This. This is the reason.
Would that there had been one single person in the entry of Sandy Hook Elementary School yesterday with a gun, ready and willing to stop the little fucker that committed the atrocity.
(Via a link from TinCan Assassin--thanks, buddy.)
1 hour ago
Hell, what if one person had the mindset and cojones to use a fire extinguisher?
ReplyDeleteBlind his vision, then hit him in the head with the heavy ass red thing.
That would work, but most people don't look around themselves and think, "What do I see that I can use to defend myself, and possibly kill my attacker?"
DeleteI am one of very few that I know of. I guess you're another.
Why isn't there an edit option on this God-blessed piece of crap internet dealy? So I read the article about the mall shooting, because I hadn't heard about it. It's great that he acted the way he did, but was that gun-range training, or something else? Who amongst us has such clear-headedness in these situations? Can such a thing be objectively stated?
DeleteThere are classes that teach those kinds of actions, yes. Don't ask me why there's no edit function--many's the time I wished for one.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGeez, with all the gun pointing going on here, I'm almost afraid to voice my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAnd I apologize for the rant. If you don't want it on your blog, feel free to delete it. Or don't approve it. I think that's an option.
I love and respect you, Sir Huxley, but I don't agree with the idea of more guns. I don't see how "more guns" (more certified, trained, and responsible people) is going to solve this continuing and increasing issue. Please help me understand that.
While I understand and appreciate the need and desire to protect family and self, does it have to be at the cost of another's life? When did we trivialize the sanctity of another's existence (I refer to us as a society, I know this is moot at the individual level)? Even when a human acts barbaric and animalistic, and our first lizard-gut reaction is to fight or flight, haven't we evolved beyond the desire to kill another human being(of course this argument doesn't resolve with a mental impaired person)? The argument presented is, "Had some gun-owner had their piece on them, the life of the one would have been ended to save the lives of the many."
That's a great argument. I don't disagree with it. Had someone been carrying they may have stopped that nut from mowing down an excessive amount of innocent people.
Except he was carrying an assault-rifle. Someone else did a similar thing, but with more preparation in mind. [This next bit is in reference to the Aurora movie theater shooting]
He was able to purchase an AR-15 and have bullets and a drum mailed to his place. He came to that theater in ballistic armor. He threw smoke-grenades to increase confusion.
Now, honestly, tell me that you go to the gun-range and have smoke blown in your face while a rifle at the other end is firing a slurry of dummy rounds at you, and you have to group at least five shots while ducking behind something. Honestly tell me that you could take that person down under those conditions. No hero is going to charge a person who is blasting away with a very loud gun of any sort. Those people barely had the wherewithal to duck and cover the person next to them.
I'm sorry, but all the armed and trained people in the world aren't going to stop someone from opening fire on a crowd. Maybe ten seconds later you could stop them, but those first ten seconds you're ducking for cover while you "fast-draw" your pistol.
(continued...)
The guy in Aurora didn't know how to operate his AR-15, and it jammed, saving lives. His handgun, which he didn't think to go for, may or may not have functioned properly (if you don't clean your gun, they jam; if you don't keep your wrist held stiff some won't cycle right... etc). There are training classes that do simulate what it would really be like; however, I carry a gun more to get myself and my children out of a situation safely. Sometimes, all that's needed is to show that you have one, and the goblin leaves you alone because you might hurt him.
DeleteFun factoid about Auroura, there where 7 theaters within 20 miles of the sicko's house doing Dark Knight rises premiers. He didn't go to the closest one, he didn't go to the largest one. He chose the only one of the 7 that disarmed his victims. So he was afraid of someone shooting back.
DeleteIf you read the story linked at the top of this post you'll notice that the CCW holder at the Oregon shooting didn't shoot because he didn't have a shot that wouldn't endanger others.
Actually if you look up spree shootings with a CCW holder present you'll actually find a remarkable restrain in their fire. As opposed to police officers who are shielded from almost all civil and criminal liability and tend to spray bullets and have a horrible hit ratio.
