A gun-policy observation (not mine)

[hudebnik]

After the mass shooting of doctors in Tulsa, Republicans suggested arming doctors.

After the mass shooting of teachers and their pupils in Uvalde, Republicans suggested arming teachers.

After the mass shooting of blacks in Buffalo, nobody suggested arming black people.

Comments

[siderea]

In fairness, in Buffalo, one of the black people was armed. And emptied his clip into the assailant's body armor, before the assailant killed him. Thereby demonstrating how useful the proposal to arm people will be.

Sure, racism, but also it's an example the people proposing arming the populace would prefer to gloss over.

[hudebnik]

Yep. Note that there was also an armed bouncer, who I believe was off-duty police, at the Pulse night club shooting, and he was one of the first to die.

There seems to be a general assumption by NRA-types that "good guys win", when it seems to me that in most "self-defense against an armed bad guy" scenarios, the bad guy has all the advantages:

• The bad guy knew such a confrontation was likely today, and is mentally and emotionally prepared, while the good guy has only known about this for seconds or minutes and is pumped full of adrenaline (not good for your aim);


• The bad guy is probably more heavily armed and armored, for this special occasion, than the good guy is routinely;


• The bad guy doesn't care whom or what else he shoots, while the good guy is constrained by not wanting to shoot innocent bystanders, family, neighbors, pets, or fragile possessions.