Perchoutofwater Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 or he might have paniced or others around him might have paniced and he might have shot somebody he didn't intend to shoot, seeing as how Arizona takes gun ownership so lightly. so is it safe to say that somebody who pulls a gun and aims at one person might have less a percent chance to hit than the 62% accuracy the guy had shooting into a group of people? If those shots were made within a paniced crowed - how likely would they be to hit somebody else? Would you accept one of your children dying because some inexperienced shooter thought he was John Wayne? I'm sure I'd accept my child getting shot about as well as i would him getting run over by an irresponsible driver. How many people were killed in auto accidents in Arizona? I'd dare say it is far more than have been killed by guns, even when you consider all the illegal aliens that have been flowing across the border. Quick, let's get rid of cars, my kid might get run over! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 could you imagine the clusterfok that would have occured if everybody there had concealed firearms and the min training and checks that Arizona allows? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Either way I'd realize it's the fault of the human, not that of an inanimate object. Would you blame the car for drunken driving fatalities? or he might have paniced or others around him might have paniced and he might have shot somebody he didn't intend to shoot, seeing as how Arizona takes gun ownership so lightly. so is it safe to say that somebody who pulls a gun and aims at one person might have less a percent chance to hit than the 62% accuracy the guy had shooting into a group of people? If those shots were made within a paniced crowed - how likely would they be to hit somebody else? Would you accept one of your children dying because some inexperienced shooter thought he was John Wayne? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 he would have got the gun anyway there is no waiting period there. Do they do instantaneous background checks? There is no waiting period here either, but they do instantaneous background checks. If they did have the instantaneous background checks, that should have kept him from getting it, unless of course the Sheriff that was grandstanding wasn't doing his job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) could you imagine the clusterfok that would have occured if everybody there had concealed firearms and the min training and checks that Arizona allows? More than likely he wouldn't have done it, because if he knew everyone or the majority was armed, he would know he was committing suicide. If he wanted to commit suicide and do the maximum damage possible, he would have used a bomb instead of a gun. If he wasn't intending to do maximum damage then he would have just dropped the gun after he shot the congresswoman. Edited January 22, 2011 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) Either way I'd realize it's the fault of the human, not that of an inanimate object. Would you blame the car for drunken driving fatalities? I don't think I am saying that it is the fault of an inanimate object. In this scenerio its about the rules. I guess you can say anthrax doesn't kill people - but that people kill people. Whatever the case - folk seem to think that it is a good idea to regulate anthrax. And to play with whole car silliness. How many people have died from Anthrax in the US in the last year? How many from firearms? Edited January 22, 2011 by Duchess Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 More than likely he wouldn't have done it, because if he knew everyone or the majority was armed, he would know he was committing suicide. If he wanted to commit suicide and do the maximum damage possible, he would have used a bomb instead of a gun. If he wasn't intending to do maximum damage then he would have just dropped the gun after he shot the congresswoman. but they could have, right? I mean, isn't that the whole point of a concealed gun? the state allows for it. he didn't seem to shy away from his actions despite that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 How many from cars? Notice you created a nice little straw-man for your comparison there... I don't think I am saying that it is the fault of an inanimate object. In this scenerio its about the rules. I guess you can say anthrax doesn't kill people - but that people kill people. Whatever the case - folk have seem to think that it is a good idea to regulate anthrax. And to play with whole car silliness. How many people have died from Anthrax in the US in the last year? How many from firearms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 And to play with whole car silliness. How many people have died from Anthrax in the US in the last year? How many from firearms? I'm guessing there haven't been a lot of antrhax related killings due the fact nobody with any sense is going to mess with the stuff, because they are more likely to kill themselves with it than they are their intended target, unless they have specific knowledge of how to safely handle it. I can carry my gun around all day long with no chance of shooting myself, do you want to walk around with a bag of antrhax in your pocket? It would kind of suck if someone bumped into you and your ziplock baggie accidentally opened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 How many from cars? Notice you created a nice little straw-man for your comparison there... A very poorly thought out straw-man at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 How many from cars? Notice you created a nice little straw-man for your comparison there... I didn't intend it to be. You tried to use the logic that cars kill more people than guns - so somehow I was suggesting or should think that cars should be illegal. I just used the same flawed logic to reason why anthrax should have less regulations than guns. I don't believe it - but if we're going to exchange silly arguments, why not. With all of that said - who is to say that more people would not die of anthrax if it was not regulated? Maybe regulation is good in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Oh, and Anthrax is naturally occuring, and doesn't require human interaction to kill. Just a couple points DJ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 More than likely he wouldn't have done it, because if he knew everyone or the majority was armed, he would know he was committing suicide. If he wanted to commit suicide and do the maximum damage possible, he would have used a bomb instead of a gun. Can you buy a bomb at Wal*Mart? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 A bomb is indiscriminate, but yes, you can buy ammonium nitrate and diesel at the wally-world out here. You can't aim a bomb like you can a gun, and the second A was intended to make sure the average citizen was allowed the same arms as the avg infantryman. But feel free to prattle on in your "ignorant of anything not in a classroom" way. I'm sure at 5'4" you are scared of most things and even more apoplectic about guns... Can you buy a bomb at Wal*Mart? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Oh, and Anthrax is naturally occuring, and doesn't require human interaction to kill. Just a couple points DJ. come on now - we're not talking about the anthrax you contract form a good bout of goat loving - but the hyrdoponic test tube stuff that can get people killed by ill will or accident (kind of like guns) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 come on now - we're not talking about the anthrax you contract form a good bout of goat loving - but the hyrdoponic test tube stuff that can get people killed by ill will or accident (kind of like guns) Test tube? You mean like you need a lab to produce it, and a controlled environment to keep from killing yourself while making it? Well, that right there should tell you why more people aren't killed by anthrax. They lack the knowledge and the facilities to produce it without killing themselves. You think that might have something to do with it? You sit hear and talk about making new laws, but the fact of the matter is murder is against the law, and carries the stiffest penalty of any crime. So, if the laws and penalties for murder don't deter someone, do you think a law with a much lighter penalty is going to make a difference? Even if the high capacity magazines were outlawed here in the US, unless the entire world quits making them they will still be available on the black market. Hell even if everyone outlawed them, I could make an extended magazine a hell of a lot easier than I could manufacture you straw-man anthrax. All I'd need is a few standard clips, a hack saw, a welding machine, a grinding bit, and a longer spring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.K.Trey Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I'm sure I'd accept my child getting shot about as well as i would him getting run over by an irresponsible driver. How many people were killed in auto accidents in Arizona? I'd dare say it is far more than have been killed by guns, even when you consider all the illegal aliens that have been flowing across the border. Quick, let's get rid of cars, my kid might get run over! nominee for dumbest post of the year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 So have I, and I am also a NRA certified instructor. I've never held that training is too much to ask for. So we agree: Proper training and a background check should be all that's required for a license to carry a firearm? No other BS involved? Absolutely . . and we have already had this debate. The less idiots have guns, the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJoTheWebToedBoy Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 (edited) If the guy standing next to him had a firearm, I'm guessing he probably wouldn't have gotten off more than a couple of shots, and the magazine issue that you and so many of your frightened friends are worried about wouldn't have even come into play as he wouldn't have even come close to emptying half of a standard magazine, much less the extended magazine. I'll admit I don't know about the CHL laws in Arizona other than that they recognize my Texas CHL. I will say this, here you have to take an 8 hour class on laws and restrictions, prove yourself safe and proficient at the range, and go through a much more thorough background check than you do when you purchase a gun. Additionally you typically have to wait 3-6 months to get your license after you've taken the class and done the range work. Of course this really isn't a waiting period, it's just that so many people are applying they take forever to process the paper work. You say the guy was accurate or lucky, but that percentage of hits is terrible. I'd be embarrassed if I only hit 62% of what I was aiming at. You also say that he did everything right. Only problem is we know the police knew all about this guy, and had several calls on him. Maybe of the legal system and that idiot Sheriff actually enforced the current laws rather than politically grandstanding, he would not have gotten the gun. I'd much rather the current laws be enforced than have more restrictions placed on me when law enforcement fails to enforce the law. There is no permit needed. If your 21, no criminal history and a US Citizen, you can carry a concealed weapon. And 9 rounds, much less carnage. I also get a kick out of "If the police would of done there job they would of known about this guy". Complete load of BS. If he lived in some small town, maybe. But he had broke no laws, he wasn't being constantly arrested, he wasn't a known felon, so why the hell would the police have any knowledge of him. Because he was kicked out of Pima CC, diaper dirt man, that happens all the time around here. He had a clean record, if he didn't he wouldn't of been able to buy the gun. And if someone close would of had a gun, would of probably shot himself in the damm foot or hit an innocent bystander unless they had training, which isn't required in the great state of Arizona. Aiming and firing under duress is a lot harder to do then shooting a a paper target at your local gun range. Takes training and experience, most people don't have it. Edited January 23, 2011 by JoJoTheWebToedBoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Aiming and firing under duress is a lot harder to do then shooting a a paper target at your local gun range. Takes training and experience, most people don't have it. Never a truer word spoken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 So jared had a 30 round clip in his glock? This is what happened now? The dude was a 9/11 truther. If we locked all them up, we save lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 (edited) Do all the Ted Nugent wannabees ridicule other people's analogies after they, themselves, compare guns to automobiles? Edited January 23, 2011 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 This thread is stupid. The author makes it clear what he is taking a shot at - whackos in Arizona who want to use what happened to allow students and professors at colleges to carry pistols. That is a dumba$$ knee jerk reaction about as helpful as repealing the seoncd amendment would be. I own plenty of firearms and I can kill you just fine: from close up or a distance, under duress or just for fun. That does not mean it should be easier for people to get guns. I think as a far as guns go, the way we do things now is pretty close to where it should be and what happened in Arizona is not an argument for or against expanding or contracting a person's right to bear arms. There were plenty of guns in Arizona that day and it was good old fashioned tackle and secure that saved the day but I don't see more people working out. There were no statements made that day and everybody would probably be best served by quiting looking for ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Sacrebleu Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Yo, there are statistics that show an armed society is a polite society. I think the phrase you are looking for is that there is a direct corelation between amount of guns in a country and amount of deaths by guns in a country also known as an armed society is a . Reading the tea leaves gets a bit sticky. deaths per 100 000 involving gunsU.S.A. 14.24 Brazil 12.95 Mexico 12.69 Estonia 12.26 Argentina 8.93 Northern Ireland 6.63 Finland 6.46 Switzerland 5.31 France 5.15 Canada 4.31 Norway 3.82 Austria 3.70 Portugal 3.20 Israel 2.91 Belgium 2.90 Australia 2.65 Slovenia 2.60 Italy 2.44 New Zealand 2.38 Denmark 2.09 Sweden 1.92 Kuwait 1.84 Greece 1.29 Germany 1.24 Hungary 1.11 Ireland 0.97 Spain 0.78 Netherlands 0.70 Scotland 0.54 England and Wales 0.41 Taiwan 0.37 Singapore 0.21 Mauritius 0.19 Hong Kong 0.14 South Korea 0.12 Japan 0.05 Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident) USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36 Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07 Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10 Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04 Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10 Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10 France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49 England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03 Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02 Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0 NB only the French manage to outdo the US in a any of the categories with their drunken hunting parties I understand these stats do not bear weight on the main argument of the effectiveness of gun ownership as a crime deterent, and until the homicide category can be dissasociated between 'good' homicide (self defense) and bad homicide (crime) it can't really be used. But one simple reality is that more guns equals more death by guns. No ifs about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I think the phrase you are looking for is that there is a direct corelation between amount of guns in a country and amount of deaths by guns in a country also known as an armed society is a . Reading the tea leaves gets a bit sticky. NB only the French manage to outdo the US in a any of the categories with their drunken hunting parties I understand these stats do not bear weight on the main argument of the effectiveness of gun ownership as a crime deterent, and until the homicide category can be dissasociated between 'good' homicide (self defense) and bad homicide (crime) it can't really be used. But one simple reality is that more guns equals more death by guns. No ifs about it. All your post tells me is that we are much better shots than the people in the backwardass countries ranked below us... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.