It was based on the subject of the OP legally obtaining weapons with the alleged intent of a shooting spree and his claim that he "believes"
that he could take out at least 15 before anyone could get to him.There have been those on this board that have argued that unfettered access to guns will deter violence when this is clearly not the case. This "gentleman" had unfettered access and appears to have been ready to go Columbine any day. Whether other citizens with guns may or may not have been able to stop him has always been and was the intended topic for this thread.
Nebor
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2003
- 29,582
- 12
- 76
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
It was based on the subject of the OP legally obtaining weapons with the alleged intent of a shooting spree and his claim that he "believes"
There have been those on this board that have argued that unfettered access to guns will deter violence when this is clearly not the case. This "gentleman" had unfettered access and appears to have been ready to go Columbine any day. Whether other citizens with guns may or may not have been able to stop him has always been and was the intended topic for this thread.
A guy had access to guns and... nothing happened. Wow. This is an amazing development in the ongoing argument over gun control. NEXT.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,918
- 2,883
- 136
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
It was based on the subject of the OP legally obtaining weapons with the alleged intent of a shooting spree and his claim that he "believes"
There have been those on this board that have argued that unfettered access to guns will deter violence when this is clearly not the case. This "gentleman" had unfettered access and appears to have been ready to go Columbine any day. Whether other citizens with guns may or may not have been able to stop him has always been and was the intended topic for this thread.
A guy had access to guns and... nothing happened. Wow. This is an amazing development in the ongoing argument over gun control. NEXT.
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
I find this response pretty ironic considering it comes from the same person that said:
Now, for someone that likes to jump to such conclusions (that Berkeley banned military recruitment when they didn't or that that particular marine recruiting station was somehow keeping them safe at nights), I would expect you to be able to see that the likely intent of the OP subject WAS do make something happen.
But why should you be consistent in your rabid fervor of support for anything guns and against anything that you deem even remotely anti-military or liberal?
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
It was based on the subject of the OP legally obtaining weapons with the alleged intent of a shooting spree and his claim that he "believes"
There have been those on this board that have argued that unfettered access to guns will deter violence when this is clearly not the case. This "gentleman" had unfettered access and appears to have been ready to go Columbine any day. Whether other citizens with guns may or may not have been able to stop him has always been and was the intended topic for this thread.
WOW, you expect anybody with half a brain to take your conclusions.... conclusions based on other assumtions no less, as serious arguments?
OP, the only thing you've proven in this thread is that you have the ability to make an ass out of yourself.
I'll link you one for free, the other 2.5 million per year (or 600,000 per year, depending on which statistics you believe) you have to look up for yourself.
Appalachian School of Law shooting\
I'm not really willing to go into a ton of studies here because its not like I am going to change anybodies mind, and the Constitution clearly protects the right to carry guns, but I have seen many studies showing that for example the number of children accidentally killed while "playing" with a parents gun is far larger than the number of instances where a robber/rapist/murder was stopped by a gun. Now I'm sure all ATOT gun carriers will talk about the great length that they go to in order to protect their guns, but the fact of the matter is that there are ALOT of people out there who do not take the same precautions and the result is a large number of accidental deaths.
The only problem is that you're 100% wrong.
Total accidental gun deaths bounce between 200 and 600 a year over the last decade or so. The number of defensive gun uses every year is between 600,000 and 2.5 million, depending on if you prefer the DOJ methodology or John Lott's study. You don't have to be a math major to figure out that even 600,000 is quite a bit more than 600.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
I'm not sure what the issue is here. I need to demonstrate competence before I can drive a car. It's not a Constitutional issue. It's a big friggin piece of steel which can kill people. Likewise, I think it perfectly reasonable that the same sort of requirement be in place. Once passed then one gets to carry.
As far as purchasing a handgun goes I'm for instant background checks. While it may be possible to buy a firearm illegally, that doesn't mean it we should just hand them out to John Doe either.
Responsible people ought to be able to purchase and carry firearms, and reasonable precautions to ensure they are who they say they are is also reasonable.
