Perfect scenario good guy with gun vs bad guy with gun. What happened?

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
1sikbITCH

1sikbITCH

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2001
4,194
574
126
werepossum said:
That's a valid point - sort of a reverse "In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king". Reminds me of the Florida tourist shooting epidemic a few years back; when asked why they targeted tourists, the arrested criminals invariably responded "because they have money and they don't have guns".

As to the OP's point, I recommend a hat. A Walmart is about the worst possible scenario for self defense, and literally everyone knows this.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I drew from when making my statement. They looked for rental cars because they knew out-of-state folks would not be armed. In jurisdictions where it is legal to open carry, establishments choosing to strip folks of their right to bear arms should be legally obligated to protect everyone stripped of that right. You'd have to supply armed guards or other protections against this sort of stuff.
 
The Merg

The Merg

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2009
1,210
34
91
[DHT]Osiris said:
I'm not sure it's reasonable to assume anything about someone willing to murder dozens of people, as I don't (and hopefully you don't) think like them. We're talking about someone who's got something broken in their brain, in some form or fashion. He may have been just as likely to squat in the road and take a shit as seek out someone else to shoot at. Making any assumptions about what he would or would not do after the point at which he got shot, or shot himself, is just navel-gazing.
Click to expand...

There’s a difference between someone who has mental issues and someone who is just plain crazy. I was pointing out that you can look at past incidents to look at predicting future behavior. We do it all the time.

Look up the mass shooter incidents and see how they all ended. What happened in this case follows right along with that.

- Merg
 
Zaap

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
BigDH01 said:
You know, from the opposite side it looks like the right is thrilled about guns and shooters because an active shooter was stopped by someone with a gun... ignoring the 26 people that had already been killed and pretending like this is a huge success for guns.

So while you say the left wanted more carnage, the left would say the right is ignoring the 26 dead bodies and pretending like this wasn't already a tragedy.

So, keep lying rightwit?
Click to expand...
That's typical leftwing stupidity because absolutely no one is glad 26 people are dead, and if anyone is, it's assholes like those that have lied in this thread and keep on doing so.

People on the right are glad it wasn't 28, 30, 35, 40 or more people dead because it wss stopped before that happened. Notice how you admit that, but at least one lying shitbag liking your post was part of the circle jerk spreading lies about how things ended.

I notice some of the others are hiding somewhere like the Lowlife dipshits they are.

Just proves again why the left lacks all credibility. None of you gives a flying shit about people killed. You sure as hell don't give a shit about what actually happened. This entire thread in an exercise in making shit up about what happened in the Walmart shooting.

What of course you'll continue to fail to realize, is when you're ilk is caught blantantly lying over things like this, it makes people realize (if they didn't already) that you'll lie about and insist any nonsense for your agenda. And your agenda has NOTHING AT ALL to do with making anyone safer.

Its only about whinging over and making up lies to smear law abiding gun owners right along with criminals. Your ilk has NO SOLUTIONS whatsoever about disarming criminals and preventing any incident like this. And its evidenced by the fact that you'll willingly lie about and support liars who make shit up about what prevented more deaths in this case.

Now I know you and fellow lefties won't get that...just back to more angling how can you politicize this and discredit the guy who stopped the killer! Have at it, because its all the left has, not one damn real world solution.

I do give you credit for at least not lying about what happened. You might wanna think about that and kind of pssst! whisper it in the ear of some of your fellow leftists who can't help themsevles but keep lying. It just keeps proving the point.
 
imported_tajmahal

imported_tajmahal

Lifer
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
bradly1101 said:
I don't choose to ignore the obviously important first clause in the sentence that makes up the 2nd amendment. I know I'm stepping on the toes of "settled law," but I'd crush those toes if I could. The question I have is, why did the majority on the Supreme Court choose to ignore it?
Click to expand...
They didn't, it doesn't have much to do with the rest of the Amendment. Try reading the 1st Amendment with the same rules that you think should only apply to the 2nd.

1st - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2nd -A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now apply your so important "first clause" equally.
 
imported_tajmahal

imported_tajmahal

Lifer
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
1sikbITCH said:
That is exactly what I drew from when making my statement. They looked for rental cars because they knew out-of-state folks would not be armed. In jurisdictions where it is legal to open carry, establishments choosing to strip folks of their right to bear arms should be legally obligated to protect everyone stripped of that right. You'd have to supply armed guards or other protections against this sort of stuff.
Click to expand...
They're called police, but keep celebrating the death of women and children, it makes you look ........cool.
 
bradly1101

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
imported_tajmahal said:
They didn't, it doesn't have much to do with the rest of the Amendment. Try reading the 1st Amendment with the same rules that you think should only apply to the 2nd.

1st - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2nd -A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now apply your so important "first clause" equally.
Click to expand...
I believe the first clause in the 1st is just as important as the first clause in the 2nd or the rest of the 1st. But we could un-interestingly argue that until the cows come home. The founders were loose with their first clauses?
 
imported_tajmahal

imported_tajmahal

Lifer
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
bradly1101 said:
I believe the first clause in the 1st is just as important as the first clause in the 2nd or the rest of the 1st. But we could un-interestingly argue that until the cows come home. The founders were loose with their first clauses?
Click to expand...
I don't think so, they wrote the Bill of Rights to be easily comprehended by the people of the time. It doesn't take a Harvard Law Professor to explain what it means, most people can read it and get a good enough handle on it.
 
bradly1101

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
imported_tajmahal said:
I don't think so, they wrote the Bill of Rights to be easily comprehended by the people of the time. It doesn't take a Harvard Law Professor to explain what it means, most people can read it and get a good enough handle on it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand your point, but I'm just one of the referenced simpletons. How would these rights be more accurately conveyed if they didn't have to be "easily comprehended by the people of the time?"
 
imported_tajmahal

imported_tajmahal

Lifer
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
bradly1101 said:
I'm not sure I understand your point, but I'm just one of the referenced simpletons. How would these rights be more accurately conveyed if they didn't have to be "easily comprehended by the people of the time?"
Click to expand...
i'm the same, I believe it recognizes my rights to keep, own, buy and possess, firearms including the means to use them (ammunition) and that if called upon by the proper authorities I can use those firearms to defend the country. I can also use those firearms to defend my life, the lives of my family and those under my care and to prevent crimes against them. If you want to make up you're own definition you are welcome to do it, just don't expect me to agree or disagree with it.
 
Puffnstuff

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,033
4,798
136
Sheik Yerbouti said:
Guns have one purpose, to kill. That's it. And in the wrong hands they do catastrophic damage. I get it you love your guns, the loss of life is acceptable so we can have our precious guns. Guns are more important than human lives, even children, that point has been made exceedingly clear from you and others who hold the 2a above all else.
We get it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should take some constitutional law classes so you can get it.:D I have just as much right to own guns as you have to spew garbage.:p
 
Last edited:
ch33zw1z

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
37,768
18,046
146
bradly1101 said:
I believe the first clause in the 1st is just as important as the first clause in the 2nd or the rest of the 1st. But we could un-interestingly argue that until the cows come home. The founders were loose with their first clauses?
Click to expand...
i joined the state militia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo
B

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,630
82
91
Zaap said:
That's typical leftwing stupidity because absolutely no one is glad 26 people are dead, and if anyone is, it's assholes like those that have lied in this thread and keep on doing so.

People on the right are glad it wasn't 28, 30, 35, 40 or more people dead because it wss stopped before that happened. Notice how you admit that, but at least one lying shitbag liking your post was part of the circle jerk spreading lies about how things ended.

I notice some of the others are hiding somewhere like the Lowlife dipshits they are.

Just proves again why the left lacks all credibility. None of you gives a flying shit about people killed. You sure as hell don't give a shit about what actually happened. This entire thread in an exercise in making shit up about what happened in the Walmart shooting.

What of course you'll continue to fail to realize, is when you're ilk is caught blantantly lying over things like this, it makes people realize (if they didn't already) that you'll lie about and insist any nonsense for your agenda. And your agenda has NOTHING AT ALL to do with making anyone safer.

Its only about whinging over and making up lies to smear law abiding gun owners right along with criminals. Your ilk has NO SOLUTIONS whatsoever about disarming criminals and preventing any incident like this. And its evidenced by the fact that you'll willingly lie about and support liars who make shit up about what prevented more deaths in this case.

Now I know you and fellow lefties won't get that...just back to more angling how can you politicize this and discredit the guy who stopped the killer! Have at it, because its all the left has, not one damn real world solution.

I do give you credit for at least not lying about what happened. You might wanna think about that and kind of pssst! whisper it in the ear of some of your fellow leftists who can't help themsevles but keep lying. It just keeps proving the point.
Click to expand...

Leftist huh? Go look at my posting history dumbass.

Jesus Christ man, are you so enamored with your epistemic bubble that you can't possibly fathom a different worldview? One in which people might disagree with you but also be honest and genuine?

I'm not suggesting guns get taken away from anyone, but this episode in Texas is not a "victory" for guns because a serial killer who killed over 20 people with a gun was stopped by a gun. That logic is fucking retarded.

Judging by your rambling, idiotic, and obviously regurgitated posts, you are a lost cause.
 
bradly1101

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
imported_tajmahal said:
They didn't, it doesn't have much to do with the rest of the Amendment. Try reading the 1st Amendment with the same rules that you think should only apply to the 2nd.

1st - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2nd -A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now apply your so important "first clause" equally.
Click to expand...
Clauses in sentences are there for a reason and are obviously connected, and the founders were quite careful with their words. I'm not trying to be insulting, but didn't we learn all this by the fifth grade?

What allows you in your brain to ignore an important first clause in any sentence? C'mon, do you really believe the founders made a mistake, or were too wordy so as to match their constituents' simple brains? Or is it your politics and desires that give you authority over the intended meaning of their words or the special insight you claim into the founding fathers of these United States?

Edit: punctuation
 
Last edited:
bradly1101

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
imported_tajmahal said:
i'm the same, I believe it recognizes my rights to keep, own, buy and possess, firearms including the means to use them (ammunition) and that if called upon by the proper authorities I can use those firearms to defend the country. I can also use those firearms to defend my life, the lives of my family and those under my care and to prevent crimes against them. If you want to make up you're own definition you are welcome to do it, just don't expect me to agree or disagree with it.
Click to expand...

Militias are great. In the day that the 2nd was written, many states had their own well regulated militias to protect states' rights. Those went the way of the dodo long ago after the country became more unified, and police forces and the National Guard took on that role. I'm glad you feel protected and are willing to defend your country (I thought the rationalization was to allow citizens to rise-up against our government if it ever became tyrannical - something else I'm 100% sure the founders didn't intend). I'm not sure your weapons would be useful in any modern national defense scenario. That would be highly unlikely anyway, and you grabbing your gun to become part of a fighting force would not fall under the definition of "well regulated militia." I know, I know, certain words of our founding fathers are meaningless, and are able to be politically ignored, just as the founders wanted?
 
bradly1101

bradly1101

Diamond Member
May 5, 2013
4,689
294
126
www.bradlygsmith.org
imported_tajmahal said:
If you want to make up you're own definition you are welcome to do it, just don't expect me to agree or disagree with it.
Click to expand...

How to detect baloney:

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/
  1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
  2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
  3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
  4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
  5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
  6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
  7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
  8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
  9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom