Liberals: If you were in a theater w a mass shooter, would u rather have a gun or phone (911)? Pick.

[Coyote]

I voted none of the above.

"Alas, poor Coyote. We knew him well."

A gun is of little use in a crowded situation where people are fleeing all over

Au contraire! I would find it quite useful, thank you.

- you're just as likely to shoot an innocent person as the shooter. Responsible gun owners realize that.

Responsible gun owners train in the use of the firearm in a combat situation.

A phone would be my choice if it's solely a one or the other

You'll be fine. Just don't stand up when I've engaged the shooter.

There really is no training for that sort of situation. A responsible gun owner I know, when we were talking about situations like the Colorado Theatre shooting - where it's dim, chaotic and panicked - said he wouldn't try shooting, he'd dive for cover. That seems like some who is responsible vs a wannabe.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

YES. I also agree there. Which kinda makes the national gun control drama seem silly in context.

No...it doesn't. The fact that it IS happening more often and that people with serious mental illness (which it often is in these cases) are able to build up an arsonal of guns should be a red flag that something needs to be looked at in both gun control and our nation's mental health system. "Gun control" does not mean "no guns" or highly restricted ability to get guns - there's a huge amount of latitude between that and what we have now. Examining gun control along with mental health support in this country seems a perfectly rational way to approach the problem.

You nailed half of it. Mental illness. That's the key to reducing these things.

It's part of the key...only part and it's not one with easy solutions because of privacy rights and individual civil rights.

Then maybe it's time some of those be adjusted.

In what way? And, why just adjust for mental illness? Why not tackle the easy availability of guns?

People slaughtered each other just fine long before gunpowder was invented. And arguably, a maniac with a knife in crowded venue can get a much higher body count since the actor wouldn't be as obvious as someone squeezing off shots. Guy with a knife is moreor less discreet unless in your line of sight. Great big crowd like sporting event though, can slash and stab their way a long time before anyone'd know who the heck the bad guy was.

 

[bucs90]

YES. I also agree there. Which kinda makes the national gun control drama seem silly in context.

No...it doesn't. The fact that it IS happening more often and that people with serious mental illness (which it often is in these cases) are able to build up an arsonal of guns should be a red flag that something needs to be looked at in both gun control and our nation's mental health system. "Gun control" does not mean "no guns" or highly restricted ability to get guns - there's a huge amount of latitude between that and what we have now. Examining gun control along with mental health support in this country seems a perfectly rational way to approach the problem.

You nailed half of it. Mental illness. That's the key to reducing these things.

It's part of the key...only part and it's not one with easy solutions because of privacy rights and individual civil rights.

Then maybe it's time some of those be adjusted.

In what way? And, why just adjust for mental illness? Why not tackle the easy availability of guns?

How? We tackled the mental health issue decades ago but liberals said it was mean and insensitive. So now....our maniacs roam the street fueled by prescription chemical mixtures....err...drugs.

Gun access? What law would prevent these?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I voted none of the above.

"Alas, poor Coyote. We knew him well."

A gun is of little use in a crowded situation where people are fleeing all over

Au contraire! I would find it quite useful, thank you.

- you're just as likely to shoot an innocent person as the shooter. Responsible gun owners realize that.

Responsible gun owners train in the use of the firearm in a combat situation.

A phone would be my choice if it's solely a one or the other

You'll be fine. Just don't stand up when I've engaged the shooter.

There really is no training for that sort of situation. A responsible gun owner I know, when we were talking about situations like the Colorado Theatre shooting - where it's dim, chaotic and panicked - said he wouldn't try shooting, he'd dive for cover. That seems like some who is responsible vs a wannabe.

Sorry, Coyote. That is not one of the options that bucs has given you.

 

[Coyote]

No...it doesn't. The fact that it IS happening more often and that people with serious mental illness (which it often is in these cases) are able to build up an arsonal of guns should be a red flag that something needs to be looked at in both gun control and our nation's mental health system. "Gun control" does not mean "no guns" or highly restricted ability to get guns - there's a huge amount of latitude between that and what we have now. Examining gun control along with mental health support in this country seems a perfectly rational way to approach the problem.

You nailed half of it. Mental illness. That's the key to reducing these things.

It's part of the key...only part and it's not one with easy solutions because of privacy rights and individual civil rights.

Then maybe it's time some of those be adjusted.

In what way? And, why just adjust for mental illness? Why not tackle the easy availability of guns?

People slaughtered each other just fine long before gunpowder was invented. And arguably, a maniac with a knife in crowded venue can get a much higher body count since the actor wouldn't be as obvious as someone squeezing off shots. Guy with a knife is moreor less discreet unless in your line of sight. Great big crowd like sporting event though, can slash and stab their way a long time before anyone'd know who the heck the bad guy was.

Do you have any real life comparisons for that? A person with a knife needs to get close to attack and can more easily be overcome because he is close. A person with a gun can do a lot of damage from a distance before being subdued.

 

[bucs90]

I voted none of the above.

"Alas, poor Coyote. We knew him well."

A gun is of little use in a crowded situation where people are fleeing all over

Au contraire! I would find it quite useful, thank you.

- you're just as likely to shoot an innocent person as the shooter. Responsible gun owners realize that.

Responsible gun owners train in the use of the firearm in a combat situation.

A phone would be my choice if it's solely a one or the other

You'll be fine. Just don't stand up when I've engaged the shooter.

There really is no training for that sort of situation. A responsible gun owner I know, when we were talking about situations like the Colorado Theatre shooting - where it's dim, chaotic and panicked - said he wouldn't try shooting, he'd dive for cover. That seems like some who is responsible vs a wannabe.

Yes. He's mostly right. Homeland Security trainers for active shooters say you have 3 choices: Run, Hide or Fight. Running is the best option. Hiding is great if you can. Fighting....it's an option.

The untrained may not fight. But ex military and police have trained for this. Many have small lights fixed to their weapons and have trained in the tactic of rapidly closing the distance to the target and focusing a "contact shot" in the crowd onto the target. Takes a lot of training to do that under stress. But it's very possible.

 

[Vandalshandle]

You nailed half of it. Mental illness. That's the key to reducing these things.

It's part of the key...only part and it's not one with easy solutions because of privacy rights and individual civil rights.

Then maybe it's time some of those be adjusted.

In what way? And, why just adjust for mental illness? Why not tackle the easy availability of guns?

People slaughtered each other just fine long before gunpowder was invented. And arguably, a maniac with a knife in crowded venue can get a much higher body count since the actor wouldn't be as obvious as someone squeezing off shots. Guy with a knife is moreor less discreet unless in your line of sight. Great big crowd like sporting event though, can slash and stab their way a long time before anyone'd know who the heck the bad guy was.

Do you have any real life comparisons for that? A person with a knife needs to get close to attack and can more easily be overcome because he is close. A person with a gun can do a lot of damage from a distance before being subdued.

Well, if Oswald had had a very LONG knife......

 

[bucs90]

I voted none of the above.

"Alas, poor Coyote. We knew him well."

A gun is of little use in a crowded situation where people are fleeing all over

Au contraire! I would find it quite useful, thank you.

- you're just as likely to shoot an innocent person as the shooter. Responsible gun owners realize that.

Responsible gun owners train in the use of the firearm in a combat situation.

A phone would be my choice if it's solely a one or the other

You'll be fine. Just don't stand up when I've engaged the shooter.

There really is no training for that sort of situation. A responsible gun owner I know, when we were talking about situations like the Colorado Theatre shooting - where it's dim, chaotic and panicked - said he wouldn't try shooting, he'd dive for cover. That seems like some who is responsible vs a wannabe.

Sorry, Coyote. That is not one of the options that bucs has given you.

Sure it is. I even said it....you're on the top row in the corner...shielding your daughter . Hiding the best you can. Would you want a gun or phone?

 

[bucs90]

It's part of the key...only part and it's not one with easy solutions because of privacy rights and individual civil rights.

Then maybe it's time some of those be adjusted.

In what way? And, why just adjust for mental illness? Why not tackle the easy availability of guns?

People slaughtered each other just fine long before gunpowder was invented. And arguably, a maniac with a knife in crowded venue can get a much higher body count since the actor wouldn't be as obvious as someone squeezing off shots. Guy with a knife is moreor less discreet unless in your line of sight. Great big crowd like sporting event though, can slash and stab their way a long time before anyone'd know who the heck the bad guy was.

Do you have any real life comparisons for that? A person with a knife needs to get close to attack and can more easily be overcome because he is close. A person with a gun can do a lot of damage from a distance before being subdued.

Well, if Oswald had had a very LONG knife......

What law can we pass to prevent people from getting a scoped deer rifle like he had?

 

[Coyote]

No...it doesn't. The fact that it IS happening more often and that people with serious mental illness (which it often is in these cases) are able to build up an arsonal of guns should be a red flag that something needs to be looked at in both gun control and our nation's mental health system. "Gun control" does not mean "no guns" or highly restricted ability to get guns - there's a huge amount of latitude between that and what we have now. Examining gun control along with mental health support in this country seems a perfectly rational way to approach the problem.

You nailed half of it. Mental illness. That's the key to reducing these things.

It's part of the key...only part and it's not one with easy solutions because of privacy rights and individual civil rights.

Then maybe it's time some of those be adjusted.

In what way? And, why just adjust for mental illness? Why not tackle the easy availability of guns?

How? We tackled the mental health issue decades ago but liberals said it was mean and insensitive. So now....our maniacs roam the street fueled by prescription chemical mixtures....err...drugs.

Gun access? What law would prevent these?

Years ago people could be locked up for life and without much chance of being let free for surprisingly trivial things such as women who acted to uppity. We also didn't have the array of medicinal help we do now. What you call "mean and insensitive" is another person's civil rights. Given that the majority of mentally ill people never go on to commit violent crimes, what criteria would you use to decide to take those rights away?

One thing I will agree with you on is that the way in which di-institutionalization was done was very poorly thought out. In many cases people who had lived most of their lives in an institution were turned out with minimal support and community help. The community resources that were supposed replace the institutions never transpired (the money got spent elsewhwere).

Gun access and what law? I'm not sure. I think universal background checks for one and waiting periods can help but part of the problem is that unless a person who is mentally ill interacts with the judicial system in some way (such as an involuntary commitment, or arrests) then the system doesn't flag them. At leats that is how I understand it.

 

[Coyote]

I voted none of the above.

"Alas, poor Coyote. We knew him well."

A gun is of little use in a crowded situation where people are fleeing all over

Au contraire! I would find it quite useful, thank you.

- you're just as likely to shoot an innocent person as the shooter. Responsible gun owners realize that.

Responsible gun owners train in the use of the firearm in a combat situation.

A phone would be my choice if it's solely a one or the other

You'll be fine. Just don't stand up when I've engaged the shooter.

There really is no training for that sort of situation. A responsible gun owner I know, when we were talking about situations like the Colorado Theatre shooting - where it's dim, chaotic and panicked - said he wouldn't try shooting, he'd dive for cover. That seems like some who is responsible vs a wannabe.

Sorry, Coyote. That is not one of the options that bucs has given you.

Damn...keep forgetting my options!

 

[Vandalshandle]

I go on duty in less than an hour, so I have to put on my uniform. You see, I am a Sheriff Auxiliary Volunteer. In my county, we are not allowed to have weapons while in uniform, or otherwise on duty. I have been patrolling that way for five years. Police know that guns cause as many problems as they solve, especially among civilians. That is why we withdraw sponsorship to any neighborhood watch program if we find out that anyone is patrolling while armed. In my five years of patrolling, I have never had to radio for a deputy because of a dangerous situation. In the 35 years that this particular SAV has been operating, not one SAV officer has been shot.

I think that I have answered your question, Bucs

 

[Coyote]

I voted none of the above.

"Alas, poor Coyote. We knew him well."

A gun is of little use in a crowded situation where people are fleeing all over

Au contraire! I would find it quite useful, thank you.

- you're just as likely to shoot an innocent person as the shooter. Responsible gun owners realize that.

Responsible gun owners train in the use of the firearm in a combat situation.

A phone would be my choice if it's solely a one or the other

You'll be fine. Just don't stand up when I've engaged the shooter.

There really is no training for that sort of situation. A responsible gun owner I know, when we were talking about situations like the Colorado Theatre shooting - where it's dim, chaotic and panicked - said he wouldn't try shooting, he'd dive for cover. That seems like some who is responsible vs a wannabe.

Yes. He's mostly right. Homeland Security trainers for active shooters say you have 3 choices: Run, Hide or Fight. Running is the best option. Hiding is great if you can. Fighting....it's an option.

The untrained may not fight. But ex military and police have trained for this. Many have small lights fixed to their weapons and have trained in the tactic of rapidly closing the distance to the target and focusing a "contact shot" in the crowd onto the target. Takes a lot of training to do that under stress. But it's very possible.

But the average gun owner? Would he be likely to take that training and be able to focus in stress like that? I have my doubts.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Give them a secret agent telephone gun. Then they'll accidentally shoot themselves when they call the cops.

 

[Asclepias]

No...it doesn't. The fact that it IS happening more often and that people with serious mental illness (which it often is in these cases) are able to build up an arsonal of guns should be a red flag that something needs to be looked at in both gun control and our nation's mental health system. "Gun control" does not mean "no guns" or highly restricted ability to get guns - there's a huge amount of latitude between that and what we have now. Examining gun control along with mental health support in this country seems a perfectly rational way to approach the problem.

You nailed half of it. Mental illness. That's the key to reducing these things.

It's part of the key...only part and it's not one with easy solutions because of privacy rights and individual civil rights.

Then maybe it's time some of those be adjusted.

In what way? And, why just adjust for mental illness? Why not tackle the easy availability of guns?

People slaughtered each other just fine long before gunpowder was invented. And arguably, a maniac with a knife in crowded venue can get a much higher body count since the actor wouldn't be as obvious as someone squeezing off shots. Guy with a knife is moreor less discreet unless in your line of sight. Great big crowd like sporting event though, can slash and stab their way a long time before anyone'd know who the heck the bad guy was.

Disagree. Guns provide an opportunity to kill without getting up close. If we only had knives to kill people with the murder rate would be much lower.

 

[bucs90]

I go on duty in less than an hour, so I have to put on my uniform. You see, I am a Sheriff Auxiliary Volunteer. In my county, we are not allowed to have weapons while in uniform, or otherwise on duty. I have been patrolling that way for five years. Police know that guns cause as many problems as they solve, especially among civilians. That is why we withdraw sponsorship to any neighborhood watch program if we find out that anyone is patrolling while armed. In my five years of patrolling, I have never had to radio for a deputy because of a dangerous situation. In the 35 years that this particular SAV has been operating, not one SAV officer has been shot.

I think that I have answered your question, Bucs

So you're an unarmed volunteer.

I worked 8 years with Atlanta PD, zone 3. South Atlanta. You would NOT go on duty unarmed there. Ever.

And the fact that you go on duty....in a Sheriff's uniform....WITHOUT a gun? I'll reserve my comment out of respect for your service.


So....in 5 years on patrol....you've never once needed a backup deputy or needed a firearm? May I ask WHERE you patrol? Andy Griffith never needed a gun either.

 

[bucs90]

I voted none of the above.

"Alas, poor Coyote. We knew him well."

A gun is of little use in a crowded situation where people are fleeing all over

Au contraire! I would find it quite useful, thank you.

- you're just as likely to shoot an innocent person as the shooter. Responsible gun owners realize that.

Responsible gun owners train in the use of the firearm in a combat situation.

A phone would be my choice if it's solely a one or the other

You'll be fine. Just don't stand up when I've engaged the shooter.

There really is no training for that sort of situation. A responsible gun owner I know, when we were talking about situations like the Colorado Theatre shooting - where it's dim, chaotic and panicked - said he wouldn't try shooting, he'd dive for cover. That seems like some who is responsible vs a wannabe.

Yes. He's mostly right. Homeland Security trainers for active shooters say you have 3 choices: Run, Hide or Fight. Running is the best option. Hiding is great if you can. Fighting....it's an option.

The untrained may not fight. But ex military and police have trained for this. Many have small lights fixed to their weapons and have trained in the tactic of rapidly closing the distance to the target and focusing a "contact shot" in the crowd onto the target. Takes a lot of training to do that under stress. But it's very possible.

But the average gun owner? Would he be likely to take that training and be able to focus in stress like that? I have my doubts.

Varies person to person.

That's one gun law I support. Vastly expanding the training for concealed carry. Make it free. But make it high stress/high quality.

 

[Asclepias]

I go on duty in less than an hour, so I have to put on my uniform. You see, I am a Sheriff Auxiliary Volunteer. In my county, we are not allowed to have weapons while in uniform, or otherwise on duty. I have been patrolling that way for five years. Police know that guns cause as many problems as they solve, especially among civilians. That is why we withdraw sponsorship to any neighborhood watch program if we find out that anyone is patrolling while armed. In my five years of patrolling, I have never had to radio for a deputy because of a dangerous situation. In the 35 years that this particular SAV has been operating, not one SAV officer has been shot.

I think that I have answered your question, Bucs

So you're an unarmed volunteer.

I worked 8 years with Atlanta PD, zone 3. South Atlanta. You would NOT go on duty unarmed there. Ever.

And the fact that you go on duty....in a Sheriff's uniform....WITHOUT a gun? I'll reserve my comment out of respect for your service.


So....in 5 years on patrol....you've never once needed a backup deputy or needed a firearm? May I ask WHERE you patrol? Andy Griffith never needed a gun either.

Translation....."I'm afraid of my own shadow...you should be too."

 

[Coyote]

I voted none of the above.

"Alas, poor Coyote. We knew him well."

A gun is of little use in a crowded situation where people are fleeing all over

Au contraire! I would find it quite useful, thank you.

- you're just as likely to shoot an innocent person as the shooter. Responsible gun owners realize that.

Responsible gun owners train in the use of the firearm in a combat situation.

A phone would be my choice if it's solely a one or the other

You'll be fine. Just don't stand up when I've engaged the shooter.

There really is no training for that sort of situation. A responsible gun owner I know, when we were talking about situations like the Colorado Theatre shooting - where it's dim, chaotic and panicked - said he wouldn't try shooting, he'd dive for cover. That seems like some who is responsible vs a wannabe.

Sorry, Coyote. That is not one of the options that bucs has given you.

Sure it is. I even said it....you're on the top row in the corner...shielding your daughter . Hiding the best you can. Would you want a gun or phone?

The daughter's a new addition...

 

[Vandalshandle]

I go on duty in less than an hour, so I have to put on my uniform. You see, I am a Sheriff Auxiliary Volunteer. In my county, we are not allowed to have weapons while in uniform, or otherwise on duty. I have been patrolling that way for five years. Police know that guns cause as many problems as they solve, especially among civilians. That is why we withdraw sponsorship to any neighborhood watch program if we find out that anyone is patrolling while armed. In my five years of patrolling, I have never had to radio for a deputy because of a dangerous situation. In the 35 years that this particular SAV has been operating, not one SAV officer has been shot.

I think that I have answered your question, Bucs

So you're an unarmed volunteer.

I worked 8 years with Atlanta PD, zone 3. South Atlanta. You would NOT go on duty unarmed there. Ever.

And the fact that you go on duty....in a Sheriff's uniform....WITHOUT a gun? I'll reserve my comment out of respect for your service.


So....in 5 years on patrol....you've never once needed a backup deputy or needed a firearm? May I ask WHERE you patrol? Andy Griffith never needed a gun either.

No, you may not ask. But I am not that impressed with your Atlanta experiences. That is my home town, and I lived there for 32 years. My niece, who owes no gun, lives in Cabbagetown.

You can thank me for my service by expressing me three Varsity dogs.