I don't know what point you are trying to make, but I know gun rights guys are always talking about how we need to have all kinds of armed people out in public so that when a gunman opens fire they will be quickly gunned down by the posse of gunslingers looking to administer their own brand of justice.
Except that we get guys like Zimmerman or Barney Fife or untrained vigilantes. I wonder what would have happened in the dark Aurora theater if there had been 10 or 20 armed citizens blasting away. Would that have qualified as "friendly fire"? Maybe result in some "collateral damage"? There are even incidents involving highly-trained law enforcement officers, where innocent people have been shot. (Here, the guy on the boat may have been drinking. That doesn't permit the cops to blast him, but it may have meant that he was belligerent. Again, still no reason to open fire for that reason only.)
What if there are altercations between two private citizens, each equally convinced that he can use deadly force under the circumstances? Can each shoot first and ask questions later? Who's left to ask questions if they are both shot dead? Or how about a bar full of liquored-up, bitter, noncustodial parents who just got laid-off--how would you like to be the one that pisses them off?
I am not coming to take your guns. Nor am I creating a list so that the UN can swoop in with their black helicopters. I AM saying that the simple-minded answer of merely arming everybody won't guarantee everybody's safety. It will guarantee bigger profits for gun manufacturers. And sure as shit, the backlash against me will start immediately: I am a Communist, pig-fucking, retard with no dick and fewer brains, blah, blah, blah.
True dat Larry. I really loved the thread Alucard started about lessons of 9/11. One of the replies was that everybody should be armed. 'Cos...I don't friggin' know...maybe the dude who posted that thought lots of armed dudes on the flight would have opened fire and killed them mooslems (sic).
The reality is Aaron Alexis was exactly the type of dude who shouldn't have a gun. He got into a conflict at a construction site and shot out the tires on a car. He also shot his gun toward his ceiling because he conflicted with his upstairs neighbor. Guns in the hands of nutjobs isn't a good idea.
Looneylarry, I don't attribute anything to degol's post other than humor and a dig at Alucard. You however, assert untrained vigilantes (no vigilante gun incident in recent years), Barney Fife (a TV comedy law enforcement officer) and Zimmerman (victim of an assault who successfully defended himself) are all trying to administer their own brand of justice. Then you claim a disaster would have occurred if armed citizens blasted away in the Aurora theater. Your position is clearly supportive of a disarmed public.
Unfortunately, a completely unarmed public - like the audience in the Aurora theater - represent nothing more than potential victims. If others in the Aurora theater had weapons perhaps the shooter would have been stopped much sooner or perhaps not, but I cannot see the outcome as any worse than it was. If even a few teachers in Newtown were carrying perhaps NO children would have died. No argument is perfect, but I would rather err on the side of self-sufficiency.
My second position is that the framers of the US Constitution intended that there always would be citizens armed with the latest and best, both for domestic safety (even before the police arrive) and as a deterrent to a potentially oppressive federal government. I do support the 2nd Amendment and believe that any weapons control laws require first repeal of the 2nd.
I am also sorry to hear that you are a Communist, pig-fucking, retard with no dick (although - from your post - I think you are selling yourself short when you claim you have fewer brains). As well written as your post was, you seem to otherwise be an OK guy. However, just in case you're wrong about the UN and those black helicopters, I'm going to keep an eye out. By the way isn't the UN being racist to use black helicopters when they take guns?
4 comments
Latest
Except that we get guys like Zimmerman or Barney Fife or untrained vigilantes. I wonder what would have happened in the dark Aurora theater if there had been 10 or 20 armed citizens blasting away. Would that have qualified as "friendly fire"? Maybe result in some "collateral damage"? There are even incidents involving highly-trained law enforcement officers, where innocent people have been shot. (Here, the guy on the boat may have been drinking. That doesn't permit the cops to blast him, but it may have meant that he was belligerent. Again, still no reason to open fire for that reason only.)
What if there are altercations between two private citizens, each equally convinced that he can use deadly force under the circumstances? Can each shoot first and ask questions later? Who's left to ask questions if they are both shot dead? Or how about a bar full of liquored-up, bitter, noncustodial parents who just got laid-off--how would you like to be the one that pisses them off?
I am not coming to take your guns. Nor am I creating a list so that the UN can swoop in with their black helicopters. I AM saying that the simple-minded answer of merely arming everybody won't guarantee everybody's safety. It will guarantee bigger profits for gun manufacturers. And sure as shit, the backlash against me will start immediately: I am a Communist, pig-fucking, retard with no dick and fewer brains, blah, blah, blah.
The reality is Aaron Alexis was exactly the type of dude who shouldn't have a gun. He got into a conflict at a construction site and shot out the tires on a car. He also shot his gun toward his ceiling because he conflicted with his upstairs neighbor. Guns in the hands of nutjobs isn't a good idea.
Unfortunately, a completely unarmed public - like the audience in the Aurora theater - represent nothing more than potential victims. If others in the Aurora theater had weapons perhaps the shooter would have been stopped much sooner or perhaps not, but I cannot see the outcome as any worse than it was. If even a few teachers in Newtown were carrying perhaps NO children would have died. No argument is perfect, but I would rather err on the side of self-sufficiency.
My second position is that the framers of the US Constitution intended that there always would be citizens armed with the latest and best, both for domestic safety (even before the police arrive) and as a deterrent to a potentially oppressive federal government. I do support the 2nd Amendment and believe that any weapons control laws require first repeal of the 2nd.
I am also sorry to hear that you are a Communist, pig-fucking, retard with no dick (although - from your post - I think you are selling yourself short when you claim you have fewer brains). As well written as your post was, you seem to otherwise be an OK guy. However, just in case you're wrong about the UN and those black helicopters, I'm going to keep an eye out. By the way isn't the UN being racist to use black helicopters when they take guns?
When I was just a baby,
My mama told me, son,
Always be a good boy,
Don't ever play with guns,
But I shot a man in Reno.....