Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Why Gun Control Laws Suck

Because frankly, guns saves lives while gun control costs them.

A law abiding citizen who exercises their right to keep and bear a firearm does so for the protection of themselves and others.  A criminal with malicious intent in their heart will use ANY weapon they can, ignore all laws therein, and will be creative in their want of destruction.

The recent Ottawa shooter?  He was banned from gun ownership.  So much for gun control.

A man attacked 4 Cops in Queens on Thursday with a HATCHET.  Injuring 2 with one still being in critical condition after being struck in the head.  You can buy a hatchet in any sports store or Wal-Mart.  In a twist the only innocent person injured by gunfire was a women who was struck by the police’s hail of bullets when they shot the hatchet wielding assailant.

Take a moment though…this happened in New York City.  Where the right to defend yourself is all but stripped away by City Hall.  Had the attacker not gone for cops but rather just regular citizens who are denied their rights, his hatchet wielding murder spree would have had a quickly rising body count.


Apparently it is ok for cops to be armed to defend themselves but regular New York City denizens must be slaughtered and scalped like pacifist settlers traveling through hostile indian country circa 1849, instead of being able to shoot back.

Gun Owners of America recently did a video spot where Erich Pratt recounted a number of stories where law abiding citizens NOT denied their rights were able to stop criminals from wading into a bloodbath of innocent people.

While I have always found the notion of gun control pointless and dangerous, I found it interesting that even the federal government, through research done by the Center of Disease Control and Prevention AGREE with that fact.

Yet the statistics that the CDC has discovered have even surprised me.  The CDC estimates that there are from 500,000 to 3 MILLION cases of lawful self defense via firearm each year in this country.  Why don’t we hear about them more often?  Because the media by and large ignores these stories of triumph and sweeps them under the rug as it goes against their narrative.

Going against his narrative is also the reason that Barack Obama chooses to ignore his own instigated CDC investigation and still seeks out ways to deny the 2nd Amendment rights to Americans; be it by legislation attempts, executive orders or via international treaty.

All in all gun control sucks, not only because is it ineffective, for lots of things are ineffective yet do no harm.  No, gun control laws suck because it actively DOES harm.  It denies the law abiding the chance to defend themselves yet does nothing to stop criminals from harming anyone.  In fact, it empowers them.

Here’s the funny thing.  If the rationale behind gun control actually worked, you wouldn’t need gun control.  You’d only have to pass a law prohibiting murder, rape and robbery.  Since gun control hinges on criminals willingly adhering to the law, if it worked, you wouldn’t need that law in the first place.

It’s one of those logic catch 22’s that, when posed to gun controllers, make their heads explode and then they spit out all manner of vitriol and nonsensical jibberish.  Kind of fun to watch actually.

In short, gun control sucks because the only thing it controls is ensuring that victims are available for bad men to do evil.

To paraphrase Edmund Burke if “Evil exists when good men do nothing” what is gun control when it exists to deny the ability for good men to do anything?

Yeah…gun control sucks.

  • Numb3rTech

    Good article. Yes, gun control sucks!

  • John Shore

    Yes, gun control sucks, but so does using trite, hyperbolic ‘Journalism 101’ phrases, such as ‘hail of bullets.’ It shows a distinct lack of imagination. How about ‘landslide of lead’ or ‘plethora of projectiles’? Sounds silly, you say? So does ‘hail of bullets.’ How about just stating the facts? Something like “the wounded officers’ companions fired several rounds into the axe-wielding homicidal pile of filth, rapidly and righteously rendering him not just merely dead but really most sincerely dead, and an errant bullet slightly wounded a bystander.” This of course begs the question why the bystander was standing by and not running away as any reasonable adult would, but that’s grist for another article entirely. In THAT one you can use phrases such as ‘gawping moron’ and ‘brain-dead yuppie too stupid to live.’

    • Bullets First

      NYC cops have a history of firing a hail of bullets at suspects with little regard for surrounding bystanders.

      (start at the bold sentence)

      As for word choice, Hail’s 2nd Definition as a verb:

      2. (of a large number of objects) fall or be hurled forcefully.

      And to your other points, while i like alliteration, a landslide of lead makes it sound like a giant vat at a munitions factory spilled over. And a plethora of projectiles? Nah.

      I prefer the classics.

      And your assumption that these cops were sharpshooters who let one round get away from them is false. The hail of bullets consisted of 19 rounds, yet hatchet man Zale Thompson was NOT shot 18 times. Much like the Empire State Building shooting I linked too, NYC cops have been known to fire a hail of bullets at suspects and don’t really give thought to where the stray rounds end up.

      Of course, if they were just regular citizens no doubt they would actually be arrested for their recklessness even if they were fighting off a hatchet wielding maniac.

  • David Vaquera

    Although I very much support the 2nd amendment, your “hostile Indian territory” comment was inappropriate, especially involved in a discussion that is relevant to the right to protect yourself,your loved ones and your property! Which is EXACTLY what these “hostile Indians” were doing!! Its comments like yours that contribute to the negative opinion that non-gun supporters have of us.

    • Bullets First

      Everyone is the hero of their own story. Those settlers who were only trying to make it to California didn’t set policy so they didn’t deserve the indians hostility. I didn’t use the term “hostile indians” in regards to the cavalry coming through and trying to exterminate an entire tribe of people.

      And not for not, the REASON i used the analogy of the hostile indian is because the attacker in the aforementioned story used a TOMAHAWK. They’re calling it a hatchet but if you saw it you would think tomahawk. And he basically all but scalped the one officer.

      So if you have a complaint let it be with hypocrisy if you can find it, as if I were to condemn the indians with fighting against the cavalry and the government (I didn’t of course). But killing innocent pacifist settlers? No, not going to apologize for that. That’s why I specified.

      If your problem is with terminology, in case you hadn’t noticed, a site called “Bullets First” has a very dim view on political correctness which is really just a form of tyranny with manners.

      Go Redskins!


    One only need to see who calls for gun control? Why is it the ones who need the protection the most demand it be removed? How can they believe that calling someone with a gun to come protect you is better than pulling a trigger? I know I will get myself in trouble but I will say it anyway. “WOMAN’S LOGIC”.

Send this to friend