The recent decision by Fresh Market to request guns not be carried in their stores has given rise to some heated debate in my little town, which has a Fresh Market. One of the statements made by an anti-gunner is that the "gun-free zone" argument is ridiculous, because there were armed people in the Aurora, Colorado theater and they did not defend themselves because it was too crowded and dark and they couldn't see. This just sounds like two strikes of BS to me--I had never heard this statement made anywehere, and if it were true, I would imagine it would easy to find in pro-gun discussion (more training, right training, etc.) as well as elsewhere. So I went looking.My search-fu is pretty good, but I could not turn up even one result that so much as suggested anyone might have been armed. Nada. In fact, everything I found on both sides of the argument began with statements like "If someone had been armed...", supporting the idea that nobody was.Before I call this fellow out, are any of you aware of any affirmative statement anywhere that someone in the Aurora theater, other than perpetrator James Holmes, was armed at the time of his attack?TL;DR Anti-gunner says people in Aurora theater were armed (in a gun-free zone no less) but couldn't be effective. I can't find anything that supports his statement--do you know anything? via /r/CCW http://ift.tt/1RUrfDv
No comments:
Post a Comment