Unless you're already directly in the lane of fire, you've got time. Walmarts are pretty big, so you're statistically going to be where the piece of shit isn't.
Even then, I can draw, aim, and shoot in under 3 seconds, and I'm just about average.
I don't disagree on that, but I do disagree with your statement of every shooter knows to confirm their target. They may not know, as they just don't care. Or gun safety was never taught to them. Or, they really just don't care.
Not caring is very different from not knowing. I haven't met a single shooter who doesn't know. And trust me, I've met a lot of shooters from a lot of backgrounds. Even freaking Call of Duty talks about penetration. On top of that, no person trying to help is going to fire into a crowd of people assuming a low-ready or steady position.
You forget the human error component once again. Not everyone is trained how you think they should be. You and I know how weapons should be handled and such due to our backgrounds. However, that wouldn't help a 16 yr old that knows his dad's gun is in the glove box, and is hearing gunfire from inside the building. That kid may wanna play here, and goes in gun blazing. It may sound extreme, but it does happen.
What if an untrained kid tries to play hero? What if he's actually the second coming of Carlos Hathcock? What if your sister had a dick? What if?
We're using absolute language, sure, but we both know we aren't excluding outliers. I'm simply saying that those outliers are so few and inconsequential as to be meaningless. Sure, a tragedy if it happens, but good guys making mistakes is always a safer bet than bad guys deciding to stop being bad.
The average size of a Walmart is 105,000 square feet. The average size of a Walmart Supercenter is 179,000 square feet. 200 customers means the store is practically empty. It's unlikely you'll even be able to get near the shooter within 5 seconds unless you're already near them. If you are near them then identifying an active shooter rises dramatically since they'll be the ones firing at multiple people. Now if there were 2000 customers all armed your ridiculous scenario would be much more difficult and the chances of an innocent person getting shot would go up. But you'd be hard pressed to even find 200 people all armed in the same store at the same time. The reality is that it's more like 1 out of every 2000 or so shoppers is armed if that.
Lucky11 did such a great job breaking this down I almost feel redundant commenting. But here we go- the entire premise is a fallacy and ridiculous. Let’s even pretend the store is packed almost Wall to Wall with people. Let’s say they all have a gun. Ok... so how do you know who to shoot? It’s pretty simple really. If everyone has a gun- the people who actually have line of sight on the shooter would be the ones to react. What kind of moron are you if you pull your weapon as a civilian with no identification on a threat? For all you know gun shots could be cops- you’re going to risk drawing down and running dick out into an armed officer in the midst of a shooting?
The logic here shows exactly why some people shouldn’t have guns- unless they do a lot of self improvement. A gun isn’t a magic wand or a toy. You don’t just pull it out anytime you get spooked- “if everyone had guns any scary movie theater would turn into a shoot out duh hur...” no. Not how that works.. if you have any brain at all.
So is your scenario that wild bill mass shooter here- in a store packed with people- gunned down EVERY single armed person around them? Quick draw Mgraw got the jump on everybody? Because the guy with the gun amidst the field of dead bodies is a likely candidate for your mass shooter. That’s another way to tell. Or the guy moving through the store gunning people down. That’s another dead clue if you happened to miss the initial incident.
Another clue might be- the person who points there gun at you. Being that a responsible shooter doesn’t point a weapon at a target they don’t intend to fire on- you can surmise that if you haven’t drawn and someone points at you- or someone else who hasn’t drawn- that’s who you shoot regardless. Call it darwinism wether they are the original shooter or not.
But yeah man- if you aren’t a peace officer and you aren’t in a combat zone- you don’t ready your weapon because you think you hear gun shots but can’t see what’s going on. In peace time, for civilians, if you don’t have the situational details and a clear target, and see no immediate threat, you don’t draw. If everyone is armed then whoever the shooter tries to shoot is the one who’s up to bat. Why the hell, in a Walmart full of armed folks no less, would you try and hunt through the isles for. Shooter?
The entire reason you don’t do that is outlined in this meme. You’re just making a bad situation worse. You’re as likely to shoot an innocent or get mistaken for the shooter, or stumbling through the isles walk into the fire lane of the actual shooter without seeing them first unless you know how to clear a room like a pro. In such a scenario a gun is for DEFENSE- if you SEE the threat or KNOW the threat, and can safely defend yourself or others. The point of carrot a gun isn’t to hunt criminals for sport through a Walmart. It’s so that when the guy in front of you starts shooting into the crowd you’re with you have a chance other than run and hope not to get shot on the back.
Reply
deleted
· 5 years ago
Is no one going to mention the fact that if a shooter has shot at someone, there were likely be an injured person in which case it will be far more easier to identify who it is based on where the victim has fallen. If no one has been shot then the direction of sound from the shots will definitely let people within the vicinity know most likely who the shooter is
first where is the shooter on the other side of the store? im not pulling my gun out i'm getting myself ,friends or family the hell out of dodge. those of us that carry and are trained know the 50 cops with body armor, dogs, helicopters, and all kinds of shit have a way better way to deal with this then one guy with a gun and we are going to do everything we can to get out safe. the hole point of carrying is to survive not to be some hero or save the day or some shit that's only on TV. now if the shooter is next to me its going to be pretty easy to tell who the shooter is and going to be over way sooner and with less lose of life then if we have to wait for police to show up. either way at least i know when the bad guy is looking for his next target if i wasn't able to escape i have a way to defend my self the best the anti gunner can do is cry and beg for his life and I've never herd any one after a shooting say i begged and the shooter spared me.
Why aren’t more people saying this? I mean, most of the world criminalized drugs, and now no matter where you go that drugs are illegal, you won’t find anyone doing drugs illegally. We could expand too. With all the violence and traffic deaths and health issues related to alcohol we could just take all the alcohol. Hell, why not get a step closer to world peace and do the same thing with nuclear weapons? The entire military? Surely no one would attack a country without a military? And who would attack anyway if no one had militaries? You may have just solved every problem in the entire world with one post. I see a Nobel prize in your future.
Even though the exaggeration is dripping from every of your words and yur trying to mix up things that have nothing in common by the use of sarcasm, I feel like answering today, so:
Guns: I know this is religion to most US citizens, as they ignitially wonna protect themselves from the English king or any other opressor. Besides already being opressed by the rich for 50 decades, the only thing happening is the poor killing each other or themselves in thousands every year. Amazingly, this doesn't happen in countries with harsh gun restrictions and social systems worth the name. I am well aware you guys don't wonna hear it, but it's a fact - you know, like global warming, vaccinations not causing autism and the world not being flat.
Drugs: legalising drugs has very positive effects on all societies being brave enough to go that way because drug use actually goes down, not up and there is billions of savings in law enforcement, drug deaths go back.
Why alcohol isn't on the banned-list of drugs can't really be explained, because it's the drug causing most fatalities and cripples millions of people, so they're not functioning any more in society, causing massive financial loss and burden to said societies.
Anyway, looking at the heroin epidemic in the US, maybe somebody should start thinking of new ways in this concern, as well.
I am not going into your sarcastic nuclear weapons and military too much, for a lot of states meanwhile it actually is obsolete to have both and living in the most peaceful times this planet ever has seen is an indicator that human race generally is on a good way.
If there was a Nobel prize for common sense, I think my comment is definetly closer to win, than yours.
To conclude and to come back to my initial comment (and overcoming your obvious personal feelings of being offended), I just have one short question:
Related to the thought experiment in the post, what did I say wrong?
Not my job, my dearest right-wing american friend. I don't care if you're killing each other over there, it is just the stupidity behind it that makes me furious once in a while.
Your ignorance of both history and the modern world should be what pisses you off.
I'll hold on to my right to life, thank you very much.
The power to say "No" when haji wants to send my daughter to a wife training camp. To say "No" when revolutionaries want to behead my father for being white. To say "No" when the state tries to herd me onto a train to Dachau. To say "No" when colonizers' sons try to order my tribe to walk a trail of tears. To say "No" when a distant king tries to claim my labor, my property, and my life.
And if the price of that power is a few cents a round and an average national homicide rate (barring the cities that would disarm me) with a far above average of successful self-defense cases, so be it.
f_kye- your reply trips in its own feet. The poor killing poor in America- then you compare not to countries with similar social welfare situations OR similar gun situations- but to countries with BOTH different gun AND social welfare situations. So by your own reply, and using basic logical trouble shooting- how do you rule out that the issue isn’t guns but social welfare? Happy well cared for people who have what they need don’t generally kill each other do they? You also put yourself and your vitriol for America. The fact you seem to think we all do not believe in vaccines or the round earth etc shows how ignorant you are. As a matter of fact- the United States produces more high caliber scientists and technical personnel than any country in the world despite having a reputation for idiocy.
As for drugs- by and large I support decriminalization. It has been shown in studies and arguments as well in practice to have an overall benefit. But- drugs are still illegal in most of the world, and simply outlawing them didn’t get rid of “drug crimes” or related harms did it? As for why Alcohol isn’t on the list and why people through most of the world can still buy cigarettes- it’s more or less the same thing as guns. Because those things are both a part of the social fabric as well as something people don’t want to give up even if they cause some harm.
You mock the ignorant cave men and their guns- but travel your sweet enlightened Europe and try to get countries to give up alcohol. Tell the Germans Oktoberfest will be dry this year. Go to the East and take the Vodka. Tell the UK the pubs are closing down. The reactions will be quite similar I’m sure. Despite more people dying to alcohol related causes than US mass shootings- even in enlightened Europe, despite no reasonable argument as to why people should be able to own and invest deadly poison simply because they like to- people do, and would fight fiercely if you tried to take that away.
Also, you're welcome for the peace that our nukes and my grandfather's blood paid for, that our nukes and myself and my comrades continue to maintain to this day.
As for America’s drug problems you mention those were largely due to our own government. A neat little series of deals they made to finance and facilitate wars and power struggles abroad while trying to suppress minorities at home. That backfired pretty hard on them. But Famousone is right. You’re ignorant. You are speaking from your heart and I appreciate that, but I suggest you do more research and try speaking with, or at least thinking with, your head.
Poor killing poor is a world problem, homicide is homicide whatever the weapon is. Guns only become any “worse” than any other Arlin when we talk multiple homicides- things like mass shootings that would be impractical with other weapons. Except... by and large “mass shootings” haven’t been confined to the poor on poor. Many have occurred in affluent areas or venues, perpetrated by the affluent or relatively well off middle class and above. At schools, colleges, festivals. So that premise is a bit flawed as well.
You talk about the military and the most peaceful times in humanity etc- but again, as with your poor on poor crime comparison to countries with better social welfare... did you ever consider that perhaps having the largest most sophisticated military forces on earth and an arsenal of nuclear weapons large enough to destroy most of the planet might have a thing or two to do with that peace you enjoy? If not for MAD, there would be nothing stopping the post WW2 US and USSR or China from starting WW3, especially with tensions of the time. Knowing that throwing a punch gets the whole room blown up tends to keep things peaceful no?
But you aren’t here to discuss guns in America. You can’t. You’ve shown you haven’t done research and don’t have the knowledge base to have a discussion on the subject. You’re here to vent out your FEELINGS about America and Americans.
@f_kyeahhamburg- TL:DR- like your original comment you speak in bumper stickers. Emotional responses and perhaps a pseudo clever turn of phrase here and there. You say very little or nothing that is solid fact or even follows a consistent or basic logic. You have a very negative view of the United States and it’s citizens, and aren’t here to discuss or debate but to put on a show and make yourself feel good by “one upping some stupid Americans.” You like Europe. That’s good. It’s full of wonderful counties and people. I suggest you live there. I like America. Not perfect, needs some changes. I’ll live here. I promise I won’t try and bring guns to Europe- and you can keep Europe in Europe too- and we can all live our lives.
After the both of you didn't even try to answer the question I asked and instead pushed all of your so-called culture on me, I seize the case. You have turned this conversation into a US - Europe thing and have shown the exact behaviour I was expecting, while I was responding to the post.
@f_kyeahhamburg- I did answer your question. My first post and follow up both point out that your original post while well meaning- is a self evident fact if taken at face value and is not a functional solution if analyzed. I then went through and itemized the things I saw as “wrong” in your follow up.
Also @f_kyeahhamburg- go read what was written. YOU brought nationalities into this. YOU were the first one to begin throwing around labels of national politics and stereotypes. YOU were the one who wanted to compare The United States to other countries. Read my posts, read famousone’s. YOU brought it there and just as I said YOU are the one who doesn’t want to discuss. You start off by labeling opinions contrary to your own as being backed by “stupidity,” and proceed to take every chance to place yourself as the “better” and “more intelligent” one- without any refute- in fact when famousone comments to back up what you say- you tell him that “isn’t your job.”
@f_kyeahhamburg when I say that you are making emotion based arguments and lack and subject matter knowledge of substance, you revert to playing a victim card and blaming is “stupid” “right wing” Americans who “believe the earth is flat” for making this discussion about nationalism and non constructive- when that was YOU. own up man. Gas lighting in general is a bad tactic, but historically It’s gone really poorly in Europe, especially by famous gas lighters from Germany who didn’t like individual rights and wanted a “better safer world.” Read some history books, come back if you want to have a logical discussion of facts. Have a great rest of your day.
All of what both of you are expressing is right wing.
With no word I said you believe the world is flat.
Emationality, huh? Believe me, I absolutely don’t give a damn about you or what you think I read, learned or experienced in my life. And hey, thanks for both playing the Hitler card. Very logical.
Dude, it’s part of world history. It happened. It’s something to e cognizant of and mindful of when looking at the direction we want to go in the future because if it happens once- it’s no longer hypothetical. It can happen. So yes- it is logical to mention when one of the primary reasons the United States values gun ownership- and so far we’ve been very successful preventing despotism on home turf.
But since when was a right to own weapons right wing? Many of the farthest “right” governments have forbidden gun ownership. Many of the furthest “left” nations have been police states ruled by guns and with wide spread guns.
@f_kyeahhamburg- again- I think you need to do some research... or maybe there’s some translation issues afoot. While the meaning of “right wing” changes throughout history and societies- it primarily refers to conservative reactionists. In a liberal democracy, “right wing” politics are those that oppose socialism. Most scholars make distinctions into types and category of “right wing” and generally except for “far right” politics the moderate “right” supports liberal democracy and market capitalism among other things. But ones stance on weapon ownership- and more specifically one stating that “taking all the guns away” isn’t a workable or realistic option, do not define wether one is “right” or “left” wing.
@f_kyeahhamburg- you obviously consider yourself a “left” aligned “liberal,” but as a free bit of education (and they say the US school system isn’t any good?): Simply because you consider yourself liberal doesn’t make anyone who disagrees with your views “right wing.” In fact- if you read this site or ask around (hell, famousone will likely agree) my views in general are quite often far to “liberal” “progressive” for most of the self identified or labeled “conservatives” or “right wingers” on this site.
There would be smoke in the air and the smell of gun powder near by. The shooter would be in the general direction of where people are running away from.
.
The good guys who were near the shooter would be pointing their guns toward where people are running from. The bad guy would be the one pointing their gun toward the running people.
.
Unless of course the bad guy was an evil genius, knew what i just told you, and acted accordingly to fool people. In that case it's a buffet for him regardless of who else has guns.
Even then, I can draw, aim, and shoot in under 3 seconds, and I'm just about average.
But there are too many people that want to play cowboy...
So by your statement, there has not been any accidental shootings/friendly fire injuries/deaths?
We're using absolute language, sure, but we both know we aren't excluding outliers. I'm simply saying that those outliers are so few and inconsequential as to be meaningless. Sure, a tragedy if it happens, but good guys making mistakes is always a safer bet than bad guys deciding to stop being bad.
Guns: I know this is religion to most US citizens, as they ignitially wonna protect themselves from the English king or any other opressor. Besides already being opressed by the rich for 50 decades, the only thing happening is the poor killing each other or themselves in thousands every year. Amazingly, this doesn't happen in countries with harsh gun restrictions and social systems worth the name. I am well aware you guys don't wonna hear it, but it's a fact - you know, like global warming, vaccinations not causing autism and the world not being flat.
Drugs: legalising drugs has very positive effects on all societies being brave enough to go that way because drug use actually goes down, not up and there is billions of savings in law enforcement, drug deaths go back.
Anyway, looking at the heroin epidemic in the US, maybe somebody should start thinking of new ways in this concern, as well.
I am not going into your sarcastic nuclear weapons and military too much, for a lot of states meanwhile it actually is obsolete to have both and living in the most peaceful times this planet ever has seen is an indicator that human race generally is on a good way.
If there was a Nobel prize for common sense, I think my comment is definetly closer to win, than yours.
To conclude and to come back to my initial comment (and overcoming your obvious personal feelings of being offended), I just have one short question:
Related to the thought experiment in the post, what did I say wrong?
I'll hold on to my right to life, thank you very much.
The power to say "No" when haji wants to send my daughter to a wife training camp. To say "No" when revolutionaries want to behead my father for being white. To say "No" when the state tries to herd me onto a train to Dachau. To say "No" when colonizers' sons try to order my tribe to walk a trail of tears. To say "No" when a distant king tries to claim my labor, my property, and my life.
And if the price of that power is a few cents a round and an average national homicide rate (barring the cities that would disarm me) with a far above average of successful self-defense cases, so be it.
With no word I said you believe the world is flat.
Emationality, huh? Believe me, I absolutely don’t give a damn about you or what you think I read, learned or experienced in my life. And hey, thanks for both playing the Hitler card. Very logical.
.
The good guys who were near the shooter would be pointing their guns toward where people are running from. The bad guy would be the one pointing their gun toward the running people.
.
Unless of course the bad guy was an evil genius, knew what i just told you, and acted accordingly to fool people. In that case it's a buffet for him regardless of who else has guns.