If only there had been a good guy with a gun on the bus. /s
The right wing will struggle with this because the driver is not the gun toting white hero saving the younguns. They want to defend his ‘right’ to use lethal force, but he has too much melatonin to really get their support.
This conflict is a prime example of what happens when everyone has guns and gunfire is considered a valid response to a threat. If a moron pulls a gun and demands that you pull over so he can get out of your bus, I suggest pulling over, letting him out, driving away and then calling the cops. Much less chance of one of your passengers or a bystander getting hit by a stray bullet.
Is there any point (where we are still alive) that this country will accept there are too many guns and we should get rid of them?
I used to favor restrictions on buying guns, but at this point I think we should start just taking away everyone’s guns
“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people” /S
If only the authors had been a bit more precise when drafting the 2nd Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear single-shot, muzzle-loading, arms shall not be infringed.”
“An armed society is a polite society” means that people will defer to the angry man with a gun and give him what he wants instead of risking a shootout.
it is funny how pointless a polite society is. better goals would be a caring society, a happy society, a supportive society, an inclusive society. polite? that only benefits whoever’s in power.
This is some seriously hair-trigger reaction…
The rage is simmering. Scary times.
Looking at the video, it looks like the bus driver essentially did a drive-by to anyone who happened to be walking along the sidewalk next to the still-moving bus. “I feared for my life” is a lot more plausible coming from a bus driver than a cop but it just goes to show that there’s always, always the risk of unintended consequences when a gun is used. Even defending yourself with one could lead to the death of someone completely uninvolved.
He was also up on the sidewalk for a significant portion of that. I promise you he wasn’t focusing on driving the bus , so anyone on that sidewalk and parts of lawns would be dead.
Are bus drivers allowed to be armed?
The polite society they envision is very Twilight Zone.
Or maybe one of those utopian Star Trek planets where all is not what it seems.
Not with a gun, at least in this instance. He brought it to work against policy. Around where I live, I’m 90% sure they don’t even carry pepper spray. The huge “threatening or touching the bus driver is a felony” signs seem to be enough of a deterrent.
The NRA wants to have a word with you /S
Honestly, not even. This encounter proves that an armed society just ends up with a lot of senseless death. The ammosexual talking point assumes people somehow calmly and rationally weigh their odds of particular outcomes in every interaction. Instead, this footage shows what people really do- get mad, react, panic, and flail. Adding guns to this pours gasoline on the fire.
This incident perfectly illustrates the fundamental issue with giving everyone guns- it escalates every negative human encounter from something annoying or a bit rough to a life or death situation. The guns only make everything worse.
I’m not sure that the gentleman starring in this article has ever been in the same zip code as ‘well regulated’. Having lethal force on tap obviously exacerbates the deficiency; but I can’t imagine that he’s much fun to be around even when unarmed.
I went to YouTube and read the comments. The driver was suspended, he broke the policy of no guns.
It reminded me of my research on why retail store clerks aren’t allowed to bring guns to work.
And why they are fired if they do, even if they are successful in stopping an armed robbery.
Armed clerks lead to more death.
Insurance companies say, “It’s better to replace the items stolen. Loss of life is tragic and this is cheaper.” (Edited suggestion by Shazsta
" Loss of life or injury is costly, replacing merchandise is cheaper”" )
"The insurance people tell the stores, “We won’t insure you if your clerks don’t follow the rules.”
But the interesting part of the research was the interviews with the kids who were arrested for armed robbery. How they responded to an armed clerk vs unarmed. They were jumpy and scared, often drunk or high. Knowing that they could be shot made them more likely to shoot others.
After the study was done, and the policies were implemented the researcher told me that clerks thanked the people implementing the policy, 'It’s frightening being robbed, but this policy helps us stay alive. The property or money people took isn’t worth my life. I’m glad I’m not put in that situation to have to kill for stuff."
Also, when people talk about defending yourself, I’m reminded that there is a difference between protecting yourself from harm (like a bulletproof barrier or a bulletproof vest) and the offensive part of the action that is an armed, deadly response. )
So many people have been trained to focus on the offensive part, not the defensive part.
slight edit on insurance/corporate train of thought-
“loss of life or injury is costly, replacing merchandise is cheaper”
i suspect that at no point do they consider that loss of life is tragic.
Humans are flighty emotionally unstable apes many of whom are regularly intoxicated. Let’s give them all tools for mass murder that’ll go great!