Armed citizens stopping mass shootings - Who to believe?

[Skyrad 0]

Its emerged that a former Royal Marine Commando saved 100 people in the Kenya mall massacre. Using only a handgun he returned to the Mall 12 times to rescue 100 people.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[tkhayes 145]

Quote

My firearms serve many other reasons that to kill people...

they probably do. But that does not change the purpose of the weapon. A handgun was DESIGNED to kill people as a military weapon. that is fact.

There are a graveyard full of rockets over at NASA that do absolutely nothing. They were DESIGNED for flight into outer space. But yes, they can be used for other purposes.

A mousetrap can also be used as a tie clip, but it was DESIGNED to kill mice.

Not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse or just trying to play dumb, but I cannot believe the ridiculousness of your statements about 'your guns'

My premise is nowhere near 'flawed:

http://www.remington.com/en/products/firearms/tactical/shotguns/model-870-express-tactical-blackhawk.aspx
tactical special ops.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/957212594/Cobray_12_ga_Street_Sweeper.htm
yep they call it the street sweeper because it is used for ducks....

http://us.glock.com/products/sector/law-enforcement I wonder what that cop in the picture is meant to be pointing at?

And I would like to see the recent 'standards' introduced for firearms improvements regarding the reduction of death by firearm. The Colt 1911 has not changed much since well....1911. Still kills people exactly the same way.

Just in automobiles alone, we have made hundreds, if not thousands of improvements to cars to help save lives. Guns? OK, we invented trigger locks and gun safes. But we put another 100,000,000 guns out there in the past 30-40 years.

Quote

Yet the data also says that less than 400 people a year are killed by long guns of ALL types and you claim to want a ban on AR's (Which is a very small subset of long gun).

I never said anything about banning ANY guns. If long guns were all we had, then the problem of 8000-11000 dying each year would be largely solved. Long guns are OBVIOUSLY not the problem.

Handguns sure as fuck are part of the problem. I notice that the gun lobby loves to bring up the long gun numbers and conveniently ignores the handgun numbers. got it.

Maybe having fewer handguns (buyback incentives? - OH yes that's right the NRA lobbied to outlaw buybacks.) and making them just a bit harder to own could (over a generation) reduce the number of people dying by them. I know - that's crazy talk....[sheesh]

If carrying around guns helps to reduce gun violence, then with fewer guns as in 50 years ago, we could assume that gun violence would have been through the roof, and that is not the case.

There are plenty of reasons for reductions in our definition of violent crimes, guns may or may not be a part of that reason.

Of course you want to believe that, but the study needed is far more vast than that, and the data to support either case simply does not exist.

I have asked my Congressman to support the collection of ALL the data. (NRA also blocks those laws - I wonder why)

[ryoder 1,406]

Skyrad

Its emerged that a former Royal Marine Commando saved 100 people in the Kenya mall massacre. Using only a handgun he returned to the Mall 12 times to rescue 100 people.

I saw the link on Fark today with the line: "Ex-Royal Marine armed with a handgun saved more than 100 people in the Kenya mall massacre. What are the chances this will be mentioned on the news?"

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/24/Hero-With-A-Handgun-Saved-100-People-From-Islamists-In-Mall-Attack

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Whoa....hold on there. Are you trying to say that an ex-Marine (read civilian) with a handgun saved 100 unarmed people from being killed by criminals with guns?

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Gravitymaster

Whoa....hold on there. Are you trying to say that an ex-Marine (read civilian) with a handgun saved 100 unarmed people from being killed by criminals with guns?

That's great. Have to wonder if maybe his military training helped, or if it was all because of his handgun.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Please point out to me exactly where I said anything about disarming anybody, or where I said I expected anybody to fight for their life with their bare hands

You have repeatedly stated that you see no point in arming citizens. You have questioned if citizens have been able to stop anything.

You have done both and when data has been presented showing why the data you have used is incorrect, you have continued to dodge the data in favor for data that does not exist.

Quote

So you have made shit up whole cloth when you say I want people to defend themselves with their bare hands.

You have stated that you doubt that arming citizens would help. If they are not armed... They what method of SD do you think they can use? You may not have flat out stated you want disarmament... But your words, when combined, show that end game.

BTW this is the same tactic used by the VPC.

When called out, you throw insults.... again, like the VPC.

BTW here is an example of a citizen with a handgun saving 100 people

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/24/Hero-With-A-Handgun-Saved-100-People-From-Islamists-In-Mall-Attack

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

A handgun was DESIGNED to kill people as a military weapon. that is fact.

FALSE. A handgun is considered a crap weapon for the military. Handguns were designed as a way to carry a weapon for DEFENSE. If you were going to attack, you would be wise to carry a rifle.

How do I know this? Well I was issued both a rifle and pistol when I was in the military. We were taught to use the rifle and only use the pistol if the rifle was inop, or in very tight quarters. Where did you get your military knowledge?

Quote

There are a graveyard full of rockets over at NASA that do absolutely nothing. They were DESIGNED for flight into outer space. But yes, they can be used for other purposes.

And if 99.9% of those who own rockets do nothing evil with them.... Then MAYBE your anger should be directed at the 0.1% that use them in crime and leave the 99.9% alone.

Quote

Not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse or just trying to play dumb, but I cannot believe the ridiculousness of your statements about 'your guns'

I find it difficult to get lectured on weapons by a guy that has shown poor judgment in their use... See attached picture.

Quote

And I would like to see the recent 'standards' introduced for firearms improvements regarding the reduction of death by firearm. The Colt 1911 has not changed much since well....1911. Still kills people exactly the same way.

The 1911 works as designed. Maybe you should explain how a 1911 design is somehow dangerous?

Quote

But we put another 100,000,000 guns out there in the past 30-40 years.

And yet violent crime has still gone DOWN.

Quote

I never said anything about banning ANY guns. If long guns were all we had, then the problem of 8000-11000 dying each year would be largely solved.

You just did... Talking about making long guns the only weapons available. Double talk in less than one sentence.

Quote

(NRA also blocks those laws - I wonder why)

Convenient that you have ignored the history lesson I have already given you.... I'll give it to you again (and you can ignore it again).

They don't do anything to stop the ATF or the FBI.... That is just you making things up. The NRA did try to prevent the CDC and there are a few reasons for that:

1. The CDC is centers for DISEASE control. Guns are not a disease.

2. The CDC had a clear agenda in the past.
Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who was then director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, explained his aim was to make the public see firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (Quoted in William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” The Washington Post, Oct. 19, 1994.)

So when the CDC had put out some very clearly anti gun propaganda..... They had their funding pulled for being political and not scientific.

[Gravitymaster 0]

SkyDekker

***Whoa....hold on there. Are you trying to say that an ex-Marine (read civilian) with a handgun saved 100 unarmed people from being killed by criminals with guns?

That's great. Have to wonder if maybe his military training helped, or if it was all because of his handgun.

Aren't you glad he was there?

What if you had been one of those unarmed civilians and he wasn't there?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

That's great. Have to wonder if maybe his military training helped, or if it was all because of his handgun.

Maybe you should ask him if having the gun helped him?

But one thing you seem to be ignoring is that a bunch of us gun owners are former military.

[Stumpy 256]

DaVinci

But one thing you seem to be ignoring is that a bunch of us gun owners are former military.

So what? I think you missed the point. You former military people would probably do a great job in a high pressure situation with or without the gun. (Depends on what branch and role in the military of course - the Royal Marines are some of the best out there in terms of front line troops. Some support roles, analysts etc, maybe not so much)

Someone with a gun but without that training might potentially do more harm than good, especially if they are a little bit gung ho about "taking out" the terrorists

Just a thought.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Gravitymaster

******Whoa....hold on there. Are you trying to say that an ex-Marine (read civilian) with a handgun saved 100 unarmed people from being killed by criminals with guns?

That's great. Have to wonder if maybe his military training helped, or if it was all because of his handgun.

Aren't you glad he was there?

What if you had been one of those unarmed civilians and he wasn't there?

Boy, you ask some stupid questions.

Do we even know if he used his handgun during these rescues? I am very happy there are people out there willing to put their lives in danger to help others.

In this case I have a strong suspicion that his training was much more valuable to his actions than his firearm.

Hence, it is a piss poor example to bring up to support a position that armed citizens will stop mass shootings.

(No, that doesn't mean that I think all Americans should be disarmed and the 2nd amendment needs to be repealed. Just to fend off your next stupid question)

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Someone with a gun but without that training might potentially do more harm than good, especially if they are a little bit gung ho about "taking out" the terrorists

And yet you can't find many if any examples of a citizen making things worse.......

And you are ignoring that many civilians have taken better training classes than many military and I guarantee better than many LEOs. Since I have gotten out I have taken classes that were as good or better than I received in the Army (and yes, I was Infantry branch).

You just assume that people just strap on a firearm and suddenly think they are Rambo (and yes, I am sure that does exist). But you think they are the norm and not the exception. Having been around guns, gun stores, shooters, ranges... etc for most of my life, I can tell you that the Rambo is the exception. Most people never want to draw a weapon.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Do we even know if he used his handgun during these rescues?

Do you know he didn't? And you have to recognize that putting yourself into harms way when you have a valid form of self defense is still "using" the handgun even if you don't actually fire it.

Quote

In this case I have a strong suspicion that his training was much more valuable to his actions than his firearm.

You are making a guess. I'd guess that even you would be much more likely to go into a live shooting environment if you had a firearm than if you did not.

Quote

Hence, it is a piss poor example to bring up to support a position that armed citizens will stop mass shootings.

Nope, because that is EXACTLY what happened. You can't just ignore data you don't like.

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

Hence, it is a piss poor example to bring up to support a position that armed citizens will stop mass shootings.

true, crappy example he was only:

1 - an individual
2 - he was armed
3 - he saved a lot of people

what a terrible example

(note that the comment was "a marine saved a bunch of people", not "a gun saved a bunch of people" - if you want to make the argument that the person is responsible for saving, then how can you sit and argue against the object when pushing the opposite agenda.....)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

Do you know he didn't? And you have to recognize that putting yourself into harms way when you have a valid form of self defense is still "using" the handgun even if you don't actually fire it.

I don't even know if the story is true, so certainly don't know for a fact any of the other circumstances around it.

You know what, these conversation never go anywhere. Yes, you are right, this is a shining example of how armed civilians stop mass shootings.

[DaVinci 0]

rehmwa

***Hence, it is a piss poor example to bring up to support a position that armed citizens will stop mass shootings.

true, crappy example he was only:

1 - an individual
2 - he was armed
3 - he saved a lot of people

what a terrible example

(note that the comment was "a marine saved a bunch of people", not "a gun saved a bunch of people" - if you want to make the argument that the person is responsible for saving, then how can you sit and argue against the object when pushing the opposite agenda.....)

Well said.

It is either:
1. The person
2. The weapon

It can't be the person only when it is good and the weapon only when it is bad.....

[Gravitymaster 0]

SkyDekker

*********Whoa....hold on there. Are you trying to say that an ex-Marine (read civilian) with a handgun saved 100 unarmed people from being killed by criminals with guns?

That's great. Have to wonder if maybe his military training helped, or if it was all because of his handgun.

Aren't you glad he was there?

What if you had been one of those unarmed civilians and he wasn't there?

Boy, you ask some stupid questions.

Do we even know if he used his handgun during these rescues? I am very happy there are people out there willing to put their lives in danger to help others.

In this case I have a strong suspicion that his training was much more valuable to his actions than his firearm.

Hence, it is a piss poor example to bring up to support a position that armed citizens will stop mass shootings.

(No, that doesn't mean that I think all Americans should be disarmed and the 2nd amendment needs to be repealed. Just to fend off your next stupid question)

Talk about asking stupid questions. I'd suggest you educate yourself a little before responding any further. It's very obvious you haven't a clue about what happened.

[Gravitymaster 0]

SkyDekker

Quote

Do you know he didn't? And you have to recognize that putting yourself into harms way when you have a valid form of self defense is still "using" the handgun even if you don't actually fire it.

I don't even know if the story is true, so certainly don't know for a fact any of the other circumstances around it.

You know what, these conversation never go anywhere. Yes, you are right, this is a shining example of how armed civilians stop mass shootings.

Right, you have no idea about what happened but you are perfectly fine with making comments and analysis.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

note that the comment was "a marine saved a bunch of people", not "a gun saved a bunch of people" - if you want to make the argument that the person is responsible for saving, then how can you sit and argue against the object when pushing the opposite agenda.....)

It is a piss poor example, because IMHO his training was likely a bigger factor than the firearm. IE, the result is unlikely to be replicated by a non-military/LEO training individual with a firearm.

I can sit and argue against the object (And I'm not pushing an agenda, I am not important enough to set an agenda regarding gun ownership in either Canada, the US, or any other country), because to me the training is a very important part.


I have said before that banning guns in the US will not resolve anything. I am just happy I live in a country that didn't have founding father's like yours.

[DaVinci 0]

SkyDekker

Quote

Do you know he didn't? And you have to recognize that putting yourself into harms way when you have a valid form of self defense is still "using" the handgun even if you don't actually fire it.

I don't even know if the story is true, so certainly don't know for a fact any of the other circumstances around it.

You know what, these conversation never go anywhere. Yes, you are right, this is a shining example of how armed civilians stop mass shootings.

And yet here you were already saying it was a piss poor example of the pro gun argument that they can be used in these situations.....

You are right, these never go anywhere since you jump to conclusions when you think it will help you and then ignore the same data you used when it hurts your position.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

And yet here you were already saying it was a piss poor example of the pro gun argument that they can be used in these situations.....

Priceless.

This would imply that you know exactly what happened and therefor it is a good example to use.

I would love to hear more of the story now. Can you tell us exactly what happened?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

An Ex-Royal Marine with a handgun saved 100 people as Islamists attacked the Kenyan Westgate Mall. According to the Daily Mail, the former Marine was having coffee with friends in Westgate Mall when the attack began. Armed only with his handgun, he immediately began gathering people and getting them out of the building.
One of his friends said, "He went back inside twelve times and saved 100 people. Imagine going back in when you knew what was going on inside."
The hero with a handgun is a former Royal Marine who now lives in Kenya, but he cannot be identified for security reasons.

My understanding is he was retired and living in Kenya. He was having a meal at the mall when this went down.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Now, this is according to the Daily Mail. Do you normally believe everything they report? If not, do you have any other sources?

Did he stop the mass shooting?

[skypuppy 1]

SkyDekker

***Whoa....hold on there. Are you trying to say that an ex-Marine (read civilian) with a handgun saved 100 unarmed people from being killed by criminals with guns?

That's great. Have to wonder if maybe his military training helped, or if it was all because of his handgun.

This is one of the points. The 'average' concealed carrier in the states quite possibly also has or had military or police training. Many on here like to say the 'average' holder is a bum who got his licence out of a crackerjack box (I'm being facetious here).

But while your average gangbanger probably doesn't have much training, he also probably doesn't have a permit, because he has his gun 'illegally'. So forcing in new laws for concealed carry won't effect your average gangbanger...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

The 'average' concealed carrier in the states quite possibly also has or had military or police training. Many on here like to say the 'average' holder is a bum who got his licence out of a crackerjack box (I'm being facetious here).

The truth is probably in the middle.

Quote

But while your average gangbanger probably doesn't have much training, he also probably doesn't have a permit, because he has his gun 'illegally'. So forcing in new laws for concealed carry won't effect your average gangbanger...

No law is going to stop your average gangbanger. If you are creating laws for gangbangers, you are indeed looking at things the wrong way.

Since most if not all politicians are indeed not making laws for gangbangers, it is also a bit of a strawman.