Re: Talking Points for the "STUPID" about gun control
This is what we are up against, no matter how sound our facts are, how logical our points, the far left gun hating idiots will NEVER change their point of view.
These people are truly beyond attempting to educate or salvage
Take a look at some of their propaganda and responses below:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings
Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.
Five cases commonly cited as a rationale for arming Americans don't stand up to scrutiny.
—By Mark Follman | Wed Dec. 19, 2012 3:01 AM PST
749
Pack Shot/Shutterstock
In the wake of the unthinkable massacre in Connecticut, pro-gun ideologues are once again calling for ordinary citizens to arm themselves as a solution to mass shootings. If only the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School had possessed a M-4 assault rifle she could've stopped the killer, they say. This latest twist on a long-running argument isn't just absurd on its face; there is no evidence to support it. As I reported recently in our in-depth investigation, not one of the 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way. More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to intervene in shooting rampages are rare—and are successful even more rarely. (Two people who tried it in recent years were gravely wounded or killed.) And law enforcement overwhelmingly hates the idea.
Those pesky facts haven't stopped the "arm America more!" crowd from pressing the argument with alleged examples of successful armed interventions. The problem is, the few examples they keep using—in which they depict plain old folks acting heroically and with definitive results—fall apart under scrutiny. Here are five of them and why they don't work:
Appalachian School of Law shooting in Grundy, Virginia
Gun rights die-hards frequently credit the end of a rampage at the law school in 2002 to armed "students" who intervened. They conveniently ignore that those students also happened to be current and former law enforcement officers, and that the killer, according to police investigators, was out of ammunition by the time they got to him.
Tragedy in Newtown
Read our two-month investigation: More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence?
A Guide to Mass Shootings in America
What Happened in the Newtown School Shooting
Mass Shootings: Maybe What We Need Is a Better Mental-Health Policy
No More Newtowns: What Will It Take?
WATCH: Newtown Residents Gather to Mourn and Reflect
Middle school dance shooting in Edinboro, Pennsylvania
An ambiguous case from 1998, in which the shooter may well have already been done shooting: After killing a teacher and wounding three others, the 14-year-old perpetrator left the dance venue. The owner of the venue followed him outside with a shotgun, confronting and subduing him in a nearby field until police arrived. The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, who himself recently argued for more guns as an answer to gun violence, told me this week that one police source he talked to about this case said that it was "not clear at all" whether the kid had intended to do any further shooting after he'd left the building.
High school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi
Another case, from 1997, in which the shooting was apparently already over: After killing two and wounding seven inside Pearl High School, the 16-year-old perpetrator left the building and went outside near the parking lot. The assistant principal—who was also a member of the Army Reserve—ran out to his own vehicle, grabbed a handgun he kept there, and then approached the shooter, subduing him at gunpoint until authorities arrived.
New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colorado
In 2007 a gunman killed two people and wounded three others before being shot himself; the pro-gun crowd likes to refer to the woman who took him out in the parking lot as a "church member." Never mind that she was a security officer for the church and a former cop, and that the church had put its security team on high alert earlier that day due to another church shooting nearby.
Bar shooting in Winnemucca, Nevada
In 2008, a gunman who killed two and wounded two others was taken out by another patron in the bar, who was carrying with a valid permit. But this was no regular Joe with a concealed handgun: The vigilante, who was not charged after authorities determined he'd committed a justifiable homicide, was a US Marine.
AND WHAT ABOUT CASES in which citizens try to use their guns and things go terribly wrong? There are at least two examples of ill-fated attempts that you won't see mentioned by those arguing for your kid's teacher to start stashing a loaded Glock in her classroom:
Shopping mall shooting in Tacoma, Washington
As a rampage unfolded in 2005, a civilian with a concealed-carry permit named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with his handgun. The shooter pumped several bullets into McKown, wounding six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.
Courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas
In 2005, a civilian named Mark Wilson, who was a firearms instructor, fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47.
Such actions in chaotic situations don't just put the well-intentioned citizen at risk, of course. According to Robert McMenomy, an assistant special agent in charge in the San Francisco division of the FBI, they increase the danger for innocent bystanders. (Exhibit A: the gun-wielding guy who came really close to shooting an innocent person as the Tucson massacre unfolded.) They also make it more difficult for law enforcement officers to do their jobs. "In a scenario like that," McMenomy told me in a recent conversation, "they wouldn't know who was good or who was bad, and it would divert them from the real threat."
Solrac The Barbarian
12/19/2012 03:22 AM
I can imagine a gun shot going off in a dark movie theater and everyone pulls out their weapon - how do you differentiate the good guy from the bad guy? Or imagine a fully armed university where someone decides to go on a rampage. When your life is in danger you're going to shoot at the person with a gun.
It's pretty scary that our country is controlled by people who've been educated by Disney fairytales and the bible.
(Edited by author 3 days ago)
hide 266 replies reply
justApoint
12/19/2012 03:46 AM
"When your life is in danger you're going to shoot at the person with a gun."
Exactly, the only problem being, if everyone has guns, what are you going to do.
hide 142 replies reply
JBfromNC
12/19/2012 06:16 AM
Bigger ammo clips? (I am being sarcastic--using NRA logic)
hide 27 replies reply
Marian Thomas
12/19/2012 02:25 PM
In 2005, a civilian named Mark Wilson, who was a firearms instructor, fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse....
http://www.youtubeFascinatingJ...
hide 3 replies reply
Free_Humanity
12/20/2012 12:00 PM
Spam, please flag (why are people liking this?)
hide 1 reply reply
NancyP
12/20/2012 06:22 PM
It said something that endorses gun nuts beliefs.
David Forbes
Today 10:20 AM
If you had bothered to read the article, you would know that this case was already discussed.
reply
PNik
12/19/2012 10:48 PM
Clearly, 6-7 year olds need to carry assault guns for self defence now.
hide 10 replies reply
D Armstrong
12/20/2012 06:02 AM
I'm a little dumber after reading this comment.
hide 2 replies reply
Gracchus
12/20/2012 08:39 AM
Send off to the NRA for some literature, if you want to end up a lot dumber.
Marred Graves
12/20/2012 11:57 PM
PNik was being sarcastic (i hope) -- ultimate logic of the gun worshippers is tiny tot shooting ranges and armpit holstered preschoolers taking one-hour shifts at the classroom door, on the outside of which is a sign saying "Bring it on!" with GW and Obama's pictures above and below.
Gun cultists claim they're only interested in hunting and target practice, while some relate the 2d Amendment right as equivalent to the right to defend oneself against a clear and present danger. Yet as often as not guns are used to intimidate, threaten, abuse, injure, rob and kill by persons more likely than not to have gotten their guns legally -- as did most of the child-killers at school shootings. Gun cultists should be required to go to ERs across the country to see what a single bullet can do to a person's flesh and organs and bones and mental state. Life is not the same as TV, folks.
Guest
12/20/2012 03:34 PM
Comment removed.
hide 3 replies
Charlie Canfield
12/20/2012 06:57 PM
...witness another issue when sarcasm and simplistic thinking become indistinguishable.
myfanwy
Yesterday 01:30 PM
And you, Mike Cassel, seem to have some anger issues.
joemog
Yesterday 01:52 PM
Hey, more sarcasm!
PNik
Yesterday 12:06 AM
Sadly, the forums treated the very last bit of my original post as a HTML tag which meant it doesn't show. For clarity, I had added an /endsarcasm tag there ^_-
I'm happy that my post generated some strong feelings though, because it wouldn't be too far beoynd current trends if the NRA seriously started suggesting arming pre-schoolers next. In fact, it would be completely logical in their line of thinking.
hide 1 reply reply
myfanwy
Yesterday 01:32 PM
Disgusting, but true. They work for the gun manufacturers, not for the people who buy the guns. The more perceived need they can invoke among gun enthusiasts, the more demand for guns.
JNagarya
Yesterday 08:21 PM
No, no. There teachers would be armed.
Would they keep their guns in locked safes, so they might as well not have them in an emergency?
Or in a desk drawer, where it would be accessible to 6-7-year-olds?
reply
justApoint
Today 06:29 PM
Please be sarcastic, PLEASE be sarcastic, thats all I am going to say.
reply
Lauren Andrew DiLallo
12/20/2012 11:43 PM
They aren't clips... they are magazines... but don't worry about knowing anything about you want you ban.
hide 11 replies reply
Gallant_Guppy
Yesterday 03:39 AM
Terminology is where you catch the real nuts.
hide 2 replies reply
JBfromNC
Yesterday 04:20 AM
Yeah, because terminology slaughters American children. If you are down to semantics, you may have a problem.
hide 1 reply
Gallant_Guppy
Yesterday 05:51 AM
More precisely, the nuts know all the correct terminology for describing the slaughter of American children. Terminology is the least of their problems.
McGauth925
Yesterday 07:16 AM
Yeah, cause it's MUCH more important to get the terminology right, than it is to be aware that more guns = more deaths.
That one's a fact, Lauren. The most important fact.
hide 3 replies reply
Justin Pfeifer
Yesterday 08:25 AM
In the eyes of the law yea the terminology being right kinda is a big part but way to show your ignorance really hammers home your point and makes me want to side with you.
NCBrian
Today 05:12 AM
No - i think the terminology is important because its misuse implies a certain lack of knowledge of the issue at stake or what they're trying to ban.
You might be a raging gun nut or absolutely in favour of banning all guns off the face of the earth. it doesn't matter. Lawmakers and experts have spent entire careers weighing constitutional and civil rights against gun violence. It's not a simple problem nor does it have a simple solution. So I certainly hope they spend the time it takes to educate themselves on the terminology so that they can make informed decisions. You might think it minutia, but in reality it matters.
Sam Harris
Today 04:09 PM
http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
"clip 2
n.1. Any of various devices for gripping or holding things together; a clasp or fastener.
2. A piece of jewelry that fastens with a clasp or clip; a brooch.
3. A cartridge clip.
Please note definition #3.
Hopefully, the "it is a magazine, not a clip - you people are ignorant" crowd can be driven to buy a good dictionary.
