Another Gun Nut pulls his gun in a crowded grocery store!

Post Reply
Wandering Through
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:17 am
Location: U.S.A
Contact:

Another Gun Nut pulls his gun in a crowded grocery store!

Post by Wandering Through » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:34 pm

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bio ... CM9dQ.cspx

:clap:



I've enjoyed reading the other couple of "gun nut" :roll: threads while lurking here the past couple of weeks. There have been more than a few thoughtful comments, and I like to see opposing points of view when they are backed up by thoughtful reflection rather than knee-jerk hysteria (although there has been, and I suppose always will be, some of that). Over the years, through contemplation of the opinions of those I disagreed with, I've changed my positions considerably on things such as the death penalty and abortion. Obviously, a tragedy of the proportion seen in Aurora gives everyone pause for thought no matter their position.

So, I thought I would post another "gun nut" :roll: thread. This time, thankfully, the circumstances and outcome are much, much different. I'm afraid I don't have much time to post any meaningful thoughts of my own right now, but I am eagerly looking forward to seeing the thoughts of those who seemingly have nothing but contempt for firearms and those who own/carry them. And since it is hard to tell on "teh interwebz", I am being quite sincere about this. Is there ever a time or circumstance when someone who detests private firearm ownership can say "I'm glad that citizen had a gun". Or can the "badness" of private gun ownership never be outweighed by any amount of "goodness" done with one?



Oh, and Hello, everyone! :cheers:

User avatar
Kristie
Elastigirl
Posts: 25108
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:14 pm
About me: From there to here, and here to there, funny things are everywhere!
Location: Probably at Target
Contact:

Re: Another Gun Nut pulls his gun in a crowded grocery store

Post by Kristie » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:36 pm

Welcome!

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Another Gun Nut pulls his gun in a crowded grocery store

Post by Seth » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:39 pm

I've always maintained that on the day that the deranged nutcase with a gun, or a knife, comes after a radical hoplophobe (like Hillary Clinton or Josh Sugarman) they will, one and all, be pissing their pants and praying that there's someone like me around to save their sorry asses.

I've not met one who's willing to be honest and admit it however. They always have some lame excuse as to why they would never be in that situation (Hillary has Secret Service protection, and Sugarman has private armed security guards) or they argue that the police would be there to save them.

Dumb motherfuckers.... :fp:
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Another Gun Nut pulls his gun in a crowded grocery store

Post by Jason » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:47 pm

The issue ant-gun activists like to harp on about is one of 'escalation'. They say without guns there's be less gun crime. This is somewhat true - in a nanny state that keeps its citizens under their boot heel at all times.

In the real world criminals and nutters have no trouble obtaining firearms because they create a market. Where there's a market 'capitalism' will move in to make a buck. They aren't following the niceties of gun-control laws. They're still armed. This leaves the honest, law-abiding, citizen largely defenseless against the predation of these hooligans. Unless you live in a well policed urban area, this is a big fucking problem. I live in the central interior of BC - the nearest 'city' is 60km away. The next nearest RCMP outpost is also 60km away in the other direction. I have a response time, at best, of 20-30 minutes. In other words, I'm on my own. Ringing the coppers will not help me. Especially if I'm already shot, beaten or stabbed. Absolutely everyone around here is armed - it's a necessity of living here. Those anti-gun advocates live in a coccoon of urban protection and reinforce their opinion with street violence which they think could be rectified by more stringent gun-control (also absurd because, as previously stated, criminals do not follow gun-control laws. They are criminals) and then go on to extrapolate this bogus hypothesis to apply the the entire country, if not the world.

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Another Gun Nut pulls his gun in a crowded grocery store

Post by Jason » Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:48 pm

Hey Seth, you still got that 1894 Winchester? :ask:

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: Another Gun Nut pulls his gun in a crowded grocery store

Post by Rum » Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:16 pm

I don't mind ant guns so much. Its the big fuckers I hate. :smug:

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Another Gun Nut pulls his gun in a crowded grocery store

Post by Seth » Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:45 pm

PordFrefect wrote:The issue ant-gun activists like to harp on about is one of 'escalation'. They say without guns there's be less gun crime. This is somewhat true - in a nanny state that keeps its citizens under their boot heel at all times.

In the real world criminals and nutters have no trouble obtaining firearms because they create a market. Where there's a market 'capitalism' will move in to make a buck. They aren't following the niceties of gun-control laws. They're still armed. This leaves the honest, law-abiding, citizen largely defenseless against the predation of these hooligans. Unless you live in a well policed urban area, this is a big fucking problem. I live in the central interior of BC - the nearest 'city' is 60km away. The next nearest RCMP outpost is also 60km away in the other direction. I have a response time, at best, of 20-30 minutes. In other words, I'm on my own. Ringing the coppers will not help me. Especially if I'm already shot, beaten or stabbed. Absolutely everyone around here is armed - it's a necessity of living here. Those anti-gun advocates live in a coccoon of urban protection and reinforce their opinion with street violence which they think could be rectified by more stringent gun-control (also absurd because, as previously stated, criminals do not follow gun-control laws. They are criminals) and then go on to extrapolate this bogus hypothesis to apply the the entire country, if not the world.
As the events in Aurora prove (again) conclusively, even living in a well-policed urban area isn't enough. The police were on scene within 180 seconds, but it was already too late for most of those killed.

Once again, for the cognitively impaired: When some deranged nutter starts shooting, you don't have six minutes (average response time for police nationwide), you don't have three minutes (superb response time in rare cases), you don't have one minute (unheard of response time...it takes longer for the call to make it through the dispatch system under optimal circumstances), you're lucky if you have six seconds. Most likely you have a second or two to do something to save your life and/or the lives of others, so if you don't have the tools for armed response on your person and immediately available, you're fucked.

There's a lot of commentary flying about surrounding the issue of collateral damage from armed citizens engaging a shooter to "innocent victims." Two things should be noted: First, I've never heard of any instances where an armed citizen using a firearm for self defense has inadvertently shot a bystander. Second, in a situation like the Aurora attack, people are being killed anyway, so the "choice of evils" calculus takes effect. It's a principle of law that says that (in this case) if you as a private armed citizen (or a police officer for that matter) take on an armed shooter who is spraying the crowd with bullets and you inadvertently kill or injury someone behind him or beside him or who darts into your bullet's path, you can argue that the gravity and danger of the situation and the need to engage the shooter in order to save your own and other lives outweighed the potential danger to others because without your intervention even more people are likely to be shot and killed. This is called the "choice of evils" defense, and the police operate under the same rules as an armed citizen in that regard.

I guarantee you that any officer who made it into the auditorium while the shooter was still standing and shooting would have engaged him immediately, per protocol, regardless of the potential for inadvertently hitting someone else. That's precisely the lesson that police departments learned from Columbine.

And they (or I) would be both morally and legally justified in taking that risk under those circumstances.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Another Gun Nut pulls his gun in a crowded grocery store

Post by Seth » Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:03 pm

PordFrefect wrote:Hey Seth, you still got that 1894 Winchester? :ask:
You mean the 12 gauge? Yeah. I like it for home defense because you can "slam fire" it. For the uninitiated, the model 1894 Winchester shotgun is a pump-action shotgun with an exposed hammer that does not have the modern sear disconnector parts that prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin until the trigger has been released and pulled a second time after the prior shot. In the model 1894, you can hold the trigger back and cycle the action as fast as you can and the gun will fire every time it goes into battery (the bolt locks up with a new round in the chamber). It's favored in Cowboy Action Shooting because a) it fits the rule that all guns must have been designed (though not necessarily manufactured...mine was made in 1954) prior to 1900; and b) it cycles faster than modern pump shotguns because you don't have to remember to release the trigger between shots.

Interestingly, the model 1894 was configured as a trench-warfare shotgun, including a short-barreled version, during WWI, and remained popular with soldiers in WWII for that reason.

This is important because one of the seminal gun-rights cases so often mis-cited by gun rights opponents is U.S. Miller, where the Supreme Court held (contrary to anti-gun assertion) that the most-protected type of firearms under the 2nd Amendment are those firearms "suitable for the individual soldier," which should include sawed-off shotguns, which have been commonly used by soldiers since before WWI. In Miller, the defendants were convicted of illegally possessing two sawed-off shotguns under the National Firearms Act of 1934. On appeal to the Supreme Court however, neither Miller nor his cohort appeared, and the Court upheld the NFA's regulation of short shotguns (which are legal, but you have to pay a tax to the feds and register it) because, and ONLY BECAUSE no evidence was provided to the Court AT THAT TIME showing that short shotguns were part of the ordinary military equipment of soldiers, even though that is demonstrably and factually the case. The Court could have taken judicial notice (on it's own authority) that such shotguns were in fact an ordinary part of the military arsenal for hundreds of years, but it chose not to, for political reasons. Instead, they upheld the NFA regulation simply because nobody on Miller's side bothered to present any of the reams of information proving that short shotguns are part of a soldiers panoply of "arms."

What Miller ACTUALLY said, contrary again to what the anti-gun pundits claim, is that those arms that ARE part of the ordinary arms of the soldier ARE (in part) specifically those types of arms that ARE protected by the 2nd Amendment, which of course was the intent of the Founders, who depended on the availability of privately-owned arms to arm and supplement Militia members when called to duty.

So, it's a bit ironic that the very model of shotgun I have is one of the proofs that shotguns of all descriptions are within the ambit of the 2nd Amendment, including sawed-off shotguns. All we have to do is get the Court to revisit Miller today and the outcome would be radically different for both short shotguns, short rifles, and machine guns, which are CLEARLY "ordinary arms of the soldier."

And that would mean repeal of the NFA.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests