Skyrad 0 #1 April 4, 2009 I don't get it, people here are always saying that if there are restrictions on firearms then the innocent would not be able to defend themselves. Yet in all the recent shootings in the US how come not one of them was stopped by a innocent member of the public carrying their firearm? It just doesn't happen, it seems more and more like a bullshit argument.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #2 April 4, 2009 QuoteI don't get it, people here are always saying that if there are restrictions on firearms then the innocent would not be able to defend themselves. Yet in all the recent shootings in the US how come not one of them was stopped by a innocent member of the public carrying their firearm? It just doesn't happen, it seems more and more like a bullshit argument. Just because someone didn't stop a _mass shooting_ with a personal firearm does not mean that there are not other times when people do actually defend themselves with a personal firearm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ncjumpjunkie 0 #3 April 4, 2009 QuoteI don't get it, people here are always saying that if there are restrictions on firearms then the innocent would not be able to defend themselves. Yet in all the recent shootings in the US how come not one of them was stopped by a innocent member of the public carrying their firearm? It just doesn't happen, it seems more and more like a bullshit argument. There are "Mass Shootings" like this all over the world not just in the US. One was in Germany about 2 months ago and thy have way more restrictions.SONIC BEEF #1 BASE 708, NC BASE 3 SLI,IADI,AFFI.TIE.FAA Rigger, Single & Multi Commercial Pilot,CFI, CFII, MEI Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #4 April 4, 2009 Because nutcases pick places that people either choose not to, or are not allowed to, exercise their right to bear arms. Honestly, as many firearms as I own, I rarely have one with me.You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #5 April 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteI don't get it, people here are always saying that if there are restrictions on firearms then the innocent would not be able to defend themselves. Yet in all the recent shootings in the US how come not one of them was stopped by a innocent member of the public carrying their firearm? It just doesn't happen, it seems more and more like a bullshit argument. There are "Mass Shootings" like this all over the world not just in the US. One was in Germany about 2 months ago and thy have way more restrictions. the father of that kid didnt store it away "properly". in germany they're supposed to be locked away in a safe, and that one was in the bedroom, available to the kid..“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #6 April 4, 2009 Quote I don't get it, people here are always saying that if there are restrictions on firearms then the innocent would not be able to defend themselves. Yet in all the recent shootings in the US how come not one of them was stopped by a innocent member of the public carrying their firearm? It just doesn't happen, it seems more and more like a bullshit argument. Easy to explain: The victims surely were not armed enough ...... dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #7 April 4, 2009 QuoteBecause nutcases pick places that people either choose not to, or are not allowed to, exercise their right to bear arms. I call bullshit. The targets aren't chosen because they restrict carrying guns. They are chosen because the GUNMAN has a beef with what goes on in the facility.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #8 April 4, 2009 QuoteI don't get it, people here are always saying that if there are restrictions on firearms then the innocent would not be able to defend themselves. Yet in all the recent shootings in the US how come not one of them was stopped by a innocent member of the public carrying their firearm? It just doesn't happen, it seems more and more like a bullshit argument. In New York city only the politically connected are allowed to carry firearms. On college campuses like Virginia Tech usually only the campus police are allowed to have firearms. Most of the shootings happen places where most people aren't allowed to carry guns and there's a low probability of being oposed by some one who is armed. When people have guns, the outcomes can be different. With the Pearl High School shootings in more gun-friendly Mississippi, the vice principal ran out to his car and grabbed his Colt .45. The rampage was over after he pointed his gun at the shooter. Media bias means such incidents don't get covered well - only 19 out of 687 news stories covering the event mentioned the vice principal with his gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #9 April 4, 2009 QuoteMost of the shootings happen places where people aren't allowed to carry guns. You're not suggesting that (like divot) the locations are picked because of that are you? Isn't that a bit like saying the rape victim is at fault?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #10 April 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteMost of the shootings happen places where people aren't allowed to carry guns. You're not suggesting that (like divot) the locations are picked because of that are you? I'll suggest that crazy people are more willing to go on shooting sprees when they think they migt succeed. QuoteIsn't that a bit like saying the rape victim is at fault? Nope. It's the same thing as pointing out that rape is less frequent when potential rapists have reason to fear armed victims. In 1966 Orlando police responded to the rape problem by training 2500 women in firearms use. Rape decreased 88% and burglary 25%. I blame the criminals and legislators which enable them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IanHarrop 37 #11 April 4, 2009 Why is this even news? Gun deaths in the USA happen all the time, barely worth mentioning."Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #12 April 4, 2009 Quote I'll suggest that crazy people are more willing to go on shooting sprees when they think they migt succeed. And I completely reject that theory because most of the mass murders know full well they aren't walking out of the situation no matter what happens. They pick their targets because they have an issue with the people or what the facility represents to them. It has nothing to do with whether or not they think they'll be successful in getting away with it. In fact most of the times they PLAN on dying in the process.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #13 April 4, 2009 Quote There are "Mass Shootings" like this all over the world not just in the US. One was in Germany about 2 months ago and thy have way more restrictions. SIX mass shootings in the US in the last month. Somewhat of a difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #14 April 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteI don't get it, people here are always saying that if there are restrictions on firearms then the innocent would not be able to defend themselves. Yet in all the recent shootings in the US how come not one of them was stopped by a innocent member of the public carrying their firearm? It just doesn't happen, it seems more and more like a bullshit argument. Just because someone didn't stop a _mass shooting_ with a personal firearm does not mean that there are not other times when people do actually defend themselves with a personal firearm. I believe the dead cops WERE armed with guns and were properly trained in their use (unlike many civilians). Didn't seem to help them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #15 April 4, 2009 People in the States clearly don't need more guns but they do seem to need more Kevlar vests. Yeap - that's the solution - Body Armour. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #16 April 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteJust because someone didn't stop a _mass shooting_ with a personal firearm does not mean that there are not other times when people do actually defend themselves with a personal firearm. I believe the dead cops WERE armed with guns and were properly trained in their use (unlike many civilians). Didn't seem to help them. When I said "personal firearm" I was referring to civilians with firearms, not police. (I assumed this thread was referring to the shooting in NY, and that skyrad was referring to civilians arguing for their rights to own firearms to defend themselves(?).) But regarding the guy shooting the cops and their guns not helping them, I think there are _far_ more cases where guns do help the police. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #17 April 4, 2009 Quote And I completely reject that theory because most of the mass murders know full well they aren't walking out of the situation no matter what happens. But you're not putting much up to support it, beyond personal belief. If they plan to fail, they could just as easily shoot themselves at home. One currency in most of this month's events were they happened in locations with little defense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #18 April 4, 2009 Quote One currency in most of this month's events were they happened in locations with little defense. And the other is that each gunman had a personal beef with it. This is true pretty much true in every case you want to look at. If they were ONLY concerned with being able to slaughter as many helpless random individuals as possible, they'd pick different locations entirely; ones not connected with them or their delusions. For instance, any movie theater would do during a shootout scene.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #19 April 4, 2009 Quote If they were ONLY concerned with being able to slaughter as many helpless random individuals as possible, they'd pick different locations entirely; ones not connected with them or their delusions. For instance, any movie theater would do during a shootout scene. I guess it's lucky for them that most of their intended targets are made gun free zones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #20 April 4, 2009 Quote .... I guess it's lucky for them that most of their intended targets are made gun free zones. Which are non-free gun zones in the US? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #21 April 4, 2009 QuoteQuote If they were ONLY concerned with being able to slaughter as many helpless random individuals as possible, they'd pick different locations entirely; ones not connected with them or their delusions. For instance, any movie theater would do during a shootout scene. I guess it's lucky for them that most of their intended targets are made gun free zones. The Oakland and Pittsburgh mass shootings were not in gun free zones. Just the opposite, the cops were well armed. But continue to delude yourself that more guns makes you safer.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,466 #22 April 4, 2009 >One was in Germany about 2 months ago and thy have way more >restrictions. Yep. There was a mass shooting here about the same time. And yet the germans didn't seem to be handicapped by their restrictive gun laws any more than we were. Both murderers shot about a dozen people, both were killed when police cornered them. I have nothing against people owning guns here in the US. (Well, sane law-abiding adults, anyway.) But the common fantasy that fearless US gun owners will blow away any criminals before they can harm a hair on a child's head is, unfortunately, not usually borne out in reality. Mass murders do happen even in the most permissive states in the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #23 April 4, 2009 Quote The Oakland and Pittsburgh mass shootings were not in gun free zones. Just the opposite, the cops were well armed. But continue to delude yourself that more guns makes you safer. Make up your mind - are guns supposed to make us safe, or safer? There's a big difference between the two, and you fail to understand it. Pitts, based on sketchy early reports, looks to be about a loser in life who decided to commit suicide by cop, but gave himself better odds with the vest. I fear that this sort of thing will continue with the terrible economy. The answer to that problem is not to offer ourselves up like sheep. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #24 April 5, 2009 QuoteQuote .... I guess it's lucky for them that most of their intended targets are made gun free zones. Which are non-free gun zones in the US? Places like Florida and the state of Washington which are shall issue concealed-carry states, in places that are not schools, government buildings, or private offices which prohibit guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #25 April 5, 2009 QuoteBut the common fantasy that fearless US gun owners will blow away any criminals before they can harm a hair on a child's head is, unfortunately, not usually borne out in reality. Mass murders do happen even in the most permissive states in the US. Perhaps that is the common fantasy in Speakers Corner (I don't know), but I don't know a single gun owner who owns a gun because they think they're going to stop a mass murder someday. "Self-defense" usually seems to mean guarding one's own home/family/property/self, and I don't think most gun owners have any illusion of a guarantee of even this protection just because they have a gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
