Suprisingly Pro-Gun Message from CNN

Mrs. Weer’d sends me this surprisingly balanced article from anti-gun CNN.

“Owning a firearm is not a right that I take lightly.” — Jason Bostic, Fredericktown, Ohio

“If you love your children, you will teach them how to handle a real firearm.” — Ilidio Serra, Aurora, Illinois

“As a young woman who lives alone and lives in a rather rough area of town, guns are what allow me to sleep at night.” — Layland Oberschulte, Napa Valley, California

They also quote this story

I’m not out looking for trouble but if trouble shows up I want to be prepared.

Lets keep in mind that its the everyday citizen first on scene 98% of the time not the Police.

The only real “anti-gun” message is this:

“It disturbs me when I hear people say things like, ‘If someone in the crowd in Colorado had been armed, the whole thing could have been stopped.'” — Grayson Cash, Savannah, Georgia

It’s a point we heard many times. If a gun owner could have carried his weapon into the theater that night, he might have wounded or killed the shooter — or at least saved some lives. Commenters debated it at length on CNN.

“As someone who has some firearm and self-defense training, I find it laughable to think that the average Joe, in a dark theater filled with teargas, could take out a well armed and armored assailant with a five-round .38 special,” he said. “Arming more people will only eventually end in an accidental death.”

Cash said he rarely fires weapons now, except for at the shooting range, and believes there should be strict rules for firearm purchases.

You may THINK that a civilian might not have been able to improve the situation (I think that’s pretty tin-eared, as I find it hard to believe that showing the killer ZERO resistance is somehow a BETTER option) but we got numbers which override your feelings. Go lay down in your yard, or drive across the great plains, or ship out over the open ocean and tell me the world doesn’t FEEL flat. Feelings can be VERY wrong.

I’m impressed that even the anti-gun bastions are finding that keeping the anti-gun lie alive that lead to the gun restrictions of the 80s and 90s isn’t a smart strategy anymore!

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Safety, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Suprisingly Pro-Gun Message from CNN

  1. Fred says:

    I find it difficult to believe that one man in that situation firing back could have made a disabling shot. However, 2 things to consider:
    a) several people firing back, even under those circumstances, stand a much better chance of firing a disabling shot or at least causing the shooter to retreat

  2. Fred says:

    somehow posted before I finished.

    part b of above is that the shooter is firing indiscriminately with nothing to stop him. One person firing will grab the shooter’s attention and all further firing will be directed at the person shooting at him. This allows others not in the area to flee. It may well cause more danger to those around the defending shooter but more people have the potential to escape with someone drawing fire away from them.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Still one also must consider the consistency of these spree killers choosing posted “Gun Free Zones”. I agree with all your points, logically. Still I think you fail to consider the reaction of the shooter taking incoming fire. Many of the people who find themselves taking incoming fire simply panic. I’ve seen nothing about any of these crazed gunmen that shows that they are either tough or determined. Certainly the numbers show that as soon as these shooters start taking incoming fire they surrender or they kill themselves. This fool didn’t attempt to shoot it out with the Police, despite having a rifle that could have held its own with them. He just gave up without resistance. I strongly suspect even incoming fire that MISSED might have changed his game plan 100%. Also its starting to sound like he wasn’t armored, but even if he had some quality ballistic armor, I have my doubts that a few cracked ribs from a solid pistol hit wouldn’t have broken his spirit.

  3. TS says:

    Weerd: “as I find it hard to believe that showing the killer ZERO resistance is somehow a BETTER option”

    That hit the nail on the head. Are they saying the victims were somehow better served being unarmed?

  4. AntiCitizenOne says:

    The “progressives” think that the only resistance should be put up by “The Only Ones” who we all know are angels from the flying Spaghetti Monster and are as sacred as unicorn farts.

  5. robert mumford says:

    You Americans are of questionable sanity (unfortunately spreading fast to Canada) with regards to gun ownership. Here’s a thought.. if only one person in the audience was carrying a rocket launcher NO ONE might have been hurt ! Write your NRA rep. and congressman now !! (enclose cheque ).

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Awww, look at you attacking a straw man! If you want to put on your big-kid pants and debate like an adult, my comment section is open. If you want to act like an ignorant child go over to the anti-gun lobby websites, they’re dying for support, even one as weak as yours!

  6. Archer says:

    “strict rules for firearm purchases”?

    – Being required to show a government-issued photo ID for every transfer.
    – Being required to pass a government background check, which also checks for domestic abuse, outstanding warrants, restraining orders, and the ever-popular FBI “Terror Watch List”.
    – Being required to fill out a government-issued application form with all our personal information; the serial number, make, model, and caliber of the firearm; and the date of the transfer; which must be signed verifying everything on the form is accurate.
    – Being required to work through a FFL dealer to purchase anything that must be shipped or mailed.
    – Non-compliance with any of the above, including providing false information on the form 4473, resulting in massive fines plus a 5-10 year sentence in a federal prison, PER OFFENSE.
    And that’s just the FEDERAL rules. The state rules are often MORE stringent.

    Sure. “Strict rules.” I’ll bite. Whatcha have in mind, Mr. Cash?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *