Girls With Guns

An Ethiopian Jewish soldier takes aim.

An IDF, Jewish-Ethiopian soldier takes aim.

In the wake of the atrocity last week at Sandy Hook elementary school, we are, once again, beng lectured by statist utopians that the problem is guns, that America is steeped in a culture of violence, that free citizens need to hand over more control to government agencies.

The truths are simple and stark:

1. Evil is real. Cain killed Abel, and murder has been with us ever since. Only the tools change: from sticks and stones to spears and swords, bows and arrows, cannons, guns, machine guns, and now annihilating atomic weapons.

2. America is not a particularly violent culture. Head on over to Gaza, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mali, Egypt, Syria, or any other Muslim paradise on earth and you will see what a violent culture really looks like — if you live long enough.

3. Both Hitler and Stalin banned the private ownership of weapons. These human monsters understood that a free and armed people are the greatest threat to the power of the state.

Meanwhile, in Israel, a free and civil society in a swamp of genocidal theocrats, even female citizens are armed and ready to fight evil — and then get a manicure when the job is done.


H/T Elder of Ziyon

And this is a picture of an elementary school teacher in Israel. Imagine if just one teacher at Sandy Hook had been armed and trained. Remember only someone with a gun can stop another person with a gun.

And this is a picture of an elementary school teacher in Israel with her students. Imagine if just one teacher at Sandy Hook had been armed and trained.

H/T JoshuaPundit

Karen and I wish all our friends and relatives a happy and joyous last day of Chanukah, a holiday that celebrates armed Jewish soldiers.

This entry was posted in Gun Control, Israel, Israel Defense Forces and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. kishke
    Posted December 18, 2012 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    I don’t know who compiled this, but I was pointed today toward an index of thousands of news stories, many of them criminal, others involving suicide or self-harm, in which anti-depressants are mentioned. Here’s the link:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Robert J. Avrech
      Posted December 18, 2012 at 7:38 am | Permalink



      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • kishke
        Posted December 18, 2012 at 8:18 am | Permalink

        Yes. But potentially eye-opening.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. CJReott
    Posted December 17, 2012 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    I am not sure we can blame the families. In my own family I have a bro-in-law who has schizophrenia. The last time I had to help my sister get him into the hospital, after he threatened to kill his own child, he said he would kill both of us. We called the police and were told they cannot do anything until he actually commits a crime. He was saying the world was going to end, standing on a chair in the kitchen tearing pages from the Bible, eating them. I finally made a deal with him that if the world did not end at midnight as he predicted, he would go to the hospital. He was there for 72 hour hold, put on meds, signed himself out and we were called to say he said he was going to kill us. He did not own or have a gun but I know that he would have used anything to harm someone. He is out in society.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. kishke
    Posted December 17, 2012 at 7:33 am | Permalink

    Here’s an abstract of Peter Hitchen’s blog entry for today. I think it’s valuable reading. There’s sensible talk there as well on gun control. I provide the link below:

    Anders Breivik , the Norweigian mass killer, was taking large quantities of mind-altering chemicals. In his case, the substances were an anabolic steroid called stanozolol, combined with an amphetamine-like drug called ephedrine, plus caffeine to make the mixture really fizz. Anabolic steroids were also used heavily by David Bieber, who killed one policeman and tried to kill two more in Leeds in 2003, and by Raoul Moat, who shot three people in Northumberland, killing one and blinding another, who later tired of life and killed himself, so adding to Moat’s crimes.

    Steroids are strongly associated with mood changes, uncontrollable anger and many other problems. In my view, this link remains formally unproven only because no great effort has yet been made to prove it. A serious worldwide inquiry should be launched into the correlation between steroid use and violent incidents.

    Likewise with so-called ‘antidepressants’, whose medical value has recently been seriously questioned in two devastating articles in The New York Review Of Books by the distinguished American doctor Marcia Angell. Her words ought to be reproduced and circulated to all doctors.

    I pointed out some time ago how many shooting incidents involved people who had been taking these suspect pills. Patrick Purdy, culprit of the 1989 Cleveland school shooting, and Jeff Weise, culprit of the 2005 Red Lake High School shootings, had been taking ‘antidepressants’. So had Michael McDermott, culprit of the 2000 Wakefield massacre in Massachusetts. So had Kip Kinkel, responsible for a 1998 murder spree in Oregon. So had John Hinckley, who tried to murder President Ronald Reagan in 1981. They were also found in the cabin of the ‘Unabomber’ Ted Kaczynski. Eric Harris, one of the Columbine massacre culprits had been taking a powerful antidepressant. (Washington Post, 29th Apr
    il 1999, confirmed by FoI inquiry by Peter Breggin, autopsy showed ‘therapeutic levels’) . There were traces of it in his body. We simply don’t know if his accomplice, Dylan Klebold, had been taking such medication. His medical records, apparently, are sealed. I cannot think why this should be the case, but apparently it is. Can anyone explain?
    Then there are the dangerous illegal drugs that are increasingly common since the State stopped bothering to prosecute users, or even (in many parts of the US) to accept ludicrous claims that smoked or eaten marijuana can be medically valuable. Jared Loughner, who smiled so beatifically (like the equally unhinged Breivik) after murdering six people in Arizona, had been a heavy smoker of cannabis for much of his youth. The use of this allegedly ‘soft’ drug is increasingly correlated with mental disturbance, often severe.
    It is hard to get clear information on this, but the author of the Virginia Tech school shootings, Cho Seung-Hui may also have been taking drugs for “depression.” He certainly had done so in the past, and there are those who believe that effects of these drugs are persistent, and there is evidence that ceasing to take them abruptly may trigger episodes of unreason.
    An inquiry, that’s all I ask for.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Posted December 17, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

      But that’s simply not how science works, which is why it’s generally done by scientists, not journalists. Pointing out that a bunch of killers have all taken a particular proves nothing; what you need to demonstrate is that a significant proportion of all the people who take the drug become killers. And it’s hardly even worth researching that as it is so obviously and demonstrably not the case. If maruijana use turned people into killers, the population of the UK would be in triple digits by now.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Barry
        Posted December 17, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

        With every drug there are unintended consequences that effect some users. These are not usally positive effects so the journalists may have something right. The medical establishment, especially those in mental health continually give a passing grade, or so it appears, to the anti-social and dangerous.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • kishke
        Posted December 17, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

        a) No one is saying it turns everyone into killers. But it may have that effect with a significant minority.Isn’t that somethng worth knowing?
        b) Right. Science is not done by journalists. But questions are (or should be) asked by journalist. And evidence of possible correlation may be weighed by journalists. Which is what Peter Hitchens has done, to good effect. What you are doing is sticking your fingers in your ears b/c he’s not a scientist. As though we need an expert to wonder whether there’s something wrong here.
        c) He cites articles from Marcia Angell, a scientist. Did you check them out? I did. They are quite damning.
        d) Hitchens is not saying that marijuana is definitely a cause of psyciatric illness, only that there is enough anecdotal evidence of it to warrant an inquiry. There are many who do not want an inquiry. They do not want these questions asked. One must wonder why they take this stance.
        e) You have responded regarding marijuana. But what of psychotropic drugs. I know from the experience of a family member (now an ex family member, happily) that doctors experiment with these drugs, prescribing them for uses for which they were never tested. The results, in my limited experience, have not been pretty. Why are you so certain that these drugs are harmless? Or am I, not being a scientist, not allowed to ask the question?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Posted December 17, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

          (a) Yes, it is.
          (b) No,I most certainly am not sticking my fingers in my ears because he’s not a scientist; I am, rather, reading what he has to say and dismissing it because what he has done is completely backwards. You can use the same logic to prove that eating cheese leads to paedophilia. It’s utter nonsense, and no, it alone most certainly is not a cause for further investigation. I should add that he is writing in The Daily Mail, the paper with by far the worst track record at science reporting in the UK, whose years-long campaign against vaccines has caused measles and rubella, which had been almost eradicated here, to grow to epidemics. That campaign went directly against all available scientific evidence and was defended by The Mail at every turn on exactly the grounds you are giving here. Children have been killed by that campaign. It’s not noble.
          (c) No, he didn’t cite anything by Marcia Angell; he merely mentioned that she had written a couple of articles, without even hinting at what’s in them other than to say it’s devastating. Although Angell is a doctor, I notice her articles are in The New York Review Of Books. That doesn’t make them wrong, but it scientists who cannot get their views published in scientific journals due to their not being backed up by proper science will usually resort to publishing articles in publications that do not require any scientific standards to have been met as a condition of publication. Unless Angell has also published her findings in a medical journal, they are are not findings, they are mere anecdotes, and should be treated as such. This, incidentally, was the method used by Andrew Wakefield to pursue the above-mentioned anti-vaccine campaign that The Mail backed.
          (d) No, I’m afraid you have misread Hitchens there. What he does is first to mention that two mass killers in two separate continents are known to have used cannabis when young, then to say that the drug is correlated with often severe mental illness. He is encouraging his readers to infer what he does not say because it would not be true: that cannabis causes the type of mental illness that makes people killers. He does not mention anecdotal evidence of the correlation between cannabis use and mental illness; there is no need to do so, as that is scientific evidence. And the reason that scientific evidence exists is that research is ongoing and is regularly published and gets lots of press coverage here; it’s not being quashed or suppressed or anything. He’s obfuscating and misleading all over the place here.
          (e) I did not claim that psychotropic drugs are harmless. I know very little about them. What I said was that Peter Hitchens’s piece is unscientific.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • kishke
            Posted December 17, 2012 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

            b) He does not claim to prove anything, so your point about correlation vs. causation is not relevant. As is the point about The Daily Mail’s campaign against vaccinations, which has nothing to do with Hitchens, who does not write for the DM in any case, but for the MOS, as he is at pains to point out to the many who dismiss his arguments by association.
            c) He has written on this extensively. Elsewhere he quotes her. But regardless, his failure or not to quote has no bearing on your ability to read the articles for yourself instead of dismissing them out of hand b/c of where they were published. You can find them easily with Google, as I did.
            d) This is one article among many on this topic. He has presented much anecdotal evidence and has stated quite clearly what he believes.
            e) And I did not say his piece was scientific. It is not meant to be. It is a call for an inquiry. I see no reason such a call must be issued by a scientist, although of course any meaningful study must be made by scientists.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

            • Posted December 17, 2012 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

              (b) I did not make any point about correlation versus causation. I made a point about how you pick your samples, and that he’s doing it backwards, in a way that is guaranteed to find results regardless of whether there are any to find. And the point about The Mail is not to dismiss his arguments by association. I obviously do not believe that everyone who works for the paper (or the twin papers) has the same opinion. I was making a point about the editorial standards of The Mail when it comes to science reporting. Editorial standards are relevant.
              (c) I didn’t dismiss Angell’s articles.
              (d) As I said, anecdotal evidence is completely unnecessary when there is so much scientific evidence. Cannabis use, to some extent, can lead to mental health problems. There’s no serious dispute there. Scientists have shown it and the establishment accepts it and takes it into account when legislating. Hitchens’ stance that there needs to be a proper investigation into the issue, as if it’s being somehow suppressed, is mere affectation. He may as well make a stand for giving women the vote while he’s at it.

              Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

              • kishke
                Posted December 17, 2012 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

                Editorial standards of the Mail are not at all relevant to Hitchens’ private blog.
                I thought you were quite dismissive of Angell’s articles, suggesting that they were not “proper science,” as if that is the last word on their veracity. The articles do not purport to be scientific studies, so why must they be “proper science?”
                Is there indeed so much scientific evidence that cannabis use can be dangerous to one’s mental health? I am not aware of it. I certainly have never seen its advocates admit to this. Quite the contrary. Do you have cites? I’d be interested to see them if you do.

                Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Barry
    Posted December 16, 2012 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    This is a mother with three children and no husband..? Another reproductive triumph for the people who think they can have it all. Get the crazy kid out of your house. Move away. No forwarding addres.
    Run don’t walk. And stop calling this kid a genius. Genius is the product of achievement. Or the other way. Not a clever kid with a bad mouth and attitude.  

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Barry
      Posted December 16, 2012 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

      The comment went astray. It is in reference to Kishke’s post and link to Gawker– Adam Lanza’s Mother. Interesting to read. Made me angry. Waste and stupidity does that.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • kishke
        Posted December 16, 2012 at 9:51 pm | Permalink

        On readng the Gawker article I wondered if one day we’d be hearing about her violent and mentally-ill son finally carrying out his threats against his mother and family. It’s one thing to put herself at risk, but who gave her the right to risk the lives of her other children? It’s a form of child abuse, in my opinion. And it’s no kindness to the crazy one either.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • kishke
      Posted December 16, 2012 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

      Isn’t it interesting how this type of person is so often labeled a genius, with an IQ that’s “off the charts.” I see the same phenomenon in the yeshiva world, where the guy who failed in yeshiva and left the fold is often described as a genius. I don’t buy it in either case.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. kishke
    Posted December 16, 2012 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    An interesting discussion from Nick Gillespie:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Jackie W - Kansas
    Posted December 16, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    There is a link between pharmaceuticals & mass murder.  Andrea Yates was on a prescription as was one of the Columbine shooters.
    Piers Morgan, a non US citizen is leading the fight to ban guns.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Barry
      Posted December 16, 2012 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

      I detest Morgan.  CNN is such a bore.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Posted December 17, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

        Morgan likes to claim that he was sacked as editor of The Daily Mirror for his opposition to the Iraq War. He was in fact sacked for knowingly committing libel, fraud, and treason on the front page of the paper. That should make him unemployable in the serious media. CNN apparently don’t mind.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. greystone
    Posted December 16, 2012 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    Our society needs to address the needs of the mentally ill. There are few safety nets for parents trying to secure treatment for their ill children. If they had cancer, treatment would be available.
    But mental illness is difficult to address. Mental institutions have closed and the bleeding heart liberals put the mentally ill’s rights before their illness. With Obamacare I see a more impersonal and socialistic approach to the mentally ill and less money for support for families struggling with a mentally ill family member. 

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • kishke
      Posted December 16, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

      This is on the money. People like this, and like Jared Loughner, and like the Virginia shooter, and like the Colorado shooter, should be in mental asylums.
      Drudge posted this article today from the mother of a violent mentally-ill child:
      It’s sad for the mother, but is there any doubt that her son belongs in an institution? How many lives could be saved if we would stop pretending that the violently mentally ill are just like anyone else and would take steps to avert the danger?
      Peter Hitchens asks some hard questions about what role might have been played by the little-understood mind-altering psychiatric drugs this boy, and so many other shooters, was prescribed. This is an ongoing theme for him, and he makes some very good points.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Posted December 17, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

        But how do you decide who to put in the asylums?
        <i>> Mental institutions have closed and the bleeding heart liberals put the mentally ill’s rights before their illness.</i>
        In the UK, our program of closing asylums and rehoming their inmates in the community was instituted by John Major’s centre-Right Government in response to the recommendations in a report by Enoch Powell, a Right-winger famous for being about as far from bleeding-heart as you can be. And quite right too: the asylums were a way of imprisoning people for life without trial or possibility of appeal or parole, and had no place in a democratic society. I have some inside knowledge of this as my mother had the job of emptying and closing them. In all her years, dealing with thousands of inmates, she only ever met one man who was dangerous enough that she wouldn’t be left alone in a cell with him — and she made damn sure that he was moved somewhere secure. Most of the inmates were there to keep the asylum staff in jobs. The most common reason for being imprisoned in an asylum for life was “moral turpitude” — i.e. having a child out of wedlock. When society changed and ceased to regard becoming a single mother as a sign of incurable mental illness, those who were already locked up for that reason stayed locked up. Psychiatry and psychology are vague sciences prone to fads, and we can be sure that all sorts of conditions that are today regarded as mental illness will soon enough be regarded either as normal or non-existent. Hey, look at Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy: women in Britain have their children taken away from them by the state if they’ve been diagnosed with it, even though the medical establishment is increasingly of the opinion that it’s a fake diagnosis of a condition that simply doesn’t exist. Three women were sent to prison for murdering their children when their children had died cot deaths and there was absolutely no evidence of any murder other than a diagnosis of Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy from a doctor and expert witness who has been disgraced since the cases were overturned on appeal. At least they were convicted of crimes, though, so there could be appeals — had they been locked up in asylums for their “mental illness”, they’d never have got out.
        Anyway, I’m beginning to ramble here, but my point is that we should not doubt that there will be diagnoses considered sound grounds to commit people to asylums that will, within those people’s lifetimes, be regarded as quackery. If we want to lock people up for the safety of the public, we should be convicting them of crimes and putting them through a proper legal process. Asylums make abuse far too easy for the state.
        Is the downside of this that we can’t lock peope up until after the’ve committed a crime? Yes, of course: that is the same downside we have with every other kind of crime and perpetrator. A small number of deaths as a result of gun-related accidents is the price you pay in return for the security, freedom, and lower crime rate that come with widespread and legal gun ownership. Crimes — including appalling massacres — are the price you pay for having a fair and just legal system.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • kishke
          Posted December 18, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

