SCENE:  Mitch BERG is working on the potato boxes in his backyard.    Avery LIBRELLE walks through the back gate into BERG’s back yard.

LIBRELLE:  Hey, Merg!  The case of workplace violence in Orlando proves that it’s time for America to get serious about guns.

BERG:    We did.  Or at least parts of the country did; the parts that ratcheted up the penalties for gun crimes, and seriously prosecuted straw buyers, saw a marked decrease in gun crimes.   Of course, that wasn’t “sexy” enough for the Democrat-run governments of most major cities – so while the rest of the nation’s crime rate plummets, in major Democrat-run cities it’s rising…

LIBRELLE:  I’m already bored.   The Orlando workplace violence episode proves that guns are no defense.

BERG:   It showed that a cop working security was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that Mateen, unlike most mass shooters, didn’t fold up when he ran into resistance.   As might befit someone who was carrying out a terror attack, as opposed to someone just seeking immortality as a spree killer.  That’s just a theory…

LIBRELLE:  …I’m still bored.

BERG:  Well, bore yourself with this; had a any person in that club had a legal, permitted firearm, they could have stopped the shooting.

LIBRELLE:  Can you guarantee that?

BERG:   There are no guarantees in life.  But I’d like to talk you through three hypothetical scenarios.

LIBRELLE:  Don’t make me bored!

BERG:   What’s with the boredo…oh, never mind .

Scenario 1:  You’re out at a bar.  Someone starts shooting.   People around you are getting hit left and right.

Suddenly, a schlub nearby sees an opportunity while the shooter is shooting the other way; they draw their legal handgun, and they kill the attacker.

LIBRELLE:  That’s unrealistic.

BERG:  Why?

LIBRELLE:  The attacker would shoot them first.    They’d sense they were about to be attacked, and turn and kill them.  Which would just make it worse for everyone else in the club.

BERG:  What, you think mass shooters are superman ninja warriors or something?

LIBRELLE:  Doesn’t matter.  That never happens.

BERG:   By my count, it’s happened at least sixteen times in recent years.

But that  brings us to the second scenario.  Let’s say a citizen draws, and misses, or doesn’t kill the shooter, and the shooter kills the citizen.  That’d be tragic – but it’d throw the shooter’s plan off, and give people time to escape in the confusion, and probably safe at least a few lives.

LIBRELLE:  You’re dreaming.

BERG:   Well, it’s happened.  But it probably beats the third scenario.

LIBRELLE:  Which is?

BERG:  (Very, very quietly, with an air of fervent, quiet concentration).  You’re at a bar.  (LIBRELLE listens intently; BERG continues, quietly).  Shooting rings out.  People are dying left and right.  But the bar is a gun-free zone, and everyone in the bar followed the law tonight.  So there’s exactly one armed person in the joint – the mass shooter, motivated by hate, or desire for immortality, or on a terror mission.  And the shooter keeps on going, blasting away, killing defenseless person after defenseless person (BERG grows quieter, leaning toward LIBRELLE, who leans closer as well), killing everyone around you until…

(BERG stops)

LIBRELLE:  Until wha…


LIBRELLE:  (Leaps backward eyes, wide  with fear, transfixed, hyperventilating).

BERG:  Your choice.

LIBRELLE:  (Quickly shuffles out of BERG’s back yard).

BERG:  Seriously, Avery.  It is your choice.

(And SCENE).

23 thoughts on “Scenarios

  1. Two years ago, I could have sworn Rick Nolan was trying to lose to Stewart Mills. He ran the worst campaign ever. He ran against Mill’s hair. The Mills successful business. Said the Mills is a secret Packer fan. Things like that. And he still won.
    Now this geriatric old man is sitting on the floor in his workplace for a cause that is too leftwing even for the ACLU. He is attacking 2nd amendment rights in a district with a high gun ownership rate. Is he an idiot? Are the people of Duluth (where he probably has the highest amount of support in the 8th) idiots?

  2. Avery LIBRELLE walks through the back gate into BERG’s back yard.

    Invasion of privacy. Trespassing. Intent to assault with stupidity. You had a chance to end this once and for all, Mitch.

    Oh, and according to BIden, it is BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

  3. Chuck, I’m convinced that Iron Rangers are just plain stupid. Year after year they watch Democrap politicians cave in to the environazis, continually throwing road blocks at the mining companies, angrily touting that they will kill the coal industry, putting thousands of their union brothers and sisters out of work, yet they keep voting for them!

  4. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 06.23.16 : The Other McCain

  5. “LIBRELLE: Hey, Merg! The case of workplace violence in Orlando proves that it’s time for America to get serious about guns.

    BERG: We did. Or at least parts of the country did; the parts that ratcheted up the penalties for gun crimes, and seriously prosecuted straw buyers, saw a marked decrease in gun crimes.”

    Scott Adams has interesting things to say on the topic:

    “On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

    On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.”

  6. I’m guessing Scott Adams is armed to the teeth. You can’t say that kind of stuff about the reprobate party and not expect one of their deranged true believers to plot something nasty against you.

  7. Mitch,
    if you make a little sign for your back gate that just has the two words “Trigger Warning!” on it you could cover a lot of potential situations very quickly without lengthy preamble or undue exertion on your part.

  8. jedge; thanks for posting that Scott Adams piece. His view does make sense.

  9. MITCH NOTES: Until DG stops her habit of leaving dump and run comments and starts to show some indication she plans on discussing her inflammatory, condescending, and largely factually vacant statements, I urge readers to ignore here. I’m going to make it easier…

    …until such time as she stops abusing my comment section.

    Your choice, “Darlin'”. [1].


    Darlin, you’re back to fantasizing in that alternate reality of yours where the only traction you have over liberals is the one you fake that is so unlike the real world people actually live in daily.

    The real world — where conservative darlings like Gens. Petraeus and McChrystal favor gun control generally and assault style weapons bans specifically.

    As did arch-conservative Icon and secular conservative saint Ronald Ray-gun.

    Just a few more examples, since you tend to fail at fact checking and multi-sourcing:

    YOU are losing ground. That would be because the reality is that regularly trained law enforcement at best hits their target only 18% of the time (per forensic science stats) while the average gun carrying civilian does far worse.

    Your notions about civilian carry are badly flawed and highly fantasized in an epic disconnect from reality. There would have been more deaths not only in Orlando, but pretty much everywhere else there has been a shooting with civilians opening fire versus not having or shooting firearms.

    But you all want to see yourselves as some kind of aging Rambo — Sly Stallone in spite of playing Rambo ALSO favors weapons bans – which is what one expects from hegemonic and hypermasculine conservatives. It’s a sort of disease / dysfunction unique to yourselves.

    Reagan was wrong about guns (while governor; he changed his mind when he was President. Funny how you always ignore that part). As to the opinions (and that’s all they are) of a bunch of generals? Well, huge surprise – the standing army is what the right to keep and bear arms is supposed to deter. McChrystal in particular can pound sand up his ass.

    As re self-defense in particular, DG, more than most subjects, you haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re talking about, as I’ve shown, over and over again over the past decade or so.


    [1] I’ve always hated that particular affectation coming from someone who’s not a close relative, thanks.

  10. for all her mewling about “sourcing” and in particular multi sourcing it is worth noting that DG rarely if ever uses “Primary sources” opting time and again for “secondary” and more often “tertiary” sources while as often as possible Mitch and many of the commenters choose “primary” sources whenever they are available. DG claims to have studied journalism at the UofM, for her to depend as often as she does on unauditable sources is in her words “an Epic Fail”.

  11. OK, so three people come out against private ownership of assault weapons and for background checks, and Dogggone interprets this as blanket support for gun control….and as proof that armed citizens (not civilians; police officers are NOT military) would have made things worse.

    Logic obviously is not her strong point, to put it mildly. There may be a big problem of the same in McCrystal’s and Petreaus’ logic as well, as first of all, the AR15 that I can buy is emphatically not the same gun their soldiers carried. (and per one’s comment that HE carried the M16…ahem, he was an officer and should have been carrying his PISTOL)

    Perhaps if she’ll come back, she can name some mass killings where an armed citizen ended up getting a lot more people killed, instead of changing the situation to be less lethal.

  12. was an officer and should have been carrying his PISTOL

    Officers often carry rifles when snipers are around and about. Makes them less conspicuous.

  13. DG,

    On the very very very off chance you actually read anything after you poo and run:

    You keep saying that if citizens try to shoot back in mass shootings, there’ll be lots of innocent people killed.

    I have pointed to 16-17 incidents where citizens interrupted mass shootings. Not a single innocent person was killed by the law-abiding citizen. This is not theory, this is fact.

    Please provide forthwith an example of a law-abiding citizen returning fire during a mass shooting and hitting, much less killing, an innocent bystander.

    Do it now.

  14. Mitch, have you tried to leave a comment on dg’s little cesspool? Does she allow people to stop by and comment on her papspew, even faded out?

    Who is porking who?

  15. Swiftee, I have a time or two, and suffice it to say that if it’s not what she wants to hear, it goes. I think our host has the same experience.

  16. YOU are losing ground.

    I’ve seen DG make this statement numerous times over the past few weeks. Who is she trying to convince with that belittling statement? Us or herself? A halfway-competent debater would never tell his/her opponent they’re losing the argument: They would lay out the facts, make the logical arguments, and walk away confident. DG’s style screams volumes about a lack of confidence in her arguments, seemingly subconscious.

    Couple that with DG’s recently-favored affectation of “Darlin'”, we can also see how insignificant she views her debate opponents.

    Popular troll “debate” tactic: Reduce your opponent to sub-human. I see it on comment boards often with (mostly) left-wing trolls. I think it’s so the trolls feel they can say s**t to you without acknowledging you are also a human being. Of course, we call them trolls because their behavior towards others is already bereft of humanity.

  17. A halfway-competent debater would never tell his/her opponent they’re losing the argument
    They also wouldn’t use a cliche’d phrase like “the reality is . . .”.
    On pen blog, DG once stated that she loved her middle school debate class because it taught her the importance of getting your FACTS right. The problem with that is that middle schoolers aren’t adults and don’t debate like adults. Adult debates are more about the form of arguments, pointing out logical fallacies, and reinforcing or undermining factual claims than they are about FACTS themselves. It is a fact that the sun rises in the east. It is also a fact that the sun does not rise at all, instead the earth rotates, etc. You control a debate by controlling context, not by memorizing “facts”.
    Anyhow, I explained to her, at pen blog, the fundamental error she makes by trying to debate like an eighth grader.
    It was casting my pearls before swine.

  18. Swiftee
    since the beginning of april other than some back and forth comments between peev and DG only two other comments were permitted, one from someone named TOM (where DG explains in a followup comment “Baring arms means serving in our armed forces.“) and another fawning comment from someone named Patrick Bryant. Thats all DG could tolerate

    not high comment traffic by any standard

  19. BG: “It was casting my pearls before swine.”

    DGs capacity for reflection is severely limited.

  20. Darlin? DG must be from the South. Down there, of course, you can say anything insulting about someone as long as you finish by saying, “Bless Your Heart” or “God love ya!”

    It appears, though, that not only is she devoid of facts, logic and decorum, she’s also extremely deficient in her manners, bless her heart.

  21. I think the “darling” comment is sexual harassment. Mitch, unless DogGone is actually Scarlett Johannson (sp?) in a veiled way, I think you should sue.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.