly overstated the number of women who arm themselves, and Lott posed as a woman named “Mary Rosh” online to hype and defend his works).

      Good day.

      • Paul says:

        PS: if somebody tries to rebut this, they’ll most likely attach an article about how ONE proverbial “Good Guy With A Gun” was able to stop ONE potential crime in ONE public area. There are 98,000 public schools in this country, 33,000 private schools, and 7,000 (rounded up) colleges in this country, with a total of 50.1 million students just in K-12 schools alone. What’s even more infinitesimal than the likelihood of a shooting at your neighborhood school is that a “Good Guy With A Gun” on-scene will somehow be able to stop it.

        An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, folks.

      • Kelsey says:

        I’d mostly like to rebut your horrible logic and race baiting, but I suspect it wouldn’t really be worth the time. I would like to point out one statistic, though: When is the last time a school burned down in the United States? When was the last time a student, teacher, or school staff member died in a school fire? A quick Google search turns up a pretty serious fire in 1958, but I don’t see anything more recent than that. As much time, energy, and money as we spend on fire safety, you’d think that fires were a frequent problem faced by schools. WHY don’t we see schools burning down? It’s specifically because we expend so much time, energy, and money to prevent fires and to be thoroughly prepared in the event that a fire should occur.

        You said yourself that 39 people died in school shootings in 2012. Unlike fires, school shootings are happening and they are claiming lives. Whatever we are currently doing to prevent these is NOT working. What would work? Realistically, what would keep a deranged person from choosing any given school for a shooting spree? The only thing I know of as an effective deterrent is lethal force (which provides the double benefit that if the shooter opens fire anyway, his rampage can be put to a stop quickly and effectively).

        The next question is one that you and many others have raised: How would guns in schools stay out of the hands of students? How would we prevent accidental (or intentional) deaths should a student acquire a firearm? This will come down to the specific campus or district, but I imagine a large part of it would involve rigorous training for the teachers who would keep or carry guns–much like CHL training for those who wish to carry in their everyday lives–and extremely strict punishments for students who attempt to acquire the guns.

        If an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, why don’t we do more for prevention than putting up “Sitting Duck”–sorry, “Gun Free Zone”–signs?

      • Paul says:

        Golden Boy: I said I wasn’t interested in bumper-sticker logic or platitudes, and you gave me a post chock-full of them. Great job.

        Here’s another bit of bumper-sticker logic (that, again, probably has enough truth to sting): “There are between 262 million and 310 million firearms in circulation in the US. If ‘more guns equals less crime,’ this should be the safest country in the world.”

        Kelsey: sorry you feel that accusing racists of racism is “race-baiting.” All I did was point out in the wording in the Kennesaw, GA statute that says that “property owners” are mandated to have gun licenses. It’s interesting to me that it specifies “property owners” and not “all adult males” (that would be discriminatory, wink, wink) or “all citizens over the age of 18.” What compelling reason would they have to limit the law to “property owners?” (I’ll give you a hint: it’s the same ‘compelling reason’ they use to enact voter-ID laws).

        Nobody answered my question, and my question is a simple one: if your child’s teacher keeps a gun in their classroom, is there a greater statistical chance that gun will be used to repel a hostile intruder, or is the likelihood greater that gun will end up being used to maim or kill a child or teacher? Show your work.

      • Stephen says:

        The ordinance had nothing to do with property owners – it was heads of household:

        From Wikipedia: [Sec 34-21][17]
        (a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

        (b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

        Nothing racist here.

      • lissakay says:

        62,940 gun-related deaths, eh? And how many were suicides, by cop or accidents? Take those away and you’ll end up with around 10-12,000 at the most. Vastly different picture there, when you use honest numbers. (Daily Kos? Seriously???) Then take away the murders that occur in Chicago, New Orleans, Washington, DC and Memphis, TN and you’ll find that the murder rate in the US is far lower than most 1st world nations, including all of Europe.

        Here’s your rebuttal … well, one of them. Kinda busy at the moment, so just one link for now. You want more statistics and data and numbers that back up the fact that more guns in the US has NOT resulted in more gun deaths? Start clicking here: http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2012/08/graphics-matter-year-the-fourth-updated-again.html

        Of course, you can always fall back on the numbers that the CDC came up with in their landmark study, specifically commissioned by the Obama administration for the express purpose of supporting his gun control agenda. It didn’t work out quite the way they had planned: http://bit.ly/IICnrc

        Bottom line: You’re wrong.

        Have a lovely day.

      • Paul says:

        Bottom line: NOBODY’S ANSWERING MY QUESTION.

        Which is: Put a gun in a classroom in Anytown, USA. What is higher-the chance it will be used correctly to repel a hostile intruder, or the chance of it being used to accidentally (or deliberately) maim or kill someone in the classroom?

      • Paul says:

        PS: Lissakay-if you read the DailyKos article (some of us view WorldNetDaily, Breitbart, et. al with the same amount of incredulity) you’d find (or maybe you did and didn’t communicate it) that the gun-fatality figures come from a CDC study (I know, the ‘biased’ CDC as opposed to an august source like-what was it-Shooting Industry Magazine(?) )

        But, anyhow, this isn’t about the Second Amendment (I support it) or the right to private weapon ownership (I don’t have a problem with it)-it’s about whether or not arming teachers, administrators or armed guards in schools (it didn’t work at Columbine) will prevent school violence (it won’t).

      • LilyL2182 says:

        Paul, your arguments and stats are as ridiculous as everyone trying to rebut you because all you do make dire predictions based on random stats that have nothing to do with having adults (teachers/security/whatever) having guns in schools.

        You talk about accidents with firearms: 1146 deaths and 35826 injuries. I was pretty shocked it was that low actually even accounting for faulty reporting. And you equate injuries to being “maimed or killed.” I once got a cut on my hand from the slide because I wasn’t holding the gun correctly. I wasn’t maimed or killed. I’ve had guns in my house all the time I was growing up and I’ve never been injured bey a gun as badly as my sister was the time she stepped backward of some playground equipment and hit her chin on the way down, requiring about 70 stitches.

        And because you wanted stats, here are some related to playground injuries. http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/playground-injuries/playgroundinjuries-factsheet.htm

      • LilyL2182 says:

        My point being, you don’t even know the answer to your own question. No one knows the answer.

      • Kelsey says:

        Paul, the answer to your question rests largely in the type and amount of training used to implement a guns-in-schools policy, procedures and protocols concerning where and how the guns will be stored and who will have access to them, and disciplinary measures for those who violate the procedures, protocols, and training mentioned above. Since for the most part these don’t currently exist, your question is basically unanswerable.

        Many schools currently have armed liason officers on campus (my high school did). The three officers at my high school each had a highly visible handgun strapped to his or her hip all day, every day. Do you have any statistics on the frequency of guns being taken from school-stationed officers and used to injure students? Do you have any sources suggesting that highly-trained “school marshals” similarly armed (or with guns secured in their classrooms) are more likely to be taken advantage of?

    • Dorothy says:

      I am not a fan of guns in the classroom. There are so many dangers involved. But it might be good to have a person who knows how to use a gun responsibly carry it on his person while he’s in the school.

      • Paul says:

        *But it might be good to have a person who knows how to use a gun responsibly carry it on his person while he’s in the school.*

        With all due respect, nobody is going to wear a gun in my son’s classroom unless they have (at the very LEAST) full police academy training…and cops make mistakes, too. 587 civilians were killed by police in 2012-if ONE of them was innocent, that’s one too many.

        587 people didn’t win the Powerball last year, folks. The house ALWAYS wins…and in this case, the house is the NRA and the gun manufacturers. Keep buying into “more guns equals less crime”…Wayne LaPierre has a mortgage to pay too, you know.

      • Dorothy says:

        God forbid something should ever happen at your son’s school, but if it did, wouldn’t you want someone there who could stop it? I’m not talking any old person, but someone specially trained. And I’m also of the camp that criminals should not get guns. I don’t know what the big deal is about these background checks and automatic weapons. If you need an automatic weapon to hunt, maybe you should look into a little bit of practice.

      • Paul says:

        *God forbid something should ever happen at your son’s school, but if it did, wouldn’t you want someone there who could stop it?*

        I had a long (and reassuring) conversation with my son’s principal after the Sandy Hook shooting…in the mathematically unlikely event a shooting happens at my son’s school, there are concrete (and effective) measures in place to shield students until the police arrive (and as part of the drills, the principal is in almost constant contact with the local police and fire departments, which are down the street). And, none of these measures involve a teacher having to deputize themselves.

        Like I said, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure…having a plan (or several) is the first and most important step. Unfortunately, I think most of the “just give teachers guns” crowd thinks that having a gun means you don’t NEED a plan.

        • deelilynn says:

          One problem with this, Paul :-( Sandy Hill also had those same things in place and there had actually been drills just weeks before the shooting … How did that work out for the principal, teachers and children at Sandy Hill :-(

      • Dorothy says:

        Well, that’s stupid. You should always have a plan. That one person with a gun (again, not a teacher but a specially trained “hall monitor” of sorts) is just an extra precaution. I am a firm believer in guns being a LAST resort, but sometimes that option is necessary.

  4. John says:

    And yet, if you know nothing about an American except that he owns guns, you certainly know which way you’d bet as to his general opinion about ObamaCare, immigration, abortion, etc. Not a perfect correlation, but a real one.

    • chicagomom says:

      That may be true in Red States, but it is definitely not true in urban areas.

      • deelilynn says:

        That may be true in Red States, but it is definitely not true in urban areas.

        Are you kidding, chicagomom?? Do you honestly believe there are urban areas only in Blue States and not in Red States?? You haven’t traveled much or know very much about our country do you??

  5. Edik415 says:

    Not sure this is your most compelling effort, Matt. The “people are ok with sex and violence but not with guns” argument you attempt doesn’t make logical sense. Specifically, the sexual ads in the Super Bowl to which you refer typically are NOT about “Hey, here’s a condom, knock yourself out” (with the exception of condom ads…and honestly, I can’t remember if there were or weren’t condom ads in last year’s game). Take the “Go Daddy” commercials as the most obvious example. Those are not about practicing “safe” (adulterous) sex — they are about objectifying women and using them solely as sex objects to sell a product. Like you (I assume), I find those commercials offensive.

    But where your essay here fails is that it is unclear what you suggest as the solution to this problem. The problem, as you state, is that the advertisements reflect the perverted priorities of the general public — sex and violence are ok, but guns are not. But through your writing, it seems that you have one of two feelings about this situation:
    1) The NFL’s policy against gun commercials is stupid, given the other commercials (and their own product) that they show. The solution is to eliminate the discrepancy — the gun commercials should be allowed during the Super Bowl because there are other objectionable commercials on.
    2) Or…The NFL’s policy against gun commercials is still stupid, for the same reason as above. The solution here is that the NFL should amend their policy so that, if it is going to exclude gun commercials, it should also exclude the other, more offensive commercials.

    Which is it?

    But the bigger issue that the NFL is a business. You almost realize this when you mention that their inconsistent policy resonates with the general public. That’s how business works — if you want people to buy your product, give them what they want. If they want sex and concussions, but not guns, then guess what you’re gonna get? (Hmm…this sounds a lot like politics, doesn’t it? Pretend you agree with what your constituents want, and then get elected…)

    As for the “teabagging rednecks,” I don’t have enough experience with that population to really generalize, but the three friends of mine that I *do* consider “teabagging rednecks” (who, believe it or not, would actually appreciate being referred to as such), and they certainly do NOT own guns “because it makes sense.” Sure, a gun or maybe even two “makes sense” to protect your family. Owning multiple semi-automatic weapons, posting pictures of them on Facebook, and talking constantly about your next gun purchase does not “make sense.” These friends of mine spend a great deal of time at shooting ranges, and are very competent shooters because of it. I won’t go so far as to call it an “obsession,” because I think we toss that word around too freely, but it is definitely primarily a hobby, and not solely a matter of self-defense.

    • GLORIA JOHNSON says:

      EDIK415 At last someone who can reply with a sense of reason!! Good for you

    • Ryan Corbin says:

      So let met get this straight. Practicing at the shooting range to maintain proficiency with your self defense weapons is outside the scope of self defense? So people should just walk around with a gun and hope they magically know how to use it if the need ever arises? Sorry, that makes no sense. Developing and maintaining weapons proficiency is the responsible thing do, so what if it’s fun too. That’s no different than enjoying martial arts training. Just because something looks like an enjoyable hobby, that doesn’t mean it can’t be practical too.

      • Edik415 says:

        No, that’s not what I meant, and I apologize if that’s how it reads. What I meant is that these three individuals engage in these activities recreationally — they have told me that straight-out. Yes, it absolutely benefits their ability to fire the weapon accurately. It *is* a practical hobby for a gun owner, and it’s something that every gun owner SHOULD do. My point is that, while Matt makes the claim that “redneck teabaggers” own guns because “it makes sense” to own guns, my experience with self-proclaimed “redneck teabaggers” is different — those that I know own guns because shooting guns is a hobby they enjoy. (And, I hope my original disclaimer is still understood — it is unfair for me to generalize my experience with these three rednecks to the population of all rednecks…just as it is unfair for Matt to do so)

        Yes, hobbies can be practical. You can enjoy martial arts training. But, to take an absurd example, if you sign up for a martial arts class because there’s a really hot girl in the class, then the physical and psychological benefits of that class are of secondary importance. You can’t claim them as your objective.

      • Scribbles says:

        I don’t think we can safety interpret the “redneck teabaggers” comment as literal, since it is in quotes designed to imply sarcasm. In this case I believe Matt was not talking about self-proclaimed “redneck teabaggers” but alluding to the sweeping generalizations often made by the proponents of gun-control about gun owners.

  6. Elisa says:

    Please check out my website and don’t be a victim!! Stand up for your rights! http://www.theoutlawgroupllc.com
    We sell guns and ammo!!

  7. Scott Harrison says:

    Anyone who doesn’t like the laws of this Country that have stood for over 200 years, please accept my invitation to move to another one, asap!

    • taidaisher says:

      Where’s the dang blasted LIKE button!

    • Jill J says:

      well dang…i agree, and i don’t agree…i agree that if they don’t like the laws here, they could move to somewhere where they do like the laws…but i disagree (in principle) that they should just get lost…the first amendment applies even to those misguided folk

      • Dorothy says:

        Same. If you don’t like the laws and customs of the US, don’t live here, don’t come here. However, that document scribbled up 200 years ago was designed to adapt with the growth of society, and that freedom Scott likes to have guns is the same freedom that allows businesses to not promote guns. Is it a tad bit ridiculous? Of course, but it doesn’t have much to do with defying the law.

  8. Good post. I completely agree, but do you think that perhaps you can do a post on the phrase “teabagging.” It really is a crude and offensive word, and I don’t think all of the people who use it understand it.

  9. Kent T says:

    Matt, you seem to have forgotten all of the ads during regular season football games and the super bowl for movies and TV shows that portray violence with, get this, guns. Sadly, My young kids know that they need to turn their heads during ads during football games due to all the violence. So, apparently showing people shooting others with guns is fine, but you cannot show an ad that shows a nice family and simply talks about guns. Additioanlly, the issue is with the TV networks moreso then the NFL.

  10. Samantha says:

    Completely agree Matt!

  11. Jared says:

    Jacksonville ranked 20th in attendance last year. Have never finished last in attendance. Plenty of fan support despite the media narrative. If you’re going to be snarky, at least be accurate. Other than that, good post.

  12. John Griffin says:

    Amen. Very well said.

  13. Andrea says:

    Guns for self defense with kids in the home is a BAD idea. To be safe, the gun has to unloaded and locked up in one place where kids can’t get it and the ammo needs to be locked up in another place where kids can’t get it. If a robber broke in, buy the time the homeowner found and unlocked the gun, found and unlocked the ammo, and then loaded the gun, it would be too late to use it.

    Suicides are higher in homes with guns. Shooting of family/friends is higher in homes with guns. In my area, there have been countless stories of kids dying because of guns ion the home–usually accidents.

    I would not like the pro-gun commercial as described in this blog. I think the idea that guns make a home safe is a lie.

    • Brandon says:

      Tell that to this mom, or this mom, or hundreds of thousands like them. Guns can be dangerous, which is why they are so effective when the time comes to be more dangerous than the predator threatening your family.

      • Brandon says:

        Second link didn’t post, here you go.

      • Gospel X says:

        Found the first article you linked about the Georgia mom shooting the intruder in the face and how a Harvard professor said that, “There are probably tens of thousands of cases a year where a lawful possession of a firearm would prevent a crime from occurring or continuing.” Probably isn’t a very strong word. The article finishes with two paragraphs I think you need to read:

        “But, statistics have frequently debunked these claims. According to a 2011, study from the University of Pennsylvania, victims in possession of firearms were 4.5 times more likely to be shot and 4.2 times more likely to be killed than unarmed victims.

        “And, just last year the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, a division of the university’s School of Public Health, in a literature assessment, concluded there is ample evidence suggesting that more guns equates to more murders.”

      • Melinda says:

        Neither one of your links work for me, Brandon.

      • Jill J says:

        links didn’t work…got could not be found :(

    • Brandon says:

      Sorry Gospel X but your stats don’t mean anything to the person who can confidently wield a firearm. Go to the armed citizen dot net website and you can read verified news stories of citizens who use weapons every single day to fend off criminals.

      You can put your faith in statistics, but I won’t risk my family based on them. My family has been armed for generations. Children are taught proper firearms safety from a young age and there’s never been an accidental shooting in my family. None of us has ever had to shoot an attacker either, but I sleep better knowing I have the option to protect myself and my family should the need arise.

      • deelilynnd says:

        And the silliest thing about Gospel X believing these ‘statistics’ are the absolute truth is that they come from liberal bleeding heart brainwashing agenda universities ;-)

      • Gospel X says:

        The point of my quoting the article was that it was the article you were trying to link. It’s not that I was relying on statistics. It’s that I was showing that you were attempting to spread this information yourself – unless you only read the title of the article and moved on.

      • Brandon says:

        Gospel X,

        I simply wanted to reference these stories and so I did a quick google search to find a link. I wasn’t endorsing any commentary in the articles at all, but I can see how my posting and article link without making sure the story provided commentary I agreed with would cause confusion. My apologies for that.

    • Jamie says:

      I grew up in a rough neighborhood and my single mom always had 3-4 guns in the house even when we were itty bitty things. We would visit her dad who also kept guns around the house. Us kids were told how to handle oursevles at our grandpa’s – don’t close opened doors, don’t grab behind couches and chairs, etc. All the guns in my grandpa’s as well as our own home were loaded at all times. Our guns were in easy-to-grab, yet discrete places around the house.

      We were taught not to tough them. And we didn’t. Our ages are now 30, 26, and 24. My mom and her three siblings are all alive and well. And their parents, who grew up around guns, are fine, and their parents, and so forth.

      For every anti-gun scenario out there, there’s even more stories of people who handle themselves around guns without any problems. Suicidal people don’t needs guns, so that’s an irrelevent argument. And for our dangerous neighborhood, we’ve had to pull our guns on would-be intruders and when they see the gun, they leave.

      Guns are not toys and that’s what we were taught. And guns did keep our home safer.

      • F R says:

        “Suicidal people don’t needs guns, so that’s an irrelevent argument” – that’s incorrect:

        1) Did you know that simply changing the packaging of medication such as paracetamol pills has reduced suicide rate (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/a-simple-way-to-reduce-suicides/)? Turns out that putting some simple, low barriers to suicide (such as having to pop out every single pill from its packaging) lowers the number of people who follow through with suicide. Maybe because it got them thinking. Maybe because they were not that intent on killing themselves if it took some extra effort. Maybe because they wanted a quick and “painless” death, and they could not fathom seeing themselves bleed to death, or agonize for hours while their body was slowly failing. Or maybe for other reasons. Point is, something as simple as repackaging actually prevented some suicides.
        Now, committing suicide with a gun is relatively fast and painless compared to other options (poisoning / pill overdose, cutting your veins, etc). That means that there is almost no “barrier” or obstacles between you deciding to kill yourself, and you actually acting on it. So someone who did kill himself with a gun, might now have followed through if he had to use a knife, or swallow a whole bottle of pills. Take the gun away – take the easy way out – and you might just have prevented a suicide.

        2) Committing suicide with a gun can be done on the spur of the moment. No need to plan and think of the consequences – just grab the gun and pull the trigger. Other methods are not as expedient, and by the time you have the right “conditions” to attempt suicide, the desire for it might have subsided.

        Bottom line: not having a gun in a house doesn’t mean that it will prevent suicide, but it will most certainly reduce the likelihood.

    • mamaYak says:

      Actually, It Can Be Very Safe Even If It’s Loaded. Some Folks Have This Really Cool Thing Called A Safe. They Come In Different Sizes And Are Lockable. Some Are Even Small Enough To Fit In A NightStand Drawer. Some Have Keys, Some Have Combination Locks, Some Have Pin Pads, And Some Read FingerPrints. They Are A Great Option For Quick Access And Child Proof Safety Concerns. I Am Extremely Confident That My Children Cannot Access The Firearms That Are In My Home, But My Husband And I Can And Will If Ever It Is Necessary.

      • LilyL2182 says:

        Exactly. I have a small closet we jokingly call the “panic room.” But it doesn’t have bulletproof walls and a steel door. That’s where the gun safe is.

  14. David says:

    It doesn’t have anything to do with politics, it has to do with what makes sense for you in your own individual situation. My mom lives alone on a farm, surrounded by cornfields. The closest neighbor is not within screaming distance, and the county sheriff might be 20 miles away. You bet I want her armed. Have you ever seen a 70-year-old woman with rifle? It’s terrifying. You know she means it and is not afraid to use it. My ex’s mom, however, wouldn’t have a gun in her home because, as she put it, there was a larger chance that she would get shot with her own gun than she would be able to use it effectively herself against an intruder. Honestly, knowing her personality, I think she was right. And I definitely do not think that means it should have been open season on her house for all burglars, and I would never have said that she got what she deserved if someone had broken into her home. She was not “proudly” going through life being “defenseless, vulnerable, ready to be [a victim].” That’s ridiculous. She was realistic enough to know that she should not be handling a gun. Everyone is different.

