The MAD Theory of Guns



“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” – Wayne LaPierre

Overview of Pro-Gun Arguments


  • Guns are an effective deterrent against bad guys with guns.
  • As you cannot prevent bad guys from getting guns, the only way to stop them is by being better armed.
  • Draws on the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) principle and that, on a personal level, guns do appear to be an effective deterrent against crimes committed by strangers.


There are plenty of more effective methods of stopping bad guys with guns than having a population armed to the teeth and a system that ensures that bad guys can arm themselves with ease. The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he (or she) never gets a gun in the first place. We can work towards this goal through a variety of societal mechanisms. Broad measures such as improving anti-poverty programs, expanding mental health care, and strengthening educational programs may help prevent citizens from becoming “bad guys.” More specific measures such as more stringent regulations on gun sellers, universal background checks, licensing, ammo controls, and assault weapon bans all make it harder for the “bad guys.” If these policies are unable to prevent a “bad guy” from arming himself, then an effective police response is necessary to limit the damage. Assuming all else fails, and a “bad guy” is able to circumvent all of these safeguards, an armed citizenry is still woefully inept at preventing mass shootings. A Mother Jones study of 62 mass shootings in the past three decades reveals that there was maybe one case of an armed citizen stopping a mass murder (and even this case is a stretch).

However, many gun advocates protest, this study only includes shootings where four or more people were killed (the FBI definition of a mass shooting) and leaves out all the cases that could have potentially turned into mass shootings had an armed civilian not intervened. The reason we don’t see civilians stopping mass shootings is because these heroic citizens are so quick to react that they prevent the shootings from reaching that category. Therefore, the multitude of cases where armed citizens “prevent” mass shootings are overlooked. Such data also overlooks the deterrence an armed population has on potential mass shooters, which I will term the MAD theory of guns. Just like nuclear deterrence, bad guys are less likely to attack an armed citizen (or an area with many armed citizens) out of fear of deadly reprisal.

This line of argument is suspect on many levels. First and foremost, it is impossible to prove or disprove a counterfactual. To use a charged historical example, I could assert that had the Confederacy proven victorious at Gettysburg, they would have won the Civil War. This is a rather reasonable historical hypothesis. However, no matter how much evidence I accumulate to support such a conjecture, there is no way to prove or disprove my statement because it didn’t happen. The South didn’t win at Gettysburg, and there is only one suspect case of an armed citizen stopping a mass shooting. How many mass-shooting-could’ve-beens were prevented by armed citizens is statistically unknowable.

Even if we accept the counterfactual as a legitimate line of argument, it still fails. Why are armed citizens so effective at preventing shootings from killing four or more people, but utterly fail to stop shootings after they reach that threshold? Mass shootings tend to happen quickly. In a crowded space, the first four fatalities can easily occur in the first few moments before even the best trained “good guy” has time to react. There is no logical justification that “good guys” would be stunningly effective at stopping shootings before the four person mark and yet be completely incompetent after that mark. We have already debunked the notion that mass shootings predominately occur in gun-free zones. In the few cases that armed citizens have attempted to stop mass shootings, they accidently targeted the wrong person, were trained professionals (off duty police officers or soldiers), or were swiftly gunned down.

None of this evidence supports the contention that a heavily armed population is effective at preventing mass shootings, but rather supports an effective police force as a last line of defense. It is also worth noting that none of the current gun safety proposals would disarm any of these “good guys with guns.” They would, however, ensure that these “good guys” are actually good guys (not mentally ill or criminals) and have the necessary training to act in a responsible manner (training a bit more extensive than the eight hours it typically takes to get a concealed carry license, or potentially four hours if you live in Texas). Also note that not one of these “good guys with guns” were packing assault weapons, and yet many of the mass shooters used such guns to deadly effect.

The final line of defense gun advocates posit is the MAD theory of guns. However, there is no empirical evidence to support this theory. As we explained in a previous post, the majority of mass shooters commit suicide or engage in suicide by cop, meaning that the presence of armed citizens or officers is not a deterrence. Mass shooters do not predominately target gun-free zones, meaning the lack of guns does not appear to play much if any role in their choice of target.

