|
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 21 2012 09:56 Eps wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:32 heliusx wrote:On July 21 2012 09:25 v3chr0 wrote:On July 21 2012 09:11 heliusx wrote:
If you had ANY proper firearm training you would know a guns SOLE purpose is to kill. You DO NOT point at anything you do not want to die EVER. And if you did receive "training" please go demand a refund so you can get a real run down. Police in N.Y (probably elsewhere also) are trained to shoot debilitating/non-fatal areas of the body if the threat is not 100% clear or imminent. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. A gun can kill, yes, we know that, most legal gun owners have no intention on doing so though. A large majority of people who own guns would rarely be forced to shoot to kill. It's weird too, they actually have a term "shoot to kill", implying you can do otherwise. It's not so cut and dry, I can't just start blasting people in the face with a shotgun once they are on my property. Ive never heard of anyone police or otherwise trained in such a way. Maybe you are referring to a standoff between multiple police and a suspect MAYBE. I doubt that though. There's no shoot to disable. You shoot to kill. If you think otherwise, I've said it already do yourself a favor and don't carry a firearm you will get yourself or someone hurt. I realize we love video games here but Jesus... I'd actually like to see the source for this belief. To my understanding, the only situation that an officer would discharge their weapon is if they Had to. If the situation didn't require lethal force, then they'd be hard pressed to explain why they shot someone.
I'm 99.999999999% sure the source is a movie or video game he played or watched.
|
On July 21 2012 09:58 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more. Having a gun doesn't inherently make you good at dealing with these situations. This is why civilians who are serious about protecting themselves get training so they can. With 83 people shot in this incident, I again pose the question: what percentage of innocent bystanders shot because of inexperience or your 'what-ifs' is too many to try to prevent the intentional shootings of 83 people by the executioner? You act like a gun is a complicated piece of machinery. It's really not. I would rather have an inexperienced shooter who only took it to the range the day he bought it to practice fighting for those 83 that got shot than NO ONE AT ALL which apparently is who was there shooting back. I would gladly be an innocent bystander who risks getting shot by the hero than an innocent bystander who is nearly guaranteed to get shot by the villain.
...What?
No really.
The hell did I just read?
Civilians with guns in a dark crowded theater would have actually made the problem dramatically worse. This isn't some goddamn movie with people ducking behind tables in a fire fight. Jesus man.
|
On July 21 2012 09:58 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more. Having a gun doesn't inherently make you good at dealing with these situations. This is why civilians who are serious about protecting themselves get training so they can. With 83 people shot in this incident, I again pose the question: what percentage of innocent bystanders shot because of inexperience or your 'what-ifs' is too many to try to prevent the intentional shootings of 83 people by the executioner? You act like a gun is a complicated piece of machinery. It's really not. I would rather have an inexperienced shooter who only took it to the range the day he bought it to practice fighting for those 83 that got shot than NO ONE AT ALL which apparently is who was there shooting back. I would gladly be an innocent bystander who risks getting shot by the hero than an innocent bystander who is nearly guaranteed to get shot by the villain.
I'll quote a post I found quite good:
"I'd first like to say I do own a gun so I'm certainly for gun rights, but I always find it amazing how people say "well if I had a gun, I could've saved lives!". Honestly take a step back and analyze the situation.
Most reports coming out are indicating this guy had body armor to go along with that assault rifle of his. So with a protected chest, what you would have is a dark, loud theater with a guy spraying bullets and you standing up with adrenaline pumping, hoping to get a shot while everyone is running around, probably in front of you and hitting you to flee for their lives.
Of course since the theater is dark you probably won't see the body armor, which means that like most people, you've been trained to shoot someone in the chest. So now you get off one maybe two shots before this guy sees the muzzle flash and now directs his fire towards you and the innocents near you. Overall the odds of you or someone near you having a handgun powerful enough to pierce his chest body armor on the first try, having the training to maintain composure in such an intense situation, having the skill to get a clean shot and not kill civis running all around you and your target all while those same civis are bumping into you, having a powerful enough handgun to pierce his body armor or having the ability to recognize after your first few shots that he is wearing body armor and you need to aim differently. . . the odds would be extremely low and would more then likely result in you and the people near you getting killed for your heroics as well as enraging a mad man.
