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

[2aguy]

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...

When you are losing you resort to the most ridiculous lies. It's almost funny how bad you're flailing away. Pathetic too, but funny.

Still waiting for the definition of mass shooting from you.

Apparently gun nuts can only argue from emotion and deflection.

OK I'm bored. Ciao.

Thanks be to Geebus!

I'm sorry Pogo. You just make me so MAD with your fake stories and your shadiness! If you are against guns, then just come out and say so instead of playing these silly games!

Never....ever...apologize to a lefty........they are not normal people....normal people take an apology and think of it as a reason to make peace with the other person....a lefty like pogo sees it as weakness and will attack even worse....like an insect spraying it's prey with a pheromone....it lets other lefties know who to attack.....

 

[2aguy]

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...

When you are losing you resort to the most ridiculous lies. It's almost funny how bad you're flailing away. Pathetic too, but funny.

Still waiting for the definition of mass shooting from you.

Apparently gun nuts can only argue from emotion and deflection.

OK I'm bored. Ciao.

Thanks be to Geebus!

I'm sorry Pogo. You just make me so MAD with your fake stories and your shadiness! If you are against guns, then just come out and say so instead of playing these silly games!

Here is a great essay on why you never apoligize to someone like pogo.....

A Time for Peace, a Time for War | John C. Wright's Journal

Never apologize to the Morlocks, for they will only take the apology as a confession, and, sensing weakness, fall upon you, and drag you underground to their lair and feast on your living flesh.

This advice applies not merely to the enemy in the culture war attempting to get you mocked, reviled, and fired for your political incorrectness, but also to the enemy in the Jihad, attempting to get you to die, to surrender to slavery or submit to Islam.

Vox Day in his new book SJWs ALWAYS LIES includes the excellent advice that one must never apologise to a Social Justice Warrior, never attempt to ameliorate nor appease them, never appeal to their better nature. His experience (and mine) shows this is futile as well as counterproductive.

A civilized man, hearing an apology or a request for quarter, will interpret it as a request for forgiveness and a request for a return to the peace the existed before the dispute broke out: an SJW, hearing an apology, will take it as a surrender, will sense blood in the water as a shark does, and redouble the attacks.

This is because the civilized man regards other men as real people and seeks to live in peace. An SJW is a creature who regards peace as intolerable, and thinks of other people as mere shadows, mere puppets on the stage of his own internal psychodrama.

A civilize man attacks enemies in order to restore civilization, and hence attacks those who threaten it, and hence takes a proffer apology as a sign that the threat is ended. An SJW, on the other hand, is a witchhunter who attacks the witch not because he believes you (or anyone) is a witch. Your name could have been picked at random out of a hat. He attacks because he wishes to be seen by the warren, his peers, as zealous and loyal, and because whichever witchhunter hunts the most witches gains a high status.

Such is the disagreeable truth and tactical necessity of the culture war, and it has an even more disagreeable sequel: a whole cadre of so called moderates arises who, while claiming to agree with you and to abjure the foe, makes calls for peace and compromise never directed at the witchhunters, always at the witch. One such recent display was being debated over at Vox Day’s website: Vox Popoli: Dialogue with a moderate

 

[MikeK]

You guys know that the theater shooters had bomb belts, right? would your pistols really have saved anyone?

No.

The best answer is, maybe. Which is a lot better than, no.

 

[HappyJoy]

You guys know that the theater shooters had bomb belts, right? would your pistols really have saved anyone?

No.

The best answer is, maybe. Which is a lot better than, no.

That's great, I didn't say it.

 

[protectionist]

They didn't have to choose in France...the entire country is a gun free zone...except for terrorists and criminals...they get guns easily in countries,with extreme gun control.

And we saw the predictable result. This is why gun-free zones must be banned, or extremely limited to places with heavy police protection.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.........

We're reading a lot of "ifs" into this. IF you escape the killing floor --- then OF COURSE, the gun has value. But to engage those guys from the immediate area is gonna INCREASE your chances of getting yourself and your family killed.

Like I said, the poll is "do you WANT a gun" --- not "will you USE that gun" regardless of your exact situation..
So we agree -- We want the gun in that situation..

 

[2aguy]

Hey, spam man is here.

Not spam twit....I answer and respond to posts...there are a lot of them on this topic and a lot of stupid ones on this topic...namely most of yours which were posted in ignorance of the research and the facts on mass shootings...correcting you takes a lot of typing....

 

[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.........

We're reading a lot of "ifs" into this. IF you escape the killing floor --- then OF COURSE, the gun has value. But to engage those guys from the immediate area is gonna INCREASE your chances of getting yourself and your family killed.

Like I said, the poll is "do you WANT a gun" --- not "will you USE that gun" regardless of your exact situation..
So we agree -- We want the gun in that situation..

Yes...the situation determines the use and tactics...never said it didn't...the gun grabbers all make out as if all gun owners must turn into rambo...not us...

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

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

That's exactly what I said last night. A chicago gang drive-by with 40 rounds on the street and ONE injured person -- is defined as "mass shooting" .. Because it fits the definition of "engaged in killing or ATTEMPTING to kill people in a confined and popular area".

 

[flacaltenn]

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.........

We're reading a lot of "ifs" into this. IF you escape the killing floor --- then OF COURSE, the gun has value. But to engage those guys from the immediate area is gonna INCREASE your chances of getting yourself and your family killed.

Like I said, the poll is "do you WANT a gun" --- not "will you USE that gun" regardless of your exact situation..
So we agree -- We want the gun in that situation..

Yes...the situation determines the use and tactics...never said it didn't...the gun grabbers all make out as if all gun owners must turn into rambo...not us...

Well remember who the audience is here..

You have to explain very preciously that WANTING a gun in that situation does not mean you are gonna go all "24" on the shooters in the middle of chaos.. Because as soon as they hear "gun" -- that's the only picture in their minds.

 

[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.........

We're reading a lot of "ifs" into this. IF you escape the killing floor --- then OF COURSE, the gun has value. But to engage those guys from the immediate area is gonna INCREASE your chances of getting yourself and your family killed.

Like I said, the poll is "do you WANT a gun" --- not "will you USE that gun" regardless of your exact situation..
So we agree -- We want the gun in that situation..

Yes...the situation determines the use and tactics...never said it didn't...the gun grabbers all make out as if all gun owners must turn into rambo...not us...

Well remember who the audience is here..

You have to explain very preciously that WANTING a gun in that situation does not mean you are gonna go all "24" on the shooters in the middle of chaos.. Because as soon as they hear "gun" -- that's the only picture in their minds.

Exactly.....the left sees humans as essentially psychotic killers barely able to control their murderous urges...that is why they always say that if you let people own guns they will just murder their wives for a burnt dinner or shoot the guy at the traffic stop....even though the facts, and reality show they are wrong.

Normal people do not shoot other people....the vast, vast majority of gun murderers have long criminal records and long histories of violence going back to their teenage years......and the same is true of the vast majority of gun murder victims...I have posted the research on this several times.....

Normal gun owners are not the problem.....

 

[HappyJoy]

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?

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

Do you guys conflate "acitive shooter incidient" with "mass shooting" on purpose?

 

[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 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.....

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?

Missing the point.

Nope...he is trying to be cute and not defining the actual situation so he can catch us and try to portray us as gun crazy...our questions are true and factual.....and necessary to answer his question....and if he did answer them his whole point would disappear....

 

[2aguy]

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?

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

Do you guys conflate "acitive shooter incidient" with "mass shooting" on purpose?

Nope...we have given you the definition...you don't get that mass public shootings are defined by the government....we gave you those definitionns...learn them...

 

[HappyJoy]

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?

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

Do you guys conflate "acitive shooter incidient" with "mass shooting" on purpose?

Nope...we have given you the definition...you don't get that mass public shootings are defined by the government....we gave you those definitionns...learn them...

Point to it, specifically.

 

[2aguy]

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?

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

Do you guys conflate "acitive shooter incidient" with "mass shooting" on purpose?

Nope...we have given you the definition...you don't get that mass public shootings are defined by the government....we gave you those definitionns...learn them...

Point to it, specifically.

Here you go....active shooters are mass public shootings...what we are talking about.....that is why they are not family murders and classified differently...

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

Active shooter is a term used by law enforcement to describe a situation in which a shooting is in progress and an aspect of the crime may affect the protocols used in responding to and reacting at the scene of the incident. Unlike a defined crime, such as a murder or mass killing, the active aspect inherently implies that both law enforcement personnel and citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses. 1

 

[HappyJoy]

Can you show me that definition?

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

Do you guys conflate "acitive shooter incidient" with "mass shooting" on purpose?

Nope...we have given you the definition...you don't get that mass public shootings are defined by the government....we gave you those definitionns...learn them...

Point to it, specifically.

Here you go....active shooters are mass public shootings...what we are talking about.....that is why they are not family murders and classified differently...

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

Active shooter is a term used by law enforcement to describe a situation in which a shooting is in progress and an aspect of the crime may affect the protocols used in responding to and reacting at the scene of the incident. Unlike a defined crime, such as a murder or mass killing, the active aspect inherently implies that both law enforcement personnel and citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses. 1

Your quote doesn't say what you think it does. All an active shooter incident is, is a situation where the criminal has not been apprehended. Says nothing about claiming that mass shootings of family members are something other than mass shootings.

 

[Yarddog]

These guys on this thread would be singing a different tune if they were one of the hostages with a gun to their head. They would be praying that someone else had a gun. They don't realize that a person who has a concealed carry license is not going to pull out a gun and start shooting willy nilly, thats a damn fantasy. Im not sure how many cases of mass shootings by people who had CC permits there are but it has to be damn few. Only one I can think of is Hassan Nadal in Texas

It seems a lack of empathy to me when posters here say they would not have been willing to carry a gun, to try reverse what had happened in Paris,
and save lives of the helpless, theoretical as it may be.

 

[Yarddog]

These guys on this thread would be singing a different tune if they were one of the hostages with a gun to their head. They would be praying that someone else had a gun. They don't realize that a person who has a concealed carry license is not going to pull out a gun and start shooting willy nilly, thats a damn fantasy. Im not sure how many cases of mass shootings by people who had CC permits there are but it has to be damn few. Only one I can think of is Hassan Nadal in Texas

It seems a lack of empathy to me when posters here say they would not have been willing to carry a gun, to try reverse what had happened in Paris,
and save lives of the helpless, theoretical as it may be.

How do you know?

If you had a gun pointed to your head, and you had just seen people executed before you, You would not want your executioner to be stopped?
Is that what your saying?

Or at that moment would you be saying to yourself ? " Oh my, what if one of these hostages pulls out a weapon and hurts innocent bystanders" Ohh I just couldn't LIVE with myself!"

You know Im right, but you won't abandon your political point because of gun control issues. The OP was very specific though regarding a major terrorist incident

 

[HappyJoy]

These guys on this thread would be singing a different tune if they were one of the hostages with a gun to their head. They would be praying that someone else had a gun. They don't realize that a person who has a concealed carry license is not going to pull out a gun and start shooting willy nilly, thats a damn fantasy. Im not sure how many cases of mass shootings by people who had CC permits there are but it has to be damn few. Only one I can think of is Hassan Nadal in Texas

It seems a lack of empathy to me when posters here say they would not have been willing to carry a gun, to try reverse what had happened in Paris,
and save lives of the helpless, theoretical as it may be.

How do you know?

If you had a gun pointed to your head, and you had just seen people executed before you, You would not want your executioner to be stopped?
Is that what your saying?

Or at that moment would you be saying to yourself ? " Oh my, what if one of these hostages pulls out a weapon and hurts innocent bystanders" Ohh I just couldn't LIVE with myself!"

You know Im right, but you won't abandon your political point because of gun control issues. The OP was very specific though regarding a major terrorist incident

I'm not so sure an extra 25-50 drunk assholes with guns would have been helpful. I have no idea one way or another, neither do you.

This thread was only created to politicize a terrorist attack because someone has a gun fetish.