More guns, more profiling

[Darkwind]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

If you don't own a gun then what you are saying is, you are a target. Too bad you think that way. If you are unwilling to take the responsibility of carrying that gun then you have no right to express your opinion like you have done.

I did not say I am unwilling or unable to carry a gun. I am giving a snapshot right now. It is simply numbers. If a lone gun man is confident that 99 percent of his given targets are not able to return fire, odds are, he is going to be successful hitting most of his targets. What if he thinks as many as 25 or 30 percent of his targets may be able to return fire after he starts shooting? He now has doubt and a deterrent.

You don't understand the criminal mentality. Ask most criminals in prison. Next time, they won't get caught. The problem is, the criminal, on the average, is going to be better at handling his firearm than you are going to be using yours. Thanks, Citizen, not only did you contribute to my living but, look, a free gun.

That is incorrect. My opinion is that a significant majority of gun owners are proficient in the handling of their weapons. By proficient, I don't mean they are marksmen with it. Only that they know how to use it, handle it, store it.

The biggest problem here is that too many people will weigh the legal considerations of defending themselves against attackers like this. Never should a citizen have to fear for their own freedom when in situations where a gunman is shooting into a crowd and laws should be rewritten giving them criminal immunity for standing their ground and fighting back. The death tolls would not only plummet, but these kinds of incidents would also go down. They would not disappear because humanity, being what it is, has some crazy built into it.

If a gunman knew that pulling a gun in a crowd would result in 30 guns being pointed right back at him, he or she would reconsider the whole thing.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

The Dayton shooting took place where there were armed guards that killed him in less than 45 seconds. But someone who does not care about dying can do a lot of damage before people can react.

Correct. Imagine if it took cops five minutes to arrive. That's why people need to be armed, it's just nobody in that group was armed and luckily police were there ASAP. You are not allowed to be in possession of a firearm with any alcohol in you. I think that law should be changed to allow people who only had a few drinks to be allowed to carry. After all, if they let you drive an automobile with a few drinks, we should be allowed to carry a firearm.

So you have a couple or three drinks. The first one makes you a better person. The Second one makes you steadier, the third one makes you invincible. Now, put a gun in a drunks hand. You mind letting the rest of us know the town that is going to do this so the sane people can all sell the homes and move the hell out before the carnage begins happening?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

If you don't own a gun then what you are saying is, you are a target. Too bad you think that way. If you are unwilling to take the responsibility of carrying that gun then you have no right to express your opinion like you have done.

I did not say I am unwilling or unable to carry a gun. I am giving a snapshot right now. It is simply numbers. If a lone gun man is confident that 99 percent of his given targets are not able to return fire, odds are, he is going to be successful hitting most of his targets. What if he thinks as many as 25 or 30 percent of his targets may be able to return fire after he starts shooting? He now has doubt and a deterrent.

You don't understand the criminal mentality. Ask most criminals in prison. Next time, they won't get caught. The problem is, the criminal, on the average, is going to be better at handling his firearm than you are going to be using yours. Thanks, Citizen, not only did you contribute to my living but, look, a free gun.

That is incorrect. My opinion is that a significant majority of gun owners are proficient in the handling of their weapons. By proficient, I don't mean they are marksmen with it. Only that they know how to use it, handle it, store it.

The biggest problem here is that too many people will weigh the legal considerations of defending themselves against attackers like this. Never should a citizen have to fear for their own freedom when in situations where a gunman is shooting into a crowd and laws should be rewritten giving them criminal immunity for standing their ground and fighting back. The death tolls would not only plummet, but these kinds of incidents would also go down. They would not disappear because humanity, being what it is, has some crazy built into it.

If a gunman knew that pulling a gun in a crowd would result in 30 guns being pointed right back at him, he or she would reconsider the whole thing.

In some ways, you are approaching it from a sane point of view and that is exactly why you miss the mark. The mass shooter has no intention of living through it. To him, it's a form of suicide. Now, that not his main reason but that's his end result. Why are Political Assassinations not more common? Because a professional Assassin doesn't plan of dying. The only reason a Mass Shooter survives is that he chickens out of his suicide.

Now for the insanity side of things for you. I will give you two scenarios. Actually, both of these may be happening at the same time to add to even more of the confusion.

You have your band new handgun. The shooting starts. You freeze just long enough to become a target. Then you flee while trying to drag that hogleg out. You have more of a chance of shooting your own balls off at that point than shooting the bad guy if you aren't dead already.

Now you have the other type. He's the one that stands his ground. He takes out his blaster and starts blasting away. Remember the report of the Cop that was shooting at the Dog and hit the Woman instead? And that's a cop. There are non combatants all around, noise, pleading, screaming, dashing, etc.. But the Hero stands there and blasts away. Reminds of me an old Jim Stafford song "Cow Patty". "40 shots rang out, 40 people fell, they shot that town clean to hell". Now, add the 3rd participant to the situation, the Cop arrives and has to hesitate to try and figure out just who the hell the real bad guy really is. Does he shoot the real bad guy, does he shoot you or, to be on the safe side, just shoot you both.

 

[Blues Man]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

If you don't own a gun then what you are saying is, you are a target. Too bad you think that way. If you are unwilling to take the responsibility of carrying that gun then you have no right to express your opinion like you have done.

A person carrying a weapon has no obligation to come to the aid of anyone

The police don't even have an obligation to come when you call yet you want to hold a civilian gun owner to a higher standard

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

Usually, it doesn't matter if it's a gun free zone or not. It usually doesn't matter what the gun laws are one bit. If a person decides to go on a shooting rampage, they are going to do it regardless. The only thing we can do is try and keep the body count down. We can never stop the incident itself, just minimize the body count. If that's all the common sense gun regulations do then they did their job.

That was not my point. My point is that these psychos usually choose gun free zones because they know it's likely nobody is armed but them. It's very common for them to choose such zones, but at least what I read to this point, the one in our state was carried out on the street.

Most are carried out in non gun free zones. There are enough done outside of gun free zones to debunk your "First they look for Gun Free Zones" idea. No, they get the idea to do a mass shooting and take the first opportunity they can get. IF it happens to be a Gun Free Zone then that's where they do it. If it's not in a gun free zone, then that's where they do it as well. You keep using sanity to judge their actions. Stop that. These mass shootings are actually part elaborate suicides. The shooter has no intention of living through the action.

Correct, but they don't want to risk a non life threatening injury by an armed citizen. They do want to die because they are cowards that can't face prison. So they do look for gun-free zones as their targets. They may be loony, but that doesn't mean they are stupid.

One small problem with what you keep saying. MOST mass shooting happen in non gun free areas. The last one happened with armed police all around the place. It only lasted about 45 seconds but a lot of people were killed by an AR 100 round armed shooter. You still don't see the one thing that all the high body count shootings have in common.

 

[Darkwind]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

If you don't own a gun then what you are saying is, you are a target. Too bad you think that way. If you are unwilling to take the responsibility of carrying that gun then you have no right to express your opinion like you have done.

I did not say I am unwilling or unable to carry a gun. I am giving a snapshot right now. It is simply numbers. If a lone gun man is confident that 99 percent of his given targets are not able to return fire, odds are, he is going to be successful hitting most of his targets. What if he thinks as many as 25 or 30 percent of his targets may be able to return fire after he starts shooting? He now has doubt and a deterrent.

You don't understand the criminal mentality. Ask most criminals in prison. Next time, they won't get caught. The problem is, the criminal, on the average, is going to be better at handling his firearm than you are going to be using yours. Thanks, Citizen, not only did you contribute to my living but, look, a free gun.

That is incorrect. My opinion is that a significant majority of gun owners are proficient in the handling of their weapons. By proficient, I don't mean they are marksmen with it. Only that they know how to use it, handle it, store it.

The biggest problem here is that too many people will weigh the legal considerations of defending themselves against attackers like this. Never should a citizen have to fear for their own freedom when in situations where a gunman is shooting into a crowd and laws should be rewritten giving them criminal immunity for standing their ground and fighting back. The death tolls would not only plummet, but these kinds of incidents would also go down. They would not disappear because humanity, being what it is, has some crazy built into it.

If a gunman knew that pulling a gun in a crowd would result in 30 guns being pointed right back at him, he or she would reconsider the whole thing.

In some ways, you are approaching it from a sane point of view and that is exactly why you miss the mark. The mass shooter has no intention of living through it. To him, it's a form of suicide. Now, that not his main reason but that's his end result. Why are Political Assassinations not more common? Because a professional Assassin doesn't plan of dying. The only reason a Mass Shooter survives is that he chickens out of his suicide.

Now for the insanity side of things for you. I will give you two scenarios. Actually, both of these may be happening at the same time to add to even more of the confusion.

You have your band new handgun. The shooting starts. You freeze just long enough to become a target. Then you flee while trying to drag that hogleg out. You have more of a chance of shooting your own balls off at that point than shooting the bad guy if you aren't dead already.

Now you have the other type. He's the one that stands his ground. He takes out his blaster and starts blasting away. Remember the report of the Cop that was shooting at the Dog and hit the Woman instead? And that's a cop. There are non combatants all around, noise, pleading, screaming, dashing, etc.. But the Hero stands there and blasts away. Reminds of me an old Jim Stafford song "Cow Patty". "40 shots rang out, 40 people fell, they shot that town clean to hell". Now, add the 3rd participant to the situation, the Cop arrives and has to hesitate to try and figure out just who the hell the real bad guy really is. Does he shoot the real bad guy, does he shoot you or, to be on the safe side, just shoot you both.

We cannot curtail and restrict people who are living their lives without thought of ever harming another person on the basis that someone is nuts enough to give up their life for their craziness.

You are attempting to sterilize the whole world on the basis of a 'what if'.

Let Me give you a more likely scenario.

A gunman opens fire and there are a dozen armed citizens in a crowd of 100 people.

Two of the citizens manage to just shoot themselves in the foot trying to get their gun out.

One managed to get their out but ends up missing the target.

Seven manage to draw their weapons and return fire, killing the gunman within a minute, but the resulting return fire injures three bystanders.

The remaining two manage to hit the gunman, but also kill two innocent civilians.

The gunman kills five people before being killed but would have killed 40 to 60 before the rest got away and he or she turned the gun on themselves.

That would put the gunman at a possible 60 deaths.

The innocent civilians total seven dead, three injured, if even some inept citizens take a stand, with three injured.

More importantly, if the media were to report it accurately as the citizens successfully prevented the gunman from killing hundreds, the next crazy may think twice about it.

We cannot stop every crazy out there. We can only take them out when they manifest.

We certainly have no right to subject 300 million innocent people to a punishment for the crimes committed by a few.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If you don't own a gun then what you are saying is, you are a target. Too bad you think that way. If you are unwilling to take the responsibility of carrying that gun then you have no right to express your opinion like you have done.

I did not say I am unwilling or unable to carry a gun. I am giving a snapshot right now. It is simply numbers. If a lone gun man is confident that 99 percent of his given targets are not able to return fire, odds are, he is going to be successful hitting most of his targets. What if he thinks as many as 25 or 30 percent of his targets may be able to return fire after he starts shooting? He now has doubt and a deterrent.

You don't understand the criminal mentality. Ask most criminals in prison. Next time, they won't get caught. The problem is, the criminal, on the average, is going to be better at handling his firearm than you are going to be using yours. Thanks, Citizen, not only did you contribute to my living but, look, a free gun.

That is incorrect. My opinion is that a significant majority of gun owners are proficient in the handling of their weapons. By proficient, I don't mean they are marksmen with it. Only that they know how to use it, handle it, store it.

The biggest problem here is that too many people will weigh the legal considerations of defending themselves against attackers like this. Never should a citizen have to fear for their own freedom when in situations where a gunman is shooting into a crowd and laws should be rewritten giving them criminal immunity for standing their ground and fighting back. The death tolls would not only plummet, but these kinds of incidents would also go down. They would not disappear because humanity, being what it is, has some crazy built into it.

If a gunman knew that pulling a gun in a crowd would result in 30 guns being pointed right back at him, he or she would reconsider the whole thing.

In some ways, you are approaching it from a sane point of view and that is exactly why you miss the mark. The mass shooter has no intention of living through it. To him, it's a form of suicide. Now, that not his main reason but that's his end result. Why are Political Assassinations not more common? Because a professional Assassin doesn't plan of dying. The only reason a Mass Shooter survives is that he chickens out of his suicide.

Now for the insanity side of things for you. I will give you two scenarios. Actually, both of these may be happening at the same time to add to even more of the confusion.

You have your band new handgun. The shooting starts. You freeze just long enough to become a target. Then you flee while trying to drag that hogleg out. You have more of a chance of shooting your own balls off at that point than shooting the bad guy if you aren't dead already.

Now you have the other type. He's the one that stands his ground. He takes out his blaster and starts blasting away. Remember the report of the Cop that was shooting at the Dog and hit the Woman instead? And that's a cop. There are non combatants all around, noise, pleading, screaming, dashing, etc.. But the Hero stands there and blasts away. Reminds of me an old Jim Stafford song "Cow Patty". "40 shots rang out, 40 people fell, they shot that town clean to hell". Now, add the 3rd participant to the situation, the Cop arrives and has to hesitate to try and figure out just who the hell the real bad guy really is. Does he shoot the real bad guy, does he shoot you or, to be on the safe side, just shoot you both.

We cannot curtail and restrict people who are living their lives without thought of ever harming another person on the basis that someone is nuts enough to give up their life for their craziness.

You are attempting to sterilize the whole world on the basis of a 'what if'.

Let Me give you a more likely scenario.

A gunman opens fire and there are a dozen armed citizens in a crowd of 100 people.

Two of the citizens manage to just shoot themselves in the foot trying to get their gun out.

One managed to get their out but ends up missing the target.

Seven manage to draw their weapons and return fire, killing the gunman within a minute, but the resulting return fire injures three bystanders.

The remaining two manage to hit the gunman, but also kill two innocent civilians.

The gunman kills five people before being killed but would have killed 40 to 60 before the rest got away and he or she turned the gun on themselves.

That would put the gunman at a possible 60 deaths.

The innocent civilians total seven dead, three injured, if even some inept citizens take a stand, with three injured.

More importantly, if the media were to report it accurately as the citizens successfully prevented the gunman from killing hundreds, the next crazy may think twice about it.

We cannot stop every crazy out there. We can only take them out when they manifest.

We certainly have no right to subject 300 million innocent people to a punishment for the crimes committed by a few.

Your estimate of how many will actually hit and kill the shooter is way off. One of the reasons many cop shops stress test is to train their cops to operate their firearms under duress. Without that stress test, they can't hit the broad side of a barn when under pressure JUST LIKE SILLYVILLIANS. And your Mass Shooter will have your 7 so badly outgunned, he may just ignore them and keep shooting into the masses. The Shooter is crazy and isn't affected by the stress like the sillyvillians area. In 45 seconds, he can get as many as 30 or more rounds off and that is if he's inept at a mag change. In 45 seconds, he should be able to get off at least 60 rounds. In a dense target area, he can get 2 and 3 kills per round. Luckily, most mass shooters are NOT combat trained and don't use their AR to it's capacity. If I was a nutcase, with my skillset, I could easily set a new all time record. But I am not insane and suicidal and I don't seem to hate my mother. Hell I don't even hate your mother.

You give the sillyvillians more credit than they deserve. Only in the Movies.

 

[Flash]

So the DemoRats are the party of Racism, Rape, Abortion, Open Borders, and Gun-Grabbing.

That is only the short list.

 

[Darkwind]

I did not say I am unwilling or unable to carry a gun. I am giving a snapshot right now. It is simply numbers. If a lone gun man is confident that 99 percent of his given targets are not able to return fire, odds are, he is going to be successful hitting most of his targets. What if he thinks as many as 25 or 30 percent of his targets may be able to return fire after he starts shooting? He now has doubt and a deterrent.

You don't understand the criminal mentality. Ask most criminals in prison. Next time, they won't get caught. The problem is, the criminal, on the average, is going to be better at handling his firearm than you are going to be using yours. Thanks, Citizen, not only did you contribute to my living but, look, a free gun.

That is incorrect. My opinion is that a significant majority of gun owners are proficient in the handling of their weapons. By proficient, I don't mean they are marksmen with it. Only that they know how to use it, handle it, store it.

The biggest problem here is that too many people will weigh the legal considerations of defending themselves against attackers like this. Never should a citizen have to fear for their own freedom when in situations where a gunman is shooting into a crowd and laws should be rewritten giving them criminal immunity for standing their ground and fighting back. The death tolls would not only plummet, but these kinds of incidents would also go down. They would not disappear because humanity, being what it is, has some crazy built into it.

If a gunman knew that pulling a gun in a crowd would result in 30 guns being pointed right back at him, he or she would reconsider the whole thing.

In some ways, you are approaching it from a sane point of view and that is exactly why you miss the mark. The mass shooter has no intention of living through it. To him, it's a form of suicide. Now, that not his main reason but that's his end result. Why are Political Assassinations not more common? Because a professional Assassin doesn't plan of dying. The only reason a Mass Shooter survives is that he chickens out of his suicide.

Now for the insanity side of things for you. I will give you two scenarios. Actually, both of these may be happening at the same time to add to even more of the confusion.

You have your band new handgun. The shooting starts. You freeze just long enough to become a target. Then you flee while trying to drag that hogleg out. You have more of a chance of shooting your own balls off at that point than shooting the bad guy if you aren't dead already.

Now you have the other type. He's the one that stands his ground. He takes out his blaster and starts blasting away. Remember the report of the Cop that was shooting at the Dog and hit the Woman instead? And that's a cop. There are non combatants all around, noise, pleading, screaming, dashing, etc.. But the Hero stands there and blasts away. Reminds of me an old Jim Stafford song "Cow Patty". "40 shots rang out, 40 people fell, they shot that town clean to hell". Now, add the 3rd participant to the situation, the Cop arrives and has to hesitate to try and figure out just who the hell the real bad guy really is. Does he shoot the real bad guy, does he shoot you or, to be on the safe side, just shoot you both.

We cannot curtail and restrict people who are living their lives without thought of ever harming another person on the basis that someone is nuts enough to give up their life for their craziness.

You are attempting to sterilize the whole world on the basis of a 'what if'.

Let Me give you a more likely scenario.

A gunman opens fire and there are a dozen armed citizens in a crowd of 100 people.

Two of the citizens manage to just shoot themselves in the foot trying to get their gun out.

One managed to get their out but ends up missing the target.

Seven manage to draw their weapons and return fire, killing the gunman within a minute, but the resulting return fire injures three bystanders.

The remaining two manage to hit the gunman, but also kill two innocent civilians.

The gunman kills five people before being killed but would have killed 40 to 60 before the rest got away and he or she turned the gun on themselves.

That would put the gunman at a possible 60 deaths.

The innocent civilians total seven dead, three injured, if even some inept citizens take a stand, with three injured.

More importantly, if the media were to report it accurately as the citizens successfully prevented the gunman from killing hundreds, the next crazy may think twice about it.

We cannot stop every crazy out there. We can only take them out when they manifest.

We certainly have no right to subject 300 million innocent people to a punishment for the crimes committed by a few.

