By: Wayne Brown

I just saw an article which implied that a person having to right to own a legal gun also has the right to kill, insinuating a right which basically comes with gun ownership. I did not spend any time reading the article as the conclusion at the outset was so absolutely flawed that I saw no value in pursuing what had to be the flawed thinking supporting this premise. On a positive note, it did give me greater insight into the logic applied by those who think gun control is the answer to society’s ills….as if to insinuate that abortion is the key to controlling poverty and orphaned children.

Let’s get something straight here at the outset. If you are a person who is contemplating the purchase of a legal firearm rationalizing that with that purchased you gain the “right to kill” under the law, then, I beg you, please, please do not buy that gun. In doing so you would be applying the same logic used by those mentally unstable individuals who get their hands on a gun and feel the need to use it. They correlate possession with the right to use as they see fit. Instead of buying the gun…turn yourself in and get some treatment. I say that knowing that if you buy that gun and use it on the basis of the rational applied, you will find yourself on trial for murder at the very least.

Plain and simple, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the federal government from depriving citizens the right to bear arms or diminishing that right (i.e. “infringe upon”) by offering alternatives to personal defense such as a standing military or a local police force. The Constitution recognizes the individual citizen’s right to bear arms in order to protect themselves, their family, and their property from those who would come forth with the intention of harm. There is no reference to the “right to kill” nor is there one intended or implied. There is no basis to rationalize that gun ownership insulates one from the laws of our society, in fact, the opposite is actually true in that it raises the bar for that individual.

Contrary to what those touting gun control or in the more politically correct light, “gun violence” may espouse, gun ownership comes with a great amount of responsibility as a citizen of this country. Along with the gun comes the responsibility to practice firearm safety, to keep the gun out of the hands of those who are not trained in its functionality or possess the capacity to make a judgment in terms of its use. Laws related to Murder, Man-Slaughter, Malice, and Endangerment are not drawn up solely because of the existence of firearms. Those actions can be accomplished with any access to a firearm thus a gun, shotgun, or rifle is only one means of carrying out such actions. Responsible, law-abiding citizens understand that premise and when they become gun owners, that perspective does not change though the awareness is greatly raised in the logical mind.

Gun ownership is a condition of self-defense, no more, no less. When one makes a conscious decision to own a gun and possibly also earn a CHL License, not only is responsibility at the forefront but also judgment. Under the laws of our country, we are not prosecuted for our actions when they are carried out in “self-defense” and determined as such by the proper authorities or a court of law. Gun ownership is a function of “self-defense”…a chosen method to employ that action if the need arises. When or if that time comes, the gun owner must be fully aware of their responsibility under the law and apply the proper judgment to the situation or otherwise be prosecuted under the terms of that particular law. In other words, if you have to shot someone, you better be damn sure that you were only defending yourself or others and that the actions of the individual were such that it was apparent that they intended to do harm. The fact that a person owns a gun or has earned a CHL does not relieve them from that responsibility under the law. If we had an implied “right to kill”, our actions would not be questioned or prosecuted.

The gun control fanatics want to sell the conclusion that confiscating all the guns in the possession of law-abiding citizens will put an end to gun violence in the USA. On the contrary, it will only accomplish two things: 1. it will turn many otherwise “law-abiding” citizens into criminals by definition as a great majority of gun-owners do not believe or subscribe to the government’s legal ability to carry out such actions. 2. It will set off a black market for guns which will meet or exceed the financial value of the illegal drug market of today. Guns will still be very prevalent in our society and the violence associated with them will likely increase as the “law-abiding” citizen interested in “self-defense” will no longer have that ability.

The intent of the Founding Fathers in writing the first ten amendments to the Constitution was to give clarity to the basic Constitution document in terms of the relationship between the people and the government and the limitation thereof. Cleary, the Bill of Rights was put into place to show that the intent was to protect the people from the government which they, out of necessity, must tolerate in order to have a functional nation. The Bill of Rights is not intended to “infringe upon the people” but to clearly limit the powers of the government and those elected to direct it from exercising undue will and control over the people. When we as a nation begin to embrace the counter to that position, then we are setting ourselves up to lose those rights defined unto the people and ultimately to lose this nation as we know it historically.

