Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
How does one manage to twist something this badly?
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Apparently for some its quite easy. Here's an example of where the truth and specific details aren't important if one can twist it into a cheap rhetorical shot about 'right-wing political correctness'. This particular person takes me to task for making the point that Jeanne Assam, the lady who killed the shooter at the church in Colorado, wasn't a 'security guard':
And there you have it: We're not allowed to think of her as a "guard," even though she used to be a cop and was acting as a guard. We have to think of her as "one armed church member, trained and prepared to use her weapon," because that's the way this story becomes a conservatively correct legend.
Huh ... and here all this time, I thought security guards were those people who were employed to provide security on a full-time basis and were paid to do so. It's a paying job, no?

I mean, when someone says "security guard" is the first thing that pops into your mind a volunteer church member on a part-time basis?

Seems to me that "volunteer", "part-time" and "church member" are germane to the story, and that, in fact, since Ms. Assam was not a paid and employed "security guard", but instead a church volunteer doing part-time, unpaid security work during a church service (after attending an earlier one) she shouldn't be described as a "security guard".

But you know, describing something properly which doesn't fit the left-wing agenda is "right-wing political correctness", and instead of celebrating the fact that this armed and brave lady prevented what could have been a horrifying blood-bath of epic proportions, they'd rather nitpick terms.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
This is really disgusting, especially since that idiot would’ve otherwise argued against her having a satanically evil handgun at all since she hadn’t been a cop for donkey’s years and was not a bonded security guard. What a gutless moral coward!
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
They have to nitpick terms, otherwise they’d have to admit that yes, even normal Joes can carry firearms and stop crime.

It’s comforting to know they don’t trust me to carry a gun and that there’s nothing they can do to stop me.
 
Written By: Robb Allen
URL: http://blog.robballen.com
...and here all this time, I thought security guards were those people who were employed to provide security on a full-time basis...

So a precondition for the use of this term is a 40-hour workweek?
 
Written By: Steve M.
URL: http://nomoremister.blogspot.com
(I guess no cop has ever moonlighted as a security guard, because "security guard," by your definition, can’t be a part-time job.)
 
Written By: Steve M.
URL: http://nomoremister.blogspot.com
no steve, but it is a job. This lady was no more a security guard than my girlfriend is a maid because she volunteers to clean up my apt. (would that she would volunteer more often)
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Steve, it really sucks for you that a private citizen with a gun stopped the attacker, doesn’t it?

Please, keep whining. It’s delicious!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
""security guard," by your definition, can’t be a part-time job."


Unpaid volunteer work is not a "job" or "profession" by definition. Just keep digging yourself into a deeper hole, and don’t think that we don’t know that you’d be arguing that she shouldn’t even have had the handgun in the first place.
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
...under any other circumstances.
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://

So if I am a member of my local ’neighborhood watch’ it is acceptable for me to carry a weapon if I am a police or, presumably, military veteran as long as I call myself a guard? Great. I know there are some citizens of places like Washington DC where they would love to be able to guard their own homes. Let’s arm the Guardian Angels, and turn them into real guardians.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
So a precondition for the use of this term is a 40-hour workweek?
security guard

n. A person hired by a private organization to guard a physical plant and maintain order.

Why not answer the question posed in the post:

"I mean, when someone says "security guard" is the first thing that pops into your mind a volunteer church member on a part-time basis?"
(I guess no cop has ever moonlighted as a security guard, because "security guard," by your definition, can’t be a part-time job.)
Are they hired and paid by someone to be a security guard when they moonlight?

Or are they volunteers?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
So she was a volunteer security guard.

Not a paid one.

Does that settle EVERYONES semantic quibble here?

The fact is that she was on the scene in a security guard work capacity, regardless of pay. That DOES make it a drop different than if a private citizen who was on the premises in another capacity took out their piece and stopped the attacker.

It’s still a great story, but if you’re all going to get lost in the quibbles, why even bother?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"Please, keep whining. It’s delicious!"

The cringing gutless cowardice of the hoplophobes is amazing, especially given their insane delusion that the police are legally obligated to protect them. (i.e., the same police that they claim have a feral and political oppressive hatred for their pet interests)
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
It’s still a great story, but if you’re all going to get lost in the quibbles, why even bother?
Because, speaking of "political correctness" there is an underlying theme to the quibble that Ernie Brown is hinting at and SteveM will never admit.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"It’s still a great story, but if you’re all going to get lost in the quibbles, why even bother?"

As Billy Beck would say, getting the conceptual framework straight is not a "quibble." This is exactly how these punks try to undermine rights in the first place. The FACT that she was a private citizen whose putative police training was over 15 years old cannot be allowed to interfere with their fascistic desire to do away with the right to individual self-defense.

You NEVER let these punks get away with lies, or you pay the price.
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
Oh, another point for those people who want to cling to her former status as a police officer. She was a police officer for a few years in the 90s. Law enforcement training and firearms training are both perishable as all hell, and when she responded to this situation she wasn’t relying on anything other than however much time she as a private citizen had decided to put in at her local range.

 
Written By: Lysenko
URL: http://
Because, speaking of "political correctness" there is an underlying theme to the quibble that Ernie Brown is hinting at and SteveM will never admit.
Fine, but getting drawn into this "what is a security guard" minutae battle really serves to help SteveM, as the real point- that a responsible citizen carrying a gun stopped a lunatic from killing lots of people that would’ve died had it been a "gun free zone" - gets too obscured and off tracked to get discussed.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Thanks, McQ, I made it explicit before I saw your post. (g)
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
As Billy Beck would say, getting the conceptual framework straight is not a "quibble." This is exactly how these punks try to undermine rights in the first place. The FACT that she was a private citizen whose putative police training was over 15 years old cannot be allowed to interfere with their fascistic desire to do away with the right to individual self-defense.

You NEVER let these punks get away with lies, or you pay the price.
BUT-

To be honest, I don’t think everyone here has that framework quite straight either.

That said, I don’t care to get into it with you, because it is not central to the real point.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
So if the killer had arrived a little earlier while she was participating in a service, would SteveM see her actions differently?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Fine, but getting drawn into this "what is a security guard" minutae battle really serves to help SteveM...
Not really, because as has been obvious from the beginning is he has no idea what a ’security guard’ is.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
What training is needed to respond to this particular instance, Steve? What is it that only cops would know but a regular citizen wouldn’t?

Target identification? Sure, cops go through some training to determine who’s a threat and who’s not. Generally, the guy with the rifle shooting into a crowd is a dead giveaway. I think you and I could have handled that.

Firearm training? Good luck pushing that angle. My dad’s a cop and does ok both times he hits the range each year as required. Me? I literally shoot once a week, twice if I can. Rifle, shotgun, revolver, semi-auto pistols. I shoot more in a month than most cops do in a year.

Maybe you’re under the illusion that firearms are difficult to operate. Not really, you point the end with the hole towards the target and pull the trigger. Probably the hardest part is figuring out all the safties put in the way (I don’t suffer that problem with my Glock, by the way).

While at the range, most people hit the target when they shoot. They may be all over the thing, but they hit it. It doesn’t take years of training to hit a target. Heck, my wife has only shot twice and can at least keep them in the rings.

So, what magical ability is granted to cops and security guards that isn’t available to us mere mortals?

 
Written By: Robb Allen
URL: http://blog.robballen.com
"So, what magical ability is granted to cops and security guards that isn’t available to us mere mortals?"


The same magic pixie dust that makes them the only ones that should have guns despite the fact that they are "fascists in blue" to these jerks if they actually ENFORCE the law (see Giuliani, Rudolph), not to mention the reality that they have -NO- legal obligation to protect an individual citizen.
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
I have to agree with shark on this one. She was clearly acting as a security guard at her church whether it was a paid position or not. This fact doesn’t lessen her heroic act. If the lefties had their way the congregation of this church would have had to depend on the state for their protection. Who knows how many lives would have been lost waiting for the police to arrive. This a perfect example of why private citizens should be allowed to keep handguns.
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
From SteveM’s post:
Ordinary citizens need guns because ordinary citizens are the first line of defense against crime — that’s the gun crowd’s first principle. So pay no attention to Assam’s training professional experience as a police officer. Pay no attention to the fact that she was on duty.
Seems the gun control crowd’s first principle is to ignore that there are people like this nut:
I’m coming for EVERYONE soon and I WILL be armed to the @#%$ teeth and I WILL shoot to kill. ....God, I can’t wait till I can kill you people. Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don’t care if I live or die in the shoot-out. All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you ...
Frankly, I dont really care whether or not Assam is refered to as part of the churches security guard detail or just an armed parishoner. It is interesting that SteveM insists that she can not be considered the latter - so just whose agenda is on display here anyway?
More from the killer:
... as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world.
I cant help but think that were it not for the killing thing, the killer would be embraced by many of those hoping for more gun control.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
"She was clearly acting as a security guard at her church whether it was a paid position or not."

In the capacity of a private citizen, with no official government sanction.


"This a perfect example of why private citizens should be allowed to keep handguns."

You just "admitted" that she was not a "private citizen," so we should therefore restrict firearms to those who have received government training.

"Thanks" for admitting Steve M.’s point.
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
"This a perfect example of why private citizens should be allowed to keep handguns."

You just "admitted" that she was not a "private citizen," so we should therefore restrict firearms to those who have received government training.
What the hell are you carrying on about? If she’s no longer on a police force she’s a private citizen. After I retired from the military I too became a private citizen. I believe that the lefties want handguns restricted to those actively employed by law enforcement/military and not have it extended to anyone who received government training sometime in the past.
 
Written By: Bob
URL: http://
"I cant help but think that were it not for the killing thing, the killer would be embraced by many of those hoping for more gun control."

Exactly, that is why there can never be the slightest compromise with those who would surrender individual rights to a fascistic desire to control others. Bob and shark may just think that they are tired adults giving into the whining of a child in adult form, but that child has an ardent desire to put government jackboots "into human faces forever."
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
It isn’t like typical police training is exceptional. A civilian with training from someplace like Gunsite has better firearms training than most police.

It is also worth noting that modern police firearms training has, for the most part, come from the civilian sector. It was Jeff Cooper and the Leatherslap matches at Big Bear, CA that started the movement that would result in the "modern technique". This began late 1950s, and the FBI was adopting those techniques in the 1980s, long after they were well established among civilian shooters. The IPSC matches that evolved from Leatherslap were much more practicle than the police devised PPC matches.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
You just "admitted" that she was not a "private citizen," so we should therefore restrict firearms to those who have received government training.
The state of the art government training was developed in civilian shooting competion.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
So, what magical ability is granted to cops and security guards that isn’t available to us mere mortals?
They get shiney, shiney badges!!!
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://


"The state of the art government training was developed in civilian shooting competion."

Yes, you and I know that, but it is just another -fact- that jackasses like Steve M. ignore. This is why they have to be called out on it and no misguided compromise can be ever offered to them.


When I said to Bob:

"You just "admitted" that she was not a "private citizen," so we should therefore restrict firearms to those who have received government training."

...I was drawing out what little argument there was in Steve M’s little vomit-fest. That sentence is the whole reason for his little tantrum about "right-wing political correctness."
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
She was clearly acting as a security guard at her church whether it was a paid position or not."
In the capacity of a private citizen, with no official government sanction.
And THERE’S where you’re wrong.

She was acting in the capacity as an agent of that particular church. Because (and if I am incorrect about this please feel free to bust me) she was acting in a security capacity with the knowledge and consent of the Church, yes? That is a pretty important difference. Once she operates with Church knowledge, consent and sanction, she is no different from a paid rent-a-cop.
"This a perfect example of why private citizens should be allowed to keep handguns."
You just "admitted" that she was not a "private citizen," so we should therefore restrict firearms to those who have received government training.
How did you read that into what he wrote? WOW.

I don’t understand how admitting the fact that she was acting in a volunteer security guard capacity undermines your argument. If anything, she still demonstrates quite nicely how a responsible armed citizen can stop carnage.

I sense more than a whiff of intellectual dishonesty in your arguments. You’re trying to shoehorn this into something that it quite isn’t, I’m sorry.

(And I’ll stop you before you pull that garbage on me, no I am not saying that firearms should be restricted to those who are trained either so try something else)



 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Steve?

Are you there, Steve? Or did you run to Maine to tap Erb to ’argue’ for you?
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
More to illustrate my point.

From the press conference:

A segment of today’s press conference from New Life Church that covers questions about Jeanne Assam
Question: Can you tell us more about your security person who shot the
gunman?


Yes. She she is highly trained, and is a volunteer member of our church and, simply, her role is to provide security and she did her job yesterday and she is a real hero. When the shots were fired, she rushed toward the scene and encountered the attacker in the hallway. He never got more than 50 feet inside our building. There could have been a great loss of life yesterday, and she probably saved over a hundred lives. He had enough ammunition on him to cause a lot of damage, and she rushed toward the attacker and took him down in the hallway.

The woman who was our security volunteer was purposely stationed in the center of our rotunda yesterday because of the shooting in Denver. Because we took extra precautions, we saved a lot of lives yesterday. We have had a plan in place here for many years, before I ever came as senior pastor, for situations like this. And for a group of volunteers to be able to pull off an evacuation plan the way they did yesterday was supernatural and unbelievable.
Question: Was the security officer stationed where she normally would be
stationed?


I don’t know where she is normally stationed—she is often near me, but takes assignments wherever needed. She is a volunteer—this is a person that comes to our church and is a worshiper here. We have two services—so she sits in one service and worships, and then serves in the second service as security many times.
Question: Was the gun used her weapon or the church’s weapon?
No, we don’t own weapons. It was her personal weapon that she was licensed to carry
.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
She was acting in the capacity as an agent of that particular church.
I think JWG ask the salient question:
So if the killer had arrived a little earlier while she was participating in a service, would SteveM see her actions differently?
Nothing changes as far as she’s concerned - still armed and able - but if she’d been in the service, then what would she have been?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"I don’t understand how admitting the fact that she was acting in a volunteer security guard capacity undermines your argument. If anything, she still demonstrates quite nicely how a responsible armed citizen can stop carnage."

Sigh, Shark, for Steve M., the "fact" that she got police training 15+ years ago invalidates your "demonstrates quite nicely how a responsible armed citizen can stop carnage" point. That is the WHOLE @#$% REASON for him to go on about "right-wing political correctness" in the first place! I am not going to tolerate his semantic games and I concede nothing to him and his ilk, period.
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
but if she’d been in the service, then what would she have been?
Same as she was as it happened.

A bad-ass servant of God...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
"Nothing changes as far as she’s concerned - still armed and able - but if she’d been in the service, then what would she have been?"

Precisely, if her training had been purely private from Gunsite, she would have not been meritorious at all in Steve M.’s eyes, especially as a -volunteer.-
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
Shark:
"why even bother?"
The whole insinuation here is that nobody without state-sanction or even a plausible rationale for it is able to defend against a spontaneous firearms attack, and don’t even think about using this case to argue otherwise.

Get it?

This is not a "quibble", sir. This is about getting to the essentials of the thing. And if you can’t field the ball, then go sit on the bench.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Sigh, Shark, for Steve M., the "fact" that she got police training 15+ years ago invalidates your "demonstrates quite nicely how a responsible armed citizen can stop carnage" point. That is the WHOLE @#$% REASON for him to go on about "right-wing political correctness" in the first place! I am not going to tolerate his semantic games and I concede nothing to him and his ilk, period.


That’s bad on you E. Brown. Just because Steve M. is a twit doesn’t mean you have to act badly. When you’re wrong about something, you’re wrong regardless of if some lefwing idiot takes that information to an asinine conclusion.

She was a security guard. That’s the fact. Going to the mattresses over such a point, rather than attacking his idiotic conclusion is your mistake. If you want to throw in the qualifier "volunteer" to that description, go ahead.

_____
So if the killer had arrived a little earlier while she was participating in a service, would SteveM see her actions differently?
Nothing changes as far as she’s concerned - still armed and able - but if she’d been in the service, then what would she have been
Well, now that’s an entirely different point than your original post now, isn’t it?
Huh ... and here all this time, I thought security guards were those people who were employed to provide security on a full-time basis and were paid to do so. It’s a paying job, no?

I mean, when someone says "security guard" is the first thing that pops into your mind a volunteer church member on a part-time basis?

Seems to me that "volunteer", "part-time" and "church member" are germane to the story, and that, in fact, since Ms. Assam was not a paid and employed "security guard", but instead a church volunteer doing part-time, unpaid security work during a church service (after attending an earlier one) she shouldn’t be described as a "security guard".

But you know, describing something properly which doesn’t fit the left-wing agenda is "right-wing political correctness", and instead of celebrating the fact that this armed and brave lady prevented what could have been a horrifying blood-bath of epic proportions, they’d rather nitpick terms.


You seemed very intent on trying to determine if "security guard" was or wasn’t an accurate description.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The whole insinuation here is that nobody without state-sanction or even a plausible rationale for it is able to defend against a spontaneous firearms attack, and don’t even think about using this case to argue otherwise.

Get it?

This is not a "quibble", sir. This is about getting to the essentials of the thing. And if you can’t field the ball, then go sit on the bench.
Except that I still don’t understand how admitting the obvious- that she was a volunteer security guard- somehow hapmers your arugment here.

She STILL demonstrates it perfectly.

But I sure do know how refusing to admit the obvious will hamper your ability to make your argument.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"Maybe you’re under the illusion that firearms are difficult to operate. Not really, you point the end with the hole towards the target and pull the trigger."

Uh, but both ends have a hole. One is obstructed by some kind of little lever-looking thingee. Is that the safety which keeps a bullet from leaving the gun and hitting anything accidentally? I think I see. You look down that long tube (the barrel?) and point that little safety-lever thingee towards a target and, with both thumbs, squeeze that safety actuating lever underneath which will unblock the barrel and let the bullet out.


"Once she operates with Church knowledge, consent and sanction, she is no different from a paid rent-a-cop."

I am a certified minister in the Universal Life Church. Obviously I am surprior to you laymen in that I am now competent to administer all the sacraments and pass the offering plate. You can feel secure in entrusting the fate of your immortal soul to me since I am, as I stated, a paid-in-full member of the clergy. I am no different from the Pope. I am working on a paypal account, for your convenience. Can I get an Amen? Or, more importantly, a prayer gift?

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"When you’re wrong about something, you’re wrong regardless of if some lefwing idiot takes that information to an asinine conclusion."

Why, because I -refuse- to accept Steve M.’s equivocation fallacy on the term? I’m not arguing that she wasn’t a private citizen volunteer acting in a security capacity at the church, just the opposite! Steve M. is attempting to smuggle in the notion of a bonded professional agent (note to Bob: lefties also want bonded government-approved security guards to have weapons if they are defending -their- property) here in order to get around just the point Beck makes above. If she had failed and gotten shot herself, he’d be going on about how she was a "Christo-fascist vigilante" without government endorsement, and not a legitimate "security guard."
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
Just out of curiosity, how much police experience did the other security guards have? What if one of them had been the problem solver? Is a security guard with no training or experience meaningfully different from a regular citizen? I do not know about that state, but in Florida an armed security guard must have a state license (some nonsense about a felon working (for pay) as an armed security guard shooting someone with his issued weapon).

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Florida an armed security guard must have a state license
Not in Colorado
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
She was a security guard. That’s the fact. Going to the mattresses over such a point, rather than attacking his idiotic conclusion is your mistake. If you want to throw in the qualifier "volunteer" to that description, go ahead.
Well, she was an unpaid volunteer security guard, I suppose, but she could have fullfilled that role with or without police experience.

The Pinkerton security guards where I work are not armed. They are trained professionals, I suppose, but I’m not sure exactly how they would terminate this sort of attack. We would be better defended from this sorta attack if they allowed volenteer coworkers to pack heat (although it would still be good to have a pro who watches the cameras and ingress/egress).
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
McQ, guys, we’ve got it all wrong, we want the insane leftists to twist this type of incident. If Ms. Assam’s behaviour was the legitimate action of a volunteer security guard this has important ramifications.

I assume there are many jurisdictions such as Washington D.C., etc. that ban gun ownership or gun carry for private citizens but allow it for security guards. If you have a conceal-carry permit in Virginia, you can now keep your family (and others) safe when you travel in D.C. Just draw up an agreement outlining that you work as a volunteer, unpaid security guard for your wife and children. [Or for your "husband and children" for all the pistol-packin’ mommas out there.] In the event you have to draw your weapon to circumvent a felony in progress - you are merely acting in your capacity as a security guard. Voila! you are insulated from any gun charges. Thanks Steve M.

P.S. In that circumstance I would be more than willing to pay the administrative fine if I violated some local ordinance for working as an unregistered security guard.
 
Written By: Rod
URL: http://
Not that I don’t see Steve’s point, but I don’t think Q is wrong, either. Sort of seems like a gray area: doesn’t really change the facts.

Agreeing - sort of - when I have the chance.

If we had better gun control, that guy would never have been able to get a gun in the first place, and no one would have had to shoot him at all, of course. I’d prefer that argument, myself.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
If we had better gun control, that guy would never have been able to get a gun in the first place
People keep making that argument in Toronto Canada and people still keeping getting shot. Damn those inconvenient truths.

Not that I don’t see Steve’s point,
Off course you see his point. If he had a better argument (and his argument is retarded and embarrassing), you would be be defending it stronger that the weak gruel you are forced to deal with.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Gee, me and my Glock provide security at my establishment. I guess that doesn’t make me the owner or the President - but just a "Security Guard."

What a bunch of &@%$#! baboons.

Thank God I live in Indiana, with my lifetime permit, and where every license to carry (Under "must issue") is concealed carry.
 
Written By: The Gonzman
URL: http://
"I assume there are many jurisdictions such as Washington D.C., etc. that ban gun ownership or gun carry for private citizens but allow it for security guards. If you have a conceal-carry permit in Virginia, you can now keep your family (and others) safe when you travel in D.C. Just draw up an agreement outlining that you work as a volunteer, unpaid security guard for your wife and children. [Or for your "husband and children" for all the pistol-packin’ mommas out there.] In the event you have to draw your weapon to circumvent a felony in progress - you are merely acting in your capacity as a security guard. Voila! you are insulated from any gun charges. Thanks Steve M."

Nice reductio, Rod. (g)
 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
If we had better gun control, that guy would never have been able to get a gun in the first place, and no one would have had to shoot him at all, of course. I’d prefer that argument, myself.
But that still doesn’t solve the murder problem, because you can still stab or choke or bludgeon someone to death.

Hmmm... I know! LET’S PASS A LAW TO MAKE MURDER ILLEGAL! That should prevent all future murders, because it’ll be illegal!

Seriously, do you have to concentrate to keep breathing? You think and reason as a child. A particularly dull child.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
The murder problem also brings up the, um, equalizing properties of firearms.

That’s only bad if you look primarily at the increased ability of whimpy losers to do something about it and fail to look at the increased ability of small women or variously handicapped people to defend themselves.

"You’re safer without guns" is a masculine-centric attitude.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
For further reading:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
If we had better gun control, that guy would never have been able to get a gun in the first place, and no one would have had to shoot him at all, of course. I’d prefer that argument, myself.
One problem is that "better gun control" always means disarming the good people. The bad people will still obtain arms. This is demonstrated in places like England, where all handguns and semiauto rifles are banned (and all other types of arms strictly controlled), yet they have a large overall firearm crime rate (they still have a lower murder rate, but that has been going up, at least the last time I looked).

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
But that still doesn’t solve the murder problem, because you can still stab or choke or bludgeon someone to death.
And it doesn’t solve the gun murder problem, or the gun crime problem. It does tend to solve the citizen defending himself problem.

Look at Taiwan or England for examples.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Rememeber, kids, guns in the hands of private citizens pointed at murderous attackers: BAD. Guns in the hands of agents of Der Staat (the beloved super-being from whom all blessings flow), pointed at the heads of tax-payers: GOOD!

Given her religiosity, however, I’m still a little surprised that just before she pulled the trigger, Ms. Assam said, "Yipee-ki-yay, mother@#$%er!"
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
McQ is perfectly right to parry this thrust against his celebration of an armed citizenry, but the parry misses its mark. The correct parry would be to simply suggest that whether she was a guard or a congregant-who-was-guarding makes no difference to the fact that because she was armed and ready to act she saved a lot of lives. Getting bound up in the question of whether she was a guard or a person who was guarding is missing the parry and allows your larger point to be obscured. And, come on, read this sentence and pretend somebody else wrote it, and you’ll see what I mean:
She’s being called a ’security guard’, but in reality she was a volunteer church security person.
That’s not a distinction you need to worry about when it was her gun and her readiness to use it that saved the day.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider