via Nasty Jack
This is a bit old, but it's still good. Thom Hartmann is the only person I've heard other than myself say that given the gun laws in Arizona, there were probably other armed people around the Giffords shooting.
I also like the way he insisted that even gun rights fanatics are for gun control. It's just a question of where we draw the line.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I suspect there were several folks who had guns on them at the Aurora CO theater shootings, as well.
ReplyDeleteThe common myth among gunloons is that they'll react like some movie action hero should an unexpected shooting take place. The reality, of course, is very different. Gunloons will usually void themselves as they beat feet away from the situation.
LOL, the old argument was that a CCW holder would shoot innocent bystanders, now they won't get involved?
DeleteThanks, Billy...that's the other half of the equation. Gunloons may choose to make the matter worse by wildly firing into a crowded, chaotic situation.
DeleteOr here's a third possibility Jadegold. The overwhelming majority of armed citizens are wise and restrain themselves even under stress. When they face a crowd situation, they keep their firearm holstered if they are not confident in their ability to shoot the attacker and only the attacker. And, even if a citizen was extremely confident in their ability to shoot their intended target, they may also keep their firearms concealed in their holsters unless an attacker is directly attacking them. After all, the main reason for a citizen to be armed in public is for their own personal protection; armed citizens are not police officers.
DeleteOf course it is a benefit to everyone if an armed citizen does intervene on behalf of someone else, but it is not a legal requirement to do so.
I suggest to you Jade, that you don't carry a gun in public if that's what you would do.
DeleteBilly, to the contrary; I recognize a situation for what is. Gunloons, OTOH, live in this fantasy world where they can be "Maverick" from TopGun or the hero from the Die Hard films.
DeleteOf course, reality bites hard.
Gun loons carry in public because of self-esteem issues. They believe--due to the lack of success in their social and professional lives--that carrying a weapon earns them the respect they've been incapable of earning.
so gunloons, whatever that is, fantasize about being a Naval Aviator or an alcoholic police officer with the most unfortunate luck?
DeleteEvidently Jade Gold doesn't get the meaning of "concealed carry." That means if he/her and I pass on the street, you shouldn't be able to know that I even have a pistol on me. So that kind of shoots his/her whole self esteem issues theory down the tubes.
DeleteGoldilocks, people who yammer about self-esteem typically have no justification for having any. It's the constant theme of public school counselors and the Lifetime channel. I'm too busy doing things to worry about the subject.
DeleteBut do tell us, what have you done for the betterment of this world? What are your achievements? You'll have to provide proof, since you strike me as the kind of person who talks a big talk. You're the type who projects his insecurities on the rest of the world and shivers in terror at the thought that someone else might do what he's fantasized about doing, but never acted on.
I love it when Jadegold gets you guys on the defensive. The more you object, the clearer his victory over you is.
DeleteThe Jared Loughner shooting is one of the best proofs of the fallacy of your supposed concealed carry benefit to society.
I'm on the defensive? In what way do you see Goldilocks as having won a point here? The only armed good person that we know of in Tucson was distant. You say that probably there were others on the scene. There's a chance, and you've been shown an estimate of its percentage, but it's tiny.
DeleteThe claim of concealed carry is that it gives some benefit--an improved chance of surviving an incident, giving rational criminals a moment of pause, and so forth. We don't say that it's a guarantee in all situations. You want all or nothing. We see that the world is more complex than that.
Keep telling yourself it was a tiny possibility that there were armed people around. This was AZ, where they have Constitutional Carry. You're stats were bullshit based on concealed carry permits which ARE NOT NEEDED to carry in that freedom-loving state.
DeleteThere almost certainly were others in the near vicinity and they didn't do shit. The only thing we need to guess about is why.
"There almost certainly were others in the near vicinity and they didn't do shit. The only thing we need to guess about is why."
DeletePerhaps they made the decision not to shoot because, contrary to your beliefs, there was a crowd of people around. It's seems like you're pretty upset that a civilian didn't shoot 9 innocent bystanders.
Goldilocks, quit projecting your own inadequacies onto others.
ReplyDeleteMikeb, anyone in favor of gun control is not a gun-rights advocate. It's that simple. Look up a Norwegian fellow named Quisling if you need clarification.
Actually, Greggy, gunloonery represents the worst of Soviet excesses wherein gunloons must rigidly toe a partyline and dissent or compromise must be punished.
DeleteThink about it. Ted Nugent is your spiritual and political leader.
Goldilocks, Ted Nugent is nothing to me. I'm not a fan of his music. I don't follow his style. He's one of many gun owners, and we have a lot more variability than you recognize.
DeleteBut you go on believing what you said. It's better for us when you continue being a buffoon.
Greggy, it's all about party discipline; the Soviets demanded it.
DeleteThe Soviets? Yes. There's plenty of evidence to support that. What evidence do you have that we gun owners are forced to follow the party line? What "punishments" are we subject to if we don't?
DeleteThis is the point at which you typically leave a conversation--when I ask you for proof of your wild claims.
Greg, the point was that even you are for gun control. Can I have a yes on that?
DeleteNo, you can't. There are some measures that I'm willing to tolerate in the interest of compromise--laws against felons owning guns, a shall-issue carry license system, for examples--but I take the text of the Constitution at its word. The people have the right to handguns, shotguns, rifles, bows, and bladed weapons. That's what arms meant at the time, and it's a good definition for today. I don't support restrictions on full-auto guns, for example, but we'll get to that after we win other victories.
DeleteSo, other than you magnanimous attempts at compromise, you're against all gun restrictions, every single one?
DeleteMikeb, we take away rights from criminals and the dangerously insane. That's a general act of control, not specific to guns. We don't let children do many things. Same situation. When it comes to law-abiding adults, I oppose all gun control.
DeleteGreg, you're quibbling because you're a contentious and petty man. Rather than admit the slightest thing, you're argue endlessly even if it makes increasingly less sense.
DeleteYou place no limit on the types of weapons an adult lawful citizen can purchase. You oppose the prohibition of surface to air missiles? How about the proverbial suitcase nuke? You still opposed?
I argue with people who seek to take away my rights. You can call that petty, but it's important to my side, and until you understand that, you'll make no progress with any of us.
DeleteWe've talked about what kinds of weapons are meant in the Second Amendment before. You know very well that I don't mean missiles and nukes. Those are not weapons typically used by one person. An RPG is a grey area, but considering its effect, I class it with artillery and other such military arms. We have a right to arms that one person uses against another. We're not talking about collective weapons here. I would, for example, gladly issue letters of marque to sailors operating around the Horn of Africa, though.
If you're going to start tossing words like "probably" around, you should probably attach a number to it. From the AZ Dept of Public Safety, there are 175,706 active concealed carry permits. According to the US Census Bureau, AZ's total population is about 6.4 million, of which about 61% is between 18 and 65. That means 175,706 out of 3.9 million (even more if you include the 65 and older set) have concealed carry permits. That's 4.5%. Depending on the age demographics of the crowd at the Giffords event, the probability of someone having a gun may be higher or lower.
ReplyDeleteTom, AZ enjoys that greatest of all freedoms, Constitutional Carry. So, you have no idea how many people carry guns legally there.
DeleteThat's as it should be.
DeleteWell, if you have no idea how many people carry guns legally, then you can't use the word "probably".
DeleteTom, I said probably, not certainly. In my mind it sure, but I said probably.
DeleteIt is my sincere hope that only responsible citizens would possess firearms and that criminals would never possess firearms. And having said that, I cannot think of any aspect of gun control that I support. The two main reasons that I do not support gun control are:
ReplyDelete1. Gun control does not stop criminals from acquiring and using guns.
2. Gun control erodes the rights of citizens to own property (guns).
Since gun control fails to achieve its desired outcome and has many negative, unintended consequences, I do not support it.
No gun control at all??? You want 10-year-olds to be able to buy guns over the counter? Paroled murderers too? How about the severely mentally ill when they get a pass from the state hospital?
DeleteI'm now wasting the time to watch the video:
ReplyDelete1. It's a magazine, not a clip.
2. Hartmann is not a gun-rights advocate. He is a left-wing talk show host and a former psychotherapist.
3. He has no clue about how to carry, draw, and use a firearm. His comments about the process show his ignorance.
4. The FBI background check is a joke? Please. That's used for all kinds of jobs in security and other sensitive areas.
5. There is a philosophical issue here. People have rights. Hartmann denies rights.
6. Magazine changes are easy. Carry lots of magazines. What's the next ban you want to propose?
7. Mexico has strict gun control, and yet, it's in a state of civil war.
8. Not letting a ten-year-old buy a gun is not gun control. Children are not adults. There are many things that children are not allowed to do.
Are more nonsense that you'd like shot down?
1. it's either one, you're acting like a superior prig.
Delete8. That certainly is gun control.
1. It's not either one. There is a clear cut definition between the two. They act differently. You can't use a magazine in a gun that accepts a clip and vice versa.
DeleteThe fact that you are unable to grasp this speaks volumes about your intelligence level.
1. I use the terms correctly. I can't help what ignorant or willfully stupid people do.
Delete2. In the sense that we control the lives of children generally, but what's your point?
Mikeb, Richard the Lionheart respected Saladin. Patton respected Rommel. Kirk respected Kor. In each case, the enemy was a worthy opponent. When your side can't even use technical terms correctly, we see you as tribbles--soft, whiny, destructive, and generally needing to be eradicated.
Delete