All actions have consequences. The decision to buy a gun comes with the necessary awareness to employ safety, security, and a total respect of the standing laws of the nation and the state. The two go hand in hand. Those who cannot or will not recognize this necessary awareness will eventually suffer the consequences of their actions which started with the decision to purchase a firearm. Those who own legal firearms and who possess a CHL will tell you that sense of responsibility and awareness is there and they welcome it.

The President recently observed that we are bound to take whatever action is necessary if it “will only save one life”. Thinking back over all the shootings which have occurred in schools, theaters, malls, and other locations, and the innocent lives lost in those tragic events, one should stop and consider how many lives might have been saved if just one person present had been legally armed and trained. That singular difference might have greatly chanced the outcome in every one of those situations and saved lives in the process. Unfortunately, those who control our government today are more interested in destroying the 2nd Amendment than they are applauding lives saved by the presence of firearms. Do not confuse activity with productivity in this case. The actions demanded by the President would not change the outcome in any of the previous situations.

Sane individuals do not possess the predatory instinct to kill others nor do they desire or pretend to have that right. The vast majority of police officers complete an entire career without ever having to pull their gun from the holster and kill an individual. Is this because they are governed by regulations and restrictions which keep them from carrying out such actions? One might think so but in the final analysis, those regulations and restrictions actually work because the vast majority of those people who wear the uniform are responsible individuals who take their responsibility regarding human life seriously and who do not desire to kill unless other lives, including their own, are in intimate danger. The same can be said for responsible, well-trained gun-owners. The laws on the books are not the primary driving force so much as the inherent desire within the person not to take the life of another unless there is no other choice. How can anyone construe that as “a right to kill”?

We live in a very complex and complicated world today where many things are immediately at our fingertips with the advent and development of electronic technology. In many ways, we are a public that has come to expect immediate gratification and results as we have little patience and no desire to put forth the necessary effort involved to achieve the result. We easily embrace the idea that a large, over-bloated, and extremely expensive federal government can provide all the security that we need and that a nation totally void of legal guns will be one in which there is no violence against people. We take comfort in the fact that the 911 System exists and our ability to get a police officer to our aid is at our fingertips. We bask in those assumptions and cast off responsibility and awareness until that fateful day when some criminal minds decide to kick down the front door and endanger our family and assets. At that point, it becomes extremely evident that neither the federal government nor the 911 System is going to be adequate to responding to the attack. In that moment, we weigh the value of our “right to bear arms” and our ability to defend ourselves from harm. The “right to kill” never crosses your mind.

© Copyright WBrown2013. All Rights Reserved.

24 January 2013

More by this Author

Comments 43 comments

CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana

Great hub Wayne.......all of the gun-control that our liberal left wants so badly, falls right in line with all the rest of their solutions to our problems. That the federal government is here to help.

Look at our school systems since the federal government took over...

The federal government thought they could fix is the same or worse since our welfare system took root...

Can't affort to buy a home? The fed gov MAKES laws forcing loans to be made to people who cannot afford one.......BOOM, the housing market collapses.

It goes on and on....

as you say...."All actions have consequences. " nail this problem spot normal.


carol7777 profile image

carol7777 4 years ago from Arizona

well written and well said...However the American people are in a state of complacency or or the other or both.

flacoinohio profile image

flacoinohio 4 years ago from Ohio

Great Hub, I agree with your statement. Reading this article reminded me of two statements made by the instructor teaching the CCW course my wife and I attended. One was exactly what you stated, "You do not have the right to kill someone when you carry a concealed weapon". He also told us that anyone who, "shoots and kills or wounds another person who is not a deadly threat will at the very least be tied for manslaughter". He also made it abundantly clear that shooting an intruder for the sole purpose of protecting personal property is a guaranteed murder charge.

Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 4 years ago from Rural Arizona

Nicely done WB. I caught just part of a story on the news this morning regarding parents being required to provide a report to their School District a list of all the guns they owned. School children are being encouraged to "snitch" on parents who refuse to comply with this request.

