Man shoots his Dell Windows PC in fit of rage

“We’ve all been there,” KKTV reports. “You get so frustrated with your computer, you just feel like you want to do some damage.”

MacDailyNews Take: No, we haven’t all been there. Some of us have no idea what you’re talking about because we haven’t settled for crappy Windows PCs that cost us far more in wasted time and money (anti-virus, periodic wipe/rebuilds), Geek Squad visits and whatever other assorted stupidity you Windows sufferers inflict upon yourselves) and frustration (see the rest of this article) in order to “save” ourselves a couple of bucks upfront. People who understand TCO are significantly smarter than those who can only see price tags.

“One guy who helps run a specialty store in Old Colorado City did it. He shot it up, Monday night,” KKTV reports. “At Organica Herb, they have thousands of jars of tea, medicinal, calming- so it was out of character when Lucas Hinch was out of patience. He let loose 8 rounds right into his doomed Dell PC.”

MacDailyNews Take: Gives additional meaning to “shooting the shit.”

“We asked Hinch if he had any regrets. He told us, ‘yes, this wasn’t the right thing to do,'” KKTV reports. “Lucas says if he ever does anything like this again, he’ll do it somewhere where it’s legal. He’s a strong supporter of gun rights, but he acknowledges, you can’t just shoot something in the city limits. So what happens to him now? First of all, the police took his gun, for now. He has a summons to appear in court, and then he’ll find out about a possible fine.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Don’t shoot your crappy Windows PC. It’s not worth the ammunition. Take that piece of garbage to Apple and get yourself a real Mac, like a smart person.

You can get credit from Apple for your PCs from other manufacturers. Even if your equipment isn’t functional or doesn’t have any value, you can at least recycle your iPad, iPod, Mac, PC or smartphone responsibly through Apple for free. More info here.

Related articles:
Ten reasons why Apple Macs are better than Windows PCs – December 17, 2014
Windows to blame for Home Depot’s gigantic security breach; senior executives given new MacBooks and iPhones – November 10, 2014
VMware declares that Windows’ reign ‘is coming to an end’ – and Apple’s Mac is taking over – July 5, 2014

132 Comments

  1. To many Yankees, guns are the solution to any problem. The rest of the world sees the problem with guns and especially your neighbours to the North (Canada for those who don’t know) who have about 10% (per capita) less than the US.

    Guns don’t create safety, people are educated to find other solutions to their problems.

    1. The gun itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with guns. ― Jeffrey Cooper

      1. It can also be used for evil purposes by good men in a moment of frustration. All of us have the capacity for evil.

        That said, I think this guy may have just had a moment of clarity and felt compelled to do the right thing.

        1. “It can also be used for evil purposes by good men in a moment of frustration.”

          Yes, so can a very large government which ignores the limits of the Constitution. Like the one we have now.

          1. Won’t disagree with that. Start with the Patriot Act.

            The good thing is we still have an opportunity to send errant lawmakers home every two years or so.

            The terrible thing is, we seem to have no protection from delusional armed assholes who think they have some “right” to be in charge and no way to get rid of them peacefully.

        1. MacDailyNews Take: Gives additional meaning to “shooting the s#!*.”

          Because I do not condone foul language – it pains me to say this: That Take was hilarious!

        1. Because the words spoken by the Founders of our country are just as applicable today, and will continue to be tomorrow. You need to study human history and get a clue, unless you actually believe that man has really changed in the past 200 years, or even 2,000.

    2. “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” — Noah Webster

        1. That doesn’t seem right. There are about 75 million gun owners in the US. No country has an army anywhere near that large. The US military is the 7th largest in the world, and the sum of all militaries larger than the US is only about 30 million.

    3. Comedian Jim Jeffries did a fantastic and *hilarious* analysis of guns in the U.S. Look it up on YouTube…well worth a watch (assuming rampant profanity doesn’t bother you…he does curse juuuust a bit). He’s Australian, BTW.

      He makes some incredibly valid points, though…in a very funny way.

      1. The basic root problem to almost everything wrong with the world, and America in particular, is that Liberals simply do not think things through. Liberals and logic just don’t mix.

        1. Liberals who stand firm for idealism and utopia do not understand that their beliefs do not deter evil. Evil applauds these stands. There is no morality in evil, only lies and deception. Would that Liberals could understand this truth. Evil only respects (halfway and grudgingly) powers stronger than they.

        2. The root!? The root to all of evil are liberals in America? Wow. This is how polarized this country has gotten…to where one side feels the other side is the bane of humans existence. Not ISIS. Not Putin. Not Al-Qaeda. Not the Syrian state government. Not the Taliban. Not the latin American drug trade. Not the Janjaweed militiamen in Sudan. No….the libs are far worst than these groups.

          You can disagree with what the other side has to say, but you don’t think your stepping out of your bounds just a little bit? What is funny is I have heard the same thing from Rush Limbaugh. I have heard the same thing from Fox News shows. And the liberals will say…..this suprises you? But I would like to think that you come to this idea from your own mind and not injesting it from the sources you listen to. But when a statement this drastic is said…its hard not to think your not just regurgitating the agenda set out by these media outlets.

            1. My bad…i did use the word evil instead of “everything wrong with the world.” I am sorry..I am just use to your rants and the overall theme being liberals are your idea of somebody that should not exist in the world.

        3. It appears to me that ‘freedom of speech and thought’ are only for conservatives. Liberals don’t have the right to exist in the US according to most of your posts. How do you explain that?

          1. NO you have it wrong, wrong wrong. Go back and re-read some of the liberal posts. It is within the liberal posts that some state in different fashions that conservatives should disappear from the face of the earth and have no right to exist. Within conservative posts, you will find a willingness to strongly argue and disagree, but not suggestions that you don’t have a right to exist.

            It sure seems from your writing that you feel threatened by strong disagreement. Strong disagreement allows freedom of speech and thought. Even the calling of names does not disallow one to exist.

            But liberal thought use the logic>Disagrees>therefore is of hate> therefore does not allow the other to exist.

            Conservative thought>Strongly disagrees> Will continue to disagree> opponent Allowed to exist in a state of disagreement> Strong Disagreement does not mean hate!

            1. Your argument is a bit flawed. You state that:

              “Within conservative posts, you will find a willingness to strongly argue and disagree, but not suggestions that you don’t have a right to exist.”

              Even if that were true (and it is not always so), conservative posts do routinely state that liberals cannot reason, etc. If you follow that line of thought, extreme “conservatives” see little or no value in debating with extreme “liberals,” being firmly convinced of the rightness of their own beliefs and the inadequacy of anyone who dares to disagree.

              The same line of reasoning is applicable to the extremist left. The end result is gridlock, inefficiency, and gradual decline.

        4. It is ridiculous to state that “liberals simply do not think things through,” or that “liberals and logic don’t mix.” That applies to varying degrees to many people of widely varying political viewpoints and socioeconomic conditions.

          The basic root problem with people like Fwhatever is that they believe that they can legitimately label and disparage large groups of people.

          Right now, the extremists on both ends of the political spectrum are the basic root problem.

          Fwhatever, I am sure that we have some common ground somewhere. But your dogged adherence to the validity of your own beliefs prevents anyone from engaging you in any reasonable way. It is people like you who have caused the divisive rift in U.S. politics. You are so far to the right that you end up pushing moderates farther to the left, and pushing the already far left to become your diametric opposite. That results in gridlock, because the political extremes have no interest in reasonable debate or compromise. Your own dogma strangles itself in its intractability. Eventually moderates will get tired of this crap and find a way to work past the extremists.

          Right now, the extremists on both ends of the political spectrum are the basic root problem. We do not want our government to end up like Lazarus in “The Alternative Factor,” (Star Trek Original Series) forever locked in battle with his diametric opposite with no hope of escape.

        1. A Canadian and an Australian comedian, who have never had the right to bear arms feel confident in telling the free born citizens of the U.S. How they should live. The salient difference between us can be summed up in a few words: We are not subjects.

          1. You don’t seem to know much about the world but what you do know is rights, rights rights but little about responsibility or careful objective thought. Open your mind and read something from outside of the US gun culture.

            Guns are a problem, not a solution.

            1. See, when called to task on your name calling all you can do is vote 1 star and move on. The reality is that when I attended law school I gained an appreciation for all of our Constitutional rights, including the 2nd Amendment. The solidity of the entire system of laws rests on the reasonable interpretation and consistent application of even the least popular laws. We are a nation of laws, not men. If one law can be ignored by government then all laws can be ignored and despotism rules.

            2. Guns are a tool, nothing more, nothing less.

              Violent persons are the problem; fixing that problem is what’s needed; gun control is a symptom of barking up the wrong tree.

            3. Exactly what are guns a ‘tool’ for? It seems obvious that they are a tool for killing people, nothing more, nothing less.

              Violent people choose violent tools and shoot up the wrong tree.

            4. “Exactly what are guns a ‘tool’ for? It seems obvious that they are a tool for killing people, nothing more, nothing less.”

              This says all I need to know about you. Do you understand that in the US hundreds of millions of firearms exist and are used daily, and only a very small percentage have ever been used to kill a human being. Billions of rounds of ammunition are used yearly. Only an infinitesimal portion of those rounds kill people. The fact that you are unaware of the uses for firearms other than killing people demonstrates your ignorance on the topic.

              For your information, the vast majority of firearms and ammunition in the US are used for hunting, predator control, and target shooting. I use firearms to obtain meat for my family, to control vermin, and to protect my livestock from predators. It’s clear to me that you don’t live in a rural area, that you’ve never been to the American West, and that you really don’t understand our way of life. You sit in an urban coffee shop somewhere in your skinny jeans, plaid shirt, and horn rimmed glasses sipping a latte while you imagine what other people’s lives are like, and decide how they should live. You’re what’s wrong with the world.

            5. “only a very small percentage have ever been used to kill a human being”

              Tell it to all the families killed by pathetic losers every year, of children killed in accidents, or those murdered by spouses in childish but deadly tantrums. That “small percentage” is a horrific number of people.

              It is insane that we have to have a license for many other innocent and harmless activities, but just about any sicko or lunatic can easily obtain weapons of mass murder.

              re “sipping a latte” — You can stop with your bombastic presumptions. Plenty of rural people do NOT support the virtually regulation-free gun culture. Certainly the kind of people I mix with support much tighter controls on who can get a gun and what kinds of weapons can be purchased.

            6. You’re seriously misinformed on how much regulation is involved in owning a firearm. It is already illegal for the mentally ill and convicted felons to possess firearms. Are you saying that laws don’t work with these people? Then why call for even more?

              As to the “very small percentage” comment, do you believe that but for the availability of firearms that a determined mass killer who has planned his actions for months or years would not find a way to perpetrate his crime? Do you believe that ANY firearms law would stop such an individual? Why do you blame the inanimate object for the actions of a human being? Why not address the thousands, perhaps millions of seriously, violently crazy people roaming our streets daily?

              Oh, I know, you can go hang out in Bend, Oregon and meet a large number of like-minded folks who moved there 3 years ago, bought 1.5 acres, and pretend they are ranchers. They have no history with firearms, don’t understand them, and are scared to death of them and the people who own them. You’re all tourists who simply don’t get it.

    4. To many Europeans, the Yankees can be counted on to come to Europe about once every 30 years and rescue them from brutal dictators who terrorize them because they are such effeminate doofuses they don’t know the basics of self protection. But the Americans do. Or we used to.

    5. I believe that if one feels there should be alsolute safety and “guns” provide no safety, it would stand to reason all should be removed. The Police, Military, Security, Secret Service, animal control, etc.,

      I view it differently, I use the most black and white to answer such a question.

      Should every person have a “gun”? No.
      Should no one have a “gun”? No.
      Perhaps, you may want to consider removing the core problem and pull the roots itself – humans. Would it not be better to destory the humans?

      If that is not acceptable,that leaves the question on how to contol “guns” as they are “tools” developed and as “tools” can be used for actions outside the intended use. If you wish to reduce death, you may want to consider the elimination of “cars” and these “tools.” Humans use those to kill: Explosives, knives, machetes, rat poison, eyedrops, media sites, rope, wire, bricks, scissors, trains, aircraft, boats, water, medication, rocks, toothbrushes, and a laundry load more.

      But that would be my view point.

      1. The crux of the difficulty with your black and white analysis is the transition from the general “every one” and “no one” to one person. Who gets to pick which bucket an individual falls in?

        There is a guy in Texas prancing around with an assault rifle over his shoulder, being the leader of a group that promotes open carry everywhere. The problem I have with him is that he openly admits he is diagnosed with PTSD. How well is this likely to turn out? Yet no one has the authority to tell him “No, YOU can’t do this”. Who gets to sort us out? I think it may be subject to Catch-22. If you want to have a gun and carry it around all the time, maybe you’re not the best candidate. This is silly, of course, but I think it speaks to the point.

        Three things would make me feel less worried. Ideas are from another post, comparing gun ownership to car ownership.

        1 Training, safe handling and some level of hitting what you intend.
        2 License, upon successful completion of training, including skill demonstration and proof of insurance.
        3 Insurance, to indemnify any property or personal injury you cause with the gun. No justified shooting allowed, you shoot, the insurance company pays for damages. No insurance, no license.

        1. That is the point, to reason. It will give a base point so you can further understand the subject.

          the example was to show that the most extremes as the test measure. Meaning all guns show not be banned. The point of how to manage or control guns then emerges. However, the subject stated that guns are the cause of the problem. Which is false. The person using the gun is the problem. Removing guns can not be the answer. The answer would be those whom would use a gun that is made as a tool for a specifice purpose. Thus the “person” takes the tool and misuses it. As such, each example that is given above is a “tool” for a specific purpose that is misused and can cause death. Based on the logic that a gun that is used must be removed as it is the cause and not the stated example, in fact, shows that the argument is wrong.
          For example, a person runs a car into a crowd and kills fifty people, are any government official bring up laws to ban cars? No, the driver is the stated problem and not the car- which is a tool misused.
          What about a knife? If a person uses a knife to kill someone, are knives to be banned? Is it not the person stated as using a knife to kill, and so on.
          However, the moment a gun is used, the gun is used a a point that causes the death and thus should be banned. However, the person is somehow connect to the gun. Instead, of the person killing the person. Instead, we need thougher gun laws?
          The people using guns to kill is, in fact, the problem. That shoukd be addressed.
          The statment of the post was guns do not make thing safe, quite the contrary, the fact is that guns used for the proper use does. People with intent to kill will use anything to kill wether it is guns, explosives, etc… See the point. Remove guns, the crimmials will use it against those who do not.
          Guns are tools, punshish the user oand not the tool. It will then correct itself. blaming a tool is wrong.

          1. My dilemma remains: who gets to decide, before the fact, that a certain individual cannot be expected to use the tool properly? Must we always wait until the bodies are in the theaters or schoolrooms to identify bad actors?

            Also, it’s kind of a false comparison to equate guns and cars as both just tools. Everyday, cars are used for millions of useful tasks. Occasionally, a car is intentionally misused. Every time a gun leaves its holster, there is only two possible intents. The first is to kill a person. The second is to practice with the gun to improve the shooters chances of being able to kill someone. Put that together with the absolute killing capacity of modern firearms, only bad outcomes can be expected.

            So, to your original questions: “Should everyone have a gun? No” and “Should no one have a gun? No”, I posit this approach. Instead of going with the present real answer to the first question, which is “Everyone gets to have a gun until they kill some innocent and they get to carry that gun anywhere they want”, lets try a policy something like the NRA uses for their conventions “No guns allowed in public spaces”.

    6. And this would be why the violent crime rate in England is 4 times that of the U.S. Because disarming the law abiding citizen immediately eliminates all criminal activity.

      Perhaps you aren’t familiar with the differences between places like Chicago and Washington DC, where guns are basically outlawed, and places like the state of Oregon, where 1 in every 16 citizens has a concealed carry permit, and open carry in public is legal. That difference being that violent crime and murder are rampant in the former places, and the State of Oregon has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation.

      People who know nothing of America except what the corporate media and Michael Bloomberg feed them should keep their ignorance to themselves.

    7. Funny, that’s how I’ve always felt about rocks, hammers, pipe wrenches, baseball bats and chain saws. I say make them all illegal, and go out and gather them all up and destroy them, especially rocks since they are ubiquitous. Find a man with a tool box or an interest in sports, and you find a potential terrorist. Probably we should round up everyone who owns or uses a baseball bat and put them in a concentration camp. You know, for safety.

    8. “To many Yankees, guns are the solution to any problem”

      Riiiiiiiight. Check back when you feel like being serious.

      Guns are just tools, useful for some purposes, not for others. And most people who own and use them are quite clear on the difference.

      A lot of people who do not, haven’t the beginning of a clue.

  2. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. – James Madison

    1. Out of date. The officers of the militias have long since been commissioned by the Federal Government. The states did that to cheap-out on training and equipping their National Guard units.

      1. No, it’s not out of date.

        The reason for the 2nd amendment is to protect against oppressive government. The ability to shoot criminals in the face is just a side benefit.

        The sooner you illogical gun control nuts figure that out, the better.

        Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. — Noah Webster

        BTW: The reason the psychos go to public schools to wreak destruction is because public schools are GUN FREE ZONES and they know everyone inside is unarmed and helpless.

        1. By your same reasoning, Canada is largely a gun free zone and US criminals should be pouring over the border to come and shoot us. The lack of guns in Canada is tied to our attitude to treating each other with respect and not causing fear for each other. Fear is a poor motivator and love is a much greater motivator. Canadians pity the US citizens for their lack of social development.

          1. I don’t fear honest men and women with a gun, I respect them. I fear those who want to kill me – whether it be with a gun, a knife, an explosive etc. It is the PERSON that is dangerous, not the gun.

            BTW, your country as well as many other Euro countries have been the benefit of certain countries with POWER – whose might/strength in itself prevented others from attempting to harm them.

            1. How that person is brought up also has a lot to do. I mean some are brought up fearing those who want to kill. Fear is a good form of control for the short term but does not have the endurance that love does.

              Oh by the way, your country has been the benefit of certain countries with integrity that has prevented others from harming you. It’s especially important these days, as the US no longer has any moral high ground whatsoever.

          2. You must live in the center of the universe. Most Canadians do not live in the GTA. Many of them have long guns and hunt for sport or necessity.

            Of course, the majority of hand guns are found in the GTA and the like.

            1. GTA = Greater Toronto Area

              People outside of this populous area love to deride those within as not being aware of anything outside the region.

            2. Thanks. There is a movement underway to make the GTA Canada’s eleventh province.

              Once that is done, we will have a country wide plebiscite and throw those GTA bastards out of Comenwealth.

            1. This is proof that gun control is not equivalent to banning guns, but rather putting controls in place to limit the misuse, while still allowing for responsible gun ownership.

          3. Canadian legal firearm ownership rates vary hugely depending on where you are. The Yukon and NWT rates are much higher than the U.S. average, Ontario and Quebec lower.

            Oddly enough, according to StatsCan, violent-crime and homicide rates for border provinces are slightly higher than their adjoining U.S. states, with the likely exception of NY.

            And those adjoining states tend to have the highest levels of gun ownership in the U.S. Maybe something other than guns is the gating factor.

        2. You do recognize that was an advertisement, designed to induce you to make a purchase you might not have otherwise made. And it remains to be answered whether the girl had what it took to pull the trigger and actually hit something. Fainting criminals? Give us a break.

        1. In the year prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment, in Federalist No. 29 Alexander Hamilton wrote the following about “organizing”, “disciplining”, “arming”, and “training” of the militia as specified in the enumerated powers:

          If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security…confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority…[but] reserving to the states…the authority of training the militia….A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss…. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. [Federalist Papers]

          A fantasy in the minds of far too many armed men. Next they’ll be thinking the choice of which laws to obey is their right. Maybe to the extent of drawing weapons against law enforcement officers.

          It’s going to be tragic when this screwed up mindset comes to its natural end, that is the people decide whether it is the government we elect that controls the countrys path, or a bunch of self-appointed yahoos with guns.

            1. That the “militias” were to be untrained, undisciplined and not under the control of any government? Read up on the Whiskey Rebellion of 1793, during the administration of George Washington. It clearly demonstrates the meaning of militia during the time and what the function of militias was to be, suppression of resistance to federal laws, among other things. Sorry, pal, you’re reading from the NRA fantasy book.

            2. I’m reading from the Federalist papers. The militia was to be composed of all able bodied males. In time of trouble they were to be called out to defend the nation. The founders wanted no standing army. “Well regulated” means well trained. The main argument around the militia in the Federalist papers is who should train and arm the militia. In the end, it was decided that training was to be left up to local authorities. Clearly, that system had been working so far, well enough that the British had been defeated by these untrained, undisciplined citizen soldiers not under the control of any government.

            3. And yet Washington had the state Governors call up the militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Clearly, they didn’t ask for volunteers. The militiamen were under the direction of the state government. Regulated, as it were.

        2. Whether or not “well regulated” means “well trained” or, you know, well regulated, the NRA and gun fanatics don’t even want mandated training!

          To me, we should treat guns as we treat cars: potentially dangerous items that we let adults use as they please. Think about it: every car is registered with a permanent ID; you need to train before you get a license; you get fined if you operate it in violation of the rules; you may get jailed if you cause someone’s death; your license may be revoked if you abuse the privilege; and in most states you MUST carry some level of liability insurance.

          Now why can’t we follow these same no-nonsense rules for guns? No one ever claims the government is “taking away their car.” Virtually every adult who wants one HAS a car, so the regulations are not onerous. In fact, I’ve never heard a rational argument against car-like regulations that doesn’t involve “because the 2nd Amendment says I don’t have to!”

      1. The French did try. They had everyone wear pink ribbons promoting non-violence. Somehow, this did not stop the Muslim, who support the religion in Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi, which Apple has not attacked even though it advocates execution of people who practice same gender attempts at reproduction.

      2. As the debate here has quickly devolved into this gun rights slugfest, I’ll chime in with some perspective.

        Most pro-gun Americans argue that this is the most fundamental right that guarantees personal and political freedom (from oppressive government, as well as from assault on their person by a criminal). Neither of the two is actually realistic.

        Currently, America has a government that is in many ways more oppressive and less democratic than the majority of European nations with strict gun control laws. Wherein they have multi-party democracy where elections can happen at any time and governments can be voted out by a referendum, America has a two-party dictatorship that runs on a rock-rigid 4-year schedule that nothing can ever touch; not even an irregular vote count (the highest court in the land forced vote counting to stop and declared a winner, so that the new president could take office at a designated date; god forbid the outgoing president’s term lasted a week longer than intended!). Americans have guns to make sure their government doesn’t pass laws that they don’t like, but all those guns hadn’t stopped federal government from passing any and every law they intended to pass, regardless of popular support (or lack thereof).

        As for personal safety, there are numerous studies that show that ownership of a gun is statistically not a factor in the outcome of an attack on a person and his property. In other words, when someone breaks into your home, in the end, it really doesn’t matter whether you do have a gun or not; the criminals in most cases know what to expect and prepare accordingly (in gun-loving states, they bring guns). Negligible percentage of gun owners were able to save themselves and their property by successfully using their gun in a criminal action perpetrated against them. Meanwhile, significantly higher number of gun-related accidents (and deaths) occur in gun-owning households, than the amount of crime prevented by those guns.

        The most recent polls among Americans seems to indicate that slight majority now supports gun rights. This is a testament to an incredibly effective promotional efforts of the NRA and gun lobby, more than anything else. Statistical data flies directly into the face of all the arguments these groups are making in support of unrestricted personal gun ownership. Personal gun ownership obviously doesn’t prevent overbearing government, and it doesn’t improve personal safety. All it does is provides false perception of control and freedom.

        1. Americans have guns to make sure their government doesn’t pass laws that they don’t like, but all those guns hadn’t stopped federal government from passing any and every law they intended to pass, regardless of popular support (or lack thereof), to date.

          What are you going to tell us next, that a watched pot will never boil? I assure you that it most certainly does.

          People who promote “gun control” are actually only promoting “control,” because that is what good little Dem/Lib/Progs lust after: Control.

          Control the poor with a new form of slavery called subsistence government welfare handouts (Fact: Republicans opposed slavery while Democrats defended it. Right, Ben Affleck?).

          Control the poor with abortion (genocide).

          Control healthcare — and by extension, the economy — by forcing the extraction of monies from productive citizens to pay for those who do not produce, but who certainly do tend to vote Democrat.

          Control the vote. When you lose, import those most likely to want government handouts by whatever means necessary. Bus them in. Often. Multiple times, in fact. Oppose any method to insure verification of legal voters. (Unfortunately for Dems, this only works every four years and only when they have a “minority” candidate running. If the Dems ran a “white guy” for president, they’d never get elected. The Dems have lost the Senate and the House by historic landslides. The Dems have lost governorships and statehouses across the country. Good luck with Hillary. You’re gonna need it.)

          Control speech. Cover up, ignore, or discredit anything that might negatively influence opinions toward their favored political movements and leaders – or themselves. (Right, Ben Affleck?)

          1. Not sure how this post is related to what I had written about.

            Your American government is, for all intents and purposes, a totalitarian two-party dictatorship. Your republican / democrat (no difference who is nominally in control) government has a complete control over every aspect of your lives.

            On an unrelated subject, I must comment on a most absurd sentence of all: “Control the poor with abortion (genocide)”. I can’t possibly imagine how are poor controlled by abortion. In societies where abortion is legal, the poor are the ones that benefit the most from exercising it, for very obvious reasons: forcing the poor to have unwanted children essentially prevents them from even attempting to get out of poverty. Giving them the CHOICE of abortion at least allow those who exercise it to put their lives back on track.

            And what does Ben Affleck have to do with any of this? I mean, we are talking American laws and government; not TV entertainment, right?

            1. Population control. Especially of American Blacks.

              “It’s easier to just let them kill themselves.” – Overheard Democrat operative remarking on U.S. African Americans

              Appalling. Why do you think they constantly push abortion and never address black-on-black gun violence?

              Affleck: Typical Liberal Hypocrite

            2. In most of the progressive world, abortion is one of the most fundamental human rights of a woman to decide about her own body. Forcing birth of an unwanted child upon a woman is the ultimate control over the woman.

              As for “population control of American Blacks”, that is even more absurd; guns have been much more effective at “controlling American black population” than abortion, considering that there are disproportionately higher number of gun-related victims among blacks; abortion is exercised by three times as many black women as by white; meanwhile, ten times more blacks are killed by guns than whites (if we disregard suicide deaths). If “population control of blacks” was the agenda of the American Democrats (which is a silly notion), you’d think they would support gun rights much more than abortion, right?

              I’m not sure where black-on-black gun violence figures here. It isn’t much higher than white-on-white (or hispanic-on-hipanic, asian-on-asian, etc); vast majority murders happen among people who know each other, and racially, America is still a rather monolithic society, where races rarely mix.

        2. You’re very accomplished at parroting the lies of the gun control crowd. There are roughly a million instances of guns being used to prevent crimes every year in America. Most of those instances involve only the drawing of a weapon, and thus go unreported. Your studies pointedly don’t take that into account.

          What makes the U.S. a more violent society is the wide disparity between wealth and poverty, and an ever-shrinking middle class. We have relatively little to cushion the landing of those who fall through the social safety net. Unlike most European countries, we have no universal health care, which would include mental health care. We have no guaranteed minimum income, no free higher education, and precious few family wage jobs for those who are not rich. Our economic system has become predatory under Conservative/Corporate rule. Hopeless people who have the decadent lifestyles of the rich thrown in their faces daily want to know why they can’t have a piece of the pie instead of crumbs. That is the root cause of violence in America.

      3. America has very lax gun laws, the some of the laxest in the world. So why doesn’t that save the approximately 10,000 people who die in the US by firearms every year?

        1. Because a legit gun owner wasn’t there to stop them when those crimes were committed?

          An assortment of stats:

          Seventy-eight percent of all shooting deaths are drug-, gang- or other criminal-related incidents committed with unregistered guns wielded by non-licensed criminals.

          Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year.

          In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent.

          “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” You seem to believe that will be okay. The above proves otherwise.

          1. Your numbers are very skilfully twisted to support an argument.

            There is no correlation between number of guns and number of murders. The number of 2.5m (representing Americans defending themselves against crime) is so grossly inflated by using most absurd cases (when a beggar approaches a vehicle and a person in the vehicle had an unconcealed weapon, causing the beggar to flee).

            In reality, proper studies reveal that having a gun available in situations when crime is being committed against someone is statistically very unlikely to improve the outcome. While Americans love to believe that they are safer if the own and carry guns, statistical data and numerous studies analysing it proves othewise.

            The problem in America is clearly the simplicity and ease with which a gun can be purchased (and subsequently used). The obstacle is practically negligible and criminals can very effortlessly go around them.

            It is rather difficult in America to purchase a car and drive it immediately without registering it first. While it is easier to drive a properly registered car without a license (if you always obey traffic laws, you can likely get away with it for years before you are legitimately stopped by law enforcement), it is still likely that you will be caught.

            America will probably never agree to restrict the personal rights to own firearms. There should be a way to restrict ways to buy firearms in order to make it much more difficult for the criminals. Today, it is almost as easy as buying Imodium AD at a local 7-eleven.

            1. Predrag, you really should refrain from making inaccurate comments about societies in which you do not participate. Most of your comments are based on inaccurate assertions by anti-gun factions, uncritically accepted by American media as true, then regurgitated globally. I believe you are smarter than that.

            2. Having lived in places with very strict gun control and (perhaps unrelated) significantly lower murder rates in America, I have learned to very much appreciate very strict gun regulation. America regulates very many much less dangerous things (from controlled substances, vehicles, etc, etc), but firearms are untouchable. For us foreigners, this is simply incomprehensible; how one rather small group of people (NRA and their members) is able to completely dictate the narrative of the entire nation of over 300 million people. I really don’t wish to engage on this issue; I just felt compelled to throw in some perspective, without any American political affiliation (I’m not American). Much like most other matter, these days, every discourse in America turns political, regardless what it is about.

              Zeke, I completely agree with you regarding the disappearing American middle class. This may have a significant role in many of the problems of the American society.

            3. DOUGLAS, GA (WALB) – Police say a robbery attempt was stopped when the potential victim pulled out his gun. The attempted robbery occurred when Gary Royer, a gun owner, was delivering pizza to a residence at Sibbet Avenue in Douglas. The suspect, identified as Antavious McTear, approached Royer and threatened him with a metal bar. That’s when Royer pulled out his gun and pointed it at McTear, who turned and sped away in his car. Authorities caught him a short time later and booked him into the Coffee County jail.

        2. That does not answer the question: “France has very strict gun laws, some of the toughest gun control in the world. So, why didn’t that save Charlie Hebdo?”

          Most gun violence in the United States is committed with illegal or unregistered firearms. According to the National Gun Victims Action Council, 12,000 gun murders in the US are committed by individuals who are already not legally allowed to own guns.

          In other words, more “gun control” laws are not needed. Proper gun laws are what are needed, i.e. laws – ENFORCED LAWS – that prevent guns from moving from legal manufacturers and dealers to criminals and young people who already cannot buy guns legally.

          Failing that, the only sane method of deterring criminals from committing gun violence is the threat to criminals of law-abiding citizens bearing arms.

          1. “…the only sane method of deterring criminals from committing gun violence is the threat to criminals of law-abiding citizens bearing arms.”

            Except when law-abiding citizens start doing the shooting, which seems to happen now and then (like the guy in this story).

  3. “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

  4. And countless millions have had the same urge.

    I’d prefer chunking Dell PC’s into a GE90 turbofan running at full thrust (even though it would cause a lot of damage to the engine).

  5. Let’s forget about citizens needing guns to combat a tyrannical government for one second and instead talk about self defense. The best quote I ever heard on this matter was:

    When seconds count, law enforcement is minutes away.

    The most effective deterrent to crime is a well armed citizenry. If some nut job is breaking into my house, I want to be able to shot the son of bitch rather than call 911 and hope my family and I are not dead by the time the cops arrive. Apparently most US citizens now feel the same because a recent Pew poll showed the majority of citizens believe in gun rights.

    As to you Aussies, Canucks, and Brits, if you don’t want guns in your country that is your choice. The citizens of each country can make their own choice as to what approach they prefer. But, if the US citizenry prefers to have guns, that is our right, so F__k Off.

    1. That’s okay, keep your guns. 17 states have already reached that point where guns kill more people than cars do.

      Guns don’t kill people. People do. People with guns.

          1. There are fewer than 800 deaths (IIRC) per year as a result of accidental firearm discharge. You’re comparing an accident number to a broader homicide/suicide/accident death number. Firearm accidental deaths are far lower than car deaths.

            And you can’t use the gun-banner group VPC as a legitimate source of unbiased information. If you want to compare deaths to deaths, then heart disease and cancer rates are higher than car deaths.

            1. The gun banner VPC is wrongly comparing the number of deaths from car crashes to all deaths from firearms. Is VPC claiming ~60% of automotive deaths are suicides; or ~40% of automotive deaths are homicide/accident/justifiable homicide?

              The gun banner VPC is using two different types of death rates and comparing them wrongly.

              For good sources of unbiased data, check the CDC/FBI. Not the gun banner VPC. They’re notoriously skilled at twisting facts to further their agenda. You will never find the NRA, GOA, etc posting their own “statistics.”

            2. VPC data is from CDC. Check it out.

              You are trying to muddy the waters with accident vs. suicide vs. homicide. The report simply counts deaths related to guns vs. deaths due to motor vehicles:

              The report finds that in 2013, firearm-related deaths exceeded those caused by motor vehicles in 17 states and the District of Columbia.

              However you slice it, it is very interesting. Gun-related deaths are increasing while car-related deaths are decreasing. Consider as well that about 90 percent of American households own a car, but less than a third of American households own guns.

            3. It is not true that gun deaths are increasing on a per capita basis. They are, in fact decreasing. What is happened big is that car deaths per mile are decreasing more rapidly than gun deaths due to improvements in cars and roads, and a decrease in miles driven.

            4. You people need to stop contradicting things I didn’t say.

              Fact: Absolute numbers of gun-related deaths in the USA are increasing.
              Fact: Absolute numbers of motor vehicle-related deaths in the USA are decreasing.

              If these trends continue, guns will be the number one non-disease killer of Americans within a year or two.

              These numbers come from the US Centers for Disease Control.

              Have your guns or don’t. I am not judging or making any moral conclusions here, just passing on some interesting facts.

            5. The VPC is notorious for muddying the waters. They’re the ones comparing car crashes to a variety of firearm-related deaths – most suicide or crime-related and very very few accident-related.

              I know it’s semantics, but the cars didn’t cause the deaths (in the overwhelming majority of cases) and guns dont cause the deaths – or crime. It is the person driving or using the firearm. In the case of the firearm, it is used criminally or to end a person’s life (because it just happens to be quick).

              If you’re looking at firearm deaths, you must look at the breakdown of incidents: suicide, homicide and accident. Car-related deaths are all accidents (presumably)

              If you want to just compare numbers of dead people, then you need to look at food-related death (heart disease) and suicide (smoking, etc). The non-firearm deaths are greater in those categories than automobile deaths. Thus, you can say laziness (heart disease) kills more people than cars do.

              Do yourself a favor and steer clear of ANYTHING VPC, et al use as a ruse to try to ban guns. It’s more intellectually honest to look closer at the societal factors (blacks are responsible for ~77% of firearm deaths) and legal factors (guns are used illegally to commit crime and kill) than just the mechanism. Just look at (the ponderous) facts at the CDC and FBI for clearer and more honest information.

            6. Gun crime is a subset of gun-related deaths.

              In addition, these data are related to “National rates of gun homicide, non-fatal gun crime and all non-fatal violent crimes” which is a completely different metric.

    2. A person may have the right to smoke but many people are now realizing that they don’t have to smoke and are choosing the sane response to the pressure from the tobacco industry.

      Gun ownership may be a ‘right’ in the US but you don’t have to choose to own one and can decide to be safe and keep them out of your life. There are many dangerous things in the world that we can own but we may choose to keep them out of our lives too.

      Every right must be intrinsically intertwined with a corresponding RESPONSIBILITY. Gun nuts seem to be focused on the right and mostly ignore the responsibility.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.