If I knew it was you, I am pretty sure I could assume you are carrying.
- Status
P
prayerrider
Guest
Exactly. The hysterical handwringers want to paint anyone who carries as a wanna-be vigilante when in fact, I don’t know anyone who carries who wants to ever have to draw their weapon. And I know a number of people who carry, besides myself.
M
maryjk
Guest
And to put it into perspective, I am an over 50, disabled, female.
No chest thumping here.
P
prayerrider
Guest
I would never ask someone if they are carrying, even if I know they have a CCW. If I assume they are, as you say, then I’m glad.
I’ve stood in line at the coffee place behind cops, while carrying. As long as I’m not printing, why would they care?
I’ve stood in line at the coffee place behind cops, while carrying. As long as I’m not printing, why would they care?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Did everyone notice that Dracarys did not address my question at all? When asked for any assurance that gun owners are going to be sufficiently trained to be safe in a crowd, the gun lovers will simply avoid the question, as if it is not important. They get to decide what is important and what is not. And to them, the prospect of “saving the day” in the event of a mass shooting is more important than any concern about lapses in safety during the much more common occurrence of no mass shooting. They say police training is not that great, but refuse to commit to gun owners getting any mandatory training at all. I personally would rather have people with guns be poorly trained than to have them be people with no training at all.LeafByNiggle:
I think you have some misconceptions and your making it harder than it is. Yes police do receive advanced training I have mentioned and enjoy myself. But I like this stuff. Police clear rooms using techniques like “cutting the pie”. They go around corners using the “pinwheel.” There’s all kinds of cool and awesome stuff.
However if a bad guy kicks down your door at close range it really is as simple as point and shoot. Aim at center mass.
If your in the mall and Innocents are getting hurt then don’t take a shot if Innocents are in front of you. Even the best shots won’t do that. A lot of this is common sense. If you don’t have elaborate skills but you are close to the bad guy and don’t have Innocents in the way take the shot. Lives are at stake.
Training is good, but I don’t trust government agencies to get it right. Politics always gets involved.
T
TK421
Guest
Which is the part where - regrettably - you would incur a criminal record for refusing to turn in something that is rightfully illegal to own.
Gun ownership has been steadily declining since the 1970s and will probably continue to decline. The gun lobby does have a base of highly motivated people but it is increasingly outnumbered and positive changes are on the way.
J
John10
Guest
My source as I stated before are FBI reports, what are your sources?
Proof is undeniable, however it is obvious you never care about facts to begin with.
Sure, in war torn countries such as Syria, but among developed nations no one come close to the US.
They are legitimate, you might not like them because they show the sad reality of the USA and mass shootings. No wonder Christ said those who live by sword will die by the sword.
Obviously, there are other ways to better understand the motives behind a mass shooting, such as interviewing friends, family and acquaintances of the perpetrator, or reviewing any clues they might have left behind.
The FBI reports that of the 104 active-shooter events between 2000 and 2012, 17 were stopped by potential victims. In 14 of those situations, the shooting was stopped by someone who was unarmed and managed to talk to the person or subdue the shooter with no weapon
I guess then again when the facts do not agree with your viewpoint, it is easier to just dismiss them.
U
upant
Guest
and there will be more after it happens, haven’t you noticed that overseas they use vehicles or bombs
A real fanatic can always kill anybody he likes.’ (G.K. Chesterton, Father Brown, The Quick One)
why doesn’t it give you the protection he seeks?
how many guns are in circulation? how many accidents are there? they predicted all kinds of calamities would happen when the states started conceal carry and none became reality. scare tactics
how do you stop the black market? Australia is the gun control country but Melbourne has a gun problem
you do know that automatic weapons are highly regulated and almost impossible to own
you would ban the AR but allow the handgun, whereas, the handgun kills more people.
why do civilians have to be less trained? how much training do you think police get?
fort hood was a gun free zone, you could not carry on base.
a 3d printer would make things easy
because they were in gun free zones,
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not think there will be a repeal of the Second Amendment in the life of anyone here. However, there may be a change in the licensing of automatic rifles, like requiring a type 1 federal firearms license, or some new type with similar tracking.
D
Dracarys
Guest
I get it, but if I happen to be in a school, church, mall etc when I hear an active shooter situation I am heading toward it to see if I can help. It’s a personal decidion.
D
Dracarys
Guest
You ignored my original question. Just because an active shooter is at some point “stopped” begs the question how many people did he kill BEFORE being stopped? Did the unarmed people stop him because he was changing magazines after his first round was spent shooting 50 people? I did not see the study say anyone “talked them out of it.”
Secondly the study is skewed because it includes residential shootings. This could very well be a father just pulling a gun out of the hands of his angry son.
The largest group in this study were the shooters who stopped on their own. They hear sirens coming so they kill themselves. Well by then it’s “mission accomplished” in their sick mind. They’ve shot 35 kids. Again had a trained person in the school interved earlier it’s entirely possible no or few children would be shot.
If there were firearm trained people on hand the odds are far better the active shooter could be stopped earlier. If you don’t believe having armed people on scene matters than why do police and military carry guns?
Both I and other people on this thread have confirmed to you that civilians are often better trained than police. This is especially true of people with military experience.
So basically your “proof” supports my side of the debate.
Last edited:
D
Dracarys
Guest
Two of your sources openly pride themselves as a liberal news source. That is not empirical data. Your FBI source was good, but it only proved my point. The FBI stats show the need to have designated trained armed people in place. They could save hundreds of lives.
M
Moose
Guest
While all positions are to be respected, I suppose, I find this entire thread remarkable in its inanity.
Gun possession is an incontrovertible 2-A right that can only be overturned or restricted at the risk of national chaos.
As I said before, murder, maiming, mayhem are all committed by human beings - failed human beings. The weapon of choice has no bearing on their failure or their action.
Those who wish to restrict legal access to guns are naive trolls who would be the first gathered up by the totalitarian aggressors who wish the populace to be more pliable. (Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Nadler et al)
I have not only a right but a GOD given responsibility to protect those in my care.
No one shall suggest or require that I willingly give up that right. It’s really a silly argument.
Address the issue: evil human beings whose failings will not be corrected or addressed by the simple-minded politically correct, theologically naive, sjw trolls who wish only to control MY actions - not the actions of the perpetrators.
Just too funny…
Gun possession is an incontrovertible 2-A right that can only be overturned or restricted at the risk of national chaos.
As I said before, murder, maiming, mayhem are all committed by human beings - failed human beings. The weapon of choice has no bearing on their failure or their action.
Those who wish to restrict legal access to guns are naive trolls who would be the first gathered up by the totalitarian aggressors who wish the populace to be more pliable. (Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Nadler et al)
I have not only a right but a GOD given responsibility to protect those in my care.
No one shall suggest or require that I willingly give up that right. It’s really a silly argument.
Address the issue: evil human beings whose failings will not be corrected or addressed by the simple-minded politically correct, theologically naive, sjw trolls who wish only to control MY actions - not the actions of the perpetrators.
Just too funny…
D
Dracarys
Guest
Just like they say there are no atheist in foxholes I think the anti gun people will want an armed friend if they or their child are pinned down by gun fire from a terrorist or lunatic psycho.
T
TK421
Guest
There doesnt need to be. There is already precedent of states restricting guns rather heavily, especially pre 1960s / Red Scare, when libertarianism and its evils found its way more into the mainstream. The NRA became radicalized not long after.
One of the side effects of a conservative Supreme Court could mean a reinvention of history and a complete ban does indeed seem very difficult, but far more restrictions are not.
One of the side effects of a conservative Supreme Court could mean a reinvention of history and a complete ban does indeed seem very difficult, but far more restrictions are not.
Last edited:
G
graciew
Guest
By this time, reality is you might have been out of the game.Handcuffed .
Distracted, arguing, on the computer…
That is how they find you.
Focus.
Listen to “ the other side “ as well. Maybe in their silence , they were paying attention and had time to dial or run.
So meticulously presented scenarios, for common citizens are unreal. I am sorry but it doesn t happen like that.
All sorts of personal resources are valuable given the completely unexpected.
One shooter? A band? Three and more outside waiting? A comando operation?How do you know right now? Any hostage? Reduced and handcuffed… gun on your head.
Tell us. Right now.
Distracted, arguing, on the computer…
That is how they find you.
Focus.
Listen to “ the other side “ as well. Maybe in their silence , they were paying attention and had time to dial or run.
So meticulously presented scenarios, for common citizens are unreal. I am sorry but it doesn t happen like that.
All sorts of personal resources are valuable given the completely unexpected.
One shooter? A band? Three and more outside waiting? A comando operation?How do you know right now? Any hostage? Reduced and handcuffed… gun on your head.
Tell us. Right now.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Mass shootings are extremely rare. Yet you keep talking about preparing for mass shootings as if they were common. This leads to a skewed cost/benefit analysis for having people carry guns.
Since you are in business, you know what a cost/benefit analysis is. You look at a proposition and assess the likely benefits and the likely costs of that proposition. In this case, you are citing the benefit of being able to stop a mass shooter sooner and save lives. That is definitely a benefit. Now consider the costs of having people carry guns. In 2010 there were 33,636 deaths due to “injury by firearms”, which breaks down as 21,175 suicides, 11,208 homicides, 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with “undetermined intent”. You are going to say that the suicides would have happened anyway with sleeping pills or something, and the homicides would have happened anyway because criminals don’t obey gun laws. I could argue both of these points with you, but instead I will just focus on the 505+281=786 that you cannot explain away. We have at least that cost in 2010 for the level of gun-carrying we had in 2010. So let’s compare that with the “benefit” you cited. How many mass shootings were prevented by an armed citizen who happened to be in the right place at the right time. In fact there was only one mass shooting in all of 2010. It was in Manchester, Connecticut when a former employee of Hartford Distributors entered the warehouse and , and shot and killed eight people with two semiautomatic weapons before committing suicide. There was no armed citizen who stopped him. He killed only eight people. So for 2010, we paid the price in 786 lives and got back in benefits exactly zero. There was no mass shooting in 2010 that was stopped by an armed citizen.
An I would argue it is even worse than that, because I would not write off those 21,175 suicides and 11,208 homicide either. I think they are part of the cost we paid to get zero benefit.
OK, you show me a cost/benefit analysis that favors having people carry guns to stop mass shootings.
I am glad to see this admission.
P
prayerrider
Guest
A sad end to a budding criminal career:
concealednation.org
Father Saves Entire Family And Stops Home Invader With Head Shot In California | Concealed Nation
LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA -- While some will comment that the title of this article is unnecessary, it's blunt and to the point. It shows just how ready the
concealednation.org
P
pnewton
Guest
They get a lot more press than suicides do. I can understand the fear such events engender. I can also see how fear could lead to a feeling of helplessness, and the desire to never be helpless. Gun ownership is a path some may take to relieve to live more securely. In that sense, it could be a quality of life issue for some.
- Status