Those who would prefer to be unarmed during an active shooter scenario, raise your hands.

[beevul]

If you'd rather be unarmed during an active shooter event, please, sound off here.


Explain your logic for us.


As for me, I fall into the 'I'd rather be armed' category, if I had the bad fortune of an active shooter event happening in my immediate proximity.

[darkangel218]

1. Obviously I personally would rather be armed.

But I'm pretty certain there are many who would chose otherwise.

[ileus]

2. It's always wise to be armed.

[guillaumeb]

3. I would much prefer to be unarmed because I am certain that all of the

armed, well qualified gun-owners surrounding me would not panic at the sound of live fire, but would quickly and accurately shoot whoever was instigating the event.

There have never been instances of shooters killing the wrong person,

there have never been instances of shooters missing the target,

every single gun owner is of course a cool-headed "Dirty Harry" type who would only hit the bad guys.

At least that is the way it happens in the Bruce Willis and Clint Eastwood movies.

[villager]

5. +1

Talk about swallowing Hollywood shoot 'em up fantasies whole hog....

[notadmblnd]

7. Notice that those who respond thus far that they would rather be armed-

have offered no explanations as to why as the OP asked?

I wonder why that is?

[beevul]

10. Its because the OP was directed at people who would choose not to.

The logic of choosing to be armed is obvious, at least to me, the OP.

The logic of choosing not be unarmed, not so obvious, at least to me, the OP.

[notadmblnd]

11. Well it is not obvious to me why one would prefer to be armed

Please explain.

[beevul]

14. Not what this thread is about.

Start your own on that topic, and I'll happily chime in.

[luvspeas]

80. so your topic is if you don't want to carry a gun I think you are illogical?

FLAMEBAIT

[beevul]

87. Nope.

The question is: if you'd rather be unarmed during an active shooter event, why would you rather be unarmed?

Explain the logic for me, since I don't understand it on my own, and can't read minds.

That's not accusing anyone of being 'illogical' in any way.

Nothing flamebait about it.

[TeddyR]

15. I would prefer to be armed

So that I have a chance of protecting myself and others. Maybe it doesn't work, but otherwise you are a lamb to the slaughter.

[notadmblnd]

18. So how would you feel if you killed someone

who also thought they were protecting themselves and others?

[TeddyR]

25. Not sure I understand your question

Are you asking how I would feel if I shot someone who was protecting someone else from another shooter? Or how I would feel if I shot a bystander in an attack? To answer what I think you are asking, I would feel awful if I shot a bystander during an attack, but I would still hope that I would attempt to help someone. I don't understand the concept that we should simply let a criminal kill someone else without attempting to help.

[notadmblnd]

27. I was asking how you would feel if you opened fire on a person you mistakely thought

was an active shooter, but instead was someone who also thought he could protect himself and others?

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. Would not the active shooter be the one actually *shooting* at unarmed people?

[notadmblnd]

37. You tell me

To begin with, but if there are five other people that pull their guns out and they all think they are going to protect themselves and others- how would know which person with their gun out is the bad guy?

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. I would take this far more seriously if you could cite a real-life example of such a thing happening

As mentioned in post #32, there are several verified cases where armed bystanders intervened
and stopped spree shooters. You seem to be concerened about a theoretical incident.

[notadmblnd]

46. Why would I have to cite anything?

I'm not making any claims, you are. I just asked how you would feel if you pulled out your gun and shot someone who was innocent and not the perp?

In essence, you are telling me- that because others (uncited) intervened and stopped spree shooters, that you think could successfully do the same. Right?

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. I would feel horrible if I shot *anyone*, even if they were actively trying to do harm

Shooting an innocent would be worse.

As for cites, here are six:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117291809

Clackamas man, armed, confronts mall shooter

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172165707

"Uber driver, licensed to carry gun, shoots gunman in Logan Square" - Chicago Tribune

http://www.richmond.com/news/article_1208ebdd-9ed5-54e1-bfd4-24a0c83a2852.html

Richmond Store owner grateful for man who shot robber

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/6-shot-at-new-life-church-gunman-2-churchgoers-dead

6 Shot At New Life Church; Gunman, 2 Churchgoers Dead

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/19251374.html

Victims Released; No Charges Filed Against Reno Man In Winnemucca Shootings

...According to witnesses, Villagomez at some point stopped to reload his high-capacity handgun and began shooting again when he was shot and killed by another patron - a 48-year-old Reno man who had a valid concealed weapons permit.

The Reno man was initially taken into custody as a person of interest, but later released after Humboldt County District Attorney Russell Smith determined the shooting was justifiable homicide.

http://milwaukeecourieronline.com/index.php/2012/02/11/aldi-customer-speaks-out-on-aftermath-of-shooting/

A quick stop into the grocery store last week turned into more than what one local man was looking for, when he found himself faced with a potentially life versus death scenario at a local Aldi store. While standing in the checkout line, Nazir Al-Mujaahid says that he saw a man with a shotgun pointed at a cashier, demanding money. He also saw an unarmed security guard helpless with his hands up.

It seemed surreal at first, but once he was able to see that this was really happening, he heard the gunman yell for everyone in the store to stop moving, and the 20 plus customers held up their hands. Al-Mujaahid held up one hand, and with the other hand still at his side, he unholstered his semiautomatic 9mm Steyr handgun, cocked it at his side, and made eye contact another customer that was in the line of fire to move away from the gunman. Once, the customer was out of the way, he fired what he thought to be six or seven shots from about 20 feet away. The gunman fell into the exit door, dropped the gun and bag of money and fled the store. The police later learned that he had been driven to St. Joseph’s Hospital, and they were able to arrest him and his alledged accomplice. The two men, Dierre Cotton, 20 and Edyon Hibbler, 19, were charged with the Aldi robbery and two other holdups, a Radio Shack and a CVS store.

