if you were in that concert hall..would you want a gun...a poll

[2aguy]

In the various places of the attacks in France...if you were there...and had the option...would you want to have had a concealed pistol...or would you have preferred to be unarmed....?

Unless you're gonna do a Jack Bauer move and flank the shooters up in the balcony, in this case, if was packing, it would have been useless. Sorry man -- it's just a different situation than a pizza hold-up or a break-in. I think smart gun folks know this is different.

Engaging the perps from the floor or the doors would just open you to a bullet when the police came storming in the chaos. No good to be carrying there at all..

BUT ---- now the soccer stadium is a bit different ---- because THERE -- the threat was Achmed's in suicide vests. And armed response is whole different story. Even if you sacrificed yourself in the exchange, you had a chance to stop the perp if you had the element of surprise and you were the only available force..

Sorry...I know you mean well but you are wrong.....no one is talking about being Jack Bauer.....what we point out is that if you are in the immediate vicinity of a shooter...you have a chance to stop him...otherwise you leave and try to escape...or hold up in a room with other victims....and your gun makes sure they can't kill you....you take your wife and kids and hide in a room, even taking other people with you...and you stand ready at the door...like a bathroom.....or a janitors closet.....or a ticket office.......or the kitchen of the stadium.....and you wait for the cops...with guns....to clear the building......

The anti gunners don't think....they are morons.........

 

[2aguy]

They are like an open invitation to any mad men in the vicinity.

Right and according to you, a racist little bitch of a kid shooting up a black church is proof of that.

Missed again.

Are you kidding? If you were the gunman, where would you choose to carry out your crime? A place where there are no guns of course! Duh.

Where is your evidence? Mass shooters usually have a personal reason for the location. Whether it's a convenient store, school, parking lot or their own home.

Or their former place of employment, with which they are no longer gruntled.

Workplace shootings ARE counted. Family killers are an entirely different dynamic. Workplace counts. And the overwhelming majority of those locations are indeed gun free zones. Every post office (to use your preferred target) is a gun free zone. Thanks for helping to prove our point.

Family killers are different because they can murder their families in any number of ways...in Australia they like to set them on fire......they use knives or drown their kids......the FBI classifies them differently from mass public shootings...

The anti gunners use family killers to make their mass public shooting numbers look bigger...why....? Because according to the research by left wing Mother Jones....mass shooters kill very few people...a tiny number of people each year...compared to normal criminals killing other criminals....

But mass shootings get way more publicity and they make better tools for pushing gun control...here is the Mother Jones table on mass shootings....see how low the numbers are...each year.....never breaking more than 73 on even the worst years.....

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Sooooo....


US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation



How many deaths on average according to Mother Jones...anti gun, uber left wing Mother Jones.......each year, well less than 100.

2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf


Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013....38,851

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013...29,001

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...30,208
Accidental drowning.....3,391
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames.....2,760

Accidental gun deaths 2013......505


Those are the numbers of deaths from mass shootings in the United States.....and even in the big year, 2012, they didn't break 100 deaths by criminals.

How many guns are there in American hands....320 million.

How many people carry guns for self defense...over 13 million.

***********

This is why they always try to add family killers into the mass public shooting numbers...the mass shooters don't kill a lot of people....and that makes it hard to use them for publicity...especially if normal people actually know the facts about mass public shootings.....that is why it was foolish for mother jones to print these stats.....

 

[2aguy]

In the various places of the attacks in France...if you were there...and had the option...would you want to have had a concealed pistol...or would you have preferred to be unarmed....?

Unless you're gonna do a Jack Bauer move and flank the shooters up in the balcony, in this case, if was packing, it would have been useless. Sorry man -- it's just a different situation than a pizza hold-up or a break-in. I think smart gun folks know this is different.

Engaging the perps from the floor or the doors would just open you to a bullet when the police came storming in the chaos. No good to be carrying there at all..

BUT ---- now the soccer stadium is a bit different ---- because THERE -- the threat was Achmed's in suicide vests. And armed response is whole different story. Even if you sacrificed yourself in the exchange, you had a chance to stop the perp if you had the element of surprise and you were the only available force..

When they are shooting down into the crowd they are perfect targets for even a moderate shooter. Just sayin.

OK Jack Bauer.. I need to see your target scores with a sidearm from about 25 yards..

You have to do your research...mass shooters do 2 things when they are faced with armed resistance...they either kill themselves or immediately surrender.......at the Klackamas mall shooting, the concealed carrier merely pointed his gun at the shooter....he didn't take a shot because there were people behind the guy....when the shooter saw the concealed carrier, he killed himself.....

The Theater shooter...immediately surrendered when confronted by an armed police officer, after having just shot up an entire theater full of unarmed people......

the Sandy hook school shooter....as soon as he heard the sirens of the police approaching, he stopped shooting and committed suicide.....

in standard mass shooting scenarios, all you have to do is show armed resistance to the shooter and the attack ends...that is why it is sooooo important to have armed people on scene as soon as possible...

The terrorists are different but the need for armed people is the same......putting suppressive fire on them slows them down....they have to figure getting hit into the equation vs. simply murdering people...if they are hit and incapacitiated, they may not be able to detonate their vests...so they detonate earlier rather than later...

How do we know....as soon as the police went into that theater...with guns.......they detonated their vests...not before......

So if they had recieved fire from armed citizens...they may have ended their killing sooner....

 

[2aguy]

Oh cut the crap, you are not an expert on mass shootings and have no idea of the WHY. Now, are you saying you would prefer to be defenseless in such a scenario?

Apparently I and others know more than you.

No...you don't...you don't know even easy information about these mass shooters.......you really need to do more research...

 

[2aguy]

In the various places of the attacks in France...if you were there...and had the option...would you want to have had a concealed pistol...or would you have preferred to be unarmed....?

Unless you're gonna do a Jack Bauer move and flank the shooters up in the balcony, in this case, if was packing, it would have been useless. Sorry man -- it's just a different situation than a pizza hold-up or a break-in. I think smart gun folks know this is different.

Engaging the perps from the floor or the doors would just open you to a bullet when the police came storming in the chaos. No good to be carrying there at all..

BUT ---- now the soccer stadium is a bit different ---- because THERE -- the threat was Achmed's in suicide vests. And armed response is whole different story. Even if you sacrificed yourself in the exchange, you had a chance to stop the perp if you had the element of surprise and you were the only available force..

So you would rather have been unarmed and at the mercy of the terrorists just because you THINK that you couldn't have done anything. What if they had stopped shooting to reload? Wouldn't you just wait for the right moment and take them out?

I really cannot imagine anyone who would willing enter such a scenario unarmed and defenseless. How silly.

It's kinda what I learned by lifeguarding. First rule is -- use a flotation device or pool skimmer or surfboard or whatever you got to save the victim without putting yourself in the water with the chaos.

SWAT is not gonna engage these guys from the floor of a crowded concert hall. And their not gonna engage them without complete surprise or disabling them with flash bangs or some other dandy.

You shots could go thru the back wall and TAKE OUT a SWAT team member waiting to take them.

Unless you can get control of the situation with a single side arm and 6 rounds or so -- it's a non-starter.

Not trying to save the day. Just trying to kill as many as possible. In a situation like that you assume you're dead. The goal is to do as much attritional damage to them as possible so that they can't kill more, and they get taken out faster when the good guys finally do arrive.

and to slow their advance and their killing...if they have to deal with an armed citizen shooting at them, they can't be executing unarmed hostages like they did in the concert hall,as witnesses say they did....and they only stopped when the police.....armed with guns......arrived....

 

[2aguy]

The reason why family killers aren't counted is because they happen in the HOMES of the victims and the crimes are usually an extension of long running spousal abuse. In other words they are not spontaneous. So no, they don't count. They are a completely different classification of crime.

What? That doesn't make any sense. A mass shooting is a mass shooting regardless of the motive. Why do you say they are not spontaneous? Is that the rule? Because if it is then why did you pick two killers who planned their shootings?

Fuck dude, you missed again.

You and your silly baseball analogies ain't cuttin it junior. Family killers are an entirely different classification of crime. They are the result of years of strife within the family unit.

So, mass shooters are only mass shooters if you say so? A Mass shooting I believe is defined by multiple victims, nothing more. You don't get to decide which motives are worthy of a mass shooting.

You'd describe Columbine as a mass shooting, correct? But they most likely knew their victims...and of course they planned it as well.

You just keep swingin' away.

No, I'm using the law enforcement definition while you use the propagandists definition. You can keep flogging your analogy but all it does is make you look stupid. Law enforcement uses the definitions they do because it maters how they handle the cases.

Can you show me that definition?

The reason why family killers aren't counted is because they happen in the HOMES of the victims and the crimes are usually an extension of long running spousal abuse. In other words they are not spontaneous. So no, they don't count. They are a completely different classification of crime.

What? That doesn't make any sense. A mass shooting is a mass shooting regardless of the motive. Why do you say they are not spontaneous? Is that the rule? Because if it is then why did you pick two killers who planned their shootings?

Fuck dude, you missed again.

You and your silly baseball analogies ain't cuttin it junior. Family killers are an entirely different classification of crime. They are the result of years of strife within the family unit.

So, mass shooters are only mass shooters if you say so? A Mass shooting I believe is defined by multiple victims, nothing more. You don't get to decide which motives are worthy of a mass shooting.

You'd describe Columbine as a mass shooting, correct? But they most likely knew their victims...and of course they planned it as well.

You just keep swingin' away.

No, I'm using the law enforcement definition while you use the propagandists definition. You can keep flogging your analogy but all it does is make you look stupid. Law enforcement uses the definitions they do because it maters how they handle the cases.

Can you show me that definition?

Here is the updated definition...why do I say updated....because mass shooting incidents kill so few people each year, President obama had the FBI lower the number of victims from 4, the original number to make a mass public shooting a mass public shooting, to 3...which increasese the number of shootings that can now be counted...

Also....this study was found to be flawed..they started counting things that aren't in the definition of mass public shooting..

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/20...r-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

The agreed-upon definition of an active shooter by U.S. government agencies—including the White House, U.S. Department of Justice/FBI, U.S. Department of Education, and U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency—is “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.”3 Implicit in this definition is that the subject’s criminal actions involve the use of firearms.4

*****************

Incidents identified in this study do not encompass all gun-related situations; therefore caution should be taken when using this information without placing it in context. Specifically, shootings that resulted from gang or drug violence—pervasive, long-tracked, criminal acts that could also affect the public— were not included in this study. In addition, other gun-related shootings were not included when those incidents appeared generally not to have put others in peril (e.g., the accidental discharge of a firearm in a school building or a person who chose to publicly commit suicide in a parking lot). The study does not encompass all mass killings or shootings in public places and therefore is limited in its scope.6 Nonetheless, it was undertaken to provide clarity and data of value to both law enforcement and citizens as they seek to stop

 

[2aguy]

Oh, now you are going to make shit up? Just answer the question of the OP. Nobody cares about your made up stories about yourself.

What did I make up? I asked you a question, you seem to think that shooting someone, specifically someone who is shooting at you is easy.

I think it is obvious that you probably don't know anything about guns or shootings. If the opportunity comes up, I would want to be armed to take the shot and save myself and maybe some others. If you want to cower and cry during your last moments, be my guest.

I find it interesting that you call it an "opportunity". Wonder why I find that eloquent...

Because that is what it is. A window of opportunity. If I have a gun and they turn their backs on me, that is my opportunity.

If somebody else in the crowd sees you with a gun is it OK if they mistake you for one of the bad guys and shoots you with theirs?

This situation happened in the Gabby Giffords shooting......and the concealed carriers both handled themselves responsibly.....try studying what happened there.....

 

[2aguy]

Oh, now you are going to make shit up? Just answer the question of the OP. Nobody cares about your made up stories about yourself.

What did I make up? I asked you a question, you seem to think that shooting someone, specifically someone who is shooting at you is easy.

I think it is obvious that you probably don't know anything about guns or shootings. If the opportunity comes up, I would want to be armed to take the shot and save myself and maybe some others. If you want to cower and cry during your last moments, be my guest.

I find it interesting that you call it an "opportunity". Wonder why I find that eloquent...

Because that is what it is. A window of opportunity. If I have a gun and they turn their backs on me, that is my opportunity.