          Those are good questions, and obviously, abuse could be a problem. But I’ll tell you, one person who likely would have been committed is Adam Lanza. In fact, there’s a report out today that says that his mother was in middle of filling out and filing the paperwork that would have allowed her to do just that.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Posted December 16, 2012 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    Yes.  Sharing your post on Facebook – I invited my Friends to refute your logic as opposed to their emotional responses…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Robert J. Avrech
      Posted December 16, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Permalink


      Thanks so much.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Barry
    Posted December 16, 2012 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    While all that you have written is certainly os, it does appear that assault weapons need to be restricted. I for one believe we also need to do a far better job of insitutionalizing the disoriented, anti-social and hostile when they give recognizable signals. Better to lock one maniac up prior to an event then to experience the brutal continuum we have been seeing. The argument clearly cuts both ways, but we have to trust our government. And we are not run by Hitler or Stalin. Disagreement over policy doesn’t make the other guy wicked.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Robert J. Avrech
      Posted December 16, 2012 at 11:59 am | Permalink


      Assault weapons are heavily restricted. Conn. has some of the toughest gun control laws in the U.S.

      You are correct in pointing out the issue of mental illness, especially those who are violent and evil. They need to have their freedom restricted. However, there is no simple solution, mental health wise or constitutionally. Ultimately, it is a family matter.

      This country was founded on the principal that government cannot be trusted, that government is, ultimately, the greatest danger to free men. That’s why the founders provided for divided government — checks and balances against centralized government. They understood that though we need a government to guard against anarchy, government is not a solution, but frequently the problem.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Barry
        Posted December 16, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

        Robert, you are sidestepping the issue. Families cannot be trusted. Clearly. Rights and privacy do need some respect, but nowhere to the degree we have been allowing these past recent decades. As for government being the issue…I love our constitution and admire our founding fathers, but the only revolution in history that has stood the test of time is the American. Interesting to observe that it was also the least required. No one was bothering those people. In case it isn’t clear, I am quite onside with British imperialism. They are and were the good guys. Just like us because we are them. And finally, let’s get the ACLU  take  on anything off the table. Put these people in a park with a chess board and Katrina Van Den Heuvel.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Robert J. Avrech
          Posted December 16, 2012 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

          Well, some families obviously cannot be trusted. But the state is not always a viable arbiter in such difficult circumstances.

          I agree, the problem of the mentally ill in our streets, is severe. California is a magnet for homeless, most of whom are bi-polar, etc., because the state provides so many services for these people, and they are sane enough to take advantage. As I said, there is no easy solution.

          My main point, however, is that guns are not problem. Evil is the problem and most liberals cannot or will not discuss evil.

          Guns are frequently the solution, for only a man with a gun can stop another man with a gun.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Barry
            Posted December 16, 2012 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

            We have no disagreement re guns and their value. There is a problem with the mentally ill, with families in our culture and the application of rehabiliation. Guy Turcotte, a Montreal physician, ws just released from prison after four years. He was admittedly guilty of murdering his two children. And now he has been forgiven. This is the tragedy of  our time. On a big scale, you can see this manifested by the moral supidity of Spielberg’s Munich. Music and Movies: hostile and angry. Anyone can see the result. Argue against the old time Production Code all you like. Superior to what we have.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

            • Barry
              Posted December 16, 2012 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

              Further thought re families: This event was all about families. nancy Lanza loved guns. Automatic weapons not .22’s or shotguns, or Smith & Wesson .38’s.  She was also an educator, of sorts, I guess. No guns in their home her crazy son beats her brains out with a baseball bat. No doubt some psychaitrist says he’s a good kid and bright so long as he takes his meds. Send them both to Devil’s Island. In any case, without those guns, the little children are alive today Yes…?

              Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

              • Robert J. Avrech
                Posted December 16, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

                I think it was irresponsible of Mrs. Lanza to have guns in the house with an obviously crazy son. Yes. But it does not follow that guns should be banned. For if you ban gun ownership than only criminals (and cops) will possess weapons. Besides, let’s be realistic you can ban all the guns you want, you can pass as many laws as you want, but in the end, evil will have its way and innocent people will be murdered. Just look at Norway, where private gun ownership is severely restricted. And yet one man gunned down scores of young teens.

                Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

                • Barry
                  Posted December 16, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

                  Yes, of course. Banning guns is not the issue in an of itself. Limiting ownership certainly is. And personally, I don’t care about the needs of the mentally ill if that means protecting the violent and estructive. My interests are protecting me and mine.  And, you and yours. The reason or motive is almost irrelevant. The action and the result, not. So, let us agree to protect the productive and/or those who have not already viiolated peace and decency. And we judge them by how brutal their indiivual behaviour is or was. Good governance is about keeping the roads open and protecting the citizenry.

                  Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

                  • Robert J. Avrech
                    Posted December 16, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Permalink


                    I wish we could wave a magic wand and render all crazy and violent people harmless. Unfortunately, in a free society that will not happen. As much as you and I would like it to happen. Courts are overbooked, state social workers are clueless, and the ACLU is ever ready to step in and make free those who should be locked up. My solution: I own guns to protect me and mine.

                    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

                    • kishke
                      Posted December 16, 2012 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

                      Owning guns is part of a solution, but not always, as witness the Lanza woman herself, whose guns afforded her not the slightest protection, and were actually the instruments of her death.

                      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

                  • Posted December 17, 2012 at 11:59 am | Permalink


                    What exactly is the difference between banning and limiting ownership? The only way for the state to limit ownership is by enacting some sort of ban. And a partial ban suffers from all the same problems as a full ban, the main one being that the only people whose ownership of the weapons would be limited would be, by definition, the law-abiding. When you say that the ownership of assault weapons needs to be restricted, how do you imagine that working and what would the effect be?

                    I fully support all sorts of things being banned, if they actually can be genuinely banned. But nothing can be.

                    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

                    • Barry
                      Posted December 17, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

                      Obviously definitions are required and negotiations are required. All to often we are protected the rights of the criminal class and the mad. If sacrifices have to be made, and they do, start with the violent and ddisruptive. I am all in favor of arming the citizenry, teachers included. But, not with assaualt weapons. Everyone doesn’t get to fly a plane or drive a car.

                      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. peter
    Posted December 16, 2012 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    This picture of an Israeli teacher and her pupils begs the most fundamental questions about the human condition, responsibility, obligation to our loved ones, society, and the true meaning of security. It needs to be widely circulated. Many Americans will be horrified by the picture, but it may at least wake some up from their long reality-denying slumber.
    We sure won’t see the MSM or the  Michael Bloomberg types raise these issues for serious discussion. I fear that much of American society has been brainwashed to the point of not even being able to look at this picture and ask what it really means.
    Thank you for posting it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Bill Brandt
    Posted December 16, 2012 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    Then I learn this last night Robert
    He probably saved a lot of lives.
    Evil does seem to be descending on us.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Friends


    Politics, Bloggers & News