If only President Ronald Reagan and James Brady had been protected by guns 30 years ago today.

[onehandle]

They would have ended their day without a scratch.

[buddysmellgood]

1. Yeah, but EVERYONE didn't have a gun. That would have helped.

[hlthe2b]

2. Armed secret service couldn't prevent...

and at least one CCW armed local in Tucson couldn't prevent the carnage in January, either.

It is a fantasty-- fostered by Hollywood (and the NRA) that, but for more guns in the hands of the populace, such horrors would be prevented.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hlthe2b]

5. and your typical tactic to resort to ad hominem attacks is likewise

noted.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hlthe2b]

9. Even in the gungeon you don't get to call out Duers simply reporting

the facts.

[PavePusher]

13. You didn't report facts.

You delivered an editorial opinion that ignored facts and insinuated a falsehood.

Good luck with that.

[hlthe2b]

14. back at you.

No one is surprised by your incivility.

[Straw Man]

15. The facts?

They would have ended their day without a scratch.

It is a fantasty-- fostered by Hollywood (and the NRA) that, but for more guns in the hands of the populace, such horrors would be prevented.

You call those facts? I call them monumental straw men in the form of unfounded assumptions.

[hlthe2b]

16. You need to check who you are responding to.

I never made that comment. WHO are you trying to respond to? ??????

[Straw Man]

20. Responding to you AND the OP.

Edited to include both.

[hlthe2b]

21. That is damned ridiculous.

I never made the statement that you tried to attribute to me. Disingenuous, indeed. Your DU name is certainly apt. Welcome to ignore.

[Straw Man]

36. Not at all. You were defending the OP. I made an error...

...which I then corrected. I see that you'd rather take that as your opportunity to dodge the issue than continue the discussion. So... buh-bye.

:hi:

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[louis-t]

6. And he almost shot the wrong guy.

And he admitted to it.

[PavePusher]

7. Since he never even drew his gun....

this too is an erroneous assumption.

He did, in fact, exactly what nay-sayers always claim they want: He observed, listened, got information from others, and made entirely the correct decision.

No hand-wringing required.

[louis-t]

10. Had his hand on the weapon, ready to draw.

"He observed, listened, got information from others, and made entirely the correct decision." By the time he did all that, had the shooter still been armed (disarmed by a little old lady) he would have been dead.

[PavePusher]

12. Had the shooter still been armed, it wouldn't have taken much deliberating to determine the threat.

So he was ready to draw if needed... what's your point?

[louis-t]

22. Ah, the Ted Nugent argument.

The good guys are always perfect in their assessment of the situation, always hit their target with one shot (right between the eyes, I believe), and I think they always blow the smoke from the barrel when they're done, don't they? You were making excuses for why the law 'biden cit-zen didn't take out the shooter (because he got there after the fact). We make fun of the rhetoric (If only there had been...) especially when an unarmed, little old lady disarmed the guy by grabbing the full clip away from him when he went to reload (she 'assessed' the situation pretty well, don't you think?). Another unarmed citizen tackled the guy while a third unarmed guy grabbed the weapon. The only armed guy in the crowd came by after the fact, took a bead on the wrong guy (he DIDN'T assess the situation very well now, did he?) and damned near shot him. Any other stupid questions?

[GreenStormCloud]

24. FALSE.

took a bead on the wrong guy
The citizen never drew his gun, therefore he didn't "take a bead" on the wrong guy. He CORRECTLY accessed that he should NOT shoot anybody.

damned near shot him
His gun stayed in his pocket at all times.

little old lady disarmed the guy by grabbing the full clip away from him when he went to reload
Loungher fired 31 rounds. He had a 33 round magazine. His gun jammed on the 32nd round. He was trying to clear a jam. To reload takes only about one second which is not nearly enough time for the lady to act. But to clear a jams can take much longer, depending upon how difficult the jam is. Loungher was stupid enough to use an extended magazine when they are known to shooters to be jam prone, especially towards the end of the magazine. If he had been like Cho at VT or like the Luby's killer or the Ft. Hood killer he would have had multiple standard magazines and could have continued shooting with only very brief pauses to reload.

You were making excuses for why the law 'biden cit-zen didn't take out the shooter (because he got there after the fact).
There have been several cases in which an armed citizen has stopped a mass shooting.

The good guys are always perfect in their assessment of the situation
So far no armed citizen has screwed up in such a situation.

[louis-t]

31. "took a bead" meaning had his eyes on him.

Regardless of whether he stopped firing because his gun jammed or he ran out of ammo, he was attempting to reload. Read the Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

To all the rest of your NRA rhetoric? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Perhaps you should check a phrase dictionary.

http://www.phrases.net/phrase/7229

take a bead on
To aim a gun at something.

You are trying to redefine the phrase.

The gun jammed because he was using an oversized magazine. Reloading and clearing a jam are not the same thing.

You can laugh at facts all you want to but you can't change them. That's why we of the RKBA side are winning. We use facts. You have only derision.

[louis-t]

42. You still have not proven the gun was "jammed'

and why the fuck does that matter? It's YOUR opinion that the gun jammed cuz yer such a 'expert'. I've never seen any article that says the gun 'jammed'. Y'know, just like repugs. When they can't win an argument, split hairs. Jeez.

[Euromutt]

43. Nope; bead sights are typically found on shotguns

Especially those intended for "wing shooting" at birds in flight (which is frankly the only thing bead sights are good for because it doesn't involve precise aiming). I think they used to be common on archaic firearms (flintlocks and earlier). To "draw a bead on" something means to point a shotgun at it preparatory to shooting at it.

[Hoyt]

46. There are more cases where an "armed citizen" perpetrated a massacre.

Many of the massacres we've had in this country were by folks who bought a gun legally. But, according to you guys, we need to promote packing in public so the killers can walk right by the police and smile as they wait for their moment . . . . . . .

[Hoyt]

45. Yep, old unarmed folks came to rescue. But the pro-gun boys will be ready next time.

[slackmaster]

29. "Almost shot" is exactly the same thing as "didn't shoot"

HTH

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Again, the only people selling CCW as a magic shield against all forms of attack under all condition

s, are it's opponents.

I wonder why that is?

[PavePusher]

3. Odd, but I don't recall anyone ever saying...

that a firearm was a 100% effective panacea in all situations.

Maybe your memory is better (or just more... inventive...) than mine.

[elleng]

11. You sick?

[applegrove]

17. So true. +100

[damntexdem]

18. LOL! Yeah, and if only JFK had had a Glock in a shoulder holster in Dallas that day.

And, hey, if only U.S. soldiers in the Middle East had guns, they'd be totally safe.

[TheWraith]

19. Clearly, therefore we should dissolve the Secret Service. And the Army.

Since, after all, firearms are never potentially useful for defense of self or others, right?

[cleanhippie]

25. This post is pure flamebait.

:nuke:

[RSillsbee]

33. Ya think?

:bounce:

[cleanhippie]

38. Makes me wonder why some get locked and others allowed?

One could argue that there is a bit of bias happening.

[GreenStormCloud]

26. If someone is determined to murder you, and is willing to sacrifice themselves to do it...

then being armed is of little help. The attacker will almost always be able to gain surprise.

Where guns are of help is in defending against street crime where the criminal desires to escape after the act. Most of the time they will try to isolate you before they strike and in trying to isolate you they will give themselves away, if you are observant.

[Atypical Liberal]

27. No defense is perfect.

No one claims that a firearm will save you every time you are a victim of assault.

All that is claimed is that without a firearm, every assault becomes a physical contest of strength. Without firearms the weak are at the mercy of the strong. You can run, submit, or engage in a physical contest of strength.

Having the means to defend yourself doesn't mean you always will be able to, but not having the means to defend yourself means that you will always be at the mercy of those stronger than you.

Which, of course, is why all of the people charged with protecting the president carry firearms. They know that being armed puts them at an advantage.

[slackmaster]

28. Auto-Unrec and Nuke for flame-bait straw man post

:nuke:

[Atypical Liberal]

30. Why don't the Secret Service go unarmed then?

Clearly firearms are ineffective, so why does the Secret Service guard the president with firearms?

[GreenStormCloud]

32. Guns worked pretty well in defending Truman in 1950. N/T

[RSillsbee]

34. Ban Jodie Foster it's the only way to be safe NT

[Kennah]

37. Been a number of assassination attempts on U.S. Presidents--a few were successful but most were not

I don't see how it's logical to believe that the experience of Presidential assassination attempts translates to the experience of common criminal attacks.

[lawodevolution]

39. stupid thread

It's like saying that brakes are useless because sometimes the car won't stop in time.

This is one the most idiotic, childish illogical things I've seen on here.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

44. If only handguns had in effect been illegal in D.C. at the time

Oh, that's right... they were.