“You can’t find a broad brush solution to evil.”

ap_adam_lanza_ll_121217_wg

Robert Steed, a resident of Vernon, Conn. took three days straight off work to attend gun control hearings in Connecticut. On March 14th he was finally able to deliver some testimony, and in a word it was epic (via The Blaze).

“Adam Lanza commits a crime, and I’m here to grovel and plead for my rights and explain to you that my firearms are kept safely?” Mr. Steed asked. “I keep hearing the word ‘solution.’ You’re not going to find a solution, it doesn’t exist. You can’t find a broad brush solution to evil.”

Let’s apply the thinking of the anti-gun movement to another situation. Let’s say a mentally disturbed man crashed his car into a school bus on purpose. If we use the logic of the anti-gun activists, we should ban cars, since that was the implement of his attack.

That makes no sense. The problem wasn’t the car, and in New Town the problem wasn’t the guns. The problem, in both situations, is the person behind the wheel and the person pulling the trigger.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Tom

    Great testimony!

  • Thresherman

    But it won’t sway liberals who will start waving the bloody flag of dead grandchildren.

  • sbark

    Appears to me, the actions, which the Dem’cats want to implement, wont really even reduce the evil of the rogue Indiv shooter, might even increase it on a house by house basis………..but for sure, it will bring on the evil our founding fathers most feared——-the evil coming from a tyrannical extreme leftist govt as history has well shown us repeatedly.

  • Anon

    Rob again asserts his reducio ad absurdum argument that we should ban cars if we ban some guns. What an unoriginal hack!

    • two_amber_lamps

      gusty/anon/imposterofafiveyearoldgirlcommentingonMNareahockeyblogs calling Rob a hack? Where have we heard that? Anon is a hackneyed hack! Have you been sniffing your own 3M products again?

    • JoeMN

      Now I remember where I last saw this infantile line of reasoning.
      In the first grade.

      • Anon

        Now I remember where I saw that complete lack of any reasoning ability beyond name calling: JoelMN’s last post.

    • Guest

      Another original Anon hackety-hack-hack attack using his 100-round clip of “hacks.”

    • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

      Another original Anon hackneyed-hackety-hack-hack attack using his 100-round clip of “hacks.”

    • $16179444

      you couldn’t miss the point more if you tried. and who decides which guns? you? Pelosi? Reid? Obama? Who?

      • Anon

        for answers concerning elementary school questions about how laws are made, please consult your elementary school teacher.

        • $16179444

          um, you may wish to refer to the Constitution.

          • anon

            um, you may wish to refer to the fact that the 2nd ammendment, just like the 1st doesn’t allow one to yell fire in a theater, is not totally beyond regulation. typical problem with republicans is that they think they know more then they acutally do. thanks for the laugh at your pathetic response mark! http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

  • mickey_moussaoui

    you can’t fix stupid either. Obama winning a second term proves that

    • Guest

      Your posts prove that much better!

  • JoeMN

    If a lawmaker must resort to complaining about the inconvenience of living in an “open, free democratic society”, it’s time to find another lawmaker.

    • Anon

      If JoeMn defends the freedom of an individual to slaughter a classroom of 1st graders, it’s time to start a commitment hearing.

      • two_amber_lamps

        Anon//Gusty/imposterof5yearoldgirlonMNareahockeyblog =

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGfoxN2JSS4

      • Thresherman

        The only people defending the murders are the ones that exist only in your fetid little mind. The rest of us do not believe in punishing the innocent as you do.

        • Anon

          Only a Republican would consider ensuring 1st graders aren’t slaughtered a ‘punishment.’

          • two_amber_lamps

            Anon/gusty/imposterof5yearoldgirlwhocommentsonMNareahockeyblogs slaughtering himself… we can only hope.

          • $16179444

            says the party that promotes abortion.

          • Anon

            says the person who has to create fictional arguments like a party ‘promoting abortion’ when many simply want the option available if needed but also want to limit the number of by ensuring the availability of contraceptives, birth control, etc and preventing unwanted pregnancies in general, policies Republicans are against and in fact lead to more unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education

          • $16179444

            LOL – suddenly accountability or lack thereof is the fault of Republicans? wow!

          • $16179444

            so why can’t that same option be made available for legit gun owners? you know, wanting the option to protect oneself if needed?

          • yy4u2

            and on and on and on…only a person and your ilk would think that what has been proposed by the progressives would 100% ensure that any person, any where will never be a victim to these senseless crimes. I won’t hold my breath for your childish diatribes. I see you’re busy using that talent with others on this thread.

