912
'Gun-loving' GOP governor reportedly seen 'running scared for his life' from mass shooting
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
912 points (92.0% liked)
News
23622 readers
3985 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This isn't a "gotcha". I'm a big fan of classic cars but that doesn't mean I'll stand there when one is driving fast straight at me.
I mean most pro-gun arguments boil down to “guns are needed because the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with one”, so when a large proponent of this argument is thrown into a situation where he could be the “good guy with a gun” and he instead runs away because he values his own life more than protecting the lives of those around him, maybe he should stop and dwell on that thought for a minute.
Would I charge headfirst into gunfire? Absolutely not, and thats why I advocate for more gun control.
Maybe he's just not a good guy. In fact in this day and age I would say by being Republican does indeed make him the bad guy.
Of course, this being funny kinda hinges on him having a gun on him at the time of the incident. Just because he is a proponent of a right being available if one so chooses doesn't mean he chooses to exercise it daily, and you can't use what you don't have on you.
Furthermore gun owners are under no obligation to have the hero fantasies often ascribed to them, many do it for simply self preservation who wouldn't run towards gunfire either, opting only to use it if they absolutely have to. That is a decision someone can really only make in the moment, too, many think "I'd blah blah blah," you might blah blah blah, it's an instinctual reaction.
Nah, it doesn’t. If I advocate for the right for everyone to carry grenades on them, and then I get put in a position where someone actually has one and I get scared shitless and run away, thats funny, regardless of whether or not I carry a grenade myself. Its funny because we all can obviously see that the right to carry fucking grenades is ridiculous, and by advocating for it I kinda got whats coming to me.
In fact, the more I think about it, if you advocate for guns, why not also grenades? If you are citing the “well armed militia” part of the second amendment, well, you’re not going to ever be able to fight a tyrannical government with bullets alone will you? And if you’re worried about the self defense part, a grenade would let you take care of a shooter thats behind cover without putting yourself in the line of fire!
And if you think you shouldn’t be able to have a device that could kill a crowd of people in seconds, because thats obviously stupid and dangerous, I beg you to take another look at your stance on guns.
Except that isn't what you said, what you said hinges on the "good guy with a gun" thing, so, yes, what I said is applicable.
This new argument is a little closer, but even then simply not wanting to further restrict rights for those who use them correctly even though they can be abused is not unreconcilable with also not wanting to be shot unjustly. I'd agree if he was a proponent of "the right to commit mass shootings" but nobody has ever said that, so I doubt he's the first.
Fair point, so long as you don't cause collateral damage since you'll still be held responsible just as you would be with a gun today, why not? I mean, it isn't the right tool for home defense imo since guns are much more targeted, but who am I to tell you you can't cut off your nose to spite your face by destroying your own house?
And cars, but "that's different" since while cars will be a cause of many more deaths than guns due to climate change, and they can kill 80 preople and injure 486 on Bastille day in France, they weren't "designed to," so it's fine, and nevermind that while guns were designed to kill people, sometimes it is necessary and acceptible to do so in self defense. We'll ignore all that because "reasons."
The difference is that a cars only purpose isn’t to kill or maim. There are very obvious positives to having widespread access to cars. I can point you countries where there is not widespread access to guns that do not have these problems. Can you point to any that have guns as accessible in the US that don’t?
Because I know your next argument will be about knives or cars again, let me address both of those: A knife is not nearly as deadly as a gun. You can at least run from a knife, its much more personal so less people are willing to use it, and you at least have a chance of fending off the attacker. Against a gun, your only hope is that they miss. And regarding cars, you’re right, they can be used as a weapon! Do you know what solves this issue while also still allowing people to commute? Public transport! Im glad we agree cars are an issue, and that public transport is needed.
Since you clearly don’t think everyone having grenades is ridiculous, how about rockets? Missiles? Should any citizen be able to obtain those too? Mustard gas? Nuclear weapons? How far are you willing to let that go before its obvious the cons outweigh the pros?
Well seeing as there are none that are exactly the same I suppose you've set yourself up for an answer you want, but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that the Czech Republic, while they have a slightly different system and less guns to people ratio, they've had the right to firearms enshrined like America since the 1500s (except during nazi and communist occupations where they were outright banned and restricted to those deemed loyal respectively). Not only that, but in CZ just as US, though gun ownership grows, gun crime declines.
Furthermore, there are plenty places in the world where guns are completely banned, yet the criminals have them and use them regularly, like Honduras or Brazil. The problem though is you'll discount those places as ~~brown people~~ third world countries so of course those ~~savages~~ ~~poor browns~~ "unfortunate souls" kill each other a lot (which isn't racist at all somehow). Point still stands however, even illegal guns shipped to an island aren't prohibitively expensive to actual drug dealers, even without guns being legally available, people are making 1911s in the jungles in the Philippines with hand tools out of scrap steel that run just as well as a Springfield, the cartels get full auto M4s and South Korean grenades, those are illegal here much less Mexico and they still get them.
Ahh ableism! So fuck cripples who can't run, huh? And the old who are slower than most people victimizing others with a knife? And fat people? Might as well let him carve a few pounds off hmm? Or even women, since men run faster over short distances on average? Hope your last name is "Bolt."
Y'know what ends a knife fight quicker than running and prayer? Well, one time a dude pulled a knife on me and my then GF walking into walmart, before he could say anything I grabbed the grip of my CCW but didn't even draw it, he turned and walked away for some reason, couldn't say why but I have my theories. Must've been less than 10sec but felt like an hour, still though, nobody was hurt and I'm fine with that.
In theory, but in practice they're used to threaten and attack people regularly already even with legal gun ownership. They're cheap and actually accessible (there's no FBI NICs check or prohibited purchasers/possesors for knives). Btw you can run from a gun too, once you get 25yd away most people (especially criminals who aren't known to train or practice) will not hit you with a handgun, which are involved in the most crime (12,000 handgun to 500 rifle deaths a year, criminals like handguns for concealability.)
Well no, that Bastille Day incident I mentioned happened with a stolen ~~truck~~ "lorry." "Lorries" will still exist for shipping purposes. Furthermore bus drivers can also kill people, they aren't some saint just because they're employed by the city, they're drug tested 1x/yr for their CDL but that's about it, and busses can also be stolen. Though yeah, public transport could surely be improved I do agree lol.
Interesting you note this one, do you also think precursors to make mustard gas should be illegal since it's so easy to make? I mean, you support banning guns because they can be used illegally, or at least making them harder to get, why not ban/restrict the ingredients for mustard gas the same way? They're legal now, just like guns, you're just not allowed to kill people with it, just like guns. Maybe the issue isn't actually the implement used to do the killing, maybe the issue is the killing itself.
And lets not forget the story of John Hurley who shot a shooter and was then shot by cops.
True, tbf it's always a risk like any fight, even just a fistfight you could get knocked out, hit your head on the pavement, and that's all she wrote.
There are some things you can do to mitigate it though, whoever calls the cops should give an accurate description of the shooter if possible, and the defender if possible, including clothes etc. And as the defender, after the defense either reholster if you're sure it's safe to do so or leave as you're under no obligation to stay, call the police and say "there's been a shooting at [location]," hang up, call laywer.
No, it is not always a risk.
It is only a risk if you think you are some damn super hero because you like loud explosions and go to a shooting range once every week, without any other gun safety training what so ever, including knowing how to de-escalation a situation.
Leave it to the professionals who were actually trained in using guns.
Yes it is, every fight is a risk same as every time you drive you risk some idiot T-Boning you after running a red. Even deescalation doesn't always work for the professionals, even that's a risk.
Cute, but no.
Trained to do what exactly? Risk their lives defending others (which they don't actually have to do per warren v dc, gonzales v castle rock, and the other one)? Risk? People die from lesser fights all the time, there's no ref like on the TV.
Perhaps he simply wasn't armed. I'm against gun control but am also not armed 24/7 either. Unlike most on the website, I've been in the situation of having to approach a shooter. Some of us still believe what we did before that after.
Well good on you for getting through that situation, but you saying “oh, well maybe he just wasnt carrying” doesn’t really help your point. We can’t expect everyone to be carrying, at all times. And even if everyone could carry at all times, we still can’t expect everyone to be able to pull the trigger. You did, but that’s why people in your role are hailed as heroes for what they do: because most could not do it.
I fail to see how him not carrying at the time doesn't help my point of him maybe not carrying a the time.
Because him not carrying at the time demonstrates why guns could never truly be a solution to these shootings. It can happen anytime, anywhere, and you can’t be prepared at every moment. You can’t live your life never letting your guard down.
Not to mention, if anyone should be carrying and take action in these situations, it should be the ones advocating against gun control. Missouri has some of the loosest gun control in the country. If the main argument against is the right to defend yourself, and when the time comes this guy is either not prepared or not willing to defend the people he is meant to serve, how can we expect others to?
Are we really to say “everyone should be carrying so they can defend themselves in these situations”, when the Missouri governor himself isn’t?
And when you advocate against gun control, that is the statement you’re making. That the issue of these shootings is simply solved by a good guy having a gun. If you’re saying “gun control isn’t alright because i deserve the right to defend myself”, you’re implying that everyone else has the same right, and their only chance to save themselves is to also exercise that right.
But can we expect women and children to do this? And I’m sure there are plenty of people of color who would not be super hyped to have a weapon on them during a police interaction. If the Missouri governor, one of the loudest voices against gun control can’t be expected to exercise this right, how can we expect everyone else?
Yeah in a country with a 2nd amendment, it's not just your right, it's your responsibility to carry. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if people weren't scared of responsibility.
I carry to protect me and mine.
You and yours can make the decision to carry or not. I’m not going to go out of my way to save anyone but my own kin. The police have no legal requirement to save you and they have legal protection from liability if they shoot something they should not. A conceal and carry holder has none of that.
So your solution to the issue of mass shootings is that everyone should carry a gun on them at all times, and everyone should be ready to kill if necessary? And you don’t see the issue with that?
I’m not saying you specifically should not carry or be ready to defend yourself, and I would be a fool to pretend that you shouldn’t be willing and able to defend yourself, especially with how things are now. But do you really want to live in a world where every citizen has to be ready and willing to kill his fellow man at the drop of a hat when things go to shit? Do you want your kids, grandkids, etc. to live in a world like that?
The point isn’t that you shouldn’t be able to defend yourself. The point is that the fact that you need to is fucked up, and we shouldn’t accept it as the status quo.
My solution is to treat the cause. Mental Health and crime are certainly the two leading causes of mass shootings.
A living wage, universal healthcare services, and a fair regulated economy Are solutions to the cause of the problem.
I am not a liberal, I am a leftist. I think we have moved far too much to the right in this country which is why we have many of these problems in the first place.
This ain't a movie, hero.
I never stated I’m a hero. I only wish to defend me and mine.
You're more likely to be killed with your own gun, and possibly others. With your gun. If you're that afraid, stay at home.
No, I choose to exercise my rights. If they scare you then that is your problem.
Freedom is scary, get over it.
So you don't give a fuck if anyone lives except your "kin" and we're supposed to feel safe with people like you walking around armed?
You are free to ensure your own safety. If you choose to depend upon others that is certainly your decision to make.
Statistically conceal and carry holders are the safest segment of society. I would much rather be in a room full of registered conceal, and carry holders than police, or any other segment of society.
That's a lie. Save that NRA apologist bullshit for the firing range.
I apologize for nothing. I merely assert my rights.
If your "rights" endanger others, then those rights should be voided.
Which every healthy democracy has done so far.
My right to own a gun does not endanger you anymore than my right to free speech. I value both equally.
Damn, you must live in a shithole if you need a gun in order to feel safe in your own country and home.
It sounds like you are privileged to live in an area bereft of all violence. Those of us who are not as privileged as you are still want to defend ourselves.
That's cute from a casual. I love the light anarchy manifesto.
Now that I don't carry an automatic weapon for part of my work, I see no reason to be part of the problem and I'm happy to leave it to the pros. But dunning-kruger is a hell of a thing.
Dunning Kruger is the cry of the retards can't conceive a decent argument and are too chicken to just say "'retard"
Feel free to trust your personal safety and the safety of your family to a “pro”. When seconds count the police are just 20 minutes away.
Lol, username should be brain dead or unalive cuz not much is happening up there.
A gun is not a car.
One can jump out of the way of a car, because it isn't faster than the speed of sound.
Got any more brilliant fucking insights about tools meant for specific purposes?
No, I don't need a brilliant insight to know that your analogy was false.
A car is a tool. It moves humans and goods from spot A to spot B. A gun is a tool to convert living critters into dead ones. They are not the same and comparing the two, like in your example, won't work.
Yet I can kill people with both, someone's being disingenuous (it's you)
Bananas and the sun both appear yellow to me. Are bananas and the sun the same thing?
Two things can have something in common and not be the same. Guns are not cars. You can personally attack me all you want but your analogy will still have failed.
Man, you're not even clever enough to fake being.
And another personal attack.
It's because I don't respect you whatsoever.
Depends, got any other false analogies to be taken down?
A gun is a deadly weapon. Its purpose is to kill. It has no other purpose, therefore it is not a tool. That's firearms training 101. If you don't know that, your opinion isn't worth listening to because you don't know the literal first thing about wielding one.
I assume you're not a big fan of totally unregulated cars and I doubt you claim that the only way to stop a car crash is with another car.