Theoretically it's a long-term solution. At some point, there won't be anybody left to shoot at. Oh, and the arms industry gets the revenue, which of course is only a side effect and not the intension from the beginning on.
▼Reply
deleted
· 6 years ago
I don't think looser gun control laws is going to contribute to more mass shootings.
Unless, of course, you think that taking guns away from honest people who want to defend themselves is going help the epidemic of mentally broken teenagers driven over the edge.
No, let's remove the guns away from those who're responsible people and not try to contribute to helping the overall atmosphere of teen mental health. Because it's the guns that're doing it. I'll just wait until the mass stabbings begins and we'll have to ban knives as well.
Because it takes an extra 30 seconds of premeditation for a mass shooter to pick a target where people aren’t allowed to carry the guns they own. For example, public schools, places that sell alcohol, or concerts.
Legal gun owners are the single most law-abiding demographic in the nation, and they prevent or interrupt countless violent crimes every day. Get rid of "gun-free" zones! Let us help! Will the shooter even go through with it when he knows he'll get shot in the back instead of his reign of terror?
Yes he will because he’s likely mentally unstable. We don’t want your help because we don’t think it’s helpful. For instance if you walked around a corner and saw me being held at gunpoint and you drew your gun instead of calling 911 I would sue you. Well, if we both survived I would. You want to protect yourself, that’s fine. Keep that shit at home. If you’re too scared to go out in public without a gun then I suggest an Amazon Prime subscription. Leave the rest of us out of your hero fantasies.
You're part of the problem. I'm a trained soldier and you think I just want to live a "hero fantasy"? You think waiting for the police to take up a "tactical position" outside is better then me going in and doing work? Fuck you. I'll save your life and then I'll countersue your dumb, ungrateful ass to try and undo the damage your lawsuit would deal to the moral of those like me.
You think being prepared is the same as being afraid? You must be the sort to not have a fire extinguisher in your car. I'll bet you don't even have a disaster plan. Sounds like you're the sort to let your tank get into the red before you refuel too, so good luck making it to court.
Let me explain why you are putting my life in danger in this situation. Someone has me at gunpoint. If they wanted to kill me they would have done it immediately and since I’m unarmed I am no threat to them. Now you show up with your gun and my odds of being injured just went up tremendously. I now have two armed individuals and both of them are in a life threatening situation. Whether it’s your bullet or theirs isn’t going to matter much to my internal organs. His best play it to kill you and then me and get out before the crime is known to have happened. When police get involved it’s in his best interest to just run.
And BTW, what about six months ago when you weren’t a “trained soldier?” What about all the armed people that have no training beyond a safety course? You want them pointing a gun in your direction to protect you?
Hell yeah I would.
Better to risk a good person making a mistake than to hope a bad one feels merciful.
And I was just as good of a shot then, only difference is that I know a bit more about buddy team maneuvers.
You are missing the point. Your involvement increases my chance of occupying that casket. If you see someone in danger you do what you should have been trained since you were a child: call 911.
911 wasn’t a thing in my area when I was a child honey. We were tought to stand and fight. I’ll be sure to walk on and do nothing but call for an ambulance when I see somebody else in peril. For me, I’ll fight tooth and nail and knife and gun for my own survival, I will not wait for my own rescue if I’m able to respond.
You must be a bit older than I but I assume you’ve heard of the number at some point in the last 35 years. Your survival is your business and I’m not saying not to intervene. I’m saying keep your gun out of it because you become a material risk to the safety of the person you are trying to rescue. (See earlier comment for example)
You are so fucking brainwashed! You really think it's the police's job to save you? No. It's their job to investigate crimes and bring in criminals for prosecution. It's their job to inform your family that some maniac killed you while the neighborhood waited for the police.
There are three scenarios actually, here they are with the most incentivized course of action for the bad actor:
1. One gun, no police - complete non-fatal crime, let hostage live
2. One gun, police coming - run, let hostage live
3. Two guns - kill vigilante, kill hostage/witness, run
How does that factor into the scenario? Let’s go with best case for training of both armed people. The most well trained group for this scenario are law enforcement (military training doesn’t focus on sidearms). They have a national average accuracy rate of 18%. Erring on the best side of things that means that the shooters take 5 rounds to hit each other. That’s 9-10 bullets moving through my general area. That’s if the bad guy doesn’t shoot me outright before turning the gun on the other guy..
I didn’t say you wouldn’t be trained on sidearms. Your training will not be concentrated on sidearms. It will not include continued scenario training for domestic crime situations.
There are reasons that they give you a rifle as your primary weapon and, as you know, accuracy is among the top of these. This reinforces what I am talking about. 18% is a reasonable accurancy percentage for an active firefight involving handguns. That makes for a shitload of stray shots.
Look, there was a time in American history when a majority of men open-carried and engaged in their own personal protection before seeking assistance from a law enforcement officer.
So you tell me: is the Wild West associated with peace and safety or brutality and murder?
There's so much bullshit in your comments I can't even start to sort it out.
I hope you know as little about voting as you do the subject matter of this thread.
Ah and here is the cognitive dissonance. The clear sign that you can no longer refute my argument logically. Guess we will start fresh on the next post baiting us into the subject.
I'm a medic, sidearms will be my bread and butter when I'm not saving lives.
18 is the police average, private citizens on average do better.
The "wild" west was actually a pretty terrible time to be a criminal, most wannabes who were stupid enough to try learned pretty quick that picking fights is fucking stupid when everyone has at least a six-gun.
I was a competition shooter. Not great, but i has fun and improved every time out. Maybe intervening in your hostage situation is not ideal, but if I’m at a Christmas party and some crazed Jihadi and her husband come in to destroy us I want the chance to go down fighting rather than cowering in the corner like a beaten dog. I want the ability to stand for my property and family, that is my right and I do not want a bunch of you disarmist alarmists to stand in my way.
@pokerthebear You have every right to defend your own home. Do as you like. The Christmas party scenario is absurd. It the kind of thing you daydream about in high school.
@famousone The Army has no specific standard for pistol qualifications whereas the police cannot perform field duty in most places unless they have met a semiannual standard. They are better trained, QED.
There is no research I can find that gives statistical support your claim on citizen accuracy. Even people biased towards that being true have to admit that citizens in home invasion have a tactical advantage and it skews the analysis.
The homicide rate was astronomical during the Wild West. Criminal homicide was low but there was a lot of self-defense exceptions unless someone got shot in the back or something similar.
I assumed. The Christmas party thing was very specific. You would have been better off bringing up postal worker shootings but even that falls flat. What we have been talking about is individual crime in a public setting but we can jump over to mass shooting for a second. I addressed this previously in this post but I will reiterate. If you were in the SB shooting you would have been a county employee on county property. You would not have been armed, which the shooters knew. The Miami nightclub is another example. It takes very little premeditation to determine where firearms are not allowed and attack there. There will always be places they aren’t allowed. Hence you being armed when the bad guys crash through the window and you going all Martin Riggs on them is an absurd high school fantasy.
The cognitive dissonance strikes again. Do you think it is a good idea to allow people to freely carry guns in crowded venues where they will be consuming alcohol? How about sports games where people are drinking and rooting against each other? Amusement parks where people are hot, tired, and impatient?
Better than the alternatives.
Like I said, I very much prefer taking risks with good people, than hoping a bad person feels merciful.
After all, the current policies aren't doing much to keep those venues safe as it is.
You are so focused on an outside threat like a mass shooter that you ignore all the other violence? 74 Americans have been killed by terrorists in the last 10 years. Half of all violent crime outside the home occurs in and around venues where people are drinking. What happens when they are freely armed? Fistfights turn into shootouts. That will account for far more than 74 deaths. Probably in the first month. Even the NRA doesn’t push to have weapons allowed in bars.
There will always be places that you can’t carry and for good reason.
Agreed. However, those places should be carefully considered, rather than banning weapons everywhere outright.
But you are arguing extremes, and I very much prefer every law-abiding citizen everywhere being armed always, as opposed to the opposite.
I had switched gears to talk to @pokethebear about mass shootings. My point was there are always places to attack where people can’t bring their firearms so it’s not an effective method of dealing with them.
I think a law should be passed for any mass shooter to NOT have their face and name spread across the news. They want infamy so let's deny it
1
deleted
· 6 years ago
Fucking honestly.
No news on them, no name, nothin.
There are people out there who'll want tp know who killed their friend, kid, partner(in the case of the pulse nightclub), etc.
Unless, of course, you think that taking guns away from honest people who want to defend themselves is going help the epidemic of mentally broken teenagers driven over the edge.
No, let's remove the guns away from those who're responsible people and not try to contribute to helping the overall atmosphere of teen mental health. Because it's the guns that're doing it. I'll just wait until the mass stabbings begins and we'll have to ban knives as well.
You think being prepared is the same as being afraid? You must be the sort to not have a fire extinguisher in your car. I'll bet you don't even have a disaster plan. Sounds like you're the sort to let your tank get into the red before you refuel too, so good luck making it to court.
Nice.
Better to risk a good person making a mistake than to hope a bad one feels merciful.
And I was just as good of a shot then, only difference is that I know a bit more about buddy team maneuvers.
So it's crazed vigilantism, or dying becuase you're too much of a liability.
That's life.
1. One gun, no police - complete non-fatal crime, let hostage live
2. One gun, police coming - run, let hostage live
3. Two guns - kill vigilante, kill hostage/witness, run
Basic is not the end of training.
There are reasons that they give you a rifle as your primary weapon and, as you know, accuracy is among the top of these. This reinforces what I am talking about. 18% is a reasonable accurancy percentage for an active firefight involving handguns. That makes for a shitload of stray shots.
So you tell me: is the Wild West associated with peace and safety or brutality and murder?
I hope you know as little about voting as you do the subject matter of this thread.
18 is the police average, private citizens on average do better.
The "wild" west was actually a pretty terrible time to be a criminal, most wannabes who were stupid enough to try learned pretty quick that picking fights is fucking stupid when everyone has at least a six-gun.
@famousone The Army has no specific standard for pistol qualifications whereas the police cannot perform field duty in most places unless they have met a semiannual standard. They are better trained, QED.
There is no research I can find that gives statistical support your claim on citizen accuracy. Even people biased towards that being true have to admit that citizens in home invasion have a tactical advantage and it skews the analysis.
The homicide rate was astronomical during the Wild West. Criminal homicide was low but there was a lot of self-defense exceptions unless someone got shot in the back or something similar.
Like I said, I very much prefer taking risks with good people, than hoping a bad person feels merciful.
After all, the current policies aren't doing much to keep those venues safe as it is.
There will always be places that you can’t carry and for good reason.
But you are arguing extremes, and I very much prefer every law-abiding citizen everywhere being armed always, as opposed to the opposite.
No news on them, no name, nothin.
There are people out there who'll want tp know who killed their friend, kid, partner(in the case of the pulse nightclub), etc.