if guns are so good for self defense why do we never hear of mass shootings stopped with a gun?

[billvon 2,435]

>The Orlando shooting took place in a "zone" with an armed ex-marine security guard.

To many people, "gun-free zone" is any place other than a gun show.

[wolfriverjoe 1,354]

DanG

Quote

Yes in a shooting like we had in Orlando the other night, I would hope they would do something instead of worrying about lawsuits. But it is a gun free zone seeing as how they Ser've alchahol.

It was not a gun free zone. There was an armed off duty police officer working security. He engaged the shooter, exchanging rounds. It did not stop the mass murder.

I'm not against guns, or against CCW. I just don't understand how this part of the story is getting ignored in this thread.

Well, the off duty cop (apparently a Marine vet also) was the only gun in there. It's a felony for a CCW holder to carry into a bar.

And if the shooter was familiar with the place (apparently he was), then he would know that there was armed security. Apparently he had been "escorted out" by them in the past.

That makes initial target selection pretty simple. And any ambush situation gives a hell of an advantage to the attacker. So with the element of surprise, rifle against pistol, it's not a big surprise that the security guy was ineffective. Actually, if the security guy got any shots off at all, that's rather impressive. But he was (again, reportedly) a Marine.

Note: after proofreading this, the "was" in the last sentence may appear to be mocking the guy. That isn't the intent. It's to emphasize the training and experience Marines usually have.

And to get back to how stuff is reported in the news, there was a recent shooting in Houston. A shooter with a rifle killed a person and shot up a neighborhood.
There was another "person with a gun at the scene", who was originally portrayed as an accomplice.
There have been reports that he was on the scene when the shooting started, pulled out a pistol and shot back with minimal effect.
Again, surprise and a rifle against a pistol make for long odds.

But none of the "big" news outlets really bothered to correct the story.

"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

[rushmc 18]

Because the cowards pick places where the law abiding, follow the law and do not bring guns.

A muders paradise. And yet many wish the law abiding to have even more restrictions

Go figure...

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

[DanG 1]

Quote

Well, the off duty cop (apparently a Marine vet also) was the only gun in there. It's a felony for a CCW holder to carry into a bar.

And if the shooter was familiar with the place (apparently he was), then he would know that there was armed security. Apparently he had been "escorted out" by them in the past.

That makes initial target selection pretty simple. And any ambush situation gives a hell of an advantage to the attacker. So with the element of surprise, rifle against pistol, it's not a big surprise that the security guy was ineffective. Actually, if the security guy got any shots off at all, that's rather impressive. But he was (again, reportedly) a Marine.

Okay, so you're going with the argument that one CCW wasn't enough, there needs to be multiple CCW carriers to stop an attacker. How hard does a target need to be before it stops being a soft target. Would two CCW have stopped the guy? Three? Did everyone need to be armed? Can you image the level of casualties if there were ten people in that bar shooting at each other? It would have been just as bad or worse. Arming everyone isn't a practical answer.

I agree that people should be allowed to arm themselves, but I also agree that private venues should be allowed to bar people from being armed on their property.

Finally, if an attacker is ready and willing to die for his cause, you simply can't stop him from taking other people with him. You can't. The best you can hope for is to stop the guy before he attacks. Barring that, the best you can hope for is minimizing the damage. Having a bunch of people all shooting at each other in a crowded bar isn't going to minimize any damage.

The calls to increase background checks and stronger mental health services are aimed at stopping the guy before he attacks. You may think those efforts will be ineffective, but they'll be a lot more effective than putting more guns in the hands of drunk partiers at a nightclub.

- Dan G

[normiss 624]

Only technically off duty.
Cops work as rent-a-cops for a fee, yet are allowed in full uniform, armed, with the same powers as if on duty.
I hear it's SWEET pay for them.

[Channman 2]

>"But will America change at all? No it will not because you average American is not willing to move one millimeter on the issue for the betterment of society."

It's nice to know where Progressive Liftist stand on this issue. As for this American, I like the option of shooting back. I'm not willing to step back 1 millimeter on defending myself or my family. I'm OK letting you DIE for your beliefs, but I intend to make every effort to LIVE for mine.

[Channman 2]

>"Having a bunch of people all shooting at each other in a crowded bar isn't going to minimize any damage."

Well I suppose you think everyone is in a circle with their eyes closed while the gunmen is in the middle.

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

His claim of not wanting to hit innocent people is Monday morning horse-puckey. I saw him on the local news; yup, he was doing nothing but crapping his pants.

We disagree.

I have a CCW permit. I feel no obligation to start shooting to defend strangers. Every bullet I throw is likely going to create multiple lawsuits against me.

I also have a commitment to my family to come home at night. If you want to defend yours, carry a gun. Don't ask me to protect you, and don't complain that I am 'crapping my pants' by not responding to a firefight when I can flee or avoid it.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[Bolas 5]

***
Okay, so you're going with the argument that one CCW wasn't enough, there needs to be multiple CCW carriers to stop an attacker. How hard does a target need to be before it stops being a soft target. Would two CCW have stopped the guy? Three? Did everyone need to be armed? Can you image the level of casualties if there were ten people in that bar shooting at each other? It would have been just as bad or worse. Arming everyone isn't a practical answer.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Well I suppose you think everyone is in a circle with their eyes closed while the gunmen is in the middle.

No, you end up with a bunch of people randomly dispersed around the club. Unlike in the movies, none of the shooters instinctively knows who the actual bad guy is. Many will likely target another CCW holder, and anyone who happens to be near them. It's called the fog of war. If highly trained soldiers can accidentally shoot each other when they have a plan, have trained together for years, and are wearing uniforms, why do you think strangers in a loud, crowded bar are going to do any better?

- Dan G

[gowlerk 1,929]

Armed people in a bar? What a great idea, hardly any danger in that. Bar fights are so common that any larger ones hire "door men" to break them up and throw the participants outside. There would be thousands of dead and injured for for every terrorist stopped. Hell, there already are. A lot of people ignore the prohibition against guns in bars. With the predictable results.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[DanG 1]

Quote

What makes a target hard is the unknown. Just the potential for multiple CCWs is the biggest deterrent.

I'm not sure that's so true. There have been shootings at places where guns are allowed to be carried.

Quote

Except for the fact that it's not just the venue's policy, it's law.

It's the law because alcohol was being served. I think most people would agree that drinking and guns don't go together well. Maybe you disagree?

Quote

Some feel the same about gun free zones.

FYI, you were replying to someone else here. I didn't say what you quoted.

Quote

Not true. Still better then having no way to defend oneself.

It's totally true. That's why terrorists use suicide attacks. You can't stop them. Ask me how I know.

Quote

And the calls to greatly limit "gun free zones" limit the soft targets and give those a chance. No reason why both can't be done.

Like I said, I'm not against people carrying weapons in most places. I just want people to understand that it won't prevent deaths. The only way to prevent a mass shooting is to stop it before it starts. That's the goal of background checks and increased mental health services. If you're in favor of those things, then we are in agreement. Many gun rights advocates, on the other hand, are strongly against background checks.

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

DiverMike

I have a CCW permit. I feel no obligation to start shooting to defend strangers. Every bullet I throw is likely going to create multiple lawsuits against me.

I also have a commitment to my family to come home at night. If you want to defend yours, carry a gun. Don't ask me to protect you, and don't complain that I am 'crapping my pants' by not responding to a firefight when I can flee or avoid it.

this was brought up on radio quite a bit - people comment that they are not deputized, and under no obligation to try and be a hero. they just want to be safer and would likely try to get out quietly just like everyone else.

not many people want to be some kind of hero - it's a crappy tactic to challenge "hey, why didn't the CCW holders save the day?" the answer might just be because the CCW is being responsible and not firing unnecessarily -

so you can't win, don't shoot? you're a coward,
shoot? you must be irresponsible and starting a crossfire bloodbath

hey, why didn't all the anti-gun types dive on the gunman and save the day - they must be cowards

...
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

[mirage62 0]

Quote

hey, why didn't all the anti-gun types dive on the gunman and save the day - they must be cowards

This actually is a good point, why is it assume that the CCW people are "suppose" to save the day......

Because John did a wonderful job baiting up the question. The man is a master.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Stumpy 256]

Channman

>"But will America change at all? No it will not because you average American is not willing to move one millimeter on the issue for the betterment of society."

It's nice to know where Progressive Liftist stand on this issue. As for this American, I like the option of shooting back. I'm not willing to step back 1 millimeter on defending myself or my family. I'm OK letting you DIE for your beliefs, but I intend to make every effort to LIVE for mine.

That's fine, as long as you understand that by having a GUN you have made your family much LESS safe. I don't have a problem with that. You might not like the statistics but that's your problem.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[DanG 1]

Quote

not many people want to be some kind of hero - it's a crappy tactic to challenge "hey, why didn't the CCW holders save the day?" the answer might just be because the CCW is being responsible and not firing unnecessarily

I agree, but it's a valid counter argument to the NRA position that having more CCW holders and no "gun free zones" would prevent mass shootings.

You (general you, not you personally) can't have it both ways.

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

Quote

not many people want to be some kind of hero - it's a crappy tactic to challenge "hey, why didn't the CCW holders save the day?" the answer might just be because the CCW is being responsible and not firing unnecessarily

I agree, but it's a valid counter argument to the NRA position that having more CCW holders and no "gun free zones" would prevent mass shootings.

You (general you, not you personally) can't have it both ways.

I agree. The point shouldn't be the mass shootings would be prevented. The point should simply be that individuals should have the option to choose to protect themselves. If that stops some instances or mitigates the horrible damage,..... (Not even a 2nd amendment argument really, much more basic).

...
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

[Bolas 5]

rehmwa

The point should simply be that individuals should have the option to choose to protect themselves.

Exactly. Nothing more, nothing less.

If anything, this shows that "gun free zones" need to be much better secured if they're going to remove a person's options for self defense.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bolas 5]

Was cross posting FB and here and apparently copy/pasted more than what intended.

As for how you know about terrorist attacks, know how you know. .

Though that did remind me of the presidential shocker.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Though that did remind me of the presidential shocker.

Wow, someone remembers that. I'm famous.

- Dan G

[billvon 2,435]

>Okay, so you're going with the argument that one CCW wasn't enough, there needs to
>be multiple CCW carriers to stop an attacker.

Well, surely the more firepower, the better. Imagine how differently this would have turned out if several drunk clubbers pulled out their own AK-47's and started spraying at anyone holding a gun.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>Okay, so you're going with the argument that one CCW wasn't enough, there needs to
>be multiple CCW carriers to stop an attacker.

Well, surely the more firepower, the better. Imagine how differently this would have turned out if several drunk clubbers pulled out their own AK-47's and started spraying at anyone holding a gun.

Imagine if chuck Norris was there -

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

[gowlerk 1,929]

Quote

Imagine if chuck Norris was there -

Or concrete rebound hammer.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[SkyDekker 1,147]

rushmc

Because the cowards pick places where the law abiding, follow the law and do not bring guns.

A muders paradise. And yet many wish the law abiding to have even more restrictions

Go figure...

Yes the rest of the developed world is pretty much a gun free zone and we don't have anywhere the gun violence the US has.

Maybe living in the US makes one predisposed to mental retardation, an inability to control one's anger and a tendency to go on murderous rampages.

Or, maybe, just maybe, the easy availability of guns is a contributing factor to the number of mass shootings and the number of gun deaths in the US.

[kallend 1,651]

SkyDekker

***Because the cowards pick places where the law abiding, follow the law and do not bring guns.

A muders paradise. And yet many wish the law abiding to have even more restrictions

Go figure...

Yes the rest of the developed world is pretty much a gun free zone and we don't have anywhere the gun violence the US has.

Maybe living in the US makes one predisposed to mental retardation, an inability to control one's anger and a tendency to go on murderous rampages.

Or, maybe, just maybe, the easy availability of guns is a contributing factor to the number of mass shootings and the number of gun deaths in the US.

The urge to own a gun styled like a military weapon is common among insecure males who wish to be thought of as "manly men". You'll probably find that many of them have "small hands". They are easy prey for NRA propaganda.

...

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