|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 23 2012 01:04 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:02 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 23 2012 00:51 scaban84 wrote:On July 23 2012 00:22 valium wrote:
Except you are more likely to kill me than someone trying to rob me. I wouldn't trust those who are fanatical about "self defense" with being able to walk straight let alone being responsible with their extremely dangerous weapon.
I do like your lack of comprehension of constitutional law or high court's historical decisions. If what you claim is true, there would not be such political dynomite about those damn liberals trying to get jer gins. Is it possible to be "fanatical" about "self-defense"? Thats like being fanatical about eating food to survive or being fanatical about not jumping in front of moving trains. Self-defense is primal necessity. And weapons have always been and always will be an integral part of human existence. You can be fanatical about everything you just said, I think you don't understand the definition so ... I took the liberty of Googling it for you. "Obsessively concerned with something." <---- Now do you understand why you can be Fanatical about really anything? I can be fanatical about falling off buildings. Semantics. Derailing.
*BREEEEEP* 15 yard penalty- derailing- on the retort.
|
On July 22 2012 23:45 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 22:01 TGalore wrote:On July 22 2012 20:03 StarStrider wrote:
A few points regarding the stance that retaliatory fire would do nothing or would 'make things worse':
-People insisting that regular citizens with proper training would by default be less accurate than a combat trained soldier or police officer is simply a false assertion. The assertion that they may react in more of a panic or adrenaline state/tunnel vision is true, but does this mean they would just close their eyes and start shooting randomly and hope they hit the bad guy and no one else? HARDLY.
-Most people would agree with you that in the darkness, smoke, and chaos, hitting the face would be unlikely from more than 15 feet. Unlikely does not mean impossible. But that also said, you need to do research on the impact a 9mm (most common CCW caliber) can have on the human body even through a kevlar vest. Your stance asserts this guy was basically invincible. He had a tac vest on. He may have had other pieces of armor on. I promise you he wasn't wearing an EOD type suit though. He wasn't.
-The face is not the only vulnerable area on this guy's body. Considering less than perfect conditions for our defender(s), a stray bullet could easily tag his arms, hands, elbows, legs, feet, etc. The assertion that bullets could not likely find their way into vulnerable locations is hard to believe.
-The argument that defenders would just aim for center body mass and wouldn't realize he was wearing armor has been proven incorrect, as every eyewitness knew he was armored even before he started shooting. Even so, see above and research how much effect even a 9mil has in direct impact even on center mass on body armor.
-Many with your point of view also like to paint out the scenario that we are neccesarily talking about a single concealed carry defender vs this heavily armed gunman. What if there were 5? It is simple wolfpack instinct to know that when he turns to fire at the first guy who shoots at him, that is when you take your shot. You don't need combat training to recognize this.
-The odds of an 'innocent bystander' being hit by a defender's gun (who has likely trained at a range a few times if he has a CCW permit) are much less than the odds of that gunman killing every person in the theater if no one stops him.
-The odds of an 'innocent bystander' being hit by a defender's gun are signifcantly reduced because everyone is already on the floor when the gas grenades popped. Everyone is already in the most ideal position not to get hit. The likelyhood that someone by random chance is going to jump up and accidentally get in your line of fire is slim.
-What percentage of patrons that night were likely CCW permit holders? Well, based on the average age of the audience at a midnight showing for Batman, I'd say it was pretty slim at ANY theater, even those in Texas and Mississippi. The assertion that someone in there had a personal protection firearm and didn't use it is unfounded and does nothing for this discussion.
-The likelihood of the citizen defender being shot and killed in no way diminishes the fact that they are more likely to stop him by actually trying than by giving up and praying they don't get killed, like everyone else who didn't bring a firearm.
-83 people were shot. If you admit the number shot by a citizen defender in the chaos would be significantly less than that number, then you really have no case.
-The good guys are the ones shooting at the bad guy in the mask and body armor. Step 1: Shoot at the guy in the mask with the AR. Step 2: Don't shoot at the people in the theater seats who are shooting at the armored guy. Trying to say that multiple people with guns wouldn't realize who the fuck to shoot at is just the most stupid assertion I've ever heard.
And that is all just specific points about this incident. Concerning the debate on whether having CCW permit citizens around in other crimes: Given most criminal gunmen do not use body armor, I'd increase the likelyhood of a citizen defender being able to do something to stop them in any other given situation tenfold. Arguments like these are tantamount to blaming the victims for not being armed, in my opinion, and are revolting. It's like blaming a woman for being raped for either not having a weapon to defend herself or "asking for it." What you're asserting here is that some of these people are dead because they chose not to carry a loaded weapon with them into a crowded, closed space full of children and families. It is not nor should it ever be ANY civilian's -responsibility- to be armed. Your post illustrates a common fantasy that so many who own guns seem to have, and that is that they are looking for an opportunity to be a "hero" by killing someone. They see themselves as reacting calmly, with perfect aim, against a more heavily armed assailant in a sudden high stress situation and saving a lot more lives than were lost. But that NEVER happens. It never has in any of the awful mass shootings in our country's history. Relaxed gun laws didn't help during Columbine or Virginia Tech. Hell, more people died at Fort Hood, a military base full of trained soldiers, than in Colorado. The majority of people don't want to carry guns and shouldn't have their safety and interests held hostage by a small percentage of the population that envisions themselves as moonlight superheroes. If those who were pro-gun were truly interested in reducing violence and gun crime rates, then they wouldn't be against so many of the gun safety and anti-proliferation laws that have been attempted to be passed. Would we have a lot less gun crime if all ammunition was serially coded and traceable through a federal database? Absolutely. Would fewer people have died this past week if this man wasn't able to obtain an automatic military assault rifle and instead only had legal access to handguns? More than likely. Should he have been able to buy FOUR GUNS in recent months (really, do you need more than one to defend yourself?) and SIX THOUSAND ROUNDS of ammunition over the INTERNET? I don't think so, but the NRA does and also thinks assault weapons, rampant untracked ammunition, and unlimited guns among the common population is a good idea. It makes me sick. That is a complete distortion. It is a total red herring. It is a complete jump in logic to say that because I claim people would have a better chance of defending themselves if armed than if unarmed, that I am somehow saying they deserve it for not being armed, or that their safety would have been guaranteed. I simply make the assertion that there is a slight chance that it could have been ended before 83 people were shot. Not even likely. Just possible. That possibility is worth carrying. I don't expect everyone to, and I don't blame anyone who doesn't and say 'well when you get raped or mugged, don't cry about it because I warned you'. I'm saying 'give yourself the best chance imo, even if it is a slim one.' How do you know? How many cases are there of killers who got taken out by an armed citizen before they had a chance to kill, that you might just not know about or never heard of because they didn't go national? You, in your infinite knowledge, have studied criminal cases for years and know this to be a fact? You have brought up several cases of mass murder where a citizen did not happen to act. That's it. What does that do for your case? Does this prove that a citizen with a gun could do nothing, because no citizen did anything? Why do you assume that there were concealed carry citizens there but they failed to act or failed to fire back before getting killed? If there were none there, doesn't this hurt, not help your argument? Does it prove that they tried to act but got taken out? How many corpses have we found with guns in their hands or on their person in these massacres? You don't know details like this. You don't know shit. But it's easy to act like you do on an internet forum, therefore everyone is an expert. You generalize and hypothesize. People like you want to marginalize the reality that real citizens with real skills at pointing and shooting could possibly make a difference in these scenarios by painting them out to be living out heroic fantasies from a comic book or a movie. Fuck you. This is real life. It's not about pride or glory or living out some fantasy. It's about possibly saving lives. How dare you marginalize that. You're the sick one friend. Not everyone thinks in terms of a fucking video game, and not everyone thinks as shallowly about it as you do or seem to imagine. I guess every cop just wants to be Magnum PI and every firefighter just wants to be Third Watch. They do it for the medals and ceremonies right? Please get your head out of your ass. For every mass murder you mentioned where no one stopped them with a firearm, I can link you to HUNDREDS of events where gun armed assailants were taken down citizens. Were these assailants intent on killing? How do we know they were going to murder people? Does it matter when you are threatened with a gun? The armed citizens never gave them a chance to find out. Thank god. Is this debate about whether citizens should carry, or whether AR's and ammo should be more strictly controlled? Why do you assume everyone on the pro-gun side wants guns to be free and available for all no matter who they are, what their background, or what kind of gun it is? I dare you to find a single pro-gun person in this thread who is opposed to background checks, psych checks, and mandatory handling and safety courses for all would be gun owners. If they are, they are just an idiot who should be ignored anyway because they are out of touch with reality.
