It don't matter if I got Muscular Dystrophy . . . I can still hit a bee!

[Panacea]

OK, I'll be honest. I'm going on a major rant here. I need to vent.

I blog on the website of my local newspaper. A lot of the readers are pretty conservative. I'm fairly middle of the road politically, but get pegged as a liberal simply because I'm to the left of where they are.

Discussions sometimes get a bit heated, especially when we're discussing national (US) politics. And I'll be the first to admit: in some of these conversations, I go for the jugular. I don't suffer fools lightly . . . hell, I don't suffer them at all.

One fellow on the blog is a guy who goes by the name "Sawdust." He's actually a fairly decent fellow, and although we agree on very little, I actually do respect him. My only complaint is he likes to argue by belittling the political figures he despises; this is a tactic I avoid. I argue the facts.


So today, we're talking about the Tuscon shooting and the pros and cons of a new ban on large clip sizes. The discussion itself is fairly normal, with some folks rabid about gun rights, other folks rabid about gun control, with me squarely in the middle (I support 2nd Amendment rights, but believe in regulations like having a license). The gist is, there are folks who believe that armed bystanders can stop this kind of violence (and ignore the fact an armed bystander almost shot the wrong guy at the Tuscon shooting).

I point out that having a gun in public is only helpful if you know what's going on around you, in which case you don't need a gun because you can avoid trouble. Another fellow agreed, stating it would make it a lot easier to run away.

Sawdust replies thusly: "I'm no longer able to either run or fight, thanks to muscular dystrophy. I feel safest with a Glock AND full awareness of my surroundings."



I was stunned. I couldn't believe how someone who rails against welfare and claims people shouldn't get food stamps because they should take on personal responsibility (a position I don't totally disagree with) could think it's OK to go armed in public when he has a degenerative muscle disorder.

He told me to mind my own business.

Yeah. He believes in personal responsibility.

NOT!

[Eisa]

Yikes. He carries that out in public, too? I would imagine it's one thing to have a gun at home, even with muscular dystrophy, but...he carries it everywhere?

I can't really run or fight myself, but I still wouldn't want to carry a gun...I'll just perfect the art of diving into shrubbery behind walls.

[wraiths_crono]

Heh, I will say I am always armed (exception: work then I check my weapon into a provided lock box) I can fight, I can run, but I will not pull my weapon unless I am damned sure I can 1. do something to help 2. not miss 3. not be responsible for killing or harming an innocent. I do disagree with needing more regulation about whom owns guns legally (as we all can agree even if they are illegal or regulated some one some where WILL get access to one if they want, so lets not go that path again) those whom are too over confident in their firearms probably wold wind up doing more harm than good in the end.

Tho I do agree, being aware of your surroundings is a great idea, but most people do not seem to think that something could get past them, even cops and military are not 100% in that area.

About the medical condition of the guy, depending on how advanced he may just have it affecting his legs for all we know (or he could just be pulling that condition out of his butt)

[Panacea]

I think he's telling the truth about having MD, and I'm sure he is able to target shoot just fine . . . right now. But there's a big difference between target shooting and carrying a gun in public with the full intention of using it.

He usually argues with me when he thinks I'm wrong about something. The way he blew me off tells me I hit a nerve.

[Cata]

One quick note, in hopes of avoiding this thread degenerating into another rampant gun control thread: I'll agree that running is a better choice than fighting in most cases. When you're able to run, a 2 pound gun tucked under your armpit or on your waist won't significantly hinder your ability to run. However, when you're unable to run, being better-able to fight seems the better option to me.

Most people never get into the circumstances where you might need a gun. But you also don't get to choose when/if you're one of the people it happens to.

As for the muscular dystrophy thing - it's possible that the degenerative effects are limited to his legs. Unlikely, but possible.

[smileyeagle1021]

The gist is, there are folks who believe that armed bystanders can stop this kind of violence (and ignore the fact an armed bystander almost shot the wrong guy at the Tuscon shooting).

There was actually an editorial in the SL Trib last week from an Iraq vet on that very topic (he was responding to Rep Chaffetz's decision to carry at his public appearances).
He pointed out that the basic layout of the Gifford event was a U-shape audience with Gifford roughly in the middle of the U and the shooter came through the audience firing. Now let's play this out, assuming the average accuracy of a shooter under stress is 50% (and this Iraq vet was saying that may be optomistic, as even police and soldiers who do this as a profession make mistakes more often than any of them would like to have to face).
So, let's assume 3 armed bystanders and an armed speaking. The speaker begins firing their clip (let's go with 10 rounds per clip, for argument), half their shots go into the shooter, half into the crowd, two on each leg of the U start firing, once again half go into the shooter, half go into the crowd, one person at the base of the U starts shooting, half go into the shooter half go to the speaker. Most likely half of the shoots will happen after the shooter ran out of ammo anyway, and 15 additional shots have gone into the crowd and an extra 5 have gone towards the speaker, and the original shooter is dead 20 times over, which I guess makes up for the fact that 15 extra people have been shot

Sorry for the slight OT

[Andara Bledin]

That sounds like an argument based on flawed data, actually. Was this Iraqi vet speaking from experience about a single target surrounded by friendlies and all personnel armed only with pistols?

^-.-^

[Panacea]

One quick note, in hopes of avoiding this thread degenerating into another rampant gun control thread: I'll agree that running is a better choice than fighting in most cases. When you're able to run, a 2 pound gun tucked under your armpit or on your waist won't significantly hinder your ability to run. However, when you're unable to run, being better-able to fight seems the better option to me.

Most people never get into the circumstances where you might need a gun. But you also don't get to choose when/if you're one of the people it happens to.

As for the muscular dystrophy thing - it's possible that the degenerative effects are limited to his legs. Unlikely, but possible.

The first thing I learned when I started the Martial Arts was, "If you get in a situation where you would actually use them, you have already lost." I find avoiding trouble is always the better point of valor.

I don't think it likely his MD affects just his legs, either.

That sounds like an argument based on flawed data, actually. Was this Iraqi vet speaking from experience about a single target surrounded by friendlies and all personnel armed only with pistols?

^-.-^

It makes sense to me. It's called a "crossfire" situation because the shooting crosses back and forth between the targets and shooters.

[Cata]

The first thing I learned when I started the Martial Arts was, "If you get in a situation where you would actually use them, you have already lost." I find avoiding trouble is always the better point of valor.

Oh, I agree with that completely. To the point that I've avoided two probably-would-have-had-my-face-bashed-in situations defused when I walked away, even though I was in the right.

But the fact remains that for some small percentage of situations, particularly when dealing with an actual attacker, flight/evasion is not an option.

[crashhelmet]

That sounds like an argument based on flawed data, actually. Was this Iraqi vet speaking from experience about a single target surrounded by friendlies and all personnel armed only with pistols?

^-.-^

What I got out of it was that it was that based on the formation of the crowd, if there had been people carrying on both sides of the "U," there would be an increased risk of cross-fire and innocents injured and or killed as a result of some bullets missing their intended targets.

Add in the the panic mode that sets in and no one knows who's a shooter and who's a wannabe "hero" and it could end up in more "heroes" being shot by other "heroes," not to mention more innocents from the cross-fire.

[smileyeagle1021]

Add in the the panic mode that sets in and no one knows who's a shooter and who's a wannabe "hero" and it could end up in more "heroes" being shot by other "heroes," not to mention more innocents from the cross-fire.

This is one reason why I will never carry (other than my mace gun, which if anyone mistakes it for a real gun we've got bigger problems... the thing is bright pink for God's sake)... people tend to notice weapons and if there is a shooter I don't want to pull out a gun as well and make myself a target as well by someone who didn't see the original shooter and is just aiming at other guns.