Destroying a Gun Won’t Protect a Child

email Email
A gun cut in half by its owner is seen in Leavenworth, Washington, U.S., in this February 19, 2018 picture obtained from social media. Photo: Jonah Manning via REUTERS

When I was a kid, my late mother used to urge her four boys to consume whatever unappetizing vegetables we left on our plates by reminding us that, “There are starving kids in India.”

I recalled those long-ago arguments when watching a well-intentioned but illogical anti-gun video that’s gone viral to millions. In it, New Yorker Scott Pappalardo reacts to Parkland by cutting his AR-15 in half with a power saw. “I’m gonna make sure this gun is never gonna take someone’s life,” he says to the camera.

But destroying weapons owned by sane, responsible citizens does nothing to stop evil maniacs from using their weapons for mayhem.  Dismantling America’s nukes won’t magically solve the threat from North Korea.

With 10 million AR-15s in private hands, destroying a single gun not only provides no solution, but utterly mis-defines the problem—and won’t feed starving kids, either.

email Email

Comments (30)

Leave a comment
  1. Matt Hartley  •  Mar 2, 2018 at 4:07 pm

    Couldn't have said it better myself. In my lawyering days I handled a fair number of cases involving firearms, and in only one (1) did the "perp" purchase his guns legally. Unfortunately, he got older and suffered dementia, and wound up shooting a shotgun at some kids on bikes he thought were harassing him. It being a shotgun, he hit nothing, thank God. At the suggestion of the DA, rather than make a criminal case over it, we set up a guardianship. A just and effective result, I think. This was in Texas, by the way. Just for full disclosure if it matters.

  2. Rdavis3777  •  Mar 2, 2018 at 4:33 pm

    Taking guns from the American people is just a part of changing our free people government to one like preWWII Germany. Yep it was a National Socialist behind that too, Adolph Hitler, also a similar character as George Soros, a man who sold out his own people to the Nazis. Adolph H would probably would be loved by Antifa and the rest of the useful idiots today.

  3. Richard  •  Mar 2, 2018 at 5:10 pm

    It is true that schools should be safe places for those inside, but so should be a mother's womb and yet, no one demonstrating before cameras or appearing on CNN seems exercised about the daily, savage carnage that occurs to the most defenseless among us. It is also true that depriving any American citizen of a constitutionally-defined Right should only be considered with the greatest of restraint and consideration. The biggest difference between America and other countries is not how many firearms we possess, it is our history and our Constitution and we need to remember that distinction, less we lose who and what we are. It is also true, as you stated concisely, that removing from the possession or destroying the firearm of a sane, responsible, law-abiding citizen has no possible effect on the acts of those who perpetrate acts of mayhem. If we removed all guns, cars, knives, and fertilizer from within our borders, evil individuals would continue to find a means to achieve their twisted ends as history demonstrates. It is not a truth, but rather a curiosity, that while a host of voices from the media and from some areas of commerce indicate that one should be 21 year's of age to purchase certain firearm weapon platforms, 18-year-olds are sufficiently mature and intellectually capable of exercising the most important and powerful action that an American citizen may exercise–voting.

    • Rizzo  •  Mar 2, 2018 at 5:46 pm

      You guys are GREAT! I genuinely thank you for your input.
      No time in US history has it been more difficult to legally purchase a gun.
      50 years ago, when all these restrictions didn't exist, were there school shootings?
      What has changed? Guns are essentially the same that they have always been.
      I would suggest, guns haven't changed… people have.
      We are now seeing the results of the leftists constant attacks on morality.
      They don't value life at birth and they have diminished the value of life there after.

    • Billy Ray  •  Mar 3, 2018 at 12:30 am

      Lots of democrats are even okay with 14 year olds getting abortions without even telling their parents. So the logic is – (1) you shouldn't be able to own a gun at all because some very small percentage of guns, far less than one percent, might end up being used in a murder, but (2) you can be 14 years old and get an abortion without your parent's consent when there is a one-to-one ratio between abortions and murder. That is liberal logic.

  4. Bob  •  Mar 2, 2018 at 6:29 pm

    The picture of a cut down pistol in an article referring to the destruction of an AR15 notwithstanding, the public is trying to cure the symptom, not the disease. But just for the record, I did sit down with all my weapons yesterday and told them that I did NOT want to see them running around on their own shooting up the town! I think they got the message, but of course they don't know where I keep the key to the ammo box, he, he, he.

    Seriously, I’m a retired Army Officer, I’m a combat vet (Afghanistan), I’m a Life Member of the NRA, and a Member of the Garand Collectors Association. I go to the range on average of once a quarter to maintain proficiency with my pistol and rifles. I enjoy shooting a paper targets, not much of a hunter, but have no aversion to it for those who enjoy it.

    I marvel at the stupidity of folks and their "monkey see – monkey do" response to the whole firearms issue. Not the least of which is that AR is the acronym for Armalite Manufacturing, and does NOT serve as an acronym for Assault Rifle. Most of those morons out there, couldn't define an assault rifle if it jumped up and shot them in the ass! Technically my 1976 Ted Williams .22 cal tube fed semi-automatic rifle is an "Assault Rifle" by most definitions! But I'd have a hell of a time trying to reload once that first tube load of rounds are gone!

    I could regale you with all the data, but you already know most of the facts (you know, facts. . . those strange little things that keep liberals awake at night when they're not screaming at the sky). The sad fact is that we have a mental health issue in this country (and all over the world for that matter), which is at the core of the matter. The issue that needs to be solved is figuring out why a 17 year old kid seems to think that the only way to address his issue is to kill people!

    The other glaring truth is that we have a breakdown of society and the family unit, spurred on by liberal idiots coupled with an absence of father’s period, let alone the ones that are present but are not raising their sons properly due to self-centered ambivalence. The reasons for the absence are legion, and I won't waste time delving deeper into it, but suffice it to say, that absence, coupled with a lack of quality outdoor activities (read athletics and team sports) which all kids need in order to let off steam, let alone grow up and realize we all have different levels of ability, is a significant part of the problem. Particularly with boys who's only idea of what it takes to be a man is what they see on TV or in the movies. Oh yeah, Hollywood, that bastion of liberal morons who, on their worst day, produce more movies glorifying violence and killing than the NRA could even dream of on its best day!

    The foul ups by the local Sherriff and FBI, not withstanding, what other laws would have stopped this kid in Florida? Absolutely none!

  5. Rizzo  •  Mar 4, 2018 at 3:59 pm

    "Destroying a Gun Won’t Protect a Child"… Very TRUE!
    But, it will PROTECT the left's plan to DESTROY and TRANSFORM America.

  6. Michael Jarvis  •  Mar 4, 2018 at 8:17 pm

    My email address says it all. In the Army, I learned you can correct ignorance through physical effort, i.e., giving the right answer the first time may prevent the occasional order to do "lots of mind-enhancing push-ups." Automatic weapons are banned; bump-stock useless for accurate but its use allows trained spotters to see them faster. Semi-auto weapons are rifles that fire one round with each trigger pull like all others rifles; it doesn't matter how "soldiered-up" they look, the function is the same. The NRA is a weapon safety organization and does this job well. They also lobby for retaining our Constitutionally guaranteed 2nd Amendment right. It takes a good guy with a weapon to preserve your life from a bad guy with a weapon trying to take your life (liberty, property, or happiness) away.

  7. Ty  •  Mar 5, 2018 at 3:58 am

    Destroying a gun won't protect a child, but it will prevent that particular gun from harming anyone by taking it out of circulation. That said, it will of course be replaced by new shrinking generations of gun lovers who live in fear that big bad government is going to storm their homes and take their stuff and livelihoods. Sometimes I wonder if half the conservative movement doesn't have delusions about going out waco style against a tyrannical government. That eternal fear in the conservative soul driving more and more gun sales. Obama was great for gun sales, not a thing was done on guns, but he sales increased because a bunch of dumb conservatives thought a universal background check or better records would lead to some sort of registry and people getting their guns taken.