I'm sure we will be hearing more details on this, and I'm sorry I didn't get the location where this is taking place.

flacoinohio profile image

flacoinohio 4 years ago from Ohio

My son mentioned being asked if we had firearms in our home by his teacher while having a class discussion about the "two amendment". He said he told her that we have pellet guns and proceeded to describe his "Rough Rider" and how good he can shoot it. He said she interrupted his story and moved on to another child.

Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 4 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

I like this hub. Really a solid position. Somehow my mind has wrapped around the notion of belonging to a well regulated militia. It seems to me they meant internally regulated, and somehow in order to bear arms you must have training and belong to a support group. I think there was wisdom there, the kind of wisdom we now look to shrinks to provide.

breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 4 years ago

Yes, we live in a very complex society, but it seems that lot of people today do not possess the ability to think clearly. All of this talk about gun control is just a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy by people who like to punish everyone for the act of a madman. That is as far as their thinking goes.

Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@CMerritt...You are right on, Chris. There are no success stories when it comes to the actions of the federal government. The only thing achieved is more control over the people and a loss of freedom and liberty on our part. Thanks much! ~WB

@carol7777...You correct, Carol. The apathy and complacency is driven by the assumed security and safety which is implied by the federal government. As long as people have that sense, they will hand over their freedom and liberty in trade. Thanks much! ~WB

@Old Poolman...That question seems to be turning up everywhere these days. What happen to the citizen's right to privacy and the invasion thereof? Such probing the informatin gained could set off problems for parents if their child were to offer totally twisted out...the jackboots are coming! Thanks much! ~WB

@flacoinohio....Thank you! Sounds like you had a very good instructor who makes it quite clear where the responsibility and awareness lies with those who chose to own and carry. ~WB

Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@Ericdierker....I have always looked at the 2nd Amendment with the emphasis upon "shall not infringe". Since our documents relating to rights were written to clearly show the limits of government upon the people, it seems quite clear that the intent here is to say, "a well regulated militia not withstanding, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In other words, forget whatever alternative the government or people who run it shall offer up, the right is clearly in place and shall not be restricted in that light. Thanks much, Eric. ~WB

@breakfastpop...I agree. Here we have a lot of "activity" which ultimately gets viewed as productivity when the real end result is the peoples' right is infringed upon and undermined. Freedom and liberty are always a threatened consequence of actions taken in mass to offset the mental instability of a few. Once that ball starts rolling, there is no stopping it for the righteousness associated with those liberties and freedoms have already been tossed aside in the initial action. It is very difficult for anyone subscribing to a socialist mindset to grasp that concept. Thanks much, Poppy! ~WB

profile image

AntonOfTheNorth 4 years ago

Hello Wayne Brown,

As the likely writer of the article that inspired you to write this one, thank you for writing. (Even if I'm not, thanks for writing).

If everyone treated guns the way you (and I'm sure) most people who have them, there would be no need for additional gun control. What you espouse as behaviour IS gun control. If everyone did it that way, there would be no gun crime.

Problem is, to my mind, not everyone treats their guns the way you do.

I encourage you to actually read the hub. (I know you won't agree. It is not the goal of the hub to get you to agree. I suspect there are many other things we do agree on.) More importantly, have a look at the comments. Many there agree with you too.

What I am taking away from this debate is that most everyone contributing to it wants to see crime reduction. Wants fewer people shot. We only disagree on the steps to take to see it done.

None of the very right and rational rules, teaching points and laws that you mention regarding gun ownership are wrong.

But none of them are contained in the 2nd Amendment. The laws regarding acquiring weapons are state specific and vary. If every gun sold came with a compulsion to treat it as you suggest, that would be good.

Currently this is not the case. Hence the danger. Hence the debate.

Also, the value of the debate is to get how the people feel and what they think and how we arrived at our conclusions. It is too easy to dismiss because we disagree with the position.

And a solution becomes far more difficult if we simply dimiss because we don't agree.


Gawth profile image

Gawth 4 years ago from Millboro, Virginia

A Great Hub. Lest we forget, there was a time in colonial America when the Feds would not condone a militia member UNLESS HE OWNED A GUN. They saw no need of hiring soldiers to throw rocks.

Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 4 years ago from Rural Arizona

Seat belt use in cars started out as a great idea, and escalated into a law with expensive fines for anyone unlucky enough to get caught not wearing a seat belt. I happen to think seat belts are a good thing, and I would wear mine even if there were no law stating I had too.

As gun control progresses, it will evolve into something very similar in nature. Many honest citizens will be fined or otherwise punished for failing to disclose that old rusty shotgun that belonged to grandpa stored up in the attic. You may think this is pure panic on my part, but just wait and it will happen if this administration gets what it wants.

Ruchira profile image

Ruchira 4 years ago from United States

Great points, Wayne.

Gun Violence has no boundaries and it is better to avoid this weapon than getting the itch to use it (as some geeks have put it)

Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@Anton of the North....I have read your hub and actually I was surprised how far you were willing to jump to conclusions on the basis of the 2nd Amendment. You seem to conclude that if the law-abiding citizens in this country were relieved of their guns, violence would go down, crime would go down, and the bad guys would just find other things to do. As much as we could wish such, that is not the reality of the world. Violence has gone down even as the individual possession has gone up in this country. I am not a proponent of illegal guns nor do I press to cover those guns via the 2nd Amendment but I also am not insupport of anyone going after those guns by gutting the 2nd Amendment only to use that gain to come and get the guns that I legally own and have a right to own under the Constitution. You cite the employment of deadly force without responsibility on the part of the gun owner. Since when have the laws in terms of manslaughter and murder been relaxed for anyone buying a gun. Anyone who construes such perspectives is not thinking logically. The activities we have witnessed in the recent past are the acts of unstable individuals who are not rational in their thinking using guns to perpretrate a crime. They could use crowbars, baseball bats, knives, chain saws, pipe bombs, etc. In the vast majority of instances the system failed these people from a mental health standpoint. Beyond that others failed in allowing them access to a gun or to acquire a gun legally. No legitimate gun-owner wants to see those things happen. You mention the use of deadly force when someone is threatening you or your loved ones and the decision to employ it. The alternative to that decision might be that you and your family end up dead or severly injured because you had no viable protection at hand. The 911 System will not save you as you will be far too busy answering their questions on the phone while the perpretrator is carrying out the deeds. The choices are not particulary desireable in either case, but I had rather have the choice than no choice at all if that time comes. Owning a car implies no right to drive it on public streets and the same rational applies to guns. Those who are licensed to carry do receive training and that training does include an awareness of the laws and the consequences of misinterpreting them or utilizing poor judgment. The 2nd Amendment supports the individual's right to choose to have that element of self-protection available or not and it clearly indicates that alternative such that the government might offer or provide will not infringe upon that right to choose. Sadly, we live in a world today where one can easily become a target of opportunity especially if they have no apparent means of self-protection. If disarming the American public was the right thing to do, Chicago would certainly be a shining example of that in terms of crime, etc.....sadly it is not. When we tie gun ownership to reckless behavior as a general conclusion, a disservice is done to millions and millions of law-abiding gun-owners are responsible, safe, and logical in their approach to the reality of the world today. Thanks for your comments. ~WB

Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@Gawth....We live in a world where sane people attempt to find rational conclusions in the actions of mentally unstable people. Where do we we quit selling galvanized pipe because it can be used in the making of a bomb? Do we do the same with fertilizer and gasoline as in the case of Timothy McVey? Actions and viable solutions are not one and the same. Mental instability is not addressed by the exclusion of guns but it is easy to ignore it as the primary factor when the main focus is "how can we get their guns?" The working class people of America are the people who will bear the burden if all the reckless behavior going on in our government at the moment. If America is to be fundamentally transformed, it cannot be done without the middle-come sector of society being broken in terms of finances and will....and oh, be sure you get their guns because they are going to be mad as hell when the wheels come off this wagon. Obama can claim that he is tiring to save the middle class while he does things to guarantee its destruction over time...high unemployment, surpressed private section, higher taxation threats, and regulation, regulation, regulation. This claim with regard to guns that he will act if he cannot achieve action through Congress is nothing more than a test to see how far he can push his power before the American people say "enough". The way things are going...he just might be able to declare himself a dictator and be unopposed in the effort. We have a spineless Congress and a pathetic Supreme Court in terms of the actions of this administration. Thanks much!~WB

@Old Poolman....Now Washington dictates about every aspect of the automobile on the basis of either implied safety or energy consciousness...which are at opposite ends of the spectrum. In an effort to improve the energy efficiency of the vehicles, the manufactureres are slowly down-sizing them and gutting them of material weight thus undermining their safety in terms of a crash. But, as a public, we have an "implied safety" demanded by the government therefore, we are okay...Sure! It is the same security that you have from being personally attacked when you have no way of defending yourself....oh, we'll be over there...not sure when! Thanks much! ~WB

@Ruchira...Thanks much....glad you approve. ~WB

rfmoran profile image

rfmoran 4 years ago from Long Island, New York

Well done Wayne. Only a lunatic leftist could formulate a "right to kill" from a right to bear arms. But, as this debate over "gun violence" goes on, logic and the plain meaning of words are drifting away. Listen to Cuomo - He thinks the Second Amendment has something to do with hunting.

Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@rfmoran....Yes, they want to sort a protection from the government afforded to the people by the Founding Fathers into some very small box so they can mess with it in the hope that it can be taken away. The phrase, "shall not infringe upon" should carry the same teeth as the phrase we see in the First Amendment regarding free speech...."Congress shall make no laws..." Thanks much! ~WB

WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Wherever gun laws are relaxed, crime goes down, because criminals don't want to get shot either.

A couple of years ago, Arizona passed a law that any law abiding adult could carry a concealed firearm without a permit. The horrified media predicted that blood would flow in the streets as crazy, untrained citizens started shooting at shadows.

The exact opposite has happened. Most citizens are actually quite sensible, so crime has gone down, not up, and the predicted disaster simply never materialized. Now we can slip a gun in our pocket when we go outside to check on a strange noise without fear of arrest for carrying concealed.

Most gun deaths are actually suicides, and 70% of all gun murders are actually drug gangs killing each other. Less than 800 people a year die from accidental shootings.

So if you are not a gang member, not a criminal, not suicidal, not a brave police officer, and don't use street drugs, your chance of being shot in the US is near zero.

fpherj48 profile image

fpherj48 4 years ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

Sometimes, Wayne......the most difficult, tiresome and exasperating activities in one's day, can actually be hearing some of the absurdity, ignorance and blatant crap, that comes from the mouths of far too many of our fellow-Americans. And that's really all I can think to say, at this point............UP+++

profile image

AntonOfTheNorth 4 years ago

"When we tie gun ownership to reckless behavior as a general conclusion, "

Again, ownership is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a constitutional right to have lethal force at your disposal under your direction without any other requirement. The 2nd amendment does not say anything about our behaviour and offers no conditions about training beyond the 'well regulated militia' part, which many feel is beside the point. It says you can have a gun.

I have no problem with someone not commiting a crime.

The other laws and processes cited here are the behavioural controls and they vary from state to state. Where there are fewer behavioural controls, there is more risk.

I agree that most people are reasonable and most people don't commit crimes. Laws aren't made to protect us from most people.

Someone who is not willing to stab me, club me or beat me may well be willing to shoot me. Of course I feel better if they have a harder time acquiring the weapon that makes it easier for them.

And having the law punish the person who shot me is small comfort to any who would miss me. (I'll be dead so it won't much matter what I think).

So yes, the problem is criminals. We constantly hear that we should go after them and I absolutely agree. Why not start with making it harder for them to get weapons? If a law-abiding citizen wants a gun, I have no problem having them demonstrate that I should be able to at least hope that they aren't going to use it on another law-abiding citizen. Right now the assumption, because of the 2nd Amendment, is that everyone, regardless of who they are is entitled to one. It is only the varying laws that provide any control, and of course the control of the law abiding citizens.

Bottom line is pro gun folk feel safer with guns. Pro control folk feel safer without.

Now, how do we go after the criminals in a way that we CAN agree on?


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona


If you are correct that untrained, whacked-out citizens are maniacally killing themselves and others, statistics should prove it, so where are they?

Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@Will Starr....Thanks for the comment, Will. You know Obama will not like it if Arizona succeeds at anything on their own...shame on you, guys! LOL! ~WB

@fpherj48...Well, you know what they say...sometimes you feel like a nut; sometimes you don't! Thanks, Paula. ~WB

Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@Will Starr....Thanks for the comment, Will. You know Obama will not like it if Arizona succeeds at anything on their own...shame on you, guys! LOL! ~WB

@fpherj48...Well, you know what they say...sometimes you feel like a nut; sometimes you don't! Thanks, Paula. ~WB

Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@Anton of the North....Here's my take...there are rights and there are priviledges. Priviledges generally require a license. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own a legal weapon but not necessary the full priviledge of its use in legal ways. For example, those states that allow it require that an individual be trained and have a license to carry a gun in public either openly or concealed. I do not tie the right to keep and bear arms in any way to a militia except to say that the Founding Fathers used it as an example in the text. Looking at the First Amendment regarding Free Speech, the intent is clear...."Congress shall make no laws...." Move to the 2nd Amendment with that mindset and that emphasis falls on the phrase "shall not infringe". In other words, given the fact that the government has a standing an well-trained militia in place, the existence of such militia does not in any way "infringe" upon the citizens right to bear and keep arms. The First Amendment does not address the responsibilities which go along with "free speech" or set conditions for it necessarily. The key was that no laws would be enacted which restricted the people from engaging in it. It would be all but impossible to have a Constitution or a Bill of Rights if all of the possible precursory conditions were anticipated or discussed within the confines of those have the right but only if, but only if, but only if, and so on. Clearly states are able to enact laws regarding the methods in which guns are obtained and employed which was understood and accepted by the Founders. You have the right to keep and bear arms but the right stops there....from that point on, you are dealing with priviledges which required licensing and training in the majority of cases. We will always have people who are either mentally insufficient or of a mindset that the law does not apply to them and that will always provide some element of trouble and danger but the solution is not to disarm the public. The real dispute comes down to be able to initiate a process to ban and/or confiscate firearms. After that point, the ball is rolling and all bets are off. You may be of that mind that the government will never come after my gun since I am not one drawn to the more exotic weapons. I do not believe that for one minute. Once a crack appears in that right, you can look for progressive deterioration of the foundation of that right as time goes on until it is eliminated...the first chunk that comes out of it sets the precedence with the courts and everything beyond that point becomes a function of the inital step. Do you really believe that the intent of the Roe vs. Wade decision was to provide for the slaugther carried out annually in "partial-birth abortions". I seriously doubt that it was as the possibility likely did not exist at the time but the law morphed into what it is size fits all. We mourn the loss of children at the hands of a gun-wielding maniac but turn a blind out to the scalpel of the trained physician when he/she destroys hundreds of thousands of potential lives a year. Who cries for those children? I find it quite ironic that the majority of the gun control proponents have no problem with the death wielded by partial birth abortion. In my mind, the two are at totally opposite ends of the spectrum. Thanks much for your reply. ~WB

Kathleen Cochran profile image

Kathleen Cochran 4 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

Will Starr made a point I've only recently been made aware of: most gun deaths are suicides not homicides. What this tells me is that if I own a gun (and my husband owns several) I'm more likely to make it easy for someone in my family to kill themselves than I am to use that gun to protect myself from an intruder. Another reason to take the responsibility seriously. One fact no one can debate: guns are easy to kill with if that is what a person intends to do.

WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"What this tells me is that if I own a gun (and my husband owns several) I'm more likely to make it easy for someone in my family to kill themselves than I am to use that gun to protect myself from an intruder."

Actually, no. There are over 300,000,000 guns and 100,000,000 gun owners in the US, but far less than 1% are ever used in suicides (or to kill anyone, for that matter!).

But guns are used all the time to deter a criminal, adding up to an average 2,500,000 times a year.

Angela Blair profile image

Angela Blair 4 years ago from Central Texas

Excellent, logical piece, Wayne -- your points are well taken and well made and I enjoyed this Hub immensely. Best/Sis

Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@Angela Blair...Thanks much, Sis. I am begin to see some of the reason applied by others on the other side of this issue. Responsible people risk losing their voice in America as it will be traded away for some false sense of security suggested by those in government. Though I do not relish aging, the next four years cannot be over fast enough for me. ~WB

profile image

AntonOfTheNorth 4 years ago

@ WillStar,

"If you are correct that untrained, whacked-out citizens are maniacally killing themselves and others, statistics should prove it, so where are they?"

untrained, whacked-out citizens is how we routinely describe everyone who has walked into a school, mall or public place with a gun intending to do harm. Gun advocates are constantly saying that honest citizens are having their rights trampled because of a few of these untrained, whacked out citizens. I wouldn't have thought that we needed statistics to demonstrate that their are unstable persons out there who have used legally acquired weapons to do harm. And not just in America. Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal resulted in 14 deaths and 14 wounded with a legally acquired firearm because Marc Lepine thought he was fighting feminism. No studies or data required to demonstrate that the 'untrained whacked out citizens' have legal access to guns. I don't feel safer because there are more trained stable citizens with guns. I don't feel safer in an environment where I feel I must carry one. By definition, I would feel safer in an environment where I don't need one.

I accept that people feel that such an environment may be hard to come by where they live. That is not true of where I live.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

You are more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to be attacked by a mass shooter in the US.

The ruling political classes want to ban firearms that are almost never used in murders because of an ongoing hysteria that they themselves created.

This is not about Sandy Hook. This is using Sandy Hook as the first step in a long-planned total disarmament of America. Its purported reason is to cut down on such crimes.

This will not work of course, so next it will be a ban on the sale of handguns, and when that does not work, it will be the beginning of confiscation. We will also sign a UN treaty banning personally owned weapons.

Anyone who believes that this is as far as they plan to go is a fool.

profile image

AntonOfTheNorth 4 years ago


I thank you for the well thought out reply. This is the reasoned response I look for in entering the debates. Stuff for me to chew over.

Where I don't share your feelings is in this. "You may be of that mind that the government will never come after my gun since I am not one drawn to the more exotic weapons. I do not believe that for one minute."

I have had more exposure to gun crime than I have had to my government wanting me disarmed. I believe society faces a greater threat from the same criminals that you and I deplore than it does from our government.

Where we appear to agree is that a law abiding citizen with a gun is no threat to me. Now how do we keep the non law-abiding from getting weapons. "You can't" is not an acceptable answer to me. As I said, fatalism leaves us just where we are.

I appreciate your participation in exploring the issue.


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@Anton of the North....I doubt that we will get the guns away from the criminals using any method up to and including doing away with the 2nd Amendment as criminals have few barriers when it comes to what they want to accomplish. I am not sure I have the answer but I think we have to start with making sure that "crime does not pay". Our court systems have become too liberal in their thinking and far too oriented toward rehab the criminal mind as a first step. The courts have to get tougher as do the laws and once sentences are handed out, they need to be served in the greatest portion....none of this serving five years on a twenty year sentence and getting back on the streets. I just heard a story this morning where two high dollar homes in Texas had been invaded. In the first invasion, no one was home and the two brothers (16 and 26) just took assets. They invaded a second home just five miles away, held the people at gun point and decided to rape the wife prior to departing with their loot. The woman's husband attempted to go to her rescue although he had no arms in the house. One of the perpretrators shot him in the back and potentially paralyzed him for life. The two have since been caught. The younger one, who was probably 14, at the time, had already served two years in jail for robbing and endangering people in North Carolina which included taking their assets and their car along with threatening their lives. He served just two years of his sentence and was released on "good behavior" and paroled to the State of North Carolina. Within a short period of time he is in Texas with his older brother invading homes, robbing, and shooting people. By all right, he should have still been behind bars. He was tried on multiple charges but probably threw himself on the mercy of the court as a first offender and got off with a minimal sentence only to head right back to crime. This is the root of our "criminal" problem in this county because the criminal types are of the mind that "crime does pay". We have to change that perception. If you do the do the time. Thanks much for your reply! ~WB

Alberic O profile image

Alberic O 4 years ago from Any Clime, Any Place

95% of the problems are caused by 10% of the population. If you really want to address crime, target that 10%.

Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@Alberic O...The government is not interested in either the problem or the potential solution in terms of these mental health tragedies. From the government's perspective the problem "IS" the existence of the 2nd Amendment therefore the solution is to get rid of it...not in the tradition sense as defined by the Founding Fathers in terms of checks and balances but to simply take the teeth completely out of it to the point that owning a firearm become unaffordable and inconvenient. Of course what do those terms mean to an illogical, irrational, mentally instable individual contemplating a suicidal crime involving innocent people? Thanks much! ~WB

drbj profile image

drbj 4 years ago from south Florida

One of the first most important steps of any totalitarian government is to take away its citizens' rights to bear arms. People cannot revolt without guns. It's difficult to understand, Wayne, why so few folks understand that. Just keep telling 'em that in your sensible, no-nonsense way.

Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@drbj...The uproar from the far lest and the name-calling drown out the voices of reason in our culture today. Folks are so busy hopping on whatever wagon will give them a free ride that they pay no attention to the details and the reasoning. Certainly the greatest level of ignorance is to blindly continue through life believing that it cannot happen here because it can and will unless some things change soon. Thanks much! ~WB

teaches12345 profile image

teaches12345 4 years ago

Excellent stand on the reasons for purchasing a gun. The purpose must be in alignment with self-defense and not "to Kill". As you say, we are no better than those who murder with a gun if our thoughts are such. Voted way up!

Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@teaches12345....I know a lot of gun-owners none of which are reckless with their weapons enamored with the idea of killing someone. I gave up hunting back in my teens because I did not feel any pleasure in taking a life. But that's me...not everyone is affected by hunting in that manner. One thing I know for sure, when we arm ourselves for self-defense, we take on a special responsibility to be safe and to protect everyone to the greatest extent that we can. I do not know any sane people who find the thought of having to kill someone would be a sad, sad day if that choice had to be made. At the same, I am very conscious of that fact and I will make that choice if the circumstance so dictates. Thanks much for the good words. ~WB

WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Only mentally disturbed people buy guns with the intent to go kill someone. That is why we need to rethink our system of allowing such people, who are known to be dangerous, to walk freely among us.

The Tucson shooter and the Virginia tech shooter are excellent examples. Both were known by their families, acquaintances, and mental health pros to be ticking time bombs, but current laws prevent any effective intervention.

Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@WillStarr...That is the truth of the matter that Obama and company want to ignore so they can connect need and want together. Former Attorney General, Janet Reno observed back in the Clinton Era...."Waiting periods are a step; Registration is a step, Gun Control is the goal." Given that gun control has been a central theme of every tyrannical government in history, the push to undermine the 2nd Amendment does not paint a good face on the Obama Administration. Mental health should be the focus of the entire effort. ~ WB

WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Actually Wayne, Reno's quote went much further than mere gun control. The actual quote:

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

Janet Reno

U.S. Attorney General


They mean to completely disarm Americans. When a ban on rifles does not work (and it won't), that will be used as an excuse to ban handguns. After that, Dianne Feinstein will finally get her wish:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them ... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

Dianne Feinstein

60 Minutes

U.S. Senator (D-CA)


pick807 profile image

pick807 4 years ago

The type of reasoning you wisely avoided by skipping that article is par for the course with liberals. The so called party of science and reason believe all sorts of things that aren't true, gun control prevents crime being just one. They also believe the minimum wage helps the poor when it prevents low skilled workers from finding work. Or how about higher tax rates bring in more revenue, and infamously Nancy Pelosi telling us that unemployment benefits are the best stimulus we could have for our economy. The only way to combat this is to retake our schools so that maybe we can save the next generation.

Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 4 years ago from Texas Author

@pick802...Amen to all that...the faulty logic abounds with that sector just as the use of Keynesian Economics Theory is a miserable failure in thinking that government spending is the primary element in resurrecting our economy. Meanwhile, the private sector is surpress by on-going tax threats, regulation on top of regulation, and the undetermined problems associated with Obama-Care. Fixing things is possible but the liberal element has to be unplugged from the equation to allow success. Thanks much for the comment. ~WB

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article