“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”

- The Washington Times

“One of the best books of the year.”

- The Hill Times

“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”

- National Post

“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”

- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV

“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”

- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics

“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”

- Huffington Post

“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”

- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio

“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”

- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory

“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

“I absolutely recommend this book.”

- Paul Wells, Maclean’s

“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”

- Calgary Herald


Dear gun nuts

Don’t try and post here. I won’t approve your comments.

I’m sick of you. I detest you. I don’t want to hear from you. No sane person wants to hear from you.

You’re a variant on al-Qaeda, and you’re too deranged to realize it.

Go to Hell, where the likes of you belong.



90 Responses to “Dear gun nuts”

  1. Mulletaur says:

    You’re being too polite, brother – you should just tell them to fuck off.

  2. deb s says:

    now thats the kind of shot that is effective and safe:)
    words are the weapons we need against the violent paranoid rhetoric that always comes out after a massacre.
    thanks for expressing it so well Warren.

  3. Pipes says:

    Ya go fuck yourselves. Buy some crayons or something.

  4. nauseous says:

    US politicians used to fear the political wrath of the Klan. Do you think they’ll ever be a day when they don’t fear the wrath of the NRA?

  5. frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib says:

    {{{APPLAUSE}}}

  6. que sera sera says:

    Well said, WK. Thanks!!

  7. Jim Hayes says:

    Just waiting for the the Michael Corens of the world to tell us that we now need to arm teachers. Twenty dead children, the Christmas of 2012 will be filled with tears for so many.

  8. kitt says:

    WOW the US has more guns than people so why are they not the safest place in the world? And the NFA gun nuts can’t answer……

    Good on you to tell them to take a flying leap…………

  9. Simon says:

    hi Warren…well said. I’ve already received four barely veiled death threats, and the day is still young. Some of those gun nuts are as crazy as squirrels, and as dangerous as terrorists…

    • Carol says:

      I really think that this forum is comical because William we live in a violent society and we always have. Do you really believe that you will STOP violent crime by banning guns??? Do you really believe that Terrorists and Gang bangers buy their guns LEGALLY? You really cannot be that UNEDUCATED to actually believe that? You should try sometime coming out to the gun range with us because I truly believe that you would ENJOY it. That is the only way to really understand us PRO- gun people. We really are very NICE, decent people. From the first time I ever went to gun range here in Southern Alberta, I was very surprised at how STRICT the rules are. The range officers follow protocal to a T. i have never met a BETTER group of people that are MORE law abiding.

  10. Chris P says:

    BIG tobacco marketed to kids – smoking/cigarettes were the s-l-o-w silent and eventual killer of children. BIG gun lobby markets the glamorization of guns to kids – guns are the loud, quick killer of other children. Warren will these two things not finally make you return in earnest to the Federal scene? The gun registry may have been a poorly designed, implemented and marketed program but we need a smarter approach to gun control more so than ever.

    Give it some serious thought.

  11. Buddie Dharma says:

    Good for you, Mr. Kinsella. I shall reward you by buying your book. Rational dialogue really is impossible with gun nuts, although I’m sure you have to suffer their abuse in the many psychotic, hateful and threatening comments you are sensibly refusing to post. One class of person in this particular situation strikes me as considerably worse, however, than the inadequate, limp-dicked, psychopathic scum that is the typical Canadian gun nut, and that is the Harper Conservative politicians who manipulate their psychopathy, hatred, fear and sexual inadequacy to raise party funds and create wedge issues. Surely there is a special corner of hell for these cynical Harperites and their Republican brethren in the United States. From a policy perspective it’s clear a Canadian gun registry will never work – next time we must seize and destroy their firearms.

    • Responsible says:

      Dude, gun owners are not inadequate, limp-dicked, psychopathic scum…they are normal individuals that happen to own firearms. There are some people that should never own firearms, but that’s what the Canadian laws try to prevent. It’s an incredibly arduous task to obtain a possession and acquisition licence in Canada.

      The tragedy that took place in Connecticut should indeed show that America needs to make changes to their firearm laws, being able to buy a gun at a gun show without a background check is ridiculous. I don’t think this is the time for knee jerk reactions, or too punish those people who lawfully own firearms, I think it’s time for rational discussions about how this problem can e fixed.

    • Brine says:

      Nurie, is that you??

  12. Windsurfer says:

    They shoot animals too. Sometimes as clinically and with as much indignant righteousness as can be manufactured.

    http://www.wmtc.ca/2012/12/in-memoriam-832f.html

    Heartfelt sympathies to the families of the deceased children.

    I don’t have a gun, don’t want one, don’t feel comfortable near them, don’t need to defend myself, wonder about those who keep them if not for shelter, warmth or winter provisions, etc. I do have a friend in NW Ontario who shoots deer, skins them, trucks the meat out of the bush and takes it to his freezer. Good on him, he takes on the karma and enjoys the spoils.

    All opinions respected.

  13. Philippe says:

    Can’t we ship’em all to an Island, where they can play with their toys among themselves without poisoning our society?

  14. K says:

    Good al Qaida analogy. Was thinking earlier, if the gunman had been the actor of a foreign state or terrorist organization, they’d be subject to a predator drone response. Why no such treatment of NRA HQ?

  15. Responsible says:

    Really…Look at the comments coming from you people? You wish harm on others, you want to blow up NRA headquarters, you hold yourselves higher than the average gun owner and yet you come across as a bunch of leftie lunatics.

    • Justin says:

      Better than hearing from ilk like you, “I own me gun in case the UN wants to take it away and create the one world government, along with the socialist Muslim Obama”. Seriously, I pasted this together from the Faux news message board.

    • James Bow says:

      Nice overgeneralizations, there, “Responsible”.

      • Responsible says:

        Overgeneralization…that’s what you guys are doing to gun owners, you are painting all of us with the same brush. I look for historical pieces and restore them…just because I like too…nothing more. I take them to the range and try them out. I am by no means a gun loving, gun totting crazy person who buys into some conspiracy theory. All I’m saying is that most of us are just gun owners…nothing more.

        I am just as appalled by this senseless act as well , just because I own firearms doesn’t mean I’m some cold, heartless prick…I’m a father and a husband. I contribute to society in a positive way, I have a good job helping others. Please, don’t call me names because i own firearms, I know that we all have our opinions and we’re all entitled too them, but just because I own guns, it doesn’t mean my opinion is less than yours…just different.

        • kitt says:

          So you are a “responsible gun owner” So what… Does that make this shooting/slaughter at the school okay? And society is suppose to just shut up and avert their eyes again to the little bodies all laid out because some “responsible gun owner” loaded up on their weapons of choice, just because they could?

          Go take a flying leap

        • James Bow says:

          Actually, only a few here are painting all gun owners with the same brush. I’d say a minority. Most reasonable people know that we’re talking about the extremists who talk about arming teachers in schools along with getting god back into there. I’m certainly not talking about gun owner Warren Kinsella, who is quite responsible with his firearms. You did know that he owns them, right? And I’m certainly not referring to the black powder enthusiast in the home across the street of my old house.

          So, yeah, I’d say you are overgeneralizing with us when you say that we’re overgeneralizing about you.

          • Responsible says:

            I apologize if I overgeneralized, I will not take that approach again. I did know Warren was a gun owner, I mentioned that earlier but my comment was censored…and it wasn’t a bad comment either?

            Kitt, never once did I say or even elude to the fact that I thought this massacre was OK?!? You need to chill, talking about “little bodies laid out” to try and make your point is completely insensitive…

        • Lance says:

          WK didn’t expressly come out and say it, but the fact they he owns guns tells me that he knows that there is a distinction between “responsible gun owners” and “gun nuts”.

          • Buddie Dharma says:

            “Law abiding gun owner” is a concept that has some limited meaning. “Responsible gun owner,” at least if you live in an urban setting and do not have a business related reason for owning a firearm, is an oxymoron. Even if you have a legitimate business excuse, I have my doubts about your level of responsibility if you keep your firearms at home. I too am familiar with firearms, can use them with competence and understand their appeal. I also understand that gun ownership is an anti-social activity. The vast majority of urban firearms owners are losers who need a machine-tooled artificial phallus to give themselves an identity. It’s pathetic and dangerous.

    • Philippe says:

      Hey man, nobody has a gripe with legitimate, responsible gun owners. What we despise is the pro-gun lobby, who make the world a more evil place. Reasonable folks have concluded that nothing will get them to change their views – therefore, I truly believe that the only way forth is to ship them off to an isolated Island along with their assault weapons. There, they can live happily ever after… & the rest of us won’t have to suffer their idiocy.

  16. Michael Reintjes says:

    I was thinking the same thing…

  17. Steve says:

    I can’t understand what is so wrong with someone that they would want to hurt children. Guns or no guns. I also worry that the media, in sensationalizing it daily, is helping create the legend that these lunatics seem to crave. I just can’t make sense out of any of it. The US obviously needs to have a discussion on guns, but hatred and hysteria on either side of the issue does nothing but cement the resolve of the other.

  18. Responsible says:

    The American gun mentality is different than Canadians, there’s no doubt about that. Maybe it’s because Canadians were colonists and Americans were revolutionists?

    • patrick says:

      No, the difference between the Us and Canada is that the US is a military state that has been at war since it entered the 2nd world war. Much of what it accomplishes is by force of might. Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Argentina, Cuba, Honduras, Chile and various other states would have much different histories if allowed to develop independently without interference by American power.
      America doesn’t know diplomacy and seems detached from the realities of the world (I know this breaks down at the specific, but I believe it as a social collective mentality) and it extends to it’s citizens.
      If a society lives by the notion that “might is right” and that might is displayed by the length of a gun barrel, some people are gone to solve their problems with the gun barrel that they can so easily get their hands on.

      • smelter rat says:

        Yep.

      • Responsible says:

        Well put Patrick.

        • Alex says:

          That was not well put whatsoever… You just mentioned why America shoudln’t have guns. Well i’m not suprised people look up to this kind of conduct. “Hey you said something smart and it’s anti-gun” gee that must really make your point valid. I really don’t get the anti-firearms mind. Putting so much energy towards being so biast on a subject that has been disscussed for year’s. Sorry to break it to you boy’s but more guns = reduced total violent crime rate ( notice how I “total violent crime rate” not “gun crime”) It’s been simply proven that more guns in area makes for less deaths.
          Don’t say “well people will still be dying of guns then!” Because people die no matter what you do. It doesen’t really matter if it’s a bullet or too many shots and the bar with a nice drive to the tree your about to hit. If the total violent crim rate goes down then and only then have you actually accomplished saving lives. If the total % of people dying doesen’t go down after gun bans then why keep pushing for more control? Well it’s easy to go against guns, and demonizing a whole group of people is apperently the only thing the anti’s are good at nuf said.

  19. capkirk says:

    Oh no. Help. I’m an idiot and I am being chased by a rifle and two handguns on their own. Oh. Please make them stop.

  20. tarzan says:

    Ah, forget it.

  21. Chris says:

    The coordinated gun nut response this time is to wail about mental health and letting people fall through the cracks. A serious issue, to be sure, but it rings a bit hollow when it is being used as a tool to steer debate away from gun ownership.

  22. Domenico says:

    Well said.

  23. Brian White says:

    Concepts to Explore:

    Arms Trade: many economists assert the arms trade is the second largest economic sector in the world (only petroleum is larger). As long as people are getting filthy rich off arms trading, this will be a difficult problem to staunch. All these people that are calling for State action seem to forget that many a State is reaping huge tax revenues and party sponsorship from their ordnance manufacturers – this includes Obama, and the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom.

    Narcos: “We just passed through El Passo Texas, one of the safest cities in America into Juarez Mexico, one of the most dangerous cities in the world, in fact it’s the most dangerous city in the world for journalists.. in a country where it’s apparently illegal to own guns, the narcos are armed to the teeth with state-of-the-art weaponry, 90% of which is smuggled in from the United States – 40 396 narco casualties, 2012.” (Vice – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpIyaIHsJbc.
    Gun control can only work effectively if borders are tightly controlled, which in turn suggests a strong central government (Canada has neither) – presumably, your followers would agree that as the Harper regime is in power, a stronger Harper regime is problematic.

    In these comments, there is really no mention of mental illness and/or social cohesion either individually or collectively. Frankly the most vociferous on both sides seem unbalanced. The pro-gun side willfully blind as to the often recklessness of gun people and the anti-gun side seeming to forget that States with a total monopoly on power by definition are totalitarian. As in almost all matters, the intelligence deficit rears it’s ugly head again – and innocents pay the price.

    • bluegreenblogger says:

      Brian said: “Frankly the most vociferous on both sides seem unbalanced. The pro-gun side willfully blind as to the often recklessness of gun people and the anti-gun side seeming to forget that States with a total monopoly on power by definition are totalitarian.”.

      That comment stood out, I remember very well from a second year political philosophy course waaaay back when, A DEFINING characteristic of government is that it enjoys a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Get it? It is not totalitarian in the least that we collectively surrender the power to employ force, and delegitimise any non-state actors who seeek the power to employ force. You obviously do not have a clue what totalitarian means, you are just throwing the word out there to taint your argument with hyperbole.

      The United States is almost unique in the world that there is no public shame, or even barrier to crazy people who seek to undermine the legitimate concerns of their citizenry that their god given right to security of the person should be surrendered in the name of what exactly? In the name of the right to oppose the monopoly of the legitimate use of force by the Government, that is the putative reason why. Well I say that is bull shit. a couple of anarchist kooks in the mid eighteenth century inserted this element of their utopian (dystiopian really) ideas into the new constitution of an otherwise Liberal state, the USA. Their mistake, not ours, and not the mistake of any other system of government on the planet.

      It is the LEGITIMATE CONCERN of any and all citizens that access to weapons, and hence the capability for free-lance violence should be circumscribed. For heavens sake, it is arguably the single most important reason we accept and place government over us, that we should be protected from violent actions of individuals. Don`t you freakin DARE call me a totalitarian when I DEMAND, that you PROVE to me that there is a legitimate reason that I should risk my, and my childresns fucking lives by permitting you and your ilk to own firearms. (Warren, and Joe Blows squirrel guns included)

      It is an inevitable consequence of wide spread, and indescriminate gun ownership that the more widespread, the more often both rational, and irrational people will employ them against other people. Go and re-frame your argument please. It is based on a fallacy, and that fallacy is very dangerous to me and you. The starting opoint needs to be: `Some people want guns to kill vermin, some people feed themselves with wild meat, some need to protect themselves and their property from predatory animals, and some people take pleasure from shooting guns. When is that OK, and how can we protect ourselves from the inevitable abuse of the privelidge when we extend it?` And please, do not call me an extremist when I say loudly that MY security is more important than your pleasure and convenience.

      Personally, I will say, `OK, I agree to make it difficult, and prove that you are not a nut. To lock the damn things away when not in use, to keep them out of the reach of children, or anybody else not explicitly approved to have access. I agree that if you let me take the damned thing away from you at the drop of a pin if I think you may not be honouring the deal, THEN, and ONLY Then can you enjoy limited access to lethal weaponry`. But I sure as hell will not be calling anybody an extremeist if they retort, `The hell with that, no guns for anybody`, because there is little or no equivalency between your convenience and your fellow citizens security of person.

  24. Peter says:

    Newtown. Jesus Wept.

  25. Pipes says:

    I think you need both mental health research and gun control. I agree though with the copy-cat /competitive statement he made. I also think that mental health funding is one thing and dealing with pure evil is something completely different. I am afraid to admit this but I think it will only get worse.

  26. Young Generation says:

    Warren and others,

    I don’t usually, actually never, post anything in these blogs. After reading some of the comments on here, I felt that now would be good time.

    The comments made, especially the initial one, is hurtful, to myself and to a lot of other people. Maybe it was meant that way, maybe you had a different direction of intentions. All in all, that kind of talk should never be posted publically. Yes, I am a gun owner, it’s a sporting hobby of mine. I don’t hunt, I know will ball my eyes out if I even killed a seagull. I am a 25 yr old female with a huge heart. This whole situation in CT is by far the saddest situation. It has left a lot of people speechless. The gun owner community has the upmost deepest sympathies for the families involved. None of you can argue that!!!!! But whats with this name calling and threatening families? Are you kidding me? That kind of talk is what’s wrong. What are you people trying to teach me, my generation, your children? That commenting publically your hatred opinions is right? Is ok? Because its not. And you wonder why this kind of stuff (shootings) happen. Dammit, it’s not the guns. Listen to yourselves! We are living in a world of negativity! You against me! Come on everyone…teach me more. Teach me how to hate, teach me how to frown on my neighbors…then ask me why I’m so unhappy.

    I really hope everyone starts to see where the underlying problem to our society is. Where’s the dignity, respect and self control? Are you teaching your children this in a positive way? You let your kids play Modern Warfare and Black Ops? Or do you show them the fun world of Super Mario Brothers? Ps…you ever heard the kids talk when they are playing these new war games!? A friend told me the other day that some 10 year old made some pretty messed up beheading threats! HE’S FUCKING 10!!!!! How does he know to talk that way!!!! If that kid did something as horrific as this elementary shooting, after knowing this, would you still blame the guns?

    Hey everyone…these are your children!!!! Pay attention!!!!!

    That is all. Just got really saddened by all this nonsense everyone is throwing around about who the bad guys are. Please wake up.

    And please don’t bother arguing with me about any of this. I’m not going to go to that level. This is just an FYI. Not a lash to anyone.

    • Peter says:

      It’s not about us. It’s about the victims. Their families. The survivors. And lives destroyed or condemned to live with the trauma. It’s not about us, not today.

    • bluegreenblogger says:

      Well there you go, that was a nice comment, but it does beg for a response. The more guns there are in circulation, and the fewer controls there are on gun ownership and use, the more people will be killed by guns. That is a simple and irrefutable fact. If you are subscribing to, and supporting an opposite opinion, no matter how nicely you are doing it, you are trying to avoid the implications of that basic fact. There are a lot of people around who are filled with an irrational love for guns. They imbue guns with a mystical property, and insist that these dangerous devices do not kill people. Cars kill people, and we regulate the heck out of them. We collectively spend tens of billions controlling car use and we permit the carnage they create because we really do need personal transportation. Gun ownership, on the other hand no matter how responsible many or most gun owners are is just not as important to us. Those kids would not be dead today if the loon who killed them did not have guns in the house. Sure he might have driven a truck into a crowd, but he took a much easier path. He picked up his guns, loaded them, and most likely in a delusional state he trotted off to perform an abomination. People have a right to be angry about that. Many people will get upset when you tell them that your gun had nothing to do with it, because it is not your gun that is the problem. It is the fact that you, and thousands upon thousands of other people all have guns, that makes this incident possible, even inevitable. It is a predictable outcome of putting firearms into the hands of thousands and thousands of people. Some of these people are NOT sweet 25 year old girls who wouldn`t hurt a fly. Every day some of them are going to go off their rockers, and some of THEM are going to turn their crazed fantasies of gun violence into reality. You see, it is EASY to kill lots of people with a gun and enough ammo. So no matter how sweetly you put it, what you are saying is going to end up killing kids, somewhere, sometime, because enough otherwise normal people do say it, so it is easier to get and keep a lethal weapon today than it was 2 months ago.

    • dale says:

      Thank you for the rational thoughts. There are a lot of violent words here on this blog.

  27. Jon Adams says:

    If you believe everything you read on the internet, Morgan Freeman wrote that from beyond the grave. WK’s Zombie Apocalypse is nigh.

