San Bernardino Shooting

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by SilverRex


imo, even if everyone had a gun I think it will still be a 65 to 35 affair simply because no one expects to be in a real gun fight and I doubt everyone will be well trained enough to win half the time.

I recall one line from somewhere that the biggest challenge in these shootings is that the attackers often have no fear of dying and hence creates an immense tactical advantage.

in short, it is extremely difficult to defend yourself when you some how become a random target, by the time you realize whats happening your bleeding to death on the floor.

That's a fair assessment. I guess I was more thinking "home-invasion" then "middle of the mall". I'd rather someone have a chance at all though. And I do agree that guns do make it easier to kill someone (because "duh", of course they do).

[JustinL]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1

Of course, where I disagree with some is that if you had measures to defend yourself, it would even out. I truly do believe that to be the case, as it IS also logical. They have a gun, you have nothing? They win. You both have guns? 50/50.

The problem with arming everyone is that the assumption is that there are more heroes than nutcases. Every nutcase thinks they are a hero. People like to say to themselves "If I was there with my gun, I would have totally been the hero and stopped that". That almost never happens in reality. The more likely case is that Mr. Readytobeahero gets popcorn tossed at him in a theater and decides that this gun I'm packing will solve this problem.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by JustinL


I would have totally been the hero and stopped that". That almost never happens in reality. The more likely case is that Mr. Readytobeahero gets popcorn tossed at him in a theater and decides that this gun I'm packing will solve this problem.

I never said anything about "stopping the person". I would be willing to pet that for someone trying to defend themselves ie: the theoretical attacker comes at the "defender", the person would pull the trigger.

I certainly would if someone was coming at me with a knife or gun And I think that your "readytobeahero" thing is a pretty moot point, because if it did happen often, that shit is made for news highlights (crazy person waves gun at fast-food employee because not enough mayo on their burger!) Ratings galore!

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by FraserB


Do you honestly think someone who is committing this type of crime is going to care about mag limits? At the end of the day, magazine restrictions are words; someone who is planning to go out and murder a bunch of people isn't going to reconsider once he realizes he is in possession of a prohibited device when he loads the mags to normal capacity.

But they also shouldn't be commercially available. There's no logical reason to have drum magazines (like the one the Aurora shooter had). There are lots of videos on YT of guys unloading giant drum magazines, and admittedly it looks entertaining but it quickly dawns on you that part of its appeal is exactly what some people have said: to cause maximum carnage in as little time possible.

I'm not saying magazine capacity is the magic wand that will put an end to these mass shootings, but they shouldn't be easily accessible/purchasable either.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


I never said anything about "stopping the person". I would be willing to pet that for someone trying to defend themselves ie: the theoretical attacker comes at the "defender", the person would pull the trigger.

I certainly would if someone was coming at me with a knife or gun And I think that your "readytobeahero" thing is a pretty moot point, because if it did happen often, that shit is made for news highlights (crazy person waves gun at fast-food employee because not enough mayo on their burger!) Ratings galore!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're talking about a different scenario. Self-defense is one matter, but within the context of mass shootings and active shooter scenarios, I don't think adding more people with guns is going to help. In my opinion, it would just add to the confusion of 'who's the bad guy, who's the good guy?'.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're talking about a different scenario. Self-defense is one matter, but within the context of mass shootings and active shooter scenarios, I don't think adding more people with guns is going to help. In my opinion, it would just add to the confusion of 'who's the bad guy, who's the good guy?'.

Put yourself in a mass shooting scenario.

A gun man (men?) runs into an area with lots of people that you are in. You have no way to exit, there really isn't anywhere to hide.

What would you rather do? Sit and cower and maybe get lucky you don't get shot/killed? That would be the LAST thing to do on my mind. But maybe I'm not typical? I've been in stressful, dangerous situations with people, and you quickly learn what kind of individual they are on their most basic level when they turn into a whiny pile of tears who literally can't move.

All of your scenarios are hypothetical. My scenario is not. I am very against removing people's means of defending their lives. I don't agree with lax US gun rules, Canada does a good job, but obviously I can't carry a gun here. Then again, I don't have to worry about random people killing me.

[JustinL]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


I never said anything about "stopping the person". I would be willing to pet that for someone trying to defend themselves ie: the theoretical attacker comes at the "defender", the person would pull the trigger.

I certainly would if someone was coming at me with a knife or gun And I think that your "readytobeahero" thing is a pretty moot point, because if it did happen often, that shit is made for news highlights (crazy person waves gun at fast-food employee because not enough mayo on their burger!) Ratings galore!

I think we are arguing different points, sorry for the confusion. I believe you are suggesting that in the case where you are under attack you should use whatever means are at your disposal to defend yourself (agreed). I'm more arguing against the general "If more people had guns, then these mass shootings would be stopped sooner". I do not believe that more people with guns makes a society safer, especially a society where the gun is seen as the ultimate symbol of power. My argument is that a more armed society is not safer based purely on the fact that even people who think of themselves as "good" have the capacity to do bad stuff. The case I was using I think illustrates that pretty well.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/...ooting/2164252

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by JustinL

I'm more arguing against the general "If more people had guns, then these mass shootings would be stopped sooner".

I see, yes, we definitely were arguing different things, I don't think it would necessarily stop mass shootings earlier either. From my perspective, as we both agree this is a cultural issue, people may not want the culture to change. If people don't want the culture to change, then laws that make sense for the culture need to be adopted.

Whether that entails more or less guns, better/different enforcement I am unsure.

[zipdoa]

Some interesting propaganda on my FB feed.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


But they also shouldn't be commercially available. There's no logical reason to have drum magazines (like the one the Aurora shooter had). There are lots of videos on YT of guys unloading giant drum magazines, and admittedly it looks entertaining but it quickly dawns on you that part of its appeal is exactly what some people have said: to cause maximum carnage in as little time possible.

