Many people have strong opinions on the topic of gun control. Even those who don’t feel strongly about the issue still have opinions. 

In general, what I’ve heard from those who own guns and support the right to own guns is guns are needed for self protection. 

Some students fear, “the way things are going” and they feel the need to protect themselves, “when things go down.”

But where are things going and why do we need a gun when we get there? Why is there a notion that, any day now, we are going to reach a state of disaster of apocalyptic proportions and all humanity will digress into chaos?  

If we look at the most recent disasters, such as the tsunami in Japan and Hurricane Sandy in the Northeast, people were still decent. There was no electricity, cities were wiped out and people died. Despite the devastation, people generally helped others.

There is a myth that looting is a big problem after a disaster. However, most people who are affected by disaster don’t steal supplies as the media often depicts. In fact, according to the research, crime immediately following a disaster is relatively low. Just after a disaster, altruism is high and people are more willing to work together. 

There’s also a general idea that if someone breaks into your home, you’ll need a gun to protect yourself. 

Statistically speaking, most break-ins occur when no one is home and only 12 percent of them are committed by an armed robber. On top of that, most break-ins were committed by people known by the victims. 

In fact, when a gun is kept in a home, homeowners are “more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense,” according to the National Institute of Health. 

As a parent, I can’t imagine allowing an increased risk to my child simply based on the fact that it doesn’t happen very often.  

Logically speaking, if a gun is kept in a safe, unloaded, with a trigger lock, as many people claim keep their guns in order to prevent accidents, there won’t be time to respond in the unlikely chance an armed robber enters your home while you are there

If the robber is prepared, loaded gun in hand, you will not be allowed the time to open your safe and load your gun. Even if you carry a concealed, loaded pistol, when a man appears in a dark movie theater with military-grade weapons and armor, you will not win the gun fight. 

My opinion about whether or not we should be allowed to carry guns is irrelevant because the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. 

Slavery is also an assumed right in the Constitution. Article 1 Section 2 states that apart from free persons, “all other persons,” meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. 

Article 4 Section 2 says persons “held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another,” meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.  

We, as a people, ended slavery after much opposition because it was wrong. Three amendments express the shift in society from one of slave-holding to one where free black people, who are natural citizens if born on U.S. soil, can vote.  

In fact, the Constitution was amended 27 times — 27 times the public agreed something had to change. We shouldn’t be so quick to scream “constitutional rights” when the Constitution was written by white men more than 200 years ago.  

For people like myself who are not satisfied with the justifications for carrying dangerous weapons, it sometimes seems that your viewpoint isn’t important when it’s a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Keep in mind, the Constitution has been changed before and can change again as long as you’re willing to put your efforts in the right place in Washington to get laws changed.

(25) comments


In fact, when a gun is kept in a home, homeowners are “more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense,” according to the National Institute of Health.

This is so misleading:
- It implies that suicide would not occur if there was no gun in the home
- It lumps criminals in with homeowners. There is actually a zero percent chance that my firearm will be used in a criminal assault.
- Accidental shootings are actually very rare, so rare as to be statistically negligible.
- It also assumes that a firearm is only used in self defense if it is used to actually injure or kill.

I do agree with the columnist about one thing: Gun control requires a constitutional amendment. Good luck making THAT happen.


As you bring up the Constitution you then must believe the following: "These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state."

'Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed."
Does your mindset agree with this?

"One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and National Institute of Health for firearms expertise.

Wil Golden
Wil Golden

A few points, if I may;
1) Weapon Control Laws throughout history have never been about the weapon, always about control. Ask Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or, for that matter, Mayor Doomberg.
2) The part of the Constitution you misquote ("three fifths of a whole person") was an early effort to break the back of the slave states. Otherwise, if the slave population counted as whole people, then even in 1789, the Anti-Slavery forces in Congress and the North would have been overwhelmed immediately, and slavery would still exist. It WAS disgusting, but in a good cause, and has been corrected, as were the Fugitive Slave Statutes.
3) As information, the first Gun Control Statutes (New York, Boston, and other cold locals) were EXPRESSLY to disarm the freed blacks. Frequent quotes were made in Newspapers about the "inadvisable, misguided effort of trusting the passions of the darker races." This from the people who died by the hundreds of thousands to free their fellow countrymen.
4) Finally, the Second Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights to protect the people, not from rampaging mobs, not from criminals, not from wild animals, but from their own Government. The Founding Fathers had just finished a war which began on the orders of General Gage (Military Governor of Boston and Massachussets Colony), when he gave orders to the Redcoat Army to march to Concord and Lexington to seize the Colonists Guns, and Powder on April 18th, 1775. You may have heard Longworth's poem about that evening. That evening, and the next morning, a rag-tag band of Citizen Volunteers held off the, at the time, premier Military in the world, followed them back to Boston, and laid siege to the city. This was before the existence of the Army of the United States.

So, please, when you hear someone say "From my Cold, Dead Hands," please understand, it IS NOT hyperbole.

If you volunteer to be a slave, I do not choose to do so. You are welcome to live your life as you please, but I cannot follow.

By the way - on the subject of looting: Following Katrina, the looters were the Police. Remember that next time the subject comes up, please.


I was going to come on here and help educate Rachel about the NIH study, explain the purpose of the Second Amendment, and let her know about the looting problem...but all y'all beat me to it. Glad to see that there was good feedback. Probably won't change the mind of any liberals who don't appreciate the Second Amendment, but at least the info is there for anyone who is open minded.


Ending slavery was a humanitarian issue with a noble cause. Conversely, gun control legislation is nothing more than a means for slimy politicians to garner votes from those too ignorant to see its complete ineffectiveness - the comparison of which severely dilutes morality.

The freedom to express opinion, no matter how ignorant, should gain no more protection than my right to bear arms. Both should be done responsibly with respect to education, training, and consideration for those around you.

Failure to exercise freedom does not substantiate a reason to void mine.
That's like choosing not to vote, and telling everyone else they can't either.
That's like choosing not to speak, and telling everyone else they can't either.
That's like choosing not to live freely, and telling everyone else they can't either.

Not A Victim
Not A Victim

When you only have seconds, the police are minutes away. They will be there in time to mop up the mess. There are very bad people out there and they strike quickly, especially when the target chooses to take no responsibility for their own well being.

long range
long range

Here is a link to an article on the history of the 2nd Am. and give some good info.


I love how this subtly threatens all conservatives. Guns should not be compared to slavery. Slavery was horrible and completely wrong. Guns are not wrong
Gun accidents happens to those who are poorly educated on gun safety. A gun safety course is required for your hand gun license, and is also required to renew said license. I've lived in a home with multiple guns my entire life, and no "accident" happened. Because my dad has taken MANY gun safety courses, and when he taught me how to shoot, drilled the safety rules into my brain.
Do you really think outlawing guns will do anything? Drugs are illegal, but I'm pretty sure a large percent of the student body gets high on the weekends. It's illegal for minors to drink, and I'm positive that doesn't stop them. Making guns illegal will do nothing. It will take them out of the hand of the innocent, but guess who will still have them? The criminals. Because the innocent follow the rules and abide by the law. But what do criminals do? BREAK THE LAW, DUH! Do you think they're going to say "Hey, let's not shoot up this school...because owning a gun is illegal." LOL NO, SORRY.
I promise you. If you were ever in a situation where you had the opportunity to defend you or a loved one, but didn't have the weapon because "guns are bad", you will sorely regret it. We say it's better to overstudy than understudy, that way you're almost guaranteed the grade you want. It's better to tote and never have to use, then not and be in a situation where you wish you did.
Guns are not the problem. The ignorant, uneducated people behind the guns are the problem.
-God-fearing, gun toting, conservative your mother warned you about.


The purpose of the Second Amendment is so people can protect themselves from future government tyranny. They need the tools to do this!

The term "Well Regulated" in the Second Amendment meant "Well Manned and Equipped " in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time. United States v. Miller also determined that the term "Arms" refers to "Ordinary Military Weapons". American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. The American people still have some work to do with regard to taking back their rights.

Amendment Boi
Amendment Boi

Well, I am glad a liberal finally admits that they need to amend the Constitution in order to pass gun control laws. I completely agree with this article to that extent. Get busy. Please spend all your time and money (and Bloomberg's too) chasing this white whale.


Apparently you have done no research on the gun control in the U.K....The level of difficulty owning and getting a firearm is very high for all citizens, yet gun violence is much higher than that of the U.S. How is this so if gun control works? The whole concept that you are missing with your incoherent rambling is that when you disarm the citizens only the criminal will have guns. But wait! I though gun free zones work? Wrong again as what I said before, criminals do not care about violating the law as they are CRIMINALS! I guess you forgot about last year when UT Austins library got shot up by a insane man. Officers arrived on the scene 4 minutes after he already committed suicide. The citizens cannot rely on other people to protect them from harm. We as a whole must protect ourselves from anything that may happen. This idea of stuff "going down" is only a concept that when the world comes crashing down around you whether that may be a natural disaster or a terrorist attack that you are able to have the means to defend yourself. Again this notion that you so cleverly used to infer as the Colorado shooter with "Even if you carry a concealed, loaded pistol, when a man appears in a dark movie theater with military-grade weapons and armor, you will not win the gun fight" is completely and entirely wrong. You failed to mention that the theater was a gun free zone that OH WAIT, did not work as what you tend to think that they do. I may have minimal chance of living engaging the target to save the citizens around me, it is still a chance that I would rather have. In conclusion, until the safety of my inalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is guaranteed at 100% which in this world it could not, I will forever be for the protection of the 2nd amendment rights that our "white men" founding fathers instilled to this country.


The only time I would even begin to consider giving up my legally owned firearms is when the police and military are completely disarmed. You must have completely missed the bill of rights and the second amendment in particular. The intent of such an amendment is clearly to protect against a corrupt and tyrannical government which, in case you have not noticed, is what we have now. My advice to you is to move to another country where the citizenry is disarmed. The only way you'll get my guns is by prying them out of my cold, dead and lifeless hands.


Rachel, there is no "yes, but" argument, nor any "I have a right to feel" argument, nor any other argument that has the legitimate power to attenuate my inalienable right to arms. In the macro, it's just like socialism - even if it did work (which it doesn't), since it violates the supremecy of the individual over the state (i.e. the individual over the majority), it would still be unacceptable. Our liberty begins and ends with all power residing in the individual. Why do you think we HAVE a Bill of Rights?

"Yes, but" nothing. And you have no "right to feel" anything if said "feeling" comes at the expense of the denial of my fundamental individual right.

Why can't you get that through your head?


Rachel, I can break the discussion, and your viewpoint, as opposed to mine, down into one sentence. If you try to take our guns, we'll kill you. There, see? Fixed it for you.

jack burton
jack burton

I completely agree with Rachel.

Guns owners are disrespectful of authority. A failure to rely on authorities is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. The mere fact that they gather together to talk about guns at gun shops, gun shows, shooting ranges, and on the internet means that they have some plot going against us normal people. A gun owner has no right to associate with another gun owner.

Therefore, to help ensure our right to happiness and safety we must ban and seize all guns from private hands, and forbid NRA-based criticism towards people who are only trying to help. Searching the homes of all NRA members for any guns and pro-gun literature will go a long way towards reducing crime.

Common sense requires only uniformed soldiers, police, and other agents of the state have access to firearms, and think of all the money we can save by just taking away the guns from private owners and giving them to the military and police. No person should be able to challenge this by writing to Congress or the President. If they do they should be forced in court to admit to it and then fined a hundred million dollars for each time. Subjecting them to torture will probably change their minds.

Making it mandatory that church ministers preach against guns or else they can't get licensed will certainly encourage the church folk onto our side.

People who don't like all this prove they are on the side of the killers with the guns and should be put in jail along side all the gangbangers and other gun nuts. Letting them sit in jail for a few years before they are charged will give the government plenty of time to find something wrong in their lives. Anything they say, write, or express should be held against them to prove their guilt. We should bring all of them here to Chicago to be tried by former Mayor Daly as judge, and we should allow only mothers who have lost children to gunfire to be on the juries. Any attorney who tries to defend them should be arrested also. If we don't get the right verdict the first time we can just keep trying them until we do.

No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder and should just leave crime prevention to the Police who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime's completion. Women using a gun in self-defense interferes with and makes the attempted crime a "non-event," which unnecessarily complicates the Police investigation. Any woman who does this should be put in jail for interfering with an investigation.

If someone still really, really thinks they have a need for a gun in their home for protection then the Army should just force them to host and feed some armed soldiers.

Those who claim that the 2nd amendment was given to us because we might someday need guns to use against an oppressive government forget that Constitution has strong internal safeguards to protect our freedoms. So there!

Long live our Constitution!


Wow, what a rambling mess,
I can read your thoughts racing in your head.
and I can understand you.
Your fears are from assumptions and unanswered questions,
filled in with zero real knowledge.

Your fears would be the same if you had to suddenly give your
opinion on the workings of the hydraulic system
in your automatic transmission in that minivan
you so carelessly plow around in.

Both of these issues require the same amount
of experience to understand.

Please stick with makeup or fashion,
you wont be as wrong there".


Oh, you're right! Without fashion or makeup we wouldn't need guns.


It is particularly revealing that out of all the comments this column received, the only one to which you bothered to respond is the one that (admittedly) made dismissive remarks based on your gender.

That was out of line and contributed nothing to the discussion.

Still, you made no reply to the much more numerous civil, thoughtful and informative comments pointing our real flaws logical flaws in the arguments you make and with the few statistics you cite to support them as well as your assertions of facts-not-in-evidence.

If you believe that your column is so self-evidently right that those comments merit no reply, your career in journalism will be a very short one.


...but if she kept to writing about make-up or fashion we wouldn't get to read the spilled contents of douche-bags like you, projecting insecurities and stinking up the place with your rank, vile, attitude and ad-hominem attacks. Unfortunately, her van isn't big enough to plow through your shit.[beam]


You replied to "...rank, vile, attitude and ad-hominem attacks" with, well, a rank, vile, ad-hominem attack. How does that help? What will you do next, whine "He started it!"


Besides, you have no idea who's projecting what unless you're telepathic - in which case I suggest your talents might be better put to use in Vega$ or somesuch. [beam]


are you kidding me....there's alot of looting....where do you live? Really.....

and there's alot more...mind you all this occurring in two states that have very strict gun laws.....mean while in Pa....they sent out the national guard in one town, protect the looters from the shops "warn" them....sweetie if you going to be reporter....get your facts straight........[wink]

we need our protection.....


While many of the 'facts' listed above are simply wrong, there is also a healthy dose of out-and-out fantasy in this piece as well.

For example, the statistic from the NIH is very misleading at best.

It is obvious that a household with a firearm in it has a higher risk of firearm accidents than one without. Just as households with a car are at a higher risk of auto accidents.

However the NIH estimate of how likely you are to need a firearm is ridiculously low, while the number of 'accidents' they include is artificially high.

When the Department of Justice set out to estimate defensive firearms use a few year back, they came up with a minimum number of 800,000 and an upper limit of 3 million uses per year (note, well over 99% didn't involve firing the firearm).

Many of these were legal concealed permit holders outside the house, but a large number were cases where a firearm was used defensively inside the home.

As for the argument that you won't be able to get to your home firearm 'in time', that's complete nonsense.

Unless you leave your house unlocked and open so anyone can walk right in, you should have plenty of time, while they are kicking in your door, to unlock your safe and remove and load a firearm.

The authors suggestion that you simply give-up before you even start, and not have any way of protecting yourself is both ridiculous and repugnant.

It's akin to believing that since you can't put out a 5-alarm blaze, you don't need a fire extinguisher in your house.

As for his blather about shooters with 'military-grade' (untrue) weapons and armor (also untrue), the fact is that the only way you can't win is if you don't try.

At close range, a single shot to the head would have stopped all the killing in that theater. The reason the killing went on and on was that no one there was allowed to carry a firearm.

If even a single person had been able to fight back, they would have, at a minimum, made the gunman take cover and stop shooting helpless people to focus on the person shooting back at him.

Heck, look at a recent case in the NW, where a shooter stormed a coffee shop, and a patron drove him off by throwing chairs. Criminals often change their minds when presented with a target that fights back.

The common advice to not fight back is proven wrong by the simple fact that a woman without a firearm is ten times more likely to be successfully raped than one with a way to defend herself.

Rapists, like every other type of criminal, hate victims that fight back.

This piece is a typical piece of student journalism 101. Filled with inaccuracies and logical fallacies. Overly self-important and strident, it fails to make or justify any of the points brought up.

This is typical of the gun control industry propaganda you see out in the media. After all, there is no logical argument for gun control. You are attempting to control criminals with laws. It is fundamentally futile and pointless.

I will give the author credit on one point. They at least have the honesty to admit their ultimate goal is the removal of the Second Amendment and it's protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

Most gun control advocate won't admit to this, knowing that it is an anathema to a large (and growing) number of US citizens. The majority of people in this country believe we already have gun laws, and don't need more.

The fact that the gun control industry is not interested in crime should be obvious to anyone who thinks about the issue for more than 30 seconds or so.

The gun control lobby is completely focused on the same thing this author is, the complete repression of US citizens' civil rights under the Second Amendment.

As Jefferson once said, the Second Amendment is there to protect all the others.

Once it has been nullified, the rest aren't far behind.

Montana Libertarian
Montana Libertarian

This screed rambles all over the landscape without any logical compass to guide it..

First, slavery has been completely and irrevocably ended here.

Second, fundamental rights proclaimed in the bill of rights have never been effected by constitutional amendment; in fact, those rights are, as the Declaration noted "inalienable" meaning not subject to ANY form of legislation.

Third, because something was written by "white men" is a meaningless qualification. Melanin is the least important of all human characteristics, so just give that up.


By George, you've NAILED it!


Today (and for some time now), college students have been taught to view (and judge the worth of) *everything* through the lenses of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and class.

In that world view - and at least she's being honest - "white men" is not a meaningless qualification. It is a qualification that trumps all else. It goes without saying in that view that anything accomplished by the Founders is inevitably tainted with, and less valuable because of, their white maleness.

The United States was founded on ideas, instead of ethnic / language / geographic identity. Those ideas (however imperfectly applied) elevate the individual above the group, or the State. Therefore, those ideas have to be discredited in order for a group-identity-based, collectivist, progressive agenda to succeed.

From the column, it would seem that UT-Arlington, at least, has succeeded in Ms. Elmalawany's case.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.