Wednesday, 11 May 2005
|2102 - Another antigunner refuses to let the facts get in the way|
A Star Tribune NetLet (the first one in the column) asks if undercover cops get shot while armed, what makes conceal carry proponents think they'll do any better?
She must not have read the story in that very newspaper just three days previously, detailing how undercover cops usually work without guns and body armor. Typical behavior for antigunners: they don't let mere facts get in the way of their hatred of guns and those who believe the average law-abiding citizen has a right to own, carry, and use them.
current mood: calm
current music: ZZ Top - Can't Stop Rockin'
I don't get it...
"if undercover cops get shot while armed, what makes conceal carry proponents think they'll do any better?"
...I don't think she is commenting on the % of undercovers that are shot, only that they are shot while armed... and I would think that she doesn't just mean udercover in the strictest sense, but that offduty policeofficers etc.
Her argument comes in the wake of a cop who got shot on duty last week - undercover, and unarmed. She's trying to leverage off of that crime to advance the argument that nobody should depend on firearms to protect themselves, since it obviously didn't wok in this case - completely ignoring that the case is invalid to her argument.
I still think that so long as there is equal representation within the military and police forces that everything would be a hell of a lot safer without guns. And, I really don't believe that with the technology we have that we wouldn't be able to get almost all of the guns off the streets within 50 years.
'cause the technology we have is working so well for drugs, right?
That is a really good point! The best one I have heard thus far... I guess we need massive social reform first so that people actually CARE. I do believe that we could clean the drugs more easily than the guns (we don't need fancy section metal detectors, just dogs) but that so many people are corrupt/unmotivated/underpaid/underappreciated that its not getting taken care of. I mean, you just take a drug sniffing dog and walk around the bad parts of town... its not that hard. Lol. Its like how we got motion sensors to protect the borders but they have just sat in crates for 7 years because then the border patrol wouldn't have an excuse for letting so many people slip by.
But yeah, good point! Illegal drug war first, because those are 100000x more dangerous/harmful!
Um...wow. Way to miss the point.
I oppose the War on Some Drugs, too.
The problem with that is, even if it were possible to get rid of guns (which I seriously doubt - do you know how easy it is to make one?), you have some significant period of time during which the only people with guns will be the criminals. Can you say "reign of terror"?
The world would be safer without nuclear weapons, or cars, or swimming pools...but none of those are going away, either. You can't stuff the genie back in the bottle.
The police would still have guns, and its not like the only thing keeping people from going on the a murderous rampage is the thought that civilians might have guns. Even if when it is illegal to have them, criminals that were actually intelligent enough to THINK about the consequences of their actions, could still realize that the person they are robbing might have an illegal gun.
Anyways, I don't think that this is something that should happen in the world now. But, eventually...
could still realize that the person they are robbing might have an illegal gun.
Which is why a very high proportion of burglaries in the UK occur when the homeowner is present, as compared to a trivial propotion of burglaries in the US?
It still seems a valid question, regardless of the percentages in which it comes up, or whether it was applicable to a recent case or not. Nitpicking for reasons that the question "shouldn't have been asked" in order to avoid answering the question doesn't help your case nearly as much as a solid answer would.
Then it really should be asked as a solid question, with a solid example, rather than use an example that does not apply. There is no reason to give the question legitimacy when the fact it tries to site is demonstrably wrong. The case that is hurt, when things are looked at logically, is that of the questioner who didn't bother with a cite that actually fits the question. It shows either a blindness to what the real situation was, or a willingness to lie about it.