The theory also overlooks how infrequent mass shootings are and how rarely guns are used in self-defense. The majority of shootings occur when a “good guy with a gun” wouldn’t even enter the equation. Most gun homicides stem from arguments, not felonies. While tragic, mass shootings account for less than one percent of gun murder victims. For every time a gun in the home injures or kills in self-defense, four are used in unintentional shootings, seven in criminal assaults or homicides, and eleven in attempted or completed suicides. As one study points out, “an estimated 41 percent of gun-related homicides and 94 percent of gun-related suicides would not occur if no guns were present.” The rise in fatalities that would necessarily accompany a further arming of our society would far outweigh the potential benefits of preventing more mass shootings (and this is assuming that a heavily armed populace deters mass shooters, which it doesn’t).

Even if we accept the counterfactual and that armed citizens prevent mass shootings at the rate gun advocates contend without the deleterious side effects (all of which is unequivocally not the case), MAD theory still fails. Imagine for a moment an America that matches the NRA’s wildest dreams. All gun regulations have been stripped away. Every man and woman is armed. There is not a single public place without a “good guy with a gun.” Is this really a society that we would want to live in? A society where we are constantly on high alert, seeing the most innocent of gestures as possibly threatening and questioning every stranger’s intentions. This vision is not one of security, but one of constant fear. Even the most hardened gun advocate should be reticent to suggest that this vision is a worthy goal. One only has to look at societies that have moved further down this path to see the utter failure of MAD theory. A society relying on armed deterrence for security is a failed society.

Related posts

  • Peter Clough

    This statement is a coherent refutation of the most obvious arguments put forward by the NRA, etc. against any sort of firearm regulation. Thank you for this effort. Unfortunately, resistance to this type of regulation is obviously rooted in psychological and sociological beliefs and fears. American cultural development occurred in circumstances which encouraged violence and the rule of force. Nothing new about that, but it has always suggested that we would not be the people we are today without the subjugation of other classes, ethnicities, and groups, especially those who obviously had prior claim. Every educated person in America is aware of this history—a history of the imperative of domination to secure access to resources, safety, and the continuation of religious and cultural beliefs and biases.

    This means our culture is predominantly steeped in a bullying posture to obtain what we need, or desire. A necessary corollary to bullying is obviously the means to dominate other people. Guns take care of that need, especially if the individual is struggling along at the bottom rungs of the sociological/income ladder.

    I don’t know how to overcome that brutal set of circumstances, in order to reach consensus in a democracy. Trying to do so is to court civil war. It is what we are courting right now. I wish it were otherwise.

    • John Q. Public

      We don’t live in a democracy, this is a republic….your whole argument is based on a false premise.

      • Smarter than John Q. Public

        A republic is a form of democracy, one with representation. Arguments like yours serve as a good example of why paying attention in high school civics classes can help you not look like an idiot on the internet.

      • Anon Doesn’t Want Gun Nut Attention

        Direct democracy is not the only form of democracy. A Constitutional Republic is still a democracy, no matter how much you desperately try to quibble over definitions for your own pathetic benefit.

  • NRA_member_0311

    A couple huge problems with this article:

    1) It assumes that gun free zones don’t attract mass murderers. In the article that this one linked to, I used the case of Sandy Hook to prove why that was wrong. But you don’t have to believe me…. Believe the Colonel of the Connecticut State Police:

    It assumes that gun advocates don’t want the abolition of all gun laws. We actually do. And the Constitution and Supreme Court are on our side.

    • Jon Doe

      Clearly you did not read the post or the linked one regarding Gun free zones. The first paragraph of the Gun Free Zone link has not one, but two scientific studies that show mass shooters are not attracted to the areas because of the ban.

      In this article, Mr. Hughes did set the example of no regulation at all. It was in the Final paragraph.

      Mr. Hughes thank you for the reading. It is very well done

  • Greg Jones

    Quote “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he (or she) never gets a gun in the first place.”
    Mr. LaPierre’s approach is better than the one quoted in your article. The main reason being is that the Constitution says that We the People are very much within our rights to arm ourselves as citizens of the United States. You guys want to take away our rights, and that is just not going to happen. I hope all of you billionaires and millionaires end up going broke running your ads trying to disarm America. Nothing would make me happier. You act as if owning a gun makes you a criminal. But I know all you billionaires and millionaires didn’t make all of your money solely from legal means in the first place, I imagine there are a few criminals in your little campaign against guns, LOL.

  • Well-Armed

    Well, I was going to try and make this short and sweet…it did not work out that way.

    I see another slight problem with this article and the argument for banning guns it makes: The folks that want to disarm the civilian population so ‘only the military and police have guns’ are make the wild assumption that criminals will stop being criminals if there are no more guns.

    This just ain’t true folks.

    The gun is the tool that makes the 120lb woman a potential equal in force when 3 men attempt to rape her. The gun is the tool that makes the 85 year old man the potential equal to 4 younger, stronger home invaders.

    Despite their continued cries of ‘blood in the streets’ since the first State began the issuing of concealed carry permits for the average law abiding citizen, that has just not been the case. Even now reports are coming out of Virginia showing that the law allowing folks to carry in a bar has not increased the violence and record setting sales of guns has not stopped the downward trend of violent crime.

    While this decline in violent crime cannot always be directly attributed to increased sales of guns, we can see that it does not contribute to the violent crime rate. And we can easily see that banning gun ownership by civilians does not stop violent crime. For those that want to say “well easy gun access in neighboring States/counties drives crime in cities where guns are banned”, I will pose this one simple question to you: Why is the violent crime not as high in those counties or States?

    Violent crime is in the hearts of men, not the chamber of a gun. It is a social problem, not a problem with the tools available, and until that social problem is fixed the only thing that will happen when guns are banned is that grandpa is now at a distinct disadvantage when his home is invaded by 4 young thugs with baseball bats.

    As for the ‘studies’ cited above: I am still reading them, but they are based on polling data and not hard fact. When we look at the FBI crime data and CDC accidental death data over the last 20 years we can see a few things
    1. That guns are used (hard data not polling data) at least as frequently to stop a violent crime as they are to commit one.

    2. That despite the massive sales of guns and hundreds of thousands of concealed carry permits issued (and several States that allow concealed carry with NO permit) the murder rate has been cut in half.

    3. The idea that the ratio of accidental deaths to self defense use of a gun is 4:1 is nowhere near accurate. I cannot find any time within the last 10 years of CDC data that non-fatal and fatal gun injuries combined even made the top 10 causes of accidental deaths. For 2010 CDC data there were 606 accidental discharges of firearms resulting in death. Falls, drowning, poisoning, recreation vehicles, autos and several other categories not related to firearms all were significantly higher. even when we look at unintentional non-fatal injuries the rate is less than the homicide rate, which as we know from FBI data is about equal to the number of times guns are used to stop violence, so the ration is not 4:1. 1:1 maybe…

    Based on that hard data alone I would question the authenticity of the studies cited above. It just does not smell like the truth.

    If you think that removing guns will curb suicides I will point you to Australian government website as well as the one in the UK. These places have long had bans on guns for civilians, and while there is some contention about using their violent crime rates to compare to ours, I will cite two things of note:

    1. When you look 10 years prior to gun control being implemented and all the way out to current data the effect of removing guns on the homicide rate is basically nill. No real blips, no real significant peaks or declines over all that time. Not like one would expect…no more guns no more murder.

    2. When you look 10 years prior to gun control being implemented and all the way out to current data the effect of removing guns on the SUICIDE rate is basically nill. No real blips, no real significant peaks or declines over all that time. Not like one would expect…no more guns no more SUICIDE.

    These are real numbers of terrible events, not the statistical 3% margin of error of some poll that was conducted of willing participants. These are the actual numbers of dead people in places where politicians believed (and conned the people into believing) that guns CAUSE murder and guns CAUSE suicide. They were wrong. The data is there to prove it for those who open their eyes to look.

    • MissK

      Well-Armed, well-said!

  • Michael B

    This is an article expressing wishful, even magical thinking, not a scientific essay or anything approaching a coherent argument supporting the writer’s theories. Pablum for like-minded readers, a bit utopian and a bit of fantasy fit for Xanadu or Shangri-La.

    Mr Hughes begins by inflating Mr LaPierre’s theory to imagine “a population armed to the teeth.” Nobody on the conservative side of the 2nd Amendment debate has called for mandatory armament of every citizen: that’s an irrational leftist fear. Not every citizen practices “freedom of religion,” for example, and not every eligible citizen chooses to exercise the right to vote. Some submit to family pressures, peer pressure, and other external forces to follow a religion imposed upon them by others, some freely change to other faiths, some simply bounce from one faith to another in life-long searches. Conservatives encourage FREEDOM OF CHOICE, which includes the freedom to stay home or the freedom to follow others. Liberals would impose a secular choice on all, and spend amazing levels of energy to challenge and eradicate any free expression of faith that does not follow their dogma of Secular Humanism.

    In reality, the NRA position holds that as few as 3% to 10% of the population acting as free men carrying arms in a lawful and safe manner can protect the other 90 to 97% of the population against criminal attacks by placing criminals in fear of staging random robberies, home invasions, or abductions and rape. In historical cases (Luby’s massacre, Killeen, TX, 1991) we have strong evidence that had one victim been in possession of her pistol, the shooter would have been stopped early in his murderous rampage. Since 1991, we have had no mass shootings in Texas other than the Ft Hood massacre where Maj. Hasan was presented with a disarmed pool of victims on an Army base (gun free zone).

    Shootings and murders HAVE been stopped by armed responders. Here are just a few examples: Anniston, AL (12/91); Muskegon, MI (08/95); The Pearl, Mississippi school shooting (10/97); Santa Clara, CA (07/99); Appalachian Law School (01/02); New Life Church, CO (10/07); Golden Food Market, VA (07/09); ATT Store, New York Mills, NY (05/10); Early TX, (08/12). There are plenty more: had armed citizens NOT been present at (or near) each event, these would all be widely known as mass murders with 5 to 50 human beings killed, possibly many more wounded. We’ll never know, just as we’ll never know what would have happened had Longstreet’s Corps crushed Meade on July 2 on Cemetery Ridge.

    Hughes is correct in his thoughts about jobs programs (the only thing that can reduce/eradicate poverty: welfare payments never will), better mental health care (to include massive new asylums and forced commitment of addicts, alcoholics, schizophrenics, and other citizens who cannot/will not keep a job and conform to established cultural standards of personal hygiene, good behavior and proper attire), and much better educational systems (the kinds best provided by removing children from single-parent homes and placing at-risk kids in boarding schools/military academies as early as possible and the eradication of subcultures that fail to use/teach proper grammar, good math, solid reading and writing (cursive) skills, school uniforms and rigid and fair discipline).

    Hughes disbelieves the “Mutual Assured Destruction” or MAD theory of armed defense because he can’t find data to support it because he fails to LOOK. We have had millions and millions of interviews/interrogations/debriefings of both amateur and professional criminals during the past 250 years of US history and the administration of our criminal justice system. Police officers, Sheriffs, Marshals and Security professionals all understand that criminals are, with rare exceptions, cowards who are known to be lazy, and very risk averse. Criminals (rapists, robbers, thieves) are also opportunists. Where criminals believe a building, shop, home, or person (driver or pedestrian) is easy to ‘take down,’ they will try to take what they can. These types of criminals do NOT approach tall, strong-looking, well built men to rob or rape them, they look for young or old people, women or even better, women with small children to target. You see, criminals “PROFILE” their victims. In states with a high percentage of concealed carry permits, crime rates are LOWER. Robbers do not like to rob shops or stores with visible armed guards, or where employees wear pistols in plain view. (They also never seem to rob a convenience store or donut shop where a police car is parked by the front door).

    CCW permits in many states has not reduced gang on gang violence, or drug-related murders, or crimes of passion involving family members or domestic partners: murder by a known associate is unlikely to be prevented by arming citizens as the reasons for these murders are intensely personal. Even if we magically erased the firearm as a tool from the knowledge of Man, these murders would still happen when no-one is in position to shield or protect the weaker victim from the stronger assailant.

    Mr Hughes believes that ‘armed police’ are and should be the last line of defense for the entire US population. In 2012, the best estimate for total law enforcement numbers is 900,000 men and women. About 30% of that number are in the prison system, and are not available on the streets or in our shops and businesses to protect anybody. Mr. Hughes fails (as do many) to understand that the police in this country have no legal obligation or mission to protect ANYBODY other than themselves. Police can never “protect” you. As many as 100,000 officers are on duty at any given hour, while 200,000 are “off duty” waiting for their next shift. The remainder (300,000) are protecting judges, politicians, courthouses, state houses, diplomats, and a small number of very specific buildings and critical facilities such as nuclear power plants, bridges (usually to enforce tolls), airports, Federal facilities such as banks, mints, and national security assets (CIA, DIA, FBI, NRO, NSA).

    Yes, folks: at this hour, 100,000 cops are supposed to somehow (in Hughes mind) “protect” over 330 MILLION citizens. That’s one cop to protect 3,300 men, women, and children. Folks, that simply is an impossible task, which is why no police chief or sheriff has ever actually even tried to promise to “protect” anybody (other than a few thousand high-value (to the STATE) victims or witnesses for a few weeks or months at a time. Even in a Witness/Victim Security case, you won’t find 3 or 4 cops providing 24 hour “protection” to anybody: in fact, they “protect” those folks by changing their names, giving them new identity documents, and MOVING them to a different state, a different region, and advising them to break contact on a permanent basis with family, friends, and by abandoning careers, changing professions, and HIDING from whoever is threatening them.

    Mr. Hughes, in your final paragraph you posit a world where every glance is suspect, every citizen lives in moment-by-moment fear of a random shot breaking out. A vision of constant fear… Guess what? You are describing life in the inner city ghettos of LA, Chicago, DC, Miami, Baltimore, Atlanta, Detroit, and 100 other US cities and towns where LEGAL personal defense weapons are banned. The neighborhood where Hadiya Pendleton was gunned down in a Chicago park, 1 mile from Obama’s house. The corners of Brooklyn, West Baltimore, Detroit, Atlanta where the police response time to a “shots fired” call is 5 minutes to 4 hours.

    Lots of people can die in 5 minutes while you are waiting for the police to “protect you.” 24 people died in Newtown CT because there were no police to protect them. 13 unarmed US soldiers died at FT Hood, waiting for the police to protect them. 67 people were shot and wounded, 11 murdered one the 4th of July weekend in Chicago while the police were failing to protect them.

  • Right to Carry

    How many mass shootings happen in “Gun Free Zones”? Where legal carry citizens are unable to exercise their rights to possibly thwart these attacks. Sandy Hook and the Aurora Colorado theater for example.

  • AUSTaxpayer

    How do you stop a bad guy with a gun… By using a Gun Free Zone sign? We all know how well that has been working. When the police show up they, oddly enough,bring their guns… BTW Check the USDOJ report for May 2013 for the truth about “Gun Violence” the vast majority is “Gang Violence”. Which is caused by the illegal drug trade. Disarming citizens only makes them vulnerable to the criminal element. It accomplishes nothing else.

  • nosferotica

    Of course only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.

    That’s why whenever a gunman robs a bank, takes a hostage, goes on a spree, ARMED POLICE SHOW UP and the gunman either:

    1) commits suicide


    2) surrenders without incident .

    Some myth.

    All you’re trying to say is there’s no such thing as a good citizen with a gun, and never bothered to research the subject.

  • Name

    Can I just ask that you remove the sixth Paragraph? I read it and the only thing I can think is “Because mass shooters die, they couldn’t be trying to kill as many people as possible”.

    • Read the “Gun Free Zone Myth” post, which is what this paragraph references.

  • Lawman

    I am a current law enforcement officer in the state of Florida with well over twenty years of experience. I supervise a homicide unit and can say that many would not have happened had the victims been armed. I am a life long gun owner and plan on continuing that long after my retirement. I have not met the law enforcement officer that believes citizens should be disarmed. I have spent my career dealing with the public in some of the worst conditions and I always assume the people I’m dealing with are armed. I am perfectly okay with that and if more people made that assumption then they would behave much better. If you believed that every person you encountered had the ability to kill you then you would be less likely to do stupid things to set those gears in motion.

    I am perfectly fine with disarming criminals but I am also a realist. It is impossible to disarm everyone in the country regardless of the laws put in place to do so. I am all for strict laws for those who use a gun to commit an act of violence. Those laws are in place in Florida and in many other states but the problem comes from the prosecution side of our system. In Florida we have the 10/20/life law for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. Ten years for using one in a felony crime, twenty years for shooting one in the commission of a felony crime and mandatory life for killing someone with a firearm. These minimum mandatory sentences are often not given due to plea bargaining agreements. If people want to preach stricter laws they should see what they are in their individual state and see if they are being enforced. I bet Florida is not the only state where this happens.

    Universal background checks are a great idea but they really are ineffective in controlling gun violence. Criminals will always find a way to obtain guns. A large percentage of illegally carried firearms were likely stolen from lawful owners. It is pretty common for criminals to break into law enforcement officers homes or police vehicle to obtain guns. I’m not suggesting that background checks should not be conducted but to be honest, criminals aren’t going to the gun store to buy a gun.

    In the article it mentions that 94 percent of gun related suicides would not have happened in a gun was not present. That is completely inaccurate. 100 percent of gun related suicides would not have happened if there was no gun present. You can have a gun related suicide without a gun. My unit works about 125 suspicious deaths per year. About two thirds of those are suicides and the method most often used is hanging. Guns are second runner up followed by overdose then chemical inhalants, like freon, helium or carbon monoxide.

    There may have not been many situations where a mass shooting has been prevented by an armed citizen but I believe it would be less likely for them to occur if the shooter knew they had a strong chance of being encountered by one. This is why schools are an easy target. It is highly unlikely you will encounter an armed citizen or employee on a school campus. Your victims are children who are not likely to resist you, even as you systematically kill them. But the reality of citizens being armed is not to prevent mass shootings. It’s for self protection and the protection of ones family. I believe it is irresponsible for a man to not be able to protect his family. That is his job and main responsibility in life.

    In closing, most law enforcement officers encourage the legal ownership and responsible use of firearms by law abiding citizens, or at least the thousands that I know do. For those who don’t, when we meet you will be one of the unarmed victims I see every day. To all my fellow law enforcement brothers and sisters, and lawfully armed citizens, be safe out there and stand your ground.

    • Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful reply.

      A couple of quick points. First, I agree, disarming everybody is neither feasible or beneficial, and we do not argue for such a course of action. The only weapons we recommend banning are assault weapons, as they are completely unnecessary for self-defense, not particularly useful for hunting, and can easily fall in the hands of criminals given the massive number of guns stolen every year. As a law enforcement officer, I am sure you would agree that facing off against criminals armed with assault weapons is much more dangerous than those armed with just pistols. With the exception of assault weapons, the only people our recommended policies disarm are those with criminal records and the mentally ill. When it is easier to arm oneself with weaponry that would make a SWAT team blush than it is to adopt a puppy, something is terribly wrong.

      Countries and states implementing stricter background checks have seen their gun violence fall. States that implement RTC laws, on average, see their violent crime rates go up. An armed society is not a polite society. While I agree that background checks do little to combat hardened criminals in gangs, most shootings are caused by arguments, not felonies or gang related behavior. These measures are also very helpful at preventing suicides. The 94% of gun-related suicides statistics means that if a gun was not present, 94% of the people would not have turned to another method to complete the suicide, and would still be alive.

      If it was the case that mass shooters were attracted to gun free zones, we would see many more shootings in schools and other “unprotected” areas. As we explain in the Gun Free Zone Myth, the idea that mass shootings (or shootings in general) predominately occur in gun free zones simply is not supported by the evidence.


      • Ronin

        As a former soldier Mr. Devin Hughes I completely disagree with you.

        “The only weapons we recommend banning are assault weapons, as they are completely unnecessary for self-defense, not particularly useful for hunting, and can easily fall in the hands of criminals given the massive number of guns stolen every year. As a law enforcement officer, I am sure you would agree that facing off against criminals armed with assault weapons is much more dangerous than those armed with just pistols. With the exception of assault weapons, the only people our recommended policies disarm are those with criminal records and the mentally ill.”

        An assault weapon is a military weapon that is selective fire (semi or full auto) that has an intermediate cartridge. These already regulated heavily and are mostly used by the military and police. Law abiding Civilians can own these but only by approval by the ATF.

        As for you quoted statics anyone can cook the numbers

        What the civilian is left with is a semi auto. Contrary to anti gunners and liberals popular belief the semi auto AR is more than adequate for self defense and hunting. I use it for both.

        The second Amendment calls for military stile weapons and the militia is any able bodied man of a certain age.

        So your arguments fall on deaf ears. First you try to ban the evil Assault Rifle and any rifles with those characteristics, that is the majority of all fire arms here in the US.

        Why do people like me resist your so called common sense BS?

        Its easy. The Holocaust. Don’t think it could happen here? Yeah neither did the German Jews either or any of the others sent to the camps. A armed militia ensures it can’t happen here.

        As a former soldier I’ve seen Socialist and Communist country’s where the populace is kept down because only the Government can be armed.

        I distrust people like you and Diane Feinstein and the rest of your ilk .

        America won it freedom and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reflect what it to and what it will take to remain Free. The Founding Fathers knew it could happen again. Remember the Revolution “STARTED” by the British moving to confiscate black powder and arms. This sparked the shot heard round the world.

        As for the police or City, State or Federal Government protecting me as a former soldier, the Supreme Court has said that the Police protect Society as a whole. If they can’t get to you, YOUR ON YOUR OWN.

        You should not try to disarm Law Abiding citizens of the best firearms just so you can feel safe. That is wrong.

        I have faced armed men, I have survived.

        I am my and my families own best defense.

        I leave you with Dean Alfange’s My Creed.
        ” I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek to develop whatever talents God gave me—not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say – ‘This, with God’s help, I have done.’ All this is what it means to be an American.”

        Evil people will always do evil.

        I pray you never have to find this out for your self.

  • Pingback: Less Guns, Less Crime- Debunking the Self-Defense Myth | Armed With Reason()

  • I amazed by how many people think the right to bear arms in the first place ever had anything to do with armed thugs or mass shooters. We need the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from the police, cuz like it or not they have no duty to protect you, and while they’re not officially above the law, they can and usually do get away with things that would land any of us in prison on felony charges. Every time a cop draws a weapon on you he/she has just committed aggravated assault with intent to kill. While the translation of that varies by state, it’s still a felony. If we do it, and we don’t have money for really good lawyers or the luck of having the entire thing caught on tape, we go to prison. There’s no backroom discussion over whether we felt it was necessary, or whether we felt threatened or possibly threatened, we’re arrested and charged and when we get to trial it’s our word against the other persons, if there were more then one you’re completely screwed. I’ve never been in a dangerous situation with less than 3 assailants. I’m not even remotely threatened by a lone individual even if they’re armed like Neo, unless they’re a cop. I’m terrified of cops for the above reasons. In case yer wondering, it’s not because I’m a master ninja, or a body builder, I’m a scrawny weak 34 year old with heart failure and a pacemaker/icd.

    • Evan DeFilippis

      Really interesting and important perspective, Justin. Thank you for sharing.