Sign in to follow this  
SEC=UGA

Gun Control

Recommended Posts

Perch, Irish... Have at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My money's on Perch, he's packin'.

 

 

That and he's been quiet for a long time. Too long....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His neighbor lady has been pretty quiet too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His neighbor lady has been pretty quiet too...

 

 

My neighbor lady has moved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My neighbor lady has moved.

 

Glad to hear. :tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My neighbor lady has moved.

 

 

To the cemetery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know about gun control per se, it may not work much. But guns are very prominent in our society, bot used legally for hunting and illegally to kill others. Far too many people have access to guns (legally or otherwise) and when they snap this easy access allows them to do much more harm than if they had to resort to other forms of violence (sharp or blunt objects).

 

And far too many people in society seem to think that if they have a problem they solve it with a gun, taking the other person's life. Whether it be these mass shootings (this recent one, the one at a HS in Mentor OH this spring, or many other recent events) or a simple single homicide (Zimmerman, and many others whether in anger or self defense).

 

Its enough to make some people want to guy hide in the hills and let all the lunatics shoot it out. (No, not everybody with a gun is a lunatic, just a few.)

 

As far as the old "if only there were people there who were armed and knew what they were doing..." angle, seriously unless these people are professional (cops, soldiers or other highly trained weapons specialists) I really don't want Joe citizen with his gun trying to intervene in these situations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think as a society there is a right to balance individual freedoms with public safety. Where that proper balance is is a difficult debate. I think most reasonable people could agree that we don't need automatic assault.rifles floating around. We don't need laws like in Arizona where you can buy thousands of dollars worth of weapons at a time with no one really questioning it. I also am not so sure of the argument that if everyone were packing we'd all be safer. A dark movie theater with chaos everywhere and you add say another couple of dozen of weapons into the mix? Is prefer trained law enforcement and security personnel to be the armed ones in these situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respectfully but strongly disagree. An armed citizen - a rational law abiding one - would not just start shooting unless it was very obvious who the shooter was and that shooting at him would not hit someone else. Otherwise, do not shoot or even draw your gun. The fact that no one else had a weapon there allowed him to kill 12 people and injure 30+ more. He freely sprayed the crowd. Is it really better to allow a movie theater full of people to turn into a bloodbath instead of someone trying to stop him? This is another case of some nutcase being allowed to massacre people and there being no way to stop him. Honestly, I cannot fathom being satisfied that there was no one else there with a weapon that could have stopped him. If it could have saved one life it was worth it. How could it have been any worse than it already was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isnt a gun control issue. This is a crazy person issue. If they took guns away from everyone, people would still get them, it would just be illegal. Kind of like drugs... If people want them, they will get them. Seems crazy to carry a gun everywhere you go, but nowadays, is it really? Seems like there are way too many nut jobs out there that are willing to commit mass murders for no reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the old "if only there were people there who were armed and knew what they were doing..." angle, seriously unless these people are professional (cops, soldiers or other highly trained weapons specialists) I really don't want Joe citizen with his gun trying to intervene in these situations.

 

 

How many rounds do you think the typical cop fires a year? How many rounds do you think the typical guy or gal with a CHL fires a year? My uncle has been a cop for over 25 years, and I can tell you I probably fire more rounds in a month than he does a year. I know I'm a better shot. Besides my uncle, I have 6 friends that are cops. I'm a better shot than 5 of the 6. The one that is better than me is ex-special forces and currently on the SWAT team. The typical guy with a CHL practices more than the typical cop by a large margin, and in most cases are better shots. Most guys with a CHL are gun enthusiasts like myself, and shoot a lot, because they enjoy doing it. As a result they are better shots than most cops and are more used to handling their firearms than most cops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a well armed, well trained individual and a pretty darned good shot. Any argument that my presence at the movie would have resulted in one less innocent corpse is illegitimate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a well armed, well trained individual and a pretty darned good shot. Any argument that my presence at the movie would have resulted in one less innocent corpse is illegitimate.

 

So you were there? How could you possibly know that there was no way to stop him?

 

Also, even if your presence with a gun didn't make a difference, would it have made it any worse? I'd imagine not, unless you're as big of a sociopath as the shooter just firing randomly in a crowded movie theatre.

 

I would say that 99.9% of those who go out legally armed in public will not shoot in a crowdded movie theatre at low visibility from a smoke bomb, unless they have a clear shot at their target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many rounds do you think the typical cop fires a year? How many rounds do you think the typical guy or gal with a CHL fires a year? My uncle has been a cop for over 25 years, and I can tell you I probably fire more rounds in a month than he does a year. I know I'm a better shot. Besides my uncle, I have 6 friends that are cops. I'm a better shot than 5 of the 6. The one that is better than me is ex-special forces and currently on the SWAT team. The typical guy with a CHL practices more than the typical cop by a large margin, and in most cases are better shots. Most guys with a CHL are gun enthusiasts like myself, and shoot a lot, because they enjoy doing it. As a result they are better shots than most cops and are more used to handling their firearms than most cops.

 

Simply being a good marksman is insufficient to do what you and DMD propose. I submit that the "average" citizen who carries a firearm is just as likely to do something dangerous/stupid/make a bad situation worse than he is to save the day. I respect that you take gun ownership very seriously, but let's face it. You are more likely the exception than the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you were there? How could you possibly know that there was no way to stop him?

 

 

I didn't say there was. Yet everyone in favor of every jacka$$ in a movie theatre being armed sure likes to assume I wouldn't have been the first one shot by the bad guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you were there? How could you possibly know that there was no way to stop him?

 

Also, even if your presence with a gun didn't make a difference, would it have made it any worse? I'd imagine not, unless you're as big of a sociopath as the shooter just firing randomly in a crowded movie theatre.

 

I would say that 99.9% of those who go out legally armed in public will not shoot in a crowdded movie theatre at low visibility from a smoke bomb, unless they have a clear shot at their target.

 

 

I like how you start your posting with "How could you possibly know that there was no way to stop him?" to end it with "

I would say that 99.9% of those who go out legally armed in public will not shoot in a crowdded movie theatre at low visibility from a smoke bomb, unless they have a clear shot at their target."

 

You answered your own question.

Edited by LordOpie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply being a good marksman is insufficient to do what you and DMD propose. I submit that the "average" citizen who carries a firearm is just as likely to do something dangerous/stupid/make a bad situation worse than he is to save the day. I respect that you take gun ownership very seriously, but let's face it. You are more likely the exception than the rule.

 

I actually think that this would be due to a lack of education and experience with guns... With family in the country, I grew up with guns since I was in diapers, and learned to respect their deadliness, to know that you never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot and kill, as well as take all the proper precautions.

 

So maybe my 99.9% was a little naive (and like I said in the other thread, I'm in favor of both required education and requirements to be able to legally carry), but I don't think I'd go as far as to say irresponsible gun owners who are legally carrying are anywhere close to the norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say there was. Yet everyone in favor of every jacka$$ in a movie theatre being armed sure likes to assume I wouldn't have been the first one shot by the bad guy.

 

I did not say that I'm in favor of every jackass being armed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respectfully but strongly disagree. An armed citizen - a rational law abiding one - would not just start shooting unless it was very obvious who the shooter was and that shooting at him would not hit someone else. Otherwise, do not shoot or even draw your gun. The fact that no one else had a weapon there allowed him to kill 12 people and injure 30+ more. He freely sprayed the crowd. Is it really better to allow a movie theater full of people to turn into a bloodbath instead of someone trying to stop him? This is another case of some nutcase being allowed to massacre people and there being no way to stop him. Honestly, I cannot fathom being satisfied that there was no one else there with a weapon that could have stopped him. If it could have saved one life it was worth it. How could it have been any worse than it already was?

