Are Guns Really the Problem?


Yes, our nation mourns after the loss of 20 small children and six adults, but do we have to go as far as to ban guns, especially since the State of Connecticut had very strong gun laws? Do we always have to go after the final object, ignoring the reason that the object was used? Why is it that we as a nation, especially those near the Socialist/Communist side, always seem to have the idea alone that banning any sort of ammunition or guns will stop the killing? It has not worked before and it will not work again! It is constantly stated that even if we would ban all the guns, then only the criminals will have the guns. This is so very true that it is a sad idea to even consider. Connecticut, a state that had very limited gun ownership laws, and yet all the sick individual had to do was go to his Mom's house, kill her and then go off and kill anyone he wished.

Let us just look back since 2009 and see what has happened in our nation.

March 10, 2009, Michael McLendon, 28 kills 10 people then kills himself.

April 3, 2009, Jiverly Wong, 41 years old Kills 11 then himself.

November 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Hasan kills 13 and wounds more than 24, he is the Fort Hood Terrorist.

January 8, 2011 Jared Lee Loughner kills 6 people, wounds 13 others.

July 20, 2012 12 people are killed by James Holmes, a 24 year old at the opening of a batman movie, he is shown just a few days after looking totally dazed and confused.

August 5, 2012 Wade Michael Page kills 6 and wounds 3 others than he kills himself.

December 1, 2012 Jovan Belcher, kills his girlfriend then kills himself.

December 11, 2012 Jacob Tyler Roberts 22, kills two people and wounds another before killing himself.

December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza, 20 years old, kills 27 people 20 of them Children, in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut, than kills himself.

The State of Connecticut gun laws specifies in part:

“It is unlawful to possess any other firearm by a person who has been convicted of a felony. It is unlawful to possess a handgun if convicted as a delinquent of a serious juvenile offense which includes.”

Once again no one will know why this individual did this, but it is known that the young man suffered from a possible mental problem. If we look at just these certain instances, we see that 6 of the 9 killed themselves after they killed innocent people and of the remaining 3, one suffered from schizophrenia and one may have killed as an act of terror. The one at Aurora, Colorado looked to be very dazed and confused. Did you also notice the ages of these individuals? Of all of these actions, only two were over 30 years old. Is it due to age? Is this due to problems from childhood? What is the underlying problem in all these cases? It seems like the Lame stream media has taken a hard look, for all of maybe one hour before they began yelling for some sort of “new” gun laws. Would this help? Would it keep these particularly young men from “losing it" and killing innocent people?

Some, if not all, of these alleged killers have had some sort of mental or emotional problems leading up to the killing. Why is it that few of these “reporters” ask or even consider the ages or health of these people? It has to be mentioned that on the very same day of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, a man in China went on a rampage with a knife slashing school children, but not killing any of them.. We have to state that no one other than military can even own a gun in China. It really does not matter if they have guns or knives or baseball bats, these people will continue to kill innocent people.

Just two days after this tragedy Senator Dianne Feinstein, a lady that wants nothing more than to “control” all guns comes out stating, "It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession -- not retroactively, but prospectively --" of "assault weapons" as well as high-capacity magazines.”

Well, if this lady would look and see, the very weapon she wants banned is a very popular hunting rifle for its lightweight and easy use in the woods. The rifle used a .223 caliber round, as some would call it, a 5.56 NATO round. It is a rifle used by many hunters for deer and other animals. One has to wonder just who is it that decides what is and what is not an “assault weapon”? If the government is the one making that decision, we could argue that would not be either fair or right.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he is going to hold a hearing in two weeks on "this constitutional question," a reference to the Second Amendment. "That's the starting point," he said. Now here comes the question once again about the Second Amendment and what it really means. They have volumes of books on this and many different takes on it too. One person stated that the Second Amendment was meant for one musket and twelve rounds of ammunition. The entire concept of the Second Amendment was to have a populace that was well armed should any aggressor try to invade the United States. It has to be mentioned that the main reason that Japan did not launch a surprise invasion on the west coast was due to the people with guns! Now with just that in mind, it could easily be stated that guns have kept us free to the point that rogue nations do not wish to fight a gun battle on the soil of the United States because they know they would never win. Having said that, we can as easily state that no type of gun control would have stopped the mad man from attacking that school. Connecticut has very strict gun laws and this individual did not own one, but the guns have been the main objects while the real problem is being shoved to the back once again. In nearly all the cases, the person taking action suffered from some sort of mental problem, but instead of seizing the golden opportunity to speak out about the mental problem, nearly everyone has turned their focus to guns and banning the amount one can have in a magazine. This has the same type of reasoning as banning 32-ounce drinks, both can be circumvented! Yes instead of holding just one clip of ten rounds, the mentally problematic person will carry maybe 10 magaazines. So that will solve no problem at all, neither will banning the “assault” weapons because we can be sure that they will pop up in the same spots the drugs pop up in.

Our nation will come to grips with this problem, but banning guns will do nothing to stop another mad man who wants to kill. Just like the banning of the 32 ounce drink, instead of buying just one 32 ounce drink, people now buy two 16 ounce drinks. The problem is still there. It will be the same with the guns, no matter what type of action taken, guns will be used to kill people. Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the nation and it also has the highest murder rate too. So banning the guns has not stopped the killings in Chicago. Just how will it stop killings anywhere? If murderers cannot use guns, they will resort to whatever they can use. We should focus on the huge problem of mental health in our nation but those who wish dearly to disarm everyone do not want to even talk about that and that subject is much larger than any gun control law could ever be.

Gun control, just with the mention of maybe doing it, has driven people to buy more guns before they ban the ones that many hunters like and use. The AR-15 is a great sport rifle since it can handle all sorts of mistreatment and still be used for hunting. The same can be said about the SKS and the AK-47, all are great hunting rifles since they stop big game in their tracks and they take a lot of abuse. Just because a mentally deficient person uses them to kill with does not mean they should be banned. People use cars and a lot of other things to kill with so why not just ban everything until we all walk around like the puppets the government wants us to be? If one looks very close at those now yelling for gun control, you may be surprised to find that nearly everyone of them yelling the loudest from the evening news also have body guards with them, so why not ban body guards? Yes, Diane Feinstein does have bodyguards so she does not have to worry about guns because her bodyguards carry the guns!

The entire idea of gun control is purely a political move to disarm the public so the government may well do as it pleases.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.






  • Wolf-Talker-1

    I believe that all sides of the ISSUE must be looked at and DECISIONS made not only logically but with understanding and common sense before enacting any kind of legislation. More restrictive "Gun Control Laws" are not the correct answer!

  • WASP

    Short answer. The perverted Liberal Philosophy is the problem, as hammered into our kids by the gummint operated Youth Indoctrination Day Camps, (facetiously called 'Public Schools) and their commie union teachers

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000000541834 Ted Smith

    In the case of the shootings in Connecticut, the media and our politicians are totally ignoring the need for adequate funding for mental health care. They wrongly focus on the
    guns only.

    If Connecticut had given that boy (shooter) the proper mental health attention, he would never have gone to the school with the intent of shooting children and the guns would have been irrelevant.

    The media and our politicians should be fighting for adequate funding for mental health treatment, particularly funding for school programs that would help identify children like him in need of help. That would prevent tragedies like this.

    One other point: "mental health treatment" does NOT mean "drugging the
    kids." It means talking with those who are withdrawn, evaluating them and then providing the necessary counseling to get their heads on straight.

    In this case, if the shooter had been evaluated when he was a student in grammar, middle or high school, the source of his rage could have been discovered and dealt with preventing his shooting of those precious children, the principle and the teachers.

    We need adequate funding for mental health programs (including programs for addiction), particularly in school programs. The sooner we identify those who need help and give it to them, the better for them and for the rest of us.

  • My Thought

    Removing the right to bear arms, from law abiding citizens would be like removing the right to drink beer from people, who can control their drinking, because some idiot drank too much and killed someone, while driving drunk.
    It's tantamount to saying that nobody is allowed to own a rope because someone abused that right and his best friend, with whom he had an argument was left hanging from a tree.
    For that matter, it's akin to saying that NOBODY is allowed to cook because someone burned her husband's dinner!
    If you ask me, Obama, Hillary, et al, want to remove that right so they can usher in a new socialistic government and the people of the United States will have nothing to defend ourself with, when the new Communist Army takes over.
    I still recall a bumpersticker I saw about 40 years ago: I WILL GIVE UP MY GUNS, WHEN THEY PRY MY COLD, DEAD FINGERS FROM THE TRIGGER!!

