Originally Posted by
Spínola
A shooting is a chaotic event, especially in a constricted space, full of people, dark and where smoke grenades were launched. People would just start shooting anybody that had a gun or looked threatening due to the panic and very low visibility. Also how many of the people that have guns have real quality training? Just recently a cop shot his son by mistake because he thought he was a burglar in his house. That was a police officer with years of experience on the job, and yet you expect civilians to perform in a crazy situation like this?!
The problem is that you don't see it from the perspective of carriers. I know many, and one defining trait is that they view their guns and ccw permits as serious responsibilities. They have training, practice regularly, and are mentally prepared to protect themselves and others in a hostile encounter.
Yes, a theater is dark and the tear gas would make the scene confusing, but let's look at the information we have from the attack. He was fully decked out in tactical regalia and using an assault rifle. So he wasn't exactly trying to be inconspicuous. Also, we have numerous reports of eye witnesses seeing the attacker and reacting. From these descriptions alone we can see that a citizen with a firearm could make the competent decisions necessary to halt the attack.
The scenario you're projecting is a vision of chaos where a theater full of wannabe John Waynes pull out their pieces and start blasting each other. That's just completely unrealistic. And in the unlikely event that it occurred, it would still be infinitely more promising than a lone gunman in a room with a bunch of targets. They are lucky he didn't lock the doors and tell them to line up.
Sadly, this is the only type of gun-related news that gets much publicity. "Madman Slaughters Innocents" makes for better headlines than "Armed Citizen Stops Madman Before He Can Slaughter Innocents". Probably just a symptom of our violent nature. In any case, the latter headline is incredibly more common than the former. Lives are saved every day by responsible, law-abiding citizens.
Originally Posted by
Spínola
And your kids? do they carry guns themselves? How about your parents and grand parents? How about stray bullets? Are they wearing bullet proof vests? Will your wife hit the criminal or hit an innocent bystander? I believe that in your case she might have proper training, but do you think that applies to most gun owners?
I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make. That you can't be protected by a gun all the time? I acknowledge that. But are you saying that just because something might happen in a way you don't expect, you shouldn't be prepared for anything? That's like a woman saying "You know, a man trying to rape me might be too strong to stop, so I shouldn't even try learning self defense."
I don't have kids, and it's illegal for a child to possess or protect themselves with a pistol. However, a responsibly trained child with a firearm wouldn't be a travesty. The point is that guns are equalizers. It doesn't matter how big and strong a threatening person might be; a gun changes the entire dynamic of predator and victim. A woman, an elderly person, even a child. They all become the equal of the assailant, or more likely, with the training they've probably undertaken, superior to the assailant. A nation of armed women is a nation without rape, think on it.
Your assumption is that if guns were illegal, there would be less crime. But killing a bunch of people in a theater is also illegal. The guns are inconsequential to the crime. To outlaw firearms would only outlaw the right of the peaceful citizen to defend his or herself.
You'll see that in allegedly "progressive and forward-thinking" countries like England where guns are banned, the violent crime rates are much higher than in America. They still have all the rapes, robberies, and violence that we do. Just less women shouting "Back the fuck off, or I'll shoot!" Conversely, communities in America with a strong gun culture are among the safest in the nation.
Are most gun owners properly trained? I don't know. Concealed carriers though? Yes.
Originally Posted by
Spínola
It's not about having rights above those of a civilian, but a profession that requires them to be armed such as police officers.
But who decides who gets to be a police officer? A halo doesn't come with a badge. What you are doing is giving one person the power of coercion, complete control over another with the threat of violence as a deterrent to resistance. You are giving a person a right that you are denying to another. That very action creates a stratification of classes. The armed man, the complete man. And the denied man, the "civilian", the subhuman. What should a professed "peace officer" be if not our equal? Are we so low as to be stripped of our claws in a modern world with evils no less ruthless than in the world of our primal ancestors?
Our miscommunication is due to an incongruity of cultural and societal perspectives. I am an American. I research my history and heed the warnings of wise Americans who came before. I believe in individual liberty, the ideal that built this country even though its spirit now flickers around me. Please read the text of my 2nd Amendment and the second paragraph of my Declaration of Independence. And when you read them, don't just see the words; see the actions and events that led to creating them and the importance that was placed within them.
Originally Posted by
Spínola
I would say that the people that are making the real money here are the gun manufacturers, the NRA, the lobbyists and the bought politicians.
Yes. They're making tons of money. But not for the reasons you believe. It is the strict control of guns that stems the flow of wealth. They rely on the War on Guns as much as our "justice" system relies upon the War on Drugs.
Originally Posted by
Spínola
We clearly disagree on this. The U.S. is the most armed society in the world by far, with 90 guns per 100 people, and they are no where near the safest one.
Again, that's a skewed perspective. You're linking guns themselves as a catalyst to violence. Violence exists independently of firearms, which are merely tools with which it is dispensed. Violence, on the street or in the home can be categorized.
Robbery/Burglary - On the streets, it is mostly a symptom of poverty.
Murder - 1. Occurs as a companion to the former, 2. Domestically between family members or friends, 3. As a result of gang/drug disputes (a symptom of failed Prohibition), or 4. Perpetrated by sociopaths
Rape - Imagined inferiority and a lust for dominance wins over its conflict with virtue and morality, a symptom of cultural decay.
Coercion - Power corrupts, they say.
--Guns can be used in all of these forms of violence, and the quick and simple solution seems to involve taking guns away, as if it would solve these issues. In reality, the righteous solution to these societal ills is wholly more complicated than that. In order to reduce its proliferation, you must combat the root of each problem. That course of action isn't as glamorous or as controversial as blaming it on the guns, which of course, are not the problem but part of the answer.
I see a lot of people say "I wish guns didn't exist, but..." That kind of reactionary pontification is pointless. Guns do exist, and we must deal with it. Guns have changed nothing. Before them were swords and arrows, which were no less dangerous to the unarmed. And like in modern times, commoners in oppressed societies were most always forbidden to bear arms. Weapons are a symbol of power. The question is, who should wield power and who shouldn't? In my mind, everyone has that natural right, gifted them by their very existence as freethinking individuals.
Originally Posted by
Spínola
I am not trying to attack you here, we just disagree on what is the best way to keep our families and friends safe. We both are trying to keep them as safe as possible so much respect to you.
And respect to you for honoring my beliefs and for having a civil discussion about a subject with the potential to go wrong quickly. My right to have free and open conversations like this is also dearly important to me, and that's another reason why my right to keep and bear arms is even more important. Because every other right we have is just a collection of words without the power to protect them.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks