Prickly City by Scott Stantis for May 24, 2023

Looks like Stantis is getting in touch with his Democratic/Socialist/Communist/Fascist side.

He’s implying that the proliferation of guns is actually making everyone LESS safe.

.

Gun violence advocates will be livid.

Up in, er, arms.

We’re not up in arms, he is entitled to his opinion even if it is wrong. What we don’t like is the “Democratic/Socialist/Communist/Fascist” saying that we can’t arm ourselves for our self defense.

Smith and Wesson is laughing. All the way to the bank.

I feel safer when I know I can protect myself and my family…

The question is, how many more guns will it take to make us safe.

We’re all so much safer with weapons of war flooding the U.S. along with high capacity magaziners, devices to turn guns into automatics … /s

So Libertarian Stanti, you ok with a few gun laws?:

You can be the “Good Guy With a Gun.” Unless you aren’t white. Then you are a “Dead Good Guy With a Gun.” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/ej-bradford-jemel-roberson-police-shootings-good-guy-with-gun.html

That’s not true. NRA stooges like Ted Cruz are laughing as they pocket the gun lobby donations and claim the real problem is doors and video games and mental illness.

Well, kids, the world ain’t a safe place. Never has been, never will be. Sorry. But at least it’s not just our untrustworthy government and rapacious criminals that have got the guns, so, we got that going for us.

I feel safer in a building where a few people are carrying than in one where there is a “no guns” sign on the door.

My AR-15 Can’t kill anyone…Even with the safety off.

..Specially for the criminals & unstable.

Not correct.

Here’s how the logic is SUPPOSED to work:

If you can have a reasonable expectation that NO one will be armed and know how to use a gun against you—a school, a hospital, a church/synagogue/mosque/temple, a shopping mall that says “no firearms”, cities with handgun laws, etc.—then you can shoot with impunity and expect to survive if you escape.

If the expectation is reasonable that at least SOME people are likely to be armed—a remote rural community (especially one with predator animal problems, where someone will pick up the rifle by the door to shoot the coyote or wolf approaching the chickens or dogs or whatnot), a police station/academy, a gun store, a courthouse, places where police response is measured with a calendar, etc.—then anyone wanting to use a gun “offensively” should expect to VERY likely be wounded or killed by those using firearms defensively. It’s suddenly a RISK.

The mentality is supposed to be one akin to the old “Cold War” policy of “MAD” or Mutually Assured Destruction. The reality is that someone wanting to commit mayhem now has too many options before him, because we all but guarantee their safety with “gun-free zones” and de facto equivalents (and, further now, lax/nonexistent prosecution for such crimes). What is needed for at least some more public “safety” is the idea that, yes, MAYBE there’s a teacher/clerk/employee or two with a gun and marksman training in the building, and we’re not telling you which one or where. It won’t stop every mental defective or would-be martyr, but it could/should give pause to criminals that wish to outlast their deeds.

None of this, of course, addresses the motivations for murderers. That’s a far more complicated social problem that everyone avoids, because it’s complicated and there are no short, glib “sound bite” campaign promise slogans for it. But it goes far beyond the simple availability or lack thereof of guns of any type.

Making of assumptions seems like the national past time; we hear of shootings in Chicago and most assume it is by blacks, hell most hear Elvis’ song In the Ghetto written by Mac Davis and make that same assumption; nowhere in the song is the angry young man described as being of any race, as the various ghettos in Chicago have a variety of races other than black. Safe is using common sense but their seems to be a right wing desire to change safe into a myth