Sunday, December 16, 2012

Death Row Nation

This piece from the Onion pretty well sums up how I'm feeling right now. The pro-gun lobby has decided the best course of action is for the rest of us to just sit quietly and wait for our emotionally troubled excutioner to arrive.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/right-to-live-life-in-complete-stunned-horror-adde,30749/

19 comments:

free0352 said...

Well I suppose you could always consider protecting yourself. Ah nah, who am I kidding. Expecting a self preservation instinct out of liberals is asking too much of them. These are people who think individuals shouldn't be responsible alone for providing themselves with basic needs and that we need a life "safety net."

Heck, if putting food on the table is a lot to them, saving their own asses is like asking them to walk on water.

Its so cute, as if you just had some "common sense gun control" this wouldn't happen anymore. Ha! All it would do is disarm someone like me, who actually has the motivation to save his own ass.

jim marquis said...

I think you're being highly unrealistic about how fast a teacher or a principal or a guy who works at the movie theatre or the mall is going to react in one of these situations. The shooter has the advantage of surprise and is the only person in the situation who doesn't care if an innocent person gets killed in the crossfire.

And this isn't about just liberals anymore. There will be more of these mass shootings in the future and each one will cause more moderates and conservatives to stop and wonder why military style weapons are so readily available.

free0352 said...

Well, lets think about stray rounds for a minute. Which is better.

A: Gunman enters school, shoots two children, teacher engages gunman killing him, but hits and kills a student. Death toll 3 kids, 1 bad guy.

B: Gunman enters school, people run away defenseless, gunman goes on killing for however long it takes for him to decide to kill himself.

Pick one.

As for being ambushed, I'm pretty sure I'm more of an authority on what that is like than you are. I mean really, I've been ambushed by people with belt fed weapons and RPGs. I'm still here. In fact, in most cases when pressed, and active shooters more often than not immediately commit suicide.

And military style weapons were not used in any of these cases. In this last one, the technology was over 80 years old.

jim marquis said...

That's a ridiculous comparison...you're an experienced combat veteran. A first grade teacher or the guy who runs the AT&T kiosk at the mall isn't going to react nearly as quick or decisively as you would.

Okay, don't call them military style weapons. But they're sure as hell not something you take deer hunting.

free0352 said...

There are a hell od a lot of veteran teachers for starters. Second, shooting is shooting. We in the military dont get magical powers when we get out of boot camp. We had to practice and a civilian can do that just as well as a soldier. In fact when it comes to pistols many civilians run rings arround mil guys because the military doest take pistol shooting very seriously. As for weapon systems most active shooters have used double action pistols, a 100 year old technology.

free0352 said...

Also jim i can see you really dont uderstand the mindset of most gun owners or why more people every day, especially women, become gun owners
They dont think "gee, thid bad thing happened i should surrender part of my right to bear arms." What they think is "holy shit there are some crazy people in this world, i need a new/better gun" these incidents always boost gun sales, especially first time buyers. And when they go get their ccws, we instructors stear them right into the NRA.

free0352 said...

The second ammendment btw has nothing to do with dear hunting.

clif said...

as a veteran, including time as an MP I certainly wouldnb't want to walk into a stand off where many gun toting people are shooting it outy and try to decide who is the bad guys, because you have to react quickly when the bullets are flying.

Most people who advocate more guns is the answer do not consider the places where gangs in the US have also adopted that attitude.

VERY DANGEROUS PLACES, and MORE guns will just make them MORE DANGEROUS.

clif said...

Christmas Eve

free0352 said...

Granted as an MP you didnt work the hood but you know good and well if you did you wouldnt go there without at least your M9. Well what do you think people who live there are doing?

As for target discrimination that is on you. However, everyone with a cpl knows when you see those blue and red lights to put your weapon on the ground and let the pros handle it.

clif said...

Granted as an MP you didnt work the hood but you know good and well if you did you wouldnt go there without at least your M9.

Funny your response totally ignores the reality that what the NRA gun fetishists propose IS the hood. a place where lots of people have guns and what it looks like when they do and can independently decide when and who to shoot at. On person's enemy is another's friend for many many different reasons.

Another place where this was played out is the very famous Hatfield and McCoy feud, where guns were used to right wrongs for far too many years. Not the hood but same type of gun fueled hyper-violence happened there.

Not the type of America I want for either of my daughters or soon to be granddaughter.

However, everyone with a cpl knows when you see those blue and red lights to put your weapon on the ground and let the pros handle it.

as usual seems a limited mind set.

Before the cops arrive how do any individual deal with another's accidental miss?

As exactly that, or as a additional adversary?

The violence could very easily escalate because of mistakes of judgement from not knowing who was the real bad actors and who was just missing their target.

How many of the shootings have more then one person suspected before all the facts were determined after the shooting ended.

"cpl" training doesn't even begin to address those situation because it is NOT sufficient training for such situations, ask any SWAT team member the type of intense training they go through.

adding uninformed gun owners to a live shooting situation will not end as most people fictionalise after the fact.

The Gabby Giffords shooting had quite a few gun owners carrying but never had any effect on the outcome in the end.

You cannot know when the shooting is in action who is trying to stop the shooting and who is a second, or third actor.

Nobody could, which is why you admitted the rule supposedly is drop the weapon when the cops show up.

free0352 said...

propose IS the hood

No, its a response to it. And its a response that works. Crime has dropped everywhere shall issue CCW permits are issued.

Not the type of America I want for either of my daughters or soon to be granddaughter.

Its the America you've got. You can choose to defend yourself in it, or outsource that to someone else. Good luck waiting on that 16 minute response time when some lunatic is kicking in your door.

"cpl" training doesn't even begin to address those situation because it is NOT sufficient training for such situations

Its enough to teach people to put guns on the ground when they see blue and red lights. This is not a difficult skill.

ask any SWAT team member the type of intense training they go through.

Okay, we'll do that right now. "Self, is that enough training to know when law enforcement shows up you need to put the fire arm on the ground and place your hands on top of your head and interlock your finders. Yes."

There you go. I asked one. I was on the high risk warrant team for 2 years at my Sheriff's Department and specialized in Active Shooter, Barricaded Suspect, and High Risk Warrant. Just a few months ago as I was closing out my US Army service I helped work out the OPORD for Active Shooter for the QRF of a major Army base. I'm pretty familiar with this stuff. I teach it for a living.

adding uninformed gun owners to a live shooting situation will not end as most people fictionalise after the fact

BS, responsible armed civilians are a force multiplier for law enforcement. Average body count for LE responding to active shooter is between 12 and 18. When civilians respond on scene body count averages 0-4, and most active shooters when pushed in over 80% of cases immediately commit suicide. Even if the person pushing through that objective isn't LE. I guess you missed that class at Lenardwood.

The Gabby Giffords shooting had quite a few gun owners carrying but never had any effect on the outcome in the end.

And there were a lot of police officers standing right outside the latest Colorado shooting. Fat lot of good they did. So whats your point?

You cannot know when the shooting is in action who is trying to stop the shooting and who is a second, or third actor.

Officers are trained to target discriminate. You have to deal with plain clothes officers all the time on the street in civilian LE. If you can avoid shooting them, you can avoid shooting a civilian who will drop a gun before you even see them.

Responsible armed citizens will not replace law enforcement any more than they will replace the Army. But they can be wicked force multipliers. Fact is, responsible armed citizens shoot bad guys dead on a daily basis, and save thousands of lives (often their own) every year.

















clif said...

Either your being purposely dishonest or cannot read.

The people I am talking about is the ones YOU want shooting before the cops get there.

They do not have the training or experience to do so.
Screech more guns are the answer, and you will end up with more gun violence.

That is simply the truth.

free0352 said...

They do not have the training or experience to do so.

No, I don't think so. Guns are used many thousands of times a year for self defense, and the attackers in many instances are quite dead after. Those results contradict your above statement.

clif said...

Guns are used many thousands of times a year for self defense, and the attackers in many instances are quite dead after.

Usually in one on one instances, NOT where a determined and prepared attacker with assault weapons and wearing protective vests are committing mass murder.

Those results contradict your above statement.

Wrong because you erected a strawman argument that does not relate to what I was discussing. Right wing trolls do this daily when forced to face facts that run counter to their NRA right wing talking points. The exact tactic you used here.

EPIC FAIL though.

free0352 said...

NOT where a determined and prepared attacker with assault weapons and wearing protective vests are committing mass murder.

The Pearl High School shooting took place on October 1, 1997 at Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. 16 year old Luke Woodham, killed two students and injured seven others at his high school. Before the shooting at Pearl High School began, Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned his mother to death and took his father's guns.

Wow, sound familiar? Well, this is the difference between this incident and the latest active shooter.

Pearl High School assistant band director, Jeff Cannon, was standing five feet away from Dew when she was fatally shot. Woodham went on to wound seven others before leaving, intending to drive off campus and conduct another shooting at the nearby Pearl Junior High School. However, assistant principal Joel Myrick had retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham inside his mother's car.

Had only Joel Myrick had that gun on him in the school the loss of life would have been even less.

I got a million of these stories, so do you want me to continue? I can do this all day.

clif said...

Was Luke Woodham wearing a protective vest?

I bet not.

free0352 said...

Does it matter? I've been shot wearing a SAPI plate with a quarter inch of kevlar behind it and trust me, while it didn't penetrate and it probably saved my ass, I STILL WENT DOWN HARD.

And at 4000 bucks a pop, I don't see too many EMO kids getting ahold of these things.

And of course, vests don't protect from headshots.

clif said...

I don't see too many EMO kids getting ahold of these things.


Both the recent Colorado shooter and the Newton shooter were wearing the vests ...

So yer thunkin' .... is wrong again .... as usual.