    I defend the second amendment and have no ideological difficulty with it at all. The problem I have is with the proponents of gun ownership who appear to have an arsenal that rivals a military base and who brag about it, while gleefully inviting people to “just try” to rob them. If you are apparently giddy at the prospect of shooting dead another human being, in my opinion you are exactly the sort of person who SHOULD NOT have a gun. But the farmer who keeps his rifles in a locked gun cabinet, responsibly learns how to use them, and uses them to put food on his table and to protect his home? You bet I will defend his right to own a gun. Every time.

    Also, if I may make a suggestion: Resorting to name-calling loses you credibility points. You have some decent points here, but “anti-gun idiots” was distasteful.

    • Paul says:

      *The problem I have is with the proponents of gun ownership who appear to have an arsenal that rivals a military base and who brag about it, while gleefully inviting people to “just try” to rob them.*

      Hear, hear. Every once in awhile, somebody will tell me they stockpile weapons because they “live in a bad neighborhood,” and my response is, “well, maybe you could take those thousands of dollars you spend on guns and ammo and move to a better neighborhood.”

  15. Curio says:

    So, was it the NFL that banned the ad or was it not allowed by the govt? It sounds from the blog like the NFL made the decision, in which case, what the heck is the problem? It’s a privately run business that is trying to maximize its profit and enhance its brand. Given its tremendous success in doing both of those things, why should they not have the ability to pick and choose whatever ads they feel fit? Seems like the smart business decision.

    • Edik415 says:

      It was the NFL. And like you said, they made a business decision. My feeling is that, if someone disagrees with their business decisions, than that person has the freedom to not support that business. I didn’t support KMart’s decision to open at 6am on Thanksgiving, and as such, I have decided never to step foot in their store again. Don’t like the NFL’s stance? Don’t watch the NFL on tv. Don’t like Chick-fil-a’s stance against homosexuals? Don’t eat at Chick-fil-a.

      Not a big issue, is it?

  16. Trina says:

    It amazes me how different English people are from Americans even though we speak the same language. Having grown up in a country that doesn’t even have armed police in the majority of places and the criminals don’t use guns for the most part, I cannot for the life of me understand why so many Americans can speak in a positive way about an item that can be used to kill someone. I presume it’s a cultural thing, and I know it is tied to your Constituition and the freedom to bear arms. I guess I’ll have to remain mistified because I’m incapable of understanding. This is not to say you guys are wrong, I’m just saying I don’t have the mental capacity to comprehend how you think on this issue.

    • sarah says:

      I agree, i am English and i think that because people dont carry guns the cfiminals dont need to carry guns, where do the crooks get guns anyway? Surely you need alicense to buy one, or u must steal oje from a gun owning citizen….? I dont know, but my uncle had a baseball bat to defend himself, that all he felt he needed, because its highly unlikelly the crooks will be carrying a gun.
      I now live in South Africa where gun violence is everywhere, even the guys that carry the cash to stores carry ak47s, its crazy, we do not keep a gun however as most criminals are after ur stuff and if you just let them take it they will go without violence, if you approach them with a gun, they will probobly shoot you.

      We do however all live behind electrified security fences with a security guard and an armed response unit a phone call away (and much closer to hand than the police).

      And on another point i dont think i have it in me to shoot another human being, thats a big thing, no matter how sick theindividual. I just pray Gods protection over our house and our family every night and trust him to protect us. Im sure that sentimemt will be scorned by some as wishy washy, but its all I can do and my God is bigger than any circumstance I may have to face!

      • Salty Bear says:

        Take a look at the UK’s violent crime rate. It’s the highest of any developed nation in Europe. Compare that to, say, Texas. See where this is going?

        Gun control is not about gun deaths. A bad guy doesn’t need a gun to break into your home, steal your hard-earned possessions, and harm your family. And in England he’s not afraid to try either, because he’s pretty sure that you might have a baseball bat at the most (and who can’t run away from a bat?).

        What gun control IS about is CONTROL. The British are at the mercy of violent criminals. They are completely dependent on their government for the preservation of their rights and liberties – and no government has any use for people with rights and liberties. Do you really think London has so many security cameras in order to catch thieves?

        At the end of the day, the only common sense when it comes to firearms goes like this: a bad guy with a gun respects only one thing – a good guy with a gun. We have firearms because they make little old ladies able to overcome 300-pound muscle men.

        Gun ownership saves the lives of good, responsible people.

    • Paul says:

      The problem, in a nutshell, is that many (if not most) Americans think TV and movies are real.

  17. Please, please, please stop saying, “Teabagger.” It’s offensive as hell. In case you have forgotten, ‘tea bagging’ is the act of placing one’s testes in someone’s mouth, when the victim is passed out, to embarrass them (phone pix) and express dominance. It is a form of sexual violence and should be treated as such.

  18. ntezbnggreen says:

    Matt,
    Your ability to conveniently overlook your blatant hypocrisy is laughable. Keep up the mediocre work.

    • Edik415 says:

      Oh, come on, ntez. I disagree with much in this essay, too. But if you’re gonna call someone out, at least support your argument.

  19. ntezbnggreen says:

    Keep up the consistently inconsistent work. I’m always amazed at your ability, propensity to conveniently overlook previous statements that fly in the face of your latest vapid rant. Grade A “work”.

    • Ferne says:

      @ntezbnggreen – your two comments seem to be a grouping of interesting sounding words with no context or meaning. While I haven’t agreed with all of the previous comments, I could at least recognize their reasoning and their opinion of the issue raised in the post. Your ‘statements’ appear to simply attack the author without actually putting forth any real contribution or thoughts on the subject at hand. This, then, divulges your predilection to bloviate insubstantially.

  20. B says:

    I grew up in wyoming, where gun ownership and hunting were a given. Most parents taught gun safety to their kids. Still, when I was a kid, a mom took her 9 and 12 yrar olds and their 11 year old friend out to the woods and left them to hunt. One of the brothers accidentally shot and killed the 11 year old. My problem with gun ownership and teaching kids gun safety is that not every parent is smart and responsible when it comes to protecting their children. It surprises me that many of the same people who are pro life are also pro guns (I am pro life, btw). What about those kids who grow up with parents who aren’t smart enough to practice proper gun safety with their children in the home? Why is gun ownership a right even if the person who owns the gun has no plan to lock it up to keep their kids safe? Why do children’s lives lose importance in the face of the 2nd amendment?

    • lissakay says:

      There are many dangers present to children in their homes. In fact, more children die from accidental causes other than guns than from guns. More die from abuse, neglect and intentional harm than from guns.

      We could have legislation on a level that would curtail harm to children, to the point of 24/7 monitoring of parents. Swimming pools, 5 gallon buckets, televisions, heavy furniture, dogs, just about every household cleaner and chemical and much more should all be banned. Mandatory and unannounced home visits to check on the condition of children and their living conditions. Government approved menus only.

      Why do children’s lives lose importance in the face of personal freedom, liberty and privacy?

      • Jennifer says:

        This is absolutely true and we certainly cannot protect our kids from everything out there that might harm them. But we can protect them from guns. With all those other dangers out there, why add another one?

    • The second ammendment exists because your children’s life, and liberty is important.

      And, from a gun owner with children who stores a loaded weapon, unlocked, in close proximity to my bed-a gun in the home is no more dangerous than a car parked in the driveway. Both are common and both are of no danger at all, until they are in the possession of an operator. My children are even at young ages, sufficiently skilled and trained to safely operate a firearm. The training that acheived that goal also teaches them not to handle it when adults are not present. I do realize that, like cars, no amount of education will eradicate all the accidental deaths and those are unfortunate. But, would you have us do away with cars as well since they kill about 3 times as many people as guns each year?

