TOM THE DANCING BUG: Thank Goodness for Goodguy-With-A-Gun!

No, that’s what I was asking: did you mean the German word, or had you misspelled an English word that worked in that sentence, or were you playing on the words and thus meant BOTH simultaneously?

Now I understand!


Or… here’s a thought; instead of escalating the situation, how about prosecuting the officer who instigates violence in the first place. Make the police officers actually accountable.


Well, that would be the first choice of a civilized society. I am particularly concerned, if not convinced, that we may no longer be one.


Were we ever one, though? Aren’t things actually getting mostly better? We could be close to civilized, maybe, one day…

1 Like
  1. Zimmerman was acquitted. While neither you nor I can say for certain what happened that night, it appears those presented with the evidence in the case believed that shooting to be justified.

  2. I already said you can find some examples of over zealous “good guys with guns”. They are so few and far between compared to the “real” problem I am not sure why we are wasting time satirizing it. Especially when it appears guns do stop way more crimes than there are crimes by good intention but still wrong gun owners. But hey, its easier to poke fun for few laughs than address the real problem. It also fits some peoples’ agenda to make “regular” gun owners out to all be unstable nuts.

1 Like


(Hopefully without shenanigans this time!)

1 Like


1 Like


Well, that’s the fucked up thing about stand your ground laws. Zimmerman may have been legally justified, but if Trayvon Martin had been armed and had shot Zimmerman, he would have been legally justified as well.

Stand your ground laws just encourage people to shoot first and be the last one standing. They’re not just a bad idea, they’re a step backwards: We already have self-defense laws that do a better job at what they’re intended to accomplish, without giving people license to murder.


Not hard data. Anecdotally, I see way more. The NRA has around a dozen a month they showcase. Most of the time people aren’t actually killed. Though I will acknowledge there may be more instances with “good guys with guns” screwing up that don’t make it on my radar, but I don’t think there is evidence to where one can show it is really even an issue. There is evidence actual violent crime by people meaning to do bad things clearly eclipses the amount of times good people do bad things.

Aw, sorry. Maybe when the US collapses from what ever you can get to use the “pitchfork and torch” theory of justice system.

This is less an issue of “stand your ground” and more an issue of the fact the world isn’t black and white and one can’t always be certain 100% what happened.

I also disagree of your assessment that Trayvon would have been justified, if my understanding of what happened was in fact what happened, as it appeared he was the one who engaged in violence first. But like I said, I wasn’t there, I am going to hope that the jury was correct.

I disagree they are a license to murder. But uneven application of the law is a side affect of the justice system being run by human. Indeed I am sure there are people in jail right now involved in illicit activities who ended up killing someone basically in defense. Two criminals who collide and if one didn’t kill the other, the reverse would have happened.

If you are minding your own business, and someone starts following you and behaving suspiciously, and you are unable to escape them, then yes, I do believe Florida’s law would allow you to shoot them.

And with only one living witness, as you said, we would not know what actually happened.


Well that’s exactly what fucking vigilante George Zimmerman did to Trayvon Martin. So enjoy your collapse. Enjoy being the good guy</strike through> asshole with a gun.


When one side discusses medians and the other one counterarguments with outliers, there won’t be any agreement.

If it takes the headlines, it is usually an outlier. Man bites dog and so on.

I’m having a hard time picturing a good outcome.

No, it’s time to put more pressure on elected officials. Lot’s more. Shooting a gun might seem more satisfying and faster than a week-long, round-the-clock protest outside the Governor’s mansion, but it won’t accomplish more, just lead to more death.

You’ve got to admit that the NRA isn’t exactly a reliable source here, right? And anectdotal evidence is kind of…well, not something you can rely on.

Going back to your bit on Australia, you missed the next two charts on the same page.

Chart: Trends in homicide incidents
The figure shows that although there have been fluctuations from year to year, the number of homicide incidents has shown a steady decline since the inception of the NHMP in 1989. 2006-07 saw the second-lowest number of homicide incidents in the collection period.

So, while it’s not as apparent in the graph you used, they do indeed indicate that they believe that the policy in question is resulting in a downward trend.

Meanwhile, @silkox1 posted the information in that same thread that honestly is far more damning than I would have expected consider how many other factors there are in such things.

So at least you can’t deny that firearm deaths correspond nicely to firearm availability.

Similarly, I don’t think you’re going to argue that knifings and bludgeonings ramp up proportionately to firearm deaths. Nobody argues that because it’s much harder to kill people with such weapons, especially for somebody who is untrained and especially accidentally. They also don’t factor into suicides (Gun ownership is a statistical risk factor for suicides)

So ‘ownership in which guns provide a net value to society’ is greatly reduced, (again, unless you’re going to argue the statistical correlation between availability and firearm deaths or that we’d have rampant mass-knifings and knifeacides without them). The suicide risk ALONE is enough to eliminate the value statistically (not anecdotally… but there are reasons why we don’t use anecdotes in the data biz, they mislead people)

So that leaves…what scenarios exactly? Ones where somebody used a gun to prevent an actual murder, right? Not stopping a robbery or a house break in, because people don’t break in to murder you except… (and I will allow for this)…

…there are people who are being stalked by people who are willing to murder them…so battered women and the like.

How large a band of the gun ownership population are these poor women? Are they being properly marketed by the NRA? Or are they not considered a profitable group? What percentage of purchases are they?

I mean…think about it. What’s really going on here?


You’ve got some great stuff in that post, but my eyes were particularly drawn to the chart showing gun ownership/deaths by states, because @Mister44 has a tendency to use data from specific neighborhoods on the south side of Chicago to show that inner-city thugs are proof it’s important to own guns for personal defense, and lo-and-behold, Illinois is in the bottom 8 out of 50. Guess we’re not so dangerous after all, huh?


It’s also interesting to note which states are above and below the trend line. Plenty of Confederates on the bad side of that divide.


I suppose that line is kind of ‘responsible gun owners’, isn’t it?

Looks like the Midwest and Northeast fare well (hunters?) while most everything south of the Mason-Dixon line (i.e. bonus racism-land) is a bit on the reckless side, eh?

1 Like

The problem comes when putting that pressure on elected officials still does nothing. Or when that week long round the clock protest does nothing but make you the butt of jokes on cable news. Or when those protesters are dispersed with tear gas and rubber bullets and nobody notices.

As they say, “Freedom is kept in four boxes: The soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box”- To which I would add “in that order”. First, you speak out. Then you vote. Then you lobby and litigate to the fullest extent of the legal system. Then, and only then, when all else has failed, you take up arms.

Or, when those other measures are taken from you by violent suppression of protest, by rigged elections, by corrupted courts, then you do whatever is necessary to take those rights back. Violence is a last resort, but not an unthinkable one.


those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.


What about an end-around?

Use the corporate campus as a mini civilization, use ethical hiring to only invite people who are willing not to ruin other people’s days, gently fire those who don’t get the point…create a civilization of choice rather than one where every idiot’s vote counts as much as a nurse… and so on?

Then you’re competing with Wal-Mart and Unemployment for ‘citizens’, and Citizen’s United and all the laws that are currently in place that benefit corporations become advantages rather than problems.

Next: Primary Stewart/Cobert vs. Colbert/Stewart to nudge laws that benefit one’s modus oprandi, and so on.