  • samtman

    The more guns in the population the more dead people. Guns in Japan not allowed, only hunting rifles. No body gets killed by civilian hand guns. Once in a great while cops have to shoot somebody. No cop ever gets killed by a civilian. With 289 milliion hand guns a military style assault weapons in civilian hands its to late to get them back, the killing will go on at some 50 dead people per day from gun play.

  • IddiKlu

    Unless and until the gun free zones are eliminated, this will happen again and again. In my view, those that keep these 'gun free' zones going are to blame for all the bloodshed. That specifically includes Bloomberg, Feinstein, Reid and Pelosi, and all of the politicians that don't fight against it.
    No one seems to notice, that the majority of these massacres take place in gun free zones. Plus, most of these killers kill themselves before the police arrives. They DON'T want to be confronted by anyone that is also armed. That should be a major clue to anyone, what can be done against, and about this problem. It's not rocket science.

  • ToadStool Manor

    The immediate goal of the far-left thinkers and now this current administration is the COMPLETE disarmament of the civilian population. A gun-free population cannot standup to a government whose leaders have become tyrannical and completely turned against the will of it's citizens. Therefore it's citizens MUST be disarmed, as armed citizens are considered a threat both individually and collectively to the beneficence of the 'system'. In Britian and Australia where a gun ban was instituted, it failed and gun crimes have continued to soar. But the Lib-left-gun-grabbers could care less about this fact. The end goal is the absolute control of the population.

    FACT 1: The Gun Ban in those countries did not and is not working to deter Gun crime.

    FACT 2: Criminals will ALWAYS have a source for guns.

    FACT 3: After a gun ban, you only make law abiding citizens an easier target for criminals by stripping them of any ability to defend themselves, and by default, absolute servants to the state.

    FACT 4: There will be NO far-left utopian world of perfect world order. That
    was tried in 1932-1944... look what that led to.

  • vet

    This is like preaching to the choir,every day we post here and who reads it?Conservatives.We should be on every site that the liberals have and post our opinions there instead.Maybe then it would do some good.Maybe then it would make them think about the laws that they have forced on us and come to the conclusion that they are wrong.I know it will be hard to read their BS but without the truth it will just continue.

  • Hunt

    If Obama and Congress want to remove all that is Evil, then remove thy selves.

  • 2War Abn Vet

    The gun confiscators will do or say anything to further their misguided agenda of
    diminishing American liberties. The current screed against so-called “assault weapons” is just a smokescreen.
    For nearly two years Obama has banned the re-import of nearly a million WWII vintage Garands, weapons that hold only eight rounds, and are primarily of value to collectors.
    All you need to know is that the more tyrannical the government, the more it fears an armed populace.

  • Phillip_in_TX

    No, guns are not the problem. The idiots who think they can legislate "humanity" are.

    God has been kicked out of the "Public Square" and "Schools." They want everyone "doped up" on "prescription drugs." It is "Alice in Wonderland" on steroids.

    Nobody is held responsible for their actions. Whatever does "happen" is ALWAYS someone else's fault. Just like "it's not my fault Obama." NOTHING is EVER his fault.

    This is the result of "Liberals & Progressives" furthering their agenda.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000195752104 Jim Blaine

    If the media asks the right questions as to mentality etc. then they won't be able to push their liberal agenda so obviously they won't be asking those questions. Plus Obama wants a dictatorship and the media is in his pocket so again, don't expect anything good coming from the media.

  • doug63

    The problem is mental health. 20 or so years many states closed mental institutions. They either put people in (group homes) or set them free with little or no help. This was cheaper... Just like letting murderers free early for (good behaviour). It is cheaper in the short run but causes problems in the long run. We short change Americans every day but we send billions to just about every country on earth. A lot of these countries use the money to hurt Americans. By the way Israel deserves our support.