As for the Newtown murders: would you feel safer if your children were being taught by a teacher that concealed and carried? Do you trust that person enough to have them armed while on the job? Most places don't and they don't allow guns on their property. So how does owning a gun in this situation do any good? You can't bring it to work, unless you hide it in the car. And then you have to run out to get it. You're slapping your head with frustration "If only I'd worn my leg strap today" you'd think. Do you even know anything about that teacher? Could you trust that person with your child's life? (I apologize for the pathos here. And I know you have a leg strap, but I'm trying not to point this at you)
ReplyDeleteNow, had they an armed guard, the whole situation changes. That's a paid, hopefully trained professional. But then you're getting into the costs and responsibilities that go with that. Plus, that person is going to be the initial target. They had best be vigilant at all times. The price of freedom, I guess.
Don't get me wrong though, I don't want people's freedom to own guns taken away. But for every hundred responsible owners, there's likely one nut-job who's going to ruin the fun for everyone. There always is. The problem won't go away with more or fewer guns. The problem won't dissipate with more or fewer regulations. Our society is the problem. But we don't want to face that. We want the world to keep hearing us say we're the greatest nation. And for the most-part, we still are. But that won't last. Eventually we'll have to face what we've become as a nation. That day just can't come soon enough.
Depends on the teacher. Ex-military, yes. Ex-cop, no--the ones in this area are more likely to shoot what they're trying to protect than the bad guy.
DeleteNo, the problem of the one nut-job isn't going to go away; however, did you notice that all of the shootings have happened in posted gun-free zones? The nut jobs don't want other people to shoot them, and tend to avoid shooting up areas where there might be people that would shoot back.
And yes, things could get much worse if they manage to take our guns. The first thing Hitler did was pass draconian gun laws. Same with Stalin, and Mao, and Pol Pot. An unarmed citizen is one that can't fight back to save his life or his neighbors when they're "relocated to a work camp."
The Israelis has a similar problem with terrorists spree shooting at their schools and public places. They found that no matter how many security people they put out they couldn't stop things because the security personnel were the first targets or were simply avoided. When they started arming plain clothes teachers the problem stopped in favor of softer targets.
DeleteI know that the average Eloi teaching at an elementary school wouldn't be able to pull the trigger even if directly threatened. Perhaps that says unfortunate things about who we are entrusting our children to.
I gotta apologize again. I can't come back with a non-emotional argument...
ReplyDeleteSo, we take away all the gun-free zones and everyone carries. What stops someone from carrying extra rounds and opening fire on a crowd? How many more deaths by guns are needed before it's too many? There aren't enough trained personnel to stop every case of a rampant shooter. Some shooters take a hard to reach vantage points. Others make themselves inviable targets in crowded areas.
For the sake of fornication, the last VP shot a man in the face (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident), and that man apologized for causing distress to the VP and his family (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILqnYx7XnwQ)!
Again, I don't want all the guns taken away. Draconian gun-laws aren't going to happen in the U.S. Enough people are adamant about owning guns and would put up a hell of a ruckus if such laws were proposed. If some new legislation comes up that restricts guns by a reasonable amount, I'll help pass it. If I think it's too restrictive, or isn't worded in a plainly understood manner, I won't help pass it. But I'm not about to let someone walk around with an M-16 on their shoulder if they're a plain clothed civilian. Tell me the need behind buying military grade or semi-automatic weapons; give me an actual good reason, please. Sport? No, B-B guns and paint-ballers can be used for sport. Defense against our government? Protecting a home or family? Against what? There are no zombies; our borders are safe from invasion; our government isn't sweeping down from the North to impose itself. You want to be armed and go to a riot? The difference in a riot with citizens who are armed with guns and those who aren't is how much water is sprayed on them. At least in the U.S.
Maybe I just won't understand. I wasn't raised with guns in my house. Neither will my kids. I learned about guns in Boy Scouts; I've shot .22 rifle, .22 handgun, AK-47, .357, 12-gauge side loader, an over-under, and a .50 blackpowder. Obviously, some of those were not at any Scouting related functions. My Dad survived Vietnam, but he never owned a gun. Both my grandpas had guns, but I never saw them. Hidden away in a back room or closet or where ever. But then, they came from WWII era, where they were trained to kill other people in defense of liberty.
I guess I just want to present the other side of the argument. I don't want you to give up your guns. I just want you to help others be more responsible and aware. I'll do my part, too.
Keep in mind, the guy Cheney shot in the face admitted that it was his own fault for walking in front of the firing line after the range is hot call went up. And Cheney apologized for shooting the guy before he left in the ambulance to get a couple of pieces of birdshot picked out, and the powder burns treated.
DeleteNo one is permitted to own an M-16. They are fully auto. You've got AR-15s, but no M-16s. As for sport, there are very few hunting rifles more accurate. I'd rather take the deer down cleanly, than wound it and have it run off and either bleed out, or survive crippled. Prevents pain and suffering for the deer, and keeps the meat from being tougher for the sudden injection of adrenalin.
In the last half dozen shootings, it's recently been revealed that all of the shooters have been taking some of the more dangerous anti-depressants that lower inhibitions, and cause suicidal thoughts--a bad combo. If anything, the gun purchase forms should have a question added just below the one about whether you've been adjudicated mentally incompetent: "Are you now, or have you recently been taking one of the following drugs:" and start with Prozac and Adderall and work down to Zoloft. If yes (or even if no, and it comes up otherwise on the background check), then the purchase is denied.
I not only didn't grow up with a gun in the house, I grew up with a mother that was mortally afraid of guns, and tried her damndest to instill that fear into me. It didn't work, but what really got me into guns was going shooting with a mutual redneck friend who also loves Volkswagens.
Except for the guns that are on our person, all of the rest are back in a locked cabinet back in the closet in our bedroom. That's the responsible thing to do with children in the house. Your grandfathers were being responsible.
We don't have to worry about defending ourselves from our government now because we are armed. The Germans didn't have to worry about it either--until after Hitler had collected all of their guns. Same with the Russians, the Chinese, and the Cambodians. It's not that I think I'm going to have to use my guns against an armed convoy in the street, it's that having them in the first place prevents it from happening in the first place. I'm a lot more worried about dealing with home-invasion robberies--there've been half a dozen here in the past year--or New Black Panther-incited violence. I'm worried about my children's safety in a world that is increasingly more violent and dangerous, all without the restraints of God and religion.
I totally get humane hunting. I've heard enough about the affects of adrenalin to the meat that it's great hunter's want to use the most precise methods possible. Some hunters even prefer bow hunting. I'm guessing it's because they don't like having to dig shell fragments out of their meat. Admittedly, that happens rarely, but it's still a concern.
DeleteI only used the M-16 as an example. Not permitted, and not owning are two different things. Pot wasn't allowed, besides being illegal, where I lived, and yet kids still got a hold of it. I mean, pot parties were a thing in the nineties.
About the mental health issue, it's fairly easy for someone to put "N/A" or "none" where they would normally fill in current medication or mental health issues. I think I just heard that the NRA suggested a national registry of people who have had some sort of psychological treatment for a different psychological ailments, so the gun sellers could cross-reference that in their background checks. That will probably cut down on a lot of legal gun sales. I know I would be disqualified for purchase. And I wouldn't have to lie on a form.
All those countries you mentioned didn't have a Democratically evolved governments in place. It's easy to say what "could" or "would" happen, but Americans are very stubborn. They won't let that kind of thing happen. Specifically, we won't let that happen. The public outcry would be felt across the world. And... haven't we been armed since before our nation was an inkling of an idea?
Yes, a world where guns are outlawed would mean only outlaws have the guns, so fine I don't mind that you keep your guns in a responsible fashion, but we have to do something about the people who aren't responsible before they can get a gun. It's not enough to say, "We'll train and arm everyone, and that'll stop people" because a person who is determined enough can and will hurt innocent people.
I'm still standing by what I'm trying to say: a hunting rifle is one thing, but a semi-auto "could be a machine gun" high-capacity rifle is something completely different. If you're hunting deer, it should only take one shot. If you have to hit it more than once, then I would suggest you either go back to the range and practice more, or let someone who's a better shot do the killing.
And apparently the guy was walking up behind the covey, and Cheney had to follow the bird around and back to where that guy was in order to get his shot. But that's done and done. Not sure why I brought it up.
You brought up Cheney shooting a fellow lawyer because it was sort of funny, in a dark humor way, right? I sure thought it was funny...
Delete