O.T. The sick gun culture.

Page 2 of 7  


You mean like the near zero probability event of having a shooter suddenly open up in a crowd? That is the first near zero probability event, and without that first zero probability event occurring, my zero probability event is of course pegged at zero, but let's run with it - it happens, and other people start shooting, too. Do you honestly believe that everyone is going to stand around to let the concerned citizen get off a clean shot? What if there are a number of armed concerned citizens standing on all sides of the shooter, which is the usual state of affairs in a crowd. Would the concerned citizens communicate wordlessly and decide who had the best shot, hold off and let that guy take the shot? Or would it be everyone take their best shot? Wouldn't the bad guy be trying really hard not to get shot?

Bystanders getting shot is usually a "poor bastard, but look what that crazy guy with the gun did to start the whole thing!" Back seat news, perhaps. Much like friendly fire statistics everywhere else they're footnotes and back page fodder.

We're not talking about one guy pulling a gun to stop a robbery. We're talking about pandemonium in a crowd. People running, ducking, hitting the deck, screaming, and that cool, calm, definitely blue-eyed citizen calmly pulls his gun, waits for a clear shot and picks off the bad guy standing behind his hostage human shield. Could happen. In a movie.

There's a lot of truth in that.

And these were trained professionals, right? So even the pros can miss the mark - but that isn't a surprise. http://www.schlissellawfirm.com/blog/2011/innocent-bystander-shot-by-police-cant-sue-nyc /

You should be viewing this in a more analytical way, Bob. It's more akin to physics and statistics than it is about guns, gun control, terrorists or any of that.
The more people firing, the more misses and the greater the likelihood of people getting hit. Friendly fire on home soil at a shopping mall doesn't make it more palatable. The people standing around when the stuff goes down are not going to calmly look for the exits. Everybody who has ever been shot at unexpectedly has had a massive rush of adrenalin, which does not make for clear thinking and steady hands.
Carrying a gun with you at all times based on the extremely, extremely remote instance that something really bad is going to happen, and that a gun can fix it. That is just another form of delusion. It makes _way_ more sense to know basic first aid and have a defibrillator on hand as those type of occurrences are far more likely to happen. But that doesn't sell in Peoria, does it? Which of the following headlines is going to make it to the front page? Guy with defibrillator saves life Armed citizen kills terrorist at pep rally
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Dude, remember I'm the one that changed the subject line to include "Harry is our village idiot", so don't go all sweet on me. I was talking to Bob, who is nice guy and not an inflammatory bounder. If you want to engage in civil discourse, do so - it won't kill you and people might actually listen to what you have to say.
R
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.
=============== "Unfortunately" was the correct choice of words. If those dogs (and their owner) pulled this particular stunt once, they will repeat it. In this instance, the owner stopped the dogs using a one word command. The state trooper found that very interesting. Can you guess why?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/10/2011 12:37 PM, Ken wrote:

Although your attitude is very common, many reputable studies have shown that more people are killed by guns legally owned by non-law enforcement citizens due to crimes of passion (the gun was available in the heat of the moment), accident, and suicide than the number of criminals who are shot (note: not necessarily killed) during a valid episode of self-defense.
In other words, the statistics show that you are much more likely to kill yourself or a loved one with that gun than you are to use it to protect yourself or a loved one from a life endangering threat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter wrote:

False. Studies have shown there are about 1.5 million defensive gun uses annually. In 2009, there were 9,146 firearm-related murders in the U.S. That is, you are 164 times more likely to use a firearm to defend yourself than you are to murder someone.
About 40% of homicides were committed by people 14-24 years of age. In Philadelphia, 96% of homicide victims had a prior criminal record. In deference to political correctness, we won't delve into the race of either the victims or the shooters.
In other words, if you're over 24 and don't have a criminal record, the chances of you committing a homicide with a gun are vanishingly small.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It's sad that some people would use a tragedy like this to further their political agenda of gun control. There is no question that Arizona, with its "liberal" right to carry laws, is safer than areas that have very restrictive gun ownership and carry rights. To compare a city to a city, take a look at the per capita murder, shooting, or violent crime rates of Phoenix and Washington DC. Our nations capital has a murder rate about 3 times higher than Phoenix.
--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 22:59:52 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@sdf.lNoOnSePsAtMar.org (Larry W) wrote:

"Never let a crisis go to waste." "If they bring a knife to a fight, we'll bring a gun."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

It's the same old tired and utterly baseless "wild west" fantasy of the anti gun kooks. A fantasy since there has never been a single such incident anywhere in the US, including all the states that have had concealed carry for decades.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

well,that's because the "progressives" don't operate based on fact and reason,but on "feelings" and imaginations.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
imited.usenetmonster.com:

