A reprise of the "someone could get hurt" arguement. (Along with a bigoted shot at those that might try to protect themselves and other people. Contrary to what many liberals apparently believe everyone carrying a gun isn't just itching for a chance to pull it, out throw out a movie one liner and start blasting away.)
Yes, someone could get hurt. In Colorado a lot of people did get hurt. Also they were killed. In Luby's someone could have gotten hurt. Instead a lot of people did get hurt. Also they were killed. Yes, there is a risk. Should we take that risk or instead trust ourselves to the tender mercies of the guy coming through that movie theater exit door or the Luby's entrance? I know who I'm more concerned might hurt or kill someone. How about you?
Last edited by Triton; 07-24-2012 at 12:55 PM.
Last edited by timcsaw; 07-24-2012 at 01:03 PM.
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Hmmm.....
"Do people really need to be allowed to own assault rifles?"- Divide and conquer, draw a line between "Sporting/hunting guns and non sporting guns" and you divide the opposition to newer laws. It has been done before.
As far as what tool a psycho used.- better results would have likely come from a couple of mason jars full of ball bearings and home made explosives- same crap he left in his apartment. This was the up close and personal act of a coward who wanted to feel power.
As far and finding a chink in his body armor. ANY strong resistance would have had him ducking for cover. He was a coward who wanted to oppress people he KNEW would be unarmed and weak. If he wanted a fight, he would have walked into a police station. First shots fired at him would have sent him back out the door.
I cannot tell you how many bullies I have seen quit a fight at the first solid hit they took.
Pass whatever laws make you feel good, people have ben killing each other since Cain and Able. At least guns allow weaker people to fight back. Not always the just but it does give my 115lb wife a chance against a home invader or potential rapist.
I have a CCW, many hours on the range and in class. Yesterday I was working on my deck and looked up to see a grown man in my back yard with a machete- maybe 25 feet away.... turns out his kids were visiting their grandma and knocked a ball into the pine trees that divide our yards.
If he had bad intentions, he could have been on me in a flash. No matter how prepared we try to be, we are still vulnerable at times. Best we can do is not restrict our ability to be as prepared as practical.
Bill
"Look, if you're a mass murderer, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, 'Well, it must be because I was just so evil.' There are a lot of evil people out there. 'It must be because I sucked harder at life than everybody else.' Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of people who suck at life out there.
If you were a failure, somebody along the line helped bring you down. There was a bad teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system we have that oppressed you and took away your rights and your dignity. Somebody stole from your parents. If you’ve got a mental disorder -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. People don't just turn violent on their own. Government created hate and envy among the people so that all the politicians could use you as livestock."
-- Stefan Molyneux
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Joe Mandt
St Petersburg, FL
ABS Apprentice Smith and Honorary Eurotrash
www.JMForge.com
Blade Show Table 21N
If it didn't end well for me that is because the law is written wrong. However, I am an expert rifleman, expert with a pistol, shotgun, hand grenades, LAW, Dragon etc.....I have been through several CQB courses during my time in the Army. It is highly unlikely that I will miss my target, especially since I remain INCREDIBLEY calm in crisis situations, as I have demonstrated in my performance at several accident scenes and even once when my vehicle flipped on the highway. I do not get excited in these kinds of situations.
Secondly, it would be difficult to hit an innocent bystander as, if shots are fired by the perp, the innocents will be on the ground. If no shots are fired, the tendency is to remain seated. It may well also occur that everyone is standing, as it may happen in a bank robbery, in that case, I personally may not even draw, waiting patiently, and hopefully, for an opportunity.
For those who have never been in a violent confrontation, the tendency is to think fearfully and assume that panic automatically ensues. Yes and no. I have been in MANY violent confrontations, including in the ring in an organized, "safe" setting. Quite comfortable I am.....
Be that as it may, it should end well for any armed citizen who attempts to stop an armed felon in the process of stopping a crime.
And the only sound the perp would hear is the report from my piece. REAL heros just get the job done.![]()
timcsaw,
The quote was from an earlier post- but could be from any of a number of newspapers or newscasts. Definition is not mine but one established by "the media and law makers en masse".
And yes, I do own firearms so defined by the masses. And intend to do so for a long time to come.
Bill
Thanks Bill... Having read your complete post, I suspected that you were referring to the media's definition of an "assault rifle", and not your own.
Like you I guess I own an "assault rifle" too... I put a new black, "pistol grip" stock, flash suppressor, and 50 round Mag on my Ruger 10/22... I'm sure that the guys going to Afghanistan would love to have it with them when they "assault" an enemy stronghold.
If the Taliban have rabbits, they had better be afraid... VERY afraid!![]()
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Wrong part of town in the process of getting held up.....The mugger got distracted by a noise, turned, and I bolted. He shot several times and got me in the leg as I rounded a corner. I didn't even feel it, BUT, after the adrenaline rush wore off it hurt like hell. I had the bullet removed that night and went to work the next day with a limp. I USED to get myself into all sorts of sticky situations and fights. I've also got a knife wound in my belly, several scars on my arms and hands, deviated septum, chipped tooth.....And a LOT of "colorful" stories.
Also didn't feel the knife go into my gut, it felt like the guy just poked me with a stick. I walked a mile with a friend to get to safety and call an ambulance. Made me sick from the blood filling my stomach. The after effects of the surgery hurt worse than the knife wound.
And get this; Never ONCE did I consider blaming those nasty guns or knives for shooting, stabbing or cutting me.
Actually, I blame myself more than anything for making such poor decisions on how to live my early life.
Hope you don't mind my truncating the rest of your boast--er, post. No, it would not be because the law is written wrong. It would be because it rightly holds people responsible for their actions and the consequences on others. The old Hippocratic oath should apply to hero-wannabes just as it does for doctors: First of all, do no harm. Laws that don't accommodate adrenaline junkies aren't necessarily bad.
“Whether the knife falls on the melon or the melon on the knife, the melon suffers.” -- African Proverb
Are these these the words you use to describe someone who doesn't want to lay down and die without a fight?
It would be horrible if any innocent person wear injured. However, the laws on who is legally responsible vary from state to state.
Do you really think one or a few concealed weapons carriers defending themselves would cause more damage than the nut in Colorado?
Do you know of any incidents where a person defending themselves injured an innocent person?
It seems Holmes mailed a parcel, some reports say two weeks previous, to a psychiatrist detailing the attack, complete with diagrams, and what investigators say are very meticulous details.
So does anyone really believe the fact the theater was a "gun free zone" escaped his notice, and played no part in his choice of targets?
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
This sounds like more bigotry to me. I would suspect that the number of people chomping at the bit to find themselves in such a situation so that they can be a "hero" are vanishingly small. Or does our erstwhile "everyone should be defenseless" advocate believe that everyone that carries a gun is a "wannabe hero?"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks