Good samaritan gets gunned down trying to help a

[doc03]

a vehicle stuck in the snow. If only a good guy with a gun was there.

http://www.wbtv.com/story/31035863/sheriff-good-samaritan-fatally-shot-after-stopping-to-help-driver

[rurallib]

1. When I was younger helping someone stuck in the snow

was kind of expected I guess.

This is scary anymore.

[Eleanors38]

2. Wasn't this in GD (Guns Discussion)? How do you guys do it?

[sarisataka]

3. I've seen this in so many places

It must be an extremely rare, thus newsworthy, occurrence.

[beevul]

4. The point? Oh I know I know...

The point? Oh I know I know:

Everyone that didn't do it but supports gun rights is supposed to feel personally responsible/bad/guilt/shamed to the extent that at some point, we've reached our limit and give up our guns and our support for gun rights.

Ok, I've had enough of this. I'm giving up my guns and support of gun rights.

Not.

Not now. Not tomorrow. Not next week or next year.

Not ever.

And every time you guys try this shit - blaming/shaming for things none of us is responsible for - it only strengthens my resolve.

And I doubt very much that I'm even close to being alone in that.

[Puha Ekapi]

5. Not at all....

...alone.

[pablo_marmol]

6. Perfect!

Great post........but this truly hits the center of the bullseye:

And every time you guys try this shit - blaming/shaming for things none of us is responsible for - it only strengthens my resolve.

And only undermines The Controllers' "cause" by yet another degree.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. According to their line of thinking --

Anyone who ever gets intoxicated or buys alcohol or even resists re-imposing Prohibition is morally responsible for DUI deaths.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. With that level of logic it's remarkable...

...such a person could remember to breathe.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. I do not believe they are stupid, I believe they are well aware their agenda will do

nothing except disarm the obedient. Perhaps it is uncharitable of me but I believe that is their actual intent. They do not mourn good people killed by means other than guns and they resent good people defending themselves.

They have convinced me this is about nothing more than ambitious power and their incessant deceits mean they are not to be trusted with that power.

[beevul]

10. Theres 'what they say', and theres 'what they do'.

I do not believe they are stupid, I believe they are well aware their agenda will do nothing except disarm the obedient. Perhaps it is uncharitable of me but I believe that is their actual intent.

Theres 'what they say', and theres 'what they do'. Kind of like the threads where they chant 'nobody wants to take your guns', then 10 minutes later, they're reccing a thread about assault weapons needing to be banned. Their words, at best, are often deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, and at worst, outright lies.

They do not mourn good people killed by means other than guns and they resent good people defending themselves.

Sometimes, They don't even mourn good people killed by guns:

If thousands of people have to die from guns every year in this country, I'd much rather it people like this...

The above refers to the innocent gun store owner and his son, both dead. Disgusting as it is, I'm neither shocked nor surprised.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172185820#post8

They have convinced me this is about nothing more than ambitious power and their incessant deceits mean they are not to be trusted with that power.

It is to the point, that I only listen to them to see how they're telling lies or outright misrepresenting a given subtopic of guns. Because that's all they seem capable of. The worst part of it, is that the entire works falls squarely on their shoulders. They are, and always have been the aggressors in this struggle, while we pro-gun folks have basically wanted them to leave us and our guns and our rights the fuck alone. I don't much care if that ruffles their feathers or not, because its the truth.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. There are a few camps on that side

Having one's logic completely clouded by a belief system doesn't make one stupid, it just makes one a "true believer". Life doesn't work that way. To pick a plan that achieves a goal you need to shed your blind belief. My family helped a friend in need for a stretch and, when times improved, my wife suggested the idea of saving money for a 'rainy day' and stockpiling both human and kitty food. The response was "God will always take care of me." My response was "Then why look for a job; why work? Just go to your door; say a prayer, holding your wallet up to the sky and yell, "Fill 'er up."

The kind of answers I see from the 'true believer' group convince me that they've stumbled across the words of someone they find trustable and accept them even in the face of logic and reason. My wife has friend who thinks most people shouldn't have guns. Her friend says things like, "The government needs to come and 'sweep the streets' for guns." She's never forthcoming with any descriptions of how that could be plausible.

There are also many politicians who actually espouse disarming a variety of people from the general public.

Then there are those politicians who will say what appeals to the 'true believers' just to get their votes. They either know confiscation will never really happen and their words are just posturing or they simply don't even care.

I believe there are some REAL control advocates but the others often cloud the issue.

[DonP]

12. There's an underlying assumption by the "true believer" control fans

Based on years of reading their posts, I truly think they believe that disarming the law abiding is the best/only way to reduce crime and deaths. Even if it takes decades, because they know better of course. That's why they never, ever suggest efforts at disarming criminals/gangs et. al.

They all just "know" that law abiding gun owners provide all the weapons to the criminal shooters; either through theft (Owner negligence) or outright criminal action (Crooked gun dealers/Straw purchasers). So first, take the guns away from the people that they believe will be easiest to force to do things your way, the law abiding through a law and shame approach. Then the supply to criminals will "eventually" dry up. They are always kind of fuzzy on how long that might actually take.

They also know full well that it won't stop all crime, at least not right away. But they are perfectly willing to sacrifice a few law abiding people and families to criminals, through what they feel is the very "small (if not imaginary) number" of legitimate defensive uses, for their version of the long term "greater good".

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. This mostly demonstrates the fultility of trying to reason with "true believers"

Since their reason for advocating control is belief rather than logic, there is little chance any argument will change any of their related opinions. I note that within the Father and son thread, one exchange came down to this:

" And until those who are fine with gun ownership can start to propose realistic solutions, then the one I propose is confiscation."

No amount of realism introduced will have any effect:
- that won't happen >> doesn't matter/don't care;
- I infer: Gun owners can fix the gun violence problem themselves or I'll simply continue stamping my feet and demanding that mommy take away their toys. How could anyone argue with such a mature attitude?

- converting a suicide by gun to other means isn't helping anything >> the TBs apparently like the whack-a-mole game
- I infer: They don't know if they should believe that; they don't care about suicide attempts; guns are the focus; reasoning non-congruent with "guns are the problem" is non sequitur.

- guns don't "wear out" like a pair of bedroom slippers >> I'll still get a gun out of the public's hands
- I infer: Every year one gun out of every 6,000 is stolen and now in criminal hands, screw the other 5,999 of you.


So what should be the response to the TBs ("true believers&quot ?

Many in the UK have been disarmed. Robberies are rather routine and folks don't resist for fear of being hurt. Was St Augustine wrong? "Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."