Anti-gun advocates use shooting near Texas A&M to push for gun control

Well, that didn’t take long. Just as we saw in the wake of the tragic shootings in Aurora, Colorado, and Oak Creek, Wisconsin, the Left is seizing today’s shooting near Texas A&M to push for stricter gun control laws:

Shameless and disgusting.

Citizens in favor of the right to bear arms countered the liberal anti-gun feeding frenzy:

When will liberals learn that it’s possible to confront a horrific event and mourn the loss of life without politicizing? In responding to this shooting and so many others in this way, the Left disgraces itself and belittles the victims and their loved ones. There is a time for gun policy discussion; this isn’t it. To the Left, the Texas A&M shooting is but a means to an end: revoking our Constitutional right to defend ourselves. Exploiting tragedies does nothing to help liberals’ cause; it only exposes their desperation and refusal to view people as more than political tools. Gun control is indeed just about control, the defense of life be damned.


Ed. note: Though we stated in this post and here that the shooting did not, in fact, take place on the Texas A&M campus, our original headline referring to today’s event as the “Texas A&M shooting” may have been misleading to our readers. We apologize for any confusion and have updated the headline accordingly.

  • WhizViz

    Please tell me, WHEN is the time for gun policy discussion? What happened after the congresswoman from Arizona was shot? That was ~18 months ago. There wasn’t any discussion after that. Perhaps these gunmen can take a break for a couple months to allow a discussion.

    • TroyGates

      What is there to discuss? Using a weapon for a criminal act is a crime, imagine that. These people doing the mass shootings aren’t defending themselves, they are acquiring guns to commit a crime. What law will stop that?

      • WhizViz

        Ban assault weapons and increase the purchase time between buying weapons. Having a stricter gun policy won’t end gun violence, but it’ll slow the whackos down.

        • QuadGMoto

          Like those total bans worked soooo well in Chicago and Washington DC, as they traded off on the title of “Murder Capital of the World.” Or the fact that the Aurora theater was officially a “gun free zone”.

          If laws against murder won’t stop a wacko, what the heck do you think a law against a machine is gonna do? Is it some sort of magic force field?

          • WhizViz

            How will the wacko buy a machine gun? Here’s a question I never get answered from any conservatives — why do citizens need to purchase semi-auto’s? You don’t hunt with it. If you’re defending your home, a pistol or shotgun is better suited.

            I love the typical American point of view — if a suggestion isn’t a 100% end to a problem, then it’s not worth pursuing. We see this with energy/global climate, guns, and national debt. It’s nearly impossible to ever come up with a solution to totally eliminate a problem, instead you make small strides and take the gains.

          • QuadGMoto

            A) What do you mean by “machine gun”?

            B) What is a militia? What is its purpose?

            C) Who was the Revolutionary War fought against?

            D) Which organizations have killed the largest numbers of people throughout history?

          • WhizViz

            Assault weapons — semi automatics.

          • QuadGMoto

            That’s not a machine gun.

            Where are your answers to the other questions?

          • WhizViz

            Full automatics (machine guns) are also included as assault weapons.


          • QuadGMoto

            Wikipedia is not a valid source. (Anyone can change it, and usually does.) A machine gun can fire multiple shots with a single trigger pull.


            Still waiting on those answers.

          • QuadGMoto

            Well, well, well. It appears that WhizViz doesn’t have time to actually think enough to answer those questions, but he does have time to throw around his mindless talking points once again.

            So let’s take a look at those answers and what they tell us about the lessons of history.

            B) A militia is every able bodied man and woman from the age of 18 through 45. (As defined in federal law.) In other words, they’re an organized fighting force made up of We the People. The militia’s purpose (as defined in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States) is to protect freedom. Our freedom. Us. Not someone else protecting us. Us protecting our own freedom.

            Why not rely on the government to protect us? Well, that’s answered by the next two questions.

            C) The Revolutionary War was fought against the British Government. Prior to the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776, the war had been going on for over a year. (It officially started on April 19th, 1775; ironically, when the British tried to enforce a gun ban.) During that entire time (and the ever escalating conflict as the British government tyrannized the populace) that government was our government. That’s right, it wasn’t a between two nations, it was a civil war caused by the government abusing it’s own citizens.

            D) The organizations which have killed the largest numbers of civilians (not soldiers) have been governments killing their own citizens. In the 20th century alone, wholesale murder of civilians by their own governments is somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 MILLION people, all because they were disarmed and their governments were not. Those governments used their armies and other armed forces against their own population!!!

            Russia is estimated to have murdered about 55 million of its own people from 1917-1987.

            China murdered more than 48 million of its own citizens between 1923 and 1987.

            Nazi Germany is thought to have murdered roughly 12 million civilians.

            In Cambodia, Pol Pot had roughly 2 million Cambodian citizens murdered.

            In Turkey, 1.75 million civilians were murdered from 1909-1918.

            And the list goes on and on and on. Governments are the most effective organization there is when it comes to wholesale murder. If a government gets taken over by fully evil people, what is to stop the slaughter if the population does not have military grade weapons? The unvarying lesson of history is clear and brutal: Nothing, nothing at all.

            (Source I used: )

            In this country, we’ve had a civil war. We had the British return to try again after losing the Revolutionary War. And on a smaller scale, there have been riots. In 1992, there was massive rioting where homes and businesses were looted and burned. The ones that survived were typically those protected by military grade weapons, not wielded by the police, but by the property owners.

            “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.”
            — Thomas Jefferson

          • TroyGates

            More semi-autos are sold to people that don’t use them for killing people than the few that have killed people. If you want to use that for the basis of banning guns, then start banning cars because they kill more people than guns do.

          • Penny Robinson Fan Club

            It’s called “freedom.” I know you get all wrapped up in the idea of “need” — as in “To each according to his need,” but you do make an interesting admission — small strides and take the gains. In other words, whittle away, carve out the slippery slope.

            Here’s a question for you — why do you insist on framing the question in terms of “Need” at all? And why do you think you have a right to decide someone else’s “need” at all?

            Here’s another question — how many crimes are committed with semi-automatic rifles in the US, annually?

            I’ll wait…..

          • Cary Concealed

            “Here’s a question for you — why do you insist on framing the question in terms of “Need” at all? And why do you think you have a right to decide someone else’s “need” at all?”
            Thank you!!!!!! We need to ask the antis this question. Need is never the issue. Freedom is. Where do they get the authority to determine our “need”?

          • TugboatPhil

            I can take a semi-auto pistol to the front door when I answer it. It’s not as easy with a long gun. Home invaders come in too quickly to raise a long gun.

            Why do you love the typical American point of view? Is it because you’re a condescending, foreigner?

          • John Kerry’s Forehead

            Your ignorance is frightening. I have a semi-automatic shotgun I use for hunting and sport trap, skeet. I have a semi-auto 22 longrifle I use for hunting small game and for sport targets. I have a semi-auto 243 rifle I use for deer hunting. I have several semi-auto handguns for protection and sport.

            Do some research before spouting ignorance in public. I believe you are trying to say you don’t think citizens need a full-automatic assault rifle for hunting. And, maybe you’re correct. But I need one to defend my home in case a criminal or group of criminals come calling.

            Most states do have a ban on private ownership of fully-automatic assault rifles. That doesn’t stop a criminal from getting them….remember the LA bank robbers from a few years ago?

            Your logic, and I use that term loosely, is the same as banning hammers in China because some guy used one to kill some kids in a Kindergarten class once.

          • Cary Concealed

            @WhizViz You said: “You don’t hunt with it.” Really? Lots of people hunt with semiauto rifles, even AR-15s. They’re great for coyotes in the standard 5.56/.223 and for larger game, there’s .300 BLK.
            “if a suggestion isn’t a 100% end to a problem, then it’s not worth pursuing.” The problem with gun control is that it’s a negative solution. Look at the crime rate in DC vs across the border in Virginia. Look at El Paso vs Juarez. If gun control actually worked, we would consider it, but it is a failed idea.
            “machine gun” Was this a FULLY AUTOMATIC rifle here? I haven’t seen anything reliable that says it was. Just a bunch of people who know nothing about guns who call a scary-looking guns “machine guns.”

          • Corey Dennison

            The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING OR HOME PROTECTION!!! And by the way, who the hell are you to determine what anyone else needs? Since when do we have to submit a justification to enjoy a Constitutional right?

          • Penny Robinson Fan Club

            Don’t omit to mention that the honest citizens of DC have been BEGGING the gun laws to be relaxed so they can defend themselves, as the unionized police force is utterly ineffective at preventing crime, and as the Supreme Court mentioned some time ago, cops have NO affirmative duty to help you.

            Remember folks, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

        • Penny Robinson Fan Club

          Tell me what an assault weapon is, please.

          • Corey Dennison

            Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer, IceColdTroll. Libs are ignorant enough about firearms without tripping them up on the definition that is political in nature.

        • J. Cox

          Please define a assault weapon!A .22 in the hands of a competent shooter can kill more people than a moron using a AK-47.None of the weapons in any of these shootings were assault weapons…which btw..ARE ALREADY BANNED!

        • Corey Dennison

          Can you please define exactly what an ‘assault weapon’ is? Also, please point out when an actual assault ‘rifle’ (note: assault ‘rifle’ has a very specific definition, unlike assault ‘weapon.’) has been used in a mass shooting?

    • Ron Waid, Sr

      @WhizViz: Even a Democrat is saying this: “no matter how many laws were in place, there would be nothing to stop a gunman from committing a crime like the movie theater shooting.” Read it here on HuffPost:

      • WhizViz

        Limiting his firepower could have saved more lives.

        • J. Cox

          And 1 armed CC user could have stopped him sooner and saved even more lives.Again,I have a friend who’s son shoots competition matches with a .22.He is 14 and can put a dozen rounds down range and on target in less than a minute,should we start using flintlocks?

        • Corey Dennison

          Hey, I know: we should totally ban guns just like they do in the UK…then we’d never have gun violence!

          “Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show.
          There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 – a rise from 7,362 over the previous year.”

          When you ban guns, then only the bad guys will have guns.

        • QuadGMoto

          Several mass shootings were done using nothing more powerful than a 9mm pistol. That’s about as low as you can get on the effective weapons scale.

          The Fort Hood shooting was carried out on a military base where just about everyone was a trained soldier, unarmed trained soldiers. Not one of those soldiers was able to stop him. That is, until one person with a gun did.

          In 2002, a wacko began shooting at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia. He only managed to kill three people before he was stopped by two students using their own guns.

          In 2007, another wacko went to a church to kill “as many Christians as [he] could”. He managed to kill 4, but was stopped by a civilian with a gun.

          Compare these to the Virginia Tech shooting, Aurora shooting, and the Columbine shooting. In all three cases, there was no one with a gun who could stop them because it was illegal. The result was a much higher body count.

          Nothing stops a mass murderer faster than return fire, or the threat of return fire. If honest, law-abiding people are disarmed, the wackos (who will always be able to find a gun or other weapons) are free to kill to their twisted hearts’ content.

    • J. Cox

      Perhaps when the guns are gone,they can toss a few pipebombs instead..oh wait..those are illegal,so criminals won’t use them.

    • Corey Dennison

      Hmmm…how about at least waiting for the bodies to, you know, at least get cold!

  • lazypadawan

    It’s because they never announce fatal DUIs, beatings, and stabbings on Twitter.

  • QuadGMoto

    A world without guns? We tried that already. It didn’t work. Widespread violence occurred then too.

    Image source:

  • Josephine (D)

    “I feel sorry for your loss. Please further my political cause.”-Liberal motto.

  • Penny Robinson Fan Club

    “I don’t use every lib as a reason to support abortion.” Sha-SHA!

  • $30423294

    Mass shootings have skyrocketed under Obama’s watch.

    Maybe the problem is Obama?

  • 7BigRed7

    Politics over tragedy

  • HWGood

    Why the fuss about this fictional incident? It could not have happened. There are laws and rules against guns on that campus, so no shootings could have occurred.

    • Corey Dennison

      Exactly! You’d think the laws already on the books are being ignored by criminals or something. Congress needs to enact laws that won’t be ignored by criminals. But let’s take it a step further for our liberal friends: We need to have laws banning murder.

      • HWGood

        My gosh! What a brilliant idea! Why didn’t anyone think of this before?
        Contact Washington immediately!

  • Garth Haycock

    Using the left’s logic, genetalia should be illegal because rapes happen.

    • Corey Dennison

      Don’t give them any ideas…

  • John Kerry’s Forehead

    Yeah cuz that guy would totally have said “I ts against the law for me to have this gun and shoot at people from my house” instead of going crazy and shooting people from his house. I am waiting for the investigation to link his gun to #FastandFurious

  • Penny Robinson Fan Club

    Wonder why the gun-ban leftards don’t get worked up over the fact that Homeland Security has now purchased over ONE BILLION rounds of ammo? Mostly .40 cal hollowpoint, which is not something you go duck hunting with. They really all that bad shots they need a billion rounds for “training purposes”?

    Oh, and bulletproof checkpoint booths, too.

    And armored urban assault vehicles.

    Ya know i’ve always been a bit sketchy with the paranoid/conspiracy fringe, but this sh1t is starting to make me nervous.

  • allenbarr

    well let’s see
    well let’s see: so all guns removed from citizens. what will happen ok. you would start seeing nuts with explosives and ballbearing embedded in the explosives. so all it will do is create larger areas for criminals and more fatalities. remember some are crazy some are criminal geniouses.

  • QuadGMoto

    Take a look at this reasoning from the Dred Scott decision.

    They were wrong to deny blacks their human rights, but they weren’t wrong about what rights they were denying.

  • Mark James

    “It’s better to have one and not need it, than to need one and not have it”
    -Woodrow F. Call

  • Keith S.

    I informed a person of sheople-like tendancies that 10,000 – 13,000 people die each year from drunk driving accidents in the USA. This is pretty comparible with firearm related homocides in the USA. I told him that you might as well put a breathalizer in every car here so you won’t be able to drive if you have any alcohol in your system…period. This is what a nanny state does right? I mean…just because most gun owners as well as most drivers are responsible….we should just cave in and let the government put in regulations that will challenge our privileged rights as American citizens. Shove this rethoric back in their faces and they shut up……. They need to see their own douche-tarded logic by means of a differant angle.