Your estimate of how many will actually hit and kill the shooter is way off. One of the reasons many cop shops stress test is to train their cops to operate their firearms under duress. Without that stress test, they can't hit the broad side of a barn when under pressure JUST LIKE SILLYVILLIANS. And your Mass Shooter will have your 7 so badly outgunned, he may just ignore them and keep shooting into the masses. The Shooter is crazy and isn't affected by the stress like the sillyvillians area. In 45 seconds, he can get as many as 30 or more rounds off and that is if he's inept at a mag change. In 45 seconds, he should be able to get off at least 60 rounds. In a dense target area, he can get 2 and 3 kills per round. Luckily, most mass shooters are NOT combat trained and don't use their AR to it's capacity. If I was a nutcase, with my skillset, I could easily set a new all time record. But I am not insane and suicidal and I don't seem to hate my mother. Hell I don't even hate your mother.

You give the sillyvillians more credit than they deserve. Only in the Movies.

I completely disagree with you and favor more citizens shooting back and saving lives. I also support rewriting laws that take away criminal liablity for the citizen when they are in a mass shooter event.

I don't buy your estimates.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You don't understand the criminal mentality. Ask most criminals in prison. Next time, they won't get caught. The problem is, the criminal, on the average, is going to be better at handling his firearm than you are going to be using yours. Thanks, Citizen, not only did you contribute to my living but, look, a free gun.

That is incorrect. My opinion is that a significant majority of gun owners are proficient in the handling of their weapons. By proficient, I don't mean they are marksmen with it. Only that they know how to use it, handle it, store it.

The biggest problem here is that too many people will weigh the legal considerations of defending themselves against attackers like this. Never should a citizen have to fear for their own freedom when in situations where a gunman is shooting into a crowd and laws should be rewritten giving them criminal immunity for standing their ground and fighting back. The death tolls would not only plummet, but these kinds of incidents would also go down. They would not disappear because humanity, being what it is, has some crazy built into it.

If a gunman knew that pulling a gun in a crowd would result in 30 guns being pointed right back at him, he or she would reconsider the whole thing.

In some ways, you are approaching it from a sane point of view and that is exactly why you miss the mark. The mass shooter has no intention of living through it. To him, it's a form of suicide. Now, that not his main reason but that's his end result. Why are Political Assassinations not more common? Because a professional Assassin doesn't plan of dying. The only reason a Mass Shooter survives is that he chickens out of his suicide.

Now for the insanity side of things for you. I will give you two scenarios. Actually, both of these may be happening at the same time to add to even more of the confusion.

You have your band new handgun. The shooting starts. You freeze just long enough to become a target. Then you flee while trying to drag that hogleg out. You have more of a chance of shooting your own balls off at that point than shooting the bad guy if you aren't dead already.

Now you have the other type. He's the one that stands his ground. He takes out his blaster and starts blasting away. Remember the report of the Cop that was shooting at the Dog and hit the Woman instead? And that's a cop. There are non combatants all around, noise, pleading, screaming, dashing, etc.. But the Hero stands there and blasts away. Reminds of me an old Jim Stafford song "Cow Patty". "40 shots rang out, 40 people fell, they shot that town clean to hell". Now, add the 3rd participant to the situation, the Cop arrives and has to hesitate to try and figure out just who the hell the real bad guy really is. Does he shoot the real bad guy, does he shoot you or, to be on the safe side, just shoot you both.

We cannot curtail and restrict people who are living their lives without thought of ever harming another person on the basis that someone is nuts enough to give up their life for their craziness.

You are attempting to sterilize the whole world on the basis of a 'what if'.

Let Me give you a more likely scenario.

A gunman opens fire and there are a dozen armed citizens in a crowd of 100 people.

Two of the citizens manage to just shoot themselves in the foot trying to get their gun out.

One managed to get their out but ends up missing the target.

Seven manage to draw their weapons and return fire, killing the gunman within a minute, but the resulting return fire injures three bystanders.

The remaining two manage to hit the gunman, but also kill two innocent civilians.

The gunman kills five people before being killed but would have killed 40 to 60 before the rest got away and he or she turned the gun on themselves.

That would put the gunman at a possible 60 deaths.

The innocent civilians total seven dead, three injured, if even some inept citizens take a stand, with three injured.

More importantly, if the media were to report it accurately as the citizens successfully prevented the gunman from killing hundreds, the next crazy may think twice about it.

We cannot stop every crazy out there. We can only take them out when they manifest.

We certainly have no right to subject 300 million innocent people to a punishment for the crimes committed by a few.

Your estimate of how many will actually hit and kill the shooter is way off. One of the reasons many cop shops stress test is to train their cops to operate their firearms under duress. Without that stress test, they can't hit the broad side of a barn when under pressure JUST LIKE SILLYVILLIANS. And your Mass Shooter will have your 7 so badly outgunned, he may just ignore them and keep shooting into the masses. The Shooter is crazy and isn't affected by the stress like the sillyvillians area. In 45 seconds, he can get as many as 30 or more rounds off and that is if he's inept at a mag change. In 45 seconds, he should be able to get off at least 60 rounds. In a dense target area, he can get 2 and 3 kills per round. Luckily, most mass shooters are NOT combat trained and don't use their AR to it's capacity. If I was a nutcase, with my skillset, I could easily set a new all time record. But I am not insane and suicidal and I don't seem to hate my mother. Hell I don't even hate your mother.