Al-Mujaahid said that he knew from his recent training that he needed to breathe, keep a clear head and commit to a decision.

[DonP]

50. Ah, the gun controllers favorite fantasy

With over 12 million concealed carry permits out there and more than 20 years in some states, I'm sure one of you can finally point to that ever actually happening, or even the "innocent bystander gets shot" scenario.

Or the other old saw, "the police won't know who the bad guy is and will shoot you".

Keep making imaginary things up, maybe someday it will come true.

[notadmblnd]

55. Perhaps you need to read further down before you make assumptions?

You have a good evening, oh psychic one.

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. We've given real-life examples. You've given citation-free theory n/t

[beevul]

76. I think he/she is referring to the implication of being anti-gun.

Its possible he/she took Dons post that way.

[notadmblnd]

86. I haven't made any claims and I haven't given any theory.

What do I need to cite? I merely asked a couple of questions. Other than that, all you have done is made assumptions.

[Travis_0004]

95. The best thing do do is get away from the scene

Even with a gun, I am not the police. My job is to protect me and my family and the best way to do that is to get away when possible.

Identifying the bad guy is often quite easy. He is the one poonting the gun or shooting at unamred people, and if you are in the room it should be obvious who started it.

If I walk into a room and there is a mexican standoff, Im goong to leave the room if possible then call 911.

[beevul]

39. Whoa there fella.

Such deductive reasoning is the thing of movie fantasy, I hear lately.

Keep talking like that and they'll accuse you of wanting to be the worlds greatest detective.





(incidentally, the fictitious 'worlds greatest detective', hates guns.)

[TeddyR]

36. So I shot the guy

Who was shooting the guy who was shooting other people?

[notadmblnd]

41. or of you were shooting the bad guy and hit an innocent person trying to flee?

it doesn't matter how it happens. How would you feel if you killed an innocent by mistake?

[TeddyR]

48. I imagine I'd feel

Like crap. But that still doesn't mean I'd want someone to stand idly by while a family member was killed, or even while a criminal murdered a stranger. I'm not even sure what your world looks like. Is it one where everyone is a model citizen and the need for weapons doesn't exist? If not, then I'd hope someone has a firearm, since the defensive use of guns is a common occurrence in the U.S.

[notadmblnd]

85. I would like to think that I wouldn't be standing idly by either.

And no, I don't feel that I live in a war zone and that there is a boogeyman around every corner. All I can say is that maybe I'd feel different if I lived in your world, I don't know.

[sarisataka]

21. I don't run

As fast as I used to...

[notadmblnd]

23. So are you involved in active shooter events often?

What would you say is the frequency of these events you encounter?

[sarisataka]

24. I haven't had anyone shoot

At me in several years now. I am quite happy with the status quo.

However should I be in such a situation I would like every option available

[guillaumeb]

13. I do not think that they realize that the movies are fantasy. eom

[beevul]

26. Please cite the part of the OP,where I say how I would respond if armed, to an active shooter event.

You know.

The part that reads like a 'fantasy movie'.


Oh, nevermind.


You made that shit up and are trying to attribute to me, a sentiment I haven't expressed.


And yet...why do I get the feeling that if I make shit up and try to falsely attribute it to you, I'll get a hide.

[guillaumeb]

109. Here is/was your original post:

Those who would prefer to be unarmed during an active shooter scenario, raise your hands.

If you'd rather be unarmed during an active shooter event, please, sound off here.
Explain your logic for us.
As for me, I fall into the 'I'd rather be armed' category, if I had the bad fortune of an active shooter event happening in my immediate proximity.

My response:
So your post explicitly states that you fall into the "I'd rather be armed" category. Given that you wrote the words, where am I in error by presuming that you wrote your actual feelings? You also used the word "us" in the preceding sentence. The two sentences taken together clearly indicate to me that you are in the "armed response" category.

I made nothing up but simply responded with my opinion to what seems to be your opinion. No, you did not go into the mechanics of your response, but I did not say that my response represented your thoughts. They represented my thoughts about the logic of the "armed response" philosophy.

[beevul]

110. No. Sorry.

So your post explicitly states that you fall into the "I'd rather be armed" category. Given that you wrote the words, where am I in error by presuming that you wrote your actual feelings? You also used the word "us" in the preceding sentence. The two sentences taken together clearly indicate to me that you are in the "armed response" category.

No. Sorry. You extrapolated from my preference of being armed, how I would behave if armed, and my mindset on how I would behave if armed.

You are assuming facts not in evidence.

[guillaumeb]

111. As I further explained in my response to you when I said:

"I made nothing up but simply responded with my opinion to what seems to be your opinion. No, you did not go into the mechanics of your response, but I did not say that my response represented your thoughts. They represented my thoughts about the logic of the "armed response" philosophy."

My original response did not assign any behavior to you specifically, but was a generalization based on many things that I have read from people who feel that open carry and carry in general represents a rational approach to the problem of gun violence.


That covered, the next logical question to ask would be:
How would you behave, or rather, how do you feel that you would behave?

[beevul]

112. See, that really ends it.

The sentence in question, which you agreed with, which WAS referring to me, said this:

Talk about swallowing Hollywood shoot 'em up fantasies whole hog....

Your reply to that was as follows:

13. I do not think that they realize that the movies are fantasy. eom

My original response did not assign any behavior to you specifically, but was a generalization based on many things that I have read from people who feel that open carry and carry in general represents a rational approach to the problem of gun violence.

You aren't very skilled at this. This being the cutesy 'I never said that' game.

Your original response agreed with that poster and in doing so, falsely attributed to me things not expressed by me.

You can play 'cute' about it but everyone here sees through it.

How would you behave, or rather, how do you feel that you would behave?

How kind of you to ask, after having already decided my mindset.

[guillaumeb]

113. Someone is confused here.

1) You are/were the original poster.
2) My response was to your scenario.
3) My response was directed at your scenario.
4) You denied saying or implying what my response addressed.
5) I pointed out your original post.
6) Interesting attempt on your part.

[beevul]

127. Yes, someone is, but its not me.

1) You are/were the original poster.

And?

2) My response was to your scenario.

Your response was to something another poster said, not something I said.

3) My response was directed at your scenario.

Cutesy.

4) You denied saying or implying what my response addressed.

Lets look at your response:

I do not think that they realize that the movies are fantasy. eom

That's not a response TO me, nor is it a response to something I said.

Its a response to something someone else said, agreeing with what that poster said about me.

You deny this and play cutesy.

Trying to iverglas me will get you nowhere.

[Doctor_J]

28. Yeah, in the NOrthern Illinois massacre a few years ago, the shooter walked into a 120-student

lecture hall and started firing. Think of how much better it would have turned out if all 120 students had opened fire.

The gunsters don't seem to think clearly.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. "Think of how much better it would have turned out if all 120 students had opened fire."

People might have been killed! Oh, wait...

[TeddyR]

51. So are you ok

With the former CNN reporter who recently used a gun to protect himself and his wife from a criminal?

[guillaumeb]

108. Or the massacre in the grammar school.

Or the massacre in the darkened theatre.

[Travis_0004]

4. I would rather be in a gun free zone

[notadmblnd]

6. I would prefer to be unarmed

To begin with, I think I have about as much of a chance of being involved in an active shooter event as I would if I were be involved in an airplane crash or hitting the lottery.

Second, I couldn't live with myself if I were responsible for the death or injury of innocent bystanders if I were to be armed and opened fire to feed my ego by thinking I could save the day.

Third, I believe your number is up when it's up- and there really is nothing one can do about it. Whether it is death by illness, accident or inflicted injury by another.

[beevul]

12. Interesting.

Third, I believe your number is up when it's up- and there really is nothing one can do about it. Whether it is death by illness, accident or inflicted injury by another.

Are you a strict gun control proponent?

[notadmblnd]

16. nope, there are guns in my house right now

However, only adults live in my home. My husband owned guns, they all had trigger locks on them and when he died, our son was small, so I gave them all to his brother. My son is now grown and his hunting rifle resides in his closet. It was a gift from his grandfather who is an avid sportsman. It was purchased for my son when he was 12 but I forbid him to have it at home until he was mature enough to understand it was not a toy.

[beevul]

19. Ok. Thank you.

Though you aren't one of those whos logic I was looking to have explained, I found what you had to say interesting.

On edit:Although I don't see the 'ego' thing the way you do.

[notadmblnd]

29. I can only see two reasons for wanting to go through life armed.

Ego and or fear.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. Fortunately, you are free to go through life unarmed

[gejohnston]

32. if I were to be armed and opened fire to feed my ego by thinking I could save the day.

saving your life is "feeding your ego"? What, other than gun prohibitionist propaganda and movie scripts, makes you think you would not prevail? One thing I noticed about these people, they off themselves at the first sign of resistance. Like Chou, or Clackamas Mall. Chances are, you are better trained than the average mass murderer. They buy or steal the weapon for the occasion, you have actually trained with yours.
Let's look at Virginia Tech. Chou calmly walked from room to room executing whoever he found hiding under desks or whatever. You try to escape out the door, only to find it chained and barricaded. You look out the window and see campus security standing around with their fingers up their asses for almost an hour waiting for a SWAT team to show up.

In a mass murder, you are a target. If it were mass murder by arson, which outnumber mass shootings in Australia and other places, is helping others out to safety, or even yourself, "feeding your ego"?

If you see someone stabbing someone else on the DC metro, and do nothing, is that being rational or something else? I'm sorry, I find that immoral.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. "I would if I were be involved in an airplane crash"

And yet tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people successfully defend themselves each year. That's not to imply you are therefore obligated to arm yourself but neither are those who would rather be armed obligated to disarm.

[notadmblnd]

44. I never claimed anyone was obligated to disarm

I gave my reason for why I would prefer to be unarmed. I did not advocate for or against anyone else being armed.

[unblock]

8. i'd rather be unarmed.

first and foremost, i'd rather be unarmed for the overwhelming majority of the time when a gun is at best useless and at worst an accident waiting to happen.

but yes, i know, i digress, because this thread is instead about the 0.001% chance that i might wind up in an unsuspecting participant to active shooter scenario.

in that extraordinarily remote case, i'd rather not be a "high value target". wielding a gun puts a target on me and makes anyone around me at greater risk, which likely would include my family, of course.

moreover, even if i had a gun, the odds of me successfully using it, in an unplanned, highly stressed scenario, against an active shooter who is in all likelihood vastly more heavily armed than me, has more recently trained for this exact situation, and is far more calm than i could ever be at that moment, are not very good.

so, no thank you, i'll pass.

in any event, as i said, i'd rather base my decision to carry or not to carry on the situations far more likely to actually come to pass in my life. an active shooter event is extremely low on the list, low enough to reasonably ignore.


edited to add: other posts above prompt me to add, my having a gun puts a target on my back in more ways than one -- other people, including police and anyone else carrying a gun, might well suspect that i'm in on it. fog of war, friendly fire, you know.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. "the odds of me successfully using it..."

moreover, even if i had a gun, the odds of me successfully using it, in an unplanned, highly stressed scenario, against an active shooter who is in all likelihood vastly more heavily armed than me, has more recently trained for this exact situation, and is far more calm than i could ever be at that moment, are not very good.

What are the odds in the exact same scenario if you had no gun?

other posts above prompt me to add, my having a gun puts a target on my back in more ways than one -- other people, including police and anyone else carrying a gun, might well suspect that i'm in on it. fog of war, friendly fire, you know.

Well there was that crackpot who tackled the old man at WalMart and plenty of Controllers here would want to see you SWAT-ted and/or have your arms broken and/or taken out with extreme prejudice. So, I would fear the Controllers more than I would fear the cops, another carrier or even a criminal.

[unblock]

73. "controllers", haha!

ok, i know i'm visiting the gungeon so i know what you mean; but in my field, your last comment reads like you fear a bunch of vigilante accountants!

watch out! he's got a pencil and a pocket protector! he will write.you.off!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. "Controller" is the sobriquet for those who want gun control without actual regard

for innocent human life.

[unblock]

82. yeah, like i said, your meaning i got.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. It's a disturbing sight to watch as

an interlocutor deflects and evades direct questions about whether or not they affirm a woman's right to defend herself as she sees fit from the predations of a rapist or violent stalker. Or to have someone comment that a victim who was stabbed to death even though she had an RO but was waiting on a gun permit should have chosen better partners. Or the deafening silence when asked why lives taken by guns matter but lives saved by guns are part of the problem. Or why "MOAR GUNZ! is never the answer" so we need heavily armed cops to teach these gun humpers a lesson. Or the condemnations of people who only want to protect themselves by posters citing a publication whose EIC violated gun control laws to arm himself. Or who complain about the NRA while panting after a Republican billionaire who surrounds himself with armed mercenaries, oversaw the racist stop-and-frisk policy and whose every political initiative seems to stir-up the GOP base at the expense of Democrats.

It's a day-in and day-out parade of this misogynistic and hypocritical bile from a very dedicated self-appointed cadre. I think the term is quite fitting because they're obviously not in it to save lives.

[beevul]

93. Thats a dose of reality right there...

Thats a dose of reality right there, and I'd bet its painful to some.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a frivolous alert on your post.

[unblock]

114. i won't alert, i've taken threads on tangents myself from time to time.

personally i'm not interested talking about gun control at the moment, actually generally not much interested in the topic. i was just tickled by the term "controllers" as i work in the financial field and that term means something quite different, struck me as funny.

i read the op and my original reply about choice, not about what the government says or ought to say about it. but like i said, i know what forum i'm in, so if someone wants to espouse their views on gun control, i understand that's the price of admission

[beevul]

129. FWIW, I wasn't referring to you.

Sincerely, when I mentioned the possibility of that post being alerted on, you did not even enter my mind as being a potential alerter.

[SecularMotion]

115. I'm impressed

I've never seen so many NRA talking points packed into one post, not to mention one paragraph.

You should patent your post.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

116. You're claiming NRA is drawing its talking points from the Controllers here at DU?

Because that is who I am referencing, the Controllers. Maybe the problem, then, is the Controllers.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

117. Here's your chance to prove my post is wrong --

Please feel free to affirm a woman's right to choose the best means for defending herself.

Please feel free to confront the DU poster who stated that the NJ woman who was stabbed to death while waiting for a gun permit should have chosen a better partner.

Please feel free to note that it is a good thing whenever someone is able to defensively employ a gun.

Please feel free to explain to us how gun control laws will be enforced if "MOAR GUNZ! is never the answer."

Please feel free to explain how David Brock of Media Matters is not a hypocrite for violating DC gun control laws to obtain a gun.

Please feel free to explain how Michael Bloomberg is not a hypocrite for surrounding himself with heavily armed mercenaries.

Please feel free to explain how Bloomberg didn't oversee racist policies or stir-up the GOP base at the expense of the Democratic party.


"NRA talking points" is just an admission that none of the points can be refuted.

[SecularMotion]

118. Here you go

45 Facts that challenge the NRA's talking points

https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-why-movement/45-facts-that-challenge-the-nras-talking-points/513823872000347

[Nuclear Unicorn]

119. Seeing as my post had absolutely 0 NRA talking points not 1 of those "facts" relates to my post.

Can you even show where my post contained any of those alleged NRA talking points?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

120. The honorable thing to do would be to withdraw your accusation since none of the points you

claim are NRA talking points have any relation to anything I stated in my post.

[SecularMotion]

121. You're entitled to your opinion.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

122. You're not entitled to deliberately spread falsehoods.

You can't show 1 single, solitary connection between your 45 points and anything I wrote in the earlier post. You're just covering for the embarrassment that is the Controller faction and now it's plain for everyone to see.

This is why when Controllers use weasel words like "reasonable" everyone knows they lack the integrity to constrain themselves from infringing on rights in the future. A movement built on prevarication and deception always fails under the slightest scrutiny.

[SecularMotion]

123. See post #121

[Nuclear Unicorn]

124. Hiding behind silly non-posts doesn't show where any of my points in any way mirror the NRAs

You're obviously deliberately misrepresenting arguments you can't refute. You have no facts so step 2 for propaganda is to attempt to discredit the speaker. But you can't because the facts are on my side, both in my post about the nature of Controller misogyny and hypocrisy as well as the fact none off those mirror NRA talking points.

[beevul]

130. Thats not an opinion, SecMo, its a fact. N/T

[safeinOhio]

9. I'll go with odds

About 10 million to 1 I'll never be there. Always zig then zag when you run.

[TeddyR]

20. I hope to never be there

But also would like to be able to protect myself or family if I am there. The recent stabbing on the DC metro does more to convince me that individuals should be armed than anything else. You've got a situation where a young man beats and stabs another to death and nobody intervened because they were all older or afraid to confront someone with a knife. I would hope that if it was my son being slowly murdered in those circumstances that a bystander would help, and if being armed makes that help more likely then I'm all for it.

To be clear, controllers are complaining about criminals using guns to commit a crime, not the individual who carries for protection and doesn't use a gun to harm someone innocent. Conflating the two is disingenuous.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. "Always zig then zag when you run."

It sounds so simple. I wonder what all those victims in the high death toll incidences failed to do.

[safeinOhio]

43. Unless you can shoot on the run,

once you stop to take aim, you are the target. Your odds of saving a life are much greater if you carry a couple of fire extinguisher or take a cpr class. Fires and heart attacks are common, mass shooting are very, very rare.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. Except that's not how real life works.

We regularly post stories of DGUs. In all of them (practically by definition) the lawful party is not the first to act but still prevails. Considering there are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of DGUs annually these are not one-off scenarios.

[gejohnston]

38. always zig then zag and other bad advice from movies

http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/dont-run-in-a-straight-line-and-other-bad-advice

[safeinOhio]

47. From the nyt.com

New York City police statistics show that simply hitting a target, let alone hitting it in a specific spot, is a difficult challenge. In 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the department’s Firearms Discharge Report. The police shot and killed 13 people last year.

In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that year.

In all shootings — including those against people, animals and in suicides and other situations — New York City officers achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away. Nearly half the shots they fired last year were within that distance.

I'd say a pretty poor percentage of hitting a target by trained police. Even from 6 feet away..

[TeddyR]

53. Yep

Trying to kill someone when they are trying to kill you isn't easy and those events aren't like the movies. Still, defensive gun use occurs on a regular basis and I hope you aren't seriously suggesting that instead of being able to protect yourself you simply hope you can outrun the bullet.

[safeinOhio]

58. Fatal gun accidents happen

on a regular basis too. OK, I seem to read about people playing dead and living to tell about it quite often.

[gejohnston]

61. false equivlence

one happens several hundred thousand times a year according to at least 17 criminology studies. Fatal gun accidents are, what, five hundred at the most?

[safeinOhio]

67. "several hundred thousand times a year"

I'd like to see those figures. The post was about "active shooters" not a perceived threat. False equivalence perhaps.

[gejohnston]

71. take your pick of several studies

The CDC uses 700K in their report a couple of years ago.
You changed the subject about NYPD, but active shooters are rare, and probably even more rare among mass murderers in general. They also tend to target places where resistance is less than likely.

[safeinOhio]

75. CDC uses self-reported incidents

imbellished, imagination or outright lies.

[gejohnston]

79. actually, they did a survey of several studies

imbellished, imagination or outright lies.

That was Hemenway's rebuttal to Kleck, except he failed to provide any evidence of that. He simply asserted it, just like you did. Phil Cook verified Kleck's study, but added similar speculation in the conclusion, with no evidence, so as not to piss off the Joyce Foundation who paid for it.

Your logical fallacy is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

[sarisataka]

83. Would you be opposed to the CDC

studying gun violence, as so many wish would happen, since they not not using valid data, in your opinion?

[beevul]

54. Define 'trained police' in the context of NYC police firearms use.

How 'well trained' are they?

[gejohnston]

59. the average CCW holder is better trained than NYPD

and statistically have a lower miss and hitting innocents than cops. There are a couple of reasons for this
1-individual choice of weapon
2-better familiarity with firearms in general
3-CCW holders, or shooting hobbyists, take training seriously instead of just going to the range once a year and fire half a box of shells. The level of police training, other than use of force rules, is about the same as a hunter safety course 14 year olds take for their first hunting licence. Not impressive.
Cops are not that well trained. Also, there is that 12 pound trigger pull on their modified Glocks.

[safeinOhio]

68. Many of those recent active shooters were teens or

young adults that just got their guns.

[gejohnston]

72. which has what to do with CCW holders or cops?

you don't have to be World Cup or Olympic material to spray bullets into crowds. You also proved my point in an earlier post.

[safeinOhio]

70. Here are a couple of average CCW holder

from daily's

Two drivers are dead after a road rage incident escalated into a shootout. The incident happened around 6:45p.m. Wednesday on M-66 near Steele Street.
Witnesses tell WZZM 13 a one driver was following another driver too closely. The first driver pulled into a car wash parking lot and the other driver followed them into the parking lot.

Witnesses say the driver of the following car fired shots, and the first driver returned fire. Both drivers were shot and killed. Authorities say both men, ages 43 and 56, had licenses to carry concealed weapons.

[gejohnston]

74. one incident is not data

using your logic, Kermit Gosnell is typical of abortion providers.
Also, news reports, especially early ones, are almost always inaccurate. They also skip important facts to make them meaningless.

[Lurks Often]

103. The devil is in the details though

The average NYPD officer has little or no experience with firearms.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/training_nypd/firearm_tatics.shtml

Also the NYPD issues handguns that have a trigger pull weight of 12 pounds, which is hard for anyone with minimal training to shoot well

http://forums.officer.com/t172751/
http://www.realpolice.net/forums/ask-cop-112/101995-does-nypd-still-require-heavy-trigger.html

So combining guns that are hard to shoot well with minimal training with people with little or no prior firearms experience you get NYPD officers who have a high miss to hit ratio.

An interesting link: http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/117909-Study-reveals-important-truths-hidden-in-the-details-of-officer-involved-shootings/

[Straw Man]

125. NYC police are a poor example.

Their training regimen is notorious in the law enforcement community for its laxity and inadequacy. Furthermore, in their infinite wisdom, the NYC powers-that-be have decreed that NYPD Glock pistols must have a 12-pound trigger pull weight in order to minimize the risk of accidental discharge. This is more than double the pull weight of a standard Glock. Any target shooter will tell you that the higher the trigger pull weight, the more difficult it is to shoot the gun accurately. Add to that the stress of actual shooting situations, and you'll start to see the real reasons for the abysmal accuracy numbers.

Ironically, a policy that was intended to protect the public is actually endangering them. The 2012 Empire State Building incident is a case in point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting

The sad part is that accidental discharges are best addressed through training, not through hardware. Keep your finger off the trigger until you need to fire. It's something that becomes second-nature if you train enough. NYPD officers don't.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. I doubt that any of the posters expressing concern about "friendly fire" incidents...

...could cite three real-world example of the same

[TeddyR]

22. Yeah

I'm not aware of an instance in which someone attempted to stop a crime and shot a bystander. Perhaps it happens all the time, but then you'd think it would be national news.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. As you've seen, there are several Friends of Fred (Colon) posting in this thread:

"Sergeant Colon had a broad education. He'd been to the school of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a postgraduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me."

Terry Pratchett, Jingo

[pkdu]

96. Jeebus H Christ

Are you yahoos really unaware of the incident outside Empire State Building in 2013?

Do I really have to find you a link?

[oneshooter]

102. I believe that was the well trained NYPD with their 12lb trigger Glocks. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. Try again: "Police: All Empire State shooting victims were wounded by officers"

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/

[Warpy]

52. If I had a gun, I'd be shot first

with no chance to play dead until he turned his back and I could get away or throw a chair.

Don't forget that two of the dead in Chattanooga were not only armed, but had the time to fire.

Guns don't save you.

[beevul]

56. "Guns don't save you". Except when they do.

http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu

[pkdu]

97. except when they dont

or should everyone have been armed , then cops wouldnt have shot them????

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/nyregion/bystander-shot-by-police-near-empire-state-building-sues.html?_r=0

[beevul]

98. The police being poor marksman, reflects only on police.

Not so much on non-police.

I'm pretty sure, the 'friendly fire' being referred to and in question, is on the part of non-leo.

But if you aren't sure, why not ask that poster what he/she was referring to?

[pkdu]

99. Oh , the " idiots with guns are better than LEO" defence...nice try

[beevul]

100. Nope.

Last edited Thu Jul 23, 2015, 05:51 AM - Edit history (1)

The poster was referring to non-leo.

Your example is not non-leo.

Don't be bitter and nasty about it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

106. Looks like us 'yahoos' are better at factual accuracy than he is...

[TeddyR]

57. So you use one instance

To jump to the conclusion that "guns don't save you"? Well, the CDC disagrees, and I'm certain the soldier that fought in Afghanistan or Iraq disagrees. Setting those example aside, there's a recent story about a CNN reporter using a gun that did "save" him and his wife, and in fact this happens all the time. But don't let facts get in the way of your position on guns.

[gejohnston]

64. they also saved several others by

giving them time to escape while firing. Also, at long distance rifle usually trumps pistol. Yes, guns do save you, and do hundreds of thousands of times a year. However, being armed is no guarantee. Being unarmed and defenseless is.

[matt819]

60. You just like every the talk, don't you

Active shooter. Cool, huh?

Let's see. The chances you'll be in such a situation are about the same as being hit by a meteorite. And, unless you've been trained for just this scenario, and practiced it regularly, the chances are you'll do more harm than good.

Don't bother responding. I never spend time in this group. Your post just called out for a response.

I'm outta here. Unarmed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. "Your post just called out for a response." An intelligent one would have been better. YMMV...

[HFRN]

63. i would not want have to carry a gun every place all of the time for the unlikely

event that i would ever encounter an active shooter scenario

but in the unlikely event i did find myself in one, would i like to have a gun? sure

but even then, I don't think that would be my only option to protect myself and others

[samsingh]

66. all the mass killings i remember were committed by people who purchased their guns

or had them at home.

I would prefer they didn't have those guns in the first place.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

101. so would I but that's not gonna happen

[luvspeas]

77. I would rather be unarmed in any circumstance...

And I don't have to explain my logic. You didn't explain your lack of it.

[beevul]

84. Nobody said you did.

And I don't have to explain my logic.

Nobody said you did. If you don't want anyone to understand the 'why' of your choice, hey, fine by me.

[luvspeas]

88. you did say just that and I don't understand your reasoning...

In my opinion anyone who wants to own a gun is a spineless coward and doesn't have enough good sense to be trusted with one.

But that's just my opinion.

[beevul]

91. That includes, I assume, people that already own them?

In my opinion anyone who wants to own a gun is a spineless coward and doesn't have enough good sense to be trusted with one.

That includes, I assume, people that already own them?

you did say just that

I did just say what?

Cite for me what you're referring to, so that there is no confusion, please.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

92. "In my opinion anyone who wants to own a gun is a spineless coward"

Women and minorities are the fastest growing segment of "spineless cowards."

Here is a picture of the presumably stalwart heroes that would be enforcing any and all gun control laws --

[beardown]

81. Reminds me of a debate on twin engine WW II fighters versus single engine fighters

Surprisingly hot debate too. At one point, a twin engine fighter supporter said that if a twin engine fighter lost an engine it could still get the pilot back to base. A single engine supporter replied that that almost never happened. I replied, you have a lot better chance limping home if you lose an engine in a twin engine fighter than if you lose an engine in a single engine fighter.

Same as here, unlikely that you will ever find yourself in a crazed shooter situation, but if you do, being armed is a much better option that not being armed. Of course, this mostly applies if you are comfortable and capable with the gun you have. Otherwise, police that respond to shootings wouldn't be carrying guns because they were ineffective in stopping the bad shooter.

Given the numbers, you are much, much more likely to scare away a bad guy by just letting them know that you have a gun than actually wind up in a mass shooting incident so this question ignores the lion's share of defensive gun usages as part of the debate.

Kind of a friendly boost to non-gun debatees.

[Eleanors38]

107. Saying you have a gun is considered in DGU data though some SD pros don't ...

...recommend that action. Very few DGUs actually end up with a criminal being shot. I rather suspect the huge proportion of DGUs are connected with B&E or home invasion.

[Kennah]

94. I would prefer to be armed, but that doesn't mean I would return fire.

Homeland Security advises "Run, Hide, Fight" in an active shooter scenario. Whether one is armed or not, this is sound advise. It's what I was trained to do with a gun.

Move off the line of attack
Seek cover or concealment
Verbal challenge
Shoot

Being armed doesn't mean you automatically engage a fight, even if it's an active shooter scenario. A SWAT trained cop responding to an active shooter scenario likely isn't going to enter a building alone with reports of a gunman armed with a rifle. They'd enter only with one other cop, probably only with three others.

[darkangel218]

104. Correct.

But if you can't run or hide, fighting would be the only option. And it's a little hard to do that unarmed

[roody]

126. I would be since I do not have a gun.

[AllFieldsRequired]

128. I would rather nobody be armed. Seems the most logical option for a civilized society.

[beevul]

132. A civilized society of people regarded as children, perhaps.

A civilized society of people regarded as children, perhaps.


Deal with the problem people, and leave those of us who aren't alone.

[AllFieldsRequired]

134. I am not sure I understand your response. Are you saying that it would be childish

to have an unarmed society?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

135. I don't know how civilized society is or is not but

individual people can be quite savage. Being able to defend one's self from those sorts of people is an inherent human right.

[beevul]

136. Nope.

I'm saying that someone that defines 'civilized' as you do, regards people as 'children' to be controlled, and does not differentiate in that context between those who behave and those who don't.

Much like the teacher that punishes the entire class because of the clown or two in the back who wont stop talking or shooting spitballs.

This is a presumptuous, arrogant, offensive sentiment, shared by many many gun control pushers.


In a 'civilized' country, one does not punish people or interfere with their rights, because of what someone else does.


Lets apply this on a small scale and see how well you like it.

Hypothetical:

One of your antigun buddies just posted something offensive.

Instead of hiding only the offending post, were gonna hide ALL the anti-gun posts, and ban ALL anti-gun posters from posting.


Sound 'civilized' to you?

[gejohnston]

139. civilized and uncivilized are value judgements,

People of all races who conquered and enslaved others for thousands of years by claiming they were civilizing the "savages". It is the word of imperialists and xenophobes.

[Lizzie Poppet]

149. Only if genuinely, universally civilized.

However, if a society still contains predatory humans (which will be the case for the foreseeable long-term future), I'm going to arm myself. I'm not physically capable of defending myself against the statistically-likely attacker (a young, reasonably fit male) without some sort of mechanical advantage. I'm simply too small at 5'3", 110lbs. I'm pretty fit and could probably outrun most attackers over longer distances...but even that does me no good if they can out-sprint me in the first 50 yards.

I'd love to think our species is evolving away from violence. But that's not happening in my lifetime (or many, many generations worth of lifetimes). I'm remaining armed.

[zipplewrath]

131. I seem to remember

I have this recollection that after a mall shooting of some sort in the last couple of years, that it was determined that there were several people with weapons on them that chose not to use them. Their primary fear was that they would be mistaken for the shooter, or as an accomplice and be shot themselves.

I suspect that the primary "tool" one would like to have is a good escape plan. Failing that, a good hiding place. Apparently, judging from those who have actually been there and had an option, having a fire arm is way down the list in these situations.

[deathrind]

133. Oh yea-...

A bunch of people shooting in a dark theater would have made the situation so much better....

[sanatanadharma]

137. EVERYONE DIES!!! PERIOD

EVERYONE DIES!!! PERIOD

I do not live in a world of fear. I do not need a gun. I will die. I WILL NOT KILL.

I live in a real world where evil is manifest in the world, BY THE GUN in the hands of the (no-one ever saw that coming) previously seemingly normal, now-unhinged gun lover, buyer, collector, defender, idolizer, 2nd amendment worshiping, owner whose gun (or perhaps mind) was misused, misplaced, lost, left behind, dropped, stolen, misused (sic), mis-educated, etc.

The karma of killing (however done and for whatever reason) is heavy and can't be escaped. I say this with same certainty that scientist have of gravity, the same assurance that the proponents of an armed America have in their claims (e.g. post #62, others) that guns in pockets bring safety. I admit that my claims are not verifiable (we do not see our next lives or hell). The more-guns-reduce-gun-violence argument is, here and now, factually disproved by comparing data from USA states.
[img][/img]
Source And, yes, the chart is for households so the gun defender can say that a family of four was 75% under-armed

Any list of purported gun-saves-stories needs to be placed along side a list of dead-baby-by-gun stories.

It is beyond my understanding that too many in this nation are willfully blind to causality and won't clearly admit the ONE COMMON problem in gun violence. I reject the idea that needing to be armed to face American society is the new normal.
The current trajectory of NRA (no rational arguments) gun-violence will come to be seen in America as an evil cancer that must be removed, and can be removed. Of course, some well defended gum owners will likely die in their bunkers of insanity but then they will discover the truth of moral "gravity", karma. Even this well armed man was powerless to stop Yama, death; 1200 guns, 2 tons of ammo.

If I were to change my behavior it would be to boldly step up to everyone open-carry, armed intimidator I see and willingly die in moral superiority, it they can't hear my words, "You are fucking insane!"

[beevul]

138. "Any list of purported gun-saves-stories needs to be placed along side a list..."

Any list of purported gun-saves-stories needs to be placed along side a list of dead-baby-by-gun stories.

Feel free. You should know, however, that the 'gun saves' outnumber 'dead-baby-by-gun' incidents fy a factor of 1000, at a minimum.

It is beyond my understanding that too many in this nation are willfully blind to causality and won't clearly admit the ONE COMMON problem in gun violence.

Tell us more about causality where guns are concerned, considering while you do, that there are 80+ million gun owners, and 300+ million guns in their hands.

Explain how 'causality' fits, when 99.9 percent of guns aren't used to kill or shoot others.

I reject the idea that needing to be armed to face American society is the new normal.

Reject away. Choose not to be armed. I have no issue with that. But if you try to make my decisions for me, we are going to have an issue.


And the vpc? Please.



That map represents gun violence in the actual sense, that is, it isn't diluted into a population that isn't committing gun violence to muddy the waters. It paints a bit of a different picture than the VPC does.

I couldn't decipher the rest of your screed, sorry.

On edit:

Interesting name - sanatanadharma

[Nuclear Unicorn]

142. If everyone dies repeatedly and pays their karmic debt, what's the big deal?

Maybe those carrying guns are imposing payment for the karmic debt of others.

But, then again, migrating through innumerable lifetimes ultimately leads to everyone ceasing to be everyone and just becoming All. So eventually those you're railing against are all going to be together.

If I were to change my behavior it would be to boldly step up to everyone open-carry, armed intimidator I see and willingly die in moral superiority, it they can't hear my words, "You are fucking insane!"

o

k

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

144. Now there's a different item n/t

[Logical]

140. LOL, nice timing. Classy as usual. nt

[beevul]

141. Meaning what, exactly?

I should have known that there was going to be a theater shooting a couple hours after I made the OP?

[stone space]

148. Oh, come on! Of course you should have known. Was it really that hard to predict?

I should have known that there was going to be a theater shooting a couple hours after I made the OP?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

143. I would definitely prefer to be armed but that's not happening

I was never any good with a handgun and have no time in my life to even try to get better. On the ROTC rifle team in college I was stalled at sharpshooter. I was never able to get my standing score over 90% for expert.

I've do a safety assessment regularly and doubt highly that I'll ever be in that situation. I despise large crowds in public places. I don't go to malls and haven't been to one since 2009 (smallish Manhattan Village mall in Manhattan Beach). I don't like theaters and I went to my last movie in a year that started with 1. Most weeks I'm at a small neighborhood grocery store and 2 large airports. At the airports I generally make it from the curb to the gate in less than 20 minutes due to TSA Precheck. I work in a small office building with a lot of security and layers of key card locked perimeters. I make the occasional visit to pet store for dog and kitty supplies but IMHO folks with animals are better adjusted and lower risk.

For those reasons I don't/won't be carrying.

I know many folks live more exciting lives than I do. I applaud their commitments to preparedness and respect their decisions in choosing to do so.

[AuntPatsy]

145. Well since apparently my family has found themselves on some idiots kill list, too

much time on someone hands, I'm not exactly opposed to using my legal use of firearms not so much to protect me, but for my other family members, police are aware of threats from past on line ramblings but this is new news for me, it's legal now on Texas to carry, my real fear is innocent ones getting hit, people are such idiots sometimes

Wasted ignorance, so these days I'm iffy on the laws on who should be able to carry

[Starboard Tack]

146. To avoid escalation.

Unless it is being held on my property, I would prefer not to participate or attend such an event.

[gejohnston]

147. only one person has a choice about attending

and forces his choice on to everyone else.