After Sandy Hook, I’ve Changed My Mind On Gun Control

shutterstock_115943707To be honest, I didn’t really have much of an opinion on gun control before the Sandy Hook tragedy. I grew up in a gun-free home and was raised by parents who were seemingly uninterested in weaponry. However, I currently live in the gun-happy state of Missouri, where most of my acquaintances have gone hunting at least once and can rattle off the characteristics of various assault rifles on the spot. The best man in our wedding was an accomplished deer hunter and airsofting enthusiast. The maintenance man at our apartment complex has a bumper sticker that says “Gods, Guns and Guts: Let’s Keep All Three.” That’s what it’s like here.

Before I got pregnant, I tried to get into the sport of airsofting. If you don’t know, an airsoft gun fires plastic pellets and are very realistic replicas of actual guns. The facility where we played was an indoor maze, where you team up in order to shoot the opposing players. When you’re shot, you return to your home base, press a button, and re-enter the game. Whichever team has the most “kills” over a 15 minute span wins.

My husband has two G36 rifles and a Baretta replica that we used. All three now reside in our outdoor storage closet. I have no desire to play again, but during the brief period in which I did play, I started to understand the sort of chest-puffery that ensues from handling a gun. A piece of me really wanted to prove that, despite my vagina handicap, I could run with the boys, I could be good at this. Turns out, I never was much good at it. I wanted the accolades from the guys more than the expertise at gun handling.

Flash forward two years: I’m the mother of a 1-year-old girl. As of last Friday, 20 children and six adults are dead because of one disturbed young man with a gun. I don’t mean to presume that childfree adults don’t feel remorse over this incident; I mean to say that this massacre has hurt me personally in a way that is far deeper than if I hadn’t been a parent. I get teary-eyed every time I see a flag at half mast. I look at my daughter’s bright smile and crumple at the realization that so many parents are now deprived of their young children’s smiles.

Although there are multiple policy issues on our nation’s tongues, the first thing on my mind after this happened was gun control—specifically the availability of the types of weapons Adam Lanza used on his victims. Before this, I’d been somewhat of the mind that stricter gun laws would just fail society the way prohibition did. I also thought that some people may genuinely need guns for self defense, or even that mass shootings could be prevented at schools if teachers had guns.

Be Sociable, Share!
Be Sociable, Share!
  • Alicia Kiner

    While you make valid points about illegally obtained weapons, I think it’s easy in these cases to blame the guns. Does the average citizen need an automatic weapon that can shoot 15 bullets in 3 seconds? Probably not. And yes, the untrained person has a very high risk of having their weapon taken from them and possibly used on them. But… and here’s the big but… Gun control is not the solution to these mass killings. If a person wants to do a horrible thing, they will find a way, laws or no laws. Knives are used, baseball bats, box cutters, scissors. All these tools which have perfectly benign uses can kill someone in the wrong hands. I truly believe that we need to work on mental health issues. Banning guns won’t fix the problem, because guns aren’t the problem. It’s the people who are pulling the trigger that need to be stopped, BEFORE there’s an incident like Sandy Hook or VT.

    • lilacorchid

      Definitely there needs to be more mental health support in the community. But comparing a knife, bat, box cutter or a pair of scissors to a gun that shoots 15 bullets in 3 seconds is absurd.

    • Lori B.

      I don’t think anyone is saying that gun control is the only solution to prevent tragedies like this in the future. I currently work in a non-profit agency that assists individuals with various mental illnesses, and am well aware of the shortcomings in resources that are available to this part of our population. This absolutely needs to be improved, and would also be a step in the direction of preventing this. However, this too, does not address every scenario. What about the undiagnosed person who “snaps”? Or the “healthy” person seeking revenge? Or the “extermist” making a political statement? Just as gun control will not prevent someone from using another weapon to commit murder, improving mental health services will not prevent all instances of someone causing a tragedy like what happened at Sandy Hook. If improvements are made in both areas (which are equally important) I think we could see a reduction in these types of mass killings.
      To another point that Amanda made, perhaps the media and film could stop romanticizing violence, with any kind of weapon, altogether?

    • alice

      I’m really tired of hearing the “guns aren’t the problem!” statement. No one is saying that more gun control will magically turn our country into a free hug zone. But have a lot stricter regulations will *help* prevent guns from being misused. This is seriously what I don’t understand: a gun’s purpose is for A) self protection B) hunting or C) sport. But in reality they are also frequently used for: selfharm, intimidation, violence, crime, accidents.

      We live in a country where we have a lot of things regulated already. We have seatbelt laws. Medicines are manufactured and sold OTC in very regulated dosage. Prescription Drugs need a doctor’s recommendation. Children under a certain age aren’t allowed to operate a vehicle. Movies have age restrictions. Alcohol and Tobacco have age restrictions. Restaurants reserve the right to stop serving alcohol to someone who appears intoxicated. etc. etc. etc.

      Does that mean that cars are the problem? Aspirin is the problem? Ocycodone is hte problem? Alcohol is the problem? R-Rated movies?

      no. but we have restrictions on these things because it’s a practical insurance plan to avoid misuse, accidents, and tragedy.

      You can scream “guns are not the problem!” all you like, but try explaining rationally why backgrounds are a stupid idea for all gun sales, or why limited magazine capacity is a stupid idea, or why better licensing and training for gun owners is a stupid idea, or why better mental health screening for gun owners is a stupid idea…

      don’t just say “guns are not the problem” as if the gun system is so perfectly designed, and has such low incidence of misuse/abuse, that it leaves no room for better regulations or improvement.

    • AlbinoWino

      To be totally honest with you, I am so sick of hearing this kind of response. It’s a cop-out. Bad things happen with guns so don’t do anything to stop it? Why do people think that taking some reasonable measures means the government is going to go the homes of law abiding citizens and take their weapons? Such a proposition has NEVER been formally proposed by anyone and yet we are so brain washed by groups like the NRA we deem ANY sort of regulation of firearms as a slippery slope. Do you believe mentally ill/violent offenders/people guilty of domestic violence should be able to go to a gun show and purchase a firearm without a background check? If you don’t find this acceptable, well, that’s something the gun control lobby has been trying to fix for years. (Mind you I said gun control, not anti-gun. The 2 are not interchangeable.) So if we use this argument of well, sometimes people will get a gun anyway, why do we even have laws? We might increase sentences for offenses like drunk driving or murder but we know those things will still happen. Are we going to erase those laws or make them more lax? Of course not. So why are guns any different?

    • Bethany Brayton

      “Knives are used, baseball bats, box cutters, scissors. All these tools which have perfectly benign uses can kill someone in the wrong hands.”

      Yes, and they’re designed to be benign. Guns, on the other hand, are designed purposely to kill things. If guns were ingestible, they’d have a big ol’ POISON label and be highly regulated.

      And this is a bad comparison that people just need to stop making. Nobody is going to walk into an elementary school, college, or mall and take out 10, 20, 30 people with a knife, baseball bat, box cutter (I still don’t understand how the planes were hijacked with these, but whatever), or pair of scissors before they’re able to be stopped. Just does not happen.

  • canuck chick

    @facebook-596296963:disqus – it is not a BUT. your points are separate. 1) the average citizen does not need an automatic weapon that can shoot 15 bullets in 3 seconds (absolutely) not, and the untrained person has a risk of having their weapon taken away from them and used on them.

    ALSO – not but… people will find a way to do horrible things if they really want to (be it guns, knives, bats etc etc).
    Yes work on mental health issues is needed, but this is complex and long term and still not fool proof. Gun control reduces gun injuries.
    Mass shootings are not even the big problem, as violent and scary as they are. Most of the 10000 odd gun injuries a year in the USA happen one person/one gun at a time. When guns are in the house, one is 3-5 times more likely to suffer a gun injury. Period.
    Don’t devalue your valid points with a BUT.
    Guns may not be THE (only) problem, but they are A problem. A big one.

    • Amy

      Just as a note, the average citizen can not buy an automatic weapon that shoots 15 bullets every 3 seconds. They are very highly regulated and mostly for military or class 3 dealers (who can’t sell them to the general public). A semi-automatic weapon only fires 1 bullet per trigger pull. If they are modified to fire more than one (or selective fire as the “assault weapon” bans call it) it’s illegal.

    • Justin Warkentin

      The stats you quote are deceivingly useless. Let’s have a look. First, the likelihood of receiving a gun injury, statistically, is very small. If the number you quote (10,000) is accurate and there’s 311,500,000 people in the US then there’s a 0.0032103% chance of receiving a gun injury. Now, you only gave us a multiplier (3-5x), so let’s be liberal and go with 5x more likely to receive a gun injury if there’s a gun in the house. 0.0032103 x 5 = 0.0160515% chance of receiving a gun injury – not enough to be worth giving up our gun rights by any stretch of the imagination. But what is the authority for your numbers anyway? Citations, please.

      Next up, no amount of legislation designed for bad people will ever be effective, because bad people don’t care. So, if we’re going to create legislation to stop bad people then it needs to be indirect – it needs to be something that requires good people to do something that will affect bad people. A great example is Kinnesaw, Georgia where in 1982 they made a law requiring every head of household to have a gun. Since then, crime rates have dropped by 89% and remained steadily low.

      Ok, that’s all well and good, but let’s make this real. Let’s say now that you’re in a school assisting a teacher with children. Suddenly you hear gunshots in the hallway. The door opens and the shooter opens fire, first killing the teacher. Sound familiar? Ok, now he’s shooting the children, you watch, powerless knowing only that there will be no rescue and you only have moments left to live, because you know for certain that no one around has a gun. Now change that, what if in that same moment you knew that every teacher around had a gun… suddenly there’s hope.

      Here ya go, here’s an incident from today that illustrates a need for gun ownership:

      Now, as you said, most gun injuries happen one at a time. I would be ok with sensible legislation that requires gun owners to keep their guns locked up or in their control (within reason). I would also be ok with legislation that requires people to have basic competency with gun safety and making sure they at least know how to use a gun. That could prevent a lot of accidents as well as prevent people who steal other people’s guns from getting them so easily.

      One final note, assault weapons are also critical. Having just emerged from the revolutionary war, our founding fathers didn’t create the second amendment primarily with the idea of home owners defending against attackers, but with the idea of citizens being free to protect themselves from an abusive or oppressive government that isn’t defending their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As George Mason (one of the founders) said in 1788, “To disarm the people… was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” Banning assault weapons is just the beginning – it allows the government freedom to take away rights without fear and instead to govern by fear.

    • Madwoman

      very well put, Justin. for those who think lessening the access for law abiding citizens to have guns will keep them out of the hands of the bad guys..well, the stats just haven’t proved that to be true. They will get them, or they will make them but have them they will. You feel safer cowering in your house while waiting for law enforcement, who may be 30 minutes or more away? Been there, done that..never want to feel that vulnerable again.

  • Wes

    Please check your facts before posting in any forum. The FBI keeps details stats on crime and the use of guns related to crime and stats on deaths related to firearms. These statistic clearly show a marked increase in gun related crimes in cities and towns that have restrictive gun control laws. If you remove gang violence from the statistics there are less than 1500 gun related accidental deaths a year. Much much less than deaths in car accidents and deaths from falls in the home just to name a couple. Murder by methods other than firearms far outnumber murder with firearms. As a matter of fact, crime as a whole and accidental deaths related to firearms has dropped dramatically over the last 10-15 years due directly to concealed carry and castle laws. As responsible people arm themselves they also get the proper training for themselves and their families.

    It is by no coincidence ALL mass shootings happen in gun free zones. There has never been a mass shooting at a gun range, a gun store or anywhere a criminal has the possibility of being shot. They value their life and know only good law abiding citizens will disarm themselves where demanded by law. Criminals are just that “criminals” and disobey all laws. Adam Lanza broke more than 40 laws last Friday, none of which stopped him. It is quite naive to think new gun laws will remove guns from the streets. At last estimate there are over 400 million firearms in this country. At best they will disarm the law abiding citizen and as I’ve stated before criminals do not obey laws. You have probably heard the old saying “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. What are “you” going to do when guns have been outlawed and someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night? When seconds count the police are only minutes away and you may spend the rest of your live and your child’s life waiting. When England and Australia banned firearms they saw a 400% increase in gun related and violent crimes.

    You all mentioned several times a gun that shoots 15 times in three seconds. Well you better have a very fast trigger finger to do that. These types of stats are severely misrepresented in the news. Try shooting one of your pro-soft guns 15 times in three seconds (not in full auto). You will be unable to do it accurately if at all. Full auto firearms are so highly restricted and expensive they are basically a non-issue and aside from the North Hollywood shooting in 1997, have never been used in a crime since the 40′s.

    One last thing, the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right, not a privilege granted to you by your government. Another saying you may hear in the coming days is “When the government takes your guns, only the government will have guns.” How did that work out for the 200 million people killed by governments in the 20th century alone? Gun registration and disarming the people proceeded each genocide. All of these stats are a simple click away…

    • alice

      yeah, these stats are indeed a click away. great job twisting the Australia facts!

      “The American National Rifle Association
      claimed in 2000 that violent crimes had increased in Australia since
      the introduction of new laws, based on highly unrepresentative
      statistics from newspaper articles”

      “On Tuesday, Australian Federal Attorney General Daryl Williams accused the NRA of falsifying government statistics and urged the gun-rights organization to “remove any reference to Australia” from its website.”

    • alice

      more fun stats* for you:

      averaged over 2003-2009 (there was little variance each year)

      England/Whales Statistics:
      % of homicides by firearm: 7.4%
      # of homicides by firearm: 54.6
      homicide by firearm rate per 100k population: 0.1

      Australia Statistics:
      % of homicides by firearm: 12.3%
      # of homicides by firearm: 33
      homicide by firearm rate per 100k population: 0.2

      United States Statistics:
      % of homicides by firearm: 67%
      # of homicides by firearm: 11107
      homicide by firearm rate per 100k population: 3.7

      i know we like to talk about how “crazy people will always find a way to kill someone if they had to!” and “guns don’t kill people; people kill people!” but 67% of all the murders in our country are from firearms. 67%.

      compared to the measly 7% and 12% from our fellow countries with gun bans.


      *from UNODC

    • Paul White

      what about total homicides, not just homicides by firearm? However you die, you’re still dead.

    • AlbinoWino

      I love that you posted this without your sources listed and expect us to just buy it. Especially when you can do a quick search of firearms deaths in England/Australia. Keep bending over for the gun manufacturers. They LOVE you guys.

    • Molly

      In 2009, 13 people died in a mass shooting at Fort Hood. A military base that it decidedly NOT “gun free”.

      The solution to gun violence is not more guns.

    • Former Active Marine

      No offense, but that really is a gun free zone. You don’t carry a personal firearm on base. Not I’ve that is loaded, or even near you. (I believe you can Carry one in your car, in the trunk). The military MP s and civilians carry firearms. Perhaps if one of Maj. Hassan victim’s had a firearm, Perhats things would have been different.

  • SingleMomOfOne

    I won’t weigh in on the main issue here because my thoughts are too long and my son needs to be put to bed. I just want to say that automatic assault rifles ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL (as they should be). ALL of the assault rifles being sold in stores today are modified from the military version to be semi-automatic….which sounds scary too, I’m sure, to the uneducated, but almost all guns are semiautomatic. You can’t buy a pistol anymore that isn’t semi-automatic. It just means the next bullet enters the chamber automatically. You can’t hold down the trigger and have a zillion bullets come out. One trigger pull = one bullet. This means that everyone saying you can shot 15 bullets per 3 seconds (or whatever they claim) with a gun you buy at Cabella’s, doesn’t know what they are talking about.

    Rant over. Sorry ladies. It’s just mind boggling how many people are ranting and raving about making something illegal that already is illegal.

  • Shauna Cross

    I love that you wrote this, were honest about the irrational thrill/ hero fantasy that gun owners/ gun culture won’t really cop to. I grew up in Texas, have felt the seduction of going to a shooting rage. But let’s be honest, it’s bullSh*t chest thumping so people can feel badass and get their Ramboner on. And I’ve decide it’s not worth the little coffins either. (I have a five year-old, so this hits way too close to home).

    The NRA has had been a loud bullying MINORITY holding the MAJORITY hostage. They don’t care about gun owners/ gun rights — they care about selling a ton of guns for the manufacturers they lobby for. Period. After the V. Tech massacre there was a federal bill that would make it easier for agencies to talk to one another/ share medical information to keep gun applicants with a history of mental health issues from purchasing (in that case it would have helped, flagged that buyer), but the NRA lobbied loudly and defeated that bill. That’s right, they protected crazy people getting guns.

    In the Obama Care health plan, the NRA successfully lobbied for a provision to severely limit the the kinds of questions a psychiatrist can ask about whether a patient who feels violent has access to guns/ keep stats on gun violence, etc.

    Every little law that will make us safer – that can add up to lives saved here and there – the NRA has fought against. They are well organized, very vocal bullies, but they are not the majority of Americans.

    And all th stats try to tout – guns everywhere make us safer – have been utterly debunked over and over and over. (It’s like 99 % of scientists saying Climate change is real vs one scientest paid by the oil company saying the opposite).