You give the sillyvillians more credit than they deserve. Only in the Movies.

I completely disagree with you and favor more citizens shooting back and saving lives. I also support rewriting laws that take away criminal liablity for the citizen when they are in a mass shooter event.

I don't buy your estimates.

That's because I have 20 years in the Military helping to turn some of those sillyvillians into killers and teaching them to survive while you have a lifetime of watching Hollywood Movies and TV and listening to someone else.

 

[Darkwind]

That is incorrect. My opinion is that a significant majority of gun owners are proficient in the handling of their weapons. By proficient, I don't mean they are marksmen with it. Only that they know how to use it, handle it, store it.

The biggest problem here is that too many people will weigh the legal considerations of defending themselves against attackers like this. Never should a citizen have to fear for their own freedom when in situations where a gunman is shooting into a crowd and laws should be rewritten giving them criminal immunity for standing their ground and fighting back. The death tolls would not only plummet, but these kinds of incidents would also go down. They would not disappear because humanity, being what it is, has some crazy built into it.

If a gunman knew that pulling a gun in a crowd would result in 30 guns being pointed right back at him, he or she would reconsider the whole thing.

In some ways, you are approaching it from a sane point of view and that is exactly why you miss the mark. The mass shooter has no intention of living through it. To him, it's a form of suicide. Now, that not his main reason but that's his end result. Why are Political Assassinations not more common? Because a professional Assassin doesn't plan of dying. The only reason a Mass Shooter survives is that he chickens out of his suicide.

Now for the insanity side of things for you. I will give you two scenarios. Actually, both of these may be happening at the same time to add to even more of the confusion.

You have your band new handgun. The shooting starts. You freeze just long enough to become a target. Then you flee while trying to drag that hogleg out. You have more of a chance of shooting your own balls off at that point than shooting the bad guy if you aren't dead already.

Now you have the other type. He's the one that stands his ground. He takes out his blaster and starts blasting away. Remember the report of the Cop that was shooting at the Dog and hit the Woman instead? And that's a cop. There are non combatants all around, noise, pleading, screaming, dashing, etc.. But the Hero stands there and blasts away. Reminds of me an old Jim Stafford song "Cow Patty". "40 shots rang out, 40 people fell, they shot that town clean to hell". Now, add the 3rd participant to the situation, the Cop arrives and has to hesitate to try and figure out just who the hell the real bad guy really is. Does he shoot the real bad guy, does he shoot you or, to be on the safe side, just shoot you both.

We cannot curtail and restrict people who are living their lives without thought of ever harming another person on the basis that someone is nuts enough to give up their life for their craziness.

You are attempting to sterilize the whole world on the basis of a 'what if'.

Let Me give you a more likely scenario.

A gunman opens fire and there are a dozen armed citizens in a crowd of 100 people.

Two of the citizens manage to just shoot themselves in the foot trying to get their gun out.

One managed to get their out but ends up missing the target.

Seven manage to draw their weapons and return fire, killing the gunman within a minute, but the resulting return fire injures three bystanders.

The remaining two manage to hit the gunman, but also kill two innocent civilians.

The gunman kills five people before being killed but would have killed 40 to 60 before the rest got away and he or she turned the gun on themselves.

That would put the gunman at a possible 60 deaths.

The innocent civilians total seven dead, three injured, if even some inept citizens take a stand, with three injured.

More importantly, if the media were to report it accurately as the citizens successfully prevented the gunman from killing hundreds, the next crazy may think twice about it.

We cannot stop every crazy out there. We can only take them out when they manifest.

We certainly have no right to subject 300 million innocent people to a punishment for the crimes committed by a few.

Your estimate of how many will actually hit and kill the shooter is way off. One of the reasons many cop shops stress test is to train their cops to operate their firearms under duress. Without that stress test, they can't hit the broad side of a barn when under pressure JUST LIKE SILLYVILLIANS. And your Mass Shooter will have your 7 so badly outgunned, he may just ignore them and keep shooting into the masses. The Shooter is crazy and isn't affected by the stress like the sillyvillians area. In 45 seconds, he can get as many as 30 or more rounds off and that is if he's inept at a mag change. In 45 seconds, he should be able to get off at least 60 rounds. In a dense target area, he can get 2 and 3 kills per round. Luckily, most mass shooters are NOT combat trained and don't use their AR to it's capacity. If I was a nutcase, with my skillset, I could easily set a new all time record. But I am not insane and suicidal and I don't seem to hate my mother. Hell I don't even hate your mother.

You give the sillyvillians more credit than they deserve. Only in the Movies.

