Regular readers should be intimately familiar with my belief that, in general, people tend to learn better through pictures than through explanations. Of course, given my occasional wall-o’-text posts, I frequently fail at applying that belief to real-world scenarios, but, in my defense, I have crafted more than a few posts showing the failure of "gun control" graphically rather than textually.
Today’s exercise in visual learning, however, comes by way of Joe Huffman and Barron Barnett, along with a helpful cast of fellow like-minded folks who are only interested in what works:
An explanation of the stage design is important. The brown target in the distance represents a "bad guy". The white targets represent innocent people. When scored only hits on the bad guy counted and hits on the innocent were heavily penalized. When the scores have been reported I’ll make anther post. I think I might have won this stage. I had a good time with five A-zone hits, one C-zone hit and no hits on the no-shoot targets.
The instructions to the shooter were:
Start position: Facing up-range holding a candle with both hands. Gun is in a concealed carry state.
Course of fire: Upon signal drop candle, turn, draw, and engage T1 with six rounds. Comstock scoring.This stage design was to simulate the January 8th 2011 shooting in Tucson. It was this event which the Brady Campaign wanted to bring attention to. This was to stimulate political interest in more gun laws.
Candles (and fire in general) are great for memorials. Candles are great for churches. Candles are great for ambiance. Candles are so-so for emergency situations (given the increasing efficiency of flashlights). But candles are pretty much one of the worst tools one could use to defend one’s self, and, as such, will do absolutely nothing to stop "gun violence", or violence in general.
On the other hand, by reducing criminals’ recidivism rates to zero, an armed, trained, and willing population of law-abiding citizens stand a very good chance of making a significant impact on violence in general without having to resort to such tactics as guilt-tripping people who have committed no crimes or memorializing the rightful deaths of murders, rapists, and other criminals.
You are, of course, more than welcome to defend your family and yourself however you see fit, and by whatever means you feel comfortable with, and I wish you the very best of luck with whatever those methods are, and I sincerely hope you never have to call upon them. However, unless I am directly harming another person against their will, you have absolutely no right to dictate to me what methods I may or may not use to keep my family and me safe, and I tend to look very dimly upon those who would disarm me in the face of criminals who do prey upon us.
Live your life as you like, and leave the rest of us to do the same in peace. Why is that so hard for criminals and "gun control" extremists alike?
Criminals and gun control extremists are a lot alike. They both seek to impose their will on others.
Got it in one.
That said, I almost respect criminals more – they are at least willing to provide the force behind their imposition themselves, while “gun control” extremists are too cowardly to do such a thing, and thus rely on governmental legislation and agents to impose their will for them.
@ Linoge:
Oh, come on, don’t sugar coat it. They rely on government force to impose their will on others.
Well, yes, but when you say that explicitly, some people miss the leap from “legislation” to “force”. Damned if I understand why…
[...] quote of the day – david e. youngMAJ Mike on quote of the day – david e. youngLinoge on caliber beats candleLinoge on shining the light on the cockroaches3 Boxes of BS » Blog Archive » Doubt it [...]