Idiots at MSNBC

[Lash]

:thumbsup


Oops. Ed Schultz interviews Tucson hero, finds out he’s packing heat and willing to use it



http://www.ihatethemedia.com/ed-schultz-interviews-tucson-hero-finds-out-hes-packing-heat

[Rocket Power]

:rolf

[BigSnailBuick]

Hahaha...Didnt do their research on him very well now did they.

"Hey Ed, we are going to let you interview and praise this hero and then he is going to make the last 20 things you said look retarded! You cool with that?" :rolf:rolf:rolf

[TheRX7Project]

"You would've used your firearm."
"You're damn right, this is my country... this is my town."
Amen brother.

[PB86MCSS]

I'm not a big "pro-gun" guy (nor "anti-gun") but that was awesome.

[VroomPshhTsi]

*Playing devil's advocate here*

The guy being interviewed said he would have shot the man holding the gun (not Loughner at the time). So in trying to be the hero he would have killed an innocent civilian who was trying to help.

[Rocket Power]

But since he didn't, I'm sure he would've only shot him if it looking like he was going to shoot.

[Prince Valiant]

Ed Schultz is a freakin' blowhard idiot.

"These guns....are meant....to KILL people. blah blah blah..."

Hey Ed, most times guns are pulled, no shots are fired. Guns don't have to kill or injure to work.

To the devil's advocate proposition:
The idea that maybe innocents might be killed in using one's own firearm to perhaps subdue an assailant in such a situation is a frightening prospect.

However, take the virginia tech shooting...32 were killed and many others wounded. But, had someone had a gun and tried to take out the VT shooter, possibly killing someone (or 2, 3, or more...)in the line of fire? Total dead might have only been 8? 22? 33? Impossible to really know, eh? Depends on when the intervention occurred, and we can't know, because know one else had a gun at that moment. Might another gunman returning fire to the VT shooter distracted him to the point that other innocents could have gotten away instead of blown away?

In this case, very heroic individuals tackled the "alleged" shooter (another good one ed! He is in fact, and everyone knows, he IS the shooter! There is nothing "alleged" about it!), and it didn't come to it. The question back is what if no one had intervened? The guy had 60 bullets on him...how many more would have died? Had those individuals not intervened, might the interviewee been able to take out the gunman?

Not that I think the person was saying "he would shoot the guy holding the gun" in the sense you took it...IE, the innocent man who had wrested the gun. Hell, we know he HAD the opportunity to shoot him. I'm of the belief that the individual would have shot "generic guy holding/shooting gun" which of course would have been loughner, had no one wrestled him down.

Likewise, we hear many who fear of shootouts at the ok corral, or vigilante justice, neither of which occurred (or rare to ever occur).

Ed was harping a bit on the AZ gun laws, but the fact of the matter is that IF the campus police/administrators, and even the local police had reported this person as possibly deranged/ill and potentially dangerous, he would have been DQ'd from purchasing a gun:

Under Arizona law, prohibited possessor are defined in ARS 13-3101 which states:

7. “Prohibited possessor” means any person:

(a) Who has been found to constitute a danger to himself or to others or to be persistently or acutely disabled or gravely disabled pursuant to court order under section 36-540, and whose right to possess a firearm has not been restored pursuant to section 13-925.

Just like the VT shooter, no one followed up and reported this person as potentially dangerous, even though he was expelled for making students/profs feel unsafe, campus police escorted him off campus, and local police had several run in's with the shooter for even making death threats! So yet ANOTHER mass shooter that could have perhaps been prevented or impeded by people doing their due diligence and laws already on the books!