I completely disagree with you and favor more citizens shooting back and saving lives. I also support rewriting laws that take away criminal liablity for the citizen when they are in a mass shooter event.

I don't buy your estimates.

That's because I have 20 years in the Military helping to turn some of those sillyvillians into killers and teaching them to survive while you have a lifetime of watching Hollywood Movies and TV and listening to someone else.

You would be wrong about that. But then, many people are wrong about a great many things so I take that in stride.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In some ways, you are approaching it from a sane point of view and that is exactly why you miss the mark. The mass shooter has no intention of living through it. To him, it's a form of suicide. Now, that not his main reason but that's his end result. Why are Political Assassinations not more common? Because a professional Assassin doesn't plan of dying. The only reason a Mass Shooter survives is that he chickens out of his suicide.

Now for the insanity side of things for you. I will give you two scenarios. Actually, both of these may be happening at the same time to add to even more of the confusion.

You have your band new handgun. The shooting starts. You freeze just long enough to become a target. Then you flee while trying to drag that hogleg out. You have more of a chance of shooting your own balls off at that point than shooting the bad guy if you aren't dead already.

Now you have the other type. He's the one that stands his ground. He takes out his blaster and starts blasting away. Remember the report of the Cop that was shooting at the Dog and hit the Woman instead? And that's a cop. There are non combatants all around, noise, pleading, screaming, dashing, etc.. But the Hero stands there and blasts away. Reminds of me an old Jim Stafford song "Cow Patty". "40 shots rang out, 40 people fell, they shot that town clean to hell". Now, add the 3rd participant to the situation, the Cop arrives and has to hesitate to try and figure out just who the hell the real bad guy really is. Does he shoot the real bad guy, does he shoot you or, to be on the safe side, just shoot you both.

We cannot curtail and restrict people who are living their lives without thought of ever harming another person on the basis that someone is nuts enough to give up their life for their craziness.

You are attempting to sterilize the whole world on the basis of a 'what if'.

Let Me give you a more likely scenario.

A gunman opens fire and there are a dozen armed citizens in a crowd of 100 people.

Two of the citizens manage to just shoot themselves in the foot trying to get their gun out.

One managed to get their out but ends up missing the target.

Seven manage to draw their weapons and return fire, killing the gunman within a minute, but the resulting return fire injures three bystanders.

The remaining two manage to hit the gunman, but also kill two innocent civilians.

The gunman kills five people before being killed but would have killed 40 to 60 before the rest got away and he or she turned the gun on themselves.

That would put the gunman at a possible 60 deaths.

The innocent civilians total seven dead, three injured, if even some inept citizens take a stand, with three injured.

More importantly, if the media were to report it accurately as the citizens successfully prevented the gunman from killing hundreds, the next crazy may think twice about it.

We cannot stop every crazy out there. We can only take them out when they manifest.

We certainly have no right to subject 300 million innocent people to a punishment for the crimes committed by a few.

Your estimate of how many will actually hit and kill the shooter is way off. One of the reasons many cop shops stress test is to train their cops to operate their firearms under duress. Without that stress test, they can't hit the broad side of a barn when under pressure JUST LIKE SILLYVILLIANS. And your Mass Shooter will have your 7 so badly outgunned, he may just ignore them and keep shooting into the masses. The Shooter is crazy and isn't affected by the stress like the sillyvillians area. In 45 seconds, he can get as many as 30 or more rounds off and that is if he's inept at a mag change. In 45 seconds, he should be able to get off at least 60 rounds. In a dense target area, he can get 2 and 3 kills per round. Luckily, most mass shooters are NOT combat trained and don't use their AR to it's capacity. If I was a nutcase, with my skillset, I could easily set a new all time record. But I am not insane and suicidal and I don't seem to hate my mother. Hell I don't even hate your mother.

You give the sillyvillians more credit than they deserve. Only in the Movies.

I completely disagree with you and favor more citizens shooting back and saving lives. I also support rewriting laws that take away criminal liablity for the citizen when they are in a mass shooter event.

I don't buy your estimates.

That's because I have 20 years in the Military helping to turn some of those sillyvillians into killers and teaching them to survive while you have a lifetime of watching Hollywood Movies and TV and listening to someone else.

You would be wrong about that. But then, many people are wrong about a great many things so I take that in stride.

What was your MOS/AFSC or Job. What was your Unit? Did you see combat? How many years did you serve? Did you ever work as a Cop other than Jailer or Dog Catcher?

 

[Darkwind]

We cannot curtail and restrict people who are living their lives without thought of ever harming another person on the basis that someone is nuts enough to give up their life for their craziness.

You are attempting to sterilize the whole world on the basis of a 'what if'.

Let Me give you a more likely scenario.

A gunman opens fire and there are a dozen armed citizens in a crowd of 100 people.

Two of the citizens manage to just shoot themselves in the foot trying to get their gun out.

One managed to get their out but ends up missing the target.

Seven manage to draw their weapons and return fire, killing the gunman within a minute, but the resulting return fire injures three bystanders.

The remaining two manage to hit the gunman, but also kill two innocent civilians.

The gunman kills five people before being killed but would have killed 40 to 60 before the rest got away and he or she turned the gun on themselves.

That would put the gunman at a possible 60 deaths.

The innocent civilians total seven dead, three injured, if even some inept citizens take a stand, with three injured.

More importantly, if the media were to report it accurately as the citizens successfully prevented the gunman from killing hundreds, the next crazy may think twice about it.

We cannot stop every crazy out there. We can only take them out when they manifest.

We certainly have no right to subject 300 million innocent people to a punishment for the crimes committed by a few.

Your estimate of how many will actually hit and kill the shooter is way off. One of the reasons many cop shops stress test is to train their cops to operate their firearms under duress. Without that stress test, they can't hit the broad side of a barn when under pressure JUST LIKE SILLYVILLIANS. And your Mass Shooter will have your 7 so badly outgunned, he may just ignore them and keep shooting into the masses. The Shooter is crazy and isn't affected by the stress like the sillyvillians area. In 45 seconds, he can get as many as 30 or more rounds off and that is if he's inept at a mag change. In 45 seconds, he should be able to get off at least 60 rounds. In a dense target area, he can get 2 and 3 kills per round. Luckily, most mass shooters are NOT combat trained and don't use their AR to it's capacity. If I was a nutcase, with my skillset, I could easily set a new all time record. But I am not insane and suicidal and I don't seem to hate my mother. Hell I don't even hate your mother.

You give the sillyvillians more credit than they deserve. Only in the Movies.

I completely disagree with you and favor more citizens shooting back and saving lives. I also support rewriting laws that take away criminal liablity for the citizen when they are in a mass shooter event.

I don't buy your estimates.

That's because I have 20 years in the Military helping to turn some of those sillyvillians into killers and teaching them to survive while you have a lifetime of watching Hollywood Movies and TV and listening to someone else.

You would be wrong about that. But then, many people are wrong about a great many things so I take that in stride.

What was your MOS/AFSC or Job. What was your Unit? Did you see combat? How many years did you serve? Did you ever work as a Cop other than Jailer or Dog Catcher?

I was NOT in the Law Enforcement field. I was in treaty monitoring. I served 10 years and the AFSC I held doesn't exist anymore since I left in 1990.

None of which has any bearing on anything as I am well educated, curious and can apply logic and critical thought to any issue. This is one of those issues.

I recognize experience and applaud it. But when experience keeps saying this won't work, or that won't work, when it has NEVER been tried, and the fact that what they say does work clearly isn't, then I'll stick with My own analysis. Thanks for your service, but again, I disagree with you.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Reopening Mental Hospitals would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Seawytch]

Innocent people in El Paso and Dayton over the past 24 hours are dead at the hands and actions of evil people. From a policy perspective, I don’t think restricting guns from lawful people is going to get to the root of the problem. I think if there are more guns in the hands of lawful people both concealed and open carry coupled vetting and profiling people’s behavior will drive down mass shootings. Shooters need to be both deceived and have a sense of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that they will not be successful. I don’t own a gun nor do I plan to but I am sincerely concerned that mass shooters since 1965 have felt confident that they can carry out their acts of terror against innocents. Whether using guns, cars, knives.... terrorists need a deterrent.

The two shootings happened in very gun friendly states. A lot of people do carry them, and I'm sure the Democrats are going to have a party with this one next debate. However there are still gun free zones around, and it will be interesting to see if these incidents took place in gun free zones like so many have in the past.

I'm not going to argue the subject until more verifiable information comes out. It's too early to tell what set these people off and most early reports are inaccurate anyway.

The Dayton shooting took place where there were armed guards that killed him in less than 45 seconds. But someone who does not care about dying can do a lot of damage before people can react.

Especially when they can purchase weapons designed for war with little or no effort.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Reopening Mental Hospitals would be a step in the right direction.

What impact would that have had on the last two shootings?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Reopening Mental Hospitals would be a step in the right direction.

What impact would that have had on the last two shootings?

It would have completely prevented the one before that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Reopening Mental Hospitals would be a step in the right direction.

What impact would that have had on the last two shootings?

It would have completely prevented the one before that.

The Garlic Festival one?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Reopening Mental Hospitals would be a step in the right direction.

What impact would that have had on the last two shootings?

It would have completely prevented the one before that.

The Garlic Festival one?

No, the school one.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Here is what baffles me. In 1791, the 2nd Amendment passed. For the next 174,years, I struggle to find any account in US History where there was a mass shooting where someone walked into a crowed and started shooting random unknowns. The first one I can site is 1965 University of Texas shooting. In nearly 55 years since the number of similar mass shootings has spread to fast food restaurants, workplaces, shopping centers, hotels, K-12 schools, colleges, nightclubs.

How come between 1791 and 1965, no one was motivated to do a mass shooting and since that time we have more than 50?