|
|
Post by tomjor on Jul 22, 2012 11:05:44 GMT -5
Perhaps. Let me know if you still feel that way when an armed citizen starts shooting at a bad guy, but misses him and instead shoots your wife dead. ...I'm not married, but if you're talking about my ex-wife then that's OK with me. I'll wager a bet she feels the same way about you. Forget your ex. Let's insert your child, or your mother or father. |
|
|
|
Post by hailmary on Jul 22, 2012 12:47:23 GMT -5
tomjor would select the fetal position rather than try to defend himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by tomjor on Jul 22, 2012 13:25:07 GMT -5
tomjor would select the fetal position rather than try to defend himself. Not at all. I have quite a bit of experience with guns. My points have been to refute the claims that bans will solve the problems, and also if everyone has guns it will deter the bad guys. I can acquiesce a bit and acknowledge there might be a we bit of truth to that, but only in rather isolated cases. These incidents involving assault weapons are almost always invoked by mentally incapacitated people. You can have all the licenses, background checks and bans you want but it's not likely to do much of anything against them. |
|
|
|
Post by muffin on Jul 22, 2012 14:07:53 GMT -5
tomjor would select the fetal position rather than try to defend himself. Not at all. I have quite a bit of experience with guns. My points have been to refute the claims that bans will solve the problems, and also if everyone has guns it will deter the bad guys. I can acquiesce a bit and acknowledge there might be a we bit of truth to that, but only in rather isolated cases. These incidents involving assault weapons are almost always invoked by mentally incapacitated people. You can have all the licenses, background checks and bans you want but it's not likely to do much of anything against them. ......with all your gun experience, do you have a Carry Permit? |
|
|
|
Post by tomjor on Jul 22, 2012 15:08:21 GMT -5
Not at all. I have quite a bit of experience with guns. My points have been to refute the claims that bans will solve the problems, and also if everyone has guns it will deter the bad guys. I can acquiesce a bit and acknowledge there might be a we bit of truth to that, but only in rather isolated cases. These incidents involving assault weapons are almost always invoked by mentally incapacitated people. You can have all the licenses, background checks and bans you want but it's not likely to do much of anything against them. ......with all your gun experience, do you have a Carry Permit? No. |
|
|
|
Post by muffin on Jul 22, 2012 15:22:43 GMT -5
......with all your gun experience, do you have a Carry Permit? No. .....what's the matter, couldn't answer NO to questions 8 thru 11 on Florida's CCW permit application? |
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Jul 22, 2012 15:26:25 GMT -5
While it is true that well trained and well armed people might not be able to stop a suicide bomber they certainly would be able to stop a nut case walking in a public place shooting people. There is a bit of difference between the two.
Although there are many Israelis armed in Israel, they are not armed in Bulgaria where the bus bombing took place.
Armed people do accidentally shoot the wrong person. The police do it all the time. Police in the United States accidentally shoot the wrong person more often than do legally armed citizens in the United States.
|
|
|
|
Post by tomjor on Jul 22, 2012 15:35:39 GMT -5
.....what's the matter, couldn't answer NO to questions 8 thru 11 on Florida's CCW permit application? I can answer the questions. If that was what you wanted to know then you should have asked that. But you didn't. You asked a direct question, I gave a direct answer. |
|
|
|
Post by tomjor on Jul 22, 2012 15:52:50 GMT -5
While it is true that well trained and well armed people might not be able to stop a suicide bomber they certainly would be able to stop a nut case walking in a public place shooting people. There is a bit of difference between the two. Although there are many Israelis armed in Israel, they are not armed in Bulgaria where the bus bombing took place. Armed people do accidentally shoot the wrong person. The police do it all the time. Police in the United States accidentally shoot the wrong person more often than legally armed citizens in the United States. I wasn't referring to Bulgaria. I specifically referred to Israel because it has happened there - on more than one occasion. I said that in order to illustrate my point that even though there may be Israeli citizens carrying weapons (including assault weapons) it doesn't mean they'll be able to stop people who are mentally deranged. Way too many people think that's the case. They're wrong. Armed citizens and police do shoot the wrong people. No argument there. Police do it more often simply because of statistical probabilities - they're involved in those situations far more often than citizens. Given the amount of training police receive that right there should tell you something! My point, again, was that inferring that if everyone is armed they can shoot back and kill the bad guy right away is misguided thinking at best. Let's consider the Colorado case. He plotted. He acted on the element of surprise. He set off smoke bombs to confuse everyone and hide his position. He had automatic weapons capable of firing many rounds in a short period of time. He was wearing body armor. Even if people in the theater had a weapon they would have had an extremely difficult time locating him through the smoke to fire a kill shot. The odds favor that with all the people running, the cloud of smoke, the confusion of the situation, the heightened fear factor, etc., the average person carrying a weapon either would have missed the bad guy or shot an innocent person. All I'm saying is that just because citizens carry weapons doesn't mean deranged people won't carry out their plan - regardless of their method of delivery (gun, bomb, etc.). And it does not mean people won't be killed. Again, way too many people think simply letting everyone carry a gun and banning assault weapons will cure the problem. My position is that it won't. I am pro gun and favor people having the right to own a weapon for self defense. But I have a problem when it extends to anyone who can pass a pretty simple test being allowed to carry a weapon and shoot it because they think it's necessary, especially when the "training" they've received consists of nothing more than how to put the bullets in and firing at a stationary paper target that doesn't move - or shoot back! |
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Jul 22, 2012 17:16:08 GMT -5
A bomber is different than a shooter. Legally armed civilians do deter crime. I agree it will not stop crime but it does deter crime. It is very difficult to carry a cop in your pocket. Illegally armed civilians increase crime rates. When shooting at criminals cops make more mistakes than civilians. Those mistakes kill more innocent people than the civilians do. Take note of the following quote from a study done by Newsweek. If you read the link I provided it also contains information regarding the fatality rate of accidental shootings. "That still sounds high. So let's look at it in a different light. According to a study by Newsweek magazine, only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. That is as low as I can get that number." actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml |
|
|
|
Post by tomjor on Jul 22, 2012 17:43:19 GMT -5
A bomber is different than a shooter. Legally armed civilians do deter crime. I agree it will not stop crime but it does deter crime. It is very difficult to carry a cop in your pocket. Illegally armed civilians increase crime rates. When shooting at criminals cops make more mistakes than civilians. Those mistakes kill more innocent people than the civilians do. Take note of the following quote from a study done by Newsweek. If you read the link I provided it also contains information regarding the fatality rate of accidental shootings. "That still sounds high. So let's look at it in a different light. According to a study by Newsweek magazine, only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. That is as low as I can get that number." actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml I read the article but must say I'll need to read much more on the statistical side. I found the article contains a bit too much anecdotal material, and a bit of bias against the police. But still fairly good reading. Regardless of the author's points, references and statistics (which are good and merit further reading), I'm still more comfortable knowing a cop has the gun and is handling the situation than an average citizen. I'm not discounting the article on the whole, just saying I'll take it with a grain of salt pending more research on my part. Thanks for posting it. That said, we've veered away from the main point of this thread. I'll stand on my original point that just because everyone is armed and carrying doesn't mean these types of acts will be deterred. Which is what the OP started out with. Average everyday, petty crimes might be deterred in various instances around the country, but that's not what this case was. And neither was Columbine by example. Every time these things happen people come out of the woodwork claiming that bans need to be put in place, and people need to be armed and carrying. Do that and the problem is solved. And I continue to respond that it simply isn't that simple. That has and continues to be my main point. On the other stuff we're probably not that far apart. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveyJones on Jul 22, 2012 18:45:53 GMT -5
re:I am pro gun and favor people having the right to own a weapon for self defense. But I have a problem when it extends to anyone who can pass a pretty simple test being allowed to carry a weapon and shoot it because they think it's necessary, especially when the "training" they've received consists of nothing more than how to put the bullets in and firing at a stationary paper target that doesn't move - or shoot back! Awww chit!!!!Now I got to agree with you on that one.  |
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Jul 25, 2012 19:59:09 GMT -5
Aurora Colorado had a ban on guns. That way only the bad guy had the gun and no one had a prayer of stopping him. We see how well that ban worked for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by tomjor on Jul 26, 2012 8:23:04 GMT -5
Aurora Colorado had a ban on guns. That way only the bad guy had the gun and no one had a prayer of stopping him. We see how well that ban worked for them. They had a ban on guns in movie theaters - not everywhere. That isn't uncommon across the US. There is a safety factor involved in that decision. Your argument doesn't work with me, as once again you make the assumption that if there wasn't a ban there would have been citizens in the theater with guns who would then have shot the guy and prevented the tragedy. As I see it, bans in and of themselves aren't really the issue here. No matter how many times people try to beat the drum there is no escape from the fact that people who want to do harm to others will do harm to others. All the police in the world won't stop that, and all the citizens carrying guns won't stop that. The bad guy might get shot, stopped or killed, but it won't stop the initial act from occurring and I seriously doubt it will stop the bad guy from killing a few before he in turn gets stopped. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveyJones on Jul 27, 2012 17:26:24 GMT -5
So I guess its still ok to buy semi-automatic assult rifle with a 100-round magazine that can shoot 50-60 bullets a minute cause its fun to do so...
|
|
