Me:
Once an idea has been deemed obviously "stupid" by the elite: no need to consider or discuss—therefore demonize, dismiss, mock, lampoon, satirize, and hope the unenlightened dimwits get the message. Shut down dialog before it can start. Typical tactics of the "open mind".
If you could have taken out the Sandy Hook murderer with a concealed handgun, would you have done it?
"Of course, but but but........"
CB:
Of course, but, but, but....
Who wouldn't have taken Lanza out if given the chance? This ain't freakin' Hollywood though. In Hollywood, the good guy with the gun always stops the bad guy and the bad guys are always really bad shots.
Reality, however, is that if a guy in body armor and a semi-auto gets the drop on you, you're dead. I don't care if you're armed or not. Reality is that there is inherent chaos and confusion in a mass shooting situation.
My Response
but but but...
There was a chance he could have been stopped if someone in the school had been armed.
There was no chance at all because no one was armed.
And, (in your mind) you have nullified that there ever will be a chance to stop this kind of armed assailant in the future by simply dismissing the whole concept of armed protection in schools and/or Concealed Carry as stupidity (and unallowable).
I have pointed out on FB that this concept has worked in Israel, it's being considered by several state & local governments, and I recently found county in Colorado that has had an armed volunteer guard program implemented for the last 10 years. Imagine that.
I've said it before: The President, public officials, celebrities, public events, Bingo halls, banks, car lots, etc. get armed security... But all our kids get is a "No guns allowed" poster at the school entrance? Even the Social Security offices have guards in case a welfare recipient goes off because they can't get their check!
It's ok for the President's and other politician's, etc. kids to go to schools with armed security, but not ours? Hypocrisy abounds.
The salient points made, please note if you wish to continue:
Who wouldn't have taken Lanza out if given the chance?
FAIL. You'd have needed a firearm, and been allowed to carry it in the school to do that. Which you are against!
...if a guy in body armor and a semi-auto gets the drop on you, you're dead. I don't care if you're armed or not. Reality is that there is inherent chaos and confusion in a mass shooting situation.
You do know that it is now reported that Lanza was NOT wearing body armor. “It was a fishing type vest, a jacket with a lot of pockets; it was not a bullet-proof vest,” [state police spokesman Lt. J. Paul] Vance said.
Regardless, body armor does not suddenly turn someone into Iron Man. Bullets don't simply bounce off without affecting the target. Depending on the type of armor (and the type of round fired into it), it may or may not stop penetration, and it's highly likely that it's going to really hurt and/or knock you down even if it doesn't go through. Disorient you at the least.
A guardian carrying concealed is going to have the tactical advantage in the chaos of a mass shooting. The assailant will likely not see him or her coming. The assailant may or may not "get the drop" on them (but again, without an armed guard on site at all there is NO CHANCE of stopping a mass murderer).
I've seen video of this in action, CC defender takes out assailant or runs them off without firing a shot simply via the element of surprise. Virtually all mass murderers shoot themselves when they are finally confronted with an armed opponent. So take your conclusions and... turn them into assumptions.
What Wayne LaPierre never mentioned is that there *have been* armed bystanders at previous mass shootings. In several cases, they completely failed to stop the shootings. In other cases they limited the damage, but certainly did not stop it from occurring. A person on a rampage could easily get off 5-10 shots before anybody could even unholster their weapons and return fire.
Several cases where CC bystanders were on-site? Really? There haven't been that many mass shootings over the last decade, I would be interested in the stats. Regardless, (and yet again) there's NO CHANCE of stopping one of these idiots if there is NO ONE armed to take them out. Which is the better option, chance to save lives or NO POSSIBILITY?
In other cases they limited the damage, but certainly did not stop it from occurring.
So they "limited the damage", i.e. they saved some lives? A CCW holder saved lives. Thank you for being there, having your permit, carrying your concealed firearm, and SAVING SOMEBODY FROM A MURDERER.
A person on a rampage could easily get off 5-10 shots before anybody could even unholster their weapons and return fire.
How is this relevant? How in the world are these statements relevant??
You don't want armed guardians in schools because: they might not be able to save lives, or they might not be able to save all lives, or they might not be able to draw fast enough? You're not making your case at all. And here's a completely unassailable fact:
Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.Their [Landes' & Lott's] study controlled for age, sex, race, unemployment, retirement, poverty rates, state population, murder arrest rates, violent crime rates, and on and on.
The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.
Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.
I know that there are millions of self-styled and self-believing James Bonds and John Waynes out there who are eager and ready to defend us all from robbers, terrorists, roving mobs, hoards of zombies, or the Obama administration.
Really? You know this? Did you take a poll? Find this is an academic study? How do you "know" that these "millions" see themselves as Bond or Wayne? Your implication is, they are delusional. Millions of delusional Americans with guns.
There's really no need to go any further at this point. There never was a dialog was there? So much for the oft called for "open-minded discussion". Feel free to stop reading here, and I shouldn't bother to continue. I do so not on your behalf, but for others whose mindset might not be so narrow.
People can come up with all sorts of creative scenarios to justify why they just have to own an AR-15 and high capacity clips. Of course, such scenarios inevitably devolve into paranoid fantasies and, yes, they richly deserve the mocking that they receive.
You would mock the Korean shop-keepers that kept the mobs & looters from destroying their lives and livelihood during the Rodney King (and other) riots? You think it's funny to have to guard your life, home, or business from looters in the aftermath of natural disasters. You think these are fantasy situations? Look outside the small retirement community you live in, there is a larger world, others have determined they have defensive needs beyond your own. That is their call to make. They are within their rights to own these firearms whether you like it or not--until you unconstitutionally remove that right.
Rifles account for virtually NO murders (statistically speaking). "But you don't need these guns." But, why does it concern you that people own them when they are virtually never used in committing crimes? You don't need a hammer, or a pocket knife, or a baseball bat--all of which can be used to assault one or more individuals. "Yes I do! I do household repairs (hammer); I go camping (pocket knife), I play baseball (bat). I need these things."
"I defend my life & property, I need my rifle."
There are 60% MORE murders committed by "Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)" including "pushing" [yes, pushing!] then there were by rifles in 2009, according to the FBI statistics. 801 vs 348 (rifles)
Ban Martial Arts? Or, (as the old cliche goes) "register your hands as lethal weapons?"
I have said it before, I will say it again...I see no *reasonable* justification whatsoever for weapons that can mow down dozens of people at a time. A ban on high capacity magazines is a no-brainer.
"Mow down." Media buzz words. These aren't machine guns we are talking about. If you want to be taken seriously, speak accurately.
Banning "high capacity magazines"? How did 10-rounds become the standard in Feinstein's bill? Why 10? Why not 6 or 11 or 15? If I'm defending myself against a bad guy or multiple attackers, I want as many rounds as my weapon can reasonably hold without hindering it's usability or functionality. I make the determination on how many rounds I need (until your bans pass).
Well, your justification isn't needed for others to exercise their Second Amendment rights, just as theirs isn't needed for you to exercise your First Amendment rights. But if you need examples of why someone might choose a scary black rifle as a defensive weapon system, see above. Or, better yet, consider the myriad accounts of genocide that have occurred just in the last century or so. It is far easier to rid yourself of undesirables if they are DISARMED first.
Nothing like that could ever happen in the U.S. except to, hmm, let's see, the Mormons? Native Americans? Blacks in the post Civil War south (the KKK were instigators of some of the first gun control laws--to get firearms out of the hands of black Americans)? The Japanese-American internment during WWII?
Tyranny can occur at many levels: From someone trying to rob you; Gang extortion; Rioters looting, pillaging, assaulting, murdering; Your neighbors trying to confiscate your land/property or kill you for your religion or ethnicity; Your government trying to make you "disappear" because you are deemed a threat (see the NDAA--U.S. citizens may be picked up and held indefinitely without any recourse, a clearly egregious violation of the Bill of Rights).
Now I am going to the heart of the Second Amendment. Your oft repeated line is something about the Founding Fathers never envisioning "assault rifles" in the hands of the populace. And, that they had muskets, not semi-autos.
You know what they thought and had? They thought that in order to maintain the proper balance of power the people should have the means to defend themselves and their states against the possible tyranny of an over-reaching central government. What they had to do that with were the "assault weapons" of their day: muskets, cannons, flint-lock pistols, swords & sabres. Who owned them? Why that would be the citizenry of the states, kept in their homes. And yes, they felt very strongly about this matter because they lived through it. The tyranny, oppression, the fight for freedom against the British. Been there, done that, don't want it to happen again if we can help it--Second Amendment.
Did they think an unarmed populace might possibly face something like that again from within? You bet. Did they want them to be prepared with the means to keep themselves free? Absolutely.
Oh, but we live in 2013. That thinking is so outdated. Nothing like that's going to happen today in the U.S. We're too enlightened. Too advanced a society. You have no need to keep such weaponry in your home. Besides, what would that be against the technological might of the army? (As if that is even a relevant question--but since we bring it up, irregulars have been pretty effective at holding off organized troops, or we wouldn't still be fighting a decade long "war", would we? Ever see the movie Defiance? True story that.)
Can't happen. Conspiracy theory. Stupid "prepper" paranoia. (Millions of) DELUSIONAL wannabes. Obama haters. Demonize, mock, dismiss...
NOW maybe you understand my jab that since you feel the way you do that your ilk should repeal the Second Amendment? If we don't need these kinds of firearms to defend ourselves anymore because nothing like the above can ever happen in our lifetime than WHY DO WE NEED IT?
But the disarming of America will be incremental, and you know that. Politics dictate that it occur this way--a direct attempt at repeal would fail. Can't defeat it head on, there's always another way.
What about the ramifications beyond our lifetime. Look beyond the narrow present. What about the future when we're long dead? Disarm now, no chance for your posterity later. It's utterly myopic to think that "all will be well" just because all is (supposedly) well now.
There are reports that Nancy Lanza identified as a "prepper". Doubtless, she *FELT* safer with her arsenal in the house. Didn't quite turn out that way, did it? Weapons, particularly assault weapons, might provide the illusion of safety, but in reality they do nothing of the sort. Study after study after study has identified a correlation between guns and gun deaths.
Those "preppers". They are a clear menace to society. Label, ridicule, demonize. It's right out of the Alinsky handbook (see rule 5). You definitely have that one down pat as many of your FB posts clearly demonstrate (and as you frankly admit here, "...they richly deserve the mocking that they receive.")
[Your firearms]... might provide the illusion of safety, but in reality they do nothing of the sort. So much for your shotgun as a home defense system (if you even seriously considered it as such in the first place). By your own statements, if you believe them, you should get rid of your guns. Guns are weapons. Guns are dangerous things. We don't need them.
Study after study after study has identified a correlation between guns and gun deaths.
Brilliant!
Well, back to your own "arsenal". You don't need them for defense (since that is an "illusion" and you only delude yourself into thinking they make you safer). You also don't need them for hunting either, since you have grocery stores. You need to rid yourself of them.
"Live by the sword, die by the sword"...or, in this case....the gun.
