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.
Here are some good quotes by one of the Founding Fathers of the US:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson
On July 31 2012 10:47 Elegy wrote: Don't be silly, having people armed in that theater would.have been terrible. It's dark, terrifying, and full of.tear gas and you think papa John with his .45 is going to take down the gunman CoD style? shit, now you have multiple gunmen in a terribly confusing situation..
You can't fucking miss with that gun. It's probably the easiest to shoot pistol I've ever had the grace upon coming across.
To discount the possibility of an armed individual stopping him is complete dishonesty.
On July 31 2012 09:48 bayside wrote: For those of us living in America, you have every single right to own a gun, and have the ability to carry it around, Im sorry but for anyone who lives in America and says there needs to be gun control, can just leave the country if you dont like it. The Constitution states: "You have the right to bear arms." Im sorry there is NO debate, NO exceptions.
The constitution also stated everyone was created equal, unless they didnt own property.... or were a woman.... or were black and were a slave.... wait this doesnt make sense?
See where im going with this? Its a 236 year old piece of paper, and as smart as some of the people that wrote it were, they werent psychic, and todays world is FAR different from theirs. The only difference is, people choose to ignore certain things, and cling to others as if they are written in stone. You go so far as to make it sound treasonous to say "the second ammendment doesnt make sense or apply to modern day life in the way it did almost 250 years ago". There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with that system.
You aren't even a citizen of the United States so it wouldn't be considered treasonous if you said it. Also you clearly don't understand the 2nd Amendment much at all, it's just as important today as it has ever been and it applies to modern life just as much as it did back then.
On July 31 2012 09:48 bayside wrote: For those of us living in America, you have every single right to own a gun, and have the ability to carry it around, Im sorry but for anyone who lives in America and says there needs to be gun control, can just leave the country if you dont like it. The Constitution states: "You have the right to bear arms." Im sorry there is NO debate, NO exceptions.
The constitution also stated everyone was created equal, unless they didnt own property.... or were a woman.... or were black and were a slave.... wait this doesnt make sense?
See where im going with this? Its a 236 year old piece of paper, and as smart as some of the people that wrote it were, they werent psychic, and todays world is FAR different from theirs. The only difference is, people choose to ignore certain things, and cling to others as if they are written in stone. You go so far as to make it sound treasonous to say "the second ammendment doesnt make sense or apply to modern day life in the way it did almost 250 years ago". There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with that system.
You aren't even a citizen of the United States so it wouldn't be considered treasonous if you said it. Also you clearly don't understand the 2nd Amendment much at all, it's just as important today as it has ever been and it applies to modern life just as much as it did back then.
Only because you are ignorant of its original context and usefulness, and its relative uselessness now. You just had a revolution due to taxes and penalties from a government that you were not represented in, you needed to have a militia, etc... I dont need to list all the reasons it was written for back then, and how we dont need, or couldnt do any of those things now. I fully understand the 2nd ammendment, you dont understand the concept of context, and your statement of it being as relevant now as it was back then is again ignorant and wrong. It is nowhere NEAR as important now as it was then.
On July 31 2012 09:48 bayside wrote: For those of us living in America, you have every single right to own a gun, and have the ability to carry it around, Im sorry but for anyone who lives in America and says there needs to be gun control, can just leave the country if you dont like it. The Constitution states: "You have the right to bear arms." Im sorry there is NO debate, NO exceptions.
The constitution also stated everyone was created equal, unless they didnt own property.... or were a woman.... or were black and were a slave.... wait this doesnt make sense?
See where im going with this? Its a 236 year old piece of paper, and as smart as some of the people that wrote it were, they werent psychic, and todays world is FAR different from theirs. The only difference is, people choose to ignore certain things, and cling to others as if they are written in stone. You go so far as to make it sound treasonous to say "the second ammendment doesnt make sense or apply to modern day life in the way it did almost 250 years ago". There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with that system.
You aren't even a citizen of the United States so it wouldn't be considered treasonous if you said it. Also you clearly don't understand the 2nd Amendment much at all, it's just as important today as it has ever been and it applies to modern life just as much as it did back then.
Only because you are ignorant of its original context and usefulness, and its relative uselessness now. You just had a revolution due to taxes and penalties from a government that you were not represented in, you needed to have a militia, etc... I dont need to list all the reasons it was written for back then, and how we dont need, or couldnt do any of those things now. I fully understand the 2nd ammendment, you dont understand the concept of context, and your statement of it being as relevant now as it was back then is again ignorant and wrong. It is nowhere NEAR as important now as it was then.
I really don't think there's a good reason NOT to own guns. I don't think isolated incidents of insane people is a good reason. I don't think criminals behaving badly is a good reason.
If you want to reduce violent incidents, there are much better ways like:
1. reducing poverty 2. reducing crime overall 3. better education of a populace (goes back to 1 and 2) 4. Enforce the gun control laws that are in place (violent criminals, mentally unstable, past offenders, whatever) in a non-prejudicial way.
If your country chooses to do not allow, that's fine too.
On July 31 2012 10:47 Elegy wrote: Don't be silly, having people armed in that theater would.have been terrible. It's dark, terrifying, and full of.tear gas and you think papa John with his .45 is going to take down the gunman CoD style? shit, now you have multiple gunmen in a terribly confusing situation..
Depends on who is operating the .45, obviously. Is Papa John a combat veteran, a former soldier, perhaps an active SEAL, possibly an off-duty law enforcement member? Is he a half-drunk idiot who shoots paper once every blue moon?
On July 31 2012 09:48 bayside wrote: For those of us living in America, you have every single right to own a gun, and have the ability to carry it around, Im sorry but for anyone who lives in America and says there needs to be gun control, can just leave the country if you dont like it. The Constitution states: "You have the right to bear arms." Im sorry there is NO debate, NO exceptions.
The constitution also stated everyone was created equal, unless they didnt own property.... or were a woman.... or were black and were a slave.... wait this doesnt make sense?
See where im going with this? Its a 236 year old piece of paper, and as smart as some of the people that wrote it were, they werent psychic, and todays world is FAR different from theirs. The only difference is, people choose to ignore certain things, and cling to others as if they are written in stone. You go so far as to make it sound treasonous to say "the second ammendment doesnt make sense or apply to modern day life in the way it did almost 250 years ago". There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with that system.
You aren't even a citizen of the United States so it wouldn't be considered treasonous if you said it. Also you clearly don't understand the 2nd Amendment much at all, it's just as important today as it has ever been and it applies to modern life just as much as it did back then.
Only because you are ignorant of its original context and usefulness, and its relative uselessness now. You just had a revolution due to taxes and penalties from a government that you were not represented in, you needed to have a militia, etc... I dont need to list all the reasons it was written for back then, and how we dont need, or couldnt do any of those things now. I fully understand the 2nd ammendment, you dont understand the concept of context, and your statement of it being as relevant now as it was back then is again ignorant and wrong. It is nowhere NEAR as important now as it was then.
This was from the Supreme Court of the United States where a police officer sued because he felt his 2nd amendment had been violated, here were the courts rulings, this was from 2008, pretty recent right?
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
On July 31 2012 10:47 Elegy wrote: Don't be silly, having people armed in that theater would.have been terrible. It's dark, terrifying, and full of.tear gas and you think papa John with his .45 is going to take down the gunman CoD style? shit, now you have multiple gunmen in a terribly confusing situation..
Depends on who is operating the .45, obviously. Is Papa John a combat veteran, a former soldier, perhaps an active SEAL, possibly an off-duty law enforcement member? Is he a half-drunk idiot who shoots paper once every blue moon?
Specify
That's the rub, isnt it? He can be anyone. There can be two, three, four people with guns in that theatre. And once the shooting starts in the dark, tear gassed room? I doubt even a highly trained and equipped man would feel comfortable knowing what the hell Is going on, let alone potential random shooters trying to down the gunman when they are instantly plunged into a bloody chaotic situation they most likely have not trained for.
on paper It sounds nice to say papa John will rip out his.pistol and off the fucker, but harsh reality should temper the efficacy of that fantasy, no?
On July 31 2012 10:47 Elegy wrote: Don't be silly, having people armed in that theater would.have been terrible. It's dark, terrifying, and full of.tear gas and you think papa John with his .45 is going to take down the gunman CoD style? shit, now you have multiple gunmen in a terribly confusing situation..
Depends on who is operating the .45, obviously. Is Papa John a combat veteran, a former soldier, perhaps an active SEAL, possibly an off-duty law enforcement member? Is he a half-drunk idiot who shoots paper once every blue moon?
Specify
That's the rub, isnt it? He can be anyone. There can be two, three, four people with guns in that theatre. And once the shooting starts in the dark, tear gassed room? I doubt even a highly trained and equipped man would feel comfortable knowing what the hell Is going on, let alone potential random shooters trying to down the gunman when they are instantly plunged into a bloody chaotic situation they most likely have not trained for.
on paper It sounds nice to say papa John will rip out his.pistol and off the fucker, but harsh reality should temper the efficacy of that fantasy, no?
And if the situation is too chaotic, a responsible shooter simply wouldn't fire. You won't end up with a running gun-battle. Either the situation will be stable enough for the good Samaritan to understand what's going on, and he'll shoot the perp; or it will be too unstable for him to follow, and he simply will not fire. Either way, the situation is at least no worse than if he wasn't armed, it might even be better.
On July 31 2012 10:47 Elegy wrote: Don't be silly, having people armed in that theater would.have been terrible. It's dark, terrifying, and full of.tear gas and you think papa John with his .45 is going to take down the gunman CoD style? shit, now you have multiple gunmen in a terribly confusing situation..
Depends on who is operating the .45, obviously. Is Papa John a combat veteran, a former soldier, perhaps an active SEAL, possibly an off-duty law enforcement member? Is he a half-drunk idiot who shoots paper once every blue moon?
Specify
That's the rub, isnt it? He can be anyone. There can be two, three, four people with guns in that theatre. And once the shooting starts in the dark, tear gassed room? I doubt even a highly trained and equipped man would feel comfortable knowing what the hell Is going on, let alone potential random shooters trying to down the gunman when they are instantly plunged into a bloody chaotic situation they most likely have not trained for.
on paper It sounds nice to say papa John will rip out his.pistol and off the fucker, but harsh reality should temper the efficacy of that fantasy, no?
And if the situation is too chaotic, a responsible shooter simply wouldn't fire. You won't end up with a running gun-battle. Either the situation will be stable enough for the good Samaritan to understand what's going on, and he'll shoot the perp; or it will be too unstable for him to follow, and he simply will not fire. Either way, the situation is at least no worse than if he wasn't armed, it might even be better.
Not necessairily. Imagine: Shooter enters unnoticed, starts shooting. Someone stands up and starts firing back. You were just making out with your girlfriend, look down, immediately pull your gun. Which one is the criminal again? You might just as well see the "good Samaritan" with a weapon and gun HIM down by accident.
On July 31 2012 09:48 bayside wrote: For those of us living in America, you have every single right to own a gun, and have the ability to carry it around, Im sorry but for anyone who lives in America and says there needs to be gun control, can just leave the country if you dont like it. The Constitution states: "You have the right to bear arms." Im sorry there is NO debate, NO exceptions.
The constitution also stated everyone was created equal, unless they didnt own property.... or were a woman.... or were black and were a slave.... wait this doesnt make sense?
See where im going with this? Its a 236 year old piece of paper, and as smart as some of the people that wrote it were, they werent psychic, and todays world is FAR different from theirs. The only difference is, people choose to ignore certain things, and cling to others as if they are written in stone. You go so far as to make it sound treasonous to say "the second ammendment doesnt make sense or apply to modern day life in the way it did almost 250 years ago". There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with that system.
You aren't even a citizen of the United States so it wouldn't be considered treasonous if you said it. Also you clearly don't understand the 2nd Amendment much at all, it's just as important today as it has ever been and it applies to modern life just as much as it did back then.
Only because you are ignorant of its original context and usefulness, and its relative uselessness now. You just had a revolution due to taxes and penalties from a government that you were not represented in, you needed to have a militia, etc... I dont need to list all the reasons it was written for back then, and how we dont need, or couldnt do any of those things now. I fully understand the 2nd ammendment, you dont understand the concept of context, and your statement of it being as relevant now as it was back then is again ignorant and wrong. It is nowhere NEAR as important now as it was then.
What if : The guy making the actual shooting in the video was the problem, you see, if this guy had no gun, problem will be solved from the beginning, and no one would have to carry one, but hell yeah ! Rednecks power, let's think it the other way, we all need to have a gun so that we can shoot the people carrying guns if they dare to use it XD Man this is such a wicked logic ...
On July 31 2012 08:05 Rassy wrote: It doesn't affect criminals getting guns, they are called criminals for a reason, they will break any gun laws in place to get their hands on a gun
No it does not effect hardened crinimals to get guns, but it does effect lunatics to get guns. How is a social inept lunatic going to buy a gun when he cant get them in the store? Go find criminal and buy from him? And the criminal would sell it to him? Personally i think a criminal would think twice selling a weapon to some nut guy with the risk of everything comming back at him when he does something silly and the weapon is traced back to the seller. It will be significantly more difficult for some psycho to get a gun when guns are forbidden
"In last year’s shooting near Oslo, 69 people were killed and an additional 110 injured. Germany, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world — it requires not only extensive psychological screening but also a year’s wait to get a gun — has been the site of three of the worst five multiple-victim K-12 public school shootings in the world, all in the past decade. There are more examples of attacks in countries with strict gun control, like in Austria, Britain, France, Finland and Italy."
"The guns used for the attacks in Germany and Norway were obtained illegally. When individuals plan these attacks months or even years in advance, it is virtually impossible to stop them from getting whatever weapons they want."
Can you stop linking that. As I have told you, the article is simple wrong, and completely made up one of the "worst five shootings". Norway and Germany are both countries with relative easy access to guns for civilians.
On July 31 2012 08:05 Rassy wrote: It doesn't affect criminals getting guns, they are called criminals for a reason, they will break any gun laws in place to get their hands on a gun
No it does not effect hardened crinimals to get guns, but it does effect lunatics to get guns. How is a social inept lunatic going to buy a gun when he cant get them in the store? Go find criminal and buy from him? And the criminal would sell it to him? Personally i think a criminal would think twice selling a weapon to some nut guy with the risk of everything comming back at him when he does something silly and the weapon is traced back to the seller. It will be significantly more difficult for some psycho to get a gun when guns are forbidden
"In last year’s shooting near Oslo, 69 people were killed and an additional 110 injured. Germany, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world — it requires not only extensive psychological screening but also a year’s wait to get a gun — has been the site of three of the worst five multiple-victim K-12 public school shootings in the world, all in the past decade. There are more examples of attacks in countries with strict gun control, like in Austria, Britain, France, Finland and Italy."
"The guns used for the attacks in Germany and Norway were obtained illegally. When individuals plan these attacks months or even years in advance, it is virtually impossible to stop them from getting whatever weapons they want."
Can you stop linking that. As I have told you, the article is simple wrong, and completely made up one of the "worst five shootings". Norway and Germany are both countries with relative easy access to guns for civilians.
No they aren't. Guns for civilian use for self-defense is illegal. Guns for sporting or hunting is legal. Everything I have read is that they have very strict gun laws, and you can only get them for sporting/hunting purposes. You said earlier that Germany was not a gun-free country, but in fact it is for the purposes I've already listed. Why don't you post something that proves otherwise. By the way the article that I listed that you "have already told me is wrong" is actually different from the one I posted earlier.
On July 31 2012 10:47 Elegy wrote: Don't be silly, having people armed in that theater would.have been terrible. It's dark, terrifying, and full of.tear gas and you think papa John with his .45 is going to take down the gunman CoD style? shit, now you have multiple gunmen in a terribly confusing situation..
Depends on who is operating the .45, obviously. Is Papa John a combat veteran, a former soldier, perhaps an active SEAL, possibly an off-duty law enforcement member? Is he a half-drunk idiot who shoots paper once every blue moon?
Specify
That's the rub, isnt it? He can be anyone. There can be two, three, four people with guns in that theatre. And once the shooting starts in the dark, tear gassed room? I doubt even a highly trained and equipped man would feel comfortable knowing what the hell Is going on, let alone potential random shooters trying to down the gunman when they are instantly plunged into a bloody chaotic situation they most likely have not trained for.
on paper It sounds nice to say papa John will rip out his.pistol and off the fucker, but harsh reality should temper the efficacy of that fantasy, no?
And if the situation is too chaotic, a responsible shooter simply wouldn't fire. You won't end up with a running gun-battle. Either the situation will be stable enough for the good Samaritan to understand what's going on, and he'll shoot the perp; or it will be too unstable for him to follow, and he simply will not fire. Either way, the situation is at least no worse than if he wasn't armed, it might even be better.
Not necessairily. Imagine: Shooter enters unnoticed, starts shooting. Someone stands up and starts firing back. You were just making out with your girlfriend, look down, immediately pull your gun. Which one is the criminal again? You might just as well see the "good Samaritan" with a weapon and gun HIM down by accident.
At least no worse? Definitely not.
You're assuming I would fire without being absolutely sure of my actions. Most states require a permit to carry a weapon (concealed or otherwise), and the process for acquiring said permit includes a safety course/test. A huge tenant of gun safety is to be absolutely sure of your target. The only people legally carrying weapons would be people who've taken and passed said test.
On July 31 2012 10:47 Elegy wrote: Don't be silly, having people armed in that theater would.have been terrible. It's dark, terrifying, and full of.tear gas and you think papa John with his .45 is going to take down the gunman CoD style? shit, now you have multiple gunmen in a terribly confusing situation..
Depends on who is operating the .45, obviously. Is Papa John a combat veteran, a former soldier, perhaps an active SEAL, possibly an off-duty law enforcement member? Is he a half-drunk idiot who shoots paper once every blue moon?
Specify
Why? They could all be carrying guns, could they not? You cannot further specify random incidents like these, can you? That only serves to create a false sense of security, does it not? :p
Unless everybody involved knew beforehand that papa john was a veteran or not, and that he carried a gun and didn't intend to kill anyone, such theorycrafting has no meaning other than creating policy. At best your question would lead to only specific people being able to carry guns; the ones who have special training for any situation. Unless that is the policy, no such assumptions, that you ask for, can be made
On July 31 2012 12:17 Esk23 wrote: Here are some good quotes by one of the Founding Fathers of the US:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson
That's good and all, but they were also dealing with guns that required shot, powder, and a ramming rod. Not guns that can mow down a crowd. Sure having the citizens armed can be a legal right, but to what extent. How much firepower needs to be in the hands of the citizens rather than the military force. And how easily available need it be that Mexican drug cartels find it easiest to purchase in the States.
I don't deny the right in it's entirety I just wonder at the extent. Whereas the NRA their ilk seem to take an all or nothing approach. A ban on one sort of gun or adding requirements to gun purchase in any way means ye old British tyranny is immenent and every one should head for the hills and become vigilantes.
On July 31 2012 08:05 Rassy wrote: It doesn't affect criminals getting guns, they are called criminals for a reason, they will break any gun laws in place to get their hands on a gun
No it does not effect hardened crinimals to get guns, but it does effect lunatics to get guns. How is a social inept lunatic going to buy a gun when he cant get them in the store? Go find criminal and buy from him? And the criminal would sell it to him? Personally i think a criminal would think twice selling a weapon to some nut guy with the risk of everything comming back at him when he does something silly and the weapon is traced back to the seller. It will be significantly more difficult for some psycho to get a gun when guns are forbidden
"In last year’s shooting near Oslo, 69 people were killed and an additional 110 injured. Germany, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world — it requires not only extensive psychological screening but also a year’s wait to get a gun — has been the site of three of the worst five multiple-victim K-12 public school shootings in the world, all in the past decade. There are more examples of attacks in countries with strict gun control, like in Austria, Britain, France, Finland and Italy."
"The guns used for the attacks in Germany and Norway were obtained illegally. When individuals plan these attacks months or even years in advance, it is virtually impossible to stop them from getting whatever weapons they want."
Can you stop linking that. As I have told you, the article is simple wrong, and completely made up one of the "worst five shootings". Norway and Germany are both countries with relative easy access to guns for civilians.
No they aren't. Guns for civilian use for self-defense is illegal. Guns for sporting or hunting is legal. Everything I have read is that they are very strict gun laws, and you can only get them for sporting/hunting purposes. You said earlier that Germany was not a gun-free country, but in fact it is for the purposes I've already listed. Why don't you post something that proves otherwise. By the way the article that I listed that you "have already told me is wrong" is actually different from the one I posted earlier.
You are arguing killing sprees by lunatics are just as likely to happen in "gun free" countries. I don't even necessarily disagree, but you keep mentioning Norway and Germany - both countries with a high rate of privately owned guns. In the context of a lunatic committing a mass shooting with legally owned guns it makes zero difference if they are owned for hunting, target shooting, or self defense.
It may be a different article, but it's the same source and it's just as wrong. I am sorry but I really can't take a source seriously that completely makes up a school shooting in two different articles.
EDIT: Oh, even better. From your source: "The guns used for the attacks in Germany and Norway were obtained illegally." It's really an achievement to get that wrong when every serious news outlet in the world reported that all these shooting were done with legally owned guns.
On July 31 2012 12:17 Esk23 wrote: Here are some good quotes by one of the Founding Fathers of the US:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". -Thomas Jefferson
That's good and all, but they were also dealing with guns that required shot, powder, and a ramming rod. Not guns that can mow down a crowd. Sure having the citizens armed can be a legal right, but to what extent. How much firepower needs to be in the hands of the citizens rather than the military force. And how easily available need it be that Mexican drug cartels find it easiest to purchase in the States.
I don't deny the right in it's entirety I just wonder at the extent. Whereas the NRA their ilk seem to take an all or nothing approach. A ban on one sort of gun or adding requirements to gun purchase in any way means ye old British tyranny is immenent and every one should head for the hills and become vigilantes.
Also they did not have our legal system or police force? You probably had to be a bad ass, and make sure everybody knew it, in order to be safe back then ?
On July 31 2012 10:47 Elegy wrote: Don't be silly, having people armed in that theater would.have been terrible. It's dark, terrifying, and full of.tear gas and you think papa John with his .45 is going to take down the gunman CoD style? shit, now you have multiple gunmen in a terribly confusing situation..
Depends on who is operating the .45, obviously. Is Papa John a combat veteran, a former soldier, perhaps an active SEAL, possibly an off-duty law enforcement member? Is he a half-drunk idiot who shoots paper once every blue moon?
Specify
That's the rub, isnt it? He can be anyone. There can be two, three, four people with guns in that theatre. And once the shooting starts in the dark, tear gassed room? I doubt even a highly trained and equipped man would feel comfortable knowing what the hell Is going on, let alone potential random shooters trying to down the gunman when they are instantly plunged into a bloody chaotic situation they most likely have not trained for.
on paper It sounds nice to say papa John will rip out his.pistol and off the fucker, but harsh reality should temper the efficacy of that fantasy, no?
And if the situation is too chaotic, a responsible shooter simply wouldn't fire. You won't end up with a running gun-battle. Either the situation will be stable enough for the good Samaritan to understand what's going on, and he'll shoot the perp; or it will be too unstable for him to follow, and he simply will not fire. Either way, the situation is at least no worse than if he wasn't armed, it might even be better.
Not necessairily. Imagine: Shooter enters unnoticed, starts shooting. Someone stands up and starts firing back. You were just making out with your girlfriend, look down, immediately pull your gun. Which one is the criminal again? You might just as well see the "good Samaritan" with a weapon and gun HIM down by accident.
At least no worse? Definitely not.
You're assuming I would fire without being absolutely sure of my actions. Most states require a permit to carry a weapon (concealed or otherwise), and the process for acquiring said permit includes a safety course/test. A huge tenant of gun safety is to be absolutely sure of your target. The only people legally carrying weapons would be people who've taken and passed said test.
I heard you can get a free 22 if you open a bank account, that sound like everybody knows what they are doing, right ?
And I have a car, I passed my security test to have a licence, does that automaticly prevent me from going up to 200 km/h (124 m/h )drunk as shit in a playground because I hate those little bastard kids that are always looking happier than me ?
"We have a licence" has never been a really valid argument to justify that people will only use a tool with respect and calm restrain the possession of dangerous tools to people that actually need them ( cops, military, security employees ) seems logical to me. But fuck me right I am french, what do I know about you guys great cowboys of the west.
And hunters if they had some respect for the animals, would not go around carrying heavy weaponery, but a knife and a bow, old school rambo style :D.
EPT
)drunk as shit in a playground because I hate those little bastard kids that are always looking happier than me ?