    Like you said, cops are the most trained, most brave and sadly get killed all the time. People with guns in the house have them used against them way more than they ever successfully fight an intruder. Just Like Nancy Lanza – the guns she bought to protect herself, killed her and 26 others.

    I’m not saying people shouldn’t hunt, but we have bring some common sense to this.

    And Second Amendment says nothing about everyone having access to all guns with no regulation. BTW, It’s also a document that says it’s ok to own black people and women shouldn’t vote — so we can an should evolve. Even Jefferson said the documents of a government should be adapted over time as a society becomes more developed, more enlightened etc.

    Ones right to bare arms should not trump my right raise my child in relative safety.

    And no, we can’t head stop all crime, all deaths, but we can enforce existing laws, make them better, require owners store guns in safes when not in use, trigger locks, etc (those last two alone would have kept Lanza guns away from her kid, also the gun in the Oregon shooting was stolen from an owner who didn’t have it in a safe). If all this means only one set of parents is spared the pain these people are going through what 20 parents are going through, we still have to do it.

    But really why I love your article, is that you talked about the gun culture. The emotions, the thrill of shooting – how we desenstise ourselves that these are weapons. Invented to kill. To but people in coffins.

    In Texas (where I’m from), there are all these extreme gun zealots stockpiling of weapons – and a lot of it is really about their intense hate of the president and a paranoia that the world is coming to an end, the government is out to get them, the police won’t protect them etc. But they all feed off one another, making each other crazier, buying more and more guns. Like they’re all planning for their own David Koresh survivalist stand off. Or Bruce Willis fantasy. Which as you said is just that – fantasy.

    But speaking of mental health, it’s a pile of crazy and they’re all infecting one another.

    The sane people (the majority) have to speak up on behalf of our kids. I’m glad we finally are. But we can’t be bullied by people who’d rather hug a bushmaster than a child.

    This is not a right or left issue. It’s a parenting issue.


    • alice


      this story just broke about a teen in SD shooting his best friend in the chest (and killing him) with a shotgun over an argument about a video game.

      the comment section is again littered with people saying that this is about “idiot control” and not “gun control.”

      could you imagine having a massively popular product, that was increasingly abused/misused/misunderstood/disrespected, resulting in massive casualties, and every single “liker” of the product just shakes their shoulders and says “well, shit happens” ??

      “what’s next, banning *steak knives* and *cars*?”
      “i could kill a person with a pillow. should we ban pillows?”
      “that shotgun didn’t just load itself! see?”
      “this is about bad parenting! see?”

      every single product that is statistically proven to be potentially fatal when misused is either heavily modified with safety features, restrictive laws, highly regulated, or banned.

      guns? nope.

      “shit happens”

  • abby777

    This sounds great and gives me another idea. Since making guns illegal will stop gun injuries lets make crack and meth illegal too to fix drug addiction related problems…..

    • alice


    • abby777

      Haha. Good response. Its how I feel when people who don’t know anyone who actually owns agun try to talk about why people own guns. (because they ate for self harm, violence and intimidation).

    • alice

      there is a gun in my house.

      & yes there are stupid arguments made from all sides.

      including “let’s not discuss any further regulations because no one would ever comply with anything that the government dictates”

      i would like to see reduced gun violence across the board. this means in general we need a paradigm shift from “gun owners know that guns are totally safe” to “guns are deadly weapons and need to be respected as such.”

      we need gun owners AND nonowners stepping up and saying “yes, maybe we could do better in the way we manufacture, distribute, and store weaponry. yes, maybe we could do better in the way our state and federal government shares information. yes, maybe we could do better at educating and protecting our children. yes, we can admit there is a lot of firearm violence in this country and we could dare to change our future for our children and our children’s children, instead of succumbing to a hopeless cynical powerless perspective that says ‘dont bother trying, it won’t work.’ “

    • abby777

      Haha. Good response. Its how I feel when people who don’t know anyone who actually owns agun try to talk about why people own guns. (because they ate for self harm, violence and intimidation).

    • alan

      Please explain what’s so boring about a valid point. I can’t get psuedaphed without a prescription any more because of “safety and security” type laws, but guess what, anyone so inclined and so motivated can still get meth or anything else for that matter very easily. That’s what you call success?? That is absurdly ridiculous.

  • CharlotteKM

    “Scientists are baffled by Canadians’ ability to watch movies and play video games and not shoot each other.”

    • bill nelson

      I love it. Another arrogant Canadian. When you come from a country that has more than a pitiful 35 million people, has vast numbers of people of different races and one that doesn’t spit out hundreds of thousands of it own people to suck off the neighboring country that it loves to bash, then you can make snide comments about America. As it stands, without the US Canada and Canadians are about as relevant to anything as Poland.

  • CharlotteKM

    “Scientists are baffled by Canadians’ ability to watch movies and play video games and not shoot each other.”

  • dino [dustin_winter]

    The way I see it, if there is not a gun around you have a 0% chance of dying by gunshot. As soon as a gun enters a room you are 100% more likely to die by a gunshot wound than when it was not in the room. I don’t like those odds.

  • SunshineandPuppies

    >I don’t mean to presume that childfree adults don’t feel remorse over this incident; I mean to say that this massacre has hurt me personally in a way that is far deeper than if I hadn’t been a parent.

    Um, that’s on you. Don’t pretend being a parent gives you magical powers to feel more hurt. It is very easy for those of us who don’t have children but also happen to be human beings to feel very pained over the events in Newtown.

    • Jessie

      I’m an ER nurse and before I had kids I would get so mad when people told me I wasn’t as hurt as if I had been a parent when a child died. Then I had a child, and I understood what they meant. So, unless you have experienced the death of a child before and after having a child, you might not be in a position to understand. It is really meant with no disrespect, but I found it true in my case.

  • Bob Wadas

    FBI statistics show crime stoped by a permitted gun carrying citizen occurs 1.5-2 million times a year ( 1 every 13 seconds) so the hero with a gun is NOT A FANTASY…it happens every 13 seconds !

  • TheHappyPappy

    I rather like the system we have here in Canada. Generally speaking, only police and criminals have handguns. You can only get a hunting rifle or bigger-caliber gun after going through a safety training course (sort of like food safe or serving it right) and the gun has to be registered. All that is fine with me! I live in a small town and I don’t hang around criminals, so I don’t need a handgun. And it means most people with guns (criminals excepted) have at least SOME safety training.

    I read a book where a character pointed out that handguns have no purpose other than killing people, or practicing to kill people. The same could be said for automatic weapons & assault rifles of all kinds. That’s why I don’t have such a problem with hunting rifles (actually, I hope to own one myself someday so I can harvest wild meat in a way that’s more eco-friendly). Like knives, hunting rifles can be used to kill people but that’s not what they’re designed for. They’re not created with the specific purpose of being the most effective human-killing instrument they can be, like an AK 47 or a Glock.

    • Madwoman

      An AK is just a rifle. nothing more, nothing less. If you put tactical gear on it, it’s frightening. If it has more conventional trimmings, it just looks and acts like a regular rifle. And I would have to question a system where only police OR criminals have handguns.

  • macphile

    I was raised in a gun-free environment. My parents are from the UK. It’s just not a “thing.” Frankly, I want nothing to do with guns–I won’t even touch one. Up until recently, I felt it’d have been best if we’d never had all these guns in the first place, but because it’s been in place, it’s kind of “too late”–there are too many guns to get rid of.

    I was never religious about that position, though, and I’m now leaning towards more restrictions. I have no urge to take away any and all guns from any and all citizens, but holy crap, who needs 30-round clips for hunting? I’d honestly like to see it limited more to hunting and handguns, that sort of thing.

    Simply placing more restrictions on guns won’t absolutely prevent school shootings, of course, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done, anyway; maybe this country needs to backpedal a bit for its own sake.

    Or maybe we should just ban Mortal Kombat, as apparently that’s the source of all our ills. XD

  • jessie marker

    All of you dummies arguing on this pointless website and talking away your personal talking points to try to ‘rationalize’ or ‘educate’ somebody reading it. I have news for all of you: you’re not going to change anybody’s minds.

    Personally, if I were the parent of one of these children that had been shot, I would have wished to GOD the school had a few armed/trained teachers with locked gun lockers in their classrooms, rather than wishing my government disarmed its citizens.

  • Pingback: School Shootings, Middle School Shootings, Atlanta, In America,()

  • airsoft gun

    I also love the way your wrote it and when you say about ““Gods, Guns and Guts: Let’s Keep All Three.”

  • Pingback: Obama Using Kids For Gun Control And I'm Not A Fan()