Why A "Good Guy with a Gun" is Bullshit

[daws101]

How much do you have to pay that official?

Why would that concern you?
You already have more guns than you can use.

You have no say on what I have do or want. You're nothing but a traitor.

Really? Then why do you think you have a say in what other people have or want or how to live?
You are a living contradiction.

 

[daws101]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

Bravo!

 

[miketx]

Really? Then why do you think you have a say in what other people have or want or how to live?
You are a living contradiction.

When you have nothing left, you just pull crap out of your backside. LOL! Give it up loser.

 

[martybegan]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

If you hold in place and you hear someone coming down a blind hallway, do you shout out and ask if they are the police, the shooter or another good guy? If it's the shooter, you're shit out of luck, aren't you? If it's the police they may not believe you are a good guy. They may think you're the shooter trying to save his sorry ass.

And if you hold in place but can hear the shooter actively killing people in another part of the building, what do you do? Your gun becomes a joke to the people who are dying.

So you should check YOUR premise for reality.

Food for thought, sadly the NRA crowd is on a life long fast from critical thinking.

LOL, bitch tits enters the conversation backing up one of the biggest trolls on the board.

You are judged by the company you keep.

You are number the number 1 troll on this or any board.

Moron.

 

[martybegan]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

How many of these shooting occurred at locations that declared themselves "gun free zones" but did nothing to assure that?

You can't say "CCW's do nothing" when most of these shootings take place in areas CCW's are either disarmed by law, or by the desire of the property owner.

 

[martybegan]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

Bravo!

Suck up, and also, see my response, twat-waddle.

 

[MaryL]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

Bravo!

Suck up, and also, see my response, twat-waddle.

Perhaps you think being snide and snarky will stop a shooter, too? What if the active shooter never was able to get that gun, to begin with? Wouldn't that be more effective and address the issue? And how do we do THAT, you may ask. You fill in the blanks. It may involve everything gun huggers and the NRA fears.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And because of a quota....Air Marshals are putting people on no fly lists to fill a mandatory quota........

any actual evidence or just more Crapspiracy raving. ?

From ABC news Denver......they aren't exactly conspiracy websites are they?

Marshals: Innocent People Placed On 'Watch List' To Meet Quota

You could be on a secret government database or watch list for simply taking a picture on an airplane. Some federal air marshals say they're reporting your actions to meet a quota, even though some top officials deny it.

The air marshals, whose identities are being concealed, told 7NEWS that they're required to submit at least one report a month. If they don't, there's no raise, no bonus, no awards and no special assignments.

"Innocent passengers are being entered into an international intelligence database as suspicious persons, acting in a suspicious manner on an aircraft ... and they did nothing wrong," said one federal air marshal.

These unknowing passengers who are doing nothing wrong are landing in a secret government document called a Surveillance Detection Report, or SDR. Air marshals told 7NEWS that managers in Las Vegas created and continue to maintain this potentially dangerous quota system.

Shit happens, and can be corrected.

Let's digress:

Liberals support the Innocents Project

Conservatives reject it and want executions immediate after sentencing and oppose appeals.

Is it better to make an error, and allow a civilian jet liner to crash and kill all aboard, or to delay the purchase of a firearm to try and ensure innocent will live?

Conservatives define themselves on what they dislike, and this exposes their hypocrisy, a necessary element in the character of 21st Century conservatives.

I support the innocence project. You know why? Because I believe that all rights should be protected for all people.

You obviously think it's just fine to arbitrarily deny people their rights and yet you claim to support the innocence project

Seems like a conflicted view to me

Looks like you're not a conservative. Holding view of liberals wrong is a necessary and sufficient requirement to be a 21st Century conservative.

well I must not be a liberal either because I am against the arbitrary denial of all constitutionally protected rights and you so called liberals sure the hell aren't

 

[Skull Pilot]

Aren't Police Officers the "good guys"? What makes a person with three or six months training superior in skill and mental stability to a retired Military Veteran or a person who excels at shooting sports? If the truth be known most Police Officers aren't interested in anything other than basic proficiency with a firearm and there are civilians who are not only interested in shooting sports but are forced to be aware of laws governing shooting situations. I'm not trying to put down Police Officers but they aren't the only "good guys" on the block.

A victim with a gun is less likely to be killed by police than by the shooter that caused the situation in the first place because police identify themselves before opening fire. Now, why again is this remote possibility a good reason to deny people their 2nd Amendment rights?

Who is denying anyone their Second Amendment Privilege? If one reads Heller without bias, they will realize even the late Justice Scalia limited the 2nd A. to a privilege and not an absolute right. Some people should never own or possess a gun. Do you not agree?

And it is up to the government to prove that with real evidence that will stand legal muster

But that's not what people are doing are they? no they want to arbitrarily deny the rights of people because some government lackey secretly put their name on a list

You make stuff up to defend you position, that's not only dishonest, it is stupid!

But prove me wrong: Name the Lackey who secretly put the name of someone else (not their own, even your use of syntax is childish) and that person's name on a list. Do it now with sufficient evidence and prove you're not dishonest and stupid.

Some mistakes happen and can be corrected, others are fatal and cannot! That concept seems to be above your level of understanding (common sense).

No one knows who put their name on a no fly list or why. They aren't even notified when their name is put on a no fly list.

That's the fucking point.

Of course they aren't notified! That would be the same as notifying Mafia members that they were the subject of an undercover operation! Most people who "suspect" they're on the list aren't. If they complain, it is investigated, and they are removed if it was a mistake. However, most of the time, they aren't on the FBI's list at all.

2AGuy's article about Air Marshalls' "quota" does not say a Surveillance Report automatically puts anyone on the FBI watch list. There is a list of criteria -- which the Orlando shooter did NOT meet, btw -- for putting someone on the list and keeping them there. If a tourist takes a picture out a plane window and there is nothing suspicious about this person's daily activities or past, they aren't going to end up on anyone's list. It's just a report by an air marshall of their observations on planes. The quota is ridiculous and should be struck down, but it doesn't put anyone on the Terror Watch List or the No Fly List unless a whole lot more is evident.

This is NOTHING but another attempt to stop any gun control. There was no one complaining about this list until it suddenly got tied to buying a firearm. Now. some of the FBI guys actually doing the terrorist surveillance don't like the list tied to buying a gun either, since it would or could tip the individual off that he is on the list if he is denied a gun. I don't know how we would get around that and still prohibit weapons to suspected terrorists.

We already have plenty of gun control.

The thing you can't seem to understand is that many people on these secret lists have done absolutely nothing illegal. So how do you justify denying them any of their rights?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah, I worked for the state for 10 + years. Bureaucracies drive me mad and getting a mistake fixed can be a head-banging operation. But the former director of the FBI's Terrorism thingee that maintains the lists was talking about all this last weekend, and he knows what he's about, I think. The people panicking over these lists should get an idea what it's really about before they go semi-hysterical over it.

It's about restricting civil rights without due process. Sieg Heil!

Sieg Heil my ass! Who the hell do you think wants to overthrow us? Really? DEMOCRATS? I swear, sometimes you people who think you're so damned patriotic seem to be on the enemies' side.

And you think it's a good idea to restrict people's rights because they might, maybe, possibly, someday in the near or distant future commit a crime.
If you think that's such a good idea then let's start with you.

Post your name and address and I'll be happy to report you to the FBI and get you on all the lists they have

 

[Wry Catcher]

any actual evidence or just more Crapspiracy raving. ?

From ABC news Denver......they aren't exactly conspiracy websites are they?

Marshals: Innocent People Placed On 'Watch List' To Meet Quota

You could be on a secret government database or watch list for simply taking a picture on an airplane. Some federal air marshals say they're reporting your actions to meet a quota, even though some top officials deny it.

The air marshals, whose identities are being concealed, told 7NEWS that they're required to submit at least one report a month. If they don't, there's no raise, no bonus, no awards and no special assignments.

"Innocent passengers are being entered into an international intelligence database as suspicious persons, acting in a suspicious manner on an aircraft ... and they did nothing wrong," said one federal air marshal.

These unknowing passengers who are doing nothing wrong are landing in a secret government document called a Surveillance Detection Report, or SDR. Air marshals told 7NEWS that managers in Las Vegas created and continue to maintain this potentially dangerous quota system.

Shit happens, and can be corrected.

Let's digress:

Liberals support the Innocents Project

Conservatives reject it and want executions immediate after sentencing and oppose appeals.

Is it better to make an error, and allow a civilian jet liner to crash and kill all aboard, or to delay the purchase of a firearm to try and ensure innocent will live?

Conservatives define themselves on what they dislike, and this exposes their hypocrisy, a necessary element in the character of 21st Century conservatives.

I support the innocence project. You know why? Because I believe that all rights should be protected for all people.

You obviously think it's just fine to arbitrarily deny people their rights and yet you claim to support the innocence project

Seems like a conflicted view to me

Looks like you're not a conservative. Holding view of liberals wrong is a necessary and sufficient requirement to be a 21st Century conservative.

well I must not be a liberal either because I am against the arbitrary denial of all constitutionally protected rights and you so called liberals sure the hell aren't

Really? So do you support the right of men to marry men, and women to marry women, a women's right to choose, the absolute right to vote unless denied by due process, the right of the LGBT community to serve in our military, a progressive federal income tax, age appropriate sex education in a comprehensive health care curriculum in public schools, contraceptives supplied as are all prescriptions as part of health care and a fiscally responsible Congress, not one which uses tax cuts to take away freedoms from our citizens?

The Bill of Rights are supported by men and women on both sides of the aisle, don't pretend only Libertarians support the Bill of Rights, the Libertarian Platform is far from pragmatic, realistic, democratic or fair.

 

[daws101]

Really? Then why do you think you have a say in what other people have or want or how to live?
You are a living contradiction.

When you have nothing left, you just pull crap out of your backside. LOL! Give it up loser.

No that's all you.

 

[daws101]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

If you hold in place and you hear someone coming down a blind hallway, do you shout out and ask if they are the police, the shooter or another good guy? If it's the shooter, you're shit out of luck, aren't you? If it's the police they may not believe you are a good guy. They may think you're the shooter trying to save his sorry ass.

And if you hold in place but can hear the shooter actively killing people in another part of the building, what do you do? Your gun becomes a joke to the people who are dying.

So you should check YOUR premise for reality.

Food for thought, sadly the NRA crowd is on a life long fast from critical thinking.

LOL, bitch tits enters the conversation backing up one of the biggest trolls on the board.

You are judged by the company you keep.

You are number the number 1 troll on this or any board.

Moron.

Says the Queen of trolls.

 

[daws101]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

How many of these shooting occurred at locations that declared themselves "gun free zones" but did nothing to assure that?

You can't say "CCW's do nothing" when most of these shootings take place in areas CCW's are either disarmed by law, or by the desire of the property owner.

Until recently all public areas were gun free zones.
People were being shot in them long before that stupid name was slapped on them.
Making the term meaningless .
Then you assholes have since attempted to
Make a false correlation between the gun toting zone and gun free zones

 

[daws101]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

Bravo!

Suck up, and also, see my response, twat-waddle.

Your lame as always one?

 

[Vigilante]

'Good Guy With a Gun' Halts Shooting in South Carolina Club
Mediaite‎ - 1 day ago
Club A person with a license to legally carry a concealed gun shot another person with a ...

 

[martybegan]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

Bravo!

Suck up, and also, see my response, twat-waddle.

Perhaps you think being snide and snarky will stop a shooter, too? What if the active shooter never was able to get that gun, to begin with? Wouldn't that be more effective and address the issue? And how do we do THAT, you may ask. You fill in the blanks. It may involve everything gun huggers and the NRA fears.

So to stop gun violence your solution is only government actors should get guns? And when that impossible event happens, do you propose on confiscating every type of machine tool that could produce guns? because if you ban people from buying them, and there is still a demand from criminals, people will figure out how to make them.

 

[martybegan]

If you hold in place and you hear someone coming down a blind hallway, do you shout out and ask if they are the police, the shooter or another good guy? If it's the shooter, you're shit out of luck, aren't you? If it's the police they may not believe you are a good guy. They may think you're the shooter trying to save his sorry ass.

And if you hold in place but can hear the shooter actively killing people in another part of the building, what do you do? Your gun becomes a joke to the people who are dying.

So you should check YOUR premise for reality.

Food for thought, sadly the NRA crowd is on a life long fast from critical thinking.

LOL, bitch tits enters the conversation backing up one of the biggest trolls on the board.

You are judged by the company you keep.

You are number the number 1 troll on this or any board.

Moron.

Says the Queen of trolls.

I think you don't know the definition of a troll.

You do know what a mouth breathing oxygen thief is, as long as you own a mirror.

 

[martybegan]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

Bravo!

Suck up, and also, see my response, twat-waddle.

Your lame as always one?

Lol, "lame"

Are you capable of more than a 2-3 sentence or word response, or does that tax the empty space in your head you call a brain?

 

[daws101]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

Bravo!

Suck up, and also, see my response, twat-waddle.

Perhaps you think being snide and snarky will stop a shooter, too? What if the active shooter never was able to get that gun, to begin with? Wouldn't that be more effective and address the issue? And how do we do THAT, you may ask. You fill in the blanks. It may involve everything gun huggers and the NRA fears.

So to stop gun violence your solution is only government actors should get guns? And when that impossible event happens, do you propose on confiscating every type of machine tool that could produce guns? because if you ban people from buying them, and there is still a demand from criminals, people will figure out how to make them.

Another over the top conspiracy theory.
No matter what is suggested you'll spew the same comin' to take out guns bullshit.