A. It is not a complete jump in logic to say that you're implying they gave up on their safety of themselves on their family more than someone who carried a gun. You said, and I quote, "The likelihood of the citizen defender being shot and killed in no way diminishes the fact that they are more likely to stop him by actually trying than by giving up and praying they don't get killed, like everyone else who didn't bring a firearm.
B. It's a real red herring - which I'm not sure you understand the definition of - to dodge the question of whether or not current gun laws and the philosophy of gun ownership in the United States is faulty by instead drawing attention to hypothetical situations where everyone is armed and then also hypothesizing about what might have happened then. I'm saying that less guns and less ammunition available to potential psychopaths and being able to tack gun usage more is a good thing, and it is an absolute fact that pro-gun organizations are working against laws to address these issues. How is that distracting from the debate over gun ownership?
C. I'm not talking about policemen, or fire fighters, or the military. They are trained professionals and deserve every ounce of our thanks for putting themselves in harms way to the benefit of all of us. I'm talking about people like the guy in my home town a few years ago who shot an unarmed robber against the orders of police on his neighbor's front lawn in broad daylight. I'm talking about cases like the Trayvon Martin shooting, which while unrelated to the Colorado shooting, certainly showcases a person who was, yes, looking for a situation to get more involved in than he should have and had a documented history of doing so.
Citizens with a gun in those circumstances could, in a minute possibility, make a difference, and a positive one, I will gladly acknowledge that. But I get extremely offended when it is suggested that I am willfully giving up the right to safety and protection of myself and those I hold dear by not choosing to own something that is designed to kill people, and I am equally offended when it is proposed that everyone having a gun would somehow solve a lot of the problems we have. They're vastly complex and have a lot to do with economics, sociology, and race and class fragmentation (and yes, actually, I have taken classes studying crime - and there really is a correlation between gun laws we have and a prevailing false perception that the end goal of virtually all criminals is to kill people rather than make money or survive, and that attitude is also reflected in the ways we practice gun ownership). But, I reiterate my earlier point that we can still have a safe society and people can still be able to protect themselves with a lot fewer guns, a lot less dangerous types of guns, and more gun and ammunition accountability in the public domain.
|
On July 23 2012 01:00 Toxi78 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 00:18 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 00:12 LeSioN wrote:
such a dumb debate. more people owning guns = more deaths, end of story. i dont care what you say about responsible people needing to defend themselves. if a normal citizen can walk into walmart and buy a gun everyone is less safe. and having a gun in your closet isnt going to stop anyone trying to kill you. if guns were much more restricted less criminals would have access to them,(yes they would) meaning the guy mugging you on the street couldnt afford one or the guy breaking into your house or your child who decides to take it to school. the people that would still get the guns would be crime lords and drug pushers, the kind of people who are already taken care of by the police, not gun carrying citizens. if you want to be a dumb fucking cowboy you better go through years of training and legal bullshit first, because I shouldnt have to sacrifice my safety for your fucked up pleasures. Switzerland? High per capita guns, one of the lowest murder rates. Rethink your statement? Marginalizing responsible gun owners by calling them dumb fucking cowboys and implying they have fucked up pleasures because they like to feel safe does nothing for calling people to respect your position. Try more substance. because in your country having a weapon is the one way to feel safe? then i'll give you that : you do need guns, but your society has a MUCH BIGGER problem than gun ownership.
Switzerland is one of the happiest nations in the world (according to most charts), and their crime rates are very low. What kind of problem do they have?
|
The question is, when have guns EVER protect anyone in the name of self defense rather than in the name of racism or hate crimes?
|
yes people should be allowed to carry guns.
|
On July 23 2012 01:09 EienShinwa wrote:
The question is, when have guns EVER protect anyone in the name of self defense rather than in the name of racism or hate crimes?
You are right, if I defend myself from someone who is a different color than me, it is called 'racism' and not 'self-defense'.
|
On July 23 2012 01:07 King.Tut wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:04 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 01:02 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 23 2012 00:51 scaban84 wrote:On July 23 2012 00:22 valium wrote:
Except you are more likely to kill me than someone trying to rob me. I wouldn't trust those who are fanatical about "self defense" with being able to walk straight let alone being responsible with their extremely dangerous weapon.
I do like your lack of comprehension of constitutional law or high court's historical decisions. If what you claim is true, there would not be such political dynomite about those damn liberals trying to get jer gins. Is it possible to be "fanatical" about "self-defense"? Thats like being fanatical about eating food to survive or being fanatical about not jumping in front of moving trains. Self-defense is primal necessity. And weapons have always been and always will be an integral part of human existence. You can be fanatical about everything you just said, I think you don't understand the definition so ... I took the liberty of Googling it for you. "Obsessively concerned with something." <---- Now do you understand why you can be Fanatical about really anything? I can be fanatical about falling off buildings. Semantics. Derailing. *BREEEEEP* 15 yard penalty- derailing- on the retort.
hahaha ^^
|
Indeed, people should be allowed to carry guns. Trained, resposible people - carrying highly regulated guns.
Your average fanatical idiot carrying a gun scares the hell out of me. The same person who feels the need to carry a gun "in self defense" is also more likely to shoot someone "in self defense."
Would you honestly feel safer if everyone had guns than if no one had guns? That is insane.
|
On July 23 2012 01:18 valium wrote:
Indeed, people should be allowed to carry guns. Trained, resposible people - carrying highly regulated guns.
Your average fanatical idiot carrying a gun scares the hell out of me. The same person who feels the need to carry a gun "in self defense" is also more likely to shoot someone "in self defense."
Would you honestly feel safer if everyone had guns than if no one had guns? That is insane.
Crazy.. "Feels the need to carry a gun "in self defense" is also more likely to shoot someone "in self defense" ... Is that how it works? I didn't know, I thought they carry the gun in self defense and then drop it or give it to the assailant and use kung fu. I don't understand what you're getting at here, other than generalizing most people who own weapons as "fanatical idiots"
|
On July 23 2012 01:09 EienShinwa wrote:
The question is, when have guns EVER protect anyone in the name of self defense rather than in the name of racism or hate crimes?
here:
Guns used for greater good.
|
On July 23 2012 01:18 valium wrote:
Indeed, people should be allowed to carry guns. Trained, resposible people - carrying highly regulated guns.
Your average fanatical idiot carrying a gun scares the hell out of me. The same person who feels the need to carry a gun "in self defense" is also more likely to shoot someone "in self defense."
Would you honestly feel safer if everyone had guns than if no one had guns? That is insane.
To add to your points, criminals will still be able to get guns even if they are against the law.
|
On July 23 2012 00:45 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 00:21 KingLol wrote:On July 23 2012 00:12 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 00:04 KingLol wrote:Unfortunately, for every story like the one about the 71 year old guy, there are stories like this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/20/us-usa-florida-protest-idUSBRE86J1DY20120720The problem with this thread (actually, more the entire pro-gun vs anti-gun debate) is that the pro-gunners have this very romanticised, fanatical view about guns which doesn't lend itself particularly well to objective reasoning; nevertheless, it's interesting to hear the views from both sides. That's an excellent example of police abuse of power and overreaction and violating that man's rights. Gun owners should never have to fear death because they are abiding by the law and exercising their constitutional rights. No, it's actually an excellent example of the preventable tragedies that can befall law abiding citizens due to the situation-escalating nature of guns. I don't see how it was an abuse of police power: the policeman believed (mistakenly) he was dealing with a criminal suspect and thought he had no choice but to fire when confronted with a gun-wielding 'suspect'. So, you would have everyone disarmed so that they don't accidentally get shot by someone who has the duty to be armed and is bound by law to protect them? I guess I would say it's an abuse of power because an officer has been entrusted by the state with a sidearm that can offer swift death to a citizen, and to 'make a mistake' pulling the trigger before he knew his life was in danger just because he didn't want to take the risk, is overstepping his bounds of power, is making himself an executioner before the trial. Although, I'm not going to defend too strongly that I used the phrase 'abuse of power', it may be a little harsh, but I think severe overreaction is the best description.
I think that if people didn't arm themselves with deadly weapons then the number of accidents such as this would be greatly reduced. Additionally, if access to such weaponry were restricted, then criminals would have a much tougher time getting them, thus reducing their use to commit crimes.
|
The people fighting so hard for their right to bear firearms just want guns, they use excuses and flawed logic to get what they want. These are the fanatical idiots I refer to. If they were really so concerned with self defense they would be doing their best to rid the world of firearms, that is a more fanatic devotion that has some constructive use.
|
On July 23 2012 01:31 King.Tut wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:09 EienShinwa wrote:
The question is, when have guns EVER protect anyone in the name of self defense rather than in the name of racism or hate crimes? here: Guns used for greater good.
Please check my link in the quotes of the previous post. Both stories show the fortunate and less-fortunate outcomes of gun-escalated situations, but the one thing they have in common is that it's likely neither situation would have occurred had there not been widespread gun ownership.
|
On July 23 2012 01:34 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:31 King.Tut wrote:On July 23 2012 01:09 EienShinwa wrote:
The question is, when have guns EVER protect anyone in the name of self defense rather than in the name of racism or hate crimes? here: Guns used for greater good. Please check my link in the quotes of the previous post. Both stories show the fortunate and less-fortunate outcomes of gun-escalated situations, but the one thing they have in common is that it's likely neither situation would have occurred had there not been widespread gun ownership.
Criminals would still get guns.
|
On July 23 2012 01:33 valium wrote:
The people fighting so hard for their right to bear firearms just want guns, they use excuses and flawed logic to get what they want. These are the fanatical idiots I refer to. If they were really so concerned with self defense they would be doing their best to rid the world of firearms, that is a more fanatic devotion that has some constructive use.
So if a guy comes at you with a knife you would feel safer defending yourself with a knife?
|
More likely to survive an encounter with a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun. So yes, I suppose I would feel safer defending myself with a knife.
But really, I would be carrying neither. I feel I have a better chance of escaping someone with a knife than a gun.
|
On July 23 2012 01:36 Roboturner wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:33 valium wrote:
The people fighting so hard for their right to bear firearms just want guns, they use excuses and flawed logic to get what they want. These are the fanatical idiots I refer to. If they were really so concerned with self defense they would be doing their best to rid the world of firearms, that is a more fanatic devotion that has some constructive use. So if a guy comes at you with a knife you would feel safer defending yourself with a knife?
I'd feel safer with a gun but does the gun really need an extended clip?
|
On July 23 2012 01:35 King.Tut wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:34 KingLol wrote:On July 23 2012 01:31 King.Tut wrote:On July 23 2012 01:09 EienShinwa wrote:
The question is, when have guns EVER protect anyone in the name of self defense rather than in the name of racism or hate crimes? here: Guns used for greater good. Please check my link in the quotes of the previous post. Both stories show the fortunate and less-fortunate outcomes of gun-escalated situations, but the one thing they have in common is that it's likely neither situation would have occurred had there not been widespread gun ownership. Criminals would still get guns.
This is a serious fallacy. If the sale of guns and ammunition is restricted, then the supply of guns and ammunition into the black market is severely restricted. If you were a criminal in a country where guns are heavily-regulated, I'm fairly certain on your quest to find guns, you'd be far more likely to find undercover police instead.
|
On July 23 2012 01:39 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:36 Roboturner wrote:On July 23 2012 01:33 valium wrote:
The people fighting so hard for their right to bear firearms just want guns, they use excuses and flawed logic to get what they want. These are the fanatical idiots I refer to. If they were really so concerned with self defense they would be doing their best to rid the world of firearms, that is a more fanatic devotion that has some constructive use. So if a guy comes at you with a knife you would feel safer defending yourself with a knife? I'd feel safer with a gun but does the gun really need an extended clip?
Ever heard of multiple assailants? ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
