O.T. The sick gun culture.

Page 1 of 7  
I see that six people have been killed by some loon in Arizona. I feel really sorry for that poor little girl and her family. Some judge killed too but who likes lawyers anyway?
As for Gabrielle Giffords I hear she was a gun advocate. Big friend of the Palin nut?
Well there's, a good outcome at least. If still capable of cognisant thought when/if she recovers, I wonder if she'll have a change of heart.
I notice that no -one was able to "defend themselves" with guns and the gunman was disarmed by a little old lady and a couple of passing youths who sat on his head.
Sick half wits you gun loving lot are.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Crimes committed by legal gun owners are rare that they're statistically insignificant, according to the FBI, which keeps records on these things. If you want to bitch about needless deaths, explain why a hamster could pass the typical driving test in most countries. Such tests should be designed to flunk (and terrify) all but a fraction of the people on the road now. But they won't be because too many idiots believe we have a RIGHT to drive cars. We don't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harry wrote:

What happened to the poor folks in Tuscon was regrettable indeed. Our hearts go out to them.
Still, it's the price we must pay so that our ability to defend ourselves remains available. Here's an interview with a citizen carrying a weapon who helped subdue the shooter. http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/brad-kozak/think-conceal-carry-didnt-play-a-role-in-giffords-case-think-again /
As for Giffords being a gun advocate, hardly. The NRA rated her "D+" (up from an "F" during her tenure as a state legislator). Of course a D+ rating in Arizona would be a flogging offense in the UK.
Ancient bumper-sticker: "If Vince Foster had had a gun, he'd be alive today."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ah, yes, nothing like starting off the New Year with the same simplistic thinking for which you're famous.
Scenario: Wacko in a crowd with a gun starts shooting. People all around him have guns, too, and they start shooting at the wacko. How many bystanders get shot by the people in the crowd defending themselves? Answer: Too many. Moral: The wacko with the gun will always "win".
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

shooter.http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/brad-kozak/think-conceal-carry-d ...
Ah, yes, nothing like starting off the New Year with the same simplistic thinking for which you're famous.
Scenario: Wacko in a crowd with a gun starts shooting. People all around him have guns, too, and they start shooting at the wacko. How many bystanders get shot by the people in the crowd defending themselves? Answer: Too many. Moral: The wacko with the gun will always "win".
=========== This is all theoretical unless you have some idea of how many people in the crowd were carrying guns, but did not use them. We already know of at least one.
I eagerly await your further information.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Reread what I wrote - I am talking about a generic scenario, not what happened in Tucson. The generic scenario does not play out - the shooter will always win - people will die. The more people with guns that try to stop the shooter, the more people will die as nobody's aim or reaction is perfect.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RicodJour wrote:

    It is hard to say just what might happen if a person in the crowd has a gun while a shooter is methodically picking out targets, but I would rather have a gun and possibly defend myself than simply be a target. It also presents the shooter with the need to be defensive rather than being totally offensive. Your theory brings to mind a question: I wonder how many more troops might have been killed at Ft. Hood had the shooter not been confronted?? I guess the answer depends upon how much ammunition he brought with him.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A wack job that starts shooting in a crowd expects to die. They can't "lose".
As far as the offensive-defensive thing. The person shooting first has the advantage, and knowing how to use your sneakers would be more likely to keep you alive than having a gun. Knowing how to run is a more valuable skill than knowing how to shoot in such a situation, particularly if other people start whipping out guns and shooting in what they think is the right direction.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

A wack job that starts shooting in a crowd expects to die. They can't "lose".
As far as the offensive-defensive thing. The person shooting first has the advantage, and knowing how to use your sneakers would be more likely to keep you alive than having a gun. Knowing how to run is a more valuable skill than knowing how to shoot in such a situation, particularly if other people start whipping out guns and shooting in what they think is the right direction.
R
======== I once pulled a handgun to stop two dogs from making lunch of out of son's legs. There was no risk to anyone but the two dogs. Unfortunately, the owner stopped them before I could dispatch them.
You can't generalize. All civilian gun confrontations are theoretical until they actually happen.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Unfortunately...? You wanted to shoot the dogs? Interesting. I've never threatened a dog, but I have told the owner I would be punching him in the face unless he controlled his dogs.

Don't take this the wrong way, but those last two sentences have no information in them. Everything is theoretical until it happens. Everything. It doesn't change the scenario I presented. Guy with a gun ready to die, and scared people with guns shooting back - some might hit the gunman and some will hit other people.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:38:30 -0800 (PST), RicodJour

I don't have any numbers, but seems to me when an armed "civvie" stops mayhem, it's usually an off-duty cop. The armed civvie in Tucson was immaterial - he got there after the mayhem was over. Personally I have no problem with civilians carrying, as long as they have training. But when a wacko can get off 30 rounds in maybe 6 seconds, the party is over pretty fast. An unarmed old lady stopped this guy.
--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

in statistic terms.

The armed civvie was one of the people who tackled the perp and sat on him until the cops arrived (some time later on). Hardly after the mayhem over.

Where did you get this number other than from the thin air? I haven't seen any thing that gives any timeframe.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

From movies. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harry wrote:

Many carry a weapon for SELF defense, not for the defense of a third party.
If one uses deadly force on behalf of someone else, many consequences can flow - almost all of them bad.
These consequences, such as shooting someone who was not REALLY an aggressor or shooting a bystander, are not the problem. The thing that is really wrong is criminalizing these inadvertent deaths instead of treating them as justifiable or excusable. It is this threat of going to jail that disincentivizes a would-be rescuer, not cowardice.
I, personally, run to the sound of gunfire (as would many who've served in the military). But unless I see a perp actually drinking the victim's blood, I'm going to be quite circumspect before I start piling up the bodies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The armed guy in Tucson also said he would've been hesitant to use his gun, since it might've caused more problems than it solved. Smart guy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A wimp. This is one who stood by and let nine year old Miss Green die. Your all American hero. Stood there wetting his pants.
But then this runs from top to bottom. USA attacks the undefended. Afraid of the USSR, North Korea, Iran, China. Mind, you did pretty well with Greneda.
============= How long have you lived under a bridge?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

R-
I believe your "innocent bystanders hit by random shots from armed citizens " is a near zero probability event.
If such a thing happened, it would have be reported in the news over & over again.
It is my opinion (based on very little data) that armed citizens responding to bad guys are much more careful shooters. They lack the "legal cover" that police officers enjoy. A cop can empty his gun at a target and few question it.
In a suburb of LA, LA County Deputy Sheriffs (10 of them) fired 120 shots at a guy in a Suburban. He turned out to be unarmed, luckily they only hit him with four shots but they did manage to hit one of their own.
Total lack of fire discipline... maybe cops should go back to revolvers, with fewer rounds they might be more careful or at the very least have fewer total misses.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What clearly goes unreported by the mainstream media is the numerous cases where someone with a gun prevents a crime or possible death by merely pulling out their own gun. A robber breaks into a home, the homeowner produces a gun, and the robber retreats. Or a guy tries to hold up a liquor store with a gun or a knife and the owner shoots him dead. Those stories never make it, while the story of one nut who shoots someone, usually with an illegal gun, does.
As for the ridiculous claim that running away is more likely to keep you alive, if that's the case, why don't they train police to defend themselves that way? If the suspect pulls a gun, run! In some circumstances that might be the best course of action. But clearly it doesn't work very well in all cases, as the AZ shooting clearly shows.
In the AZ shooting, if one person there had a pistol, the outcome could have been much different. Or the recent FL school board shootings, where the shooter held the entire school board hostage. If one person sitting at the school board had a pistol, they wouldn't have had to sit there, waiting for him to shoot them at will.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DD_BobK wrote:

In my training, we were admonished: "He who puts the most metal in the air almost always wins."
In my view, cop cars should mount mini-guns. Give the stink-eyes a really bad day.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/11/2011 8:45 AM, HeyBub wrote:

You mean like this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nug5FZgxuk

TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.