Really, a word to the stupid: an AR-15 that look like an M4 is still an AR-15.
Everyone decided that a total gun ban would work, even though that the Paris attack happened in a country where guns ARE COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, EVEN FOR THE COPS.
But now? Thursday was the day where sanity completely went out the window. Talk of secret abolition of gun rights? Talk of getting rid of due process because it's a threat to security? Yes, really, I heard a Senator talk about that (Sen Joe Manchin, D-WV). Right after the other idiot talked about the AR-47.
Seriously, we went from a shadow ban on the second amendment to talk of suspending due process in the course of a week? This has reached the level of parody--if we were parodying the worst fear of every tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist. Congrats, politicians, I'll be looking up the nearest gun store.
The stupid, precious, it burns us. We hates it. We hates it forever.
Also, yes, the second Amendment means individual people. Even Penn and Teller can tell you that.
And apparently, shooter Omar Mateen was reported to the FBI by a gun shop because he was being shifted and asked about body armor. Last time I checked, coworkers even told the FBI that Mateen was a freaking psycho. A background check that goes back to grammar school insists that Mateen has always been nuts, and cheered the 9/11 attackers.
But let's talk about guns, not about terrorism.
Some idiots like to talk about Australia's gun grab. Here you go. This is how safe Australia is now. On the left is the usual spin. On the right is the truth.
No pun intended.
Oh, and did we mention that France's terrorist attack happened where guns were completely illegal? It's almost as though murderous terrorist bastards will break the law to get the required weapons. What a thought!
But hey, I'm certain there's some idiot out there saying "well, that's just Paris."
How about this?
Then of course, you have the morons boasting that "a gun wouldn't have stopped this!!!!!"
Except here's Michael Z. Williamson dissecting the entire argument. He goes on for a while, but I think this boils down to the following section.
The defensive shooter engages the hostile. The hostile must choose to ignore, take cover, or return fire.Gee, it's almost like shooters go where the guns aren't. Funny that.
If he chooses to ignore it, he remains a target and the odds of him being shot increase, and if he is shot, the engagement ends, and no further lives are lost. If this happens before he quits or runs out of ammo, it is a NET POSITIVE for the group..
If he takes cover, he is not shooting for a few moments, and in that few moments, more people can escape or formulate an attack. (Barstools can be as deadly as bullets, when thrown or swung.) NET POSITIVE.
If he returns fire, anyone not in the cone near the defensive shooter is not being shot at. This is a NET POSITIVE for all those people, and a slight negative for those in the defender's immediate position.
It is possible the defender will hit a bystander in the process. However, as he is deliberately choosing a single hostile target, the odds still improve for the remainder, and if the hostile is hit, the engagement stops. This is probably still a net positive.
The defender may be hit. Negative for him, but he accepted that risk. And in those few seconds, the fact is that more victims can escape or respond. This is still a NET POSITIVE for the GROUP.
Yes, the defender may decide his best course of action is to flee. If so...there is no negative nor positive for the group. They remain as they were.
But, this assumes an engagement takes place. Knowing certain areas contain a lot of defensive shooters, attackers tend to avoid them. NET POSITIVE for the group.
And wasn't there an Uber driver who stopped a mass shooting back in April?
And aren't guns soooo much of a problem?
As I said yesterday: No. But let's have more of a breakdown.
Meanwhile, in another part of the universe -- also Florida -- the same place that hosted the Blind Sheikh, terrorist mastermind behind the first World Trade Center attack, decided that a homosexual British conservative was far too divisive and terrifying, and possibly hostile. Does anyone else see a problem here?
We won't even go into the little weakling reporter who went to a gun store, fired an AR-15, and claimed PTSD afterwards. He's a man with the appropriate name of Kuntzman. Can't even make this one up.
Even Larry had fun with him.
Who am I kidding, everyone did.
Seriously, all of the anti-gun people need to step back, take a deep breath, and try not to cry into your non-alcoholic, vegan approved fake milk. Try going out to a gun range, and firing off a few rounds. And if you don't listen to the range master, at least try not to deafen yourself or shoot yourself in the foot. And eat some bacon while you're at it.
A former Navy SEAL defends the AR-15.