Ohh and all of this doesn't even take into account the fact that in the panic another armed citizen or the police think you’re the gunman and blows you away by mistake.
It certainly would've been great if someone could have taken this guy down, but the odds are completely against him and more so indicate it would do nothing but get you and the people around you killed.
Captain BuzzKillington"
|
On July 21 2012 10:01 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:56 Eps wrote:On July 21 2012 09:32 heliusx wrote:On July 21 2012 09:25 v3chr0 wrote:On July 21 2012 09:11 heliusx wrote:
If you had ANY proper firearm training you would know a guns SOLE purpose is to kill. You DO NOT point at anything you do not want to die EVER. And if you did receive "training" please go demand a refund so you can get a real run down. Police in N.Y (probably elsewhere also) are trained to shoot debilitating/non-fatal areas of the body if the threat is not 100% clear or imminent. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. A gun can kill, yes, we know that, most legal gun owners have no intention on doing so though. A large majority of people who own guns would rarely be forced to shoot to kill. It's weird too, they actually have a term "shoot to kill", implying you can do otherwise. It's not so cut and dry, I can't just start blasting people in the face with a shotgun once they are on my property. Ive never heard of anyone police or otherwise trained in such a way. Maybe you are referring to a standoff between multiple police and a suspect MAYBE. I doubt that though. There's no shoot to disable. You shoot to kill. If you think otherwise, I've said it already do yourself a favor and don't carry a firearm you will get yourself or someone hurt. I realize we love video games here but Jesus... I'd actually like to see the source for this belief. To my understanding, the only situation that an officer would discharge their weapon is if they Had to. If the situation didn't require lethal force, then they'd be hard pressed to explain why they shot someone. I'm 99.999999999% sure the source is a movie or video game he played or watched.
I'm about 0.0000000001% so we can add our percentages together and that's a 100%!!!
|
On July 21 2012 10:01 guN-viCe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:41 heliusx wrote:On July 21 2012 09:38 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more. Well, I disagree. Most people who have concealed carry permits are responsible with their guns and go to the shooting range. Five trained gun wielding citizens might have saved everyone in that theater. In your mind people just shoot in random directions or what? Lol. Sorry, I think you are biased and illogical. In the situation of that theater people firing back would have probably been a disaster IMO. Imagine the chaos. Smoke or tear gas or w/e. body armor and you don't know what quality it is. Dark theater with injured all over. I would have ran even if it was legal for me to carry inside.(it isn't) I think you underestimate conceal carry permitted people. They are very serious about their guns and safety of themselves and others. These people aren't gangsters or players in Counter-Strike. If people started shooting at this terrorist, there's a good chance he would flee, get distracted, or get injured/die. I'm not saying friendly fire couldn't occur. I just think it's unlikely and the benefits outweigh the risk by far.
Although you're of the opinion that friendly fire likely wouldn't occur I'm of the opinion that in that theater friendly fire would have certainly occurred. It was a situation police would have had trouble dealing with. Swat trains constantly for these occasions. They wouldn't send LEOs in even though they are highly proficient with their weapon. What they aren't proficient in is dealing with a high stress and crazy situation. And neither are regular people.
|
On July 21 2012 09:46 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:41 heliusx wrote:On July 21 2012 09:38 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more. Well, I disagree. Most people who have concealed carry permits are responsible with their guns and go to the shooting range. Five trained gun wielding citizens might have saved everyone in that theater. In your mind people just shoot in random directions or what? Lol. Sorry, I think you are biased and illogical. In the situation of that theater people firing back would have probably been a disaster IMO. Imagine the chaos. Smoke or tear gas or w/e. body armor and you don't know what quality it is. Dark theater with injured all over. I would have ran even if it was legal for me to carry inside.(it isn't) Friendly fire is a concern amongst trained military personel (real trained not visit the shooting range trained) and they are typically in constant communication. If you put multiple armed people in a dark crowded theatre you would have chaos.
There was already chaos there.. probably at least a 9/10 on the chaos scale(everyone running for 4 doors, in tight seating, max occupants). This guy was shooting fish in a barrel, and you claim it could be worse with 5 trained guns against him?
|
On July 21 2012 09:26 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:19 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 09:13 Wegandi wrote:On July 21 2012 09:11 BanditX wrote:On July 21 2012 08:56 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 08:36 heliusx wrote:On July 21 2012 08:26 Solarist wrote:On July 21 2012 08:24 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 08:18 Solarist wrote:
This is insane. Im shocked to see this many John Wayne wannabe psycopaths on a forum like TL.net.
Some people posting here should really get checked out.
Random teenager breaks into my house: Shoot him in the face
Hear suspecious noice downstairs, better assume its psycho rapists: Shoot them in the face
I really thought people with opinions like those expressed by alot of Americans in this thread were too braindead inbred to operate a computer. But alas my faith has been shattered.
Nice to see there's some sensible Americans in here aswell Right. Because "Shoot him in the face" is the only option for dealing with criminals while using a gun. That's idiocy. You're asserting that most or all gun owners would 'shoot to kill' regardless of whether their life was in danger. Jesus Christ. Sadly thats been the opinion expressed by a ton of pro-gun people in this thread (Let0 or something comes to mid). I dont suggest you read the previous pages, its pretty disgusting Anyone who thinks you should use a firearm in self defense without the intent to kill is childish and shouldn't be allowed any where's near a weapon. It's literally the first thing they will teach you. It's a killing tool and nothing else. You Do not point it unless you are killing what you are pointing at. Ntheres no "quick shoot and disable his trigger finger". Don't be so naive. And that's IF you ever need to squeeze, rarely would you ever find yourself in the situation where you have to. But God knows, if a loaded gun is aimed at me or my family, it's going in their chest, I'm not going to take a second to find out if they are bluffing or not. I will call the ambulance just as soon as I holster it too. Conversely, if it was illegal to own firearms excluding law enforcement personel, and restrictions were made much much tighter on them, the dude robbing your house would most likely be wielding a knife or similar bladed intstrument. In which case a baseball bat would be suffice in defense, and the whole situation becomes much less lethal. The only reason people think of criminals wielding guns as a good case to own a gun, is because of how easy it actually is to obtain a gun in this country. If only we made gun ownership illegal like drugs then they would cease to exist! Statists are always so simplistic and naive, as if the mere proclamation by the State to make something illegal means it goes away. Well, hell, murder is illegal, but a ton of murders happen every day...if only we made it illegal! I was born and raised in Paris where carrying a knife bigger than a few inches is illegal and i'v never seen a firearm carried by anyone not in the police/military in 25 years. Same for me. I live in Toronto and have never seen a gun in real life except on police officers. Although I think that if more gun control laws were implemented in the US specifically, it would be extremely difficult to enforce, and would take a long long time before the positive effects show.
Now that I think about it, I haven't seen anyone but a police officer with a gun in my entire life (except for scout camp if that counts haha) and I live in the US... I do live in MA though, maybe there are more people with guns in the more southern states lol.
+ Show Spoiler +
On to the actual topic, I honestly think that owning a gun is wrong because when it comes down to it, the only purpose they serve is to kill. However, gun control laws seem very hard, maybe impossible to enforce so we can't exactly make too many laws restricting them because when someone gets a bigger gun than everyone else, or no one else has a gun, then that person would be in a much more advantageous situation than they would be otherwise. It kind of sucks that we can't make guns completely illegal, but look at all of the things that are completely illegal but still exist in the world. For example, drugs like heroin, cocaine, meth, etc are used by a lot of people even though they are illegal and the penalty for having them and distributing them is huge. The law usually does a good job of stopping drug shipments and drug dealers, but they cannot possibly catch them all because the demand for drugs is just too high and drugs will end up getting into this country somehow no matter what we do. The same thinking applies to guns and gun control. If someone really, really wants a gun to go on a murderous rampage with, they might end up getting it. Even if they probably won't, there is a chance that they will, and I know I wouldn't want to be unarmed if they are trying to murder me, anyone I care about, and even someone I don't even know or like because you only have one life and that is it. I don't know about anyone else, but I would not risk my life even for a 1 to a trillion chance that a psychopathic man would somehow acquire a gun and kill me because I was unarmed and couldn't stop him. Of course, killing them wouldn't be the only way to stop them, but it would be the most reliable and easiest way that guarantees my safety and the safety of others + Show Spoiler + well maybe not the psycho killer guy lol
I honestly wish that it wasn't this way, or at least that I didn't see it this way, because I never want to have to kill someone, hell I never want anyone to kill anyone no matter what their reasoning is even if they are literally the worst person to have ever walked the earth. I even hate the idea that something exists that can take someone's life away so fast that they may not even see it coming, it's sickening. But in some cases, it may be necessary in order to preserve the single life that you or someone else gets.
TL; DR Owning a gun is not right, but it is impossible to completely enforce gun control, so we can't make them completely illegal as in pistols should be legal to an extent, but larger weapons should not be legal whatsoever.
|
On July 21 2012 10:05 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:01 heliusx wrote:On July 21 2012 09:56 Eps wrote:On July 21 2012 09:32 heliusx wrote:On July 21 2012 09:25 v3chr0 wrote:On July 21 2012 09:11 heliusx wrote:
If you had ANY proper firearm training you would know a guns SOLE purpose is to kill. You DO NOT point at anything you do not want to die EVER. And if you did receive "training" please go demand a refund so you can get a real run down. Police in N.Y (probably elsewhere also) are trained to shoot debilitating/non-fatal areas of the body if the threat is not 100% clear or imminent. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. A gun can kill, yes, we know that, most legal gun owners have no intention on doing so though. A large majority of people who own guns would rarely be forced to shoot to kill. It's weird too, they actually have a term "shoot to kill", implying you can do otherwise. It's not so cut and dry, I can't just start blasting people in the face with a shotgun once they are on my property. Ive never heard of anyone police or otherwise trained in such a way. Maybe you are referring to a standoff between multiple police and a suspect MAYBE. I doubt that though. There's no shoot to disable. You shoot to kill. If you think otherwise, I've said it already do yourself a favor and don't carry a firearm you will get yourself or someone hurt. I realize we love video games here but Jesus... I'd actually like to see the source for this belief. To my understanding, the only situation that an officer would discharge their weapon is if they Had to. If the situation didn't require lethal force, then they'd be hard pressed to explain why they shot someone. I'm 99.999999999% sure the source is a movie or video game he played or watched. I'm about 0.0000000001% so we can add our percentages together and that's a 100%!!!
That doesn't add up to 100% tho. :0
|
On July 21 2012 09:44 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:29 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 09:20 heliusx wrote:
Says a dude who thinks "brandishing a firearm" in an atempt to cause bad guys tO flee and thinks shooting someone in the legs is "just as easy". As you put it. As Ive said no proper training and never been in a high stress high danger situation. Nor have you been taught to deal with it properly. Sigh. You're trolling me right? I've been in high stress danger situations numerous times. As I stated, there was one incident where I drew it and laid it on the dash. There were several others where I kept my hand a close distance from the holster. I was in the military. I have trained with numerous law enforcement at the range, been through many self defense and firearm and safety classes. But you can keep thinking what you want about an anonymous stranger on the internet based on the few posts I made toward those who would say: a gun can't be drawn without a kill - in order to try to show that gun owners are a bunch of barbaric cavemen just looking for a justifiable reason to take another human being's life. I respect the responsibility more than anyone, which is why I would never ever squeeze unless I was willing to accept the consequences of taking a life and felt it was justified in the defense of myself or my family. Give it a rest you've clearly demonstrated your firearm iq.
And you've clearly demonstrated your lack of rationality, ability to recite what the good ol' Safety First gun training videos taught you, and also your trolling ability. Welp, I guess I'm glad they engrained that idea in you so hard, some rules like UNHOLSTER ONLY IF YOU INTEND TO TAKE A LIFE are good rules for simpleton idiots like you who can't control their judgment and only see things in black and white.
|
Law enforcement is not trained to "shoot to kill". They are trained to "shoot to stop" the threat. Target is center mass, always. If one shot stops the threat, they don't continue trying to kill. It's true they don't aim for limbs, knees, etc, they shoot center mass, but only to stop, not to kill. Killing is often a result, but not the objective. Sometimes "stopping" is only achieved through killing, but it's not the goal.
|
On July 21 2012 09:46 guN-viCe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:32 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... They would have needed to conceal their lucky gas masks too ... It's not rocket science. More gun ownerships leads to more gun violence. The assault rifle that Holmes purchased legally used to be banned from sale until I believe 2004. Not saying that he wouldn't have still committed a crime, but assault rifle with a 90-round drum clip enabled him to kill or injure 92 people rather easily. I forgot he had tear gas. It still doesn't change anything though. I'd rather have a pistol to fight off a crazed killer than nothing at all... this isn't rocket science. More gun ownerships lead to more gun violence. Just like more knives lead to more knife violence. More nun-chucks lead to more nun-chuck violence. More cars lead to more car violence. Violence happens. All. The. Time. A gun, knife, nun-chucks, car, or even fists, they are just tools to inflict that violence.
Surely, you'd agree that it's easier to injure 91 people with an assault rifle than with a knife or nun-chucks, right?
That's the point I'm trying to make.
You can't prevent people from having violent tendencies. But you can compare the risk and benefit of allowing people access to assault rifles, knives and nun-chucks.
The truth is, your argument is made by a lot of gun enthusiasts.
Another deniable truth is that argument -- comparing an assault rifle to nun-chucks to knives, that it's just another 'tool' and that violence would happen anyway -- is 100% absolutely ridiculous.
I can understand someone with police training or some kind special license owning an assault rifle.
A 24 year old med student?
Take a minute and consider how stupid that is.
|
On July 21 2012 09:28 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:25 v3chr0 wrote:On July 21 2012 09:11 heliusx wrote:
If you had ANY proper firearm training you would know a guns SOLE purpose is to kill. You DO NOT point at anything you do not want to die EVER. And if you did receive "training" please go demand a refund so you can get a real run down. Police in N.Y (probably elsewhere also) are trained to shoot debilitating/non-fatal areas of the body if the threat is not 100% clear or imminent. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. A gun can kill, yes, we know that, most legal gun owners have no intention on doing so though. A large majority of people who own guns would rarely be forced to shoot to kill. It's weird too, they actually have a term "shoot to kill", implying you can do otherwise. It's not so cut and dry, I can't just start blasting people in the face with a shotgun once they are on my property. you expect civilians to have the same training as the police force? And for your last statement, yes you can't blast people in the face if they are on your property, but if you have the signs that your life is in danger (usually very clear) its a differnt story. Nobody is going to just pull out a shotgun and blast people for walking on your property, unless you are from texas or something lol
Sad but true. I (not that I'm in any position to claim expertise on possible solutions) don't see any way to get rid of the guns even if the american public wanted to. So might as well convince yourselves that everyone having guns is awesome as you're going to have to die live with it anyway.
|
On July 21 2012 10:09 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:05 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 10:01 heliusx wrote:On July 21 2012 09:56 Eps wrote:On July 21 2012 09:32 heliusx wrote:On July 21 2012 09:25 v3chr0 wrote:On July 21 2012 09:11 heliusx wrote:
If you had ANY proper firearm training you would know a guns SOLE purpose is to kill. You DO NOT point at anything you do not want to die EVER. And if you did receive "training" please go demand a refund so you can get a real run down. Police in N.Y (probably elsewhere also) are trained to shoot debilitating/non-fatal areas of the body if the threat is not 100% clear or imminent. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. A gun can kill, yes, we know that, most legal gun owners have no intention on doing so though. A large majority of people who own guns would rarely be forced to shoot to kill. It's weird too, they actually have a term "shoot to kill", implying you can do otherwise. It's not so cut and dry, I can't just start blasting people in the face with a shotgun once they are on my property. Ive never heard of anyone police or otherwise trained in such a way. Maybe you are referring to a standoff between multiple police and a suspect MAYBE. I doubt that though. There's no shoot to disable. You shoot to kill. If you think otherwise, I've said it already do yourself a favor and don't carry a firearm you will get yourself or someone hurt. I realize we love video games here but Jesus... I'd actually like to see the source for this belief. To my understanding, the only situation that an officer would discharge their weapon is if they Had to. If the situation didn't require lethal force, then they'd be hard pressed to explain why they shot someone. I'm 99.999999999% sure the source is a movie or video game he played or watched. I'm about 0.0000000001% so we can add our percentages together and that's a 100%!!! That doesn't add up to 100% tho. :0
I didn't count up the decimal places : P
|
On July 21 2012 09:58 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more. Having a gun doesn't inherently make you good at dealing with these situations. This is why civilians who are serious about protecting themselves get training so they can. With 83 people shot in this incident, I again pose the question: what percentage of innocent bystanders shot because of inexperience or your 'what-ifs' is too many to try to prevent the intentional shootings of 83 people by the executioner? You act like a gun is a complicated piece of machinery. It's really not. I would rather have an inexperienced shooter who only took it to the range the day he bought it to practice fighting for those 83 that got shot than NO ONE AT ALL which apparently is who was there shooting back. I would gladly be an innocent bystander who risks getting shot by the hero than an innocent bystander who is nearly guaranteed to get shot by the villain.
This happened in USA, the countries's gun policies that you're defending. If your gun policies really helps protect the ppl, how come noone shot him down? It looks like the availability of guns didn't protect them after all. And you know why? Because then they would actually have to carry their guns on them at all times, which even americans realize is ridiculous and completely unsafe.
|
On July 21 2012 10:06 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:01 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 09:41 heliusx wrote:On July 21 2012 09:38 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more. Well, I disagree. Most people who have concealed carry permits are responsible with their guns and go to the shooting range. Five trained gun wielding citizens might have saved everyone in that theater. In your mind people just shoot in random directions or what? Lol. Sorry, I think you are biased and illogical. In the situation of that theater people firing back would have probably been a disaster IMO. Imagine the chaos. Smoke or tear gas or w/e. body armor and you don't know what quality it is. Dark theater with injured all over. I would have ran even if it was legal for me to carry inside.(it isn't) I think you underestimate conceal carry permitted people. They are very serious about their guns and safety of themselves and others. These people aren't gangsters or players in Counter-Strike. If people started shooting at this terrorist, there's a good chance he would flee, get distracted, or get injured/die. I'm not saying friendly fire couldn't occur. I just think it's unlikely and the benefits outweigh the risk by far. Although you're of the opinion that friendly fire likely wouldn't occur I'm of the opinion that in that theater friendly fire would have certainly occurred. It was a situation police would have had trouble dealing with. Swat trains constantly for these occasions. They wouldn't send LEOs in even though they are highly proficient with their weapon. What they aren't proficient in is dealing with a high stress and crazy situation. And neither are regular people.
"He was just literally just massacring anybody that got up that was trying to run away," Seeger said.
Police took 7 minutes to get there according to this source:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html
|
On July 21 2012 10:10 Kaitlin wrote:
Law enforcement is not trained to "shoot to kill". They are trained to "shoot to stop" the threat. Target is center mass, always. If one shot stops the threat, they don't continue trying to kill. It's true they don't aim for limbs, knees, etc, they shoot center mass, but only to stop, not to kill. Killing is often a result, but not the objective. Sometimes "stopping" is only achieved through killing, but it's not the goal.
I don't know about this. Maybe it's different rules per state/province. I know when I took criminology we had an RCMP officer come in and give us an accurate description of what life was like as an officer. One student asked the question,"if a man is coming towards you brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner, how do you react"? With a blank look on his face the officer replied, " two to the chest, one to the head". To me that sounds like they're trained to "shoot to kill", not "shoot to stop".
|
On July 21 2012 10:16 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:58 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more. Having a gun doesn't inherently make you good at dealing with these situations. This is why civilians who are serious about protecting themselves get training so they can. With 83 people shot in this incident, I again pose the question: what percentage of innocent bystanders shot because of inexperience or your 'what-ifs' is too many to try to prevent the intentional shootings of 83 people by the executioner? You act like a gun is a complicated piece of machinery. It's really not. I would rather have an inexperienced shooter who only took it to the range the day he bought it to practice fighting for those 83 that got shot than NO ONE AT ALL which apparently is who was there shooting back. I would gladly be an innocent bystander who risks getting shot by the hero than an innocent bystander who is nearly guaranteed to get shot by the villain. This happened in USA, the countries's gun policies that you're defending. If your gun policies really helps protect the ppl, how come noone shot him down? It looks like the availability of guns didn't protect them after all. And you know why? Because then they would actually have to carry their guns on them at all times, which even americans realize is ridiculous and completely unsafe.
All true, and what's beyond that is these kind of sick fucks like to target places where it's illegal to carry a firearm because they are cowards. Which questions my opinion of carrying in public because as professed by a few self proclaimed ex-seals/LEOs/gun masters they think it's a good idea to fire back in such a situation. Scary thought since they can bejust as dangerous as the fucking assailant.
|
On July 21 2012 10:04 BanditX wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:58 StarStrider wrote:On July 21 2012 09:25 Kahlgar wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... yeah even more people injured and killed, would have been great Having a gun doesn't make you good at dealing with life and death situation, there is a reason why soldiers have EXTENSIVE training to deal with somewhat dangerous situations, civilians have way more chance to fuck things up even more. Having a gun doesn't inherently make you good at dealing with these situations. This is why civilians who are serious about protecting themselves get training so they can. With 83 people shot in this incident, I again pose the question: what percentage of innocent bystanders shot because of inexperience or your 'what-ifs' is too many to try to prevent the intentional shootings of 83 people by the executioner? You act like a gun is a complicated piece of machinery. It's really not. I would rather have an inexperienced shooter who only took it to the range the day he bought it to practice fighting for those 83 that got shot than NO ONE AT ALL which apparently is who was there shooting back. I would gladly be an innocent bystander who risks getting shot by the hero than an innocent bystander who is nearly guaranteed to get shot by the villain. ...What? No really. The hell did I just read? Civilians with guns in a dark crowded theater would have actually made the problem dramatically worse. This isn't some goddamn movie with people ducking behind tables in a fire fight. Jesus man.
Why does everyone on your side of the argument treat concealed carriers as if they are just dumb stupid cows who go UHHH maybe if I point this thing toward the bad guy I'll hit him lolol. MAYBE IF I BLIND FIRE IN THE AIR IT WILL RICHOCHET OFF A CEILING BEAM AND INTO HIS NECK DERP. Fuck man not everyone is an imbecile.
Seriously, not a single person I know or train with who concealed carries does so without hundreds and hundreds of rounds through the chamber, personal protection seminars/instruction, and a grave sense of responsibility. I am not denying the darkness and the gas would be an unbelievably high factor against a citizen 6 rows up gasping for breath, but you saying that 83 people being shot with no returned fire is much more ideal than trained, armed citizens doing their best to take him down and possibly the risk sending strays at the seats around him, possibly hitting someone, is just fucking stupid..... what are the odds that they hit and kill an innocent vs the odds that he gets taken down before he sprays 83 people? Who wouldn't play those odds EVERY TIME? No really....Jesus man.
|
On July 21 2012 10:14 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 09:46 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 09:32 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... They would have needed to conceal their lucky gas masks too ... It's not rocket science. More gun ownerships leads to more gun violence. The assault rifle that Holmes purchased legally used to be banned from sale until I believe 2004. Not saying that he wouldn't have still committed a crime, but assault rifle with a 90-round drum clip enabled him to kill or injure 92 people rather easily. I forgot he had tear gas. It still doesn't change anything though. I'd rather have a pistol to fight off a crazed killer than nothing at all... this isn't rocket science. More gun ownerships lead to more gun violence. Just like more knives lead to more knife violence. More nun-chucks lead to more nun-chuck violence. More cars lead to more car violence. Violence happens. All. The. Time. A gun, knife, nun-chucks, car, or even fists, they are just tools to inflict that violence. Surely, you'd agree that it's easier to injure 91 people with an assault rifle than with a knife or nun-chucks, right? That's the point I'm trying to make. You can't prevent people from having violent tendencies. But you can compare the risk and benefit of allowing people access to assault rifles, knives and nun-chucks. The truth is, your argument is made by a lot of gun enthusiasts. Another deniable truth is that argument -- comparing an assault rifle to nun-chucks to knives, that it's just another 'tool' and that violence would happen anyway -- is 100% absolutely ridiculous. I can understand someone with police training or some kind special license owning an assault rifle. A 24 year old med student? Take a minute and consider how stupid that is.
Oh, I agree with you about the assault rifle. I think it's ridiculous how some people can procure these powerful weapons. I'm all for way tighter regulations on these types of weapons.
My point though, is that crazy people who want to kill a lot of people can do so without guns. Feel free to read these short articles on some Japan massacres. A car, knife, sword, axe, and shotgun were used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Japan
I guess we should ban knives,swords, shotguns, and cars too because people can kill many, many people with them before help arrives(ie guns)
|
On July 21 2012 10:25 guN-viCe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 10:14 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:46 guN-viCe wrote:On July 21 2012 09:32 Defacer wrote:On July 21 2012 09:22 guN-viCe wrote:
Imagine if 5 people in that theater had concealed pistols... They would have needed to conceal their lucky gas masks too ... It's not rocket science. More gun ownerships leads to more gun violence. The assault rifle that Holmes purchased legally used to be banned from sale until I believe 2004. Not saying that he wouldn't have still committed a crime, but assault rifle with a 90-round drum clip enabled him to kill or injure 92 people rather easily. I forgot he had tear gas. It still doesn't change anything though. I'd rather have a pistol to fight off a crazed killer than nothing at all... this isn't rocket science. More gun ownerships lead to more gun violence. Just like more knives lead to more knife violence. More nun-chucks lead to more nun-chuck violence. More cars lead to more car violence. Violence happens. All. The. Time. A gun, knife, nun-chucks, car, or even fists, they are just tools to inflict that violence. Surely, you'd agree that it's easier to injure 91 people with an assault rifle than with a knife or nun-chucks, right? That's the point I'm trying to make. You can't prevent people from having violent tendencies. But you can compare the risk and benefit of allowing people access to assault rifles, knives and nun-chucks. The truth is, your argument is made by a lot of gun enthusiasts. Another deniable truth is that argument -- comparing an assault rifle to nun-chucks to knives, that it's just another 'tool' and that violence would happen anyway -- is 100% absolutely ridiculous. I can understand someone with police training or some kind special license owning an assault rifle. A 24 year old med student? Take a minute and consider how stupid that is. Oh, I agree with you about the assault rifle. I think it's ridiculous how some people can procure these powerful weapons. I'm all for way tighter regulations on these types of weapons. My point though, is that crazy people who want to kill a lot of people can do so without guns. Feel free to read these short articles on some Japan massacres. A car, knife, sword, axe, and shotgun were used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_JapanI guess we should ban knives,swords, shotguns, and cars too because people can kill many, many people with them before help arrives(ie guns)
Yeah that list is huge...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
