If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Breitbart.com)   Ex-Royal Marine armed with a handgun saved more than 100 people in the Kenya mall massacre. What are the chances this will be mentioned on the news?   (breitbart.com) divider line 312
    More: Hero, Islamists, massacres, handguns  
•       •       •

12446 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Sep 2013 at 5:30 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



312 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-24 10:51:07 PM
True or false.
 
2013-09-24 10:53:06 PM
Well in reality, there's a hundred percent (100%) chance that it will be mentioned by the media seeing as it already has over 30,000 hits on Google News.

In the paranoid fantasies of the American Right, there is a 0% chance that it will be mentioned by the MSM, which does not include the Washington Times, FoxNews, the Daily Mail, or any of a thousand major news outlets, including AP and Reuters.

Wah! Wah! Wah! We're being persecuted!
 
2013-09-24 11:00:49 PM
Subby, a brave man helped many people escape the attack.

Feel free to point out where the handgun entered into the story. We'll wait.
 
2013-09-24 11:14:15 PM
Maybe subby meets on the NBC, CBS or ABC nightly news
 
2013-09-24 11:17:09 PM

MurphyMurphy: Feel free to point out where the handgun entered into the story.


Not the subby,  but on the 5th line from the top, which you must not have read, the handgun entered the story.
FTFA:Armed only with his handgun, he immediately.....
 
2013-09-24 11:25:22 PM
Crickets?
 
2013-09-24 11:38:37 PM
Yeah I hate to bust up your masturbation fantasy there Subby but it's all over the media and there's even a photo of his badass self.

Besides, how else do you think your blog writing pal found out about it?
 
2013-09-24 11:45:51 PM
He is SAS or MI6 and the Brits want the story buried to protect him and I assume his family
 
2013-09-24 11:51:38 PM

Tyee: MurphyMurphy: Feel free to point out where the handgun entered into the story.

Not the subby,  but on the 5th line from the top, which you must not have read, the handgun entered the story.
FTFA:Armed only with his handgun, he immediately.....


Feel free to point out where said gun was used.  Based on the facts described in TFA, a brave man could do the same thing, armed or not.
 
2013-09-25 12:05:00 AM

SJKebab: Tyee: MurphyMurphy: Feel free to point out where the handgun entered into the story.

Not the subby,  but on the 5th line from the top, which you must not have read, the handgun entered the story.
FTFA:Armed only with his handgun, he immediately.....

Feel free to point out where said gun was used.  Based on the facts described in TFA, a brave man could do the same thing, armed or not.


And that's before considering the source. Breitbart's reputation for dissemination of half-truths and whole lies has so thoroughly poisoned that particular well that any "news" they report is by definition false. They are effectively an anti-citation.

As far as the mention of SGT Chekhov's handgun is concerned, I'm willing to bet that the purpose of them mentioning a gun which was never fired or even unholstered was to point out that the gun-grabbing liberals are completely wrong on everything ever and we don't need background checks or waiting periods and Real Americans™ should be allowed to buy AR-15s with 100-round magazines and underbarrel grenade launchers out of vending machines at Walmart and furthermore comma.
 
2013-09-25 12:05:05 AM

SJKebab: Feel free to point out where said gun was used. Based on the facts described in TFA, a brave man could do the same thing, armed or not.


It doesn't say if the gun was or wasn't used now used does it?  He maybe reloaded every time he came out.  A brave man indeed never the less., Going in without being armed wouldn't be advisable as going in with a weapon wouldn't you agree?  Or maybe you think he should have left the gun at home in a gun safe where it could have been of better use to no one.
 
2013-09-25 12:08:11 AM
Did he get his ticket stamped?  Because you only get a free sandwich if all 100 ticket holes are stamped.

That's the rules.

/everybody knows that
 
2013-09-25 12:10:23 AM

i.imgur.com


You mean besides USA Today? Cause I'm thinking USA Today is pretty mainstream.

 
2013-09-25 12:14:55 AM

Tyee: Going in without being armed wouldn't be advisable as going in with a weapon wouldn't you agree?  Or maybe you think he should have left the gun at home in a gun safe where it could have been of better use to no one.


I don't know how it works in the UK, but in the US we generally expect military soldiers to be armed. We don't expect soldiers to leave their guns at home. And we're pretty much OK with that. And if his "ex-military" SIS identity is not being discussed it's probably for a good reason.
 
2013-09-25 12:19:28 AM

King Something: And that's before considering the source.


It is a poorly written article for sure and the other sources don't offer much more in information but you seem to have some...a gun which was never fired or even unholstered
How do you know this?  I have link that shows the gun tucked into his belt so it was certainly unholstered.  Seems Brietbart is so far more accurate than you as they aren't reporting what they don't know..at least as far as we can tell while you are.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430201/British-hero-mall-ma ss acre-Ex-Royal-Marine-handgun-saved-100-lives-terrorists-ran-amok.html
 
2013-09-25 12:20:36 AM
MurphyMurphy

Feel free to point out where the handgun entered into the story. We'll wait.

Illiterate huh? Guess how we know you're an obama voter.

Handgun is mentioned 4x in about 100 - 200 words
 
2013-09-25 12:22:27 AM

Somacandra: Tyee: Going in without being armed wouldn't be advisable as going in with a weapon wouldn't you agree?  Or maybe you think he should have left the gun at home in a gun safe where it could have been of better use to no one.

I don't know how it works in the UK, but in the US we generally expect military soldiers to be armed. We don't expect soldiers to leave their guns at home. And we're pretty much OK with that. And if his "ex-military" SIS identity is not being discussed it's probably for a good reason.


Actually bases are usually disarmed. That's why the navy guy managed to injure so many with a shorgun.

Ex-soldiers can do as they please. Many opt not to get CCW. Many opt to.
 
2013-09-25 12:23:44 AM

Somacandra: I don't know how it works in the UK, but in the US we generally expect military soldiers to be armed.


What?  No we don't or you don't know how it works here either because in many states ex military or not they are now civilians and they need a CCW permit just like everyone else.
 
2013-09-25 12:25:26 AM
Was it Sgt Stonebridge? Did he have a foul-mouthed American in tow?
 
2013-09-25 12:31:41 AM

Somacandra: We don't expect soldiers to leave their guns at home. And we're pretty much OK with that.


Oh yes we do excpect that unless they have a permit to carry, and you're probably lying about being OK with that.

~Sorry forgot to add that in the last post.
 
2013-09-25 12:31:43 AM
Whether or not the gun was used, I can't see how anyone would object to a guy like this having and/or using it in this situation. This is one of those times the proverbial "good guy with a gun" applies. If only all gun owners had his training and experience, I don't think people would get so worked up about it.
 
2013-09-25 12:33:33 AM

doglover: That's why the navy guy managed to injure so many with a shorgun..Ex-soldiers can do as they please


Yeah but this wasn't on base. I'm talking out in public.  If I see a soldier or a someone I know is a soldier out in public I just assume CCW and go on my way--- like if I see a cop or someone who I know is a cop I assume s/he is carrying. Of course, the real question is whether this person was obeying Kenyan law by being armed.
 
2013-09-25 12:33:46 AM

Tyee: Somacandra: We don't expect soldiers to leave their guns at home. And we're pretty much OK with that.

Oh yes we do excpect that unless they have a permit to carry, and you're probably lying about being OK with that.

~Sorry forgot to add that in the last post.


In a lot of places you don't need a permit to carry, only to carry concealed.
 
2013-09-25 12:34:58 AM

Tyee: No we don't or you don't know how it works here either because in many states ex military or not they are now civilians and they need a CCW permit just like everyone else.


I didn't say they were carrying without a permit. I'd ask you not to put words in my mouth but you're already a Breitbarter so I know that would be useless.
 
2013-09-25 12:37:36 AM

Tyee: Oh yes we do excpect that unless they have a permit to carry, and you're probably lying about being OK with that.


Trolling a Breitbart/Gun Control/Kenyan Terrorist attack thread? Uh, I mean if that gets you off, fine. But that's got to be a handicap of about +150,000 or so wouldn't you say? Modified wooden toilet roll holder? Wow. Just wow.
 
2013-09-25 12:39:58 AM

Barfmaker: Besides, how else do you think your blog writing pal found out about it?


Breitbart secretes its own "news."
 
2013-09-25 12:47:36 AM
Breitbart link? Trolltastic headline? Damn, imma go make some farking popcorn.
 
2013-09-25 12:49:08 AM

Abacus9: Whether or not the gun was used, I can't see how anyone would object to a guy like this having and/or using it in this situation. This is one of those times the proverbial "good guy with a gun" applies.


That is why to get a CC permit in most states you do get training and have to pass a background check proving you're one of the good guys you mentioned.  In MN for instance, a "shall carry" state means if you want to get a permit you "shall" be given one, but after pass a background check passing training.  Prior to becoming a "shall issue" state any MN county sheriff could deny you unless you could prove you needed one, now they "shall issue" unless they can prove you can't have one because of a criminal background.  Because it is your right to carry the state or county has the burden of proving you shouldn't have it rather than the other way around.
 
2013-09-25 12:51:55 AM

fusillade762: Breitbart link? Trolltastic headline? Damn, imma go make some farking popcorn.


Congrats, Subby. [Brietbart green achievement unlocked]
 
2013-09-25 01:03:41 AM

Somacandra: I didn't say they were carrying without a permit. I'd ask you not to put words in my mouth

...blah, blah blah.

Sorry I didn't put those words in your mouth, read it again. We don't expect this ..  in the US we generally expect military soldiers to be armed. We don't expect soldiers to leave their guns at home. And we're pretty much OK with that.
No we don't, that is the biggest crock of shiat you've spewed trying to cover your ass in a while.
And I'm willing to bet you've been opposed to every civilian conceal carry legislation ever introduced, remember ex military members are now civilians again.
 
2013-09-25 01:04:06 AM

Abacus9: Whether or not the gun was used, I can't see how anyone would object to a guy like this having and/or using it in this situation. This is one of those times the proverbial "good guy with a gun" applies. If only all gun owners had his training and experience, I don't think people would get so worked up about it.


This is one part of the debate with infuriates me.  I'm not against guns, I'm not necessarily against concealed carry either.  But the fact that so many americans consider the right to gun ownership as fundamental a right as the right to circulate ones own blood ignores a very basic fact:  You don't need training to circulate your own blood safely.  You definitely need training to use a gun safely.  And unless you've done the requisite training, and refresher courses every couple of years, and practise safe storage when not in use, then you're going firmly into the "irresponsible gun owner" group in my eyes, and therefore you should lose the right to circulate your own blood.

Well maybe not that last bit, unless of course you have an accident where "I thought the gun was unloaded".  Then yeah, revoke both rights
 
2013-09-25 01:06:06 AM
Hrm, you linked to a news story about it, therefore, it has been mentioned in the news.

Also, in stories like this, the media always searches out the stories of the heroes, so I suspect it will be covered more than just here.

There were tons of hero headlines that could have ended up here, but we got a gun troll instead.  Awesome.
 
2013-09-25 01:07:31 AM

Triumph: Congrats, Subby. [Brietbart green achievement unlocked]


More here with pick of unholsered gun in belt, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430201/British-hero-mall-mas s acre-Ex-Royal-Marine-handgun-saved-100-lives-terrorists-ran-amok.html
That will get the Brietbart taste out of your mouth.
 
2013-09-25 01:13:19 AM

SJKebab: Well maybe not that last bit, unless of course you have an accident where "I thought the gun was unloaded".  Then yeah, revoke both rights


Most of the people who have an "I thought the gun was unloaded"-type accident live long enough to regret it, as the people who cause those accidents tend to revoke the right to autonomous blood circulations from others rather than themselves.

/living long enough to regret it doesn't necessarily mean that they actually regret it, just that they CAN
//whether or not they actually regret it is not a debate I intend to have at this particular juncture in history
 
2013-09-25 01:14:07 AM

SJKebab: You definitely need training to use a gun safely.


See #6 Most States are like this.
Requirements:
1. Must be at least 21 years of age
2. Must complete an application form
3. Must not be prohibited from possessing a firearm under Minnesota Statute 624.714
4. Must not be listed in the criminal gang investigation system
5. Must be a resident of the county from which you are requesting a permit, if you reside in Minnesota. Non-residents may apply to any Minnesota county sheriff.
6. Must provide certificate of completed authorized firearms training. Training by a certified instructor and completed within one year of an original or renewal application. (624.714, Subd. 2a)
 
2013-09-25 01:17:02 AM

Somacandra: I don't know how it works in the UK, but in the US we generally expect military soldiers to be armed. We don't expect soldiers to leave their guns at home. And we're pretty much OK with that. And if his "ex-military" SIS identity is not being discussed it's probably for a good reason.


Not that this in any way devalues what he did - he's brave as hell and deserves all the accolades and honors he gets for going in there.  That's incredibly brave, and worthy of admiration and respect. The fact that he had a gun is almost irrelevant here, since it would be incredibly unwise to go into a hostage situation controlled by terrorists unarmed, and anyone could tell you that.  Being that he was in the military, he'd absolutely be aware of the dangers and make sure he was armed before entering.

Like I said already, headline is nothing but a gun troll, since the media has been looking for every hero, rescue, and survivor story they can find since this happened. They were doing this on Sunday on MSNBC as well, though I am not sure this story was on there at this point.  It's certainly been in the mainstream media, though. Using Breitbart is even more trollish since it is FAR from the only source on this story.

Even the most adamant anti-gun/gun control activists do not argue against arming military/police in situations like this. At the same time, it's not a compelling pro-gun story, either, because we expect ex-military and police to be armed, both with weapons and knowledge, understanding and abilities in situations like this. It's disingenuous  to present this story as anything BUT a heroic man helping to save people in a horrible situation.
 
2013-09-25 01:32:27 AM

Tyee: Triumph: Congrats, Subby. [Brietbart green achievement unlocked]

More here with pick of unholsered gun in belt, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430201/British-hero-mall-mas s acre-Ex-Royal-Marine-handgun-saved-100-lives-terrorists-ran-amok.html
That will get the Brietbart taste out of your mouth.


Sorry, you're confusing me with those pussies who biatch and moan about Fark being defiled by some website link.
 
2013-09-25 01:39:36 AM

serpent_sky: Not that this in any way devalues what he did


I agree with "almost" everything you said including  Using Breitbart is even more trollish since it is FAR from the only source on this story.
The main exception being.... we expect ex-military and police to be armed,  no we don't, maybe we should but we don't.  Police yes, ex-military no.  In fact even with the active military it's a no, even on base it's a no, unless they are at the shooting range in training.  That is why the shooter at the naval yard armed with a duck gun (Remington 870 wing-master that I also own for ducks) was able to do so much killing.

G'night.
 
2013-09-25 01:41:56 AM

Tyee: 6. Must provide certificate of completed authorized firearms training. Training by a certified instructor and completed within one year of an original or renewal application. (624.714, Subd. 2a)


Is that for gun ownership, or concealed carry?  And does concealed carry have other training requirements?

I've just recently recieved my gun licence (Aussie - licencing is required) however I don't yet own a gun, and don't really intend to for a while.  The training required to get that was insanely simple - it was just a cop talking about safety, the 6 rules of gun handling (I know this varies from place to place, but we're taught to 6 anyway) and 2 multiple choice exams at the end.  Total time taken - 3 hours.  Total firearms touched: zero.

This was farking silly in my mind.  I would've thought that while the cop was there explaining everything, it wouldn't be too much more effort to take the class to a shooting range and do some practical training.

I'm not sure what the training is like over there, but if it's anything like here, then it's definitely not enough.  Actual proper training comes from gun associations and gun clubs over here, and I remember something about gun club membership having a direct impact on insurance liability premiums - no membership, higher rates.

That said, here in Aus, there is almost no protection offered to people who shoot others in self defence - especially in the case of home invasions.  The logic is that, if your firearm is properly secured, then it's pretty much useless in the event of  break in.  It's possible to get away with it, but be prepared to spend all your money on legal fees for a while.  The cheaper and prefered option advocated by the police and shooters associations is to follow the instructions of the intruder, and use your insurance company to get your stuff back.  Or, use a cricket bat and wallop the farker. Our crims generally aren't armed, so this is a viable option here.  Your milage may vary.  However, people who own more than 10 (I think) firearms (which seems like a good 50+% of you gun nut farkers) are legally required to have security alarm systems in place in addition to their gun safes.  Again, reducing the requirement to actually use that gun.

But I've gone a mile off course.
 
2013-09-25 01:43:23 AM
media.comicbookmovie.com

It would have been over more quickly if he'd had his friends with him.
 
2013-09-25 01:48:47 AM

Triumph: Sorry, you're confusing me with those pussies who biatch and moan about Fark being defiled by some website link.


Please accept my apology.
Some people would rather not see a source they don't like, some ppl block posters because they don't like the opinions they might express.  All the while they don't seem to realize they can just not read them if they so choose.  I block nobody, disregard a few, and won't reply to even fewer, mostly because of stupidity and childishness.  I don't block because every once in a great, great while those I've been tempted to block say something funny, interesting and even more rare something smart, and I don't want to miss it if they do.

Again good night.
 
2013-09-25 01:49:45 AM

Tyee: I agree with "almost" everything you said including Using Breitbart is even more trollish since it is FAR from the only source on this story.
The main exception being.... we expect ex-military and police to be armed, no we don't, maybe we should but we don't. Police yes, ex-military no. In fact even with the active military it's a no, even on base it's a no, unless they are at the shooting range in training. That is why the shooter at the naval yard armed with a duck gun (Remington 870 wing-master that I also own for ducks) was able to do so much killing.


Okay... I didn't know that wasn't standard. I assume that military and ex-military are armed, but I have limited knowledge of military people.  Growing up in an Irish family in Queens, NY, though, I had a lot of cops in my family and even after they retired, they kept their guns and as far as I can imagine, they would not be afraid to use them. 

Nonetheless, the headline is still awful, since pretty much everyone pointed out this has been covered a lot.
 
2013-09-25 01:54:12 AM

SJKebab: Is that for gun ownership, or concealed carry? And does concealed carry have other training requirements?


To carry.  You need training to conceal and carry.  Without training and by passing a background check you can purchase and use it at the range and for hunting but it must be properly stored in the trunk (bonnet? ) during transport.
 
2013-09-25 01:57:59 AM

Tyee: Abacus9: Whether or not the gun was used, I can't see how anyone would object to a guy like this having and/or using it in this situation. This is one of those times the proverbial "good guy with a gun" applies.

That is why to get a CC permit in most states you do get training and have to pass a background check proving you're one of the good guys you mentioned.  In MN for instance, a "shall carry" state means if you want to get a permit you "shall" be given one, but after pass a background check passing training.  Prior to becoming a "shall issue" state any MN county sheriff could deny you unless you could prove you needed one, now they "shall issue" unless they can prove you can't have one because of a criminal background.  Because it is your right to carry the state or county has the burden of proving you shouldn't have it rather than the other way around.


But you don't need a permit to carry unconcealed, at least in many places.

Tyee: 6. Must provide certificate of completed authorized firearms training. Training by a certified instructor and completed within one year of an original or renewal application. (624.714, Subd. 2a)


This may be true, but a certificate that you took one short training course isn't the same as being military or police-trained. Just like passing driver's ed doesn't make you completely prepared for every driving situation, and driver's ed is much more extensive than firearms training.

SJKebab: Abacus9: Whether or not the gun was used, I can't see how anyone would object to a guy like this having and/or using it in this situation. This is one of those times the proverbial "good guy with a gun" applies. If only all gun owners had his training and experience, I don't think people would get so worked up about it.

This is one part of the debate with infuriates me.  I'm not against guns, I'm not necessarily against concealed carry either.   But the fact that so many americans consider the right to gun ownership as fundamental a right as the right to circulate ones own blood ignores a very basic fact:  You don't need training to circulate your own blood safely.  You definitely need training to use a gun safely.  And unless you've done the requisite training, and refresher courses every couple of years, and practise safe storage when not in use, then you're going firmly into the "irresponsible gun owner" group in my eyes, and therefore you should lose the right to circulate your own blood.


It kind of brings up the 2nd Amendment militia argument, which is too vague to really enforce. I'm all for people exercising their rights, but they should need adequate training in how to use them.
 
2013-09-25 02:01:06 AM

Tyee: Triumph: Sorry, you're confusing me with those pussies who biatch and moan about Fark being defiled by some website link.

Please accept my apology.
Some people would rather not see a source they don't like, some ppl block posters because they don't like the opinions they might express.  All the while they don't seem to realize they can just not read them if they so choose.  I block nobody, disregard a few, and won't reply to even fewer, mostly because of stupidity and childishness.  I don't block because every once in a great, great while those I've been tempted to block say something funny, interesting and even more rare something smart, and I don't want to miss it if they do.

Again good night.


I think that folks are taking exception to the idea that ONLY Breitbart would run this story. That somehow it would be buried, because...socialism or some nonsense that exists in their somewhat limited worldview. A story of bravery and doing the right thing, and turned into trollbait, which is the sad thing, and detracts from the event, by trying to score some sort of point, as opposed to highlighting the man's actions.

To the second part...I do block some folks, because life is too short for some brands of stoopid. Mind you, you have to be pretty much a shill or an idiot to get on that list, but sadly, that list grows as folks find more and more alts. I suspect that my list has a lot of the same folks' alts, as they realize that they are getting less and less attention, and really NEED to up their game in their heads, and I perhaps have less faith in some folks than you do. Or rather, I have less faith in a particular stripe of poster, who may indeed come up with some rare insight, but on the off chance that they do, and I see it quoted, I can be convinced to take them off the list. But, sadly, this has been a rare, rare, rare thing. Threadsh*tting is what some folks seem bent to do, and I don't have to contribute to their obsessive need to be "witty" by spouting tripe that they don't actually believe, just to get a rise out of folks. Or rather, I can remove that and discuss things with folks who are actually here to do exactly that. I DO actually read the whole thread generally, and removing the disingenuous and paid shills improves things for me, far more than the off chance that someone will slip their mien and actually post something of relevance.
 
2013-09-25 02:02:52 AM

Somacandra: doglover: That's why the navy guy managed to injure so many with a shorgun..Ex-soldiers can do as they please

Yeah but this wasn't on base. I'm talking out in public.  If I see a soldier or a someone I know is a soldier out in public I just assume CCW and go on my way--- like if I see a cop or someone who I know is a cop I assume s/he is carrying. Of course, the real question is whether this person was obeying Kenyan law by being armed.


I don't know many military guys who carry. Own, sure. They usually have all kinds of toys, too, like MRE warmer bottle bombs. But I don't know any who carry sidearms after service.

Wars are overseas.
 
2013-09-25 02:09:32 AM

MurphyMurphy: Subby, a brave man helped many people escape the attack.

Feel free to point out where the handgun entered into the story. We'll wait.


I think it's a big deal with Breitbarters and their ilk because they can't imagine doing anything that resembles brave without their surrogate penis. They're much too timid otherwise.

Or, to paraphrase Futurama, who needs bravery when you have a gun?
 
2013-09-25 02:18:47 AM

hubiestubert: I think that folks are taking exception to the idea that ONLY Breitbart would run this story. That somehow it would be buried, because...socialism or some nonsense that exists in their somewhat limited worldview. A story of bravery and doing the right thing, and turned into trollbait, which is the sad thing, and detracts from the event, by trying to score some sort of point, as opposed to highlighting the man's actions.


That was exactly the point I was making. That this is one of the good stories (as much as there can be such a thing in such a tragedy) to come out of this attack, and to post a headline that implies nobody at all is mentioning this man's bravery, aside from this one far, far right-wing site is dishonest and absolutely trolling.  I don't have a problem with Breitbart links, they usually make for pretty entertaining/interesting threads, honestly.  I don't block sites or people, because as far as I am concerned, the greatest thing we can arm ourselves with is knowledge. Even the biggest idiot can occasionally make a good point, or share a bit of information that is useful or interesting.

The only problem I can see with this link is the "HA! Look at how this story (that is being covered everywhere) is not being covered because the hero had a gun". It's simply not true, but it is a fantasy of the more extreme pro-gun types. 

I don't really have a horse in the pro/anti gun race, anyway.  Guns aren't for me, yet I support the right of people to own them. I think the most extreme pro-gun people need to calm down a lot, and I think  the most extreme anti-gun people need to calm down. Until that happens, nobody can have a rational conversation about guns in this country.  And that, I think, is why people are bothered by the headline.  Nobody has a problem with what this man did; nobody is arguing that he shouldn't have had a gun. And many news sources far more mainstream than Breitbart have covered this exact story.  Maybe it feels like people are making a big deal out of the headline, but that could be the result of fatigue from the past year of at best, misleading and at worst, patently false stories from the far extremes on both sides of the gun issue.
 
2013-09-25 02:21:13 AM

Abacus9: It kind of brings up the 2nd Amendment militia argument, which is too vague to really enforce. I'm all for people exercising their rights, but they should need adequate training in how to use them.


It's so horribly worded that you have to wonder whether someone from 4chan got access to a time machine and jammed it in there, just for the lulz.
 
2013-09-25 02:35:26 AM

doglover: Somacandra: doglover: That's why the navy guy managed to injure so many with a shorgun..Ex-soldiers can do as they please

Yeah but this wasn't on base. I'm talking out in public.  If I see a soldier or a someone I know is a soldier out in public I just assume CCW and go on my way--- like if I see a cop or someone who I know is a cop I assume s/he is carrying. Of course, the real question is whether this person was obeying Kenyan law by being armed.

I don't know many military guys who carry. Own, sure. They usually have all kinds of toys, too, like MRE warmer bottle bombs. But I don't know any who carry sidearms after service.

Wars are overseas.


It depends. On the area, on the guy. A lot of ex-servicemen I know, they want as normal a life as possible when they get home. Wife, family, job, and the white picket fence. Some guys, they have a hard time separating the civilian life, and life on the service. The ones that cling to it, are the ones that often get radicalized to some degree, or miss the action. They get into jobs that use their training, often going into security work, but more guys that I see, and mind you, this is from an Army Brat, they come home, and they want as little to do with guns as they can. They often still go to the range, they keep in shape, and they try to keep sharp, but in the end, most of the guys I know, they don't stay armed all the time, because it's often too much of a reminder of that time. The ones that do, they have jobs that may require it, or at least it's not a bad idea--depending on the job, the area, and how well they're adjusting to life at home.

A gun isn't a panacea for making trouble go away, no matter how much some folks want it to be. I LIKE the guns I have, I've carried and I still get to the range, but I don't NEED to carry for my job. I don't NEED to carry in my town. There are places certainly, I would get that carry permit in a heartbeat, but I am not looking for those kinds of gigs any longer. The treatment of a weapon as a accessory undermines the responsibility of carrying. In a country where there is unrest, not a bad idea. In some neighborhoods in the US, it's not a bad idea. The better thing in a lot of folks' minds, is to NOT be in those areas in the first place.

I carried for some time. I made a lot of night deposits, back when the Combat Zone was still iffy. I left that job for something a bit safer. I bounced, but when I was bouncing, I never carried, because a weapon can be taken from you, or in a scuffle, bad things can happen. Not having a weapon other than a pen or a maglite was safer for the patrons. As a crew, we stubbornly refused the management's offer for stun guns and gas and other toys. We all got trained with them, because you never know what someone is going to try to bring in, or what a band will try, so we all got tazed, we all got gassed and pepper sprayed, and the one thing we realized, is that there is no way in Hells we wanted to have that sh*t near our patrons. Not with the possibility of someone in the crowd getting hurt. It meant we trained more. It meant we stayed on our toes more, it meant we communicated more, and that was more than enough. Our job wasn't to mess folks up, it was to keep our patrons safe. Gunfire in a crowded club is NOT conducive to keeping patrons safe. Back in the day, when I was carrying, my pistol was locked up until I was on deposit duty. Too many folks wandering through the club, and I for damn sure didn't trust all the folks wandering around.

The one thing that my father taught me, and he was an instructor while he was in the Army, was that guns were a tool, and you have to use tools responsibly. A hammer or wrench or an entrenching tool can kill in the right hands, and in careless hands too. You use tools in a responsible fashion, for your own safety, and the safety of those around you. You don't just swing a heavy tool for giggles, and for damn sure, you don't fool around with a weapon, unless you are mean to use it. That's why I don't play with knives. I train with them, I use them regularly, but for damn sure I don't just swing carelessly. They're not accessories, and that is the attitude that I think that folks seem to have issue with: the transformation of a weapon as an accessory. As a fashion statement, and NOT the responsibility that they represent. Guns are damn useful, I like mine well enough, but they stay locked up, and I don't carry unless I've got a reason. The casualness with which some folks treat weapons is the issue, not the weapons themselves. Well most folks, I think. There are some who see guns as the be all and end all of ebbil, but any tool can be used as a weapon if you hold it right...
 
Displayed 50 of 312 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report