As far as purchasing a handgun goes I'm for instant background checks. While it may be possible to buy a firearm illegally, that doesn't mean it we should just hand them out to John Doe either.
Responsible people ought to be able to purchase and carry firearms, and reasonable precautions to ensure they are who they say they are is also reasonable.
Typical palehorse illogic - policy is based all the time on 'probably', and should be.
If a new food or drug product 'probably' causes cancer, should it be approved?
If a nation would 'probably' use weapons we sell them to slaughter children, should we sell them?
If a tax hike would 'probably' do more harm than good to the economy, should we do it?
No, you just latched onto the word and made a pointless post. Nonsense.
Of course, the word probably *can* be a red flag. If someone 'probably' did a crime, should they go to jail? If our radar showed the Russians had 'probably' launched, should we?
But the word probably is all about context, about the weighing of the different options' pros and cons - something your absurd, child-like post doesn't mention.
I'd like to see the numbers on this one. 600k and 2.5m per year? I think that you are probably off by about 590,000 and 2.499M.
As for the entire premise of this thread being without merit or a valid counter argument, I would like to offer the responses by those claiming that armed citizens would have stopped, prevented or lessened the body/injury counts as evidence in threads that are about the opposite.
Whenever there is some mass shooting, those that are clamoring to call my suppositions "without merit" or "baseless", are the first to tell us how safe the school, mall or jobsite would have been if only everyone was carrying. Incredibly ironic that your probability factoring is 100% and those that would argue the other side of the coin are at 0% in YOUR OPINION.
As for the link to the Appalachian School shooting, the gunman was still able to take out three victims and wound three other before being stopped by two POLICE officers who happened to be students at the school and a third unarmed person who was a former marine and also a police officer.
The church in Colorado was also an off duty officer. Trolley Square....OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICER!!!
Are you noticing the pattern yet?
Not really the strongest argument that some pimply, hormone-raged nineteen year old would be able to have responded with the same effectiveness in a similar situation.
As for the OP, the subject of the story had 6 weapons, over 1500 rounds, books on explosives and told coworkers that he "he "could probably kill 15 people at work before anybody could stop him" in addition to threatening his exwife and her boyfriend. I can see where I went wrong thinking that he "probably" was going to do something with the weapons. :roll:
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,918
- 2,883
- 136
So you go on some rant about guns not saving lives and you haven't even done basic research on the subject......
Even if we completely ignored the Department of Justice and used your numbers (because I'm sure you know much more about this than the Department of Justice), 10k is still quite a bit more than 600 accidental gun deaths....
I'll link you a simple table and you can use that to obtain the actual primary results if you're interested. Even if you choose the most conservative estimate in existence it's over 100k (National Crime Victimization Survey), and the faultiness of that number is agreed upon by pretty much everyone (don't take my word for it, just look around and you'll see all the debunking). Armed Citizen is just one of many sources where you can find info about citizen gun uses every year. You may not like the NRA, but every story printed on Armed Citizen links to an originating news agency and you can feel free to do the research to verify them (already done by many time after time).
As to your comments about citizens stopping crimes, thank you, that's exactly what we're saying. Had they been able to keep their weapons on them at Appalachian maybe there have been no or fewer deaths. As to you trying to point out it was all cops, that's a very few of the hundreds of thousands of uses every year...they're just the easiest ones to cite since everyone remembers them. Feel free to browse the armed citizen archives if you want more.
Your bs about pimply 19yr olds is a load of horseshit since in most states you have to be 21 to get a permit. Nice try though.
Did you notice that your source is a gun right's advocate site and that their totals are "implied"?
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,081
- 136
I agree with some of the things here.
If you have a legitimate need for a gun you should be able to deal with a waiting period and a backround check.
Being stalked?
Call the cops if you dont know who it is or a lawyer if you do know.
I keep guns for the possibility I might need them against an unknown assailant. I dont support vigilante's. If you have a problem with someone you let the authorities know. You dont go off on an angry or paranoid killing spree. Thats the kind of thing that gives gun-grabbers leverage in congress. Usually when I talk to someone who's seriously scared of something (often a woman) I advise a taser or pepper spray. I dont like the idea of frightened or ignorant people shooting things left and right (which seems to be how gun haters percieve anyone who wants a gun).
Someone breaking into your house right now?
THATS when you need a gun, when you know darn well 911 isnt as fast as a 1911. (Cliche, I know, but its also true.) The cops take forever to respond to emergencies and you have a right to protect your life.
Same with concealed carry. Last time I checked, police weren't providing escort duty for citizens going into rough neighborhoods and private security is VERY expensive. A gun may be the best solution for you. Take the class, do what you need for a permit, and carry it legally.
Along those lines I think CC permit standards should be universal, but asking the federal government to do any gun regulating seems to be a bad idea at this point.
Democrats want to ban as many guns as they can, and current Republicans dont seem to be very trustworthy either.
Perhaps when a large body of independants takes control of congress we may see this issue resolved once and for all.
If you have a legitimate need for a gun you should be able to deal with a waiting period and a backround check.
Being stalked?
Call the cops if you dont know who it is or a lawyer if you do know.
I keep guns for the possibility I might need them against an unknown assailant. I dont support vigilante's. If you have a problem with someone you let the authorities know. You dont go off on an angry or paranoid killing spree. Thats the kind of thing that gives gun-grabbers leverage in congress. Usually when I talk to someone who's seriously scared of something (often a woman) I advise a taser or pepper spray. I dont like the idea of frightened or ignorant people shooting things left and right (which seems to be how gun haters percieve anyone who wants a gun).
Someone breaking into your house right now?
THATS when you need a gun, when you know darn well 911 isnt as fast as a 1911. (Cliche, I know, but its also true.) The cops take forever to respond to emergencies and you have a right to protect your life.
Same with concealed carry. Last time I checked, police weren't providing escort duty for citizens going into rough neighborhoods and private security is VERY expensive. A gun may be the best solution for you. Take the class, do what you need for a permit, and carry it legally.
Along those lines I think CC permit standards should be universal, but asking the federal government to do any gun regulating seems to be a bad idea at this point.
Democrats want to ban as many guns as they can, and current Republicans dont seem to be very trustworthy either.
Perhaps when a large body of independants takes control of congress we may see this issue resolved once and for all.
Nebor
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2003
- 29,582
- 12
- 76
I like your post except for this part. There have been several stories in the last couple years where women had guns "waiting" for them at the local gun store when their crazy ex boyfriend killed them. This only happens in those liberal northeastern states that still have waiting periods.
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
What exactly are you arguing?
People don't have any issues with waiting periods or felonies... only with rules that prohibit legally licensed gun owners form bring guns to certain places. All they need to do is ban nutcases from owning guns - ie. if a doctor tells you to take xanax, zoloft or any kind of med ike that, you shouldn't have access to gun.
People don't have any issues with waiting periods or felonies... only with rules that prohibit legally licensed gun owners form bring guns to certain places. All they need to do is ban nutcases from owning guns - ie. if a doctor tells you to take xanax, zoloft or any kind of med ike that, you shouldn't have access to gun.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Personal attacks aside...
as usual, you're wrong. If, during the debate of a hypothetical, someone uses the word "probably," from that point on, the onus is on them to actually prove it.
I know that providing proof, of anything, is a foreign concept to many of you, but that is exactly what's required to make the OP's case... that is, if he ever had a point ot begin with.
Then again Craig, you're probably just an ass...
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
Firearms are used to protect life and property about as often as a vehicle is involved in an accident.
That was based on.....2001?......stats.
So yeah, I would say firearms (When available) are used quite a damn bit.
The problem is everyone thinks "using a gun" means shooting 6 damned people. Many times its nothing more then displaying the weapon. Many times shots are fired and no one is hit, or no one killed. Those stories dont exactly make the news though do they, and sure as shit are added into any stats the gun grabbers will be putting together on how dangerous the guns are.
But let me ask you this.
Why shouldnt felons be allowed to own a firearm?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 386
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter