The fail of the "good guy with a gun" theory.

the Aurora shooter did pretend to be the police (technically the SWAT team). He was wearing optional gear that the real SWAT guys weren't wearing (knee pads, maybe), that clued them off. Had they not noticed that, he could have gotten away scott-free (at least initially).

 

It's all a very risky and poor alternative to banning guns to a sufficient extent to keep would-be killers from getting them.

 

No, that is false. 2.5 million felony crimes per year are prevented or stopped by armed citizens - not braggart ex military who claim only they should have firearms for defense. And "unskilled" citizens kill less innocent people than do "trained" police by a factor of over 500% - while those citizens also stop and prevent more crimes than police.

Nor does a person have to be a skilled shooter to stop or prevent a crime. The mere presence of a firearm is sufficient. Nor has there ever been a mass shooting where any victim or anyone else present had a firearm.

I understand those who are proficient and trained in firearms declaring how superior they are and how worthless everyone else is as a matter of bragging how great and tough they are. But NOTHING in real life in civil society backs that up. Actually, citizens who are NOT highly trained have proven more effective against crime and safer to innocent people than "trained" police - and overwhelmingly so.

The vastly higher rate (over 500%) of police shooting innocent people (11% versus 2%) instead suggests that people who are highly trained are far more likely to shoot first and ask questions later. Private citizens with firearms are far more careful before they shoot, who they shoot and why. So stats show the exact opposite of what is being argued is true.

The SAFEST person with self defense/defense of others firearms is an ordinary citizen with a firearm, not an intensely trained shooter and fighter. The latter are highly trained in killing, while ordinary people aren't - so killing isn't their first impulsive reaction. Ordinary citizens' first instinct is to figure out what to do, not just instantly draw and empty a magazine at someone they are unsure about.

 

^ Overall, I'm tired of politicians and so-called experts running down and trashing ordinary people with endless explanations of how inferior we-the-people are and how ordinary people are so incompetent, evil and stupid that most people should be denied THE most fundamental of all human rights, civil rights, and the first law of nature too - the right to defend yourself, family and community. Everyone has an inherent right to defend themselves and others against murder, assault, rape and robbery.

Animals have no "training" in defense. Watch videos of inferior abilities species taking on far greater predators on behalf of their babies and their communities. Doing so successfully. And doing so sacrificially. An "untrained" sparrow will take on a hawk in flight to protect it's nest and a rabbit will take on a snake in defense of its young. A female lion taking on a huge Nile crocodile and in the water, just so its cubs can get to the other side. Species of dogs will take on a bear to defend its pups. The list is long. Those untrained animals of so-called lower intelligence are both smarter and more moral than those who give disgusting reasons why humans should be outlawed from self defense for the good of the whole ideology - which is 100% based on ridicule, belittlement, trivialization and contempt of ordinary people.

 

Well we have two choices. We can try to defend ourselves or we can sit by and let things happen around us. Your post shows why 20% of the population carry the load of the other 80%.

 

Sure, assuming you and the shooter have been in a firefight for the 15 minutes until the police arrive, expending hundreds of rounds without hitting each other once. But outside of Hollywood, that almost never happens. It takes one good shot to end a firefight, it doesn't take fifteen minutes.

 

Every option in an active shooter is a poor one. There is no ideal, no optimum...just a host of crappy options for a bunch of honest people wanting nothing more than to go home safely. If we could just keep guns out of the wrong hands, I'd be all for it. But the problem is they want to slowly pry them from every hand, and they focus on the innocent people who just want to own them for whatever reason, with no focus on the crazy people. My state already requires full background checks, both state and FBI, fingerprinting just to get a license for the privilege of exercising my right to own a firearm, and I comply with every single one of them fully. Then I hear people on here act like we can just walk in a gun store and walk out with a full arsenal, no paperwork and no documentation at all. There are answers to keeping guns from people with mental problems, but nothing we've done has worked and they just keep repeating the same mantra. I even asked my governor, Mr. O'Malley when he was in office, to provide statistics on the results of his massive gun legislation that was implemented so we could see state documented stats on gun crimes before and after. They kindly refused and Baltimore seems to be worsening.

If there's an idea out there to keep guns from would-be killers, I encourage every person with one of those ideas to promote it to their legislators for consideration. I'm not anti-check at all and hope I never have to encounter the horror some of our citizens have had to face in areas they felt safest before the shootings took place.

 

Do not make the mistake of assuming that all us liberals lack objectivity. The NRA claim raised a red flag with me and you beat me to posting the snopes link that debunks the claim. Both sides have their biased and their objective people. The biased are only interested in what supports their view while the objective are not bound by anything other than a desire to find the truth no matter if it supports or defeats their argument.

 

Well, there you go. We get untrained civilians to handle all our shooting and we're good to go.

I'm in no way trying to brag, act brave or act heroic. Attempting to save your own life is not at all heroic, and should be instinct. But our instincts sometimes get clouded when overwhelmed by fear in a situation we've never imagined ourselves in. An armed citizen of any (reasonable) skill level is potential for stopping a shooter. You're right, the ordinary citizen may be all that is needed, but having the instinct to take action is required for that citizen. Many, as you can see in this thread, would have people do nothing at all and hope for help before they die. Knowing average police response times vary by locality, urban vs rural, etc., those average citizens are all they have until help arrives. Using a firearm in such a situation is common sense, not heroic action. If someone is armed, would we rather expect they stand up, state their religious beliefs and then die? Or maybe hope they have the time before the shooter arrives at the room they are in to prepare for the inevitable confrontation with at least some positive percentage of likelihood of success.

This discussion keeps getting twisted into Rambo/NCIS/action movies when the idea is either action or non-action. Those are our choices and it is very odd that so many encourage people to just do nothing. I'm not Rambo, I don't spend my waking hours at shooting ranges, my shooting skills are only better than average but not professional, I get scared like everyone else, I hope to never be in that situation but also hope the amount of training and though given to this type of event will allow me to think through the fog of fear in the face of danger, and I hope to be in a position if I am faced with an active shooter that I have a few moments to prepare for a reaction instead of being one of the first targets with no choice but to be shot or cornered in a room with no ability to fight and nowhere to run.

Nobody's first instinct should be to just draw and empty a magazine. That's also movie-like more than realistic. Most CCW sized handguns carry few rounds so wasting them is non-sensible.

 

Did banning drugs keep addicts from getting them?

 

The 2.5 million figure is a 20 year old lie that has been debunked multiple times. The idea that legions of untrained gun owners are out there doing the job police can't do is a fantasy, not reality

 

Makes perfect sense because drugs like cocain and heroin are illegal in Chicago AND all the surrounding states and no one in Chicago has access to cocaine and heroin...right?

 

Wrong! The point was that if you are surrounded by states with lax gun laws, that makes it much easier for the criminal element to have associates without criminal records to purchase said guns and then sell them to those in states with stricter laws. This was made nationally evident by former NY Mayor Bloomberg a few years ago.

 

So you are saying that things that are prohibited by law AREN'T availble in Chicago? Like say for instance; heroin?

 

Another day,another gun-grabber thread.
This one has it all:Lies,fantasies.and pictures!
It's apparent these people never give up.
It's almost as if it was their job..just sayin'

 

Put a sign outside your house that says I'm a gun free home and I might believe you.

 

Are you suggesting amending the constitution to grant congress the power to restrict the ability of the people of the several states to acquire, keep, and bear arms?

 

Given congress' powers listed in article I, section 8, I can't see how congress has any constitutional authority to enact such a law.

 

Are you aware that cops have shot over 700 people this year? Most of whom were unarmed.
Tell me, do you really want to trust police to make that split second decision?
What about when the police are focused on the good guy with the gun, doesn't that pose a massive distraction from the bad guy with the gun? Wouldn't that put more lives needlessly in danger? How much more so if even more citizens are armed? How much time can be wasted trying to find the "bad guy with a gun" when multiple people are packing heat?
Most pro-gun advocates cannot think past the end of their own noses, and that is exactly why we have this problem in this country.

You have no capacity to use common sense, and yet you are probably a gun owner who thinks your views are "responsible".
I rest my case.

 

Ahhhh, another cower in the corner tree hugger who can't see that some chance of survival is better than no chance. I'll play the odds if it's between doing something or cowering and getting shot because 1) police may show up and not know that I'm a good guy AND 2) they may just shoot me anyway because they've shot others unnecessarily AND 3) I actually have a great deal of common sense and don't let fear cripple me when it comes to intellectual discussions about the possibility of real life events taking place.

It's ok though. There are others you can cower near in the corner while some citizen with a bit more bravery can try to get others to help him or her take some type of action, futile as it may be, against a shooter to minimize the carnage. I just wonder what it takes to live with such a view of life that you fear so much and allow your twisted ideological, political point of view smear the reality of a situation so very dangerous. Intelligent people would know when to disengage and remove themselves from the situation if it's between living and dying, confusing police or other first responders, etc. It's not a Rambo movie and the pros are best to handle it. Brave citizens can do something until those folks arrive while the others (you and your cohort who think like you) just hope they don't die.

How many incorrect people have they shot this year in a mass shooting or active shooter event? That's more relevant and significantly lower...likely zero. You can review my posts on other topics...economics, politics, responsible gun ownership, etc. if you want an idea about my capacity for common sense.

 

Ah, but here is the problem, what if the "good guy(s)" with guns make a mistake, start shooting and hit other innocent people, mistake the wrong person for the shooter, accidentally fire their gun before they are ready, the list of possible added on risks involved need to be taken into account as well. There is no guarantee that every good guy with a gun will be competent enough to navigate a stressful and highly excited situation like that. Added guns also come with added risks.

 

To answer your question, to date, NO mass shooting or even attempted mass shooting has been stopped by a private citizen with a gun. As for other "violent crimes", a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a crime or a suicide than in an act of self defense.

 

Turn the entire USA into a free killing zone like Mexico! The Democrat solution to global warming - get as many people murdered as possible.

 

That's a lie. 2,500,000 felony crimes per year are prevented or stopped by the presence of a firearm.

Actually, mass shootings are stopped by firearms. 100% of murdered victims were defenseless. 100% of mass shootings have occurred where no one was present with a firearm. There has never been a mass shooting where someone - anyone - was present with a displayed firearm.

It also is a lie that armed citizens never stop mass shootings or have prevented them - including at schools.

http://controversialtimes.com/issue...hootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

http://www.personaldefenseworld.com...n-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter-2

Very few anti-gunners ever tell the truth. They make up what is exactly opposite of the truth and then rant about it.

Call the DNC, they'll tell you more false talking points to post of why you should be declared totally defenseless to everyone and it should be a crime for you to even think about trying to defend yourself or anyone else.