Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Shooting fish in a barrel


That's what happens when a criminal crazy gets into a 'Gun-free Zone' and goes on a rampage.
You see, criminals don't follow the rules!
And you get This
32 dead, 28 injured.
In the big picture, this is what happens to nations that disarm and run down their armed forces, too.
All so a bunch of soft-cock leftists can indulge their 'let's disarm the world' wankfest...
Let those who chose to carry arms and defend theselves, who are fit and proper persons, do so!


15 comments:

Ash said...

Absolutely!

Seamonkey Madness said...

Google ads:
Sex Offender Records

WTF?

Murray said...

And until such time as New Zealand stops having our own kids murder each other wholesale without the aid of firearms and commit suicide like its a fashion statement we don't get to tell other countries what their arms laws should be.

One single legal concealed carry permit and there's 30 more people still alive.

llew said...

"we don't live in a video game or a Clint Eastwood movie"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/16/145940/196

A local's response to Glen Reynolds:

"And maybe, if you'd thought for two seconds, you would have figured out that even the most fervent gun owner probably wouldn't think to take their gun to their morning ENGINEERING CLASS.

And maybe, Glenn, if you'd thought any longer than that, you would have realized that we don't live in a video game or a Clint Eastwood movie and that even a skilled and responsible gun owner who just happened to think, "Wow, maybe I'll take my gun to class just in case some crazy guy bursts in and unloads two clips into the crowd," who just happened to have that gun sitting in their lap and not packed in their bag, and who just happened to be staring directly at the door and not taking notes or listening to the lecture when some crazy guy did, in fact, burst in with both barrels blazing would still probably have been too busy hiding behind his or her desk and/or bleeding to death to do any good.

But you didn't stop to think, did you Glenn, because you don't give a rat's ass for Blacksburg and you don't give even half a rat's ass for the dead and wounded. You just wanted to score a cheap point. You saw the news that upwards of twenty young students had been killed and thought, "What a PERFECT time to say something stupid!"

Murray said...

Llew don't cut and paste, thats the
habit of lazy lefties with no brain.

The law abiding were unarmed, the law breaker was. They're all dead.

If someone had the chance to drop him they'd be a lot less dead, end of story.

Cum Catapultae Proscriptae Erunt Tum Soli Proscripti Catapultas Habebunt

I sure as hell don't need someone telling me third hand who or what I care about because I've trained in house clearing and I can tell you just from the sound and spacing of the shots that that son of a bitch was walking up to each person and with total deliberate control was double tapping tapping each of them in the head.

This guy makes the SS camp commandants look like day care teachers.

Oz will tell you the same thing.

We understand more, not less. That why we say what we say.

And we didn't cut and paste to do it.

Sheep, wolves and sheepdogs. Pick one.

MK said...

I heard our PM telling us he would never allow an American style gun culture in Australia. I also heard the coalition for gun control demanding more be done to control guns.

See here, 50 shots were fired into a Sydney nightclub in August 2006. We got lucky.

Perhaps 50 of us need to be shot before we realise banning guns doesn't work.

llew said...

"And we didn't cut and paste to do it."

Well... at least I cut & pasted from a local resident. I don't really feel qualified to comment first hand on something that happened on the other side of the world that I've only seen snippets of & read others' opinions of.

I mean, it's an opposing view to yours - i don't know which is more right, but somehow I don't see that one or more others drawing weapons & engaging the guy in a fire fight would have led to a happier conclusion. Notwithsatnding a lucky shot of course. (And then finding you've shot another innocent who was drawing his gun with the same thing in mind as you.

Besides, they'd probably have been shot by the SWAT team.

Murray said...

You don't feel qualified to comment but you do feel qualified to post a conflicting comment from someone else and claim THATS valid?

I could fill an entire phone book with comments to the opposite from people in Virginia alone.

You're now off on a tangent of what ifs trying to produce a MORE negative result when quite simply less people dead is better.

If you oppose people owning guns then tell us what YOU think, not what someone else thinks then hide behind he lives closer so it counts card.

Lazy Llew, bloody lazy.

I stand by my assertion that both Oz and I know more about firearms and shooting than most people having both done it for a living.

You're commenting from the twin positions of unqualified and wild speculation.

Not very convincing at all.

llew said...

"You don't feel qualified to comment but you do feel qualified to post a conflicting comment from someone else and claim THATS valid?"

Er... why yes. Think about what you just asked Murray.

My opinion doesn't matter a whit to the victims of this massacre, or the gun owners of America.

But, no, I don't think the populace at large should own & carry concealed weapons. Yes, I do think that people should be allowed to own guns for legit reasons such as hunting.

But on the other hand, it's not my business to tell the people of any other country what they can or can't do according to their laws. SO I cut & pasted someone whose business it might be.

And obviously you could do the same endlessly for the other side of the argument.

What's wrong with that?

"I stand by my assertion that both Oz and I know more about firearms and shooting than most people having both done it for a living."

I don't dispute that - but why should people who know less about guns than you two carry them about their persons?

"You're commenting from the twin positions of unqualified and wild speculation."

And this differs from the speculation that an armed bystander might have had the guts to open fire on the perpetrator, actually hit him & saved lives?
Wildly unconvincing also.

I presume those pictures of people held at gunpoint by SWAT officers were being covered for cautionary measures - lucky for them they weren't holding guns at the time I imagine.

Murray said...

Is there such a think as quantum discussion?

You're off on a tangent thats outside my frame of reference.

Ash said...

I am quite sure that an armed person in the room taking fire from thes scrote, would have fired back. I certainly would, and see no reason why others wouldnt.

You comment on people being covered by swat team members and postulate that iof they had been armed, the team would have shot them.

Why not give the team credit for being the highly trained professionals that they are, who would call on an armed civilian to put his weapon down, BEFORE opening fire?

Oswald Bastable said...

To get my position on carrying fireams for defense crystal clear-

I DO NOT support anyone being able to do so.

They DO need to be vetted for suitabliity- that is, have a clean police record, not have mental illness problems or have form for alcohol/drug abuse.

They MUST pass a rigourous course of instruction in firearms handling, marksmanship and safety. This is what is required to gain a Concealed Carry permit in the states.Part of this course covers scenarios as to when to draw and use your weapon, plus minimising danger to bystanders (Not unloading a 17 round mag in the bad guy's general direction!)

The idea of every moron out there carrying scaps the crap out of me, in the same way that having no requirement for a driver's licence would!

llew said...

Fair enough Oswald.

To be honest, I haven't seen, heard or read all the details - need more time...

But I can appreciate that anyone seeing & hearing this event as it went down would have been silently pleading for someone to shoot the bugger.

One thing I wonder though - I presume there exists some form of campus security - are they not armed, even though it's a gun free zone?

And Ash - I'm sure those SWAT guys were professional to a fault.

Murray said...

They're serious about being gun free.

Works when everyone is honest.

One wasn't.

llew said...

"Works when everyone is honest"

heh! Sounds like democracy...