If somebody else in the crowd sees you with a gun is it OK if they mistake you for one of the bad guys and shoots you with theirs?

This situation happened in the Gabby Giffords shooting......and the concealed carriers both handled themselves responsibly.....try studying what happened there.....

Your answer is so stupid. I cannot even believe it.

It's an answer, not a fallacy like Bustball's endless drivel, and not a parroted meme like yours. Like it or lump it.

It's a bunch of partisan ideological bullshit is all it is. If you were personally in that situation, I can guarantee you would want a gun.

And I can guarantee you're dead wrong.

If I'd taken the advice of the gun nutter fetishists around here I'd have been dead by now, I can guarantee that too.

Yes, but you don't know anything about guns or shooting, do you?

Just enough.

Riddle me this -- poll question like the OP -- let's say you have a handgun, and you're pretty good with it, fast enough. You're walking near your house, armed, and you notice a plain-looking car screech to a halt, two guys you've never seen before jump out, start to pull guns and they're running toward you. There's no one else around or behind them.

You've got time to react. What do you do?

Have they announced that they are police?

 

[bucs90]

Hey man...I asked a similar question months ago...where libs would NOT say it. If a gunman was charging upon them...to kill them and their kids...would they want a gun or a cell phone to call 911.

Libs won't answer it honestly.

Hell....half of the libs for the past year have argued COPS SHOULDN'T HAVE GUNS.

Who would've stopped the French Muslim killers??? The French Army?? Maybe hours later after mobilizing.

 

[2aguy]

I think it is obvious that you probably don't know anything about guns or shootings. If the opportunity comes up, I would want to be armed to take the shot and save myself and maybe some others. If you want to cower and cry during your last moments, be my guest.

I own a gun.

ROFL. Sure you do. Sure. And we all believe you too!

Doesn't really matter if you believe me or not, I have no reason to lie.

Why on earth do you own a gun if you wouldn't even use it to protect yourself?

I've got at least three guns.

Wanna see 'em?
.

Well imagine that. Things used for CONstruction instead of DEstruction. WHO KNEW.

See this one.....this is used for saving lives..not taking them...

M&P Shield courtesy smith-wesson.com
By Dan Zimmerman on June 26, 2012

 

[2aguy]

It's a bunch of partisan ideological bullshit is all it is. If you were personally in that situation, I can guarantee you would want a gun.

And I can guarantee you're dead wrong.

If I'd taken the advice of the gun nutter fetishists around here I'd have been dead by now, I can guarantee that too.

Yes, but you don't know anything about guns or shooting, do you?

Just enough.

Riddle me this -- poll question like the OP -- let's say you have a handgun, and you're pretty good with it, fast enough. You're walking near your house, armed, and you notice a plain-looking car screech to a halt, two guys you've never seen before jump out, start to pull guns and they're running toward you. There's no one else around or behind them.

You've got time to react. What do you do?

Who do you think you are, the Joker?

I doubt you know anything about guns. You are probably too frightened to hold one because you might shoot yourself!

Do the two men identify themselves as police officers, which is the LAW? Sorry, buddy, you aren't going to catch me in your trick questions.

No, nothing like that. Nor are they in a uniform or wearing badges. They're just .... guys who jumped out of an Oldsmobile. That's all you know. You have a moment to react. You're out in the open, not near a building, a bush, a car or anything.

What do you do?

Have they announced they are police? Are they heading toward me or looking at me? Are they pointing their guns at me in a way that tells me they are willing to shoot me? And again......have they announced they are police?

 

[2aguy]

Yes, but you don't know anything about guns or shooting, do you?

Just enough.

Riddle me this -- poll question like the OP -- let's say you have a handgun, and you're pretty good with it, fast enough. You're walking near your house, armed, and you notice a plain-looking car screech to a halt, two guys you've never seen before jump out, start to pull guns and they're running toward you. There's no one else around or behind them.

You've got time to react. What do you do?

Who do you think you are, the Joker?

I doubt you know anything about guns. You are probably too frightened to hold one because you might shoot yourself!

Do the two men identify themselves as police officers, which is the LAW? Sorry, buddy, you aren't going to catch me in your trick questions.

No, nothing like that. Nor are they in a uniform or wearing badges. They're just .... guys who jumped out of an Oldsmobile. That's all you know. You have a moment to react. You're out in the open, not near a building, a bush, a car or anything.

What do you do?

That's fucking retarded. ARe they cops? If they are cops, they HAVE to identify themselves. That is where you are trying to go. Don't think you are fooling anyone or that you are a smarty pants.

So your answer is --- you freeze and do nothing. You took way too much time here.

Wasted your money on the gun then.

And btw your polyanna belief that "they have to identify themselves, therefore that's what happens in real life" would be cute if it weren't so tragically naïve. This is real life, not TV.

Yeah they were cops, and no they never identified themselves as such (I had to figure that out), and the point is if I had been packing and drew, then at least some of us would have gone down; and if I had NOT drawn and was frisked, I prolly would have been sent up for murder. For no other reason than that it would have been convenient for them.

Yay guns. What a brilliant idea that would have been.

Yeah.....you are an idiot.....the police will not hesitate to inform you they are police....what a moron......and if you had not drawn and were frisked.....you have committed no crime moron.....they would let you go...unless you were in a gun grabber state carrying without a permit....

 

[2aguy]

I find it interesting that you call it an "opportunity". Wonder why I find that eloquent...

Because you are a victim tard. To you there is no hope unless the government saves you. The second a bad guy turns his eyes away from you is the time to act. They are going to experience tunnel vision unless they are exceptionally well trained (highly doubtful, but certainly possible) so that gives you the chance to drop them. There's nothing heroic, you're not staring them down like in the movies, you're hopefully shooting them in the back when they aren't looking at you.

Where did I express a fucking word about "government"?

The fallacy quiver would seem to be bottomless.

As for "victim tard".....

Um, no sorry, you are the only one resorting to name calling here. That means, you are ready for a nap because you are too old to have an argument.

Off you go Junior.

Because you moron, if the INDIVIDUAL can't defend themselves who will do it? Superman? My gosh but you are truly stupid.

Where is that "law enforcement" definition of mass shooting that you should have fetched by now?

A mass shooting is 4 or more people. Normally, they do NOT describe a massacre of a family by a family member as a "mass shooting." Have you ever heard them refer to that situation as a mass shooting?

Obama lowered the number to 3...there weren't enough mass shootings with 4 being the number...so they lowered it...

 

[2aguy]

yeah...better that only the killers have the guns..right? that worked out so well for the French....

Bending a terrorist attack into your own personal pet-peeve is horrendous enough. Predicting you know what would have happened if the theater was in Alabama is something else.

No one is bending anything you idiot. They were UNARMED and that IS a fact. MOST cops there are UNARMED and that IS a fact.
Would am ARMED DEFENDER still have died? Most likely BUT others MAY have lived BECAUSE of it.

Is this thread about conceal carry in public venues or arming police? They are completely separate things. Why don't you put that 214 IQ of yours to work and think before you post.

Police cannot be everywhere, and as a matter of fact, police are visible and can be taken out preemptively by terrorists. Im sad that you would be NOT willing to carry a gun, even to have saved someone else life in paris.
A lot of lives could have been saved by one or two armed civilians with cool heads. Im saddened by your low view of your fellow citizens

A lot of more lives could have been lost, it's a crapshoot.

no...again..reserach into mass shootings where people on the scene have guns and fight back immediately show that the loss of life is signifcantly reduced ...in the church shootings I posted in churches that were gun free zones...15 dead....in the churches that allowed concealed carry...only 2 dead...that is a significant number...and other research supports this...

Mass shooters commit suicide or immediately surrender when confronted by armed resistance....and it doesn't matter if that resistance is police or civilians.....and the resistance is more effective if it is guns...that is why police doctrine has changed...they no longer wait, here in the United States, for special weapons units...the first 2 officers on the scene now immediately enter the building to confront the shooter....so they can get him to commit suicide right away or surrender...to stop the killing.....

 

[2aguy]

Just enough.

Riddle me this -- poll question like the OP -- let's say you have a handgun, and you're pretty good with it, fast enough. You're walking near your house, armed, and you notice a plain-looking car screech to a halt, two guys you've never seen before jump out, start to pull guns and they're running toward you. There's no one else around or behind them.