 

 

Kind of interesting it happened at a Batman movie cause basically what you are hoping for is a vigilante, like Batman, to step in and take him down. Sort of like the wild west and this is where the problem is in my mind. So much in our society is reactive instead of proactive. Imagine if someone else did have a gun? Sure, maybe they shoot and kill him, one and done. However, not likely. It's just as likely more people would've died in that scenario where there's someone else, or a couple people with guns. Then the theater, turns into a shootout. He starts shooting, killing all those people, the individual/s with guns duck for cover at first while he's spraying and killing/hurting people. Then they fire back, and possibly miss (or hit an innocent bystander) and instead of leaving, it enrages the gunman, so he starts shooting again, killing more people. This situation was awful but it could certainly have turned out uglier. Better gun control laws could certainly help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how you start your posting with "How could you possibly know that there was no way to stop him?" to end it with "

I would say that 99.9% of those who go out legally armed in public will not shoot in a crowdded movie theatre at low visibility from a smoke bomb, unless they have a clear shot at their target."

 

You answered your own question.

 

Yes, I was assuming that IF they didn't have a clear shot, that the vast majority of peopel who'vehandled guns wouldn't make the shot. I'm not postulating that it was impossible for someone to be in a position to have a clear shot like club was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think that this would be due to a lack of education and experience with guns... With family in the country, I grew up with guns since I was in diapers, and learned to respect their deadliness, to know that you never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot and kill, as well as take all the proper precautions.

 

So maybe my 99.9% was a little naive (and like I said in the other thread, I'm in favor of both required education and requirements to be able to legally carry), but I don't think I'd go as far as to say irresponsible gun owners who are legally carrying are anywhere close to the norm.

 

My argument isn't as much about being responsible as it is about how people react in a crisis situation. I don't care how many hours you've spent at the range. That is not going to prepare you to think clearly and critically when someone appear in your midst shooting people at will. As a general rule, law enforcement personnel are going to have some training in this regard. Such training is going to determine someone's ability to assist in a crisis far more than their marksmanship.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respectfully but strongly disagree. An armed citizen - a rational law abiding one - would not just start shooting unless it was very obvious who the shooter was and that shooting at him would not hit someone else. Otherwise, do not shoot or even draw your gun. The fact that no one else had a weapon there allowed him to kill 12 people and injure 30+ more. He freely sprayed the crowd. Is it really better to allow a movie theater full of people to turn into a bloodbath instead of someone trying to stop him? This is another case of some nutcase being allowed to massacre people and there being no way to stop him. Honestly, I cannot fathom being satisfied that there was no one else there with a weapon that could have stopped him. If it could have saved one life it was worth it. How could it have been any worse than it already was?

 

 

Is that a known fact? I hadn't read that anywhere. Or is it just an assumed because people are generally prohibited from bringing guns into such places?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isnt a gun control issue. This is a crazy person issue. If they took guns away from everyone, people would still get them, it would just be illegal. Kind of like drugs... If people want them, they will get them. Seems crazy to carry a gun everywhere you go, but nowadays, is it really? Seems like there are way too many nut jobs out there that are willing to commit mass murders for no reason.

 

 

Better Gun control would make it harder for crazy people to get guns as they wouldn't be as readily available. Therefore, these crazies would have to resort to other, more likely, less destructive means. Can you imagine every person being able to carry a gun on them?!?

 

You make the point about drugs. I've never done drugs and if I wanted to start, I couldn't just go to the local supermarket and pick up some pot, or coke, or lsd, etc because it's not legal and therefore, as readily available. Could I get some? Sure, but it would be harder to do. I feel better Gun Control laws would have the same effect. Right not, I have a crystal clean background and would check out no problem. I go into a gun store, show my ID and could get a gun without much trouble at all. I could also be someone who just recently found out his wife was cheating on him or lost a child in a bad accident and want to take my anger out some way. Easy money.

Edited by irish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advocates of this "everyone with a gun" position assume an average concealed carry permit Joe has more sense than I care to give them.

 

That said, I'm not for more gun control or against concealed carry per se. I think guns are dangerous and I take statistics seriously that you are more likely to be shot by your own gun than an intruder's. I agree with those that have indicated that this situation is more of a mental health issue. The best way to prevent the random delusional massacre is through social services where people have early access to mental health and gets to these people before the worst happens. I'm not convinced that a person in this state of mind would care if the entire theater had pistols drawn and aimed at the exit door as he came in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.