pedro wrote:13 people died.
SamDBL wrote:...three minutes during a rampage killing spree on unarmed victims might as well be three weeks in terms of the damage that can be inflicted.
version sound wrote:SamDBL wrote:...three minutes during a rampage killing spree on unarmed victims might as well be three weeks in terms of the damage that can be inflicted.
Great point. I'm not sure I've heard a better argument against the availability of assault weapons.
yourenotevil wrote:name me one public shooting in the history of time where an armed citizen was the sole equalizer is one of these situations.
version sound wrote:How come I never heard about any of those incidents? As long as people are going to have guns, it's good to know this actually has happened. Maybe if we closed all the loopholes so only sane law-abiding citizens could buy guns, this crazy gun culture wouldn't be too bad.
yourenotevil wrote:...while those incidents are definitely the proof i was looking for, several involve police, not citizens...
yourenotevil wrote:this navy yard guy had two previous instances of being abusive with a gun(shooting out a man's tires) and had told police he heard voices and it seems clear he was schizophrenic or had some kind of severe mental disorder. the RI cops even told the navy this, and they didn't do anything about it. the guy should have been committed right away. yet, he could still go out and buy a shotgun 3 days before this killing. that seems to be the bigger issue here.
version sound wrote:SamDBL wrote:...three minutes during a rampage killing spree on unarmed victims might as well be three weeks in terms of the damage that can be inflicted.
Great point. I'm not sure I've heard a better argument against the availability of assault weapons.
yourenotevil wrote:version sound wrote:SamDBL wrote:...three minutes during a rampage killing spree on unarmed victims might as well be three weeks in terms of the damage that can be inflicted.
Great point. I'm not sure I've heard a better argument against the availability of assault weapons.
i always love hearing this bullshit argument. it's more like a gun nut's wet dream to one day think they can play out some dirty harry type fantasy in real life. "get me in that room and i would be the difference maker." right, you would probably end up killing more innocent people. name me one public shooting in the history of time where an armed citizen was the sole equalizer is one of these situations. police and armed forces are trained for moving target training, where your typical weekend warrior gun range shooter is not. more often than not, these killers are trained by the armed forces or have some type of military or police background, are using ar-15 assault rifles and are wearing body armor. even in the best case scenario, a well trained citizen would have a handgun with 14 or 15 bullets and have to find some kind of cover and then get off a shot on a moving target that was shooting back at him. the logistics of that definitely favor the killer.
yourenotevil wrote:after the colorado shootings, every gun nut was claiming if they were in that room, they could have shot the guy and saved lives.
SamDBL wrote:yourenotevil wrote:version sound wrote:SamDBL wrote:...three minutes during a rampage killing spree on unarmed victims might as well be three weeks in terms of the damage that can be inflicted.
Great point. I'm not sure I've heard a better argument against the availability of assault weapons.
i always love hearing this bullshit argument. it's more like a gun nut's wet dream to one day think they can play out some dirty harry type fantasy in real life. "get me in that room and i would be the difference maker." right, you would probably end up killing more innocent people. name me one public shooting in the history of time where an armed citizen was the sole equalizer is one of these situations. police and armed forces are trained for moving target training, where your typical weekend warrior gun range shooter is not. more often than not, these killers are trained by the armed forces or have some type of military or police background, are using ar-15 assault rifles and are wearing body armor. even in the best case scenario, a well trained citizen would have a handgun with 14 or 15 bullets and have to find some kind of cover and then get off a shot on a moving target that was shooting back at him. the logistics of that definitely favor the killer.
Here we go again. Every person that has a gun thinks they're Dirty Harry. What a ridiculous, straw man argument. I also really like your logic that a civilian gun owner will probably just lose in a shootout against some armed psycho anyway, so they may as well just accept their death without any defense whatsoever. At least they won't own a gun.
kel wrote:yourenotevil wrote:...while those incidents are definitely the proof i was looking for, several involve police, not citizens...
***I don't see any difference between an off-duty cop and a citizen. I happen to have a badge (I'm a reserve officer with a small department that asks for my help sometimes), but 99% of the time when I'm just having dinner out or shopping with my wife or kids, I'm just a guy who's responsible for my family's personal safety, and not representing any government organization.
In that role, I have a concealed carry permit, have been background-checked as any other individual would be. As a pro-freedom-semi-libertarian kinda guy, I do NOT like the idea of some citizens being more equal than others, Animal Farm and all that. I do not agree with those that say "only police should have guns" - I don't trust the police or any other government nanny to make personal decisions for me. As a dagboard-related aside it sure doesn't seem very "punk" to start putting all faith and blind trust in the President, Police, Congress, or other establishment, or being quick to give up up personal rights in exchange for the hope that the government will take good care of us however they decide is right for you. You're starting to see what that story looks like with all the recent NSA cellphone/email privacy abuses. "Don't worry about your rights: we're the government, we know what's good for you and work for the safety of everyone as a whole."
I heard a line once that really hit this one home: "I saw a movie once where only the police and military had guns. It was called "Schindler's List".
In the case of the above examples, they were just armed citizens acting outside of their jobs. Like many cops, they could have just taken off their handgun at the end of the shift and chosen to go unprotected in their non-work hours. It's by far more comfortable to not carry. As an aside, really, the only point I actually *did* kinda disagree with you in your earlier post is that you said police train more/more for these situations than normal-joe citizen shooting enthusiasts. Most police training is pretty cursory. A lot of cops aren't training-junkies, and most departments don't have unlimited funds for training expenses. It's just one more heavy tool on the belt they are proficient with to meet a minimum required standard - I mean, just because they have a radio doesn't mean they are expert HAM radio operators... it's just a tool they're issued and have some basic training with. People that do this because they *like* it practice a lot more than your average patrolman might do. Competitive recreational matches often have a separate class for the law enforcement competitors because the match organizers know that cops would feel embarrassed if good "civilian" enthusiasts constantly out-scored them.yourenotevil wrote:this navy yard guy had two previous instances of being abusive with a gun(shooting out a man's tires) and had told police he heard voices and it seems clear he was schizophrenic or had some kind of severe mental disorder. the RI cops even told the navy this, and they didn't do anything about it. the guy should have been committed right away. yet, he could still go out and buy a shotgun 3 days before this killing. that seems to be the bigger issue here.
***Absolutely. Random mass killings of strangers (using any method) aren't normal -- Serial killers hatcheting up kids and storing them in the freezer, bombers blowing up buildings full of random people, mall shooters, etc... Sane people aren't wired to do that. That is a totally different issue than gang kids in Chicago killing each other over dope money. Different problem with different causes.
How to identify ill people and care for them is the right dialogue to explore.
Edit to add: I found it weird why his previous arrests didn't stop him from getting a job in a secure area as a contractor... you'd think he *would* be background checked to get the gig he had and that stuff would show up.
SamDBL wrote:version sound wrote:SamDBL wrote:...three minutes during a rampage killing spree on unarmed victims might as well be three weeks in terms of the damage that can be inflicted.
Great point. I'm not sure I've heard a better argument against the availability of assault weapons.
I wasn't making an argument in and of itself, smartass. I'm simply saying that you suggesting that police arriving at a scene three minutes after a shooter began taking unarmed people out is the exact same as the shooter facing someone that was armed from the outset is foolish and self-serving.
You have some weird stereotype cooked up that people that own guns see themselves as John Wayne vigilante sharpshooters, or something.
SamDBL wrote:I have no idea what would've happened if one of the victims had had a gun on them at the time the shooting began and neither do you.
xxxMidgexxx wrote:But perhaps I just love drone stuff in general.
scannest wrote:It's like a filmmaker saying "Spielberg is my idol. Every time I get behind the camera I think about how I can make my film as good as Hook"
gregpolard wrote:Melt the guns.
NotBaker wrote:gregpolard wrote:Melt the guns.
I think you misunderstand the "guns versus butter" model.
scannest wrote:It's like a filmmaker saying "Spielberg is my idol. Every time I get behind the camera I think about how I can make my film as good as Hook"
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 292 guests