Umm, Jim...? Nobody operates on facts all of the time. They only think they do. The standard procedure, of which both you and I and everyone else in this and all other threads is guilty of, is cherry picking data to support their particular belief.
It's well documented that the emotional centers of the brain light up when "discussions" turn to politics and religion. The emotional responses rule.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

Heh! The "poor" in the USA are mostly better off than the "middle class" in the UK. Virtually all the underclass own a color TV (with no annual tax), a car, a microwave, a cell phone, and so forth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, on St. Patty's Day, the whole world is Irish.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harry wrote:

Shows what you know. Mountbatted was not exactly a politician, though he did serve in the House of Lords.
Principally a naval officer, Mountbatten rose to be Supreme Allied Commander, South East Asia Command during WWII. After the war, he held a few minor governmental posts, including Viceroy of India and was granted the Earldom of Burma. He finished that career as Governor General of India, then was demoted to Fourth Sea Lord, but climbed his way up to First Sea Lord. He finished his government career as Governor of the Isle of Wight.
Mountbatten's real moniker is: Admiral of the Fleet Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas George Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, Prince Louis of Battenberg KG (Knight of the Garter), GCB (Knight Grand Cross, Order of the Bath), OM (Order of Merit), GCSI (Knight Grand Commander, Star of India), GCIE(Knight Grand Commander, Order of the Indian Empire), GCVO (Knight Grand Cross, Royal Victorian Order), DSO (Distinguished Service Order), PC (Privy Counsel), FRS (Fellow of the Royal Society)
But I call him "Louie."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RicodJour wrote:

Same canard that's never been substantiated. The scenario you posit has never happened and probably never will happen.
Here's an interview with one person who was carrying a gun at the Gifford's event who helped subdue the shooter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUmmOWL05r8

In a crowd of any size in Arizona - and several other states - there will quite likely be several people carrying a concealed weapon. We didn't see ANY return fire at the Giffords event.
The only reason I can muster for the fear that "all the people carrying guns will start shooting..." is that the person making the claim is projecting. That is, the claimant believes that were HE carrying a gun, HE would start shooting everbody in sight, either operating in the belief that if he kills everybody he's bound to get the goblin, or he thinks that's what he would do in a panic.
In real life, responsible gun owners do not act as you claim.
And as for "simplistic thinking," Ronald Reagan once said: "People who think there are not simple solutions to complex problems just haven't tried hard enough." (Or maybe he said: "There are simple solutions, just not easy ones." I forget.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, and you're a moron. Trouble is, stupid cannot be fixed. I was watching Most Shocking last night. A man was stabbing his wife in an Albuquerque store. A person with a gun pointed it over the counter after his wife had been stabbed several times. Told the perp to quit, he didn't, and the CCW holder put three into him, killing him.
It was NOT a coincidence that no one in the crowd had a gun. Out of respect of the law, no one carried a gun to a federal official's presence, save the gunman. I own guns, and could have been carrying one, but I would not have because of the uproar it would have caused. It is illegal to do so, and I'm sure that the Secret Service would have been all over anyone carrying a gun, legal or not. Except for the shooter, proving that one with an agenda cannot be stopped easily.
Next time you shoot off your mouth, make sure it's loaded.
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve B wrote:

Sorry, you are mistaken.
It is NOT illegal (per se) to carry a gun in the presence of a federal official.
It is not even illegal for a private citizen to carry a gun to a presidential rally or function.
In the case of the latter, the Secret Service will decline to permit him entry, but it is not illegal.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...or arrest Mr. PC if he's found carrying and release him in 12 hours or so, with *maybe* a "sorry" (but not usually).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry about the way I stated it. Let's just say that I would not take a gun to a place where a federal official is present out of fear that it might create a stir. Apparently, there was a firearm carrier there, and he did not shoot the perp, but helped to subdue him. Proof that when people carry guns, they are not the maniacs many people think they are, but can demonstrate a high degree of restraint. I wonder how many people would have shot the perp...............
Steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve B wrote:

I kinda knew what you meant but wanted to clarify in case some took your observation the wrong way.
I agree with you that the vast majority of gun owners are not 'roided out primates. If you saw the video of the person who helped subdue the perp (who was also carrying a gun), you'll see the epitome of conscientious gun carriers. He was articulate, thoughtful, rational, and in control. He was also the same age as the shooter!
I wonder if Joe Zamudio - the guy with a gun who didn't pull it - served in the military? It usually takes some training to "run to the sound of the guns."
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.