Tuesday, November 22, 2011

"Only The Police Should Have Guns"...

...isn't that what the anti-freedom forces are always telling us? The police are the only non-military folks that should be allowed access to guns, because of all their training, etc.? Often, a corollary to this argument is that if you want to shoot guns, you should join the Armed Forces. Bubblehead Les sends in another story showing the utter fallacy of that argument...

Gunman Arrested After Fatal Shooting Near Kentucky College
A gunman was arrested Monday after allegedly shooting two people, one fatally, near a Kentucky college campus.
...
Police said Denholm was a public safety officer at Berea College and a veteran. He was said to be wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying two high-powered rifles when he was at large.

Basically, right up until he snapped, this guy was the poster child for the only group that the Bradys et al think should be allowed access to firearms. Interestingly, neither his military status nor his status as a current law enforcement official were sufficient to prevent the evil mind control rays exuded by his ZOMG HIGH POWERED RIFLE from contaminating his brain and causing him to go on a killing spree. Or, you know, he just snapped - as, sadly, folks sometimes do - and invited violence upon another human being.

When we're all disarmed, we're at the whim of the pathologically violent and the mentally unstable. We have no choice other than to run and/or hide - and if the person that's hell-bent on doing us violence has a superior weapon, that choice most often turns to "die". Whether one is law enforcement, military, or civilian, "cower in a corner and pray for them to lose interest in killing" is about the worst strategy for survival short of "kill yourself so they won't get the satisfaction"...

Fight back as though your life depended on it - because it just might...

That is all.

6 comments:

gator said...

Now I get it... when a public safety officer goes on a killing spree, he/she uses a "high-powered" rifle or weapon. When a civilian does do, he/she uses one of the "assault" variety.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Jay, this about the 4th or 5th story I've found just over the last couple of days about some "Only One" going Nuts with a Gun or being Caught doing something that would put any Citizen into the Slammer for a Decade.

Not a good sign.

David said...

"if you want to shoot guns, you should join the Armed Forces."

My nephew has been in the Armed Forces for 12 years. He was in town last month and we took him out shooting for the afternoon. He put three times more rounds downrange in one afternoon with us than he had shot in his entire 12 years in the military.

Old NFO said...

Excellent one... and Gator beat me to the dichotomous statements rifle vs. assault...

Jim said...

I'm 53 years old, and would have long since retired out of the USAF, had I reenlisted beyond my one, four-year hitch.

Wanting to keep and bear arms till the day I (eventually) die, would I then have been required to remain on active duty until I'd attained the rank of Cheifheadmudderfugginwhatbeinchargemastersergaentmajor, or E-eleventy sebenteen?

Shit, I'd have ended up with more stripes on my uniform than a Michael Jackson tour and Mummar Kadaffyduck, combined!


Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX

Anonymous said...

Just 'cause I feel like commenting instead of working: My daughter attends Berea and eventually deigned to tell me she was on the other side of town studying at a Starbucks during the incident. As for military firearms training, I fired approximately one round per year while I was active (lessee, ten rounds in boot camp divided by eight years is..um..yeah, about right). The best part is now WI considers me qualified for CCW w/o any (formerly mandatory) training. Cool! I'm presently anon cuz google doesn't like me today...