is disingenuous at best.
As disingenuous as referring to an unarmed person tackling a gunman as an example of a massacre stopped by CCW? I don't know the details of the incident, but it's easy enough to imagine a brave and public-spirited person, however ignorant of firearms operation, seeing someone fiddling with a gun they were using to commit a crime, and making the decision to try and attack them. You don't have to be an HK armorer to know that if a bad guy with a gun is doing something with it other than shooting, there is an opportunity to stop the threat.
But that's not really the point. While I agree with the general thrust of Ted Nugent's article, we really need to be very strict in our presentation of facts and arguments so that what we say cannot be refuted on factual grounds. No distortions, cherry-picking, or glossing.
Last edited: