There is nothing that dies so hard and rallies so often as intolerance. The vices and passions which it summons to its support are the most ruthless and the most persistent harbored in the human breast. They sometimes sleep but they never seem to die. Anything, any extraordinary situation, any unnecessary controversy, may light those fires again and plant in our republic that which has destroyed every republic which undertook to nurse it.
~ William E. Borah

Guns at cost to save more lives


I was reading CNN.com (yes, you read that correctly) to see what was going on at the main stream media’s side of the internet and found an interesting article. Eric Thompson, the owner of the online gun store which sold some of the guns used in the Va Tech massacre and the Northern Illinois University shooting came and gave a talk on VT’s campus. The event was sponsored by “Students for Concealed Carry on Campus” and Thompson said he was “speaking at his own personal expense.”

Well, this got me looking into Thompson’s company, TSGCOM (which also runs the website TheGunSource.com). Check out this press release on Thompson’s tsgcom website:

GREEN BAY – Eric Thompson, the owner of the Internet-based sporting goods and firearms retailer that has sold products to the shooters involved with the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University tragedies, says his unfortunate twist of fate is spurring him to take a more active role in protecting the public – especially young people – from future attacks.

“I’ve spent the past weekend feeling absolutely terrible that my company has been linked to both of these heinous crimes,” said Eric Thompson, president of TGSCOM Inc. “I assume it is just an unfortunate coincidence, but I also believe I now have a special responsibility to do all I can to try and prevent further loss of life.”

Thompson is lending his voice to those who support giving the public the right to protect themselves from mass murderers like Cho and Kazmierczak. Specifically, Thompson believes that college students and university faculty members who are properly licensed and trained to carry a firearm should be allowed to do so. Thompson also wants his home state of Wisconsin to join the 48 states who already allow private citizens to carry a firearm for protection.

“There is simply no reason that a properly trained and licensed person should not be able to exercise their constitutional right to protect themselves and the people they love,” said Thompson. “It’s time for our political leaders to stop pretending that murderous madmen, like Cho and Kazmierczak, will obey a feel-good edict like the gun-free school zone laws. All four major presidential candidates are in Wisconsin today, and I’d love to hear some real solutions from them – not just rhetoric.”

To promote dialogue on this issue he has started a site called GunDebate.com. On another press release, more recent:

Today, Thompson is backing up his words with actions. For the next two weeks, Thompson will not take any profit on firearms sales from any of his over 100 Web sites. Instead, Thompson will offer guns to customers for the same cost he pays for them.

“I hope and pray I will never again be in a position where I am asked questions about selling items used in a crime,” said Thompson. “The next news story I want to be involved in is how I sold a firearm to someone who helped stop a mass murderer. By forgoing a profit, I hope to help give law-abiding citizens the tools to prevent tragedy.”

By logging onto www.gunsatcost.com, law-abiding citizens will have the chance to purchase a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones. Customers will have over 5,400 different kinds of firearms from which to choose.

The sale on guns end May 7, 2008, so for the 4 people who might read this, go buy your gun soon if you want one.
There is a certain amount of irony in the idea of selling more guns for very cheap to more people for the purpose of preventing more deaths. Yet the biggest irony of it is (more after the jump)that contrary to liberal, reactionary thinking, the idea actually has weight behind it. Gun ownership has been shown to lead to lower crime rates and (legal) gun owners are, in general, happier than nongun owners. The return to the old west and rise in heat-of-the-moment shootings that the anti-gun crowd has not happenned in areas that have passed right-to-carry (concealed and non-concealed) laws. Instead, there are plenty of examples (like here and here), of a single gun-owner/carrier stopping a shooter during a killing spree, even in gun-free zones. Of course, the media has a habit of ignoring this.

One argument I often hear is that even if someone had been armed during the VT or other shooting sprees, there’s no guarantee that the person would have had the ability to react in time, especially since many trained police officers sometimes freeze during shootings. The person reasons that the increase in innocent lives lost with more citizens armed would “probably” outnumber the lives saved. Unfortunately, that argument doesn’t hold up to statistics, as I’ve already pointed out. Furthermore, by the logic, one could also argue that police officers shouldn’t be armed either.

Anyway, go get your cheap gun from Thompson’s site if you want one. I’m thinking about taking him up on it. Do you any of you have a reccomendation for one of the cheaper 9mm handguns? I want one that I can carry if I choose (which is probably not going to happen since I’m a student), but my primary purpose is sport. So I want an accurate gun that’s fun to shoot. I’m leaning towards a 9mm Bersa, but I’m up for feedback. Anyone?

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.


Other Posts
Meth lab explosion on I-10, Baton Rouge, LA
Dr. Melissa: Sex is Sacred

Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

You must be logged in to post a comment. Click here to login.

Reader Comments

You know, I let this story “marinate” in my mind to clarify my thoughts on it.

I don’t agree with gun restrictions for one HUGE reason. Restricting gun use will NOT (let me restate that - WILL NOT) stop criminals from obtaining guns. The government needs to spend less time regulating how law-abiding citizens use guns, and more time figuring out how criminals obtain their guns.

Here’s my problem with what Mr. Thompson is saying though - and it could be based completely on emotional reaction, and not logic, but here it is.

I have a problem with college students all going out and buying guns (even if permitted, licensed and trained). What about the times when a college student gets drunk and is not thinking rationally? He will have a gun at his disposition…not a good combo. I just don’t think college campuses (despite the recent dangers) are the best place to promote everyone having a gun.

Again, I am all for gun ownership for protection of family and rights. I truly believe we will come into times when we as citizens will need to be armed in order to protect our freedoms. I just have doubts about having college students (the same ones that will chug a keg for fun, or think hazing is innocent entertainment) owning guns. It’s scary.

Hmmm…as I typed that, I realized that if I sent my daughter to college, I’d want her to carry a gun to protect herself from those keg-chugging morons. Dangit, I typed all of counter-argument for nothing.

There you have it - it turns out I’m a gun lover.