      • Jennifer says:

        I appreciate that you taught your kids how to safely handle those guns. But the car analogy is not a good one. Your kids are not going to get behind the wheel of your car and take a joy ride. But there is no guarantee that they will never pick up that gun, despite your good intentions in teaching them not to. Why take the risk? Why not at least lock it somewhere safe? Where do you live that you feel the need to keep a loaded gun by your bed? Scary!

      • deelilynn says:

        Jennifer, if you think children would not take the car for a joy ride but would pick up a gun you are sadly mistaken – LOL ;-) And who are you to assume that in this home an unlocked gun is a risk or even that it must be a scary place to live!? You do not know them and you do not know the children!!

        You suggested in another comment that someone else who believes and lives their lives differently than your life do not live in the REAL world!! Whose REAL world!? Did it ever occur to you that what works for you is not necessarily the correct one size fits all view that works for everyone else!?

      • Dyanna says:

        Apparently your kids never disobey and do anything without your knowledge. They must be superheros! My child (2.5 years old) can’t be trusted alone with crayons, let alone a loaded gun! “Don’t touch the decorations on the tree, Johnny!” What do you think Johnny is going to do when you take a break in the bathroom? I can’t imagine leaving a loaded gun in an accessible place for a child! At least put it on the top shelf of your bedroom closet and keep it trigger-locked! Good grief.

        • deelilynn says:

          Dyanna, do you know where near the bed the gun is stored?? Didn’t think so … If they are smart enough to train their children in gun safety they are smart enough to put the gun high enough that a toddler who does not yet understand cannot reach it … Sheesh!! And has it ever crossed your mind that some peoples children do indeed obey and that perhaps your children simply don’t take you seriously because you don’t truly instill upon them that you mean business??

      • Jennifer says:

        deelilynn, I certainly do not think my world is the same as everyone else’s. I was just pointing out that most of the people who claim they need a gun to protect their family are responding to an imaginary risk. Can you honestly tell me that you live somewhere where there is an actual risk of someone trying to shoot you or your family? Has this ever happened to you, or anyone you know? For real, not some article you read somewhere. And not someone broke in to try to steal your TV, but someone actually threatened your LIFE. If this has actually happened to you I understand your desire to own a gun.

        And I was not saying that russell’s home was a scary place. I was questioning the horribly unsafe neighborhood where he must live, for why else would he keep a loaded weapon by his bed?

        And there is NO REASON to ever keep a loaded gun within reach of a small child, EVER. I do not care how much you trust them. Why would any parent ever take that risk?

      • deelilynn says:

        Jennifer, why yes I can honestly say my gun has indeed been warranted!! I live alone and I actually live in a very nice area but I also have Stage 3.5 Emphysema (oxygen 24/7) and no other way to protect myself physically except with a gun. Once in the middle of the night someone did try breaking into my place and just as he got the door just open all it took was for me standing there with gun drawn on him to make him run like a rabbit!! If he would have tried stepping in I would not have hesitated to shoot!! Do you seriously think I should have let him get further than my front door when I do not have the strength nor breath to otherwise possibly defend myself?? Do you really think if all he wanted was a TV or stereo that he would not have harmed me once he was inside??

        I didn’t say that you said their home itself was a scary place but if you say scary at all you are assuming the only reason a person needs a gun is because they are in a bad neighborhood; well mine isn’t a bad neighborhood!!

        And you are entitled to your opinion about loaded versus unloaded around children just as we who keep them loaded are entitled to our opinion!! My dad kept a loaded gun in my parents room. Neither my brother or I never touched it without his supervision!!

      • Edik415 says:

        Russellallison — actually, the second amendment does not exist because your child’s life is important. A modern interpretation of the second amendment adds that. Many people support the amendment for that very reason, but the reason it exists is to maintain a well regulated militia.

        • deelilynn says:

          Citizens being our own militia has not changed, Erik … Back then and still is to protect everyone including the children and that means against ‘enemies’ as well as ‘tyrants’ …

      • Paul says:

        *I live alone and I actually live in a very nice area but I also have Stage 3.5 Emphysema (oxygen 24/7) and no other way to protect myself physically except with a gun.*

        Deelilyn…you’re probably going to think I’m asking this to be a smartass (and maybe I am), but what happens if your gun goes off around your oxygen supply?

        • deelilynn says:

          From things I’ve seen you write on various subjects so far it does make me think you’re being a smart arse with your question, Paul, so I’ll answer in the same manner ;-)

          Did you know that having Emphysema and being on oxygen doesn’t equate to being stupid?? My oxygen concentrator is the required feet away from anywhere that a spark might set off an explosion … And there is such a thing called ‘oxygen tubing’ that allows for dozens of feet of travel beyond that – LOL ;-)

      • Paul says:

        Well, Deelilyn, the good news is that as long as you (or any hostile intruders) manage to avoid shooting directly into your oxygen tank, you’ll probably be okay.

        • deelilynn says:

          “Well, Deelilyn, the good news is that as long as you (or any hostile intruders) manage to avoid shooting directly into your oxygen tank, you’ll probably be okay.”

          Indeed, Paul :-) No worries about me shooting into the oxygen concentrator and the possible hostile intruders won’t get a chance to go far enough to reach it themselves ;-)

      • deelilynn says:

        “Well, Deelilyn, the good news is that as long as you (or any hostile intruders) manage to avoid shooting directly into your oxygen tank, you’ll probably be okay.”

        PS, Paul … Just in case you actually were not being a smart aleck with this comment; I sincerely thank you …

      • Paul says:

        Well, Deelilynn, it’s honestly not within me to wish harm on another human being-if you have confidence in your abilities, I guess that’s good enough for me ;-)

  21. POST-WAR says:

    I just can’t take you seriously when you assert that porn is violence. On what grounds? Rape, and assault? That’s violence. You’re grouping leisure-sex with rape and assault. Consensual sex (homosexual, heterosexual, bi-sexual, etc.) , especially protected, is the anti-violence. The only thing prohibiting you from realizing this is religious canons (the same doctrines which came out of a society plagued by sexual disease and and an un-supportable population size without the modern countermeasures we enjoy today).

    And I understand the need of a gun for self defense. That’s perfectly understandable. What I don’t understand is the need for over-the-top defense. Sure, guns are fun. I don’t see any problem with shooting targets or even hunting (I’m a fan of deer hunting actually). But what I don’t enjoy, and what honestly scares me, is the assault rifle, or any automatic weapon. I’ve fired one before, and oh man I was freaked out. You posses, in your hands, the ability to take dozens of lives in one fell swoop. No man, woman, or god, deserves this power. This logic reminds me of the nuclear bomb, which now will probably be the end of mankind. The power of gods do not have any place in this world. It’s our bloodlust, and war-fetishism, which requires these types of weapons. If the United States was really the wholesome, caring nation is claims to be, this type of violence would not be condoned, but yet, the Meta-Narrative continues, and the perversion of religion for power remains constant. Protect your family with something that doesn’t have the capability to slaughter five families at once. But, I agree that kids should be taught how to handle firearms. It’s perfectly logical. If they are not taught how to, they will assume they are toys and blow each other’s faces off.

    No, gun ownership isn’t political. It’s just depressing to see a whole world that needs to protect itself to this extreme. Very sad. You’d think at this point, we could move past senseless violence, but it will never disappear. Although, we could go into a sociological vein and try to figure out why people rob, kill, and rape…but there are more important things like football to worry about. Ha.

    • Kelsey says:

      Where did you get to fire an automatic weapon? Those are very tightly regulated in America and extremely expensive, which makes them very rare and rather hard to come by. (As are nukes, albeit obviously much more so.) I’d love to try out an automatic weapon at the range some day. As it is, I’ll just have to settle for my two semiauto handguns.

      As far as porn and sex go, there is a very dark underbelly of the porn industry. There is such a thing as sexual violence, and any time someone is pressured into performing acts he or she does not want to, even for monetary gain, that’s still sexual violence. Now I’m not highly informed on the porn industry so I don’t know how often this happens, but I know that it does. Any anyone who consumes porn helps to support the industry and allows it to continue.

      I’m extremely curious about this statement: “sexual disease and and an un-supportable population size without the modern countermeasures we enjoy today” Um. When exactly was that? Sexual diseases and population are BOTH at all-time highs. Sexual disease spreads more easily and more quickly now because more people are having more sex, thinking it’s “safe” because they’re using condoms or the pill (your “modern countermeasures,” I assume). Population has increased to unprecedented levels without becoming unsustainable because human ingenuity allows us to find new resources and make existing resources stretch farther and serve more people than they could before.

      “Protect your family with something that doesn’t have the capability to slaughter five families at once.” And exactly what level of lethality would you approve for me to protect my family? The capabiilty to slaughter only one family? Incapable of slaughtering anything, even a thug bent on hurting me or my daughter? I hope that I never face a situation like that, but if I do, you can bet that I’ll defend myself if necessary and I’m not letting anyone hurt my daughter. The ability to “slaughter families” is not an appropriate metric for a weapon of self-defense. The question to ask is “how many attackers will it protect me from?” Weigh that against what’s most likely to actually happen.

  22. Just so I can say I left something helpful to the non-gun crowd. I have a non-lethal alternative to a large caliber firearm that will not go through walls, will not damage carpet or window coverings, as the successful defense of home with a larger firearm certainly would and the victim is unlikely to sue you. I give you the Umarex Steel Storm Fully Automatic BB Gun:
    http://www.airgundepot.com/steel-storm-bb-gun.html

    Some of us (guys mainly) either have been hit with a bb, or have shot someone with a BB gun and didn’t run fast enough to get away from that particular brother-we know that it hurts. Imagine a face full of those at close range, in 6 round bursts. I know some tough guys and faced with that they’re cowering in the corner, covering their face and begging you to stop having dropped their weapon after the first 3 BB’s hit them in the face. Nobody dies, nobody bleeds out into the carpet, no counseling to deal with having killed someone and the bad guy (eventually) walks away with lots of red welts, ideally into a waiting police car. Everybody wins and you’ve got the coolest BB gun on block.

  23. ntezbnggreen says:

    The odds of a gun owner actually using that weapon protecting his family and home are miniscule in comparison to the odds it will injure or kill a member of that household deliberately or accidentally. For you to assign gun control advocates the label of posing a danger to their own loved ones is unwarranted, unjustified and as profound as a bologna sandwich. Speaking of Jacksonville, this piece reminds me of their abysmal record.

    • lissakay says:

      I love this one … because it is trotted out with such regularity, and is completely and utterly wrong. The most conservative estimates place annual gun use for self-defense at better than 200,000 incidents. Others place it well over a million. Are you really trying to forward the argument that there are more accidental or deliberate domestic incidents causing injury or death each year? Surely were that true, we would be hearing about that all day, every day and those statistics would be readily available for people like you to post all over the place …

      • Paul says:

        The two main “academics” who were able to “prove” that “more guns equal less crime” are Gary Kleck and John Lott. Kleck’s study was discredited by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and the National Crime Victim Survey due to sampling error and the fact that Kleck’s survey didn’t have enough sample cases of DGU to provide reliable estimates involving one specific crime type, including sexual assault.

        John Lott, during a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan, claimed to have undertaken a national survey in 1997, but claimed that all the data was lost in a “hard drive crash.” He later was caught posing online as a fictitious student named “Mary Rosh” to hype his works and bolster his reputation. Charges have also been leveled at Lott that his work is financed by the NRA via the Olin Foundation, associated with the Olin Corporation, a charge Lott and the NRA deny (kind of like how RJ Reynolds denied that cigarettes cause lung cancer and the NFL denies that being repeatedly hit in the head causes brain injury).

      • ntezbnggreen says:

        Paul is correct that the most cited “study” by Kleck and Lott is a farce and cannot be referenced as a source with any credibility. I wouldn’t be so resolute in using numbers that have a disparity of 800,000 plus. I know when I cite stats to support an argument I always have a margin of error of at least that much.

  24. deelilynn says:

    Oh the PC agenda hypocrisy of the NFL ;-) http://patriotpost.us/posts/21991

  25. Jennifer says:

    I was ok with you until this point: “They proudly go through life defenseless, vulnerable, ready to be victims.”
    Um, no. I do not own a gun. No one in my family owns a gun. We never will. And we live in a big city where threats of being mugged or assaulted are real, not imaginary. I am neither defenseless nor vulnerable and am certainly not ready to be a victim. I was taught street smarts, to pay attention to my surroundings, to avoid danger when I see it. I have over 25 years of martial arts training, as does my husband. When we teach “self defense” to children it is about how they can use their voices and their bodies, but mostly their brains, to get home safely from a dangerous situation. Real, self defense skills have very little to do with guns.

    I do agree with you. A gun is a tool. An extremely dangerous one that sadly often falls into the wrong hands and hurts someone. The odds of anyone actually needing to use those guns to “protect their family” are tiny. Most gun owners who claim this to be the reason for having one are just living in a fantasy world, envisioning themselves as superheroes in a made up scenario that will most likely never happen.

    I respect your second amendment rights. But I have a 6 year old. And I would never keep such a dangerous tool anywhere near her. EVER. EVER!

    She will, however, grow up knowing how to protect herself. In the REAL world.

    • Paul says:

      *I was taught street smarts, to pay attention to my surroundings, to avoid danger when I see it.*

      The problem is that these people think that owning a gun means they don’t NEED street smarts-which makes them a much greater threat to themselves and their loved ones than to any ‘bad guys’ (real or imagined).

      • pst314 says:

        That’s BS, Paul. I know lots of gun owners and they do NOT think owning a gun means they do not need street smarts. Quite the opposite, in fact. You have a very cartoonish view of these people.

  26. Jim says:

    When my wife and I were newly married we met a couple who joined our small group at church. They quickly made it known that they were pacifists and hated guns. I hate needless killing too, so I found a common ground when the conversation steered that way and avoided talking about firearms, hunting, etc. However, they got more and more militant in their aversion to guns that one day I asked the husband what he would do if someone broke into their house and threatened his family. He responded something like, “who am I to take someone’s life…” We chatted about that and he insisted that he would rather live with his family dead or injured than live with the guilt of protecting them… The really bizarre thing about this family was that the type of crap they watched for entertainment was horrendously violent, for the most part. They thought I was horrible for shooting at inanimate targets or animals for food but it was perfectly okay for them to entertain themselves with images of violent bloodshed, movies and shows which my wife and I wouldn’t even consider.

    • Dorothy says:

      Both extremes are frustrating. The jerks who load up their guns and head to Starbucks are the same as those who would condemn so vehemently a valid sport. I’m a gun lover. The power. The precision. Love. I also am a gun law lover. I can’t be drunk and play with my gun? No problem! That makes perfect sense. You have to make sure I’m not mentally ill or a criminal? Go for it! I don’t want someone like that getting a gun. In my opinion, you shouldn’t have a love for one without an understanding of the other.

  27. AthenaC says:

    In the category of “Things I don’t discuss with my coworkers unless directly asked” –

    It’s a running joke in my office that we need to be prepared to defend the place against marauders. One of my partners asked if I was up to the task; I noted that back when I was in the Air Force I was a decent shot with an M-16, but I don’t happen to have one at the moment. Partner laughed and said, “Yes, this is an M-16-free zone.” One of the admin ladies suddenly got VERY uncomfortable and combative, stated, “Guns just freak me out!” and then turned to me and asked, very aggressively – “Do you own a gun?”

    Me: “No.”

    Her: “Well, then, you CLEARLY don’t feel any less safe without one.” (Expectant pause)

    Me: (Clears throat) “Actually, it’s been on my to-do list for some time. The problem is, I don’t have the money lying around for both the gun AND the type of safe I would need.”

    She hasn’t spoken to me the same way since.

  28. Chris says:

    I’m really curious. What is “handy” about a gun. And not that it protects you, because you make a point to specifically say that after you say it’s handy…which implies you have a usefulness for a gun other than protecting your family..does it have a bottle opener on the barrel?

    • A gun is handy because you can have it in your pocket, purse or person to be ready in all situations. If I am at a mall with my kids and some nut starts shooting up the place, the .380 in my purse is very handy. My S&W M&P .22 rifle is handy for shooting squirrels to dry pelts for science. My 30 round clip in it is handy if I’m facing multiple intruders. It’s not a toy to have fun attachments as my bourbon needs no bottle opener. My home, car and person are armed to the teeth and can withstand an attack from most. In my world, protecting my family like that is handy.

      • Paul says:

        * My 30 round clip in it is handy if I’m facing multiple intruders.*

        I keep hearing the “I need a 30-round clip because of ‘multiple intruders’” line. When was the last time you actually squared off against ‘multiple intruders?’ I’ve never faced ‘multiple intruders’ in my life, but to hear people talk, it happens all the time. Where the fuck do you people live, Mogadishu?

      • Bill says:

        Paul, I have to admit your reply cracked me up as much as the initial post by Kim. I guess in her world a 30 round clip is like a warm pillow, so what? To each his or her own unless you are unstable and shouldn’t own a metal fork.

      • Paul says:

        One of my favorite responses during the gun debate (FROM a “gun guy”): “If you need an AR-15 or a 30-round clip to ‘defend’ yourself, you might want to take some of your life choices into consideration.”

      • Bill says:

        Hey Paul, Maybe you have a point. Happiness is a warm gun and all that shit lol.

      • Heather says:

        Not a clip…a magazine. Kim, please visit a shooting range…. join a sport shooting enthusiasts’ group and get some education and practice. I don’t (now) feel very proficient using my equipment so I generally leave it at home for last ditch defense. This spring my intent is to become more skilled with my equipment.

  29. leaveitonthepage says:

    I read the post but not all of the comments. I have very mixed feelings about guns. When I was 13 my father held a gun to my mothers head and threatened her life, at the time I was in the living room with a friend over spending the night. If my father had not been allowed to posses a gun perhaps it would not have happened or maybe he would have had one illegally. I’ll never know… All I do know is that it made me hate guns. I grew up shooting guns, my Dad would line can’s up on the back of our fence and I’d shoot them down, I could wield a little shotgun at age 6 and by 13 I was on hand guns and was a fine huntress. I never touched a gun after the incident between my father and mother and to this day I can’t stand to be in the same room with a gun. I live in Fl in a town where teen Suicide by gun has been on the rise lately. A few years ago a boy who lived 3 doors down from me killed himself one evening after dinner while his mom had run to the market, all because a girl did not like him. A couple months ago a boy my kids went to school with drove out to a nearby park and killed himself, he was just 16 years old, guess where he got the gun. The crazy thing about my town is that if your child skips school and becomes a truant the parents might possibly go to jail, but if your kids gains access to your gun and goes out in a field and kills himself everyone feels sorry for the parent, there is no blame…just a community rallying around the parents offering support. It’s all very strange to me. I have friends who are hunters, who use/eat everything they kill, I couldn’t imagine taking their guns away. But not once, never have I come across someone (minus being at war on deployment) who has told me a gun saved their life or protected their family. I don’t know how I feel about the right to bear arms, I think the line has to be drawn somewhere though. Guns kill people and people kill people, it’s not a one or the other.

    • Your comments are very thoughtful. But guns don’t kill people. Never once has a gun just fired on its own, killing a human being. Either the human recklessly dropped it or something pulled the trigger but they don’t just load themselves and fire for no reason. Cars kill far more people but no one advocates that cars are taken away from anyone. Knives kill more people and falling kills more people than guns. No one should have a gun who feels uncomfortable with one. But no one should take the right away from someone else, either. Or watch out because cars will be next.

      • Edik415 says:

        But cars don’t kill people, either.

        • deelilynn says:

          Are you kidding, Erik?? Do you know how many people are killed because of cars every single year?? Far more than guns!!

        • F R says:

          deelilynn: If you agree that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, then you cannot state that “Cars kill people”. Or are you implying that there are lots of incidents of cars turning on by themselves and running over pedestrians for instance?

  30. (1)Dustin says:

    A quote from a guy who many feel was the best president our country has ever had… and he was the farthest thing from some “Redneck Tea-bagger”…can’t remember his name, but his initials were JFK

    “the battle for American freedom was begun by the thousands of farmers and tradesmen who made up the Minute Men — citizens who were ready to defend their liberty at a moment’s notice. Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of American, cannot succeed with any lesser effort.”

    • THeckman says:

      Hate to agree to anything he said, but….yeah, what he said! (Not sure how someone who couldn’t even be faithful to his own wife and family could be considered a “great” President!)

    • Gospel X says:

      I’ve seen this quote around, especially on sites advocating gun rights. I just have to ask, did JFK mean to take up literal arms or was he saying that we need a nation of people who are willing to take action when necessary?

  31. Lisa Campbell says:

    I saw this quote today and thought of your blog.

    “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
    As to be hated needs but to be seen;
    Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
    We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

    Alexander Pope

  32. Even though I myself am a staunch supporter of reasonable gun control, I don’t have a problem with firearm and ammunition manufacturers marketing their products as long as they are marketed with good taste. I found it very interesting that Gander Mountain ran a full minute ad extolling the virtues of hunting without a single firearm shown; the family outing was bowhunting.
    When I was growing up, there were men in the neighborhood who kept and shot rifles and pistols. Their kids would brag on their father’s armory, but you never saw the kind of in-your-face pro 2nd Amendment radicalism that you see today. We didn’t have people crying “cold dead fingers” and painting their 4 wheel drives camouflage chic and thinking it’s OK to just walk around packing heat right out in public.
    I don’t have an issue with someone who feels the need keeping a weapon in their car or even on their person if they keep it concealed and have the necessary permit and documentation. I have even less of a problem with those who go to the range regularly and fire their firearms to maintain proficiency should they ever need to use them.
    What I have a huge problem with, is the number of Pro-gunners who are so enthusiastic about their hobby and “raghts” that they think everybody ought to go armed in the streets and we should all feel safer knowing that an armed citizen is cocked and locked ready to defend us all should some maniac decide to dress up like the Joker and sneak in the back door of the Amstar. They want to be able to hoist their weapons high, as if a sign of their manliness and basically a “don’t screw with me” exhibition.
    You really shouldn’t judge any book by it’s cover. That said, when I see a stranger carrying a pistol on his hip or notice the shoulder holster under his jacket when I’m out with my family, the first thing that enters my mind is “Threat”. The second word in my vocabulary that appears is “Bully”.
    Because in my humble opinion, that’s what it comes down to. The pro-gunners who think it’s ok to ride around with a Mossberg in their rack, or a Glock on their hip may not have the intent, but they are bullying the rest of us who aren’t armed through intimidation.
    My viewpoint isn’t anti-gun. I personally own a .357, Glock 17, Beretta .25, High Standard .22, and 3 other long guns. My viewpoint is pro-society. I rarely venture outside my home with a weapon and if I do it’s usually packed in my range bag on the way to practice.
    I just don’t think I want to live in a society where everybody feels the need to go armed.

    • Bill says:

      Although I don’t believe that two wrongs make a right the only reason you see so much overt, “in your face” 2nd amendment crap is because all the liberal put-a-daisy-in the-barrel folks have cried so loudly. If people would stop trying to run everyone else’s life we might just relearn how to get along with one another.

    • pst314 says:

      “When I was growing up…you never saw the kind of in-your-face pro 2nd Amendment radicalism that you see today.”
      Think “push-back”. It is a response to extremists seeking to outlaw private gun ownership. The Left has radicalized the people it attacks. And that radicalization is an entirely normal and natural and reasonable response.

  33. Mark Weimer says:

    Nice. I do, however, disagree that owning a gun is not political. It certainly can be. I own a rifle for hunting and am not really a gun enthusiast. Without going into detail, which I should do to properly flesh out what I am saying, the political right to bear arms is a intentional check/balance of the government. It is intentional and is the political purpose of bearing arms. The government will never take away votes so long as the populous is armed. If the populous is unarmed, there are no limitations preventing a totalitarian state.

    • The Mommy says:

      I think this is an accurate statement describing the intent behind the 2nd. Unfortunately, people forget that (also applies to separation of church and state – the INTENT has been forgotten).

  34. roberob69 says:

    If gun ownership is not political why does the NRA exist then?

    • Paul says:

      The NRA was founded after the Civil War by a Northern general (George Wood Wingate) and presided over by another Union general (Burnside) to make up for the perceived poor marksmanship of his troops. It didn’t turn into a political organization until 1975 (before then, the NRA actually SUPPORTED gun control legislation in 1934 and 1968). Now, of course, it’s the political arm of the gun manufacturers.

      • pst314 says:

        In 1975 the NRA was pushing back against groups that wanted to outlaw or drastically restrict private firearms ownership. The NRA was making a political response to the political actions of political extremists.

      • pst314 says:

        “Political arm of the gun manufacturers”?
        So the five million NRA members don’t count for anything? It’s all about the eeevil industrialists who want to make filthy lucre? That leftist propaganda style is getting old, comrade.
        But really, couldn’t you skip the defamation and admit that there are many millions of people who disagree with you? And not because they want to make money from killing people?

      • pst314 says:

        Don’t forget that after the Civil War the NRA worked to help newly freed blacks use firearms to defend themselves from violent white racists. That’s a political act too, I suppose–although it doesn’t fit with the leftist stereotype of the NRA as a bunch of uneducated white rednecks who are probably racists.

  35. Pingback: Socially Acceptable Violence | In Jennifer's Head

  36. What is find offensive in the NFL is the military worship and the overtly violent commercials (particularly on CBS). We are a interventionist country that idolizes war mongers (unless of course they want to come home and buy a gun – ironic). The commercials depict government as everyone’s protector and provider (e.g. all the dumbass cop shows, firefighter shows, and other statist propaganda) and they glorify the use of gun violence in the commercials promoting these programs. There is also a plethora of advertising showing men as morons and women as the savior.
    All of what you see during a football game is social engineering. It should be no surprise that they will not allow an advertisement showing personal responsibility with or without the firearm element.

  37. The Mommy says:

    Watching the NFL (or, really, any sport) is when I am so, SO thankful that my husband is a “flipper” – meaning he canNOT stand to watch commercials. When he leave the room, I kinda freak out trying to find the remote so the kids (ages 10, 9, 6, and 4) don’t see the commercials (I would add Viagra ads to the list…). Do advertisers not understand that decent men with families won’t watch those commercials? Isn’t that a fairly large chunk of their market? I dunno. We live in Steelers country – we listen to the radio for a lot of games. (I miss Myron…)

  38. Leo Bouchard says:

    It just goes to show. Certain organization do not want you to protect your self but still want you to buy their products. I wonder how they would feel if their family was in danger, “Here is a condom, knock your self out” ?

  39. Pat says:

    Hey. I come from Australia.
    Down here, guns are severely regulated. We realised in the 90s after a massacre that killed 34 people that ready access to guns is a terrible idea, both unnecessary to most citizens and dangerous to those who don’t have guns. The government bought back and destroyed millions of guns, leaving only farmers and enthusiasts with guns.
    Since then gun violence has plummeted. Violent crime has gone down, people feel safer.
    We don’t have a shooting where dozens needlessly die every month that makes world headlines either.

  40. Bill says:

    Speaking as a recovering liberal, (I have 30 yrs clean) I am always surprised and frustrated/entertained by the absurd hypocrisy of liberal thinking. The sex, abortion to clean up afterwards, anti gun BS, and basic socialist agendas are just holdovers from the “hippy” generation. Unfortunately, my generation. Everything is ass backwards when it comes to guns. If the government would just uphold the regulations they already have in place on weapons everything would change overnight. It’s far too late to regulate guns out of existence because they’ve already screwed that up beyond repair. The “normal” citizen AKA rational human has every right to own a gun for protection and sport or just to caress if need be. The whacko should never be allowed to own a sharpened pencil. Liberals now figure the best way to cover their asses for not abiding by their own strict regs already placed on owning a weapon is to make the inanimate object evil and allow the jerk holding it, locked and loaded in a crowded shopping mall to be the victim. As for sex, we are so smothered with it everywhere that it has lost it’s allure. I feel sorry for young folks today just because most will never know the life altering effects of quiet, intimate relationships and slowly breaking into the worlds that can develop as they bloom. If all sex meant to me was Victoria’s Secret and Hustler magazines I’d shoot myself gun ban or not.

  41. LilyL2182 says:

    C’mon Matt. Live in the real world. If the NFL airs the ad, they WILL get complaints. A business trying to avoid controversy is not political.

  42. Cannon says:

    I know Matt is talking less about the banning of this particular commercial, and more about the NFL policy against running commercials for firearms. But am I the only one who thinks that the commercial should be rejected just because it sucked? :)

  43. mnrkba says:

    Here are those redneck gun nuts every fears so much. I guess they are pretty scary… (2.5 min video), “And I Carry” http://youtu.be/8pTsEGeqTaE

  44. Pingback: ZION'S TRUMPET » Sad Days in America

  45. starstaple says:

    I am using much similar PRODUCTS, I thank you for the detailed information about this.

    Industrial Staple Pin Manufacturers.

  46. It’s perfect time to make some plans for the future and it’s time
    to be happy. I’ve read this post and if I could I wish to suggest you few interesting things or suggestions.
    Perhaps you could write next articles referring to this article.

    I desire to read even more things about it!

  47. We are efficient in working with the various leather furniture models latest and traditional, retro, chesterfield, sofa, settee and chair. Moreover the car bolster repair is our favourite area of job.
    For more information kindly visit:- Leather Restoration London

Comments are closed.