The New York gunman who opened fire on four firefighters wasn’t legally allowed to own firearms
The gun control debate was ratcheted up another notch over the weekend with the horrific story of William Spengler. William Spengler set several fires in order to lure firefighters to his home and then opened fire on them, killing two and wounding two others before putting the gun to his own head.
The problem with the gun control argument is this; William Spengler could not legally own firearms because he is a convicted felon so the problem isn’t with the gun laws because he wasn’t obeying the laws anyway, he didn’t obtain the weapons legally, but rather with a judicial system which lets a man who beat his own grandmother to death with a hammer out of jail in the first place.
If somebody can explain to me how more gun control laws would have stopped a man who had no intention of following any laws from committing this vile act I would love to hear it; the only thing that could have stopped this crime is if this man were still in jail where he belonged in the first place.
Instead of looking at the true problem the cowardly ruling class politicians in Washington have decided to take the easy way out by punishing legal gun owners for the actions of criminals.
America's Watchtower 
They are only interesteed in keeping law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves. It makes them feel like they have done something positive.
I read today that Bloomberg and Como have their children in schools with armed security. It’s only your children that shouldn’t have armed security.
LikeLike
I read today that since the gun ban in New York City, gun homicides went from 2,200 a year to 400. I haven’t verified this, but I can see where Bloomberg is coming from. “it is virtually impossible to buy a handgun in New York City and the result is the number of murders per year has gone from 2,200 to under 400” per Michael Moore.
Gee I wonder if keeping guns out of a city reduces gun murders.
LikeLike
I think those numbers are total murders and not gun murders but gun murders are down about 8% this year in NYC. Taking the guns away from those who are only using them for defense is not going to reduce murder rates, getting the illegal guns off the street is what reduces the murder rate. Arrest the criminals and the crime will drop, perhaps NYC is doing a better job of law enforcement all around.
LikeLike
Obama and Holder also have their children is schools with armed guards.
LikeLike
Dude should have never been let out of jail….. It’s not like granny had it coming.
LikeLike
Exactly, there are certain people who belong in jail and the system failed this time.
LikeLike
Once again, living proof, gun control is a crock… This guy was NEVER intended to have a BB gun…
LikeLike
Very true Fred, this man should still be in jail or have been executed for the vileness of his crime.
LikeLike
It is quite apparent that this guy should have remained in jail, but we know how liberals feel about those criminals in lock up. Heck, they would throw upen the doors to the jails tomorrow and flood the streets with dangerous felons. They refuse to see what’s right in front of them and like good liberals they will always complicate what is obvious to those with common sense. But then we all also know that its never about gun control, but just about more government control over our rights. To them the individual is nothing and the collective is everything.
LikeLike
So you have been listening to Rush I presume Ron right?
LikeLike
In 1963 a 16 year old from the projects in the Bronx stabbed his guardian grandmother to death because she refused his repeated requests for 50 cents. I put on my liberal thinking cap and figured out it was the grandmother’s fault. If she would have deserted her grandson as dif his mother and father
she would have lived. Another example of why HillaryClinton’s book, “ItTakes A Village” should be read by those caught up in that family values thang.
Lord have mercy on those innocent firemen.
LikeLike
What’s the point arguing? If you like the idea of owning guns you will deny any link between gun ownership and homicide rates. If you don’t like the idea of owning guns you will refuse to look at any other cause of America’s shockingly high homicide rates apart from gun ownership. It’s a pointless debate because people only want to prove themselves right not really try and work out what is the best thing to do.
LikeLike
Using your logic we should never debate any issue.
LikeLike
I own a gun and have never killed anyone! EVERYONE I know owns guns and not one of them has killed anyone!
There is no connection between homocides and “gun ownership”, guns don’t kill people, ignorant people with guns kill people!
If a handgun was laid on a table in your living room and it was never again touched by a human hand ever again, it would sit there and rust away, its when human hands, with terrible intent pick up that gun, bad shit happens! If you disarm law abiding citizens, that leaves them helpless against the bad guys who will never surrender theirs, though they shouldn’t have them to begin with! Blame the courts, not those who responsibly own their guns!
I’m all for private ownership of guns, as many and whatever capacity available, I’m against bad guys being left alone and ignored to prey on people who just want to be left alone and ignored!
Maybe if the bad guys found safer ways to make money, like a JOB, they wouldn’t be out their killing each other…in mostly “gun free zones”….
I’m not sure if your comment is critical of gun ownership, so this is just my humble opinion, ok? Far too many people have simply forgotten how to agree to disagree…..
LikeLike
I couldn’t agree more with everything you just wrote!
LikeLike
Meanwhile every nut case wanting attention will now want to copy cat.so it goes.
LikeLike
That is something to be feared indeed!
LikeLike
People before parasites. Iceland did no austerity, and told the banks to go screw themselves, and their economy is booming. Go figure….
http://www.zcommunications.org/iceland-was-right-we-were-wrong-the-imf-by-jeff-neilson
Plutarch was, is, and will always be right.
LikeLike
As law-abiding citizens we are expected to navigate the labyrinth of conflicting state laws regarding firearms and we do successfully everyday. Although many of these laws don’t seem to make sense to firearm owners we still respect them and abide by them everyday.
Firearms are used more often by law-abiding citizens for self-defense than by deranged criminals to commit horrible acts of mass violence. For several examples for the recent use of firearms for defensive purposes not typically reported by the national media please visit: http://www.equalforce.net and forward this address to others to whom this information may be useful. @forceequalizer
LikeLike
Thanks for the link, I will be checking it out.
LikeLike
When legal gun owners are disarmed only the criminals will have them. When will people wise up?
LikeLike
Harrison, and when you people wise up to the fact that it is not only ‘criminals’ who commit murder? (And what I mean by that is people with a criminal record and/or a history of criminal behavior because I realise that everyone who commits murder is a criminal once they’ve committed murder.) Between 1976 and 2005 at least, and I mean absolutely at least, 47% of homicides where carried out by family members, friends and neighbors? And for women that percentage rises to about 65%.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm
Guns enable ordinary conflicts between family members, friends and neighbors to escalate to deadly force at a far quicker rate than would be possible without guns. The best available evidence tells you that you are more likely to be murdered by someone known to you than you are by a stranger, and if you’re a woman that is by some considerable margin. That doesn’t prove that people shouldn’t be allowed to own guns, but it does prove that your ‘wise up’ line is pretty dumb. It is more complicated than that.
LikeLike
Well, Anonymous, I liked your soap box you stepped onto when you made your little speech but it doesn’t change the fact that there are plenty of places where gun violence kills people and firearms are illegal. Only the criminals and the Government have them.
For all of your preaching, you sure failed to discuss this inconvenient truth.
A gun sitting in a cabinet is no more dangerous than a knife in a kitchen, baseball bat in a garage, or car on the street.
It’s the person who makes those objects dangerous.
And if 47% of homicides were carried out by people the victim knew, that means that 53% were carried out by strangers. And I bet if we look at the statistics for things like robbery and assault they will be similar… that is because you’re around your family and friends more than strangers.
Try again one day you might actually make sense.
LikeLike
What is up with this “you people” stuff? Also, is it the “escalate to deadly force at a far quicker rate” that you are most concerned about?
LikeLike
Lou222 I think the ‘you people’ was probably a slightly dyslexic mistype on my part. Grammatically I think I meant to write ‘when will people’ as that makes far more sense. I am sorry for the choice of words,intentional or not, as it is clearly disrespectful and unhelpful.
Yes, I think the escalation rate is one of my key concerns with guns. Clearly the thought that someone might have a gun is a deterrent on those deliberately planning an act of violence, but I wonder how many murders fall into that category compared to the number committed by ordinary people who got angry and pulled the trigger before they’d really thought about it. Both sides seem to refuse to even consider the relative strength of the two sides and think only their side should be taken seriously.
LikeLike
That is a fact that the gun grabbers chose to ignore.
LikeLike
Only a COWARD post as Anonymous…
LikeLike
So your parents called you TexasFred did they? And who says Americans lack a sense of irony. Oh, in case you have any interest in debate rather than insults why not look up the phrase ‘ad hominem’, it might just help you.
LikeLike
As a matter of fact, YES, they did… And you are not only a COWARD, you are a piece of SHIT coward… I don’t know why you’re allowed to dirty these pages…
LikeLike
Can’t see my first go at a reply. But I can’t help wondering which of your parents called you TexasFred? I can promise you Anonymous is more than one person, and I’m sure there is more than one reason for not using a pseudonym. Who says that Americans lack a sense of irony.
LikeLike
I can see your first comment posted under anonymous, I don’t know why you couldn’t see it.
LikeLike
What a ridiculous comment. Are you saying that “TexasFred” isn’t just as anonymous as someone who posts as “Anonymous?” We know Steve’s name, but that’s a bit different, as it’s his enterprise. Otherwise, I don’t think any of us posts under his or her actual name. You calling all of us – yourself included – cowards?
Escept for Steve, you owe everyone her an apology.
TGY
LikeLike
No, I have a well known blog and MY REAL NAME is all over it… Fred Witzell… And I owe nothing to YOU or anyone else… So, go FUCK your Georgia Yankee self…
LikeLike
Texas Fred is actually a well known blogger and if you check out his site you will see his full name, he is not hiding from anyone.
LikeLike
It’s the same troll.
LikeLike
There are actually a few Anonymous commenters on this blog now, it is getting confusing and I might have to change my commenting policies to make it easier for everyone to keep up.
LikeLike
TexasFred, I owe you an apology. If I had Googled ‘TexasFred’ I would have found your blog. I have to admit though that finding your blog and finding your real name is not quite the same thing. And Steve Dennis, I think you are right, too many Anonymous posters make it hard to debate clearly, and I for one would support a change of policy if it happens too much.
Now why did I not want to use my real name in front of the kind of person who will call me a ‘piece of shit’ and tell me I have no right to contribute to this debate? Work it out, you’re an intelligent person.
I have looked into the links between gun ownership and murder and on the basis of this I am convinced of just one thing, links exists, but they are not as straight-forward as either side wants it to be. What is deeply saddening to me is that neither side is prepared to look at what the other side thinks and the evidence for the other side’s views and each side is prepared to ignore or twist evidence to fit their personal viewpoint.
To give two examples.
1) The anti-gun lobby show that some places with wide gun ownership have higher murder rates than some other place that has low gun ownership. Now even leaving aside the danger of cherry-picking your places to compare you are still left without confirmation of the direction of effect. Is it the gun ownership that drives the murder rate or the murder rate that drives gun ownership? It’s just not that simple. The anti-gun lobby goes to great lengths to ignore or distort these ‘inconvenient’ facts.
2) Look at this argument from Harrison “A gun sitting in a cabinet is no more dangerous than a knife in a kitchen, baseball bat in a garage, or car on the street.” Now on one level this is absolutely true. You could take it further and argue that a gun sitting in a cabinet is no more dangerous than a nuclear missile sat in a silo. Without a human being using them none of these objects are dangerous. But we also know that in terms of relative dangers these objects are not the same. You have to twist logic to breaking point to not see that, but again, the pro-gun lobby is quite happy to do that.
I genuinely believe that if everyone got off their soap boxes, parked their prejudices, and did their best to objectively analyze all the evidence we might get somewhere. But as I said in my first (Anonymous) post, that is not going to happen. No one in this debate is interested in truth, only in being proved right.
I am neither pro nor anti gun control because at present the evidence is not clear cut and the political atmosphere makes rational debate and research impossible. That is sad because I am anti-murder and anti-fear. But as I said, I’m waiting for people who are prepared to rationally debate rather than cherry-pick, distort or name call.
And, for the moment, I’ll get off my soap box. I thank you for your time.
PS, any future posts on this site from me will not be Anonymous.
LikeLike
I didn’t allow anonymous posts until a recent problem made it impossible for some people to comment here who had been coming here for a long time, but since the change it hadn’t been a problem until the last couple of days. I’m going to give it a couple of more days before I make a change to see if it calms down because there are a couple of anonymous posters who are regulars. Thanks for changing your name, it does make it easier.
LikeLike
If all you want to do is attack others, why be here, “Anonymous”? Is it fun, because most of us here generally get along, so what is it with you? It seems it is a waste of time that could be used more wisely.
LikeLike
Dear Lou222, TexasFred called me a cowardly piece of shit, and I have chosen an online name rather than Anonymous. Yet for some reason you seen to be attacking me, not him. What am I missing?
What’s in it for me? If I only talk with one side I only hear one side, so I aim to listen to those who are pro and those who are anti before I make up my mind about anything. I am genuinely interested in how to reduce murder rates, that’s why I’m here. What’s in it for you?
LikeLike
If what i said was an attack, from your point of view, you must be reading it wrong. It was an “observation”, nothing more. There is such a thing as civility. Maybe Fred is tired of what you are saying, but I will let him handle it.
Definition of Ad Hominem: An argument based on the perceived failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case; a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack.
LikeLike
So calling someone a coward and calling them a ‘piece of shit’ rather than dealing with their substantive point is an example of an ad hominem attack.
LikeLike
You know exactly what i meant, haha! Apparently you get your kicks out of pitting people against one another OR setting them up to come back at you. I am getting bored with your antics of twisting things around. That is so childish. I doubt you will find many takers here for the crap you are spewing.
LikeLike
Lou222,could you just clarify what the ‘crap’ I am ‘spewing’ is?
LikeLike
Steve, you said: ” Instead of looking at the true problem the cowardly ruling class politicians in Washington have decided to take the easy way out by punishing legal gun owners for the actions of criminals.”
Exactly how are the cowards in Washington proposing to punish gun owners for the actions of criminals?
Take good care, and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
You can check out my latest post on Dianne Feinstein’s proposed legislation for the answer to that question.
LikeLike
The vast majority of illegal guns originate from a legal purchase in the past. Gun control laws are supposed to decrease the number of legal purchases, and eventually the number of illegal guns.
Statistically it is more likely for a legally owned gun to be used illegally (including by accident) than for self-defence. Therefore advocating more armed civilians as the solution to gun violence, doesn’t work.
On the other hand, in the United States, the number of privately owned guns and the value the people put in the Second Amendment, makes gun control not work too.
And to make matters worst, the incidence of mass shootings is so low that any measure used to combat it will have side-effects worst than what it tries to prevent.
I don’t see more or less restrictions on guns as a solution to your countrymen predisposition to killing each-other. Completely different approaches are needed.
LikeLike
In general I agree with you.
In terms of the Second Amendment what is the implication of the phrase “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”? Who or what is supposed to regulate the militia? Does the wording imply that gun ownership is a prerequisite for being able to organize a militia or that membership of a well-regulated militia is a prerequisite for gun ownership? I’m guessing all this has been worked out, but I’m not sure myself.
LikeLike
When the founders talked about the militia they were talking about the people in general and that has been upheld in the Heller decision which stated that gun ownership was an individual right. Of course we don’t have that style of citizen militia anymore but as I said Heller upheld the wording to state it was an individual right.
LikeLike
This is an article I read and copied to post here from Big Hairy News. It is satire, so I am telling you up front. I, in no way, am down playing the seriousness of ANY of these shootings, but to blame the guns is wrong. If someone wants to kill another human being, they will find a way. That someone can post this shows just how ignorant things have become about gun control. That so many are so opinionated one way or the other, strongly tells us that it is not something that will go away.
We Need Gun Control NOW
BIG HAIRY NEWS EDITORIAL – Despite my long-held conservative beliefs, incidents in the last few days no longer allow me to be silent about the subject of firearms. Pretending guns are not to blame for gun violence is the same as saying rocks aren’t responsible for stoning injuries – both can kill, both want to kill.
This reality vividly hit home with me several nights ago. While watching television I thought I saw something skitter across the floor down the hallway. When a search of the area turned up nothing, I decided to turn in and go to bed. What happened next changed my thinking about guns forever.
Imagine my horror as I pulled back the covers of my bed, only to be staring down the barrel of my loaded Berreta 92FS INOX 9 mm pistol. I ducked as a shot rang out, and as I bolted at least two more rounds impacted the wall beside me. I heard the gun hit the floor and knew it was right behind me as I ran for the door to the garage.
Suddenly, a deafening blast from the kitchen sent me reeling into the living room. My Mossberg 500 tactical shotgun had situated itself next to the toaster, obviously intending to kill me if I tried to escape into the garage. Only poor visibility prevented it from taking off my head.
By the grace of God I was able to flee out the front door with my life. A police investigation showed that for reasons unknown a small but determined group of my guns had conspired to kill me. Most were found hiding around my home, but my Sig Sauer P229 and Walther PK380 stole my car and were later apprehended in Corpus Christi, Texas after robbing a convenience store.
Guns are dangerous, cunning, conniving, deadly. We must control them and we need to act now. Next time you may be their target, and you may not be so lucky.
LikeLike