Why A "Good Guy with a Gun" is Bullshit

[daws101]

What to Do in an Active Shooter Situation | The Art of Manliness

 

[hadit]

And when no one shoots back at them, they will kill more people. Can anyone really argue with that?

It all depends on the skill of the good guy shooters.

The Myth of the Good Guy With the Gun

That’s neither true in general nor true in this instance. The FBI tells us that active-shooter scenarios occur in all sorts of environments where guns are allowed—homes, businesses, outdoor spaces. (In fact, there was another mass shooting the same day as the Oregon massacre, leaving three dead and one severely wounded in a home in North Florida.) And Umpqua Community College itself wasn’t a gun-free zone. Oregon is one of seven states that allow guns on college campuses—the consequence of a 2011 court decision that overturned a longstanding ban. In 2012, the state board of education introduced several limitations on campus carry, but those were not widely enforced.

Read more: The Myth of the Good Guy With the Gun
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Twit....Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year.....at least......you have seen the actual research....this number is of course from the Department of Justice...you know....where the FBI comes from....

Irrelevant to the thread, you're swinging at shadows.

Which is likely to stop a shooter first, unarmed victims or armed victims?

Which is likely to result in a lower body count, unarmed victims or armed victims?

Which is likely to result in more mass shootings, unarmed victims or armed victims?

The answer you are wishing for depends on the fluidity of the situation.
The out come would depend on different variables.
There is no hard and fast answer that covers all of them.

You're dancing faster and faster, but my questions covered those eventualities. Note that I said, "which is LIKELY". You have no cover left.

 

[daws101]

It all depends on the skill of the good guy shooters.

The Myth of the Good Guy With the Gun

That’s neither true in general nor true in this instance. The FBI tells us that active-shooter scenarios occur in all sorts of environments where guns are allowed—homes, businesses, outdoor spaces. (In fact, there was another mass shooting the same day as the Oregon massacre, leaving three dead and one severely wounded in a home in North Florida.) And Umpqua Community College itself wasn’t a gun-free zone. Oregon is one of seven states that allow guns on college campuses—the consequence of a 2011 court decision that overturned a longstanding ban. In 2012, the state board of education introduced several limitations on campus carry, but those were not widely enforced.

Read more: The Myth of the Good Guy With the Gun
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Twit....Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year.....at least......you have seen the actual research....this number is of course from the Department of Justice...you know....where the FBI comes from....

Irrelevant to the thread, you're swinging at shadows.

Which is likely to stop a shooter first, unarmed victims or armed victims?

Which is likely to result in a lower body count, unarmed victims or armed victims?

Which is likely to result in more mass shootings, unarmed victims or armed victims?

The answer you are wishing for depends on the fluidity of the situation.
The out come would depend on different variables.
There is no hard and fast answer that covers all of them.

You're dancing faster and faster, but my questions covered those eventualities. Note that I said, "which is LIKELY". You have no cover left.

Since I'm not looking to for cover your asinine accusations are for your own pants shitting.
When you say likely you mean luck .
I win.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
It makes no difference at all .
He /they will shoot anyway
History is repleat with examples.

You aren't even in the same county as rational.

 

[daws101]

[
It makes no difference at all .
He /they will shoot anyway
History is repleat with examples.

You aren't even in the same county as rational.

Pre tantrum brain chemicals are reaching critical levels.

 

[hadit]

Tell us again why it's a good thing to take away a victim's last line of defense?

Never said that.
You assumed it.
Classic delusional thinking.

Let's look at this logically, something that's been missing in your argument. What is the last line of defense a potential victim has when faced with a crazed lunatic out to kill him/her?

1. A cell phone. Yeah. Call the cops, they'll be there with a mop and bucket to clean up after your lifeless body is taken away.
2. A really stern voice and an admonition that this is going on his permanent record. Sure, that'll stop him.
3. A weapon. Can you stop someone who is shooting into a crowd of people if you have a weapon in your hand? I say yes, the evidence says yes, you have been trying to say no.

Which of these three are you trying to take out of the victim's hand? The weapon, obviously. It is logical, therefore, to say that you are trying to take away a victim's last line of defense. If you are not, then explain how you are not by taking away his right to carry a weapon.

False it's only logical if you are delusional.
It's possible that you could successfully take out a shooter under very specific conditions.
However the odds of a citizen gunslinger pulling it off are exponentially against it.
The only time CC works is if the bad guy is unaware and you are in a position to get a clean shot .

And you would take that away from a victim. That's the bottom line we keep returning to. A victim with a gun has a chance that a victim without a gun does not have, and you want to take it away from him. Is it starting to sink in yet? You're dancing hard to avoid saying it, but there's really no other way to put it.

False !
Again it all depends on the situation.
Talk about not sinking in.

Okay, here is the situation. Our man has a concealed carry permit. He's gone through multiple gun safety courses and has practiced extensively at the range. He has filled out all the required forms, waited the requisite amount of time and has satisfied all the requirements to be allowed to carry a weapon. He is enjoying a movie. Out of the corner of his eye, he sees a man walk in the rear of the theater carrying a big, black, scary looking gun (aka assault rifle) and multiple clips of ammo. While the shooter starts spraying bullets into the darkened room, our man draws his weapon and drops to the floor.

In your fantasy, he would not have a weapon and would simply be awaiting execution. What is he supposed to do if he has no weapon, feel good that at least there was one less gun in the theater? I want him to have a CHANCE to take the shooter by surprise and end the carnage. You claim you are not saying otherwise, but you do want to take any weapon out of the victim's hand.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Pre tantrum brain chemicals are reaching critical levels.

Laughing at you is what rational people do.

Oh, and I want my 10 minutes back, your Wiki article did NOT say that Whitman used all of the guns. The attack from the tower was 1,500 feet, you drunken moron. ONLY the Mauser or the .30-06 had the range to make those shots. A shotgun doesn't carry 300 yards, nor does a 9mm. The Mauser had iron sites, so really the ONLY weapon he could use was the Remington 700, the .30-06.

 

[daws101]

Never said that.
You assumed it.
Classic delusional thinking.

Let's look at this logically, something that's been missing in your argument. What is the last line of defense a potential victim has when faced with a crazed lunatic out to kill him/her?

1. A cell phone. Yeah. Call the cops, they'll be there with a mop and bucket to clean up after your lifeless body is taken away.
2. A really stern voice and an admonition that this is going on his permanent record. Sure, that'll stop him.
3. A weapon. Can you stop someone who is shooting into a crowd of people if you have a weapon in your hand? I say yes, the evidence says yes, you have been trying to say no.

Which of these three are you trying to take out of the victim's hand? The weapon, obviously. It is logical, therefore, to say that you are trying to take away a victim's last line of defense. If you are not, then explain how you are not by taking away his right to carry a weapon.

False it's only logical if you are delusional.
It's possible that you could successfully take out a shooter under very specific conditions.
However the odds of a citizen gunslinger pulling it off are exponentially against it.
The only time CC works is if the bad guy is unaware and you are in a position to get a clean shot .

And you would take that away from a victim. That's the bottom line we keep returning to. A victim with a gun has a chance that a victim without a gun does not have, and you want to take it away from him. Is it starting to sink in yet? You're dancing hard to avoid saying it, but there's really no other way to put it.

False !
Again it all depends on the situation.
Talk about not sinking in.

Okay, here is the situation. Our man has a concealed carry permit. He's gone through multiple gun safety courses and has practiced extensively at the range. He has filled out all the required forms, waited the requisite amount of time and has satisfied all the requirements to be allowed to carry a weapon. He is enjoying a movie. Out of the corner of his eye, he sees a man walk in the rear of the theater carrying a big, black, scary looking gun (aka assault rifle) and multiple clips of ammo. While the shooter starts spraying bullets into the darkened room, our man draws his weapon and drops to the floor.

In your fantasy, he would not have a weapon and would simply be awaiting execution. What is he supposed to do if he has no weapon, feel good that at least there was one less gun in the theater? I want him to have a CHANCE to take the shooter by surprise and end the carnage. You claim you are not saying otherwise, but you do want to take any weapon out of the victim's hand.

is that your first draft of a movie of a action movie script ?
if it is it needs work.

 

[hadit]

Let's look at this logically, something that's been missing in your argument. What is the last line of defense a potential victim has when faced with a crazed lunatic out to kill him/her?

1. A cell phone. Yeah. Call the cops, they'll be there with a mop and bucket to clean up after your lifeless body is taken away.
2. A really stern voice and an admonition that this is going on his permanent record. Sure, that'll stop him.
3. A weapon. Can you stop someone who is shooting into a crowd of people if you have a weapon in your hand? I say yes, the evidence says yes, you have been trying to say no.

Which of these three are you trying to take out of the victim's hand? The weapon, obviously. It is logical, therefore, to say that you are trying to take away a victim's last line of defense. If you are not, then explain how you are not by taking away his right to carry a weapon.

False it's only logical if you are delusional.
It's possible that you could successfully take out a shooter under very specific conditions.
However the odds of a citizen gunslinger pulling it off are exponentially against it.
The only time CC works is if the bad guy is unaware and you are in a position to get a clean shot .

And you would take that away from a victim. That's the bottom line we keep returning to. A victim with a gun has a chance that a victim without a gun does not have, and you want to take it away from him. Is it starting to sink in yet? You're dancing hard to avoid saying it, but there's really no other way to put it.

False !
Again it all depends on the situation.
Talk about not sinking in.

Okay, here is the situation. Our man has a concealed carry permit. He's gone through multiple gun safety courses and has practiced extensively at the range. He has filled out all the required forms, waited the requisite amount of time and has satisfied all the requirements to be allowed to carry a weapon. He is enjoying a movie. Out of the corner of his eye, he sees a man walk in the rear of the theater carrying a big, black, scary looking gun (aka assault rifle) and multiple clips of ammo. While the shooter starts spraying bullets into the darkened room, our man draws his weapon and drops to the floor.

In your fantasy, he would not have a weapon and would simply be awaiting execution. What is he supposed to do if he has no weapon, feel good that at least there was one less gun in the theater? I want him to have a CHANCE to take the shooter by surprise and end the carnage. You claim you are not saying otherwise, but you do want to take any weapon out of the victim's hand.

is that your first draft of a movie of a action movie script ?
if it is it needs work.

It's a realistic scenario, something you refuse to address.

 

[daws101]

False it's only logical if you are delusional.
It's possible that you could successfully take out a shooter under very specific conditions.
However the odds of a citizen gunslinger pulling it off are exponentially against it.
The only time CC works is if the bad guy is unaware and you are in a position to get a clean shot .

And you would take that away from a victim. That's the bottom line we keep returning to. A victim with a gun has a chance that a victim without a gun does not have, and you want to take it away from him. Is it starting to sink in yet? You're dancing hard to avoid saying it, but there's really no other way to put it.

False !
Again it all depends on the situation.
Talk about not sinking in.

Okay, here is the situation. Our man has a concealed carry permit. He's gone through multiple gun safety courses and has practiced extensively at the range. He has filled out all the required forms, waited the requisite amount of time and has satisfied all the requirements to be allowed to carry a weapon. He is enjoying a movie. Out of the corner of his eye, he sees a man walk in the rear of the theater carrying a big, black, scary looking gun (aka assault rifle) and multiple clips of ammo. While the shooter starts spraying bullets into the darkened room, our man draws his weapon and drops to the floor.

In your fantasy, he would not have a weapon and would simply be awaiting execution. What is he supposed to do if he has no weapon, feel good that at least there was one less gun in the theater? I want him to have a CHANCE to take the shooter by surprise and end the carnage. You claim you are not saying otherwise, but you do want to take any weapon out of the victim's hand.

is that your first draft of a movie of a action movie script ?
if it is it needs work.

It's a realistic scenario, something you refuse to address.

not even close..good try though.

 

[daws101]

[
Pre tantrum brain chemicals are reaching critical levels.

Laughing at you is what rational people do.

Oh, and I want my 10 minutes back, your Wiki article did NOT say that Whitman used all of the guns. The attack from the tower was 1,500 feet, you drunken moron. ONLY the Mauser or the .30-06 had the range to make those shots. A shotgun doesn't carry 300 yards, nor does a 9mm. The Mauser had iron sites, so really the ONLY weapon he could use was the Remington 700, the .30-06.

as always absolute bullshit.


Whitman killed his mother and wife by stabbing them; his mother was also shot. During the University of Texas campus massacre, he usually fired from the tower's observation deck at by passers with the following firearms he brought:

• A Universal M1 carbine rifle
• A sawed-off 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun
• A scoped Remington 700 ADL bolt-action hunting rifle
• A Remington M 141 .35-caliber pump-action rifle
• A .357 Magnum Smith and Wesson Model 19 revolver
• A 9mm Luger P08 semiautomatic pistol
• A Galesi-Brescia semiautomatic pistol

Whitman placed one weapon each at a different position on the observation deck, allowing him to fire from all directions and to give the illusion that there were multiple shooters. He was a better marksman at hitting moving targets than stationary targets. Whitman also murdered Edna Townsley by striking her head with the butt of a rifle, then shooting her, and attacked the Gabours and Lamports at the stairway with the aforementioned sawed-off 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun.


Charles Whitman

 

[hadit]

And you would take that away from a victim. That's the bottom line we keep returning to. A victim with a gun has a chance that a victim without a gun does not have, and you want to take it away from him. Is it starting to sink in yet? You're dancing hard to avoid saying it, but there's really no other way to put it.

False !
Again it all depends on the situation.
Talk about not sinking in.

Okay, here is the situation. Our man has a concealed carry permit. He's gone through multiple gun safety courses and has practiced extensively at the range. He has filled out all the required forms, waited the requisite amount of time and has satisfied all the requirements to be allowed to carry a weapon. He is enjoying a movie. Out of the corner of his eye, he sees a man walk in the rear of the theater carrying a big, black, scary looking gun (aka assault rifle) and multiple clips of ammo. While the shooter starts spraying bullets into the darkened room, our man draws his weapon and drops to the floor.

In your fantasy, he would not have a weapon and would simply be awaiting execution. What is he supposed to do if he has no weapon, feel good that at least there was one less gun in the theater? I want him to have a CHANCE to take the shooter by surprise and end the carnage. You claim you are not saying otherwise, but you do want to take any weapon out of the victim's hand.

is that your first draft of a movie of a action movie script ?
if it is it needs work.

It's a realistic scenario, something you refuse to address.

not even close..good try though.

So address the scenario. What is a victim to do when he/she has no weapon, nowhere to go, and nowhere to hide? Until you do, you're just flailing, hoping I'll get tired of pummeling you and go away.

I put a weapon in his hand.
You take all weapons from him.
A shooter is turning his attention toward him.

What will happen?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
It's a realistic scenario, something you refuse to address.

If he were sober, it might be different.

But alas...

 

[martybegan]

[
Pre tantrum brain chemicals are reaching critical levels.

Laughing at you is what rational people do.

Oh, and I want my 10 minutes back, your Wiki article did NOT say that Whitman used all of the guns. The attack from the tower was 1,500 feet, you drunken moron. ONLY the Mauser or the .30-06 had the range to make those shots. A shotgun doesn't carry 300 yards, nor does a 9mm. The Mauser had iron sites, so really the ONLY weapon he could use was the Remington 700, the .30-06.

as always absolute bullshit.


Whitman killed his mother and wife by stabbing them; his mother was also shot. During the University of Texas campus massacre, he usually fired from the tower's observation deck at by passers with the following firearms he brought:

• A Universal M1 carbine rifle
• A sawed-off 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun
• A scoped Remington 700 ADL bolt-action hunting rifle
• A Remington M 141 .35-caliber pump-action rifle
• A .357 Magnum Smith and Wesson Model 19 revolver
• A 9mm Luger P08 semiautomatic pistol
• A Galesi-Brescia semiautomatic pistol

Whitman placed one weapon each at a different position on the observation deck, allowing him to fire from all directions and to give the illusion that there were multiple shooters. He was a better marksman at hitting moving targets than stationary targets. Whitman also murdered Edna Townsley by striking her head with the butt of a rifle, then shooting her, and attacked the Gabours and Lamports at the stairway with the aforementioned sawed-off 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun.


Charles Whitman

What is a "carbine rifle"?

I heard of one or the other, but not the combo.

Once again gun grabbers not knowing the lingo.

 

[daws101]

False !
Again it all depends on the situation.
Talk about not sinking in.

Okay, here is the situation. Our man has a concealed carry permit. He's gone through multiple gun safety courses and has practiced extensively at the range. He has filled out all the required forms, waited the requisite amount of time and has satisfied all the requirements to be allowed to carry a weapon. He is enjoying a movie. Out of the corner of his eye, he sees a man walk in the rear of the theater carrying a big, black, scary looking gun (aka assault rifle) and multiple clips of ammo. While the shooter starts spraying bullets into the darkened room, our man draws his weapon and drops to the floor.

In your fantasy, he would not have a weapon and would simply be awaiting execution. What is he supposed to do if he has no weapon, feel good that at least there was one less gun in the theater? I want him to have a CHANCE to take the shooter by surprise and end the carnage. You claim you are not saying otherwise, but you do want to take any weapon out of the victim's hand.

is that your first draft of a movie of a action movie script ?
if it is it needs work.

It's a realistic scenario, something you refuse to address.

not even close..good try though.

So address the scenario. What is a victim to do when he/she has no weapon, nowhere to go, and nowhere to hide? Until you do, you're just flailing, hoping I'll get tired of pummeling you and go away.

I put a weapon in his hand.
You take all weapons from him.
A shooter is turning his attention toward him.

What will happen?

pummeling what?
and I did address the scenario it 's contrived predictable and melodramatic and not even close to real.

 

[daws101]

[
It's a realistic scenario, something you refuse to address.

If he were sober, it might be different.

But alas...

that false accusation didn't work the 1st million time you tried it why do you think it will change any thing now.
oh that's right ...
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Read more at: Albert Einstein Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

 

[daws101]

[
Pre tantrum brain chemicals are reaching critical levels.

Laughing at you is what rational people do.

Oh, and I want my 10 minutes back, your Wiki article did NOT say that Whitman used all of the guns. The attack from the tower was 1,500 feet, you drunken moron. ONLY the Mauser or the .30-06 had the range to make those shots. A shotgun doesn't carry 300 yards, nor does a 9mm. The Mauser had iron sites, so really the ONLY weapon he could use was the Remington 700, the .30-06.

as always absolute bullshit.


Whitman killed his mother and wife by stabbing them; his mother was also shot. During the University of Texas campus massacre, he usually fired from the tower's observation deck at by passers with the following firearms he brought:

• A Universal M1 carbine rifle
• A sawed-off 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun
• A scoped Remington 700 ADL bolt-action hunting rifle
• A Remington M 141 .35-caliber pump-action rifle
• A .357 Magnum Smith and Wesson Model 19 revolver
• A 9mm Luger P08 semiautomatic pistol
• A Galesi-Brescia semiautomatic pistol

Whitman placed one weapon each at a different position on the observation deck, allowing him to fire from all directions and to give the illusion that there were multiple shooters. He was a better marksman at hitting moving targets than stationary targets. Whitman also murdered Edna Townsley by striking her head with the butt of a rifle, then shooting her, and attacked the Gabours and Lamports at the stairway with the aforementioned sawed-off 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun.


Charles Whitman

What is a "carbine rifle"?

I heard of one or the other, but not the combo.

Once again gun grabbers not knowing the lingo.

false
just proves you are always talking out your ass A carbine (/ˈkɑːrbiːn/ or /ˈkɑːrbaɪn/),[1] from French carabine,[2] is a long arm firearm but with a shorter barrel than a rifle or musket.[3] Many carbines are shortened versions of full-length rifles, shooting the same ammunition, while others fire lower-powered ammunition, including those designed for pistols.[cita

you are wrong so often .you and unhinged should get an apartment.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[that false accusation didn't work the 1st million time you tried it why do you think it will change any thing now.
oh that's right ...
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Read more at: Albert Einstein Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

False?

Good luck convincing ANYONE of that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

false
just proves you are always talking out your ass A carbine (/ˈkɑːrbiːn/ or /ˈkɑːrbaɪn/),[1] from French carabine,[2] is a long arm firearm but with a shorter barrel than a rifle or musket.[3] Many carbines are shortened versions of full-length rifles, shooting the same ammunition, while others fire lower-powered ammunition, including those designed for pistols.[cita

you are wrong so often .you and unhinged should get an apartment.

is a long arm firearm but with a shorter barrel than a rifle

Sober up duhs, just to see what it's like.

 

[daws101]

[that false accusation didn't work the 1st million time you tried it why do you think it will change any thing now.
oh that's right ...
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Read more at: Albert Einstein Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

False?

Good luck convincing ANYONE of that.

why would I need to I'm not the one making the false allegations..

so what about this:
Whitman placed one weapon each at a different position on the observation deck, allowing him to fire from all directions and to give the illusion that there were multiple shooters. He was a better marksman at hitting moving targets than stationary targets. Whitman also murdered Edna Townsley by striking her head with the butt of a rifle, then shooting her, and attacked the Gabours and Lamports at the stairway with the aforementioned sawed-off 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun.


Charles Whitman


I'll give you some time to glue your ass back on.