367 cops contrasted to one armed citizen.
21 dead as opposed to three dead.
A rampage that lasted over an hour compared to fifteen seconds.
ETA: Of course, the usual suspects are taking great pains to explain that the fact that an armed civilian stopped a mass shooting proves nothing. The "good guy with a gun" may be rare, for it rquires a lot of bravery to go up against a rifle-armed shooter with a handgun, but it does happen. To call it a myth is to deny reality and it makes those arguing that it's a myth look like imbeciles.
A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
Monday, July 18, 2022
5 comments:
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.
The whole show is pretty hinky to me, just a little too pat, a little too easy. Can't help but wonder if maybe it was a false flag and those dead people aren't dead, they're crisis actors who've been paid a nice chunk of change by the NRA to stage a "good guy with a gun" event.
ReplyDeleteI’d love this to be the rule, rather than the exception, but as we’ve seen before:
ReplyDelete1) Most armed citizens are poorly trained and/or unpracticed, especially for confronting a heavily armed/armored ass-wipe.
2) Too many armed citizens are simply potential gun donors, especially those using open carry with unsuited holsters.
3) The police have very little training (and very little time too) on detecting/evaluating who is shooting and why, they tend to hose anyone with a gun/wallet/phone/dark skin.
4) The corollary to #3 is that people are inherently bad at observation, with inbuilt biases on what they will see (I.e. the banana/knife experiments).
If the 2nd had been interpreted in a more constrained manner, and the widespread availability of high-capacity, civilianized military weapons had not occurred, the future might be brighter. However, with the level of armament available in the U.S. these days, there is no hope for any buyback or similar program ever being funded or passed. Hence my belief that the 2nd will, within 50 years, be repealed or significantly amended. Now, I’ll note that it is probably equally likely that democracy in the U.S. will also be gone within that time, but the two are not related…one would be a push from the left, the second an action to consolidate control by the right.
Reports are that he did the shooting at close to 40 yards and hit the mass shooter asshole on the first shot. Not a "stop the threat" shot, but a hit nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteUnder stress, that's pretty fine shooting.
C.P.88, your comment is well thought out and sensible unlike comments on other blogs where it's either "Take all the guns" or "I have every right to own a Bofors 40mm to defend my family and put food on the table". It is most certainly true that no amount of training or practice prepares one completely for every eventuality in an active shooting situation since every situation is different. Especially a couple of trips to the range shooting at a static man shaped target.That's why there is term "friendly fire", because it happens.
ReplyDeleteB, forty yards with a Glock 19 (presumably) is damned fine shooting, indeed. I wonder if he has been a Bullseye match shooter.
ReplyDelete