arma virumque cano (et alia)
The photo also makes a pretty good case that you shouldn't rely on the government to protect you.
Do you mean if there'd only been a civilian gun owner there all would have been well?
Of course not Mike. But it's a common refrain that we don't need to carry a gun ourselves and rely on law enforcement to do the heavy lifting. However, they were right there and they didn't stop it.
So they are saying guns in the hands of Secret Service do more harm than good? Ok, then...But yeah, people who use real common sense and honesty know that guns do not produce protective force fields and are often used in reaction to an attack. Love how your standard is that guns must prevent attacks before they happen, but if you do that, then you're a trigger happy concealed carry vigilante murderer. Joseph Heller would be proud.
That's not my standard, that's Wayne La Pierre's.
No, his quote is "stops a bad guy". That would imply that the bad guy started doing something bad, wouldn't it? It doesn't say anything about stopping shootings before they happen. But you guys are acting like the standard is the only thing that prevents bad people from ever being able to do something bad is a good guy with a gun.
Are you really denying that La Pierre's position is that good guys with guns PREVENT shootings?
"Are you really denying that La Pierre's position is that good guys with guns PREVENT shootings? " Mike, Lapierre was only repeating a truth brought to the forefront by lessons learned after the Columbine shooting. It was what happened there that led to the development of the current day active shooter response which has now become the standard. I was even willing to give the President some credit in at least paying some unofficial lip service to Lapierre's input by including it in his list of executive orders in response to the shooting at Sandy Hook. Lapierre, in the speech that the now famous quote came from pushed for,"The nation's largest gun-rights lobby is calling for armed police officers to be posted in every American school to stop the next killer "waiting in the wings."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/nra-press-conference_n_2346382.html The President issued this order,"He is also calling for improvements in school safety, including putting 1,000 police officers in schools and bolstering mental health care by training more health professionals to deal with young people who may be at risk."http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/NATL-Obama-to-Unveil-Gun-Violence-Measures--187077641.html Even the FBI have come out and said that the most effective response to these events is fast, aggressive, armed response to minimize the number of casualties.http://leb.fbi.gov/2014/january/active-shooter-events-from-2000-to-2012 Its quite obvious that the gun free school laws AREN'T preventing these school shootings, but there has been real worls evidence that armed response reduces the severity. "Confronted by the officer, the teen committed suicide less than a minute and a half after he entered the building, armed with a shotgun and multiple rounds of ammunition that he purchased legally, the sheriff said.Robinson said the response of a school resource officer was “absolutely critical” to the fact that that there were no additional injuries or deaths.Robinson said Pierson entered the school from the north side and fired one random shot down the hallway before firing at the victim at point blank range.Pierson then entered the library and ignited one of the Molotov cocktails. The deputy sheriff then ran through a long hallway from the cafeteria to the library. While the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life at the north end of the library, Robinson said. "http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/12/more-on-arapaho-high-school-shooter.html
Yes, my contention is that LaPierre's position is that good guys with guns STOP shootings- since "stop" is the word he used...
Are you really insisting on twisting La Pierre's statement into something ludicrous because you have no other effective arguments?
Are you really denying that La Pierre's position is that good guys with guns PREVENT shootings?Have you ever listened to LaPierre's entire spiel in the "good guy with a gun" speech ("speech" might not be the right word, but I'm drawing a blank on what else to call it)? The very next sentence might be instructive:The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away ... or a minute away?Yep--a minute. Doesn't sound as if he's claiming the good guy will necessarily be able to stop the evildoer before he starts.Now, granted, the same speech also included a line that does seem to imply that the killer could have been stopped before killing anyone:Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 innocent lives might have been spared?Then again, it is indeed possible that armed security might have stopped him before he killed anyone. It's hard to cross a parking lot with a concealed AR-15, and didn't he have to fire some shots just to enter the building? In other words, I don' think it's unreasonable to argue that he would not necessarily have had complete surprise on his side.If we move beyond LaPierre, and that particular speech, you can find the argument being made that the number of deaths in a mass shooting is very much lower when an armed private citizen stops it, rather than a law enforcement officer--i.e., the armed citizen dramatically improves the outcome, but doesn't necessarily save everyone. Note that I'm not personally making this argument, just pointing out that it is out there, and that LaPierre's argument does not sound terribly dissimilar.
Kurt: "If we move beyond LaPierre, and that particular speech, you can find the argument being made that the number of deaths in a mass shooting is very much lower when an armed private citizen stops it, rather than a law enforcement officer--i.e., the armed citizen dramatically improves the outcome, but doesn't necessarily save everyone. "Wait, do you mean to tell us that the pro-rights contention is NOT that the number of deaths when a CCW carrier is present is zero? Huh. Well where did Mike get that idea from then?
This is so dumb that on second thought I wonder if this is one of those posters put out by pro-rights people operating on Poe's Law. Like one of those "rape only lasts a few minutes" posters with the Brady logo on it.
When cornered, bring up rape.
I don't think you know what I am referring to. I am not steering the conversation to rape. I am bringing up an example of a false ad put out by pro-gun people in poor taste:http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/bradyad.aspThis Reagan ad is so mind-blowingly dumb that I legitimately thought it could be another trick by the same people who put out the false Brady ad, but apparently I was wrong. Honestly, Michael Bloomberg (who surrounds himself with armed bodyguards), putting out an ad insinuating that it is useless to protect the President of the United States with armed Secret Service agents. Really? It’s kind of hard to keep beating the drum about wanting more training requirements for CCW when they don’t even think Secret Service agents can accomplish anything good with a gun, don’t you think?
On the contrary. When even highly trained professional guards cannot stop a surprise shooter, how much worse are the chances of a civilian with minimal training? I know in your earlier comment you tried to slide the intention of La Pierre's famous statement to mean "stop" a shooter even after he's killed. But that's total bullshit and I think you know it.
Oh, it's "total bullshit" to think he meant "stop" when he said "stop". He obviously meant "prevent", but accidentally said stop, even though it would be really dumb to say "prevent" because why would the presence of one gun prevent another one in proximity from going off? You and your word games. If you want to complain about his choice of words, it should be the use of the word "only". I'd be right there with you. He should have said "best" instead.
I was pretty surprised that I was actually allowed to make a comment on the Everytown Facebook page that this came from. Its sort of amusing that they use this event as an example considering that the man that shot the President bought the gun from a licensed dealer and would have passed a background check even using current day standards and technology. He also committed his crimes in DC where at the time there was a complete ban on handgun ownership unless you had registered the firearm prior to 1975, when the ban went into effect.
So it is real? Because Bloomberg would never surround himself with armed security being as useless as it is. Wow.
Nobody said "useless," except you of course, trying to mischaracterize what we say. You should bring up rape again or maybe cars and swimming pools.
Then what was the point of this poster? You know, LaPierre didn't say "always stops" and he certainly didn't say "always prevents". So you admit it's situational. So then people might want to carry a gun, because you never know when you might use it to save a life.
The point of the poster is to ridicule you gun nuts who, despite all your denials, preach and believe that owning and carrying guns is the solution to random violence. It's just not so.
We only preach that in your head, Mikey. Look at our actual words, not the words of the straw versions of us living in your mind.
The actual words from your side have never included an admission that preventing a bad guy with a gun from doing harm is nearly impossible. In fact, many quotes could easily be found, if I felt like taking the time to look for them, that intend quite the opposite.
Because it's not "nearly impossible" to [stop] a bad guy using a gun. Why would cops bother with them if it were "nearly impossible". But then go and twist our words to mean no harm could every befall those who carry- or those near to the bearer of arms . Because it's much easier to argue against that then the middle ground argument that guns are effective tool for defense.
So, by this "logic" (I'm in an extremely generous mood today), would security camera footage of Jared Loughner buying a gun after passing a federal background check constitute instructive insight into the efficacy (or not) of such checks?Oh, by the way--who tackled and arrested Hinckley on the scene? Could it have been good (presumably) men with guns?
I had that same thought:This photo was take seconds before President Reagan was shotAnd the seconds after that the shooter was stopped by "good guys with guns". No, they didn't shoot him, but that is largely because he only brought six bullets with him and they were all spent. If he were shooting for a bit longer, I pretty much guarantee he would have been shot by "good guys with guns".
Nice diversion, all three of you have steered the discussion to background checks. This post is about the foolishness of good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns.
So... the president is being foolish by surrounding himself with Secret Service agents? That's what this post is about?
I'm sorry Mike, the background check thing might be my fault. Everytown's use of the Reagan shooting is a wonderful example of how nothing is perfect. A sitting President surrounded by a dedicated security force in a jurisdiction with gun restrictions so severe, they were eventually determined to be a violation of the Constitution. Keep in mind that Lapierre's use of the word stop doesn't mean keep it from happening, is means stopping it after it has begun since the criminal almost always gets to strike the first blow.
TS, the foolishness is buying into the nonsense that carrying a gun is a viable solution to random violence. It's not.
ss, I see you're now onto this new - to me it's a new twist - interpretation of La Pierre's famous mantra. I don't think that's been the common perception. In fact, what you just admitted, that the fact that the "criminal almost always gets to strike the first blow" is usually avoided.
Yes Mike, we don't get to "strike the first blow" as an act of self-defense. The criminal has to do an act of crime first. If you just walk up to someone and shoot them in order to prevent something bad from happening, that's called "murder"- despite what you think of Stand Your Ground laws.
MikeB: " I see you're now onto this new - to me it's a new twist - interpretation of La Pierre's famous mantra. I don't think that's been the common perception."The common perception by whom? You guys, with all your "common sense"?
