search
top

Derision of the “Good Guys With Guns”

I’ve been watching the story of the Marine and Navy Officer using personally owned side arms, carried against military regulation, to return fire against the active shooteer. I’ve been reluctant to report on it, because I would hate to find out later, like so much of what is reported in a mass shooting, that it wasn’t true. It’ll probably be a while before we really know. What has interested me in talking about this story is how often I’m seeing in comment sections of news articles about this story, variants of: “Well, so much for that ‘good guy with a gun’ myth the ammosexuals keep babbling to us about.”

Aside from being highly disrespectful to the fallen Marine’s service and sacrifice, no one ever argued that a gun is a guarantee that you’ll prevail over a bad guy every time. We know gunfights can be lost. We know that people die in war, despite having the ability to shoot back. This is a straw man argument, because no one on our side ever made it. The shooter in this case was indeed stopped by good guys with guns, when enough of them showed up to overwhelm him (presumably, we really don’t know much yet).

I’ve found myself saying this to anti-gun folks over and over again: “Can you please argue against what we actually believe, rather than the caricature you’ve constructed in your head about what we believe?” It would also be nice if they’d pay a little respect to the “good guys with a gun,” who if all this pans out, acted heroically in defense of their fellow soldiers and sailors, with one giving his life. I’m half expecting the gun control crowd to demand a court-martial of the naval officer for violating the regulations on carrying guns.

11 Responses to “Derision of the “Good Guys With Guns””

  1. Matthew Carberry says:

    I’ve often heard magic talisman type comments from “our side.” Every “if only someone had a gun” is implying exactly that. Precision matters if we don’t want to open up strawmen.

    The anti’s will always twist and attack, but the harder they have to work the more obvious and pathetic they look to the people who matter, the undecided/uncaring potential voter.

    I like to play up the “give people the _choice_ to be armed” angle, make them come out against freedom of choice, not against “guns.” The “at least someone would have had a _chance_ to fight back, like at -insert successful defensive shooting-.” Make the anti argue that someone fighting back is always a worse option.

    Put them on the back foot, explaining and nuancing, don’t hand them “you just want everyone everywhere to have a gun” as an easy talking point response.

    • Alpheus says:

      I kind of agree with this, but I can’t help but think that saying “If only he or she had a gun, they’d have had a fighting chance!” diffuses the magic talisman thinking…

      Having said that, antis are the type that would twist what you say onto something they think is horrible anyway.

  2. The_Jack says:

    It’s interesting that the antis (from an organizational level and down) are even actively pushing this.

    They’ve already made the faustian bargian of exempting the police from their gun control laws to gain their support.
    (Magazines bans, awb bans, machine guns, hollow points, microstamping, hangun safety rosters, carry, and on and on).

    It’s interesting that they’re not doing the same with the military. Or at least wouldn’t actively oppose the military.

    Though as an organizational entity the military is for the status quo on this subject. So maybe that’s why the antis aren’t worried about offense.

    • janklow says:

      depends on where it is, perhaps; when they passed the AWB in MD recently, they DID include crumbs for retired military (though admittedly not just ANY military).

  3. GMC70 says:

    “I’m half expecting the gun control crowd to demand a court-martial of the naval officer for violating the regulations on carrying guns.”

    Only half expecting?

    • Sebastian says:

      The PR backlash would be so epic, you’d almost think they had some instinct for self-preservation.

      • Will says:

        During the ’94(?) LA (Northridge?) bank robbery shootout, a bunch of cops went to a gun shop and asked for some long guns to counter the body armor of the robbers. Shop tossed them brand new AR’s and auto shotguns and loaded up mags for them. Afterwards, some CA politicians did their best to have the cops and the store clerks charged with felonies. That failed, but not for lack of trying.

        So, no, it wouldn’t surprise me at all.

    • Ian Argent says:

      Fear of a PR backlash didn’t save ADM Byng. While I doubt the brass care about the gun controllers’ opinions, they may care very much about someone carrying a personally-owned weapon in the face of regulations against doing, which the brass believe is necessary to prevent NDs. He may not get shot on his own quarter deck, but his career might be.

  4. alanstorm says:

    ‘I’ve found myself saying this to anti-gun folks over and over again: “Can you please argue against what we actually believe, rather than the caricature you’ve constructed in your head about what we believe?”’

    What fun would that be? If they do that, they lose. If they kill strawmen, OTOH, they win. In their minds, anyway.

    For very small values of “win”.

    And “minds”.

    • Brad says:

      Yep. The anti-gunners believe their own B.S. It’s not just for public consumption.

      Of course that also makes them very vulnerable. It’s impossible to build an enduring coalition built upon a foundation of lies.

  5. Bram says:

    When I was in, I knew plenty of guys who broke the “always be totally disarmed” rules. I did at times.

    But… that isn’t the same as carrying a concealed weapon. Those rules and any uniform other than BDUs make it impossible to carry on your person. Even wearing utilities, we considered it too risky.

    So the gun ends up at the bottom of a rucksack, toolbox, locked away in a cabinet, etc… I’m not surprised that there were guns there – I’m also not surprised that the Servicemen were unable to access them in time to kill this shithead.

top