"If someone with a concealed weapon was there, they could have stopped this man."Donn at Anything You Want responded to the statement in a blog post after another mass killing in May of this year.
On May 30th, 2012, Ian L. Stawicki, walked into to Cafe Racer about 11 AM. and opened fire with two semi-automatic handguns. Six people died that day, including Stawicki, who turned a gun on himself as police cornered him in West Seattle. He lived long enough to be transported to the hospital, where he later died.
This article will not address the violence in our society, our cowboy culture, our ongoing affair with the firearm, it's popularity in the movies, gun control, gun banning, or how guns provide us with 2nd amendment solutions when things don't go our way at the voting box.I'm not wading into the RKBA, the 2nd Amendment, or Gun Control. I'm not going to do it. That path lies madness.
I'll address one thing, just one thing. It's something I've heard time and again, on Facebook, in comments to articles in the paper, ever since this shooting. I've heard it said different ways but, the meaning is the same. Whenever any shooting happens, I hear this statement, usually in defense of legal concealed carry. It's always the same statement. It's always misplaced.Read Donn's post, and you will see why the statement in bold type is false, and the answer to the question in the title of my post is, "No".
How soon I forget. The previous mass killing was in May of this year, less than two months ago.
H/T to my Facebook friend, Jay, for the link.
Crossfire in a dark, smoke-filled theater. What could possibly go wrong?
ReplyDeleteThanks for saving my posting the same thought.
DeleteSecond Bex's comment.
ReplyDeleteSeems like there has been frequent opportunity to shoot back, and no one has yet. Like James Fallows, I'm certain that there will plenty more opportunities in the future, that this will become a routine part of life in America ... until we decide otherwise.
And if the semi-automatic rifle had not jammed, there could have been many more dead and wounded.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide for a strong militia. It would seem to follow that those who keep and bear arms should belong to the nationl guard, police, or some other official force which provides them with training and discipline.
ReplyDeleteOrmonde, I have hunters in my family, and I confess I feel a lot better about eating game meat than I do from eating meat wrapped in plastic from the supermarket. My family members hunt responsibly, and I have no problem with their ownership of guns. I don't hunt, but so long as I eat meat, I don't feel that I can criticize hunters. At least the game roam or fly free until they are killed.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I believe our gun laws are insane. No one needs automatic or semi-automatic weapons to hunt game. No ordinary citizen needs a firearm that shoots round after round in a short time.
I agree that the militia named in the Second Amendment refers to law enforcement or the military and is not an absolute right for every citizen to own firearms. The arms that citizens are permitted to own should be regulated by law.
Mimi, I have no objection to hunting with firearms. In my youth I did a lot of that. I just don't think that bearing arms is one of our inalienable rights, separate from our duties and responsibilities, especially in our violent culture. But tell that to the NRA!
ReplyDeleteThen we are in complete agreement, Ormonde.
ReplyDeleteGrandpère once received repeated mailings from the NRA inviting him to join or asking for money. I began to use their postage-paid envelopes to return their letters with a note saying (speaking for GP with his permission) that he was not joining, nor would he send them money, and requesting them to stop the mailings. The mailings eventually stopped.
Additionally, the young man who did this in Aurora was wearing full body armor including a helmet that covered his entire head, so it is doubtful that anyone in the theater who was carrying a firearm and could have shot back at him would have been able to stop him.
ReplyDeleteOkay, now for a bit of snarkiness......only hunters who can't aim need an automatic weapon to hit a moving animal.
Crossfire in a dark, smoke-filled theater. What could possibly go wrong?
DeleteBex's comment up there covers it all.
...only hunters who can't aim need an automatic weapon to hit a moving animal.
Exactly.
Thanks for visiting. Next time, please make up a name and sign your comment.