For those of you who don't regularly read the local newspaper (The Lafayette Journal and Courier), a fella who has a regular column there, as well as a couple of blogs, Mike VanOuse, wrote an article that caused a bit of a stir the other day...... He was saying if anyone in the theater in Aurora Colorado would have been armed besides the idiot assailant, much of the carnage could have been avoided. People came out of the woodwork to bash him personally and professionally because he DARED to say that people should arm themselves if it is their own choice, and furthermore, that armed citizens can help stop mass murders like the one in Colorado.
Gun control advocates make a couple points in response to his discussion that, in my opinion, were not well thought out, basically knee jerk stereotypical responses by gun control advocates. Then I thought, maybe these people had simply never thought the issue through, or had been misinformed. So, I jumped into the fray. Here is the link to the original newspaper article. Several responses can be read if you log into a popular social network site to read them.
http://www.jconline.com/article/20120731/COLUMNISTS31/307310007/Mik...
I responded to several of those arguments on the newspaper's website, and I expect to get a lot of flack from a lot of people over it, but it's worth it. I think it needs to be said. SOOOOOOO...... For those of you who prefer other high quality social networks such as homegrownbiker.com to the one the newspaper uses (Facebook).......here is my response to the discussion, and the arguments that a guy with a gun in the audience might have hit innocent bystanders, or that nobody could have stopped this lunatic because he had body armor on......
......
Personally, I love a good debate with well thought out, valid points made on both sides of an issue, and Mike VanOuse is among the best I have ever seen at bringing a point to light while inciting a debate on a topic, all while remaining fun to read.
That said.... I can't believe there are people who would seriously claim that if they were in this theater they would NOT want someone to try and stop the rampage! "Gee whiz, the law abiding citizen with a handgun might hit an innocent bystander." (to paraphrase) ...To that, I ask...What about the innocent patrons who are going to be hit when nobody fights back at all??.
OK, let that slide for a sec...How about this one? "He had body armor, you couldn't stop him." Let me tell ya, as a guy who has shot up a lot of stuff in his day, Arms, legs, shoulders, and a gas mask, are most certainly penetrable by most handgun rounds carried for personal defense, and any one of these would certainly slow down, if not stop an assailant.
Generally speaking, just the fact that someone is returning fire can curtail a great deal of the bloodshed, since the assailant is forced to deal with the person shooting at them rather than continue to aim and shoot at the defenseless intended victims.
Body armor? OK, ya can't shoot him in the heart. Big deal. If you hit his chest with a .45, you will knock him on his keester, guaranteed. Pretty severe pain entails for the person "shot", which will slow them down significantly. Plus, If you have never tried it, you'll have to trust me on this. A .45 will shoot through a gas mask, as will a 9MM, or a .380, etc.. A head shot is a guaranteed show stopper. Then there are the arms and legs. Soft tissue. Ouch. Crippling even with a .22 or a .25, at least momentarily, allowing more people to escape. I am with VanOuse on this one. Big Time. In this situation, were I a patron and not carrying myself, I would hope someone would give defending the crowd a shot. Literally and figuratively.
No comments:
Post a Comment