'Gun Fight' Documentary

[truwarier]

If you haven't seen the documentary you should check it out, really difficult to watch and see the crazy ignorance.

Lol, sorry about the lack of detail. The documentary was produced by HBO. It follows a victim of the Virginia Tech shooting and how he is fighting to get more gun regulation initiated. The documentary also takes a look at the the pro-gun side and the measures they're taking in order to help preserve our 2A rights. It gives a pretty good insight on the mindset of anti's and really shows the FUD mindset.

[Mitch]

Thank you for the detailed review.

[pastureofmuppets]

Sounds like a compelling reason to watch something I have never heard of.

[Tasty]

I'll see if it's on demand this weekend. Sounds like something I can watch while cleaning the guns after my range trip.

[Mitch]

The documentary was produced by HBO. It follows a victim of the Virginia Tech shooting and how he is fighting to get more gun regulation initiated.

I don't supposed anyone asked the victim why no one threw a chair at the shooter or did anything else to stop the attack.

[CessnaDriver]

Surprised HBO gives a fair account of our side.

I do believe that most people undecided or leaning anti, when they hear our side well presented, they stand a good chance of siding with the basic concept... "it's not the guns".

[truwarier]

I don't supposed anyone asked the victim why no one threw a chair at the shooter or did anything else to stop the attack.

From what they said, apparently the teacher told everyone to get under their desks when they heard shots. Then the shooter busted through the door, fired several shots before going down.

In the doc, they ran a simulated 'test' where one student had a handgun on him (classroom setting) and then they had a shooter bust in the room and he had to take out the shooter. It was a pretty lame test, because it was so impractical and there are so many factors you have to consider for situations like that.

[RobertMW]

It follows a victim of the Virginia Tech shooting and how he is fighting to get more gun regulation initiated.

That guy has been turned into a laughingstock lately. The Anti crowd paraded him all over the wrong places, allowing him to be attacked publicly and discrediting him to the point that he will never turn anyone new to the anti-side. He is now only good as a face that they can pull up at one of their own support rallies.

I kinda feel bad for the guy, he was trying to garner honest support, and then the big lobbyist groups took him, over-inflated him, and let him fall by the wayside when he popped. They have no problem using people up for their own gain, they are as evil or more-so than the people who actually commit these random mass atrocities, because we all know that they revel in the fact that they happen, just so they can use them to garner more support.

What would happen if no new mass shootings happened? No new gun-control could be enacted, since what is there obviously worked. Gun owners can't be villified as potential mass shooters, because obviously we aren't. Gun-control support would be lost, since obviously it is no longer an issue. Gun-Support would increase, since obviously we are able to handle our firearms civilly without negative consequences to innocent people.

The anti's can't have that, so they literally HAVE to have mass killings of innocents, even when they publicly say they are abhorred by them. It is disgusting to me.

[Lifeon2whls]

Surprised HBO gives a fair account of our side.

I wouldnt count on it until you've seen the program. HBO goes out of its way to make sure its unfair and unbalanced. There was a nice piece on Real Sports about gun violence that was anything but balanced.

[truwarier]

I wouldnt count on it until you've seen the program. HBO goes out of its way to make sure its unfair and unbalanced. There was a nice piece on Real Sports about gun violence that was anything but balanced.

It's definitely not balanced, far from it. The pro-gun side is portrayed a bit more radical in it.

[Mitch]

From what they said, apparently the teacher told everyone to get under their desks when they heard shots. Then the shooter busted through the door, fired several shots before going down.

Thus the logic of the gun-ignorant: a man armed with a handgun has superhuman powers so there is no point in attempting to resist him. On the other hand, you will be safer under your desks; bullets cannot penetrate particle board.

In the doc, they ran a simulated 'test' where one student had a handgun on him (classroom setting) and then they had a shooter bust in the room and he had to take out the shooter. It was a pretty lame test, because it was so impractical and there are so many factors you have to consider for situations like that.

They were trying to make a stupid political point about the efficacy of firearms.

As I suggested above (and have suggested many times in the past), the rampage could have been stopped by one student throwing a chair. Cho would have been momentarily distracted and others could have either thrown more chairs at him or jumped on top of him. No one with a couple handguns is going to keep shooting with two or three or half a dozen chairs flying at his head.

Once you concede that, yes, a few students armed with chairs could have stopped the shooting, then you must concede that someone armed with a firearm would have had an even better chance.

What is necessary is the will, the determination to fight back. That is what is missing in most of these school shootings (but not, interestingly enough, at the Gabby Giffords shooting; Jared Loughner was attacked and disarmed by several unarmed bystanders). People who don't believe that shooting victims should fight back with whatever weapon is to hand (a chair, for example) will never concede people should actually be prepared for a rampage shooting by going armed all the time.

[truwarier]

Thus the logic of the gun-ignorant: a man armed with a handgun has superhuman powers so there is no point in attempting to resist him. On the other hand, you will be safer under your desks; bullets cannot penetrate particle board.



They were trying to make a stupid political point about the efficacy of firearms.

As I suggested above (and have suggested many times in the past), the rampage could have been stopped by one student throwing a chair. Cho would have been momentarily distracted and others could have either thrown more chairs at him or jumped on top of him. No one with a couple handguns is going to keep shooting with two or three or half a dozen chairs flying at his head.

Once you concede that, yes, a few students armed with chairs could have stopped the shooting, then you must concede that someone armed with a firearm would have had an even better chance.

What is necessary is the will, the determination to fight back. That is what is missing in most of these school shootings (but not, interestingly enough, at the Gabby Giffords shooting; Jared Loughner was attacked and disarmed by several unarmed bystanders). People who don't believe that shooting victims should fight back with whatever weapon is to hand (a chair, for example) will never concede people should actually be prepared for a rampage shooting by going armed all the time.

Also, they had a segment about how he was reading his emails and people were saying similar things on what could have people done to stop it, and he went on to say that no one can definitively say what would have happened without being there.

[Mitch]

Also, they had a segment about how he was reading his emails and people were saying similar things on what could have people done to stop it, and he went on to say that no one can definitively say what would have happened without being there.

Ah, so since no one can definitively say what would have happened without being there, I guess that means that no one should have done anything at all!*

facepalm.jpg






* Except cower ineffectually under their desks.

[Massan]

Kids a *****. Honestly he probaly would have done more for the anti's cause if he increased VTech's bodycount. Though dead people cant sue.