    I do not worry about a tyrannical government taking over my home or my life, I'm not that much of a ball of puss and fear like so many hysterical conservatives. So I feel no personal need to load up on guns to live out some last stand fantasy. And that is a large chunk of the more heavy duty gun sales, to nuts. The rest just want to hunt and use guns for personal defense, those people are reasonable, but IF we ever removed the second amendment and reduced guns, gun deaths would decline. But that is not the choice the nation prefers. So be it. More guns, more gun deaths, more trigger happy police because the police know that there are a lot of guns in the hands of the population, and as a consequence, more acquittals for cops via the low bar of "I was afraid" defense absolving them from criminal wrongdoing when they gun down American citizens

    With rules of engagement FAR more deadly than was tolerated under Patreus when dealing with FOREIGN hostiles in Iraq with the counter insurgency strategy, do NOT shoot first was the goal. But for American citizens? Oh? You were scared? But he did not have a gun? No harm no foul. Better to be carried out by a jury of 12 than 6 pall bearers. And frankly, looking at our current flippancy of the rules of engagement, it does not seem like many officers even need to worry about being checked by a jury.

    This toxic chain of guns and fear, what a LOVELY world conservatism wants to live in. Go look at the comments of FEAR based conservatives under some of the articles about the Shaver shooting, they blame the guy who got blasted with holes, CRAWL on your face instead of trying to pull your pants up while be given conflicting instructions, a hand went astray so it was JUSTIFIED killing, no harm no foul. That is the conservative way. Fear rules all.

  8. Rizzo  •  Mar 5, 2018 at 3:52 pm

    Oh Ty honey… You better be careful who you call a "ball of puss", most of your leftist heroes, both in government and entertainment, have armed protection around themselves all the time.
    Are they just paranoid nut jobs, who fear tyrannical government?

  9. Nani Tavares  •  Mar 5, 2018 at 8:56 pm

    Full disclosure: I am a strong 2nd amendment advocate. I feel so strongly about this that despite some health issues, I feel I need to chime in here.

    Can we be honest for once? It makes zero sense to make laws for those that break them. Murder IS already against the law, so it threatening. People who break the law by killing children aren't going to stop to abide by laws that forbid the sale of guns.

    People who claim to want "common sense" gun laws really want to deprive law abiding citizens of their rights. Listen carefully and you will hear the grab for that inch to turn into a mile–and beyond. We went from abortion for the rape and incest victim to killing on demand. From gay rights to preferable same sex marriage. From affirmative action to white racial intolerance.

    Really, just how many times does the Left think they can play that con game?

    For me, I am so beyond compromising, listening, trying to be fair. The Left does not play fair, they don't listen, and they certainly do not compromise.

    They took the first amendment and placed the "hate speech" caveat which diluted the entire right legally. Society has the right to monitor speech; governments do not.

    Now they want to do the same with certain types of guns?


    The line is drawn.

    • Rizzo  •  Mar 5, 2018 at 11:18 pm

      Thanks Nani!
      God bless, and be well!

  10. Ty  •  Mar 5, 2018 at 11:10 pm

    "Can we be honest for once? It makes zero sense to make laws for those that break them. Murder IS already against the law, so it threatening. People who break the law by killing children aren't going to stop to abide by laws that forbid the sale of guns."

    This right here highlights one of the MANY mental WEAKNESSES of the conservative thought process. It is SO focused on the INTERNAL, the personal, the individual agency, it is BLIND to policy affects on the wider world. Most importantly, how changing that EXTERNAL environment affects individual agency and options.

    A killer that wanted to get a mass murder weapon, would happily obtain that kind of weapon illegally if it was not legal to buy said weapon. Question. If the weapon was illegal to purchase, would that make the weapon easier to obtain or harder to obtain? Harder is the correct answer. Over time, if none of the manufacturers were allowed to sell automatic weapons and semi automatic weapons to people, the supply would go down. The ease of acquiring one of those weapons of mass murder would go higher. Let's say over the next 20 years, 50 people sought those kinds of weapons, but because of the new policy of making access to that kind of gun illegal for most people, out of the 50 people that were seeking that type of gun, only 30 were able to obtain one, with fewer as time went on. That means in 20 shootings, where the killer still had some form of a weapon, perhaps a handgun would be used instead, and the shootings would likely be less deadly.

    Same wicked murderous behavior, but changes in laws and the EXTERNAL world made it HARDER for such a person to acquire the weapons they wanted. Not impossible, harder.

    Now, It's my turn for some real talk. Can we stop pretending ANY of you give a damn about childrens lives over and above the FREEDOM of owning whatever gun your heart desires?

    Hypothetical. For the sake of argument, let's assume that gun control and making many types of guns illegal for most people DID work and was extremely effective at reducing murders.

    Clarification for the Rizzos among you, I need you to read the following sentence a hundred times and let the meaning sink in. I do not CARE if you do not believe that would be true, I am asking you to assume it was true to test out what that would mean inside those little conservative heads of yours.

    Assuming that gun control lowered the murder rate, would you be willing to restrict the FREEDOM of American citizens to own many types of guns to lower the murder rate?

    IF the answer is no, even IF it dropped the murder rate, then stop PRETENDING as if you give a damn about the efficacy of the policy. If your position on gun control DOES NOT REST on the actual efficacy of the policy and is almost ENTIRELY based on some strict adherence to a constitutional understanding of guns and the unfettered freedom to own them, just be HONEST for once in your DECEIT filled lives and just SAY that. Stop hiding, stop pretending, stop sheltering your true selves.

    • Rizzo  •  Mar 5, 2018 at 11:29 pm

      Moron, we don’t have to argue in the abstract or the what ifs…. we have Chicago. Chicago has about the most oppressive gun regulations in the US. And they do a great job at restricting law-abiding citizens from carrying guns and not allowing them to protect themselves. It also enables and empowers the EVIL to KILL CHILDREN, daily!

      So quit talking about saving children’s lives, you sick fucks don’t care. You hate freedom and people’s right to defend themselves.

      What if armed security, at schools eliminated violence and killing? Would you support that?

      • Ty  •  Mar 6, 2018 at 4:52 pm

        Local Gun Control is heavily undercut if a person in gun controlled Chicago can just drive to the border with Indiana with much more lax gun laws and buy guns. That is why some policies need to be national and not state based to scale properly.

        Now, because I'm a liberal most of you will probably ignore this obvious point even a 5 year old could understand, so let me use an example closer to your own hearts.

        Roe v Wade is struck down in the supreme court, now local states can ban abortion. If someone REALLY wants to get an abortion, will making it illegal to get one in the state stop them? Answer, no, but the increased barriers will result in fewer abortions. Some people will outright break the law, but not as many. Others might just drive to a border state where abortion is still legal.

        Now, IF you wanted the abortion being illegal policy to scale harder, it would need to be a national policy banning abortion. Some people would of course still get them illegally, but if it was illegal nationwide, that would more heavily cut down on abortion.

        The difference in this example is that this is a different type of criminality than standard criminals getting guns for illicit use, but it's close enough to illuminate the issue.

        Now I get it, most of you would prefer the freedom of guns, that's fine, then be honest and say you are willing to accept more gun deaths to preserve that freedom.

        I think most people are where you are, even a large chunk of democrats. So we will continue to hand wring and talk around the edges about mental illness (which conservatives don't want to pay to help treat btw – because as we all know, the mentally ill that literally cannot take care of themselves need to stop being lazy and get it together) while we maintain a higher background rate of murders.

      • Rizzo  •  Mar 6, 2018 at 6:35 pm

        So here Genius, if the legal status of guns determines the amount of gun violence and murder rates, then why is gun violence so low in Indiana, where gun laws are relatively reasonable, but in Chicago, where gun laws are strict, it is OUT OF CONTROL?
        That FACT seems to destroy your dream-world.

      • Rizzo  •  Mar 6, 2018 at 6:47 pm

        The freedom to own guns reduces Gun Deaths, moron.
        Law abiding citizens with the ability to defend themselves from the scumbags of the world, reduces Gun Deaths.
        Almost EVERY single "mass shooter" looks for "Gun Free Zones", in order to MAXIMIZE their slaughter.
        So Ty, why don't you just be honest, and admit that you are against The 2nd. Amendment, because you are more willing to accept gun deaths to preserve your leftist, oppressive ideology?

      • Ty  •  Mar 6, 2018 at 6:55 pm

        different demographics can and do react differently to the availability of guns. It's like comparing the crime rate of Japan with policy X vs the US with the same policy X, the japanese population is just less prone to many kinds of crime, so that has to be factored into the results.

        Are there gang dynamics in Indiana to the same extent as Chicago? If no, then lower availability of guns might have a bigger impact in lowering murder rates in Chicago vs some different area with different demographics and cultural dynamics.

        There are more variables to tweak than you assume.

      • Rizzo  •  Mar 6, 2018 at 8:34 pm

        Nice try…. Comparing the US to Japan and trying to correlate those diffeerences with the differences that exist between Indiana vs. Chicago is remarkably insane… even for a leftist loon, such as yourself.

        Face it Ty… You DESTROYED your own gun law "logic".


    • Rizzo  •  Mar 5, 2018 at 11:33 pm

      Who has “unfettered freedom” to own guns?
      Who, you stupid fuck?
      No time in US HISTORY, has it been more difficult to legally purchase a firearm.

      • Ty  •  Mar 7, 2018 at 2:39 am

        No one has unfettered freedom now, but some of the gun nuts want it. Universal background checks with electronic records would be far more efficient, but the nuts think that will allow tracking. And who cares if it's more difficult to buy a gun in the US now than it was in the past, it's still far easier than most countries.

        It was easier to be a doctor 200 years ago too, was that better? Do you want the standards of 2018 to be like that of centuries past? Oh wait, I am talking to a conservative, I better brace myself for the possible answer, I do know how much some of you worship tradition and how it was over modernity.

      • Rizzo  •  Mar 7, 2018 at 8:15 am

        It's far easier to get guns in the US than other countries? Hmmmm….. aren't you the guy that said: "different demographics can and do react differently to the availability of guns".
        You are an inconsistent fool. You say whatever you have to say to keep law-abiding citizens from having guns. It's ok…. It is very typical of the left and their dogma.

        It might have been far easier to be a doctor 200 years ago, and I'm sure you can make a valid arguement that the increased scrutiny has lead to improvements.
        No such correlation can be made with gun ownership and the increase in gun violence. There literally seems to be ZERO connection.
        It is more difficult to get a gun today than ever before, yet, gun violence seems to be worse. 200 years ago, even as recently as 50 years ago, 13 year-old kids would routinely receive a rifle as a birthday gift.
        Something has changed Ty…. and it ain't guns. You leftists need to ditch your anti-American, anti-gun crusade, because it doesn't produce the desired results.
        I thought that's what you leftists claimed to want with your policies…. policies are pursued, based on desired results, right?
        What are your desired results? And what is the outcome? FAILURE.
        YOU LEFTISTS REFUSE to explore REAL ANSWERS, because it goes against your anti-gun, anti-American dogma.

    • Nani Tavares  •  Mar 6, 2018 at 2:25 am

      Ty, what part of “we ain’t buying the con” do you not get?

      Your “for the sake of the children” is the same bull that the disarm our nukes idiots try to pull. Why on earth do they think that being defenseless would stop nations who want to deprive us of our freedoms is beyond me.

      But I’ll play. Would I give up my freedom and my kid’s to save children from being shot and killed?

      The answer is absolutely NO!

      Would YOU? Would you give up what you need to feed your family, an eye, your privacy, incarceration for a lifetime….to save the lives of children? Remember a “no” means you don’t really care about the lives of children.

      And if you agree, then what else would be required to save the children?

      You see Ty, your emotional argument is nothing more than blackmail and sorry; I ain’t buying.

      • Ty  •  Mar 7, 2018 at 2:44 am

        Excellent, you were honest Nani, I am proud of you. I'd draw a different line, but I can see the writing on the wall. The guns issue is a futile issue because of the fetishization of guns among conservatives and many democratic circles, so the higher background murder rate will persist.

        As a practical matter, I think it would be easier to adjust the variable of the availability of guns downward in the US to prevent more deaths than trying to target and detect and isolate crazy people who want to go on a murder spree ahead of time. But in the US, adjusting for the outsized love of guns, it might actually be easier to detect the crazies. Not in an absolute sense, but because the easier path of reduced gun deaths is taken off the table, willingly, even in cases where people assume it would lead to less deaths for the sake of argument. With those kind of restrictions via the constraints of American preferences, we have to find alternative solutions.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Mar 7, 2018 at 2:03 pm

        Ty, you seem surprised that I would be honest. Being honest for honesty sake fail to move me as I realized a long time ago that people will twist the truth to push their agenda. I try to be honest because it robs the opposition of the ability to emotionally blackmail me.

        You never answered the question of what YOU would be willing to give up to save children, but you seem to get the idea that people WILL fight for their 2nd amendment rights.

  11. Rizzo  •  Mar 6, 2018 at 9:06 am

    Nani, your point is brilliant. It exposes Ty and his entire leftists movement for the FRAUDS that they are.
    If only we gave up MORE of our RIGHTS, and surrender our safety to All-Mighty government, then and only then, will the children be safe. We will be another step close to UTOPIA.
    But, in reality, we won’t. These laws won’t work, and their only solution will be more laws. Each law designed to incrementally to lessen freedom of the law abiding. In the end, we will have no guns… but ultimately, we will have no freedom.
    Isn’t UTOPIA great?

  12. Rizzo  •  Mar 6, 2018 at 10:28 am

    Here, dumb fuck… are you gonna ban pistols, knives and blunt objects? They are used more often than your imaginary “weapons of war”.

  13. Rizzo  •  Mar 12, 2018 at 5:25 pm

    Somebody better tell the people of Austin to pass a Bomb-Control Act.
    That should fix the problem.

  14. James Brice  •  Mar 23, 2018 at 7:23 pm

    I remember that liberals often argue against forbidding things, because it leads to illegal smuggling and dealing and increases crime, such as in prohibition with alcohol or now with illegal narcotics. Yet when it comes to guns, they think that prohibition would work. Why would it if the other forms of prohibition did not and would not work? I think perhaps we should not take guns away from our country but rather take dangerous people away from guns. That is, the people most prone to gun violence or violence in general should be locked up and counseled and monitored to keep them away from guns and other means of violence. And of course this will not work, but it might help a bit. Perhaps limit the availability of guns to this sort of person. Some of the shooters in recent sprees in schools and so on were already under surveillance, but the authorities did not follow up on the laws that exist to deal with such people. And we need more zero tolerance in schools and homes to teach people the lesson that even minor violations can be punished, and therefor major violations will definitely be punished. Perhaps that is the best thing to do. Person centered control not gun-centered control. Some guns can be kept away from some people and some people can be kept away from guns. By teaching young people discipline through discipline, and violators should be punished. Like the shooter in San Francisco. Or screening people who are issued guns for their jobs, as in cases of military or police people who run amock.

  15. James Brice  •  Mar 24, 2018 at 4:04 pm

    I am listening to the rally against guns and the NRA. It is uncanny to listen to all these adolescent voices speaking out, as if they knew what they were talking about. Who put the words in their mouths? Who wants to use these young people for some sort of political agenda? Ever notice that whatever the Leftists want to permit, they say cannot be prohibited. It should be legalized and regulated. Illegal immigration, alcohol, narcotics, prostitution, petty crime, illegal voting. polygamy, unusual sexual practices, abortion, smuggling, you name it. Anything at all. It cannot be stopped or prohibited. Except guns. Guns can be prohibited and this would eliminate the 300,000,000 guns already available in the USA. It could prevent illegal manufacture and illegal importation of guns. And it would prevent mass shooting in schools and at public events. Has prohibition prevented all the various attacks by terrorists with gas, clubs, machettes, automobiles, trucks, knives, strangulation kidnapping, beating, etc. In Europe? What sort of motivation lies behind this attitude. Suddenly one thing can be prohibited. Not much else can. What do they really want?

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.


Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn