That's why we have em.

And NRA is not representative for all the gun owners. Just FYI.

This is the gun control activism group, not GD or the Gungeon. It's not the place to make that argument. Also, we know full well the NRA doesn't represent all gun owners. This image is from a group called Occupy the NRA

As you can see, in the case of the Georgia school, the woman was able to disarm the gunman without a weapon. She talked him down.

I will trash the group regardless.

Bye.

No need to get angry. I figured you happened upon it under new threads.

Last edited Thu Aug 22, 2013, 04:03 AM - Edit history (1)

most of the time they kill large numbers of innocent men women and children.

Then how do they protect people?

It's a play on the mantra, "Guns don't kill, people do."

I was trying to spell it out for the gun lover.

Last I heard, after the Zimmerman trial, she renounced the gungeon.

I own a gun and I support healthy attitudes towards guns. Unfortunately there are a lot of gun owners out there with very unhealthy attitudes towards guns. Its also good to hear that the Zimmerman trial had one good outcome. I still can't belief how steadfast and ignorant so many gun worshipers were after Newtown.

law enforcement officers, sworn to uphold their duty to serve the people.

Controlled by law and by our U.S. Constitution.

Not a bunch of yahoos who think it is their god given right to strap a firearm to various parts of their body and strut around loudly proclaiming their allegiance to Liberty.

The NRA slogan is "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

The graphic replaces "kill" with "protect".

The logic is the same, but actually it is more applicable, and it turns the tables on the NRA, hence "Occupy the NRA".

If guns don't kill people, then guns don't protect people either.

And this fits my view that words and reason and compassion are powerful and far more effective than guns, armor, artillery, etc etc.

Don't claim to be against drones - then cling to a gun.
Don't claim to be against Iraq or Afghanistan - then cling to a gun.
Don't claim to be against nuclear weapons - then cling to a gun.

She said something like - I'm doing to sit right here with you and you won't come to harm.

If I recall correctly - he had an AK-47 and 500 rounds. 870 children are enrolled at McNair Elementary school.

He had enough fire power to kill more than half of those children.

But this woman - who is a TRUE hero - a woman who faced down a gun man and her own death in an act of verbal bravery - she stopped him. Not to be an asshole - but would any of the men recently anointed "heroes" at DU have done the same? I don't think so. They would have gotten their "story" and gotten out.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The problem I see over and over is that reason only works as long as all parties involved are invested in the process of reasoned negotiation. The minute one party decides he can get his needs met through force the negotiation ends. Reason and compassion have always been vulnerable to the application of force. This is why, when everyone on earth knows better than to fight, we still hurt and kill each other.

This woman is a hero. Like most heroes, though, she is also extremely lucky. If he'd decided he could get his needs met by shooting her, even if it was just the need to avoid an uncomfortable emotion, this would've been a real tragedy.

Total disarmament of the population may be a laudable goal by some ideological standards but in practice it is impossible. I'm not saying we should have an armed free-for-all with guns in vending machines. I'm just saying that I don't know how to ensure that reason and compassion can override someone who believes (or knows for a fact) that he can get his wants and needs met through superior force. I just don't know.