I'm not saying magazine capacity is the magic wand that will put an end to these mass shootings, but they shouldn't be easily accessible/purchasable either.

I get what you're saying, but the problem with that logic is people so often just apply strictly it to guns, when it also would need to apply to all sorts of different things that can (and do) easily kill people if the goal is increased public safety.

This debate never seems to go anywhere. Both sides have valid points, but it's just impossible to draw the line.

There is no logical reason to have *A LOT* of things, other than "because I can" or "because it's fun" or any other number of reasons that may not make sense to the next guy. Guns & magazines are no different. A small percentage of people are always going to use things irresponsibly either intentionally or unintentionally to harm others, no matter what it is. We don't need 400HP cars to get to the grocery store, bad drivers kill far more people than 'mass' shootings do every year, etc. It's all relative. Guns have very reasonable purposes other than killing people, just like cars have purposes other than getting into fatal collisions, or any other number of comparisons you may want to make. Irresponsible use and/or mental illness is the issue IMHO.

As mentioned before, 5 minutes with a couple tools in Canada can give you un-capped magazines and legally acquired assault rifles and pistols are extremely easy to obtain, yet we don't have nearly the amount of shootings even considering the population difference. To me that suggests a problem with the people, not the product.

The problem with banning or heavily restricting something just because it can so easily harm others is that you would have to do the same with *so many* other things if that was the logic - cars, cigarettes, alcohol, knives, airplanes, etc. Everyone has an opinion on where that line should be drawn (usually based on their personal preferred usage of said items) and I don't think it's something two groups will ever agree on.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by JustinL


I think we are arguing different points, sorry for the confusion. I believe you are suggesting that in the case where you are under attack you should use whatever means are at your disposal to defend yourself (agreed). I'm more arguing against the general "If more people had guns, then these mass shootings would be stopped sooner". I do not believe that more people with guns makes a society safer, especially a society where the gun is seen as the ultimate symbol of power. My argument is that a more armed society is not safer based purely on the fact that even people who think of themselves as "good" have the capacity to do bad stuff. The case I was using I think illustrates that pretty well.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/...ooting/2164252

This is a great example of why more guns, and, as the author calls it "the normalizing of open carry" can be a problem. This could have been stopped earlier but unfortunately due to the laws, he technically hasn't done anything wrong until it's too late.

I'd also recommend clicking on the link to the 911 call.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-h...b_8521488.html

Giving everyone a gun is, in it's most basic form, endorsing vigilante-ism. Most vigilantes, by definition, aren't trained well enough, or at all, to handle these kinds of situations. For example:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...te-for/2214432

EDIT: Mixed around the links.

[hjr]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


Some asshat on CNN last night had the balls to say "This keeps happening and it's sad because it's so easily prevented" This problem is INCREDIBLY complex. This theory that the simple act of banning all guns will solve it is ridiculous.

except: Australia....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89d_1411198955

[adamc]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
Some asshat on CNN last night had the balls to say "This keeps happening and it's sad because it's so easily prevented" This problem is INCREDIBLY complex. This theory that the simple act of banning all guns will solve it is ridiculous.

I, for one, would be completely OK with - I dunno, maybe trying it, seeing what happens?

[zipdoa]

Originally posted by adamc



I, for one, would be completely OK with - I dunno, maybe trying it, seeing what happens?

Civil war.

[HuMz]

As more information surfaces this is looking more and more like an act of Jihad. The coming days will most likely reveal the some terror links abroad. Gun control isn't the problem here, they had 3 pipe bombs brought to the scene with essentially a bomb making factory going on in their garage, along with the guns being bought legally. Take the guns away and it would have been bombs going off like it is during most Jihadi attacks.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by hjr


except: Australia....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89d_1411198955

Australia didn't say "no more guns" they said certain guns are no longer allowed. Still lots of guns in Australia.
Over 750,000 people own guns in Australia.

So you have almost a million people capable of mass murder, this guys comments only play to the actions of the vast minority of gun owners. No matter if you only have 1 gun in the country there is still the chance for evil.

Hunters are not immune to evil.

[Canucks3322]

You guys are all debating the wrong thing anyways.. The guy went to Saudi a year ago, came back with a "wife" and grew a beard... Come on... Seriously.... Like it or not this the new reality, we are going to all have to live like Israel to even have aa hope of survival...

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by hjr


except: Australia....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89d_1411198955

Yes we've all seen the Jim Jeffries bit, thanks for being "that guy" and posting it again Here's a tip, it's a comedy bit, it's funny, it doesn't accurately reflect what actually happened in Australia, or the fundamental and complex differences in their gun violence vs the USA. If you've seen Jim live he usually makes that pretty clear in his preface to the joke itself. Side note if you want to get a good chuckle follow Jim on Facebook, he loves to get Americans all worked up about this.

Originally posted by adamc
I, for one, would be completely OK with - I dunno, maybe trying it, seeing what happens?

Ya me too. Ban all guns and see what happens. I'm neither a gun owner or an American so makes little difference to me. I guess I should be clearer, it's my opinion that an all out ban on firearms in The States probably wouldn't accomplish much, never mind the crazy logistics and expense it would take to achieve it. I believe the money would be far better spent on addressing the serious deficiency in mental health care in that country, which as many experts have said is probably a bigger contributor to these situations than the weapons themselves.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1

I certainly would if someone was coming at me with a knife or gun

Chances are, if somebody comes at you with a knife or gun with no preamble, you're never gonna see it until you're shot or stabbed.

[01RedDX]

.