You get plenty of statements where one might be the case, and a few with two out of three. But never, not once, have they made or will they hit all three. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ever. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This meme from last week is different, in that it doesn’t even get one out of three completely correct. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
They’re fantasizing:<\/p>\n\n\n\n So let’s make sure the stage is set: you’re in a mass\u00a0shooting,\u00a0and\u00a0the\u00a0shooting\u00a0is\u00a0underway.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0“Several\u00a0people\u00a0have\u00a0already\u00a0been\u00a0shot”, although the writer doesn’t see fit to mention that you\u00a0could\u00a0be\u00a0one\u00a0of\u00a0them\u00a0very,\u00a0very\u00a0shortly,\u00a0here<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The writer doesn’t know much about exposition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They know less, naturally, about gun laws: when they write “you pull out your gun and rush off to be a hero”, they apparently think Taken<\/em> is a documentary. For better or worse, it’s bad legal (and, likely, tactical) form to go rushing to the sound of the guns. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Shooters know this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The “Reverend” Nancy Nord Bence apparently does not. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Of the four resolutions they list? <\/p>\n\n\n\n The shooter sees you and shoots first<\/strong>: you mean, they\u00a0do\u00a0what\u00a0the\u00a0shooter\u00a0will\u00a0likely\u00a0get\u00a0around\u00a0to\u00a0doing,\u00a0anyway,\u00a0given\u00a0that\u00a0they’re\u00a0a\u00a0spree\u00a0killer? <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Do they really think the would-be “hero” is any worse off under this scenario? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Another\u00a0good\u00a0samaritan\u00a0shoots\u00a0you\u00a0by\u00a0mistake<\/strong>: That’s right – two good guys with guns, both seeing an active shooter, shoot the wrong person. It could\u00a0<\/em>happen,\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0same\u00a0sense\u00a0that\u00a0Nancy Nord Bence could make a coherent point. Again – given that one is likely going\u00a0to\u00a0get\u00a0killed\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0active\u00a0shooter\u00a0–<\/em> which they seem to keep forgetting – I’m hard-pressed to see how the “heroes” are any worse off than if neither was armed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Police\u00a0see\u00a0you\u00a0“running\u00a0around”\u00a0and\u00a0shoot\u00a0you\u00a0anyway<\/strong>: If the “hero” is “running around”, they’re doing it wrong. <\/p>\n\n\n\n You,\u00a0the\u00a0hero,\u00a0shoot\u00a0an\u00a0innocent\u00a0bystander<\/strong>: It could in theory happen. And if it does, the would-be hero would be in deep trouble, if the spree killer in the room doesn’t\u00a0kill\u00a0him\u00a0first<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Thing is, you can look long and hard and never find an example of this happening, because good\u00a0guys\u00a0with\u00a0guns\u00a0tend\u00a0overwhelmingly\u00a0to\u00a0do\u00a0the\u00a0right\u00a0thing.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/Image-from-iOS-2-671x1024.jpg\"){kind=spacer}
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n