Saturday, July 21, 2012

Argh! Anti-liberty idiots are crawling out of the sewers!

Why is it that when I point out that ONE armed person in that Aurora theater, besides the guy who wanted to murder people, could have (not "would have", but "could have") saved a lot of lives, the anti-liberty bigots read "everyone in the theater, firing randomly in every direction, would have been great!"?

Are these people really that stupid? Yes. Yes, they are.

One of them waxed "eloquently" about how he had "served" [sic] and my "Monday morning quarterbacking" showed I was never in the army or marines. And, even with his superior training, he doubted he could have effectively shot the bad guy.

In fact, why don't I just post his entire response right here in all its glory.
It's alright to be angry about this as well as the knee-jerk reactions of the "gun control" camp.

A lot of us are, but, as an Army vet (trained in a variety of weapons and situations), I can tell you that, under those circumstances, I doubt that even I could have taken the useless bastard down.

Your assessment indicates that you are not a veteran, or not a veteran of the Army or Marines, at least.

Very few people in this world are not temporarily (much more than just a few seconds) debilitated when CS gas is a factor ( I have met only one - a Drill Sgt in basic), having dealt with it in training, and even the best of us, in those circumstances, would not be able to get an accurate shot off (possibly targeting/hitting a civilian, instead).

Your argument is just "Monday morning quarterbacking"; something that I suspect there will be a lot of with this, just as there was after Columbine.
The gun laws are both the problem and not the problem.

There needs to be some sort of lawfully mandated test to determine the mental stability of someone who decides to purchase a weapon (particularly if they purchase multiple weapons and are not a licensed collector), be it a rifle or handgun.

Until we can make THAT happen, then these sorts of things will always be a possibility. Do we know if he even had a concealed carry permit? I haven't heard on that and my guess is that he did not have one.

So I responded "So you'd rather keep it so that only bad guys are armed. Good to know."


Sorry, but my tolerance for these morons is running low.



  1. "Bad guys," indeed, Kent. That includes Army thugs who will kill at the command of gangster politicians.
    I had to laugh hysterically about his faux concern about hitting civilians. How many millions of civilians have been slaughtered by his kind while “serving?”

  2. For what it's worth-three guys, at least, where able to asses the situation and push their female under seats and protect them with their bodies.

    All three are dead. None were veterans of the army or marines(one was a navy vet-one worked at Target...guess who got more column inches for no good reason)

    Sadly, none of them were armed.

    Honestly, though, that situation would be just about the worst possible to return fire-dark, gas, fires burning, mass confusion. So being armed my not have made a difference.

  3. Being armed may not have made a difference, but given the options I'd still rather have a gun on me and not be able to use it.

    But, that's why I carry so many odds and ends on my person all the time. I hate needing something simple and not having it. Even if my "fix" isn't successful, I feel better (empty emotionalism) about having tried. And, often it does work.

  4. Bad guys have better aim. That's why they can shoot dozens of people, and good guys can't even manage one.

    You learn this in the army. Apparently.

    Okay, so conditions weren't good, he had lots of targets, your target is small and obscured.
    Except, lots of targets - means, you're not likely to get hit.
    Bad conditions - means, you can easily hide and line up a shot.
    There was gas. You're telling me he evenly covered an entire theatre with gas, without training, before anyone could react?

    No, apparently there wasn't gas, it was just a smokescreen.

    He seriously expects us to buy this bullshit?

    Hey, you know what's better than taking a difficult shot? Giving up. Surrender's way better, right?

    I'm insulted. Morning quarterbacking my arse. Apparently I'm just a better trainer than professional drill sergeants.

    And another thing. Even with a ballistic vest, getting shot sucks. Getting shot multiple times is seriously problematic.


    Incidentally, I used to wonder why the army didn't train more snipers - as many as possible, in fact. Seems to me that if the enemy is all dead, you don't have to worry about morale. Turns out, they tried it and it's a great idea.


    And you know, smart guys who can credibly apply to neuroscience programs can't possibly work out how to fool a psych test. Those things are magical, dude.

    Guy's going for a stupidity record. Or is it contempt for his audience?