By that logic we should do away with police.
You have the order reversed, there.
That’s one of the most absurd things I’ve ever seen anyone espouse. Absolutely ridiculous.
No, it’s not OK to take up arms against a sea of troubles, but it is OK to take up arms to defend yourself, your family and community. Self defense, not armed aggression.
Not “anyone else’s” right to not be shot. People who have done nothing wrong and haven’t inflicted harm on others shouldn’t be shot. But there is no “right to not be shot”, any more than a “right” to no be stabbed, punched in the nose, hit by a car, assaulted or any other grievance. A right is only a right if it is backed up by force, which is essentially what laws are. And I hope we never get to a point where it’s not OK for good guys to defend themselves against bad guys.
Those “statistics” completely ignore all of the times that guns are used with no shots fired and no police reports filed. We’ve been down that road way too many times to bother arguing that point.
You missed the point completely! (no surprise)
The man in the church thought he was a good guy defending himself against bad guys.
Just because you think you know who are actually good guys and actually bad guys, doesn’t mean you’re right. And does nothing but encourage those who are actually wrong but think (just as strongly as you) that they are right.
mc
Unless you were his psychologist, you have no way of knowing. That’s some mighty powerful contortion of the facts. He had a record of violence against his family. In no way did he see himself as the good guy.
No, I didn’t miss your point. And thanks for the condescension! (really appreciated)
Where do you get the idea that the church shooter considered himself a good guy defending himself against bad guys? Where is there any evidence that he saw himself that way?
And from just about any objective measurement, he was anything but a good guy.
Dont start nuthin; wont be nuthin!
I didnt say he was a good guy, I said he probably thought of himself as one. And you probably think of yourself as one too! As I think of myself as one. We cant all be right!
As you guns owner’s rights trump people’s safety advocates are found of saying: It’s a slippery slope. It’s not hard to see how your saying that it’s “OK for good guys to defend themselves against bad guys” can get perverted by someone who doesn’t really understand who is good and who is bad.
The phrase “the** only** thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun” Is the only “absolutely ridiculous” thing being espoused here. I’m saying a better way is to preach that using a gun to solve your problems is not the way sane rational adults behave. Which credo do you think will cause less life to be needlessly harmed?
mc
Correct. We can’t all be right. The ones who are right in thinking they are the good guys are the ones who don’t shoot innocent people.
I don’t trust the judgment of people who don’t understand right and wrong. So I have no confidence that they will understand anything I say.
As far as I can tell, you are the only who mentioned it.
“Violence is rarely the answer. When it is, it’s the only answer.” - Robert Heinlein, I believe.
Regards,
Shodan
You did’t say “probably” here, you said “I’m sure”:
Neither did you use “probably” here:
Even trying to go back and rewrite history and pretend you said “probably”, I don’t see any evidence to support the claim that he ‘probably’ thought he was a good guy. Are you basing that opinion on the idea that it’s common for people to think of themselves as ‘good’? Or is there something you know about this guy that the rest of us don’t know, wherein he asserted that he was a good guy doing right when he massacred the victims?
I think the “rewrite history” thing is a bit over the top, and the statements are equivalent.
I took mikecurtis to mean that most people think of themselves as basically good (for flexible values of good), and this shooter probably did too. Even people who take extreme actions typically rationalize themselves as acting in some needed or necessary manner. The common words of the domestic abuser – “Don’t make me hit you again!” – come to mind. I have little trouble imagining that this shooter believed that he was carrying out some needful actions, thereby doing ‘good’ (for a flexible value of good) rather than believing himself to be doing evil.
Likewise I have little trouble imagining that this shooter was fully aware that he was committing horrible acts and that there was nothing “good” about it. Neither one of us has anything more than our imaginations for the basis of those opinions. Neither does mikecurtis. That’s my point: We don’t know what he actually thought of his actions, so making silly claims like “… the guy in this latest shooting, I’m sure, thought of himself as the good guy …” is baseless.
FWIW, I’ve known some rough characters personally, and a number of them had no problem recognizing that the had done bad things, that they were bad people, etc.
how do you figure?
I’ve double checked the name of this forum, and it leaves me puzzled at your objection to mikecurtis expressing near certainty of the shooter’s mind set. He’s sharing his opinion. You are certainly entitled to your opinion as well, but you haven’t persuaded me that your interpretation is correct.
Parenthetically, I too have known some pretty nasty characters including genuine sociopaths. All were quite capable of doing truly evil things without a qualm, whether for a reason or for no reason at all. They could recognize that certain actions were judged as evil by the society in which they were immersed, and this recognition had no effect on them. Whether they were just mowing the lawn, or stomping on kittens, none of them self-identified as evil themselves. Not sure if this illuminates the discussion or is just another moot observation.
The vigilante shot at the gunman before the gunman shot at the vigilante.
Cite please.
Lawyers for the families of the people who died will probably sue the Air Force for not entering the information that would have blocked firearm purchases into a federal database used in background checks for firearms purchases, something it was legally required to do.
Ok, my error. The account of the vigilante says that “The pair exchanged gunfire.” So who shot first is uncertain, and probably not important.
It was important enough for you to create a false narrative.
We already know who shot first because there was a church full of victims shot prior to the arrival of the first responder.
First responders are police, fire, & EMS, not vigilantes who take matters into their own hand & start shooting people when they are not in any danger.
In the state I live in, he’d be subject to criminal charges. Texas being Texas might be different. Can you provide cite or statues that allows a private citizen to pull a gun & fire on someone they believe* to be committing a crime & then subsequently drive dangerously & recklessly (has Johnny had any EVOC / racecar training?) in continued pursuit?
- Yes, we all know he did it now, but was that confirmed during the moment? Was he sure that the person he saw wasn’t an off-duty SWAT officer who stopped, suited up & was acting as a real first responder?
Off-duty SWAT officers don’t typically shoot up a church.
Regards,
Shodan