Mass murder incidents are horrible. They should not happen. The people killed should not have been attacked, and those people should still be alive today.
That’s a truth that every decent human being agrees with. There’s nothing controversial in those statements.
However, a recent mass murder incident happened in Australia that some people simply won’t be able to believe, not just because of how horrible it was, but because of how it was ended.
As you may recall, Australia is one of those countries that anti-2A activists point to and try to use to justify their pushes to take our guns. They argue that gun confiscation in Australia reduced the amount of violent crime in that country (It didn’t. The downward trend was happening before the gun ban, and the gun ban didn’t change anything about that trend, not even how fast it was decreasing.).
Keeping that in mind, see if you notice how this mass Murder incident was ended. Paul Sacca writes,
Authorities say six people were fatally stabbed by a man in a busy shopping mall on Saturday afternoon in Sydney, Australia. The attacker was gunned down by a female police officer, who is being heralded as a hero.
Did you catch that? The attacker was shot by a police officer.
He was shot. With a gun.
But, according to anti-2A activists, we don’t need guns to stop murders and would-be murderers.
Seems like something is off here.
According to anti-2A activists, this mass Murder couldn’t happen in Australia. After all, they’ve banned nearly all guns. And, according to those same activists, this police officer didn’t need a firearm to stop the criminal (never mind that he’d already fatally stabbed multiple people and she was, as a female, likely physically weaker than the man, so, would need something to even the odds).
Maybe it’s the anti-2A activists that are the ones that are mistaken and not legal gun owners like you and me. What do you think?
It isn’t a logical argument to begin with, it is philosophical. The glass is both half empty and half full according to the fence sitters. People are born good until society pollutes them. Nobody intends to hurt other people without just cause. There is no reason to shoot someone because the air between you and them should be enough to protect you. Custer would still be standing if he had no guns to fight with and was forced to negotiate. The safest place on earth is in the center of no crosshairs. Of course, I believe the glass is nearly empty, nobody is born innocent, babies would gut you for milk if they could, air is the last thing I count on for protection, Custer paid the ultimate price for his convictions, and crosshairs are made for certain.
Ray – you are sorta correct -it definitely is NOT a ‘logical’ argument – it may be as you say “philosophical” but that philosophy is driven strictly by emotions, not any sort of factual basis.
I think if You’re anti 2A then just for participate and take advantage of your rights. But, after all the constitution does say that those Rights are inalienable, meaning the possessor can’t even give their right to bear arms away. So, of and when they do decide they want to take advantage of those Rights then they can pick them right back up. But no one has the right to decide for anyone else what methods they will use to protect themselves or their family and their property. Decide for yourself, but HOW DARE YOU ASSUME TO MAKE THAT DECISION FOR ME! If you don’t like the Constitutional rights afforded you by being a citizen of the s United States of America then renounce your citizenship and leave. Go live in Australia, where they have already confiscated all the guns. You have no place here.
I think/believe that their house theywill call when anti 2A people have an armed crimknal will go to someonewith a gun.
How about ALL the anti 2A give up ALL ARMED protection in and around their work places.
Rely ONLY a on police to answer calls. ANTI 2A should NOT be ALLOWED auto hire ANY private security or have ANY police or police-type personnel to protect them.
No personal body guards and no permit to carry!!!!!
Let’s see how long they take THAT stance !!!
How could I have made my statement before when this is the FIRST TIME I have seen this article????
TYPICAL LEFT CENSORSHIP !!!!!!!