Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster

[rankandfile]

By Ted Nugent
Special to CNN

Editor’s note: Rock guitarist Ted Nugent has sold more than 30 million albums. He’s also a gun rights activist and serves on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association. His program, “Ted Nugent Spirit of the Wild,” can be seen on the Outdoor Channel.

Read an opposing take on gun control from journalist Tom Plate: Let’s lay down our right to bear arms

WACO, Texas (CNN) — Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby’s Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.

Anybody see what theevil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I’ve about had enough of it.

Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.

A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.

At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.

More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.

My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby’s Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden “feel good” politics.

She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil. Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on the anti-gunners all.

No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions or a “cult of agriculture fertilizer” following the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh’s heinous crime against America on that fateful day in Oklahoma City. No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging, mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims. Nobody wanted “steak knife control” as they autopsied the dead nurses in Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.

Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.

Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.

Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone, non-American gunman in possession of a firearm on campus in defiance of a zero-tolerance gun ban. Feel better yet? Didn’t think so.

Who doesn’t get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?

I’ll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that’s who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to “feel good” is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.

Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children’s school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.

[FormerOwner]

Guns don’t kill people – bullets do. If we must have the right to have guns, let’s at least outlaw bullets.

I don’t want to live in a world where everyone is packing a pistol. You can’t stop violence with violence. We need to stop selling guns and get the guns off the streets. Until then, things will continue to escalate.

I heard a joke on TV one time that really makes some sense. “What would the world be like without men? Everyone would be fat and happy and there would be no crime.” I think a lot of men are macho idiots that think you can stop violence with violence. I sometimes fall into this mode of thinking myself and that’s exactly why I wouldn’t want to have a gun.

[Anonymous]

Ted’s logic, examples, and analogies make great sense to me.

[Wiley]

Nugent Rocks. I don’t think anyone could say it better then that. You’ll never get a perfect and safe world so why let a few elites dictate whether or not you have the right to defend yourself.

Everyone believes we live in a free society but it is anything but. The government is now dictating just about everything we can and can’t do. Just think about all the regulation already in place for real estate and yet the biggest cases of fraud are about to be unfolded.

On the news tonight they were ranting on about why the security wasn’t better at the Texas shooting. Christ if someone wants to kill someone security in a builing isn’t going to stop them. Are you going to secure the parking lot. The drive home, etc.

This stuff makes me crazy as all americans want the govt to solve all the problems for them.

So Former, your telling me that if I go through a safety class, pass a background check that I shouldn’t have the right to carry a gun for my own protection?

[Anonymous]

I own guns, but even I think Ted is absurd. Honestly, now, does anyone really believe they’re more safe, free and protected by having high-school students and college students all armed? Nonsense.

[TheBreeze]

“Honestly, now, does anyone really believe they’re more safe, free and protected by having high-school students and college students all armed?”

That’s crazy talk. Just because you give people the right to have guns doesn’t mean that everyone would be carrying one. I’m all for concealed carry laws. If a non-felon, non-psycho, with no drug or alcohol convictions wants to carry a gun, then that person should be allowed to do it.

Personally, I don’t own any guns, but that is just because I don’t feel personally qualified to carry one. I’d probably be more at risk with a gun — I’d probably end up shooting myself in the foot or something. But people who feel they can handle a gun and have a clean past should be allowed to own them and they should also be allowed to carry them on their person.

Just imagine if a few of those Virginia Tech students had been armed. It might have only been a few people that were killed instead of 32.

I doubt that gun regulations would have stopped the crazy Va. tech guy. I heard he bought his guns in October, so I imagine he would have found a way to obtain his guns no matter what. This wasn’t some spur of the moment thing that could have been stopped with some 5-day waiting law.

As for high-school students having guns, I agree with you. There probably isn’t enough maturity at that age to use a gun responsibly. However, there again, any ban on guns in high schools (unless students have to go through metal detectors) is only going to stop people that obey the ban. The bad guys that want to get guns in school won’t be stopped by a simple ban.

[temeculaguy]

The only way to solve this debate is a scientific study in this country because other countries have different cultures. It will sound crazy but we will find the answer. Pick an insignificant state in the U.S. something in the South or with an average tooth count of less than 12 (just being honest, Alabamba is a good pick but that’s negotiable). Divide the state in half, and set up secure borders for five years, nobody moves in or out because that will skew the results. Both sides need to be economicaly and racialy similar. Allow everyone on one side to have as many guns as they want and to carry them anywhere they want. Sell them at 7-11, no paperwork, no I.D., crazy people, felons, let kids have them in high school, football players during games, no rules about guns, have at it.

Then completely outlaw them on the other side, punishable by death to possess them for anyone other than cops, ammo too. No appeals for possession cases, carry out death sentences within 72 hours in public places.

Rest of the country stays with what we have, using popular vote and elected officials to decide the norm.

After five years show me the data, compare it to the rest of the country and the debate ends. We go with the best of the three: everyone, nobody or the way it is. The caveat is that wackos on both sides will be forbidden forever from arguing their point because the argument will have been settled.

Regardless, we on this site will discuss how the data will affect the real estate prices and how to get a foreclosure for nothing in one of the experiment zones.

[rankandfile]

It’s all about decentralizing self-preservation to the level of the individual. When we put all of our stock into having the government and “authorities” protect us, and take away an individual’s right to protect himself, we are only setting ourselves up for trouble.

Like Ted noted, the gun-free zones apply only to the good guys and gals. Those that are not good or otherwise law-abiding people will find a way to obtain a gun in some way and bring it into the gun-free zone…and then it’s easy pickings on all the good people who are forced to be unarmed.

Although I do not have any stats to back it up, I’d bet that legal gun owners are some of the most responsible, law-abiding members of our society.

There are at least two positives to allowing more gun ownership: (1) more individuals will be able to defend themselves, and (2) would-be perpetrators will be less likely to stage a killing spree knowing that there is a much greater chance of others having the same (or more) fire power as them.

[an]

Something similar to this idea has been done. Here’s an article of the result. It’s surprising to say the least.
Article

[Ash Housewares]

I’ve been to Kennesaw; it’s an affluent suburb of Atlanta. The other town in the article in Illinois is losing population, so it is probably suffering from the loss of a major employer. No wonder crime increased. I don’t think the two towns make for a good comparison of the effect of gun laws.

[LookoutBelow]

When some kind of idiot who goes on a rampage like the clown in VT did last week, he would NOT do what he did if he knew that possibly anyone in his group of victims was armed and had minimal training…These twisted, sick minded people are cowards first and foremost, never forget that.

I myself and or any of my children would not have been one of the ones shot in the ass or the back as they all tried impossibly to escape out of a small open window….Where are the "men" of today's society ?

These "survivors" will find out there are worse fates than death.

Please, there were at least 50 people in that room before he started his shooting with only one 9mm pistol and 2 magazines ….and a .22 target pistol he didnt even use, why wasnt he bumrushed and a chair broken over his scrawny little head ? I dont care how fast on the trigger you think you are, if 10 guy's rush you, they will get you, you might get 2 of them….just maybe, being charged by 10 men from 15 feet away, he would mentally change from "hunter" to the "hunted" …Our rich Uncle Sam taught me this in the beloved Corps. Its no secret ? Its instinctual survival.

32 people dead ?… I cant believe that happened, am I to believe there were not 10 people out of the first 50 that didnt see this as the only alternative to being killed ?

Didnt anyone want to live and take this asshole down ? Once you figure out you cant get out because of locked doors, then your whole value system and priorities should change, you are in for the "fight" now…nothing is more dangerous than a wounded, or caged animal. Its a primal instinct called survival.

Its not a matter of heroics, its a matter of survival. Has responsible, positive action been bred out of the kids today ?

Now I fully expect all of the "Ivory Tower pansy's" out there will attack me and call me a "John Wayne" fighting dude,… you couldnt be further from the truth, I would hate to be thrust into a situation like that last week,  but I'll be damned if I would let some little punk kill me or others like scared rabbits.

[capeman]

I agree with that. I don’t own a gun and may or may not ever own one. One thing that makes perfect sense to me is that these thugs think they can get away with their diabolical plans due to the fact that most people don’t carry. They know that in schools even fewer people are likely to carry. Now if you allow everyone to carry a gun then it makes their chances of perpetration much less significant.

Think of it hypothetically this way, if someone wants to rob a bank at gunpoint they put their faith in the chance that they are more heavily armed than anyone in the bank. If the robber has any reason to believe that even little granny may be packing then he is much less likely to risk his life for a few bucks. That guy would not likely have attempted what he did had he thought he might only kill one or two before being taken out by someone. He wouldn’t have received the publicity he planned to get all along by going big and killing dozens.

You can take a neighboring country for a somewhat of a comparison to an extreme situation. Although Mexico has never been known to be one of the more crime free states, it outlawed guns and now any drug gang can perpetuate kidnappings, murder (of city officials even), and trafficking as they please. They have all the guns and have corrupt leverage over the police that are the only group that can check them. That is not the greatest comparison in the world but an example of what could come to be if the good people who would only protect themselves and their families are not allowed to.

Even though I don’t carry, I like the idea that I am kept safe from those people who would do me harm by the thought in the back of their heads that I may be the last person they try to wrong.

[Bugs]

I am not an advocate for banning guns, but I do believe that they should all be licensed and anyone who buys should be subject to a real background check. It won’t keep all the guns away from the crooks because a lot of them steal their guns or get their girlfriends to buy them, but having those programs is better than nothing.

The VT shooter never planned to survive his assault and neither did the Columbine kids. I highly doubt Cho’s understanding that his victims could include armed resistance would have stopped him. He just would have bought a vest and upped his arsenal.

I don’t disagree that an armed populace might slow down certain crooks, but that won’t deter an irrational madman. Especially not one who spends a lot of time in planning.

A good percentage of police officers who die by gunfire get killed with their own guns. And they have access to holsters with retention features as well as substantial training in gun retention habits.

With handguns, gunfights that take place at distances greater than 3 feet generally have very low rates of effective hits. The average citizen with a handgun is probably more of a threat to themself and their loved ones than they are to a determined crook.

I like guns, I like shooting, and I’ve owned guns for use in my past occupations (military and police officer) and for the heck of it. I decided to divest my household of guns for safety reasons when I had little kids. I am of the opinion that unless the gun-owner is practicing at a combat range at least a couple times a year the only thing having it in their hands will do is intimidate a coward. They’re kidding themselves if they think any different. They’re better off with a folding knife.

The average 16-year old gangsta doesn’t have enough brains to be that coward, and neither does the madman. As for the libertarian types who want guns to defend themselves from their government, they’re welcome to have at it as far as I’m concerned.

[Borat]

The guy SHOT HIMSELF, so fear of being shot probably wouldn’t have much effect on him. He was BAT SH*T CRAZY. True, if someone around him had been packing he might have killed less people, but he probably still would have gone on a rampage anyway. Trying to analyze an insane person’s behavior is a waste of time.

[speedingpullet]

Hear, hear bugs – I couldn’t agree with you more. Good to hear someone with real experience of them being rational and reasonable.

I grew up in the UK, where deaths by handguns still make front-page news. Yes, there’s more illlgal handguns on the city streets than there were, but we can still count gun-related homicides in the hundreds, not the thousands.

If people really want guns, then set up Federal regulations – so that when you buy a gun, you have to register it – and attend a course where you not only learn to shoot it competently, but also have to learn about correct storage, cleaning and maintenance. Which gets reviewed every few years – you don’t allow an 80-yr old blind person to drive a car, so why should you allow them a handgun? Licence guns to responsible, capable adults – we have to do it for cars, so why not guns?

A small, but horrifying, minority of deaths occur each year when kids find mommie’s gun under the bed and go play cowboys and indians. ..Or when someone tries to use their gun in a home invasion and instead has the table turned on them – they rely on firepower rather than their wits to get themselves out of a bad situation.
Or, as you pointed out, a police officer (who supposedly has rigorous training in handgun use) gets shot with their own weapon. These kinds of tragic accidents could be reduced, if only there were stricter controls.

NOTE – I’m not saying that handguns should be banned – I’ve lived over here long enough to realise that Hell Will Freeze Over before Americans give up their guns. As distasteful as I find them, you can’t mess with people’s 2nd amendment rights without serious repercussions. But there has to be a compromise, however minimal.

On the Virginia Tech massacre – personally I think that, even of there was a total ban on guns, Cho would have found another way to take down as many as he could….I don’t think the fact that he was heavily armed would have made a difference – he was determined to kill, and if not with guns, then he would have chosen another way. Maybe there would have been fewer deaths, but you can’t predict insanity.

Maybe the discussion should be about mental health, and the lack of provision here in the US to care for seriously ill people like him – rather than his method of killing.

I really don’t understand why – especially with organisations like the NRA – it all has to be black/white. Surely – to paraphrase Peter Parker “with great power comes great responsibilty”….yeah, have guns, but make sure that someone knows you do, that you know how to use them, store them and clean them, properly, and make sure that crazies/incompenents have Buckley’s chance of getting them. It may not stop future Chos – but it might help to stop some of the tragic – and totally preventable – accidents.

[Author]

Posts