Crime

Will Recent Shootings Mean More Gun Control? A Look at the Arguments

Today’s Empire State Building shooting marks the 3rd shooting in the past 19 days.

Violence on this scale is cause for concern. One generally hopes that the number of people mentally ill enough to commit these kinds of indiscriminate acts of violence would be low, and that those people wouldn’t all get the same idea at once.

Nevertheless, that is apparently what they are doing. The numerous shootings that have occurred since the infamous incident in Aurora, Colorado, at a screening of “The Dark Knight Rises,” lack any coherent theme beyond simply an explosion of various pathologies.

Arguably, in an ideal world, the debate following these incidents would be how to cure those pathologies. Unfortunately, a different debate is likely to be raised, one about more gun control. So let’s discuss the arguments.

Motives

Before laying out the arguments for and against more gun laws, it’s important to consider the bewildering inconsistencies in the motives of the various killers.

Consider, firstly, the case of Wade Michael Page, the man who opened fire on a Sikh temple on the 5th of this month. Mr. Page, a “hate rock” aficionado, neo-Nazi and white supremacist, was practically the caricature of a deranged lone wolf shooter. Yet his attack, which left 7 dead, drew condemnations even from his fellow white supremacists. Page himself is dead due to his actions, though his girlfriend is in custody, and it is unlikely that his mental issues will ever be explained fully. However, one can argue easily that his actions were political, and undertaken on behalf of an ideology that calls for violent imposition of an intolerant worldview.

Which is precisely the opposite of the ideology apparently held by Floyd Lee Corkins II, the man who attempted to bring a gun and several Chick-fil-A bags of ammo into the Family Research Council. Corkins reportedly told the guard he shot, “I don’t like your politics,” referring to the Family Research Council’s stance on gay marriage. In other words, while his shooting was also politically motivated, it was motivated in precisely the opposite direction – namely, Mr. Corkins wanted to shoot people because he thought they had an ideology that called for violent imposition of an intolerant worldview.

So while both Page and Corkins saw their acts of terror as making a political statement, those statements come from ideologies so distant that it would be impossible to ascribe any political trend to them. Barring any unforeseen revelations about the ideology of today’s Empire State Building shooter (early reports suggest he was a disgruntled employee), that lack of a clear trend is likely to persist.

However, there is one political group whose message is likely to get a more sympathetic hearing in the wake of these explosions of violence, and that is the anti-gun lobby. For instance, the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence wasted little time in releasing a statement in the wake of the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin, calling for “solutions to prevent gun deaths and injuries”:

This is yet another powerful reminder of the need for a real national conversation about what we can do to prevent gun violence tragedies, and for our elected officials and presidential candidates to participate in that conversation by offering real plans to do something about it.
There have now been 61 mass shootings since the tragedy last year in Tucson and 100 school shootings since the one at Columbine High School. Tomorrow, and the next day and the next, another 32 Americans will be murdered by guns.
The American people from across the political spectrum are calling for solutions.  We know that we are better than this.
In contrast, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins has called for a loosening of gun laws in the District of Columbia, so that self-defense against people like Floyd Corkins can become possible:

After the shooting at his Washington, D.C., office last week, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins asked the Republican platform committee Tuesday to help pressure the District of Columbia City Council to allow more people to carry guns.

The platform committee unanimously agreed to put language to that effect in the Republican Party’s statement of principles.

“As we’ve seen in recent days, D.C. gun control laws — some of the most stringent in the country — cannot prevent criminals from engaging in violent acts,” Perkins said. “Citizens should be able to protect themselves.”

Now that the third shooting at the Empire State Building has happened, one has to wonder what the takeaway will be, and whether this rash of shootings is likely to engender a renewed interest in gun control beyond the rarified gun policy circles of DC. Either way, a review of the arguments on both sides of this debate is necessary.

The case for gun control

Organizations that support gun control, such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Violence Policy Center, make a heavily data-driven case in favor of gun control. For instance, the Violence Policy Center claims that the states with the laxest gun laws lead the nation in terms of gun-related deaths:

The analysis reveals that the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Louisiana, Mississippi, Alaska, Alabama, and Nevada. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.34 per 100,000 for 2007. Each of the top-ranking states has lax gun laws and higher gun ownership rates. By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death. Ranking last in the nation for gun death was Hawaii, followed by Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York.

The assumption on the part of this group is that because there is a correlation between lax gun laws and gun violence, therefore the former causes the latter, or at least facilitates it. This same logic is applied by advocates of gun control to the United States itself, as Fareed Zakaria did in a controversial Time Magazine article earlier this month:

Gun violence in America is off the chart compared with every other country on the planet. The gun-homicide rate per capita in the U.S. is 30 times that of Britain and Australia, 10 times that of India and four times that of Switzerland. When confronted with such a large deviation, a scholar would ask, Does America have some potential cause for this that is also off the chart? I doubt that anyone seriously thinks we have 30 times as many crazy people as Britain or Australia. But we do have many, many more guns.[...]

The effect of the increasing ease with which Americans can buy ever more deadly weapons is also obvious. Over the past few decades, crime has been declining, except in one category. In the decade since 2000, violent-crime rates have fallen by 20%, aggravated assault by 21%, motor-vehicle theft by 44.5% and nonfirearm homicides by 22%. But the number of firearm homicides is essentially unchanged. What can explain this anomaly except easier access to guns?

Confronted with this blindingly obvious causal connection, otherwise intelligent people close their eyes. Denouncing any effort to control guns, George Will explained on ABC News that he had “a tragic view of life, which is that … however meticulously you draft whatever statute you wind up passing, the world is going to remain a broken place, and things like this are going to happen.” I don’t recall Will responding to, say, the 9/11 attacks–or any other law-and-order issue for that matter–with a “things happen” sentiment.

Zakaria’s article might have been plagiarized, but it raises several popular points among gun control advocates. “America has lax gun laws,” the argument runs, “and when it’s easier for everyone to get guns, it’s also easier for the most insane people to get guns. Our gun violence can’t be a coincidence!”

In the aftermath of all these shootings, those points may look extremely convincing, even to skeptics. For instance, Fox News‘ Bill O’Reilly tore into pro-gun Congressman Jason Chaffetz on his show in the aftermath of the Aurora shooting for contradicting these kinds of arguments:

If O’Reilly is prepared to accept these arguments, that could signal a serious backlash against gun rights. Certainly, that backlash is already in evidence on more liberal channels:

 

However, there are responses that can be given. Which brings us to…

The argument against gun control

The widespread idea that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” stands at the center of the argument against gun control. Moreover, a wide network of sportsman’s organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA) and libertarian groups like the Cato Institute aggressively argue that the issue is not whether criminals and/or the mentally ill can get their hands on guns, but whether the majority of people can get their hands on guns with which to defend themselves. The issue is, in this framing, a simple question of paternalism vs freedom. To quote the Cato Institute’s David Kopel:

Gun control is based on the faulty notion that ordinary American citizens are too clumsy and ill-tempered to be trusted with weapons. Only through the blatant abrogation of explicit constitutional rights is gun control even possible. It must be enforced with such violations of individual rights as intrusive search and seizure. It most severely victimizes those who most need weapons for self-defense, such as blacks and women.

The National Rifle Association pushes this argument further, pointing out that a large percentage of the problem is not that people can get their hands on guns, but that most people are never trained to use them responsibly. Moreover, they argue that better reporting of the mentally ill could solve for most of the problems posed by mentally ill people acquiring guns in the first place. From the NRA’s press release following the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords:

By all accounts, the accused Tucson assassin was a publicity-seeking, twisted, loner-loser who terrified his community college classmates and teachers to the point of being taken into custody by campus police and banned from school unless he cleared a psychiatric exam. Reportedly his parents had been warned by the police. He had a death shrine in his backyard. His former friends were frightened over what he’d become.

Students in his classes–long before he joined the ranks of other loner-loser mass murderers–said they were afraid for their lives. Yet, nobody did the right thing. Nobody with the authority to seek mental observation and treatment for this “deeply disturbed” young man took advantage of the law. He was a prime candidate. Had the authorities acted appropriately, Jan. 8, 2011, would have been just another day in Tucson.

Instead, the sheriff nonsensically blamed talk radio and political activists. That theme was picked up by a lynch-mob media that desperately wanted to reverse the nation’s new political dynamic.

In other words, “don’t blame the gun, blame the insanity.“ This is a far cry from the ”things happen” mentality alleged to exist by gun control advocates like Zakaria. It also could easily be applied to this month’s rash of shootings, if you switched a few dates around.

Furthermore, anti-gun control groups have the idea of self-defense on their side. Even if Floyd Corkins shouldn’t have had a gun, gun rights advocates will probably argue that it’s difficult to see how this translates into an argument that he should have been allowed to rampage unchecked even with an illegal gun. It is also likely that the point will be raised that for every case like the shootings, there is also one like this incident, which reported in July:

Will this combination of self-defense-focused argumentation and demurring in the face of gun access work in the context of recent violence? Perhaps. It’s certain to get a sympathetic ear from lawmakers like Jason Chaffetz, who argued the point with Bill O’Reilly in the aforementioned clip. Right or wrong, the gun lobby isn’t going to go away, and neither is the gun control lobby, though one may have more power on Capitol Hill.

It is also worth noting that American support for stricter gun laws has consistently declined over time, according to the polling organization Pew. In fact, even in the aftermath of the Aurora shooting, opinions on the subject did not shift against gun rights by very large numbers:

Will The Recent FRC, Sikh Temple and Empire State Building Shootings Motivate a Case For More Gun Control

In any case, this debate is just getting started, but it’s unlikely to end any time soon, if this type of violence keeps up.

Comments (75)

1 2
  • amazingphotos
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 2:05pm

    The answer is NOT more unconstitutional laws. ALL laws restricting the ownership and carrying of firearms need to be declared unconstitutional and void. The NFA of 1934 did serious damage to the Founders’ intent that CITIZENS should be at least as well armed as their government as a protection against tyranny. The GCA of 1968 was also a blow against free commerce between buyers and sellers. The one thing in common concerning the mass shootings at Ft. Hood, the Colorado theater, and the Sikh temple is that the victims were not armed. The murderers in these events, like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao preferred helpless victims. Murderers – either individuals or governments will always be armed. The LACK of firearms in righteous hands is deadly.

    Report Post » amazingphotos  
    • Chuck Stein
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 4:49pm

      ALL laws? Really? So a guy who was released from prison yesterday after serving 5 years for attempted murder should be able to buy a handgun? Wow.

       
    • Shiroi Raion
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 5:18pm

      Not all laws… felons, illegal aliens, children, mentally disabled… (the mentally disabled needs to be narrowed though. Someone that was depressed or similarly temporary lapses in judgement should not be an issue. Psychiatry is almost more of an art than a science. Someone could go to 3 psychiatrists and give them a list of symptoms and get 3 different diagnoses. So it’s terribly unreliable when it comes to laws because lawmakers tend to use overly broad language when writing laws. I think that’s why taking over psychiatry is #39 on the Communist agenda. If they had enough Marxist doctors, they could easily redefine illnesses and manipulate the system. 1984

      Report Post » Shiroi Raion  
    • amazingphotos
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 6:32pm

      Yes Chuck, if he has “paid his debt” he should be allowed to exercise his rights as a citizen. He should be able to defend himself from criminals or tyrants. Freedom may bear risks but the alternative is helpless slavery. “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

      Report Post » amazingphotos  
    • amazingphotos
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 6:41pm

      Shiroi
      . . . . the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
      The people means all legal citizens. Infringed means limited or reduced.

      Report Post » amazingphotos  
    • db321
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 7:18pm

      Hey Chuck, why not that Felon can Vote.

      Report Post » db321  
    • black9897
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 9:28pm

      There is no debate. No logical or legit arguments for gun control.

      Report Post » black9897  
  • woodyee
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 2:01pm

    Will Recent Shootings Mean More Gun Control?

    Frankly, my dear Mytheos, I don’t give a d@mn. The day I was convinced by draconian California and NY/NJ laws that their actions were unConstitutional, I stopped validating them. I support various patriotic groups with my income; I teach the art of marksmanship whenever possible, most often for free; my children, nieces, nephews have rec’d instruction along with some of their friends and my Boy Scout troop, and when my grandson comes of age (6 or 7), Grandpa is taking him to the range.

    I‘m in my 60’s, and the only one EVER threatened by an armed me, was a dirtbag rehab with a laundry list of petty crimes, threatening me and my loved ones (no shots needed!) ;-)

    Report Post » woodyee  
  • grimmster
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:58pm

    Try and take my guns, please………
    I find it ironic, that cities and states with the most srtingent of gun laws, have the worst crime rates….yep, gun laws work, that get innocent people murdered………

    Report Post »  
    • v15
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 2:05pm

      Agreed. On a side note, I don’t believe these shootings were orchestrated by the federal government. There’s no conspiracy

      Report Post » v15  
    • Chuck Stein
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 4:52pm

      The Second Amendment is fundamental — it IS an aspect of the “power of the people.” Like a broken clock, Mao was right on occasion: “Political power is in the muzzle of a gun.”

      Report Post »  
  • Detroit paperboy
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:57pm

    Bloomberg made sure the victim was UN armed and defenseless …..I blame Bloomberg….

    Report Post »  
  • 000degrees
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:50pm

    Oh…Oh …please, can’t somebody make me safe?????? (insert baby crying noises here)

    Report Post »  
  • Pontiac
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:43pm

    Shooting is stopped by someone else with a gun.
    Massacres are stopped by someone else with a gun that arrived late.

    Report Post » Pontiac  
    • atechgeek
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:55pm

      “Gun violence in America is off the chart compared with every other country on the planet. ”
      Many of the counties that have no guns or sever gun laws also have dictatorships. Instead of gun violence, they have government violence. They cut your head off for being gay … etc. The 2nd Amendment was designed, as a last resort, to keep the federal government from gaining too much power. You can have my guns .. after you kill me following a long lasting fight.

      Do not give up liberty for safety.

      Report Post »  
    • woodyee
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 2:10pm

      We ARE unlike ANY OTHER COUNTRY on Earth – we have true Freedom, for as long as we can keep our gobblement from trying to take it; it’s what has made us great, and the price of freedom doesn’t come cheap.

      But with Leftists driving our Country to madness since the mid-60′s, the price of criminal activity has been paid more and more at the expense of our citizens and OUR Rights, whereas criminal activity is permeating government at rates unseen in our history. We need to begin reversing that trend by NOT validating illegal law with compliance and DEMANDING redress when corruption and corrupt officials are discovered. We need to BOOT the ACLU in the arse when they defend criminals with specious argument. We need to ensure that lawyers are not CREATING methods by wish to release criminals, rather we need to return to letting facts stand on their own.

      I could go on but I’d bore some of you and incite others to defend their anti-American Leftist dogma…

      When Gaybama took office, the average price of gas was $1.89. The average price now hovers around $4.00. Are you better off today than you were four years ago? Want four more years of this BS?

      Report Post » woodyee  
    • NeoFan
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 3:49pm

      Wait Pontiac didnt you read the history of world war two by howard zinn? You know that tells the story of how we negotiated with Hitler and he layed down his arms? Or how we used the winning the hearts and minds strategy with the Japanese people that led to them giving flowers to the people at Nan King? Then we built them nuclear power plants in exchange for them sinking their own navy?

      Report Post »  
    • Pontiac
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 4:27pm

      Should read:
      *Shootings are* stopped by someone else with a gun.
      hasty post that was going to be written one of two ways. Ended up being a third…

      @woodyee
      Copy paste much?

      Report Post » Pontiac  
  • Mapache
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:41pm

    I am certainly glad that apart from the criminal shooter ONLY those properly trained and who had the necessary discipline to use them had guns……otherwise, innocent people might have been hit in the crossfire……what? …Really?! …..Nevermind.

    Report Post » Mapache  
    • Lord_Frostwind
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 2:43pm

      Sad truth, even the guys who train constantly to use their guns have only a slightly smaller chance of not hitting someone in the crossfire. Police Officers in a firefight will drop hundreds of rounds on a target, and the amount of munitions Soldiers drop in a fight is usually measured by pounds for the sake of simplicity. There’s a reason they try to clear people out of the area before the bullets fly, after all, most tactics outside using snipers involve a lot more than one bullet.

      Report Post » Lord_Frostwind  
  • Mutiny
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:34pm

    I thought guns were banned in NYC. With all the laws and restrictions how could a shooting happen there?

    Report Post » Mutiny  
  • MN NICE
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:33pm

    Let‘s not forget we’ve had an increase in samurai sword violence lately… Hope like hell the government doesn’t overlook this before it gets out of hand!!!

    Report Post » MN NICE  
  • thegreatcarnac
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:29pm

    In reality,…..I don’t care who shoots who in NYC. I know this. Our (all Americans that are not felons) right to bare arms is guaranteed in the CONSTITUTION of the United States. It is our 2nd amendment and it is our right to own them. I warn those who want to further restrict are erase this constitutional right do so at their own peril. We will not comply with anymore restrictions or attacks on our 2nd amendment rights and we will do whatever is necessary to defend that amendment.

    Report Post »  
  • RJJinGadsden
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:26pm

    I missed the Mayor Doomberg press conference. Did he blame the Tea Party?

    Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
  • momrules
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:24pm

    Of course this will lead to more talk of gun control. The gun control advocates love these shootings, they are butter for their bread.
    The one thing that will finally get the people in this country to stand on their hind legs and say NO will be when the government tries to take our guns. If Obama stays in office that time is coming.

    Report Post »  
  • LoadDrive1
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:22pm

    This is the ONLY thing you need to know, on what happens when ONLY One side has the Guns!
    http://www.friendsoftibet.org/main/execution.html

    Report Post » LoadDrive1  
  • mikegray24
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:15pm

    Let’s just pretend for a moment that gun control laws would stop this sort of thing, which I reject flatly, but let’s pretend. In the Middle East, and other parts of the world, the bomb seems to be the favored mechanism for taking multiple people out in many, many cases. In fact, we’ve even had some of that here over the years, with the Unabomber, the Atlanta Olympic bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, the first World Trade Center bombing.

    Those were concerted acts of terrorism, as opposed to some sort of deranged shooting. But if we could blink all guns out of existence, these sick individuals who develop the compulsion to kill people would simply turn to explosions (or other methods) as their weapon of choice, and given the multitude of ways this can be accomplished, there’s no amount of control that could stop it. So, let‘s stop pretending that we can legislate things like this away because it’s a fairytale.

    All that aside, I would much, much rather have looser gun laws and live with an increased risk of being shot (not that the risk would even increase, but let’s pretend again), rather than to hand over freedom for the illusion of safety. I take responsibility for my own safety because the government will not be there to protect me when things go bad. And honestly, I have a chance of defending myself against a nut with a gun. But I have little or no chance of surviving a nut with a bomb.

    Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:26pm

      Very well said! Thankfully, the Founders gave us the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from tyranny. We can only hope Americans will fight to keep that right as too many in our society votes for increased tyranny.

      Report Post »  
    • TEIN
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:32pm

      @Mikegray24….agree whole heartily this comments, well put…
      I would like to add, if laws stopped peoples action and dying, then why are people still dying from drunk drivers?

      From the CDC: “In 2009, 10,839 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes….”

      If laws stopped people from making bad decision, and would save lives..there would be no drunk driving fatalities….do the critical thinking…more laws will not stop peoples actions,,,,,

      Report Post »  
    • momrules
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:32pm

      Very good post MIKE…..I agree.

      Report Post »  
    • republic2011
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 3:48pm

      Absolutely agree. Well said. One additional thought is that there are millions of people that live in the United States. As much as I see these as unfortunate and unnecessary deaths, they are isolated incidents and comprise a very small part of gun related fatalities. Also, the statistics used by the Brady nuts is skewed and poorly presented (on purpose, of course). States with looser gun laws may have more gun fatalities (jury still out on that), but what is the nature of those fatalities? Are they all homocides? Are the all perpetuated by citizens, or does this include fatalities perpetuated buy civil servants in the course of upholding the law? How many are accidents (i.e. hunting, cleaning a gun, etc.)? I am sure if you rip into the numbers, you will find that Brady arguments are based on hot air.

      Report Post »  
  • midnightsun
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:15pm

    Like some of the other posts said…..NY has strict gun controls and it didn’t matter. More gun control is not the answer. If someone is hell bent on killing, they will find a means.

    Report Post »  
  • semihardrock
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:12pm

    Communists ALSO (not just Jihad), will die for a cause…….once brainwashed into doing so.

    For “the good” of the cause. “The ends justify the means”

    Report Post » semihardrock  
  • warhorse_03826
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:09pm

    “damn that last subject didn’t get the response we wanted. there should be a cry for massive gun control by now”

    “ok..activate another drone.”

    ring ring

    “platinum rosebud”

    Report Post » warhorse_03826  
  • MikeinIdaho
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:07pm

    Gun control =
    1) aim carefully
    2) use both hands, if necessary
    3) exhale
    4) SQUEEZE the trigger, don’t jerk it

    Report Post » MikeinIdaho  
    • CK1911
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:29pm

      Nice, I say “press” but only because that’s what I was taught. Using O’Reilly as a voice of reason is asinine. Anyone who watched that segment and knows anything about guns would find it laughable. He kept going on and on about bazookas and machine guns and how anyone can get them. No, you can’t and unless you have $10,000 at minimum and a few months to wait for your class 3 application to clear, you ain’t getting anything.

      Report Post »  
  • olddog
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:06pm

    The shooter shot one person, the police shot 9, lets think about that..

    Report Post » olddog  
  • 70S_KIDS_FIGHTING_SOCIALISM
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:05pm

    Liberal policies and more government cause violence, murders and rapes! The less government and liberal; policies the less violence and crime.
    TEA PARTY UNTOUCHABLES!!!!!!!

    Report Post » 70S_KIDS_FIGHTING_SOCIALISM  
  • watashbuddyfriend
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:04pm

    Another case to give the Left ammunition to achieve Gun Control?

    Was the Shooter paid to do what he did? Who paid him, how much went into his bank account? Seems the Shooter had his mentality in order?

    Note to the Left, if you ever acheive what you are trying to do, YOU, as well ALL others, YOU are in much trouble!

    I have been preaching for many years that things are going to get worse, and worse, consistent with Lord Jesus coming! COME LORD JESUS, but on YOUR Schedule!

    Report Post »  
  • Seth Patriot
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:03pm

    N’er the twain shall meet

    Report Post » Seth Patriot  
  • The_Jerk
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 12:57pm

    It’s not the gun. New York has strict gun control laws. Didn’t stop a thing.

    Report Post »  
  • Ducky 1
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 12:56pm

    New York strict gun laws did not stop this guy!!!

    Report Post » Ducky 1  
  • DeavonReye
    Posted on August 24, 2012 at 12:55pm

    It is truly sad when people are injured or wounded due to the criminal acts of another. However, the guy in New York could have easily weilded a big knife. . . . or drive his car up on the sidewalk. . . .

    There are already laws. Too many laws, in some aspects. Better not be anymore!!

    Report Post » DeavonReye  
    • momrules
      Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:28pm

      Well hi there DEAVONREYE…………You are right. We have Too many laws as it is. I have often said every time you walk out the door you start breaking some law some idiot dreamed up.

      Report Post »  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love