          • anon

            thanks for resorting to only personal attacks; it’s the republican way of admitting they’re wrong and have nothing to disprove or counter anything i said!

          • Onslaught1066

            In your opinion, of course.

          • anon

            Once again, Nothought1066 has nothing to counter anything I’ve said and is completely unable to articulate why anything said is wrong beyond his bare assertion that it’s an opinion. Thanks Nothought1066 for admitting that!

          • Onslaught1066

            enligt din åsikt, förstås

          • yy4u2

            You must have your own version of the Fed that prints out countless “He’s a bully, I’m the victim here” cards. If you don’t want comments that refute your illogical rants, don’t comment in the first place. If you find them hurtful, like you claim most of the time from others that post on this blog, perhaps you need to look more closely at yourself and further back into history as to why you are so horribly wrong.

          • anon

            yet more personal insults. i knew i was right, but your complete inability to argue anything but personal insults only reinforces how little support you have for your argument!

          • yy4u2

            Group hug for Anon. Lil’ fella is shedding tears and throwing a tantrum.

          • anon

            please, yy4u2. you’ve admitted several times that i’m right by being completely unable to argue against anything i’ve said beyond insults. i really can’t get much more right, but thanks!

          • yy4u2

            Delusional. Lay off the Valium.

          • anon

            yy4u2’s delusional- he can’t even point to one post where he offered anything substantive beyond insults. he can’t because he’s juvenile and should lay off the pcp.

          • yy4u2

            Sorry Charlie. …only a person and your ilk would think that what has been proposed by the progressives would 100% ensure that any person, any where will never be a victim to these senseless crimes.

            That’s from above. You are wrong again. Shows you can’t read and are inept in debate by throwing the victim card rather than backing up your original opinion.

          • Anon

            As predicated, yy4u2 can’t point to where he’s offered anything beyond personal insults. Thanks again for showing the complete bankruptcy of your cause!

          • two_amber_lamps

            Oh po’ Anon is having a 5 year old girl tantrum! Calm down there lil’ fella! Besides, why are you posting here? This isn’t a MN area hockey blog….

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGfoxN2JSS4

          • yy4u2

            Snoozer alert. Look at me world, I’m a victim here. You are always laughable and pathetic which is why you get way more thumbs down votes.

          • Anon

            Looser alert. YY4u2 yet again cannot point to anything he’s offered beyond name calling. Gratz on creating alternative accounts to up-vote yourself, but the nice thing about being right is you’re right no matter how many people believe otherwise.

          • yy4u2

            The latter part of your drivel is you: ignorant and arrogant. Your mentioning alternative accounts is amusing at best. Who has the time to be narcissistic as well…besides yourself? And you continue your whining and lame put downs as you sit loathing high fiving yourself. Reminds me of a comedian (Greg Hahn?) who had a saying that fits you, high five myself, no friends. See ya Alinsky.

          • Anon

            Loooser alert update: yy4u2 yet again has nothing to offer but more insults. Surely if anything Anon claimed was false, yy4u2 would offer substantively to counter it besides insults, but so for yy4u2 has completely failed in that endeavor, just like everything he does.

          • yy4u2

            Predictably lame n next time you think you think you logged in as unregistered or guest or ahole, then you can refer to Anon in the first person. Fn classic!

          • Anon

            Looooser alert update: after being challenged to provide any semblance of an argument, y4u2 forgoes civil debate and again resorts to hackneyed insults. Fn pathetic! Stayed with us as yy4u2 will undoubtedly again come back with only more insults to again underscore how pathetically bankrupt his “ideas” are.

          • yy4u2

            Yawn. Engfish.

          • slackwarerobert

            Only democrats want them killed. All you need to do is get rids of gun free zones, and the lunatic would only get into the lobby at best before he is dispatched to his maker. All I want is the same “rights” as obama’s kids, armed protection from predators who are breaking the law.

          • Thresherman

            But what is being proposed would not ensure anything of the sort and it seems that only liberals are stupid enough to believe that it would.

      • JoeMN

        Which is ultimately more interested in protecting the classroom full of 1st graders ?
        A; A free society
        B; The tyrant ?

        I reject your premise

        • Anon

          Since JoeMN’s like’s false choice type arguments, he is either

          A. Insanely stupid
          B. Murderous lunatic

          I accept your dangerous stupidity.

  • devilschild

    There have always been tyrants and murderers. At times they seem invincible but in the end they always fall.

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    Oh well, better not try anything then.

    • Thresherman

      Yeah, if you can’t punish the innocent it just isn’t fun for you liberals.

      • Anon

        What exactly is Thresherman planning if being less able to kill 1st graders is a ‘punishment.’?

        • $16179444

          funny how your heart weeps for these kids, yet you turn a blind eye to those kids being aborted. how does that work?

          • Anon

            funny how your heart weeps for ‘kids being aborted,” yet you turn a blind eye to children dying from preventable gun violence. how does that work?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            His brain is good for somethings, but thinking aint one of them.

          • Onslaught1066

            Your brain is probably being put to good use as a doorstop for a very, very tiny door… perhaps on a cuckoo clock somewhere

          • $16179444

            this coming from the party that states drones are good but guns are bad…..

          • slackwarerobert

            It is not preventable till the nuts on the left allow the kids to shoot back. Where is your compassion for the children at waco, they never banned tanks did they?

          • $16179444

            how is it preventable?

          • $16179444

            come on Anon – you MUST have some thoughts on how its preventable.

          • Anon

            Sorry Mark, I only dedicate only a small portion of my time working with the mentally handicapped. Perhaps one day you’ll acquire basic reasoning skills that will enable you to discern what could possibly be causing one person to die after being shot with a gun.

          • $16179444

            “yet more personal insults. i knew i was right, but your complete
            inability to argue anything but personal insults only reinforces how
            little support you have for your argument!”

            gee, i wonder who said that? funny how you can’t even answer a legit question.

          • $16179444

            so let me get this straight: you’re ok with murdering kids via abortion yet bitch about guns being in the hands of some wacko and therefore everyone should give up their rights….i guess abortion wouldn’t be ok if they used guns? amazing the utter hypocrisy

          • $16179444

            never turned a blind eye — just not dim enough to believe banning something is going to stop it…..

    • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

      Damn that’s stupid! You win again!

    • $16179444

      how about trying something that will work instead of throwing something against the wall in the hope it works when it has been proven not to?

      • Anon

        exactly. people still die from drunk drivers and people still shoplift in spite of laws against those activities, so obviously we might as well repeal those laws instead of ‘throwing something against the wall in the hope it works when it has been proven not to’

        • Onslaught1066

          How about we find out which type of automobiles participate the least in drunk driving collisions and look scary and just ban those… seeing as we already have universal registration for purchasing cars… except for those few individuals who obtain cars illegally. and limit the ability to load more that 3 gals. of gas in any one car seeing as how the rate of death increases proportionally with the number of miles driven… Ban trunk or storage space to prevent people from buying multiple cans of gas to increase the amount of damage done by cars driving further than federally mandated in a single trip… etc… etc… etc… ad infinitum… I mean, it’s better than doing nothing…right? RIGHT?!

          • JoeMN

            Onslaught
            This line of reasoning simply does not compute with Anon
            In his zeal to replace liberty with false promises of security, he is perfectly willing to hold classrooms full of 1st graders hostage.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Drunk driving laws save lives, so will an assault weapons ban.

          • JoeMN

            Empirical evidence would suggests otherwise
            According to a Congressional Research Service report
            Less than 2 % of all gun related crimes the perp used, carried, or possessed a semiautomatic assault weapon

            Gun ownership has doubled since 1968

            Yet gun related murders have been halved in the last decade

            http://washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-under-2-percent-of-gun-crimes-involve-assault-weapons/article/2516512?custom_click=rss#.UNNAqM1ZYlE

            BTW Remember that high capacity magazines were also banned under the previous assault
            weapons ban, when the gun murder rate was higher than it is now

            During the last assault weapons ban, no major study found any discernible effect on gun crime, except one by the Brady campaign.

            But even the ATF refuted this one.

            All this data suggests at best an assault weapons ban would not have any negligible affect on gun crimes.

            And the state of Virginia proves once again that more guns equals less crime

            http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/26/report-in-virginia-more-guns-less-crime/

          • slackwarerobert

            So how many have been killed by our overlords? They are exempt from drunk driving laws, and have been caught driving drunk all the time and drive off. Learn from the drunks, e=mc2, i.e step on the gas and get your energy up so the drunk is the one who gets hurt. You still don’t get it, an assault weapon will save your life. Just like driving a tank will protect you from drunk drivers.

          • two_amber_lamps
          • $16179444

            people will always drive drunk, and people will always have access to assault weapons…regardless of laws

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Oh well, we better be like gop and just put our heads in the sand and do nothing. Not even try. There’s nothing we can do. Absolutely nothing. Nothing can stop it. So why bother. It’s God’s will.

            It’s the price we pay for freedumb.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Don’t forget to ban those high capacity clips you jerkwad.

            http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/30-Round-Clip.jpg

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Actually, there are insurance rate hikes for those cars. So there is a specific type of penalty attributed to the innocent who don’t speed, or crash their cars regularly. You idgit.

          • Onslaught1066

            Non Sequitur. Cars are neither enshrined nor protected by the Bill of Rights and yet you find yourself in a froth of near, if not total, hysterics when it comes to the idea of banning something that not only has the potential of causing great harm and death, even unto the “Little Children”, but does so on a continuing and ever increasing basis, more so than these so-called “assault weapons” that you are so afraid of ever do.

            If all it takes is a little more insurance to put your tiny mind at ease, why are you not pushing for increased home owners insurance premiums instead of “Gun Control” with an eye towards an eventual and total ban.

            You may now return to the irrelevance of your sandbox and continue to bob for Tootsie Rolls™.

          • Anon

            In your opinion.

          • Onslaught1066

            Of course.

          • slackwarerobert

            But once again you are punishing those who prefer to be safe. If you drive over 100 mph, they can’t catch up to you to hit you, so you avoid being in an accident.

          • Anon

            No, it’s best do just do nothing and let people drive drunk, shoplift, and mass murder 1st graders.

          • Onslaught1066

            Asked and answered. Pull your head out of your opinionated A$$.

          • anon

            In your opinion, of course.

          • Onslaught1066

            yes.

          • slackwarerobert

            did they test him for being drunk? We know he shoplifter the guns, and he killed the 1st graders. Maybe if he was drunk he wouldn’t have been able to drive to the school so your 21 age limit killed those children.

          • $16179444

            so if you’re so concerned about kids being murdered, why do you support abortion?

          • slackwarerobert

            That would be motorcycles I would bet. Funny they never call for a ban on 4 wheels, no one needs more than 2. My car is armed, so if someone steels it they can have a gun charge on top of the auto theft, besides I can tell the cops the thief has a gun so maybe they actually look for it.

          • Onslaught1066

            Motorcycles are far too fuel efficient they should be limited to a quart.

  • Matthew Hawkins

    problem is you are not in favor of any solutions.
    You don’t support background checks before the purchase of guns for either criminal or mentally ill.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      The problem is you suppose there are solutions, and that policies such as the ones you indicate will actually make a difference.

      Not every problem has a public policy solution.

      • camsaure

        The problem is you liberals who refuse to institutionalize or treat the mentally ill. Guns are not their only means of danger to society, we have knives, hammers, clubs, cars, poisons and a myriad of other things. I wonder if the real reason you libs choose to ignore the mentally deranged is because you would loose the majority of your constituency and your base.
        But in reality you libs are only interested in control. Banning guns is just the first step in your evil agenda.

        • Bubba

          Interesting point. Do you think the right to bear arms is superior to a crazy person’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? In other words, are you suggesting that we, as a nation, should prefer institutionalizing mentally deranged people who have not committed violent crimes rather than requiring gun owners to submit to registries and background checks? Think about it, bro, if you get your way, those people who are after your guns will go ahead and accuse you of insanity to the local authorities and you’ll risk being locked away AND losing your guns. They will have to test you, against your will, to see if you are in fact crazy. So depriving an individual of true liberty of person is more important than taking a test and registering your assault rifle? I hope you get what you want out of this, buddy, it won’t be pretty.

          • camsaure

            Well It will be pretty obvious in the future that you and your liberal cohorts libs will use their expanded background checks for the same purpose you purport. How about the pedophiles? I suppose you think they should be allowed to run free. How about abortion? Is that not depriving the utmost innocent of their life and liberty? Hiding behind your rhetoric all the while supporting the first steps or the camels nose under the tent so to speak, as you are doing, to circumvent our constitution is not the answer. The right to bear arms is essential in order to be able to pursue liberty.

      • Matthew Hawkins

        AS RBB said, better not try anything than.

        • $16179444

          that same ‘logic’ was used in Obama ‘care’ —– and we all see how that is turning out.

        • Onslaught1066

          Psssssssssssst, Mathew, RBB is a retard. If he is your source authority that makes you a retard that relies on a retard to do your retarded thinking for you.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Epic retardation may I add.

        • two_amber_lamps

          Better not to try anything “than” what? You illiterate cretin.

  • Waski_the_Squirrel

    A lot of good people just can’t understand evil or violence. They can’t conceive of a person who sees the world through the lens of evil and violence.

    I thank God that I am not an evil or violent person, but I have seen enough glimpses of this world to accept that it exists.

  • sbark

    Speaking of evil…….make note of the 2 other “sons of Obama” shooting a 13 month old boy right in the stroller and the mom shot in the leg……all for a simple robbery.

    Waiting for Obama to “chime in” with Jesse and Al……shooters were black teenagers in Atlanta….wonder if the Black Panthers will riot again?

    Maybe the baby had “skittles”?

    • $16179444

      oh no, the shooter was a ‘victim’ of slavery and white repression

  • Bubba

    I’m not making a comment about the propriety of legislation limiting access to certain weaponry, just pointing out what a poor argument you’ve presented. It really is a loser of an argument. Consider the main utility or purpose of the item in question. The utility of a car is transport from point A to B – that’s what a car is supposed to do. It certainly could be used for other things, i.e. a place to sleep or to cause damage to a person or property, but the thing was designed to transport A firearm’s (I suppose in the constitutional sense) utility is to kill a living target. It can be used to injure a target, for target practice, as a decoration or cane I suppose, but the thing is designed to kill. You’re skipping some on the logic, i.e., the device the nut used to kill children was used for the purpose it was intended, i.e., killing. You have a constitutional argument, you have Heller, but you don’t have a winning comparative argument here. E.g., you could kill someone with a pen, should we outlaw pens? You could kill someone with a shoe, should we outlaw shoes? Boy you showed them elites! Your argument ignores the utility of the item to the detriment of your reputation. You’d get more traction (but still fail in your argument) if you talked about knives or something. It seems to me you’ve shot down your readers for arguing that gay marriage will lead to goat or baseball bat marriage or whatever. You understand the similarity between the point you’ve made above and that sort of “slippery slope” nonsense? Lip service might be enough, I guess, for your blog.

  • camsaure

    Maybe you can’t find a broad brush solution, but you can illustrate it in one word: Liberalism.

    • two_amber_lamps

      Liberalism… such an innocuous term. Call it what it is.

      Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism.

      • camsaure

        You are correct, good point.

  • http://genelalor.com Gene Lalor

    Evil, Guilty, Stupid Whites

    Turning a progressive blind eye to vicious black hate groups and to
    revolutionary black racists in America, more and more liberal educators and
    leftist politicians are waging dirty campaigns to convince white Americans they
    are responsible for the continued poverty and unemployment among black Americans
    and that whites are literally evil–simply because they are
    Caucasians.

    As of today, those leftists haven’t specifically blamed white people
    for the massive out-of-wedlock black birth rates, for millions of black men
    abandoning the children they procreate, for blacks committing unprecedented
    numbers of crimes, etc. but just give them time. When Chicago’s ultra-liberal
    mayor Rahm Emanuel is accused of racism because he proposed closing schools in
    black neighborhoods, anything is possible.

    Apparently, progressives are oblivious to the real threat to civil
    behavior and indeed the survival of our country posed by violent, black racist
    organizations such as the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam and
    hate-mongers like Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, the Jesse Jacksons, and others
    since progressives are so obsessed with allegedly racist white people they
    refuse to acknowledge the realities of life in 2013 America.

    Only those ignorant of history would deny that repressive,
    institutionalized bigotry, segregation, Jim Crow laws, the KKK etc. once thrived
    in some regions of our nation. Likewise, only those committed to black
    supremacy, retribution, and reparations in 21st century America would deny that,
    over the past half-century, America’s white majority has done all it possibly
    could to accord minorities equal treatment under the law.

    As for society as a whole, one need simply note the huge increases in
    interracial marriages, the African-American presence in academia, in the
    entertainment, television, and print media, in corporate America, and even in
    our junior high and high schools to appreciate the level of social integration
    that has occurred in the last fifty years.

    Haven’t black agitators noticed that mixed race couples are no longer
    a societal anomaly? Are they unaware that the number of black professors in our
    colleges and universities has grown exponentially? Don’t they know that blacks
    in various media in 2013 far exceed their demographic proportions? Are they
    aware that FORTUNE 500 companies include some 275 senior black members as
    opposed to 19 in 1986? Have they ever visited schools where young black boys are
    frequently seen kissing and strolling hand-in-hand with young white
    girls?

    Of course, they know all that yet . .
    .

    (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=30631.)

Top