So then most guns are useless in the case of mass shootings. But why limit this to mass shootings, as death is death?What you are saying is most guns are useless in the case of any shootings.
And actually, the above is just fine, as not everyone needs to be armed. however, there are a segment of people who carry consistently and all that is needed to stop a killer is one or two people who are armed and have that element of surprise on the shooter.
Not in the least.
There you go again with “every day” and “every time,” as if everyone would be carrying. Again, pure hyperbole, as we know that people like you and most of your colleagues would not be carrying, so that eliminates some 40% of the potential carriers right there. Then, of the 100M gun owners, only 14 Million (14%) have concealed carry permits, and last stat I heard in my CCP class only 30% and fewer carry all the time, and the rest pick and choose when they carry. That sounds just about right for the people I know who have CCPs.
This scenario you paint of all guns all the time everywhere is not borne out by any analysis whatsoever. And people who use and own guns know these numbers so when they hear non-gun users say stuff like this they ignore and subsequently further ignore whatever gun control ideas you have because the scenarios you paint to support your gun control arguments do not even exist in the real world.
Open carry states are quite different in that no shooter is going to walk and shoot in any place where some patrons are openly displaying guns on their hips. Hm…what does tell you about guns as a deterrent to shootings? Any mass shootings at gun shows or in places where people openly carry guns on their person? I have not looked but I would guess not a one.
Yes I do think I have the right. Why am I afraid of people who want to carry guns? Simple; because I think they might shoot me. Civilians legally carrying guns haven’t shot very many mass shooters; in the US I think the number is zero. But they’ve shot a whole lot of other people, most of them not miscreants.
Many people have bad judgement (including the bad judgement to think they could take out a shooter when they couldn’t). Many people get drunk. Many people get angry and lose their temper. I do not want an untrained or semitrained lunatic running around thinking he’s going to save the world.
We know what happens when people carry guns: they shoot little girls at soccer games, they shoot waitresses who ask them not to smoke, they shoot cabdrivers who have the temerity to be Muslim, they shoot up women’s health clinics. And that’s just in the last couple of weeks. No thanks.
Ahem… I live in an open carry state and there are shootings here all the time in places where people are openly carrying.
You know what 99% of people carrying weapons do when someone starts firing? They run. They hide. They protect their own lives.
This hero BS is just that- BS. It’s a hypermasculine myth that you’re going to be the hero who saves those in distress with your gun against people who are probably WAY more skilled with a weapon than you are.
" @busdriver11 I bet a lot of your coworkers have former military training, given your profession. Most folks don’t work in that kind of environment. I think it makes a difference."
Yes, most of them do, @doschicos. They are also required to take training, the background check is extensive, there is drug testing, you have to have a clean record, and you have plenty of stressful situations to learn from. Some are volunteer sheriff’s deputies. Some, we call the “gun guys”, who are really into it, constantly target shooting, and take their guns everywhere.
I believe there are already a number of people out there like that. Off duty police officers and security guards, prior military. If something goes down, I want one of those guys on my side. However, I don’t know about someone who is completely clueless, that doesn’t seem helpful.
These guys, I have no problem letting carry guns. But the checker at the grocery store with delusions of grandeur, whose “training” is Call of Duty? That old guy who’s losing his sight and who’s always getting drunk and ranting about immigrants? They’re more likely to shoot a Sikh getting out his wallet to buy gasoline than they are to shoot a mass shooter.
"You know what 99% of people carrying weapons do when someone starts firing? They run. They hide. They protect their own lives.
This hero BS is just that- BS. It’s a hypermasculine myth that you’re going to be the hero who saves those in distress with your gun against people who are probably WAY more skilled with a weapon than you are."
I wonder how you could possibly know that statistic.
There are people that intend to take action in perilous situations, whether they are armed, or not. I don’t see any purpose in mocking them for attempting to be proactive, and desiring to keep others from harm. There have been a number of people that have tackled people with guns and knives, that have prevented further tragedy. Whether armed or not, not everybody runs. If these people weren’t willing to fight back, you’d be hearing about far more tragedies.
A few situations that come to mind are the young men on the train in France, and the woman who shot the man who was trying to shoot up a church. Not everybody who grabs a weapon to kill others is an expert. They rely on fear paralyzing people from doing anything. If everyone nearby attacked these killers, they wouldn’t get very far.
I’m not. It is a problem, I said so in the post you quoted, and in a previous post too.
I very clearly say that the problem is Islamist Terrorism, not Muslims. No where do I deny the existence of a problem. It’s like you’re arguing for the sake of it.
And therein lies my point. Those refugees aren’t terrorists. But if you go around throwing generalizations like “Islam is evil”, then you are calling all the Muslim refugees evil by association. This is the angle Daesh is playing.
My point is this: you want to call ISIS terrible , warmongering, truly evil terrorists? I’m right there with you. Just don’t put Muslims in the same slot with them.
“And therein lies my point. Those refugees aren’t terrorists. But if you go around throwing generalizations like “Islam is evil”, then you are calling all the Muslim refugees evil by association. This is the angle Daesh is playing.
My point is this: you want to call ISIS terrible , warmongering, truly evil terrorists? I’m right there with you. Just don’t put Muslims in the same slot with them.”
I didn’t say they were terrorists. They are victims. I have never said, “Islam is evil”, and I have never put Muslims in the same slot with them.
When you are listening to rhetoric on television, it is better to attribute the rhetoric to the people that actually say it, not to anyone else.
Honestly, it isn’t a skill thing - mass shooters (or indeed criminal shooters in general) are not generally characterized as particularly skillful. Really it is just that they are eager to kill and willing to die and they know what is going on. Responders, civilian or police, are often reluctant to kill, definitely reluctant to die, and need time to process the situation. These are the very issues that cops train over and over again to address.
But it wouldn’t be “everyone” if only your “gun guys” are carrying guns. It would only be a relatively small number of people. Ideally, they would be like your colleagues who have carry permits – skilled, well-screened, and well-trained. But still, there would only be a few of them.
Colorado is an Open Carry state with very loose gun laws (no licensing). Seems to me a lot of these mass shootings have happened in Colorado. Seems like it goes counter to the “logic” of those of you stating that the ability to have and carry guns freely will protect citizens from shooters. I’m still not buying your argument.
And to @romanigypsyeyes’s point about a hypermasculine myth, many terrorists are willing to give up their lives, something most individuals are not willing to do. This “martyr” mentality is powerful psychologically when dealing with a fast paced, stress filled, life or death scenario. It gives a great advantage to the shooters.
My sister’s friend majors in Psychology and she did this impulse-reaction test experiment with her assigned group. One of the things they noticed is pertinent to the question at hand I believe. Let’s say two girls are fighting; one has a water bottle, and one doesn’t. They found out that the one with the water bottle is likely to throw it at the girl she’s fighting with, because it’s there. Apparently in a moment of blind anger, a person searches for the closest weapons they can use (in this case, the bottle), and if they have nothing, they resort to using their bodies (i.e they punch, kick etc.).
My sister asked her what would happen if the one of the ‘girls’ has a gun or a knife; she said she’ll most likely stab or shoot the person she’s fighting with (if the altercation is heated enough). I don’t fully understand it, but according to her some parts of the human consciousness ‘blank out’ when in a moment of extreme anger. They also said that in moments of sexual arousal, giddiness, or anger that judgment is severely impaired.
It was some time ago but I could get my sister to ask her if anyone is interested in more clarification.
Well… I have anecdotes too.
I know 3 people who killed themselves with guns. One killing was an accident. One was by an ex military man.
One of my best friends was shot accidentally by another friend. He is ok.
I know an attorney who was at 101 California St in SF at the time of that mass shooting.
A neighbor killed two of his girls. They were 7 and 5. The neighbor knew how to use guns. The 7 year old was trying to flee and her father shot her as she ran up stairs trying to escape. Those girls were my brother’s best friends.
Guns give Americans a false sense of security. We make policies so some people can feel better or more secure but the reality is the policies dont do that.
We have a lot of good things going on in America but policies based on fear are not beneficial to Americans.
“A few situations that come to mind are the young men on the train in France, and the woman who shot the man who was trying to shoot up a church. Not everybody who grabs a weapon to kill others is an expert. They rely on fear paralyzing people from doing anything. If everyone nearby attacked these killers, they wouldn’t get very far.”
I can think of one other incident. The university shooting in Oregon recently. In both the France train incident and in Oregon, the individuals DID have military training and thus were experts, not everyday folk packing a gun. In these two instances, these trained individuals weren’t even using guns.
Kind of hard to blame someone for this viewpoint if their life experiences have been formed by being around people who would run. They have no other example, so they erroneously project their lives onto others, since they have seen no different.
Unfortunately, for this viewpoint, the CDC does have an answer. The CDC studies indicate that annually over 1 million+ people successfully stop a crime on themselves or on others with a gun, and that includes stopping a perp who does have with a gun. There are not 100 million violent crimes in the country each year, closer to 7 million, so clearly 99% do not run.
How do you know this? How do you know that the criminal attacking has “way” better gun handling skills than the CCP trained person?
Again, this is a fake narrative to advance an ideology and is biased by life experience - if one has never been around people who shoot and train and conceal carry, then it is easy to create a stereotype that they are untrained. But it is weird to then extend that narrative to say the criminal is more skilled. Why would someone even assume that a criminal is more skilled at using a weapon than a standard person? There is nothing to even support that thought.
In fact, for the 14M CCP holders, there is data to indicate the reverse is probably true because they actually got formal training. So where is all these gun training schools for criminals so that they are better gun handlers than CCP holders?
You clearly did not comprehend my post, so no wonder you do not understand the point.
However, in Colorado (and any state for that matter), shooters do go in and shoot people in gun-free zones where patrons are not allowed to exercise their open carry right.
EDITED TO ADD: This Texas case a bit different in that Texas was not Open Carry at that time - although TX does become open carry on January 1, 2016. But the effect is the same. Could not have a gun in a gun-free zone.