Skip to main content

View Diary: Guns don’t defend people, guns kill people (46 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hypotheticals abound. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus, myboo, Tommye, Sandino, splashy

    Suppose you are the janitor or the principal and you had a gun that day. But let's inject some reality into your scenario. What if you just purchased that gun or you hadn't been to the range in a while and weren't real accurate with whatever gun you had access to? What if you had access to the Louie Gohmert M4 in full auto? What if YOU killed several children or maybe shot another teacher or parent who had their gun drawn for 'protection'? Are we better off or have you just compounded the tragedy? Police officers train for these situations and they still kill innocents. Is that the best use of our educators skills? Are you feeling any better as a Good Samaritan with a gun?

    'It isn’t fair: the caterpillar does all the work, and the butterfly gets all the glory.' - George Carlin

    by FloridaRedneck on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 03:04:37 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Your scenario has no basis in reality (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hangpilot, dewley notid, Samulayo

      A mad man is butchering babies before your eyes. You are there, you have access to the gun, do you use it? You have a second to decide. What kind of person are you?

      Or do you sit there dreaming up hypotheticals while waiting for the police to arrive 20 minutes later?

      How the gun got there is irrelevant as are your hypotheticals. And please don't demean janitors. Blue collar workers know how to defend themselves.

      •  And your scenario has no basis in humanity (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        myboo, Sandino, splashy

        I don't know why you seem to want to reduce us to this state of affairs, where "A mad man is butchering babies before your eyes" and the only option we can ever have is shoot back and hope nobody else gets caught in the crossfire.

        FloridaRedneck didn't demean janitors at all, they've been cited in the news as candidates for carrying guns (as have principals). I think your choice of hypotheticals demeans us all, however. By declaring all else irrelevant, you're effectively demanding that nothing be done until the slaughter has already begun.

        There is nothing so ridiculous that some philosopher has not said it. -- Cicero

        by tytalus on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 03:33:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because (0+ / 0-)

          that really happened. And it and other similar situations happen all the time all over the world. The argument has been made that there is no defensive purpose for a firearm. The question is fair.

          Janitors carrying firearms are a great source of ridicule on DailyKos lately.

          The very word "defense" implies that the slaughter, or something like it, has already begun.

          Otherwise, it would be "offense."

          Let's stay on topic.

          •  And (0+ / 0-)

            the question still remains unanswered.

          •  Oh, ok (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            myboo, Sandino, splashy

            The topic, ok. See, I figured from your derailment that you weren't interested in the topic of the diary. Let's stay on topic.  :)

            If this policy is acceptable, then what level of collateral damage are we willing to accept before we ‘just say no’? When do we understand that the ‘discussion’ we need to have about the absurd number of weapons available today in America is monopolized by the NRA, weapons manufacturing and their associated corporations? When does it become obvious more guns in the hands of an untrained, schizophrenic population doesn’t translate to a safer environment for our children? Where is the tipping point? What will need to occur before we realize that we have been victimized by the paranoid gun establishment propaganda and their product? I know where the cost/benefit is for them, but what about the rest of us?
            Apparently you haven't hit your limit yet.

            There is nothing so ridiculous that some philosopher has not said it. -- Cicero

            by tytalus on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 03:57:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Only your hypotheticals are relevant? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        myboo, Sandino, splashy

        Your scenario doesn't fit into the reality am familiar with. I am a retired First Responder and I have witnessed first hand the destruction cause by 'Good Samaritans with guns'. We traveled with our SWAT team as medical support. I have patched up many law enforcement officers and private citizens after the fact. In several cases innocent bystanders were killed by well meaning private citizens in addition to the targets of the maniac. I wasn't there during those horrendous moments in Sandy Hook, but I do know that everything is not as simplistic as you want it to be. Are you advocating just start spraying bullets in the direction of this mad man in hopes it will stop him? Do you sneak up on him from behind or confront him face to face in your scenario? How close would you need to be to make sure you hit him? Have you ever been anywhere near an armed conflict or domestic shoot out? Things happen very, very fast. You don't get the benefit of instant replay or slow motion so you can separate the bad guys from the good guys or rethink your choices. You have but a split second to aim, shoot and live with your decision. All this would have happened amid the noise of an assault weapon being fired and the screams of teachers and little children. I've know officers to shoot without realizing it. Your heart is in the right place, but in actuality your scenario never works out like you hope. Law enforcement and soldiers routinely experience it as a way of life. Most never fully recover when they must take a life. The rest of society are content to wait until the smoke clears and judge their actions post morteum.

        'It isn’t fair: the caterpillar does all the work, and the butterfly gets all the glory.' - George Carlin

        by FloridaRedneck on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 04:01:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No (0+ / 0-)

          I am asking a simple question. You are telling me you have specialized training, so what would you do?

          I would shit my pants, and then do my damnedest to shoot the SOB. If I missed him, it will either be because he shot me first, or I was shaking to hard to draw a bead. I probably wouldn't get more than one shot. (It really is hilarious that you guys are all fantasizing about a sub machine gun materializing in an elementary school, when in my mind I was thinking a small handgun, but that's irrelevant as well) He would certainly have me outgunned, just due to the fact that he's a nut case on a mission to butcher babies.

          I would damn sure try. I would draw his fire. May not make any difference but add one more to the body count.

          Thanks for letting me share.

          And please drop the patronizing tone. It's not necessary. Besides, this is the internet. We really don't know the life experiences of the persons we are conversing with, now do we?

          •  I was simply attempting to respond to your... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            myboo, Sandino, splashy

            question/scenario. To ask the same question over and over without acknowledging alternatives is also avoiding the larger issue of my diary. My intent was never to patronize anyone, but  I was attempting to understand why it was important to you to get an answer to your hypothetical without recognizing there are many unanswered questions posed in your scenario. Actually Lanza was using an a semi automatic assault rifle (AR15 type rifle) and several handguns. There were armed guards present at Columbine. It's hard to imagine, but the entire event at Sandy Hook transpired in a matter of minutes. No one KNOWS what they would do in those minutes after they heard the front door glass shattered by shots from the assault rifle and when Lanza killed himself. Some of us would hide and some of us (like the principal and one teacher) may be heroic enough to charge directly at a maniac firing at us. The 'janitor' reference was in response to some politician commenting that if there had been a man in the school (i.e. a janitor) he could have thrown a mop or bucket at Lanza. Some even suggested the children should have been trained to charge Lanza. The problem trying to answer your question is that we should be brainstorming on how we can prevent or minimize another such event. The reason I take exception to people claiming they only use guns for defense is that argument falls apart when an assailant or mugger calls their bluff with a larger weapon. Remember if LaPierre and company had their way EVERYBODY would be armed.

            'It isn’t fair: the caterpillar does all the work, and the butterfly gets all the glory.' - George Carlin

            by FloridaRedneck on Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 05:04:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But you have been entirely unresponsive (0+ / 0-)

              to the question. I don't know why, you would have to answer that, but I don't expect you to.

              Yes, the principal and a couple of teachers did what they could to defend those kids.

              The point of the diary is to argue that there is NO defensive use for guns. You apparantly think that muggers and assailants are better armed than the average Joe, so average Joe should just give up. Lay there and die while the police take minutes to arrive - just in time to draw a nice chalk outline of a corpse and fill out the necessary paperwork.

              Hey, throwing a mop or bucket at the SOB is something. A floor lamp, a chair, a book.

              Keeping a gun for self defense is perfectly reasonable and rational.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (122)
  • Community (57)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (23)
  • Environment (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Science (18)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Media (16)
  • Labor (16)
  • Elections (15)
  • Education (15)
  • Economy (14)
  • Republicans (14)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (14)
  • Ireland (14)
  • Josh Duggar (13)
  • Racism (12)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site