Why are Anti Gunners so Violent? Chicago Tribune Edition.

And don’t forget: The bad guy got away.

Source: Guns on the bus: Still a bad idea – Chicago Tribune

 

A long editorial from the folks at the Chicago Tribune condemning the idea of allowing people with Concealed Permits to carry in public transportation. They cite the case of a grandmother in Detroit who used her gun against a critter that attacked her. She shot him several times, missed and the guy indeed ran away.

The Editors of the Tribune go through the usual primrose patch of “ZOMG! She could have killed someone! Bus Full Of Nuns and Orphans! Blood of the Innocent” as excuses not to allow good people be armed in buses (not a word about criminals already traveling with their guns) and somehow, to cap their long-winding discourse, they say that the lack of a dead body or a bleeding troll waiting for an ambulance proves concealed carry does not work.

Well, in their defense, they do make money when bodies fall to the ground. I am somewhat surprised that they don’t use red ink to print the “news.”

9 Replies to “Why are Anti Gunners so Violent? Chicago Tribune Edition.”

  1. Huge numbers of people are dependant on public transit, in Chicagometropolitanarea. Back in 2013 when we got CCW, finally, we got it because the state lost in federal court, and they had to pass something. They threw as much crap in the way as they could, and this was part of it.




    0



    0
  2. “Why are antigunners so violent?”
    Wrong question.
    A better one is, “What does it say about a cause when it attracts so many people who are so spiteful, hateful, and yes, violent to its side?”




    0



    0
    1. DaveP:
      I think it’s because these particular cretins are so afraid of their own violent inner selves, that they know that they cannot trust themselves with firearms. That being the case, they may be assuming that everyone else is like them. I saw a post, in another forum (not gun-related, but concealed carry had come up because of South Carolina), where a dude from Australia was “blaming easy access to guns” blah, blah, blah — and then went on to say that it’s a good thing that you can’t carry in Australia, because he would have been waving his gun around due to a road rage incident. The other commenter replied, “Then maybe you shouldn’t carry a gun.” I thought that exchange to be very telling.




      0



      0
  3. Miguel,
    I’ve noticed that one tactic that the anti-gunners almost always use is to only allow a claim for “defensive use of firearms” if the *thug himself is killed.* Somehow, in their twisted world view, if you defend yourself with a firearm and the thug runs away, it somehow doesn’t “count.” As Gary Kleck found out in his seminal study, the vast majority of defensive uses of firearms don’t even involve firing the gun. They still can’t grasp that simple idea, apparently.




    0



    0
    1. Plus, they are arguing that she could have killed someone innocent (but didn’t), while at the same time using the fact that the bad guy got away as a mark against carry. Apparently they think guns are really good at killing someone, so long as that someone isn’t the person who is being aimed at. Then they become useless.




      0



      0
  4. If she had “got” the bad guy, they’d be hooting and hollering about “concealed carry vigilantes” making it dangerous for normal people to be out and about. “Blood in the streets!” and “For the Childrenz!!!”

    Other than being raped/robbed/killed, there’s just no way to win with those people.




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .