CNN allows gun owners to speak.

[chemist]

And IMO, it's not a bad job:

5 things gun owners want you to know - CNN.com

"Owning a firearm is not a right that I take lightly."

Read More

 

[Botte Hork]

Yeah, read that. It's all out of character until the end:

"It disturbs me when I hear people say things like, 'If someone in the crowd in Colorado had been armed, the whole thing could have been stopped.'" -- Grayson Cash, Savannah, Georgia

It's a point we heard many times. If a gun owner could have carried his weapon into the theater that night, he might have wounded or killed the shooter -- or at least saved some lives. Commenters debated it at length on CNN.

Commenters debate guns, 'what if'

"I would have shot back," Paul Lambert, 28, a veteran in Southern Indiana, wrote in his iReport. "If nothing else, the attacker would have to focus on the civilians shooting at him instead of all the unarmed people running around."

Perhaps. But more likely, it's wishful thinking to believe "you could have stopped the whole thing, if only you had been there with your .38." said Grayson Cash, an airline pilot who owned his first gun at 13 years old.

"As someone who has some firearm and self-defense training, I find it laughable to think that the average Joe, in a dark theater filled with teargas, could take out a well armed and armored assailant with a five-round .38 special," he said. "Arming more people will only eventually end in an accidental death."

Cash said he rarely fires weapons now, except for at the shooting range, and believes there should be strict rules for firearm purchases.

"I do not think the solution is to arm more people. I think the solution is to figure out what is triggering these people to do this, and to work on that."

So the nice conclusion is from a long-time shooter with a responsible job with some training. Also nice how CNN seems to push Cash' quote in the direction they want. The blue is an idea that's fairly dominant among pro gunners, either someone could take him out or at least distract (and in my view, maybe even have him flee the scene, preventing deaths and injuries) but then Cash has a response to that quote (I made it in bold letters), but even worse is CNN's editing. Look at how the red letters are NOT part of the quote, but many would read it as if it's part of what Cash said. Perhaps he said something along those lines, but not strong enough for CNN? It's fairly subtle, and many would read over it. I'm not a native English speaker, maybe I still pay a lot of attention to these things.


Then in green: Something I read often from the anti-gun side. It seems to hint to a few things, the assumptions that:
1) There are only a few people that would carry
2) A person carrying is some sort of semi Rambo that would start pumping rounds like a Holmes
3) People only carry small guns with a small number of rounds
4) The impact of a .38 special is not significant and would not knock even an armor wearing shooter off his/her feet

For 1) the ongoing discouragement to own or carry can be thanked. I'd say number 2 is definitely not the case, looking at the sensibility I read and hear overall from concealed carrying people. For 3) I'd say that with the rise of polymer guns, there are a lot more options besides the small 38 and everything I've heard from people who've worn body armor and had rounds impact says it's not something to be taken lightly (4).

Pink: There ARE strict rules that do get enforced.

Orange: Agree, we should have the ideal situation where people with problems get the treatments and attention they need to prevent such tragic events. However, until we get to this ideal situation, people should have the ability to arm themselves to be able to protect themselves and others. The big problem I have with the quoted statement however is that it appears to put responsibility on the authorities, they should see everything and prevent every bad thing from happening. And in the case of Aurora and this movie theater, there's hardly an option to arm fewer people. At least the law abiding variety....




As you may have gathered from my response, I find this article a bit of a wolf in sheep's clothes.

 

[chemist]

Besides, the whole "What would you have done in Aurora?" circlejerk has nothing whatsoever to do with 2A, with the innate right to self-defense, and with the fact that the police have no duty to protect citizens from crime.

 

[Misterbill]

Yeah, read that. It's all out of character until the end:



So the nice conclusion is from a long-time shooter with a responsible job with some training. Also nice how CNN seems to push Cash' quote in the direction they want. The blue is an idea that's fairly dominant among pro gunners, either someone could take him out or at least distract (and in my view, maybe even have him flee the scene, preventing deaths and injuries) but then Cash has a response to that quote (I made it in bold letters), but even worse is CNN's editing. Look at how the red letters are NOT part of the quote, but many would read it as if it's part of what Cash said. Perhaps he said something along those lines, but not strong enough for CNN? It's fairly subtle, and many would read over it. I'm not a native English speaker, maybe I still pay a lot of attention to these things.


Then in green: Something I read often from the anti-gun side. It seems to hint to a few things, the assumptions that:
1) There are only a few people that would carry
2) A person carrying is some sort of semi Rambo that would start pumping rounds like a Holmes
3) People only carry small guns with a small number of rounds
4) The impact of a .38 special is not significant and would not knock even an armor wearing shooter off his/her feet

For 1) the ongoing discouragement to own or carry can be thanked. I'd say number 2 is definitely not the case, looking at the sensibility I read and hear overall from concealed carrying people. For 3) I'd say that with the rise of polymer guns, there are a lot more options besides the small 38 and everything I've heard from people who've worn body armor and had rounds impact says it's not something to be taken lightly (4).

Pink: There ARE strict rules that do get enforced.

Orange: Agree, we should have the ideal situation where people with problems get the treatments and attention they need to prevent such tragic events. However, until we get to this ideal situation, people should have the ability to arm themselves to be able to protect themselves and others. The big problem I have with the quoted statement however is that it appears to put responsibility on the authorities, they should see everything and prevent every bad thing from happening. And in the case of Aurora and this movie theater, there's hardly an option to arm fewer people. At least the law abiding variety....




As you may have gathered from my response, I find this article a bit of a wolf in sheep's clothes.

yep.