Dem Senator Destroys Myth That More ‘Good Guys With Guns’ Would’ve Prevented Sydney Siege

chris murphyedited

During an interview on CNN’s New Day Monday Morning, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) fired back at host Chris Cuomo’s assertion that the hostage situation in Australia may have been averted if that country didn’t have such strict gun control laws. Essentially, Cuomo was taking the position we’ve heard from the NRA and many of the ‘open carry’ fanatics who have insisted that gun control laws only help criminals and put innocent people at risk due to them being unarmed. The CNN host appeared to be advocating for more people to have access to assault rifles as that would place more “good guys with guns” on the streets.

As this month also represents the second anniversary of the tragic Newtown school shooting, Murphy wasn’t buying what Cuomo was selling. The Connecticut senator stood by his principles and not only defended stricter gun control but pointed out that communities that have more guns have more shooting deaths. Cuomo first stated that the Australian hostage taker likely used a shotgun, which is illegal in Australia, and therefore this seemingly proves that Australia’s gun control laws don’t work. He then asked Murphy if he thinks he can really achieve anything with gun control in this country considering our citizens feel they need to have assault weapons to stop disturbed individuals such as this man.

Murphy retorted with the following comments.

“Ultimately, what we know is when gunmen walk into crowded places, they kill more people when they have powerful assault weapons. And this mythology that you end up killing bad guys by arming good guys just doesn’t work. Study after study shows you that in communities that have more guns, more people get killed. And the reality is that if you have a gun at home, you are more likely to be killed by it than kill an attacker or someone that’s going after your neighbor.

So, we’ve got to have a conversation in this country about the kinds of weapons that we make legal because assault weapons are more likely than not going to be used in these mass slaughters rather than used by some citizen to stop someone in one of those situations.”

Below is video of the segment, courtesy of Raw Story:



Later on in the conversation, Murphy pointed out that we’ve seen one school shooting a week since Sandy Hook, and that should be more than enough to keep gun control in our national conversation. He also argued that if the Sydney situation were happening in the United States, the gunman would likely have more deadly weaponry at his disposal. It should also be pointed out that since Australia banned assault weapons in 1996 after a terrible mass shooting the country has not experienced another mass shooting.

It seems odd that Cuomo is taking this ‘good guys with guns’ stance that is the rallying cry of gun rights advocates so soon after an open carry activist murdered her husband and stepdaughter. Valerie Dunnachie,  a member of Open Carry Texas and Open Carry Tarrant County, was arrested last week in connection with the double homicide. She was supposed to be one of the ‘good guys,’ yet turned out to be one of the ‘bad guys.’ Maybe we shouldn’t be looking at the moral absolutists of the NRA and gun rights groups for our answers, especially when their main goal is to just get more guns sold.

25 Replies to “Dem Senator Destroys Myth That More ‘Good Guys With Guns’ Would’ve Prevented Sydney Siege”

  1. NRA = Not Real Americans

    The business of the NRA has always been to function as pimps for the gun industry.

    Time to label them as a terrorist organization.

  2. NRA..Not Resposible for Anything! Not Responsible to America! There is no such thing as a “Good Guy with a Gun” because when you have in your hand something as inherently EVIL as a firearm no good can come of it eventually..

  3. I just can’t fathom how the gun fetishists can be comfortable with 12,000 firearm homicides, 18,000 firearm suicides and 100,000 firearm woundings a year. These are Third World numbers, horrifying. Yet they cling to their weaponry and an outdated (and improperly interpreted) paragraph in the Constitution as if their lives depended on it. It doesn’t. Their lives are actually endangered by their irrational beliefs and fears. These are the echoes of racism and the media wave of fear (thanks FOX) at work…bad guys in hoodies waiting everywhere to kill you. Like religion, it defies logic and rationality. I wish we were more like Australia, or Britain, or Japan, where events like the hostage situation were rare and shocking instead of just another days bad news. We have this all wrong.

  4. Well, sorry, firearms still exist and you cannot create your ideal world without firearms in it until there are no firearms. (Ps there’s no way to stop it, ever.) Bad men with weapons will ignore laws, acquire the means for destruction, and execute plans easily without an armed and equal response. Yes I will take the homicides, the accidents, the idiots, and the lot. If that means I dont live in a false reality that someone else can or ever should be responsible for my life.

    Just remember, your idealistic views mean nothing when there’s a knife against you and your families throats beginning to cut. I know if I were planning an attack in the us, id pick the most liberal unarmed soft target I can. Average response time for police is 10 minuets in the united states, sure hope your family stays quiet when they hide in that closet.

    INB4 that cant happen

  5. Oh bullshit. Cut off ammo and the gun ends except for a few that create their own. They are easy enough to find.

    Using a gun in home attacks is very rare compared to the numbers killed. Death occurs in higher number where the population owns the most guns. Get out of the much and start caring about humans over your devotion to gun manufacturered

  6. You just proved my point about living in fear. Bad guys, all black or brown, are just waiting for the moment to strike, right? I pity you and those that choose to live like that. Ever been to Europe, where there are few guns? You can walk around anywhere and not feel threatened. You might get pickpocketed, maybe even have a knife drawn on you, but you’ll walk away. You DO live in a false reality, one defined by the NRA and RW propaganda. And how you can live with yourself knowing how many are slaughtered here when there is an alternative is beyond me. Really, I feel sorry for you.

  7. Since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Oz hasn’t had a mass shooting spree because of the ban. Criminalize guns and only criminals will have guns? An AR-15 rifle I can buy at Walmart (yes, I’m American) for $1000 costs $30000 in Australia.

  8. Vetting you out? Are you grown up yet? None of your posts have been deleted or anything else.

    But thanks to your inability to communicate, I bet you dont post here again

  9. Emmm…actually, Herman, quite a few of us soft pinkos keep machetes, bladed weapons,pipe wrenches, and enormous dogs. Well, and even firearms. We just don’t believe in brandishing them in public.

  10. We might not be able to get rid of guns but we sure could and should require that so called well regulated militia to attend 2 weeks of summer camp each year.

  11. As long as that camp is surrounded by thick, high walls, with razor wire along the top, guard towers, and machine gun nests to keep them inside.

  12. I used to work with cops and I don’t ever recall any taking anywhere near 10 minuets to respond. Granted, there are slower minuets and faster minuets (by the time of the later Haydn symphonies they seem to have been moving into “scherzo” waters, undoubtedly heavily influencing Beethoven), but at least where I work, 10 minuets is way longer than any cop needed to get to the scene.

    Your Hollywood scenario of the knife to the throat is very unlikely to actually occur and to be safely resolved by the intervention of a “good guy with a gun”. I, unfortunately, am now personally acquainted with two households in which a gun was used against an “intruder” who turned out to be a family member. With fatal results, I might add.

    I am also sick and tired of going to calls at residential occupancies where we know, from our data base, that there are multiple firearms AND ammunition stored God-knows-where, and that they are a hazard to US.

    Bottom line: it is YOU that lives in a fant…

  13. I’m no shrink, but the attraction to guns and other violent-provoking arms, by mostly males, I believe, is a testosterone=driven thing. similar to powerful cars, bikes, cannons, violence, wars, and so on.
    however, I’ve noticed that most violent men have had weak/passive mothers. I have found that males who have had strong, altruistic, confident mothers tend to be more confident themselves.
    just an opinion.

  14. Seeing as to how this is an isolated incident in Australia, you’re wrong. We COULD make this happen, just as they did. I’d trade their gun injury/death rates for ours in a heartbeat. Face it – you just like gun violence.

  15. bullcrap. it has been done in many other countries and the stats show for themselves. if you think getting rid of guns is impossible then just stop pumping the market full of ammo. or guns which can fire 100s of rounds per minute with all the neat attachments.

  16. Dear Mr. Cuomo:

    The shotgun may not have been illegal in Australia. Please do research your claims before you expose yourself as an ignorant hypocrite to your fellow man.

    Quote from

    In Australia, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and semi-automatic firearms, self-loading and pump action shotguns, handguns with a calibre in excess of .38in with only narrow exemptions, semi-automatic handguns with a barrel length less than 120mm, and revolvers with a barrel length less than 100mm

    Only “self-loading and pump action shotguns” are illegal – manually loaded weapons are fine. Do you know what gun was used in Sydney? I thought not.

  17. It is not his job to understand. His job is to dumb down the argument for the idiots who tune in his idiotic program

  18. “Old West” communities had guns galore, and then decided it wasn’t so bad to limit the guns and use of them. They thought it might be more civilized.

    James B. Hickcock accidentally killed a deputy during a gun fight. I guess he would be considered one of the good guys. Like most lawmen of the time, he was back and forth over the legal line. Dime novels and 50’s and 60’s TV shows have made them pure of spirit.

  19. Of course your false reality is that owning a gun somehow makes you safe.
    The reason a ‘bad guy’ has so much power is the element of surprise. The only way a gun will make you safe is if you have it surgically attached to your hand. In your knife to the throat scenario, if your gun is locked safely away in your gun cabinet, how is it going to help?
    Even if it is tucked under your shirt in a holster, what guarantee do you have you will be able to get to it?
    Also, gun people love the term ‘responsible gun owner’. The problem is ALL gun owners are responsible right up to the split second before they pull that trigger and carry off their own atrocity.
    I do kind of feel sorry for gun people who live with so much fear and paranoia. Must be hard to get thru each day.

  20. If that were true, the NRA would be for MORE gun laws, like universal background checks and registration. Anything to make buying or owning older guns more burdensome, and make buying new guns more appealing. but they don’t. I wish people would actually spend 5 minutes on the NRA websites, especially the safety training, instead of getting their filtered news thru partisan blog sites.

  21. I wish the NRA would be all for background checks, and ensuring people who shouldnt have guns cant buy them. I think a 3 day background check is not a burden. I think the NRA should come out against mass killings of people instead of encouraging them by being silent. The NRA is a terrorist group far larger then any muslim group

  22. As with anything in politics, perception is power. So when the NRA comes out against a bill, it is easy to scrub over the “why” and tag the NRA as just wanting criminals to have guns. In 2013 there was a real bi-partisan chance to fix the current background check system, and strengthen straw-purchases laws (where criminals get a large portion of their firearms) but it was wasted on “us vs them” attacks

    Example: the CA bill that would allow family/others to alert police about dangerous individuals and allow the police to search and seize firearms. In the media the NRA was labeled as against that “because they want to sell as many guns as possible”. But I took the time to read “why”. The NRA’s concern was that, like restraining orders in divorces (commonly used as negotiating leverage: i.e. increase alimony by $500/month and we will drop the false charge) there were no protections and it would be ripe for abuse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.