Sign in to follow this  
SEC=UGA

Gun Control

Recommended Posts

I dispute the characterization as "good". I would agree you have a better shot with the laser than without. So now you just have to hit him in the face, from across an auditorium, with complete chaos surrounding you. You may be a better shot than a standard cop, but you aren't SWAT.

 

And I sure as heck am not comfortable going to see a movie knowing everyone behind me is armed with a pitol and under the mistaken impression they have any chance at all against a dude as well armed and kevlared up as Holmes apparently was.

 

 

Even if you hit him at center mass which is protected rather than the face, or the armpit, or the thigh (femoral) you are going to temporarily incapacitate him. Kevlar will more than likely keep the bullet from penetrating, the kinetic energy is still there and will more than likely knock him on his ass, particularly since he wouldn't be expecting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you hit him at center mass which is protected rather than the face, or the armpit, or the thigh (femoral) you are going to temporarily incapacitate him. Kevlar will more than likely keep the bullet from penetrating, the kinetic energy is still there and will more than likely knock him on his ass, particularly since he wouldn't be expecting it.

 

 

I'm going to dispute the effectiveness of a pistol vs. kevlar from across a movie theatre with a pistol that is small enough to be concealed. I doubt you have a shot at the armpit given his weapon - it just isn't exposed. He has kevlar leggings on so I doubt hitting him in the thigh is going to be effective. You need to shoot his face.

 

I agree with you from close range, you might have a chance at knocking him down. Of course the closer you are the more likely it is you are dead since he's got an AR-15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to dispute the effectiveness of a pistol vs. kevlar from across a movie theatre with a pistol that is small enough to be concealed. I doubt you have a shot at the armpit given his weapon - it just isn't exposed. He has kevlar leggings on so I doubt hitting him in the thigh is going to be effective. You need to shoot his face.

 

I agree with you from close range, you might have a chance at knocking him down. Of course the closer you are the more likely it is you are dead since he's got an AR-15.

 

 

Didn't read the part about kevlar leggings. Still the arm pit is legit, as his arm is extended to shoot the rifle, thus his armpit is exposed. Your typical .45acp is going to have 500 ft/lb of force anywhere in a movie theater. I'm pretty sure that will knock him off his butt, and probably stun him for a few seconds as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to dispute the effectiveness of a pistol vs. kevlar from across a movie theatre with a pistol that is small enough to be concealed. I doubt you have a shot at the armpit given his weapon - it just isn't exposed. He has kevlar leggings on so I doubt hitting him in the thigh is going to be effective. You need to shoot his face.

 

I agree with you from close range, you might have a chance at knocking him down. Of course the closer you are the more likely it is you are dead since he's got an AR-15.

 

 

you're cowering on the floor of a movie theater, smoke and tear gas everywhere, dude walking around shooting people indiscriminately. and yeah, he's got body armor and an assault rifle. granted you're in a tough spot either way, which would you rather have in your right hand as you wait for him to get to your row:

1) a little concealed carry .38

2) a box of jujubes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't read the part about kevlar leggings. Still the arm pit is legit, as his arm is extended to shoot the rifle, thus his armpit is exposed. Your typical .45acp is going to have 500 ft/lb of force anywhere in a movie theater. I'm pretty sure that will knock him off his butt, and probably stun him for a few seconds as well.

 

 

I've seen Richard Davis shoot himself with a .some pretty big guns and just stand there. Richard Davis does appear much bigger than this Holmes guy and is expecting to be shot.

 

Again, my only point is that I dispute the assertion that the situation is better if people would just be able to return fire. It is far from a given that that would have done any good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people seriously wondering how, in a room full of tear gas another half dozen people pulling pieces and firing wouldn't have made it worse?

 

Stupid.

Edited by Pope Flick

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.

 

 

thinking these thoughts and actually being in a situation like this are 2 different worlds. unless you've actually been n a situation like this, I'm gonna say you're talking out your ass..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people seriously wondering how, in a room full of tear gas another half dozen people pulling pieces and firing wouldn't have made it worse?

 

Stupid.

 

 

I'm pro-gun all the way , and I approve Pope's message

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people seriously wondering how, in a room full of tear gas another half dozen people pulling pieces and firing wouldn't have made it worse?

 

Stupid.

 

I am thinking if 100 people had guns in that theater at least 99 of them would have been hiding or running while pissing their pants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am thinking if 100 people had guns in that theater at least 99 of them would have been hiding or running while pissing their pants.

 

I completely disagree that 99 armed people would have been hiding or running. A fair portion of that amount would have instead: (1) shot themselves by accident; (2) shot another innocent by accident; or (3) gotten shot by the gunman as they confronted him.

Edited by yo mama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're cowering on the floor of a movie theater, smoke and tear gas everywhere, dude walking around shooting people indiscriminately. and yeah, he's got body armor and an assault rifle. granted you're in a tough spot either way, which would you rather have in your right hand as you wait for him to get to your row:

1) a little concealed carry .38

2) a box of jujubes

 

 

I'd rather have several years of jiu jitsu. I promise in an environment like that in the dark and with teargas that someone with a little training could take him out.You DO NOT want to be in a dark room with someone like double agent if he's angry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thinking these thoughts and actually being in a situation like this are 2 different worlds. unless you've actually been n a situation like this, I'm gonna say you're talking out your ass..

 

First time chatting with delusions of grandeur?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't we be talking about properly funding medical health centers to deal with crazy people instead of always talking about gun laws? Isn't it possible that the best way to stop some of these whackos would be to catch warning signals and get theses people some help?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely disagree that 99 armed people would have been hiding or running. A fair portion of that amount would have instead: (1) shot themselves by accident; (2) shot another innocent by accident; or (3) gotten shot by the gunman as they confronted him.

 

 

Which was exactly my point to begin with. Guns = Danger (especially in the wrong hands). Anyone read the statistics yet on how much more dangerous it is living in the US with our lax gun control laws in comparison to just about everywhere else. Not pretty. Let's just keep handing those guns out to every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to be a tough guy and think he's protecting himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't we be talking about properly funding medical health centers to deal with crazy people instead of always talking about gun laws? Isn't it possible that the best way to stop some of these whackos would be to catch warning signals and get theses people some help?

 

 

Wait a minute?!?! Are you actually suggesting that we be proactive? What's wrong with pulling a gun and pointing it at the chest of a mentally challenged person who walks in your front door, not knowing any better? What? You don't just keep your distance and ask who they are and what they're doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

 

 

All I can say is that your argument is extremely naive. Having never done drugs, how could you possibly know how hard it is to get them? The only thing gun control would do is make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to get them. If a person is willing to commit evil acts it would not be difficult to get a weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago I had a young man that was mentally challenged walk into my house. I'd never seen the guy before. All I know is he did not belong in my house. I was actually in the back yard smoking a pork but and as I walked in the back door, he walked in the front door at the same time. I pulled my gun and leveled it at his chest. I didn't pull the trigger because, I quickly ascertained he was not a threat. You'd be surprised at the training some of us nuts have.

 

 

You were wise to be armed. One cannot be too careful when smoking a pork butt. If you are not prepared to defend it you may well lose it to hungry thugs. The smoking process taking as long as it does those thugs can home in on the scent from up to five miles away if the wind sf light but steady.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy was staying with a neighbor up the street. I'd never seen him before. I couldn't tell anything was wrong with him until he opened his mouth. He was in my house uninvited, and I didn't know him. So I pulled my gun, and when I ascertained he wasn't a threat I holstered it.

 

 

My front door has locks to prevent this sort of thing.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't read the part about kevlar leggings. Still the arm pit is legit, as his arm is extended to shoot the rifle, thus his armpit is exposed. Your typical .45acp is going to have 500 ft/lb of force anywhere in a movie theater. I'm pretty sure that will knock him off his butt, and probably stun him for a few seconds as well.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that Newton's laws would more or less accurately describe this possibility. As I rember for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the force of firing the projectile is not sufficient to knock the shooter on their ass how does that force multiple to do so to the shootee. I mean I know movies have taught us that a bullet fired from a gun wielded one handed by wounded heros who have had a hell of a tough day can knock villians right off their feet and into spinning industrial sized fans in ventilation systems, but I believe in this case movies are wrong.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

All I can say is that your argument is extremely naive. Having never done drugs, how could you possibly know how hard it is to get them? The only thing gun control would do is make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to get them. If a person is willing to commit evil acts it would not be difficult to get a weapon.

 

 

It's not naive, i don't have to do drugs to know how difficult or easy it is to get my hands on them. I just chose not to partake. I grew up in a town where drug use was pretty prevalent and worked in a place where i heard and saw A LOT. Making guns more difficult to get is a good thing whether for the law abiding citizen to get them or for the psycho looking to kill someone. If a person is willing to commit evil acts it's more difficult to get a weapon if they're not readily available versus being available in the local walgreens as a buy one get one half off at the end of the candy aisle. It's just common sense. Again, look at the stats between countries with more strict gun control laws versus ones that are more lenient. We don't rank well at all. Coincidence? I think not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like Washington DC where they were the murder capital and it was illegal to own a handgun sort of statistics?

 

You cannot go apples to apples comparing countries. You can only bend stats to your liking. There are way too many variables involved to make a blanket statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like Washington DC where they were the murder capital and it was illegal to own a handgun sort of statistics?

 

You cannot go apples to apples comparing countries. You can only bend stats to your liking. There are way too many variables involved to make a blanket statement.

 

 

True, however, there are a lot of countries to use as a solid basis of comparison to the US and we don not compare favorably to just about any. People + greater access to guns and more lenient laws = trouble. People + less access to guns and stricter laws = safer and less trouble on the whole. The numbers don't lie. Sure you can find the outlier in any set of data but when looking at the mean considering this information we do not look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like Washington DC where they were the murder capital and it was illegal to own a handgun sort of statistics?

 

You cannot go apples to apples comparing countries. You can only bend stats to your liking. There are way too many variables involved to make a blanket statement.

 

 

I would think a better comparison would be an island nation like England. You can walk across a street, not be in DC anymore and legally buy a gun.

 

But the fact that the Colorado tragedy has become about gun control is ridiculous. Even if AR-15s were illegal (and I OWN an AR-15). He still had legally purchased shotguns and handguns

 

 

You can't legislate or control crazy. Just look at Michele "crazy eyes" Bachmann.

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.