Arizona has the most liberal firearms laws doesn't it? Besides i remember reading some guy (possibly security) did pull a gun out but the papers havn't run with it so i don't know what happened there.lowing wrote:
My argument is, if more people ( law abiding citizens) were there, ARMED, this might have turned out with a lot less people hurt or killed.
it has incredibly lax firearm lawsFatherTed wrote:
Arizona has the most liberal firearms laws doesn't it? Besides i remember reading some guy (possibly security) did pull a gun out but the papers havn't run with it so i don't know what happened there.lowing wrote:
My argument is, if more people ( law abiding citizens) were there, ARMED, this might have turned out with a lot less people hurt or killed.
yes, they do. but not as lax as Utah!Hurricane2k9 wrote:
it has incredibly lax firearm lawsFatherTed wrote:
Arizona has the most liberal firearms laws doesn't it? Besides i remember reading some guy (possibly security) did pull a gun out but the papers havn't run with it so i don't know what happened there.lowing wrote:
My argument is, if more people ( law abiding citizens) were there, ARMED, this might have turned out with a lot less people hurt or killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Air_Force_BaseDBBrinson1 wrote:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shootingLotta_Drool wrote:
Fort Hood Washington????DBBrinson1 wrote:
No the FT hood shooter was an islamic fundamentalist. This guy's a schitzo.
I was talking about the shooter in washington state on the air base where an MP rode his bike across the base, ran into the building, ran through the halls, and double tapped the killer at like 40 yards with his pistol.*
*Actual Facts may Vary but are generally incredible
A significant event at Fairchild occurred on June 20, 1994 when Dean Mellberg, an ex-Air Force member entered the base hospital and shot and killed five people and wounded many others. Mellberg had been discharged after failing psychological evaluations by base psychologists Maj. Thomas Brigham and Captain Alan London. At the time of the shooting, Fairchild's hospital was an ungated facility. The gunman, armed with a Chinese-made MAK-90, an AK-47 clone[4] entered the office of Brigham and London and killed both men. Mellberg continued to move through the hospital, injuring and killing several people, including 8-year-old Christin McCarron. The gunman then walked out of the building into the parking lot, where after killing Anita Lindner, was confronted by Security Policeman, Senior Airman Andy Brown. From approximately 70 yards away, Brown ordered Mellberg to drop his weapon. After Mellberg refused, from a kneeling position Brown fired four shots from his 9mm pistol, two rounds hitting the perpetrator in the head and shoulder, killing him.[5] After an investigation it was concluded that Airman Brown was justified in his actions, saving countless lives, and was awarded the Airman's Medal by President Clinton.
So your answer to preventing death is causing more death? Lowing, you truly are a caveman.lowing wrote:
My argument is, if more people ( law abiding citizens) were there, ARMED, this might have turned out with a lot less people hurt or killed.
Better border control, stricter gun laws. Seems like a win-win to me. Cuts down on the illegal drug trade and also human trafficking, too.Turquoise wrote:
Well, the problem is that gun control isn't something that works in all cases. It might work in Germany, but in America, it depends on several factors as to how effective more restrictive laws might be.
Arizona could probably stand to implement a psychological background check to its process, but beyond that, they must contend with an illegal gun market run by nearby Mexican cartels and MS13 (more specifically).
Implementing more gun control in a state like Vermont, on the other hand, would probably be easy due to its remote location and small population.
I definitely agree with the border control part, but it's both very expensive and politically unpalatable due to activists and certain business interests.CapnNismo wrote:
Better border control, stricter gun laws. Seems like a win-win to me. Cuts down on the illegal drug trade and also human trafficking, too.Turquoise wrote:
Well, the problem is that gun control isn't something that works in all cases. It might work in Germany, but in America, it depends on several factors as to how effective more restrictive laws might be.
Arizona could probably stand to implement a psychological background check to its process, but beyond that, they must contend with an illegal gun market run by nearby Mexican cartels and MS13 (more specifically).
Implementing more gun control in a state like Vermont, on the other hand, would probably be easy due to its remote location and small population.
they're both retarded?CapnNismo wrote:
So your answer to preventing death is causing more death? Lowing, you truly are a caveman.lowing wrote:
My argument is, if more people ( law abiding citizens) were there, ARMED, this might have turned out with a lot less people hurt or killed.
An interesting anecdote I read elsewhere... "When there's a shooting in Germany (which hardly ever happens), the people say 'We need stricter gun control laws!'. In the USA, a shooting results in cries of 'We need more guns for self-defense!'" Do you see the insanity/truth in this?
Great so, you defend the right of the killer and the killed to have guns. Your argument is that everyone should have a gun(including the killer) because then he will only kill 3 or 4 people before an armed citizen takes him down.lowing wrote:
This fucker woulda been shot dead by the time he got to the second or third victim if he would have pulled this shit at a conservative rally. In fact this guy probably knew better than to show up at a conservative rally just for that reason. Bleeding heart liberals don't believe in the need to protect yourself.
But dude! Freedom!JahManRed wrote:
Great so, you defend the right of the killer and the killed to have guns. Your argument is that everyone should have a gun(including the killer) because then he will only kill 3 or 4 people before an armed citizen takes him down.
So why not restrict access to the guns in the first place. Then those 3 people who got shot while our hero is taking out their gun don't get shot in the first place?
That's all we need. Some granny with a few hours on the range taking out a .45 and blasting into a crowd of people in total chaos and confusion. Yeah she might hit him, yeah she might miss. The bullet might go through the killer and thro some kids head.
There are reasons why police do firearms training. When to take a shot. Is their a backdrop etc. Years of training discipline a cop to make all those decisions in a split second. Would make a bad situation worse. So what if some of the armed citizens dint see the shooter, but wipe out their gun and shot the first person they see with a gun in an adrenalin filled moment..............which could be another citizen with a gun.
The average person is ruled by adrenalin, like it or not. Adrenalin makes people make quick uninformed decisions..........add a gun to that and a chaotic situation and you got problems.
I can see the carnage now if lowings America actually existed. Untrained citizens whipping their guns out en mass in a crowd. Not going to end well.
this is why CCW holders should be required to go through training tbhJahManRed wrote:
Great so, you defend the right of the killer and the killed to have guns. Your argument is that everyone should have a gun(including the killer) because then he will only kill 3 or 4 people before an armed citizen takes him down.lowing wrote:
This fucker woulda been shot dead by the time he got to the second or third victim if he would have pulled this shit at a conservative rally. In fact this guy probably knew better than to show up at a conservative rally just for that reason. Bleeding heart liberals don't believe in the need to protect yourself.
So why not restrict access to the guns in the first place. Then those 3 people who got shot while our hero is taking out their gun don't get shot in the first place?
That's all we need. Some granny with a few hours on the range taking out a .45 and blasting into a crowd of people in total chaos and confusion. Yeah she might hit him, yeah she might miss. The bullet might go through the killer and thro some kids head.
There are reasons why police do firearms training. When to take a shot. Is their a backdrop etc. Years of training discipline a cop to make all those decisions in a split second. Would make a bad situation worse. So what if some of the armed citizens dint see the shooter, but wipe out their gun and shot the first person they see with a gun in an adrenalin filled moment..............which could be another citizen with a gun.
The average person is ruled by adrenalin, like it or not. Adrenalin makes people make quick uninformed decisions..........add a gun to that and a chaotic situation and you got problems.
I can see the carnage now if lowings America actually existed. Untrained citizens whipping their guns out en mass in a crowd. Not going to end well.
Absolute bullshit. Most street cops are required to go to the range and qualify what, 3 times a year? Id be willing to bet i could hit a target at 50 yards with my semen more accurately than your standard traffic cop with a pistol, let a alone a rifle they have to dust off out of the trunk. Having cops is great--it instills fear in the morons. But while waiting those 15-20 minutes for police to show up at a place they are not stationed at, I'd like to be able to defend myself, my family, and my best friend standing next to me.Dilbert_X wrote:
But dude! Freedom!JahManRed wrote:
Great so, you defend the right of the killer and the killed to have guns. Your argument is that everyone should have a gun(including the killer) because then he will only kill 3 or 4 people before an armed citizen takes him down.
So why not restrict access to the guns in the first place. Then those 3 people who got shot while our hero is taking out their gun don't get shot in the first place?
That's all we need. Some granny with a few hours on the range taking out a .45 and blasting into a crowd of people in total chaos and confusion. Yeah she might hit him, yeah she might miss. The bullet might go through the killer and thro some kids head.
There are reasons why police do firearms training. When to take a shot. Is their a backdrop etc. Years of training discipline a cop to make all those decisions in a split second. Would make a bad situation worse. So what if some of the armed citizens dint see the shooter, but wipe out their gun and shot the first person they see with a gun in an adrenalin filled moment..............which could be another citizen with a gun.
The average person is ruled by adrenalin, like it or not. Adrenalin makes people make quick uninformed decisions..........add a gun to that and a chaotic situation and you got problems.
I can see the carnage now if lowings America actually existed. Untrained citizens whipping their guns out en mass in a crowd. Not going to end well.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2 … 72481.htmlJahManRed wrote:
There are reasons why police do firearms training. When to take a shot. Is their a backdrop etc. Years of training discipline a cop to make all those decisions in a split second.
I believe I said if more law abiding citizens were there armed, there would have a been a greater chance that this guy would have been taken down before he could have shot 23 people killing 6. That means fewer deaths not more deaths.CapnNismo wrote:
So your answer to preventing death is causing more death? Lowing, you truly are a caveman.lowing wrote:
My argument is, if more people ( law abiding citizens) were there, ARMED, this might have turned out with a lot less people hurt or killed.
An interesting anecdote I read elsewhere... "When there's a shooting in Germany (which hardly ever happens), the people say 'We need stricter gun control laws!'. In the USA, a shooting results in cries of 'We need more guns for self-defense!'" Do you see the insanity/truth in this?
Last edited by lowing (2011-01-11 01:35:42)
Yes just like strict drug laws and the war on drugs. How is that working out again? You do not need more fuckin laws, you need to enforce the laws on the books, you need to do away with PC and make people hurt for the crimes they commit.CapnNismo wrote:
Better border control, stricter gun laws. Seems like a win-win to me. Cuts down on the illegal drug trade and also human trafficking, too.Turquoise wrote:
Well, the problem is that gun control isn't something that works in all cases. It might work in Germany, but in America, it depends on several factors as to how effective more restrictive laws might be.
Arizona could probably stand to implement a psychological background check to its process, but beyond that, they must contend with an illegal gun market run by nearby Mexican cartels and MS13 (more specifically).
Implementing more gun control in a state like Vermont, on the other hand, would probably be easy due to its remote location and small population.
you have a distorted view of law abiding citizens in the US. We are not all running around with guns hoping someone will flip us off so we can shoot them. Most of us are armed without you even knowing it. We do not want the attention, we simply carry in case our lives are truly threatened. We carry not to be a "hero", but to defend ourselves. We also probably have more range time than the cops. I am guessing here though since I do not know how often cops actually have to re-qualify. I am sure it isn't two or three times a month though.JahManRed wrote:
Great so, you defend the right of the killer and the killed to have guns. Your argument is that everyone should have a gun(including the killer) because then he will only kill 3 or 4 people before an armed citizen takes him down.lowing wrote:
This fucker woulda been shot dead by the time he got to the second or third victim if he would have pulled this shit at a conservative rally. In fact this guy probably knew better than to show up at a conservative rally just for that reason. Bleeding heart liberals don't believe in the need to protect yourself.
So why not restrict access to the guns in the first place. Then those 3 people who got shot while our hero is taking out their gun don't get shot in the first place?
That's all we need. Some granny with a few hours on the range taking out a .45 and blasting into a crowd of people in total chaos and confusion. Yeah she might hit him, yeah she might miss. The bullet might go through the killer and thro some kids head.
There are reasons why police do firearms training. When to take a shot. Is their a backdrop etc. Years of training discipline a cop to make all those decisions in a split second. Would make a bad situation worse. So what if some of the armed citizens dint see the shooter, but wipe out their gun and shot the first person they see with a gun in an adrenalin filled moment..............which could be another citizen with a gun.
The average person is ruled by adrenalin, like it or not. Adrenalin makes people make quick uninformed decisions..........add a gun to that and a chaotic situation and you got problems.
I can see the carnage now if lowings America actually existed. Untrained citizens whipping their guns out en mass in a crowd. Not going to end well.
Last edited by lowing (2011-01-11 01:38:41)
Last edited by JahManRed (2011-01-11 01:51:03)
you are missing the key word, SELF DEFENSE. I do give credit to most law abiding citizens, that they will not open fire into a crowd of people only hoping that they hit the right guy. Know what you are shooting at is one of the common sense rules that gun owners abide by.JahManRed wrote:
I'm not disputing that. What I am saying that untrained people with guns in a crowd in a chaotic situation isn't a good thing.
Think of the crowd of people lined up to see her. Then the shot rings out, chaos, people running everywhere, noise, blood confusion. Now add to that a unknown amount of untrained people also with guns. Yes, one guy might whip out his gun, take aim, wait until no one is behind the shot and kill him with one shot.
What could also happen is: Chaos.......5-6 people hear the shots and whip out their guns. None have any training. Hand shaking with adrenalin, shoots the first person they see with a gun which might actually be another armed citizen. They may take a shot which actually endangers the public. They might miss and enrage the gunman further. They might wound him and enrage him further.
Lowing, you might have confidence in your own ability to handle a gun and such a chaotic situation, but would you stand over every other citizens ability to take aim in a crowd and kill someone without endangering anyone else and themselves? Can you with confidence, say that every citizen in the US if given a gun could handle that type of situation?
SWAT is seen as the pinnacle of police training. Its the hardest section of any police force to get accepted to. Why? Because they are trained to open fire in civilian areas. You propose citizens should be doing what swat does without any training.
Unless you are sending citizians into "murder house" training no amount of range time can prepar anyone for a live fire situation. Big difference between a target with a concrete backdrop and a human with a gun surrounded by inocent humans.
And what do you see me as far as my views, not my iq?Turquoise wrote:
lol... Well, I have to admit that I was thinking of the Subway guy too. Most people on this forum aren't radical though. Of those who are radical, we seem to have about an equal spread of left, right, and libertarian.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Radical Pot Head Liberal is what I describe 70% of this forum as. I long for the days when Jared was just some fat guy that ate at Subway.
Last edited by JahManRed (2011-01-11 02:28:51)
