SkyDekker 1,121 #751 October 8, 2015 rehmwa ***You and I both know it's challenging to read sarcasm in text on this site. It's so easy to spot, that one could, as an option, ignore the clear sarcasm and attempt at humor, and obtusely and robotically use it directly to set up strawmen, or issue veiled PAs or character jabs. I'm not saying that happens here, just that it's an option if one chooses. Insults are a lot more fun, anyway, than two way debate and discussion. You mean like you are doing right now..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #752 October 8, 2015 Wow. 26 pages (much of it the usual suspects perfecting their Pee Wee Herman imitations). Calling this guy "mentally ill" is a misnomer. Most mentally ill people aren't violent, most violent people aren't mentally ill. We went back and forth on the 'Crazy or Evil?' thing with the shooter in Norfolk (guy who shot the reporter on live TV). Something I haven't heard mentioned: Most of these types of shooters are typically male, youngish, loners, socially inept, and very angry. I'd love to see a comparison between them and the typical suicide bombers in the Middle East. I'd guess there are more similarities than differences. What would/should an armed civilian do? The concern about being accidentally shot by another armed citizen or the cops is very real. The lack of training is also a major concern. The usual training for a carry permit includes the repeated rejoinder "You are not the police. You are not the SWAT team. Do NOT play 'hero'. It will get you killed." The cops train in movement/portal entry, Friend/foe identification, covering each other, that sort of thing. The skills needed to enter and move and search and confront an active shooter. The average civilian shooter does not. But they don't need to. How many of these have had a situation where the shooter tries to enter a room, finds the door blocked by the occupants, shoots through the door and enters? So, if I was in this situation, I would try to get everyone away from the door and it's line of fire. Behind cover or concealment if at all possible (kids at Sandy Hook successfully hid in cupboards and survived). If unarmed, try to get the biggest, strongest people to hide next to the door. Let the shooter open it and then jump him. Yes, that will probably get someone shot. But if there are 4 or 5 people jumping him, the odds are that someone will take the gun away. And the people inside are likely to get shot no matter what they do. If armed, then again, get the rest of the people away from the door, and have the person with the gun take an "off axis" position, again behind cover if at all possible. Simply sit still and cover the door. If the shooter enters, ambush him. Don't go out and chase him, don't play hero. Shelter in place with the ability to defend yourself if the shooter enters. Again, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and Columbine had situations where this would have ended the shooting, if someone in a room had been armed. As it was, people in these locations were shot through the door trying to prevent the shooter from entering. Lastly, after each of these incidents, there is a hue and cry to "Do SOMETHING" The politicians want to appear that they are "solving the problem", regardless if the "solution" actually addresses it. The current mantra is "background checks." High cap mags and "assault weapons" are still up there, but have faded. So a lot of folks are proposing background checks on all transfers. Why? How would that address the issue? Which of the recent shootings would that have prevented? Loughner, Holmes, Cho, the guy in Norfolk and this guy all passed them. Lanza had reportedly passed the check, but was not willing to wait the 7 days that New York requires, he was afraid his mom would commit him before that. But he passed the check, IIRC. And killing someone and taking their stuff is generally considered "stealing", regardless of whether or not the stuff had been used with permission before. Roof in Charleston is an interesting case. The background check didn't come back in time. He shouldn't have passed, but the FBI couldn't coordinate it's information sources quickly enough (where have we heard that before?) and he got the gun. The "if you don't come back as a 'no' in three days then you get it" is a result of "creative" delays by anti-gun authorities. They would purposefully delay the completion of the check as sort of a 'back-door' gun control effort. So laws were passed to prevent that sort of abuse by the authorities. But what happened when the check came back saying Roof shouldn't get a gun? Did the authorities go to him and arrest him for falsifying his 4473? Did they go and confiscate the gun he shouldn't have acquired? No. They just ignored it, the same way they ignore almost all the failed background checks (the one where the gun is not acquired). Something like 60,000 denials. A handful of prosecutions. This came up after Sandy Hook, too. No real answers as to why not. I'm in favor of a solution. But I don't have one that will work. And I'm really, really against just "doing something" that will affect legal gun owners without having any effect on these shootings. In part because the anti-gun crowd will say "we did this and it didn't work, we need to do more", when everyone knew full well that the original "solution" wasn't going to do anything. I don't consider it "acceptable", but I don't see a way of stopping it. As was noted above, 30k people die in car crashes each year, and that's "acceptable." As was also noted, something like 3000 are killed by impaired (drunk or drugged) drivers each year. And that is acceptable too. We pay lip service to "don't drink and drive", but really don't do much. OWI is still a minor offense. First timers spend little or no time in jail. Even "homicide by intoxicated use" has minimal penalties compared to other types of murders. There was a case fairly local to me where the drunk driver got a year (yes, one year) in jail, plus serving a couple days each year for the next ten (Xmas, the day of the accident, the victims birthday and a couple more). The family of the victim was not too happy with the sentence. Want to stop it? Make an intoxilyser a mandatory piece of equipment on every new car. Make first offense OWI a felony, mandatory one year in prison (they do this in other places). But that's not going to happen."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #753 October 8, 2015 SkyDekker ******You and I both know it's challenging to read sarcasm in text on this site. It's so easy to spot, that one could, as an option, ignore the clear sarcasm and attempt at humor, and obtusely and robotically use it directly to set up strawmen, or issue veiled PAs or character jabs. I'm not saying that happens here, just that it's an option if one chooses. Insults are a lot more fun, anyway, than two way debate and discussion. You mean like you are doing right now.....maybe.... ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 291 #754 October 9, 2015 Well, I'm off to Roseburg tomorrow. I expect that the POTUS will be gone by the time I get to town. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #755 October 11, 2015 wolfriverjoeSo, if I was in this situation, I would try to get everyone away from the door and it's line of fire. Behind cover or concealment if at all possible (kids at Sandy Hook successfully hid in cupboards and survived). If unarmed, try to get the biggest, strongest people to hide next to the door. Let the shooter open it and then jump him. Yes, that will probably get someone shot. But if there are 4 or 5 people jumping him, the odds are that someone will take the gun away. And the people inside are likely to get shot no matter what they do. If armed, then again, get the rest of the people away from the door, and have the person with the gun take an "off axis" position, again behind cover if at all possible. Simply sit still and cover the door. If the shooter enters, ambush him. Don't go out and chase him, don't play hero. Shelter in place with the ability to defend yourself if the shooter enters. Again, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and Columbine had situations where this would have ended the shooting, if someone in a room had been armed. As it was, people in these locations were shot through the door trying to prevent the shooter from entering. The above seems very reasoned to me; it would be about as much as you could ask of a crap situation. If you can get away, great, if you have to hole up then it'd be really really nice if at least one of the people you're holed up with has a CCW. CCW holders shouldn't play superhero and by and large they don't (yes I'm aware of the guy at the gas station in Houston.) California just (signed yesterday) banned CCW holders from carrying on the grounds of a K-12, college, or university unless you're retired law enforcement. It was already illegal to get within 1000 ft of any school with a loaded gun without a CCW and California is one of the most restrictive states when issuing CCW permits (or in the case of LA and SF when not issuing permits; the civilian CCW rate for those two counties are 17 and 2.4 ppm respectively.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #756 October 11, 2015 I've got a perfect solution for mass shooting. Raise the number of fatal kills for the event to become a mass shooting to 25 kills, and we will see far less mass shootings in the US.Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #757 October 12, 2015 >Raise the number of fatal kills for the event to become a mass shooting to 25 >kills, and we will see far less mass shootings in the US. Or just continue to compare them to traffic deaths, then legalize drunk driving. In no time at all, relative deathrate by gun plummets. (Not my idea; stolen from a Schwarzenegger movie.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RMK 3 #758 October 12, 2015 love of guns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwEyBItsXkw"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,620 #759 December 11, 2015 kallend*** So from the data you have shown here, one would obviously reach the conclusion that from 2013-2014, the murder rates in Chicago have dropped from 15.3 per 100,000 to 15.1 per 100,000. This conclusively shows a correlation between the CCW permits being issued in early 2014, and the decline in murders until the point of this data being collected. See? I told you that you had it in you. Just be honest with yourself, be objective, and present the facts as they are. And now you have proved my 22 page argument to be right. I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is. I bet you $100 to your favorite charity that Chicago's 2015 murder rate will be higher than the 2014 rate. Since you claim "conclusively" there's a correlation between the CCW permits being issued and the decline in murders, you should be willing to bet $100 to my favorite charity that the 2015 rate will be lower. So how about it, soldier? Chicago's 2015 murders passed the 2014 total about a week ago. All those CCW permits didn't seem to help.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #760 December 11, 2015 We're there a statistically significant number of murders by concealed carry users that made this murder rate eclipse the 2014 murders? Was a statistically significant number of CCW users murdered themselves? If no to either of these then it's possible to draw a conclusion that being armed help CCW users stay safe, and/or that they caused no harm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,620 #761 December 11, 2015 cvfd1399blah blah The POINT is that our gun-loving friend (who's now disappeared) claimed that concealed carry, introduced in early 2014, would reduce the number of murders. It hasn't. Both years that CCW has been in effect the number of murders has gone up.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 620 #762 December 11, 2015 FloriDUH is trying to pass open carry. This should be interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #763 December 11, 2015 kallend***blah blah The POINT is that our gun-loving friend (who's now disappeared) claimed that concealed carry, introduced in early 2014, would reduce the number of murders. It hasn't. Both years that CCW has been in effect the number of murders has gone up. Remove the criminal on criminal murders from both as they would not be impacted by CCW or any other gun law changes. What are those numbers?Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,620 #764 December 11, 2015 Bolas******blah blah The POINT is that our gun-loving friend (who's now disappeared) claimed that concealed carry, introduced in early 2014, would reduce the number of murders. It hasn't. Both years that CCW has been in effect the number of murders has gone up. Remove the criminal on criminal murders from both as they would not be impacted by CCW or any other gun law changes. What are those numbers? If you wish to make a point, do your own homework.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 620 #765 December 11, 2015 "Criminals" of some types are legally qualified to be issued a CWP. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #766 December 11, 2015 His point aside I am pointing out to you that, and unless you can produce numbers otherwise. CCW has not statistically added to the homicide rate via them being the victims or perpetrators, so one could say that CCW protected people without having to kill someone while the criminal murder rate did in fact rise. The only way to know for sure is to see the details of each murder, and there happens to be a funny little website that does in fact track that. I'm starting a side discussion on CCW and the murder rate, not talking about your little bitch session with him. So your blah blah quote comment was childish. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 620 #767 December 11, 2015 QuoteSo your blah blah quote comment was childish. Whoa. Logic. Nonexistent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #768 December 11, 2015 Do you have something to say or just here to troll? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 620 #769 December 11, 2015 Sorry. In that case: blah blah blah Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #770 December 11, 2015 normiss Sorry. In that case: blah blah blah Yeah that's what I thought. Why don't you go research some more officer Wilson facial injuries reports. You did so good last time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreeece 2 #772 December 11, 2015 normiss Wow. This is the part where we try to translate Mark's excessive use of emojis. My interpretation: = He's laughing and having a good time. = Then he farts. = Then he catches a whiff. Wow = An articulate description of the smell.Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,116 #773 December 11, 2015 Ok, I don't care about the target (sorry, Normiss), but that's funny Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 620 #774 December 12, 2015 Inaccurately humorous, yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #775 December 12, 2015 normiss Inaccurately humorous, yes. I laughed out loud. Potty humor is fun.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