  28. Happy says:

    NOT Morgan Freeman btw – google it

  29. jay says:

    From the New Yorker:

    “The state of Indiana recently enacted a law that enshrines an enhanced version of the ‘Castle Doctrine,’ that quintessentially American notion that you are within your rights to shoot and kill someone who is trespassing on your property. The Indiana statute, which was backed by the N.R.A. over strenuous objections from law enforcement, explicitly extends this precept to intruders who are ‘public servants,’ but who you believe have no appropriate basis for entering the premises. In other words: under certain circumstances, it is now hypothetically legal under Indiana state law for you to shoot a cop.”

  30. Cam says:

    Simple. I have had enough of this gun violence. If you own a gun you are an idiot.

  31. Young Generation says:

    Thank you Peter. I agree 100%. We all need to set our differences aside for a bit during this holiday season and just pray for these families.

    Blue, that being said and as I said in my post earlier. I really don’t want to debate this subject, like Peter said, not now. We all know the points/opinions for each side, its been going on for years and will surely continue for more. Hopefully one day, we will all be on the same page and fight together about the deep roots of violence in our society, like on a mental, why so delusional sense. I’m sure a lot of us who are not on the same page about guns could agree upon. As for now, please, go hug your little ones and loved ones and feel lucky they are still in your life. Embrace the holidays and have a merry x-mas. :)

    Cam: Grow up.

  32. Peter says:

    The more guns there are in circulation, and the fewer controls there are on gun ownership and use, the more people will be killed by guns. That is a simple and irrefutable fact.

    Sadly, it’s all to easy to refute. The States has an obscene number of guns–270 million, close to half the world’s total. It’s homicide rate is much higher than Europe and the Anglosphere, but it is much lower than almost all of Latin and Central America and much of Africa and Asia. Brazil has about one twentieth the number of guns ( two thirds of them illegal) and very strict gun control, but four times as many firearm homicides. There is a lot more than permits and registrations at play here, and the statistics don’t actually support either side categorically. Obviously there is a connection between widespread gun ownership and firearm crime, but if bluegreenblogger’s straightline correlation were anywhere close to true, the American firearm homicide rate would be much, much higher.

    There is a lot of cultural symbolism in this debate. A lot of people fear and dislike the stereotypical gun-totin’ good old boy shopping for a tenth gun at a gun fair, but he doesn’t kill in numbers anywhere near the urban ghetto gang member. The argument that gun control regimes that respect the “responsible gun owner” keep them out of the hands of the disturbed and dangerous is very hard to establish. Connectitut has some of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S. I find it ironic that many of the same people who have concluded drug laws can do little to stop drug use are and create more crime than they prevent believe without question that implementing a gun control regime will quickly slash rates of gun homicide ( and, indeed, all homicide) and keep us all safer.

    America is not the Wild West, but it is and always has been a more violent society than Canada, and with that comes a much higher ethos of self-defence and self-help. Canadians are tiresomely prone to proscribing quick fixes that would make them more like us, but whatever they do, it’s going to have to be a solution for them and their society. I doubt there is one adult in Newton who isn’t haunted by a bitter regret that he or she wasn’t there with a gun to confront the killer.

    • kenn2 says:

      That is a great comment, Peter. Well said.

    • Outsider says:

      How about you try comparing the U.S. to other Western nations, which makes more sense than drawing parallels with South America, etc … for example: Why not take a look at the number of gun deaths (from murder and misadventure both) in, say, Japan, the U.K.;, Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries, Canada, and Australia, whose total populations are above that of the U.S., and compare them to the numbers in America ….

      • Peter says:

        Outsider, I think i did just that in my third sentence. Though I’d be interested to hear why you think that “makes more sense”.

        The issue I am throwing out is, seeing as there are countries with far fewer guns but higher rates of homicide, and also countries with comparable rates of gun ownership but much lower rates of homicide, why is everyone so attracted to comparisons at all.

    • Bluegreenblogger says:

      Uhh, I can hardly believe that anybody would argue that more guns, and readier access will not correlate directly to gun deaths. It is not worth digging through old Statistics text for a mathematical proof for you, so I will say it in words. There is a finite probability of every gun being used for a violent act. How large that probability is wll be determined in part by what restrictions exist. If the number of guns increases, then more violent acts will occur. If the restrictions on each gun are relaxed, the number of violent acts will increase. It is something statisticians like to call cumulative probability, and YES it is a linear equation, and YES it is readily proved, it is after all mathematics, not sociology.

  33. Marc L says:

    The NRA: “guns don’t jill people, people kill people”.
    Yeah, but guns make it f..ing easy!

  34. kenn2 says:

    This is important, for a couple of reasons. First, yes! the reporting. This sort of mass killing … is still pretty rare, but it is a media magnet. I guess this is the natural intersection of human nature with a for-profit news media. It seems to me that not sensationalizing these would have as much positive effect as an assault-weapon ban. Same idea as not reporting on every jumper who meets their end in front of a TTC subway.

    However… there is NO sane reason to permit the sale or possession of assault weaponry to the general public, so if this tragedy is currently turning heads, by all means Obama should capitalize. It’s hard for me to understand how the annual average of 10,000 US gun deaths isn’t also concerning, but the NRA is very very good at controlling the discussion.

    More important than gun control, however, is mental health. Gun proliferation is definitely a problem, but the majority of mass slayings are committed by people who are desperately ill. We need to do better in recognizing and treating mental illness before people become ill enough to cross the line.

  35. Here’s hoping this horrible incident inspires thought and not knee-jerk reaction.

    I’ve too little faith in humanity to believe in its ability to learn from this, but I’ll hope nonetheless.

  36. JamesHalifax says:

    I think someone mentioned it above. These nut cases are just losers looking for a way to be famous, without having to bother with real talent or accomplishment.

    If instead of making this monster famous, the media started to show what a real loser he was, then perhaps the next nut-bar would try to come to a different method of seeking his fame (infamy?)

    What a horrifying thing.

    The USA should look North for a few ideas about responsible gun ownership. We’re not perfect, but we’re a helluva sight better than they are.

  37. Elizabeth says:

    Gun nuts have a sort of gospel (and I clearly remember Jean Chretien telling Charlton Heston to “Keep your gospel of guns on the other side of the border!” – which was so fantastic) – and they recite talking points, or verses from this Gospel. It loops back into itself if you try reasoning with them. I now tell them that they’re morons, and I will not give them a platform (on Twitter or elsewhere) to spread their hate. Then block. The least one can do is NOT give them the space to repeat their mantras.

    Just keep spreading around the graphs, the information – and make your feelings known. I can’t even, don’t want to imagine what the first responders had to deal with, what they had to see when they went into that school.
    Anyone who pushes guns after that deserves a special hell.

  38. Peter says:

    What was it about Obviously there is a connection between widespread gun ownership and firearm crime you didn’t understand? Anyway, presumably you would also agree there is a finite probability of every package of drugs being mis-used and causing death. The fewer drugs we have, the fewer drug deaths, right? Ergo, the more we pass laws restricting, regulating and even prohibiting drugs, the fewer drug deaths we will have. I mean, who could be so foolish as to think it is the illegality of the drug trade that is causing problems?

    • monkey says:

      Ownership does make a difference, but rather difficulty in obtaining a gun matters more than level of ownership. Canada has quite a high level of ownership while Switzerland is even higher yet has a lower murder rate while Turkey and South Korea are lower and have higher. In the Czech Republic, concealed carry weapons are legal but they have a lower gun ownership level yet the murder rate is slightly higher than Canada largely because although there are less guns per capita, they are easier to get. Norway by contrast is slightly higher than Canada yet since it is tougher to get a gun, their murder rate is lower.

  39. [...] on this occasion and at this site I am going to rip a page from the book of Warren Kinsella, who recently told the gun-nut set: “Don’t try and post here. I won’t approve your comments. I’m sick of you. [...]

  40. Tom Henderson says:

    When 20 years of age I visited my American cousin in Iowa whose family kept a pistol at home. One day he asked me if I would like to go to a quarry in the country to do “a little shooting.” Not knowing any better I said sure and off we went. Live ammo, tin cans, shooting from the shoulder and the hip.

    I can slightly understand what turns the gun nuts on. The feeling of crazy power that a loaded firearm can instill in weak minds like mine was frightening. After that I never touched a firearm of any kind–no rifles, pistols, not even a pellet gun. I was just too scared. Mr. Kinsella, hold the line. Don’t let the gun toting screwballs post on your site.

  41. [...] on this occasion and at this site I am going to rip a page from the book of Warren Kinsella, who recently told the gun-nut set: “Don’t try and post here. I won’t approve your comments. I’m sick of you. [...]

  42. froggy says:

    the dead children of newton are just collateral damage of americans right to own guns.

  43. Jib Halyard says:

    Define “gun nut” please

  44. Xcaddis says:

    It’s you Warren Kinsella the and bunch of you leftest bleeding heart Liberals that can go fuck yourselves. As for al-Qaeda…its people like you and your ideals that let al-Qaeda into Canada with our lax immigration policies. You should be ashamed of yourselves and are quite frankly a waste of skin.

  45. Bobby says:

    seems like most anti gun people on here are the ones telling the responsible gun owners to kill themselves…. seems to me that they are the ones who want more blood on their hands

  46. Henry says:

    I am a Canadian.

    I am a Gun Owner.

    I am a Soldier and have served with honour and distinction, both at home and in Afghanistan.

    I am not deranged, insane, and certainly not a variant of Al-Quaeda; proven by my dedicated service to the country I love – Canada.

    What an incredible amount of hate you have for someone you’ve never met; a person you’ve never really thought of and yet despise all the same.

    • Tarns says:

      Right on Henry. You nailed it. Extremist gun control fanatics and extremist gun owners are equally dangerous and fanatical. If people want to see fewer firearms related deaths/incidents then they should be pushing for tighter border control. Illegally obtained firearms are used to commit crimes, so we should stem that flow at its source. Not attack our fellow Canadian citizens who have done nothing wrong whatsoever.

      I’m pro reasonable gun control, not banning.

      I’m a hunter and sport shooter, not a criminal. I provide for my family and community through use of the age old skills of tracking, trapping, and hunting. Just like 99.9% of the Canadian citizens the author is unreasonably judging.

      I actively help my neighbours and fellow citizens in any way I can. Unlike some people (the author), I give the benefit of the doubt to my fellow citizens first, and judge them harshly upon their deserving of such judgement, never before, that would make absolutely no sense. I use logic, reason, and empathy when I post/interact with people in any situation, and encourage everyone to follow suit. Lets give rise to reason people.

  47. A. Freeman says:

    You don’t have to approve this. Just read it.

    You and your followers are a vile group and just because someone does not think the same way, you feel a need to try to belittle them.

    I feel that the filth you spew will someday be realized for just that.

    Your rants and lies are known for what they are. Fear mongering to scare innocent people into thinking the same way you do is sick.
    Make your case on REAL facts. Oh, wait, you can’t because you have to make them up or skew them in order for your propaganda to work for you.

    My FATHER lost a lung in Korea defending your right to spill this garbage out of your mouths! But I guess that since he used guns to fight for innocent people that you wish him dead?

    I have not once sworn or wished death on a single one of you. I don’t need to swear of wish ill will. Karma will take care of things. When one of you needs protection for a violent offender and the police are MINUTES away when seconds count please remember those who you wished dead, harmed, deported won’t be there to fight for you. Why should we? So you can continue to wish us ill will?
    No……good luck. I mean it. When a group of people disengage from individual thought and accept the lies that someone like your leader here spews you are doomed to continue to make the same mistakes.

    Well I’ll let you go bury your heads in the sand again.

  48. Gregg A. Gold says:

    i wonder what Mr. Kinsella thinks of criminals who carry guns? Or would insulting them be more hazardous to his health?

  49. Dustin says:

    Hahahaha, this is ridiculous. I can’t believe people who are anti-gun talk like this. How dare you compare me to al-Qaeda. You don’t like guns that’s fine, but I will keep mine. And when some nasty terrorist or criminal comes on my property I will be using more than “soul searching” and rationale to stop him.

  50. Gun nut says:

    You can pry it from my dead cold hands!

  51. jeff king says:

    Huh, all this over guns and yet it was knives that killed all those people in China the other day…..not one person is saying to put all knife lovers on an island…..hum go figure.

  52. Ron says:

    Just a thought on democracy, I realize this is a private site and you allow what you choose. But how is that different from a communism, you are projecting your view as the only “correct” view or belief. This is not what being free is about. So buy not letting both sides of the story being expressed you are exactly like Al-Quada. They push their views as the only correct view. That is the problem, they push it without realizing that there own religious beliefs preach to be tolerant but they twist it to wage a war. Please don’t go down this path, your feelings and beliefs are yours, you are free to have them. But it isn’t right to force them on others, they have the right to their way of life. As long as they don’t hurt anyone or break any laws I believe in the right to do what they wish, this stands for you and your followers. So delete this if you like as so no one can read it but that will speak more against you than letting it stand for everyone to decide for themselves

  53. gunner1 says:

    really? you couldn’t have ended that with, “…so sod off and have a nice day.” or anything like that? Have you ever heard of “Reductio ad Hitlerum?” yeah comparing others to a terrorist group kind of falls within that. Being vile and hateful is the natural last refuge of the wrong who wish to plug there ears and sing to themselves.

    If one loves freedom, one must love ALL freedom not just the ones he/she agrees with. So long as an individual acts responsibly it is wrong to take away his freedoms because somebody else chose to do wrong. The Spokesman for the Coalition for Gun Control ran over, then purposefully dragged a cyclist for several blocks, then ran into a hydrant killing the man with his Saab, surely it would be unthinkable to ban Saabs or for that matter automobiles. So many people have been beaten to death by bats of all varieties, yet we don’t ban baseball despite it not being a necessity in life to play baseball. Although firearms were “designed to kill” i hardly feel what something was “originally intended for” has any bearing on what it can be used for. To use Baseball as an example again, Bats were designed as weapons first and foremost, sports developed after the fact. The same has occurred with firearms and the shooting sports.

    it is discriminatory to call all gun owners lunatics, soon to be criminals, mass murderers to be, insensitive, knuckle dragger, cowards. The list can go on for what i’ve personally been called, by people who otherwise would have thought i was a perfectly lovable individual no less, that is until i told them about my hobby. It is wrong just as it is wrong for me to go outside and call every person with a car a drunk driver, or say everyone speeds, run read lights and stop signs. Just as wrong as if i were to say all black males are criminals, All white people are racists.

  54. BernDawg says:

    Thank you so much for lumping me in with Al Qaeda. The very organization I took up arms to defend YOU against.

  55. Gun nut says:

    Why are all if you scared of guns. Guns don’t kill people but people do.
    Arm the teachers like Israel did. Responsible gunowner is your best friend and can protect you.
    Sandy hook was a hoax. Feel sorry for dead children.
    Get your send out if the sand government is not your friend

  56. Anonymous says:

    Dear, Warren Kinsella
    I have read through your comments(http://warrenkinsella.com/2012/12/dear-gun-nuts/) and would like to make a few of my own. Firstly, I would like to point out an argumentum ad hominem. The Fallacious comment “No Sane person wants to hear from you” is an argumentative fallacy. This is because you are attempting to attack us, the people, instead of retorting with a legitimate argument, and by doing so your argument here is self-defeating. Next, I would like to mention your kind words relating us to a variation of al-Qaeda and how we are so dangerous. Regarding this, I would first like to ask you to please post your sources that show just how inherently dangerous we are. I want to see facts not emotional comments, facts and peer reviewed statistics. That being said, it brings me to my next point by calling us a derivative of al-Qaeda you are making an attempt at an inappropriate appeal to emotion. Attempting to demonize law abiding gun owners by making us out to be Jihadist terrorists you are attempting to get emotional response from your audience. Again, by doing this you have made another argumentative fallacy. Now when I look at your argument as a whole I can see that your argument is a nothing more than an inappropriate appeal to ignorance. I will explain; since all of the facts in your argument are false and by no means other than an appeal to emotion can they be proven true. This argument by definition is fallacious. It would seem all of your attempts at an argument are based on fallacious grounds. By having such weak and baseless arguments I have to think that no sane person would or for that matter should take anything you say seriously. And as a final comment to the rest of you that are disillusioned into think you live in a third world wild west. I would ask you to please look at an atlas or better yet your driver’s license.
    -Sincerely, A Canadian College Student that owns more guns than he has fingers.

  57. Anonymous says:

    Yep, take all the guns away. Then, the victim of crime rate can skyrocket. Like it has in Australia and England. Nice non-factual, emotionally appealing statement.

  58. Steve says:

    Food for thought for those who think ‘Gun Control’ keeps them safe.

    I couldn’t put recent stats together but these are within the last few years.

    In 2011 there were 158 homicides due to firearms. Approximately 100 of these were gang related. In 2010, it’s estimated that more than 1,200 deaths on the highway and waterways were related to impaired driving. That is 12 times higher than killer gang members with guns. Did you get that? TWELVE times higher. This doesn’t include those who were maimed and seriously injured via impaired drivers nor does it include the millions of dollars in property damage either. I would assume that since we are hearing more about how drivers aren’t getting the message on drunk driving that the stats hold true over the last three years.

    At the end of 2011 Statistics Canada stated that “The rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 population has generally been declining since the mid-1970s and, in 2011, reached its lowest point in almost 50 years.”

    At the end of 2011 Stats Canada also determined that knives where killing significantly more people than firearms. So many more in fact that the average rate of overall homicide was increasing because of stabbings. Stabbings accounted for 35 per cent of homicides, firearms for 27 per cent, beatings for 22 per cent and strangulation for seven per cent.

    Considering that knives kill so many more people than guns shouldn’t we be afraid when around so many knives at the dinner table? I mean come on what if…..

    More guns are being purchased by folks like me and at the same time LESS firearms crime is occurring among ‘criminals.’ Killings via law abiding firearms owners who snap isn’t even mentioned.

    Gun control is a myth. Law abiding and licensed citizens are purchasing more firearms, even more and more assault style look-a-like ones, and even though they have them and ammunition they are not committing crimes. It is criminals without licenses and in possession of firearms illegally who are. So please help me understand how gun control is working to prevent firearms crime????

    Considering these facts, why are social liberals working so hard to disarm the public? The answer to that question can actually be found throughout history and it isn’t a pleasant one.

    The only politician who has to fear a firearm is a corrupt one who aims to take away the freedom of others.

  59. Carol says:

    I so agree with Anonymous and thank-god that someone here has done their homework. I just started learning to shoot a few years ago at our local gun range. You should all try it sometime, its very fun and social. The people that attend our gun club are the “MOST “law abiding people that i have ever met. I give my hats off to the” RANGE “officers as they are “AMAZING”. From my first visit, the range officers are VERY clear on the rules and they keep such WATCHFUL eye on you the entire visit to make certain that you are “ABIDING “by the rules. Then when it is time to leave, ALL the guns and ammo are safely locked away. YOu really have to get out and try it for yourself to understand completely that there is “NOTHING “to fear. I would be far more FEARFUL of just walking the streets of any Canadian city alone than I would be hanging around with gun owners. Not to mention we have more and more WOMEN that are joining our group and its wonderful.

  60. Gun lover says:

    I’m pretty sure the regulations to obtain firearms in canada is in place to weed out the emotionally unstable people such as Warren Kinsella and his followers. thank god!!
    Oh maybe you should check your statistics maybe we legal gun owners should move to our island. Seeing as how murder rates using any weapon among Canadian firearms owners is near the lowest in the entire world!!! Non gun owners can’t say that!!

Leave a Reply

*