NYT blog uses the Illinois shooting in the predictable way
posted at 5:25 pm on February 15, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
The Times isn’t a newspaper so much as it’s an organ of far left politics. Today’s evidence is an unserious blog post that sets out to smack a few Republicans, the Interior Department and the NRA for pushing to make it legal to carry firearms in national parks.
A Worse Day Than Usual to Promote Guns in National Parks
The Interior Department was expected to announce today that it would begin re-evaluating regulations that currently prohibit visitors from carrying loaded weapons in America’s national parks.
The agency’s plans were preempted, however, by yesterday’s news that a gunman in Illinois had killed five students and wounded 16 others before killing himself.
And so, out of respect for the dead and injured, who were killed by a handgun and a shotgun, the Interior Department has —what? Changed its mind? Thought better of its plans? No. It has merely postponed its announcement until next week.
Nowhere in the post is any mention that NIU is a gun free zone. Also, nowhere in the post is any mention or hint that the Times is aware that college campuses and national parks are not the same thing. The image the Times probably hopes to convey is of gun-toters waltzing around urban national historic sites and the like with impunity, but that’s not what the rule change would be about. Fifty-one senators have requested the relaxation of rules governing firearms in national parks because many national parks are vast wildernesses inhabited by dangerous wildlife. Hikers, campers and others in the park should have the legal option of carrying firearms to protect themselves from such wildlife as well as criminals who might enter the parks to prey on them. Criminals will be less likely to do that if there’s a chance that the park occupants are armed. While this might lead to an increase in poaching, the truth is that poaching itself is already illegal, and if we have to weigh the protection of human life against the possibility of poaching, that should be an easy call to make.
The Times also fails to mention that the Illinois shooter appears to have been a mentally ill man who was off his meds. Fox is reporting that he may have bought his firearms from the same Internet gun shop as the VT shooter. That strikes me as a very relevant set of facts that the Times conveniently left out.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Looks like they missed one in their 100 layoffs.
Topsecretk9 on February 15, 2008 at 5:30 PM
guns don’t kill people. bears kill people.
sansabelt on February 15, 2008 at 5:36 PM
You’d almost think the guns did it on their own without a person pulling the triggers.
wytammic on February 15, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Methinks it may be safer in the woods than in a gun-free zone.
davidk on February 15, 2008 at 5:37 PM
NYT also wrote another piece today saying that US troops are coming home and murdering people at high rates, etc. It is a soft porn sequel to the monkey spunk piece that powerline debunked so thoroughly just a few weeks back.
BillLalor on February 15, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Typical. I’m amazed that there hasn’t been much calls for *serious reporter voice* “A…rethinking on our gun laws.” Actually, its not that surprising, the left is stupid, but not that stupid, they know they can’t go gung ho for gun control because its a political loser.
doubleplusundead on February 15, 2008 at 5:38 PM
They also neglected to mention that the shooter was a “social justice” afficianado.
BuzzCrutcher on February 15, 2008 at 5:38 PM
It’s against the law to carry firearms in national parks? How long has that been the law?
We went camping a lot when I was a kid and regularly carried handguns openly.
samuelrylander on February 15, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Oh? So which one was it that in addition to his interests in corrections, political violence, and peace and social justice, co-authored a manuscript on the role of religion in the formation of early prisons in the United States with Jim Thomas and Josh Stone. And also developed content for online education and was an executive board officer of the NIU student chapter of the American Correctional Association?
The handgun or the shotgun?
Enquireing minds want to know.
Deety on February 15, 2008 at 5:40 PM
No One is going to take my rifle, hand gun or taser out of my freaking hands.
National Parks, are they kidding?!?! I don’t fishing here in Alaska without a piece due to the bears. I don’t care how much the bears have been around humans… aka STILL WILD!
I swear the NYT need to be on some “meds”, they obviously do not get our of that city enough to smell clean air!
upinak on February 15, 2008 at 5:43 PM
they don’t want you to be fishing either…that is cruel to the fish.
samuelrylander on February 15, 2008 at 5:45 PM
I doubt poaching will be an increased problem in national parks because of the can carry rule. Generally speaking, the firearms are going to be handguns. It’s nice to see some common sense finally applied. I wouldn’t hike or go backpacking unarmed in a national park, and not because of the animals. Cannibis farming is also getting fairly common
in those areas, and the perps are a lot more dangerous than any animals.
a capella on February 15, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Come to Alaska.. let me take you to the Russian/Kenai River.. we shall stand shoulder to shoulder… Fishing in beautiful cold water!
As I will still have my .40 cal in the shoulder holster. I may not kill the bear… but I can slow it down, and all I have to do is run faster then you! j/k
LOL but something you said is true. I can only smack the fish in the head with a bonker 3 times. I have to “cut” the gills and let it bleed out after I supposedly kill it. The enviro-wacko’s have it covered.. trust me! Ugh
upinak on February 15, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Cannibis=cannabisa capella on February 15, 2008 at 5:51 PM
It doesn’t matter where he “bought” them. He couldn’t receive them without going through an Illinois FFL. That means a background check.
PeteRR on February 15, 2008 at 5:57 PM
So, you call out the NY Times for uses deaths for their agenda , what exactly does it say for you complaining about NIU being a gun free zone? Pot meet kettle.
One simple question, if law enforcement officials spend countless hours training to make sure they identify and shoot the right person in complex situations and struggle at it. What on God’s green earth makes you thing the average Joe Blow would perform well in the same situation with little to no training? You ever participate in one of those exercises where a random chaotic event is staged and during the review 80% of the people identify the wrong person responsible? No imagine a room full of people with guns who are untrained. Common sense people common sense
jero_jones on February 15, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Yes, let us revel in our sheepdom. Clearly we are all unable to react in a crisis situation.
I know it’s hard to imagine, but people who carry concealed take time to consider what they’d do in a given situation. If I was carrying a pistol, a pistol I’ve fired 1000s of rounds through(which I have), my first instinct would be to take cover, then consider who’s shooting and who’s being shot, and finally take action.
PeteRR on February 15, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Why would someone start shooting in a room full of people of guns? Not smart.
terryannonline on February 15, 2008 at 6:13 PM
If I remember right.. IL doesn’t have a concealed carry law. And those who do live in the “gun-free” zone I feel sorry for.
I agree with jero with what most of what he has said.
But lets put the teachers in charge then… yep the liberals and in some cases conservatives educating our students. Why not let teachers who do not have the problem of carrying and are in favor of having a gun at school have them! Have these teachers to a pysch eval, give them a special permit to be able to carry in school, and then you MAY not have this problem anymore!
Also pay them like the Military… give them a small extra 100 a month for doing this and protecting the kids.
Small price to pay for keeping kids safe I say! Gun Free Zones or not.
upinak on February 15, 2008 at 6:15 PM
imagine a plane full of people with a coffee cart who are untrained. Mindset people mindset.
Deety on February 15, 2008 at 6:16 PM
So Pete you shoot 1000’s rounds in complex stressful situations or just at the gun range using you imagination of a stressful situation? The point being if trained people who spend countless hours of training struggle in identifying the correct shooter the average person with no training would be a disaster waiting to happen.
1. Who gives the all clear
2. who gives the signal of how many shooters
Just two things to ponder
jero_jones on February 15, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Sadly, the politically correct sign:
GUN-FREE ZONE
has again been translated, in the realworld, as:
VICTIM HUNTING PRESERVE
I think all NYT staffers should march through the woods in bear country munching on corned beef sandwiches so they have the opportunity to reason themselves out of a confrontation with their superior logic.
Or through some of the rougher parts of their own city at night with $20 bills hanging out of their pockets, so they can try it with the two-legged animals.
michaelo on February 15, 2008 at 6:26 PM
There are studies that show CCW carriers are less likely to hit an innocent bystander than the police.
doubleplusundead on February 15, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Ok where are the studies? please.
upinak on February 15, 2008 at 6:28 PM
I like your “thinking”. Perhaps banks could prominently display signs outside their buildings: ” No Security No Cameras”!
mred on February 15, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Did they interview this guy for their story, I wonder? I wish he’d been on campus that day.
michaelo on February 15, 2008 at 6:31 PM
jero_jones
Since I’m in the room when the shooting starts, and he’s the only guy shooting indiscriminantly into the crowd, it won’t be a “struggle in identifying the correct shooter”.
The police don’t have that problem either in your scenario since the bad guy has generally finished killing by the time they arrive and has helpfully shot himself.
Also the point of shooting 1000s of rounds is to know your point of aim instinctively and so put your rounds where they belong: center mass of the nutball.
PeteRR on February 15, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Cops in New York fired over 40 rounds at an unarmed guy in a doorway.
Did you notice how fast the police response was in the HI shooting? Pretty fast. Just in time to pick up victims and draw chalk outlines. Law enforcement doesn’t prevent or stop crimes, as a general rule. They pick up the pieces and try to arrest or kill the perp after the fact. Rather than fret about CCW permit holders conducting a circular firing squad, consider the deterent effect of knowing the pool of potential victims may be carrying. The bad dude will go elsewhere, probably to a nursery school where he is safer. The problem hasn’t been fixed,..just diverted, but you can protect nursery schools.. You can’t wish or legislate this problem away. As long as the media reacts the way it does, these screwballs will keep coming out of the woodwork.
a capella on February 15, 2008 at 6:32 PM
In a perfect world… and we can dream. But honestly, I would rather go hunting with Cheney!
upinak on February 15, 2008 at 6:32 PM
I’m looking for it, saw it a long while ago, wish I had blogged it…
doubleplusundead on February 15, 2008 at 6:33 PM
i think this is one of the issues that conservatives need to re-think. i am in beijing, china right now, and i guarantee you i do not worry about somebody shooting me when i go outside. i have spent time in singapore and japan as well, and the same goes for those places. yes, there are other issues with these places, but i think in many ways, NRA folks are too narrowly focused when they think of the gun issue (much as NOW is on the abortion one) – never any room for compromise or common sense.
the fact is, it is a cultural thing. i grew up in california and never once felt a need to have a gun or shoot one or anything of that sort. but i understand and appreciate that in many other parts of the country, it is very much a cultural value to be able to hunt and even protect ones home. where people go over-board is in feeling they have every right to every weapon made on earth and/or in not considering that maybe a few, or even many, common sense restrictions on the ease of getting a weapon, as well as what kind of weapons one can get, isn’t such a bad thing in this day and age.
i compare it to the left and how they refuse even those most realistic and sensible abortion restrictions (parental notification, partial birth, etc.). yes, people kill people, and yes, guns can protect, but it is also true that gun culture leads to gang violence and things such as yesterday in ways it would not if there were way more common sense restrictions in place.
how about two week waiting periods, complete background checks, and eliminating all ‘fun to shoot guns’ and simply allowing basic hunting and home protection weapons? where is the maturity in this country? i know, it has no place in politics, but i always hope.
truecon on February 15, 2008 at 6:37 PM
No worries, it is the start of the weekend. I will look for it off and on. But I do CCW hold, and I wouldn’t shoot to kill … I shoot to maim. Legs are the best, shoulders, but youhave to be careful.
And jero is speaking of the military guys (I am assuming). you learn that in Basic to be on your toes no matter what. Even in comfortable surroundings.
upinak on February 15, 2008 at 6:38 PM
80-year-old John Wayne fan puts attacker in hospital
10:06 AM CST on Friday, February 15, 2008
By CHRIS HAWES / WFAA-TV
Immediate justice
Investigators say they were definitely going to rob him – possibly even kill him.
But an 80-year-old North Texan wasn’t about to let that happen, so he took action.
One of the suspects is in the hospital and both are facing charges.
Two men obviously thought James Pickett, 80, was an easy target when they showed up at his home on Saturday with a knife.
“He just came through that door, stabbing and beating,” said Pickett.
Captain Clint Pullin said it looked as though the men wanted to kill him.
But before you worry too much about Pickett, learn a bit more about him.
He’s a WWII veteran, former firefighter and lifelong John Wayne devotee.
In short, even at 80, he is someone you just don’t mess with.
What the men didn’t know is Picket had taken a pistol and put it in his pocket before opening the door.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080214_lj_hawes.bfc57dff.html
mred on February 15, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Yea you’re living in a communist paradise.
mred on February 15, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Ah yeah, RIGHT! Not!
I am not going to rethink anything concerning rifles, hand guns or anything concerning it. Oh and BTW a Rifle is usually used for Hunting… or in these cases killing people.
It is a State who foundamentally writes the laws concerning guns. Not the Federal Government!
I am also not a NRA member, so don’t think everyone who owns a gun is part of them! I don’t care for them nor do I need them to speak my mind concerning them.
And the fact it is easy to get a gun anywhere… not matter where you are, including China! But in China it is easier to obtain a AK then a shotgun.
BTW how is China… I hear their Government is beautiful this time of year!
upinak on February 15, 2008 at 6:42 PM
How about no, comrade truecon, does no work for you?
Seriously? Beijing? You’re gonna use the brutal dictatorial Communist regime as a model for American society to emulate? Get f*cked. I’m not about to live my life as a serf, feel free to move to Europe or Asia if that’s what you want.
doubleplusundead on February 15, 2008 at 6:45 PM
**snickers**
Double
he may want to move to Germany.. where you are allowed to have shot guns only or air rifles.
But the thing is the shot guns are for hunting only and you have to have them at a hunting lodge and be part of one.
As it is in other countries… But I am happy to be an American! **smiles**
upinak on February 15, 2008 at 6:47 PM
there are some fine bumper stickers out there that deal with your arguments properly. The 2nd amendment isn’t about duck hunting. Read the original language from the founding fathers justifying the 2nd and that is why China has their type of government and we have our type.
a capella on February 15, 2008 at 6:52 PM
I think the 34,000,000 million Chinese murdered by the Chinese government might disagree. Except they’re dead, so I guess they can’t disagree.
PeteRR on February 15, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Yes, definitely safer in the woods than in a gun-free zone.
In a gun-free zone, the shooter even has time to reload.
Gun-free zones are tragedies waiting to happen. When guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns. How smart do you have to be to realize a plain thing like that?
petefrt on February 15, 2008 at 7:03 PM
O.K. Just don’t stand in front of a tank. How is that dude, anyway? And, how is that forced abortion program working out? I guess while I’ve got you on the line, could you tell us why China is requiring Olympic athletes to sign gag orders regarding their public opinions on human rights abuse over there? Do you suppose that human rights business and the populace being disarmed are related?
a capella on February 15, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Who would shoot people in a room full of people with concealed weapons? Well what type of person commits mass murder or suicide by police, obviously a person not in their right mind.
So if I am not focusing on the point where the shooter/s starts shooting, how can I tell who the real shooter or shooters are if everyone else in the room has a gun. As Pete says shoot the person with the gun, oops everybody has a gun. The imaginary is a great place to live.
jero_jones on February 15, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Yeah, I guess if you ignore the crucial part where the bad guy pulls a gun out and starts shooting randomly and jump to the part where the CC-holders respond, then your point makes a little more sense.
This the part where I’m rolling my eyes as I type.
PeteRR on February 15, 2008 at 7:22 PM
We’ve had vermin like you promise that there would be bloodbaths everywhere CCW is permitted and every time a state loosen regulations, yet these wild west style shootouts never happen, which must break your little authoritarian heart.
doubleplusundead on February 15, 2008 at 7:30 PM
i can’t quote all the disagreement, so i will make a few general comments. put china aside for the moment. but i will say that it is far different than you think, i am almost positive. in fact, i would say, at least in the big cities, it is more like what most of you would want: total economic freedom, low taxes, and a country nobody will f#%k with. and absolutely no political correctness (i liked the magazine article in the plane i was on where it mentioned the search for stewardesses – no, not flight attendants, stewardesses – and how they had a beauty contest for it and paid special attention to their skin and beauty in their selection). you just have to decide that politics don’t matter (most of my friends here think nothing of politics, only money), and decide to allow total corrpution. now i certainly would not prefer it, but it does have its merits in some limited way.
ok, i got too far off on the china tangent. i will post again on guns to look for real clarification. i may be worng, i accept that, and want to know why.
truecon on February 15, 2008 at 7:43 PM
So what happens if the shooting starts in the back of the room with everyone focused on something else like the professor in the front of the room? How can you possibly identify a random shooter in a crowded room with no training? I guess you shoot the guy that is wearing the shirt that says “crazy guy with a gun” or just shoot the first person you see shooting. Then you can pray the untrained guy across the room who was dozing off does not shoot you, since you were the first person he saw shooting and always thought you were a unstable.
jero_jones on February 15, 2008 at 7:45 PM
What medication was the shooter suppose to be taking? Why did he stop? How could he purchase firearms while being treated for a psychological disorder? The shooter would have had to have lied about the prescriptions on the federal forms to purchase the guns.
Zorro on February 15, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Your argument makes no sense. Grow up.
Zorro on February 15, 2008 at 7:53 PM
I’ll play your reindeer game. Let’s take your hypothetical. I get shot by another pistolero after gunning down the potential mass murderer. What’s the damage? Me, an innocent, and the bad guy who is still prevented from killing 10 people and wounding dozens more. That’s a balance sheet society can live with.
The alternative is, I don’t get shot by a good guy. Instead I am, along with everybody else in the room, at the mercy of a guy who’ll gladly kill all of us.
PeteRR on February 15, 2008 at 7:56 PM
ABC news tonight said the shooter had been taking(until a couple of weeks ago) unnamed antidepressants and anti anxiety medications.
The ammo was purchased from the same Wisconsin shop that provide the VT shooter with his ammo.
The weapons were obtained locally with a Valid FOID card issued by the State of Illinois. Nobody has claimed to have seen the original application to see how the shooter Steve Kaczmierczek answered the medication question on said application.
southsideironworks on February 15, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Good for you for having a CCW, but I winced a bit when you said you would shoot for the leg or shoulder. When you’re in a self-defense situation, the adrenaline is pouring into your system, and don’t have time for precision aiming, you need to be going for center mass, always. Otherwise you’re a lot more likely to miss and potentially hit an innocent bystander instead of the attacker.
Just some friendly advice, FWIW.
Insomniac on February 15, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Just got back from the hospital and I’m going to echo Insomniac.
upinak, I’m not sure of the specifics of your state, but in most locations I’m aware of where CCH is allowed, doing what you state will lead to a very long prison sentence for YOU, not the perp.
If you can’t justify shooting to kill, you are justified to shoot. Period. The threat is either life-threatening and worthy of an in-kind response, or it isn’t. Shoot to kill or don’t shoot at all is what the DA will tell the grand jury, and when explain you aimed for a shoulder or leg to “maim” instead of a center mass shot, you’re done. A couple of months in prison is likely when convicted, possibly years. And don’t even get me going on the civil trial where the scum bag sues you for everything yo own, and is ever likely going to own.
Far more likely, however, is that you will miss, and end up seriously injured or dead.
Be psychologically prepared with the intent to kill if you draw your weapon, or don’t carry. Please.
jero_jones, you obviously know very little about the kind of people who carry, applicable laws and training (of both CCH holders and police), and seem to have some serious phobias about firearms as well. I suggest you find someone at a local range and take some training. Perhaps when you have some first-hand knowledge and experience you won’t be so prone to making embarrassing statements.
Bob Owens on February 15, 2008 at 10:22 PM
I’m reposting here what I just posted in their comments because I don’t know if my comment will pass the NYT’s muster:
JimC on February 15, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Being that I live in the 49th State, I have more rights up here then most of the “Lower 48″. Check the laws if you will.
Since I am pretty well established with my .40 cal, I happen to do target practice about once every week or two if I am really busy. But I make sure I do close range and long range. I have seen people get shot in the head, legs, arms, shoulders. and the one thing I have learned is always aim lower then what you want to hit. Feet are good as well. As I said I am not one to do something dumb.
Also attacking me with “gun laws” is fine, as long as I know my laws and you know yours. :D
But I am not the problem! There should be teachers who should be able to bring a gun to school. I also think anyone taking any pills that help with ANY mental illness should not be able to registar and purchase a weapon. These are my opinions, you may or may not agree…. But giveing me crap for owning a hand gun…. wooooo I am soooooo going to throw my gun out. In your dreams!
upinak on February 15, 2008 at 11:39 PM
You know, tonight I listened to an 80 year old WW2 vet on the radio. A man who was a 35 year vet of the Houston fire department tell how he shot a bum three times that invaded his house and cut him 30+ times with a knife.
His biggest regret was that his third shot at the scum that attacked him went through his picture on the wall of John Wayne.
What a true man!!!!!!!!!!!!
conservnut on February 16, 2008 at 12:10 AM
…fun to shoot…?
You’ve just eliminated every gun I’ve ever fired.
soundingboard on February 16, 2008 at 6:36 AM
Comment GOLD.
soundingboard on February 16, 2008 at 6:43 AM
Well, the lead in the paint makes the toys brighter and shinier.
And the poison in the food makes your pet’s last meal extra delicious.
soundingboard on February 16, 2008 at 6:56 AM
Typical liberals. Can’t even wait for the blood to dry before trying to use a tragedy for political gain. The lowest of scumbags.
I used to get mad when liberals like this would fail to mention that these incidences happen in ‘gun-free’ zones or cities with gun bans but since when have liberals and facts been good bedfellows? It’s just comical. Go for the easy gut response not the one with an ounce of logic and you are DNC material.
MannyT-vA on February 16, 2008 at 2:34 PM
For those who want links, and can’t be bothered to do their own damned homework:
http://www.guncite.com/
http://www.gunowners.org/sourcetb.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/fstb.htm
http://gunrightslinks.com/information.html
And if you intend to rebut with “but those are pro-gun websites,” please consider what an unabashed fool you will look for saying so.
And learn to do your damnable homework instead of listening to jackass reporters who can’t tell the difference between “by” and “with.” If people could READ and THINK this wouldn’t even be an issue, and we wouldn’t have to fight every damned issue EVERY DAMNED YEAR – FOREVER.
With regard to shooting people in the leg – it’s been pointed out why this is a bad idea, but the short version is: A firearm is lethal force, and no matter what you try to aim at you are using lethal force – period. If you don’t feel justified in using lethal force, but you use it anyway, this will be seen by the court as a non-justified shooting.
All this kill/wound/no-kill crap is irrelevant – the reason for a defensive shooting is to STOP the bad guy from killing/maiming you or someone near you. Frankly, whether the crackhead killer lives or dies is of secondary importance, and I’ll worry about that after I’ve stopped him from killing me.
And shooting someone in the arm or leg is far from a guarantee that they will stop trying to kill you.
And “jero_jones” basically has no clue about law-enforcement training, civilian firearm training, the differences between the two, or the track record of the two, and is essentially totally unqualified to comment. Which is pretty normal for people who hold those political views, actually.
The gun-control agenda is driven almost entirely by ignorance and sensationalism.
Merovign on February 16, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Just to emphasize: This is the internet, people. Don’t ask people to do your homework for you, a search engine is just a few keystrokes away.
Not that an ideologue is ever convinced by evidence. They can always explain it away.
If you’re one of those rare creatures, the true innocent who literally doesn’t know anything, and you can’t decide who to trust, just figure out who’s telling you the truth.
Example: The NRA says the 2nd Amendment recognizes an individual right, the Brady Campaign says it’s a state/government right (unlike any other part of the Bill of Rights).
So, go read what the people who WROTE the Constitution say, and they all say it’s an individual right.
So, the controllers are LYING TO YOU.
From there, it should be easy to figure out who to trust.
Merovign on February 16, 2008 at 3:22 PM
That’s the part of the post that raised my eyebrows. Wow.
OneGyT on February 16, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Bingo….because guns are evil and all people are inherently good.(sarc)
Livefreeordie on February 17, 2008 at 1:43 AM
Truer words were never spoken.
Livefreeordie on February 17, 2008 at 1:45 AM
What a great idea! Then they could prove how safe gun-free cities like NYC really are!
Livefreeordie on February 17, 2008 at 1:50 AM
Ok, so in your hypothetical situation, its better for only the crazy to have a gun. Now everyone is unarmed, and knows who is going to kill them…. and can’t do a damn thing about it.
Then everyone dies except the crazy gunman. Hooray, that’s much better.
Seriously, did your “worst case” scenario for “everyone is armed” get higher than a 100% body count for the classroom?
Because your proposed solution got everyone except the criminal killed. I think any option would be better than that. Of course I’m looking to keep innocent civilians alive, and I’m not too worried about criminals.
I’m not sure what your goal is.
gekkobear on February 17, 2008 at 2:22 AM
Comment pages: