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
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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."
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.
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.)
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.
Sorry, you are mistaken.
It is NOT illegal (per se) to carry a gun in the presence of a federal
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.
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...............
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
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.