It has been reported --I think I heard a brief reference on NPR yesterday morning--that some of the victims at Ft. Hood were NOT shot by the alleged shooter but were shot by the people shooting AT the shooter…Irony, nest paw? First, that such a disaster would occur on an Army base where there is tight security and everybody has weapons' training, and many walk around fully armed.
If this proves to be true–and I don’t expect to learn the truth anytime soon–then it is ammunition (you should forgive the metaphor…) with which to rebut the claims by the gun-loons that a well-armed society is a safe society…
A long time ago, I proposed an idea to placate the gun-loons: Every one should be armed at all times, and under the injunction that if an armed citizen observes another armed citizen "pull" his/her weapon, the observing citizen was required by law to "pull" her/his own weapon and point it at the person previously brandishing a weapon. If one fires the weapon, then present all must also fire.
Solves a couple of problems, as you can see.
1 comment:
Wood,
You would think that this was a deliberate canard put out there to counter the popular gun nut position that the hospital was a "gun-free zone."
* Please do not googol this last expression unless you want a virus *
And that as such, the wonderfully trained soldiers were as helpless as ordinary unarmed citizens. Now I see the wonderful irony of your post. You were giving these clowns a taste of their own satire. The very notion that a bunch of "kook" soldiers, enjoying their leisure time at the hospital, were forced to disarm...
Well, suffice it to say, I have taken a peek over at my gun buddy's website.
Post a Comment