You've got time to react. What do you do?

Who do you think you are, the Joker?

I doubt you know anything about guns. You are probably too frightened to hold one because you might shoot yourself!

Do the two men identify themselves as police officers, which is the LAW? Sorry, buddy, you aren't going to catch me in your trick questions.

No, nothing like that. Nor are they in a uniform or wearing badges. They're just .... guys who jumped out of an Oldsmobile. That's all you know. You have a moment to react. You're out in the open, not near a building, a bush, a car or anything.

What do you do?

That's fucking retarded. ARe they cops? If they are cops, they HAVE to identify themselves. That is where you are trying to go. Don't think you are fooling anyone or that you are a smarty pants.

So your answer is --- you freeze and do nothing.

Wasted your money on the gun then.

It's not the same scenario as given in the OP at ALL. Just because I wouldn't just haul off and shoot people in ALL situations, does not mean my gun wouldn't be a valuable self defense weapon at ANY time.

The more you try to argue your way out of the paper bag, the more wet and silly you look.

and even if they get out of the car and immediately start shooting, that means nothing....you can still draw and shoot back..as an old firearm instructor, a police swat team member told me...guns are not death rays....and if you aren't put down, you keep shooting....and actual stories of people who have been shot at the begiinning of an attack, and then draw their weapon and defeat their attacker happen all the time.....

So pogo has no idea what he is talking about........

The famous watch shop owner in New York.....killed several gang members over several encounters.....in one shooting he was hit in the neck as the gang members came through his door, and then drew his weapon and killed the gang members...the reporter asked...but you were shot..why did you keep fighting...and he said because I wasn't dead and I wasn't out of bullets....

I can find the video of this story...it is on Youtube...he eventually moved to get away from the gang retaliation......

 

[2aguy]

It's an answer, not a fallacy like Bustball's endless drivel, and not a parroted meme like yours. Like it or lump it.

It's a bunch of partisan ideological bullshit is all it is. If you were personally in that situation, I can guarantee you would want a gun.

And I can guarantee you're dead wrong.

If I'd taken the advice of the gun nutter fetishists around here I'd have been dead by now, I can guarantee that too.

Yes, but you don't know anything about guns or shooting, do you?

Just enough.

Riddle me this -- poll question like the OP -- let's say you have a handgun, and you're pretty good with it, fast enough. You're walking near your house, armed, and you notice a plain-looking car screech to a halt, two guys you've never seen before jump out, start to pull guns and they're running toward you. There's no one else around or behind them.

You've got time to react. What do you do?

And I can guarantee you're dead wrong.

If I'd taken the advice of the gun nutter fetishists around here I'd have been dead by now, I can guarantee that too.

Yes, but you don't know anything about guns or shooting, do you?

Just enough.

Riddle me this -- poll question like the OP -- let's say you have a handgun, and you're pretty good with it, fast enough. You're walking near your house, armed, and you notice a plain-looking car screech to a halt, two guys you've never seen before jump out, start to pull guns and they're running toward you. There's no one else around or behind them.

You've got time to react. What do you do?

Who do you think you are, the Joker?

I doubt you know anything about guns. You are probably too frightened to hold one because you might shoot yourself!

Do the two men identify themselves as police officers, which is the LAW? Sorry, buddy, you aren't going to catch me in your trick questions.

No, nothing like that. Nor are they in a uniform or wearing badges. They're just .... guys who jumped out of an Oldsmobile. That's all you know. You have a moment to react. You're out in the open, not near a building, a bush, a car or anything.

What do you do?

If their guns are out -- I play along. If not -- mine will be there first. Assuming I don't hear them identify themselves.

Even if their guns are out it is there intent that makes the difference.....and if you know they plan on killing you...you can draw and still win..even if they are pointing guns at you......it is a self defense thing.....they have to register you drawing your gun, make a decision to kill you and send the signal to their hand to pull the trigger....you have already made those decisions in your brain so when you draw they have a biological moment of hesitation......

 

[2aguy]

Who do you think you are, the Joker?

I doubt you know anything about guns. You are probably too frightened to hold one because you might shoot yourself!

Do the two men identify themselves as police officers, which is the LAW? Sorry, buddy, you aren't going to catch me in your trick questions.

No, nothing like that. Nor are they in a uniform or wearing badges. They're just .... guys who jumped out of an Oldsmobile. That's all you know. You have a moment to react. You're out in the open, not near a building, a bush, a car or anything.

What do you do?

That's fucking retarded. ARe they cops? If they are cops, they HAVE to identify themselves. That is where you are trying to go. Don't think you are fooling anyone or that you are a smarty pants.

So your answer is --- you freeze and do nothing. You took way too much time here.

Wasted your money on the gun then.

And btw your polyanna belief that "they have to identify themselves, therefore that's what happens in real life" would be cute if it weren't so tragically naïve. This is real life, not TV.

Yeah they were cops, and no they never identified themselves as such (I had to figure that out), and the point is if I had been packing and drew, then at least some of us would have gone down; and if I had NOT drawn and was frisked, I prolly would have been sent up for murder. For no other reason than that it would have been convenient for them.

Yay guns. What a brilliant idea that would have been.

Ummmm, no. That is YOUR solution dumb ass. We are going to shoot back. You're going to try and dig a hole in the cement floor and hope they don't see you. Good luck with that...

So you would have shot at these cops huh?
Would you have waited for them to draw first? Or shoot first?

You can answer however you like -- I'm aware I'm dealing with Captain Roadster who can drive to St. Louis in two minutes...

If they aren't shooting immediately you have time to assess the situation...and even if they start shooting you can still draw and shoot back...try to do some research into actual gun fights...you would be more intelligent in your posts....

 

[Dajjal]

Even the police are not routinely armed in England, although there are armed mobile units patrolling, and there are armed police outside places like the houses of parliament. As for the rest of the public, handguns are completely illegal. If we were allowed to have hand guns I would carry one all the time, just in case of getting caught up in a terror attack.

 

[2aguy]

It's a bunch of partisan ideological bullshit is all it is. If you were personally in that situation, I can guarantee you would want a gun.

And I can guarantee you're dead wrong.

If I'd taken the advice of the gun nutter fetishists around here I'd have been dead by now, I can guarantee that too.

Yes, but you don't know anything about guns or shooting, do you?

Just enough.

Riddle me this -- poll question like the OP -- let's say you have a handgun, and you're pretty good with it, fast enough. You're walking near your house, armed, and you notice a plain-looking car screech to a halt, two guys you've never seen before jump out, start to pull guns and they're running toward you. There's no one else around or behind them.

You've got time to react. What do you do?

Yes, but you don't know anything about guns or shooting, do you?

Just enough.

Riddle me this -- poll question like the OP -- let's say you have a handgun, and you're pretty good with it, fast enough. You're walking near your house, armed, and you notice a plain-looking car screech to a halt, two guys you've never seen before jump out, start to pull guns and they're running toward you. There's no one else around or behind them.

You've got time to react. What do you do?

Who do you think you are, the Joker?

I doubt you know anything about guns. You are probably too frightened to hold one because you might shoot yourself!

Do the two men identify themselves as police officers, which is the LAW? Sorry, buddy, you aren't going to catch me in your trick questions.

No, nothing like that. Nor are they in a uniform or wearing badges. They're just .... guys who jumped out of an Oldsmobile. That's all you know. You have a moment to react. You're out in the open, not near a building, a bush, a car or anything.

What do you do?

If their guns are out -- I play along. If not -- mine will be there first. Assuming I don't hear them identify themselves.

Good, thank you. Somebody's capable of a straight answer. So you draw first, if you can? What if they open fire, do you return? They don't identify themselves at all...

are they shooting at you? Cops shooting at you even though you do not have a gun out...and haven't identified themselves as they begin shooting....that is your scenario?

 

[2aguy]

Even the police are not routinely armed in England, although there are armed mobile units patrolling, and there are armed police outside places like the houses of parliament. As for the rest of the public, handguns are completely illegal. If we were allowed to have hand guns I would carry one all the time, just in case of getting caught up in a terror attack.

And since there is more gun crime happening in Britain, I have read news stories from there where they are allowing more police to carry guns.....