So a professor at University of Alabama, Huntsville shoots and kills 3 other professors and wounds 3 others.
But I thought college campuses were gun free zones?
Fat lot of good those signs and policies did.
Furthermore, there were no police nor external security forces there to protect anyone.
Granted, this woman was a case of crazy. But details apparently are that she was in a meeting discussing if she was to get tenure or not, she was denied, pulled out a gun and started shooting. So this was all planned — premeditated. She made up her mind that if she was to be denied tenure, she was going to make people pay with their lives.
You know that saying about shooting fish in a barrel?
She knew they couldn’t fight back. She knew she would have all the advantage.
How might things have been different if the other professors were also armed? Would she have taken a more diplomatic approach to resolving her problem? Could have not have 3 dead and 3 wounded? Of course, it’s all speculation. But the sad reality is things like this happen in gun free zones. From Howard Nemerov:
Ron Borsch is a part-time, commissioned consultant trainer for the Bedford (Ohio) Police Department, with 30 full-time years of service and 17 years with SWAT. He still works part-time, managing the SEALE Police Academy in Bedford, where he specializes in tactically training first-responders, teaching them how to deal with what he calls “active killers.”
Borsch notes that nearly all mass murders occur in places where law-abiding citizens are banned from possessing firearms, either by property owners or government regulation.
The data shows that when law-abiding citizens are allowed the means to protect themselves, violent crime decreases. Everyone likes that end: decrease in violent crime. Trouble is, there are those that don’t like the means to that end. The reality is, it’s the only means that is achieving that end.
Stuff From Hsoi 
Excuse me…but absent an on-duty Police badge, her gun was already ONE TOO MANY!
Arming the other people only enables more innocents being killed. Better to disarm the one by musclepower.
Peace on Campus does NOT come by shoot-back.
One doesn’t need guns & bullets to mind one’s own business.
Enough said. Thanks from Ralph, http://draaiorgelfan.wordpress.com, “Wanted – The Dean Martin Show!”.
Can you provide the facts and data to back up your claim that arming others enables more innocents to be killed?
For a one-stop source for data that backs up my claim, check out Howard Nemerov’s book 400 Years of Gun Control: Why isn’t it working?. Howard originally was an anti-gun person, but also a researcher. He did the research, using sources that were either anti-gun or neutral and often quoted by the anti-gun movement; he specifically avoided pro-gun-biased sources. The conclusion of his research? Gun control doesn’t work. There are many sources out there that provide hard evidence, Howard’s book just provides a convenient and well-annotated reference.
As for your other claims….
Disarm the one by musclepower. Have you ever tried to disarm via musclepower someone shooting at you? This is an unrealistic suggestion. If you cannot see why I’ll be happy to explain it to you. Or if you’d like, you’re welcome to explain to me how this is a good solution.
No you don’t need guns and bullets to mind your own business, but once someone else puts your life in jeopardy well… I’d say we came to an end of minding one’s own business. I’m very happy to live and let live and leave people alone to live their lives in peace. But once someone steps over that boundary, that’s when trouble starts.
One more thing.
It’s evident you do believe that guns have utility in the hands of good people: you acknowledge that police are someone worthy to have guns.
1. that police have guns did no good to the 6 people shot at U. of AL. Police cannot be everywhere. Furthermore, police have no obligation to protect you (the courts have stated this time and time again).
2. how is it that police being armed doesn’t enable more innocents being killed?
I’m trying to understand why you think it’s OK for police to have guns yet non-police citizens to not.
I’m continually amazed by professors. I work with them everyday and the ones I work with are singular in that they often realize the reality of the world they live in. The reality of a concealed carry campus is that it’s the professor who should be carrying, not the students. Professor are more likely to be the targets of disgruntled students and faculty. Yet, they continue to fight and vote against the legislation that would protect them in a better way.
As for draa, your comment on disarming by muscle power is inane. I know quite a few professors who are much older, in their 70s and 80s, would even two different professors in wheel chairs. Would you have them disarm a younger, faster, fitter woman who was shooting at them? Your argument makes the same sense that all of these arguments do, none. It is an idea of equality that doesn’t exist. There is a vast disparity of physical body types in this world and a large number of issues that could prevent someone from effectively defending themselves, without a firearm. Yet, you would disarm them and let them what, die? Simply because they are handicapped. That’s a ludicrous thought, particularly if you ascribe to thoughts of equality for those in our society who are handicapped. I dare say it’s backwards thinking and barbaric.
-Rob
When you live and work in a world rather insulated from the real world by it’s every nature well… what do you expect?
The disparity of the elderly is one reason, handicapped is another. I wasn’t going to go into all the reasons this suggestion of musclepower was ridiculous because I suspect draaiorgelfan is not going to return for discussion. There’s still many more reasons why this suggestion is crazy… even me, all 6’3″ 200# black belt young fit and quite physically capable that I am… like hell would I try to use musclepower.
Add: Note, I don’t think that students shouldn’t be allowed to carry on campus, I do. I just believe the reality of the situation is that a professor is a greater target and therefore they should be thinking about their personal safety to a higher degree.
-Rob
Hello again. I just visited another blog and wrote a message there, now I’ve returned. Let’s see…
First, you need not explain, but I’ll bookmark that Book Title and look for a sale copy. Thank you for mentioning it.
Second, even in a close-up showdown, I simply will not STOOP to the use of guns. There once was a TV show titled “Kung Fu” that I learned from and went further to take lessons at a licensed Martial-Arts school. I soon discovered that I had more agility in my arms and legs and body than the gazelle in the wilds. The shooter will be worn out and exhausted trying to keep up with Perpetual Motion; that’s the whole point of the Motion. Dart quickly so the shooter stays off balance. Duck quickly behind something (preferrably moveable!), and if the shooter follows you and gets too close…KICK!!! Your aim is to make him/her FALL…and STAY felled…without using a gun. Success is being smarter than the criminal by not being equal TO the criminal.
Criminals with guns don’t limit themselves to shooting other criminals. Nope! They DO shoot the innocent because they’re ABLE to. Flying bullets don’t judge the target, and Intent counts for NOTHING!.
Now, Mr. Hsoi…I am properly LIBERTARIAN to respect the rights of the innocent everywhere they are and everywhere I go. I’ve also outlived more than 60 of my school-era aquaintances. NONE of them died by gunfire. NONE!!! All by disease or accidents or poor genes.
Me? No marriage, no divorce. No credit cards, no debt. No guns, no fear. Approaching 60 years of age, never touched a gun.
Smart, lucky…and peaceful. Thanks agin. Ralph 🙂
First, I’m glad to see you came back. All too often people make these sorts of comments then never return for discussion. So I’m glad you broke the mold. 🙂
Let’s run down the points.
One – the book isn’t the most entertaining of reads (it’s lots of data and facts, so it can be a dry read), but it’s chock full of sound data and good research. Again, when you consider Howard’s background and the way he went about his research, it’s difficult to refute the data.
Two – Many things here. One advantage of a gun? The shooter doesn’t have to get close. How are you going to use musclepower if you can never get close to them? I’ve been practicing martial arts for 7 years and I can say I exert far less energy shooting a gun than I do in any martial arts activity. You can dance and move around, duck and cover, and do all of that.. you’re going to be worn out far faster than any shooter. Furthermore, if you can never get close in to make contact and strike them, how are you ever going to stop the attacker?
And while you presently in your 50’s may be able to still run around and do things, what should happen as you continue to age? There will come a day when it’s going to be difficult to engage in Perpetual Motion. What will you do then?
It just doesn’t add up.
You are right that criminals don’t limit themselves to shooting other criminals, and we do need to be smarter than them. Thankfully, that’s none too difficult as most criminals are lazy… that’s their nature. I spend a lot of time training and practicing with my handgun and shoot fairly well. I’m aware of safety rules including being aware of your target and what’s behind it because like you said, bullets don’t judge the target. It’s one thing to be a criminal that doesn’t care, it’s another to be a law-abiding responsible citizen that does.
It sounds like you’ve lived a good life. While I haven’t lived as long as you, I too have been fortunate in my life, including that anyone I know that’d died typically has been due to medical issues or age. I don’t believe the boogeyman is around every corner just waiting to pounce on me. And I do hope to live to a ripe old age and have no chance to utilize my martial skills (be the firearms or empty-hand based). That we’ve lived our lives like this is actually testimony to the fact that world is mostly full of good people that will leave you alone (politicians excepted, but that’s another discussion).
But I know it only takes one person to ruin things. I know what my wife has personally experienced and that will never happen again so long as I’m living and breathing. It’s the Boy Scout in me: Be Prepared. I’d rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Thanx again for returning and commenting further. BTW, may I ask what martial art you studied? Do you still study it?
Hi Draaiorgelfan.
In your third paragraph above, your tactics closely resemble what many gun owners would consider reasonable tactics in a violent situation.
Option 1: Get Away From the Bad Person
Option 2: Use Available Cover
Option 3: Use Violence to End the Threat.
Only, you want to end the threat…. without using a gun.
Yet, in option 1 you wouldn’t run away by only hopping on one foot and in option 2 you wouldn’t hide only behind cover that is not painted blue.
Would you similarly refrain from hitting the attacker with a bat or cutting with a knife?
I think you’ll find that a gun is the last line of defense, not the first, for most of the people on Hsoi’s site. I know things would have to be Really Bad for Hsoi before he even considered shooting another person. He has a profound respect for life and a very Zen attitude towards others. He’s not looking for a fight. He’s not trying to prove he’s a man with his gun. (That’s what the motorcycle is for) His gun is there for those very very rare times when nothing else will do.
Rats, quotes tags didn’t work. That’s going to be one confusing post… Sorry.
I did some editing, adding blockquote tags. Is that how it should look? If there’s further editing necessary, let me know and I’ll fix the formatting.
Also, thank you for the kind words about me.
One question for RevolverRob…
Why, in your example, was that younger, faster and fitter woman alowed to be armed with a gun in the first place? Was there an absolute need to shoot the disabled and elderly due to their condition being a physical threat to the younger woman?
The question may seem pretty stupid, but think Columbine, Virginia Tech, shopping malls, etc., arming the students and professors and shoppers would make things worse. The guns used in those places were already too many.
And yes, I’ll return later.
Ralph.
Rob of course can reply, but I’d like to reply to this as well.
Actually no it doesn’t make things worse. Being armed discourages violent crime. Why? Because criminals don’t like to get shot and die. The data shows that when states enacted concealed handgun laws, violent crime rates went down. Heck, just in the past year since Washington DC’s gun ban was struck down by the SCOTUS, the violent crime rate in DC dropped this past year. There was even an incident a few months back here in Austin where a burglar was finally busted after breaking in to some 50-odd small businesses and robbing them blind. He flat out told the police he targetted businesses because he knew people in Texas had guns in their homes! He wants to keep stealing, he doesn’t want to die either.
Mass murders like Columbine, Virginia Tech, the Westroads Mall in Omaha… these are all gun free zones. Even Fort Hood is technically gun free because the soldiers aren’t allowed to have guns on base unless engaged in a training activity. It’s about force disparity. Nutjobs and criminals pick these targets because they know they will have the upper hand. The law or the policy of the location gave the nutjob that upper hand by not allowing the citizens to be on the same level. Take the above burglar; he did his crime in a way that gave him the upper hand.
You even state that you should be better than the criminal. Well, how is being on the lower end of the force continum being better?
Criminals still act as they do because the vast majority of the population are still sheep, wanting someone else to tend to them and being unwilling to fight back. That you have the mindset to fight back, that certainly gives you an edge. But the hard reality of life and physics is if the criminal has a gun, you’re on the short end of the force continum…. unless you too can have a gun or other help (e.g. lots of friends in very close proximity, other weapons such as a baseball bat, etc.).
I spent most of my life being rather a peace loving hippie type. Fundamentallly I still am. But criminals will always be around. Like any predator they will always seek easy prey. I am not going to allow myself or my loved ones to be easy prey (to be sure, that involves far more than having a gun).
Ralph,
I’m not sure I am understanding this question. Why was she “allowed” to be armed with a gun? Is this a question as to why we have guns in our society or why someone didn’t stop her?
We are a free society, no one “allowed” her to be armed, she armed herself, the actions are her own and I think that Hsoi pointed out most eloquently that she premeditated her actions.
As for eliminating guns, if this is your debate (I am unclear if it is?), I propose she simply would have armed herself with a knife, or a sword, or a bomb. Anything with which to inflict the mass amounts of damage she so desired to inflict.
-Rob
“Draaiorgelfan” Ralph is back!
Hsoi – “Being armed discourages violent crime”. OK, the criminal was armed; his gun was already one too many, and arming others would ENcourage – not DIScourage – more gun violence.
“…lower end of the Force Continuum…? Criminals using guns are COWARDS!! Why should I display equal cowardice by resorting to the use of a mechanical aid as a substitute for my own Personal Muscle Power? I’m older, yes…but not disabled. Guns are the weapon of the lower end. I’d rather be smarter, in essence, on the higher end.
(“…other weapons such as a baseball bat, etc.) AHA!! Now we’re GETTING somewhere! Three weapons: a baseball bat, an axe, and a gun. Why is the gun a mechanical aid while the bat and axe are not? The bat is a solid piece of lumber; its insides are singular, usually…and as such the whole interior is properly rigid, same as a bowling pin. An axe consists of TWO parts, the handle and the chopping head. In proper assembly the two parts are rigidly attached to each other, not changing position relative to each other as we swing the axe in a forceful down-motion to chop that tree or split that door (Dorothy: “Hurry, the hourglass is almost empty!” Tin Man: “Stand back!”. CHOP…). But the gun is mechanical; it has several parts that shift position. The trigger, a connection between the trigger and the bulletshell piercer, the piercer itself, the cartridge ejector and the indexer to bring the next bullet into firing position. All of these parts interact to send the bullet out fast enough to reach a target in the blink of a lightning flash. The result is at least D1-Dent (or Damage), possibly D2-Destruction, and ultimately D3-Death. Hence, the use of guns must be restricted to on-duty badge wearers of Police Departments at all levels, the National Guard, the Army, the Coast Guard, the Navy, and the Reserves. Gun ownership must be by the Departments; officers/combat fighters can only possess the guns for use as required, must be returned before off-duty. All of these are for Public Defense, and all privacy – Departmental AND individual – must be forfeited to the Public Knowledge (open publicity) before possession. This propriety will keep honest people honest and dishonest people OUT. Enforcement must be severe; the line between manufacture and end receipt must be so tight that anyone wanting a gun must answer to the Departments first. Any gun movement out-of-bounds is grounds for confiscation and compulsory imprisonment.
Now, Hsoi…you probably don’t like what you just read, but my philosophy is quite sound. Innocents and criminals are both human, and the message is the same to ALL humans. Gun owners/possessors are untrustworthy due to the ability to shoot the innocent. The required forfeiture of privacy is intented to psychologically handicap the shooter before the fact of possession for shooting. It’s that, or compusory forfeiture of a body extension – one arm/hand or one leg/foot – to PHYSICALLY handicap the shooter before the fact of possession for shooting. Once either forfeiture is completed and seperately verified, the gun user can shoot/murder every criminal on Earth. Every DAY!
But shooting the innocent won’t make the shooter whole again. That’s the point of the forfeitures. Don’t even need a license; the compulsory handicap IS the license.
At this hour I have other blogs to attend to, but I’ll be back tomorrow with a seperate letter for Peter. For now, “Hello, Peter…I hope you got your quotemark function back again”. In the meantime…if I raised alarms in anyone here, I didn’t mean to scare you. But I’ll not apologise for the above statements. If real – and worldwide – gun control is brutally enforced with ABSOLUTELY NO MERCY AND NO EXCEPTIONS. PERIOD!! – private gun use will be as desirable as a traffic jam in a blizzard.
Have a good night; I’ll return tomorrow. Thanks from Ralph.
Hi Ralph. Welcome back.
The word choice here is key: more “gun” violence. Well, this is true: you need to have a gun to have gun violence. No guns, no “gun violence”. However, removal of guns does not reduce the levels of violence across the board. You remove guns and people are just going to find other things to use. Look at the UK where they have almost a complete ban on guns yet knife violence is high. What are you out to reduce? guns? or violence? If you want to reduce guns that’s one thing. Me, I’m out to reduce violence. The data shows that as gun ownership rises, violent crime falls. Where is your data that supports your assertion?
So criminals not using guns are braver? And I guess you’re also stating that I’m a coward, eh? 🙂
I guess to some extent I probably am a coward. I’d rather not be in a fight. I’d rather work to avoid it at all costs. I’d rather be alert and aware and live my life in a way that avoids conflict and potential to endanger my life. I also know that for as physically large, strong, and martially capable that I am, I’d rather not get into a physical fight with someone because I know there’s always someone bigger and badder than me. If someone opts to attack me, there’s no way I can know if they’re more skilled than I until the fight is on… that’s a little too late to assess things, so I’d rather not.
That you are so confident in your skills and abilities is commendable. Your optimism that you will always prevail no matter the circumstance, I hope that never fails you.
They certainly are. What we have are different tools with different applications, different strengths, and different weaknesses.
Let’s go way back in time to early man. Man always had his hands. But one day he picked up a stick or a rock and found it was far more effective than his bare hands. He could throw the rock and hit that animal in the head. He could sharpen the stick. He could attach the rock to the stick for a more effective club. He could sharpen that rock attached to the stick and have an axe. And the evolution of tools came to be. We have tools because our physical gifts take us only so far…. by using tools we’re able to accomplish tasks more efficiently, more effectively. I personally prefer to pound nails with my hammer, but I know there are those martial arts guys out there that can drive penny nails through boards with their hands. I guess that’d how you’d prefer to build a house? 🙂
What makes them superior to the rest of us?
Why do you provide them with 100% of your trust? Yes most police and military folk are good trustworthy people, but they too are human and fallable.
Can police or military not shoot the innocent?
Why is it OK for them to have guns? That seems to imply they must be cowards, stooping to the level of our enemies. Why can’t they just use Perpetual Motion and Personal Muscle Power? If it’s good enough for you, why isn’t it good enough for them?
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. That’s the fantastic thing about this country: we’re all allowed to have differing opinions and we’re all allowed to express our opinions, no matter how (un)popular they may be. That’s what the first amendment to the US Constitution is all about. On the same token, the second amendment — and recently affirmed by the SCOTUS via Heller — allows all of the citizenry the right to bear arms (guns, baseball bats, or even to just raise your fists) to protect ourselves. This is how our country is, and I suspect you probably don’t like that.
While I admire the ideal you have of a peaceful world and I too would love to see such a thing, I grant the reality of the world isn’t there and is unlikely to happen in my lifetime. Humans are what we are and in the thousands of years of recorded history we’ve only evolved so much… it’d be naive to think that overnight we’d make such a radical change to our very nature. That doesn’t mean it’s not worthy to strive for such a thing and certainly I work towards that end. But meantime the world is what it is, and so long as there are wolves out there, someone’s got to be a sheepdog.
Are we not trustworthy because we also have the ability to shoot a criminal attacking us… or perhaps one that’s attacking you?
Law abiding gun owners have no desire to shoot innocent people. Are you saying we do?
You’re saying we’re untrustworthy because we have the ability to shoot innocents. You have the ability to murder someone with your Personal Muscle Power. You have the ability to libel or slander someone because you have a mouth and can speak and a computer and can type. You haven’t done any of these things, but you do have the ability. Should I consider you untrustworthy?
Furthermore, the data shows that folks with concealed handgun licenses are actually a cut above the citizenry in terms of law-abidingness and behavior. Take a read over this:
https://hsoiblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/what-does-it-say-about-a-person/. So based on the simple knowledge that I have a concealed handgun license tells you a lot about the sort of person I am. The only thing I really know about you is you like Dean Martin. 🙂 The police, whom you seem to implicity trust, tend to consider CHL’s as a “I’m a Good Guy” card, meaning when a police officer is dealing with someone they have no idea about the person they’re dealing with and so they must always be on edge. However, if the officer sees you’re a CHL holder, they immediately know a lot of things about you, especially that you’re a law-abiding citizen and not going to give the officer any problem. So if it’s good enough for the police, whom you trust, to trust us… why do you find us so untrustworthy?
No alarms raised. And no, we’re not scared. I’m enjoying the discussion.
I’m glad you don’t apologize. You’re a man of conviction, something I respect.
Again I must ask: what is your goal? To eliminate guns? or to eliminate violence? To eliminate an object or to change human behavior?
If the goal is to eliminate guns, certainly it’s something you can work for but it’s a big uphill battle. Meantime while guns still exist, what are you going to do to keep yourself safe in the face of guns? Criminals by definition will be criminals.. they will ALWAYS have guns, they will always seek an avenue that gives them the upper hand. What is your suggestion for law-abiding good people to do to at least even the odds if not have superior odds? Remember, my 80 year old grandmother doesn’t have Personal Muscle Power to her advantage. What do you suggest she does?
If the goal is to change human behavior, how will eliminating guns change human behavior? How will eliminating objects stop violence? If guns are gone, they’ll use knives. If knives are gone, they’ll use sticks. If sticks are gone, they’ll use their hands… are we to cut off our hands? Then we’ll use our feet. If we’re to cut those off too, well… OK, that might finally accomplish things. How does eliminating an object change human behavior?
Thank you for the discussion.
Hi, all. Busy day today. Whew!
This is for Peter, and I hope he’s present. A moving target is harder to hit, and if there is something I can pick up and throw at the gun-armed attacker, I’ll THROW IT! Until the attacker is on the ground, cause SOME kind of pain…and hope it’s a lot or enough to make the attacker double over to some extent. And if the available cover is moveable, with enough muscle behind it you can knock the attacker to Stumble City just long enough to pounce on the neck. Sink the Adam’s Apple, that’ll choke up a surrender.
Guns are strictly Assault weapons, even if the assault is returned in self defense. Other instruments can be used as weapons, too…but other instruments have other purposes that are not absolutely weapon-intended. A bat is for hitting baseballs, knives are for carving meat and slicing fruits and vegetables. You can run over someone with your car, but isn’t the primary purpose something else? Of course!
OK…NEXT! Back tomorrow to answer Hsoi’s longer letter. Cheers from Ralph!
Ralph,
I like how you don’t mind people throwing things at an attacker. I also want to throw things at an attacker – of course, I want to throw them at 850 feet per second.
Since I can’t manage that on muscle power alone, I’ll use a firearm . I think hitting an attacker with a .45 ACP round would make them double over.
See there would be less violence, even less gun violence if someone had been using a firearm for self defense. Instead of 6 people being shot, the total would have been much lower, don’t you think?
I’m glad you are such a tremendous martial artist and physical specimen and if you choose that method for self defense more power to you.
Why do you want to force everyone to be like you, don’t you believe in diversity? Don’t you believe in allowing people to choose how they live their lives?
Hi! I’m back, but I’ll have to reserve my answer to Hsoi for tomorrow. We have snow coming to Rhode Island, so I spent the whole day doing errands for today and tomorrow combined.
For Bob S., though…
The attacker came armed with a gun, so shooting the attacker would have added one more to the total. But if the attacker was DEPRIVED of the gun – as he/she SHOULD have been – before even showing up at the scene, the six victims wouldn’t likely be dead now. Six gunshot deaths prevented by disarming the attacker before the fact of arrival at the scene. NO gun violence.
No, I’m not the greatest specimen of strength, but I wanted SOME way of overpowering an attacker without using a gun. The martial arts school was in North Providence RI from 1973 into 1980, then the the Instructor closed and moved to Kentucky. The last I heard is that he retired in 1999, and I believe that he’s still alive although his wife passed away from leukemia in 2004. May God rest and bless her soul.
Bob – you and so many other people seem to think that others like myself have no other interests in life other than practicing with guns so we can shoot criminals. No big buses to drive (with those GM Diesel engines like two that I rebuilt some fifteen years ago), no chances to go out and photograph nature/animals/buildings/shorelines, etc.(I shoot with a CAMERA, not a gun.), no other hobbies like model trains or a huge LP record collection to enjoy, no activities like swimming, basketball, bowling, golf,…in other words, absolutely nothing requiring mental concentration unless possessing a gun on person is part of the equation.
And no, I don’t intend to force everyone to remain single or go without credit cards like I do. I unrepentently CHOSE to remain single and to avoid the temptation of overspending. And while I refuse to even TOUCH a gun, I’ll not stop anyone else from having one for whatever purpose there is. BUT!…I absolutely will continue to promote the idea of handicapping the gun possessor before the next shooting. Why? On one hand there is the matter of everyday activity – sleep, awaken, wash, dress, eat, walk or drive, work or play, return, eat again, peaceful fun, finish and back to sleep again. Weekly activity includes other business and shopping. On the other hand there is the need to survive, prosper and make progress. None of these activities and effects require guns. But you’d never survive long enough if you had to forego any/all of these activities and effects UNTIL you shot a criminal. Match for match.
I’ve heard “but that gun can save your life!” as often as I’ve heard “she gives the best blowjobs in town!” Well, you can also shoot the innocent as easily as you can catch AIDS from a whore. Nooo-o-o thanks! That whore oughta be SHOT!
It’s 12:48am as I type this line, so I’ll finish here and return after the next lunchtime. Hsoi claimed to be enjoying this debate; I’m enjoying it, too…quite to my personally unexpected surprise!
Back later. Thanks from Ralph!
Ralph,
And exactly how do you plan on depriving the criminal — you know the person who is breaking the law — of the firearm without depriving everyone in the world the right to keep and bear arms?
Even if all firearms were removed; they are easily made. Especially by someone with the education of a college professor, wouldn’t you agree? The technology has only been around for a couple hundred years.
You say that the attacker would have been ONE MORE added to the total but I offer that the total would have, could have, might have been less then 6 if armed resistance was encountered. Heck, the criminal may not have tried it at all had she known the people there could have effectively fought back. Isn’t it amazing how often criminals choose places where the victims are disarmed by law?
Next, you also assume that the criminal having been somehow mythically deprived of a firearm wouldn’t have chosen other methods. Let’s see if you recognize the school incident in Bath Michigan or Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City Oklahoma or would it be giving away too much to suggest you look at what happened to the World Trade Center — twice. How many firearms were used in those incidents?
you and so many other people seem to think that others like myself have no other interests in life other than practicing with guns so we can shoot criminals
I don’t know where you got this, other then I was trying to figure out why you insisted people should have the physical and martial arts skills you possess instead of other skills, such as using firearms.
And while I refuse to even TOUCH a gun, I’ll not stop anyone else from having one for whatever purpose there is.
Glad to hear that.
absolutely will continue to promote the idea of handicapping the gun possessor before the next shooting.
And how is this going to happen? How are you going to keep criminals willing to murder people in cold blood from getting firearms?
How are you going to keep criminals who routinely import tons of illegal drugs from bringing in firearms?
Little egotistical there are you Ralphy? Think that gun owners only exist to shoot guns and get better at that?
Think again.
I enjoy photography also – current camera is a Fuji FinePix S7000. I enjoy taking scenery shots, animals — current subject of choice is a road runner that lives in the neighborhood, he’s a sneaky fast fellow, I dabble in computers, I am the membership secretary of our sportsman club. I work with my son on his high school studies, my daughter on her college studies, I’m active in our church. I work out (not often enough — need to drop 30#s). I used to be a Scout leader for my sons’ troop — enjoyed camping, canoeing and teaching the kids.
In short, just an average person.
Wow, now you go off the deep end a little bit.
I’ve heard “but that gun can save your life!” as often as I’ve heard “she gives the best blowjobs in town!”
Unlike your bragging or the bragging you’ve heard, the statistics on defensive gun use are established and documented.
Even if it only saves one life — mine eventually — that is enough for me to carry a firearm every day of my life. I hope that I never have to use it but I know that I would regret not having it when I needed it.
Well, you can also shoot the innocent as easily as you can catch AIDS from a whore
Again, the statistics prove the lie here. Perhaps you could try to separate out fact from fiction or at least details of your personal life. Not sure which that information falls under — and please don’t tell me — I DON”T WANT TO KNOW.
Firearm accidents, injuries and deaths are well documented and supported. Given the number of firearms out there, it is one of the safest sports and safest way of protecting yourself that is around.
Have anything to prove otherwise?
Pingback: A thought, on Gandhi and guns « Stuff From Hsoi