BamaD
Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: angelikaJ
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: angelikaJ
I heard this today and thought he asks some thoughtful questions.
The discussion begins with the topic of Joseph Robert Wilcox:
"In video games, you're supposed to decide—in an instant—who to shoot and who to spare. There's the bad guy with the bag of money that he stole from the bank. Shoot him and you might earn a few points. But there's also the surprise pop-up—the grandmother. Shoot her and your score goes down.
In real life, those calculations don't always add up so easily. It was a calculation that shooter Joseph Robert Wilcox recently made when he tried to stop Jerad Miller, a man who killed a cop in a Las Vegas Walmart a few weeks back.
Wilcox was armed—he saw Miller and believed he had the opportunity to intervene. But he didn't notice a smaller woman standing by, with a shopping cart and a handbag. That was Miller's wife Amanda, and she too was armed; in an instant, she shot and killed Wilcox.
Wilcox was supposed to be one of the good guys, but owning a gun may have cost him his life."
http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/challenges-good-guy-gun/
http://gawker.com/its-really-hard-to-be-a-good-guy-with-a-gun-1588660306
Both sites are anti gun and put the spin on it you would expect.
When you carry you have to accept the risk that you may be shot.
As one person pointed out in the first post there are dozens of crimes stopped with guns that are never mentioned on sites like the takeaway and they made no attempt whatsoever to present a balanced view.
How can a man who's had a concealed carry permit since he was 21, who has been around firearms all of his life, be "anti gun"?
"You don't bring a gun to a fistfight. You don't wave it or brandish it in a threatening manner, because guns rarely de-escalate a situation. And you don't shoot someone just because you're scared."
His point is that the focus is heavily on the rights to own guns, and there is very little discussion on the actual responsibilities that come from the complex situations "Good guys with guns" may face.
"Say I shoot someone, and I'm fully within my rights to do it. How do I even present myself and my weapon to the cops in a way that doesn't alarm them and endanger me? How do I know the difference between an active shooter and a plainclothes police officer?"...
"...I leave it to you, because I still puzzle in my mind over all the tactical difficulties posed by someone in civilian clothes carrying a gun during a shooting. (How do you telegraph your goodness to the cops and bystanders?)"
Personally, I don't think asking those questions should make him a bad guy to gun enthusiasts.
If it does, if his asking those questions makes him an automatic outcast (as you would have him be) then it makes me wonder how responsible are most "responsible gun owners" to begin with?
You misunderstand, hopefully unintentionally.
First I never said he was anti gun.
Second he is wrong, I have defused multiple situations with firearms.
Third when the cops show up your firearm should not be aimed at them, on the ground would be good.
You don't bring a gun to a fistfight but when a man sees he has brought a knife to a gunfight he loses interest real fast.
This is personal experience, not theory.
He has every right to ask the questions but don't others have the right to refute them without being labeled an irresponsible gun nut?
I don't want this to deteriorate into name calling so I have to ask why you didn't post this thread in the more civil P&R section.
_____________________________
Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine
People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.
|
Rights and Responsibilities; Being a Good Guy with a Gun - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread