Adam over at Universal Hub
linked to my post
from last week on Jean Lampron, the woman in South Boston who suffered an apparent heart attack after being assaulted and robbed by an individual engaged in a little wealth redistribution scheme.
The comments over there range from remarkably "common-sensical" to the run-of-the-mill "guns are nothing but evil killing machines" crap we've all come to expect 'round these parts.
Adam kicks the thread off
with this remark:
Bruce somehow knows that Lampron would been packing if not for Menino.
Close, but no cigar. Would have been nice had she been afforded the CHOICE, though, as commenter The Modern American's follow-up noted:
I think Bruce's point probably has to do more with the fact that she could have had a gun, and that a criminal might be deterred by the risk of being shot.
If you are thinking about robbing someone, even someone who appears harmless, you may think twice if there's a possibility she may have a weapon (or any other means to adequately defend herself).
Eliminating the chance that someone can defend him or herself only serves to make criminals more self-assured and bold.
He shoots. He scores! Give that man a cee-gar!
This is followed by much of the tired old strawman arguments we've heard over the years, where both sides look to engage in a game of "my statistics can beat up your statistics".
The bottom line is this. Mayor Menino has adopted the official position that the law-abiding residents of Boston do not have the right to defend their own lives our the lives of their children. Those residents who would CHOOSE not to own a gun need not actually make that CHOICE, as the government has made it for them. But that's not good enough for them, they insist that the government make that CHOICE for all Boston residents.
Freedom of choice: It's not just for abortions anymore.
Anyway, back to the comment parade.
Commenter 'Anonymous' (man, this guy gets around!) offers these words of wisdom:
I've lived in AZ, TX, SC, FL, WA, and CA. And believe me, you'll think twice about comitting a violent act against someone in AZ or WA. The violent crime rate is not higher there than it is in MA. However, you can be reasonably sure a that a buuegy weak liberal in MA is not packing (in short you can smack them), but you would not try that in AZ or you'll quite possibly be shot. Mass liberals and their foolish gun laws are just the tip of the iceberg. Follow a MA liberal around sometime and you will get to see all the way to the bottom of the well of human stupidity.
Hard to argue that.
Unless you're one of these enlightened folks:
Go back to Texas. They'll appreciate your shit a lot more there.
Um, that "shit" you're talking about to is also referred to in some circles as individual liberty and the ability to take responsibility for your own safety and well-being without subjecting yourself to the whims of the state.
Pass the shit, please. I'm starving
So, what happens when criminals steal guns from law-abiding gun owners?
Well, in a perfect world, they get locked up. But this is Massachusetts, so I wouldn't bank on that happening.
Or if there's a situation in which both the criminal and the potential victim have guns?OH, THE HORROR!!!
Because we've seen how better it is now with the criminals having the city-wide monopoly on gun ownership. I seriously have to wonder as to the mental state of someone who would actually ask that question.
I would think that, in most cases, the criminal would have more experience with a gun.
More experience than the average Bay State liberal? Hell yes. More experience than the average law-abiding gun owner? Hardly. I'd safely wager that every gun owner I know spends more time practicing with his or her firearms than the average police officer walking a beat in the city.
What happens if a witness happens to have a gun, tries to shoot at the criminal, and ends up shooting the victim or a bystander instead?
Well, they'd be treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than would a police officer who does the same, I can tell you that much.
This guy seems to agree with me:
Bottom line: If attacked, I'd rather have a gun than not have a gun. Having better skills than a criminal is easy, just take a few gun classes (something a responsible gun owner should do anyway).
OK, now, back to the world of fantasy:
Isn't it important to consider the whatifs? Situations don't always unfold in predictable ways. And you can "just take a few gun classes," but what about, like, 64-year-old ladies?
What is it with people who think that anyone over 60 is, by default, instantly rendered incapable of basic mental and physical function? Believe it or not, firearms safety classes are available to, like, everyone, man - even, like, 64-year-old ladies.
The thread predictably leads to the "Yeah, but you're 43 times more likely to kill..."
Then, we have another equally-informed individual talking about the waiting period for gun purchases that some people think actually exists in the Commonwealth - in their dreams, maybe.
The thread closes with this nugget by 'a.w' offering us commentary from both ends of the Cerebral Function Spectrum:
Guns are bad no matter what happens.
Tell us, how's the view from inside your colon?
If anybody thinks guns are good, then move to new hampshire.
I'm working on it, pal.