Where the far left and far right overlap for fun and enlightenment

"Good guy" shot the "bad guy," but the system DIDN'T WORK. Several died & the good guy faces PTSD

UPDATE: Final score in the Greenwood Mall shooting was Gunman 3 + several wounded + the scars to anyone who experienced this crap. If you want to point out that “a good guy with a gun stopped the bad guy,” that only happened AFTER the people were killed or wounded. 1/4

Let’s not forget about the good guy with a gun. He will have to deal with PTSD from shooting the “bad guy.” The PTSD is real. Studies of combat veterans after WWII showed most people do not like to kill other people, even when killing is necessary. The shootings in Greenwood.. 2/4.

were necessary only because America’s gun culture values gun makers’ profits over lives. Gun culture mocks people for being too timid. We need to say screw “reasonable gun control.” The only “reasonable Gun control” is a ban on private ownership of guns. 3/4

First step against gun violence is: don’t own a gun. Next: confiscate the guns & melt them down. I’m Mark Small: pro-choice, pro environment, pro-civil rts & anti-gun GOP nominee for IN House Distr 86. I approve of this blog. Hell, I wrote it. 4/4

0 members like this

Comment

You need to be a member of Civil Discourse Now to add comments!

Join Civil Discourse Now

Comment by pogden297 on July 19, 2022 at 6:45am: Of course you are ignoring that the bad guy would have killed a lot more people had he not been confronted by a good guy with a gun.

Certainly we should be able to agree that "gun free zones" that are based on signage and voluntary compliance aren't going to stop mass shooters. In fact, they likely make things worse because the shooter knows other people aren't armed and are free to shoot away unconfronted.

Do you really think someone who is willing to shoot innocent human being is going to be deterred by a ban on having a ban on owning the gun he shoots people with? Instead a ban on private ownership of any gun (which would have proven deadly in this case), instead focus on the fact that a 20 year old was able to acquire a semi-automatic rifle with multiple rounds of ammunition? That would seem to be a better argument than disarming law abiding citizens. And the PTSD argument...not sure where that came from. Not every soldier who kills a combatant in war suffers from PTSD.