O.T. The sick gun culture.

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.

Reply to
harry
Loading thread data ...

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.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

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.

formatting link
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."

Reply to
HeyBub

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
Reply to
RicodJour

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.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

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
Reply to
RicodJour

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.

Reply to
Ken

he crowd has a

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
Reply to
RicodJour

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.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

You might be more productive in your statements in the days ahead if you concentrated on if Jared Loughner was able to get the mental health treatment he needed and who was responsible if he didn=92t. Similar murders have happened in recent years in China using a knife since guns are banned there.

Reply to
Molly Brown

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

Reply to
Steve B

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
Reply to
RicodJour

shooter.http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/brad-kozak/think-conceal-carry-d...> >

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.

Reply to
Pete C.

shooter.http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/brad-kozak/think-conceal-carry-d...>>

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.

formatting link
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.)

Reply to
HeyBub

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.

Reply to
HeyBub

YOU. ARE. SO. IGNORANT. ABOUT. THE. U.S.

This was a FEDERAL judge, not one of the lawyers you are so scornful of -- until you need one.

This is an attack on the FEDERAL judiciary, one step below the Supreme Court.

I suppose you'd be jumping up & down in glee if somebody offed one of the Privy Council in your country.

Note that your country has a thousand-year record of assassinations, poisonings, beheadings, etc. among the royals and their hangers-on.

Oh, I give up - what's the point in even trying..

HB

[...]
Reply to
Higgs Boson

...or arrest Mr. PC if he's found carrying and release him in 12 hours or so, with *maybe* a "sorry" (but not usually).

Reply to
krw

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.

Reply to
Larry W

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

Reply to
Steve B

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

Reply to
Vic Smith

HomeOwnersHub website 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.