When a couple of guys, who were up to no good…started makin trouble in my neighborhood.
^^^^LOL’D
- rep.
I got in little fight and my mom got scared:shifty
Too late, junior.
smh
youre sooo smart its incredible
Goverment using the media to boost gun fear in the general public to help pass new anti-gun laws to take our guns away so we can’t fight back against the government and start a civil war when the rich try to bring back medieval class systems that take our other rights away. That’s all this is.
And yes, they do play conspiracy theory movies at the barber shop I go to. Conspiracy theories ftw.
I gotta agree on that
You have anything to contribute to the actual discussion/argument or you’re going to go with the ignorant way of bringing a person that has nothing to with the facts into it?
Didn’t think so.
Are you saying most gun crimes are done by legal gun owners? I dont understand your first statement.
rarely a deterent? thats an impossible statistic to determine…you will never know how many people didn’t commit a crime because a gun was in play. However knowing what I know about the type of people that rob and burglarise ect…theyre cowards and pick the weak target.
secondly, gun fights with police are either nuts trying to just kill them, or a last ditch effort to evade them as they would rather die than go back to jail or they think they can actually win and get away. That isnt a supporting argument that guns dont deter crime it just means some people think shooting at police is worth the risk…most don’t.
Even the worst criminals were law obeying citizens for a good period of their life. The point about being armed, is most of the terrible shootings in recent history have been done by legal gun owners.
Impossible statistic to determine? Weren’t you on the side of that gun laws don’t work? That’s also an impossible statistic to determine…
Thirdly, yes gun fights are with people that are nuts. So are the people that shoot up public places.
“Most don’t” - most aren’t on trial for such matters, the ones that don’t fit in “most” are.
If CCW guns were 100% deterrent there wouldn’t be any crimes in Texas or shootouts. They do happen. They happen in small percentages. If they don’t work 100% than it’s not a solution and no policy gun friendly or not works at 100% efficiency, goes back to this can’t be stopped and stupid or insane people shouldn’t have guns.
Maybe the massacres like this are done by people who snapped but i dont know for sure like Virginia tech I think the pistols were illegally obtained…however the majority of shootings and crimes involving guns I would 100 percent say confidently are done by people who are not legally allowed to possess guns and more people are killed/robbed criminally by illegally possessed guns every year than legal.
Impossible statistic to determine? Weren’t you on the side of that gun laws don’t work? That’s also an impossible statistic to determine
I think some laws are needed of course.
I agree its the same idea, you can’t exactly say that carrying stops crime…but i think rationality would say otherwise…if you were going to commit a crime would you be more or less apt to do it if you could get shot at…but its true I can’t prove guns statistically lower crime. There may be stats out there that do but I’m just speaking from a common sense pov.
Thirdly, yes gun fights are with people that are nuts. So are the people that shoot up public places.
some are nuts, some are desperate, some are trying to evade capture
“Most don’t” - most aren’t on trial for such matters, the ones that don’t fit in “most” are.
Most are dead, hence the deterence
If CCW guns were 100% deterrent there wouldn’t be any crimes in Texas or shootouts. They do happen. They happen in small percentages. If they don’t work 100% than it’s not a solution and no policy gun friendly or not works at 100% efficiency, goes back to this can’t be stopped and stupid or insane people shouldn’t have guns.
So if something doesn’t work 100 percent of the time its no a solution? i agree stupid people shouldn’t have guns and those who want to get them legally or not to go on a massacre will get them…the only hope now is that someone in the crowd has a gun and stops them as quickly as possible.
Found something that summarizes this quite well :rofl
Liberal: “If things could just be done more my way…”
Citizen Conservative:"Liberal, they are being done your way. You are very much insane. This will stop.
That “someone in the crowd with a gun” argument just doesnt work.
Take a perfect example - 2011 Tuscon shooting
In fact, several people were armed. So, what actually happened? As Zamudio said in numerous interviews, he never got a shot off at the gunman, but he nearly harmed the wrong person — one of those trying to control Loughner.
He saw people wrestling, including one man with the gun. “I kind of assumed he was the shooter,” said Zamudio in an interview with MSNBC. Then, “everyone said, ‘no, no — it’s this guy,’” said Zamudio.
To his credit, he ultimately helped subdue Loughner. But suppose, in those few seconds of confusion, he had fired at the wrong man and killed a hero? “I was very lucky,” Zamudio said.
It defies logic, as this case shows once again, that an average citizen with a gun is going to disarm a crazed killer. For one thing, these kinds of shootings happen far too suddenly for even the quickest marksman to get a draw. For another, your typical gun hobbyist lacks training in how to react in a violent scrum.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/myth-of-the-hero-gunslinger/
Cliff notes: Broad day light, hero with a gun almost shot the wrong person.
Also if I recall there were 2 other armed people next to the congresswoman who didn’t fire because they didn’t have a clear shot in the chaos and panic and tackled instead.
Tuesday of this week was the first day of classes at Arizona State University, and William Jenkins, who teaches photography at the school, did not bring his weapon to campus. For the moment, it’s still illegal for professors to pack heat while they talk Dante and quantum physics.
But that may soon change. Arizona legislators have been pushing a plan to allow college faculty and students to carry concealed weapons at school.
“That’s insane,” Jenkins told me. “On Mondays I give a lecture to 120 people. I can’t imagine students coming into class with firearms. If something happened, it would be mayhem.”
He’s right. Jenkins is a lifelong gun owner and he carries a concealed weapon, by permit. He also carries a modicum of common sense. The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
That theory makes about as much sense if not less than me saying “if there were 5 real men in the crowd and they ran and tackled him at the same time, lives could be saved” “We need more brave men in the world”
All the other points made above aren’t really points but just acknowledgements - some are crazy, some are nut, some guns are legal, some are not, some shoot at armed people, others don’t, most are cowards some are not…
5 people to tackle is fine…1 person with a shot is better. Bravery is lacking agreed in alot of cases where someone who was carrying could have stopped a threat but didn’t but for every story you find of a person not shooting, or not being able to…i could find ones of people concealing and using their guns succesfully. (florida internet cafe, brazilian atm robbery,ect) I would argue the person in the crowd argument does work when the person is willing to use it…teh whole i happened to fast for anyone to react is silly, its not tha it happened too fast its that they hesitated.
It did happen to fast, I believe all within 90 seconds. For the first 30 seconds you’ll be covering behind your seat just trying to figure out whats going, crying from tear gas and blind from smoke and and maybe getting ready to pull the gun out, just to be blasted after you hit his body armor when the screen is lighting up the seats quite well.
Your examples of internet cafe and brazzilian robbery would be a useful counter argument if it happened in the dark, with a crowd of over 100 panicking people and attacker was strapped to the teeth and bullet proof, while the hero gunman managed to sneak a hero headshot while being pepper sprayed or the equivalent.
Even if Holywood put Rambo into that scene and pulled the shot off, you’d look at the screen and go “yeah right, fucking Holywood”.
30 seconds of covering behind a seat?..interesting
Body armor isn’t a invinsibilty shield and the fact that your idea of tactics is assessing an active shooter for half a minute before even drawing your gun, or that a person is impervious to pain and unstoppable because they have a bulletproof vest on leads me to realise that your hollywood outlook on an appropriate and realistic reaction for this and other scenarios is not even worth getting into.
Person with a gun in the crowd > none
However, even how off base your idea of the 30 second assessment, and COD juggernaught body armor idea is I will admit its a difficult situation and even if someone had a gun they would have to be in the right place, with the right training to make a difference.
When you’re on vicodin he’s pretty impervious to pain.
I keep forgetting that every gun owner is James Bond marksman with a pistol.
Cause trained cops in daylight only take one shot in all situations, even against unarmored enemies right??? Cause they don’t have right training?
One shot one kill man. Within 5 seconds, without even judging situations.
Please don’t ever carry a gun around me, I don’t need loose Rambo hero cannons making quick decisions.
I’m staying out of the argument, but this made me giggle. Loose cannons is not enough. Loose Rambo hero cannons needed.
:rofl
Why are people so retarded?
Damn ive been agreeing with vlad a lot lately.
Are you?
I keep forgetting that every gun owner is James Bond marksman with a pistol.
Who said anything about James bond, or one shot headshots? Noone except you. I’m sorry that your lack of knowledge makes it seem impossible to stop someone with a ballistic vest.
Cause trained cops in daylight only take one shot in all situations, even against unarmored enemies right??? Cause they don’t have right training?
No, I would say they have the correct training which is why they usually shoot more than one. I would also suggest you research such training and gain some knowledge.
One shot one kill man. Within 5 seconds, without even judging situations.
Please don’t ever carry a gun around me, I don’t need loose Rambo hero cannons making quick decisions.
Count out 5 full seconds…now imagine a person running into a room with a gun and shooting people. I think 5 full seconds is too long to get your gun out in that situation. Now count 30 seconds, and you apparently would still have it holstered…good call youre a tactical genius, you’de be dead…but genius.
Are you trained in such matters?
So in this case an untrained civilian would have been just another target. Gotcha.
And as far as your trained experts placing shots, within how many shots should they be able to take down an attacker? It’s a trick question as I’ll bring up previous similar incidents where you won’t like the numbers of shots fired by “trained personel” trying to take such attackers down in broad day light without being ambushed or under tear gas effects.
Edit: better yet let’s get straight to the point, bullshit me your reasoning as why California bank shootout doesn’t blow your theory out of the water.
:pop