Yesterday, MNB took note of a shooting at a Martin's supermarket in Indiana that left three people - including the shooter - dead.
I commented:
Schools. Shopping malls. Retail stores. It never seems to stop. To be honest, I am not a product of a gun culture, so some of this stuff is beyond my experience. I am sympathetic to the constitutional issue, though I am not a constitutional absolutist (not even on free speech guarantees) …. and I know that sensitivities on this issue run so high that Ive hesitated in the past to comment.
But I'm tired of hesitating.
I figure it is only a matter of hours before someone stands up to suggest that if all the checkout people had been armed, this might not have happened. Which strikes me as utterly nuts.
MNB reader Rich Heiland wrote:
I am a product of gun culture in a way - grew up in a rural area, hunted, popped tin cans with a 22 pistol. I no longer own guns but would like to able to for sporting purposes.
I mention that to point out I have seen nothing in any regulations, laws restrictions proposed that would in any way limit my ability to do the things with guns I used to. I stress, I have seen nothing that would limit my ability to own and use guns for the purposes I used them for.
What I have seen are sensible attempts to limit what happened in Martin's and certainly what happened in the texting-at-a-movie shooting.
If not for the NRA I honestly believe we would have realistic gun control.
MNB reader Chuck Jolley wrote:
It was only hours after the theater massacre in Colorado that people were saying if everyone in that theater was armed, the shooting would have stopped immediately. Makes sense; 150-200 people in a panic, shooting randomly in a darkened theater would have definitely stopped the gunfire quicker. 150-200 dead people can't continue shooting.
One MNB user responded:
The NRA suggests the way to handle school shootings is to arm teachers. As a Store Manager, would the NRA expect me to arm myself and the other salaried staff to deal with a possible shooting? I am just saying…
I suspect that it is precisely what the NRA expects.
From another reader:
Amen. We are NOT a better society because we can all carry guns openly. We are actually condoning, even encouraging, violent behavior. And now a guy was shot dead in a movie theatre just for arguing and throwing popcorn at another person. Do we really want to live in a society where there is this kind of behavior?
And another:
Very creepy that we just had “Violence in the workplace” training yesterday at Supervalu.
While most of us thought of it as one of those trainings you go through, last night’s news reminded me of the importance. Who of us would remember what to do in the heat of the moment?
And still another:
“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” The argument is that don’t let the bad guy get a gun. That is impossible to do, merely look at Chicago for proof. The problem is these “bad guys” need to be identified sooner. Not very easy to do.
It's the hard that makes it worth doing.
I commented:
Schools. Shopping malls. Retail stores. It never seems to stop. To be honest, I am not a product of a gun culture, so some of this stuff is beyond my experience. I am sympathetic to the constitutional issue, though I am not a constitutional absolutist (not even on free speech guarantees) …. and I know that sensitivities on this issue run so high that Ive hesitated in the past to comment.
But I'm tired of hesitating.
I figure it is only a matter of hours before someone stands up to suggest that if all the checkout people had been armed, this might not have happened. Which strikes me as utterly nuts.
MNB reader Rich Heiland wrote:
I am a product of gun culture in a way - grew up in a rural area, hunted, popped tin cans with a 22 pistol. I no longer own guns but would like to able to for sporting purposes.
I mention that to point out I have seen nothing in any regulations, laws restrictions proposed that would in any way limit my ability to do the things with guns I used to. I stress, I have seen nothing that would limit my ability to own and use guns for the purposes I used them for.
What I have seen are sensible attempts to limit what happened in Martin's and certainly what happened in the texting-at-a-movie shooting.
If not for the NRA I honestly believe we would have realistic gun control.
MNB reader Chuck Jolley wrote:
It was only hours after the theater massacre in Colorado that people were saying if everyone in that theater was armed, the shooting would have stopped immediately. Makes sense; 150-200 people in a panic, shooting randomly in a darkened theater would have definitely stopped the gunfire quicker. 150-200 dead people can't continue shooting.
One MNB user responded:
The NRA suggests the way to handle school shootings is to arm teachers. As a Store Manager, would the NRA expect me to arm myself and the other salaried staff to deal with a possible shooting? I am just saying…
I suspect that it is precisely what the NRA expects.
From another reader:
Amen. We are NOT a better society because we can all carry guns openly. We are actually condoning, even encouraging, violent behavior. And now a guy was shot dead in a movie theatre just for arguing and throwing popcorn at another person. Do we really want to live in a society where there is this kind of behavior?
And another:
Very creepy that we just had “Violence in the workplace” training yesterday at Supervalu.
While most of us thought of it as one of those trainings you go through, last night’s news reminded me of the importance. Who of us would remember what to do in the heat of the moment?
And still another:
“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” The argument is that don’t let the bad guy get a gun. That is impossible to do, merely look at Chicago for proof. The problem is these “bad guys” need to be identified sooner. Not very easy to do.
It's the hard that makes it worth doing.
- KC's View:
