Another mass shooting...

[kallend 1,621]

jbscout2002

Anomalies happen. Young scared poorly trained weekend warriors during a tumultuous time following orders from an emotionally unstable and inexperienced young Sargeant.

So they were poorly trained. Yet some here seem to think that totally UNTRAINED civilians (who believe themselves to be warriors) would do better in a high stress situation.

I find that a highly dubious proposition.

We even see trained LEOs shooting the wrong people in high stress situations.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jbscout2002 1]

Newtown, CT shooter went to two different sporting goods stores attempting to purchase a gun. He failed the background check both time for mental health reasons. That means tha existing laws kept guns out of his hands. What additional laws would have changed anything?

[kallend 1,621]

jbscout2002

Newtown, CT shooter went to two different sporting goods stores attempting to purchase a gun. He failed the background check both time for mental health reasons. That means tha existing laws kept guns out of his hands. What additional laws would have changed anything?

It is well known that the existing laws have been rendered toothless by lobbying from the NRA and others, so that they are easily circumvented. THAT is the entire point.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jbscout2002 1]

SkyDekker

***Anomalies happen. Young scared poorly trained weekend warriors during a tumultuous time following orders from an emotionally unstable and inexperienced young Sargeant.

I think the Nazis used that argument too. It was struck down as invalid in that case as well.
I think it was a little different when an entire organized military exterminated millions of people, even going so far as to bring in civil engineers to help streamline the killing to make it more economical and efficient.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

***Newtown, CT shooter went to two different sporting goods stores attempting to purchase a gun. He failed the background check both time for mental health reasons. That means tha existing laws kept guns out of his hands. What additional laws would have changed anything?

It is well known that the existing laws have been rendered toothless by lobbying from the NRA and others, so that they are easily circumvented. THAT is the entire point.

Not true

If I am wrong
Show us what laws were lessoned and how please

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Hooknswoop 19]

You answered, thank you, and I said I would as well.

My plan;

1. Find cover- I need to survive in order to be able to do anything. The Army was big on this one.
2. Asses the situation- How many shooters? Where are they. Cover between them and me? Where can I move? Where are other people?
3. If I can get a clean shot, take it.
4. Call 911- That brings more people with more guns.

#4 is the biggest point I am trying to make with this question. I ask people that are anti-gun what they would do. They usually reply, "Call the police." I ask, "Why?". They always respond, "They have guns." Then I get quiet and watch as their facial expression changes as they slowly realize what they just said.

Thank you for your honest answer.

Derek V

[jbscout2002 1]

But nothing was circumvented. Existing laws did their job and he was unable to obtain a firearm. He then stole them, which is already a felony anyways. So again, what addition law would have changed anything? Just offer up one law that would actually have stopped a pstchopathic murderer from committing his murders.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

jbscout2002

My reaction, were I to whiteness this happening, would be to draw the concealed Glock 23 that I am properly vetted and licensed to carry and neutralize the threat. Instead of 15 dead and 10 wounded, there would be maybe 2 dead and 1 or 2 wound, with one of the dead being the attacker. Those numbers of course are based on the fact that I whiteness begin shooting and the number of shoots he gets off before I can react to it.

I gather from your avatar that training for this sort of situation (more or less) is part of your job. How much time do you think you have invested in training to be ready for this? Do you think there would be a good outcome if 3 or 4 untrained people (maybe spending a few hours a month at a firing range, but none training for an actual active shooter scenario) started shooting in a crowded classroom?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Rstanley0312 0]

SkyDekker

Quote

Your semantics are a joke.

Oregan State Law is semantics?

***You want to tell me that if that class had 2-3 armed citizens that less people would not have died?

Why would I want to tell you that? Never made that argument, not making it now.

Quote

This is horrible but has nothing to do with the guns.

Considering he shot them, obviously guns do have something to do with this.

Quote

I'm sure others like you really had their hopes on a "assault rifle" being used.

If they were truly like me, they would be hoping these shootings simply didn't take place.

In the end our view points are different. You believe that more guns is the answer to reduce gun violence. I believe less guns is the answer to reduce gun violence.

I will add one comment since this will not really go anywhere. I do not believe more guns are the answer. I believe in one of the principals this country was founded on. (all of them actually) I have the right to protect myself, my family & my community by carrying a firearm. I do not think everyone should have one. I take it seriously and train regularly. If less guns actually help as you wish to happen then why are the most violent cities (homocides with guns involved) the ones with the strictest gun laws? I do not really care to hear your logic in an answer to that question by the way.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

"Call the police." I ask, "Why?". They always respond, "They have guns." Then I get quiet and watch as their facial expression changes as they slowly realize what they just said.

I think it is a fair statement, even if you think it is funny. I will explain why:

I am fine with police and criminals being the only people walking around with guns. I understand that some innocent people will die, where the easy availability of guns could have prevented their death. I am willing to "pay that price", because I believe that fewer murders take place when less guns are easily available. I believe that society as a whole is better off that way.

You appear to be willing to pay the price of more murders in your society, as long as you get to keep your guns.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I think it is a fair statement, even if you think it is funny. I will explain why:

I am fine with police and criminals being the only people walking around with guns. I understand that some innocent people will die, where the easy availability of guns could have prevented their death. I am willing to "pay that price", because I believe that fewer murders take place when less guns are easily available. I believe that society as a whole is better off that way.

You appear to be willing to pay the price of more murders in your society, as long as you get to keep your guns.

I can respect that position and cannot argue the logic.

Derek V

[jbscout2002 1]

The problem is that everyone is one this band wagon of make guns illegal and it will be all butterflies and rainbows. Why not just make murder illegal? Oh wait, I know, people breaking the law don't fucking care what the law says.

I've noticed that we used to blame people for killing. We all know the names of Bundy, Dahmer, Gacey, Ramirez, Berkowitzs, but now killers are anonymous. Without Google can you tell me the names of the VTech shooter, D.C. snipers, Colorado theater shooter, CT school shooter?

Someone could walk into a mall and shoot people and throw the gun down and walk away. As long as the gun is captured, that is all that matters. The poor shooter was a victim of the gun that used him for its dirty work.

Maybe if we blame the person instead of the inanimate object and keep murderers in prison longer than 10 years, and stop letting the OJs and Casey Anthonys walk, we will see more progress

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

I do not really care to hear your logic in an answer to that question by the way.

I know, changing an opinion is a major sign of weakness and should be avoided at all costs!

Why is it that first world countries with strict gun laws have far less homocides with guns?

[jbscout2002 1]

GeorgiaDon

***My reaction, were I to whiteness this happening, would be to draw the concealed Glock 23 that I am properly vetted and licensed to carry and neutralize the threat. Instead of 15 dead and 10 wounded, there would be maybe 2 dead and 1 or 2 wound, with one of the dead being the attacker. Those numbers of course are based on the fact that I whiteness begin shooting and the number of shoots he gets off before I can react to it.

I gather from your avatar that training for this sort of situation (more or less) is part of your job. How much time do you think you have invested in training to be ready for this? Do you think there would be a good outcome if 3 or 4 untrained people (maybe spending a few hours a month at a firing range, but none training for an actual active shooter scenario) started shooting in a crowded classroom?

Don

This is true to some extent. 10 untrained people whipping out a pistol in Times Square trying to be a hero because one thug fired a shot at someone would be detrimental. There does need to be a balance somewhere in there.

As for the theater or classroom, when shooting starts, people reflexively get low and seek cover, 4 people directing their fire towards the one guy still standing, even with limited traing, are likely to hit him. The risk of ricochet or crossfire, IMO, outweighs the methodical and systematic killing of a room full of unarmed people all waiting in agony for their turn to be shot.

[kallend 1,621]

jbscout2002

But nothing was circumvented. Existing laws did their job and he was unable to obtain a firearm. He then stole them, which is already a felony anyways. So again, what addition law would have changed anything? Just offer up one law that would actually have stopped a pstchopathic murderer from committing his murders.

He didn't steal them. They were unsecured in his home and his mother had taught him to use them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

I've noticed that we used to blame people for killing. We all know the names of Bundy, Dahmer, Gacey, Ramirez, Berkowitzs, but now killers are anonymous. Without Google can you tell me the names of the VTech shooter, D.C. snipers, Colorado theater shooter, CT school shooter?

Not following your logic here. Because people don't remember the names of the perpetrators you believe people aren't blamed for killing?

Quote

The problem is that everyone is one this band wagon of make guns illegal and it will be all butterflies and rainbows.

Not at all. The positive effects of banning guns in the US would likely take decades (if not generations) to take effect.

In practice I don't think banning guns in the US is feasible. In my opinion, your founding fathers fucked up on that part of the constitution, resulting in a very violent society.

[Rstanley0312 0]

SkyDekker

Quote

I do not really care to hear your logic in an answer to that question by the way.

I know, changing an opinion is a major sign of weakness and should be avoided at all costs!

Why is it that first world countries with strict gun laws have far less homocides with guns?

Oh.... oh nice. I see what you did there. You are clever. Of course you are so open to changing your mind on this topic right?

As for the far less with guns... well you have something there. They just have homocides by other means. So that is a good argument to take away my right to arm myself. You know becasue people that want to commit murder stop and say "well I can't get a gun so I guess I won't do this.". Yup, you changed my mind.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

They just have homocides by other means.

They do, but generally they have less total homocides as well (per capita).

Quote

So that is a good argument to take away my right to arm myself. You know becasue people that want to commit murder stop and say "well I can't get a gun so I guess I won't do this.".

Reducing the availability of the most effective tool in a process generally leads to reduced effectiveness of the process.

I don't want to take away any of your rights. Your country will have to decide if they are willing to give up an individual right for the greater good of society as a whole. So far that answer has generally been no.

[jbscout2002 1]

kallend

***But nothing was circumvented. Existing laws did their job and he was unable to obtain a firearm. He then stole them, which is already a felony anyways. So again, what addition law would have changed anything? Just offer up one law that would actually have stopped a pstchopathic murderer from committing his murders.

He didn't steal them. They were unsecured in his home and his mother had taught him to use them.

Say my mom taught me how to drive. Then one night, without her permission, I take her keys, jump in her car and run away. I took her care because I'm only 15 and can't get a drivers license, so I don't have my own. She wakes up and reports her car stollen, because it is gone and she didn't let anyone take it. I get pulled over by a cop. Does that excuse get me off with a verbal warning, or do I get arrested for grand theft?

[kallend 1,621]

Rstanley0312

***

Quote

I do not really care to hear your logic in an answer to that question by the way.

I know, changing an opinion is a major sign of weakness and should be avoided at all costs!

Why is it that first world countries with strict gun laws have far less homocides with guns?

Oh.... oh nice. I see what you did there. You are clever. Of course you are so open to changing your mind on this topic right?

As for the far less with guns... well you have something there. They just have homocides by other means..

They have fewer homicides - PERIOD.

Subtract gun homicides from the US total, and the US pretty much falls in line with other first world nations. The difference is gun availability.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,621]

jbscout2002

******But nothing was circumvented. Existing laws did their job and he was unable to obtain a firearm. He then stole them, which is already a felony anyways. So again, what addition law would have changed anything? Just offer up one law that would actually have stopped a pstchopathic murderer from committing his murders.

He didn't steal them. They were unsecured in his home and his mother had taught him to use them.

Say my mom taught me how to drive. Then one night, without her permission, I take her keys, jump in her car and run away. I took her care because I'm only 15 and can't get a drivers license, so I don't have my own. She wakes up and reports her car stollen, because it is gone and she didn't let anyone take it. I get pulled over by a cop. Does that excuse get me off with a verbal warning, or do I get arrested for grand theft?

Lanza wasn't 15. He was an adult. His mom even gave him the money to buy his own gun, and she let him use hers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Rstanley0312 0]

SkyDekker

Quote

They just have homocides by other means.

They do, but generally they have less total homocides as well (per capita).

***So that is a good argument to take away my right to arm myself. You know becasue people that want to commit murder stop and say "well I can't get a gun so I guess I won't do this.".

Reducing the availability of the most effective tool in a process generally leads to reduced effectiveness of the process.

I don't want to take away any of your rights. Your country will have to decide if they are willing to give up an individual right for the greater good of society as a whole. So far that answer has generally been no.

I obviously disagree with that opinion of "no". The greater good argument is also not valid. That is not the argument at all really. That is of course how you want to phrase the argument.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[kallend 1,621]

jbscout2002

... and stop letting the OJs and Casey Anthonys walk, we will see more progress

So you don't believe in the protections of the US Constitution, OK. (Well, except for the 2nd Amendment, that is).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

The greater good argument is also not valid. That is not the argument at all really.

Then in your eyes what is the argument?

[Rstanley0312 0]

kallend

******

Quote

I do not really care to hear your logic in an answer to that question by the way.

I know, changing an opinion is a major sign of weakness and should be avoided at all costs!

Why is it that first world countries with strict gun laws have far less homocides with guns?

Oh.... oh nice. I see what you did there. You are clever. Of course you are so open to changing your mind on this topic right?

As for the far less with guns... well you have something there. They just have homocides by other means..

They have fewer homicides - PERIOD.

Subtract gun homicides from the US total, and the US pretty much falls in line with other first world nations. The difference is gun availability.

I disagree. That is the difference you want to stand out but so many other things go in to the "why?".

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com