“Data wonks know that ‘outliers’ don’t represent an underlying data set well. For the same reason, the creation of new restrictions on law-abiding gun owners won’t stop the criminally insane from shedding the blood of innocents. But new restrictions could disarm a gun owner who happens to be in the right place at the right time to prevent carnage. That would be a tragedy, too.” Mark Tapscott, Confessions of a gun-loving journalist [via washingtonexaminer.com]
Yep
how is this so hard for so many to understand?
I am also tired of hearing the anti’s ask for an example of a mass killing being stopped by an armed civilian.
Hey ninnies, when a shooter is stopped, there is no mass killing.
You might ask them for a mass killing being stopped by a police officer shooting the suspect, so we don’t need police then?
The people in favor of restrictions don’t think it will affect them. They never do.
Those same people were of the same mind-set of previous generations of hopefuls claiming Ancient Rome will never fall and the British Empire will go on forever.
So why do we spend so much time and energy on outliers instead of where real day to day violence occurs?
Where are the most incidents of gun violence? Why does it happen there? What is the best proactive way of stopping that violence? Why are we not doing that?
Once we answer these questions we can have a real discussion about guns and their alleged intrinsic evil properties.
Give this man a medal.
Well I can give many examples of a armed citizen stopping a madman hay look just at Oregon a madman was stopped by a CCW carrying man in the mall attack and he gave a BIG part in stopping it.
Comments are closed.