We'd Be Sitting Ducks

And so it begins-- hose who dirty their drawers at the very idea of law-abiding citizens being armed, so they AREN'T “sitting ducks” if somebody comes into a peaceful ball game and starts shooting at random will have their say. And on the other side, those who think it would be okay for everybody to be armed, just in case will also have their say. Who is right? It only took two guns in the friendly hands of the ONE security detail there to “neutralize the threat” by “pinning down” the shooter who opened up on the unarmed crowd of congresspeople assembled there to practice for a charity baseball game. But what if every congressperson there had had ONE armed security person there. Likely that shooter would have been dead a lot quicker than he was, and all those unarmed people would not have to fear for their lives.

One of my favorite scenes in a movie was the one where a gunman walked into a bar and tried to hold it up. The next sound was of 43 guns being cocked, while the robber stood and was surrounded by 43 cocked guns. Turns out it was a “cop bar,” and the WRONG place for him to stage a holdup. Nobody was hurt, not even the would-be robber. But the fact that everybody there was armed made a lot of difference in his plans that day. Truth is, if more people go about armed, they most likely won't just “go wild” and shoot up everything in sight, like anti-gun fools think they would do. Like those cops, their guns would stay in the holster until needed, then would come out and put such a would-be shooter in his place. (Just common sense)