The Society that Guns Have Made

Charae Williams Keys wears her late husband’s wedding ring on a necklace. Photo credit: New York Times

by Dick Hall-Sizemore

A recent event in Ohio is a vivid illustration of what we are coming to as a society in which firearms are ubiquitous.

Here is an excerpt from a long article in The New York Times in which the incident is described:

Mr. [Jason] Keys and his wife, Charae Williams Keys, were getting into their car after a Father’s Day visit in 2021 with her grandparents in a leafy neighborhood near Walnut Hill Park in Columbus, Ohio. A 72-year-old neighbor carrying a rifle accosted them in the belief, he later told the police, that Mr. Keys had let the air out of his daughter’s tires and poisoned his lawn.

Mr. Keys, who was carrying a pistol in his waistband, and his father-in-law tried to disarm the man, knocking him to the ground, while another relative ran back inside to get a .22 rifle. While Ms. Keys ducked behind the car to call 911, she heard multiple gunshots. She emerged to find her husband mortally wounded.

It took a moment for everyone to realize that the shots had come from a fourth gun across the street. Elias Smith, a 24-year-old ex-Marine, had stepped to his front door with a so-called ghost gun, an AR-style rifle that Mr. Smith had assembled from parts ordered online. Within seconds, he opened fire, hitting Mr. Keys five times.

‘What are you shooting for?’ a relative of Mr. Keys can be heard asking on surveillance video that captured parts of the incident.

Mr. Smith answered, ‘I don’t know.’

Jason Keys died.  Elias Smith is serving 15 years to life in prison.  His trial included evidence that he suffered from PTSD and a traumatic brain injury.  Three lives ruined. All because guns were available to settle an argument that could have been settled with words or, at the worst, with fists.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

176 responses to “The Society that Guns Have Made”

  1. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    Yep lots of fights are settled with fists and feet and knives. Fists kill more people than long rifles. That is per the so called fbi.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Sort of cherry-picking the data, aren’t you. Homicides: Firearms–10,258; Personal (fists, etc)–600

      1. vicnicholls Avatar
        vicnicholls

        You post ONE issue and tell people to give up guns that have protected the people from tyranny and talk about JK cherry-picking data?

        1. “. . . protected the people from tyranny . . . ”

          Bullshit.

          The Second Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights at the insistence of the Southern states because they feared a national Army would reduce or eliminate the need for their state militias — which in the South were not organized in defense of the state or the nation, but were used solely as slave patrols — keeping slaves in their slave labor camps (euphemistically called “plantations”).

      2. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        Before accusing others of cherry-picking, perhaps you should read the comment and construct a response to that comment, not one you wish the poster made.

        He stated long rifles, which is a very explicit quotation.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          That is what I meant about cherry picking.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            That’s not cherry picking, the article you cited discussed the use of a long rifle.

            A long rifle is the instrument of death in less instances than person weapons (feet, fists, etc.).

            The citation of 10,258 homicides by firearm also include justifiable actions. So again, you’re not in any position to make statements about cherry-picking.

            https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

      3. pak152 Avatar

        talk about cherry picking Kiser mention long rifles and statistics show that less than 500 deaths are by long rifles. you however cite a statistic for all firearms.

  2. vicnicholls Avatar
    vicnicholls

    Alright Dick, tell us why the women in this country deserve to be raped and tortured to death? That is what you want because rapes are higher in England than here. Know why? Guys take a chance they get shot here. Why do the handicapped deserve to be beaten to death or physically brutalized without a means to defend themselves? Why should seniors be preyed upon? Treated like trash, without the means to defend themselves? Why are people nothing but pieces of dung to be flung to the high winds and ripped apart Dick? Are they less than human? Only criminals and the govt would have guns, tell me what free society has that EVER happened in?

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Spit, meet wind. Wind, meet face.

    The longer version involves sailing, the high side of the boat, kidneys, and an angry — really angry — crew.

  4. vicnicholls Avatar
    vicnicholls

    NO MORE stories that are attempts to bully and intimidate and shame people into giving up guns. END OF DISCUSSION. We aint giving up a bloody thing. EVER. Having guns is what stops govt. from complete tyranny like what has been done to the Chinese, Cubans, Russians. Guns saved my sister and I. The govt. has ruled cops have NO duty to protect us. Concealed carry holders are SAFER than the cops. https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Save-Lives-Americans-Defending/dp/1559502266. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention affirmed in a 2013 report, almost all major studies on defensive gun uses have concluded that Americans use firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times every year. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence. https://komonews.com/news/local/freeway-attacks-terrorize-drivers-witness-shares-experience-thanks-good-samaritan-driver ,https://www.wgrz.com/article/news/local/suspect-shot-after-genesee-county-home-invasion/71-239ccee4-9b8c-4188-86e3-7e826b006af5

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Do you really think having guns keeps us from having to live under a tyranny? How do you explain the continued existence of democracy in countries where gun ownership among the population is not pervasive, such as Great Britain, Ireland, France, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc?

      1. vicnicholls Avatar
        vicnicholls

        I dont think I KNOW. This Non Violent Stuff’ll Kill You: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible, by Charles E. Cobb, tells you the vital role that armed self-defense has played in the survival and liberation of black communities.

        The Ottoman Empire disarmed the Armenian population. Guess what was next? The Armenian Genocide.
        The Nazi regime in Germany disarmed the Jewish population. Holocaust.
        The University of Michigan report discussed the formation of “Butcher Battalions” composed of violent criminals released from prison to kill ethnic Armenians, who were disarmed and placed into labor battalions.
        USSR stopped allowing guns in 1929. Stalin occurred. How about the gulags?
        Mao Zedong famously said on at least two occasions in speeches “Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” That was why he got rid of gun ownership.
        Even Japan would not allow non samurai weapons.

        Can you dispute these?
        https://www.spartanfirearmstraininggroup.com/a-brief-history-of-gun-control-a-disarmed-population-is-easier-to-oppress-than-an-armed-one/

        https://foac-pac.org/When-A-Population-Is-Disarmed:-A-Brief-History-Of-Tyranny/News-Item/7301
        1911: Turkey; citizens disarmed – 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered
        1929: Russia; citizens disarmed – 20 million Russians murdered
        1935: China; citizens disarmed – 20 million Chinese killed
        1938: Germany; citizens disarmed – 6 million Jews murdered
        1956: Cambodia; citizens disarmed – 1 million “intellectuals” killed
        1964: Guatemala; citizens disarmed – 100,000 Mayan Indians massacred
        1970: Uganda; citizens disarmed – 300,000 Christians put to death

        https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/genocide-and-disarmament

        Look at the Documentary Innocents Betrayed.

        https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/06/16/after-the-guns-were-removed-the-killing-fields-began/

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          You avoided my question. How do you explain the existence of democracy in many countries that have tougher gun laws than we do if guns are needed to protect freedom? None of the examples you provided were of democracies.

          1. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            Speaking of avoiding questions, what specific new laws would you propose?

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            This harkens back to the article where you stipulated if you question the budget, you must provide specifics. Perhaps you can provide your specifics, since you know that’s your standard.

            I however, won’t hold my breath.

      2. vicnicholls Avatar
        vicnicholls

        Part 2: How about Israel? We saw what happened there. Are any of those folks free or do they get preyed upon by criminals and the govt? Enforced vaccines? Check. Knife crime out of control? Check. So what Canada did to the truckers is good? Btw, it was a few years between disarmament and Pol Pot, so give it time. The destruction of the USA due to illegal aliens is coming. They are not free in those countries. Btw, so you are a pro rape person? The amount of rape that goes on in Germany and other places, the amount of home invasions, is higher than here BECAUSE they have no home protection. Btw, Great Britain is NOT a country.

      3. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        “Do you really think having guns keeps us from having to live under a tyranny”

        The Founders believed that to be the case and they were far smarter then yourself or I will ever be.

      4. Marty Chapman Avatar
        Marty Chapman

        Yes, and I fear we are perilously close to testing that proposition. How did Cromwell overthrow Charles II? How did Ireland escape from British Rule? France, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Belgium and Germany are free (more or less) because Americans with guns restored or imposed democracy.

        1. Marty Chapman Avatar
          Marty Chapman

          correction! make that Charles I!

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Ireland remains in efforts to escape British colonialism. Guns enabled France, Germany, and Belgium and others to effect colonial rule. Times, they are a’changin.

          2. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            Like most tools guns can be used for good or evil

          3. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Linking freedom to the use of dangerous devices for violent purposes is moral equivalency.

          4. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            James, where dangerous devices ie “arms” are used to defend and preserve freedom there is no moral equivalency.

      5. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        Yes.

    2. So, Patrick Henry, tell me: How many tyrants have been overthrown by a VCDL or NRA hero brandishing an AR-15 versus the number of 1st graders killed with an AR-15?

  5. Teddy007 Avatar
    Teddy007

    I never understand the logic that Americans have to tolerate a very high crimes rate so that we can protect ourselves from a very high crime rate.

    The issue with guns is that there are 400 million guns in private hands and there is nothing that can be done about it. However, something could be done about the gun laws that create an issue that everyone can carry a gun in public and the issue is who felt threatened first.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Well, not nothing. Buy backs. The problem grows though.

      Insurance requirements.

      1. Marty Chapman Avatar
        Marty Chapman

        You can’t “buy back” something you never owned. While we are on the subject, are guns that are turned in for cash or gift cards checked in case they were stolen? Are they tested to determine if they were used in a crime?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          So much to unwrap.

          Everything you “own” is tax burdened or belongs to the government. Remember the draft? Your illusion of “freedom” is ephemeral.

          Why would they bother? This SCOTUS would only determine such to be 4th Amendment violations.

          We don’t have a turn-in program in Virginia… well, not my part. I “donated” my long guns to deserving police officers. Made a call to local PD and 3 cops showed up in under 5 minutes. That’s way faster than average response times.

          Bet they could beat that too if I had been offering Krispy Kremes.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          So much to unwrap.

          Everything you “own” is tax burdened or belongs to the government. Remember the draft? Your illusion of “freedom” is ephemeral.

          Why would they bother? This SCOTUS would only determine such to be 4th Amendment violations.

          We don’t have a turn-in program in Virginia… well, not my part. I “donated” my long guns to deserving police officers. Made a call to local PD and 3 cops showed up in under 5 minutes. That’s way faster than average response times.

          Bet they could beat that too if I had been offering Krispy Kremes.

          1. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            I am left to wonder why you bother posting? Boredom? Part of your therapy?

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Like you make a difference. Or, more politely, what do you think you have/can accomplish by commenting here?

          3. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            Nancy, no quip?no odd, offbeat response? I think I have accomplished my immediate goal.

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Small ambition on that immediate goal there, Bubba.

          5. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            The journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step, snookems

          6. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            You may call me that. All of my girlfriends do.

          7. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            my Dad used to call me Bubba

          8. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            That, I can believe.

        3. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          What is accepted at gun buybacks is laughable. Not to mention they will buy back historic pieces and they will destroy them.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    The US has a gun-death rate similar to 3rd world countries like Nicaragua, Brazil, Mexico, Haiti rather than similar to other
    developed countries:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6035b4e9e813dd5d5593c9a4ba8174162f3e589dad2beae65c27a80be61cffa6.png

    https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier

    We have daily gun shootings in most places now days.

    We put people in jail for shooting others so it’s not that we
    don’t have laws that are not enforced. You shoot someone, and chances are you’re gonna be charged and good chance you’re going to jail.

    People know this but they still shoot others – like in the example that Dick provided.

    1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      So, bring back the successful “Project Exile” used in Richmond and other cities. It focused on illegal possession of a firearm and carried a mandatory 5-year sentence.

      Of course, the left would oppose anything putting criminals in prison since they tend to believe that those who commit crimes are the real victims of society. Virginia’s own Representative Bobby Scott opposed Project Exile.

      If we had to treat the right to bear arms and the right to an abortion by the same rules, we’d probably come up with something reasonable and consistent.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        The “left” does not oppose putting people in jail who have illegally possessed guns or committed gun crimes. FAUX News “ideas”.

        Project “Exile” did not seem to be pursued across the board to all demographics according to some.


        But was Project Exile making the difference in Richmond’s shrinking homicide totals U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott, a Democrat who has represented the Hampton Roads region since 1993, has been and still remains a vocal critic of the initiative.

        Scott has cited a number of studies on Project Exile that either conflicted with one another or yielded inconclusive results as to its impact on the homicide rate or crime in general.

        “The crime rate was going down all over the state and not just in Richmond,” said Scott. “It went down more in other cities where they didn’t have Project Exile.”

        Among those cities that adopted their own version of Project Exile, based on what looked like success in Richmond, results were also inconclusive. In fact, the homicide rate increased in Oakland, California, after implementation of a Project Exile. Scott said the initiative was a good idea only for politicians who wanted a tough, vote-friendly slogan. For more than 20 years he’s shared data-backed misgivings about unequal enforcement, such that urban communities of color are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement and unfairly impacted by harsh federal sentencing guidelines that are not enacted on other demographics.”

        We have yet to define what “arms” are and are not.

        Who decides that? What did the Constitution say? Are we entitled to whatever “arms” are currently available like we were back when the Constitution said we were entitled to “bear arms”?

      2. Teddy007 Avatar
        Teddy007

        How can one go after illegal possession in the states with constitutional carry laws. The person having the gun is not a crime unless a check of the legal system is made.

        1. Marty Chapman Avatar
          Marty Chapman

          Most states and the Federal Gov prohibit gun possession by convicted felons although the recent trend toward “rights restoration” undermines this. Many states, including Va, have restrictions on carrying a firearm into an establishment that serves alcohol.

          1. Teddy007 Avatar
            Teddy007

            But then just finding the gun is not enough. It requires local law enforcement to suspect that th person carrying is a felon and do a check of the legal system. That means that blacks will be arrest at a much higher per capita rate than whites. That results in civil rights lawsuits.

          2. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            Many, perhaps most, felons in possession are caught while committing other crimes. Back in the 90’s I arrested quite a few who were DUI. Civil rights lawsuits are a given these days. It is a sad but irrefutable truth that black men are greatly over represented as both the victims and identified perpetrators of violent crime.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Did you never see a Clockwork Orange? If felons, who have served their time, are stripped of their right to a firearm in a firearm violent society then you have created a class of powerless victims.

          4. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            Many of what you call powerless victims I would call slightly less dangerous predators.

          5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Well, that is how vilification works after all.

          6. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            Eric, I must concede to your expertise and vast experience in vilification

          7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Why? You seem to be a master at it…🤷‍♂️

          8. WayneS Avatar

            In Virginia, you may carry concealed into an establishment which serves alcohol as long as you do not imbibe.

            Oddly, you are allowed to open carry, and drink, in establishments that serve alcohol. Probably not advisable, though.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Why not? Dumb question?

          10. WayneS Avatar

            Why is it not advisable to drink alcohol while open carrying?

            Because it’s a bad idea to ingest any type of intoxicant when one has taken on the responsibilities associated with carrying a fire arm on one’s person.

          11. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Not a law?

          12. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            you are correct

        2. WayneS Avatar

          It is always illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm, unless he has had his rights restored.

          1. Teddy007 Avatar
            Teddy007

            but how would the law enforcement officer know that the person is a convicted felon before the stop for nothing more than the carrying of the weapon. Law Enforcement would be depending on profiling.

          2. WayneS Avatar

            They would not know – so the prohibition is difficult to enforce.

            That being the case, why should I be left to the mercies of people who have proven they can’t be trusted to obey the law?

    2. WayneS Avatar

      We have daily gun shootings in most places now days.

      No, Larry, we do not.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        We actually do… if you look at a place like NoVa or Richmond for sure.

        1. WayneS Avatar

          NoVa and Richmond are not most places. Get a grip. There was no shooting yesterday in the county in which I reside, nor was there a shooting in any of the counties surrounding the one in which I reside.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            We have shootings on an almost weekly basis in the Fredericksburg Area these days. I believe you live near or in Facquier?

            So , let me rephrase, Virginia has shootings every day…

            did we years ago?

          2. WayneS Avatar

            So , let me rephrase, Virginia has shootings every day…

            did we years ago?

            Yes. Virginia had more shootings annually during the 1980s and 90s than we have now – despite the population being significantly higher now.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            have you got a cite for that?

            it sure seems like a lot more…but I’ll admit I’m wrong if the data shows it.

        2. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          Why do you think we have daily shootings in Northern Virginia.

          The area’s most populous jurisdiction (Fairfax County) is extremely safe, compare to Virginia or the United Staes.

          https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/va/fairfax/crime

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            shootings just about every day, no?

          2. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Whereas the armpit of NoVA, aka Manassas, has a higher violent crime rate than Virginia:

            https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/va/manassas/crime

            Woodbridge is even worse, it exceeds the national average for violent crime:

            https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/va/woodbridge/crime

            Most of the violent trash in Manassas and Woodbridge can’t afford Fairfax.

    3. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      And the Swiss are armed to the teeth but shootings are very rare.

      https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/how-switzerland-combines-a-passion-for-guns-with-safety/49115108

      It’s the people and the culture, not the guns.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I agree but most developed, “free” countries .. remain “free”.. even are called “socialist” – despite not having guns.

        We DO have a gun “culture” in this country, no question.

        And the thing is, if you want to take a trip to another country, you lose your gun “freedom”! In fact, you lose it the minute you step on a plane despite the so-called Constitutional “right” to bear arms and not have it infringed.

        What does SCOTUS have to say about the peope and places that “infringe” that guaranteed “right”?

  7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    vicnicholls Dick Hall-Sizemore
    an hour ago

    “I dont think I KNOW.”

    C’mon! It is just laying there for you… take it!

  8. Marty Chapman Avatar
    Marty Chapman

    Dick, are you proposing something?

  9. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Here’s your right to bear arms – in action:

    “Four more charges against a man accused of hate crimes were sent to a Spotsylvania grand jury following a preliminary hearing Wednesday.

    Douglas Wayne Cornett, 57, of Ruther Glen, was in Spotsylvania General District Court facing two counts of aggravated malicious wounding and two counts of using a firearm in the commission of a felony. Judge Richard McGrath sent the charges to circuit court at the end of the hearing.

    The charges stem from a Feb. 29 incident in which police say two Prince William men were shot without provocation at the Thornburg Sheetz in Spotsylvania. The victims, Omar A. Guardique-Villegas and Jesus A. Martinez Lopez, were shot as they ran away from the armed suspect.

    Guardique-Villegas speaks no English, so he didn’t know what Cornett allegedly said prior to the shooting. But Martinez Lopez testified that Cornett was asking questions regarding how long they’d been in the country and about their Hispanic heritage.”

    https://fredericksburg.com/news/local/crime-courts/four-more-charges-against-man-accused-of-hate-crimes-in-thornburg-sheetz-shooting-sent-to-spotsylvania-grand-jury/article_53243290-12f9-11ef-8c75-c775f051bfd1.html

  10. Ronnie Chappell Avatar
    Ronnie Chappell

    Before passing new laws perhaps we should start aggressively enforcing the ones we already have. For example, the law that prohibits drug users from purchasing firearms. A mother in Newport News is going to jail, in part, for lying to obtain a pistol later used by her six-year-old to shoot his teacher. Perhaps the same will happen to Hunter Biden.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      I believe that IS an example of where the law is being enforced. Until the lie is detected, what possible enforcement would you suggest?

      I suppose applicants could be hooked to a polygraph and a car battery with a limit switch on one of the polygraph sensors to apply immediate enforcement of the law.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I agree. We’re apparently selling guns to people who, by law, are not supposed to be able to buy them in the first place.

      We’re selling guns to people who have known and documented mental issues:

      “Months ahead of his bloody rampage in Lewiston last week, suspected Maine gunman Robert Card had displayed glaring signals that his mental health was on a drastic decline – signals which his immediate family members knew about, were concerned by – and explicitly warned law enforcement that something needed to be done, according to documents obtained by ABC News via records requests.”

      https://abcnews.go.com/US/alleged-maine-gunman-displayed-glaring-mental-health-signals/story?id=104500818

      “Robert Card, the shooter who killed 18 people in Maine’s deadliest mass shooting, had documented mental health issues. On a federal form that must be filled out to obtain guns, Card acknowledged mental health issues, including hearing voices and threatening to carry out a shooting at a military training facility. However, the Maine commissioner of public safety said that there is no information to suggest that Card was ever forcibly committed for mental health treatment.

      Mar 8, 2024
      Card was a 40-year-old Army reservist who was an instructor at an Army hand grenade training range, where it is believed he was exposed to repeated low-level blasts. Brain injuries can lead to mood changes, headaches, memory loss, and sleep issues. However, experts say that brain injury likely played a role in Card’s symptoms, but that it doesn’t explain his behavioral changes in the last 10 months of life. The Maine state’s chief medical examiner, Lindsey Chasteen, wants CTE testing done on Card’s brain because of his military experience and actions, as well as the combined history of his mental health problems. “

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      I believe that IS an example of where the law is being enforced. Until the lie is detected, what possible enforcement would you suggest?

      I suppose applicants could be hooked to a polygraph and a car battery with a limit switch on one of the polygraph sensors to apply immediate enforcement of the law.

  11. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    One can go back at least as far as King Henry II’s 1181 Assize of Arms to find legal support for a right to bear arms. In that law, every freeman was required to possess and bear arms in the service of the king and realm. Those who failed to comply faced severe consequences, including “vengeance, not merely on their lands or chattels, but on their limbs.”

    And since there were no armories back then, freeman kept their arms with them at their homes. Of course, Jews were not permitted to bear arms, while non-Jews were. (I guess antisemitism is nothing new.)

    So, why not attempt to repeal the Second Amendment, as suggested by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens?

  12. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I am under no illusion that the Second Amendment can or will be repealed. With the current Supreme Court, there is little chance that sensible gun control laws can be enacted. Guns have not made us safer. When you were growing up, did your parents worry about school shootings? Did people feel they had to carry guns because the next guy might be carrying a gun? All the examples given by various readers just underline my point: this is the society we have created and it is not a safer one.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      “I am under no illusion that the Second Amendment can or will be repealed. With the current Supreme Court, there is little chance that sensible gun control laws can be enacted.”

      What is “sensible”?

      Firearms were more prevalent the further back you go. They would be stored in students trucks in school parking lots to go hunting after school.

      No, you’re point has not been made. It’s been refuted because you generated it out of uneducated opinion, rather than cold hard facts.

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        One of my brothers-in-law who is over 80 says that not only did high school students in rural areas keep guns in their cars or trucks to go hunting after school, but sometimes they even had one in a locker.

        What is the difference between “If you don’t like abortion, don’t get one” and “If you don’t like guns, don’t own one”?

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          In rural America it most certainly was commonplace. As a function of population firearm ownership has remained roughly about the same since at least the 70’s.

          The larger difference is the elites will never requires their “security” to relinquish their firearms, only the plebs.

        2. how_it_works Avatar
          how_it_works

          Keeping a gun in your car or truck to go hunting after school was still allowed in Prince William County schools in the late 80s.

          1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            I was one of those kids! 22 rifle and a 410 shotgun. Squirrel and turkey hunting after school. I didn’t bring it every day to Stonewall High but in the late fall and early spring it was locked in my trunk. Just as the school rulebook said.

          2. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Do you know when they changed that rule? Seems like it went away in the early 90s at the latest.

          3. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            The rules allowed this as late as 1988. Not sure when the change came.

          4. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Wonder who has old copies of the Code of Behavior for PWCS to research…

        3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          “What is the difference between “If you don’t like abortion, don’t get one” and “If you don’t like guns, don’t own one”?”

          I am not at risk of being killed if a woman chooses to have an abortion…🤷‍♂️

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            But you were at one time.

          2. WayneS Avatar

            Well done!

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            No, I was not. But if you are suggesting that we should restrict guns in the same way we restrict abortions, I can get on that bus.

          4. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            Assuming that woman is not your mother!

          5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Even then, my statement is true.

    2. Ronnie Chappell Avatar
      Ronnie Chappell

      When we were growing up in southside VA there were guns everywhere including many of the pick up trucks in the student parking lot at Halifax County High School. Something other than guns is making Americans feel less.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        But people did not carry handguns around. The only one that I knew who did that was John Spencer.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          did not carry AR-15’s either.

        2. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          That’s an assumption not validated with facts. Just because you weren’t aware of something, didn’t mean it didn’t occur.

    3. Marty Chapman Avatar
      Marty Chapman

      What would be an example of “sensible” gun control?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Guns, guns, and more guns! No bullets.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Guns, guns, and more guns! No bullets.

        1. WayneS Avatar

          I can make my own.

    4. Randy Huffman Avatar
      Randy Huffman

      I know your point is we have too many guns, but am having a hard time understanding what it is you suggest. Pointing a finger at the Supreme Court is nonsense. We have a second amendment that the courts must then interpret, and each State passes their own set of gun laws.

      Larry posted a picture of gun deaths per 100,000 around the globe up above. Illinois and Maryland had “Deep Red”, lots of gun deaths. Yet they have some of the toughest laws. North and South Dakota have much fewer deaths, but they have very loose laws. We can all come up with our own set of reasons for this, but the point is taking an Illinois Law and making it a Federal Law, will do what to move the needle?

      Guns don’t shoot people, people shoot people.
      And those people shooting people are usually in the process of committing other crimes. Are gun laws going to take guns away from gang members in cities?

      You also need to look under the hood on gun deaths, I have read multiple times the number one victim of a gunshot is…themselves. Suicide. Kinda throws off all these great statistics, right?

      https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        here is the intentional homcide data:

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9beb74e5b1a077166b8f909b9a6e4e4e591a1f71ea0062a9fdf91358781cd367.png

        re: ” Guns don’t shoot people, people shoot people.”

        totally true.

        want to sell even more guns to people that ought not have them? Or how about letting them buy even deadlier weapons than they can now?

        We sell guns to people who ought not be able to buy them and more and more the weapons they can buy are even deadlier than before.

        Simple stuff. Like having to wait a month before getting the weapon while a thorough and proper background check is done.

        1. Randy Huffman Avatar
          Randy Huffman

          I grew up in Chicago in the 70’s. If you wanted to buy drugs or guns, they were available. Most murders were not from legal gun owners.

          Half the states have tough gun laws. But after you have tough gun laws, what’s next…?

          Tougher policing! Actually getting those who are violating laws off the streets. That my friend, will start another 100 comment thread…….

    5. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      “With the current Supreme Court, there is little chance that sensible gun control laws can be enacted.”

      Actually, with the current Supreme Court only sensible gun laws will be upheld. Leges can enact anything they want, only the Constitutional stuff gets upheld.

      Our society may not be safer, but it is freer than it would be with a disarmed populace. Freedom is what our founders were about. It is the legacy they bequeathed us. Your inclination to trade freedom for safety is one that many people disagree with.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        There is a pervasive theme in a good number of these articles, they somehow believe our rights are given by the Government. Rather than the founding document being the restriction of Government.

      2. Teddy007 Avatar
        Teddy007

        It is gun enthusiast who refuse to visit large parts of the U.S. who would shut up about being freer. Those who are ruled by fear of the other are not free.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          Actually, it is geographically very small parts of the country that are ruled by fear. That is demonstrated in the case of this posting where two residents came out their front doors carrying rifles, and the object of their affection was carrying a pistol. One could certainly argue that they were free to exercise their Constitutional rights right up to the point where they exceeded them. Of course, if you consider the rule of fear perpetrated by the uniparty congress and administration that spreads from sea to shining sea then all bets are off.

    6. WayneS Avatar

      Guns of all kinds, and the ammunition for them, were much easier to obtain when I was a kid. They were even easier to obtain when you were a kid. My father used to be able to buy shotgun shells and handgun ammunition at a hardware store near his house when he was 12 years old.

      Even in the City of Virginia Beach where I grew up, it was common to see rifles and shotguns in gun racks in pick-up trucks in the student parking lot at my high school. Members of the shooting team had access to rifles in the school building. Yet not a single student decided to shoot up my school.

      It is not guns that are causing the problems, it is people.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        Mr. Wayne why do Democrats keep shooting each other? What is wrong with them? I don’t get it.

  13. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    Loving all the anecdotes from the correlation is not causation crowd. Have you forgotten your Covid damage denialism chant already?
    First, why do you trust the statistics? How many shootings were in self defense? What definitions are used to come up with the statistic?
    Do you trust Hamas statistics? Only if a zealot or a useful !d!0t.
    One of the Hamas tricks is to define 20 and under as “children” while many of those “children” are the warriors, who use otherwise civilians as shields. Good people. Besides just making up numbers.
    Now let’s examine the shootings – how many are gang bangers, black on black crime? A huge number. And no Leftist will admit it – fatherlessness, illegitimacy, Dem Union run education systems, lack of Christian virtue in schools any more – all contribute to the Hellhole Dem cities.
    How many deaths are avoided by armed citizens? Many. How come the crazies go to “gun free” zones to do their crazy shootings?
    Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. Dem policies denying reality make the people problem worse.
    Why do Leftists so hate guns? Because they make taking complete power really hard. They don’t really care about all the black kids shooting each other, and disproportionately killing other races…if they did, they would do something serious to fix it. No, they want power and blacks killing each other creates useful statistics for the stup!d. Just like Hams’ statistics!

  14. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    I wish Repubs would focus more on Dem banning of cars and other extremism. Instead we have pro gun violence and abortion bans as Repub main interest. This is why cars have been successfully banned by Va Dems. Coat tails of this tainting even liberal R Larry Hogan.

  15. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    The first census in 1790 counted some 3+ million residents while current data show 333.9 million in the US. SCOTUS’s legal criterion for affirming the Second Amendment relies upon a “historical tradition” of firearms. Not to mention the existence of multiple law enforcement agencies and a vital military to protect the citizenry. Historical tradition is now legal and cultural myth.

    1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      You don’t think that the founders knew their English constitutional and legal history? Unless you were a woman, a child, feeble minded or a Jew, you had the right, indeed, the duty, as a freeman to bear arms. Assize of Arms 1181. And many laws after that.

      It’s been many years since I took English Constitutional and Legal History as a senior in college. But I learned that most of the underpinnings of American law came from English Common law, they Unwritten Constitution and statutes.

      Justice Stevens was right. If the American people don’t like the personal right to bear arms, repeal the Second Amendment. We did it with Prohibition.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        If you look at the actual words in the Constitution – it does not grant the unfettered right to own “arms”.. it’s got some significant caveats – not the mention the lack of a clear definition as to what “arms” actually are or are not.

        I think a different SCOTUS might interpret differently especially. Define “arms”!

        “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        define well-regulated militia with regard to the “right” to bear what “arms”.

        Where does it say that, that right CAN be infringed as it actually is, now?

        It’s mythical gobbledygook…

        1. WayneS Avatar

          I agree, your comments on guns are almost 100% mythical gobbledygook…

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            The 2A is mythical gobbledygook… especially when it comes to what “arms” are or are not…IMO

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Really, an ad hominem attack? Larry makes a fair point. The introductory clause clarifies the purpose of the 2nd. They needed to provide for a standing military and had to turn to the general population for this purpose. They, therefore, needed that population to be armed. They certainly did not want a rogue confederation of states or Congressional majority to disarm the very military they relied upon for defense from enemies (domestic or abroad). So the question is why do we still need such a requirement when we have a standing military under civilian command? The answer is “we don’t”. And since the arming of the population is no longer a necessity for defense of the nation (it is not – in fact, it is a bigger threat to the nation these days) then the rest of the 2nd is equally invalid.

            Btw, this particular provision really worked rather poorly. The state militia’s were not an effective national defense. Just ask Dolly Madison.

          3. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Ad hominem, really? He made an observation of Larry’s comments, not his person.

          4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Pick your fallacy. He still ignored Larry’s central point… as did you…

          5. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            I don’t know Larry’s point, central or otherwise, if any. He blocked me a couple of years ago so I don’t see his posts. I remain grateful.

            Once again, in smaller words, Wayne described Larry’s comments as “almost 100% mythical gobbledygook”, not Larry himself. It was not an ad-hominem attack.

            Your position is the fallacy, not to be confused with you, and I correctly picked on that.

          6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            If I say all your posts are idiotic (aside: note I am not actually saying this because not all of your posts are idiotic – notice I am not using this comment to attack you personally what often results in posters getting blocked, btw) I would be saying that you (the hypothetical poster) are not capable of posting a logical argument because of a lack of intelligence and therefore all your arguments are not valid – this is a form of ad hominem. Claiming such a statement is not an attack on the person because one used the term “comments” is the equivalent of asking “moi?” when challenged.

            The tell is that Wayne skipped over Larry’s arguments and instead attacked “his comments” as a whole. I restated the central premise of what I believe to be Larry’s argument – I am not currently blocking you and you are free to respond. As I stated, you also chose not to … but you did not include the overall claim that because I made the argument it should be ignored.

          7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            If I say all your posts are idiotic (aside: note I am not actually saying this because not all of your posts are idiotic – notice I am not using this comment to attack you personally what often results in posters getting blocked, btw) I would be saying that you (the hypothetical poster) are not capable of posting a logical argument because of a lack of intelligence and therefore all your arguments are not valid – this is a form of ad hominem. Claiming such a statement is not an attack on the person because one used the term “comments” is the equivalent of asking “moi?” when challenged.

            The tell is that Wayne skipped over Larry’s arguments and instead attacked “his comments” as a whole. I restated the central premise of what I believe to be Larry’s argument – I am not currently blocking you and you are free to respond. As I stated, you also chose not to … but you did not include the overall claim that because I made the argument it should be ignored.

          8. WayneS Avatar

            No. You apparently do not know the definition of ad ad-hominem attack.

          9. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “An ad hominem argument is a fallacy in which an argument or claim is rejected or criticized based on a personal characteristic, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.”

            Just because your attack is veiled does not mean it wasn’t intended as a statement regarding personal characteristics of Larry. It served the purpose you intended – ignoring the substance of Larry’s argument.

          10. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            correct.
            And he knows this.

      2. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        No assertion that the founders were historically ignorant. It’s a different society today from 1790 if only one considers urbanization and population along with modern access to food, shelter, clothing. Agreed that the most salient solution is to abolish the 2A.

        1. Marty Chapman Avatar
          Marty Chapman

          why stop there?

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Might as well trash the 10th. Five of the nine don’t recognize it anyway. Too vague.

        2. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          Which is why, in their wisdom, the founders incorporated two ways to modify the Constitution in the Constitution.

      3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “Assize of Arms 1181”

        Didn’t you have to register for the draft? That is our current day version. Nonetheless, the Assuze of Arms also allowed the government to disarm anyone who they considered a threat. Jews in particular were disarmed due to this provision. It would violate the 2nd in these times.

        “Let no Jew keep in his possession a hauberk, or a breastplate, or a lance, but let him sell it or give it away or in some other manner dispose of it so that it remains in the king’s service.”

        I agree we should abolish the 2nd. This is the way…

      4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “Assize of Arms 1181”

        Didn’t you have to register for the draft? That is our current day version. Nonetheless, the Assize of Arms also allowed the government to disarm anyone who they considered a threat. Jews in particular were disarmed due to this provision. It would violate the 2nd in these times.

        “Let no Jew keep in his possession a hauberk, or a breastplate, or a lance, but let him sell it or give it away or in some other manner dispose of it so that it remains in the king’s service.”

        I agree we should abolish the 2nd. This is the way…

    2. Marty Chapman Avatar
      Marty Chapman

      Just out of curiosity what other parts of the Constitution do you consider myths?

  16. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    Sounds like a pretty sketchy neighborhood, poisoning lawns, deflating tires and appendix carrying when visiting. You might be inclined to be armed if you lived or visited there too. Dunno about y’all, but I’ve never felt the need to be armed when I step out my front door.

    FWIW, the homicide rate in Columbus this year has fallen to about half what it was last year, even in the absence of new gun laws. The NYT article is behind a pay wall so here’s a link to a story about Columbus that apparently covers much of the same territory. Among other things it describes what drove the increase in homicides. https://news.yahoo.com/news/gun-violence-spread-across-one-125608752.html

    Just for the record, “ghost guns” are not simply parts ordered on line and assembled like Leggos. They require machining and drilling to function as receivers for guns.

    1. WayneS Avatar

      Dunno about y’all, but I’ve never felt the need to be armed when I step out my front door.

      I’ve never felt the need to wear a seatbelt either, but I still strap myself in every time I drive my car. Better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Aw, geeez. A firearm is not employed passively like a seat belt. Try another analogy.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Armed guards are used as deterrents all over this country and others (whom don’t have a 2nd Amendment). To say they are not employed passively, isn’t a true statement.

          Even our 26th POTUS was famous for the statement of, “speak softly and carry a big stick”.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          More like an airbag… with shrapnel.

        3. WayneS Avatar

          In modern automobiles, neither seat belts nor air bags are deployed “passively”.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        I do! I want a 4-point restraint. Wouldn’t object if required to wear the helmet and the Dale Earnhardt gizmo too.

        1. Marty Chapman Avatar
          Marty Chapman

          I am filing this under “blind pig finds acorn”! YOU ARE CORRECT! Wearing even bicycle type helmets in motor vehicles would save many lives and prevent many injuries.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Has nothing to do with saving lives and everything to do with warning others how I intend to (do) drive.

      3. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        Yeah, I was really thinking about the neighborhood and how geographically concentrated gun homicides are. It is pretty remote for most of the population. Urban police departments are well aware of the dangerous areas, and the small crew that perpetrates most of the gun violence.

        The two locals came out their front doors carrying rifles and the visitor was carrying a pistol. That’s not the way people celebrate Father’s Day most places.

        1. WayneS Avatar

          That’s not the way people celebrate Father’s Day most places.

          True enough. It’s not celebrated that way where I live either.

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Pretty clear from the article that at least one local and the deceased had previous unhappy association. The guy who did the shooting reportedly did not know why he started shooting. He’s got about 15 years to contemplate it. Dunno what would inspire me to accuse someone of poisoning my lawn, although I am fond of my crown vetch and moss.

      4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        You are far more likely to be in a car accident than your are to be a victim of a violent crime. But if you voluntarily choose to do something, then you “feel the need” to do it.

      5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        You are far more likely to be in a car accident than your are to be a victim of a violent crime. But if you voluntarily choose to do something, then you “feel the need” to do it.

        1. WayneS Avatar

          No, for the most part, I feel “the law”.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “Better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it.”

            Sounds like you concur with “the law”…

  17. Rafaelo Avatar
    Rafaelo

    Concealed carry license in Virginia requires a single class on when not to shoot (this writer took the class). Well and good. But no actual shooting.

    Which end does the bullet come out? Most of us have seen enough movies to know. But standing in the stance, and holding the thing with both hands and parallel thumbs so the bullet goes where you want? Very counter-intuitive.

    Especially the stance, since every real-life actual- somebody -gets -shot video they showed in class, nobody just stood there legs a-straddle, presenting their full front as a target. No, everybody running, shooting on the move.

    Anyway I signed up for an extra class, I stress not required in Virginia, a class at the range on how to shoot safely and accurately.

    Pistols I found, are loud. Worse — my instructor said since I have the permit I should always carry one. All the time, everywhere.

    It’s a heavy piece of metal. Like always carrying a hefty wrench, just in case you encounter a big loose nut.

    But you can’t go in the post office. Can’t even step out of your car in the post office parking lot to hide the pistol in the trunk. No firearms in public parks in Charlottesville: you can’t walk through and must walk around. Two schools near me: can’t step on their property to talk to a friend. Can’t go in restaurants. Banks. The library. Can’t set foot on all of U Va. grounds.

    This 2nd Amendment freedom to carry a pistol ends up curtailing all the other freedoms.

    So I never got a pistol. Just the license. If I ever encounter the loose nut I’ll pull it out and show it to him.

    1. Marty Chapman Avatar
      Marty Chapman

      Carrying a concealed pistol is a pain and huge responsibility. Freedom comes with considerable burdens and obligations!

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Excellent! Brandishing the Concealed Carry Permit isn’t a crime.

      Hopefully, the loose nut doesn’t pull his Tec-9 he slings under his coat without CCP.

  18. Patriot1776 Avatar
    Patriot1776

    Well, this has certainly caused a stir. I believe in our second amendment, but I have to agree, too many guns and too easy to access

    1. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      It always does. The usual suspects can be counted to turn out for or against the Bill of Rights.

  19. The ignorance displayed in the comments responding to this factual article is stupefying. But it’s what we should expect from those who worship at the altar of the gun.

    And don’t even start with me — 28 years in the Army, long time in a place called Vietnam with a 60-lb rucksack and an M-16, which I frequently used for its intended purpose. And, yes, I own guns.

  20. pak152 Avatar

    the problem was the individuals who decided to use firearms. firearms are nothing more than inanimate objects that require an individual to fire it. just like cars dont cause accidents, but rather the driver

  21. pak152 Avatar

    "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.

    This database, therefore, is not intended to be comprehensive. Instead, it highlights just a fraction of the incredible number of times Americans relied on the Second Amendment—not the government getting there in time—to protect their inalienable rights. Despite the limitations on data, these confirmed cases of defensive gun use help prove that the “good guy with a gun” is not a myth, but an integral part of American society."
    https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/

Leave a Reply