Via the Gun Guys. It seems to me Mr. Thompson has improved his delivery of the standard pro-gun rationale. I don't find his attitude as objectionable as I did a couple years ago, but the message is the same.
What's your opinion?
Showing posts with label eric thompson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eric thompson. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Eric Thompson, Gun Dealer Extraordinaire
The Brady Campaign reports on the disturbing news that the same gun dealer who sold guns to Cho, the Virginia Tech killer, also did business with Sodini, the PA gym killer.
I remember seeing Thompson on a video interview after Virginal Tech. To me he seemed to personify the pro-gun mentality which says "Hey, it's not my fault," while shrugging the shoulders. I hear a lot of that around here whenever we talk about responsibility.
Mr. Thompson has promised to start a web site to discuss the issues of gun control and gun violence, a forum where both sides of the debate can meet.
Now that's curious. Why do you think he didn't offer examples of DGUs which he could claim partial credit for? Obviously, because he doesn't know of any. It's very hard to reconcile that with the continual claims of how many lives are saved by gun use.
This has been an ongoing discussion. Do the incidents of DGU so greatly outnumber the incidents of gun violence that all we need to do is arm more of the good guys? That is the suggestion from some. I say it's wrong for several reasons, all of which which I've elaborated at length. But an old, very unscientific proof has been coming up again.
Some time ago I subscribed to a Google Alert under the title "shooting." So rare are the DGUs, that I think I need to amend my original estimate which was 100 to 1. It's really more like 200 to 1. Is this a conspiracy by Google to further their anti-gun agenda? Or could it be that the defensive gun proposition is not all it's cracked up to be?
What's your opinion?
Eric Thompson, the arms dealer from Green Bay, Wisconsin, said publicly after helping arm the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois university shooters that since homicidal maniacs were buying guns and accessories from him, law-abiding citizens should buy guns from him, too, to protect themselves from the killers he was arming.
Now, he has done it again. The tortured misogynist who killed three and wounded nine in a Pittsburgh area gym this week was another customer of TGSCOM, the online arms warehouse that Thompson operates, buying a magloader and a high-capacity magazine from the dealer last year.
Once again, Thompson is telling journalists how upset he is, and how the incident proves that potential victims should arm themselves, to protect themselves from killers. The victims the Pennsylvania killer shot were participating in an aerobics class.
I remember seeing Thompson on a video interview after Virginal Tech. To me he seemed to personify the pro-gun mentality which says "Hey, it's not my fault," while shrugging the shoulders. I hear a lot of that around here whenever we talk about responsibility.
Mr. Thompson has promised to start a web site to discuss the issues of gun control and gun violence, a forum where both sides of the debate can meet.
“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 prevent tragedy - not cause it.”
Now that's curious. Why do you think he didn't offer examples of DGUs which he could claim partial credit for? Obviously, because he doesn't know of any. It's very hard to reconcile that with the continual claims of how many lives are saved by gun use.
This has been an ongoing discussion. Do the incidents of DGU so greatly outnumber the incidents of gun violence that all we need to do is arm more of the good guys? That is the suggestion from some. I say it's wrong for several reasons, all of which which I've elaborated at length. But an old, very unscientific proof has been coming up again.
Some time ago I subscribed to a Google Alert under the title "shooting." So rare are the DGUs, that I think I need to amend my original estimate which was 100 to 1. It's really more like 200 to 1. Is this a conspiracy by Google to further their anti-gun agenda? Or could it be that the defensive gun proposition is not all it's cracked up to be?
What's your opinion?
Friday, February 27, 2009
Eric Thompson vs. Paul Helmke
Here's a debate which aired sometime after the Virginia Tech shooting, pitting Eric Thompson, on-line gun dealer against Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign.
What possible motivation could Mr. Helmke have other than what he says? Does anyone really think he's lying when he says, "when you put more guns into a situation, whether it's a home, a city or a college campus, you're going to have more gun violence?" Don't you think he believes that? I certainly do. And what's more, I agree with it.
In fact, I was saying exactly that before I knew who Paul Helmke was. I think we're both really saying things we really believe, with no sinister or ulterior motives, really.
On the other hand, we have Mr. Thompson, who said in a carefully worded comment that he was "warmly received by many of the students." Although that may be true enough, I find it hard to believe that the loved ones of the 32 dead kids would have "warmly received" him. What do you think?
Do you think Thompson is a bit cold-blooded in claiming that his company didn't help provide the gun but simply sold a legal product? Do you have any problem with that?
Helmke said, "We make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns." Do you agree or disagree?
Please leave a comment.
What possible motivation could Mr. Helmke have other than what he says? Does anyone really think he's lying when he says, "when you put more guns into a situation, whether it's a home, a city or a college campus, you're going to have more gun violence?" Don't you think he believes that? I certainly do. And what's more, I agree with it.
In fact, I was saying exactly that before I knew who Paul Helmke was. I think we're both really saying things we really believe, with no sinister or ulterior motives, really.
On the other hand, we have Mr. Thompson, who said in a carefully worded comment that he was "warmly received by many of the students." Although that may be true enough, I find it hard to believe that the loved ones of the 32 dead kids would have "warmly received" him. What do you think?
Do you think Thompson is a bit cold-blooded in claiming that his company didn't help provide the gun but simply sold a legal product? Do you have any problem with that?
Helmke said, "We make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns." Do you agree or disagree?
Please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)