Let’s Stop Living in a Comic Book Fantasy – Let’s start Shooting Back!

[Four-Sixty]

If people in comic books carried guns, would there really be any need for Superheroes?

Let us look to the fiction our Society so readily consumes to answer the question, what would life be like if we got rid of guns?

Batman’s Gotham city is a crime infested sewer. The ‘helpless’ citizens are the prey of a rogues gallery of Villains who take what they want and hurt who they please. In the origin story of Batman, Bruce Wayne’s (Batman’s) own Father was killed by a villain later to be named the Joker. Did the story really have to happen that way?

What if, Bruce Wayne’s Father had a gun? What if he cared about protecting his family and he carried a 1911 and fought back against the sadistic psycho who became the Joker? Perhaps he would have still been killed, but perhaps there would no longer be a sadistic madman on the loose to terrorize the populace of Gotham City.

How about Spider man? In another origin story, Peter Parker’s (Spiderman’s) Uncle Ben is killed during a car-jacking after a robbery. What if Uncle Ben had a Chief’s Special and fought back against his would be robber? Maybe he could have survived. Maybe he could have ‘turned the table’ on his would be car-jacker and took another dirt-bag off the street.

Many of the Superheroes we see on the screen are born of tragedy. These origin stories often involve helpless individuals who do not exercise a basic right we, in the real world, can often exercise, carrying a gun.

I live in the state of Georgia where we have pretty friendly carry laws. I doubt this sick freak who recently shot up a theater would try such a stunt in my state. I hope someone will ask this demented soul, who thinks he is living in a comic book world, if he would try that stunt in a place where about 1 in 4 Men were armed with a gun and would shoot back. I dare the media to ask that question!

[snuffy]

TRMD, I think you may have just hit the nail on the head. Maybe he was just living out a comic book reality, he may have thought he actually was the joker?

But the rest is of course fact. He was smart! He preyed on people he knew were unarmed. He figured with the first showing of the batman movie, people would not know that HIS commotion was NOT part of the movie, special effects.

At first we were told that the theater was a no-carry zone. Now we hear the entire town is no carry. Criminals, or other sickies, now know where to go without worry of an armed citizen to possibly stop them.

What is wrong with authorities? At least those in Aurora? Haven't they seen the crime rates drop in other places where concealed carry is allowed? A business with a no carry sign on it's door is avoided by me. I won't enter. A hospital, courthouse, or other government buildings is another matter entirely.

[WILCO]

What is wrong with authorities? At least those in Aurora? Haven't they seen the crime rates drop in other places where concealed carry is allowed?

Liberal communists have only one agenda. An armed society doesn't fit that agenda Snuffy. :sad:

[MBTcustom]

Its the fantasy of every liberal soul out there. They want some third party to guarantee their safety, so that they can focus on enjoying the human experience without having to worry about the darker side of humanity. We understand that there will always be that ugly side, and it will not be ignored! The "safer" we make our societies, the harder the evil will push to be realized. We understand this, and prepare for it. We don't trust any third party to be there for us when we are getting our @$$es shot off. We understand that that is a personal responsibility that we slough off at our own risk. We don't care how wonderful peoples liberal fantasies seem to be. We don't mean to hinder their perfect world either, and we are perfectly fine with them pretending life is a fairytale, more power to ya, but the very fact that we choose to protect ourselves and those we love, kills their perfect fantasy because it acknowledges that there is still a problem.
Therefore, they must first abolish people like us from keeping and bearing arms. Only when they get everybody to buy into the fantasy, can they kill the evil with kindness and good intentions.
Its a basic world view. Do you believe that people are basically good with some evil tenancies? Or do you think that people are basically evil, self serving, sinners, who are trained to be civilized from a young age?
I fall squarely into the second category. I believe that goodness is something to be attained through self control and continuous improvement, but given the right situation and trigger, I would be no better than this sophomore.
I am glad that most smart people find out the value of being useful members of society, but I have no illusions about the fact that if someone is convinced that they are better than everyone around them, (taught from childhood) and then they find themselves in a situation where they are judged as being sub-standard, or needing improvement, they decide that their rights to perfection have been violated and they lose all sense of reality. They decide to even the score through violence. Anything to be the center of attention again. I don't know how accurate that is, but I can tell you that I do not believe that people are basically good. On a good day with the wind at my back, I can give Billy Graham a run for his money in the righteousness department, the rest of the time, I am struggling against my passions to keep the rest of the world fooled about what I really am.....a sinner.

[montana_charlie]

I hope someone will ask this demented soul if he would try that stunt in a place where about 1 in 4 Men were armed with a gun and would shoot back.
In Wilmington, Del., three black men apparently set on righting ancient wrongs recently assassinated a sports leader at point blank range on the sidelines of a crowded soccer field. No one will ever know how much havoc these three gangsters intended on wreaking on the rest of the crowd. Before anyone found out, several spectators pulled out their guns and returned fire, killing one of the assassins, driving off the other two. They were soon captured. Police found shells from 14 different guns.

Curiously, of the hundreds of people at the pitch that day, not one of them got a look at the Good Samaritan gunners. Let’s just say the chances were slim they had gun permits.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/2nd-amendment-proves-valid-defense-against-black-gangs/

[Bad Water Bill]

If I were one of the cops present I would just have been glad that some folks stepped up and GOT ER DONE . Look at the money it saved the city, county and state.

[jcameron996]

I just finished Recluse's book yesterday, great read by the way, and it got me thinking. Reading one of the previous posts just strengthened my belief. I had not heard about the incident in Delaware. My question is this. If someone would have been carrying in that theater in Colorado and would have stopped this lunatic in his tracks before he could have injured anyone, would we have even heard about it? I am fairly certain that our so called "media" would never even have mentioned the story. Now more than ever it is going to be important that we vote wisely and show that we are not outnumbered by those who would keep us on the road that we are currently heading down at a high rate of speed.

[frkelly74]

It does seem that all the cop and FBI shows portray every one of the victims as helpless and just waiting to be attacked without a clue as to how to defend themselves. Leave it to someone who always gets their man , eventually, to save you , maybe.

[mold maker]

The accepted agenda, of most all of the media, isn't served by stories, of people protecting themselves with guns.
I've ask the management of several establishments if they were willing to accept the responsibility of my family while eating in their "NO GUN" eatery. The answer was always "NO". That's when they see our backsides as we leave. I wont be insulted where I spend my money.

[MtGun44]

Tim,

Excellent post - but I think you make the common error of using logic (because WE use it
normally all the time) in explaining why this goblin went off the rails and violent. I think
there is a good chance that he was a schizophrenic (NOT split personalities!) which is truly
'nuts' and logic does not apply at all.

As to shooting back, I sincerely hope to never need to, but willing, equipped, trained
for the situation.

In years of trying to understand how liberals manage to work themselves into this pretzel
of thinking, the root cause seems to be the "no such thing as a bad boy" axiom in their
warped world. It is fundamentally not possible (to them) that a person can be BAD (evil),
just can't be the case, so something else must be going on, causing this NOT bad person
(since they cannot exist in their warped view) to do bad things. Society is to blame, he
was bullied, this, that or the other thing, but no possibility to recognize that there are
BAD PEOPLE out there, and there is no real need to fully understand why they are bad, but
it is critical to just to properly deal with them with police, courts, prisons, etc. - and armed
citizens are part of that continuum of responses to these bad people.

Your point that the existence of bad people shows that there is "still a problem"
is exactly correct.
Bill

[Bad Water Bill]

I just finished Recluse's book yesterday, great read by the way.

If you have NOT read the book you should. Be prepared to stay up late several nights because you can NOT put the book down.

So many of the incidents mentioned in the book have been mentioned here as part of his OWN experiences over the years that the book left me with many questions.

If someone had dropped that DYED red headed idiot even after he had just killed only one person they would have reported how a person had endangered countless innocent movie goers by starting the O K corral shootout all over again.

It is indeed sad times.

[snuffy]

If someone had dropped that DYED red headed idiot even after he had just killed only one person they would have reported how a person had endangered countless innocent movie goers by starting the O K corral shootout all over again.

It is indeed sad times.

Bill, that is what concerns me the most IF I were to have to draw my weapon. I'm betting a BG with a handgun probably isn't trained to hit, IOW, he's a lousy shot. SO my chances of being hit if he gets off a shot is about 50/50.

BUT what about those behind me? I'd be willing to take a bullet, but I'd feel terrible if he missed me and hit someone behind me.

Recluse's book IS a great read. It's something every CCW holder should read. AND anybody that has flown a plane. I had to look up what a Lancair plane looked like. WOW! the sports car of the single engine-land type planes.

[popper]

Recluse's book Any links to it? Hard copy? Had my head in the sand too long.

[C.F.Plinker]

Any links to it? Hard copy? Had my head in the sand too long.

From his sig line:

http://www.amazon.com/Above-Reproach-ebook/dp/B007WWN1JQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335384151&sr=8-1

[MtGun44]

I know the Lancair well. If the guy is already dumping rounds, I'm not persuaded that
him turning in my direction would be any thing of note. Also, I won't likely miss and he will
be down quickly.

Bill

[L1A1Rocker]

From his sig line:

http://www.amazon.com/Above-Reproach-ebook/dp/B007WWN1JQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335384151&sr=8-1

Cool, there's a Kindle addition.

[Recluse]

I know the Lancair well. If the guy is already dumping rounds, I'm not persuaded that
him turning in my direction would be any thing of note. Also, I won't likely miss and he will
be down quickly.

Bill

There is another consideration. . .

The vast majority of untrained, inexperienced shooters are not used to hearing and determining where other shots (gunfire) is coming from in such events/firefights.

Chances were better than average that the Colorado numbnuts was about deaf from his own weaponry and never would've heard anyone else firing at him--certainly not enough to determine a point of origin and then try to direct fire back at the defensive shooter.

:coffee:

[76 WARLOCK]

Aurora has to follow Colorado law we have a preemption law.. Concealed carry is a shall issue law, open carry is legal everywhere except Denver. We can carry concealed even into a theater with a no carry sign, but if asked to leave we must or be charged with trespass.

[44man]

Aurora has to follow Colorado law we have a preemption law.. Concealed carry is a shall issue law, open carry is legal everywhere except Denver. We can carry concealed even into a theater with a no carry sign, but if asked to leave we must or be charged with trespass.
It is like an Ohio town I lived in. They passed a no hunting law. The state said hunting is regulated by the state and you can't do that so they passed a no discharging of firearms law. Liberals find a way around everything.
This has been a good thread but I would like to see one thing better. The red head jerk should have gone in front of Judge Roy Bean, strung up on Fri morning with no media coverage at all except for a simple report.
Now it will cost millions and advertize so a sick copy cat will want fame.
This jerk was seeing a doc and he should have been reported so he could not buy any gun. They prevent a decorated vet from too much but a creep in school is ignored.

[Freightman]

Notice in the news from Amarillo a BLM employe threatened to kill all of his co-workers, this started back in early April nothing was done to him until after the Colorado shooting. When are we going to start paying attention to the nuts we work with?
If you walk around with a phone in your ear and are texting all the time you are asking for a mugger to lay you low! Pay attention nothing is so important you can't wait till you are in a secure place.

[Bad Water Bill]

Wonder what these nutcakes would do if they got shipped back to the 1940s?

2=3 party line and you had to be at home to use the phone. If you tied up the line more than 5 minutes someone would pick up their phone and tell you to get off the phone or they would have a SERIOUS talk with your dad?

Sorry about that as most of the problem kids do not have a clue as to who is theirs or their siblings dad could be.

[Four-Sixty]

Many good points are made here. I only recently had the wool pulled from my eyes about how it is a Man's responsibility to protect and defend his family. Once again, thank you Evan.

What I was trying to flesh out, but did not quite, is my opinion that the creators of many of the comic books, and movies today fail, utterly, to grasp the equalizing force that guns provide. So many of these Zombie apocalypse stories we see would not play out anything like they do in the movies because people would probably come to the conclusion quickly that it is killed, or be killed. These scale of tragedy seen in those types of movies would never be achieved in the real world, except for placyes like Hollywood.

Basically, there is a total disconnect with fact, and the truth. The people who are foisting this stuff on us are not even connected with reality. I noticed one illustrator recently drew a fired round with the case still on the bullet.

I appreciate suspension of disbelief, and enjoy a blockbuster type movie (though not as much as I used to). I also know that these stories can not exist in our real world (not only because super-powers are not real) because ordinary ol' people can "shoot back".

The real mistake, the thing we need to fix is that we communicate ideas, or even values with our stories. We also communicate ideas through allegory. In a world where parents use the TV to distract their kids, people don't marry because it is inconvienet, TV & movies become a substitute for that narrative our parents are supposed to provide. Many of the movies produced for mass consumption are so fantastical in their presumptions that they are well, useless. They can only serve to exisit as "entertainment". This **** is only a means to kill time until the consumer gets their next "hit".

[44man]

The more nut cases the liberals protect, the more shootings happen. The agenda is to take our guns so the gov can control us.
I believe every sane, law abiding person should carry, even open carry with a hog leg on the hip. Carry a shotgun into the store. If I was a store owner, you would be welcome if I knew you so if a jerk with a hoody came in, my friends would all be armed, so would I.
From the first human on earth, human nature has not changed, some kill for pleasure, glory or profit. We need to protect ourselves.
Today glory is the worst. Hang the sucker quick.

[Bret4207]

Many good points are made here. I only recently had the wool pulled from my eyes about how it is a Man's responsibility to protect and defend his family. Once again, thank you Evan.

What I was trying to flesh out, but did not quite, is my opinion that the creators of many of the comic books, and movies today fail, utterly, to grasp the equalizing force that guns provide. So many of these Zombie apocalypse stories we see would not play out anything like they do in the movies because people would probably come to the conclusion quickly that it is killed, or be killed. These scale of tragedy seen in those types of movies would never be achieved in the real world, except for placyes like Hollywood.

Basically, there is a total disconnect with fact, and the truth. The people who are foisting this stuff on us are not even connected with reality. I noticed one illustrator recently drew a fired round with the case still on the bullet.

I appreciate suspension of disbelief, and enjoy a blockbuster type movie (though not as much as I used to). I also know that these stories can not exist in our real world (not only because super-powers are not real) because ordinary ol' people can "shoot back".

The real mistake, the thing we need to fix is that we communicate ideas, or even values with our stories. We also communicate ideas through allegory. In a world where parents use the TV to distract their kids, people don't marry because it is inconvienet, TV & movies become a substitute for that narrative our parents are supposed to provide. Many of the movies produced for mass consumption are so fantastical in their presumptions that they are well, useless. They can only serve to exisit as "entertainment". This **** is only a means to kill time until the consumer gets their next "hit".

You're trying to re-educate an entire nation of 300 million, a nation so focused on "stuff" and bling and sex and fantasy in it's myriad forms (sports, TV, movies, Facebook) that reality and responsibility are considered irritants. Best of luck with that. One of your major hurdles will be that when you do shoot back you will NOT be treated as a responsible citizen protecting himself. You'll be treated, in one way or another, as a right wing skin head anti-gov't type. That's the agenda the press has decided goes and their masters approve.

So, like I said, good luck with that.

[ErikO]

Its the fantasy of every liberal soul out there.

Ah, I can name a few that don't think that way. ;)

[montana_charlie]

The more nut cases the liberals protect, the more shootings happen.
I suspect that anti-gun people keep tabs on certain 'edgy' gun owners that they know. They can keep them 'edgy' with banter and encouragement, up until it's time for another 'incident'.

Then, with some careful 'instigation', the formerly edgy gun owner gets talked into a state of mind where he can prove dangerous.
When the proper venue is found, they give him the final shove and turn him loose.

Sound fanciful ... ?

CM

[frkelly74]

Manchurian Candidate

[Cowboy T]

Its the fantasy of every liberal soul out there.


Not every liberal soul out there. I'm one of them. ErikO is another.

You'd be surprised how many of us are out here. It's just that the media, yep, including Fox, Rush, Hannity, etc.--and even NRA News, to my surprise--don't want to talk about or even acknowledge us.

[MBTcustom]

I'm trying really hard to understand the above statement. It sounds like the political views of Senator R.C. Souls Jr.
I'm trying very hard not to offend you, while broadening my understanding of what an American liberal believes and votes for. I'm willing, but how can you claim to be a liberal and endorse the second amendment at the same time? The modern American liberal movement has done more to disarm law-abiding Americans than any other force. When a criminal goes on a rampage and kills law abiding citizens, not only do we catch bullets from the guy pulling the trigger, but we are penalized for his actions as if it were "one of us" who committed the crime. Moreover, some of the people who were scarred the worst by the criminal's actions (mothers and fathers) will be laid to rest along side those who were taken from them before justice is finally meted out to the perpetrator.
I have lost a friend to a pair of gun wielding thugs. That day was the day that I decided to get my concealed weapon permit. My friend was a good Christian fellow with his whole life ahead of him. He was only 19 years old. He was working at a gas station at night when two black kids about the same age came in and demanded money. He said it was cool and handed them the till exactly like he was taught to do. They started to leave but the one with the gun turned and shot my friend through the head. The perpetrators sped off and were apprehended later. It was a clear case of homicide as they were both caught by surveillance cameras. Ten years later, justice was still not served, however, the attacks on my hometowns gun rights were at an all time high. It did nothing but oppress the innocent. On a national level, we have to fight tooth and nail to protect the constitution from the liberal agenda, while fighting against the same Liberal agenda that denounces any public reference to the God that our forefathers worshiped, the Book that they based their system of beliefs on, public prayer (to Jesus Christ only, Buddha and Muhammad are both just fine because they don't offend people for some reason.) By the way, the idea of the separation of church and state that the Liberals love to quote all the time, is not found in the constitution anywhere, but rather is found in a letter by Thomas Jefferson and vague references in other correspondences by several of the forefathers and their associates.
I have seen my beliefs and the true history of this country along with the constitution , rolled up and rammed down my throat by the Liberal party, so you will forgive me if I just have a hard time playing nice when discussing the subject.

[montana_charlie]

Its a basic world view. Do you believe that people are basically good with some evil tenancies? Or do you think that people are basically evil, self serving, sinners, who are trained to be civilized from a young age?
I fall squarely into the second category.
You said this after going on at some length on how you believe liberals think about dealing with dangers.
It appears that you consider this to be your 'line in the sand' ... your demarcation between liberals and whatever you are (conservative, I presume).

While I consider myself a conservative, I don't share your view of mankind's basic nature as evil and self-serving.

I don't consider myself as evil, and I think most people are very much like me. When the exception is encountered he gives off a vibe that informs the observant that he isn't to be trusted.

If that evil nature was the norm, I doubt mankind could ever have banded together to accomplish any of the 'civilized' things in our history.

On the other hand, how could a conservative work for smaller, more ethical government; be willing to endorse charitable giving as a replacement for the government handout culture; and express devotion to his nation and loyalty to his fellow citizens ... if he believes others are mostly evil to start with?

I read your whole post twice yesterday, then slept on it. Read it twice again today, and came to this conclusion.
Actually, I don't believe you meant what you said. I think you started out to expound a little bit on liberal thinking, and got carried away with your own eloquence. That induced you to say some 'complicated' things you hadn't even thought all the way through.

One indication that such a thing may be true is you saying it's wrong for a person to think he's better than others.
Yet, when you finished your post you admitted to being a sinner ... but not an 'evil, self-serving, sinner'.

CM

[MBTcustom]

You said this after going on at some length on how you believe liberals think about dealing with dangers.
It appears that you consider this to be your 'line in the sand' ... your demarcation between liberals and whatever you are (conservative, I presume).
It is, and if I can narrow it down to one thing that separates my views from the liberal (and sometimes conservative) way of thinking, it would be this difference.

While I consider myself a conservative, I don't share your view of mankind's basic nature as evil and self-serving.
More power to ya. Have you raised children? Do you use money? Have you read the constitution and observed how and why the forefathers set it up that way? Do you read history?

I don't consider myself as evil, and I think most people are very much like me. When the exception is encountered he gives off a vibe that informs the observant that he isn't to be trusted.
I don't have to decide to do the wrong thing in any instance. I have to make a conscious decision to think of the people around me and put their interests above my own. In fact most of my daily routine comes down to this very struggle.

If that evil nature was the norm, I doubt mankind could ever have banded together to accomplish any of the 'civilized' things in our history.
Like Rome? Greece? The Ming dynasty? They failed, from within, and so will we some day.

On the other hand, how could a conservative work for smaller, more ethical government; be willing to endorse charitable giving as a replacement for the government handout culture; and express devotion to his nation and loyalty to his fellow citizens ... if he believes others are mostly evil to start with?

Ah, but these people who depend on these government handouts are not the responsibly of the government, but of their individual communities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoEJ-D2bgc0

I read your whole post twice yesterday, then slept on it. Read it twice again today, and came to this conclusion.
Actually, I don't believe you meant what you said. I think you started out to expound a little bit on liberal thinking, and got carried away with your own eloquence. That induced you to say some 'complicated' things you hadn't even thought all the way through.
You are not alone in your belief.

One indication that such a thing may be true is you saying it's wrong for a person to think he's better than others.
Yet, when you finished your post you admitted to being a sinner ... but not an 'evil, self-serving, sinner'.

Of my own power, the best I can do is try not to be exactly that, in its entirety, which of course only underscores the fact that a problem exists (sound familiar?).
The fact that I am actually not, is the reason I have the views that I have written.
Its like this: A man comes up to my door and tells me that he heard that I cast boolits and he has tons of lead that he would like to get rid of, and I am welcome to it if I want to come by and pick it up out of his yard sometimes. That would change the whole way I shoot. I would shoot more often and I would learn more than your average shooter. I would also tell less fortunate shooters about it and spread the wealth where I could, and where it would do the most good.
Now, does that make me better than the guy that pays $1 per pound for his lead? Smarter? More savvy? No indeed. It simply means that the source found me, and now I dont have to pay the price that others do. The more I realize that the source is seemingly unending, the more I invite shooters to share the wealth. If I had to pay for it, the problem still exists.

[montana_charlie]

They failed, from within, and so will we some day.
Thanks for the reply. It was enlightening.

CM

[L1A1Rocker]

From his sig line:

http://www.amazon.com/Above-Reproach-ebook/dp/B007WWN1JQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335384151&sr=8-1

Kindle addition just purchased.