Don’t get me wrong – Vince Vaughn has done some funny movies in his day, but he’s always struck me as a bit of a dipshit. He says some dumb stuff on occasion, but I feel like he’s been in Hollywood long enough that we all just sort of ignore it when it happens and let him live. However, he’s just spouted some seriously ridiculous nonsense about how he thinks guns should be allowed in schools, and it set so many synapses in my brain on fire that I don’t even know what to make of it.
From GQ:
On the American right to own a gun:
“I support people having a gun in public full stop, not just in your home. We don’t have the right to bear arms because of burglars; we have the right to bear arms to resist the supreme power of a corrupt and abusive government. It’s not about duck hunting; it’s about the ability of the individual. It’s the same reason we have freedom of speech. It’s well known that the greatest defence against an intruder is the sound of a gun hammer being pulled back.
“All these gun shootings that have gone down in America since 1950, only one or maybe two have happened in non-gun-free zones. Take mass shootings. They’ve only happened in places that don’t allow guns. These people are sick in the head and are going to kill innocent people. … In all of our schools it is illegal to have guns on campus, so again and again these guys go and shoot up these f***ing schools because they know there are no guns there. They are monsters killing six-year-olds.”
On whether guns should be allowed in schools:
“Of course. You think the politicians that run my country and your country don’t have guns in the schools their kids go to? They do. And we should be allowed the same rights. Banning guns is like banning forks in an attempt to stop making people fat. Taking away guns, taking away drugs, the booze, it won’t rid the world of criminality.”
Totes, Vince Vaughn. Guns totally fend off other guns! I mean, I think I get what he’s TRYING to say, but the logic just doesn’t hold water. “Let us have our guns, and that’ll make it so that people don’t get shot as much!” Sorry, but uh, that doesn’t make sense. It’ll just make it easier for the nutjobs that get guns on the black market to get them legitimately. And sure, I guess if someone starts shooting at you, you can… shoot at them back? But I don’t really think that’s going to solve the serious issue with gun violence we have in this country.
Maybe he should stick to acting?
BecausevStand Your Ground works so very well down here in Florida right Vince?? You should STFU and stick to acting.
And maybe you should stick to teenage gossip about celebrities because clearly you are not understanding his logic. Concerning school shootings:
Arming schools will definitely put the fear in some shooters. Vince meant that adults should be allowed to carry the guns in school, not students who can steal the guns from each other. The security officers or a principle or something. If they had them at Columbine, 13 kids wouldn’t be dead right now because Eric and Dylan didn’t kill the majority of the victims until almost an hour after they entered the school. An on campus security officers could have taken them out.
Same thing with Virginia Tech. The shooter locked a set of doors at Norris Hall with a padlock from outside, so the responsible, gun carrying adults inside could have tried to take him out if they had in fact carried firearms, and maybe the death toll would have been less than 32 victims.
Do you know why James Holmes chose a movie theater in Colorado instead of the airport he was considering? He wrote in a notebook that was entered into evidence last week at his trial that he chose the theater because the airport had TOO MUCH SECURITY and he wanted the death toll to be as high as possible.
He wasn’t saying guns will make it so that people won’t get shot as much, did you really get that out of his comments? He was saying IF another mass shooting occurs in a school (or anywhere else guns aren’t allowed) that responsible adults will be on the scene already and can attempt to save lives by engaging the active shooter(s). He is not saying there is a 100% chance people won’t die, he is clearly saying he thinks the high amount of victims that come out of incidents like Columbine and the Aurora Theater shooting would be much less or that these killers wouldn’t even bother killing innocent children because they’d be aware security officers and school staff are armed, therefore their victim count could be very low. And once caught, most of these shooters will say they were going for the high score.
It’s common sense. Shooters going for the high score to become infamous, or whatever their psycho reasons are, go for the unarmed and vulnerable. He is simply saying maybe if we armed those who protect our institutions, where our nation’s most precious attend everyday (our children), we would have less attempts and less victims. I think he is correct. Arm the principal, let him keep a firearm locked up in a gun safe. Or maybe a few guns to give to trained security officers to hand out when shit hits the fan. They don’t need to carry them every day. I think it’s been well proven that school shootings are happening more and more often and we need to hire security who can handle these increasing incidents. I wouldn’t say we are overreacting by doing so.
I was gonna say something, but you’ve done it logically and convincingly.
However, a word of warning about the leftist divas who run this mish-mash:
People who weren’t reasoned into a viewpoint can’t be reasoned out of it.