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

[ChrisL]

Jared Laughner, Don Spirit and Pedro Alberto Vargas

Family killers don't count as mass shootings (those are mass killings, yes, but a mass shooting is where the shooter doesn't know the victims) Nice try but try and stick with the definition.

No, they count. Mass shootings usually have a motive, to discount it because they are aiming at family members doesn't change that.

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.

Family killers don't count as mass shootings (those are mass killings, yes, but a mass shooting is where the shooter doesn't know the victims) Nice try but try and stick with the definition.

No, they count. Mass shootings usually have a motive, to discount it because they are aiming at family members doesn't change that.

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.

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?

 

[westwall]

Family killers don't count as mass shootings (those are mass killings, yes, but a mass shooting is where the shooter doesn't know the victims) Nice try but try and stick with the definition.

No, they count. Mass shootings usually have a motive, to discount it because they are aiming at family members doesn't change that.

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.

 

[ChrisL]

The question is would you have wanted to be armed in the situation that happened in the concert hall? Yes or no.

 

[westwall]

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.

Yet another cherrypicked association fallacy. Hey you know what else all these sites have in common? Electricity. Clearly mass shooters are drawn to where you electric freaks have installed sockets.

Ahhh yes, the typical libtard retort. Grow up junior. You're way out of your depth here.

 

[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..

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.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm certainly not an "expert" shooter, not even close, but I've been target shooting before, and it isn't all that hard. Why you people act as if you need a degree in rocket science to aim and pull a trigger, I do not know.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

But faced with an OBVIOUS suicide bomber, I'd be drawing quicker than QuickDraw McGraw and they'd never see it coming..

 

[HappyJoy]

I'm certainly not an "expert" shooter, not even close, but I've been target shooting before, and it isn't all that hard. Why you people act as if you need a degree in rocket science to aim and pull a trigger, I do not know.

Ever been shot at?

 

[westwall]

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.

 

[westwall]

I'm certainly not an "expert" shooter, not even close, but I've been target shooting before, and it isn't all that hard. Why you people act as if you need a degree in rocket science to aim and pull a trigger, I do not know.

Ever been shot at?

I have. How about you?

 

[ChrisL]

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.

I doubt it.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm certainly not an "expert" shooter, not even close, but I've been target shooting before, and it isn't all that hard. Why you people act as if you need a degree in rocket science to aim and pull a trigger, I do not know.

Hey. I used to compete in Junior leagues. And I SUCKED compared to most. Got a couple trophies, but it's harder than it looks. Especially with hand guns..

 

[HappyJoy]

No, they count. Mass shootings usually have a motive, to discount it because they are aiming at family members doesn't change that.

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?

 

[ChrisL]

I'm certainly not an "expert" shooter, not even close, but I've been target shooting before, and it isn't all that hard. Why you people act as if you need a degree in rocket science to aim and pull a trigger, I do not know.

Ever been shot at?

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.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

I doubt it.

I wouldn't expect anymore of you.

 

[westwall]

I'm certainly not an "expert" shooter, not even close, but I've been target shooting before, and it isn't all that hard. Why you people act as if you need a degree in rocket science to aim and pull a trigger, I do not know.

Because the idea that people can actually take care of themselves is anathema to a progressive. To them the government is all powerful and they find it offensive that there are those who can prosper without governmental help.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Yet another cherrypicked association fallacy. Hey you know what else all these sites have in common? Electricity. Clearly mass shooters are drawn to where you electric freaks have installed sockets.

Ahhh yes, the typical libtard retort. Grow up junior. You're way out of your depth here.

See what I mean? You melt down at the first sign of logic.

Because the idea that people can actually take care of themselves is anathema to a progressive. To them the government is all powerful and they find it offensive that there are those who can prosper without governmental help.

-- and there's another one -- blanket strawman. You have nothing in your quiver but fallacy after fallacy after fallacy.

Look, I saw a poll question, I came, I saw, I answered. It's instructive who the fucking aggressors are here.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm certainly not an "expert" shooter, not even close, but I've been target shooting before, and it isn't all that hard. Why you people act as if you need a degree in rocket science to aim and pull a trigger, I do not know.

Hey. I used to compete in Junior leagues. And I SUCKED compared to most. Got a couple trophies, but it's harder than it looks. Especially with hand guns..

I must have really good aim then. I used a glock and hit almost ALL of my targets (which were cans - not a professional course, just out in the woods with friends). I think I, if I had the opportunity, I would take my chances with trying to kill them. They are going to kill you anyways. What do you have to lose at that point?

 

[HappyJoy]

I'm certainly not an "expert" shooter, not even close, but I've been target shooting before, and it isn't all that hard. Why you people act as if you need a degree in rocket science to aim and pull a trigger, I do not know.

Ever been shot at?

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.