Courtesy of Crooks and Liars:
Jacobs: Arming everybody on posts seems to be a very foolish stance..(Lott tries to cut in) No, be quiet. A very foolish response (The colonel) to a problem that needs a solution, (You make hyperbole here) but this is not the solution. Please, don't be rude..
Lott: No, earlier you were talking about...
Jacobs: Please. Don't Be Rude.
Savanna: let him finish his statement.
Jacobs: Be quiet. Arming everybody on posts and the intended danger in doing that is not a solution to protect the lives of people who serve and sacrifice for us. Now you can say what you want to say.
The portion of the conversation not contained in the above clip, and to which the pro-gun "researcher" is referring, is also worth noting:
Jacobs: Well there are several issues here, the first is whom do you arm, Do you arm wives, dependents? It's absolutely a ludicrous suggestion. The situation at Fort Hood the other day in the circumstance in which everyone had weapons could very easily result and probably would have resulted in enormous mass fratricide and you would have this all the time.
Second problem revolves around the notion that civilian life, or military life on a civilian post is just like combat.
The third point revolves around the notion that the shooter values his own life more than he does carrying out what he's going to carry out and therefore he's not going to do it if everybody else is armed. Complete nonsense.
Well said, and completely correct in my opinion.
Many of these mass shooters are on a suicide mission. It does not concern them one bit that they will be shot, in fact they expect it. And if it does not happen, as we have seen time and time again, they are perfectly happy to kill themselves.
Interesting. I had a similar conversation with a pro gun person the other day. My stance was that arming everyone wouldn't deter someone intent on killing a lot of people, because the shooter most likely was on a suicide mission. If everyone was armed, there might be more fatalities from flying bullets from other armed people. In a situation like that, how would you even kniw who the bad guy with a gun was?
ReplyDeletethanks sooo much for allowing the automatic weapons ban to expire george w bush - you simpleton braindead bought off piece of shit
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2014/04/04/politics/bush-paintings/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
"george w bush - you simpleton braindead bought off piece of shit "
DeleteWow.
That's some pretty strong language.
Please, let's be fair and also keep in mind that in addition to being a talentless "painter", he's also a cowardly war criminal, also, too.
John Lott was an academic and a somewhat-respected social researcher (somewhat-respected because, unlike the usual loudmouth gun nut, he employed read social science research and statistical techniques). However, he has made his name by fudging the numbers and the methods to support his More Guns, Less Crime agenda. He is the go-to researcher for many of the nuts in the unlimited-gun rights camp because he isn't some fly-by-night idiot. Instead, he's a well-established, smart, pompous jackass.
ReplyDeleteAnd, his research has been undermined and disproved by respected criminologists and other social scientists
That doesn't stop him from continuing to insist he is right. He just loves the spotlight.
It's good to see him shut down by the Colonel and the host.
Exactly. Case in point is the Tucson shooting. The gunman was on a mission and chose the Safeway Congress on Your Corner location and date because it suited his mission and he was ready. He was packing multiple rounds with the intent to kill a large number of people including Gabby Giffords. As it was, there was a person in that crowd carrying a concealed weapon and fortunately for the crowd that person made a quick assessment and determined it was not safe to open fire and instead was one of the individuals who physically subdued the shooter when he stopped to reload. Had he acted on impulse to shoot its likely there would have been additional casualties. The NRA logic is that these mass shootings are specifically targeted at locations such as schools and military bases where firearms are prohibited but as stated above most of these shooters are either expecting to be taken out by law enforcement or will take their own lives. Tragedies such as Columbine were specific to the location because the shooters had a vendetta against the school. And with the previous Ft. Hood shooting because of his connection with the base and his political leanings.
ReplyDeleteSheesh
I am pro gun, I am also pro checks, rechecks, and think that owning any weapon is a privilege that comes with great responsibility. This shooting could have been stopped at Hood the other day. If only there had been some type of mental health qualifications. This soldier was completely off his rocker and was in the process of being treated. He bought that pistol with the sole purpose of picking fights, killing people and committing suicide by cop. Now I personally don't even blame him, I am blaming a society that let someone so unstable buy a weapon.
ReplyDeleteBTW I have, a few times, gone and removed and kept safe weapons belonging to friends and relatives.
What this shows is the poor impulse control the guy on the right side shows in a simple debate, Imagine him with a gun during a heated argument.
ReplyDelete