"TS, the foolishness is buying into the nonsense that carrying a gun is a viable solution to random violence. It's not."Ah, the continual attempt by you guys to paint us as thinking guns are magical talismans that ward off attacks. No matter how many times we explain that this isn't our position you keep coming back to accusing us of buying into it.As for your comment about our interpretation of La Pierre's statement, we can't help it if you are so blinded by your strawmen that you misunderstood what he was saying. As for the commonality and age of this interpretation, if you go back through the archives you'll see that each time you have derided the statement we have offered examples of people stopping crimes in progress. The only people who interpreted the statement as meaning that guns would magically prevent crimes are gun control activists who are either lying or so blinded by their stereotypes of us that they assume we believe the most stupid things they can think up.Finally, as for the others' mentioning of Background Checks, the whole point of this picture, when released by Everytown, was to say that we needed background checks as opposed to carry. That would make background checks a legitimate topic of discussion here.
SJ: "The only people who interpreted the statement as meaning that guns would magically prevent crimes are gun control activists who are either lying or so blinded by their stereotypes of us that they assume we believe the most stupid things they can think up."They have to make up something else to argue against because they'd look like fools arguing against what we're actually saying. When a spree shooting breaks out, everyone (who doesn't have a gun) gets on their phone to call people with guns to come over and STOP the massacre. It's so transparent why you have to do this, Mike. So transparent.
Even if this was a legitimate misunderstanding of the position, please explain, Mike, why the dozens upon dozens of corrections you have heard from multiple pro-gun sources, are not registering with you?
What "dozens and dozens" are you talking about. On this thread there are only four or five of you repeating the same thing over and over again.
Repeating something we've been telling you for years, and that is in line with what the other pro-gun commenters have said over that time--indeed, is in line with La Pierre's actual words and other statements by him and other activists.
We've had this conversation multiple times before.Look, Kurt just provided the line LaPierre said immediately after the line presented here, and it clearly shows that he was talking about good guys with guns as a response to a shooting. You can stop the ruse now, Mike. Move on to other things.
Kurt also said this:"Now, granted, the same speech also included a line that does seem to imply that the killer could have been stopped before killing anyone:Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 innocent lives might have been spared?"Maybe you need to quit the ruse. Do I have to research La Pierre's speeches for other examples in which he purposely misleads his listeners about the efficacy of good guys with guns? You know that his whole tone and attitude is more like the magic talisman thing than anything else, about the DANGER lurking everywhere and how one can protect oneself.
Because you CAN protect yourself with guns! But that does not mean it's impossible to be hurt if you have one. Stop trying to argue against ridiculous straw men that no one on the pro gun side is saying.And to Kurt's quote, you didn't include the part where he talked about how the Newtown case had an opportunity to stop the shooter at the door. He revealed himself before shooting his first victim, which isn't always the case.
Do I have to research La Pierre's speeches for other examples in which he purposely misleads his listeners about the efficacy of good guys with guns?He acknowledged that even with the NRA's proposed school security plan, an evildoer might be able to wreak carnage for a full minute before meeting an armed response. He then asked the audience to acknowledge the mere possibility that the would-be killer might be stopped without a single kill.For that to be false, there would have to be utterly no chance whatsoever of such a favorable outcome. Not a one in a million chance, not one in a billion, not a one in a Googolplex chance.If there's dishonesty in this discussion, it would rest with anyone making that claim.
"For that to be false, there would have to be utterly no chance whatsoever of such a favorable outcome."And yet we can find examples of just such favorable outcomes, e.g.http://www.tricities.com/news/gunman-killed-at-sullivan-central/article_35434f30-00d3-522f-98f1-58f372591713.htmlIt Can happen."Maybe you need to quit the ruse."Maybe you should quit trying to twist and misrepresent people's words. It could be charitably considered ignorance before, but not anymore.
To escapes Mike's correct point, that a good guy with a gun is not all that's needed to stop a bad guy with a gun, the pro gunners bring up all sorta of other issues.
Let me ask you this, Mike? Do you think the Secret Service reevaluated their policy on carrying guns based on this incident? Did they ever think, "gee, we couldn't prevent Reagan from being shot... Maybe we shouldn't carry guns?" No? Then why should anyone else think that based on this incident?
What they should think, if such honest self reflection were possible, is that if a dozen professional gunmen couldn't prevent the presidential assassination attempt, civilians with far less training and experience would be even less capable of doing so.
And why would the answer to this incident be to not carry guns? Like I said, no one looks at this situation and thinks "let's stop carrying guns because we couldn't draw and shoot within a few seconds". No one thinks "let's not arm cops" every time an officer an officer is shot on duty- and that includes you gun control (but you do use that to say "let's disarm CCW carriers instead!". No one looks at an incident where a building burned down despite a sprinkler system in place and says "let's stop putting fire suppression systems in buildings".
I'm not saying the answer is to not carry guns. I'm all for it, as long as you're qualified. But I still oppose the bullshit that you guys keep pushing, that guns are the answer. They rarely help and they often cause problems, more harm than good.
But I still oppose the bullshit that you guys keep pushing, that guns are the answer.Guns cannot solve every problem, but those chambered for .50 BMG can sure solve some big ones.