Discussion for article #232085
Well DUH.
I really need to get one of those face palm meme’s.
1 Like
Texans haven’t always been this stupid, have they?
2 Likes
Derp.
Soon the ammosexuals acknowledge that packing a gun is not even close to being the best protection.
I can dream, can’t I??
1 Like
What a bunch of frigging idjets.
Jeebers on a cracker…
So, wait a minute guyzz, are you saying gunz don’t save livez!!! But… but… NRA!!
IF THEy ALL HAD bIGGer GUNS wITH 30 ROUND magaziNEs WE wOULDn’t EVEn be HAVING this conversation.
4 Likes
Do you really want an answer to that question?
Well … some are (probably a majority) but I have it on very good and respectable authority that there are a few well mannered and intelligent Texans. Several known personally.
2 Likes
I suspect they are trying to say that one gun was not enough. 100 guns and some grenades and they probably would not have died from the attacker’s bullets.
3 Likes
Let’s hypothetically say there were two people armed with pistols who could have confronted the attackers. One was a special guard assigned to protect the group, another was a local policeman. In fact, let’s say that not hypothetically, because that’s how it really was. Both died. Rifles versus pistols, surprise attackers versus people going about their daily business. It’s no contest 99 times out of 100.
16 Likes
Well, not in the movies! Unless this is the opening scene of the movie, and the good guy is the intrepid police officer who, lone wolf style, tracks the killers to their lair, catching up to them 90 minutes later in a dramatic shootout that leaves Our Hero victorious and all the bad guys dead.
Whaddyamean real life ain’t like that! Unpossible!
2 Likes
Remember the whole Second Amendment fetishist thing is that it’s not trained off-duty police with guns, it’s Joe Sixpack and Grandma and Mr. Haney the third grade teacher. Assuming these worthies haven’t shot themselves cleaning their hardware, and that they have it on them somewhere when the terr’ists strike, they’ll be fumbling to get the pieces out and safeties off and hopefully not shooting their fellow non-terr’ists while defending themselves. So this simulation is unreasonably optimistic from the get-go.
6 Likes
Yeah. Possibly the motive is to justify those large magazine clips, but with some folks, after 10 bullets they run out of fingers.
OK, let’s get this on TV please. Great simulation and logical conclusion.
I’m still curious why that facility entrance is not one where you have to be buzzed in from someone inside with a video monitor. Yes, they could have shot through the door possibly, but then everyone inside is immediately alerted. Very puzzling.
2 Likes
I wonder how surprised the gun advocates were with the results. Most people with any brains know that in such situations, and that includes school shootings, one or even two armed victims will never succeed in stopping a determined terrorist. In fact, they are more likely to do more harm than good, in addition to getting themselves killed.
Surprise is the greatest weapon a terrorist has in his/her arsenal, and no one can overcome such a thing without horrific loss of life in such situations. I wonder why so many idiots with guns seem to think otherwise. Perhaps it is because they have never been in such a situation and do not truly understand the difference between a terrorist attack or school shooter or home invasion, and shooting a defenseless animal or clay or paper target.
Guns are tools of destruction, and how they are used makes all the difference in whether something dies, is maimed, or survives. When people say guns don’t kill, people kill, I have to just look at them with total incredulity - who do they think are holding the guns? Surprise and people with agendas that include terrorism, murder, and/or acting like a big man are reasons why guns should be “well-regulated” and this simulation just showed why.
4 Likes
One of the problems with the pro-gun movement is that pro-gun folks have been way over inflating the value of being armed, to ridiculous levels. So when a PRO-GUN group runs a simulation that demonstrates what would happen if more citizens were armed, and the simulation shows it would not have helped… what do TPM commentors do? You leap on it and ridicule it. Wrong response.
What the hell. You’ve turned into that which you mock.
1 Like
It is astounding. And a reflection of what the US has become. Even when the two sides agree on an issue, they need to say “screw you, I hate your guts so no deal!!”. As an example, most Republicans favor gay marriage, but one gets called a “gay hater” if they are Republican. And most Democrats are employed and self sufficient, but one gets called a “free loader” if they are a Democrat.
So just when we can engage Republicans on an issue and get something done…we ridicule them instead. Which leads them to retreat and rethink their positions.
1 Like
“Things did not go well.” Indeed.
Putting aside the tone deafness of their statement and the douchiness of the whole exercise, what was their initial hypothesis, that a single armed protector would or would not have been an effective combatant in this situation?
Knowing this would help me interpret their statement that “We in no way, shape or form are looking to say they should have done it differently." Who is the “they” The Truth About Guns are referring to, here, shooters or victims? What, then, was the “it”? And, what was The Truth About Guns looking to say?
Because to some of us, this just looks like some stupid-ass, angry white men engaging midlife-crisis-spawned violent-hero fantasies in ways “Call of Duty” and “Assassin’s Creed” can’t satisfy.
2 Likes
No mystery there—it’s a lifetime of seeing television and film versions of shootings, what actual shooters call “tube training”—and an inundation in hysterical propaganda about the magical safety-providing abilities of guns courtesy of the NRA, which is essentially now a paid promotional organization for the gun manufacturers.
2 Likes