Gun Control?

By The Coach, Contributing Editor

I know I am probably going to stir up a hornets nest with this article. However, as I have said before, I am tired of trying to be politically correct and please everyone.

The liberal news media loves to point out all of the gun crimes in the United States as a reason to enact stricter gun control laws. While I agree that persons who use firearms to commit any crime should be severely punished, the firearm is just a tool used to commit the crime. After all, people have been killing each other since Cain murdered Abel.

This past week has seen some horrible terrorist activities in France. My prayers go out to every victim and their families.

(Photo taken by “The Coach”)

You should know that France has very strict gun control laws, much, much stricter than the United States of America. Yet the terrorist in France were able to obtain AK-47s, handguns, ammunition and a Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG).

My point being is that gun control DOES NOT WORK. It takes a person to use a firearm to commit a crime. If a firearm was left loaded on a table and no one ever touched it, the firearm would NEVER commit a crime or hurt anyone.

How did the terrorist in France obtain the firearms and ammunition that they used in their terrorist activities in France? Yet you DO NOT hear this fact being reported by the liberal news.

I wonder if the outcome would have been different if some of the victims of these two terrorist events in France would have been legally armed and able to defend themselves!

You can restrict and outlaw all of the firearms that you want but criminals and terrorist are going to obtain the firearms and explosives that they want to commit their heinous crimes.

Even if perpetrators of violent crimes cannot get firearms, they will use bladed or other type of weapons in order to commit their crimes.

After all, explosives have been outlawed for people to possess in the United States for a long time, yet criminals and terrorist find ways to make or procure them. What makes people think that if firearms were outlawed, there would be a different outcome?

After all, you cannot behead anyone with a firearm!


“…quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.” […a sword never kills anybody; it’s a tool in the killer’s hand.] –

(Lucius Annaeus) Seneca “the Younger”

(ca. 4 BC-65 AD)

*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *     *    *    *

20 survival items ebook cover

Like what you read?





  1. Well coach, all I can say is your team kicked the winning field goal with time expiring on this post. I don’t think it could have been said any other way. When I talked about the act when it happened with my wife, we both said, how much more different would it be with concealed weapons holder in these establishment. How many lives could they have saved? Makes you wonder….

  2. If you compared the number of deaths caused by other things to those taken by guns in non military conflicts, you would be amazed. Car accidents, and Medical Malpractice art the top to that come to mind for me. I have worked in the medical field for the past 26 years including my time as a Field Corpsman in the U.S. Navy. In that time I have personally seen medical errors that have taken the life of patients. Yes that was plural. Nasogastric feeding tube in the lung instead of the stomach, and the baby drowned. Wrong bad kidney removed and the patient wasn’t able to get a transplant in time and eventually died. Wrong leg amputated and the patient took their own life out of depression of losing both. Surgical sponge left in a patients skull after brain surgery and the patient died. These are only ones where people lost their life. There are many instances where I have known of instances where the patient had life long complications due to malpractice, and these were accidents. However these instances of a person not holding a gun, do outnumber the lives taken by a person holding a gun. It is for that reason when I hear the rhetoric of those willing to sacrifice our rights (not just theirs) that I think back to Hutu’s and Tutsi’s of the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 where the Tutsi’s were slaughtered and had no means to protect themselves. It also smacks of the German Gun Control Act of 1938, and we know what happened there. I for one would rather maintain my right and ability to protect myself and my loved ones than rely on a government who’s only interest is in maintaining and growing itself.

    Just my two cents

  3. My family calls school zones, courthouse buildings, and other areas where firearms might be prohibited “shoot me zones.” Why in the world wouldn’t one want the highest level of protection in these facilities – an armed citizenry?

    When I was a top tier federal agent, I discovered some liberal federal judges didn’t even want me armed when testifying. And those guys are appointed for life. Most judges would insist LEOs be armed when testifying.

    After arresting a UFAC or UFAP (unlawful flight to avoid confinement/prosecution) who had made threats against a prosecutor or judge, I made certain the relevant officer of the court knew that the individual was off of the streets and no longer a threat. Most appreciated the call – and the risk it took to effect the arrest.

    It is about time for some sort of big realignment of interests.


  4. Amen to Gun Control does not work, and even if it did, it would still be unconstitutional. It matters not how effective or noble or cost-effective a law may be , the first test should be that it pass constitutional muster and not be a violation of our Natural/God-Given rights!

Leave a Reply to JBernDrApt Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.