Answer to an obvious question

In AMG’s “serious” conversation about gun control thread, someone accidentally raises a serious question:

In this latest horror, how much gun control will have any effect on the mentally ill that steal a gun ?
One child was shot eleven times with an automatic. Would one shot from a single shot gun had a different result?

This person undoubtedly thinks they are making the case for no gun regulations. What a maroon.

The answer is YES. YES, a child is many, many times more likely to survive a singlet gunshot rather than eleven. YES, I’d rather be shot once myself rather than eleven times. YES, I would rather the person aiming at my child have only one bullet available instead of eleven. YES, the school principle who rushed the shooter would have preferred the shooter have only one bullet to use between each reload.

YES, the other children running away from the gunman would have preferred a shooter with a single shot weapon.

Yes, yes, and yes again.

Thanks, Calvin, for putting the finger on the right question, even if you clearly didn’t mean it.

9 comments to “Answer to an obvious question”

  1. zooeyg says:

    This Serous Discussion maybe the greatest gift that AMG’s Public Square has to offer: exhibit A of the groupthink that arises from an odd assortment of social malcontents and anti-social lonely-hearts who live and breathe the cult of the gun. Their fantasies of political doomsday scenarios in which they emerge as the gun-slinging heroes are as unhinged as any basement gamer’s Modern Warfare obsession.

    Gun Culture is ugly from every angle.

  2. zooeyg says:

    This is what a serious gun discussion sounds like: The Conservative Case for Gun Control

    link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story

    “Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don’t let people who already have them keep them. Don’t let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market…”

    Bye-Bye Bushmaster.

  3. Average Joe says:

    The same logic used by amglolz would apply equally to ten shot vs. one hundred shot magazines.

    If you can’t bring down a deer or a household invader in fewer than ten shots, you shouldn’t even be trying. Actually, two or three should be the limit.

    To cite the “inconvenience” of reloading at the rifle range as a reason for super mags is ridiculous. We know what the real reason for these high capacity magazines is — and that’s to wage war whether it’s against a real enemy or a classroom full of six-year olds.

  4. zooeyg says:

    :…that’s to wage war whether it’s against a real enemy or a classroom full of six-year olds.”

    Or the war raging inside of Roger Ek’s head. Those who look to guns and weapons as the means of salvation for themselves or society at large serve violence, alone.

  5. Average Joe says:

    And that’s why Roger Ek is a patriot and the rest of us are not.

    I hate the way he co-opts that label.

  6. zooeyg says:

    He can have it. And if that is his version of America, he can have that too.

  7. unaverage joe says:

    Maybe ‘someone’ is saying that a “shot-gun” can do as much damage with one discharge as an assault rifle’s automatic capabilities.

    Please – we live in Maine so let’s not confuse “shot gun” with “gun shot”

  8. amglolz says:

    The part I quoted is almost certainly about a hypothetical weapon firing a single shot, not a shotgun.

    Shotgun is one word. The author used “single shot gun.”

    If you want to mean one shotgun, you can just say “a shotgun.” You don’t say single shot gun.

    Plus there is the entire context of the conversation, which supports my interpretation.

    Would you, unaverage joe, at least grant me that if the person on AMG meant a single shot firearm, then his point is immensely stupid?

    There are also some questions I would have about your interpretation, if correct. My understanding is that shotguns can shoot a spread or a slug. I seem to remember someone surviving a close range shotgun shot to the face, inflicted by our Vice President. It seems to me that the shooter in Connecticut would have had to choose a less lethal scatter shot or more powerful but more likely to miss slug. In any case, each shot could only be aimed once and the shooter would not get nine more shots in the next five seconds. I think I’d rather be facing the shotgun than the bushmaster. There is probably a reason these intentional mass killers don’t use shotguns.

  9. unaveragejoeisanidiot says:

    unaveragejoe is grasping at straws. Granted, the grammar is bad, but it’s pretty hard to misinterpret “Would one shot from a single shot gun had a different result?”

Leave a Comment