Far more likely is the prospect of tragedy resulting from random possession of firearms... [More]
"Far more likely"?
How much more?
You just made a definitive assertion, stated as fact. Like you know something.
Care to cite your source?
Do you have one?
Or do you have expertise in the field that makes you an authority? Credentials, please?
Or is it "far more likely" you're just another subversive pinko hoplophobic enuretic mantrap placeholder, who would be utterly useless to yourself and all others if a Cho-clone ever entered your little "gun free" imaginary bubble and turned his attention to you and yours...?
And who better to consult for his expert opinion than one of the helpless victims?
Good grief.
[Via Mike H]
9 comments:
just what is random possession, anyways?
do people also randomly own toasters?
"you know, it's funny, i don't really like bread except when it's cold and soft. but the advertisements were everywhere, and it was just after christmas, i'd already got a bunch of six-inch rolled up pieces of aluminum foil waiting at home on the counter and i really just couldn't withhold my lust for self-destructive behavior any longer. i guess you could say i'm a random toaster owner, and that i've put myself and others in danger!"
"The killers were highly unlikely to have been stopped by a shooter without special training".
As a college student in Boston, the state university provided me with a NRA Basic Pistol Marksmanship course taught by a Physics professor, which taught me to consistantly shoot 1" groups at distance. My question is, how many killers vs. how many college students like me?
If I was in a classroom, legally carrying a pistol of my choice, and saw a rifle carried or pistol drawn with the intent to harm other students or the professor, how many seconds would elapse before the double tap to the 3" triangle between the eyes and nose would drop the first one before proceeding to the next one (repeat as necessary)?
If I was unarmed and knew that I would be shot if I did nothing, then I would at least do something to slow the shooters down. Multiply that by other like-minded students and the results change. Now, shooters like Cho know that opposition will be minimal. Too many are conditioned to call the police and wait for their response. Duck and cover does not work in this situation. If someone at least pulled a fire alarm, then the rest of the building would be evacuated.
Well good for him. I can assume nobody died at VT, right?
I mean, after all, Cho couldn't have been effective, he didn't have "special" training.
So dig all those kids up and send their lazy asses back to class.
Two-hand interlocking grip, focus on front sight, align with vital area of target, Front sight reminder, PRESS trigger.
All the "special training" you need.
So it would be BAD if, say, I, as a counter-murderer shooter, were incapacitated and someone who had never knowingly been within 10 feet of a gun picked mine up and did what they've seen in the movies, and obliterated Cho II?
Couldn't happen with a personalized "smart gun"...
Like I said yesterday, every one of my guns was considered, debated, weighed, measured and found desirable. Nothing random about them. Nothing random about my shot placement either. Hostage drills are fun. You know, in the movies, where the cop is tortured because he didn't take the headshot at 10 feet and the criminal used the hostage as a human shield and got away, to kill again?
Practice hitting the bad guy's eye that you can see around the hostage's head. You'll surprise yourself. You'll certainly surprise a hostage-taker, seeing as how "handguns are only accurate enough to hit a man-size target at 10 to 20 feet," which is why they say you need (government-sanctioned) "special training."
I'm with jon,
How the hell do you randomly possess a firearm?
Irrational, obsessed and swift, the killers were highly unlikely to have been stopped by a shooter without special training -- and virtually certain to have been undeterred by the absence of a ban on guns.
OK, let's say a shooter isn't deterred. I can guarantee that if there were no ban, there would be guns in hands other than the shooter's. Those people want to live more than the shooter wants them to die. Their rounds would hit their marks.
Even if we assume that the person shooting in defense doesn't go to the range and maybe has picked up someone else's gun after an unfortunate incident, I can't believe that they wouldn't hit paydirt with what's in the cylinder or magazine of the firearm they're holding. We're not talking 25 yards here, we're probably talking seven and we're not looking for head shots.
I'm just a music teacher, but isn't "random possession" what you get when you don't have trained and permitted people carrying lawfully?
- MichigammeDave
I wouldn't know.
Back in California, when I was forced to make a choice between obeying the disarmament tyrants or claiming my unalienable right to defend myself and my loved ones, that is, when I was forced to surrender and obey-- or die-- I chose life.
The result is I'm still here and so are my wife and kids. And hey, thanks to the presence of a gun--my gun-- discouraging violence, so are the multiple assailants. At least they haven't left this world by my hand.
Too bad I couldn't hold them for the police. If I had, I'd have spent the night in the holding tank with them, or with people equally as scary. And I'd have no doubt suffered further legal repercussions, not to mention probably having to spend everything I had in legal fees. Plus it may have prompted some to feel they had nothing to lose by attacking, and with an infant on hand...well, it just seemed best at the time if we used the opportunity to just get the hell out of there.
So you'll forgive me if this "permitted carrying lawfully" wording seems a bit alien to me.
I've not yet met the man who was morally authorized to give me permission in such matters.
Post a Comment